In the wake of Councilmember Todd Gloria’s recent appearance before the San Diego planning commission on October 7, 2010 where he testified in support of an ordinance that seeks to ban mega-retail stores over 90,000 square feet, Wal-Mart published a bold full-page ad in Sunday’s U-T blasting his actions. Alleged is Councilmember Gloria’s eagerness to “take away your right to shop where you choose”. The ad tells citizens to ask him why he is pushing the bill considered “ill-advised, objectionable, and disrespectful” in the words of the planning commissioners. Readers are asked to contact his C Street office “today” to ask him “who is else is behind the bill and what do they have to gain with its passage?” This blasting of Mr. Gloria was delivered from the San Diego Consumers for Choice (a group not readily identified through internet searches) but clearly sponsored by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Attempts to reach the council member’s office for comment were answered by a machine with a recording, which promised to return calls.

Comments

BlueIsland Oct. 18, 2010 @ 10:31 a.m.

Is there no irony? Gloria is among the contingency of Planning Department employees, consultants, and local hangers-on-looking-to-profit who are currently determined to promote zoning changes in the Mid-City area Community Plan Updates.

The main City/developer/business goal is "infill" - that is, building mixed-use, extra rental units, and apartments on every lot, residential AND commercial. Whatever it takes to accommodate this density increase is OK with Gloria, because it means development money for his constituency - builders, realtors, consultants, local restaurant/bar owners (who don't live in our communities, but only rent business space), and land investors.

But the irony is that all of these hired guns pushing the infill/density/building in the old communities ringing north and east of downtown speak winningly of "walkability" and "pedestrian friendly." They warn of the dire consequences of too many cars and too much free parking. They seem to believe no one living in Hillcrest or South Park, for example, really needs a car, and that we can all walk to everything to buy our consumer goods. Well, it's a hell of long walk from where I live to Costco, Target, Lowes, Home Depot, Macys, and Nordstrom. I happen to not mind that at all: I drive there and need a car to carry home the purchases. I also like my quiet low-density neighborhood, but I definitely would not mind if a nice big Target was built within a few miles - and stores like Target always provide FREE parking. This is much preferable to the higher investment-return "mixed-use" and useless boutique stores and bars being promoted by Gloria and the Planning Dept, with no parking.

The inconsistency of the message and the messengers in the current Community Plan Updates is glaring. Doesn't anyone else notice? Our older neighborhoods ringing downtown are seen purely as investment opportunities. No one but the property owners wanting to live quietly want to retain the single-family and small, independent grocer atmosphere. The City and the developer/business owners want granny flats, zoning changes, and no local grocers with parking lots.

Go to the Community Plan Update meetings if you want to see what is happening!

0

Founder Oct. 18, 2010 @ 7:16 p.m.

Reply #1 I do go to those Planning "meetings" and to me it obvious that Todd is protecting those Businesses that supported him and their Owners that are scared of Walmart hurting their Business (think Profit).

It's also "funny" to me that Todd will not take a stand against Late Night Drinking that Blights our Residential Neighborhoods and also reduces our Property Values in NP but he will speak out against Walmart's potential "Effect" on Local Businesses...

This is just a great example of favoritism in District 3 where Business interests are only considered instead of a balanced approach where what's best for District 3 is what gets promoted and supported by our Council Rep...!

BTW: I'm not a fan of Walmart because of their track record of employee abuse!

0

itsmechuck Oct. 31, 2010 @ 12:39 p.m.

I decided to get more information in response to the 10/31,2010 Union Tribune two page ad:

Good News! I quote Tony Young, who seems to be saying, "The(re) is no proposed ban"??

I hope you don'[t mind I removed my contact information from the email exchange; as I don't want to discuss the matter with any and all with access to the Reader, one on one. Admittedly, Tony Young could be only saying there is no ban, YET; as the Nov 3 meeting hasn't taken place.

----- Original Message ----- From: Young, Anthony To:
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 11:18 AM Subject: Re: Retail Ban Ordinance

The is no proposed ban

wrote:

Dear Anthony Young;

We OPPOSE the retail ban ordinance to be considered on November 3.

Since you are in favor, please provide your reasoning, including both retailer and customer benefits and perspective..

Let's here from more of you! What do you think!

Happy Halloween!

0

itsmechuck Oct. 31, 2010 @ 12:42 p.m.

I decided to get more information in response to the 10/31,2010 Union Tribune two page ad:

Good News! I quote Tony Young, who seems to be saying, "The(re) is no proposed ban"??

I hope you don't mind I removed my contact information from the email exchange; as I don't want to discuss the matter with any and all with access to the Reader, one on one. Admittedly, Tony Young could be only saying there is no ban, YET; as the Nov 3 meeting hasn't taken place.

----- Original Message ----- From: Young, Anthony To:
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 11:18 AM Subject: Re: Retail Ban Ordinance

The is no proposed ban

wrote:

Dear Anthony Young;

We OPPOSE the retail ban ordinance to be considered on November 3.

Since you are in favor, please provide your reasoning, including both retailer and customer benefits and perspective..

Let's here from more of you! What do you think!

Happy Halloween!

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close