Those who were railing against Wal-Mart need to deal squarely and realistically with the question, "If not Wal-Mart, what?"Now by 'railing' do you mean when you (ADE Editorial Brd) called for the firing of Cliff Donaldson for underhanded dealings with Wal-Mart or do you mean the majority of people that would welcome a smaller Wal-Mart located downtown? They end with:
If everyone is willing to work together and give a little for the common good, then we're confident everything will be alright.Who exactly wasn't willing to work with the so-called 'opposition'? Was CARD willing to negotiate their stance (basically the Wal-Mart stance) on the issue, was Wal-Mart willing to meet with anyone other than their supporters. In case you've forgotten, the answer is NO.
Then we have a letter (probably the first of many) explaining how the arguments against Wal-Mart are flawed.
Some of the opponents of Wal-Mart talked of them competing with local businesses. I didn't hear any of this when one local was allowed to build a car wash right next door to an existing one."So two car washes competing with each other is the same as Wal-Mart competing with Coakleys Hardware?
We all want responsible growth. Price Chopper worked with the area and built a very attractive store that blends in well.So responsible growth is defined by making a store that 'blends in'?
I believe that if all the opponents of Wal-Mart would have sat down with them and our village board and approached this in an positive way, Wal-Mart would have been happy to work out the details.Wake-up! It was Wal-Mart that did not want to sit down and work out the details! Wal-Mart does not 'work out details', they tell you how it's going to be.