EDC votes to reject Superstore amendment
in a 5-1 vote last night (That’s Bonta on the “no”), the EDC voted to reject a proposal that would “prohibit retail stores larger than 90,000 square feet in size that include more than ten percent (10%) floor area devoted to the sale of non-taxable items.”
While both Board’s appear to feel that the existing regulations which require a public hearing for stores over 30,000 sf is appropriate, I have to say I hope the council will decide that this is one place where an outright prohibition is appropriate. I agree that we need to trust our representatives to do the right thing in protecting our existing supermarkets from being undercut by bohemoths bringing non-union jobs to the city (and yes I realize that Trader Joe’s is non-union). However, as this appears to be aimed at prohibiting something that even those who rejected the language would like to see rejected, it would seem to make sense to be clear for planning purposes, that this is not something we want in our community.
This item will now return to the city council after being rejected by both the Planning Board and EDC.
Tay Tay Shaniqua
July 18th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
John does not speak for all of us.
Michael Krueger
July 18th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Ummm…I didn’t see anything in the post above in which the author presumes to speak for anyone but himself. Did I miss something?
Tay Tay Shaniqua
July 18th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
“This is not something we want in our community.”
Ummmmm … apparently you did miss something. The words “we” and “our” in the statement above are plural pronouns and, thereby, the poster is presuming to speak for others besides himself. Accordingly, I must ask you this question Mr. Krueger … where you educated here in Alameda? It appears so …
Lauren Do
July 19th, 2008 at 7:23 am
Back to the subject of the post…
I have to agree with the EDC’s majority vote on this one. While I wouldn’t want to see a Walmart SuperGiganticStore or even a Target SuperDuperFantasticStore in Alameda either I feel as though the “Anything over 30K requires a conditional use permit” to be restrictive enough that the two examples could easily be rejected above.
I am loathe to see duplicative laws on the books in order to really stop just one retailer from coming in to Alameda. And yes, I understand that it probably would be verboten to codify “No Walmarts, ever!” even if that is the intention. I just don’t want the perception of Alameda to be hostile to businesses of any kind, even Walmarts, that could give it a bad reputation and make businesses think twice about considering Alameda for relocation.
Tay Tay Shaniqua
July 19th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Sorry Lauren, I completely agree with you … I hope that does not serve to weaken your position