Opposition to Lancaster Wal-Mart heating up

As expected, opposition to the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter in Lancaster is organizing. On Thursday, the Sentinel and Enterprise looked at some of the people speaking out against the Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart facing protests
by J. J. Huggins

History appears to be repeating itself, as a group of local residents are opposing the Wal-Mart store planned for Lancaster.

Arthur "Jay" DiGeronimo Jr., the businessman who backed a group that in 2003 opposed a planned Wal-Mart store on Route 117 in Leominster, is involved this time as well.

The corporate giant eventually withdrew its plans to build in Leominster amidst a lawsuit filed by the group, which was called Leominster First.

"I will lend any help I can," said DiGeronimo, the former president of Victory Supermarkets. "I have not changed my position one iota in three years. That company is not good for our economy. They pay sub-standard wages, they don't really provide full 40-hour jobs, they don't provide the kinds of benefits that other retailers provide."

Philosophically, I agree with DiGeronimo. I do not think bringing big-box retailers into the region is a good thing for the economy. One can argue that in Leominster all of the local department stores are already gone, and Wal-Mart will only be competing with other big-box retailers and national chains such as those located at Searstown, Water Tower Plaza, Twin City Plaza, Orchard Hill Park. But even if Wal-Mart isn't putting anyone out of business, they are not bringing the sort of jobs to the area that will enhance our economy.

I also appreciate that DiGeronimo was on board with the opposition of the original Wal-Mart plan for the rte. 117. It's apparent that he opposes these types of development wherever they are located, not just those that are in his neighborhood. I wonder if the same is true for some of the others interviewed for the story:

Harvey lives on the eastern side of Mechanic Street, near Lancaster and the site where Wal-Mart wants to build.

Harvey opposes the project because she is afraid of an overflow of crime and traffic into her neighborhood, because there are already plenty of retailers in the area, and for moral reasons, she said.

"I think they're ruining American jobs," she said.

....

"If a Wal-Mart goes in, well, we'll be moving, because we don't want to be near that," Harvey said.

Paul Gove, owner of Gove Farm at 925 Mechanic St., as well as Christine Perez of 1025 Mechanic St., plan to join the group.

"We have a mall right down the street," Perez, 37, said.

She noted that there is also a Wal-Mart in nearby Lunenburg.

Both Perez and Gove said they don't want more cars driving on their street.

I would be interested to know whether or not Harvey, Perez, and Gove were members of Leominster First when they were organizing opposition to the Wal-Mart, or if they are on board against the project because it is going in down the street from them.

There were "plenty of retailers in the area" when the development was proposed here on rte. 117, and there was "a mall right down the street" and "a Wal-Mart in nearby Lunenburg" at that time as well. Yet the opinion at the time from many other Leominsterians was that the Wal-Mart would be a good thing for our city.

Certainly Mayor Mazzarella thought Wal-Mart would be good for Leominster, despite the fact that he argued years ago that a Target store slated for the same Lancaster area as the current proposal would hurt Searstown. Funny that when the same Target store was proposed for Orchard Hill Park less than a mile away, it was suddenly good for business.

It is this perceived hypocrisy by city leaders that has rankled Lancaster's town officers.

Lancaster Town Administrator Orlando Pacheco said he isn't surprised to hear a group is forming to oppose the Wal-Mart.

The town can't stop the retailer from building there if the company follows all the guidelines, he said.

The opponents have "legitimate concerns," but being near the highway will help the flow of traffic, Pacheco said.

"People who live in Leominster don't seem to have a problem with people speeding through Lancaster to get to Leominster businesses," he added. "What about the businesses in their town that have a negative impact on us?"

I don't think it's fair to paint everyone who lives in Leominster as indifferent to our neighboring towns, but the Mayor and other city officials have fed the perception that Leominster has no interest in Lancaster's concerns. When the Wal-Mart project was proposed for the rte. 117 site, the developers' traffic studies did not account for any traffic traveling to the site from rte. 117 to the east, only looking at traffic coming west from Leominster and North and south from rte. 190. As though people from Lancaster, Bolton, and Clinton would not shop there.

Ultimately, I think this proposal will be successful where the Leominster site was not. Two big differences at this point are the site and the nature of the opposition. While there are some homeowners in Leominster who live down Mechanic Street from the site, the spot of the development is neither in a residential area nor does it abut one. The opposition to the Leominster site (and to Orchard Hill Park) was in large part due to the close proximity to established neighborhoods.

And the lack of close neighbors means that there may not be a significant outcry from Lancaster residents against the proposal. Lancaster's nearest neighborhood is nearly a mile away in the Spec Pond area. Without the direct impact on neighborhoods, Lancastrians might decide that the project is a net plus for the town.

They would also find the chance to turn the tables on Leominster too sweet to let pass.

Tags: Massachusetts Leominster Lancaster Wal-mart Development