I want my sidewalks, and I want them now

The shenanigans have begun in Leominster as the developers of the Wal-Mart project on route 117 have decided that they aren't going to build the sidewalks they agreed to as a condition of the development.

LEOMINSTER -- The developer of the retail complex along Route 117 that will feature a Wal-Mart and Lowe's is apparently bypassing a city request to install sidewalks to make the area more pedestrian-friendly.

New England Development, the Newton firm behind the 475,000-square-foot project, doesn't intend to install the sidewalks, the city's planning director told the Planning Board during its Tuesday evening meeting. The reasons were not clear....

The Planning Board had requested the firm build the sidewalks on both sides of Route 117 as a condition to the project's approval. They said the sidewalks are a condition to the firm receiving occupancy permits for the project.

I take this personally. I was the guy at the 2003 public hearing who first brought up the issue of sidewalks to the Willard Road neighborhoods. Every time we drive by the construction site, I comment to Michelle that they should install a commemorative plaque with my name on it.

While the project should never have been built, at least the planning board tried to get New England Development to throw the city a bone. Making the stores easily accessible to the people in the neighborhood suggests that the development has some sort of interest in catering to the community. This move makes it clear that New England development could care less about their neighbors (as though it were really in doubt).

The opponents of the Lancaster Wal-Mart ought to drop their misleading rhetoric and latch onto things like this as they try to fight that project.

Tags: Massachusetts Leominster Wal-Mart

Lancaster selectwoman misleads on Wal-Mart

The Times and Courier published a story in Thursday's edition looking at the impact 24-hour Wal-Mart Supercenters have had on their communities. Lancaster selectwoman Jennifer Leone, an opponent of the proposed Supercenter in Lancaster was contacted for a comment, and she provided this whopper:

Selectman Jennifer Leone, a former member of Our Lancaster First, a group of Lancaster and Leominster residents opposed to Wal-Mart's plan, doesn't believe a 24-hour store in Lancaster is necessary.

"I don't think the town gains anything by having a 24-hour store," Leone said. "Other stores have tried and failed; I mean, how many people need to buy Pedialyte at 3 a.m.? I do think a town needs a 24-hour pharmacy, but we have the CVS in Leominster that is 24 hours, and is closer to most Lancaster residents than the proposed Wal-Mart." (emphasis added)

While I appreciate Mrs. Leone's passion on this issue, she has to know that her contention that the CVS in Leominster is closer to most residents than the proposed Wal-Mart is an outright falsehood. In fact it's not even close to being accurate.

Look at the simple map I've put together here. The only 24-hour CVS in Leominster is at the green arrow. The proposed Wal-Mart is marked by the blue dot. My rough outline of the Lancaster town borders are marked by the blue line. Any way a Lancaster resident tries to get to the 24-hour CVS (assuming they take routes 2 or 190, and avoid all the stoplights in the center of Leominster), they have to pass within a mile of the Wal-Mart. I'd suggest that there is not one Lancaster resident that would have a shorter drive to CVS than to Wal-Mart.

I do not support the Wal-Mart in Lancaster, and certainly don't think we need two Supercenters with in three miles of each other. But the opposition to the project should be based in fact. There are plenty of reasons to oppose this project without making them up.

It also would have been nice if the Times and Courier had fact checked or qualified Mrs. Leone's statement. While the paper has a responsibility to report the positions of town officials, just because a selectwoman says something doesn't mean it's true. If a public official (or anyone being quoted in the paper) presents something as fact it should be verified and either omitted if it is false, or contrasted with the truth.

Tags: Massachusetts Lancaster Wal-Mart