|
|
||
Date published: 3/25/2009
We did object to the Wilderness Sheetz
This is regarding the proposed location of the Wal-Mart at the intersection of State Routes 3 and 20. I'm writing in reference to the March 4 letter to the editor and others similar to it that say there were no objections when the McDonald's and Sheetz businesses were located at the gateway to the Wilderness battlefield ["Why didn't we object to the garish Sheetz first?"]. To the contrary, there was community involvement and input at the time these businesses were going in. McDonald's, to its credit, listened and made modifications to its design and build. Sheetz, on the other hand, did not, thereby teaching those of us who are appalled by unfettered growth without planning to be more vocal. This time around, there is a group willing to finance a planning study for the area. We should take advantage of this opportunity to apply some badly needed planning to such an important area. Carolyn Ostrowski Orange
started tearing down their houses, to restore their property to is late 1800 glory yet? Come on folks if you really want to demonstrate your conviction to the cause. How about you Virginian, Or you Lizzie, Mr Zorro? Any of you maybe just maybe something other than a hypocrite? ...didn't think so
it's very crowded. SOMEone wanted it there.
I am all for it as long as INS opens a field office in the
parking lot. That would do some good.
Will that satisfy those who oppose WalMart itself?
Will they pack up and leave or will they claim that
WalMart is an evil not to be tolerated under any
circumstances?
I think the first step in this controversy is to shed the anti-
WalMart folks as I don't think they are really interested in
compromises.
They basically want to run WalMart off... period - right?
Walmart should just move ten miles West. Route 3 is a long road. Sheets and McDonalds are ok since tourists need only the restrooms in these establishments.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
