Would it be nice to have a Trader Joe's in GSO?
Apparently so. People seem to really like the chain. So, for the sake of argument, let's all agree that TJ is swell and we should have one here.
But that doesn't make the case for extending the commercial footprint out Friendly and paving more shopping-center space in a city where empty buildings are treated as disposable items.
This LTE plays the We Like Trader Joe's card, and then doubles down on the non sequiturs by saying that people living happily near a very different sort of development prove that people living near the proposed shopping center have nothing to worry about.
Grocery heaven does not require development hell.
I found Regency's argument compelling. Sam Hieb's comment noting that these NIMBY's were also in favor of re-opening the landfill, as evidenced by the Bill Knight for Mayor signs, also had an effect on my opinion.
I consider it a foregone conclusion that TJs will never come to a place such as Golden Gate. So, if the solution is having a new shopping center to secure a TJs, then I'm for it.
Posted by: Fec | Jan 28, 2012 at 11:28 AM
The irony is not found just in the anecdotal yard sign observations, but in the election results as well where proponents of re-opening the landfill received strong support from the precincts encompassing and abutting this proposed development. (Mayor, at-large, district)
Posted by: Roch101 | Jan 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM
And even in spite of neighbors affiliations and people's desires for a TJ's - apparently City Council has received more emails on TJ's than on the landfill - there are some fundamental issues of whether this is good planning. (Hint: It's not.) We shouldn't throw the Comp Plan goals out the window ever time some tantalizing development comes our way. The City staff report ought to recommend denial as it is inconsistent with the Comp. Plan. I get that it is hard to do, but you are supposed to consider just the facts - and not potential tenants. Trade Joe's today - Payless Shoe Source, Dollar Store, Eddie's Pawn, and Sal's Pizza-mart could be the actual tenants - if not right away, then in the near future. Once those buildings are there, they are there to stay, regardless of the occupants. Only the most short-sighted of people would think this is good. We have to start learning our lessons at some point, don't we? Now would be a good time to start.
Posted by: Brian | Jan 28, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Doing the wrong thing for GSO in order to spite voters who wanted to do another wrong thing for GSO is the wrong thing for GSO.
Posted by: Ed Cone | Jan 28, 2012 at 12:52 PM
The Adams' statements that they like the type of store that might go in the new development and that they have had good experiences with mixed-use development are valid premises for making the argument that rezoning would be worthwhile to them and others like them.
On the other hand, if we follow your argument to its conclusion. There should be no new residential or commercial development in Greensboro until every existing property is occupied.
Posted by: Dave Ribar | Jan 28, 2012 at 01:30 PM
I hope you guys get your TJ's without tearing down half of the city and get a chance to enjoy cheap wine and bags of frozen biryani with the rest of us.
TJ's obviously has a rather standard store layout they seem to keep to. I've seen them, though, in new and old buildings, in repurposed buildings, in the interior of a shopping center and in the basement of an office building.
Posted by: justcorbly | Jan 28, 2012 at 01:42 PM
DR, my argument would be poor indeed if that terminal point was the only stop along the way. But my preference for re-use over razing and paving is more of a guideline than an edict.
Posted by: Ed Cone | Jan 28, 2012 at 02:45 PM
"apparently City Council has received more emails on TJ's than on the landfill" -- Brian
I haven't seen this yet. What's the source?
Posted by: Roch101 | Jan 28, 2012 at 03:14 PM
"Doing the wrong thing for GSO in order to spite voters who wanted to do another wrong thing for GSO is the wrong thing for GSO."
Who is suggesting that?
Posted by: Roch101 | Jan 28, 2012 at 03:16 PM
This is just bad land use planning.
If Trader Joes were not involved, this development would not even be discussed or proffered. I don't get why you throw out sound planning and zoning over Two Buck Chuck?
I am thinking protest petition and then three votes will kill it.
Posted by: Craftyboro | Jan 28, 2012 at 03:52 PM
Do we yet know that a Trader Joe's will come to the proposed site or is the developer just talking-up Trader Joes in the hopes of getting them or anyone else to come?
And to think, I can remember people saying, "I wish Greensboro had a Wallmark."
Posted by: Billy Jones | Jan 28, 2012 at 03:58 PM
BTW, I cannot find the comment at Piedmont Publiass referring to Knight for Mayor signs and reopening the landfill. Either I am wrong or it has been expunged. But I have performed an exhaustive search and cannot find it.
Posted by: Fec | Jan 28, 2012 at 04:19 PM
Fec:
BTW, where is Faite's comment at your site?
Posted by: polifrog | Jan 28, 2012 at 05:02 PM
"The irony is not found just in the anecdotal yard sign observations, but in the election results as well where proponents of re-opening the landfill received strong support from the precincts encompassing and abutting this proposed development."
Irony indeed. They were for re-opening a landfill in someone else back yard but don't want this shopping center opening near their homes. It serves em right. This is a done deal. The difference between Trader Joe's and the landfill is that there are more people in support of this project than against it. From what I understand the ball is rolling behind the scenes. The zoning Board and city council vote is a formality.
Posted by: ron | Jan 28, 2012 at 09:29 PM
So it is about spite.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | Jan 28, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Absent an apology, it is unreasonable to assume that the aggrieved parties would be satisfied by merely voting. Our tradition requires the invocation of a White Street Landfill Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Otherwise, Greensboro will never have an opportunity to heal. I'm happy to marginalize dumb conservatives for eternity, but there are probably more humane alternatives.
Posted by: Fec | Jan 28, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Will those houses ever truly be residential homes again. I have my doubts. All owners already signed a contract to sell. Down hill from here. The market seems to indicate Highest and Best use should be as commercial. This is a tough decision and will be a tough fight. But the market will out I believe.
I hear the arguments for higher density residential use but right now that is not what the market appears to want.
Here we go.
Posted by: Mick | Jan 29, 2012 at 09:30 AM
Mick - No they wont, but higher density residential use is about all that is going up these days. It's a great spot for townhouses, mixed-use, or even (horror!) apartments.
Posted by: Brian | Jan 29, 2012 at 10:48 AM
2 front page above the fold plus editorial= ridiculous
Posted by: Triadwatch | Jan 29, 2012 at 12:48 PM
I want my Two Buck Chuck and I want it NOW! If your neighborhood is in the firing line, then it sucks for you. And besides you were FOR the White Street Landfill! You got this comin' to you!
For the love of God...
Posted by: John Amberg | Jan 29, 2012 at 03:52 PM
Shopping center, landfill, third runway and overnight regional air cargo hub; Greensboro has a tradition of willingness to let cross-town neighbors twist in the wind.
Posted by: Roch101 | Jan 29, 2012 at 05:52 PM