Jeff Gauger says "many" people wanted a Trader Joe's on Friendly, while rezoning opponents were "few." 

If he has any evidence to support these contentions about the relative size of the two groups, he does not offer it in this column.

He also says most rezoning opponents live near the site. Really? Opposition leaders may live nearby, but what evidence does Gauger have for his broad assertion about the demographics of this story? I don't live near the site, and I doubted the wisdom of the plan, as I did the previous attempt to spread retail development west of its current boundary. 

Likewise, Gauger says there are many "fans of Trader Joe’s who don’t live close enough to Friendly Avenue and Hobbs Road to care much about more commercial development in that area." So he thinks all oppostion to sprawl is based on selfish NIMBYism and nobody has serious questions about land-use or GSO's profusion of unused retail space unless they can see it out their windows?

Here's an idea: Lots of folks from across the city would welcome Trader Joe's to town, but not at any cost or in any location. Contrary to Gauger's argument, the dispute really was not about the chain, except in the case of passionate advocates of that chain. 

Which leads to another problem with the column: Gauger's roster of participants in this drama leaves out one interested party: The N&R itself. He acknowledges criticism of the paper's ludicrous front-page cheerleading for TJ,  but makes no effort to justify the embarrassing article. 

It's been two years since Gauger's cringe-inducing first column, which he quickly followed with something much worse. Back then, it seemed sporting to give him a bit of credit for being new to the area and not really having his bearings.

What his excuse now?

Comments

[Hartzman]

Cross posted from Gauger's article;

It would be interesting to see the economic impact to Harris Teeter and Whole Foods to a much less costly competitor opening very next door. The two higher priced food stores stood to lose millions in profits via some reasonably priced competition. Many of the area residents may end up paying 1/3 or more, more, by leaving the current grocery stores in place without a low priced competitor nearby.

Sometimes the most effective opponents are those never publicly heard from. In this case, my guess is they were relatively pretty active but silent and unseen as planned.

The remaining shopping centers, their stores and landlords are far better off for the rezoning fail.

[Lex]

Thank you for posting this. I meant to respond personally to Gauger yesterday but got too busy. When The Shoppes opened about a decade ago, it appeared to be widely understood that Hobbs Road would mark the westward boundary of commercial expansion. Nothing has changed since to make anyone with a lick of sense who doesn't own the affected property question the wisdom of that decision. Sloppy-ass reporting on Gauger's part. Also, his insistence that TRADER JOE'S!!! was at least as important a factor in news coverage as the, you know, LAW regarding rezoning was sloppy reporting, sloppy editing, and, I would argue, another example of false equivalence in the "both sides have good arguments" vein. Well, no, in this case both sides did NOT have good arguments when the legal requirements and ramifications of such a vote are dispassionately considered.

[A Facebook User]

I think the recent attempt to rezone for Trader Joe's (full disclosure, I work for Whole Foods Friendly)and the accompanying articles as well as the new articles in the N&R for Stone Brewing Company, reek of desperation as well as rank amateurism by the paper and the developers in play. Most businesses want to do their business plans in private until they have a complete plan to present to the city they wish to serve. Now abuse of rules, laws and the environment should be brought to light. And those plans should be stopped. But the problem has been Greensboro always comes off looking not much better than Mayberry when they thought the Gold Truck was going to pass through, when we are being considered either for real or imagined by a developer for consideration for a new business or project.

[triadwatch]

news and record reporting this past week 2 for and 1 against rezoning plus puff piece on traders a few weeks back, pathetic

on Thursday we had this one

Zoning case: NIMBY attitude surfaces yet again by ex planning board members Cyndy Hayworth and Tony Collins

then on Sunday we had this

Counterpoint: Land’s best use is commercial by zoning commission members Mary Skenes and Rick Pinto

also on Sunday was this

Point: Parcel should stay residential by Scott Kinsey Friendly Coalition

[Triadwatch]

How much impact has protest petition been on this property?

[Billy Jones]

So one again Greensboro becomes nationally known because of the lies and never ending boosterism of the illustrious News & Fishwrap. No mention in the linked article of the real factual issues mentioned by George, Lex, Triadwatch and A Facebook user because the News & Record never printed the facts-- only what is needed in the hopes of gaining yet more advertisers to fill the fishwrap.

It's not just Grits, it's the N&R as a whole, slanting the news and commentary on every subject of local importance towards what will most benefit the N&R.

[wayne l stutts]

Where is another site as good as Hobbs/Friendly ? It is a near perfect location for Trader Joe's with the least damage to the neighborhood. What else should go there ? I don't understand the logic and thinking of the opposition.

[Hallie]

Commercial creep. As goes Friendly, there goes Holden.

[Triadwatch]

There is plenty of places to go in Greensboro already zoned commercial. Market street, new garden road , battleground, high point road and a great spot empty at corner of guilford college road and high point road . There is even a whole strip center half empty close to corner of friendly and market. Plenty of places all over town

[Billy Jones]

"Where is another site as good as Hobbs/Friendly ? It is a near perfect location for Trader Joe's with the least damage to the neighborhood. What else should go there ? I don't understand the logic and thinking of the opposition. " says Wayne L Stutts of Wayne L Stutts Builder Inc and land developer.

Love it when the shill.

[Elizabeth Wheaton]

Taking the N&R editor to task has been something of an armchair sport around here, as I suppose it is in most communities. But this seems different to me. Looking back through his blogs and editorials, I can't help but think that Gauger doesn't have an understanding of basic journalistic tenets and has little respect for his staff.

You've done an excellent job (as usual) of defining the problems with the headlines and coverage of the Hobbs/Friendly rezoning. Add to that the sensationalized front page headline and photo of the "Killer Dog," which Gauger admits he used despite his editors' objections, and his refusal to publish major national and international news because the N&R is a "hometown" paper, and I get the sinking feeling that under his leadership the N&R will become a hybrid between a local shopper and the Enquirer.

[Andrew Brod]

My Facebook comment:

What a crappy column. Gauger builds himself a nice straw man. The neighbors who opposed the rezoning wouldn't deny that the issue "involved" Trader Joe's, and it's a bit dumb for him to make that his Big Point. The criticism of the N&R wasn't that the paper said this "involved" Trader Joe's, but that much of its coverage characterized the neighbors' opposition as being directed at Trader Joe's. That was inaccurate, pure and simple. I presume Gauger can see the difference... can't he?

[Ed Cone]

Gauger's comments beneath his column (click link in post, wait for them to load) are weak tea. He can't explain why he invokes TJ fans from beyond the neighborhood but ignores opponents from beyond the neighborhood for whom TJ had nothing to do with it, maybe because that would mean acknowledging he didn't really think this through very well.

[Andrew Brod]

I saw the column when Kelly Poe posted it on Facebook. Gauger replied to my criticism and in the process completely missed my point. My reply back: "Wow, now I'm not a fan of your FB comments either."