Quote:
|
Originally Posted by residentofcre "Our CCBC had an opportunity to allow Wal-Mart to enlarge to a super store on their own property in Prince Frederick, which would have been of tremendous benefit for all our citizens, but elected to use "Route 4" as an excuse to relieve themselves of the obligation that would have helped you and your family.
"Had the CCBC allowed the Wal-Mart Super Store, "Route 4" would have become a challenge. Isn’t that a big part of the CCBC’s job??? Challenges are to be met ... not feared. It has always been and always will be a challenge for those elected officials to provide for their people. As it has been all through history, it was part of their job to honor that commitment to the people and they failed. When the CCBC sets their own agenda and not an agenda for the people, it’s always the people that lose." |
Interesting take on things here. He, and by association residentofcre, is saying that the CCBC failed to support the voters by placing the issue of increased congestion on RT 4 as a higher priority than the ability to buy low-priced groceries at a Wal Mart Supercenter (which by the way, I have one of these two miles from my house and I shop there all the time.) This seems to me to be a damned-if-you-do/don't scenario.
If you allow the Supercenter to be built, and RT 4 congestion gets worse, what can the CCBC do? How can they meet the challenge? Can they go to the state and demand that the road be widened? They could, but it would probably take a decade or two, and the congestion would be even worse during ten years or more of construction. And during all that time they would have the ever whiny voters of CC pissing and moaning about how miserable their lives are because of the congestion, even as they save .50 on a box of cereal. In short, there's no way that the CCBC can win in that situation. Now look at the alternative, i.e., denying the permit and associated congestion. Are the voters going to have to do without groceries? No. They may have to pay a little more, but they've been paying those prices for decades without complaints of a "grocery price crisis!" Can they still buy cheap underwear and socks? Yeah, they still have the original Walmart. So, given the child-like nature of the voters, what's the best course of action for the CCBC? Approve the expansion and congestion, and hear whining for decades, or disapprove it and have people just cope with the existing facilities and capabilities?
The CCBC made the right decision in this case. They knew that the voters would be far more upset with the congestion than they would be pleased by paying a little less for groceries.