 Interpretation of my wording not needed
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.
What I said was ... the CCBC used route 4 as an excuse and doesn't have the experience necessary to handle the challege of solving this issue properly. No, I am not an expert when it comes to something like this ... but I am educated enough to know where to find the expertise I need. You know as well as I do, computer programs are generated every day to find solutions (more then one) to far more complex problems then Route 4. I also will add ... at a reasonable cost for the State and county. What's the difference between the New Lusby Strip Shopping Center/new Dunkirk shopping Center and one Super Wal-Mart Store when it comes to traffic? Common Sense tells you ... not much, if any. Especially when it removes all the traffic that is going out of county to shop for like items at the present time.
The CCBC made the right decision in this case of denying a Super Wal-Mart.
Did I help by going deeper into how to resolve challeges such as this?
juliusb |