Land Use-Walgreens
There is apparently a group of citizens who are fighting efforts to locate a new Walgreens store and development on 10th Avenue South. This 'dilemma' raises a few interesting issues.
First, some of the opponents of the development live on 9th Avenue South. They are correctly concerned that the development will impact their neighborhood, despite what appear to be significant amelioratory efforts by the developers.
I do not wish to be harsh or unsympathetic, but I am afraid these folks are fighting a losing battle. They live one block off of one of the busiest commercial thoroughfares in the state, let alone Great Falls. It is simply not realistic to purchase a home within feet of a commercial zone, and yet believe you will never be encroached. Maybe I'd change my tune if it were my house, but the fact is that the developers are buying the land. They should be allowed to conduct legal activities on it.
Second, local insurance agent, Pam Hansen Alfred, objects to moving the existing businesses out of the way in order to build the Walgreens.
Maybe there is more value to keeping 13 local businesses in that location than putting in a Walgreens. Fine, Ms. Alfred, buy the land and do so.I'm not against growth, but I see more value to keeping 13 local businesses than
letting one large corporation there," said insurance agent Pam Hansen Alfred.
"Why can't Walgreens locate east of town, where there are all kinds of wheat
fields?
Why can't they located east of town? Well, because they want to locate here. And they are willing to buy the land to do so. Perhaps Ms. Alfred should locate her business east of town?
Interestingly, Ms. Alfred is the wife of Bob Alfred, a local anti-casino zealot. Astute observers will recall that Mr. Alfred and his ilk constantly whine about how ugly 10th Avenue South is. As with the issue of the sign code, the issue of "ugly" is apparently in the eye of the beholder.
While some strides have been made recently, the buildings that would be torn down to make way for Walgreens are not the most attractive in town (at least according to me). They're low and a bit dated and run down. A brand new, modern facility would go that much farther to make 10th Avenue South more aesthetically pleasing. I guess Bob Alfred is only worried about beauty when it doesn't impact his wallet.
Beauty is in the wallet of the beholder.
2 comments:
I agree it is a losing battle for these folks.
The buildings are ugly, old & have crappy parking. Although I see the plight of these businesses but it was up to the landowner to do with it what she felt was best. She made a profit & so did the people who sold the land where their houses stand. The fact that they are building a burm and not allowing traffic flow onto 9th is very thoughtful- they could have just built it up & said "sorry" later.
Since there is so much bitching about the lack of growth- this project should be considered a good thing.
Why doesn’t Pam build east of town?
I'd likely be upset about this if I lived on 9th Ave South, too -- until I saw the big, fat check from WalGreen's to purchase my land, probably.
Post a Comment