Walmart

I am pleased that the Burbank City Council stood up to outside special interests and continued to support Walmart moving into the vacant Great Indoors store (“ Walmart protest precedes council meeting ,” Feb. 22). Walmart has followed all city requirements and will fill a large vacant retail building. This is a good decision that will benefit economic development and is a win-win situation for Burbank. The proposed Walmart store will help transform a fallow building into a thriving economic center.

In a recent Op-Ed piece on Feb. 19 titled “ Op-Ed: Here's why Burbank residents want Walmart ,” a high-ranking employee of Walmart had the gall to declare that Burbank residents want a Walmart. It is a declaration that insults the intelligence of every resident of Burbank, implying we are not smart enough to know that the writer, Steven Restivo, is paid a nice, fat salary to hold this opinion. He is employed as senior director of community affairs for Walmart and has no personal ties to Burbank.

Regarding Dick Norton's letter on July 28, “Most residents would support Walmart”: I haven't spoken to many people that support it. I wonder if Mr. Norton is ever at the corner of Buena Vista and San Fernando when the traffic making either a right or left turn is backed up to the freeway. I also wonder if he is aware that Kmart, Sears and Circuit City are closing stores. I can only hope Burbank's won't be next and I find it hard to believe a Walmart would help any of these businesses or their employees.

I am writing in response to Steven Restivo's article (“ Why Burbank wants a Walmart ,” Feb. 19), in which he implies that the majority of Burbank residents are in favor of the new Walmart proposed for the Empire Center, while it is only opposed by “special interests,” a convenient term used to denigrate any opposition. First, there are many people in Burbank and surrounding communities who are not a part of special interests adamantly against the presence of a Walmart in our area, and for many different reasons: the impact on mom-and-pop stores, the company's refusal to allow employee unions, its monopoly and manipulation of vendors, etc. Secondly, Restivo's bias, as an employee of Walmart, should be obvious to anyone reading his “opinion.” Restivo is paid to promote his company, so the idea of his piece being his own opinion is a gross misrepresentation and an insult to readers.

Walmart will pay for the city of Burbank's defense against a lawsuit filed in an effort to block or at least stall the world's largest retailer's plans to open a store near the Empire Center. The City Council has decided to defend the lawsuit, which alleges certain street improvements must be made before the Walmart can open, council members hired the Costa Mesa-based law firm of Rutan and Tucker during a recent closed-session meeting. Later, City Atty. Amy Albano announced the decision during an open meeting and said Walmart would pay for the defense costs.

After weeks of local fretting - or anticipation, depending on which side of the fence you're on - Walmart has confirmed that it plans to move into the former Great Indoors site adjacent to the Empire Center. When the move will occur, and in what form the store will take, remains to be seen; company representatives say plans are still preliminary. It's in this stage of the game that Burbank residents should get involved. With the question of whether a Walmart is or isn't a good fit for Burbank apparently moot, the game now turns to one of design.

I'm writing in rebuttal to the Dec. 11 letter “How to keep Walmart out” in the News-Press & Leader. First, the writer forgot to mention the lady at Walmart in Tulsa who was arrested for allegedly mixing meth in the store. That being said, crime is all around us. The people who were shot up in Hollywood by a guy who snapped, and the guy in Rialto shot and killed at Taco Bell in April after he handed over his wallet and valuables. Then there's the alleged shoplifter in the Burbank Kmart who used a police officer's gun against the officer and his partner, and the CVS on San Fernando that has been robbed.

To Jim McCallister, who recently wrote in to say that he shopped at Walmart in Rosemead because of low prices, and to others who plead that “low prices” will be great for Burbank: Interesting to note that this month, Target beat Walmart as the low-price leader in the nation, according to research done by Bloomberg Industries. This is not the first time that Target has won the low-price wars, but this time, reportedly, the gap was wider than ever, with Target the clear winner. Instead of wasting $8 worth of gasoline driving to Rosemead and back, perhaps McCallister should check out Target, a great retailer that has been serving this community, providing jobs and paying taxes here for years.

Re: “Store work may be halted,” Aug. 18: I can't believe how ridiculous this is becoming. Who are these three women waging this war against Walmart? Why should their dislike for Walmart mean any more than the likes of the people that want the Walmart in Burbank? I guarantee that if the judge rules in favor of the Walmart, they will take a different stand to try and stop the store. It's not about the traffic, it's not about the foreign-made goods, it's not about the alleged low wages or benefits for the employees, and it's not about the parking either.

I don't know about others, but I don't want a vacant and abandoned building in my neighborhood. Not only is it an eyesore, it's also been a real drain on the surrounding businesses. The new Walmart expected to go into a building that is now vacant is going to be a 100% improvement. It is important to have empty buildings quickly occupied and converted into something that would benefit other surrounding businesses. To most business owners (and observant community members), an empty storefront means lost sales, lost customers and lost jobs.