The Sun and Journal both have fist shaking letters to the editor regarding Target in their latest editon. But, I’m not so concerned about people voicing their opposition to a project. We all have opinions on a certain issues and we are entitled to express them. I am just surprised at the reasons why people don’t want the Target. I knew there was some degree of xenophobia in Alameda, but it’s a little scary to see what results from that xenophobia.
The Sun’s entry:
Joan Wynar writes:
We do not want thousands of outsiders coming in to pollute our air, congest our streets and ignore what makes Alameda special, while simultaneously destroying it.
Yes, the “outsiders,” you know who you are. You street congesting, air polluting, specialness destroying people! Because Alamedans don’t congest streets or pollute the air, only the outsiders. So, “Stay off my Island!”
The Journal’s contributions:
Rich Perenon says:
Our property values will decrease. Plus we will have more crime. Oakland with three hundred thousand shoppers should have the Target. They have to go to Albany or Bayfair for a Target. Don’t bring the problems to our city.
Oakland shoppers equal more crime. It’s a well known fact. They also bring problems to a city. Send them to Albany or San Leandro because we don’t want our property values decreasing from the riff raff from Oakland. “Stay off my Island!”
Mike Fennelly writes:
Should these revenues actually develop, it would be foolish to see them as some kind of windfall. As we invite more of the gangsters, shoplifters, and general rabble from neighboring cities to come to Alameda, what will the real cost be? How much will the police force need to grow? How much will it cost in increased vandalism? What about the additional wear and tear on our infrastructure? [emphasis added]
We cannot have the rabble, which includes gangsters and shoplifters coming in to our precious precious city from neighboring cities. I know, how about this, here’s a thought. Why don’t we put up toll booths at the entrances to all Alameda access points and only residents can come in. For people who work here but do not live, we can have a shuttle bus that will shuttle them in and out of the city, preferrably with a police escort because who knows what sort of crime and vandalism they will cause. They all need to, “Stay off my Island!”
And I just want to add a little shot out to Nancy Pyle, although she did not bring up the specter of big bad boogeymen coming from outside the hallowed grounds of Alameda, she did have this to say:
There’s a line from a Joni Mitchell song that seems applicable: “You don’t know what you’ve got ’till it’s gone. Pave paradise and put up a parking lot.” Please, please stop the superstructures before the Alameda we now enjoy is gone, replaced by developments more suited to sprawling, vehicle-oriented suburbia than a pedestrian and bicycle friendly island city.
Psst…Nancy…that space for Target…it’s already paved, it already is a parking lot. If it was paradise that they wanted to pave over, I might be on the same page with you but, big empty store with a parking lot…not paradise.
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
“Our property values will decrease. Plus we will have more crime. Oakland with three hundred thousand shoppers should have the Target. They have to go to Albany or Bayfair for a Target. Don’t bring the problems to our city.”
-That one statement is probably the most point-blank honest piece of journalism I’ve seen coming out of these debates. The reason I think it so is because it is ugly, full of nasty bigotry, and reveals the naked truth of what many people in Alameda feel but are afraid to admit: which is that A: they don’t want any Oakland people here, and what that translates in their minds is young black males patrolling the streets, possibly mingling in their picture-perfect, whitewashed neighborhoods.
B: Naturally, they’re thrilled that their little WW2 former ship building employee house is “worth” 800k, and they’ll be damned if trash from Oakland comes over and ruins their values, especially if they spend every single cent of their income paying for it.
Comment by willy — September 22, 2006 @ 8:48 am
Besides, if you believe the latest hype — most of those old folks may be able to get cheaper prescription drugs at Target (since they plan to duplicate Wal-Mart’s recently announced $4 generic drug efforts)… so maybe the old school Alamedans might be a little more receptive to the Alameda Target idea:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/22/111830/090
Comment by Dave S. — September 22, 2006 @ 9:56 am
Actually,
There are also rumors that Wal-Mart will soon be providing affordable healthcare, which would basically revolutionize the healthcare industry be making healthcare more affordable. They’ve made everything from car batteries, shirst, and perscription eyewear more affordable ( at the expense of local mom N pop stores some might say) but nevertheless, many people don’t realize that almost 100 years ago, Sear’s mail order catalog had a virtual monopoly on the mercantile business. They brought a vast spectrum of cheap products to the rual area, which in 1906 comprised almost 75% of the population. Nobody called it the “great evil” back then, and in fact made modern living more possible for an increasingly large amount of the country’s citizens as well as usher in a new era of the empowered middle class. Looking at it that way, perhaps Wal-Mart, Target, and Mervins really aren’t the great evil-doers everyone out here wants to portray them as. As a freemarket society, we have the right to shop for the best price. That’s called competition. If people are willing to spend asanine amounts of money on an overvalued house, then I have the right to buy cheap clothes at Wal_mart.
Comment by willy — September 22, 2006 @ 10:15 am
Pssst, Dave S. those old folks in the Gold Coast don’t need the break on prescription drugs.
Comment by Ben Kruger — September 22, 2006 @ 10:17 am
Yeah, lets bring not one storeful but hundreds of landfill-quality goods made by children in environmentally ravished third-world contries so that we can have our little dream-fulfilling cheap shopping experience! What else could possibly give more meaning to our empty lives or take our minds of our pain then hours and hours of browsing the isles of a Wal-Mart, attended to by happy, minimum wage paid poor people with no health insurance? Tutoring children? Delivering meals to the elderly? Nah, that’s such a non-sales tax generating waste of time! Viva Wal-Mart!
Hey, Lauren— there’s big news out there! The developer for Alameda Point has bailed out. Are you gonna say something about that, or is it more gratifying to pick on the letters in the paper?
Comment by NIMBY — September 22, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
The Wal-Mart argument can go both ways.Most of their products indeed come from China. I’ve been studying China for a few years now. Here are some surprising and interesting facts. A: China is the fastest growing economy in the world. B: China has the fastest growing middle class. C: China has the most college graduates of any country. D: many of today’s popular cars have Chinese made parts or entire drivetrains made in China. The most recent?; the New Honda Civic. E: China will soon eclipse the US in Research and Development facilities. I could go on and on about this, but I think the message would be that China, Like Japan will and is becoming a well respested economic superpower with a growing population that benefits from the effects of a world that buys their ever- improving products.There is much to be said about China’s economic fortunes versus our economy, which has turned from real capital producing industry, to non-productive ones- like Real estate, which only serve to put our country in debt, right along with the citizens.
China’s economy might as well be called: ” Japan part II” because their rise is almost the same in terms of shifts in the world theater. Indeed- We in the US will soon be having to get off our rears and compete with them head to head just as we suddenly realized in the 70’s with Japan, once their excellent cars began making our huge gas guzzling iron clunkers look like ancient dinosaurs.
Perhaps a better stance on the subject would be how can US workers, engineers, researchers, students, and developers learn to be as aggresive in terms of real economic growth as the newfounded Chinese? That’s a question that will be asked in the next 5-10 years; not about poor chinese workers. Just remember that not too long ago, our own country employed millions of immigrants in our slave-wage factories making trinkets, odds, and ends.
Comment by willy — September 22, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
NIMBY,
I also wanted to appologize if I made any strong comments. Racism sort of bothers me, so sometimes I fly off the handle. No bad feelings intended.
Comment by willy — September 22, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
Hey Lauren, what’s going on? The first paragrpah of my post (5) is missing! Also missing is the post by Willy to which I responded in (6). I hope this is a glitch and not censorship.
Comment by NIMBY — September 22, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
I sent you (NIMBY) an e-mail about your first post and your first paragraph. And Willy asked me to remove his post.
Comment by laurendo — September 22, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
Here’s four reasons to support the Target development:
1. Money. When big boxes come to town, people on fixed incomes (I hear there’s a few of ’em in Alameda) and low incomes (me) get a pay raise. Also, takes less ga$oline for Alameda residents to arrive at their shopping destination.
2. Convenience. I have to leave town and drive down I-880 more than I’d like to buy everyday convenience items I can’t find at Walgreens or Mervyns.
3. Revenue. Half a million for the city coffers wouldn’t be the first excuse nor the last consideration.
4. Pollution. Less miles to drive means cleaner air, just a bit.
Here’s three reasons to oppose it:
1. Traffic Congestion. Oh, but wait. Why would Oakland residents (Bay Farm residents, for that matter) do the stop-and-go thang along Park, Broadway, High, Webster, or Otis when they have a PLETHORA of shopping options they can arrive at FAR more quickly all along I-880? For our small-town ambiance? (Answer: they wouldn’t. Target shoppers will mostly come from Alameda, and therefore congestion throughout town might actually be REDUCED with fewer shoppers navigating the out-of-town bottlenecks. Thank you, thank you; and yes, I do have a firm grasp of the obvious.)
2. Capitalism. Yes, unfortunately for those of a certain sour ilk, somebody might make a buck. Hooow unfortunate! Hooow un-Commie! How best business plan. (Yes, the Revolution will be delayed a bit.)
3. Contrarianism.
WHATEVER IT IS, I’M AGAINST IT!
By Harry Ruby (music) and Bert Kalmar (lyrics)
Performed by Groucho Marx in “Horse Feathers” (1932)
I don’t know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway —
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.
Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood —
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.
I’m opposed to it —
On general principles I’m opposed to it!
Chorus: He’s opposed to it!
In fact, in word, in deed,
He’s opposed to it!
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night till morn,
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And I’ve kept yelling since I commenced it,
I’m against it!
Comment by TJ Pierce — October 4, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
TJ made some great points which I totally agree with.
I don’t think a Target will create anymore traffic. I go to Towncenter from the West End to do most of my grocery shopping at Safeway (don’t really like Albertson). I would just consolate trips. Plus when Alameda Landing is finshed it will distribute more of the shopping.
Comment by Joe — October 9, 2006 @ 8:46 am