Indexes
November 20th, 2008
November 19th, 2008
November 18th, 2008
November 17th, 2008
November 15th, 2008
November 14th, 2008
November 13th, 2008
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Male-female marriage has survived 5,000 years (144)
- Comments in article concern writer (87)
- Poor economy, debt force Lodi Memorial Hospital to lay off 44 workers (50)
- Palin bashing is disgraceful (38)
- Lodi council spends $500,000 in hopes to separate itself from Stockton (28)
- CHP: Road rage leads to Highway 12 crash (23)
- Two accused of damaging sprinkler at Lodi courthouse (21)
- Times will be a little better if we pull together and 'Shop Lodi' (20)
- Thoughts after the election (20)
ADVERTISEMENT
Seniors express concern about Galt Wal-Mart
As homeowners in the senior development of Emerald Village and within close proximity to the proposed Wal-Mart on Twin Cities Road in Galt, we would like to express our concerns.
We find this proposal preposterous and detrimental to our safety and the safety of our neighbors, the decreased value of our homes, the inevitable traffic congestion and the increase in crime that seems to go hand in hand with Wal-Mart stores. Recent studies have shown that Wal-Mart stores and crime are highly correlated, resulting in an increase in crime and the need for heightened police participation.
Regarding "Is Wal-Mart Safe," (WakeUpWalMart.com, 2006), one finding within the study found that "Nationally, Wal-Mart stores cost local taxpayers an estimated $77 million in increased policing costs in 2004." In another study of 551 stores, there were close to 1 million calls to the police — two incidents per minute in 2004.
These express only two of the grave concerns and crucial issues for the citizens of Galt. What would the costs be in 2008? Certainly not less but a great deal more. Is the Galt Police Department ready for this added burden? It is with sincere concern for our community that we feel the city of Galt should seriously reconsider allowing a Wal-Mart store to be built at the current location. We hope the leaders of our town will foster the safety and security of their citizens by rejecting this Wal-Mart.
Richard and Felice Vitorelo
Galt
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
leo wrote on May 3, 2008 2:06 AM:
Falcon wrote on Apr 29, 2008 9:19 PM:
voter wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:56 PM:
Cogito wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:31 PM:
voter wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:30 PM:
voter wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:29 PM:
voter wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:28 PM:
Cogito wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:27 PM:
voter wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:25 PM:
Cogito wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:25 PM:
voter wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:19 PM:
voter wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:15 PM:
Cogito wrote on Apr 29, 2008 7:07 PM:
Falcon wrote on Apr 28, 2008 11:11 PM:
I will concede that oil prices are not simplistic and is a product of many factors such as demand, oil cartels, speculative investing, etc. etc. etc, but limiting Americas supply by restricting our ability to drill and refine, as extreme environmentalists would have it, definitely costs us all more money.
It is axiomatic and simplistic. Less supply at any demand level or higher costs of production from increased regulation, results in higher prices to the consumer. Extreme environmentalism costs us more money at the gas pump. "
voter wrote on Apr 28, 2008 9:45 PM:
falcon wrote on Apr 28, 2008 7:58 PM:
Do you think that greater environmental restrictions, hindering oil supply, bring the price of oil down? "
falcon wrote on Apr 28, 2008 7:52 PM:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12623 "
girard74 wrote on Apr 28, 2008 12:30 AM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 28, 2008 12:29 AM:
I cannot even access archived items because I simply don't want to pay for them.
When someone states they can "verify" their claims I expect that such proof would be forthcoming. OTH - do you have anything further to add? "
girard74 wrote on Apr 27, 2008 8:51 PM:
I've encountered this just a few times on these blogs. My reputation here should portray me as someone who, when wrong, admits it. "
voter wrote on Apr 27, 2008 8:38 PM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 27, 2008 8:20 PM:
I know that many use this phrase as if to suggest by stating it in this fashion somehow "requires" the other side of the debate to agree to "agree to disagree." This is not always the case. By doing so would be a tacit acceptance that the differences that exist are either so minute and insignificant that further debate isn't worthy, OR that one side or the other is equally acceptable insofar as the quality of the argument. That doesn't apply here. However, I mean no offense to you personally. "
girard74 wrote on Apr 27, 2008 7:49 PM:
Or perhaps they should have given just $1 more to gain acceptance. "
girard74 wrote on Apr 27, 2008 7:27 PM:
Courage. "
OTH wrote on Apr 27, 2008 7:11 PM:
You have gotten way over the top with this and as I said we will agree to disagree.
You can continue to agrue with yourself. Night "
girard74 wrote on Apr 27, 2008 5:09 PM:
If this lady had no health insurance and since the injury had nothing to do with Wal-Mart except that at the time of the accident she was employed by them, what "rights" would she then have to go after Wal-Mart? Was it a Wal-Mart truck? No, it wasn't.
Talk about biting the hand of the company that was helping her!
OTH - What is YOUR solution? "
girard74 wrote on Apr 27, 2008 5:06 PM:
I would have demanded that my attorney provide me with every possible bit of information regarding any possible outcome from the trial. I would then weigh the odds and proceeded accordingly including what impact this would have on the lady with brain damage and the rest of the family.
That's what I would have done. "
girard74 wrote on Apr 27, 2008 5:04 PM:
(cont...) "
sam wrote on Apr 27, 2008 2:23 PM:
Pave over paradise until we hit Stockton and I-5?? "
OTH wrote on Apr 27, 2008 2:02 PM:
I'm not sure where you get entitlement. The woman is brain damaged. You do know what that is right?
IMHO if you were this ladies family you would be doing the same things they are.
Let's agree to disagree okay "
girard74 wrote on Apr 27, 2008 1:18 PM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 27, 2008 1:03 PM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 27, 2008 12:25 PM:
But when people condemn a person or company for doing what is correct and lawful, what does that make US? You better believe that the woman in question did everything she could to make sure Wal-Mart and the underwriter of her insurance policy did all they were required to do under the contract. It makes Wal-Mart a hideous company for doing the very same thing?
When will this type of "entitlement-demanding" end? Why have a contract at all? "
OTH wrote on Apr 27, 2008 12:12 PM:
Your compassion and empathy are overwhelming. "
girard74 wrote on Apr 27, 2008 11:54 AM:
Score what? Wal-Mart did nothing illegal, immoral or unethical. They paid out what they were required to pay out. The medical insurance contract was crystal clear in its wording that if this woman won a law-suit exacting money from the entity who harmed her that Wal-Mart would be reimbursed. As I stated earlier, if she had won nothing, Wal-Mart would have been entitled to nothing - yet they already PAID over $400,000 according to the contract.
The only "score" here is this further contention of entitlement by people who are simply not entitled. "
girard74 wrote on Apr 27, 2008 11:47 AM:
Yet we are a nation of law and under those laws we "agree" to certain obligations when we sign contracts. If this woman had NOT won her own law-suit, Wal-Mart would not/could not file any action against her. Wal-Mart did exactly what they agreed to do - put out all that money with no guarantee of getting it back. Didn't this woman's attorney realize that she would be obligated to pay Wal-Mart if she won her law-suit? "
T & C wrote on Apr 27, 2008 11:24 AM:
voter wrote on Apr 27, 2008 8:31 AM:
OTH wrote on Apr 27, 2008 7:48 AM:
I'm not sure you can lay the high price of gasoline exclusively on extreme restrictive enviromentalism.
Right now there are many factors driving oil prices.
I have no problem with people shopping at Wal-Mart. I do have a problem with some of their corporate practices.
Believe me I know what living on a budget means and shopping for low prices. "
Falcon wrote on Apr 27, 2008 7:37 AM:
This is very similar to the result all of the extreme restrictive environmentalism has provided; we pay a higher price at the gas pump. "
OTH wrote on Apr 26, 2008 11:31 PM:
I first heard this on the Keith Olberman show. Every night he would bring it up and pretty soon it began to get national press.
Yes Wal-Mart decided to give the money back to the lady and it's my understanding with interest and court costs.
I guess someone finally realized that $400,000 dollars was not worth the bad press to a multimillion dollar company.
Score one for the little guy! "
Falcon wrote on Apr 26, 2008 9:03 PM:
In a surprising turn-around Walmart has decided to drop its effort to collect $400,000 in money awarded to a brain damaged former employee, says the Associated Press.
Is this true?
"
girard74 wrote on Apr 26, 2008 5:53 PM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 26, 2008 5:48 PM:
Even though the authors live in Galt (just south of Elk Grove which IS on the list), I submit that Lodi would be a better representative comparison. "
OTH wrote on Apr 26, 2008 4:02 PM:
I have to agree with you.
"
voter wrote on Apr 26, 2008 11:55 AM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 26, 2008 11:40 AM:
Yet, I consider myself a person of quality, although there are those who question my political sanity/morality (as is their privilege).
But I DO sometimes shop in fear at the Lodi Wal-Mart. If it's just the low prices, what does that truly indicate? "
OTH wrote on Apr 26, 2008 11:01 AM:
OTH wrote on Apr 26, 2008 10:58 AM:
OTH wrote on Apr 26, 2008 10:57 AM:
Thank God after this going nationwide the great multi-billion dollar corporation decided to give her money back even though it was THEIRS.
That's just big as hell of them. Personally I will never set foot in a Wal-Mart again. Not that I do now. "
OTH wrote on Apr 26, 2008 10:53 AM:
Good morning back at you. I believe people should have the right to shop where they want.
I personally won't shop Wal-Mart for a number of reasons. Another one was added recently. The corporate giant sunk to a new low by suing a brain damaged former employee saying they were entitled to the money. LA Times 11/21/07.
Now technically they were entitled to her money.
This woman is brain damaged requiring 24/7 care. While lying in a coma her only son died in Iraq. cont'd
"
voter wrote on Apr 26, 2008 8:56 AM:
voter wrote on Apr 26, 2008 8:53 AM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 26, 2008 8:03 AM:
OTH wrote on Apr 26, 2008 8:01 AM:
girard74 wrote on Apr 26, 2008 5:53 AM:
The "study" referred to in the third paragraph of the Vitorelos' letter was evidently sponsored by the "United Food and Commercial Workers International Union." "Objective" report, huh? I don't think so. In fact, a cursory review of the website would indicate Wal-Mart's complicity in the kidnapping of the Limburg baby and the assassinations of virtually every American leader since the nation's inception.
I suggest instead of "Wake-Up Wal-Mart" Wake-Up Ignorant and Misled Citizens!
I'm curious as to whether the authors are members of this particular union. "
Comments on this story are now closed.