Indexes
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
November 13th, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- The country's mess is our fault (155)
- Obama is not a moderate (130)
- Sarah Palin's book hits the shelves: Locals react (67)
- Despite budget cuts, some Lodi Unified School District salaries continue to rise (58)
- Lodi City Council plans to cap number of taco trucks at 22 (48)
- The haves should help the have-nots (30)
- Public health care is a Christian option (26)
- Lodi Flames slim playoff chances vanish in setback to Tracy Bulldogs (25)
- Tokay in, traveling to unbeaten No. 3 Grant for football playoffs (25)
- Nightmares about America's future (23)
ADVERTISEMENT
Another vote against the Supercenter
Wednesday, January 7, 2009 5:47 AM PST
I wanted to write and let you know I am definitely against the Wal-Mart Supercenter being here in Lodi.
There are many reasons why, but my main reason for getting so involved is because my son's dad works at Food-4-Less. A big store like this may bring more jobs (at minimum wage) but also more lay-offs. Lodi does not need this!
Brandie Goodman
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Robb wrote on Jan 14, 2009 12:04 PM:
I just have a hard time buying the "putting others" out of business argument. "
Lodian wrote on Jan 14, 2009 9:29 AM:
Frontline: Walmart
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/
Studies show that land hungry chains, such as this SWM monstrosity, require more in city services than they produce in revenue. I don't think some people realize just how huge these SWM's really are and what they will demand from a town.
--http://www.newrules.org/retail/0204msn.pdf "
Robb wrote on Jan 14, 2009 7:20 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 14, 2009 1:24 AM:
Gator wrote on Jan 13, 2009 2:00 PM:
Its just the same old nickel and dime now as it was when I spent 17 years there, Stuck
in a time warp!! One of the knocks on Wallys World is all the stuff made in china, Ok
Show me a store that sells hard goods where at least 75 % of their stock isnt made in
China I go way out of my way to buy American goods and its hard but I hate C***
made in China. I look at what we have where Im at now and think Lodi could do
this to but you have to want it and want to work together and dump the pithy attitude, Credence didnt write that song for a grin!!! "
Robb wrote on Jan 13, 2009 11:54 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 13, 2009 11:13 AM:
Robb wrote on Jan 13, 2009 10:42 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 13, 2009 9:51 AM:
Robb wrote on Jan 12, 2009 2:36 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 12, 2009 9:14 AM:
Robb wrote on Jan 12, 2009 7:14 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 11, 2009 8:43 PM:
" Without a super center, Lodi will continue to fail.. "
Robb: So you see the Walmart Super Center as Lodi's savior? "
Robb wrote on Jan 11, 2009 6:39 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 10, 2009 11:46 PM:
Loadeye: I'm glad the kids don't bother you. The older folks you are hearing from may be over-reacting (IDK), but it's all relative. Their perception is their reality. I know some older Lodians tend to get nervous as they know Lodi from decades ago when we were a little town never even mentioned on the weather reports on the evening news. Remember those days? Well, we're on the map now.
Most of the kids are absolutely harmless, just like most of us as kids in Lodi. They're not going to hurt anyone although some can be rude. Older folks are more sensitive to rude children. They come from a time where children were to be seen and not heard. Actually, I have encountered more rude adults than children/teens at the movie theater. I guess I expect more from the adults.
Now, if you want to talk about Stockton... there's a few problems in that neck of the woods. Yikes! "
Lodian wrote on Jan 10, 2009 11:30 PM:
Loadeye wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:15 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 9, 2009 5:19 PM:
" flowerchild wrote "I'll take a gray and depressing world over an inconvenient one."
And that's exactly what you'll get with your support of the Walmart super centers. To me that's like saying I'll take easy canned food over any ol' fresh food any day....that's just ridiculous
Great post! Very well put. "
Lodian wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:50 AM:
And that's exactly what you'll get with your support of the Walmart super centers. To me that's like saying I'll take easy canned food over any ol' fresh food any day....that's just ridiculous. Easy doesn't always mean good. If you want easy and depressing then fine, but allow others to make better choices without your dumpy depressing choices taking over. "
Lodian wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:40 AM:
LOL! "
Lodian wrote on Jan 9, 2009 11:36 AM:
loadeye: I have usually enjoyed reading your blogs, but for goodness sake that statement is really over dramatic. Give me a break, dude. This makes you sound a little scared of your own shadow. LOL! "
loadeye wrote on Jan 9, 2009 9:16 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 9, 2009 8:44 AM:
I'll take a "gray and depressing world" over an inconvenient one.
Patrick Henry summarized the ethos of the Founding Father's when he said "Give me Liberty or give me Death".
200 years later Jello Biafra correctly identified the ethos of many modern Americans as Give me Convenience or give me Death. "
flowerchild wrote on Jan 9, 2009 7:52 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:15 PM:
" Rhodie wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:58 PM:
I'd rather shop a supercenter strip mall with attractable stores than the currently on life support downtown Lodi currently has.
It seems to me that we are rapidly heading towards a world in which only choices will be Walmart or Target (if even that).
What a gray and depressing world you seek to build.
:( "
-----------------------
I'll second that, Leonard. "
Lodian wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:15 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:01 PM:
" leonard, get over yourself.
Go lodisafeway
Chuckle.... "
flowerchild wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:38 PM:
Go lodisafeway! "
Robb wrote on Jan 8, 2009 9:04 AM:
T & C wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:02 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Jan 7, 2009 6:36 PM:
Will never happen since there are enough people that prefer to shop at other places. Walmart and Target will always have some competition in any community (from Costco to mom and pop stores). Even if they drop their prices to under costs, there will still be enough people who frequent other stores to keep them in business.
It boils down to is current stores will have to compete for the dollars of customers who don't shop at the supercenters. But they ahve to do that already. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 6:21 PM:
I'd rather shop a supercenter strip mall with attractable stores than the currently on life support downtown Lodi currently has.
It seems to me that we are rapidly heading towards a world in which only choices will be Walmart or Target (if even that).
What a gray and depressing world you seek to build.
:( "
commonsense1 wrote on Jan 7, 2009 6:01 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:58 PM:
I'd rather shop a supercenter strip mall with attractable stores than the currently on life support downtown Lodi currently has. "
Rhodie wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:55 PM:
Also, would you actually enjoy living in a city that was mostly made up of super centers, without many other shopping options?"
By their nature "supercenters" are anchors for more businesses to spring up around. The Lodi supercenter would have 19ish stores associated with it. Lowes has how many there that wouldn't be if Lowes wasn't there? How about the Target, how many stores there would have come if Target not located there? Supercenters, by their very nature attract more customers and so more buisnesses want to be close to them.
I would be against an adult orentated strip mall (excuse the pun). I don't think this area could support an auto mall though closer to I-5 might work for it. Same with an outlet mall. But when it comes to traditional retail or service providers that you see in most towns this size and moderately bigger there are no stores that jump to mind that I would actively strive to block. "
Rhodie wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:46 PM:
Is it for all businesses or only ones of a certain size that you propose the government determine it's business policies? "
Observer wrote on Jan 7, 2009 5:32 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:06 PM:
Is there any business/company that you would NOT want to allow, and would strive to block, in Lodi?
Also, would you actually enjoy living in a city that was mostly made up of super centers, without many other shopping options? "
wtf wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:03 PM:
Just reading headlines, you can see how Jr. Bush, a "neo" conservative has ballooned our government (Homeland inSecurity being one area) and his "good" fiscal policy is only for his buddy bankers.
So basically, take what a **real** conservative is and invert it and you have a neocon. "
Lodian wrote on Jan 7, 2009 4:01 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:56 PM:
That's only your opinion. Not everyone here is flat, lacking passion, vigor and humor. I guess it depends on how social one is in determining if this is a social stop for each individual blogger. Humans are social beings so many of us naturally take on a social tone with one another here. Maybe you don't like to be that social, hence the name change?, but you must realize that others here enjoy the interaction and debate BECAUSE we are social. It's only natural to feel a bit of a connection to people that one has blogged along with for a few years so stop acting like it's strange or something. Maybe you're the one that's strange. :-) "
dogs4you wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:48 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jan 7, 2009 3:47 PM:
"Leonard, what would be your solution? Who would decide when a company becomes too large or profitable. A politician, a committee, the Pope? Who?"
I'd like to answer that question. I say that the city should have a hand in making that determination. What kind of business, how large, what it looks like etc should be discussed by the city in which the business chooses to locate. These super centers have a huge impact on a city in many ways. I don't think just anyone, anything or any business should be allowed to open whenever and wherever they choose just because they feel like it. "
wtf wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:29 PM:
Meaning these clowns are anything BUT conservative. For example, Webster's New World Dictionary lists one definition of conservative as:
moderate; cautious; safe
Now, take a look at Jr. Bush and tell me where he was moderate, cautious or safe.
That's a neocon in a nutshell...an even better example is Dick Cheney. "
wtf wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:21 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Jan 7, 2009 2:11 PM:
Sounds like the end of sales. After all, what are sales but trying to attract customers from your competition to your store by offering lower prices. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:55 PM:
" Leonard said: "In this case, I would think it ought to be a judge."
And what would this judge decide? Any company generating X% profit shall deemed in violation of the law and shall redistribute the profits to those business less successful. "
The laws concerning predatory pricing are on the books. If a organization is using such pricing to create a monopoly, they are in violation of the law. "
Rhodie wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:52 PM:
Could be, I was reading it on Wikipedeia. "
Observer wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:49 PM:
And what would this judge decide? Any company generating X% profit shall deemed in violation of the law and shall redistribute the profits to those business less successful. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:37 PM:
" "I have always assumed that it meant that they were some sort of con man."
According to the term definition I've read it is a liberal who has embraced conservative ideals.
It sounds like it is time for you to get a new dictionary.
The OED defines neoconservativism as "A new or revived form of conservatism." "
Rhodie wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:28 PM:
According to the term definition I've read it is a liberal who has embraced conservative ideals. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:18 PM:
" "neocon"
I'm curious WTF, what is a Neocon? I know it stands for neoconservativism. But you used the word in a sentence, please explain who the neoconservatives are
Based on the individuals to which the term has been applied, I have always assumed that it meant that they were some sort of con man. "
Rhodie wrote on Jan 7, 2009 1:16 PM:
I'm curious WTF, what is a Neocon? I know it stands for neoconservativism. But you used the word in a sentence, please explain who the neoconservatives are. "
wtf wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:49 PM:
Right on! But you have to remember, Leonard, "taking responsibility for one's actions" is not a neocon trait Whining, point the finger and blaming the victim, are their traits of choice. LOL!
Besides, "mea culpa" is not in the neocon dictionary. "
wtf wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:44 PM:
LOL! That's why he's responding to you, Leonard! He hasn't read a single thing you wrote and he is totally ignoring you. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:29 PM:
" As I said, Leonard - I owe you nothing. Is your life that pathetically monotonous that you find your only validation on a blog? That is very sad indeed.
Frankly, you remind me of a pathetic little boy-man who passes gas in a crowded room and then tries to point the finger at someone else.
The Germans have a term for such an individual although it escapes me at the moment. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:26 PM:
You don't intimidate me; in fact, I find your posts merely amusing and nothing more. When I see your name I glance and move on because what I've come to expect is of little significance that I really don't like to waste my time on such folly.
I certainly do not seek to intimidate you, I merely seek to hold you accountable for your own absurd statements.
Apparently such accountability and the honor that it would imply simply are not part of your character. "
lodisafeway wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:22 PM:
This so-called "manning up" as you put it- that's an interesting concept coming from anyone on an anonymous forum. You (and others) harshly criticize Real Facts as he (virtually) runs around here calling others liars, heretics and other such nonsense; yet out of the other side of your mouth you do the very same thing with me. Why is that, Leonard? You, like Real Facts are a paradox.
You don't intimidate me; in fact, I find your posts merely amusing and nothing more. When I see your name I glance and move on because what I've come to expect is of little significance that I really don't like to waste my time on such folly.
Anyway, thanks for the comments and the compliments; although I certainly have no need to be validated by my own participation here.
So, enough of this- back to the topic at hand (of course if that is alright with you, Leonard). "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:07 PM:
" Leonard, what would be your solution? Who would decide when a company becomes too large or profitable. A politician, a committee, the Pope? Who?
In this case, I would think it ought to be a judge.
Unfortunately, legal action against the world's largest and richest public corporation, given its massive political influence, is problematic at best. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:05 PM:
" There's nothing illegal about deliberately selling products below cost to drive out competition. If they conspire with others to do that, then yes, it's an antitrust issue. But the company has the right to lose money if they wish, as silly as it seems.
Actually, predatory pricing is in and of itself illegal under US antitrust laws. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 12:01 PM:
You have no idea who I am, in spite of your prognosticating. You are no more entitled to know who or what I am (or am not) than anyone else here. What makes you so special, Leonard (or Real Facts)? Nothing- that's what you are.
Give me a break. I know exactly who you are as do probably half the posters on these blogs.
I refrain from using your actual name only because I believe that, in principle, anonymity protects everyone who chooses to use it on the internet. The fact that you have been so careless with your real world identity in the past should not be used as a weapon in our current disagreement.
Still, your assertion of virtual anonymity and your refusal to take responsibility for your past statements wears on the patience of those of us that know you all too well. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:56 AM:
You've got some nerve, fella.
Because I hold you accountable for your own statements?
Here's a simple solution. Why don't you quit your whining, man up and simply take responsibility for the nonsense and drivel that you post on these boards? "
lodisafeway wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:22 AM:
You've got some nerve, fella. You seem to believe that this forum is your own personal coffee clutch; that it exists for you to hold court over all those who dare intrude into your inner sanctum. Well Leonard, I owe you (and everyone else here) nothing; not an explanation, admission, denial or anything else. And I offer nothing. You also owe me nothing. The difference though is that I "expect" nothing from you.
I've continued to explain that I'm here for one reason only, to debate the issues of the day. It is bloggers like you and a few others who believe that this is a social gathering, playground or day-care-center for the aged. It's none of those things.
You have no idea who I am, in spite of your prognosticating. You are no more entitled to know who or what I am (or am not) than anyone else here. What makes you so special, Leonard (or Real Facts)? Nothing- that's what you are. "
Observer wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:20 AM:
Inquisitor wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:09 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:52 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:51 AM:
They discourage competition, divorce prices from demand and destroy entrepreneurship.
In the end, if an entire region's economy is controlled by a single player it matters little whether that player is a Stalinist bureaucracy or an Arkansas oligarchy. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:42 AM:
There, is that clear enough for you? "
lodisafeway wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:36 AM:
lodisafeway wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:34 AM:
Esso would change its price to $.33/gallon; across the corner, Sunoco would drop to $.31; and so on. Eventually, the price bottomed out; and yes, whoever was unable to keep their prices low would be driven out of business. This is what was known as "competition," Survival of the Fittest in economic terms.
Business can be a tough undertaking; not for the faint of heart (or wallet). Those who cannot compete must either find something else to do or suffer the losses, which might be massive. But this incessant whining about any corporation doing what it needs to do to not only survive, but thrive because other businesses may suffer losses is contrary to our very way of life in the United States. We've seen this recently with all of these bail-outs. Failure must be accepted as another part of our economic system. Not everyone can succeed to the extent of the better competitors.
Here, we're witnessing a full attack against Wal-Mart simply because there are those who whimper that it "isn't fair!" Tough! "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:14 AM:
By the way, I've never sworn on a stack of Bibles- ever; and I don't ever intend to do so.
No, I wouldn't imagine that you would.
Perhaps, though, the time has finally come for you to grow up and take responsibility for your own actions. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:13 AM:
" Once again, the lame of brain continue with their little games.
Hmm....
Which is lamer, to change ones name to avoid taking responsibility for ones discredited posts or to point out such a name change to the public?
You tell me. "
lodisafeway wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:11 AM:
By the way, I've never sworn on a stack of Bibles- ever; and I don't ever intend to do so.
But please, continue with the childishness; it is amusing, albeit pathetic. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:05 AM:
Leonard, I've heard rumors of this but haven't (yet) seen any verifiable reports of it happening in a particular place. If you have any links to provide, I'd be grateful.
They've been sued over it on several times but they have always settled out of court. "
JD wrote on Jan 7, 2009 10:03 AM:
Leonard, I've heard rumors of this but haven't (yet) seen any verifiable reports of it happening in a particular place. If you have any links to provide, I'd be grateful. "
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:49 AM:
" ROTFLMAO!!! Oh Leonard, say it ain't so! You mean there are ***two*** like in Lodi???!!!? Ack!
Perhaps three even. I have noticed that both Girard and Lodisafeway bear a striking resemblance to a certain young man that occasionally writes rather silly letters to the editor.
I am sure, however, that there is no connection whatsoever between these individuals. "
wtf wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:41 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 9:04 AM:
" safeway, you confuse walmart's competition with trickery, slave labor, minimum wage jobs, workers on welfare and food stamps and most no medical and exploitation of not only their own employees but those in their hidden sweatshops around the world that employ little children. Have you ever played monopoly before, girard?
Chuckle....
Don't you know that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever (nada, zip, zero) between Lodisafeway and Girard74?
He will, no doubt, swear it on a stack of Bibles. "
loadeye wrote on Jan 7, 2009 8:57 AM:
Leonard wrote on Jan 7, 2009 6:41 AM:
" Ms. Goodman- if the fear of layoffs is a "good" reason to keep another successful business from growing then capitalism and free enterprise need to take a hike. Wal-Mart exists because of its business model that has people choosing it over other stores similar to it
To claim that Walmart, a company that sells items at a loss in order to drive its competitors out of business and then raises prices once it has achieved a regional monopoly, is an example of the success of free market capitalism is, at best, misleading. "
lodisafeway wrote on Jan 7, 2009 6:35 AM:
Now, first of all there's no guarantee that your son's father will be laid off; the Mayor of Lodi provided a number of examples of grocery stores that existed prior to a Supercenter's arrival and remained open (and thrived) afterwards.
Nevertheless, to restrict Wal-Mart from expanding because of fear of the unknown while other stores have been permitted to be built whilst they themselves created that very same sentiment is inherently unfair. Remember, Raley's, Safeway and Food-4-Less didn't each open their doors on the same day- yet they have each enjoyed a certain level of success in spite of their competing with one another, don't you think?
I wonder why you didn't provide other "many reasons" to prevent Wal-Mart from growing in your brief letter-to-the-editor. This "one" certainly isn't enough to sway too many others to join you in your cause. "
Comments on this story are now closed.