Commentary: Target and Superfund

I might have missed it during the Target election, but was it not one of the reasons why some opposed Target, the fact that the proposed site was adjacent to a Superfund cleanup site?

In fact proponents of the Target used language to suggest that the EPA was supportive of the project.

Regardless of those claims however, the general assertion made by proponents of the development is that there would be no problem building a Target on a location adjacent to a Superfund clean up site.

However, now we get a report in the Davis Enterprise this past Thursday, that there could be a delay because the site has to replace eight water monitoring wells that the store would be built on top of.

Now the EPA is seeking public comment on its agreement to move the eight monitoring wells. The EPA has an agreement with Target whereby Target will pay to cap the old wells and dig new ones. The Enterprise describes this agreement as “the first of its kind in the nation.”

Furthermore:

“Taking samples to determine the best place for new wells could take up to six months, although Target is aiming to get it done in three. “

And some background on the site from the Enterprise article:

“From 1972 to 1983, Frontier Fertilizer dumped pesticides onto the ground and into unlined pits near its company on Second Street in Davis.

In 1983, a dog fell into one of the pits, and soon after died of pesticide poisoning, alerting the community to the problem.

The Environmental Protection Agency declared the area a Superfund cleanup site in 1994, but since 1993, the agency has pumped and treated contaminated ground water and monitored the underground plume of contaminants. “

All of which somewhat re-opens a can of worms. But it also gets me wondering about something–we are trusting the judgment of the EPA on this issue. Is this not, George Bush’s EPA? Do a quick Google on “Bush and the EPA” and it is sure to scare you more than just a little bit. The prospect of the EPA overlooking environmental concerns in order to help a business such as Target does not seem that far-fetched to me and always led me to question whether we were being told the truth during the Target campaign.

The delay has to add to such such apprehensions.

One key question is whether the new wells will work as well as the old ones.

As Pam Nieberg told the Davis Enterprise:

“They’re going to have to show that the new wells give data that is as good or better than the old ones. They’re trying to do it over a three-month period, but I don’t know if the EPA will let them do it. (Target’s) timeline still shows that they’re going to do it in 2008, but I don’t know if they’re going to be able to meet that timeline.”

These are open questions that will be answered in the coming months. In the meantime, the building of “our Target” to quote the Davis Enterprise headline, may be delayed.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

100 Comments

  1. davisite

    The Enterprise article fails to get at the most important question,why did the Bush EPA, notoriously pro-business, decide to do this “first of its kind” public comment before allowing Target to move the wells? It’s again left up to the Vanguard to ask the critical questions of EPA and fully imform the citizens of Davis.

  2. davisite

    The Enterprise article fails to get at the most important question,why did the Bush EPA, notoriously pro-business, decide to do this “first of its kind” public comment before allowing Target to move the wells? It’s again left up to the Vanguard to ask the critical questions of EPA and fully imform the citizens of Davis.

  3. davisite

    The Enterprise article fails to get at the most important question,why did the Bush EPA, notoriously pro-business, decide to do this “first of its kind” public comment before allowing Target to move the wells? It’s again left up to the Vanguard to ask the critical questions of EPA and fully imform the citizens of Davis.

  4. davisite

    The Enterprise article fails to get at the most important question,why did the Bush EPA, notoriously pro-business, decide to do this “first of its kind” public comment before allowing Target to move the wells? It’s again left up to the Vanguard to ask the critical questions of EPA and fully imform the citizens of Davis.

  5. Varzil the Good

    I keep thinking that the Menace from Minneapolis will decide it’s just not worthwhile to push further for this site, which surely will be deemed the “TOXIC TARGET”. Their low-level LEED certification won’t be powerful enough to shake off this sobriquet.

    If anybody really feels a desperate need to shop at Target rather than supporting our local merchants, they can surely visit the soon-finished Target in Woodland, no?

  6. Varzil the Good

    I keep thinking that the Menace from Minneapolis will decide it’s just not worthwhile to push further for this site, which surely will be deemed the “TOXIC TARGET”. Their low-level LEED certification won’t be powerful enough to shake off this sobriquet.

    If anybody really feels a desperate need to shop at Target rather than supporting our local merchants, they can surely visit the soon-finished Target in Woodland, no?

  7. Varzil the Good

    I keep thinking that the Menace from Minneapolis will decide it’s just not worthwhile to push further for this site, which surely will be deemed the “TOXIC TARGET”. Their low-level LEED certification won’t be powerful enough to shake off this sobriquet.

    If anybody really feels a desperate need to shop at Target rather than supporting our local merchants, they can surely visit the soon-finished Target in Woodland, no?

  8. Varzil the Good

    I keep thinking that the Menace from Minneapolis will decide it’s just not worthwhile to push further for this site, which surely will be deemed the “TOXIC TARGET”. Their low-level LEED certification won’t be powerful enough to shake off this sobriquet.

    If anybody really feels a desperate need to shop at Target rather than supporting our local merchants, they can surely visit the soon-finished Target in Woodland, no?

  9. Sue Greenwald

    Astonishingly, the Target freeway mall development agreement entitles this project for an unprecedented fifteen years. Most development agreements expire after a reasonable period; I know of no other development with entitlement for fifteen years.

    This fifteen year entitlement slipped through because the council majority refused to hold public hearings on the separate project components, including the development agreement.

    I had repeatedly asked for separate public hearings, so that issues such as this could get a full airing.

  10. Sue Greenwald

    Astonishingly, the Target freeway mall development agreement entitles this project for an unprecedented fifteen years. Most development agreements expire after a reasonable period; I know of no other development with entitlement for fifteen years.

    This fifteen year entitlement slipped through because the council majority refused to hold public hearings on the separate project components, including the development agreement.

    I had repeatedly asked for separate public hearings, so that issues such as this could get a full airing.

  11. Sue Greenwald

    Astonishingly, the Target freeway mall development agreement entitles this project for an unprecedented fifteen years. Most development agreements expire after a reasonable period; I know of no other development with entitlement for fifteen years.

    This fifteen year entitlement slipped through because the council majority refused to hold public hearings on the separate project components, including the development agreement.

    I had repeatedly asked for separate public hearings, so that issues such as this could get a full airing.

  12. Sue Greenwald

    Astonishingly, the Target freeway mall development agreement entitles this project for an unprecedented fifteen years. Most development agreements expire after a reasonable period; I know of no other development with entitlement for fifteen years.

    This fifteen year entitlement slipped through because the council majority refused to hold public hearings on the separate project components, including the development agreement.

    I had repeatedly asked for separate public hearings, so that issues such as this could get a full airing.

  13. Pam Nieberg

    There is a community oversight group (Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group or FFSOG) that has been working with EPA during the (so far)nearly 14 years of work at the Frontier Fertilizer site. We have a webpage with the history and current and future work at the site. There are also newsletters posted there, including our most recent. Go to http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/ffsog for more information on this subject.

    The oversight group is working to ensure that the Target store does not interfere with the clean-up at that site. We have applied for and received 4 (just applied for the 5th) EPA Technical Assistance Grants with which we pay an expert in this type of contamination to work with us and EPA during clean-up activities at the site. One of our missions is to try to keep the community informed of activities at the site. We do publish a newsletter which is distributed to all of the Mace Ranch community (since that is where the site is),deposited at the public library and posted on our website. If you have questions or want to get on the mailing list, you can contact us via the contact information on the website or in the newsletters.

    If you have concerns, please do submit comments on this agreement. EPA needs to know what the public concerns are. In order to begin store construction, Target does need to move wells. It is important that the replacement wells provide the same or better hydrologic and water-quality information as the abandoned wells. This will require sufficient sampling and analysis from the new wells to ensure the quality of the data before the old wells are abandoned. EPA and the State Department of Toxic Substances will be working with Targets consultants with close oversight over all aspects of the actions. The FFSOG is also working as an oversight group, and will have input into the well replacement activities. The FFSOG does have concerns over the TArget development taking away from the priority tasks of site clean up. We are commmited to ensuring that pressures to move ahead with construction do not in any way interfere with EPA’s work in clean up of the site.

  14. Pam Nieberg

    There is a community oversight group (Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group or FFSOG) that has been working with EPA during the (so far)nearly 14 years of work at the Frontier Fertilizer site. We have a webpage with the history and current and future work at the site. There are also newsletters posted there, including our most recent. Go to http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/ffsog for more information on this subject.

    The oversight group is working to ensure that the Target store does not interfere with the clean-up at that site. We have applied for and received 4 (just applied for the 5th) EPA Technical Assistance Grants with which we pay an expert in this type of contamination to work with us and EPA during clean-up activities at the site. One of our missions is to try to keep the community informed of activities at the site. We do publish a newsletter which is distributed to all of the Mace Ranch community (since that is where the site is),deposited at the public library and posted on our website. If you have questions or want to get on the mailing list, you can contact us via the contact information on the website or in the newsletters.

    If you have concerns, please do submit comments on this agreement. EPA needs to know what the public concerns are. In order to begin store construction, Target does need to move wells. It is important that the replacement wells provide the same or better hydrologic and water-quality information as the abandoned wells. This will require sufficient sampling and analysis from the new wells to ensure the quality of the data before the old wells are abandoned. EPA and the State Department of Toxic Substances will be working with Targets consultants with close oversight over all aspects of the actions. The FFSOG is also working as an oversight group, and will have input into the well replacement activities. The FFSOG does have concerns over the TArget development taking away from the priority tasks of site clean up. We are commmited to ensuring that pressures to move ahead with construction do not in any way interfere with EPA’s work in clean up of the site.

  15. Pam Nieberg

    There is a community oversight group (Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group or FFSOG) that has been working with EPA during the (so far)nearly 14 years of work at the Frontier Fertilizer site. We have a webpage with the history and current and future work at the site. There are also newsletters posted there, including our most recent. Go to http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/ffsog for more information on this subject.

    The oversight group is working to ensure that the Target store does not interfere with the clean-up at that site. We have applied for and received 4 (just applied for the 5th) EPA Technical Assistance Grants with which we pay an expert in this type of contamination to work with us and EPA during clean-up activities at the site. One of our missions is to try to keep the community informed of activities at the site. We do publish a newsletter which is distributed to all of the Mace Ranch community (since that is where the site is),deposited at the public library and posted on our website. If you have questions or want to get on the mailing list, you can contact us via the contact information on the website or in the newsletters.

    If you have concerns, please do submit comments on this agreement. EPA needs to know what the public concerns are. In order to begin store construction, Target does need to move wells. It is important that the replacement wells provide the same or better hydrologic and water-quality information as the abandoned wells. This will require sufficient sampling and analysis from the new wells to ensure the quality of the data before the old wells are abandoned. EPA and the State Department of Toxic Substances will be working with Targets consultants with close oversight over all aspects of the actions. The FFSOG is also working as an oversight group, and will have input into the well replacement activities. The FFSOG does have concerns over the TArget development taking away from the priority tasks of site clean up. We are commmited to ensuring that pressures to move ahead with construction do not in any way interfere with EPA’s work in clean up of the site.

  16. Pam Nieberg

    There is a community oversight group (Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group or FFSOG) that has been working with EPA during the (so far)nearly 14 years of work at the Frontier Fertilizer site. We have a webpage with the history and current and future work at the site. There are also newsletters posted there, including our most recent. Go to http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/ffsog for more information on this subject.

    The oversight group is working to ensure that the Target store does not interfere with the clean-up at that site. We have applied for and received 4 (just applied for the 5th) EPA Technical Assistance Grants with which we pay an expert in this type of contamination to work with us and EPA during clean-up activities at the site. One of our missions is to try to keep the community informed of activities at the site. We do publish a newsletter which is distributed to all of the Mace Ranch community (since that is where the site is),deposited at the public library and posted on our website. If you have questions or want to get on the mailing list, you can contact us via the contact information on the website or in the newsletters.

    If you have concerns, please do submit comments on this agreement. EPA needs to know what the public concerns are. In order to begin store construction, Target does need to move wells. It is important that the replacement wells provide the same or better hydrologic and water-quality information as the abandoned wells. This will require sufficient sampling and analysis from the new wells to ensure the quality of the data before the old wells are abandoned. EPA and the State Department of Toxic Substances will be working with Targets consultants with close oversight over all aspects of the actions. The FFSOG is also working as an oversight group, and will have input into the well replacement activities. The FFSOG does have concerns over the TArget development taking away from the priority tasks of site clean up. We are commmited to ensuring that pressures to move ahead with construction do not in any way interfere with EPA’s work in clean up of the site.

  17. Anonymous

    Sue: Fifteen years won’t matter on the development agreement, by then we’ll have joined Vallejo(and many others) as being on the verge of bankruptcy.

  18. Anonymous

    Sue: Fifteen years won’t matter on the development agreement, by then we’ll have joined Vallejo(and many others) as being on the verge of bankruptcy.

  19. Anonymous

    Sue: Fifteen years won’t matter on the development agreement, by then we’ll have joined Vallejo(and many others) as being on the verge of bankruptcy.

  20. Anonymous

    Sue: Fifteen years won’t matter on the development agreement, by then we’ll have joined Vallejo(and many others) as being on the verge of bankruptcy.

  21. Wait a minute

    Hey, why all this concern for Target being built near a Superfund cleanup site, but no concern expressed for the houses that were built next to it? I sense some hypocrisy here, involving anti-Target/anti-big box store folks.

    Whatever your view of Target coming to town, lets face it. There was always question of building anything next to a toxic waste site BEFORE it was cleaned up. Frankly, I would like a better explanation of that whole process, since I thought it was a horrendous idea at the time.

    Homes were sold beside the toxic waste site for a cheaper price, assured it would be safe because there was some sort of “liner” placed between the homes and the Superfund site.

    I thought that was a bad idea at the time. Then I heard the liner was leaking not that long ago. Now there are complaints about Target locating next to this Superfund toxic site? That is the least of my concerns. At least Target is a business, rather than individual homes.

    Ever heard of Love Canal??? For those of you who may not remember, homes and a school were built over a toxic waste dump. After many years, toxic chemicals bubbled up through schoolyards, and basements of homes. The federal gov’t had to “buy out” all the homeowners, and the birth of the Superfund was born.

    However, my understanding was that no home or anything was to be built on or near a Superfund site until AFTER it was cleaned up. It looks as if my ignorance is showing. Sorry, but homes next to the Superfund site never should have been built there until after cleanup occurred, IMHO, Target or any other business notwithstanding.

  22. Wait a minute

    Hey, why all this concern for Target being built near a Superfund cleanup site, but no concern expressed for the houses that were built next to it? I sense some hypocrisy here, involving anti-Target/anti-big box store folks.

    Whatever your view of Target coming to town, lets face it. There was always question of building anything next to a toxic waste site BEFORE it was cleaned up. Frankly, I would like a better explanation of that whole process, since I thought it was a horrendous idea at the time.

    Homes were sold beside the toxic waste site for a cheaper price, assured it would be safe because there was some sort of “liner” placed between the homes and the Superfund site.

    I thought that was a bad idea at the time. Then I heard the liner was leaking not that long ago. Now there are complaints about Target locating next to this Superfund toxic site? That is the least of my concerns. At least Target is a business, rather than individual homes.

    Ever heard of Love Canal??? For those of you who may not remember, homes and a school were built over a toxic waste dump. After many years, toxic chemicals bubbled up through schoolyards, and basements of homes. The federal gov’t had to “buy out” all the homeowners, and the birth of the Superfund was born.

    However, my understanding was that no home or anything was to be built on or near a Superfund site until AFTER it was cleaned up. It looks as if my ignorance is showing. Sorry, but homes next to the Superfund site never should have been built there until after cleanup occurred, IMHO, Target or any other business notwithstanding.

  23. Wait a minute

    Hey, why all this concern for Target being built near a Superfund cleanup site, but no concern expressed for the houses that were built next to it? I sense some hypocrisy here, involving anti-Target/anti-big box store folks.

    Whatever your view of Target coming to town, lets face it. There was always question of building anything next to a toxic waste site BEFORE it was cleaned up. Frankly, I would like a better explanation of that whole process, since I thought it was a horrendous idea at the time.

    Homes were sold beside the toxic waste site for a cheaper price, assured it would be safe because there was some sort of “liner” placed between the homes and the Superfund site.

    I thought that was a bad idea at the time. Then I heard the liner was leaking not that long ago. Now there are complaints about Target locating next to this Superfund toxic site? That is the least of my concerns. At least Target is a business, rather than individual homes.

    Ever heard of Love Canal??? For those of you who may not remember, homes and a school were built over a toxic waste dump. After many years, toxic chemicals bubbled up through schoolyards, and basements of homes. The federal gov’t had to “buy out” all the homeowners, and the birth of the Superfund was born.

    However, my understanding was that no home or anything was to be built on or near a Superfund site until AFTER it was cleaned up. It looks as if my ignorance is showing. Sorry, but homes next to the Superfund site never should have been built there until after cleanup occurred, IMHO, Target or any other business notwithstanding.

  24. Wait a minute

    Hey, why all this concern for Target being built near a Superfund cleanup site, but no concern expressed for the houses that were built next to it? I sense some hypocrisy here, involving anti-Target/anti-big box store folks.

    Whatever your view of Target coming to town, lets face it. There was always question of building anything next to a toxic waste site BEFORE it was cleaned up. Frankly, I would like a better explanation of that whole process, since I thought it was a horrendous idea at the time.

    Homes were sold beside the toxic waste site for a cheaper price, assured it would be safe because there was some sort of “liner” placed between the homes and the Superfund site.

    I thought that was a bad idea at the time. Then I heard the liner was leaking not that long ago. Now there are complaints about Target locating next to this Superfund toxic site? That is the least of my concerns. At least Target is a business, rather than individual homes.

    Ever heard of Love Canal??? For those of you who may not remember, homes and a school were built over a toxic waste dump. After many years, toxic chemicals bubbled up through schoolyards, and basements of homes. The federal gov’t had to “buy out” all the homeowners, and the birth of the Superfund was born.

    However, my understanding was that no home or anything was to be built on or near a Superfund site until AFTER it was cleaned up. It looks as if my ignorance is showing. Sorry, but homes next to the Superfund site never should have been built there until after cleanup occurred, IMHO, Target or any other business notwithstanding.

  25. Confused

    DPD –

    I’m not sure I understand the point of your post. Did you write this because:

    1. You are concerned that the Target that you never wanted is delayed and might not be built at all?

    2. Because you are concerned that the Bush EPA has reviewed more data and has expressed a concern that there are perhaps serious environmental problems with the site?

    3. You think that the Bush EPA is trying to hide something that was unknown to anyone before they decided to redo the monitoring wells?

    4. Something else?

  26. Confused

    DPD –

    I’m not sure I understand the point of your post. Did you write this because:

    1. You are concerned that the Target that you never wanted is delayed and might not be built at all?

    2. Because you are concerned that the Bush EPA has reviewed more data and has expressed a concern that there are perhaps serious environmental problems with the site?

    3. You think that the Bush EPA is trying to hide something that was unknown to anyone before they decided to redo the monitoring wells?

    4. Something else?

  27. Confused

    DPD –

    I’m not sure I understand the point of your post. Did you write this because:

    1. You are concerned that the Target that you never wanted is delayed and might not be built at all?

    2. Because you are concerned that the Bush EPA has reviewed more data and has expressed a concern that there are perhaps serious environmental problems with the site?

    3. You think that the Bush EPA is trying to hide something that was unknown to anyone before they decided to redo the monitoring wells?

    4. Something else?

  28. Confused

    DPD –

    I’m not sure I understand the point of your post. Did you write this because:

    1. You are concerned that the Target that you never wanted is delayed and might not be built at all?

    2. Because you are concerned that the Bush EPA has reviewed more data and has expressed a concern that there are perhaps serious environmental problems with the site?

    3. You think that the Bush EPA is trying to hide something that was unknown to anyone before they decided to redo the monitoring wells?

    4. Something else?

  29. Rich Rifkin

    “There is a community oversight group (Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group or FFSOG) that has been working with EPA during the (so far)nearly 14 years of work at the Frontier Fertilizer site.”

    Pam,

    In your 14 years of experience working with the EPA, have changes in the White House, from Clinton to Bush Jr., affected the job which you see the EPA doing on this site?

    There have been a number of comments implying that Bush Jr.’s policies at the top would have affected the behavior of EPA folks down below. I wonder if your experience suggests they are right? Or if you’ve spoken with EPA people who have told you that the changes at the top have affected the way they tackle problems like this one?

  30. Rich Rifkin

    “There is a community oversight group (Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group or FFSOG) that has been working with EPA during the (so far)nearly 14 years of work at the Frontier Fertilizer site.”

    Pam,

    In your 14 years of experience working with the EPA, have changes in the White House, from Clinton to Bush Jr., affected the job which you see the EPA doing on this site?

    There have been a number of comments implying that Bush Jr.’s policies at the top would have affected the behavior of EPA folks down below. I wonder if your experience suggests they are right? Or if you’ve spoken with EPA people who have told you that the changes at the top have affected the way they tackle problems like this one?

  31. Rich Rifkin

    “There is a community oversight group (Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group or FFSOG) that has been working with EPA during the (so far)nearly 14 years of work at the Frontier Fertilizer site.”

    Pam,

    In your 14 years of experience working with the EPA, have changes in the White House, from Clinton to Bush Jr., affected the job which you see the EPA doing on this site?

    There have been a number of comments implying that Bush Jr.’s policies at the top would have affected the behavior of EPA folks down below. I wonder if your experience suggests they are right? Or if you’ve spoken with EPA people who have told you that the changes at the top have affected the way they tackle problems like this one?

  32. Rich Rifkin

    “There is a community oversight group (Frontier Fertilizer Superfund Oversight Group or FFSOG) that has been working with EPA during the (so far)nearly 14 years of work at the Frontier Fertilizer site.”

    Pam,

    In your 14 years of experience working with the EPA, have changes in the White House, from Clinton to Bush Jr., affected the job which you see the EPA doing on this site?

    There have been a number of comments implying that Bush Jr.’s policies at the top would have affected the behavior of EPA folks down below. I wonder if your experience suggests they are right? Or if you’ve spoken with EPA people who have told you that the changes at the top have affected the way they tackle problems like this one?

  33. SODAite

    Thanks to Pam for clarifying the issues for me….but could someone lend some more ‘prescriptive direction’ to what we might include in our comments to the EPA to get at the best most critical points. I confess I do not understand the issues well, but do want to voice a ‘slow down’ since we are being asked for comments. Thanks@

  34. SODAite

    Thanks to Pam for clarifying the issues for me….but could someone lend some more ‘prescriptive direction’ to what we might include in our comments to the EPA to get at the best most critical points. I confess I do not understand the issues well, but do want to voice a ‘slow down’ since we are being asked for comments. Thanks@

  35. SODAite

    Thanks to Pam for clarifying the issues for me….but could someone lend some more ‘prescriptive direction’ to what we might include in our comments to the EPA to get at the best most critical points. I confess I do not understand the issues well, but do want to voice a ‘slow down’ since we are being asked for comments. Thanks@

  36. SODAite

    Thanks to Pam for clarifying the issues for me….but could someone lend some more ‘prescriptive direction’ to what we might include in our comments to the EPA to get at the best most critical points. I confess I do not understand the issues well, but do want to voice a ‘slow down’ since we are being asked for comments. Thanks@

  37. Varzil the Good

    Sue Greenwald said “Astonishingly, the Target freeway mall development agreement entitles this project for an unprecedented fifteen years.

    Ye ghods! I didn’t need any convincing; I’ve still got my “Don’t Big-Box Davis” t-shirt. But I wonder if some on-the-fencers would’ve felt differently about the Toxic Target if that fact had been widely known?

  38. Varzil the Good

    Sue Greenwald said “Astonishingly, the Target freeway mall development agreement entitles this project for an unprecedented fifteen years.

    Ye ghods! I didn’t need any convincing; I’ve still got my “Don’t Big-Box Davis” t-shirt. But I wonder if some on-the-fencers would’ve felt differently about the Toxic Target if that fact had been widely known?

  39. Varzil the Good

    Sue Greenwald said “Astonishingly, the Target freeway mall development agreement entitles this project for an unprecedented fifteen years.

    Ye ghods! I didn’t need any convincing; I’ve still got my “Don’t Big-Box Davis” t-shirt. But I wonder if some on-the-fencers would’ve felt differently about the Toxic Target if that fact had been widely known?

  40. Varzil the Good

    Sue Greenwald said “Astonishingly, the Target freeway mall development agreement entitles this project for an unprecedented fifteen years.

    Ye ghods! I didn’t need any convincing; I’ve still got my “Don’t Big-Box Davis” t-shirt. But I wonder if some on-the-fencers would’ve felt differently about the Toxic Target if that fact had been widely known?

  41. Pam Nieberg

    In response to “Wait a minute”, after our group formed and became active in working with EPA in site clean-up, our Technical Advisor (hired with the grant funds) did some modeling and reported that he believed the the plume of contaminated ground water was not being contained by the ground water pump and treat system that the State installed, but was still moving horizontally. EPA’s contractor at the time believed from their data that the plume was being contained. At the same time, the Mace Ranch development north of the site (the direction the plume was moving) was moving forward.

    Our Technical Advisor and I met with the city (reps from the planning and public works departments) and presented our case: that the plume of contaminated groundwater was not being contained, was moving north and was under the area where the new section of Mace Ranch was proposed to be built. We asked the city not to approve the development of homes there until EPA had finished their investigative work and determined how to contain the plume, prevent further movement and install a system to pull the contaminated groundwater back from under the development site. The city chose to believe EPA at the time, and eventually allowed the development to proceed. Our Technical Advisor was proved to be correct, EPA’s contractor wrong, and now homes exist over a plume of contaminated ground water.

    There always was concern on the part of the FFSOG and the community in the Mace Ranch area about building homes next to a superfund site and over a contaminated plume, but the developer pushed forward anyway and the city continued to approve the development. Before any of Mace Ranch was constructed, the city knew of the superfund status of the site, but allowed construction to go forward regardless. There were also some lawsuits filed by people who bought in Mace Ranch only to learn later that there was a superfund site there. Though the presence of the site was noted in the paperwork, it was apparently not obvious, and the sellers certainly did not make it obvious. The suits were settled out of court.

    To respond to Rich Rifkin, in the beginning, and even now to some extent, we have had problems in communication with EPA. They sometimes do not taking our concerns seriously. We have over time, largely gotten past that. We also had serious concerns with funding both under the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations. There were times the Region IX people feared there would not be sufficient funding to complete work at the site. We have experienced the same thing recently. There were funding issues related to the money for the final remedy for clean-up at the site. That funding appears to be secure right now, but EPA’s budget is being cut, and there are obviously problems at the top, including undue influence on EPA decisions by this administation.

    We have definitely been told and have seen ourselves that under this administration in particular, the re have been problems in how the changes in Washington have affected how our reps here in SF handle the problems. One move in particular (beside funding cuts) was to get as many sites off the books as possible. That has affected how our site has been handled. SF was told to get our site off the books. As a consequence, the process for deveopment of the final remedy for the site was speeded up to the point that there is currently some anxiety about the decision to use the heating method and doubts and concerns about using the proposed microbial degradation method. The FFSOG still has concerns related to the final remedy, and are currently working those out with EPA.

  42. Pam Nieberg

    In response to “Wait a minute”, after our group formed and became active in working with EPA in site clean-up, our Technical Advisor (hired with the grant funds) did some modeling and reported that he believed the the plume of contaminated ground water was not being contained by the ground water pump and treat system that the State installed, but was still moving horizontally. EPA’s contractor at the time believed from their data that the plume was being contained. At the same time, the Mace Ranch development north of the site (the direction the plume was moving) was moving forward.

    Our Technical Advisor and I met with the city (reps from the planning and public works departments) and presented our case: that the plume of contaminated groundwater was not being contained, was moving north and was under the area where the new section of Mace Ranch was proposed to be built. We asked the city not to approve the development of homes there until EPA had finished their investigative work and determined how to contain the plume, prevent further movement and install a system to pull the contaminated groundwater back from under the development site. The city chose to believe EPA at the time, and eventually allowed the development to proceed. Our Technical Advisor was proved to be correct, EPA’s contractor wrong, and now homes exist over a plume of contaminated ground water.

    There always was concern on the part of the FFSOG and the community in the Mace Ranch area about building homes next to a superfund site and over a contaminated plume, but the developer pushed forward anyway and the city continued to approve the development. Before any of Mace Ranch was constructed, the city knew of the superfund status of the site, but allowed construction to go forward regardless. There were also some lawsuits filed by people who bought in Mace Ranch only to learn later that there was a superfund site there. Though the presence of the site was noted in the paperwork, it was apparently not obvious, and the sellers certainly did not make it obvious. The suits were settled out of court.

    To respond to Rich Rifkin, in the beginning, and even now to some extent, we have had problems in communication with EPA. They sometimes do not taking our concerns seriously. We have over time, largely gotten past that. We also had serious concerns with funding both under the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations. There were times the Region IX people feared there would not be sufficient funding to complete work at the site. We have experienced the same thing recently. There were funding issues related to the money for the final remedy for clean-up at the site. That funding appears to be secure right now, but EPA’s budget is being cut, and there are obviously problems at the top, including undue influence on EPA decisions by this administation.

    We have definitely been told and have seen ourselves that under this administration in particular, the re have been problems in how the changes in Washington have affected how our reps here in SF handle the problems. One move in particular (beside funding cuts) was to get as many sites off the books as possible. That has affected how our site has been handled. SF was told to get our site off the books. As a consequence, the process for deveopment of the final remedy for the site was speeded up to the point that there is currently some anxiety about the decision to use the heating method and doubts and concerns about using the proposed microbial degradation method. The FFSOG still has concerns related to the final remedy, and are currently working those out with EPA.

  43. Pam Nieberg

    In response to “Wait a minute”, after our group formed and became active in working with EPA in site clean-up, our Technical Advisor (hired with the grant funds) did some modeling and reported that he believed the the plume of contaminated ground water was not being contained by the ground water pump and treat system that the State installed, but was still moving horizontally. EPA’s contractor at the time believed from their data that the plume was being contained. At the same time, the Mace Ranch development north of the site (the direction the plume was moving) was moving forward.

    Our Technical Advisor and I met with the city (reps from the planning and public works departments) and presented our case: that the plume of contaminated groundwater was not being contained, was moving north and was under the area where the new section of Mace Ranch was proposed to be built. We asked the city not to approve the development of homes there until EPA had finished their investigative work and determined how to contain the plume, prevent further movement and install a system to pull the contaminated groundwater back from under the development site. The city chose to believe EPA at the time, and eventually allowed the development to proceed. Our Technical Advisor was proved to be correct, EPA’s contractor wrong, and now homes exist over a plume of contaminated ground water.

    There always was concern on the part of the FFSOG and the community in the Mace Ranch area about building homes next to a superfund site and over a contaminated plume, but the developer pushed forward anyway and the city continued to approve the development. Before any of Mace Ranch was constructed, the city knew of the superfund status of the site, but allowed construction to go forward regardless. There were also some lawsuits filed by people who bought in Mace Ranch only to learn later that there was a superfund site there. Though the presence of the site was noted in the paperwork, it was apparently not obvious, and the sellers certainly did not make it obvious. The suits were settled out of court.

    To respond to Rich Rifkin, in the beginning, and even now to some extent, we have had problems in communication with EPA. They sometimes do not taking our concerns seriously. We have over time, largely gotten past that. We also had serious concerns with funding both under the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations. There were times the Region IX people feared there would not be sufficient funding to complete work at the site. We have experienced the same thing recently. There were funding issues related to the money for the final remedy for clean-up at the site. That funding appears to be secure right now, but EPA’s budget is being cut, and there are obviously problems at the top, including undue influence on EPA decisions by this administation.

    We have definitely been told and have seen ourselves that under this administration in particular, the re have been problems in how the changes in Washington have affected how our reps here in SF handle the problems. One move in particular (beside funding cuts) was to get as many sites off the books as possible. That has affected how our site has been handled. SF was told to get our site off the books. As a consequence, the process for deveopment of the final remedy for the site was speeded up to the point that there is currently some anxiety about the decision to use the heating method and doubts and concerns about using the proposed microbial degradation method. The FFSOG still has concerns related to the final remedy, and are currently working those out with EPA.

  44. Pam Nieberg

    In response to “Wait a minute”, after our group formed and became active in working with EPA in site clean-up, our Technical Advisor (hired with the grant funds) did some modeling and reported that he believed the the plume of contaminated ground water was not being contained by the ground water pump and treat system that the State installed, but was still moving horizontally. EPA’s contractor at the time believed from their data that the plume was being contained. At the same time, the Mace Ranch development north of the site (the direction the plume was moving) was moving forward.

    Our Technical Advisor and I met with the city (reps from the planning and public works departments) and presented our case: that the plume of contaminated groundwater was not being contained, was moving north and was under the area where the new section of Mace Ranch was proposed to be built. We asked the city not to approve the development of homes there until EPA had finished their investigative work and determined how to contain the plume, prevent further movement and install a system to pull the contaminated groundwater back from under the development site. The city chose to believe EPA at the time, and eventually allowed the development to proceed. Our Technical Advisor was proved to be correct, EPA’s contractor wrong, and now homes exist over a plume of contaminated ground water.

    There always was concern on the part of the FFSOG and the community in the Mace Ranch area about building homes next to a superfund site and over a contaminated plume, but the developer pushed forward anyway and the city continued to approve the development. Before any of Mace Ranch was constructed, the city knew of the superfund status of the site, but allowed construction to go forward regardless. There were also some lawsuits filed by people who bought in Mace Ranch only to learn later that there was a superfund site there. Though the presence of the site was noted in the paperwork, it was apparently not obvious, and the sellers certainly did not make it obvious. The suits were settled out of court.

    To respond to Rich Rifkin, in the beginning, and even now to some extent, we have had problems in communication with EPA. They sometimes do not taking our concerns seriously. We have over time, largely gotten past that. We also had serious concerns with funding both under the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations. There were times the Region IX people feared there would not be sufficient funding to complete work at the site. We have experienced the same thing recently. There were funding issues related to the money for the final remedy for clean-up at the site. That funding appears to be secure right now, but EPA’s budget is being cut, and there are obviously problems at the top, including undue influence on EPA decisions by this administation.

    We have definitely been told and have seen ourselves that under this administration in particular, the re have been problems in how the changes in Washington have affected how our reps here in SF handle the problems. One move in particular (beside funding cuts) was to get as many sites off the books as possible. That has affected how our site has been handled. SF was told to get our site off the books. As a consequence, the process for deveopment of the final remedy for the site was speeded up to the point that there is currently some anxiety about the decision to use the heating method and doubts and concerns about using the proposed microbial degradation method. The FFSOG still has concerns related to the final remedy, and are currently working those out with EPA.

  45. Anonymous

    I gotta say…I have lived here since 97 and I always wondered why the Mace area was built so close to an “advertised” super fund site.

    All you had to do was drive by the old buildings on 2nd street and see the sign declaring such. I didn’t need the Vanguard to show me that…I just used my eyes.

    So, now we have a potential Target on top of the same land. I voted against the Target for this and many reasons. I was always surprised when people would say, “what do you mean it’s on a super fund site?”

    Sometimes I wonder how many mistakes we have to make to learn from them. Love canal it may not be… but what will it be one day?

  46. Anonymous

    I gotta say…I have lived here since 97 and I always wondered why the Mace area was built so close to an “advertised” super fund site.

    All you had to do was drive by the old buildings on 2nd street and see the sign declaring such. I didn’t need the Vanguard to show me that…I just used my eyes.

    So, now we have a potential Target on top of the same land. I voted against the Target for this and many reasons. I was always surprised when people would say, “what do you mean it’s on a super fund site?”

    Sometimes I wonder how many mistakes we have to make to learn from them. Love canal it may not be… but what will it be one day?

  47. Anonymous

    I gotta say…I have lived here since 97 and I always wondered why the Mace area was built so close to an “advertised” super fund site.

    All you had to do was drive by the old buildings on 2nd street and see the sign declaring such. I didn’t need the Vanguard to show me that…I just used my eyes.

    So, now we have a potential Target on top of the same land. I voted against the Target for this and many reasons. I was always surprised when people would say, “what do you mean it’s on a super fund site?”

    Sometimes I wonder how many mistakes we have to make to learn from them. Love canal it may not be… but what will it be one day?

  48. Anonymous

    I gotta say…I have lived here since 97 and I always wondered why the Mace area was built so close to an “advertised” super fund site.

    All you had to do was drive by the old buildings on 2nd street and see the sign declaring such. I didn’t need the Vanguard to show me that…I just used my eyes.

    So, now we have a potential Target on top of the same land. I voted against the Target for this and many reasons. I was always surprised when people would say, “what do you mean it’s on a super fund site?”

    Sometimes I wonder how many mistakes we have to make to learn from them. Love canal it may not be… but what will it be one day?

  49. from the darkside..

    Target will move the wells and do what is necessary to build there.

    to Varzil the Good: If local merchants were competitive, I’d vote against Target also. We shouldn’t have to pass measure K to get decent shopping.

    Excuse me, but Borders is much better than AVID Reader and Bogey’s combined. Better selection, better prices, better atmosphere, and sit-down coffee while you read. Measure K was the result of cruddy downtown retail.

    When Safeway was faced by competition from Nugget on Covell, they adapted by making their store look better and adding a starbucks.

    When Avid Reader and downtown retail are faced with competition, they put “don’t big box Davis” signs up. What that translates to is “don’t allow our competition to come to town because we can’t handle it.”

    Excuse me, but I have never heard Avid Reader take the attitude that THEY need to do whatever it takes to win customers away from Borders. They take the attitude that the customers need to prop them up, not the other way around.

  50. from the darkside..

    Target will move the wells and do what is necessary to build there.

    to Varzil the Good: If local merchants were competitive, I’d vote against Target also. We shouldn’t have to pass measure K to get decent shopping.

    Excuse me, but Borders is much better than AVID Reader and Bogey’s combined. Better selection, better prices, better atmosphere, and sit-down coffee while you read. Measure K was the result of cruddy downtown retail.

    When Safeway was faced by competition from Nugget on Covell, they adapted by making their store look better and adding a starbucks.

    When Avid Reader and downtown retail are faced with competition, they put “don’t big box Davis” signs up. What that translates to is “don’t allow our competition to come to town because we can’t handle it.”

    Excuse me, but I have never heard Avid Reader take the attitude that THEY need to do whatever it takes to win customers away from Borders. They take the attitude that the customers need to prop them up, not the other way around.

  51. from the darkside..

    Target will move the wells and do what is necessary to build there.

    to Varzil the Good: If local merchants were competitive, I’d vote against Target also. We shouldn’t have to pass measure K to get decent shopping.

    Excuse me, but Borders is much better than AVID Reader and Bogey’s combined. Better selection, better prices, better atmosphere, and sit-down coffee while you read. Measure K was the result of cruddy downtown retail.

    When Safeway was faced by competition from Nugget on Covell, they adapted by making their store look better and adding a starbucks.

    When Avid Reader and downtown retail are faced with competition, they put “don’t big box Davis” signs up. What that translates to is “don’t allow our competition to come to town because we can’t handle it.”

    Excuse me, but I have never heard Avid Reader take the attitude that THEY need to do whatever it takes to win customers away from Borders. They take the attitude that the customers need to prop them up, not the other way around.

  52. from the darkside..

    Target will move the wells and do what is necessary to build there.

    to Varzil the Good: If local merchants were competitive, I’d vote against Target also. We shouldn’t have to pass measure K to get decent shopping.

    Excuse me, but Borders is much better than AVID Reader and Bogey’s combined. Better selection, better prices, better atmosphere, and sit-down coffee while you read. Measure K was the result of cruddy downtown retail.

    When Safeway was faced by competition from Nugget on Covell, they adapted by making their store look better and adding a starbucks.

    When Avid Reader and downtown retail are faced with competition, they put “don’t big box Davis” signs up. What that translates to is “don’t allow our competition to come to town because we can’t handle it.”

    Excuse me, but I have never heard Avid Reader take the attitude that THEY need to do whatever it takes to win customers away from Borders. They take the attitude that the customers need to prop them up, not the other way around.

  53. Doug Paul Davis

    I have to disagree on the Bogeys/ Borders statement. I’ve never once bought a book at borders. Ever. A good portion of my book collection was purchased at Bogeys and other used book stores. If you know what you are doing, you can get great books for cheap used. I’ll greatly miss Bogeys.

  54. Doug Paul Davis

    I have to disagree on the Bogeys/ Borders statement. I’ve never once bought a book at borders. Ever. A good portion of my book collection was purchased at Bogeys and other used book stores. If you know what you are doing, you can get great books for cheap used. I’ll greatly miss Bogeys.

  55. Doug Paul Davis

    I have to disagree on the Bogeys/ Borders statement. I’ve never once bought a book at borders. Ever. A good portion of my book collection was purchased at Bogeys and other used book stores. If you know what you are doing, you can get great books for cheap used. I’ll greatly miss Bogeys.

  56. Doug Paul Davis

    I have to disagree on the Bogeys/ Borders statement. I’ve never once bought a book at borders. Ever. A good portion of my book collection was purchased at Bogeys and other used book stores. If you know what you are doing, you can get great books for cheap used. I’ll greatly miss Bogeys.

  57. liberal predator

    I have seen books in Borders brand new with full color pictures for as little as six bucks. I’m not talking about books that are “okay” either. I’m talking brand new, full color pictures. Excellent captions. Books that you put on your coffee table. Huge selection! Right in the front!

  58. liberal predator

    I have seen books in Borders brand new with full color pictures for as little as six bucks. I’m not talking about books that are “okay” either. I’m talking brand new, full color pictures. Excellent captions. Books that you put on your coffee table. Huge selection! Right in the front!

  59. liberal predator

    I have seen books in Borders brand new with full color pictures for as little as six bucks. I’m not talking about books that are “okay” either. I’m talking brand new, full color pictures. Excellent captions. Books that you put on your coffee table. Huge selection! Right in the front!

  60. liberal predator

    I have seen books in Borders brand new with full color pictures for as little as six bucks. I’m not talking about books that are “okay” either. I’m talking brand new, full color pictures. Excellent captions. Books that you put on your coffee table. Huge selection! Right in the front!

  61. Pam Nieberg

    I normally shop in Avid Reader. Have for years. I have always preferred smaller, locally-owned book stores. And here is the reason.

    I went into Borders once a few years ago just to check it out, and while there, I looked for a book I was thinking of buying. I couldn’t find it, so I searched (and I mean searched) for someone to help me. I finally found a young woman who had never heard of the book (a best seller at the time), couldn’t find it on the computer, and couldn’t figure out how to order it for me.

    I left and went to Avid Reader, looked for the book, couldn’t find it, so I asked the sales person who was right there at the counter about it. He immediately knew of the book and took me right to it. Other times, I have gone there for books that they do not happen to have in stock. They are almost always aware of the book, look it up immediately on line, order it for me, and I get in less than a week. That is service. Borders does not have that. That is one reason I shop in local stores as much as possible.

    The more big boxes we let in, the more small, local businesses go out of business, and we are stuck with the big box with no service. That is one reason I voted (and campaigned) against Target.

  62. Pam Nieberg

    I normally shop in Avid Reader. Have for years. I have always preferred smaller, locally-owned book stores. And here is the reason.

    I went into Borders once a few years ago just to check it out, and while there, I looked for a book I was thinking of buying. I couldn’t find it, so I searched (and I mean searched) for someone to help me. I finally found a young woman who had never heard of the book (a best seller at the time), couldn’t find it on the computer, and couldn’t figure out how to order it for me.

    I left and went to Avid Reader, looked for the book, couldn’t find it, so I asked the sales person who was right there at the counter about it. He immediately knew of the book and took me right to it. Other times, I have gone there for books that they do not happen to have in stock. They are almost always aware of the book, look it up immediately on line, order it for me, and I get in less than a week. That is service. Borders does not have that. That is one reason I shop in local stores as much as possible.

    The more big boxes we let in, the more small, local businesses go out of business, and we are stuck with the big box with no service. That is one reason I voted (and campaigned) against Target.

  63. Pam Nieberg

    I normally shop in Avid Reader. Have for years. I have always preferred smaller, locally-owned book stores. And here is the reason.

    I went into Borders once a few years ago just to check it out, and while there, I looked for a book I was thinking of buying. I couldn’t find it, so I searched (and I mean searched) for someone to help me. I finally found a young woman who had never heard of the book (a best seller at the time), couldn’t find it on the computer, and couldn’t figure out how to order it for me.

    I left and went to Avid Reader, looked for the book, couldn’t find it, so I asked the sales person who was right there at the counter about it. He immediately knew of the book and took me right to it. Other times, I have gone there for books that they do not happen to have in stock. They are almost always aware of the book, look it up immediately on line, order it for me, and I get in less than a week. That is service. Borders does not have that. That is one reason I shop in local stores as much as possible.

    The more big boxes we let in, the more small, local businesses go out of business, and we are stuck with the big box with no service. That is one reason I voted (and campaigned) against Target.

  64. Pam Nieberg

    I normally shop in Avid Reader. Have for years. I have always preferred smaller, locally-owned book stores. And here is the reason.

    I went into Borders once a few years ago just to check it out, and while there, I looked for a book I was thinking of buying. I couldn’t find it, so I searched (and I mean searched) for someone to help me. I finally found a young woman who had never heard of the book (a best seller at the time), couldn’t find it on the computer, and couldn’t figure out how to order it for me.

    I left and went to Avid Reader, looked for the book, couldn’t find it, so I asked the sales person who was right there at the counter about it. He immediately knew of the book and took me right to it. Other times, I have gone there for books that they do not happen to have in stock. They are almost always aware of the book, look it up immediately on line, order it for me, and I get in less than a week. That is service. Borders does not have that. That is one reason I shop in local stores as much as possible.

    The more big boxes we let in, the more small, local businesses go out of business, and we are stuck with the big box with no service. That is one reason I voted (and campaigned) against Target.

  65. from the Darkside

    Pam,

    Given your statements, I wonder if we are thinking about the same store here.

    Let’s go down the list:

    prices: enter the front, you’ll see brand new books with full-color photos for 7.99. Borders wins hands down for constant bargains.

    selection: no-contest. Borders probably has more books than all Davis bookstores combined. That is not just in numbers, but brand new titles constantly coming in.

    atmosphere: borders wins again. Larger store, more space, and you can sit down and drink coffee. Avid reader has no-such thing.

    service: According to Pam, Avid reader is better. She says she took forever to find someone to help her. Hmm, I’m not sure what to make of this statement because borders has a help desk in the center. I haven’t had any trouble.

    That is in addition to their computer help.

    Pam,
    I think your statements would be good advertising for AVID reader. Quite frankly, AVID Reader would have been much better served by having people like you praise their store instead of trying to prevent their competitors from locating there.

    My animosity toward downtown merchants is they use self-serving attacks against their competitors.

    Borders seems to be pretty confident in their store that they do not have to stoop to that level.

    Coming from Avid Reader, “don’t big-box Davis” is self-serving.

    But let’s entertain the idea of not “Big Boxing” Davis. I guess there can be no Office Max, no Safeway, Nugget, Longs, Ace Hardware, no Rite Aid, No Food for less, and no Dimple Records, no BIG 5, and no blockbuster video. Anything I miss?

    That would make Davis much better, wouldn’t it?

  66. from the Darkside

    Pam,

    Given your statements, I wonder if we are thinking about the same store here.

    Let’s go down the list:

    prices: enter the front, you’ll see brand new books with full-color photos for 7.99. Borders wins hands down for constant bargains.

    selection: no-contest. Borders probably has more books than all Davis bookstores combined. That is not just in numbers, but brand new titles constantly coming in.

    atmosphere: borders wins again. Larger store, more space, and you can sit down and drink coffee. Avid reader has no-such thing.

    service: According to Pam, Avid reader is better. She says she took forever to find someone to help her. Hmm, I’m not sure what to make of this statement because borders has a help desk in the center. I haven’t had any trouble.

    That is in addition to their computer help.

    Pam,
    I think your statements would be good advertising for AVID reader. Quite frankly, AVID Reader would have been much better served by having people like you praise their store instead of trying to prevent their competitors from locating there.

    My animosity toward downtown merchants is they use self-serving attacks against their competitors.

    Borders seems to be pretty confident in their store that they do not have to stoop to that level.

    Coming from Avid Reader, “don’t big-box Davis” is self-serving.

    But let’s entertain the idea of not “Big Boxing” Davis. I guess there can be no Office Max, no Safeway, Nugget, Longs, Ace Hardware, no Rite Aid, No Food for less, and no Dimple Records, no BIG 5, and no blockbuster video. Anything I miss?

    That would make Davis much better, wouldn’t it?

  67. from the Darkside

    Pam,

    Given your statements, I wonder if we are thinking about the same store here.

    Let’s go down the list:

    prices: enter the front, you’ll see brand new books with full-color photos for 7.99. Borders wins hands down for constant bargains.

    selection: no-contest. Borders probably has more books than all Davis bookstores combined. That is not just in numbers, but brand new titles constantly coming in.

    atmosphere: borders wins again. Larger store, more space, and you can sit down and drink coffee. Avid reader has no-such thing.

    service: According to Pam, Avid reader is better. She says she took forever to find someone to help her. Hmm, I’m not sure what to make of this statement because borders has a help desk in the center. I haven’t had any trouble.

    That is in addition to their computer help.

    Pam,
    I think your statements would be good advertising for AVID reader. Quite frankly, AVID Reader would have been much better served by having people like you praise their store instead of trying to prevent their competitors from locating there.

    My animosity toward downtown merchants is they use self-serving attacks against their competitors.

    Borders seems to be pretty confident in their store that they do not have to stoop to that level.

    Coming from Avid Reader, “don’t big-box Davis” is self-serving.

    But let’s entertain the idea of not “Big Boxing” Davis. I guess there can be no Office Max, no Safeway, Nugget, Longs, Ace Hardware, no Rite Aid, No Food for less, and no Dimple Records, no BIG 5, and no blockbuster video. Anything I miss?

    That would make Davis much better, wouldn’t it?

  68. from the Darkside

    Pam,

    Given your statements, I wonder if we are thinking about the same store here.

    Let’s go down the list:

    prices: enter the front, you’ll see brand new books with full-color photos for 7.99. Borders wins hands down for constant bargains.

    selection: no-contest. Borders probably has more books than all Davis bookstores combined. That is not just in numbers, but brand new titles constantly coming in.

    atmosphere: borders wins again. Larger store, more space, and you can sit down and drink coffee. Avid reader has no-such thing.

    service: According to Pam, Avid reader is better. She says she took forever to find someone to help her. Hmm, I’m not sure what to make of this statement because borders has a help desk in the center. I haven’t had any trouble.

    That is in addition to their computer help.

    Pam,
    I think your statements would be good advertising for AVID reader. Quite frankly, AVID Reader would have been much better served by having people like you praise their store instead of trying to prevent their competitors from locating there.

    My animosity toward downtown merchants is they use self-serving attacks against their competitors.

    Borders seems to be pretty confident in their store that they do not have to stoop to that level.

    Coming from Avid Reader, “don’t big-box Davis” is self-serving.

    But let’s entertain the idea of not “Big Boxing” Davis. I guess there can be no Office Max, no Safeway, Nugget, Longs, Ace Hardware, no Rite Aid, No Food for less, and no Dimple Records, no BIG 5, and no blockbuster video. Anything I miss?

    That would make Davis much better, wouldn’t it?

  69. Pam

    Dark side:

    None of the stores you name are big box. There is a definition. The stores you mention are medium box at best. I am not talking about chains. I am talking about big box retail–Target, Wal Mart, etc. Even though they are not big box, permitting of the larger format groceries did result in the closing of two and possibly three smaller grocery stores, and Office Max is at least partly responsible for problem at Carousel and a shift in their merchandise and maybe for changes at Longs as well. I believe Ace Hardware is still locally owned.

  70. Pam

    Dark side:

    None of the stores you name are big box. There is a definition. The stores you mention are medium box at best. I am not talking about chains. I am talking about big box retail–Target, Wal Mart, etc. Even though they are not big box, permitting of the larger format groceries did result in the closing of two and possibly three smaller grocery stores, and Office Max is at least partly responsible for problem at Carousel and a shift in their merchandise and maybe for changes at Longs as well. I believe Ace Hardware is still locally owned.

  71. Pam

    Dark side:

    None of the stores you name are big box. There is a definition. The stores you mention are medium box at best. I am not talking about chains. I am talking about big box retail–Target, Wal Mart, etc. Even though they are not big box, permitting of the larger format groceries did result in the closing of two and possibly three smaller grocery stores, and Office Max is at least partly responsible for problem at Carousel and a shift in their merchandise and maybe for changes at Longs as well. I believe Ace Hardware is still locally owned.

  72. Pam

    Dark side:

    None of the stores you name are big box. There is a definition. The stores you mention are medium box at best. I am not talking about chains. I am talking about big box retail–Target, Wal Mart, etc. Even though they are not big box, permitting of the larger format groceries did result in the closing of two and possibly three smaller grocery stores, and Office Max is at least partly responsible for problem at Carousel and a shift in their merchandise and maybe for changes at Longs as well. I believe Ace Hardware is still locally owned.

  73. from the Darkside

    Pam,

    I’m a little confused. What exactly is the definition of “Big Box?” Ace Hardware is “locally owned” so it doesn’t count as Big Box? So if Target were to locate here and was “locally owned” it wouldn’t have the Big box label?

    Now you’re telling me Safeway is “medium box” but target is “big box?” what exactly in the definition of “big box” makes safeway “medium” and Target “big?”

    So now, there are several categories of “box:” “medium”, “big”, “small”.

    Is there a “medium-big” and “small-big” too?

    This is all new to me. Just where in the heck did all of these box rules come from?

  74. from the Darkside

    Pam,

    I’m a little confused. What exactly is the definition of “Big Box?” Ace Hardware is “locally owned” so it doesn’t count as Big Box? So if Target were to locate here and was “locally owned” it wouldn’t have the Big box label?

    Now you’re telling me Safeway is “medium box” but target is “big box?” what exactly in the definition of “big box” makes safeway “medium” and Target “big?”

    So now, there are several categories of “box:” “medium”, “big”, “small”.

    Is there a “medium-big” and “small-big” too?

    This is all new to me. Just where in the heck did all of these box rules come from?

  75. from the Darkside

    Pam,

    I’m a little confused. What exactly is the definition of “Big Box?” Ace Hardware is “locally owned” so it doesn’t count as Big Box? So if Target were to locate here and was “locally owned” it wouldn’t have the Big box label?

    Now you’re telling me Safeway is “medium box” but target is “big box?” what exactly in the definition of “big box” makes safeway “medium” and Target “big?”

    So now, there are several categories of “box:” “medium”, “big”, “small”.

    Is there a “medium-big” and “small-big” too?

    This is all new to me. Just where in the heck did all of these box rules come from?

  76. from the Darkside

    Pam,

    I’m a little confused. What exactly is the definition of “Big Box?” Ace Hardware is “locally owned” so it doesn’t count as Big Box? So if Target were to locate here and was “locally owned” it wouldn’t have the Big box label?

    Now you’re telling me Safeway is “medium box” but target is “big box?” what exactly in the definition of “big box” makes safeway “medium” and Target “big?”

    So now, there are several categories of “box:” “medium”, “big”, “small”.

    Is there a “medium-big” and “small-big” too?

    This is all new to me. Just where in the heck did all of these box rules come from?

  77. from the Darkside

    I know I’ve argued this to death on this blog.

    I want to sum up my position a little.

    Safeway’s response to Nugget locating by Covell/Pole Line was to improve their store. They felt they need to do whatever it took to keep their customers.

    AVID reader responded to Borders NOT by improving their store, but by having their “Friends of Davis” keep out Borders out with a petition so they would not have to compete against them.

    They did not bend over backwards for their customers, they expected their customers to bend over backwards for them.

    A business that expects me to prop them up with attacks on its competitors is not whom I want to be associated with. This is a bad attitude and it shows a lack of confidence in their ability to compete in the marketplace.

    It is also the trademark signature of inferior retailers.

  78. from the Darkside

    I know I’ve argued this to death on this blog.

    I want to sum up my position a little.

    Safeway’s response to Nugget locating by Covell/Pole Line was to improve their store. They felt they need to do whatever it took to keep their customers.

    AVID reader responded to Borders NOT by improving their store, but by having their “Friends of Davis” keep out Borders out with a petition so they would not have to compete against them.

    They did not bend over backwards for their customers, they expected their customers to bend over backwards for them.

    A business that expects me to prop them up with attacks on its competitors is not whom I want to be associated with. This is a bad attitude and it shows a lack of confidence in their ability to compete in the marketplace.

    It is also the trademark signature of inferior retailers.

  79. from the Darkside

    I know I’ve argued this to death on this blog.

    I want to sum up my position a little.

    Safeway’s response to Nugget locating by Covell/Pole Line was to improve their store. They felt they need to do whatever it took to keep their customers.

    AVID reader responded to Borders NOT by improving their store, but by having their “Friends of Davis” keep out Borders out with a petition so they would not have to compete against them.

    They did not bend over backwards for their customers, they expected their customers to bend over backwards for them.

    A business that expects me to prop them up with attacks on its competitors is not whom I want to be associated with. This is a bad attitude and it shows a lack of confidence in their ability to compete in the marketplace.

    It is also the trademark signature of inferior retailers.

  80. from the Darkside

    I know I’ve argued this to death on this blog.

    I want to sum up my position a little.

    Safeway’s response to Nugget locating by Covell/Pole Line was to improve their store. They felt they need to do whatever it took to keep their customers.

    AVID reader responded to Borders NOT by improving their store, but by having their “Friends of Davis” keep out Borders out with a petition so they would not have to compete against them.

    They did not bend over backwards for their customers, they expected their customers to bend over backwards for them.

    A business that expects me to prop them up with attacks on its competitors is not whom I want to be associated with. This is a bad attitude and it shows a lack of confidence in their ability to compete in the marketplace.

    It is also the trademark signature of inferior retailers.

  81. Anonymous

    Most,if not all,of the comments here come from people who are not in a business to support themsleves. As for Davis Ace Hardware, has everyone forgotten that the perosn, who started that business, was a city concil member.
    And that person convinced the city council to create and pave the parking lots in front of his store? Do any of you know what is going on in the real world? I think not.

  82. Anonymous

    Most,if not all,of the comments here come from people who are not in a business to support themsleves. As for Davis Ace Hardware, has everyone forgotten that the perosn, who started that business, was a city concil member.
    And that person convinced the city council to create and pave the parking lots in front of his store? Do any of you know what is going on in the real world? I think not.

  83. Anonymous

    Most,if not all,of the comments here come from people who are not in a business to support themsleves. As for Davis Ace Hardware, has everyone forgotten that the perosn, who started that business, was a city concil member.
    And that person convinced the city council to create and pave the parking lots in front of his store? Do any of you know what is going on in the real world? I think not.

  84. Anonymous

    Most,if not all,of the comments here come from people who are not in a business to support themsleves. As for Davis Ace Hardware, has everyone forgotten that the perosn, who started that business, was a city concil member.
    And that person convinced the city council to create and pave the parking lots in front of his store? Do any of you know what is going on in the real world? I think not.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for