No No Yes Yes?

[Centerback]

Can someone please tell me what the opposition to the development to the north of Spring Creek is really all about?

Please spare me the bit about "They're going to ruin Hafer Park" and also spare me the increased traffic issue. Ever been past 9th Street during baseball season, especially tournaments.

My intention is not to be a contrarian to your cause, I would just like to understand your views.

I would also like to state that I have no affiliation whatsoever to the developer in question and have nothing personal to gain whether it passes or fails. I do however believe that if I had the financial capacity to purchase land and had a vision for a sound development, not to mention making additional improvements that will not be completed otherwise, I should not be held to standards outside the norm. If the city council passes the issue, as a citizen, I believe that is enough.

What is the real opposition?

[Karried]

I'm not speaking for anyone or even myself because I think controlled growth is a plus for a city, but it could be as simple as people moved to Edmond long ago to get away from crowds and traffic - they thought they moved to the 'country', but the city followed them.

Maybe they think it's similar to the old song: Paved paradise and put in a parking lot.. not that the area was paradise but it was much less crowded with limited traffic and people.

Yes, there will be increased traffic... no doubt about that but the rewards of having the convenience of specialty shopping should outweigh that inconvenience..

I'm thinking those opposing it are older, set in their ways and don't want changes.. nimb (not in my backyard) maybe?

[floater]

And they removed all the trees and put in a tree museum...

Trouble is, one man's "sound plan" may be another's wrecking ball or eyesore. I also believe in high standards, because if you don't have them, you will get crap. Isn't that why people move to Edmond in the first place?

[ChristianConservative]

Hafer Park is known for its trees and plush landscaping. Currently, there's a buffer that separates the park from Spring Creek Plaza. This buffer is what developers are wanting to turn into more shopping. This would inevitably back shopping right up on the edge of Hafer Park.

[Spartan]

It's all about the NIMBY factor. Edmond is the biggest NIMBYist town in the whole state.

[jbrown84]

Hafer Park is known for its trees and plush landscaping. Currently, there's a buffer that separates the park from Spring Creek Plaza. This buffer is what developers are wanting to turn into more shopping. This would inevitably back shopping right up on the edge of Hafer Park.

That's incorrect. There is a creek that separates them and it is heavily wooded on its banks, so the shopping center would not be seen. I'm normally a conservationist and was adamantly opposed to the Fox Lake Walmart, but here's the deal with this situation:

SOMETHING is going in there like it or not. Edmond is busting at the seams and if this development doesn't go in there, something else will, and it will probably be apartments. Would you rather have a nicely landscaped shopping center a la Utica Square across from Hafer or a carbon copy apartment complex or--worse yet-- privacy fences behind houses. And we are not talking the kind of traffic increases that a Walmart brings. Banana Republic and Nordstrom simply don't draw the same kind of crowds.

[mranderson]

I say stick it to the "tree huggers." Vote against them. They are like nay sayers. All they want to accomplish is no progress. That shopping center is not going to hurt that park. It is not on park property.

[Tim]

I'd like to address the previous post with a brief history lesson. Back in the 90's, a developer wanted to build an Albertsons grocery on the same parcel of land. The citizens had the issue put to a vote of the people, and the result was the Albertsons at 15th and Broadway. Drive by that location today, and you will see an empty building, and an ocean of unused asphalt. We are not opposed to commercial development per se, but we are in favor of wise, well thought out development. Once the area is developed, there is no turning back.
As to the issue of "low-income" housing being built should the rezoning be defeated at the polls, please remember that ANY development must meet the stringent codes set forth by City government. There will be lanscaping requirements, setback and easement restrictions etc. The idea that a shantytown will spring up overnight is just ridiculous.

[ChristianConservative]

I'd like to address the previous post with a brief history lesson. Back in the 90's, a developer wanted to build an Albertsons grocery on the same parcel of land. The citizens had the issue put to a vote of the people, and the result was the Albertsons at 15th and Broadway. Drive by that location today, and you will see an empty building, and an ocean of unused asphalt.

That's only been in the past few months. And that shopping center is very nice overall. They'll find another tenant.

We are not opposed to commercial development per se, but we are in favor of wise, well thought out development. Once the area is developed, there is no turning back.
As to the issue of "low-income" housing being built should the rezoning be defeated at the polls, please remember that ANY development must meet the stringent codes set forth by City government. There will be lanscaping requirements, setback and easement restrictions etc. The idea that a shantytown will spring up overnight is just ridiculous.

Low income? Shanty town? No one mentioned any of that here. We're in favor of the upscale development that's planned for the land.

[Midtowner]

Tim -- they just installed some section 8 housing over at Covell & Thomas a couple years back. Sure it meets city code and everything, but the fact remains, people built $300+ homes just across the street! This shouldn't be happening in Edmond... But when you're Randall Shadid, local Counsel for ERC [Arkansas based professional slum lords], and a former mayor, you can do a lot of things which shouldn't be done

[mranderson]

I'd like to address the previous post with a brief history lesson. Back in the 90's, a developer wanted to build an Albertsons grocery on the same parcel of land. The citizens had the issue put to a vote of the people, and the result was the Albertsons at 15th and Broadway. Drive by that location today, and you will see an empty building, and an ocean of unused asphalt. We are not opposed to commercial development per se, but we are in favor of wise, well thought out development. Once the area is developed, there is no turning back.
As to the issue of "low-income" housing being built should the rezoning be defeated at the polls, please remember that ANY development must meet the stringent codes set forth by City government. There will be lanscaping requirements, setback and easement restrictions etc. The idea that a shantytown will spring up overnight is just ridiculous.

That "ocean" of asphalt and empty building is because when Albertsons sold, the new owners, as new owners usually do, decided instead of giving hard working people jobs, they would take the money from that store and do the usual thing... Spend it on executive perks. As a result, they closed the store.

I stand by what I said. Especially since it is a bunch of liberals that is causing all this trouble... As liberals usually do.

[ChristianConservative]

That "ocean" of asphalt and empty building is because when Albertsons sold, the new owners, as new owners usually do, decided instead of giving hard working people jobs, they would take the money from that store and do the usual thing... Spend it on executive perks. As a result, they closed the store.

I stand by what I said. Especially since it is a bunch of liberals that is causing all this trouble... As liberals usually do.

Actually mranderson, you sound like a liberal here. Anyone who opposes giving money to big business at the expense of the little guy fits in that liberal category.

[Midtowner]

Instead of Mr. Anderson, how about Comrade Anderson?

Comrade: Don't those big business types sign your current paycheck? Aren't your parents those "big business types?"

[Tim]

That "ocean" of asphalt and empty building is because when Albertsons sold, the new owners, as new owners usually do, decided instead of giving hard working people jobs, they would take the money from that store and do the usual thing... Spend it on executive perks. As a result, they closed the store.

I stand by what I said. Especially since it is a bunch of liberals that is causing all this trouble... As liberals usually do.

That seems a bit non-sequiteur.

[mranderson]

Instead of Mr. Anderson, how about Comrade Anderson?

Comrade: Don't those big business types sign your current paycheck? Aren't your parents those "big business types?"

As you know very well, I am not a liberal. My dad taught me very early that a good employer protects his staff. He or she pays them a high wage, gives them a lot of benefits, and treats them like family. The good employer will sacrifice his or her lifestyle to ensure the well being of the employee and see to it they have a living wage and a job for life as long as they perform well.

He never got burned. In fact, former employees and family members of former employees (he sold the company when he retired) praise him as if he was among the greatest men on earth. He never sold or closed a location to put people out of work. He never laid anyone off so he or the other executives could reap the benefits. In fact, there are several years he paid himself one dollar a year so his employees could support their families. THAT is how a company should be ran. Unfortunatly, there are too many greedy executives that think "what's in it for me?" instead of "what can I do to help my staff?" Afterall, without staff, that employer would be out of business.

No. I am not a liberal. Nor am I thinking like one. I am thinking like an employer should.

[Karried]

In fact, there are several years he paid himself one dollar a year so his employees could support their families.

Sounds like a decent guy.. just like a Liberal. lol

[mranderson]

Sounds like a decent guy.. just like a Liberal. lol

Yes. He is. Unfortunatly, very soon "is" will be "was." Sorry about the going off topic. I was defending.

[Midtowner]

As you know very well, I am not a liberal. My dad taught me very early that a good employer protects his staff. He or she pays them a high wage, gives them a lot of benefits, and treats them like family. The good employer will sacrifice his or her lifestyle to ensure the well being of the employee and see to it they have a living wage and a job for life as long as they perform well.

He never got burned. In fact, former employees and family members of former employees (he sold the company when he retired) praise him as if he was among the greatest men on earth. He never sold or closed a location to put people out of work. He never laid anyone off so he or the other executives could reap the benefits. In fact, there are several years he paid himself one dollar a year so his employees could support their families. THAT is how a company should be ran. Unfortunatly, there are too many greedy executives that think "what's in it for me?" instead of "what can I do to help my staff?" Afterall, without staff, that employer would be out of business.

No. I am not a liberal. Nor am I thinking like one. I am thinking like an employer should.

How you pay your people should depend largely on what type of employees you're trying to attract.

On one hand, you have your average no-skilled blue collar employee. These can be found in warehouse stores, fast food, call centers, etc. With folks like that, you give them menial tasks, you provide strict supervised direction, you work off of the assumption that they are lazy, so you chastise them when they are not, and you pay them a piss poor wage. They are interchangable cogs in your machine. The only time you should consider paying those people better is when you are having a hard time attracting workers.

On the other hand, where you have white collar, or otherwise highly skilled workers, you should probably offer a decent variety of incentives to keep them around. For those types of workers, skill and experience is very important. Your people are not machines, there is something of an art to what they do. They are not easily replaceable. Therefore, you do what you must to keep them around, treat them like professionals, and hope they don't leave.

Of course, today's business environment is MUCH different from that which your father did business in. The employee moves very easily from job to job. No one retires at the same firm they started with -- it just doesn't happen anymore. You could TRY to overpay your people to keep them around, but most employers will tell you -- this doesn't really work. This is especially true when you as an employer have ever-changing needs. It will sometimes be necessary to cut entire divisions, relocate them, etc. You have no duty of loyalty to employees who are unprofitable to have.

Your goal as a business owner is to make money. The man who only pays himself $1.00 to work must have enough money not to have to worry about it or be getting paid in stock or dividends. No one works for free though.

You said "without the staff, the employer would be out of business." That's not true -- the employer can always find new staff, outsource, do whatever is in the best interest of his or her company. A much truer statement would be "Without the employer, the staff would not be employed [with that particular employer]."

Someone has to be the owner. Someone has to take that intial to grow that company. It is built on someone's shoulders. Without the Sam Waltons and Bill Gates of the world, where would we as a nation be?

[mranderson]

How you pay your people should depend largely on what type of employees you're trying to attract.

On one hand, you have your average no-skilled blue collar employee. These can be found in warehouse stores, fast food, call centers, etc. With folks like that, you give them menial tasks, you provide strict supervised direction, you work off of the assumption that they are lazy, so you chastise them when they are not, and you pay them a piss poor wage. They are interchangable cogs in your machine. The only time you should consider paying those people better is when you are having a hard time attracting workers.

On the other hand, where you have white collar, or otherwise highly skilled workers, you should probably offer a decent variety of incentives to keep them around. For those types of workers, skill and experience is very important. Your people are not machines, there is something of an art to what they do. They are not easily replaceable. Therefore, you do what you must to keep them around, treat them like professionals, and hope they don't leave.

Of course, today's business environment is MUCH different from that which your father did business in. The employee moves very easily from job to job. No one retires at the same firm they started with -- it just doesn't happen anymore. You could TRY to overpay your people to keep them around, but most employers will tell you -- this doesn't really work. This is especially true when you as an employer have ever-changing needs. It will sometimes be necessary to cut entire divisions, relocate them, etc. You have no duty of loyalty to employees who are unprofitable to have.

Your goal as a business owner is to make money. The man who only pays himself $1.00 to work must have enough money not to have to worry about it or be getting paid in stock or dividends. No one works for free though.

You said "without the staff, the employer would be out of business." That's not true -- the employer can always find new staff, outsource, do whatever is in the best interest of his or her company. A much truer statement would be "Without the employer, the staff would not be employed [with that particular employer]."

Someone has to be the owner. Someone has to take that intial to grow that company. It is built on someone's shoulders. Without the Sam Waltons and Bill Gates of the world, where would we as a nation be?

Granted. Some of the jobs you mentioned are filled with idiots. However. There are a lot of VERY intellegent and well educated people in them as well. Plus. The white collar jobs (call centers and most retail are white collar, by the way) have idiots as well. Many of them are brainwashed by the university and college professors into believing that crap the educator spews. Most of those educators have never been in the professons they teach. Note I said "MOST."

Yes. An employer could replace workers. However. The goal should be to retain staff and to gain loyalty. My dad and many men like him started from what today would be around $100.00 and grew their businesses to be worth millions of dollars. I do not see that happening today. Why? Lazy employees and uncaring employers. The lazy employees are caused by the uncaring employers who treat them like trash. An investment into THEIR (the employer) future and could care less about the welfare and future of the employee. It is statements like yours, Midtowner, that has caused most employees to care less, thus treating the consumer very rudely. Those employees are fired for no or very poor reasons or quit because they are treated like the bowel movements of farm animals. Sam Walton worked many years "for free." He had the morals to treat his staff like family. To his dying day, he lived in a small 2,000 or so square foot house, and drove a pickup that was barely running. Bill Gates worked for little or nothing for years. He lost that caring mentality just as most gazillionares have. They forgot what it was like to struggle. Most never had to.

Plus. "Outsourcing." All that does is take good jobs from good U.S. citizens. Why? So the employer can line his or her pockets with cash. If you treat employees well, like family, pay them a living wage, and keep the jobs in the United States where they belong, not only will you have a harder working work force, you will also be wealthier and have a happier and more loyal clientelle.

All of this came from a hard working man who, although came from wealth, has had to work hard, has been treated like cow dung by 99% of his employers, and had to pay higher prices because that "outsourcing" savings is not being passed to the consumer. I doubt very seriously if you, midtowner, have had to "get your hands dirty." Like many people of your generation and mine for that matter, you appear to have been very sheltered in the working community. Plus, your dad was a very well known attorney. I doubt he had it rough either. My dad, although nationally known for his craft, became that way late in life. He taught me the morals of a caring employer who thinks past "what's in it for me." That legacy will carry him to his grave... And beyond.

[Midtowner]

Actually, in HS and college I worked retail. 8 1/2 years at RadioShack, 1 year at The Sharper Image, a year and a half anchoring/reporting on teh University's TV news station (I had the Sharper Image job and the University job at the same time as RadioShack which I had for all but 1 year during HS and undergrad combined), and a short stint a substitute teacher.

Generally speaking, those jobs sound a lot like the ones you've had lately. So I guess by that standard, you could say I've had my hands dirty. Working at those jobs, I definitely understand what you're saying -- they make the mistake of hiring crappy people, paying them a terrible wage, and losing them quickly.

The thing is, they've definitely done the math -- it is cheaper to not pay your employees a decent salary than it is to lose the occasional sale or customer due to poor customer service. Also, most of those retail outfits really tend to restrict what their employees can say/do. At RadioShack, they even tried (unsuccessfully) to reduce our jobs to a script.

As good as I was, (I was almost always near the top in sales for my district) when I left my store, I don't think they ran any sales losses. I was a mere cog in the machine. Sure, I occasionally did something of note for the district (I ran an experimental concept thing for the company for a while), but I was generally replaceable. Everyone in that kind of job is replaceable.

I was pretty good at all of those jobs. I'm a really good salesperson. It was a good skill to learn, and I did alright up there until they started messing with our commission and spiffs. I wasn't bitching about not getting a 'living wage' (which is communist for "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs). I was working hard at school trying to better myself so that I could make more money -- I'm still doing that right now.

I don't think employers pay poorly due to bad employees, nor do I think employees are disloyal because of bad employers. The fact is that employers #1 goal is to make money for themselves by exploiting their employees. The fact is that an employee will almost always be able to find another employer to pay $.50/higher than their current job for the same work.

The accessibility of that information, and the ease of transitioning from job to job is what drives this. The only losers here are the ones who don't understand how the game is played.

Not surprisingly, it's a different world than it was 30 years ago.