11 July 2006

South Carrollton/South Claiborne Walgreen's Redevelopment: One Neighborhood Citizen's Thoughts

A week and a half ago (28 June 2006), New Orleans City Council District A Councilperson Shelley Midura conducted a "town meeting" at the City Hall Council Chambers to address the proposed South Carrollton/South Claiborne Walgreen's-centered redevelopment. About fifty or so citizens were in attendance at this third such meeting and about twenty or so took the opportunity to air their views of the proposed project to those in attendance. Surprisingly, no Walgreen's representatives or lawyers nor the developer was at this meeting--or at least none of these if in attendance took the opportunity to present their opinions. The majority of those Orleanians that spoke were in opposition to the granting of the zoning variance and in opposition to the Walgreen's site plan currently under consideration. Those that did speak in favor of the zoning variance concentrated from the Fountainbleau neighborhood and their sentiment all echoed the same: they are dissatisfied with the abandoned and blighted property currently at the site and just want something productive--anything--to be redeveloped at such a key intersection within New Orleans. They just want the eyesore that has festered there for over seven years along with the related negative side effects (or perception of) of such blight to go away.

I agree with them completely--I want that blighted property made history as well and for the site to become commercially productive again (in shopping convenience for us residents of the Carrollton/Fountainbleau neighborhoods and for tax revenue and job generation for the City of New Orleans), but not at the cost of letting Walgreen's build whatever they want, how they want, not following the rules of a very carefully created overlay zoning district. The impetus--in my opinion--should be a grocery store at that site, not yet another Walgreen's--a corporation I don't think has done anything in the past in New Orleans to warrant giving an inch to. I'm wandering . . . the next post to address the "dangling carrot" of the grocery store strategy part of the story. To the point of this posting:

Scott Andrews lives several blocks lakeside from the site. He spoke in opposition to the current site plan and the possible granting of a zoning variance by the City Council. I thought he very effectively and passionately worded his concerns and his reasoning for his convictions on this matter. Courtesy of a word document via email from Scott, here's what he said:


"Having sat through and having participated in three town hall style meetings in two weeks, it is now time for all of us to sit back and analyze the information we have been presented with, both from the developers, and from the citizens of the neighborhoods that border and include the site in question.

On one side we have a developer, who has built a number of Walgreen's in the city, with various levels of success, and his attorney, who ironically is on the Garden District Association's Zoning Committee, dictating to the citizens of four different neighborhoods. They have presented a plan for a strategically prominent block, in a historic neighborhood, at the end of a historic streetcar line, across from a historic public park that breaks the zoning laws of the city, that does not respond to the surrounding architectural fabric of the neighborhoods it claims to want to serve, and looks like any other Walgreen's site one might find in suburbia (which is the antithesis of this site). They claim that their reason for requesting the variance is to allow for a grocery store which some people in the neighborhood want somewhere in their neighborhood. This despite the fact that the grocery store has not secured a lease for the site, has not secured licensing for their store, has not applied to the city for the numerous variances required to lawfully build on the site, and has not responded to the numerous concerns that citizens of the neighborhood have about the parking patterns on the site, these being the disproportionate amount of parking Walgreen's has on the site as compared to the grocery store, the two-way traffic pattern that separates the grocery from the Walgreen's and cuts across the block (which will hinder shoppers crossing from the Walgreen's lot on the corner to the grocery store site), or the partial annexation of a residential block for employee parking.

I have shown the site plan to numerous disinterested parties, both architects and layperson alike, and all have had the same reaction: "Who in their right mind would build a grocery store at the back of a lot, behind a Walgreen's, with little or no accessible parking?" They also, given the anonymity of the site plan, invariably ask "Where is this being proposed?", assuming it is a suburban site plan. When I tell them where it is, they are floored.

On the other side you have two sets of neighbors. Everyone that lives in the neighborhood is sick and tired of looking at the blight that has inhabited that corner for the last six years. That is a given and is universally shared. A large part of the responsibility for that must rest with the leaseholder of the property--Walgreen's. One group of neighbors is fed up with the blight, and sees a capitulation to the developer as their only chance to rid the block of the blight, and to maybe get a grocery store. I do not question their desire for a grocery store somewhere in the neighborhood, only the price they are willing to pay for it.The other, and may I opine the larger, group of neighbors realizes the significance of the Carrollton Overlay Zone to both their interests in the neighborhood and the interests of the city at large, and wants the setback rules of the overlay respected. I am in the latter category.

There is actually a third party involved in this as well. These are our neighbors in Mid City. It is no accident that representatives of Mid City have been at both meetings. They are watching the outcome of this, and will fight as hard, if not harder to protect the Carrollton Overlay in their area--it happened at the Sav-A-Center on Carrrollton, and will continue to be fought for.

This is the first major commercial development to be proposed in a flooded neighborhood on Carrollton Avenue since Hurricane Katrina. If we as a community allow the Overlay to be ignored by this developer in this instance, we will have to deal with this issue again and again each time a developer wants to put a parking lot in front of their establishment anywhere on Carrollton from the Riverbend to City Park. If we capitulate in this instance, we will not have a leg to stand on the next time a setback variance is proposed in the Carrollton Overlay.

Do not interpret this to mean that we as neighborhoods are intractable and anti-development. That is a too simplistic view to have on a very complicated matter. The development of this corner could be accomplished, with a little ingenuity and site design "know how", with a design solution that incorporates both a Walgreen's and a grocery store, and that follows the zoning setback laws of the Carrollton Overlay. The problem is that we are dealing with a developer whose attitude is "it's my way or the highway" or in this instance, continued blight.

I would personally like to thank Councilperson Midura, for her hard work on and dedication to this matter. We look forward to working with the City Hall in the next four years to make our neighborhood and indeed all neighborhoods in the city places that we are truly proud to call home."


Very well said, Scott. The bolding above is my emphasis. The grocery store hasn't secured a lease . . . Hasn't secured licensing . . . Hasn't applied for the variances they need . . . Hmmmmmmm. Those small technical details seem important, do they not????

I harbor no ill feelings towards those from Foutainbleau that came up to the podium and speak in favor of the project "as-is." Nearly all of them spoke with complete conviction and I know care, love, and value New Orleans as much as I and the others opposed to this "plop and drop" proposal do. Heck, they didn't bail on New Orleans post-KTMB--they want to be here. I think they've just been beaten down by the rotting shell the former National/Canal Villerie and K&B/Rite Aid has very purposely become over the last seven years. They are tired about talking about it. By unifiying together in oppostition of this site plan and forcing a working, to code, design solution, the Carrollton/Fountainbleau neighborhoods, Walgreen's, and (Insert Grocery Store Here) can all win. But in order for this to happen, our political leadership--the City Council--and the City Planning Commission--must be the ones to physically foster it.

TAGS: Katrina, New Orleans, NOLA, Walgreens, Shelley Midura, Carrollton, Urban Planning

26 Comments:

At July 12, 2006 2:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since the neighborhood residents will never approve any plan the developers will accept (nothing has changed since years before Katrina), it would seem to me we are at an impasse.

Now it would appear we can seize the land via eminent domain, the neighborhood can design our own retail with whatever plan we want and run it ourselves...

Until it goes out of business through poor management and we end up giving it over to green space and have to pay to have it mowed.

Enforcing zoning is all well and good, but it is possible that the zoning makes the property as unusable as Jay Batt is unemployable...

 
At July 12, 2006 4:40 AM, Blogger mominem said...

About twenty years ago I lived two blocks form there. I walked to the K&B and to the National often.

Neither was worth that much effort then, they were just close.

I now live in a flooded neighborhood. I could walk to my local Rite Aid pre-K. I would be willing to trade the derelict similar strip center I can see from my house for any working store.

For a long time now New Orleans has been developing a declining economic base and a rising political "tax".

 
At July 12, 2006 8:01 AM, Blogger Seymour D. Fair said...

Is it too much to ask for them to follow the law?????? The Carrollton Avenue Overlay Zone exists for a reason--to force site plans in a suitable urban nature, not one more suitable for suburgan sites. They can build their Walgreen's--JUST BUILD IT ACCORDING THE GUIDLINES OF THE LAW. Mominem, "I would be willing to trade the derelict similar strip center I can see from my house for any working store" is exactly how Walgreen's wants you to feel. This is why they've let the existing structure get to the embarrassing condition in which they continue to sit. Yep, they sure do care about our city and our neighborhoods.

 
At July 12, 2006 5:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, but it is too much to ask them to put the community before their profits. If it's not profitable to open a store within the zoning, they won't.

 
At July 12, 2006 11:08 PM, Blogger mominem said...

I don't understand the issue. Perhaps some one could try to explain it.

My observation is that is was a bad piece of Architecture 25 years ago. It is still bad piece of Architecture.

That is irrelevant, unless appearance is put before the needs of the community.

One of the articles posted here indicated that about 50 people showed up at a meeting about the project.

Let me ask a few questions.

Why so few?

How many people live within 300 feet of the project? (300 feet is the number generally accepted as the distance a person is willing to walk).

For how many people would this be the closest pharmacy/grocery?

If this site were so profitable.
Why, in the years the site was disused, didn't someone step in and buy it?

Where is the economic justification for your assertions?

Let me put my question simply;

If your don't like the existing arrangement and if you don't like the proposed arrangement.

WHAT DO YOU LIKE?

Just say no is not an option in this critical time.

 
At July 13, 2006 12:22 AM, Blogger Seymour D. Fair said...

mominem:

Well . . .

I just wrote a lengthy response, but blogger killed it.

An "in-progress" upcoming post will address your "WHAT DO YOU LIKE" question.

You bring up good points. Thanks.
Stay tuned.

 
At July 13, 2006 9:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am very troubled by this particular situation. On the one hand, I am all for the preservation of historic Carrollton. The charm of the oaks, the street cars, the architecture and of course our wonderful neighbors. All of these items are very much a concern for me and items in which I truly believe deserve our undivided attention.

On the other hand, I am deeply concerened with the rhetoric that a portion of the opposition to these projects has unleashed. I have visited blog site after blog site to read with great sadness that bloggers like Karen and Scott have turned this into something more. In fact, Karen shows her hand in her last post on her blog when she references Bryan Batt, the brother of former Councilman of District A, Jay Batt.

Seymour alludes to an in process post that I imagine will launch into concepts such as "our neighborhood deserves better" "Why can't they just obey the law?" and similar mantra.

I read with amazement these blogs and when I read them over and over again, I see the underlying theme that no one wants to admit or even address.

While there are some legitimate concerns raised in the opposition to these projects, that which is coming from the truly vocal opponents, the Karens, the Scotts, the Marilyns is not over the construction of these businesses but rather resentment of Jay Batt and everything that he stood for in the past 4 years. It is an attitude that "we won" and "it's our turn to have it our way" and "its our turn to be heard." It is a very devisive tone one that has pitted my neighborhood against an adjacent one.

The fact is that our city, and particularly our part of our city is on its knees and needs relief as soon as possible. While in an ideal world we should put master plans in place before any new development occurs, at this juncture, that is neither practical nor desireable. We need development. We need services. We need businesses to employ the neighbors among us that need jobs and need those jobs to be within walking distance from their homes. We need to see commerce taking place behind plate glass windows instead on sheets of plywood. We needed all of this yesterday, yet a very vocal minority is fighting this all the way.

I have had the opportunity to speak with some people within the City Council offices and they are convinced that Walgreens will be at that site one way or the other. Apparently, in the past months, in an effort to reach some consensus, there have been several conversations with Walgreens and the developers and Robert's and the end result is that a Walgreens will be constructed. They simply are loosing too much money on a monthly basis to stay closed any longer. Conventional wisdow says that even if they are forced to build on the corner, a site plan that might in fact hurt it sales, etc. The reduced sales will still be far less than the $300,000/yr that they are losing annually in rental payments. So here's the rub Karen, Scott, Seymour and all those others that don't seem to want to budge on this.

You can 1) continue on the tact you are on and get exactly what you don't want including a Walgreens that is built in accordance with the Carrollton Overlay, but that has no input from the neighbors, no provisos requiring them to do anything for the neighborhood and most important no grocery store or 2) go along with the variance, and make sure that there enough provisos in the approval that gives our neighborhood the protections that a grocery store will be built and that enough other protections that will keep this area clean and kept up and preserve the fabric of our great neighborhood.

Please give these ideas serious thought. It means a great deal to the future of our neighborhood!!!!

 
At July 13, 2006 10:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I live in the neighborhood (on the same side of Carrollton and Claiborne) and am opposed to Walgreens getting the variance to build their suburban box store.

I am also a personal friend of Jay Batt's, and worked hard to see that he was re-elected. My motives have nothing to do with a resentment of Jay, but rather for the responsible and attractive development at the corner.

Come on Anonymous...there is a design solution for everything. There are designs where a Walgreens and grocery can be built and adhere to the Overlay -- we have all seen them. Walgreens does beautiful designs all over the country when they respect neighborhoods and the zoning laws.

We in New Orleans are too quick to sacrafice these things for the quick win of another convenient drugstore and a few minimum wage jobs.

 
At July 13, 2006 10:49 AM, Blogger John Blutarsky said...

Anonymous,

Why are there only two options? Where is the 3rd option where Walgreens accepts the zoning laws and just builds their store?

Why should citizens of New Orleans have to sacrifice ANYTHING so that Walgreens can make the profits that it claims it can make by having a zoning variance?

What exactly has Walgreens done for New Orleans? I see that Shell Oil has sponsered Mardi Gras and Jazz Fest. Shell has also given EACH of their employees $1000 to donate to a Katrina related cause of THEIR choice. This may not make up for all of the damage the Shell has caused over the years but at least they are giving back; they are committed to New Orleans.

So, why can't Walgreens do one simple thing for us: Follow the Zoning Laws so that New Orleans doesn't turn into a parking lot and strip mall, i.e. Metairie.

 
At July 13, 2006 11:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous #2 & Bluto,

Look, I hear waht you're saying. However, to say that they are not following the zoning laws is patently incorrect. As it has been explained to me and from what I saw on the City Planning Commission website, the overlay regulations there is an appeal provision in the regulations.

Again, I am no student of zoning matters, but my guess would be that given the fact that there is an appeal process in place, the drafters of the overlay regulations must have recognized that it impossible to apply such broad regulations to every parcel of land effected. Accordingly, I do not think it is accurate that you characterize them as violating the zoning laws.

If you got a parking ticket that you didn't think was proper because of some particularities with signs or pavement marking or something, would you forego an appeal to the parking ticket board?

Again, lets be more selfish than saying "preserve our neighborhood by building on the corner." Let's be bolder than that and way more greedy and say: "Okay, you want to build there, then make sure a grocery store is also on the site, fix up this, fix up that, make the building look like this instead of that, donate this to that, help us with this, help our children with that, adopt this school, etc."

Let's take this for a spin and see what we can come up with.

Regards,

Anonymous #1

 
At July 13, 2006 2:05 PM, Blogger John Blutarsky said...

Anonymous #1,

"but my guess would be that given the fact that there is an appeal process in place, the drafters of the overlay regulations must have recognized that it impossible to apply such broad regulations to every parcel of land effected."

That's not quite what is going on here. You make it sound like the N.O. Planning Commision is trying to make the "appeal". What, you are talking about hear is called a Zoning Variance. Anyone who doesn't like what their property is zoned as can apply for a variance in the zoning. For instance, if you own a piece of property that is zoned single family residential but want it to be multi-family residential or commercial then you would apply for this variance to specially allow you ignore the zoning.

Zoning is determined by the city for specific reasons, mainly for neighborhood perservation and confinement of commercial and industrial business to certain areas so they don't disturb or destroy the fabric of the neighborhoods. The problem with granting variances, besides obviously harming the neighborhoods in which they lie, is that it starts opening the doors for other developers who will argue that "You let Walgreen's do it". So then business #2 gets a variance and then business #3 gets a variance and then possibly years later your whole zoning ordinace is not doing what it was designed to do; preserve the look, feel, and functionality of the city and it's neighborhoods.

In reply to your previous post:

1) The city is on it's knees and needs relief as soon as possible. - This is laughable. Sure, New Orleans is hurting but the notion that a Walgreens or even a Robert Market is going to save us is just silly.

2) While in an ideal world we should put master plans in place before any new development occurs, at this juncture, that is neither practical nor desireable. - This is the worst kind of thinking at a time like this. Now is the time when we need this most. Our city is rebuilding and it needs the laws enforced more than ever. Relaxing Zoning laws just because the city is vulnerable will only spur bad development. Sure, the city needs help as soon as possible but we will have to live with the consequences forever if we don't enforce the zoning laws. It's much more plausable for Walgreens to follow the Zoning overlay regulations.

3) Conventional wisdow says that even if they are forced to build on the corner, a site plan that might in fact hurt it sales, etc. -
I bet the studies that support this (if there are any) were done in suburban markets. Do the same study in an urban area and I bet you get the opposite results.

I don't understand why Walgreens is fighting this. If they did once ounce of research on the intersection of Carrolton/Claiborne then they would know that it has heavy pedestrian traffic. A building on the corner with an entrance will only tempt pedestrians to shop there. That's who they should be catering to, not just vehicular traffic.

 
At July 13, 2006 2:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bluto,

I respectfully disagree with a number of your statements, but most of all about the door on Carrollton. If you look at the regulations more closely, you will see that there is nothing in them that requires a door on Carrollton Avenue. I believe Walgreens, given that they did it on Claiborne and Napoleon, will build on the corner without a door at the corner and creat a huge "dead space" with two blank walls. How will that look? Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Please look at the regulations carefully.

Any. #1

 
At July 13, 2006 3:21 PM, Blogger John Blutarsky said...

Anon#1,

I never said it was part of the overlay regulation. It only makes sense to put a door on the corner to attract pedestrians. Common sense in an urban setting. The design at Napoleon is flawed and I'd be willing to bet, as a consequence, that they have less pedestrian traffic because of it. I'm not sure what "dead space" you're talking about. I've seen many businesses sucessfully design their stores with multiple entrances. I see no reason why Wallgreens can't do the same thing. I think this is just a stubborness that Walgreens has ingrained in their corporate philosophy. They have a formula that works well in many other markets and think that it has to be the same here in order to succeed.

If they have to have a parking lot in front of the store then why not just reopen the Earhart/Carrollton location?

 
At July 13, 2006 5:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anyone checked out zoning in ,say, The Garden District?.
Why is it that the people who want to force bad design and poor planning always go for the poorer Neighborhoods..
I can't imagine this same Site plan being proposed for St. Charles.

The answer seems to be that the Canal Villerie site is a blighted mess, but I ask who left the mess?

 
At July 13, 2006 7:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

actually, there is a walgreens on st. charles in the lower garden district that has almost the same plan, it's on st. charles and josephine i believe. it's not built to the corner, it has a parking lot on the corner instead.

i do agree though that walgreens should adhere to the carrollton overlay.

 
At July 14, 2006 9:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Way to go Karen!!!!! I looks like you liked our signs soo much that your organization actually scraped together enough money to have some signs made up. Congratulations!!!! YOu guys are really on the map now.

 
At July 14, 2006 11:14 AM, Anonymous Karen said...

Thanks! Your support is valuable to us.

 
At July 14, 2006 11:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:
"Since the neighborhood residents will never approve any plan the developers will accept (nothing has changed since years before Katrina), it would seem to me we are at an impasse."

That's a pessimistic way to look at it. The neighborhood residents have offered a number of different options that could be profitable for developers/Walgreens corporation. The Walgreens has worked with other cities to build sites that respect the neighborhoods and the wishes of the their customers. Walgreens has never done this without a fight. So we are where we are, trying to wrestle them to the ground. But if you don't ask (and with Walgreens ask repeatedly) you get what you deserve - a poor design. After everything we New Orleanians have been through and the hard work we are doing to come back, we deserve better. It's a shame we need to fight to get it. If Walgreens can't be profitable on the 7th busiest intersection in the city then shame on them.

 
At July 14, 2006 12:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous Wrote:
"Again, lets be more selfish than saying "preserve our neighborhood by building on the corner." Let's be bolder than that and way more greedy and say: "Okay, you want to build there, then make sure a grocery store is also on the site, fix up this, fix up that, make the building look like this instead of that, donate this to that, help us with this, help our children with that, adopt this school, etc." "



Oh you mean like Fountainebleau did when they as "the neighborhood" in a the CPC documents sold the rest of Carrollton and New Orleans out by saying they wanted Walgreens to adopt the Fountainbleau Arch and plant pansies and fund their block parties? Nah, all we are asking for is for them to adhere to the zoning ordinance without the variance. Sure they can ask for variances - not 1 or 2, but 10 or more and the CPC can say No once and then curiously change their mind and the City Council, right before an election, can say Yes once and then change their mind and we as citizens have a right to protest and a right to ask that the laws be upheld. Having an awake and active citizenry sucks doesn't it?

 
At July 14, 2006 12:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous Wrote:
"Apparently, in the past months, in an effort to reach some consensus, there have been several conversations with Walgreens and the developers and Robert's and the end result is that a Walgreens will be constructed. They simply are loosing too much money on a monthly basis to stay closed any longer. Conventional wisdow says that even if they are forced to build on the corner, a site plan that might in fact hurt it sales, etc. The reduced sales will still be far less than the $300,000/yr that they are losing annually in rental payments. "

Hold the phone!
They have been loosing money for the past 7 or 8 years and they have no one to blame but themselves for that.
You mean to tell me that you are asking the citizens of New Orleans who have lost loved ones and irreplaceable memories and whole sections of their city to FEEL SORRY for a VERY LARGE CORPORATION that KNEW EXACTLY what it was getting into when is signed the lease? They pays their $$$, they takes their chances. Like I said before, if Walgreens can't make profit on the 7th largest intersection in the city OUT OF A CARDBOARD BOX! then shame on them.

And shame on you too.

 
At July 14, 2006 2:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't worry Karen,
Those comments about the signs are classist and elitist, and quite frankly snobbery does not look good on anybody. If the person who made those comments were well brought up, they would realize that to put someone down for the amount of money they do or do not have is the height of bad manners. They showed themselves for the pitiful guttersnipes that they are. You should feel proud.

 
At July 14, 2006 4:09 PM, Blogger John Blutarsky said...

Hey, if the signs you're referring to are the sheets hanging on the old K&B, good job! However, you might want to duct tape some small rocks or pieces of brick to the bottom to help weigh it down. The wind was whipping them around when I passed this afternoon and I couldn't read much of it.

 
At July 15, 2006 10:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I saw some photos of those sheets that were really well done

www.b.rox.com

 
At July 21, 2006 12:38 PM, Anonymous Morticia Addams 7 said...

John Blutarsky wrote: "So, why can't Walgreens do one simple thing for us: Follow the Zoning Laws so that New Orleans doesn't turn into a parking lot and strip mall, i.e. Metairie."

The comment from Blutasky's post is snooty and mean. I can't stand the way I happened to have lived for 18 years in Metairie. Our little neighbourhood is friendly, lovely to walk around in and people take very good care of our humble homes. Our houses may not be as old and fancy as some of yours are, but that's no reason to disparage an area with a stereotype. There are strip malls in Metaire, but most people don't live on Veteran's Blvd.

To address the topic at hand, I am very familiar with your neighbourhood, and had long wondered how you get along with no good grocer within an easy distance. It seems to me that you need a grocer and a pharmacy. If I were you all, I wouldn't be so worked up about a parking lot. Walgreen's had built a very nice store on the corner of W. Metairie and David Dr. It was on the site of a defunct old Chevron station. It was an asset to our neighbourhood.

In your place, I'd want Walgreens to build an attractive store and make sure there's appropriate landscaping to soften the parking lot. Walgreen's needs a functional parking lot. And your neighbourhood needs a grocer.

 
At July 21, 2006 3:20 PM, Blogger John Blutarsky said...

Moticia,

I apologize for the blanket remark about Metairie. It was meant to be in reference to the commercial development in Jefferson Parish, not the residential areas like your neighborhood.

There are lots of unattractive commercial developments in both Orleans and Jefferson Parishes. But, I'm sure we both agree that Metairie has the majority of this. And with good reason: it's easy for corporations to build whatever they want wherever they want. It's the lax zoning and architectural laws permit this kind of ugly sprawl. Imagine if in 1970 Jefferson Parish passed zoning requirements of required landscaping, architectural standards and commercial property setbacks. Veterans, Causway, David, Clereview, Williams, Airline Hwy, and Jefferson Hwy would all be vastly different. It might even be aesthetic. I might even shop at Toys-R-Us if this kind of development had taken place. But until then, I'll be happy shopping at the Magic Box on Magazine St despite the smaller selection.

 
At July 21, 2006 3:21 PM, Blogger John Blutarsky said...

my apologies again, that's supposed to be Morticia, not Moticia.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home