Bruce -- you are SO right.

Lancaster is in desperate need of some tax revenue - end of story. With 60% of the property in town tax-exempt, this is the reality.

I see through Mr DiGeronimo, he is just p.o'ed Wal Mart didn't buy the land from him. He has his OWN personal, financial interests in mind, not what is best for Leominster or Lancaster. Go Home! Go try and find your 1.3 million for your library.

It's to bad the same few people who don't even live in Lancaster have to stick there noses in your town bussiness. Lancaster residents watch out Mr Degeronimo wasn't truthful to his own city. Well knowing he had a deal to sell to Hannaford's. Never said a word till after the court hearings. For his own personal gain. Guess he also forgot about the low wages he paid his employes. Wish I could have a job making $17.00 hr. Once Walmart was mentioned coming to Lancaster how come the same lawyer who fought it in Leominster was there. Mr Degeronimo again??? Who paid for this lawyer to come? People if you want Walmart in town check out the people who don't and see who the money is coming from Mr Degeronimo??? Look at Leominster now. If walmart would have come there be no fighting over how to come up with 1.3 mil for the libary. Bet they would of helped the town.

Bravo, uncle "a"!!!

Hey, boys and girls I think I have finally figured this out. Instead of calling this WALMART SUPERSTORE what do you say we call it VICTORY MARKET SUPERSTORE? It seems that anything with the name WALMART is dismissed without any intelligent thought at all. Maybe it's all in the name. Wadda you think?

From what I've heard,the Wal-Mart project is a long ways off, if ever, due to legal action being taken to stop the process. I can't see why we need 2 Wal-Mart stores in the same area, unless they
are going to close the Lunenburg Wal-Mart if the Super Wal-Mart opens in Lancaster. Wal-Mart is well known for this tactic, open up a Super Wal-Mart, then close down the nearest
"conventional" Wal-Mart.

Pat

Absolutely! Funny, I don't really Leominster consulting with Lancaster over any of their new projects...

Any one from Lancaster who may be reading this ought to check out the old Memorial School site behind the town library. It is an absolute travesty that the land and the school look like an an abandoned ghetto somewhere in the inner city. Shame on Lancaster! We need some tax relief!! I can imagine the outrage if that was located on Main St., and everyone had to drive by it -- then maybe more would support some retail development in town. The town needs some recreation space for more sports fields, a town playground, tennis courts (the courts down at the Memorial school are torn down and depressing), well there is the land, being wasted and the only action it sees is vandalism.

You are absolutely right, Tom. It is a public forum. And my opinion is that it's time to let the people of Lancaster run their own business and make their own decisions without a lot of interference from their neighbors.

Isn't that what this forum is for? To voice our opinions? You move on to something else! It is an important issue to the tax paying residents of Lancaster, and apparently to residents of Leominster that are nearby.

Every Tom, Dick and David has to throw in their 2 cents regarding the proposed Walmart. So on and on it goes. Suck it up, give it a rest, and move on to something else. There are certainly plenty of issues that are much more pressing.

I'm for a Walmart in Lancaster.

$17/hour is not bad pay for working at Wal Mart, in my opinion. I would say leave it up to the prospective employee whether or not they are comfortable with the salary cap.

do u know wal mart has capped the hourly wages. do u realy want a store where the max pay an hourly can get is less than 17 dollars.no matter how long they are employeed.

Lancaster residents should beware!
Anytime you have the previous owners of Victory Markets sticking their nose and ample dollars into your business it is for personal gain or to protect what they have already.
How do you folks think they became so wealthy in the first place?
The democratic process has taken place. The majority of constituents have voted the zoning and Wal-Mart is part of that.
If Lancaster does not bring in business to help pay taxes, and jobs that will support the Lancaster business community, then all those dollars will be flowing out of Lancaster.
Who will then be forced to pay for infrastucture upgrades and repair?
Senior citizens and the disabled are on fixed incomes and unable to take on increases in taxes.
Will you force these people out of their homes and have them move to other comminities or nursing homes?
Of course there are those established families and developers that would love to see that happen. They can then purchase that land and with thier considerable financial means, influence the decisions that will enable them to become even more wealthy.

What "local business" is this proposed Wal Mart going to "destroy"? Target up the road? I doubt it. There are no "local" non franchise stores any more -- it is just a fact.

An earlier poster stated that the industry/retail ought to be built on land zoned for industry, not in a "rural" area. This spot IS Lancasters industrial zoned land! I do not consider property with a crystal clear view of RT 2 "rural" whatsoever.

Walmart is going to destroy local business. It is going to destroy 4 jobs for every one it creates. And those that it creates, are going to stink.

Regarding the traffic survey, I wonder what Mr. DeGeronimo's reaction would have been if all the proposed traffic was headed toward his former stores?

People are acting as if the new Walmart will be built right in the middle of Lancaster next to the historic shurch on the green. It isn't!! It isn't even going to be in sight of most Lancaster residents. It's going to be right off the highway, almost out of Lancaster, and will not be the eyesore that many people seem to think.

When overhead is increased, product and service price is increased.

Agreed. At least that's true in a typical economic environment. The current environment is anything but typical and Wal Mart is at the center of this sea change.

Traditional economics acknowledges rising wages and rising prices as side effects of an expanding economy.

Today's environment is characterized mainly by stagnant wages and unstoppable price inflation. While corporate profits are through the roof, those of us that pull a paycheck are not keeping up.

Wal Mart controls it's overhead by dictating prices to it's suppliers, importing mainly cheap foreign products over local products, and keeping it's wages at near poverty levels. Not only are these profits bypassing our local economy, they are going overseas at the expense of all Americans. Wal Mart alone is responsible for 10% of our trade deficit with China.

Forcing a company to pay it's employees a certain hourly rate will keep companies away from an area unless they can sell their products at an inflated price.

Than so be it. Wal Mart's effect on the local economy is equivalent or worse than the effect of illegal immigrant labor. We worry that illegal immigrants drive wages down with an influx of labor willing to undercut prevailing wages. We seem to worry about the effect illegal labor has on our social services like housing and health care while Wal Mart is proven to have exactly the same effect. Why let a multi-billion dollar corporation get away with this if we are up in arms against the same result from illegal labor?

In Addition, Wal Mart uses heavy handed tactics to crack down on labor organization measures that would improve the working conditions for local employees. Wal Mart has been known to shut down departments that succeed in labor organization, going so far as to publish managerial handbooks to alert headquarters when labor orgainzation symptoms arise.

In 2000, when a small meatcutting department successfully organized a union at a Wal-Mart store in Texas, Wal-Mart responded a week later by announcing the phase-out of its in-store meatcutting company-wide.

Wage earners deserve better than that. A price increase of 1 cent would cover a $10 hourly wage for all of Wal Mart's employees.

Honestly if you think forcing businesses to pay higher wages will reduce crime in an already bad area you are mistaken.

Chicago mandated living wage ordinance only for business with certain criteria, allowing local business to continue as before. I believe Belmont has a similar ordinance.

As I've said, there is no single silver bullet to reduce crime. But it is becoming clear (especially now) that while a concerted effort and a combination of a wide variety of programs can make a difference, no single action will. I hope that when we do get serious about crime, we do not neglect the socio-economic aspect that addresses the root cause. Income inequality is a major factor in the root causes of crime, and I hope to see a day when it is addressed.

The bottom line is this:

Wage earners in America, by recent law changes, are bound to a strict social contract with corporate america. We must pay off our debts -- no longer allowed the legal shelter of chapter 11 banckruptcy -- although corporations can still use this measure. We are paying an ever increasing portion of health care costs. We are the first generation since the Great Depression to be fully funding our own pensions. Our children will not know what a pension is. The tax burden falls upon those of lower incomes to greater degrees each decade.

I do not believe it is asking too much that wage earners are allowed to earn enough to honor the obligations we are now held to. Especially employees of corporations making upwards of 6 billion in profits yearly.

Many of us grew up in poverty. That does not give us the right to justify doing nothing to improve wages and working conditions for our neighbors... especially if we are in a position where we can make a difference.

I agree with the idea, however I don't agree that mandating higher wages for private companies is the way to do it. When overhead is increased, product and service price is increased.

Forcing a company to pay it's employees a certain hourly rate will keep companies away from an area unless they can sell their products at an inflated price.

Don't get me wrong I want everyone afforded the same opportunities we had, but I don't think mandatory wage increases is the way to do it.

Honestly if you think forcing businesses to pay higher wages will reduce crime in an already bad area you are mistaken.

poverty doesn't lead to crime, criminals lead to crime...

Living in poverty didn't make me or my family criminals. I love the excuse for the oppressed though.

Derek, your statement implies that you think criminals are born that way. I find the prospect absurd. Are you suggesting eugenics as a measure to prevent crime?

Oversimplistic slogans do not make an ill-informed opinion any more true. Do your homework. A simple google search will show you that there is a scientific consensus about the correlation between income inequity and crime.

Many of us grew up in poverty. That does not give us the right to justify doing nothing to improve wages and working conditions for our neighbors... especially if we are in a position where we can make a difference.

When I hear someone criticize the idea of improving the standard of living for poor wage earners in the region, equating it to "making excuses for criminals", I cannot help but question their motives.

I don't want to see this area become a heavily policed tinderbox with a large population of economic underclass. I'd much rather see a region that thrives and grows and prospers with more opportunity for social mobility. The kind of atmosphere we enjoyed when we worked our way out of poverty and into the middle class.

Otherwise, you can increase your tax contributions every year to cover the costs of an ever growing police force to escort you through crime-ridden streets every day. Which would you prefer?

>The struggle against poverty is what leads to the crime

No, poverty doesn't lead to crime, criminals lead to crime...

Living in poverty didn't make me or my family criminals. I love the excuse for the oppressed though. I'm sure it makes you sleep better at night.

I am so amazed that whenever a wal-mart wants to build anywhere in this area, the same people show up to oppose. DiGeronimo and the guy from Greenfield. People don't you see they have thier own agenda. They don'tcare about Lancaster or Leominster, they just oppose Wal-Mart. If the Wal-Mart had been builtin Leominster, IO think perhaps mr. DiGeronimo'sdeal with Hannaford would of never happened. To go from Leominster to Lunenburg along rt. 13 is a nightmare, traffic wise. I would loveto be able to pay less for the food I haveto buy. There is no doubt that the bottom line is a lower billl at Wal-Mart. With the price of gas now, I need to save money somewhere. Wal-Mart gives alot back to the community in charitable ways. Please don't listen to these nay sayers who have their own agenda and do not care about the good peopled of Lancaster or Leominster. I live in Leominster andwas very disappointed when this small group of peopledecided what was good for Leominster. All of us who believe in Wal-Mart have to show our face at thesae meetings andvoice our opinions. WE WANT LOWER PRICES , WE WANT WAL-MART.

Scientific studies have repeatedly found a high correlation between income inequality and higher crime rates.

Have you seen the crime rate in Chicago?

The article said Wal Mart would be willing to donate to town causes. What if the town cause is a prevailing wage ordinance that would allow employees some relief from working poverty? This is what they are doing in Chicago.

"...a City Council committee on Wednesday advanced a controversial ordinance that would set a minimum wage for employees of Wal-Mart and other "big box" retailers in Chicago.

...

"The ordinance mandates a $10 minimum hourly wage and $3 an hour in fringe benefits, with an annual cost-of-living escalator for each."

...

"I think this sends a frightening message to business," John Bisio, Wal-Mart's Midwest director of community affairs, said after the meeting. "It is wildly discriminatory and comes at the expense of Chicago customers."

"Wal-Mart was planning up to 20 Chicago stores over the next five to 10 years, but "why should any business, especially one with such razor-thin margins, subject itself to a marketplace that discriminates and imposes standards that put it at a competitive disadvantage?" Bisio said."

"Dennis Gannon, president of the Chicago Federation of Labor, applauded the vote.

"This is not about unions," he said. "It is a community issue. We are in collaboration ... to do the best we can with people who are struggling."

..

"they have discovered the buying power of urban density," said Ald. Mary Ann Smith (48th).

"And the Wal-Marts of the corporate world should be required to pay decent wages "because they can afford to do it," she asserted. "Look at the kind of profits they are raking in."

"The committee advanced the ordinance on a vote of 15-6."

The cost of living in this area is very high. There are too many working poor. The strugle against poverty is what leads to the crime we have been seeing way too much of lately. I have seen calls to increase police patrols, but this only increases the pressure. a fair prevailing wage ordinance would release some of that pressure in a positive way and provide a true economic benefit for Lancaster and the community at large.

We could to well to take a page from the book of Chicago's city council and seize this opportunity to cultivate an acceptable standard of living in our community.

Who wants a Wal-Mart in their town anyway? If I lived within 200 yards of the proposed area, I would get written petitions to justify my outrage. Leave these companies to the developmental areas of town, they are called "commercial and idustrial areas", NOT rural communities. Where people live and work should not be within the same neighborhood. Also, i've driven by the area many times, and hate to see nature ripped apart to form a parking lot. Especially considering there are 2 walmarts close by...one in lunenburg and one in gardner. Being too lazy to drive to another walmart is not justification enough to build another close by. If they want out, the neighborhood need to write up a petition! This still works believe it or not.

I agree Daisy. The residents of Lancaster should be able to vote on the issue. It is a large project that will affect their quality of life.

I think that only Lancaster residents have the right to accept or reject Walmart. I do believe their are some groups that are opposed to any Walmart anywhere with their personal vendettas against the corporation. Lancaster residents who are concerned need to attend these meetings and discuss with Walmart representatives their issues and concerns.

Why should folks that live in any town except Lancaster feel that they have the right to dictate to the folks in Lancaster how they should run their town? That is exactly the point ... there is a large group of Wal*Mart haters and they are united just waiting for the next announcemnet of a new Wal*Mart. They are united in their ignorance and try to run Wal*Mart out of every town... whether they live there or not. They are very ignorant of the good Wal*Mart does for a town ... the just simply hate Wal*Mart. After a certain local grocer sells out to a LARGE grocery store he turns and attacks Wal*Mart ... c'mon now we can see through you
Mr DiGeronimo. Lancaster be smart and beware of the Wal*Mart haters.

No -- I personnally don't shop much at WalMart any more. I prefer going out of my way -- from Fitchburg to Gardner -- to shop at Ocean State Job Lot and Big Lots -- than to go to Walmart. They're not all they think they are -- I don't recall the last time I was ever greeted on my way in. They'd just as soon throttle you if you walk in with a bag. One greeter once got so upset with me because I did not need a shopping cart -- so she pushed it at me and nearly hit me with it. I told her that the precription I was going to pick up just wasn't that heavy!

If I need a large ticket item I head to WalMart in Amherst, N.H. where shopping is tax-free.

Between the overload of box-size stores and tons of condos being built in the area, one could easily draw the conclusion that open spaces around here are not welcome.

To quote another writer "Unfortunately opponents who live in Leominster will have little to say in the project" HELLO why should folks that live in Leominster feel that they have the right to dictate to the folks in any other town how they should run their town? Should those of us that live in Leominster ask the people in Lancaster if they approve of us putting in condo units all over Leominster? Of course not. Leominster officials dropped the ball. Let's hope that the Lancaster selectmen have more backbone.

I oppose the Wal-Mart project for the same reasons that Mr. DiGeronimo laid out in your article. Big-box retailers and chain stores take money out of our local economy, and do not provide workers with quality jobs or wages.

Unfortunately, opponents who live in Leominster will have little say in the project, and will not have credible advocates among city leaders. Mayor Mazzarella gave up all credibility on the issue of competition when he held up the sewer agreement the on the grounds that the plan to build a Target in Lancaster would harm businesses at Searstown/Whitney Field, then determined that the project was OK after all once it was moved across rte. 2 to Orchard Hill Park.

Similarly, he and city officials cannot cite traffic concerns with any credibility since the traffic studies for the proposed development at rtes. 117 and 190 did not include the impact to traffic in Lancaster, as though shoppers from Lancaster, Clinton and Bolton would not come to shop. Mr. Pacheco is absolutely correct in his assessement of Leominster's indifference towards its neighbors.

It would be nice if those of us living in Leominster and opposing the project could count on our city leaders to effectively oppose the plan on our behalf, but they have cast their lot with the national chains and cannot credibly argue against the development.