McCandless residents voice opposition to Wal-Mart plan
Customers shop at Wal-Mart in Bristol, Bucks County, on Friday, July 12, 2013.
Photo by AP
About 120 people jammed into McCandless Town Hall on Monday night, many to voice their opposition to Wal-Mart's plans to build a supercenter on Blazier Drive.
“Wal-Mart has stated publicly they would not move into a community where they are not welcome,” resident Kris Ruffalo said during the meeting. “What will it take to let you know you are not welcome?”
Rita Martin, a retired schoolteacher, was collecting signatures on a petition to persuade council members to deny Wal-Mart's plans.
“They don't live here. We do,” Martin told council members. “This is not over. We're not giving up yet.”
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. wants to build a 150,000-square-foot supercenter on 23 acres in the shopping center between Blazier's intersections with Ingomar and McKnight roads.
The store would have a grocery store, auto center and drive-thru pharmacy.
On July 1, the McCandless Planning Commission voted, 6-0, with Dr. James Childress absent, to recommend that council approve land development and site consolidation plans for the store, but several commissioners said they were concerned about traffic problems that the business could cause.
Wal-Mart officials told residents that it wants to widen traffic lanes and establish designated turning lanes at all entrances to the supercenter.
“We want customers to feel comfortable with shopping,” Bill Wertz, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said outside the meeting room. “It's not in anybody's convenience to have traffic snarls.”
Council is scheduled to vote on the proposal on July 28.
Ed Phillipps is a freelance writer for Trib Total Media.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.