7 responses to “Safeway phones Burlingamers”

1. al

   June 4, 2004

   No town makes planning decisions by referendum–it’s stupid because the issue is so complex and the plan would need to be described to voters IN DETAIL beyond what they would actually read! Duh.

   Safeway is being such a communal jerk. Why can’t they just listen to the 10 hours of public comment and redesign their store. No wonder their stock is down.

2. Jenn

   June 4, 2004

   It’s a shame that Safeway reps didn’t bother to come to the smart growth meeting last night. At least one was invited, as well as Mark Hudak. He’s a bright man; I think even they would have understood how much better their project could be, if they start from scratch with a different mind-set.

   I wonder if Safeway could pull off a mixed use project for that site? I think a well designed one could be really exciting, be a benefit to them and to the community. Too bad that question isn’t part of their survey……

3. Jack

   June 4, 2004

   The ballot would be worded in the most asinine way – as in do you want a new Safeway? Now that is a duh question! Lets hope that if it comes down to a ballot, the voters would find out the facts first and vote accordingly. But I am sure Safeway would not want the electorate to be well informed.

   At least this survey did not ask what we thought of Mangini or Galligan – as the school survey did!

4. Stephen

   June 4, 2004

   Their ‘extensive’ phone survey of Burlingame voters supposedly querying us on local issues.

   Questions include “Do we think things are going the right way in Burlingame?”, “Are you aware of the recent decision by the Council to reject Safeway’s project?”, “Did the council make the right decision?”, “What reasons do you believe influenced the Council in their decision (options include among others ‘political pressure from a vocal minority’)?”, “Which arguments against Safeway (size of store, lack of parking, takes away from local merchants etc) are compelling?”, “If these arguments were not true would you still think the council made the right decision?”, “If there was a ballot measure to let Safeway build a new store in Burlingame on the next November (presidential) election would you support it?”, “How good a job is Safeway, Lunardis, Mollie Stones, Albertsons doing?”, “How often have you shopped at Safeway’s in the past three months?”, “Do you think Burlingame needs a low cost grocery store?”

   Seems like a perfectly scientific and unbiased survey … not!

5. Jack

   June 4, 2004

   A ballot would be a smack in the face to our hard working planning commissioners and three members of the council who knew the facts, did their homework, talked to residents and voted against the project. Wonder how they feel about a ballot measure?

   Wasn’t it Inglewood who soundingly voted against a 60-acre Walmart? The vote was 60%-40% because the residents did not want to give up their property, their rights and their processes. This no-vote after Walmart spent one million dollars trying to “educate” the electorate! The voters did not like the way Walmart was trying to circumvent local officials by going through the back door.

6. rich grogan

   June 6, 2004

   This is a very interesting turn of events. Is this a case of “Safeway hedging their bet?” I think this issue poses some legal questions and unfortunately I do not have any answers. Does a ballot initiative provide Safeway with an avenue to do an “end run” on City Government as well as giving Safeway one more chance to try to ram their tired old plan down the throats of the residents of Burlingame? If the ballot measure is passed, does the plan, still, have to go before the Planning Commission and City Council? If the ballot measure is defeated does it mean that the Safeway Plan is a done deal or does Safeway still have the right to go before the Planning Commission and City Council, again?

   Safeway is trying too hard to get their tired old plan into place. If Safeway had made some simple size compromises early on, more than likely construction would already be underway. Because of their antics and questionable tactics, something does not smell right to me. The question that begs to be asked is: who has their hand out under the table?

   If you haven’t heard, there was an under age “sting operation” regarding the sale of alcohol to minors and of the major chains checked, guess what chain was the ONLY chain that was in gross violation of the law? Give up, O.K. I will tell you SAFEWAY; does this surprise anyone? Do we want such an irresponsible business in Burlingame?

7. jimmy

   June 9, 2004

   I hear the Safeway telephone survey was really one-sided in how it asked the questions. Stephen’s list above is pretty accurate, but some of the other questions guided people towards the answers Safeway wants even more. What a shame.