Left In Lowell

Middlesex Village and the Wallgreen Saga

23 Responses to “Middlesex Village and the Wallgreen Saga”

1. K-R-S Says:
   January 13th, 2010 at 11:16 pm

   as a resident of Pawtucketville, that has to routinely navigate that debacle, which is the Wood/ Middlesex St. intersection..this is a horrible plan. Not withstanding (as I understand it) , a certain former CM was engaged by this company to lobby the last council to bring this forward, puts a sour taste in my mouth.
   I’ve not spoken with one member of the PCC that has been in favor of this plan and clearly the Highlands Neighborhood Group is not in favor. VOTE IT DOWN.
   This is a quality of life issue. If this city is going to move forward with improving that business district, then do it correctly with smart, long range planning goals, not with short sightedness.

2. Bob Forrant Says:
   January 14th, 2010 at 6:51 am

   Lets think for a second if the proposed drug store was going to go in on the corner where Cobblestones is right now or over where Nesmith House now stands on Andover Street. I can hear the howls now.

   It is dumb to say that planning and growing the tax base requires bending over every time another chain shows up in Lowell and says close some streets and sell me some land. The Council and Planning Board should serve neighborhood interests and building another box on the proposed site is an insult to the neighborhood’s intelligence.

   Interesting to see Bud C opposing this, yet he cheer leaded all the way the recent imposition of two big box retailers into city neighborhoodsas I recall. Consistency is required here folks - and a long-term strategy to think about how to grow the tax base AND jobs,

   If the council and planning board want to grow the tax base stop allowing big box retailers and their close twins, all-purpose drug stores, to come into neighborhoods and chip away at their quality of life and seriously develop a long-term blueprint for meaningful job creation in the city and region. Call on UMass Lowell and Middlesex CC to get involved with this too.

   Lowell and the region need well paying jobs and this will only happen if their is leadership to make ithappen. For me another drug store there is no dif. than when the city allowed developers to puy numerous ugly apt blocks into neighborhoods all over the city on tiny patches of land. Unsightly buildings to add chump change to the tax base is not a substitute for intelligent development.

   Why not put a Dunkin drive-thru in the middle of every bridge crossing the Merrimack - that ouught to bring in some revenue too?

   And, what happened to the new councilors campaign pledges to listen to and care about the neighborhood???

3. Angela Says:
   January 14th, 2010 at 6:52 am

   Why do we need a Walgreens there anyway, when there is already a CVS and Rite Aid in that plaza duking it out?

4. K-R-S Says:
   January 14th, 2010 at 6:57 am

   I might also add, that commercial space opposite the corner (Wood & Middlesex) where Walgreens wants to put a store is also in the process of being developed..

5. Paul@01852 Says:
   January 14th, 2010 at 6:59 am

   I must say I agree with KRS in every regard including being a twice-a-day commuter of that neighborhood myself. There is no earthly reason (except greed) for putting another drug store there. There is already within sight of that lot a RiteAide and a CVS. The owners and stockholders of Walgreens (AKA Walmart!) do not live in the neighborhood nor do they have to navigate that poorly designed intersection. If I had my druthers I would not only prevent Walgreens from developing but tear down CVS and the entire Demoulas plaza including RiteAide and put housing there! And anyone who whines “Where will I shop?” I will send a few blocks up Wood/Westford St to CHELMSFORD. Let Chelmsford deal with the congestion!

6. K-R-S Says:
   January 14th, 2010 at 7:42 am

   **An Anon just posted with regard to Bedford Ave. I had to delete it, per LiL rules..please apply a moniker to your post and would be happy to moderate**

7. tim Says:
   January 14th, 2010 at 9:05 am

   Seems to me the only reason Walgreen would want to place a store there is to put either the CVS or the Riteaid out of business; therefor nulling out any potential increase in tax revenue.

8. K-R-S Says:
   January 14th, 2010 at 9:21 am

   Ned over at Mr Mill City has got a great post on this issue..
   http://mrmillcity.com/2010/01/13/walgreens-are-you-kidding-me/#comment-2128

9. nextyearishere Says:
   January 14th, 2010 at 10:02 am

   That area is way over capacity with traffic, and development continues to eat into the neighborhood. According to a recent article, the intersection of Middlesex and Wood streets is listed as the third worst in the State.

   http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/16903112/detail.html

   The proponents will argue that Walgreens will hope to take advantage of the traffic that is already in that neighborhood, and won’t significantly increase the traffic with their development. But even if that is true, the turning traffic will exacerbate the already impossible situation. They plan to add a left-turn lane on Middlesex street heading east for entry to Walgreens, but will they also widen the road to accomodate that extra lane? What about left-turning traffic exiting the relocated Edwards street? And the second entrance/exit will be right-turn only, but will that always be obeyed, and will the exiting traffic try to cross over the lane to make a left-turn onto Wood street sometimes? The change will be a complication to an overstressed traffic system even if no more vehicles travel through the area.

   As for economic development, there is none. If it does get approved, there should be no TIF. So the only interest the City may have financially is increased tax base. However, that may be reduced by the loss of commercial base with the nearby competitors and certainly with the loss of the current residential tax base in the area. And during the time of removal of the housing and the completion of the commercial unit there will be virtually no tax base from that area.

   But the overriding reason it should be rejected is the encroachment on the quality of life of the long-term residents of the nearby streets. Let’s hope the council recognizes that the “greater good” (which is highly questionable in this case) should not tramp on the individual rights of its citizens. Maybe in some cases such development cannot be stopped, but moving a street to accommodate it is a step too far.

10. Dan Murphy Says:
    January 14th, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Bob,

    No roll call vote has been taken yet. Perhaps you should wait for that until judging individual councilors.

11. Mimi Says:
    January 14th, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    I have just sent an e-mail to the entire City Council asking them not to accept the order “to vacate Edward Street.” I would strongly suggest that others contact them also and let them know that the opposition is not limited to Middlesex Village.

    And of course, those who are in favor can speak up also and identify themselves.

12. Paul Belley Says:
    January 14th, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Yes Walgreens will increase tax revenue for the city but at what cost to the resident,s. How many asprin do we need? And why are we allowing this to be built on a flood plain? For what it’s worth I would not vote in favor.

13. BigDog Says:
    January 14th, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Bob Forrant, the cheerleading Bud did was for a Target store (assuming that’s what you’re reeferring to) to go to a section that had already been in existance. So how’s that a fair comparisson to the Walgreen’s saga?

    Simply put this is a huge waste of time for the city and it’s a terrible undertaking….especially to the people in that area. However, there are residents in that area who had become overcome by the greed factor. Walgreen’s I hear…had offered mega bucks to some people for their houses…and they ran with it. So in some cases the residents got screwed by their own neighbors!

    Not sure where Bob is from, but maybe he’d welcome a major upheaval in his neighborhood to grow the tax base and bring in the new jobs? Hmmmm I wonder…

14. Bob Forrant Says:
    January 14th, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    DM - just trying to keep everyone honest here - if the shoe fits! I guess I missed the times the other night when other councilors sided with Mayor Bud???

15. K-R-S Says:
    January 14th, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    To Bob..none openly..

16. Dan Murphy Says:
    January 14th, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    Bob,

    I don’t like the tenor of your comments or the suggestion that someone is being dishonest. The debate should and will take place next week when the vote occurs. If you have concerns about how an individual councilor will vote, I suggest you speak with them directly instead of making assumptions as to how he/she would vote or what he/she is thinking.

17. Bob Forrant Says:
    January 14th, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    WOW - Dan - one week in office and one controversial issue and you want to tussle. There was a discussion on an impt neighborhood issue. There’s been considerable time passed and one councilor made his oppostion known. No one else did. For someone working for a candidate that quite effectively usednew media to run his campaign, you seem rather thin-skinned here.

    It is a fact that one of the hallmarks of the campaign just passed was a pledge candidates, esp.the newly elected made,at various neighborhood meetings to listen to what the folks in the neighborhoods wanted. It was simply a friendly reminder.

    Toughen up and at the same time lighten up some Dan.

    Yikes………..already

18. Maggie Says:
    January 14th, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    As many of you already, know I live near the proposed Walgreens and attended many of the meetings before I realized I should not be driving at night bad. Walgreens and the developer simply do not care- they are ,as some else said here, greedy. They have bribed the soccer people to support them by promising parking . Being nasty - I hope they renege on that. The conservation Com said there is no problem - gee does that explain why those people get water in their basements every time there is heavy rain. We know one of the families casually - the reason for wanting to sell - traffic and a lot of pressure from their neighbors. Walgreens will not ptomise that they won’t sent their big delivery trucks down our streets in the middle of the night. Everoone please email your Councilors and then the Planning Board. .

19. Lynne Says:
    January 15th, 2010 at 7:13 am

    I think we can give the new councilors a break here, for waiting to decide how to vote and not coming out half cocked. This is an issue which is probably fairly new to them, I don’t even remember it coming up in questions during the race.

    Everyone chill, here. Please. I mean both sides of it. Don’t make me interfere.

    My two cents just from driving in that area: This is a monumentally bad idea. I agree with everyone who talks about the traffic problems here. And also, how dumb is it to allow three drug stores in one block???? This is not a boon to the city - underserved areas are NOT getting a drug store but this over-served area is. Yikes. Also, you can bet that with stiff competition like this, one of these three is sure to go out of business at this location soon, leaving an empty storefront behind. Just what we need.

    I hope that this is seriously reconsidered - if it’s not too late. Screw the big chains, if they are not going where we need them to go, they can go elsewhere. Play ball or no game.

    And I do agree, the Target coming in was a good thing because that abandoned storefront got new life and I think the Target is doing OK. At least the traffic is a pain in my ass over there, so it must be. And I have to admit I am excited for the Lowe’s to open - I HATE Home Despot with a passion, and I am looking forward to NOT driving to Tewksbury or Nashua for the pleasure of going to one for my household needs. I know I should be cheering for the local guys but frankly, they just don’t hold the hours I need to be useful to me. They cater to the contractor guys, who hopefully will still get their materials at the local place (though that may not be true). As a consumer, the Lowe’s location is going to help me. But I think each and every big box store that wants to locate in Lowell needs careful scrutiny, planning (by the city) and ultimately, the general good of the city should be considered. Putting a Walgreen where there is already two drug stores and further degrading the traffic situation is not good for the city.

20. Dan Murphy Says:
    January 15th, 2010 at 8:08 am

    I appreciate Lynne’s comment. I commented only to set the record straight and the Professor has devolved the conversation into a bombastic lecture, interspersed with innuendo and a brilliant non-sequitur. I was posting as a private citizen; my brother’s campaign is over, and I am no longer his spokesperson, just a look-a-like. I was cautioning people to reserve judgment until the debate takes place next Tuesday. The Professor knows from having a beer (most of it) with my brother where he stands on a number of issues, including a certain brand of economic development that my brother favors. I find it disrespectful to suggest that he needs reminding of his campaign promises. His first three motions of this council all address resolutions he made during his campaign, as does the letter he submitted to city officials foregoing his stipend and benefits. He also did not accept money for his campaign as promised. He has a very public history of keeping his word. If you disagree with that assertion, you’ll have to talk to him, because I’m respectfully removing myself from this conversation.

21. Lynne Says:
    January 15th, 2010 at 10:36 am

    “I am no longer his spokesperson, just a look-a-like”

    I’m sorry, that gave me a giggle! Just injecting a little levity into the situation.

    I think we can all agree we are passionate about what happens to this city and let that get the best of us at times. We have our work cut out for us right now in this economy so let’s try to stick together when we can.

22. Bob Forrant Says:
    January 15th, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    Holy smoke Dan - all of this comes from my originl post here that said in part: “And, what happened to the new councilors campaign pledges to listen to and care about the neighborhood???” Again, at the meeting last Tuesday as far as I can tell everyone remained silent but Mayor Bud. Am I wrong on this? BTW, love the dig on the beer there - that somehow I couldn’t finish one.

    I meant nothing disrespectful about anyone - - but do not see why on impt issues one cannot not raise and remind folks of their stated positions. And as for me being ‘bombastic’ in my posts - where do you get that one from?

    Meanwhile the issue of the drug store - - what matters here,not whether you and me will have a beer together; guess not - - is still on the table,in case we forget.

    I, too, retire from this particular discussion and will never question any city councilor again in the spirit of can’t we all just get along!

    Peace

23. nextyearishere Says:
    January 16th, 2010 at 10:35 am

    Bob, you just had to get in the last word, eh?

Leave a Reply