Measure O down to the wire

Measure O down to the wire

There are 68 comments on the San Bernardino County Sun story from Jun 6, 2010, titled Measure O down to the wire. In it, San Bernardino County Sun reports that:

Tuesday will be the final day in the battle for Measure O, and both sides are making their final appeals to voters.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at San Bernardino County Sun.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Redlands Resident

Upland, CA

#1 Jun 7, 2010
Stop the small business GREED - NO ON "O"!

The yes on "O" argument is about Wal-Mart greed so they want to stop them. They do not want your dollars going to Wal-Mart, but instead into their coffers. See,s like that is GREED on the part of the proponents of "O". These small businesses in Redlands will not be impacted by a "Supercenter". They already have a customer base and will not suddenly change if the "Supercenter" is built. If the people that shop at these places now wanted to pay less, they would be shopping somewhere else already.

This measure is about customer choice. A group of people should not be allowed to tell you where you can and cannot shop. Wait until they stop a "supercenter" and watch their prices go up because they limited competition.

Save Redlands future. No on "O"!
Karen

Highland, CA

#2 Jun 7, 2010
Redlands Resident,
Do you work for Walmart?
Ken Keniff

Santa Monica, CA

#3 Jun 7, 2010
No on O.
Raised Here

Hesperia, CA

#4 Jun 7, 2010
Karen wrote:
Redlands Resident,
Do you work for Walmart?
They cannt quote feal facts and data. They are too busy dragging around the soap bax full of fear.

YES ON O is right for the city. I think we can do better...if we try.
jesse

Banning, CA

#5 Jun 7, 2010
vote yes, go visit the Pass area (Banning,Beaumont) stores have closed. did Wal Mart donate $$$$$$$$$$ to the police and firepeople associations, why are the backing the NO???? after all people LOVE those heros, an they can't be wrong??
yuran8r

Upland, CA

#6 Jun 7, 2010
Raised Here wrote:
<quoted text>
.
YES ON O is right for the city. I think we can do better...if we try.
Yeah.
Sure it is.
Yes on O means we will never get a Costco in Redlands.
Don't like Walmart?
Don't shop there.
It's that simple.
Thin Thread

Redlands, CA

#7 Jun 7, 2010
Raised Here wrote:
<quoted text>
They cannt quote feal facts and data. They are too busy dragging around the soap bax full of fear.
YES ON O is right for the city. I think we can do better...if we try.
Really? What is right then? Let me hear your "out of the box" business model. Unfortunately the Yes on O group is just a bunch of class warfare and stereotypes that only care about themselves. the "fear" you speak of is the very cornerstone of your message in that small business on the Northside (I am not sure what small businesses are actually there except for fast food, a video store, few auto repair shops and gas/convenience stations) will disappear. All of which are not impacted by Walmart. So please tell me what it is that you have the answers for other than spreading your diatribe and mouth-piecing Evil Bill and Company.
REAListic

Beaumont, CA

#8 Jun 7, 2010
yuran8r wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah.
Sure it is.
Yes on O means we will never get a Costco in Redlands.
Don't like Walmart?
Don't shop there.
It's that simple.
You ought to read the measure......COSTCO can still come. Want me to help you call them? It limits 3 retail boxes in the area.....but allows over 1,800 others. New Wal-Mart centers limit more than this measure does....if you go read the restrictions they place on the property.

A Yes is a vote for a better development.
REAListic

Beaumont, CA

#9 Jun 7, 2010
Thin Thread wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? What is right then? Let me hear your "out of the box" business model. Unfortunately the Yes on O group is just a bunch of class warfare and stereotypes that only care about themselves. the "fear" you speak of is the very cornerstone of your message in that small business on the Northside (I am not sure what small businesses are actually there except for fast food, a video store, few auto repair shops and gas/convenience stations) will disappear. All of which are not impacted by Walmart. So please tell me what it is that you have the answers for other than spreading your diatribe and mouth-piecing Evil Bill and Company.
1. Taking care of your employees so the communities where you operate stores do not have to support them is the right thing.

2. Paying a wage so that people can survive without working 3 jobs is the right thing.

3. Not dumping environmental toxins onto California and having to pay multi million dollar fines is the right thing.

4. Not discriminating against employees and having the supreme court have to tell you to deal with it is the right thing.

.......and there are more. Got to go get coffee....
Thin Thread

Redlands, CA

#10 Jun 7, 2010
REAListic wrote:
<quoted text>
You ought to read the measure......COSTCO can still come. Want me to help you call them? It limits 3 retail boxes in the area.....but allows over 1,800 others. New Wal-Mart centers limit more than this measure does....if you go read the restrictions they place on the property.
A Yes is a vote for a better development.
Okay I get it...it's called DISCRIMINATION! Everyone but you. Sounds like the old signs of "White Drinking Fountain" and "Black Drinking Fountain."
In other words...if you like value we don't want those types in Redlands. The Yes on O group is a group of elitists! Glad I am not part of that group.
ThinkBetweenLine s

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#11 Jun 7, 2010
Redlands Resident wrote:
Stop the small business GREED - NO ON "O"!
The yes on "O" argument is about Wal-Mart greed so they want to stop them. They do not want your dollars going to Wal-Mart, but instead into their coffers. See,s like that is GREED on the part of the proponents of "O". These small businesses in Redlands will not be impacted by a "Supercenter". They already have a customer base and will not suddenly change if the "Supercenter" is built. If the people that shop at these places now wanted to pay less, they would be shopping somewhere else already.
This measure is about customer choice. A group of people should not be allowed to tell you where you can and cannot shop. Wait until they stop a "supercenter" and watch their prices go up because they limited competition.
Save Redlands future. No on "O"!
The only GREED here is walmart, and how they want to destroy and eliminate the competition completely so they are the only game in town. Small business dosen't stand a chance with a corporate giant like walmart in the neighborhood. Do you honestly think if this supercenter is built, the surrounding businesses will not suffer? As well as your property values? You will not have choice when walmart is the only competition. Get a clue!
Yes on 'O' is the only way to go !
REAListic

Beaumont, CA

#12 Jun 7, 2010
Thin Thread wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay I get it...it's called DISCRIMINATION! Everyone but you. Sounds like the old signs of "White Drinking Fountain" and "Black Drinking Fountain."
In other words...if you like value we don't want those types in Redlands. The Yes on O group is a group of elitists! Glad I am not part of that group.
If it is discrimination to tell a retailer that will steal volumes from others without benefiting the community one penny, discriminates against their employees, dumps toxic waste in the state, adds a drain on social services and makes past employees have to sue their employer get the money they are legally entitle......then I guess in your world that might be true. In the real world.....we call it making them accountable for who they really are.

I prefer to not add them to our community....and I think we can do better.
ThinkBetweenLine s

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#13 Jun 7, 2010
Thin Thread wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay I get it...it's called DISCRIMINATION! Everyone but you. Sounds like the old signs of "White Drinking Fountain" and "Black Drinking Fountain."
In other words...if you like value we don't want those types in Redlands. The Yes on O group is a group of elitists! Glad I am not part of that group.
You're missing the point. The YES group seems to be more of an ethical, social conscience group (unlike walmart) that dosen't agree with or condone walmarts business practices. The No group seems to be more the selfish, "I want to save 4cents on a bottle of ketchup" instant gratification of saving a few pennies type. If you call being in the YES group, the ethical group "elitists", then... wow, that's really sad! You'd rather save a few pennies than stand for what is right.
Thin Thread

Redlands, CA

#14 Jun 7, 2010
REAListic wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Taking care of your employees so the communities where you operate stores do not have to support them is the right thing.
2. Paying a wage so that people can survive without working 3 jobs is the right thing.
3. Not dumping environmental toxins onto California and having to pay multi million dollar fines is the right thing.
4. Not discriminating against employees and having the supreme court have to tell you to deal with it is the right thing.
.......and there are more. Got to go get coffee....
1. Taking care of employees...do they get paid or are Walmart employees volunteer? Check your Hometown Hero Jack and see if he has more part-time employees or full-time employees? See how he and the other grocery moguls gutted the contracts of their employees. Spare me the right thing argument...it's shallow.
2.Do they get paid the guaranteed federal minimum wage? Apparently, the liberal feds think that wage is okay...therefore its fair. I suppose they didn't get a gun held to their head to apply and go to work. Simply, they can work elsewhere. Perhaps, they should go pick crops and displace the illegals. No, that just wont work, because it is work.
3. Let me help you, does the word BP help? How about Lockheed, CWM, Conseco, PG&E, Stringfellow and the list goes on and on and on.
4. You might want to check, but doing the right thing has escaped most private for profit industries. Walmart is not the only company to exploit its employees. In fact, in 1938 the Federal Government enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act to prevent such abuses. Sad thing is not everyone plays by the rule. I am quite certain that you would not knowingly ever defraud the government by inaccurately reporting your taxes!
ThinkBetweenLine s

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#15 Jun 7, 2010
Thin Thread wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Taking care of employees...do they get paid or are Walmart employees volunteer? Check your Hometown Hero Jack and see if he has more part-time employees or full-time employees? See how he and the other grocery moguls gutted the contracts of their employees. Spare me the right thing argument...it's shallow.
2.Do they get paid the guaranteed federal minimum wage? Apparently, the liberal feds think that wage is okay...therefore its fair. I suppose they didn't get a gun held to their head to apply and go to work. Simply, they can work elsewhere. Perhaps, they should go pick crops and displace the illegals. No, that just wont work, because it is work.
3. Let me help you, does the word BP help? How about Lockheed, CWM, Conseco, PG&E, Stringfellow and the list goes on and on and on.
4. You might want to check, but doing the right thing has escaped most private for profit industries. Walmart is not the only company to exploit its employees. In fact, in 1938 the Federal Government enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act to prevent such abuses. Sad thing is not everyone plays by the rule. I am quite certain that you would not knowingly ever defraud the government by inaccurately reporting your taxes!
Oh so you ARE saying that walmart (the biggest retailer on the planet) is a company that exploits, discriminates, commits fraud, cheats, and dosen't play by the rules... and you STILL defend them and support that by shopping there?? Wow, sad...
REAListic

Beaumont, CA

#16 Jun 7, 2010
Thin Thread wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Taking care of employees...do they get paid or are Walmart employees volunteer? Check your Hometown Hero Jack and see if he has more part-time employees or full-time employees? See how he and the other grocery moguls gutted the contracts of their employees. Spare me the right thing argument...it's shallow.
2.Do they get paid the guaranteed federal minimum wage? Apparently, the liberal feds think that wage is okay...therefore its fair. I suppose they didn't get a gun held to their head to apply and go to work. Simply, they can work elsewhere. Perhaps, they should go pick crops and displace the illegals. No, that just wont work, because it is work.
3. Let me help you, does the word BP help? How about Lockheed, CWM, Conseco, PG&E, Stringfellow and the list goes on and on and on.
4. You might want to check, but doing the right thing has escaped most private for profit industries. Walmart is not the only company to exploit its employees. In fact, in 1938 the Federal Government enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act to prevent such abuses. Sad thing is not everyone plays by the rule. I am quite certain that you would not knowingly ever defraud the government by inaccurately reporting your taxes!
OK, I know your breaks are short and the greeter post has to get manned....but name another retailer trying to expand in Redlands that has settled 2 lawsuit in the multi-million dollar range in the last 60 days and who still has a potential billion dollar lawsuit still pending?

They will spend more on fighting the will of the people this month than they donated over the past 5 years.

We can do better...and look forward to seeing Yes on O voters.
The truth

Murrieta, CA

#17 Jun 7, 2010
I have talked to a lot of people about this measure and I am amazed and shocked by who is supporting measure O.
Their are two distinct groups. The first is the liberal union loving university types who keep spewing the anti walmart made up facts that the Unions have created through their anti walmart union funded attack group. Yes, the Unions have a chunk of their national budget that supports a group that does nothing but attack walmart 24/7 with conjured up hyperbole. Walmart doesn't hurt small business any more than the Sears Robuck catalog has for the last 100 years. When I ask these same people if they have purchased anything on the Internet, they all admit to shopping online. Now that's not very local.
The second type of people supporting measure O are the elitist nimby snobs who claim walmart only attracts criminals and low lifes and they don't want those types in their city. I'm amazed by this group simply because they are a lot of the same people who "claim" to be so compassionate to the underprivelaged.....just as long as they are being poor somewhere else. These people want our tax dollars going to them to help through social programs, but they then want to rape them by not letting them shop at a store with affordable goods.
Personally I am very glad not to belong to either of those groups and am almost embarressed we still have those mindsets in our community. If left unchecked, these people would go through our city and start marking what they approve and what they dissaprove that should be eliminated. Sounds eerily like the same people who helped Germany with these type of policies in what I thought was the far gone past. Guess not.
I am of the mindset that competition helps the consumer, and that government shouldn't be used to eliminate competitors or tell a
business how to operate. If people don't like what they are doing then let their lack of business put them under, not the loud voice of a small group of whining, "we know better than you" elitists.
ReadBetweenLines

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#18 Jun 7, 2010
The truth wrote:
I have talked to a lot of people about this measure and I am amazed and shocked by who is supporting measure O.
Their are two distinct groups. The first is the liberal union loving university types who keep spewing the anti walmart made up facts that the Unions have created through their anti walmart union funded attack group. Yes, the Unions have a chunk of their national budget that supports a group that does nothing but attack walmart 24/7 with conjured up hyperbole. Walmart doesn't hurt small business any more than the Sears Robuck catalog has for the last 100 years. When I ask these same people if they have purchased anything on the Internet, they all admit to shopping online. Now that's not very local.
The second type of people supporting measure O are the elitist nimby snobs who claim walmart only attracts criminals and low lifes and they don't want those types in their city. I'm amazed by this group simply because they are a lot of the same people who "claim" to be so compassionate to the underprivelaged.....just as long as they are being poor somewhere else. These people want our tax dollars going to them to help through social programs, but they then want to rape them by not letting them shop at a store with affordable goods.
Personally I am very glad not to belong to either of those groups and am almost embarressed we still have those mindsets in our community. If left unchecked, these people would go through our city and start marking what they approve and what they dissaprove that should be eliminated. Sounds eerily like the same people who helped Germany with these type of policies in what I thought was the far gone past. Guess not.
I am of the mindset that competition helps the consumer, and that government shouldn't be used to eliminate competitors or tell a
business how to operate. If people don't like what they are doing then let their lack of business put them under, not the loud voice of a small group of whining, "we know better than you" elitists.
Don't think you know me... it's apparent that you don't. You haven't really done your homework if you claim the only 2 groups of walmart haters are either snobs or union types... I am neither. I am simply a NON union, working person, that hates seeing what big business is doing to this country and the crap that walmart gets away with. I refuse to support that, plain and simple. Most people don't know the crap they do because they're so blindsided by the nickel they're saving on their 10 pac of toilet paper. There will come a day when walmart has eliminated ALL the competition, what are you going to say then??
OldReaganMan

Moreno Valley, CA

#19 Jun 7, 2010
ReadBetweenLines wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't think you know me... it's apparent that you don't. You haven't really done your homework if you claim the only 2 groups of walmart haters are either snobs or union types... I am neither. I am simply a NON union, working person, that hates seeing what big business is doing to this country and the crap that walmart gets away with. I refuse to support that, plain and simple. Most people don't know the crap they do because they're so blindsided by the nickel they're saving on their 10 pac of toilet paper. There will come a day when walmart has eliminated ALL the competition, what are you going to say then??
I believe that Redlands cannot afford NOT to let WalMart build since the city is on the way to bankruptcy. WalMart will bring tax revenue which it sorely needs. You mention eliminating competition and you hate big business. Are you backing big government then?
REAListic

Beaumont, CA

#20 Jun 7, 2010
OldReaganMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that Redlands cannot afford NOT to let WalMart build since the city is on the way to bankruptcy. WalMart will bring tax revenue which it sorely needs. You mention eliminating competition and you hate big business. Are you backing big government then?
Wal-Mart will not bring a dime to the party. Lots of retailers might .....since they could bring new business, but Wally is just building roughly the same store plus non taxable groceries.

If Measure O could stop 100,000 SF government too....that would be a good change to make. The only thing more intrusive than Wal-Mart to our chance of improving the city...is indeed government.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Whittier Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News A girl waves a Mexican flag during rallies in L... (Mar '06) 1 hr Lol 4,531
News Gang member testifies against former gang mento... (Mar '10) 5 hr The smart one out... 22
LMSA Soccer (Feb '10) 9 hr The Real Deal 7,783
News Former Whittier police officer faces child mole... (Mar '10) 9 hr I hope you die 174
city sad budget 12 hr reggie resident 2
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Fri AllPhartx 32,818
News Girl who came to U.S. illegally can't get loans (May '10) Mar 22 tellinitlikeitis 3,236

Whittier Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Whittier Mortgages