Even under editorial impresario Arnold Garcia’s tortured, contorted reign, the Statesman‘s Important Screed today in defense of the new, “radically alter(ed)” Wal-Mart at Northcross is awful. Just godawful, an overflowing drool-cup of know-nothing, pseudo-centrist dribble that applauds the little people surrounding the mall for having made their positions oh so very clear – Wal-Mart even took away the gas station and lube center (although who in their right mind wouldn’t want one of those in the neighborhood?) – but it’s time for the grownups to get down to the business of commerce; you’ve had your word, and we’ve rewarded you with “a more pedestrian-friendly look,” so, uhh, get lost: “Northcross gets a face-lift, Wal-Mart gets a more central location, shoppers get more choices and the city gets higher sales and property taxes. In short, the process worked to the benefit of most – though not all – involved.” Your public process has “bettered” Wal-Mart, so please shut the hell up!
Under the guise of this craptastic third-way, a surfeit of weasel words: There are “probably” just as many in support of the project as not, we learn. They also glaze over the very real problem of conflicting traffic-impact reports by saying the increase “shouldn’t” cause streets to fail, completely disregarding the pervasive history of underreporting and controversy on the subject. And while the whole fantastically flaccid affair manages to mention the lawsuits brought against the project, they stop far short of actually, you know, saying anything about it. If it’s such a win-win at Northcross, why not condemn the two suits?
We hear rumors that, as a cost-saving measure, the Statesman‘s going to shrink by 2 inches. We know what section to start with.
This article appears in June 29 • 2007.