New Facebook group for those opposing Walgreens plan to replace Robin Hood Lanes

255
6

Edmonds resident Teri Terrano, who is working to gather community opinions on a proposal to replace the Robin Hood Lanes bowling alley with a Walgreens store, has started a new Facebook Group, “Robinhood Lanes against Walgreens.” This is a closed  group that already has nearly 200 members, and you must be approved by Terrano to join. Email her at teriterrano@msn.com for details.

Terrano said she will be at Robin Hood Lanes tonight, Tuesday, after 5 p.m. with polling sheets aimed at gauging public opinion about the plan.

 

6 COMMENTS

  1. The leaders of this new group may wish to do a little research into the city employees’ manipulations in this situation and the very real impact on our community.

    We are told how wonderful it will be to have a Walgrens drug store practically next door to a very good Bartell’s drug store and only 1 and one quarter mile from another excellent Walgrens Drug store. Why would it be so wonderful? Its viability will surely be seriously challenged economically. However, the fact that it may very well lower the quality of life for the bowling public is just too darn bad, tough luck bowlers.

    Mr Chave gave the reason for the relaxed setbacks is to help a bank to be placed on the old Shell property. He kept the Walgrens deal to replace the bowling avenue quiet thus leaving the Council in the dark. Mr Clifton only now proclaims that the city has been working on this deal for a long time.

    Who will benefit from this goverment style intervention besides a few dollars added to the city income perhaps? Its high time for the Council to re examine their purpose in life. Are they there to support a high quality of life for the citizens or should they be more concerned for a very few extra bucks at best.

    Also, what other effect will reducung these setbacks have on future needs to widen Edmonds Way? Was the council denied knowledge of the full impact of this change?

    This new group should more fully investigate this deal. And the Council needs to listen to the likely forthcoming input. Members should question the involved city emplyees and their motives fully. It would seem to me that Council members should first look to maintain the quality of life over a few dollars.

    Good govermental planning is necessary to faciiitate free enterprise but NOT to control it.

  2. My understanding is that there are three groups of owners involved here. One operates the business, an other owns the building, and the third one owns the land. The owner of the land controls the situation and apparently that owner wants to sell. So the success of the bowling business is not relevant as to whether or not a Walgreens will be located on the site.

  3. Ron,

    Your last paragraph certainly does not disagree with me. Walgrens is my personal favorite.

    My major point raises a question as to whether the Council had been sandbagged in the efforts by city employees to bring in a new Walgrens when the Council was asked to reduce the local setbacks for a different reason. And which also will now limit changes to state highway modification as ferry traffic increases.

    I do favor retaining the bowling alleys for the obvious benefit to the community although I haven’t actively bowled myself for several years.

    Will the community benefit by replacing the very popular bowling alley with an unneeded drug store? And if so I ask you, will the benefit best serve the people or better preserve the high pay of city employees?

  4. Ray:

    Your question:Will the community benefit by replacing the very popular bowling alley with an unneeded drug store? My answer is that the bowling alley is clearly the right choice. Another drug store will take some business from Bartells and the QFC pharmacy. The loss of the bowling alley will be much greater than any incremental gain in sales tax from Walgreens. And if they were located in the downtown area their damage would be even greater, because they would also take some small amount of business from Petosa’s. We don’t need our sole downtown grocery store weakened in any way.

    The city council’s economic development committee has been inactive the last few years. Hopefully the city’s new strategic plan will address the kinds of businesses we want to recruit and for which areas.

  5. The Herald, in their Community News article by Mina Williams stated that “Edmonds has been courting Walgreen’s for several years, said Stephan Clifton, economic development director for the City.” It sure makes you wonder where in the City of Edmonds they wanted to locate that Walgreen’s they were courting. Perhaps they had this Westgate location in mind all along. Maybe the city council’s economic development committee hasn’t been as inactive as was thought.

    There isn’t another place in the community the size of Robin Hood Lanes where you can gather a large number of people. If there was, perhaps it would make some crazy sense to raze the bowling alley. You won’t find that space at the theater, arts center, antique mall, Harbor Square where you can gather, visit, and recreate all at the same time. This place is needed for our families and especially for children who become future bowlers. Not all kids want to play organized sports. To make a community rich you need diversity. Walgreen’s doesn’t offer diversity to Edmonds.

  6. In last week’s Weekly Herald article, the last paragraph states “Edmonds has been courting Walgreens for several years, said Stephen Clifton, Economic Development Director for the city”.  In conversations with Herald staff, I mentioned that I was working with a local realtor about two years ago to locate a small drugstore within the downtown area which would resemble an old fashioned drugstore and Wallgreens was one entity somewhat interested in a smaller store downtown at that time.  While the Herald article does not directly state that the City was working to recruit Walgreens to the Westgate area, it seems people are interpreting the last paragraph as such.  Any rumors/statements that I or any City of Edmonds representative worked to recruit Wallgreens to the Westgate area is not correct. 

    Regarding the statement “My major point raises a question as to whether the Council had been sandbagged in the efforts by city employees to bring in a new Walgrens when the Council was asked to reduce the local setbacks for a different reason” contained in comment 4 above, this can be answered with a definitive no and any further statements similar to the one made in comment 4 above would be speculative.

LEAVE A REPLY