The title of this column is also the title of a new ad that will be coming out in the Pennysaver today. I understand that compromise is a dirty word to the true believers on both sides of any issue. Those who are rabidly pro-Lowe’s don’t want anything that will slow it down, and working out a compromise takes time.
My friends in PDDG who are adamantly against the Lowe’s don’t want to allow for any circumstances in which the Lowe’s could be built. I understand their passion, but that view may not be politically practical. Given the reality of elections, which are almost never decided on single issues, it seems unlikely that the new board that takes office in January will contain three solid anti-Lowe’s votes.
After spending the last four months going door-to-door and talking to hundreds of people about this issue, I am convinced that the majority does not have a strong opinion on either side. They do, however, support a position that requires the developer and the county to pitch in and help with the mitigation of any problems created by this project and they do not want to see a continuation of retail sprawl into the future.
I believe my position is responsive to that majority. For my friends in PDDG, please be assured that I will set the bar for Newman very high before I ever vote yes on this. Perhaps they will be unwilling to jump over it.
For my friends in the Lowe’s Yesterday group, I don’t have much reassurance. I understand your personal desire to have shopping convenience and value, however, I am not willing to sacrifice the quality of life of the rest of the community to provide it to you.
As for the vaunted tax impact of this project I remain a skeptic. Has anyone ever actually seen taxes go down? I believe a policy that returns the Gateway back to its original plan for non-retail development is the best chance for tax stabilization. At this point, however, it may take a compromise on Lowe’s to get there.
Remember: The sign of a good compromise is that both sides are unhappy!
Posted by corrinstrong 
