Anyone interested in two sides of "a picked apart rotisserie chicken", read the Daily Journal today (Tuesday):
From Safeway's attorney Hudak:
(1) Safeway is the "only company that has been willing to take on the responsibility" of revitalizing Burlingame. Wow - such a knight in shining armor! And Hudak adds that "this project is Burlingame's last, best chance to resurrect this downtown area - this blighted block". If it weren't so arrogant, it would be laughable!
(2) Safeway's square footage is 45,700 but interestingly Hudak forgets to inform us of the Walgreen's square footage - only that it is "slightly smaller than the existing store" - forgot the numbers, Mr. Hudak?
(3) Safeway is generously "donating land" but forgets to mention the landswap of important City land
(4) Lucky us - we will get an historical arch and landscaping, Whoopeeedoo!
(5) He threatens us with being stuck with our existing store until 2015 - such petulant threats. Is this the same as "if you wont play our game, we are going to close the Wells Fargo parking lot"?
(6) Right now Safeway and Walgreens are two different separate buildings (as in not one big blob). In Safeway's "new" plan the two shops are combined - as in one large building. Perhaps I missed that pertinent piece of information in the article?
Does anyone else get pissed off with this stuff.
Hudak knows full well "after seven years" devotion to this subject that the issue has come down to this: Safeway store plus Walgreens store makes one big hunk of concrete - yes about 67,000 sq.ft. Come on, tell us all the facts - not just some of them. Hudak, please go on www.betterburlingame.org if you need more information.
In stark comparison, Russ Cohen's article shows he has done his homework, has a sense of humor and cares about Burlingame.
Hudak is correct about one thing - let the council know your feelings about this Safeway plan (as in over plucked rotisserie chicken) - but please before you do, do the math - Safeway plus Walgreens equals 67,000 sq,ft. That's quite a fat knight in shining armor!
From Safeway's attorney Hudak:
(1) Safeway is the "only company that has been willing to take on the responsibility" of revitalizing Burlingame. Wow - such a knight in shining armor! And Hudak adds that "this project is Burlingame's last, best chance to resurrect this downtown area - this blighted block". If it weren't so arrogant, it would be laughable!
(2) Safeway's square footage is 45,700 but interestingly Hudak forgets to inform us of the Walgreen's square footage - only that it is "slightly smaller than the existing store" - forgot the numbers, Mr. Hudak?
(3) Safeway is generously "donating land" but forgets to mention the landswap of important City land
(4) Lucky us - we will get an historical arch and landscaping, Whoopeeedoo!
(5) He threatens us with being stuck with our existing store until 2015 - such petulant threats. Is this the same as "if you wont play our game, we are going to close the Wells Fargo parking lot"?
(6) Right now Safeway and Walgreens are two different separate buildings (as in not one big blob). In Safeway's "new" plan the two shops are combined - as in one large building. Perhaps I missed that pertinent piece of information in the article?
Does anyone else get pissed off with this stuff.
Hudak knows full well "after seven years" devotion to this subject that the issue has come down to this: Safeway store plus Walgreens store makes one big hunk of concrete - yes about 67,000 sq.ft. Come on, tell us all the facts - not just some of them. Hudak, please go on www.betterburlingame.org if you need more information.
In stark comparison, Russ Cohen's article shows he has done his homework, has a sense of humor and cares about Burlingame.
Hudak is correct about one thing - let the council know your feelings about this Safeway plan (as in over plucked rotisserie chicken) - but please before you do, do the math - Safeway plus Walgreens equals 67,000 sq,ft. That's quite a fat knight in shining armor!
- Written by Fiona
I think Hudak views this Safeway project as a lifetime employment deal. The big question is why does Safeway not figure it out? Are they really not paying attention? Do they want to lose the vote and have to pay Hudak more to reapply with a more suitable design? Or do they want to win the vote and have to pay Hudak more to defend the citizen's lawsuit that would come if they should win the vote? Doesn't make much sense. Makes even less sense when you remember Michael Brownrigg's revelation months ago that the Safeway corporate annual report said they were making good money on "smaller stores". That leaves them open to charges that their lawyer (Hudak) mislead the city during the hearings. You couldn't make this stuff up.
Posted by: al | January 25, 2004 at 02:47 AM
I wonder if Safeway will "bribe" the City with a little money incentive to help fill up the city's coffers. Of course it wouldn't be called a bribe, - maybe mitigation for the parking deficit - maybe a teen center - or maybe something as uncreative as a silly historical arch. Or perhaps Safeway will stun as all and tell us they will go away!
Posted by: Fiona | January 25, 2004 at 03:18 AM