Judge's ruling deals setback to Rosemead's Wal-Mart plans

Judge's ruling deals setback to Rosemead's Wal-Mart plans, SGVTribune 06 April 2005

"Yaffe had harsh words for the City Council, which at first told residents the store would not operate 24 hours a day, then allowed Wal-Mart the privilege when it approved the project at a Sept. 7 meeting."

Even if it wasn't a 24 hour store, even if it was in a different location, Wal-Mart cannot be built in Rosemead.

"A scam"

I believe Yaffe called it "a scam" to first, say the 24 hours doesn't matter, then, to cut the hours back (implying that it does matter), then to take that back and go to 24 hours again. (I need to be double-checked on this. That's how I heard it there, in the courtroom.)

Just as an exercise, I tried once, a long time ago, to see how many good arguments (outside of tax revenues) there are for siting a Wal-Mart, or any large commercial retail business, in that site. There were some, but, offices still seemed to have more potential. For one, more office workers could translate into potential business opportunities along the seemingly-neglected San Gabriel Blvd. and Garvey Blvd. Also, Countrywide is using shuttles because there's not enough parking for them. Perhaps additional parking would be another use.

A link to the rulings and pleadings from this case. . . .