I made a visit to the Bedford Watch website a few moments ago and got a good chuckle out of this:
A NO vote means NO Wal Mart
So this means:
A YES vote means YES to Wal Mart
Again, no. More propoganda from the highly biased Bedford Watch group. Their continued use of scare tactics should be noted by all citizens of this township.
This vote on May 5th, in terms of the refeendum, should be about land use and not the potential for what the development could possibly be. Is a Wal Mart a possibility, sure … one would have to believe that. However, if one could believe that then I suppose the list of possibilities that are not Wal Mart would also have to be looked at – and that list is much longer.
People of Bedford and those who plan to vote on May 5th … there is absolutely, 100%, no factual proof that if this land is rezoned that a Wal Mart is going to be developed and placed on that land right now. None. Ziltch, zero, nada. Bedford Watch’s continued fear mongering is the only reason the big W is of any concern.
Please vote your conscience, whatever it may be, and do not succumb to the continued fear mongering of what is obviously a very biased group.
Tags: Whitman rezoning
Hey John – We know who you are…
For you to write statements like there is “no factual proof that if this land is rezoned that a Wal-Mart is going to be developed and placed on that land right now” is just unbelievable…
Wal Mart is mentioned at least 43 times in the 44-page decision that Bedford Township won in 2007.
Read it for yourself: copy this link:
http://www.bedfordwatch.com/uploads/Judge_Costello_Whitman_Ford_decision.doc
First of all John does not write, manage, or have any creative control over this blog. So not really sure where that comes from – it is clearly marked throughout these pages who the author is.
In terms of factual proof that a Wal Mart will be developed in 2009 should not and does not lie in a judicial decision from 2 years ago when the chief developer was known to be Wal Mart. Absolutely Wal Mart would be named several times in that decision. However, this is 2009 and the rezoning is different than the rezoning requested in the decision named above. Nevermind that there is still no factual evidence or proof that this time around Wal Mart is on the table.
People seem to forget that Wal Mart could come on to Jon Whitman’s property as it sits today. This rezoning wouldn’t effect that capability.