City underestimates opposition to Lowe’s

Near the end of June, The Acorn ran an editorial favoring approval of the Lowe’s development in Westlake Village, despite acknowledging it would contribute to traffic congestion, be an eyesore “no more than Costco,” provide tax revenue for an “already deep-pocketed city,” and stating opponents would continue to fight it because they were “NIMBYS,” but that what was good for business was good for government.

What about what’s good for the people? And here’s a few more questions for The Acorn. Is it in your backyard? Maybe you should not be taking a position on development in the “backyards” of Westlake residents, or accusing the opponents of “NIMBYism” if you have no horse in the race . . . or is your “horse” potential ad revenue? Speaking of which, wouldn’t journalistic integrity demand your paper reveal any such potential conflict of interest in taking any editorial position?

About that revenue for the deep-pocketed city, when did greed become a family value?

Costco is the only big box this city “needs.” Enough is enough.

Finally, in the August 25 edition of The Acorn, Daniel Wolowicz wrote in the article “No Election in Westlake,” regarding whether the Lowe’s debate would be diminished, that all three incumbent council members believed the lack of candidates “was not the result of voter apathy.”

If the city council truly believes that, then they must understand city residents are following the Lowe’s issue closely and they should be very careful not to translate easy reelection into carte blanche permission to do as they please.

The council should keep clearly in mind, as they carefully weigh their decision, that the election code always offers the option of a recall. Barbara Erickson Westlake Village

You have 0 more free access views left