"Be careful what you wish for" is what some Staten
Islanders may be telling themselves this week. They would be the
ones who vigorously opposed the proposed Nascar racetrack last
year. I'm not sure what kind of bucolic development these
protesters preferred in that large tract in the Bloomfield
section of the borough, but they certainly won't be getting any
such thing now. International Speedway Corp., which was denied
the racetrack, has sold the property to the world's largest
developer of distribution warehouses, ProLogis.
This latest development is rather ironical when one considers
last year's near violent community meetings, when politicians and
community activists railed against what they said was a traffic
nightmare that would result from the three Nascar weekends a
year. Instead, we'll have to deal with thousands of trucks
arriving at the new facility 24/7, 365 days a year, belching out
fumes into the once pristine environment.
In June 2006 I wrote a column defending the racetrack proposal
because, even though I am not a racing fan, I recognized that
Nascar would generate considerable revenue for the Island. Staten
Island's president, James Molinaro, who lobbied for the ISC,
commented bitterly on the new development: "You could have
wound up with something very, very nice that would have endeared
us to the rest of the world," he told a Staten Island
Advance reporter. "They would have heard about us on Staten
Island, and the image would have been improved by Nascar coming
to our shores."
That's just the trouble, it seems. Liberal New Yorkers can be
somewhat elitist and associate Nascar with rednecks and, gasp,
Republicans. At the same time they were denouncing the proposed
racetrack, they were salivating over the idea proposed by actor
Paul Newman to have a Grand Prix racetrack in Brooklyn. Grand
Prix - yes. Nascar - no.
That same discriminatory attitude is behind the anti-Wal-Mart
fervor that scuttled the Staten Island site for the superstore
giant.
There is one Target store on the Island and another on the way,
yet this nonunion store doesn't generate the same animosity as
Wal-Mart. What is it about this store that engenders such
hostility? Is it even valid, or just liberal bias against a
capitalist giant?
Recently, I caught the documentary "Wal-Mart - The High Cost
of Low Price," and marveled at how manipulative it was. It
was truly worthy of a Michael Moore, but Robert Greenwald was the
director. In a review for the online TV Guide, Ken Fox asks,
"How can a store that drives down property values and kills
off mom-andpop businesses that can't afford to compete with
Wal-Mart's high volume , low-price strategy be good for a
community?"
In Mr. Greenwald's documentary, a scene opens with the heading,
"WAL-MART DESCENDS ON MIDDLEFIELD!" Bulldozers are
shown on the construction site for the town's new Wal-Mart. The
camera pans to a notice in the window of H&H Hardware that
reads: "Inventory Closeout Sale. After 43 years, H&H
Hardware is closing down."
What does the filmmaker want his audience to think - that
Wal-Mart was responsible for this? The store closed down three
months before Wal-Mart opened, and the owner, Jon Hunter, has
said that he told the film's producers not to link the store's
closing to Wal-Mart. His business closed because of his own bad
business decisions. That's not explained in the film.
Mom-and-pop businesses may go belly up when their rents are
jacked up sky high, but not necessarily because of competition by
a retail giant. The convenience store is called that because
that's what it is - convenient - and as long as the economy is
strong, customers will pay more for prompt good service and an
accommodating environment that they can't get from the larger
merchandiser. After a Home Depot opened nearby, two small Island
hardware stores closed. Cause and effect? Hardly. One owner
retired when the value of his property skyrocketed. The other
closed because service was awful and business had steadily
declined for years.
Staten Island turned down Nascar and Wal-Mart, but I'm not
surprised that many natives have unrealistic pipe dreams about
the Island's future. Ever since I moved to this lovely borough 29
years ago, I've known that it was only a matter of time before
development would explode, and that time is now.
By all means, we should do everything possible to preserve the
beauty of this borough, but we should make sure we don't allow
prejudices to guide our decisions.