The Detention Pond:
The people of Littleton voted their Tabor refund to purchase a buffer to protect the park from the inevitable development of that site. Wal-Mart wants to put their detention pond on the property and call it a wetland.

The land was bought to protect the park not to provide a developer with a drainage ditch. That’s our property and we have a say what goes on it. I wonder how many would have voted to approve the purchase if we knew it could be handed over to Wal-Mart for their parking lot drainage?

The Noise Ordinance:
In the city’s municipal codes there is a noise control ordinance (7-3-5: Specific Prohibitions, Section E) that clearly states there can be no loading or unloading between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am within 800 feet of a residential neighborhood.

When the public made this point at the hearing, City Council and city staff were befuddled. After some research they came back and reported that they have been misinterpreting this law for the last 11 years. The correct interpretation is not one that Wal-Mart can live with. They made it very clear that they can and will accept no conditions on deliveries. How did this pass Council? Is Wal-Mart being granted an exception? What about the rights guaranteed the neighbors by the city’s own laws?

Debbie Brinkman

Take me off the mailing list for The Littleton Examiner. You are a sad example of responsible, unbiased journalism when you publish four and half pages of Wal-Mart bashing, and three and a half lines of pro-Wal-Mart text (Jim DuBose’s comments) in your January 2007 edition.

Get off the Wal-Mart bashing bandwagon. Report the news fairly. Seek out the comments of Littleton residents who oppose your views.

Anonymous Littleton Resident

I called the Wal-Mart contact phone number before the Littleton Examiner January 2007 issue was printed and requested their side of the rezoning hearing.

I did not receive a reply.

I left 3 more messages for them since publication and requested their side of the issue and specifically stated that I would publish their side of the rezoning issue in this issue and on our website.

Again, I did not receive a reply.

On the bottom of page 2 of our January 2007 issue, is a note explaining that we asked Wal-Mart to contribute their thoughts but had not heard from them by press time. We will print their response (any time it is sent) on the website.

Additionally, we presented both sides of the Wal-Mart issue in our August 2006 issue with equal coverage space.

In every edition of The Littleton Examiner we ask for letters – of any opinion. All letters we have received, both pro and con have been published on our website.

For the record, our editorial position is that Wal-Mart should relocate on either Santa Fe or County Line Road within Littleton. Wal-Mart provides a service that is not duplicated by any other retailer and is a valuable retailer for Littleton residents. The proposed site is the wrong one.

Jack Randall