Meijer

[tamias6]

Looks like Seyferth is taking up defensive position.

Mlive Article

Looks like they are saying they have not violated any laws.

[Veloise]

Looks like Seyferth is taking up defensive position.

Mlive Article

Looks like they are saying they have not violated any laws.

Yeah, what's illegal about taping a lock open? (1974)

[tamias6]

Yeah, what's illegal about taping a lock open? (1974)

I took the article with a grain of salt since its only natural for somebody in the heat to say "I didn't do it."

...

Any way this may stray a bit off topic but I feel its worth discussing.

GrDad's mentioning that their are a few PR people monitoring UP and will spin topics not going their way kind of puts me on edge not because I've been pretty much singing praises of Meijer here. (This Acme Twp. hoopla and Meijer's mistake just makes me feel like I had rotten eggs tossed on my face. That's all.). What concerns me is now that we all know that their are a few PR people trying to spin topics, how to we take into consideration what they post? For example what if the Alpine Walmart Supercenter thread elsewhere in the GR coffee house turns into a total Walmart bash fest where everybody is screaming how evil Wally World is. But then somebody out of nowhere posts that they like Walmart. Do we dismiss them as a PR person trying to spin the topic? What if that person genuinely likes Walmart? I feel this bit of enlightenment is going to make it harder for new UP members and not very active ones work a bit harder to even have fellow members take what they post seriously.

Edited January 1, 2008 by tamias6

[joeDowntown]

Tamias,

I wouldn't be too alarmed. First, I don't think anyone has ever fooled us too badly, and you can typically see a pattern of people's posts. I think GRDad and me both notice when somebody strongly rallies for one item, but has no interest in the community as a whole. I don't think it ruins the integrity of UP as there are too many strong opinions (on both sides of an issue) to sway anything too far.

Joe

I took the article with a grain of salt since its only natural for somebody in the heat to say "I didn't do it."

...

Any way this may stray a bit off topic but I feel its worth discussing.

GrDad's mentioning that their are a few PR people monitoring UP and will spin topics not going their way kind of puts me on edge not because I've been pretty much singing praises of Meijer here. (This Acme Twp. hoopla and Meijer's mistake just makes me feel like I had rotten eggs tossed on my face. That's all.). What concerns me is now that we all know that their are a few PR people trying to spin topics, how to we take into consideration what they post? For example what if the Alpine Walmart Supercenter thread elsewhere in the GR coffee house turns into a total Walmart bash fest where everybody is screaming how evil Wally World is. But then somebody out of nowhere posts that they like Walmart. Do we dismiss them as a PR person trying to spin the topic? What if that person genuinely likes Walmart? I feel this bit of enlightenment is going to make it harder for new UP members and not very active ones work a bit harder to even have fellow members take what they post seriously.

[GRDadof3]

Tamias,

I wouldn't be too alarmed. First, I don't think anyone has ever fooled us too badly, and you can typically see a pattern of people's posts. I think GRDad and me both notice when somebody strongly rallies for one item, but has no interest in the community as a whole. I don't think it ruins the integrity of UP as there are too many strong opinions (on both sides of an issue) to sway anything too far.

Joe

Precisely. You'll know when someone new comes on, and you can easily do a review of every post the user has made by clicking on their username profile. If they are a one-note-samba about a particular item or issue for an extended period of time, then it becomes pretty clear they have a professional agenda in mind. And it's not to say that we won't let them participate either, unless they begin instigating flame wars. Or the people who only post once every six months, and only when they smell blood in the water and join in wholeheartedly. Thankfully, a few of the PR people I know of on here have waded into other discussions that they felt strongly about, so their intentions are mainly good for the community as a whole. I can count on one hand the number of people who I've had banned from the GR section over the last three years. Not bad IMO.

Nothing to worry about tamias6.

[tamias6]

^I see where you're going with this. I have encountered the very scenarios you speak of several times before on other forums I frequent. Thanks for the reassurance.

[tamias6]

Anyway back on topic...

I'm beginning to think that the Record Eagle wants to have Hank Meijer tared and feathered or at least lynched. Well that's my impression of the second paragraph of this article...

Editorial: I resolve: Some promises for 2008 we'd like to see

Quote from Article...

Meijer co-chairman Hank Meijer, who claimed in a press release he knew nothing about a Meijer-financed recall effort in Acme Township but wrote an open letter criticizing the board two days before the voting, could promise to take some business ethics classes

[Veloise]

...I'm beginning to think that the Record Eagle wants to have Hank Meijer tarred and feathered or at least lynched....

Just FYI: tarring and feathering would be survivable. Lynching is fatal. Suggesting that wrongdoing occurred and ought to not happen again hardly says "let's go get 'em, mob!"

[201test]

I will settle for some tranparency going forward. Meijer should release the full final report and create some kind of published policy at the board level against this kind of campaign in the future. It would also be a nice gesture of good faith to have an open meeting in Acme with Mark, Hank and other Meijer leaders to present the report in person. Talk of heads rolling and stakes being burnt don't help fix the trust issue, just widens the gap. Don't expect them to want to face that music in person, but it would be the gutsy thing to do.

Edited January 2, 2008 by 201test

[201test]

In today's TCRE. Interesting.

http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/local_..._002093029.html

[Veloise]

On another topic:

which stores in our area have opticians? I know that Alpine and Jenison do, any others? (Seems like Knapp's Corner was going to get one or got Alpine's, which returned after the reno...?)

Yes, I hit the "contact us" and suggested they add this to their website.

!@#$%^&*( glasses.

[tamias6]

On another topic:

which stores in our area have opticians? I know that Alpine and Jenison do, any others? (Seems like Knapp's Corner was going to get one or got Alpine's, which returned after the reno...?)

Yes, I hit the "contact us" and suggested they add this to their website.

!@#$%^&*( glasses.

Don't count on this but think there is a vision center in the Knapp Corner Meijer. Though that could be the one that moved back to the Alpine store after the renovation.

[Veloise]

Don't count on this but think there is a vision center in the Knapp Corner Meijer. Though that could be the one that moved back to the Alpine store after the renovation.

Crud. There is, and they need customer service training. (On the phone, she carefully explained that this was the KC Meijer. Yeah, I know. I called the store to get your numer. You aren't in the phone book.)

Me: do these frames come in different colors or sizes? I need this size/color.

Her: All the stores have the same selection. Everything's out. If it's not here, we can't get it.

Me: Would a different store have other colors?

Her: I would have to put it into the computer. (stares at me)

Me: Would you please? Thanks very much

Her: [type type type] These only come in this size. But I don't see why they couldn't put longer temples or larger lenses on them.

Me: If they only come in one size, the temples are not longer.

Her: Let me explain this. This is the temple. This is the chassis. They come in this size.

Me: Let me pay for my eye exam and get my Rx.

(I've been wearing glasses since 1963.)

Proceeded to Alpine, where they turned out the lights on me (at 6:45 pm). She "allowed" me to continue looking at the frames...but it sure wasn't going to be possible to select anything.

So I am shopping for frames on-line, and probably gonna wear my bike glasses (and carry a cane) for a few days. Maybe I should hit a dollar store and find some rimless bolt-on frames, put my contacts in, and perform surgery on these things.

Anyone happy with their eyewear provider, feel free to jump in. I have VSP and have to buy my own frame this year. (What a rip-off.)

[joeDowntown]

I don't understand what this writer thinks is going to happen. What exactly can the PRSA do about it? Throw cocktails weenies at employees of SST at the next mixer?

The funny thing about this whole issue is that in the end, Meijer will build a store, open store, people will shop, life will move on.

Meijer is a fine company. SST was paid by their client to do something that hasn't even been ruled illegal (yet, and I'm not sure SST would be held liable). I think we should just sit on the sidelines and eat popcorn for a while until this all gets sorted out.

Joe

In today's TCRE. Interesting.

http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/local_..._002093029.html

[tamias6]

...

The funny thing about this whole issue is that in the end, Meijer will build a store, open store, people will shop, life will move on.

...

Joe

Your probably right on that one. The Knapp Corner Meijer didn't exactly materialize in the most Saintly manner. Yet the very folks that griped about that store during its proposal stage are the ones now shopping there.

[MuskeMI]

Anyone happy with their eyewear provider, feel free to jump in. I have VSP and have to buy my own frame this year. (What a rip-off.)

Costco! I have VSP too and end up using the "credit" towards contacts and purchasing glasses out of pocket. Nearly all of the frames at Costco are under $150 (including big-name designer if that's your thing) and lenses start at $60 for the lower-power prescriptions.

[joeDowntown]

AND, as a bonus, the land that was initially proposed (and denied) for the Meijer on the Beltline became the Frederik Meijer Gardens. Thank you Meijer.

Joe

Your probably right on that one. The Knapp Corner Meijer didn't exactly materialize in the most Saintly manner. Yet the very folks that griped about that store during its proposal stage are the ones now shopping there.

[civitas]

Your probably right on that one. The Knapp Corner Meijer didn't exactly materialize in the most Saintly manner. Yet the very folks that griped about that store during its proposal stage are the ones now shopping there.

Years ago I helped Meijer analyze the potential for a store at Leonard and the East Beltline (Grand Rapids Township) on land that UAW owned. A senior VP, the head of in-house public relations, the real estate manager and I met individually with every township trustee and many of the immediate neighbors. We then invited the larger neighborhood to a meeting in a high school auditorium that was attended by approx. 350 people. The concept was presented, the neighbors spoke against, and Meijer dropped the site.

They then optioned property at Knapp and the East Beltline (City of Grand Rapids) and had numerous meetings with a very sophisticated neighborhood organizatiopn about the design details (setbacks, landscaping, lighting, etc.). The city approved the PUD and you can see the results.

And if that wasn't enough, Meijer then turned the Leonard property into the Meijer Gardens as a gift to the community.

I can't imagine a retailer being more "saintly" in the development of a store.

BTW, I do not work for Meijer and I'm not a PR consultant.

[Veloise]

...They then optioned property at Knapp and the East Beltline (City of Grand Rapids) and had numerous meetings with a very sophisticated neighborhood organizatiopn about the design details (setbacks, landscaping, lighting, etc.). The city approved the PUD and you can see the results. ...

As I understand it, Fred purchased the present KC parcel while it was in the Twp. He then approached the City for annexation due to circumstances with the existing jurisdiction.

Not saying that this is a bad thing, just saying it. (Source: high-level city official)

[tamias6]

^That's the biggest GR twp. folk had about the Knapp Corner store other than the standard issue traffic congestion and property value concerns.

Ether way Joe ht the nail on the head when it comes to the Fred Meijer Gardens.

Edited January 4, 2008 by tamias6

[Raildudes dad]

As I understand it, Fred purchased the present KC parcel while it was in the Twp. He then approached the City for annexation due to circumstances with the existing jurisdiction.

Not saying that this is a bad thing, just saying it. (Source: high-level city official)

Look at the west city limit line at Knapp's Corner's. The residents on Leffingwell were deliberately left in the township so only the township residents selling property to Meijers and the Celebration Cinema developer could vote. Surprise, surprise, the annexation was approved by those few.

[civitas]

Look at the west city limit line at Knapp's Corner's. The residents on Leffingwell were deliberately left in the township so only the township residents selling property to Meijers and the Celebration Cinema developer could vote. Surprise, surprise, the annexation was approved by those few.

I know for a fact that the Celebration Village land was annexed into the City long before it was even considered by the developers and I'm 98% sure the same is true of the Meijer land.

The annexation was the work of the original land owners.

[Veloise]

Look at the west city limit line at Knapp's Corner's. The residents on Leffingwell were deliberately left in the township so only the township residents selling property to Meijers and the Celebration Cinema developer could vote. Surprise, surprise, the annexation was approved by those few.

I wasn't here when that happened, but...as I understand it, annexation only has to be approved by the property owner (who approaches the city, in this case, and asks to be included). Adjacent properties don't get a vote, and it's not on any ballot. Gerrymandered city limits are the result, and eventually those left in a "peninsula" decide they'd prefer full-time police and fire and water and sewer and trash collection and so forth. (Then the sidewalk assessments hit.)

At least that's how it worked at my first municipal job (someplace else, 1978-79).

[GRDadof3]

I think the Meijer land at the Southwest corner was annexed at the same time Meijer was going through the submission process. I seem to remember it was pretty contentious, and the land was annexed because GR Twp didn't want the store, but the city of GR was all for it.

[tamias6]

The proposed Petosky store has hit a minor hiccup. The Petosky city planning commission wants Meijer to increase a setback between the new store and some adjacent condos from 50 ft to 75 ft. Meijer says this would make fitting the 156,000 sq. ft store on the land they wish to build on more difficult. Also the article shows a better image of the store renderings.

Petoskey News Article