Leaders should take time with Wal-Mart issue

The first open meeting of the Bath Town Board about Wal-Mart's desire to build in Bath was undeniably polarized from the start. If the community at large remains polarized on a vision for progress, we all lose and little is to be gained.

Bickering will not create a solution, but consensus building will. Many voices were heard from out of town at this meeting. Wal-Mart's desire to make a home here must be a collective decision by the community and for the community - not just a corporation & some locals who will profit for this to be a healthy and viable addition to our economy. A sustainable economy is what this is all about, not just saving a few bucks in gas money to have a closer Supercenter.

Many people have their minds made up as to whether Wal-Mart poses a vision for progress or one of demise. Either side of this issue wants to see jobs and prosperity come to town but have different views on how to achieve it. The perceptions on both sides need to be balanced with wisdom and not based on quick easy answers.

The same type of personal separation that is necessary for a judge in a courtroom to reach a fair and impartial decision is the best way to approach something of this magnitude. We are all busy with our lives and have little perceived time to dedicate to issues like this. But if we pass the buck and allow others to decide what is good for Bath without a concerted effort of as many individuals as possible, the real health and prosperity of our community is in serious trouble.

There is a big difference between "winning" or "losing" in this issue and what is truly right for this beloved community of ours. Careful consideration of all the facts is necessary to make wise decisions that will impact this community for a long time to come.

The Town Board was commendable to allow many people to speak their mind at this first meeting. That is a healthy precedent, but the room was overfilled with 25 people or so above legal capacity and 30 or so folks were out in the hallway and were excluded from the meeting. This is not good democratic practice and ignoring occupancy laws brings to question how this meeting was handled. It could be justly construed that this meeting was going to go on, no matter how many people were in the room and no matter what the "Maximum Occupancy" signs said.

Does this mean that the Board had an agenda that was not to be delayed? Think about what lays in the balance, and what you can do as a concerned citizen. Our leaders need to hone the process and set an example that we can all trust so we are assured that unbiased decisions are being made in the community's favor. A neutral position from all is best for this issue. Dave Walczak Bath