It is not often we get to see the elemental questions of "Who are we?" and "What do we want?" addressed in public, but such was the case at the Wawarsing Town Board meeting last Thursday night, when the discussion of Wal-Mart, moratoriums and the perceived will of the people revealed some uncomfortable truths about our community, and brought to light starkly different views of how we see ourselves and the future.

Everyone brought to the meeting an awareness of a humiliating reality. So many nearby communities are thriving: Stone Ridge, Pine Bush, New Paltz, all growing and prospering. Why haven't we been able to do the same? Is there something wrong with us? After a nearly decade-long real estate boom, why are we the only township in Ulster County with so many empty stores, a dying mall, abandoned factories and decaying homes. We bristle at any mention of our plight by outsiders, with the self-conscious touchiness that comes from knowing they are half right.

One heard, in many of the voices speaking to the Board that night, a sense of bitter resignation and diminished expectations. "Yes, Wal-Mart is considered a bad employer, and yes it might harm local merchants, and yes it might bring problems, noise, traffic and many unforeseen expenses to the town but we need it, we want it, and we have to have it now since we need something – anything – to alleviate this crushing sense of frustration."

Some of that frustration comes from the longtime residents who have names like Channel Master and Schrade ringing in their ears. Their longevity gives them a sense of what used to be here and a number of them struggle to reconcile their past with their present.

Is Wal-Mart the answer to Wawarsing's problems of joblessness and a lack of "big-name" shopping? In truth, no one really knows. There are studies and questions on both sides that argue for success and failure. But having a Wal-Mart in Wawarsing means that the perceived gap that exists between us and all those other towns closes just a bit.

And so enters Steve Krulick and his group WERD, with their talk of moratoriums and people get scared. "Put any conditions on Wal-Mart and they will pick up their ball and go home." The town's one chance to close the gap will have been lost.

But still he and his group comes, offering statistics, case studies and making the case over the past few weeks for local initiatives that to date have not materialized, and a moratorium that to most sounds like a recipe for disaster. Either it will kill a fragile deal or open the Town to a lawsuit filed by the largest corporation on the planet. Nevertheless, his facts are well-researched and compelling, and deserve a consideration far beyond what was given that Thursday.

That Wal-Mart is not the best neighbor is nothing new. Wal-Mart's low prices and low wages go hand in hand, creating a 21st century version of the "company store." The combination of a barely minimum wage, no benefits, and cheap, low-quality products form a complete system of institutionalized poverty, guaranteeing the corporation a workforce trapped and dependent upon the only retailer they can afford.

Contrary to Bella Volchik's unsubstantiated assertions of Wal-Mart parking lots full of Jaguars and Mercedes, Wal-mart's recent effort to appeal to "upscale" consumers was a dismal failure, and accounted for much of their decline in profits in 2006.

In the end, the arguments of poor paying jobs, unfair competition and the loss of local business just did not seem to outweigh the perception that if Wal-Mart suddenly withdrew from the deal, nothing would ever replace it. Local government has pretty much failed to date, as has the local business community. Councilperson Houck said as much, directly criticizing the lack of joint efforts between the Village and the Town, and indirectly criticizing himself and the current Board.

As these issues continue to be the subject of spirited debate, it is clear that the Town Board has a difficult task. They were elected, so they want to somehow reflect the will of the people who elected them. Then want to be re-elected, so they do not want to go against any sizeable group of people. But they also have to govern in the Town's interest, which sometimes can be in direct conflict with the real or perceived "will of the people". Is this a case? Is the right thing to do the unpopular thing? Is trying to direct large-scale development a process that should be guided by politics? If the sense is that Wawarsing "wants" Wal-Mart, does that mean the Town Board should just step out of the way and trust Wal-Mart will do the right thing?

Has anyone in an actual position of authority in the Town done any research on what Wal-Mart means to Wawarsing? Isn't it one of the responsibilities of the Board to gather the facts so they can respond intelligently to new realities? Has the Town Board spoken to other communities who have contended with a new Wal-Mart? Have they done any formal research at all? That was not in evidence on Thursday.

Good decisions rarely come from such a dejected outlook, since almost anything looks better than the current reality. The Town Board has a duty to listen to and consider all of the points of view provided for them. We can only hope in the future that they remember their other responsibility and find the will to lead - before it is too late.

COMMENTS about this article (11)