[pheaton]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

CVS bought the land.

The land where the existing businesses are? Or the land behind them? How can they buy land if it's not for sale?

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by pheaton

The land where the existing businesses are? Or the land behind them?

Both, if I'm not mistaken.

How can they buy land if it's not for sale?

Easy. You just find the owner of the land (public record) and then make an offer.

[jessep28]

Everything's for sale at the right price.

[2Adam29]

Originally Posted by Happygolucky

I don't think that is true, the signs say NO LEFT TURN, they do not have anything else saying you can if it is an business or not.

actually, I am sure of this... the "no left turn" is only at intersections.

[nelaw08]

The same people who complain that Omaha is a bland town dominated by chains and buildings that all look the same are the same people who will get on this forum and support the tearing down of the 49er so Omaha can have another chain box store. They will then visit a town like Portland, Oregon and rave about how cool the neighborhoods are and how Omaha sucks. Personally, I would rather see the existing buildings cleaned up and the local business remain open. At the very least, I would like to see some planning that encourages an urban look for the CVS. But I suppose that in Nebraska that makes me a radical hippie.

[pheaton]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Both, if I'm not mistaken.

Easy. You just find the owner of the land (public record) and then make an offer.

So are the owners complaining? If it's such a big deal, just don't sell CVS the land. Maybe I'm confused?

[mattpoulsen]

I don't think anyone would argue that they'd like to see the old buildings cleaned up. But that's the problem. Who is going to pay for that?? Are you going to fork over the millions needed to fix up the area? We live in a relatively free society and all your witnesses is a manifestation of that freedom. Who sold the property? This isn't a case where the property was stripped via eminent domain.

That's when I call someone a hippie. What? Is the owner suppose to forgo a windfall from CVS so these protesters can keep their favorite bar intact??

So, sure, we would all like the utopian world wherein people keep old town businesses intact, well operated, and in good repair and no one would ever sell out to "evil corporations." The problem is we live in reality. And I would not ask that owner to sacrifice his/her well being and his/her family's well being in order to assure these protesters can continue to get drunk at their favorite bar.

The reality is CVS will, in fact, clean up the neighborhood. Its just completely unrealistic to think the alternative to CVS is a nice quaint cleaned up neighborhood in that location. The alternative is what you have now...not what you "wish" it would be.

[pheaton]

So 1 of 2 things happened here. Either this offer was so great they could not pass it up and figure they will just reopen their business elsewhere, or they feel their business is unsustainable or undesireable in someway and want out.

This is not eminent domain. . Owners are not being forced from their businesses. This is a simple property sale. CVS came in and made an offer. The offer was accepted. Now people are trying to get the city to prevent a business from building on the land they purchase/intend to purchase? I had mixed feelings when I thought these people were being forced out, but now, I realize this is just nuts. Let the owners take their money and get out, let CVS build their store.

Who cares if there are 20 pharmacies in the area? The area obviously has a need for pharmacies if they can all survive. CVS, like Walgreens offers more than just pharmacy stuff. You can stop in there to pick up other things quickly. The other day I used Walgreens for some maple syrup, lol. CVS obviously thinks they can offer something different and take business away from the competition. It's not any different than a Target going in across from a Walmart, when there is a Gordmans and Kohls down the street already.

[nelaw08]

All points well taken Mr. Poulsen. My larger point was that CVS should make an effort to create an urban looking building. The city council, as I understand it, originally rejected the CVS plan because CVS wanted a huge parking lot and a typical box store. They submitted this plan after promosing an urban look. I believe that the city council should reject the plan on those grounds. Of course a private property owner can sell his property within the limitations of the law, but that does not mean that is what is best for the community. In my humble opinion, other cities would have rejected CVS' plan and Omaha already has too many big parking lots. I also love the 49er - a true classic dive bar.

[pheaton]

I can't find the sketch for the Dundee plan, but they did draw up a plan for the building that had more of a urban neighborhood feel instead of concrete slab.

CVS has done this in it's other markets and at this point intends to do this in Dundee. I'm not sure if that was originally their plan, generic is probably cheaper, but in light of the response from the neighborhood they created a different design to fit in better. I think this urban revision was in part what prompted the re-vote. You can find examples on google images of some more urban designs CVS has used, for instance: