Worse still, I believe that once Walgreens purchases and builds their own store, they will close the Duane Reade at the Path station (where they pay rent!). If that were to happen, traveling through Journal Square will be both less convenient/pleasant, and substantially more dangerous.

Finally, Good Neighbor’s comments describe well just how ugly the site will become, with a loading dock on Kennedy Blvd! Those few blocks are already congested. Can you see traffic backing up for miles as trailers stop traffic during the morning rush?! (Ask people waiting for the 87 bus in the morning about the 10 minutes it takes for trucks to manuever in/out of the Shelley’s lot.)

This is simply vile and hopefully JC residents will care enough to put a stop to it.

Am I the only one who doesn’t believe they want to open another drugstore that close to the first one? Even Starbucks has backed down from the neighborhood saturation plan that put a unit in every block, often directly across the street from each other.

When he was asked to justify a 3rd large drug store in the neighborhood, the failure of their flack to mention that they actually own the DR at JSQ,is telling about his willingness to deceive the community now and predictive of that approach in the future. That omission is so large and significant that it is clearly a deliberate deception.

That “omission” suggests to the skeptical, or the cynical, or the realists who are hopelessly both, that Walgreens wants that property, and the one-story zoning variance so they can build a drive-through. It may also explain why Walgreens is speaking to the community through a mouthpiece rather than directly as would befit a honest good neighbor.

He gives them the opportunity, somewhere down the road, when they start asking for the drive-through, to say, “Oh, but he misspoke and did not really say what we intended. So we severed the relationship. We sincerely regret any misunderstanding. Now, about that zoning variance, let’s get real.”

It would be interesting to ask their flack if his client would be willing to make a binding commitment that they would never try to put a drive-through on that property.

I hope the owners can figure something else out, and stick it out through this rough economy.

Maybe EVERYONE can go there for lunch this week, and show the VIP how much they are appreciated!!!

Another drugstore…my gosh, what vision!!! How pathetic & sad.

How is that a problem for capital-rich Walgreens? They are not a developer wanting to put up a spec building with borrowed money. They want to build a property for a going business, which as he says, “Walgreens wouldn’t invest ‘millions of dollars’ in a new location if the demand weren’t present. ”

There’s a disconnect there. It’s worth millions to build, but not with a few stories of office or residential above it? True, the office market is a little weak right now, but not anywhere near as it is elsewhere. Ask the local commercial agents and they will tell you how little Class A office space in the neighborhood is unrented.

As for residential space, there is, to my knowledge, almost zero Class A residential space anywhere in JSQ that is not already rented.

It’s instructive that no local developer has been mentioned as having rejected interest in working with Walgreens. To say that none are interested is, let us be kind, an exaggeration.

Also, the issue of signage and driveways also needs to be addressed. Walgreens properties typically have large illuminated signs standing at the entrance. The lovely trees on the boulevard side of the property that now flower every spring, carpet the sidewalk with delicate white and pink petals.

The plan drawing proposes to replace them – and the bus stop – with a driveway and a nakedly visible loading dock where there will be 4o-foot 18-wheelers coming and going across the sidewalk. That would be a sad uglification of that currently pleasant little urban space, not to mention a hazard for people using the bus stop and pedestrians crossing the boulevard.

Finally, why does Walgreens needs a government lobbyist to speak for it? Yes, they have the right to hire someone, anyone, to do that. But what does it says about Walgreens that they choose that option, instead of having their own community relations office (which they do have) ‘handle” this matter. What neighbor sends a proxy to introduce themselves to the other neighbors, while hiding behind, “talk to our lobbyist?”

Walgreens, you should be speaking for yourself, openly and directly, not letting some lobbyist do it who first says the property has been sold but then, after JCI questions that, retracts to admit it is only under a contingency contract, which is not a sale at all. And you need to respect the zoning and land use rules that the community and city planning agencies have said is what we want.

No, the problem is, Walgreens has looked at plans that the community has approved and that the city has promulgated – and decided to go against their collective wishes. Those are not the actions of a good neighbor. Those are the actions of a large, wealthy corporation that wants something and intends to have it regardless what its neighbors wants.

Apart from the pharmacy, I think the 24hr Walgreens are a great asset to any community.