The letter says explicitly that proposed compromise legislation to limit grocery sales "was not a factor in our decision to decline to participate in the Steelyard Commons project". The Mayor, the developer, and the Plain Dealer all insist that it means the opposite of what it says. You be the judge.
But this is the part I'm curious about:
We are notifying you of our decision because we are aware of the perception in Cleveland that our plans were more definitive than they actually were. We were in the process of evaluating the site and had not internally agreed that this was an appropriate site for a Wal-Mart store.This makes me curious because developer Mitch Schneider told the PD in February that he had a "letter of intent" from Wal-Mart. Yesterday's editorial angrily repeats this claim.
Now what can this mean? Did Wal-Mart send a letter to Schneider confirming its intention to build a store in his project, even though they had not, in fact, "internally agreed" to do so? Or has Schneider been telling us something that isn't quite true?
It's kind of an important detail, don't you think? Maybe the PD could spare a moment of distraction from bashing Joe Cimperman and the labor movement to ask Mr. Schneider for a copy of that other letter from Bentonville, and share it with the public.
A