No on "N" No on "N" (February 22, 2002)

The saga of Home Depot in Mountain View really shouldn't have come to this: a heated and acrimonious ballot measure campaign, slick PR and expensive mailings, annoying petitioners and phone-callers, promises and threats, neighbors up in arms, and lawns dotted with signs disparaging gorillas.

Here's the scenario. A very large business wants to come into Mountain View, offering the multiple benefits of good products, hundreds of new jobs, sales tax revenue, and improvement of a vacant property. They choose an appropriate site, go through the city's planning process, respond to local concerns, display a good track record in other neighboring communities, and though there's some debate, they win the city's and community's trust. Ribbon-cutting time.

But that's not how it happened here.

On March 5, proponents of a new Home Depot at El Camino and Americana Drive are asking you to overlook a protracted struggle with the city and the community, and give them the green light to build their newest warehouse just a stone's throw from residences, in an area ill-equipped to handle the traffic problems the store will most likely generate.

They're asking you to look at their aesthetically pleasing elevation drawings of appealing architecture and plantings, and they are promising to adhere to a set of restrictions on operating hours and truck delivery traffic.

They earnestly want to be in Mountain View and are certain the store will be a plus to the community, providing convenience and serving the growing market of home improvement needs.

But the community reaction to Home Depot's plan, the avalanche of opposition we've seen, points out that there are key factors too big to ignore _ costly mistakes largely on the part of Home Depot.

For one, there's location, the beginning and end of Home Depot's story in Mountain View, we believe. Placing the giant warehouse so close to neighborhoods _ and on an already congested thoroughfare _ won't fit into the kind of community many people in city government and residential groups have worked to create.

Home Depot's dealings with the city, too, have been fraught with missteps. Make no mistake, Mountain View isn't casually blowing off an exciting new business. Since 1995 the city has been deeply involved _ at great public expense _ in finding ways to make a large project work on this site.

The council approved both a Home Depot Expo Center and, two years later, a hotel project, both of which mysteriously disappeared, leaving Home Depot to dig in and insist on the conventional warehouse store for this site.

The council, after deciding that "big box" retail was not in the zoning for the site, even gave Home Depot the opportunity to come back with revisions.

But when Home Depot last summer pulled its latest application for a project just hours before a crucial council vote, politicians and residents cried foul. Now the issue is on the ballot.

Citizens don't usually get to vote on building projects, and the March election is a unique opportunity for direct input on a subject of huge controversy. One of the truly pressing questions each Mountain View voter must answer is whether it is really worth it to vote to approve a project with so many questions.

Up until the past few months, Home Depot was represented here by a petulant and inept PR team that managed to alienate residents and the council while maintaining their self-righteous attitude.

The team now handling the project _ led by experienced consultant Victor Ajlouny _ is much better, and for the first time the company seems to be responding to Mountain View's concerns.

But we would like to see Home Depot work together with the council to hammer out something that will have clear benefits to the city, rather than work on a short-term campaign to sway voters to support the ballot initiative.

Many Mountain View residents may feel the issue isn't worth the heat it's generated, that the traffic can be handled and that neighborhood problems won't be bothersome _ especially to those people who don't live near the new store. Many folks may appreciate the chance to shop for low-cost items closer to home.

And realistically, the site is made for large-scale commercial use, is located on a major commercial thoroughfare, and currently houses the crumbling eyesore of an edifice that was the emporium.

But ultimately, we have heard no convincing arguments that the current Home Depot plan is the best possible use for the site, and until the company can either work within the city's planning process to create something that fits within the city's planning framework _ or else sublease the site to a developer who could build something more profitable or of greater benefit to the community _ there seems to be no compelling reason for Mountain View voters to go out of their way to support the project.

Saying no to commercial growth is a difficult call for a community, but Home Depot's inappropriate site and track record leave us with too many problems to greet their coming with enthusiasm. It shouldn't have come to this, yet we're left with no choice but a "no" on N.