Walmart made it known they wanted to build a store in Manteca.

That was 34 years ago.

There were 40,500 Manteca residents back in 1988.

Most were complaining the city wasn’t doing enough to score more shopping and dining options. It is bellyaching that continues today with Manteca at 89,000 residents.

 The original developers of Mission Ridge Shopping Center wanted to develop a retail center  on the northwest corner of Main Street and the 120 Bypass.

Seven households on a short former country road known as Rocha Lane were in the way.

The city, via the now defunct Manteca Redevelopment Agency, used the threat of eminent domain to force the owners out.

None wanted to sell.

 While they got “fair market price” many had lived their for 40 years and viewed their street as a slice of paradise.

The city via the RDA assembled land where basically Denny’s and a large sliver of the parking lot in front of Walmart are today. They then sold it to the developer.

Not one Manteca resident who didn’t live on Rocha Lane including those in the closest housing development that was north of Wawona Street objected.

They wanted a Walmart. They saw Mission Ridge Shopping Center as a way of boosting their property values.

That was back in 1988.

Fast forward to 2022.

Those residing in the neighborhood north of Wawona Street, for the most part, do not want the city’s proposed homeless navigation center built anywhere near them.

Few, if any, of those that lived in the area back in 1988 are likely still around.

Clearly a homeless navigation center and Walmart aren’t one in the same.

But unlike the RDA dealings that landed the Walmart everyone in Manteca seemed to want except for the households sacrificed along Rocha Lane, there was no government heavily handiness in securing the 8-acre site where the homeless navigation center is being built.
The process to secure the site was done in the open with the exception of price negotiations for the 8 acre parcel that was owned by the successor agency. That agency was put in place at the state’s direction to dispose of the former redevelopment agency property.

Despite breathless accusations that closed door sessions regarding property negotiations were done “in secret” and were sinister, it is legal to do so.

City Councils in California under state law can meet behind closed doors on matters involving negotiations for property as well as employee contracts, litigation that is pending or has a high possibility of occurring or employee discipline matters.

Given the nature of the three exceptions, it makes sense that the Brown Act  makes exemptions for them.

Any final action taken in closed sessions regarding what is conducted must be reported at a public session.

And to adopt contracts with labor and to acquire items such as property where negotiations are required to obtain a selling price, the council must do so as a subsequent public meeting. The public, at that time, has the right to object and to try to block action.

They could object to pay raises for police, as an example,  or speak out against the city buying land.

Such was the RDA buying property along Rocha Lane, the city obtaining parcels for the McKinley Avenue interchange project, and the acquisition of the 8 acres fronting South Main Street and backing up to Carnegie Court.

All were classified as projects for the public good.

And while it is clear there are people who object to the city buying the parcel for the homeless navigation center and have every right to do so, the city did not act in a corrupt manner.

They followed the law.

Claiming the city broke the law in obtaining the site for a homeless navigation center is incorrect and a non-starter.

Whether there are people who don’t want the navigation center there is another issue.

Unfortunately, just because there are objections doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate reasons for the council to proceed.

Rest assured such like on  Rocha Lane, there were people along McKinley Avenue who did not want to sell at any price.

They made their displeasure known. They were loud and clear at council meetings.

The respective councils in office both times was also getting a lot of pressure to “do something.”

Growing congestion on Airport Way and a demand that Manteca pave the way for more dining, entertainment and shopping  options drove the decision to forge ahead with the McKinley Avenue interchange.

It was a key condition by  Caltrans if the city wanted to proceed with development of the nearly 100 acres left in the family entertainment zone bookended by Great Wolf resort and Big League Dreams. It was also required before the city could allow a posible 250-room expansion of Great Wolf.

And it was needed before more businesses could be lured to the area. The first of which, by the way, is a  brewery breaking ground in the coming months on Daniels Street at Milo Candini Drive.

By the same token it is clear a lot of people want the city to step up its efforts in addressing the homeless problem in Manteca.

The most workable answer the city came up with after wrestling with the issue in a  very public manner for four years was a homeless navigation center that will not operate as a drop-in center. That means the homeless can’t access services without committing to getting off the streets.

And by providing such the option, the city has a green light under court rulings to crackdown on illegal homeless encampments in a more aggressive manner providing there are beds for the homeless to access at the navigation center.

This should not be interpreted as saying that those who object to the navigation center near their homes are wrong.

It is to simply point out the council did follow the laws and certainly did nor ignore “the will of the people” as has been the charge for the past nine or so months.

In reality, the council gave more weight to the “will of the people” that the city do something to improve the homeless situation in Manteca.

That doesn’t mean those against the site don’t want the same thing. They just don’t want the navigation center near them.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com