In response to a recent op-ed piece (“Walmart stoppage no cause for celebration,” Sept. 8) I imagine it is, indeed, no celebration for the writer, Walmart executive Steven Restivo, whose job it is to facilitate the opening of Walmart stores in communities. His crying foul about the motives of the attorney representing the Walmart opposition was done, evidently, without a trace of irony. Remember, Restivo is not a resident of Burbank but rather a corporate mouthpiece representing Walmart. One wonders what Restivo personally stands to lose by the delay of Walmart’s opening. A bonus? Perhaps even his job?

Restivo’s wide-eyed dismay that the representing attorney’s goal is “not to do what is in the best interest of the community, but to stop Walmart at all costs” is laughable. Are we really to believe that this Walmart executive’s righteous indignation stems from an “aw-shucks” passion to do what is “right” for Burbank? Perhaps he’s betting Burbank residents are naive and won’t notice his vested interest. That was a bad bet, Restivo.

As to the attorney: Yes, he does represent the union and yes, he does represent the residents opposed to Walmart. It would be impossible for three individuals to take on the world’s largest corporation without some help. But if you think this is some slick maneuver that only the union is capable of orchestrating then you’ve forgotten who stepped up to pay the attorney for the city in this lawsuit — that’s right, Walmart.

Ann Sloan
Burbank