Residents need self-storage or city wouldn't consider it

I'm writing in response to Robert Nguyen's Sept. 11 letter, "Self-storage is a waste of space."

His points are riddled with ignorance. The first point he makes is that, with shrinking unemployment, the development will only employ two people. He forgets that it will take many more people to assemble and build the facility, not to mention all the people that have to work to produce the materials necessary for construction, such as steel, roofing supplies, wood inside the office and security systems, to name just a few.

The second point he makes is concerning tax revenue. True, the sales tax produced won't be as high as if a retail strip center were being built. However, if that was the objection for every proposed development in the area, there would be no houses, apartments, offices or medical buildings.

If every development in Thousand Oaks was only for the purpose of sales tax, the town would be one gigantic retail corridor. Somehow, I think the community would object to that.

The third point is that he doesn't think the highest and best use for the land is self-storage because there are already 10 in the area. These developers I presume have much more information and knowledge than most readers if there's a shortage of self-storage and a need for more.

The proof is that they paid more money for the land than anyone else and are making the bet with their own money that their presumption is true.

If the need for more apartments or the need for more retail was greater than the need for more self-storage, then developers of those types of real estate would have paid more for the land than the storage developers.

I highly doubt that the reader would be objecting if he was the person who sold the land to the developer who paid more money than anyone else.

I can see it now: "Well, I'll accept $200,000 less because I personally think that a shopping center is better for the city." William C. Gendron Mele Storage Group Tampa, Fla.