It's Costco's decision, of course, if the big discount store doesn't choose to open in Thousand Oaks. In private enterprise, companies must be cautious about expansion, especially now, when the economy is dragging.

On the other hand, it's no surprise that the new store proposed for Newbury Park would be costly. This is, after all, an upscale area in Southern California with exceptional demographics. It's not cheap to build anything here, like it would be, for example, in a one-horse town in North Dakota.

Land here isn't cheap. Nothing is.

The new store here, according to Costco, would have been the most expensive they've ever built.

To which we say, "Why wouldn't it be?"

To open one of the biggest and best Costco stores in an upscale part of Southern California, within convenient driving distance for people with plenty of disposable income, won't happen without deep pockets.

Sure it costs a lot of money to open here.

But this isn't Palmdale, and Costco isn't Woolworth's.

The city expects Costco to make improvements on streets and the nearby freeway interchange. That's standard procedure. The city staff is professional. Developers can't just waltz into town, build to their heart's content and then leave a mess.

Traffic will be mitigated here. That's the way it is. And that's the way it should be.

There's another possibility, of course.

Maybe Costco is trying to negotiate a better deal from the landlord. On that, Costco has a point. Property values have taken a downturn, even here. What was a sweet deal two years ago, a year ago or even six months ago is no longer a bargain.

It's time for the landowner to sharpen his pencil.

On the other hand, property values aren't going to fall forever. Land might be cheaper now than it will ever be.

In fact, there may never be a better time for Costco to move forward.