I follow a Twitter user out of Anoka, MN, thegoo who posted this message to Twitter which included a link to the photo above.
What do you think about it? Should Cub Foods be rewarding those with 30 MPG cars (on the honor system no less) and making those that don’t drive cars like that walk two spaces more? I have many questions and thoughts but I’d like to see what you think. Comment on!
Related posts:
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
Lazy Lightning Gear
BPAC Financials Archive
November 20th, 2008 at 9:34 am
It is probably a nod more than anything. I don’t think anything can be done if someone parks their “Hummer” there. I see no fine warning and no tow warning. Maybe you get the stink eye from the cashier, or worst case scenario, get asked not to come back to the store. It is fluff. How about reserving those spaces for pregnant women?
November 20th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Ridiculous. I want to go there and park my Ford Explorer and take up both spaces.
I’d rather see “reserved” spaces like that for the elderly.
While we’re adding some signage lets reserve some spaces in the very back of the lot for idiots. If you have one of those Calvin peeing on anything stickers in the back window of your pick up truck you automatically qualify for idiot parking. If you’re planning on getting you some culture at the Bill Engvall event you automatically qualify for idiot parking. Oh, and any sort of “my spawn is an honor student” sticker earns you a spot at the back of the lot.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:05 am
No way that Impala gets 30 mpg.
I don’t see parking closer to the store as being much of a perk.
Besides, if your vehicle is more fuel efficient, you’ll waste less driving around and around the parking lot waiting for someone to pull out. The gas guzzlers should be made/allowed to park right away.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Erica, we don’t know if the signs are for all four spots and we don’t exactly know where the entrance to the lot is. Based on the design of most Cub Foods’ parking lots, I’d gather that the gas guzzlers would be parking in the back of the lot.
November 20th, 2008 at 11:25 am
walking is good, park further away , its good for you and you work up an appetite to eat at a good hamburger spot ….
much ado about nothing
November 20th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I can’t believe this is real. How incredibly stupid.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Love the wording, using “only” twice. So if you get 31 mpg, you’re out? Also, is that for highway or city MPG? So many questions. I would rather park far away enough form the cars so I can open my door all the way & not risk a ding from a neighboring vehicle.
November 20th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Forget the “rock star” parking. I just want the space next to the cart corral. Safe from door dings on at least one side. Less likely to have carts left loose around it. Kudos to Mrs. Marcos for the idiot parking criteria – I’ll add one more: people who park alongside the building in the emergency vehicle zone or in the crossing zone, engines running, right next to the “no parking and no stopping” signs, while their shopping cohort just “runs in” to the store for “just a minute” are banished immediately to the idiot parking area as well. Then the rest of us can be entertained when their compatriot comes out of the store, laden with shopping bags, and cannot find the vehicle.
November 20th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
I love parking in the spots for pregnant women or “takeout only.”
November 20th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Or reserved for “.com In-store pickup”
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 am
While I love the idea that I would benefit from this, nothing irritates me more than limiting ANY parking spots aside from handicap parking. Take out, pharmacy, etc… just makes me mad because I can’t tell they’re “reserved” while approaching them… only when I’m about to pull in do I realize that I need to find somewhere else to park.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 am
When I arrive at a store, I personally don’t drive around looking for that “close” spot. I’d rather walk an extra 50-100 ft then to drive around for 5 mins trying to score that “close” spot.. Why waste your time? Handicap places…understandable…the rest..ridiculous. To me this is almost a “Your better if you own a fuel efficient car.” Maybe Cub Foods is thinking “well they save money with their fuel efficient car..so they will spend more here..give them a spot closer up!” Make them feel wanted and use that vulnerability as a way to make more money (?)
November 25th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
[...] Photo courtesy of thegoo via Lazy Lightning. [...]
November 25th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
We have similar parking at our headquarters in Saint Paul (although our signs are worded differently).
Difficult to see which models those are, but there are flexible fuel engines in select Chevy Impallas and Ford Taurus models. That would certainly qualify as “low emitting.”
We also have a leased flex-fuel Impalla. You can see a picture of it on our website: http://www.CleanAirChoice.org
November 25th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
My mistake. The Impalla is on our Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Clean-Air-Choice-Team/35428592642
November 25th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
That’s looks like a 2002ish Chevrolet Malibu and a Ford Focus hatchback. I doubt either are flex fuel especially given the ghetto tint job on the rear window of the Chevy. According to the Department of Energy, the 2002 Malibu was rated at 18 mpg city and 26 highway. The Focus is rated 22/28 for automatic, and 22/32 for highway. I doubt many people use long highway drives to get to Cub.
That said, the sign isn’t applicable to those two cars. It’s applicable to the cars on either side of the person taking the photo.
Bottom line, even if the signs are the same on the other side, neither qualifies and if I drove either of those cars, I’d want to park as far out of view as possible. Maybe behind the loading dock.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
On a side note, it would be a blast to sit outside, watch cars come and go and loudly “file complaints” with the Cub manager on duty whenever a non-conforming car came in.