Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trader Joe's Shrugged

vvdailypress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#31

Post by Symmetry »

aetherson wrote: post #10
drakaal wrote: post #2

Visit the Tenderloin in SF. Twitter came in to the community brought lots of jobs. Did that make the neighborhood better? No. What happened was that the price of housing went up for a group of people who could already not afford it. Basically the "area" was developed but not the "community". Like an invasive species. There is nothing wrong with rabbits in general. I like them. But in Australia they are destroying the…

Could we find some nuance between "poor people are going to be wiped out by invasive rich/middle class people," and "there are no losers to gentrification, ever"? It seems clear that when a neighborhood gentrifies, some of incumbent residents will find their lives improved (perhaps because: a job is created that they get, they own property which is now more valuable, the neighborhood is safer, schools are better), wh…

Ideally a growing city would build enough new housing to accommodate all it's citizens. If there isn't enough built, developers will spend their square footage on the highest paying people first. And generally the rich are better at effective NIMBYism than poor people, meaning that new development aimed at rich people gets pushed into poor neighborhoods, which does actually suck for poor people. The best solution is not to panic about the second order effects, but to try to get to the root of the problem and build more housing, and do it everywhere.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#32

Post by antidaily »

msmillie wrote: post #7
rst wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you're not familiar with Trader Joe's --- they are known for good food at low prices. And it's hard to see any parallel between a grocery store (open to local residents) and Twitter HQ (where most workers never interact with local residents at all).

That someone can innocently and unironically describe Trader Joe's as being "known for low prices" is really the crux of the problem here. Perhaps you're not familiar with minimum wage?

They put a Whole Foods (definitely not known for low prices) on a vacant lot in downtown Detroit and it's doing great.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#33

Post by squozzer »

I think the larger question is what exactly will raise the living standards of a poor neighborhood without gentrification.

I am not sure. A lot of the poorer neighborhoods in my city (Atlanta) were built as bedroom communities for factory workers.

As others have suggested, job magnets that are otherwise undesirable to the upper middle class might work.

WalMarts, airports, jails, power plants, sewage treatment plants, military bases - did I miss anything?

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#34

Post by dubfan »

scotch_drinker wrote: post #14

Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people? Are there known instances where Trader Joe's or other reasonably high end store coming into economically depressed areas and significantly improving the economic status of people in the area? This article has a lot of rage and perhaps it's justified. But it's also entirely possible that stores do this sort of thing all the time with the blessing of city councils…

This is total anecdata and all caveats apply, but there is a Trader Joe's in south Everett, Washington, near the Everett Mall. Between the high crime rate, 1960s car-focused urban planning, apartments run by slumlords, and bikini barista stands, I wouldn't call it a desirable neighborhood. I suspect it gets most of its customer base from surrounding wealthier neighborhoods.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#35

Post by lotsofmangos »

scotch_drinker wrote: post #14

Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people? Are there known instances where Trader Joe's or other reasonably high end store coming into economically depressed areas and significantly improving the economic status of people in the area? This article has a lot of rage and perhaps it's justified. But it's also entirely possible that stores do this sort of thing all the time with the blessing of city councils…

Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people?

Of course it does, it is a chain store. I'm all for working out alternatives, but actually work them out before seeking to demolish what currently functions, otherwise you are just making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#36

Post by scotch_drinker »

lobotryas wrote: post #19
scotch_drinker wrote: post #14

Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people? Are there known instances where Trader Joe's or other reasonably high end store coming into economically depressed areas and significantly improving the economic status of people in the area? This article has a lot of rage and perhaps it's justified. But it's also entirely possible that stores do this sort of thing all the time with the blessing of city councils…

> It would bring new jobs but to who? It would bring quality food but for whom? It would increase tax revenues but for who? Fair questions, I'll grant you that. My question to you: is doing nothing (an empty lot) better than ambiguity about the people who will finally benefit from this economic development? If TJ moved in and somehow ended up providing only a net of 1% benefit to the local community, would that be wo…

It's hard to say. If a new development means 80% of the local population have to move somewhere farther away from jobs, then yes, an empty lot would be better. You assume the empty lot is a zero but it's just somewhere on the scale. It is easy to imagine a scenario where a development provides negative impact to the poor in that community. An empty lot isn't the floor. It's just a place to measure from.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#37

Post by aaronbrethorst »

I got the sense while reading that blog post there had to be more to the story than what was presented there. I spent some time reading, and found out that:

1. The crux of the issue for PAALF was that increasing neighborhood desirability (and therefore rent) without ensuring either living wage guarantees or affordable housing would result in the displacement of current neighborhood residents.

2. The land was being sold at a $500,000 discount from its assessed value, which was money that PAALF felt the community desperately needed.

Here's some more context:

[W]hen Trader Joe's announced Monday it was pulling out due to 'negative reactions from the community," PAALF was as surprised as anyone.

"This was not about Trader Joe's," Gilliam said in response to questions from reporters. He said the group's opposition was rooted in development commission's "broken promises of the past."

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/02/portlan...

The property in question was assessed at $2.9 M and was offered to Majestic Realty for $500,000, which amounts to a nearly $2.4 M “subsidy.” This subsidy primarily benefits the Roski family, one of the richest families in the country. It secondarily benefits Traders Joes, a national corporation. It mandates no affordable housing and no job guarantees from Trader Joes.

A new Trader Joes will increase the desirability of the neighborhood to non­-oppressed populations, thereby increasing the economic pressures that are responsible for the displacement of low­income and Black residents.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/paalf...

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#38

Post by mudil »

Reminds me of a WSJ story from 2006 where a woman was criticized and prevented from planting trees in SF's Tenderloin because making the neighborhood more beautiful would make transvestites and transgender residents feel unwelcome.

San Francisco's red-light denizens fight to stay seedy:

http://www.post-gazette.com/life/lifestyle/2006/10/24/San-Fr...

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#39

Post by scotch_drinker »

ultrasaurus wrote: post #21
scotch_drinker wrote: post #14

Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people? Are there known instances where Trader Joe's or other reasonably high end store coming into economically depressed areas and significantly improving the economic status of people in the area? This article has a lot of rage and perhaps it's justified. But it's also entirely possible that stores do this sort of thing all the time with the blessing of city councils…

Are the poor from the community currently working at, eating quality food from or benefitting from taxes collected from the "empty two-acre lot on which it was to be built"? "This isn't the best way to help poor people" is a very different argument from "this will hurt poor people".

As I mention below, the empty lot isn't the floor. It is easy to imagine a scenario where a development provides negative impact to those who live near by. If the development has the impact of hiring people from other areas, increasing traffic to the community and eventually causing further development which leads to a loss of affordable housing, then yes, they are benefiting from that empty lot. Having nothing there isn't the bottom of the scale, it's only a measuring point.
Post reply on HN