Live data from Hacker News

Trader Joe's Shrugged

vvdailypress.com

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#51
Here is an article that has a little more background, including, in the first paragraph, a link to the letter from the PAALF: http://sharonmaxwellforportland.org/node/5

There is a lot more history here as well as much more to this particular issue than the vvdailypress article even hints at. For instance, Trader Joes was given a huge discount on that property, putting it in the range that multiple local (worker owned) coops could potentially afford to put a grocery store on that spot, but the PDC never offered the property to anyone else at that price, only Trader Joes. I am very happy the deal fell through.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#52

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 so…

This is exactly what happens in Dallas all the time. The city gives tax benefits to the property owners and the developers so that they will build these big shiny new developments in areas that are "oppressed". The result is that none of the money ends up in the locals pocketbooks, people who had a home of some sort are forced to pick up and move to somewhere else in the city and the rich get richer. The author of th…

But it isn't really isn't that black and white is it? A rich family could get a break on this property to build a Trader Joes there, but how long has the property been vacant? Maybe no one else wants to build there and this "subsidy" is better for the community due to the employment a Trader Joes and other businesses could provide.

Right now an empty parking lot isn't helping the community much; this should also be taken into consideration.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#53

The question we need to ask is: How can we make gentrification inclusive instead of exclusive?

That is a great question. I work in Detroit where there has been some modest growth in the downtown area with little benefit to the local population. There are not nearly enough entry level jobs to satisfy demand and the public school system is in disgraceful shape. To give a little back to the community would only require a small fraction of the cost of development - entry level job opportunities, funding for educational resources and safer schools, access to affordable and nutritious food. Sadly, the reverse is encouraged - local leaders would prefer the poor were washed away like street litter. It is shameful and inhumane. The angry tone of the article justifies it - "these people" are bad and deserve it.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#54
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…

I think the reality that needs to be confronted is that many, many neighborhoods were harmed significantly by a large range of occurrences over a good chunk of history. Redlining, first and foremost, if we're discussing neighborhoods. White flight from urban school districts is a closely related issue.

These happened. Redlining was in no small part due to direct federal policy. These have had impact on our neighborhoods, impact that can't be downplayed, and communities adjusted to survive. Gentrification in a lot of ways looks like the undoing of these policies, which would be fine, but look closer and you see that the neighborhood ecosystems are being strained yet again. Whatever equilibriums were obtained (many via struggle and sweat equity by families with ties to the area/no other options) are now being threatened.

I think reparations to neighborhoods, communities, and people directly affected by redlining is necessary, and would serve to lessen the power differential between communities and neighborhoods. Doing so would ease the problems created by population transfer.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#55
post #48

Despite the author's hysterics, gentrification is a complex issue with positives and negatives on both sides. That said, I'd like to toss in an interesting historical perspective here. Gentrification is something that happens primarily to predominantly African-American neighborhoods in the US, and one of its effects is eventually pricing the poor black community out of the neighborhood. But here's a question... where…

> Gentrification is something that happens primarily to predominantly African-American neighborhoods in the US

Gentrification is something that happens to primarily poor, and primarily urban neighborhoods. These also tend to be disproportionately minority neighborhoods (of a variety of ethnic minorities, but blacks are prominent among them in pretty much every region of the US, while the mix of the rest varies from region to region), but its more about economic class than race, which is mostly a distraction.

> Think about this, and you can see the resistance to gentrification. Historically, it's been nothing but trouble for the people already in a neighborhood.

Its nothing but trouble for current residents for reasons that have nothing to do with the history of the racial history you recount (which is generally accurate); bringing rich people and high paying jobs (already filled by rich people, or for which the poor current residents aren't qualified) to where poor people are doesn't help the poor people, it just pushes them aside.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#56
This is a much more complicated issue than the author of this post grasps.

Trader Joes are built for upper middle class clientele not the poor. The food is not very cheap although healthier.

That said the subsidy doesnt make sense unless the community had ulterior motives of cleaning up a rough patch of town which could be perfectly acceptable -- I am not sure the specifics on the area. Lots of communities use this practice to bring new businesses in which develop the land into attractive property instead of dilapidated buildings or parking lots. That in turn entices more land developers to build new homes/apartments/condos/etc. It's a cycle to gentrify a community.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#57

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 so…

This is exactly what happens in Dallas all the time. The city gives tax benefits to the property owners and the developers so that they will build these big shiny new developments in areas that are "oppressed". The result is that none of the money ends up in the locals pocketbooks, people who had a home of some sort are forced to pick up and move to somewhere else in the city and the rich get richer. The author of th…

Ok, so luckily we stopped this evil business coming in. So now there is NO benefit to the community. Who cares if Trader J's gets a tax benefit? They're going to be selling goods and hiring people -- who pay taxes. They're going to provide an anchor which means that small businesses nearby will benefit, which provides yet more jobs. These "poor" people should have seen this for the opportunity that is was -- a chance to get ahead. What's to stop some of these "oppressed" people from banding together and starting a small business themselves to benefit from the Trader Joes anchor? At the very least, Trader Joes and the associated business have to hire people from somewhere.. why couldn't these "poor" people have applied for jobs? The funny thing is the complaint about the tax benefits is profoundly stupid. The net gain is much, much greater than the "loss" from the tax discount. Now there is absolutely no gain at all. There isn't going to be any tax revenue at all now. They managed to get themselves 100% of nothing. But at least that "nothing" stays in the community.

My theory about this story is that these poverty pimps that claim to be community activists have no interest in bettering their supposed constituents. So now there's no Trader Joes and therefore there's zero gain to the community. So rather than collecting something in taxes as well as the benefits from the economic stimulus, they get nothing -- an empty lot. 10% of something is a heck of a lot better than 100% of nothing. And, some of those poor people actually own their homes, some are upside down because of bad mortgages, the dramatic property value boost that would have happened could have turned many lives around. Now the values will drop even more because an investor knows that that neighborhood has zero potential for growth and thus nothing would drive capital appreciation. This whole "protest" was so incredibly stupid that it's mind boggling -- unless you ask yourself who benefits from Trader Joes not opening.. The poverty pimps and the community "organizations" that have a vested interest in keeping people dependent on their "services."

It's like when certain groups of black people ostracize kids that study hard in school, claiming they're "acting white." We can't have that -- they might actually make something of themselves and disprove the sanctity of victimhood within the inner city. It's funny because Michelle Obama made a big deal about how there are these so-called "food deserts" in the inner city. Apparently, Trader Joe's isn't the right kind of grocery store to make that group happy. Maybe they can build a liquor store and a pawnshop there instead. Would the community complain then? I seriously doubt it. If Trader Joes wasn't a white-hipster paradise, this "protest" would not have happened. This same exact segment of the population complains about de facto segregation and yet when there's an effort to actually bring some economic activity to a primarily black area -- they complain. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Maybe this "community group" should have put it to a vote. Let the neighborhood decide rather than some group that claims to represent the neighborhood.

The people that oppose this deal obvious no nothing about real estate, development and economic stimulus -- instead they actually enjoy seeing neighborhoods deteriorate, because with depressed neighborhoods, that victim card gets much more shiny and useful and the politicians that prey on these people get more votes.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#58
post #48

Despite the author's hysterics, gentrification is a complex issue with positives and negatives on both sides. That said, I'd like to toss in an interesting historical perspective here. Gentrification is something that happens primarily to predominantly African-American neighborhoods in the US, and one of its effects is eventually pricing the poor black community out of the neighborhood. But here's a question... where…

> Gentrification is something that happens primarily to predominantly African-American neighborhoods in the US Gentrification is something that happens to primarily poor, and primarily urban neighborhoods. These also tend to be disproportionately minority neighborhoods (of a variety of ethnic minorities, but blacks are prominent among them in pretty much every region of the US, while the mix of the rest varies from r…

Yes, it's a class thing more than a race thing at this point. I probably should have tried to make that more clear. :/ It was a race thing historically, but now the racial line is incidental to the class line.

I do think African-American culture is a unique case, though. Immigrants tend to be socially (upwardly) mobile and get out of the ghetto in a generation or three. The old black neighborhoods are different, much more trap-like and harder to escape.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what happens in Dallas all the time. The city gives tax benefits to the property owners and the developers so that they will build these big shiny new developments in areas that are "oppressed". The result is that none of the money ends up in the locals pocketbooks, people who had a home of some sort are forced to pick up and move to somewhere else in the city and the rich get richer. The author of th…

But it isn't really isn't that black and white is it? A rich family could get a break on this property to build a Trader Joes there, but how long has the property been vacant? Maybe no one else wants to build there and this "subsidy" is better for the community due to the employment a Trader Joes and other businesses could provide. Right now an empty parking lot isn't helping the community much; this should also be t…

The protest group has no interest in helping the community. They would lose their relevance if people started to improve their situations.

The other theory is that they tried to shakedown Trader Joe's exactly like Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Push Coalition does.

Re: Trader Joe's Shrugged

#60
“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

-- Booker T. Washington

Post reply on HN