12 ms·

Trader Joe's Shrugged

34 points by philliescurt 13y ago

drakaal 13y ago
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 native species. As humans we have more ability to pick up an move, but we tend to not want to do so. Most of the people in the low end of the economic spectrum rent, so it is not like the increase in property values is making them rich off of their homes, instead they see rent increases. Trader Joes in the "wrong" neighborhood does the same thing. Many communities "need" a walmart because it will serve their need for cheap food and clothing, and won't raise the property values. It is easy to hate Walmart and other big box stores, but in truth, often a community needs "cheap" more than they need "good". Edit: Produce is one of the things that are hard to get in a "food desert" Trader Joe's is notorious for having expensive produce with a short life span. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/4-things-not-to-buy-at-trader-joes/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/4-things-not-to-buy-at-trader-jo...
- rst 13y ago
  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).
  - msmillie 13y ago
    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?
    - jessedhillon 13y ago
      It's true and what's more, TJ's is not even close to a one-stop grocery store. They have a few general interest items and a bunch of foods specific only/mostly to their store. Only a nutritionally deficient person could shop solely at TJ, for everyone else I know it's supplemental shopping. There is a lower limit to your wealth before you get to the point where you're in the market for supplemental groceries. *source: I lived above a TJ's in Berkeley for a few years.
      - fr0sty 13y ago
        > Only a nutritionally deficient person could shop solely at TJ. I shop almost exclusively at Trader Joe's* and am not (to my knowledge at least) nutritionally deficient. I get fruits, vegetables, dairy, meats, eggs, bread/cereal, and the odd snack. What am I missing?
        jessedhillon 13y ago
        In my experience, while it's true that technically they have items for every section of the food pyramid, you're often limited to a very small selection within many of those categories. Maybe your store is better stocked than mine was, but I could only eat there if I had the same few meals repeatedly. I'll admit to a small bit of hyperbole in calling that nutritional deficiency, I should have better called that a distinct lack of variety.
    - zenocon 13y ago
      http://m.traderjoes.com/fearless-flyer/article.asp?article_id=1335 http://m.traderjoes.com/fearless-flyer/article.asp?article_i... http://thebillfold.com/2013/08/price-comparison-battle-safeway-vs-trader-joes-vs-costco-vs-casa-lucas/ http://thebillfold.com/2013/08/price-comparison-battle-safew... http://www.checkbook.org/interactive/spmkt/other/t/article.cfm http://www.checkbook.org/interactive/spmkt/other/t/article.c... > Trader Joe’s received higher overall quality ratings than Dominick’s and Jewel-Osco, and charges similar prices. I could go on, but I guess you can do your own research. Seriously, their prices are on average, lower than most.
    - 13y ago
- benched 13y ago
  As someone who lived very close to a Walmart-centered ecosystem for several years, including working there, I'll also add that while it isn't Gucci, there's nothing really wrong with the stuff Walmart sells, from a poor person's practical point of view. It's just regular, everyday useful stuff.
  - Zelphyr 13y ago
    Except the food which, on the whole, just isn't healthy.
    - fr0sty 13y ago
      > Except the food which, on the whole, just isn't healthy. Care to elaborate? Assuming the Walmart has their standard grocery section they will sell fresh fruits/vegetables, meat, dairy, eggs, grains and the like. It may not be the highest quality but it won't kill you.
      - AjithAntony 13y ago
        Agreed. The assortments available at all of my local Walmarts are on par with the local big box grocery stores. This includes produce, bakery, deli, and prepared items.
  - drakaal 13y ago
    I didn't mean to imply that it was bad. There is a lot of fights around organics, and made in the US, and such. Walmart tends to optimize for price rather than low environmental impact, or made in the US. Trader Joes tends to optimize differently.
  - brenschluss 13y ago
    I think a large past of the anger against Walmart is not about their products; it's about their poor economic practices - underpaying people, being effectively subsidized as their workers are on food stamps, and the deleterious effect they have on local neighborhood stores.
- aetherson 13y ago
  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), while others will find their lives worsened (because they are renters who can no longer afford their home or neighborhood). Whenever we have these kinds of discussions, I want to know what the alternatives are. Granted that gentrification is a mixed bag, is there a plausible alternative which helps anyone in these neighborhoods?
  - Qworg 13y ago
    Mandate that the new businesses hire only locals. I think this handily solves the problem - rents can't go up too much, otherwise the possible employees leave and the business shutters. Locals are employed, business runs, things improve in the neighbourhood and lift all boats.
    - ef4 13y ago
      That doesn't solve the problem at all. The "lift all boats" outcome is exactly what activists are afraid of, because if that actually happens it makes the neighborhood "more desirable", and new people will start getting interested in moving in. Those people provide upward pressure on rents. And once new people move in, they would now be "locals" and eligible for the jobs, too. There's no logical way to satisfy these anti-gentrification groups because what they're afraid of is quite literally "the neighborhood getting nicer". Instead of making their cause "keep the rent low by keeping the town crappy", they should make their cause "raise wages so we can afford a nicer town".
      - Qworg 13y ago
        The business has to charge more in order to pay the newly increased wages that are necessary in order to hire the wealthier people who now desire to live in the improved neighbourhood. I don't think they're afraid of "the neighbourhood getting nicer". I think they're afraid of people who don't know the local situation "helping" them out - "for their own good" of course. It is the same problems that countries face who work with the IMF/World Bank. Who wouldn't want free money?
- thedufer 13y ago
  That's a terrible counterexample. How can we possibly draw parallels between Twitter, which has very specific high-education employment requirements, and TJs, which is exactly the opposite? TJs has no need to import labor when it opens a new store - its cheaper to hire locally. Completely different situation. With regards to your edit: Not sure how no produce is better than produce with a short expiration. Also, anecdotally, I've never had this problem (although I largely eat their bananas, which have easy tells for how long they'll last and are amazingly cheap).
Shivetya 13y ago
PAALF knows damn well economic opportunity would improve the lives of those in the affected area, what they also know is that is not improve PAALF's opportunity or that of its leaderships or those it pays fealty too. Now its quite possible TJ didn't pay the entrance fee, those monies paid out to concerned groups who can change the outlook of any new business. Racism and exploitation of the poor are big business, Animal Farm would be a good start to understand the situation
l0stb0y 13y ago
I understand that discussing racism is a social minefield but, as a liberal and global citizen, stories like this disturb me. Couple this event with Spike Lee's blatantly racist and poorly worded rant against gentrification, and I question how much progress we have really made in this country. Also, the term 'non-oppressed population' makes me want to vomit. Jake Dobkin's piece on gentrification is a great read for anyone interested: http://gothamist.com/2013/09/23/ask_a_native_new_yorker_how_guilty.php http://gothamist.com/2013/09/23/ask_a_native_new_yorker_how_...
- kaonashi 13y ago
  Yea, if only all those uppity black people would realize how totally un-racist we all are…
- pessimizer 13y ago
  Your opinion might be interesting if it was explained in any way other than just insulting other people who have an opinion. Nobody cares that you want to vomit but the people who love you. Strangers might care why something makes you want to vomit, if you can convince them to.
josephschmoe 13y ago
The question we need to ask is: How can we make gentrification inclusive instead of exclusive?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The question we need to ask is: How can we make gentrification inclusive instead of exclusive? Move money to poor people rather than rich people (and the businesses that support and serve them) to currently poor neighborhoods.
- protonfish 13y ago
  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.
scotch_drinker 13y ago
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 and what it does is displace the existing population. Dallas (where I live near) is notorious for giving developers tax breaks to tear down lower class apartments if they agree to build something of much higher tax value. I doubt Dallas is odd man out. This author takes as fact that the economic improvement but bristles at the idea of mandating some of that through affordable housing and a community hiring benefit. "So it is not enough that the $8 million development of four-to-10 retail businesses, with Trader Joe’s serving as the anchor tenant, would bring new jobs, quality food and other goods and services, and tax revenues, to a poor neighborhood." No it's not enough. It would bring new jobs but to who? It would bring quality food but for whom? It would increase tax revenues but for who? The answers to those questions are rarely "the poor from the community". The author's anger sounds empty without answers to critical questions and his unfailing belief in the free market makes me wonder if he ever ventured anywhere at all.
- lobotryas 13y ago
  > 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 worse than 0%?
  - scotch_drinker 13y ago
    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.
schmichael 13y ago
The article fails to mention the incredible subsidy Trader Joe's was given to build at this location: they would pay only $500k for a $2.9 million lot.
- briandear 13y ago
  That lot is only worth 2.9 million if someone where willing to pay $2.9 million. I bet the value of that lot just dropped dramatically after this situation. Who would buy that lot knowing that you really can't employ it for it's highest and best use? No one wants to pay $2.9 million for a lot just to build some nail salons, a barber and a dollar store.
squozzer 13y ago
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?
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
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/portland_african_american_lead_2.html 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-letter-regarding-trader-joes.pdf http://www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/paalf...
- scotch_drinker 13y ago
  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 that editorial falsely believes that the free market will fix everything when this is clearly not a free market decision. If it were, the developer would have to pay full price with no tax benefits and then we could talk about fairness.
mudil 13y ago
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-Francisco-s-red-light-denizens-fight-to-stay-seedy/stories/200610240220 http://www.post-gazette.com/life/lifestyle/2006/10/24/San-Fr...
rqebmm 13y ago
Reminds me of what happened in my old (rapidly gentrifying) neighborhood in Boston when Whole Foods wanted to build a store in place of a recently-closed local supermarket. I remember being mystified by the opposition at the time. http://www.boston.com/yourtown/boston/jamaicaplain/gallery/012010_hilo_closing/ http://www.boston.com/yourtown/boston/jamaicaplain/gallery/0...
beat 13y ago
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 are the middle class black families? Historically, racial segregation happened across economic boundaries. A black doctor or a black lawyer was still black, and unwelcome in white neighborhoods. This meant that historically black neighborhoods had a rich, vibrant economic culture, with wealthy members of the community living among the poor, supporting local business and providing role models for youth. With the success of the civil rights movement in the 1960s came a new geographic social mobility for black professionals. Those who could afford it could now move into nicer, cleaner, safer, white neighborhoods. And they did so. And the more it happened, the worse the black neighborhoods got, creating more pressure for those who could afford to leave to leave. Eventually, the historically black neighborhoods were stripped down to ghettos, dominated by gang violence and devoid of the local businesses that once served the middle class. Soon, the only opportunity for jobs and social advancement was outside the neighborhood, and poverty grew even worse. It's a terrible cycle. This was aggravated further by the (illegal) practice of redlining, where banks colluded to deny funding to entire neighborhoods, depressing real estate prices and driving homes and businesses into foreclosure. (White) developers could then swoop in and buy land at fire-sale prices, building out the new infrastructure for a wave of gentrifying whites looking for cheap nice houses in the heart of the city. 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.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > 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.
joveian 13y ago
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 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.
holograham 13y ago
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.
briandear 13y ago
“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
briandear 13y ago
Perhaps everyone should read this: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/02/trader_joes_minority_contracto.html http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/02/trader_... Apparently there are quite a few minority-owned businesses and other community groups that want the store there.

34 points by philliescurt 13y ago

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 native species. As humans we have more ability to pick up an move, but we tend to not want to do so. Most of the people in the low end of the economic spectrum rent, so it is not like the increase in property values is making them rich off of their homes, instead they see rent increases. Trader Joes in the "wrong" neighborhood does the same thing. Many communities "need" a walmart because it will serve their need for cheap food and clothing, and won't raise the property values. It is easy to hate Walmart and other big box stores, but in truth, often a community needs "cheap" more than they need "good". Edit: Produce is one of the things that are hard to get in a "food desert" Trader Joe's is notorious for having expensive produce with a short life span. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/4-things-not-to-buy-at-trader-joes/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/4-things-not-to-buy-at-trader-jo...

rst 13y ago
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).
- msmillie 13y ago
  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?
  - jessedhillon 13y ago
    It's true and what's more, TJ's is not even close to a one-stop grocery store. They have a few general interest items and a bunch of foods specific only/mostly to their store. Only a nutritionally deficient person could shop solely at TJ, for everyone else I know it's supplemental shopping. There is a lower limit to your wealth before you get to the point where you're in the market for supplemental groceries. *source: I lived above a TJ's in Berkeley for a few years.
    - fr0sty 13y ago
      > Only a nutritionally deficient person could shop solely at TJ. I shop almost exclusively at Trader Joe's* and am not (to my knowledge at least) nutritionally deficient. I get fruits, vegetables, dairy, meats, eggs, bread/cereal, and the odd snack. What am I missing?
      - jessedhillon 13y ago
        In my experience, while it's true that technically they have items for every section of the food pyramid, you're often limited to a very small selection within many of those categories. Maybe your store is better stocked than mine was, but I could only eat there if I had the same few meals repeatedly. I'll admit to a small bit of hyperbole in calling that nutritional deficiency, I should have better called that a distinct lack of variety.
  - zenocon 13y ago
    http://m.traderjoes.com/fearless-flyer/article.asp?article_id=1335 http://m.traderjoes.com/fearless-flyer/article.asp?article_i... http://thebillfold.com/2013/08/price-comparison-battle-safeway-vs-trader-joes-vs-costco-vs-casa-lucas/ http://thebillfold.com/2013/08/price-comparison-battle-safew... http://www.checkbook.org/interactive/spmkt/other/t/article.cfm http://www.checkbook.org/interactive/spmkt/other/t/article.c... > Trader Joe’s received higher overall quality ratings than Dominick’s and Jewel-Osco, and charges similar prices. I could go on, but I guess you can do your own research. Seriously, their prices are on average, lower than most.
  - 13y ago
benched 13y ago
As someone who lived very close to a Walmart-centered ecosystem for several years, including working there, I'll also add that while it isn't Gucci, there's nothing really wrong with the stuff Walmart sells, from a poor person's practical point of view. It's just regular, everyday useful stuff.
- Zelphyr 13y ago
  Except the food which, on the whole, just isn't healthy.
  - fr0sty 13y ago
    > Except the food which, on the whole, just isn't healthy. Care to elaborate? Assuming the Walmart has their standard grocery section they will sell fresh fruits/vegetables, meat, dairy, eggs, grains and the like. It may not be the highest quality but it won't kill you.
    - AjithAntony 13y ago
      Agreed. The assortments available at all of my local Walmarts are on par with the local big box grocery stores. This includes produce, bakery, deli, and prepared items.
- drakaal 13y ago
  I didn't mean to imply that it was bad. There is a lot of fights around organics, and made in the US, and such. Walmart tends to optimize for price rather than low environmental impact, or made in the US. Trader Joes tends to optimize differently.
- brenschluss 13y ago
  I think a large past of the anger against Walmart is not about their products; it's about their poor economic practices - underpaying people, being effectively subsidized as their workers are on food stamps, and the deleterious effect they have on local neighborhood stores.
aetherson 13y ago
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), while others will find their lives worsened (because they are renters who can no longer afford their home or neighborhood). Whenever we have these kinds of discussions, I want to know what the alternatives are. Granted that gentrification is a mixed bag, is there a plausible alternative which helps anyone in these neighborhoods?
- Qworg 13y ago
  Mandate that the new businesses hire only locals. I think this handily solves the problem - rents can't go up too much, otherwise the possible employees leave and the business shutters. Locals are employed, business runs, things improve in the neighbourhood and lift all boats.
  - ef4 13y ago
    That doesn't solve the problem at all. The "lift all boats" outcome is exactly what activists are afraid of, because if that actually happens it makes the neighborhood "more desirable", and new people will start getting interested in moving in. Those people provide upward pressure on rents. And once new people move in, they would now be "locals" and eligible for the jobs, too. There's no logical way to satisfy these anti-gentrification groups because what they're afraid of is quite literally "the neighborhood getting nicer". Instead of making their cause "keep the rent low by keeping the town crappy", they should make their cause "raise wages so we can afford a nicer town".
    - Qworg 13y ago
      The business has to charge more in order to pay the newly increased wages that are necessary in order to hire the wealthier people who now desire to live in the improved neighbourhood. I don't think they're afraid of "the neighbourhood getting nicer". I think they're afraid of people who don't know the local situation "helping" them out - "for their own good" of course. It is the same problems that countries face who work with the IMF/World Bank. Who wouldn't want free money?
thedufer 13y ago
That's a terrible counterexample. How can we possibly draw parallels between Twitter, which has very specific high-education employment requirements, and TJs, which is exactly the opposite? TJs has no need to import labor when it opens a new store - its cheaper to hire locally. Completely different situation. With regards to your edit: Not sure how no produce is better than produce with a short expiration. Also, anecdotally, I've never had this problem (although I largely eat their bananas, which have easy tells for how long they'll last and are amazingly cheap).

Shivetya 13y ago

PAALF knows damn well economic opportunity would improve the lives of those in the affected area, what they also know is that is not improve PAALF's opportunity or that of its leaderships or those it pays fealty too. Now its quite possible TJ didn't pay the entrance fee, those monies paid out to concerned groups who can change the outlook of any new business. Racism and exploitation of the poor are big business, Animal Farm would be a good start to understand the situation

l0stb0y 13y ago

I understand that discussing racism is a social minefield but, as a liberal and global citizen, stories like this disturb me. Couple this event with Spike Lee's blatantly racist and poorly worded rant against gentrification, and I question how much progress we have really made in this country. Also, the term 'non-oppressed population' makes me want to vomit. Jake Dobkin's piece on gentrification is a great read for anyone interested: http://gothamist.com/2013/09/23/ask_a_native_new_yorker_how_guilty.php http://gothamist.com/2013/09/23/ask_a_native_new_yorker_how_...

kaonashi 13y ago
Yea, if only all those uppity black people would realize how totally un-racist we all are…
pessimizer 13y ago
Your opinion might be interesting if it was explained in any way other than just insulting other people who have an opinion. Nobody cares that you want to vomit but the people who love you. Strangers might care why something makes you want to vomit, if you can convince them to.

josephschmoe 13y ago

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

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The question we need to ask is: How can we make gentrification inclusive instead of exclusive? Move money to poor people rather than rich people (and the businesses that support and serve them) to currently poor neighborhoods.
protonfish 13y ago
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.

scotch_drinker 13y ago

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 and what it does is displace the existing population. Dallas (where I live near) is notorious for giving developers tax breaks to tear down lower class apartments if they agree to build something of much higher tax value. I doubt Dallas is odd man out. This author takes as fact that the economic improvement but bristles at the idea of mandating some of that through affordable housing and a community hiring benefit. "So it is not enough that the $8 million development of four-to-10 retail businesses, with Trader Joe’s serving as the anchor tenant, would bring new jobs, quality food and other goods and services, and tax revenues, to a poor neighborhood." No it's not enough. It would bring new jobs but to who? It would bring quality food but for whom? It would increase tax revenues but for who? The answers to those questions are rarely "the poor from the community". The author's anger sounds empty without answers to critical questions and his unfailing belief in the free market makes me wonder if he ever ventured anywhere at all.

lobotryas 13y ago
> 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 worse than 0%?
- scotch_drinker 13y ago
  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.

schmichael 13y ago

The article fails to mention the incredible subsidy Trader Joe's was given to build at this location: they would pay only $500k for a $2.9 million lot.

briandear 13y ago
That lot is only worth 2.9 million if someone where willing to pay $2.9 million. I bet the value of that lot just dropped dramatically after this situation. Who would buy that lot knowing that you really can't employ it for it's highest and best use? No one wants to pay $2.9 million for a lot just to build some nail salons, a barber and a dollar store.

squozzer 13y ago

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?

aaronbrethorst 13y ago

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/portland_african_american_lead_2.html 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-letter-regarding-trader-joes.pdf http://www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/paalf...

scotch_drinker 13y ago
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 that editorial falsely believes that the free market will fix everything when this is clearly not a free market decision. If it were, the developer would have to pay full price with no tax benefits and then we could talk about fairness.

mudil 13y ago

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-Francisco-s-red-light-denizens-fight-to-stay-seedy/stories/200610240220 http://www.post-gazette.com/life/lifestyle/2006/10/24/San-Fr...

rqebmm 13y ago

Reminds me of what happened in my old (rapidly gentrifying) neighborhood in Boston when Whole Foods wanted to build a store in place of a recently-closed local supermarket. I remember being mystified by the opposition at the time. http://www.boston.com/yourtown/boston/jamaicaplain/gallery/012010_hilo_closing/ http://www.boston.com/yourtown/boston/jamaicaplain/gallery/0...

beat 13y ago

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 are the middle class black families? Historically, racial segregation happened across economic boundaries. A black doctor or a black lawyer was still black, and unwelcome in white neighborhoods. This meant that historically black neighborhoods had a rich, vibrant economic culture, with wealthy members of the community living among the poor, supporting local business and providing role models for youth. With the success of the civil rights movement in the 1960s came a new geographic social mobility for black professionals. Those who could afford it could now move into nicer, cleaner, safer, white neighborhoods. And they did so. And the more it happened, the worse the black neighborhoods got, creating more pressure for those who could afford to leave to leave. Eventually, the historically black neighborhoods were stripped down to ghettos, dominated by gang violence and devoid of the local businesses that once served the middle class. Soon, the only opportunity for jobs and social advancement was outside the neighborhood, and poverty grew even worse. It's a terrible cycle. This was aggravated further by the (illegal) practice of redlining, where banks colluded to deny funding to entire neighborhoods, depressing real estate prices and driving homes and businesses into foreclosure. (White) developers could then swoop in and buy land at fire-sale prices, building out the new infrastructure for a wave of gentrifying whites looking for cheap nice houses in the heart of the city. 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.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> 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.

joveian 13y ago

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 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.

holograham 13y ago

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.

briandear 13y ago

“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

briandear 13y ago

Perhaps everyone should read this: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/02/trader_joes_minority_contracto.html http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/02/trader_... Apparently there are quite a few minority-owned businesses and other community groups that want the store there.