Trader Joe's Shrugged(vvdailypress.com)
vvdailypress.com
Trader Joe's Shrugged
http://www.vvdailypress.com/articles/trader-45236-joe-successful.html
15 comments
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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".
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?
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?
It seems likely to me that this policy would polarize, not mitigate, the effects.
That is, if a neighborhood is kind of on the line between okay and bad, this policy might help push it up into okay -- businesses would say, "Okay, there is enough going on in this neighborhood that we can deal with moving into it even if we have these hiring restrictions," and then the hiring restrictions may in fact improve the neighborhood.
But if the neighborhood is solidly bad, the business says, "Let me get this straight: you want us to move into a part of the city where it's by no means clear that we can prosper anyway, AND you want to make it really hard for us to hire people, AND you want to slow down any improvement that our presence may make to the neighborhood by meaning that it all has to be organic rather than imported? HELL NO." And so then nobody takes a chance on really poor neighborhoods and they get worse and worse.
On the gripping hand, I don't think it's a plausible policy in America. It seems outside of the type of business regulations which can actually get enacted.
That is, if a neighborhood is kind of on the line between okay and bad, this policy might help push it up into okay -- businesses would say, "Okay, there is enough going on in this neighborhood that we can deal with moving into it even if we have these hiring restrictions," and then the hiring restrictions may in fact improve the neighborhood.
But if the neighborhood is solidly bad, the business says, "Let me get this straight: you want us to move into a part of the city where it's by no means clear that we can prosper anyway, AND you want to make it really hard for us to hire people, AND you want to slow down any improvement that our presence may make to the neighborhood by meaning that it all has to be organic rather than imported? HELL NO." And so then nobody takes a chance on really poor neighborhoods and they get worse and worse.
On the gripping hand, I don't think it's a plausible policy in America. It seems outside of the type of business regulations which can actually get enacted.
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.
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?
Perhaps you're not familiar with minimum wage?
http://m.traderjoes.com/fearless-flyer/article.asp?article_i...
http://thebillfold.com/2013/08/price-comparison-battle-safew...
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.
http://thebillfold.com/2013/08/price-comparison-battle-safew...
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.
Not sure what you are getting at. Trader's pays very well:
"...full-time crew members can start in the $40,000 to $60,000 a year range."
http://womensenews.org/story/labor/130722/cashier-the-deal-o...
"...full-time crew members can start in the $40,000 to $60,000 a year range."
http://womensenews.org/story/labor/130722/cashier-the-deal-o...
Uneducated, inexperienced, poor people cannot compete for a job that pays that well. It would be trivial to staff the store with much higher quality candidates from farther away. Unless this specific TJ makes an explicit commitment to hire extremely local folks, then there will not be any working there.
My wife and I buy about 20 different items weekly from Trader Joes because it does have the cheapest prices on those 20 items.
Speaking of minimum wage... Trader Joe's pays substantially above it. My niece works there and as a stock clerk she gets paid substantially over minimum wage and has health benefits from them.
Speaking of minimum wage... Trader Joe's pays substantially above it. My niece works there and as a stock clerk she gets paid substantially over minimum wage and has health benefits from them.
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.
*source: I lived above a TJ's in Berkeley for a few years.
> 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?
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?
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.
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.
Trader Joe's can get meal costs really low. If you're past the stage on only eating rice, eggs, and chopped veggies, TJs is comparable to any other store. Having lived in relatively poor neighborhoods that are not at all hip, it's not like fresh fruit is super available otherwise.
Trader Joes has low prices but they don't have the dirt cheap junk food that you might find at some stores. But you can eat cheaply at a Trader Joes. You can also eat very expensively if you go into some their specialty stuff.
They put a Whole Foods (definitely not known for low prices) on a vacant lot in downtown Detroit and it's doing great.
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).
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).
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.
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.
underpaying people, being effectively subsidized as their workers are on food stamps
Bill applies for a job at Costco, but Costco only hires a fraction of the number of workers that other retailers do per square foot or dollar of revenue, so they turn him down. In the future, Costco will be paying Bill $0/month. As he continues to hunt for a job, Bill goes on food stamps.
A month later, Bill later applies for a job at Walmart, where he's hired making just above minimum wage at $8/hour. Since he's only earning $8/hour and only working ~30 hours/week to start, Walmart will be paying Bill about $900/month. Bill will continue to receive some food stamps, but less than he was receiving in the month that Costco turned him down.
Explain to me why Walmart is being "subsidized" here.
Bill applies for a job at Costco, but Costco only hires a fraction of the number of workers that other retailers do per square foot or dollar of revenue, so they turn him down. In the future, Costco will be paying Bill $0/month. As he continues to hunt for a job, Bill goes on food stamps.
A month later, Bill later applies for a job at Walmart, where he's hired making just above minimum wage at $8/hour. Since he's only earning $8/hour and only working ~30 hours/week to start, Walmart will be paying Bill about $900/month. Bill will continue to receive some food stamps, but less than he was receiving in the month that Costco turned him down.
Explain to me why Walmart is being "subsidized" here.
How are they underpaying people? They pay what the market supports. If you get an $8/hour job as a greeter and you think that's less than you're worth, then you are welcome to not work there. If the supply of labor becomes scarce, then the wages will rise. The thing is that there are some jobs that just don't warrant high pay. If I can teach you your job in an hour and it requires no skills or experience, then why should I pay a huge wage? It's like buying a netbook and paying Mac Pro prices. It's silly. While I know Wal Mart people generally work hard, the work itself is on a level of difficulty on par with collecting aluminum cans. If you find yourself working for 10 years as a Wal Mart cashier, then it's your own fault. There are so many government programs for workforce education, technical training, university, etc. Instead of watching Dancing with the Stars or keeping up with the Kardashians, it might behoove some of these career low-wage earners to try to work a little smarter and learn a skill that they can monetize at a better rate than they currently earn.
For a short stretch in 2008, I was actually living out of my car, making barely $200 a week DJing at some shit clubs in Houston. I knew how to use a computer, but I certainly didn't know how to code. Here it is in 2014 and I make more money in a day than I did in an entire month back then. I taught myself, reached out to complete strangers who where experienced to recruit them as mentors and in 2010 I started getting paid to code. I'm not saying everyone should learn to code, but there is a way out of shit-paying jobs -- but it involves taking initiative instead of blaming everyone and relying on the "system" to help.
I have little sympathy for folks who continue to make minimum wage for years -- it's their own fault. That's not a popular opinion, but it's true. There is nothing stopping that Wal Mart greeter from spending his after work time learning something new.
Poverty is a choice. Maybe not a conscious one, but a choice nonetheless. I see plenty of satellite dishes when I drive past the public housing complex. I see plenty of $200+ sneakers using food stamp cards at the grocery store. I see a lot of blame, but very little personal responsibility -- it's always the "Evil" corporation's fault. It's the government's fault, it's Wal Mart's fault -- it's everyone's fault but the person who is actually in the situation.
For a short stretch in 2008, I was actually living out of my car, making barely $200 a week DJing at some shit clubs in Houston. I knew how to use a computer, but I certainly didn't know how to code. Here it is in 2014 and I make more money in a day than I did in an entire month back then. I taught myself, reached out to complete strangers who where experienced to recruit them as mentors and in 2010 I started getting paid to code. I'm not saying everyone should learn to code, but there is a way out of shit-paying jobs -- but it involves taking initiative instead of blaming everyone and relying on the "system" to help.
I have little sympathy for folks who continue to make minimum wage for years -- it's their own fault. That's not a popular opinion, but it's true. There is nothing stopping that Wal Mart greeter from spending his after work time learning something new.
Poverty is a choice. Maybe not a conscious one, but a choice nonetheless. I see plenty of satellite dishes when I drive past the public housing complex. I see plenty of $200+ sneakers using food stamp cards at the grocery store. I see a lot of blame, but very little personal responsibility -- it's always the "Evil" corporation's fault. It's the government's fault, it's Wal Mart's fault -- it's everyone's fault but the person who is actually in the situation.
They pay what the market supports.
Randian worldview detected. Continued oppression of the downtrodden assured. Society must reserve resources for professional PowerPoint makers. All hail Status Quo.
Randian worldview detected. Continued oppression of the downtrodden assured. Society must reserve resources for professional PowerPoint makers. All hail Status Quo.
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.
Except the food which, on the whole, just isn't healthy.
> 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.
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.
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.
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_...
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_...
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.
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.
Yea, if only all those uppity black people would realize how totally un-racist we all are…
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.
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.
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".
"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.
"Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people?"
Yes. They hire locally and train and pay very well. That one store would bring 30-40 jobs paying $40,000 - $60,000 for 'grocers' that stock shelves and run the registers.
Yes. They hire locally and train and pay very well. That one store would bring 30-40 jobs paying $40,000 - $60,000 for 'grocers' that stock shelves and run the registers.
True, but many people working at Trader Joe's who pull in the higher salaries have a degree, some college education, or they have been full timers for many years. The majority make just over minimum wage (and no longer get awesome health care).
It's a pretty good job though for most people is what you're saying, and I agree. But this also means there is competition for these jobs.
It's a pretty good job though for most people is what you're saying, and I agree. But this also means there is competition for these jobs.
> 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%?
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%?
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.
"Further away from jobs.." You just complained that they wouldn't get jobs at trader joes, yet apparently they already have jobs. As far as "affordable housing." I'm tired of that excuse for letting neighborhoods turn into poverty factories. As far as them having no place to go, many of the working poor in those neighborhoods own their homes or they have a mortgage on their home which, due to the 2008 housing crash is likely worth less than they owe and due to likely bad credit is probably at an interest rate that's killing them. I'm studying a neighborhood in San Antonio called Denver Heights which is a really poor east-side neighborhood -- 40% of those homes have been foreclosed on. So that's telling me that those homes were owned by poor people and not some evil rich investors. If Trader Joe's had been built in that neighborhood, perhaps many of those families would still have a home because the equity increase would result in them being able to favorably refinance rather than losing the home to the bank. Now when you drive through there, it's almost a rotting ghost town.
This could provide a huge benefit to those people. But I guess we can just ignore the positive benefit to those people. Instead let's kill the development in the interest of "saving" the bottom 1% at the expense of other people in the neighborhood, many of whom are the working poor. This Trader Joe's deal could have make them fairly rich. If they own a $40K home that's now worth $150K, they just made $110K. They could refinance their home, cash out the equity and use that money to start a business, pay debt or buy more property. With one deal, they wouldn't be poor anymore. These "community groups" rather than trying to keep people victims ought to be out there teaching about real estate, investing and starting businesses, but alas, they only teach about how oppressed they are.
You're suggesting that if someone is poor in a neighborhood, we should ensure that everyone else gets fucked just to look after them? You are aware of something called Section 8, I presume? Do you know anything about how it works? Apparently not. If we followed your logic, then there would be no such thing as neighborhood revitalization, because a revitalized neighborhood necessarily results in higher property values. Interestingly, neighborhood revitalization has a positive effect on schools, especially in reducing de facto segregation. But of course, we can't have the schools improving because then the poor kids wouldn't have any more excuses and the poverty pimp business would dry up within a generation.
An empty lot benefits nobody.
This could provide a huge benefit to those people. But I guess we can just ignore the positive benefit to those people. Instead let's kill the development in the interest of "saving" the bottom 1% at the expense of other people in the neighborhood, many of whom are the working poor. This Trader Joe's deal could have make them fairly rich. If they own a $40K home that's now worth $150K, they just made $110K. They could refinance their home, cash out the equity and use that money to start a business, pay debt or buy more property. With one deal, they wouldn't be poor anymore. These "community groups" rather than trying to keep people victims ought to be out there teaching about real estate, investing and starting businesses, but alas, they only teach about how oppressed they are.
You're suggesting that if someone is poor in a neighborhood, we should ensure that everyone else gets fucked just to look after them? You are aware of something called Section 8, I presume? Do you know anything about how it works? Apparently not. If we followed your logic, then there would be no such thing as neighborhood revitalization, because a revitalized neighborhood necessarily results in higher property values. Interestingly, neighborhood revitalization has a positive effect on schools, especially in reducing de facto segregation. But of course, we can't have the schools improving because then the poor kids wouldn't have any more excuses and the poverty pimp business would dry up within a generation.
An empty lot benefits nobody.
You're absolutely right - an empty lot is not a floor, just the a point on the continuum.
It sounds like what everyone's dancing around is the concern that a TJs in that community would start the process of gentrification that would raise the cost of living and make it untenable for the current residents to continue living there.
Assuming that gentrification is a real problem (I have zero experience, so it's hard for me to judge): have you heard of any solutions to the issue besides rent control or "keeping out" the middle class?
It sounds like what everyone's dancing around is the concern that a TJs in that community would start the process of gentrification that would raise the cost of living and make it untenable for the current residents to continue living there.
Assuming that gentrification is a real problem (I have zero experience, so it's hard for me to judge): have you heard of any solutions to the issue besides rent control or "keeping out" the middle class?
It is not starting the process of gentrification, it is continuing it. It is not an issue of pro development vs. anti development, but rather of who is involed in determining what development is done and by whom. The city has a long history of acting on the neighborhood when people outside the neighborhood decide they want to do so while not acting when people inside the neighborhood want change. Giving large discounts to wealthy developers with no connection to the neighborhood without any discussion with people who live in the neighborhood shows that this process continues today. Here is one analysis of the historical process (pdf from 2007):
http://www.kingneighborhood.org/history/Bleeding%20Albina:%2...
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.
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.
> 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.
I'd guess that's exactly the worry here. Installing places like Trader Joes, which have the impact of attracting the more well-off, causes a gentrification feedback loop, raising the cost of local housing and ultimately displacing those that can't afford it.
I'd guess that's exactly the worry here. Installing places like Trader Joes, which have the impact of attracting the more well-off, causes a gentrification feedback loop, raising the cost of local housing and ultimately displacing those that can't afford it.
giving developers tax breaks to tear down lower class apartments if they agree to build something of much higher tax value
I'm having trouble seeing how this is comparable. It sounds like the Dallas example involves (ab)using eminent domain to take property away, but the TJ case is developing new on a vacant lot. And the Dallas example is giving extra incentive through the government to do something that may not be economically wise on its own, but evidently TJ thinks that it can offer something in that neighborhood that will be able to justify its own existence.
I'm having trouble seeing how this is comparable. It sounds like the Dallas example involves (ab)using eminent domain to take property away, but the TJ case is developing new on a vacant lot. And the Dallas example is giving extra incentive through the government to do something that may not be economically wise on its own, but evidently TJ thinks that it can offer something in that neighborhood that will be able to justify its own existence.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
Right now an empty parking lot isn't helping the community much; this should also be taken into consideration.
The land is not actually a parking lot but is grassy and open and is effectively a park right now. It actually adds quite a bit of value to the neighborhood as it is IMO. Also, the PDC did not offer it to anyone else at that price, just Trader Joes.
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.
The other theory is that they tried to shakedown Trader Joe's exactly like Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Push Coalition does.
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.
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.
> The property in question was assessed at $2.9 M
Is it worth $2.9 million? Apparently Trader Joe's thinks it's worth less than $500,000 since they didn't buy it.
Is it worth $2.9 million? Apparently Trader Joe's thinks it's worth less than $500,000 since they didn't buy it.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Move money to poor people rather than rich people (and the businesses that support and serve them) to currently poor neighborhoods.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
San Francisco's red-light denizens fight to stay seedy:
http://www.post-gazette.com/life/lifestyle/2006/10/24/San-Fr...
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/0...
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/boston/jamaicaplain/gallery/0...
Perhaps everyone should read this: 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.
Apparently there are quite a few minority-owned businesses and other community groups that want the store there.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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
-- Booker T. Washington
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?
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?
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-jo...