Blacks oppose Trader Joes in Portland, claim it will attract too many whites

Why is it that it would be considered racism (and rightly so!) if white people did not wish to build a business that might attract too many black people--especially the "wrong sort" of black people--yet it is just hunky-dorey to have that same situation in reverse?

Would anyone like to attempt to justify this (obvious) double standard, either on moral or intellectual grounds?

 

Have you ever been into a Trader Joe's? Are you confusing them with Aldi's? I was forced into shopping there by my brother one time. What I got cost $62, lasted 3 days and generally made me sick.

Yeah, they're like Wegman's only with less stuff. Wegman's has everything. (Except Bovril, I managed to stump them by asking for some once) And yeah, they both have bargains, IF you have all day to search the entire store, otherwise, expect to pay a lot more for a lot less and get stuff that will probably disagree with you if you've ever dared to eat beef in your life.

I agree that they shouldn't be put up in a black area as blacks simply don't shop there. An Aldi's would use the same number of people and serve the local community with inexpensive food. This is obviously some case where some city councilman's brother owns a TJ and wants the government to give him a "sweetheart" deal, at the taxpayer's expense and to the detriment of the local area.

 

I don't know what they're complaining about?

[video=youtube;nlQr0F1Nt6w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlQr0F1Nt6w[/video]

 

LMAO !!

 

I wasn't impressed with Trader Joe's either; went once to see what all the noise was about and never went back. White people shop at Aldi's, too, and the service at the two around here is excellent, and even in a line with people with full carts they move you through faster than any other store I've ever shopped at, as fast as a small convenience store in many cases. No plastic, no checks makes a hell of a difference, while Walmart's and Kroger's 'speedy checkout' lines are a really bad joke.

 

Extortion is the preferred tactic of community activists.

 

Extortion is also a Trader Joe's tactic obviously; they want a $2 + million freebie from Portland taxpayers, or they will take their marbles and go back home.

 

They aren't getting $2 million for anyone and they are giving $500K up front then investing $8 million then will be paying millions in taxes and fees.

What exactly is your complaint?

 

In your mind, based on ideological biases.

So giving away city property at a loss to the city is in in their interests how?

But you said it was worth $2.9 million if they built something else, something that would benefit somebody besides Trader Joe's, and that's 'bad'...

Why don't you buy it for $500,002, pay the equivalent tax for TJ's and sell it to TJ's for $10? Wouldn't that be a bigger contribution to 'economic development!', 'Jobs! n stuff!'?

 

Yes I am complaining about the community organizers extorting the city and TJ's thus causing the cancellation of a project that would be good for the community. You are complaining about the project itself. So again what is your complaint.

I explained what the city would have gotten out of so again what exactly is your complaint?

They aren't getting $2 million for anyone and they are giving $500K up front then investing $8 million then will be paying millions in taxes and fees.

And what "welfare" is TJ's getting?

 

No it is simple extortion. Why should this community organizing group have gotten a penny out of the deal?

It is not being given away, TJ's is paying $250,000 an acre for undeveloped land in a poor neighborhood. It is in their interest as already explained, the property will have $8,000,000 invested in to it and taxes will be paid on that improved value along with the sales taxes it will generate. Why is it better to let the land stand empty and undeveloped not generating tax revenue?

That was an estimate, not an appraised value, IF and only IF someone else, probably a development company, a corporation, purchased the land and built low-cost housing. In twenty years no one has offered to do so so it's a moot point. AND that low cost housing would not generate the sales tax revenues nor employ a LOT of people, huge benefits for the city and the people that live there.

Why would I want to do that? I'm all for TJ's developing it. The question is to you, now that you and those of your mindset who opposed it have shut it down, what are you going to do now?

 

Does it matter?

Think about it. There are people in this thread who are arguing against economic development in a poor neighborhood. That's crazy enough.

 

I opposed the auto bailouts, yes. I also opposed the bank bailouts.

 

I think what a lot of people are concerned with is gentrification. Economic development is a good thing in and of itself, but there are sometimes unintended consequences from certain forms of it.

When poor people are essentially pushed out of their homes due to rising property values, that can be a problem for a city in the long run.

Granted, I'm not saying that growth should be avoided. It's really just a question of how to grow an economy in a way that doesn't displace people.

 

Again, it's a matter of how a company manages to do this.

If Walmart conquered the market through means that didn't involve tax breaks from local governments, then it could be argued that the market was simply at work.

However, that's not the case. More often than not, when Walmart comes to a small town, it does so with the aid of local government "incentives." These are advantages granted to Walmart that its competitors do not have access to.

That's not capitalism. That's cronyism.

And unfortunately, it appears to be more and more the case for the American business model.

Small businesses are at a serious disadvantage in a lot of industries because of the deals their bigger competition can arrange with local and state governments.

 

I don't think a Trader Joes is gentrification. It's more options for groceries for the neighborhood. Sorry, but I don't see how the neighborhood is better off without a grocery store option. If that's the case, then "food deserts" are a choice.

 

First there is little evidence that building a shopping center there is going to skyrocket residential prices adjacent to it and in fact one could make the case that high values homes are NOT going to be built next to a shopping center. You raise the incomes of people who live there so they can afford better housing. What increase in property values that might occur because the area may become safer and with more people working is certainly a good thing. Such economic development affects all people in all areas and it is very transitional. The flip side is that property values continue to decrease and those who own homes have huge losses and those who were working find their jobs disappear.

Which is the better scenario?

 

Communities offering incentives to private companies IS how the market works, they are in the market to attract jobs and business to make a more thriving community which produces more tax revenues.

Yes they can have access to them just like Wal-Mart.

 

I wasn't saying that I personally view it as a contributor to gentrification. I'm just saying that some people might perceive it as such.

 

I'm in the middle on this. I understand where you're coming from, and I understand where they are coming from.

Personally, I just think there are ways to grow areas that can improve safety while still minimizing struggling for all groups.

Earlier, someone made the suggestion that an Aldi would be better suited for this area. I'd have to agree. If the area is lower income, Aldi is well suited for that market, while, at the same time, a lot of people with more income still would use it for the alternative appeal.

I've observed this combination of consumers at my local Aldi.

Hypothetically, the way gentrification could take place with Joe's is that nearby property values would increase for the sake of replacing them with business property (assuming that zoning regulations would allow for this).

Gentrification sometimes involves a process of transitioning residential property to commercial property via rezoning.

All that aside, I don't personally believe Joe's would make that big of a difference to the area regarding gentrification.

 

That's the way it's intended to work, but what often happens is that the business leaves after the relief ends (while still incurring costs on the area in the meantime), or the tax relief is extended after threats of leaving (thereby still not providing taxes to the area).

No matter how you look at it, that's a gross distortion of the market (and not particularly beneficial for the area in the long run).

Unless you're offering thousands of jobs to an area, it isn't likely that you'll get several years of tax relief from a local government.

Hence, it really is an advantage that no small business can obtain.

 

They do not collect sales tax, but their property taxes are through the roof, which the store would be paying.

Right now nobody is paying taxes on the vacant land.

 

Necro-thread revival ...

Don't even know if they ever built the store, but they got tax breaks, and given the rate Californians are moving out of their state, somebody would have bought it sooner or later. Or better yet, the city could have gotten somebody to build low income housing for the same subsidies; low income housing is a far more needed use, and at the prices housing is at it still wouldn't be all that cheap there, but better than nothing.

 

Come up with the 2.4 million and you can grow your tomatoes.