Phoenix to decide $18M in tax break, incentives for downtown Fry's grocery store project

[cjseliga]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

This isn't about the store!

I should changed the title to Phoenix to decide $18M in tax break, incentives for downtown high-rise apartment, office and retail project that will include a Fry's grocery store, when I started the thread.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

Land prices have skyrocketed downtown to the point where it would be cheaper for a low margin business like a grocery store to set up in a different part of the area with lower land prices, that is why a tax subsidy is needed. Only high margin businesses like in tech and finance can weather those higher starting costs subsidy free

The article states that groceries will be offered at the same price as other fry's, I'd like to know why other city residents "need" to subsidize food for rich people who live in high rises? Again, I'd be surprised if the condo fees for a development like this aren't $800+ per month for a studio - people who can pay those kinds of fees *should* be able to squeeze another buck a bag out of their budget when they buy a sack of 'tato's.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

The article states that groceries will be offered at the same price as other fry's, I'd like to know why other city residents "need" to subsidize food for rich people who live in high rises? Again, I'd be surprised if the condo fees for a development like this aren't $800+ per month for a studio - people who can pay those kinds of fees *should* be able to squeeze another buck a bag out of their budget when they buy a sack of 'tato's.

It's probably the same reason that Cracker Barrel refuses to open a single location in California... because they don't want to raise their prices. They prob figure that if a bag of chips that goes for $3 in a Gilbert or Glendale Fry's would have to go for $4.50 in the downtown location, that that would deter customers from buying there

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

Do you actually believe that Fry's, owned by Kroger, cannot afford retail space in downtown Phoenix?

Not without charging higher prices, since the store would cost more for the lease.

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

It's probably the same reason that Cracker Barrel refuses to open a single location in California... because they don't want to raise their prices. They prob figure that if a bag of chips that goes for $3 in a Gilbert or Glendale Fry's would have to go for $4.50 in the downtown location, that that would deter customers from buying there

Living in a downtown high rise is expensive, everywhere in the country. Why should those who choose a less expensive option have to subsidize those who do? I don't see any benefit to the general public here. I'llgive my best Ricardo Montalbalm laugh regarding the "1300 jobs" created by the project, as we all know that's bull**** of the highest order.

[stevek64]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

This isn't about the store!

Originally Posted by cjseliga

I should changed the title to Phoenix to decide $18M in tax break, incentives for downtown high-rise apartment, office and retail project that will include a Fry's grocery store, when I started the thread.

I'm not a fan of using tax payer money to fund any private enterprise, grocery stores, retail this/that, and/or apartments, etc. Supply and demand should rule the day.

And given the bought and sold nature of politics these days, do any of you in favor of this truly believe this is just for the good of the people vs lining the pockets of someone?

[cjseliga]

Originally Posted by stevek64

I'm not a fan of using tax payer money to fund any private enterprise, grocery stores, retail this/that, and/or apartments, etc. Supply and demand should rule the day.

And given the bought and sold nature of politics these days, do any of you in favor of this truly believe this is just for the good of the people vs lining the pockets of someone?

It's the nature of the beast, would it be nice if developers, business owners, pro sports team owners, etc. built their buildings/arenas/stadiums without tax incentives/tax breaks/public money, sure, but that's the exception nowadays instead of the norm. The genie is already out of the bottle, and sad to say, it's not going back in anytime soon.