Trader Joes in NE = protest, New Seasons in St Johns = crickets (Portland: apartment, houses)

[Leisesturm]

Originally Posted by SETabor

TJ's and Whole Foods aren't the same stores. They may end up in the same places because they see the same demographic data. Whole Foods wants to be a complete grocery store so you don't have to go anywhere else. TJ's doesn't pretend to do that.

And I think a lot of the protest regarding TJ's was due to the supposed back room deal they got for the MLK location.

I've been in both stores. I know they aren't the same but as you said they both chase the same dollars. So they more often than not, wind up in the same places. How often do Targets wind up near K-Marts or Wal-Marts for that matter? How often do Safeways wind up near Fred Meyers'? There is plenty of room to stake out territory and most retailers choose to avoid close physical proximity when they can. Except Lowes' as a rule and also TJ's.

The only reason I have ever heard in publc over the TJ pull-out was because it angered leaders in the black community who objected to it because it did not fit with the social demographics of traditional north Portland.... with I don't know how many galleries and coffee shops and boutiques and other SWPL, to say nothing of the Whole Foods already there... but that was the working argument. The fact that TJ's was going to sign on the dotted line for 500K on land valued at 2.4M... I've only seen that online.

H

[pdwpdx]

The fact that TJ's was going to sign on the dotted line for 500K on land valued at 2.4M...

Unconscionable especially given the history of that area.

I can never get over how privileged Portlanders act so disingenuous about some things, such as pretending that Trader Joe's doesn't cater to a higher income bracket. Give me a break! They're not fooling anyone.

Originally Posted by Leisesturm

TJ's and Whole Foods are like Home Depot and Lowes. I know that, and a large percentage of America does as well. Don't take my word for it. Look at a map. One of my literary heroes, Jack Reacher has a saying "there are no coincidences". And poverty is poverty possibly, but America racializes poverty and a lot of other things. I won't argue this. It is fact.

H

Perhaps if you've never been inside a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods, you believe that.

Trader Joe's sells cheap food and bad to mediocre produce to people who would rather defrost something than cook. Whole Foods is not that. You need to be doing fairly well to do your shopping at WF (or New Seasons). About the only thing New Seasons and Whole Foods have in common with Trader Joe's is that both cater to people who want a reasonably nice shopping experience.

Trader Joe's got killed because of some whiners who don't even live there and thus don't have to deal with the consequences of keeping jobs and affordable shopping out of the neighborhood.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by Nell Plotts

There is no reason why non-whites shouldn't like New Seasons. Everyone deserves the opportunity to purchase high quality fruits and vegetables in their neighborhood. If new Seasons can't make a profit at that site then they will either adjust their offerings or move on. Personally I hope they are well patronized by everyone.

The only color relevant here is GREEN. Entry of NS is most likely a bad thing for most low-income residents.

There are plenty of reasons why POOR people of all colors shouldn't like New Seasons.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Perhaps if you've never been inside a Trader Joe's or Whole Foods, you believe that.

Trader Joe's sells cheap food and bad to mediocre produce to people who would rather defrost something than cook. Whole Foods is not that. You need to be doing fairly well to do your shopping at WF (or New Seasons). About the only thing New Seasons and Whole Foods have in common with Trader Joe's is that both cater to people who want a reasonably nice shopping experience.

Trader Joe's got killed because of some whiners who don't even live there and thus don't have to deal with the consequences of keeping jobs and affordable shopping out of the neighborhood.

Hmm...as a low-income renter, I am always vulnerable to displacement, and literally have NO IDEA where I will be able to live next. That is why I felt - dare I say it - entitled to offer my two cents on Trader Joe's.

Am I supposed to wait until this issue hits me right in my current neighborhood? Would it then be too late for me to avoid further displacement?

Originally Posted by freemkt

Hmm...as a low-income renter, I am always vulnerable to displacement, and literally have NO IDEA where I will be able to live next. That is why I felt - dare I say it - entitled to offer my two cents on Trader Joe's.

Am I supposed to wait until this issue hits me right in my current neighborhood? Would it then be too late for me to avoid further displacement?

Perhaps you could get a job at Trader Joe's and thus be able to pay your bills in full and on time even when your drunk landlord jacks up the rent or your deadbeat roommates don't pay their share of the electricity bill on time.

The solution to your problems is not to turn the city in Dharavi, nor is the solution to your problems to deny other people economic opportunity. As the city grows, you're going to get pushed farther and farther out regardless of whether or not you deny other people jobs and easy access to cheap food.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Perhaps you could get a job at Trader Joe's and thus be able to pay your bills in full and on time even when your drunk landlord jacks up the rent or your deadbeat roommates don't pay their share of the electricity bill on time.

The solution to your problems is not to turn the city in Dharavi, nor is the solution to your problems to deny other people economic opportunity. As the city grows, you're going to get pushed farther and farther out regardless of whether or not you deny other people jobs and easy access to cheap food.

The very continues existence of an unfree housing market denies people economic opportunity, as it creates a bottleneck in which opportunity is extended only to the highest bidders.

Liberate the housing market and there will be opportunity for all.

You can have easy access to cheap food, can I have easy access to cheap housing?

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by freemkt

The very continues existence of an unfree housing market denies people economic opportunity, as it creates a bottleneck in which opportunity is extended only to the highest bidders.

Liberate the housing market and there will be opportunity for all.

You can have easy access to cheap food, can I have easy access to cheap housing?

You are making no sesne, "unfree housing market?" There is no such thing as a free housing market, buildings and land all cost money.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

You are making no sesne, "unfree housing market?" There is no such thing as a free housing market, buildings and land all cost money.

Are you serious?

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of 'free market'? As in economic liberty? Hayek and Friedman? Has nothing to do with non-zero cost.

Originally Posted by freemkt

The very continues existence of an unfree housing market denies people economic opportunity, as it creates a bottleneck in which opportunity is extended only to the highest bidders.

Liberate the housing market and there will be opportunity for all.

You can have easy access to cheap food, can I have easy access to cheap housing?

The trouble is mostly nobody wants to live in a shack in a giant slum except you, so your fantasy of getting rid of building codes and zoning laws is not going to happen.

And I'd still like an explanation for how getting rid of leases will cause a mass exodus from rental properties and lead to lower rent. Even if you do that, people still need a place to live and if anything rent will go up because it costs money to turn over properties.

If you want to "liberate the housing market" lets start with getting rid of low income subsidized housing. That is real market manipulation - taking from those who work and giving the money to people who don't, so that the people who won't better themselves can live in better locations than the people who actually put effort into improving their economic condition.