Trader Joes in NE = protest, New Seasons in St Johns = crickets (Portland: middle-class, apartments)

Originally Posted by freemkt

??? I thought the notification and 35-day waiting period was created to rally the neighbors to buy these homes and save them from demolition.

Markham House donations now tax-deductible

Markham House donations now tax-deductible

If the owner and the neighborhood residents come to an acceptable arrangement for both, why should you get to interfere and stop that?

The property owner is free to reject their offer and can trivially avoid the whole waiting period altogether.

If there is a realistic plan to affordably house these people, I have not seen it.

What is your solution? Other than to force all the other income groups to give your group money indirectly, which would also have the result of driving up prices for them? Doesn't sound like much of a free market solution to force every other group to suffer just so those who don't even earn minimum wage can have nice new housing.

You don't seem to want an actual free market. You continually argue for what is really a highly manipulated market that is rigged heavily in favor of those cannot or will not get their act together. The housing market is already highly manipulated in favor of those people; why should it be manipulated even more? Those at the very bottom already have the possibility of living downtown or in the pearl district thanks to a heavily manipulated housing market; people of moderate incomes could never hope to live there yet are forced to pay for others to do so.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by freemkt

??? I thought the notification and 35-day waiting period was created to rally the neighbors to buy these homes and save them from demolition.

Markham House donations now tax-deductible

Markham House donations now tax-deductible

If people want to buy a house to save it they can try, but typically it is up to the owner if they wish to tear down a property.

[khyron]

Why would anyone compare these two chains in the first place?

New Seasons is a regional chain that sells a full range of expensive to very expensive "crunchy" groceries to folks obsessed with locavore-ism and labels like "organic."

Trader Joe's is a national chain that sells a narrow range of cheap to very cheap poor quality produce and high quality prepared foods to pretty much anyone, their target demographic is basically "frugal."

They have almost nothing in common.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by JasonF

If the owner and the neighborhood residents come to an acceptable arrangement for both, why should you get to interfere and stop that?

The property owner is free to reject their offer and can trivially avoid the whole waiting period altogether.

What is your solution? Other than to force all the other income groups to give your group money indirectly, which would also have the result of driving up prices for them? Doesn't sound like much of a free market solution to force every other group to suffer just so those who don't even earn minimum wage can have nice new housing.

You don't seem to want an actual free market. You continually argue for what is really a highly manipulated market that is rigged heavily in favor of those cannot or will not get their act together. The housing market is already highly manipulated in favor of those people; why should it be manipulated even more? Those at the very bottom already have the possibility of living downtown or in the pearl district thanks to a heavily manipulated housing market; people of moderate incomes could never hope to live there yet are forced to pay for others to do so.

If the owner wants to demolish and rebuild, what business does government have in delaying the owner? If the neighbors want to make a deal, they are free to do so but government should stay neutral rather than actively facilitate that.

How does an increased supply of housing drive up prices for other income groups? Under the planners' projections, only the lowest income group is adversely affected by city policy.

I support no rent subsidies; existing subsidies favor only those directly receiving them; e.g. Section 8 rent subsidies favor those receiving them and harm everyone else, especially unsubsidized low and moderate income renters.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by khyron

Why would anyone compare these two chains in the first place?

New Seasons is a regional chain that sells a full range of expensive to very expensive "crunchy" groceries to folks obsessed with locavore-ism and labels like "organic."

Trader Joe's is a national chain that sells a narrow range of cheap to very cheap poor quality produce and high quality prepared foods to pretty much anyone, their target demographic is basically "frugal."

They have almost nothing in common.

I had hoped to coin a new word here, but apparently someone - and perhaps some four - has beaten me to it...

It's good to be a locavore, and that is something to which I aspire.

But for now i am an affordavore.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

If people want to buy a house to save it they can try, but typically it is up to the owner if they wish to tear down a property.

How is it then that buying a house to save it is now tax-deductible?

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by khyron

Why would anyone compare these two chains in the first place?

New Seasons is a regional chain that sells a full range of expensive to very expensive "crunchy" groceries to folks obsessed with locavore-ism and labels like "organic."

Trader Joe's is a national chain that sells a narrow range of cheap to very cheap poor quality produce and high quality prepared foods to pretty much anyone, their target demographic is basically "frugal."

They have almost nothing in common.

Yeah, and the whole Trader Joes controversy was basically a manufactured one. Most of the neighborhood didn't care--and there's already a much pricier New Seasons and Whole Foods not far from there that went in with little controversy. Part of it was the backdoor deal aspect of the deal for TJs and part of it was that the developers would've got an amazing deal on the property--but then the media picked up on the one group that was opposed to it and made it a national story about gentrification and displacement(which has already taken place for 10 years in that neighborhood).

Trader Joes is cheap stuff--I used to shop there a lot when I was a bachelor and before I starting cooking real food myself--they do have a great selection of frozen food, but they're a place to stock up on affordable stuff(I can get stuff like cheese or nuts there for cheaper than Fred Meyer).

[oldtintype]

[quote=Jason
in favor of those cannot or will not get their act together. The housing market is already highly manipulated in favor of those people; why should it be manipulated even more? Those at the very bottom already have the possibility of living downtown or in the pearl district thanks to a heavily manipulated housing market; people of moderate incomes could never hope to live there yet are forced to pay for others to do so.[/QUOTE]

The majority of the lower income units in the Pearl are for people who make 60% to 80% of the median income. I hardly call that the poorest of the poor. A family of 3 making 40K is not rich but they are moderate income and do the types of service jobs the city depends on. Creating workforce housing is intelligent as whether you believe it or not people who make lower wages (but work!) are needed in the city.

There aren't a lot of really low income/subsidized units in the Pearl. Most are median income units. What you're thinking of--section 8, 30% units, public housing, etc. is not really what's going on in the Pearl, with the exception of Pearl Court. The other buildings you're referring to are 50% (a few units), 60% (most) and 80%. So again I believe that's about $35-$50K for a family of 3.


You can argue whether or not those people are "deserving" but people making 60% of the median income tend to be employed, or employed and going to school, etc.

[Leisesturm]

The white, financially well off population is more mobile as a group than are financially well off black people. White people spend their money all over and black people spend their money where they live. 70% of wealthy African Americans live in poor neighborhoods. Mainly because this is where they can live. Poor neighborhoods have substandard grocery offerings that are nonetheless likely to be priced at least as high as New Seasons. I doubt that Whole Wallet prices are significantly higher than Plaid Pantry or 7-11 prices. Trader Joe's does not IMO sell "cheap food". They sell inexpensive food. There is a difference. Sadly a majority of black people and a surprising amount of white people (who really should know better) will think that because TJ's does not cost what New Seasons does that somehow it must be inferior. This is also why places like Cash and Carry and Winco don't get more traffic. The inability to discern cheap from inexpensive is responsible for a lot of bankruptcy in this town.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by freemkt

How is it then that buying a house to save it is now tax-deductible?

What's wrong with a saving a house? Should we tear down all the craftsman houses in Portland and build a thousand low rent cinder block towers so that those that don't want to help themselves can have a place to live? Nobody owns you anything, you want a better place to leave, you work for it.