"Look at West Oakland, for example. There are no grocery stores there." (Concord: foreclosed, crime rate)

[Mr. Fantastic]

It's a problem many cities have, but it's more acute in Oakland, for obvious reasons.

[phorce]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

It's a problem many cities have, but it's more acute in Oakland, for obvious reasons.

Can you please show me proof of this or are you just making this up. It's like saying Chicago is all bad because of the west side of the city. Please explain your basis for thinking Oakland has it worse than any other major city, especially places like Detroit.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by phorce

Can you please show me proof of this or are you just making this up. It's like saying Chicago is all bad because of the west side of the city. Please explain your basis for thinking Oakland has it worse than any other major city, especially places like Detroit.

Why would I make this up? It's a problem Oakland has always had.

Read this article from a former Oakland Planning Commissioner:
It's Time to Think About Oakland's Development | San Francisco Bay Area News - Crosscurrents from KALW

He points out that Oakland has lost many big opportunities to attract private investment to much smaller cities because of the negative factors surrounding Oakland (extremely high violent crime, poor schools, lack of GOOD affordable housing).

This guy actually wrestled with many of the problems being discussed here for the city of Oakland, and knows more than either you or I about the situation.

He says Oakland just isn't cutting it when it comes to attracting firms to invest in the city.

[mayorhaggar]

Well I don't live in SF anymore but when I did I was always really irritated that there's nowhere like Target to shop. There are lots of small indie stores but you never know what they have and it's really frustrating to take them time to schlep out to one and find they don't have what you need. There's nowhere to buy inexpensive towels, linen, curtains, etc. There's Bed Bath and Beyond but it's very expensive and doesn't have everything.

Blaming the size of Target/Wal-Mart stores makes no sense, there is a Target in Manhattan now I think and I've seen a cool three-story Target in Atlanta, which yes is a much less dense city but that building would have easily fit in SOMA or many other parts of SF. And there is a Costco and a Best Buy in SF which are pretty big. I think it has more to do with how people in SF oppose how crappily stores like Wal-Mart and Target treat their employees, but also because any time anyone wants to do anything major in SF, everyone says no and tries to block it. But how did the Best Buy get built? It's a pretty big store and they pay their employees peanuts.

I think the people in places like SF and Oakland should get over themselves and allow a store to be built because it would make shopping for residents to be a lot easier, but I also think that the stores need to get over themselves and offer their employees better wages. There's no reason for them not to, Costco pays its employees something like $16 an hour and their stuff is still cheap. Seems like the only reason Wal-Mart pays so crappy is so the Walton family can remain among the richest people in the world.

But a "small, urban grocery store" won't really help anything considering there are already several grocery stores in SF--Safeways, Trader Joe's etc. But the prices would probably be better. Maybe West Oakland could use one but everywhere else already has a lot of grocery stores, what I want to see is more places that offer the wide range of inexpensive stuff that a place like Target or Wal-Mart offers, in a location that doesn't require a car trip out to Colma or whatever.

[phorce]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

Why would I make this up? It's a problem Oakland has always had.

Read this article from a former Oakland Planning Commissioner:
It's Time to Think About Oakland's Development | San Francisco Bay Area News - Crosscurrents from KALW

He points out that Oakland has lost many big opportunities to attract private investment to much smaller cities because of the negative factors surrounding Oakland (extremely high violent crime, poor schools, lack of GOOD affordable housing).

This guy actually wrestled with many of the problems being discussed here for the city of Oakland, and knows more than either you or I about the situation.

He says Oakland just isn't cutting it when it comes to attracting firms to invest in the city.

Nowhere in that article does it say Oakland is the worst of all cities in the U.S. it's talking about the Bay Area, and even then is not at the bottom. So again, can you please post something showing Oakland is the worst in the country. Thanks.

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Well I don't live in SF anymore but when I did I was always really irritated that there's nowhere like Target to shop. There are lots of small indie stores but you never know what they have and it's really frustrating to take them time to schlep out to one and find they don't have what you need. There's nowhere to buy inexpensive towels, linen, curtains, etc. There's Bed Bath and Beyond but it's very expensive and doesn't have everything.

Blaming the size of Target/Wal-Mart stores makes no sense, there is a Target in Manhattan now I think and I've seen a cool three-story Target in Atlanta, which yes is a much less dense city but that building would have easily fit in SOMA or many other parts of SF. And there is a Costco and a Best Buy in SF which are pretty big. I think it has more to do with how people in SF oppose how crappily stores like Wal-Mart and Target treat their employees, but also because any time anyone wants to do anything major in SF, everyone says no and tries to block it. But how did the Best Buy get built? It's a pretty big store and they pay their employees peanuts.

I think the people in places like SF and Oakland should get over themselves and allow a store to be built because it would make shopping for residents to be a lot easier, but I also think that the stores need to get over themselves and offer their employees better wages. There's no reason for them not to, Costco pays its employees something like $16 an hour and their stuff is still cheap. Seems like the only reason Wal-Mart pays so crappy is so the Walton family can remain among the richest people in the world.

But a "small, urban grocery store" won't really help anything considering there are already several grocery stores in SF--Safeways, Trader Joe's etc. But the prices would probably be better. Maybe West Oakland could use one but everywhere else already has a lot of grocery stores, what I want to see is more places that offer the wide range of inexpensive stuff that a place like Target or Wal-Mart offers, in a location that doesn't require a car trip out to Colma or whatever.

Agreed. And, let's face it, even the chains you mention that are in the city are out of the way for a lot of the city.

Like I said, having original shops that don't have to compete with some of the unfair practices of the chains is good. But, only having smaller indie shops nearby one's home with limited selections and inflated prices isn't the answer either. I think anything that artifically blocks competition within the free market is not good for the consumer. And just flat banning chains because they are chains is not any fairer than some of the business practices Wal-Mart partakes in.

[Bunjee]

Huh. I lived in West Oakland and used to go to the Pac N Save. Sure, it could be better managed but it was a fully stocked grocery store.

In SoCal, Fresh and Easy has locations in some really spotty neighborhoods. They don't have lots of locations at all in NorCal anyway, but why not expand to West Oakland? Neighborhoods like West Oakland need to start feeling they can take for granted that grocery chains are willing to do business with them, just like everyone else. Refusal is what causes chronic disheartenment. If there's the principle of small business over chains standing in the way, then let's just get socially real for a minute.

[Mr. Fantastic]

Originally Posted by phorce

Nowhere in that article does it say Oakland is the worst of all cities in the U.S. it's talking about the Bay Area, and even then is not at the bottom. So again, can you please post something showing Oakland is the worst in the country. Thanks.

I never said Oakland was the worst in the country, but it's certainly bottom of the barrel.

When you're ranked 76th out of 100 in the entire Bay Area like Oakland is, you know there are problems.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

Mi Pueblo opened stores in areas that were underserved by grocers, and they have been very successful. They did it by tuning their offerings to the largely Hispanic neighborhoods they reside in - San Jose near Story & King, East Palo Alto, Fruitvale Oakland, Hayward/San Lorenzo, etc. Walmart will have trouble if they don't tune their offerings to the local clientele. If they try to open a store to compete with the Marina Safeway, it'll have to be very different from the West Oakland location.

Walmart has actually done a pretty good job of that. In fact, they even buy local produce for some stores. Take a look at this article with a Walmart food taste-off: The Great Grocery Smackdown - Magazine - The Atlantic

Every Walmart is different in the grocery aisles.

[phorce]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

I never said Oakland was the worst in the country, but it's certainly bottom of the barrel.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fantastic

It's a problem many cities have, but it's more acute in Oakland, for obvious reasons.

You just said Oakland's business problem is the worst . Why are you back peddling? I'm also waiting for those articles to back up the above claims.