What’s two plus two (and please do not say ‘four.’)
In parts of Los Angeles, we have a rent-control-ish system whereby landlords are capped at raising rents 5%/year for existing tenants. When a tenant moves out, the landlord can jack up the rent to whatever he wants before renting it out again. It seems to work pretty well as a compromise which allows people to have some stability in living arrangements, while allowing landlords to eventually reap the benefits of increased rental prices.
At my old apartment, I was paying a really low rent, because when I moved in, nobody wanted to live in that neighborhood. After a few years, the neighborhood became trendy, and my landlord realized that he could rent my place out for a lot more money if I moved out. So I worked out a deal with him, where I moved out and he paid me a percentage of the increased rent for five years.
Maybe something like that could work to alleviate the problems associated with gentrification.
I don’t know which location you’re talking about, but every Trader Joe’s I’ve ever been in (several in the Chicago area) sells fresh meat and deli meat. No, they aren’t a full-service supermarket and certainly not a specialty butcher, but one can certainly buy both fresh meat and cold cuts there. Not the best prices out there, but comparable to the chain supermarkets (which isn’t where I do the bulk of my shopping anyway). And certainly better quality and selection than your average convenience store in a low-income neighborhood. Also plenty of other dry goods (canned beans, tomatoes, basic baking supplies, cooking oil, frozen fruit and veggies and fish, dried fruits and nuts, etc.), as well as juice, milk, yogurt and other basic dairy products, etc. They never claimed to be a full-service grocery, but they don’t just sell snacks and yuppie party food by a long shot.
A Safeway would be a much better choice for the neighborhood, I suspect, especially since it’s not a more well-to-do area. TJ’s specializes in somewhat fancier foods, lots of convenience foods, and some staples, with its share of gaping holes in both staple types and variety. My experience has also been (in the Chicago suburban stores I’ve been to) that their produce tends towards mediocre quality. I can see why you wouldn’t want one in an area that could be at risk for trendy gentrification, or even just in a working-class neighborhood.
Making the bus go through your neighborhood makes it more desirable. Prices rise.
Here in Peru we have never heard poor people complaining about things like getting running water and sewers, title to their properties, paved roads, or big stores, even if that means paying more.
Converting your reed-carboard-plastic shantyinto a brick-house costs money and the upkeep is more expensive, yet here people work decades for that. I don’t think they could understand the concept of gentryfication.
All of those things bring jobs and prosperity.
It is and always has been breathtaking to me that just because someone lives in a given location, they feel that gives them the right to dictate everything that happens within a mile radius of their dwelling. So you own/rent a house two blocks away; what right does that give you to tell the owners of a parcel what they can or cannot do with it? (The city can do so, yes, but in this case, the thumbs-up has apparently already been given.)
That said, if the bros and sistas don’t want their blighted crack-house neighborhood to be improved, let them stew there; let TJ’s go elsewhere, and then listen to local black leaders complain about how Whitey never gives them an even break. In point of fact, NoPo has gotten to be much less of a shithole in recent years because many entrepreneurs have moved into the area and made it viable. I guess “black identity” includes vacant lots surrounded by chain-link fences, boarded-up abandoned houses, and closed businesses with shattered windows. If that’s what they want, that’s what they should get. Either that or change the name of the store to “Trayvon Jermaine’s.”
I am specifically talking about the one in Evanston and in another location (which fails me at the moment) but its on the northside as well. I like to purchase corn beef and rye. I can purchase the rye at Trader Joes but I can’t find a TJ’s that (1) sells corned beef and (2) slices that corned beef to my weight specifications. If you know of one, let me know, I like TJs and would like go there more often.
- Honesty
Heh. That didn’t take long.
- Honesty
Yes. Now according to board custom and protocol, you get to brand me an ignorant racist.
I am curious, though, as to just how large (geographically) you think one’s sphere of influence should be when it comes to objecting to someone opening up a business in one’s neighborhood. Two blocks? Half a mile? Fifteen parsecs?
It isn’t “parts” of L.A., it’s all of the city proper. Outside the city limits a few other communities have their own versions of rent control, like Santa Monica and West Hollywood. In L.A. the law applies only to buildings built or converted to rental use before 1978.
The amount landlords can raise the rent on existing tenants is set each year based more or less on inflation, so it’s usually a lot less than 5%; historically, though, it’s been a great deal more in periods of high inflation.
I wasn’t sure if it was city-wide, and I didn’t feel like looking it up. Thx for the info.
How on earth is that relevant, unless you have access to evidence suggesting that no one objecting is anything resembling a resident? (And one would think that the local representative/alderman/whatever the fuck they have there could find that out for him or herself, so they’re set.) Residents continually complain about various new institutions coming into a neighborhood (especially about adult entertainment establishments, bars, megachurches), so I’m not sure why any of us should give any flying fucks that some number of people don’t want a particular specialty grocer near them.
What a strange word choice.
Somehow I think you don’t feel nearly as strongly about this issue as you claim to.
I am not now, nor have I ever been a black person; but am I alone in seeing how residents of this neighborhood perhaps have rational reasons for being adverse to changes that will improve the neighborhood and attract a “better class of people?”
Or maybe the original story was clumsily worded . . .
Here’s a followup from The Oregonian:
Two hours after Trader Joe’s executives killed plans for a Northeast Portland store, the group that led the opposition said the grocer had never been the focus of its ire.
Leaders of the Portland African American Leadership Forum said they were pushing back against the city’s history of displacing African Americans, not Trader Joe’s planned store at Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Alberta Street.
“The Majestic deal is the just the latest in this long history,” Former state senator Avel Gordly said in a press conference that attracted a couple dozen attendees.
Seems like the real beef is with the PDC, not TJ’s.
How familiar you seem to be with this board’s reactions to ignorant racists, for a newbie…
I’m just wondering if it’s true that the neighborhood didn’t want the Trader Joe’s? The Portland African American Leadership Forum didn’t want the Trader Joe’s, but to what extent do they represent the neighborhood’s views? Don’t we need to know that it’s true that the neighborhood didn’t want it before we talk about why?
It is entirely possibly to have made this point without the racist overtones. I’m giving you a warning and telling you not to do it again.
Too bad Safeway doesn’t want to build there. Are you suggesting that if you can’t have Safeway, you’re better off with nothing?
I know-- 4 is just bad policy. Better to have 2 + 2 = 6. You get a lot more than 4, and for free, too!