info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sunday afternoon schadenfreude
46 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Press
May 14, 2017, 5:10:08 PM5/14/17
to
Article by Jazz Shaw.
This story in the SF Weekly deals with a commercial property in
the Haight-Ashbury district which became a local bone of
contention after some redevelopment work. The address on Steiner
St. was, for many years, the home of a locally owned coffee shop
called “Bean There.” (Très adorable, n’est-ce pas?) It was
popular with the locals, but following some earthquake mitigation
work by the owner of the property, the lease to the coffee shop
owner was not renewed. There’s some debate over why that took
place, but that’s not really the story here.
What came next was an ongoing fight to see what business would
replace Been There. A profitable looking bid came in for a
different coffee shop operated by Blue Bottle Coffee. As the
linked article explains, having another coffee shop there wasn’t
going to be acceptable if it wasn’t the right kind of coffee
shop, if you know what I mean. Local community activists leapt
into action without delay.
But behind the scenes, a battle against corporate coffee moguls
was being waged…
The process hands a fair amount of power to nearby residents, who
are allowed to petition to the Planning Commission for or against
a formula retail business moving in.
With this bit of power, Lower Haight got fired up. Neighbors
United, a group formed by former District 5 supervisor candidate
Dean Preston and his deputy campaign manager Jen Snyder, worked
closely with the Lower Haight Merchants and Neighbors Association
(LoHMNA) and local resident Hal Fischer to flyer the neighborhood
and alert residents about the plan. On Thursday people flooded
the Planning Commission meeting, voicing an overwhelming distaste
for the chain coffee shop’s attempt to move into Bean There’s old
spot.
And in the end, they won. The Planning Commission voted 2-4 in
favor of the opposition. A final motion to officially block Blue
Bottle will be held at a future meeting. The locals apparently
have the power to petition the planning commission and stop any
development which doesn’t fit in with the “flavor” (oh… pardon
me. I’m sure that’s probably flavour) of the Lower Haight
neighborhood. They are also on the lookout to prevent
“gentrification” and they certainly don’t want one of those big,
international chain operations moving in and diluting the local
culture. So they shut down Blue Bottle’s bid. The people rejoiced
over this great victory.
“This is a huge victory for preserving the character of our
neighborhood,” said Fischer, who led a petition drive that
gathered more than 1,300 signatures. Congratulations, community
organizers! You kept out that big, nasty, soulless international
chain store. Except for one thing. Blue Bottle is a boutique
coffee outfit which was formed pretty much next door in Oakland.
Their mission statement tells you all about their horrible
corporate philosophy. It was started by, “a slightly disaffected
freelance musician and coffee lunatic.” He created the brand
specifically to rebel against major chains like Starbucks and
bring people freshly ground coffee made from (and this is the
important bit) “responsibly sourced beans.”
And how big is this massive international chain which the locals
were too exclusive to have in their neighborhood? They have a
total of 34 stores. But that’s more than the eleven which the
local ordinance allows before you are considered a major
international player, however. So Blue Bottle’s bid was shut
down. And what did this “victory” deliver for the sensitive,
socially woke residents instead? The property sits empty, as it
has for over a year with the exception of a brief, failed attempt
to open up a hair salon there. So the neighborhood used to have a
coffee shop where people could gather for a cup of joe and
mingle. Now they have an empty eyesore which is generating zero
profit or tax revenue.
Well played, folks. You’ve certainly struck a blow for hipster
culture everywhere. You’ve also managed to squeeze out even more
of the remaining incentive to attempt to engage in capitalism in
California. But what’s the difference if you drove down the
property values and stopped someone from providing some jobs to
local folks and possibly making a profit? You managed to ward off
the scourge of “gentrification.” Thank God you were there to save
the union from falling into disrepair.
--
Michael Press
This story in the SF Weekly deals with a commercial property in
the Haight-Ashbury district which became a local bone of
contention after some redevelopment work. The address on Steiner
St. was, for many years, the home of a locally owned coffee shop
called “Bean There.” (Très adorable, n’est-ce pas?) It was
popular with the locals, but following some earthquake mitigation
work by the owner of the property, the lease to the coffee shop
owner was not renewed. There’s some debate over why that took
place, but that’s not really the story here.
What came next was an ongoing fight to see what business would
replace Been There. A profitable looking bid came in for a
different coffee shop operated by Blue Bottle Coffee. As the
linked article explains, having another coffee shop there wasn’t
going to be acceptable if it wasn’t the right kind of coffee
shop, if you know what I mean. Local community activists leapt
into action without delay.
But behind the scenes, a battle against corporate coffee moguls
was being waged…
The process hands a fair amount of power to nearby residents, who
are allowed to petition to the Planning Commission for or against
a formula retail business moving in.
With this bit of power, Lower Haight got fired up. Neighbors
United, a group formed by former District 5 supervisor candidate
Dean Preston and his deputy campaign manager Jen Snyder, worked
closely with the Lower Haight Merchants and Neighbors Association
(LoHMNA) and local resident Hal Fischer to flyer the neighborhood
and alert residents about the plan. On Thursday people flooded
the Planning Commission meeting, voicing an overwhelming distaste
for the chain coffee shop’s attempt to move into Bean There’s old
spot.
And in the end, they won. The Planning Commission voted 2-4 in
favor of the opposition. A final motion to officially block Blue
Bottle will be held at a future meeting. The locals apparently
have the power to petition the planning commission and stop any
development which doesn’t fit in with the “flavor” (oh… pardon
me. I’m sure that’s probably flavour) of the Lower Haight
neighborhood. They are also on the lookout to prevent
“gentrification” and they certainly don’t want one of those big,
international chain operations moving in and diluting the local
culture. So they shut down Blue Bottle’s bid. The people rejoiced
over this great victory.
“This is a huge victory for preserving the character of our
neighborhood,” said Fischer, who led a petition drive that
gathered more than 1,300 signatures. Congratulations, community
organizers! You kept out that big, nasty, soulless international
chain store. Except for one thing. Blue Bottle is a boutique
coffee outfit which was formed pretty much next door in Oakland.
Their mission statement tells you all about their horrible
corporate philosophy. It was started by, “a slightly disaffected
freelance musician and coffee lunatic.” He created the brand
specifically to rebel against major chains like Starbucks and
bring people freshly ground coffee made from (and this is the
important bit) “responsibly sourced beans.”
And how big is this massive international chain which the locals
were too exclusive to have in their neighborhood? They have a
total of 34 stores. But that’s more than the eleven which the
local ordinance allows before you are considered a major
international player, however. So Blue Bottle’s bid was shut
down. And what did this “victory” deliver for the sensitive,
socially woke residents instead? The property sits empty, as it
has for over a year with the exception of a brief, failed attempt
to open up a hair salon there. So the neighborhood used to have a
coffee shop where people could gather for a cup of joe and
mingle. Now they have an empty eyesore which is generating zero
profit or tax revenue.
Well played, folks. You’ve certainly struck a blow for hipster
culture everywhere. You’ve also managed to squeeze out even more
of the remaining incentive to attempt to engage in capitalism in
California. But what’s the difference if you drove down the
property values and stopped someone from providing some jobs to
local folks and possibly making a profit? You managed to ward off
the scourge of “gentrification.” Thank God you were there to save
the union from falling into disrepair.
--
Michael Press
agavi...@gmail.com
May 14, 2017, 5:27:37 PM5/14/17
to
LOL
The thing I hate most about international businesses is how they truck in foreign talent to take all the local jobs. Oh, wait...
The thing I hate most about international businesses is how they truck in foreign talent to take all the local jobs. Oh, wait...
Eric Ramon
May 14, 2017, 7:34:45 PM5/14/17
to
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 2:10:08 PM UTC-7, Michael Press wrote:
> And what did this “victory” deliver for the sensitive,
> socially woke residents instead? The property sits empty, as it
> has for over a year with the exception of a brief, failed attempt
> to open up a hair salon there. So the neighborhood used to have a
> coffee shop where people could gather for a cup of joe and
> mingle. Now they have an empty eyesore which is generating zero
> profit or tax revenue.
>
there is no doubt in my mind, because I've seen this in Portland, that storefronts are empty because the landlords are charging too much for rent.
> And what did this “victory” deliver for the sensitive,
> socially woke residents instead? The property sits empty, as it
> has for over a year with the exception of a brief, failed attempt
> to open up a hair salon there. So the neighborhood used to have a
> coffee shop where people could gather for a cup of joe and
> mingle. Now they have an empty eyesore which is generating zero
> profit or tax revenue.
>
As an example, there used to be a restaurant on the business street near me, the Tabor Hill Cafe. They had to close down due to the rent increase and that was over three years ago. It's still empty. The building owner offered it for $9,000 a month. When I last looked, last fall, the price had come down to $6,999. No takers, and stores are opening on the street all the time, just not that one. If we guess that the old rent was $5,000 a month and if it closed in early 2014 that's 39 months of no rent then the landlord has lost $195,000 in income because he wanted to raise it to what he thought he could get.
In addition, looking up Blue Bottle reveals that they might have started out "rebelling" against Starbucks but their acquisition of smaller places, their expansion into Los Angeles, New York and Tokyo suggest it's not the cute, snuggly local business as described above.
Michael Press
May 14, 2017, 10:48:27 PM5/14/17
to
In article <737a006a-b47a-4e89...@googlegroups.com>,
Gotta work with what you've got
and they ain't got no coffee house.
But maybe there's several in the neighborhood
and they do not miss the old one.
--
Michael Press
and they ain't got no coffee house.
But maybe there's several in the neighborhood
and they do not miss the old one.
--
Michael Press
jim brown
May 14, 2017, 11:13:03 PM5/14/17
to
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:34:45 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 2:10:08 PM UTC-7, Michael Press wrote:
>
> > And what did this “victory” deliver for the sensitive,
> > socially woke residents instead? The property sits empty, as it
> > has for over a year with the exception of a brief, failed attempt
> > to open up a hair salon there. So the neighborhood used to have a
> > coffee shop where people could gather for a cup of joe and
> > mingle. Now they have an empty eyesore which is generating zero
> > profit or tax revenue.
> >
>
> there is no doubt in my mind, because I've seen this in Portland, that storefronts are empty because the landlords are charging too much for rent.
>
> As an example, there used to be a restaurant on the business street near me, the Tabor Hill Cafe. They had to close down due to the rent increase and that was over three years ago. It's still empty. The building owner offered it for $9,000 a month. When I last looked, last fall, the price had come down to $6,999. No takers, and stores are opening on the street all the time, just not that one. If we guess that the old rent was $5,000 a month and if it closed in early 2014 that's 39 months of no rent then the landlord has lost $195,000 in income because he wanted to raise it to what he thought he could get.
>
>
Happened in our small town of 500. Guy started a restaurant but it was struggling, so he rented it to a local couple who built up quite a business...so he jacked up the rent. Not only did they balk and close up shop, they sold most of his restaurant equipment and last I heard he's still chasing his money. And the restaurant remains closed.
> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 2:10:08 PM UTC-7, Michael Press wrote:
>
> > And what did this “victory” deliver for the sensitive,
> > socially woke residents instead? The property sits empty, as it
> > has for over a year with the exception of a brief, failed attempt
> > to open up a hair salon there. So the neighborhood used to have a
> > coffee shop where people could gather for a cup of joe and
> > mingle. Now they have an empty eyesore which is generating zero
> > profit or tax revenue.
> >
>
> there is no doubt in my mind, because I've seen this in Portland, that storefronts are empty because the landlords are charging too much for rent.
>
> As an example, there used to be a restaurant on the business street near me, the Tabor Hill Cafe. They had to close down due to the rent increase and that was over three years ago. It's still empty. The building owner offered it for $9,000 a month. When I last looked, last fall, the price had come down to $6,999. No takers, and stores are opening on the street all the time, just not that one. If we guess that the old rent was $5,000 a month and if it closed in early 2014 that's 39 months of no rent then the landlord has lost $195,000 in income because he wanted to raise it to what he thought he could get.
>
>
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 15, 2017, 8:57:50 AM5/15/17
to
On Sun, 14 May 2017 16:34:41 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>there is no doubt in my mind, because I've seen this in Portland, that stor=
costs in other directions to meet the competition. Or do it better
with technology.
Capitalism is a leap frog until one frog is too lazy to leap anymore.
Fortunately Obama never thought of subsidizing a frog for that.
Hugh
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>there is no doubt in my mind, because I've seen this in Portland, that stor=
>efronts are empty because the landlords are charging too much for rent.
Whatever happened to capitalism? You never reduce quality but you cut
costs in other directions to meet the competition. Or do it better
with technology.
Capitalism is a leap frog until one frog is too lazy to leap anymore.
Fortunately Obama never thought of subsidizing a frog for that.
Hugh
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
xyzzy
May 15, 2017, 9:45:19 AM5/15/17
to
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 7:34:45 PM UTC-4, Eric Ramon wrote:
> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 2:10:08 PM UTC-7, Michael Press wrote:
>
> > And what did this “victory” deliver for the sensitive,
> > socially woke residents instead? The property sits empty, as it
> > has for over a year with the exception of a brief, failed attempt
> > to open up a hair salon there. So the neighborhood used to have a
> > coffee shop where people could gather for a cup of joe and
> > mingle. Now they have an empty eyesore which is generating zero
> > profit or tax revenue.
> >
>
> there is no doubt in my mind, because I've seen this in Portland, that storefronts are empty because the landlords are charging too much for rent.
>
> As an example, there used to be a restaurant on the business street near me, the Tabor Hill Cafe. They had to close down due to the rent increase and that was over three years ago. It's still empty. The building owner offered it for $9,000 a month. When I last looked, last fall, the price had come down to $6,999. No takers, and stores are opening on the street all the time, just not that one. If we guess that the old rent was $5,000 a month and if it closed in early 2014 that's 39 months of no rent then the landlord has lost $195,000 in income because he wanted to raise it to what he thought he could get.
Exactly. I don't think Michael understands who's getting the Schadenfreude here.
> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 2:10:08 PM UTC-7, Michael Press wrote:
>
> > And what did this “victory” deliver for the sensitive,
> > socially woke residents instead? The property sits empty, as it
> > has for over a year with the exception of a brief, failed attempt
> > to open up a hair salon there. So the neighborhood used to have a
> > coffee shop where people could gather for a cup of joe and
> > mingle. Now they have an empty eyesore which is generating zero
> > profit or tax revenue.
> >
>
> there is no doubt in my mind, because I've seen this in Portland, that storefronts are empty because the landlords are charging too much for rent.
>
> As an example, there used to be a restaurant on the business street near me, the Tabor Hill Cafe. They had to close down due to the rent increase and that was over three years ago. It's still empty. The building owner offered it for $9,000 a month. When I last looked, last fall, the price had come down to $6,999. No takers, and stores are opening on the street all the time, just not that one. If we guess that the old rent was $5,000 a month and if it closed in early 2014 that's 39 months of no rent then the landlord has lost $195,000 in income because he wanted to raise it to what he thought he could get.
Landlord jacks up rent on local coffee shop, loses tenant.
Neighborhood, furious at their local place getting screwed, blocks replacement tenant.
Landlord is out a whole bunch of money.
Seems that the neighbors' revenge worked quite well.
(not getting into if they should have the ability to block a new tenant, because that's not the point of this thread. Press et al are portraying it like the neighborhood screwed themselves, when in fact they screwed the landlord who might think twice about driving out small businesses from his properties).
Emperor Wonko the Sane
May 15, 2017, 10:19:45 AM5/15/17
to
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 6:34:45 PM UTC-5, Eric Ramon wrote:
Doug
xyzzy
May 15, 2017, 11:23:29 AM5/15/17
to
I always wondered if they ever got their equipment back and how often this happens to them.
0 new messages