As many great lakes cities beg Trader Joes to open in their city neighborhoods, local Portland groups have successfully held off Trader Joes for trying to open a NE Portland neighborhood store...citing the need to slow down gentrification.  :lol:

 

 

Trader Joe's backs out of controversial NE Portland store

Posted on February 3, 2014 at 1:35 PM

 

PORTLAND – Trader Joe’s backed out of a development plan for Northeast Portland Monday after the project was widely criticized as gentrification.

 

Monday, Trader Joe's announced to the City of Portland and California-based developer Majestic Reality Co. that it would no longer be a part of $8 million retail development planned for a long-dormant corner at Northeast Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Alberta Street.

 

The city agreed to sell the land, worth between $2.5 and 2.7 million, for only $500,000. The city said the discounted price was needed to get the development in the area jump-started. Trader Joe's was to be the anchor tenant. The plan would have included two buildings, four to six retail stalls and 100 parking spaces.

 

The Portland African American Leadership Forum and a handful of locally owned grocers criticized the deal as a taxpayer giveaway. PAALF said the development would also exacerbate gentrification.

 

Inner North/Northeast Portland was once a black majority neighborhood. But over the last decade African Americans have found themselves in a minority in the area as waves of new residents and investments has poured into the area.

 

http://www.kgw.com/news/Trader-Joes-back-out-of-controversial-Portland-development-243389941.html

 

 

From the AP:

 

Trader Joe's Drops Black-Neighborhood Store Plan

 

PORTLAND, Ore. February 3, 2014

 

The Trader Joe's grocery-store chain has dropped a plan to open a new store in the heart of the city's historically African-American neighborhood after activists said the development would price black residents out of the area.

 

The grocer, whose stores are found in urban neighborhoods across the nation, said Monday it wouldn't press its plan, given community resistance, The Oregonian ( http://bit.ly/1n7Jyqb ) reported.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trader-joes-drops-plan-oregon-store-22350878

^ This is fascinating, and a little strange. I cannot imagine not wanting my property values to increase.

^ This is fascinating, and a little strange. I cannot imagine not wanting my property values to increase.

 

If you're a renter, you don't want it to happen.  It's what is happening in San Francisco.  That is the central argument against gentrification.

 

I can see where they have an argument here.  If it was just an influx of private dollars for whatever reason, that'd be a different story.  But selling government-owned property for an 80% discount is using taxpayer dollars to fuel gentrification.

^ but if you're a property owner, don't you want this gentrification to occur? It strikes me as unsustainable to try and keep a place undesirable. Sooner or later people are going to have to relocate. I don't know how or why you would prevent this.

 

Though the selling the property at that discount seems wrong in its own right.

I heard about this one yesterday  (after I controversially speculated elsewhere that the Heinens business model could get “controversial” after they open downtown) when a liberal urbanist friend of mine in the Portland area posted her mystification at the controversy on her Facebook wall.  Some of the comments were kind of disturbing.  Their veracity would probably be challenged for posting them, but I asked if they would have the same respect for a white working class neighborhood’s objections to a Hispanic or halal food store.

 

If this was Cleveland, or for that matter Chicago, I would smell a large rodent.  I would suspect that someone with political pull wanted the site or didn’t want it to compete with present or future businesses .  Or possibly had their hand out (literally or figuratively) and got their bluff called.

 

In all honesty,  gentrification is almost a certain byproduct of any re-urbanization of the middle class.

 

^ This is fascinating, and a little strange. I cannot imagine not wanting my property values to increase.

 

If you're a renter, you don't want it to happen.  It's what is happening in San Francisco.  That is the central argument against gentrification.

 

I can see where they have an argument here.  If it was just an influx of private dollars for whatever reason, that'd be a different story.  But selling government-owned property for an 80% discount is using taxpayer dollars to fuel gentrification.

 

Much depends on how realistic the appraisal was.  Especially considering that the property was government owned.

^ but if you're a property owner, don't you want this gentrification to occur? It strikes me as unsustainable to try and keep a place undesirable. Sooner or later people are going to have to relocate. I don't know how or why you would prevent this.

 

Though the selling the property at that discount seems wrong in its own right.

 

Yes, absolutely property owners want this.  That's the struggle going on here.  I'm guessing there's a high proportion of renters so they have a strong voice to counter the voices in favor of the development.

 

I don't generally have a problem with gentrification unless the taxpayers are paying for it in a highly populated poor neighborhood.  That's what seems to be the case here.

Can anyone speculate why Trader Joes wont give urban midwest locations a shot?  I firmly believe this region an support more than 2 trader joes.

Can anyone speculate why Trader Joes wont give urban midwest locations a shot?  I firmly believe this region an support more than 2 trader joes.

 

They do in Chicago.

^ This is fascinating, and a little strange. I cannot imagine not wanting my property values to increase.

 

If you're a renter, you don't want it to happen.  It's what is happening in San Francisco.  That is the central argument against gentrification.

 

I can see where they have an argument here.  If it was just an influx of private dollars for whatever reason, that'd be a different story.  But selling government-owned property for an 80% discount is using taxpayer dollars to fuel gentrification.

 

Much depends on how realistic the appraisal was.  Especially considering that the property was government owned.

 

The appraisal was "worth $2.5 to $2.7 million," whatever that means.

"The city has tried to get a development plan off the ground at the corner in question for almost 14 years. Dana Haynes with Mayor Hale’s office said the news has left the city in a lurch."

 

Whoever appraised the real estate at over 2 Million probably did a poor job. It is a vacant lot. If you have an arms length deal with

a developer for $500,000 then that is probably what it is worth. I think The Portland African American Leadership Forum wanted in on

the deal and they didn't get a cut. according to comments from the article, the only nearby grocery store is a cracked out Safeway.

^ but if you're a property owner, don't you want this gentrification to occur? It strikes me as unsustainable to try and keep a place undesirable. Sooner or later people are going to have to relocate. I don't know how or why you would prevent this.

 

Though the selling the property at that discount seems wrong in its own right.

 

Yes, absolutely property owners want this.  That's the struggle going on here.  I'm guessing there's a high proportion of renters so they have a strong voice to counter the voices in favor of the development.

 

I don't generally have a problem with gentrification unless the taxpayers are paying for it in a highly populated poor neighborhood.  That's what seems to be the case here.

"The city has tried to get a development plan off the ground at the corner in question for almost 14 years. Dana Haynes with Mayor Hale’s office said the news has left the city in a lurch."

 

Whoever appraised the real estate at over 2 Million probably did a poor job. It is a vacant lot. If you have an arms length deal with

a developer for $500,000 then that is probably what it is worth. I think The Portland African American Leadership Forum wanted in on

the deal and they didn't get a cut. according to comments from the article, the only nearby grocery store is a cracked out Safeway.

 

....Further fueling the fire that black politicians WANT to keep their constituents poor and beholden to them.  Its a tough line to walk, but ultimately they should be doing what's best for the city and the neighborhood.  If that means growing the tax base and improving the schools through some degree of gentrification, then they should be fighting for it.    Perhaps in this instance it should have meant that a developer has to supply "x" number of low income housing units to get their support.  There were certainly more solutions than just killing the deal.

Can anyone speculate why Trader Joes wont give urban midwest locations a shot?  I firmly believe this region an support more than 2 trader joes.

 

They do in Chicago.

 

other than  Chicago.  Ive been reaching out to them for months trying to get their team to come to Cleveland.  Somewhere around Lakewood or between Lakewood and Downtown could easily support a store of that concept. 

I pretty much guarantee they have just become a lot more gunshy about any urban or lower income suburban area now.  How much difference this makes will reflect the degree of cover they will get locally. 

I pretty much guarantee they have just become a lot more gunshy about any urban or lower income suburban area now.  How much difference this makes will reflect the degree of cover they will get locally. 

 

Possibly, but I have a feeling this was (and that they knew it was) a much more-than-normal touchy subject in this area.  First of all, it was on the corner of MLK, Jr. Dr., so it seems it was a historically black area which is being gentrified, not a recent white flight area.  Also, it's Portland, which doesn't have a large percentage of African Americans, so the gentrification of likely the only historically black neighborhood probably felt more personal than it would in other cities.

Can anyone speculate why Trader Joes wont give urban midwest locations a shot?  I firmly believe this region an support more than 2 trader joes.

 

Count your blessings that you have two Trader Joes.  We only have one in Cincy, and it's out in the 'burbs.

Possibly, but I have a feeling this was (and that they knew it was) a much more-than-normal touchy subject in this area.  First of all, it was on the corner of MLK, Jr. Dr., so it seems it was a historically black area which is being gentrified, not a recent white flight area.  Also, it's Portland, which doesn't have a large percentage of African Americans, so the gentrification of likely the only historically black neighborhood probably felt more personal than it would in other cities.

 

Good points.  But I can also imagine a scenario where developments like this are not proposed/encouraged/funded, and then people call out the government for only investing in "white neighborhoods" while leaving "black neighborhoods" to rot.  No matter what they do, someone is going to find a reason to complain.

Possibly, but I have a feeling this was (and that they knew it was) a much more-than-normal touchy subject in this area.  First of all, it was on the corner of MLK, Jr. Dr., so it seems it was a historically black area which is being gentrified, not a recent white flight area.  Also, it's Portland, which doesn't have a large percentage of African Americans, so the gentrification of likely the only historically black neighborhood probably felt more personal than it would in other cities.

 

Good points.  But I can also imagine a scenario where developments like this are not proposed/encouraged/funded, and then people call out the government for only investing in "white neighborhoods" while leaving "black neighborhoods" to rot.  No matter what they do, someone is going to find a reason to complain.

 

The same people, more often than not.

 

Typically, if they have their hand out, they wait until late in the day.  That would mean TJ's sank significant bucks into this proposal. 

 

Another article mentioned "local grocery stores" being involved.  Which raises the question of who's paying the bills for the "activists".

Possibly, but I have a feeling this was (and that they knew it was) a much more-than-normal touchy subject in this area.  First of all, it was on the corner of MLK, Jr. Dr., so it seems it was a historically black area which is being gentrified, not a recent white flight area.  Also, it's Portland, which doesn't have a large percentage of African Americans, so the gentrification of likely the only historically black neighborhood probably felt more personal than it would in other cities.

 

Good points.  But I can also imagine a scenario where developments like this are not proposed/encouraged/funded, and then people call out the government for only investing in "white neighborhoods" while leaving "black neighborhoods" to rot.  No matter what they do, someone is going to find a reason to complain.

 

That has happened often in Cincinnati, with both private and public/private development. The company that was going to building retail building in

Portland, it is a Minority owned company, but they are not happy,

 

Majestic Realty Company has announced the selection of Portland-based Colas Construction as the general contractor on Majestic’s $8 million MLK South development project in Northeast Portland’s King Neighborhood.

“The selection of an African-American prime contractor with close ties to Northeast Portland opens the door for minority contractors to participate on a large project in the heart of our neighborhood. Colas Construction has an outstanding reputation for delivering projects on time and on budget as well as a great track record in using local minority contractors.”

http://www.pdc.us/news-and-events/all-news/all-news-detail/14-01-30/Majestic_Realty_Company_announces_first_milestone_on_MLK_South_development_selects_Colas_Construction_as_general_contractor.aspx

Possibly, but I have a feeling this was (and that they knew it was) a much more-than-normal touchy subject in this area.  First of all, it was on the corner of MLK, Jr. Dr., so it seems it was a historically black area which is being gentrified, not a recent white flight area.  Also, it's Portland, which doesn't have a large percentage of African Americans, so the gentrification of likely the only historically black neighborhood probably felt more personal than it would in other cities.

 

Good points.  But I can also imagine a scenario where developments like this are not proposed/encouraged/funded, and then people call out the government for only investing in "white neighborhoods" while leaving "black neighborhoods" to rot.  No matter what they do, someone is going to find a reason to complain.

 

That has happened often in Cincinnati, with both private and public/private development. The company that was going to building retail building in

Portland, it is a Minority owned company, but they are not happy,

 

Majestic Realty Company has announced the selection of Portland-based Colas Construction as the general contractor on Majestic’s $8 million MLK South development project in Northeast Portland’s King Neighborhood.

“The selection of an African-American prime contractor with close ties to Northeast Portland opens the door for minority contractors to participate on a large project in the heart of our neighborhood. Colas Construction has an outstanding reputation for delivering projects on time and on budget as well as a great track record in using local minority contractors.”

http://www.pdc.us/news-and-events/all-news/all-news-detail/14-01-30/Majestic_Realty_Company_announces_first_milestone_on_MLK_South_development_selects_Colas_Construction_as_general_contractor.aspx

 

It's an "all or nothing" approach, if you want to do anything in our area you must do it our way, 100%.  It reminds me of the whole tempest in a teapot about the casino skywalk.

Possibly, but I have a feeling this was (and that they knew it was) a much more-than-normal touchy subject in this area.  First of all, it was on the corner of MLK, Jr. Dr., so it seems it was a historically black area which is being gentrified, not a recent white flight area.  Also, it's Portland, which doesn't have a large percentage of African Americans, so the gentrification of likely the only historically black neighborhood probably felt more personal than it would in other cities.

 

Good points.  But I can also imagine a scenario where developments like this are not proposed/encouraged/funded, and then people call out the government for only investing in "white neighborhoods" while leaving "black neighborhoods" to rot.  No matter what they do, someone is going to find a reason to complain.

 

That has happened often in Cincinnati, with both private and public/private development. The company that was going to building retail building in

Portland, it is a Minority owned company, but they are not happy,

 

Majestic Realty Company has announced the selection of Portland-based Colas Construction as the general contractor on Majestic’s $8 million MLK South development project in Northeast Portland’s King Neighborhood.

“The selection of an African-American prime contractor with close ties to Northeast Portland opens the door for minority contractors to participate on a large project in the heart of our neighborhood. Colas Construction has an outstanding reputation for delivering projects on time and on budget as well as a great track record in using local minority contractors.”

http://www.pdc.us/news-and-events/all-news/all-news-detail/14-01-30/Majestic_Realty_Company_announces_first_milestone_on_MLK_South_development_selects_Colas_Construction_as_general_contractor.aspx

 

It's an "all or nothing" approach, if you want to do anything in our area you must do it our way, 100%.  It reminds me of the whole tempest in a teapot about the casino skywalk.

 

And don't forget The Banks, The Dawson Co. is a minority developer but they do have a track record and expertise. It is getting better for minority inclusion for contractors and such, but it used to be a scam. 20 years ago I sold structural steel and gave a bid to the CG on The Aronoff Center project (maybe Messer can't remember anymore). They placed the order with me for the steel and then called back and said ABC company will actually buy the steel and we will

buy the steel from them. ABC company was a minority subcontractor/supplier, so we sold the steel to him (but we got a line of credit with the GC)

and he just just charged the GC 5% more and put that in his pocket. ABC company was a 1 man operation in Walnut Hills, dude got a huge fee for

for doing nothing other than faxing an invoice. The Aronoff development agreement required a certain amount of minority owned company inclusion.

I disagree with the assessment that Trader Joes won't go into low income neighborhoods or suburbs.  Close by in Pittsburgh they put one in a strip mall in East Liberty.  Yes East Liberty is gentrifying but the location of this TJ is in Penn Station, 2 blocks from Larimer (where I once lived) and it's NOT gentrified at all...in fact is the lowest income area in the city.  It can be done and I think Cleveland can bring a TJs to the old East Side Market at East 105 and St. Clair (near Bratenahl) if Pitt can bring both Whole Foods and TJs to a poor neighborhood that's next to wealth (Shadyside). 

Can anyone speculate why Trader Joes wont give urban midwest locations a shot?  I firmly believe this region an support more than 2 trader joes.

 

Count your blessings that you have two Trader Joes.  We only have one in Cincy, and it's out in the 'burbs.

 

In Columbus ours is even further out there, hell I don't even know exactly where it is because its too far away. At least yours is only at Kenwood.

 

So it could be worse is what I'm saying. We just have to face the fact that our urban areas haven't yet reached the critical mass these companies seek yet. We are behind thanks to our state politicians mostly.

Can anyone speculate why Trader Joes wont give urban midwest locations a shot?  I firmly believe this region an support more than 2 trader joes.

 

Count your blessings that you have two Trader Joes.  We only have one in Cincy, and it's out in the 'burbs.

 

In Columbus ours is even further out there, hell I don't even know exactly where it is because its too far away. At least yours is only at Kenwood.

 

So it could be worse is what I'm saying. We just have to face the fact that our urban areas haven't yet reached the critical mass these companies seek yet. We are behind thanks to our state politicians mostly.

I can't believe there's not a Trader Joe's within walking distance of OSU. With its staple items and prepared foods at more than reasonable prices (in many cases cheaper than chain supermarkets), it would be packed from the time it opens until closing! I really don't understand how Trader Joe's selects their sites.

Not enough middle-class families near OSU. You can't have your store be dead four months a year. Many retailers won't touch areas without families.

Not enough middle-class families near OSU. You can't have your store be dead four months a year. Many retailers won't touch areas without families.

But it's in the middle of Columbus surrounded by hundreds of thousands of permanent year-round residents. It's not as if only students would shop there! I just checked the Trader Joe's store map; there's one in State College, PA (or rather just outside of it). Based on that city's population it would normally hardly be a likely location for a Trader Joe's.  Likewise Charlottesville, VA, (home of Univ of VA) a city of only 43K people http://www.traderjoes.com/stores/index.asp

add to the list Athens, GA, hardly a big city but a big college town.

What is the grocery competition like in those cities? The problem with OSU and UC is that the cities have a bunch of different neighborhoods around the universities that have varying interest in TJ products. Whereas those college only towns have everyone focused right on campus.

This is nuts. I would think a place like Portland would want more gentrification. The city has nowhere near the density/wealth of San Francisco, or Manhattan, or even choice neighborhoods in Los Angeles and Seattle. There is a lot of room to grow density. I don't think there is enough competition for the hyper-gentrification seen in wealthier and denser cities. It's nowhere near as expensive as other West Coast cities (I think SF is triple the rent, and LA/Seattle are double). They should be able to have a store with lower prices. Trader Joe's is great. The one by me is always packed to the gills. It's insanely expensive (but this is SF, so maybe double what it is elsewhere), but it has some products I can't get at my Safeway or Target. Their fresh juices, meats, and cheese are really good. I'm addicted to their smoked salmon (though probably should cut back since Fukushima), grapefruit juice, and they have all my core liquors at prices just slightly higher than Safeway and Bevmo.

 

On certain products, Trader Joe's is not much more expensive than competition. I just hate that I can't get the cereals and crackers I like (Kellogg's, General Mills, and Nabisco all day, bro).

Can anyone speculate why Trader Joes wont give urban midwest locations a shot?  I firmly believe this region an support more than 2 trader joes.

They seem to use the same criteria for picking locations as Apple stores.

What is the grocery competition like in those cities? The problem with OSU and UC is that the cities have a bunch of different neighborhoods around the universities that have varying interest in TJ products. Whereas those college only towns have everyone focused right on campus.

 

My Trader Joe's stocks a lot of liquor and beer. That's all college kids need...they'd make a killing in any college area. They have some pretty good frozen and instant meals too. That kind of stuff is where they stand out.

What does a liquor store license cost there? Is it in the millions like it is in Columbus? I know how much the Short North Kroger paid for its license because a buddy was on the store management team of it when it opened. My eyes bugged out like on a cartoon. And he said it would pay itself off in 3 years there.

^There is no way it is in the millions in Columbus. A full service liquor license for sale and consumption on premises (ie. bars and restaurants) in Cincinnati is about $40,000 on the private market. Retail sales (especially for grocery stores that can only sell diluted liquor) are much cheaper and not hard to come by from what I've heard.

The SNK has a full liquor store. In Cincinnati the price of liquor licenses has probably been depressed by the fact that the city has lost population from it's peak decades ago so the number of liquor licenses has probably remained at the higher population number of licenses. Portsmouth for example has way, way more liquor licenses than it should for a town of 20K because its population was once 60K.

What does a liquor store license cost there? Is it in the millions like it is in Columbus? I know how much the Short North Kroger paid for its license because a buddy was on the store management team of it when it opened. My eyes bugged out like on a cartoon. And he said it would pay itself off in 3 years there.

 

SF has some of the highest liquor licenses in the country (all public fees, licenses, and fines are magnitudes of order more expensive), but overall liquor is cheaper in San Francisco than it is in Ohio (it sells better- it's still a vodka town no matter how much the craft beers break in). Wine is too. Only beer is about the same.

 

During sales, I get a fifth of Bacardi Silver for $10 and Stoli or Skyy for $15. Handles are about $20 to $25. Vodka and silver rum are the cheapest. But these are all Safeway or Bevmo prices. Every time I've been to Trader Joe's, I pay a dollar or two more, but it's the convenience that matters, and it's still cheaper than any of the corner stores.

 

TJ's moves liquor very fast at my store. Wine, liquor, and beer is a big part of the their business.

Can anyone speculate why Trader Joes wont give urban midwest locations a shot?  I firmly believe this region an support more than 2 trader joes.

 

Check out the store in Madison Wisconsin.  This is a solid, urban neighborhood mostly made up of families and relatively close to UW.

 

^Excellent infill. It seems like Portland would want this...

What does a liquor store license cost there? Is it in the millions like it is in Columbus? I know how much the Short North Kroger paid for its license because a buddy was on the store management team of it when it opened. My eyes bugged out like on a cartoon. And he said it would pay itself off in 3 years there.

 

SF has some of the highest liquor licenses in the country (all public fees, licenses, and fines are magnitudes of order more expensive), but overall liquor is cheaper in San Francisco than it is in Ohio (it sells better- it's still a vodka town no matter how much the craft beers break in). Wine is too. Only beer is about the same.

 

During sales, I get a fifth of Bacardi Silver for $10 and Stoli or Skyy for $15. Handles are about $20 to $25. Vodka and silver rum are the cheapest. But these are all Safeway or Bevmo prices. Every time I've been to Trader Joe's, I pay a dollar or two more, but it's the convenience that matters, and it's still cheaper than any of the corner stores.

 

TJ's moves liquor very fast at my store. Wine, liquor, and beer is a big part of the their business.

 

And as you probably remember in Ohio all liquors cost the exact same amount no matter which store you get it from. A fifth of Beam is $18.10 at Giant Eagle or that tire store on 161 that also sells liquor.

^True, and that's why Trader Joe's charges more. Prices here are all over the board.

 

But generally Trader Joe's is on par with the local Target stores. Not the cheapest in the city, but better than any corner stores, and it's just easier. I don't think I'd shop at Trader Joe's much if they didn't have liquor...

 

I think my store goes through their wine stock every two days...Trader Joe's is a cauldron of wealthy cougar women and recent college grads working tech. It's prime wine-buying target audience around these parts. Lots of my girlfriends drink that "Two-Buck Chuck" stuff or whatever replaced it.

I get conflicted reports from Californians about their drinking habits vs. ours. Some say that they are shocked by our high consumption here, but then I hear tales about liquor flying off shelves in SF and that everybody's drunk all the time in Hollywood and on the Strip.

Can anyone speculate why Trader Joes wont give urban midwest locations a shot?  I firmly believe this region an support more than 2 trader joes.

 

Oh yeah, my other question ha ha.

Possibly, but I have a feeling this was (and that they knew it was) a much more-than-normal touchy subject in this area.  First of all, it was on the corner of MLK, Jr. Dr., so it seems it was a historically black area which is being gentrified, not a recent white flight area.  Also, it's Portland, which doesn't have a large percentage of African Americans, so the gentrification of likely the only historically black neighborhood probably felt more personal than it would in other cities.

 

Good points.  But I can also imagine a scenario where developments like this are not proposed/encouraged/funded, and then people call out the government for only investing in "white neighborhoods" while leaving "black neighborhoods" to rot.  No matter what they do, someone is going to find a reason to complain.

 

True...I don't know too much about the specific complaints, but I wonder if they;re not related to the development as a whole, which people felt was targeting a group of people the neighborhood wanted rather than who was currently living there.  Gentrification is always a touchy subject, and I can see both sides of the coin, so I guess I'm just providing an alternate viewpoint here.

What does a liquor store license cost there? Is it in the millions like it is in Columbus? I know how much the Short North Kroger paid for its license because a buddy was on the store management team of it when it opened. My eyes bugged out like on a cartoon. And he said it would pay itself off in 3 years there.

 

SF has some of the highest liquor licenses in the country (all public fees, licenses, and fines are magnitudes of order more expensive), but overall liquor is cheaper in San Francisco than it is in Ohio (it sells better- it's still a vodka town no matter how much the craft beers break in). Wine is too. Only beer is about the same.

 

During sales, I get a fifth of Bacardi Silver for $10 and Stoli or Skyy for $15. Handles are about $20 to $25. Vodka and silver rum are the cheapest. But these are all Safeway or Bevmo prices. Every time I've been to Trader Joe's, I pay a dollar or two more, but it's the convenience that matters, and it's still cheaper than any of the corner stores.

 

TJ's moves liquor very fast at my store. Wine, liquor, and beer is a big part of the their business.

 

And as you probably remember in Ohio all liquors cost the exact same amount no matter which store you get it from. A fifth of Beam is $18.10 at Giant Eagle or that tire store on 161 that also sells liquor.

 

Seems forever that Ohio Liquor Control is so over board with controlling retailers. Cross over into Covington Ky and you have 5 liquor stores within

5 blocks. When I lived in Anderson Twp you had Wine World, then a deli liquor store and that was it. There is a liquor store in every strip center in

Indianapolis. Does Kroger sell only diluted booze in Ohio.

 

Only Trader J have been in was Palo Alto, and I do remember the abundance of spirits and wine. Great store.

Agency Operations

 

The Division of Liquor Control manages a system of agency stores, called “Contract Liquor Agencies,” for the wholesale and retail sale of spirituous liquor. Spirituous liquor is intoxicating liquor containing more than 21% alcohol by volume. The Division selects products and sets the prices at which the Contract Liquor Agencies sell to licensed retailers and consumers.

http://www.com.ohio.gov/liqr/

Kroger sells undiluted liquor at the Hyde Park and Short North stores that I know for sure.

^Excellent infill. It seems like Portland would want this...

 

Portland is very socially sensitive...So they don't want the renters to be priced out.  Plus there's a few Trader Joes already in the city limits.

 

Plus from the article:

 

"Critics said the development would displace residents and perpetuate income inequality in one of the most rapidly gentrifying ZIP codes in the nation."

 

Possibly, but I have a feeling this was (and that they knew it was) a much more-than-normal touchy subject in this area.  First of all, it was on the corner of MLK, Jr. Dr., so it seems it was a historically black area which is being gentrified, not a recent white flight area.  Also, it's Portland, which doesn't have a large percentage of African Americans, so the gentrification of likely the only historically black neighborhood probably felt more personal than it would in other cities.

 

Good points.  But I can also imagine a scenario where developments like this are not proposed/encouraged/funded, and then people call out the government for only investing in "white neighborhoods" while leaving "black neighborhoods" to rot.  No matter what they do, someone is going to find a reason to complain.

 

Being able to imagine a given scenario somewhere and that scenario actually happening in this particular neighborhood are two different things. If you think this group is being hypocritical, by all means, please share your evidence.

 

This whole thread has gotten a little out of control. This is a story about Trader Joe's deferring to the views expressed by a single community group about a specific, city-subsidized development proposal. It seems totally reasonable to think this group is being overly parochial or, if they are mostly homeowners, self-defeating, or to question whether they really represent the neighborhood, but it's not an indication what "Portland" thinks about gentrification, it's not an indictment of the property appraisal (this is not merely an arm's length sale of a vacant parcel), it's not evidence of some shadowy shake-down, and it certainly doesn't suggest the new downtown Cleveland Heinen's is going to be "controversial." Ugh.

Yes. Remember that in retail both your general location and your specific location must be right. If one or the other is off then you're done either way. So while users may feel that there are similarities between the general location of the proposed Portland TJ's and the neighborhoods where TJ's locations are desired in the 3Cs by the board, remember that the problem with the Portland situation is a matter of its specific location.

^ This is fascinating, and a little strange. I cannot imagine not wanting my property values to increase.

 

Really nobody's happy with property tax reassessments. If your property is worth more after and you're not looking to sell you're salty because your taxes went up. But if it goes down then your property is worth less and nobody likes that. When property taxes were reassessed here in 2011 the only people I think that were happy were retail landlords with lots of vacancies whose taxes went down because they could lower rents in an effort to lure tenants.

I get conflicted reports from Californians about their drinking habits vs. ours. Some say that they are shocked by our high consumption here, but then I hear tales about liquor flying off shelves in SF and that everybody's drunk all the time in Hollywood and on the Strip.

 

San Diego is as beer crazy as a city ever was.