Trader Joe's Store Attract too Many Whites?!

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
“Gentrification” is such a bullshit term. I mean, if a neighborhood (or a ghetto) with high crime, high substance abuse, etc… IMPROVES, “what’s the problem”, you say? It’s not reactionary, class warfare, “reverse” racist, entitlement bullshit. It’s a talking point of a SYMPTOM, not a PROBLEM. The problem is that there are millions of minorities in shitty neighborhoods with shitty schools and shitty teachers and shitty police that perpetuate a shitty situation (I do realize that the legacy of slavery and segregation is far more complex than just labeling it as a “shitty situation”). Instead of “healing” the issue at a fundamental level, it’s been a cascade of band aid superficial “fixes” over the years that have proven to be ineffective. That’s what this is about. It’s not that “black people don’t want good jobs or good food”. They want the American Dream.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve been pretty lucky with real estate. I bought a condo back in '04 just south of Logan Circle in DC. Back then, it was on the “wrong side” of 16th street. But it was walking distance to the U st corridor, Adams Morgan, K st and Dupont - all my favorite night spots back in the day. So I bought this shitty little 700 sqft condo for 125K - it was more of a “smash pad” than anything, the mortgage was cheaper than all the cab fare I would spend a month cabbing it to DC / getting a hotel room.

Then they built a Whole Foods two blocks away. Then came the Yoga studios, the salons, the music stores, the trendy bars, THREE coffee shops (not Starbucks - that was so last decade! lol), the bars and restaurants with bloody mary menus for Sunday brunches and a felafel shop. Don’t forget the yogurt shop! So it “gentrified” and completely transformed the neighborhood in just a couple of years. I sold that condo for 350K cuz it was now on the “right side” of 12th street.

I did not see a lot of locals benefiting from the “affluence”. There were not many “lower class” minorities working the registers at the Whole Foods. Certainly not teaching in the Yoga studios. Pretty much didn’t see a whole lot of that “benefit” going to those who were there in the neighborhood before it was “cool”. You can call that racism. You can call it class warfare. But you can’t call it FAIR to those who lived there “before the white man came and took their land”…[/quote]

Interesting story, and yes, I see your point. Still, if creating better opportunities and more businesses in a ‘bad’ or, let’s say “less than great” neighborhood isn’t the way to improve things for those who live there, then what’s the alternative? Is there a way to improve conditions, or do the great locales only exist because we maintain the crummier ones to balance things out?

S[/quote]

This is a great question.

It’s almost as if people who live in a crummy neighborhood are dissatisfied with their living environment, yet when efforts are made to improve the situation there are complaints that they are being forced out.

I don’t know the answer to the problem but it’s an interesting dynamic.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

This is a great question.

It’s almost as if people who live in a crummy neighborhood are dissatisfied with their living environment, yet when efforts are made to improve the situation there are complaints that they are being forced out.

I don’t know the answer to the problem but it’s an interesting dynamic. [/quote]

It is about differences in culture. I personally don’t go to Trader Joes and wouldn’t even if one were close. I don’t really care about “whole foods” and can get most of what I need at Walmart for less and still eat “healthy”.

It really seems people who have higher incomes or were raised in that cultural environment to care would even spend time making the difference between “whole foods” and “food”.

I can understand the resistance completely even though I think the OP missed the point and focused on the mention of race alone.

Most “racist viewpoints” are cultural intolerance today more than just a focus on race alone.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

This is a great question.

It’s almost as if people who live in a crummy neighborhood are dissatisfied with their living environment, yet when efforts are made to improve the situation there are complaints that they are being forced out.

I don’t know the answer to the problem but it’s an interesting dynamic. [/quote]

It is about differences in culture. I personally don’t go to Trader Joes and wouldn’t even if one were close. I don’t really care about “whole foods” and can get most of what I need at Walmart for less and still eat “healthy”.

It really seems people who have higher incomes or were raised in that cultural environment to care would even spend time making the difference between “whole foods” and “food”.

I can understand the resistance completely even though I think the OP missed the point and focused on the mention of race alone.

Most “racist viewpoints” are cultural intolerance today more than just a focus on race alone.[/quote]

So do you think the benefits of a TJ in such an area outweigh the costs?

Whether it’s racism or just cultural differences (which is a fine line, IMO) doesn’t interest me, personally.

I’m more interested in a broader discussion of how we can improve crappy neighborhoods while not forcing out those that already live there.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
So do you think the benefits of a TJ in such an area outweigh the costs? [/quote]

I don’t really see the benefit that some other commercial entity couldn’t provide.

I have a pretty good idea that building a Timmy Chans in the middle of Riveroaks may be a bad idea…

Of course…either way, most racial issues today are conveniently interwoven with cultural differences.

By maintaining businesses and providing security for the people in those areas…not ignoring the culture of those people completely and focusing on a name brand.

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
“Gentrification” is such a bullshit term. I mean, if a neighborhood (or a ghetto) with high crime, high substance abuse, etc… IMPROVES, “what’s the problem”, you say? It’s not reactionary, class warfare, “reverse” racist, entitlement bullshit. It’s a talking point of a SYMPTOM, not a PROBLEM. The problem is that there are millions of minorities in shitty neighborhoods with shitty schools and shitty teachers and shitty police that perpetuate a shitty situation (I do realize that the legacy of slavery and segregation is far more complex than just labeling it as a “shitty situation”). Instead of “healing” the issue at a fundamental level, it’s been a cascade of band aid superficial “fixes” over the years that have proven to be ineffective. That’s what this is about. It’s not that “black people don’t want good jobs or good food”. They want the American Dream.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve been pretty lucky with real estate. I bought a condo back in '04 just south of Logan Circle in DC. Back then, it was on the “wrong side” of 16th street. But it was walking distance to the U st corridor, Adams Morgan, K st and Dupont - all my favorite night spots back in the day. So I bought this shitty little 700 sqft condo for 125K - it was more of a “smash pad” than anything, the mortgage was cheaper than all the cab fare I would spend a month cabbing it to DC / getting a hotel room.

Then they built a Whole Foods two blocks away. Then came the Yoga studios, the salons, the music stores, the trendy bars, THREE coffee shops (not Starbucks - that was so last decade! lol), the bars and restaurants with bloody mary menus for Sunday brunches and a felafel shop. Don’t forget the yogurt shop! So it “gentrified” and completely transformed the neighborhood in just a couple of years. I sold that condo for 350K cuz it was now on the “right side” of 12th street.

I did not see a lot of locals benefiting from the “affluence”. There were not many “lower class” minorities working the registers at the Whole Foods. Certainly not teaching in the Yoga studios. Pretty much didn’t see a whole lot of that “benefit” going to those who were there in the neighborhood before it was “cool”. You can call that racism. You can call it class warfare. But you can’t call it FAIR to those who lived there “before the white man came and took their land”…[/quote]

Interesting story, and yes, I see your point. Still, if creating better opportunities and more businesses in a ‘bad’ or, let’s say “less than great” neighborhood isn’t the way to improve things for those who live there, then what’s the alternative? Is there a way to improve conditions, or do the great locales only exist because we maintain the crummier ones to balance things out?

S[/quote]

I don’t think it’s possible to improve conditions without costs going up at the same time. Business and property owners who invest with the intent of upgrading usually do so with the throats of mayors, police chiefs, and city council people in their hands demanding that they have more cops around to police the area.

This recently happened in an area called Echo Park (right by Dodger Stadium), where cool and chic shops have taken over, which has also pushed out the gang element because they simply cannot afford to live there.

With gentrification, Echo Park gang members move outside their turf

Displaced by trendy coffee shops and rising rents, many gang members have been forced out of Echo Park, returning to their old turf on weekends. A new injunction targets those who are left.

This also happened with the Santa Monica Pier, it used to be so gang infested that you would not dare go there. I went last summer, and it had Starbucks and Panera Bread right on the pier, along with a platoon of cops walking around.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

I don’t think it’s possible to improve conditions without costs going up at the same time. Business and property owners who invest with the intent of upgrading usually do so with the throats of mayors, police chiefs, and city council people in their hands demanding that they have more cops around to police the area. [/quote]

Bingo.

Glad some people can see past “the black people are just racist because they mentioned a race issue”.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Glad some people can see past “the black people are just racist because they mentioned a race issue”.[/quote]

“The Portland African American Leadership Forum… also said that they would remain opposed to all development of the land that doesnâ??t solely benefit African Americans.” [from the linked article]

Yeah, opposing anything that doesn’t SOLELY benefit blacks…that doesn’t sound like a racial issue or anything.

S

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Glad some people can see past “the black people are just racist because they mentioned a race issue”.[/quote]

“The Portland African American Leadership Forum… also said that they would remain opposed to all development of the land that doesnâ??t solely benefit African Americans.” [from the linked article]

Yeah, opposing anything that doesn’t SOLELY benefit blacks…that doesn’t sound like a racial issue or anything.

S[/quote]

Shouldn’t the first question be…how many black people vs white people live in that area?

Look, once again, it seems like if race is mentioned the argument is “that’s racist”.

You are just looking for a reason to cry “racist” while missing the deeper viewpoint.

Also, this was the whole statement.

[quote]The Portland African American Leadership Forum, along with the Mayor Charlie Hales, sent letters to Portland Development Commission citing that they were “contributing to the destructive impact of gentrification and displacement of the African American community.” They also said that they would remain opposed to all development of the land that doesn?t solely benefit African Americans.

r[/quote]

You focused on race alone…as if the gentrification issue wasn’t the main focus or concern.

Then why not word their letters so that it was a matter of supporting the people of the community, and not choose their words solely in terms of race?

If the Mayor is for businesses moving in (hiring black owned and operated construction companies, creating jobs for his towns people), but as any politician would be, is hesitant to get involved with racially focused organizations,… well, I can see how this might be playing out behind the headlines.

S

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, this was the whole statement.

[quote]The Portland African American Leadership Forum, along with the Mayor Charlie Hales, sent letters to Portland Development Commission citing that they were “contributing to the destructive impact of gentrification and displacement of the African American community.” They also said that they would remain opposed to all development of the land that doesn?t solely benefit African Americans.

r[/quote]

You focused on race alone…as if the gentrification issue wasn’t the main focus or concern.[/quote]

The “solely benefit African Americans” line used by the town counsel, regardless of intent, is what makes it blatantly racist. No matter what there reasons are for saying it, that is a racist statement. That simply cannot be denied. If it was the other way around it would be hailed as a wish to return to Jim Crow laws.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t really see the benefit that some other commercial entity couldn’t provide.
[/quote]

What they wanted there is not a commercial entity though.

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Overall, it was more diverse than I anticipated, and people seemed to generally get along with one another. Almost everyone up there is so afraid of being “un-pc” that I could see how some racist shisters would pull something like this and no white person saying anything for fear of being “that guy”. Watch Portlandia, that’s not satire. That’ll give y’all a pretty good glimpse into life in Portland. [/quote]
Ick. Well, I guess I’ll cross Portland off the list of places I’d want to live in. Portlandia is a funny show but I can barely keep myself from strangling the 2 hipsters that sit behind me at work, i’m not sure I’d do okay with a city of them. (I’m from Houston as well, btw)

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, this was the whole statement.

[quote]The Portland African American Leadership Forum, along with the Mayor Charlie Hales, sent letters to Portland Development Commission citing that they were “contributing to the destructive impact of gentrification and displacement of the African American community.” They also said that they would remain opposed to all development of the land that doesn?t solely benefit African Americans.

r[/quote]

You focused on race alone…as if the gentrification issue wasn’t the main focus or concern.[/quote]

The “solely benefit African Americans” line used by the town counsel, regardless of intent, is what makes it blatantly racist. No matter what there reasons are for saying it, that is a racist statement. That simply cannot be denied. If it was the other way around it would be hailed as a wish to return to Jim Crow laws.
[/quote]

It may be a racist statement but it sure isn’t an empowered statement. That difference exists…and in my opinion shouldn’t be overlooked just to cry “racist” and turn your ears off to the issue at hand.

Also, I don’t even see that statement in quotes so who actually said it?

Also, in their efforts, the Portland African American Leadership Forum took a very large contracting job from a local African-American contractor.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, this was the whole statement.

[quote]The Portland African American Leadership Forum, along with the Mayor Charlie Hales, sent letters to Portland Development Commission citing that they were “contributing to the destructive impact of gentrification and displacement of the African American community.” They also said that they would remain opposed to all development of the land that doesn?t solely benefit African Americans.

r[/quote]

You focused on race alone…as if the gentrification issue wasn’t the main focus or concern.[/quote]

The “solely benefit African Americans” line used by the town counsel, regardless of intent, is what makes it blatantly racist. No matter what there reasons are for saying it, that is a racist statement. That simply cannot be denied. If it was the other way around it would be hailed as a wish to return to Jim Crow laws.
[/quote]

It may be a racist statement but it sure isn’t an empowered statement. That difference exists…and in my opinion shouldn’t be overlooked just to cry “racist” and turn your ears off to the issue at hand.[/quote]

How is it not an “empowered statement” on their part? The race card, no matter how ridiculous the situation that it is played in, has become a trump card for all the NAACP and like organizations whenever they really want to get their way. It was empowered enough to get a corporation to back off a sweetheart land deal. It is far more empowered when a black person says it in today’s culture than when a white does. If a white said that it would only serve to further along the cause he was speaking against, as whatever it was he opposed to would be surrendered in an effort to apologize for his misstep.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, this was the whole statement.

[quote]The Portland African American Leadership Forum, along with the Mayor Charlie Hales, sent letters to Portland Development Commission citing that they were “contributing to the destructive impact of gentrification and displacement of the African American community.” They also said that they would remain opposed to all development of the land that doesn?t solely benefit African Americans.

r[/quote]

You focused on race alone…as if the gentrification issue wasn’t the main focus or concern.[/quote]

Stu focus is drawn to the race issue, either by the journalist or people who let the words “solely benefit” leave their lips in public.

Gentrification effects everyone, often more harmful than not to lower income people, but it effects everyone. Being Black or White has nothing to do with it.

To be angry about gentrification and then say one is focused on making sure Black people are benefiting isn’t really being worried about gentrification. It is making sure Black people benefit first, and using gentrification concerns to do so.

Not that I have a problem with this group of people looking out for the people they say they are around to help, just that the way this whole thing went down is clumsy. I’m not sure anyone is really being “racist” here.

Gentrification is more often than not government sponsored and or subsidized as well, so people need to keep that in mind.

[quote]Totenkopf wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Overall, it was more diverse than I anticipated, and people seemed to generally get along with one another. Almost everyone up there is so afraid of being “un-pc” that I could see how some racist shisters would pull something like this and no white person saying anything for fear of being “that guy”. Watch Portlandia, that’s not satire. That’ll give y’all a pretty good glimpse into life in Portland. [/quote]
Ick. Well, I guess I’ll cross Portland off the list of places I’d want to live in. Portlandia is a funny show but I can barely keep myself from strangling the 2 hipsters that sit behind me at work, i’m not sure I’d do okay with a city of them. (I’m from Houston as well, btw)[/quote]

Yeah, wouldn’t recommend it. I remember you’re from Houston, bud. We’ve “spoken” on here a few times over the years. Hope all is well.

Also, anyone arguing that this isn’t blatant racism is either a moron or also racist, or both. I’d be stoked if a company were to come into my neighborhood with the side effect of eradicating gang activity and dope deals. Raising my rent seems like a pretty fair trade.

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

How is it not an “empowered statement” on their part? The race card, no matter how ridiculous the situation that it is played in, has become a trump card for all the NAACP and like organizations whenever they really want to get their way. [/quote]

But this is a cultural/race issue. Why deny what it is? It isn’t PC to say it out loud? And again, the one statement that started this issue IS NOT IN QUOTES SO HOW THEY ACTUALLY SAID IT IS STILL UNKNOWN.

[quote]
It was empowered enough to get a corporation to back off a sweetheart land deal. [/quote]

Yes, bad press will do that when the image of a business is at stake.

That may have something to do with the reality of the situation and the lifestyles and cultures of those involved. History happened.