Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people? Are there known instances where Trader Joe's or other reasonably high end store coming into economically depressed areas and significantly improving the economic status of people in the area?
This article has a lot of rage and perhaps it's justified. But it's also entirely possible that stores do this sort of thing all the time with the blessing of city councils and what it does is displace the existing population. Dallas (where I live near) is notorious for giving developers tax breaks to tear down lower class apartments if they agree to build something of much higher tax value. I doubt Dallas is odd man out.
This author takes as fact that the economic improvement but bristles at the idea of mandating some of that through affordable housing and a community hiring benefit.
"So it is not enough that the $8 million development of four-to-10 retail businesses, with Trader Joe’s serving as the anchor tenant, would bring new jobs, quality food and other goods and services, and tax revenues, to a poor neighborhood."
No it's not enough. It would bring new jobs but to who? It would bring quality food but for whom? It would increase tax revenues but for who? The answers to those questions are rarely "the poor from the community". The author's anger sounds empty without answers to critical questions and his unfailing belief in the free market makes me wonder if he ever ventured anywhere at all.
Are the poor from the community currently working at, eating quality food from or benefitting from taxes collected from the "empty two-acre lot on which it was to be built"?
"This isn't the best way to help poor people" is a very different argument from "this will hurt poor people".
As I mention below, the empty lot isn't the floor. It is easy to imagine a scenario where a development provides negative impact to those who live near by. If the development has the impact of hiring people from other areas, increasing traffic to the community and eventually causing further development which leads to a loss of affordable housing, then yes, they are benefiting from that empty lot. Having nothing there isn't the bottom of the scale, it's only a measuring point.
"Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people?"
Yes. They hire locally and train and pay very well. That one store would bring 30-40 jobs paying $40,000 - $60,000 for 'grocers' that stock shelves and run the registers.
True, but many people working at Trader Joe's who pull in the higher salaries have a degree, some college education, or they have been full timers for many years. The majority make just over minimum wage (and no longer get awesome health care).
It's a pretty good job though for most people is what you're saying, and I agree. But this also means there is competition for these jobs.
It would bring new jobs but to who? It would bring quality food but for whom? It would increase tax revenues but for who?
Fair questions, I'll grant you that. My question to you: is doing nothing (an empty lot) better than ambiguity about the people who will finally benefit from this economic development? If TJ moved in and somehow ended up providing only a net of 1% benefit to the local community, would that be worse than 0%?
It's hard to say. If a new development means 80% of the local population have to move somewhere farther away from jobs, then yes, an empty lot would be better. You assume the empty lot is a zero but it's just somewhere on the scale. It is easy to imagine a scenario where a development provides negative impact to the poor in that community. An empty lot isn't the floor. It's just a place to measure from.
"Further away from jobs.." You just complained that they wouldn't get jobs at trader joes, yet apparently they already have jobs. As far as "affordable housing." I'm tired of that excuse for letting neighborhoods turn into poverty factories. As far as them having no place to go, many of the working poor in those neighborhoods own their homes or they have a mortgage on their home which, due to the 2008 housing crash is likely worth less than they owe and due to likely bad credit is probably at an interest rate that's killing them. I'm studying a neighborhood in San Antonio called Denver Heights which is a really poor east-side neighborhood -- 40% of those homes have been foreclosed on. So that's telling me that those homes were owned by poor people and not some evil rich investors. If Trader Joe's had been built in that neighborhood, perhaps many of those families would still have a home because the equity increase would result in them being able to favorably refinance rather than losing the home to the bank. Now when you drive through there, it's almost a rotting ghost town.
This could provide a huge benefit to those people. But I guess we can just ignore the positive benefit to those people. Instead let's kill the development in the interest of "saving" the bottom 1% at the expense of other people in the neighborhood, many of whom are the working poor. This Trader Joe's deal could have make them fairly rich. If they own a $40K home that's now worth $150K, they just made $110K. They could refinance their home, cash out the equity and use that money to start a business, pay debt or buy more property. With one deal, they wouldn't be poor anymore. These "community groups" rather than trying to keep people victims ought to be out there teaching about real estate, investing and starting businesses, but alas, they only teach about how oppressed they are.
You're suggesting that if someone is poor in a neighborhood, we should ensure that everyone else gets fucked just to look after them? You are aware of something called Section 8, I presume? Do you know anything about how it works? Apparently not. If we followed your logic, then there would be no such thing as neighborhood revitalization, because a revitalized neighborhood necessarily results in higher property values. Interestingly, neighborhood revitalization has a positive effect on schools, especially in reducing de facto segregation. But of course, we can't have the schools improving because then the poor kids wouldn't have any more excuses and the poverty pimp business would dry up within a generation.
You're absolutely right - an empty lot is not a floor, just the a point on the continuum.
It sounds like what everyone's dancing around is the concern that a TJs in that community would start the process of gentrification that would raise the cost of living and make it untenable for the current residents to continue living there.
Assuming that gentrification is a real problem (I have zero experience, so it's hard for me to judge): have you heard of any solutions to the issue besides rent control or "keeping out" the middle class?
It is not starting the process of gentrification, it is continuing it. It is not an issue of pro development vs. anti development, but rather of who is involed in determining what development is done and by whom. The city has a long history of acting on the neighborhood when people outside the neighborhood decide they want to do so while not acting when people inside the neighborhood want change. Giving large discounts to wealthy developers with no connection to the neighborhood without any discussion with people who live in the neighborhood shows that this process continues today. Here is one analysis of the historical process (pdf from 2007):
http://www.kingneighborhood.org/history/Bleeding%20Albina:%2...
Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people?
Of course it does, it is a chain store. I'm all for working out alternatives, but actually work them out before seeking to demolish what currently functions, otherwise you are just making the perfect the enemy of the good.
But it's also entirely possible that stores do this sort of thing all the time with the blessing of city councils and what it does is displace the existing population. Dallas (where I live near) is notorious for giving developers tax breaks to tear down lower class apartments if they agree to build something of much higher tax value. I doubt Dallas is odd man out.
I'd guess that's exactly the worry here. Installing places like Trader Joes, which have the impact of attracting the more well-off, causes a gentrification feedback loop, raising the cost of local housing and ultimately displacing those that can't afford it.
giving developers tax breaks to tear down lower class apartments if they agree to build something of much higher tax value
I'm having trouble seeing how this is comparable. It sounds like the Dallas example involves (ab)using eminent domain to take property away, but the TJ case is developing new on a vacant lot. And the Dallas example is giving extra incentive through the government to do something that may not be economically wise on its own, but evidently TJ thinks that it can offer something in that neighborhood that will be able to justify its own existence.
This is total anecdata and all caveats apply, but there is a Trader Joe's in south Everett, Washington, near the Everett Mall. Between the high crime rate, 1960s car-focused urban planning, apartments run by slumlords, and bikini barista stands, I wouldn't call it a desirable neighborhood. I suspect it gets most of its customer base from surrounding wealthier neighborhoods.
Comments
Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people? Are there known instances where Trader Joe's or other reasonably high end store coming into economically depressed areas and significantly improving the economic status of people in the area?
This article has a lot of rage and perhaps it's justified. But it's also entirely possible that stores do this sort of thing all the time with the blessing of city councils and what it does is displace the existing population. Dallas (where I live near) is notorious for giving developers tax breaks to tear down lower class apartments if they agree to build something of much higher tax value. I doubt Dallas is odd man out.
This author takes as fact that the economic improvement but bristles at the idea of mandating some of that through affordable housing and a community hiring benefit.
"So it is not enough that the $8 million development of four-to-10 retail businesses, with Trader Joe’s serving as the anchor tenant, would bring new jobs, quality food and other goods and services, and tax revenues, to a poor neighborhood."
No it's not enough. It would bring new jobs but to who? It would bring quality food but for whom? It would increase tax revenues but for who? The answers to those questions are rarely "the poor from the community". The author's anger sounds empty without answers to critical questions and his unfailing belief in the free market makes me wonder if he ever ventured anywhere at all.
Are the poor from the community currently working at, eating quality food from or benefitting from taxes collected from the "empty two-acre lot on which it was to be built"?
"This isn't the best way to help poor people" is a very different argument from "this will hurt poor people".
As I mention below, the empty lot isn't the floor. It is easy to imagine a scenario where a development provides negative impact to those who live near by. If the development has the impact of hiring people from other areas, increasing traffic to the community and eventually causing further development which leads to a loss of affordable housing, then yes, they are benefiting from that empty lot. Having nothing there isn't the bottom of the scale, it's only a measuring point.
"Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people?"
Yes. They hire locally and train and pay very well. That one store would bring 30-40 jobs paying $40,000 - $60,000 for 'grocers' that stock shelves and run the registers.
True, but many people working at Trader Joe's who pull in the higher salaries have a degree, some college education, or they have been full timers for many years. The majority make just over minimum wage (and no longer get awesome health care).
It's a pretty good job though for most people is what you're saying, and I agree. But this also means there is competition for these jobs.
Fair questions, I'll grant you that. My question to you: is doing nothing (an empty lot) better than ambiguity about the people who will finally benefit from this economic development? If TJ moved in and somehow ended up providing only a net of 1% benefit to the local community, would that be worse than 0%?
It's hard to say. If a new development means 80% of the local population have to move somewhere farther away from jobs, then yes, an empty lot would be better. You assume the empty lot is a zero but it's just somewhere on the scale. It is easy to imagine a scenario where a development provides negative impact to the poor in that community. An empty lot isn't the floor. It's just a place to measure from.
"Further away from jobs.." You just complained that they wouldn't get jobs at trader joes, yet apparently they already have jobs. As far as "affordable housing." I'm tired of that excuse for letting neighborhoods turn into poverty factories. As far as them having no place to go, many of the working poor in those neighborhoods own their homes or they have a mortgage on their home which, due to the 2008 housing crash is likely worth less than they owe and due to likely bad credit is probably at an interest rate that's killing them. I'm studying a neighborhood in San Antonio called Denver Heights which is a really poor east-side neighborhood -- 40% of those homes have been foreclosed on. So that's telling me that those homes were owned by poor people and not some evil rich investors. If Trader Joe's had been built in that neighborhood, perhaps many of those families would still have a home because the equity increase would result in them being able to favorably refinance rather than losing the home to the bank. Now when you drive through there, it's almost a rotting ghost town.
This could provide a huge benefit to those people. But I guess we can just ignore the positive benefit to those people. Instead let's kill the development in the interest of "saving" the bottom 1% at the expense of other people in the neighborhood, many of whom are the working poor. This Trader Joe's deal could have make them fairly rich. If they own a $40K home that's now worth $150K, they just made $110K. They could refinance their home, cash out the equity and use that money to start a business, pay debt or buy more property. With one deal, they wouldn't be poor anymore. These "community groups" rather than trying to keep people victims ought to be out there teaching about real estate, investing and starting businesses, but alas, they only teach about how oppressed they are.
You're suggesting that if someone is poor in a neighborhood, we should ensure that everyone else gets fucked just to look after them? You are aware of something called Section 8, I presume? Do you know anything about how it works? Apparently not. If we followed your logic, then there would be no such thing as neighborhood revitalization, because a revitalized neighborhood necessarily results in higher property values. Interestingly, neighborhood revitalization has a positive effect on schools, especially in reducing de facto segregation. But of course, we can't have the schools improving because then the poor kids wouldn't have any more excuses and the poverty pimp business would dry up within a generation.
An empty lot benefits nobody.
You're absolutely right - an empty lot is not a floor, just the a point on the continuum.
It sounds like what everyone's dancing around is the concern that a TJs in that community would start the process of gentrification that would raise the cost of living and make it untenable for the current residents to continue living there.
Assuming that gentrification is a real problem (I have zero experience, so it's hard for me to judge): have you heard of any solutions to the issue besides rent control or "keeping out" the middle class?
It is not starting the process of gentrification, it is continuing it. It is not an issue of pro development vs. anti development, but rather of who is involed in determining what development is done and by whom. The city has a long history of acting on the neighborhood when people outside the neighborhood decide they want to do so while not acting when people inside the neighborhood want change. Giving large discounts to wealthy developers with no connection to the neighborhood without any discussion with people who live in the neighborhood shows that this process continues today. Here is one analysis of the historical process (pdf from 2007): http://www.kingneighborhood.org/history/Bleeding%20Albina:%2...
Does Trader Joe's have a habit of hiring local people?
Of course it does, it is a chain store. I'm all for working out alternatives, but actually work them out before seeking to demolish what currently functions, otherwise you are just making the perfect the enemy of the good.
I'd guess that's exactly the worry here. Installing places like Trader Joes, which have the impact of attracting the more well-off, causes a gentrification feedback loop, raising the cost of local housing and ultimately displacing those that can't afford it.
With that logic, we should never try to make poor places better because it would attract wealthier people. No?
So causing housing to become less affordable and eventually driving the community out is considered "making it better" Better for whom?
giving developers tax breaks to tear down lower class apartments if they agree to build something of much higher tax value
I'm having trouble seeing how this is comparable. It sounds like the Dallas example involves (ab)using eminent domain to take property away, but the TJ case is developing new on a vacant lot. And the Dallas example is giving extra incentive through the government to do something that may not be economically wise on its own, but evidently TJ thinks that it can offer something in that neighborhood that will be able to justify its own existence.
This is total anecdata and all caveats apply, but there is a Trader Joe's in south Everett, Washington, near the Everett Mall. Between the high crime rate, 1960s car-focused urban planning, apartments run by slumlords, and bikini barista stands, I wouldn't call it a desirable neighborhood. I suspect it gets most of its customer base from surrounding wealthier neighborhoods.
http://www.npr.org/2014/01/22/264528139/long-a-dirty-word-ge...