I got the sense while reading that blog post there had to be more to the story than what was presented there. I spent some time reading, and found out that:
1. The crux of the issue for PAALF was that increasing neighborhood desirability (and therefore rent) without ensuring either living wage guarantees or affordable housing would result in the displacement of current neighborhood residents.
2. The land was being sold at a $500,000 discount from its assessed value, which was money that PAALF felt the community desperately needed.
Here's some more context:
[W]hen Trader Joe's announced Monday it was pulling out due to 'negative reactions from the community," PAALF was as surprised as anyone.
"This was not about Trader Joe's," Gilliam said in response to questions from reporters. He said the group's opposition was rooted in development commission's "broken promises of the past."
The property in question was assessed at $2.9 M and was offered to Majestic Realty for $500,000, which amounts to a nearly $2.4 M “subsidy.” This subsidy primarily benefits the Roski family, one of the richest families in the country. It secondarily benefits Traders Joes, a national corporation. It mandates no affordable housing and no job guarantees from Trader Joes.
A new Trader Joes will increase the desirability of the neighborhood to non-oppressed populations, thereby increasing the economic pressures that are responsible for the displacement of lowincome and Black residents.
This is exactly what happens in Dallas all the time. The city gives tax benefits to the property owners and the developers so that they will build these big shiny new developments in areas that are "oppressed". The result is that none of the money ends up in the locals pocketbooks, people who had a home of some sort are forced to pick up and move to somewhere else in the city and the rich get richer. The author of that editorial falsely believes that the free market will fix everything when this is clearly not a free market decision. If it were, the developer would have to pay full price with no tax benefits and then we could talk about fairness.
But it isn't really isn't that black and white is it? A rich family could get a break on this property to build a Trader Joes there, but how long has the property been vacant? Maybe no one else wants to build there and this "subsidy" is better for the community due to the employment a Trader Joes and other businesses could provide.
Right now an empty parking lot isn't helping the community much; this should also be taken into consideration.
The land is not actually a parking lot but is grassy and open and is effectively a park right now. It actually adds quite a bit of value to the neighborhood as it is IMO. Also, the PDC did not offer it to anyone else at that price, just Trader Joes.
Ok, so luckily we stopped this evil business coming in. So now there is NO benefit to the community. Who cares if Trader J's gets a tax benefit? They're going to be selling goods and hiring people -- who pay taxes. They're going to provide an anchor which means that small businesses nearby will benefit, which provides yet more jobs. These "poor" people should have seen this for the opportunity that is was -- a chance to get ahead. What's to stop some of these "oppressed" people from banding together and starting a small business themselves to benefit from the Trader Joes anchor? At the very least, Trader Joes and the associated business have to hire people from somewhere.. why couldn't these "poor" people have applied for jobs? The funny thing is the complaint about the tax benefits is profoundly stupid. The net gain is much, much greater than the "loss" from the tax discount. Now there is absolutely no gain at all. There isn't going to be any tax revenue at all now. They managed to get themselves 100% of nothing. But at least that "nothing" stays in the community.
My theory about this story is that these poverty pimps that claim to be community activists have no interest in bettering their supposed constituents. So now there's no Trader Joes and therefore there's zero gain to the community. So rather than collecting something in taxes as well as the benefits from the economic stimulus, they get nothing -- an empty lot. 10% of something is a heck of a lot better than 100% of nothing. And, some of those poor people actually own their homes, some are upside down because of bad mortgages, the dramatic property value boost that would have happened could have turned many lives around. Now the values will drop even more because an investor knows that that neighborhood has zero potential for growth and thus nothing would drive capital appreciation. This whole "protest" was so incredibly stupid that it's mind boggling -- unless you ask yourself who benefits from Trader Joes not opening.. The poverty pimps and the community "organizations" that have a vested interest in keeping people dependent on their "services."
It's like when certain groups of black people ostracize kids that study hard in school, claiming they're "acting white." We can't have that -- they might actually make something of themselves and disprove the sanctity of victimhood within the inner city. It's funny because Michelle Obama made a big deal about how there are these so-called "food deserts" in the inner city. Apparently, Trader Joe's isn't the right kind of grocery store to make that group happy. Maybe they can build a liquor store and a pawnshop there instead. Would the community complain then? I seriously doubt it. If Trader Joes wasn't a white-hipster paradise, this "protest" would not have happened. This same exact segment of the population complains about de facto segregation and yet when there's an effort to actually bring some economic activity to a primarily black area -- they complain. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Maybe this "community group" should have put it to a vote. Let the neighborhood decide rather than some group that claims to represent the neighborhood.
The people that oppose this deal obvious no nothing about real estate, development and economic stimulus -- instead they actually enjoy seeing neighborhoods deteriorate, because with depressed neighborhoods, that victim card gets much more shiny and useful and the politicians that prey on these people get more votes.
Comments
I got the sense while reading that blog post there had to be more to the story than what was presented there. I spent some time reading, and found out that:
1. The crux of the issue for PAALF was that increasing neighborhood desirability (and therefore rent) without ensuring either living wage guarantees or affordable housing would result in the displacement of current neighborhood residents.
2. The land was being sold at a $500,000 discount from its assessed value, which was money that PAALF felt the community desperately needed.
Here's some more context:
[W]hen Trader Joe's announced Monday it was pulling out due to 'negative reactions from the community," PAALF was as surprised as anyone.
"This was not about Trader Joe's," Gilliam said in response to questions from reporters. He said the group's opposition was rooted in development commission's "broken promises of the past."
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/02/portlan...
The property in question was assessed at $2.9 M and was offered to Majestic Realty for $500,000, which amounts to a nearly $2.4 M “subsidy.” This subsidy primarily benefits the Roski family, one of the richest families in the country. It secondarily benefits Traders Joes, a national corporation. It mandates no affordable housing and no job guarantees from Trader Joes.
A new Trader Joes will increase the desirability of the neighborhood to non-oppressed populations, thereby increasing the economic pressures that are responsible for the displacement of lowincome and Black residents.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/paalf...
This is exactly what happens in Dallas all the time. The city gives tax benefits to the property owners and the developers so that they will build these big shiny new developments in areas that are "oppressed". The result is that none of the money ends up in the locals pocketbooks, people who had a home of some sort are forced to pick up and move to somewhere else in the city and the rich get richer. The author of that editorial falsely believes that the free market will fix everything when this is clearly not a free market decision. If it were, the developer would have to pay full price with no tax benefits and then we could talk about fairness.
But it isn't really isn't that black and white is it? A rich family could get a break on this property to build a Trader Joes there, but how long has the property been vacant? Maybe no one else wants to build there and this "subsidy" is better for the community due to the employment a Trader Joes and other businesses could provide.
Right now an empty parking lot isn't helping the community much; this should also be taken into consideration.
The land is not actually a parking lot but is grassy and open and is effectively a park right now. It actually adds quite a bit of value to the neighborhood as it is IMO. Also, the PDC did not offer it to anyone else at that price, just Trader Joes.
The protest group has no interest in helping the community. They would lose their relevance if people started to improve their situations.
The other theory is that they tried to shakedown Trader Joe's exactly like Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Push Coalition does.
Ok, so luckily we stopped this evil business coming in. So now there is NO benefit to the community. Who cares if Trader J's gets a tax benefit? They're going to be selling goods and hiring people -- who pay taxes. They're going to provide an anchor which means that small businesses nearby will benefit, which provides yet more jobs. These "poor" people should have seen this for the opportunity that is was -- a chance to get ahead. What's to stop some of these "oppressed" people from banding together and starting a small business themselves to benefit from the Trader Joes anchor? At the very least, Trader Joes and the associated business have to hire people from somewhere.. why couldn't these "poor" people have applied for jobs? The funny thing is the complaint about the tax benefits is profoundly stupid. The net gain is much, much greater than the "loss" from the tax discount. Now there is absolutely no gain at all. There isn't going to be any tax revenue at all now. They managed to get themselves 100% of nothing. But at least that "nothing" stays in the community.
My theory about this story is that these poverty pimps that claim to be community activists have no interest in bettering their supposed constituents. So now there's no Trader Joes and therefore there's zero gain to the community. So rather than collecting something in taxes as well as the benefits from the economic stimulus, they get nothing -- an empty lot. 10% of something is a heck of a lot better than 100% of nothing. And, some of those poor people actually own their homes, some are upside down because of bad mortgages, the dramatic property value boost that would have happened could have turned many lives around. Now the values will drop even more because an investor knows that that neighborhood has zero potential for growth and thus nothing would drive capital appreciation. This whole "protest" was so incredibly stupid that it's mind boggling -- unless you ask yourself who benefits from Trader Joes not opening.. The poverty pimps and the community "organizations" that have a vested interest in keeping people dependent on their "services."
It's like when certain groups of black people ostracize kids that study hard in school, claiming they're "acting white." We can't have that -- they might actually make something of themselves and disprove the sanctity of victimhood within the inner city. It's funny because Michelle Obama made a big deal about how there are these so-called "food deserts" in the inner city. Apparently, Trader Joe's isn't the right kind of grocery store to make that group happy. Maybe they can build a liquor store and a pawnshop there instead. Would the community complain then? I seriously doubt it. If Trader Joes wasn't a white-hipster paradise, this "protest" would not have happened. This same exact segment of the population complains about de facto segregation and yet when there's an effort to actually bring some economic activity to a primarily black area -- they complain. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Maybe this "community group" should have put it to a vote. Let the neighborhood decide rather than some group that claims to represent the neighborhood.
The people that oppose this deal obvious no nothing about real estate, development and economic stimulus -- instead they actually enjoy seeing neighborhoods deteriorate, because with depressed neighborhoods, that victim card gets much more shiny and useful and the politicians that prey on these people get more votes.
Is it worth $2.9 million? Apparently Trader Joe's thinks it's worth less than $500,000 since they didn't buy it.