Black activitists and politicians force Trader Joe's grocery out:
02-07-2014 | 08:29 PM
#2
Liberal leaders oppressing poor constituents to perpetuate the liberal agenda. This is how career liberal politicians stay in office. There are no jobs, so vote for the guy that gives you handouts. Give a man a good job, he starts voting conservative. It's only color on the surface; oppression and hardship are both color blind.
Reply
0
0
02-08-2014 | 02:02 PM
#4
It's community driven, just like all construction there are pubic meetings... Along with everything else for that matter... It's just like the city of Beavercreek not wanting public bus stops in the city because of the demographic of people they don't want allowed access - we all know what that means. On the surface it seems as though it would be great for the commun, and should be... There are underlying reasons. Regardless, it can be subliminally racist because of how the media conveys it, but on most accounts there is usually more involved.
Seems Kinda dumb though. I wonder what they are leaving out.
Seems Kinda dumb though. I wonder what they are leaving out.
Reply
0
0
02-08-2014 | 07:49 PM
#5
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 33,556
Total Cats: 6,933
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
I typically ask the same question. In this case, there doesn't seem to be an "other" side to story.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ood-desert.htm
http://www.ibtimes.com/trader-joes-p...cation-1553231
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...an_lead_2.html
I keep hearing the word "gentrification" tossed around as though it's a profanity or a conspiracy, and this puzzles me. Gentrification, by definition, is an increase in the economic viability of a neighborhood. So to stand up and publicly decry someone for attempting to gentrify a neighborhood is to literally say "we want this neighborhood to remain poor."
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...ood-desert.htm
http://www.ibtimes.com/trader-joes-p...cation-1553231
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...an_lead_2.html
I keep hearing the word "gentrification" tossed around as though it's a profanity or a conspiracy, and this puzzles me. Gentrification, by definition, is an increase in the economic viability of a neighborhood. So to stand up and publicly decry someone for attempting to gentrify a neighborhood is to literally say "we want this neighborhood to remain poor."
Last edited by Joe Perez; 02-09-2014 at 12:59 PM.
Reply
0
0
02-09-2014 | 11:46 AM
#6
Yes, I'm going to go with my it's kinda dumb quote again... I don't get the whole gentrification bit. They could just use common English and say "we think poor people won't shop there," or "we don't think it fits our community demographic," which is a poor defense, mainly because last time I checked Trader Joe's isn't all high profile, or a strip club... It's a grocery store. They have deals as well as expensive whole food items. Meh.
I'd say let them build. If it's a hit it's a hit. If it's not - yay vacant building that can be bought by deveroes.
I'd say let them build. If it's a hit it's a hit. If it's not - yay vacant building that can be bought by deveroes.
Reply
0
0
02-10-2014 | 02:34 PM
#9
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 33,556
Total Cats: 6,933
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
And there's no question at all that TJs is cheaper than the various 7-11s and whatnot which, at present, constitute the only source of groceries within convenient walking distance of the proposed location, which is in a mostly residential, suburban neighborhood.
Besides, TJ's accepts food stamps.
Yeah, but just think- if the neighborhood does suddenly take off, then the community organizers can instead become HOA and condo-board presidents. Much more lucrative gig, with more opportunities for graft.
I read the entire letter, you can find a copy of it here. (Also, understand that this wasn't JUST a Trader Joe's, it was an eleven-unit retail plaza, of which TJ was the anchor store.) A few comments:
The Portland African American Leadership Forum (PAALF) is writing in
response to the proposed development in partnership with Majestic Realty.
Our opposition is rooted in the well--documented and ongoing attempt to
profit from development in inner N/NE Portland at the expense of Black and
low -income individuals. (What, by providing jobs for them?)
Rather than invest in proven methods to stop displacement (the only people that a
new retail complex is going to displace are drug dealers.) and empower the
African American community, (Huh? You don't get empowerment by asking
the government for it, you get empowerment by getting off your *** and creating
things.) the Portland Development Commission (PDC) and City of Portland
have consistently supported projects that have displaced existing residents
and attracted wealthier ones in their place. (Trust me, sweetie. I'm a wealthy white
guy, and can absolutely guarantee you that I'm not going to move into your ghetto
and drive up the price of the hovels that you live in just because they built a new
Trader Joe's there.)
In October, PAALF met with city officials including, Mayor Hales, Patrick
Quinton and John Jackley to discuss the disparate impact gentrification has
had on our community’s well being and viability. Both Mayor Hales and
Patrick Quinton expressed a commitment to solving the issues related to
gentrification (solving the issues related to gentrification? Since when was
"having a stable revenue stream and low crime" an issue that needed solving?)
and to finding community based- solutions to stabilize Black residents. (What does
"stabilize Black residents" mean? Trap them in poverty and an endless-cycle of
reliance on others? Because a welfare-state is technically very stable.)
(...)
In both the Albina Plan and the Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal
Area Plan, the PDC and the City justified their investment in N/NE
Portland as an action that would “primarily benefit existing residents”
and improve their quality of life. (Yes, creating jobs and hiring people
does tend to benefit them and improve their quality of life. So does being
able to improve the quality of public services, increase school-funding, etc., thanks
to the tax revenue that comes from having commercial businesses rather
than vacant lots.)
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. (No, this subsidy primarily benefits the people who will have jobs
after the Roski family build their new plaza.) It secondarily benefits Traders
Joes, a national corporation. (Ah, yes. How silly to think that a for-profit corporation
might actually want to benefit from opening a new store.) It mandates no
affordable housing (How the **** do you figure that a grocery store has an
obligation to provide affordable housing?! They're in the grocery-selling business, not
the housing business.) and no job guarantees from Trader Joes.
(If you can't figure out that opening a new retail plaza with 11 stores including a
supermerket will absolutely guarantee that many new jobs, which don't require much at
all in the way of education or experience and are therefore open to exactly the sort of
people you claim to be defending, will be created, you're even dumber than you look.)
(...)
Gentrification, and the economic inequality it produces, is not an
unforeseen byproduct of increasing density or improving the livability of
streets. (I keep hearing this "economic inequality" argument, and I'm
not sure that it means what you think it means. If you and I both
start out with no money at all, then I get a job paying $100,000 and you
get a job paying $35,000, then we have indeed become much more unequal,
but I'm pretty sure that we are both better off than we were before.)
(...)
response to the proposed development in partnership with Majestic Realty.
Our opposition is rooted in the well--documented and ongoing attempt to
profit from development in inner N/NE Portland at the expense of Black and
low -income individuals. (What, by providing jobs for them?)
Rather than invest in proven methods to stop displacement (the only people that a
new retail complex is going to displace are drug dealers.) and empower the
African American community, (Huh? You don't get empowerment by asking
the government for it, you get empowerment by getting off your *** and creating
things.) the Portland Development Commission (PDC) and City of Portland
have consistently supported projects that have displaced existing residents
and attracted wealthier ones in their place. (Trust me, sweetie. I'm a wealthy white
guy, and can absolutely guarantee you that I'm not going to move into your ghetto
and drive up the price of the hovels that you live in just because they built a new
Trader Joe's there.)
In October, PAALF met with city officials including, Mayor Hales, Patrick
Quinton and John Jackley to discuss the disparate impact gentrification has
had on our community’s well being and viability. Both Mayor Hales and
Patrick Quinton expressed a commitment to solving the issues related to
gentrification (solving the issues related to gentrification? Since when was
"having a stable revenue stream and low crime" an issue that needed solving?)
and to finding community based- solutions to stabilize Black residents. (What does
"stabilize Black residents" mean? Trap them in poverty and an endless-cycle of
reliance on others? Because a welfare-state is technically very stable.)
(...)
In both the Albina Plan and the Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal
Area Plan, the PDC and the City justified their investment in N/NE
Portland as an action that would “primarily benefit existing residents”
and improve their quality of life. (Yes, creating jobs and hiring people
does tend to benefit them and improve their quality of life. So does being
able to improve the quality of public services, increase school-funding, etc., thanks
to the tax revenue that comes from having commercial businesses rather
than vacant lots.)
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. (No, this subsidy primarily benefits the people who will have jobs
after the Roski family build their new plaza.) It secondarily benefits Traders
Joes, a national corporation. (Ah, yes. How silly to think that a for-profit corporation
might actually want to benefit from opening a new store.) It mandates no
affordable housing (How the **** do you figure that a grocery store has an
obligation to provide affordable housing?! They're in the grocery-selling business, not
the housing business.) and no job guarantees from Trader Joes.
(If you can't figure out that opening a new retail plaza with 11 stores including a
supermerket will absolutely guarantee that many new jobs, which don't require much at
all in the way of education or experience and are therefore open to exactly the sort of
people you claim to be defending, will be created, you're even dumber than you look.)
(...)
Gentrification, and the economic inequality it produces, is not an
unforeseen byproduct of increasing density or improving the livability of
streets. (I keep hearing this "economic inequality" argument, and I'm
not sure that it means what you think it means. If you and I both
start out with no money at all, then I get a job paying $100,000 and you
get a job paying $35,000, then we have indeed become much more unequal,
but I'm pretty sure that we are both better off than we were before.)
(...)
Basically, this is what I hear:
Poor people: Why is nobody creating jobs for us?
Rich people: Here, we are now going to create some jobs.
Poor people: Why are you trying to oppress us?
Rich people: Huh? **** this ****, I'm gonna go build another dozen Starbucks on the good side of town.
Poor people: Hooray! We sure showed whitey a thing or two!
Anyway... In case anyone was wondering, this is what a plate of stir-fried duck tongues looks like:
It's amazing the sort of things that you learn while doing research for seemingly unrelated posts...
Reply
0
0
02-11-2014 | 06:55 PM
#12
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 135
Total Cats: -20
I find it rather telling that almost all DIY type forums seem to be completely devoid of liberals. Something about the personal responsibility and work ethic required for DIY work I suspect. Perhaps there's a DIFM (do it for me) forum where all the liberals hang out.
Reply
0
0
02-11-2014 | 07:38 PM
#13
I find it rather telling that almost all DIY type forums seem to be completely devoid of liberals. Something about the personal responsibility and work ethic required for DIY work I suspect. Perhaps there's a DIFM (do it for me) forum where all the liberals hang out.
Reply
0
0
02-11-2014 | 10:21 PM
#15
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 33,556
Total Cats: 6,933
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
I consider myself to be a liberal. The last time I checked, this meant that I am fundamentally in favor of individual liberties, limited government, a laissez-faire economic policy, etc.
Where things start to get all bendy is when I realize that, in 21st century America, these are precisely the ideals claimed by the so-called "Conservative" party in OPPOSITION to the so-called "Liberal" party, despite the fact that the former seem hell-bent on legislating morality while the latter would appear, at least superficially, to be sympathetic to many of the underlying tenets of a socio-economic philosophy which lies somewhere between Marxism and State Socialism.
In other words, we seem to literally be living in bizarro-world, at least insofar as bicameral electoral politics are concerned.
And this confuses me greatly.
Reply
0
0
02-11-2014 | 11:13 PM
#17
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 76
Total Cats: 1
From: Pensacola, Fl.
I read about this and couldnt understand it. Who do these people think that this store was going to hire?
I cant imagine how anyone in that area could sit back and let these fools talk for them and advocate for running off new business. It seems backwards to me.
Way I see it, there are more of us in the middle than there are on the left or right. And if we all just put our heads together we can totally make it all right. Its just getting people convinced that the toeing the party line isnt getting them anywhere, and that those people are actually the fringe of each party who are out to take us all for a ride. Like him or not, we could have a Gary Johnson or a Ron Paul for president and really go in a different direction for once instead of just talking about it or bickering about abortion and gay marriage while they run away with the country.
I cant imagine how anyone in that area could sit back and let these fools talk for them and advocate for running off new business. It seems backwards to me.
You see, this is where my brain starts to hurt.
I consider myself to be a liberal. The last time I checked, this meant that I am fundamentally in favor of individual liberties, limited government, a laissez-faire economic policy, etc.
Where things start to get all bendy is when I realize that, in 21st century America, these are precisely the ideals claimed by the so-called "Conservative" party in OPPOSITION to the so-called "Liberal" party, despite the fact that the former seem hell-bent on legislating morality while the latter would appear, at least superficially, to be sympathetic to many of the underlying tenets of a socio-economic philosophy which lies somewhere between Marxism and State Socialism.
In other words, we seem to literally be living in bizarro-world, at least insofar as bicameral electoral politics are concerned.
And this confuses me greatly.
I consider myself to be a liberal. The last time I checked, this meant that I am fundamentally in favor of individual liberties, limited government, a laissez-faire economic policy, etc.
Where things start to get all bendy is when I realize that, in 21st century America, these are precisely the ideals claimed by the so-called "Conservative" party in OPPOSITION to the so-called "Liberal" party, despite the fact that the former seem hell-bent on legislating morality while the latter would appear, at least superficially, to be sympathetic to many of the underlying tenets of a socio-economic philosophy which lies somewhere between Marxism and State Socialism.
In other words, we seem to literally be living in bizarro-world, at least insofar as bicameral electoral politics are concerned.
And this confuses me greatly.
Reply
0
0
02-13-2014 | 11:02 PM
#18
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 135
Total Cats: -20
You see, this is where my brain starts to hurt.
I consider myself to be a liberal. The last time I checked, this meant that I am fundamentally in favor of individual liberties, limited government, a laissez-faire economic policy, etc.
Where things start to get all bendy is when I realize that, in 21st century America, these are precisely the ideals claimed by the so-called "Conservative" party in OPPOSITION to the so-called "Liberal" party, despite the fact that the former seem hell-bent on legislating morality while the latter would appear, at least superficially, to be sympathetic to many of the underlying tenets of a socio-economic philosophy which lies somewhere between Marxism and State Socialism.
In other words, we seem to literally be living in bizarro-world, at least insofar as bicameral electoral politics are concerned.
And this confuses me greatly.
I consider myself to be a liberal. The last time I checked, this meant that I am fundamentally in favor of individual liberties, limited government, a laissez-faire economic policy, etc.
Where things start to get all bendy is when I realize that, in 21st century America, these are precisely the ideals claimed by the so-called "Conservative" party in OPPOSITION to the so-called "Liberal" party, despite the fact that the former seem hell-bent on legislating morality while the latter would appear, at least superficially, to be sympathetic to many of the underlying tenets of a socio-economic philosophy which lies somewhere between Marxism and State Socialism.
In other words, we seem to literally be living in bizarro-world, at least insofar as bicameral electoral politics are concerned.
And this confuses me greatly.
Reply
0
0
02-13-2014 | 11:04 PM
#19
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 135
Total Cats: -20
Way I see it, there are more of us in the middle than there are on the left or right. And if we all just put our heads together we can totally make it all right. Its just getting people convinced that the toeing the party line isnt getting them anywhere, and that those people are actually the fringe of each party who are out to take us all for a ride. Like him or not, we could have a Gary Johnson or a Ron Paul for president and really go in a different direction for once instead of just talking about it or bickering about abortion and gay marriage while they run away with the country.
Reply
0
0
