Trader Joe's run out of Portland

Something the Dog Said wrote: Of course this right wing blog failed to mention the real reasons why that particular Trader Joes was opposed by the local community. Trader Joes was demanding a $2 million taxpayer subsidy to build the store which would have put numerous local grocery stores out of business. Funny how that particular fact was not disclosed in that blog. Instead of describing the demand for corporate welfare, the right wingers make it about race and the need for cheap wine in african american neighborhoods. The local community thought that the $2 million would be better spent on affordable housing and local amenities rather than on subsidizing a highly profitable corporation selling high priced groceries that did not fit into the needs of the neighborhood.

Typical.

Your reply is indeed typical for you Dog. That which you want more of you tax less, that which you want less of you tax more. By reducing taxes on development of vacant ground, you encourage businesses to locate there. With an increase in local business comes an increase in local jobs, which increases tax revenue derived from income taxes, an increase in sales, which increases tax revenue derived from sales taxes, increased property values, which increases tax revenues derived from property taxes. Governments, necessarily, need tax revenues to provide the services they deliver. Governments can either charge a high rate on a moderate amount or a moderate rate on a high amount to derive the revenue necessary to sustain them. Having a broad base of tax revenue results in a lower tax rate being necessary, which allows those who are productive, which necessarily excludes the government and those who have learned to become dependent on the government, to keep more of the fruits of their own labor.

Trader Joe's didn't build that!!!

Dog is just trolling again.

Trader Joe's did not demand a $2 million subsidy as Dog claims. The city paid $2 million for that land and it was appraised for $2.5-$2.9 million depending on the source. The city held that vacant lot for 14 years before finally getting a buyer for it. The buyer was a developer, Majestic Realty, and it sold for $500K. Trader Joe's would of rented one of their buildings. There would be other stores as well.

If you can't sell land for 14 years, maybe you paid to much for it and it is valued too high?

Majestic then hired a local African-American owned company to do the construction.

Majestic Realty, the California-based company behind an $8 million Trader Joe's development in Northeast Portland, said Portland firm Colas Construction will serve as the general contractor firm for the project.

Colas Construction, an African-American owned company based in Portland and founded in 1997, will begin construction on the development later this year. "This is the biggest project we've ever been involved in," Andrew Colas, president of the company, said Thursday.

Colas, a Portland native and graduate of Benson Polytechnic High School, said the project will bring an estimated 300 new construction jobs to the city. His company, he said, will have to bring on four new staffers as well as a result of the construction.

Being a minority-owned contractor in Portland is difficult, Colas said, and opportunities such as the Trader Joe's project are few and far between. "I know every building and every contractor that's built" along Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard, Colas said. He claims the Trader Joe's will be the first development of its kind backed by a African-American contracting firm.

"This is a big deal," he said.

300 construction jobs plus however many full time jobs at Trader Joe's and the other stores being built? Maybe the city of Portland gave a discount on the property as a local "stimulus" for job creation? At least it's a local project to create jobs in the community. Let's do some simple arithmetic. $2 million divided by 300+ jobs comes to about $6700 per job. Why that's far cheaper than the roughly $300,000 per job from Obama's stimulus. Here is another simple analysis of that from the famous Khan Acadamy (featured in a 60 Minutes story).

https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/core-finance/current-economics/unemployment-tutorial/v/simple-analysis-of-cost-per-job-saved-from-stimulus

Now it is true that some local stores don't want to see a Trader Joe's. But if Trader Joe's is truly overpriced, then what do they have to worry about unless the local stores are overpriced even more? At least Trader Joe's offers good quality, healthy food. Isn't that what poorer neighborhoods need? I thought people complain they have too much junk food on low income communities?

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

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/01/trader_joes_majestic_realty_ch.html

Clearly you are all just a bunch of haters!
END OF SUBJECT!

:rofllol

I seem to remember many "progressives" reurgitating the talking point of "food deserts" in the inner cities. Wouldn't Trader Joe's have been an oasis in such a desert? Looks like the PAALF is getting its just desserts to me.

pineinthegrass wrote: Dog is just trolling again.

Trader Joe's did not demand a $2 million subsidy as Dog claims. The city paid $2 million for that land and it was appraised for $2.5-$2.9 million depending on the source. The city held that vacant lot for 14 years before finally getting a buyer for it. The buyer was a developer, Majestic Realty, and it sold for $500K. Trader Joe's would of rented one of their buildings. There would be other stores as well.

If you can't sell land for 14 years, maybe you paid to much for it and it is valued too high?

Majestic then hired a local African-American owned company to do the construction.

Majestic Realty, the California-based company behind an $8 million Trader Joe's development in Northeast Portland, said Portland firm Colas Construction will serve as the general contractor firm for the project.

Colas Construction, an African-American owned company based in Portland and founded in 1997, will begin construction on the development later this year. "This is the biggest project we've ever been involved in," Andrew Colas, president of the company, said Thursday.

Colas, a Portland native and graduate of Benson Polytechnic High School, said the project will bring an estimated 300 new construction jobs to the city. His company, he said, will have to bring on four new staffers as well as a result of the construction.

Being a minority-owned contractor in Portland is difficult, Colas said, and opportunities such as the Trader Joe's project are few and far between. "I know every building and every contractor that's built" along Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard, Colas said. He claims the Trader Joe's will be the first development of its kind backed by a African-American contracting firm.



"This is a big deal," he said.

300 construction jobs plus however many full time jobs at Trader Joe's and the other stores being built? Maybe the city of Portland gave a discount on the property as a local "stimulus" for job creation? At least it's a local project to create jobs in the community. Let's do some simple arithmetic. $2 million divided by 300+ jobs comes to about $6700 per job. Why that's far cheaper than the roughly $300,000 per job from Obama's stimulus. Here is another simple analysis of that from the famous Khan Acadamy (featured in a 60 Minutes story).

https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/core-finance/current-economics/unemployment-tutorial/v/simple-analysis-of-cost-per-job-saved-from-stimulus

Now it is true that some local stores don't want to see a Trader Joe's. But if Trader Joe's is truly overpriced, then what do they have to worry about unless they are overpriced even more? At least Trader Joe's offers good quality, healthy food. Isn't that what poorer neighborhoods need? I thought people complain they have too much junk food?

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

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/01/trader_joes_majestic_realty_ch.html

Of course Pine is wrong once again. Majestic Realy did not purchase the property. Instead they had an agreement to purchase it if it can come up with a viable development plan supported by the neighborhood. Even Majestic has now agreed that the Trader Joes plan was not viable. Trader Joes would have received a rent based on the subsidized property value, not on the true market value. The property has been vacant not because of the asking price but because of the failure of the PDC to create a development plan that serves the needs of the local community. The property has currently been appraised at $2.8 million and several neighborhood groups have offered to purchase it for the price offered to the California developer and Trader Joes of $500,000.

The neighborhood is asking for a development plan that would incorporate the existing businesses and add a mix of small businesses that would be of benefit to the local lower income neighborhood rather than a corporate behemoth that would have destroyed the local community.
Printsmith of course is all in favor of corporate welfare at the expense of the destruction of the very businesses paying taxes.

So it would appear that your problem lies not with taxpayer subsidies in general, but who receives them. Trader Joe's receiving what you term a taxpayer subsidy is bad, but the same subsidy going to a community organizing group would be a good thing. Is that a fair summary of your position Dog?

The REAL crux of the problem...... http://www.pbs.org/pov/flagwars/special ... cation.php

AGAIN, there is a difference of perspective...MINORITY neighborhoods/trust and distrust.

I love Trader Joe's, it's one of the perks of wintering in AZ. But, other than 2 buck Chuck ( which is only 2 bucks in CA, it's 3 bucks here) they are a pretty pricy place to shop. Produce is considerably higher than the grocery store, prepared foods are also. It's a specialty store that caters to middle and upper income. I'm surprised they would have chosen this particular location unless there was added economic incentive.