Trader Joe's run out of Portland

Great article homeagain, thanks for the link.

So-o-o, now should we have a TRUE discussion about gentrification,the GAP between the have
and the have nots.....because this issue is NOT going away.....gentrification is NOT new, look
at what happen to Lo-Do and Five Points.....(IF you have been here long enough to remember
Five Points as a "undesirable destination.)

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

The neighborhood is not a "food desert". There are numerous local groceries that would be put out of business by Trader Joes, assuming that the mostly lower income residents could afford their goods.

PrintSmith wrote: 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?

My position is that if taxpayer subsidies are to be used, then it would be better for them to improve the neighborhood, go to enhance the neighborhood rather than to destroy the local businesses paying the taxes by subsidizing highly profitable large out of state corporations.

Something the Dog Said wrote: 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.

Wow, you really got me on that one Dog! OK, there was an agreement to sell the property and it hasn't sold yet. But you're right, technically I haven't purchased my home either until I pay off my 30 year mortgage. So I guess most of us aren't really homeowners. I'll be more careful to dot my i's and cross my t's for you in the future.

But so much for your false "Trader Joes was demanding a $2 million taxpayer subsidy to build the store" statement. And do you know for a fact that Trader Joe's would pay a lower rate for their rent? The developer could charge market value if they want, assuming they could find someone who would pay it.

And you mention there are other buyers willing to pay $500K for the property. Hasn't anyone else offered more? If not, then that seems to support that is all the property is worth in the current market. Also, there is this...

In all, the $8 million project would transform one of the last big vacant lots along a commercial corridor where developers have remained skittish nearly 50 years after divisive race riots.

http://www.sabinpdx.org/2/category/economic%20development/1.html

It all seems to indicate to me that the property was way overvalued to begin with and perhaps the city was lucky to get a $500K offer? I think the "$2 million subsidy" may be a big overstatement.

But regardless of the actual subsidy amount, it seems a rather low amount for 300+ jobs. But it's a local decision, so I'll assume they know more about how it might help their community than we would.

I've never shopped a lot at Trader Joe's, but I have gotten the Charles Shaw wine and it was good for the price. I think it was $3-4 in Nevada and I haven't been to a Trader Joe's in Colorado yet. Looks like it's no longer $2, though...

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/25/trader-joes-two-buck-chuck-gets-a-price-hike/

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: 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?

My position is that if taxpayer subsidies are to be used, then it would be better for them to improve the neighborhood, go to enhance the neighborhood rather than to destroy the local businesses paying the taxes by subsidizing highly profitable large out of state corporations.

And government always knows the best way to do that! By giving corporate welfare to one of their construction buddies.

Just out of curiosity, I searched consumerreports.org for "Trader Joe's" and found ratings and prices for 10 different Trader Joe's products. Obviously this is not a scientific study, and it just covers the Trader Joe's brand products (and not the fresh fruit or veggies). But it otherwise has a pretty diverse range of products.

If I show a 3/10 for price, that means it's the 3rd cheapest out of 10 products reviewed. A 3/10 for ratings means it's rated 3rd best out of 10. So a 1/10 means it's the best, a 10/10 the worst.

Chardonnay. Charles Shaw 1/10 price ($3, next closest $6), 4/10 rated.

Cheese pizza. 6/8 price, 6/8 rated.

Guacamole. 2/8 price (3 way tie), 3/8 rated.

Frozen yogurt. 4/12 price (2 way tie), 5/12 rated.

Spray cleaner. 7/16 price, 6/16 rated.

Frozen waffles. 2/12 price (2 way tie), 2/12 rated.

Chicken broth. 5/17 price (2 way tie), 8/17 rated.

Dishwasher detergent. 10/37 price, 28/37 rated.

Bacon. 6/15 price, 8/15 rated.

White cheddar popcorn. 5/7 price. 1/7 rated.

Conclusions?

Well, besides the wine, the next best deals are the frozen waffles and guacamole. They are in the top half for price in 8 of 10 products and the top half of ratings for 7 of 10 products.

So if you buy the Trader Joe's store brands, it looks to me to be a decent deal based on that sample from Consumer Reports. Just keep away from the pizza and dishwasher detergent.

Of course you could beat some of those prices (such as the cleaner or detergent) if you go to a dollar store, not that they'd have many of those other products such as the wine.

And nope, I wasn't so busy this Sunday afternoon...

I don't think permanent tax payer subsidies should be used to buy any business development. Not fair to existing businesses that pay full price on taxes.

However, everyone else does it, if your neighboring state or county does and you don't, you lose out. It happens a lot in the Film industry.

Trader Joe's probably shoulda just told the community organizer group to go pound sand. As long as the locals and government wanted them that is.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: 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.

The neighborhood is not a "food desert". There are numerous local groceries that would be put out of business by Trader Joes, assuming that the mostly lower income residents could afford their goods.

How do you know they would be run out of business? If they do offer good food at prices underneath Trader Joe's, they could survive. In fact, Trader's Joes moving in might encourage people to move into the neighborhood and they might use those local groceries instead of the high priced Trader Joe's.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: 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.

Wow, you really got me on that one Dog! OK, there was an agreement to sell the property and it hasn't sold yet. But you're right, technically I haven't purchased my home either until I pay off my 30 year mortgage. So I guess most of us aren't really homeowners. I'll be more careful to dot my i's and cross my t's for you in the future.

But so much for your false "Trader Joes was demanding a $2 million taxpayer subsidy to build the store" statement. And do you know for a fact that Trader Joe's would pay a lower rate for their rent? The developer could charge market value if they want, assuming they could find someone who would pay it.

And you mention there are other buyers willing to pay $500K for the property. Hasn't anyone else offered more? If not, then that seems to support that is all the property is worth in the current market. Also, there is this...

In all, the $8 million project would transform one of the last big vacant lots along a commercial corridor where developers have remained skittish nearly 50 years after divisive race riots.

http://www.sabinpdx.org/2/category/economic%20development/1.html

It all seems to indicate to me that the property was way overvalued to begin with and perhaps the city was lucky to get a $500K offer? I think the "$2 million subsidy" may be a big overstatement.

But regardless of the actual subsidy amount, it seems a rather low amount for 300+ jobs. But it's a local decision, so I'll assume they know more about how it might help their community than we would.

I've never shopped a lot at Trader Joe's, but I have gotten the Charles Shaw wine and it was good for the price. I think it was $3-4 in Nevada and I haven't been to a Trader Joe's in Colorado yet. Looks like it's no longer $2, though...

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/25/trader-joes-two-buck-chuck-gets-a-price-hike/

The "government will save us" crowd seems to be fine with taxpayer "stimulus the "creates" jobs at a cost of a million each but when a private company wants to invest private capital on a project, hell no you get no break on the deal, even if it does utilize dead space.

Wake up people, it's the private investors that bring these cities back, not the morons in government.