Black neighborhood rejects Trader Joe's

Mr Fongstarr said:
I actually somewhat agree with this. Gentrification is like a gift and a curse and I hate to say it but it really helps only the moderately wealthy. SF is doing this at a rapid rate with areas like Dog Patch and even Castro with them building so many condos. The only people that really can afford them is these god damn tech nerds that made millions off Facebook and what not. No one can afford the over a million dollar condos in these areas. I just saw a Whole Foods open up somewhere and guaranteed rent will go up for the rest.
Click to expand...


but again how is this gentrification?

has there been influx of wealthier than pre-existing people coming in?

if so? gentrification was already underway for other reasons.


nobody is going to go out of their way to go shop or move to the hood because a TJ's just opened up there.


Now if they started knocking down PJ buildings and government housing for luxury apartments and condos, then I'd agree with the notion of threatened gentrification.


but personally I don't know of anyone who decided to go to the hood because a Starbucks just opened. That doesn't make any sense.
 


why ya'll so threatened about that part?


dudes in low-income areas are on EBT, deal with it.


they think that the TJ's won't take their EBT.
 
Last edited:
JPEG said:
So then, what kind of development primarily benefits only the black community?
Click to expand...


that's where perception comes into play.


Like eracism said, TJ's is a no go but a Wal-Mart? Oh yeah.......People would be FINE AND DANDY with that ********.
 
SneakerHeathen said:
but again how is this gentrification?

has there been influx of wealthier than pre-existing people coming in?

if so? gentrification was already underway for other reasons.


nobody is going to go out of their way to go shop or move to the hood because a TJ's just opened up there.


Now if they started knocking down PJ buildings and government housing for luxury apartments and condos, then I'd agree with the notion of threatened gentrification.


but personally I don't know of anyone who decided to go to the hood because a Starbucks just opened. That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't know of anyone because you have a distorted understanding about how the process works. Its not about moving in to shop at Tj's or starbucks. Its about other retailers who rely on a corporate pioneer to set up shop, test the waters, and then follow suit. 
 
This is actually great for the neighborhood. More jobs for those in need of one. The money gets pumped back into the community.

Some people are just so inferior and threatened by a positive change they don't want the good.


Kinda sad though seeing how this could help the community garner other businesses to invest and give them more jobs.
 
ObeahMyal7 said:
Of course you don't know of anyone because you have a distorted understanding about how the process works. Its not about moving in to shop at Tj's or starbucks. Its about other retailers who rely on a corporate pioneer to set up shop, test the waters, and then follow suit. 
Click to expand...

okay bro yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.


If TJ's is doing well it's because of the people in the area, the same people who didn't want it there in the first place.

If other corporations follow-suit that's not gentrification. That's capitalism.

We can talk about the evils of corporate takeover and capitalism but that's another topic completely.

But if TJ's does well and the local economy benefits thats not gentrification. More jobs and money for the locals is not gentrification, that's a boon.


But no please, tell me more about what I do and don't know. While you're at it, how about you tell me about where I've been and what I've seen.
 
Last edited:
Also, if the area is in proximity to other more wealthier neighborhoods the process of gentrification was more than likely already underway.


But again a TJ's opening up in the hood, in and of itself would not be a gentrifying factor.
 
Last edited:
SneakerHeathen said:
okay bro yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.


If TJ's is doing well it's because of the people in the area, the same people who didn't want it there in the first place.

If other corporations follow-suit that's not gentrification. That's capitalism.

We can talk about the evils of corporate takeover and capitalism but that's another topic completely.

But if TJ's does well and the local economy benefits thats not gentrification. More jobs and money for the locals is not gentrification, that's a boon.


But no please, tell me more about what I do and don't know. While you're at it, how about you tell me about where I've been and what I've seen.
Click to expand...
Spare me the sloganeering. Its February and election season has long passed. You treat the  "local economy," "more jobs," "money for the locals" as static categories instead of grasping that when a neighborhood undergoes gentrification, those most at risk will not be part of "the locals" and will not benefit from the increase in property values thanks to changes in the "local economy." 

You treat gentrification as something distinct from capitalism ("that's not gentrification. That's capitalism"). But gentrification, defined here as the production of space for the increasingly affluent, forms a core component of capitalism: the search for surplus value in formerly devalued, disinvested spaces. 

I can continue to tell you more. 
 
TJs...Where their food is just as nice as their employees :pimp:. They don't have tax too :pimp: :pimp: :pimp: (unless included, but whatever).
 
What's being glossed over are the demands of the people who are opposed to the construction. They want affordable housing tacked onto the construction, along with a binding community hiring agreement (translation: you can only hire black people). The so-called "leaders" of this black community are playing the race card to squeeze more stuff out of Trader Joe's. That's why they're walking away. It's not worth the fuss.
 
ObeahMyal7 said:
Spare me the sloganeering. Its February and election season has long passed. You treat the  "local economy," "more jobs," "money for the locals" as static categories instead of grasping that when a neighborhood undergoes gentrification, those most at risk will not be part of "the locals" and will not benefit from the increase in property values thanks to changes in the "local economy." 

You treat gentrification as something distinct from capitalism ("that's not gentrification. That's capitalism"). But gentrification, defined here as the production of space for the increasingly affluent, forms a core component of capitalism: the search for surplus value in formerly devalued, disinvested spaces. 

I can continue to tell you more. 
Click to expand...


Alright, so you can continue to fight the rising tide or you can adapt.


Whether the arrival of corporate America in your backyard increases your property value (and taxes) or not, inflation is going to increase the cost of living for those in low-income neighborhoods anyways.


So while more jobs and opportunities may not be static categories, they are certainly and undeniably more jobs and opportunities. Who it benefits is subjective.


The fact that you compare this to true "negro removal" would even make James Baldwin laugh.


But please tell me more about YOUR skewed idea of what gentrification and "negro removal" is. Let's talk more about how the arrival of Trader Joe's is akin to the destruction of black and hispanic neighborhoods, people's homes, for sports arenas and shopping malls and luxury condominiums.

Yep, same thing according to this guy.
 
Last edited:
i rather have a tj in my neighborhood that would take credit cards over these small spots that dont take cards
 
WE always gotta find something to complain about.....
mean.gif


It's a grocery store, son. If you find it too nice or expensive for you, don't go there. I would loooove to have a TJ in the hood. Their chocolate covered almonds are nut-inducing....
 
CurbsideProphet said:
WE always gotta find something to complain about.....:smh:

It's a grocery store, son. If you find it too nice or expensive for you, don't go there. I would loooove to have a TJ in the hood. Their chocolate covered almonds are nut-inducing....
Click to expand...

Seriously. If they're **** is too expensive, then they'll go out of business.
 
I cant predict the outcome of a TJ being built in a low income hood. I would only support it if they hired people who lived in that hood and the prices of the product were affordable and it was bettering that hood as a whole.
 
SneakerHeathen said:
Master Zik said:
Trader Joe's is unnecessarily expensive though. One would say you're paying for a better product but I'd need proof to back a claim like that up.

Apparently that gentrification threat is real though.
Click to expand...



but it's not gentrification unless the process has already begun.
Click to expand...
The threat of gentrification and actual gentrification are two different things though. Ignoring that a Trader Joe's in that community would not be the first step in the process of gentrifying a community I can understand why they banded together to reject it if they felt there were already other signs of it possibly happening.
 
Last edited:
“There are no winners today,” Adam Milne, owner of Old Town Brewing Co., told The Oregonian. “Only missed tax revenue, lost jobs, less foot traffic, an empty lot and a boulevard still struggling to support its local small businesses.”


This part got me thinking, that tj actually is what this neighborhood needed.

I don't get how some communities fight tooth in nail to not receive nice things like this. It's like they feel threatened by change but when a small business opens up that won't benefit in the long wrong it gets a shot to open up with no problems smh.
 
Last edited:
Master Zik said:
The threat of gentrification and actual gentrification are two different things though. Ignoring that a Trader Joe's in that community would not be the first step in the process of gentrifying a community I can understand why they banded together to reject if they felt there were already other signs of it possibly happening.
Click to expand...

exactly my point....dude.

that's why it's like splitting hairs.


EVERY TIME there is a perceived threat of gentrification we're going to stop a project dead in its tracks whether or not there is an imminent threat?


it's a process, but for fear of it actually happening let's prevent something that hey, could actually be a boon to the community.....


Again if it was knocking down public housing for a minor league stadium or some other nonsense I'd be shouting gentrification. But not everything has to be threatened gentrification.



It's an empty ******* lot b. An EMPTY LOT.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom