What Happens to Downtown?

[Suddenly]

Yes how fiendish of them to drive out the competition, and then leave themselves, thereby consolidating their control of the area--wait, what?

A failed plan.

If you are a corporate chain and your urban store falls flat on it's face you have every reason to make it sound like you are leaving a de facto urban war zone than admit your business plan sucked and you lost money because of that. Sounds better for investors and can even help with lobbying efforts for tax breaks or putting shoplifters in the brazen bull or whatever.

To be fair, when locals get upset about this sort of thing they have been known to consider it free game for shoplifting and maybe some light property damage..... which also to be fair some corporate office not grasping that before the fact is on them.

 

[Donal]

Yes how fiendish of them to drive out the competition, and then leave themselves, thereby consolidating their control of the area--wait, what?

Really? You haven't heard of this? It's not a secret. Starbucks did it through the 90s and early 2000s. Remember when every comedian had a joke about all the Starbucks you see around?

The idea is:

1) Big brand comes in and floods a market with their stores

2) these big brand stores are able to undercut their local competition

3) Local competition goes under, unable to compete

4) Big brand becomes synonymous with product or service

5) Big brand close many of their locations banking on the fact their customers have already made the big brand's product or service habitual

6) customers are willing to go a little further to get that familiar big brand

A perceived spike in crime (whether it is real or not) gives the big brands an excuse so people don't realize how ****** this model is.


Also, has it occurred to anyone that maybe the layoffs in the tech sector have affected the financial forecast for Whole Foods in San Francisco?

 

[Brainster]

Really? You haven't heard of this? It's not a secret. Starbucks did it through the 90s and early 2000s. Remember when every comedian had a joke about all the Starbucks you see around?

The idea is:

1) Big brand comes in and floods a market with their stores

2) these big brand stores are able to undercut their local competition

3) Local competition goes under, unable to compete

4) Big brand becomes synonymous with product or service

5) Big brand close many of their locations banking on the fact their customers have already made the big brand's product or service habitual

6) customers are willing to go a little further to get that familiar big brand

A perceived spike in crime (whether it is real or not) gives the big brands an excuse so people don't realize how ****** this model is.

And this ****** model is all something you made up. Here's a timeline of Starbucks, showing the number of locations year by year. Perhaps you could point out to me the year that they suddenly closed many of their locations, because I'm having a hard time seeing it. Actually the number of Starbucks locations grew every single year from 1987 to 2020.

 

[theprestige]

Portland mayor orders police to patrol downtown fentanyl market

Not because it's a downtown fentanyl market. But because there was a recent spike in overdoses at that location. Eight people dead on the same block in on one day made the news, and the mayor had to make a show of doing something.

And if you're asking why the police have to be told to patrol a known Hamsterdam? And why they're not being told to just shut it down completely? It's a long story, but it starts with the city's decision to decriminalize public drug use.

Another bizarre side effect of this decriminalization policy can be seen on our public transit. Secondhand tobacco smoke will get you kicked off the bus for sure. But secondhand fentanyl smoke is no big deal and you should just ignore it.

 

[wareyin]

And this ****** model is all something you made up. Here's a timeline of Starbucks, showing the number of locations year by year. Perhaps you could point out to me the year that they suddenly closed many of their locations, because I'm having a hard time seeing it. Actually the number of Starbucks locations grew every single year from 1987 to 2020.

You do realize that pointing to the number of Starbucks locations throughout the world increasing doesn't say anything one way or the other about the number of Starbucks locations in any one locality, right? Your source brags about opening entire countries, so the increase of Starbucks locations in Italy and Uruguay (to pick one year) could very well vastly overshadow closing 15 of the 20 Starbucks in Fort Wayne, Indiana (as a hypothetical, I don't care enough to research whether that's actually occurring).

 

[Donal]

And this ****** model is all something you made up. Here's a timeline of Starbucks, showing the number of locations year by year. Perhaps you could point out to me the year that they suddenly closed many of their locations, because I'm having a hard time seeing it. Actually the number of Starbucks locations grew every single year from 1987 to 2020.

They expanded internationally, yes. I am talking regionally. If they fill one area with the three stores, then expand to three other towns with 1 store each, they can close 2 in the original area and still be expanding. It's a localized strategy.

 

[The Atheist]

Our downtown was a destination because people worked there. Take away the daily influx of office workers, and all the restaurants that did most of their business serving meals to them end up closing down. All the shops that might attract their interest before they head home again end up closing down.

That being 100% true has, of course, got lost in the idiotic trolling going on.

We're seeing it in NZ, where the lack of spenders and shops in Auckland and Wellington are being replaced by homeless people who use doorways as toilets.

Keeps them out of the suburbs, I guess, so it's all good.

 

[theprestige]

That being 100% true has, of course, got lost in the idiotic trolling going on.

This forum has a severe allergy to the idea that city governments might be both corrupt and incompetent.

 

[Steve]

This forum has a severe allergy to the idea that city governments might be both corrupt and incompetent.

Why would city governments be any different than any other government in that regard?

 

[theprestige]

Why would city governments be any different than any other government in that regard?

I can't think of a reason, but I keep seeing pushback against the idea that maybe - just maybe! - a corporation could be doing a good job of operating downtown, and still get driven out by poor city government.

 

[Lplus]

This forum has a severe allergy to the idea that city governments might be both corrupt and incompetent.

Most of this forum has a severe allergy to capitalism.

 

[wareyin]

I can't think of a reason, but I keep seeing pushback against the idea that maybe - just maybe! - a corporation could be doing a good job of operating downtown, and still get driven out by poor city government.

Most of this forum has a severe allergy to capitalism.

From here it looks like a severe allergy to the idea that capitalism is far more likely to be corrupt, and any competence tends to only be directed at lining their own pockets, than a city government is.

It's not impossible that a corporation will act altruistically, nor that a city government will be corrupt, it's just that the reverse of both is far more likely.

 

[Hercules56]

From here it looks like a severe allergy to the idea that capitalism is far more likely to be corrupt, and any competence tends to only be directed at lining their own pockets, than a city government is.

It's not impossible that a corporation will act altruistically, nor that a city government will be corrupt, it's just that the reverse of both is far more likely.

I see no evidence that people who work for corporations are more likely to be corrupt than folks who work for governments. But corruption in business may indeed be more profitable.

 

[theprestige]

I see no evidence that people who work for corporations are more likely to be corrupt than folks who work for governments. But corruption in business may indeed be more profitable.

Internal corruption in a business is a drag on profits and is generally frowned upon by the owners (unless the owners are actively engaged in a bust-out, but those tend to be short-lived - no profitable business can be sustained on internal corruption alone).

External corruption in a business necessarily requires co-conspirators in government. Bribery, kickbacks, and graft can certainly generate revenue for a corrupt business, as long as they can find a corrupt government official to work with. Which they can.

---

Anyway, here's a thing that's happening in my city right now:

https://www.wweek.com/news/city/202...et-aside-for-advocacy-group-reimagine-oregon/

Newly elected Portland city council member proposes defunding an organization called "Reimagine Oregon". The city had apparently allocated some five million dollars to this entity. This comment in the related r/PortlandOR thread gets to the heart of the problem:

What entity exactly is Reimagine Oregon? It lists no mailing address or contact info, and isn’t incorporated as any kind of entity (nonprofit or otherwise). Isn’t listed on IRS, OR SoS, or OpenCorporates. Based on Justice Rajee’s LinkedIn listing himself as an Executive Director, it appears linked to the Urban League of Portland; but ULPDX doesn’t list Rajee as a director or staff, nor does it mention Reimagine Oregon. From Skanner News it seems like it started as a joint group of some sorts between them, Coalition of Communities of Color (Candace Avalos org), and JOIN (hasn’t filed its annual Form 990 since 2019).

What exactly was the city giving money too?

The entire group is based around defunding law enforcement : https://www.multco.us/justice-agenda/reimagine-oregon

And I’m sure they’ll continue to receive no-questions-asked money from us via Multnomah County and Metro grants.​

That multco.us link provides what should be some sobering news for people who promote or accept the "nobody is talking about defunding the police" canard.

 

[wareyin]

I see no evidence that people who work for corporations are more likely to be corrupt than folks who work for governments.

That's nice. Now, about what I said, do you have any opinion on that?

But corruption in business may indeed be more profitable.

Yes, this fantasy some have that business will run a city in any way that isn't profitable to them, no matter how detrimental that is to the city, is just naïve. And anyone assuming that a business will realize that short term gains can and will destroy long term viability of that very business has never paid any attention to business practices in the real world.

 

[wareyin]

Internal corruption in a business is a drag on profits and is generally frowned upon by the owners (unless the owners are actively engaged in a bust-out, but those tend to be short-lived - no profitable business can be sustained on internal corruption alone).

External corruption in a business necessarily requires co-conspirators in government. Bribery, kickbacks, and graft can certainly generate revenue for a corrupt business, as long as they can find a corrupt government official to work with. Which they can.

Heads the business is good and not corrupt, tails the business is good and only becomes corrupt because of co-conspirators in the government, huh? Yeah, because there isn't a long and well known history of corrupt business practices that government entities have to step in to stop, is there?

 

[Suddenly]

Heads the business is good and not corrupt, tails the business is good and only becomes corrupt because of co-conspirators in the government, huh? Yeah, because there isn't a long and well known history of corrupt business practices that government entities have to step in to stop, is there?

The idea that there much of a dichotomy between the government and business is dubious at best.

Even so, the idea that government corrupts business and not the other way around isn't an idea to be taken seriously at all by anyone.

 

[wareyin]

The idea that there much of a dichotomy between the government and business is dubious at best.

Even so, the idea that government corrupts business and not the other way around isn't an idea to be taken seriously at all by anyone.

I think differing levels of government will not attract the same style of folks just in it to enrich themselves, populace be damned, though.

At the level of city governments (what we're discussing in this thread), unless we're talking big time cities like NYC or the like, there just isn't enough money in it to tempt those prone to that line of thinking. They're going to be more attracted to business because that's where there's a lot more money to be made, and a whole lot less oversight.

 

[Brainster]

Newly elected Portland city council member proposes defunding an organization called "Reimagine Oregon". The city had apparently allocated some five million dollars to this entity. This comment in the related r/PortlandOR thread gets to the heart of the problem:

What entity exactly is Reimagine Oregon? It lists no mailing address or contact info, and isn’t incorporated as any kind of entity (nonprofit or otherwise). Isn’t listed on IRS, OR SoS, or OpenCorporates. Based on Justice Rajee’s LinkedIn listing himself as an Executive Director, it appears linked to the Urban League of Portland; but ULPDX doesn’t list Rajee as a director or staff, nor does it mention Reimagine Oregon. From Skanner News it seems like it started as a joint group of some sorts between them, Coalition of Communities of Color (Candace Avalos org), and JOIN (hasn’t filed its annual Form 990 since 2019).​

The objective of these organizations is to help foster a Black upper-middle-class of activists (i.e., those on the payroll). They're actually pretty good at that; doing anything for the people they supposedly represent, not so much.​

 

[Delvo]

Even without corruption -- everybody obeying the laws and nobody bribing anybody so the laws are sensible & fair instead of a financial positive feedback loop -- the primary motivation for businesses makes them worse anyway. Defenders of capitalism prefer to ignore or deny this, but it's a basic fact that businesses seek to minimize their costs of doing business, which means providing customers not the best products & services the customers can afford but the worst the businesses can get away with providing.