By Emily and Kendra (via email)
We also attended the hearing [yesterday] as Mission residents and are happy that the commission voted to disapprove American Apparel opening a shop on Valencia St. Unfortunately, some of the public comments about the project and characterizations of the Mission upset us enough to speak up about some racism and classism that we witnessed.
Specifically, we found references to crime and the evolution of the Mission from an unsafe and undesirable place to a thriving business corridor as particularly offensive. Some comments, mostly from young white residents and business owners, referenced the idea that “we” made the neighborhood good, implicitly distinguishing themselves from other residents and businesses in the neighborhood, including the large Latino community.
Actually, long term residents HAVE been and continue to organize for a safe, clean, and thriving neighborhood, long before these newer boutiques moved in. The Mission Economic Development Association, the Mission Anti Displacement Coalition, and other concerned residents have been engaged in struggles against displacement and for economic justice for years.
Additionally, many of the small businesses argued that if formula retail enters Valencia Street, it would change the flavor, culture, and vibe of the neighborhood. However, this stance fails to acknowledge the neighborhood change that has already occurred.Boutique owners share responsibility for displacing family businesses and replacing them with businesses that sell specialty products that are not affordable for neighborhood residents.
Some comments referenced that our neighborhood can and should be divided into Valencia St. and the other Mission streets. In our excitement to keep out American Apparel, we must work together to fight against these sentiments and the splicing of our community. We hope to keep seeing small business owners call out what’s right, not just on Valencia but in important battles to come on Mission St. and other places in the neighborhood.
We are writing this as newer residents in the Mission, who are working to be responsible allies to long-term residents by forming relationships with our neighbors and people who have been in this fight for decades. It is our responsibility to listen and learn the histories of the neighborhood in order to join the movement for safe communities. Let us not forget that the safety of which many people spoke of today was won at the hands of long-term residents who have fought to increase safety in the neighborhood for their families and children.
For those of you who weren’t able to stay until the end, we would highly recommend listening to the Commissioners comments, specifically Commissioners Borden and Olague, who called out some of these contradictions and spoke passionately against displacement and for the neighborhood.
The community turnout for this issue was unprecedented and we hope to continue to harness this energy for the struggles to come. In the meantime, let us reach out to business owners and residents in the Mission. The Wal-Marts and the American Apparels of the world don’t want us talking to each other. Our struggle for our neighborhood will be stronger if we know each other and our stories.
 We also attended the hearing [yesterday] as Mission residents and are happy that the commission voted to disapprove American Apparel opening a shop on Valencia St. Unfortunately, some of the public comments about the project and characterizations of the Mission upset us enough to speak up about some racism […]</p>
%5Bvia+%3Ca+href%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.missionmission.org%2F2009%2F02%2F06%2Fopinion-harness-this-energy-for-the-struggles-to-come%2F%22%3EMission+Mission%3C%2Fa%3E%5D&clickthru=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.missionmission.org%2F2009%2F02%2F06%2Fopinion-harness-this-energy-for-the-struggles-to-come%2F){kind=link}
I am certainly happy to live in one of the culturally shared geographies of the Mission. Having moved from Valencia to a house just off Garfield Square, the gentrification and de facto boundaries that surround Valencia are all the more apparent. Garfield Square is heavily used by Latino soccer players, white soccer players, and most importantly it is a staging ground for the dozens of homeless people that recycle the neighborhood’s bottles and cans. They cook here, sleep here, and sort their recyclables here. Underpriviliged youth attend after school programs in the Rec Center and as most people know, it is the final destination of the Dia de Los Muertos Parade. MOST importantly, which I bet very few people know, is that the funds to build the park were donated by none other than the Fisher Family, the owners of The GAP (gasp!). For those that think corporate America is the bane to the Mission’s existence, open your eyes.
hi neighbors! I know you lovely ladies and I’m glad you all wrote such a passionate letter. One point that continued to stand out as I watched the live feed was the ‘us v them’ mentality and further, that AA’s refusal to work with existing community infrastructure was the salient point in their denial of a CU permit.
One question that I’ll put out there via both the blog and maybe when I knock on your door in the next few days is: What if AA had proposed this on Van Ness? Here is a street that I’ve noticed in my short time as a Mission resident as beginning to see change, but still in need of an economic engine. What if they had worked with the SVN merchants in gaining support? Would there still be a backlash from Valencia St merchants? Hipster and cool kids? Local yuppies (me)? What is the line that those who are active and (currently) passionate are willing to draw?
this is great, and chava, you raised a great point, and something i’ve been wondering about too. an american apparel on mission or south van ness would do way more to change those streets than it would have changed valencia. it would do a lot of good; bring foot traffic to areas that need it, make the street a little safer at night, etc.
at the same time, i think the arguments about gentrification on valencia were silly; that street can’t get too much more gentrified. but american apparel would literally be a little posh outpost on these streets – the way foreign cinema or weird fish are now (to much smaller extents). i don’t know how that would change things. at the same time, as someone pointed out here or on sfist, mission street is historically kind of built for chain retail and big box stores. i don’t think that’s necessarily what the neighborhood needs, but the history is worth considering.
i feel pretty confident in my views on valencia street: it’s too boutique-y for me, i can’t afford most of it, but there’s a couple stores i love and would hate to see leave (community thrift, lost weekend, dog eared, etc).
but what do i think about what mission street needs (or svn)? that’s much more complicated. it clearly needs economic investment, but what kind? are new condos just going to turn mission street into valencia street two?
i’m really happy american apparel got denied, but i think the rest of the mission is a much bigger issue, and the stakes are a lot higher. i also just personally care more about mission street. i really like the way it changes and stays the same from the mission to the excelsior, and i think it’s got a unique, glorious, and largely untouched history that is still in full view. i’m glad people are trying to jumpstart this dialogue. i’m afraid it doesn’t get as much play on the blogs because people can’t be as snarky and witty as they can be about valencia street hipsters.
Excellent letter Emily and Kendra.
I have a question for you Mark. How would AA improve safety at night on Mission Street?
just by having later hours. i think at the meeting they said they’d be open until 8 or 9; a lot of mission street stores close earlier. to me, the more people on the street, the safer it is.
I don’t care one way or the other about American Apparel. South Van Ness, however, is zoned residential pretty much its entire length, FWIW.
I don’t think neighborhood planning issues should be decided based simply on the ideas of whoever has lived in the neighborhood the longest. What’s a “long-term” resident, anyway? Who are the gatekeepers who bestow such power on these “long-term” residents?
Instead, I think whoever has the better idea should win, and those ideas should actually produce results. Hello, practicality!
I cannot agree more wholeheartedly with Emily and Kendra’s letter. We need to figure out how to form alliances that protect all of our small businesses and organizations, this includes the mom and pop stores, the non-profits, the produce stands, the laundromats not just the businesses threatened on Valencia St.
We should all ask ourselves these question: What was it about Valencia St that attracted the attention of a store like American Apparel? Who looks out for whom in the Mission business community?
Until we learn how to form true alliances with each other, real estate speculators will certainly get the best of us all.
@Frederick
i think you’re right. and i would add that, imho, the most well-rounded, inclusive, moderate thinkers should “win”.
unfortunately, once there’s something to gain – political gain, fiscal, personal – it’s the “loudest” that usually do.
or the most moneyed.
This should not be a competition and we don’t need to “win” this debate.
Rather, we need to humble ourselves and learn how first listen to each other, speak true to our experiences and figure out a way to draw out the voices of those unheard.
Reality-based partnerships that are culturally-competent will only serve to benefit us all.
@zinzin
Agreed. And I’d also add, that while it was the “loudness” of the anti-AAers that allowed them to prevail in their struggle, that is the way the system, under prop G, is supposed to work.
Prop G allows a neighborhood to rationally and calmly, on a case-by-case basis, asses whether to allow a formula store to move in. In theory, terrific. But I think its clear that this system is being abused. Prop G is based on the assumption that citizens — loud or otherwise — of rational and open minds can come to a decision that actually benefits the neighborhood. The highly dogmatic imperative that no chain stores can move onto Valencia is an example of the exact line of thinking that undermines the prop G process.
For those who advocate for a ban on chain stores in the mission (or is it just valencia?), put the issue on the ballot. Let the voters decide (I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them agreed with you!). With prop G, voters surely did not implement a ban on chains. What they did do, though, was to entrust themselves and their fellow san franciscans with making reasoned and thoughtful neighborhood planning decisions through the use of veto power. The absolutely-no-chains anit-AA crusade was a blatant and corrupt undermining of the prop G planning process.
@ivyjeanne
I’m for coming to understandings and sifting through cultural and racial dynamics in an effort to get at the most holistic decision. But the rubber has got to hit the road. We do need “winning” ideas because people’s day-to-day lives are effected by decisions soicety makes, and I think those who are strident dogmatists and cultural absolutists actually do an overall disservice to those they aspire to help, or at least to society at large.
thanks Frederick. nicely stated.