Reader Marcomaniac revives the discussion:
It’s mid July and the place is still empty. In fact there have been several stores shutter in the past few months in this area. Hey Chicken, maybe you can do some good for our neighborhood and open up a store? Bring some vibrancy back to our area? We love your creativity. Are you ready to take on something new, or are you going to keep sitting on your ass?
How about we invent a time machine and not try to kick them out of the area in the first place?
How about we learn from this sad spectacle and resolve to make the Mission a place where everybody is welcome?
P.S.
To this day, I can’t get the image of that guy at the zoning board meeting shaking his finger at the AA employee and shouting in his face. It was sickening.
Chain store or not, made in the USA or not I won’t support that douche bag skeez Dove Charney until he learns to stop feeling up the help.
what stores on valencia have shuttered recently? i’m not trying to argue, i just can’t think of any. there are some new ones – mission bicycle, xanath, urban burger, that place where beadissimo used to be (can’t remember what it’s called) efny pizza on 22nd . . . suriya moved but a new pizza place is going in. what’s closed?
Grub is opening soon.
P.S.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/dov-charney-the-hustler-and-his-american-dream-429627.html
by my reckoning it’s a wash on closings & openings.
doesn’t make the AA debacle any less stupid.
oh, and Mission Local is doing that ongoing story on this.
even though they are (typically) using it as a forum to say “the man is holding storefronts off the market as a repression of workers”, their data shows it isn’t true but in maybe 2 cases, and imho, that’s democracy.
one can donate to them to fund their efforts on this topic. despite the fact that i fond their politics (and writing) juvenile, i did send some $$. that kind of hyper-local, ongoing reporting is very rare. especially in the hood here.
The storefront is still empty because the landlord is still asking more than market rent.
Other spaces have come available and been leased since the American Apparel hearing — spaces where the landlord was willing to negotiate.
The rent that they are asking is less than what American Apparel was paying — further showing what happens to local economies when chain stores come into the market. Chain stores are able to pay more, pushing out locally-owned businesses.
We love what this city has to offer us, we choose to live here, because this is how our city works.
And on my count, there are more openings than closings — the exciting thing is that they are in spaces that weren’t being used for retail in the past.
I would think that since the landlord found a willing tenant — American Apparel — to pay that amount, it was the market rent. Only after you excluded the high bidder were you able to say that the landlord is asking for more than the market rent.
The reason chain stores pay more is that they are able to generate more revenue per square foot. They do that because they offer the products and services people want. You make that sound like it is some nefarious conspiracy when really it is the people of the Mission being provided with the products they would like to buy.
delicate flower. that’s all i’m gonna say.
oh, and “barf” too.
@Eileen: How could AA have been pushing out a local business when it was taking over a vacant store front that has remained vacant? I am all for local businesses but there are none that sell what AA sells, so I go elsewhere to shop. How does that help anyone? It is too bad that the anti-AA folks weren’t more focused on the facts and less focused on moralistic posturing. Of course, moralist posturing is what lots of SF politics is about; it just that some of us, unlike Eileen, see that as a downside of living here.
Well first I will address the idea of me opening up a storefront on Valencia.
No thank you. I already have a ‘store’ on Army street. I run an arts and community center. Sure I do. Tell me I don’t. Like any shopkeeper, I have to sweep the sidewalk. I just don’t exchange money for the services, so it’s seems more confusing than it is.
As for “nefarious conspiracy’s” with AA relating to “market rent”… I think what the lovely and talented Eileen was implying was that market rent is what the market would bear. As in, what the space could be rented for. So AA came and agreed to pay a certain amount of rent, but were unable to actually get a permit to operate. So they are not part of the market that can successfully rent a storefront on Valencia because people like me are going to stop them. I’m just relating facts here. So because they can’t get a permit to operate here, then they are not part of the ‘market’ that can pay rent. So when Eileen says that the landlord is asking more then market rent, she is indeed correct. The market will not bear the rent the landowner is asking now, nor could the market bear the organization that could afford to pay $2,500 more than the outrageous rent he is asking now. And he will have to get his head out of the clouds if he wants to see something go in there.
Just to clarify, AA was refused a permit because 700 people went to City Hall on a Thursday and exercised their rights and took time off of work and their families or whatever and did something other than complain on the internet in a chat room no one reads. Those people have my respect. The landlord in question will harvest my respect when he charges less then $3 a square.
In the meantime, you guys can complain all you want. But check this out:
http://spot.us/pitches/208
Get an education on the idea of “warehousing”. It’s gonna come up a lot really soon. I’m not against democracy, or capitalism or money or power or whatever. What I stand out against is the bad script that warehousing is. You read the script, and you know the play is gonna suck. We need to write a new script that has a better ending for SF. I’m not exactly brimming with opinions on how to do that… but I did witness it happen first hand and I’m telling you it’s real.
We need a good script… formula retail like AA is ignoring a serious problem. We all agree that skyrocketing rents and displacing people is bad. We all agree with that. We just don’t agree how to mitigate it.
that’s what I got…. chicken
that link is the place to support ML in their efforts to “write” about this stuff. i heartily encourage you to do so. even $10 would help.
while ML (and chicken here) are obviously biased regarding this weak “warehousing” claptrap – ML’s own reporting only uncovered only 2 or 3 “warehoused” storefronts out of maybe 20 vacancies – their efforts to report hyper-local in the hood are laudable and unique.
also, there is PLENTY of credence to chicken’s storming the meet with his 700 duped souls. you gotta respect his ability to bring the noise. the opposite side didn’t have squat at the meet (though most of them have, you know, jobs).
i know, i know. no more from me on this topic.
Opposing AA, formula retail or whatever you want to call it means you don’t have a job? Come on. What is this? The Red Scare?
At least make a reasonable argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks that you cannot substantiate. All you are doing is bringing the debate down to the level of sound-bite politics and, as Sarah Palin would say, “gotchas.”
Let’s talk about Chicken John and Mission Local’s warehousing. That would be warehousing rehashes of tired cliche course material taught by mean bitter old frizzy haired crackpots from SF State and Berkley, then constantly reprinting them as mental masturbation without ever adding to the quality of the discussion. ANy body got a copy of Noam Chomsky? Daddy needs a cum towel.
I’m an ATA volunteer, and while I wasn’t as involved with the AA situation as, say, the board members were, I do know that ATA’s rent increased 250% in the last 3 years. It’s my understanding as well that the ATA, proposed AA, and shuttered Santeria storefronts are owned by the same person, and that the likelihood of ATA being displaced due to the rent AA could pay was very real. From this perspective, I’m very glad AA was prevented from moving in.
Please come out this weekend for Mission Creek Festival screenings!
http://www.atasite.org/calendar/monthly/
It’s true, we all love to be protected by the government from competition.
But what you are describing is known in public policy circles as a “pecuniary externality.” Unlike externalities like pollution, noise, traffic congestion, etc., a pecuniary externality is not a resource misallocation.
For example, take a look at:
http://pfr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/304
I have no doubt that ATA is a great organization. But it is certainly questionable whether the best way for San Francisco to help it is by excluding other organizations from the neighborhood. That is like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer.
I don’t feel qualified to speak on the particulars of ATA’s lease situation and/or their vulnerability as a non-profit (that is, I think, an issue for another thread).
Based on above observations about businesses opening/closing on Valencia, I am *inclined* to think of the AA issue as owner-specific. How long was the Santeria shop renting the space, and how long has it now been shuttered? I am genuinely curious if there is some public record of who owns what buildings on Valencia Street.
in my comment earlier, i forgot to mention anthony’s cookies! also kind of new: room 4, udupi palace, phat philly cheesesteak, pizzeria. grub is opening at some point. anyone know anything about that zaytoon place? they’ve looked like they’re about to open for a while.
i biked the length of valencia on my way home from work and couldn’t think of anything that had closed recently (except suriya). valencia street looked as “vibrant” as ever, despite no american apparel. can someone help me out here? i’m sure i’m forgetting something.
Below is a link to a handy interactive map with all vacant storefronts on the Valencia Corridor pinned & notated. (Referenced above by Chicken John.)
Zaytoon is marked, as is Grub, the ex-Slanted Door, and many other vacant faves. It also answers LL’s question about who owns the buildings on Valencia St.
http://missionlocal.org/2009/04/valencia-street-real-estate-shows-a-faint-pulse/
just as an fyi….suriya’s new location is on Howard St near 10th, a spot always occupied by a changing guard of thai eateries. I hope Suriya finds some stability there.
Just to add to this.. I found a tenant for the space that was leased to AA, we even met with the landlord, he was very nice and seemed honest. The only reason my guy didn’t take it was because of the layout.
Has anybody here actually SEEN the inside of this space??
It was built for a restaurant that pulled out of the lease, so essentially this landlord has been flaked on twice, once by the restaurant then second by the AA debacle.
Regardless, the place has bathrooms built literally in the middle of the space on both sides and has a dividing wall, but does have a great little yard area.
If he took the wall down and turned the pull up garage door into a storefront the entire space (at the current rent price) would be snapped up instantly.
I have one other thing to add to this discussion…
But first I’d like to thank everyone for their civility and their diligence. This discussion is important and I’ve actually learned a few things here.
We may not all agree with how the AA thing was handled or indeed the outcome of the situation. But there is a fact I’d like to point out that many people don’t reliase. Now I’m not saying it’s true or not, I’m just saying it’s an unknown. It’s important to factor it in. Here is goes:
A landlord can ‘warehouse’ a storefront while it’s occupied. Lets say you sign a 5 +5 year lease. After 10 years, it’s the landlords option to re-new. Lets say the landlord doesn’t. On the completion of the lease term, the tenannt goes to a month-by-month lease. The landlord can give 30 day notice to vacate. Stores don’t have rights like house tennants. Warehouseing, by definition, is landlords waiting to rent stuff out until the prices go up. But just because something is occupied, doesn’t mean there is a lease connected to it. I just wanted to throw this out there.
And I’d also like to encourage you to visit Craigslist.com and peek at the stores that are for sale and what they are selling for and what the rents are. It’s pretty fascinating. Its tell-all…
There is a very fragile eco-system here. I don’t have a clear path to victory here, nor am I saying that I even understand all the variables. But before we rush into things, we should all take some time to take stock. It’s all super fragile.
chicken
It seems like there’s two arguments here:
1. AA is bad because it’s a chain, and we don’t want chains. While chains do take money out of an area, in this case the chain is still headquartered in the state. So that’s a silly argument. The idea that chains can afford higher rents is also kind of absurd, it’s not like a neighborhood can thrive on empty storefronts and nonprofit political art collectives. I think the real problem is the aesthetic of formula retail, which most of us find ugly.
2. AA represents luxury rather than “authentic” local goods. This is pure idiocy, especially considering what else we have on Valencia Street: expensive food and boutiques that sell useless shit. People who use this are the same people who yell about “hipsters” and then ride off on a fixed gear bike to buy skinny jeans.
Of course, there’s a third kind of argument, the nonsense from the person who just likes causing trouble for fun. To me that makes the most sense. Causing mischief is fun.
Eric, I certainly don’t agree with anything you say except that causing mischief is fun. But not only do I agree with that statement of yours, I think your post makes you guilty of it.
We dont’ want AA on Valencia street because it would raise the market rate rents by 200% within 3 years. We get this information from watching it happen before. it’s well documented. Although we don’t have slam dunk answers to how to ‘do it right’, we can certainly see the way that is ‘wrong’. But in a democracy, such as we have, we elect councils or have them appointed by elected officials who rule on how to shepherd the assets and the ways and means of a city. The Zoning Board decided that AA wasn’t a good fit for the Mission because people want to learn from history and co-create the city they live in. I think we have a really good opportunity here to do some good.
No one is talking about the products that AA sells. No one is talking about AA hiring policies or where the money goes or whatever. No one is confused by the fact that AA signed a lease for over $10,000 a month while a cafe down the block is paying $2,200.
The math is right there. Landlords are warehousing storefronts. These are all facts. The idea of SF is slowly becoming antique.
How sad.
chicken
sorry. i can’t resist.
“We dont’ want AA on Valencia street because it would raise the market rate rents by 200% within 3 years. We get this information from watching it happen before. it’s well documented.”
didn’t this exact thing happen – isnt the “documentation” – or one example of it – when ritual, paxton, luna park, slanted door, etc moved in 5 – 10 years ago?
or am i wrong about that? aren’t they paying more than the latino / mom & pop stores they displaced back then?
i’m 100% supportive of vying for one’s own commercial advantage – believe me i’m all for it – but isnt that what this is?
essentially a push to create advantage – ie static or low rent – for the current crop of businesses?
a push to avoid the exact same forces that allowed these businesses to exist on valencia in the first place?
am i wrong? explain it to me, i would love to know.
cause if that’s what it is…let’s just call it that. that would be ok, normal, the american way: trying to get over. like it or not.
but couching it as some “fragile ecosystem” or some “delicate flower” when it’s really just plain old lovable capitalism and vying for advantage, well, that’s what’s kind of sad. but very, very sf.
so there ya go. sorry, i’m a blabbermouth.
oh, and i imagine ATA is exempted from this as an arts org that’s been there for a million years or whatever, and not a commercial business. i think that’s fair, and would personally support “special treatment” for such enterprises.
To fuck with special treatment. ATA should pay whatever the market will bear. The landlord has a right to collect the correct amount of rent for his investment. His right. Easy.
But to claim that Ritual displaced a Latino mom and pop and is paying more rent then they could have and has embraced the same ‘advantage’ or however you explain that is an interesting point. It’s not one I wholly disagree with. In the case of Ritual, it’s not true but that is the only store I have intimate details about. Ritual moved into to a failed clothing store and paid a fixture fee to buy the lease. The rent has gone up 30% in the last 10 years or so. But I can see how the point you are trying to make is valid in other cases, although I’m not aware of an example I’m sure it’s out there.
Look, we all despise hipsters and crave people who are super effective zeightgiests who are artistic innovators and artists that crate stunning work and restaurants that use local food and green energy to create delicious and cheap food… bla bla bla… we wanna co-create the world we wanna live in. We all wanna live in a great city. It ‘aint gonna be easy and it’s never gonna be perfect. We can, however, do the best we can.
We can do better than formula retail. If it is true that some Latino business’ got displaced that is unfortunate. But that by no means is any encouragement to keep that cycle moving on down the line. We create a dialog about it, so we can document how the complex animal works. Then, when this starts happening next in the Bayview, the stores that are similar to the ‘Latino’ shops can be saved. No one is applauding any displacement at any time. And no one is looking for an advantage that is unfair or greedy.
We can do this work and be fair and smart and learn to not take advantage of this situation in the future and not have formula retail that will ruin the current thing that is working. We can have it all. And we are going to get there by doing this thing that we are doing right now: talking about it so it’s not such a mystery.
that’s what I got today…
chicken
i am not sure i agree that “no one is looking for an advantage that is unfair or greedy”.
but i appreciate your response.
I have to say that I appreciate Chicken John’s posts, even though I often disagree with them. But what I thought was interesting was the idea that ATA should have to pay “whatever the market will bear.” But isn’t the point of excluding formula retail to reduce demand for retail spaces, thereby lowering rent for other renters such as ATA? I don’t agree that this is a reasonable position, but that seems to be what most of your supporters think.
Isn’t the idea that we are going to exclude a subset of tenants from the market to protect others from competition exactly the “special treatment” you deride? I’m just not understanding the position. Maybe it is that the anti-AA crowd is just a coalition of different voices, many of which are inconsistent. (But that is not meant as a criticism; that’s how most political movements are.)
chicken has asserted that:
because he was able to rally public outcry and prevent AA from acting on the lease that they cut with the landlord….
the terms of that lease are in fact NOT “what the market will bear”.
Well it’s kinda weird, but it’s a point and I’m not like 100% attached to it but I’ll pipe up for it and lets see where it takes us…
If AA can’t get a permit because I’m a loudmouth with a mailing list, then they don’t get to be an ingredient to the aggregate of “the market”. This idea is kinda new to me, and although I’ve thought around it I haven’t really let it rest in my mind yet so I reserve the right to wiggle but it’s sounds off somehow but I can’t tell how. But if the market will bear X, and someone ‘can’ pay XX… but can’t get a permit because they can pay XX… if the market is blind to whatever isn’t the market then since it’s not part of the market it can not be incorporated into the manufacture of the metric of “market”.
Second guessing stuff is hard. I mean, who knows when we get into this minutia what is obsessing and what is prudent. Really. I remind you that when we called AA to ask questions, the first response they gave us was that it was in the bag and they were only talking to us because they were so nice. When I told them I was going to send them crying home to their mother they just chuckled. I report this now not to show that they are assholes or whatever… just to show how much a difference this communication will make in the future. We now hold the power. We, the people, can assemble and force issues. With this power comes great responsibility. I am doing my diligence here discussing so we can sharpen our swords so next time this happens we can hopefully come up with a better solution that is less divisive….
chicken
When I met with the landlord he was open to sub-dividing the space, and I put in what I thought was fair offer for the space, about $2.46 a square foot. I expected to some sort of response, and was even prepared to go up to $2.75/sq ft. But nothing. Several calls even just to ask if he received the Offer to Lease letter also got no response. So yeah, I’d support the warehousing theory.
Thankfully, I was able to sign a lease just this week with a more reasonable landlord, and a much better square foot rate.
Watch for Mission: Comics & Art to open in the near future at 3520 20th St #2, right between Rogers Coffee and Her Majesty’s Secret Beekeeper, one of the coolest new stores in the Mission.
And to truth, I’d actually much prefer 988 Valencia to sit vacant a quite a bit longer, before I’d ever want AA in the neighborhood. I grew up in this lovely City, and it really saddens me to see a few neighborhood that used to have a funky SF feel, now reduced to outdoor malls serving predominately tourists, and Bridge-and-Tunnelers. John right, we need to use whatever tools we can to keep in a people sized City, and not just a money sink for corporate America.
good luck with the business! that stretch is developing nicely. all cool stuff. when do you open?
Thanks! I’m hopeful for 20th St. too. Hope to be open mid-late August.
see you then! huge comics (and art) fans in our house.