August 6, 2007
Starbucks -- Bringing People Together
Hey, have you seen all those annoying "Let's meet at Starbucks" adverts? Quite irritating.
Well, SBUX is indeed bringing folks together -- in a way they may not be too happy about. Many businesses and residents in the Inner Richmond are protesting an invasion by one of Starbuck's nigh ubiquitous stores via petition.
Bryan, one of the lead anti-Starbuckians, has a blog, stoprichmondstarbucks.blogspot.com, with many of the details.
He says to us in an email that:
"The Board of Supervisors for San Francisco has agreed to hear our appeal to the Planning Commision's decision to allow a Starbucks into the neighborhood. It was not hard to convince them that their was significant neighborhood opposition when Jesse Fink (the owner of Toyboat Desert Shop) walked into City Hall on July 9th with over 1,000 signatures in protest. We filed our appeal on the 11th and AUGUST 7th at 4:30 PM there will be a hearing to decide whether or not to overrule the Planning Commission's decision. The Board of Supervisors will
decide whether or not another Starbucks move into the Richmond."
He suggests that if you agree with his position, you can sign the petition at one of the following places: Toy Boat (5th and Clement); JavaHolics (6th and Balboa); Q (Clement betw. 3rd and 4th); Blue Danube Cafe (Clement near 4th); Green Apple Bookstore (Clement betw. 6th and
7th); Cafe Velo Rouge (Arguello at McAllister); Cafe du Sol (Lake near 6th); or Cafe Muse (8th near Fulton). He also says that if you would really like to help call you should your supervisor and let them know what you think. Finally, it seems that anyone that wants to can speak for three minutes at the Aug. 7 meeting -- so, if you care to, let your voice be heard!
(But if you're going to do so in a song parody, please make sure you film it, put it on YouTube, and send a link to SFist, thanks. Maybe something to the Hollies "Bus Stop?" "Starbucks, Starbucks, please stay a-way from the Inner Riiiiich-mond . . .").
|
Does anyone know if there are any other plans for that corner besides the Toyota shop and (hopefully not) Starbucks? It seems every single grocery store in that area has closed and it'd be nice if there were something to fill the void besides produce markets (not knocking those, but if you want something besides fruits, veggies, or condiments...) and er, chain coffee shops.
Excluding a particular company from a city or neighborhood based purely on non-independent status or some other pet-peeve is generally unlawful. Cities may regulate land-use or exclude certain categories of business altogether; they usually can't pick or choose which brands to allow.
Wal-Mart has been excluded by prohibiting stores with square footages equal to or larger than the minimum size at which Wal-Mart is willing to build. Starbucks on the other hand, probably does not have such a unique and exclude-able feature.
Unless it can be shown that Starbucks locations have some common feature that violates city policy, Starbucks would likely have grounds to sue the city in the event that their application is denied.
Ironically, Starbucks seems more like the sort of business that would throw up its hands and give up in the face of such strong opposition. If this is a battle neighbors really want to fight, I guess they might as well petition away.
In fact, that is what many neighborhoods have done. The board of supervisors have enacted formula retail regulations for many neighborhoods that bans such establishments or limits how many of them there are in the city. It seems the petitioners are asking the city to enact similar legislation for the Richmond. See http://www.newrules.org/retail/sanfran.html.
Why not offer the residents of the neighborhood another choice and allowing the market to decide whether there is demand for Starbucks instead of outright exclusion and taking away choice for people?
I stand corrected.
I am curious to know how such ordinances have faired legally and practically. It seems business interests would be lining up to overturn such ordinances.
While I completely favor small businesses over chain-stores, I've seen the Telegraph shopping district in Berkeley fall into decline partially because of a lack of flexibility in business quotas. Has anyone looked into how these ordinances have affected the success of small businesses and the general retail climate in the areas to which these regulations have applied?
Someone should call Reverand Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping!
There's an article in today's SacBee.com about Krispy Kreem doughnuts' demise in the Sacto area being due in part to overexpansion. Well worth reading. Starbucks will suffer the same problem eventually; it's just going to take longer. The solution is not barring the stores; it's patronizing a different merchant to buy your coffee. (And whatever happened to bringing a thermos from home?) Personally, I can't stand Starbucks' coffee; it's too bitter.
That is exactly what will happen. And yes, it seriously sucks! Yuck!
Just in: a new Starbuck's at Noriega and 30th Ave (in the Sunset). How? It was installed inside an existing Safeway. There was no notification to nearby residents.
[4]: The thing to remember about San Francisco is that entitlements and protectionism are the orders of the day.
The screaming and the drama is typical whenever Starbucks opens up a new location in the city. There are a lot of cafes here where the proprietors tend to take their customers for granted and understand full well that when the Mermaid swims in their direction, they're history. Good riddance.
But decent cafes really shine when a Starbucks comes in. Let the behemoth do the marketing and education, and eventually those customers move on to something better. Such cafes already know they've got a head start as quite a few San Francisco residents would never patronize a Starbucks in the first place.
Oh how I love you, provincial little San Francisco.
Where would I be without your numerous nosy neighbors telling me where and what to do with my money?
And you, little richmond district - I thought it was enough when you rose up against the evils of bus rapid transit coming to our sleepy hamlet - but this !! This is just too much!
As an inner richmond resident I feel as if only Velo Rouge has really worked to provide a comfortable and quality place for the neighborhood.
Anyone want to meet me at the Starbucks on 3rd and Howard for a cappuccino and a side of Gimme a Break?
I love Starbucks, I hope they open one in Richmond. I'm tired of all the subpar coffee I get at the dinky little independent coffee shops.
What we need in the west-side is Martha & Bros. Coffee. Even a simple cup of the house coffee will put hair on your chest!
All that caffeine makes it harder to aim the tweezers though.....ouch!
Starbucks is a great company -- it pays great wages, provides health insurance -- and has really happy employees. The Starbucks near my house has nearly no turnover -- why? They seem to like it.
The coffe is my favorite, the places are clearn and comfortable.
I just wish they would be allowed to open one in the Mission!
I really can't get all that worked up about a Starbucks opening. And as #16 points out, they treat their employees a heck of a lot better than many large companies do (not naming names, but one such company rhymes with tall cart).
I think there is probably an impact on local shops when a Starbucks opens in a smaller town, but in SF there seems to be more demand for places to sit and enjoy coffee and tea than there is a supply of cafes. One sunny Sunday afternoon I went to four places in the Castro hoping to get some coffee and work a crossword, and there were no tables anywhere.
I much prefer the coffee at Peet's, Ritual Roasters, etc., but I know at Starbucks I can get an iced tea and fire up the laptop with T-Mobile, so I do spend a lot at Starbucks every month.
[16] guest:
There's a Starbuck's on the SW corner of Bryant & Mariposa and another in the Potrero Plaza shopping center (16th St between Potrero & Bryant), both dead-on in the Mission.
Would people be ok if it were a Pete's and not a Starbucks?
Glad to see Richmond residents are focused on the highest priority issues facing San Francisco.
Oh, and one of the organizers is School Board member Eric Mar. So if you are wondering why your kid's school is not getting better, maybe it's because he's focusing on ... coffee shops.
AJ, it is an important issue albeit not as critical as the homeless, MUNI etc.
Do we want every neighborhood in SF to look like Everytown USA?
Starbucks, Walgreens, Burger King, Home Depot, Dominos, Barnes and Nobel... So what makes SF different then- the cable cars?
BTW Starbucks is not such as great company in my eyes. In my neighborhood, they opened a store DIRECTLY next door to a mom and pop coffee shop that had been there for years. They did this stealth, so no one knew what was going on, nor had the ability to try to stop them. Construction went on inside with the windows blocked with paper, and the construction workers were told not to give details when asked by us. In less than a week after they started inside work, the SB sign went up. Nice company, right?
This was very similar to what happened some years ago when Burger King opened on 9th ave[?] in the inner Sunset. The neighbors there were outraged too since that store went in completely stealth. We did not want either store, because they are sucking money away from local owned non cookie cutter businesses. Gee, I can hardly wait for WalMart. I might as well move to Iowa.
BTW companies like Starbucks have teams of lawyers, PR, Real Estate and outreach people whose job is to crush opposition to new stores at any cost. Fair or unfair play is hard to fight, especially from teams of experts who have done this thousands of times before- not to mention the unlimited cash they have to do so.
"We did not want either store, because they are sucking money away from local owned non cookie cutter businesses."
If the neighborhood truly did not want those stores, they wouldn't be sucking any money away from other, locally owned businesses, would they?
We did not want either store, because they are sucking money away from local owned non cookie cutter businesses.
If San Francisco is so unified in opposition to the Evil National Businesses, then why this fear of giving people choices? Surely the consumer would prefer the local business, yes? Only cafes I've ever seen go out of business when Starbucks comes to town are the ones that people really didn't care for in the first place.
You set up shop, you're not entitled to an everlasting source of income. No, it's not fair that the competition might be Starbucks or Burger King. I realize that this falls on deaf ears throughout most of the city but LIFE ISN'T FAIR.
coffee issues aside, there's something to be said for Starbucks: it provides a place for people of all ages to hang out without a lot of hassle. aren't there a lack of venues that cater in particular to young people?
moreover, the business provides public restrooms at no cost to the city.
i encourage everyone concerned about Starbucks to visit the "megaoutlet" on Geary and 19th Ave., inside the Wells Fargo branch. see for yourself whether it's working to the benefit or the detriment of the community.
Hmmmm. Let's see. Jesse Fink runs a place called the Toy Boat Desert Cafe.
He heads the group opposed to a Starbucks coming to the neighborhood.
If he can convince all involved to keep SB out, he has preserved his own business.
Seems like a pretty smart move. I don't really care on way or another, but business is business. If he can marshall the support to keep SB out, then he has won. SB understands this. Don't feel bad for them.
Perhaps if Jesse Fink put as much effort into improving his own business as he's putting into this effort, Starbucks wouldn't be much of a threat to him.
I am thrilled that the majority of SFist commenters get it -- people vote with their money. Guest #9, does every local business alert you whenever they're about to open in your neighborhood? Why should Starbucks? What do they do that's predatory other than open their doors? The mere fact that they exist does not make them bad corporate citizens. I'll still go to Velo Rouge, of course.
I live right by the kfc/taco bell on 6th and Geary. Its a disgusting eye sore, and I hope that more formulae fast foods restaurants don't appear. However, I am not opposed to a starbucks. The reason: selective self-interest does not make for good public policy or good neighborhoods.
Why is it that when people DON'T want something there is a big hoopla, but we never see people fighting just as hard to improve what we have. Democracy is a privilege we obviously take for granted.
Starbucks does not pay a "self-sufficient" wage and they part-time everyone. No matter how conscious they are its a business, and businesses make profit. I don't blame them. Safeway, a formulae retail store being built right now in the hood--did everyone know about that or feel entitled for gov to deliver the message because of your inability to pay attention when its not in your self interest?--hasn't been fought.
Obviously, we want more supermarkets in SF, especially in underserved areas. Yet we fight a Trader Joes. Being consistent is in the best interest of the hood--not fighting something blindly based on your own (self-interested) values.
Its no harm to base each development decision on what's right for each case, considering other establishments, jobs, character, business incentives, demand of majority, environment, design, multiplier effects, etc. And if you pay attention, you can be part of the ongoing neighborhood improvement decisions (instead of the 11th hour bitching fest).
24 and 25 you miss the point.
Both SB and Burger King came in stealth meaning the neighborhood was intentionally not given a chance to protest or even have a clue what has coming.
What did a huge company fear, fairness? Maybe bad publicity, but they got that big time as the 2 small stores I mentioned helped trigger the BOS setting up special zones in certain parts of the city where those types of chain stores can not open now.
HA HA.
But I guess the last laugh will be from people like you when most of the remaining small business go under because of the mega corps. It's already happening to bookstores. Hardware stores like Cole will go, once Home Depot opens on Bayshore.
BTW the coffee shop in my area survived, as the neighborhood boycotted Starbucks for many many months.
Enjoy your Starbucks, and look forward to the rest of SF turning into fab giant strip mall, just like in LA.
So in other words, the free market worked. What is the problem here? I am sorry that choices frighten and depress you.
[32] I'm not against choice at all!
Burger King, McDonalds, Wendys, Jack in the Box, In and Out all offer great choices among their varied menus.
May one of each move onto your block so you'll be able to enjoy them all.
The Starbucks at Safeway are not "Starbucks" -- they are Safeway -- look at your receipt. Safeway licences the coffee and the name, but the employees are safeway employees.
For the record, Eric Mar was not one of the organizers opposing starbucks, he happened to see the poster announcing the appeal hearing on the 7th at his local coffee shop and decided to help out. He spoke there in fact during the public input time (which anyone who shows up canspeak during). In fact Eric Mar has a pretty good track record concerning most things he attaches his name too.
A REMINDER FOR ALL OF YOU!...Sept 11 @ 4:30 in City Hall, the final hearing is scheduled to take place. Its wonderful to have productive public discourse through online forum, downright upstanding to voice your opinion in the flesh and on record. So come to city hall and voice your side.
The key to a neighboorhood is that the culture, economy and even people stay somewhat localized within a geographic region. This slight isolation creates distinction. In some cases, a formula chain can fit into a distinct area: Chestnut St., Union Square, Fisherman's Wharf, Laurel Village, Castro, Polk St.--areas where the lifestyle and culture correspond with the bustling commercial interests. In other cases, a chain store can disrupt the ambience of a neigborhood. Such was the case in Japantown, Chinatown and North Beach. I myself feel that it is again the case with Starbucks and the Inner Richmond; it is unsuited to the needs of the community. Starbucks will likely fair well there, but it won't be through local support. Instead, sojourner cash that might have gone to the local establishments, will go to Starbucks. The Blue Danube, Javaholics, Toyboat etc., do an excellent job. What they don't have, is the advertising budget and PR power of a true Multinational Company. It is this force which gives Starbucks leverage. And it is this force which closes local, family-owned, establishments. So though the local shop might rock the better espresso, service and attitude, it might lose to the amount of media inclining a consumer towards starbucks.
To Karl Marx, this unbriddled capitalism erased culture and distinction as a necessary step towards socialism. I do not favor much examination on the later point of that statement. However, I do enjoy culture and distinction, especially on the local level. If you personally enjoy generic places with the facade of cleanliness, than go there. If you like malls, then go there. Just remember to be understanding of the people who wish to live without that lifestyle--with our quaint independent bookstores, coffee shops and assorted small retail businesses. In this case, 3,000+ San Francisco residents signed aboard against this Starbucks opening. It's not "voting with the dollar," but it is a valid action that the Board of Supervisors should tune into.
btw I am not affiliated with the blog group.