SFist: American Apparel Poll Results

The Angry Young Man

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:05:40 -0800

I was down there on Saturday and noticed that there are at least two vacant store fronts on the same block where they plan to put in the American Apparel store. One of them is a corner lot and I took a photo of it with my blackberry. Some random hipster came up to me and demanded to know if I was the owner of the building. I thought about playing with him, telling him that, no, I am a representative of the Hot Topic corporation and was scoping out the location for our next outpost. I thought again when I noticed his look of outrage and desperation. He looked like he wanted to hit me. Maybe I was on the verge of squashing his dream of an artisan salumeria right there on Valencia Street. I dunno.

SFBurke

Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:32:11 -0800

@markroquet: I think you are just wrong about the number of vacant store fronts on Valencia St.; there are lots and lots of vacant store fronts. This particular store front has been vacant for years (save a few months as HQ for the Sanchez campaign). There are also lots of storefronts that aren't even being used as stores. For example, the saffron importing business right near 988 is all very nice -- but it is not store and does not need a store front. I think that AA will improve business on the Street and improve the look of the street. Furthermore, a clothing store is hardly out of character for the street. The only objection seems to come from people who have a bizarre ideological opposition to chain stores.

aj

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:16:17 -0800

Ritual would DESERVE it. They are so annoying.

The Angry Young Man

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:04:29 -0800

"Sorry sugar tits, you're confusing yourself in the rush to blah, blah, blah" Oh, brother. Let's make this simple for you: "Big Box" is a term of art that describes a particular kind of retail establishment. Generally, a big box store occupies tens of thousands of square feet of retail space. While you're correct that big box retailers profit from economies of scale, in order for them to be effective at moving mass volumes of crap, they must have the space in which to keep and push that crap in a time effective manner, hence their enormous size. The economic impact associated with having a big box retailer in your town is that smaller businesses can't compete because they are unable to push the same volume of goods and, thus, cannot offer the same low prices. The social impact associated with having a big box retailer in your town is that they can abuse their employees, as after they've driven all the competition out of business, they basically have a captive work force at their beck and call. Furthermore, by running smaller businesses out of town, reducing main streets to boarded up shops and so forth, they contribute to urban decay, which leads to declining property values, a down turn in civic spirit, crime in the streets, etc. Wal-Mart is a big box retailer. Costco is a big box retailer. Home Depot is a big box retailer. Target is a big box retailer. American Apparel is NOT a big box retailer. It's not even close. They're a formula chain store, yes. They're a specialty retailer, yes. They are not a big box. By the way, what business on Valencia Street is going to be harmed by a company like American Apparel? I'm unaware of any other shop on that stretch that specializes in tacky, generic disco wear. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. "This isn't 1992 where the terminology is still new. Otherwise an establishment would only have to present themselves in many locations with a smaller physical footprint and they would become invisible to you yet have identical market force and environmental impact." This makes the kind of sense that doesn't. As I stated above, a larger store can sell a larger amount of crap to a larger group of people than a smaller store can. You cannot stack up ten small stores in one geographic area, each selling the same crap, and claim that it would have the same market force as a big box retailer. That's absurd. Simple lack of sales capacity and market saturation would take care of that. Similarly, you cannot say that the environmental impact of one big box retailer would be the same as ten small retailers in one geographic area. For example, air quality, noise, and traffic congestion will obviously be much worse with 10,000 people congregating on one spot as opposed to a similar number of people spread out among ten different stores. "Blah, blah, blah doesn't reasonably show respect for the interests of those that have invested their life better establishing the neighborhood, buying and rehabilitating properties and establishing businesses representing their careers, their lives blah, blah, blah." Wow. Because the lives of the real working class people, the generations of working class people, they drove out of the neighborhood when they decided to move in and gentrify with their obnoxious "artisan" coffee roasting businesses and ironic, hipper than thou boutiques were so unworthy? The amazing shortsightedness of your viewpoint is obvious, Travin, when you fail to take into account that these people who've devoted their "lives" (the whole ten to 15 years they've been there) to turning Valencia Street into an annoying paradise for assholes will only be improved with the introduction of high end reputable retailers, attracting wealthier clientele, spending more money, encouraging higher prices, driving up property values, etc. Business owners will be rolling in cash! You betray yourself here, Travin. I'm sorry that your aesthetic sensibilities are offended by the notion of one store infringing upon your pseudo-bohemeian retail paradise, but then bettering the neighborhood isn't really your concern because this IS all about YOU and no one else. Got it. Everything changes, Travin. One day, you'll be like 40 and then you'll look really silly walking the streets in your skinny jeans and Rachel Ray brand terror scarf, now won't you?

travin

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:00:48 -0800

Nah. This town is bottom-heavy

zstone

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:44:11 -0800

Ha!

travin

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:23:16 -0800

Sorry sugar tits, you're confusing yourself in the rush to respond. As I explained above, big-box "impact" or big-box "competition" refers to an economic concept, not physical dimensions. More commonly known as "Economy of scale" This isn't 1992 where the terminology is still new. Otherwise an establishment would only have to present themselves in many locations with a smaller physical footprint and they would become invisible to you yet have identical market force and environmental impact. So how about we keep it in context of what you're actually responding too instead of trying to score cheap points? So, you know, we can have this thing called, I think, a cogent discussion. I think the real issue here is that people are afraid that their "cool" neighborhood will no longer be cool if suddenly some trendy store opens there. On a purely superficial and dehumanized level in attempt to be cleverly insightful, that might at first seem to be the case. But it doesn't reasonably show respect for the interests of those that have invested their life better establishing the neighborhood, buying and rehabilitating properties and establishing businesses representing their careers, their lives. Perhaps if a cute little restaurant or quaint shop or two closes, that's of no consequence to your bourgeois sensibilities. But although this may come as quite a shock, this isn't about you, sweetie.

The Angry Young Man

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:41:56 -0800

Ha! Ritual Roasters would LOVE that!

hillarys_quivering_lip

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:31:01 -0800

I bet every one of those nonprofit, artist-run, experimental media arts gallery volunteers will look fabulous in their AA duds! And soon they can get them, RIGHT NEXT DOOR! Win - WIN!

iii

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:26:03 -0800

An Art Gallery wanted the space but either AA offered the landlord more money or the landlord preferred AA as a tenant. The first "business" to be kicked out could be ATA, right next door, an underground screening venue and gallery that brings a lot of freaking foot traffic to Valencia Street.

oskarv

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:17:48 -0800

...makes a good point: these days, the mission may as well be Pacific Heights. REAL trendsetters live in West Oakland.

oskarv

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:15:45 -0800

TAYM

The Angry Young Man

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:06:43 -0800

You're confusing your terms there, sugar booger. Big box refers to major retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, etc. Generally, any retailer whose shop is tens of thousands of square feet in size and require acres of parking is "big box." While American Apparel is a "formula business" which under SF's zoning ordinance means a retail business with more than 12 outlets nationally, it's nowhere close to being a big box retailer. The environmental and economic consequences of opening an American Apparel shop on some random trendy street somewhere are in no way comparable to a Wal-Mart or a Target store. Look, if the hipster denizens of the Valencia Street corridor find the notion of some cruddy generic crapwear store setting up shop in their neighborhood to be unpalatable, they CAN just ride their fixies right on by and not shop there. Once the owners realize that the Valencia Street hipsters are way too cool to wear their boring looking outfits, they'll pack up and head back to LA. I think the real issue here is that people are afraid that their "cool" neighborhood will no longer be cool if suddenly some trendy store opens there. First American Apparel, second some prime time soap opera called "Valencia Street" starring Heather Locklear. Too late. The fact that Valencia Street even showed up on American Apparel's radar means that the neighborhood is simply no longer cool. Even if you do stop American Apparel from opening up shop there, your cache is gone. Time to move on to some other impoverished ethnic neighborhood where you can drive out the natives with a never ending slew of "original" mid century design furniture stores and crinkly cotton gossamer skirt shops with ironic names run by girls with bones through their noses and bad attitudes. Sorry for you.

travin

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:56:36 -0800

Well, Valencia St was once the city's lesbian enclave.

Joel

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:56:36 -0800

I wonder if a Peet's (publicly traded, 200+ locations) wanted to open on Valencia, it would be referred to as a "big box." I somehow doubt it. A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

travin

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:53:21 -0800

..A net decline in demand for retail space would cause a decline in rent.. As a hypotheical math equation, yes. In reality, no. The "ecology of the neighborhood" You're misunderstanding the term "economic ecology" to try to form a clever argument.

fizzandpop

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:45:08 -0800

I think in this case, big box refers to the models.

piratesnack

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:37:41 -0800

What is "undue" competition? You want the zoning board regulating economic competition? Seriously?

piratesnack

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:32:58 -0800

"Big-box" doesn't refer to the physical dimensions of the establishment. It refers to the impact this type of store will have via ubiquity and economic advantages that local stores cannot possibly compete." Cannot compete due to "economic advantages"? I'm assuming you mean because the big boxers are able to offer lower prices, which are attractive to the residents of the Mission, many of whom live on limited incomes? So we should shelter the local, admittedly more expensive businesses at the expense of local residents who want to shop at the big box store? The type of economic protectionism designed to keep out stores that low income people go to (e.g. Walmart) has a direct impact on how far their limited incomes go. (Of course, I am not necessarily advocating to build a Walmart.) The problem is the Mission is schizophrenic. It votes to limit big box stores because it says it doesn't want them. But if it really didn't want them, they would not have customers here, would not build stores, and no zoning law would be needed.

fsharp

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:31:44 -0800

OMG i had no idea Big Boxes were coming to Valencia. How can a Big Box actually fit in that space on Valencia? Where will everyone park? Can we park our RVs there? Will there be a MacDonald's inside? Can my grandpa work there?

Joel

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:24:26 -0800

"Big-box" doesn't refer to the physical dimensions of the establishment. In that case then it seems that opponents of a store like this use the phrase as a fear tactic. A 40,000 square foot building is not going up; the AA location will not be a physical "big-box"...so why not just say national chain? It implies the same ubiquity and economic advantages.

piratesnack

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:19:39 -0800

"So there is a net loss of benefit because one business could end up closing 10 others or more, raising rents and driving out families." I think your economics here is wrong. If American Apparel, which occupies one store front, drives 10 other stores out of business, this would be a net drop in demand for retail space. A net decline in demand for retail space would cause a decline in rent. (I doubt your premise that AA would put 10 business under, but for the sake of argument . . . .) In any event, your response assumes that one goal of our zoning laws should be to protect businesses from market forces and competition. That, to me, seems like a very bad idea. "But it will do this at the expense of the economic ecologies surrounding all of the mom and pop stores on valencia and mission street selling 'like' products." - The "ecology of the neighborhood" was precisely what the anti-Kink.com activists were concerned about. In both situations you have groups of people attempting to enlist government authority to shape the "ecology of the neighborhood" to suit their personal desires. Of course there are distinctions. The point I am making is that it is questionable whether we would even want to make it up to a majority vote where people can open businesses (that are not nuisances), etc. Freedom to do your business and be left alone when you are not hurting anybody else has a value, too. (And no, competition is not a "hurt.")

travin

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:18:19 -0800

ok, good point. =0)

travin

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:16:05 -0800

"Big-box" doesn't refer to the physical dimensions of the establishment. It refers to the impact this type of store will have via ubiquity and economic advantages that local stores cannot possibly compete. AA is publicly traded on the stock exchange, with over 200 locations in 18 countries, $387 million net sales, around 10,000 employees and--small stores, big-box impact.

fizzandpop

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:08:40 -0800

You did use the word "fallacious" where the words "utter bollix" would have sufficed. So I'm with AYM on this.

RinconHillSF

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:58:01 -0800

Maybe cuz there aren't many parents reading SFist.com? Besides, every NIMBY bitchfest all comes down to parking spots - just ask the poor guys trying to shoot a movie about Harvey Milk in the Castro. People pee their pants when they lose a parking spot.

Joel

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:57:43 -0800

AA is a national chain, but is it really a "big box"? Come on. Even in terms of national clothing chains, it's much more a bigger Brooklyn Industries than a small Old Navy.

oskarv

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:54:55 -0800

this isn't a big chain store. it's a small chain shop. there IS a difference between American Apparel and TJ Maxx, as much as you don't want to admit it.

RinconHillSF

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:51:16 -0800

I don't think the "hipper-than-thou twats who worked in the place and acted extremely put-out when required to assist a customer..." thing is unique in any store in San Francisco ... the children are so self-absorbed in general, they all seem to act like that. shrug ...

travin

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:39:59 -0800

Now if only your opinions (being charitable here) had some sort of relevance to reality.

miumiu

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:37:35 -0800

Mission Street needs NA more than AA

The Angry Young Man

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:24:38 -0800

Travin, you're like the epitome of a white person. I have no doubt that your entire life has the word "artisan" stamped all over it. You're like the Niman Ranch of blog commenters.

travin

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:22:10 -0800

...because there's no place in the neighborhood for me to get basic socks and underwear... You mean to tell us with all the stores in the castro, lower haight, noe valley, hayes valley, market street, and south of market--not to mention all of the various shops in the mission district that you apparently have no idea about--the only place you can find socks is Macy's? Are you fukin' kidding? What planet are you from?

PhilG

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:12:56 -0800

"But it will do this at the expense of the economic ecologies surrounding all of the mom and pop stores on valencia and mission street selling 'like' products. So there is a net loss of benefit because one business could end up closing 10 others or more, raising rents and driving out families. This is why it's compared to the 'bix box store' argument." Okay, so just to play devil's advocate here, what are the 'like' stores, and what ecologies will be disrupted? I've read the stuff on the Anti-AA blog, including the letter from the owner of Ritual Roasters, and I haven't yet seen what specific businesses will be threatened. In that letter she says that she recommends shops like X-21, Paxton Gate, etc., to visitors, and it seems that she thinks this businesses will be threatened by AA. Given that these businesses are in an entirely different category than AA, how are they threatened? I could buy into the idea that AA could potentially drive up commercial rents in that area, but it seems to me that you would have to have a substantial number of similar businesses supported by a chain network move in before that would happen. I have not seen this argument advanced in the anti-AA comments. I don't shop on Valencia myself (I live in the Castro), but here's a hypothetical. Suppose I want to buy some socks and underwear. Usually I go to Macy's to do this, because there's no place in the neighborhood for me to get basic socks and underwear (sometimes I'll go to Lounge for undies, but usually I'll combine shopping for "men's furnishings" in one trip). If there was an AA on Valencia, I could potentially go there instead of Macy's, which would then put me in that neighborhood, where I would potentially spend more money. If there's no place else on Valencia that sells socks, and now there is, and that brings people like me there to buy them, how does this not improve overall commercial viablity of the Valencia Street corridor?

fizzandpop

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:10:34 -0800

I would've assumed that it was 50/50, or am I being ridiculously naive?

travin

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:57:37 -0800

And actually, I forgot to mention that the big box competition AA presents extends throughout the district, from market to silver, potrero to portola. big chain stores have a large economic impact footprint.

Joel

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:50:18 -0800

See, now as a straight guy, this is more interesting to me than the AA kerfluffle. I'd have assumed from my outsider's perspective that the ratio would be the other way around.

travin

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:45:13 -0800

Actually, no, it's not at all the same argument. In the case of AA the argument goes that we have a company that will bring foot traffic and money to the neighborhood. But it will do this at the expense of the economic ecologies surrounding all of the mom and pop stores on valencia and mission street selling 'like' products. So there is a net loss of benefit because one business could end up closing 10 others or more, raising rents and driving out families. This is why it's compared to the 'bix box store' argument. Whereas the arugment against kink was merely that despite posing no competition whatsoever to businesses in the neighborhood, the enormous economic benefits to surrounding businesses and the district, and bringing life back to a seriously blighted neighborhood, it wasn't wanted for irrational fears of suspicion of prostitution and drug activity. Which is demonstrably untrue with other such businesses. So the arguments are substantially dissimilar.

aj

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:44:32 -0800

And of course ONLY people living within four blocks are allowed to decide on ANYTHING.

zstone

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:39:20 -0800

Interesting. This is a meaningful addition to the discourse. Take note, bloggers who claim that one man is wrongly speaking for the majority.

zstone

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:34:03 -0800

Unique is an odd word choice to describe something that exists in seven places. First, maybe.

Todd1

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:25:13 -0800

PS there's MSG in KFC? damnit.

Todd1

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:21:12 -0800

Of course if you add the 'yeses' and the 'don't cares', then the trustafarian hipster crowd loses by almost two to one.

mattymatt

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:15:18 -0800

The other day I needed some socks, so I went to the American Apparel on Haight. While I was in the neighborhood, I bought a bagel at some other store, and also saw some nice stamps at Giant Robot that I bought for a friend. Commerce!

fsharp

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:12:51 -0800

Put AA on Mission Street. That's where we need it. Valencia st. is so 2006 and everyone wants it to stay that way forever.

travin

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:05:08 -0800

I'm glad someone around here is paying attention to the delicious contradictions.

lejohnnyc

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:02:28 -0800

More comments on the AA post than the brothel-across-the-street-from-a-school post. High. Larious.

piratesnack

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:01:32 -0800

It is interesting that this is largely the same argument that was made against Kink.com buying the armory. I wonder how much overlap there is in the anti-Kink.com movement and the anti-American Apparel movement? There should be a fourth category in the poll that is for people who don't care about American Apparel but question the wisdom of letting government planning commissions have the power to tell people who they can rent their buildings to.

hillarys_quivering_lip

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:57:53 -0800

Totally agree. Which is why I've stolen my own small army of taxidermied mice and stupid over-priced pirate crap. Oh and I made off with a bunch of ridiculously expensive paper products from some other place on Valencia during the Xmas rush.

travin

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:52:44 -0800

He also misunderstands that american apparel will pose no undue competition. Which tells us that he has no realistic conception of the neighborhood and it's localized economy of mom and pop stores sell clothing and already scrambling for dollars.

icbalaam

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:51:38 -0800

Agreed! Too bad the image doesn't accurately represent this city's ratio of bottoms to tops, though 25 bottoms on one page would look excessive.

ejcsanfran

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:38:35 -0800

A friend of my partner's had the perfect solution to combat the AA in her neighborhood. Granted, her objections to the store were not philosophical ("no chain stores!" or "NIMBY!") as seems to be the case in the Mission. She simply couldn't stand the hipper-than-thou twats who worked in the place and acted extremely put-out when required to assist a customer... But since the liked the duds, she didn't want to boycott the shop. So she continued to patronize this AA - but she would shoplift clothes instead of buying them. It's a total win-win!

markroquet

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:36:40 -0800

man, i hope that's a joke and you're not actually trying to make that point.

PhilG

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:32:44 -0800

So American Apparel shoppers are the equivalent of pedophiles?

bottombracket

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:31:24 -0800

Dr., you still seem to think the choices are American Apparel or vacant store. There are plenty of other possibilties for that space, though.

markroquet

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:31:11 -0800

i think your points here are fair, and you're right about the central issue. however, it bears repeating that there are only a few vacant storefronts on valencia street, about the same as (or fewer than) any other hip neighborhood in san francisco. and while the greater mission has many vacant storefronts, another store on valencia street is not going to help the parts of the mission that actually need an economic boost. while stores in other neighborhoods may have been dropping off, valencia street has seen lot of expansion, and, in my experience, a steady increase in foot traffic. and while it does seem like businesses would welcome any increase in foot traffic, the blogroll at stopamericanapparel.wordpress.com/, which i'm guessing (hoping) is a list of businesses that have stated their opposition to american apparel in the mission, is pretty much a who's-who of businesses on valencia. it seems like many businesses share the concern that chain retail on valencia could drive up rents and force local tenants out, regardless of american apparel's positive labor relations.

PhilG

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:28:40 -0800

So American Apparel shoppers are the equivalent of pedophiles?

hillarys_quivering_lip

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:25:19 -0800

CAPITALIZM YER DOIN IT WRONGZ

travin

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:20:31 -0800

That will ultimately bring more traffic and more business to everybody else. Keeping out business is bad business... No, actually, you're looking at it from the wrong perspective and your words read like well versed marketing speak, so I'd venture you have a particular bias that doesn't allow you to see the issue clearly. Your viewpoint assumes all traffic is good. And preventing certain types of business is bad. Both are fallacious arguments. As an extreme example, your argument predicts that it's ok to allow pedophiles to live next to day cares and elementary schools because vacant housing is bad for property values and brings more traffic to the neighborhood. Well, it's pretty obvious why that's a poor choice. We make these discriminations based upon our desired environment, and there's nothing wrong with it. And although we aren't talkng about such extremes, the communities see them in this light because just allowing anybody to set up shop anywhere is a threat to their environment and way of life. You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. But please don't waste our time reducing the argument to a ridiculously simple dollars/traffic equation because that is the very same thinking that is why folks don't want these types of stores nearby. This issue isn't about that and it should be extraordinarily obvious to you. And until you see that there's really no use commenting.

periqueblend

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:00:54 -0800

(I can't believe this story still has legs!) I don't know that net effect of AA on Valencia would equal more jobs. I think the opposition thinks it would ultimately hurt small business owners. But yeah, unemployment is up. Lah di dah. Bart is hiring at least one new employee.

RinconHillSF

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:39:30 -0800

State jobless rate leaps to 9.3% ... not counting folks working part-time while looking for full-time jobs, folks that stopped looking, or folks that had to to B2B (back to boston) or wherever. I was hoping the "you're either with us or your against us" mentality of the George W. Bush years was done, but it appears to live on in the Mission neighborhood. Kumbaya, people ... get on the Obama wagon

DrWhodunit

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:36:50 -0800

It's been reiterated over and over again, but the issue here isn't NIMBYs or whether or not it is only one man on some mission to save his neighborhood. It's about business and what that could mean to the Mission. There are vacant storefronts everywhere in that area and American Apparel happens to be one of the stores that is actually doing well in this economy. That will ultimately bring more traffic and more business to everybody else. Keeping out business is bad business and serious business owners in the area are not going to fight an increase in foot traffic. There aren't even any competing stores in the area, so this isn't about putting the other immediate businesses out of shop. If each of those stores start falling on hard times because of the recession, dropping off one by one like they have been, that's the worst thing that can happen to the neighborhood. It still amazes me that this company even offers its health care plan to its retail employees. It isn't one that is completely disconnected to its customers or the places it comes to. It'll bring more in taxes to the area, an empty store will make the street look nicer... The argument against the store opening has a lot of what-ifs. But the positive results of it coming in (more jobs with benefits, foot traffic, taxes, etc.) are very real and not hypothetical.

Jeremy_ofSF

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:36:42 -0800

In 2006, San Francisco voted on added restrictions for chain stores. 2006's Prop G passed with 58.2% of the vote. But in most of the Mission, it got over 80% of the vote. Check out maps here: http://www.piratecatradio.com/wordpress/?p=6457 Basically, every precinct between 18th and 22nd, and Dolores and Van Ness was over 80%.

withak

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:28:12 -0800

I wish I could champion some cause based on hypothetical voting results.

miumiu

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:08:18 -0800

there's no arguing against a store that offers tops in this city!

fizzandpop

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:01:00 -0800

Mom n' pop, big box, bike lane, mormons, bart cops, space stations, blaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

miked

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:49:48 -0800

the mission needs more mom n' pops stores like 826 Valencia. with outlets in LA, Chicago, Seattle, NYC, Boston and Michigan, it's totally unique to the values of our neighborhood.

oskarv

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:46:22 -0800

ugh, "idiots" is too harsh. sorry in advance.

oskarv

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:39:53 -0800

Well I'd definitely have a problem with an American Apparel opening up on Turk Street in the Tenderloin, but that would never happen =). Keep those idiots with glasses-frames-but-no-lenses OUT of my neighborhood! what i'm saying, is that those idiots are already in the mission, so who cares?