Activists say a pair of Spades could beat culture and small business in the Mission

|
(94)
Activists are pushing for a big turnout.

[UPDATE: The Board of Appeals last night voted to 3-2 that Jack Spade should be considered a formula retail business, short of the four-vote supermajority that activists needed to sustain their appeal.]

Progressive activists and small business owners in the Mission are trying to draw the line against the creep the of corporate chain stores -- with their homegeneity and tendency to drive up commercial rents -- and they’re drawing that line at the old Adobe Bookstore where the Jack Spade corporate clothing chain was trying to quietly sneak in.

“I’m strongly opposed because of its potential to destroy the culture of this area,” Michael Katz, owner of Katz Bagels across 16th Street from the site, told the Guardian. “If they start allowing chains to come, it will be one chain store after another.”

Katz has already been experiencing the flipside of these economic boom times, recently forced to close his shop on Mission Street near 2nd in SoMa because of rising rents and competition from both food trucks and corporate-backed competitors. Now, he’s fighting to defend his Mission District turf against deep-pocketed competitors.

“This will change the special personality of the 16th and Valencia corridors,” Katz said. “It’s turning it into a commodity.”

Katz is among the dozens of people planning to show up tomorrow for the San Francisco Board of Appeals’ hearing (Wed/21, 5:00 PM, City Hall Room 416) on the Jack Spade store. The Valencia Corridor Merchants’ Association is organizing the challenge to the legal standing of a building permit issued to Jack Spade by the Planning Department in June.

Last week, that same group of activists experienced a minor setback when the Board of Appeals denied a late filing request. Tomorrow, however, they’ll get the opportunity they were seeking to argue that the store is “formula retail” and needs to submit to a public hearing before being sanctioned by the Zoning Administrator to open a new Mission location.

Mission resident Kyle Smeallie has been working with the VCMA to oppose the mens’ clothier’s advances on 16th street. In the case of Jack Spade, the Planning Department has enforced only the narrowest definition of “formula retail” as a business with 11 or more locations, while failing to defend the broader spirit of the law.

Since Jack Spade is owned by Fifth & Pacific (aka Liz Claiborne), according to Smeallie, it is a corporate chain store. Though it indeed has only 10 locations, Jack Spade “has a complete imbalance of power and resources, which is exactly what the formula retail legislation aimed to remedy in the first place,” said Smeallie.

Fifth and Pacific also makes clear on its website the Jack Spade is an expanding chain: "Under Fifth & Pacific, Jack Spade has begun to spread its wings and is now poised for broader expansion. Although management would not disclose a precise volume breakdown, Fifth & Pacific's CEO William L. McComb said on an earnings call last year that Jack Spade ‘can be a $100 million men's business with very high margins.’”

That’s “margins” as in profit margins, meaning that this corporate chain can has an economies of scale that allows it to buy goods for cheap and sell them for whatever people will pay, which is an ever-increasing amount in the rapidly gentrifying Mission.  

Experts have advised the activists that their best approach is to argue that Kate Spade and Jack Spade are essentially the same store, with well over 11 locations nationwide, since corporate parentage is not explicitly prohibited in the formula retail legislation approved by voters in 2006.

“We’re going to make the case that, since it’s named Spade, it has benefitted from the association with Kate Spade,” Smeallie explained. “Legally, we have a case to say a Spade is Spade and they should be considered one and same.”

In the past, this strategy was successful in thwarting an effort by "Black Fleece by Brooks Brothers" to open a neighborhood location by claiming that it was, effectively, just another Brooks Brothers. In that case, however, the full name of the large-scale retailer was present in the subsidiary's label.

Comments

If it does well, obviously it fits in.

Let's not try and micromanage which business succeed - the market does that far better than any bureaucrat.

This just sounds like an envy party.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 20, 2013 @ 4:03 pm

"If a store doesn't fit the neighborhood, it will not do well. If it does well, obviously it fits in. Let's not try and micromanage which business succeed - the market does that far better than any bureaucrat. This just sounds like an envy party. "

This remark is incredibly ignorant.

First of all, the city's formula retail ordinance doesn't micromanage or ban formula retail. It merely subjects a formula retail store to a public hearing process before it can get permits. If the community wants the business they can express that in the hearing. If they don't want the business in the neighborhood, they can express that as well.

That's not an "envy party," that's frickin' democracy. What have you got against democracy? The "free market," as we have seen countless times, isn't freedom and it isn't democracy. It's very frequently just the power of wealth over the interests of the general public.

And I shouldn't have to say this, because it's so obvious, but just because a store "does well" in a neighborhood doesn't mean it's a good "fit." A store can "do well" in a neighborhood without anyone whose actually from the neighborhood ever shopping there. A store can "do well" in a neighborhood but be totally detrimental to the existing community, for obvious reasons such as increased rents that contribute to the displacement of existing businesses and residents. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

What do you have against a community having a say in the development of its own neighborhoods?

Posted by Andy on Aug. 20, 2013 @ 9:58 pm

totally wrong for a narrow group of people who live immediately in that vicinity to try and nix it, especially if they perceive the store as not being affordable to them, hence the envy aspect.

Democracy can go way too far and we don't need a voter proposition for every store that wants to open an more than we need one for every new building that goes up.

And if you keep denying stores for a location then you are hurting the property owners by denying him the fair rent he could get, and that smacks of a "taking".

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 6:00 am

"if a store draws customers from a wide area then it is totally wrong for a narrow group of people who live immediately in that vicinity to try and nix it"

We're pushing for a public hearing, required by law under Prop G. If we're a "narrow group of people" then Jack Spade should have no problem winning over the community. But we don't believe that's the case.

"especially if they perceive the store as not being affordable to them, hence the envy aspect."

The affordability of Jack Spade's merchandise is irrelevant. We're concerned about the effect on the real estate market, and how it will impact small businesses when landlords know they can hold out and demand rates that only big corporations can afford.

"Democracy can go way too far and we don't need a voter proposition for every store that wants to open an more than we need one for every new building that goes up."

This doesn't make sense.

"And if you keep denying stores for a location then you are hurting the property owners by denying him the fair rent he could get, and that smacks of a "taking"."

I don't understand what you mean by "keep denying." This is a single instance, one in which the corporation that's attempting to move in made no attempt to engage with the surrounding community. That's the whole point of Prop G--it's a message to big business that this sort of conduct will not pass here; that if you want in, you must first have the support of the community. By most estimations, this system has worked well at striking a balance. See: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/limits-on-chain-stores-much-more-...

Posted by Kyle on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 8:42 am

The libertarian/conservative view that markets magically reflect people's wishes and deliver what they need is bullshit, particularly in this modern era when technology and economies-of-scale make it so easy to game the system. Local businesses can't compete with a corporate-subsidized chain stores that can absorb losses to win market share and pay ever-rising rents. The original Boston Tea Party participants understood the need to stand against corporate power, while today's Tea Party wannabes don't understand basic economics or even what a "market" is (hint: it's based on a even playing field among competitors and between buyers and sellers, as well as between employers and employees). Today's "free market" is neither free nor a market.

Posted by steven on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 10:29 am

Why are you not willing to give me a choice? Why are you not willing to give this company a choice? Why are you depriving the property owner of the tenant that he wants?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 10:47 am

Corporate chains actually limit consumer choice, an he succinctly explained how they do that. Repeating the same memes after the points have already been answered doesn't make them true.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 11:00 am

For instance, I much prefer shopping at WholeFoods (a national chain) over Rainbow (a one-off co-operative).

By Steven's logic, I should be denied that choice and that competition.

And I do not consider that restricting my choices and reducing the competition is in my interests at all.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 11:15 am

Stop being obsessed with how many choices you have or don't have.

Posted by pete moss on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 12:42 pm
Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 1:01 pm

Pete Moss nailed it.

Freedom does not = infinite consumer choices.

There are things that are more important than consumers having infinite choices. Everyone knows that. Please don't play stupid and pretend that you don't.

Posted by Not a guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 3:03 pm

much more ideologically pure Rainbox co-operative make more profits?

It's easy for you to curtail the choice of others. But you don't like it the other way about, do you?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 3:15 pm

"if a store draws customers from a wide area then it is totally wrong for a narrow group of people who live immediately in that vicinity to try and nix it"

We're pushing for a public hearing, required by law under Prop G. If we're a "narrow group of people" then Jack Spade should have no problem winning over the community. But we don't believe that's the case.

"especially if they perceive the store as not being affordable to them, hence the envy aspect."

The affordability of Jack Spade's merchandise is irrelevant. We're concerned about the effect on the real estate market, and how it will impact small businesses when landlords know they can hold out and demand rates that only big corporations can afford.

"Democracy can go way too far and we don't need a voter proposition for every store that wants to open an more than we need one for every new building that goes up."

This doesn't make sense.

"And if you keep denying stores for a location then you are hurting the property owners by denying him the fair rent he could get, and that smacks of a "taking"."

I don't understand what you mean by "keep denying." This is a single instance, one in which the corporation that's attempting to move in made no attempt to engage with the surrounding community. That's the whole point of Prop G--it's a message to big business that this sort of conduct will not pass here; that if you want in, you must first have the support of the community. By most estimations, this system has worked well at striking a balance. See: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/limits-on-chain-stores-much-more-...

Posted by Kyle on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 8:44 am

16th Street is not a tourist destination, nor a regional shopping mecca, nor would some small boutique store turn it in to one. Nor would the store offer anything that competes with the existing stores on the street. And, if you shop at a Spade store, you are likely going to spend far more money, not less, than what you would spend at one of the existing stores, so the whole price advantage argument goes out the window--it is not like a Walmart, or even an American Apparel, is moving in.

So, bearing in mind all the above, if a Spade store does well on 16th Street, it would only do well because the affluent residents in the area who pretend they live in the Mission for "authenticity" and who are often the sort of white privileged folk who lead this sort of chain opposition, will be the ones propping this store up with big purchases should it open. Trust me, no one from the Sunset, Richmond, SOMA, Tenderloin, Pacific Heights, Marina, Bayview, North Beach, etc. will go to 16th Street to visit a Spade store, nor will any tourists. Therefore, it is an issue of the resident gentrifies, the ones who really are driving up the neighborhood's cost of living, wanting SF government to save them from their own spendy compulsive behavior.

Posted by Chris on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 8:42 am

single post? I doubt it.

If Spade opens on 16th, I would visit it, and I do not live in the Mission. While there I might visit some stores on Valencia, and maybe get a coffee and some food.

It will bring $$$ into the Mission.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 9:51 am

Guest, you are one person, just as I am. It's great to hear you are a non-Mission resident who would go there to shop at some overpriced boutique. But, my experience as a long-term San Francisco resident is that what usually drawe people from outside the Mission to the neighborhood are the restaurants (and some bars) that have clustered there over the past 20 years or so to take advantage of cheaper rents (though rents are rising) and larger spaces. The neighborhood retail stores tend to cater to neighborhood residents, and some individuals who live nearby in the Castro, etc. Generally speaking, the Mission is not a major shopping destination in the City--that just is what it is. My point is one speedy boutique will not make the Mission a major shopping destination or later the character of the neighborhood.

As for my alleged stereotyping, yes, I am generalizing, but minor exceptions are not relevant to my point, nor do they disprove what I wrote. For the most part, the stereotypes reflect the reality of the neighborhood and its place in the city.

Posted by Chris on Aug. 29, 2013 @ 2:56 am

Ayn Rand would be proud. :(

Fact is that this coming in will raise rents but will likely be successful, just as a $tarbuck$ at that location will.

This market ideology is such twaddle!

Posted by guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 10:00 am

Four years ago, when our economy was doing badly, you were complaining about that. Now it's doing well, you complain about that too.

Are you ever happy?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 10:13 am

and do their thing to keep their neighbourhood they way they want it.

When professional progressive activists get involved it's a bad sign that stupidity will follow.

Posted by Matlock on Aug. 20, 2013 @ 5:15 pm

Steven, the city is not changing , IT HAS CHAnGED.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 20, 2013 @ 5:27 pm

BluDot is now a chain and no one opposed them. Besides, Blu Dot will put a challenge more local stores on the same block than J/S will with it's wares.

I'm not for J/S, but believe that arguments should be levied equally.

Posted by Maia SS on Aug. 20, 2013 @ 7:59 pm

Yes, Blu Dot is obviously at least as problematic as Jack Spade and I can assure you that plenty of people fighting Jack Spade would love to fight Blu Dot as well.

The problem is Blu Dot only has two other stores in the US and therefore doesn't come anywhere near the store count necessary to be considered formula retail under existing law.

Jack Spake, on the other hand, for most or all practical purposes, is the same entity as Kate Spade and therefore greatly exceeds the 11-store threshold to be considered formula retail.

That's why folks are picking the battle of Jack Spade. Just because we can't fight every problematic chain store doesn't mean we shouldn't fight any.

Stopping Jack Spade wouldn't end the out-of-control gentrification of the MIssion District, but it's still a righteous fight. And it might slow things down long enough to get passed some updated and stronger formula retail regulations that will prevent more formula retail stores in the future.

Posted by Andy on Aug. 20, 2013 @ 10:15 pm

Whether it is two or two hundred doesn't matter. It's a store and if the demand is there, it should open.

You give yourself away when you whine about gentrification. If you don't like having less crime and better shopping and dining options, then why don't you move to Detroit where, I guarantee, none of these desirable enterprises will be opening. You can have all the urban grit and squalor there that you clearly crave.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 6:02 am

Guest, apparently you're unaware that there is a law in San Francisco that regulates formula retail and that this law includes the store count in its definition of formula retail. That's why we talk about the number of stores. It's actually fundamental to the issue at hand.

This is a law, mind you, that was passed by nearly 60% of the voters in this city, so your beef is with 60% of the voters, not merely with me. But perhaps you believe that democracy is irrelevant here and that a multi-billion-dollar company based on the other side of the country on Park Ave., NYC should have more say about the development of my neighborhood than me and my neighbors. In this case I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree.

As to your last paragraph. You give yourself away when you whine about "better shopping and dinning options." (Is that you Peter Shih?). As if that's what gentrification is really about. "Gentrification," for lack of a better term, is really about displacement of existing communities. It's about the displacement of the people who put their heart, soul, blood, sweat, and tears into a place only to see it taken away one day by someone who has looks at a community and sees nothing but dollar signs.

But perhaps you believe that private property rights and the principles of the "free market" are sacred and supercede all other rights. Well many reasonable people will disagree with you (including, at least 60% of the voters in SF).

Peter, if you want "less crime and better shopping and dining options" and (less fog too boot!) It seems to me you'd be much happier living in Walnut Creek. Not that I believe the shopping and dining is better (the opposite, actually), but I have a hunch you would. Or maybe you already live there?

The people in the Mission and in any neighborhood have every right to fight for what they've worked for and believe in. They certainly have as much right to fight for their neighborhood as a corporation based 3,000 miles away. So you can cut it with your lazy cynicism. Your lazy cynicism never did anything for this still unique and (sometimes) amazing city.

Posted by Andy on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 9:27 am

process i.e. making neighborhoods cleaner, safer and more prosperous. Only a luddite would seek to preserve squalor and crime.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 9:52 am

Guest, your comment betrays an obvious ignorance of the full implications and realities of "gentrification." Many, many people who bare the brunt of the process would have very strong disagreement with you.

Answer me this, do you live in San Francisco? If so, how long have you lived there? Which neighborhood?

If all that matters to you is "cleaner, safer and more prosperous" (and less fog?) than maybe a diverse urban core isn't the best place for you. Again, I'll recommend you check out Walnut Creek.

For people who prefer a place with racial, ethnic, and economic diversity, gentrification is far less appealing that it is to you and it's frequently devastating to their very lives.

But I'm sure none of that concerns you.

Posted by Andy on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 10:25 am

I live in San Francisco, have done for over 20 years, and currently live in the Castro. Is that San Franciscan enough for you?

Diverse urban core? What a loaded phrase. San Francisco is plenty diverse anyway regardless of whether a store with no color bar opens on 16th or not. And it's not like there aren't many other high-end stores on Valencia anyway.

15 years ago the Mission was almost a no-go area, with drug dealing and prostitution happening on residential streets even during the day. There were gang wars (still are but less so) and the streets were filthy, with burned out cars, mattresses strewn about, and so on.

To do from that to tree-lined streets with nice stores and restaurants is progress to anyone who isn't blinded by some misguided NIMBY'ism.

If you want squalor, you can still easily find it. Try Bayview, the Tenderloin, or most of Oakland. A few specific area's becoming more desirable doesn't threaten that.

Oh, and I see a lot of white children now in the Mission. Never saw that 10 or 15 years ago. so it's becoming more diverse as well.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 10:39 am

Guest, again, what you don't seem to consider is the people who lose their community because of what you see as evident progress. I stated my assumption above that the people hurt by displacement wouldn't be of concern to you and you've made it clear I was right.

"To go from that to tree-lined streets with nice stores and restaurants is progress to anyone who isn't blinded by some misguided NIMBY'ism."

If you're no longer able to live in the neighborhood, "nice" stores, restaurants, and trees don't make any difference to you, whatsoever. I don't believe that the only way to make a neighbor safer and "nicer", is to drive out the existing community.

And there's a whole other matter here, though perhaps of less moral consequence. And this is that many, of the people who have lived in the Mission community for more than a few years, would not agree that the stores and restaurants now flooding the neighborhood are actually "nicer," to use your term. Many people would say that they don't need another Union Street in their part of town, and that the cherished much of what is now being lost.

Granted, these people shouldn't get dictatorial powers to determine the fate of the neighborhood, but it's reasonable that they should at least have a say, especially when some of them have worked so hard, for so long, sometimes for generations, to make the community strong and beautiful.

The idea of the formula retail ordinance is not to stop your notion of "progress." It's merely intended to give existing communities a say in what happens to the community. Why is this such an anathema to some people?

Posted by Andy on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 11:09 am

What if a majority want a more prosperous Mission district? Does that not matter because you have some romantic idea of what the Mission is or should be?

There are parts of SF like Pacific heights that are super nice. There are other parts like Bayview that are dire. Then there are areas like the Mission which is a mix.

So whatever you like, there is somewhere in SF for you. Why should everywhere be exactly how you want it? Just move to where the 'hood suits your own style.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 11:26 am

what used to be limited to neighborhoods like Noe Valley, a specific stroller phenomenon I call "brown lady, white baby." (The word "lady" used for poetic purpose.)

What was the poster from the late 90's? The new Mission: whiter, cleaner, with tableclothes.

I love the argument that making the city whiter adds to diversity.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 11:25 am

there was previously no whites.

That's no different from blacks moving to Mill Valley (and there are some there) adds to diversity there.

"Diversity" doesn't mean no whites.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 11:37 am

If not for whites, Earth would be a paradise. Every janitor would make $125k working 20 hours per week and no pollution would be created ever.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 12:03 pm

the SF Green Party, Tenant's Union and Bike Coalition would have no members.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 12:20 pm

You would love Detroit. It's very diverse.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 11:47 am

actually mean a diverse mix of people. They mean "no whites".

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 12:07 pm

"If a store doesn't fit the neighborhood, it will not do well. If it does well, obviously it fits in. Let's not try and micromanage which business succeed - the market does that far better than any bureaucrat. This just sounds like an envy party. "

This remark is incredibly ignorant.

First of all, the city's formula retail ordinance doesn't micromanage or ban formula retail. It merely subjects a formula retail store to a public hearing process before it can get permits. If the community wants the business they can express that in the hearing. If they don't want the business in the neighborhood, they can express that as well.

That's not an "envy party," that's frickin' democracy. Ever heard of it? What have you got against democracy? The "free market," as we have seen countless times, isn't freedom and it isn't democracy. It's very frequently just the power of wealth over the interests of the general public.

And I shouldn't have to say this, because it's so obvious, but just because a store "does well" in a neighborhood doesn't mean it's a good "fit." A store can "do well" in a neighborhood without anyone whose actually from the neighborhood ever shopping there. A store can "do well" in a neighborhood but be totally detrimental to the existing community, for obvious reasons such as increased rents that contribute to the displacement of existing businesses and residents. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

What do you have against a community having a say in the development of its own neighborhoods?

Posted by Andy on Aug. 20, 2013 @ 9:41 pm

If they're really "free," then why are free markets so expensive for everyone who has to live under them?

Posted by Greg on Aug. 20, 2013 @ 10:46 pm

Try living in North Korea before you say that

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 4:31 am

Anyone wanting "cheap" would not move to the most expensive city in the nation. Or if they were here, they would leave.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 6:03 am

"Why some chains and not others?"

Blu Dot obviously sucks at least as bad as Jack Spade. Many of us who are fighting Jack Spade would LOVE to stop Blu Dot as well. Sadly Blu dot only has two other stores in the US and therefore does not come close to qualifying as formula retail under the existing formula retail ordinance.

Jack Spade, on the other hand, for most or all practical purposes, is the same entity as Kate Spade, and therefore greatly exceeds the store count needed to be considered formula retail.

Just because we can't fight every god-awful store in the Mission doesn't mean we shouldn't fight any. And if Jack/Kate Spade gets away with misrepresenting themselves as a small business despite being a rapidly-expanding billion-dollar corporate chain store, it will only encourage more corporate chain stores to do the same.

Stopping Jack Spade won't end the out-of-control gentrification of the Mission, but it's still the right thing to do. And it might slow things down long enough to pass some stronger and updated formula retail regulations.

Posted by Andy on Aug. 20, 2013 @ 9:54 pm

Why? If you don't like the store, don't shop there. Why deny others the opportunity to shop there? And for what? Yet another nasty burrito joint?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 6:05 am

I can't wait until we cleanse all the beaners from San Francisco. We'll still have Tacolicious.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 6:16 am
Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 7:20 am

"So you want "stronger" controls of retail? Why deny others the opportunity to shop there?"

Yes, of course I want "stronger controls" on retail and make no apologies for that. But I obviously can't single-handedly "deny others the opportunity to shop" anywhere. If a store doesn't get approved after a conditional use hearing, it will be because the larger community said they didn't want it. While I might wish I had the power to stop a chain store, and deny others their shopping rights, I don't. Not even close. But thanks for the vote of confidence.

And are we really so spiritually bankrupt a society that we believe "shopping rights" for individuals supercede the wishes/needs/desires of entire communities? For godssake would you listen to yourself for a minute?

Oh and your remark about "another nasty burrito joint." Remind us, how long have you lived in SF, Peter Shih? First of all, they're called taquerias not burrito joints. And secondly taquerias are easily in the top 5 most treasured and adored institutions in city with a ridiculously outsized number of treasured and adored institutions.

I thought the public shaming would have shut you up for a week or two, Peter. Guess I was wrong. : )

Posted by Andy on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 9:43 am

knows what we all want better than we do. And what I always find about people like you is that you never ask us what we want. No, you prefer to tell us what we should want.

Activism is attempting to achieve what a minority want over the wishes of the majority i.e. it is fundamentally undemocratic as well as dishonest. You just think you know better, but you don't.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 9:54 am

No actually, it's more like the opposite of what your saying.

Again, the formula retail ordinance is **precisely** about the community expressing what it wants, not an individual like myself or anyone else.

If the community, yourself included, wants a formula retail store to move in, than the community can express that in the conditional use hearing.

It doesn't matter what I think or want. I may want something just like Mr. Jack Spade may want something. But neither Jack nor I should get to make the decision that affects an entire community. Without the conditional use hearing, NO ONE has a voice, except of course, for the company. I'm advocating democracy and community input not my-way-or-the-highway.

Have I made myself clear now?

Posted by Andy on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 10:12 am

interest in what the majority think, because you have taken no steps to learn what that is. You just think you know what the voters want based on your own world view.

So, what specific steps will you be taking to determine if a majority of SF'ers want this store there?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 10:26 am

"So, what specific steps will you be taking to determine if a majority of SF'ers want this store there?"

Look, I wouldn't blame you for not reading all the comments in this thread, but it appears you may not even understand what we're talking about here.

"The specific steps" I am presently taking to find out if a majority of the PUBLIC wants the Jack Spade store on the 16th is by -- now listen carefully -- specifically advocating for a PUBLIC hearing on whether or not the PUBLIC wants the store there.

NOW have I made myself clear?

Posted by Andy on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 10:50 am

you would not be here asserting that gentrification of the Mission is undesirable, which you are doing.

If a majority preferred the Mission to be more gentrified, you'd still oppose it. So this really is about your own personal agenda.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 11:03 am

That's like asking if he'd be in favor of evictions if a majority of the people being evicted were in favor of their own evictions.

While we're at it, maybe we can ponder similar questions like, if oceans were naturally made of radioactive sludge, would we still be against dumping radioactive sludge in the ocean?

Or, if the majority of people loved working in sweatshops, would we still be against sweatshops?

Posted by Greg on Aug. 21, 2013 @ 11:20 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Also from this author

  • A pair of Spades wins

  • Into thin air

    "Shareable housing" is causing apartments to vanish from SF's rental market — yet popular, profitable sites like Airbnb violate local laws

  • Community awaits benefits as Lennar finally breaks ground in Hunters Point