Two months ago we plugged you in to some neighborhood resistance to ICI Paints plan to open a retail outlet at 1575 South Van Ness (currently a shuttered Hollywood Video store). And today, the Chronicle explores the issue in the context of contempt for chain stores.
The fight illustrates how San Francisco – a city that values homegrown companies and neighborhood character – is increasingly hostile to chain stores and restaurants, even if the businesses want to move into empty stores.
And although the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is expected to reconsider [and grant] the paint store’s request at its meeting today, the push to stop chain stores from opening in the city is unlikely to ease soon.
Supervisor Tom Ammiano is working on legislation to ban all chain stores from some stretches of Mission, Valencia and 24th streets in the Mission District and Cortland Avenue in Bernal Heights. Two smaller areas – in Hayes Valley and North Beach – already have outright bans on chain stores.
And while no parties have proposed an alternative plan to develop the lot at 1575 South Van Ness, and the landlord (Ken Allen) is concerned about the vacant property attracting “graffiti, garbage and other blight,” the planning commissioners denied the ICI Paints application to occupy the space after concluding that “the property could be used for something more beneficial to the community – possibly new housing and some non-chain stores.”
Allen said the commission’s decision to deny the application was unfortunate. “An empty lot doesn’t do anyone any good. It’s much better to have someone in there, keeping it clean and taking care of it,” he said.
UPDATE: The San Francisco Board of Supervisors have overturned the Planning Commission by a vote of 9-1; ICI Paints has been granted a permit to occupy the space (but must “plant trees and shrubs” outside the business).
∙ 1575 South Van Ness: NIMBY Neighbors Actually Arguing For Density? [SocketSite]
∙ S.F. grows ever more hostile to chain stores [SFGate]
While we all love underdog stores to grow and become successful, preventing already successful stores from entering an area is extremely misguided: Successful stores bring more foot traffic to a neighborhood and thus contribute to the success of all the others.
The fear that a successful store will displace a home grown place shows the lack of confidence the small store-owners have in themselves. To be competitive, you have to have something to sell that you believe in enough to make a huge commitment to it.
Besides, if the public didn’t want the products the small store owner was selling, they’re not going to desire them more simply by keeping a better known, more successful store out of a neighborhood. Yes rents go up when there is more demand for retail space, so obviously do the expectations of excellence the public demands.
I used to be under the impression that businesses succeeded on their merits–now, in San Francisco, we have legislated non-competition regulations in many parts of the city. What happened to free enterprise? When did everything that happens in San Francisco retail get to be decided by a small group of angry activists? Let success be determined by merit, not by excluding the competition.
60% of this parcel is surface-level parking;
Parcel size: ~12,000 SF
Height of existing building: 20′;
Existing height limit: 50′;
Proposed new height limit: 65′;
Years left on ICI lease (bought from bankrupt Hollywood Video): 17 years;
Blocks from BART: 4;
This site should be an 11,000sf store with 5 floors of housing above.
should be, perhaps.
must be….that’s a different kettle of fish.
I’m all for encouraging the right kind of things to happen (that’s called planning). Not so sure about the sledgehammer approach.
17 years left on lease.
4 blocks from BART.
Soooooo if I want some paint I either am expected to pay a premium at local, one-off store or I have to get in the car and pollute my way down the peninsula to get to Home Depot? (and yes, the price difference would be worth it)
There are just way to many special (judgmental) interest groups trying to control this 49 square mile parcel.
before the grammar police jump on me…Last sentence should read “way too many…”
So, now SF will become even more expensive. All that the supervisors are doing is encouraging folks to get in their cars, drive down to Serramonte or Tanforan and buy there, thus taking tax revenues outside of the city.
I find the obsession with stopping chain stores to be completely hallucinatory. Here you have a city with overwhelming problems of homelessness, crime, filth and urban decay, yet stopping chain stores from occupying vacant buildings seems to be a top priority. The mind simply boggles! Only in San Francisco would this sort of idiocy be given the time of day.
This whole thing is really pretty disgusting, especially for the private property owner. The BOS have become obsessed with “chain” stores and they have vastly redefined what “chain” really means. The proposed paint store is a legitimate business attempting to relocate a short distance to a better location. Regardless of what others WANT the property to be, the owner has the right to make that decision, and of course, comply with planning and building codes.
I can’t wait for Supe Ammiano to be out of office.
Chain stores are fine. Vast and underutilization of land near transit for the duration of a 17 year commercial lease is irresponsible.
If Tom Ammiano really wants my vote to send him to Sacramento for Assembly, he should demonstrate he has some other ideas besides making chain stores unwelcome without question. While I admire his idealism, he cannot seem to get the big picture – he suffers tunnel vision, if you will.
On Sunday, I went to the Asian Art Museum for the first time because a chain store – Target Stores – has begun to sponsor a “first Sundays free” day. Can’t San Francisco Supervisors pull back from the extreme of No Chain Stores to something more along the lines of – Yes, but the chain stores must contribute to the local little league baseball team or some other community benefits. That’s what I see missing when a Wal-Mart comes into town and puts the mom and pop shops out of business. The Parks and Recreation little league teams suddenly lose their sponsorships because Dottie’s Hardware is no longer around to buy the kids baseball jerseys.
There’s almost always a compromise available…
Broker Fritz-
Your argument leads right into the same arguments I read again and again about whether Wal-Mart is good or bad for this country.
It applies less here, because of the size of the store that wants to occupy the empty space, but does apply when talking about SF and chain stores in general.
A small electronics store simply cannot compete with a Best Buy on price or selection due to economics of scale. A small pharmacy cannot compete with Wal-Mart’s loss-leading $4 prescriptions.
On the other hand, the lower prices of the giant stores make material goods cheaper, thus increasing the standard of living for everyone nearby. On the other other hand, they often put a burden on the local health and human services infrastructure as they offer low wages and few benefits.
(ad infinitum)
In the end, I tend to be in favor of making it difficult for big chains to move in. Yes, it is somewhat annoying that there is no Target within city limits. On the other hand, keeping Home Depot at bay seems to have increased the relative number of local hardware stores.
On the other hand, keeping Home Depot at bay seems to have increased the relative number of local hardware stores.
The City has more hardware stores now than it used to? Really? News to me.
Pick any category of goods that HD sells and I can find a better selection at a small shop in the City with more knowledgeable staff. But it’s not like I can choose between many of those stores. And sadly, HD or no HD the quality of most of the existing hardware stores sucks.
I tire of the argument that HD/Wal-Mart/Target is putting the mom-and-pops out of business. I usually blame the mom-and-pops for not responding to changing needs. (9 out of 10 times I’ve walked to Tuggey’s only to walk home and drive to HD.)
I agree with controlling chains to a point. But I think the arguments about the corner on Cesar Chavez are more about land use, housing, traffic and development than getting ‘cheap paint’. Cesar Chavez isn’t the industrial zone it used to be.
I wrote in the original post that this is a poor use of the site. It is a suburban-type development. The area needs more housing and retail. A drive in paint store is more suitable for Bayshore on the other side of 101.
I find it annoying the way “sustainability” has become the argument for everything. In the Chronicle article, a planning commission member claimed that local stores are more sustainable than chains. Really? How do we know that? Do they necessarily use just local suppliers? Chain stores have very efficient supply chains, so they may well be more sustainable than ineffecient local stores. In any case, “sustainibility” is a silly argument.
As much as people talk about neighborhood charm, the area around Cesar Chavez & Van Ness doesn’t really have anything in the way of a neighborhood. And regardless, there had been a chain paint store two blocks down the street. It closed recently (for a condo development) why not allow this one? A net gain of 0 new chain stores.
And the obsession to keep these chains out is getting absurd. Here in the Castro, there are over a dozen empty storefronts and more expected. Yet, the hood chased WaMu out of a great (now empty) space. So, are people really happy with boarded up buildings instead of chains?
And as the paint store that NoeNeighbor is referring to was also a chain (Kelly Moore) and as it was allowed to move to S.Van Ness and 16th, what exactly would be the argument for denying this one?
Do you think the owner can get a property tax exemption until the property is usable again?
to eekamouse’s point,
I agree there is probably a much better use for this land of mixed commercial and residential. But is anyone proposing that? Has any developer stepped forward and said they want to develop the land?
This reminds me of the SF Armory that stood vacant for 35 years while every idea to develop the land got shot down because there was always a “better use” of the land. Until one day Kinky.com bought the property and moved in and turned the place into a porn studio and all those ideas of commercial retail mix never happened.
Here you have a willing tenant who would be a VAST improvement over a vacant building and, I am assuming, no other offers in site.
Do you want a vacant store front for years while everyone waits for something that would be a “better use” draining money from the city as sales tax goes else where and the city spends money on fighting graffiti and other crime that is sure to happen or let the city actually earn some money and have a responsible tenant who will maintain the property and help the neighborhood?
If there is someone out there who wants to develop the site let them step forward and propose it, if not, I say let the store in.
I’d like to see this much effort expended to stop the proliferation of pot clubs. Apart from the immense environmental degradation occurring in parks like Big Basin and Point Reyes used as pot farms (pesticides, insecticides, etc etc.) only a sucker could make a straight faced claim that the pot clubs are primarily providing care to seriously ill people. Jeez…
@scott gatz
EXACTLY! The Castro is a huge tourist destination and it half empty. Wolf Camera (a chain) moved out of its store at the corner of 18th and Castro and that place has stood vacant since. It’s covered in graffiti and had people sleeping the doorway.
The Castro is a HUGE tourist destination and is only going to become more of one with the release of “Milk”.
Why that business district is being allowed to rot I don’t understand.
Does anyone really think that neighborhood opposition to this paint store is really about it being a chain and not about it being a magnet for day laborers?
Hey eekamouse – I bet you don’t see any problems with an indefinite lease in other situations (i.e. rent control).
Kinda sucks having a property tied up for a long period of time, doesn’t it?
What really seems absurd about this chain restrictions is that it doesn’t seem to matter what type of business mix is located nearby, only that a chain wnats to come in. The comment that linked to this thread referenced the community opposition to a WaMu coming in. Why? Are there that may locals itching to open their own savings and loan? How many people dream of opening their own paint store? I can somewhat see the validity of protecting restaurants and cafes from the likes of Starbucks, but if there is no ocal alternative in existence, why not have a chain bring in jobs and care for the property? As for the lack of competitveness, a local coffee roaster opened in my neighborhood here in Denver back in 2000. At the time, it was three blocks from a Starbucks and a local chain called Peaberry. There is now a second Starbucks a block down the street. Only the Peaberry went out of business, the local roaster is alive and kicking. Locals can compete against chains, but they need the community’s patronage, not laws keeping chains away.
One reason the Castro is doing so poorly is the rents are out of control. No business has been able to stay in business because of the cost of doing business. It’s sad to see it in the state that it is in. Prior to the dot-com boom, businesses seemed to be more stable. As the rents started to increase then the businesses starting churning over. We had some fancier stores come in only to leave. The Star Video that had been there forever had to close as well. That block between 18th and 19th is starting to look pretty pathetic, specially on the east side. I agree, this is a tourist destination and it is in need of some infusion.
My info is about 10 years old, but I can say from experience that opening a store in the Castro is a nightmare – there’s a lot of ‘associations’ that all want to have their say and promise that the business won’t succeed without their support.
So it’s not just the rents that are out of control.
this is insane.
its very hard to figure out who wins or who the planning department is protecting.
How did Pottery Barn get into the Castro? payola?
Interesting article in the Bay Area Reporter about chains in the Castro:
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=2891
“Here in the Castro, there are over a dozen empty storefronts and more expected. Yet, the hood chased WaMu out of a great (now empty) space.”
This is ridiculous. For years I have been wanting a Wamu in Castro because the next closest one is way down in Potrero Hill or Noe Valley, neither of which is convenient. There are TWO Wells Fargos, but no WaMu!
I know this thread is taking a Castro turn, but….
Fred, Pottery Barn got in despite huge opposition, and only by providing neighborhood benefits. Dubious ones, but that’s more the “neighborhood’s” fault…which insisted on an atm on the corner to replace the one lost when the fireman’s credit union closed (wow…some benefit), and I believe a room to be available for community use (but maybe that was just for a while). In any case, the neighborhood succeeded in cutting down the amount of retail square footage without meaningful benefits, in my judgement.
Pottery Barn is also still used by many as an example of what shouldn’t be allowed to happen, and has inspired anti-chain overkill, imho. Opposition to WaMu at the corner of 18th and Castro is laughable (as Drew notes above). It’s a perfect bank location in a high pedestrian area. Now they’re locating instead in the old Dulux paint store at Sanchez and Market…a building that “should” have been razed and replaced with a more intense residential/retail mix.
Finally, construction seems to have slowed to a stop on the old Patio and adjacent retail space, and the Pendulum bar is still shuttered. These are all owned by the same incredibly irresponsible landlord who just doesn’t seem to mind sitting on vacant space forever. It’s a free country, but it only adds to the appearance of blight and neglect.
Ah, sorry, just had to rant.
I find the hyper-libraterian streak of many of the posters very interesting. Overall, chain stores are not good for the local economy and there have been plenty of studies demonstrating this. A few comments:
1: Chain stores remove money from a local community. The profit generated by a locally owned business tends to stay in the local community, while a chain store removes the profit. Both businesses pay taxes on the sales of products. However, we lose that nice local multiplier effect when a chain store is pulling cash out of the area.
2: Chain stores aggressively go after local business. Years ago, Blockbuster attempted to open a video store just up the block from Le Video. The folks in the area fought against it, since they knew that Le Video would be at risk. Chain stores can afford to move next to a local business then undercut that business on price to force a closure.
3: Chain stores have unfair advantages: a single chain store can afford to run at a loss or break even point. Chain stores can also use economies of scale to purchase product at a level much lower then the local business.
4: Chain stores often are not the cheapest option. They will advertise a few select items at a lower cost to draw in consumers. However, their other products are often sold at or above the price of the local store.
5: Local stores contribute to the uniqueness of an area. One of the things that I like about the various shopping areas of SF is that I feel like I’m in a unique place. I like walking down union street (or haight, or castro, or clement) and seeing stores that I won’t see anywhere else.
6: Local stores are more responsive to the needs of the local community. I like walking into my local bookseller and seeing books that are of local interest on prominent display. Walking into Broders and you’ll see the latest tripe from Bill O’Reilly near the front. Is there really a calmor in SF for this dreck?
I agree that keeping a WaMu out is a bit extreme (although I’d like to see a cite on that). However, I don’t think we need another starbucks in SF. As I stated above, there have been lots of studies demonstrating that – in the long run — chain stores do more harm then good for a local community. It is the duty of the BoS and the mayor to make choices that are right for the long term health of SF. When it comes to chain stores, it seems that most folks thing they are on the right path. And since this has been a part of SF politics for a generation, it appears that most folks in SF agree.
So suck it up or go work on changing the BoS.
There are plenty of mom and pop (or pop and pop) shops looking to open in the castro, but the building owners have gotten greedy. They have gotten a taste and are now holding out for chain store rents, which are too expensive for the normal small business owner.
The only way to save the castro is to limit chain stores from going in, forcing the building owners to price their retail spaces more realistically. Those that have been priced realistically have been snapped up.
After a few months of empty storefronts, the building owners will have to cede to the neighborhood and lower their asking prices, or else, do as Les Natali, and keep paying for boarded up store fronts as some sort of protest (which only incurs the neighborhood wrath).
Look no further than Bay and Columbus, where the old Tower Record store was. It is now going to be a “green” dry cleaners – a fantastic idea, which I hope does well. This is what our idiot supervisors are trying to accomplish. This time I agree with them. The last thing I want SF to become is some vapid Anytown USA. There has to be a balance and it has to be easier for small business’ to exist.
Tough question… is there a middle ground? I personally support small businesses whenever I can (all gifts from local businesses last Christmas!), but there seems to be time/place for the strategically placed chain.
What would a small/mid-sized Target do for the Mid Market area? It would bring in tons of traffic. Benefit would go to the neighborhood in numerous forms: Reduction of blighted buildings/storefronts, more people traveling to the area, economic boost to neighboring (local) businesses.
The key would be in managing the mix… allowing Target to open doesnt mean Quiznos, Walgreens, Old Navy and Home Depot need to follow.
And on the topic of managing the mix, I find it totally irritating that the BOS was cool with ANOTHER head shop opening on Haight Street (my neighborhood).
To BRCGranny,
I agree with everything you have to say. The problem is no local business appear instrested in many of these properties. If there is a local business that has a plan to move in it would be great.
Unfortunately many of these properties remain vacant month after month sometimes year after year.
It is time for SF to wake up and release it needs to learn how to say yes and win some concessions from the business that want to move into these spaces. In Chicago (where I am from) the City requires business to adopt green practices, make improvements, and other concessions prior to approval. Chicago is amazingly clean, beautiful, unique, and getting greener every day. I just returned from Vancouver and the downtown is impeccably clean, green, and has distinct neighborhoods all with their own character.
What the cities also have in common is that they have achieved this buy saying yes to new developments and plans to attract new businesses to older previously failing neighborhoods while winning concessions from those businesses.
SF needs to look to some other cities and learn from their examples because when I walk the streets of SF I see a lot of graffiti, empty store fronts, rising crime, and a seemingly endless homeless problem. SF has so much potential but so far it is falling FAR short of that potential.
BRCGranny – All that said, when I needed to use my local hardware store on Bryant to pick up some minor home improvement items, they were closed. They are only open until 6 p.m. on weekdays and I don’t usually get home until 8 p.m. On weekends they are only open for several hours on Saturday morning. Yeah – its a nice little place walking distance from my condo. But what good is that kind of place if I can never use it. Instead, I did what many other city residents do. I drove to the nearest chain store.
I don’t mind paying the premium for local character, but local businesses need to provide some basic level of service so that I can use their services.
To [slayton]
The only reason this deal was done is because it is being redeveloped and no chain would do a short term deal. They only did a 3 year deal as the owner is planning on redeveloping the site.
BRCGranny:
I would like to see some of these alleged “studies” that show that chain stores are bad. I have actually seen the opposite (for example, studies that show that Starbucks does not drive out local competition). In any case, it seems to me that local businesses that provide good products and service should be able to attract local clientele. If the people in the neighorhood decide that they prefer the chain store (I don’t believe people are as stupid/clueless as your post makes them out to be), then what is wrong with that? Maybe you consider me to be a “hyper-libertaria” (what an absurd phrase!) but I just think that adults should be able to choose where they want to shop and their choice should not be artificially limited by “hyper-socialists” (note: sarcasm) like you.
There have been plenty of national “chains” that have moved into the city and then failed and closed, so why not let the market decide? It doesn’t seem quite right to have people voting to limit the right of others or force people to drive a car out of the city to meet their shopping needs.
How about banning that nut Ammiano? After he and Daly shut down SF for business, oh will they gripe about having no tax base for their coveted public services. We’ll just have 10 million low income housing units, but no jobs! How about the old theater space on Columbus in North Beach? The chain store ban is really working there…yeah right. Let the market decide things…not two out-of-touch crackpot supervisors.
Chron writer Robert Selna didn’t quite get it right: the issue is not “vacant-store-front vs chain store.”
The issue is the KIND of chain store.
ICI Paints is a wholesaler that sells to contractors.
What neighbors want is a neighborhood-serving chain store. We’re FINE with chain stores; in fact we oppose Ammiano’s proposed ban on formula retail in the Mission.
Hey, if, say, a Fresh & Easy were to apply for a CU permit there, we’d be cheering them on! This is MUCH more fine-tuned than Mr Selna wrote.
Neighbors say:
1575 S Van Ness as a site of a commercial wholesale supplier is not appropriate.
CC Puede and other area clean-up groups are trying to make some general improvements to the CC corridor, to make it a bit more welcoming, green, more walkable etc.
It is almost all a residential area; this gets lost because the street itself is so wide. In many ways, it resembles 19th Ave, which is also very residential.
CC was widened in maybe the late 1940s, early 1950s;
Here is a photo of the street in the process of widening:
http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/sfphotos/AAB-2898.jpg
At any rate, a drive-through paint WHOLESALER leased for the next 17 years would set back the many improvement efforts underway now and planned for the future.
And for 17 years this site would be dreadfully underutilized.
ICI isn’t just a paint store, it’s the biggest paint manufacturer and wholesaler in the world.
We have nothing against ICI Paints, it is simply that a residential neighborhood is not the place for an international commercial wholesaler.
Oh and there are about 20 other places in a 1-mile radius where people can buy paint.
I agree completely about that nut Ammiano, and I said it earlier in a post. He and Chris Daly are serious roadblocks to the evolution and normal growth and change to San Francisco.
and yes, I cant WAIT til they both are out of office.
The city government needs to work on the basics of city living (like cleaner streets, better public transit, safer neighborhoods) before it tackles these complex social experiments on us. The muni service scares me a lot more than Starbucks.
It’s true that ICI does a lot of contractor business, but they also sell to the public, and as a local homeowner, I found the ICI store at Sanchez and Market (now closed after 50 years–RIP) to be a great neighborhood resource. I often ran into lots of local weekend renovators like myself in that store, and it was my go-to place for painting tips and supplies. The guys in the store said they had to move because they lost their lease, and I am really sad to see them go! Now it’s off to Home Depot for me!
Looks like the BOS overturned the Planning Commission decision to allow ICI to move in with some conditions. Thank God.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/06/BAFU10HR2T.DTL
“The issue is the KIND of chain store.
ICI Paints is a wholesaler that sells to contractors.” As another poster pointed out, this cleary has more to do with the day laborer issue in the area than chains. Neighbors need to chill out about such stuff and… oops, looks like it just got passed! HA! Looks like this is the “right” kind of chain according to the Supes after all…. in fact the more I think about it given that S. Van Ness is pretty mixed/light industrial to begin with, a paint store at that location makes a lot of sense especially since they shut the other one down.
Even Ammianno and Daly voted for ICI.
I can’t wait for the new porn studio at 1575 S Van Ness.
You reap what you sow. The Mission idiot NIMBYs learned that the hard way.
Look out San Fernando Valley — San Francisco is on top!
As for CRS’s bleat that this isn’t vacant vs. chain — yes it is. You and your ilk are keeping it empty. You can pray all you want for something that “serves” the neighborhood — but guess what, maybe ICI did.
Maybe you should look at your neighbors and change them so you can get your little cute version of Bi-rite.
My my!
The venom you spout is remarkable, “Usually Named” and “Rebarka”! Pity you don’t know what you’re going on about.
And why is it you spew this acrimony?
Is it because I pointed out that a commercial-industrial drive-through use is probably not the best fit in a residential area?
Or is it because the author, Mr Selna, painted the issue in black-and-white, when if he had understood more about the matter, he could have used a much different and more interesting palette?
And please, get your facts straight: it was the CU requester (not neighbors) who decided to extend the process by about 5 weeks (which is a really only the blink of an eye for these cases which can get dragged out for months).
Well, it’s moot now, but hey, vicious gloating really does bring out the best in you both! Oh, and “Jamie” as well; must give credit where it is due.
Take good care now, and I’m sure we’ll be exchanging more pleasantries soon.
Ta ta!
The Board of Supervisors could revitalize the Castro commercial area very quickly. They could lift the ban on new restaurants and bars in the Castro from any property that is currently vacant. I’m sure a restaurant or bar could thrive in the empty storefront at 18th and Castro.
Here you have a city with overwhelming problems of homelessness, crime, filth and urban decay, yet stopping chain stores from occupying vacant buildings seems to be a top priority.
Seriously, why don’t you leave? Don’t let the door hit you on the azz on the way out…
CRS you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, lol! You’re clearly one of the “ooo, the brownies pee in my yard set!” regarding the day laborers. I own a building two blocks away and have a house in the neighborhood as well and I don’t mind this coming in AT ALL! I can’t even believe people like you spaz so much about this especially given that there are NO PLANS WHATSOEVER for the owner to develop it as condo’s over retail as you suggest. This makes sense at the location and I can’t believe the Planning Commission voted against this on such spurious grounds as “sustainability” etc. Outside of the giant big boxes with their traffic and other impacts, I do not get what the big deal about a lot of chains are as many here have pointed out. Some are clearly not desirable, but many are just fine, employ local residents, and contribute a lot to the local community. Personally, I find both sides of this debate “free market from hell” and “Nimby’s from hell” to be a little silly. Of course the city can and should regulate landuses in the area, but to suggest that all chains are evil is dumb. There’s got to be a middle ground, no? And as a last note, why are we talking about the Castro so much? Does everyone who reads this live there? It’s not that I don’t understand what an amazing place the Castro is (I’m also gay) but the Castro represents a TINY portion of the overall retail/neighborhood commercial market in the City. We should try to look at this issue more comprehensively, not just citywide but regionally as some have suggested. Personally I don’t think SF should be overrun with Costco’s etc because that would degrade it’s character substantially and tourists (our biggest money makers at this point) come here for the character. But surely there are places, say, along the freeways/Bayshore where such uses make sense.
One more thing, why is porn such a bad thing in terms of a use? It’s not like hookers are walking up and down the street because of kink.com and they provide a bunch of jobs. Let SF become the porn capital of the country and overtake the San Fernando Valley! We get revenue, a hell of a lot of jobs (not just the “performers” tons of regular folks that keep that place afloat, key grips, admin folks, etc.), and a whole host of other benefits from a use that’s totally invisible for all practical purposes. I don’t care what goes on inside a building as long as it’s not a particularly tremendous impact on the surrounding neighborhood and especially when there is a net community benefit in terms of services (paint store, etc.) or jobs (paint store, porn factory, whatever). Get off your moral high ground, porn is big business and we would do well to capitalize on it especially as it’s one of the the few things the supes wouldn’t DARE to touch given the “liberal” tradition of this city, lol!
Rebarka passionately wrote: …”you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, lol! You’re clearly one of the “ooo, the brownies pee in my yard set!” regarding the day laborers.”
Ummm…. day laborers? Are you calling the day laborers “brownies”? That’s kind of, well not very nice of you… Anyway, I’m not writing about the men.
Read my last post again. I was writing about Selna’s take on the issue and how he wrote about it in his Chron article, and I also mentioned the CU requester who extended the process by 5 weeks.
That’s about it.
To respond to the person complaining about the lack of a WaMu in the Castro, and to bring this whole conversation full circle… the former ICI Paints building at 15th and Sanchez is currently being renovated and will be a WaMu branch when it’s completed.
Happy now? 🙂
“This site should be an 11,000sf store with 5 floors of housing above.”
Views like this will be the demise of San Francisco. At least the building will have local artwork in the form of graffiti.
Regarding the Castro, I understand the anti-chain sentiment, but I will echo what someone else said about what would people rather have: empty storefronts (for months or years on end) or a chain? Although some of the anti-chain arguments are valid, I don’t buy that landlords are “used to” or holding out for higher chain leases. Only a few locations have had chains. Are you telling me that when a local store closes (and many have recently) that the landlord is waiting for some chain to move in? I am sure most do, but how many can afford to let their stores go vacant month after month?
The reality is that SF is expensive and prospective tenants face the same challenge many people who rent apartments in the city face. I don’t buy that there are that many “pop and pop” or “mom and mom” merchants waiting to move in. They can’t afford to, and not because the landlord is waiting for some high paying chain. Real estate is simply expensive.
Hey, porn is great – job opportunities for our kids, right!
“maltamark” – that is the BIGGEST pile of bulls**t I have heard in my entire life! What buildings do you own??? Give us some addresses, I know most of the ones that Les owns, which of the rest are yours???
It’s you and other building owners like you who are SINGLE-HANDEDLY RUINING SAN FRANCISCO! Sleep on that tonight. It doesn’t take having rented to a chain to know the prices that some big businesses can and will pay. And when your neighbor gets it, you want it too, right? You are disgusting! There are countless energetic, creative, young SF residents who would bring such great new businesses to all neighborhoods, especially the Castro. The ONLY thing standing in their way is greedy bastard owners who want way more rent than anyone can afford. The ONLY thing. The ONLY thing – remember that the next time you try to sell your bullshit on SS or anywhere else. YOU are the cause. Nothing else. YOU.
Better get yourself to the nearest church, if you haven’t out-priced the Pope too.
and yes, I cant WAIT til they both are out of office.
Ammiano is going to the State Assembly. You do know that, right?
“There are countless energetic, creative, young SF residents who would bring such great new businesses to all neighborhoods, especially the Castro. The ONLY thing standing in their way is greedy bastard owners who want way more rent than anyone can afford.”
I surely don’t see them waiting in line to fill the spaces and pay fair market value for rent. Why should property owners be forced to rent below market rates which amounts to them personally subsidizing the local businesses? I agree, local businesses are great but the city should subsidize them not the property owners. Before dictating how property owners run their business people need to go back to economics 101 or buy their own building.
“fred,” i don’t any property in the City, so you’re completely off base. Your “argument” is completely emotion-based with not one concrete fact to it. Thanks, NoeValleyJim, for your point.
anon @ 3:19-
you can say “fair market value” over and over, but there is nothing “fair” about the outrageous amounts of money that owners are expecting, and that “market” you tout was a bubble inflated by speculation. A real market is one based on fundamentals like local incomes. The facts are clear – most local young people are making much closer to the city’s median ($63k), have big student loans to pay back, and have more like $1k in savings than $100k. Oh, and most don’t have a mom & dad handing out $100k down payments. That translates into REASONABLE monthly rent of maybe $1500 – $2000??? Let’s remember that businesses are not exactly seeing a rush of frivolous spending these days. Provide rents like that and creative people will make this city vibrant again.
maltamark-
glad to hear you don’t own, but if you got out there and hit that “concrete” you’d see that my facts are spot on. It’s amazing to me how people like you can live in this city and not see the irrepairable damage being done to it!