portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements portland metro

neighborhood news stop starbucks

Say NO to Starbucks on Division Tonight

Say NO to the Starbucks planned for the corner of 20th and Division!
Say NO to the Starbucks planned for the corner of 20th and Division! Say NO to the traffic it will send through the Ladd's Addition neighborhood! Say NO to profits leaving the community! Join us starting anytime after 5:00pm today (Friday January 30th). The original call for protest tonight was for 7:00pm, but I know several people will be starting earlier to educate their neighbors on how this Starbucks will harm their community.

Stop by and sign the petition, volunteer, or just talk to your neighbors about what you think.
unrelated question 31.Jan.2004 01:03

anon

So, I dislike Starbucks for their burnt and crap coffee, and for the way they destroy character in neighborhoods.

But what about their political leanings? Can somebody point me to a credible source that demostrates that they are evil? I've heard that they give to Israel, and to a police club around town, but I can't find anything to back up either of those claims. If it's true, I want to know!

tv news 31.Jan.2004 01:33

local yocal

channel six aired a segmant on the protest tonight; they included comments from both the starfucks spokesmodel and the concerned citizen, who accurately stated that this wasn't so much a protest against starfucks, but for communites taking control of their neighborhoods with local businesses. then channel six aired a detailed graphic showing there are over 150 starfucks in the greater portland metro area. all in all, a fairly balanced report; protest does work...the segment aired early in the broadcast and i'll bet a lot of people saw it. thank you to all who made it up there tonight

Give us a real reason to protest Starbucks 31.Jan.2004 10:13

cthulhu

Self-serving hypocrites. Yesterday's pathetic protest of a proposed Starbucks at Seven Corners serves no purpose if the protesters themselves are hypocrites. "Support Local Businesses" read one protester's sign. Meanwhile, the excellent restaurant Nourishment, just a block away, has closed due to lack of support from the neighborhood. A few months ago you guys were lambasting New Seasons Market (also moving into Seven Corners) as if they are a corporate giant (they are in fact locally owned, and significant contributors to local charities in the neighborhoods of their stores). Years ago, when Nature's (a locally owned company at the time) opened their location on Division (currently the corporate Wild Oats), misguided supporters of the Food Co-Op spray-painted "Die Corporate Pigs" on the side of the store. Years later, the Co-Op is rocking, an established, comfortable business that continues to enliven our neighborhood. Competition is a NECESSARY part of our modern economic climate.

By the way, I'm a way-Left resident of the Division St. area. It sickens me to see local activists wasting their time on garbage causes such as this, when there is so much more that deserves our attention, care, and outrage. Let Starbucks move into Seven Corners, then you won't have to drag your ass all the way downtown to protest their treatment of coffee farmers or their contribution to local landfills.

Here's your reason... 31.Jan.2004 11:56

Spudnuts

Monoculture.

That's it.

Put simply, the residents who are protesting this Starbucks have a very specific vision for their neighborhood. And it doesn't involve the same corporate clusters which blanket our increasingly homogenous nation from coast to coast. Have you visited many towns outside of Portland? Many of them look remarkably similar. Wal-mart in the center with Starbucks, McDonald's, Subway deployed in identical patterns radiating out. Cities like Portland are some of the very few who are saying they wish to remain unique. And I suspect you know this because you don't live in Barstow or Provo. It's not like the "zealots" have kept Starbucks out of the area. It's just that somewhere between the number one and the number one million, there is a point where people say "enough." There are 150 Starbucks in our area.

That seems like the "enough point" for me.

Actually, twenty would have been the enough point for me, but why quibble?

I'm fairly certain that those who need the Very Same Drink at the Very Same Coffee Shop can find a place to get it "locally." They don't really need another one on division any more than we need billboards in our city parks relating the advantages of Prilosec, Zantec, or (as James Carville says) Bullshitium.

Doesn't it seem reasonable to say "not here, please?"

Who are you to question how they choose to order their living space? I guess technically you're a "resident of the Division St. area" (whatever that means). Further, you claim to be "way left" yet you seem to expend an awful lot of energy supporting Starbucks and calling the protesters out as hypocrites. In addition, you ask the protesters to give you a reason to side with them. How about you do the footwork yourself? There are abundant links on this site and elsewhere which detail complaints against Starbucks and its business practices. Why is it the protesters' responsibility to ferret out information for you?

Do some homework. Come back. Discuss.

You attempt to saddle these protesters with a number of random pseudo-crimes and amorphous allegations relating to neighborhood markets and restaurants, but how do you know these are even the same people? These protesters are dealing with a very specific issue. If you disagree then you should address them on the merits of this issue and not make them answer for some grafitti on the side of a market or the closing of a restaurant which you ascribe to neglect, but which may be for any number of reasons.

Additionally, you seem to think it is impossible to address multiple issues at once. To walk and chew gum as it were. I'm fairly certain these people are able to protest Starbucks, follow local politics, involve themselves with their local schools, follow national and world affairs, and make their train connection out to the muddy chainlink fence-surrounded free speech zone to protest Cheney, and STILL find time to get in a round or two of frisbee golf. Shit, they might even have time to post on Indymedia.

It's called multitasking and THAT'S a necessary part of our "modern economic climate."

But finally, how are these people necessarily protesters? "Protesters" implies they're shouting and stamping about on the verge of mayhem (perhaps they are. I haven't seen any of the demonstrations first-hand). Can't these people just be moms and dads who are out walking a picket line to express an opinion? If you are even remotely left (or heck, right even) then it should be no-brainer to support the basic American right to express your opinion on the nature of your living space.

Starbucks isn't wanted in that neighborhood.

It's probably just that simple. That doesn't mean these people want Starbucks banished from the face of the earth (though perhaps some of them do) or they support vandalizing Starbucks (maybe some of them do. Who can say?) or they oppose any corporate presence at all (though again, they just might). It means they oppose THIS store in THIS location. To assume more is irresponsible.

trolls 31.Jan.2004 12:09

pdx imcista

by the way, spudnuts...
Ignore the trolls. I'd rather just take their shit down than respond to it. Don't waste your energy trying to dialogue with people who aren't actually trying to dialogue with you.
These trolls are disingenuous. Read the rhetoric. What are the odds that this person is really a "way-Left resident" of the area? How many "way-Left" folks really buy into the idea that there can be fair competition between a big corporate chain like *$ and small independent businesses? Whenever you see clear signs that someone is only writing to stir the pot, give it a rest, let us imc volunteer types nip it in the bud. Let people who really do have valid questions pose them, respectfully, and then we can have a dialogue with them.

Trolls 31.Jan.2004 13:32

Spudnuts

I understand why it is unproductive and disruptive to feed trolls. However, sometimes an opinion may seem trollish when in fact it is just ignorance or that person is really angry. Therefore, even if I suspect that a poster is trolling or disingenous if not outright lying in a post, I try not to assume their sole intent is to cause trouble. I say this as someone who has been banned from many other boards for "trolling" when in fact I was just really, really pissed off and did not take the time to craft a reasoned response. Sometimes people do that. I'm not saying one way or the other whether THIS person is legitimate (though clearly from the content of my previous post I suspect much of what he says is not). I'm saying that even trolls may bring up legitimate points and even non-trolls may occasionally appear trollish.

Best to err on the side of free speech has always been my mantra.

to spudnuts 31.Jan.2004 18:17

i was there

Thank you for your reply. My posting was only on for 15 minutes before it was cut and I was called a TROLL. Like I said I was there and I was only made an observation. My point was a point of discussion in that the argument does not always have to be on a large scale. Most of the people there were more concerned with the impact on their neighborhood than the global implications of large corporations. Arguing "Not In My Backyard" is perfectly valid. That point was shown by their use of the Plaid Pantry and the Domino's which they obviously accept in their neighborhood. And to the earlier censor, I am a resident of SE and spend a lot of time and disposable income in the area..................

Nourishment Reply to Cthulu 31.Jan.2004 18:30

One Who Knows

Nourishment didn't close because of lack of neighborhood support. There was a conflict between the owners and the manager and he owners decided to close it.

Starbucks anathema to progressive urban planning 01.Feb.2004 23:11

Antonin Dvorak

Another reason to oppose Starbucks and other big corporate chains: they are anathema to progressive urban planning. Their business model is not conducive to entertaining experimental, visionary proposals for improving urban livability, pedestrian-centric planning, and quality of life. Right now, Portland is on the cutting edge of trends such as natural building construction, grassroots, participatory neighborhood planning, and such visionary ideas as "Intersection Repair" and the Village Buildiing Convergence. These kinds of projects require a critical mass in a given neighborhood, and a consensus among local businesses and residents, to implement. They cannot go forward in neighborhoods colonized by big corporate chains.

Right now, the Seven Corners area is close to having the kind of critical mass needed to attain consensus for moving forward on these kinds of ideas. A Starbucks cannot but throw a big monkey wrench in any such vision for the area. This is a powerful argument for anyone who cares about progressive urban planning and quality of life in Portland, and even in the United States, as a whole, to be opposed to the willy nilly siting of such chain outlets in unique neighborhoods like Seven Corners.

Is there a strategy? 02.Feb.2004 08:22

Neighbor

Maybe walking around in the rain waving signs makes people feel better, but it seems rather unlikely to impact anything - unless it alerts drivers that there will be a new place to pull over soon.

Is there anything resembling a strategy to stop Starbucks? We've been asked to sign petitions and call city council, but I'd appreciate an explanation of how this will help.

If the city is not bending any rules - eg issuing variances to zoning codes - the city has no power to stop a business from opening a new location. Are there any variances or special exceptions being requested? If not, it's a complete waste of people's time to write city council.

Whoever is fomenting this little campaign has a responsibility to ensure that there is something productive happening. Channeling people's energies into futile activities is worse than uselss - it's counterproductive.

re: "unrelated question" 02.Feb.2004 09:23

what th'

"anon" asked 31.Jan.2004 01:03: "Can somebody point me to a credible source that demostrates [sic] that they [Starbucks] are evil? I've heard that they give to Israel, and to a police club around town, but I can't find anything to back up either of those claims."
Can "anon" please clarify? Are Israel and police being equated with evil?

evil? you decide 02.Feb.2004 20:58

anon

Is Israel evil? Is the police club evil? Well, that all depends on your perspective. I certainly think the way the Israeli government is treating Palestine is inappropriate. And the "police club" that Starbucks supposedly gives to consists of off-duty police officers going around taking pictures of "suspicious" types and then turning those pictures in to the police dept. I'd say that's pretty nefarious.

So, yeah, from my perspective, it would be evil for Starbucks to fund those. And well worth getting the word out about so that people can decide for themselves if they want to support such causes or not.

Clear enough?

re: "evil? you decide" 03.Feb.2004 01:33

what th'

anon replies: "Clear enough?"
Not nearly, and all too. The leap from "inappropriate" to "evil," I mean.

so I take it you don't know then 03.Feb.2004 22:30

anon

Don't be a light-weight philospher, ok? What is evil? Is it subjective? Is it real? Yes, it's subjective, and thus it's not real in the absolute sense. So stop being a wanker and accept that language is a flexible delivery vehicle for meaning.

But to the subject at hand, if the way Israel behaves towards Palestine isn't evil, then very few things are. If police spy clubs aren't evil, they're still quite far into the negative category as far as I'm concerned. And for that matter, things that are inappropriate can certainly be evil, and evil things can be inappropriate. No leap there other than the one your sophomoric ass chose to illogically assign. As I said, it's for you to decide if it's evil or not, but, quite certainly, the majority of Indymedia readers (the audience of this posting) would characterize Israel's actions as inappropriate.

Now, instead of exhibiting your asinine side, please answer if you know anything about whether Starbucks has supported the aforementioned items. I didn't think you did, so quit wasting my time, and please get a realistic perception of your intellectual limitations. And while you're at it go beat off over the jollies you get from the attention I've given you.

re: so I take it you don't know then 06.Feb.2004 14:07

what th'

Sorry, I forgot to check back in here sooner. This could be a fun dialogue. Let's go! You wrote:

> Don't be a light-weight philospher [sic], ok?

Dude, take a look at what you've written. You're blowin' in the wind.

> What is evil? Is it subjective? Is it real? Yes, it's subjective,
> and thus it's not real in the absolute sense.

Stony thotz, man. Notes from Phil 101? Fess up, you have no idea what you're talking about, do you?)

> So stop being a wanker and accept that language is a
> flexible delivery vehicle for meaning.

Your crude insult is uncalled for, but par for the indy course. Your position on language is hopelessly naive, uninformed and out of date.

> But to the subject at hand, if the way Israel behaves
> towards Palestine isn't evil, then very few things are.

This evinces the new antisemitism of the left, and is what I meant by "all too." (Gimme a riff on suicide bombers.)

> If police spy clubs aren't evil, they're still quite far into the
> negative category as far as I'm concerned.

This is hedging and backtracking.

> And for that matter, things that are inappropriate can
> certainly be evil, and evil things can be inappropriate.
> No leap there other than the one your sophomoric ass
> chose to illogically assign.

It's clear from this that you wouldn't recognize logic if it bit your cute li'l freshman bottom, and is what I meant by "not nearly."

> As I said, it's for you to decide if it's evil or not, but,
> quite certainly, the majority of Indymedia readers
> (the audience of this posting)...

I'm sure it's a vast and rapt audience (of the two of us).

> ...would characterize Israel's actions as inappropriate.

How can you be certain of this? Do you speak for the "majority of Indymedia readers?"

> Now, instead of exhibiting your asinine side, please
> answer if you know anything about whether Starbucks
> has supported the aforementioned items. I didn't think
> you did, ...

Yikes, how much time did you give me there, a nanosec? Anyways, I don't owe you any research. Originally I was wondering why such "support" would be relevant to Seven Corners, even if "true."

> ...so quit wasting my time,...

C'mon, you're obviously enjoying it!

> ...and please get a realistic perception of your intellectual
> limitations.

That's good advice for everybody, i'n'it?

> And while you're at it go beat off over the jollies you get
> from the attention I've given you.

What attention? This last stuff is just childish. Are you proud of it?

yawn 07.Feb.2004 13:48

anon

This could be fun? I was hoping for a worthy adversary and instead I get aped sapience (with largely invalid points, at that). If you wanna' debate, you'll have to present me with something that's actually a challenge to rebut. You're toast, plain and simple.

I do want to respond to one point you've written.

>Originally I was wondering why such "support" would be relevant to Seven Corners, even if "true."

Apart from entitling my query "unrelated question" (ahem), there is relevance if the campaign were in need of a slight boost. There are many reasons that people oppose things. For some of them, monoculture might not do it. But funding a police spy club? How popular could that be? If the campaign is struggling and its arguments aren't quite doing the trick, what's wrong with adding to the list of Starbucks' negatives to tip the scales? "We primarily oppose Starbucks because we feel that it would destroy the character of our neighborhood. We also think that Starbucks is a bad corporate citizen." Get it?

ditto 10.Feb.2004 12:02

what th'

Dude, see how there's nobody else in here?

I love the "worthy adversary" bit. Do you play video games or something? You obviously weren't on the debate team.

Actually we *are* getting somewhere: you've dropped the puerile stuff about body parts and orifices, and the Jew-baiting, and have admitted "the campaign is struggling and its arguments aren't quite doing the trick."

If your original comment really was "unrelated" to Seven Corners "(ahem)," then you oughta go post it in an indy forum about these "police spy clubs" you're obsessed with, and one about Israel, too.

As far as "the character of the neighborhood" is concerned, I think you're out of touch with what that may be. Ladd's Addition right across the street is affluent yuppie Starbucks-sippin' suburbia, and lots of Division's merchants have never heard of the utopian "Vision," much less bought into it.

Toke it?