Before AA signed their lease at least three (fact) and possibly more local businesses attempted to rent that location to open 1) a bookstore/gallery, 2) a clothing boutique and 3) a restaurant. All were denied because the landlord wanted to charge American Apparel 300% more per square foot than the average going rate for retail space on the Valencia Corridor.

The issue isn’t AA and what it does or doesn’t stand for. The issue is do you want to NOT be able to live in the Mission, just like You can’t afford to live in SOHO, The Marias, an Chelsea in London. Because not only did the retail rents skyrocket overnight in those places with the onslaught of chain stores, but the residential rents as well.

There are a number of chain stores waiting on the wings to jump into that area. They have been waiting for years. This isn’t the Haight or the Castro. The Mission is set up by the fact that it is so large and there are so many large land footprints of either existing retail space or vacant lots – to be something on par with say, Soho.

If that ball gets rolling we will all be displaced within 10 years and when we are living in Bayview we can fondly remember the days when we could afford to live, shop, eat or drink in the Mission.

Thanks for stopping by.

The American Apparel issue is complex. It’s easy to simplify things into black and white categories, but it’s really more gray. My personal opinion is that it will help the neighborhood. The Valencia street businesses that are coming together should devote their energy into making the neighborhood an affordable place for all people and businesses. That way the little Mexican business that you mention doesn’t get evicted.

The post was not a discussion of WHY people want to consume. If it was up to me, everyone would be self-sufficient, off the grid and growing our own food. That’s what I strive towards, but it’s not a solution everyone wants to attain. If American Apparel is so hated, people shouldn’t shop there. I don’t. I don’t care that the guy might be sleazy. I’m not swayed by the fact that the clothes are made in the US by people with benefits. I prefer clothing that isn’t new. When I do buy new clothes, I prefer to support artists and local businesses.

As far as living in poverty: For six months, I got my clothes out of a dumpster and earned a sizable portion of my income solely from bottle deposits and collecting cans–and it wasn’t by choice. I’m not being self-righteous, but maybe it will help you to realize that you don’t know me or my experiences You’ve assumed that because I believe one thing I must be one way. It’s not so simple, my friend. Life is more gray than black or white.

Now, if you’d like to come up with some ideas or share thoughts that will progressively move the conversation, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, don’t just sling insults and call it an opinion.

Because Burger King @ Mission & Valencia isn’t a chain either. Oh sorry- that’s not the same Valencia you’re talking about.

Love your coffee, but Ritual doesn’t quite ‘represent’ the Mission…

Because T-Mobile @ 17th & Valencia isn’t a chain, right, Eileen?

In 2006, 80% of the Mission voted yes on Proposition G, known as the Small Business Protection Act. This proposition was placed on the ballot by several progressive supervisors. This act “allows residents to voice their concerns at a Planning Commission hearing and helps ensure the survival of local small businesses by preventing monopolization.”

As the proponents said “the community can use the conditional use process to address the traffic and other impacts that may be caused by the chain store. This process shifts the responsibility onto chain stores to collaborate with communities and demonstrate that proposed chain stores fit the needs and wants of a particular community. San Franciscans have the opportunity to provide their input before these chains homogenize our neighborhoods and push out the City’s small businesses.”

The San Francisco Republican Party, the San Francisco Association of Realtors and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce were the Opponents to this measure.

If it wasn’t for this proposition, American Apparel or any other formula retail store would have sneaked in.. and one day, hey! there is an American Apparel (or you name it) on Valencia and on Mission!

I encourage everybody to go to the hearing.

Also, I think the Mission Economic Development Agency is not in favor of formula retail stores in the Mission. They help latino business owners, who often get screwed by landlords and their lawyers.

Just because 80% of the population vote on something doesn’t always make it “progressive” or “right”. You say supporters are “against progress” and I ask you, does progress look like vacant store fronts and super-high rent? Not for me.

Like I said in my post, I don’t like American Apparel. Never have. What I do support is less government control. I also am a strong believer in the power of the dollar. If people really don’t want a major chain, then don’t shop there. You will put them out of business.

I understand the anti-AA folks want to hold on to something special. Instead of preventing growth in the neighborhood, however, they should invest in the community and make an effort to make it special for everyone. That way, special means a welcoming, unique place for everyone and not just a neighborhood where working families can’t afford to live, eat or shop.

BTW, I do spend my time and energy on things that I care about. I volunteer for several organizations, including one to help poor children get the education they deserve and another to help feed people in need.

It’s not my job to disagree, it’s my right and that’s part of a democracy. With that in mind, Will, I’d love to hear the reasons why you are so passionate about stopping American Apparel.

Exactly! I can understand zoning laws to some degree, but when you have vacant storefronts, why? Let the consumers decide. Plus, there are so many other social issues that this energy could be channeled into solving.