bodhipooh wrote:
what is there to be proactive about???

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Isn't the point of this to address something before it becomes a problem?

By that logic, everyone should get around on motorized scooters before their knees give out, or become a problem.

Being proactive about an issue means recognizing that the conditions that could bring about the issue to begin with are already in place, or taking form, and so you can be proactive about a problem in the making. But, lacking THAT (and, seriously, are we being overrun by chain stores? Are we seeing a dearth of small businesses opening in DTJC??) what is there to be proactive about??? If anything, we have many empty storefronts and spaces, many new businesses (mostly independent ones) and a growing population without the matching amenities.

Adonis wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
If Fulop truly cared about JC's small businesses, he would take steps to reduce the dramatic obstacles and red tape a small business owner faces when trying to open a business. And he would at least attempt to reform our woefully dysfunctional Buildings Department.

But he doesn't really care so instead we get splashy proposals he can cite to as proof that he is the best Progressive candidate for Governor to lead New Jersey forward.

Correctomundo!

Pebble wrote:
Isn't the point of this to address something before it becomes a problem?

TwoBootsJC wrote:
"One selling point of chain stores, in a city that?s losing its middle class, is that they can keep prices down. The neighborhood that first enacted a ban on chains, in 2004, Hayes Valley, has become so upscale that its own supervisor, London Breed, says she doesn?t shop there. People who live in the subsidized housing where she grew up, blocks away, ?don?t step foot? in the expensive neighborhood stores ?because they don?t feel comfortable there,? she told me."

The New Yorker on San Francisco's chain store ban. Read the rest of this really interesting piece at:
http://www.newyorker.com/business/cur ... ores-out-of-san-francisco

(Note that San Francisco's "ban" is much more permissive than the ban proposed by the mayor.)

jc_dweller wrote:
maybe he'll just let this die since he got his 15 minutes....

Anyone know when this is going to City Council?

JCMan8 wrote:
If Fulop truly cared about JC's small businesses, he would take steps to reduce the dramatic obstacles and red tape a small business owner faces when trying to open a business. And he would at least attempt to reform our woefully dysfunctional Buildings Department.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
If Fulop truly cared about JC's small businesses, he would take steps to reduce the dramatic obstacles and red tape a small business owner faces when trying to open a business. And he would at least attempt to reform our woefully dysfunctional Buildings Department.

But he doesn't really care so instead we get splashy proposals he can cite to as proof that he is the best Progressive candidate for Governor to lead New Jersey forward.

how is this proposal even progressive, it is protectionist. the government should not make it a habit of deciding winners/losers when the market is functioning properly

JCMan8 wrote:
If Fulop truly cared about JC's small businesses, he would take steps to reduce the dramatic obstacles and red tape a small business owner faces when trying to open a business. And he would at least attempt to reform our woefully dysfunctional Buildings Department.

But he doesn't really care so instead we get splashy proposals he can cite to as proof that he is the best Progressive candidate for Governor to lead New Jersey forward.

JCMan8 wrote:
If Fulop truly cared about JC's small businesses, he would take steps to reduce the dramatic obstacles and red tape a small business owner faces when trying to open a business. And he would at least attempt to reform our woefully dysfunctional Buildings Department.

But he doesn't really care so instead we get splashy proposals he can cite to as proof that he is the best Progressive candidate for Governor to lead New Jersey forward.

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:

Welcome to American capitalism buddy. Competition is what it is, and as much as it sucks sometimes, this is completely fair competition. Nothing unfair or illegal about Wal-Mart or whomever being able to outbid you on a space. So which small business in Jersey City do you own?

Rather than expecting the local government to look out for your business, why not offer a superior product or service that gives me a reason to come into your store?

Case in point: the local pharmacy near me(NOT Palace Drugs) has extremely limited hours compared to Duane Reade or any other of the large chains, but the pharmacist there is very friendly and takes the time to explain any medications I'm obtaining at his pharmacy. Duane Reade just fills my prescription and doesn't seem to care whether they get my business or not (and I still regard the people in those stores as friendly too). As limited as the local pharmacy's hours are, I make a point to try and get prescriptions filled over there, because I like the pharmacist/owner there who gives me a reason to use the store. But he can't satisfy my needs all of the time, so I head to Duane Reade, and why should the local government deny me that choice by preventing a chain store from coming into a building?

I have plenty other examples of this and would be happy to provide more. Furthermore, as discussed on another thread, the small businesses are getting much more squeezed by something else anyway - online sales. Should Jersey City prevent Amazon and other online stores from delivering to our residences as well?

City hall might win a few battles here, but they will ultimately lose the war.

I think you should read a lil Adam Smith, Friedman, Keynes, Samuelson, etc... unfettered capitalism does not always result in the optimum result, there are several occasions where government (having the power to impose regulation) is required in order to drive an optimal situation/result. The butcher doesn't sell meat because he cares if you eat, he sells meat to make money, and if allowed to, he will give you meat that is pumped full of solution at as high a price as possible. oh, you will just go to another butcher you say because the quality elsewhere is better... well, unfortunately the conditions that are required for your theory to work aren't present in a world full of significant barriers to competition (i.e. long-term leases, deep corporate bank accounts).

There has to be government involvement in EVERY economy, I get it. I don't need to read Adam Smith, Friedman, or anyone else, I remember it from high school economics that there are times when the free market fails us, i.e. natural monopolies, common pool, external costs, external benefits, etc.

This is not one of those situations.

and there is the crux of our disagreement. I think it is one of those situations because of the nature of commercial leases and corporate backing. This is beyond hs economics. You are assessing the situation as if it was one of economic profits under competition whole the nature of the situation makes it one of economic rents (under competition).

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:

Welcome to American capitalism buddy. Competition is what it is, and as much as it sucks sometimes, this is completely fair competition. Nothing unfair or illegal about Wal-Mart or whomever being able to outbid you on a space. So which small business in Jersey City do you own?

Rather than expecting the local government to look out for your business, why not offer a superior product or service that gives me a reason to come into your store?

Case in point: the local pharmacy near me(NOT Palace Drugs) has extremely limited hours compared to Duane Reade or any other of the large chains, but the pharmacist there is very friendly and takes the time to explain any medications I'm obtaining at his pharmacy. Duane Reade just fills my prescription and doesn't seem to care whether they get my business or not (and I still regard the people in those stores as friendly too). As limited as the local pharmacy's hours are, I make a point to try and get prescriptions filled over there, because I like the pharmacist/owner there who gives me a reason to use the store. But he can't satisfy my needs all of the time, so I head to Duane Reade, and why should the local government deny me that choice by preventing a chain store from coming into a building?

I have plenty other examples of this and would be happy to provide more. Furthermore, as discussed on another thread, the small businesses are getting much more squeezed by something else anyway - online sales. Should Jersey City prevent Amazon and other online stores from delivering to our residences as well?

City hall might win a few battles here, but they will ultimately lose the war.

I think you should read a lil Adam Smith, Friedman, Keynes, Samuelson, etc... unfettered capitalism does not always result in the optimum result, there are several occasions where government (having the power to impose regulation) is required in order to drive an optimal situation/result. The butcher doesn't sell meat because he cares if you eat, he sells meat to make money, and if allowed to, he will give you meat that is pumped full of solution at as high a price as possible. oh, you will just go to another butcher you say because the quality elsewhere is better... well, unfortunately the conditions that are required for your theory to work aren't present in a world full of significant barriers to competition (i.e. long-term leases, deep corporate bank accounts).

There has to be government involvement in EVERY economy, I get it. I don't need to read Adam Smith, Friedman, or anyone else, I remember it from high school economics that there are times when the free market fails us, i.e. natural monopolies, common pool, external costs, external benefits, etc.

This is not one of those situations.

bodhipooh wrote:
What's particularly disappointing is to see so many people in other online forums (NextDoor being a good example) supporting this initiative. It seems like some/most people that support this idea see it as a "pro mom & pop initiative" but fail to see or acknowledge that limiting chain stores is not necessarily that. The way I see it, those people are like the pro-lifers that try and frame the "pro choice" supporters are pro-abortion. It is disingenuous.

You can support the "pro choice" movement and still not be personally in favor of abortions. You can support "consumer choice" and still not be personally in favor of chain stores.

Plainly put, this initiative is a solution in search of a problem. I hope the council takes a minute to think this through and, hopefully, realize the blunder this will be. If they fail to act sensibly, I really wish commercial property owners affected by this will unite and take the city to court for overstepping their authority.

JCMan8 wrote:
...
Now when there are articles about him, they can say how he is a NJ pioneer in "progressive" urban planning, following in the national examples of San Francisco and Newport.

...

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
nice examination of both sides in the Times last year:

A Fight to Shackle Chain Stores in East Hampton

Nice link - but JC isn't the Hamptons.

I'll ask again. What JC problem(s) are we trying to solve?

I_heart_JC wrote:
nice examination of both sides in the Times last year:

A Fight to Shackle Chain Stores in East Hampton

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
There has to be government involvement in EVERY economy, I get it. I don't need to read Adam Smith, Friedman, or anyone else, I remember it from high school economics that there are times when the free market fails us, i.e. natural monopolies, common pool, external costs, external benefits, etc.

This is not one of those situations.

Very large retail chains and their parent companies are able to throw so much money at the problem of marketing their brands, that would-be competitors?who might indeed have been able to provide a more attractive product or service?are often profoundly unable to attain the smallest foothold. It has become a phenomenon that can hardly be called ?fair competition? in the spirit of healthy capitalism.

It's some kind of situation all right.

caj11 wrote:
There has to be government involvement in EVERY economy, I get it. I don't need to read Adam Smith, Friedman, or anyone else, I remember it from high school economics that there are times when the free market fails us, i.e. natural monopolies, common pool, external costs, external benefits, etc.

This is not one of those situations.

LimpiarElSucio wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:

Welcome to American capitalism buddy. Competition is what it is, and as much as it sucks sometimes, this is completely fair competition. Nothing unfair or illegal about Wal-Mart or whomever being able to outbid you on a space. So which small business in Jersey City do you own?

Rather than expecting the local government to look out for your business, why not offer a superior product or service that gives me a reason to come into your store?

Case in point: the local pharmacy near me(NOT Palace Drugs) has extremely limited hours compared to Duane Reade or any other of the large chains, but the pharmacist there is very friendly and takes the time to explain any medications I'm obtaining at his pharmacy. Duane Reade just fills my prescription and doesn't seem to care whether they get my business or not (and I still regard the people in those stores as friendly too). As limited as the local pharmacy's hours are, I make a point to try and get prescriptions filled over there, because I like the pharmacist/owner there who gives me a reason to use the store. But he can't satisfy my needs all of the time, so I head to Duane Reade, and why should the local government deny me that choice by preventing a chain store from coming into a building?

I have plenty other examples of this and would be happy to provide more. Furthermore, as discussed on another thread, the small businesses are getting much more squeezed by something else anyway - online sales. Should Jersey City prevent Amazon and other online stores from delivering to our residences as well?

City hall might win a few battles here, but they will ultimately lose the war.

I think you should read a lil Adam Smith, Friedman, Keynes, Samuelson, etc... unfettered capitalism does not always result in the optimum result, there are several occasions where government (having the power to impose regulation) is required in order to drive an optimal situation/result. The butcher doesn't sell meat because he cares if you eat, he sells meat to make money, and if allowed to, he will give you meat that is pumped full of solution at as high a price as possible. oh, you will just go to another butcher you say because the quality elsewhere is better... well, unfortunately the conditions that are required for your theory to work aren't present in a world full of significant barriers to competition (i.e. long-term leases, deep corporate bank accounts).