I have been secretly hoping, praying for a long time that Trader Joe's would open a location in Greensboro. I just want to have the atmosphere and the assortment of goods that its stores provide as a part of my life. A big part of my life's meaning and purpose is derived from finding and purchasing consumer goods; so having a store like this in Greensboro would be a major source of gratification for someone like me.
Just kidding.
But I cannot help but regard as silly the frenetic attempts to determine whether the store chain will locate somewhere else in Greensboro other than Friendly; or the warnings in this morning's paper that Trader Joe's might forego Greensboro completely if it cannot locate at Friendly. Somehow, I think we can get by without Trader Joe's.
Disclosure: I really have no particular dog in this fight. While the location-- just west of the Friendly/Hobbs intersection-- is within my voting precinct, I do not feel personally threatened by this particular proposal. Obviously, many who live closer to the proposed development do, in fact, oppose it. The free market conservative would ordinarily allow the project to proceed.
There are a couple of interesting things about the politics associated with the Trader Joe's proposal.
First, new city council member Nancy Hoffmann lives in Friendly West, a townhome community. Readers might recall she served as the homeowner association president at one time, and made some controversial decisions in that capacity. In any event, Friendly West sits almost directly across the street-- across Friendly Avenue-- from the proposed development. It is figuratively at Nancy Hoffmann's front porch, near a community where she once ostensibly worked on behalf of local homeowners.
How will Nancy Hoffmann vote? She is allied with the Melderec con Simkins crowd, which ordinarily sides with development interests. Will she take leadership in opposition to this proposal?
Second, there are four other council members who ostensibly represent area residents-- Robbie Perkins, Yvonne Johnson, Nancy Vaughan and Marikay Abuzuaiter. These folks made a big issue of "listening" to community residents on the matter of the landfill during the city council campaign last year. It was pretty shameless when they conflated the concept of "listening" with the expectation that council members accede to neighborhood demands. Sam Hieb correctly stated recently that we have an 8-1 liberal NIMBY city council. We learned that in part with the recent landfill debate.
Will Hoffmann, Perkins, Johnson, Vaughan and Abuzuaiter "listen" to area residents? Let's remember also how Nancy Vaughan built her vaunted reputation a decade ago by siding with community residents against developers. Of course, she is a machine politician also... but never mind.
Third, Keith Holliday recently commented that "promises" were made that no commercial retail development would creep further west than the Shops at Friendly. Let's recall we were made to feel that "promises" previously made to northeast Greensboro residents had to be kept with regard to the landfill.
Fourth, I have little doubt that community residents will use the protest petition vehicle if they learn about it. What would that mean? Only three council members would need to oppose the project in order to kill it. Again, the project is located nearly on Nancy Hoffmann's front porch; and the question is whether she and at least two other council members will "listen" to community residents.
In the meantime, we all need to find higher sources of meaning and purpose than shopping at Trader Joe's.
Somewhere, not too far a way, someone with way too much free time is doing a post about this post, characterizing you as evil, racist, misogynist (that's a fancy word for not liking women), homophobic, and a Trader Hater, for your ignorant, insensitive and intolerant opinion.
Posted by: cheripickr | January 29, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Have gotten accustomed to it, Cheri.:)
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 29, 2012 at 05:54 PM
Dude, you care way too much about what the other guys are saying.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | January 29, 2012 at 05:56 PM
I meant CP, not Joe.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | January 29, 2012 at 05:56 PM
Along those lines, you're much to old to pull off "dude".
Posted by: cheripickr | January 29, 2012 at 06:00 PM
"Somehow, I think we can get by without Trader Joe's."
I keep thinking this thing is one big joke whose significance I fail to comprehend. The reality is that these people are actually serious.
It's no different from what we're observing on the PAC, the swim center, the Greenway, and who knows what other delights they have in store for us from their Elitists Theater of the Political, Social, and Economic "Progressive-ism".
Posted by: bubba | January 29, 2012 at 06:10 PM
"Along those lines, you're much to old to pull off 'dude'."
The body may have gotten older, but is mindset's still at the level you suggest.
On the other hand, to be fair, some of the others he "hangs out with" elsewhere in the local blogosphere are dealing with the same issues.
Posted by: bubba | January 29, 2012 at 06:17 PM
CP: You have a point about my age. I'm coming in to your practice sometime soon for that thing that middle-aged people are supposed to do. Very tubular, man.
Bubba: Thanks for always having something to say to me. You're very interested in me, and I appreciate that. It's like having a (not so) secret admirer. Well, or maybe a stalker.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | January 29, 2012 at 06:28 PM
"Very tubular, man."
You're doing it wrong. "Totally tubular".
Posted by: hugh | January 29, 2012 at 07:24 PM
One of the interesting things is that the NIMBY liberals on the city council are also usually allied with development interests. But that tends to correlate with local developers or their attorneys who donate to city council campaigns.
Someone pointed out to me this evening that the developer is from out-of-town in the Trader Joe's case. There might be less political clout with the city council as a result-- unless perhaps they hire one of the local rezoning attorneys who donate to council campaigns.
But the NIMBY liberals on the council might otherwise turn down the project, and upset local liberals who desperately want Trader Joe's here. Interesting dilemma.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 29, 2012 at 07:33 PM
"It's like having a (not so) secret admirer."
I like taking on charitable projects. I like helping people improve themselves.
Posted by: bubba | January 29, 2012 at 07:33 PM
Like Joe, I don't have a dog in this fight. Very much unlike Joe, I am fairly clueless and oblivious to local politics. Like Joe again, I don't see why all the flurry of detailed interest and intrigue from the local blogging pundits about this. The only way it hit me is how Whole Foods + TJ's coming in at the same time is likely to affect our home team Fresh Market. I seriously doubt that Trader Joe's presence or absence is going to either resurrect or bury this town to irrelevance. Whatever happened to good-old sappy home-town pride, loyalty and protection of what our fair city created, rather than imported? (wiping an errant tear)
Posted by: cheripickr | January 29, 2012 at 08:18 PM
Joe:
Maybe the best avenue is a compromise: build Trader Joe’s atop a reclaimed White Street land fill. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Posted by: William Heasley | January 29, 2012 at 09:35 PM
Hilarious, Bill. Thanks--
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 29, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Good paying jobs. JT appears to provide very very good compensation to it's employees. Manager six figures, others 60grand, even part timers qualify for healthcare and other stuff.
Read in the N&R JTs don't necessarily reside in high wage earner areas. Will sometimes occupy vacant buildings. I thought of a good location, the Koury development off I-40. Tear down the vacant NASCAR restaurant, set up shop. Then there's the vacant area in front of the Four Seasons theatre. My impression, JTs can be located in hades and the loyal will, forgo the promised land, and come.
Anyway, let the citizens speak and if the Council votes counter to their wishes, then the citizens will vote their feelings about the matter come next election, or not.
The GAC community swimming hole, the proposed Performing Arts Center, and now the possibility of a Trader Joe's. Contrast that with the past Council's obsession with re-opening a garbage pit within the cities limits.
Citizens, it ain't Mayberry anymore.
Posted by: Harold Milner | January 30, 2012 at 09:36 AM
Harold, I think by this time some folks might be reconsidering the "change" they wanted back in November.
But I suspect if Nancy Hoffmann does not succeed in getting her fellow liberal council members to block this proposal, some citizens in the area likely will be highly embittered against her.
BTW, it hasn't been Mayberry for a long time. Not even close.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 30, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Brod: "CP:...I'm coming in to your practice sometime soon for that thing that middle-aged people are supposed to do".
Andrew, look forward to being placed in a room after the procedure in which you can participate in a "sound effects" contest with others up and down the hallway. Totally forget all modesty and play along.
Years later, I still laugh about that.
Posted by: Tonythewilkins | January 30, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Where is the nearest existing Trader Joe's? Never been to one. Might be interesting. Is it safe to assume that TJ's might be in a different category from Aldi?
Posted by: D | January 31, 2012 at 12:55 PM