Blogging Bayport Alameda

January 12, 2012

Targeting Target

Filed under: Alameda, Alameda Landing, Business, Development — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:01 am

The discussion around Target and whether or not Alameda needs a Target or should have a Target or what should be in that Target is always an interesting issue.   So to sum up the Planning Board meeting the other night — which was very well documented by Eve Pearlman over on Alameda Patch in a play by play analysis — was that while some Planning Board members wouldn’t necessarily choose Target for their shopping needs there was a realization that some Alamedans like to shop at Alameda.

And because Alamedans like to shop in Alameda, and will go off island to shop at Target, and will spend a considerable amount of their money at Target, it would probably be better to capture those purchases — which are considerable — instead of conceding these dollars to Emeryville or Albany or San Leandro.

There was one Planning Board member who was fixated on limiting the type of sales that Target could offer, specifically grocery sales.   Unsurprisingly this was Board Member Mike Henneberry who is, when not wearing his Planning Board hat, is the Communications Director for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union.   While I can appreciate his position in questioning Catellus and Target on the Urban Decay Analysis, it appeared that he wanted the Urban Decay Analysis to address issues that it simply does not cover.   For those not versed in Environmental Impact Reports, the Urban Decay Analysis is something that has to be part of an EIR to show (or not show) that a development won’t essentially shut down every other business around it.    The Board Member wanted the decay analysis to reflect the impacts on workers of surrounding businesses and how they would be affected if their hours were to be cut because of the shift from one business to the other.  This is, of course, with the assumption that Target will have a full fledged grocery inside, even though they have promised to cap non taxable sales (grocery and pharmacy) to under 10% for no more than five years.

First off, let’s talk retail sales tax leakage, according to the Urban Decay Analysis (it’s part of the Supplemental EIR and the file will take a while to load so be patient), in the General Merchandise category — which is what Target falls under — Alamedans spend off island $137.2 million in that General Merchandise category.   As a commenter pointed out, grocery stores also sell general merchandise, but it’s clear that even with the sheer volume of grocery stores that are on island, it’s not capturing that amount of off-island spending.

Oh, let me slip in the factoid that in the Urban Decay Analysis there is reference to the other larger building (Building A, 30K sq ft) as potentially housing a specialized grocery store.  30K to provide perspective is about the same size as the Safeway on Bay Farm.   Over the weekend, an Alamedan tweeted that a rep at the Layfayette Whole Foods Store noted that the company is eyeing Alameda for a potential store in the next three years which would fit in with the timeline for Alameda Landing if Target will be the first store to roll out in October 2013.

Add to that the fact that the Urban Decay Analysis actually reports that all the Alameda based grocery stores — with the exception of the Bay Farm Safeway which should be largely insulated from any ripple effects from an Alameda Landing grocery or grocery within Target — are overperforming in their relative markets.  And the Urban Decay analysis acknowledges that there might be slight shifts, but that Luckys will probably not close with the opening of Target or even the 30K sq ft grocery at Alameda Landing since the West End is grocery store poor compared to other parts of Alameda.   And honestly if the Luckys closes, it’s probably not due to the opening of Target but because it’s a pretty crappy experience for the shopper in general.   Since it’s our only close grocery store, we’re forced to shop there, especially in emergency situations.   Did I mention the weird way that the floor slopes down as you are heading to the back of the store?   There is apparently no rush to fix that because shoppers LOVE it when their cart drifts away from them while they are perusing the aisles.

As an aside, while I’m not going to protest against grocery in Target, personally Target should slowly back away from the grocery market in general unless they are going to do it a whole lot better, because honestly, they pretty much stink at it right now with the exception of pantry items, because those have a pretty long shelf-life, like general merchandise.    Try to get anything fresher and it’s really a crap shoot as to whether you are going to get something that has been handled correctly or stored properly.   As long as Target continues to suck at fresh grocery, traditional grocers really have nothing to be concerned about.   And anyone who actually thinks that Target’s grocery is any threat to traditional grocery stores hasn’t done much shopping in a Target grocery area lately.

Anyway, SuperTarget/SuperCenter or not — the Target rep on Monday night stated that Target does not build their definition of a “SuperTarget” which includes a butcher, bakery, or deli in Northern California in general.   So while the “industry” may have defined “SuperCenters” as one thing or another, when defining what sort of store Target wants to bring to Alameda it’s probably best to use their definition so we’re all discussing the same store.



  1. I can understand Henneberry trying to protect union jobs, but trying to leverage the UDA in a way it’s not designed to is a stretch and I hope most people see that. If anything, I would think that more competition on the West End would prompt Lucky’s parent company to improve their store. I agree the experience there leaves a lot to be desired and the recent snafu with their compromised self-checkout card readers did not help.

    Comment by barron — January 12, 2012 @ 8:29 am

  2. Lauren, this Super center business reminds me that when I am forced to get coffee at Starbucks I refuse to use their system for sizes because it is so stupid.

    Comment by M.I. — January 12, 2012 @ 8:43 am

  3. I haven’t purchased anything at Target in years. I did visit the one in Albany last year. It was a two floor layout where you could actually take a shopping cart up the escalator. I did notice a limited amount of food items but certainly not a full scale Grocery. I think that a lot of the folk who would use Target would be people with yougn families and the ability to pick up a few grocery items while hauling kids arounds as opposed to making a second stop would be a definite plus.

    The Bay Area in general has rejected the Superstore concept. We did briefly have a Super-K over Fruitvale Bridge in what is now the Home Depot. In our area the Walmarts sell a limited amount of food items but you need to go to the Cental Valley to see a Super- Center Walmark.. I think that Walmart attempted several Super-Centers in the Bay Area and all had been rejected by the local communities. I think the cost of fighting litagation and delay in building them they pretty much gave up.

    NAFTA opened the door for sending good jobs overseas but Walmart perfected it to an artform. Companies that tried to keep thier factories open in the US were forced to move due to the efforts of Walmart.

    Target is probadly a far second. I remember years ago before Target became branded within CA the stores which were owned by Dayton Hudson Corp were Union. But that is going way back and I can’t even remember the name of the store.

    Comment by frank — January 12, 2012 @ 9:03 am

  4. I’m sure the CVS and the Lucky’s will disappear at Marina Village…..With the opening of Target. What will it do to Marina Village after that is anyones guess.

    I know the Sales are Sluggish at both the Harbor Bay Safeway and the CVS there also..

    Opening the Target might be Grand Slam.

    Comment by John — January 12, 2012 @ 9:19 am

  5. John: That’s not what the Urban Decay Analysis says, which, as I pointed out above says that the Luckys is over-performing according to market norms as is all Alameda large scale grocery stores except the Bay Farm one. People who live in Bay Farm aren’t going to trek to Target for groceries, so the sales there should stay flat.

    Comment by Lauren Do — January 12, 2012 @ 9:23 am

  6. Talk to a District Manager or Regional from Lucky’s and see if you get that same opinion Lauren. Little do I know about Retail …..How many Grocery Stores just concentrate their sales on Grocery Items ……Alot of the Money made by a grocer is in Taxable Items that will be carried by Target.

    Comment by John — January 12, 2012 @ 9:34 am

  7. Ask the Lucky people how opening a 140,000 square foot Target within a few blocks will effect its sales.

    Comment by John — January 12, 2012 @ 9:41 am

  8. Affecting sales is different than store closure. That’s why I wrote about PB Member Henneberry’s argument as opposed to what the Urban Decay Analysis covered. Henneberry wanted to talk about the effects of reduction of sales, but that is much different than urban decay. I’m sure Safeway would prefer that Trader Joe’s wasn’t next door or that Nob Hill hadn’t opened up down the street. No one wants competition, but that’s business, right?

    Comment by Lauren Do — January 12, 2012 @ 9:56 am

  9. Here is a link to Fresh Grocery at Target

    Limited item not a Superstore The Oakland Emmeryville and Albany stores all have “Fresh Grocery”

    Comment by frank — January 12, 2012 @ 10:00 am

  10. Competition from Non Union Retailers Opening up

    Raley’s to Close 2 More Stores: Report
    Jan. 11, 2012 5:52pm

    “Since they’re non-union, they can sell at a lower price, and with our operating costs, we have a situation where we have to lower costs to be able to compete,” a Raley’s spokesman was quoted as saying.

    Target is not Exactly Lighting the Toteboards Either

    Supervalu Takes $907M Charge
    Jan. 11, 2012 9:27am

    MINNEAPOLIS — Supervalu here on Wednesday said it has taken a pre-tax charge of $907 million for the write-down of goodwill and intangible asset impairment in the fiscal third quarter, leading the company to post a loss of $750 million for the period.

    .When adjusted for the non-cash charges, which totaled $800 million after taxes, the company said its earnings would have been $50 million for the 12-week period, which ended Dec. 3. Sales totaled $8.3 billion, down about 4% compared with a year ago.

    Retail food sales were down about 4.5%, to $6.3 billion, for the quarter, and identical-store sales fell 2.9%. The wholesaling division saw sales declines of 5.4% for the quarter, to $2 billion, which the company attributed primarily to Target Corp.’s transition to self-distribution and the company’s sale of its Total Logistic Control division.

    Comment by John — January 12, 2012 @ 10:16 am

  11. open Target, close Luckys and turn it into a big Whole Foods store. As for CVS no comment.

    Comment by John P. — January 12, 2012 @ 10:17 am

  12. When I was a kid Grocery Stores sold groceries and Drug Stores were Pharmacies. In PA we still have State Stores which exclusively sell Liquor although some retail stores sell beer. We also had ‘Blue Laws’ which still exist in many States to this day.

    Groceries and Pharmacies have expanded into Superstores. The South Shore Safeway is one example. They have expanded into more and more ‘taxable goods’ which have in turn had an impact on other types of stores that once exclusively sold these goods..

    There is certainly a potential conflict of interest with Henneberry vote on the Planning Board. I’m not a lawyer and I have no idea what his intentions are.

    The City Attorney may want to weigh in on this and a reclusal on his part MIGHT be in order.

    Comment by frank — January 12, 2012 @ 10:22 am

  13. Urban Decay is Results of Declining Sales which leads to Stores Closing . If we don’t give a Flying F about Marina Village and Harbor Bay …….Tarjayyyyyyy Away.

    Comment by John — January 12, 2012 @ 10:27 am

  14. Well “if wises were fishes” mine would be

    somebody move into the empty Borders at South Shore


    a 99 Ranch Market

    Comment by frank — January 12, 2012 @ 10:34 am

  15. frank: I think you may have a point with regard to a potential conflict of interest. Of course for Alameda Landing, had the vote actually gone in favor of the first motion, to cap non taxable grocery at 0%, I think Catellus and Target would have a serious bone to pick with the City based on the Planning Board vote, particularly because Alameda Landing is not bound by the big-box ordinance passed by the City and the eventual motion was something that Target had agreed to in “good faith”. This issue may become problematic if a big box store comes before the Planning Board for non-exempt areas, like Alameda Point.

    If Luckys converted to a 99 Ranch I would be the happiest person ever.

    Comment by Lauren Do — January 12, 2012 @ 10:39 am

  16. Marina Village has a captive audience and they know it, so they have no incentive to do better. Bringing in Target won’t do much, but the combo should be enough to cause Lucky’s and friends to do things to attract customers. Personally I wish we could attract Berkeley Bowl. I like the management focus better.

    Whatever combo comes isn’t going to drastically hurt anyone. East of Grand is well served by Nob Hill, Ala. Natural Grocery, Encinal, Chestnut, etc., We aren’t going to by-pass our stores to grocery shop down at the landing after the first month. West of Grand has lots of people who could easily support Marina Village and Alameda Landing without help. If we don’t count South Shore, that’s at least 4 grocery stores east to 1(2? Not sure who has butcher) west.

    Comment by Li_ — January 12, 2012 @ 10:50 am

  17. The size of our Target (140,000 sq ft) will be the size of Kohl’s, Ross, and Borders at South Shore combined. I don’t know about you — but that’s seems pretty “super” to me. But the industry definition that Mike H. was responding to, has more to do with the combination of grocery and general merchandise.

    I know several people that are excited about getting a Target on the Island, so it’s a good thing we’re getting Target. But I would have preferred a smaller format store – somewhere around 85,000 to 90,000 sq ft. so we protect our other retail centers. With so many empty stores at South Shore and the Marina Village retail center so close, the Planning Board was right to be concerned about protecting our other retail districts and asking for a 10% cap on groceries. I would love to see it become permanent like the City of Livermore. I also wanted to see a more urban style format rather than the gigantic box that was approved, and a parking garage rather than the sea of parking that we’re getting. And I also think we missed out on a great opportunity to design a more water oriented retail center. I only hope the $300K per year in sales tax dollars that we’re projected to get from Target is worth all that we’re giving up.

    Lastly, regarding the Urban Decay study, I’m not done reading it – but I’m curious who paid for the study? It’s important to have an independent study and not a study paid for by Target.

    Comment by Karen Bey — January 12, 2012 @ 10:56 am

  18. EIRs and supporting documents (including the urban decay analysis) are commissioned by the City, but paid for by the developer, so in this case, Catellus.

    Comment by Lauren Do — January 12, 2012 @ 11:18 am

  19. Paid for by Catellus? I’m not sure this is very independent.

    Comment by Karen Bey — January 12, 2012 @ 11:30 am

  20. The 300,000 Extra in Sales Tax Revenue we will generate from the Target won’t even cover the Salary, Pension and Benfits for the new Fire Chief. But it’s a start on what we are willing to Risk to make sure our Employees are paid well.

    I’m sure Catellus has no Vested interest in the Urban Decay Analysis.

    Comment by John — January 12, 2012 @ 11:36 am

  21. I wonder what the loss in Sales Tax Revenue to the Other Stores will be?

    Comment by John — January 12, 2012 @ 11:39 am

  22. Karen B: I know you have some familiarity in the world of development, can you point to examples where the developer has not paid for the EIR process? I thought that was industry standard.

    Comment by Lauren Do — January 12, 2012 @ 11:48 am

  23. Lauren, you’re correct but this often creates problems down the road when studies like this one are challenged. It’s not uncommon to see separate studies done and paid for by someone other than the developer.

    Comment by Karen Bey — January 12, 2012 @ 12:15 pm

  24. 23. where is conflict if the developer pays and the City chooses who does the study? The City shouldn’t pay. In Alameda the war cry is that the City or City council are in the “pocket of the developer” which leads people to want to assert that any study will be done by company of developer’s choice, but the dots rarely get connected on these accusations.

    Comment by M.I. — January 12, 2012 @ 5:08 pm

  25. Karen: The Urban Decay study cites data to reach its conclusions, the only challenging that I have read about has used only anecdotal evidence and conjecture to reach a pre-disposed conclusion. If you have any data that shows that the main findings in the Urban Decay Study are unsound, such as the fact that Alameda grocery stores — with the exception of Bay Farm’s Safeway — are overperforming and can probably absorb any sales shifts to Target and the proposed/possible 30 K sq ft grocery at Alameda Landing.

    Comment by Lauren Do — January 12, 2012 @ 5:16 pm

  26. Mark, the Sierra Club is one organization that often challenges the findings of an EIR Report. They are currently challenging San Francisco’s America’s Cup EIR along with dozens of other organizations asking for an “expanded analysis” of the findings. Not saying I agree — just saying it happens.

    Comment by Karen Bey — January 12, 2012 @ 5:26 pm

  27. 24 25 26

    I think the Recent Appraisal on the Mif Golf Course and the Land Swap is perfect recent example of why you don’t Trust one Report and especially one done by and for a Developer.

    Comment by John — January 12, 2012 @ 7:05 pm

  28. 27. I think an appraisal is especially sensitive and on a big land transaction getting a couple ( or a few) should be a requirement. Getting an impact study is something more common in city development and the consultants are fairly well known which makes it a little easier to get somebody which we can trust is not going to skew things directly for the development interest. On the other hand, to a degree these people are hired to get answers expected of them and if they stray too far they won’t get the next gig. I thought the retail study for Park street seemed pretty good. That consultant was firm that while movie theaters are generally an asset, they are not essential as are restaurants and I think the growth on Park substantiates that as accurate.

    A consultant once told me that consultants are somebody you pay to look at your watch for you to tell you what time it is. I think it is common sense to think that Target will have most negative effect on Marina Village shopping center, but I think it takes somebody with specific research to quantify the degree. I’m not that comfortable with Target for a number of reasons, but on retail impact I’m willing to go with UDA even though John is “sure CVS and Lucky’s will disappear”.

    Comment by M.I. — January 12, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

  29. Lucky is owned by SaveMart now.

    I know they just announced on January 5th they are Closing a Store in Monterey citing “lower-cost, non-union retailers in the area” affected the store. “Unfortunately, the failing economy and the competition from other retailers have kept this store from performing at the level required to sustain it,” Save Mart said in a statement.

    I think it’s alot more Serious Issue than the Consultants Report discloses regarding how it will effect Lucky’s.

    Comment by John — January 12, 2012 @ 8:23 pm

  30. Lucky’s has a very friendly staff, but it’s dirty, the shopping carts are gross, the lines are often long, and the produce selection is poor. We on the West End don’t get the benefits of competition. If competition from Target will get them to improve, let’s get it here fast.

    Comment by Catherine — January 12, 2012 @ 9:27 pm

  31. 28

    ” but on retail impact I’m willing to go with UDA even though John is “sure CVS and Lucky’s will disappear”.”

    I hope I am Wrong and will be the First to admit it. But worth asking a few questions before drinking the UDA Koolaid.

    Comment by John — January 12, 2012 @ 10:33 pm

  32. On the topic of the EIR- I wonder if the author of it (on behalf of the developer) has ever NOT recommended including a grocery and or pharmacy for such a project. I find it interesting that the numbers regarding market performance of our existing grocery stores as they are right now were not included. Even with the community and the boards asking for them, I doubt that the author would provide the information.

    I agree with Lauren’s comments about Target backing away from groceries. I have seen them in action in other communities and I for one wouldn’t buy anything food related from them.

    I have grown up and seen alot of change in Alameda. As I mentioned at the planning board meeting, I have seen 3 different grocery stores near the Fruitvale Bridge, Lucky’s and Safeway both at South Shore (in various locations). I also have shopped in the small markets like Encinal and Chestnut/Encinal. With the wide variety of choices already available, an addition of the long shelf life items offered by most of these Target style groceries is in my opinion, not what Alameda needs. And, the working families of grocery workers who live here in our community shouldn’t suffer for it.

    With right around 250 working families of grocery workers that are part of our community, the concerns over the impacts to our existing grocery stores are valid. These are families who work and live here in Alameda. They are your Clerks, Baggers, and Produce people in the grocery store you currently shop at. Making around $30 dollars an hour affords them the ability to live in and support our community. What happens in a few years when an outfit likeTarget expands their grocery department above the 10%, while paying their workers around $10 an hour? It likely won’t be people who live in Alameda working those jobs. They can’t afford it. It will likely see the degradation of our existing grocery stores, a loss of jobs that provide a living wage, and ultimately water down our community as we lose contributing members of it who no longer will be able to afford to live here.

    What we do need is the retail. For a host of reasons.No offense to Big 5, but since Alameda Sporting Goods left Park St, our choices have been quite limited. You can no longer buy a new car from a dealer here in town. From sales tax revenue, to the sheer fact that buying a TV or a bed on this Island has been nearly impossible for at least 39 years. Right now, the only place to buy a mattress is on it’s way out. Alameda needs more retail to capture the sales tax revenue from these types of items, while providing our citizens with local access to the goods and services we all use.

    And while we are at it, can we please get a ‘Wahoos Fish Taco” restraunt included in one of these new or existing developments we have going? 😉

    Comment by Dom Weaver — January 13, 2012 @ 9:27 am

  33. The ship has already sailed on Target in Alameda. No matter how large it is of what percentage of the store is dedicated to groceries, many of us who shop at Target in Emeryville will continue to shop there. The reason why we continue to spend our money off island is service and respect for our dollars. I used to shop at Safeway on Bay Farm for years before I saw a change in their customer service. I won’t go into details about the poor customer service, but I noticed this at several other establishment on-island. I decided to try a Safeway in Oakland and I am hooked. The customer service at the Oakland Safeway is 100% better than the service at Bay Farm. This inspired me to do more and more of my shopping in Oakland, Emeryville, Albany, Hayward, and San Leandro. I love love love the Target in Emeryville and the surrounding Best Buy, Toys R Us, Home Depot, Radio Shack, Michael’s, Emeryville Grille, Pet store, etc. Yes, the drive is longer to Oakland and Emeryville, but it is worth it for the good customer service. Something as simple as the meat department remembering my regular order or the cashier telling me about her retirement at the checkout or the cashier remembering the name of my kid. That is service. I realized that after five years of shipping off island, the only dollar I spent here was at the local Quiznos on the way home. I then moved all of my business meetings off island because I learned about some great places to eat in Downtown Oakland and in SF with a quick Ferry ride.

    My point is Alameda had a chance to build a Target a few years ago, but lost a golden opportunity. Now that many of us are comfortable with the drive to Emeryville (and now the new Target in San Francisco near the Metreon), we won’t be coming back.

    Like Julia Roberts said in Pretty Woman, “Big Mistake, Huge Mistake!”

    Comment by Being — January 13, 2012 @ 10:33 am

  34. I hope this is not too off-topic (it is related to the EIR). Hopefully, some research has been done into to the truck route that will be used to service the new center. I am generally for the new center and think that it can be well and tastefully done. The need for capturing Alameda sales tax rev. is undeniable. Selfishly (but understandably so), I am glad it won’t be located at South Shore. That is because my street, Broadway, is poorly controlled in terms of speed. This is a problem because Broadway is a, if not the, principal truck route for from 880 to South Shore (that’s why we don’t put automobile/truck dependent shopping centers in the middle of residential sections anymore) and the roadway is not well maintained. Speed, by itself and especially in combination with very uneven pavement, plus trucks equals much noise and shaking, measurable — at the distances of the houses from the roadway – on the Richter scale. True, not all of the problems are caused by trucks or trucks servicing South Shore. In fact, the big rig US Mail trucks which run at all hours — seemingly at the highest speeds possible and limited only by the speed of the vehicle in front of them — are probably the worst. (If you find yourselves on Broadway, pretty pretty please go 25mph – you won’t get down Broadway much faster by speeding, you keep traffic behind you in check and you opportunity to speed on the freeway awaits you only a few blocks over the bridge if you can just hold out a bit longer). Were this problem on Broadway under control (most importantly, by bringing traffic down to the posted 25 mph limit – which can be accomplished) I wouldn’t be so selfish. Because it is not, I have a hard time favoring things which would increase the after-hours truck traffic on Broadway (believe me folks, it has enough already) and prefer that it go to Alameda Landing. I also hope for the sake of residents along the routes to Alameda Landing that the above concerns have been addressed adequately. I understand that we live in an urban setting. I get and can live with the BART, airport, train, siren and other noise others in Alameda have. I also understand the idea that the price of progress includes more traffic and big rigs. That price shouldn’t be paid – and does not have to be paid to the same degree where proper and real mitigation is in place – entirely by the center’s neighbors.

    Comment by Cross C. — January 13, 2012 @ 11:00 am

  35. 33.Being, so you’re the customer that stands in the check out line bullshitting with the cashier while everybody behind you thinks mayhem thoughts?

    Comment by Jack Richard — January 13, 2012 @ 8:29 pm

  36. While I tend to agree with his views on the importance of protecting the incomes of working people and the importance of unions and other worker protections, I think Mike Henneberry has gone a bit too far beyond his responsibilities as a Planning Board member in opposing the Target store and groceries being sold there. (Many of his statements would be more appropriately made by someone offering public comment, IMHO.)

    Having said that, I opposed the Target being located at South Shore for many of the reasons Cross C. mentions–SSC was never a good location for a superstore of any sort from a traffic standpoint. But I am glad to see this step towards strengthening the retail offerings in Alameda in order to reduce our “retail leakage.” The Alameda Landing location is far better for managing the traffic congestion issues that shopping centers and development may bring.

    I recently spoke to the District Manager of CVS about insufficient staffing levels at the Marina Village store and was heartened by his response. He told me that CVS is beginning to realize the need to increase staffing levels at its northern CA stores. The arrival of Target will probably offer additional impetus to what CVS is currently looking at, which will provide additional staffing levels (and improved service) at the MV CVS.

    Competition in retail can be a good thing–IF the managers who actually control the budgets understand what is important for retaining customers. In the case of CVS and Lucky, I hope that the bean counters at the corporate level are smart enough to realize that improving the service and attractiveness of their stores is key to customer retention when a big box store is just minutes away.

    Other Alameda retailers–including some personal and island favorites that have cut their staffing levels significantly–need to remember that excellent service is the only way they can compete successfully against big box corporate stores where prices will always be lower….

    Comment by Jon Spangler — July 16, 2012 @ 1:14 pm

  37. I stand by all the comments I made regarding Target and other prospective retailers at Alameda Landing. I find it puzzling that perspectives of the Chamber of Commerce, professional organizations and others are routinely espoused by planning board members but when working people’s issues come up it’s a cause for alarm. What’s good for Alameda and its working families are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are the same. What hurts working people, bad jobs no health care, in the long run hurts Alameda and I will happily fight to keep that from happening.

    Comment by Mike Henneberry — July 16, 2012 @ 2:43 pm

  38. I watched the Planning Board recently say no to a CVS plan to create a mall type store on Park Street. The Planning Board is committed to a vision for Park Street which is nice to see.

    Likewise, some of us have a vision for Alameda Landing —- and we’re just as committed. Thanks Mike H. for yours!

    Comment by Karen Bey — July 16, 2012 @ 4:40 pm

  39. 37

    Don’t you care about the working people who have to buy overpriced groceries at union stores? What about the working people who pay the firemen’s 200k pensions but have none of their own? Or just the working people who pay you to steal from other working people?

    Comment by Jack Schultz — July 16, 2012 @ 5:32 pm

  40. Jack, let’s just turn all of our wonderful neighborhood grocery stores into disccount stores so we can solve the firemen’s pension issues. Smart idea!

    Comment by Karen Bey — July 16, 2012 @ 5:46 pm

  41. Better idea, de-unionize public employees.

    Comment by Jack Richard — July 16, 2012 @ 6:25 pm

  42. The best thing so far about the Alameda Landing Target was the delicious free lunch provided by multiple OffTheGrid food trucks at the groundbreaking! Great opportunity to try street food! Thanks, Catellus!

    Comment by vigi — July 18, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at