Palisades: Safeway is closing
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Not sure how restricting a private covenant is enforceable, but that's kind of beside the point. Really Safeway is saying to the market it's one price with no grocery store, but if someone wants to "buy" the grocery business it's just going to cost more. The fact that this is business 101 and seems to be escaping everyone here and in the Palisades is amusing to me. Even without the covenant though there is little chance of a grocer here. The building and site does not support a modern grocer use at the price some condo developer is going to pay. |
Anonymous
|
If you think that's bad, try living in Chevy Chase. They oppose:
1. The Purple Line on the grounds it may affect a shrimp-sized blind spider that is not endanged and has never actually been spotted near the proposed tracks. 2. Redevelopment of a surface parking lot behind Wisconsin Avenue that they say serves as a buffer zone between Bethesda and CC -- despite there being zero plans to actually redevelop this. 3. Adding more playground equipment to the playground near Friendship Heights, on the grounds that it will be unsightly, noisy, and attract crime at night. |
Anonymous
I'm an old-school, big government liberal. I'm all for the nanny state. But these seems like an absurd and wasteful us of government power and authority. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
This bill apparently passed today: http://www.councilmembercatania.com/catania_emergency_legislation_to_preserve_grocery_store_services_in_the_district_unanimously_approved |
Anonymous
Attacking unreasonable restraints on competition is not "nanny" state unless your idea of a nanny is someone who carried a big stick up San Juan Hill. |
Anonymous
Fantastic! Thank you for posting! |
Anonymous
Safeway has a lot of valuable real estate in DC and Italy's sense to max it out. Petworth shifty Safeway was rebuilt with 250 units on top. Giant at O st is part of a 500 unit redevelopment and hotel. new giant on H and also Wisconsin are part of residential develpent. They needs more multi family housing. In all wards. It does not diminish property values. And I can assure you that trader joes will never locate in palisades. I have worked with them And they are have very specific needs and demographic targets and density. And palisades ain't it. I remember when these same Nuts fought the medical office at Sibley. Concerned the traffic would destroy palisades. Good grief. People get the neighborhood they want. Just ask the tenley folks how that's working out for them in their vibrant neighborhood! |
Anonymous
Pssssst... That's not actually the reason they oppose the Purple Line |
Anonymous
Is it really fantastic? Do you really want the government telling you what you can and can't do with the property you own? It also seems unfair to me to basically make a law to target one business. Safeway tried to develop the property. The community fought them. Now they should be expected to facilitate their competition moving into the space they wanted to develop but couldn't. Seems quite unfair to me. And I imagine that Safeway has pretty good lawyers. They will figure out a way to make sure a grocery store doesn't end up on that property. If the people in the neighborhood are holding out for a Trader Joe's or a Whole Foods, they are going to be sorely disappointed. |
Anonymous
This land is part of the community, and Safeway is divesting its interest in that property but still wants a say in it. And realistically, property owners never "own" the property, they are just renting it from the local jurisdiction (just try not paying your property taxes and see what happens). |
Anonymous
Safeway reportedly insisted on this restrictive clause when they agreed to sell their Tenley property to GDS. It's probably a nice to have for Safeway and sleeves off the vest for GDS to agree to. It's clear, after the recent change of control, that Safeway is retrenching to focus on core (large store) operations versus non-core (real estate mixed use partnerships). |
Anonymous
| The trials of the one-percent. |
Anonymous
What about the the one that Just opened in Petworth with lots of units of top of it? |
Anonymous
I don't think there's anything wrong with the new law; if Safeway doesn't want to risk competition then they can hold on to the property, close the store, and refuse to sell. That's within their rights, provided they pay the taxes and maintain the property sufficiently from falling into disrepair. But to divest and control the future development feels clearly anticompetitive to me. I agree singling out of grocery stores is particularly odd, but as far as the government telling you what you can and can't do with the property you own - first, they already do that through zoning laws (pretty sure I can't convert my house into a grocery store), and anyway, this is them telling you what you can't do with property you don't own. I don't see how these covenants are anything but clearly anti competitive positioning, and measured with something like a herschmann herfindal index I could see a powerful argument emerging that the stores have signicant power. |
Anonymous
well said. |