Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason they are leaving is because a bunch of jealous, geriatric ninnies were blocking Safeway from making logical redevelopment plans. Beating garbage cans, putting signs in yards. Totally sucks we will not have a grocery store now.

It's always the same bunch ranting + the bunch of imbecilic corpses on the ANC = no grocery store for the normal, busy families who have no time for this kind of stupidity.

I hope people remember this next time they want to interfere in the affairs of a private business.

I'm sorry you are a relatively lower income renter. We old people kinda hold the cards for the moment, and the property. Not to worry, some day you too will get older and you might at that point own an expensive house that you don't want to see diminished in value.

well said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Mary Cheh and David Catania to the rescue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2014/10/06/safeways-palisades-plans-at-issue-in-tuesday-d-c-council-vote/

They are introducing a bill on Tuesday to prohibit covenants forbidding grocery stores.

This is great, I hope it passes. Screw Safeway.

Yes, PLEASE let it pass. What a shitty thing to do to a neighborhood. Why in the hell these are legal to begin with - creating restrictions on whomever buys the property from you - is incomprehensible.

This bill apparently passed today:

http://www.councilmembercatania.com/catania_emergency_legislation_to_preserve_grocery_store_services_in_the_district_unanimously_approved

Fantastic! Thank you for posting!

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Mary Cheh and David Catania to the rescue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2014/10/06/safeways-palisades-plans-at-issue-in-tuesday-d-c-council-vote/

They are introducing a bill on Tuesday to prohibit covenants forbidding grocery stores.

This is great, I hope it passes. Screw Safeway.

Yes, PLEASE let it pass. What a shitty thing to do to a neighborhood. Why in the hell these are legal to begin with - creating restrictions on whomever buys the property from you - is incomprehensible.

This bill apparently passed today:

http://www.councilmembercatania.com/catania_emergency_legislation_to_preserve_grocery_store_services_in_the_district_unanimously_approved

Fantastic! Thank you for posting!

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.

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).

What about the the one that Just opened in Petworth with lots of units of top of it?

The trials of the one-percent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Mary Cheh and David Catania to the rescue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2014/10/06/safeways-palisades-plans-at-issue-in-tuesday-d-c-council-vote/

They are introducing a bill on Tuesday to prohibit covenants forbidding grocery stores.

This is great, I hope it passes. Screw Safeway.

Yes, PLEASE let it pass. What a shitty thing to do to a neighborhood. Why in the hell these are legal to begin with - creating restrictions on whomever buys the property from you - is incomprehensible.

This bill apparently passed today:

http://www.councilmembercatania.com/catania_emergency_legislation_to_preserve_grocery_store_services_in_the_district_unanimously_approved

Fantastic! Thank you for posting!

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Mary Cheh and David Catania to the rescue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2014/10/06/safeways-palisades-plans-at-issue-in-tuesday-d-c-council-vote/

They are introducing a bill on Tuesday to prohibit covenants forbidding grocery stores.

This is great, I hope it passes. Screw Safeway.

Yes, PLEASE let it pass. What a shitty thing to do to a neighborhood. Why in the hell these are legal to begin with - creating restrictions on whomever buys the property from you - is incomprehensible.

This bill apparently passed today:

http://www.councilmembercatania.com/catania_emergency_legislation_to_preserve_grocery_store_services_in_the_district_unanimously_approved

Fantastic! Thank you for posting!

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.

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 wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Mary Cheh and David Catania to the rescue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2014/10/06/safeways-palisades-plans-at-issue-in-tuesday-d-c-council-vote/

They are introducing a bill on Tuesday to prohibit covenants forbidding grocery stores.

This is great, I hope it passes. Screw Safeway.

Yes, PLEASE let it pass. What a shitty thing to do to a neighborhood. Why in the hell these are legal to begin with - creating restrictions on whomever buys the property from you - is incomprehensible.

This bill apparently passed today:

http://www.councilmembercatania.com/catania_emergency_legislation_to_preserve_grocery_store_services_in_the_district_unanimously_approved

Fantastic! Thank you for posting!

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.

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.

Pssssst... That's not actually the reason they oppose the Purple Line

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is sad. And the NIMBYs in Palisades are getting exactly what they deserve.

Why do you say that when Safeway has been acquired and its new strategy seems to be to close and consolidate smaller stores into large box stroes designed to serve a wider geographical area?

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!

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Mary Cheh and David Catania to the rescue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2014/10/06/safeways-palisades-plans-at-issue-in-tuesday-d-c-council-vote/

They are introducing a bill on Tuesday to prohibit covenants forbidding grocery stores.

This is great, I hope it passes. Screw Safeway.

Yes, PLEASE let it pass. What a shitty thing to do to a neighborhood. Why in the hell these are legal to begin with - creating restrictions on whomever buys the property from you - is incomprehensible.

This bill apparently passed today:

http://www.councilmembercatania.com/catania_emergency_legislation_to_preserve_grocery_store_services_in_the_district_unanimously_approved

Fantastic! Thank you for posting!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don't worry. They'll put up a cool 7 story mixed use building with a Five Guys and second CVS on the ground floor. A neighborhood can never have too many. CVS carries a good supply of convenience foods.


Yes this type of development is everywhere now. Cheap construction, everything looks the same. Has been going on in Moco for years. Soon downtown Bethesda will be indistinguishable from Rockville town center, Gaithersburg Rio center and Germantown and Hyattsville "Arts" district (PG) - there will be a CVS, Five guys, Chipotle, Uncle julios, tara thai, ben & jerry's and buffalo wild wings on every corner. You "urban planners" out there are doing a terrible job IMO (not worth much), sorry! All these investment groups that own the properties only care about one thing $$$$$ and unfortunately only big chains have deep enough pockets to cover a lease.

Urban planner work 20-50 years out and do get into designing buildings etc. Urban planner work on developing the over all plan and hand it off to architects, design boards, etc.

Right, but urban planners have no ability to assess needs 50years out and they aren't developers. They take no risk and they have no business designing buildings.

Buy a building, take some risk and lease it out to a tenant with no credit then tell me how that works out when they don't pay the bills.

If city government was the least bit interested (which they aren't), in neighborhood aesthetic, they would backstop leases for smaller, no credit tenants and try to build small business.


As long as the city isn't interested in it, there is no reason to blame the developers.

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.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Mary Cheh and David Catania to the rescue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2014/10/06/safeways-palisades-plans-at-issue-in-tuesday-d-c-council-vote/

They are introducing a bill on Tuesday to prohibit covenants forbidding grocery stores.

This is great, I hope it passes. Screw Safeway.

Yes, PLEASE let it pass. What a shitty thing to do to a neighborhood. Why in the hell these are legal to begin with - creating restrictions on whomever buys the property from you - is incomprehensible.

This bill apparently passed today:

http://www.councilmembercatania.com/catania_emergency_legislation_to_preserve_grocery_store_services_in_the_district_unanimously_approved

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don't worry. They'll put up a cool 7 story mixed use building with a Five Guys and second CVS on the ground floor. A neighborhood can never have too many. CVS carries a good supply of convenience foods.


Yes this type of development is everywhere now. Cheap construction, everything looks the same. Has been going on in Moco for years. Soon downtown Bethesda will be indistinguishable from Rockville town center, Gaithersburg Rio center and Germantown and Hyattsville "Arts" district (PG) - there will be a CVS, Five guys, Chipotle, Uncle julios, tara thai, ben & jerry's and buffalo wild wings on every corner. You "urban planners" out there are doing a terrible job IMO (not worth much), sorry! All these investment groups that own the properties only care about one thing $$$$$ and unfortunately only big chains have deep enough pockets to cover a lease.

Urban planner work 20-50 years out and do get into designing buildings etc. Urban planner work on developing the over all plan and hand it off to architects, design boards, etc.

Right, but urban planners have no ability to assess needs 50years out and they aren't developers. They take no risk and they have no business designing buildings.

Buy a building, take some risk and lease it out to a tenant with no credit then tell me how that works out when they don't pay the bills.

If city government was the least bit interested (which they aren't), in neighborhood aesthetic, they would backstop leases for smaller, no credit tenants and try to build small business.


As long as the city isn't interested in it, there is no reason to blame the developers.

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.

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 wrote:

jsteele wrote:Mary Cheh and David Catania to the rescue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2014/10/06/safeways-palisades-plans-at-issue-in-tuesday-d-c-council-vote/

They are introducing a bill on Tuesday to prohibit covenants forbidding grocery stores.

This is great, I hope it passes. Screw Safeway.

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.