It's too hard to pedal my fixie up that hill in Tenely to get to WF. And I'm in AU Park. We're losing our Safeway to a bunch of Cadillac Liberals to make a lunchroom for their sprogs. It's an abomination.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks a lot hippies!

Well there you go.

Anonymous wrote:I hope they never close the Chevy Chase safeway. It may not be hip, but it's the right size. I can find what I need there and the parking is adequate.

What CC Safeway? You mean Bethesda on Arlington Road?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

They're standard in the retail industry. Ever notice why that local strip mall has only one grocery store not two? Or only one Mexican fast-casual restaurant? Only one gourmet burger place?

Because the lessee made the owner of the shopping center agree to that.

As for Safeway, they're only asking for a covenant on one property in the Palisades, not every property in the Palisades. They should be allowed to ask for it, and the buyer can choose to accept or reject it. The government does not need to get involved. The free market is functioning perfectly well here.

What a terrible example. In all those cases the convenant against duplicate buildings are for current owners/tenants, not ones that sold their interest and rights and moved on. By trying to redirect grocery retailer their store two miles away, Safeway is trying to preempt the role of urban planner and give the neighborhood A shiv on the way out the door

Same place. Only one Safeway (on Wisconsin in Burleith) within two miles. The WF at Tenleytown (2.9 miles), WF in Glover Park (2.2) and the WF at Friendship (4.2) are further.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safeway will likely do one of a couple of options. 1) sue the city for unfair restriction of its property rights 2) hold out and sell to someone who is just planning on building condos or some non grocery store. 3) refuse to sell it and simply lease it with the provision that you can't operate a grocery store. Nothing in this law ensures that a grocery store will come to this spot. It doesn't actually compel Safeway (or Cerberus) to sell to anyone much less someone who will put up a grocery, and it doesn't compel them to keep that store open.

So the law won't likely serve it's desired purpose, but will probably have lots of unintended consequences. Like making it unlikely for a store to move to a bigger nicer space next door because it's worried a competitor will just move into their old space. Or something I can't anticipate.
Unintended consequences happen a lot with hastily written laws.

Covenants are attached to property all the time that are binding. How do you think HOAs get their power? It's because the developer put a covenant attached to the sale of the property. And this restricts the use of the property when they no longer own it, which is what people are squawking about Safeway doing. The covenant only gets recorded if some buyer accepts it, usually in exchange for a lower price. They are free not to buy the property with a covenant attached. So I don't see how covenants are unfair as everyone gets a chance to review and walk away.

And for people saying this is monopolistic, do you see how many grocery stores are within 2 miles of this place. Maybe not walkable, but how many people in the Palisades don't have a car? To say this area would become a food desert is beyond melodramatic and insulting to the people in many areas of this city and country where a food desert exists.

Me, me, pick me. One. There is one grocery stores within 2 miles. If you would have said 1.8 miles, there would have been zero.

Are we talking about the same place?

https://maps.google.com/maps?rls=com.microsoft:en-US&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&gws_rd=ssl&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=palisades+safeway&fb=1&gl=us&hq=palisades+safeway&cid=10906608155347776575&sa=X&ei=T7Y2VJisF9eiyATvnoKwDg&ved=0CDIQrwswAg

I count 3 Safeways, 2 Whole Foods, and a Giant within two miles. Plus other small grocery stores.

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.

You really do not understand what urban planners do. They do have the ability to plan 50 to 100 years out. Look at Seattle, they have protected their watershed for over a 100 years, incorporated bikes as urban transportation starting around 1910( bikes paths are not an after thought), tons of parks, have a 100 year plan for development and protection of both urban and rural places with plans for the protection of working forest.Urban planners do not design builds. Your beef is with archeticts and developers.

Here is an example of what urban planners do.

The Cascade Agenda is a 100 year action plan for the lands and communities of our region.  It is based on the input of thousands of residents across our region and offers pragmatic solutions to the challenges and opportunities created by our tremendous population growth. The Cascade Agenda’s collective vision is grounded in the belief that a broad coalition can achieve fundamental change.  It is a balanced approach to conservation and community building that encourages collaboration across all sectors and considers environmental, social, and economic needs. 

The Cascade Agenda brings together business, civic and government leaders to accomplish two big goals:

1. Our Lands:  Protect 1 million acres of working forests (93% of existing timberland) and farms (85% of current agricultural lands) and 265,000 acres of shorelines, natural areas and parks.
2. Our Communities:  Maintain our rural economies and way of life and enhance the vibrancy and livability of our cities and towns.

A Critical Moment in History

The Cascade Agenda is a recognition that the Puget Sound region is at a critical moment in history.  Locally, we expect our population to double in the next century, growing to more than 8 million people, about the size of New York City today.  Globally, we know that climate change threatens our natural environment, economy and standard of living.

In May 2005, Forterra created The Cascade Agenda as a call to action and an opportunity to envision the communities, natural environment and economy that will sustain us, our children and our grandchildren for the next 100 years....

http://www.forterra.org/who_we_are/cascade_agenda

Anonymous wrote:Safeway will likely do one of a couple of options. 1) sue the city for unfair restriction of its property rights 2) hold out and sell to someone who is just planning on building condos or some non grocery store. 3) refuse to sell it and simply lease it with the provision that you can't operate a grocery store. Nothing in this law ensures that a grocery store will come to this spot. It doesn't actually compel Safeway (or Cerberus) to sell to anyone much less someone who will put up a grocery, and it doesn't compel them to keep that store open.

So the law won't likely serve it's desired purpose, but will probably have lots of unintended consequences. Like making it unlikely for a store to move to a bigger nicer space next door because it's worried a competitor will just move into their old space. Or something I can't anticipate.
Unintended consequences happen a lot with hastily written laws.

Covenants are attached to property all the time that are binding. How do you think HOAs get their power? It's because the developer put a covenant attached to the sale of the property. And this restricts the use of the property when they no longer own it, which is what people are squawking about Safeway doing. The covenant only gets recorded if some buyer accepts it, usually in exchange for a lower price. They are free not to buy the property with a covenant attached. So I don't see how covenants are unfair as everyone gets a chance to review and walk away.

And for people saying this is monopolistic, do you see how many grocery stores are within 2 miles of this place. Maybe not walkable, but how many people in the Palisades don't have a car? To say this area would become a food desert is beyond melodramatic and insulting to the people in many areas of this city and country where a food desert exists.

Me, me, pick me. One. There is one grocery stores within 2 miles. If you would have said 1.8 miles, there would have been zero.

Thanks a lot hippies!

I bet the property will end up being two banks, a Starbucks, and another cvs. Yes right next to the other cvs....this is all you get in the city now days.

Safeway will likely do one of a couple of options. 1) sue the city for unfair restriction of its property rights 2) hold out and sell to someone who is just planning on building condos or some non grocery store. 3) refuse to sell it and simply lease it with the provision that you can't operate a grocery store. Nothing in this law ensures that a grocery store will come to this spot. It doesn't actually compel Safeway (or Cerberus) to sell to anyone much less someone who will put up a grocery, and it doesn't compel them to keep that store open.

So the law won't likely serve it's desired purpose, but will probably have lots of unintended consequences. Like making it unlikely for a store to move to a bigger nicer space next door because it's worried a competitor will just move into their old space. Or something I can't anticipate.
Unintended consequences happen a lot with hastily written laws.

Covenants are attached to property all the time that are binding. How do you think HOAs get their power? It's because the developer put a covenant attached to the sale of the property. And this restricts the use of the property when they no longer own it, which is what people are squawking about Safeway doing. The covenant only gets recorded if some buyer accepts it, usually in exchange for a lower price. They are free not to buy the property with a covenant attached. So I don't see how covenants are unfair as everyone gets a chance to review and walk away.

And for people saying this is monopolistic, do you see how many grocery stores are within 2 miles of this place. Maybe not walkable, but how many people in the Palisades don't have a car? To say this area would become a food desert is beyond melodramatic and insulting to the people in many areas of this city and country where a food desert exists.

1. There is no way that a grocer can pay highest and best use alone

2. Nobody is going to pay top dollar with the zoning risk of too much height to

3. It will end up being a lower rise condo deal - roughly 50 condos, I think.

So what does this new law mean, in reality, for the Palisades? I'm curious as to how this will play out.

At this point, will Safeway continue to entertain offers to sell the property? If they are choosing between two offers at the same prices, and Offer A is from a developer who just wants to build condos and Offer B is from a developer who wants to build a grocery store AND condos, Safeway is free to accept either offer?

Will re-development of this land be tied up for years? Can/will Safeway just close the store while this redevelopment is pending, or is it still more profitable for them to keep the store open until the property is finally sold?

Anonymous wrote:
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.

They're standard in the retail industry. Ever notice why that local strip mall has only one grocery store not two? Or only one Mexican fast-casual restaurant? Only one gourmet burger place?

Because the lessee made the owner of the shopping center agree to that.

As for Safeway, they're only asking for a covenant on one property in the Palisades, not every property in the Palisades. They should be allowed to ask for it, and the buyer can choose to accept or reject it. The government does not need to get involved. The free market is functioning perfectly well here.

At Tenleytown, Safeway had a very modest plan, height requests consistent with other developments in the neighborhood and very restrictive traffic and parking commitments.

In return the community was going to get a brand new store similar to other new stores in the area.

It was a win-win and the community said no, simply because they consider themselves developers and didn't want to make any concessions. They wanted Safeway to give them a new store, without the apartments on top (which were paying for the store improvements and parking). It was an obnoxious position on the neighborhood's part and they got what they deserved - nothing.