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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we've had brand proliferation for years, and so supermarkets need to be larger (other than specialized ones like Trader Joe's) That's not Safeway in particular. You want to see a huge suburban supermarket, go to a Wegmans, or a Costco.

Ergo, to survive they need to be bigger, and to make that work it helps to add residences above. Which means a bunch of people who can buy groceries WITHOUT getting in a car. And more people who can live close to their work in DC, and not have long commutes. And more tax revenue for the city. A win win which is why planners love it.

1. DC is becoming a bit like San Francisco but without the Google buses. A lot of the sought-after creative, hipster class likes to live in the city but have jobs in the suburbs.

2. It's easy to market upscale residences to young professionals when they're anchored by a Whole Foods or a Wegman's. If they're above a Giant .... well, not so much! This is why Cathedral Commons on Wisconsin probably will become just a fancy off-campus dorm for AU students whose daddies are willing to co-sign the apartment lease, just like the apartment building across the street.

Anonymous wrote:we've had brand proliferation for years, and so supermarkets need to be larger (other than specialized ones like Trader Joe's) That's not Safeway in particular. You want to see a huge suburban supermarket, go to a Wegmans, or a Costco.

Ergo, to survive they need to be bigger, and to make that work it helps to add residences above. Which means a bunch of people who can buy groceries WITHOUT getting in a car. And more people who can live close to their work in DC, and not have long commutes. And more tax revenue for the city. A win win which is why planners love it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That's just a rationalization by the people who drove Safeway out of Palisades. Every piece of evidence shows that until they received widespread opposition for the terrible crime of wanting to build a nice grocery store with nice condos on top of it, Safeway wanted to stay in Palisades. Do you think the thousands of dollars they spent developing that plan was just some kind of a ruse so that NIMBYs, not Safeway, would be blamed when they were driven out?

Sorry NIMBYs, this one is on you and your mindless and stupid opposition to any change, no matter how beneficial it may be for the community at large.

+ 10000. Exactly

Hey, Mr. 10000: What part of new Safeway management closing smaller stores don't you get?

So Safeway is trying to go big, but Wal-Mart is going small? My money is on Wal-Mart being in the right here.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101432274

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That's just a rationalization by the people who drove Safeway out of Palisades. Every piece of evidence shows that until they received widespread opposition for the terrible crime of wanting to build a nice grocery store with nice condos on top of it, Safeway wanted to stay in Palisades. Do you think the thousands of dollars they spent developing that plan was just some kind of a ruse so that NIMBYs, not Safeway, would be blamed when they were driven out?

Sorry NIMBYs, this one is on you and your mindless and stupid opposition to any change, no matter how beneficial it may be for the community at large.

+ 10000. Exactly

Hey, Mr. 10000: What part of new Safeway management closing smaller stores don't you get?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That's just a rationalization by the people who drove Safeway out of Palisades. Every piece of evidence shows that until they received widespread opposition for the terrible crime of wanting to build a nice grocery store with nice condos on top of it, Safeway wanted to stay in Palisades. Do you think the thousands of dollars they spent developing that plan was just some kind of a ruse so that NIMBYs, not Safeway, would be blamed when they were driven out?

Sorry NIMBYs, this one is on you and your mindless and stupid opposition to any change, no matter how beneficial it may be for the community at large.

+ 10000. Exactly

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That's just a rationalization by the people who drove Safeway out of Palisades. Every piece of evidence shows that until they received widespread opposition for the terrible crime of wanting to build a nice grocery store with nice condos on top of it, Safeway wanted to stay in Palisades. Do you think the thousands of dollars they spent developing that plan was just some kind of a ruse so that NIMBYs, not Safeway, would be blamed when they were driven out?

Sorry NIMBYs, this one is on you and your mindless and stupid opposition to any change, no matter how beneficial it may be for the community at large.

Anonymous wrote:I love in Kent and definitely prefer Sangamore Safeway to the MacArthur Safeway (which we do call Soviet Safeway) but I still use it occasionally since it's close by St Pats and I can grab stuff for a quick dinner after picking up the kids. Plus, DH likes it because it sells beer unlike Sangamore. There are lots of old folks who live in condo/apartments near there who seem to walk to the grocery. It will be really bad for them. Also, that little bit of the neighborhood could use an up scaled look, but not at the expense of a convenient grocery. This does make me believe Palisades is still filled with boomer hippies from the 60s and 70s who resist any and all change. Really, really sad.

Anonymous wrote:I love in Kent and definitely prefer Sangamore Safeway to the MacArthur Safeway (which we do call Soviet Safeway) but I still use it occasionally since it's close by St Pats and I can grab stuff for a quick dinner after picking up the kids. Plus, DH likes it because it sells beer unlike Sangamore. There are lots of old folks who live in condo/apartments near there who seem to walk to the grocery. It will be really bad for them. Also, that little bit of the neighborhood could use an up scaled look, but not at the expense of a convenient grocery. This does make me believe Palisades is still filled with boomer hippies from the 60s and 70s who resist any and all change. Really, really sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That Chevy Chase Safeway is like the Tenley one. Bad but ok if you have no choice.

How large and shiny a store is has little to do with how it's managed. Take the Marina Safeway in San Francisco, an almost iconic, widely known store that is in a 1950s building. Think anyone will ever view the McLean Gardens Giant Giant that way?

I don't care about shiny or icon status. I just want there to be things I need and a decent selection. And enough cashiers!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Isn't this one they called the Soviet Safeway? Long lines and little choice.

No. You're thirty years behind the times or more. The Soviet Safeway originally was the Georgetown Safety until it new store was built in 1980 or so. (The current big box replaced the 1980 store). Then the honorific passed to a small Safeway east of Dupont Circle.

The Chevy Chase Safetway is perfectly adequate. I'm sure the last thing neighbors want to see is for it to be torn down and rebuilt into some generic copy of Clarandon or Cathedral Commons.

Yeah, no. Now, I have my fingers crossed that this will go too. There has been plenty of chatter on the listserv about how terrible and how wonderful it is. The last time I went a few years ago an octogenarian warned me about buying bread there as hers had been infested.

Why do you, and the NIMBYs, think the only two choices are letting things fall to ruin and chain stores?

So you are praying the Chevy Chase Safetway closes? Why?

Because the NIMBYs will fight it being renovated, which it needs badly. They're up in arms about personal property. And, it is ironic that if they'd approved a renovation that they'd have a grocery store and they're going to end up with no grocery or something worse than what they were fighting.

I don't shop there along with many friends and people on the listserv. I'd love for a Trader Joe's to go in, but if there is a no grocery clause it doesn't matter to me because there are two WFs, one Giant, and one TJ close by. If they put in a restaurant or other shops, I'm more likely to use that space.