May 07, 2004
(Updated) The Blame For 'Busting Up a Starbux'
Developer Pins It On Neighborhood Association
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
(With apologies to Mike Doughty.)
By now everyone knows that anarchist dimwits vandalized a new Starbucks at the corner of SE 20th and Division:
Just before 11 p.m. Tuesday, someone hurled a Molotov cocktail at the windows of a controversial new store at Southeast 20th Avenue and Division Street.
Vandals broke three windows, and the homemade firebomb was found on the sidewalk, where it flamed out against the stucco exterior, fire officials said.
Now, there's been clear opposition to that Starbucks from neighborhood residents who would prefer Division Street to focus its development on locally-owned businesses. We're not going to get into that particular debate here, because there are already plenty of forums for it.
(Readers might also be interested in the resident of rural Oregon who uses the incident as an excuse to malign the entire area as unfriendly to business.)
Rather, we want to focus on a rather peculiar statement in that Oregonian article from Peter Perrin, the building's developer:
Perrin said the neighborhood association hasn't done enough to check emotions and shares much of the blame for the vandalism. "They've stirred it up to the point that people are creating criminal acts," he said.
This is a rather good example of the piss-poor rhetoric that too often passes for debate these days. In essence, Perrin is asserting that the violent property damage should be blamed on the vocal, sometimes vehement, but always non-violent opposition on the part of neighborhood residents.
It's a sort of "you're either with us or against us" sort of thing, wherein any opposition is the moral equivalent of violence. It makes for a nice soundbite, we suppose, but it does little other than make Perrin sound as idiotic as the nimrods who thought trying to firebomb the store would advance their cause.
It of course should be noted that the very next paragraph of the article is as follows:
Chris Eykamp, neighborhood association president, said the association hasn't taken a position on the Starbucks. He had the same opinion of Perrin's comments and the firebombing: "Things have gone too far."
For what it's worth, regardless of the position of the Hosford-Abernethy Neighborhood Development Association on the Starbucks in and of itself, they do have a position on the vandalism. In a statement we read on the mailing list for the Division Vision Coalition, board and committee members from HAND (there are eleven signatories) "condemn the recent acts of vandalism" as "a form of violence and intimidation."
The volunteers of HAND are passionate proponents of a healthy and safe neighborhood for all to enjoy. We promote productive partnerships between the residents and businesses in our neighborhood. We work with and towards a positive vision of our neighborhood's future.
Violence against any person, home, or business in our neighborhood is a direct assault on all we work for. We stand firmly against it.
Of course, Perrin's statements could be the natural outgrowth of what some neighborood residents consider to be the rather un-neighborly way in which he conducted his side of this development project from the outset.
One nearby business owner, for example, describes the problems with the early stages of this commercial development this way: "Refusing to meet with the community and ... being deceptive about the fact that Starbucks was coming." One member of the neighborhood association also reportedly has said that Perrin told her in January that he already had approval from the City, so why did he need to discuss the matter with HAND?
So it would seem that Perrin's comments to The Oregonian shouldn't come as much of a surprise. What began as a development ocurring out of the reach of community input and dialogue has ended with the developer blaming legitimate community opposition for the violent acts of an anarchist few.
If, in fact, Perrin truly believes the ludicrous notion that the neighborhood's criticisms of the project are somehow to blame for an attempted firebombing, we do have a solution to offer him: Next time, don't alienate the neighborhood by refusing to invite them to participate.
Update
Perrin pitched the same crap to the Associated Press also:
The owner of the building, Portland developer Peter Perrin, called the vandalism the work of extremists who do not represent the majority of neighborhood residents.
"We have an elitist minority that's putting forth their own agenda," Perrin said. "Indirectly, they're fueling criminal acts."
There must be an irony, somewhere, in a developer who brought in a chain that charges a million dollars for a latte calling anyone else "elitist."
(Yes, yes, we understand all of the socially-responsible things Starbucks does. They still charge, figuratively speaking, a million dollars for a latte.)
Posted at 02:18 PM | PermalinkComments (11) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Design & Development
Trackbacks (1)
-
microcosm as macrocosm, vis a vis starbucks on 10 May 2004
b!x reports on yet another telling instance in which: an act of agression is meted out against an institution. anyone
Comments (11)
sarah gilbert on 07 May 2004
good point - of all the proponents for Starbucks, Perrin is the least eloquent. He never did anything criminal, but he handled the entire process with a complete and utter lack of grace. I certainly don't hate him for making money...but you can't love a guy who makes veiled, public accusations against the very people whose friendship he should be courting.
Keith on 07 May 2004
I attempted to get involved with those who said they wanted to ensure that the neighborhood addressed the issues of appropriate development, but was turned away because it was expected that I would be against a Starbucks -- without discussion.
It is awfully difficult to have a balanced discussion, when there is an outright disdain for businesses like Starbucks from the begining. This city needs jobs, and it needs jobs that offer worthwhile wages, as well as healthcare coverage (Starbucks employees who work a minimum of 20 hrs a week, receive healthcare for their entire family, including domestic partners).
Not all corporations are evil, and not all small businesses are altruistic. Thinking that way, leaves little to discuss, and much discord.
Keith on 08 May 2004
If a little extra cost to the customer (or a lot!) results in healthcare benefits for employees (they even pitch in on the costs of employees who want to adopt children), that is not a problem with me.
Even though I could save a lot of money by shopping Wal-Mart, I don't because they treat their employees shabbily. The same goes for McDonalds and many other corporations like them.
Shouldn't that be given some consideration? They could charge a lot less, if they treated their employees with a lot less respect.
Keith on 08 May 2004
If a little extra cost to the customer (or a lot!) results in healthcare benefits for employees (they even pitch in on the costs of employees who want to adopt children), that is not a problem with me.
Even though I could save a lot of money by shopping Wal-Mart, I don't because they treat their employees shabbily. The same goes for McDonalds and many other corporations like them.
Shouldn't that be given some consideration? They could charge a lot less, if they treated their employees with a lot less respect.
tomhiggins on 08 May 2004
Recently the Red and Black got a Personal Telco Project free community wireless node, thus making it a place for folks to get free wireless internet access in a community environment rather than be billed by TMobile and Starbucks for use of thier service.
The hope was it would help shwo folks the cool things that happen when community folks share resources and come togther.
The recent events seem to have blocked out the aspects of community, sharing, local interest and the like. Maybe what needs to happen is simply to focus on the real issues and hope those tossing badly aimed flamable beverage containers will try to help rather than hinder that good works of those around them.
-tomhiggins
Jonathan on 10 May 2004
This is a "ridiculous" debate about the "neighborhood." The Starbucks at 19th and Hawthorne has been a great neighbor for years.
Jonathan on 10 May 2004
This is a "ridiculous" debate about the "neighborhood." The Starbucks at 19th and Hawthorne has been a great neighbor for years.
Morgan on 10 May 2004
Jonathon, What haven't you been following? The question isn't whether or not Starbucks is a great neighbor, but the land use issues around the redevelopment of the building.
XB on 11 May 2004
I am really troubled by the fact that you open this article with the statement that includes: "... anarchist dimwits vandalized a new Starbucks". This kind of charactarization of Anarchists as being destructive, or more correctly, that destructive behavior implies the work of anarchists, is the kind of weak argument and bad-mouthing smear tactic one would expect from a mainstream, big-business paper like the Oregonian. And yet, how ironic is it that the very Oregonian article you link to does NOT blame anarchists, but rather makes only later reference to the fact that anarchists frequent the Red and Black cafe? (Although this can be seen as a subtle link between the incident and anarchists, it does not go nearly as far as your comment to connect anarchy to destruction.)
There are endless facets to the political spectrum of Anarchy and Anarchism (etc.) and google will help you get plenty of info. I just feel disappointed to find a source of local news information take the easy bait to fuel the myth that anarchy equates to destruction. Even if the perpetrators of this deed consider themselves anarchists, this comment of yours makes a general assumption of this fact based solely upon the fact that property desctruction occurred. Could they not have been "anti-capitalist dimwits"? "drunk dimwits"? "Republican dimwits"? "socialist dimwits"? etc.
PKK on 11 May 2004
Anarchy Burger, Hold the Government
archie the angry anarchist on 11 May 2004
duh. blaming vandalism on anarchists is like blaming child molestation on homosexuals.