Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
Jesse Fink, who heads the Clement Street Merchants Association, which represents about 30 businesses in the Richmond district, has appealed a June 14 decision by the San Francisco Planning Commission to allow Starbucks to open a second shop in the Richmond district on Geary Boulevard at Fifth Avenue. The Board of Supervisors will hold a hearing on the matter at 4:30 p.m. Tuesday.
Fink, who has owned the Toy Boat Dessert Café on Clement Street at Fifth Avenue for 25 years, says he has nothing against Starbucks, but argues that another chain would erode the neighborhood. He said he has gathered more than 2,000 signatures of business owners and residents who agree.
“This isn’t about Clement Street, this isn’t about Geary Boulevard — this is about all the neighborhoods in San Francisco,” he said. “This should be a landmark case, letting people know they can control their neighborhood and that chains cannot move in and do whatever they want.”
Victoria Boyka, who has owned Javacat on Geary Boulevard near 20th Avenue for four years, said small, locally owned businesses are already struggling and cannot afford the additional competition of a large chain retail store. “The last thing the neighborhood needs is a mega Starbucks. They’re killing all the little guys,” she said.
The 750-square-foot Starbucks at 4041 Geary Blvd. will be located within a larger building formerly occupied by a Cala Foods grocery store. A Toyota service center was also approved for the location last year and has begun construction at the site.
Since 2006, the Planning Commission has been required to review all chain store proposals and hold public hearings on them under a proposition approved by voters. Under the new guidelines, chain stores must support local employment, conserve the character of the neighborhood, and cannot disrupt or overburden a public transit route, among other restrictions.
Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who represents the Richmond district, said he plans to review the Clement Street Merchants Association appeal today and is still “juggling the pros and cons” of the situation.
“People of San Francisco are concerned that a lot of the unique characteristics of The City and its neighborhoods can very much become diluted into a semi-strip mall,” he said. “But the whole point of having a hearing is to see whether or not [the stores are] desirable or necessary. You suspend your judgment until you actually get down to crunch time.”
Representatives for Starbucks and a group called the Planning Association for the Richmond, which says it represents about 1,600 households in the district and has indicated support for the project, could not be reached for comment.
Share your comments below.



Comments from Examiner Readers
9:52 PM MST on Thu., Sep. 13, 2007 re: "S.F. supes shoot down Starbucks proposal"
Report as inappropriate
9:45 PM MST on Thu., Sep. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. supes shoot down Starbucks proposal"
Report as inappropriate
3:37 AM MST on Thu., Sep. 13, 2007
re: "S.F. supes shoot down Starbucks proposal"
Report as inappropriate
7:36 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 12, 2007
re: "Richmond Starbucks fight tests ordinance"
Report as inappropriate
4:27 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 12, 2007
re: "Richmond Starbucks fight tests ordinance"
Report as inappropriate
3:36 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 12, 2007
re: "Richmond Starbucks fight tests ordinance"
Report as inappropriate
3:32 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 12, 2007
re: "S.F. supes shoot down Starbucks proposal"
Report as inappropriate
3:18 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 12, 2007
re: "S.F. supes shoot down Starbucks proposal"
Report as inappropriate
10:16 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 12, 2007
re: "S.F. supes shoot down Starbucks proposal"
Report as inappropriate
10:04 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 12, 2007
re: "S.F. supes shoot down Starbucks proposal"
Report as inappropriate
10:01 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 12, 2007
re: "S.F. supes shoot down Starbucks proposal"
Report as inappropriate
9:58 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 12, 2007
re: "S.F. supes shoot down Starbucks proposal"
Report as inappropriate
8:36 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 12, 2007
re: "S.F. supes shoot down Starbucks proposal"
Report as inappropriate
3:36 AM MST on Mon., Sep. 10, 2007
re: "Richmond Starbucks fight tests ordinance"
Report as inappropriate
3:37 PM MST on Fri., Sep. 7, 2007
re: "Richmond Starbucks fight tests ordinance"
Report as inappropriate
3:35 PM MST on Fri., Sep. 7, 2007
re: "Richmond Starbucks fight tests ordinance"
Report as inappropriate
9:33 AM MST on Thu., Sep. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond Starbucks fight tests ordinance"
Report as inappropriate
11:28 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Richmond Starbucks fight tests ordinance"
Report as inappropriate
8:26 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
8:21 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
8:14 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
8:07 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
3:10 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Richmond Starbucks fight tests ordinance"
Report as inappropriate
12:42 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Richmond Starbucks fight tests ordinance"
Report as inappropriate
12:24 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Richmond Starbucks fight tests ordinance"
Report as inappropriate
11:58 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Richmond Starbucks fight tests ordinance"
Report as inappropriate
11:40 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
11:25 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Richmond Starbucks fight tests ordinance"
Report as inappropriate
2:44 AM MST on Sat., Aug. 11, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
4:26 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 8, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
1:48 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 8, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
5:38 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
12:38 PM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
11:02 AM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
1:03 AM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
12:59 AM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
12:44 AM MST on Tue., Aug. 7, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
11:05 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
10:13 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
9:16 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
8:46 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
8:27 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
8:23 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
8:11 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
7:49 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
7:39 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
7:17 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
7:09 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
7:06 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
6:44 PM MST on Mon., Aug. 6, 2007
re: "Richmond coffee fight brews in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
San Francisco - Official Laughingstock of the USA said:
Must be nice to live in a city so close to reaching Utopian perfection that the political leaders have no problems more serious than deciding which national coffee chains should not be allowed to open new outlets in their fair city. I look forward to my next trip to an apparently near-perfect San Francisco, absent the smell of urine, aggressive panhandlers, trash in the street, and open drug dealing in the Tenderloin... :O|
148 agree | 133 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
wes said:
Stories like this remind me of why I no longer consider myself to be a liberal. In the minds of most people in this country, the legacy of traditional American liberalism - ending segregation, promoting equal opportunity, advocating tolerance for gay people - has been superceded by arrogant, narcissistic jerks trying to ban fast-food chains, talk show hosts, and the Blue Angels in order to force others to adapt to their preferences. Whatever happened to "live and let live", or freedom of choice? Why must people who consider themselves to be "progressives" feel compelled to use the force of government to impose their personal likes/dislikes on others?
145 agree | 132 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"Ed Jew was the only supervisor who voted against blocking this Starbucks. And he let a new Starbucks into his district this summer without any public notification (at 30th Ave and Noriega)." - Good for Ed, the (occasionally) lone voice of reason...
155 agree | 159 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Seven said:
Ed Jew was the only supervisor who voted against blocking this Starbucks. And he let a new Starbucks into his district this summer without any public notification (at 30th Ave and Noriega).
157 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
San Fran-Sicko said:
Furthermore, how is Peets or Tully's any less evil than Starbucks?
136 agree | 125 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Mocha Grande Skinny Please said:
So they won't let a Starbucks in, but WILL allow bums to urinate, do drugs and mob people in public? What a messed up city.
172 agree | 133 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
San Fran-Sicko said:
I forgot we are living in a communist country. Shame on you evil-producer-of-tasty-beverages! Shame on you for making a profit!!
158 agree | 126 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I am so sick and tired of San Francisco's politics. Why not open up a Starbuck on 5th and Geary. There is already one in the outer avenues. We have to drive all the way to Daly City or South City to get the food we want. No chain food restaurants, no Target, no Home Depot. Supervisors please start thinking of the revenue the City could be taking in. Get off your you know whats and do something for the people that actually live and work in the City.
142 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
That Proposition on subjecting formula retail to intense debate was added in the last minute to the ballot by Gerardo Sandoval without public debate...as typical with San Francisco Progressive thinking. Ironically, Sandoval was the only supervisor not present in this Starbucks vote.
164 agree | 145 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I am amazed that so many people have made comments about this chain store issue. It seems that a lot of people find this more important than an illegal war, a corrupt government, an economy that is in a mess, climbing murder rates, etc. etc. Unbeliveable! Worry about something important!
156 agree | 138 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Remember this was passed by the voters! Whether you agree with it or not this is (barely) a democracy! Blame the voters not liberals, socialists, etc. By the way many conservatives don't like Starbucks either! Maybe those who disagree with this law should have gotten out and cast votes accordingly and then this wouldn't have happened.
157 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I do agree that are too many Starbucks in the city as there are Walgreens and Subways...but after searching for prospective tenants for a long empty building space, if those are the companies showing interest in the lease and paying the necessary taxes and keeping the property clean inside and out, I think they should get a fair chance to move in. I rather patronize businesses that don't discriminate in neighborhoods that don't get all snobby thinking they are above what the commonfolk usually get in other towns and areas. If the way to preserve neighborhood character is to shrink-wrap what's in place now including the empty graffiti vandalized storefronts that prospective local owners would not touch and never grow or change, the word "slum" should describe its character.
154 agree | 118 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I am not at all surprised by this. Guess what? This decision will not make me go to the local shops (in fact, I will probably never visit one now...) - I will just have to take a bus to get to a Starbucks when I want to. I work downtown so I have that CHOICE - you know, that thing that anti-capitalists don't WANT you to have....
162 agree | 140 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
randy said:
Went to Starbucks yesterday. I'm sure that will upset all the little control freaks out there!
170 agree | 98 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Fredman said:
These anti-Starbucks activists have WAY too much time on their hands. Maybe they should get real jobs...
185 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Don't recall the last time anyone forced me to patronize a Starbucks, or any other private business. If the people really don't want them, they will fold for lack of business. The free market works fine to regulate over-saturation in a given area - we don't need a bunch of busybody supervisors or activists telling us who or what business should be allowed to open in a particular neighborhood.
168 agree | 121 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
San Fran is the last city that needs a Starbucks on every corner, its overpriced, not as good as Royal ground, Peets, or any other coffee house. What people really want are coffee style milk shakes that Starbucks provides at a premium. Hold the chocolate sprinkles please.
195 agree | 98 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
goose said:
starbuck's is really not that good compared to tully's or peete's and although they're chains themselves, this area of the Richmond should go to mom & pop businesses. we need more neighborhood businesses that feel like home. who do we have to bribe at the city hall anyway?
171 agree | 123 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Personally, I disagree with Starbuck's over-saturation - but that's an issue between them and those willing to lease them the space. If there truly is no demand for yet another Starbucks, it will be reflected in higher overall costs and lower profitability. The market will take care of those who offer services that are in excess of true demand...
131 agree | 138 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
been there, done that said:
< Whenever I hear of a local cafe screaming bloody murder about a proposed Starbucks, I immediately think that independent must be really bad if it thinks it'll lose all it's customers to a Starbucks. I mean REALLY bad, as in "steak house goes out of business when McDonald's opens up across the street" bad.> Funny that youe mentioned that.. I lived in Ballykelly, Northern Ireland 10 years ago when the local restaurants went a'frothing over a KFC take-away opening on the edge of town. Needless to say, they didn't have a lot of stars in the Michelin guides themselves!
133 agree | 132 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Aghast with Horror... said:
I'm SHOCKED to learn that Evil $tarbuck$ is forcing SF citizens to buy their coffee at gunpoint! Last I heard, it was a market economy out there, and unlike government taxation, they didn't have the power to force people to hand over money involuntarily. Anyone who thinks that Starbucks provides an inferior value/price proposition to Peets/Dunkin Donuts/Safeway/McDonalds/your neighborhood foo-foo trendy cafe is welcome to patronize them accordingly. Personally, I'm sick of so-called "tolerant liberals" abandoning tolerance and liberalism for some control-freak Birkenstock fascists who think that THEY are the sole arbiters of what type of establishments should be allowed to open in this city.
148 agree | 128 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"Hey, "I live there" - you make some great points about the quality of Starbucks. But if they're so lousy and the local cafes are so wonderful, then why does Starbucks need to be kept out?" - Because self-appointed nanny-state "progressives" can't bear to see other making decisions they don't agree with. San Francisco in 2007 is perfect proof of what Frank Zappa tried to point out 40 years ago - even hippies will become fascists, given enough time and complete control over the lives of others... :O(
130 agree | 132 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Put a Starbucks, Tully's and Peet's coffee in every neighborhood door to door and watch the corporate offices scream! Duh, everyone knows that operations like Starbucks intent is to take business away from the already established businesses, it is the American way, gotta love it. It is called competition.
207 agree | 135 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
What is neighborhood character? Overpriced merchandise items that no one with a family or holding a non-management job can afford? Stores that sell the same thing on the same block? Selling trendy items that will look dated a few months from now? Stores where customers of a certain minority group or age gets watched with more suspicion than people of other groups? Independent owners who can't even raise the funds to clean up graffiti and vandalized storefronts on their block and for their own storefront let alone pay all the taxes the Board of Supervisors imposed to fund their pet programs? Homeless people begging for change or sleeping on the sidewalks? Maintaining a quaint facade for tourists while residents shop elsewhere affordable for name-brands everyone else in other towns can buy without hassle? Uniqueness is one thing...depriving residents of everyday affordable goods and free enterprise is another.
194 agree | 152 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Not wanting a Starbucks is due to the fact that SF is trying to preserve its neighborhood character. North Beach is a case in point. Whether you agree with it or not it has nothing to do with not wanting competition. Part of the reason that SF is so attractive is because of its various districts and their flavor. Personally, having a Starbucks if fine, I drink their coffee but maybe trying to realize the reason why merchants want large corporate entities kept out of their neighborhoods should be thought about before ranting and raving about who is right and who is wrong.
180 agree | 129 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Blaming so called progressives for the woes of SF is just plain ridiculous. Plenty of "progressives," whatever that means drinks Starbuck's coffee!!! If a Starbucks opens so be it. But this constant tirade about the progressives doing or stopping this and that in SF is such a right wing view point. See, we can all point fingers, leave it alone, its boring!
164 agree | 131 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
I'm not a fan of Starbucks, but people should have a choice - the market forces will determine whether or not the neighborhood will embrace a Starbucks. As for neighborhood character, Geary Blvd does not have any character so what's the big deal? What street in Paris does it remind you of? None that I can think of. San Francisco has lots of little neighborhoods with small alleys and byways that have charm and personality, but Geary and Clement aren't among them. In fact, from my travel experiences, it seems that having American chain stores makes us more cosmopolitan, not less. Once again the progressives are showing us that they don't want change or growth in SF. They try to stop new housing construction, new stores, new everything. Adding a chain store is, in effect, adding to the variety of choices that consumers have - this can invigorate a neighborhood and bring more consumers who will patronize other stores as well.
150 agree | 146 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Seven said:
Starbucks just opened a store in the Sunset (30th and Noriega) without a public hearing. How? They simply put it inside of an existing Safeway. Surprise!
199 agree | 115 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader TM said:
A simple reason why I'm for it: I like Star5bucks coffee and service. I've been to most of the local coffee shops and frankly, most of the time their coffee is too strong for me (I admit that's my own taste). They are also more consistent with quality and friendly service. With the proposed store being so close to the Kaiser French Campus, I'm sure it would be very convenient for staff and patients. I also agree that if any street should be a little more friendly to 'chain' retail it is Geary Boulevard. It is a big commercial street with lots of traffic (foot and vehicle) and in my opinion can handle it. Compare it to Chestnut Street, which only has 2 lanes of traffic but has a lot of this kind of retail. We have had a lot of empty storefronts lately which concerns me.
138 agree | 144 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I personally would like to see a planning policy change in that if a neighborhood shopping area has a certain percentage of vacant retail storefronts in a certain radius for more than a number of months, chain stores should be allowed to move in without too much of a long permit process ...if local owners do not seem interested in locating or can not afford to move into that property for a long while. It's better to make good use of the retail property to attract foot traffic than the sight of neglected urban graffiti-stained blight or pot clubs of questionable ownership intentions.
158 agree | 159 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I like choices - some coffee shop that buys muffins from Costco, opens some Folgers and pours warm water over it should not be my only choice. Let it go already - customers will determine who stays and who goes.
189 agree | 145 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The KFC store at 6th and Geary opened in the 1960s way before coffee specialty shops were plentiful. The "Jack In The Box" at 11th and Geary opened in the 1970s. Auto dealerships were all over Geary. Maybe Geary Blvd was originally intended for strip mall purposes given the traffic. A mix of chains and local shops are nice for a mix of affordable and unique choices...especially for budget-minded folks and families earning modest wages... local shops tend to overcharge so much ($8-10 for a daily lunch? $5 for a cup of coffee? No thanks). If maintaining "neighborhood character" (outside of panhandlers and vandalized long-empty storefront property) means pushing out residents with a budget who can't afford to buy at local shops, then I rather take the bus or drive to an area where my money can buy what I need...including strip malls with chain stores. My budget...my choice.
145 agree | 145 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
QandA said:
When did it become 'progressive' to start banning everything you don't agree with?
165 agree | 121 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
"When the competition is completely unfair, it's corporate socialism." -- Oh, that's just precious. I realize that this comes as a great shock to the members of the Entitlement Generation, but LIFE ISN'T FAIR. You set up shop in any business, you have to realize from the start that there is no such thing as a level playing field. Sometimes you will be the 800lb gorilla in the marketplace and sometimes you'll be at the mercy of the two-ton gorilla. It's called competition. You can either adapt and offer a better product and service or you can sit on your butt and whine about having to adapt to changes in your environment (hint: the people who adapt tend to stick around longer).
141 agree | 142 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Joe, the only cafes Starbucks drives out of business are the ones that take their customers for granted, offering mediocre (even worse than sbux) product and served by rude or indifferent staff. The majority of cafes in the United States are independent, and will remain so; Starbucks is just one choice among many.
178 agree | 143 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Jerima, the dept of making stuff up because you don't like the truth is down the hall and to your left. Off you go, now.
173 agree | 179 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
jerima jones said:
It is incredible how misinformed most of the "readers" are concerning local v.s. chain stores and the amount of $ that locals add to the local economy v.s. chains. Most Starbucks empoyees do not even take the health ins. as there not there long enough or are insured by their parents, or don't want to pay the portion they have to. 4300 stores an you thing the employees are treated well..they're bodies working for a LARGE chain ....that all.
168 agree | 162 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I would fight Sbux if they were moving to Clement St, or Balboa, but Geary!?! What a pit Geary is from Arguello to 12th Ave! And now another car dealership building, ahck!!! Honestly, there is no character to hurt on that street. I consider Sbux on 5th and Geary to be an absolute zero impact, not good or bad, on the hood. And they pay the SF biz tax and payroll tax don't they? I'm generally against Sbux, but I'm OK with it this time because it's Geary and 5th.
169 agree | 168 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Joe said:
Starbuck's has a simple formula: Find a successful cafe. Use the resources of a multi billion dollar corporation to compete unfairly and drive small businesses out of existence. When there's no other game in town, enjoy what has become an effective monopoly in the local area. Don't kid yourself that this is a free market. When the competition is completely unfair, it's corporate socialism.
178 agree | 148 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Starbucks, like many other formula businesses, brings important monetary and social benefits to San Francisco. The company should be allowed to expand not only in the Richmond, but in other San Francisco neighborhoods.
165 agree | 172 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Boehmer said:
The majority sector? Well, that's us; we're the ones who pay our bills pay our taxes. The fact is; we're the one's who keep business (small or corporate) alive. Try not to forget that sort of thinking..
158 agree | 168 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
MJ said:
Why can't they just let the market decide. If nobody shows up then Starbucks will go away. I am sick and tired of people blaming corporations. Blame the people who buy their coffee there. Starbucks doesn't put a gun to anybody's head and tell them that they must buy their coffee from Starbucks.
162 agree | 160 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
donny said:
5th Avenue & Geary? this area is kind of dead with hardly much foot traffic. people come and go but this isn't a place for a hangout area, really. if starbuck's want to jump start this area, I can see their point. but further up geary, there's already a starbuck's, peete's, and other smaller coffee shops. if starbuck's wants to juice up this area, good luck. but the group is really several blocks up further beyond 10th. the bucks may not be generating once you get to the lower number avenues.
208 agree | 174 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Boehmer said:
Now there is Mr.McGoldrick. Obviously, He's into his own thing. Well, what's his long term vision? We've got Business Owners locked into lease agreement(s) who provide an income for both themselves/employees and, most important, the consumers. In any event, I'd be interested in Mr. McGoldrick's views.
205 agree | 164 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Oh, and for anyone wanting to keep Starbucks out? Do you know what they do when they get denied? They make a local cafe owner an offer s/he can't refuse and then overnight the signage suddenly changes. One way or another, that neighborhood is getting a Starbucks.
190 agree | 169 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Boehmer said:
I've read some of the more recent coments. Well, for the sole Owner; it's not so much the quality of product. What it is would be the City's requirements and restrictions on small businesses and this will affect gross/net income. Naturally gross income is the essence of any private/corporate business. I grew up in San Francisco and I've travelled and seen enough to know that our City's Supervisors and Mayor have their own idealistic views. If you review the background of our Supervisors. Most come from jobs in the public sector and two come from the privilage. Whatever happened to the majority??
190 agree | 167 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I think that other person is saying that no matter how well the shop is run it will go out of business, and that statement is a pretty good example of the hysteria that the protectionist shop owners have stirred up. They're dead wrong. Ever been to Seattle? It's the birthplace of Starbucks and there's a huge, thriving independent cafe scene. Everyone seems to get along just fine there. Also, some of the more emotional people on this subject should remember that SF has a HUGE demographic of people that will never set foot in a Starbucks. I guess it really doesn't matter; when Starbucks opens (and it will, kids) a couple months later everyone will forget what all the fuss was about in the first place.
250 agree | 172 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Hey, "I live there" - you make some great points about the quality of Starbucks. But if they're so lousy and the local cafes are so wonderful, then why does Starbucks need to be kept out? Seems like you just provided us with the reason they won't last. Let the customers decide.
181 agree | 155 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I'm not sure I understand? San Francisco doesn't want decent paying entry level jobs that include health insurance? This sure isn't the progressive city I grew up in!
170 agree | 159 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Boehmer said:
Starbucks is OK, One can get the same Coffee, the same sandwiches, the additional bread products as in any Starbucks-throughout the world. Starbucks is global. I think the weakness with the single-sole ownerships is the fact that much depends on the decision of the Owner and City Decisionmaking. In San Francisco, at times the Owner may have to cut costs in reference to the sale of quality coffee, teas, muffins, cookies and such in order to pay his/her Employees. Why? because our City is subject to added taxes, City Government mandated insurance coverages for part-time Employees as well as Rent, general maintenance and such. Our City is destroying small businesses with their idealistic decisionmaking. On the other hand, Starbucks has "Deep Pockets" so they can survive doing business in our expensive City...I think the small business owner is finished in San Francisco...
198 agree | 209 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree