PDA

View Full Version : Starbucks’ foes in Portland become violent


grinner
05-07-2004, 01:50 PM
Starbucks’ foes in Portland become violent


DON RYAN / Associated Press
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/photo/pl29975.JPG
Security officer Eric Hamburg keeps an eye on things Wednesday near two boarded-up windows of a new Starbucks in Portland. Several windows at the store were broken with homemade bombs Tuesday night, but the store still plans to open today.

Residents decry a bombing but don’t deny that they oppose the shop.

WILLIAM MCCALL
The Associated Press
May 6, 2004

PORTLAND — Coffee giant Starbucks has been trying its best to promote socially responsible corporate policy about grower rights and environmental ethics, but it apparently fell on deaf ears in a neighborhood where devotion to social causes runs high.

Arson investigators were called to a new Starbucks store after three windows were broken by an explosive about 11 p.m. Tuesday.

The flames were out by the time fire crews arrived within three minutes. Minor damage was estimated at about $500.

A Starbucks spokeswoman said that “this type of incident is extremely rare.”

“When Starbucks opens a new store in a community, overwhelmingly the response is very positive,” Lara Wyss said at company headquarters in Seattle.

But the store, which will open today as planned, is in a neighborhood that has earned a reputation for social activism, and the vandalism drew immediate attention.

“There are a lot of people who don’t want Starbucks here,” said Lynn Hanrahan, owner of Mirador, a gift shop across the street from the newest outlet of the Seattle-based company.

Despite Starbucks’ contribution to a new playground in the Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood, the reception for the company has been cool, residents say.

A young man who identified himself only as “Spark” said he has lived in the neighborhood for the past three years and was one of the leaders of the effort to block Starbucks.

“We didn’t want Starbucks — we wanted a local business instead,” said Spark, who works a few blocks away at the People’s Co-op, a grocery established in the early 1970s.

The new Starbucks also is across the street from the Red and Black Coffee Collective.

Spark said the neighborhood did not need a second coffee shop on the same block, especially one that represents corporate culture to many residents of an area known as Seven Corners because of the jumble of intersecting streets that meet in front of the new Starbucks.

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.

Linda Nettekoven, a member of the Hosford-Abernethy Neighborhood Development Association, said the opposition always has been stronger and more widespread than Perrin thinks.

But she was quick to denounce the vandalism as “violence and intimidation the neighborhood does not condone.”
link (http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=79733) I am sorry... but I find this HILARIOUS. Firebombing a Coffee shop... sheesh. What will happen next?

Jeff O'Connor
05-07-2004, 01:52 PM
Yes, damn those coffee shops. So terrible.

who45
05-07-2004, 02:31 PM
:eek3:

Kurt_eh
05-07-2004, 02:37 PM
Perhaps they were upset that there wasn't a "Roasted" blend that day?

Third EYe
05-07-2004, 02:49 PM
I have joined a Starbucks boycott. I don't know what's it about, I just signed some kids petition and said that I'd go there.

I had never been there before so it was no big deal.

I'm really proud of myself.

NebariNookiee
05-07-2004, 03:03 PM
Hey -- the jolt from some javas can be pretty explosive.

DentArthurDent
05-07-2004, 03:03 PM
OI...WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH PEOPLE!?!?! If the neighborhood is that socially conscious, then nobody will buy coffee there, and they will leave. Firebombing just makes the locals look like nutcases. AND guess what, their credibility goes buh-bye. IMHO if a legitimate business comes in then you have to compete. On the other claw when a wal-mart comes in, wants to level a buncha houses, get lotsa tax breaks, and get land cheap, THAT I have a problem with, because that necessarily tilts the playing field.

Anyway since when has violence become part of grass roots activism for something like this? IT's A FRELLING COFFE HOUSE! Reminds me of 'Night of The Mary Kay Commandos' if you ever read bloom county...

AgentSun
05-07-2004, 03:08 PM
what exactly is this whole protest about? are they against the commercialism of a brand name? no dark roast on tuesday morning rush hour? they ran out of scones or what?

grinner
05-07-2004, 03:12 PM
who knows with these black mask Anti-authority types.

sny
05-07-2004, 10:02 PM
what exactly is this whole protest about? are they against the commercialism of a brand name? no dark roast on tuesday morning rush hour? they ran out of scones or what?

If it's the one I'm thinking of, it's the nuttiest thing.

The earlier articles/news stories I've read/seen say they simply oppose it because it's a chain. That's it. That's all. The town is full of Mom and Pop stores, and they want to keep it that way. Their zoning laws are draconian, almost. Any corporate entity or name is seen as completely evil, automatically. They circulated petitions and I believe, took legal action to keep the owner from opening, and lost.

What I find ridiculous is that the poor guy who owns the shop is a local man. He owns the franchise, he pays money for the building, just like all the other business owners in town. He sunk a lot of money into starting the business and complying with local zoning laws that require the store to "blend in" looks-wise. As I recall, these rules were very, very strict, and if I recall correctly, the pictures I've seen of the shop show that it blends very well. It is not obtrusive, it's quite attractive, To me, that Starbucks is a freakin' local business because the owner is local, and yet these protestors say it isn't and resort to things like this in order to keep the poor man from opening his honest business.

I remember seeing some television interviews with some locals who opposed it somewhere around the petition stage. They all came off sort of like 60s radicals who were scouring the countryside for something to protest. It really came off as making a mountain out of a molehill, in the news story I watched. Some of those interviewed weren't shy about implying that they would resort to violence and outright intimidation if the guy attempted to open. The owner said that he could not afford to start an independent coffee shop. Being a franchise was the only way he could make the economics work. He had, already, at that time (several months ago), experienced some minor vandalism in the form of broken windows and spray painted protests on the building. I came away thinking these protestors seriously needed to get a new hobby other than harassment. I'm all for Mom and Pop when and where possible, but this was pretty absurd to me.