Agreed. And I’d also add, that while it was the “loudness” of the anti-AAers that allowed them to prevail in their struggle, that is the way the system, under prop G, is supposed to work.

Prop G allows a neighborhood to rationally and calmly, on a case-by-case basis, asses whether to allow a formula store to move in. In theory, terrific. But I think its clear that this system is being abused. Prop G is based on the assumption that citizens — loud or otherwise — of rational and open minds can come to a decision that actually benefits the neighborhood. The highly dogmatic imperative that no chain stores can move onto Valencia is an example of the exact line of thinking that undermines the prop G process.

For those who advocate for a ban on chain stores in the mission (or is it just valencia?), put the issue on the ballot. Let the voters decide (I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them agreed with you!). With prop G, voters surely did not implement a ban on chains. What they did do, though, was to entrust themselves and their fellow san franciscans with making reasoned and thoughtful neighborhood planning decisions through the use of veto power. The absolutely-no-chains anit-AA crusade was a blatant and corrupt undermining of the prop G planning process.

@ivyjeanne

I’m for coming to understandings and sifting through cultural and racial dynamics in an effort to get at the most holistic decision. But the rubber has got to hit the road. We do need “winning” ideas because people’s day-to-day lives are effected by decisions soicety makes, and I think those who are strident dogmatists and cultural absolutists actually do an overall disservice to those they aspire to help, or at least to society at large.

Rather, we need to humble ourselves and learn how first listen to each other, speak true to our experiences and figure out a way to draw out the voices of those unheard.

Reality-based partnerships that are culturally-competent will only serve to benefit us all.

i think you’re right. and i would add that, imho, the most well-rounded, inclusive, moderate thinkers should “win”.

unfortunately, once there’s something to gain – political gain, fiscal, personal – it’s the “loudest” that usually do.

or the most moneyed.

We should all ask ourselves these question: What was it about Valencia St that attracted the attention of a store like American Apparel? Who looks out for whom in the Mission business community?

Until we learn how to form true alliances with each other, real estate speculators will certainly get the best of us all.

Instead, I think whoever has the better idea should win, and those ideas should actually produce results. Hello, practicality!

I have a question for you Mark. How would AA improve safety at night on Mission Street?

at the same time, i think the arguments about gentrification on valencia were silly; that street can’t get too much more gentrified. but american apparel would literally be a little posh outpost on these streets – the way foreign cinema or weird fish are now (to much smaller extents). i don’t know how that would change things. at the same time, as someone pointed out here or on sfist, mission street is historically kind of built for chain retail and big box stores. i don’t think that’s necessarily what the neighborhood needs, but the history is worth considering.

i feel pretty confident in my views on valencia street: it’s too boutique-y for me, i can’t afford most of it, but there’s a couple stores i love and would hate to see leave (community thrift, lost weekend, dog eared, etc).

but what do i think about what mission street needs (or svn)? that’s much more complicated. it clearly needs economic investment, but what kind? are new condos just going to turn mission street into valencia street two?

i’m really happy american apparel got denied, but i think the rest of the mission is a much bigger issue, and the stakes are a lot higher. i also just personally care more about mission street. i really like the way it changes and stays the same from the mission to the excelsior, and i think it’s got a unique, glorious, and largely untouched history that is still in full view. i’m glad people are trying to jumpstart this dialogue. i’m afraid it doesn’t get as much play on the blogs because people can’t be as snarky and witty as they can be about valencia street hipsters.

One question that I’ll put out there via both the blog and maybe when I knock on your door in the next few days is: What if AA had proposed this on Van Ness? Here is a street that I’ve noticed in my short time as a Mission resident as beginning to see change, but still in need of an economic engine. What if they had worked with the SVN merchants in gaining support? Would there still be a backlash from Valencia St merchants? Hipster and cool kids? Local yuppies (me)? What is the line that those who are active and (currently) passionate are willing to draw?