But they love our gentrification!

Andy Blue sends in the press release, describing the next steps to keep the shop out of the Mission. Full text after the jump:

JACK SPADE OPPONENTS RETURN FIGHT TO CITY HALL
WITH EXPANDING SUPPORT FROM POLS AND COMMUNITY GROUPS

Author of formula retail ballot measure, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano:
“Jack Spade has operated in bad faith”


Matt Gonzalez, Aaron Peskin; Supes Campos, Avalos,
and Mar support the appeal.

SAN FRANCISCO –– Backed by the original drafters of San Francisco’s formula retail ordinance, the coalition fighting to stop designer menswear line, Jack Spade, from opening a new store in the Mission District, heads to City Hall this Wednesday, October 9 (City Hall, Room 416, 5:00pm) to request a rehearing before the Board of Appeals.

Authors of San Francisco formula retail ordinances, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano and former president of the Board of Supervisors, Matt Gonzalez, expressed unequivocal support for the appeal, writing that to allow Jack Spade to move in without first holding a public hearing would subvert the intent of the formula retail ordinance. “Measure G was intended to protect the community voice from being overshadowed by large corporate interests,” Ammiano writes in a letter of support. “Jack Spade has operated in bad faith by using store count technicalities to evade fair and transparent public processes.” (Read full letter, here: bit.ly/ammiano-letter)

The Valencia Corridor Merchants’ Association, the appellant in the case, argues that the Board of Appeals has a duty to adopt a holistic reading of the Planning Code, which would lead to Jack Spade being classified as formula retail. The result would be to subject Jack Spade to a public conditional use hearing before being granted building permits. (Read the VCMA’s brief, here: bit.ly/vcmabrief)

Jack Spade claims that because it is an “independent business” with only 10 stores, it should not have to seek approval from the community. The Planning Code defines formula retail as a business with 11 or more locations in the United States.

The Coalition maintains that Jack Spade is the same company as Kate Spade LLC, both of which share headquarters in New York; distribution software and distribution center in Ohio; IT, HR and legal departments; staff and payroll; and parent company, 5th & Pacific (formerly “Liz Claiborne”). According to 5th & Pacific’s public filings, Jack Spade is considered a sub-brand of Kate Spade, which itself has 94 locations in the U.S., clearly qualifying as formula retail. (Read more backstory, here: bit.ly/jackspadesf)

The appeal has received wide support from elected officials and community groups. In addition to Ammiano and Gonzalez, Former Board of Supervisors president, Aaron Peskin, and current Supervisors David Campos, John Avalos, and Eric Mar each added their own letter of support. Several community groups including Causa Justa :: Just Cause, PODER, the Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA), and Calle 24 SF have also backed the appeal.

“Allowing Jack Spade to locate into the Mission District would damage the economic and social conditions in the neighborhood by . . . damaging the local small business community who would have to compete with a highly capitalized large-scale ‘national retailer,’” wrote Luis Granados, MEDA’s Executive Director. (Read full letter, here: bit.ly/meda-letter)

The appeal comes as the debate around displacement in the Mission is coming to a head. Next Saturday, Calle 24 SF and some 40 other community organizations are holding an anti-displacement rally and march with hundreds of participants expected. The event is titled Our Mission: No Eviction, with the slogan, “Stop urban deportation. Stop Jack Spade!” (http://tinyurl.com/calle24). According to the San Francisco Rent Board’s annual eviction report, city-wide evictions have risen by 26 percent compared to last year, while the number of Ellis Act evictions increased by 81 percent.

In late September, a standing-room only crowd discussed these trends in an event titled “Jack Spade, Gentrification, and the Mission: A Community Discussion for Action.” In coverage of the event, SFist referred to Jack Spade as “a galvanizing symbol of the latest phase in the Mission’s gentrification and potential loss of character.”

You can follow the story of the opposition here.

The press release after the jump.

COMMUNITY COALITION TAKES FIGHT AGAINST
NEW JACK SPADE STORE TO SF CITY HALL ON WEDNESDAY

Merchants, organizations and neighbors present new evidence suggesting Jack Spade
misrepresented the nature and structure of its company when applying for City permit

Supervisors Campos and Avalos submit letters supporting initial appeal

SAN FRANCISCO — The fight against designer menswear line Jack Spade opening a new store in the Mission District heads to City Hall this Wednesday, August 14th, as a coalition of merchants, community organizations, and neighbors takes their case with new evidence before the Board of Appeals (City Hall, Room 416, 5:00pm).

The Valencia Corridor Merchant’s Association (VCMA), as well as concerned residents and a number of Mission District-based community organizations, including Causa Justa :: Just Cause, PODER, and La Raza Community Resource Center argue that Jack Spade falsely presented itself as a small, independent business in order to avoid the City’s “Formula Retail” regulations, which require businesses with over 11 locations in the U.S. to submit to a public approval process.

The Coalition maintains that Jack Spade is the same company as Kate Spade LLC, both of which share headquarters in New York; distribution software and distribution center in Ohio; IT, HR and legal departments; staff and payroll; and parent company, 5th & Pacific (formerly “Liz Claiborne”). According to 5th & Pacific’s public filings, Jack Spade is considered a sub-brand of Kate Spade, which itself has 94 locations in the U.S.

The Coalition argues that, had Jack Spade been forthcoming about its corporate structure, it would have rightfully triggered a public hearing under the formula retail regulations.

“We need to call a Spade a Spade,” said Eileen Hassi of the VCMA and owner of Ritual Roasters on Valencia Street. “Kate Spade and Jack Spade are not, by any reasonable definition, separate companies and therefore Jack Spade needs to be treated as formula retail. Under the formula retail ordinance, the community gets to have a say in the development of its neighborhoods. We’re asking the Board of Appeals to let our case go forward.”

In July, after months of unsuccessfully trying to engage with Jack Spade to discuss their concerns, the VCMA filed an appeal to have the company’s permit reconsidered. Because the filing occurred after the specified window for appeal had passed, the VCMA must first be granted jurisdiction by the Board of Appeals, which is the subject of Wednesday’s hearing.

The VCMA maintains that local businesses were given insufficient notice of the permit in the first place, and point out that the person in charge of notifying the Mission Merchants Association is a paid consultant of Jack Spade. Because of the extenuating circumstance, they have requested the Board of Appeals to allow the case to move forward.

Since then, the coalition has broadened to include a number of community organizations and concerned residents. Supervisors David Campos and John Avalos have also submitted Letters of Support for the VCMA’s appeal. While the VCMA has pointed out that Jack Spade may serve to push out local businesses by increasing rents in the neighborhood, Mission-based organizations and residents have found common cause in the idea that the community should have a chance to speak out when big business wants in.

The effort to oppose Jack Spade comes as the debate around chain store regulations in San Francisco heats up. Six of San Francisco’s 11 supervisors—including moderates London Breed, Mark Farrell and Scott Wiener—have either introduced successful legislation or proposed ordinances that would bring the controls to new neighborhoods or define more businesses as chain stores, the SF Examiner reported. Meanwhile, the Planning Department has commissioned a city wide study on the effects of formula retail, slated to be published in the fall.

Well, a bunch of “Valencia Corridor” businesses are opposing Jack Spade as a formula retailer brand from a multinational company, and therefore not a part of the Mission community. The opening of a store like this will pave the way for more companies to take root in the neighborhood, and push out the local businesses. Makes sense to me.

I’d also add that they really only appeal to a certain kind of well moneyed, overly groomed young urban professional scenester, but that’s pretty much the Valencia Corridor in a nutshell.

Anyway, you can sign their petition here, and the event should be fun, with proceeds going to “support the Stop Jack Spade campaign”.

While Adobe Books has fortunately managed to find a new home on 24th Street, the question of Liz Clairborne-backed Jack Spade moving into their former location still remains.  Among those opposed to the technicality-skirting men’s boutique is the Valencia Corridor Merchants Association (VCMA), who went to the Department of Building Inspection yesterday to log a complaint against the plans of Jack Spade to open up a 10th store on the Valencia Corridor.  Jefferson, Vice President of the VCMA, explains their case:

They had 7 stores when they applied for a LOD (Letter of Determination) from the Planning Department. Planning confirmed that they were not formula retail at the time but cautioned that if they opened up 3 more stores their status would change.

Next week the VCMA will finalize and submit a letter to the planning department to express the business communities’ opposition to their presence on the Valencia corridor.

Rumor also has it that Jack Spade craftily attempted to partner with Dave Eggers’ 826 Valencia in an effort to establish some neighborhood clout, but that the non-profit writing center turned them down.  It’s still too early to say how the city will respond, but could this situation unfold the same way as the Valencia American Apparel that never was?

[Photo via UA]