Did anyone attend the CRUNCH! neighborhood meeting?

[keithn.livejournal.com]

If anyone here attended this meeting, could you report on it?

I have a feeling that there is coordinated opposition to CRUNCH! given the wording of the Davis Action Group e-mail regarding this meeting, and the fact that Alderman Gewirtz chose to attend this meeting instead of the BiBim meeting.

Given the drama involving what is now "Rock N' Fitness," I was hoping CRUNCH! might be able to serve as a viable alternative, especially since I have little faith that "Rock N' Fitness" will survive more than a year.

From what I gathered, the opposition centered around the fact that the gym will have no parking, there are already "enough" gyms in the area, and the belief that the business isn't viable because membership goals are too high.

Comments

[francescadavis.livejournal.com]

Seven licenses left. And while I agree with your frustration about the limited licenses in Somerville in general, it is more concerning to me that BiBim cannot afford the commercial rent without a liquor license. (that was stated in the community meeting frequently) Essentially, the commercial property owners are determining the businesses that can afford to survive in Davis Square and limiting those businesses to chains with solid financials. Mom and pop, independent or entrepreneurial businesses have no hope of securing a lease and aren't even considered by commercial brokers at the direction of the owners, even if they have solid business plans with successful financials. The property owners are in the financial position to keep the storefronts empty until they get the rent they want. And that is what is happening. You keep harping on the liquor licenses and accusing city officials of ridiculous behavior, but why not focus on the real problem? All you have to do is look at the Cutter/Summer property to realize that the rents are too high for any reasonable business. There are a number of successful, local "chains" that would love to be in Davis but intelligently say no to the rents. And I really don't get why you think that Davis, which has a significant amount of the limited number of licenses, deserves more. Especially in a city with multiple underutilized neighborhoods? If you are really upset about it, start working with the state and do something. Apologies for my frustration, but your posts are frequent and accusatory with no solutions or attempt to fix the problems you identify.

[beinneighe.livejournal.com]

+1

[keithn.livejournal.com]

Rents are a result of supply and demand - the market - not evil property owners. Property owners can only charge a rent that businesses are willing and able to pay. Businesses in turn are only willing and able to pay as much as their income from the business at that location will allow (with a few strategic exceptions). As the foot traffic near these businesses increases businesses see an increase in numbers of customers, and therefore make more money and are willing to pay more rent. As the income of the residents of the community increases, residents are willing to pay more money and businesses can charge more money, also increasing the income of the business and the rent they are willing to pay.

Your judgment is clouded by the fact that a property owner is making more money in this process while merely owning the same piece of property, so you think they must be doing something "wrong." But look at it as if it was just a system where leases went to the highest bidder, because it effectively is. If one business feels they will be more successful at a location than another, that business will bid higher. One business is more successful than another because it brings in more customers or provides something they are willing to pay more money for. More successful businesses are the businesses that meet the needs of the community better. This is why we live in a capitalist society. The government does have a role here, but that is to block businesses when the location serves one part of the community at the expense of harming another (example, strip clubs).

Coming back and linking this to the specific topic at hand, I don't believe for a second that BiBim cannot afford rent without a liquor license, reason being that a joint selling $5 hamburgers survived there for many years making a slim profit before deciding that it wasn't worth it anymore. BiBim wants to be in Davis Square because of the foot traffic and demographics of the neighborhood. Why didn't BiBim try to open their restaurant in Teele Square, Ball Square, Magoun Square, North Cambridge, or Porter Square? Because they know they can make more money in Davis Square. And that's why Davis Square's rents are higher. They only want the liquor license to make even more money. "Evil", I know.

Why didn't you tell BiBim at the community meeting to move their proposed restaurant to one of the underutilized neighborhoods that you feel so badly for? You say Davis Square has enough liquor licenses and should share the love with other neighborhoods, but almost nobody is trying to open restaurants in those other neighborhoods. They all want to be in Davis.

The liquor board did just this to Beer Works. They told them that none of the city liquor licenses were for Davis Square and they should apply for a different location. Why aren't they telling this to BiBim? This is what is ridiculous about the city's behavior. If you want smaller businesses, say you want smaller businesses. Why hurt your credibility by lying outright about the licenses being for areas of "economic development?"

The reality is one or two aldermen just want to impose their own vision on Davis Square. Gewirtz seems intent on not allowing anything except a Whole Foods-esque grocery store into the social security building. But this isn't the city's building. If the city wants to dictate exactly what goes on in this building, they should buy it from the current owner and then charge whatever rent they want to whoever they want. Another option would be for the city to pay part of the rent for a grocery store that wants to go in. That's how the housing market works - if you want certain people to pay low rent, they either go into government owned housing or have part of their rent paid for by the government.

As for the liquor licenses - give them out to all of the businesses that deserve them, and then go back to the well for more. This is what happened last time. It might be unpleasant, but if our elected officials aren't willing to go back to the state and fight again for the betterment of Somerville, then they should be replaced with ones who are.