Ok, so luckily we stopped this evil business coming in. So now there is NO benefit to the community. Who cares if Trader J's gets a tax benefit? They're going to be selling goods and hiring people -- who pay taxes. They're going to provide an anchor which means that small businesses nearby will benefit, which provides yet more jobs. These "poor" people should have seen this for the opportunity that is was -- a chance to get ahead. What's to stop some of these "oppressed" people from banding together and starting a small business themselves to benefit from the Trader Joes anchor? At the very least, Trader Joes and the associated business have to hire people from somewhere.. why couldn't these "poor" people have applied for jobs? The funny thing is the complaint about the tax benefits is profoundly stupid. The net gain is much, much greater than the "loss" from the tax discount. Now there is absolutely no gain at all. There isn't going to be any tax revenue at all now. They managed to get themselves 100% of nothing. But at least that "nothing" stays in the community.

My theory about this story is that these poverty pimps that claim to be community activists have no interest in bettering their supposed constituents. So now there's no Trader Joes and therefore there's zero gain to the community. So rather than collecting something in taxes as well as the benefits from the economic stimulus, they get nothing -- an empty lot. 10% of something is a heck of a lot better than 100% of nothing. And, some of those poor people actually own their homes, some are upside down because of bad mortgages, the dramatic property value boost that would have happened could have turned many lives around. Now the values will drop even more because an investor knows that that neighborhood has zero potential for growth and thus nothing would drive capital appreciation. This whole "protest" was so incredibly stupid that it's mind boggling -- unless you ask yourself who benefits from Trader Joes not opening.. The poverty pimps and the community "organizations" that have a vested interest in keeping people dependent on their "services."

It's like when certain groups of black people ostracize kids that study hard in school, claiming they're "acting white." We can't have that -- they might actually make something of themselves and disprove the sanctity of victimhood within the inner city. It's funny because Michelle Obama made a big deal about how there are these so-called "food deserts" in the inner city. Apparently, Trader Joe's isn't the right kind of grocery store to make that group happy. Maybe they can build a liquor store and a pawnshop there instead. Would the community complain then? I seriously doubt it. If Trader Joes wasn't a white-hipster paradise, this "protest" would not have happened. This same exact segment of the population complains about de facto segregation and yet when there's an effort to actually bring some economic activity to a primarily black area -- they complain. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Maybe this "community group" should have put it to a vote. Let the neighborhood decide rather than some group that claims to represent the neighborhood.

The people that oppose this deal obvious no nothing about real estate, development and economic stimulus -- instead they actually enjoy seeing neighborhoods deteriorate, because with depressed neighborhoods, that victim card gets much more shiny and useful and the politicians that prey on these people get more votes.