Stop Urban Outfitters coming to Haight Street!

Hayne himself is an ardent Republican. He is a financial supporter of arch conservative Sen. Rick Santorum, whose recent comments about homosexuals equated gay sex with incest and bestiality.

When PW asks Hayne about his financial support of Santorum, he initially denies it. And when presented with a computer printout of Santorum's campaign donors from the Center for Responsive Politics website--which cites a $4,650 contribution from Urban Outfitters--he responds: "I'll have to look into this. I don't think this is right." In fact, he and his wife have contributed $13,150 to Santorum and Santorum's Political Action Committee over the years.

Asked to clarify for the record whether he ever contributed to Santorum's reelection campaign, he counters, "I don't want to mislead you. Like many people, I have some affinity for Rick Santorum, and I have problems with some of his positions."

And where does Santorum's position on homosexuality fit in his comfort zone?

"I'm not going to comment on it," he says, irked. "I have my own opinion, but I am not going to share it. Our job as a business is not to promote a political agenda. That's not what we do. There are all kinds of political views held by my employees. Some would be horrified to learn that we contributed to Santorum's campaign, and others would be fine with it. We openly discuss and joke about our political differences."

While on the topic of uncomfortable questions, PW raises the other issue that dogs Urban Outfitters: the allegation the company relies on sweatshop labor to manufacture its apparel, generating its massive profit margin on the backs of the Third World poor. Check the labels on most of the clothing hanging in an Urban Outfitters store and you'll find that many say "MADE IN TURKEY," "MADE IN INDIA" or "MADE IN SRI LANKA."

Yes, says Hayne, nearly all of Urban Outfitters' apparel is manufactured in Third World sewing shops--just like nearly all of the clothing sold in this country. If Urban Outfitters relied on domestic union labor, says Hayne, most of his customers could not afford the price he would have to charge to turn a profit. All things being relative, he says, Urban Outfitters does not contract with any sewing shops that are overtly inhumane or exploitive.

"Years ago I visited one of the factories we work with in India, and there was 500 people standing in a line three people deep stretching around the building," he recalls. "I said to the foreman, 'What's going on?' He told me they were all applicants for the four positions they had open. I toured that facility and it was reasonably clean--for India. And it was reasonably well-lit--again, for India. And yes, it was mostly young women working there. But it is my understanding that the only other option those women had to feed their families was selling their bodies. So I don't want to hear people from the suburbs with their fat American stomachs telling people in other countries how to run their societies."

At this point--about two hours into the interview--Hayne pauses and, with barely contained irritation, says, "I guess I should have asked this before I agreed to this interview--what is your angle?"

The irony of Richard Hayne--the undisputed king of under-30 retail cool--is that there's nothing remotely hip about him. Nothing at all. With his loosely knotted yellow silk power tie and boardroom-blue dress shirt, he looks like a typical $1,000-a-plate Republican fundraiser attendee. An eyeglass case bulges nerdily in his breast pocket, his teeth are slightly crooked and a few thin strands of hair arc over a small constellation of moles mapping the northward advance of his forehead.

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/article.asp?ArtID=5725

Dan Savage website devoted to Rick Santorum:
http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/

"Santorum has been taken to task by gays and their supporters for seemingly equating homosexuality with incest, polygamy and adultery. "
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/cities_neighborhoods/philadelphia/5747130.htm


Santorum On The Issues:
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Rick_Santorum.htm

Some problems with all-this:

1) The Haight is already a mall. For one, it's already got a Gap and a McD's, and a theme: perennial-60s chic. It has exactly one supermarket, which can thus charge outragrous prices, and be selectively rude to customers. unless you want to lug lots of bags home from Albertson's, over on Fulton, or drive, they're it at night, except for the liquor stores. In other words, too few options for reasonable choice at a reasonable price (which is to say: prices match wages in a vague and general way). A Walgreen's opened up recently within a 1 mile radius-- oh joy!! Really.

2) The Haight is a bar district too, it's a party zone. Nothing wrong with that per se (it's cute to be awakened at 2:20 a.m. by people engagin in behavior one used to), but really, what exactly are you preserving from the "mall"? Is it:

3) All those mean, rude and stingy small shopkeeps? No, they're not all mean and stingy, but they are all capitalists, trying to eke out a margin in a highly competitive strip of similar shops. How many of you anti-UO's work for one of the small shops on Haight? Or are the minimal wages too small to live on?

4) What's the difference? Most of the small shops on Haight sell clothing, smoke stuff and my God, can I get a pair of shoes up here? Used clothing at retail prices, that's what's going on in the Haight-- oh I'm sorry, I mean *vintage*. Ya want cheap clothes, ya go to the Mission, or back home for Xmas.

5) The sweatshop thing. Most clothes sold in thie country by this point are. It's why we opposed all that "free" trade stuff, which isn't free because labor isnt free to cross the borders like capital is. We should be fighting this in that kind of direction. This boycott stuff is a pathetic, too-late rearguard action. "I'd rather wear nothing at all" makes for cute ad copy, but fact is, that's more or less your choice, and most people will not choose to go naked. If it's really your concern, help the people trying to unionize those runaway plants. Yes, they're out there. Acting against the realization of one particular UO outlet is only pretending to help them.

6) The jobs thing. Hey, it's tough times, and there aren't a lot of choices for work these days. It's likely no better, but how could a job at UO (or the Gap for that matter) really suck any harder than working for, say, Buffalo Exchange or Villain's Vault?? Not exactly union jobs, those. and speaking of which....

7) Who cares what the owner believes? Of course he's a rectionary pig. Duh. Real questions: what kind of bennies does uo provide? Healthcare? DP benefits? Don't know?

Then what the hell *are* you protesting??

PS: How the hell is Matt Gonzalez going to tax the fuck out of their gross receipts, if their gross receipts are prevented? I'd rather have, sigh, another UO, and free MUNI for kids and old peeps.

What are the priorities?

Please, dissuade me.....

Dear Haight Resident:

I'm glad you agree that the Haight is already a mall. Now why make it worse than it is by severalfold?

The proposed Urban Outfitters would be practically four times larger than current zoning allows. The zoning law also states that such a locale should serve the neighborhood residents. That's you! From my understanding, HANC has been pushing to get a bank or pharmacy in part of that space.

The last thing we need is another clothing store on Haight to add to the multitudes already operating there. And we don't need more after-school, dead-end jobs there. We need real-paying jobs for adults trying to support themselves and their families. Retail is not the answer.

If it's not too personal to ask, which are you more angry about: the mallification of the Haight or the fact that residents are organizing to put an end to it? Or are you just plain angry?

We need real-paying jobs for adults trying to support themselves and their families.

and what do you catagorize as "real paying jobe for adults"?
what income brackit would you find acceptable for "your" taste?

and by your statement it is apparent that you oppost the idea that teenagers might want to find employment as well?

http://beta.kpix.com/news/local/2004/01/11/Offensive_Tee-Shirts_Pulled_from_Market_After_Jewish_Group_Protests.html

Ratso asked me:
> I'm glad you agree that the Haight is already a mall. Now why
> make it worse than it is by severalfold?

That's not what I said at all. But to do you the favor of replying squarely (in hopes that hyou might return it): the site as I currently understand it, consists of a parking lot, tiny and overpriced. It is of no use to residents. It is entirely geared to the suburban kids who come in their SUVs to hang out, much like they do at every mall in the country I suspect.

Ratso observed that:
> The proposed Urban Outfitters would be practically four times
> larger than current zoning allows.

Oh that's gonna stop them!!

Nor is that the same question as whether one should be there at all. In fact, it kind of looks like your whole operation consisted of: wow, OU sucks. Let's think up every single little thing anyone might dislike about it, use all that to just gloss over any possible benefit, and then push it off as the will of the community.

Hey, it's what you believe, fair enough. It is not what everyone thinks. You should stop saying it is if you don't like to be critiqued by the people you ostensibly represent.

I personally support approaching the question like so: wow, they want something we got, which isn't doing us much good currently anyways. What can we get out of them for it, for our people? Can we get free muni or save sf general or, or, or?

> The zoning law also states that such a locale should serve the
> neighborhood residents. That's you!

Thanks for the franchise. So, how is what's currently there serving residents' needs, as you understand them? The sunglass kiosk maybe? It is in my price range as far as healthcare goes...

But if there were a UO there, someone could come along and tax the fuck (pardon) out of its gross receipts, and pay for SF General with it, which really is my healthcare strategy.

Dig?

> From my understanding, HANC has been pushing to get a bank
> or pharmacy in part of that space.

Aah, outlets for capital in its purest form, and the pharmaceutical industry, respectively. Real pillars of community, those. And in "part" of the space? i.e. they're willing to play ball with the developers for perceived community interest too. Hmm.... how about a homeless shelter while we're at it? Better yet, a drop in center. Laundry and showers, and maybe rehab-counseling-referrals. A little bit of food and a lot of coffee. It could be nice, and I could use it someday when I needed it...

Frankly, I agree that either service would enhance the hood. Though a Walgreens did open up recently within relative proximity.

Not to digress. How is what you want better than what is being proposed?

Ratso opined that:
> The last thing we need is another clothing store on Haight to add > to the multitudes already operating there.

I don't think I ever argued that. I did argue the argument's relevance to your goals, versus other goals that would be achieved by embracing the development and asserting both community control over development parameters (size concerns for example), as well as assuring a local stake in the resulting profit stream.

A transitional demand, you might say.

> And we don't need more after-school, dead-end jobs there. We
> need real-paying jobs for adults trying to support themselves and > their families. Retail is not the answer.

Uh, duh, that's why I bothered to bore you with all that stuff about unions. At least you stopped asking "what about the children?" But any jobs are better than none, and clothing retail isnt as dead end as, say, food service. Talk about local-availability overkill.....

> If it's not too personal to ask, which are you more angry about:
> the mallification of the Haight or the fact that residents are
> organizing to put an end to it? Or are you just plain angry?

If it's not too personal to answer, I'm not really that pissed off at all-- despite your kinda-lame attempts to make me so. It looks like business as usual to me, disgusting enough but not particularly outrageous, no more or less so than a million other like compromises in recent memory... No less ordinary, your reply is the perfectly-predictable kind of NIMBYness that long-term has done things like inhibited growth of rental stock, and so the ability of many of us to stay in the city at all-- for the ultimate sake and benefit of, for example, the property values of all these lovely local victorians, many owned by those "mom-&-pop" capitalists whose interests you say I should be out there defending.

Just curious, did you do a walk through and count the "Newsom" and the "Gonzalez" signs? The former were mostly in those nice, fresh-painted (and within old building code limits) victorians, 3 stories, maybe flats. Lotsa Gonzalez signs were in the shabby rental units like the one in which I reside, and those not-nicely-painted and obviously overcrowded old vics.

Disgusted yes, angry no. Except maybe at the way the class war's going, and at knee-jerk left dogmatism and its chronic inability to effectively address it by adapting to conditions and fighting for something real.

I remain to be convinced, as I originally concluded. Your kind of sanctimony isn't what i'm looking for though, sorry. Thanks for asking, and have a nice day.

Dear Haight Resident:

I read your reply twice before realizing that you don't know the location of the proposed Urban Outfitters chain store. It's not at the little corner parking lot at Haight and Shrader. It's in the ground floor of the massive condo development one block east.

I don't represent anyone but myself (I live two blocks from the site), but judging from the hundreds of signatures collected on petitions at various Haight street stores, the locals simply don't want to see a gigantic corporate chain set up shop here.

You don't speak to the cultural uniqueness of the neighborhood because, evidently, you don't see it. Let me ask you, then: do you see a difference between the strip of chain stores on Chestnut Street in the Marina and our neighborhood? I hope so.

San Francisco has lost much--but not all--of its charm with the encroachment of the chains that took over many neighborhoods in the nineties. It's become a much more generic city as a result. Props to the residents of North Beach and the Sunset for fighting Rite-Aid and Starbucks respectively. Same goes to those that barred Burger King from Fell and Divisadero.

Since both the pharmacy and the bank on Haight closed down some years ago, it is necessary to fill a prescription or visit a bank teller outside the neighborhood. Is it so odd to argue for such amenities on our own commercial strip?

Maybe you weren't living here when there were many more book stores, record stores, a comic book store, art galleries, nightclubs, a bowling alley, etc., etc. Now it's all about shoes and clothes, and I find any argument in favor of gigantic clothing chain on a strip jam-packed with clothing stores to be baseless.

We don't need a corporate superstore with right-wing connections selling sweatshop clothing, cheapening the neighborhood character, bringing down wages, and increasing traffic on one of the densest blocks in the city.

Neighborhood sovreignty = local democracy.

Dear Ratso,

I feel odd starting that way, but on reflection I realize it's only because I assume it will be misread as sarcasm. It is not; in fact, I feel the blush of familiarity spreading in our correspondence. So in the optimistic spirit of running with that, please allow me to hasten to your thoughts without further ado.

> I read your reply twice before realizing that you don't know the
> location of the proposed Urban Outfitters chain store. It's not at
> the little corner parking lot at Haight and Shrader. It's in the
> ground floor of the massive condo development one block east.

Aah, thanks for the info. I don't pretend to know everything. In fact, I started this my modest intervention by expressing doubt... That would be the space where the I-Beam used to be, if memory serves. That kind of long-lost venue is a) really rare, and b) would indeed be a valuable contribution to all y'all say you want to preserve... to say nothing of a magical memory...

So why on goddess' green earth are you advocating for a bank and not musician practice spaces, for a pharmacy and not artists' lofts and galleries?

> I don't represent anyone but myself (I live two blocks from the
> site), but judging from the hundreds of signatures collected on
> petitions at various Haight street stores, the locals simply don't
> want to see a gigantic corporate chain set up shop here.

I have argued that many locals have, in fact, bourgeios interests. Your argument here does not dissuade me of my class-based doubts about this campaign to "save" the Haight. More on this below!!

> You don't speak to the cultural uniqueness of the neighborhood
> because, evidently, you don't see it. Let me ask you, then: do you > see a difference between the strip of chain stores on Chestnut
> Street in the Marina and our neighborhood? I hope so.

I don't speak to the diversity issue because I haven't disputed it; in fact, I agree. But let make myself painfully clear, as implication doesn't seem to have worked here: I think you are ill-serving it.

You have yet to explain how a bank or a pharmacy, the apparent demands of at least HANC and maybe the "Stop the UO" folks (whatever the actual name), is going to provide for a preservation of disappearing local culture. Instead, you are arguing for local provision of service. I have said there are better alternatives than another iteration of massive corporate-capitalist conglomerates, not least of them being, getting everything we can out of a UO if it's going move in anyways.

Please note this is not therefore an advocacy of UO. It is a giant, gaping hole in the logic of the anti-UO position. I'm just saying that, is all. In fact, y'all look a bit knee-jerk and NIMBY. A "speaking for the public" campaign against a well-financed and well-connected opponent should pay attention to how it's coming off, because your class enemies sure will, and will use it to their maximum advantage, virtually guaranteed.

> San Francisco has lost much--but not all--of its charm with the
> encroachment of the chains that took over many neighborhoods in > the nineties. It's become a much more generic city as a result.
> Props to the residents of North Beach and the Sunset for fighting > Rite-Aid and Starbucks respectively. Same goes to those that
> barred Burger King from Fell and Divisadero.

Sigh.

This has been going on, and people have kept voting for its administrators at the local level. Rerunning the 90s campaigns probably means achieving the same 90s slow-losses with them, especially in the current economic climate when people can be easily scared with buzz words like "jobs." Do yourself a favor: consider the demographics of the next "save the Haight" meeting, and for that matter, of those working in local establishments. Then go downtown, actually go into the Gap and whatever, and consider the demographics of those working there, and for that matter shopping there. Oops-- racial and economic gaps!! Your opposition will notice and use against you. I'm being horridly presumptious here, that this campaign is like so many others like it.

Do yourself and the rest of us a favor, and address the jobs thing in your reply to UO. Don't just take a beating with that stick from the wrong side. Another way to say the same thing: do you actually go into the stores you are so livid about, or do you just educate the people who work and shop in them about their evils?

As for the dry-rot of local culture, I would argue that the sickness is deeper. AIDS killed a lot of the old counterculture, and many who were left became shopkeepers and/or landlords in time, and as their economic interests changed, so did their political ideals. This degeneration, long and slow, resulted in the not-so-distant-past (and possibly antecdotal) spectacle of the Castro District (remember "rainbow" of diversity ideals?) spearheading an anti-homeless campaign called "Create change, don't hand it out," which should sound to the observant viewer something like "Care Not Cash" (to say nothing of the bourgeois rejoinder to "Food Not Bombs, perhaps). It spread to the Haight next, if memory serves, and recently received its ultimate electoral triumph. As for those very shopkeeps you now say we should defend the economic interests of... well, not all of them were pro-homeless-bashing, to be sure. But I've yet to be cogently convinced that these folks are, in fact, allies and not enemies, in terms of the economic issues in questin here. Sure, we can all vote for Dean together, right? *wry grin*

This is to say that these "small, local" businesses you are advocating for are essentially a reactionary social force. They are beachheads of anti-labor-organizing, for example (xref Real Foods in Noe Valley, which closed the shop to keep unions out of the organics market... where the Cala across the street is union, I hasten to add). They are bedrocks of anti-poor and pro-gentrification campaigns. (The Castro business community, in their spare time, loved the idea of a Starbucks and of a Pottery Barn).

I'm all for standing against the man, but I think you're advocating siding with agents of the man against a really small and relatively meaningless outpost of same.I asked to be convinced otherwise, and no one has done that yet. In fact, no one's even tried... though I thank the various attempts to "educate" me.

> Since both the pharmacy and the bank on Haight closed down
> some years ago, it is necessary to fill a prescription or visit a
> bank teller outside the neighborhood. Is it so odd to argue for
> such amenities on our own commercial strip?

Yeah, that's exactly what you're asking for-- convenience. This is not the "tapestry of alternatives" you ostensibly advocate. There is a Walgreen's at Carl and Cole now, or a block up from that, I forget, I don't frequent it much. It's brand-new, likely distributes drugs, and almost-assuredly was "kept out" of the Haight...

Might be something to think about, is all.

> Maybe you weren't living here when there were many more book
> stores, record stores, a comic book store, art galleries,
> nightclubs, a bowling alley, etc., etc. Now it's all about shoes and > clothes, and I find any argument in favor of gigantic clothing chain > on a strip jam-packed with clothing stores to be baseless.

Well, maybe I wasn't living here then, but maybe I was. Does it change the logic of my arguments, or cover the flaws in yours, either way, how long I've been here? Or just my coolness factor versus yours?

I don't hear any of you demanding a live music venue, which strikes me as authentic to your ostensible preservation goals. ("Remember the I-Beam!" I can hear the kids of all ages sing.... ) Nope, instead, I hear you advocating for one faction of capital versus another ("we want bank! we want bank!"), and cloaking it in progressive rhetoric, which I find a) personally unconvincing, and b) damaging to the ideals part of what you ostensibly advocate, from a public-perception point of view.

You're not just setting your own goals back, but the wider progressive cause, by this inconsistency. I hasten to add that just like that which you oppose, the anti-UO campaign in and of itself is relatively small and meaningless. I mostly want to make a wider point about collective, long-range and across-the-board strategy.

> We don't need a corporate superstore with right-wing connections > selling sweatshop clothing, cheapening the neighborhood
> character, bringing down wages, and increasing traffic on one of
> the densest blocks in the city.
> Neighborhood sovreignty = local democracy.

...and at the end, always, the ideological cherry on the cake. (BTW, I'll bet the local businesses like the idea of increased traffic...) No one who doesn't already agree with you is persuaded by it.

Please note that nowhere have I actually advocated for the UO store. I did suggest that consideration be made of concessions to be extracted from it, which is not quite the same thing. I also suggested it was not the big deal it's being made out to be. Apparently I was misunderstood. I hope this post makes my position a bit more clear.

Additionally, I wanted to challenge UO's opponents to be more articulate, and consistent, in their analysis and critique-- to "convince me," a skeptical person with a reasonable chance of siding with you.

What I got instead was a) labeled as an advocate for the enemy, b) condescended to er I mean "educated," and c) the same reiterations of the same tired, meager, and self-contradictory sloganeering.

To think that I'm actually on your side. There, you have it, I've "outed" myself. Say the problem's me for not coming to your meeting, if you must. I meanwhile will maintain that you will convince absolutely no one in any of the public meetings in which you will have to intervene to actually stop this thing. Instead, I predict that without changes, this campaign will alienate potential supporters with a visionlessness combined with shrillness, do nothing to stop either the immediate threat nor the deeper, underlying problem, and ultimately carry, say, about 48% of the support, leaving us with a community polarized between competing capitalist interests and a UO store in the Haight with absolutely no community concessions to show for it. Newsom can grease his re-election wheels with the help he gave developers &c. Call me psychic, or bitter. I prefer to think I'm simply not snoozing through modern history.

As I said in my first post, please, convince me otherwise. Meanwhile, even if our new familiarity is, alas, breeding contempt, please at least ponder this much:

Do you really want to keep fighting the chains location by location, store by store, hood by hood? Or would you rather change parameters of debate on the bastards, riding, say, off the recent electoral momentum?

Demand the whole enchilada, baby. And good luck to all of you.