OtherGround Forums San Fran wants to kick Juul HQ and staff out

7/9/19 10:12 PM
12/27/12
Posts: 1175

San Francisco wants to not only ban e-cigs but it also wants to kick e cig maker Juul’s headquarters out of their city. The legislation they are trying to pass would prohibit Juul from expanding their current headquarters.

 

Juul wants to buy a 29 story building in downtown San Francisco and employ over 2000 people. Between all those jobs and the property tax they would pay that sounds ridiculous to me. If they want to ban e cigs because they are harmful to kids then why stop there? Ban McDonalds. Ban Big Gulps. Where does it stop? 

 

I do not smoke or think positively about Juul or their products. But if what they are doing is legal I think it sets a terrible precedent to say “we just don’t like your product, so get out.” What if in Chicago we had a mayor who was a Cubs fan, could he just tell the Sox to get out? 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/juul-labs-reportedly-purchasing-downtown-san-francisco-high-rise-2019-5

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-e-cigarettes-temporary-ban-proposed-vaping-juul/

7/9/19 10:19 PM
12/22/10
Posts: 22175

7/10/19 12:01 AM
12/27/12
Posts: 1176

And they want to build a 24 hour homeless shelter right in the heart of downtown San Francisco with free food and health care. They can put it anywhere and they want it right in the center of the biggest tourist area, how much money are they wasting so they can show off their philanthropy to the world? Putting it in a different cheaper area is out of the question to them, it would save tons of money but then the world wouldn’t see it. That’s more important to them than Juul employing over 2000 people and bringing all that money into their economy, which will just go into someone else’s.

Edited: 7/10/19 12:10 AM
3/1/10
Posts: 9055

The city has already banned e-cigs, so in a way, it makes sense to not want the manufacturer of a banned product operating within city limits.

 

In regards to the 29 story building, presuming it is a vacant space, there are several ways the city could use that space in a way that is more efficient and beneficial to the residents of SF than an e-cig company.

I would be interested to see if the local lawmakers could work up a proposal to buy the space outright or tax it appropriately.

7/10/19 12:33 AM
3/1/10
Posts: 9056
benwah -

And they want to build a 24 hour homeless shelter right in the heart of downtown San Francisco with free food and health care. They can put it anywhere and they want it right in the center of the biggest tourist area, how much money are they wasting so they can show off their philanthropy to the world? Putting it in a different cheaper area is out of the question to them, it would save tons of money but then the world wouldn’t see it. That’s more important to them than Juul employing over 2000 people and bringing all that money into their economy, which will just go into someone else’s.

If you're referring to the proposed navigation center located at the Embarcadero, it's been approved by the city and is going to be built, regardless of NIMBY backlash.

Also, this is not a "homeless shelter". This is a navigation center. While I am a fierce advocate for homeless shelters and think they are necessary, navigation centers play a crucial role in the discussion.

Navigation centers are functionally different from homeless centers. The only people allowed in are through a referral program and there are a wide range of services available including networking homeless individuals with the benefits, healthcare, shelter, and assisted housing they are entitled to.

These centers are typically for couples, those with pets, or the most vulnerable of the homeless who are not comfortable staying at shelters. They also don't get kicked out in the morning.

Navigation centers are important for those who want a temporary place to stay while they are set-up with social services and housing assistance so they can live independently and no longer be homeless.

Truth is, it's not for everyone. Plenty of people would do better in shelters or living transient. Not everyone wants to be in a specialized navigation center program.

 

Anyone calling it a "homeless shelter" is NIMBY fear-mongering. And in regards to it being built on the waterfront, so fucking what? Nobody has exclusive ownership to a view of the ocean.

 

7/10/19 12:35 AM
1/18/06
Posts: 10763
So navigation centers shelter the homeless?
7/10/19 12:38 AM
4/30/15
Posts: 248

"Truth is, it's not for everyone. Plenty of people would do better in shelters or living transient"

 

Wow that's a start from your previous tax vacancy thread. Glad to see you actually have some sanity to you

7/10/19 12:42 AM
3/1/10
Posts: 9057
TheVandalz - So navigation centers shelter the homeless?

Yes, all navigation centers shelter the homeless, but there is a functional and formal distinction between a homeless shelter open on a first-come-first-serve basies from 10 PM to 6 AM and a 24/7 Navigation Center which only grants access to specific individuals preapproved by the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.

 

I know it can be a hard concept to grasp, esp. for anyone who has been fed NIMBY propaganda by a bunch of angry boomers upset about 'muh property values', but it's really not that hard to understand.

Be an ally, not an ignoramus.

7/10/19 12:45 AM
12/27/12
Posts: 1177
VTCO -

The city has already banned e-cigs, so in a way, it makes sense to not want the manufacturer of a banned product operating within city limits.

 

In regards to the 29 story building, presuming it is a vacant space, there are several ways the city could use that space in a way that is more efficient and beneficial to the residents of SF than an e-cig company.

I would be interested to see if the local lawmakers could work up a proposal to buy the space outright or tax it appropriately.

So instead of San Francisco allowing them to spend almost $290 million on a building, employing hundreds of people in its construction, paying property tax and employing over 2000 people you’d rather they turn a $290 million dollar property into a financial liability for the city’s already burdened budget or “tax it properly”.  That just makes no sense to me.

Edited: 7/10/19 12:53 AM
3/1/10
Posts: 9058
LoveSomeOreos -

"Truth is, it's not for everyone. Plenty of people would do better in shelters or living transient"

 

Wow that's a start from your previous tax vacancy thread. Glad to see you actually have some sanity to you

That was a propsal.

This is a real-life scenario.

7/10/19 12:50 AM
12/27/12
Posts: 1178
VTCO -
benwah -

And they want to build a 24 hour homeless shelter right in the heart of downtown San Francisco with free food and health care. They can put it anywhere and they want it right in the center of the biggest tourist area, how much money are they wasting so they can show off their philanthropy to the world? Putting it in a different cheaper area is out of the question to them, it would save tons of money but then the world wouldn’t see it. That’s more important to them than Juul employing over 2000 people and bringing all that money into their economy, which will just go into someone else’s.

If you're referring to the proposed navigation center located at the Embarcadero, it's been approved by the city and is going to be built, regardless of NIMBY backlash.

Also, this is not a "homeless shelter". This is a navigation center. While I am a fierce advocate for homeless shelters and think they are necessary, navigation centers play a crucial role in the discussion.

Navigation centers are functionally different from homeless centers. The only people allowed in are through a referral program and there are a wide range of services available including networking homeless individuals with the benefits, healthcare, shelter, and assisted housing they are entitled to.

These centers are typically for couples, those with pets, or the most vulnerable of the homeless who are not comfortable staying at shelters. They also don't get kicked out in the morning.

Navigation centers are important for those who want a temporary place to stay while they are set-up with social services and housing assistance so they can live independently and no longer be homeless.

Truth is, it's not for everyone. Plenty of people would do better in shelters or living transient. Not everyone wants to be in a specialized navigation center program.

 

Anyone calling it a "homeless shelter" is NIMBY fear-mongering. And in regards to it being built on the waterfront, so fucking what? Nobody has exclusive ownership to a view of the ocean.

 

Nothing against homeless shelters or navigation centers, it just think it would be more financially sensible to optimize land that is prime for city tax revenue and put the center somewhere else that is less prioritized. And that doesn’t mean next to the city dump. 

7/10/19 12:53 AM
3/1/10
Posts: 9059
benwah -
VTCO -

The city has already banned e-cigs, so in a way, it makes sense to not want the manufacturer of a banned product operating within city limits.

 

In regards to the 29 story building, presuming it is a vacant space, there are several ways the city could use that space in a way that is more efficient and beneficial to the residents of SF than an e-cig company.

I would be interested to see if the local lawmakers could work up a proposal to buy the space outright or tax it appropriately.

So instead of San Francisco allowing them to spend almost $290 million on a building, employing hundreds of people in its construction, paying property tax and employing over 2000 people you’d rather they turn a $290 million dollar property into a financial liability for the city’s already burdened budget or “tax it properly”.  That just makes no sense to me.

All I said was that IMO there are more efficient and beneficial ways to use the space that would be good for the local community.

I didn't propose anything specifically for how to use the building (taxing it is not using it), so I don't know why you're accusing me of wanting to turn the building into a "financial liability".

 

7/10/19 12:58 AM
3/1/10
Posts: 9060
benwah -
VTCO -
benwah -

And they want to build a 24 hour homeless shelter right in the heart of downtown San Francisco with free food and health care. They can put it anywhere and they want it right in the center of the biggest tourist area, how much money are they wasting so they can show off their philanthropy to the world? Putting it in a different cheaper area is out of the question to them, it would save tons of money but then the world wouldn’t see it. That’s more important to them than Juul employing over 2000 people and bringing all that money into their economy, which will just go into someone else’s.

If you're referring to the proposed navigation center located at the Embarcadero, it's been approved by the city and is going to be built, regardless of NIMBY backlash.

Also, this is not a "homeless shelter". This is a navigation center. While I am a fierce advocate for homeless shelters and think they are necessary, navigation centers play a crucial role in the discussion.

Navigation centers are functionally different from homeless centers. The only people allowed in are through a referral program and there are a wide range of services available including networking homeless individuals with the benefits, healthcare, shelter, and assisted housing they are entitled to.

These centers are typically for couples, those with pets, or the most vulnerable of the homeless who are not comfortable staying at shelters. They also don't get kicked out in the morning.

Navigation centers are important for those who want a temporary place to stay while they are set-up with social services and housing assistance so they can live independently and no longer be homeless.

Truth is, it's not for everyone. Plenty of people would do better in shelters or living transient. Not everyone wants to be in a specialized navigation center program.

 

Anyone calling it a "homeless shelter" is NIMBY fear-mongering. And in regards to it being built on the waterfront, so fucking what? Nobody has exclusive ownership to a view of the ocean.

 

Nothing against homeless shelters or navigation centers, it just think it would be more financially sensible to optimize land that is prime for city tax revenue and put the center somewhere else that is less prioritized. And that doesn’t mean next to the city dump. 

I think of it not unlike public housing.

When cities shoved public housing into ghettos in the outskirts of the city, all it did was segregate vulnerable people and force them to turn to a life of criminality.

Now what cities are doing is focusing on integrated housing. So new apartment buildings need to have affordable units, for instance. We don't segregate by race, and we shouldn't by class or age, either.

That is the same ideology here. The navigation center has as much right to a waterfront view as some retired boomer asshole. Saying that a homeless mother with her 3 children living at the future waterfront navigation center are not allowed to have that view because of their socioeconomic situation is classist.

7/10/19 12:59 AM
3/3/03
Posts: 32557

It would make more room for the homeless. Makes sense to me.  

Edited: 7/10/19 2:08 AM
11/16/08
Posts: 16015

Anyone who wouldn't want a navigation center/homeless shelter is just plain old NIMBYing. 

 

7/10/19 7:53 AM
6/1/07
Posts: 20633
Banning E-cigs is idiotic.

They have had a massive positive impact on public health worldwide by helping people quit smoking and switch to vaping. They still aren't good for your health, but they are like 90% less harmful than smoking cigarettes and that makes a huge difference in health outcomes. The 'what about the children?' arguments are just moral posturing, and completely ignore the wider health benefits of vaping. I'd also wager Big Tobacco is a major funder of the anti-vaping movement.
7/10/19 8:03 AM
10/16/07
Posts: 21378
VTCO -
benwah -
VTCO -

The city has already banned e-cigs, so in a way, it makes sense to not want the manufacturer of a banned product operating within city limits.

 

In regards to the 29 story building, presuming it is a vacant space, there are several ways the city could use that space in a way that is more efficient and beneficial to the residents of SF than an e-cig company.

I would be interested to see if the local lawmakers could work up a proposal to buy the space outright or tax it appropriately.

So instead of San Francisco allowing them to spend almost $290 million on a building, employing hundreds of people in its construction, paying property tax and employing over 2000 people you’d rather they turn a $290 million dollar property into a financial liability for the city’s already burdened budget or “tax it properly”.  That just makes no sense to me.

All I said was that IMO there are more efficient and beneficial ways to use the space that would be good for the local community.

I didn't propose anything specifically for how to use the building (taxing it is not using it), so I don't know why you're accusing me of wanting to turn the building into a "financial liability".

 

A vacant building with a willing profitable legal tenant ....yeah, that’s so inefficient.

 

can we get tatttoo parlours and body modification shops out of the city too...that stuff is just disgusting self harm.

7/10/19 8:04 AM
8/12/09
Posts: 11713
So they want to bad e-cigs and get rid of a business that is looking to provide 2000 jobs.

at the same time, they are OK w/humans shitting on sidewalks, mainlining dope, and tossing hypodermics all over the place.

great city!
7/10/19 8:06 AM
5/24/17
Posts: 3307

Jobs are bad 

7/10/19 8:07 AM
7/13/09
Posts: 22008
VTCO -
benwah -
VTCO -
benwah -

And they want to build a 24 hour homeless shelter right in the heart of downtown San Francisco with free food and health care. They can put it anywhere and they want it right in the center of the biggest tourist area, how much money are they wasting so they can show off their philanthropy to the world? Putting it in a different cheaper area is out of the question to them, it would save tons of money but then the world wouldn’t see it. That’s more important to them than Juul employing over 2000 people and bringing all that money into their economy, which will just go into someone else’s.

If you're referring to the proposed navigation center located at the Embarcadero, it's been approved by the city and is going to be built, regardless of NIMBY backlash.

Also, this is not a "homeless shelter". This is a navigation center. While I am a fierce advocate for homeless shelters and think they are necessary, navigation centers play a crucial role in the discussion.

Navigation centers are functionally different from homeless centers. The only people allowed in are through a referral program and there are a wide range of services available including networking homeless individuals with the benefits, healthcare, shelter, and assisted housing they are entitled to.

These centers are typically for couples, those with pets, or the most vulnerable of the homeless who are not comfortable staying at shelters. They also don't get kicked out in the morning.

Navigation centers are important for those who want a temporary place to stay while they are set-up with social services and housing assistance so they can live independently and no longer be homeless.

Truth is, it's not for everyone. Plenty of people would do better in shelters or living transient. Not everyone wants to be in a specialized navigation center program.

 

Anyone calling it a "homeless shelter" is NIMBY fear-mongering. And in regards to it being built on the waterfront, so fucking what? Nobody has exclusive ownership to a view of the ocean.

 

Nothing against homeless shelters or navigation centers, it just think it would be more financially sensible to optimize land that is prime for city tax revenue and put the center somewhere else that is less prioritized. And that doesn’t mean next to the city dump. 

I think of it not unlike public housing.

When cities shoved public housing into ghettos in the outskirts of the city, all it did was segregate vulnerable people and force them to turn to a life of criminality.

Now what cities are doing is focusing on integrated housing. So new apartment buildings need to have affordable units, for instance. We don't segregate by race, and we shouldn't by class or age, either.

That is the same ideology here. The navigation center has as much right to a waterfront view as some retired boomer asshole. Saying that a homeless mother with her 3 children living at the future waterfront navigation center are not allowed to have that view because of their socioeconomic situation is classist.

So it's fair to the people who worked hard, made money and invested in a good location to have thier property values lowered and neighborhoods changed ?  How is that fair?   There's nothing wrong with not wanting to live next to homeless people.  When people don't have a investment in the neighborhood they most likely won't care about it.  Just like you can tell who rents and who owns homes in residential neighborhoods.  

Edited: 7/10/19 8:27 AM
2/17/07
Posts: 1022

Oh man.  Where to begin.  It is perfectly logical for a person who bought a property to want to protect its value.  To not care about the value of an investment would be idiotic.  Having a magnet for derelicts next door decreases the value of property.  Sorry but it does.  The most valuable property (in this case, waterfront) goes to whomever is able and willing to pay for it.  That’s the way it works.  If the homeless people can get a sponsor or something similar to buy them a nice building on the water, that’s great I have no problem with that.  Otherwise the highest and best use of property is selling it to whomever is willing to pay the highest price.  It’s called economics.  Just to save you the trouble, calling me classist does not bother me in the least.  If classist means I believe in the basic rules of economics, then yes I am massively classist.  

7/10/19 8:28 AM
2/17/07
Posts: 1023
sewich -
VTCO -
benwah -
VTCO -
benwah -

And they want to build a 24 hour homeless shelter right in the heart of downtown San Francisco with free food and health care. They can put it anywhere and they want it right in the center of the biggest tourist area, how much money are they wasting so they can show off their philanthropy to the world? Putting it in a different cheaper area is out of the question to them, it would save tons of money but then the world wouldn’t see it. That’s more important to them than Juul employing over 2000 people and bringing all that money into their economy, which will just go into someone else’s.

If you're referring to the proposed navigation center located at the Embarcadero, it's been approved by the city and is going to be built, regardless of NIMBY backlash.

Also, this is not a "homeless shelter". This is a navigation center. While I am a fierce advocate for homeless shelters and think they are necessary, navigation centers play a crucial role in the discussion.

Navigation centers are functionally different from homeless centers. The only people allowed in are through a referral program and there are a wide range of services available including networking homeless individuals with the benefits, healthcare, shelter, and assisted housing they are entitled to.

These centers are typically for couples, those with pets, or the most vulnerable of the homeless who are not comfortable staying at shelters. They also don't get kicked out in the morning.

Navigation centers are important for those who want a temporary place to stay while they are set-up with social services and housing assistance so they can live independently and no longer be homeless.

Truth is, it's not for everyone. Plenty of people would do better in shelters or living transient. Not everyone wants to be in a specialized navigation center program.

 

Anyone calling it a "homeless shelter" is NIMBY fear-mongering. And in regards to it being built on the waterfront, so fucking what? Nobody has exclusive ownership to a view of the ocean.

 

Nothing against homeless shelters or navigation centers, it just think it would be more financially sensible to optimize land that is prime for city tax revenue and put the center somewhere else that is less prioritized. And that doesn’t mean next to the city dump. 

I think of it not unlike public housing.

When cities shoved public housing into ghettos in the outskirts of the city, all it did was segregate vulnerable people and force them to turn to a life of criminality.

Now what cities are doing is focusing on integrated housing. So new apartment buildings need to have affordable units, for instance. We don't segregate by race, and we shouldn't by class or age, either.

That is the same ideology here. The navigation center has as much right to a waterfront view as some retired boomer asshole. Saying that a homeless mother with her 3 children living at the future waterfront navigation center are not allowed to have that view because of their socioeconomic situation is classist.

So it's fair to the people who worked hard, made money and invested in a good location to have thier property values lowered and neighborhoods changed ?  How is that fair?   There's nothing wrong with not wanting to live next to homeless people.  When people don't have a investment in the neighborhood they most likely won't care about it.  Just like you can tell who rents and who owns homes in residential neighborhoods.  

 

7/10/19 8:39 AM
3/16/15
Posts: 24244
VTCO -
benwah -

And they want to build a 24 hour homeless shelter right in the heart of downtown San Francisco with free food and health care. They can put it anywhere and they want it right in the center of the biggest tourist area, how much money are they wasting so they can show off their philanthropy to the world? Putting it in a different cheaper area is out of the question to them, it would save tons of money but then the world wouldn’t see it. That’s more important to them than Juul employing over 2000 people and bringing all that money into their economy, which will just go into someone else’s.

If you're referring to the proposed navigation center located at the Embarcadero, it's been approved by the city and is going to be built, regardless of NIMBY backlash.

Also, this is not a "homeless shelter". This is a navigation center. While I am a fierce advocate for homeless shelters and think they are necessary, navigation centers play a crucial role in the discussion.

Navigation centers are functionally different from homeless centers. The only people allowed in are through a referral program and there are a wide range of services available including networking homeless individuals with the benefits, healthcare, shelter, and assisted housing they are entitled to.

These centers are typically for couples, those with pets, or the most vulnerable of the homeless who are not comfortable staying at shelters. They also don't get kicked out in the morning.

Navigation centers are important for those who want a temporary place to stay while they are set-up with social services and housing assistance so they can live independently and no longer be homeless.

Truth is, it's not for everyone. Plenty of people would do better in shelters or living transient. Not everyone wants to be in a specialized navigation center program.

 

Anyone calling it a "homeless shelter" is NIMBY fear-mongering. And in regards to it being built on the waterfront, so fucking what? Nobody has exclusive ownership to a view of the ocean.

 

So it is a new name for a homeless shelter.

 

 Thanks 

7/10/19 8:43 AM
11/28/09
Posts: 39613
VTCO -
benwah -

And they want to build a 24 hour homeless shelter right in the heart of downtown San Francisco with free food and health care. They can put it anywhere and they want it right in the center of the biggest tourist area, how much money are they wasting so they can show off their philanthropy to the world? Putting it in a different cheaper area is out of the question to them, it would save tons of money but then the world wouldn’t see it. That’s more important to them than Juul employing over 2000 people and bringing all that money into their economy, which will just go into someone else’s.

If you're referring to the proposed navigation center located at the Embarcadero, it's been approved by the city and is going to be built, regardless of NIMBY backlash.

Also, this is not a "homeless shelter". This is a navigation center. While I am a fierce advocate for homeless shelters and think they are necessary, navigation centers play a crucial role in the discussion.

Navigation centers are functionally different from homeless centers. The only people allowed in are through a referral program and there are a wide range of services available including networking homeless individuals with the benefits, healthcare, shelter, and assisted housing they are entitled to.

These centers are typically for couples, those with pets, or the most vulnerable of the homeless who are not comfortable staying at shelters. They also don't get kicked out in the morning.

Navigation centers are important for those who want a temporary place to stay while they are set-up with social services and housing assistance so they can live independently and no longer be homeless.

Truth is, it's not for everyone. Plenty of people would do better in shelters or living transient. Not everyone wants to be in a specialized navigation center program.

 

Anyone calling it a "homeless shelter" is NIMBY fear-mongering. And in regards to it being built on the waterfront, so fucking what? Nobody has exclusive ownership to a view of the ocean.

 

That’s a lot of bullshit to just say “homeless shelter”

7/10/19 8:50 AM
6/20/08
Posts: 4124
VTCO -
benwah -
VTCO -
benwah -

And they want to build a 24 hour homeless shelter right in the heart of downtown San Francisco with free food and health care. They can put it anywhere and they want it right in the center of the biggest tourist area, how much money are they wasting so they can show off their philanthropy to the world? Putting it in a different cheaper area is out of the question to them, it would save tons of money but then the world wouldn’t see it. That’s more important to them than Juul employing over 2000 people and bringing all that money into their economy, which will just go into someone else’s.

If you're referring to the proposed navigation center located at the Embarcadero, it's been approved by the city and is going to be built, regardless of NIMBY backlash.

Also, this is not a "homeless shelter". This is a navigation center. While I am a fierce advocate for homeless shelters and think they are necessary, navigation centers play a crucial role in the discussion.

Navigation centers are functionally different from homeless centers. The only people allowed in are through a referral program and there are a wide range of services available including networking homeless individuals with the benefits, healthcare, shelter, and assisted housing they are entitled to.

These centers are typically for couples, those with pets, or the most vulnerable of the homeless who are not comfortable staying at shelters. They also don't get kicked out in the morning.

Navigation centers are important for those who want a temporary place to stay while they are set-up with social services and housing assistance so they can live independently and no longer be homeless.

Truth is, it's not for everyone. Plenty of people would do better in shelters or living transient. Not everyone wants to be in a specialized navigation center program.

 

Anyone calling it a "homeless shelter" is NIMBY fear-mongering. And in regards to it being built on the waterfront, so fucking what? Nobody has exclusive ownership to a view of the ocean.

 

Nothing against homeless shelters or navigation centers, it just think it would be more financially sensible to optimize land that is prime for city tax revenue and put the center somewhere else that is less prioritized. And that doesn’t mean next to the city dump. 

I think of it not unlike public housing.

When cities shoved public housing into ghettos in the outskirts of the city, all it did was segregate vulnerable people and force them to turn to a life of criminality.

Now what cities are doing is focusing on integrated housing. So new apartment buildings need to have affordable units, for instance. We don't segregate by race, and we shouldn't by class or age, either.

That is the same ideology here. The navigation center has as much right to a waterfront view as some retired boomer asshole. Saying that a homeless mother with her 3 children living at the future waterfront navigation center are not allowed to have that view because of their socioeconomic situation is classist.

Jesus dude you are fucking clueless