At least they didn't try a firebomb, like they did to the one at SE 20th & Division.

I'm sure the City Council will pass a resolution condemning this.

Not.

vandalism doesn't help, but Starbucks is really, really bad news.

they find landlords leasing to small coffee shops, then pay those landlords princely sums so that they won't renew the lease--and let Starbucks move in.

they buy cheap, sweatshop labor coffee to make their drinks (paying about $1/lb). the Fair Trade stuff they sell is in bean form only, to go, and less than 1% of their business. Starbucks doesn't support coffee farmers, when you get the actual story.

they give part-time employees health benefits fo working 20 hours--but notoriously instruct managers to give employees 19.75 hours or less of work.

they open stores next to small shops and intentionally operate them at a loss, to force the others out.

and that's just the beginning.

okay, that's my "progressive" rant.

As much as my opinions may differ from the "progressive" school of thought, I find it one hell of a stretch to assert that these property crimes are the handiwork of typical social progressives. Batshit crazy immature anarchist types perhaps, of which there is no shortage of in this locality, but I doubt those responsible for this act are big fans of Pelosi, Waxman or Kucinich. Besides, those folks love their Starbucks.

Good point. These are the uber-progressives.

Ecohuman: how many "locally owned" coffee shops offer health benefits to ANY of their employees (full time or not)? Can you name one?

It's just like all the anti Wal-Mart propaganda: the pro-union flacks never talk about the "slave-wages" the mom & pop hardware stores pay, or the absence of company paid health insurance or 401(k) matching contributions at most retailers.

It's awfully hard for mainstream society to distinguish the anarchists from the socialists, from the eco-terrorists, from the homegrowers, from the street urchins. They all look pretty much the same.

I do hope somebody has the audacity to firebomb the restaurant owned by the "spokesperson" for the ELF (in some Portland backwater). I'll be the first to volunteer if I ever find out that I'm dying of cancer.

Jack, since you apparently know exactly who the vandals are, perhaps you should tell the police.

When I was at the Forbidden City in Beijing, there was one, and only one, familiar American brandname with a franchise inside the Forbidden City....Starbucks.

They must have paid a pretty penny for that franchise.

Somebody firebombed the location at 20th and Division? Wow...That's news to me.

Isn't that a bit...extreme? I mean, just take your business down the street to Stumptown.

Which brings up the question of how one knows this is a political statement, rather than a competitor's move? Did the People's Front for the Liberation of Streetcorners issue a bulletin claiming responsibility? Maybe it was Crappy Coffee Brewers thugs? Or Coffee People resentment?

Jack, since you apparently know exactly who the vandals are, perhaps you should tell the police.

I know, it's a big mystery.

BTW, Starbucks bought out Coffee People.

Dear Ecohuman:

Do you have any references for your assertions regarding Starbucks? I'm not saying you're incorrect--I don't know--I'm just not familiar with the literature.

Personally, I find it difficult to work up much of a lather about what they do, but I do understand the existence of a lot of animosity toward them, and if they are in fact being as underhanded as you say, I certainly wouldn't patronize them.

Well, maybe I'd still go there in London...

I try to stay out of the S***b*cks. But epoxying their locks at night deserves some serious attention from the criminal justice system.

Mister Tee,

Coffee People did.

Peet's used to, maybe still do.

the coffee shop i used to go to on E. Burnside did.

----------

Tom R.,

a 5-minute search of Google will give you all the info I quoted--and a selection of some of the anti-trust suits brought against Starbucks. it's not hearsay.

but, heck--i'm just anti-corporation, you know, knee-jerk et cetera et cetera. :]

oh, and--i didn't glue the locks shut. they've done that before in Portland, if i remember correctly...

omitted the link in the last post, sorry (for Mister Tee):

http://www.peets.com/company/employment.asp

Maybe it's these people.

Or some sort of solidarity gesture with this guy.

Dear Ecohuman:

I don't recall calling you anything or accusing you of anything, knee-jerk or otherwise. 8^)

However, I don't think I can get through the 20,800,000 Google hits for Starbucks in five minutes.

Perhaps to be fair and objective I should just start with the "I Hate Starbucks" site? Or do you have some clearer direction? Goodness, there's 159,000 hits for "Starbucks antitrust suits" alone.

I will wade through some of the Google sites, but tomorrow.

I'm sure the City Council will pass a resolution condemning this. Not.

Our Hosford-Abernethy Neighborhood Association (HAND) passed a resolution --and published it as a letter to the editor of the Oregonian -- denouncing the "firebombing" of that Starbucks at Seven Corners in our neighborhood. (I put "firebombing" in quotes because it was a small molotov cocktail that was thrown, that didn't really do any damage.) I consider our neighborhood fairly "progressive" but that "firebombing" was neither progressive, nor radical, righteous or anything of the sort. It was just dumb-ass stupid. It was done the day before the new Starbucks opened, and while people in our neighborhood have legitimate issues with gentrification, cowardly attacks in the night are no way to deal with that. (Full disclosure: I'm on the HAND board and helped draft our board's resolution condemning the "firebombing".)

The issues of fair-trade, monopoly, gentrification are all ripe for discussion --as is the issue of paying $3.50 for a cup of coffee-- but there's no question that there is absolutely nothing progressive about vandalism.

Yeah... I know Coffee People was bought by Starbucks. I was just musing on how many have subsequently been closed and how many former Coffee People have been terminated as a result.

But, as for the HAND "firebombing"...did anybody ask any questions of the folks up at the Red & Black Cafe? Rumor has it that that agitprop type with the space between his front teeth hangs out there.

As for benefits, I understand Stumptown has excellent benefits and the barristas there--far from just passing through until their band's CD goes platinum--are actually buying houses.

Don't you miss Tre Arrow on the ledge with his bucket??
Vera does.

Does anyone out there understand the term "Value Added?" I don't regularly stop by the two Starbucks I travel by after I drop off my child at school, but when I do, it's because Starbucks offers a distinct "Value Added" to the visit.

Starbucks understood years ago that there might be a market for delivering a new "coffee experience", rather than just a cup of coffee in a small white coffee cup. They were correct, people bought the "coffee experience" and if you understand the economics of it, they helped create a whole new industry which created NEW jobs, opened the doors for copycats, some who remain and others who have consolidated. Add to this, the hundreds of "drive through coffee providers" which didn't have any significant economic footprint until recently, and you begin seeing more jobs created.

And no, I don't own Starbucks stock. I actually prefer a locally roasted coffee.

Yeah... I know Coffee People was bought by Starbucks.

Actually, Coffee People was bought by Diedrich Coffee - which was in turn bought by Starbucks.

And FYI, for the Peet's fan: they're not a locally owned mom-and-pop. It's a publicly traded company (NASDAQ) headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I like Starbucks. I go to the one across from City Hall several times per week. The baristas are friendly, greet me by name, I know about their personal lives, they seem to like their work, and they do get good benefits. The coffee is strong and it's a good place to hang out. I also frequent the Starbucks-owned Seattle's Best across from the Portland Building, where I enjoy the same good service and strong coffee.

They fill a niche.

If I don't want to go to Starbucks, there are a dozen independent coffee houses in town that I'm familiar with if I'm looking for something more than a strong cup of joe.

Starbucks employs how many people in Portland, in the US, around the world. They provide a legal product people enjoy. I'm unaware of evidence that they mistreat people, animals, or the environment. It's a corporation. We live in a capitalist country.

Since I work for the government and always have, I've often heard it uttered (usually from my own father) how much better the governement would be if it were run by a corporation.

And yet, here's a well run corporation that everyone loves to hate.

I don't know if I'm puzzled or amused. Maybe both.

On an episode of South Park as a "college hippie" tries to explain the anti-consumerist philosophy to Stan and Kyle:

Hippie: Yeah man, the corporations. Right now they're raping the world for money!

Stan: Ya so where are they? Lets go get em'!

Hippie: Right now we're proving we don't need corporations. We don't need money. This can become a commune where everyone just helps each other.

Hippie: Yeah we will have one guy who like, who like, makes bread. And one guy who like looks out for other peoples safety.

Stan: You mean like a baker and a cop?

Hippie: No no. Can't you imagine a place where people live together and like, provide services for each other in exchange for their services?

Stan: Yeah. It's called a town.

Hippie: You kids just haven't been to college yet.

So, has anyone considered a former digruntled employee? Usually thats where vandalism like this comes from.

Immediately after seeing the story that was my thought.

Partners who work full time or part time (generally 20 hours or more per week) may participate in a variety of programs, and make choices based on individual needs and interests.

Depending on job and a partner's personal situation, a partner’s total pay package may include:

Progressive Compensation Package
Healthcare Benefits (Medical, Prescription Drugs, Dental and Vision)
Retirement Savings Plan
Stock Options and Discounted Stock Purchase Plan
Income Protection Plan (Life and Disability Coverage)
Management Bonus Plan
Adoption Assistance Plan
Domestic partner benefits
Referral programs and support resources for child and eldercare
Discounted Starbucks merchandise

And of course, all partners get a pound of coffee each week.

i'll just add this last bit and yield back the mic:

Starbucks bought Torrefazione and is in process of closing or converting all of its locations.

Starbucks bought Coffee People and is in process of closing or converting all of its locations.

Starbucks bough Seattle's Best and in most cities except Seattle is closing or converting most (not all) stores to Starbucks.

Starbucks employees in many cities have publicly described the practices aimed at preventing employees from actually qualifying for those benefits.

Starbucks has attempted on three separate occasions to buy out Peet's.

Starbucks has been sued (largely unsuccessfully) by countless smaller stores when Starbucks made secret deals with lessors to force the smaller company out of its location. they then make cash deals with local landowners to prevent coffee shops from locating nearby.

This has been repeated for a significant number of smaller, local chains (Pasqua in SF, for example.)

Starbucks plans to more than double its worldwide number of stores in the next five years.

that's it--i'm providing the facts, and leave it to you to draw a conclusion about what these facts indicate is happening.

I think the problem, Ecohuman, is that you keep characterizing your statements as "facts" without citing a specific, reliable source to back them up. You don't have an unfriendly audience here; we just need something more than "trust me" from a random pseudonym. "The internet" is not in itself a reliable source.

And Jack, I'm not sure how we're letting the vandals "off easy" when we don't even know who they are yet. How are we supposed to punish them without identifying them?

Sheila,

posting links to Jack's blog doesn't always seem to work for me.

here are just a few local examples. enter these in Google (with the quotes), and view the results.
---
Starbucks buys Coffee People
"Once feisty Coffee People whipped into Starbucks"
---
Starbucks buys Torrefazione
"Starbucks to shutter Torrefazione cafes"
---
Starbucks buys Seattle's Best
"Starbucks to buy Seattle's Best Coffee"
---
Starbucks buying out Pasqua in SF, for example
"STAR-BUCKED"
---
Starbucks wants world dominance, double # of stores, etc.
"Business: Starbucks: Just Getting Started (Seattle Weekly)"
---
Starbucks trying to block Africa trademarking its own coffees and address poverty
"Starbucks in Ethiopia coffee row"
and
"Africa Growers Back Ethiopia in Row with Starbucks"

----
Starbucks exclusive leasing deals
"Owner of small coffee shop takes on java titan Starbucks"
or
"Starbucks Litigation Lawsuit"
or
"Starbucks Sued Over Alleged Antitrust Violations"
----

that will get you started--there are hundreds more.

sorry for the lengthy post. these kinds of stories aren't simple, or easy to construct in Internet links.

thanks for the forum, jack.

How are we supposed to punish them without identifying them?

Who's looking for them? The same people who looked for the crew on Division -- namely, nobody.

"So, has anyone considered a former digruntled employee? Usually thats where vandalism like this comes from."

I agree that the disgruntled former employee was what came to my mind as the most likely source of the vandalism. Although you do have to pause and wonder due to the firebombing thing way back when.

As for who's looking for them? Who's looking for the people who stole my $20,000 car and stripped it clean? They didn't even bother to take fingerprints when they found it. Similarly who's looking for the people who broke into my business and caused a loss to my insurer in excess of $50,000? Again, they didn't dust for prints, etc. and didn't even bother to try to find out who did it. When they cut the steel cable and stole my $500 bike in broad daylight on a Saturday afternoon on Hawthorne, the police officer blamed me because I didn't spend $50+ on a fancier bike lock.

In the end this is just another property crime to them. The Portland Police could care less as usual. After all it's Starbucks' fault because they don't have glue proof locks.

UsualKevin: you ought to buy a gun and keep it in your business. You might get an opportunity to defend yourself, and (more likely), when a gun is stolen, they will always dust for prints.

Sounds like the work of the Indymedia crowd to me...

BTW, Starbucks bought out Coffee People.

No kidding? So thats why the store down the street from me closed...

I figured they just gave up to all the other coffee stores in the area.

Its crazy how many friggin coffee stores there are in this area. Where I work downtown, within 5 blocks there are 7 Starbucks, 2 Seattle's Best, and a Portland Coffee.

Which gives employers the option to discontinue a practice from ye olden times -- free coffee for employees. Usually it was decent but not great. Now, you get to go spend two or three bucks at Starbucks.

Yeah, I don't know. I don't see Starbucks as being evil for buying out its competitors, which were also large companies. I liked Torrefazione a lot, but that's what corporations do; there's no moral imperative to encourage your competition. And Portland is filled with small coffee shops that seem to be thriving; even downtown, I can walk just about as easily to an independent shop as to Starbucks.
I'm not finding much on employee complaints online (plenty of bitching about customers, not so much about the company), and SBUX was ranked the 16th best place to work in the country in a Forbes survey last year. (Which holds up anecdotally; the counterfolks at my local SBUX always seem vastly happier than anyone else working food service in the same area.)
I don't doubt that the cops are taking little interest in the vandalism, but not because the cops are crazy Portland liberals who hate big corporations, so much as because they don't bother with ANY property crimes anymore. Which is frustrating but not entirely irrational, when you consider that we collectively refuse to pay enough taxes to put property offenders in jail, so the cops end up arresting them and watching them walk right back out the door.

Which gives employers the option to discontinue a practice from ye olden times -- free coffee for employees. Usually it was decent but not great. Now, you get to go spend two or three bucks at Starbucks.

Actually, my company (a rather large one with its headquarters is in another state), still provides coffee.

Oh, and yes, its terrible coffee. So I go to Starbucks or Rose's.

I suspect your employer is quite happy to let the office coffee pot languish and its expense level off or decrease. As the number of employees going out for coffee has increased, has your employer provided any other goodie to pick up the slack?

I don't doubt that the cops are taking little interest in the vandalism, but not because the cops are crazy Portland liberals who hate big corporations, so much as because they don't bother with ANY property crimes anymore.

The police bureau is managed by the mayor. If the mayor said, "This looks like a hate crime -- hatred of capitalism -- and we need a task force to root out those responsible," then something would happen.

Don't hold your breath.

I suspect your employer is quite happy to let the office coffee pot languish and its expense level off or decrease. As the number of employees going out for coffee has increased, has your employer provided any other goodie to pick up the slack?

Actually, last year the head office wanted to cut it off, but a lot of people here still drink the stuff, and its a large office. So there was a big complaint, and the company kept it on. (Along with the provided dozen or so tea variations & hot chocolate.)
I would guess maybe only 10% goes outside the office for coffee.

Who cares?

It's just glued locks. It's not a big deal. I sure as hell don't want my tax dollars being wasted on people who did less than 10 cups of coffee worth of damage to a corporate chain.

Really, I thought folks here were usually concerned with wasteful government spending not set to encourage it when it suited them.

Really, You pay taxes?

I thought progressives were usually concerned with people and corporations who disobey the laws - or is that only the laws they deem important when it suits them.

What makes you think I'd label myself as "progressive". I find such labels to be meaningless. And yes I pay my income tax, business taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes when I travel outside Oregon, just like most people in this country.

What I want is government policies that make sense. That almost always means being fiscally responsible. You don't spend more money to fix a problem than the problem would cost without fixing it. Common sense to me. I grew up in DC and vandalism was just a fact of life. The police had more important things to worry about. Really, I'd be more upset that police don't go after personal theft cases in Portland. Someone breaks into your house and steels a few thousand dollars worth of stuff and the police won't touch the case. Now that I could understand being upset about.

How about all of you who are so outraged about this "injustice" hire a private investigator. Then if and when you find the person or people responsible you hit them up for the $50 to fix the damages.

That's what we pay taxes for. And if you think you can replace that many locks for 50 bucks, you're dreaming.

Vandalism needs prompt attention, lest it attract more of the same. Walking past it, as I guess they do in D.C., is like leaving a broken window unrepaired...

Well I could replace that many locks for $50, but then I have good contacts for such things and could do the labor myself so perhaps it's not a fair comparison. But then neither is the broken window analogy since starbucks has already repaired the locks. I'm not saying people should do nothing, but that they should stop looking to the government to fix every inconvenience life throws at them. Either that or stop complaining that government costs to much.

In my experience vandalism will always be a reality of city life. The goal of the society should be to minimize its costs and impacts. The amount of money that it would cost to investigate and possibly prosecute such crimes far outweighs the costs that can be recouped in fines (or if you'd rather see jail time, the huge costs involved in jailing people). All of which has no deterrent effect, at least in any criminology study I've ever read. So how much do citizens want to pay to have zero effect on people's behavior? If you want to spend more, lobby the city council to raise money for the police to do so (or have a ballot measure), though I would hope that would include personal theft cases and not just vandalism.

Occasional high-profile prosecution and immediate cleanup has been very effective in controlling graffiti in Portland. It's really a model city in that department.

This is a hate crime, and should be treated as such. If the victim of this kind of systematic attack were one of the favored condo developers' buildings, or a bunch of labor union offices, I think you'd see a more vigorous response from the City Council.

>> Occasional high-profile prosecution and immediate cleanup has been very effective in controlling graffiti in Portland. It's really a model city in that department.

Cleanup is important, and what is also effective for graffiti is having public places that are available to people who want to do graffiti. However, I've seen no evidence that prosecution has ever helped with graffiti. If there are studies that have been done in Portland on this I would like to read them. But then, this is also not a case of graffiti.

>> This is a hate crime, and should be treated as such

That may be your belief, but it is not mine, and I don't think it would fit the definition of any existing hate crimes legislation, certainly not the federal legislation.

>> If the victim of this kind of systematic attack were one of the favored condo developers' buildings, or a bunch of labor union offices, I think you'd see a more vigorous response from the City Council.

That belief does not appear to be supported as condo developments have been vandalized and I've not heard that the police have done any investigating. None of the damage has been significant enough to warrant it (usually just graffiti, and probably not politically motivated, just the usual "tagging"). But if the city does ever go after a particular vandalism case I will keep it in mind.

tc, if you don't mind, please provide your address, car license, bike location, or anything else personal. I have contacts I could make to allow you to experience vandalism and see how you like it, and deal with it yourself.

Resorting to threats is poor way to make an argument, especially when such threats liken one to a hypocrite.

If you want the police to go after every petty vandal you'll have to pay more in taxes. I don't think it's worth the money so lets put it to a vote; if that's what most people in this city want I'll accept that, though I will continue to speak out against what I perceive as wasteful governmental spending and excessive nannying.