TARGET - In your neighborhood?

Kate Maeder's picture

I just read this article about TARGET:

The retail chain hope to open its doors 2 years from now. I know most people are against big development, but in this tough economy, we need the jobs, the local economic stimulus and dare I say it, the convenience.

Contact the SF Planning Commission and tell them how you feel about it:

Seward's picture

Is there anyone who dislikes

Is there anyone who dislikes this idea? I personally can't think of a reason to hate it, unless you personally have something against Target.

Kate Maeder's picture

I agree with you Seward -

I agree with you Seward - it's a great idea, but some people complain about traffic congestion and others are against big development in general. The city needs to create jobs and stimulate the economy, and building 2 Targets seems like a viable solution for now.

LZamora30's picture

I personally like this idea

I personally like this idea for a few reasons. 1) I like the fact that it would help create jobs for people of the city, 2) It would create a tax income for the city, and 3) I love Target. I personally prefer it over a Wal Mart any day (hahaha).

Francisco's picture

Not sure cheap stuff is worth it

Ok, one of the proposed Targets would go near where I live at Masonic and Geary. I get that Target has cool stuff that's inexpensive - but I also enjoy shopping at the mom & pop stores in the various commercial corridors in the neighborhood. I'm worried they will lose business to Target.

And the jobs and tax income to the city aren't new - they're just transferred from the mom & pop stores that will eventually go out of business.

bobbyh's picture

Got Jobs?

I have to disagree with you Francisco, particularly the statement that "And the jobs and tax income to the city aren't new - they're just transferred from the mom & pop stores that will eventually go out of business."

By that logic, any new business that locates to San Francisco won't do our tax base or employment any good, which is just false.  Attracting new businesses is critical to San Francisco's local economy and the creation of more jobs--our tax base and employment are not fixed numbers that just gets shifted from one business to another as more locate here, it grows!  More businesses=more jobs=more taxable income=better services=better San Francisco! This is why millions and billions of dollars are spent on economic development and business attraction efforts by cities across the globe, it is a cut throat competition out there to get new businesses to open shop locally.  Most cities beg for these businesses to come, but here in San Francisco we do all we can to make it as difficult as possible.

Now, I'm not saying I am a huge Target fan, but if it creates jobs for San Franciscans, spurs our local economy and results in more tax revenue to provide critical city services, I don't see why we wouldn't fight tooth and nail for that!  I think your point about preserving mom and pops is a good one, and I wholeheartedly agree.  I believe, and I have seen studies supporting this, that when such businesses locate to an area and attract patrons, it helps the surrounding businesses.  Now, when a Home Depot moves in, the hardware store next door may suffer, but there are also many local restaurants and other local businesses around the new business that will benefit immensely from the increase in activity, which creates even more jobs, even more tax revenue, etc.  All ships rise with the tide, its a matter of adjusting to the new landscape to benefit from it.

Lefkos's picture


How does Target treat its employees?  Do they get a living wage? what about healthcare-I would not want a Walmart style employer that actually ends up costing the city more in services then they provide in tax revenue.  I am not a fan of big homogenized chain stores,  especially for this city whose character is defined by the uniqueness of its neighborhoods.  If we know that Target will treat its workers decently, actually bring in more revenue for the City in stead of expenses and have a hiring policy that promotes giving people who otherwise would not have job a chance then I'm for it.  More so than say a Ralph Lauren shop on Filmore street that adds nothing to the character of the neighborhood and serves only to dilute what's special about SF.

Lucy in the sky's picture

Good Idea

Target is one of those stores that I prefer to shop at over any other store on any given day.  It tends to cater to the local communities by donating to the local schools and neighborhood organizations.  

A local Target is not just a convenience for families but will become a generator of new jobs, how can you argue that when were faced with such high unemployment rates? 

Steve's picture


If you turn your nose up at businesses don't snivel about people not having jobs! If you want a vibrant city you need to have a variety of businesses employing as many people as possible. If employees are unhappy with their employers they can and should organize. But only if they have a job! If we are unhappy with our jobs we can quit. But we need other businesses to hire us.

I live near the border and have a car so I really don't mind the hassle of driving down to Daly or South city to find a gosh darn Lowes or Home Depot so, I can give my money to the fine folks down there. And their tax collectors, btw have you seen the new and very grand Cop shop in Colma? It's a beauty!

I would much prefer to spend my money here but the fat and happy people of My Fair City find they have so many jobs and so much money they don't need to grow any more. Pardon me for crackin' sarcastic.


Lefkos's picture


Things have changed since my last post. Do we really need to support a corporation that is a funding source for right wing, homophobic republican candidates.  If they want to do business in SF they need to play by our rules.

Steve's picture

Oh my...

So much for that much celebrated "diversity of opinion" thing! Fortunately we have: a minimum wage ordinance,  a nondiscrimination law, a law regarding domestic partners and environmental laws out the whazoo... Perhaps we should make those right wing basterds come to our town and make 'em do business our way! Maybe we'll all learn something...   

Diego's picture

Then is that it

As Steve mentioned there exist some basic protections for workers here in San Francisco - what's left now is the contributions Target made to conservative groups. Are a corporation's political contributions enough to keep out dozens of news jobs and better prices?

bobbyh's picture

Not for the City to decide

Addressing Diego's question of "Are a corporation's political contributions enough to keep out dozens of news jobs and better prices?"

I don't think this should be a decision of the City.  the City needs jobs and it needs economic activity, and Target provides all of that, so we should be allowing (in fact, should be vying for) those jobs. A political contribution, no matter how egregious, should not get in the way of that from the City's perspective.

For consumers however, I think political contributions should be a criteria for deciding whether to shop there or not.  If you don't like how a business operates, boycott it!  If you don't like what causes it supports, don't shop there!  That is everyone' right and they should exercise it...but its not the City's place to decide for us which businesses are "good" and which are "bad."  We can decide that for ourselves and we will vote with our pocketbooks.

catherinejanem's picture

It's important to make sure

It's important to make sure that mom and pop stores in any community flourish as much as they can.  But mom and pop stores can't offer the amount of employment that larger businesses like Target can.  That area on Geary and Masonic was hope to a couple high employment businesses that recently closed (Mervyns?)  I think there's a void to be filled there.

Paid for by Phil Ting for Assembly 2012. FPPC ID# 1343137