UKC

/ NEWS: Yosemite Valley Starbucks Causes a Stir

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
UKC News - on 10 Jan 2018
A proposal to build a branch of the popular Starbucks coffee chain in Yosemite National park is causing a stir in the US, with a petition against the plans acquiring over 15,000 signatures.

Read more
snoop6060 - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to UKC News:
Does this mean TC will be able order a cold brew frapachocamachino delivered direct to his ledge on his next big push? Erm, so yeah, tape, glue, some of that unicorn chalk, new boots and err, send us a frapachocamachino too will ya. Actually he could just tweet em and they will pop one up to him?

Only messing, I love Tommy obviously.
Post edited at 18:00
Ramblin dave - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to snoop6060:

Betamonkeys might need to update their guide to hydration in that case:
http://betamonkeys.co.uk/hydration/
purplemonkeyelephant - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to snoop6060:

Delivered by drone.
In reply to UKC News:

They could at the very least get creative with the drink names.

The (Dairy) Free Soy-Latte
The El Cap'puccino
The Nose (for the coffee-smelling connoisseur)
Stuart en Écosse - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

The Salatte Wall
Lost in Americano

JR - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

This got me down the line of wondering when brands were going to start advertising things within their "influencer's" route names... then I remembered it's already been done: Jottnar (M7+)

Ramblin dave - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to JR:

Not to mention Settle Injuries Clinic, Ye Olde Naked Man and half the rest of Castleberg Crag...
FactorXXX - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Not to mention Settle Injuries Clinic, Ye Olde Naked Man and half the rest of Castleberg Crag...

Patagonia has to be the most audacious one...
yesbutnobutyesbut - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to JR:

In the eighties there was a route named Asolo in the lakes. Caused a few ripples at the time. I can't remember which crag though, I'm sure someone can.
yesbutnobutyesbut - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

Chocolate topping out on your cragaccino
In reply to JR:

Will there be cause in future to report on FCFAs in the Valley - First Caffeine-Free Ascents?
bouldery bits - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to UKC News:

I'm fed up of people looking at beautiful places and thinking 'this is an opportunity to make a profit.'
yesbutnobutyesbut - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to bouldery bits:

That could apply to any tourism in national parks. It's not about profit it's about the best and the right use of these limited resources. Bringing in multinational companies that care for nothing but profit is not in the best interests of anyone but the company. Whoever in Yosemite management thinks that Starbucks are a good fit should be fired.
keith-ratcliffe on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to UKC News:
I was there in 2015 and was struck by the fact that all the facilities seemed to be fairly in keeping with a National Park and had to meet stringent conditions of ethical behaviour. I met someone who pointed out that the franchise has been set up to prevent too much corporate intervention but that it was due for renewal soon. Well it looks like the big companies have got in there. How long before the big M has an outlet?
bouldery bits - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Indeedy. I suppose that's my point but I've said it in a grumpy, unwordy, soundbitey way.

This is partially because I like to think of myself as a free wheeling, punk, Henry Rollins type. The reality is, I write short sentence and sweeping statements because I'm dim.
Post edited at 19:27
petegunn on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

The Lake District's first sponsored climb. Bill Birkett named it to get the manufacturers to pump some money into the sport, and to get some free shoes.
Asolo (E3 6a) Dove Crag
bouldery bits - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to petegunn:

Oh, I assumed he'd just Climbed it without a rope...
bouldery bits - on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

> Will there be cause in future to report on FCFAs in the Valley - First Caffeine-Free Ascents?

Yes, from James De-caff-ie
alx on 10 Jan 2018
In reply to bouldery bits:

Bring on the zip wire!
keith sanders - on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Dove crag caused a big stir 

ErikAndersen - on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to UKC News:

Are the people who are so upset by a starbucks opening in the Valley not aware that everything, from the accommodation to the restaurants to the buses, are run by Aramark, a huge multinational corporation? Aramark are way worse, ethically speaking, than Starbucks (Aramark are a top beneficiary of the private prison industry in the USA, serving prisoners, who are mainly black and brown, maggoty food and using them for low cost, or no cost, labor). If we get a Starbucks in the Valley, we might at least get some reliable WiFi! 

Toerag - on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to UKC News:

Is the problem with Starbucks because

a) the coffee's rubbish

b) they're a tax-dodging multinational

c) takeaway coffee generates huge amounts of litter

?

dabble on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to Toerag:

All of the above.

And the coffee is pish.

Rigid Raider - on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to UKC News:

The Starbucks in Manchester's St Ann's Square is the dirtiest cafe I've seen in Britain; I don't know how the hygiene inspectors allow it to stay open.  I don't think places like that actually employ cleaners; the boss probably just sends some hapless junior round with a broom before opening. 

Stew99 on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to UKC News:

It's not the most balanced piece of reporting ever.  Population of US = 326 Million (Estimated - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States)

Maybe:  "0.0046...% of US population complain about Starbucks in Yosemite ..."

Even if you take only population of CA (39M-ish) = "0.038..% of CA population complain about Starbucks ..."

I have not asked them all, but I very much doubt the majority of Americans object to this development.  Vast amount of visitors to this site I can only imagine will never visit Yosemite either.

Agree - let's not monetize climbing mecca.  Preaching to the converted.  But who are we kidding - it's already monetized.  Millions batter through the place every year.  Grid lock in middle of summer.  There are whole tented villages (full of mice some years!).

Rob Morgan on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to Stew99:

It seemed a fairly objective article to me. It just states that there is a petition, and quoted said petition as well as the opposing side (the developers). It is news that is relevant to climbers, which are also a tiny demographic in the US & world population.

Post edited at 13:08
Goucho on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to UKC News:

Are people protesting about plans for a coffee shop in the Valley, or that it's Starbucks who are planning to open one?

Or put it another way, would there be the same level of objections if it was Jim Bridwell, Ron Kauk and Lynne Hill who were planning to open a coffee shop?

Goucho on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to Rob Morgan:

> It seemed a fairly objective article to me. It just states that there is a petition, and quoted said petition as well as the opposing side (the developers). It is news that is relevant to climbers, which are also a tiny demographic in the US & world population.

They're also, unfortunately, a tiny demographic in terms of Yosemite too.

stp - on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to Goucho:

If it was Jim Bridwell, Ron Kauk and Lynne Hill it wouldn't then be run by a faceless corporation would it? It would be a completely different thing, run by people who have enormous love and respect for the place and aren't trying to do everything possible to increase profits by any means for equally faceless shareholders.

mrphilipoldham - on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

My first meal after descending Mont Blanc was a Big Mac.. best meal I’ve ever had.

stp - on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to UKC News:

'[Starbucks] is an international brand, and we have a lot of our visitors who are international travelers," Cesaro said.

 

Apart from being a totally stupid justification it's not even true. Starbucks is blatantly an American brand.

Goucho on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to stp:

> If it was Jim Bridwell, Ron Kauk and Lynne Hill it wouldn't then be run by a faceless corporation would it? It would be a completely different thing, run by people who have enormous love and respect for the place and aren't trying to do everything possible to increase profits by any means for equally faceless shareholders.

So they would be running it purely for altruistic reasons, not to make a profit?

If you don't make a profit, you haven't got a business.

So what matters most then, is the sentiment behind the business venture, not the actual impact of the business venture on the landscape and character of the place?

What naive poppycock.

 

 

Post edited at 16:17
stp - on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to Goucho:

I don't think it's naive to assume Jim Bridwell, Ron Kauk and Lynne Hill would have a completely different approach to such a business and would be far more in touch, and be far more responsive to concerns in the Valley. I rather think it's you who is naive to think otherwise.

Goucho on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to stp:

> I don't think it's naive to assume Jim Bridwell, Ron Kauk and Lynne Hill would have a completely different approach to such a business and would be far more in touch, and be far more responsive to concerns in the Valley. I rather think it's you who is naive to think otherwise.

Please enlighten me on how their offering would be different in terms of its impact on the Valley?

What concerns would their coffee shop address?

What do you mean by 'a different approach'?

Are we talking about the aesthetics of the building in relationship to its environment?

Are we talking about a percentage of their profits going to something like the John Muir Trust?

Or are we just using lots of fluffy words and sentiments?

 

 

stp - on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to Goucho:

Well why do you think they would have set up in the Valley in the first place? Why not downtown New York or LA?

Also different business models are run in very different ways. For instance corporations, by law, are required to maximize profits for their shareholders. The decisions will be made from afar with zero concern for the local environment. Surely you understand the difference? Not really sure why you're struggling with this tbh?

Goucho on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to bouldery bits:

> I'm fed up of people looking at beautiful places and thinking 'this is an opportunity to make a profit.'

You mean like Snowdon, Mont Blanc, the Matterhorn, Everest etc

Goucho on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to stp:

> Well why do you think they would have set up in the Valley in the first place? Why not downtown New York or LA? > Also different business models are run in very different ways. For instance corporations, by law, are required to maximize profits for their shareholders. The decisions will be made from afar with zero concern for the local environment. Surely you understand the difference? Not really sure why you're struggling with this tbh?

So small businesses don't try to maximise profits?

I'm not struggling with the objections to a coffee shop, or increased commercialisation, which I definitely think is wrong, I'm struggling with the fact that most people seem to be up in arms about the 'who', not the 'why'.

Post edited at 16:46
Dominic Green - on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to Goucho:

I'll have a go. A large brand like Starbucks, who occupy such a space as this edge out the possibility of a smaller independent owner operated business, that might be more closely associated to the local community who derive the greatest benefit from the amenity that the national park represents. Instead of creating a space that could be offered to someone who might be able to create a long term livelihood and local business that feeds funds back into the immediate community you have a large corporation that will pay minimum wages for low skilled operatives with a much lower commitment to building up local ties to the community in which it situates. It may make some gestures towards the local community, but the money is ultimately destined to go through a complex chain of subsidiary companies to shield its tax liability and feed a dividend to shareholders.

National parks exist as a space apart from the developed landscape that surrounds them. One of the characteristics of that separation is, to an extent, that they restrict the spread of the normally looser planned development that is allowed in the rest of the surrounding environment. Ubiquitous branding, curtails that and ever so slightly erodes the nature of the park's identity. Any independent business operating within a national park such as the peak district might attest to the fact that there are often particular rules about signage for example, to protect the visual environment. When you look at a larger scale business like one of these brands, they potential have the legal muscle to start throwing their weight around about what they are allowed to do or not within the park and there could be a long term distortion of those attempts to preserve that space. National park resources are nothing against those of a brand like Starbucks.

The existence of national parks comes at a cost to the society who retain them. A large multinational corporation has minimal affiliation to the community to whom the national park belong, and can at worst avoid paying into the pool of tax funds that establish and maintain that space. It seems inappropriate that a brand like Starbucks can exploit this privileged space and the extra caché and captive audience in the light of the revelations about some of its business practices.

olddirtydoggy - on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to UKC News:

If it's in the valley bottom then fine as it's a nasty circus of coach tours anyway. Hated it.

Goucho on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to Dominic Green:

> I'll have a go. A large brand like Starbucks, who occupy such a space as this edge out the possibility of a smaller independent owner operated business, that might be more closely associated to the local community who derive the greatest benefit from the amenity that the national park represents. Instead of creating a space that could be offered to someone who might be able to create a long term livelihood and local business that feeds funds back into the immediate community you have a large corporation that will pay minimum wages for low skilled operatives with a much lower commitment to building up local ties to the community in which it situates. It may make some gestures towards the local community, but the money is ultimately destined to go through a complex chain of subsidiary companies to shield its tax liability and feed a dividend to shareholders. > National parks exist as a space apart from the developed landscape that surrounds them. One of the characteristics of that separation is, to an extent, that they restrict the spread of the normally looser planned development that is allowed in the rest of the surrounding environment. Ubiquitous branding, curtails that and ever so slightly erodes the nature of the park's identity. Any independent business operating within a national park such as the peak district might attest to the fact that there are often particular rules about signage for example, to protect the visual environment. When you look at a larger scale business like one of these brands, they potential have the legal muscle to start throwing their weight around about what they are allowed to do or not within the park and there could be a long term distortion of those attempts to preserve that space. National park resources are nothing against those of a brand like Starbucks. > The existence of national parks comes at a cost to the society who retain them. A large multinational corporation has minimal affiliation to the community to whom the national park belong, and can at worst avoid paying into the pool of tax funds that establish and maintain that space. It seems inappropriate that a brand like Starbucks can exploit this privileged space and the extra caché and captive audience in the light of the revelations about some of its business practices.

I understand what you're saying, but ultimately your point still comes down to sentiment and presumption regarding the advantages of an independent over a multi national - personally I don't agree with either.

You talk about 'affiliation' to a community, but what do you mean in terms of tangible action and practice, as opposed to feel good sentiment?

What do you mean by 'community'?

Yosemite is a tourist attraction - and yes, climbers are still tourists - so exactly what community are you talking about? Dirtbag climbers at Camp 4, the hundreds of thousands of motor homes each year, the guests and staff at the Awanhe (sorry, Yosemite Lodge) hotel, the Park Rangers?

Would an independent coffee shop not sell takeaway coffee in order to eliminate the increased litter?

Would an independent coffee shop pay more than minimum wage?

Presumably the planning regulations in Yosemite are pretty strict, irrespective of the commercial venture involved.

Does a Starbucks sign on the side of a wood and granite building cause more visual polution than 'Ron & Jim''s Big Wall Cafe'?

So is this more to do with how people feel about large powerful corporations, and their taxation strategies?

If that is the case regarding Starbucks,  then people should stop using Apple products, Google, or buying stuff online from Amazon, because they operate in exactly the same way. 

And whilst companies like Starbucks do operate somewhat dubious 'tax efficiency strategies' for their operations outside of the USA, those same taxation strategies do not apply to profits generated within their US operations.

Post edited at 18:19
Goucho on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to Dominic Green:

One other thing.

Exactly what independent operator or individual(s), outside of multi-millionaire's, would be able to afford the costs of aquiring the real estate to establish such a venture? It's hardly going to be like setting up a tea hut at the entrance to Wilton 2!

bouldery bits - on 11 Jan 2018
In reply to Goucho:

Yes.

Dominic Green - on 06:52 Fri
In reply to Goucho:

 

“Exactly what independent operator or individual(s), outside of multi-millionaire's, would be able to afford the costs of aquiring the real estate to establish such a venture? It's hardly going to be like setting up a tea hut at the entrance to Wilton 2!“

Well, the concession could be offered locally by the national park. I can’t imagine that Starbucks are buying this bit of Yosemite in order to operate there, it is being offered to them by the national park? If local options are being priced out of the option of running a coffee concession by a massive multinational company then I would suggest that there are some things to be said about the ethics of how the park is managed by those who are caretakers of the park on behalf of the nation.

wilton isn’t in a national park is it?

as far as your previous comments, all I can say is that I had a go at presenting an argument against a business that has less affiliation to the community, is big enough to be pushy and whilst you’re right, there is a possibility that a local operator might offer similarly poor employment terms, in America, the notion of ‘McJob’s’ hasn’t exactly been spearheaded by independent owner-operated businesses. 

Post edited at 07:11
timjones - on 08:00 Fri
In reply to Rob Morgan:

> It is news that is relevant to climbers, which are also a tiny demographic in the US & world population.

 

I've been fortunate enough to spend almost 12 weeks in Yosemite since 2014 and I'm not at all sure that this is "relevant to climbers".

Anyone who even notices the presence of Starbucks or any other chain in a tiny corner of a huge and beautiful valley has no soul IMO.

 

The catering in the valley is already franchised to a large corporation but if you feel strongly offended by such things it is easily avoided.

 

timjones - on 08:10 Fri
In reply to bouldery bits:

> I'm fed up of people looking at beautiful places and thinking 'this is an opportunity to make a profit.'

I agree.

Mountain guides, photographers, artists and anyone who has ever considered registering for the Hill and Mountain Skills Scheme should all be shot at dawn ;)

Post edited at 08:11
Stew99 on 09:17 Fri
In reply to Dominic Green:

Have you ever been to the valley floor Yosemite??  Capitalism already has its teeth well in there.  Be it "Curry village" or the hotels.

Pizza - https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/f7/ce/b9/best-pizza-in-yosemitge.jpg

If "Jim Bridwell, Ron Kauk and Lynne Hill" want to get invested in Yosemite - they can either setup shop themselves or buy shares in Starbucks. Like yours - their pension pot probably already has a stake in Starbucks.  Whether you like it or not ... your pension will be full of multinationals ravaging the earth inc. national parks for it riches with no concerns for the local population.

As I said previously ... you are preaching to the converted (probably on this entire forum).  I don't want to see our beauty spots, and specifically beautiful climbing, spots invaded and spoiled by anyone.  But the boat sailed on the valley floor 10's of year ago.

GrahamD - on 09:49 Fri
In reply to Dominic Green:


> Well, the concession could be offered locally by the national park.

In the context of Yosemite what constitutes 'local' ?

stp - on 19:49 Fri
In reply to UKC News:

If anyone wishes to sign the petition it's here:

https://www.change.org/p/stop-starbucks-in-yosemite/


Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.