Retail Watchers

http://www.bakercityherald.com/opinion/ ... trangeness

I don't think it makes much of a difference what banner is used.

storewanderer wrote:http://www.bakercityherald.com/opinion/ ... trangeness

I don't think it makes much of a difference what banner is used.

Even if the current Safeway is so high volume that it is impossible to run it makes no sense for them to keep both open. It would be cheaper to expand one of the two locations than it would be to operate two right across the street from one another. It seems like this is a temporary thing until the lease runs out on the old location or something along the lines of that.

I don't understand the logic here. Unless they are purposely trying to keep any and all competition out. It is very hard to respect a company that, due to its size, should be offering lower prices, and now seems to be flaunting the fact they got around antitrust laws in that they are taking back many stores they were forced to sell as part of the merger agreement.

I was never a huge Safeway fan, but at one point liked Albertsons. These days I will do whatever it takes to avoid shopping at either one. This company is now arrogant, pompous, and bloated.

Super S wrote:I don't understand the logic here. Unless they are purposely trying to keep any and all competition out. It is very hard to respect a company that, due to its size, should be offering lower prices, and now seems to be flaunting the fact they got around antitrust laws in that they are taking back many stores they were forced to sell as part of the merger agreement.

I was never a huge Safeway fan, but at one point liked Albertsons. These days I will do whatever it takes to avoid shopping at either one. This company is now arrogant, pompous, and bloated.

They probably changed it to a Safeway to get the market (at least locally) under one name, but I'm certainly not whining over them operating two stores close to each other. Yes, Albertsons/Safeway has a lot of problems but this isn't one of them. Their sales to H-E-B and Publix in the LLC days have resulted in them either keeping "dark stores" (holding lease or ownership but not operating a supermarket, and not leasing out to any food/drug companies) or stores directly across from/very nearby each other. I suppose when the alternative is keeping both open or keeping a dark store, it's probably better for employees and customers to have the former.

pseudo3d wrote:

Super S wrote:I don't understand the logic here. Unless they are purposely trying to keep any and all competition out. It is very hard to respect a company that, due to its size, should be offering lower prices, and now seems to be flaunting the fact they got around antitrust laws in that they are taking back many stores they were forced to sell as part of the merger agreement.

I was never a huge Safeway fan, but at one point liked Albertsons. These days I will do whatever it takes to avoid shopping at either one. This company is now arrogant, pompous, and bloated.

They probably changed it to a Safeway to get the market (at least locally) under one name, but I'm certainly not whining over them operating two stores close to each other. Yes, Albertsons/Safeway has a lot of problems but this isn't one of them. Their sales to H-E-B and Publix in the LLC days have resulted in them either keeping "dark stores" (holding lease or ownership but not operating a supermarket, and not leasing out to any food/drug companies) or stores directly across from/very nearby each other. I suppose when the alternative is keeping both open or keeping a dark store, it's probably better for employees and customers to have the former.

The only problem though is that the two Safeways are going to be the ONLY supermarkets in Baker City. There is no Walmart, Winco, or Fred Meyer presence. Like I said, this almost seems to be an instance where they are flaunting the fact that they got around the antitrust laws.

However, after doing a little further reading, I discovered that the current Safeway is fairly old, dating to 1977, where the former Albertsons is from the early 2000s. It would make more sense for the current Safeway to shut down unless they are bound to a lease.

It would be one thing if the two stores were further apart, but this is a small town where the stores are almost directly across the street from each other.

Super S wrote:

pseudo3d wrote:

Super S wrote:I don't understand the logic here. Unless they are purposely trying to keep any and all competition out. It is very hard to respect a company that, due to its size, should be offering lower prices, and now seems to be flaunting the fact they got around antitrust laws in that they are taking back many stores they were forced to sell as part of the merger agreement.

I was never a huge Safeway fan, but at one point liked Albertsons. These days I will do whatever it takes to avoid shopping at either one. This company is now arrogant, pompous, and bloated.

They probably changed it to a Safeway to get the market (at least locally) under one name, but I'm certainly not whining over them operating two stores close to each other. Yes, Albertsons/Safeway has a lot of problems but this isn't one of them. Their sales to H-E-B and Publix in the LLC days have resulted in them either keeping "dark stores" (holding lease or ownership but not operating a supermarket, and not leasing out to any food/drug companies) or stores directly across from/very nearby each other. I suppose when the alternative is keeping both open or keeping a dark store, it's probably better for employees and customers to have the former.

The only problem though is that the two Safeways are going to be the ONLY supermarkets in Baker City. There is no Walmart, Winco, or Fred Meyer presence. Like I said, this almost seems to be an instance where they are flaunting the fact that they got around the antitrust laws.

However, after doing a little further reading, I discovered that the current Safeway is fairly old, dating to 1977, where the former Albertsons is from the early 2000s. It would make more sense for the current Safeway to shut down unless they are bound to a lease.

It would be one thing if the two stores were further apart, but this is a small town where the stores are almost directly across the street from each other.

It's possible the old Safeway is in fact coming up for a lease renewal and won't be renewed. That seemed to be the case with ACME, closing their dated Shrewsbury store when the lease came up and keeping the shiny new A&P practically across the street that became an ACME last fall.

Maybe do a 6,000 square foot addition to the former Albertsons and you will have a store with 50,000 square feet which should be sufficient.

Still it definitely appears they are flaunting that they managed to circumvent anti-trust laws in this situation. This does not leave a good taste in people's mouths. It opens the door for competition and with WinCo doing smaller formats in smaller towns, these people will not forget this if WinCo ever comes to town; Albertsons will not be in a great position.

Also they should not be allowed to do a lease restriction on the empty store if they end up relocating it. That store should go up for lease with no prohibited terms that disallow a supermarket from opening there. The FTC should have added that stipulation too. But they didn't.

I also heard they are spinning their wheels about reopening the Ashland Safeway (old marina that Safeway was trying for years to do a demolish/rebuild on but the city kept giving them trouble). Asbestos was found in the building and there is more work to be done than was expected.

The editorial by the Baker City Herald fails to point out that the court only allowed Albertsons to bid on Haggen stores when no other bidder emerged for the store. Apparently, no other grocer (or other type of bidder, for that matter) wanted the location. The newspaper ought to level its criticism at the town government for failing to lure a competitor, thus creating a monopoly.

I'm going to take a guess and say the original Safeway will close at some point. Maybe then a competitor who is more comfortable with operating a small store will emerge and take it over.

storewanderer wrote:Maybe do a 6,000 square foot addition to the former Albertsons and you will have a store with 50,000 square feet which should be sufficient.

Still it definitely appears they are flaunting that they managed to circumvent anti-trust laws in this situation. This does not leave a good taste in people's mouths. It opens the door for competition and with WinCo doing smaller formats in smaller towns, these people will not forget this if WinCo ever comes to town; Albertsons will not be in a great position.

Also they should not be allowed to do a lease restriction on the empty store if they end up relocating it. That store should go up for lease with no prohibited terms that disallow a supermarket from opening there. The FTC should have added that stipulation too. But they didn't.

I also heard they are spinning their wheels about reopening the Ashland Safeway (old marina that Safeway was trying for years to do a demolish/rebuild on but the city kept giving them trouble). Asbestos was found in the building and there is more work to be done than was expected.

If the lease ends on one of the stores (let's say the older Safeway) and ABS chooses not to renew it, then they have no say in what can and can't be done. I also doubt they have anything like what Giant Eagle tried to pull on Kroger, where Big Bear (of Ohio) originally having built stores and put deed restrictions on what stores can open nearby, with Giant Eagle still trying to claim it even though it's completely lapsed, Big Bear is defunct and they bought closed sites, and they're trying to keep Kroger out via dark stores...which is totally unethical and a completely cheap move to try to keep competitors out.

rwsandiego wrote:The editorial by the Baker City Herald fails to point out that the court only allowed Albertsons to bid on Haggen stores when no other bidder emerged for the store. Apparently, no other grocer (or other type of bidder, for that matter) wanted the location. The newspaper ought to level its criticism at the town government for failing to lure a competitor, thus creating a monopoly.

I'm going to take a guess and say the original Safeway will close at some point. Maybe then a competitor who is more comfortable with operating a small store will emerge and take it over.

What puzzled me from day one of the merger though, is why they chose to divest the much newer and nicer Albertsons store and keep the old Safeway open. Especially with the proximity of Baker City to Boise. Any way you look at it, this is a very odd situation.