Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

grandmabetty78

IKEA vs. Cabella's in Walker

38 posts in this topic


Seeing how IKEA goes places because the market says... It appears as though they aren't in the business of huge government subsidy.

If I had a choice it would be neither. It seems like we want these retail outfits because it's not common in most cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big boxes full of stuff made in China...

Minimum wage jobs...

Mmm...

Neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big boxes full of stuff made in China...

Minimum wage jobs...

Mmm...

Neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big boxes full of stuff made in China...

Minimum wage jobs...

Mmm...

Neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whichever one doesn't need us to pay for them to go in there. I would probably only step foot in either store once a year (tops), so 6 of one, half-dozen of another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I'd get my furniture from Williams, Art Van, Talsma's, or heck even Meijer before I stepped foot into an Ikea. (Meijer furniture is about the same price and quality anyway.)

As for Cabella's? the only reason I'd go there is to pick up a gift certificate for a relative who wants hunting gear. Bust since most of my relatives live in Coopersville, they'd rather get gift cards to Tractor Supply anyway :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the Walker location is not the only instance where Cabela's has asked for an incentive package go into an area. In fact, in numerous locations they have built in, they have asked for similar incentive packages to seal the deal to open a new store. I don't know how Walker feels about handing out the 15 mill incentive package to get a Cabela's in. But I'm siding with the state when they made it clear that the answer is no incentive especially when the number of Jobs added by Cabela's would be nullified by the number of job losses resultant of the fact that local sporting good stores would not be able to compete with Cabela's due to the incentive package giving it an unfair advantage. Now if Cabela's was dealing with a brownfield deep in the urban heart of the Metro Area, where demolition of old unusable buildings and mediation of toxins in the ground are required, I might have a different opinion of handing out an incentive package becuase preparing a brownfield for development can send construction costs through the roof. But the location Cabela's is to go into is an old apple orchard- a clean slate if you will. Seeing other very large development go onto open land like the Walker location with out the need of an incentive package, my conclusion is if Cabela's wants in bad enough then they will go ahead and build the porposed Walker store anyway. In short, the incentive package is unfair to competing businesses and unessesary. Therefore, given what I understand of this situation, if I had a choice between Cabela's or an IKEA, I would lean towards bringing in an IKEA as I've not heard about it asking for incentive packages to build new stores. It draws in the same number of people that Cabela's would and would provide similar economic benefits without the need to give unfair handouts to bring them in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cabella's gets away with asking for incentives because it draws more than 3MM tourists annually. Not just shoppers, tourists!

3MM!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the tourist attraction gig is losing its luster. With a location in Dundee and two proposed for norther Illinois and Indiana I just don't see Cabella's maintaining the beacon to call hunters from hundreds of miles.

I don't think an Ikea goes there either, however, if they don't request 15M from the state, then the market economy will allow them to build there, then fine. However, Ikea has been known to pay its employees fairly which is better then most retail outlets.

My vote is for what retailer can locate their given the market economy and doesn't have a prerequisite for tax breaks to set up shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


$15 million is nothing. The amount of new business development that will occur in that area as a result of a Cabelas will far outweigh the cost of the tax break. This state has been screwing small business for 30 years with the stupid SBT and other incentives it offers to big business, why stop now when we need new business and jobs the most? I would like to see a Cabelas and an IKEA. I would probably not step foot in either but many will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the tourist attraction gig is losing its luster. With a location in Dundee and two proposed for norther Illinois and Indiana I just don't see Cabella's maintaining the beacon to call hunters from hundreds of miles.

I don't think an Ikea goes there either, however, if they don't request 15M from the state, then the market economy will allow them to build there, then fine. However, Ikea has been known to pay its employees fairly which is better then most retail outlets.

My vote is for what retailer can locate their given the market economy and doesn't have a prerequisite for tax breaks to set up shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not shop at either store, because doing so would necessitate driving to Walker; an area that does not need another car clogging its streets. If there was something I "needed", I would phone around to local sporting goods stores first. If they didn't have the item, I would shop the internet.

As far as furniture, there are scads of antique/junque stores lining our neighborhood streets. There is no reason to buy a new, Made in China p.o.s. from Ikea or any other retailer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can easily see an REI coming to Grand Rapids soon.

I was looking at some of the IKEA locations and it appears they only turn up in very large Metropolitan areas. Like ones with 3 million + people. Although I'm convinced the Grand Rapids area is large enough to support one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This forum is rapidly becoming a beacon in the night....warning national retailers and developers to stay away from Grand Rapids.

I just hope most of them are clever enough to understand that this audience does not represent the typical consumer in West Michigan.

Here's what I've learned from you guys in the past couple weeks:

1) Any development outside the core is bad (regardless of demographics and market studies suggesting a strong business case)

2) Any development involving national chains is bad (regardless of their ability to create jobs and increase the national image of the market)

3) Any development involving tax incentives is bad (regardless of net tax impact)

Am I missing anything? I'd like to keep track of these lessons so that I can come back to them in 5 years...sort of like tracking Nostradamus's predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anybody here has been advocating those three points. I have no problem with Cabela's, but they don't need tax breaks. I don't have a problem with development outside the core, but this is urban sprawl so it's not the most desirable development, and as such isn't worth giving tax breaks to. And this property doesn't need tax breaks, so why should we give them? If the public is going to put up some money, the public should get a say in what's done with it.

-nb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Development outside the core is not bad. However lifestyles, culture, and politics over-subsidizing urban sprawl for the last 50 to 60 years is to blame for draining the vitality out of most American urban centers. This trend needs to stop as it is not a sustainable way to build cities, to live, and do business.

2) National Chains are not a bad thing as long as the market can absorb the impact of an incoming national chain store without placing the the locals at a disadvantage. There are too many cases where National Chains go willy-nilly in one area, over saturate the market and thus kill the locals. An infamous example is Wal-Mart. I need not say any more about them. In short National Chains are welcome as they can generate a tramendous draw to the area they go in. But there needs to be a level playing field to enable the locals to remain competitive.

3) In Cabella's case, if they were going on somthing like a brownfield where envionmental mediation and demolishion of unusable structures are required then there is no problem with them asking for an incentive. In fact I'd be all for it as the cost of preparing the brownfeild for development can get very expensive. But like most suburban and exurban developments, Cabella's is to go onto a nice clean piece of open land that's not polluted or anything. I understand that the incentive would fund the costs of needed infrastructure. But places like the Standale Meijer, the pending Alpine Walmart Supercenter, and the Alpine Menards, all of which are far bigger than Cabella's 130,000 sq ft size, didn't ask for incentives to build their stores. So why should Cabella's. In fact if Cabella's where to get the incentive package, it would nullify the number of jobs they would bring to the area by the number Jobs losses steming from the result of locals being unable to compete with Cabella's due to the incentive package giving Cabella's an unfair advantage. (WZZM 13 News, a few days ago) Thus its a matter if Cabella's wants in bad enough, than they will build there store in Walker without the incentive package and compete fairly with local sporting good establishments.

Lastly, at least in my case, I would welcome any developments to the area and the economic benefits they would bring with them. But urban growth needs to be done in a smart and controlled manner that is sustainable and fair to the community, businesses, the developer, and the enivonment.

This forum is rapidly becoming a beacon in the night....warning national retailers and developers to stay away from Grand Rapids.

I just hope most of them are clever enough to understand that this audience does not represent the typical consumer in West Michigan.

Here's what I've learned from you guys in the past couple weeks:

1) Any development outside the core is bad (regardless of demographics and market studies suggesting a strong business case)

2) Any development involving national chains is bad (regardless of their ability to create jobs and increase the national image of the market)

3) Any development involving tax incentives is bad (regardless of net tax impact)

Am I missing anything? I'd like to keep track of these lessons so that I can come back to them in 5 years...sort of like tracking Nostradamus's predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is rapidly becoming a beacon in the night....warning national retailers and developers to stay away from Grand Rapids.

I just hope most of them are clever enough to understand that this audience does not represent the typical consumer in West Michigan.

Here's what I've learned from you guys in the past couple weeks:

1) Any development outside the core is bad (regardless of demographics and market studies suggesting a strong business case)

2) Any development involving national chains is bad (regardless of their ability to create jobs and increase the national image of the market)

3) Any development involving tax incentives is bad (regardless of net tax impact)

Am I missing anything? I'd like to keep track of these lessons so that I can come back to them in 5 years...sort of like tracking Nostradamus's predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is rapidly becoming a beacon in the night....warning national retailers and developers to stay away from Grand Rapids.

I just hope most of them are clever enough to understand that this audience does not represent the typical consumer in West Michigan.

Here's what I've learned from you guys in the past couple weeks:

1) Any development outside the core is bad (regardless of demographics and market studies suggesting a strong business case)

2) Any development involving national chains is bad (regardless of their ability to create jobs and increase the national image of the market)

3) Any development involving tax incentives is bad (regardless of net tax impact)

Am I missing anything? I'd like to keep track of these lessons so that I can come back to them in 5 years...sort of like tracking Nostradamus's predictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how this conversation came about. The odds of an IKEA coming to the Grand Rapids metro, are nill at best. I'm still not sure where Cabella's stands on it. But wolv is right, You don't see IKEA in metro areas smaller than 3mill, unless it's like uber turisty like Orlando.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.