The Thursday Mission Community Market — held for three years on the once quiet street of Bartlett — has been temporarily driven out by construction. Starting this Thursday it will move around the corner to the more heavily trafficked 22nd between Bartlett and Mission streets.

Cranes, trucks and other equipment — involved in turning the empty space between Bartlett and Mission streets into an eight-story building — instigated the move, said Rosi Bustamante, the market’s executive director.

Some merchants on 22nd Street have complained that the coveted parking spaces on their street will disappear for the market on Thursdays between 2 and 9:30 p.m.  That gripe, however, came with a so-what-else-is-new shrug. “There’s no parking anywhere in the city — so what’s a Thursday afternoon,” said Carlos Xiu at Teresita’s Beauty Salon.

Bustamante hopes the new location will bring in more longer-term residents who shop on Mission Street.

Hasel Vasquez, who runs the perfume stand in Anita’s Beauty Salon on 22nd echoed the overall sentiment: “Not only will it help the market — it will help us,” she said, referring to the new foot traffic.

Vasquez said the market’s location on Bartlett is “too tucked away” and the move closer to Mission Street will give Latinos “better access.”

That is Bustamante’s intention and a $5,000 check from Bi-Rite helps supplement market shopping for those who find the stalls filled with organic produce too expensive. The donation doubles the worth of up to $10 of food stamps — restarting an earlier matching program that ran out of funds.

“The holidays is such a hard time for families,” said Shakira Simley, Bi-Rite’s community coordinator. “This way the neighborhood’s neediest neighbors will be able to stretch their food dollars farther.”

The market’s troubles began this summer when demolition began on the Giant Value building. Parked trucks and construction pallets often meant stalls had to move locations — affecting profits. Increasingly, Bustamante said, the construction site became a favorite place to dump garbage, making it difficult to keep it clean.

Workers are also removing toxic materials from New Mission Theater next to the site. Asbestos — mentioned in the San Francisco Planning Department’s environmental study of the construction last December — is probably what they’re getting rid of, although no one from the department could be reached for comment.

Bustamante is looking forward to the move and is encouraged by reactions like the one she got from the owner of Kosa Bella — who is planning to put clothing racks outside on Thursdays to attract potential shoppers who come for the market.

Xiu isn’t convinced the market will boost business but he said, “It’ll be nice to see more people walking around.”

Closed on Thanksgiving, Mission Community Market only has four more Thursday events before a four to five week closure after December 19th. Winter is too cold for both patrons and vendors to be outside, Bustamante said.

When they resume in late January, it is likely the market will still be on 22nd Street because, “You know how these construction deadlines go,” Bustamante said.

Follow Us

Alexandra Garreton, 26, enjoys living in a neighborhood where she can use her Spanish on a daily basis. Garreton moved to the Mission in August, and has been intrigued by the welcoming nature of the eclectic neighborhood. She’s passionate about giving underserved communities a voice.

Join the Conversation

20 Comments

  1. Closing 22nd is a bad choice. It’s a heavily traveled street, part of a city bike & “google” buses route. Also this will impact Mission Street badly and it would have been better to close the street from Bartlett to Valencia.
    Capp St would have been a much better choice as would the other part of Bartlett or 21st but it is what it is and hopefully they’ll be back in place or rethink this when they return in 2014. Great market by the way.

    1. God forbid that it should impede a google bus route!! So tragic. Also, Ms. Vasquez’ comments about the market being too tucked away for Latinos and that it will have better access for them since its closer to Mission St. made me LOL. It’s 1/2 a block for chrissakes. I would say the expensive market is what is impeding better access, not the location…..

      1. @Mike, you’re right that is hilarious re: “easier to find”!
        Not sure why merchants are moaning about this, you’d have to be a pretty narrow minded business owner not to realize that a vast increase in foot traffic creates their opportunity to get a lot more business. If I were a business owner I’d be lobbying for them to have the market outside my business. That is unless you have some kind of business where every single one of your customers need to park right outside your store to buy from you.
        Also at 21st and Valencia is one of the cheapest parking garages in the city and one of the few in the Mission.
        This story just goes to show people will complain about just about anything given a chance.

      2. The economic cost of a google bus being delayed is significant because of the very high hourly value-add of those employees.

        A similar delay to a muni bus full of city workers would not have much of a net cost at all. In fact, arguably, it would be a net gain for the city because they would be able to do less harm.

        You may not like it but not everyone’s time is of equal value. That’s why VIP’s and CEO’s use helicopters and private jets while you are sitting on the number 14 bus with a bunch of crazy bad-smelling losers.

          1. No insult there. Just explaining that the monetary value that society places on people varies with their economic utility.

        1. INTELLIGENCE QUIZ: Which provides more social benefits to city inhabitants: A bus full of medical workers, teachers, court clerks, postal carriers, salespeople, paralegals, ad infinitum? Or, er, Google employees?

          “…the number 14 bus with a bunch of crazy bad-smelling losers.”

          Ah, John finally outed himself as a Randian sociopath. Best to experience the Mission grit in a plastic bubble.

          1. Russo, I’m glad that you value salesmen and paralegals, but most of the people you see on the #14 can only dream of such elevated positions.

            If your question is serious, then a bus full of Google employees probably generates far more tax revenues than the same number of people on a #14.

            But of course it wasn’t a serious question. It was an pejorative act of class warfare and a manifestation of envy.

            You were never promised equality of outcomes; only equality of opportunities.

        2. they have wifi on those google buses, so they could just work longer. making them sit on the bus longer might actually have economic benefits!

  2. Hi John, How wonderful that we are all rolling in trickle down google-omics. I mean anyone can move here and have a fresh start. I mean people that have lived here for 30 years can die in peace right?

    BTW SF has no income tax, could you expound on how google et al taxes affect SF? Those google buses certainly do use a lot of city streets, cause some traffic angst. Not to mention that is a giant bus really the most appropriate locomotion for narrow city streets? We are all paying for the fact that googlers et al want to make tech money but don’t buy into the suburban lifestyle. Its hard to feel sorry for them … Or you?

    Seems the only thing this country promises is that if you lose your job, health insurance or mind you will most likely end up on the street. Go go trickle down economics! That’s right, the outcome is all on you, because people have total control of their life and events.

    Its almost as if you are brewing an argument for the positive societal impact of Adwords …

    1. If your point is that a SF resident who works outside the city accrues no tax revenues to the city, then I can easily demonstrate that is false. Consider these:

      1) If the Googler lives in SF, chances are he spends most of his money here, generating sales tax revenues and creating service jobs that create payroll tax revenues here.

      2) Being well off, he probably buys a home here, meaning thousands in property tax revenues each year. If he rents, his LL pays state income tax on that rent, some of which percolates back to SF.

      3) If he owns a car, the city collects license and registration fees from that vehicle but, because he commutes by bus, that vehicle is not choking the streets during rush hour.

      I’m sure if you use your imagination, you can think of other benefits of having high-earners in the city. Unless, of course, you are too consumed with envy that someone somewhere has more than you to think rationally. If that’s the case, maybe Detroit would suit you better. No Googlers to provoke your envy there – you can be the richest kid on the block.

      1. John, your tax arguments apply to anyone living in the city. Even renters contribute to taxes through the landlords who pay the city.

        And I still question the contributions of people working outside the city. They will never eat lunch here on a weekday, or likely go to the doctor, dentist, or get their car fixed etc. And chances are they are too busy working and commuting to contribute to the community or even vote. Most of all their employer is not in SF, so all those taxes go somewhere else. And don’t googlers et al shop mostly online anyway?

        Based on your argument, the ideal city inhabitant is a tourist who leaves cash and requires no services? Sounds like the ultimate high value.

        Your original argument was about the loss of high value work hours by delaying a google bus. That is a ridiculous thought in its own right, if only because the only measure of value you apply is income. And don’t those people already live an hour away from work? What about that productivity loss? In this scheme a couple minutes really is the problem? Or maybe it’s having to make way for other people, perhaps not high earners?

        Not only do you have a weak argument but also you throw in words like envy and richest on the block. Well, if that is the game you play, it can only end badly because there will always be someone richer or with something you don’t have.

        I think what many people don’t realize is that their was an SF before tech and that it was already awesome. Now the trend is to buy that awesome, but with every transaction the cred drops.

        1. Also there was a time when first responders were subsidized to live in SF, good luck with that.

          If you don’t see the logic of people working in the city being able to live in the city, but support the reverse, of people living here but commuting for work, I think we have identified your problem. See, it’s just blind entitlement with no care in the world. ‘I will buy whatever I need and the world will provide me services because I am a high value earner.’ Well, there are actual limits to that believe it or not.

          1. Oh, wait and there is this little but of corporate high roller hypocrisy

            “Google’s planes burned through nearly 59 million barrels of crude since 2007, much of it gallivanting to elite playgrounds and exotic destinations (almost 300 flights by my count) like Nantucket, Aspen, Costa Rica, St. Maarten, Hawaii, and Bermuda, and even obscure island paradises like Babelthuap, Tortola and Tahiti.”

            http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/google-flying-high-and-polluting-the-air-with-government-bought-fuel/

          2. Depends what you mean by “The city”. If you are saying that Bay Area workers should live in the Bay Area then yes, I’d agree, although it’s fairly hard not to given the size of our urban area.

            If you are saying that everyone who works in SF should live here, and that those who work elsewhere should live elsewhere, then I’d point out that that policy objective was rejected decades ago when we designed and built BART explicitly to get commuters into SF.

            I’m not in the business of telling people where they should live. That’s their free choice, as is how to get to work. But it seems fairly evident that a SF without the tech business would be struggling far more financially than it is. Without that taxbase, we’d all have to pay more tax or cut services.

            Maybe million dollar condos in the Mission irk some people, but it’s better to have the problems of success than the problems of failure.

        2. B2TB, on this topic I’d draw your attention to the current debate about Muni going on between Avalos and Wiener.

          Not surprisingly, (and paraphrasing) Avalos wants Muni to prioritize the low-income parts of the city while Wiener wants to orientate Muni more to demand, which is higher in the more economically active parts of the city.

          The issue is the same as ours here i.e. is everyone’s time equally important? Or is the time of some people more important than the time of other people, on economic grounds? No doubt we’d disagree about that as well.

      2. It must be lonely to be the only one who genuflects before the rich here.

        Ideologues like John can’t imagine any other reaction from others than envy, no other value than money. Myopic and sad.

          1. That’s a very clever trick there, Russo. You throw out a personal attack and then claim that I can never resist the last word.

            Even though of course that is exactly what you are trying to achieve by seeking to forestall a response.

            Meanwhile, do you have any comments on the actual topic? Or do you prefer my last on-topic post to really be the final word? And the record show that you could not refute it?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *