Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 09/01/2006 View Thu 08/31/2006 View Wed 08/30/2006 View Tue 08/29/2006 View Mon 08/28/2006 View Sun 08/27/2006 View Sat 08/26/2006
1
2006-09-01 -Short Attention Span Theater-
Trendy Village Seeks To Banish The Pleasingly Plump
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-01 09:34|| || Front Page|| [11139 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Tempest in a D-cup?
Posted by Thinemp Whimble2412 2006-09-01 10:18||   2006-09-01 10:18|| Front Page Top

#2 I'd expect this from California, but a Chicago suburb? Don't tell me the Chicago area is also being Californicated....ugh.
Posted by Vickerina">Vickerina  2006-09-01 10:35||   2006-09-01 10:35|| Front Page Top

#3 Isn't Hillary from Oak Park?
Posted by Jules in the Hinterlands 2006-09-01 10:41||   2006-09-01 10:41|| Front Page Top

#4 If obesity is not a 'choice' then it is an affliction. If you play the victimhood game then it's not their fault. Therefore it appears someone is in direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Sic a dog on a dog. Lawyers at 50 meters in the court of first filing.
Posted by Thock Crirong5905 2006-09-01 10:49||   2006-09-01 10:49|| Front Page Top

#5 Just another attack on the definition of private property.
Posted by BrerRabbit 2006-09-01 11:02||   2006-09-01 11:02|| Front Page Top

#6 Jules - Hilly's from Park Ridge, I think. Not all that far away - geographically or philosophically.
Posted by Bobby 2006-09-01 11:03||   2006-09-01 11:03|| Front Page Top

#7 "Isn't Hillary from Oak Park?"

Well that might explain "It Takes A Village".
Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-01 11:05||   2006-09-01 11:05|| Front Page Top

#8 I live in Oak Park. That's my village. It's one of the bluest suburbs in a very blue state.

This entire article is crap.

Lane Bryant and other retailers aren't being denied entry into the village because of some 'discrimination' against plump people (if it were true, I would have been evicted). The problem is much more basic: a village board thinks that it has the 'right' to decide what sort of retailing experiences we should have.

Background: 30 years ago we had a thriving small downtown, though people at the time said was better 30 years before that (and no doubt people then thought it was better long before that). We had some major retailers pull out and the downtown went into the semi-dumpster. So they mall'd it to eliminate cars. Then they de-mall'd it to bring cars back. Then they built parking. Then they moved the parking. The village next door put in an upscale strip mall across the street. So we did the same (didn't realize we needed all those cell phone stores). The village has been buying out old buildings, abandoned lots, etc., and trying to repackage them. One such lot was turned into the building in question. I've walked past it, it's pretty nice.

Now they're trying to get chic big-box stores without the big-box problems. Lane Bryant doesn't fit. They'd love a Nordstrom's, a Needless Markup Neiman Marcus, etc. They'd love chic stores but the chic stores won't come -- there's a reason why they go to the big malls (e.g., Oakbrook). And they're afraid that if they go 'down-market' now that the chic stores won't ever come.

It's isn't fat people. It's just that Lane Bryant is down-market.

They're not bigots. They're just snobs. What a relief!
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2006-09-01 11:09||   2006-09-01 11:09|| Front Page Top

#9 Just what I needed. One more reason not to go to Flatland.
Posted by Cheaderhead 2006-09-01 11:12||   2006-09-01 11:12|| Front Page Top

#10 Thanks for the info Steve. It does eeem a bit of a stretch to go from snob to fatty hater. But don't you think that influences their thinking at least a little?
Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-01 11:17||   2006-09-01 11:17|| Front Page Top

#11 Been to Chicago. There are way too many corn fed women there for anyone to turn their noses up at Lane Bryant.

I think its just your typical urban planner type who prefers the plan to the reality of who's will to pay for the space.
Posted by Sceptic 2006-09-01 11:21||   2006-09-01 11:21|| Front Page Top

#12 They're not bigots. They're just snobs. What a relief!

There's a difference?
Posted by Abdominal Snowman 2006-09-01 11:41||   2006-09-01 11:41|| Front Page Top

#13 I didn't realize Lane Bryant was "downmarket"...have you seen their prices? They are equivalent to Nordstrom, Field's, and Carson Pirie Scott -- since when does the fact that so-called, big name-small initialed designers like DK and CK don't make "fat" clothes, and therefore can't be found in this particular store make Lane Bryant "downmarket"?

It's this whole "covenented community" ideal that the entire world of suburbia is moving toward, in order to "protect their families" (from....? diversity? the real world? *gasp* above ground swimming pools???) that is to the detriment of the actual spirit of community in the first place. Stop telling me where to shop; how high I can build my fence; and what color flowers I can plant... but I angrily digress...
Posted by Vickerina">Vickerina  2006-09-01 12:11||   2006-09-01 12:11|| Front Page Top

#14 ""Lane Bryant is not the kind or quality of shop that is desire for development," and, "We want a more broad based retailer benefiting the village, rather than a niche market.""

Con scholars: equal protection argument?
Posted by Mark E. 2006-09-01 12:55||   2006-09-01 12:55|| Front Page Top

#15 "We want a more broad based retailer benefiting the village, rather than a niche market."

I take that to mean they want a Walmart :)
Posted by Ulumble Angeck2580 2006-09-01 13:07||   2006-09-01 13:07|| Front Page Top

#16 I didn't realize Lane Bryant was "downmarket"...have you seen their prices?

Maybe they mean, "They sell clothes designed for small, cutesy teenagers to large women and the result is an aesthetic nightmare." That's why I don't shop there anymore. They hardly have anything simple and dignified, it's all Britneyfied. (And the simple, dignified stuff they have is in hideous colors. So there.)
Posted by Angie Schultz 2006-09-01 13:23||   2006-09-01 13:23|| Front Page Top

#17 Steve White
Now they're trying to get chic big-box stores without the big-box problems. Lane Bryant doesn't fit. They'd love a Nordstrom's, a Needless Markup Neiman Marcus, etc. They'd love chic stores but the chic stores won't come -- there's a reason why they go to the big malls (e.g., Oakbrook). And they're afraid that if they go 'down-market' now that the chic stores won't ever come.

It's isn't fat people. It's just that Lane Bryant is down-market.

They're not bigots. They're just snobs. What a relief!


I think I'll open a nakid wimmins store, Big-medium and/or little boxes.
Posted by Piggy Human 2006-09-01 14:27||   2006-09-01 14:27|| Front Page Top

#18 We want a more broad based retailer

Doesn't Lane-Bryant sell to women who are "broad based"? [ducks]
Posted by Zenster 2006-09-01 16:53||   2006-09-01 16:53|| Front Page Top

#19 Heh, pink and gray are the hot combination colors this year.
Posted by 6 2006-09-01 18:16||   2006-09-01 18:16|| Front Page Top

#20 Doesn't Lane-Bryant sell to women who are "broad based"?

Hey, even 5-7-9 Shops are broad-based.
Posted by Angie Schultz 2006-09-01 18:19||   2006-09-01 18:19|| Front Page Top

#21 Maybe they're holding out for a Catherine's?
Posted by Swamp Blondie 2006-09-01 19:14|| http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com ]">[http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com ]  2006-09-01 19:14|| Front Page Top

#22 I have been told by an electrician who lives around there that property taxes are outrageous.

5 figures before the decimal point - the housing stock is older and some of it's not so big.

OP has some Frank Lloyd Wright homes.
Posted by anonymous2u 2006-09-01 21:24||   2006-09-01 21:24|| Front Page Top

#23 --For example, in Hyattsville, Maryland, subsidized housing is being set aside for so-called "struggling-artists" even though hardly anyone else either can afford the dilapidated housing ranging from $300,000 to $500,000 with tax bills over $3000 a year--

That's cheap!
Posted by anonymous2u 2006-09-01 21:25||   2006-09-01 21:25|| Front Page Top

#24 After all, it is Oak Park not Oak Pork!
Posted by Sgt. D.T. 2006-09-01 22:51||   2006-09-01 22:51|| Front Page Top

23:59 Texas Redneck
23:54 3dc
23:54 trailing wife
23:38 trailing wife
23:38 Slaitle Uninenter7407
23:32 RWV
23:24 twobyfour
23:22 RWV
23:12 Zenster
23:08 Zenster
23:04 Alaska Paul
23:04 Mike
23:03 Zenster
23:02 Whomoque Gravimp8761
23:01 Zenster
22:51 Sgt. D.T.
22:50 Whomoque Gravimp8761
22:48 Zenster
22:44 twobyfour
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:39 JosephMendiola
22:36 twobyfour
22:28 Old Patriot
22:28 DanNY









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com