How to Replace Empty Storefronts

photo: therealdeal.com

Changes have been occurring in the retail industry. It seems there is another store closing everyday. Many people are opting for the convenience of Amazon rather than leaving the home and going to the store to buy something. I admit I'm just as guilty as the next person when it comes to this.

There is a mall that is 10 minutes away from my home. It was convenient when I needed to buy a gift or get something for myself. Unfortunately, Corporations have been closing the stores in this mall, especially Macy's and Sears. These are stores that would normally have lots of things to choose from when you're looking for something for Christmas, Mother's Day, or a birthday.

These stores are closed and the area it occupied is shuttered. Retail property owners hope that this space will be occupied and replace the lost revenue from the last store closing for good. One less store at the mall means one less reason for people to visit. All of the stores will suffer. Less people visiting means less business for the other stores and running the risk of losing business and maybe having to close for good as well.

Lots of empty spaces at the mall (Photo: patch.com)

But what if malls didn't need to rely on retail to bring in rental income? What if there was another way to remain in business? What if, instead of a mall full of stores, there was a mall full of restaurants. You already have places to eat and get some coffee at the mall. Stores are closing. There is space to fill and people want to eat. People need to eat.

This, of course, would require an overhaul. Some spaces would need to be consolidated. Would it be possible to take two spaces and convert it into one larger space? Three? Could you take these empty spaces and turn it into enough space for a place to eat and a kitchen to prepare the food? They wouldn't all need to be restaurants. You could have a coffee shop. An ice cream shop. Maybe a bakery where people could just get pastry or some dessert.

There are benches already in place in the middle of the area between the stores. There is a waiting area already built in. Another idea for the smaller stores, in addition to the coffee shops is a bar. There is no need for ovens or gas lines if you're just going to pour drinks. Just install a dishwasher. All of the retail areas have plumbing and hot water installed.

Consolidating the space means less areas in the mall to be filled. This eliminates the worry of, "How are we going to fill these spaces? There are only so many places to eat." The stores that are remaining would provide a place for people to shop. The restaurants provide a place to eat. Traffic is maintained and business remain afloat. Patrons can walk inside and look at the options available when they are hungry. The money remains in the town thanks to new businesses coming in where old ones closed down.

Let's All Blame Krispy Kreme

 The COVID vaccine is being released in stages to people throughout the world and millions of people have signed up to receive their doses. As if getting a normal life wasn't enough motivation to sign up, companies are offering perks to anyone who is getting their shot.

Krispy Kreme is one of those companies and the criticism for the promotion has already ramped up. The national donut chain is offering vaccinated people one free glazed donut per day for the rest of the year. No purchase is necessary for the donut. It is a genuinely free donut.

The offer from the chain has prompted backlash from health professionals and celebrities alike. Late night host Stephen Colbert tweeted his opinion, stating the offer is, "great news for anyone who got the shot but still has a death wish."

Another discerning opinion, coming from a physician and lecturer at George Washington University, took to Twitter to remind people that, "donuts are a treat that's not good for health if not eaten every day."

In other words, if a company is offering free donuts, there are people who think everyone is going to eat them all the time. I highly doubt this. Krispy Kreme is offering people, especially those undecided about the vaccination, an incentive to get the vaccination. They are not saying you have to get the donut and they're not saying you have to get the donut every day. They are offering a donut to anyone who would like one.

Comedian Jim Gaffigan has a routine about McDonald's. In it, he reminds people that anyone who walks into a McDonald's knows what they are going in there for. McDonald's doesn't claim to be a health food store. They sell burgers and french fries and he reminds people of that when they want to shame people for eating there or judge the franchise for selling fast food.

Krispy Kreme is offering an incentive to receive the COVID vaccine. The marketing is a good idea for attracting new customers. Any one who eats a donut every day for the rest of the year has no one to blame but themselves. Neither they, nor health experts, nor the critics, can blame a donut chain.

The Uneasy Relationship Between Donald Trump and The G.O.P.

As the Donald Trump presidency comes to a close, millions of Americans watching the events of the past week unfold and have used these events as a reason to indict Conservatives and their party.

As President of the United States, Trump automatically became the face of the party. While many within the party did not recognize him as the standard-bearer, the truth is, as President, Donald Trump would be the leader of the Conservative Party for four years.

So what happened? How did Trump become not only a lightning rod in Washington D.C. but also the target of blame when liberal Americans needed a scapegoat for their angst and frustration.

Let me begin by saying I am not a political scientist. The opinions here my own and are speculative. You may have your own opinions and you are most welcome to share them with me or whoever you wish.

In 2016, both  liberals and conservatives were seeking candidates for the White House. On the liberals' side, Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee after stepping aside for Barack Obama in 2008. She put the party first and the party was ready to reward her.

The conservatives had an unorthodox dark horse who was running. Donald Trump had announced his candidacy in 2015. He was not a politician. He was not your standard office seeker. In fact, there was nothing ordinary at all about the billionaire.

Trump brought with him all of the attributes of a marquee act. He was someone who could come up with a great soundbite. He was someone who could shock you. He was someone who was not shy when it came to voicing his opinion. He was someone who knew how to create a spectacle. In other words, he was just the person who could liven up something as drab and dry as a presidential debate.

Trump wanted to be the President of the United States and he was going to do it with or without the backing of the GOP. In fact, when he spoke at the first debate, he was the only one of the participants who would not pledge his support if someone else won the nomination. Already, Trump was sowing the seeds of a third-party run for President if he failed to secure the G.O.P. nomination.

Trump's hinting at a third-party run no doubt brought flashbacks of 1992 to Conservatives across the United States. During that year's election, H. Ross Perot ran for President against incumbent George H. W. Bush and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Perot's withdrawal from and later re-entry back into the race sounded a death knell for future third-party candidates for office. Even more far-reaching, though, was the votes Perot took away from Bush and handing the election to Clinton, according to experts and political scientists.

This was a scenario that neither party wished to repeat ever again. The prospect of a viable candidate running for office and taking votes away from a major party is no doubt frightening to party organizers on both sides of the aisle. In 2016, Conservative Party leaders met to discuss their options beyond Trump, citing a fear that the billionaire wouldn't serve the best interests of the party.

My opinion is this: backing Trump was the lesser of all the evils for Conservatives. If Trump did not secure the nomination, he would run as a third-party candidate. This meant Trump the Independent or Hillary Clinton would win the White House. Either way, it would not be the G.O.P. controlling the White House for four years.

Donald Trump the Republican would allow party leaders and organizers access to the President and give input and advice for what would be best for the party. Trump as a third-party candidate would not afford any access for the party. Hillary Clinton in office would mean no avenues for the Conservatives to address their Agenda on Pennsylvania Ave.

The events of this past week have caused many Conservatives to address their party and what it is they stand for. It is easy to blame the entire party for the mob breaching the U.S. Capitol and no doubt Liberals have shown just how easy that can be. The decisions made back in 2016 were, to say the least, pragmatic and were the best made for the party at the time. Conservatives were plotting their strategy with the cards they were dealt. They would have liked additional cards to play. Everyone does, but that's not how life works.

Stand Down

 A day that should have confirmed Joe Biden's victory in the Electoral College has devolved into one of protests and riots that have reached all the way inside the U.S. Capitol Building.  A splinter group of President Donald Trump supporters stormed the doors of the Capitol, some of them making their way inside the chambers of Congress. One posted pictures of himself sitting in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The protestors have sought to disrupt Congress' confirming the Presidential Election results from last November. Trump Supporters and the President himself have questioned not only the results of elections in some states but also the integrity of the election itself.

This group is challenging the results of the election, prompting President Trump to post a video on Twitter and telling these protestors to go home. These people should go home and go about their lives. The leaders of this country are chosen by voters and elections, not by crowds of people who want to force their way into a law-making body and take people hostage until they see the results they want.

Anti-Trump protestors spent the past four years protesting the election and Trump's presidency. These protests held up traffic and caused damage to public and private property. It was wrong and it is wrong to see Pro-Trump protestors trespassing on Federal property demanding a reversal to the democratic process. Some of these people have spoken in support of law enforcement. The law enforcement have been called in to restore peace. Respect these law enforcement officers.

The Doctor is In

 There is little more than a month before Joe Biden takes the oath of office as the 46th President of the United States and the Biden Administration already seems to have it's first issue of controversy. As the White House moves through the day-to-day issues around the nation and the world, some people appear stuck on how to address Dr. Jill Biden, future First Lady of the United States.

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal is questioning not the validity of the doctorate Dr. Biden has earned, but the legitimacy of said doctorate. The editorial states, "No one should call himself 'Doctor' unless he has delivered a child." There it is, scientists, surgeons, physicists, and economists. No baby? No doctorate! And while we're on the subject, congratulations to all the police officers, EMT's, first responders, and dads-to-be who didn't make it to the hospital in time. According to the "experts" at the Wall Street Journal, you have earned the right to call yourself "Doctor".

Dr. Biden earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Delaware. From there, she earned two Masters Degrees (Villanova and West Chester Universities). After that, she went back to the University of Delaware where she earned her Doctorate in Education. The University of Delaware is accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), and its Chemical Engineering Program and Physical Therapy Graduate Program are ranked in the Top 10.

Close but no cigar for Jill Biden. Undergraduate degree, two masters, and a dissertation on how to help students at the community college level. Admirable but it won't meet the rigorous standards at WSJ. On top of that, "No one should call himself 'Doctor' unless he has delivered a baby." "He". Jill Biden is a "she". Yet another qualification missed out on. And yet, despite all this, Jill Biden is to be addressed as Dr. Biden?

Yes. And she should be.

Dr. Biden went through the proper educational channels to earn her Doctorate. She met the standards put forth by the colleges and universities and the institutions that accredited them. The idea that she should remove the title of "Doctor" from her name because she never delivered a baby can only be described by adjectives and superlatives that I will not write out of proper decorum. If however, the Wall Street Journal wishes to stand by its opinion, can we continue to call those who write for it "Journalists"? If not, do we refer to the Wall Street Journal as a "Newspaper"? Maybe WSJ should stick to finance and economics and stay away from conferring Doctorates and titles.

Who Wants to Come Together?

 Votes are still being counted but the results appear to favor former Vice President Joe Biden, who stands to be the 46th President of the United States. Less than a week after Election Day, Biden, along with his supporters, are calling on the country to come together as one nation, to work together and put the animosity behind us and recognize that we are all Americans.

Social media has been filled with posts and pictures of Biden supporters hugging and congratulating each other. Signs on front lawns are saying we are all Americans and the time has come to put our differences aside and to work and live together again.

People voted for change again and they got it. The past two elections will have resulted in a transfer of power. Granted, the last came because President Barack Obama had served two terms. The most allowed under the Constitution. Those who were ready to welcome a new leader took to the streets with fists raised when they saw the results were not what they had expected or hoped.

Donald Trump's presidency was met with angry cries, destruction of private property, chants of, "Not My President!" These people who shouted down political opponents, who trespassed on private property and stole or vandalized signs supporting President Trump, now want these people who suffered loss of property to come together and stand with them in unity; To show the world we truly are a united nation.

It's one thing to be upset when you lose something. Everyone has lost and everyone gets upset. But to stand in the middle of the street and prevent people from getting to work, to school, to prevent people from taking their children to a doctor's appointment because you don't like how an election turned out, and then expect the other side to show class and grace now that you finally get a result you like; That is the apex of hypocrisy.

But Trump was never president to begin with. He LOST. Hillary Clinton got more votes than Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton got more of the popular vote. Donald Trump received more electoral votes. The electoral votes decide the White House, and people knew that all along. It's been the same way for every Presidential Election. Now that the system didn't favor your candidate, you want to change the rules?

Of course you do. And while people waited for the rules to change, they protested. Not in the sense of assembling peacefully, making speeches and listening to what was said. No. Instead, people burned things down, looted stores, shouted profanities at Trump and his "racist" supporters. People sought to post disparaging pictures, memes, and other derogatory messages about trump on every social media platform so much, so often, I wonder what these people were accomplishing at work and at home.

But now we need to come together. Like a little child who finally got the toy or gift they wanted and is loving and tenderhearted toward their parents after throwing a fit in the middle of the store, the same people who shouted and spit at people who supported their candidate's opponent want everyone to come together. Those who ripped hats of individual's heads, those who stood in the middle of the street and smashed windows of oncoming cars who refused to stop while you tried to block them because you didn't get your way now want their opponents to meet them in the middle and join arm in arm to celebrate the one thing we have in common: Being Americans.

Before all of this happens, maybe you should check the mirror.

Or, even better, your cell phones and Internet History.

Changing the Rules Will Not Bring "Change"

 The 2020 Election is finally here. Liberals and Conservatives alike have spent the last four years telling everyone who their voting for. Who said both sides can't work together?

In Massachusetts, there are two questions on the ballot. One of them refers to "Ranked-Choice Voting". According to the ballot, voters can vote for more than one candidate in an election. The candidate with the least amount of votes is dropped from the contest and votes are counted until a winner in the contest is determined. The idea is to bring more people (Parties) into the election and give third-party candidates a better chance in the election.

In other words, there are still people who treat the elections like popularity contests and are afraid of "throwing their vote away" if they vote for who they really want to win. Ranked-Choice voting will allow people to vote for their candidate and hedge their bets in case people feel like they are wasting their vote.

Changing the election laws is not the way to enact change. The most effective way to enact change is to vote for who you want to win. If you are truly upset with the two largest political parties in the United States, don't vote for  those parties. Vote for a party that hasn't held an office. Vote for a party that truly has grass-roots organizers. Electing a third party candidate will wake up the elected officials in state and federal offices and make them truly work together. The third parties will also be working for the people who sent them to office to get work done and improve life for all.

Or you could just vote for a larger party and then wonder why nothing gets done.