Starbucks will open a store anywhere basically.
Second, part of the argument for NOT tearing down the old buildings are the occupants who can not afford to live elsewhere because they are older and live on a fixed income (social security) so they buy the cheaper coffee and make it last a longer time.
Are you with me so far?
This thing is tied up in court. The city can not afford to keep this battle up forever and that's what Grossman is hoping for since he has deep pockets backing him. So what then?
Part of one building in Duranguito is partially torn down, so the "cost to cure" is not worth fixing, so lease out the land.
Starbucks, but mostly your dollar stores, come in and put bids and if they win, they raze it, dump it and put in "tilt wall" construction (low cost commercial/retail construction) and stick an "Open" sign soon after.
So my point is, who gets shafted in the end? The occupants mainly, who didn't take the money and run.