Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Farrer Shopping Centre IGA

erephyshy 7 June 2011 41

As residents of Farrer, we were disgusted to learn that IGA has bought Wilson’s Organics and plan to open on that site.

What about the resident Farrer Supermarket, that is well-priced, well run, by Greg and Belinda, who have endeavoured to give the community a great supermarket? They even give Southlands a run for their money, often being cheaper.

Where is the incentive to invest in local business, when IGA, who are supposed to be for the local community, will come in and buy up and put the local bloke out of business?

There is a petition available to be signed at the Farrer Supermarket, so come on all you people who want to stand up for small business, take a trip to Farrer and help by signing the petition.

The ACT government has a great deal to answer for and it is up to the local community to do what is right, for the local community.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
41 Responses to
Farrer Shopping Centre IGA
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
crystalclear 10:37 am 08 Aug 11

I feel that IGA opening at Farrer Shops would be fantastic for the community. I do have to admit the farrer supermarket staff are extremely friendly but we need to look at the bigger picture. IGA would likely have more of a range of products, which I sometimes cannot find in the smaller supermarket. As a local of Farrer I feel that IGA would be perfect for our suburb as it would open doors for many young people, including myself – for a good first job that is close to home. I am 20 years old, and unfortunately have never had a job due to being a carer for my grandparnets and a hectic lifestyle, if I could apply for the supermarket I would. I ask of the community kindly to please think about how convenient IGA would be, it wouldn’t mean getting overwhelmed by the overload of products in woolworths in the next suburb, but it would have the right amount of range of products ideal for everyday needs – along with some extra needs, moreso then the supermarket. Perhaps the supermarket could turn into a post office? like the one in Mawson for example? That would be really great – that way they’d still have good bussiness and people could come to buy presents for friends, as well as post them. Much thanks, hope to hear back from you black_cats_rock@hotmail.com

braddonboy 8:24 am 22 Jun 11

pepmeup…that ad suggests that Farrer shops is headed in the same direction as the Curtin shops.

pepmeup 9:54 pm 21 Jun 11

A few things I know about what happening:

1, Wilsons Organics closed in January 2011
2, The bloke that ran Wilsons Organics also owned part of the building
3, Part of the building has been for sale for years

So if Terry Wilson owned a building and ran a successful organic shop in it, then decided to closed his organic shop to either sell his shop space or lease his shop space to another operator. Who really cares?

If the current supermarket is good it will stay there, if it is not they will go and you will have an IGA.

This type of thing happens in local shops where different people own their own shop. Because if one landlord owned the whole building they would not probably allow two simular businesses in the same building. They would want the whole building to work togeather to stop high vaccancies. So because the building is owned by different people who obviously want to get the best return on their investment this type of thing may happen.

anyway Rivett had 2 supermarkets for many years.

BimboGeek 4:56 pm 21 Jun 11

All I know for sure is that hard working business men are sexy.

What were we talking about?

MummaBear 2:09 pm 21 Jun 11

patchworkchik said :

Are you serious, a petition. I vote with my feet and my hard earned $$$$$

I for one am very glad Wilson’s has been sold. I hope it remains an organic store but with more reliable and service orientated management. I voted with my feet and shopped at Griffith. But now I might actually walk to the Farrer shops and not have to guess whether Wilson’s is open for business or not.

BTW Greg and Belinda have a good supermarket – not a great one. AND don’t they own the entire Farrer shopping centre?

They do not own the entire Farrer Shopping Centre. I beleive Greg and Belinda are 12 months into a 5 year lease. Their landlord has increased their rent twice in that time.

Their story appeared in the CT today: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/super-stoush-brews-at-farrer-shops/2201530.aspx

I for one will be supporting them – with or without an IGA opening.

patchworkchik 3:20 pm 20 Jun 11

Are you serious, a petition. I vote with my feet and my hard earned $$$$$

I for one am very glad Wilson’s has been sold. I hope it remains an organic store but with more reliable and service orientated management. I voted with my feet and shopped at Griffith. But now I might actually walk to the Farrer shops and not have to guess whether Wilson’s is open for business or not.

BTW Greg and Belinda have a good supermarket – not a great one. AND don’t they own the entire Farrer shopping centre?

what_the 4:29 pm 10 Jun 11

JC, i’m not quite sure what you’re objecting to here? We have a situation in Australia where a duopoly exists where the big two own 80% of the market share, and quite often flex their muscle to dictate the pretty damn high grocery prices. And I’m sure lobbying to governments is part of their strategy. I’m glad places like IGA exist in order to break this duopoly, and why shouldnt they be allowed to lobby if they’re intelligent enough to play the game like other big players. You seem to be objecting to ethics maybe or morality? You just have to look at the recent ‘milk war’ to see what effect the duopoly can have on markets, so I’m not surprised IGA would lobby the government against the power the duopoly can impose.

JC 9:21 pm 09 Jun 11

Do apologise about the name calling comment, miss read something you wrote.

As for what I believe in, I believe in a true open market with no protection. At the end of the day it is the consumer that makes the choice and if they choose to shop at Coles, Woolies, IGA, SupaBarn or mum and dad shops then up to them. I don’t believe in so called competition policies that are designed to protect the self interest of a few who have the money to influence government policy. And no I am not a greens voter, afterall it is the greens in this town who have introduced some of the most self centered and idiotic polices of the lot.

As to what I dislike, well I dislike people or organisations that are two faced and that is exactly what I see in the supermarket industry in this town. On the one hand they complain about the likes of Coles and Wollies and unfair competition, whilst at the same time they do to other smaller shops what they acuse the big boys of. I also dislike self interested organisations that complain about developments planned by others (thinking Mr Snow here in particular) simply because they want to do the same themselves. Or organisations that complain about another organisation expanding and then later on selling their business to said organisation. As I said it is all two faced, with the sole aim of protecting individual organisations with little regard to the consumer.

breda 8:11 pm 09 Jun 11

Please point out where in my post I called you names (sic). Having reread it, I can’t find anything of the kind.

You seem to be very conflicted about the business of business. On one hand, you are all in favour of small business owners having a go and trying to make a quid. On the other, you are against them if they succeed in growing small businesses into larger ones.

Small businesses fail all the time, for a range of reasons including better funded and more efficient competitors. Those that don’t fail often become – better funded and more efficient competitors!

As markets evolve, sometimes oligopolies, duopolies and monopolies develop. The supermarket market in Australia is an example. Mom and Pop grocery stores have zero impact on Coles and Woolies – but IGA (and hopefully Aldi in future) – do.

What you advocate – protecting Mom and Pop from IGA – will actually have the opposite effect to what you desire.

Let me guess – you are a Green voter who has never studied economics – the fatal combination that would drive us all back into caves, if permitted.

JC 10:54 am 09 Jun 11

breda said :

Well, it’s not hard to figure out the which ‘wealthy families’ mouthface is referring to. They would be the third generation of the dirt poor Greek migrants who came here from the 1930s onward and worked extremely hard in their tiny shops and cafes, which they then bought after years of long hours and tedious graft. Since the town was so small then, and they continued to pour every penny into buying what is now valuable inner city property instead of living extravagantly, lo! their children and grandchildren and now quite well off (although hardly Macquarie banker/public company CEO level rich). And yep, they have stayed active in property, retail and hospitality, where they started.

Here’s hoping there is room for both businesses at Farrer. But attacking IGA (even if multiple stores are controlled by a single owner) completely misses the point when it comes to supermarket competition.

Excuse me don’t think there is any need to call me names. I have no issue what so ever with the families you mention. I freely acknowledge their right to set-up shop and expand and take my hat off to them for the hard work they have put in over the years.

However what irks me is how these families have lobbied the government to protect them in the name of competition by crying poor. I don’t really think the guys who run the 2nd teir supermarkets (read larger IGA type shops) need that protection, to me if anything it is the even smaller shops that really need it and the others should just get on with it and try to be competitive against the big players.

Now going to ask a question. What is the difference between a Coles/Woolworths, a supermarket owned by wealthy hardworking families and one owned by very small business people? The reason I ask is you seem to think it is fine for a business such as Coles and Wollies to be limited in what properties they can buy or where they can set-up shop in the name of competition, yet somehow you don’t afford the same to the very small business people. To me there is no difference what so ever.

JC 10:38 am 09 Jun 11

mouthface said :

JC said :

So yes stores are owned by locals and IGA is a tranding name and distribution system. However in Canberra some of the larger IGA stores are not owned by poor mum and dad’s but large wealthy families who control organisations such as the ACT chamber of commerce and also make large donations to political parties, who then put in place anti competition policies. Ironicly the owner of what was one of the largest IGA stores in Canberra (Charnwood) sold his business to Wollworths a number of years ago.

JC, I may have you all wrong, but it looks like you are implying that “poor mums and dads” are somehow more desirable as local shop owners than “large wealthy families”. Are you jealous of other people’s success? You do realise that most of these so-called “large wealthy families” are just small business people, and locals, who started out as “poor mums and dads”. Why are they not deserving of your approval now that they have succeeded? Also, what is ironic about an IGA owner selling to Woolworths? The guy was good enough to make his business so successful as to attract a major buyer. Good on him. Ultimately, all people in business do the best they can for themselves and their families, and altruism is not really their objective, unless they are successful enough to afford to “give back” to the community. There is no doubt that wealthy business people make donations, but more often than not, it is to worthy charities rather than political parties.

Yep you have me wrong, more than happy for hardworking families to get rich, though I do have a problem when they start to use their power and money later on to prevent competition or to take out the even smaller guy. So here in Canberra we can clearly see a group who has put pressure on the government to protect their business interests through limiting competition. Yet somehow it is ok for them to muscle in on the even smaller shop owners. What I don’t like is duplicity and that is what I reckon we have here.

As for Charnwood being sold to Woolworths, the irony comes from the fact that for years they were fighting expansion of Woolworths at Kippax, but in the end where more than happy to sell to them and pocket the money. Sure good luck to them as they made good money from the sale, so great from a business persective, but again a case of duplicity in my book.

breda 11:50 pm 08 Jun 11

Well, it’s not hard to figure out the which ‘wealthy families’ mouthface is referring to. They would be the third generation of the dirt poor Greek migrants who came here from the 1930s onward and worked extremely hard in their tiny shops and cafes, which they then bought after years of long hours and tedious graft. Since the town was so small then, and they continued to pour every penny into buying what is now valuable inner city property instead of living extravagantly, lo! their children and grandchildren and now quite well off (although hardly Macquarie banker/public company CEO level rich). And yep, they have stayed active in property, retail and hospitality, where they started.

Like anyone else, they have the right to donate to political parties if they choose to, and there is no doubt that some prominent Greek families are very active in charity and civic life. How shocking! It seems that some people think that they should have stayed in one shop per family, so that everyone else can get a fair go.

As for IGA, every successful IGA takes market share from, and puts pressure on, Coles and Woolies.

Here’s hoping there is room for both businesses at Farrer. But attacking IGA (even if multiple stores are controlled by a single owner) completely misses the point when it comes to supermarket competition.

mouthface 8:31 pm 08 Jun 11

JC said :

So yes stores are owned by locals and IGA is a tranding name and distribution system. However in Canberra some of the larger IGA stores are not owned by poor mum and dad’s but large wealthy families who control organisations such as the ACT chamber of commerce and also make large donations to political parties, who then put in place anti competition policies. Ironicly the owner of what was one of the largest IGA stores in Canberra (Charnwood) sold his business to Wollworths a number of years ago.

JC, I may have you all wrong, but it looks like you are implying that “poor mums and dads” are somehow more desirable as local shop owners than “large wealthy families”. Are you jealous of other people’s success? You do realise that most of these so-called “large wealthy families” are just small business people, and locals, who started out as “poor mums and dads”. Why are they not deserving of your approval now that they have succeeded? Also, what is ironic about an IGA owner selling to Woolworths? The guy was good enough to make his business so successful as to attract a major buyer. Good on him. Ultimately, all people in business do the best they can for themselves and their families, and altruism is not really their objective, unless they are successful enough to afford to “give back” to the community. There is no doubt that wealthy business people make donations, but more often than not, it is to worthy charities rather than political parties.

JC 2:50 pm 08 Jun 11

LurkingMarsupial said :

I’m interested to read these points, news to me, about IGA. I don’t have a problem with IGA as a group that markets specials, and I don’t have a problem with my local IGA member. I note IGA members can do good stuff, and encourage people near Ainslie to shop at Ainslie IGA this Saturday 11 June between 11am and 2pm – http://www.carrotmob.love40percent.org/.

Well here is a Wiki link to the original IGA (the American one). Note same logo, same operating premis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IGA_(supermarkets)

And the Australian version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Grocers_of_Australia

Orgianlly IGA in Australia was a brand owned by a company called David Holdings. This was then brought out by the South African company Metcash who continue to own the brand and supply most of the stores.

So yes stores are owned by locals and IGA is a tranding name and distribution system. However in Canberra some of the larger IGA stores are not owned by poor mum and dad’s but large wealthy families who control organisations such as the ACT chamber of commerce and also make large donations to political parties, who then put in place anti competition policies. Ironicly the owner of what was one of the largest IGA stores in Canberra (Charnwood) sold his business to Wollworths a number of years ago.

Would be interesting to see who the actual owners are that have brought Wilson’s Organics.

LurkingMarsupial 11:55 am 08 Jun 11

Actually IGA is actually Independent Grocers of Alliance and comes from America. Guess it is fortunate that when it was brought here Australia also starts with an A, so in AUS IGA does indeed stand for Independent Grocers of Australia. The IGA brand in Aus is owned by Metcash which is owned by South African interests.

I’m interested to read these points, news to me, about IGA. I don’t have a problem with IGA as a group that markets specials, and I don’t have a problem with my local IGA member. I note IGA members can do good stuff, and encourage people near Ainslie to shop at Ainslie IGA this Saturday 11 June between 11am and 2pm – http://www.carrotmob.love40percent.org/.

Watson 11:05 am 08 Jun 11

JC said :

If Woolworths or Coles had brought out Wilson’s I would place good money on people being outraged, yet somehow an IGA is ok? Hmmmm Though at the end of the day business is business and competition is competition.

I would only be outraged if there would’ve been some foul play at work.

JC 10:22 am 08 Jun 11

mouthface said :

What a bizarre post! A guy sells his supermarket and you’re disgusted? Seriously, IGA is just a buying group and made up of small business people, therefore your local IGA is just a version of “your local bloke” (IGA stands for Independent Grocers of Australia, I think)…

Actually IGA is actually Independent Grocers of Alliance and comes from America. Guess it is fortunate that when it was brought here Australia also starts with an A, so in AUS IGA does indeed stand for Independent Grocers of Australia. The IGA brand in Aus is owned by Metcash which is owned by South African interests.

JC 10:16 am 08 Jun 11

If Woolworths or Coles had brought out Wilson’s I would place good money on people being outraged, yet somehow an IGA is ok? Hmmmm Though at the end of the day business is business and competition is competition.

Classified 7:32 am 08 Jun 11

Morgan said :

I know, its just like those refugee types who keep coming to this country, taking our jobs and stealing our women.

I for one have had enough. I think the ACT Government should nationalise all supermarkets and all food distribution. We could then truly have “the peoples shops”, to provide the best prices all products would be the same brand and size, and available to buy in bulk. Better yet one week the shop will only have bread, the next week it would sell gherkins, the following week washing powder.

Hail Comrade.

You’re bloody unbelievable.

It’s ‘Komrade’.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site