Parkdale Market Sales [General]
2009 Sep 27
Speaking of... had a very interesting conversation with the Bryson Farms folks re: this article (not totally on topic, but whatever): www.ottawacitizen.com
It was sad to see some empty stalls at the market this morning :(
It was sad to see some empty stalls at the market this morning :(
2009 Sep 27
BTW, the linked article explains why things are more expensive at Lansdowne - though I have not read it yet :-) (1) vendors get charged WAY more than other markets, and (2) since they have to set up and tear down in the same day, it is far more labour intensive.
So I don't blame them 1 bit for charging more there. I would too.
So I don't blame them 1 bit for charging more there. I would too.
2009 Sep 28
i think the article was trying to point out (amoung other things) that prices are cheaper at parkdale and byward because farmers have to compete with all the re-sellers, who can get away with setting low prices.
chimi, what was your interesting conversation, since you brought it up?
btw, i have always been a huge fan of landsdowne and will continue to go there until it ends, however i definitely feel i am getting jammed when all cauliflower is $3, regardless of size. i decided i would spend the $3, but found the largest head i could find, which was significantly bigger than many. the price for winter squash seemed way too high, consider it can grow so abundantly.
chimi, what was your interesting conversation, since you brought it up?
btw, i have always been a huge fan of landsdowne and will continue to go there until it ends, however i definitely feel i am getting jammed when all cauliflower is $3, regardless of size. i decided i would spend the $3, but found the largest head i could find, which was significantly bigger than many. the price for winter squash seemed way too high, consider it can grow so abundantly.
2009 Sep 28
HFF - We just discussed some of the finer points within the article, how on one hand they (the vendors at Lansdowne) insist there's no price fixing, yet on the other hand they all sort of come up with some consensus on what a "fair" price should be and communicate that to the rest of the vendors (was this price decided on democratically, or do some vendors carry more weight in how items are priced?) That said, I'll leave it to Bryson Farms to respond officially to the article.
It's interesting to note that Bryson has not participated with the Lansdowne location this year, to my knowledge... someone please correct me if I'm mistaken. Perhaps their absence speaks stronger than words?
It's interesting to note that Bryson has not participated with the Lansdowne location this year, to my knowledge... someone please correct me if I'm mistaken. Perhaps their absence speaks stronger than words?
2009 Sep 28
the reason for the consensus on minimum prices, is to avoid produce dumping, which helps no one. Vendors are allowed to charge lower prices if they wish. They will charge what the market will bear.
I'm surprised Bryson and their $10 carrots aren't at Lansdowne this year, they seemed to do well and sell out most Sundays last year.
I'm surprised Bryson and their $10 carrots aren't at Lansdowne this year, they seemed to do well and sell out most Sundays last year.
2009 Sep 28
Spud - To be fair, I'm not sure which $10 carrots you're referring to... their prices weren't that high on Sunday.
Also, consensus on mimimum pricing seems to conflict with the fact that the vendors may charge what they wish. What happens to vendors that don't charge the 'consensus' price? Do they get muscled out by other vendors? Ostracized? Just curious. Perhaps consumers should start demanding lower prices from the vendors by haggling? I certainly could not justify spending $3 on a cauliflower.
Also, consensus on mimimum pricing seems to conflict with the fact that the vendors may charge what they wish. What happens to vendors that don't charge the 'consensus' price? Do they get muscled out by other vendors? Ostracized? Just curious. Perhaps consumers should start demanding lower prices from the vendors by haggling? I certainly could not justify spending $3 on a cauliflower.
2009 Sep 29
I call BullSh*t on those claims of it costing more to rent at Landsdowne. Landsdowne is only open 3 days a week, and I wouldn't be surprised if most vendors only come for Saturday and Sunday. The $400 rent at Parkdale pays for the ENTIRE month.. EVERY DAY. A farmer who puts in the effort to go every day, also has a lot of costs associated with labour. The stated cost of $75/day (non-corner stand) is $150/week (2 days) which is $600 per month. The article also states that there is a significant discount for vendors at Landsdowne if they pay rent in advance. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the 'monthly' rent for either place is about the same ~$400. As for the outrageous claims of a $25,000 tent for Landsdowne. I can only assume this is paid for out of the 'rent', and so is a 'non-cost' as far as the vendors are concerned.
They charge more simply because people will pay more there. I'm not for or against this concept, but it really annoys me when they try to spin it to justify higher prices as anything other than 'because they can' and as a convenience premium for Glebites.
Not to hijack this thread, but if the new food mart goes in there with the Landsdowne Live proposal, it will kill the current Landsdowne market.
They charge more simply because people will pay more there. I'm not for or against this concept, but it really annoys me when they try to spin it to justify higher prices as anything other than 'because they can' and as a convenience premium for Glebites.
Not to hijack this thread, but if the new food mart goes in there with the Landsdowne Live proposal, it will kill the current Landsdowne market.
2009 Sep 29
Lansdowne (OFM) is open Thursdays and Sunday, not Saturday.
Thursday - max. 18 vendors
Sunday - max. 89 vendors
Obviously, if the OFM were open seven days a week, it wouldn't be $75 per day, because of economies of scale. Parkdale rent is roughly $400/30 days = $13.33 per day...correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes the tent rental AND market manager and hostesses salaries do come directly from the rent collected (along with the space rent, horse wagon, events, insurance, marketing, etc., etc.). What of it? The OFM is a self governing - self run enterprise with no cash from the city.
Parkdale is run by the city, which has unlimited coffers available. Having said that, I'm not sure if it is a cost recovery scheme.
I spoke to a rep. from Trinity (1 of the developers of Lansdowne Partnership Plan previously Lansdowne Live) last night at the first "open house" and they feel the addition of the Whole Food superstore will enhance the Farmers' market, by complimenting each other and working together. I disagree with them and agree with PIO. How can a market open 2 days a week compete with a store open all hours?
If you want Lansdowne to have a farmers' market, tell your councillor...they have the final vote.
My apologies in advance for rambling, but this is indirectly linked to food.
Thursday - max. 18 vendors
Sunday - max. 89 vendors
Obviously, if the OFM were open seven days a week, it wouldn't be $75 per day, because of economies of scale. Parkdale rent is roughly $400/30 days = $13.33 per day...correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes the tent rental AND market manager and hostesses salaries do come directly from the rent collected (along with the space rent, horse wagon, events, insurance, marketing, etc., etc.). What of it? The OFM is a self governing - self run enterprise with no cash from the city.
Parkdale is run by the city, which has unlimited coffers available. Having said that, I'm not sure if it is a cost recovery scheme.
I spoke to a rep. from Trinity (1 of the developers of Lansdowne Partnership Plan previously Lansdowne Live) last night at the first "open house" and they feel the addition of the Whole Food superstore will enhance the Farmers' market, by complimenting each other and working together. I disagree with them and agree with PIO. How can a market open 2 days a week compete with a store open all hours?
If you want Lansdowne to have a farmers' market, tell your councillor...they have the final vote.
My apologies in advance for rambling, but this is indirectly linked to food.
2009 Sep 29
It's roughly $60 difference between the two locations... I think most vendors at the OFM, given the higher volume of patrons, probably cover that cost and then some. I think the bottom line is - the vendors pay a premium because they're surrounded by premium buyers (ie, Glebe'ites sitting on the market's doorstep) willing to pay premium prices.
An aside - does the OFM have any interest at all in moving to the permanent structure being talked about in Little Italy? I think this was mentioned in another thread by Jagash.
An aside - does the OFM have any interest at all in moving to the permanent structure being talked about in Little Italy? I think this was mentioned in another thread by Jagash.
2009 Sep 29
It's roughly $60 difference between the two locations... I think most vendors at the OFM, given the higher volume of patrons, probably cover that cost and then some. I think the bottom line is - the vendors pay a premium because they're surrounded by premium buyers (ie, Glebe'ites sitting on the market's doorstep) willing to pay premium prices.
An aside - does the OFM have any interest at all in moving to the permanent structure being talked about in Little Italy? I think this was mentioned in another thread by Jagash.
An aside - does the OFM have any interest at all in moving to the permanent structure being talked about in Little Italy? I think this was mentioned in another thread by Jagash.
2009 Sep 29
Spud Guy - No apologies needed, you didn't ramble at all... your explanation was well written.
It is good that you are passionate about this issue, and it isn't "indirectly" linked to food at all... it is "significantly" linked to the Quality of Food that is (and will be) available to the Ottawa consumer in the future.
You have explained well the issue of Lansdowne vs Parkdale... I don't think that most folks knew that one was essentially being "subsidized" by the city. Nor were a lot of people aware of all the expenses that go in to holding the Ottawa Farmers' Markets (such as Insurance)... all-in-all which are bore by the Farmers in some shape or form.
It has become far too easy to just blame it all on the location and the "Glebe-ites", when infact this market is actually being run at the costs that the "true" economy of costs that bears upon it.
And I agree, the concept of Whole Food Superstore on site with the Market, will spell the death of the OFM. BUT, wait... WHO exactly is supporting the concept of having both? Oh ya, the City. And who will in the end still be standing? Oh ya, the Superstore... the tenant who will pay the majority of the tax dollars to said City. Once again, greed (Big Business interests) will win out over what actually is probably the better plan and better for us all in the long run (which BTW would be to put the Indoor Market Concept over near Preston Street as we discussed in a previous Forum Topic entitled Preston Street Exclusive - www.ottawafoodies.com ).
And for easy reference, this topic also now directly ties into another one here on the Forum entitled Lansdowne Live - www.ottawafoodies.com
It is good that you are passionate about this issue, and it isn't "indirectly" linked to food at all... it is "significantly" linked to the Quality of Food that is (and will be) available to the Ottawa consumer in the future.
You have explained well the issue of Lansdowne vs Parkdale... I don't think that most folks knew that one was essentially being "subsidized" by the city. Nor were a lot of people aware of all the expenses that go in to holding the Ottawa Farmers' Markets (such as Insurance)... all-in-all which are bore by the Farmers in some shape or form.
It has become far too easy to just blame it all on the location and the "Glebe-ites", when infact this market is actually being run at the costs that the "true" economy of costs that bears upon it.
And I agree, the concept of Whole Food Superstore on site with the Market, will spell the death of the OFM. BUT, wait... WHO exactly is supporting the concept of having both? Oh ya, the City. And who will in the end still be standing? Oh ya, the Superstore... the tenant who will pay the majority of the tax dollars to said City. Once again, greed (Big Business interests) will win out over what actually is probably the better plan and better for us all in the long run (which BTW would be to put the Indoor Market Concept over near Preston Street as we discussed in a previous Forum Topic entitled Preston Street Exclusive - www.ottawafoodies.com ).
And for easy reference, this topic also now directly ties into another one here on the Forum entitled Lansdowne Live - www.ottawafoodies.com
2009 Sep 29
F&T - while the Parkdale & Byward markets are city run, I don't think these operations are in a money-losing situation for the city, otherwise there would be no plan to expand the Parkdale market location (which is being talked about). Though, given the city's wonderful history on $ management, my logic may be flawed based on poor assumptions ;)
The ease of blaming the location, it's wealthy inhabitants as one cause for inflated prices is natural, and I would contend that it's shortsighted, even foolish to refuse this link.
The ease of blaming the location, it's wealthy inhabitants as one cause for inflated prices is natural, and I would contend that it's shortsighted, even foolish to refuse this link.
2009 Sep 30
My apologies spud guy. I did not mean at all to criticize all the hard work that is put into the OFM by it's organizers, which by all accounts is successful. I did not mean to criticize the organization of it at all. I was merely trying to point out the straw man argument that prices are 'justifiably higher' (than other venues in the city) because of higher vendor cost, and that it is merely that vendors choose to charge more, because the market will bear it.
F&T - I think you miss the point. It doesn't matter from a vendor's point of view whether the location is run by the city, or by a private enterprise... the cost of rent is the cost of rent. OFM members don't specifically pay more because of the costs listed by spud guy, as these costs are ALL covered by the rent charged.
As for greed and big business being behind the potential corruption of any Landsdowne development, I think this is simplification. The power rests with city council, who have shown unerringly their lack of vision for this city, and unwillingness to change the status quo; and have been like this since amalgamation where it came to be that rural or urban blocks of councillors could vote along political lines, instead of for what is good for the city. Gone are the days when Nepean, or The Core, or Glouchester, could effect change in their own wards without the permission of basically uninvolved parties in Orleans, Barhaven, and Kanata. The transit plan (or lack thereof) is a prime example of this. Of course, we could blame this all on Larry O'Brien, and his lackey councillor block, but to be honest, they CAMPAIGNED on killing the perfectly valid previous transit plan, and were voted in by us ( royal us.. as I did not vote for him ). So... do we get what we deserve?
F&T - I think you miss the point. It doesn't matter from a vendor's point of view whether the location is run by the city, or by a private enterprise... the cost of rent is the cost of rent. OFM members don't specifically pay more because of the costs listed by spud guy, as these costs are ALL covered by the rent charged.
As for greed and big business being behind the potential corruption of any Landsdowne development, I think this is simplification. The power rests with city council, who have shown unerringly their lack of vision for this city, and unwillingness to change the status quo; and have been like this since amalgamation where it came to be that rural or urban blocks of councillors could vote along political lines, instead of for what is good for the city. Gone are the days when Nepean, or The Core, or Glouchester, could effect change in their own wards without the permission of basically uninvolved parties in Orleans, Barhaven, and Kanata. The transit plan (or lack thereof) is a prime example of this. Of course, we could blame this all on Larry O'Brien, and his lackey councillor block, but to be honest, they CAMPAIGNED on killing the perfectly valid previous transit plan, and were voted in by us ( royal us.. as I did not vote for him ). So... do we get what we deserve?
2009 Oct 1
I find the article, as always, makes lots of logic leaps and gives few truly comparative details. What IS the true rent for each? After reading, I still don't know - Parkdale is given in a fixed monthly cost, and Landsdowne is given in a fixed daily cost, with far fewer vendors able to be there both days. Also, a discount is mentioned but no indication as to what it is, only the vague "significant" - 25% is significant to many, while others think "above 50%". In the end, we don't get a true cost comparison, i.e. what some Landsdowne farmers pay per month, or how many days Parkdale farmers are set up per month for a true daily rate. (Plus are there really employee/labour costs for each, which adds total costs beyond just rent.)
Cost of rent is cost of rent, yes, but if we identify why rent might be higher at one place, and find ways to reduce that, might it reduce that cost of rent, therefore prices? If Landsdowne farmers cite directly rent costs as reason for higher prices, finding ways to reduce that rent should lead to reduced selling prices. A permanent market building would definitely help reduce cost, if the tent doesn't have to be constantly put up and back down...
Cost of rent is cost of rent, yes, but if we identify why rent might be higher at one place, and find ways to reduce that, might it reduce that cost of rent, therefore prices? If Landsdowne farmers cite directly rent costs as reason for higher prices, finding ways to reduce that rent should lead to reduced selling prices. A permanent market building would definitely help reduce cost, if the tent doesn't have to be constantly put up and back down...
2009 Nov 3
The Board of the OFM is wondering where did Omnivore get the logo and Comp. Bureau letter from? The logo hasn't been officially released as the new logo...its the winner of a logo contest only. Also, who sent Omnivore a copy of the letter??? Journalists can't reveal sources?
On another note, isn't it ironic (I think) that we need a Bureau to look at competition! USSR, Soviet Union..... Where are they in relation to gas stations and gas prices.
End of rant...
On another note, isn't it ironic (I think) that we need a Bureau to look at competition! USSR, Soviet Union..... Where are they in relation to gas stations and gas prices.
End of rant...
2009 Nov 3
ron eade says he supports the local farmers and the farmer's market, but it is due to his article that the competition bureau is going after the ottawa farmer's market. i find it disappointing that he is saying one thing, yet doing something else. his job is to stir up the controvery to sell the papers to keep his job, but is going after the little guy the way to do it? i am assuming his intended outcome is to get the prices of the individual farmers at ottawa farmer's market down to the same prices as the byward market resellers. if the ottawa farmer's are forced to lower their prices, will they be able to afford to stay in the glebe? will ron just end up sending away one of the first decent farmer's markets we have had start-up in the downtown core?
2009 Nov 3
I do not think it is about getting them to lower prices, it is about getting them to stop price-fixing. i.e. all agreeing on the same prices.
Spud Guy - competition bureaus are a standard part of capitalism - to ensure that things remain capitalist. The US has "anti trust" rules for this same thing.
I agree Mr Eades is caught up in the game of selling newspapers. But I don't see it as necessarily being a disservice. Based on what's been printed before on this matter it does sound like the farmers at that market are price-fixing.
The only thing I'm upset about is that this is being discussed in my Parkdale Market thread because Parkdale is not implicated in this.
Spud Guy - competition bureaus are a standard part of capitalism - to ensure that things remain capitalist. The US has "anti trust" rules for this same thing.
I agree Mr Eades is caught up in the game of selling newspapers. But I don't see it as necessarily being a disservice. Based on what's been printed before on this matter it does sound like the farmers at that market are price-fixing.
The only thing I'm upset about is that this is being discussed in my Parkdale Market thread because Parkdale is not implicated in this.
2009 Nov 3
zymurgist My apologies since I was the one that posted the link to the Competition Bureau info. This thread is in fact to discuss the Parkdale Market however the conversation took a turn towards the prices at the Lansdowne Farmers Market. I just posted the link to create some discussion but maybe we could continue the conversation in another thread to avoid confusion.
2009 Nov 3
I agree with Zym. If everyone is going to agree on a price, why perform the charade of having different names and stands for each farmer? Instead, just open a big Co-Operative store where everyone's produce goes into the same bin, for the same price? Because some farmers (and rightly so) believe their product is superior to others. By fixing prices, they are either allowing inferior product to be sold for higher prices (devaluing everyone's business) or are selling superior products for less than they could get on the open market. Definitely a sub-optimal market ( in the capitalist sense).
Also, let's keep something in mind here. The price differential between what a supermarket charges, and what a farmer receives for that same produce (sold via food terminal etc) can be HUGE! That differential alone should be enough, when a farmer sells direct to consumer, to make his/her business case. There is no rule that says that a small farmer should be able to make a living off of 1 or 2 acres of land. That's like me opening a restaurant with one table for 4 people, and expecting to charge $300 each per meal to make my 'living wage'.
I admire the people who run small farms, for the hard, but gratifying life they have chosen. In the past, people I knew who had 'small' farms ( 20 or 30 acres ) and grew some hay to feed their modest livestock (sheep, pigs, cows) had to have a 'day job' to keep a steady income to make everything run smoothly.
Also, let's keep something in mind here. The price differential between what a supermarket charges, and what a farmer receives for that same produce (sold via food terminal etc) can be HUGE! That differential alone should be enough, when a farmer sells direct to consumer, to make his/her business case. There is no rule that says that a small farmer should be able to make a living off of 1 or 2 acres of land. That's like me opening a restaurant with one table for 4 people, and expecting to charge $300 each per meal to make my 'living wage'.
I admire the people who run small farms, for the hard, but gratifying life they have chosen. In the past, people I knew who had 'small' farms ( 20 or 30 acres ) and grew some hay to feed their modest livestock (sheep, pigs, cows) had to have a 'day job' to keep a steady income to make everything run smoothly.
2009 Nov 3
I don't know - I think they should charge what the market will bare. If people are willing to fork out $5/head for garlic - good for them. A competition bureau investigation seems like a good excuse for bureaucracy - nothing more. If I like something and I think its worthwhile buying it, I will. If its too expensive I'll find it elsewhere. Who says the farmer's market should be affordable? I wish it were, but if its not I'll have to look elsewhere. Its the vendors job to sell their product, its not their job to ensure people are able to buy local, organic/sustainable product.
zymurgist