"Would you like that with whipped cream on top?"/NPS photo
Can you get a Starbucks Caramel Brulée Latte with a view of Half Dome out the window and a profile of the iconic rock in steamed milk atop the drink? Not if Yosemite National Park's regulars have anything to say about it.
A petition drive on Change.org, arguing that multinational companies have no place in national parks, had drawn nearly 7,000 signatures by Saturday evening towards a goal of 7,500.
"The opening of a Starbucks in Yosemite Valley opens the door to further undue development. The park will lose its essence, making it hardly distinguishable from a chaotic and bustling commercial city," read a portion of the petition, which is to be sent to the National Park Service at Yosemite, and California's congressional delegation.
Whether the drive has already succeeded remains to be seen. While Aramark, the park's food and lodging concessionaire, had been advertising for a Starbuck's store manager at Yosemite Valley Lodge, on Saturday evening the job posting on Indeed.org carried a note that the "posting is no longer available on Aramark."
Yosemite has been somewhat of a corporate battleground in recent years. Delaware North Co. and the Park Service have been ensnarled in a legal battle since 2015 after DNC lost the concessions contract at Yosemite to Aramark. In the wake of that loss, DNC claimed that it owned the trademarks to such iconic Yosemite properties and settings as The Ahwahnee Hotel, Curry Village, Wawona, and Badger Pass, among others.
While the Park Service and DNC battle that matter out in court, the place names in Yosemite have been changed. The Ahwahnee Hotel, for instance, is now known as the Majestic Yosemite Hotel, Yosemite Lodge at the Falls has become Yosemite Valley Lodge, Curry Village is Half Dome Village, the Wawona Hotel is Big Trees Lodge, and Badger Pass Ski Area is called the Yosemite Ski & Snowboard Area.
According to the Fresno Bee, Aramark has been in discussions with Starbucks to sell the coffee in the Yosemite Valley at a made-over food court in the Yosemite Valley Lodge to be known as the Basecamp Eatery.
“We are trying to enhance the visitor experience,” said Aramark spokeswoman Lisa Cesaro to the newspaper. “And this is just one of the many improvements we will be making in the coming years.”
Comments
It is hard to tell if this is just the Starbuck's coffee brand being sold or a stand-alone Starbucks in the Basecamp Eatery? It looks like it is being done within the parameters of the Aramark contract. The expectations of the visiting public have evolved and folks like Aramark appear to be trying to meet those expectatoins but at what price? I do admire Starbucks' support of veterans but there is only one Yosemite Valley and thousands of Starbucks.
It is almost certainly a branding/licensing deal similar to starbucks in Safeway, Target, etc. where the infrastructure, employees all are provided by the store not Starbucks.
I have been told that this will indeed be something like what you would see inside of a grocery store which is an actual Starbucks store
I don't drink Starbucks (the beans are a bit too charred for my tastes, and I try to support mom & pop coffee places, even though they can be hit or miss), but I have absolutely no problem with the Starbucks sign and fancier drinks and accepting Starbucks gift cards in the food service area. The concessionaire already could have a coffee kiosk and use Starbucks coffee in their stand.
If we're worried about multinational companies in parks, that train left the station decades ago, at least when Yosemite Park & Curry got bought out by MCA and then Deleware North took over. And, if by "multinational" we mean "big", the major transcontinental railroads, some of the biggest companies of their time, were instrumental in the origin and early support of National Parks (read Al's books for more on that!). There always has been and always will be tension with commercial interests, whether concessionaires, gateway communities, tour operators, advertisers, or others. That tension isn't "bad", it tugs back & forth and the balance changes with the times.
But, well beyond coffee, what dining options should be in parks? Corporate fast food & fast casual chains have consistency (mostly) from place to place, as well as familiarity. But they don't give a unique experience of place: you could be eating the same food in a mall food court (or airport) almost anywhere. My preference is for experiences & memories of place, but I have more tolerance for occasional bad food than other folks, and I'm not dealing with young children who have been in a car most of the day who want McNuggetts. It is next to impossible to write language in the concessionaire contract guaranteeing a minimum quality of food: how would you measure compliance? I consider nothing but chain food (many university student centers now look like mall food courts) a bad thing, but might a mixture of franchises competing with place-specific options help with the quality of the place-specific food, as well as give visitors broader options for eating when they're not cooking in a campground? [Dining rooms in the great lodges can have fine dining with a sense of place, but even I can't afford to do that on my trips to parks.] I'd like to hear what other folks think, even though I have no power to influence anything about concessionaire contracts. Just curiosity about what other folks here value about time in parks.
Actually, I am more worried about all of the alcohol in Yosemite (and other national parks). If environmentalists were really worried about "multinational corporations" they would start with Budweiser and Jim Beam.
Yeah, that will ever happen. As for Starbucks, what should we call it? I suggest a DUC. Driving under the influence of cheap coffee. When you lack the courage to solve the real problem, i.e., TOO MANY VISITORS DRIVING CARS, you can always move to restrict coffee and bottled water. And don't forget the plastic straws.
I Like Starbucks; I like Yosemite.