Adios, Starbucks: The 88 closing California stores, mapped
Click here to check out our map. I'm curious about your thoughts on this. Do you see an interesting pattern or theme as to where the closings are? Before you go too far into the "foreclosure-store closure connection" (a path I headed down briefly, and turned back), consider that the store at Lincoln and Montana in Santa Monica is closing, and that's pretty much a foreclosure-free zone. If you'd prefer to browse a simple table of all the closings instead of the map, I've got this to offer as well.
Posted by Pete Viles
Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com

The santa monica closure is a aberration...since Santa Monica is so saturated with Starbucks (& competition) that you can't walk 2 blocks without tripping over one.
Posted by: roman | July 17, 2008 at 06:26 PM
I won't be shedding a single tear. Their coffee AB-SO-LUT-LY SUCKS!!!!!!!!
As a lifetime coffee drinker I wonder how the american palate has been able to endure this cr#p for so long...
Posted by: campechano | July 17, 2008 at 06:36 PM
There is another Starbucks one block west at 7th and Montana and one in a Pavilions one block east. The one they're closing at Lincoln and Montana used to be a Diedrich Coffeehouse and doesn't get much business, so that's a no-brainer.
Posted by: Straight Caffeine | July 17, 2008 at 06:49 PM
Well, that one's simple. It has nothing to do with real estate. It has to do with the fact that there are four other coffee shops within a block of it that actually serve good coffee. Starbucks locations are at their strongest when they're the only game in town. Even if there's a McDonald's nearby, they're in trouble.
Posted by: Greg Smith | July 17, 2008 at 06:55 PM
All I know is that I am stunned that one of the two Starbucks on Sepulveda (near Westchester Parkway) isn't getting the axe. Yes, to quote Lewis Black and the movie BEST IN SHOW, there is a Starbuck's across the street from another Starbuck's here. The newest store caused a longtime coffee purveyor, a drive-through espresso shop, to be forced to NOT serve coffee. Screw Starbucks, their predatory ways and their burnt-tasting coffee.
Posted by: Vic Arpeggio | July 17, 2008 at 07:01 PM
Well, in the case of the Lake Arrowhead closure, it is certainly due to the fickleness of mountain tourism and the impact that higher fuel costs have had on the usual lot of inbred, mouth-breathing, mutant piglets that pass for "tourists" up here. No great loss. We still have the Starbucks in the local grocery store, which matters to me personally. It's where I stop for my triple short Americano on the way home from rowing on the lake in the wee early hours of the day. Tourists, begone! Hopefully, the glut of Europeans that the low dollar will be bringing up to Arrowhead won't be put out by the lack f an extra 'Bucks up here. Likely not.
Posted by: Jolnir the Viking | July 17, 2008 at 07:04 PM
The Lincoln & Montana Starbucks that is closing used to be Diedrich. There is another Starbucks across the street, one several blocks up Montana, a Starbucks in the Vons at Lincoln, a Coffee Bean and a Peets up Monatana as well. Plus, the higher-end Cafe Luxxe is a couple of blocks away. Needless to say, it's probably not foreclosures but over saturation of the coffee stores that led to this closure.
Posted by: LisaC | July 17, 2008 at 07:07 PM
They're mostly in low-income areas. probably under-performing locations with falling profits. No mystery there.
Don't bother pointing out the exceptions, I see them; likely they are in areas where Starbucks are already too thick on the ground, and competing with each other.
The one they REALLY ought to close is at Malibu/Trancas. It's perpetual pigsty, filled with unwashed vagrants -- a stain on the company reputation.
Posted by: Giacomo | July 17, 2008 at 07:13 PM
That one at Lincoln and Montana used to be a Diedrich Coffee. When Starbucks bought Diedrich they turned that store into a Starbucks even though there is another Starbucks 1 block away at Montana and 7th. Not surprised they would close one of those two stores.
Posted by: Jose Habib | July 17, 2008 at 07:14 PM
The Starbuck's at Lincoln & Montana was always a ridiculous idea anyway, considering it's a thirty second walk from the one at Montana & 7th.
Posted by: Anon | July 17, 2008 at 08:03 PM
The one on Lincoln and Montana is closing because it was always empty and there is one 7th and Montana always full a block away. It always seemed stupid to have 2 stores right there to begin with, but this one is a former Deidrich's that was taken over. There's also a Starbucks on 14th and Montana, near a Coffee Bean and a Peet's. Not to mention many local mom and pops. Even in a good economy how many coffee bars do you need on one suburban street--even if it is Montana.
Posted by: Jon | July 17, 2008 at 08:12 PM
This sucks, now I'll have to go more than a half block before I hit a Starbucks. The humanity, the humanity.
Posted by: Crash and Burn | July 17, 2008 at 08:30 PM
Starbucks is one of the largest "image sellers" out there.
By "image seller" I refer to the fact that people somehow thing that people will think they are cool if they are carrying a Starbucks latte (or a Jamba Juice), talking on an I-Phone.
Don't people brew their own coffee anymore?
WRT McDonalds trying to fill the niche. LOL.
McDonalds is gonna survive on it's 99c menu...not overpriced coffee.
Posted by: E | July 17, 2008 at 09:52 PM
now if only they would get rid of all of the Starbucks... and bring back Dietrichs...
wait, no more jaywalkers to go from one Starbucks to another.. wow
Posted by: Beth | July 17, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Noticed a closure in Riverside - one of the two Starbucks at the University Village complex. A few short years ago, the high demand/long lines justified opening multiple Starbucks within walking distance. With the advent of $4 gas, that demand has dropped, and resulted in an oversaturation of stores in many places.
Posted by: Warren | July 17, 2008 at 10:46 PM
...did you guys know there's another Starbucks at 7th and Montana?
Posted by: Hey... | July 17, 2008 at 11:32 PM
So mighty Starbucks is showing signs of weakness. How ever could this have happened? The brand may or may not hold favor in the hearts of most, yet a true matter of concern may be the numerous now out of work employees who had held their confidence in the fact that they had a seemingly secure job with such a large company. The closure of 88 stores in just California also doesn't just affect this coffee companies employees, but those of the other business that supply what little that Starbucks doesn't already for itself, such as milk or office products. Then you can equate in the loss revenue that property owners, who in this scenario may also measure up to being without a job, or at least without an income.
These and others like them affected by such a sudden change will have to make due with minimal finances in an already delicate economical time. The dominoes line up fairly easy and fall over in a cascading line of "oops we need to save our salaries" when it comes to how most major corporations manage to recover from a failed venture. With all the strategy realized to make a craps roll decision of growth, its an obvious omen that there isn’t really a safety net in this companies previously expansive, world dominating business plan. Certainly that idea alone would cut into profits considering at the very least the letterhead and hotel accommodation for the safety net material and market research conference. These days it really is easier to cash in when the money runs out than it is too have patience while the expense of keeping the gears working adjusts to forecast... bait and switch anyone? “Well at least our competitors are out of business too.”
Rant status conceded but without casting the mild sarcasm aside, it is becoming the trend of business to balloon out with expansion till the POP! Then once the brass have a nest egg, or a dozen, all the high and dry staff of blue collar American have left to do is clean out an empty coup... d’etat? Anyway its signs like these that the bottom of the class barrel is getting bigger while the lid is rising and shrinking with contenders like a rich man's race to the moon.
Perhaps for Starbucks the memorable excitement over opening a new store everyday will be forgotten with the closing of a store everyday. Regardless America's boat is starting to sink and it is seriously far from just a coffee companies fault so perhaps the best cup of coffee to wake up and smell would be the one Starbucks is serving up now.
Posted by: justin | July 18, 2008 at 12:11 AM
The one at Madera & Royal is the closest one I believe to set of big Countrywide buildings at the top of Madera.
Posted by: Cal | July 18, 2008 at 12:29 AM
I'm not assigning equivalence, but I can't help but think of the "invincible" Krispy Kreme.
Remember that one? It was like a light switch was flipped, and it went from chic to ridiculous overnight.
Certainly, the Starbucks brand is stronger than Krispy Kreme, but the growth story (to justin's rant) has quite a few parallels - notably brand dilution in supermarkets and an 'at home' option that negates the 'freshness' aspect of the core product.
It's the light switch aspect that still amazes me, and the question is, "has it flipped?" Not yet - coworkers are still showing up with the signature cup in hand, though I have caught a few refilling with the office brew.
Posted by: It All Happens on the Margin | July 18, 2008 at 06:25 AM
I did a brief stint in management for one of Starbuck's competitors. When asked what I thought of Starbuck's of a radio interview I replied, "I'd like to thank my competition for creating my marketplace." Although gourmet coffee was a niche market for years, it was Starbuck's who brought it into the mainstream.
There's a contingent on this blog who somehow think folks go to Starbucks to show off. You guys need to get a life. Starbuck's, Coffee Bean, Peet's etc provide a convenient place to conduct business that's local to everyone. A frap is a great pick me up after lunch & my dog gets the whipped cream out of the lid. (a real win, win)
Having said that Starbuck's pursued a saturation marketing strategy that was doomed to failure. Coffee doesn't require an operating system so I don't understand why they were marketing themselves like they were Microsoft. They got most of it right. After shedding this dead weight & unwinding all of those commercial leases the Starbuck's brand will likely be going string long after "E" is under doctor's orders to avoid caffeine & cholesterol.
Posted by: Michael Snyder | July 18, 2008 at 07:03 AM
I think this the beginning end for Starbucks. I was a Starbucks client for almost 10 years. As their service and coffee went down the drain customers, like myself, fled. It's all about Coffee Bean now baby.
Posted by: jag | July 18, 2008 at 07:50 AM
I think Starbucks was/is oversatuated. there are two in my town of La Canada.
Posted by: Phyllis Harb | July 18, 2008 at 07:51 AM
Wow, imagine that. So many posters here engaging in self-indulging behavior, attempting to proclaim themselves superior by showing off just how much better their tastes are than Starbucks!
Starbucks is this decade's McDonalds - the "I'm better than those unwashed masses" brand you so you can call yourself sophisticated. Just like those "I don't watch any TV" people.
Get with it - Starbucks is very successful, as is McDonalds, and it's not because most people don't have good taste or are stupid. They clearly define a well known product, and it's more consistent across their stores than ANY OTHER STORE. That's why they have won. In fact, they are so damn successful, they can afford to open up 88 superfluous stores and STILL MAKE MONEY so they can close them when demand drops, and STILL STAY IN BUSINESS. Incredible! If Starbucks kept these stores open, you'd call them idiots for not realizing consumer demand has dropped.
I think the most interesting thing is that the 88 closing stores are such a small fraction of the total number out there. I think the big story is not that Starbucks is "suffering" - it is that they are in fact, so damn successful they can afford to shutter 88 stores and most people probably won't even notice!
Posted by: Tim K. | July 18, 2008 at 08:03 AM
What do you call 88 Starbucks closing? A good start.
I do feel badly for anyone who will lose their job as a result of this, but I've never been into designer coffee and wouldn't go into a Starsludge to pay off a bet.
Posted by: Doug in Toronto | July 18, 2008 at 08:14 AM
FYI, when you make a comment on a blog posting over 4 - 5 sentences no one reads it but you. Yes, I'm talking to you Justin
Posted by: Joah | July 18, 2008 at 08:32 AM
I really like Starbucks coffee and I'm sad to read of the closings. Like them or not, Starbucks revolutionized the standards for coffee and I for one, drink their coffee each and every morning on my way to work. Because I'm frugal, I buy the whole bean Brazil Ipanema Bourbon, Starbuck's employees grind the beans for free, and I brew it myself.
Also, I travel frequently between CA & AZ and stop in the Coachella Valley for coffee. Starbucks and Coffee Bean have a dense concentration in many locales and I'm thinking that has bearing on which stores to close.
I won't consider McDonald's. Not a chance.
Posted by: MG | July 18, 2008 at 08:40 AM
Companies close underperforming stores all the time. Nothihng unusual.
What would be interesting is to know when these stores were built. Are they last opened / first closed, representing the tide going back out?
Earlier poster mentioned that with a few execptions these stores are in lower income areas. Seems logical these residents would be the first to give up the foo-foo drinks.
Posted by: TakeFive | July 18, 2008 at 08:50 AM
The majority of the closures are in lower income bracket neighborhoods, where paying more for a gallon of coffee than for a gallon of gas makes even less sense than logic.
Posted by: Jon | July 18, 2008 at 09:15 AM
Newport Beach and Newport Coast, as well as Irvine not affected...
Even though Pete's and Coffee Bean are better alternatives!
Posted by: metin | July 18, 2008 at 09:19 AM
Agree with Roman...
I believe that Starbucks is starting to feel the competition from real coffee houses. Perhaps some people have finally become more demanding for a good cup of coffee. I want to believe that but then Coffee Bean is still open and their stuff is disgusting. I have both near me, as I'm sure everybody does. I don't go to either. Their tea is terrible. What is wrong with people???
Posted by: Laura | July 18, 2008 at 09:51 AM
When I first saw the headline I thought holy S, 1/2 the Starbucks are closing here in Valencia.
Posted by: desmo | July 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM
3 closures in San Gabriel Valley (Alhambra, Monterey Park, and South El Monte). There aren't many Starbucks in San Gabriel Valley to begin with. Starbucks can't compete with the boba drinks and shaved ice that are more preferrable to Asian taste. There's never a Starbucks in Chinatown either.
Posted by: sj | July 18, 2008 at 10:05 AM
How did the iPhone get lumped in with Starbucks trash?
Yeah, only hipster Appleheads want a combination of the best music/video player on the planet with a full-featured browser, quality camera, Google-mapping, and so forth.
I'm an Apple basher (generally), and I couldn't pass up the iPhone when the price drop hit. It has nothing to do with image and everything to do with quality and simplicity. My previous 3 devices (phone, mp3, camera) became one slim device that has a long charge and uses USB.
Posted by: TomServo | July 18, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Starbucks employees use to buy house in the 2004-2007 heydays...using the option ARM teaser 80/20 liar loans.
Today the landing standards have changed, and these no longer could get 10 miles from qualifying for the houses they use to buy.
So the fact that they are losing jobs is sad personally, but is no issue at all as far as real estate. At the end of the day, even the managers at these locations are financially renters.
Next.
Posted by: Laker | July 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM
we don't drink coffee, but we get those $5 Starbucks gift cards all the time. We find it kind of funny to go to Starbucks on a hot day and spend $5 on 2 small cups of iced tea (no refills!).
I can't muster any surprise, concern or sympathy on this one.
Posted by: jaded | July 18, 2008 at 10:28 AM
I heard they are closing most of the 9 Starbucks on my block.
Posted by: Enlightenment | July 18, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Joah, I got something for you.
I can't claim authorship on this one; it came from some guest blogger on the London Telegraph.
It goes something like this: Writing should be like a woman's skirt, or for you feminists and male-chauvinism-vigilantes out there, a Scotsman's kilt - long enough to cover the important things, but short enough to be interesting.
By the way, that's not how I address, but it is how I hope we all write. And if you can put what you want to say in a haiku, more power to you.
Posted by: MyLessThanPrimeBeef | July 18, 2008 at 12:04 PM
hallelujah. they should close all of them down.
on the flipside, there is a starbucks opening up on the corner of eagle rock and york in highland park, though i'd rather get a coffee bean, or perhaps a target.
Posted by: Milla | July 18, 2008 at 12:18 PM
make that an apple store.
Posted by: Milla | July 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM
The two store in Victorville are less than two years old. One store is within eye site to the other store. The other is walk-in distance to it. It was over build out here 7 store in a year to much coffee in a places where it's desert hot for 10 months of the year. People can't even sit outside like most location because its to darn hot.
Posted by: Inland Empire | July 18, 2008 at 01:01 PM
I noticed none are closing in the South Bay; none in Torrance or Redondo, even Gardena and Harbor City were spared. I suppose the stores with the lowest revenue were closed. The same thing happened to them that happened to McDonald's: they got so big they started going for cost savings, like roasting the coffee at a central location. No more coffee aroma in the stores. They also began with an environmental emphasis, but now many have drive-throughs, which are detrimental to the environment.
Posted by: Tim | July 18, 2008 at 01:02 PM
Poor Peter Noone! Where will he go for his Starbucks?
Posted by: Sue | July 18, 2008 at 01:13 PM
Starbucks will close 600 stores, 88 is just a start....
Coffee Bean should start closing some stores also, in fact close them all.
I wish they would close the one near me and put in Intelligentsia...that would be so nice. Real coffee and real tea...what a concept.
Posted by: Laura | July 18, 2008 at 01:17 PM
They might be closing 88 stores in California, but they are actually opening more stores in the city of Los Angeles than they are closing them. According to the list, there is only one store shutting its doors within city limits.
And right now, there's one being built on corner of York Blvd. in Eagle Rock. There's also one opening on Washington near Crenshaw. And who knows how many more...So, actually, like the housing crisis, it's really only effecting likes of Victorville, Fontana, Brea, Rancho Crapamongo, Hemet, Ontario, The Inland Empire ghetto, etc.
If you can't afford a house, just start looking in those neighborhoods. If you are expecting Starbucks to start closing en masse in Pasadena, Silverlake, Hollywood, Bev. Hills, Miracile Mile, the West Side, you better just buckle down, paint your apartment and keep waiting.
Posted by: So Glad I've Paid Down the Principal | July 18, 2008 at 03:01 PM
If you notice, must of the closing are in the hard hits areas of the RE market. I guess most of the big spenders left town already.
Posted by: Bill | July 18, 2008 at 03:18 PM
Based on some of the closings in San Diego, yes, this IS directly related to the RE downturn.
Three of the closings in San Diego:
2990 El Cajon Blvd. (at 30th Street)
Well, if working-girls all drank coffee, then this place might not have closed. This Bux was meant to anchor the corner in a revitalization project along El Cajon Blvd (the Gaza Strip of Mid-City San Diego). The project was mixed use development that took up 3/4 of the entire square block. It was made up of low-cost senior rentals, retail, market-rate townhomes, and low-income townhomes.
Let's just say sales were a bit slow and the retail tenants, aside from Bux and maybe one or two other low-traffic enterprises, failed to materialize.
A gas station across the street was razed in anticipation of the gentrification of the corner. It is now an empty lot with a chain-link fence around it.
3830 Park Blvd. (at University Avenue)
This Bux was another corner located "anchor" for a new condo construction. Unlike the 30th and Hell Cajon Blvd site, this complex, called "The Egyptian", is located a couple miles away in festive Hillcrest. A very, very nice upscale, concrete mid-rise. It sold pretty well, but values have fallen and retail tenants have been very slow to occupy the bottom floor.
And maybe the locals just prefer the Cafe on Park OR Urban Grind--right across the street.
1122 Broadway Ave. (at 11th Avenue)
This closing is indisputably tied to the RE downturn. This Bux is located in one the properties that was supposed to be a showcase and draw to Center City East in San Diego called SmartCorner.
It's a striking 20+story, wedge shaped complex of 2 buildings housing condos, offices and retail all wrapped around a trolley stop the cuts through a narrow canyon between the buildings. (A bit windy in there.)
This property was located between 11th and The-Street-Formerly-Known-As-"12th", but redesignated "Park Blvd" (yes, technically it does extend Park Blvd) to get rid of the unsavory taste that 12 th St had for locals. It was one of the worst streets in all of downtown San Diego.
The downturn has slowed construction in the area. The block just west, btw 10th & 11th, would definitely be a flattened memory by now, instead of remaining ugly, rundown and a bit dangerous. Across Broadway, a large tire store that burned to the cinderblocks in a strange fire many months ago remains a fenced-off, charred eyesore.
I'm sure they were counting on being the hub of a revitalization, but when the construction (and concomitant exodus of unsavory street life) stopped, I guess, the local foot traffic didn't materialize.
BTW: I think Sbux will be fine. They've got the brand recognition and market penetration to make it through a slump.
Posted by: sandiegan | July 18, 2008 at 03:38 PM
Starbucks has about 7100 standalone stores (that's what they had when they did that close-for-training thing). They are closing 616 stores. They are also opening quite a few, though significantly less than planned. This sounds like management has a pretty good idea of what they are doing in this environment.
Posted by: Chris | July 18, 2008 at 07:15 PM
The one across from San Diego State U is closing, but there's still a Starbucks on campus, besides the myriad other coffee shops in the area catering to the SDSU staff & students. And the one in Mira Mesa closing still leaves 8-10 other ones in that neighborhood if you include the Starbucks inside the grocery stores.
Where I live in good old middle class Clairemont, they are opening up yet another new Starbucks down the street from the middle and high schools (the one featured in Fast Times at Ridgemont High), so I think they are targeting kids with allowances to buy frappacinos (in addition to the school staff/teachers). I just wonder who's going to lease all the former corner lots once occupied by gas stations, but now choice locations for Starbucks or Walgreens.
Posted by: SD-Dee | July 18, 2008 at 08:47 PM
Starbucks' espresso shots actually improved a lot after that systemwide overhaul they did several months back. I rarely get a bad one now at any store.
Posted by: Chris | July 18, 2008 at 11:16 PM
It is a known, objective fact that Starbucks makes some of the worst tasting coffee ever. I am more of a black tea drinker (yes I'm under 60 years old), and the few occasions I've had coffee from Starbucks, in need of a stronger caffeine fix, even I have been able to tell that they make horrendous-tasting coffee.
More Coffee Beans please.
Posted by: Sophie | July 21, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Hey, SJ- your assertion that Starbucks has to contend with the boba and shaved ice joints in the SGV are completely off. So they're closing 3 in Alhambra, Monterey Park and S. El Monte, but there's plenty of Asians (mostly Chinese) that hang out at the Starbucks in Rowland Heights, City of Industry and Diamond Bar.
Of course they're going to close the lower performing stores in the W SGV. That's where those "fresh off the boat" have zero clue what a Starbucks is.
But you head to the E SGV, and by golly, they sure as hell know what a Starbucks is. But then again, the ESGV has more $$ and a more populous Chinese concentration thanks to the Hsi Lai temple in Haciends Hts.
There's a Sbux in the Vons, one across from Puente Hills mall, one on Gale and Fullerton, one in the Rowland Hts Target, yet another on Colima and Fairway.
And from Mt Sac in Walnut, there's one across the street, one on Valley and Grand, one in the Diamond Bar Target and go up the hill and there's one on Diamond Bar blvd and Grand Ave.
BTW, in West Covina, at Eastland shooping center, there's the drive through at Barranca, the one on Citrus next to Party City and one in that Target. At the new shopping center on Azusa and Amar, there's a drive through and one in Target.
By the Edwards next to the 10, there's one in Barnes & Noble and another drive through on W Covina Pkwy and Vincent.
Talk about over saturation of a product. When my parents visited my brother in Everett, WA earlier this year, I asked them if the joke was true. Yes, Virginia, the IS a Starbucks on EVERY corner.
So they're closing 88? They should close more of them. Do we really need them in our grocery stores AND Targets? Not really when we can by the coffee in bags, whole beans and Frappacinos in bottles. Not only that, but you can get the double shots in the cans, Tazo teas in the bags (or bottles) and buy bottled water, prepacked sandwiches, fruit plates and yogurt parfaits at the grocery store, or even better, make it yourself!
Maybe this should serve as a business model for others- don't over saturate the market with your product!
Success is what will ultimately kill Starbucks and other imitators. You don't see Jamba Juice, Robeks, and Juice it up saturating the market, and they're much healthier for you, too.
(Oh, yeah, Starbucks jumped on the smoothie and gelato bandwagon to try to win their customers over).
Posted by: S*Bux on EVERY corner | July 21, 2008 at 08:36 PM
I've been following this company for 15 years since it IPO'd. I worked for them in West Seattle. I worked for them in Tucson. I've visited their stores in Tokyo, Los Angeles, San Diego. They've sought to make shareholders wealthy -- that's first and foremost, let's don't forget -- but the tradeoff was diminished product quality, dilution of its "Third Place" concept and too much stink from newfangled offerings and noise -- Noise from staffers swapping gossipy personal news or "Take your 10-minute break" rather than focusing on the customer, noise from blenders cranking out high profit margin Frappucinos, noise from those silly auto-espresso machines that replaced the bona fide Italian espresso machines. The charm, ambience and cachet of Starbucks is gone perhaps never to be restored. Howard Schulz, I hope you're reading these [as you most likely are] comments. For starters, DECENTRALIZE: Allow your stores to post community bulletin boards, let them wear what they want -- no more of the hideous green. Train, train, train your staff and pay them more to RETAIN the best ones and move them up the ranks. Have the stores play music at reasonable volumes, and turn down the airconditioning. It's an icebox in half of the stores! Some very instructional postings here from fellow San Diegans, thanks. I know the Montana Blvd scene too, and agree the Lincoln/Montana store was a redundancy.
Posted by: pbkuaaina, san diego | July 21, 2008 at 09:09 PM