During the Target campaign it was often argued that Davis’ Downtown would bare the brunt of the impact from Target. Those opposing Target argued that people would divert their shopping from the Davis Downtown to the periphery when Target was constructed. Those supporting Target argued on the contrary that most of the Target shoppers already go up to Woodland to shop at Target now and that all a Davis Target would do would be to transfer shoppers at the Woodland Target to Davis and keep the sales tax revenues in Davis.
This debate took place in 2006 during a very different economic time. Nevertheless the Target Development Agreement included 100,000 dollars for “community enhancement.” The Davis Downtown Business Association submitted a proposal to city staff for the the use of that money in order to conduct a multi-media marking campaign to help focus people on shopping in the downtown.
Wrote the DDBA in their application:
“The existing retail “pie” will be sliced into increasingly smaller pieces as Target and other businesses anticipated at Second Street Crossing make their debuts, Estimates are that as much as $20 million or more annually in local retail sales could be transferred away from Downtown to the coffers of Target and its neighboring stores, This is congruent with a study conducted on behalf of the San Luis Obispo Downtown Association, which predicted that 50% of dollars spent at a proposed Target and adjacent shopping plaza in that city would be a direct transfer from Downtown revenues.”
With the opening of Target less than three months away now, DDBA “feels a sense of urgency in moving forward with the proposed campaign.”
They continue:
“Downtown Davis must deliver an image and a message to create market share at this time in a manner that’s as clever and aggressive as possible, taking a small stab, at least, at the marketing onslaught likely to be turned loose by Target’s deep-pocketed corporate marketing machinery. The marketing films from which DDBA is likely to select indicate that the 12 week time frame is a bare minimum for the initial roll-out of the type of campaign that’s proposed.”
While the money was not specifically designated to the downtown the developer’s agreement, it seems that the DDBA has a strong argument that given the fact that Target was required by the city to provide mitigation funds to mitigate the impact of their presence upon existing businesses in Davis and that the Downtown area “stands to be impacted more by the existence of Target in Davis” than any other.
Nevertheless while staff concurred with the DDBA
“that the funds should be spent in/for the benefit of the downtown, and also that spending these one-time dollars on a multi-media marketing campaign is an appropriate use of the funds. However, city staff differs from DDBA in the amount it recommends to be allocated to such an effort.”
The staff focused their proposal on the Downtown Holiday Tree and funding for UDASH which is the lunchtime shuttle which would carry people on campus to the downtown for lunch and other shopping during the day. This would require a $25,000 commitment.
The staff was complimentary of the proactive marketing of downtown that would have a positive effect on the community. However they argued for considerably less than the $100,000 requested by the DDBA.
For one thing,
“The proposal is still in a conceptual phase. While this is not unexpected, given the DDBA does not have funds in hand to solicit proposals, it would be premature and imprudent for the City to allocate all funding to the DDBA based on the information in the current proposal.”
They expressed concern that the money would be consumed by just a few advertisements, they feel that the downtown has many needs and thus needs to prioritize expenditures.
Furthermore they cited lack of collaboration with the city and other organizations that have the same or similar functions such as the Yolo County Visitors Bureau.
“Staff believes it is imperative for a marketing approach to involve these entities. The YCVB, for example, with its restructuring over a year ago, has focused on outreach efforts to regional visitors. All efforts should be made to capitalize on and complement their existing efforts and to use their marketing expertise.”
Council actually streamed back the commitment to $50,000 with Councilmembers Greenwald and Souza arguing for $75,000.
Commentary
Second, if the downtown wants my support and the support of others in this community they will back off their needless and ill-founded opposition to the Fifth Street Redesign. They seem to believe this will harm the downtown, but what they fail to recognize is that the situation on Fifth Street means people like me will avoid driving through Fifth Street and prefer to avoid the downtown altogether. It is a serious safety hassle and frankly it gives me a headache every time I do have to drive through it.
Nevertheless, I do not believe this city has done nearly enough to mitigate the coming of Target to the downtown. The state has given redevelopment a $3 million hit which means far less money is going to be available for redevelopment projects in the city. A vital downtown is crucial to this city from an economic but also a cultural perspective.
Frankly, downtown is suffering as much if not more than anywhere else due to the current economic downturn. Store after store in downtown is vacant. Many others are struggling. We lost Bogeys Books, a vital part of our community and it remains a vacant store right in the heart of downtown, right across from the E Street Plaza. That is a symbol of our problems.
Frankly, I do not think $100,000 is nearly enough to compensate and mitigate the downtown from their expected losses due to Target. They estimate $20 million, that number sounds high and I would like to understand better how they figured that, but this goes to the heart of the fact that we do not demand nearly enough from developers when we allow them into the community.
It seems like giving the full $100,000 is the least we could do, though I somewhat agree with city staff that I would like a better sense for how the money would be used. I agree with remarks from council that we could do a better job of regionally promoting the downtown than we do. However, at the same time, I think we need to take a much more focused view on what downtown would offer the region and how we can best fill that need in part by filling the vacant store spaces.
In short, even $100,000 is going to do little to protect downtown against Target and their millions that they can dump in for advertising and marketing. It would seem vital that the city do whatever it can to help keep the downtown vital.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Confession: Yes I admit it, if you want to be quoted, mentioned San Luis Obispo and you will pretty much guarantee it.
The City doesn’t have a program to create jobs and businesses located downtown. Money should be spent creating jobs not replacing curbs that don’t need to be replaced. I have sent federal government grant opportunities to the City planning office and received no response relevant to my emails. Currently there is a lot of federal money available for education and solar installation but the City has no employee applying for this money. Instead, the planning department appears to be working for the developers and real estate agencies to spend more City money.
The meter maids/parking control officers are out of control and drive a lot of business away from downtown. They appear to be working with Target to drive shoppers out of the downtown area.
What would it hurt if the City applied for grants to create jobs and increased tax revenue for the City of Davis? Why isn’t it happening? Why doesn’t the City have an employee coordinating grant acquisition; there are too many employees spending our money!
So every single time a major retailer comes to town, we’re supposed to pay ‘protection’ to the DDBA? Brilliant.
How many other Targets are you planning to bring to Davis?
During the Target campaign, the DDBA came out IN FAVOR of Target. Now we’re supposed to feel sorry for them when they got what they wanted?
“During the Target campaign, the DDBA came out IN FAVOR of Target.”
No, they didn’t.
Reap:
I don’t understand why DDBA supported Target. We (citizens) opposed it from Day 1 because of the potential diversion. I am truly sorry our “enlightened” (make that lightweight) City Council ever supported it. The often unrealistic “tax revenues” argument (for large retail and residential development) has ruined so many towns and their budgets. The DDBA resistance to the 5th Street upgrade is just dumb.
David:
We do miss Bogey’s. For many years, it was a standard after dinner visit for my wife and I. He said he couldn’t compete w/ Borders. When the quirky little retail stores go away, the character of the downtown area does change Hey now we can get mattresses. Nothing wrong w/ the wider selection of restaurants of course.
What no one says is that the downtown is increasingly clogged w/ cars. The City won’t provide enough bike racks. Make it easier for folks to ride and this could increase access to downtown. It’s great to be able to ride to the front door and park w/o worrying about the meter maid!
I have an idea for the downtown businesses….lower your prices. An example of a store that will take a large hit from Target is the Ace Housewares store. That place has long over-charged for items widely available in stores like Target, taking advantage of being local and of the anti-retail aspect of Davis living. Prices for similar items are 20-30% higher in Davis. I don’t think the cost of business is that much higher locally, so that’s just profit to the store owners, and taken away from consumers. It’s important to remember that any loss that stores like that incur due to consumers moving their shopping to Target, is essentially a gain to consumers in their pocket book. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. I don’t really see how the answer is to subsidize the Davis stores.
Bogey’s told me it was the hike in rent and when his employee tried to buy it, again new rent too high. And it has been empty ever since.
Agree with the sidewalk issue. I call them designer sidewalks, especially downtown. I am sure extremely expensive and now a lesser version on 8th St. What is the story with those? Isn’t there a better use of our money?
They are not providing subsidies with this, they are help to fund promotions. But in part I agree with you differentview, they need to promote a project. You listen to the council and they talk like the product is great, it’s not. I really don’t think the Davis Downtown is that great in terms of the actual vendors. The restaurants are decent. There is some entertainment. It also closes much too early. The retail places are by and large mediocre at best and that’s being charitable.
Most of the time when you see a project that costs money it comes not from the general fund but from a specific source either a grant or a special account with very limited uses. So when you say there is a better use of money than the sidewalks, that’s probably true in a world where all money was equal, but likely there was no other use for the money but the sidewalks.
I also think you are probably underrating sidewalks as a function of walkability and accessibility of the downtown. Good sidewalks could increase foot traffic and help business.
Jim: “I don’t understand why DDBA supported Target.”
They didn’t. DDBA board’s official position on Second Street Crossing was neutral. The Chamber of Commerce initially supported the project, then changed their position to neutral after some blowback from members.
BTW, it’s important to know that DDBA is an assessment district, not a membership organization. If your business is in the boundaries, you pay an assessment. It isn’t voluntary. Chamber of Commerce is voluntary; if you don’t like their positions on things, you can just quit.
Who owns the Bogey’s Book site? Any idea what the last asking rent was for that place?
Makes me wonder if the commercial property owners have been out of touch with the local economy in charging their rents.
Is it just possible Target will become an extension of the Downtown, if the DDBA/Chamber of Commerce will embrace it? Is it possible Target will become a good community member, donating to local worthy causes, bringing other businesses to Davis? Downtown businesses always look at any newcomer as a threat. This engenders bad feelings. The whole Borders Wars was repugnant to me, and as a result, I will not shop in Avid Reader – a huge proponent of nasty tactics to keep Borders out of Davis. I will not shop at Davis Co-op for much the same reason – their nasty tactics in trying to keep other grocery stores than themselves out of West Davis.
The DDBA/Chamber of Commerce/downtown merchants had better realize that competition is the American way, customers do not appreciate dirty tactics to keep out competition, and want a safer downtown, which would include the road diet for 5th Street. All the negative publicity being incurred by downtown businesses bc they appear to take stands antithetical to customers will spell their doom if they are not careful.
I agree with differentview. As a new Davisite, I want to support the downtown businesses, but with my cut in pay and higher rent, I can’t. Yes, it is more economical for me to drive to Target twice a month to buy things that I could buy at Ace and other downtown establishments.
If the downtown businesses have to pay higher rents, maybe the business landlords need to get a reality check…..that is would they rather try to squeak out a few more pennies for a building, or have the business fold – thus leaving their building vacant for months?
David Greenwald,
In a recent article, you neglected to mention that my main stated reason for opposing the Wildhorse horse ranch project (in addition to opposing the process, which made a travesty of measure J) was the fact that we already have 2,000 units approved and unbuilt between the city and the university (the university is breaking ground next week, and the city has 500 units approved and unbuilt).
Today, you neglect to mention that I made a motion to allow the DBA to use the entire $100,000, but the motion was not seconded.
Please, do not let my differences of opinion with you on the Wildhorse project influence your reporting, whether it be on a conscious or unconscious level.
Thank you,
Sue
Downtown gives me limited shopping, higher prices and a shortage of parking. Why would I want to shop there? I can drive to Woodland in less time than it takes me to find a parking space downtown and find what I’m looking for at significanly lower prices.
” Prices for similar items are 20-30% higher in Davis.”
“Downtown gives me limited shopping, higher prices and a shortage of parking. Why would I want to shop there?”
We’ve spent the summer painting and redecorating a couple of interior rooms in our house. Most of our shopping has been at Ace in Davis. When Ace didn’t have it (not that often, really), we drove to Woodland to Home Depot.
For things that I bought in Davis, 20-30% markup claim would be an exaggeration. More realistic was about 2-10% if it was actually more expensive in Davis.
[quote]Money should be spent creating jobs not replacing curbs that don’t need to be replaced.[/quote]The insanity of tearing out perfectly good curbs and replacing them with “pedestrian bubbles” is thanks to the “stimulus program” of the federal government. We don’t have enough money in Davis to repair potholes, so Uncle Barack comes along and gives us hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace perfectly good curbs. This is a great example of why you don’t want to funnel all of your money to the central goverment and then let them decide how your money is spent. If we had a choice as a city, I am certain we would give preference to repairing our streets, not replacing our curbs.
One thing I think the City of Davis ought to pursue, in a goal to help downtown business, is to get a lot more Unitrans buses to route directly through the core area.
Currently, there are two hubs for Unitrans routes — both on campus. Every single line stops at either the MU or behind Shields Library on its route.
A few buses — L, P, Q, W & M — go along the edge of downtown, now. Only two lines — A & E — go through downtown. But if you don’t live along one of these lines, you cannot directly take a bus in Davis to your downtown location. If you have to transfer, it can double the time it takes to get to your downtown destination.
To help downtown businesses, I’d like to see the City and UCD agree at some point to slightly restructure the routes of all Unitrans’ lines, so that after they leave the MU or the library, they go up 3rd Street, say from B Street to F Street; and from there, they could go back to their current route.
For example, consider the F bus. It goes from the MU out to Catalina Drive and back by way of Anderson Road and Oak Avenue. If a passenger on that line wants to go downtown to the Varsity Theatre, he can either get off at the MU and walk. Or he can wait at the MU and transfer to the E bus. Neither of those is all that attractive an alternative.
But if the City requested — as part of its subsidization to Unitrans — that the F bus included the downtown, it could traverse the exact same course, only leaving the MU for B Street to 3rd Street to F Street to 5th Street and back to its current route out to Catalina Drive.
My presumption is that more city residents would take a bus downtown if the bus route they live near actually went downtown.
Sure Target can offer lower prices, but that’s because they have excess capital. Local, downtown Davis businesses–those greedy bastards selling goods and services at higher costs just to pad their pocketbook and bilk the consumer–do not. Clearly, Target and other corporate entities are not in the business of generating profit, but rather aiding the harried consumer keep more of their hard-earned money. They are quite philanthropic that way.
Wal-Mart’s–and, I’m sure, Target’s–strategy has always been to undercut local business by offering items below cost, but when those businesses fold, the prices magically rise!
All hail our corporate masters.
Were Bogey’s Books and Samira’s examples of “greedy bastards selling goods and services at higher costs just to pad their pocketbook and bilk the consumer”?
Re above post:
I think AJGabriel was being sarcastic.
Re above post:
I think AJGabriel was being sarcastic.
Re above post:
I think AJGabriel was being sarcastic.
Re above post:
I think AJGabriel was being sarcastic.
Yes, tongue firmly planted in cheek.
I agree with Another Way of looking at It when they say “is it possible Target will become a good community member, donating to local worthy causes.”
Some ideas:
Perhaps in addition to Target’s one time contribution they should contribute to a downtown parking structure…one that provides roof top space for photovoltaic’s that could generate power for some portion of the downtown.
To compliment the parking garages Davis could use some annual contributions from Target (or a portion of the sales tax revenue we are projected to receive ) to establish a downtown bike sharing system see http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/velib-film-paris-france-bike-sharing-bicycles.phpprovide.
With the bike-sharing system one can pick up a bike at one station and return it at another. So if you were to park in one place you could pick up one of these bikes (equipped with cool little baskets), zip around town and return it when you are done. The Paris model actually allows for the first half hour to be free.
It would be nice to see more solution oriented comments to a situation that will not change, no matter how much you all bang your fists on the table and complain.
Any other positive suggestions?
[quote]Sure Target can offer lower prices, but that’s because they have excess capital.[/quote] Excess capital? It sounds like you don’t know what the term [i]capital[/i] means.
What differentiates some very large retailers from small retailers trying to sell the same line of merchandise is the large retailers, due to volume sales, have purchasing power*. That is, they can negotiate better prices from their suppliers and pass those savings on to customers**. Small retailers are price takers.
For that reason, smaller retailers (who face competition) have to either sell unique or niche items — ones not carried by the big boys — or they have to provide much better service. No one has ever accused Wal-Mart or Target of providing good service. [quote] Wal-Mart’s–and, I’m sure, Target’s–strategy has always been to undercut local business by offering items below cost, but when those businesses fold, the prices magically rise! [/quote] This is a fanciful conspiracy theory, but untrue. Wal-Mart has a long-term marketing strategy which is driven by their slogan, “Always Low Prices.” If they became a high-priced monopolist, as you charge, they would lose the volume business that their whole scheme is built around.
Show me a single Wal-Mart store in the U.S. which has driven out its competition with low prices and then turned around and raised its prices at that store. In fact, on a regional basis, all Wal-Marts charge the same price for all their goods, so what you say just does not happen.
—————-
*They also have better efficiencies in management and distribution.
** I don’t mean to suggest that on every item you will always get a better price at a Wal-Mart or a Target. In general, they are cheaper. But on some specific items, other stores have better sales, better selection and usually better service.
Curbs again:
Rich, the designer sidewalk bubbles were way before the stimulus $, couple summers ago. Now it’s 8th St.
I beg to differ with comment about safety; I think the bubbles are much less safe for bikes and cars trying to look out for bikes. And I was downtown early afternoon today and the sidewalks BETWEEN. Designer corners on G are buckled and very unsafe. Appears to be accident waiting to happen.
The compartmentalization of monies for cities and schools seems ridiculous, sidewalk money isn’t general fund; stadiumoney isn’t education money, etc, etc.
Sue,
pleading to a blogger – Today, you neglect to mention that I made a motion to allow the DBA to use the entire $100,000, but the motion was not seconded.
c’mon get real
DA
Thanks for the education, Rich. I’ll just slink back to my corner of Conspiracyville now. Party on!
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . . .
Today, you neglect to mention that I made a motion to allow the DBA to use the entire $100,000, but the motion was not seconded.
Thank you,
Sue [/quote]
Sue, how would adding info about your motion have added to the substance of David’s article?
[quote]Rich, the designer sidewalk bubbles were way before the stimulus $, couple summers ago. Now it’s 8th St. [/quote]I was told by a top city staffer a few weeks ago that it is stimulus money paying for all of the current “pedestrian bubbles” going in. I asked because it seemed ridiculous to me to expend those funds when we have serious road-repair and maintenance issues.
I’m going to send the person an email right now and see if the person will let me quote the person by name and with some details.
Curbs:
Rich
the real designer sidewalks I was talking about are in the downtown, go back a summer or two, have brick and planters, etc. Up and down 3rd at least. The current ones aren’t as designer, on 8th and don’t seem necessary either.
SODA, for what it’s worth, I’ve confirmed what I had thought I heard about federal stimulus dollars paying for the pedestrian bubbles. This is from an email exchange I had with Deputy City Manager Ken Hiatt:
Rich: “It’s my understanding the money for the pedestrian bubbles going in at street corners is currently coming from federal stimulus dollars. Is that right?”
Ken: “That is correct. The construction costs for the intersection enhancements on 2nd St (C-F Streets) will be funded with Federal transportation stimulus funds.”
I haven’t asked anyone else in the know anything about these sort of “enhancements.” (I think Ken Hiatt was talking with someone else in a meeting I was at when I originally overheard him say they were being paid for with stimulus money.) However, I have to wonder if there is not some kind of an ADA lawsuit behind this movement. I know it was such lawsuits which forced municipalities many years ago to re-cut their curbs at corners to make them wheelchair accessible. Now, my guess is that the bubbles are being put in to ward off more lawsuits.
Rich,
Just bc city staff says something, doesn’t make it so. Don’t believe everything you hear from them!
Generally speaking staff is not going to mislead about something like that which is verifiable. Someone asked me this a few months ago and Lamar told me the same thing. It’s certainly not general fund money going into sidewalks. I believe though there was either a grant or funding available a few years ago as well for sidewalks. People really need to understand that in government, money is not always equivalent.
“It’s certainly not general fund money going into sidewalks.”
The question is if it (money spend on fancy curbing) was new federal stimulus money, or old redevelopment funding that could have been better spent!
It is not our duty as citizens to “save downtown” businesses. Downtown davis, like any other, needs to offer large selections of goods at low prices like any other.
Just recently, you now have to pay to park downtown. I don’t know what council member or what have you decided the best way to get citizens to shop downtown, was to charge them for parking, but it is only going to serve to hurt downtown. I don’t know why this move, but it was stupid.
Target is not going to charge its customers to shop there. Hence, by shopping at target, you will save in more ways than one.
To get some further perspective on who is paying for the sidewalk and or curb “improvements,” I asked Assistant City Manager Paul Navazio. This is verbatim what he told me: [quote]It is my understanding that there are a number of projects underway (or soon to be) that involve stimulus dollars, while some related projects are NOT funded via federal stimulus:
1) The first contract actually awarded by the City using stimulus funding are sidewalk curb-cuts (ramps) currently being installed… this work {$162,000) comes from supplemental CDBG funding provided to HUD via the federal stimulus bill (aka ARRA).
2) We just recently awared another contract ($731K) funded via federal stimuls dollars via CalTrans for road rehab (re-pavement) work…
3) We are still waiting on final CalTrans go-ahead on two additional projects approved for stimuls funding, those being 2nd street improvements ($650K) and bike path improvements ($600K) … contract awards are not expected until this fall…
4) There is another project currently underway along 8th street (Manor Plaza – aka Dollar Tree shopping center) that includes sidewalk rehab and installation of bulb-outs, that is NOT stimuls funded, but was provided through a state grant…
Stimulus dollars awarded to Davis under #1 and #2 were based on a formula-driven alloactions, whereas the funding we received for #3 were competitive project awards… [/quote]
[quote]Just recently, you now have to pay to park downtown. I don’t know what council member or what have you decided the best way to get citizens to shop downtown, was to charge them for parking, but it is only going to serve to hurt downtown. I don’t know why this move, but it was stupid.
[/quote]In all of downtown, there is only one lot which charges. And while charging a small amount to park in a public lot or on a public street may discourage some shoppers, it’s undeniable that our problem in Davis is we have [i]too many[/i] people at certain times of the day wanting to park in downtown. When the money is there, the City is going to build another new parking structure, which should help with the excess parking demand. However, until that comes, it will remain a problem — too many shoppers and others right now love downtown Davis. Your point seems to be that having to pay to park in one lone lot is such a great turnoff that people don’t want to go downtown. However, if you try to park in the lunch hour, you’ll find that thousands of Davis drivers disagree with you.
Money for outreach to DDBA is silly. Those who live here know downtwon well, and we either do or do not shop there for personal reasons. “Outreaxch” won’t help us. The Yolo County visitors bureau efforts to reach nonresidents should be promoted.
Rich Rifkin is absolutely spot on about the effect of no Unitrans busses to downtown. I’d love to take a Unitrans bus there from South Davis. My teens would too. But most of the busses do not go through downtown.
As to why there are empty storefronts in downtown? Ask the few who control most of donwtown’s real estate. the rents are high and getting higher. The stores that closed are are aboput to close complaint that the landlord’s will not reduce the rents, and they are happy to leave the storefronts empty rather than reduce the valuation of their bduilings by reducing rents.
One of the florists moved out of downtown and is doing more business than ever with larger space and much lower rent. I still use them in their new location – near Target.
Fopr teh landlords to insist of rates the market won’t paym, and then ask taxpayers to subsidize their investments, that’s offensive.
Let the market control. It will anyway no matter how much the city spends.
And BTW, much as I love downtown, I don’t buy clothes, shoes, furniture, or homegoods there because the stores downtown do not sell what I want at the price I’m willing to pay. They are nice stores. They serve many customers. I’m just not one of thenm, and no amount of outreach will change the fact. I can and do get it elsewhere. I go downtown to dine and watch movies.
The problem is the retail offerings are limited and don’t address my particular family’s shopping preferences. Outreach won’t change that. If, e.g., we had an Ann Taylor, a Coldwater Creek, a Nine West shoe store, or an REI, I’d be downtown in a heartbeat. I do go downtown to the Outdor store, to Fleet Feat, and to the paint chip. That’s it.
Seriously, there is hardly anything I’ll buy at Target that I can buy downtown – otherwise I wouldn’t be going all the way to Woodland NOW to shop at Target. Tried to buy underwear in this town lately? If you like drugstore underwear, I guess you’re ok. There is no drugstore downtown, so all the health and beauty aids I buy there are taking business away from Safeway and Nugget, not downtown. I don’t need artwork, flowers, hot dogs, pink junior-sized clothing, overpriced shoes, fancy yuppie house decorations, or any of the other stuff sold downtown. Ace is a chain so why anyone cares about them is beyond me.
Ace is not a chain. Davis Ace Hardware is a locally-owned business that is a member of the Ace buyers’ coop.
[url]http://daviswiki.org/ACE_Hardware[/url]
“Those who live here know downtwon well, and we either do or do not shop there for personal reasons.”
The key for any marketing program is to reach the people who are new to town: several thousand new students who arrive each year, already “branded” to big box buying, who don’t know where downtown is or what is there. Plus the very high turnover of new homeowners moving to Davis from other areas.
It probably doesn’t hurt to market some of the downtown events to current residents as well. But I assume the focus would be on newcomers.
Improving mass transit into the downtown is an excellent idea.
“However, if you try to park in the lunch hour, you’ll find that thousands of Davis drivers disagree with you.”
It seems like a good chunk of the lunch time crowd downtown is students, faculty and staff from the university who are either walking or biking.
wdf, we also get a substantial number of out of towners eating lunch in Davis.
I opposed Target, just as I would oppose any “big-box” retailer that might harm our small, locally-owned businesses. However, after I came to Davis 34 years ago, our downtown has become so congested and consumer-unfriendly that I welcome the opportunity to shop in a more open, accessible area of town.
And, I am disgusted that the City is giving money to the DDBA to “market” our downtown without addressing the root problems: (1) exorbitant space leasing fees, (2) removal of parking spaces (@ tax-payers’expense), and (3) “meter-maids” (again paid by our tax dollars) to discourage us from having a pleasureable downtown shopping experience.
So, yes, I would prefer to shop downtown, but once Target opens I will shop there for convenience and save on both gasoline and time. And for the “environmentalists” (and, I’m big-time in that arena), what is better: a short jaunt to a large parking lot and shut off the engine or circle repeatedly in search of a parking space downtown?
It really is sad that our downtown is deteriorating, but pouring money into “marketing” is not the solution. What most consumers are seeking are convenience & value. And, where can you find those features in Davis?
Rick Entrikin: [i]”(1) exorbitant space leasing fees”[/i]
While it is possible that some landlords, in the short run, might ask more in rent than their space is worth, this literally cannot be true in the long run. Landlords get in rent only what their renters are capable of paying. At times, some marginal businesses will be priced out of the spaces they occupy — but only because there is another business which believes the space is worth more to them than it is to the other occupant.
Insofar as there are a lot of vacancies right now downtown — due to the recession — rents for new companies will come down, and (most likely) ongoing businesses will not see their rents raised over the next few years (save in cases where long-term leases require increased rents).
I was formerly in the commercial real estate business. When that was my occupation (in the late 1980s-early 1990s), I unfortunately experienced a recession. The result was that over a few years, the rents we were able to charge fell in half (per sq. foot). It might not be that extreme in Davis, because we have a limited number of store-front locations. But it is normal for rents to fall in a bad economy — and that will happen here, too. (I was told by a person in town who rents a downtown office that he just negotiated a much lower rent for his same second floor office space.)
let’s cut the garbage and get specific:
who shops at polka dot regularly?
who shopped at bogeys regularly?
I mean, there was a die hard legion of people that wrote in to attack target, but does this die hard legion regularly shop at downtown? where are they?
I regularly go downtown. I visit dimple, and that’s pretty much it. Secondly, where is the creativity of downtown merchants? are they going to do something to get people to go there or what?
“who shopped at bogeys regularly?”
I shopped at Bogey’s. Browsed a lot. Probably bought a couple books/month. Sometimes I check in at Dimples and Armadillo Records, Borders, Avid Reader, Alphabet Moon, B&L Bikes, Fleet Feet, Outdoor Davis, Kinko’s, and Watermelon Music. I’m sorry the Pita place next to Watermelon closed.
Many years ago, before Target was a reality I was talking with the owner of the building that Cafe Roma was in.
We talked about the prospect of Target. He didn’t like the idea for exactly the same reason I liked it. It would increase competition with downtown. Now this guy is a pretty smart business person and he understood that Target would lower his top line income. Once again there are people on here that want to deny the law of supply and demand.
Joplin, supply and demand works well when there is elasticity of demand such that as supply increases so does demand. However, in situations of inelastic demand increasing supply doesn’t increase demand, and cannibalism occurs. If the scenario plays out completely the older businesses all go out of business and the activity locus of the community shifts geographically.
That’s a pretty good definition of “short term gain . . . log term pain”
Out of curiosity, how long have you lived in Davis, and how long do you plan on remaining in Davis?
[quote]If the scenario plays out completely the older businesses all go out of business and the activity locus of the community shifts geographically. [/quote] I have no doubt that some local retailers — especially stores like Rite Aid, Longs/CVS and Davis Ace will suffer sales losses from Target. However, most downtown businesses don’t directly or even indirectly compete with Target. So nightmare scenarios for the Davis downtown strike me as total nonsense.
Moreover, insofar as shoppers in Davis prefer patronizing smaller stores or stores which offer better customer service or stores that are closer to where they live (if they live nearer downtown), they will keep shopping at the existing stores.
The opponents of Target argued during the election campaign that one of the reasons to not permit it on East 2nd Street was because it was a freeway business, there to capture I-80 traffic. I have no idea if these opponents were right. However, if they were, that suggests some percentage of Target’s business won’t be Davis shoppers redirecting their demand from other local stores, but instead out of towners who now don’t shop in Davis giving us their tax dollars. That seems like a pretty good deal for the coffers of Davis.
Beyond the transfer of sales from the smaller boxes (such as Rite Aid and Longs), I think the majority of sales at Target in Davis will come from Davis residents who now shop in Woodland and Vacaville and Dixon at various big box outlets but cannot find the same goods for the same prices in Davis. Almost none of it will come at the expense of locally owned downtown Davis businesses, save Davis Ace (which I do expect will be hurt by Target).
“However, most downtown businesses don’t directly or even indirectly compete with Target.”
Many downtown retail businesses have some inventory that directly overlaps with Target:
bikes
books
clothing
consumer electronics
garden supplies
eyewear
housewares
movies
music
pest control products
pet supplies
posters
sporting goods
toys
You have repeatedly stated that Target will have minimal impact on downtown businesses. What is your retail background, Rich?
Rich, my use of the word “all” was indeed incorrect. In my mind I had applied the kind of “filter” you describe, but that wasn’t clear in my typed words. The question that does run through my mind about the high customer service businesses is, “How thin is their current operating margin?” and “Will their loss of revenues actually be zero, or will there be some bleeding?” The problem is that if the answer to the first question is “Vey thin” and the second answer is “No it will not be zero” then will the losses of the marginal revenues and their associated profit margin completely eliminate the already thin operating margins of quite a few businesses?
“[u]most[/u] downtown businesses don’t directly or even indirectly compete with Target.” — I stand by that statement. Most downtown businesses don’t make their money selling the products Don listed. Most make their money selling prepared food, coffee, niche items or services.
Ok. Most downtown retailers do compete with Target directly or indirectly.
“So nightmare scenarios for the Davis downtown strike me as total nonsense.”
Unless you happen to be a downtown retailer, or like having them around.
Rich,
In 2007, DDBA membership excluding professionals was as follows:
Food: 41
Hotels: 5
Retail: 74
Service: 65.
DDBA encompasses all of the downtown, plus the shopping center where the Co-op is located.
By the way … way back when I had hair, I used to get it cut downtown. I sure hope Target doesn’t run my old barbershop (now called Aggie’s) out of business. That would be a folicle mess worse than this:
[img]http://www.lolviral.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/mullet.png[/img]
[i]”That would be a [s]folicle[/s] follicle mess worse …”[/i]
Sue Greenwald,
The Vanguard, David, has no obligation to mention you or your actions in every or any article or report, so for you to say, “Today, you neglect to mention that I made a motion to allow the DBA to use the entire $100,000, but the motion was not seconded,” is quite self-serving and narcissistic.
Please, do not let the Vanguard’s differences of opinion with you on the Wildhorse project or any other issue turn you into a self-serving poster on the Vanguard, whether it be on a conscious or unconscious level. Posting opinions is one thing but expecting David or any other report report what Sue Greenwald says shows a “pervasive pattern of grandiosity and need for admiration.”
Thank you Sue.