No mention in the Enterprise in this article that this was built on a Superfund site that from what we discovered in December of 2008 is still active.
Of course they also show why one should be suspicious of LEED-certification claims.
“To become certified, the 20-acre development at 4625 Second St. met requirements under the U.S. Green Building Council’s rating system, such as using environmentally safe paint and flooring, high efficiency watering systems, high efficiency heating and cooling, energy-efficient lighting, a reflective roof, providing parking for alternative fuel vehicles and sourcing construction materials locally.”
Notice perhaps what is not included there.
They have also made a big deal out of the connection to existing bike trails and the bike lockers.
“Target also provided a bicycle path connection to the city’s existing trail, as well as bike lockers and a shower for employees who want to rinse off after biking to work.”
All of this sounds good, but it makes me wonder.
First, how many employees will live in Davis? After all, Target does not pay workers enough to live in Davis. So one will figure that a good percentage will not live in Davis and therefore most of the employees will not utilize the bike lockers or showers.
Second, how many customers will bike to Target? Part of the Big-box experience is the need to buy in bulk which would preclude the use of bicycles for the most part. It might be worthwhile to take a look and see how many customers utilize the bike lockers, my guess is that it will be pretty low.
The bigger problem is that the LEED-certification is at the lowest standard and it is like putting a LEED-certification on a Hummer auto shop. The environmental unfriendly aspects are perhaps a bit more hidden, but the basic problem is that all merchandise will be trucked in. Most of it is mass-produced and imported from overseas. Treatment of workers both on site and off-site by the Target corporation is notoriously poor. Many of their goods are produced third world by child or other exploited labor.
We talked about most of this during the campaign. This part however is a bit new.
The city has as we know received roughly $300,000 from Target in supplemental fees in addition to the $2.24 million it receives as development impact fees. And as was reported at the time, the DDBA has been granted $50,000 of the supplemental fees set aside as “community enhancement” which the city will use to fund a marketing campaign for the downtown.
Apparently that money has satisfied the DDBA. The Enterprise Article quotes DDBA Administrator Joy Cohan telling her that downtown businesses are not in competition iwth Target.
DDBA Administrator Joy Cohan said downtown businesses are not in competition with Target, so the marketing strategy will highlight the downtown’s unique offerings. The weekend of Target’s Oct. 11 grand opening, for example, coincides with the Downtown Davis Jazz Festival.
‘It’s an eclectic place that can’t be duplicated easily by any new buinsess or new shopping center on the periphery of town,’ Cohan said. ‘We want to focus on what makes us a shopping experience like no other, and an entertainment experience like no other.’
Promotional events, such as this summer’s ‘$30 on 8/30’ effort, will bring awareness to the benefits of shopping local, Cohan said. In the near future, she said, the DDBA will announce a new idea to simplify holiday shopping.
‘It will make it easier to shop downtown at the holidays, and it will make it easier to give the gift of shopping downtown,’ she said.
Let me say that again–the head of the DDBA is arguing that downtown businesses are not in competition with Target. I do not buy that for a second. There is a wealth of growing research showing the detrimental impact of Big-Box retailers on existing businesses. But if what Ms. Cohan is saying is true and Target is not in competition with the downtown, then perhaps the downtown does not need that $50,000, since it was premised on the fact that the new Target would have a huge impact on the downtown and that the downtown needed that promotional money to survive.
“The city estimates Target will generate about $800,000 to $1 million a year in local sales tax revenues, Webb said. The 137,000-square-foot store, which employs 208 people, is expected to capture some of the sales tax revenue that is lost when Davis residents travel out of town to shop and eat.”
Isn’t that more than they were claiming even during the campaign? I think it would be interesting to do an audit of the city’s finances after a year to see if Target does indeed general additional local sales tax revenues. I suspect if it does, it will be considerably less than the amount they are trumpeting. Part of the problem here is that some of Target’s business will come at the expense of local businesses. The other part of the problem here is that many people who live in Davis, work elsewhere and do their shopping there.
My guess is that Target in Davis will prove about as helpful for local tax revenues as it proves to be elsewhere. One of the problems is that Big Boxes, and in fact out of town corporations in general lack of multiplier effect. A local business owner will be more likely to keep money in the local bank, buy supplies locally, live locally, spend their profits locally. But for Target, all money produced actually gets sent to their corporate headquarters and housed in their bank there rather than here. So the money that is produced here is actually sent out of the area and the only thing we would get is the sales tax revenue. So if we take money from local businesses that spent money locally and use local banks, etc., we are actually taking money out of the Davis economy even though it appears like we are producing all of this tax revenue.
The city of Davis is about to change, the only question will be whether this is a positive or a negative change for a community that has been downtown based.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“A local business owner will be more likely to keep money in the local bank, buy supplies locally, live locally, spend their profits locally.”
like pinkadot? their clothes aren’t made overseas? What all of those local bike shops? Their bike components are local? where does all of that metal come from? the local metal shop?
The city of Davis is about to change, the only question will be whether this is a positive or a negative change for a community that has been downtown based.
“a downtown based community?” how so? at U-Mall you have had Gamestop Gottchalks and starbucks. Near that you have rite aid.
At the market place you have safeway, blockbuster, togos, Coldstone creamery.
at covell/anderson you have Food for less, papa murphys, mcdonalds, and baskin robbins.
At south davis, you have safeway (again) office max, roundtable…..
then you have ace hardware.
the downtown hasn’t served davis much at all. and do you say you do all of your shopping at downtown davis? you buy your TV, Radio, furniture, etc. at local downtown?
[i]then you have ace hardware.[/i]
Yes, although Target will have much better bike parking.
[i]you buy your TV, Radio, furniture, etc. at local downtown?[/i]
My laptop is made from home grown silicon and aluminum.
[i]”After all, Target does not pay workers enough to live in Davis. So one will figure that a good percentage will not live in Davis and therefore most of the employees will not utilize the bike lockers or showers.”[/i]
While I am sure most of the workers at Target (like most of the workers at Davis Ace and Hibbert and our movie theaters and restaurants) will be students or other young people who live in Davis, it’s a very easy 9 mile bike ride — takes about 37 minutes each way — from Spring Lake in Woodland to the Target in Davis. If someone commutes there by bicycle from West Sac — I recommend wearing ear plugs when you ride over the Causeway — it’s only 7.1 miles to West Capitol Avenue from Target, a 29 minute ride for the casual rider.
[i]”Second, how many customers will bike to Target?”[/i]
No one who is shopping for large items will. However, anyone who lives within a couple of miles of there and just needs a few things which will fit in a basket or a backpack [i]should[/i] ride his bike.
It seems to me, rather than decrying this store in Davis and talking about how great a different store in Woodland is, the self-proclaimed environmentalists should encourage people to ride bikes wherever they go and make it known to everyone how convenient and quick bike commuting can be. Before Channel 15 ran a video produced by Davis bike riders promoting the idea of bicycling back and forth to Sacramento over the Causeway, I hadn’t realized there is a large group of Davis folks (and people coming to Davis) who do this every day. Since I saw that video, I’ve ridden over to Sacramento and West Sac* a dozen times. It’s not a hard ride at all.
*West Sac seems to have scored big with “stimulus” dollars. All of West Capitol from Jefferson to the Tower Bridge is being rebuilt, including some very snazzy sidewalks. You can still bike through, though. You can see their shiny new City Hall.
Ace is not a chain. It is a buyers’ coop. Davis Ace Hardware is one of the oldest locally-owned stores in Davis.
All of those other chain stores you list followed the planning process. Had Target proposed a 30,000 sq ft store in one of the existing neighborhood shopping centers, it wouldn’t have been an issue. Instead, they built a 140,000 sq ft store on the edge of town (Davis Ace is 37,000 sq ft total, all the stores combined, by comparison).
Peripheral retail development harms downtown and harms all the neighborhood shopping centers. Joy’s comments are just an effort to put a positive spin on this situation.
This town needs retail/business desperately, for the tax revenue. This town has needed something like Target for a long time, where you can buy cheap items in bulk. Up until now, you had to go to Woodland or elsewhere to do it, and so tax dollars leaked out of the city.
Downtown business is against any competition, so they can continue doing business as usual – overcharging and not providing what shoppers want. Walk into Pinkadot sometime – the jeans can run as much as $165. Who the heck pays that much for a pair of jeans? Not the average Joe.
Before you criticize Target, I suggest you wait and see if it brings in tax revenue for the city. If it does, and ends up not really effecting downtown businesses that much, then the detractors are going to have to eat their words. I remember when Borders wasn’t welcome either, or the grocery stores in West Davis. Thank goodness people are starting to ignore downtown business as having a self-serving agenda.
It does bother me that Target is sitting next to a Superfund site, but then houses are too. Neither should have been built on or near the site until AFTER it was cleaned up.
All the nonsense about Target outsourcing is exactly what most companies do. Buy anything in Davis, and most of it is made in China, including much of what is sold in Ace Hardware.
Dear Huh? I am pretty sure that “average Joes” should not shop in Pinkadot for jeans even if they are on sale… 😉
We already have Applebees, 2 McDonald’s, Wendy’s, BK, Taco Bell, Subway – fast food hell on earth. We have a downtown in which I buy virtually nothing except a few housewares and sheet music. If not for Watermelon Music I could live very easily without ever going downtown. I don’t buy $125 ugly shooz, not do I find any of the women’s clothing sold downtown appropriate for someone my age who isn’t a hippie. I shop at Target in Woodland nearly every other week. I would like to buy those items in Davis, but you can’t. I don’t particularly like buying my underwear at Rite Aid, and where would you buy a baby monitor for your friends’ baby shower in Davis? (Perhaps Ace sells these, I don’t know, but I’ve never seen them there. Which brings up another point – I KNOW I can get what I need at Target, but downtown Davis is a potentially time- and energy-wasting crapshoot.) Bed linens or pillows? A few basic camping supplies? Target in Woodland, Target in Woodland, Target in Woodland, and Target in Woodland. BIkes? So what? I don’t ride my bike to Target in Woodland, so even if I drive to the one here, at least I’m saving a few miles each way.
Oh come on. You criticize Target because it won’t pay employees enough to live in Davis??? Does Ace Hardware, Pinkadot, Baskin-Robbins, or Watermelon Music pay anyone enough to live here? I see a lot of students working in those places, and they can work at Target, too. And if the Regents decide to hike their tuition 32%, a lot of them are going to need part-time jobs.
[i]You criticize Target because it won’t pay employees enough to live in Davis??? Does Ace Hardware, Pinkadot, Baskin-Robbins, or Watermelon Music pay anyone enough to live here?[/i]
Indeed, it’s ludicrous to refuse to build apartments, then to criticize a store for not paying people enough to live here.
[i]And if the Regents decide to hike their tuition 32%, a lot of them are going to need part-time jobs.[/i]
There is not a whole lot of “if” in that one. As the chart at the bottom of this page ([url]http://ucpay.globl.org/funding_vs_fees.php[/url]) shows, total educational funding per UC undergraduate, from the state compact plus fees, has crashed. A 30% fee hike will only bring it back up to where it was 2-3 years ago, about $23K per undergraduate, and not back to its historical level of more than $30K per undergraduate.
(I hope that Rich is paying attention, because this chart answers his question.)
This debate grows tiresome. Those who want to shop at Target will, those who don’t, won’t.
But it would be VERY interesting to have actual data on the impact of Target on downtown businesses.
Is there a way to get data from Target quarterly on sales tax? There should be.
More important, is there a way to get data on sales tax revenue from the stores in downtown Davis? It would be most interesting to compare these number to see if there is a correlation (even though it may be coincidence, not cause and effect).
I wonder, is anyone at DDBA doing this kind of analysis, or planning to?
“This debate grows tiresome. Those who want to shop at Target will, those who don’t, won’t.”
That kind of misses the entire point of the discussion, now doesn’t it?
[quote]I hope that Rich is paying attention, because this chart answers his question.[/quote]You’re right, Greg. That is the chart which answers my query.
The answer is in the third chart, the one titled, “State Funding for UC per Undergraduate Student (in 1960 dollars).” It seems to show that not too much changed from 1960-2000, once you adjust for ups and downs in the business cycle. And then, around 2000, the dot-coms collapsed and everything dropped off of a cliff and looks like it will never recover.
There does not appear to be much of a generalized effect from Prop 13 in the years following 1978 no matter how you look at the larger charts. To the extent Prop 13 had an effect, that was reversed by 1984.
While there was a generalized decline from 1989-1994 — something I might have attributed to the S&L debacle of 1991-92 plus Prop 98 of 1988 ([url]http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/prop_98_primer/prop_98_primer_020805.htm[/url]), which gave more state money to the K-14 schools — the hot stock market of the 1990s looks like it reversed that.
Yet, I think the dot-com bubble perhaps masks a decline which began much earlier. If you look at that chart, there is a more-less constant decline from 1986 to the present (save the bubble years 1994-2000). It is steeper from 2000-present, but that steepness may be just a post-bubble effect.
This raises a few questions in my mind:
1. Have all state revenues in real dollars experienced a similar decline from the mid-1980s on, save the bubble years? If so, then the decline in the UC subsidy is just a byproduct of that.
2. If state revenues have gone up or held steady in real dollars per capita, where have the priorities shifted to? And why have they shifted?
I wonder if the shift, if there was one, is mostly a shift into 3 areas:
A. More money for elderly and healthcare dollars, reflecting the growth of our over age-70 population;
B. More money for the courts, attorneys, prisons and cops, reflecting our preference to keep more criminals locked up for much longer ([url]http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_184_(1994)[/url]) and perhaps reflecting our production of more criminally minded youths; and
C. More money for K-14 programs, reflecting the mandate in Prop 98.
There is another outside factor which may have influenced the generalized decline in state funding to UC: the large contributions to the various campuses by wealthy donors; and a generalized increase in federal funding. I don’t know the numbers, but it would not surprise me to learn that most of the UC campuses have received far more in donations from benefactors since, say, the mid-1980s, than they received in the years prior to the decline in state funding. Likewise, a lot of our taxation system has shifted money and power to the federal government. As such, perhaps some state funding declined in response to more federal funding.
[i]If state revenues have gone up or held steady in real dollars per capita, where have the priorities shifted to? And why have they shifted?[/i]
This is getting far afield of Target opening in Davis. But to answer your question, spending priorities have shifted for two main reasons. First, as Yudof himself wrote ([url]http://www.utwatch.org/finances/change_yudof_harbinger.html[/url]) in 2002, all 50 states have gradually paid less and less over time of the full cost of undergraduate education. His explanation of the basic reason is gerontocracy.
Second, the state proposition system in general, a story that includes Prop 13 but also many other factors, makes California a uniquely unreliable sponsor of higher education and many other activities. Some states are more interested in higher education and some are less interested, but no state is further away from its promises. Where does California spend money instead? Basically anything boosted by state propositions, certainly K14 from Prop 98, but also prisons.
There is even a state proposition that helps UC, but with a catch. Despite tuition increases, UC is loaded with state money for stem cell research.
[i]There is another outside factor which may have influenced the generalized decline in state funding to UC: the large contributions to the various campuses by wealthy donors; and a generalized increase in federal funding.[/i]
But most of that money has strings attached and cannot be used to educate students. The bottom line is that, unless UC is expected to rob Peter to pay Paul, employee compensation is just not the reason that UC tuition is rising in the face of cuts. No, the state government is walking away from its commitment.
“While there was a generalized decline from 1989-1994 — something I might have attributed to the S&L debacle of 1991-92 plus Prop 98 of 1988, which gave more state money to the K-14 schools — the hot stock market of the 1990s looks like it reversed that.”
Stand back and the picture becomes clear. The real US economy and household income has been in a steady decline since the 80’s. It was not in any party’s political self-interest to acknowledge this situation so they just “kicked the can down the road” and permitted the substitution of Wall st. financial wizardry( a virtual economy) with its S & L debacle, dot.com “bubble, housing “bubble”( near collapse in 2005 and kept on life-support until recently with the sub-prime mortgage), exotic derivatives, credit-default swaps, etc.. This financial virtual economy grew to about 40% of the US economy by the time that it collapsed and, like musical chairs when the music stops, left the US taxpayer standing, holding the bag. . We sent Madoff the prison for life but he was only doing what he learned worked on Wall st. Since the 80’s, the struggling US economy has increasingly been propped up by a Ponzi scheme run by the US financial sector.
It is an interesting observation that we punish those who, in the name of greed and self-interest, destroy society’s economic well-being,with serving time in a rather comfortable Federal “white-collar-crime prison. While I’m not a death penalty advocate, it is interesting that China’s legal system can sentence business people who have been found guilty of these same crimes against society with death. Unlike US executions for murder, which is most often performed without careful deliberative intent and therefore threat of extreme punishment is not a deterrent, these “white-collar” crimes against the well-being of society are deliberately and carefully planned and can be deterred if the punishment is severe enough.
[i]”The real US economy and household income has been in a steady decline since the 80’s.”[/i]
This chart ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg[/url]) suggests otherwise. (Note that the chart is inflation adjusted.)
…. I should not have added “household income”. I was referring to the real productive US economy,without the financial sector which produces nothing. This has been steadily declining since the 80’s.
Finally Davis tax dollars staying in Davis! Woohoo! I see Davis people shopping at the “big box stores” in Woodland and West Sac ALL the time. It’s about time!
[quote]*West Sac seems to have scored big with “stimulus” dollars. All of West Capitol from Jefferson to the Tower Bridge is being rebuilt, including some very snazzy sidewalks. You can still bike through, though. You can see their shiny new City Hall.[/quote]
Actually phase one of the West Capitol Streetscape was funded mostly by a grant from SACOG, and planned long before any ARRA money was made available.
It apparently did not occur to anyone that I might have been misquoted by the Enterprise in the article in question? Of course, some Downtown businesses are in direct competition with Target, that’s a no-brainer.
To clarify, the conversation I had with the Enterprise reporter was that Target was fait accompli, that the time to “fight” Target was in the past & that DDBA now is choosing to focus on that which is unique & positive about the Downtown, that which Target never can be. It is not at all our intent to alienate shoppers who go to Target. We trust they will still come Downtown when they are in the market for quality goods & services, superior customer service, ambiance, dining & entertainment. Target will rarely, if ever, meet their needs in most of these categories.
“Anon” asks if anyone at DDBA is studying the impact of Target on Downtown businesses. “Anon” may not be aware that DDBA has just one employee, ergo, no Research Dept. Instead, we will rely on our Downtown business owners to keep us abreast of any adverse effects.