Council Delays Decision for Two Weeks, But Downtown Willing to Support with Funding for Gateway Project – The conversation on the development of the Target pads seemed to be developing normally enough, when suddenly the council realized that they had not heard from the Davis Downtown – this despite rumors of a possible deal with the developer after months of opposition to the project.
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson made the motion and then said, “It is my understanding that what was once opposition is no longer opposition to this project.”
But that wasn’t quite true. After declining to speak during public comment, Mayor Joe Krovoza, to his later self-criticism, allowed DDBA Co-President Michael Bisch to speak.
Mayor Krovoza asked Mr. Bisch to speak, stating, “I don’t understand why the [Davis Downtown Business] Association didn’t speak during public comment. This really is putting us in a very odd guessing position to have received so much back and forth or no back and forth on this and then to be guessing up here on the dais.”
Michael Bisch told the council unequivocally, “I’ll make it clear, Davis Downtown does not support that motion that was seconded by Lucas [Frerichs] and that was made by Rochelle [Swanson].”
He added that it was very difficult to do a negotiation in public comment.
Mayor Krovoza then proceeded, “It’s hard for this council to make a decision that may be helpful to the Downtown Davis Business Association and the downtown, which we all care about, if we don’t have anything before that we can act on.”
Councilmember Swanson then asked for some direction from the Davis Downtown in order to determine what would get their support moving forward.
As it turns out, Davis Downtown was willing to agree to the proposal moving forward, in exchange for what turned out to be monetary support for the Gateway Project – which would basically involve sprucing up the Richards underpass to make it more inviting.
“There are things that the developer has expressed the willingness to do that would make the Davis Downtown much more comfortable with whatever decision you’re going to make this evening,” Mr. Bisch said.
“The developer has expressed an interest in fostering a more vibrant downtown,” he continued. “They don’t view their development as in competition with the downtown.”
He agreed that there are ways make the situation where it’s a “win-win.”
The developer, according to Mr. Bisch, offered to help them move forward “to improve the gateway to the downtown.” He said that there is a proposed improvement project and “the developer has agreed to provide support for that both in manpower and in financing.”
They agreed to assign a project manager to manage the project, going forward. More importantly, “They agreed to provide $20,000 in financing toward the build out of the Gateway Improvement Project.”
“But that’s not nearly enough to get the job done,” Mr. Bisch said. “So what the Davis Downtown would like to see go down is for the city council to earmark the Target Pad Construction tax, which amounts to $142,600 towards the build out of the Gateway Downtown Improvement project.”
He also argued for a commitment from the council above and beyond the parking task force to improve the downtown parking and circulation.
The $142,600 would be the tax revenue that the city expected to generate from the Target pad construction project – money that would go into the general fund that pays employees. At a time when employees are being laid off and pools are being closed, Mr. Bisch and the DDBA is asking the council to earmark that money for basically making the gateway look more inviting.
While the council put on their best face at this revelation and spent the next half hour figuring out what to do before deciding to delay their decision for two weeks so that staff can analyze the proposals, privately several councilmembers were seething as to how this developed.
One of them went so far as to call it extortion, the idea that the DDBA would make their support for the project contingent upon the city earmarking $142,000 in general funds to the Gateway Project.
This is a far cry from the concern laid out by Mr. Bisch back in September on the Vanguard, where he questioned the ability of the city to rezone without a community vote and expressed concern about the impact not only on the downtown but “impact on existing neighborhood shopping centers.”
Back in September, Mr. Bisch wrote, “According to a study published earlier this year by the UCD Institute of Transportation Studies, monthly shopping trips to Downtown have declined 9.09% since Target opened and monthly shopping trips to neighborhood shopping centers have declined 21%.”
Apparently, this is no longer a concern – a point the councilmember made to the Vanguard.
Councilmember Brett Lee said that, while he had a lot of problems with the proposal before the new revelations, “I have even more now.”
“I’m not sure if we were to prioritize investment in the downtown, I would choose as my number one priority fixing the downtown gateway, otherwise known as the Richard’s Underpass,” he said. He argued that $140,000 in city money would make a nice starting point to start implementing parking improvements.
Mayor Krovoza added “The $142 (thousand) is really an allocation of general fund revenue for a specific project – that’s what it is, otherwise it’s going into the city’s coffers – to allocate that with this level of staff report is not appropriate, maybe cannot be done at all.”
He later said, “This is a project… to redesign the gateway to the city and allocate money that somehow is going redesign the entry into the city of Davis and we’re going to make sure that two private parties are going to reach an agreement to design the entry into our city?”
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs, “It’s not ready to tonight. I’m not ready to take a vote on this.”
He recommended that this be put off until December 11. Ultimately, the council decided that this was the best course of action.
While the council seemed to put their best faces forward as this discussion ensued, it was clear there were real problems with the way this had come down and the insistence by the DDBA on the earmarking of funds.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
There’s so much bad process in this matter that it’s hard to know where to begin straightening it out. I hope the Council realizes that the “deal” as presented here is untenable.
.
Weird story, no wonder he didn’t want to speak. Seems there are two stories here. First there isn’t real opposition to the new development plan at Target from downtown so the council should approve it. This is something they should do anyway. The second story is what to do with the money raised from the fees, that one is easy too, they should use it for whatever the council determines is in the best interest of the city. After all who is running this railroad?
Certainly a low point for the council. What if they had voted it without knowing the downtown’s deal had included deals for the developer from the city?
I haven’t read the Nishi article yet but that seemed fishy too. Voter extortion in a way: city’s loses its share if Measure J doesn’t pass. Can’t wait to see the campaign literature! Also unclear what $ UCD is putting in up front.
Once again Brett in a rational, calculated way nailed both. How lucky we are to have him on the dais.
Again, theDDBA is represented by someone who is conflicted between his private business, and what’s best for the DDBA membership
Why does downtown retail let the Board keep this representative?
I mean who really gives a rat’s ass about the Richard’s underpass? David’s right, with the current Davis fiscal situation any new revenue should go straight into the general fund, not pet projects. Why does it seem that anytime new funds are introduced they quickly get pounced on for new spending?
“He added that it was very difficult to do a negotiation in public comment.”
I think this is exactly how negotiation should be done so the public knows what’s going on and what “deals” are being concocted.
The new revenue should go straight into funding Parks and Rec programs for kids and families, including scholarship funds for the less well off.
Does any of the DDBA Board members have any contracts or commercial dealings with the Second St Crossing owners, developers, management companies? Sorry to ask, but once again they are letting other commercial interests screw the downtown sector.
“The new revenue should go straight into funding Parks and Rec programs for kids and families, including scholarship funds for the less well off.”
There’s where we differ Mike, new funding should go directly into the city’s general fund that is already in a world of hurt. The things you’re advocating for can hopefully come later when the city is in better shape.
[quote]The new revenue should go straight into funding Parks and Rec programs for kids and families, including scholarship funds for the less well off. [/quote]
Give me a break, Mike. Next your going to hold up baby animals.
I think allocating of funds for a specific project is part of the City Council’s concern. There may be other priorities. It shouldn’t really be up to the developer, a protagonist, or antagonist to determine where the funds should be spent.
[i]new funding should go directly into the city’s general fund that is already in a world of hurt.[/i]
Rusty my friend, I think I disagree with you on this. The general fund is in a world of hurt for one primary reason: over spending on city employee compensation. More money means more spending. More gifts to the already well-gifted unions.
The fees are the direct result of business development that the DDBA claims can hurt the downtown. So this is great horse trading… the fees would be used to mitigate those concerns.
Lastly, I would encourage my more fiscally-conservative friends… the only real underrepresented minority in this town… to more consistently support the Texas two-step for long-term fiscal viability. Step one – rigorous economic development that fosters healthy competition and an adequate supply of jobs. Step two – tax revenue derived from that rigorous economic development. The left approach in this town is two steps of civic schizophrenia (no offense intended to those truly suffering from this terrible condition): take it and give it to the unions and then wring hands over deficits.
I think the ROI on this solution would be net positive for the town, and it would benefit all stakeholders… except maybe the downtown resident NIMBYs that really don’t want any business expansion.
Jeff Boone: “I think the ROI on this solution would be net positive for the town…”
Agreed.
The benighted banker is right on this one: “I think the ROI on this solution would be net positive for the town…”
But again, I’m betting that egos will trump reason in this battle .
Jeff Boone said: “my more fiscally-conservative friends” That would be me, Jeff. At least as neighbors we are. There is no one, not one, on this Blog that posts more, and works more, to reduce the city’s budget and keep dollars in the pockets of those who know best how to use them: Davis families and businesses. I would think more of the fiscally conservative blogers would support us.
Speaking of unions, Jeff, I am still seeing those extra FF crew member on those two trucks racing past my businesses. When is the CC going to pare down that unnecessary expense? Millions and millions, wasted.
And what about getting back that Measure S sales tax increment money (2004) that Saylor and Souza gave away to the FFs in those huge raises in 2005? How do we get back some of that money, and use it for what staff and the 2004 CC told the public it would be used for: Parks and Rec family programs, and make them more affordable again for families and single parents?
Mike, instead hijacking the topic, wouldn’t you do better just goin’ out and kissing babies and giving away promotional keyrings ?
“I think the ROI on this solution would be net positive for the town, and it would benefit all stakeholders…”
Maybe but the council should get to decide priorities not be given a we object to that plan unless you support our plan ultimatum. It seems the DDBA is either going to be hurt by the reconfiguration of the Target pads or its not. I just don’t see the mitigation being proposed to the gateway as equal in impact and therefore shouldn’t be tied together like this and$20,000 doesn’t sound like much bait to catch and divert the revenue stream.
Mike: I am with you on the FF issues. I also support spending city money on parks and recreation services. But that money derives from tax revenue which derives primarily from economic activity. Davis is very, very weak on economic activity. So, if you want to support parks and recreation in a sustainable way, then you should first support city policy and projects that help foster economic actitivy and strengthen our tax base.
From what evidence we have, the impact of Second Street Crossing has been disproportionately on the neighborhood shopping centers more than the downtown. Any ‘deal’ that primarily benefits the downtown, rather than the neighborhood shopping centers, is therefore just one interest group making a grab at the expense of the more adversely-affected parties. Downtown had had plenty of special funding for enhancement projects. Neighborhood centers haven’t received anything. This deal is a travesty.
[i]This deal is a [b]travesty[/b][/i]
A bit strong of a word don’t you think?
From Wikipedia:
[quote]Travesty is an English word used to denote generally (a) an absurd or grotesque misrepresentation, (b) a parody or stylistic imitation, (c) (pejorative) a grossly inferior imitation[/quote]
Don, on your point about the neighborhood shopping centers and the Second Street Crossing, I am confused. Can you explain that? I don’t see the connection.
Who does “improv[ing] the gateway to the downtown” benefit? The shopping centers in South Davis, West Davis, North Davis, or East Davis? University Mall? The small retail center on Fifth Street near Mace Ranch?
No.
It benefits downtown, and downtown only.
The traffic study, which is really our only information about the impact of Target, shows the major effect has been on traffic to neighborhood centers. Effect on downtown is less significant.
So why would a ‘deal’ involving financial payment go entirely, 100%, to a project that enhances the downtown, and why would anyone concerned about the impact of Second Street Crossing on the neighborhood shopping centers support it?
It’s a special-interest deal negotiated by a special-interest group on their own behalf. And that group, the DDBA, has benefited considerably over the years from funds that paid for pedestrian crosswalks, signage, and other cosmetic enhancements of their area. Not a penny of RDA funds has ever gone to the other areas I’ve listed.
No, I think travesty is apt.
“$20,000 doesn’t sound like much bait to catch and divert the revenue stream.”
even bisch said $20k was not enough. the real money was the $142k from the city which bisch was trying to finagle along with more parking money in exchange for their support. the irony being, the council doesn’t need their support. they can tell the ddba to go pound sand and there’s nothing ddba can do about it.
“It benefits downtown, and downtown only.”
i’m not even convinced it does that.
frankly after watching it last night, i think travesty isn’t a strong enough word. bisch got paid off and then tried to leverage the council. i’ve always supported the downtown, but they are dead to me.
Where has the opposition to changing the pads come from? Why is this such a big deal? I truly don’t get it so maybe travesty is too big a word for such a small issue. To me this whole debate is stupid. The developer wants to change configurations to do what he thinks will enhance and maximize his business in a part of town that has limited commercial services. I say sure what is the big deal? The revenue the city gets should be spent under the guidance of the council who are responsible to the voters. All this angling and manipulation is so unwarranted and distasteful. Only in flatland can such a molehill be made into a mountain.
It benefits downtown, and downtown only.
I think we need to stop the fighting between different parts of the City and start thinking about changes that will benefit us all. If improving the gateway to the City brings in more traffic and sales downtown we all benefit, not just the downtown merchants. If changing the zoning at 2nd Street crossing increases the retail options in town, again we all benefit. Obviously taken by itself one change alone may benefit one group of retailers over another, but taken together we will see a more retail options for consumers and in the long run, a more vibrant retail sector in town.
With regards to the proposed 2nd Street changes, I was very disappointed to see that the city staff once again tried to micromanage the process by attempting to mandate a coffee shop of a specified size. This micromanagement is one of the biggest hurdles we have for economic development so I was happy to see the Council’s response. Removing the store type/size restriction on the neighboring centers (all of them, not just 2nd Street) would be a huge step forward towards improving the economic health of the city.
So Don, what exactly do you recommend for city investments to help neighborhood centers? Do you have anything tangible in mind?
As it turns out, Davis Downtown was willing to agree to the proposal moving forward, in exchange for what turned out to be monetary support for the Gateway Project – which would basically involve sprucing up the Richards underpass to make it more inviting.
With a “spruced up” Richards Underpass, the first thing one will see upon entering Davis is the “goofy” multicolored disc man in front of the Natsoulas Art Gallery at 521 First Street. What a rude slap in the face that will be!
A few items to be considered:
1)There is no doubt that the process was ugly and the Davis Downtown board was very uncomfortable with it. The fact that it was all happening in the last few days exacerbated a process that was already very problematic. Keep in mind, the process including the pending vote, is/was going to happen with or without Davis Downtown participation. Davis Downtown was invited into the conversation and has every right to participate in it even had we not been invited (the same is true of any community stakeholder).
2)Previous Davis Downtown letters sent to the Planning Commission and sent to the Council, as well as quotes reported by the Vanguard in previous pieces accurately describe the Davis Downtown position for the most part. Davis Downtown has real concerns with the zoning amendment process undertaken by staff given the original process was a community vote. Davis Downtown has real concerns about the impact of Target and the potential impact of the pads development on our community sustainability in general and specifically the Downtown and neighborhood shopping centers. Davis Downtown has real concerns about certain statements in the City staff report as well as public City staff comments.
3)The concerns expressed by Davis Downtown regarding the impact on our community sustainability and the neighborhood shopping centers gained quite a bit of traction in 2006, but appeared to gain very little traction now. It did not appear to resonate on the Vanguard, the Enterprise, the neighborhood shopping center landlords or tenants, the sustainability advocates, etc. Advocacy is far more effective when it is shared by multiple stakeholders.
4)As with the community sustainability concerns, the Davis Downtown process concern regarding a community referendum to approve the project in the first place and then amending the zoning without a referendum, did not appear to gain traction in the community either.
5)Meanwhile, Davis Downtown was being urged, encouraged, whatever term one wishes to use, by the Planning Commission, City staff, and individual Council members to meet with the developer to explore a “win/win”. The Davis Downtown board after much debate, and with no shortage of misgivings, decided to do just that.
6)The Davis Downtown board is still very much influenced by the 2006 Target referendum. The opening of Target has no doubt had a profound effect on the Downtown, along with the increasing strength of online retail, and the economic malaise since 2008. That said, we don’t sit around bemoaning our fate. Nor do we sit around investing all our energy and resources in opposing what is happening in our competitive environment. Rather, we strive to improve the Downtown and our competitive position.
7)As much as the Davis Downtown board may wish to oppose something for the sake of opposition or to satisfy our emotions, we recognize that doing so is not always practical, meaningful, or likely to lead us to achieving our objectives.
8)Past City Councils had opportunities to meaningfully address the Downtown parking and circulation challenges, but did not take sufficient, effective action to do so. Many of those opportunities have now evaporated with the demise of the RDA. Meanwhile, these same City Councils have supported peripheral developments with great parking and access. This dichotomy has created an imbalance that is causing many of our residents from fully enjoying the Downtown.
Continued…
-Michael Bisch, Davis Downtown Co-Prez (lightning rod of the day)
9)The Davis Downtown board closely monitored individual council member positions toward the Target Pads zoning amendment. It appears far from certain that continuing to forcefully maintain our opposition to the zoning amendment would prove successful and lead us to achieving our objectives.
10)The Davis Downtown board is not uniformly opposed to peripheral development. Our Downtown impact concerns are weighed against community benefits such as reduction of sales tax leakage, shopping alternatives/variety for Davis residents, etc. Our concerns are also weighed against Downtown improvements being made to offset developments elsewhere. Furthermore, a purely protectionist strategy is hardly a winning strategy over the medium or long term and is challenging from a public relations perspective (albeit I’m fairly certain that some of our members do not share this position).
11)Extortion? That’s a fairly ridiculous assertion. It’s a proposal, nothing more, nothing less. The Davis Downtown exists, among other reasons, to advocate FOR the Downtown. Advocating for Downtown improvements is what we do. We don’t just advocate AGAINST developments elsewhere. Furthermore, what Davis Downtown has proposed is not the first time a Target related sum was agreed to by the City and the developer. For instance, a $100,000 Downtown mitigation fee was negotiated when Target was first built.
12)David has the scope of work for the Downtown Gateway Improvement Project all wrong. Yes, it is intended to aesthetically improve the primary visitor entrance to the Downtown. But the scope of work will likely include much needed directional and parking signage, messenging, and landscaping. This is a joint priority of Davis Downtown, the Chamber, and the YCVB, and as far as I know, the City Council. It is an element of the Art & Entertainment district and an element of the economic development plan. Elements of the project have been approved by the Civic Arts Commission, is supported by the arts community, and other elements have been worked through with staff. This project has been in process for close to a year. It most certainly did not appear out of thin air. Furthermore, it is linked to another DD/YCVB/Chamber and Council priority, which is the CalTrans I80 Community Identification Program. These projects are intended to benefit the community, are for the enjoyment of the community, and are also intended to share something about our community with the outside world.
13)Councilmember Lee stated that he’s not sure he would prioritize “fixing the downtown gateway” as his #1 Downtown priority. It’s not Davis Downtown’s #1 priority either, but it’s one that could be readily achieved in short order as opposed to other ones that have been studied to death and have not moved forward. Furthermore, Brett has put his finger directly on the overarching problem. How are the Council priorities ranked within categories, Downtown for instance, and across categories? As far as I can tell there’s simply a grab bag of priorities with no clear overview as to how community resources are being allocated to foster a sustainable community. Where during the Target Pads zoning amendment debate did a meaningful discussion occur on the dais regarding how the proposed zoning amendment would fit within the Council’s overall vision for the community? I heard far more discussion of individual design aspects than I did regarding broader policy implications. Community investment appears to occur opportunistically here and that’s exactly what occurred again Tuesday evening. The Davis Downtown board certainly did not create this condition; rather, it finds itself operating within this condition.
Continued…
-Michael Bisch, Davis Downtown Co-Prez (lightning rod of the day)
14)Staff informed the council and the business community several weeks ago that they do not have the “bandwidth” or the financial resources to pursue the Downtown Gateway or Community Identity projects at this time, despite these being Council priorities. The business community has since been scrambling to figure out a way to pursue and complete these projects. In the case of the Downtown Gateway project, we have potentially found such a way. It depends on whether the Council agrees to what has been proposed.
15)Staff has told us that the developer will be paying $1.2 million in various fees, including a $142,600 construction tax to the City should the project proceed. These are future fees and all from the developer. Some are impact fees that are earmarked for infrastructure and some are discretionary fees. This is not City money, at least not yet. If the Council chooses not to approve the project for whatever reason, or if the developer pulls the plug on the project, then there isn’t $1.2 million to argue about how best to spend or invest.
16)The Davis Downtown board and staff are operating in very challenging conditions. We have created and executed many successful programs, the Downtown Gift Card and 2nd Friday Art About for instance. Downtown has more foot traffic than ever as far as I can tell. Regrettably, the increased foot traffic is not necessarily translating into increased retail sales. I can assure you, when the Davis Downtown board identifies an opportunity to increase the vitality of the Downtown, and by extension build community, it is certainly going to examine the opportunity.
17)I have no issue with criticizing the manner in which I delivered my comments last night, my appearance, anything else related to my persona, or my execution of board policy. But personalizing the Davis Downtown policy is counterproductive. The policy decisions that have been made or that have yet to be made are consensus, collaborative board decisions, not individual decisions. Indeed, I may not even agree with Board policy in whole or in part, but as a board officer, I’m obligated to set my personal beliefs aside and fulfill my responsibilities to the best of my ability. Were that not the case, I’m confident the board would/will take action.
This is not a comprehensive list of the factors that have flowed into the Davis Downtown decision making process, but it provides Vanguardians a pretty good idea of the fairly complex set of circumstances under which the Davis Downtown board is making decisions regarding the Target Pads zoning amendment.
-Michael Bisch, Davis Downtown Co-Prez (long winded guy)
[i]So Don, what exactly do you recommend for city investments to help neighborhood centers? Do you have anything tangible in mind?[/i]
Signage, both on the freeway and on major arteries, directing traffic to existing neighborhood centers and listing the tenants. Both major freeway offramps, both directions. Pole Line, Arlington, Russell Blvd, LaRue Rd., Fifth Street, Richards east, PoleLine at Covell. Also, signage directing freeway traffic to the main Arboretum entry points, and signage directing inbound traffic to the Arboretum Terrace Garden.
I’d also suggest the council contact the major tenants in some of those shopping centers and see what they feel would help their visibility. The owners of Symposium, Nugget, Westlake, Big 5, and OfficeMax might have some ideas.
That’s just for starters.
Mr. DT: Thank you very much for your analysis of the situation.
I do think that if the DDBA took the position that the CC should put the changes to a vote, just like the voters approved that Target project in the first instance, the CC would have no choice but to put it on the ballot. I think most of the community recognizes that when larger malls are put in, the downtowns are often destroyed. Look no further than Woodland, and what Marbles and friends have done to it with their planning decisions.
So, if the DDBA demanded a citywide vote, that rezone out there will not happen. The community would vote everytime for what the DDBA wanted, in its judgment.
So you guys rolled over and accepted peanut shells, when you could have protected the livelihoods of your members.
MH, that is not at all what was signalled by individual council members on the dais last night, or previously in private, does not reflect how the original Target vote went down, and it is certainly not the consensus on this blog. That said, we’ll find out December 11th whether your predicition comes to pass.
-Michael Bisch
Mark: [i]I think we need to stop the fighting between different parts of the City and start thinking about changes that will benefit us all.[/i]
Michael: [i]The Davis Downtown exists, among other reasons, to advocate FOR the Downtown. Advocating for Downtown improvements is what we do.[/i]
I think you see the problem.
The way I predict this will go at this point is that the council will approve the developer’s request, the DDBA will get their funding, and the damage to the neighborhood shopping centers will continue.
Against those odds, however: I urge the Council to vote against the proposed changes to the zoning at Second Street Crossing. TJMaxx will go in, and the developer can continue trying to market the other pads. Any relaxation in zoning, if it occurs, should happen along with similar changes elsewhere in the city, specifically around the downtown.
I have nothing against the gateway project. I just don’t see that funds should be specially encumbered for that.
I agree with Don, it is problematic. There I am, a Davis Downtown Co-Prez, citing a UC Davis Institute of Transportation study, that Target has had a significant impact on the neighborhood shopping centers. Yet, I have not seen or heard from neighborhood shopping center landlords, tenants or neighborhood groups. Maybe they’re not interested, maybe they are unaware of the zoning amendment application or it’s implications, who knows? What I do know is one cannot form a coalition of the unwilling.
-Michael Bisch
Don, have you considered forming a NCBA? In many respects, the DDBA advocating for regional centers is not in their best interests. It is apparent that the Council responds to and considered organized voices of opinion. So, maybe getting something done will require some better organization.
If Mike Harrington urges another referendum or initiative again, I think I’ll scream. There are dangers to relying on direct democracy for every little thing and even some big things. (Prop 8 is a terrific example of what can go wrong.) Only a fraction of Davis citizens vote and it is not really a true measure of the will of the entire community. Also, there can be people who are harmed by initiatives, but do not have enough of a voice to prevent this from happening. The use of paid signature gatherers who can convince people to sign things that they don’t understand, or after given falsehoods or false assurances, is also a problem. Initiatives can be very limiting and the legislation created can have unintended consequences that then can’t easily be corrected.
We need the City Council to listen to the different factions, but take action in a way that benefits us all. This is true.
Don: I don’t have any issue with Davis Downtown advocating for their members as that is what they are supposed to do. My problem is that in the past that advocacy was the only voice and the CC members either listened to it or not depending upon their personal persuasion. The decisions, and our discussion here should be focused on what is best for the city as a whole, not just what Davis Downtown wants or doesn’t want. Michael B. did a fine job last night advocating for his group, and I thought the Council members did their job as well asking for more clarification. In the end I think they will decide to approve the zoning changes (and taking out the mandate for a specific store) and hopefully that will be a sign of things to come as they evaluate projects around the town.
Preserving the best of downtown is important, but so is building economic viability throughout the town. I expect that Michael B. would agree with this.
It’s why I have to come back, over and over, to why in the world would the Board of the DDBA so easily allow its small retail members to be screwed? Is it due to conflicts of interest? I dont know, but the process and decisions have not added up and do not pass the smell test to me. I’m not talking about one person, but the whole process.
Ryan said: “If Mike Harrington urges another referendum or initiative again, I think I’ll scream.”
Ryan: Go ahead; I have my aircraft mechanics earmuffs on. You’ll see another initiative soon.
Ryan: As to falsehoods and paid signature gatherers: there were no falsehoods. It’s just fluff you and the other anti-referendum, pro-JPArs, use to attack us.
In any event, if you guys really cared about such things, you would be screaming bloody murder at the PAID staff members and consultants who supported the PAID CC members who voted to take our rate money and send us over a fiscal cliff, with the whole thing costing over $250 million.
And all of this was done with rampant, already-refuted falsehoods on the need for the large project (suddenly went down to 12 mgd), and those horrible fines (suddenly disappeared) and “the Woodland Train is Leaving Us!” (they waited)
Mr. DT: why dont you go to bat for downtown retail for a change? Get your Board to vote to conduct a referendum if the CC wont put that zoning change on the ballot. Come get my form. Take it down to the CC and waive it around, and watch them blink. Because they will. The community will never vote to make it easier for Ramos to screw the downtown retail. Use your job title and authority to help this once.
DT: I have a lot on my plate, but for downtown retail, I will volunteer to come stand with you at CC, and I will tell them that I will work with YOU and the DDBA to run that referendum. I believe in my neighborhood, and I support it, and I will put my time where I tell you I will. I dont have any retail location, but I gain nothing fiscally, but I will do this because I like my family being able to walk around the downtown and find retail shops to provide goods and services to my family and businesses.
Take that offer to your Board.
“[i]Mr. DT: why dont you go to bat for downtown retail for a change? Get your Board to vote to conduct a referendum if the CC wont put that zoning change on the ballot. [/i]”
Don, the attitude expressed in the quote above is an example of the problem, not the advocacy of Davis Downtown.
Stupid, short-sighted, us-against-them nonsense.
Back to ignoring Mike. May have to just abandon reading the blog like so many of my friends. I’ll start by just not reading the comments.
Ryan: why dont you just call me sometime at 759-8440 or stop by the office and discuss the personal stuff that seems to occupy your thoughts? I’ve invited you over and over, but you dont.
“Against those odds, however: I urge the Council to vote against the proposed changes to the zoning at Second Street Crossing. TJMaxx will go in, and the developer can continue trying to market the other pads. Any relaxation in zoning, if it occurs, should happen along with similar changes elsewhere in the city, specifically around the downtown.
I have nothing against the gateway project. I just don’t see that funds should be specially encumbered for that.”
I have zero financial interest in any of this discussion and so feel free to speak only on what I feel is reflective of the community go back to the original Target vote. To me, it feels very much like a “bait and switch” on the part of the developers. The initial plan was made and sold essentially as a regional shopping center for tax generation purposes for the city. As I recall, any potential detriment to the downtown or to the neighborhood shopping centers was downplayed and I recall little to no mention of the lack of wisdom of building large “brick and mortar” stores at a time of steadily increasing e – commerce. Even in this situation, the vote by which the Target project was approved was extremely narrow, 51 to 49 % of vote if I recall correctly. So now we are essentially being told by the developers, “oh, gee” we didn’t foresee any of this as being a problem and now we need more flexibility, and are willing to create a “win-win” solution with a very small segment of your community, which may or may not harm others in order to leverage more flexibility for ourselves to “fix” the problem we created in the first place to get you to buy into this.
Bottom line is that I think this entire process has been disingenuous, probably from the start, and would strongly urge the CC to vote against the proposed changes, at least at this time.
Oops…lshould have said “going back to….”
A late comment. I remember the agreement limiting the sq footage Target could use to sell food. I wonder if anyone has revisited that issue since I believe they have greatly increased their food offerings, now having produce, meat, frozen etc. I believe the agreement was to protect neighborhood grocery. Anyone know more about this?