I stumbled upon an interesting letter to the editor from earlier this week. It is from a local business owner who ended up supporting Measure A because it will enable Davis schools “to continue to offer top-notch instruction and programs.”
In addition to comments that are posted for public consumption, Vanguard articles also inspire private emails commenting about the articles. Some of these are complimentary, some ask for follow-ups or to provide additional information, and some are just angry.
Without quality education this nation will fall behind others in the world, and we will not have the talented labor pool to operate the new high tech economy or inspire future innovation.
Moreover, I am a believer that spending is a given. As a society, you either spend money on education or you spend it on social services and prisons. At least education is an investment in the future that can be returned to our community.
Back to the letter, however, he writes, “I would encourage residents to consider the implications of this tax as they ‘go about their business’ during the coming weeks and months.”
He adds, “As a local, independent store owner, I don’t have the ability to tax the community when business is slow. I can choose to take a pay cut, lay off workers, renegotiate my lease terms or ultimately, close up shop.”
Here is the core of his comment: “By voting for Measure A, I have agreed to give some of my own money to help others in my community. All I would ask in return is for members of that community to try spending their money locally, whether at my business or other independents, realizing that it will (like Measure A), help other community members keep their jobs and livelihoods, and maintain the quality of life in Davis.”
He makes a very good point. He cannot get taxes from the community when his business is slow. But people in the community can still help local businesses by purchasing their goods and services here.
Moreover, he writes, “It is especially disturbing for me to hear teachers and school employees recommend that their students make purchases online or through catalogues, sending money that our city desperately needs out of town or out of state.”
He concludes, “It is unfair to ask me to contribute to help you keep your job, and then send my potential customers to businesses that will not do the same. Food for thought, I guess …”
I agree. The business community stepped up to support education, now I think it is only fair that education steps up to support our local business community. That not only means sending customers their way, but also, whenever possible, awarding bids as locally as possible.
We are indeed all in this together.
I would be remiss if I did not also point out that buying from local businesses keeps money local. When you purchase groceries or products from national chains, the money leaves our community. Local businesses put their money in local banks, they spend the money locally, the employees live locally and the money moves through the community.
Buying from let us say… Target, takes more money out of the community than it puts it. Sure there is the sales tax revenue, but for the most part the products are purchased from out of the area and shipped here, the money goes to their corporate offices, few of the upper brass live locally, and therefore very little money stays here.
Compare to the independent merchant who lives in Davis, his family goes to our schools, the business still pays its sales tax, the money however ends up in local banks, products are often purchased more locally, especially food products keeping money closer to home and helping the local economy far more.
Each dollar that stays in our community travels around many additional times, each dollar that leaves our community is lost to it.
Good letter. We need to as he suggests, “consider the implications of this tax.” Food for thought indeed.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
I really appreciated this article. It is a great reminder of the importance to our entire community of supporting our local merchants. I admit that I had not made this association quite so directly in my mind.
I do see a difficulty however. I think our educators our in a bit of a bind with regard to supporting the local business owner by directing students and parents to them for purchases, vs referring to what may in many cases be a less expensive option at the Target or on line. A difficult choice to make if they know that a particular family is struggling financially.
How about the local homeowner who now has $200/yr. less disposable income? Maybe that homeowner forgoes buying that bike that he/she was going to purchase in downtown Davis, decides not to purchase that UCD t-shirt, buys more goods online in order to save on sales tax……
I don’t care how you slice it, every homeowner is now out $200 that could’ve been spent buying goods downtown. Overall it’s a negative for the local economy and further hurts that store owner much more than just his $200 Measure A tax.
rusty49
If we are going to speculate about that missing $200.00 dollar, how about this scenario ?
A student who now has the ability to take a seventh period music class is inspired. Her mother decides to purchase her instrument from Watermelon music and private lessons from a local instructor. A financial gain for the local community. I know that is what happened with my daughter.
Medwoman, the circumstance you bring up is far outweighed by the loss of $200 disposable income to thousands of homeowners in Davis.
rusty49
Taken as a single instance, yes. Expanded to all of the activities, interests, career choices that may be made by these students throughout the remainder of their lives, I disagree.
So are Davisites now expected to suddenly stop purchasing online; not go out of town to purchase cheaper goods; not go elsewhere to purchase things they cannot find in Davis – all for the good of schools and “our kids” who were supported by Davis businesses?
In other words, cash strapped citizens are now expected to sacrifice by paying more for expensive goods or just plain doing without, so they will be supporting only Davis merchants who supported Davis schools? Oh, and of course we cannot shop at just any Davis merchant, only the politically correct Davis merchants, those who have been deemed to have kept the money local (how are we supposed to know which merchants are politically correct?)? So of course that somehow leaves out our own “hated” local Target store?
LOL Does anyone else see the absurdity of this position?
Rusty49, I think you miss Medwomen’s point. In Davis, for example, due to the great music programs, as many as 600 students play strings. Many or most of those rent instruments from Watermellon, get supplies there, or engage local instructors. Thus, one student may seem insignificant in putting money into the local economy, but with the multiplier effect, it is not chump change
No, Elaine, just try your local business first. It’s not an absurd position.
ERM
Your comment would be valid if anyone were arguing for this extreme position. No one is. I believe that even the initial letter writer , the local businessman would agree that there are many items that have no local, reasonably priced equivalent. I think the argument was simply to request, not dictate that we be mindful of the potential consequences of our spending habits. This was a point of view not widely heard in the Measure A debate.
My comment above directly addressed the issue that you have raised about competing priorities.
And I have no idea where you got the idea that there is any “PC” consideration about which merchants to choose. I was opposed to the Target in Davis, not for any political reason, but because of it’s redundancy. For those in North Davis, it takes the same amount of time to get to the Target in Woodland. For those in West Davis, the already existing Target in Vacaville may be just as convenient. Add to that the fact that at the time the Target was being considered, there were already 9 Targets ( including the two mentioned ) within a 30 minute driving distance from Davis (as confirmed at the time by looking io locations on Google) I simply did not see the point in adding yet another big box store.
Especially since, as you pointed out, most of these items could be purchased on line.
Finally, was it not you that made a recent point, with which I heartily agreed about not denigrating the viewpoints of others ? I hardly see “LOL” and “absurdity” as respectful comments. Kind of ranks right up there with “uninformed”with which you took umbrage recently, in my opinion.
“Rusty49, I think you miss Medwomen’s point. In Davis, for example, due to the great music programs, as many as 600 students play strings. Many or most of those rent instruments from Watermellon, get supplies there, or engage local instructors. Thus, one student may seem insignificant in putting money into the local economy, but with the multiplier effect, it is not chump change”
Odilo, I did get it, but I think you missed my point. Sure a few businesses will benefit from Medwoman’s example. But when you take $200 out of over 15,000 households there has to be a hit taken somewhere and I say most local merchants will feel some of that pain. It’s just plain math.
[i]”Moreover, I am a believer that spending is a given. As a society, you either spend money on education or you spend it on social services and prisons.”[/i]
All else held equal, spending may be a given. However, the economic security context affects how much spending takes place. When unemployment is rising and the macroeconomy is stagnant or shrinking, even those gainfully employed will often reduce their discretionary spending.
Something you neglect to include in your formulation–of course, I’m sure you would agree with this–is that the more we tax ourselves to spend on education (or any other aspect of government) is also the less we spend (in the short to medium run) on plants at Redwood Barn, computer softare at Heron Technologies, pizza at Steve’s Place and coffee at Mishka’s.
[b]”Spending Money Locally Keeps Money Local”[/b]
You have to ask the question: Why would someone buy, say a new lawn mower, at a big box store or on-line in place of of buying the same machine at Davis Ace? The answer, of course, is a savings of $50 to $200. Part of that might be the unfair way that local merchants are forced to charge sales tax while on-line sellers often are not. The other part is just that the local seller may charge a much higher price. The bottom line for the buyer is: he will have more wealth by not buying locally (often times). And collectively, that will be true for our community.
It may hurt some local sellers if buyers are rational, but buying from the big box or buying on line is not bad for our community as a whole.
Ultimately, the well-being and wealth of our community will be based on our productivity and our rational choices with our own funds.
A related perspective: I would bet that for all of the state and federal taxes that Davis residents and businesses pay, a fraction of it comes back to benefit the Davis community. Much of the rest may end up benefiting less affluent parts of the country and state. I don’t normally have a problem with that. But for a local parcel tax, it all benefits the local economy.
Right now the state is on track to let certain sales, income, and vehicle taxes expire on June 30. According to Gov. Brown’s original budget plan for next year, that was in part meant to fund K-12 education statewide. Next week we’ll find out what the exact level of state funding will be for next year.
Speaking for myself, I will continue to shop wherever I find that I’m going to get the best price for whatever it is I’m buying, and that is usually not downtown … assuming of course that I wouldn’t grow old and die while looking for a parking space downtown in the first place.
rusty49
Some of it is just plain math, at least in the short term. Some of it involves intangibles such as the opportunities provided in the elementary and junior high that ultimately allow some of these students to go on to participate in the internationally competing Madrigals, or the DaVinci robotics team placing 20th in the national competition or the numerous awards and prizes won by the DHS symphony and various ensembles.
I agree that this is a question of values with some discounting the intangibles in favor of a financial only assessment. I believe in counting in the intangibles.
[quote]So are Davisites now expected to suddenly stop purchasing online; not go out of town to purchase cheaper goods; not go elsewhere to purchase things they cannot find in Davis – all for the good of schools and “our kids” who were supported by Davis businesses? [/quote]
Sorry I missed this yesterday.
If we want to keep more money in our local economy we need more retail. In particular we need some chain stores downtown to draw people. Unfortunately that is not a popular position with local business people (witness the campaign against Borders a few years back–Borders has helped the downtown but will likely close at some point due to the national chain’s difficulties.
I try to buy locally but its not always easy given the very limited opportunities. And BTW ACE hardware is actually reasonably competitive pricewise with Home Depot and has much much better services–try asking someone at Home Depot a question? (To be fair I haven’t been in one for several years but I doubt they are any better than they used to be.)
WE have a “leakage” in sales tax dollars which is directly related to the limited amount of retail in Davis. I do not want us to turn into Woodland or Vacaville, retail wise, but I think there are things we could do to boost the downtown–but it needs a chain store component imho.
[quote]WE have a “leakage” in sales tax dollars which is directly related to the limited amount of retail in Davis. I do not want us to turn into Woodland or Vacaville, retail wise, but I think there are things we could do to boost the downtown–but it needs a chain store component imho. [/quote]
I completely agree with you. The “Borders War” and “Grocery Store Wars” are a prime example of why Davis is seen as not business friendly…
[quote]And I have no idea where you got the idea that there is any “PC” consideration about which merchants to choose.[/quote]
Note the following quote from the above article: “Buying from let us say… Target, takes more money out of the community than it puts it.” The implication is not to buy goods at Target, an “unlocal store” (and not PC) bc to do so will not be keeping the money local…
I always consider spending my money locally as long as the value is there. For example, I just spent $100 on a pair of running shoes at Fleet Feet… the same shoe can be purchased on the Internet for $79 plus $8 shipping. However, I get great service at Fleet Feet, with very knowledgeable sales people. They have choices and I can try them all on to find the shoe with the best fit. They are conveniently located. The extra value I get makes up for the $13 premium I paid. Also, I consider the long term investment of my shopping dollars helping to ensure the store stays in business so I need it next time.
I recently purchased a new bed as a surprise for my son attending college at Chico. It was a last minute thought as we were preparing to drive up the next day to help him move to the new small house he was renting. Matthews Mattress had what we wanted, and the delivered it next day so we could pack it in the U-haul trailer.
Ace hardware is also not too bad. They have most of what I need. The prices are reasonable. The employees are helpful and friendly. The main gripe I have is the store hours. They open too late and close too early. That is a convenience value opportunity lost to Home Depot.
Small local stores cannot compete on price with the big box stores and the Internet. They need to leverage the value of convenience and service. They also need to market this… reminding and educating the local consumer about the concept of value.
However, the issue here is the existence of many people with limited shopping dollars, and they will always consider price as the main value component. Rusty49 is correct that measure A just robbed local merchants of the opportunity to sell $200 of discretionary goods and services to local shoppers that shop primarily on price.
So, here is the solution… all those that voted to approve Measure A should spend more money locally to make up the difference.
Just informed my neighbor that he is eligible for the Measure A tax exemption which he had no idea about. So I asked him if had had exemptions for the other three school taxes and he said no. So he will now be applying for all four exemptions which he had paid faithfully all these years. How many other seniors are in the same boat?
I urge people to shop where they get the best perceived value. Just remember that value is not the same as price. It can include many other things.
[quote]I urge people to shop where they get the best perceived value. Just remember that value is not the same as price. It can include many other things.[/quote]
I think this is a very fair statement and frankly, very refreshing 🙂 I happen to shop a lot at Watermelon Music in Davis. They have one of the best sheet music selections I have ever seen. I can look at the music beforehand, so I know what I’m getting. The service is outstanding. My experiences shopping online for music have not been nearly as positive.
The grocery stores in town are generally good and making the effort to compete in prices w Walmart/Target. I do go to Woodland Walmart for one particular item, bc I have to buy it often for health reasons, and it is about $13 versus $20 locally. So I stock up and save quite a few dollars that way. One trip to Walmart, and 3 of this same item nets me a savings of $21. But be careful, bc now a lot of the items that were “cheaper” at Walmart can now be found just as inexpensively at Davis grocery stores.
For some things, I try and shop at our local Target, when I used to go to the Target in Woodland. Target has a nice electronics section (got a wonderful travel speaker system for my iPod nano). Target customer service in Davis is outstanding. I could have purchased the speaker system for about $20 less on Amazon, but with the possibility of breakage in transit (have had this problem), it was worth it to me to pay a little more and know there would be no problem with returns (Target is great about returns, Amazon is not).
I support local merchants to the extent that they give me what I want – good value; good customer service; nice atmosphere; convenience; good return policy. I shop elsewhere if I can get a significantly better deal that saves me money.
When my children needed cars over the last few years, we made the mistake of heading for Roseville Auto Mall. In the past, new cars had been cheaper over there. But not anymore. We did our homework (internet searches) after coming back from Roseville Auto Mall very dissatisfied, and found Hanlees right here in Davis had the best price for what we wanted. Who knew???
Bottom line is I do my homework. I shop for the best price, but at times will pay a bit more for convenience, customer service, etc. I’m for supporting local merchants, but not at any price. And I think I tend to support Davis businesses that are known to support local causes – including the Covenant for making Picnic Day safer.
However, I have avoided shopping at particular Davis businesses that have engaged in trying to keep competition out, a la the Borders Wars and Grocery Store Wars or the Trader Joe’s fiasco w RA. IMHO, Davis businesses need to work together as much as possible, and that should include Target, which is here to stay. Continued attempts to villify Target as the big, bad wolf are counterproductive. Target is bringing in much needed tax revenue, that is not now leaking out to Woodland.