Steve Pinkerton’s last day in Manteca is Thursday, and his first day in Davis is Friday. Tuesday is show time. That is not a lot of turnaround time for Davis’ new city manager.
That is probably not a fair assessment, but it is likely how the city employees are going to view it. They have until September 30 to find a way to cut $2.5 million, or we will likely get our first view of the hatchet.
In Manteca, they trimmed around $14.1 million from their city budget and laid off 88 city employees during Mr. Pinkerton’s tenure as city manager.
Writes the Manteca Bulletin, “The city also weaned itself away from a structured deficit by re-negotiating employee contracts and establishing a budget that relies strictly on money collected during a given fiscal year to pay for the cost of services provided.”
That is exactly what the City of Davis will be looking to do in the next year: cut spending from employee compensation, make structural reforms by re-negotiating employee contracts, and move toward multi-year budgeting.
Making that difficult task more difficult is the fact that the city is paying Mr. Pinkerton $188,000 in salary and much more in total compensation than his city predecessor. So how do you convince city employees to be thinking about an era of shared sacrifice when their boss has not, in their minds, also sacrificed?
Nevertheless, the blueprint for Davis’ future lies in Manteca’s past.
In the article, Mr. Pinkerton said, “Manteca’s remaining 342 workers have stepped up in such a manner that he doubts there is another jurisdiction in the state that can compare with their efforts. Not only did city workers take on extra work as staff was reduced due to declining revenue, but they also took compensation cuts ranging from 19 to 23 percent. Pinkerton added that municipal workers have still managed to keep service levels up despite the cutbacks.”
And Davis’ City Council can learn other lessons as well. “The city manager praised the [Manteca] council for ‘staying focused’ by not letting differing opinions undermine efforts to move the city forward. Pinkerton noted that the council members have had strong differences of opinion but have set aside differences once a vote is taken.”
Unlike Davis, Manteca’s elected leaders, according to Mr. Pinkerton, acted decisively and fairly quickly when it became clear the recession was underway.
“All you have to do is look 10 miles to the north to see what happens when you are still in denial,” Mr. Pinkerton said.
Unfortunately, Mr. Pinkerton is soon to be in a city where there has been a state of denial. The city first developed a budget deficit in 2008-09 fiscal year. Instead of dealing with structural problems, the city balanced a permanent budget deficit through attrition and furloughs.
The result is that the city was working short-handed in critical areas due to the incongruities of transfers and retirements. The city failed to deal with its structural deficit through the first wave of MOUs in 2009 and 2010. That means that the tough work lies ahead.
It was only with the resignation of Don Saylor to move to the Board of Supervisors at the beginning of this year that the City of Davis began to seriously address its fiscal problems.
Moreover, as the fragile economy continues to collapse amid additional cuts in state government and UC, which are the two major employers in Davis, the city is putting its business community in jeopardy through steep proposed water rate hikes.
The bottom line is that Mr. Pinkerton knows how to achieve these sorts of cuts, and they clearly brought him in to oversee the streamlining of municipal government at the same time they look for economic development to continue.
But they have done things to make it more difficult, and the water issue is but one concern. The city has failed to intervene in a number of disputes that have led to businesses leaving the city. A grocery store is about to go under, yet again, in West Davis.
The city is looking to develop the largest swath of business park land as a residential development, and planning to use the bulk of its RDA money on a parking lot.
The biggest problem that the city faces, however, is fiscal. By our calculations, rises in the costs of pensions and health care will soak up an additional $7 million (at least) of general fund money by 2015.
The city must absorb that at a time when sales tax revenues are flat, and even expected to decline, and the real estate market, which has come out less scathed than in other communities, continues to flat line.
The result is that somehow the city has to divert 20% of its general fund to pay for workers’ retirements.
At the same time, the city has to find ways to finance infrastructure maintenance and other unmet needs that are threatening to climb to $15 to $20 million.
Davis may have the appearance of coming out of this crisis in better shape that other communities, but the longer the economic downturn persists, the more vulnerable the community becomes. That is because the industries most impacted by the continued slow down are government industries such as UC and Sacramento, which provide the vast majority of jobs to Davis residents.
Mr. Pinkerton is said to like a good challenge, and this ought to give him one.
Welcome to Davis, Mr. Pinkerton; be sure to duck.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Davis may have the appearance of coming out of this crisis in better shape that other communities, but the longer the economic downturn persists, the more vulnerable the community becomes.[/quote]
WE have serious problems but let’s be honest–we are in much better shape than Manteca, Stockton (the town 10 miles to the north) or most other cities in the central valley.
Our main problem is simple–we gave away the candy store during the good times and its much harder to take back that candy (too high salaries and benefits) now, especially when some of the candy is in the form of longer term obligations that can be covered up today.
Will Pinkerton be a hatchet man? I don’t know. Our City Council will have something to do with all this as well, but the general mood today is one of fiscal austerity.
David, I agree, to cut, cut, cut is why in my opinion the council hired this guy and were willing to pay him more to do just that. Judging from some of the posts from the Manteca blog many of the employees weren’t too happy with this guy and I would think that was because he played hardball with them. You’ve got to believe that council negotiations when hiring a new city manager had to center around “how are you going to cut?” and Mr. Pinkerton must have really stepped up to the plate on that issue.
@Dr Wu… how much too high do you believe the salaries are? Which benefits would you recommend cutting, and how would you propose cutting or eliminating them? Would you differentiate the cuts by income? Age? Competence?
@ rusty… same questions I asked Dr Wu… would be interested in your approach (assume you are the new CM, and you are advising the CC).
Hpierce: Let me ask, how do you cut $7 million from a $38 million General Fund budget that goes 80% to employee compensation?
Fair enough David… depends on your assumptions… do you eliminate programs? Cities are generally founded to meet basic needs… that’s why Davisville became Davis…generally they are founded to meet critical needs… fire/police protection, roads, water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage are generally area where people cannot provide these for themselves, so they need a city to provide them collectively… is recreational programs a core function? is parks/greenbelts? Is streetlighting? I’ll assume you “want it all”… no cut in any program or service.
OK… one way to meet you proposed cuts is to take it out 100% by staff cuts… you could cut employees by ~ 14.5%, if you made the layoffs proportional across the board. Another way might to layoff all management and supervisory employees. Those both have implications to service delivery.
I’m going to make another assumption… you don’t want anyone to be laid off… OK, cut salaries, retirement contributions, medical/dental/other benefits by ~15%%. You might have to change a few laws to do it, but let’s say you do. Good luck on morale &/or employee retention.
Let’s make another assumption that I think you’d support… make sure those making 60 K a year are made whole, particularly on the salary and benefits side. You could make the cuts by laying off the more highly compensated employees, or having them take even bigger cuts… 25-40% if necessary.
David, I do not (and never had) claimed to have “the answer”. I just gave some options… they each have their flaws, and are done without the benefit of knowing how all the numbers play out. I am a little tired of folks saying employees are grossly over compensated, and that that is the ONLY problem. I am also tired of some of the folks saying that ‘they’re thinking of a number between one and ten’ when asking employee groups, the City Council, and/or the CM to “fix” this.
Rich Rifkin has at least make some concrete proposals. The only one I recall hearing from you is for all management to take a 10% salary cut. That doesn’t start to deal with retirement, medical/dental that you and others have said are issues.
BTW, I asked what I thought was a legitimate question of Dr Wu and Rusty. You jump on me. Personal animosity?
@ moderator… cooled down, realized I was “acting out”… apologies to all for tone and last two paragraphs in particular… feel free to delete portions/all of my previous post.
Hpierce: if you took that as me jumping on you, that was not my intention. Your questions to Wu and Rusty, triggered me to ask you that one which I had intended to ask you for some time.
David… I do believe that some programs the city has are niceties that we cannot afford and even if they are important they may be duplicative of those offered privately, at the county/state/federal level, etc. I believe the answer to the crisis is not found in any one area. I see program cuts, service level reductions, layoffs, compensation reductions ALL as part of the palette.
“I believe the answer to the crisis is not found in any one area. I see program cuts, service level reductions, layoffs, compensation reductions ALL as part of the palette.”
I think I have also made some concrete proposals:
1. Reduce fire staffing from 4 to 3 on an engine
2. Prioritize core city services
3. move to have community groups and non-profits run some of the city’s recreational programs
4. cut back on luxuries such as green belts and parks, have HOA’s take over some of the maintenance as appropriate
5. increase employee contributions on pensions
6. raise retirement age to 55 for safety, 60 for misc.
7. reduction of top level pay, 10% across the board
8. streamline government eliminating some of the management positions especially some of the middle tier positions
“@ rusty… same questions I asked Dr Wu… would be interested in your approach (assume you are the new CM, and you are advising the CC).”
I’m not the CM, I have/had my own profession. I don’t claim to have all the answers as that’s not my job, nor do I know all the particulars. That will be Mr. Pinkerton’s job. That’s why he makes the big bucks. All I know for sure is that there needs to be some drastic cuts.
[i]1. Reduce fire staffing from 4 to 3 on an engine
2. Prioritize core city services
3. move to have community groups and non-profits run some of the city’s recreational programs
4. cut back on luxuries such as green belts and parks, have HOA’s take over some of the maintenance as appropriate
5. increase employee contributions on pensions
6. raise retirement age to 55 for safety, 60 for misc.
7. reduction of top level pay, 10% across the board
8. streamline government eliminating some of the management positions especially some of the middle tier positions [/i]
David, have you become a fiscal conservative? I don’t see any ideas for increasing revenue. This list of ideas comes directly from the Tea Party I think…;-)
There was a good article in the WSJ Thusday about Vallejo. Phil Batchelor was hired as interim City Manager after the court-approved bankruptcy. Here are a couple of interesting quotes from that article:
[quote]WSJ: You say bankruptcy is expensive and discourage other cities from filing, but Vallejo was able to make crucial cuts to employee health-care costs and benefits through the process. How do you reconcile the two?
Mr. Batchelor: What some people may not know is that we have to not only pay our bankruptcy lawyers…but also lawyers for retirees. We pay both sides of the negotiating table. But it’s not just a matter of dollars and cents. There is a human cost.
What does it do to your work force—the morale, the culture? It creates an angry adversarial relationship. Labor doesn’t trust you. Once you declare bankruptcy you have the very difficult task of reducing expenditures and it decimates the ranks. Bankruptcy is an all-around bad idea for a city.
WSJ: What could Vallejo have done differently that might have prevented it from entering bankruptcy?
Mr. Batchelor: You don’t want to agree to formula-driven salary increases. You are paying out increases based on what other agencies are doing. You are abdicating responsibility to other jurisdictions.
WSJ: Central Falls, R.I., recently filed for bankruptcy after months of contentious negotiations between union and city officials. A similar dynamic occurred in Vallejo. Any ideas about how to better resolve such conflicts?
Mr. Batchelor: Ideally what you want between management, labor and the city is open and trustful relationships. You need to be able to build bridges. Talk. You don’t have to like each other but there needs to be respect and trust there.
WSJ: How do you hope to boost city revenue?
Mr. Batchelor: We plan to place on the November ballot a one-cent sales tax increase that is projected to raise about $10 million annually. We also will aggressively pursue federal and state grants. We also plan to develop large commercial industrial properties to attract new business. We hope to create an environment that’s attractive to employers.[/quote]
The sales tax increase is a bad idea, but the other two should be front-and-center for strategy to increase revenue.
David… it was helpful to see all 8 of your proposals in one post… hopefully, getting more specific will help the community’s discussion… a “progressive idea” might be to go to charter city status, and impose a local income tax of 1%, exempting those under 40k per year… that could be #9.
“David, have you become a fiscal conservative? I don’t see any ideas for increasing revenue. This list of ideas comes directly from the Tea Party I think…;-)”
This list of ideas well precedes the Tea Party, which I scoff at.
I’ve explained numerous times that liberals have to become deficit and budget hawks because we are living in a time of very scarce resources and people are unwilling to expand revenues. It is a matter of priorities and as I have explained for years, I prioritize spending for schools and infrastructure over spending on employee compensation and municipal government.
hpierce: I’m not in favor of any revenue enhancements for the city. I think the city has done a good job of squandering the parks tax and sales tax it has received. Any revenue I would reserve for schools and county social services.
Well, then perhaps good program cuts in the city would to be to eliminate educational and social services that the city provides, and use a portion of those savings to the county and schools. You could meet both objectives. Assuming of course county and school employees take reductions in compensation and benefits as you have proposed for city employees. I could support that.
David, your last statement amazes me. One of my concerns with your column is that you analyze the city budget very critically and in great detail, but you give the county and school district a pass. Have you ever looked at the county budget? There is far, far more fat in the county budget. And I don’t follow management level pay at the school district, but you should be giving it the same level of scrutiny that you give the city.
I agree. I’m actually increasingly concerned about the social services department in the county and am looking into it.
The school leadership did two things that did not happen in the city. First they got rid of one of their Associate Superintendents, on the educational side. And while they kept Bruce Colby who is the counterpart to Navazio, they got rid of all of his top support staff. The second thing they did was the top admins took a pay cut, something that has not happened with the city.
Even with the parcel taxes, they have had to cut quite a bit of revenue and thus expenditures. But to me, the school district has been more responsive to budget tightening than the city.
No need to get defensive about that Sue, if the council had followed your lead and Lamar’s lead the last four years, the city would be in a lot better shape than it is now. Unfortunately, back in 2008, Souza and Saylor were doing chest bumps about a balanced budget with a 15 percent reserve while you and my wife were warning about the next shoe that would be falling in a few months.
This discussion reminds me of the Davis City org chart I saw and heard discussed a year or so ago at CC. I think Don was still on the CC. It was noted that there were many layers of supervisory titles, many only supervising one ot two employees. Unclear how it has come to this situation but seems as tho a way of raising employees salaries excessively. I suggest the new CM and staff look carefully at our city’s employee structure. Perhaps employees would be willing to agree to a realignment of titles and salaries rather than cut jobs cut OR if not, this cutting of middle, middle, middle management might be the best place to start.
[i]”This list of ideas well precedes the Tea Party, which I scoff at.”[/i]
Well, in any case, this is an example of sound fiscal logic. There are many on the left with their head still in the sand that we can still find some politically-acceptable tax increases. At least you seem to have accepted that it won’t happen.
At the national level, the Democrats have become fixated on VAT taxes.
[quote]
1. Reduce fire staffing from 4 to 3 on an engine
2. Prioritize core city services
3. move to have community groups and non-profits run some of the city’s recreational programs
4. cut back on luxuries such as green belts and parks, have HOA’s take over some of the maintenance as appropriate
5. increase employee contributions on pensions
6. raise retirement age to 55 for safety, 60 for misc.
7. reduction of top level pay, 10% across the board
8. streamline government eliminating some of the management positions especially some of the middle tier positions [/quote]
This is not a bad start though I don’t think green belts and parks are luxuries and adding HOAs is a tax by another name, but I think some maintenance costs might be reducible here.
AS far as revenue enhancement, I don’t mind paying more taxes if and only if the City starts to address these issues. I think the average Davis voter will be far less inclined to approve tax increases in the future–the school increase barely survived.
[i]At the national level, the Democrats have become fixated on VAT taxes.[/i]
I don’t know of any significant number of Democrats who are advocating a VAT, regardless of what Grover Norquist might be saying.
[url]http://thehill.com/homenews/house/147431-calls-for-new-vat-tax-prove-to-be-unpopular-with-both-dems-gop[/url]
[i]4. cut back on luxuries such as green belts and parks, have HOA’s take over some of the maintenance as appropriate [/i]
Aren’t some of the tax measures specifically for these?
[quote]4. cut back on luxuries such as green belts and parks, have HOA’s take over some of the maintenance as appropriate [/quote]
Don’t even get me started on this one – it is a bad, bad idea…
DG, you express concern about business community, yet you then take positions contrary to the positions of the business community.
1) There would be no grocery store at Westlake had the Council not intervened. But the Council’s intervention was politically motivated, not business oriented. The business community was not clamoring for a Westlake grocery store, DANG was. The Westlake grocery store opening was ill conceived and their problems are self-baked. I don’t begrudge DANG a grocery store, but this matter has nothing to do with the business community. I haven’t kicked over a hornets nest here!
2) I’m fairly certain that the business community would prefer housing to a business park at the ConAgra site. Furthermore, you falsely state again that the ConAgra site is zoned as a business park. I sent you the pertinent zoning with the permitted uses many months ago.
3) You rail against the use of the RDA money on a “parking lot”, even though the entire business community strongly supports the 3/4/E/F retail & parking project. The Chamber, the DDBA, and the BEDC have all come out in support of the project. Indeed, you completely distort the purpose of the redevelopment project and use numerous mistatements of fact to support your position (see last Friday’s blog).
If you care about the business community, and every citizen should since we are a vital part of fostering a sustainable community, why aren’t you receptive to our ideas and input?
Too many times the business community just cares about itself and not the best interests for Davis as a whole.
[i]”Too many times the business community just cares about itself and not the best interests for Davis as a whole.”[/i]
Rusty, I get your point, but I would word it a bit differently.
Business pursues its own self-interest to make as much as profit as possible within the scope of the mission of the ownership. There is nothing at all wrong with this. It is to be honored as the one clear motivation that can result in tremendous benefits to many from wealth created, jobs created and tax revenue created.
My problem with the downtown business association is not them, but the city and population that protects them like some type of victim charity case. But then seems to punish them by preventing development that would benefit them.
The mindset from the Davis politico elites is one of top-down control. It is a mindset of controlling development outcomes to the nth degree.
It is interesting to me because I still live here and I like living here. Liberals tend to make nice places to live with their propensity for top-down control. They tend to be very detail oriented and this lends itself to a careful vetting of ALL development projects.
The problem is the lack of a larger consideration of local macro social and economic factors. There is also a lack of understanding and appreciation for local economic development that is friendly, dynamic and encourages a healthy level of competition. By blending a propensity with top-down control with a more sophisticated economic development vision, I think Davis would greatly benefit. Without the second part, we are somewhat dysfunctional and it makes the downtown businesses appear both pampered and whiny at the same time.
Rusty, is your 8:55am post a response to my 8:36am post? If so, I’m not folowing the relevance. DG expressed concern for the business community, but then takes positions contrary to fostering a strong, vibrant business community. How does your comment address this contradiction?
Separately, Rusty, perhaps you’d care to cite these numerous times where the business community cared just about itself and not Davis as a whole? I’ll settle for the times this has happened in the last year or two because your comment strikes me as empty rhetoric. But maybe I’m simply unaware of the numerous instances you’re about to cite.
“My problem with the downtown business association is not them, but the city and population that protects them like some type of victim charity case. But then seems to punish them by preventing development that would benefit them.”
Anymore such protection and there’ll be an even smaller local business sector. There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the primary role that a vibrant business sector plays in fostering a sustainable community. We’re not talking about coal mines, petroleum refineries, and large multi-nationals here. The business sector in Davis is for the most part small, locally grown, environmentally-conscious, businesses. I’m wondering who the citizens think provide the goods and services; the jobs that homeowners need to pay their mortgages and property taxes; the state taxes that pay for all the govt. and university jobs and pensions; the support for schools and worthy causes? The benefits that the local businesses provide go on and on. These benefits to society are not provided through osmosis.
The economic spark struck by a business owner and an employee coming to an employment agreement is the very foundation of society as we know it (including the agreement of an individual deciding to be self-employed). This spark pays for EVERYTHING. You’d never know it by listening to the debates on local economic policies and projects.
“The economic spark struck by a business owner and an employee coming to an employment agreement is the very foundation of society as we know it (including the agreement of an individual deciding to be self-employed). This spark pays for EVERYTHING. You’d never know it by listening to the debates on local economic policies and projects.”
Exactly, that is why the Cannery should bring in business.
DT Businessman: Again, I don’t fault you or any downtown business owner for working hard to ensure your business remains viable and profitable. However, I live in West Davis where shopping options are scarce. It is a 10-15 minute drive to get downtown and park if I can find a place. This small city swells to over 80,000 people when school is in session. Our downtown cannot provide all the selection, service, price and convenience needed by the entire population. Many of us head to Woodland, Dixon, and West Sacramento to spend our shopping dollars.
I think we can handle more periphery shopping alternatives without harming the core area. And some types of retail – like hardware and lumber – would be better off out of the core area. However, in any case, while we are forced to travel 15 minutes to purchase a nut and bolt, I would prefer adequate parking.
JB, my business operations are citywide, only my office is DT. My comments moments ago pertained to business througout the City, not specifically to the DT.
R49, I don’t believe any of the business groups have taken formal positions on the ConAga project. However, if they did, I’m fairly certain those positions would be in favor of housing at that site, with perhaps, a small commercial component, but not a business park. So are you suggesting the business groups don’t know what is good for the business sector? If you are, it’s not surprising. I often get to hear politicians and other commentators tell me what is good or isn’t good for business even when those opinions contradict what the business community is advocating. It’s an upside down world we live in.
DT Businessman: Ah… that helps me understand your perspective a bit more. I work downtown too and the company I work for does small business economic development throughout CA. I think Davis needs to expand its vision a little more toward the Folsom model and a little less toward the Carmel model.
[quote] I think Davis needs to expand its vision a little more toward the Folsom model and a little less toward the Carmel model.[/quote]
This is an interesting observation. I do think there are two competing visions of Davis. Many seem to want the Carmel model, which may or may not be viable here…
[i]And some types of retail – like hardware and lumber – would be better off out of the core area.[/i]
Those are two of the anchor stores in the downtown.
Elaine: If you look at Folsom and Vacaville and other growing small cities, the trend had been to allow peripheral development while rebranding the old core to “old town”. Davisites seem to think we are some type of vacation destination like Carmel where we force most of our retail to stay in the core area.
Somewhere in the middle seems about right to me.
We need a more comprehensive city-wide vision that factors car-required shopping and pedestrian-friendly shopping. I think much of our development conflict is rooted in an over-protection of the downtown… creating too many conflicting interests than cannot be satisfied.
I think the core area should be rebranded as “old town Davis” at some point, and certain types of retail like hardware and lumber should be relocated to periphery areas where access and parking is easier. The downtown area is not at risk of decay and blight at this point. We have done a fantastic job of blending residential, business and retail. It will remain vibrant. I would prefer that we close off E street between 3rd and 1st street at some point to make it pedestrian and bike only. I also support the road-diet plan for Fifth Street. However, all of this conflicts with a vision to force everyone to head downtown for shopping. If I have to drive downtown to purchase plywood, I will need to park my big truck close to the plywood.
Lastly, the lack of viable peripheral alternatives causes the downtown property owners to inflate lease payments.
[i]”Those are two of the anchor stores in the downtown.”[/i]
Like I said, this creates development conflicts because of the need to haul products. I think it is time for a new vision that redefines what we want as anchors for our downtown. I’m not even sure that is a beneficial concept for a town as big as Davis. It makes sense for a shopping mall to have an anchor… but a downtown?
[i]If I have to drive downtown to purchase plywood, I will need to park my big truck close to the plywood. [/i]
I have never had difficulty parking at Hibbert.
[i]the lack of viable peripheral alternatives causes the downtown property owners to inflate lease payments.
[/i]
I believe the lease rates at the South Davis shopping center are higher than downtown.
[i]…certain types of retail like hardware and lumber should be relocated… I think it is time for a new vision that redefines what we want as anchors for our downtown.[/i]
I am really surprised to hear you saying this. Seems to me that is the property owners’ decision, [i]n’est pas[/i]?
[i]I am really surprised to hear you saying this. Seems to me that is the property owners’ decision[/i]
Nice try Don. I am not talking rent control, I am talking allowing more peripheral development (you know, that free market view that property owners have freedom to develop their property as they see fit). It would still be the property owners’ decision for what rent to charge, but if Watermelon Music, for example, had options, the landlord might make a decision to lower the rent to retain his tenant. It is that easy to understand supply and demand principle.
[i]”I have never had difficulty parking at Hibbert”[/i]
If you can manage to find a time to shop there when it is actually open!
I agree that the parking situation is better there mostly because their lot is not located next to other shopping destinations. In this respect, they are kind of on the periphery of the downtown and meet my criteria for easier parking. However, getting there still means traversing the downtown roads… and with the 5th street road diet plan, it will likely become even less convenient.
Peripheral development kills downtowns. That is simple and provable, as I’ve said before, by visiting any of our neighboring cities. Peripheral development is the definition of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is poor planning. Davis has a strong planning principle of preserving the downtown and the carefully managed neighborhood shopping centers in balance with each other. Peripheral developments such as you have in Woodland, Vacaville, Dixon distort that planning process. That is what was wrong with Second Street Crossing (Target) and what is wrong with the way every city locally has grown except Davis.
Davis Ace is a strong downtown draw. Losing it would be a serious blow to the business health of the downtown. That isn’t to say that part of it couldn’t be redeveloped. But part of what makes Davis downtown unique is that it isn’t all boutique stores.
Don, see here:
[url]http://www.historicfolsom.org/[/url]
The Folsom downtown is doing fine with more peripheral shopping choices than God probably has.
Don is spot on with his comments regarding peripheral development and downtowns. JB, I don’t think many in the community would support Vacaville or Folsom sprawl. I do not support coddling DT businesses, but a community must re-invest in it’s downtown if it wishes to foster a vibrant downtown. This is true of any investment! What would your house look like if you didn’t reinvest in it periodically?
Over the previous 20 years there has been much, much more commercial investment in the periphery than in the Downtown. There is now an obvious imbalance in the retail and office sectors. The trend is getting worse, not better. JB, your comment about decay in the Downtown is incorrect. Signs of decay have been cited in numerous studies and reports. The vast majority of the commercial Downtown properties do not meet current functional standards (ADA access being the primary problem). Downtown 2nd floor office space is generally inferior.
JB, Rebranding Downtown as “Oldtown Davis” is a horrible idea. Where are the handsome, historic buildings to support such a vision? No, the path to success for Downtown is to brand itself as a vibrant, mixed-use, innovation district where people want to live, work, and play in a safe, urban environment.
JB, the DDBA has been advocating non-stop for well over a year to create an E Street Promenade between 1st and 3rd. The 3/4/E/F Retail & Parking Project is part of that vision. After initially agreeing to pursue/investigate both projects, the Council in the fall has completely dropped the ball on the Promenade, with Greenwald railing against it, and now Council members are flip flopping on 3/4/E/F. It’s pathetic.
JB, your comments about Downtown vs. peripheral retail rent is way off the mark. The retail rents in every neighborhood shopping center (appart from the ones in decay) are higher than Downtown retail rents.
Don, the problem with your vision of downtown as the shopping Mecca for Davis is traffic and parking. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, then what do you propose as a vision for the downtown going forward.
Also, I think we are missing some opportunities to improve the overall big picture for Davis retail being stuck in a “protect downtown” static loop. This view is extreme in its lack of dynamism. The downtown could stand copious redevelopment, but without enough business churn from greater competition of location, the property owners don’t have any motivation to do so. Our downtown is old and boring compared to the financial means of the average Davis citizen. The lack of upper-quality sit down restaurants is a glaring evidence of this.
When you spend so much time and effort protecting what is, you get what is and not what it can be.
Jeff: thank you for the link.
Folsom population: 52000
Downtown Folsom:
41 specialty stores
26 food and spirits
I won’t even bother with the stats for Davis, since they are so much higher in all categories.
[i]stuck in a “protect downtown” static loop.[/i]
It is not a ‘protect downtown’ policy. It is to preserve [i]downtown and accessible neighborhood[/i] shopping. Preserving the neighborhood shopping centers and the small commercial districts is equally as important as preserving the downtown shopping, and some of the neighborhood centers are in much more precarious condition.
DT Businessman, I appreciate your opinions on this. However, see below…
[i]”Don is spot on with his comments regarding peripheral development and downtowns. JB, I don’t think many in the community would support Vacaville or Folsom sprawl. I do not support coddling DT businesses, but a community must re-invest in it’s downtown if it wishes to foster a vibrant downtown. This is true of any investment! What would your house look like if you didn’t reinvest in it periodically?”[/i]
First, I have to ask… are you Don? Seriously though, you make my point. You do not foster investment without a level of business churn. Remember our dear Governor has done away with RDA. We have to rely more on private investors for the improvements. There is a lack of viable commercial retail properties in this town relative to its size and resident income levels. If I am a property owner, why invest in redevelopment when the rents keep coming.
[i]”Over the previous 20 years there has been much, much more commercial investment in the periphery than in the Downtown. There is now an obvious imbalance in the retail and office sectors. The trend is getting worse, not better. JB, your comment about decay in the Downtown is incorrect. Signs of decay have been cited in numerous studies and reports. The vast majority of the commercial Downtown properties do not meet current functional standards (ADA access being the primary problem). Downtown 2nd floor office space is generally inferior.”[/i]
You seem to contradict yourself here. You say I am wrong about the downtown looking shabby, and then you go on to give examples of shabbiness. Which is it?
[i]”JB, Rebranding Downtown as “Oldtown Davis” is a horrible idea. Where are the handsome, historic buildings to support such a vision? No, the path to success for Downtown is to brand itself as a vibrant, mixed-use, innovation district where people want to live, work, and play in a safe, urban environment.”[/i]
How long do you think Davis can prevent peripheral shopping? What population level would we need to reach before the downtown real estate options can no longer serve the population well enough? I think we are well past that point, you do not. So, what if we are a population of 90,000 or 100,000… or what about 125,000… will you still think Davis’s downtown should still be the center of our shopping world?
[i]”JB, the DDBA has been advocating non-stop for well over a year to create an E Street Promenade between 1st and 3rd. The 3/4/E/F Retail & Parking Project is part of that vision. After initially agreeing to pursue/investigate both projects, the Council in the fall has completely dropped the ball on the Promenade, with Greenwald railing against it, and now Council members are flip flopping on 3/4/E/F. It’s pathetic.”[/i]
I support this because I support the downtown becoming more pedestrian and bike friendly. However, you and others seem to gloss over the conflict of attracting every damn car in Davis downtown because it is the only destination in Davis for residents to purchase products. I think this is the same problem the Council is dealing with… it is a simple conflict of interest… wanting to have cake and eat it too.
[i]”JB, your comments about Downtown vs. peripheral retail rent is way off the mark. The retail rents in every neighborhood shopping center (appart from the ones in decay) are higher than Downtown retail rents”[/i]
Most commercial retail rents are too high in my opinion because of a lack of supply. There are a lot of shabby properties downtown… and they still manage to rent.
You and other DT merchants need to start paying more attention to the shopping habits of local residence. You might be protecting the status quo at your own economic peril. I spend a lot of money outside of Davis because of the lack of convenience, selection and price (in that order). I think many do the same. My company holds meetings in Sacramento where we can find quality meeting, lodging and dining facilities. If Davis wants to hold on to the small shabby village look, then so be it… but then don’t whine when your business starts to suffer from outside competition.
[i]Remember our dear Governor has done away with RDA.[/i]
When did that happen? I must have missed that.
[i] How long do you think Davis can prevent peripheral shopping?[/i]
For as long as the voters choose to uphold the community consensus-driven general plan limiting store sizes and locations.
[i]So, what if we are a population of 90,000 or 100,000… or what about 125,000[/i]
That level of growth is not inevitable. But if new neighborhoods develop, new neighborhood shopping centers can be planned to serve them. Of course, if developers drive the planning process, it will happen the other way around, or in some chaotic sprawl-inducing manner. Exactly what has happened in every other city nearby.
[i]If Davis wants to hold on to the small shabby village look, then so be it[/i]
Davis does not have a small shabby village look.
Again I agree with Don. Creating a vibrant downtown with vibrant nwighborhood shopping centers has been the blueprint for decades. It is a sound blueprint for fostering a sustainable community. Unfortunately, the City Council allows other priorities to sometimes undermine the blueprint.
I think the neighborhood shopping center that are struggling are unfortunately owned by landlords that have not sufficiently reinvested in their properties. That’s not to say the Council hasn’t made decisions that have exacerbated the problems. Westlake is a separate case. It was a planning blunder. That said, each of these properties have significant turnaround potential. Indeed, some of these landlord are beginning to make smarter, braver decisions.
JB, Downtown has a vision, the DDBA’s Downtown Framework, which is essentially a condensed version of the CASP. And the first steps to achieving the CASP are the DDBA’s Downtown Priority Action Items (incl. the 3/4/E/F Retail & Parking Project). Unfortunatel, we have so many resident experts in the community on downtown redevelopment that every effort at implementing the Action Items is undermined.
JB, I have no idea where you are getting your DDBA ideas, obviously not from our position papers, presentations, and public comments these past 2 years. You are correct that there is a lack of viable retail properties. Your answer is to sprawl, I’m advocating for redevelopment in the Downtown and in the struggling neighborhood shopping center. The DDBA’s Five Downtown Priority Action Items attacks this issues head on. These five items are intended to spur private investment. It is incredibly aggravating that these efforts are being completely undermined by stakeholders with extremely narrow interests.
I have stated previously that I am not a DT merchant. The DDBA is advocating change and is encountering resistance from all the reactionaries, and you, JB, accuse the DDBA of protecting the status quo. I feel like I’m in a Twilight Zone episode.
“I support this because I support the downtown becoming more pedestrian and bike friendly. However, you and others seem to gloss over the conflict of attracting every damn car in Davis downtown because it is the only destination in Davis for residents to purchase products. I think this is the same problem the Council is dealing with… it is a simple conflict of interest… wanting to have cake and eat it too.”
I have lived in numerous European cities for extended periods. These communities seem to manage. They do it by means of underground and above ground parking structures, shared roads, promenades, ring roads, etc. Unfortunately, every holistic proposal is subjected to knee-jerk, vitriolic attack without delving into the substance (see 3/4/E/F and E Street Promenade).
[i]My company holds meetings in Sacramento where we can find quality meeting, lodging and dining facilities[/i]
You are aware that these are available in Davis?
[i]I spend a lot of money outside of Davis because of the lack of convenience, selection and price (in that order). I think many do the same.[/i]
You choose to do that. The only thing that would keep you here would be a peripheral box store, based on what you have said. If in fact you are driving to Woodland for nuts and bolts when they are readily available at two stores locally, clearly you have a preference for big-box retailers. Developing a peripheral box store for [i]your[/i] shopping preferences would severely harm many existing businesses that [i]others[/i] choose to shop at. Most retailers can’t survive the 30 – 50% loss of business that accompanies the opening of a big-box retailer.
The inevitable progression of peripheral development is the steady erosion of downtown and neighborhood retail, eventually leading to a redevelopment process. Ultimately there are always fewer retailers than there were before. What prevents that is careful neighborhood-oriented development, store size limits, and considerable public participation in the planning process. That is the strength of the Davis planning process. The metric we can use to measure its success is the much larger number of retailers, of varied types, in proportion to the population than you have in the downtowns of Woodland, Vacaville, Dixon, and Fairfield. A small, pretty olde-town look doesn’t hide the fact that Folsom killed its core by means of developer-driven growth.
JB, I fail to see where I contradicted myself regarding Downtown decay in my previous comments. You stated there “was no risk of Downtown decay”. I said your comment was incorrect because signs were already evident.
DTBM: Can you recommend where I should go to educate myself on the DDBA’s Five Priority Action Items? I admit to being ignorant about the specifics. I am in support of the 3/4/E/F project, but possibly not for all the same reasons you are or the rest of the DDBA subscribe to. I don’t see Davis working as a little European city mostly because we are not little Europeans and because their cities are struggling under the weight of too little tax revenue to support their 30-hour workweek retire at age 50 lifestyle.
Other than European cities, can you name any other cities in CA that are a good model for your vision of Davis retail?
Note the following related to Folsom:
[b]Folsom[/b]
Residents: 64,394
Median household income: $92,642
[b]Davis[/b]
Residents: 65,622
Median household income: $94,795
DDBA web site: [url]http://www.davisdowntown.com/news/ddba-downtown-improvement-action-items-adopted-by-city-council-at-sept-7-meeting[/url]
Vanguard: [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3667:five-davis-priority-improvement-goals-for-the-downtown&Itemid=86[/url]
[i]”JB, I fail to see where I contradicted myself regarding Downtown decay in my previous comments. You stated there “was no risk of Downtown decay”. I said your comment was incorrect because signs were already evident.”[/i]
Whoops… you are correct. I need to clarify. What I meant and didn’t say very well is that I think the general economic viability of the downtown is not at risk of decay and there will be enough continued demand for properties to prevent vacant blighted properties. It is not like Dixon with a downtown on the margins prior to an uncontrolled spurt of peripheral development. Davis’s downtown can absorb some big box stores and larger peripheral shopping malls. It is over protected with too large a mission for what it can deliver.
I think the downtown is a bit shabby. Walk down F street between 2nd and 4th and it is not much different than 30 years ago except for newer “Shuz” building on the corner of 2nd and F across from Subway. The streets are not so inviting to walk down. There is a lot of missed opportunity for improvement. Maybe I can get behind what the DDBA is proposing.
Again, Don is spot on in his comments posted at 4:03PM.
JB, I should have said that I admire many aspects of a number of NORTHERN European communities. Your comments regarding European cities does not correlate with my experience living in these communities. That said, we should develop our own model. We have an asset that they do not have, UC Davis.
I have lived in only a few CA cities, and they weren’t worth emulating. I do not subscribe to the CA model which, in general, is to generate economic growth via dramatic urban sprawl. This is not sustainable.
DTBM, I remain skeptical that Davis can carve out this unique CA-foreign profile without too significant financial pain. If you cannot find another example in CA, or for the US for that matter, I would worry that we are chasing a vision that is too extreme (and possible a bit elitist). I am open-minded though, so I will dive in a bit more to the details and the the basis for what is being proposed and will be quick to throw in support if I think it makes sense.
One positive aspect of Davis’s limited shopping choices compared to my brother’s family in Folsom… we seem to be less consumer-driven. Their home is more decorated and refreshed on a regular basis. Their kids wear more expensive clothing. They drive newer cars. They eat out more often. Our housing costs are about the same because we live in a smaller house that we have lived in about twice as long (22 years). Note that our our income levels are about the same. So, in this respect the DDBA is forcing me to be more European.
[i]”Folsom killed its core by means of developer-driven growth.”[/i]
So, Don… who/what did this hurt? I don’t hear Folsom residents complaining about it. Do we support the schools at the expense of the children? Do we support the DDBA at the expense of the consuming population? Who gains and who loses in this vision of all-or-nothing downtown shopping you support?
I drive to Home Depot because:
1 – It takes me less time than it would going to Ace and Hibbert.
2 – Home Depot is open earlier and later and on Sundays (THIS IS A BIG DEAL!)
3 – It carries all the products that I need, Ace and Hibbert are too small and cannot stock enough and I have to special order things.
4 – The employees at Home Depot are no less knowledgeable than they are at Ace… although Hibbert’s employees are generally more knowledgeable than both.
5 – Home Depot prices for building supplies are less expensive.
I suppose I could just tax myself more in time and money to keep my hardware and lumber shopping dollars in Davis… but then wouldn’t that just be like giving charity to local merchants? Who really benefits from this?
“So, in this respect the DDBA is forcing me to be more European.”
JB, I have no idea where you are getting these notions about DDBA positions. You are ascribing positions to the DDBA that are polar opposite of our actual position. We are proposing, advocating, pleading with the City Council to implement policies and invest RDA funds that will create more retail diversity and opportunities, not less. It is extremely frustrating to advocate, advocate, and advocate for something, be denied, and then be told that you were advocating for the opposite. You should be railing against the Council, not the DDBA. The Council are the ones chasing developers away by being unreliable partners. The Council are the ones refusing to change policies inhibiting redevelopment. The Council are the ones piling on redevelopment costs. The Council are the ones that limit RDA investment in Downtown infrastructure that’ll spur private sector investment. The Council are the ones that want to control each and every project instead of setting parameters. The Council are the ones refusing to implement policies that provide clarity in the development process instead of the subjective process that we currently have in place. Geez, where do you get your information?
As for Home Depot being a better place to shop, go for it. That’s an individual shopping decision. While your at it, ask Home Depot to raise funds to plug the school budget gap. And ask them to support parks and recs. And ask them to do all the other things that foster a sustainable community. When you shop local, you are supporting the family that lives next door to you, and that family is also supporting you.
DTB:
You make some compelling points in the first paragraph, but then lose me again in the second one. You can’t have it both ways: either you are supportive of a development plan that covers the shopping needs of the average person, or you expect the average person to model their shopping behavior to suit the development plan you support. You are attempting to plug me with guilt because I travel to a store that acutually carries what I need, is open the hours I need to shop, has adequate parking to prevent me from having to circle the block or park far away, and saves me time and money.
My family has a little vacation home in Chester CA with a sign on the wall that says “It’s Chester Time”. We use that saying because you cannot always plan for when a store will be open or a service provider will be available. The fish are biting when the fish are biting. Since the nearest shopping town is Susanville and a good 35-40 minutes away, most put up with it and just chalk it up to small town living. Davis however is not a small town and there are alternatives available just down the road. Trust me, I am not the only Davisite shopping at Home Depot and Costco… I’m just one that admits it.
I would like to see our tax dollars stay in town… not by assigning shopping guilt, but by an economic development plan that provides adequate shopping convenience, selection, price and service. The downtown is too small and too congested to cover all this. I think too that the neighborhood shopping center concept is a bust. I thought Westlake market would thrive, but I was wrong and Rifkin and Dunning were correct.
Now having ranted about all this, I completely support the policies to invest RDA funds that will attract private investment and create more retail diversity and opportunities.
Davis Ace: Open Weekdays 7am-8pm; Sat 7am-6pm; Sun 9am-6pm
Home Depot: Mon-Sat: 6:00am-9:00pm Sun: 7:00am-8:00pm
Apparently you have very particular shopping hour requirements. Both stores have ample parking. I seriously doubt that Davis Ace fails to have what you want. You just prefer big box shopping. Go for it, but quit denigrating the locally-owned stores.
[i] Who gains and who loses in this vision of all-or-nothing downtown shopping you support? [/i]
Again, and again and again, I have not described “all-or-nothing downtown shopping.” You repeatedly distort my positions on this blog, Jeff, on topic after topic. I know there is not a hope of my persuading you of the serious harm that big box retail does to communities, the retail sector, and ultimately to consumer choice. So I won’t bother. The evidence is out there if you choose to pursue it.
“You are attempting to plug me with guilt…” JB, I made no such attempt. I simply pointed out that there are many pros and cons to shopping local vs. out-of-town. I did not make any judgements.
“I thought Westlake market would thrive…” JB, there was every reason to believe that it wouldn’t thrive. There was a consultant’s report that said it wouldn’t thrive. Past history indicated it wouldn’t thrive. Simple observations of traffic patterns indicated it wouldn’t thrive. As I stated previously, the Westlake market thing had everything to do with politics and very little to do with business. That said, the Westlake neighborhood shopping center has the potential to thrive, but smart, strategic decisions need to be made. I don’t think the current landlords are capable of such decisions.
Don: First, you confirmed what I wrote that Ace does is not open as early or as late. The home center building has even more restricted hours. Also, Ace does not carry but a fraction of the lumber and building supplies needed. Hibbert’s hours are Mon-Fri 7am-6pm. Saturday 8am-5pm. They are closed Sunday. I am not denigrating the stores. They are what they are… and that is too small to carry enough products and they are not open enough days and hours to cover the needs of many residents. And no, there is not enough parking at Ace. Much of the time on the weekend I have to park my truck a block or more away. That isn’t convenient when purchasing things I need to haul.
Don, you still have not answered my question about who is harmed in Folsom. I am very interested in hearing from you and others that are so adamant for continuing to focus most of our retail development effort on the downtown. And you know that the small neighborhood shopping centers are a component of that because it limits competition for downtown merchants since it limits the types of retail that require more Sq. Ft. for their business model.
I am really down on the residential shopping center mall concept. Vacancy rates are very high and have been for the last three years. The follow graph does not show the breakout for neighborhood shopping centers, but that decline is steeper and higher.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/malls.jpg[/img]
Here is the definition of the different scale of shopping centers from the CA Board of Equalization:
[quote][b]NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTERS[/b]
This class sells daily needs such as foods, drugs, sundries, and personal services. It has from 10 to 15 stores and will be supported by approximately 5,000 to 30,000 residents. It will be developed on 3 to 5 acres of land, and the most prominent store will be the grocery market.
[b]COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTERS[/b]
This class will sell apparel, hardware, and equipment in addition to the everyday needs of the shoppers. It will include 20 to 40 stores, will be supported by 30,000 to 130,000 people, and will require 10 to 30 acres of land. The most prominent store will be a junior department store.[/quote]
I think we need one or two community shopping centers on the periphery like what Woodland developed on Poleline and I-5. If Davis were an island we might win the battle against the big box shopping center format, but other than causeway traffic, there is nothing preventing Davis residents from driving a few miles to shop at these places… and they do. Gas at $8/gallon might also help, but that is decades away and by then we will have cars using other more cost-effective fuel.
However, irrespective of the big box battle, bricks and mortar stores are not going to stop the advance of Internet sales. Last Christmas (the biggest season for retail) 12% of all retail was done over the Internet. The trends show a steep increase. Most cell phones now have Web access. Amazon.com has a “one-click” feature where the product will show up your doorstep 1-2 days after you push a button. Small bricks and mortar stores selling everyday products cannot win this battle. If you disagree, I think you might have your head in the sand.
The downtown economic development vision/strategy/plan should be to migrate toward boutique, entertainment, consumables and service business… because these don’t compete with big box and Internet retail.
JB, what you have described is precisely the DDBA’s downtown economic development vision/strategy/plan. However, this CC has not supported it one whit. That being said, Ace, Hibberts, and the Co-Op are great downtown businesses, which I fully support. I will support them as long as they care to compete against the chains. Furthermore, downtown San Diego has a large Ace in the ground floor of a new multi-use building. It looks awesome. What do you make of that?
DT (that is my final abbreviation of your moniker!):
I’m glad to hear that we may have come full circle and now confirmed that we are mostly on the same page. I have agreed with just about everything you have posted on various topics, so it makes sense that we are not too far apart on this. I think there might be a bit of air between my view and the current development appetite of the DDBA, but the more I read the closer they seem.
The San Diego Ace sounds interesting. I like the idea of hardware and housewares downtown. Chico has one like that and their downtown is vibrant. Of course Chico has Home Depot and Lowes too. My issue seems to be building supplies. I assume the San Diego Ace does not include a lumber and rock yard.