Few Sparks But Some Pointed Questions From the Chamber –
In what figured to be an atypical format stocked with soccer-style color coded cards, rebuttal cards, and a tightly-managed clock, the Davis Chamber of Commerce largely pulled these changes without incident. For the most part, the council candidate answers were thoughtful, there were few sparks, and there were few heated words.
Round One
The first question, directed toward Lucas Frerichs, asked him, given that city staff pensions are unsustainable and that we cannot afford to wait for the state to enact budget reform, “How do you propose to reform our budget this year?”
Lucas Frerichs: He responded that he is not sure that he said that we can’t afford to wait for state pension reform. He said he is a state employee who will have a pension when he retires. “There’s going to be pension reform coming from the state level,” he said. “In terms of the city budget, there needs to be a comprehensive, top to bottom, bottom to top, however you want to start, line-by-line look at the city’s budget and prioritization of where we want to spend our dollars, precious sales tax dollars where we fund city programs and there are a lot of ways to be more efficient.” He mentioned a line item for interns and suggested that while this is not a huge expenditure, “it is a symptom of a larger issue” where you could go through the entire budget to find inefficiencies.
Brett Lee: He agrees with going through the city’s budget. “Specifically regarding pension reform, I think the city needs to negotiate with the unions and have the union members pay a portion of their pension costs and they also need to require that employees pay a portion of their health benefit costs.” He added, “That’s one approach I would take to reduce our unfunded liabilities in that area.”
The second question went to Stephen Souza: “The City of Davis often lacks priorities, which leads to gridlock and inaction,” various plans call for “mixed-use densification in the core and near transportation nodes to reduce our community’s carbon footprint, however neighborhood groups and historical resource advocates often site design guidelines for traditional neighborhoods as a reason to deny, delay, or change most infill efforts…” The preface then cited a November 2008 vote in which Mr. Souza abstained on a specific project which was “infill redevelopment with cutting edge green buildings…” Question: “How do you explain these conflicting priorities and your inaction that night?”
Stephen Souza: “The visioning process that took place for Third and B was about a two-year process working with the community and the neighbors in the area. A specific set of guidelines for design and development were put in place for that entire area. All of the owners of properties within that area were quite aware of those guidelines.” He then cited an example of a project that he approved that came forward that met all of those guidelines. “[The owner in this case] wanted be very creative, and I give kudos for doing that. She came up with a specific design that incorporated all of the design components except for a new characteristic – it was a green roof. A green roof was one that took away from the character that we were seeking project for the entire area.” He argues that in order to get a new project, “I think you have to honor the process that was put in place by the community and the neighbors and I think you can meet those in a way that allows for creativity at the same time that takes the process and streamlines it so that the project can be developed.”
Sue Greenwald: “I would go a little further than Steve actually – I think we have a vision issue here. Personally, I think we should preserve the character of our small historic core area. I believe in infill and densification, but I think it belongs in the major under-used parcels when they become available, like the PG&E site which is bigger than the entire commercial core, and the Nishi property which is twice the size of the entire commercial core.” She added, “What we have in downtown is a very precious gem; I think it serves the business community because the character is what brings people to the downtown, it’s what brings the visitors, it’s what makes us different than anywhere USA…”
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
Lucas Frerichs: He said that he originally applied for the Planning Commission because he had been an applicant in front of the planning commission. “We do a lot of talking in this community about not having sprawl on the periphery, which is a good thing but we also talk a lot about having infill and we don’t do a lot of infill in this town.” He said that he built an infill project where he lives.
The third question was directed toward Brett Lee, stating, “You have stated that you are against peripheral growth except for senior housing and innovation hubs for new job growth…” Question: “Including specific peripheral properties, can you please focus your stance on peripheral growth?”
Brett Lee: “I get a little tired of people saying that they are for smart growth…it’s sort of a throwaway statement.” He continued, “I am against peripheral growth. I think Davis as a community benefits from a compact footprint. However, if there are community needs that are unmet, that could be served by a project that is on the periphery, then I would be willing to listen to those ideas.” Moreover he cited, “Specifically I do believe we have a shortage of senior housing options.” He said that if a project came forward to address this specific community need, “I would be quite willing to listen to them.” However, he said he is not “willing to have that carrot packaged with a bunch of sort of cookie-cutter housing for just the general population.” He cited a need for more housing for seniors. “I believe the ConAgra site would be a good site for a business park of some nature. I don’t believe the current ConAgra proposal which is about 80% residential and twenty percent mixed-use is the correct use of that property.” He added, “I think we can do much better as a community by making use of that property as a revenue generating property and a property that creates jobs in our community.”
Stephen Souza: He said that two needs were spoken of in the community, one innovation when it comes to business development. He speaks to Nishi, “An innovation incubator hub with student housing in conjunction with the university redeveloping Solano Park would be a great addition not only to the community but to the downtown. It is a piece of property that isn’t in the city, so it would require a Measure R vote.” He also mentioned that this is a “very aging” community, “the demographics show us that my age group – 55 or older – is on the rise in this community and there are specific needs not only for the young families in our community but the seniors within my age group.” He added: “If we don’t do something to fill these needs, we are going to see a community become older and older and the schools have fewer and fewer children in them.”
Sue Greenwald: “Eventually all cities reach maturity. All cities do stop growing eventually… It might be at some point where the citizens have made the decision. That’s called a mature community.” She added: “The Nishi, I agree, would be a very good site but it has huge hurdles. The infrastructure would be phenomenally expensive – we need to be able to exit out the far western edge – it’s wedged between the freeway and railroad tracks.” She said that on the ConAgra site, she personally took the lead “to re-zone that to neighborhood compatible high-tech businesses and I was very disappointed when the council majority started to re-zone it…a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. Nishi is a wonderful site but the infrastructure costs are far less [bell rings].”
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
Fourth question to Sue Greenwald, siting three of her stated goals for the downtown, “None of these proposals seem to be consistent with the general plan, the core area specific plan, or the climate action plan, notwithstanding the PG&E site which PG&E is not currently interested in developing. Can you please explain your position regarding downtown?”
Sue Greenwald: “First of all, I never said rent control downtown, I don’t know where that idea came from.” She continued, “In terms of the core area specific plan, it’s a general document, it could be interpreted in many different ways… I’m not against all redevelopment, I voted for a number of projects.” She said, “I think we have to be very selective – I could see larger projects against the railroad tracks, but I think we ought to be very careful …” She cited Vancouver as an example of an innovative community where they kept the commercial core at one or two stories, arguing that keeps rents low enough to allow merchants to do business. “I do believe in infill, I believe in pretty significant infill.” However, she prefers it in the area in walking distance to downtown rather than right over retail.
Brett Lee: “I differ a little bit from what Sue has said. I believe we should not try to micromanage what businesses locate downtown.” He added, “I believe the downtown, our core area, the height restrictions should be relaxed in a planned thoughtful way.” He believes that the downtown should grow with mixed-use and retails possibilities.
Stephen Souza: “We need greater business expansion and retention in the downtown. We need a promenade. We need to expand the E Street Plaza that is a great gathering and open space area for the community to have concerts and gatherings and wonderful entertainment. We need an open mixed-use parking structure. And we need greater infill, creating greater synergy within the downtown than we already have.”
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
For the fifth question, Dan Wolk was asked point blank about his vote on Davis Diamonds and the need for sales tax in Davis.
Dan Wolk: “When I think about my priorities as a councilmember, programmings affecting children are high on my list and that’s especially true of gymnastics,” he said citing his daughter and wife. “I certainly understand that auto sales bring vital city dollars. I understand that this area is literally zoned auto center, but at the same time there are a lot of things to consider.” He noted that the site has been vacant for years, and the current lessee contacted many dealers and tried to solicit them and he got no one to bite. “Davis Diamonds,” he argued, “tried to find alternative sites… but they had been unsuccessful which would be devastating for our community particularly in the aftermath of losing Alpha Moon.” He also cited “a high probability of Davis Diamonds leaving our community.” He concluded, “One has to ask if it’s a good thing that our community is so disproportionately reliant on auto sales for its revenues which is deeply ironic for our city when you really think about it.”
Lucas Frerichs: He pointed out all three sitting councilmembers had voted to allow Davis Diamonds to move to the auto mall. “Davis Diamonds is a total community jewel, there’s no question about it. But I do think there are other options and other viable options for them.” He added that had city staff been more engaged early in the process there might have been a real opportunity for Davis Diamonds “to have a win-win solution.” “Putting a kid-oriented business in the middle of an automall is not appropriate in my mind,” he said, and added that “cities rely on sales tax dollars,” noting that the loss of Borders was another sales tax generator.
ROUND TWO
They kept the same order in each of the rounds, so Lucas Frerichs got the first question of the second round and was asked if we needed to reduce the number of city commissions, given the fact that there are twenty and they are too narrowly focused and there is too much staff time, perhaps, devoted to them.
Lucas Frerichs: “The problem is, once you create all of these it’s very hard to collapse them or try to merge them. People are very committed in this community to be engaged and serving their committee on various city commissions.” He made a few suggestions for specific mergers. One suggestion was the merger of historical management with the Planning Commission.
The second question of the second round went to Stephen Souza on the Woodland-Davis Clean Water agency: “The chamber of commerce supports the project, however given the response, the process to determine new water rates was clearly flawed.” He was asked for his current perspective and approach on the water rates. “Not the water project, the water rates.”
Stephen Souza: He responded that after the September vote, they set up a water-advisory committee, and that committee is reviewing a rate study that will be put out to a consultant and be brought back to them. He argued they will look at every means to set rates that will be “fair and equitable.” He said they’ll look at the number of tiers we have, the number of categories that we have, “that will seek to make a more equitable arrangement for our community.” He added, and got flagged with a yellow card, “We have to be cognizant of something that has been very clear to me and all of those who have studied this issue over nearly 23 years, and that is we can no longer rely upon our ground water, which we have had for 100 years as our sole source of water.” He argued if we don’t, we will have inherent problems in our community that will cost us even more. The rate structure then would be far greater than what we had in September.
Brett Lee: “What’s interesting about the water project and the water rates is if any community member dared to question any of the assumptions, they were sort of dismissed. Oh we’ve been doing this for 23 years, we’ve studied this. We know this inside and out. Yet, what’s interesting is this city council, due to the fact that there’s a referendum which, against their wishes undid their water rate increases, resulted in the water advisory committee.” He continued, “My guess is those folks will come back with a superior plan for the city in terms of surface water, and specifically in terms of rates. Those rates will be more affordable for the average citizen and more affordable for the businesses. This is [being] done in spite of what the city council did. It took an act of a few committed individuals working to support a referendum.”
Sue Greenwald: “Kemble, you made an assertion that businesses are paying a disproportionate amount of water rates, we do not know this. I just want to point out to everybody… that it’s a zero sum game here, if we decrease rates for business, we’ll be increasing them for home owners. We cannot promise homeowners, residents, and business lower rates…”
Next was Brett Lee, who was asked about the city budget situation that was unsustainable due to retirement benefits, and he was asked, “What experience do you have with labor negotiations and what specific bargaining tools would you instruct the council’s negotiator to use in order to achieve your goals?”
Brett Lee: He responded that he had no direct experience in dealing with union contract negotiations. “I have experience working in a union environment” where he was required to reduce staffing costs and utilize staffing studies. “I have a general sense for the task before us,” he said. “I think the essential thing is for us as a city to determine what we can afford and what we can’t afford. From that we develop what our goals are for the negotiation process. This doesn’t have to be an employee bashing exercise – really, it seems that the solutions are quite straightforward.” He suggested having employees pay slightly more in contributions to their retirement fund and employee health care benefits. He wishes to “maintain the total headcount of the employees” because he believes “the employees serve a vital function for our city. My goal would not be to reduce services.” He said, “We are basically in an economic crisis – I think it’s fair to ask the employees to step up and have a little bit of shared sacrifice along with the community members.”
Kemble Pope followed up, suggesting he heard “mostly about the stick, are there any carrots you would use as a labor negotiating tool?”
Brett Lee responded, “Sorry, you heard only stick? I thought that was carrot. [laughs]…That’s funny how we see the glass half empty/half full.” He continued, “That was me being diplomatic and nice saying basically all the employees can be assured they’ll maintain their jobs in the city provided they make a modest contribution towards their pension costs. The stick would be if… [bell rings].”
Lucas Frerichs: “A carrot is just an orange stick,” he said, joking. He referred to the governor’s pensions reform plan, arguing, “There are a number of items I think that ultimately will be adopted that are going to come from the state down to the local levels affecting all cities,” he said. “Equal sharing of pension costs, that is something that is going to end up happening ultimately… Increasing the retirement ages for new employees…Stopping the spiking of final year compensation [bell].”
The next question was for Sue Greenwald, considereing that Davis has many proud business that are able to give back to the community only if they remain profitable, “Do you believe that profit is a four letter word or somehow inconsistent with the Davis way of life?”
Sue Greenwald: “No.”
Kemble Pope: “Do you believe that certain enterprises or businesses in this town that do earn a large profit should somehow be treated differently than other businesses or organizations?”
Sue Greenwald: “Only in so much as we grant the value to them, as in development rights. To the extent we take cheap ag land and turn it into houses by a stroke of the pen, yes I think the public should share in the profit to the extent that the law allows, because we have created that value.” She suggested both the use of development agreements and a competitive process as ways to accomplish this.
Kemble Pope: “I think all too often in this community there is a notion that we should villainize those who make profits…”
Sue Greenwald: “I’ve certainly never made any negative statements about any person or villainized any person. I’m concerned about how the public can get their fair share of added value that the public creates.”
The final question of the second round went to Dan Wolk, and it cited recent statements that improving downtown parking and capacity were part of his visions for the downtown, and then asked him about a decision not to second a motion on the current parking proposal and 3rd and 4th and E and F Streets in Davis, “Please explain this disconnect and lack of action.”
Dan Wolk: “Let’s be clear about what the council actually did and what I ended up voting for,” he responded. “I ensured that the parking garage is certainly kept on the table. It has just been simply subsumed within a larger discussion about parking in the downtown.” He believes even the developer would agree that tabling it was the best course of action at that time. He said, “There is no bigger issue on the minds of the downtown retailers that I speak with on a regular basis or on the [minds of] customers who go downtown than parking.” He added, “I absolutely understand that there is a need for more parking. There’s just a lot of issues with that parking garage – a lot of issues with its footprint, a lot of issues with its location, that it wasn’t part of a larger project, and issues with redevelopment funding” and the fact that redevelopment has been pulled. “While there are a lot of issues with that project, the idea of improving, as well as reconfiguring, parking in the downtown is an absolutely worthy one. To become the downtown that we want to be, to provide more housing downtown, to improve streetscapes and plazas… parking needs to be part of that equation.”
ROUND THREE
Once again Lucas Frerichs went first, addressing a question on Davis Commons and his criticism of Whole Foods moving into Davis Commons The question was: “There is talk of limiting restaurants downtown… do you believe that city council and staff should micromanage proposed business locations?”
Lucas Frerichs: “No, I certainly don’t believe that the city council or staff should micromanage proposed business locations, but I think specifically regarding Whole Foods, we had a business, Borders, which was a very large single sales tax contributor to the city of Davis,” he said. “We had that entity leave and…I think the city council could have been more bold and/or aggressive in conversations with…the owner of the shopping center…in trying to get a retailer there that would actually generate a lot of sales tax.”
Stephen Souza was asked about two Chamber-supported changes to the council to open up the process – a “10 day rule for good governance” and “the normal time rule,” which would limit council meetings to twice a month with an 11 pm adjournment. He was asked, “You have stated that these changes are not possible, please explain your position.”
Stephen Souza: He responded that meeting every two weeks means only 13 days between meetings, which allow only a short amount of time for staff to put together proposals for council to consider. “I absolutely believe we need to have a longer timeframe, I think a realistic time frame is closer to five to seven days,” he said. “That’s been done in the past. It’s being done right now.” He said he’s been against the idea of meeting every two weeks for a while – “because what occurs is you have long meetings. You take a lot of agenda items and you have to stick them on one night….That creates a circumstance where the meetings end up going longer.” He noted that the council has not even completed a lot of the agenda “because many of the items are issues that have are well known to the community, that the community wants to speak to.” He said that the council could ask most of their questions in advance, that’s what he has been doing, and then leave only questions that arise during the staff presentation and public comment.
Brett Lee was asked about the zoning code, which he supports the streamlining of, to “increase residential and commercial density and increased height limitation in the core area… How exactly would you change current zoning in the core area specific plan to achieve this goal?”
Brett Lee: Responded that he likes the residential zoning process where, if there are no variances, the approval process is automatic – that is, “the default assumption is that it will be approved. I’d like the same type of situation for the downtown and I’d like a planned controlled way of raising the height restrictions.” He considers the Chinn Building or the new Yolo Federal Credit Union Building’s height “as good examples of nice attractive buildings that do benefit the downtown.” He wants businesses entering the process “to have some certainty so that they don’t worry at the 11th hour, when they’re getting ready to do final contracts with their contractor, that some entity will come in and stop and say sorry…” Beyond those limitation, there would be a review of the limitations, so they may not get a streamlined process.
Sue Greenwald: “I couldn’t disagree more strongly with Brett Lee. It’s against everything I’ve ever believed in for our downtown. What he’s suggesting is close your eyes for a minute and envision the entire downtown being three-story or four-story buildings, wall to wall. It would change everything about what we are and what our downtown is. I’m very disappointed to hear that, he’s saying throw out – pretty much – the design guidelines, that is going to kill the charm and also drive out our little business… [bell].”
Stephen Souza: “If our vision is not to grow outward, we have to grow upward. Otherwise the university, with their 20/20 vision, is going to grow on their property, outward. I think we have to think about our downtown and the context of how we can grow up in a creative way that fits the values of our community. I know we can do it. I also know there’s reasons why it’s not being done – it’s called the economies of scale.”
Sue Greenwald was asked about her view that residential uses in the downtown are problematic and that she doesn’t like the idea of residences over storefronts, believing it would destroy the character of downtown.
Sue Greenwald: “There’s a difference between the larger core area and the commercial core.” In the commerce core she supports selected infill projects along the lines of what council and the city have been doing, “without making permitted uses as Mr. Lee and Mr. Souza suggest, as the way to go.” She continued, “If we allow unbridled redevelopment in the entire commercial core, first off if we have residences over businesses downtown, we will have a real parking problem.” She suggests in a college town, that will lead to parties, that will take up parking and drive out parking for the merchants. She believes that rents will go up with redevelopment as well – “it always does…it’s just more expensive, the carrying costs.” She argued that she would be disappointed if they throw out the careful Davis planning model and that she wants density to occur in Nishi and PG&E, which are near the core, but not in the commercial core.
In the final question of the third round, Dan Wolk was asked why the issue of the delivery method of the water project is a council issue, “instead of a matter for your professionally trained staff?”
Dan Wolk: Mr. Wolk described the various choices the council faced on this issue, arguing, “To me, the better option was the Design-Bid-Bid, sort of the traditional model.” He added, “Staff was essentially okay with both of them.” He argues that “it shifts risk onto the designer and the builder. It allows for conceivably more innovation to occur and I thought at the time – and I still think this way – that the design-build method is a better method for constructing the wastewater treatment plant.” Turning to the water supply project, he said he has issues with it, and “one of the biggest issues that I now have with that is that it’s slated to DBO… which means… [interrupted by moderator]
Kemble Pope: The question is more about the level of interaction and direction that we are giving [to a] professionally trained method – why is this a council issue rather than an issue for staff?
Dan Wolk: “If you’re suggesting that the council should usurp it’s role, or should allow professionals to usurp its role as a representative of a the people in determining how projects are to be built, I fundamentally disagree with that. Council’s job is to certainly listen to the professionals – I know I do. But to say that council should just buy wholesale what comes to them as a recommendation, I think is not a very good policy.”
There were additional questions from the public that were addressed in an additional round, there were also opening statements. We have not covered those at this time, but may do so in the coming days. In addition, we will have commentary and analysis of the forum this weekend.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“the first question of the second round and was asked if we needed to reduce the number of city commissions given the fact that there are twenty and they are too narrowly focus and there is too much staff time perhaps devoted to them.”
Two commissions that we should get rid of that won’t be missed are the NRC and the HRC.
Hope someone asked whether the candidates would promise not to sign a council “hit piece” about anyone in the future (similar to the recent DACHA op-ed), then go all quiet and non-responsive in the face of evidence that the op-ed’s main claims are based on lies.
What a disgraceful display of libel, arrogance and cowardice in the part of our sitting council members! I’d hope all candidates will swear off such disgusting tactics if the future.
From the well-crafted responses, it suggests to me that the candidates were given the questions beforehand. Is this true?
According to Kemble, the questions came out of meetings they had had with the candidates and therefore they were able to anticipate some of the questions.
I thought the format for this debate was very interesting. I liked the more focused questions, and the fact that the candidates were somewhat prepared. Generally I thought all the candidates did well. Clearly there are differences in vision, especially for the downtown. Also, some important issues came to light in last night’s debate.
I had no idea there was a push to not allow any more eateries downtown, or to tightly control what businesses will be allowed to locate downtown. At first blush, this seems antithetical to the idea that this city is trying to foster economic development. I’m not sure that micromanaging the business community to that extent is wise. We need sustainable business, not over-planned economic development that is unsustainable.
I would also add that I suspect this micromanaging style of trying to control what types of businesses will locate downtown may very well be part of the reason Davis has a reputation for NOT being business friendly. I think many citizens are growing frustrated with the anti-business atmosphere Davis has created for itself…
” I think many citizens are growing frustrated with the anti-business atmosphere Davis has created for itself…”
Maybe. Personally I think the reputation for being anti-business is dated, right now the only real question is what the best way is to proceed.
Good report, David. Are you finished or did you just break away to comment about our ani-business reputation being “dated”? It’s taken a long time for Davis to build this reputation. What can we do to change it quickly?
Interesting interchange with Sue. Sounds more like some nasty comment one might read here than a moderator’s effort to encourage something enlightening. Did Kemble ever get specific about his profit concern? Her answer (“No.”) seemed perfect for the snide question.
[i]”I had no idea there was a push to not allow any more eateries downtown, or to tightly control what businesses will be allowed to locate downtown.”[/i]
Is there some evidence that there is such a push? Those are landlord decisions.
[quote]Personally I think the reputation for being anti-business is dated, [/quote]
If you talk to small business owners in Davis you will hear a different story.
[i]”Lucas Frerichs got the first question of the second round and was asked if we needed to reduce the number of city commissions given the fact that there are twenty and they are too narrowly focus and there is too much staff time perhaps devoted to them.”[/i]
After the forum, which I thought for the most part was excellent and that Mr. Pope did a good job, I emailed Lucas my ideas on consolidating city commissions, which I wrote a column about a year ago or so.
This is what I told Lucas:
“Here is my view in a nutshell: Many topics are in the purview of more than one commission. Any time one of those issues arises, I think the city manager’s office needs to call for a joint meeting of all the affected commissions, and at the joint meeting it would not be necessary to have staff liaisons from all the commissions which are there. Doing that would take away the staff savings a joint commission meeting should hope to achieve.
“As (you) Lucas know, some issues which go to the HRMC also go to the Planning Commission. I think requiring applicants to go to both, often to cover the same ground, is a waste of time for them, and it is a waste of staff resources. My suggestion would be when a project needs to be heard by the PC and by Historic Resources Mgt, the HRM commissioners ought to be invited to the PC meeting for that topic and cover whatever ground we need to cover and take whatever votes we need to and we should leave and the Planning Commission should take over from there. Mike Webb could be the only liaison for that kind of an issue.
“But I don’t see any benefit in getting rid of a commission like the HRMC. Most issues we address are not dealt with at all by Planning. And our commission takes a lot of technical training related to CEQA and the Secretary of the Interior’s standards and so on. It’s a waste of time for the Planning Commissioners to have to deal with that; and state law would require a portion of the Planning Commissioners then to be architects or historians.
“If the issue at hand is, say, a new soccer field complex just outside of the city’s boundaries and that affects parks and rec and open space and natural resources and so on, all the commissions should hold one joint meeting on that topic, with as few members of staff as possible attending.
“If an issue affects social services and the senior citizens commission, then for a meeting they should join. The idea, again, is to reduce staff time, so we don’t need multiple meetings to cover the same ground, and if an applicant is involved, he does not have to present his project over and over again.”
Just Saying: I have one more round to do but had to eat and take a break.
“If you talk to small business owners in Davis you will hear a different story.”
I talk with them all of the time, that doesn’t mean I agree with them.
[i]””I had no idea there was a push to not allow any more eateries downtown, or to tightly control what businesses will be allowed to locate downtown.”[/i]
This question, which also included the pretext that Sue had proposed it and that she had proposed rent control on commercial properties, was posed to Sue.
Even though overall I think Kendle did a very good job, he botched a few of his questions to Sue, by falsely saying a few times, “You are for this or that or the other,” when she had never said the things he accused her of before he asked her a question based on those false facts.
I don’t think Kendle botched any of his questions to any of the other four, though a couple of times in trying to interact with the candidates, he appeared to mischaracterize their remarks. (I recall him calling something Brett said as a “stick,” when Brett had intended that aspect of his answer, how to save jobs for city workers, as “a carrot. This played out quite humorously when the clock stopped just before Brett could say what the “stick” might be.)
When he was putting words in Sue’s mouth that Sue never said as the pretext for his questions to her, it appeared that Kendle simply does not like Sue. However, I think Sue handled her questions with grace, despite that.
[i]”do you believe that profit is a four letter word or somehow inconsistent with the Davis way of life?”[/i]
That’s a very strange question.
[i]”I think all too often in this community there is a notion that we should villainize those who make profits…”[/i]
And that isn’t even a question.
It’s clear enough that the Chamber is against Sue, but I would have thought the executive director wouldn’t have been so blatant about it.
[i]”Even though overall I think [b]Kendle[/b] did a very good job … I don’t think [b]Kendle[/b] botched … it appeared that [b]Kendle[/b] simply does not like Sue”[/i]
My apologies: Make that Kemble, not Kendle.
Kemble seemed partisan to Sreve but that is known fact right?
All in all refreshing but the moderator took a more than usual role in moderating.
Sue handled the questions well. Often if a moderator has an agenda and is perceived to be unfair to one of the candidates it ends up backfiring on the moderator and causes the voters to look with sympathy towards the victimized candidate.
“First of all, I never said rent control downtown, I don’t know where that idea came from.”
This statement came directly out of Sue’s own mouth when she shared her downtown “action plan” with DDBA staff earlier this year. And she has commented numerous times on her desire to reduce commercial rents, which are too high, on the Vanguard and in DDBA 2x2s. This is not a new revelation.
“From the well-crafted responses, it suggests to me that the candidates were given the questions beforehand. Is this true?”
The business community has been communicating its priorities and concerns to council members and candidates for some time. It’s hardly surprising that some candidates may have anticipated some of the questions.
“I had no idea there was a push to not allow any more eateries downtown, or to tightly control what businesses will be allowed to locate downtown.”
There is such a push. Sue Greenwald has been a proponent of such an ordinance. She proposed such an ordinance at a DDBA 2×2. She proposed such an ordinance when she shared her downtown “action plan” with DDBA staff earlier this year. Furthermore, she proposed that the city maintain ownership of the 12,000 sq. ft. retail portion of the proposed 3/4/E/F project, so that the council could control who the tenants would be. This proposal was made on the dais. I strongly objected to these comments at the time on the Vanguard saying she was in the wrong country, i.e. what she was proposing would be more fitting for a socialist or communist economic model.
“Did Kemble ever get specific about his profit concern? Her answer (“No.”) seemed perfect for the snide question.”
Sue has a long history of questioning the profit motives of business operators and what are acceptable profit margins. This is not a new revelation. It’s interesting that she twisted the question from business profits to developer profits, which are two separate matters.
“When he was putting words in Sue’s mouth that Sue never said as the pretext for his questions to her, it appeared that Kendle simply does not like Sue. However, I think Sue handled her questions with grace, despite that.”
I missed the first half hour, but in the time I was in attendance, Kemble did not put any words in Sue’s mouth. Kemble took comments that Sue had made in 2×2 meetings, in meetings with DDBA or Chamber staff, or in public and then posed a question. Kemble used the exact same tactic with the other candidates. The questions to all candidates were quite pointed.
Kemble: “do you believe that profit is a four letter word or somehow inconsistent with the Davis way of life?” Don: “That’s a very strange question.”
Don, you’re right it is a very strange question, but merited given Sue repeatedly making strange comments to small business owners.
“Even though overall I think Kendle did a very good job … I don’t think Kendle botched … it appeared that Kendle simply does not like Sue”
Rich, see my responses above.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
The community is confronted with a number of challenges that must be addressed effectively by the next council. It is critical that the community make an informed choice in these upcoming elections. Part of being informed is to understand votes, comments, and actions that these candidates have made in the recent past pertaining to economic matters. Part of being informed is to understand the mindset of the candidates pertaining to economic matters. I think the debate will help inform the voters should they choose to view the Vanguard’s coverage, the Enterprise coverage, and the taped Davis Access Media broadcasts.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Michael: “rent control” and “reducing commercial rents” are two entirely different things. Establishing market conditions that keep rents low is certainly a desirable way of maintaining the mix of small retailers. Do you mean that Sue has advocated that the local government enact a rent control ordinance?
David, Thanks for the great recap. I had a critical business server go down last night about the time I was going to walk over to the meeting. I had to work on that problem and missed the debate.
Elaine: [i]I would also add that I suspect this micromanaging style of trying to control what types of businesses will locate downtown may very well be part of the reason Davis has a reputation for NOT being business friendly. I think many citizens are growing frustrated with the anti-business atmosphere Davis has created for itself…”[/i]
Absolutely agree. It gets to mindset… and mindset is either affected by, or is a byproduct of, ideology. Those with more left-leaning views are more apt to have an affinity to more government control of economic development. Of course what we need is balance. What we have instead is an unbalanced mindset of too much central control.
Free market capitalism is a wonderful system of creative economic construction and destruction. However, what happens to us… the creative entrepreneur/developer having a vision for some fantastic commercial development project goes elsewhere knowing the profound challenges he/she would have dealing with the central-control elites running the town. We don’t get the benefit of this entrepreneurial creative energy, and so we have to rely on our government-connected central planners to create the vision. The central planners like this, but they frankly suck at it. Their capability to envision and design is several orders of magnitude less sophisticated. They are also several orders of magnitude slower.
So, the end result is lackluster economic development and a decaying downtown.
The problem is too many liberals in charge. You can’t fix this unless you fix the ideological balance problem, IMO.
[quote]Maybe. Personally I think the reputation for being anti-business is dated, right now the only real question is what the best way is to proceed. [/quote]
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I have heard from enough business people, even ones new to Davis and lauded/awarded by the City Council, who have indicated Davis is anti-business; and have seen it for myself with the Carlton Plaza Davis project…
The problem, DT Businessman, is that both SODA and rusty49’s observations are accurate with regard to moderator actions. His performance obviously made for a more interesting, enlightening discussion and a perception of unfairness works to the advantage of the person “picked on.”
Your justifications for Kemble’s statements/questions are fascinating. That would mean Sue’s sympathetic act was a performance based on knowing lies.
I look forward to her specific responses to your claims, and hope that she’s not prohibited from speaking by the present Cowardly Council’s long-running silence (noted above).
Were there any questions about the city’s embarrassing history of affordable housing fiascos and of its actions with regard to DACHA, in particular?
I strongly agree with Rich Rifkin’s comments on the reasons to keep all our commissions; and the need for joint meetings. Commissions are an important/crucial way for citizens to be part of their local government. Personally I would like to see some addtional commissions, e.g. Youth Commission that represents children and college students, Transportation Commission…
[quote]The community is confronted with a number of challenges that must be addressed effectively by the next council. It is critical that the community make an informed choice in these upcoming elections. Part of being informed is to understand votes, comments, and actions that these candidates have made in the recent past pertaining to economic matters. Part of being informed is to understand the mindset of the candidates pertaining to economic matters. I think the debate will help inform the voters should they choose to view the Vanguard’s coverage, the Enterprise coverage, and the taped Davis Access Media broadcasts.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)[/quote]
Well said!
@DT Businessman (Michael Bisch, co-president of the DDBA). Michael, I can understand misremembering or being confused about my position, but it is a very serious offense to mischaracterize someone’s position AFTER it has been pointed out to you.
I have never said anything whatsoever about commercial rent control. Never. Not once.
I have said that I would like to consider restrictions on conversion of non-bar space and/or non-restaurant space to bars and perhaps restaurants (although this is more problematic). This is because the conversions are always in the direction towards bars and never vice-versa, so we could become an all-bar downtown. Bars probably make more profit than other uses.
I have been told that other towns have implemented zoning ordinances to deal with this. While I don’t think that “profit” is a four letter word, neither do I think that careful planning and zoning are.
To Jeff Boone re: “So, the end result is lackluster economic development and a decaying downtown. The problem is too many liberals in charge. You can’t fix this unless you fix the ideological balance problem, IMO.”
Well I guess we should just take up the Woodland model for downtown economic development where the conservatives run the show. Has anyone taken a drive down Woodland’s Main St. lately? It is very bleak and depressing compared to downtown Davis. So if Davis is so business unfriendly because of the liberals, how come our downtown businesses are not now flocking to downtown Woodland where a supposed more business-friendly climate exists?
The reason is that people want to come to downtown Davis precisely because it has maintained a vibrancy and unique character because of the policies in place. Sue and I have diasagreed on many issues in the past but I believe she is spot on with respect to the issue of unrestrained downtown development. People come here to shop in downtown Davis because Davis is “funky and quirky”. If you let that go we end up with just another deteriorating downtown core – like Woodland.
So do you want a vibrant downtown core like Davis has? – albeit one with growth and development restrictions imposed by those overbearing liberals. Or would you rather have a downtown core like Woodland’s where free-enterprise and a business-friendly, anything-goes attitude rule the day?
I am thankful Davis has made the choices it has in the past even if a few real-estate developers are miffed and grumbling.
Alan is adopting Don Shor’s favorite comparison technique -compare Davis with the most downtrodden downtown you can find, then say – is this what you want? I personally don’t find anything funky about downtown Davis – it is just very dated, and not conducive to drawing a crowd.
Davis Downtown severely underperforms its peer group – college based towns with a significant student population situated immediately adjacent to the downtown. The more apt comparisons are to San Luis Obispo and Palo Alto. And if you make that comparison, I think you’ll find Davis to be trailing far in the distance.
I personally know of many families like mine (we have 2 elementary schoolkids) who almost never shop in downtown Davis because of the lack of choice for reasonably priced everyday wear, school supplies and sporting goods equipment. Periodically we shop at Ace (convenience) or Redwood Barn (selection and service, but terrible parking). We come downtown for dinner on some of the Art About nights, but find the parking very inconvenient. Otherwise, we don’t visit downtown Davis.
[quote]Sue and I have diasagreed on many issues in the past but I believe she is spot on with respect to the issue of unrestrained downtown development. People come here to shop in downtown Davis because Davis is “funky and quirky”. If you let that go we end up with just another deteriorating downtown core – like Woodland.
So do you want a vibrant downtown core like Davis has? – albeit one with growth and development restrictions imposed by those overbearing liberals. Or would you rather have a downtown core like Woodland’s where free-enterprise and a business-friendly, anything-goes attitude rule the day? [/quote]
Why does it have to be either/or? Is it not possible to keep an open mind to some changes, while still allowing current businesses to stay the way they are? I don’t think anyone is advocating for a wholesale makeover of the downtown by mowing down all the “funky” buildings, just a slight loosening of the planning grip so that some innovative solutions can be explored. An obdurate resistance to any change downtown does not seem reasonable to my mind…
Hey Kemble, I just noticed in the photo at top that there are 6 single-use plastic water bottles in view apparently being used by the 4 people in the picture.
Wouldn’t using reuseable water bottles be a great opportunity for the Chamber staff to be an example of sustainability for the business community?
And it would certainly be keeping right in line with the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan you worked so hard to develop for the City?
alanpryor: Woodland does not have the large flock of UCD students as captive bike and pedestrian transported customers. I think we have an okay downtown, but I would not go so far patting ourselves on the back for our city planners and economic development policies being responsible for it. Frankly, the Davis downtown is lucky to have these ready-customers, because otherwise I think business would be as bleak as Woodland’s downtown.
Aside from these captive student customers, it is a real head-scratcher for me to hear the arguments blocking all peripheral retail to “save” the downtown merchants. What the Internet does not already take away in business, we simply have to drive to Woodland or West Sacramento to do our shopping. The captive customers are already captured, so it these other customers that are the opportunity. These shoppers spend much less than they would otherwise spend in this town because of the lack of choice and the relative shabbiness of much of the downtown. I know, because I am one of them.
Again though, I am not arguing extremes here. I am arguing balance. I think Davis has been too left, too controlling, too statist, too NIMBY, too backwards, and too incompetent in economic development. We are missing opportunities to grow a much more vibrant total city economy because we are so unbalanced. We don’t have to be Folsom, but we can stand to be a bit more like Folsom.
Realted… I think the vibrancy of Davis’s downtown has something to do with the ready population of student shoppers and UCD-related visitors. You find similar patterns in most small college towns. People like to hang where other people hang.
A realted question for the DDBA… waht percent of sales are from food and entertainment venues? What percentage sales from the non-food and entertainment venues are from walk-ins?
Alan, I’m not sure you should be making a big deal in such a nasty about reusables for one-time visitors, especially when you should be back at your own paper-plastic story dealing with the questions about banning stuff. Please focus!
ERM….”I strongly agree with Rich Rifkin’s comments on the reasons to keep all our commissions; and the need for joint meetings. Commissions are an important/crucial way for citizens to be part of their local government. Personally I would like to see some addtional commissions, e.g. Youth Commission that represents children and college students, Transportation Commission…”
The problem I have with some commissions is they tend to get filled with only people who are passionate, have an agenda or are activists for those causes. You never seem to get a well rounded group to address the different commission issues. For instance, environmentalists would tend to flock to the NRC to try and push their agenda and the HRC would tend to be manned by people who go out of their way in search of racial problems, even if none really existed for a given incident. I just don’t think some of the commissions truly represent Davis as a whole.
Adam Smith said . . .
[i]”Alan is adopting Don Shor’s favorite comparison technique -compare Davis with the most downtrodden downtown you can find, then say – is this what you want? I personally don’t find anything funky about downtown Davis – it is just very dated, and not conducive to drawing a crowd.
Davis Downtown severely underperforms its peer group – college based towns with a significant student population situated immediately adjacent to the downtown. The more apt comparisons are to San Luis Obispo and Palo Alto. And if you make that comparison, I think you’ll find Davis to be trailing far in the distance.
I personally know of many families like mine (we have 2 elementary schoolkids) who almost never shop in downtown Davis because of the lack of choice for reasonably priced everyday wear, school supplies and sporting goods equipment. Periodically we shop at Ace (convenience) or Redwood Barn (selection and service, but terrible parking). We come downtown for dinner on some of the Art About nights, but find the parking very inconvenient. Otherwise, we don’t visit downtown Davis.”[/i]
A well thought out, well expressed reply Adam. One point I heartily disagree with you on is Redwood Barn parking. I’ve been going there for 13 years and I have never in all those hundreds of visits ever found there not to be a readily available parking space right in their driveway. More often than not, both the parallel spaces on the right side of the driveway are available, as well as one or more of the perpendicular spaces on the left side of the driveway. It sounds like you prefer not to pull into the driveway, rather to try and park on 5th Street. Give the driveway a try.
Regarding parking during the evening hours, Chuck Roe and I were talking the other day for the first time ever in our lives, and he suggested reading [i]”The High Cost of Free Parking.”[/i] The suggestion was a good one, and may well be the germination of a solution for Davis’ parking problems. I encourage people to read it. As part of that conversation one thought was shared that instead of parking in the 4th and G Street garage or the 1st and F Street garage, many (most) restaurant employees park on the street in relatively close proximity to their place of work, which effectively eliminates a huge number of available spaces for restaurant patrons and customers of all downtown businesses. If that hypothesis is correct then Walt Kelly’s admonition through the lips of Pogo applies, [i]”We have met the enemy, and they are us.”[/i] Chuck’s suggested reading addresses that all to frequent reality for cities facing parking problems.
Sue (as quoted by David G.): [i]”What we have in downtown is a very precious gem; I think it serves the business community because the character is what brings people to the downtown, it’s what brings the visitors, it’s what makes us different than anywhere USA …”[/i]
I am in favor of more three story buildings (and perhaps a fourth floor where it does not cause other problems) in part of the downtown, but not in all of the core area. The area I think going vertical makes the most sense is on F Street and G Street from 1st Street to 5th Street; and on at least the east side of E Street from 1st to 5th.
I don’t know if my vision meshes with Sue’s vision. She can speak for herself. But Sue has made it clear she wants to preserve the “cottage feel” of the core area. I do, too.
I don’t think adding upper floors from E to G will harm that. From E to G in that area there are not many cottages that I can think of. The “cottage feel” remains on the west side of E Street on over to A Street from 1st to 5th. And I think, as Sue has said, we should preserve that.
That “preservation” does not mean that there can be no development in the west half of the core. A change which works under our current Core Area Specific Plan is when property owners build a second floor the back halves of their properties. For example, that is just what Ken Henderson recently did with his cottage on 3rd Street between C Street and D Street. It still feels like a cottage. Its setback did not change. It still has a porch. But he doubled his sq. footage [i]in situ.[/i]
One thing many people who are strongly opposed to peripheral growth say is that they favor going vertical for infill, and they often say we should plan to have lots of new housing in the downtown on upper floors. As I noted above, I am in favor of allowing 3-story buildings in the commercial core of the downtown, which could accommodate retail at the street level, office on the second floor and apartments on the 3rd floor. However, I think anyone who thinks this kind of vertical infill development will (for any length of time) satisfy the demands for residential growth is kidding himself.
Just make this comparison: The Covell Village proposal was for 1,800 housing units for something like 5,000 residents. That would have (assuming the housing market did not collapse) filled a lot of demand for housing in Davis. But in the core, on upper floors (which tends to be quite expensive construction) how many people could and would actually move in? Maybe 150 people? 175? 200? It’s never going to be the case that by building up vertically in the core area, we are going to kill the pressure for new peripheral housing.
I think what Sue Greenwald has said about building new housing in Davis in this respect is quite right: If there is very strong regional demand for new housing (which is now not the case, but was when she said this) we probably cannot ever build enough in Davis to satisfy that demand.
If we were our own region–that is, we did not have Sacramento professionals who want to live here and work in the capital–we could probably plan for a supply of single family homes which meets our own demand. But Davis draws residents from the regional economy, and as long as Davis is a nice town with good schools, it’s very unlikely the amount of new housing units built here will satiate the regional demand. And certainly in better times we won’t meet it by adding 100 or so apartment units from E Street to G Street downtown.
That said, I do think we can and should help fix the persistant imbalance in demand for apartment units in Davis. The university (not so much the capital) drives demand for apartment rentals in Davis. And we would do a great deal to help the fortunes of renters, particularly students, by planning for and permitting a lot more large for-rent apartment complexes, even on our periphery.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”[b]The problem I have with some commissions is they tend to get filled with only people who are passionate, have an agenda or are activists for those causes.[/b] You never seem to get a well rounded group to address the different commission issues. For instance, environmentalists would tend to flock to the NRC to try and push their agenda and the HRC would tend to be manned by people who go out of their way in search of racial problems, even if none really existed for a given incident. I just don’t think some of the commissions truly represent Davis as a whole.”[/i]
I may be all wet, but I resemble that comment!!
[i]”Hey Kemble, I just noticed in the photo at top that there are 6 [b]single-use plastic water bottles[/b] in view apparently being used by the 4 people in the picture. Wouldn’t using reuseable water bottles be a great opportunity for the Chamber staff to be an example of sustainability for the business community?”[/i]
I should say that I never drink bottled water. I have no problem with tap water. I also think there is some reason to fear excessive exposure to bisphenol-a ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-plastic.1.12262246.html[/url]).
That said, who are you, Alan Pryor, to say that those bottles are “single use”? They can be used hundreds of times if the person who owns them wants to. They can be refilled with water, juice or other cold drinks. I think it is strange that you have declared them single use in the exact way you have declared plastic supermarket bags “single use,” when just about everyone who brings those bags home uses them for groceries and then for a second or third purpose before tossing them in the trash. In my house we line all of our garbage cans with a couple of those plastic bags; and I use a couple every day for my dog’s poopr disposal.
If you are successful in banning these kind of multi-use plastics, you will force the vast majority of people who line their trash containers to buy plastic bags, and those will be single use. The same thing for collecting pet waste.
Your agenda increases the use of single-use plastics. That does not make anyone better off.
It’s great that this campaign is providing the opportunity to examine some fundamental policy issues concerning downtown development. This issue is very important to me.
Brett Lee advocated eliminating design review and making downtown development a permitted use everywhere, with a four story height limit, to be raised later. I couldn’t disagree more strongly. If Brett’s plan had been in place, we probably have had a four story, lot-line to lot-line stucco building where the adaptive re-use Village Restaurant house now stands. If Brett’s plan were in place, when market conditions improve we could quickly find ourselves in a predominantly stucco, lot-line to lot-line four story building downtown.
I think this would be a tragic mistake. Elaine Musser says: [quote]Why does it have to be either/or? Is it not possible to keep an open mind to some changes, while still allowing current businesses to stay the way they are? I don’t think anyone is advocating for a wholesale makeover of the downtown by mowing down all the “funky” buildings –[b] Elaine Musser[/b][/quote]I would answer: This is what we have now and it is the system that I favor maintaining. I think it is working beautifully. We have had quite a bit of redevelopment within our current system of rigorous design review. Things have slowed down now because of the market.
Brett Lee said he wants to essentially abolish all controls except building heights. The other candidates didn’t really speak to this; maybe they will in upcoming debates.
I use plastic water bottles over several times. Refil them from the big Sierra Springs dispenser downstairs and put them in my little office refrigerator. I would get rid of the Sierra Springs dispenser at home and at work if we had some better tasting tap water.
I use plastic grocery bags 2 or more times. Then I recycle them… unless I use them for dog poo patrol.
I think we should change the name to “multi-use” plastic bags and bottles.
[i]”I personally don’t find anything funky about downtown Davis – it is just very dated, and not conducive to drawing a crowd.”[/i]
I couldn’t agree more. I do think Davis could become a “gem,” but people certainly don’t choose to go to downtown b/c of it’s historic or funky nature right now. It simply looks run down.
Sometimes I think that those that have lived here a long time have grown too accustomed to the landscape and have lost perspective.
[quote]Brett Lee advocated…[/quote]
Sue: why are you worrying about Brett.
(A) he’s the candidate closest to you ideologically
(B) he’s not a threat to you because he’s not going to win
The two candidates you need to worry about are Dan and Steve. I was shocked to see you call out Brett, no one else called you or any other candidate out (other than Kemble). I thought it was completely inappropriate. I’ve always voted for you, but you’ve given me pause this time round.
[b]@Brian:[/b]I am focused on downtown planning policy. As I said, I really want to hear what the other candidates have to say about it, and to see whether Brett refines his ideas on downtown planning. I called out policies, not people.
Very good question Brian. Sue seems to be hell-bent to retain her current status as the lone voice of the “Progressive” (yes Don it does have different meanings to different people) portion of the Davis voting public. I have stated before, that if Sue were at all committed to ideology she would be collaborating with the other “Progressive” candidate rather than attacking him. If Sue did pursue a program of collaboration and consensus, she and Brett wouldn’t agree all the time, but the focus would be on constructive agreement rather than destructive disagreement.
As Yul Brynner said, [i]”It’s a puzzlement.”[/i]
The interesting implication of Sue’s behavior toward Brett comes when each individual Davis citizen (who thinks that Sue fundamentally agrees with their positions), runs into a situation where her position differs from theirs. Is it reasonable for them to think that she will engage them in consensus building, or treat them with scorn like she is treating Brett?
I personally would hope for the former, but reluctantly have come to expect the latter. That is why even though I actively campaigned for her four years ago, I can not support her current candidacy.
Sue, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck. You spent no time above talking about your agreements with Brett, only your differences.
[quote]Sue Greenwald: Brett Lee advocated eliminating design review and making downtown development a permitted use everywhere[/quote]
I’m at a loss. I went back and read what Mr. Lee stated, and it doesn’t comport with what you said he said.
[quote]Brett Lee: “I differ a little bit from what Sue has said. I believe we should not try to micromanage what businesses locate downtown.” He added, “I believe the downtown, our core area, the height restrictions should be relaxed in a planned thoughtful way.” He believes that the downtown should grow with mixed-use and retails possibilities.[/quote]
Note that Brett said “the height restrictions should be relaxed in a planned and thoughtful way”. That is not the same thing as saying “Brett Lee advocated eliminating design review and making downtown development a permitted use everywhere”.
[b]@Brett Lee supporters:[/b]Policy debates are policy debates, and I will treat them as such. We were given little cards for “rebuttal”. We were supposed to rebut an idea if we did not agree with it. The two ideas that I heard all evening that I disagreed with the most strongly happened to be made by Brett this time around. If someone else had made them, I would have said exactly the same thing. For example, I have been consistently calling out the misconception that we can promise both residential and commercial property owners lower water rates, since it is a zero-sum game.
Sue, here’s a simple question for you, [i]”Which is more important to you, debating with your colleagues or collaborating with your colleagues?”[/i]
[quote]Note that Brett said “the height restrictions should be relaxed in a planned and thoughtful way”. That is not the same thing as saying “Brett Lee advocated eliminating design review and making downtown development a permitted use everywhere”.–[b]Elaine Musser[/b][/quote]We will have to go back over the tape, but I heard Brett Lee mention doing away with design review and I heard him say that we should make four story buildings permitted uses downtown. Those two policies would have huge real-world consequences if implemented.
He talked about relaxing height restrictions in a planned and thoughtful way, i.e., the four story buildings would be permitted uses with no design review, and that would be increased in later years “in a planned and thoughtful way”, i.e., to 5 or 6 or more buildings as permitted uses with no design review.
Again, we can go over the tape, but more importantly, Brett is not necessarily committed permanently to whatever sentences he muttered during a surprise question in the first debate, and can certainly clarify his position or change his mind.
This is why the debates are so valuable.
Sue’s characterization of Brett’s comments are wildly off the mark as David’s reporting has made abundantly clear and as ERM has called out. I’ll take “planned and thoughtful” over haphazard and contradictory all day long.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Matt, good question. I know we have two more debates coming down the road, but I wonder if an additional debate would be desire that:
1. Delves deeper into values, communication and leadership styles, understanding/vision of the community’s social ethic, etc
2. The vast majority of the questions for candidates are submitted by the public (online?) rather than developed by a specific group
Davis can’t afford to stay the course and continue in the direction it’s been going for the last several years. We don’t have that luxury anymore.
[quote]Sue’s characterization of Brett’s comments are wildly off the mark as David’s reporting has made abundantly clear — [b]DTBusinessman[/b][/quote]David didn’t do transcripts; he left out a lot of things that I said too. We can go back over the tapes if it is important to people, but it would be easier if Brett would just join the discussion and tell us what he really thinks about downtown planning rules and regulations. I consider the 90 second answers to surprise questions to be provisional, and to be just the beginning, not the end, of the discussion and of the thought process.
These debates will be valuable if can actually help candidates think about the issues and shape their ideas.
To Rifkin re: “Your agenda increases the use of single-use plastics. That does not make anyone better off.”
C’mon – that is just a plain silly statement without any factual basis. Every single municipality that has instituted single-use bag restrictions in California has seen drops of 65% or more in plastic bag usage in their jurisdiction. Not one single City has seen increases in plastic bag usage by imposing restrictions. Prove to me otherwise and I will ask the NRC to reverse their decision.
concernedcitizen: [i]”Sometimes I think that those that have lived here a long time have grown too accustomed to the landscape and have lost perspective.”[/i]
That is a valid point, and one I challenge myself on… on a regular basis…. being more often on the other side of the change argument even though I am growing long in the tooth. I think I am someone that welcomes change more than some do. However, I take that in context when considering Davis’s economic development past, present and future… compared to other locations.
I read a study on organizational change recently that provided evidence that older workers were more resistant to change than younger workers. That makes rational sense as the older we get, the harder it becomes to re-invent ourselves at work (at some point we are just running out of time).
What was the average age of all the people standing up to demand the city prevent Crown Castle from installing its wireless communication infrastructure? I am guessing that few young people were in oposition.
Maybe the solution is to start incorporating more youthful perspective into our city development plans.
[quote]Davis Downtown severely underperforms its peer group – college based towns with a significant student population situated immediately adjacent to the downtown. The more apt comparisons are to San Luis Obispo and Palo Alto. And if you make that comparison, I think you’ll find Davis to be trailing far in the distance. [/quote]
Palo Alto is in the heart of Silicon Valley and filthy rich—hardly a good comparison. SLO also is an historic town near the coast with a beautiful mission, but I think our downtown compares well.
A better comparison if you want to look at college towns is Chico, or maybe Merced (though its really to recent a college town). Chico’s downtown has been shrinking for years as malls and big box stores sprung up on the periphery. Merced’s downtown is depressing. Land use planning rules exist for a reason. Downtowns are under assault across the country.
[i]”Every single municipality that has instituted single-use bag restrictions in California has seen drops of 65% or more in plastic bag usage in their jurisdiction.”[/i]
If that takes account for new purchases of plastic bags to line garbage cans and it takes account for new purchases of plastic bags to pick up dog doo, I will take your word for it.
I simply know that in my case, I will have to purchase plastic bags which I now use multiple times and get for free. And the plastic I will have to buy will only be used once. And this “solution” of yours solves no problem that anyone in Davis is creating. If we had a serious problem of handled multi-use plastic grocery bags polluting Davis, I would favor a nickle tax on them. I cannot imagine any scenario in which a ban makes sense for me or for Davis, other than to make some pompous statement.
The bags that you buy to line your household trash cans with are larger and a much thicker palstic than the ones that the grocery stores give out. I just don’t see where this ordinance is going to do that much good especially when Davis only accounts for 22% of the landfill garbage.
Sue Greenwald: “Eventually all cities reach maturity. All cities do stop growing eventually… It might be at some point where the citizens have made the decision. That’s called a mature community.”
Huh?
” She cited Vancouver as an example of an innovative community where they kept the commercial core at one or two stories, arguing that keeps rents low enough to allow merchants to do business. “I do believe in infill, I believe in pretty significant infill.”
What is Sue talking about? Comparing Davis to Woodland, SLO, Palo Alto its all debatable but Vancouver? This is just absurd and talking about Vancouver being 2 stories tall really beyond absurd. Take a look for yourself
http://world-visits.blogspot.com/2012/02/vancouver-skyline-photos-2012.html
Jeff Boone,
I like the thought that maybe some effort should be put into trying to engage younger generations. I’m in my mid-30’s and I truly believe there are certainly younger residents (even high school students) who would get involved and bring some ideas for innovation; And not just ideas but also in how work gets accomplished.
This town has a wealth of grassroots innovators, but few (if any) have been approached to garner their expertise. I feel like this election isn’t just about the qualities of the candidates or their stance on the issues. It’s also about getting the right people in place who can move us out of an antiquated approach to solving problems.
Crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, that’s where I’d like to see the city go. I mean, just check out Bristol Rising ([url]http://bristolrising.com/[/url]). Now THAT generates excitement! It engages the entire community. It innovates.
Alan, you abandoned your Tuesday article after making only two comments in response to questions and comments that’ve resulted in a four-page dialog–only to come over here to start a plastic bag fight?
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5212:nrc-moves-proposed-single-use-bag-ordinance-forward&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url]
Was there any discussion at the candidate event about the paper bag/plastic bag mandate proposal?
Sue, welcome back to the [i]Vanguard[/i]. We’ve missed you and your colleagues who have stopped dealing with the scandalous DACHA op-ed once the council issued the apparently false allegations. Is there some reason all of you refuse to talk about it any more? Have you been ordered not to engage in discussion about DACHA?
Do you expect this to be a campaign issue, along with the other affordable housing history and problems?
At the heart of our downtown is the [i]Enterprise[/i] block and the Davis Hardware blocks. Why are they still there, taking up massive amounts of space and cutting the quaint downtown in half? I do think the little Hobbit house on the corner adds to the character downtown, but it doesn’t generate much tax.
Because the property owners are presumably satisfied with the income they derive from them, or they own them free and clear and don’t have the means or inclination to develop them into something else.
Whenever I see these discussions about what people would like to see done to the downtown, I wonder how they propose to motivate the property owners to make changes. Davis Ace is the downtown anchor, a very important draw for shoppers and an important generator of sales tax revenue. If the Anderson family decides to chop it up into little shoppes, great; what everyone else thinks is pretty much irrelevant.
Mr Toad-When I first saw Vancouver, BC, in 1958, that might have been true, although Simpson-Sears, The Hudson Bay Company and The Vancouver Sun Building were certainly taller than that . If she means Gastown, funky takes on a much more septic meaning . Maybe she meant Vancouver, WA ?
[quote]Sue Greenwald: “Eventually all cities reach maturity. All cities do stop growing eventually… It might be at some point where the citizens have made the decision. That’s called a mature community.”–[b]Toad[/b][/quote]Toad, I don’t remember where you were raised, but I have lived in Bethesda Maryland, Berkeley California and Brookline Massachusetts and they are all built out towns that stopped growing long ago. The populations are stable. There are still children, of course, but number of children have stabilized and there is less expansion and contraction of the schools.
Different question: Souza mentioned councilmembers asking questions prior to council meetings so council meetings aren’t too lengthy.
Would this continue Bill Emlen’s practice of pre-meetings with each
council member?
Have subsequent city managers continued Bill’s
pre-meeting, one-on-one get togethers with council members?
Such meetings give the appearance of illegal serial meetings which
violate Brown Act opening meeting laws.
[b]@Toad:[/b]Correction, in the above post, I am responding to the big [b]”Huh?”[/b]that Toad inserted after my quote.
Sue, while you are busy responding, do you want to respond to my previously posed question . . . [b][i]”Which is more important to you, debating with your colleagues or collaborating with your colleagues?”[/i][/b]
[b]@Matt Williams:[/b]Matt, let’s stick to the policy issues and avoid the goading, baiting and innuendo. I would like to hear your views on the best way to approach downtown infill or some of the other ideas that were brought up last night.
Sue: [i]”Toad, I don’t remember where you were raised, but I have lived in Bethesda Maryland, Berkeley California and Brookline Massachusetts and they are all built out towns that stopped growing long ago. The populations are stable. There are still children, of course, but number of children have stabilized and there is less expansion and contraction of the schools.”[/i]
According to the USCB, from 2000 – 2010, Mature Berkeley grew 9.6% compared to 8.8% for Davis. Might we be turning old before our time?
But, here is the real kicker…
Berkeley retail sales per capita is $12,700 (about the state average). Davis’s retail sales per capita is $7,752.
Frankly, anyone working for Davis city government in the capacity of economic development over the last decade should be keelhauled for turning us into this anti-business, low tax-revenue, (tree-lined, quirky, village) economic wasteland.
Another way to look at this folks… we are each being taxed $4,948 in lost economic activity as a cost for the privilege of living in this fine town. Teachers, what do you say about that?
I’m trying to find some rich people to blame, but they are not allowed to set-up shop around here unless they happen to be UCD execs.
[quote]Matt, let’s stick to the policy issues and avoid the goading, baiting and innuendo.[/quote]
Perhaps you want to take your own advice since you were the only candidate who said anything critical to the other candidates last night and today.
Sue,
Can you share anything about your plans/ideas for the redevelopment funds before they disappear?
How much redevelopment funds are still available? Is there a deadline for when the money goes away?
[b]@Jeff Boone[/b]
In l950, the population of Berkeley was 113,805.
In 2010, the population of Berkeley was 112,580.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley,_California#1950s_and_1960s[/url]
Sue,
Would you be willing to participate in a candidate forum, the focus of which is on:
1. Values, communication and leadership styles, understanding/vision of the community’s social ethic, etc
2. Questions submitted by the public (online?) rather than developed by a specific group
I know there are at least two other debates scheduled, but I would like to see a debate that is largely citizen driven.
VANGUARD: [i]”She cited [b]Vancouver[/b] as an example of an innovative community where they kept the commercial core at one or two stories, arguing that keeps rents low enough to allow merchants to do business.”[/i]
I thought Sue was speaking of Vancouver, Washington, which is in the greater Portland, Oregon region. She ought to correct the record if she sees this comment.
[img]http://www.portlandbridges.com/portland-neighborhoods/images/vancouver-washington-img3446-s.jpg[/img]
I’ve never been to Vancouver, WA. In various pictures I have found of it online, including the one posted above, it looks to me like it has a lot of tall buildings.
I have been to Vancouver, BC–many times. The big city in British Columbia has no controls on its building heights. Last time I was there, I took a tour of the 62-story Shangri-La Building.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Living_Shangri-La_Nov_09.jpg[/img]
And the hotel we stayed at, Orchard House, has more than 20 stories, and it is dwarfed by many of the office buildings.
[b]@Rifkin[/b] that doesn’t look so big ;P
I am disappointed to hear candidate Lee equivocate on the peripheral housing issue saying “However, if there are community needs that are unmet, that could be served by a project that is on the periphery, then I would be willing to listen to those ideas.”
There is no guarantee that the person with the “unmet need” will be a Davis resident. We do not have reserved housing.
There will always be a developer with a peripheral project that is for “unmet needs”. The city needs to drive the housing decisions, not the developers.
[b]@Rich Rifkin:[/b]When we were in Vancouver B.C. a few years ago, I was struck by the fact that the city was filled with huge expensive high-rises, but the commercial area had remained largely funky old one and two story buildings. I called their planning department to ask about this, and they said that they had a conscious policy of discouraging redevelopment in the commercial area. The planner told me that one side street with a reputation for lovely cafes had redeveloped with tall buildings and that it is pretty dead now.
Mike was born and raised in Vancouver Washington, and I spent many Christmas and Thanksgivings in that town with the in-laws, so I do know the difference.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”@Matt Williams:Matt, let’s stick to the policy issues and avoid the goading, baiting and innuendo. I would like to hear your views on the best way to approach downtown infill or some of the other ideas that were brought up last night.”[/i]
Sue, I don’t duck questions. When you rise in the morning you can read my response. I’ll take a moment to gather the various thoughts I have into a coherent whole.
With that said, what I am hearing from you when you respond as you have is that you believe there is no validity to the question posed to you, [i]”Sue, which is more important to you, debating with your colleagues or collaborating with your colleagues?”[/i] Is that correct?
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”@Jeff Boone
In l950, the population of Berkeley was 113,805.
In 2010, the population of Berkeley was 112,580.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B…_and_1960s”[/i]
Sue, an interesting and creative use of numbers on your part. Was there a reason that you chose to only tell part of the story?
Historical populations
Census Pop… . %±
1890 .5,101 .. starting point
1900 . 13,214 .159.0%
1910 . 40,434 .206.0%
1920 . 56,036 .38.6%
1930 . 82,109 .46.5%
1940 . 85,547 .4.2%
1950 . 113,805 33.0%
1960 . 111,268 −2.2%
1970 . 116,716 4.9%
1980 . 103,328 −11.5%
1990 . 102,724 −0.6%
2000 . 102,743 0%
2010 . 112,580 9.6%
From the same Wikipedia article . . .
The 1970s saw a decline in the population of Berkeley, partly due to an exodus to the suburbs. Some moved because of the rising cost of living throughout the Bay Area, and others because of the decline and disappearance of many industries in West Berkeley.
Another interesting difference between Berkeley and Davis is that Berkeley is geographically constrained. Davis is not. We choose to constrain our growth to preserve prime farmland, but that is a whole different kettle of fish than what Berkeley deals with.
[b]@Matt Williams:[/b]Yes Matt, look at that chart closely. The population of Berkeley has fluctuated around a high that was set in about 1950.
Sue likes to talk about her support of infill by pointing to two sites, Nishi and PG&E. She then points out that Nishi requires very expensive infrastructure thus preventing development (not to mention the need for a measure R vote). She never mentions that PG&E has no interest in moving from their property. As a consequence she can tout her support for infill while knowing full well that neither project is going to happen. If you are a candidate for City Council and want to claim support for infill, then you need to support infill next door to your home, not on properties that have no possibility of being developed.
Jeff Boone thinks Davis should be more like Berkeley?
[quote]”I strongly agree with Rich Rifkin’s comments on the reasons to keep all our commissions; and the need for joint meetings. Commissions are an important/crucial way for citizens to be part of their local government.”[/quote]I think commissions can add a lot to participation levels in city government and should cover any special emphasis for which there’s significant citizen interest and a council interest in citizen opinions.
I’m curious how much they cost to operate. My biggest present question is who approves the decisions to spend on expensive commission decisions? An example is environmental studies, currently the plastic/paper bag ban ordinance studies. Has the council okayed these next steps or does each commission work within an annual budget or….?
[quote]”@Matt Williams:Matt, let’s stick to the policy issues and avoid the goading, baiting and innuendo.”[/quote]Sue, can I assume from this that you won’t deal with affordable housing, including DACHA, because I haven’t asked in a nicer way or that you don’t consider it a policy issue anymore.
I’m certainly frustrated by the council’s refusal to talk about this since the op-ed, but I can phrase questions in a different way if it’ll help get to some answers.
Or, is it hopeless to ask because you’ve been ordered, or you’ve all agreed, never to respond to questions? Thank you.
@ Mark: why do you think Nishi will never happen? Is that a hunch, or based on inside info? Last time this came up, someone said staff at UCD and the city are actively working on it. But I can’t confirm that. I would love to hear a candidate for council state that she/he is going to work to make Nishi a reality.
Re: Berkeley in 1950. I would imagine that part of the reason it was so heavily populated, compared with 1940 and 1960, was the influx of students who enrolled on the GI Bill following their service in World War II. One of those veterans at Cal was my mother, Lt. Geraldine Davis. Another was her younger brother, who was a navigator for a bomber in the Army Air Corps and also an officer. (My mom’s older sister, who was a nurse in the Navy, went to UCSB at the Riviera campus after the War.)
I was looking at my mom’s Blue & Gold senior yearbook from 1951 some months back, and I noticed that in that class were a couple of famous Davis residents, Joanne Leach, who grew up in Davis and wrote the best history of our town, and her husband, Dr. Richard Larkey.
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JuCxQZOkd88/T3aBbYhchBI/AAAAAAAAAkQ/NjA82muOr9E/s1600/03-30-2012+08;52;02PM.JPG[/img]
“Establishing market conditions that keep rents low is certainly a desirable way of maintaining the mix of small retailers.”
Don, this is a very curious statement that I’d like to see you elaborate upon. Typically, the way to keep rents low is to foster economic stagnation. To reduce rents, one institutes measures that result in economic recession. And to increase rents, one institutes measures that result in economic expansion. Most small retailers I know would happily pay more rent if their sales increase accordingly. The economy thrives, sales increase, there’s more demand for space, rents rise, sales tax generation increases, more jobs are created, city services improve, etc. That is the economic principal that Sue fundamentally fails to grasp. The scenario that hurts small retailers like no other is recession, even stagnation is painful because costs generally increase as does competition.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Don: I have no insider information about Nishi. I was simply commenting on Sue advocating for it, while at the same time saying that the expensive infrastructure makes it not pencil out (to paraphrase). The point is that it is easy to be in favor of something that is not likely to happen in the near term. Take PG&E…
“Most small retailers I know would happily pay more rent if their sales increase accordingly.”
I know of no small retailer who would happily pay more rent, regardless. And there is no correlation between rents and sales volume. Look at the disparity between the downtown rents and the neighborhood shopping centers. Redevelopment almost always raises rents. It doesn’t always raise sales.
Sue said”@Rich Rifkin:When we were in Vancouver B.C. a few years ago, I was struck by the fact that the city was filled with huge expensive high-rises, but the commercial area had remained largely funky old one and two story buildings. “
This is beyond absurd. So are you suggesting that we become like Vancouver and keep the downtown “funky” and build high rises like Vancouver within our city limits or should we build them on the periphery with measure R votes? Or at the Cannery? Or at Nishi? Of course the major institutions of Canada have high rises in Vancouver while the Gaslight district has been kept low for the tourist trade, the marijuana clubs, and the seedy underbelly of Canadian urban life. This is what you want for Davis?
The main point here is that Vancouver has managed its growth by going up high, something that Davis is not inclined to do. I’ve always thought of Vancouver as the San Francisco of Canada. Using it as an model for Davis is about as relevant as comparing our hamlet to San Francisco. The fact that Sue went unchallenged on this point by the other candidates is regrettable.
Alan Pryor, now this is a guy that really doesn’t get it.
“Well I guess we should just take up the Woodland model for downtown economic development where the conservatives run the show. Has anyone taken a drive down Woodland’s Main St. lately? It is very bleak and depressing compared to downtown Davis.”
I’m quite confident the majority of the Davis business community are not supporting the Woodland model. This is a pathetic attempt at setting up a straw man, Alan.
“So if Davis is so business unfriendly because of the liberals, how come our downtown businesses are not now flocking to downtown Woodland where a supposed more business-friendly climate exists?”
More Davis downtown businesses might very well have been flocking to downtown Woodland had UCD chose to locate there instead of in Davis.
“The reason is that people want to come to downtown Davis precisely because it has maintained a vibrancy and unique character because of the policies in place.”
Has it ever occured to you, Alan, that downtown has remained vibrant despite city council policies?
“Sue and I have diasagreed on many issues in the past but I believe she is spot on with respect to the issue of unrestrained downtown development.”
Alan, I’m going to call you out on this one. Who is advocating for “unrestrained downtown development”? Again, a pathetic attempt at setting up a straw man.
“People come here to shop in downtown Davis because Davis is “funky and quirky”. If you let that go we end up with just another deteriorating downtown core – like Woodland.”
Are you serious? The choice is between funky/quirky and “deteriorating downtown core”? Alan, have you never traveled outside Yolo county?
“So do you want a vibrant downtown core like Davis has? – albeit one with growth and development restrictions imposed by those overbearing liberals. Or would you rather have a downtown core like Woodland’s where free-enterprise and a business-friendly, anything-goes attitude rule the day?”
Alan, who exactly is advocating for a “anything-goes attitude rule the day”?
“I am thankful Davis has made the choices it has in the past even if a few real-estate developers are miffed and grumbling.”
Are you serious ? The DDBA are a bunch of “real estate developers…miffed and grumbling”? We don’t have a single developer on our board.
Alan, you might reconsider your comments.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Matt Williams said “Another interesting difference between Berkeley and Davis is that Berkeley is geographically constrained. Davis is not. We choose to constrain our growth to preserve prime farmland, but that is a whole different kettle of fish than what Berkeley deals with.”
Exactly, welcome to the darkness of the Toad Tunnel, Matt, you’re beginning to see the light at its end!
[b]@Don Shor:[/b]Yes, I talked with the Chancellor recently and she said that the University would be probably be willing to allow Western access, which is a change from the indications that I got from the University during the last administration. She also said that there might money available for access. It was a casual conversation so I am hoping I got it right.
Regarding PG&E, they had been interested in developing the parcel just a few years ago and then leadership changed, and I heard that there is new leadership today. Most companies don’t particularly want to locate their corporate yards in the middle of town. PG&E is where they are today precisely because it was outside of town when it located there.
These huge infill projects might not happen immediately. If and when they do happen, they will provide massive opportunity. Between them, they are 57 acres, probably about twice the size of downtown.
“The point is that it is easy to be in favor of something that is not likely to happen in the near term. Take PG&E…”
Mark points out the biggest flaw in Sue’s economic plan. Who in their right mind bases the welfare of their enterprise, in this case community, on a long shot? That’s the exact opposite of prudent planning.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Sue: It is easy to advocate for things that you know are not likely to happen. Tell us about the infill project you support within 2 blocks of your home.
“I know of no small retailer who would happily pay more rent, regardless.”
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You’re saying that a tenant would not be willing to pay an additional $1,0000/month rent to be in a location that resulted in a $50,000/month increase in sales (depending on their profit margin)? Trust me, I know of plenty of such retailers.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
The main difference between downtown Davis and downtown Woodland is the layout. The commercial district of Davis is a grid while in Woodland it is a strip. On a grid foot access is much easier than on a strip. This is why SLO, or Arcata are better comparisons. They also have colleges. Comparing the commercial districts of Davis to Woodland without recognizing the difference in the layout is only a little better than comparing Davis to Vancouver.
“Look at the disparity between the downtown rents and the neighborhood shopping centers.”
Don, you have it exactly backwards. Those shopping centers that have higher rents than downtown also have higher sales per sq. ft. (or at least the perception thereof) That’s why those rents are higher. Where the inverse is true, the rents are lower than downtown. Surely, you’re not going to argue this point?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Michael, the high-rent shopping centers are nearly vacant. I’m unconcerned about perception. I’m concerned about irrational landlords. By the way,
[i]”Where the inverse is true, the rents are lower than downtown…”
[/i]
Really? Oakshade?
Don: [i]”I know of no small retailer who would happily pay more rent, regardless.” [/i]
This is complete nonsense. Businesses are interested in their net, and return on investment, not just their costs. I don’t know of any business owner who would not gladly pay more in rent for a place that they [b]knew[/b] would increase their profits…excepting of course, maybe, you.
“…some existing retailers would be skeptical of the benefits of rapid, large-scale redevelopment of the downtown.”
Don, this statement is a bit fantastic. With the property ownership as fractured as it is downtown, who exactly is anticipating “rapid, large-scale redevelopment of the downtown”? Are you trying to one-up Alan?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[i]pay more in rent for a place that they knew would increase their profits…excepting of course, maybe, you.[/i]
And what, pray tell, do you [b]know[/b] will increase your profits, Mark? You let me know when you figure out exactly how small tenant retailers can be certain of the benefits of actions that will increase their revenues.
Michael, I have no idea what it is you advocate for the downtown. You and others seem to disparage people who are skeptical about the prospects for business development downtown, and suggest they are obstacles to…something. What? I don’t know what downtown property owners want to do that is being obstructed. I would be happy to see the parking/retail structure go forward. What else?
Don, really, I don’t know what’s going on here with you this evening. I deal all day long with tenants that are seeking to move to a perceived better location to generate more sales, albeit pay more rent. I support my family from a principal that you say I’m imagining. I’m not the only one hallucinating, apparently Mark is too.
Where the inverse is true is the Davis Center, the Davis Manor, and Westlake (the 5th Street Commerce Center is rapidly joining this club). I’m having a really tough time understanding why your arguing this point.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
What are you advocating for the downtown, Michael?
I’d like an Apple store in Downtown.
Just spent the afternoon in Los Gatos. Now, that’s a place to which Davis should aspire, at least based on the downtown. Nice quirky (but not rundown) 2- to 3-story buildings with lots of quality shopping. (And an Apple Store) It was very busy until I left at 7 p.m.
The biggest difference was the large number of kids (like 11-16) shopping, talking on the streets. It made me think of the Pied Piper story, imagining he drew the children from Davis to Los Gatos.
There weren’t as many bars as we support. I realized that the biggest number of folks I see evenings in DT Davis is the college student crowd and wondered if that’ll ever change. And, until these recent discussions, I’ve never considered my hometown as a big shopping destination for outsiders.
I figured if people [u]have[/u] to be here for meetings, conferences or Mondavi performances, there’s not much else to do but wander around the town. I assumed that the outside shoppers were just a trickle-down benefit.
Since this seems to be the argument for staying the way we are, has there been any research done by the Chamber or DDBA or city government that supports the contention that our quirky downtown draws large numbers of shoppers here from out of town?[quote]”Because the property owners are presumably satisfied with the income they derive from them, or they own them free and clear and don’t have the means or inclination to develop them into something else. Whenever I see these discussions about what people would like to see done to the downtown, I wonder how they propose to motivate the property owners to make changes.”[/quote]I understand that the [i]Enterprise[/i] and Ace owners might not have motivation to move without the city getting involved.
But, there’s hardly any purpose for the newspaper to be where it is anymore, given modern technology. Their dumpy buildings must be sitting on a goldmine of potential business property. I’ve not thought of Ace as an “anchor”–when I head for Davis Hardware, I’m usually on a mission. I almost never use it as a chance to buy a pizza lunch or run over to Dimple Records.
I’d think both businesses would prosper outside the core downtown area, opening up four contiguous city blocks at once for urban renewal and the basis for revitalizing the whole downtown. A small example for landowner motivation is the new Goodyear shop, once cramped in a big shed across from Ace and now further out with easy access and plenty of parking and all of their old customers.
And, of course, nobody cares where the [i]Enterprise[/i] offices end up. Don’t you think either business would be interested in hearing what kind of motivation the city/RDA might have to help them get rich and help energize the whole of downtown? Maybe not, but it seems worth a try.
“Your hypothetical is nothing more than that: hypothetical. There is nothing that you or anyone else has proposed for downtown that would yield massive increases in retail sales for existing retailers. Try not to oversell the benefits of redevelopment, and I’ll try not to be so skeptical.”
Don, I have absolute respect for you as a retailer given your long track record. But are you saying curing functional and economic obsolesence is not helpful to retail? Are you saying that updating dated retail spaces to meet current consumer expectations is not helpful to retail? Are you saying that creating a critical mass of retailers each with a strong marketing program is not helpful to retail? Are you saying that locating more office workers and residents in downtown is not helpful to retail? Are you saying that attracting more visitors to downtown is not helpful to retail? Are you saying providing better lighting is not helpful to retail? Are you saying providing more art and entertainment is not helpful to retail? Are you saing beautification efforts are not helpful to retail? Are you saying providing more convenient parking is not helpful to retail? What part of the foregoing is “overselling”?
Has Don been abducted by aliens?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
JustSaying: So you are advocating that the city take action to try to get the Enterprise and Davis Ace to move out of the downtown?
What are you advocating for the downtown, Michael? I’m not saying any of those things.
How do you propose to cure functional and economic obsolescence? Which properties are obsolete? Why haven’t the property owners cured the obsolescence of those properties? What role are you proposing for government in achieving this?
Which retail spaces do you want to update, and with whose money? Which property owners have such a desire, and how are they being impeded?
What marketing program are you proposing, and with whose money?
Who is impeding “attracting more visitors to downtown?”
Where is better lighting needed?
What do you want to beautify? Whose property? With what money? Why aren’t the property owners beautifying their own property?
Re: parking; see above.
Don, the city has taken a number of actions to spur the development of the Enterprise and Davis Ace properties, hello. These were unanimous council decisions by the way.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Davis Ace is not an anchor store. Anchor stores brings shoppers into an area thereby helping other surrounding shops. Davis Ace simply takes advantage of their historic position allowing their store to be larger than any other store in the core. Davis Ace, more than any other store in town, benefits from the City’s protectionist approach to retail development vis-a-vis the core. That is not intended to be a negative commentary on the owners, but simply a statement of fact.
[i]Has Don been abducted by aliens?
[/i]
I’m assuming that the funding for the myriad projects you’ve just more-or-less itemized is RDA funds. I’ve argued the point before that RDA funds have disproportionately gone to downtown projects. The results are nice, but there are sites in Davis that would benefit from such attention and funds. Ironically, you identified them in your rejoinder earlier.
I just reread Brett’s the part of Brett’s statement that David reported. I take a lot of the zoning dynamics for granted, and I don’t think that I effectively explained my concerns. (This is not an attack on Brett; I am just hoping he will think about my perspective a little).
[quote](Brett Lee) responded that he likes the residential zoning process where, if there are no variances, the approval process is automatic – that is, “the default assumption is that it will be approved. I’d like the same type of situation for the downtown – [b]David Greenwald quoting Brett Lee.[/b][/quote]Now this is a pretty heavy statement. This would represent a total departure from our current mechanism — a mechanism that has been associated with some very nice buildings.
The problem with Brett’s “automatic approval approach” is that the zoning parameters have to be set to the outermost limits. So Brett is saying that a land owner can virtually walk in to the planning department and merely show that the plans conform to the outermost zoning parameters. This means that there is nothing to keep the entire downtown from being built to the outermost parameters of the zoning, which means pretty much lot edge to lot edge and whatever height is set – I believe he would like to start with four stories, but I hope he will correct me himself if I am wrong.
He also said something about eliminating design review which David did not report. That means that it could be pretty cheaply built. The reason that we get the beautiful buildings that we have gotten most likely has something to do with design review.
Again, I am trying to clarify why I think that it is better to stick with our current system that has served us so well, even if a few builders might be unhappy with it.
Mark: I’ve often wondered what would happen to downtown if Davis Ace were broken up into smaller specialty shops. I think it’s the closest thing to an anchor store that the downtown has. Overall, though, a lot of small shops in the same space could yield more sales tax for the city.
[quote]”JustSaying: So you are advocating that the city take action to try to get the Enterprise and Davis Ace to move out of the downtown?”[/quote]That’s it, Don, exactly, just like it did to move out the businesses that have been replaced by the movie theater, restaurants, federal building, offices, stores and parking lot.
The reason is that they create a dead zone right in the middle of the downtown, their buildings are ugly and the potential for revitalizing is exceptional. And, they aren’t quirky enough. The [i]Enterprise[/i] offices, in fact, have all of these things against them and nobody goes inside anyway. Except the employees, of which 90% or more would vote to move to their new building out in east Davis (once the city starts talking).
If we can move a great Davis/UCD tradition like Caffe Italia away from downtown and the University, down to auto row, we can do anything!
Don, at 10:17pm you ask a series of questions to which each response, if detailed and itemized, would require a several page response. For example, you ask “Where is better lighting needed?” Do you want me to name each block or does the response, all of the downtown suffice? It is not at all clear to me whether you’re being argumentative with these questions or are you really curious as to the responses?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“I’m assuming that the funding for the myriad projects you’ve just more-or-less itemized is RDA funds.”
Wrong, I’m not currently advocating that any of these projects be funded by the RDA. I was, past tense, advocating for RDA funding for constructing additional parking, but that is all on hold for now.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
My series of questions was a direct response to your series of questions.
All of downtown needs better lighting? Wow. I walk down there a lot, and hadn’t noticed that. I wonder if the other shopping centers need better lighting. Who should pay for that?
Why aren’t the property owners who have obsolete buildings with retail spaces that you think need updating — why aren’t they doing anything about it? How do you propose those be changed? How is the city an obstacle to that?
Don: An anchor store has a draw that brings consumers into an area, thereby helping the surrounding stores. Davis Ace does not fit that model; it just happens to be larger than the neighborhood stores. Whole Foods (Paycheck) is a store that can act as an anchor, yet while we (as a community) sing the praises of Davis Ace, at the same time disparage the idea of a Whole Foods.
There is little about our downtown that would not be improved by redevelopment. I had lunch with a friend in Cloverdale today and found many more interesting shops in a two block region in this small town than I can find in the Davis core…with all of the buildings being a single story tall (frankly the food was better too). The Davis core was dated in the 70’s and has not appreciably changed. Why anyone thinks it is good today is beyond me.
Why would Davis Ace want to move? They are the only game in town. Much of what they carry isn’t available elsewhere for miles around. The premium prices they get are still a savings when the gas and time to go to Woodland is discounted. With the don’t build it here closed mindedness of Davis keeping real competition out any notion that Davis Hardware would move is completely divorced from reality.
You want to re-imagine Downtown Davis without the Enterprise or Davis Hardware? You would have a better chance of getting PG&E to sell out. It seems reality has taken the night off. Until Davis brings in a Lowe’s or a Home Depot, Davis Hardware is going to sit right there employing lots of people and making lots of money for its owners. Oh, I don’t blame them one bit.
If I was young and ambitious I would maybe try to open a competing hardware store in Stonegate or at one of the other failing strip malls. As long as Davis is determined to keep the category killers out there is a real need for a competing hardware store and even with the inventory and real estate advantages of Davis Hardware I think another hardware store with competitive prices would have a chance.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”Sue: It is easy to advocate for things that you know are not likely to happen. Tell us about the infill project you support within 2 blocks of your home.”[/i]
Mark, let me help you refine your question. There is a Senior Housing infill project that was the topic of a University/B Street Neighborhood meeting on Wednesday night at the Hattie Webber Museum. Sue attended a portion of that meeting. According to an e-mail from Mike Webb, City Council was scheduled to discuss the pre-application for that site on April 3rd. Sue should be able to share her specific thoughts about infill at that site.
Don, the DDBA has been advocating for improved lighting for over 2 years now. The entire council is on board. Until this evening, I had not heard a single person dispute the need. So now I know there’s someone disputing it.
In a shopping center, the landlord should pay for lighting upgrades. On public property, the city should pay for the upgrades.
As for the obsolete buildings with retail spaces in need of updates, many have been updated, and many are still in need of updating. The city is an obstacle in many respects. The biggest is the lack of certainty with a very great risk that a property owner spends a lot of time and expense going through the development process only to be on the wrong side of a 3/2 vote.
Don, your being awfully querulous for some reason this evening. It’s as if you just arrived in Davis and are unaware of all the redevelopment impediments. I don’t know what to make of it. Did Sue Greenwald hijack your PC?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
If there is a consensus for more lighting, why did you bring it up?
I am aware that you believe the city is an obstacle to redevelopment downtown. The only specific project I am aware of that has been blocked is the parking/retail project. This is your chance to tell us what others are being held up.
Since you tend to focus on Sue Greenwald, who are the other two votes that make up the wrong side? Which of the current candidates do you believe would be on the right side of such a vote?
The reason I am querulous, as you put it, is that it is clear to me that the Chamber and the DDBA are going to try to posit that certain candidates are harmful to business and downtown interests. You and Kemble have made that clear. I am not thrilled to see this new political advocacy by either organization, but especially by DDBA. As noted on another thread: DDBA is an assessment district. Members can’t quit. I quit the Chamber over its political positions. But if I were a downtown retailer, I couldn’t quit DDBA even if I wanted to.
It seems funny that anyone thinks of downtown as historic or its architecture worthy of preservation. Is there really any architecture that has historical significance? The two interesting structures are the old bank at 2nd and G and the train station. Am I missing something? I’m not saying we should tear it all down and start over like Chicago did after its great fire but I have always scratched my head in wonder at the idea that there is something worthy of preservation in downtown.
[quote]”I think it’s the closest thing to an anchor store that the downtown has.”[/quote]Don, I guess I don’t understand what you mean by an “anchor store.” I’ve only heard the term to define a big store that draws people from throughout the region to a place they’d otherwise have no reason to drive to (a shopping center), thereby bringing customers to adjacent smaller stores that otherwise couldn’t draw enough shoppers to stay in business.
Ace doesn’t meet any of those basics for me. I “stop by” Davis Hardware when I’m downtown for a movie or Dinner or going to the credit union much more often than the other way around.
And if I add together my trips to Hibbert Lumber and Red Barn Nursery, they’d total something very close to the number of Ace runs I make. I guess if I could depend on parking and didn’t have to jaywalk to get to three buildings to buy three items, I might have a different history. But, of course, one can’t
What makes Ace an “anchor store” in your mind and your experience?
[quote]Sue should be able to share her specific thoughts about infill at that site.–[b]Matt William[/b][/quote]Matt, I am conflicted out on that project. I sat quietly in the back of the room for a few minutes and listened. Of course I have not talked with staff about it nor have I said anything in about it with staff present. To be on the safe side, I am not going to say anything publicly about the project.
[quote]”Why would Davis Ace want to move? They are the only game in town.”[/quote]Mr.Toad, wouldn’t you spend more time and money at Davis Hardware if it were in a building along 2nd Street or another of our areas with empty buildings and empty land. If there was parking next to it just like a real store.
It wouldn’t change the monopoly bonanza to the proprietors. Ace owners would get a bunch of money from the city and from selling their prime real estate for quirky little shops and eateries. More than enough to set up a great store that could compete with anyone that might try to move into Stonegate. They could hire even more people and pay even more taxes. And we could have more fun downtown.
JustSaying: I think Davis Ace draws people from all over Davis for housewares, pet supplies, and home and yard improvement supplies, among other things. They also carry a lot of seasonal items during the holidays. But I strongly approve of the shopping pattern you describe.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt, I am conflicted out on that project. I sat quietly in the back of the room for a few minutes and listened. Of course I have not talked with staff about it nor have I said anything in about it with staff present. To be on the safe side, I am not going to say anything publicly about the project.”[/i]
Sue your answer confuses me. You purposely came to the meeting and spent quite a bit of time talking with the project opponents in public. Is that any different than posting your thoughts here?
Maybe I need to buy a dog. You’re welcome.
“I am aware that you believe the city is an obstacle to redevelopment downtown. The only specific project I am aware of that has been blocked is the parking/retail project. This is your chance to tell us what others are being held up. Since you tend to focus on Sue Greenwald, who are the other two votes that make up the “wrong side?” Which of the current candidates do you believe would be on the right side of such a vote?”
Joe flip flopped on the parking/retail project. Staff broadened the scope of the project to include a downtown parking management plan and street infrastructure improvements, to appease Joe, such that it conflicted Swanson out so that she couldn’t even participate in the vote. This was entirely infuriating. Both Dan and Steve wanted to continue with the public outreach. Because there weren’t three votes on that particular night, the public never got to weigh in.
E Street improvements have been held up. It was held up initially by staff and Greenwald because the hotel/conference facility and retail/parking projects were higher priorities. Now there are no RDA funds for it.
Development of city owned lots has been held up by staff and Greenwald, but both have been schizophrenic about it because both have supported developing various city owned lots under different scenarios. As far as I can tell, staff is currently not pursuing this one because there’s no point in spending city funds and staff time pursuing a development only to have the council flip flop at some point during the development process.
The lights, last I heard, is back on the priority list, but was stalled for a year or so. The delay is likely due to staff being overloaded with other council priorities. This has been one of my main beefs with the council. There is a cost to constantly second guessing staff, micromanaging, revisiting, flip flopping, overloading with too many priorities. The cost is time. This is my main beef with the council and is a primary reason I consider it dysfunctional.
I think all candidates other than Sue recognize the need for better management of the existing parking supply, but also recognize we simply don’t have enough to currently meet daily peak demand.
Don, maybe I missed it. Have you conceded “affordable rent” being a function of various factors, or are you still holding out with Sue?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
No, I drive right in and park. At most I go around the lot twice. I see no reason why they would want to move or why they should be forced to move. They have a great location downtown that is centrally located and probably own the real estate free and clear. They have no competition so they probably have good margins. If anything should be built along Second Street it should be a big box supply like a Lowe’s or Home Depot. Watch everyone howl about that arguing that we don’t want competition from category killers just as they did against Target. Then watch them go shop there. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel we need to provide competition.
“The reason I am querulous, as you put it, is that it is clear to me that the Chamber and the DDBA are going to try to posit that certain candidates are harmful to business and downtown interests.”
Don, if certain candidates are openly hostile to business and downtown interests, it’s pretty clear that they’re “harmful” to those interests. And if a candidate is hostile to business, and business is one of three legs of community sustainability, is such a candidate not “harmful” to community interests? Please note the conditional question. Some may disagree with the notion that business is critical to community sustainability. We shall see.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[i]”Have you conceded “affordable rent” being a function of various factors, or are you still holding out with Sue?”[/i]
An interesting rhetorical device. Of course it is. And I assume Sue agrees with that.
E Street: “held up initially by staff and Greenwald”
City owned lots: “held up initially by staff and Greenwald”
“As far as I can tell, staff is currently not pursuing this one…”
How does a single councilmember hold up a project? It sounds to me that your problem is with staff.
Nothing you favor will happen, if they involve city funds, unless the city’s budget issues are resolved. The parking structure, or something like it, can go forward because the funds are encumbered and set aside for that purpose. But as you note, it was nearly the whole council that pushed that back (as you know, I think it’s probably dead, but you never know). So supporting a candidate who gives good rhetoric to business development, but has no clear record on budget and contract issues, is taking a big gamble.
If the leadership of the two business organizations has problems with Sue, someone else should do the 2×2’s.
Actually, I’ve never heard Sue agree with it, quite the contrary. I’ve always heard Sue say that the reason some retailers are struggling is becuase the rent is too high. She has never to my knowledge said that there is insufficient economic activity downtown. I’ve never heard her say that too many of the retail spaces are dated. I’ve never heard her say we need to create more retail space downtown so that we have a critical mass of retailers. Nope, I’ve only heard her talk about lowering commercial rents. You were saying the same thing earlier this evening, so I’m not sure what rhetorical device your referring to. Mark West was pretty quick to counter your statement as well.
Don, apparently, you haven’t had any dealings with the council the past couple of years. When a council is dysfunctional, it’s not that difficult for one council member to sidetrack city staff, especially if the remaining council members disagree with this or that aspect of a policy or project. Have you been to the summer strategy session? If you set 50-100 priorities for staff, are those still priorities when you have that many of them? Or is that a grab bag?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“Nothing you favor will happen, if they involve city funds, unless the city’s budget issues are resolved.”
I don’t think you read my initial response too closely. I said these projects, except for the lights, did not entail city funds.
“If the leadership of the two business organizations has problems with Sue, some other councilmember should do the 2×2’s.”
Hello? We’re not entirely stupid. You don’t think we asked? The answer was “no”, so we decided to no longer attend.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]@Matt Williams: Matt, let’s stick to the policy issues and avoid the goading, baiting and innuendo. I would like to hear your views on the best way to approach downtown infill or some of the other ideas that were brought up last night.[/i]
Sue, the best place to start regarding downtown infill is to recognize that any infill project in Davis, whether business or residential or mixed use takes [u]tens of months to bring from concept to fruition[/u]. That timeline makes downtown infill a toothless tiger when it comes to addressing the immediate challenges of rebuilding Davis’ community sustainability. Whether an individual infill project begins its approval journey in the coming weeks or not isn’t going to generate additional Revenues for the City and isn’t going to generate additional Sales Revenues for the City’s businesses. Instead of spending lots of time debating the Supply Side (downtown business space) I believe we need to focus on the Demand Side (how much Davis residents buy in Davis).
Earlier in this thread Jeff Boone posted the following, [i]“But, here is the real kicker… Berkeley retail sales per capita is $12,700 (about the state average). Davis’s retail sales per capita is $7,752.”[/i]
What can we do about that $5,000 disparity?
Does every Davis resident have a vested interest in doing something about that $5,000 disparity?
Bottom-line, the answers to those two questions are YES and YES. I encourage everyone in Davis to go to the [url]www.BuyLocalBerkeley.com[/url] website. As they point out there, [b]Why Buy Local?[/b]
[b]Ten Reasons to Buy in Davis[/b]
1. [u]It keeps dollars in our economy[/u] – For every $100 you spend at one of our local businesses, $68 will stay in the community.
2. [u]It fosters what makes us unique[/u] – You wouldn’t want your house to look like everyone else’s in the U.S. So why would you want your community to look that way?
3. [u]It creates local jobs[/u] – Local businesses are better at creating higher-paying jobs for our neighbors.
4. [u]It helps the environment[/u] Buying from a local business conserves energy and resources in the form of less fuel for transportation, less packaging, and products that you know are safe and well made, because our neighbors stand behind them.
5. [u]It nurtures our community[/u] – We know you, and you know us. Studies have shown that local businesses donate to community causes at more than twice the rate of chains.
6. [u]It conserves tax dollars[/u] – Shopping in a local business district means less infrastructure, less maintenance, and more money available to beautify our community. Also, spending locally instead of online ensures that your sales taxes are reinvested where they belong—right here in your community!
7. [u]It creates more choice[/u] – Local businesses pick the items to sell based on what you like and want. Local businesses carry a wider array of unique products because we buy for our own individual market.
8. [u]It takes advantage of local expertise[/u] – You are our friends and neighbors, and we have a vested interest in knowing how to serve you. We’re passionate about what we do. Why not take advantage of it?
9. [u]It invests in entrepreneurship[/u] – Creativity and entrepreneurship are what the American economy is founded upon. Nurturing local business en-sures a strong community.
10. [u]It makes us a destination[/u] – The more interesting and unique we are as a community, the more we attract tourists, shoppers and others who want to visit Davis. This benefits everyone!
. . . continued from above
[b]Why Don’t Davis Residents Buy in Davis?[/b]
1. [b][u]At an individual purchaser level, we really don’t know the magnitude of the impact of our non-Davis purchases[/u][/b]. – I would start by asking each Davis household to look at their monthly expenditures and identify the purchases that if purchased in Davis would have contributed to raising our $7,752 sales per capita closer to Berkeley’s $12,700. $5,000 per person per year would be [u]$325 million per year[/u]in our city of 65,000 residents . . . more if you include the capture of more purchases from UCD students who live on campus and UCD employees who don’t live in Davis. Lets hereafter collectively call all those groups “Davis Consumers.”
2. [b][u]At an individual purchaser level, we really don’t know what our own Davis businesses offer.[/u][/b] – Armed with the list of non-Davis purchases, we can ask ourselves the simple question, [i]“Could I have purchased each of these items locally?”[/i] Sometimes the answer is truly going to be “No.” However, even more often the answer is going to be “I honestly don’t know.” We need to immediately begin a BuyLocalDavis education campaign that helps Davis Consumers know more about their local Davis options for purchasing the items on that $325 million list.
3. [u][b]At an individual purchaser level we don’t know how easy buying local can be[/b][/u]. – Bellingham-Washington area residents initiated a “Local First” education campaign with (and for) their residents, and as a result have seen significant changes in their purchasing behavior because of it. Nearly 3 in 5 households attribute a behavior change to the campaign.
Key findings:
•58% of Bellingham residents reported that as a result of the program they are more deliberate than they were before the program began about choosing local, independently owned businesses first.
•92% of business participants would recommend the program to other businesses in their industry.
4. [b][u]At a community level we are not doing enough to help ourselves[/u][/b]. – Davis has not created a resource to A) find out what people want from Davis’ independent purveyors, and/or B) provide a conduit for Davis Consumers to easily show their support for the amazing businesses and organizations that make Davis one-of-a-kind!
5. [u][b]We simply haven’t collaborated enough[/b][/u]. – We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. The BuyLocalBerkeley effort grew out of the Berkeley Business District Network meetings that coordinated promotional efforts of a number of shopping areas in Berkeley. In 2007, the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies hosted their annual conference at UC Berkeley and a number Berkeley Community members were inspired by the Buy Local movement active in a number of cities across the nation.Since then, the BuyLocalBerkeley group has formalized itself through a Memorandum of Understanding, a fiscal sponsor (Downtown Berkeley Association) and a steering committee. Currently, they have a contract with the City of Berkeley to conduct a niche marketing campaign to promote our community’s locally owned, independent businesses.
[b]Can Davis Do the Same?[/b]
Not only can Davis do the same, but a dedicated group of four Davis residents have started the process . . . and ironically enough it all started here on the Vanguard.
We have met, [u]collaborated[/u], [u]built consensus[/u], reached out to the City of Davis to begin the process of building a database of Davis retail and service businesses.
Getting back to how I would address Infill, if we inject a substantial portion of that $325 million into Davis’ Downtown, then we will indeed find ourselves addressing the longer term issue of how best to achieve quality Infill.
[i]”Nope, I’ve only heard her talk about lowering commercial rents. You were saying the same thing earlier this evening…”[/i]
I said, “Establishing market conditions that keep rents low is certainly a desirable way of maintaining the mix of small retailers.”
That means keeping some of the funky old buildings that have less-than-perfect retail sites. I don’t seek to somehow make downtown rents lower than they are.
If the council is dysfunctional, then I assume you oppose all the incumbents.
[b]@Michael Bisch:[/b] Yes, merchants can be gentrified out of business with redevelopment just as residents can. It is something we should be sensitive to and a factor that we should take into account. Since you are a commercial real estate broker and not a merchant who rents space, yet you are co-president of the DDBA, you might want to be a little careful about denigrating concerns about merchant rental costs.
As an aside: Ah, if only I had to power that you attribute to me in your voluminous posts!
“Since you are a commercial real estate broker and not a merchant who rents space, yet you are co-president of the DDBA, you might want to be a little careful about denigrating concerns about merchant rental costs.”
Since you are running for city council, you might consider doing a better job of listening and reading. I challenge you to cite the quote where I denigrate the concerns about merchant rental costs. What I did say is “affordable rent” is a function of a number of factors, not just the nominal rental amount. I also stated that I have yet to see you grasp this notion.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[quote]Rich Rifkin: I’m curious how much they cost to operate. My biggest present question is who approves the decisions to spend on expensive commission decisions? An example is environmental studies, currently the plastic/paper bag ban ordinance studies. Has the council okayed these next steps or does each commission work within an annual budget or….?[/quote]
From what I understand, SOME commissions are costing the city a great deal…
[quote]Just Saying: Sue, can I assume from this that you won’t deal with affordable housing, including DACHA, because I haven’t asked in a nicer way or that you don’t consider it a policy issue anymore.
I’m certainly frustrated by the council’s refusal to talk about this since the op-ed, but I can phrase questions in a different way if it’ll help get to some answers. [/quote]
It is my understanding that an affordable housing advisory committee will be formed, to take a look at the entire affordable housing program. I suspect part of their mission will be to take a look at past practices, to make sure the city does not repeat past mistakes…
“From what I understand, SOME commissions are costing the city a great deal…”
That’s not a particularly useful statement. How much are they costing? Which ones? What aspects of them are costing money?