In a letter dated October 27, a group of seven prominent downtown property and business owners, led by Jennifer Anderson, have asked the city council not to renew the Downtown Davis Business Association.
They write, “We object to this Association being renewed. We see no benefit to our businesses.”
Signers of this letter include property owners Jennifer Anderson, Anthony Reubner, Reed Youmans, Grace Chen and Lynn Yackzan, as well as Melrina Maggiora, real estate property manager, and Jason Taormino, a business owner.
The writers argue, “They spend nearly 50% of their budget on staff and they spend one third of their total budget on Art & Music events which promotes approximately 35 to 40 businesses of the 720 members.”
The letter continues: “This has become an UNFAIR tax on businesses that receive no benefit. For the dentists, dry cleaners, shoe repair, hardware store, beauty salon, real estate brokers and bankers – what do they get for the tax paid?”
They add, “It is even more difficult for those paying members that are north of 5th Street. They get nothing in terms of events or support.”
While the Vanguard is a downtown business, as a non-profit it is not a member of the DDBA. However, from our standpoint, there is a significant benefit to being in the downtown – with the lively atmosphere, being at the center of community happenings, that extends well beyond any specific benefit.
If these property owners are upset with how the resources of the DDBA are being spent, as members they ought to bring this up internally and handle it through the organization. On the contrary, it seems like the majority of the businesses are fine with how these resources are being spent – if they weren’t they would hire a new director and elect a new board that would change the priorities.
The city council would be wise not to attempt to micromanage the activities of the DDBA.
However, it is the next portion of the letter that draws far greater concern. In the wake of concerns about the late night bar scene, the letter writers draw us to another concern: “We have a serious problem with a dirty and unsafe downtown.”
They continue, “We support creating a new association with new leadership made up of restaurant, food service, bar owners and property owners to promote a CLEAN and safe downtown.”
The funding, they say, “would come from fees from these businesses to clean sidewalks, trash cans, and hire security for evening hours. This new Association would not be involved with parking or marketing.”
Furthermore, they support “a STRONG ordinance that would prohibit loitering and panhandling. We have developed a terrible visual appearance on street corners and in public seating areas. This has a very negative effect.”
They close, once again asking the council to “not renew the business association.”
Last summer the Davis City Council had a brief discussion on panhandling. At that time, staff noted, “Panhandling itself is not illegal; it is a protected form of speech and cannot be banned. In general, a person has a right to ask for or show a sign asking for assistance.”
However, time, manner and place of panhandling or solicitations can be regulated “in order to ensure the safety and well-being of the solicitors and others in the community.”
Staff concluded with some suggestions. It warned, “Laws regarding panhandling must be aimed at specific behaviors and acts, not a person’s status as a panhandler or otherwise. Restricting panhandling must be justified and defined.” Staff recommended, “Any policy considerations be vetted through local community discussions, including relevant commissions, before any additional steps are taken.”
Based on last summer’s discussion, it does not appear that a strong ordinance “that would prohibit loitering and panhandling” would be legal.
Moreover, I have been to a lot of downtowns across the country and Davis has one of the cleaner and nicer downtowns that I have seen. So I’m not sure that we have “a serious problem with a dirty and unsafe downtown.”
Naturally we have had lengthy discussions already on the need to reform the late night scene. A new association of restaurant, food service, bar owners and property owners seems to make some sense – whether it is a formal body or some sort of standing committee remains to be seen.
The issue of hiring security is clearly at the forefront of the discussions involving the late night. But as we showed last week with the crime statistics, it appears that the Davis Downtown is not getting less safe.
Again, our view is that the council should allow the DDBA to work out for itself how it should allocate its funding rather than getting involved themselves in an internal disagreement.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Great ideas.
““We object to this Association being renewed.”
I am lacking in understanding of the status of the DDBA and have some questions for anyone who would care to respond.
1. The use of the word “renewed” would seem to imply that the DDBA has a special relationship with the City of Davis. What is the nature of that relationship ?
2. Is membership in the DDBA obligatory or voluntary ? From the article it seems as though non-profits do not belong. Is that by choice or can they opt in ?
3. Is membership funded by taxes, or by fees ? On what are these monetary assessments based ? Size of businesses ? Revenue generation ? Some other factor ?
4. How does the DDBA differ from the Chamber of Commerce in the rights, obligations, advantages and disadvantages of the member businesses ?
5. What are the mechanisms available to the City Council to “micromanage” or influence the DDBA ?
All good questions, I was wondering the same thing. Are these businesses required to be part of the DDBA? If not, why can’t they start up their own association?
“Downtown Davis is a 32-block Business Improvement District (DBID)” formed in 1989. The DBID empowers business license holders in the defined area to self-assess annual fees to ensure the economic well-being of the district. Activities of the DBID include marketing, events and advocacy.
The Davis Downtown Business Association (DDBA) was organized concurrent with the formation of the DBID in 1989, and is the entity approved each year by the Davis City Council to execute the business of the DBID. An 11-member Board of Directors, elected each February by the DDBA membership, guides the vision and mission of the organization.”
http://davisdowntown.com
;>)/
Thanks Biddlin
That’s a great start. Now I am also curious about the questions that BP raised. And,
1. Since this is a self assessment of fees, what happens to a business that does not pay the fees ? Are they fined, castigated in some way, not allowed a voting voice ( since it seems that some do not feel that they have a voice in any event, this might be a negligible loss).
2. Could someone spell out which 32 blocks are involved ?
3.How are specific activities are decided upon? For example are there subcommittees, working groups, votes of the entire group ? What determines who has a vote and who does not ?
The fees are assessed and collected by the city. You can’t ‘not’ pay them. The organization is run by an elected board.
but the board has the ability to set the assessments and how that money is used?
“Downtown Davis is a 32 block Business Improvement District (DBID) formed in 1989. The DBID empowers business license holders in the defined area to self-assess annual fees to ensure the economic well-being of the district. Activities of the DBID include marketing, events and advocacy.” The downtown businesses are required to be members.
Sounds like “compelled. . . to self-assess annual fees” is more accurate than “empowers.”
Also, sounds like “to ensure the economic well-being” is not working out too well, at least for many of the (coerced) members.
I strongly support sunset provisions and frequent reassessments of compulsory taxes, licensing, and other artificial constraints to conducting a fair and honest business.
If you own a business or property downtown, you are a member of DDBA. It is a mandatory tax district.
If those particular property owners want to dissolve DDBA, that is big news. It’s also very hard to do.
Thanks David.
Since membership is required, what means other than not allowing renewal would be available to a business or group of businesses that did not agree with the emphasis of the current leadership ? How often are votes on leadership held ? Is there a mechanism for recall of leaders or a “vote of no confidence” ? Is there a specific group of businesses that consistently holds the balance of power in the DBID or is this more fluid ?
If I had a downtown business that alone would be reason enough for me to want to opt out.
I’m recalling a few years ago the DDBA got rid of the full-time director and one support staffer. Is there any other staff than Stewart Savage at this time? Is he full-time?
What kept the organization from dissolving back then (this was just after the Target vote) was that Jennifer Anderson and some other downtown business owners got involved again. So if she’s spearheading this move, that is very significant. We (I’m not a member, but I was involved in the discussions) were told at the time that it took a super-majority vote of the members to dissolve the organization.
At that time almost their entire budget went to staff and rent. Staff primarily organized the downtown events. It was a full-time director and a half-time staff person. They moved the office and reduced the director to part-time, though that may have changed.
Here is a link to the annual report that was submitted to the City for approval as well as the DDBA bylaws. Together, these two documents pretty much answer all the Vanguard reader questions.
http://davisdowntown.com/annual-report/
And here’s a link to the city ordinance governing the DBID:
http://qcode.us/codes/davis/view.php?topic=15-15_10
THAT is very useful! Thank you.
Is this just an attempt by the restaurants and bars to use the DDBA funds to help pay for the extra costs here and coming?
i think it goes deeper and more fundamental than that issue.
I suspect it has more to do with control of the organization and the message. As the Downtown business scene has become more service and entertainment oriented, the influence of the long-time land owners and retail stores has diminished. If you cannot control the message, the next best thing is to shut down the organization and get rid of the expense.
It might be informative to look back at the formation of the DBID and see who were the business leaders pushing the City to create it.
Mark West: “I suspect it has more to do with control of the organization and the message.”
Exactly.
“It might be informative to look back at the formation of the DBID and see who were the business leaders pushing the City to create it.” Absolutely. That would test my local theory, which was based on experience elsewhere. Funny how we were composing posts on this subject within a minute or so of each other.
I’d be surprised if Davis ACE (Davis Lumber and Hardware, then) wasn’t one of the ‘movers and shakers’ during the formation.
My recollection is that Stan Forbes was very active.
This is interesting. I had two downtown offices when I had my consulting business and had no choice but to pay the DDBA assessment. It seemed a knee jerk approval every year by CC, increasing some years. I felt no advantage in my business and just got used to it.
Is this common in other towns?
Yes, but goes under various ‘names’… basic concept is that businesses can use the “police power” of the municipality to get other businesses to pony up where they can’t get a ‘buy-in’ for a voluntary group. Then, they can lay claim to spending for pet projects, w/o having to compete for General Funds. Usually established by the “rich and politically connected” folk, but then if the numerous Liliputians manage to turn the tables and “soak the 1%”, for THEIR priorities, you can get ‘blow-back’. No clue if that’s what’s happening here, but it is plausible.
There was a similar, informal, arrangement in Chicago, when I played in bars and bowling alleys there in the 70s. Everyone paid into a community protective organization, just called “The Outfit.”
;>)/
Ah, but if you’re referring to the same organization I’m thinking of, they did not have to have the City “enforce” the collection of “assessments” (Badges? We don’t need no stinking badges…)
LOL. Very good.
No, but in fact, they subsidized the police salary and retirement funds and were often the source of “second jobs” for the boys in blue. They also took care of the aldermen and ward bosses, who dole out the jobs and internships.
My longtime bass player, a native of the windy city’s 1st ward, was surprised to learn, in high school civics, that police didn’t work on a commission basis.
;>)/
Rather than presuming the best way to go about things in regard to the DDBA while not being in command of the facts, I would urge the Vanguard to do some investigation first before passing judgment. I would suggest that some very influential members of the DDBA are not happy with how the DDBA is run, and don’t feel they are being heard. Because DDBA participation is mandatory, and authorized by the City Council, it is perfectly appropriate for this group of dissatisfied business people to approach the City Council with their opinion on the future of the DDBA.
I know there is certainly a debate within the business community about the nightclub scene, in that some non-bar businesses resent being forced to pay for clean-up and porte-potties needed for the bars/nightclubs. I also know there has been some concern that the leadership of the DDBA never seems to change. The Business & Economic Development Commission would have been a great place to have some of this discussed, but alas the BEDC is no more – it was disbanded, which I always thought was a mistake. JMO
I agree that the downtown area is dirty and the sidewalks need to be cleaned more often – even as little as sweeping them off every morning could help.
I think that this is a conversation for the DDBA membership – the ones that pay the extra tax -but I enjoy the music and art events in the downtown area. Every time I go downtown for one of these events, I’m reminded of what else is available downtown.
I think the Downtown is dirty because of the leaf blowers early in the morning. Every time I am Downtown, I get blasted by these morons with leaf blowers, and if parked, residue from the blowers. Is that DDBA? or is that other landscape companies just being stupid?
So Jennifer Anderson does not want to financially support or subsidize downtown business development for the greater good of the downtown because she does not see personal financial benefit. Fair enough. But then why is the City continuing to offer free parking in the two City-owned parking lots directly in front of her two downtown Ace Hardware business locations. The City should install meters in these parking lots like that on E St. and use the proceeds for lot maintenance or other downtown development activities. Why should Ace Hardware almost exclusively benefit from the costs to the City to maintain these lots which benefit few other entities other than Davis Ace Hardware customers. Sounds like Ms. Anderson wants to have her cake and eat it too…a typical response from a business sucking on the government largesse.
I know the downtown businesses pay parking fees, which is separate from the DDBA assessment.
To put a (not so) fine point on it… there are parking assessment districts… know a business has to pay in (one-time/lump sum) for “in-lieu parking” when they cannot supply the required parking on-site (except those who politically manage to be exempted). Did not realize that there was on-going assessments. Perhaps David’s sources (or others) can further illuminate.
“Why should Ace Hardware almost exclusively benefit from the costs to the City to maintain these lots which benefit few other entities other than Davis Ace Hardware customers.” Wow!… and your basis for the bolded contention/assertion? Actual data? Proximity?
Why not extend your ‘proposal’ to all of the publicly owned parking lots, parking structures, and public streets in downtown? That would help put a dent in the street maintenance backlog (and the GF costs of parking enforcement)! I’ll readily support your idea, Alan, if it extended to ALL publicly owned parking lots, parking structures, and on-street parking! I was opposed to paid parking in the lot between E/F, Second/Third.
But you bring up a good idea… you GO, dude!
I’ve never noticed an “Ace parking only” sign on that lot. That would be like saying every business in the downtown has preferred parking directly in from of their stores which we all know is BS.
I think you summarized well in your last sentence, BP. I’m starting to think Mr Pryor’s
rantconcern is based on perhaps not convincing ACE to affirm adoption of a $15/hour minimum wage (or, perhaps other benefits). Would make sense based on what I can see on the “web”, and his “passions”.BTW, one of the articles that came up on the web search indicated Mr Pryor is an Ag, or Environmental Engineer. He is registered as neither. Probably not his fault for the attribution.
Does anyone know if the signatories tried to meet w/ the DDBA first? From a process perspective, that seems like a good starting point. It’s always best to try and find common ground before creating an “us/them” dynamic. Maybe have the DDBA poll the membership… 720 businesses… to see where the membership stands and whether they’d like to move in a different direction. It certainly wouldn’t be wise to move on something of this magnitude if you have seven people in favor of the shift and 713 unknowns. If a shift in direction is desired, I always find it best to work within existing organizations rather than creating a new one to replace it.
A question:
I know that some of the signatories of the letter own buildings near/on 4th & G (ACE Hardware, Court-N-Cedar, etc). Do any of them own one or more of the buildings (not necessarily the business occupying the buildings) that are linked to safety problems in the downtown? For example, do any of the signatories own one of the buildings housing a bar or nightclub on G Street between 1st and 3rd? I did a quick records search* and found that the same LLC who owns 238 G Street – the location of KetMoRe – also owns Davis Ace Hardware… at least that’s the way I understand it. This may require more research David Greenwald. But, if something like that is true, that one or more of the signatories of the letter own one or more of the “safety problem” buildings, well… I’ll just let that sit there on its own.
On a personal level, I’d hate to see us lose the excitement of the downtown and all that it offers to the community. No Treat Trail or ArtAbout or Sidewalk Sales… those are the things that draw myself and many others to the downtown, which benefits ALL businesses.
*Someone please double check on this. I did a VERY quick search and would like to ensure that this information is correct. If not, I will ask this post to be deleted.
You are correct.
I had a long talk today with one of the signatories. They have valid concerns. I’m not sure what is the proper process to address their issues and concerns, but they 100% need to be addressed.
I would suggest a first step might be to hold a joint meeting of the DDBA, CC, staff, and concerned business owners and residents.
isn’t there already a 2 by 2? wouldn’t that be the appropriate venue?
It seems the conflict is either mission conflict, or poor performance related to mission. If the latter, then it makes sense to take this approach. If the former I would think a more productive approach would be to first challenge the DDBA to change the mission.
I don’t see a specific mission statement on the website. I see this:
Advocating on behalf of the Downtown.
Organizing, sustaining, and supporting activities and events.
Developing regional marketing opportunities.
Expanding relations with the City and UC Davis.
Addressing parking issues.
Promoting diverse business opportunities.
My sense is that this organization is lacking adequate guiding principles. I would spend some of the budget to do a “re-visioning” exercise with and outside facilitator. Then the board needs to adopt the changes and demand staff get it done or else.
Frankly: “My sense is that this organization is lacking adequate guiding principles.”
My sense is that the organization is following its guiding principles and dictates of its Board just fine. The Downtown has changed over the last decade and I suspect that these signatories no longer represent the majority interest of the membership of the Association. Things were great when they could spend other people’s money to push their own agenda, but now things have changed and they are the ones paying for an agenda they no longer control. They sound like spoiled children and the CC should ignore them.
Does/did Ace Hardware pay for “in-lieu parking”? Do they have any “private” parking available for customers on their property, or do they rely solely on publicly owned spots?