COMMENTARY: West Sacramento Advisory Measure a Good Model To Start Looking At.
In this morning’s paper, three business leaders in Davis once again speak out against the proposed changes to the minimum square footage of proposed retail pads adjacent to Target. The developer is proposing a reduction in the minimum square footage from 10,000 to 2,000, and 8,000 to 4,000 for apparel stores.
“He wants a greater percentage of the pad buildings’ square footage be available for neighborhood uses and quick-serve restaurants,” Jennifer Anderson, Maria Ogyrdziak, and Alzada Knickerbocker write. “On the face of it, the request sounds benign enough.”
However, as we have noted, the development of Target has at least coincided with the drop of monthly shopping trips to the Davis downtown, which is 9.09 percent, and the drop in shopping trips to neighborhood shopping centers – down 21 percent, which is tremendous and potentially devastating.
Unfortunately, the op-ed really does not capture a lot of the problems with the proposal. They note that when the Target development was approved, “It was to contain the big-box retailers that couldn’t fit into our downtown and our existing neighborhood centers. It was to capture sales leakage that came from Davisites shopping outside of Davis for big-box goods. It was not to compete with, but to complement, the businesses Davis already had. The square footage allotments reflected that concept.”
They note that the shopping component campaign came with dissent and discussion.
They also question the reason for the changes to the zoning.
“What requires the changes?” they ask. “The developers say the economic environment. How has it changed any more for them than for the rest of Davis retailers? We are relatively healthy in Davis, but there are stubborn vacancies in the downtown and neighborhood centers that are the same size as those spaces the developer is asking for. Together, they exceed the square footage he’s asking for.”
They also note opposition to the changes.
“This is an important issue for Davis residents that is being presented as a simple change. There has been exactly one meeting with downtown business owners, a brown-bag lunch at which all attendees uniformly expressed objection. There has been little subsequent business or community input,” they complain.
They add: “The board of Davis Downtown, the association of downtown business owners, opposes the change. Individual businesspeople have spoken out. Community members plan to speak out. Yet the issue is still on the Planning Commission agenda Oct. 10 for an up or down vote with virtually no historical or policy discussion.”
There is a far more interesting discussion that could emerge from all of this, and it actually began a bit on the Vanguard a few weeks ago.
A suggestion was made that Davis’ downtown is not dying due to Target, but due to what is essentially neglect. The argument is that the buildings have long needed major upgrades and improvements, but that the owners of those buildings have failed to invest the money necessary to upgrade.
One of the problems the city now faces is the loss of redevelopment money that could be used to help redevelop the core.
Others suggested that they could utilize private money to achieve the same goals and that the downtown’s problem is that the landlords have had little incentive because they have been protected from competition due to limitations on peripheral business development.
These are controversial issues, to be sure. A number of cities have, in fact, developed on the periphery to the ultimate doom and detriment of their core.
On the other hand, something clearly needs to change at the local level. In recent years, the city has launched a number of economic initiatives – much focusing on the development of high-tech spinoffs which would seem a natural, given the proximity of the university and the expansive goals of UC Davis under Chancellor Linda Katehi.
But most of that development is unlikely to bolster sales taxes, and we would hope that in Davis we can find a way to develop retail without going the route of Big Box – a route that we think will actually undercut economic development efforts and in the long run is probably not sustainable.
At the same time as we lament the loss of redevelopment and even question its utility, it is interesting to note that other cities are once again moving forward with innovative ideas about how to secure funding for future projects.
One interesting idea comes from West Sacramento and their advisory Measure G, which “seeks the community’s opinion on the potential use of revenue that the City of West Sacramento will receive as a result of the elimination of the City’s Redevelopment Agency.”
The primary source of revenues for redevelopment agencies was known as a small tax increment – 1% property taxes paid for by property owners within the community. Local agencies will receive a portion of the revenues that used to go the redevelopment agency. For example, over the next year, the City of West Sacramento estimates it will receive $2.5 million of these revenues.
“Measure G asks voters if the City of West Sacramento should use these revenues for community investment projects. Measure G lists examples of community investment projects, but the list is not all-inclusive and the City Council will be responsible for selecting which specific projects receive funding each year,” the city attorney explains in the impartial analysis of Measure G.
The entire West Sacramento City Council is supporting Measure G and, in their argument in favor they write: “The City’s community investment efforts have created thousands of new jobs, provided more retail choices, quality housing, parks, street improvements, and brought new businesses and tax dollars to our local economy. West Sacramento has become a prime place in the region to live, work and play.
“Meanwhile, the City Council has taken a fiscally responsible approach in managing its finances, producing balanced city budgets while maintaining quality city services. Due to recent actions by the State, our most reliable source of funding for infrastructure improvements was eliminated. Yet the work of community investment in West Sacramento is far from complete. Measure G is a vote to continue that work.”
There is no filed argument against Measure G.
Davis obviously needs to get its fiscal house in order first. But if the city is serious about economic development and serious about rebuilding its downtown, it should take a serious look into innovative new solutions.
For too long, however, Davis has tried to talk to the talk. Meanwhile other communities, amazingly enough, are moving past us in terms of new and bold ideas for moving forward.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Surprised no comments so far… I’d like to hear from Mark or Don about West Sac’s proposal? What does Michael Bisch think?
Say what you will about West Sacramento, but they have it much more correct than Davis. They are investing in economic development as a long-term strategy to the economic health and viability of the city.
Meanwhile, Davis continues to focus on ideas for reaching deeper into taxpayer pockets to pop up its demand to stay stuck in the 1970s. There is no shared future vision of economic viability in the Davis approach. We are basically selling out our children’s future prosperity only to ensure the city does not change, and that the adults working for the city can retire young and well-off.
It is ironic that communities lost RDA for a similar reason… state Democrat politicians grasping for ways to ensure the adult state government workers continue to retire young and well-off. The only pension reform they could stomach hits the very same future generations that will have to deal with the crushing debt and the crumbling infrastructure while caring for a larger population of financially-well-off drooling old people kept alive by their premium healthcare plans.
The gas that fuels government is ultimately provided by the private economy. There is no way around it. Davis is the beneficiary of the cash cow of UCD… including the several thousand captive customers that attend or work for the university. However, it is a cow that is under-utilized and under-leveraged. Instead of a progressive, creative and innovative approach to develop a shopper-friendly, and UCD-collaborative, economic infrastructure, Davisites exploit the soft money of the university to maintain a funky bohemian village lifestyle serviced by over-compensated city employees. It is an attractive lifestyle; but it is one that is economically unsustainable.
It is time for Davis to embrace big box and more peripheral development. Some vacancies downtown would be a good thing. It would force the property owners to redevelop.
The downtown will not die with greater peripheral business and retail expansion, but the rest of will suffer the fiscal impacts trying to protect it from economic competition.
Jeff: I’m not following your point here: “Meanwhile, Davis continues to focus on ideas for reaching deeper into taxpayer pockets to pop up its demand to stay stuck in the 1970s” – in what way is Davis reaching deeper into pockets?
Jeff
[quote]t is time for Davis to embrace big box and more peripheral development. Some vacancies downtown would be a good thing. It would force the property owners to redevelop. [/quote]
That wouldn’t happen to be the same big box and peripheral development that has turned downtown
Woodland and downtown Vacaville into virtual ghost towns would it ? I can’t help but remember last year’s pre Christmas trip to Vacaville driving with my son back from the Bay area when we stopped in Vacaville on a Saturday mid day and were two of the six people we saw in the entire downtown ( one waiting at a bus stop to leave) but could literally not find a parking spot at the outlets. Is this the kind of redevelopment you had in mind ?
Most people have never even seen Vacaville’s downtown, but I do remember in the 1970’s when both Vacaville and Woodland had reasonably healthy downtown retail. Then they made the typical planning blunders that Jeff is advocating. The results of that have been quite predictable and I see no reason to expect they wouldn’t happen here as well. The only thing that would save Davis from as much blight would be that eateries and bars would increase as retail disappeared. Fortunately, hardly anybody agrees with Jeff.
I’m very glad to see Jennifer, Alzada, and Maria speaking out on this. These are committed downtown business and property owners, and I am very inclined to defer to their position on this specific issue. I particularly note their description of the DDBA meeting[i]: “a brown-bag lunch at which all attendees uniformly expressed objection. There has been little subsequent business or community input…”[/i]
So there was a presentation, key stakeholders unanimously objected, and that had zero impact on the staff or the developer.
That pretty much sums up the process for planning and development decisions when it is developer driven. At this point I see no reason to allow the zoning change.
Here is the text of the West Sac Measure G: “[i]Should the City direct ongoing revenue it receives from the dissolution of its Redevelopment Agency to continue funding community investment projects such as streets, bridges, transportation, parks, and public infrastructure?”[/i]
Back when the RDA’s were proposed for dissolution, I commented that they just amounted to a siphoning of existing property tax funds from the general revenues to be earmarked for specific purposes. My complaint at the time was that those funds were entirely expended for downtown projects, many of which amounted to beautification, and that the neighborhood centers gained no benefit. Partly that is because they had to be expended within a certain geographic area. But even South Davis and Olive Drive, which were within the RDA district, hardly got any direct benefit.
Certain people told me then that their big concern with loss of the RDA’s was that those property tax revenues would just go into the general budget and would no longer be earmarked for specific business development purposes. So West Sac is essentially asking its voters if they want the money to continue to be used as it was before. I don’t have a real problem with that so long as other parts of the city now benefit from it. There are small retail areas out of the downtown that could be enhanced.
Of more concern to me is what is going to happen to the parking structure funds that are costing interest money, and what will be done about parking.
[i]Jeff: I’m not following your point here: “Meanwhile, Davis continues to focus on ideas for reaching deeper into taxpayer pockets to pop up its demand to stay stuck in the 1970s” – in what way is Davis reaching deeper into pockets?[/i]
GrowthIssue: Davis earns about $7,500 per capita in retail sales compared to about $11,000 for Woodland, and $15,500 for Vacaville (the state average is about $12,500).
If it wasn’t for our no-growth propped-up real estate values bringing in premium property tax revenue, Davis would be a much bigger world of hurt from a lack of business tax revenue.
Nevertheless, all of these parcel tax measures (parks, schools, etc.) are necessary primarily because we don’t have enough business in this town generating sales tax revenue. We are basically taxing ourselves to subsidize our little village look and feel, pay our city employees very well, fund education at the levels we demand, and to protect the downtown from competition. It appears that we can no longer afford all of this. What has to give? I think the first thing that has to give is to stop protecting the downtown from competition.
It would one thing if the downtown property owners and merchants, in thanks for our no-growth stance to help protect them from competition, would clean up their properties and do some more renovation, and the city would work to aggressively pursue improvements and expansion; but we don’t get that. What we get is pretty much the status quo 1970s look and feel downtown. A downtown that is charming to walk around and get some food and a drink, but not so much to spend the bigger money that neighboring peripheral retail is extracting.
My opinion is that the downtown cannot be a full-service retail hub for a town this size. There are many products and services you currently cannot purchase downtown. Traffic and parking are issues all over the interior… but especially downtown. There is just not enough land to develop. So, we leak sales tax revenue as affluent residents shop out of town. We also fail to attract shoppers from the surrounding areas to help fill our tax coffers.
I think it is time to embrace some peripheral development on 113 north of Covell., and a business park where the Cannery was. I also think we should rethink the neighborhood malls… instead of demanding a grocery store anchor, let them do whatever will occupy their space.
I don’t know what we should do about South Davis auto-row. Davis does earn quite a bit of our retail tax revenue from auto sales (this fact should amplify the point about how meager our other retail sales are in comparison to other communities). Auto sales are increasing, yet much of that area is vacant. It seems that there is an opportunity to improve this area too; but little is being done other than blocking other business that want to locate there.
I think Davis needs an economic development goal of at least matching the state average per capita sales tax revenue by 2018.
[i] I think it is time to embrace some peripheral development on 113 north of Covell.,
[/i]
Won’t happen. Zero chance.
[i]and a business park where the Cannery was.[/i]
That is very likely to be housing.
[i]I think Davis needs an economic development goal of at least matching the state average per capita sales tax revenue by 2018.[/i]
Maybe we should focus on getting our existing vacancies filled, and get Nishi going. That’s probably about all the town can accommodate by 2018.
Jeff
[quote]and a business park where the Cannery was.[/quote]
At last, another point of agreement. Because of its location and the unique placement and surroundings of the property with the railroad on the western border and the distance from public transportation, I see the Cannery as a good location for a business park, and a singularly bad location for more housing.
[i]I think it is time to embrace some peripheral development on 113 north of Covell.,
Won’t happen. Zero chance.[/i]
Wow, “zero” is a pretty big claim.
[i]Fortunately, hardly anybody agrees with Jeff.[/i]
Maybe hardly anybody you talk to Don. But, I live in the Davis burbs… and there a lot of people talk about it during their frequent rides to Woodland, Dixon, Vacaville and West Sac to do some shopping.
They also talk about it when they see another parcel tax coming their way.
[quote]But, I live in the Davis burbs… and there a lot of people talk about it during their frequent rides to Woodland, Dixon, Vacaville and West Sac to do some shopping.[/quote]
And so why again would you think that if we are literally surrounded by big box stores where all of these items that we supposedly need to be able to buy at a moments notice ( instead of perhaps with a little planning ahead) can be obtained, would we need yet anther big box right here ? This does not seem forward thinking at all to me but rather like the epitome of the thinking that has created the gutted downtowns that we see in our surrounding communities. If this happened to Vacaville and Woodland, why do we think it would not happen here as well. It would seem to me that a more viable model would be to recognize that we have something that the surrounding communities do not have, the physical presence of the university, as use that as the unique strength around which to build.
Davis needs a big box hardware store like a Lowes or Home Depot.
No, both of those are available eight minutes away. And we have an excellent hardware store and an excellent lumber store in town. So we don’t ‘need’ either of those. You might prefer it, but it certainly isn’t a mix of products that isn’t available here.
I base my ‘zero chance’ comment on the fact that any peripheral development would require approval by the city council, the county supervisors, all after the planning commission and other commissions had weighed in on it, and then would be subject to voter approval. I consider it vanishingly unlikely that any peripheral retail project would get those, in the very unlikely event that there exists a land developer and project developer willing to run that gauntlet. No large retailer would be likely to commit in advance. So yeah: zero chance.
Any changes to the zoning and general plan should be done in the context of a broader approach to improving the retail areas that we have now. If you make zoning more flexible in one area, make it more flexible in others. But it is a discussion that needs to occur more broadly, rather than being reactive to specific proposals by individual developers. Hopefully the consultant that the business groups promoted will be able to give some guidance about how to have that discussion in a way that involves the whole community.
Policies that harm the downtown and harm the neighborhood centers lead to blight. Pure and simple. What I really don’t know is how you get the property owners involved. You have business owners like Alzada who are re-investing in the community as her business improves. But I don’t see that reinvestment from the property owners.
Jeff Boone’s nonprofit invested heavily in their building in 1998.
Dan Dowling has invested substantially in the 200 block of E St.
Borne is investing on the corner of 4th and D St
I’ve heavily invested in the 400 block of D St, and the 200 Block of Second St, and the old Chiles Family farmhouse at 7th and G.
The city has spent a fortune with redoing the east to west streets with traffic calming, pedestrian protection, flowers, lighting 2nd and 3rd St
The city is installing new water or sewer infrastructure at University Rice Lane
The Chens spent big on their building at the corner of 2nd and G St
Chuck ROe has spent millions on his 3-4 buildings throughout the Core.
Jim Kidd’s fire insurance paid millions to rebuild the Anderson Bank Building.
Someone just spent a lot of dough on some work in the Golden One CU building at D and Second
The whole Varsity Theatre and Mishka’s were overhauled and/built recently. WHat a great complex!
Someone just put in the nice buildings where the ATT store is now, between F and G
The City spent a fortune overhauling the 2nd and G area, going back to the train station, and around behind Ace Hardward (called 2nd St realignment,. I think?)
Rochelle and family spent big money on their new restaurant at 2nd and G St
I think hundreds of people/investors have skin in the game downtown, and care a lot. They just need some organizing.
Sorry if I am forgetting anyone’s big investments in upgrades in the downtown.
I’m glad the DDBA is challenging the reduction in pad sizes at Second St Crossing.
Don – Davis is not Woodland or Vacaville. Neither of those cities have a world-class university adding another 30,000 captive customers to the retail economy. Our downtown will be fine. I think it will be much better because it will increase property owners’ and merchants’ motivation to make improvements.
If we are honest about the economic cost to all residents to continue to protect the downtown like it is some historic landmark, and develop a broader ED plan based on a goal of increasing our sales tax revenue per capita to equal the state average by 2008, then I think there would be enough support to develop the 113 area. That area is poor quality farm land. There is no evironmental reason to prevent development there. There is plenty of traffic capacity.
“Don – Davis is not Woodland or Vacaville.” – jeff: i believe davis is closer to them than you want to believe. the downtown is now almost entirely restaurant/ entertainment, dwindling retail.
Growth issue: My point was that Davis has UCD with the campus almost directly connected to the downtown. Neither Vacaville nor Woodland have that advantage. Yet, we still take in about half the sales tax revenue per capita as does Vacaville.
Build some retail on the periphery. The downtown will be fine. In fact, I think it is already suffering from lower than potential business because people are turned off from the shabbiness and lack of products and choice. There is no reason that the downtown cannot compete for business from other parts of the city… regardless if it is big box or other small venues. We already have neighborhood shopping centers that downtown merchants compete with and the downtown still thrives.
This fear of big box is a bit irrational don’t you think?
Mike: That is a great list. Thanks for that. Impressive as it is, it does not put much of dent in the retail sales tax revenue deficiency. How are we going to raise city revenue to pay our bills? Do you really want to keep trying to pass parcel tax measures as a remedy to school funding shortfalls?
Let’s really put our cost-benefit thinking caps on for this question…
What does protecting the downtown from competition buy us (“us” meaning residents of the town)?
COSTS
– Less shopping choice
– Higher prices
– Less shopping convenience
– Shabbier downtown
– Lower sales tax revenue
– Higher rents (from lack of business property alternatives)
BENEFITS
– Protect the downtown merchants from the risks of competition
– Downtown does not need to change (maintain the “scale and scope”)
Am I missing anything?
Great list, Mike. I absolutely stand corrected!
Jeff: [i]Build some retail on the periphery. The downtown will be fine[/i]
We have retail on the periphery. We have neighborhood shopping centers and we have Target. Building Target had an adverse effect on both the downtown and the existing shopping centers. The current effect appears to be a manageable impact, but adding more big box retail would certainly increase that adverse impact.
My friend John L just emailed me, and reminds me of his blog and photos pre and post redevelopment.
When I came back from law school and working with FAA in DC, I bought a little Ford from Doug at Center City Auto, formerly at 5th and G where the USDA govt building is, and the movie theater. How could I forget?
Then, across from that, NW corner at 5th and G, is that wonderful new credit union.
I also forgot Dr. Helmus’s fabulous building and very artistic parking lot at 2nd and C.
How far back do we go? Borders store and shopping center?
I have been talking to a friend Nina for some time about can the City and DDBA do more to leverage the bricks and morter downtown into a much larger Internet presence.
Sterliza Flowers used to just do retail at G and 3rd, but they ramped their online so much that they got a nice new building out 2nd St.
People in Davis like to buy in Davis if they can.
Why not use city and DDBA resources to assist with a very impressive city business web site, with lots of new marketing and technologies built in to increase presence and traffic, and businesses can have sub pages off that? Then, the city and DDBA and Chamber show us how to make better pages, and make it easy for someone who wants to buy from a Davis store to online order it for will call, or delivery to home or business?
There needs to be a good, local, and inexpensive delivery service to deliver within Davis. Pedicab?
From what I have seen, there has been a relentless push by some business in town to build build build at all cost, rather than trying to leverage and use better what we have. We should ramp up what we have, as future opportunities may present later.
My comments above are a version of the old progressive mantra “build up, not out” that carried the day last decade. Now, use the Internet to build business up.
And my views on the water plant are similar: we don’t need it right now, if ever; we need to use precious community resources on other more urgent priorities, such as straightening out Davis business potential, funding the schools, etc. Also, we could all try to use or current water supply more efficiently; I know that is one of my goals for the next several years.
As Alf and others have said: I am consistent, right or wrong.
I mostly love the excellent improvements to the Downtown, and I hope the investments continue.
You know, the Davis, CA “brand” is very valuable.
When PGE was pushing the inclusion of the Tech Park into the 2001 General Plan, I asked the local rep why were they pushing so hard to put it smack on top of excellent farm land south of I80, and east of Mace? I said that there was tons of space near Woodland or West Sac that would be available. She said something I have never forgotten: the Davis brand is known so far and wide in many circles all around the world, such as energy efficiency, farming/ag, environmental sciences, and many other areas, that a Davis CA address is far more valuable to those Tech Park businesses than surrounding, less expensive communities. I thought she was very shrewd about that analysis.
I wish the City and DDBA and Chamber would figure out how to leverage the Davis “brand” and ramp up the Internet presence and marketing.
[i]Jeff: Do you really want to keep trying to pass parcel tax measures as a remedy to school funding shortfalls?
Sales tax doesn’t pay for school funding. [/i]
Don – Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought cities can fund improvements to school facilities from other revenue sources… like budget surpluses from strong local sales tax revenue.
On a somewhat related question, doesn’t prop-31 present a problem for cities like Davis fond of tacking on parcel taxes to supplement education services?
What I understand…
[quote]Mostly wealthy school districts in Northern California that approved school parcel taxes could likely have an offsetting share of their property and income taxes diverted to “poor” school districts in Southern California.[/quote]
[i]I thought cities can fund improvements to school facilities from other revenue sources[/i]
I don’t know of any way they can do that. I don’t know of any way sales taxes can be used to benefit school districts directly or even indirectly. Schools are funded by average daily attendance (ADA) from the state, and local parcel taxes. The way a school district can manage its budget best is by keeping its facilities in proportion to its enrollment, and by passing local property taxes.
Re Prop 31: I see that argument (verbatim) on various conservative blogs, but I don’t see where it comes from in the body of the proposition. However, I haven’t read the whole thing yet.
“I wish the City and DDBA and Chamber would figure out how to leverage the Davis “brand” and ramp up the Internet presence and marketing.”
This of course is at odds with your anti-growth mantra.
“No, both of those are available eight minutes away. And we have an excellent hardware store and an excellent lumber store in town. So we don’t ‘need’ either of those. You might prefer it, but it certainly isn’t a mix of products that isn’t available here. “
Lowes is not eight minutes away even by car (maybe you were thinking of eight minutes from Dixon where they have a Walmart) and Home Depot is not either. By bus or bike they require much longer travel times. While the product mix might be available in town the price differentials warrant competition. Of course you left off excellent plant nursery from your list of anti-competitive businesses you think are worthy of protection. Don’t feel bad you are not alone as both the bookstore owner and the hardware store owner, who wrote the original piece, have an economic interest in reduced competition in their industries. While Davis has at least 8 companies selling groceries and two selling drugs it has only one selling hardware. The book store, while being the only one left with a decent inventory of non-student texts, must truly compete with the internet. Some competition would be good and it would save the residents a few bucks to spend on other things like their water bills.
You must drive really fast Don. Google maps has Lowes at 23 minutes and Home Depot 19 minutes from my house. Even when I drag the curser to 102 or mace the times still significantly exceed your estimates by almost 10 minutes more in each case. Not to mention that driving fewer miles has environmental benefits that you fail to address.
I say hold the line on smaller pads because what we need is a big box home improvement emporium to increase competition and reduce prices for those who live here.
Don argued quite some time ago that the Davis RDA should be unwound and the incremental property tax that previously went to the RDA for investment in the RDA district instead be invested in infrastructure/economic development throughout the city. At the time, my counter argument was that the council would not have the forsight and political will to follow Don’s suggestion in the absence of the state RDA law forcing the politicians to invest the property tax increment in infrastructure/economic development. Even with the RDA law in place, the city was still siphoning $1 million plus in RDA income annuually into the general fund.
West Sac apparently has the forsight and political will to continue to invest its remaining property tax increment in critical infrastructure/economic development to generate cash flow to fund future city services. Does Davis?
-Michael Bisch
[i]Don argued quite some time ago that the Davis RDA should be unwound and the incremental property tax that previously went to the RDA for investment in the RDA district instead be invested in infrastructure/economic development throughout the city[/i]
Michael, you have a good memory!
Don, I don’t understand what economic development you support. Do you want to see the city increase the scale and scope of the downtown? If so, do you want to see it grow up, or grow out or both? Or, do you want to keep it about the same, but clean it up and make it more vibrant/attractive? Do you want to improve the neighborhood shopping centers?
It is clear to me what you are against, but I would like to understand your vision going forward.
Related to this, are you ok with the city of Davis continuing to have retail sales revenue below the state average?
Don wrote:
> “No, both of those (Home Depot & Lowes) are
> available eight minutes away. And we have
> an excellent hardware store and an excellent
> lumber store in town. So we don’t ‘need’
> either of those.
I know a lot of people who hate paying 50% to 100% more (on average) for the exact same items they can get at Home Depot or Lowes at Davis ACE that they make the drive to Woodland or West Sac. even when I remind them that they are burning their savings in gas.
> You might prefer it, but it certainly isn’t a
> mix of products that isn’t available here. ”
Anyone that thinks the small stores in Davis have the same selection as the 100,000+ square foot Lowes and Home Depot is either lying or has never been to Lowes and Home Depot.
The Mr.Toad wrote:
> Lowes is not eight minutes away even by car
> and Home Depot is not either.
If I had a GSXR1100 (and didn’t get pulled over) I could make it from downtown Davis to the Woodland Home Depot in 8 minutes, but I would be close to the speed where they arrest you rather than just give a ticket heading up 113 or Pole Line…
> You must drive really fast Don. Google maps has
> Lowes at 23 minutes and Home Depot 19 minutes
> from my house.
In real life (when you drive close to the speed limit and don’t sprint in to the store while a friend waits with the engine running) it takes at least hour to get anything at Home Depot (Woodland or West Sac) or Lowes (Vacaville or West Sac).
> I say hold the line on smaller pads because what we
> need is a big box home improvement emporium to
> increase competition and reduce prices for those
> who live here.
I don’t think we will see a big box hardware store in Davis any time soon mostly due to the slow economy and because business seems slow at the surrounding big box hardware stores that seem to have half as many people in them as they did when more people were watching “flip this house” (and actually buying crap to flip houses at the stores)…
[i]”Of course you left off excellent plant nursery from your list of anti-competitive businesses you think are worthy of protection. Don’t feel bad you are not alone as both the bookstore owner and the hardware store owner, who wrote the original piece, have an economic interest in reduced competition in their industries.”[/i]
This is the third time you’ve said this, Mr. Toad, so I will say again: I am not personally concerned with competition from big box DIY stores that sell plants. Small garden centers can compete quite readily with those behemoths. We have better quality and better service, they tend to have better prices, but on a more limited range of plants and they definitely don’t have product knowledge.
Hardware stores have more difficulty competing because they are less able to differentiate themselves in their product lines.
Home Depot is 11.9 miles from my nursery. I stand corrected. Twice in one thread!
SouthofDavis: [i]”I know a lot of people who hate paying 50% to 100% more (on average) for the exact same items they can get at Home Depot or Lowes at Davis ACE”[/i]
You aren’t paying 50 – 100% more. Not on average, not even close to that. Typically the price differential between an independent and a big box is 10 – 20%, except on sale items or certain things where the manufacturer is giving the big guys special pricing. Across the board @ 50 – 100%? No.
Jeff: [i]Don, I don’t understand what economic development you support. Do you want to see the city increase the scale and scope of the downtown? [/i]
I would support increasing the number of small stores in the downtown, as would have been provided, for example, by the parking/retail structure. Small specialty stores provide more sales tax per square foot than any big box store.
[i]If so, do you want to see it grow up, or grow out or both?[/i]
Up is fine. I like what Chuck Roe has been doing. I could see more retail options on the perimeter of the existing downtown if the zoning was more flexible. I could see retail options near the Depot.
[i]Or, do you want to keep it about the same, but clean it up and make it more vibrant/attractive?[/i]
That would be good, of course. As noted by Michael Harrington, individual owners have made improvements. “Clean it up” is a subjective thing. I would note that litter increases in proportion to the number of eateries in a district.
[i]Do you want to improve the neighborhood shopping centers?[/i]
Yes. Even just getting more signage for them would help. If you’re driving along PoleLine, how do you know there is a shopping center on 8th Street?
As I’ve said many times, I think our focus on the downtown often ignores the neighborhood centers. There are also little pockets of retail that don’t even qualify as ‘neighborhood centers’ that might benefit from public/private partnerships to improve their appearances. Prime example is the little center at the corner of L and 5th where 7/11 and Aggie Liquor are. Could that benefit from some public funds? You bet.
And, of course, rezone, vote on, and develop Nishi. That should be top priority.
[i]”Related to this, are you ok with the city of Davis continuing to have retail sales revenue below the state average?”
[/i]
It isn’t the metric I would use to assess the health of our community.
Jeff, here is what I wrote about economic development before the council elections.
—–
The focus of the Chamber and the ChamberPAC has been on economic development more than on budget issues. Economic development involves decisions by private property owners, public policy makers, and the voting public. It is easy to agree in principle, but every proposal will be judged on its own merits. Through the lens of fiscal prudence, the key question is whether a proposal requires any immediate outlay from city coffers.
A key point David’s articles have been alluding to, I think, is that budget cutting as a priority may in fact conflict with some proposals that would be considered economic development. So at times, budget policy may be an obstacle to immediate pursuit of economic development.
There are some things most people agree on; there are many things some people agree on (a majority?). And there are some things which will be controversial. It is probably most productive to move forward as quickly as possible on the areas of agreement.
There are areas of consensus.
Develop Nishi.
Accept some greater density and taller buildings downtown.
Allow more flexible zoning for both business and higher-density housing in downtown and some adjacent areas.
Encourage downtown improvements that are minimal cost to the city.
Encourage positive marketing campaigns (Buy Local Davis) that are minimal cost to the city.
Some things are either unexplored, or aren’t being discussed much in public.
Seek greater flexibility, assess impediments about developing Pads A – D near Target.
Assess issues creating high vacancy rates in some neighborhood shopping centers.
There are unanswered questions.
What consensus is there about parking issues and solutions for downtown?
What is the university willing to do to help develop business sites?
How will the ConAgra site be rezoned?
Some things are likely to engender significant policy debates; some require a vote of the public.
Does Davis need a stand-alone business park for medium to large tech businesses?
Will the voters accept rezoning and annexation of any of the three most likely business park sites?
If a parking structure is abandoned, what is the best use of the funds that have been set aside for that purpose?
Within a few weeks of beginning their new council term, they will be dealing with three important issues that are likely to consume much of their time.
1. Budget/MOU’s/layoffs
2. ConAgra (I’m unclear exactly where the process is, but I expect they will have a report of some sort to deal with soon).
3. Water project and rates.
Somewhere in the next few months they will be able to start moving on economic development issues, but I expect the above to take precedence. That doesn’t mean the city’s economic development staff has to sit still. I’d urge the council members to direct staff to bring them reports and action plans for:
a. annexation of Nishi. Specific language for a ballot measure to be put before the voters within a year.
b. review and consideration of zoning changes for the downtown and parts of east and central Davis to allow greater flexibility for development proposals. Request review of potential development sites, input from property owners and residents.
c. review and consideration of specific sites in the downtown where taller buildings could be allowed. I don’t know what obstacles exist to greater density and height downtown. Request input from property owners, existing businesses, and nearby residents. There may need to be a “visioning” process as was done for B Street.
d. staff report on progress on filling vacant retail sites in existing shopping centers, and development of the additional pads near Target at Second Street Crossing.
“There are areas of consensus.
Develop Nishi.
Accept some greater density and taller buildings downtown.”
I’m not sure that either of those are consensus.
You don’t think there’s a consensus to develop Nishi? I don’t mean unanimity; you’ll never get that.
The infrastructure issues are going to make it potentially expensive and difficult to overcome.
i agree with david. there’s an illusion of consensus here because of some odd dynamics. a certain ex-mayor who is normally anti-growth is a paid representative on this project. that certain ex-mayor got another certain anti-growth ex-mayor to view the project more favorably – i think creating the illusion of consensus. but there is still a core of slow growthers who will oppose this and there are a number of nimbys who will as well particularly when the infrastructure issues david mentioned come into play.
Don, I could get behind your views if I believed that we could succeed with them (get the plans approved and executed), and it would increase our retail tax revenue by 30-40%. The opposition to the parking structure was a strong indication that there is a lot of coordinated opposition to downtown growth and expansion. This includes Nishi I think. So has been the opposition to widening Richards. Frankly, I think peripheral retail development – with all the challenges you point out – would be easier than downtown expansion.
Also, I have a problem forcing so many Davis residents to travel to this single location to do most of their shopping. Assuming parking is improved, we will still have traffic congestion… and we will have more if we expand the downtown. I think this too is something that downtown residents do not want to see.
I think the biggest problem you have seeing your vision materialize is your residential neighbors that like their little village downtown scope and scale.
It would be interesting to do a West Sacramento style measure to similarly ask the question about RDA monies; and/or maybe a citywide survey to gage the level of support or opposition to different economic development strategies.
Don wrote:
> Home Depot is 11.9 miles from my nursery. I stand corrected. Twice in one thread!
Then wrote:
> You aren’t paying 50 – 100% more. Not on average,
> not even close to that.
I just called the Davis ACE rock yard to check on the price of 12” x 12” red concrete step stones (that were more than double the price of Home Depot last time I checked).
Davis ACE sells the stones for $2.49 each and Home Depot sells them for $1.18 (see the link below) so that is more than 100% more. I’m sure that there are items that Davis ACE sells for under 50% more than Home Depot, but for every one of those there is an item that is over 100% more (some small items are 300% + more).
It looks like this will be the third time you will stand corrected in one thread…
http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-100333084/h_d2/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&keyword=cement+square&storeId=10051
Jeff wrote:
> I have a problem forcing so many Davis residents
> to travel to this single location to do most of
> their shopping.
I was just talking to some friends who commented that after a summer of spending a lot of time downtown they just were reminded what a nightmare it can be to get in and out of downtown when the students are back and jaywalking, blocking traffic trying to park and blowing through stop signs on their bikes…
SouthofDavis: those students are spending money. If it weren’t for them, Davis would look like Dixon. I seem to recall Dixon also bid for the ‘student farm’ way back then.
I urge you to take ten items from across the range of housewares, hardware, landscape materials, etc., and compare the prices at HD vs. Ace vs. Hibbert. Generally speaking within the products of my own industry, their prices are within 10 – 20% except when they are advertising specials.
Jeff: if we can’t develop Nishi, we can’t develop anything. There will always be some opposition to any development. If the university is motivated and a couple of council members keep the discussions going forward, Nishi can happen. It is the one Measure R vote that I think could prevail.
An honest appraisal of the situation would conclude that Davis’ downtown district is not a strong retail environment. There are a lot of reasons for this, but just walking around the area you will see that the shopping is restricted to small specialty shops, food venues, and entertainment related businesses. If you are looking to shop for the basic everyday needs of your family in the downtown region, you are going to be disappointed. You simply cannot buy what you need, at any price, let alone a competitive one. The one anomaly is Davis Ace, which is the only general purpose shopping venue in the entire downtown.
By itself, there is really nothing wrong with this situation as the downtown is well situated and probably best suited for, entertainment, food and specialty retail. Now we could have accepted this form of downtown development and complemented these attributes by allowing for expansion of retail options in our neighborhood centers and various regional centers spaced around town. Unfortunately, what we chose instead was to restrict development at these non-core centers with the oft stated justification that such development would ‘damage the downtown.’ Don’s incessant carping about the blighted downtown areas of Woodland and Vacaville are just the current version of the lament that has been repeated here for decades.
The combined affect of these decisions, protecting the core above all and restricting retail options in the neighborhoods and on the periphery, is to force the inhabitants of Davis to shop outside the community for their basic, non-food needs. We have been spectacularly successful in this regard as most anything you could want to buy may be found within a 20-30 drive from anywhere in town. We also have succeeded in protecting our one general retail store downtown from any meaningful competition, while at the same time allowing the property owners in the core to retain their artificially high property values (without expecting anything of them in return).
In summary, we, as a community, have chosen to place a higher priority on maintaining the financial prosperity of the Anderson family and other downtown owners, and supporting the economic viability of our neighboring cities, over the economic development and general financial needs of our own community. This is very altruistic of us, and I think more than justifies the superior attitudes exhibited by some posters here, over those less fortunate souls who through circumstance are forced to live elsewhere.
i find it oddly bemusing that we couch developments by ramos or petrovich as somehow helping the little guy.
[i]Jeff: if we can’t develop Nishi, we can’t develop anything. There will always be some opposition to any development. If the university is motivated and a couple of council members keep the discussions going forward, Nishi can happen. It is the one Measure R vote that I think could prevail. [/i]
Don, I support Nishi development. I just think there are significant construction challenges in addition to the general opposition. It will not be an easy parcel to develop and the enemies of downtown economic development will exploit those difficulties, and well as embrace their own hyper anxieties about change, to prevent it from happening.
I was thinking about the potential business impacts that would occur from the Nishi project. Might it be enough to cause material economic harm to many downtown merchants? How are they going to do that construction work without impacting the Richards underpass and surrounding traffic flows?
One of the many reasons undeveloped land is so much more popular to build on is the lack of mitigation challenges.
Mark West – Could not have said it better myself… and I think you know that! 😉
[i]Now we could have accepted this form of downtown development and complemented these attributes by allowing for expansion of retail options in our neighborhood centers and various regional centers spaced around town. [/i]
Target, Home Depot, Lowe’s, or WalMart were welcome to develop stores in Arlington, Marketplace, Oakshade, or even the University Mall. They just prefer not to build stores that size any more.
[i]Unfortunately, what we chose instead was to restrict development at these non-core centers with the oft stated justification that such development would ‘damage the downtown.’ [/i]
How so? Does the development agreement for each of the above centers disallow any specific types of retail? I believe the only limitations are on store size. Those companies can build smaller stores. Some of them have done so in the past. Some are doing so now. They prefer to build really, really big stores on the edge of town for obvious reasons.
[i]Don’s incessant carping about the blighted downtown areas of Woodland and Vacaville are just the current version of the lament that has been repeated here for decades. [/i]
During which time Woodland and Vacaville have successfully completely killed their downtowns. Those of us who carp about it have been right all along.
As I have said before, my guess is that Davis has always had a lower sales tax income per capita than nearby cities because of:
1. demographics. Compare the age spread and percentages within different age brackets between the nearby communities. Note the types of stores that choose to locate here. We haven’t supported a department store, but we can support stores that sell clothes for young adults. And we can support small shops that sell nice dresses. Forever 21 is a perfect fit for Davis.
2. history and geography. While retail was expanding in California, the prime freeway-frontage sites were being developed in nearby communities. In Davis those sites are in auto sales or are owned by the university. Highway 80 is where the big stores want to be. Not Highway 113. Retail is maxed out in Northern California now.
We can’t overcome those things. Retail on county land along Highway 113 would probably not be very successful. The site Jeff has in mind (near the hospital, the only non-prime soil in the area) would be suitable for a small tech park or perhaps for assisted-living housing, if it were to be annexed. It isn’t a prime retail site. There are too many retailers within a short drive that are closer to a real freeway. I’d be very surprised if any developer would take that on. So I don’t know why he continues to focus on a non-attainable development proposal rather than dealing with what we have now.
Small retail stores generate more sales tax per square foot than do box stores or large discounters. And as we discussed once before, mega-retailers and peripheral sprawl are simply not compatible with Davis’ community identity. Jeff has posted pictures of little shopping centers in Napa and other places that he finds attractive. That is the kind of thing that Davis could do well, if the property owners are so inclined.
We can enhance our small store areas, and allow some greater flexibility in neighborhood centers. We can sell autos; Woodland can have the big box stores. Not every community needs to look like every other community. Every city doesn’t have to have the same shopping options.
It is possible that the big-box format will decline. The mega-retailers are the most vulnerable to the impact of new technology. Target and others are becoming virtual showrooms for shoppers with smart phones. Small retailers tend not to have that problem, for various reasons.
I keep seeing discussions like this one:
[i]One of the casualties of Retailing 2020 will be supercenters. Consumers will increasingly make use of digital channels purchasing products through their mobile phones, tablets and personal computers.
“Forward-thinking retailers should diversify format portfolios, test smaller footprints and offer niche products targeted to specific shopper segments,” said Mr. Gildenberg.
[/i]
[url]http://www.retailwire.com/discussion/16303/big-boxes-to-fade-away-in-retails-polarized-future[/url]
Redeveloping vacant big box sites can be a real dilemma: [url]http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/planning/bigboxretail.aspx#vacant[/url]
Don wrote:
> SouthofDavis: those students are spending money.
> If it weren’t for them, Davis would look like Dixon.
My point was not to complain about the students, but to complain that the city needs to know that when people have to wait through three light cycles just to get past Olive and through the tunnel in to downtown not many people that live south of I80 will want to head in to downtown for a half pound of whole bean coffee (or anything else)…
> I urge you to take ten items from across the range of
> housewares, hardware, landscape materials, etc., and
> compare the prices at HD vs. Ace vs. Hibbert.
First of all I want to make sure that everyone knows that I have never had a bad thing to say about Hibbert, they have prices that are a little higher than Home Depot on most things but they actually have many things that are actually cheaper than Home Depot (I have never seen even a single item that ACE sells for less than Home Depot) and they have great employees who know what they are talking about.
I just looked at a spreadsheet from a couple years back with some more price comparisons between Home Depot and ACE:
Scotch Super 33 Electrical Tape $3.79 Home Depot, $6.66 ACE (I did not make up that price)
Gas flex line 24” $10.81 Home Depot, $23.00 ACE
Gas valve $7.81 Home Depot, $12.99 ACE
Don wrote:
> Target and others are becoming virtual showrooms
> for shoppers with smart phones.
I just used the Red Laser app on my iPhone last weekend when my wife wanted a $45 book at a winery gift shop. A couple clicks and the same book was on the way to our house for $25…
http://redlaser.com/
Very few people could even take a video with their phone just 5 years ago, while today if you decide to pepper spray some kids there will be close to 100 videos of you doing it. Not many people shop on line with their phones today, but I predict that millions more will be doing it in just a few years…
I’m curious Don, are you aware of any surveys of the residents of either Woodland or Vacaville as to whether they are unhappy with the loss of their respective downtown areas and whether or not they would go back to what they had prior to the retail development outside the core? As regards Woodland, I have seen complaints from downtown merchants, but am not aware of similar complaints from the residents. Have you ever considered that the residents of the towns that you point to might actually find that their overall situations have improved?
Mark, that is exactly the succinct point that I have been unsuccessfully trying to make with my long-winded style.
It seems some have equated a smaller downtown with a form of tragedy they are unable to quantify.
Here is another reason to turn up the economic development heat and bring in more retail. Student debt and student loan defaults are on the rise. These kids need places to work. And working is good for their education.
Also, our teachers need part-time jobs to make ends meet since they demand their summers off.
As long as the conversation is about peripheral retail development, there isn’t going to be a conversation about economic development that goes anywhere.
The residents of Woodland and Vacaville may well like their situation, Mark. As might Folsom residents. Surveys of those communities may show they have a different community identity than Davisites. They might value different things, just as Arcata and Eureka might. The Davis general plan reflects the Davis community values.
Mark and Jeff, I’m not aware of any such surveys, but I have overheard many Woodland residents and policy makers bemoan the plight of their downtown. Indeed, I have yet to hear any Woodland resident state that they like their downtown just the way it is. That’s not to say they don’t like their Costco, but their downtown is certainly not something they’re bragging about. It’s all about choices and having their downtown be the social gathering place for their community does not appear to be one of their top choices.
-Michael Bisch
“The Davis general plan reflects the Davis community values.”
No, it reflects the values held by ‘the noisy minority’ several years ago. Survey all the residents of Davis today and I am certain you will get a very different view of what is important.
As you and I have discussed many times before, peripheral development is NOT the only option. ‘Economic development’ is not the same as ‘peripheral development,’ nor does ‘expanding retail options in town’ equate to ‘killing the downtown.’ Those false equations however have been repeated [i]ad nauseum[/i] and are the basis of your arguments here. As we have learned this past year with the water debate, repeat a false statement often enough and people start to believe it is true.
As long as the answer is ‘protect the downtown at all costs’ then you are right that there can be no real conversation, nor will there be any meaningful economic development.
What I find demoralizing about this is that I felt before the election that there was some consensus, and I feel that is slipping away. At this point:
I doubt that any parking solution will be funded.
It is unlikely that any Buy Local campaign will get off the ground.
Economic development discussions are likely to founder on these retail suggestions, as important stakeholders are alienated.
ConAgra will go to housing.
There is no other feasible, doable site for a business/tech park.
And now I am hearing that Nishi isn’t likely to move forward?
My guess is, given the tenor here and the fact that inaction is the default response to controversy, we will be in the exact same place two years from now that we are now.
I now understand much better why Dobie and others are pressing for an outside facilitator to give some guidance to the topic of economic development.
Don, my sense is the next few weeks will determine whether we as a community fall back into the default response of inaction (4 years into a recession / lackluster recovery). Let’s see if the new councilmembers fulfill their campaign promises. If not, perhaps the Chamber PAC or some other advocacy group will gear up for action. Inaction is really not a viable option.
-Michael Bisch
[i]”As you and I have discussed many times before, peripheral development is NOT the only option.”
[/i]
I’m not the one that keeps bringing it up. I have made many other suggestions about economic development.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”You know, the Davis, CA “brand” is very valuable.
When PGE was pushing the inclusion of the Tech Park into the 2001 General Plan, I asked the local rep why were they pushing so hard to put it smack on top of excellent farm land south of I80, and east of Mace? I said that there was tons of space near Woodland or West Sac that would be available. She said something I have never forgotten: the Davis brand is known so far and wide in many circles all around the world, such as energy efficiency, farming/ag, environmental sciences, and many other areas, that a Davis CA address is far more valuable to those Tech Park businesses than surrounding, less expensive communities. I thought she was very shrewd about that analysis.
I wish the City and DDBA and Chamber would figure out how to leverage the Davis “brand” and ramp up the Internet presence and marketing.”[/i]
Mike, was that PG&E representative Jeanne Jones?