The Vanguard had been hearing rumblings of this since late last week, but apparently, according to our sources, it is a done deal that Whole Foods Market will attempt to move into the Davis Commons space that was previously occupied by Borders.
Mayor Krovoza put a good face on the move in response to questions from the Enterprise.
“If a food retailer is coming in, I hope the product selection and marketing to non-residents like campus employees will expand the Davis market,” the Mayor said. “Our goal needs to be attracting and retaining new visitors for Davis as a whole.
“As a tight fit already with regard to traffic and parking, enhancing pedestrian and bike access is one clear need for the (Davis Commons) site,” he added.
The reality this is a potential disaster for Davis in so many different ways.
The loss of Borders, which was very profitable in Davis, was a huge blow when the company quickly collapsed nationally, entering bankruptcy in February and beginning liquidation a few months later.
The closure of Borders was another key blow to retail and the lifeblood of sales taxes to Davis. The replacement with a store that will largely sell products exempt from sales tax figures to push Davis into a worse fiscal hole than it was before.
Worse yet, it figures to be another national chain competing against local grocery businesses such as the Davis Food Co-Op and Westlake IGA. Trader Joe’s already represented a blow to the bottom lines of those stores.
The Davis Food Co-Op may be most directly threatened, as Whole Foods provides selections of natural and organic goods that will put it in direct competition.
Whole Foods also found itself in the middle of controversy as they dropped opposition to keep Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation’s 25,000 organic farms and ranches.
In an article in January from Ronnie Cummins of The Organic Consumers Association, he reported: “In a cleverly worded, but profoundly misleading email sent to its customers last week, Whole Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and “seed purity,” gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the ‘conditional deregulation’ of Monsanto’s genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. Beyond the regulatory euphemism of ‘conditional deregulation,’ this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S.”
“In exchange for allowing Monsanto’s premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM wants ‘compensation.’ In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers’ and rural residents’ risk of getting cancer), WFM expects the pro-biotech USDA to begin to regulate rather than cheerlead for Monsanto,” the article continues.
In an article in “Natural News” that appeared this summer, Whole Foods now admits it cannot keep biotech foods off its shelves.
“A representative for the corporation acknowledged in May of 2011 that the realities of the marketplace have forced a shift in the company’s previous no-GMO’s policy,” the article reports.
Joe Dickson, quality standards coordinator for Whole Foods Markets, noted in another article that “GMO’s dominate the market, especially for corn, soy and canola crops from which ingredients in most processed foods are derived.”
“Until there’s federal government mandated labeling of GMO ingredients, there’s no way to tell if packaged products contain GMO ingredients,” Dickson said. “Our approach is to work in the spirit of partnership with our suppliers … to encourage them to take active steps to avoid GMO ingredients.”
This is apparently a big controversy in an industry where people have fought to prevent the encroachment of such non-natural techniques.
The Natural News article cites Jeffrey Smith, who “points out in his book, Seeds of Deception, the biotech industry has co-opted the watchdog agencies of the federal government and sought to silence critics in the media and the scientific community who question sloppy science which they use to ‘prove’ the safety of Frankenfoods”
But the fight against Monsanto and GMOs aside, the Whole Foods deal makes little sense for a community fighting for every bit of sales tax possible, and is another clear failure of the city’s avowed non-involvement in what they consider tenant-landlord issues.
Sarah Worley, from the City of Davis’ Economic Development Department, back in July, in response to a Vanguard article that found that most of the stores in the south portion of the Oakshade Shopping Center had closed in the previous few months, many citing exorbitant rents, told the Vanguard there is nothing the city can do about this situation.
Indeed, the city had taken the same stance from 2006 to 2009 on the Westlake Shopping Center, allowing the main space for a supermarket to remain empty for three and a half years.
It took massive community action and the Vanguard posting photos of code violations before the city forcefully got involved in the middle of 2009, then within six months we had a grocery store there.
The City of Davis is clearly at a crossroads here. Leaders in the community and in the council consistently talk about things such as economic development and diversifying the city’s sales tax portfolio.
Downtown businesses, for their part, have consistently claimed that any attempts at building the sales tax base have been undermined.
And now we see the city losing valuable sales tax revenue spaces, such as that at Davis Commons, and apparently the city is going to sit back and let that happen as well.
Whole Foods is a threat, not just to city sales tax space, but to existing grocery businesses. But these threats have not stopped the relatively recent influx of places such as Trader Joe’s, the Grocery Outlet and now, apparently, Whole Foods. How much more retail space can we devote to grocery-type stores?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A grocery store at that local is a terrible idea parking wise. Parking is already at a premium for that site and the thought of a grocery store bringing in many more shoppers for short visits is going to create a nightmare.
I agree w Rusty – that location is a terrible fit for a grocery store from a purely practical perspective. I know it is very unlikely I will shop at that location, now that Borders is gone.
However, I am unclear as to how the city can STOP this grocery store from coming. The landlord has the right to lease to whatever business they want, in so far as I am aware. So please explain how this is the city’s fault…
I remember when State Market was downtown on the corner of D & 2nd Street. It would be nice to have a market downtown again. I think the mini mart on B street will be the most affected as students will shop at the grocery store over that store.
One possible solution for the parking is to make any approval of a grocery store there conditional on the creation of a partially excavated multi story parking structure (like the one at the Mondavi). We know that “ground level” at that site is at least as low as the floor of the bicycle underpass under I-80. You could easily get two stories of parking where there currently is only one . . . without changing the elevation of the top story from that of the existing parking lot.
Although I agree that the location is not ideal from a parking and traffic flow perspective, I travel to Washington DC quite a bit and there is a fanastic Whole Foods on P Street that has about zero parking. Don’t shop there during the week after 5:00 PM because the lines to the twenty cash registers go all the way to the back of the store.
If this is a terrible idea, the other tenants in the center will complain loudly to the landlord, and folks will not shop there. In other words, the market will tell us that it will fail. We don’t need anymore intervention by the city in telling property owners how to run their business.
The market brought Borders to Davis, despite lots of protest at its arrival. Now you are lamenting the loss of Borders and its tax dollars. If Whole Foods ends up being a bad idea that the citizens of Davis don’t want or need, then the landlord and Whole Foods will make adjustments. But you should consider that it might be a really good idea, driving much more traffic to the center and downtown, and sales of the surrounding businesses may actually increase and drive additional tax revenue.
Adam’s comments are right on the mark. Let the market decide.
I was going to say a whole lot of sh$t, but Adam Smith said it far better than I would have. The consumers/shoppers will decide if a grocery store works there or not. If the parking is insufficient, it won’t work.
But if it is successful, it probably will increase sales tax revenues for Davis, simply by bringing more customers into the core area, who will shop at nearby retail outlets. Also, since alcohol is taxed, Whole Foods will contribute its share to the sales tax coffer.
[i]”I remember when State Market was downtown on the corner of D & 2nd Street.”[/i]
I do, too. It was a really small store (maybe 2,000 or 3,000 s.f?) in a really crummy building that was put up during World War II. Back then, most people in Davis (including the Rifkins) bought groceries at markets, but had their dairy products delivered from the Crystal Dairy, which used to be at 2nd & G, just south of the Aggie (aka Terminal) Hotel. I remember loving the days when our bottled milk, ice cream, yogurt, butter and so on would show up at the front door.
[url]http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/print-edition/2011/07/29/davis-likely-to-fill-borders-gap-quickly.html?page=all[/url]
Evidently this was the tenant that seemed most profitable to the mall owner. Whether it is a good fit for Davis is irrelevant to the mall owner. We have learned that local mall owners don’t necessarily make their decisions based on what is in the interest of the community. Note, by the way, that the South Davis shopping center still has a high vacancy rate in the perimeter shop area, but the owner nevertheless increased the lease on the remaining tenants.
Whole Foods will yield sales tax revenues, but not has high as other tenants would have.
[i]apparently the city is going to sit back and let that happen as well.[/i]
What do you think the city should have done about it? It isn’t their call.
The market will do what it wants, but as for what reality might play out: Whole Foods will be a neighborhood store to a sliver of a residential area. Otherwise it will have the burden of convincing shoppers from other neighborhoods to forego their 1-3 closer stores. When Borders was there, I found parking to be quite a hassle on some weekends; sometimes I just gave up and shopped somewhere else. I suspect Whole Foods anticipates a higher customer volume for its success, so I don’t yet understand how parking will improve at a location that already has a lot of congestion. I’m thinking of myself as a potential customer, here.
Whole Foods is supposed to have the professional planners on their staff. I hope they’ve figured all this out, because it would be a big waste to everyone for a store to move there and not have these issues worked out ahead of time. Trader Joe’s took years before it found a location that they thought would work for its model.
I hope Whole Foods staff reads this blog.
[i]”Evidently this was the tenant that seemed most profitable to the mall owner. Whether it is a good fit for Davis is irrelevant to the mall owner.”[/i]
Don, a profitable store seems to me to be a good fit for Davis considering the alternative.
I’m curious, if not this, then what type of use do you recommend for the location?
Avoiding discussion of the parking issues, I do think that a business that can draw people downtown is a good thing. I know that my wife and I, when visiting Borders, would find ourselves venturing into downtown and the local businesses b/c we were already there. This might have a positive impact on local merchants, which is certainly needed these days.
Avoiding discussion of the parking issues, I do think that a business that can draw people downtown is a good thing. I know that my wife and I, when visiting Borders, would find ourselves venturing into downtown and the local businesses b/c we were already there. This might have a positive impact on local merchants, which is certainly needed these days.
I think the location presents parking and traffic problems for a grocery store, but their planners must feel those aren’t limiting. From a sales tax standpoint, it will be cutting the revenue for the city pretty substantially, at least based on these general retail estimates:
[url]http://www.hdlcompanies.com/download/index.cfm?fuseaction=download&cid=605[/url]
I see the Gap is closing stores. I don’t know if the Davis location is on the list. As for what Davis “needs” I would say family apparel and consumer electronics.
This is great news!
A Whole Foods will drive more people downtown and help other retail. About 28-30% of Whole Foods sales are taxable (somewhat higher than most other grocery stores) and their sales per sq ft are in the mid 500’s compared to most retail which is in the 200’s or low 300’s so the actual amount of sales tax generated will not be that much lower–certainly better than a vacant store or pop up Halloween store.
It also puts pressure on Nugget to lower some prices. Is Davis so elitist that even a Whole Foods isn’t good enough for us?
Don, I think those two types of retail are problematic. I haven’t purchased any consumer electronics from bricks and mortar retail for a few years. The Internet shopping options are too strong. Retail apparel is struggling too… and linking this location to a national chain means the risk of the store closing due to corporate business moves.
Personally, I would like to see a bowling alley or see the space subdivided into more high-end restaurant space. My thinking is that our downtown development and redevelopment, because of traffic and parking limitations, should focus on entertainment venues and smaller boutique retail. A Whole Foods in Davis would draw from the surrounding areas, so it should be located on the periphery and be easily accessible. However, it is intriguing to me how the DC Whole Foods store stays so busy without parking.
DON: [i]” From a sales tax standpoint, it will be cutting the revenue for the city pretty substantially, at least based on these general retail estimates:”[/i]
Don, did you look at your list?
It says Whole Foods produces $100 to $350 while Barnes & Noble produces $125 to $275. In other words, it says they are roughly the same based on the same square footage.
What is odd here is this is not a typical WF space, being only 20,000 sf. So maybe its sales tax revenues will be on the low end. But I think it is clear that WF will be the type of anchor store which will bring people downtown, and that will lift sales tax revenues elsewhere.
Jeff ,””””” However, it is intriguing to me how the DC Whole Foods store stays so busy without parking.”””””
That would be bicycle, walking customers ,and bus shoppers .
“That would be bicycle, walking customers ,and bus shoppers .”
And double-parked fire engines which are driven miles down the road because the firemen that drive them are boycotting the local grocery store.
Rich: per the table —
Borders/Barnes & Noble are $35,000 – $90,000 sales tax per year.
Whole Foods type stores are $25,000 – $40,000 sales tax per year.
Depending on the product mix, it could be a wash.
I think we should just have a ballot question on this!
Why shouldn’t the voters have a say! LOL
Speaking of sales taxes for Davis: has anyone seen any construction activity at the site on Chiles Road where Hanlee’s was supposed to build its new Volkswagen dealership with $1 million of our RDA funds? The last time I was out that way–getting my Camry serviced in May–I saw nothing going on, reported that to The Enterprise and they produced this story ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/volkswagen-dealership-delayed/[/url]), which said: [quote]Hanlees Automotive’s plans to open a Volkswagen dealership in Davis are delayed because the owners hit structural complications while proceeding with construction.
The owners had planned to remodel an existing building for a showroom at the former Ford Motor Co. dealership on Chiles Road, but it now seems starting from scratch with new construction might make more sense, Community Development Administrator Katherine Hess said.
Construction was expected to start this spring, with occupancy in October, Hess said.
Despite the delay, there is no intention to abandon the project, owner Don K. Lee said Tuesday. Lee’s business partners are Dong I. Lee and Kyong S. Hong.
Lee said the owners have not yet decided how to address the engineering issues, but will have a better idea [b]in a couple weeks.[/b]
“We’re not going back to the city for additional money at this time,” Lee said.
… the City Council will need to approve an amended loan agreement, which will reflect necessary changes, including the time frame, Hess said. The amended contract likely will be [b]ready for council review in June[/b], she said. [/quote] As far as I know, nothing at all has happened since May. I think it might be wise at this point to tear up the old contract and start anew with Hanlees if they are still interested. If not, there may be another auto dealer who is in better position to open a new dealership in Davis. I think one of the main problems with the Hanlees deal is that Davis might become overly dependent on one company for so much of its sales taxes. I think we would be better off diversifying in that respect. Maybe we’d get more in sales taxes if we attracted a Tesla dealership?
[img]http://blogs.cars.com/photos/uncategorized/tesla1.jpg[/img]
Rich – Nice car! I can just imagine several of these parked in Village Homes car ports.
I had just heard that there is an office complex project being proposed for the old Ford dealer site. Of course the city wants to attract an auto dealer, but it still sits vacant. I’m thinking there is an over-supply of car dealership properties in CA right now, and Davis may not be on the short list. I too am very interested to learn what has happened with the original plan using RDA money.
Jeff, FWIW, I drove a Tesla Roadster a couple of years ago. They are heavier than they look (due to all of the batteries), but they have amazing speed off the block. I don’t know what a pro driver can do 0-60 in one, but I think it took me about 5 seconds to get up to 60 miles per hour. That is a function of having a powerful electric motor. Tesla’s also can go a long way — over 200 miles — on one charge. Alas, I didn’t have $125,000 to buy one, but they are nice vehicles.
Rich, I would like to take one of those for a spin some day. Most of the battery-powered cars I have driven seemed too heavy and too sluggish.
[i]”Alas, I didn’t have $125,000 to buy one.”[/i]
Then I guess this $875,000 hybrid is out of the question…
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/porshe.jpg[/img]
The other things to consider vis a vis sales taxes is that what matters are net increases in sales taxes not how much an individual store generates. On this the Whole Foods will likely do little to add to sales tax dollars since virtually all of its sales will come from other stores in Davis. However the same can also be said for restaurants. Apparel and specialty retail not offered already in Davis would add more.
What a Whole Foods would do is pull more people downtown and also keep those who live downtown (quite a few people) from driving to the periphery. I think keeping downtown vital is important.
On a completely different note. I have had several posts removed for being “off topic” so I do not find posts about a Tesla amusing.
There seem to be different rules for different people on this blog. I used to post every day. I rarely do now.
Dr. Wu: sometimes they get ahead of me. Your contributions are valued; please keep posting.
Yes, After we go to Target, Nugget and Trader Joe’s we can hit Whole Foods. More choices all the better! Of course the one criticism worth raising, that WF is anti-union, the Vanguard misses. Why am I not surprised?
Tell me about it Dr. Wu! Censorship on this blog is quite arbitrary and biased towards certain individuals both in allowing them to post off topic, personal attack or racist comments while others are taken down for no good reason. I too have almost completely given up posting as a result.
In a confirmation of the arbitrary censorship that Dr Wu describes my post confirming his remarks was taken down for no reason other than they were critical of the censor’s failings.
In keeping with the character of downtown, the old Borders space would be great if subdivided into smaller spaces which could contain services for local residents like a laundromat or dry cleaners, a flower shop (since Strelitzia moved), a craft shop which deals direct with artisans (like Dos Colores), a small specialty bookshop (Davis could support one now in the absence of Borders) or a locally owned restaurant. In other words, something besides a giant corporate competitor for DFC. Oh, wait, I forgot, Davis is no longer the Second Most Educated City in the Universe nor the hotbed of all things right and relevant. It’s a magnet for soulless profiteers like Paul Petrovich and his ilk.
Paul Petrovich doesn’t own that mall, though he did own the one in South Davis (that was sold recently).
@ Mr. Toad: you’re wasting your time. I’ve told you the rules repeatedly.
In a confirmation of the arbitrary censorship that Dr Wu describes my post confirming his remarks was taken down for no reason other than they were critical of the censor’s failings.
JB: [i]However, it is intriguing to me how the DC Whole Foods store stays so busy without parking.[/i]
Is there mass transit? Is it in/near residential areas?
I find the mayor’s comments, David’s reporting, and some of the blogger comments rather ironic given the events and debates of the past year.
1) Parking and traffic?
2) Retail and sales tax, fiscal hole?
3) Economic development and diversifying the sales tax base?
The DDBA, the Chamber, and the BEDC have gotten next to zero traction on these subjects. Why the concern all of a sudden?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-
Prez)
David, you need to jettison your notion that top-down, command and control economies are desirable. The Davis City Council making leasing decisions, tainted with political motivations, is a terrible idea.
Matt, why exactly would WF need any approvals? The property is zoned commercial. And why would the property owner construct anymore parking at $40k-$60k per pop, especially after the Council established last month that we have more than sufficient parking downtown?
There is so much material here to engage on, but I’m going to read a little bit about the Davis referendum, oops! I mean the Greek referendum, instead, and then lights out.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-
Prez)
Michael:
In response to your first comment, I would just say it is probably a mistake to infer from lack of agreement that there is no concern.
I’m not in favor of any sort of top down models of economy – I do think government regulation can be a good tool used.
I think there are probably enough people living downtown in sororities, the UC Davis homes, and even the UC Davis family housing to keep even Whole Paycheck in business.
People, when given the chance, would prefer to walk for short 1 bag grocery trips then get in their car and load up with 3-4 bag trips. It is actually better to eat that way, and better for the environment. It will cost more, but people are willing to pay a bit more for the convenience, and the target crowd isn’t the penny pinchers anyway.
My guess is most of the nearby people, when they do shop, go to Safeway or Nugget if they drive. So my guess is it will take business away from those stores.
I don’t think it will drive people downtown, maybe at first, but after the novelty wears off, it won’t be worth fighting through the traffic. Parking is the least of the problems. Actually, maybe traffic will be better what with people walking to get their groceries.
Michael, you are probably right. If the zoning is good to go for a grocery store, then an approval would more than likely not be needed. I have felt that that parking lot should be two levels for years, so my predisposition was showing. To me that location is infinitely better for a parking structure than the multi-story one proposed most recently for E Street is.
Hey – Who stole the hybrid cars from this post? The topic of automobiles seems at least loosely related given the issue of traffic and parking.
In any case, I do find Davis’s socialized economic development style quite amusing. It reminds me of Larry, Curly and Moe trying to get something done. Stop polluting, but don’t raise our rates to fund a surface water project that enables us to meet state water effluent requirements. Keep the downtown quaint and small, prevent a widening of Richards Blvd., prevent big box and peripheral retail, prevent a new parking facility, then lament traffic and parking constraints downtown and complain about revenue shortfalls while demanding only certain types of retail be allowed… those that magically maximize tax flows with a smaller footprint, limited parking… and all without causing any cross competition with existing stores. I am not aware of another community like ours that exhibits so much top-down political manipulation and bottom-up agitation to control the development and use of private property zoned commercial. The results of this approach have been mixed at best, IMO.
Interesting, then, that Davis has the healthiest downtown of any nearby city.
[quote] I am not aware of another community like ours that exhibits so much top-down political manipulation and bottom-up agitation to control the development and use of private property zoned commercial. The results of this approach have been mixed at best, IMO.–[b]Jeff Boone[/b][/quote]It seems to me that the formula has worked. We are widely considered to be an unusually nice town.
Matt, there is no doubt that the Davis Commons location would be a great site for a parking structure. But again, it’s privately-owned parcel. What incentive does the owner have to build a parking structure? The primary thing going for the E/F location is the site is city-owned.
Don and Sue, perhaps the success of the downtown to date has been in spite of the City Council. Surely the location of a major university immediately adjacent to the downtown has something to do with it. Not to mention the efforts of the individual, privately-run businesses.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-
Prez)
4 years into a great recession, we have declining city revenue, reduced city services, financially upsidedown schools, long term infrastructure needs that we’re struggling to finance. Economic development and job creation should have long since been priority one for the council. If not now, when?
Growing, retaining, and attracting new businesses with the jobs that they bring is what pays, directly or indirectly, for all our other community priorities. The council needs to get on the ball. It should:
1) Make it unequivocally clear in word and deed, at every meeting, that economic development and job creation are the top priority of this council instead of thrashing around in minutia. It’s about time the Council seeks, strike that, “takes” advice from the business community, not other interest groups, on economic matters.
2) Keeping in mind that the private sector is capable of creating more jobs and faster than the government sector, the council should create conditions conducive to a thriving private sector. This might necessitate a task force that one by one removes impediments such as the 2-story downtown height restriction. Following which, the Council needs to get out of the way.
3) Institute policies and incentives for the construction of additional retail and office space downtown to take advantage of the economic opportunities created on campus. The Council has alrady created an innovation district, however, that has proven to be meaningless for lack of follow-up action.
4) Utilize the $20 mil. or so of RDA funds to spur private development asap. The DDBA proposed 5 actions over a year ago that the Council could have acted on. Get on with it. If the Council doesn’t like the 5 action steps, then get on with it’s own action steps. But what’s it waiting for, the perfect project? One quickly learns in the private sector that there is no such thing as a perfect project. There are always trade-offs.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-
Prez)
Michael: I have no problem with your four points, but I do think that given the economic times, it is unlikely they are going to generate significant sales tax revenue any time soon.
I also do not believe we can grow our way out of our spending problem locally. In other words, even if we bring in new business, it’s not going to offset the $7 million in additional retirement obligations we will assume in the next three years.
David, I agree with your two points. It’s exactly because there is a lead time that the Council needs to get on the ball. Instead, it’s let’s wait until we get through this election. Or let’s wait until we’ve conducted another study. Or let’s wait for the perfect project that’s never going to come because there is no such project. Or let’s take our finite time and money and allocate it toward other community objectives. Come on!
Taking on the long term finacial obligations is the other priority that needs to be right at the top together with economic development (I’m not going to say the “W” word anymore). If an item is not related to one or the other, it should be on the consent calendar, or not on the agenda at all.
The Council is simply not focused.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-
Prez)
“The Davis Food Co-Op may be most directly threatened…”
The CO-OP will continue to be a success, even with the challenge of the corporate entity, Whole Foods, if its board makes policy that vigorously supports returning the CO-OP to its original founding and historical principles. Attempting to emulate the corporate supermarket model, where the bottom line rather than political/social principles are the controlling factors, will lead to the failure of the CO-OP enterprise. The loyalty of the Co-OP customer is directly tied to what the CO-OP “represents” with its policies.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”Matt, there is no doubt that the Davis Commons location would be a great site for a parking structure. But again, it’s privately-owned parcel. What incentive does the owner have to build a parking structure? The primary thing going for the E/F location is the site is city-owned.”[/i]
That difference in ownership is indeed a big difference Michael, but I do believe that the Davis Commons property would increase in value if the amount of parking were doubled while still having the upper level at the elevation it currently is. The building where your offices are has just such a lower parking level. If the right contractual terms were negotiated between the City and the owner, all parties could win.
Sue: [i]”It seems to me that the formula has worked. We are widely considered to be an unusually nice town.”[/i]
First, I have lived here for about 35 years so obviously I must think it is a nice town. However, I’m not one to be blinded by reputation over reality.
As I said, the results have been mixed in my opinion. Certainly our overall taxbase from local commercial activity is on the low side compared to many other comparable cities. Without the UCD cash cow we would be a bankrupt city for lack of other economic development.
If we are good, and I think we are although declining in comparison to many other evolving communities, my concern is that we don’t keep patting ourselves on the back while missing so many opportunities to be better. We are lucky that we have strengths to leverage in our little town (UCD cash cow being the big one), but I see us having too little vision, too little decision backbone and too much petty decision conflict.
My view of the retail situation in Davis is the following:
1. We have far too few modern shopping conveniences given our size and median income level. We should be open to more commercial retail peripheral development.
2. The downtown cannot support us as a full-service retail location. There is not enough land for development. The traffic flow and parking limitations prevent the level of convenience we non-core residents expect. The vision for the downtown should evolve to accepting it as a specialty service and entertainment location.
3. The downtown is not at risk. It is too established and will remain viable. It is a bit blighted though (for example, G-street) and demands redevelopment.
4. Related to this… we do not fully leverage our strengths for attracting shoppers from outside the area to spend their taxable dollars in Davis.
5. We are not business-friendly in general. We do not fully leverage the UCD connection and other community assets (real or perceived) to attract non-retail commercial industry to this town. Mori Seiki is an example of what we should be able to do more of.
Lastly, as David mentions, we have a huge problem with our city employee pension and healthcare obligations that cannot be solved with revenue growth strategies. As good as we think we are, we are heading toward insolvency unless the leaders of this community get some backbone and make the necessary decisions.
[i]”Who stole the hybrid cars from this post?”[/i]
In a discussion about sales tax revenues to the City, the nanny decided that posts about a hybrid car dealership in Davis is just much less interesting than a discussion about hydrangeas and hydroponics.
[img]http://www.sacramentogardening.com/images/redbarn1.jpg[/img]
But perhaps if the contribution of his company were included in the discussion of electric cars, he would allow it: “The sales tax base in Davis would increase if we had a Tesla dealership here, because I could then drive my Tesla over to the Redwood Barn nursery and buy some [s]sh!t[/i] plant fertilizer.”
[i][quote]“I think one of the main problems with the Hanlees deal is that Davis might become overly dependent on one company for so much of its sales taxes.”[/quote][/i]So, here we have it: Hanlees, too big to fail (in Davis)! The ONLY justification given by Councilor Greenwald and others for the Hanlees Boondoggle was the bonanza of sales tax revenue that the deal will generate.
I never did buy that justification, and am pleased to realize there was a more important, hidden agenda. Floating a $1-million loan will tide Hanlees over for this difficult economic time. (Until most of us are doing our auto shopping on the Internet. Then what?)
[b]Rich[/b], I could call the library. But, since I know you have this information memorized…. When do we (did we) start paying interest on the “blight fund” bonds that will keep Hanlees from failing and taking down the entire Davis economy with it? What interest rates are involved–ours for bonds, Hanless for our loan to the corporation?
How does this delay affect the “tax forgiveness” aspects of this sweetheart deal?
Who holds the cash while Hanlees and Katherine Hess decide what type of “construction might make more sense”? Is someone making money from this money sitting idle? And, why weren’t these construction issues considered [u]before[/u] the council approved the project? Are there any conditions Hanlees must meet in order to stay in good standing?
I’ve always suspected another secret objective is the “money washing” aspect this whole lash-up. [b]Rich[/b], is this accurate? If this project eventually works out the way Sue has described, we not only have a continuing flow of big-bucks sales taxes but $1-million miraculously is moved from the moderately restrictive RDA account to the spend-anyway-you-want general fund. Correct?
There is no way that I am aware of to move RDA funds to the general fund. And the RDA account is more than just ‘moderately’ restrictive.
[b]Just Saying[/b]Actually, I was one of the councilmembers most critical of the way the Hanlee’s deal was structured. That said, we are really in a bind. There is not very much that brings net revenue to the city these days. Auto dealerships and hotels bring the most revenue and create the least urban decay of the economic development projects.
The amount of property tax that a city is allowed to varies between cities and between parcels within a city. It is based on the situation existing when prop. 13 went into effect and on tax split agreements with the counties.
We only retain an average of 17 or 18% of our property tax. The statewide average is 25%. For our last annexed property which was Wildhorse, we only retained 6%.
Even cities with a higher property tax retention rate are in trouble. What this means is that we are not collecting enough revenue to break even.
Hotels and auto dealerships are really the only two economic development projects that bring significant net new revenue.
[b]DTmBusinessman[/b]:Michael Bisch: I have to say that I just have a different vision for our downtown than you have.
I don’t agree that tearing down our exiting buildings and replacing them with multistory buildings is a good idea for a number of reasons.
I think the success of our downtown has to do with its character. It is our human-scale downtown with it’s smaller buildings, its cottage restaurants, its open spaces and the ability to see the sky and feel the delta breeze that makes our downtown the thriving, vital destination that it is.
Additionally, it is the older, funkier buildings that retain the somewhat lower rent that allows independent merchants to survive.
Thirdly, residential and offices over retail downtown will bring more traffic and take up more of the already tight parking needed by shoppers and visitors.
I live downtown near the commercial district, and I can tell you that one party by a local resident on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and actually any other day of the week will take up an entire block or more of parking.
If we have multiple units over retail, there will be even more parties per building and even more evening parking conflicts.
Our downtown is one of the best downtowns in California.
If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. I believe we need small, incremental improvements and we have to work hard to maintain and not to destroy what we already have.
I love the idea of high density housing near, but not in, the commercial core if and when the right location can be found. As you know, I am enthusiastic about high density housing on the 25 acre PG&E site if and when the owners are willing to sell. That site is as big as the commercial core and could accommodate far more housing than we could squeeze into the commercial core.
I believe it will happen when the time is right. But for now, we should focus on maintaining and enhancing our incredibly successful downtown.
[i]”Our downtown is one of the best downtowns in California.”[/i]
Sue, can you expand on this opinion? For example, what criteria are you considering? You say you live near the core area. Might that influence your opinion? Most Davis residents do not live in or near the core area. I get the feeling at times that core area residents protect their bohemian lifestyle without much regard for the rest of us low-lifers in the Davis burbs.
I think our downtown is quaint and quirky. It is vibrant with people and traffic mostly because of the UCD population and also because we force some local residents to shop there because they lack alternatives. However, I think we could make it more vibrant and more attractive while also increasing our retail choices… and all of this will result in greater city revenue. Much of the old buildings are funky, unattractive and uninviting. There is not much to get excited about. The downtown merchants are being protected by those that prevent a more dynamic vision of retail development and redevelopment… and I think they are actually being hurt by so much statism and protectionism.
Almost every quality like-sized community I look at and visit has allowed their old downtown to migrate to a specialty and entertainment focus and provide peripheral shopping developments offering more selection, price and convenience. I don’t see these residents grumbling about the transformation of their downtown.
Here we are the seat of one of the best Viticulture and Enology education programs in the world, and Winters has more wine bars that we do.
Again, Jeff, please identify the cities that you feel have more successful downtowns than Davis.
Don, the “successful downtown” argument is either deflective or too narrow focused to be useful. A city is not a downtown.
Jeff Boone: [i]”Much of the old buildings are funky, unattractive and uninviting. There is not much to get excited about. The downtown merchants are being protected by those that prevent a more dynamic vision of retail development and redevelopment…”[/i]
I think it is the Downtown property owners who are being unnecessarily protected, not the merchants. Since there is little or no competition from peripheral retail development, the property owners have no incentive to modernize or redevelop their buildings.
Redevelopment though doesn’t mean that the old, quirky, ugly, buildings need to be replaced with multistory monoliths. There is a reasonable middle ground that can be controlled by building standards and design reviews. Redeveloping the downtown was something that was needed 30 years ago and the fact that we are still arguing about it today, instead of having an actionable plan in place, is the perfect description of what is wrong with Davis.
[i]”Redeveloping the downtown was something that was needed 30 years ago and the fact that we are still arguing about it today, instead of having an actionable plan in place, is the perfect description of what is wrong with Davis.”[/i]
Mark, I agree 100%
[i]”Rich, I could call the library. But, since I know you have this information memorized…. When do we (did we) start paying interest on the “blight fund” bonds that will keep Hanlees from failing and taking down the entire Davis economy with it?”[/i]
I can answer this, but Don Shor will remove my answer, because it is not about what he cares about. So I will just have to forget about it.
[i]”I’ve always suspected another secret objective is the “money washing” aspect this whole lash-up. Rich, is this accurate? If this project eventually works out the way Sue has described, we not only have a continuing flow of big-bucks sales taxes but $1-million miraculously is moved from the moderately restrictive RDA account to the spend-anyway-you-want general fund. Correct?”[/i]
Until Don Shor stops removing my posts, I will not be able to answer you.
[i]”There is no way that I am aware of to move RDA funds to the general fund. And the RDA account is more than just ‘moderately’ restrictive.”[/i]
At the risk of having Don Shor remove my answer to his own comment–notice he never removes his own off-topic comments–Don Shor is 100% wrong.
Peripheral retail development (read: big box retail) always leads to the death first of the neighborhood shopping centers, then the death of the downtown. Look at every city around us. Eventually you have fewer shopping choices, not more. If you like HD or WalMart, you are happy. But if you don’t, you’ve lost choices.
But developer-driven peripheral retail is not inevitable. In communities that have consensus-driven general plans, zoning and store-size ordinances can be used to retain that mix of healthy retail and entertainment and to keep shopping options throughout the city. In communities that have developer-driven planning, where the staff is reactive and the public is not involved in the process, you get the death of downtown and the loss of neighborhood shopping.
It really is that simple. And it is playing out in cities all across America. But if you are a fan of big box retail, you won’t think this is a problem.
[i]”In communities that have developer-driven planning, where the staff is reactive and the public is not involved in the process, you get the death of downtown and the loss of neighborhood shopping.”[/i]
Because I disagree with you, you will remove my answer, I am sure. But there are cases–not too many, but cases–where cities in California have large peripheral shopping malls and the like and still have an active, vibrant downtown core. Mostly this happens in college towns or upper middle-income towns where the population supports boutique retailers and what formerly was mostly middle and lower-middle shopping places in the core–such as when we had Wingers, Sears, Montgomery Ward, the Western 5 and Dime, Davis Lumber (which used to sell a lot of things similar to those other stores), etc.–become restaurants or coffee shops or other outlets which appeal to college students, college profs, and the regional upper-middle income types.
Don Shor: [i]But if you are a fan of big box retail, you won’t think this is a problem.[/i]
I’m not a fan of big box retail. I am a fan of quality retail with multiple options and national brands. This is something we could have with a planned redevelopment of the downtown coupled with expanded retail options at various locations around town. It doesn’t matter though since Davis has neither, which is why our sales tax dollars continue to ‘leak’ away.
The vast majority of citizens that I talk with love the downtown and don’t want it to be substantially changed. Our existing mix of old and new certainly works. I expect some slow change, but I don’t think that we should endorse or promote wholesale demolition of our older buildings.
When I stand at the northeast corner of 5th and G and look at the three new buildings and then close my eyes and imagine the majority of the commercial core filled with similar buildings, I believe it is an image that would probably not appeal to most Davis citizens.
Rich: stop playing games.
Mark:[i] I’m not a fan of big box retail. I am a fan of quality retail with multiple options and national brands. This is something we could have with a planned redevelopment of the downtown coupled with expanded retail options at various locations around town.[/i]
We have various national brands around town. Apparently that will now include Whole Foods. What are you missing and where would you like it?
[i]”When I stand at the northeast corner of 5th and G and look at the three new buildings and then close my eyes and imagine the majority of the commercial core filled with similar buildings, I believe it is an image that would probably not appeal to most Davis citizens.”[/i]
I think there is a balance to be struck, but I’m not so sure the majority of Davisites would be against a more modern-looking downtown… or at least having the buildings, streets and sidewalks refreshed. But that assumes you are still bent on the downtown meeting our core retail needs (the full service model). If you want to maintain the historical look then I think we need to accept more peripheral development and some big box retailers. There is a very limited market of businesses that work well in the space available. Maybe that is why we have 100 pizza joints.
I’m curious, what other cities would you compare Davis to for your vision of downtown?
[b]@Jeff Boone:[/b]
Take a look at Vancouver, B.C. Vancouver is widely considered one of the most cutting edge, smart-growth, livable city. Yet they made a conscious effort to maintain the old, funky, one story buildings and wide sidewalks along their commercial corridor. They built modern high-rise residential buildings in walking distance, but not over, the retail.
Again, this was a conscious planning decision by a visionary planner. He understood that most real retail can’t afford the price of redevelopment rent, and that the human scale of a shopping district is important. He also felt that most people who would like to live in an urban environment would prefer a residential feel to the actual building in which they live. I know I feel that way.
I envision that we could achieve a similar scaled-down, small town version here in Davis if we could eventually develop the PG&E site into higher density condos and apartments. The condos in walking distance of downtown help create the market that brings a greater variety of retail. We have other underused sites east of downtown such as the city corporate yard.
JustSaying–Don keeps removing my posts. If you send me an email, I will explain the answers to your questions. What Don is saying about RDA funds is wrong. He does not understand how the funds work.
I was just thinking of several neighborhood in Washington DC. As you may know the height of buildings is limited to the heigth of the capital building. I think 5 stories if I am not mistaken. Also, the streets and sidewalks were designed relatively wide with trees and shrubs planted here and there. These neighborhoods are mixed use… residential and core commercial. The buildings are mostly modern or at least refreshed.. and at least 3 stories high. It is a great vibe.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Take a look at Vancouver, B.C. Vancouver is widely considered one of the most cutting edge, smart-growth, livable city.”[/i]
Sue, is it really an apples to apples comparison to compare a 65,000 population city to a 578,000 population city?
Rich:[i] JustSaying–Don keeps removing my posts. If you send me an email, I will explain the answers to your questions. What Don is saying about RDA funds is wrong. He does not understand how the funds work.[/i]
I have removed your posts that are off topic. Answering that question would not be off topic. I would also be curious how RDA funds can be transferred to the general fund, since others here and privately have assured me that cannot be done. If it can, I can think of some uses in other parts of the city for those funds.
Now with that said, I happen to support Sue’s vision for the PG&E site (as I understand it from past conversations with her). I also [u]even more strongly[/u] support a plan for UC Davis to accommodate a substantial portion of its undergraduate students in several 8-9 story tall, high-rise, apartment-style dormitories on the current location of the A Street Intramural Field just south of Toomey Field and just east of Hickey Gymnasium. The residents of those high rises would be within a stone’s throw of the East Quad of the core UCD campus. In addition they would be one block away from the 3rd and B corner at the south end of Central Park. What an incredible shot in the arm to Downtown businesses that would be.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”I have removed your posts that are off topic. Answering that question would not be off topic. I would also be curious how RDA funds can be transferred to the general fund, since others here and privately have assured me that cannot be done. If it can, I can think of some uses in other parts of the city for those funds.”[/i]
Don and David, there needs to be a way to deal with the “off topic issue.” Would it be possible to create an “AdHoc Discussions” thread each day. I like that term much more than “Off topic”. That way if off topic adhoc discussions do arise, as they inevitably will/do, then Don wouldn’t delete the posts, but rather move them to that day’s AdHoc Discussions thread.
Just a suggestion.
Sue, RE: Vancouver. It has been several years since I been to there. I don’t really remember the downtown area having buildings of limited height. Even the old town Lamplight District had taller buildings than Davis. But I agree that this was a very attractive area to hang out… had it not been for all the homeless people begging for money.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/bclamplight.jpg[/img]
Here are a couple of DC neighborhood shots.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/dc2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/dc3.jpg[/img]
I was wrong about the WF market in DC. They do have parking… underground and a bit on the street.
Here is a picture of the front of the building with the parking entrance and the street. There were a bunch of great restaurants and shopping venues in this neighborhood. It was hopping most of the time. If you are in the area go to Estadio and ask for a seat at the bar around the kitchen. Great Tapas and the cooks are a blast to watch and talk to.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/wholefoods.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/dc4.jpg[/img]
Don, I am not going to use my energy to answer people’s questions when you keep removing my posts. You are putting out incorrect information regarding the RDA funds. I know how it works. You don’t. But it is too tiring to be treated the way you are treating me. You remove posts that you don’t like. But you leave many that are off topic on most threads. Don’t kid yourself. If you promise to leave my posts alone, I will answer the questions. Or people can email me. But again, I won’t be a source of information only to be erased on a continual basis. Good night.
I agree with Matt’s suggestion about “off topic”. In general, I think that is a touchy area for a blog monitor. You might even consider a more loose interpretation. Frankly, sometimes the conversation flows in a direction that is more interesting that the origination topic that inspired the conversation.
As an amateur behavior specialist, I have noticed that rejection causes the most visceral reaction in most people. This is especially true when the rejecter holds all the power.
I think deleted posts should be rare. They should be limited to those spouting obscenities or significantly offensive content.
As a moderator, I would take the following approach…
1.Kindly suggest we stay on topic.
2.Pose leading questions to help move us back on topic (e.g., just ask for an opinion).
3.Ignore stuff you feel is too far off topic (if nobody responds, then most stop typing).
4.Encourage others to help remind the rest of the community to stay on topic.
The whole concept of blogging is to say what’s on your mind. I worry that having too tight moderator rules will prevent some from joining the conversation.
Don, obviously your moderator job is not a paid one, and I appreciate you donating your time. I coached youth soccer for one season and then quit after having so many parents yell at me for calls they disagreed with. Officiating is something a thankless job… but thanks!
To all:
I remove posts because:
–they are off-topic, giving a great deal of latitude on that, and necessarily being subjective;
–there is an attack on another blog participant;
–there is an attempt to ‘out’ a pseudonymous participant.
I remove pictures that are off topic.
I remove posts that debate or argue with moderation decisions.
I don’t remove posts because I disagree with them.
Thanks for the suggestions.
The comments of Mark West and most of the comments of Jeff Boone reflect the position of the DDBA. If anything they under-appreciate the potential of the Downtown. Sue obviously has a contrarian view not shared by the rest of the council. The other four recognize the Downtown has tremendous untapped potential. Unfortunately, they allow very narrow interests to divide them so that progress is thwarted. The downtown could be so much more than it is, but should have, would have, could have.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[quote]There seem to be different rules for different people on this blog. I used to post every day. I rarely do now.[/quote]
Dr. Wu, I for one miss your posts. You always seemed very level headed and sensible. Hope you come back…
[quote]To all:
I remove posts because:
–they are off-topic, giving a great deal of latitude on that, and necessarily being subjective;
–there is an attack on another blog participant;
–there is an attempt to ‘out’ a pseudonymous participant.
I remove pictures that are off topic.
I remove posts that debate or argue with moderation decisions.
I don’t remove posts because I disagree with them.
Thanks for the suggestions.[/quote]
Don, thanks for a job well done. I know it is very difficult at times to figure out what should be removed, and what should be kept. I agree with some commenters here that off topic comments at times become more interesting than the topic itself. An “off topic” thread would be a welcome addition. I, for one, would like to hear what Rich Rifkin has to say about RDA dollars, and how they can/cannot be converted to general fund dollars. This is a critical topic of conversation.
[quote]1) Make it unequivocally clear in word and deed, at every meeting, that economic development and job creation are the top priority of this council instead of thrashing around in minutia. It’s about time the Council seeks, strike that, “takes” advice from the business community, not other interest groups, on economic matters.
2) Keeping in mind that the private sector is capable of creating more jobs and faster than the government sector, the council should create conditions conducive to a thriving private sector. This might necessitate a task force that one by one removes impediments such as the 2-story downtown height restriction. Following which, the Council needs to get out of the way.
3) Institute policies and incentives for the construction of additional retail and office space downtown to take advantage of the economic opportunities created on campus. The Council has alrady created an innovation district, however, that has proven to be meaningless for lack of follow-up action.
4) Utilize the $20 mil. or so of RDA funds to spur private development asap. The DDBA proposed 5 actions over a year ago that the Council could have acted on. Get on with it. If the Council doesn’t like the 5 action steps, then get on with it’s own action steps. But what’s it waiting for, the perfect project? One quickly learns in the private sector that there is no such thing as a perfect project. There are always trade-offs. [/quote]
All points very well taken…
[quote]If we are good, and I think we are although declining in comparison to many other evolving communities, my concern is that we don’t keep patting ourselves on the back while missing so many opportunities to be better. We are lucky that we have strengths to leverage in our little town (UCD cash cow being the big one), but I see us having too little vision, too little decision backbone and too much petty decision conflict.
My view of the retail situation in Davis is the following:
1. We have far too few modern shopping conveniences given our size and median income level. We should be open to more commercial retail peripheral development.
2. The downtown cannot support us as a full-service retail location. There is not enough land for development. The traffic flow and parking limitations prevent the level of convenience we non-core residents expect. The vision for the downtown should evolve to accepting it as a specialty service and entertainment location.
3. The downtown is not at risk. It is too established and will remain viable. It is a bit blighted though (for example, G-street) and demands redevelopment.
4. Related to this… we do not fully leverage our strengths for attracting shoppers from outside the area to spend their taxable dollars in Davis.
5. We are not business-friendly in general. We do not fully leverage the UCD connection and other community assets (real or perceived) to attract non-retail commercial industry to this town. Mori Seiki is an example of what we should be able to do more of.
Lastly, as David mentions, we have a huge problem with our city employee pension and healthcare obligations that cannot be solved with revenue growth strategies. As good as we think we are, we are heading toward insolvency unless the leaders of this community get some backbone and make the necessary decisions.[/quote]
Also excellent points…
My understanding was that transferring funds directly from RDA to general fund was illegal, and that borrowing against them was marginally legal. That seems to be confirmed here:
[url]http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/18/local/la-me-redevelopment-20110218[/url]
I would point out one other thing. When we claim our city is somehow “the best” in all the state, it leaves no room for improvement bc we are seeing ourselves as so “perfect”; it insults other communities that have their own strengths and charms; and does not allow for the possibility that one size (view of what the city should be) does not fit all cities. There are many communities that are thriving, charming, and just as “nice” in their fashion. There is much that could be improved in Davis, but much to be grateful for. The Davis downtown has a vibrancy to it, but it lacks certain retail and it has some parking problems. There is no question that UCD is the driving force behind this town, and we should move heaven and earth to create a synergy with the University. To a great extent we have, but in some ways we have not, e.g. the West Village debacle, a failure to create an incubator site for start-up businesses. We should always strive for better…
[quote]My understanding was that transferring funds directly from RDA to general fund was illegal, and that borrowing against them was marginally legal. That seems to be confirmed here:
http://articles.latimes.com/20…t-20110218 [/quote]
I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me I remember a discussion about the Hanlees deal that indicated by using RDA money to fund this project, the sales tax revenue hoped to be generated would indirectly convert RDA money into general fund money… This was because the RDA funds would in turn generate sales tax revenue, which would then go into the general fund to be spent on whatever…
I think the shopping center where Whole Foods is going is a very well-designed example of what can make a downtown strong. It is well designed, has a residential component, and has an attractive mix of retailers. It is a remarkable use of a difficult location. When I took landscape design, it was a standard course assignment to try to come up with a design for the Aggie Villa site (as it was known then). It was a tough assignment.
I have watched the planning process, or lack thereof, in our local communities for a few decades now. The cities around us have followed discouraging patterns, all similar, in terms of downtown and neighborhood shopping options. I shop regularly in Davis, Dixon, and Vacaville. Each has its charms and virtues. For a freeway shopping center, the site where the Nut Tree used to be is well designed. But it’s been a challenge to fill it, because retail is saturated on the I-80 corridor. Dixon is a planning mess. The downtown is basically dead.
When I moved here Vacaville and Woodland had strong downtown retail, while Davis was just a small college town. Even then, long before the planning process had become what it is now, Davis had a much weaker retail core. There is an historical basis for the differences between the local cities. They served different demographics and different purposes.
They were the cities you went to for big-ticket items. But the Woodland mall was already killing their downtown, and ultimately the peripheral big-box killed the downtown and appears to be taking out the mall. Vacaville’s downtown has far fewer retail options than Davis, in a city with a larger population. Their shopping has all shifted to the freeway malls.
Woodland now is strategizing to ‘save’ their downtown. I have noted the irony that the developer who is most active — Petrovich — is also the one who developed the peripheral retail. Peripheral retail causes drastic changes to traffic patterns. Most existing businesses lose significant percentages of sales; the most common figure cited is 30%. As they go under, nobody will come along and replace them with similar shopping options because the big box is there.
I consider PG&E and other possible sites to be very far in the future, if they ever happen at all. But the Nishi farm is an option that could be pursued right now. You have a willing landowner, willing UCD administration, and an enthusiastic business community. The council could have a subcommittee working with the UCD administration and the property owner now to get things moving forward. The parking lot is something that has a plan on paper, funds allocated, right now, but it is lost in study hell. I’d be willing to bet that nothing will happen on that lot for years, and that nothing further will happen about downtown parking issues for at least a couple of years. If ever.
It must be incredibly frustrating to the downtown merchants to see everything stymied and to feel that they have no voice.
I initially wasn’t going to engage since it has proven to be entirely fruitless in the past, but the kids are now in bed, and it keeps nagging at me. It is really disingenious to say, “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” Despite all its strengths such as walkability, dining, movie theaters, boat loads of students, there are a number of sectors downtown that are really struggling.
The retail sector is under severe duress. There really is not sufficient critical mass to constitute a vibrant shopping district. The retailers are scattered over too great an area so that there isn’t a sufficient concentration. As one walks along any given street, it’s appealing storefront, struggling retailer, parking lot, alleyway, etc. There are insufficent quality retail spaces in the downtown. Many of the spaces are quite dated with little curb appeal.
The 2nd floor office space sector is also under duress. Most of it is functionally obsolete. The market is so soft that a landlord cannot recoup the cost of renovations. As a consequence, these spaces become more and more dated.
If it weren’t for the leafblowers and garbage trucks, Downtown before lunchtime would be a ghost town. Midafternoon is generally pretty quite as well. That means tenants have to generate enough revenue during just a few short hours to pay all their overhead.
Many business owners are in essence working for free; they’re covering the rent, but not making any profit. Some will be going under in the next few months. It’s really tough for quite a few business. The vast majority of the downtown businesses are not satisfied with the status quo. On the other hand, they have difficulty agreeing on what changes should be made for fear that the slightest change might result in them going from struggling to bankrupt. A couple months street construction could wipe them out.
These things have all been reported to Sue on numerous occassions by multiple parties. Meanwhile, she continues to insist that everyone she talks to doesn’t want any substantive changes. She had 12 business owners telling her the other night in the council chambers that they want substantive changes. Are these not part of “everyone”? If you don’t agree with her, you’re part of “no one”.
The really sad part is that it doesn’t have to be this way. We have so many opportunities that we can take advantage of, but we steadfastly refuse to do so. The resistance to change is truly daunting.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
I’d also like to point out that all real estate requires periodic, substantive remodeling. Commercial real estate and public infrastructure is subject to significant wear and tear. Consumer tastes are constantly evolving. Any successful shopping center or district will become obsolete unless properly maintained and updated. Our downtown is no different. Why doesn’t the City Council get it?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA C0-President)
[quote] Sue obviously has a contrarian view not shared by the rest of the council. The other four recognize the Downtown has tremendous untapped potential. Unfortunately, they allow very narrow interests to divide them so that progress is thwarted. The downtown could be so much more than it is, but should have, would have, could have.–[b]DT Businessman AKA Michael Bisch[/b]
[/quote]Downtown Businessman, AKA Michael Bisch, president of the DBA, holds a position that is not held by all of the local merchants downtown. Many of the local merchants downtown would not appreciate having the buildings in which their businesses are located torn down and replaced with more expensive, multistory “mixed use” buildings.
Sue reflects the views of a very large number of Davis citizens who love the downtown the way it is, and who want to see incremental enhancements which retain the human scale of downtown and protect affordable rents for our local merchants.
She also recognizes that an excessive number of residential units and offices over the retail in the commercial core will sop up the precious parking spaces that our retailers rely on.
[quote][i]”Actually, I was one of the councilmembers most critical of the way the Hanlee’s deal was structured. That said, we are really in a bind. There is not very much that brings net revenue to the city these days. Auto dealerships and hotels bring the most revenue and create the least urban decay of the economic development projects.”[/i][/quote]Well, Sue, maybe so. As I remember the discussion back then, you asked many worthwhile questions about how the Hanlees project would operate. But, it seems to me that you supported the undertaking (for the sales tax revenue benefits you’ve repeated here). And, it seemed that your questioning was aimed at assuring that we understood the financial benefits the project would bring to the city.
Of course, I don’t like the ways the RDA program operates much at all. So that may have colored my impressions of how the rest of you seemed to be supporting projects that seemed wasteful and unfair to me.
Anyway, chasing auto (and, to a lesser extent, hotel) sales taxes appears to be a short-sighted way to develop a city like Davis. It just seems as though we could have carefully planned an extensive list of higher priority projects that could have improved the quality of life in Davis for many years to come instead of focusing on more financing of our unsustainable general fund decisions.
I don’t see how you could give building an auto strip mall at the Mace Boulevard entryway to Davis your highest marks for creating “the least urban decay of the economic development projects.”
I drove out that way to see the kids at the big soccer fields this very afternoon, and was surprised at the level of urban decay and economic decay evident where we used to have auto and RV sales and service establishments, at least one restaurant and a delightful, historically significant XXX drive-in theater.
How much sales tax revenue is being generated along that stretch of Chiles Road these days? And the visual blight has gotten a serious foothold in the neighborhood.
Are you still sure, Sue, that your past priorities for RDA funding and projects still are correct? Maybe it’s time to take another look.
[b]@Just Saying[/b]:
I basically agree with you. It is quite sad that we have to make compromises like this. Unfortunately, an enormous fraction of our sales tax comes from auto dealerships.
That said, there is very little else that would actually bring us net revenue. The auto subsidy was a loan, it will bring net revenue over and above the subsidy, and was a very small fraction of our RDA investments, which include major contributions to most of the infrastructure which connects south Davis to north Davis and many of the improvements that have transformed downtown from a venue that was dead all summer, vacations and weekends — not a car parked or a person walking for blocks — into the vital downtown that we have today.
[i]”I remove posts because: –they are off-topic, giving a great deal of latitude on that, and necessarily being subjective; “[/i]
Such bullsh!t. I often try to give a lot of information in my posts, by looking up facts. That takes time. You removed many of my posts which are replies to other posters and you say my post is off topic? Bull effing ess.
Today’s discussion had to do with sales tax generation. You took down my informed and researched post with regard to money generated for Davis from auto sales. You left similar posts from others.
When you go off topic, no one takes down your posts or your graphics. It is entirely subjective.
The real problem is when I work hard to make an informed point, when I take 15 minutes to look up some objective information or to just write in complete paragraphs and you decide my comment is unfit. So it is very discouraging. And I really am tired of it. Bye.
You also seem to have a lot more latitude with people who make vicious personal attacks against real people, if the attacks are made by psedonyms. That is bass ackwards. It seems to me you should be less liberal with people who make such attacks when the attacker is hiding behind a fake name. If someone signs his real name to his comments, you should generally let those stand, unless they really go over the line.
Even worse, you have no sense of humor. So any funny comments get removed. That is idiotic on your part.
[quote][i]”There is no way that I am aware of to move RDA funds to the general fund. And the RDA account is more than just ‘moderately’ restrictive…My understanding was that transferring funds directly from RDA to general fund was illegal, and that borrowing against them was marginally legal…I would also be curious how RDA funds can be transferred to the general fund, since others here and privately have assured me that cannot be done. If it can, I can think of some uses in other parts of the city for those funds.”[/i][/quote][b]Don[/b], I wasn’t talking about [u]transferring funds directly[/u] from RDA to GF or the GF borrowing against RDA accounts.
I’m concerned about why the Hanlees debt to the RDA would be paid off (forgiven) from the city’s sales tax receipts owed by Hanlees. Who will end up with the $1-million (plus interest), assuming Hanlees doesn’t go under before the loan period is over?
With respect to the descriptions (“moderately restrictive RDA account to the spend-anyway-you-want general fund”), no doubt they’re both exaggerations. But I’d just intended them to be for comparison only against each other. Anyway, we seem to figure ways to spend RDA money for many purposes and places beyond what the program intended.
But, even that flexibility doesn’t allow the city to use RDA funds to pay firefighters, etc., directly–we need to figure out how to do a little “money laundering” first.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”To all:
I remove posts because:
–they are off-topic, giving a great deal of latitude on that, and necessarily being subjective;
–there is an attack on another blog participant;
–there is an attempt to ‘out’ a pseudonymous participant.
I remove pictures that are off topic.
I remove posts that debate or argue with moderation decisions.
I don’t remove posts because I disagree with them.
Thanks for the suggestions.”[/i]
Don and David, if there were a daily Off Topic thread then Don’s list above would shrink substantially, leaving only,
–there is an attack on another blog participant;
–there is an attempt to ‘out’ a pseudonymous participant.
Matt W: [i]Don and David, if there were a daily Off Topic thread…[/i]
you could also generate ideas for topics for other relevant articles for this blog. It would also be a feature that currently doesn’t readily exist in other prominent online forums for local comment, e.g., The Enterprise. One strength of this blog site is the quality of online discussion and commentary (thanks to David and Don); I think such a feature could improve that by offering an outlet for topics not normally or frequently covered. Speculative, but it might also bring more traffic to this site, which is desirable for readership, advertising and a donor base.
Downside is that it could involve significantly more staff time to moderate, if traffic picks up too much.
I could readily see that off-topic threads would likely devolve to national politics, based on history.
One of the ideas I have for dealing with off-topic subjects is to change the nature of the comments board and create a bulletin board that people can posts their own topics as they choose, the comment threads would be there and off-topic posts that met other rules would simply be bumped to the board with a redirect. But that costs money. I’ll see what the cost will be.
[quote][i]–they are off-topic, giving a great deal of latitude on that, and necessarily being subjective;
–there is an attack on another blog participant;
–there is an attempt to ‘out’ a pseudonymous participant.
I remove pictures that are off topic.
I remove posts that debate or argue with moderation decisions.
I don’t remove posts because I disagree with them.
[/i][/quote]At the risk of violating #5, here goes… It’s important to jump on #2 and #3 violations–I think they tend to drive away participants and readers. Calling #1 and #4 violations (“necessarily being subjective”) is really problematic, however, since most every post is generated by [u]something[/u] that’s appeared already, since many arguably are on-point in at least a subtle way and the “off topic” information is more interesting, valuable and/or humorous than what’s appearing at the time.
The only truly “off-topic” posts are the occasional, timely news notes that people drop into the conversation. And, when you come down to it, what harm do outright, or even marginally, “off topic” comments bring to the [u]Vanguard[/u] enterprise? Only the really verbose, 14-inch posts interfere much and it’s easy to skip over them if we want.
“Off-topic” is a way to say “not worthy”–a fairly serious judgment to make–and invites assumptions about whether #6 is at play. This sense is compounded if the moderator’s not his usual kind-natured self and appears a little testy.
Maybe it’s time to give up “off-topic” policing for awhile and see whether the sky actually falls. After all, many of David’s reports epitomize off-topic-ness since he’s driven to make all kinds of points and connections that have little to do with his alleged topic of the day. Then, of course, there’s always Afghanistan.
And this is what passes for reasoned debate? Sue said if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. I point out that in 2 fundamental way, it is broken. Sue’s response….?
Sue also says that no one she has spoken to desires substantive Downtown change. I point out that this too is false. Sue’s response….? I’d like to expand on this point. Sue knows numerous individuals who desire substantive change. She knows the DDBA board members, many progressive downtown merchants, and of course a number of bloggers on this thread who have stated that substantive change is in order. Others have tried this without success, I’ll give it another shot. Sue, name 10 downtown merchants who don’t think downtown is in need of substantive investment.
Instead of responding directly to my refutations of her comments, Sue sets up a strawman easily knocked down. She says, I hold a position not shared by ALL the downtown merchants. Nowhere have I said that All merchants share my position. Unanimous consent is a pretty hi standard, Sue. Are you going to hold yourself to the same standard. Would you settle for an overwhelming majority? Let’s just revert to a simpler test. Sue, name 10 downtown merchants that don’t think the Downtown is in need of a fix.
Finally, it’s a strange time to concede, Sue, that parking poses a constraint for Downtown economic activity. The time to make such a concession was when the matter came before the Council a few weeks ago. At the time, you didn’t even acknowledge that parking is a problem in need of a solution. In fact, you argued just the opposite. Now you’re making my years-long point that the existing supply of parking is constraining economic growth downtown.
All too often arguing for the sake of arguing passes for reasoned debate. Pre-conceived notions clung to evidence to the contrary be damned.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
For the record:
I removed two (3?) posts that were about Tesla cars, in response to a comment that they were off topic. I removed some short followup posts about that action.
Period.
I didn’t remove anything of substance regarding Whole Foods, sales tax, RDA funding, or anything that might have taken anyone more than a moment to compose.
If a post of any substance disappeared, it may have been a blog glitch. I doubt that David removed anything.
I don’t remove posts that I disagree with.
I’m going to go a bit overboard to prove this particular point regarding Sue’s strange assertion that “no one” she has spoken to desires substantive change Downtown, i.e. significant improvement. Either she’s not talking to a whole lot of people, or disregarding their input so that they all qualify as “no one”. There’s me, the DDBA board, the Chamber board, the YCVB board, the BEDC, the unofficial DSIDE steering committee members, senior UCD officials, 4 of the 5 City Council members, all but a handful of downtown merchants, numerous landlords, the vast majority of focus group participants, countless shoppers, a number of Vanguardians who have posted on this thread, these are a whole lot of “no ones” Sue.
It’s one thing to say that you disagree with all these individuals. It’s an entirely different matter to say “no one” you’ve spoken to disagrees with your view, which is clearly untrue.
And I’m looking forward to a follow-up response regarding the parts of Downtown that are broken or are in serious danger of being broken. I’d like to see feedback from other Vanguardians on this subject as well.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[quote]And I’m looking forward to a follow-up response regarding the parts of Downtown that are broken or are in serious danger of being broken. I’d like to see feedback from other Vanguardians on this subject as well. [/quote]
From a personal perspective, I find some of the old houses that have been converted to restaurants not well appointed. The insides often look shabby and uninviting. Others are lovely and charming. Ambience when dining matters to me. Outdoor dining is a plus. Around Crepeville, there is an awful odor that smells like garbage/bug spray that has kept me from frequenting any restaurants nearby. There have been restaurants that literally stink when I walk in, and I turn around and walk right back out. Retail in the downtown is sometimes overpriced and very inadequate for many items. On the other hand, every once in a while I stumble on a jewel – found some wonderful scarves at a very reasonable price at a small store on F Street between 2nd and 3rd called Hand Made Creations. I do frequent restaurants downtown – many are reasonably priced and serve excellent food. I don’t seem to have much problem finding parking if I am willing to walk a few blocks. But then I also tend to avoid the downtown at the busiest times if possible.
I just asked my wife her opinions about the Downtown. Here’s what she said.
1) It’s not very architecturally interesting
ttractive/pretty. The good news is that it is getting better as old buildings like Bistro 33 are being visually featured and actively used. The relocation and rehabilitation of the old bungalows along 3rd Street near Central Park is a definite plus. The Mustard Seed “mini mall” is attractive. The 100 block of E Street “mini mall” is not. G Street is inconsistent. 4th Street is inconsistent. 3rd Street is for the most part attractive.
2) Changing the E Street tree covered parking lot to a monolithic building would make the Downtown even less attractive, and be a huge negative.
3) The employees of Downtown businesses should be given serious incentives to park in the G street garage or the F street garage. Those garages are currently underutilized
4) The Richards Underpass makes access to Downtown a negative.
5) Bicycles should be prohibited from 5th Street. There is no reason why bicycles can’t be routed over to 4th Street and/or 1st Street.
6) Davis Ace has almost everything I might be inclined to get from Target, and wherever/whenever possible I go to Davis Ace rather than Target even though Target is much closer to my home.
7) The idea of a Whole Foods at the Borders site is a significant plus. Since a trip to Trader Joes is all the way across town for me, I simply don’t go there. I go to Nugget instead. A Whole Foods in downtown would bring me to Downtown more often for specialty items. Nugget would continue to be my go-to market.
Thanks for the comments. Matt, what’s the 100 block of E Street “mini mall”?
This is a very interesting discussion. I think this gets down to the question of vision; not just the vision for the downtown, but the vision for our entire city. As always, there are competing visions.
The problem today as I see it is that Davis has grown too big to be kept small. The vision of a European-style village does not work for a town that swells to 80-90k people when school is in session. We also attract visitors from outside the area… this is a good thing from a perspective of economic opportunity, and one I think we can and should expand on, but it adds more larger city stresses and pressures.
The small self-contained village vision also does not work when a large percentage of the population does not live in the core area. We use our cars because we have to.
It also does not work because most of the residents are not hippy bohemian minimalists… they are modern families used to a modern level of service and convenience.
Lastly, it does not fit with our UCD relationship. This is an aggressive and forward thinking enterprise and Davis seems to drag its feet and block any and all change. By doing this we are missing many opportunities to leverage the unique and valuable city-college relationship.
My sense is that the political machine in Davis is dominated by those fighting to maintain the small European village look and feel at all costs. Many live in the core area and run in circles of like-minded people… people that share their vision. They use a statist approach with a fake populist veneer that is bent on slowing or preventing modernization.
Personally, I want these people at the table for developing the vision, but I don’t want them controlling the agenda like they do today. Our downtown has been quaint, quirky and interesting enough, but it has fallen behind based on modern expectations. We look pretty shabby and out of date. There are a lot of products and services we cannot get in town. As the town and the areas around us have grown, our downtown has remained about the same size and scope and traffic and parking have become issues to address. We do not generate enough sales tax revenue and are missing out on opportunities to leverage the UCD connection and the shopping power of our visitors and our well-off population.
I have written before that it is like we are trying to be Carmel so we don’t become Folsom. We cannot be Carmel for many reasons, and we have a very long way to go before we look like Folsom. I think we should be shooting for somewhere in the middle.
[quote]I have written before that it is like we are trying to be Carmel so we don’t become Folsom. We cannot be Carmel for many reasons, and we have a very long way to go before we look like Folsom. I think we should be shooting for somewhere in the middle.[/quote]
This is an interesting analogy, and apt I must say…
I agree with a lot of what you said, Jeff. I think there could be a lot of consensus about the downtown and about satellite shopping options.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]
“Thanks for the comments. Matt, what’s the 100 block of E Street “mini mall”?”[/i]
Where the Dumpling House is, behind the Hotdogger. Sophia’s Thai was once back there, but I think it is gone
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”This is a very interesting discussion. I think this gets down to the question of vision; not just the vision for the downtown, but the vision for our entire city. As always, there are competing visions.
The problem today as I see it is that Davis has grown too big to be kept small.”[/i]
While I’m not sure it is as cut and dried as that, lets use that as a starting point.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”The vision of a European-style village does not work for a town that swells to 80-90k people when school is in session. We also attract visitors from outside the area… this is a good thing from a perspective of economic opportunity, and one I think we can and should expand on, but it adds more larger city stresses and pressures.”[/i]
I’m not sure I follow your argument, mostly because I don’t know what you mean by a European-style village.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”The small self-contained village vision also does not work when a large percentage of the population does not live in the core area. We use our cars because we have to.
It also does not work because most of the residents are not hippy bohemian minimalists… they are modern families used to a modern level of service and convenience.”[/i]
The question that came to my mind when I read this was, “Does anyone currently see Davis as a self-contained village?” There are so many specialized services and resources available in SF/Sac corridor, why should we redundantly try and provide those services in a self-contained version of Davis?
Jeff Boone said . . .
“Lastly, it does not fit with our UCD relationship. This is an aggressive and forward thinking enterprise and Davis seems to drag its feet and block any and all change. By doing this we are missing many opportunities to leverage the unique and valuable city-college relationship.”
I am not sure that history supports your contention here. UCD has a long history of dragging its feet and blocking any proposed change that it doesn’t 100% control. It is a highly political organization. Chancellor Katehi has been talking that change is here, but I’m afraid that the organizational politics of UCD is deeply entrenched.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”My sense is that the political machine in Davis is dominated by those fighting to maintain the small European village look and feel at all costs. Many live in the core area and run in circles of like-minded people… people that share their vision. They use a statist approach with a fake populist veneer that is bent on slowing or preventing modernization.[/i]
Here again Jeff I’m not sure what your characteristics are of a small European village. Help me out.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Personally, I want these people at the table for developing the vision, but I don’t want them controlling the agenda like they do today. Our downtown has been quaint, quirky and interesting enough, but it has fallen behind based on modern expectations. We look pretty shabby and out of date. There are a lot of products and services we cannot get in town.”[/i].
What are “modern expectations”? I think of myself as reasonably modern, and there are very few of the expectations for products and services I have for Davis that it doesn’t meet. It doesn’t always meet them to perfection, but it regularly meets them. I ask that question not to challenge you, but to better understand your point.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”As the town and the areas around us have grown, our downtown has remained about the same size and scope and traffic and parking have become issues to address. We do not generate enough sales tax revenue and are missing out on opportunities to leverage the UCD connection and the shopping power of our visitors and our well-off population.”[/i]
I completely agree that we miss out on opportunities to leverage the UCD presence with respect to technology transfer job creation. Are there other areas where we are missing leverage opportunities?
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]
“I have written before that it is like we are trying to be Carmel so we don’t become Folsom. We cannot be Carmel for many reasons, and we have a very long way to go before we look like Folsom. I think we should be shooting for somewhere in the middle.”[/i]
Interesting metaphor. I agree with your points about both ends of your spectrum. Do you have an example of such a “middle” community?
Matt Williams’ wife suggested:
“5) Bicycles should be prohibited from 5th Street. There is no reason why bicycles can’t be routed over to 4th Street and/or 1st Street.”
You may want cyclists to stay off of 5th St., but the city of Davis cannot legally prohibit bicyclists from using 5th St. or any other street in town.
Matt: [i] What are “modern expectations”?[/i]
Tools, building supplies, appliances, bedding, towels, kitchen ware, men’s clothing, electronics, exercise equipment, large sporting goods, guns, fishing gear, motorcycles, furniture, photography supplies and equipment, jewelry, etc., etc., etc… and all of these things with choice and convenience.
We lack an adequate supply of browse-able stores to find one-of-a-kind items and specialty items. We have some, but not enough.
We lack quality sit-down-to-be-served restaurants. Seasons is about the only restaurant in town I can use to host a formal dinner for my company events. We lack hotels and meeting facilities.
It may be unfair to use Santa Barbara as an example, but here are a few shots of State Street:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/statestreet.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/statestreet2.jpg[/img]
Note the comparison with Davis’s downtown. We are very shabby by comparison.
Palo Alto is a good example of a like-sized city that kicks our ass in so many ways. Have you been to the Stanford Shopping Center Mall? They have a Home Depot and Target and other big box stores in Palo Alto, and a vibrant and attractive downtown that is much more up to date.
The opportunities we are failing to take advantage of… to attract more Davis residents outside the core area, and out of town shoppers, to the downtown… to increase peripheral shopping so that more Davis shopping dollars stay in Davis. We have UCD and the vibe of the students and employees. We have Mondovi. Think a mini State Street vibe. Think more restaurants and specialty shops. Think more office space and upper level apartments. I think we should consider making part of E street or F Street a pedestrian promenade. How about a new parking structure and turn the old Mr. B’s/Crepe Bistro/Baskin Robbins lot into a city square? How about developing more attractive street-to-street pass-through micro-malls like the picture above?
I think there are people living in the core area that are active in city politics that like the downtown like it is… because it is their little neighborhood marketplace. They don’t want a bigger and more active downtown. The want it small, quaint and full-service. They are blocking a citywide vision of retail development and redevelopment that would improve the quality of life for the rest of us.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Matt: What are “modern expectations”?
Tools, building supplies, appliances, bedding, towels, kitchen ware, men’s clothing, electronics, exercise equipment, large sporting goods, guns, fishing gear, motorcycles, furniture, photography supplies and equipment, jewelry, etc., etc., etc… and all of these things with choice and convenience.
We lack an adequate supply of browse-able stores to find one-of-a-kind items and specialty items. We have some, but not enough.”[/i]
Jeff, you clearly don’t frequent either Davis Ace or Hibberts. Both are loaded with tools and building supplies. Davis Ace is loaded with high quality kitchenwares. There are at least three or more jewelry stores downtown, with DeLuna being the one I have frequented the most because of its Native American pottery. Thanks to The Company Store, I didn’t buy either bedding or towels anywhere other than via the Internet in either Dallas or Nashville (the two cities I lived in prior to Davis). Bedding and towels from on-ground sources simply can’t compete with internet sources.
So that brings your list down to men’s clothing, electronics, exercise equipment, large sporting goods, guns, fishing gear, motorcycles, furniture, and photography supplies and equipment. I’m totally biased regarding men’s clothing. There isn’t a “good” men’s clothing store in Sacramento either. IMHO, you have to go to San Francisco to find good men’s clothing, and having an excuse to occasionally go to “borrow” San Francisco is not a burden. Electronics and photography equipment are a whole lot like bedding and towels in that the internet is far and away their best source, but Frys is no more than 10 miles from Davis for an on-ground purchase. How often does anyone purchase a camera? . . . or a new stereo? Further, for home electronics installation Davis has no shortage of sources that will come to your home and set up a custom system.
So that brings me to exercise equipment, large sporting goods, guns, fishing gear, motorcycles and furniture. How often do you purchase those items? Does Davis even have a critical mass of potential gun buyers or motorcycle buyers to generate enough sales volume to warrant a store for either of those categories? In fact, I could be wrong but I simply don’t see the necessary inventory turnover in any of those six categories to make a business case for any of them here in Davis given the town’s demographics.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”We lack quality sit-down-to-be-served restaurants. Seasons is about the only restaurant in town I can use to host a formal dinner for my company events. We lack hotels and meeting facilities.”[/i]
I love Seasons too, but they are not alone. The Mustard Seed can serve you well. Give them a try. I would have no hesitation to take business contacts to Thai Recipes. I haven’t been to Osteria Fasulo in a while, but I would certainly consider it.
Regarding hotels and meeting facilities, I’ll agree with the former, but with the latter since the dominant employer in town is UC Davis, there is absolutely no shortage of meeting places if you include the University in your inventory.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”It may be unfair to use Santa Barbara as an example, but here are a few shots of State Street:”[/i]
Yes, it is totally apples and oranges to use Santa Barbara as an example, or Palo Alto, or for that matter Eureka or Arcata (where I went recently and was very impressed with the vibrancy of their downtowns). The reason is simple. All of those cities are hubs for their regions. None of them have to compete with a large neighbor city the way Davis does.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Palo Alto is a good example of a like-sized city that kicks our ass in so many ways. Have you been to the Stanford Shopping Center Mall? They have a Home Depot and Target and other big box stores in Palo Alto, and a vibrant and attractive downtown that is much more up to date.”[/i]
Okay, lets disect Palo Alto just a bit. Its resident population is about the same as Davis, but how many jobs does Palo Alto have? The last number I heard was 160,000. That is probably more than triple the number of jobs that Davis has. All those employees are an incredible consumer force that Davis doesn’t have and will never have. Regarding Stanford Shopping Center Mall, if you compared the average driving time for a Palo Alto resident to get to Home Depot and Target to the average driving time for a Davis resident to get to a Home Depot or a Target, I’m willing to be that the Davis average drive time is shorter. What say you?
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”The opportunities we are failing to take advantage of… to attract more Davis residents outside the core area, and out of town shoppers, to the downtown… to increase peripheral shopping so that more Davis shopping dollars stay in Davis. We have UCD and the vibe of the students and employees. We have Mondovi. Think a mini State Street vibe. Think more restaurants and specialty shops. Think more office space and upper level apartments. I think we should consider making part of E street or F Street a pedestrian promenade. How about a new parking structure and turn the old Mr. B’s/Crepe Bistro/Baskin Robbins lot into a city square? How about developing more attractive street-to-street pass-through micro-malls like the picture above?”
I think those are all good points, some of which I’m going to defer to DT Businessman to answer. I would love to see more upper level apartments in the downtown. The recently built AT&T building is a perfect example of a lost opportunity, but the property owner simply didn’t want more than a single floor. We can’t [u]force[/u] property owners to add a second story. Regarding a new parking structure, have you counted the empty spaces in our current parking structure lately? We aren’t utilizing what we have. Another “structure” that screams “unsafe” to all the women of Davis isn’t going to solve our parking challenges. It is going to be just as underutilized as the two we have are. The first step we need to make regarding parking is to get our current structures better utilized.
One of the significant strengths of both Eureka and Arcata is their city square. I love the idea of something like that in the heart of Davis, but the area you propose is way too small. Reworking the periphery of Central Park would make more sense to accomplish that, IMHO.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”I think there are people living in the core area that are active in city politics that like the downtown like it is… because it is their little neighborhood marketplace. They don’t want a bigger and more active downtown. The want it small, quaint and full-service. They are blocking a citywide vision of retail development and redevelopment that would improve the quality of life for the rest of us.”[/i]
Looking at your “bottom-line” I come back to two thoughts that I need your help on. First, is are there enough jobs (employees) in Davis to fiscally support your vision? Second, isn’t achieving such a vision in Davis always going to face the major hurdle that Davis isn’t the regional hub, Sacramento is? IMHO, there is virtually nothing we can do to change the answer to the second question. Getting high quality jobs to Davis needs to be our highest priority. We will never get to a jobs level like Palo Alto’s, but our current Joobs/Housing ratio of 1.02 needs to get much closer to the 1.50 that a “healthy” self-sustaining city is expected to have.
Matt:
I appreciate the conversation here. You had asked me for examples, and I provided them. Without getting into a specific response to each of your challenges, here is my general response.
Related to your list of shopping options, IMO you are missing the bigger picture. My point was/is that there are many things we cannot purchase in this town, and that many of the things we can purchase are of limited choice. Let me just take one of the product types I mentioned: tools. Yes I can purchase some tools at Ace and Hibbert. However, the selection is very narrow compared to what is available. Part of the reason grocery stores have had to expand in size over the last few decades is because of the number of brands. Shoppers are spoiled expecting their particular favorites or a certain variety. A small footprint market does not have the shelf space. The same is true for tools. There have been numerous times I have driven to Ace (Hibbert would be closed) and then had to drive to Woodland to find what I was looking for. The same for building supplies: home depot carries them and Hibbert – when it is open – frequently has to order them. Are you expecting me and others to lower our expectations of choice and just purchase what is stocked on local merchant’s shelves?
Folsom is about the same size as Davis. Vacaville was about the size of Davis about 25 years ago but has expanded since then. Neither is a hub city. There is almost nothing you can’t buy in either town. I’m not suggesting that Folsom or Vacaville are the target models for Davis; but they are illustrative of the very large gap I see for retail economic development serving the complete population. We are on the other end of the shopping spectrum… even though we have the jewel of UCD to pump up our population of shoppers.
Your point about a lack of jobs in Davis as a comparison to Palo Alto gets to another related development-vision problem. We are woefully unsophisticated in this town for attracting business. In fact, we are largely perceived as being at most hostile to, and at least over-controlling of, business and economic development. Just one little example (and I have plenty more)…note the public and political hostility levied at West, Yost and Associates over their involvement in the surface water project. This is a home-grown civil engineering company employing over 100 people in this town. I don’t think you can use a lack of jobs as an argument to explain inadequate retail development when this is a subset of a larger anti-business climate. It is all connected in my view. It is indicative of a certain lack of leadership/vision, or it is indicative that our leaders think that Davis should remain more like a little European village. As I have said, I think there is value in the competing perspective that Davis should remain small and quaint, but this view should not dominate our planning and development processes.
If Home Depot opens here, it is almost a certainty that Ace would be put out of business in the overlapping product categories, and Hibbert would change their product mix to almost entirely suit only their contractor customer base. So your preference for big box retail, which you have expressed many times, would lead to fewer consumer choices locally.
But the big box stores are recognizing that they don’t have to always build big boxes. Store size limitation is a very effective planning tool to maintain satellite shopping centers and avoid the peripheral mess that you see in Woodland. Where, apparently, you prefer to shop.
Don: I don’t prefer to shop in Woodland. I go there to purchase things I cannot get in Davis. It makes me angry every time I stand at the cash register thinking about the tax revenue coming out of my wallet going to Woodland instead of Davis.
So, what you are basically saying here is that I should suck it up… make compromises in the products and services I desire to support the smaller providers in our unique little village. You seem to be asking me to lower my consumption and to be a charitable giver to Davis retail to support the status quo. Sorry, I won’t demonize big box stores at my expense. What is it we are protecting with this approach?
My view is that Ace can survive by expanding house wares, garden and hardware, but get rid of their lumber yard. Ace could probably shrink their operation to one location and then it would open up the other for redevelopment on G street. The rock yard is interesting since Home Depot does not provide those products/services. However, there is no real benefit for that stuff being located in the core downtown. I think the owners would be better off having an expanded rock yard and delivery on the periphery. Again, although this is on the other side of the tracks, there might be some good redevelopment use for the rock yard property.
I think Hibbert would be fine too since Woodland Home Depot is only 15 minutes away and already would be a factor in their sales. A Davis Home Depot might take an additional percent of their business, but it would not kill them or they would already be dead. They might have to stay open later and on Sunday to make up the difference. Boo hoo to that.
Jeff Boone said . . .
“Matt: I appreciate the conversation here. You had asked me for examples, and I provided them. Without getting into a specific response to each of your challenges, here is my general response.”
I too appreciate the conversation. What our respective responses show is that as consumers you and I have very different expectations of a shopping experience, and that you are more into the act of shopping than I am. We probably are representative of broad swaths of Davis’ residents, with plenty of people in the area between us. Please don’t think of my comments as challenges, but rather observations about the differences in our expectations.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Related to your list of shopping options, IMO you are missing the bigger picture. My point was/is that there are many things we cannot purchase in this town, and that many of the things we can purchase are of limited choice. Let me just take one of the product types I mentioned: tools. Yes I can purchase some tools at Ace and Hibbert. However, the selection is very narrow compared to what is available.”[/i]
This is a perfect example of our different expectations. My wife and I do all the gardening around our home, and I do most of the repairs and handyman work around the house. I spend a considerable amount of money at Ace . . . less at Hibbert. I honestly can’t remember the last time I had to have Ace order anything for me, other than a specialized fern I wanted to mass plant in one of my beds in the yard. For me a hammer is a hammer, the guts of a toilet’s flush mechanism is the guts of a toilet’s flush mechanism, a spade is a spade, etc. Help me with my confusion. I really can’t imagine a tool I would have to go out of town to buy.
Jeff Boone said . . .
“Part of the reason grocery stores have had to expand in size over the last few decades is because of the number of brands. Shoppers are spoiled expecting their particular favorites or a certain variety. A small footprint market does not have the shelf space. The same is true for tools. There have been numerous times I have driven to Ace (Hibbert would be closed) and then had to drive to Woodland to find what I was looking for. The same for building supplies: home depot carries them and Hibbert – when it is open – frequently has to order them. Are you expecting me and others to lower our expectations of choice and just purchase what is stocked on local merchant’s shelves?”
See my two answers above. If I hear you right, the brand name of what you buy is important to you. In our family we have different levels of attachment to Brand names, so I can understand that perspective if it is what you are saying.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”Folsom is about the same size as Davis. Vacaville was about the size of Davis about 25 years ago but has expanded since then. Neither is a hub city. There is almost nothing you can’t buy in either town. I’m not suggesting that Folsom or Vacaville are the target models for Davis; but they are illustrative of the very large gap I see for retail economic development serving the complete population. We are on the other end of the shopping spectrum… even though we have the jewel of UCD to pump up our population of shoppers.”[/i]
Folsom and Vacaville defined their consumer market as travelers on I-80 when they committed to locating outlet malls there. Are you saying you want Davis to define its consumer market in the same way? If so, then Folsom and Vacaville are apples-to-apples comparisons. If not, then I see them as apples-to-oranges comparisons.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]Your point about a lack of jobs in Davis as a comparison to Palo Alto gets to another related development-vision problem. We are woefully unsophisticated in this town for attracting business. In fact, we are largely perceived as being at most hostile to, and at least over-controlling of, business and economic development. Just one little example (and I have plenty more)…note the public and political hostility levied at West, Yost and Associates over their involvement in the surface water project. This is a home-grown civil engineering company employing over 100 people in this town. I don’t think you can use a lack of jobs as an argument to explain inadequate retail development when this is a subset of a larger anti-business climate.”[/i]
I don’t disagree with you at all in this arena, and believe this is the area that Davis should be concentrating its efforts. I see retail as largely cannibalistic unless the inventory turns get higher, and that will only happen IMHO if we bring more high quality (read non-retail) jobs to Davis.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”It is all connected in my view. It is indicative of a certain lack of leadership/vision, or it is indicative that our leaders think that Davis should remain more like a little European village. As I have said, I think there is value in the competing perspective that Davis should remain small and quaint, but this view should not dominate our planning and development processes.”[/i]
I don’t think it is all connected . . . and the reason for that is the elephant in the room presence of Sacramento for Davis. Folsom is twice the distance from Sacramento that Davis is. The closest Sacramento-like presence to Vacaville is Sacramento itself. That “relief distance” is important . . . especially if Davis chooses to not try and retail goods to I-80 travellers. We are a introspective college town with incredibly solid quality of life characteristics. If that is your definition of a little European village, then I guess that is indeed what we are. I actually don’t know of too many little European villages that have a world-class University with 35,000 students.
To summarize, you and I are not all that different in our perspectives, other than how we approach shopping.
Matt & Jeff: I have been enjoying your conversation. I think you both have interesting perspectives, though I find myself siding with Jeff more so than Matt with respect to the retail environment in town. I too think there is a middle ground between the ‘quaint downtown only’ approach and the ‘big box peripheral’ approach to retail development that is so often demonized around town. Is there any desire on your parts to continuing the discussion off-line? I would be happy to host a small group discussion with the desired result of actually proposing changes rather than simply complaining about the current situation. If so, let me know. If not, thanks for the wonderful conversation.
Mark West markw@romingerwest.com
[i]”This is a perfect example of our different expectations. My wife and I do all the gardening around our home, and I do most of the repairs and handyman work around the house.”[/i]
I have a 22-year old home in Davis and a small second home in Chester that is about 30 years old. I started out my adult life wanting to be an achitect and had a lot of drafting education. I also worked in construction and cabinet-making in my younger years, and I do most of my design, maintenance and renovation work inside and outsidethe home.
I have a full shop of tools at each location and am picky about the brand and model of each piece. So, yes, maybe my tool requirements exceed yours. However, the point I was making is that there is a superset of brands/options/choices in just about every category of products, and smaller scale retailers, like what we have in Davis, are much more limited in what they can carry. It does not matter what product you are talking about. Big box is a method to leverage economies of scale keeping prices lower, but it is also the reality addressing the challenge of almost infinite choice. Frankly, I think Ace’s and Hibbert’s prices are competitive with most Home Depot prducts. Ace and Hibbert just lack the selection and the hours of operation.
They way I look at it, if you are going to be a small operator, then you must specialize and be better at service. Don’t expect the population to deny themselves choice and convenience to just to protect you from this reality.
Jeff, that is a perfect summary. I simply don’t expect a broad array of different brands. I also expect the tools I purchase to last me forever. So far forever is only 64 years, but most of my tools will be doing yeoman’s work look after I am gone. The one exception I find is screwdrivers, and the problem there is not with the tool, but rather with operator error.
[i]”What our respective responses show is that as consumers you and I have very different expectations of a shopping experience, and that you are more into the act of shopping than I am.”[/i]
Matt, this reminds me of a point I have made before.
My brother and sister inlaw live in Folsom. Our families have similar income levels. My wife and I drive 7 and 10-year old mid-priced vehicles that are paid for. They drive new, high-end, cars. We have a nice 1980’s-decorated house and are just into some renovation work. Their house is newer, but has already been renovated once, and they are working on round two. Our furniture and fixtures are older. Our clothing is less current.
My wife and I noted this difference and concluded that all the shopping options in Folsom had contributed to a higher level of consumerism. I think that makes some sense. I’m not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I do take some pride in being a bit more minimalist in our consumer approach. We talk about the fact that we had been able to save our pennies to buy our little vacation home in Chester while my brother and his wife have talked about wanting to do something similar but have not been able to save enough. The keeping up with the Joneses is a bit easier when the Joneses are not driven so much to shop. So from that perspective, I can almost appreciate Davis’s lack of shopping. However, as I point out, I do not want us to be Folsom. I think we can improve without becoming Folsom.
BTW, I find the service at Davis Ace, Hibberts, and JB’s Power Equipment to be absolutely top notch.
[i]”BTW, I find the service at Davis Ace, Hibberts, and JB’s Power Equipment to be absolutely top notch.”[/i]
Matt, Me too. It is just the product selection, and to a lesser degree the hours, that are a problem for me. JBs is a different category, but all three have better customer service than what you get at Home Depot. Altough I do know that Home Depot has done a much better job over the last few years.
There is no reason that Home Depot, WalMart, or Lowe’s could not build in Davis. All they have to do is propose a store that is 40,000 square feet on a site that is zoned for it. They build small stores elsewhere. The fact that they [i]prefer[/i] to build superstores of 180,000 square feet is the issue. Their preferences needn’t guide Davis planning decisions.
Target could have proposed a 40,000 square foot store in Oeste Manor or Westlake center and it wouldn’t even have been a ballot issue. The neighborhoods would probably have welcomed the addition to either of those struggling centers. Store size limits level the playing field. Davis Ace is only 37,000 square feet total.
[i]”There is no reason that Home Depot, WalMart, or Lowe’s could not build in Davis. All they have to do is propose a store that is 40,000 square feet”[/i]
Don, you just answered your own question for why these businesses do not propose a store to build in Davis. A 40,000 sq. ft. building supply store does not cut it these days.
Thinking deeply about this… what are the reasons you and others are for limiting the size of the store?
Those companies are building smaller stores where they have to.
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a4xWs60MMEMw[/url]
Store size limits level the playing field between locally owned businesses and huge deep-pocket corporations, and prevent the extraordinary harm that peripheral big-box development always causes to communities.
Don, This makes no rational sense to me. You are talking about a store that would be almost the same as… and direct compeition with …Ace and Hibbert.
I don’t think it will work anyway. From the article:
[quote]Smaller Home Depot stores, 26,000 to 45,000 square feet, may be more profitable because they’ll sell fewer commodity products like lumber, the company says. Analysts say the wider profit margins may not make up for the reduced sales.[/quote]
[i]”Store size limits level the playing field between locally owned businesses and huge deep-pocket corporations, and prevent the extraordinary harm that peripheral big-box development always causes to communities.”[/i]
These are general talking-points and emotives. How does a smaller national chain store level the playing field for locally-owned business? What do you mean by “extrordinary harm”?
Re: “Level the playing field”… it does not matter who the competition is… competition is competition. Do our local merchants pay their employees a greater hourly rate? Do the have to charge more for the mechantise they sell? Ace is a national affiliate buyer that gives it an advantage over Hibbert. I don’t hear you complaining about that.
I have seen small communities have their downtowns reduced as a result of a Wall Mart. Susanville is an example. Although Susanville is about 1/4th the size of Davis and already had a downtown that was a bit ugly and shabby. Susanville is not Davis and our downtown would survive a Home Depot and Costco just like it has survived Borders and Target. The much bigger risk is the lack of vision and development and redevelopment. Spruce it up and they will come despite some big box peripheral development.
A large Home Depot sells products not available in Davis. For example, large appliances, large tools and a larger supply of building supplies.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”A large Home Depot sells products not available in Davis. For example, large appliances, large tools and a larger supply of building supplies.”[/i]
Jeff, given the demographics of the Davis population, how much demand for large appliances, large tools and building supplies are there likely to be. In the 2006 date provided to the HESC by Bay Area Economics, 45% of Davis’ 64,600 person population was age 24 or below, and almost 100% of them were children or students. Another 15% of was age 55 or older. I could be wrong, but virtually none of the people in that combined 60% of the Davis population are going to purchase anything in those three categories. Further, because of the high proportion of rental properties in Davis and the very long tenure of most Davis residents, the remaining 40% has a significantly depressed demand for large appliances and building supplies. I’m not sure what you mean by large tools, so I will refrain from commenting on any possible consumer demand (or lack thereof) for what you call large tools.
I simply don’t see the kind of inventory turn from the Davis consumer cohort that will sustain any significant level of sales of those items. Is going to Home Depot in West Sacramento onerous if you feel the need to do so? As I said earlier, I suspect that the current average commute time for a Davis resident to Home Depot is shorter than the average commute time for a Palo Alto resident to the Home Depot in Palo Alto.
Matt: [i]”Is going to Home Depot in West Sacramento onerous if you feel the need to do so?”[/i]
The real question Matt is not ‘is going to West Sac, or Woodland, onerous’, but ‘is it necessary.’ I drive to find the things I need, but would prefer to buy them locally. If I purchase locally the tax revenue stays local. If I have to drive elsewhere the taxes are lost. I prefer to spend locally if possible. Unfortunately the shopping reality is that the things I need are not available locally. [b]That[/b] is the problem!
So what I am seeing here is a drumbeat toward another peripheral big box store, probably east of town. And the BEDC and DSIDE also seem to be trying to gin up support for peripheral annexation for business development.
If you want Davis Ace to carry things, suggest them to Jennifer Anderson or her buyers. They have room for many of the specific things you’re suggesting.
@ Matt: the sales tax lost by the reduced revenues to local merchants, and those who go out of business, due to the big box store offset any gains the city might have achieved by allowing the big box store. The sales tax argument on behalf of big box stores is often illusory. It is just a sales tax shift.
I had hoped we might have an opportunity to test this when Target opened. But unfortunately, they opened just before the severe recession began, so sales tax revenues in Davis are significantly down. It is hard to say what impact Target had.
Interestingly, when I was arguing against Target, a common argument I made was that big box stores tend to multiply: you get one, the pressure with the changed zoning becomes inexorable for the others. These big retailers press hard for additional stores once one is present. WalMart and Home Depot tend to follow Target. But of course I was assured by the advocates for the rezoning on behalf of Target that it would be the only one.
Mark West said . . .
“The real question Matt is not ‘is going to West Sac, or Woodland, onerous’, but ‘is it necessary.’ I drive to find the things I need, but would prefer to buy them locally. If I purchase locally the tax revenue stays local. If I have to drive elsewhere the taxes are lost. I prefer to spend locally if possible. Unfortunately the shopping reality is that the things I need are not available locally. That is the problem!”
In the words of the world renowned sage, Mick Jagger, “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you just might find, you get what you need.” On a less glib note, lets put ourselves into the shoes of the Home Depot store location analysis team. On their website you have one HD 8.97 miles from Davis Zip Code 95616, a second HD 11.91 miles, a third HD 14.77 miles, a fourth HD 15.21 miles and a fifth HD 15.74 miles. Add in two Lowes in the same area, and you have intense saturation. Do you really think Home Depot would locate a sixth HD in that 15-16 mile radius with a core population of 65,000. Doing so would be canibalization pure and simple. So the less glib answer to your question Mark is that the chances are very good that Home Depot will indeed decide that “it is necessary.”
We will talk about this more next week when the three of us get together, and I will be interested to hear what makes you think that Davis generates enough demand and has enough consumer dollar spending by segment to warrant another big box in addition to Target.
BTW, there really aren’t any sites within the City that can handle the footprint of a Home Depot, so at first blush it appears that any sales taxes will be going to Yolo County rather then the City.
It is kind of an academic discussion. Retail is completely saturated all along the I-80 corridor. Vacancy rates are high and leases that are being signed are below value. There isn’t a site zoned for it in Davis, and annexation would be a very tough sell. I really don’t know where anybody thinks a big retailer could locate here.
Jeff: [i]our downtown would survive a Home Depot and Costco just like it has survived Borders and Target.[/i]
You don’t think Borders had an adverse impact on the bookstores in Davis? Do you think Target hasn’t had an impact on the downtown retailers? Ask DT Businessman how they’re doing. Either of the stores you mention would have a very adverse impact on several specific businesses that I could mention (but won’t). If you want to rejuvenate the downtown and the satellite shopping centers in Davis, bringing in a big box retailer is not the way to go about it. More generally, driving more traffic away from the downtown and out to the periphery would hurt all the existing businesses everywhere.
They haven’t even been able to fill the extra pads next to Target. What makes you think there is room for more retail in the Davis/Woodland area?
[i]”If you want Davis Ace to carry things”[/i]
I was at Home Depot tonight with my wife, after work and before eating at Osaka Sushi in Woodland. We were there to shop for decorative tile to be used as a backsplash for a kitchen remodel project. We had some ideas what we wanted, but spent an hour looking at options and purchased everything we needed.
Here is a list of things I have purchased from Home Depot over the last several months that Davis Ace or Hibbert does not carry or does not carry a big enough selection of:
– Tile
– Carpet
– Washer and dryer
– Dishwasher
– Bathroom fixtures
– Windows and doors
– Wood floor planks and installation supplies.
– Exterior siding
– 20′ long 2 x 12s, 4 x 6s and 2 x 2s
– 4 x 8′ redwood lattice sheets
– Shingles & roofing materials
– Insulation
– Air compressor
– Molding & trim
– Ceiling fans
– Table saw, radial arm saw, compound miter saw
– Pneumatic tools
– Hammer drill
– Patio pavers
– Kitchen cabinets
– Shower enclosure
– Interior wood paneling
– Construction brackets
– Pneumatic nails
– Wall board
– Air conditioner
Is my shopping list unusual?… maybe to some. The thing is, if I need 10 things and 9 of them are available in Davis, but all 10 are available in Woodland… I am doing my all that shopping in Woodland because my most valuable possession most of the time is my time.
[i]”If you want to rejuvenate the downtown and the satellite shopping centers in Davis, bringing in a big box retailer is not the way to go about it”[/i]
The downtown is a victim of a recession and shabbiness… mostly shabbiness. The way I look at it is that the downtown is being slowly killed by statists, blockers and deniers. Business is down and will continue to decline because people increasingly can’t find enough reasons to go there… not because Target or Borders opened. Whole Foods will help, but Woodland, West Sacramento and Vacaville will continue to pull more shoppers from Davis because we can’t find the products we need. Downtown rents are too high and will continue to climb because landlords know there are few options.
The city needs a retail and business revitalization plan that includes the downtown. Peripheral annexation should be considered… there are existing tracks that can be developed commercial. I think it can be done in a way that easily will be a win-win for downtown merchants and the shopping public. It will mean though that the core area residents will have to lose their death-grip keeping the downtown as their quaint and quirky, full-service, personal village market.
Here is a link to the Sutter Street Revitalization plan in Folsom: [url]http://www.folsom.ca.us/depts/redevelopment_and_housing/redevelopment/sutter_street_revitalization.asp[/url]
Why aren’t we doing the same?
Given that most of those things are also purchased by home remodeling contractors, and Hibbert does a very high proportion of its business with home remodeling contractors, I would say you are simply wrong about the availability of those items locally. But you apparently want your stuff NOW when you want it, and you like to shop at the hours provided by big box stores. So you will simply not be happy until those stores are here. And they will never be here. There is no place for them, and the Davis/Woodland retail market is fully provided.
You like big box stores. You’ve made that clear. Big box retail development drastically affects the growth and traffic patterns of every community. I consider those effects very adverse. The general plan would have to be modified substantially to accommodate your desires.
There are a lot of advantages to spending your dollars at locally-owned stores. It is better for the community. The people who own those stores are your neighbors and give a lot to the community.
If my list has ten things, and nine of them are available locally, I get that other one when I happen to be going to the other community. I really don’t get your shopping patterns. I haven’t shopped at a WalMart, Target, Home Depot, or Lowes in years, and somehow manage to purchase the items I need.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]
“I was at Home Depot tonight with my wife, after work and before eating at Osaka Sushi in Woodland. We were there to shop for decorative tile to be used as a backsplash for a kitchen remodel project. We had some ideas what we wanted, but spent an hour looking at options and purchased everything we needed.
Here is a list of things I have purchased from Home Depot over the last several months that Davis Ace or Hibbert does not carry or does not carry a big enough selection of:
Is my shopping list unusual?… maybe to some. The thing is, if I need 10 things and 9 of them are available in Davis, but all 10 are available in Woodland… I am doing my all that shopping in Woodland because my most valuable possession most of the time is my time.”[/i]
Yes Jeff, I do think your list is quite unusual for the vast majority of Davis residents. There are two reasons I say that, 1) the number of Davis residents doing the kind of extensive remodeling your list seems to indicate, is quite short, and 2) I suspect the vast majority of those remodeling projects are being done by contractors because very few home owners have the carpentry/contracting skills that you clearly have. There simply aren’t enough of you in the Davis marketplace to support the microeconomic supply/demand justification for a contractors supply store, which is the type of store you are looking for . . . and I would note that the kind of person with the skills you clearly have, bought their air compressor, table saw, radial arm saw, compound miter saw, pneumatic tools and hammer drill many years ago.
Further, when I look at your list, I personally wouldn’t go to Home Depot for the vast majority of those items. I’d go to Rancho Cordova to the “tile district” on Horn Road for my tile. I’d go to a carpet store for carpet. I’d go to A&A on 65th Street for the dishwasher. A lot of the other things I’d go to Home Depot for, but not before checking with Hibbert and Davis Ace first.
Again, your personal relationship to shopping is different from mine. You describe your visits to Home Depot in much the same terms that I would describe my most recent visit to FAO Schwartz. You clearly really enjoy being there. What they have and what they sell appears to enthrall you. That’s cool, but it isn’t what lots of other people are looking for in a shopping experience.
I personally like the fact that I make two to three visits to Davis Ace a week and know the people in the various departments. You may have the same experience at Home Depot, but I find Home Depot so vast that for me there is no personal connection the way there is when I walk into Hibberts or Redwood Barn or Nestware or the Artery or Davis Ace or JB’s or Strelitzia. Different strokes for different folks.
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”The downtown is a victim of a recession and shabbiness… mostly shabbiness. The way I look at it is that the downtown is being slowly killed by statists, blockers and deniers. Business is down and will continue to decline because people increasingly can’t find enough reasons to go there… not because Target or Borders opened. Whole Foods will help, but Woodland, West Sacramento and Vacaville will continue to pull more shoppers from Davis because we can’t find the products we need. Downtown rents are too high and will continue to climb because landlords know there are few options.
The city needs a retail and business revitalization plan that includes the downtown. Peripheral annexation should be considered… there are existing tracks that can be developed commercial. I think it can be done in a way that easily will be a win-win for downtown merchants and the shopping public. It will mean though that the core area residents will have to lose their death-grip keeping the downtown as their quaint and quirky, full-service, personal village market.
Here is a link to the Sutter Street Revitalization plan in Folsom: http://www.folsom.ca.us/depts/…zation.asp
Why aren’t we doing the same?”[/i]
Let me address your last question first. The answer to that is simple. Davis’ downtown doesn’t have a single artery like Folsom’s State Street. The distributed grid layout of Davis is a challenge to a project like Folsom’s. Said another way, which street in Davis would you choose to revitalize in a State Street manner?
With that said, take a look at 3rd Street in Davis. Over the past few years there has been considerable upgrading done along its length. Bistro 33 is a major upgrade. The row of bungalow houses on the north side of the block between D and C has been substantially upgraded. Baja Fresh on the south side of that same block is fresh and new.
So, let me ask you what stores/businesses would you like to see added to the Davis retail landscape? We know you would like a Home Depot. What other stores would you like to see come to Davis?
Matt:
I think there is more shopping for things I listed than you think. This is the building supply category and it is big business these days as people are no longer flipping their primary residence. They are also doing much more the work themselves. Note the explosion of DIY TV programs and resources. Even if they are hiring subcontractors for this work, the materials still need to be purchased.
However, I do partially agree with your point that these are not everyday products. But, they are generally larger expense items.
Consider that Woodland, Vacaville and Folsom all support having a Home Depot (and Costco, Target, etc…), why do you think Davis is different?
I will get back to you on your question about my ideas for a Davis downtown revitalization. It would be good to hear from DT Businessman too since he supports the views of the majority of the association.
Jeff, part of the lure of the kind of discussions we have been having, and will continue to have when you Mark and I get together in person this week (hopefully Michael can join us too), is that in effect we are doing the beginnings of a due diligence about what is likely to work in Davis vs. what is going to be less likely to succeed. The only way we can get better is to try and get better, and the first step in that journey is doing our homework.
I don’t disagree with the societal points you make in your first paragraph. Davis has been for years a community that has had very little flipping. However, I don’t think Davis follows the “societal norm” for two reasons. A) 55% of Davis’ 24,458 Single Family Residences are renter occupied, and B) the afore mentioned fact that 60% of Davis’ population is either 24 and younger or 55 and older. Renters are highly unlikely to be DIYers, and those 24 or under or 55 and older aren’t likely to be either. I could be wrong, but I really think Davis is predominantly a contractors marketplace not a DIYer marketplace.
The answer to your question in your third paragraph is simple. There are already 7 Home Depots and Lowes within a 15-16 mile radius of Davis. Building one here at this time is more a “matter of timing” than “theoretical ability to support.” Said another way, I believe the Home Depot site planning staff would tell you that, “the Home Depot train (for Davis) has already left the station.”
Regarding your final paragraph, please don’t restrict your thoughts solely to downtown revitalization, but rather as you put together your list of stores/businesses you would like to see added to the Davis retail landscape, think in terms of the whole City of Davis footprint.
NOTE TO EVERYONE: Feel free to jump in and add your suggestions of what would be good additions to the Davis business environment.
Here is some basic information about store-size limits:
[url]http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/store-size-caps[/url]
The problem of overbuilt retail:
[url]http://www.bigboxtoolkit.com/images/pdf/bigboxblight.pdf[/url]
Jeff: [i]Consider that Woodland, Vacaville and Folsom all support having a Home Depot (and Costco, Target, etc…), why do you think Davis is different? [/i]
Demographics, geography, and history.
I can’t prove this, but I know you’ve been here about as long as I have. I think the [i]proportion[/i] of retail sales in Davis compared to Woodland and Vacaville is probably similar to what it was thirty years ago. It isn’t a hub, the city doesn’t have adaptable land along the interstate, the population is (as Matt notes) skewed in age and income. Even if Davis really wanted a visible freeway mall, the sites haven’t been available compared to Vacaville, Woodland, or even Dixon. A large retail site along 113 wouldn’t have the potential that one along I-5 or I-80 did.
Location, location, location. Plus a philosophy, reflected in the general plan, that preserves downtown and neighborhood/satellite shopping options. And preserves farmland, I guess.