Question 2. of the 2006 City Council Questions to Candidates
Part 1. Do you support corporate expansion here in Davis, such as bringing in a Target or Trader Joe's? and if so, what are your explicit justifications for such expansion?
Part 2. Specifically, the area on the north side of second street between the pedestrian bridge and the AM/PM gas station is currently zoned light industrial. There have been several attempts to develop commercial/retail projects there. Would you support or reject rezoning/conditional use permits to use this area for retail.
-
Stan Forbes: Part 1. I have a long record supporting locally owned small business and believe Davis should do much more to foster their creation and success. However, Target and Trader Joe's do not compare with one another. Trader Joe's is not big box. It is a specialty grocery store that would not materially alter the retail market while giving people from Davis an additional choice in the area of specialty grocery. Target is big box and would hurt the downtown as well as every other retail business in Davis.
Part 2. I would not change the zoning north of Second Street. People are entitled to rely on zoning maps when the spend three quarters of a million dollars on their home.
-
Lamar Heystek: Part 1. I support the existence of corporate entities that fill a niche in town (e.g. Trader Joe's) and abide by a living-wage and labor-peace ordinance, which I intend to propose as Council Member.
Part 2. Only with broad support from adjacent neighborhoods and a sound, reliable fiscal analysis justifying a land-use conversion can a General Plan redesignation and rezoning for retail at Second and Mace have my support upon the Plan's renewal.
-
Rob Roy: Part 1. Balancing supply and demand economics with maintaining a unique community is tricky business. Many people oppose target because it is not "Davis" and the corporation does several negative things. While many other people want a Target in Davis because it is convenient shopping within city limits. I wish that while the councils that approved all the Davis housing developments of the 1990's were also coming up with solutions to the sales tax leakage problem because now we are in a position where hundreds of thousands of automobile trips are being made to leave Davis every year for shopping purposes and our options are growing slim. I would like Davis to be an island unto itself: economically self-sufficient so people do not have to leave Davis for shopping, burning gas at $3 a gallon. If I could, I would find an alternative to Target and as of right now I do not approve the current proposal.
As far as the idea of "Corporate Expansion," I would like to see our General Plan that will be written for the 2010-2020 era of Davis to include a limit on "non-unique to Davis" businesses: (ie. corporate chains, such as Target, Starbucks, Borders, Cost-plus.) I want Davis to stay unique as possible but we all have to be realists and understand that many people live in Davis for many reasons. While I love its uniqueness, its climate, the university, the Farmer's market, I could go on and on. Many people live here for the safety and do not feel as much of a connection to Davis so as to make a point to shop here. We have to worry about city finances and reducing car trips out of Davis for shopping and as I have stated before we have to fix the sales tax leakage. If I had my druthers, as far as corporate stores go I would have put a Ross, an electronics store, and perhaps a Trader Joe's at a complex together so that people can get their "one stop shopping."
Part 2. On the issue of the current Target proposal at this location, Target MUST drastically reduce its store size, plant an urban forest, build a park, pay to make Second Street safe for bikes, AND give a sizable subsidy to Unitrans. The council must find a compromise for the sake of the environment and the community.
In the future, with the next General Plan I would consider rezoning this area, but I would not support the construction of a 137,000 square foot retail store at this location.
-
Michael Levy: Part 1. In 2003, the City of Davis conducted a retail survey of its citizens. On average 70% of the respondents agreed they wanted more clothing, housewares, electronics, soft goods, bulk items, and other necessaries of life, available for purchase in Davis. 6% of the respondents specifically wrote "Target" into the comments section, and 15% wrote in "Trader Joe's". To reduce air pollution, and for convenience, I support bringing for diverse retail to Davis. Furthermore, we need a more diversified sales tax base. Currently, 25 businesses (mainly auto dealers) contribute 61% of our sales tax revenue. That is bad for our economy. During a recession, people dont buy cars, so our sales tax base dissipates, leaving the city needing to resort to taxes or borrowing during bad economic times. While I support more retail, I oppose Target on 2nd Street for three reasons: I think it is a bad idea to create a new general plan designation for a specific project. I think the size (136,000 sq ft, or 2x the size of the Woodland Target) is abrasive. Finally, I think it is unfair to the neighbors, they couldnt have conceived the possibility of a store that big behind their homes. Notably, the final project proposal has not yet been released. I would want to see the mitigation proposed for the neighbors, and if their concerns are not adequately addressed, I would not approve the project.
Part 2. It depends on the proposal. Actually, some of that land is commercial, and some is light industrial. Commercial is generally a less intensive use than industrial. The Target proposal would require a new designation, relating to large retail (Target would be 136,000 square feet), which could be considered more intensive. I think zoning changes need to involve the neighbors. People should be entitled to rely upon the regulations we establish for a specified period of time, and decisions must be respectful of their reasonable expectations.
-
Ruth Asmundson: Part 1. Davis citizens want a first class city. Striving for this goal means additional staff for our city, our police department, and our fire department. Maintaining a quality staff means paying appropriate wages. All of which equates to a need for additional City income. There are three opportunities to increase the income for any city: expand the base for property taxes, increase sales tax revenues, and pass additional parcel tax measures. The citizens rejected the increase of housing that was Covell Village, and only a small number of new properties will be added to Davis in the next four years. Measure G (park maintenance parcel tax renewal), which I favor, is an example of a parcel tax with a specific service. Conservative estimate of sales tax revenue from a medium sized Target store would be a half million dollars per year. A Trader Joes could generate $300,000 in sales tax revenue for the City each year. We need to capture this sales tax in Davis. In addition, it addresses shopping diversity, and the environment will benefit with shorter driving distance thereby producing less air pollution. Certainly these are excellent reasons to consider retail expansion.
Part 2. My first preference for use would be light industrial generating additional jobs for Davis residents. However, in the last decade, no plan has come to the City for such use of the land. In light of this fact, I would support rezoning/conditional use permits to use this area for retail. Providing, of course, that the appropriate steps are fulfilled through the planning process. Of that 20 acres proposed for Target, 11 acres are already zoned service commercial.
Comments:
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2006-05-16 00:05:13 Michael, please elaborate on this statement - "Commercial is generally a less intensive use than industrial" Take a look at Z-World, Shilling Robotics and Calgene and tell us how their low-key 8-5 monday-friday workday could possibly be higher-intensity than retail. —GrumpyoldGeek
