Petaluma’s obstructionism
What city today would turn away 721 new jobs, $1 million in annual tax revenue to stem ongoing municipal layoffs and the opportunity to support a locally-owned, community- minded retailer?
The answer should be none, but then, this is Petaluma.
For six years, Regency Centers has been working to get approval for its retail center off Highway 101 at a former junior high school site, and recently signed locally owned Friedman’s Home Improvement to join a Target and other retailers.
So frustrated is Regencywith the delays that it recently filed a suit against the city. Incredibly, the city is now using that very suit as an argument for still further delay of the environmental impact report scheduled for a hearing tonight.
That is topped only by a proposal for a “vacancy tax” should the center end up with empty storefronts. At a time when unemployment tops 10 percent, the highest in nearly three decades, others want so-called “living wage” conditions connected to the project.
Compare Petaluma to San Rafael, where a massive renovation of the city’s Northgate Mall was approved in a matter of months and today has become a magnet for retailers, restaurants and as a community gathering place.
What’s increasingly clear is that if Petaluma and other cities (Santa Rosa ran off Wal Mart) continue down this path of obstruction, they and, most unfortunately, more of their residents, will awake one day to an economy where there are fewer and fewer jobs anywhere — public or private — for anyone at any wage.
Tonight they voted 4-3 to delay the hearing. Meanwhile the tax dollars are going to Rohnert Park and Novato. Residents carbon footprints are greatly being increased with the required excessive travel. All of the city council needs to be replaced and the city manager. The city is going to spend money they don’t have fighting a legal battle that is crazy. Petaluma is the next Vallejo. I would never want to have a business in this city. It is so unfriendly! I hope the city can find a good bankruptcy attorney!
by Concerned in Petaluma
I read your commentary-well done. The citizens of Petaluma have got just what they voted for-a majority that blames everyone else for their own actions that are clearly anti-new business and anti-developer. They have a City that is dying, and a population that is driving on our highways to go shopping. Lunacy.
by Brad Bollinger
Actually, the bigger problem for Petaluma and Sonoma County is that we have few well-paying jobs in Sonoma County. Well paying. That doesn’t mean $8.00 per hour part time retail jobs with few benefits. Do you know what the office vacancy rate is in Sonoma County and all over the Bay Area? It is very high. Very high. We also have a very high retail space vacancy rate. So many of you are busy blaming our city council for much much larger economic problems that are plaguing Sonoma County, California and the whole country. GET OFF IT! The Chambers of Commerce, county supes, and all the mayors and business leaders need to work together. Stop sniping at our leaders just because you disagree with them and start working together toward solutions. We will never progress as a culture until we start working together. Suggest solutions. Here’s one: How about some tax breaks or low-priced high tech office space for new, incubator high tech businesses?
by Megan Edwards
The council did the same thing to Dr. Andy who wanted to expand his medical/dental office WITH GOOD HIGH PAYING JOBS. If you are not willing to reuse a current building, it is very simple…you are not welcome in Petaluma. Even Santa Cruz has allowed Costco, Toys R Us, Borders, Cost Plus, Target and Kmart. Look what Novato and Rohnert Park have. 40% + of the revenue comes from Auto Sales. AUTO SALES are down!!!! wake up….if you want TAX REVENUE you need to allow stores people want to shop at. Not just restaurants and antique stores. By the way, an $8 hour job is better than nothing! We have underemployment of greater than 17% in this area. Target pays their warehouse workers $17+, Team Leaders $14+, Sales Associated $8.50+
by Concerned in Petaluma
Target Corporation is consistently ranked as one of the most philanthropic companies in the US. It ranked #11 in Fortune Magazine’s “Top 20 Most Admired Companies” for 2007, largely in part to the donation efforts of the company as a whole. According to a November 2005 Forbes article, it ranked as the highest cash-giving company in America in percentage of income given (2.1%). Target donates around 5 percent of its pre-tax operating profit; it gives over $3 million a week (up from $2 million in years prior) to the communities in which it operates. It also gives a percentage of charges from its Target Visa to schools designated by the cardholders. To date, Target has given over $150 million to schools across the United States through this program. Target’s corporate by-laws state it must give 5 percent of its pre-tax profits to charity.
by Concerned in Petaluma
Best wishes to you, “Concerned in Petaluma.”
by Megan Edwards
http://empirereport.org/reports/20100205-are-the-press-democrat-and-argus-courier-guilty-of-an-anti-petaluma-campaign
A Complicated History Raising Complicated Concerns
What the Press Democrat’s and its affiliates’ commentaries neglect are a complicated six year project history which has been filled with multiple delays plausibly caused by a lengthy list of factors worth investigating:
1) The county’s limited water resources complicated the city’s ability to accommodate for the additional 13 million annual gallons needed for the project.
2) The city’s water needs were being analyzed as part of a new General Plan that got delayed by concerns about its account of Petaluma’s water resources.
3) The city’s water needs were being analyzed as part of a General Plan that got delayed when the State announced all new municipal General Plans had to account for climate change.
4) The developer did not complete its project application until summer 2009.
5) Because of reasonable questions concerning whether or not the project adequately addresses a number of community goals found in Petaluma’s General Plan, dozens of discussions have attempted to improve the project and establish agreeable mitigations.
6) Because of reasonable questions concerning whether or not the project adequately satisfies the General Plan’s specific description of the project’s site, dozens of discussions have attempted to improve the project and establish agreeable mitigations.
7) The recession led to significant cuts in the city’s Development Department, impairing the City Manager’s ability to address the project’s issues.
9) The project’s Environmental Impact Report failed to address the project’s traffic impact on East D st. and its surrounding neighborhoods, raising questions concerning a) the report’s legality and b) whether or not this can be addressed in a way that lessens or minimizes the impact on these neighborhoods.
10) During the project’s history most of the elected officials, the City Manager, the city’s Project Planner, and the developer’s key negotiators have changed.
by Jason Davies