Local officials due for a Scott Brown moment
Memo to the region’s political leaders who have not gotten the jobs-economy message: A Scott Brown moment is likely to be in your future.
In the North Bay counties of Sonoma, Marin and Napa in December, nearly 44,000 people were unemployed and actively seeking work, rates not seen in decades. National trends suggest another 30,000 have had their hours cut or have given up looking for jobs that aren’t there. Untold others worry they, a friend or family member could be next. Most economists expect little improvement in the job market this year if not further deterioration.
One hears frequently that Martha Coakley’s defeat in Massachusetts was a “surprise.” But, according to post-election news accounts, internal polling for Mr. Brown as early as December showed him within striking distance of Ms. Coakley.
In other words, the election of the independent-minded Mr. Brown was a surprise to those who were not listening to worries about jobs, debt and intrusion into the private economy.
Why is this relevant to the North Bay?
It’s relevant because, even presented with the immediate prospect of new jobs and income for their communities, many local officials elected in better times on no-growth agendas seem unable to shake their habits.
The latest example came this week in 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 Regency with the delays that it recently filed a suit against the city. Ironically, the city is now using that very suit as an argument for still further delay of approval for the environmental impact report.
Not taking into account the hundreds of private construction and related jobs that would be created to build the project and millions of dollars in fees that would pour into the city, the center is estimated to eventually employ 721 people and bring $1 million in annual sales-tax revenue to the town.
Yet the city’s slow-growth majority, including the city’s mayor, Pam Torliatt, who wants to be elected to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, once again delayed approval of the project environmental review.
It’s not this way everywhere in the North Bay.
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. And the city ultimately rejected questionable objections to a Mi Pueblo market.
Napa, meanwhile, is continuing to transform its downtown in partnership with private developers.
Unfortunately for Sonoma County, the Petaluma story is all too familiar, whether it is demand after demand being placed on developers of the SMART project near Railroad Square, the stalling of a gay retirement community at Fountaingrove or loss of a Wal-Mart for Santa Rosa’s struggling Roseland neighborhood.
Together, these projects would have created many hundreds of new jobs — and deficit-reducing tax revenues.
The response by many leaders “surprised” by the predictable continuing decline in government revenues is to raise taxes, fees and regulation. “Look,” they say, “what we inherited from eight years of George Bush,” conveniently forgetting about the cumulative effects of failed schools, union pension giveaways, crumbling infrastructure and decades of added private-sector regulation brought on by people of a similar mind.
They can be surprised in November, too.
•••
Brad Bollinger is Business Journal editor in chief and associate publisher. He can be reached at 707-521-4251 or bbollinger@busjrnl.com.
I’m struck by the way this commentary replaces documented information with emotionally-charged phrases. Please provide a clear, concise, and comprehensive account of how Regency has been “working” for six years. It sounds good, but what have they really done? Please explain the “irony” of the most recent delay given the Regency lawsuit’s actually charges, which include allegations of Brown Act violations? How is the delay proposed by the city attorney as a cure to this allegation “ironic,” especially when even Michael Healy admitted the city attorney was “technically correct”? Please explain how the emotionally loaded term “slow growth majority” helps readers understand the majority’s response to the project FEIR, with its three unavoidable significant impacts and the report’s negligence of the project’s impact on East D st.? Please explain which council proposals are best described as placing “demand after demand”? I encourage Mr. Bollinger to clarify how he believes Petaluma should best deal with this project’s expected impacts as the city attempts to promote more jobs and increase city revenue. But, a commentary that neglects the project’s basic issues and relies on such vaguely used, emotionally-loaded phrases performs an embarrassing disservice to our community.
by Michael Aparicio
I’m struck by the way this commentary replaces documented information with emotionally-charged phrases. Please provide a clear, concise, and comprehensive account of how Regency has been “working” for six years. It sounds good, but what have they really done? Please explain the “irony” of the most recent delay given the Regency lawsuit’s actual charges, which include allegations of Brown Act violations? How is the delay proposed by the city attorney as a cure to this allegation “ironic,” especially when even Michael Healy admitted the city attorney was “technically correct”? Please explain how the emotionally loaded term “slow growth majority” helps readers understand the majority’s response to the project FEIR, with its three unavoidable significant impacts and the report’s negligence of the project’s impact on East D st.? Please explain which council proposals are best described as placing “demand after demand”? I encourage Mr. Bollinger to clarify how he believes Petaluma should best deal with this project’s expected impacts as the city attempts to promote more jobs and increase city revenue. But, a commentary that neglects the project’s basic issues and relies on such vaguely used, emotionally-loaded phrases performs an embarrassing disservice to our community.
by Michael Aparicio