Grocery war taking shape in Santa Rosa

[Barry]

Grocery war taking shape in Santa Rosa
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...CLES/110619865

Tara McRann checks out Anne-Marie Allen, a loyal customer for 25 years,
at Community Market in Santa Rosa, June 11, 2011.
Crista Jeremiason / PD

By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Sunday, June 12, 2011 at 3:11 p.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, June 12, 2011 at 3:26 p.m.

Sonoma County retailers long have a history of making it as tough as possible for out-of-area competitors to horn in on their home turf.

Yardbirds for years thwarted Home Depot from getting a toe-hold in Santa Rosa.

Friedman's Home Improvement similarly bankrolled the opposition to Lowe's on Santa Rosa Avenue.

Pacific Market in Rohnert Park warned it would close if the nearby Wal-Mart was allowed to sell groceries and promptly did.

And Santa Rosa's downtown restaurants even ran a group of food trucks out of town in part because some hailed from Napa and Sebastopol.

The latest front in the local versus out-of-area chains is opening up over a possible Sprouts Farmers Market natural foods store on Santa Rosa's Mendocino Avenue.

The fast-growing Phoenix-based Sprouts is eyeing the northeast corner of Mendocino's busy intersection with Bicentennial Avenue, across from Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. The four-acre site is covered with oak trees that hide a 22-unit apartment complex and two homes.

It also is less than a mile north of Community Market, a small specialty organic grocery with a long history and loyal following.

Nica Poznanovich, outreach coordinator for the market founded as a co-op in 1975, said despite its strong local support, when Whole Foods arrived in Coddingtown, annual sales of about $5 million fell 10 percent.

“I don't know how we would handle another 10 percent,” Poznanovich said.

Some of the market's 35 workers probably would lose their jobs, she said.

At least one supporter said he couldn't see how the market could survive if such direct competition sprouts up nearby.

“They don't have the deep pockets to withstand the loss of market share,” said Terry Garrett, operations officer for the Sonoma County GoLocal cooperative.

Community Market is a member the group, which has become the most vocal advocate in the area for the economic benefits of favoring locally owned businesses.

Poznanovich rallied about two dozen Community Market supporters and employees to attend a city Planning Commission meeting last week meant to discuss the first step in any Sprouts project — the rezoning of the property to allow such a retail use.

Commissioners tried to keep the debate focused on whether the site was better suited to a retail than commercial office use, which is its current zoning despite its use as residential property.

But because the applicant, Arizona-based developer AVB Development Partners, has confirmed its hope to build a 30,000-square-foot Sprouts there, the debate spilled beyond those confines.

Sprouts, which has Northern California stores in Sunnyvale and Roseville, with another planned for Dublin, has declined comment on the proposal.

Property owner Ubaldo Tambellini, who attended the hearing, said later that he's not yet struck a deal with the developer or Sprouts, saying he's about “50-50.” He said if he does, competition with the other grocery stores is part of business.

At the hearing, Commissioner David Poulsen said, “It's kind of being framed as Community Market versus Sprouts, and that's kind of not what's before us tonight.”

Nevertheless, the commission got an earful from supporters of Community Market and Oliver's Market, which has two stores in Santa Rosa and is getting ready to replace its Cotati store with a bigger one.

Tom Scott, general manager of Oliver's, argued that Santa Rosa doesn't need another market, and if one arrives, it will only take business from the others.

He said there are 10 markets — five locally owned — that serve the area, including his, Safeway, Lucky's, Pacific Market and Whole Foods.

The project would need a general plan and zoning change before it could proceed. And Scott argued there isn't enough of a need to merit changing the city's most fundamental planning document.

“The desire of an Arizona-based company to come in and cherry-pick the best sales” from existing grocers “doesn't seem to me to be a profound reason to change the general plan,” he said.

Garrett, the GoLocal representative, tried to head off criticism that such an anti-competitive position is somehow unfair or even un-American.

“We may say that in a free market economy that's just the way it works. A strong, bigger business prevails and the weaker ones just kind of go out of business and the community just kind of goes on,” Garrett said. “The question is, do we work in a free market system or do we work in a regulated free market?”

He went on to argue that because the profits of locally owned businesses stay in the community and because they tend to hire local professionals, the effect of a small local business often can be greater than that of a large one.

He said Sprouts tends to gross $10 million in sales versus half that for Community Market but the smaller market would generate a greater economic benefit for the community.

Tambellini said he has little patience for the anti-competitive arguments of project opponents.

A retired butcher, he started his business, Tambellini Meats, in 1955 in San Francisco and over nearly 40 years built it into a business that employed 54 people.

“You can't stop competition. In fact, you don't want to stop competition,” the 84-year-old Healdsburg resident said. “If I was the only one selling meat, a lot of people would have starved to death.”

Tambellini said he wonders why Community Market would oppose a Sprouts because it was not local, but it doesn't protest a Wednesday Night Market whose fruit vendors are largely from the Central Valley.

He said he's previously rejected opportunities to build a 7-Eleven on the site.

He said the apartment building there is old, having been built in the 1960s, has sewer problems and is tough to keep at full occupancy, in part because of the noisy intersection. The site also has had problems with illegal dumping and homeless encampments.

A conceptual plan for the property calls for a 30,000-square-foot building in front with a parking lot at the corner and 10,000 square feet of additional retail along the back. That would require the demolition of the apartment building.

At the hearing, city planning staff members tried to keep the issue strictly on the rezoning and general plan amendment. Planner Bill Rose recommended the commission find there were no environmental impacts because no project had yet been proposed.

That frustrated some commission members, who said they believed they were being asked to sign off on zoning changes that would speed the way for a project that might or might not be a Sprouts.

Commissioner Caroline Banuelos said she was “stunned” by the findings of what she thought was a flimsy traffic report. She also seized on Rose's statement that there would be no housing impacts from the project even though the project would raze the building.

“From my perspective, putting anyone out of their home is a significant impact,” Banuelos said.

Similarly, Sonia Taylor, a graphic artist, called Rose's statement that there would be no effect from the project from a geological perspective “beyond belief” given the long history of slides near the site.

Rose stressed that there was no current application for any project, just a zoning and general plan amendment.

Ultimately the commission couldn't reach a decision. Three members wanted to approve the request, one wanted a more thorough environmental review and another wanted the zoning and project to be handled at the same time.

The commission agreed to continue the meeting, but not the public hearing, until two absent commissioners could review the issue and weigh in at a future meeting, probably July 14.

The general plan and zoning change is appealable to the City Council. The project itself would be heard by the Design Review Board.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or [email protected].

[Barry]

Grocery war taking shape in Santa Rosa

Here's Community Market's position:

https://srcommunitymarket.com/fightsprouts.html

ATTENTION CUSTOMERS AND STAFF!!!
Does the opening of ‘Sprouts Farmers Market’ warrant an amendment to our city’s general plan?

Download Petition

The Facts:
• Sprouts Farmers Market is a natural foods store based in Phoenix, Az.
• Owned by Apollo Management, A private equity firm based in NY.
• The developer is AVB Development Partners based in Scottsdale, Az.
• The site they are hoping to secure is on the corner of Bicentennial and Mendocino but the city must first change the General Plan to allow for proper zoning of the proposed project.
• The Planning Commission will be voting on this issue on bike to work day,
THURSDAY JUNE 9TH @ 4:00 PM at the city council chambers- 100 Santa Rosa ave. Santa Rosa, Ca.

Why are we taking a stand?

There are three main arguments we believe are reasons NOT to support a change to our General Plan:

1. Multiplier effect/ importance of Local businesses:

A. For every $1 spent at a local business $.45 is reinvested locally compared to the $.15 reinvested locally from big box, chains, and other corporations.
B. These types of corporations claim the multiplier effect doesn’t matter because they hire local people and pay local taxes. These are all valid points; this store could potentially provide the city with a large chunk of sales tax and provide local people with jobs. However, an identical claim can be made for locally owned businesses. This is where the multiplier effect really comes into play. A large portion of the Sprouts profits will go to the CEOs in New York and Arizona where they will invest, bank, buy real estate, and shop; providing our city with zero benefit. The profits made by a local CEO will stay in our city and be spent or reinvested back in Santa Rosa/Sonoma County. This is the most important tool we have to revitalize our city’s financial woes.
C. The current General Plan states that the goals/policies of the Plan are to:
EV-A: “Maintain a positive business climate in the community”
EV-B- “Facilitate the retention and expansion of existing businesses.”
This development plan directly opposes those two goals/policies. See “Market Saturation” for more details.

2. Market Saturation:

A. In a document submitted by the development firm AVB, they were required to answer the question “Have detailed neighborhood plans or other studies revealed the NEED for a General Plan Amendment?” The response: “Sprouts Farmers Market has completed market research and sales projection studies that take into account population, demographics, etc. that identify the subject property as a SUCCESSFUL grocery store site.” This response fails to answer the question and provide the public or the Planning Commission with any information about the needs of our city.
B. Santa Rosa’s senior planner, Bill Rose submitted a memorandum dated May 3rd, 2011 to the Planning Commission. Under the caption “Applicant’s Statement” Sprouts was quoted as saying “The project proponents indicate that the proposed General Plan amendment will allow a specialty grocery store not currently found in surrounding market.” When if fact there are currently 7 grocery stores within 2 miles of the proposed site:

Safeway- .5 miles
Pacific Market- 1.8 miles
Community Market- .8 miles
Trader Joes- .8 miles
Whole Foods- 1.5 miles
Lucky’s- .2 miles
Traverso’s- 1.8 miles

C. Three of these grocery stores are locally owned

D. Two of these stores are technically natural food stores yet organic produce and other natural products can be purchased at six of these stores. Despite these facts the May 3rd memorandum also states that “of particular note is the high demand for fruits and vegetables in this geographic area.”

E. There is no cluster of grocery stores larger than this area in Santa Rosa, Ca. The only exception is a 2 mile area with the corner of Hearn and Stony Point as the epicenter. There are a total of 4 grocery stores with only one store being local and two carrying organic produce and natural products.

F. The 2020 vision for Sonoma County is that we “will be the healthiest county in California.” How are we to achieve that goal if we don’t prioritize the areas that need access to healthy food?

G. In that same memorandum, under the “Staff Analysis” section it states that “there is significant retail leakage in all areas of the city, which indicates that all four quadrants of Santa Rosa are in demand for retail. “ Retail is a large category with many different sectors existing under one very broad umbrella. In a Santa Rosa Retail Market Assessment Update from February of 2010 (can be found online here ) It is reported that out of all of the specific retail categories food and beverage stores have the highest amount of surplus (the opposite of leakage)! Almost $5 million worth of surplus!!! This proves quite plainly that a need to change the General Plan does not exist in the context of this particular argument.

H. This new store will merely shift market share from the existing businesses to itself. This would not be the case if they decided to open their store in an area of the city that truly needs access to healthy food options. This also negates the argument of increased sales tax. If Sprouts simply divides the market share, it doesn’t increase the tax revenue at all.

3. Environmental Impacts:

City of Santa Rosa Community Development staff submitted the Bicentennial Marketplace General Plan Amendment and Rezoning: Initial Study/Negative Declaration. All quotes in this section will be referencing that document unless otherwise noted.

An extensive and informative letter was submitted by Sonia Taylor- member of the public- who raises many questions concerning the content of said report. Please see appendix 1.

A. Aesthetics: “A remnant portion of Russell Creek runs east to west across the southern portion of the site and there is moderate tree cover throughout the property.” The city reported that there would be no impact to the aesthetics of the proposed area. We would argue that any removal of trees or destruction to any of our city’s creeks/waterways causes some impact. The term ‘significant’ is so subjective that it makes it difficult to determine where the line is drawn.

B. Housing: Under the section “Population and Housing” city staff report “the displacement of existing homes and/or people are expected to be less than significant.” There are currently 22 existing residential apartment units and 2 detached single family dwellings on the proposed site. Dina Manis, a resident of the apartments, sent a letter to the city staff asking what the development would mean to those who live there and if their apartments are even a part of the desired lot. In addition to that she asked “Will the access to our apartments change?” Mr. Rose responded with “No, this proposal does not include a physical development project.” HOWEVER… In a Focused Traffic Analysis for a General Plan Amendment for the Bicentennial Marketplace Site submitted by W-trans, it states clearly that “to construct the Bicentennial Marketplace project it will be necessary to demolish the existing apartment complex; however it is unclear what changes, if any, will be made to the 2 existing single-family residences.” Does this sound less than significant to you? And yet again the city staff ignores the goals and policies designated by the general Plan:

H-A-3 “Promote conservation and rehabilitation of the existing house stock…”
H-C-11 “Provide opportunities for higher density and affordable housing development on regional/arterial streets and near the rail transit corridor for convenient access to bus and rail transit.”
UD-D “Avoid strip patterns of commercial development.”

C. Traffic:

The developers did get a traffic analysis report done for this project which states that the project would generate and average of 2245 new weekly trips to the site. However, the final analysis was that there would be “less” traffic if they approved this General Plan change. Why? They compared the traffic to what it may be like if they fully developed that property under the current plan. This may be the way they look at these things, but the reality and truth of the situation is that there will be a lot more traffic. Especially since the probability of this site being fully developed in the next 5 to 7 years is low. Even the Department of Transportation decrees: “ Due to the proximity of the project to US Highway 101, a more detailed traffic analysis is required when a project generates 1 to 49 peak hour trips assigned to a State highway facility and the affected facilities are experiencing significant delay.” This project expects to generate 162 new weekday PM peak hour trips. Suffice it to say, there is going to be a lot more cars in the neighborhood.

The question you need to ask yourself, your friends, your family is: considering all that we have presented, should the city change the General Plan? Is it worth yet another grocery store? We hope you will join us in our efforts to show the planning commission that it is not worth it! We need to fill the seats of the city council chamber to ensure our message is heard. Our outreach manager Nica Poznanovich will be there to speak on behalf of these arguments and we are hoping to have all those who support us there to add weight to her voice. You don’t have to speak if you don’t want too; just being there will send a strong message of a community united to keep our city’s best interests at heart. We need you all there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please join us THURSDAY JUNE 9TH @ 4:00 PM.

[Barry]

This is a tough one! Should government discriminate against non-local businesses? If so, what other biases might they bring to bear? Will the next election bring in a council that is biased for non-local businesses?

And if local ownership is to be officially preferred, should that be codified somehow? And if a Santa Rosa company wants to open a store in Sebastopol, is that local or non-local? What about a Marin County company?

The current debate about CVS moving to downtown Sebastopol comes to mind. In that case though, most objections were based on the design of the building rather than the ownership.

While I support local businesses and shopping locally, I get uncomfortable with governments playing favorites. I'm more comfortable with consumers acting on their preferences so that locally owned stores have a marketing advantage.

What do you think?

[Imagery]

This is a tough one! Should government discriminate against non-local businesses? If so, what other biases might they bring to bear? Will the next election bring in a council that is biased for non-local businesses?

Perhaps government should discriminate against non-local businesses. That being said, I feel that the leaders ought to listen to their long-time constituents who have been supporting the community, often for decades, rather than someone who represents corporate greed and wealth who's simply looking to come in and take whatever wealth they can out of the community. Unfortunately, we (the West County) are already stuck with a corporate puppet, so hopefully the next election cycle will remove that pro-business, who gives a damn about the constituents, supervisor.

And if local ownership is to be officially preferred, should that be codified somehow? And if a Santa Rosa company wants to open a store in Sebastopol, is that local or non-local? What about a Marin County company?

That would be nice, however ineffective it would be. With corporate greed and corruption what it is, they'd simply pay someone local to be a puppet "owner", in order to hide who/what they really are. If a Santa Rosa company wants to open a store in Sebastopol, then let the businesses who would be affected have a say in the process. Bringing in new business should be a matter of demonstrating the need for that business, in the proposed location, not simply wanting to run other established businesses into the ground. That's what corporations do - plain and simple.

The current debate about CVS moving to downtown Sebastopol comes to mind. In that case though, most objections were based on the design of the building rather than the ownership.

Then let them work together with those who object to the design in order to bring something pleasing to both parties.

While I support local businesses and shopping locally, I get uncomfortable with governments playing favorites. I'm more comfortable with consumers acting on their preferences so that locally owned stores have a marketing advantage.

I'd prefer to shop locally, and while it costs more sometimes, knowing that you're supporting a small business who gives a damn about you as a customer...
...and as far as your discomfort with governments playing favorites, there are a LOT worse things to be uncomfortable with the government about.
I'm not sure how consumers acting upon their preferences gives a marketing advantage to the local guys - I didn't know about Community Market until very recently...when things started appearing in the news.

What do you think?

Responses above.

[tarasun]

Okay, Barry, I am against our government over reacting too but somewhere, somehow, long standing local MUST take precedence and looking at all the reasons Community Market has stated, this is an action where I want someone to stand up and say, "NO". Okay, so I have been a loyal CM customer since they were tiny on Morgan Street. Come on, where does this end that an Arizona corporate can take over even part of the business of one of our own? This isn't Santa Rosa or Marin verses CM, this is out of state. We have let the out of state corporate Whole Foods in and too many Costcos, WalMarts and Targets...Enough already.

This is a tough one! Should government discriminate against non-local businesses? If so, what other biases might they bring to bear? Will the next election bring in a council that is biased for non-local businesses?

And if local ownership is to be officially preferred, should that be codified somehow? And if a Santa Rosa company wants to open a store in Sebastopol, is that local or non-local? What about a Marin County company?

The current debate about CVS moving to downtown Sebastopol comes to mind. In that case though, most objections were based on the design of the building rather than the ownership.

While I support local businesses and shopping locally, I get uncomfortable with governments playing favorites. I'm more comfortable with consumers acting on their preferences so that locally owned stores have a marketing advantage.

What do you think?

[Roland Jacopetti]

Folks, I gotta say it. I believe that the idea of the "American Way" founded on honest competition in the marketplace is one of the most pernicious theories anyone ever thought of. Actually, I'm convinced that it's the same idea that makes it possible for candidates who throw the most money to win political office. There are just too many humans on Earth for us to continue making a virtue out of driving your competitors out of business by slurping up the largest "market share." We keep getting reminded that we're a species that lived in tribal groups and villages for millenia, and during that time the social ideal was, to quote a famous source, "providing for the common good and promoting the general welfare." We've got to get back to those principles somehow, and it won't be easy, because there are way, way, WAY too many of us around right now. As long as the social ideal is beating your rivals so you can have the biggest house, car, bank account and so forth, we're on the high road to species oblivion. Maybe the cockroaches (even the ones from Madagascar) will watch us go down the tubes and say "Good riddance!" but, as a registered human being, I'm not ready to throw the towel in yet. Support your friends and neighbors! Down with the Corporate Oligarchy!

Roland

[zenekar]

Okay, Barry, I am against our government over reacting too but somewhere, somehow, long standing local MUST take precedence and looking at all the reasons Community Market has stated, this is an action where I want someone to stand up and say, "NO". Okay, so I have been a loyal CM customer since they were tiny on Morgan Street. Come on, where does this end that an Arizona corporate can take over even part of the business of one of our own? This isn't Santa Rosa or Marin verses CM, this is out of state. We have let the out of state corporate Whole Foods in and too many Costcos, WalMarts and Targets...Enough already.

____

When we live in a democratic society where the Government is truly of, by and for the people, then we the people, not corporations, will determine what is best for OUR communities. OUR government will act in accordance with the will of the people.

Of course, that is not the case now. Corporate funding influences the election of members to Congress and the Presidency (as well as local elections). Millions of dollars are paid to lobbyists to ensure that the Government works in behalf of corporate and developers' interests.

Republican/"Conservatives" and Libertarians insist that Government is the problem, that it should not regulate business. When the Government is directly elected by the people and represents the people's interest, then it/WE THE PEOPLE have the power to ensure that corporations don’t profit at the expense of people’s and the environment’s well being.

In the current governance system in the US, corporations are favored by unjust laws which they also formulate to their advantage, in collaboration with the Government. For that reason it’s a difficult task to confront each new development and franchise that desires to invade our communities.

The solution is to take Corporate "personhood" and influence, out of government. Public financed election campaigns using free public airwaves is the answer, not the downsizing of Government.

[Barry]

The solution is to take Corporate "personhood" and influence, out of government. Public financed election campaigns using free public airwaves is the answer, not the downsizing of Government.

I agree, but should the government of the people, by the people prefer one business to another? Shouldn't the government provide a level playing field rather than picking favorites, whether it's a business we feel good about or the business we don't?

And given how purchasable the government seems to be, might that be the safer standard?

[Imagery]

I agree, but should the government of the people, by the people prefer one business to another? Shouldn't the government provide a level playing field rather than picking favorites, whether its a business we feel good about or the business we don't?

And given how purchasable the government seems to be, might that be the safer standard?

I believe that's the point in this discussion.

A government who is truly of the people (not big-business puppets), by the people (not influenced by corporate greed), and FOR the people (the individual citizens, not the corporate "individual") SHOULD serve and protect its constituency.

What do I mean by "serve and protect"? Sounds like the motto of the LAPD or something...

Serve the citizens of the community from which they are elected. Listen to the concerns of those who support the community with their business tax dollars, who live in the community, and spend their money supporting others who support our community. Take into account the impact allowing a large corporation to move in will have.

Protect the citizens of the community. Look at the number of businesses that are already in the community, who those businesses serve, and how the big business will upset the balance. Hold the corporation to a higher standard - both in community involvement and regulation, to minimize the impact of the corporation on the community.

While our supervisor has proven repeatedly that he can be "influenced", perhaps we can at least try to make it a four to one vote against...

[theindependenteye]

A governmental body should take all aspects of its constituents' well-being into consideration when making decisions, subject to limitations placed upon it by the US Constitution or the state.

If a corporation desired to build a nuclear power plant in Sebastopol, the appropriate entities would logically make decisions in accord with the General Plan and the fact that we'd all be fuckin' freaked. If another outfit proposed something that would have significant negative (or positive) economic impact on the area, I don't see any reason why the same responsibility wouldn't apply. Since "level playing field" is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or given much deference in reality, I don't think it trumps the issue of local benefit. Certainly one could make an argument that the outside group's plans would confer greater overall benefit to the people of Santa Rosa or to the county, but it seems to me that, yes, they should have to make that argument. That's the only issue, I would think. Other thoughts?

Cheers—
Conrad

[Imagery]

A governmental body should take all aspects of its constituents' well-being into consideration when making decisions, subject to limitations placed upon it by the US Constitution or the state.

If a corporation desired to build a nuclear power plant in Sebastopol, the appropriate entities would logically make decisions in accord with the General Plan and the fact that we'd all be fuckin' freaked. If another outfit proposed something that would have significant negative (or positive) economic impact on the area, I don't see any reason why the same responsibility wouldn't apply. Since "level playing field" is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or given much deference in reality, I don't think it trumps the issue of local benefit. Certainly one could make an argument that the outside group's plans would confer greater overall benefit to the people of Santa Rosa or to the county, but it seems to me that, yes, they should have to make that argument. That's the only issue, I would think. Other thoughts?

Cheers—
Conrad

Unfortunately, in your example, Efren would be happy to rubber-stamp the process to build a nuclear power plant in Sebastopol. He'd tow the line of "look how many jobs they're bringing here", even though logically, I doubt there would be any jobs higher than janitor that people would be qualified to fill...they'd naturally import all the labor to run the place.

[Barry]

If a corporation desired to build a nuclear power plant in Sebastopol,

The example you use is objectionable because of the type of use rather than it's ownership. To take you example further, should government have a preference for a locally owned and operated nuclear power plant, or a natural foods grocery store owned by an out of state corporation?

[theindependenteye]

>>>The example you use is objectionable because of the type of use rather than it's ownership. To take you example further, should government have a preference for a locally owned and operated nuclear power plant, or a natural foods grocery store owned by an out of state corporation?

Disregard my example then: make it a hot dog stand or a factory for rubberized tofu. My point was that a local government, within its powers & limitations, should have as its prime imperative to represent the interests of the people it represents. The benefits of local ownership would be one element to take into consideration, but not the only one. It seems to me that the opponents of the chain make a strong case, but if I were a supervisor, God forbid, I'd want to hear the other case as well —*even knowing that the mere *hearing* of that case would probably label me, in the minds of some, as vile and corrupt.

Cheers--
Conrad

[Hotspring 44]

...And given how purchasable the government seems to be, might that be the safer standard?

IMHO, hell no!!!

[Imagery]

...but if I were a supervisor, God forbid, I'd want to hear the other case as well —*even knowing that the mere *hearing* of that case would probably label me, in the minds of some, as vile and corrupt.

Personally, I would think you were being fair in listening to what the other side had to say. However, if your voting record demonstrated a complete disregard for what your constituency - the people who support the community - say, then it would be obvious that those labels would apply.

If you gave approval to every large corporation who walks in, waves money around with the promise of "jobs and tax revenue", who contributes to your campaign fund, then yes, those labels would apply.

[Hotspring 44]

Zenekar wrote: The solution is to take Corporate "personhood" and influence out of government. Public financed election campaigns using free public airwaves is the answer not the downsizing of Government. In reply to that, Barry wrote: I agree, but should the government of the people, by the people prefer one business to another? Shouldn't the government provide a level playing field rather than picking favorites, whether its a business we feel good about or the business we don't?...

...And given how purchasable the government seems to be, might that be the safer standard?

Barry and everybody else; now after reading it over and over again, and giving it more thought; I am not so sure what Barry meant by:
"And given how purchasable the government seems to be, might that be the safer standard?"


I may have given an erroneous answer to it when I wrote: “IMHO, hell no!!!”.
I guess it depends on what Barry meant when he used the word “that” in the sentence.

If Barry meant (“that”) “Public financed election campaigns using free public airwaves is the answer
not the downsizing of Government.” and/or “The solution is to take Corporate "personhood" and influence out of government.”... ...then I do agree with that so-called, “safer standard” and in that case I, (if I was truly mistaken) retract the “IMHO, hell no!!!”. I think I probably misunderstood that sentence. However it is still somewhat ambiguous to me.
Barry would you clarify?[

...”should the government of the people, by the people prefer one business to another?

It happens every day. Sometimes it is a Zoning issue like in this case. Sometimes it is a case of out-right, wrongful, discrimination or it can be on the other side of the scale and be cronyism and/or favoritism of sorts.


That is why local vote by ("We the people") the constituents on such matters by way of petition with a threshold number of percentage of the number of (actual) voters in that district based on the amount of votes cast on the previous election that with a petition... (not; non-voting, registered voters or the city/town council) ...would trigger a citizen vote on an issue like the one we are discussing. That is what I believe should be the norm and not the exception.

[Barry]

Berry would you clarify?

It's Barry, and I'll explain fully this weekend.

[Dixon]

It's Barry...

Perhaps you've read that book about him: The Scarlet Letter.

[Hotspring 44]

Please except my humble apology for my misspelling of Barry. it was completely accidental and most definitely unintended.
Sorry about that Barry.
I sometimes use a speech-to-text program (which is prone to making such typos) and this time I overlooked the several typos...:adhd:(A.D.H.D. less the "H" in my case {A.D.D.})... ...And...I was very tired:tired:.

[Barry]

Please except my humble apology for my misspelling of Barry. it was completely accidental and most definitely unintended.
Sorry about that Barry.
I sometimes use a speech-to-text program (which is prone to making such typos) and this time I overlooked the several typos...:adhd:(A.D.H.D. less the "H" in my case {A.D.D.})... ...And...I was very tired:tired:.

No worries, Hotspring. I'm always astounded at how many people want to spell my name with an "e". Have you ever met anybody named "Berry"? It's one thing when people just hear my name, but after they see it written, I was flabbergasted!

Anywho...

Barry and everybody else; now after reading it over and over again, and giving it more thought; I am not so sure what Barry meant by:
"And given how purchasable the government seems to be, might that be the safer standard?"


I may have given an erroneous answer to it when I wrote: “IMHO, hell no!!!”.
I guess it depends on what Barry meant when he used the word “that” in the sentence.

If Barry meant (“that”) “Public financed election campaigns using free public airwaves is the answer
not the downsizing of Government.” and/or “The solution is to take Corporate "personhood" and influence out of government.”... ...then I do agree with that so-called, “safer standard” and in that case I, (if I was truly mistaken) retract the “IMHO, hell no!!!”. I think I probably misunderstood that sentence. However it is still somewhat ambiguous to me.
Barry would you clarify?[

Seems to me that ideally the government should be neutral with regards to the particulars of a business situation, and just ensure that all businesses play within the rules and let the market decide what prevails. I suppose that's naive. It's also the concept I was referencing as "that" above.

If the government is playing favorites, then it's only a question of which thugs have their finger on the scale, ours or theirs. The notion of a level playing field, and rule of law, goes out the window.

Public financed elections would make it a lot harder to "purchase" a local government, so yes that would help.

The question at hand for the government with this grocery situation, as it weighs " the interests of the people "
shouldn't be whether we need another grocery store, or who owns it, but rather various zoning considerations (traffic, density, noise, etc) and other objective regulations.

If businesses of similar objective attributes are met with drastically different rulings from the government, we really are in the position of the government deciding what's good for us and what's not. In the best of cases, where the government benevolently tries to represent at least 51% of the people, based on what they think is best for us, I think there's plenty of room for error, in addition to the 49% that are not being represented. When you add to that that the government is so often "purchased" by big money with big financial interests, they can then have vast power to support the interests of their moneyed constituency. There's no objective guidance to fall back on.

Even here in progressive west county, there are questions about whether our supervisor is representing the best interests of the people, as opposed to some unseen financial interest. Once you leave west county, all too often all doubt is removed and the government represents the business interests.

Given that the government can't be trusted, I'd rather see them play by an objective set of rules rather than weighing which business should favored and which one is not.

And like I said, I suppose that's naive.

[Hotspring 44]

No worries, Hotspring. I'm always astounded at how many people want to spell my name with an "e". Have you ever met anybody named "Berry"? It's one thing when people just hear my name, but after they see it written, I was flabbergasted!

By "flabbergasted" I guess you mean: (“flabbergasted”)>:
adjective
astonished, amazed, stunned, overcome, overwhelmed, staggered, astounded, dazed, confounded, disconcerted, speechless, bowled over (informal), gobsmacked (Brit. slang), dumbfounded, nonplussed, lost for words, struck dumb, abashed.

Anywho...

Seems to me that ideally the government should be neutral with regards to the particulars of a business situation, and just ensure that all businesses play within the rules and let the market decide what prevails. I suppose that's naive. It's also the concept I was referencing as "that" above.

I guess you are saying ‘that’; "ideally"government should not regulate what a business should actually be and only require all like businesses to follow and be held to account to the same rules.

The only qualm I have with that is some rules do by their inherent design; favor certain business models over others, particularly bigger over the smaller, or; familiar over unfamiliar, or; perceived “good” over perceived “bad”, and sometimes the “lesser of two evils” such as banning medical cannabis buyers clubs but instead, for example; approving another liquor store or bar.

Public financed elections would make it a lot harder to "purchase" a local government, so yes that would help.

I agree.
It is not a cure-all solution by it self but that would be a big foot in the almost closed door of government as it seems to be now with the election financing situation as it is today.

The question at hand for the government with this grocery situation, as it weighs " the interests of the people " shouldn't be whether we need another grocery store, or who owns it, but rather various zoning considerations (traffic, density, noise, etc) and other objective regulations.

Good point.
In regards city council making rezoning decisions; it is so as the laws of governance on zoning laws are quite clear regarding what body of government decides.
That is why it is so important to vote locally for candidates that are and will continue to be in touch with their constituents needs and are not somehow vested in something else and using their political power to be corrupt.

If businesses of similar objective attributes are met with drastically different rulings from the government, we really are in the position of the government deciding what's good for us and what's not.

In other words could be (depending on specifically “conflict of interest”) described as corruption.

...When you add to that that the government is so often "purchased" by big money with big financial interests, they can then have vast power to support the interests of their moneyed constituency. There's no objective guidance to fall back on.

I believe (the) “that” in this case is; “corruption”.

Given that the government can't be trusted, I'd rather see them play by an objective set of rules rather than weighing which business should favored and which one is not.

And like I said, I suppose that's naive.

It probably is naive” to think that the “given” in your last statement (“the government can't be trusted”) wound not negate; (the) “them” playing “by an objective set of rules”.
I think its obvious “they” wouldn’t play by the same rules as the public thinks they should.

[podfish]

. Have you ever met anybody named "Berry"?.

the bassist for the Allman Brothers band!!!

[Roland Jacopetti]

Berry Gordy of Motown?

[Roland Jacopetti]

Also, "Take off, take off your berry brown gown..."

[Imagery]

Wow, this thread certainly got derailed.

[Dixon]

Hey, Barry--

I just tried to delete my last post (#26) upon realizing that Roland had already shared that info in this thread, but the Wacco program wouldn't let me delete it. Instead, I got this message: "You cannot delete this thread or post because one or more user(s) have replied to this post", even though no one had replied to my post yet. Whassup widdat?

[Barry]

Hey, Barry--

I just tried to delete my last post (#26) upon realizing that Roland had already shared that info in this thread, but the Wacco program wouldn't let me delete it. Instead, I got this message: "You cannot delete this thread or post because one or more user(s) have replied to this post", even though no one had replied to my post yet. Whassup widdat?

A bug. . We'll get it fixed soon!

[Barry]

A bug. . We'll get it fixed soon!

Fixed!

[Barry]

Planning Commission rezones site of possible Sprouts market
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...p=all&tc=pgall

By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Thursday, July 14, 2011 at 6:14 p.m.

Plans for a possible Sprouts Farmers Market in Santa Rosa moved forward Thursday despite opposition from local grocers who say there's little need for another market in the city.

The Santa Rosa Planning Commission on Thursday approved a request to rezone a four-acre property at the northeast corner of Mendocino and Bicentennial avenues to general commercial, which would allow a number of possible uses, including a market.

Commissioner Shaun Faber stressed the action was far from a final decision about whether a market will be approved for the hillside site.

“This project does have some challenges,” said Faber, who voted for the change. “It may or may not fly.”

The commission voted 4-3 to recommend the zoning change and general plan amendment to the City Council. No project has been proposed, but AVB Development Partners, which sought the rezoning, said it hopes to build a 30,000-square-foot Sprouts on the property.

Property owner Ubaldo Tambellini has said he is talking to Sprouts, a fast-growing chain of natural food stores based in Phoenix, but has yet to ink a deal with anyone.

Commissioners voting in favor of the rezoning largely focused on whether the property at the busy intersection was appropriate for commercial uses. Those against it cited a litany of concerns, including the limited information they received about the potential Sprouts project.

“It's very hard to consider this absent of a project,” Commissioner Vicki Duggan said.

The oak-studded site is home to an aging 22-unit apartment building, which would likely be razed to make way for a retail center like the one described in conceptual plans. Tambellini has said that's only one of many options.

Representatives of Community Market and Oliver's Markets urged the commission at a previous meeting not to approve the rezoning, or at least to require further study of the economic impacts. They argued there is no need for another out-of-area market in that section of the city, and said allowing one will only hurt existing grocers.

Last month the commission was unable to reach a decision, in part because Faber was absent. The hearing was continued to Thursday to give Faber the chance to review the record and vote.

Duggan expressed concern that the commission action was effectively “punting” a future project to the city's design review board, which is less familiar with environmental reviews than the planning commission.

But Chairman Patti Cisco said design review is qualified to handle environmental analysis and recently has been doing more of it.

“Whether they like it or not, we charged them with that job,” Cisco said.