RE: Link The majority of citizens could not agree with you more. Great point about more citizens having disposable income to spend at more expensive stores when the original retail leakage was done, I'm sure many more leave town to shop now than before.
I just got back from Novato (again) after realizing I forgot peanut butter and shampoo. Geezzz, the only thing I can buy in Petaluma is pizza and beer.
Nothing but restaurants and bars, golly heck Gomer; when will Target open?
Posts: 43 | Location: West Petaluma | Registered: 23 March 2008
Austin - Thank you for your letter. We need more letter writers to inform the City Council and Mayor and City Manager to stop stalling on the Regency and Deer Creek developments. Let the process continue.
It will not only help improve our City's revenue with retail tax benefits, but will also provide construction and retail jobs for Petalumans.
Families are on budgets and are leaving Petaluma to buy every day essentials. While the City's budget is in trouble. So continue with the letters to editor.
Posts: 30 | Location: Petaluma | Registered: 21 August 2009
hmmmm, scratching my head and wondering what you were looking for that more times than not you can't find in any of those stores. Seriously, on my half of the median income, I have left town 2 times in two years to buy things, and that was to go to specialty stores in Santa Rosa (cheesemaking and Teacher supplies).
Did you click that "write a letter to the editor" link on the "East Washington Place" website?
If one can afford to purchase everything in Petaluma and then go to specialty stores elsewhere to buy nice cheese-making supplies, one's already on the more privileged end of "median income"... I've met more kids who go to school without eating breakfast than I'd like to see.
Hey I had just a crazy thought over the weekend regarding this issue.. Does anything stand in the way of Regency selling this property that they paid for years ago to say some "Indian" Tribe. Is this possible. Could this happen and possibly turn this prime land into an Indian Casino, perfect location right off the freeway, close to San Francisco. Interesting at best. This might be the best solution for Regency and more cost effective than to file a lawsuit against City Hall..
We already know that Petalumans are leaving the City to shop north or south. The stores track where there customers are from. These people can't find what they need to buy in Petaluma, whether it is their budget, time of purchase (downtown hours don't work for all), quality of merchandise or type of merchandise. If these retail merchants were in Petaluma the $ would stay here. Petaluma asked Regency to buy that property and build a retail site. Petaluma has a General Plan for a reason.
Posts: 30 | Location: Petaluma | Registered: 21 August 2009
ptownkidstaxi, do you really think the council majority and their offspring will want a casino in town when they don't want a shopping center that is needed? I say, over their dead bodies!!! And actually, I don't want a casino either. Talk about taking away from the quaintness of the city... Besides, Regency should not have to sell the property they own because the council, Glass especially, changed their tune on the shopping center that should have been built years ago!
And to Raven, I hope you keep scratching your head. People like you do not look at the majority of people in this town that need a quality retail store and not an upscale boutique or "specialty store". I'm glad to hear your half is the median income. I take that as you + spouse = large income. Thanks for the tip on the East Washington website that suggests - "write a letter to the editor". I'll make sure I post this to my FB friends!
Well, the City is negotiating to buy the old Kenilworth property from Regency, so if that purchase goes through there are two things you will definitely not find there: (1) a Target and (2) an Indian casino.
Where the City is going to get the money to purchase the property is an interesting topic. Apply for open space funds from the County? If I were an open space advocate, I would be up in arms about open space funds being used to buy the old Kenilworth property. As someone who pays sales tax, I would not want my sales tax dollars being used by the City to buy that property.
Posts: 112 | Location: Where else? | Registered: 31 March 2009
Originally posted by Petaluma Piker: Well, the City is negotiating to buy the old Kenilworth property from Regency, so if that purchase goes through there are two things you will definitely not find there: (1) a Target and (2) an Indian casino.
Where the City is going to get the money to purchase the property is an interesting topic. Apply for open space funds from the County? If I were an open space advocate, I would be up in arms about open space funds being used to buy the old Kenilworth property. As someone who pays sales tax, I would not want my sales tax dollars being used by the City to buy that property.
This is news to me. Where did you hear the city is negotiating to buy the old Kenilworth property from Regency?
It was on the agenda for the City Council closed session tonight. Just look for assessor parcel numbers 007-251-001 and 007-241-002 and Regency's business names.
But, after a second look, I am going to guess the negotiations may be for a portion of the property to enable the 101 East Washington interchange work. The wording of the agenda is so vague, you have to guess. (Which may be a Brown Act problem in and of itself.)
Pretty funny if that's the case-- if Regency does not play ball, the City will have to "condemn" part of the property by way of eminent domain. That means the City suing Regency over how much the City has to pay Regency for the land it needs. So Regency now has the City by the cojones-- no play ball, no East Washington 101 work gets done.
Ironic after all the bragging by certain Council members about this 101 project being their crowning achievement-- Regency has the power to throw a wrench in their plan, so it does not look like much of an "achievement" right now.
Posts: 112 | Location: Where else? | Registered: 31 March 2009
I have to disagree (partially) on the "fact" downtown shops are expensive or cost 70% more. This is a fallacy, yes there are some that are but not all, not even the majority. First of all, what they offer at many of the downtown shops you can't find at a Target or Big Box store. That is where the uniqueness comes in. Second, a lot of the downtown stores are competitive. Sure, there are times we can't compete with big retailers but then we offer (I hope) more, i.e. better service, free gift wrapping, etc...
I am not against having Regency here, I happen to feel it would be good to keep people shopping here and not going out of town. Chances are better, if they stay in town - they may shop more in downtown. However, I don't agree with the excuse that all of downtown is much more expensive.
