I've only lived in Petaluma for 4 years. How long has Pam been Mayor? Seems like most of you are pretty bitter about not having more "Rohnert Park like" strip malls available to you. Last I heard RP is nearing banckruptcy, they have every crap franchise in American and a population of like 30k and still can't pay the bills sounds like a great model.

I would support a Target near the freeway but what is it exactly you all want? Getting off at E. Washington exit, Petaluma looks like Bakersfield, KMART, Cheap Motel, a DOLLAR STORE coming to town that so many are so excited about. What other "growth" would you like to see. I'm all for a Target (only because my wife shops there) and maybe a high end Corte Madera style Village but it seems like all of you want RP...it's only a few miles up the freeway.

Here you go.

It's still getting worse here, while the economy is improving.


Link

stv, that article was the headline of the Argus Courier today - in BIG BOLD LETTERS. It's clear the city of Petaluma is in a dire situation. I would like to suggest to everyone who is posting here to attend the city council meeting on Monday November 2nd. Let your voice be heard to the people making the decisions - your mayor and city council members.

PTOWNKIDSTAXI, I'm with you - I vote for David too, Rabbitt that is, for mayor.

STV, the only people the economy is improving for are shareholders and bankers.

quote:

Originally posted by stv:
Here you go.

It's still getting worse here, while the economy is improving.


Link

Actually Pam really does want Friedmans, I won't go on, except to say..." Oh, I see you dont know what you are talking about..."

And as far as there being three Pams, well that is just stupid too, I doubt she would come on this board.

quote:

Originally posted by 5thgen:
Here's an interesting thought. The mayor doesn't want a Target in her town and really doesn't want Lowe's (bring in Friedman's to keep it out), clearly doesn't want any big box store like WalMart, Home Depot and Costco since they cannibalize locals and pay less than subsistence wages.

The second supervisorial district includes all those stores in Cotati and Rohnert Park (west of Hwy 101) supplying a significant part of city and county shared sales taxes to the 2nd district.

I truly believe pam does want friedmans....on her terms only, not terms of friedmans.

it is very clear that the site that works for friedmans is the hopper site yet pam is pushing for the regency site and will, in my opinion, do whatever it takes to delay both regency and friedmans to get what she wants. she will use this to delay regency and will push friedmans away by trying force them into a site that doesn't work for them.

the hopper street site, as friedmans have said, works best for them and don't we want friedmans at a site they can flourish? aren't they the ones that should determine what site would work best to ensure a successful business? isn't that what we want, a home grown business in town that can and will be successful? shouldn't we encourage and do everything we can to support that development?

pam will say she wants it, and again i believe she does, but what action has she and will she take to nurture this project through the process in a manner that is helpful and not harmful?

quote:

Originally posted by ptlmafrnd:
I truly believe pam does want friedmans....on her terms only, not terms of friedmans.

it is very clear that the site that works for friedmans is the hopper site yet pam is pushing for the regency site and will, in my opinion, do whatever it takes to delay both regency and friedmans to get what she wants. she will use this to delay regency and will push friedmans away by trying force them into a site that doesn't work for them.

the hopper street site, as friedmans have said, works best for them and don't we want friedmans at a site they can flourish? aren't they the ones that should determine what site would work best to ensure a successful business? isn't that what we want, a home grown business in town that can and will be successful? shouldn't we encourage and do everything we can to support that development?

pam will say she wants it, and again i believe she does, but what action has she and will she take to nurture this project through the process in a manner that is helpful and not harmful?

New development has, is, and always will be a negotiated process between staff, the council, and the developer...so really there is nothing peculiar about any of the back and forth on Regency, Deer Creek, and now Friedman's.

I appreciate the fact that certain council members are exercising some tough love with respect to these larger projects. I'd hate to see Petaluma whored out because times are tough...this too will pass.

In any case, I am confident all of the current major projects will be approved since there has not been a single council member who has solidly said they don't support them. Admittedly, the council majority has taken a straddle position, which is typical of politicians that are still engaged in a negotiation with a developer.

Regency has been in the works for 5 years! In this past year alone, we've seen one delay after another. Delay & obstruct. We had the planning commission fiasco, then no garden center at Target, then let's put Friedman's in the plan, and on and on and on. If this doesn't get approved in December, the mayor will lose any credibility she has left.

Development is only a negotiated process when a Development Agreement is reached and those are few and far between. In fact, of the three or four development applications pending, there are no Development Agreements proposed or in the works. These projects are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and are more than willing to pay their Development Impact Fees, go through the approval process, and receive approvals and permits. So it is not necessarily correct to say "New development has, is, and always will be a negotiated process between staff, the council, and the developer...". The city needs to follow the rules it has previously set, not keep changing them based on political whims and ambitions.

The time for politicians to say in public they support an issue or a project but in private do everything to obstruct or try to derail an issue or a project has to come to an end. It's dishonest leadership and this city is suffering because of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Tahoe:
Regency has been in the works for 5 years! In this past year alone, we've seen one delay after another. We had the planning commission fiasco, then no garden center at Target, then let's put Friedman's in the plan, and on and on and on. If this doesn't get approved in December, the mayor will lose any credibility she has left.

If you look at the make-up the city council between 2004 and 2008, there was arguably a pro-growth council that had a supra-majority that could have overridden any opposition of reportedly slow growth minority. So why didn't the pro-growth majority light a fire under Regency's ass? They only had four years. Its a specious argument to blame certain members of the current council for holding up the project when they came on scene at the end of 2008 in the middle of development of Regency's EIR.

quote:

Originally posted by David:
Development is only a negotiated process when a Development Agreement is reached and those are few and far between. In fact, of the three or four development applications pending, there are no Development Agreements proposed or in the works. These projects are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and are more than willing to pay their Development Impact Fees, go through the approval process, and receive approvals and permits. So it is not necessarily correct to say "New development has, is, and always will be a negotiated process between staff, the council, and the developer...". The city needs to follow the rules it has previously set, not keep changing them based on political whims and ambitions.

The time for politicians to say in public they support an issue or a project but in private do everything to obstruct or try to derail an issue or a project has to come to an end. It's dishonest leadership and this city is suffering because of it.

I disagree. Would you not consider your private conversations and those of the other council members with the Regency folks a negotiation of sorts? What about the exactions and conditions of approval? Yes, the law limits what the city can and cannot ask for, but there are trade-offs that can be made with a willing developer.

A formal development agreement can be negotiated for any project regardless if it needs a legislative approval like a GPA or rezone, assuming there are two willing participants. A DA could have been a win/win for the city and Regency. Regency gets certainty and the city could have negotiated pre-pays on estimated sales tax and/or property tax in the intervening period between approval and occupancy.

What I don't see in this thread from any of Pam's supporters is any listing, bullet pointed or otherwise, of her positive accomplishments as either a council member or as mayor.

Anyone got some? I sure don't.

On the flip side we have the latest news that the city is, as most of us knew, sliding deeper into insolvency, that more city services will have to be cut and that more city workers will need to be let go. While this situation didn't happen overnight, Pam has been on the council for the past 13 years, the last three as Mayor.

Think she bears some measure of responsibility? I certainly do. And I also think that her failures do not need to be rewarded with election to a higher office.

Granted, I could say the same things (and have) about Mike O'Brien. And Mike Healey's record of accomplishment is also fairly thin. All in all it amounts to what ever happens and who ever wins in the end, given the current crop of announced and potential candidates, the Second District will be represented by what amounts to little more than an empty suit which is not really a change from the current situation.

My opinion is that electing anyone from Petaluma city government to the Second District seat is a fool's errand and is asking for bigger government trouble down the road.

Pam lost her rear end badly in the primary running for Assembly. Her longer term intentions are emminently clear... she aspires to be a career politician and keep moving up the ladder. Unfortunately she has little to no appeal, as yet, to a larger base of voters than exists here in town.

And honestly, is what is needed in the halls of government yet another career politician who hasn't done much of anything meaningful outside the halls of academia and government?

quote:

Originally posted by The Big Dog:
My opinion is that electing anyone from Petaluma city government to the Second District seat is a fool's errand and is asking for bigger government trouble down the road.... And honestly, is what is needed in the halls of government yet another career politician who hasn't done much of anything meaningful outside the halls of academia and government?

The people in the unincorporated parts of the County can't vote in any City Council election. I have never understood why we vote in the Supervisor and City Council elections. The Supervisor has no jurisdiction in the City, yet my understanding is no one from the County has won a Supervisor election since 1974. Only people from Petaluma, mostly City Council members. Maybe its time to elect someone that lives in the unincorporated part of the County. It seems fair to let someone fron the county have a chance. I know, nothing about politics is fair.

quote:

Originally posted by David:
The time for politicians to say in public they support an issue or a project but in private do everything to obstruct or try to derail an issue or a project has to come to an end. It's dishonest leadership and this city is suffering because of it.

Well said, and the same should hold true when polititions say they do not support a project, like Dutra for example. The Mayor and all 6 City council members publicly all oppose the Dutra Project. So it does seem odd that all of Petaluma's elected official's are telling the County Board of Supervisors what kind of project they can and cannot build on county land. land they do not have jurisdiction over. while telling their costituentd they cannot tell a developer like Deer Creek, Target, Club One, etc. what they can or cannot build on their property, or even require the project be scaled down because of the impacts on traffic, noise, etc.

Social Justice- what is your point on Dutra?? Dutra was asking for a General Plan amendment, Regency and Deer Creek are not. HUGE difference Social Justice, HUGE difference. No one is saying the public doesn't have a voice in the shape of the development inasmuch as our statutes allow. The difference is some of us believe in the rule of law and private property rights while others throw out planning and decide zoning on political whims. Which way is the wind blowing today and will it get me votes in the next election? The next rung on my political ladder? As a design professional who has studied urban planning, I guarantee you, that is not the way to shape your community, to shape your future. Our budget reflects also, it is not a way to have your city thrive.

There is a difference between telling people you are doing everything possible to ensure a project is successful when in fact, you are doing very little, nothing, or worse, ensuring it's demise behind the scenes. Regency is now delayed another month. The FEIA delayed the project for months, the DEIR delayed the project for months (since the majority fired the Planning Department and Commission). If you believe the Council majority is doing everything.... everything... to make Regency successful and bring it on line as quickly as possible... good for you.... want to buy a big red bridge??

Don't believe everything you hear...

Very well said David.