Big-box stores are part of city’s plan

<p><i>“It’s the economy, stupid.” </i></p><p><b>— Internal slogan of 1992 presidential candidate Bill Clinton’s campaign team.</b></p><p>A recent spate of negative comments by several members of the Petaluma City Council regarding reports on two proposed shopping centers casts serious doubt upon the council’s commitment to implement the goals in the city’s new General Plan — specifically those aimed at strengthening Petaluma’s economy, job base and fiscal health. </p><p>The city’s guiding legislative and planning document was unanimously approved last year after seven years of debate and includes the critical goal of expanding and diversifying Petaluma’s weak retail sector by attracting new stores to broaden the city’s limited retail opportunities that force local residents to travel elsewhere for many of their shopping needs.</p><p>The plan clearly states that the retail sector’s frailty is undermining Petaluma’s fiscal health since the city collects far fewer sales tax dollars — the No. 1 source of local government revenue — than it would with a more fully developed retail sector. </p><p>The Economic Health and Sustainability section of the plan references the well-documented need to attract “large format” retailers in the categories of general merchandise (such as Target), house-and-home (such as Lowe’s or Friedman Brothers) along with electronics/ home entertainment and others. </p><p>Finally, the plan notes the city’s commitment to “provide jobs for un- and under-employed segments of the work force” which, at this time, includes many people in the retail and construction trades who would benefit directly by the centers’ construction. </p><p>Yet when independent reports were presented documenting the many significant economic and fiscal benefits of the long-awaited Target shopping center on East Washington Street and another on North McDowell Boulevard anchored by a home improvement store, members of the council’s new self-proclaimed “progressive” majority reacted critically. </p><p>Ignoring the wealth of information affirming the city’s overall retail weakness and showing the two projects would provide millions of dollars in desperately needed property and sales tax revenues along with a net increase of 1,100 permanent jobs and 700 temporary construction jobs, council members set about picking in the nits. Some appeared to be desperately grasping for ways to refute the data that bolstered the reports’ unerring conclusions that the projects would, in fact, represent a net positive economic and fiscal gain for the city. </p><p>Mayor Pam Torliatt fretted that the combined square footage of the two shopping centers was more than needed to stem Petaluma’s massive retail sales leakage, despite evidence to the contrary from an earlier city study. </p><p>David Glass said he didn’t think the North McDowell parcel was a good location for a home improvement store, even though it is zoned to allow just such a retail use. Tiffany Renée said she didn’t think the jobs offered at one shopping center were good enough for Petaluma, despite the fact that many unemployed people in Petaluma would jump at the chance to land one of the 1,100 jobs being offered. </p><p>Teresa Barrett wanted to give one of the reports an “F,” apparently because it could not achieve the impossible in forecasting how unknown future tenants in one shopping center would impact each and every one of the 800 existing stores in Petaluma. </p><p>While council members have not dared to say openly that they oppose all big-box development in principle, it is clear the council majority has a bias against such businesses. Banning all new big-box stores is a primary goal of a small but vocal group of activists that strongly supports the new council majority and has encouraged them to prohibit big-box stores, which could prevent Target, Lowe’s or even the Sonoma County-based Friedman Brothers chain from ever opening in Petaluma. </p><p>We think that banning big-box stores in Petaluma is exactly the wrong approach to growing and diversifying Petaluma’s economy, and that the City Council should instead stick to implementing the General Plan’s stated economic development goals and policies that include a wide variety of stores and businesses.</p><p>With the city laying off employees, cutting vital programs and slashing public services, there is no better time to make decisions aimed at creating a stronger local economy and more jobs. Doing so ensures that tax revenues will one day catch up with the city’s many unmet needs in the area of road repairs, park maintenance, transportation improvements, law enforcement and many other underfunded municipal services.</p><p>The country’s new president is working hard to find ways to create new jobs for unemployed Americans, and is setting an excellent example for all state and local leaders who should also be making the economy their top priority. We hope all seven members of the Petaluma City Council will begin taking this important responsibility more seriously.</p>