The high price of council’s inaction

<p>It's no secret that the city of Petaluma is reeling from a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportions. The recession is hurting all cities in California, and Petaluma is no exception. With city employees being laid off in record numbers and those remaining taking pay cuts and having to do more with less, the impacts of shrinking city finances are readily apparent in the potholed roads that aren't resurfaced, the street lights that don't get fixed, the parks that are in continual disrepair and everything from public safety to recreational services that are less effective in meeting residents' needs. </p><p>But out of crisis comes opportunity. Unlike most cities its size, Petaluma has an unusually weak retail sector that presents a tremendous opportunity to strengthen the city's dismal fiscal state. With local residents continuing to drive out of town for a host of goods and services not generally available in Petaluma, the city collects far fewer sales tax dollars than if it had a more robust retail sector. For the city to become more economically sustainable, its General Plan calls for expanding and diversifying Petaluma's retail sector by attracting new stores to broaden the city's limited retail opportunities at appropriately designated sites. </p><p>One such site is the former Kenilworth Junior High School property which six years ago was proposed for a Target-anchored shopping center. After many years of nonsensical foot-dragging by the city's planning department, innumerable studies and countless public hearings, the project finally made it to the City Council meeting on Monday night that commenced early in hopes of allowing enough time for elected officials to finally vote on whether to approve the project.</p><p>Alas, the City Council majority of Pam Torliatt, David Glass, Tiffany Renée and Teresa Barrett elected to delay a vote, citing a host of questionable conditions that necessitated further scrutiny by city staff, among them giving the city power to approve or deny which businesses could lease space in the center and imposing a “vacancy tax” on space that is not sufficiently leased. </p><p>While the next council meeting on the project is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 25, additional hearings on the project's design must also take place before the Planning Commission, a newly re-constituted body handpicked by the council majority that is struggling with an unwieldy workload of design and land-use issues formerly handled by two separate boards. Oh, and although City Council approval of building design is not required in the city development review process, Renée wants to have a final say on the center's design after the Planning Commission completes its own design review. The forecast: Expect further delays. </p><p>Even if the council ultimately votes to approve the project, which is no certainty given the council majority's anti-growth tendencies, such needless delays carry a big price tag. The project developer, Regency Centers, has made clear that if the shopping center continues to be delayed they will miss Target's scheduled opening date in October, 2011. Because Target only opens new stores in the spring or the fall, a delay to the spring of 2012 would cost the city about a half-million dollars in lost sales tax revenues based upon the estimated $1 million in sales tax the project is expected to generate annually.</p><p>Losing badly needed tax revenue with unnecessary delays is hugely problematic from a fiscal standpoint, but the council may be making a far bigger mistake in trying to oversee the leasing of space in the proposed center. City Council members are ill suited to determine which businesses should occupy space in a shopping center, and micromanaging such activities would likely lead to unintended consequences, one of which is vacant space and blight. </p><p>It's understandable for the council to want to get the best shopping center possible, and legitimate issues such as the routing of truck traffic and ensuring green building design standards should be resolved through appropriate project conditions. </p><p>But instead of taking decisive action to bring jobs to the city and correct the city's longstanding and fiscally crippling sales tax leakage problem, the council majority is unnecessarily delaying a decision while ignoring the wealth of information showing the Regency project will provide millions of dollars in desperately needed property and sales tax revenues along with hundreds of new jobs for unemployed residents. </p><p>If the city is to achieve its economic, fiscal and employment goals on a long-term basis, it must be willing to make room for the types of stores identified in its General Plan. For that to happen, projects like the long- delayed East Washington shopping center should be approved without any further delays.</p>