City Can Better Utilize Hunt-Boyer Mansion with a Restaurant

Back in December, the city council met to decide the future reuse of the Dresbach-Hunt-Boyer Mansion. Currently city staff are located in that building, however, they will soon be relocated to other city facilities and the city now has the choice as to how to use the building.

The city hired a consultant to do a feasibility study and consider reuse options which were narrowed down to a restaurant or a visitor's center. At the December 9, 2008 council meeting, the majority of the city council concurred with the staff report "that the visitor’s center concept is a better fit than a restaurant for this historic structure, as it would have the least physical impact on the building and would be far more economical to implement." However, in a compromise, Councilmember Stephen Souza constructed a motion that would allow the city to at least test the restaurant option.

Unfortunately by putting out a RFP (Request for Proposal) for only two months during these economic times may not be doing far enough in terms of actually allowing a potential restaurant owner to use the site.

The feasibility study identified a number of challenges with the proproposed restaurant.

The bottom line was:

"While the report acknowledges that the location is ideal for a restaurant and the building’s ambience would make for an elegant dining experience, the architect also determined that this use would require significant modifications and cost to accomplish."

Challenges include the following:

"The most logical place for the kitchen would be in the rear (southeast corner) of building with seating in the front rooms and upstairs. The typical restaurant would utilize approximately half of its square footage in kitchen space. The first floor is approximately 1330 square feet total. Loading would need to come from the rear (south) side of the building. The feasibility architect calls for an elevator inside the building. The Building Official believes that if similar spaces are provided on both floors an elevator could be avoided. The kitchen would need hood venting out the walls and roof of the building. A trash enclosure and grease storage/inceptor would need to be added in the vicinity of the building."

As a result of these challenges and the costs associated with them, the city staff went with the visitor's center option.

From the staff report, here's the central argument for the Visitor's center information:

"Several entities, including the city’s Promotions staff, downtown redevelopment staff, the Davis Downtown Business Association, the Davis Farmers Market, the Davis Chamber of Commerce, UC Davis and the Yolo Conference and Visitors Bureau regularly interact and partner to promote the downtown and the broader community. Each entity has a distinct purpose and personality, yet functions often overlap.

The concept for a Community Events and Visitor Information Center is to consolidate as many providers/promoters of community events, information, and attractions in one location. Ideally, a consolidated location would provide information about events, attractions and lodging; maps of the community and campus; a calendar of events; a small retail section of Davis/UC Davis/Yolo goods; ticket sales; and offices for the several of the organizations primarily responsible for promoting Davis. Unlike the traditional visitor’s center model, this co-location of Davis resources would serve as a central resource for Davis residents seeking information/tickets for local (City/Campus/County) events in addition to being a location for visitors to the community to get information. The benefit to the groups in the building would be shared resources and information, resulting in more efficient use of resources and successful collaborations. The benefit to the city would be increases in participation in local and regional events and spill over business activity."

From our standpoint, the Visitor's Center makes little sense in this particular location. The idea that these entities have shared functions is acknowledged, but that doesn't seem to require (a) the same location and (b) more importantly this particular location.

The visitor's center might be utilized by people who come from out of town to visit Davis, perhaps, but a restaurant would attract people not only from the city but also from out of town. Moreover, a restaurant would bring much needed tax revenue to the city.

While we acknowledge the current limitations of the building, the city actually has a pretty decent option in terms of making the upgrades necessary. The city estimates such costs would be between $750,000 and $1 million. However, due to the much higher rent the city could charge a restaurant as opposed to office usage they could offset those costs over a 10 to 15 year period by taking around 80% of the rent and paying off the costs while using 20% as the revenue the city would get from a visitor's center.

The restaurant has much to offer Davis. It seems a shame frankly to waste such a nice and attractive location on more offices. A high restaurant could provide fine food and dining experiences that Davis lacks at the moment. Moreover, if done properly the restaurant could have a more modest lunch menu that would cator to the university crowd during the day. The location could allow for both food and some sort of entertainment as well.

The city appears to be selling its property short by going for the quick fix in terms of a visitor's center. However, and this is part of the issue at hand, the city would need to be patient in terms of finding the proper suitor given the current economic downturn. However, the upside would be enormous and it is not like the building is being properly utilized at this moment.

The model would be to look at something like Bistro 33 and imagine the amount of revenue and the dining experience an upscale restaurant would bring to that part of Davis while adaptively reusing an historic building.

To me, the choice seems obvious, but the council to this point in time seems inclined to go another direction.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Analysis: Why Kidd Failed To Get Support to Lower Anderson Bank Building Windows

Last week, the Davis City Council in a very close 3-2 vote, decided to deny an application by Anderson Bank Building owner Jim Kidd to lower the windows in the portion of the building on the corner of Second and G in Davis currently occupied by Futon Emporium. While we often have 3-2 votes, this is one of the closer vote I can recall, as it could have gone either way with any number of combinations.

The general consensus is that while I think most observers believe the council found value in the conception of historic preservation, it was as much the actions and conduct of the applicant as any principal that in the end led to the denial of the application to the lower the windows.



One thing strongly suggested by city staff is the lack of upkeep and maintenance performed by Jim Kidd. Had Kidd poured resources into the building and still not been able to attract quality business to the corner unit, there was have been far greater sympathy on the part of the staff and some of the members of the council.

However as several council members pointed out last Tuesday, the building is in need of much repair.

As Councilmember Stephen Souza and several members of the public pointed out, the exterior of the building is badly in need of repair. However, Mr. Souza was most pointed:

"The exterior of the building is pathetic, it needs cleaning. It's pathetic. It needs to be re-painted or cleaned, in fact, I would love to see it go back to the brick that it was, to give it the history that we should be up here cherishing, because there isn't much of it left for our grandkids."

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) called for a number of upgrades to the building that the council suggested even after rejecting the application:

1. Remove all existing awnings on the southern and eastern elevations of the building in order to expose the historic and character-defining arched windows original to the building.

2. Repair and restore the building’s cornice along the street-facing elevations.

3. Removal and replacement of the existing second floor windows to match in-kind the original second floor windows of the building.

4. Clean the exterior of the building, and either expose the original brickwork or repaint the building.

5. Restore and replace all existing exterior lighting fixtures to match in-kind the original lighting fixtures.

6. Repair and restore the Grate for the Bank Bell.

We'll talk more about these shortly.

The second reason that Kidd's application failed is that he for whatever reason waged a heavy handed campaign aimed at putting pressure on the council. First, he placed lawn signs in various locations urging support for lowering the windows.

Second, in a Davis Enterprise Article on May 13, 2007, he threatened to go to the voters if the council did not support him.

Kidd said if the City Council won't allow the changes, he'll go to the voters by putting a measure on the ballot.

“It'll cost me something like $75,000, but that's what I'm willing to do,” he said. Kidd has been lobbying the council to approve bigger windows, planting signs around the downtown area that read “Better Windows/Better Retail/Better Downtown. Lower the Anderson Building Windows. KEEP OUR DOWNTOWN VITAL.”

Third, he collected a number of signatures and solicited emails, both of which were questionable in terms of whether the petition actually had the signatures of current business owners (in some cases, we know that they were either old petitions or did not have the signature of the current owner) and also questionable in terms of some of the emails generated.

As Councilmember Souza stated:

"I'll say this straight up Mr. Kidd, when I got those 64 emails, all coming from gmail, that convinced me that something very strange was going on here. I've never got 64 emails with everyone having a gmail account, usually its pretty varied, so it made me rather suspicious, I think you would have done yourself more justice if you did run a campaign as you did over windows."

As members of the council, the EIR, and members of the public indicated, the building is indeed in great need of repair and renovation on the exterior. Mr. Kidd suggested he put $1 million into repairs, some of which were not required following the 2002 fire, but my examination suggests a number of repairs that are needed and would greatly enhance the commercial as well as the aesthetic value of the building. I agree fully with the recommendations in the EIR and will add a few of my own thoughts.

As Saylor said during last week's city council meeting:

"I spent an hour and a half across the street from the building, just to kind of feel it, see what the building looks like... So I sat beside it awhile and let it talk to me."

I had realized after driving by it on Saturday night that I had never really taken a look at the building either, so I too went to the building. The building talked to me as well, but it said something very different than what it told Saylor. It was screaming to me, please repair me, I'm dirty and falling apart. Please take care of me. Please paint me. Restore my original color. Don't cut me open.

I took a number of pictures (see above) and here are my thoughts.

First, I agree with the EIR, the current color is not very attractive, I think a more natural brick color would look tremendous.

Second, the awnings definitely detract from the building and partially obstruct the windows.

Third, the outside is indeed filthy and in need of a cleaning--although I think restoring the bricks would be ideal. In addition, some of broken and cracked.

However, the big thing I took away from my encounter with the building is how ludicrous the window argument is. The argument they were making is that it would be difficult to attract people inside who cannot see in. But the windows are not up that high, and moreover there are two glass double door entrances, one facing "G" Street and the other facing Second Street that allow for full view. It is difficult to maintain the argument that people cannot see into the building and therefore fuller side windows are of a grave necessity.

A good business who markets the building could easily create fascinating window displays that draw in customers. As you can see from the pictures, the current business has not utilized the window space at all. That combined with a revamping of the exterior to make it more attractive would probably do far more to make that location more profitable than any changes to the windows.

As Councilmember Souza aptly stated:

"I don't think there has been proper marketing... you have to do proper market otherwise I don't care what kind of windows that you have in the building, you're not going to survive. I don't think that the windows make the use, I think that the business owner makes the use work."

In short, I do not know what Saylor was looking at, but my visit to the location made me much less sympathetic toward Mr. Kidd's plight. In short, fix up and clean the building and market the space better. I do not even believe that it is necessary to not have retail there, if it is marketed properly, but as Councilmember Souza pointed out, retail is not the only option.

"This evening we've been fixated on retail, we've been fixated on this notion of retail, and trying to find a use that meets the building, rather than trying to find a use that fits the building." And I'll say that again in a different way, we want to find a use that fits the building rather than altering the building to fit a use. I'm not convinced, I'm just not convinced at this point in time that we have exhausted and been creative in trying to find a use that fits the building."

I will say I am now convinced that even if we are fixated on retail, the window situation is not an impediment. What seems to be the bigger impediment is the condition of the building--and that is completely on Mr. Kidd. Moreover, the bigger impediment seems to be the lack of utilization of window space by the existing business rather than the lack of proper window space.

The council made the right call here and we can only hope that Mr. Kidd heeds their recommendations to renovate this lovely historical building--it is good for the character of the city and it will be good for his business. History and commerce should not be diametrically opposing concepts and there is no reason that the historical character of the Anderson Bank Building cannot be preserved while at the same time the location made more profitable.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Council Preserves Anderson Bank Building as an Historic Site

The Davis City Council last night voted by a 3-2 margin to accept the "no change alternative" to the Anderson Bank Building, turning back a heavily lobbied bid by owner Jim Kidd to alter the window structure of the historic building. Councilmember Lamar Heystek and Mayor Sue Greenwald were joined by Councilmember Stephen Souza to support the preservation of the Anderson Bank Building.

Mr. Kidd speaking before the council made the case based on the need to be able to better attract customers to retail purchases through a larger and more visible window display.

"Over the last twenty years I have been attempting to rent and keep retailers at the corner of the location of the Anderson building. For the most part it has been a constant revolving door of these struggling to be successful."

Furthermore he suggested that he has at times been forced to rent this space at well below market value--at times as low as 50 cents per square foot. It should be noted however, that that is not his current rent is nowhere near that rate.

The big push though was a direct appeal to the downtown businesses who had opposed Target and other big box expansion as a threat to downtown vitality and retail.

"The big boxes are at the Gates of Davis," he emphatically proclaimed.

"Our city is surrounded by big boxes... And they continue to pull our shoppers and our sales dollars out of the city. Perhaps many in this room have been tempted to shop outside of Davis at these big boxes. We need better stores and more of those sales dollars to remain in Davis."

At the same time, he admitted that this change was not going to really stop this.

"The change that I am proposing may not stop this flow of sales dollars, but it will help to improve this downtown intersection as well as the downtown."

Davis City Staff recommended against such changes on the basis of the EIR which found that these changes would make very significant impacts on the historic status of the building.

City Staffer Ike Njokou argued that the proposed changes would alter the building's ability to physically convey its previously identified historical significance.

"Part of the EIR analysis is what we call an historical resources analysis that was performed by an historian, preservation historian. And she indicates in that report that was made by the draft EIR that both Option A and B would impact the integrity of the building, however with mitigation she does believe that Option A could be implemented, staff's concern with that is it does create a disjointed appearance relative to the building because you have to present the window sill which is a significant portion of that building."

Moreover the window sill is the current defining feature of the building, and its alteration would completely alter the building and its historic nature.

"Because the sill, the window sill is deemed as a current defining feature of the building. If you were to remove that sill it does create an appearance that is no longer consistent with the theme for that portion of the building. You have to realize that this building has three uses and also is designed accordingly. The second floor is designed for offices, where Togos is, is designed for retail, and this 2500 square foot section is designed as a bank section or bank use space, and was used as such for a while with other uses at times."

The building while recognized as a city landmark, and is eligible to be formally nominated for the national registry has not yet been included.

According to the chair of the Historical Resources Management Commission, Rand Herbert, this is due to resistance by the Mr. Kidd to its inclusion. An inclusion that would probably and perhaps likely preclude any future alterations.

"National register nomination of private property have to be done by the land owner... It is my understanding that you cannot make an adverse nomination to the register... I don't believe that the city can nominate to the national register against the wishes of the owner."

Mr. Rand, whose committed voted unanimously to recommend the "no change" alternative, reiterated the point that Mr. Njoku made about the importance of windows for the historic nature of the windows.

"Windows are considered architectural historians and architects to be the single most defining feature of any building. And I think if you cast your minds eye around to house and other buildings that you've seen where the windows have been drastically altered, it has a big effect on the way that building looks. It was designed to have windows of a certain kind."

A strong argument was made by several of the importance of historic preservation for community. One of the things that has struck me about this community as I have learned more and more of its rich history, is how few buildings remain that are historic. It is tragic as to how many of the buildings of such historic value were already demolished.

As Robin Datel, former chair of the HRMC and current professor of geography at Sacramento State put it:

"I think that our downtown has very very important functions other than just retailing and that is that is our most important civic space. That is to say it speaks to who we are and who we were. And that's what preservation is all about."

This ideal of the character of Davis and the Davis downtown has been a pervasive and overarching theme in recent debates. This idea was picked up on by many both in attendance and behind the dais.

Councilmember Heystek spoke of the need to weigh the character of our downtown community in addition to the economy value such development may create and suggested that economic development does not belong on top of our hierarchy of priorities by itself.

"If we place the goal of economic development above all other goals, I think the city would look a lot different. I opposed the Target development, and there was mention by the applicant of big box development, I opposed that because I thought it was out of character for our city, no matter how many millions of dollars in revenue it would have brought the city in the years to come. And for the same reason, I believe that my position on that is consistent with my position on the Anderson Bank Building. I don't believe that altering this building is in character with our downtown."

Mr. Rand added:

"The general plan calls for the preservation of historic resources, the landmark status means that the loss of such a resource would be a significant loss to the community... Historic buildings have an attraction to people, this one is situation such that people getting off the train walk into town, they see a really fine building."

Councilmember Stephen Souza also spoke strongly in favor of preservation.

"In fact, I believe that it is a substantial adverse change to lower it. Our general plan policies encourage the protection, the enhancement, the re-use of historic and architectural resources. Option A it would detract from the historic appearance of the building. Option B would be more appealing, but it won't result in a substantive environmental impact. Mitigation measures, I don't care, regardless of what we do here, I want the mitigation measures enacted."

Mr. Souza spoke strongly and eloquently of the need for preserving this cherished historical landmark.

"The JB Anderson Building was built 93 years ago, and that building is part of the gateway to our community. That gateway has very few representations of what Davis was. Someone said it... "who were are, what we were," and I would add, what we want to be or what we will be."

"There are five commercial historic resources left in that area, this is the only, the only, landmark commercial two story building left... We can't remake them, we can't lower the windows, go back, and fix the windows, I believe, and create what was..."

Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson made a motion to approve option B, that motion was seconded by Don Saylor.

Saylor spoke strongly in favor of the remodel:

"This is a close call I think. Yesterday, I spent an hour and a half across the street from the building, just to kind of feel it, see what the building looks like... So I sat beside it awhile and let it talk to me."

The building apparently told him that he should remodel the windows.

However, on this day, Saylor and Asmundson were not joined by Mr. Souza. This was perhaps Stephen Souza's finest moment on the Davis City Council. He spoke eloquently and passionately for historic preservation. He also touched on a key point... that we have become fixated on the single commercial use for the building--that of retail. And while retail is vital, it is not the only type of business that exists in Davis and it is not the only way to make use of this historic space.

"This evening we've been fixated on retail, we've been fixated on this notion of retail, and trying to find a use that meets the building, rather than trying to find a use that fits the building." And I'll say that again in a different way, we want to find a use that fits the building rather than altering the building to fit a use. I'm not convinced, I'm just not convinced at this point in time that we have exhausted and been creative in trying to find a use that fits the building."

He continued to make a number of alternative suggested uses for the building. One of these included the creation of a restaurant.

"Rather than punch four giant holes under the windows to extend the windows, why don't we think about punching one small hole in the back to make it a stack and make it a restaurant."

Mr. Souza on this point is exactly right on. In many cities, you do not have a lot of street exposure or window space and they have to generate innovative uses for such space which is so scarce and valuable. I've seen fantastic businesses including restaurants and even retail stores that basically enter the street from glorified doors and hallways. The key is to be innovative. Mr. Rand had used the example of Bistro 33's spectacularly innovative use of the old City Hall. By thinking outside of the box, historic preservation and business do not have to be zero sum games.

As Mr. Souza put it:

"I don't think there has been proper marketing... you have to do proper market otherwise I don't care what kind of windows that you have in the building, you're not going to survive. I don't think that the windows make the use, I think that the business owner makes the use work."

Overall Mr. Souza was extremely critical of Mr. Kidd and his enterprise.

Mr. Kidd during his comments attempted to justify the state of the building by claiming to have pumped a million dollars into upgrades following the fire, many of which were according to him, not required. Instead he suggested he did it because the tenants needed them to be competition and profitable.

"During the past years I have spent over a million dollars restoring the building after the fire in 2002... [many of] which were not required."

Many present including several on the council criticized Mr. Kidd for allowing the exterior of the building to degrade. While Saylor used this as an excuse to give Kidd what he wanted, Souza used it as a point of criticism and condemnation calling his upkeep pathetic.

"The exterior of the building is pathetic, it needs cleaning. It's pathetic. It needs to be re-painted or cleaned, in fact, I would love to see it go back to the brick that it was, to give it the history that we should be up here cherishing, because there isn't much of it left for our grandkids."

In the Davis Enterprise article on Sunday, Mr. Kidd made the "threat" that if the council did not give him what he wanted, he would spend $75,000 to put it on the ballot himself. Such a self-serving use of taxpayer resources however would likely not go over well in this community and Mr. Kidd would be well advised not to follow through.

However, that was not the limit of his heavy-handed tactics. He also made the veiled and subtle insinuation that if he did not get his way, he would simply demolish the building. A threat he coyly employed as he made assurances that if he did get his way, he would not demolish the building.

"If we can come to an agreement tonight, I would like to do even more improvements and restoration to this building. In this respect I have no reason to consider tearing down this building now or any time in the future. If we can reach a satisfactory solution to the immediate issue, I would be willing to sign a pact with the city to that effect."

Notice that he himself raises this possibility as he goes about debunking the idea that he would consider that possibility.

Furthermore, he waged a very public and heavy-handed campaign to obtain permission that was denied just five years ago by a different council. This time, he got a number of merchants to sign his petition, some of whose signatures may have been acquired in the past. He posted signs around the downtown area and in the yards of some visible private homes. Finally he organized a lobbying campaign that included a number of emails. One councilmember remarked to me that they failed to recognize any of the names of the people--although some of those people turned out to be tenants and business associates of Mr. Kidd.

Councilmember Souza was most blunt on this point.

"I'll say this straight up Mr. Kidd, when I got those 64 emails, all coming from gmail, that convinced me that something very strange was going on here. I've never got 64 emails with everyone having a gmail account, usually its pretty varied, so it made me rather suspicious, I think you would have done yourself more justice if you did run a campaign as you did over windows."

On this point, Mr. Souza once again was dead on. He was joined in a 3-2 vote in favor of the substitute motion for no action moved by Heystek and seconded by Mayor Greenwald.

Tuesday marked a solid victory for those who support historic preservation. I must say in what will be a very brief remark for right now, that I came into this process with a slight lean toward the principle of historic preservation. However, I also sympathized to some extent with Mr. Kidd's viewpoint. I know several of the members of the council went back and forth on this issue as well. In the end, it was the conduct of Mr. Kidd and his heavy-handed campaign that turned me much more strongly into the opposition camp. This is not a campaign and should not have been conducted as such. If Mr. Kidd persists in his campaign, I believe the wise voters of Davis will see through his ploys and see them as limited and self-serving. We do not need more divisiveness. I strongly support downtown business and retail. It remains a reason that I so strongly oppose out-of-town big box retail. I believe however, we can accomplish far more working together rather than fighting each other on divisive issues such as this. Historic preservation and retail and commerce should be positive sum games--not zero sum games. That means that they should work with each other and not viewed as either/ or situations. Hopefully in the future we can remember that and work toward common purpose and vision.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Historical Preservation Once Again a Burning Issue in Davis

At the May 15, 2007 Davis City Council Meeting, the City Council will have a hearing on the Anderson Bank Building EIR (environmental impact report) and a decision as to whether to forward one of the project alternatives.

The issue of the Bank Building has been an issue in Davis for a number of years. On December 18, 2002, the City Council denied owner Jim Kidd permission to alter the windows. However, as seems to be the case with many developers, Mr. Kidd is holding onto his property that he purchased with full knowledge that it could not be developed under the current regulations that regulate historical preservation. However, that has not prevented him from bringing the issue up once again with a different council hoping that a governing body will eventually get elected which would grant his wishes to do the alteration. Preliminary indications are that it may not be this council either. We shall find out the answer to that soon.

In March, the Historic Resources Management Commission (HRMC) voted unanimously to recommend the "No Project" alternative, after voting down recommendations for Project Alternatives A and B.

One of the guiding principles here is Chapter 16 of the “Goals and Policies” from the City of Davis General Plan:

“The City shall review proposed alterations to City designated historic resources and improvements within historic districts utilizing the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and the State Historic Building Code.”

The Anderson building is one of the few historic landmarks remaining in Davis--one person in the minutes to the HRMC meeting suggested there are just 16 historic buildings left in Davis following a lot of the renovations that took place in the 1960s and 1970s where a number of historic buildings were bulldozed in the name of progress. The current owner of the building was fully aware that the Anderson Bank Building was a City Landmark when he bought it.

This is not the first time the issue of the Anderson Bank Building has come up. In fact, it came up just five years ago. The argument used by the owner then as now is that redesigning the windows are necessary for business purposes. The HRMC expressed the view recently that they were not convinced that the pursuit of Design Option A would improve the chances of retail success for businesses located in the building. Furthermore, as some commissioners suggested at their meeting, one of the single most important features on a building are its windows. The commission argued that "if the windows of this historic building are altered, the fabric of the historic structure will be altered irretrievably and unmitigably."

This issue arose in the newsletter of the Davis Historical Society in January of 2003. Retired UC Davis Professor John Lofland in his Op-ed, "Magical Beliefs, Small Retailers and Preservation" wrote:

"In Jim Kidd’s recent effort to add out-of-character windows to the Anderson Bank Building, we saw many small business people again and again proclaim that certain kinds of windows were critical to the success of the small retailer.

Curious about this, I went on the web and researched the topic of small business success and failure. This turns out to be a well investigated question on which there are a great many quantitative, scholarly inquires.

Signal to me, while there are some well-identified causes of failure and success, the nature of a store’s windows are not among them."

Professor Lofland speculates that the idea that windows are vital to business success as one of the magical myths, constructed to mitigate the uncertainty of business endeavors rather than rooted in any reasonable notion of scientific discovery.

Nevertheless Jim Becket, the volunteer director of Davis' Hattie Weber Museum, in his Davis Enterprise op-ed last week writes:

"The building's owner and the maverick Davis Downtown Business Association are urging the council to override the recommendation of the Davis Historical Resources Management Commission by selecting "Option B" in the recently completed environmental impact report. This option proposes to drastically enlarge the windows of the old bank building in an attempt to enhance its use as a retail outlet."

Mr. Becket following the commission also suggests that the owner purchased the building both knowing of its window limitations and its historical nature:

"I think owner Jim Kidd also made an error at the outset when he bought the building, which had already been designated with landmark status, with the evident intention of using the old bank and post office section for retail. It was a bad business decision, and I do not believe the council, the city or the public owes it to Kidd to bail him out of a bad business decision."

The building is a key part of Davis' rich history. As Mr. Beckett goes on to describe:

"I suggest that the downtown businesses should support restoring the Anderson Bank Building as a visible symbol of its vibrant, successful past. That is why the building was built — the downtown was generating so much cash that J.B. Anderson could not store it in the safe in his store anymore, so he sold his business and established a bank!

But the building was more than just a bank. Pause for a moment and look at the whole building and consider its significance. This businessman, who became the first mayor of Davis a few years later, had the business acumen and foresight to not only build a bank (with windows appropriate for the time period), he built the early-1900s equivalent of the beautiful, modern, present-day Chen Building that proudly stands across the street. The Anderson Bank Building makes a positive contribution to the framing of the contemporary entrance to the downtown."

The decision by the Davis Enterprise to run a computer generated graphic with a caption next to Mr. Beckett's column generated criticism and controversy among those in preservation community who believed it undermined and compromised the message of the author and therefore was inappropriate for placement next to the op-ed. Certainly even if the editors disagree with the opinions expressed in an op-ed, they could provide response or the picture in another location so as to not confuse the reader or dilute the message.

Instead, the caption asserts that the Option B window change would improve the property for business use. It also implies that the computer generated "photo" is attached to the op-ed. It neither states the source for the graphic nor indicates that neither the graphic nor its caption are the work of the author of the op-ed text.

In short, the complaint is that while the Davis Enterprise provided Mr. Beckett op-ed space, it used its editorial discretion and ability to control space to dilute his message.

And it is an important message. As I have become more and more acquainted with contemporary Davis politics, I have also learned in greater and greater detail about Davis' rich history. With so few buildings remaining from the time of Davis' founding in 1917, a founding that we are celebrating this year as a 90th anniversary of the incorporation of the City of Davis, it only makes sense that we fight to preserve not only the current character of our city, but also its heritage. That means we preserve whatever historical buildings remain from an era that in the scheme of things was not all that long ago. Hopefully in this year of the 90th anniversary of the founding of Davis, that fight can become just as pertinent as the fight to preserve our present character from large new development or the influx of national chain big box retail.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting