The Trader Joe's Conundrum for Davis

Over the weekend the Davis Enterprise reported that the deal between Trader Joe's and Radiological Associates of Sacramento (RAS) had fallen apart. The deal was in place whereby RAS would vacate their current premises in the University Mall so that Trader Joe's could occupy that spot.

Now those negotiations have fallen apart.

According to the Enterprise:

'It's not going to happen,' said RAS attorney Steve Boutin. 'We've been working hard to make this a win-win for the city. There's not much for us to respond to, because they've (Centro) just said no. What we're going to do is urge them to give this another thought, sign the agreement we've all negotiated.'

Boutin said that he, RAS representatives, Centro representatives and Davis Mayor Ruth Asmundson sat down together in October and hammered out a deal that everyone agreed on.

But last week, Boutin received an e-mail from Centro that said the deal was off.

'We got a letter out of the blue in which we got cold-cocked by Centro,' Boutin said. 'They very simply said the deal was no longer feasible. They didn't provide reasons or specifics, other than to say they were afraid of overriding market conditions.'

Part of the problem according to the article is that Centro may be having difficulty getting financing given the economy.

But this is only the beginning of the story.

The excerpt from the article quoted above indicates that RAS representatives, Centro representatives, and the Davis Mayor Ruth Asmundson met together in October to hammer out a deal. However, according to the Vanguard's sources, the city council never authorized the Mayor do this or even was informed that the Mayor would be doing this. The issue was never discussed at the council and the council never authorized any sort of negotiations.

Meanwhile the organization, DANG! (Davis Advocates for Neighborhood Groceries) is not happy either.

On November 19, 2008, they sent a letter to the Davis City Council and City Manager Bill Emlen.

"We have watched with great interest the reports that Trader Joe’s may locate at University Mall, provided that Radiological Associates of Sacramento (RAS) relocates to a location in West Davis. Further, we hear that the City of Davis is playing a role in facilitating this transaction possibly through providing various financial incentives to any or all of the four parties.

This alarming turn of events, if true, causes us great concern because it would mean that the city is assisting a very successful international corporation to locate in a part of town that is not in need of economic assistance. On the other hand, our distressed
shopping center in West Davis –which is in dire need of help from the city –continues to be ignored.

If incentives are being provided, we request that you state specifically what assistance, if any, the city is providing to facilitate the Trader Joe’s / University Mall / RAS transaction. And if the city is indeed helping, we further state that the city should provide a comparable level of support to DANG’s efforts to secure a market tenant in West Davis. As we are striving to find a neighborhood market tenant we'd like to add those possible city actions to our list of incentives for them to open up in Westlake Plaza."

Community Development Director Katherine Hess told the Vanguard that there is no financial arrangement with Trader Joe's. However, she later clarified that point understanding that the incentives that DANG refers to in their letter are a reduction in parking requirements. She suggested that the city would be open to doing the same at Westlake if that would make a difference.

However, this misses the point. According to the traffic and parking analysis, the building of Trader Joe's would require a larger number of parking spaces at the University Mall in order to accommodate the increased amount of customers using the facility. However, the expansion of the facility to accommodate Trader Joe's will actually result in a reduced number of parking spaces available. The city is not requiring Trader Joe's or the University Mall to provide for those additional spaces. Instead they are arguing that the parking lot is under utilized at it stands now and that they would simply increase the enforcement against people using the lot who live in adjacent apartment buildings.

My experience in that lot has been that they do enforce those laws. At various points in time when I used the RAK on campus and tried to park at the University Mall parking lot I found a notice on my car warning me that I could be towed if I did similarly in the future.

Moreover, parking is not an issue at Westlake. The parking lot there is underutilized. A new grocery store moving into that location would not need additional parking nor face that parking requirement. Therefore, DANG! has a point that Trader Joe's has gotten a financial incentive to move into the only location in town in which they were willing to move. The University Mall is currently occupied and bustling. The same is not true for either Westlake which has been without a grocery store anchor since May of 2006. East Davis Manor has similarly been without an anchor. The city has bent over backwards to accommodate Trader Joe's and get them to come into an already occupied location. Meanwhile, what has the city done to help Westlake?

Contrary to suggestions, Westlake right now stands a very good chance of finding a grocery store that would be willing to come into that location. The city needs to, especially given the current economic climate, prioritize bringing in businesses to existing vacant spots. Yet the city has to this point done very little to induce new grocers to occupy this empty spot that threatens the rest of the shopping center.

As I have mentioned many times, I have never believed the University Mall is a good fit for Trader Joe's, even without the issue of RAS. The lot there is too small to accommodate the number of cars. During the winter months, the birds are problematic with their excessive numbers and droppings. Finally, the area of Russell Blvd between Anderson and Sycamore is one of the most congested in Davis. You have one of the two major east-west arterials linking up with a major north-south connector. You have the university traffic coming into town and going onto the west side of campus. You have the major bike traffic from Sycamore. Now you want to put a market that is going to attract a huge number of customers from across the city to a location that is already congested? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Trader Joe's has taken an arrogant position that they will only move into that location. That also doesn't make a lot of sense. They seem not to understand that Davis residents would go to wherever the Trader Joe's was located. In fact, given traffic congestion at that location, it may do better in other places.

Despite the bleak tone of the article in the Enterprise, it still seems likely that some deal will eventually be reached, but the economic situation is one well worth watching as Davis looks to find other business and commercial suitors in the next few years.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Trader Joe's Finally is Coming To Town

There was a time, I would have greeted this news with great enthusiasm. But two separate and frankly unrelated events have caused my enthusiasm to wane for Trader Joe's.

It all started when Trader Joe's determined that the only location in Davis where they would move would be the University Mall on the corner of Sycamore and Russell.

Now it turns out there were a few problems with that location. One was that there was another business already there--Radiological Associates of Sacramento (RAS).

The Davis City Council two years ago approved zoning to allow Centro (the owners of the mall who do not live in Davis) to negotiate with RAS to allow Trader Joe's to move in. RAS refused and Centro sued them. The judge dismissed the suit. Eventually of course Trader Joe's and Centro got its way and RAS is moving to a location on Covell Blvd.

So the big company gets its way, this was precisely the type of company that I had hoped Trader Joe's was not. More on that in a second.

Second problem with that location is that they need to tear down the existing building and put in a new building.

Third problem with that location is parking which is virtually non-existent.

Fourth problem with that location is traffic congestion. Already the one-block area between Sycamore and Anderson on Russell is the most congested area in town. Now you are going to add a major new business that figures to be a huge draw. Do not drive by on Russell during the first few weeks of Trader Joe's.

Fifth problem is one few have discussed--the crows. If you walk around the University Mall during fall and winter you would think you are in Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds. Look at the asphault, it is soaked in bird dropping. When it gets wet, the place is absolutely punget. You want to put a major business there?

And as if all this were not enough, it turns out that Trader Joe's is not the progressive socially responsible business everyone has been... well crowing about.

As we've been reporting for a month now, there was a tragic death of 17-year-old farm worker who was pregnant, young Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez. Maria Isabel died from heat exposure after working long hours during the mid-May heat wave in the central valley. As importantly she died because the supervisor failed to get her proper medical attention. By the time she was seen by a doctor she had a core body temperature of 108 and slipped into a coma and then died.

The United Farm Workers report that Charles Shaw wines is the great supplier of the famed "Two Buck Chuck."

Now Trader Joe's is claiming there is no connection.

"Maria Jimenez was employed by an independent contractor, working in an independent vineyard. The vineyard supplies many wineries, but was not supplying grapes for Charles Shaw."

However according to the United Farm Workers this is untrue.

"Trader Joe's prides itself on serving the most progressive, health conscious consumers in our society. They should not evade the issue by pointing to contractor arrangements made by the winery to insulate itself from responsibility for exploitation of the workers. Trader Joe's needs to take moral responsibility and help end that exploitation."

The UFW site continues:

"The facts in this case are clear: Maria Isabel Jimenez died a tragic death while working on a farm--West Coast Farms--co-owned by Fred Franzia. Mr. Franzia is also the owner of Bronco Winery, which produces Charles Shaw wines. It is widely reported that 5-13 million cases of Charles Shaw wine is sold at Trader Joe's stores per year.

We are not denying that Maria was paid through a farm labor contractor. As attorney Robert Perez who is representing Maria's family in a wrongful death lawsuit told the Sacramento Bee, "The reason why corporate farms hire labor contractors is not to have to deal with farmworkers themselves and to shield themselves from liability."

So not only is Trader Joe's involved with the contractor, but they are shirking responsibility. This is very disappointing.

This week the Associated Press reported that Cal-OSHA slapped the farm labor contractor with the largest fine ever.

"The employer of a pregnant teenager who died of heat stroke after pruning grapevines for nine hours in hot weather was hit Wednesday with the highest fine ever issued to a California farming operation.

The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health fined Merced Farm Labor $262,700 for violating eight workplace safety rules. The agency said some of the violations were intentional. A criminal investigation also is under way.

State authorities believe 17-year-old Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez died on May 14 because her supervisors denied her access to shade and water as she pruned white wine grapevines for more than nine hours in nearly triple-digit heat at a Central Valley vineyard."

Len Welsh chief of Cal-OSHA told the AP:

"There was virtually a complete absence of shade or water, two of the very few tools that employers and employees have to fight the heat... It's just too bad we can't undo the consequences of those violations."

Cal-OSHA faulted the Merced Farm Labor company for not only failed to provide water but deliberately neglected to train workers and managers on how to stay safe while working in punishing temperatures. The company also willfully skirted preparing for a medical emergency. These violations are the most serious and each carry a $70,000 penalty--the maximum under the law. There is also a criminal investigation underway as well as a wrongful death suit filed on behalf of the family.

Yet closer to home, the mood seems jubilant that Trader Joe's is coming to town.

The Davis Enterprise quotes Davis City Councilmember Stephen Souza:

"It's really a great day to finally see that come to fruition. It seems that everyone has finally been made whole, and Davis will see the doors open to Trader Joe's. It is fantastic news for all the folks that love Trader Joe's and all those that will come to love Trader Joe's."

There was a day when I would have been one of them. But the long drawn out battle over location, Trader Joe's refusal to move into the empty shopping center in West Davis or East Davis and decision to push out RAS, and now their refusal to take responsibility for the actions of their vendor, really sour my mouth. I will stick with the co-op when I want something different to eat.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Cal-OSHA Again Shuts Down Farm Labor Contractor Responsible for 17-Year-Old Worker's Death

A few weeks ago, the Vanguard reported on the sad story of a 17-year-old farm worker who died of heat stroke after working for hours in the heat without adequate water, rest, or shade. (Click here to listen to our interview with Marilyn Calderon of the United Farm Workers).

On Friday, the Sacramento Bee reported on an update to the situation. The Merced Farm Labor had been allowed to reopen and send its laborers back to the fields as of June 26 after demonstrating to CAL-OSHA that it met all the requirements for heat protection for its workers. The company had been shut down because it was not requiring its employees to receive heat training.

However, on Thursday, July 3, state inspectors found once again that the company was failing to comply with regulations.

The Stockton Record is reporting that the state is in the process of revoking the contractor license of owner Maria De Colunga who is under investigation for the death of Maria Isabel who died from heat exhaustion in May.

The Record goes on to quote Paul Feist a spokesman for the California Labor and Development Agency, which oversees Cal/OSHA.

Feist said the department is working to revoke De Colugna's contractor license by September, the month her license comes up for renewal.

"Revocation would most likely prevent them from renewing again," Feist said.

"We're not going to let this contractor operate until we're fully convinced they're in compliance," Feist said.

These regulations are not exactly rocket science. They are required to provide water, periodic breaks, and shade. The company had been shut down and warned and they still cannot comply with heat regulations?

Here are the regulations as reported in the Stockton Record.

Companies with outdoor employees are required by state law to provide:

• Training: Train all employees and supervisors about heat illness prevention.

• Water: Provide enough fresh water so that each employee can drink at least one quart per hour, and encourage them to do so.

• Shade: Provide access to shade for at least five minutes of rest when an employee believes he or she needs a preventative recovery period. Employees should not wait until they feel sick to do so.

• Planning: Develop and implement written procedures for complying with the Cal/OSHA Heat Illness Prevention Standard.

Source: Department of Industrial Relations

None of these seem overbearing and most of it is commonsense.

We also now know that Maria Isabel was part of the production team for Bronco Winery which produces the "Two-Buck Chuck"--a best selling wine that is available exclusively at Trader Joe's stores.

The United Farm Workers are working to put pressure on Trader Joe's to change their corporate policies in order to protect farm workers.

Because Maria worked for a labor contractor, she most likely never knew she was part of the production team for Bronco Winery who is better known for Charles Shaw wines--commonly called "Two-Buck Chuck." This best selling wine is available exclusively at Trader Joe's stores. According to Trader Joe's web site, "these super-value wines began as the result of an oversupply of wine and a great relationship with a valued supplier."

Help us ask Trader Joe's to use their "great relationship" to protect the workers who labor to pick the crop. Ask Trader Joe's to implement a corporate policy to ensure that their suppliers are not violating the law by failing to provide farm workers with basic protections such as cold water, shade and clean bathrooms.

Requests of this type are not new to Trader Joe's. Back in 2005 after the Humane Society and customers expressed concerns, Trader Joe's agreed to sell only cage free eggs under the company's label. We commend Trader Joe's for this corporate responsibility and ask them to do the same for farm workers. After all isn't the life of a farm worker as important as the life of a chicken?

Trader Joe's web site says "we listen to what our customers tell us about the choices we give them." Please ask Trader Joe's to listen and take action today. As the exclusive distributor of Charles Shaw wines, they need to take corporate responsibility before more farm workers, like Maria die due to grower neglect.

This morning's Stockton record has an article on Trader Joe's and the UFW.

According to the article here is the connection between the farm and Trader Joe's.

The connection: West Coast Grape Farming is owned by the Franzia family, which also owns Bronco Wine Co., which produces Charles Shaw wines. The selection of wines, sometimes known as Two Buck Chuck, are exclusively sold at Trader Joe's, which caters to health-conscious consumers. Trader Joe's has a store in Lincoln Center in Stockton.

However, Trader Joe's has issued a statement saying that those grapes are not used for Two Buck Chuck.

Alison Mochizuki, a Trader Joe's spokeswoman, said in a written statement that the vineyard where Jimenez pruned does not supply grapes for Charles Shaw wines.

"The company employing the young farm worker has no more of a relation to Trader Joe's than they do to any other wine retailer or restaurant," Mochizuki said.

Further, the spokeperson claims that the company already implements strict policies for its vendors.

"Our vendors have a strong record of providing safe and healthy work environments and we will continue to make certain that our vendors are meeting, if not exceeding, government standards," Mochizuki said.

However Roman Pinal is not buying the explanation. He called the reply a "disheartening attempt to try to distance themselves."

To me this is a very basic request for human dignity. It is appalling that people have attempted in some quarters to justify this tragedy under the guise of the debate on immigration. Regardless of the implications of that debate, there will be farm laborers and they deserve basic workplace protections. What hiker even on a cool day would not bring a bottle of water? Now imagine working all day in the hot sun, with limited breaks, and even more limited water?

Remember that hot weekend in May when it was well over 100 degrees? Maria Isabel was out in the fields working for hours. They made water available to the workers finally after several hours but it was a 10 minute walk and they were only given a 10 minute break. After she collapsed, they put her in a hot van and waited for the other laborers before driving around looking for alcohol. They refused to take her to the hospital because they did not want to admit that she was underage.

As far as I am concerned, they should be in jail for manslaughter. And they should be civilly liable as well.

My patience with Trader Joe's has already warn thin due to local issues involving a proposed Trader Joe's that the company want to open at University Mall in a spot already occupied. They need to step up here and it is apparent that they may not. Until they do, I will not be one of their customers.

The worst part of this tragedy is that basic commonsense at any point along the way would have prevented the death of Maria Isabel. Now it is time for us to examine working conditions in this county and hope that we are doing the right thing.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

The Latest Installment in 'As Trader Joe's Turns'

When the owners of University Mall decided to sue Radiological Associates of Sacramento in an attempt to force them to vacate their spot at the University Mall in order to pave the way for Trader Joe's to arrive, we figured that was a politically bad move. Clearly it changed some of public opinion on Trader Joe's arrival to Davis itself.

As it turns out, it was also bad law. The Davis Enterprise reports this morning that Yolo County Superior Court Judge Tim Fall granted a motion to strike a complaint that he had previous amended because it too was faulty. The motion to strike throws out the lawsuit.

According to the attorney representing RAS, Steve Boutin, the landlords had preferred to file a lawsuit to negotiating some sort of agreement between the two sides.

"Their lawsuit was faulty and premature... What they had to do was say 'Here are the conditions under which we can relocate and how we can do it.' What they did was create a very mushy situation which we didn't even have an opportunity to respond to... Their attitude has been 'Hey, see you in court,' rather than talking.... Where it goes from here is up to Centro Watt [the property managers]. Our sense is that they're anxious to get Trader Joe's in there, but my clients intend to continue to provide radiological services."

All the more reason it was ridiculous for Trader Joe's to announce that they were coming to Davis in 2008. It's a shame and frankly I have lost most of my interest in them coming here because of all this. No they did not sue RAS, but they might as well have. They insisted that the only place that they would locate was University Mall.

The problems with that location go beyond the fact that the space they want to move into is occupied by another business.

I see three primary problems with that location. First traffic. The area from Sycamore to Anderson along Russell as well as on those two side streets are among the most congested in the city of Davis. So the city wants to put in a store that will greatly add to the traffic? That makes little sense.

Second, parking is already bad at university mall. Now you are going to add another store that will bring in a ton of traffic that needs to park. Moreover, any overlap between Trader Joe's and the Graduate events could make parking a huge nightmare.

Finally, and this is an ongoing problem, anyone who parks at University Mall during the winter season is a target for the Crow shooting gallery. I remember parking the car for five minutes last year to get a coffee for my wife, and coming out of the coffee shop the car was literally covered in droppings.

Add to that, the problem that we have basically two shopping centers literally dying for an anchor and the location that is already taken makes zero sense whatsoever.

The argument that Trader Joe's wants to be close to the center of town and by a highway makes little sense either. People in Davis will come to a Trader Joe's, period. We could put it out in the fields of the Northwest Quadrant, two miles outside of town and they would come in droves. In San Luis Obispo, Trader Joe's is located on the outskirts of town, not in the town's center. Doesn't stop people from going there. If Trader Joe's does not stop this insanity they will never come and people will get tired of it. They already are.

This is my favorite part of the article from the Enterprise:

"At City Council meetings and in letters to the editor, Davis residents have questioned why Trader Joe's doesn't open its store in one of Davis' vacant grocery store sites, one in Westlake Plaza on Lake Boulevard in West Davis and the other in the Davis Manor Shopping Center on East Eighth Street."

They will not say it, but every story we have written in the Vanguard, on the issue has raised the question over and over again. But it is funny that the townfolk seem to know so much more than the business owners themselves. Perhaps representatives from Trader Joe's ought to listen to their potential customers and ditch the corporate charts.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

City Wants Your Participation in Parks and Rec Master Plan Survey

It is with great irony that I opened an email on Saturday from Chair of the Open Space and Habitat Commission, Kemble Pope.

He writes:

Hi David, First of all, thanks for all of the time and effort that you put forth in maintaining the Davis Vanguard as an independent source of information and as a gathering place for interested Davisites.

Yes, flattery will probably get me to pay attention and at least consider helping you out.

As you are aware, the Parks & Rec Master Plan update is underway. A survey is available online that gives residents a first opportunity to voice their opinion on the future of parks, recreation, and natural habitat in our community. I was hoping that you could encourage your readers to take 6-8 minutes out of their busy day to complete this survey... there are plenty of opportunities to broaden the assumptions of the survey questions/choices by typing your personal responses as well.

http://www.city.davis.ca.us/pcs/masterplan/

FYI, the OS&H Commission will be meeting in joint session with Parks & Rec Commission in February to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Yes, and as Mr. Pope should be aware, I have been a strong opponent of using city funds in conducting another Parks and Rec Master Plan Survey, particularly when we had a large amount of unfinished projects from the previous survey. I am far from convinced that we need to do a survey to find out what people's usage of parks resources is and how we can better serve their needs.

It's not that I do not think these are important questions--but given limited resources, I do not believe this is the best use of $75,000.

Nevertheless, I give Mr. Pope space here for the very reason that he indeed asked. I want to encourage the city to start thinking outside of the box. The city did a survey back in the spring and discovered an amazing thing, while most people still received their information about the city of Davis from the Davis Enterprise, the percentage had dropped steeply from the previous survey. The internet had strongly increased as a source for information and news about the city. For the city, trying to get information out to the public, that means that they have to use non-traditional means.

I took the survey, it is a difficult survey to take in some ways unless you use the parks a lot, I'm not sure how helpful the feedback will be. It was interesting that in the end, it asked if people should be able to smoke in the parks and then if people should be able to drink in the parks.

The big thing I have noticed in the parks especially when I take my young nieces and nephews there is that we need to be able to keep the equipment in good maintenance. Other than that, I really do not have much to say about the parks, we seem to have a good amount of parks in the city, a good mix of large parks and small neighborhood parks. In any case, the city doesn't ask the one question I wish they would, whether they should be spending $75,000 trying to figure out what the public's needs are in terms of parks and rec.

Along the same lines, I note that the owner of Westlake Plaza is requesting a change:

"to the General Plan and zoning for the center to allow a remodel of the vacant 22,000 square foot supermarket space into new retail and office suites ranging from approximately 160 square feet up to 3,000 square feet. The owner of the center has signed a lease with a small food store to occupy 3,000 square feet at the front of the former grocery store space."

So let me get this straight, the owner wants permission to take what is currently a very small grocery store space and reduce it down to 3,000 square feet for a small food store? And they already have signed a lease with a small food store? There is a Circle K less than three blocks away, what would be the difference between the "small food store" and the Circle K that is literally right down the street?

"The General Plan currently requires the center to have a grocery store/ supermarket. The new food store does not meet the 15,000 square foot requirement. With the requested amendments a grocery store would be allowed but not required at the shopping center."

There are a few things I do not understand. First, why the city is not more supportive of continuing neighborhood grocery stores. Second, the owner of Westlake has allowed the quality of the building to degrade substantially over the past 10 years. They are finally doing some basic upgrades to the facilities. The city has a continued policy that rewards owners that allow their property to degrade.

Unfortunately there was a neighborhood meeting for this last week. Now this goes before the planning commission in January and before the city council in February.

I just think West Davis can do better than to take what was once a small but functional 22,000 foot grocery store and turn it into a 3,000 foot food store.

Then again, I am still dreaming of having a Trader Joe's there as I think the proposed location in the University Mall would be a disaster in a lot of ways.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Trader Joe's Pronouncement of "Opening in 2008" Ups the Ante

There is "squandered" and then there is "SQUANDERED." But I'm not sure I've ever seen someone this side of John McCain squander anything as badly as Trader Joe's has squandered their opportunity and the support of the Davis public.

Last fall, Trader Joe's was the one issue in this rancorous little politically minded town that everyone agreed on. At one point someone claimed that 98% of the public supported Trader Joe's. I'm not sure exactly where that number came from precisely, but if it wasn't actually 98%, it was close enough that we knew there was a strong consensus.

(also please vote in our new poll to the right)

The question wasn't if but when, Trader Joe's would come to town and then they would have instant success. However, in a move I can only chalk up to corporate greed, from one of those companies you just don't expect corporate greed from, Trader Joe's has frittered this advantage away.

I would still guess a majority of Davisites probably favor Trader Joe's coming, but there are now some deep-seated questions.

Their fall from grace began with the proposal in October that they would move into the corner location of University Mall on the corner of Sycamore and Russell.

There was just one problem with that plan--that spot was already occupied by Radiological Associates of Sacramento--a clinic that does radiological imaging, with a huge base of clients, many of them not very mobile, who had just sunk in a large amount of money to upgrade their on-site facilities and who had just renewed their lease, and therefore had no desire to leave.

Trader Joe's it was said would only move into that spot and not into the vacant Westlake Shopping Center or Davis Manor locations.

Not to be deterred from their ambitions, the Davis City Council decided to change the zoning on the corner that would facilitate Trader Joe's coming, even though a zoning change was not completely necessary, nevertheless the council was holding out the welcome mat. Then they stepped back to let the landlords finish their deal with RAS, which at that time was said to be just a formality.

The next we hear about this deal however is that the landlord is suing RAS.

At that point, I personally became alarmed, but was assured by one of the members on the council that it won't matter to the community, they simply want a Trader Joe's. The councilmember was flat wrong. What they forgot is that people have a particular adhorrence to lawsuits. They view them as unkempt and unnecessary. Moreover, the sympathetic partner is usually the smaller company who is being uprooted by the larger corporation. You have to have an open and shut case of being fundamentally wronged for people to be supportive of lawsuits.

What was the beginning of the shift. Suddenly 98% approval had been turned on its head. Large numbers of people began to openly question why this spot when we have open spots in Davis.

Still I think many people blamed the Santa Monica based landlord Centro Watt, who was the party that filed the lawsuit against RAS rather than Trader Joe's for this mess. No doubt, Trader Joe's insistence on this spot and only this spot was driving people to question their intentions.

And frankly I have always questioned this spot. First, Trader Joe's could put their store in the middle of Oeste Ranch, and people from Davis would come in the same numbers. Second, you have severe parking issues at University Mall. Third, you have the Alford Hitchcock-esque problem with The Crows. And fourth, you are adding a huge draw to that mall which is right in the middle of the most heavily congested traffic spots in Davis between Sycamore and Anderson on Russell Blvd. Now you are going to add a store that will bring in a ton of customers without an infrastructure upgrade.

West Lake or Davis Manor just makes much more sense than University Mall. Nevertheless a lease was signed in March, even without RAS agreeing to a move.

As I said, all of these issues aside, I think most people still supported Trader Joe's, but may have questioned their insistence on that particular location.

However, on Thursday came out the story from Claire St. John in the Davis Enterprise that Trader Joe's has sent out press releases announcing:

“Trader Joe's is coming to Davis! We are scheduled to open on the North East Corner of Russell/Sycamore. The store is scheduled to open in 2008.”

Now that is very interesting. For as the paper goes on to report, nothing has changed with regards to the lawsuit.

The e-mail comes at a time when a lawsuit filed by Centro Watt against RAS has yet to be resolved and nothing indicates that anything has changed between the two parties.

Attorneys for RAS said they were surprised that Trader Joe's would jump into the mix, especially since its information seemed to be incorrect.

“In prior correspondence, the landlord's attorney said the landlord would like to relocate RAS in either ‘spring or summer of 2009' or ‘upon expiration of the term' of RAS' current lease, which is on April 30, 2010,” attorney Michael Chase wrote in an e-mail. “It is our position that Davis Imaging will be staying at its current site and servicing the Davis community.”

First of all, I think RAS has a pretty good chance of prevailing in this lawsuit. But that is almost secondary to the second point and that has to do with the speed of the legal system. It's already July of 2007. If the lawsuit proceeds, we will be lucky if it is resolved by the end of 2008. It certainly would not be resolved in time for Trader Joe's to do all of the massive changes that they are proposing and be able to open in 2008.

All of that leads me once again to question what Trader Joe's is trying to do. Are they trying to brow-beat or intimidate RAS into moving? Do they expect the public in Davis that is at times very fickle is going to be supportive of this.

Frankly this move strikes as sheer arrogance on the part of Trader Joe's. Now this is Trader Joe's acting, not just some out of area landlord. They don't have Centro Watt running interference for them now, they are naked and exposed and many are not liking what they are seeing.

This entire ordeal is changing my view on whether or not I want Trader Joe's at all.

Meanwhile the Davis City Council is continuing to allow West Lake Shopping Center rot and hanging all of the other businesses out to dry with no anchor. It has been over a year since Food Fair left and amazingly all of the other entities have survived, but for how long? I'm sure people on the east side of town are saying the same about the Davis Manor.

I think the city council made a colossal mistake by signing off on a zoning change before a deal was struck, they now have no leverage at all. Davis was the perfect market for Trader Joe's. We didn't have to attract them, they had to sell us. And we blew it. Now this is a mess and Trader Joe's tactics are going to backfire big time.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Examining City Council Goals and Objectives

The Davis City Council will have another public workshop this Friday. First they will conclude their workshop on "Improving Transactional Effectiveness" and then they will have a staff presentation on the status of council goals and objectives.

The council has eight goals and objective for 2007-08:

• Maintain and improve the infrastructure
• Achieve long-term financial stability
• Enhance the vitality of downtown
• Provide a mix of high-quality housing to meet community needs
• Conserve natural resources and protect the environment
• Ensure top quality fire, police and emergency services
• Ensure organizational strength
• Promote economic development

This article will look at some of the specific policy objectives under each heading to see where the council has succeeded at least in their own goals and also discuss things that should have been included but were not.

The big objectives under "Maintain and Improve the Infrastructure," deal with the water supply and the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. In both cases, the city has moved along about at the rate that they wanted to. Both of these projects are massive and will end up greatly increasing Davis residents' water rates. The key question right now is whether this is what the city should be doing.

Last year, the city council agreed to spend $50,000 to $75,000 upgrading the parks and facilities master plan. It took a reconsideration of an agenda item after the initial item was defeated, due to the absence of Councilmember Asmundson. Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek would have preferred to have spent that money on unfinished projects from the previous plan rather than updating the current plan with an expensive survey.

Missing from the list is any upgrade in the quality of the roads, the workability of some of the traffic intersections and traffic lights.

In terms of the next goal, "Achieving Long-term Financial Stability," the council had a workshop where they look at various revenue enhancements, mainly in terms of new taxes.

The big thing that they did not do was seek to look at areas where spending has greatly increased that will end up costing the city. One such area has to do with upper level employees pensions and health benefits. These current practices for people in upper management may end up either bankrupting the city in future years, or at the very least leading to a large cutback in other sorts of spending as the city needs to get on top of a wave of retirements.

The third goal, is to "Enhance the Vitality of Downtown." Here it does not seem that they have proceeded on a number of their goals. Moreover, the big one that they did proceed on was the 3rd and B Visioning Process. My concern with their direction on this and other projects is that they are looking for ways to revitalize the downtown that are threatening the character of the city and the downtown. Tearing down some of the more historic buildings in the 3rd and B district is going to do far more to destroy the character of the city than it is to help downtown. Moreover, they have enacted projects such as Target that threaten the vitality of downtown.

The fourth goal, is to "Provide a Mix of High Quality Housing to Meet Community Needs." This is an area where I do not think the city has done enough. They have appointed a Housing Element Steering committee. We shall see what that process yields. What this city needs in my view, is a commitment to developing housing that families and younger and new home owners can afford. Not just an allotment of "affordable" housing for low income people that are really limited equity homes. We're talking about moving away from the model that has produced $500,000 to $600,000 homes. That means producing smaller houses on smaller lots and greater density of that housing. However, this is nowhere to be found on the city's goals.

The fifth goal, is to "Conserve Natural Resources and Protect the Environment." They have a list of items, most of which I have not heard of and most of which I do not believe have been acted upon. They do talk about recycling and composting. But I think the city needs to go further here. They mention the Davis Greenway Concept that includes locally based sustainability farms at the city's edge, but there needs to be, in light of county proposals, an all-out commitment to ag land preservation. Second, there needs to be a push for more electric vehicles for in-town use rather than internal combustion engines. Third, there needs to be a stronger commitment to solar power in new housing and perhaps even incentives for existing homeowners to purchase solar panels. Fourth, as they do in the north, they should convert all city road signs to solar energy.

The sixth goal, is to "Ensure Top Quality Fire, Police and Emergency Services." Here they have achieved a good number of their goals. It took them much longer than anticipated but they got the cameras and computers fully operational and for the most part reliable. They hired a police chief. For my purposes the top needs of the city are that we need more police officers hired and on the streets. I would like the city to look into higher standards for training in exchange for higher salary. The city is looking into a fourth fire station, and while I understand some of the concerns of a fourth fire station, particularly with regards to money, the suggestion has been made that the taxpayers could vote on it. I think that's a reasonable proposal from my observations. I can also see the need for a city-owned ladder truck, especially as the city continues to build taller and taller buildings.

The seventh goal, is to "Ensure Organizational Strength." This deals primarily with city staff. As I have suggested previously, I just do not like the city manager driven model of city government. I think it leaves elected council members, especially those who are in the minority, without the resources they need to do a good job of representing their constituency. Reliance on city staff has proven problematic at times. So one of the things I would like to see are reforms and changes to the overall structure.

A goal that is listed on their list of goals is to have in place by 2008 a living wage ordinance for City contracts and contract workers. This was a suggestion made by Councilmember Lamar Heystek that I strongly support. Will the current council majority support this goal? We shall see.

Finally, and this all appears to be future oriented, "Promote Economic Development." So far, I think this has not been an area of success. The first item listed there, is continue to work to ensure sustainability of Westlake Shopping Center. It has been over a year since Food Fair left this shopping center, and amazingly the existing businesses have primarily survived. But I do not think the city has acted aggressively enough to maintain this shopping center.

Second, they mention Trader Joe's. Here I think the city has really squandered opportunities by allowing the situation at University Mall with RAS. I talked to councilmembers after the lawsuit was announced and they felt that people just wanted Trader Joe's and did not care how it got here. Since that time, I have spoken to many people on the street and on the blog and I do not sense that type of attitude. Most do not understand why it has to be where RAS is currently located and most sympathize with RAS. The city lost a lot of their leverage by providing a zoning change prior to an agreement between University Mall and RAS.

Third, is the pursuit of the business and high tech research park. This is the issue that was postponed from last meeting's agenda. It figures to be an interesting battle on the slow growth side as to whether it is better to develop that as a residential development or a high tech research park. The latter has gained more prominence since the Tsakaopoulos proposal has emerged, although that is mainly a proposal for housing developments in exchange for the Stem Cell Research facility, it is unlikely to be available without the housing development.

Finally, we can put the Davis Manor in the same position as Westlake Shopping Center. Both of these locations would make far more sense for Trader Joe's and other additions than the University Mall. The council is seeming to allow two key neighborhood shopping areas lie underutilized for a substantial period of time.

A number of the goals on this list are laudable if overly ambitious. However, my sense over the last two months is that much of these are taking place at the expense of the existing character of the city. I do not oppose housing development, vitalization of downtown, or economic development, but I would like to see plans that integrate these projects into the existing character, rather than what I think is a rapid destruction of existing character. Make no mistake, Davis is under siege in a lot of ways. The question for Davis residents, is "Do you want a city that continues to look and feel like Davis? Or, "Do you want a city that looks more like Fairfield, Vacaville, or even worse some of the more rapid growing Central Valley Communities like Elk Grove and Natomas?" These are the key questions we must ask ourselves as we try to go forward with many of these laudable and necessary goals.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Analysis: RAS Sued to Allow Trader Joe's to Come to University Mall

Davisites who agree on little else and who famously fight on most things, have in large numbers supported a Trader Joe's coming to town. Indeed, Trader Joe's is a small scale retail entity that transcends most of the typical problems in Davis associated with development. For one thing, its product of various wines, beers, organic and vegetarian foods, are right up the ally of Davis' sensibilities.

For those who care about such things, Trader Joe's, fits into the Costco-Starbucks model of employee treatment. They pay their workers well above market and even union wages. Furthermore, for those employees who work over 20 hours, they provide a good health insurance package. This type of socially responsible treatment of employees should be welcomed and encouraged in Davis. This is contrasted by the Wal Mart and Target anti-union, low wages, model, where upon low prices are balances by cut-throat, union-busting activities that deny good wages and good benefits to most of their entry-level workers.

It was for these reasons that last fall, the Davis City Council bent over backwards to throw out the welcome mat to Trader Joe's. They even went so far as to approve a zoning change at the University Mall to pave the way for their arrival. There was just one problem with this plan, the place designated for their arrival was already occupied with a business who had in 2002 signed a 14-year lease. The council at that time was assured that negotiations were underway and that they were occurring in good faith to bring about some sort of an amicable solution for all involved.

And here begins the problem. Even at that time, the move was threatening to doom local businesses in the Mall like Teriyaki Express and La Esperanza, who would have to move if RAS moved into the mall.

That problem has grown worse as last week, it was reported that the landlord of the University Mall is now suing that business, Radiological Associates of Sacramento (RAS). Apparently these negotiations have broken down. Based on reports in the Davis Enterprise last week, the suit caught RAS by surprised who believed they were in the middle of negotiations and that communication had been ongoing.

The Davis City Council has no authority over leases and thus little say in the private negotiations of these entities. However, one thing they did have control over was changing the zoning designation to allow the move. I would argue that perhaps the City Council jumped the gun by approving the zoning change. That they gave away whatever leverage they had over the negotiation process to ensure an amicable agreement between both parties and that RAS received the treatment that they deserved as a long-time and locally based business.

Mayor Sue Greenwald defended the council's decision saying that their top priority was to ensure that Trader Joe's, a business that everyone in Davis wants to come, would come to Davis rather than Dixon or Woodland. She said that the zoning change was unnecessary, rather they used it to signal to the company that they were committed to bring them to town. Moreover they did not foresee this type of situation occurring. Their concern was primary to demonstrate to Trader Joe's that they were serious about bringing their business to Davis given that Davis has a reputation of not being business friendly.

There are concerns about the viability of the Mall in its current composition. Gottschalks is said to be in trouble at that location. The Mall is badly in need of another anchor. There is the belief that an office such as RAS is inappropriate for that location. Given the proximity of the Mall to a large student population, I do not understand how supermarkets at that location have failed. The belief is that a Trader Joe's would be a perfect fit as a small store that is a tremendous draw to the local community.

The belief is that most people in Davis want a Trader Joe's to come here, period. However, the actions of both the company and the landlords who are based in Santa Monica, have begun to give me pause.

First of all, Trader Joe's has basically demanded access to the University Mall or they will not come. That location is a more centrally located location. However, it has some problems as well in addition to the fact that a business with a 14 year lease is already occupy their preferred site and that that business has already pumped in one million dollars worth of upgrades to the site. It would also cause disruption and hardship to a number of elderly clientèle.

Even without the problem facing the move with the lawsuit, there are questionable aspects of the University Mall. The Mall does not have a tremendous amount of parking to begin with and the expansion of the store without adding a facility, would seem to make that even more difficult. Overlap with events at the Graduate could produce catastrophic problems. In addition, the road capacity has to be in question. That is already one of the more congested portions of town from the Sycamore-Russell intersection to the Anderson-Russell intersection, where the mall lies, already has traffic congestion, now add in a major business that will draw traffic from all over town and perhaps from out of town, and you have a real mess at times.

That leads to the question why University Mall and not either Davis Manor or Westlake, both of which have room for a Trader Joe's? Let's face it, they could put their store in the middle of a field up in the Oeste Ranch and people would come. So why the need for a central location?

This gets me back to the Davis City Council approving the zoning changes prior to an agreement was reached. Again, I think the council erred in their decision--which was based on threats from Trader Joe's to give them what they want or go to Dixon or Woodland. It is my opinion that the City should not be blackmailed into making poor land use decisions by threats from companies to take their business elsewhere. If Trader Joe's believed that Davisites would drive to Dixon, why did they have such a problem with locating in West Davis?

The lawsuit has now threatens to undermine the chances of Trader Joe's moving to Davis. Unless RAS bows under pressure of the suit, which many deem unlikely given their financial stake and current legal resources, this will drag out the fight for a couple of years, delaying or even preventing a Davis Trader Joe's store. The council having already granted a zoning change, now has no power to act in this fight at all or to try to even broker an amicable agreement.

This entire episode is as unfortunate as it was unnecessary. I would have liked to have seen Trader Joe's come to town, but these events are changing my view on such things. I think it was unreasonable for them to demand University Mall, I think it was a mistake for the City Council to encourage that move at the expense of a successful existing business. I think it was a bigger mistake for them to cede whatever formal power they had in this entire process--limited as it was.

I like small and progressive businesses like Trader Joe's. I think that is the kind of retail that we need to encourage in Davis. What I do not like are the hardball tactics that they have displayed. There are many suitable locations in Davis, in my opinion, the issue of RAS aside, the University Mall is not. Davis Manor or Westlake are the places to go. Now we just need someone with the power and prestige who can make that happen.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting