Jump to content
I don't see Apple, Microsoft and Google sharing a campus.
Potential customers find it convenient to go to one spot to shop. Thus, we have shopping malls, auto dealer strips and so on.
The article said "outdoor manufacturers" which would be far more like my first example of Apple, etc. If the goal was a bunch of retail shops selling outdoor equipment then it would make sense to co locate. But that is a heck of a big expensive parcel for a bunch of outdoor products shops.
I do not presume to own the property. I have no expectation of purchasing the property and thus do not expect to have any say in the future use of that parcel as long the future use conforms to current zoning.
From what I observed in Silicon in my youth, I have concluded that more a city "directs" the use of a parcel or attempts to find a "suitable" tenant then the worse the results. Cupertino did not ask a young Apple Computer to move into nondescript commercial space. Los Gatos did not ask a new dvr mail order company called Netflix to move to their town. The valley is literally full of companies that were nothing 5, 10, 20 or 30 years ago. The big companies 35 years ago were Lockheed and HP which have a far smaller presence now. Apple's proposed massive space ship used to be one of HP's main research centers.
San Jose did ask and subsidized United Artists to be the anchor tenant at the redeveloped downtown movie theater. That subsidized competition nearly drove out of business the locally owned downtown art and foreign film movie theater. But when the subsidizes ran out then UA literally left in the middle of the night taking all of the expensive projectors and other valuables. Only then did San Jose offer the downtown theaters to Camera One to operate showing standard commercial movies.
As I have posted before, there is a reason that area is called Silicon Valley and not San Jose Tech. San Jose has all the way along been far behind the neighboring cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, etc at attracting top tech companies. And the lesson should be is that those cities never "attracted" their successful companies. They welcomed new companies regardless of how crazy their business appeared and then were nice when the companies took off and applied to grow.
Thus, the best that the city of SB could do is not mess up the plans of the people with the money to do something with the TIC parcel.
I suspect the a major reason why the county commissioners have a more stable relationship with their government manager is because they have a day of work sessions on the topics on the next day's agenda. So they have a day to learn about the issues and ask questions before making a decision. Thus, a poor staff report results in lots of questions to be answered before tomorrow's meeting. That means the county commissioners are in better control of the direction of the county and would only need to replace the county manager for having poor management skills.
Meanwhile, SB city council gets a bad staff report at the meeting that is expected to make a decision. They have to ask themselves is the staff report so bad that it prevents a decision? And thus, city staff, by presenting biased staff reports, is in a much greater greater position to influence their elected officials. And that means that the city council ends up having to change the city manager to change the direction of the city.
Thus, it seems to me that SB government would likely be better run if at least some of the city council stated they were going to have a public work session prior to each city council meeting where they work through the meeting packet to to understand it and ask questions to be answered by the city staff prior to the next council meeting. The meeting packet is done well in advance so that work session could be held on the Thursday prior to the city council meeting.
This board should be disbanded and the Trails Alliance should be tasked by the city council to come back with their proposals for what trails to build first that will meet the goals of the accommodations tax of attracting visitors to SB.
The fundamental problem of having a board as proposed is that it assumes that the other board members all share the same vision of trails attracting visitors and these people are on the board to improve the quality of the resulting proposal. In reality, there is little such reason to believe such a shared vision exists and instead board members are lobbied as a source of funding for all sort of projects. And does the board seat for the Chamber have greater loyalty to trails or to the Chamber's interests?
It is the landfill's prerogative to set their policies. If a gas station wishes to charge double for those driving vehicles they consider to be in poor condition then that would be their choice. People would just go elsewhere. The dump, by having that policy, is stating that uncovered loads are not welcome, but they will accept it for an extra charge so that next time the load will be covered. The landfill concluded that requiring their customers use a tarp to cover their trash loads to the dump is not a particularly difficult burden on their customers. there is no obvious reason why someone cannot cover their load of trash being brought to the dump.
Why are uncovered loads not welcome? Because trash can blow off and they don't want the roads near the dump to have obvious large amounts of trash.
This intern is an embarrassment.
The mj industry is trying to get away from growing indoors under lights as being too costly and environmentally unsustainable and get permission to grow in greenhouses on agricultural land, but this intern suggests the warehouses on commercial land for growing food? Is he willing to pay $20 a pound for tomatoes if grown in SB buildings?
Instead of invoking socialist communal fantasies for a parcel at the intersection of two major roads, how about tasking the intern to learn what sort of uses comparable cities have seen occur to similar parcels? And ask those governments if they think certain government policies helped or hindered the development of that parcel.
I know the idea of learning from others is stridently opposed by city staff, but let's be nice to the intern and help him to become competent so that he might ever get a job somewhere else. City staff could easily call that research as "work product" and not give his results to the city council or the public in order to try to maintain control of their vision of how the parcel should be used.
The only thing for me to do on the board would be to suggest the board should be disbanded and then resign. The trouble with the board is that the board already consists of people not in the Trails Alliance or clearly supporters of trails. So there is already pressure to compromise and toss money at projects not part of the voter approved vision of creating trails to attract tourists.
That a very expensive trail to the Legacy Ranch was among the first proposals is an indication of that problem. Seriously, would anyone decide to come to SB because it has a trail to the Legacy Ranch? Of course not, but the Legacy Ranch is a bit of failure based upon how few visit it so adding a trail is desirable for Legacy Ranch supporters.
I think Trails Alliance now has to constantly ask the question if it is beneficial to be part of this board or would they be better off being independent and making their case to the board and then again to the city council.
Well, even a broken clock reads the right time twice a day. :)
I think the idea of a collection of outdoor manufacturers is extremely dumb and naive because, in the real world, companies are competing with each other, hiring key employees from each other and key employees leave to start their own companies. Not a whole of lot of reasons wanting to be located on the same campus with your competitors.
I would not be surprised by a proposal for big box retail. I could see Walmart or Target asking for a normal sized for them store. They could present statistics on all of the 'leakage' that could prevent by being able to carry more products. That probably would include a full grocery. Likewise, I could see Home Depot or Lowes making the same argument of stopping leakage.
Yeah, that is an odd comment because the general public can talk directly to the relevant city dept to get public information or even make suggestions.
City council members should be advised that city policy and directives are to be made in city council meetings.
If that is how Hinsvark intends to control the city council by controlling their access to staff and information then hopefully city council will first review city staff reports to be sure they are comfortable with the accuracy and completeness of the information being presented before they will consider the issue at hand.
The city staff reports on the police station and benefits of Yampa St redevelopment read like marketing brochures and not unbiased staff reports.
Kern predicted the community soon would have a broader conversation about what they'd like to see the property become.
I'd like the property to become an example that the free market, not city government, determines what investors think will be the most profitable use of a commercial property.
Last login: Sunday, December 1, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.