The
legitimate concerns were headed by the contention that the proposed layout is
reminiscent of the 1980s. I
concurred. I further noted that, beyond
the aesthetic concerns, the configuration would result in infrastructure that is
likely financially unsustainable. I
simply don’t believe that Red Barn, as currently proposed, is a good project
for Petaluma.
(Acknowledgement:
As I’ve noted before, I know a number of Davidon people. I’m disappointed that their houses aren’t
consistent with the growing ethos of the 21st century, but Red Barn-type
developments are what they’ve been building for years and what they know how to
build. They’re following the market as they
understand it.
I find the
Davidon folks to be generally likeable and honest. But I likely would have said the same about many
buggy whip manufacturers a century ago. We
know how that turned out.)
Among the
criticisms that were founded in a misunderstanding of process were concerns
about the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). On that one, I give Davidon a pass. The California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) opens the door to an impossibly broad range of studies, which can
quickly grow beyond the financial capabilities of a city or a developer.
Decisions
must be made about a DEIR scope that can be easily disparaged by project
opponents because criticism is easier than report preparation. The opponents may be judged accurate in some
of their objections, but I haven’t seen anything that makes me believe that
Davidon was less that forthright in their work.
Instead, any differences of opinion seem to be reasonable people viewing
the world differently. It happens.
Which brings
us to the criticisms that I thought were wrong-headed. Primary among those was the description of
Davidon as a “Walnut Creek developer”. The
implicit complaint was the Petaluma would be best served by a local
developer. Although I agree with that
sentiment, I find the criticism unjustified on several counts.
The first is
the nature of California land development approval process. Entitlements are difficult to secure, with
many projects failing to move ahead. The
only rational response is to have multiple projects in the entitlement process
in different communities, with the hope that the surviving projects can provide
enough profit to make up for the losses on the projects that fail.
So, a developer
who pursues projects in multiple markets, including communities other than his
own, is behaving rationally in response to difficult market conditions. It’s not a fair basis for complaint.
On a related
point, a developer, much like a factory owner, must keep his employees, his
consultants, and his contractors continually busy. If the team members are forced look elsewhere
for work, a well-functioning team begins to break down. So developers must have multiple projects in
the entitlement process at all times, including in multiple communities. They refer to this as “keeping the pipeline
full”. It’s a rational response to a
business reality.
My third and
final point is the one that is closest to my heart. Local developers, who work only in their own
communities, are more at risk because they can’t hedge their bets or keep their
pipelines full. Instead, they are
risking much of their net worth to gain entitlements on a single project for
which they must assemble one-time teams.
It is a more adverse business model than that of regional or national
developers.
Despite
these marketplace disadvantages, I believe that local developers have much to
offer their communities. Their affection
for their hometown can lead to buildings that are part investment and part love
note to their towns. Looking around the
North Bay, many treasured landmarks were built by local businessman. The McNear Building in Petaluma is just one
example.
Accordingly, I believe that local developers
are worthy of particular support. But
that support is rarely offered. I don’t have
a comprehensive list of local developers who have pursued development over the
past decade. But I can compile an
anecdotal list of local developers who failed to secure local support and fell
victim to personal bankruptcies, foreclosures, and other forms of financial
distress.
If you
believe that local developers can offer something special to their communities,
a belief which I would share, then it’s important to demonstrate that
belief. To actively support local
developers, not just to criticize other developers for not being local.
I know well that
it’s easier, and more exciting, to be in opposition to something. But good community growth requires stepping beyond
that emotional reality to actively support local developers.
(Acknowledgment
#2: The thinking behind this post began to crystallize months ago. Since that time, I’ve joined the team for a proposed
hotel in downtown Petaluma. The applicant
is an owner/architect who is among the ranks of the local developers who I believe
is worthy of particular local support. I’ll
willingly acknowledge the apparent conflict of interest.)
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
For years I have been content with the "do nothing" approach to the Red Barn. It's lovely and characteristic and at my favorite gateway to our community. But I have been content largely because I knew a dedicated group of Petalumans had organized and raised significant funds to help preserve this green space adjoining our Helen Putnam Park. The reality of the Davidon project now moving ahead has ended my wishful thinking that the land could readily become designated open space or park. So here's what I'd like to know. From the perspective of land use planning, is parkland or open space a Good Use of this land? In terms of good planning for community wellbeing — fiscally, recreationally, etc. — are there are good ways to develop the Red Barn and its environs? And finally, is Davidon so committed to generating significant payback from their ownership of the property that they are obliged to go all out to do so?
ReplyDeleteBarry, you ask reasonable questions, but the answers must be subjective. My responses are:
Delete1 - Parkland or open space is certainly a good use of the Red Barn. Whether it's the best use is the question. I believe that parkland or open space is better than the Davidon proposal. But I also believe that there are other development configurations that would make the answer more difficult.
2 - I suspect that there are responsible ways to develop Red Barn. But until someone has the time and resources to develop a new plan, I'm limited to a suspicion.
3 - I'd expect that Davidon's pro forma on Red Barn shows enough profit potential that they won't walk away readily. (They may already be $2 million into the project.) But no developer can justify going all-in on a single project.