Why sign the petition against K Street revitalization efforts? Here we go again.  Pane and followers don't have the originality or creativity to put forward ideas and suggestions for businesses that would revitalize K Street, but they will spend their energy to be nay-sayers to SF entrepreneur's proposal to create entertainment venues. Sure the project is risky.  Sure it might fail.  Sure it uses tax money.  Have these self-appointed defenders of our tax dollars ever heard of "investment?" ... Dale thsas comment-6918 2009-04-30T04:18:06Z 2009-04-30T04:18:06Z ClairemontD, please tell me it isn't true! You do not know that the politics of SF iare held in shame by most Americans? thsas 2009-04-30T04:18:06Z AEmerson comment-6196 2009-04-15T18:48:26Z 2009-04-15T18:48:26Z apparently, you don't like to think outside your own little neighborhood dale. a brief google search on your name turns up a news story where you are quoted opposing Old Soul's aquisition of a liquor license which i find interesting given your current support of a nightclub on k street using the tva to support your argument. in short this piece you wrote is fine as long as it is represented as an opinion piece and not a news story. you can call it narrow logic but i still don't believe you have any other examples to cite because if you did they would not only fit your argument nicely they would have also been of interest to the community. AEmerson 2009-04-15T18:48:26Z Dale Kooyman comment-6195 2009-04-15T18:23:45Z 2009-04-15T18:23:45Z omf: You are entitled to your opinion but you don't get the broad application and similarity either. Incidentally, all redevelopment efforts are targeted at "making money" too in one way or another. What's worse you haven't the foggiest idea of what you're talking about when you cite those examples. Oh, well, ignorance is bliss (in this case, history, ABC codes, traffic engineering, et al) . You're not thinking outside your own little box. emerson: yes I could cite examples but I can tell from your "logic" hat you will find details,which are not exactly the same----that is your hang up: exactness, so not going to waste my time. Your mind is made up.--that ends the discussion for you and omf . Dale Kooyman 2009-04-15T18:23:45Z AEmerson comment-6180 2009-04-15T06:04:42Z 2009-04-15T06:04:42Z i get your point dale i just think it's weak but if you'd rather suggest i don't understand than that's okay too. out of curiosity, do you have any examples of similar development projects in other cities built around a similar deal that were or weren't successful? i suppose bottom line i feel like this piece was slanted and poorly researched. AEmerson 2009-04-15T06:04:42Z Dale Kooyman comment-6177 2009-04-15T04:42:59Z 2009-04-15T04:42:59Z Emerson: :You may be familiar with TVA but you still don't get the investment , risk and return connection and I can see never will regardless of how it is explained. The two have a great deal in common from the public's perception then with TVA and the public's perception of the K Street Mall. Neither deserve tax payer support--both are a lost cause no matter what you try it is like pouring money down a rat hole. Dale Kooyman 2009-04-15T04:42:59Z Zen comment-6158 2009-04-14T22:44:56Z 2009-04-14T22:44:56Z Dale whether you like it or not that is the perception and reputation you carry around town when you consistantly oppose projects and especially those that provide alcohol. When you make public comments about where restaurants and nightclubs should be, instead of Midtown, you create a reputation based on that. I apologize but I need to keep my identity private due to my line of work. We can still have dialogue regardless of who I am. It comes down to this: I totally disagree with your opinions on the matters of Midtown. Zen 2009-04-14T22:44:56Z The Parrhesiac comment-6154 2009-04-14T22:01:41Z 2009-04-14T22:01:41Z I am a centrist actually Billy, I support the rights of middle America, the silent majority. I have many values that some would describe as liberal...others would say they are more libertarian...I don't blow with the wind, I don't march in lock step with any political organization as 90% of Americans do. If individualism, freedom and having a great disdain for all forms of corruption are right wing values to you, then ok, you can label me as such if that makes you feel more secure. The Parrhesiac 2009-04-14T22:01:41Z The Parrhesiac comment-6152 2009-04-14T21:51:30Z 2009-04-14T21:51:30Z Now your learning grasshopper The Parrhesiac 2009-04-14T21:51:30Z The Parrhesiac comment-6151 2009-04-14T21:48:55Z 2009-04-14T21:48:55Z KJ has time yet to re-take that award. The Parrhesiac 2009-04-14T21:48:55Z William Burg comment-6114 2009-04-14T18:54:13Z 2009-04-14T18:54:13Z The important thing to keep in mind when discussing the mysterious Mr. Galt is that he considers anyone to the left of the John Birch Society to be "liberal." His main criticism of George W. Bush is that he wasn't conservative enough. I'm just wondering why he hasn't made like his namesake and disappeared into Galt's Gulch yet. William Burg 2009-04-14T18:54:13Z Ben Ilfeld comment-6106 2009-04-14T18:32:06Z 2009-04-14T18:32:06Z yes Ben Ilfeld 2009-04-14T18:32:06Z AEmerson comment-6100 2009-04-14T17:29:45Z 2009-04-14T17:29:45Z i'm pretty new to these forums but have noticed that mr. galt is not... just out curiosity has anyone else recognized the atlas shrugged reference already? once you make that connection galt's ravings make a little more sense. the individual over all hey john? AEmerson 2009-04-14T17:29:45Z Tony Sheppard comment-6092 2009-04-14T08:32:31Z 2009-04-14T08:32:31Z but these are not typical "liberal" causes or values at all - if just about anybody with any sense of the left/right political spectrum but with no experience in Sacramento politics was asked to guess the party affiliation of a politician doing things the way you describe them, the answer would likely be Republican more often than not - and there's no reason to expect that a Republican council wouldn't be just as pro-developer if not more so - and a good portion of the outrage on this issue is also coming from "liberals" (the business owners around intersections like 20th and K are nothing if not politically liberal) - i don't think there's any clear split on party lines here at all, it seems more likely to be aligned with neighborhoods and business interests Tony Sheppard 2009-04-14T08:32:31Z Tony Sheppard comment-6091 2009-04-14T08:22:02Z 2009-04-14T08:22:02Z lovely use of the word "reasonable" - there are clearly many "reasonable" people on both sides of this debate - and, as has been said before, given that this money is already contractually obligated to developments with this company (having also been raised on the proceeds of developments from this same company), i'm quite comfortable with it fighting urban blight in a portion of the city where several blocks of vacant storefronts have stunted chances of redevelopment - i walked from the cathedral to Old Sac yesterday with an out-of-town friend and it's embarrassing down there - OUR tax dollars are used on a whole host of things that one or both of us probably disapprove of, but arresting the descent of the central city before it looks like the set of a post-apocalyptic zombie movie is not one of my greatest concerns Tony Sheppard 2009-04-14T08:22:02Z The Parrhesiac comment-6088 2009-04-14T14:15:47Z 2009-04-14T14:15:47Z If you're not angry about the blatant corruption in this city, either you're ignorant, complacent or a collaborator. It is a fact that most politicians in Sacramento are liberal...therefore Liberals must be pro development, they keep voting along party/union lines and elect these liberals to office, who in turn pave over our Valley. Ray Tretheway and Heather Fargo fast tracked and built Natomas, paving over valuable farm land and creating urban sprawl...and they were both far left liberals...this would tend to disprove your assertion that liberals are against development. Also the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations supported Tretheway and Fargo. The Parrhesiac 2009-04-14T14:15:47Z AEmerson comment-6086 2009-04-14T06:27:54Z 2009-04-14T06:27:54Z you're so angry it's hard to take you seriously john. i think if you cooled down for a minute you'd realize that you're arguing with people who aren't necessarily disagreeing with you. except for the liberal thing. that makes no sense. i don't know of many liberals who are pro-development. or pro city government giving money to developers. quite the opposite actually. okay, let's see what part of that you start yelling and cussing about this time... AEmerson 2009-04-14T06:27:54Z The Parrhesiac comment-6084 2009-04-14T06:16:37Z 2009-04-14T06:16:37Z Well Tony unlike you, who obviously loves giving his money to the government, for many reasonable citizens the issue is in fact purely financial...as in not wanting to have our tax dollars going to line the pockets of a man who has corrupted our city council so he can build bars with OUR money. The Parrhesiac 2009-04-14T06:16:37Z omf comment-6083 2009-04-14T06:09:24Z 2009-04-14T06:09:24Z ps to john galt- I'd check the voter registrations on the folks who are running this project and voting for it on the council. Not many liberals, I betcha. Us liberal lefty types want to spend money getting homeless folks out of the tents and keeping the libraries open later, not subsidizing aquatic versions of Hooters. omf 2009-04-14T06:09:24Z omf comment-6082 2009-04-14T06:04:59Z 2009-04-14T06:04:59Z Comparing the Taylor development on K to the TVA is ridiculous on so many levels that it is almost not worth discussing. The TVA was a massive public works project (ala Hoover Dam) designed by the government to benefit the rural poor. The K Street project is a private plan designed by a developer for the purpose of making money. You can be for or against Taylor's K street plan, but to compare it to the TVA is absurd. But then, many absurdities (traffic calming, the street pole flier ban and the rejected liquor license for the Weatherstone) seem to originate from that 21st and H neck of Midtown. omf 2009-04-14T06:04:59Z The Parrhesiac comment-6081 2009-04-14T06:05:06Z 2009-04-14T06:05:06Z Paid off to whom Emerson? To Taylor? Redevelopment was never intended to build luxury hotels and martini bars. Redevelopment was to rebuild inner city ghetto's that the free market would not invest in due primarily to the socioeconomic and demographics of the neighborhood. K Street meets none of this criteria. K Street is one block away from our state capitol and left to its own potential, would rebuild itself without public investment. It is public investment that has only HARMED K street... I5 has cut it off from the water front, and the Westfield mall has made that situation worse. Many of you are newcomers to the K Street fiasco... In the late 80's & 90's the City and SHRA spent upwards of $200 Million dollars trying to revive K Street and yet it still FAILED! What is going to change this time? What will a couple of martini bars do to revive a poorly planned downtown that no one wants to visit at night. Midtown bars have thrived because people LIVE near the bars and restaurants, but that is not the case with K Street, and never will be no matter how much you wish for it. DEAR LIBERALS STOP LOOKING TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR EVERYTHING! It is not the role of government to build hotels and bars and give them to campaign contributors.. this is corruption...but you liberal moral relativists simply look the other way as long as it's your team being corrupted...you people disgust me. The Parrhesiac 2009-04-14T06:05:06Z Tony Sheppard comment-6080 2009-04-14T05:42:41Z 2009-04-14T05:42:41Z this isn't purely financial - part of what the city gets back is a main thoroughfare that doesn't look like a blighted wasteland Tony Sheppard 2009-04-14T05:42:41Z AEmerson comment-6078 2009-04-14T05:10:17Z 2009-04-14T05:10:17Z i am quite familiar with the tva dale and i still think it's a stretch. risk and investment are about the only thing the two have in common. the tva was a wide sweeping assistance program which provided irrigation, flood control and electricity, amongst many other things to a huge group of people during one of the worst economic times in our nation's history. i don't think i'm wrong in suggesting that the scope of the tva doesn't quite match up with the ambition of a nightclub project on k street. i think you would have been more successful had you found some examples of redevelopment projects comparable to what taylor has proposed which payed off for the region they serve. AEmerson 2009-04-14T05:10:17Z Dale Kooyman comment-6075 2009-04-14T03:50:42Z 2009-04-14T03:50:42Z Totally false perception, Zen, about what I want or don't want. Since you don't know me and I don't know you, you are accepting hearsay.. Let me know who you are and then we can have a dialog.. Dale Kooyman 2009-04-14T03:50:42Z Dale Kooyman comment-6073 2009-04-14T02:44:16Z 2009-04-14T02:44:16Z Emerson: First, you are wrong. I didn't dismiss the public market at all. If you read the article carefully, I wrote quite clearly that it was a great idea, but it too carried risk. The comparison seems silly and doesn't make sense to you because you miss the point completely. It is about the concept of risk and investment. All investments using tax dollars for economic development are comparable, but size and details may differ and deals are stuck on all. That's part of the package whether we like it or not. I could have named many other lesser known and smaller urban investments of that and subsequent eras. However, lack of familiarity with such a project would have caused readers to miss the comparison link. If you lived during that time as I did, then you would know that TVA was one of the most heated national controversies that spanned over 15 years, much of it because tax dollars of the middle class and wealthy were being wasted on "poor farmers" who in the opinion of the naysayers then did not deserve such help. Charges included they were uneducated people who would never make good, and they should help themselves. That only stopped when the payoff slowly began. Dale Kooyman 2009-04-14T02:44:16Z AEmerson comment-6072 2009-04-14T02:38:39Z 2009-04-14T02:38:39Z i'm not f*$&ing kidding you john galt. your scalding diatribe is correct though, it is the city we should be pissed at not taylor. doesn't change the fact that it's a done deal. even if this project gets voted down taylor can and will propose something else. it would be nice if through community activism he could be encouraged to do something better than what is proposed although we shall see. as for the most corrupt mayor we have ever had... i think you're selling kj short. AEmerson 2009-04-14T02:38:39Z Ben Ilfeld comment-6071 2009-04-14T01:39:06Z 2009-04-14T01:39:06Z What are the rates exactly? I have a feeling some real estate people can set us all straight. Ben Ilfeld 2009-04-14T01:39:06Z The Parrhesiac comment-6066 2009-04-14T00:12:47Z 2009-04-14T00:12:47Z Having money stolen from you and your family at gun point by corrupt elected officials who then give it to campaign contributors is not personal? The Parrhesiac 2009-04-14T00:12:47Z The Parrhesiac comment-6065 2009-04-14T06:09:58Z 2009-04-14T06:09:58Z YOU ARE WRONG! According to public testimony, The tenant is paying below market value for rents... and I suspect that Taylor et al.. will have an investment stake in these bars... BTW...The rate of the rent is moot....the building will be owned by Taylor, at least until he sells for a handsome profit, it like he did with the Sheraton. ( he does not have to pay back the City) So even if the tenant paid 25K a month only Taylor would profit. The Parrhesiac 2009-04-14T06:09:58Z The Parrhesiac comment-6064 2009-04-14T00:06:55Z 2009-04-14T00:06:55Z Yes! All built by this development team through no -bid contracts because he owns our city council. The Parrhesiac 2009-04-14T00:06:55Z AEmerson comment-6052 2009-04-13T22:10:54Z 2009-04-13T22:10:54Z This piece is built upon a pretty shaky premise. Regardless of who is pro or con, Taylor struck his deal and this is his money to use in the development of his choosing whether tax payers agree or disagree. Whatever side you stand on Kooyman's argument doesn't really make any sense, however, and builds a good part of it's point around a strange comparison. The TVA brought much needed, practical assistance to struggling farmers during the depression. To compare that program with a mermaid bar and pizza joint is just downright silly, especially whilst dismissing the construction of a public market in the same breath. A public market though also risky could serve a much larger audience throughout the day and evening as opposed to a nightclub which will be gambling on drawing folks to a stretch of Sacramento that has a poor track record of attracting visitors after dark. AEmerson 2009-04-13T22:10:54Z trapper comment-6039 2009-04-13T17:52:22Z 2009-04-13T17:52:22Z I asked a question Clare, please show me where I called Dale a name. trapper 2009-04-13T17:52:22Z William Burg comment-6038 2009-04-13T17:34:00Z 2009-04-13T17:34:00Z The flip side of wanting bars/nightclubs out of Midtown is wanting more bars/nightclubs in Downtown. For the past few years, Midtown has seen a lot of new restaurants, bars and nightclubs because the land is far cheaper than Downtown. There have been a handful of Downtown projects, but none without some kind of subsidy because the land costs are so much higher and the obstacles that much greater. The success of Midtown has proven that people will come to the central city to be entertained, and for someone driving in from the suburbs for that entertainment, or someone walking from a Midtown residence for entertainment, Downtown is just as convenient as Midtown. It also moves the kind of energy and vitality we have seen in Midtown into a neighborhood that desperately needs it. Calling Dale a shill is a serious cheap shot, "trapper"...he is a neighborhood activist who has been active in the community for decades. While Dale and I differ in opinion sometimes, I do not doubt his commitment or his integrity for a moment. Personally I like the current level of energy in Midtown, and as a Midtown resident I appreciate the convenience of having places to dine and be entertained in my own neighborhood, and take advantage of them often. But I worry about too much of a good thing: of having so many entertainment destinations in the central city that it becomes a free-for-all entertainment zone, where residents get trampled and run over by revelers who think of Midtown as a Disneyland where they can behave however they like, and neighborhood residents don't matter. I am also unconvinced that more entertainment destinations downtown will take away from Midtown's current level of energy. As the central city grows as a destination, it will bring in more people from surrounding cities, not just seeking entertainment but seeking a place to live close to the action. That means more total customers for a larger number of businesses, not a static number of customers--the cliched rising tide that lifts all boats. That level of demand will drive more housing development as the housing market returns, and more downtown residents that will shop and eat and play all over the central city. But in the meantime we can help make K Street into a more appealing destination. Since many people assume that Sacramento's central city begins and ends with K Street, the better it looks, the better impression we give to visitors and tourists and potential emigrants. Bringing K Street back, whether it is with retail or entertainment or housing, will take public money, at least in the short term, and quite a bit of it. It is inherently harder, but the potential benefit to the city is greater too. Downtown K Street has failed utterly as a downtown copy of a suburban shopping mall; it's time to stop trying, and try something else. By creating a nightlife district on K, it becomes the one thing that will draw people from the suburbs: something that they can't find in the suburbs. There are plenty of shopping malls already. William Burg 2009-04-13T17:34:00Z Geoff Samek comment-6037 2009-04-13T17:09:18Z 2009-04-13T17:09:18Z Please watch your accusations and keep things from getting personal. Geoff Samek 2009-04-13T17:09:18Z Downtownresident33 comment-6036 2009-04-13T17:03:17Z 2009-04-13T17:03:17Z The Developer is a Sacramento business owner who has taken significant risks in downtown Sacramento. The SF tenant is paying market rental rates and is receiving zero subsidy for the project. Entertainment venues on K Street have been a long-standing priority and these locations will be the catalyst for additional retail, housing, hotel etc on K street. I reiterate previous comments, please folks do your homework!! Downtownresident33 2009-04-13T17:03:17Z ClaremontD comment-6035 2009-04-13T16:54:57Z 2009-04-13T16:54:57Z True. Like the two theaters, 500-room Sheraton Hotel and 200-unit housing project - all built by THIS development team (among several other office projects). I don't think Dale is the only one who is not looking for Midtown to be the region's destination for night time entertainment, but the main point is right on... things are difficult enough - let's move on and try being a little proactive for a change rather than defensive. If the 'opponents' put as much time and energy into their own business as they are in trying to stop competition, we'd all be better off. ClaremontD 2009-04-13T16:54:57Z Zen comment-6034 2009-04-13T16:36:07Z 2009-04-13T16:36:07Z Dale just wants nightclubs and bars/restraurants out of Midtown. Anyone who knows Dale, or of him, knows that. The percentage of subsidy in the project is crazy for what the public gets back, but this issue is dead. Let them build it. If it succeeds great. If it fails I hope the CIty and Taylor learned a lesson. I do hope the economy recovers enough that the place does not impact negatively any other businesses and causes a current business to close. I wish the City and David Taylor spent the money better and invested in something other than nightclubs and restaurants. Haven't we learned that we need other businesses on K Street. The City needs housing, hotels, and other attractions at a critical mass. Zen 2009-04-13T16:36:07Z ClaremontD comment-6031 2009-04-13T16:03:41Z 2009-04-13T16:03:41Z Thanks Trapper for making Dale's point. Criticism for the sake of criticism. No vision, just name calling. Since when did SF become a negative connotation? Why is Dale automatically a shill? Could it be that he is right so you have no argument, just name-calling? Get your fact right, argue the points and grow up. Any one who signs this petition is unfortunately being mislead. (BTW the developer is from Sacramento) ClaremontD 2009-04-13T16:03:41Z trapper comment-5995 2009-04-13T04:06:44Z 2009-04-13T04:06:44Z Please sign the petition everyone, this handout to a wealthy SF developer has become the norm around here and there are much better places to 'invest' this money for the public good. Dale, you’re a shill for the SF developers aren’t you? trapper 2009-04-13T04:06:44Z