Santa Cruz Observer

$1.8 billion left Santa Cruz last year -- Why?

FIRST IN A SERIES

By TOM HONIG

Three days after the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989, the late Mardi Wormhoudt, then Santa Cruz's mayor, walked with President George H.W. Bush along the quake-shattered Pacific Avenue Garden Mall, explaining to him that Santa Cruz's downtown was a collection of small, locally owned shops. It was a description that has been at the heart and soul of Santa Cruz's downtown for years, affirmed by a 36-member citizens committee that got together and envisioned how Santa Cruz would recover from the earthquake.

That small, locally owned ethic has remained in the minds of locals since then: an image that fits nicely with how many Santa Cruzans feel about themselves.

But 22 years later, that image just might be tarnished. Santa Cruz's Redevelopment Agency and the Santa Cruz Area Chamber of Commerce have sought the help of a national retail expert, and he's throwing some cold water on some old ideas about how Santa Cruz's downtown should look.

The consultant, Robert Gibbs, has visited this week, and his research has focused on some harsh realities that will get both the city's government and its citizens thinking about whether change is in our future. His entire report is here, on the Santa Cruz Area Chamber of Commerce website.

Let's start with perhaps his most significant finding: some $1.8 billion -- with a "B" -- left Santa Cruz last year because people are leaving town to shop. Here's what his report says:

"Although the study area had an estimated 2010 total retail expenditure of nearly $2.16 billion by the residents of the study area, only $312.3 million has been captured by retailers within the city of Santa Cruz (according to sales tax records) – retail leakage of 85.5 percent."

That means that residents of Santa Cruz are spending their dollars elsewhere.

Here's why that's a problem: the local economy is missing out. A bigger problem: revenue from sales tax is going to cities outside Santa Cruz. 

Former City Manager Dick Wilson for years worried that Santa Cruz is a low-revenue city, with city services suffering because of a lack of money. In California, local cities and counties depend mostly on sales-tax revenue more than any other source. And, sure enough, this year the City Council was not able to meet funding requests from non-profit, charitable organizations that look to the city for help.

Some might like Santa Cruz the way it is. Some no doubt appreciate that Santa Cruz doesn't have the chain stores that other communities have. But there's a cost -- and that cost is probably about equal to the $1.8 billion that's leaving the county.

What's the solution? Some fixes are easy: Gibbs recommends putting up better signs and maybe even changing the one-way configuration of Pacific Avenue. But others demand extensive planning and even some soul-searching. Will Santa Cruz make some basic changes and allow a different commercial mix in its commercial center?

The old-time image of Santa Cruz and the realities that we face may not jibe. And that's the discussion that the entire Santa Cruz community needs to have with itself.

Not just for techies -- Santa Cruz City moves toward a more open government

By TOM HONIG

Truly important government decisions aren't always easy to notice. Sometimes it's the decisions that pass with little notice that really make a difference.

That's the case with a vote by the Santa Cruz City Council Tuesday night. The council approved recommendations from a citizens' technology committee that has researched and promoted new uses of technology -- all for the purpose of making government more open and more responsive to the public.

I admit to questioning the process -- largely because I'm not a techie and I have a skepticism about relying too much on machines. But just a tiny bit of research shows that this effort is an important one.

If you doubt it, take a look at this video of a speech by Peter Koht, economic development coordinator for the city of Santa Cruz. Speaking at a conference recently in Washington, Koht puts his finger on one of the biggest problems facing governments at all levels: the dominating power of vocal "outliers" who dominate the political debate at the expense of "the reasonable center."

His solution? It's called Government 2.0 and that's where technology comes in. The citizens committee that reported to the City Council Tuesday asked for and received three steps that move in the direction of open government.

Here's what they requested:

1. Develop and maintain a Broadband Master Plan for addressing connectivity needs in future years. What that means is to encourage the installation of bigger cable all over Santa Cruz.

2. Systems Interoperability. What that means is implementing a plan to make data more uniform -- and readily accessible to the public. Too often, data is held in different places, and not accessible to the public.

3. A resolution authorizing the city to develop procedures to massage data under the City’s control to make it available to the public in a standardized, machine-readable format. The city would also publish a catalog of available datasets in a way that they'd be accessible to the public.

It's important to remember that all this is not being done to satisfy the lusts of techies. What it's really about is making city issues -- like the budget, or development projects -- open and accessible to all, and not just the narrow interest groups.

I come from an era where open government involved good reporting in the local newspaper. This "open government" push is about moving into the 21st Century -- making government information accessible directly to the public.

For non-techies, it might be a bit confusing. But there's little doubt about its ultimate importance.

Inane comments and half-baked opinions

By TOM HONIG

One of my goals in starting this website was to establish a higher level of civic discourse. I'm largely happy with the comments I've received here. Part of the success is that this website is out of the mainstream.

Consider, for example, the recent retirement of an editor named John Irby, who has retired from the Bismark (N.D.) Tribune largely because he got tired of putting up with nasty and inane comments on his paper's website. In a final column, Irby says: “I am retiring because I am tired of being the whipping boy, by one and all. My skin has thinned. Life is too short to put up with all the noise.” And: "I don't want to do this anymore."

His paper is hardly the only one plagued by nasty and even stupid comments on its website. Every newspaper has the problem -- including The New York Times and the Washington Post.

A quick trip through the comments on mainstream websites is depressing. The attacks are vociferous. The claims are often wrong. Opinion has replaced fact. Just once I'd like to see this reaction: "Hmm. I had never thought about this aspect of the issue and I'm changing my mind." Wouldn't that be a treat to see?

And as long as I'm complaining, wouldn't it be wonderful if people of every political stripe would learn to use an apostrophe correctly? An apostrophe is for the possessive and for contractions. It's not for making words plural.

Some schools require a swimming test before allowing students in the pool. Maybe newspapers should make commenters pass a grammar test before writing out their thoughts.

Maybe it's time to forget the past

My grandma -- the unforgettable Gloria Wallerstein -- would have a lot to say about the state of things today.

She'd grab us all by the ear—one at a time—and give us a lecture. It would go something like this: “Do something with your life. There’s more opportunity now than ever before. Education is available to anyone who wants it. I never had the chance to go to college, but more people do today. Stop being scared of everything. The future holds good things if you want them. Stop crying about change. Stop living in the past.”

Here she is, at left, visiting the Acropolis in 1964. She liked it OK -- but couldn't help but wonder what Greece had done lately to live up to its reputation. Imagine what she'd think today.

There's a political side to all this. Check out my column this week in Good Times.

Is there a reason to be optimistic about the public dialogue? Not when it comes to desal

By TOM HONIG

There's a strain running through a lot of political commentary -- both locally and nationally -- that's starting to sound hollow.

It's this: "... but I remain optimistic."

A new book by co-authors Tom Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum called "That Used To Be Us" describes an America that's struggling in both achievement and in the public dialogue. It's a call to arms, with all kinds of examples of how America is losing its ability to compete internationally. I haven't reached the last chapter yet, but even in the early stages of the book they insist: "We remain optimistic!"

I'm not sure I do. Take a look locally. There's a big decision facing many Santa Cruz County residents, and that's whether to use desalination as an emergency water supply in the event of a future drought. Some feel that desal is a kind of insurance policy to make sure that people won't suffer in the event of a drought such as the one in Santa Cruz back in 1976 and 1977. Others feel it's not needed.

What should happen is a thorough investigation of the costs and benefits -- both economic and environmental. And that's going on.

However, there is a group of people who have gone histrionic on the issue -- accusing anyone who might favor desal of all kinds of things. Here's one, taking verbatim from the Sentinel's website: "Shame on Rotkin and Matthews. Check their (likely gold lined) pockets"

Are you serious? Isn't it possible that some people honestly feel that the public good (not to  mention the public's health) depends on a good water supply? How about a real debate?

Full disclosure: From what I know, I'm leaning toward supporting desal. But I haven't made up my mind -- pending more education.

Second full disclosure: I'm sitting in on a committee that's sponsoring an invitation-only informational meeting on water next Monday. For reasons I don't understand, desal opponent Paul Gratz is angry, telling the Sentinel that he's troubled that "two esteemed former mayors should organize an invitation-only event that features highly paid department managers whose salaries are paid by taxpayers. It just brings into question transparency versus privacy?"

Huh? Isn't speaking to interested people part of their jobs?  I think he's angry that he's not invited. But he -- like other desal opponents -- have already made up their minds, so an informational meeting would be of little use.

I don't like the direction that this is going. Not all desal opponents are leveling bizarre accusations -- but enough are that I'm worried whether a rational public conversation can even take place. Stay tuned.

The latest sound bite on Highway 1 widening

By TOM HONIG

It's funny how local political arguments spring up out of nowhere. I was at O'Neill Sea Odyssey's "Taste of the Harbor" event on Thursday (great event, great program) when I heard somone discuss the latest trendy take on local transportation: "Instead of spending money to widen Highway 1, how about fixing the roads around the county."

I admit to an eye-roll, but didn't think much about it until I picked up Friday's Sentinel. A letter to the editor entitled "Fix my road instead" essentially said the same thing, complete with a blast at the Regional Transportation Agency for moving ahead with a widening project between Soquel Avenue and 41st Avenue. The letter was complete with accusations of "steal(ing) our money and "extortion."

Expect more of this argument. It'll soon be the hot new sound bite in discussing transportation.

Let's leave aside the issues of different pots of money -- and even the obvious selfishness of "fix it for me but not for the other guy."

What's too often missing in the debate over highway widening is that traffic moving at less than 30 miles an hour fouls the air to a much greater degree than if cars are moving. If you really care about lessening the carbon footprint, you want traffic to move better.

But don't expect that environmental argument to win converts from the anti-widening folks.

Newspapers and a digital future

By TOM HONIG

Sentinel Editor Don Miller has posted a fascinating look into modern journalism on his blog. He describes the appointment of the new chief executive of MediaNews -- the company that owns 56 daily papers, including my alma mater, the Sentinel.

The CEO, John Paton, also runs another organization, the Journal Register Co. In a nutshell, these companies will be operated cooperatively under the umbrella of "Digital First" and will feature, yes, a "digital first" strategy. The Nieman Journalism Lab -- a think tank at Harvard -- calls it a "merger without merging."

What's interesting about all that is that newspaper executives have long known that the future of news is online. But it's still the physical paper product that brings in most of the revenue.

Miller links his blog to some fascinating articles, including this one on the website Gigaom: Is John Paton the Savior Newspapers Have Been Waiting For? And another, this coming from Paton's own blog.

By the way, three cheers for Miller, who puts all this maneuvering into context without sugar-coating any of it. I had complained here last week that other newspapers had reported on their own layoffs by burying that information inside some sort of corporate-speak.

Everyone knows that newspapers are going through massive change. Survival is uncertain. But the articles that Miller links to describe well the latest developments in the ongoing disruption of an entire industry.

Rail questions asked -- and answered

By TOM HONIG

So here's a followup to a recent post about the acquisition of the rail line by the Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Agency. After many years of dealing with this issue and not really understanding the proposal in its entirety, I finally just listed the questions I had had about the purchase.

After the post, I ran into a staffer at the RTC, and told him that I was serious about those questions and that I hadn't meant to be snarky. "Yeah, well I think it was snarky," he said. OK, maybe it was. But -- he encouraged me to look on the RTC's new website, and at the FAQ's, and I'd get my questions answered.

Earlier, an actual board member of the RTC -- his name is being withheld -- contacted me and he also answered some of the questions. So, OK -- maybe I'm a little red-faced, because most of my questions indeed had answers. But hey ... I didn't know, and I bet a lot of others don't either.

So here are my questions as asked in the previous post -- and the RTC official answers. Is the rail purchase a good idea? That's a judgment call.

1. Why is the RTC so intent on buying the rail line? Is it to provide transportation, to continue freight service to Davenport or is it to buy the land for an eventual hiking/biking path? What actually is being proposed here?

A. The RTC actually wants to buy the rail line because it's there. If the line gets abandoned by the current owner, the right-of-way may cease to exist. Buying it now keeps options open -- and future generations will look back and thank today's RTC.

2. Is there any freight service left now that Cemex in Davenport has shut down? What freight shipping is even happening?

A. Only a little. Much of the revenue is gone, but there's still some. And, look back at the previous answer -- the disruption of freight could cause the right-of-way to be partitioned and sold off.

3. Would any of this be pursued on its own merit -- or is it because the county qualified years ago for an $11 million federal grant for rail funding?

A. Refer to the Answer No. 1.

4. Are there funds available to establish the infrastructure -- stations and parking lots, primarily -- along the rail line?

A. To a degree -- yes. The proposed rail service for the line will only go a short way -- from Santa Cruz north toward Davenport. For now, nothing is being proposed for Mid-County. See the next question.

5. What kind of rail service is envisioned? A commuter train? A tourist train? Something else?

A. A tourist train. As of now, a more extensive commuter service is not being considered. The proposed operator, Sierra Northern, operates other recreational lines elsewhere in California, and the company considers such a venture here to be viable.

6. Will opponents of train service on the tracks throw up roadblocks to any development of a rail line? 

A. Who knows? But probably not, considering the short distance that the train would run.

7. What is the advantage of owning the rail line?

A. The RTC folks say it's better than not owning the rail line -- again, that the right-of-way might cease to exist if it's not saved now.

The purchase of the rail line has been -- and apparently will be -- a long process. Essentially, the RTC is saying that it's better to own the right of way than have it disappear. Makes sense.

Of course, a number of people are hoping that the right-of-way will someday turn into a rail-trail, meaning a dedicated path for walking and biking. Here's the official line from the RTC website: 

"The RTC is in the very early stages of developing a Master Plan for the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network. This planning process will analyze potential alignments for trails and trail segments along or near the coast. If segments of the rail line can adequately accommodate a trail segment along with rail service, those trail segments may be constructed on the rail line."

In other words: It'd be great, but it'll be a long time coming.