Skip to content

Clearlake City Council”s obstinate stance to move ahead with a new shopping mall across from Wal-Mart, featuring Lowe”s as an anchor client, demonstrates to what extent the council has written off the merchants and taxpayers of Clearlake.

Author
UPDATED:

They say this proposal will help the city by bringing in sales tax dollars. This belief that big business always equals big bucks is simpleminded and adolescent ? it acknowledges only income and denies the cost spent to get there. For instance, the council wants to invest $7 million of the city”s own money to subsidize the development, which means the city would pay a percent of every wrench or hammer bought at the new store. Or your fast food might cost a dollar less because the city helped pay the mall tenants” rent. That is not free market.

Guest Commentary — Clearlake City Council sells out

In the second place, the Mitigated Negative Declaration report by the Sierra Club, including data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and sales projections by Lowe”s itself, shows that Lowe”s expects to take over an existing market ? a market that is already 100-percent serviced ? eating away two-thirds of the profits of already established businesses, many of whom will go out of business. The study concludes, “there is virtually no market support whatsoever for a new major home improvement business.”

Follow the logic. Clearlake customers already have all the hardware they need. And who in surrounding communities will drive to Clearlake to shop at Lowe”s? No one. Why not provide something not currently available like a Macy”s, Sears, Penney”s, Best Buy or Ikea? My favorite would be a Big 5 to enhance vacationing.

The stores mentioned above might also encourage shopping in the older sections of Clearlake. Imagine what $2 million worth of sidewalks, a few paint jobs and a trolley would do for Lakeshore Drive! This could be a thriving tourist area of confections, crafts, and customized products that would draw out-of-towners to Lake County.

Clearlake should invest redevelopment funds to fix walkways on Lakeshore Drive and repair the potholed side streets that lower property values for everyone in the area. As for new construction, city council members should not bribe new business, but let market forces govern. If developers want a mall ? let them pay for it. Odds are we”d get a better anchor store. Would Lowe”s come to a saturated market if it weren”t being paid millions to do so?

Keep in mind that “redevelopment” (as in the redevelopment money the city wants to give away) means to improve already existing neighborhoods ? not pioneer new areas that cause traffic, environmental and economic problems.

Economically, individual employees will suffer. Lowe”s proposes three times as many part-time jobs as it does full time ? 131 to 44. Instead of organizing full-time employees into split shifts, Lowe”s will keep everyone unpredictably scheduled, underpaid and without adequate benefits.

I”m hoping that local businesses get together and hire a lawyer to investigate suing the city for conflict of interest, favoritism and misappropriation of funds.

Three of the five council members live in the area that is projected to have higher property values near a new shopping mall. At the Jan. 14 council meeting, these three members drew cards to see which one would pretend they didn”t have a conflict of interest so that a quorum could vote for the shopping center.

As for favoritism, how far back did the city have the property and redevelopment funds available, but failed to make this known? The city council did not offer redevelopment money to Mendo Mill when the company invested millions in expansion and complied with paying for developments properly belonging to the city, like improving the street. It is as if the city used Mendo Mill as a guinea pig, building a clientele that could be offered to Lowe”s on a silver platter.

And is it not misappropriation of funds to bullheadedly give the new enterprise money when the council has been warned by the impact report that vacancies and blight will surely result in other areas of Clearlake? And that many existing businesses will go under?

Three of five council members have a conflict of interest. Before they are sued and cost the taxpayers of Clearlake a bundle, they should back out and save face.

Janis Paris is a resident of Clearlake Oaks.

Originally Published:

RevContent Feed

Page was generated in 2.4381880760193