Will proposed “lifestyle center” @ Dorsey Interchange cannibalize our historic downtowns?

b1a02e92-63c1-4b99-a52e-1e97fc0481d4Editor’s note: The new mall proposed at the Dorsey Drive Interchange has been likened to the Fountains at Roseville — the Sacramento region’s first “lifestyle center” that opened in 2008.  At the CDR meeting in Grass Valley this week, the word “destination” was used again  for the proposed mall — a place where people and families could hang out for five hours or so, shopping, dining, watching movies and the like. 

A lifestyle center — a term coined in the late ’80s by Memphis developers — is a shopping center or mixed-used commercial development that combines the traditional retail functions of a shopping mall with leisure amenities oriented towards upscale consumers. 

The Fountains was “designed as a destination for shoppers to relax, shop and have fun from daybreak to sundown.”  It includes holiday events, summer concerts, wine walks and more — just like a downtown. It is anchored by Whole Foods Market, restaurants and speciality shops.

The Dorsey Interchange mall could include an expanded BriarPatch Market and multi-plex Sierra Cinemas, among other tenants, according to my sources. No decision has been made, however. A big-box store is expected to be included in the mix, though not an anchor tenant, as in a traditional mall.

There is an ongoing debate across America about whether these so-called lifestyle malls are cannibalizing historic downtowns.

In our case, we have to ask if our community’s population is big enough to support historic Grass Valley and Nevada City, as well as a new “lifestyle center.” New housing at Loma Rica — part of the long-term plan, I suspect — could add to the population base. But whether the people will come here to make the plan “pan out” remains an open question. It’s a gamble on our community’s future, and we need to begin thinking more deeply about it. It also will test the vibrancy of our downtowns as “destinations.” We need real leadership too, not people thinking in “silos.”

Here’s an article from National Trust Main Street Center (a group that is focused on preserving historic downtowns) titled “From Main Street: Will Lifestyle Centers replace Downtown?” Grass Valley is a member of the Main Street Program.

“Lifestyle centers — a new open-air retail format smaller than a regional mall and often unanchored by traditional department stores — are developers’ response to a changing retail landscape. These centers cater to the specialty retailers, restaurants, and service chains that continue to add new store locations. The open-air format, design and amenities, and concentration of entertainment uses seek to create a more exciting environment to attract customers.

“Interestingly, developers of lifestyle centers looked to traditional downtowns as an inspiration in creating the new format. For example:

800px-Shopsatfriendly“•Buildings are often made to look like multiple storefronts that have evolved over time.

“•Shops open directly to the sidewalk. Cars have even been introduced into the center with streets and parking.

“•The center will usually have entertainment uses, such as theaters and fitness centers. Residential or office uses may also be incorporated into the mix.

“The format also gives mall operators an advantage over traditional downtowns in that, as private property, they are able to better regulate many of the issues that present challenges for downtown programs, such as:

“•Location. A lifestyle center, as a new creation, can be located in the best place relative to population and transportation networks.

“•New design. Designed from scratch, it can also create a pattern of uses, circulation, common spaces, and parking that addresses the desires of tenants and customers alike.

“•Ownership. Owning the properties allows operators to approve or disapprove of potential tenants, determine where they can locate in the center, regulate facades and signs, and establish policies for hours of operation.

“•Available resources. Tenant fees, paid by all, go toward providing security, maintaining common areas, and promoting the center, without the need for a member-based organization or business improvement district.

“But do lifestyle centers really succeed in recreating the experience of a true downtown? While there are some very good examples of lifestyle malls as ‘new town centers,’ the majority fall short in their design, more closely resembling the open air malls that were built until enclosed malls became the norm in the 1960s.

“Even the best of the centers, though, still miss the mark in a few key areas. Despite their design appeal, lifestyle malls are filled with the same shops selling the same merchandise and the same restaurants with the same food as every other mall in America. Although safe and clean, they may also appear a bit sterile.

“A close look at the buildings reveals them to be large structures with tacked-on facades, rather than individual structures with their own history. In fact, it is history that is missing from the picture. A true downtown has a patina, a unique feel, a randomness that can’t be duplicated.

“Downtowns will not compete by trying to be like lifestyle centers, even though there are lessons to be learned from their design and management practices.

“Instead, downtowns will succeed based on their ability to differentiate themselves from the homogeneous aspects of these malls. They will build on their history, promote their unique shops and restaurants, incorporate residential and employment uses, provide flexibility in design, and celebrate the quirks, scars, and oddities that have appeared over time.

The full article is here.

Author: jeffpelline

Jeff Pelline is a veteran editor and award-winning journalist - in print and online. He is publisher of Sierra FoodWineArt magazine and its website SierraCulture.com. Jeff covered business and technology for The San Francisco Chronicle for 12 years, and he was a founding editor and Editor of CNET News for eight years, among other positions. Jeff has a bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley and a master's from Northwestern University. His hobbies include sailing, swimming, and trout fishing in the Sierra.

34 thoughts on “Will proposed “lifestyle center” @ Dorsey Interchange cannibalize our historic downtowns?”

  1. The supposed hubbub (sp?) over this proposed project has been ginned up by the media and folks who make their living by stirring the pot. The City staff has done an excellent job of laying out some of the requirements and expectations of the City if it is going to measure up to our standards.

    A whopping 30+ people showed up for the committee meeting. Most comments were negative; a few were a chance for speakers to plug their pet interests.

    I do wonder how the City decides how much time to spend on the beginnings of a project like this. Obviously a lot of time was spent by City staff to layout their ideas and concerns, etc.

    Today was the first step in a long process……………..just the beginning.

    Some positive ideas could also have an impact on this project. What if the proposed movie theater became a performing arts center, there must be many businesses that could go in that don’t decimate other local businesses. Why don’t some of our supposedly three or four local billionaires pony up the money to buy the whole thing and make it fit our local needs and desires and slip in the performing arts center. Lets all get some creative positive input into this project.

    The future of our City requires some progressive thinking, some new businesses, and something also to keep and attract our youth back here.

    Meausre N was referred to incorrectly. However, it is a stop gap tax that expires in ten years and without iut we would not have proper law enforcement and fire protection and no street repair.

    1. “Why don’t some of our supposedly three or four local billionaires pony up the money to buy the whole thing and make it fit our local needs and desires and slip in the performing arts center [?].”

      Perhaps because the last time a locally interested billionaire, or at least his legacy (the Getty Trust), tried to invest in the community the process turned a fantastic, walkable and community serving proposal like Loma Rica Ranch and turned it into a typical, soulless rural residential, sprawling subdivision?

      1. Not to mention the point that a ‘performing arts center’ should be in or right next to the downtown.

    2. If i am not mistaken Grass Valley has a great performing arts center already! I don’t not think it is progressive thinking at all! Sounds like you think that throwing in an arts center will appease those who are against the whole idea of a “mall” I say if anything keep it just as it is! Trees& dirt! We have hard enough time keeping all of our local business full through out the year! I feel that this would only detract from the two downtown areas!
      I for one am not the Media nor am I someone who “stirs up the pot” I am a local business owner who is fearful of a “lifestyle mall” I have a hard enough time keeping my doors open through the long winter months,If this were to happen & be successful, I know it would affect all of our local business – Just the fact alone there is not enough people up here to sustain what we already have through out the whole year!

  2. Thank you, Jeff, for citing an article from the National Trust. This is truth. We already have a “lifestyle mall”-two of them in fact; they are called historic downtown Grass Valley and Nevada City. This whole concept is ludicrous. If anyone is interested in the economics of preserving historic downtown’s, check out renowned economist Donald Rypkema’s website. http://www.placeeconomics.com, He also wrote a book for the National Trust entitled, “The Economics of Historic Preservation”. Rypkema cites statistics regarding the profitability of investing in our historic downtown’s versus new development. No surprising though, that Dan Miller and Patty Ingram support this-they were staunchly against a preservation ordinance for the City of Grass Valley. I served 8 years on the City’s Historic Commission, so I speak from experience. When are people going to wake up around here? If you don’t preserve the history, you have no tourism, no commerce and this would not be a sought after place to live (with an inflated real estate market).

  3. Ed,
    Come on, man. Measure “N” spent its $$$ on out of town businesses. The owner of the land on this project is from out-of-town too, in Anacortes, Wash. The firm who’s lining up tenants is from Roseville. Let’s get a real dialogue going, based on facts. You should express some chagrin and humbleness (at least a little).
    https://sierrafoothillsreport.com/2012/10/23/measure-n-campaign-seeks-to-keep-taxes-local-but-spent-all-3k-with-out-of-area-businesses-reports-show/

  4. Gwynn,
    Thanks for you comment. One thing that continues to trouble me a lot: Why do people such as Patti Ingram, Dan Miller and others, who were born and raised here, actively support strategies that undermine their own historic downtown districts where they grew up? I grew up in South Pasadena, and I was deeply troubled to see that little historic district (with restaurants such as Gus’s BBQ) get slammed in the ’70s, when people visited “Fedco” and malls in the outlying of areas of Arcadia to shop. Having said that, I was thrilled to see the resurgence of South Pasadena (and Pasadena) in the ’90s and beyond. The trend in most of America is to embrace historic downtowns. We moved here to introduce our son to shopping for shoes at “Good Time Board Store” or eat at Tofanelli’s or Sergio’s (benefitting from a City loan) or grab an ice cream at Treats of Nevada City. It seems we’re about a decade or more behind America’s trends. Instead, we’re embracing the “lifestyle centers,” in our case one that is carved out on a highly visible hillside. I just don’t get it. I’d be investing money in parking structures for our historic downtowns and investing in our downtown arts & culture centers. Downtown Grass Valley is a “hidden gem,” flat and walkable, with a real diversity of businesses. Our community is too small to support two historic downtowns and a “lifestyle center.” I’m hoping Dan addresses this in his campaign, because I honestly think his family means well. My own impression is that some aggressive members of the Contractor’s Association are running the public policymaking in our towns. I support growth, but you can’t be so one-dimensional in your approach. We need real leaders.

  5. What ever happened to “planning with the land?” A development of this magnitude, with such a vast expanse of impervious surface and entailing so much grading is simply out of place here. It seems that the more desperate local governments get in their pursuit of development, the more inclined they are to let speculators dictate commercial locations, regardless of carefully-crafted, long-standing policies and plans to the contrary.
    A “lifestyle center” may fit well into the urban fabric in flat Roseville, where major thoroughfares can accommodate huge traffic volumes. Not so in mountainous Grass Valley, where the primary artery is little more than a modest 1950’s-era expressway.
    Just say “no”!

    1. Dave, IMO, you cite the most important factor affecting growth in GV/NC: the insufficient primary artery (route 49) enabling access to our “Metroplex.” As it is now, our Metroplex is somewhat of a dead-end, with roads going further north not suited for heavier traffic flow, even if there was a destination resort at the other end. The current physical characteristics of the surrounding terrain is one of natural beauty interrupted by occasional, small and quaint villages. This is hardly a negative for leading a healthful, sustainable life.

      Discussion and planning of another sizeable retail area lacks justification economically unless the retail businesses are failing to meet local demand. I don’t think that is the case; Walgreens wasn’t about fulfilling an un-met need, it was about Walgreens trying to elbowing in and capture (or take away) market share from existing businesses offering the same goods. If this is an incorrect statement, then I believe verification would be available by analyzing sales tax revenue of all concerns competing in this market. If revenue is basically unchanged from pre-Walgreen era, then an excellent case can be made that Walgreens was not needed.

      With static population growth, increase square footage devoted to and in competition with, existing retail doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. The pie doesn’t grow just because more retail space is built selling what is already available. What would bring new dollars to the local economy would be business attractive enough to outsiders to lure them into their cars and motor-on up here. This is a problem that old, staid resorts have when, after years of operation, find they need to become a ‘Destination Resort.” Usually, this transformation requires the addition of new and unique attractions. Often, a first class golf course designed by one of the top five golf course architects is such an attraction. Lots of money is needed and I suspect a few other lesser, satellite attractions. Of course, an EIR is needed and whatever the merits of such a project, there will be dedicated and vocal opponents. A mountain slide for summer — like a luge — is an attraction built by Pico Peak ski area in VT to increase income during the summer. (While the slide did OK initially, I have no idea what the long term financials look like.) Stream of consciousness thinking can lead to profitable solutions.

  6. Lifestyle Center? Oh those Real Estate Developers, who else would name a dead end street — Cul De Sac? On these pages a few years back there was discussion about a Drug Store Chain (Walgreens) being built at a prominent intersection. Just one point of discussion was the fact that the building would be “just like all the other stores/business'” in that the parking lot was “in front” of the building and the store was in the back half of the property. Rather than build to the sidewalk in an effort to have a pedestrian friendly/ home town feel access. Grass Valley was caught with their collective pants down, from design to contract it was a disaster. (no completion bond with the contractor, led to as much embarrassment as taking 2 years to build it) nobody talks about the two empty shells sitting in the parking lot waiting for a business that will hopefully show up-

  7. Well, if it makes any difference, I’ve heard those all-glass shells in the Walgreen’s parking lot are soon going to be occupied by Goodwill Stores. That and the Dollar Store across from the Fowler Center. It will make people wonder if we’re getting a little ahead of ourselves with more grandiose projects.

  8. The most interesting thing to me about this whole issue is the lack of clarity with the public about exactly was was going to happen at Dorsey Drive. Jeff, I think both you and Reinette have kind of touched on that issue, but have not really delved into it.

    Respectfully to everyone posting here what did you think was going to happen to the properties surrounding the new interchange? If the history of planning and development has taught us anything in our region it is that every new interchange is an opportunity for commercial development. During the entire Dorsey Drive discussion that property was sitting there with nothing on it. Did everyone think it was going to be a park?

    The examples are all around us; Sutter Creek bypass, big box sprawl on the bypass; Hwy 267 bypass in Truckee, controversial proposals at both ends; Hwy 65 expansion, lets turn Lincoln into a city of 120,000 people to overcome our Roseville envy; empty interchanges on I-80 in Rocklin, new Walmart and new Target within 3 miles of the old Walmart and the old Target; improve the Highway to Millerton reservoir in Fresno County, lets build a whole new huge town of 100,000 homes in the foothills; bypass in Sonora, entire new commercial district.

    What did you think was going to happen?

    New community infrastructure in our region needs to be much better thought through than it is currently. It may be that some level of development at Dorsey is appropriate but that discussion should have gone on during the planning of the interchange project and it should have been clear to the community what the consequences of their decisions were.

    The smart way to have approached the interchange project would have been to vision the community development impacts and opportunities, worked with the community to discover what the actual citizens of the region want to see, and done the advance planning and community outreach to get a consensus on the development opportunities across the entire region (including places like IN the historic downtowns, Bear River Mills, the Bierman property, Loma Rica and others) and prioritize the projects that put development where it does the most good and meets the community vision for the future. There is such a thing as good development.

    I don’t think anywhere near enough resources in the Sierra Nevada go into advance planning. And that puts local governments in the uncomfortable position of having to respond to one off proposals rather than leveraging good development in the right places to build stronger communities while simultaneously meeting their long term economic development goals.

    The standard general plan and general plan amendment process are not enough anymore. When people are caught off guard and ill informed they naturally respond negatively to proposals like this and it creates community conflict over development rather than consensus about what local priorities should be. This could be alleviated in the long run if local governments invested in a combination of long range planning and community outreach so we could harness the energy of a well informed and engaged citizenry.

    I know local government faces huge challenges, not the least of which is they rarely have enough money to engage in long range planning, but they end up spending twice as much reacting as they would by being proactive, and they get an inferior product.

    The lack of long range planning and community engagement also put developers in a terrible position; they have no way to predict what the community response to proposals like this are going to be, or adjust their proposals to meet community desires, and thus have to spend literally millions of dollars redoing plans that merely meet the minimum for a submittal to local government planners.

    If you think CEQA is an impediment to development any discussion with developers would reveal that community response to proposals is an equal if not greater disincentive to local development. CEQA is merely the vehicle of last resort for expressing disappointment.

    Thus we continuously go through this macabre dance; the developer submits twice what they really need to make a project pencil; the community reacts often emotionally; the jurisdiction plays mediator; the developer shrinks the project; the community grudgingly agrees; we get crappy soulless standard development; the developer barely makes money; the community never gets what it actually wants or needs.

    The problem with this proposal is that regardless of what the ‘old guard’, as Jeff put it, thinks, people today don’t want to drive to a shopping center, they want to live, work, shop and be entertained in the place they live; they want to walk and ride bikes; they want access to trails and open space; they want affordable starter housing for working people because young people can’t afford the single family residential American dream anymore; people crave authenticity and a sense of place, they eschew sameness. Give them sameness and they will rebel. Put lipstick on a pig and it will still look like a pig with lipstick.

    There is a better way.

  9. Hi Steve- When you ask “What did you think was going to happen?” The first thing that came to mind, for me, is I would see an Arco or Chevron station on that corner. Not because I wanted it there, but rather the inevitable “corner” off ramp stamp of the California Highway System. Yikes-

  10. I wonder if Sierra Cinemas or even BriarPatch will soon step out to support the project. If it happens, it would have been better if it happened in tandem with the CDR. Again, the communications fell short. Trust was violated. A lot of local businesses are still hurting, so this needed to be handled with more tact, understanding and compassion — more of a partnership mindset than a “bull in a china shop” one. This isn’t a “growth vs. no growth” ideological battle. It is a pragmatic one, for people’s livelihoods. In this case, “job creation” is a double-edged sword.

  11. @ Steve, yes, yes, yes, you hit the nail on the head. I briefly mentioned this in a posting on Don’t Roseville Nevada County last night in response to Lisa Swarthout’s comments. Thank you for putting what the beef is about and in such succinct words.

    Here’s the post:

    Grass Valley City Council member responds to social media comments:

    http://knco.com/council-member-responds-to-claims-about-dorsey-projects/

    What council members fail to understand is that while selling Dorsey Interchange as a way to create access to the hospital and college, they failed to mention to the public that the interchange would conveniently open the floodgates to development of those surrounding properties. This is the nexus of the issue.

    The city should have also disclosed the full impacts developing an interchange, such as Dorsey, has on (aggressive) development.

    The public was given only the pretty side of the story.

  12. Actually Jeff I could not agree more, this is not about ‘growth’ or no ‘growth’ in the grand sense. I don’t live in NC/GV so I am really not qualified in any way to speak to what your community wants. I do know the entire Sierra Nevada pretty well and consider it my community.

    Some growth is good and there is nothing inherently wrong with or negative about real estate development. The issue is not really will we have development it is what will that development look like, feel like, contribute to the community, and how will it improve the economic model of the cities and counties it is within.

    I stand strongly on the side that thinks new growth and development should pay its way, should contribute to maximizing the efficiency of the existing infrastructure thus enabling local government and special districts to pay for capital improvements, and should be complementary rather than out-competing existing development.

    In many cases I believe we should be intensifying development in and around our existing community cores, largely because it creates a product that is more desirable and economically efficient for both residents and government.

    It is not the role of government or the taxpayers to pay for infrastructure that benefits private development to the detriment of existing development or communities. The rub is in doing the calculations, as Mr. Whalstrom has pointed out here on several occasions.

    This puts me at odds with a substantial portion of the environmental community that opposes new development in many cases due to convenience or a wrong headed belief that intensifying development is inherently a negative impact.

    The denser ones built environment the less greenhouse gas emissions, VMT, and the lower the cost of infrastructure. Some people might not like that, but no one is saying that that means no rural residential development. There is enough rural residential development already entitled but unbuilt in most of the Sierra Nevada to accommodate the Jeffersonian wishes of new and existing residents for about 10 generations.

    I find it hard to believe that this project would actually create jobs in the long run. I would love to see the statistics. It seems to me that it will leave the community with ghost development in other areas, including the downtowns, and merely move employment around.

  13. There have been numerous studies about economic development decisions and city councils/county supervisors. The results indicate that such elected decision makers are usually from the business community (they have the most economically vested interests in the decisions and therefore seek office to have greater influence on the outcomes) and practically always support development, often against the wishes of their constituents. It is part of the American mindset of continuous growth rather than economic sustainability. My point is that as long as the people we elect to make these types of decisions are from the business community and not the general public the decisions will favor development. The Idaho-Maryland mine is a good local example. Had not the public stood up in opposition and questioned the project, the local electeds would have approved that puppy in a minute, ceramic tiles from cyanide leeched rock and all. The short term need for “job creation” in their minds, is more important than the long term costs and effects of pollution. The pollution caused cancer epidemic in China speaks well to this theme. The same thing applies here. If the public doesn’t make its wishes known, they will get the lifestyle center the developers envision, whether the community wants/needs it or not. Follow the money. Who stands to make a lot of money from this and what ties do they have to elected officials?

  14. Same old story everywhere developers want to move into. Exploiting the community with pie in the sky promises while at the same time getting subsidies and tax breaks, which ends up on the backs of the community to cover.
    Here are some basic questions I would like to know that seem to get lost in the shuffle.

    What type of jobs will be created, full time or part time?
    Will benefits be part of those jobs?
    Will local contractors paying a living/ prevailing wage be used in its construction?

    The big one, what type of study will be done to compare the impact on local shops that have a specific product competing against a Target or box stores? I have watched two small rural communities in my life get devastated by Walmart moving into town. Walmart gets the subsidies and tax breaks for years on the outskirt of town. Something a small business would never get. Once fully operational they target local markets and one by one undercut the local merchants for about a year or so until they are forced out of business. They are able to do this with their ability to inter-company subsidize specific products. Example- local soccer shop who’s owners own a home, pay taxes, and have children in the community, Walmart will make all of their soccer gear below wholesale prices making it impossible for local merchant to compete, forcing the local shop to go out of business. Revenue of any one genre is only a small fraction of the stores total revenue so the will take a loss until their competition is gone.

    I know trying to be fully local economy is no longer an option in a developed nation but we should always have local business/ economy in the forefront of any major development proposals.

    I posted it before and will post it again, multiplier effect on local economies.
    http://www.amiba.net/resources/multiplier-effect

  15. I bit dated but a good summary of how big box stores (Walmart) aren’t good for small markets. I saved everyone a long rant on how big businesses have wage slave labor throughout undeveloped or developing countries. In essence we are supported the mistreatment of human beings so we can have inexpensive goods.

    Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. Walmart
    http://freedocumentaries.org/int.php?filmID=105

  16. If Sierra Cinemas is to be a tenant, I want to see FULL COMPLIANCE with the ADA requirements for the hard of hearing. I recently went to The Hobbit at the Del Oro, got the amplified headset, and discovered a terrible buzz. I went back for another, same problem. It seems that the only place the headsets work correctly is dead center in the middle of the theater. They have to either cordon that area off for the hard of hearing, or fix their system so that it works correctly. Unable to hear, but we stayed, so my wife could enjoy it. It will be a long time before I go again.

  17. I would be very disappointed to see BriarPatch’s standard of green building abandoned for such a development. They do already need to expand, but hopefully not at the expense of their environmental values.

    1. I think it would be prudent to “wait and see” – If B-patch decides to relocate and select the sight/development in question for a new and larger store – I would expect the design and building standards would meet the goals and standards of the B-Patch board of directors. There are numerous large green/LEED commercial developments through the state. I have complete confidence in the B-Patch Board of Directors to continue their leadership in design standards.

      From B-Patch’s home page:
      BriarPatch Co-op is Nevada County’s first commercial
      building certified by the US Green Building Council’s LEED®: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program. The building industry is a major consumer and polluter of the environment, and buildings use one third of our total energy and two thirds of our electricity. The purpose of the LEED® program is to promote sustainable, “green” building design, and ecological approaches to site planning and land development.

  18. Thanks Mark. I hope they do. And I hope they bring some badly needed leadership to this project, which has gotten off on the wrong foot with much of our community because of a lack of communication and transparency. Thanks to that, folks will still wonder “what else” is going into the “lifestyle center” that might undercut local businesses. For example, I happen to love Pine Street Burgers, which just opened on the “other” side of Dorsey Drive, as well as the local family that runs it. So why not support it, instead of opening up a chain to compete with it? Think people! I was depressed when I didn’t hear any words of apology uttered at the CDR meeting on Tuesday – a
    “no brainer.” Maybe we need some new “voices” and better community “listeners.” We need to generate new revenue in Grass Valley, but we need to be more sophisticated and thoughtful about how we do it. This is serious stuff. We can do better – much, much better.

    1. If we need more sophisticated and thoughtful input into this whole situation, why dont you start providing some of that instead of just fueling the fire. Someone with your background and history in this community could do something positive instead of just stirring the pot. Help our communtiy move foreward if you know so much………………don’t just complain and bitch.

  19. Thanks Ed, but someone with “my background and history in this community” is deeply troubled by what I’ve seen so far. I’m not “stirring up the pot”; I’m just holding up a mirror. In fact, I’m disgusted, reading your latest remarks. Are you the best face that GV can put forward on this issue, as well as with your role in Measure “N”? “Bitch and complain.” Our family is insulted at your comments. We support our community more than you’ll ever know. Maybe it’s time for your wife, who seems sensible, to disconnect your keyboard at night.

    1. Oh Jeff, you just showed your true colors. How about leaving my wife out of it………….just another example of your disturbing. Also, Measure N has nothing to do with the current issue under discussion and most of the comments about it at the Tuesday meeting were totally out of it. No insult intended, has nothing to do with your family, and I am surprised at how thin skined you seem to be. Inappropriate for a man in your position, with obvious smarts……………stick to facts. Keyboard off for the rest of the night. Sleep well, I will. :))

      1. Ed Thomas,
        In fact, Measure N does have something to do with it — but not in the way you think it does. I was deeply troubled by this too: “Measure N seeks to keep “taxes local”; but campaign postcard has a direct mail stamp out of, well, Florida.”
        https://sierrafoothillsreport.com/2012/10/19/measure-n-seeks-to-keep-taxes-local-but-campaign-postcard-has-a-direct-mail-stamp-out-of-well-florida/

        In the case of Measure N and the roll out of the “lifestyle center,” the community relations fell short — way short. BTW, we don’t use profanities here.

      2. An out of town supplier was used for the postcards, etc. due to the inability of local business to meet delivery time requirements and pricing. Simple valid facts that never got reported. How else do you see Measure N being relevant to the current controversy?

  20. AS always, my shoots here are across between YOU ARE THERE, and the print magazine of years past. The quality of the…

    Posted by Nevada County Life on Wednesday, February 26, 2014

  21. PS to JP. I apologize for the SD comment. Stirring the pot would have been better. Did not mean to be profane. HGD–hope we get some more rain.

  22. Thanks Ed. My mother used to call profanity “unnecessary words.”

    The community has a right to voice concerns about the proposed “lifestyle” center. The lack of transparency and communication has hindered progress. Nobody who has been involved seems willing to “own up to it” either. That’s distressing.

    Next time, give me a call and I can help make sure your local political postcards are handled locally. Sometimes it takes a little investigation, but we find practically everything we need in our own backyard, including plenty of direct mail outfits.

    I don’t see Measure N as being relevant to the current controversy. In fact, I notice how Terry Lamphier had to go out of his way to dispel rumors directed at him: “For the record, I never said Measure N tax money was being used for Dorsey.” http://yubanet.com/regional/Op-Ed-Terry-Lamphier-Dorsey-Reloaded.php#.Uw9tW5RgY6o

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s