N.I.C.E. leader Paula Asmus says in email this afternoon she thinks the district still has "a chance" to win. I'll post more on that when she has a moment to elaborate.
Jim Byers, owner of Hotel Mac, has voted no on N.I.C.E., he tells me this afternoon. According to an analysis broadcast by N.I.C.E. leader Paula Asmus to supporters this morning, that's the end of N.I.C.E.
"The cost is exhorbitant," says Jim. "I'd be paying over $6000 per year. I don't know what they'd be doing with it. They don't know themselves."
No other N.I.C.E. voter, he says, has as big a personal stake. Even Tom Butt shares ownership with "15 other guys," he says. "He can spread that over a lot other people. I would spread mine over one guy."
If N.I.C.E. loses, the Point could see a wave of volunteer burnout. "Yes on N.I.C.E." could quickly turn to "screw this" among long-time leaders. That's the consensus of four people I talked to this morning.
On the other hand, a few people who are now skeptical of N.I.C.E. think a new, reformed proposal for a business-improvement district could rise from the wreckage.
Rosamaria's Cafe owner Mike Nova, for one, is noodling on an idea for a voluntary district.
Whatever plan comes along, at least this time everyone will be paying attention from the start.
The two Toll Brothers reps did a song and dance last night at the Neighborhood Council meeting--and they got a resounding thumbs-down.
Their proposed mega-unit, multi-story, view-blocking complex reeked. Rarely has the Point, or even Brickyard Landing, seen such ugliness. Their brand-new blight would rival even the Iron Triangle's admirable collection.
Through it all, though, the audience was polite--which amazed a Belgian-born friend of mine. "Americans are so nice. In Belgium, these guys would have a pie in their face."
Chief NICE opponent Richard Lompa is in a fury over that item earlier today ("The Indian's rosebushes have thorns") about the Westside Women's Improvement Club. He says the effort was in no way intended to influence the NICE vote. In fact, he says, the project had been planned for a year or more.
Let the record show it.
Did you notice the freshly tended rose bushes by the Indian? They're across the street from Interactive Resources, but you won't see Tom Butt stopping to smell them.
The West Side Women's Improvement Club pruned and raked partly to make things pretty. But the timing alone--during N.I.C.E. voting-- suggests that the work was also to show what volunteers can do. That is, to prove that the Point can do without N.I.C.E.
Of course, the ladies did a good job. No doubt about that.
Will they be back after the N.I.C.E. vote? I bet we've seen the last of them.
My good friend Tom Butt keeps blowing it. When a skeptic provides an easy opening to point out the N.I.C.E. side, Tom instead fires away at the skeptic himself.
He doesn't shoot holes in Richard Lompa's arguments. He shoots photos of the trash on Richard's lot.
Then yesterday when I wrote about Redondo Beach's dubious experience with a business-improvement district, Tom doesn't point out the positive side of the article, which he could have easily done. No, he fires at me.
Well, Ted you can look for the downside of everything like you have chosen to do with your blog, or you can do something about it.
Some of us have chosen the action route. There are always going to be doubters, skeptics and naysayers, and we appear to have our share in Point Richmond.
If people think the status quo is the best we can do, then they should oppose the N.I.C.E. district.
I happen to be more optimistic.
Optimistic? Let's imagine a genuinely optimistic response.
He could have picked up my observation that Redondo Beach's district hasn't been around long enough to produce obvious, irrefutable benefits. A year and a half isn't very long. From there, he could have amplified some of the article's bright notes.
He could have rooted out a more positive article. There must be one somewhere. Try LexisNexis or Google, Tom.
Those are just a few ideas. I'd still like to think that N.I.C.E. supporters can think of other more persuasive ways to respond.
I keep hoping to be convinced. I've been talking and listening to N.I.C.E. supporters. I talk to Richard Lompa too, and I keep hoping he's wrong. But I still see that cheap bag of tricks I've seen from the start.
Please, N.I.C.E. people, please! Sketch out your vision. Let me see what you see. Exactly how would the N.I.C.E. banners, the regularly emptied designer trash cans, the clean sidewalks, and the farmers markets accumulate such a swarm of consumers to be worth the money? I keep asking, but I'm always disappointed.
I can't even get a consistent answer on the alleged gerrymandering. First, it was the consultant's fault. Then, the steering committee deliberately lopped off property on the extremes. No, wait! Walter Connolly's supposedly lopped-off property really is in the district after all!
Who's going to do the day-to-day work? The nearly-burned-out volunteers I keep hearing about? The answer: oh, we don't know. Staffing would be decided by the board. Come on, now. First, that answer just stokes the fears of small property owners afraid the board would be dominated by "fat cats." (After a phone call from Richard Lompa, "fat cats" kind of rings in my ears for a while.) Second, it misses a chance to provide a vision. Does anyone know basic salesmanship on the N.I.C.E. side?
Maybe they do, in fact. Their strategy, I'm told, is to approach each landowner individually. I'm not a N.I.C.E. landowner, so I've not had such a whisper in my ear. The N.I.C.E. people might have magic up their sleeves. But they've shown no sign of it publicly.
Is this a preview of the politics to come? Will skeptics be marginalized? Will whispered campaigns and straw-man arguments be the accepted style of debate?
Tom says, "Some of us have chosen the action route." I know what he means. I spent 10 years along the "action route" for the Sierra Club's once-great Clair Tappaan Lodge. When I tried to gather political steam by building a group I called Friends of the Lodge, the others just kept yakking about how to change the light bulbs.
I've chosen the "action route" here too. The role of a skeptic, in Point Richmond right now, is to question what may actually be a good idea until the answers ring true. I'm doing my best.
One Redondo Beach neighborhood known as Riviera Village has had a business improvement district for a year and a half, and by one account in today's Daily Breeze it's getting lukewarm reviews.
Riviera Village sounds similar to the Point: It's been neglected by the city, it has an ecclectic mix of businesses, and volunteers have tried various attempts over the years to give it a boost.
The district has still not won over the skeptics. "'They're putting icing on the muffin, and it really should be a cake,'" says one representative of an art gallery. "'All this BID has done is taken the city off the hook.'"
Perhaps a year and a half is too short a time to judge results. Public perception and the buying habits that follow change with the speed of rock formations. But if the Point's district passes, this is probably the kind of story we'll see here. Today's skeptics will express the same doubts and we'll have the same inconclusive results.
Read the article here.
The little house just up West Richmond from Point Richmond Market, occupied by the 88-year-old Vera Ridley and somehow included in N.I.C.E, is to be taken out of the district. That's according to correspondent Andrew Butt, whom I ran into outside the post office a few hours ago.
Chief N.I.C.E. basher Richard Lompa has often cited the house's inclusion--and the expected increase in Vera Ridley's taxes--as a reason to vote no.
The following letter, on Point Richmond Business Association stationery, has been sent.
July 15, 2005
Dear Marco:
Please be advised that the steering committee voted on and passed the removal of Vera Ridley, parcel number 558 140 024 from the NICE District. Please make the appropriate adjustments with the City of Richmond.
Thank you,
Paula C. Asmus, O.D. Chair, NICE District Committee
Reports about last Wednesday afternoon's extra long and extra lively Business Association meeting keep dribbling in from my disparate correspondents.
N.I.C.E. opposition leader Richard Lompa made a blood-rare visit to give what several witnesses agreed was a rousing speech. He "got people's attention" and "spoke very well, very articulately," witness Dave Moore recalled. Lompa's ace: Vera Ridley, the 88-year-old woman whose little house next to Point Richmond Market was somehow included in the district. Her annual tax--if we defy proponents and call it a tax--would double.
Josh Genser spoke in support of N.I.C.E. Dave felt was a "bullying" style, and a different observer called it just "not persuasive." However, Josh got applause afterward, which Richard did not.
I emailed correspondent Andrew Butt for his view of it. He couldn't attend but says he's heard that "the general feeling...was one of support."
He goes on, "I have to hand it to Richard for his persistence and commitment...He has been loud, vocal, and without cease"--starkly different from Andrew's side. "Our strategy has been to address property owners on an individual basis and explain the many reasons why this is good for them and the future of this town."
Richard Lompa puts it differently. "They thought this was goin' to be a slam dunk. They thought they could just play the flute and everyone would follow."
No matter how persuasive either side has been, the opposition is still the underdog. "Yes" votes from Tom Butt-controlled property, amounting to 14.05 percent of the total, plus city-owned property, at 8.37 percent, come to 22.42 percent. The city will decide on August 2 how to vote, but most people I've talked to expect the City Council to vote in favor. If so, only a few more votes in favor would tip N.I.C.E. over toward victory.
That is, at least a nominal victory. If much of the growling persists that I hear about gerrymandering, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lawsuit.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Point Richmond has no entry in Wikipedia. The city of Richmond has one, as do Point Pinole, the Bay Trail, Rosie the Riveter, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, and pit bulls.
Wikipedia is the ever-more-popular "open source" online encyclopedia. It's read around the world, and many articles come in English, Italian, Chinese, Dutch, and other languages, even Esperanto.
Anyone can create an entry, and anyone can edit. Quality is maintained by masses, the theory goes. The community of writers and editors becomes a kind of sail, keel and rudder: propelling, moderating, and guiding.
It sounds an awful lot like democracy, doesn't it? We'll see if over the long run it's taken over by extremists. But for now, I love it. It's free, and it seems to contain far more variety and depth--with more freedom--than other reference media.
Take a look for yourself. Look up Richmond . Look up business improvement district (and download some of the linked documents).
Here's a proposition: I'll work on an entry for the Point, and if you want to join me, just post a comment here. If you're working on one already, that's fine too, but please let me know.
N.I.C.E. returns to the City Council tonight as chief N.I.C.E. opponent Richard Lompa and sidekick Jay Betts speak in the Forum. There they have two minutes each to argue that the city should vote "no" on the Point Richmond business-improvement district.
Under the system of weighted voting, the city's vote amounts to 8.37 percent of the total.
"If they city supports [N.I.C.E.], it has a chance," says Richard. If not, ferget it.
It's been all N.I.C.E., N.I.C.E., N.I.C.E. this week, and I took a break to think about nice cannoli.
When I show up in Sicily, my relatives stop at Pasticceria Palazzolo in Cinisi to pick up a tray of cannoli, always wrapped in pretty paper. After lunch, I have one, and then my cousin Maria Sara ever so nicely offers me another one. "Are you sure you don't want another, Ted? I'm worried you might lose too much weight," she says.
Back here, California friends hear of my passion for cannoli and tell me that such-and-such a place has "great" cannoli. It's never true.
North Beach bakeries, for example, might have had decent cannoli 50 years ago, but none are worth even a sniff anymore. I check now and then at Victoria Pastry and a few other spots, and they're similar in their mediocrity. In my most recent experiment, the shells were dark and almost spicy enough, but the cheese tasted of condensed milk. They're worse than a bad cheese danish.
Even that once-touted Siclian restaurant on College Ave. in Berkeley was disappointing. The shell was nearly blond, and the owner-chef said he hadn't ever tasted the real thing. Lo Coco's in Berkeley, said to be owned by a native Sicilian, produces edible cannoli, but they've Americanized it with liquor in the filling.
Ah, you're thinking, I haven't tried Little Italy in New York or Providence or Boston. Well, I have. They're better, but still not good.
I'm all for adaptation. Food is about place. The trouble now with California cannoli is that flavors come at the palette in a blast. They're mostly sweet with only enough pungency to hint at the real stuff, and always a sour aftertaste. Sicilian cannoli is sweet but bitter too, and a little bit of the sheep comes up your nose. Sicilians expect no less; Californians don't know what to expect, so lazy pastry makers feed them sugar.
While we here in California work out our cannoli nuovi, I prefer cannoli done the old way.
The only place you can buy authentic Sicilian cannoli around here is Romolo's Cannoli and Spumoni Factory in San Mateo. It's on a drab street a block south of the Barnes and Noble and the Hillsdale mall. (81 37th Ave; (650) 574-0625) They're now closed for "vacation"--a long one, from March 27 to August 24, while the owners build a seaside retirement home near Ragusa. They're not missing much business; I'm almost always the only customer.
When the Romolo's production line runs full blast, Angela Cappello makes her own shells and her own filling from sheep's milk ricotta she imports from New York. She fills each shell to order. We smile and chat about the weather, about work, about nephews. Her husband, Romolo, sits nearby entertaining friends and conducting business for the Sicilian-American association called Unione Siciliana. I'm a proud member.
When I turn to the source of her ricotta, the spice in her shells, how long she lets the ricotta-sugar mixture sit before stirring in the chopped chocolate and candied squash-rind, even the variety of the squash, she just keeps smiling in the time-honored Sicilian style. She's not saying anything to anyone.
She, Romolo, and the cannoli are back August 24. It's worth a drive.
Mark Howe, owner of the Bank of Richmond building at West Richmond and Washington, will vote yes on N.I.C.E. He announced it today in a two-page letter emailed to N.I.C.E. supporters this morning by Tom Butt. Here's the part that addresses objections I've heard.
I hear how expensive this will be but this argument does not hold water. For my building, the assessment will be about $200/mth for the whole building. I am sure just one of my tenants would pay this entire amount just to have the town in tidy shape for his clients – but this $200 is shared by all my tenants which means that the real monthly cost for each tenant will be $35 per month. I think they spend more that this for trash service alone. Clearly, the rewards of this district far exceed the costs.
I hear that this district will be taken over by some ineffective city bureaucracy and we will be paying increasing amounts over time and will get nothing in return. This again is not true. This district will be controlled by a local board of property owners who can decide to return this money to the property owners if we cannot find productive uses for it. Yes, we will have to be vigilant and serve on the board if we expect to get out the district the benefits this district so vitally needs.
Together we can afford to improve our community for a cost that is affordable. We need to make an investment in our community if we expect it to change.
Please support our N.I.C.E. district; the benefits far outweigh the costs.
Mark is more than just a landowner. He's also a CPA. There aren't many people around town who could envision a restored Bank of Richmond building and how much to bet on the restoration.
As we await a moment to investigate the N.I.C.E. boundaries down at City Hall, Kristin Gates offers this explanation: The N.I.C.E. founders--who put N.I.C.E. on the table--wanted to make sure the district benefited everyone it covered. They were especially sensitive, she says, to a worry that landowners on the edge might not get much out of the, uh, assessment. (For god sake, don't call it a tax!)
She tells Talk that that's why Walter Connolly's building at 1 West Richmond and two of June Davies' buildings near The Spot were lopped off. (Or were they? Walter insists they're out, Kristin seems to imply that they're out, while Tom Butt insists they're still in.)
Kristin owns 117 West Richmond and has attended most of the N.I.C.E. meetings.
Tom Butt posted a comment insisting that Walter Connolly's property at 1 West Richmond still sits within NICE. Then Walter called to point out that Tom's comment cited the wrong parcel numbers.
Two other NICE insiders--meaning they attended all the public meetings--seem to agree with the premise of the question "Why was the property taken out?" Andrew Butt says it was the consultant's mistake, and Kristin Gates gives the most pleasant reason so far for district resizing.
I hope City Hall has kept track. I hope to make a visit today or tomorrow.
Would N.I.C.E. backers resort to dirty dealing just to win?
Walter Connolly says his four-story building at 1 West Richmond Ave, just next to the wigwags, seems to be out of the N.I.C.E. district--after he saw it listed at a meeting in March.
He's a vocal opponent, and this 12,000-square foot building with 40 feet of street frontage would have been a heavy no vote.
He wondered what was up. "I called up the guy in San Diego," he says, meaning the consultant that drew up the map, "and he says, "Well, it doesn't look like it's going to make it.'"
Sure enough, the N.I.C.E. ballot that arrived later listed only his other property, at 116 and 124 Washington Avenue.
June Davies says that two of her four buildings--at 29 and 31 Tewksbury--were taken out of N.I.C.E. after it became clear she would vote no. Under the weighted-voting system, that no vote would have been one more heavy no vote.
On Thursday, I asked Andrew Butt why these were omitted from the district. He said it was the consultant's mistake.
Today, Tom Butt insists via email that all these apparently omitted buildings are indeed within the district.
I'm still awaiting Tom's answer to my latest email: If Connolly's building at 1 West Richmond is indeed still in the district, why didn't his ballot list it?
My neighbor Jeff Anderson's friend Heather runs a blog from London. You know what she's writing about this week. Read an American's perspective.
Walter Connolly says a hypnotist will move into an office in his building on Washington Avenue, next to Kao Sarn. Dr. O’Keefe--Walter doesn’t remember her first name--will offer hypnotherapy and lessons in self-hypnosis. She arrives August 1.
Just imagine that N.I.C.E. passes. Just imagine that the N.I.C.E. people stop butting heads with the not-so-N.I.C.E. people and instead convince them that the whole scheme would work out for everyone. (I don't see how, but they can try me.)
The first question I'd ask is who's going to do the grunt work? That's not directly addressed in any documents I've seen, but I can't believe N.I.C.E. would succeed without a staff person.
Judy Morgan agrees that there must be staff, and she has an idea. She's president and CEO of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. She suggests contracting with the Chamber. Cheaper than the city, and way more effective.
It's been a breezy couple of days in the Point as fighting intensified over N.I.C.E..
Yesterday, Tom Butt emailed his N.I.C.E. backers about his concern over "a small group carrying on a full court press to defeat it." Some people who had once backed it are now opposed or wavering.
Late this morning I ran into my friend Andrew Butt as he snapped photos and offered new info that might make me change my mind. I'll read "Business Improvement Districts 101" a little later.
Also this morning, Tom sent reinforcements to the N.I.C.E. people, a seven-page "Rebuttal to Opposition..." It addressed points made by Richard and another vocal opponent, Angus MacDonald, and it included eight photos of vacant storefronts.
About that time, Tom posted a rebuttal to "Meaning of N.I.C.E." He addressed it to "you and other who criticize N.I.C.E...", thus losing a chance to convince me.
Meanwhile, Richard and some fellow opponents were having a pow-wow of their own. Richard joked, sort of, that I might be a spy for Tom Butt.
His joke reminds me of a moment I heard on yesterday's Talk of the Nation when a defeated candidate for Congress said she had become "road kill" for taking a moderate position on abortion.
My friend Richard Lompa is having a great time waging a "war" on the proposed Neighborhood Improvement and Community Enhancement district, known as "N.I.C.E." He has posted his bright-red "Pride" signs in many store windows alongside his opponent's signs. He says he has talked to about 30 of the 40 landlords, and he says he might be winning.
At first I disagreed with his position. N.I.C.E. seemed like a nice idea. His opponents' signs describe a thriving, vibrant downtown Point, the kind I still hope for.
The hard part is new taxes. Downtown landlords would be assessed according a yet-undisclosed formula based on each one's lot size, building area, street frontage, and land use.
The first annual budget of $99,019 would be used to pretty up and promote the quaint Point square. Each year thereafter, the budget could rise as much as five percent. The money and the program would be controlled by a new non-profit corporation controlled by the landlords--with each one's vote weighted by the same formula that figures the district's tax. For example, the vote of a landlord with a small undeveloped parcel would count much less than one with a large, well-developed one.
The promoters' signs mention district identity, landscaping, lighting, repair of the Indian fountain, concerts, farmers' markets, and "a host" of unspecified other things. The N.I.C.E. corporation would also run a community bulletin board, remove trash and blight, and reopen the library and community center. Imagine, the letter says, sidewalk cafes, well-lighted streets, local crafts and antique shops...can you smell the coffee? After all, Berkeley's Fourth Street has such a district. So do Oakland's Lakeshore, Temescal, and Rockridge areas.
At first, the wide resistance sounded to me like the same anti-collective reflex I've seen before among many small business owners and small landlords. The stubborn individualism that somehow makes businesses survive can also make them allergic to collective action.
But Richard Lompa, who never hesitates to call bullshit what it is, actually had a few good points: Do you see blight? How many more community bulletin boards can we stand? Isn't the city supposed to fix the damn Indian fountain?
On some of his other points, Richard and I moved apart. He asks why we need this when we have so many creative and energetic people with a history of successes like the garage sales, the all-volunteer Masquers, and the Stroll.
Yes, volunteers do fine running those spectaculars. But in my experience staff does better in the day-after-day grind of making sure trash gets picked up, fountains get fixed, and advertising gets placed. Just set your gaze, for example, upon the neighborhood association. The poor thing is barely able to muster a full board.
Where would such steady effort come from if not staff? If the Point's most committed stakeholders won't collectively pay and direct such staff, who will? The city? Not likely.
Ideally, the district could throw a spotlight on a clean and vibrant Point the way this city couldn't ever do. It would pull in many more new customers than the Yellow Page ads and other marketing that business owners might sacrifice to pay the new tax. At best, this district might even woo a magnet restaurant or store that pulls people off the freeway or even over the bridge from Marin. To landlords who begrudge a few thousand dollars a year for such benefits, I would usually say get used to it, you'll probably learn to love it.
Then I read the "Final Management District Plan," prepared by something called New City America, Inc. It spells things out in detail here and in generalities there. Among other things, it more or less explains the method of assessment, the administration, and the budget.
The first-year budget allocates $33,000 for "sidewalk operations/beautification," $37,000 for district identity and streetscape improvements, $20,000 for administration and operations, and $9,019 for "contingency/reserve/formation repayment" (Is New City's fee within "formation repayment"?).
Who would run things? A board of directors "comprised of all property owners" would.
Then, "steps will be taken to…enter into a contract for administration with the city of Richmond." With just $20,000 allotted for administration and operations, that seems to mean that part--perhaps a small part--of one city staff person's time would be allocated to N.I.C.E.
Annual assessments range from $3,996 for Tom Butt's Interactive Resources building down to $226 for a tiny strip just up Washington Avenue from Mark Howe's Bank of Richmond building. Richard's Old Firehouse, at 145 Park Place, would be assessed $1,486.
Some landlords would dominate voting. Property controlled at least in part by Tom Butt comprises 14.05 percent of the total assessment--a fine base for any coalition he may want to form. The city of Richmond property comprises 8.37 percent.
Let's see now. N.I.C.E. would hang banners and other "identity" markers around Downtown, fix infrastructure, take out the trash and do a lot of other things people ordinarily expect a city to do. N.I.C.E. would run free concerts and other events like the ones we have already. To do it all, it would extract money that would have otherwise gone toward individual promotion. N.I.C.E. would be controlled by a board elected by landlords with votes weighted toward the biggest of them. And the day to day grind of running it all would be left to board members, much like our current business association members, and to some portion of a city employee's time.
Richard's right--except that this is more than "just another layer of bureaucratic bullshit." It smells like a con. It looks to me like the "premium" package slick salesmen try to sell that's really just a cheap bag of tricks.
Last week's Consumer Confidence Index showed that we Americans have felt better about Things lately. For the local mood, I went to ask Gus about we Pointers.
Gus says little but sees much at his perch across from Santa Fe Market. He has spent much of the last 30 years there, and his father spent most of his life in the same spot.
How are we doing? "People are more on edge," he said.
Watch for next month's reading.