• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • News Main Page
  • A&E
    • A&E Main Page
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Opinion Main Page
    • Blogs
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
    • Obituaries
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Living Main Page
    • Outdoors
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • Food & Drink Main Page
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Sports
  • Outdoors
    • Outdoors Main Page
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Obits

    Target Strikes Out

    City Council Rejects Effort to Locate Store Across from Airport


    Thursday, July 22, 2010
    By Nick Welsh (Contact)
    Article Tools
    Print friendly
    E-mail story
    Tip Us Off
    iPod friendly
    Comments
    Share Article
    Facebook Facebook
    Twitter Twitter
    Google+1 Google+1
    del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
    Digg! Digg!
    Yahoo! Buzz Yahoo! Buzz
    diigo Diigo
    google google
    newsvine newsvine
    reddit reddit
    technorati technorati
    Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!
    Share on Myspace Myspace

    Efforts to locate a brand new Target store on property owned by the City of Santa Barbara adjacent to the municipal airport were rejected for the third — and presumably — last time at last week’s Santa Barbara City Council meeting. Acting in closed session, the council voted not to pursue exploratory talks with Target or real estate developer Andrew Bermant — attempting to broker a deal between the two — to develop the 15-acre island of land owned by the City of Santa Barbara but surrounded by the City of Goleta.

    Councilmembers expressed hope that Target would still open an outlet in Santa Barbara — perhaps buying out the Sears outlet in La Cumbre Plaza — but opined that the airport property was not appropriate. Santa Barbara officials voiced concern about the traffic congestion the proposed Target might cause at the Fairview/Highway 101/ Hollister Avenue interchange. They also expressed real apprehension over the potential opposition such a development could unleash among Goleta officials and residents. If Target were built there, they said, Goleta would bear the brunt of any additional traffic congestion, while Santa Barbara would reap the financial rewards — $700,000 a year in rent and up to $1 million a year in sales tax revenues.

    Andrew Bermant decried City Council’s action. “I’m shocked. I’m upset,” he said. “The public never had a chance to explore the proposal. The council killed it behind closed doors and before it was ever really looked at.” Bermant complained that Santa Barbara’s airport property — 15 acres of prime real estate — has sat fallow way too long. “If I ran a property like that, I’d fire myself,” he commented. In fact, Bermant and his brother Jeff long held rights to develop the airport property, but their efforts to locate two major projects on the site — a Miravant and Citirix — fell through for a host of reasons.

    Following those failures, Bermant has pushed hard to locate a Target there, and continues to do so even though his lease with Santa Barbara City Hall expired three years ago. About five months ago, Bermant organized a quasi-grass roots campaign to generate public support for Target. He held a rally in De la Guerra Plaza in front of City Hall, passing out toy Target dogs and collecting signatures. While Bermant tapped into some eager and enthusiastic popular support, he also managed to annoy many in City Hall.

    Bermant has acknowledged as much, recalling that during a recent meeting with City Administrator Jim Armstrong, “Jim Armstrong just about jumped down my throat.” Armstrong did not respond calls for comment, but City Planning Czar Paul Casey — who attended the meeting in question — stated, “Andrew is not completely incorrect.” Casey said Bermant angered Armstrong by “pontificating how he’d already brokered a deal with the Santa Barbara and Goleta city councils.” To what extent Bermant had accomplished such political spadework remains unclear.

    Goleta City councilmember Roger Aceves said there never had been any official discussion of the proposal by the Goleta council. Aceves expressed concern about the traffic impacts of such a development — 130,000 square-feet on 10 acres of land —especially when combined the impacts anticipated from UCSB’s planned expansion. But none of the preliminary planning analysis upon which the politicos would rely had been done, he added. According to Bermant, Goleta and Santa Barbara could split the sales tax revenues generated by Target, and Target would spend up to $9 million on traffic mitigations. Casey said he’s never heard Target commit to such expenditures. He noted that the $1.2 million a year the airport can generate by leasing space to light industrial companies and start-up R&D firms will be considerably more than the $700,000 annual rent Target would pay City Hall.

    Space for such light industrial and commercial functions is becoming increasingly rare in the City of Santa Barbara. As the Funk Zone — where many small industrial operations are now headquartered — becomes increasingly gentrified, Casey and others are looking to the airport to help fill the breach. Casey said it would make more sense for Target to move into the site at La Cumbre Plaza, now occupied by Sears. He said Target representatives have expressed a willingness to explore that.

    Bermant said that Sears’ lease runs through 2028, and that Sears has no interest in moving. While revenues at La Cumbre are low, he said, Sears’ costs are even lower, meaning that the outlet is consistent performer. Besides, he added, Sears is owned by K-Mart and K-Mart would be loathe to give a competitor like Target a toe-hold in the lucrative South Coast market. Likewise Bermant said none of the other locations frequently cited as more appropriate actually work.

    Bermant also suspects the council violated open meeting rules. The council is allowed to meet in closed session to discuss personnel matters, labor contracts, and real estate negotiations. But Bermant claims because no actual negotiations were underway — only the question of whether they should be entertained — that the council should have discussed the question in public.

    Comments

    Independent Discussion Guidelines

    I dont think the council really cares about the traffic flow. All they care about is keeping sant barbara high class city. The council probably shop at saks fith avenue and all other high priced stores. It is not fair for the people of santa barbara to go shop at expensive stores. Specialy in this economy. I have not shop in state street for over 5 years already. A lot of people either go to oxnard or ventura and buy stuff at the target or walmart tbey have over in those cities.

    Mizeguilty (anonymous profile)
    July 22, 2010 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Um, according to a poll published last week, 2/3 of respondents favor a Target in SB. For a town that prides itself on Democracy, its Council sure doesn't listen to the people. Same comment re bulb-outs - lots of protests, Council building them anyway.

    JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
    July 22, 2010 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Are you kidding me?! So we had a chance to have a Target in town and they rejected it again? That is ridiculous! I don't know anyone who lives here that doesn't want a Target. These high priced stores need to leave so people who live here can start shopping in town again. This town is becoming a fantasy and only for those who are rich and famous can live or shop here. Stupid decision on the city counsel!

    Muggy (anonymous profile)
    July 22, 2010 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    "I don't know anyone who lives here that doesn't want a Target. These high priced stores need to leave so people who live here can start shopping in town again."
    -- Muggy
    In all likelihood, a Target store would have difficulty fitting into most locations where the "high priced" stores are and/or wouldn't pay the significantly higher lease rates.

    I agree with city planner Casey - a better long-term utilization of the property is light industrial and R&D. We need more of those kinds of jobs than low-wage retail. Higher wages, higher income for the city, less reliance on social services.

    EastBeach (anonymous profile)
    July 22, 2010 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Once again nanny government wins out over democracy. East Beach, you're dreaming. Is there any 'light industrial and R&D' business on the horizon that would be so foolish as to open, much less try to build, a new facility in the failed, anti-business state of CA? Esp in left of left SB? So the land will sit empty, generating NO jobs and NO tax revenue. Good move (not).

    JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
    July 22, 2010 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    The Indy should look deeper into this story, the airport property is under control of the airport department, which is an enterprise fund of the city. Meaning that since they receive money from the federal government they are not allowed to comingle funds with the city's general income fund. Any money that the city gets from Target has to stay in the airport budget. The city council wants Target into Sears.... they even say it. That is so that the city's general fund can profit from it, not be locked into the airport's already well funded budget. Indy, please follow up on this... trust me there is more of a story here on why Target got shot down and Jim Armstrong is behind it, it is merely a money grab by him. He does not care about what people want.

    InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
    July 22, 2010 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    How can the City Council do this? I'm clueless about procedures, but could the City of Goleta do anything about getting a Target if they wanted to? Geez. San Luis Obispo is getting a Target but oh no! not in Santa Barbara; we're entirely too exclusive for that! Please keep following this story.

    AWB (anonymous profile)
    July 22, 2010 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    'Target into Sears'? Is Sears closing?

    JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
    July 23, 2010 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Well, if JohnLocke says a poll, any poll, reveals support for Target then it must be true. No evidence is necessary nor knowing who was polled, how, and what questions were asked.

    The link to the Airport Enterprise funds is good to know, if true. Claiming that the city council shops at Saks is a joke.

    But whatever big box store is built needs a home improvement section on grow lights and hydroponics.

    BongHit (anonymous profile)
    July 23, 2010 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    JohnLocke,

    It is stated twice in the above article that the City Council would prefer Target to move into the Sears space at La Cumbre. The first mention of La Cumbre is in the second paragraph!

    Did you read the article in its entirety, or did you just see, "City Council" in the headline, jump to the comments and press the "tell them how it is" button on your keyboard that generates random anti-establishment rants?

    Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
    July 23, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Too right, Kingprawn; now it can all be automated, as evidenced by this Brit site (just press "New"):
    http://www.twyt.com/psl/

    binky (anonymous profile)
    July 23, 2010 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    BH- good one! ROFL

    theresathefarmer (anonymous profile)
    July 23, 2010 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    I find it curious that SB/Goleta area has no Target. Here in Minneapolis they are all over the place and they are an excellent employer. Target Corporate HQ is here and many of my friends work there. Way better than Wal-Mart.

    Goleta_Minnesota (anonymous profile)
    July 23, 2010 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    If SB wants a Target, maybe they could put it in the upper State Macys location (La Cumbre Plaza). The city does NOT need two Macy's stores.

    I applaud SB City Council for NOT considering the airport location, as it is really Goleta (despite the what-I-consider-illegal SB land grab for the airport & adjacent property).

    Sears already owns the Sears in La Cumbre and KMart in Goleta. I would love to see those two crappy stores some competition!

    hutch (anonymous profile)
    July 25, 2010 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Log in to comment

    Forgotten your password?

    Sign up

    EVENT CALENDAR

    Previous Month | Next Month

    Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

    Local Weather

    Click here for current conditions

    Surf Report
    • Specials
    • InPrint
    • Top Emails
    • Summer Adventure Guide 2011
    • Wedding Guide 2011
    • Best Of 2011
    • 2010 Election Coverage
    • Blue Green Guide 2011
    • Local Heroes 2011
    • 2011 Calendar of Fundraisers
    • Local Bands
    • 2011 Foodie Awards
    • Stupid, Inept, or Corrupt?
    • It's My Life
    • Helicopters United
    • What Was Bacara’s Dworman Thinking?
    • White Denim Hits the Road with Wilco
    • Summit for a Cure
    1. S.B. Filmmaker Mike DeGruy Killed in Helicopter Crash
    2. Stupid, Inept, or Corrupt?
    3. New Hospital Helipad Sees Heavy Action
    4. Bye Bye, Redevelopment Agency
    5. SBIFF 2012 Third Weekend Schedule
    6. Santa Maria Police Standards' Slippery Slope
    • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
    • LOG.IN
    • CONTENTS
    • CLASSIFIEDS
    • ARCHIVE
    • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
    Google
     
    Independent.com Web
    Copyright ©2012 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
    This is our Privacy Policy.