A blog about News.
About noholdsbarred


Member Since:
August 03, 2007
Last Signed In:
August 23, 2008
Profile Views:
1842
Blog Views:
30178
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Luck is in the eye of the beholder
Energy bill blowin' in the wind
Scrivner's threat speaks volumes
Accountability concerns fuel Ashburn's high speed flip flop
Twists of council race make it worth watching
Comparing me to cow dung
Cows are not public enemy No. 1
Leadership? We don't need no stinkin' leadership!
Bear attack details shouldn't be kept secret
Poor ranking a way of life for Kern
Archives
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


noholdsbarred - > No holds barred -> Target a good choice for River Walk
Target a good choice for River Walk

Even Bruce Freeman, California president of Castle & Cooke, laughed at me when I interviewed him for this column.
 

“You?! Siding with a developer?”
 

My reputation (such as it is) may be forever besmirched, but I really do think Castle & Cooke has taken an unfair beating over its decision to bring in Target as an anchor store in its Shops at River Walk development.

Critics, including City Manager Alan Tandy, have accused the developer of a bait and switch, promising high-end retailers to get project approval and then delivering low-brow goods.

I don’t buy that.
Sure, a Target store, no matter how gussied up, is not a Nordstrom. But Nordy’s wouldn’t come to Bakersfield. Castle & Cooke tried. Neither would a host of other department stores. Or they would only come if their rent was $1 (Dillard’s). Or they would need more than the 100,000 square feet allowed in the plan (Macy’s).

My point is Castle & Cooke was clearly out there pitching. They had no economic reason not to, since the other “lifestyle” stores they wanted, such as Coldwater Creek, had already said they wanted an anchor before they signed on.

In fact, Freeman told me, Castle & Cooke lost some of the high-end tenants it was talking with because it took so long to get an anchor. Where’d they go? Valley Plaza Mall — which is also getting a Target in the old Robinsons-May spot, by the way.

“I was really surprised at the reaction,” Freeman said of the negative comments toward Target. “I’m not a shopper, but I asked my wife and her friends if they have a problem with Target and they don’t at all.”

They shop other places, too, of course. And with an anchor finally in place, the Shops at River Walk will have that kind of diversity, Freeman said.

Some people probably truly felt Castle & Cooke was trying to pull a fast one with the Target move. But I can’t help thinking there’s a “snoot” factor here on the part of a healthy portion of the protestors.

And although Target isn’t Saks Fifth Avenue, it is a good store with good quality merchandise that a lot of us can actually afford. Sorry snoots, I’m a Target shopper and proud of it!

Target also happens to be a healthy company that didn’t balk at paying actual rent, Freeman said. It’s also very popular with younger people.

Architecturally, this isn’t going to look BIG box. It’s going to be nicer than The Marketplace, according to city planners and Freeman.

So what, really, is the big deal, especially Tandy’s last-minute objections?
 

“I don’t know what to tell you,” Freeman said.
 

The biggest concession the city got from Castle & Cooke, it seems, was getting a Planned Commercial Development overlay on the entire project. That means any future changes have to go before the Planning Commission at a public hearing, rather than being hashed out with staff.

City staff had feared the Target move meant Castle & Cooke was so anxious to generate money it was going to go after big-box stores whole hog, scrapping the original plan entirely. The overlay gives the city enough control to keep that from happening, I was told.

Though Freeman said the city already had 68 conditions on the development and any substantive changes would have to be made at a public hearing anyway, I think the overlay is a good idea. That way, even if there are changes the public won’t feel hoodwinked.

I wondered if it was that perception that created the angst over Target in the first place.
 

I’ve heard numerous complaints that Castle & Cooke throws its weight around and has a habit of writing checks it doesn’t cash, so to speak.

Yes, Castle & Cooke is a powerful company that commands a lot of attention with the city, no denying that.
 

But talking with city planners and going through our archives, I didn’t find a string of broken promises for public amenities. I also didn’t find a history of slipshod building.

Mostly, Castle & Cooke has asked for, and received, changes in the General Plan, allowing it to build offices or single-family homes instead of apartments, or commercial instead of offices. Several times the requests were denied by the Planning Commission and then OK’d by the City Council  — clearly a more politically sensitive body.

Freeman argued the city has never gone easy on Castle & Cooke regardless of politics. In fact, he thinks it’s the opposite.

Take the company’s 2,000-acre, 7,500-home West Ming development, he said. It took Castle & Cooke five years to get that approved. Meanwhile, Old River Ranch, a 2,000-acre, 6,400-home development seemed to win approval in just a year.

“They just whipped them through,” Freeman said.
 

Not exactly. Both projects put in their applications in December of 2003 and Old River Ranch got approval in November 2005 while West Ming’s approval wasn’t until November 2007. But West Ming, I was told, used a different kind of plan that went back and forth as Castle & Cooke argued for its design. Then Shafter brought up issues of the Buena Vista shrew and Castle & Cooke chose to recirculate its environmental impact report, all of which added time, planners told me.

Still, Freeman was a little frustrated that after nearly 20 years of Castle & Cooke proving itself a responsible developer in this community, there isn’t at least a little more trust. Before he got too far out on the pity branch, though, he reeled himself back in with a self-deprecating chuckle.

“Yeah, no one’s gonna feel sorry for a developer.”
 

Nor should we. But we should give credit where credit is due.
 

Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com

Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by noholdsbarred on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 07:44 AM
Report a Violation
Viewed 223 times
30 comments from 17 users

1

posted by witbee on Jun 8, 2008 at 08:20 AM

So, they got to you, too.

 

Just kidding. If Target thinks it's economically feasible to do it, who am I to say it isn't.

posted by johnburnssucks on Jun 8, 2008 at 09:23 AM

I like Target. I work at Sears, although I hardly ever buy anything there. I buy a ton of stuff at Target, though, which has my bosses scratching their heads.

posted by Lingtaowoo on Jun 8, 2008 at 09:30 AM

I use to go to Target,until I learned that at Christmas-The Salvation Army bell ringers were not welcomed...and Target doesn't contribute to the Marine Corps Toys for Tots...but this may all change with the new President of France...it is said that he is a friend of the U.S.---we'll see


posted by FrankieV2 on Jun 8, 2008 at 10:01 AM

I like Target too.  Higher class than Wal-Mart and K-Mart and they have that chocolate drizzle snack mix.

posted by siouxcityranch on Jun 8, 2008 at 10:49 AM

Not to rain on anyones parade but wasnt river walk supposed to be for more of an upscale type market place??That target store dwarfs the ampitheater and distracts from its architecture..

just incase some folks havent noticed yet..those metal beams will soon be filled with stucko and drywall..so much for the view of the park i guess..I understand they needed to stick something in there to make the space pay for its self..but did the plannig commission do an impact survey in what we were going to lose by installing this gargantous run of the mill Target?? They could have toned it down to one level and spread it out to keep with the lay of the land..

it just cheapens the whole project..kinda like sticking a kmart down on rodeo drive..

posted by bakobornnraised on Jun 8, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Siouxcityranch couldn't have said it any better. Target...BOO! Upscale, Schmuck scale...Why don't you just put a Goodwill there and invite a few homeless men to wander the parking lots. While they're not begging for spare change or offering to wipe windows, they can nap at the park....

posted by ezekiel51 on Jun 8, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Siouxcityranch, the current two story metal frame building is going to be Castle & Cooke's new admin building. They haven't laid the foundation yet for the new Target. One of the conditions is that the architectural design is in union with the areas front and back. It will be interesting to see if this stays true.

posted by siouxcityranch on Jun 8, 2008 at 12:09 PM

my bad?? so we are gonna get 2 gargantous building there now..THATS GREAT!!! why is castle and crook puttin up an admin building anyway..hoiws that hold with what the project was supposed to be in the beginning??couldnt they have built on the other side of stockdale with all the other multi story dwellings..why have a quaint "RIVER" park if no one can see it unless your standing in the parking lot behind the building wit h the dumpsters..now its got the romantic flavor of good ol beach park..WOW wanna spend my nights and weekends there!!! ..guess it does make it easier for the gangsters and druggies to hide out and do their thing....this project started out sooo good..then it turned into a swimmin hole for all the east side to come drown their kids in..and now this..good job guys

posted by RoyTullis on Jun 8, 2008 at 01:27 PM

I'm with Lois on this one.  The search for an upscale anchor store did not work out.  A Target Store is a good answer. I'm no snob. I shop where I can get the best buys.  Some things I shop at Target for and sometimes even Wal-Mart, 99 cent store,  Winco and even the Cancer Society's  Discovery Shop.


posted by FrankieV2 on Jun 8, 2008 at 02:03 PM

how about a giant open air farmers market instead of an "anchor"?  that would fit in more with the whole "riverwalk" idea than a target.  all the other retailers be damned.  go back to your fresno, your los angeles, your new york.....this is BAKERSFIELD, we do things differently here.  and on that note i have a new slogan for the city....Bakersfield - if you weren't born here, you don't belong here.  life as it should be my arse.

posted by happytimes on Jun 8, 2008 at 02:05 PM

In the article, Castle & Cooke says they couldn't work out a deal with Macy's because they needed more than the 100,000 square feet allowed in the plan.  The City Council approved Target with a building over the previous maximum square footage, so if the Castle & Cooke fought for the larger building for Target, why wouldn't they do it for Macy's?  I think everyone would agree that Macy's is more upscale than Target.

Secondly, the article says Bruce Freeman is frustrated that there isn't more public trust in his company.  For those of us in the southwest our lack of trust in Castle & Cooke can be summed up in two words: Federal Courthouse.  Castle & Cooke wasn't looking out for the community then, so why should we believe they are now?

posted by FrankieV2 on Jun 8, 2008 at 02:07 PM

what he said.

posted by adampayne on Jun 8, 2008 at 02:35 PM

The opposition to Target at Riverwalk (River Walk or RiverWalk) is not having it out for developers, but having it out for development that has no plan. If you know by all the statistical information on demographics for the area that the income level and overall population density is not high enough to support up-scale shopping why sell the area as such to get it graded and sit vacant? Or to then populate the site with one more of the same thing we have all over town. This town does not need one more Target. Target is a fine retailer and good partner for communities by and large, but Bakersfield already suffers from too few choices at the retail level. The only real competition at retail is at the clearance price level where the 99cent stores compete with Box Lots, the Dollar Stores, Goodwill, Tuesday Morning and every pawn shop in town for the race to find the absolute lowest price for a given knocked off item.


My question is why build and continue to plan for all these single family homes and strip centers when wages throughout this community cannot sustain planned growth on projects more than a decade old?  Look at the stalled projects all over this city's perimeter, and tell me we need any more development. Until the business climate changes dramatically in this area there is no point in building one more structure.

posted by siouxcityranch on Jun 8, 2008 at 02:43 PM

Actually fankie i think your open air market is a hell of an idea..everybody could benifiet from that..I wasnt nutso about the higher end stores but I sure as heck dont like seeing something that had so much potential being cheapened with lower end retail stores..dont wanna see baby diapers in the parking lot etc like kmart was off wible road ...I hope its going to be a part of bakersfield we can all be proud of..we need that pride in our city badly

posted by siouxcityranch on Jun 8, 2008 at 02:50 PM

and what adam said..it could remain a tree lined parking lot to hold the over flow for the concerts etc that should be held out there ..the parking for that pretty much SUX..an if the future requires it..build something we need then..might throw in some type of a center for the kids to enjoy for the time being

posted by FrankieV2 on Jun 8, 2008 at 03:49 PM

yeah. that k-mart on wible/wilson was a real jewel wasn't it?  ranks right up there with the zodys that sat vacant all those years.  here's a little bakersfield trivia...does anybody remember White Front and where it was located?  bonus question....what was the name of the soda shop that was right next door?  errrr, it might not have been a soda shopp per se, but they did sell this brand of soda there.

posted by adampayne on Jun 8, 2008 at 06:04 PM

White Front was where Mervyn's currently resides on California. I don't remember the soda shop, but I do remember there was a building supply store called Builder's Emporium back where Lassen's and whatever else is back there now. That whole area along California was so promising at one time, and now it is such a mish-mash of medical offices, churches, office buildings, retail, apartments and dining you just scratch your head and ask, what were they thinking? That California extension district evolved into a six-lane speedway where the residential area that sits in little pockets adjacent to all the various business locations cannot even walk across the street to shop. It is another pathetic misuse of land and opportunity. The Truxton extension is now going through the same bizarre transformation with hodge podge businesses and uses lining a freeway.


posted by FrankieV2 on Jun 8, 2008 at 06:30 PM

winner, adam!  the soda i was referring to was called Pop Shoppe.  good stuff.  they sold it out of that tire shop that sits in front of mervyns parking lot.  builder's emporium...damn, brings back memories.  can't tell you the hours i spent right next door at jimmy's arcade.

posted by FrankieV2 on Jun 8, 2008 at 06:38 PM

we already have three target stores, there's going to be one at valley plaza and one at riverwalk.  ridiculous.  how many do we need?  open air farmers market.  fresh fruit, vegetables, maybe Sea Breeze could sell fresh seafood there.  Hell, Bolthouse or Grimmway could set up and sell their carotts and juices.  you could get lunch, dinner, whatever.  anything but another big box retailer.

posted by FloridaStateGrad on Jun 8, 2008 at 06:47 PM

I agree, Frankie. I don't understand why developers and chain retail stores insist on over-saturating our communities with the same stores every 3-4 miles.  I think it's an extreme waste of resources and space.


posted by FrankieV2 on Jun 8, 2008 at 07:16 PM

Really.  Heaven forbid we try something different.  Instead those in power want more of the same cookie-cutter garbage.

posted by mattloch on Jun 8, 2008 at 11:12 PM

Let's see if the City once again ignores the shade tree standards for yet another shopping center. How many more blacktop deserts will need to be built before the citizens in this town sit up and take notice (or the City does something about it)? Commercial development is supposed to have a 40% shade canopy. The City not only ignores this standard at existing shopping centers (anyone find any shade at East Hills Mall? I counted three whole spaces with shade trees at full noon, and those were taken by mall employees), but continues to allow new development without doing a simple site plan check for this. (And no, Oleaders do not count as "trees".)
 


Is anybody buying the reason Tandy had a change of heart for this plan? I mean, how often does he side against a developer? Can anyone cite me a single case of this? (Hell, he was behind the "canal" plan south of town, the baseball diamond in the middle of downtown, the federal courthouse in people's backwayds, and every other cluster**** short-sighted development plan.) And suddenly he falls into line and supports the exact same plan he was against mere days earlier. I mean, you can't blame him for being consistent; I'm complaining because he was suddeny inconsistent. For one brief moment sanity reared its ugly head, but then was hammered back into the corner whimpering and cowering.

posted by siouxcityranch on Jun 8, 2008 at 11:24 PM

they want it for the rent frankie...they dont care about anything else.. ..dang I like that open aire market..kind of a fishermans wharf in southern cali.packed full of differnt .small ethnic food shops to do what we called in seattle a walk about breakfasts..grab a bagle here a home made taco there and a german sausage in the middle..wash it down with a fancy coffee or icey health shake from a nice little coffee shop..honest people selling hand made products and I dont mean junk..they would have to pass inspection to keep the quality up..uhhhh OK Im wakin up..another Tar Gaaa' in our not too distant future..ahhh I can smell em fresh diapers now..

posted by NancyII on Jun 8, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Target's supposed to close the one on Wible when the one in the mall opens.  Got that from a little shopper birdie..

Matt..if they aren't going to plant trees, I'll settle for oleanders.  The get really tall, provide at least some shade, and require very little water.  The one in my back yard is up to the power line to the house and I've never watered it.  Whatever water it gets must come from the lawn and shrubs across the driveway.  Lordy,  they really are messy though.

posted by gsisola on Jun 9, 2008 at 01:14 AM

Man I just hate to see it.... like FrankieV2 said we need something that will give us a kind of *town square feel*... you know "Farmers Market" feel.... a meandoring kind of city walk... like they proposed with the *canal thing*..... grass, shops, walkways, spread out, kind of a *general town meeting area*, sculptures, pic-nic areas.... something nice for a change.... somewhere where you can spend some time in a park type atmosphere... we have *big boxes up the a**... we don't need anymore...not a Target... just like Nancy said... close down the old one after the new one is done... how many times have we done this... then we have a big old ugly empty box sitting there waiting for some one to do something with it... stupid is as stupid does... thats us...we already have what... four of them... at least 3 that I know of..... I would rather they got on the ball and finished the Super Wally on Panama.... this town makes me say WHAT? alot these days !!!!

posted by justthefacts on Jun 9, 2008 at 10:36 PM

Hey Lois -  Anyone bother to look at those who spoke to the city council in favor of the Target? I believe some were Castle and Cooke employees put on the spot by the higher ups. I'm not anti Target, but at least get it there fairly and honestly. Ask Bruce about that Lois! I'm sure he will deny it, maybe he didn't know, but with a little research you will find the facts. I urge you Lois to look into this and report back. You owe us the facts.  

posted by FrankieV2 on Jun 10, 2008 at 08:25 AM

My problem with the Target is that we don't need it.  A Target at Riverwalk brings nothing new, exciting or fresh to the table.  If you need to shop at a Target that bad there's one 3 miles away on Rosedale Hwy.  How about something that we can all be proud of, something we could all use, something that will draw in out-of-towners, something a little more eco-freindly.  Riverwalk with a Target....it wouldn't draw me there for any of the shops or the park.  Riverwalk with farmers market (perfectly described by Siouxcity)....I'd be there 3 times a week.

posted by ronnagail on Jun 10, 2008 at 08:46 AM

I love Target.  And I'm glad they don't allow those damn bell ringers. 


posted by FrankieV2 on Jun 10, 2008 at 08:52 AM

Matt's not a Target guy.

posted by Maggiepoo on Jun 10, 2008 at 08:57 AM

What difference does it make? They all sell the same imports just different pricing or packaging,,, every dime you spend in those type of "stores" helps keep US jobs secure...go spend .....

1

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, please enter the text from the image on the left.
   

Our readers recommend: