Press Banner

Karen, you lost me when you called Target "conservative" as a pejorative. Good luck with that. Votes: +1

Karen:

I respect your views, but you're off the deep end instantly with the "conservative corporation" remark, and it shows your colors. Youre not entirely reasonable in your argument, and im not sure if any reason would get thru to you based on that ONE comment.

But..here goes.

Those 9000 cars, are already LOCAL people, not new traffic. People will not be coming from San Jose to your target. We are already driving THROUGH your city to get to the valley or -maybe- Santa Cruz where some real shopping can get done. Kmart aint cutting it...sorry. If Kmart was relevant in that market, we'd all be going there, but..few do anymore. Not as many as there used to be at least.

Did you get that..those -9000- cars in the survey, are ALREADY THERE, they just dont stop, they go somewhere else and benefit some other zip code's local economy. If someone from Watsonville shops there, its because they were already IN TOWN for another reason, Let that sink in, please.

This side of the range suffers deeply from lack of choice, and in some zip codes, serious anti business sentiment. Sure, Santa Cruz protects its local shops, but when that comes at a 10-20% premium on high dollar goods and services, no cost of gas keeps people from cruising down to Saratoga down 9, or Los Gatos down 17 where competition is alive and well.

$27k for a new offramp? Thats a steal. You'll make that in additional local revenue in 60days of opening a Target..ask the struggling coffee shops how many more $5 latte's they'll push with a full parking lot of new shoppers instead of watching them drive by to shop somewhere else..or the gas station nearby, or Bruno's BBQ...the list goes on. A target is a seed of revenue for a great number of local services, it makes people STOP in Scotts Valley. PS, the offramp into SV stinks anyways, it could use some modernization.

Scotts Valley is an exit on 17 to -other places-, its not a strong shopping destination. The world's a big place, communities CAN act in their best interests without being free-space scrooges. The city council appears to understand that, and how local revenue can be increased without taxing the local residents.

Thats right, the revenue your city will require in the future, either has to come our of YOUR pocket, or 1000s of other pockets from all over the greater SCruzMtns area. Are you voting with your mouth, or your pocket? The loss of home owners due to foreclosures is costing your city greatly, you're gonna have to cut services or raise taxes. But thats ok. It wont raise MY taxes if you dont have a new store to shop at, just yours. Enjoy.

The rudeness in the mail from SLV folk is simple, a very vocal minority in SV is overacting on many fronts. Very unreasonable arguments, some of them wholly false, have taken over the debate. You already have a big box store, it just sucks...you're rebuilding a new central shopping area removing your OWN existing open space. I for one will not drive 30min down Hwy9 to fight for parking in a town square environment where it may take me a # of stores, a ton more time and aggravation, to shop for those few heavy times of year like school starts, holidays, etc.

Its like saying that if you refuse to widen a highway because "it will encourage sprawl farther down the road" actually prevents it. It doesnt. All it does is massively inconvenience the locals who have to suffer with it for many more years, only to get the widening done, but at 3x the cost of 10yrs ago.

Cost matters, if you havent noticed, gas costs more, everything costs more, and our incomes are not keeping up with them. We will be shopping close to work in the valley or Scruz where these stapes are convenient, and cheaper. Thats the economic reality at work here.

Scotts Valley, Evolve. Thats how prosperity happens. Target was an opportunity to SERVICE the greater SLV need, and you would have reaped many financial rewards from it.


-Jeff Votes: +2

For facts about the Target, visit http://www.svtarget.com/ Votes: +1

I really think we should be putting the Target ON Scott's Valley Drive where there are several dilapidated old buildings falling down, not right at the beginning of M. Herman. :twocents Votes: +6

Actually Jeff, it's great to hear someone from SLV who wholly understands the benefits of development. One of the recent sites that I have heard in the last few months slated for development is the corner of Mt. Herman Road, Graham Hill and Highway 9. Where the horses are currently wondering around aimlessly. That is PRIME real estate and should be used in more productive way than boarding horses. Live stock should moved to areas where it is more rural and that land will hopefully be sold and developed as Jeff says.

It would be a great spot for mixed use retail. I hope the powers that be will move that project forward. Votes: -1

The bill for $27000 would be another bond tacked on to the tax bill of Scotts Valley residents. Someone has to pay for the mid town exchange which was included in the traffic report as being a done deal. We already know the State and City of Scotts Valley cannot fund the project. It's suggested the tax payers would have to. I personally do not want to subsidize Target and that's what I'd be doing.......KMART in Scotts Valley is NOT a Big Box.... You can easily shop online for Target merchandise and you save time and gas, don't pollute the air, don't contribute to the traffic congestion and have more time to do other meaningful things. Plus there's less chance to impulse buy and that's how you'll save money.....I'm all for the suggestion to have the Graham Hill and Hywy 9 /Mt. Hermon Rd intersection developed as introduced by SLO in the prior comment. It would make shopping way more convenient for the SLV. Votes: +1