Proposals to find new sources of revenue for the city of Petaluma received mixed reviews in the Nov. 12, 2009 Argus-Courier online survey.
By a 2-1 margin, participants said “no” to the idea of an “admissions tax” collected on the sale of tickets to events like live music, theater performances and sports. The response was pretty evenly divided on an increase in the “transient occupancy tax,” also called the bed tax, on the rental of hotel rooms in the city. And a majority of respondents said the city should not accept the offer of a $1 million “pre-payment” of sales tax from the developer of the proposed Deer Creek Village shopping center on North McDowell Boulevard.
Here are some of the comments from those who responded to the survey:
——
“A transient occupancy tax on visitors is supposed to be used, in large part at least, to encourage additional visitors to our community. Yet this council just wants it to help balance their general fund budget. No money for the Veterans Day Parade is just one victim of a misguided council and their use of TOT funds.”
——
“Heritage tourism is something that could be a significant income generator for the city. Why do we continue to overlook this as a viable piece of our economic development plan?”
——
“This City Council needs to stop discouraging new businesses in town. Revenues are down and tax revenue is going to other cities. I would love to do all my business in Petaluma, but we don’t have the stores here. I am off to Santa Rosa this weekend to buy a big-screen TV.”
——
“Petaluma needs to improve its own economy by approving projects in the pipeline. This will get people to work, generate sustainable revenue and keep service levels high.”
——
“Whether or not the ‘prepayment’ of sales tax is a good idea, we should move forward with the Target and Lowe’s proposals.”
——
“Raising the hotel occupancy tax and slapping a fee on movie theater or live music patrons is not going to solve the city’s revenue problems. It would, however, probably hurt local businesses. The city is looking at two shopping center developments that appear to be completely consistent with the General Plan and existing zoning codes. Approving these two products would raise millions in sales and property tax revenues, while also adding hundreds of new jobs. The offer from the Deer Creek developer is worthy of serious consideration; an automatic rejection of that offer by the City Council would be a perfect example of the city cutting off its nose to spite its face.”
——
“Petaluma people — please try to shop locally! Kmart, CVS, Raley’s, Ross, Kohl’s, Copperfield’s, Rex, OSH, HobbyTown, Petco and other businesses have wonderful selections of merchandise.”
——
“Increasing the transient occupancy tax and charging an admissions tax are such short-sighted solutions and may just discourage people from visiting Petaluma. People can just as easily stay at a hotel in Rohnert Park or Novato and they may do so with extra taxes added to Petaluma’s hotel bills.”
——
“Why don’t we tax the air while we are at it?”
Approve the Regency and Deer Creek Village projects already and get to work focusing on solutions like increasing tourism, plugging the retail leakage, providing incentives for businesses to come to Petaluma instead of working 24/7 to drive businesses away from Petaluma.”
——
“Although we say we want it all, sometimes that just isn’t a fiscally prudent thing to do. It seems that once we start a government program, people become dependent and it becomes institutionalized. Let all but the most critical services (police, fire, schools, water, infrastructure) retire and then have government stay out of the way when individuals, businesses and community organizations fill the void.”

——
“Petaluma is in real trouble with the new make-up of the City Council. We will be laying off more police and fire staff soon. The liberals are destroying Petaluma.”
——
“These proposals get tossed out there because our city hasn’t taken care of other primary funding sources for city government, principally sales tax. Admission taxes to sports, movies, music? Great, let’s make sure our kids have to pay more for entertainment. By the way, what sports? Last I looked, the NBA still hadn’t selected Petaluma for its next franchise. High school sports? The city may consider that it’s jurisdiction is limited there. As for the TOT, that may not be a horrible idea, but the City Council might want to garner some input from the impacted community before dumping an additional tax on one segment of the economy, while finding the road always leads to no with respect to Target and the Regency project.”
——
“There’s a proper way for projects to be presented, bribery isn’t the right way. The project should pass through the regular channels like everyone else’s projects. This company has already tried to bury Deer Creek by plowing over it. We have environmentally sensitive areas on this property that need to be protected, we have traffic concerns along McDowell that need to be mitigated. As a neighbor to this project, we’ve been led on, then lied to by the developers of this property. If their project has merit it will pass. But let us judge it on that basis, not on their ‘benevolence.’”
——
“We should be moving quickly to process development applications for Target and Lowe’s. These projects are needed in order to keep shoppers in Petaluma and move towards a sustainable local economy. They will generate revenues and jobs. We are now suffering from years of council disrespect to business. How sad that the new majority has absolutely no plan for dealing with our crisis.”
——
“Offering money if your project is approved by a certain date is a bribe, straight up. Shame on anyone who wants to whore out Petaluma. It is a loan, anyway, it isn’t like they would be raising revenue, just getting it now instead of at a later date, when we might need it even more. Money doesn’t always have to be the answer anyway, as we have been led to believe in our money-centered world.”
——
“Bribery is never a good path to follow.”

——
“$1 million pre-payment should only be used for infrastructure improvements, if at all. It definitely should not be used to “balance the budget” of the general fund. Put the $1 million into the new parks fund and get some of the parks going — or use it to re-pave some of the terrible streets near downtown, or underground some utilities. Also, admissions tax should definitely not be charged on high school sporting events. If they are going to tax anything, tax the card rooms like they are doing in Emeryville.”
——
“Adding an ‘admission tax’ to tickets and raising the bed tax rate are bad ideas. On the idea of raising the bed tax, hotel occupancies have already been significantly reduced due to the great recession and drop off in business travel, the City Council has shut down the marketing of Petaluma to potential visitors, which will further decrease occupancy, and one large hotel (the Quality Inn) has already filed for bankruptcy. Raising the tax rate will just make Petaluma less popular and make our problems worse. And it’s a myth that only outsiders pay the bed tax. Our relatives who come to town also pay the tax, and so do people doing business with our local businesses. In recessionary times, and this one is severe, you do not raise taxes. You put more into marketing, which will increase the revenues from the bed tax, which is the real goal and will help the City, local businesses, and all of us. This is even more true with the Hansel RV dealership closing. Market Petaluma, don’t tax us!”
——
“Please don’t sell out to the developers. Doing this would look very inappropriate almost could be interpreted as a bribe of sorts. Even if they were to be approved by April 2 do you really think they will start developing immediately. Not much construction going on these days due to the economy and uncertainty all over the county. What happened to the residential development off Petaluma Boulevard South. It took them years to get approved and always complaining about the city stalling and now almost a year later after approval they are not building and probably won’t for awhile until the foreclosures settle down.”
——
“If the city accepts the pre-payment tax they would only waste it. Then when the time comes that we would of gotten it we won’t and the city would just be trying to get money out of us again. The city and governments have had it to easy to long. They spent like the well would never dry up. Now it is almost dry and they are just going to have to learn how to go without and budget their money like every family has to do. We all get buy with less than we want but they just want to continue to waste. The stupid things they do like dumb road changes, signal changes and road sign changes all money wasted when they finally realize they screwed up (like we all said) and their changes were just stupid and don’t work and now more money has to be wasted to change them back. Two lanes no one lane no screwed up back to two lanes. 40 no 35 no screwed up back to 40. Left on green no left on green no screwed up left on green. All money wasted to change and wasted to change back. Stupid and wasteful.”
——
“Isn’t it a bribe to offer the city $1 million in exchange to get their Deer Creek project approved by a specific date? What’s in this for Mike Healy? Why hasn’t anything ever been built on that property? Don’t blame the opposition, there was plenty of opposition to Southgate, the Kohl’s center and the factory outlet mall; all were built and have either empty buildings or vacant lots.”
——
“I believe this is called bribery?”
——
“The offer from the Deer Creek village developers is an out-and-out bribe. Mike Healy should have thought better before bringing this up at a council meeting rather than go through proper channels.”
——
“So far, non of the retail developers show any signs of building sustainable projects that adhere to our standards. These proposals are the same broken concepts that our city has had to suffer through and subsidize for decades now. I think our City Council members are doing a good job getting retail developers to adhere to a higher standard. I hoping our new Planning Commissioners will have the fortitude to do the same. I think prepayment of a RST bond and along with a demolition bond should both be paid up front after proper vetting of any large scale retail project and prior to approval. With one caveat, that the city not be obligated to pay back any of the funds. The developers state that their retail projects will be a RST boon for the city, despite dormant consumerism. If so, then they should back their claims by paying for their skewed projection … cash forward. If the project fails to produce, then the developer gets left holding the bag and not our community. If you care about Petaluma, oppose these anachronistic retail proposals now! Make the developers go back to the drawing board and give our community something better!”
——
“Increasing the transient occupancy tax and charging an admissions tax are such a short-sighted solutions and may just discourage people from visiting Petaluma. People can just as easily stay at a hotel in Rohnert Park or Novato and may do so with extra taxes added to Petaluma’s hotel bills. Approve the Regency and Deer Creek Village projects already and get to work focusing on solutions like increasing tourism, plugging the retail leakage, providing incentives for businesses to come to Petaluma instead of working 24/7 to drive businesses away from Petaluma.”
——
“It’s really time to be growing our city’s long-term economic development. Without it, we’re left with piecemeal options like this survey proposes. Deer Creek mall’s $1 million bribe to get approvals isn’t a fiscal fix; it’s likely illegal and a shameful way to do business. It’s like the Casino bribing and silencing Rohnert Park with their millions, or our supervisors accepting $10 million from the Pomos and agreeing not oppose a casino south of Petaluma after eight years. These is not economic development, and won’t fix our budget problems. If more big boxes would help our budget, then Rohnert Park would be swimming in gold. We need to support higher income jobs, reinvestment of profits into local business development and expansion, and improved education for children and adults. How can we build on our strengths as a unique community, not just a rehash of Everytown USA? Tourism, entertainment venues, Gateway to Sonoma County, the 150,000 visitors to Shollenberger and the Petaluma Marsh and River, our SRJC, the unique Sonoma County agricultural and food products, strengthening our high tech — these are our unique strengths, not equaled by any other city in the North Bay. Let’s build on what makes us Petaluma!”
——
“Petaluma has a General Plan and it took years to write and approve. These infill projects will bring revenue to our city’s general fund and provide a stimulus to our economy. These development projects will pay developer fees and receiving the ‘pre-payment’ doesn’t guarantee the approval process will be easy. In the meantime, the city could use the revenue to pay for public safety/works. When approved there will be even more city revenue and many more jobs for Petaluma in construction and retail. Not to mention improvements in our infrastructure. It is worth a discussion by the city manager and City Council/mayor to be pro-business instead of anti-business in Petaluma. Petaluma will be ahead when the economy turns around and is fortunate to have developers that still want to make a commitment to our city. Maybe the “pre-payment” could be non-refundable if the developer changes his mind and doesn’t complete the project.”
——
“More business growth, less City Council members oppose it. And a city manager who had any clue on how to ‘manage’ would be great too!”

——
“Accepting a $1 million bribe is outrageous. It would amount to our City Council members pimping out our city, and dropping their integrity, just because we are currently, like the entire rest of the county, and country, strapped for money. What was Mr. Healy thinking bringing this to us? And he wants to run for county supervisor? Are you kidding us? Imagine if Deer Creek Village bankrupted, and lost the property just like the former owners, DSL, of that site, and could not actually put the shopping center in. They are already currently in a fiscally scary lawsuit right now. Earlier this year, they were threatening to sue the city of Petaluma if Petaluma did not see things their way. Now they want to get in bed with us? Citizens, remember, they were not that friendly then. Can you spell loan shark? Let’s not kid ourselves. Go out an look at these facts. Most of which were already published in this newspaper and a Sacramento newspaper.”
——
“I would support a tax if there was a nexus to the amount collected and cost of having to provide emergency services and other related expenses. The city should not take a credit, but should operate within their means. The city and council should take a proactive approach to increasing revenues. Get this project online so we can continue to appreciate the services we have.”
——
“Transient occupancy tax is OK as long as it is in line with other Sonoma County cities. NO on the ‘prepayment’ of sales tax for the ‘proposed’ Deer Creek Village. Regency has priority as the sale of that property PAID for the new Junior High School. Approve Regency first, see how that does and THEN think about Deer Creek. But don’t worry, it won’t happen anytime soon with the newly ‘reconstituted’ Planning Commission and this Council majority, between the two, they have Petaluma by the tail.”