19 May 2020 Dear Sir or Madam: I'd like to offer an opinion on closing Santa Cruz Ave, for use by businesses to supplement their indoor footprint. If Coronavirus makes small indoor spaces inhospitable to business, consequently making it more difficult or impossible to profit within, it seems the primary approach should be a negotiation between the lessor and lessee. New distancing rules, whether they be temporary or permanent, reduce the value of the property because it reduces its efficiency. If the lessee formerly was able to pay the rent, and can no longer do so because of the rules, then it would be best for the owner to negotiate to either help the tenant through the period, or help alter the space to accommodate more people safely. It's in the owner's interest because absent cooperation, the owner can anticipate the business's failure, and an extended period of unoccupancy. If an otherwise successful business fails in that spot, what are the odds someone else would be willing, at the same price, to attempt operations in a storefront rendered unsuitable to profit? It must be assumed others would have similar luck trying to pay an inflated rent (given conditions). This should put downward, prophylactic pressure on the cost and a willingness to make the property effective to operations when distancing is in effect. It's difficult to know how long social distancing may be required. Corona strategies evolve quickly and some epidemiologists, including one who won a Nobel Prize at Stanford, are advocating for the seclusion of higher-risk individuals while allowing the rest of the populace to go about their businesses. Be that as it may, one strategy might be for restaurants and property owners to expand rooftops for open dining during the slack period. It would be an expensive initial investment, but conceivably be worth it given tax considerations and expanded capacity. The restaurant would subsequently reopen with more tables, rooftop dining and infrastructure in place to better survive and compete. Menlo Park might help by streamlining its permitting process and looking into whether it can legally suspend some of the ADA requirements for the rooftop section. The city can help owners and businesses by improving its own processes and thinking creatively on how to help reduce red-tape. I'd prefer this to giving up one of four main pathways running across town. These roads are often jammed during non-commute hours, especially when there are road restrictions from massive construction projects now underway. If MP concedes Santa Cruz Ave to its downtown businesses, there will be great pressure to make the measure permanent. The town will put itself into a position where a return to status quo ante will bankrupt businesses, or at least subject to those claims. There have been plenty of discussions on high downtown rental costs and any move to subsidize businesses by the city would artificially keep these costs high. The same situation exists now with colleges: easy availability of loans has spurred tuition costs that exceed the cost of inflation. People complain about shuttered stores downtown and will continue to do so. They mistakenly call it blight. It isn't. It's an example of the market telling the owners they want too much for the space. If the cost went down, those places would move. If business owners are serious about shutting down Santa Cruz, a detailed, unified proposal and implementation plan should be required. It should be incumbent on businesses and lessors to document why this period of financial stress can't be resolved at the private level. This would help put public pressure on what should be a private negotiation. The message: we're reluctantly willing to listen, but are skeptical you can't come up with your own solution. Any initial willingness on the part of the city may be taken by the owners as a reason to delay negotiations with their tenants, which would have the opposite of the intended effect to help the businesses. If proprietors submit a detailed implementation plan, it should be made available to the public for questions and review. In the venues I've monitored, most of the comments have been made in context to very general ideas and you can't evaluate general ideas effectively. You need specifics. I was unfortunately unable to attend the town meeting in which this idea was initially discussed. If a tape of the conversation or minutes are available, would you kindly forward links to me so I can better inform myself on what went on? Sincerely, John Wu (Downtown MP) johndwu_at_(domainremoved) Received on Wed May 20 2020 - 13:21:17 PDT
