 What is it about Starbucks? Do people go there because it's a familiar name? Because they want to be associated with a hip brand? Maybe the coffee tastes really good for some people, although I've mostly heard it has a "burned" taste. Yesterday, I tried it out. Briefly interrupting my disdain for even looking at Starbucks (a chain outlet in an historic town), much less being a patron, I entered and ordered one cup of coffee. And, while not a coffee aficionado (liking tea better), the liquid indeed tasted "burned," or more like "burned acid." I deposited my full cup in the garbage and left.
Starbucks is one of the unfortunate projects left bobbing in the wake of Mayor Randy Hall's administration and Ketchum's Urban Renewal Agency (URA). Among the many reasons it shouldn't be here is one above all: the store has taken market share from other more unique coffee shops in town. How did this chain installation happen?
Background. Property with a run-down deserted bank on Sun Valley Road was bought by the URA in 2007 as a site for much discussed, much needed affordable housing. It was appropriately located in the city's designated urban renewal district. Talks began behind the scenes, however, in November 2009 between Mayor Hall (also URA Chair) and Starbucks representatives to create a Starbucks franchise on the site, instead of housing. Few residents knew about the talks. Were the Mayor and Howard Schultz, Starbucks' Chairman and CEO, in the same room? I don't know. But the Mayor seemed always to be moved by a personal touch from powerful people and he gave away a lot in difficult city negotiations with Starbucks' demanding corporate lawyers (not, as usual, with the local franchisees).
In April 2010, Ketchum's URA sought bids specifically for an eatery on the site with an unusually short two-week response time. That's when the Starbucks "deal" became known to the public. A subsequent brou-ha-ha about the apparent set-up led to Ketchum's adding 10 more days for bidding and doing away with the eatery-only requirement. The Ketchum Business Group formed instantly and submitted a proposal backed by 100 residents and businesses for an improved Visitor's Center. An ad we placed is posted on my blog. Our several page proposal was more complete than what Starbuck's presented!
Nevertheless, before a large audience of Starbucks opponents, the chain won the bid from the URA Board. The URA then spent $140,000 updating the building's infrastructure. About 1/3 of the ground floor was saved for the revamped Visitor's Center and its rack of brochures, bench seating that basically extended Starbucks' capacity, and video screens for advertising. In the first few weeks, you could listen to the videos, but suddenly they were muted. Turns out that Starbucks' 25-year contract forbade sound with the videos.
Today. The Visitor's Center today is an uninviting vacuum of useless space that passively coexists with Starbucks. At the center of Ketchum, it is an extremely pricey footprint going to waste. Now, Ketchum's URA is trying to improve the situation. Based on an Agency meeting I attended this week, it may be throwing money at a losing proposition, however.
At the meeting, the Board voted on whether to sign a $31,000 contract to install digital signs for advertising in the Visitor's Center. The money would cover four large video screens, licensing fees, and software and equipment costs. There would be an additional (roughly) $15,000/year of maintenance fees (not including wireless which could cost another $6,000/year). Fortunately, the Board decided not to sign after discussion revealed a major lack of planning for administering the technology. Questions not yet answered included: how will the four advertisers be chosen, how much will they pay/month, what's the return on investment, how many people actually visit the Visitor's Center, how will the program be managed by the City/URA and at what cost, what level of wireless capacity is needed? This cart was way before its horse!
It turns out that the Board member in charge of the project was away on business. But that doesn't excuse the rest of the Board's not having a clue about the full extent and goals of the project before nearly signing on to spend $31,000 plus ongoing costs. I congratulate the members for graciously backtracking and expressing appreciation for public input. But I also want to emphasize that it's bad practice for any Board to rely on one member to construct and decide a project from beginning to end. The entire URA is responsible for all final decisions, even if it assigns one person initially to honcho an idea.
The Board has considered this idea for several months - a long time to still be disorganized. I don't remember hearing a thing about it, nor can I check the Mt. Express which, for the past few weeks, has lost its archive in the transition to a new website. (How did the Express let that happen by the way?) I've also learned that there has been virtually no public attendance at the meetings. That's too bad. It's quite likely that, had the $31,000 contract been signed, there would have been complaints after the fact once the public knew about it. Certainly, we are not helping those who attempt to serve us in official capacities by ignoring their work until it's too late!
With that call to action in mind, you'll want to know that the next URA meeting about this topic is December 15th. I hope to see you there!!!
Until next week...Jima Rice
|
The Bo
