By Robert Haugh
Reclaiming Our Downtown received the fewest votes among the named choices in the Santa Clara News Online reader survey. But the comments about the group were still significant.
Nine percent of respondents said Reclaiming Our Downtown was the biggest detriment to revitalizing Downtown.
That means most respondents did not see the volunteer advocacy group as the main obstacle. City Staff and Councilman Suds Jain were considered bigger problems.
But some did point out the group for criticism.
A Santa Clara resident said Reclaiming Our Downtown has contributed to the gridlock by insisting on a “narrow, prescriptive vision” that does not reflect market realities.
“Advocacy is important,” the resident wrote. “But when it becomes inflexible and exclusionary, it can stall progress rather than support it.”
A Mission City resident said the group has been unwilling to adapt.
“Reclaiming Downtown is not bending and wants downtown like it was before 1960,” the resident wrote. “This will not happen. This is a different time and ROI.”
The respondent criticized expectations for a movie theater, trolley, two-level buildings, road closures, and major landowner participation, saying the “original plan will not happen.”
“If we want a downtown, we need to pivot,” the respondent wrote.
An active downtown resident blamed whoever pushed the form-based code, saying it “really stuck a fork in any development.”
The sharpest comment came from a resident who requested anonymity, who said Reclaiming Our Downtown “needs a big refresh.”
Some critics acknowledged the group’s effort.
An Old Quad resident said they wanted to “commend those volunteers” who have put in “their own time and effort” to bring back Downtown.
But the survey comments suggest a second concern: some residents believe the group’s vision may be too rigid to attract real development.
For Downtown to move forward, residents appear to want both competent leadership from City Hall and flexibility from advocates.
As one District Five resident put it, the City needs to stop debating and start producing visible progress.
HaHa, thank you!
Alas, I haven’t lived in SC for many years. My involvement as a non Santa Claran would necessarily diminish the credibility of the effort as in the case of non-resident leader of the effort Ondrasek and perhaps others.
Back in the day in my time as a Planning Commissioner, I and Don Von Raesfeld, chaired a similar effort for the “downtown” area. What killed it? No owner buy-in. That fatal error was 100% on me. So obvious but, as here, blew it off. I wasted a lot of people’s time and effort for overlooking such a critical step. At least we didn’t blow $millions of City money as ROD has.
So, over a decade of wasted time in the Ondrasek push. The only result to date? $millions blown of resident money for nothing. What’s puzzling to me is why ROD members continue to participate (for a decade+) knowing that no owner is on board. Only two explanations possible: 1. ROD membership didn’t/doesn’t know the fact that no owners support the plan; or, 2. They know the dooming fact but use ROD gatherings as nostalgia/social get togethers. No problem with the latter, of course, but you don’t blow resident $millions for those outings.
As to redeveloping the City owned property in the plan area first. This is Ondrasek looking for an out knowing he shoulda gotten owner buy in before proceeding at all. Blame the city.
Transparently a “look over there” tactic. Anyone with some familiarity with real estate development knows developers come to you. You don’t go to them unless you’re prepared to take the mother of all haircuts. Here, no developer interest, so lets do a RFP? Not how it works.
Not everyone weighing in on the future of our downtown actually has a stake in it. Some of the loudest voices pushing to shape Santa Clara’s revitalization don’t live here, don’t pay property taxes here, and won’t have to live with the consequences of the decisions they’re advocating for. One of the most persistent critics, Adam Thompson , is a “Wanna-Be” developer and councilmember whose frustration seems rooted less in civic concern than in PERSONAL GRIEVANCE. Someone who couldn’t get his way with the revitalization committee, is super negative about OUR city, and has been working to influence OUR city’s direction ever since. AND HE NO LONGER LIVES HERE!! That goes for DONNA WEST and DAN ONDRASEK as well as other outsiders.
Santa Clara’s downtown belongs to the PEOPLE OF SANTA CLARA. Residents deserve a revitalization process driven by those who are genuinely invested in this community’s future, not outsiders with their own agendas.
Outside, whoever you are, at least the people you criticize are identifiable. Just reading your comments I see who you are against, but not what you are against or what you are for. The Dude, whoever he is, at least makes a few good points, regarding the theater and trolly. IMEO.
There is nothing personal about the effort to restore downtown to be a vibrant communtiy gathering place for Santa Clarans.
At least I don’t hide behind who I am, what experience and expertise I bring to the table, and have proven over a decade that I (along with many others) have been willing to put in the time to help correct the mistake past generations made.
The DCTF held almost 60 public meetings over 4-years to get residents input, comments, and questions. ALL feedback was considered and incorporated into the plan with the current financial feasibility taken into consideration.
I own property n the City, I pay property taxes, but I relocated because Santa Clara continues to elect the same incompetent individuals who use favors and approvals at the City’s expense.
Being that the a Mayor and many council members have stated that property owners have rights beyond those of citizens (which I don’t agree with) I still have a say based on historical and current precedent. If you want to change that narrative elect people that believe the same and are not in it to empire build and profit from the position.
I don’t see any sitting council members or City Staff that has negotiated a land swap to return control of Franklin St to the City (Lisa sold a more to SCU), add over 1/2 acre of park land to a developement, increase housing where it did NOT back up to existing single family, and reduced massing where new development did back up to existing single family. (With much more beyond these major accomplishments)
Call foul all you want but if you are not going to stand up and participate in the work needed to restore downtown then please keep your isolated, and incorrect thoughts to yourself “mystery plant”.
Very interesting points. Thank you. I knew the leader of the effort, Ondrasek, doesn’t live in Santa Clara. Donna West does not either??
The red flag dooming the effort of ROD, beyond being led by a non-resident which is the reddest of red flags in itself, is the fact that not one property owner in the plan area has consented to redevelop their property per ROD’s plan.
Not one in over a decade(??). Seriously(??)!! I’m not at all sure Ondrasek has even disclosed this mostest of critical facts to its membership. So much for transparency.
Moreover, not one property owner has consented to ROD’s redevelopment scheme, not one owner even supports the plan!! In over a decade! I mean, you got to line up property owners before you even launch the effort! ITS THEIR PROPERTY!
The City has blown $millions at ROD’s behest for absolutely nothing. For now more than a decade. The City should close the spigot now unless and until affected property owners sign on.
Just common sense.
If you owned an adjacent parcel in Downtown right now, today . . . Would you run out and sell/entitle it . . . Or would you wait for the City to develop block “a/b” and pick up the additional evaluation . . .
As always thanks for the same single concern Byron, let us know if you want to stop complaining and start helping. You claim you are passionate and knowledgeable . . . Get involved! : )
We haven’t heard from you for a while BJ, I hope you are well. If what you say is true, and there is no reason to think you would lie about something so easily refuted, it is a bit of a shock. And last time I checked, you are also among those that don’t live in SC. I could be wrong, there’s a first time for everything. But a very good point, as I say, if true. Why would the property owners object to improving the area? Or is it just the specific plan, not the concept? Heck BJ, this might not even be you, it could be AI?!?!?
Property owners, like all, have different goals and objectives for their property. Perhaps some are leveraged and understandably are concerned about development lowering their property values, rents. That hit alone triggers a default and go into foreclosure? Always risk.
What if the project can’t be completed? Happens. See Related in Santa Clara. See Google in SJ west downtown.
Who bails property owners out while the City is wrapped up in litigation for eons. Get the consent of owners? Perhaps avoid that risk.
So many various legitimate owner concerns.
Ask owners first. No support? No project, no wasting time and $millions.
I know ROD means well and they work tirelessly, but their vision is off with some of their “must haves.”
Movie theaters are dying across the country and in our region. A trolley… the novelty will wear off after a few months (if not sooner).
A successful downtown like Campbell, Los Gatos, Sunnyvale and Mountain View have a variety restaurants and bars. That’s what people flock to visit.
They need to think of what will make money and what will bring people to the area.