The big-money, developer-funded “No on Q” campaign is making wild claims they can’t back up. They say that Measure Q hurts small business and that any change of use triggers a ballot. Both claims are false.
They never say why or how. They just keep making the same sweeping factless claims and hope that if you hear their message enough, you’ll believe it.
So, where’s the beef? Where’s the substance behind their claims?
Measure Q does not hurt small business. Think about it. Measure Q actually helps protect existing small businesses from being squeezed out by commercial building owners who want to replace you with new, higher rent-paying, higher-intensity businesses. The recently adopted landlord-friendly downtown specific plan makes it simple for landlords to replace long-time retail tenants with bars and restaurants who pay much higher rent. What landlord doesn’t want higher rent? But if you are the existing business who could be faced with having to pay higher rent, why on earth would you oppose Measure Q which is here to help prevent you from being forced out by that big rent increase?
Without Measure Q, the community could lose some of our favorite retail merchants who could be replaced by busy restaurants that add to traffic and increase demand for parking.
And it is false that any change of use triggers a ballot. Changing use of a commercial space from one type of retail to another type of retail is not impacted by Measure Q. Anyone who wants to open a new retail business in a space where another retailer is located should have no issue from Measure Q. If it’s retail today, it can be retail tomorrow. And 90 percent of Laguna’s businesses are retail.
There is no problem replacing most restaurants with a new restaurant that is a similar level of service – fine dining for fine dining, fast casual for fast casual, for example. Changing from French to Italian is no problem.
Since providing adequate parking is the responsibility of the building owner – not the small business leasing the space – if the building owner is cooperative, there should be no problem converting existing retail to all but the fastest of fast-food type restaurants. And Measure Q does not prevent the building owner from filling the void with as many in-lieu spaces as needed.
So, where’s the beef?
If applicants follow the guidelines in Measure Q their projects should have little problem with approvals.
Make Laguna better, not bigger. Vote Yes on Measure Q.
John Thomas, Laguna Beach
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://www.lagunabeachindy.com/letter-wheres-the-beef/&media=https://www.lagunabeachindy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/letters.jpg&description=The big-money, developer-funded "No on Q" campaign is making wild claims they can't back up. They say that Measure Q hurts small business and that any change of use triggers a ballot. Both claims are false.){kind=link}
John, Measure Q does for a fact hurt any small business trying to get started in Laguna. Where is the collation of business owners in town that support Q? (only Bushard’s…lol) When existing legacy landlords have a hard time finding quality tenants, they will sell their properties and guess what this will do, increase property taxes with a reassessment upon sale. Most commercial leases pass on expenses like insurance and property taxes, so in effect if you don’t allow the existing landlords to raise rents to market rate you the new landlord will have no choice but to cover the higher cost of debt and taxes. Also, it really sounds like a socialist agenda when you are trying to dictate the appropriate levels of competition, rent control, etc… The market and the people voting with how they spend their hard-earned money will decide if a business succeeds…. not you.
I can’t tell if you are misinformed or gaslighting the public. You sound somewhat intelligent but dug into this false narrative you are spreading. Measure Q was extremely poorly drafted, and I don’t think it was an accident. VOTE NO on Measure Q.
400 Words of Hot Air written by ANOTHER realtor! To challenge growth? He’s petrified that Q will remove regs to let who ever wants to invest in Laguna use capitalism as their mechanism to earn profit. No sane person wants a Law to force a public vote by its citizens on any development? That’s why this propaganda is written by a realtor. Bigger is only Better when agents want to sell your home. They’ll fight like banshees to get those $20 Mil listings, but don’t build anything commercial – – it’ll Ruin Laguna. Let’s stop Laguna from languishing away to the whims of uneducated holier than thou housing-agents who are predators. Q is toast because we put our money where our mouths are. We need to eat.
Here’s what Q actually says that would hurt businesses:
(l) ―Reasonably Necessary Number of Parking Spaces‖ means
1. Two (2) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for:
i. Furniture stores, appliance stores, machinery rental or sales stores (excluding
motor vehicle rental or sales) and similar establishments which handle only bulky
merchandise; or
ii. Commercial service establishments, such as shoe repair, tailor, dry cleaning, TV
repair or other uses of a similar nature.
2. Four (4) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for:
i. Medical offices and clinics, including chiropractors, optometrists, and dentists;
ii. General office and other business, technical, service, administrative or
professional offices.
iii. Hair salons or barbershops;
iv. Other personal service establishments including tanning salons, nail salons, fitness
centers, spas, massage services or uses of a similar nature;
v. General retail stores;
vi. Art galleries;
vii. Commercial banks, savings and loan offices, other financial institutions;
viii. Shopping centers;
ix. Food stores, grocery stores, supermarkets or similar uses and caterers.
x. Liquor stores, convenience stores or mini-markets
3. One (1) space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area, including outdoor seating
area(s), or 1 space per 3 seats whichever is greater for:
i. Group counseling/meetings;
ii. Entertainment, including bars, cocktail lounges, night clubs;
iii. Food services including, but not limited to restaurants, drive thrus, take-outs, fast-
food and full-service, bakeries, ice cream stores, juice bars, delicatessens.
A small ice cream store would require 4 to 6 spaces based on this necessary parking requirememt under Q. You claim that the property owner can just create in-lieu parking spaces. But why would they? They’ll just rent to businesses that wouldn’t require this.
Stop leaving the beef out of the facts on Mrasure Q!
The tactics of both sides of this war have become obvious over the past few months:
The anti-Q PACs make allegations of eventual chaos, they bear a definite genetic link to the QAnon/Trumpster, Alternative Facts movement, decry and encourage hysteria, hence control by obfuscation, enlist a larger audience by intentional, screaming, outraged misrepresentation.
Which then goes mainstream, accepted and unquestioned a la Uncle Donald, miming his strategy.
Using eschatological, end-of-the-world verbiage, they created then recruited a larger cabal via staying on that exaggerated message. By far their propaganda war features the most inflammatory and jarring rhetoric, they get up close and personal (ad hominem): Carnivores.
The pro-Q, meanwhile? Soft-spoken omnivores or outright vegans.
Every time another missive (missile) from the anti-Q gets lobbed into the community square of thoughts, pro-Q calmly, patiently, methodically deconstruct and debunk.
Like JT has here, using facts not subjective reality, alternative ones.
He like his ilk actually explain the nuances. Thinking it’s a public service, using language that would convince in a fairly judged, level-field college debate. It’s not.
Maybe the pro-Q embraced the Michelle Obama logos: “They go low, we go high.”
That’s not working, it’s like a fight where one (anti-Q) feels quite at home hitting below the belt.
The pro-Q stop the fight, and politely ask their opponent to please not do that, it’s not fair, against common rules of decency.
Though I’m sympathetic to the pro-Q movement, what’s probably going to happen is that Q will fail but for the wrong reasons. It’s NOT rocket science to read and digest it, but claiming something’s too arcane, too esoteric, too confusing and impossible to understand is working. So few have actually read it: Mission accomplished.
Let’s face it, the anti-Q, having lots of $$$ in their war chest drawn from commercial forces while the pro-Q have what, 10% or less of that (probably from dominantly residential protectionist players), a 4-1 pro-development City Council will be seated.
Two years from now, the anti-Q PACs will use the remainder of their funds to unseat incumbent George Weiss.
And by that time anti-Q will have anointed DRB and Planning Commissioners who are also pro-commercial development/re-development.
Thus a top-to-bottom coup, a takeover that’ll effect the entire future of a once-upon-a-time idyllic, quintessential So Cal funky surf town.
It’ll be an upscale, tony, urbanized nightmare.
R.I.P.