Tag Cloud
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Shady Lady Saloon owners to open restaurant in Galt
by Brandon Darnell, published on May 16, 2011 at 5:34 PM
Storyline: Local Business
Loading images
The owners of downtown’s Shady Lady Saloon are set to open a new restaurant in Galt in two weeks featuring a blend of traditional American food mixed with lean California cuisine in a restored building from the Civil War era.
Co-owner Alex Origoni said the restaurant – called Brewster’s in a nod to one of the early tenants – will feature food ranging from $8.50 entree salads to a $22 filet mignon, with sandwiches starting in the $9 range.
“The history of (the building) is really what attracted us. Much like the building Shady Lady is in, it’s a registered historic landmark, and it just gives so much character to the project,” Origoni said.
Origoni, who owns Shady Lady Saloon with Jason Boggs and Garret Van Vleck, said the trio worked together in various Sacramento restaurants before opening the saloon two years ago. Initially hesitant to expand to Galt, he said that once they saw the building, they were sold.
“We saw it as a blank canvas,” Origoni said, adding that the shell of the building is original, but the rest of it was essentially empty, allowing them to incorporate high ceilings, honeycomb tin paneling on the second-floor roof characteristic of the 1860s and some modern touches as well.
The 7,000-square-foot building was purchased more than a year ago by Sacramento’s D & S Development, Inc., said co-owner Bay Miry.
Miry said one unique feature of the restaurant is a glass floor near the downstairs bar and entry area that overlooks a wine cellar.
“The cellar will be lit, so people will be able to look down and see that area,” Miry said. “There’s also a really cool glass elevator that leads up to a lounge area on the second floor. They have a solid menu that’s going to be a lot of moderate price-range comfort food.”
Before its recent renovation, it had been vacant for about 20 years.
D & S Development is no stranger to the Shady Lady Saloon’s owners, having worked together at the 1409 R St. location as well as plans to work together on K Street in Sacramento.
The scope of the project was significant, Miry said. It included seismic retrofit and structural reinforcement as well as finding a tenant for the site.
“We did about $2.5 million in renovations: hardwood floors, chandeliers, woodwork – especially in the bar. Some of the tables were made out of cedar, which is pretty unique,” he said.
Galt City Manager Jason Behrmann said he sees the restaurant and a nearby senior housing project – by Sacramento Developer CFY Development, Inc., which is partnering with D & S on K Street in Sacramento – as being catalysts for revitalizing downtown Galt.
“We’ve been doing a lot of facade restoration, and we’re trying to bring more dining options and a movie theater, and we’ve got some other improvements along the railroad like plaza and park features,” he said. “We want this to be the central place for the community like the way it once was.”
In a public/private partnership, Behrmann said Galt contributed about $1.2 million in grants and redevelopment funds.
He added that he is happy with D & S Development’s choice to bring Shady Lady Saloon owners into the space.
“We went up (to Sacramento) and took a look at their operation,” Behrmann said. “We’re certainly supportive of that.”
Origoni said he is flattered to have a role in kicking off the revitalization effort.
“It’s something we take seriously,” he said. “We hope to deliver a solid product to the town. There’s been so much interest in the community.”
Galt Chamber of Commerce Board President Rose Lavine lives across the street from the building and said she is happy to see a business going in.
“I think it’ll be awesome,” she said. “It’s never been a restaurant.”
The building previously housed a post office, then the Brewster Company Store – a general store – and finally an Odd Fellows Lodge before its 20-year vacancy.
“That’s really the only big restaurant down there (in downtown Galt),” she added.
Behrmann said he hopes the restaurant will help make historic downtown Galt a regional draw as well as a magnet for Galt residents.
Origoni said he wants people to know that Brewster’s is not a Shady Lady Saloon clone.
“Certainly our stamp is on it, in terms of the type of things that we do and the core values we have for the industry, but it’s a unique concept that is just a different animal than Shady Lady, and I hope people realize that.”
Brewster’s is located at 201 Fourth St. in Galt. For updates on exact opening date and a website for the restaurant, check the Shady Lady Saloon Facebook page.
Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow him on Twitter @Brandon_Darnell.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
This is $1.2M that would otherwise fund local schools, public safety etc. Absent this property tax revenue, the city leaves the state to foot the bill for that portion of school funding.
As a Sacramento taxpayer, I don't want to fund Galt's restaurant enterprises anymore than Galt residents want to fund Sacramento's mermaid bar.
But redevelopment as it used by California cities is a de facto state subsidy, since the portion of the local property tax revenue that would have gone to local schools is diverted to development, and must then be backfilled by taxpayers at the state level.
One can see that the redevelopment payback is overstated by supporters of redevelopment by the simple fact that these cities would not make these same investment decisions absent the state subsidy. For instance Galt city probably receives around 1.00% of the sales tax from this new business. So Brewsters would need to have $120M in sales to break even on the $1.2M redevelopment investment. Even with the multiplier effect of the new Brewsters employees suddenly spending money around Galt, $120M in increased sales in the Galt zipcode will take a very long time to realize.
Galt, like Sacramento, knows this and would never invest $1.2M of their own city budget in a restaurant venture. But Galt, like Sacramento, is happy to make the investment with someone elses money, in these cases via corrupt little redevelopment systems that are cozy with certain developers, and where the costs can be attached to taxpayers statewide.
- Redevelopment creates more than 300,000 jobs each year, and many of them may not have been in California but for redevelopment.
- Infrastructure Cost Savings. Redevelopment project areas tend to be already served by utilities and other public infrastructure, which lowers the public and private cost of serving the new development. This is particularly true of existing transportation infrastructure, which is incredibly expensive to construct and financially challenging to maintain in good condition.
- Elimination of Brownfields. Redevelopment often transforms environmentally contaminated land and neighborhoods (known as brownfields) into economically viable and culturally exciting places, acting as a springboard for other public and private investment. This generates additional state and local tax revenues that would have been impossible without the investment.
- Lower Public Safety Costs. Redevelopment lowers public safety costs by removing blight and the conditions that attract criminal activity. This lowers the state’s and counties’ costs for prisons and jails, courts, parole and probation, mental health and other services. It also allows local agencies to focus public safety services in other areas of greater need.
- Significant Government Revenue. Redevelopment generates new income, sales and property tax for state and local governments ($2 billion per year by current count).
- Better Transit — Less Parking. Redevelopment can help make public transit systems more self-supporting and successful, reducing the number of vehicles on the roads that serve other parts of an urban area. This also helps address one of the most perplexing and expensive problems in urban areas: where to put parking and how much to charge for it. Think about it. Parking spaces and garages are some of the biggest wastes of urban land, but they are necessary because of the way we have chosen to grow in the past. That does not have to be the case in the future.
- Affordable Housing. Redevelopment is often accompanied by housing, both market rate and affordable, that meets important housing needs and reduces reliance on automobiles to access services and recreation in the urban core. Since 1993, redevelopment funds have helped build 98,000 units of affordable housing.
- Other Urban Amenities Follow. Development in redevelopment agency (RDA) project areas can create the critical mass for attracting cultural, restaurant and other entertainment opportunities to the urban core.
- Lower Carbon Emissions. Development in RDA project areas leads to lower per-capita and per-housing-unit carbon emissions, due to increased pedestrian, bicycle and transit use by the residents and visitors.
You sound admirably committed that redevelopment is a great thing, and I am sure there is nothing I can say that will change your mind.
However, our own SHRA claims they have created 19.000 jobs locally, a number which no individual or media source has come close to substantiating. I am confident the same is true for the 300k statewide jobs you mention. And ultimately, at what cost are we creating jobs. There is no independent evidence that Redevelopment is an efficient job creation tool, and in fact most evidence is to the contrary.
You are very proud of the Sheraton redevelopment and how it funded further K street redevelopment. If in fact it was done 100% with city of Sacramento monies and did not burden state taxpayers, then I am proud as well.
Again, back to my point. If redeveloping this building Galt was a good investment, D&S wouldn't need subsidies to do it. Government subsidization of private business is ultimately bad for the taxpayer, and the private business as well.
You're ALWAYS so negative! Why do you still live in California & better yet Sacramento?! If you're this unhappy with everything why don't you put all your effort & negative knowledge to use in the city councils, local or state gov't? I'm not sure if you do or don't but I hope you do.
Also, redevelopment is a form of business, if you don't like the business don't support it. Simple as that.
Also,
If I didn't love it, I wouldn't speak out against it!
And it is not the development "business" that concerns me, it is the taxpayer economics of redevelopment. I will again restate that I am fully in favor of a city deciding for itself how to spend its own money, with the consent of that city's constituents of course.
But I simply feel it is wrong when state money, in the form of redevelopment tax subsidies, is used to fund a private business for the benefit of a particular city. And this is exactly what we are talking about here in reference to this Galt restaurant venture.
Very well stated & great job reinforcing your opinion. I'm a fan of redevelopment & visit the K Street businesses several times a week. I am very happy to see K street booming with people-- spending money & positive foot traffic. Wish all of the redevelopment was there while I lived downtown. Also, I'm reconsidering moving back downtown & renting my house out so I can be in the mist of all the action.
This has nothing to do with "pride". It has to do with fact cause and effect. Your response is simply that job creation figures used by pro-redevelopment types is unsubstantiated? A weak response that neglects the other positive points related to redevelopment that were highlighted. Before that your response was that net sales tax return to Cities from redevelopment is minimal? But you neglected to respond to increases because of redevelopment as well on property tax, hotel tax, payroll tax, and other revenue generation.
Lets look at some local case studies. Take first the Citizen Hotel since we already spoke of the Sheraton Hotel. We didn't even touch on the tax revenue generated directly (hotel tax, tourism taxes, car rental taxes, etc) and indirectly (increased sales tax from visitors, etc) from the redevelopment of a hotel project like this one. These figures are so significant that they are the primary mechanism used in other cities to build sports and entertainment complexes that cost hundreds of millions of dollars! It would be interesting to note what the property tax of the Citizen hotel was prior to its redevelopments versus the current assessed value and the value 5-10 years from now when the economy improves. Now lets take the K St 1000 Block redevelopment as a case study. According to City Council Staff Report, a few hundred construction jobs and 180 permanent jobs were created. We already touched on the sales, payroll, and property tax generation. But what about the impact the three venues have on local vendors and suppliers as well? Think the restaurant equipment guy or the produce guy isn't happy that Pizza Rock opened? There was controversy at the time that the 3 "subsidized" venues would have a negative impact on existing entertainment venues. But all signs point to those businesses being as busy as they were at the peak of the economy. Finally, lets take the case study of the Elliot Lofts building where Mikuni and PF Changs are located. The governor LIVES there. The businesses and offices/lofts above have always done very well. What would the area and specifically the property values and their tax assessments be around 16th & J St had the Elliot Building not been redeveloped?
There are other key factors as well. The millions in permit fees that go back to the City from these types of redevelopments. Each of these projects pay significant per square foot SCHOOL FEES. The fact that often times redevelopment "subsidies" are not subsidies but actually low interest loans that get paid back to the City over time is worth noting. And finally, how about the idea that redevelopment besides actually financially providing a boost to City revenue also "speeds up" the development of an exciting downtown? In other words, how long would it take to make our City "cool" if redevelopment was a tool that was not at our disposal? This in addition to the benefit redevelopment financially gives through the revenue generation for city services?
We can go in circles here, but my point remains the same. If revitalizing this building in Galt was so cash positive for the City of Galt, they would have floated $1.2M in bonds and rehabbed the building years ago, instead of relying on a redevelopment state subsidy scheme.
The only reason these redevelopment agencies have money in the bank is because they property tax dollars that would normally pay for other local services (schools, fire, police, parks etc) are instead diverted to the redevelopment angency. And for those services which state law says cannot be unfunded (like schools) the state picks up the tab.
Don't get me wrong, I love a nice bar/restaurant in a shiny restored building. But I also like my city having dollars for local services, and going to my childrens school. It is a Faustian bargain to exchange a new restaurant at the expense of the rest of my community.
Your claim of 300,000 jobs created was pretty soundly refuted by the independent Legislative Analysis Office. The same report could find "no reliable" evidence that redevelopment benefits the state, or regions. So on this rare instance, I got to side with Guv Brown on this one.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2011/realignment/redevelopment_020911.aspx
By the way, as a consumer, I love everything that you say is good about redevelopment. Fixing urban blight, doing it quicker than the free market would do otherwise, the appearance of job creation etc. But the unfortunate reality is that redevelopment, at least how California has implemented it, is just a shell game that costs us in the long run.
One question? Is there anywhere I can find an actual ROI or cost/benefit analysis for any of the projects you mention? I assume something like this is done for each project proposal. I really would love to see some of these redevelopment claims in actual dollar terms.
If you don't believe in job creation then I suggest you go pound the pavement. Go talk to all the management and staff at the new businesses at the 1000 Block. Go talk to the Parlare owners (Dale and Sheena) and get their opinion on what redevelopment of the Citizen and the 1000 Block has meant for their business. Same with the owners of Chops, Ambrosia, Pyramid, Temple, Mikuni, etc etc etc.
City Council Staff Reports typically include detailed projections, numbers, deal structure, and return on investment numbers. I also suggest you get involved with groups like NAG, SOCA, the MBA, attend Planning Commission hearings, City Council Hearings, etc. Those are the best areas to listen and get a better understanding of how these deal structures are put together, why they are put together, and what they mean in terms of future impact both financially and from a community perspective.
Obviously I am not arguing that redevelopment hasn't created jobs, as you reference to Chops, Pyramid clearly highlights (and the construction workers, architects, bankers, and material suppliers that built those establishments). But I am absolutely arguing that redevelopment is not an efficient job creator per dollar spent.
The simple proof of this is that you have typed thousands of words, when you could have ended the conversation with a link to the cost/benefit analysis or ROI's for the projects that you mention.
I have searched and searched, including reviewing council staff reports, scouring the SHRA website etc and cannot find these simple basic documents that should be the basis for consideration for any investment of taxpayer dollars.
Instead you fall back on the classic defense of a bloated bureaucracy gone wild, advising anybody who asks questions that they must make a part time career of attending commission and agency meetings just to confirm that their tax dollars are being spent wisely.
I suggest that you write "I will not obfuscate" on your bathroom mirror to serve as a daily reminder, and then get back to me when you have some credible analysis of the job creation power of redevelopment.
I suggest you decide which redevelopment projects you want to look at. Then find out date approved and through City Council website read and learn the staff report, pro formas, financing, sources and uses, and associated recorded DDA/agreement. You can take it then further and through SHRA or Economic Development ask for public docs monitoring the completed project and return back to the city. And through the County Assesor you can find out the property tax generation difference before and after the redevelopment's completion for the said property and surrounding area any given tax year.
I hope these thousands of additional words provide guidance on something that you seem to have had no luck with. I'd really look forward to continuing this dialogue once you've done this type of specific analysis of docs related to one or several specific completed redevelopments in addition to the "pavement pounding" I suggested before. I'd be curious then what specific concerns you still had. I also have a few questions for you: 1) What are your favorite cities in the US and why? Which are your favorite in CA and why? 2) What do you see as a more efficient alternative tool over redevelopment in order to generate additional tax revenue for city services and stimulate development in a city?