Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Public Reconsideration and Action on G Street

7765CD8E-D863-4393-9156-5C1A55CAD799

Why is G Street still closed?

During the height of the pandemic, most businesses on G St. in downtown Davis, between 2nd and 3rd, initially supported the emergency action to temporarily close G St. This was specifically to help restaurants and bars carry on with their business outdoors.  More than two years later, eateries have now regained use of their indoor dining rooms but the street remains closed to vehicles with no store-front accessibility to businesses or parking. Minor aesthetic improvements were made and it’s still unattractive.

The Downtown Davis Business Association polled all downtown businesses. The results of the survey were overwhelming – 92% of businesses said “Reopen G St. to two-way traffic.” The City Council was informed of the results of the survey in November 2021.  Many of our downtown businesses do not support the city’s action that keeps G Street closed.

We ask the city council to put the matter of G St. on the agenda at the Tuesday, July 5th meeting for public discussion. The business owners and the community who are impacted by this “temporary emergency action” deserve a fair and open process to study and adopt a plan that suits all of us. Our emails to the council have not been adequately answered. We’d like more conversation and follow through. The City Council meeting held in 11/2/2021 on Zoom, with this item on the agenda was woefully inadequate in terms of allowing full public discourse.

You can support our effort to get this matter added to the city council agenda by contacting us at:  arteryinfo@omsoft.com and allow us to add your name to the letter; please speak up.

Additionally, you may email all members of the City Council directly at this email address: citycouncilmembers@cityofdavis.org

Thank you,

G St. Businesses
The Artery
Illusions
Sole Desire
Davis Barber Shop
Mahin Alterations
Abaton Consulting
Law offices of Roberta S. Savage
Copyland
Bankers Lending Group
Volleys Tennis Shop
Katmandu Restaurant
Brooks Byrd

Posted by

davisite2

on

in

, ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

8 responses to “Public Reconsideration and Action on G Street”

  1. Adele Shaw

    The photo above shows trash left from users on city-owned picnic tables, and city-owned picnic tables in front of Kathmandu restaurant. Kathmandu restaurant does not have a TUP (temporary use permit) for outdoor dining, currently.

    Reply
  2. Darell

    G Street is not closed, and never has been…. Even if signs were posted with that inaccurate and inappropriate claim.
    This is not an open vs. closed situation. When we think in those terms for a street (open means cars, closed means no cars) we lose ALL nuance and any chance to consider a middle-ground. The street wasn’t closed, but BOY was it first barricaded in an ugly, uninviting way. What if instead it was opened up in an inviting way that put people first, and still filtered out the constant barrage of car traffic? What if it were PLANNED to be inviting to shoppers… instead of whatever it is now?
    I don’t think that putting it back to how it was is the answer to any of the issues I’ve heard expressed. Just like keeping it in this ugly, inappropriate “closed” state is not answering our problems. With some thought, perhaps we can make it BETTER than it was before, and certainly better than it is now. I am in full support of that endeavor. I am not in support of simply returning it to a car-dominated, non-human-scale area like the rest of the city remains. Let’s do what’s best for our town and for the local businesses. Let’s not equate that with more cars.

    Reply
  3. Alan C. Miller

    How did Winters get this so right, and Davis get this so wrong?
    I’ve gone to Winters a few times over the last year just because the closed-off outdoor area is so welcoming.
    Davis’s seems to cater most to drinking at night and isn’t focused on eating outdoors anymore, except for Woodstocks which is eating & drinking.
    If this is the best Davis can do with G Street, let’s open it back up.
    Then, let’s do a deep dive on having an actual, planned pedestrian mall centered around 3rd Street and E Street. Not just plan it – do it.

    Reply
  4. Todd Edelman

    G St is actually way more open now than it’s been in decades. G St is public space and over the past two years tens of thousands of members of the public have enjoyed it. The world’s great cities are judged in part by their central public spaces and squares – often pedestrian zones – not little patios like “E St Plaza” that is fortunate enough to be given some space next to the parking lot that’s the center of the Davis Universe. Parking at everything from Nugget to Target is further from store entrances than is parking around the corner on 2nd or 3rd.
    It could be better looking – true – but this is all the result of a spontaneous action. We should work to improve it further. Having more streets like this will increase demand for more alternatives to driving. In the meantime a consistent application of paid parking Downtown will improve circulation and business.
    G St is the future of Downtown. Wouldn’t it be great if the city’s Wikipedia page started with “the largest pedestrian zone in the region”?
    https://photos.app.goo.gl/Ruwf8q2j74qBnLFXA

    Reply
  5. Adele

    @Darell – sure, “improvement“ is good. But I’m curious why you think this unilateral “taking” of G St is fair? Why not E St? Or F St, or 3rd St? Or the parking lot between G and H? Who is supposed to make this decision? This hasn’t been handled in a democratic way. I would think the businesses who have invested so much on G Street should be included in the conversation. At this point the city council’s tight lipped actions are alienating businesses. How would YOU feel if you owned a business on the street? Probably a lot like us: disposable, disrespected, ignored, and being thrown under the bus for the deeper pockets. But that’s just speculation!

    Reply
  6. Roberta L. Millstein

    It seems to me the one thing that everyone can agree on is that the process has been bad, that it was done without a comprehensive or thought-out plan, and that relevant stakeholders were not included. That supports the main request that the G St businesses are making — that this go back to the City Council. There, different ideas could be heard and different proposals considered — ones that come from citizens. (Maybe this may need two meetings).

    Reply
  7. Ron O

    If the city actually wanted to include all stakeholders, it would also consider those who are just driving through the street to another destination.
    And if this street remains closed, they’ll impact another street.
    Streets don’t belong to the adjacent businesses (or homes, for that matter). If they did, there’d be a lot more closed streets.

    Reply
  8. Darell

    @ Adele,
    Guessing how I might feel in a hypothetical situation, and implying that I’ve been concerned with “fairness” are not appropriate here.
    I’m rarely after “fairness.” Heck, many people don’t even know what it means to be fair, or the difference between fair and equitable. What I seek is the best situation for our city. And I’m quite firm in my belief that car-dominance on all of our streets is not what is best for our city. And a street is not “closed” if it merely filters out the single most damaging and resource-hogging mode of transportation.
    I see this “taking” that you speak of more as “giving.” Giving it back to the citizens and visitors to to use and enjoy. Of course we all wish it weren’t so ugly. But then having cars incessantly driving through and parking is no beauty pageant either. And as for the other streets and areas you speak of, I’d support as much opening of our downtown as we can manage. I am indeed tired of it all being “taken” by motor vehicles.
    If we merely concentrate on bringing back the cars, we’ve missed a huge opportunity. Let’s keep the discussion focussed on how this area can be better than it was, and better than it is. For everybody. And I agree with just about everybody that the whole process that has gotten us to these arguments has been a non-transparent disaster.

    Reply

Leave a comment