Keeping Russell
In Today’s TNT is the much anticipated piece on Russell Investment Group. Their leases end in 2013. They are a much larger and more diverse business than ever before. They directly contribute $77 million to the Tacoma economy… And, they may leave Tacoma. Office space. Transportation issues. A lack of hotel rooms. Recruitment concerns.
As Voelpel lays out, there are several groups now scrambling to try create the incentives, office space, and love necessary to keep Russell in Tacoma. There’s a private endeavor called “Project Destiny.” There’s the City of Tacoma. There are others.
Do you think we can come up with something to keep Russell here? Or are their needs and our abilities beyond our means? I don’t know.
It’s a long article with plenty of facets. Read it and come back here. It’s a holiday weekend. You have time.
Oh, and by the way, just in case you don’t realize it quite yet or if you’re new to town… This is a big freakin’ deal.
Link to The News Tribune
Filed under: General
99 comments
R rich December 23, 2007
I think this article does a great job on pointing out how our policies in this town could come back and really bite us in the *ss……….for instance: rookies developing the Winthrop(hence a grand place for high net worth visitors for russell to stay); the Downtown Merchants whinning about big box retail (hence, no place for these out of town visitors to shop, well they will have noone if russell leaves along with their work force)……shall I continue…..on the positive side, hopefully Haub is working this issue hard……sounds like a pretty impressive portfolio which could be a grand slam for tacoma….this is it follks, I know there will be people that will down play this…but folks, this is it….this will make or break what this town becomes……people really don’t understand what Russell really does…anyone ever hear of the Russell 2000 index……this is a HUGE company in the financial industry…HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and to have them here is HUGE!!!!!!…..and the merchants want Russell’s guests from countries around the world to shop at their little store………..my blood is starting to boil with all the crap this town has done and continues to do……not to mention the 44% of the local employees at Russell equal 484….and keep in mind the average salary of these 484 employees and what that will do to the local economy to have them and their incomes leave….I believe that is also addressed in the article….when I think of the whinning of the downtown merchants towards big box my head just explodes……..they really don’t get it……they are acting like Tacoma is some little small town in the boonies……..our isolationist attitude might just come back and bite us in the butt……….everything is interconnected…..why do people don’t get this basic concept…….
R rich December 23, 2007
ok, for some ideas….we could have an advantage over Seattle if there are enough tax breaks….Seattle has plenty of big companies and might not go the extra mile to get Russell…….and Russell is a corporation and does try to make money…tax breaks will help……..Haub is a big player here….and when the parking lot news came out, it brought everything together for the Russell deal….so, who knows…….wouldn’t that be impressive to have 4 high rise buildings with some up to 400 feet…..WOW!!!! and the growth Russell is expecting over the next years…..WOW!!!!! talk about growth for whichever city get’s Russell…….talk about the tale of 2 different cities………if Seattle gets Russell, oh, gee another company….I dont’ think you would even notice it in Seattle…..now if Tacoma keeps Russell…WOW!!!! talk about a City changing event to have that development and new employees moving to the area……..this is really a crossroad in the history of Tacoma…….in 20 years…there are 2 outcomes…….interesting to see which one it will be…….not to mention 484 families moving out of town all that real estate on the market……man oh man…….years just to fill their current building……man oh man……I might be a little dramatic here, but it would put Tacoma back to the dark ages……and in my opinion be a snow ball effect……wow!!!!! this is huge!!!
S Stanford Speck December 23, 2007
Does anyone remember that a month ago the mayor and city council approved a zoning change on the Thea waterway that allows a wall of buildings to completely obstruct the view of the Russell building? Rather than a panoramic Commencement Bay and Rainer view from their boardrooms Russell executives will enjoy looking at a high rise condo. Do you think someone in the city government would have weighted this zoning change in relation to diminishing the real estate environment for the Russell folks?
E Erik Hanberg December 23, 2007
One of my summer jobs in college was temping in the Russell mailroom. I worked there with some overly-qualified people because Russell tends to promote from within. Sometimes I see my former mailroom co-workers in downtown Tacoma in new suits and in their new job … and it’s a very visual reminder of what a good company can do, why employees stay there for decades, and why they do so much good for Tacoma.
Rich mentioned tax breaks … what about finally doing away with the B&O tax?
I think George Russell is right, it’s Tacoma vs. Seattle, and I’m not sure we’re winning that battle right now. Announcing the beginnings of a streetcar system would help (the SLUT is really cool and convenient, let me tell you—it’s already convinced Amazon to relocate its headquarters). And the City could make the Haub building more viable by rescinding or lowering the parking requirements to make that building site more viable. Another thing that would help us keep Russell would be to land another employer into Tacoma. Maybe lifting the B&O tax might get Milgard out of Fife … anyway, we do have to do everything we can to keep them here.
R rich December 23, 2007
Would people agree that policies of City Hall over the last decade and their decisions as to developement of tacoma over the last decade concerning everthing from the parking requirement, to the dome district, to just about everything concerning developement in downtown could have changed everything……think about if some of the decisions where different and downtown was alot stronger right now…more retail, hotels, commercial, etc….would Russell be as open to moving as they are???? who knows….we love to monday morning quarterback….but one has to think…….personally, this decision will describe the Mayor’s and the Council’s legacy……..and trust me, this is America, we love to finger point….so just imagine the finger pointing that will happen if Russell leaves…..and the analysis of ever decision made over the last decade or so…..everything will come out….it will be interesting……
M Marty December 23, 2007
Rich,
Are you propsing that they build the Wal-Mart across the street from Russell to retain them?
The small merchants of downtown understand the importance of Russell. Merchants are leading the discussions in many areas including parking & transit, arts & culture, development and marketing.
The merchants aren’t whining about big box. They understand a single store downtown won’t save us. They know the Wal-Mart in downtown is bad for Tacoma.
We need a real vison that plans for ALL of downtown. A real vision that encourages growth not single site development.
Downtown needs a comp plan that will be implemented.
M Marty December 23, 2007
The community needs to thank Russell for being here. Let’s not just leave it up to the elected officials.
Russell leadership has said in the past, they want to feel wanted by Tacoma for more than their pocketbooks.
We need a thank you event. A rally in fireman’s park to show Russell how much everyone in Tacoma wants them to stay. (When the weather is better.)
Let’s start today:
Everytime you see a Russell employee thank them for being here.
Thank them for choosing Tacoma.
R rich December 23, 2007
Marty, I don’t believe I mentioned Wal-Mart anywhere in the discussion….and if you group Wal-Mart in the same sentence as Big Box retail…perhaps that is the problem then…….
R rich December 23, 2007
give me a break…….a rally……talk about a last ditch effort….seriously……get real…..this is a business……I almost shed a tear over your comment on wanting to be thought of as more of a pocketbook……..is that what the small businesses in Tacoma want….?? To be loved……I think I’m going to cry in emotion…get real…..this is business……..and Russell’s decision will be a business decision……not an emotional decision as some small businesses may make…….lol……
R rich December 23, 2007
there may be a few emotions…but in the end, it will be a business decision and what makes the most sense from a profitability stand point…..and what the overall package deal is……
R rich December 23, 2007
Also, my guess is that most the people at Russell don’t shop at Wal-Mart…….
B Bill B December 23, 2007
Clearly, this is very exciting. Everyone who needs to be onboard is. Sounds like if Russell does not stay in the downtown it will be for reasons beyond the community’s control. Or will it?
This issue demonstrates how completely Tacoma’s prosperity depends on attracting and keeping business in its core. So, it’s an opportune time to question Tacoma’s street level attitude toward business. Is a local B&O tax really productive? A local tax on businesses is a tax on local patrons. Would Russell associates feel more or less at home where goods and services cost more? Are they going to be any more impressed to be surrounded by pockets of poverty are that are actually protected. Occupants of subsidized housing have no right to continue to live in the exact city blocks they currently occupy. (Maybe there’s been a stake driven through the heart of this last one, but I don’t recall any definitive resolution.)
R rich December 23, 2007
why is it that Tacoma hasn’t taken part in any the the major developement in the region over that last few years…….WE REALLY NEED TO DIG DEEP AND FIGURE THIS OUT AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT………and everyone says that I’ve been full of it at times with my views on how the downtown core should be…..well….I rest my case……
S sparkrobot December 23, 2007
Parking? Again? Not to completely discount it, but I suspect one thing that’s probably much higher on the list than parking concerns is recruitment.
Think about it.
S snoopy December 23, 2007
here we go again with the parking… i wish we would remove the requirement already so it wouldn’t come up so often on this forum. there are bigger issues that are going to determine where the company moves, such as proximity to the airport, quality of life, and having a seattle address (as seattle is more of an internationally recognized city than tacoma).
for the record, i agree that parking for new development should be a free-market decision. however, i am skeptical that removing it will open up the flood gates on downtown development.
C CJ December 23, 2007
This sounds like we need a forensic negotiator. What do they really want and how can we make it happen. Why not lease them the space at 21st and Jefferson instead of allowing the daily migration to use it rent free to make their deals, or give them the medical arts building (A great visual implosion). Have the city build their new city offices on 21st and Jefferson. A 400 building were the medical arts is would be a great building block to change. Isn’t that were the little train that goes no were stops! The ultimate destination, Lots of potential parking. Imagine the view from the board room. I would be all over this if I could paint the picture anyway I wanted. The A street location is nice but already on a one way street. I would do what ever it takes to give them what ever space they want. Isn’t that what happened for the UWofT. I do not mean to a fend the city but I used to work in that building and I can appreciate the architecture but that building has out lived its structural value. It is functionally obsolete and God please save us from another potential condo conversion. We have to create space that Spews money people. Sorry to go on this makes me mad. I had met Mr. Russell. His value was in his people who worked for him as ours should be for the businesses that work for the betterment of our city.
S sparkrobot December 23, 2007
I think we might need a bigger free beer sign snoopy.
R rich December 23, 2007
ok, I’ll bite……once again…everything is connected folks….ok, say a decade ago this parking requirement was taken care of, and it really did effect the developement over the last decade, especially recently……well…then Tacoma would probably have alot more retail, commercial, hotels, etc….and yes, be more attractive to folks……so, everything is connected…..
E Erik Hanberg December 23, 2007
I think Snoopy’s right on about recruitment.
a) Are there enough people with the right kind of education and skills for Russell?
b) Is Tacoma a place people with the right kind of education/skills would want to move?
If we in Tacoma can’t give good answers to either of these questions, we’re in trouble.
As Marty said, it is about the community coming together and showing that we’re worth it, but more than a rally I see a two year cultural crusade where we put Tacoma on the map as a cool place to live and visit. Major players could be the CVB really stepping up Tacoma marketing to tourists, the three major colleges and the School District, Tall Ships 2008, the museums, and our artists.
If you want Russell to stay, then we can certainly lobby our City officials to enact certain things that will help. But we can do our part by making Tacoma as absolutely cool as we possibly can.
If we can show others that Tacoma is really a place worth living and working, then Russell won’t feel like they will get better employees applying by moving to Seattle …
D daniel blue December 23, 2007
seriously.
everyone knows the world is ending in 2012, why are we arguing about 2013? We should really be trying to figure out how to run a tractor off of saltwater and storing freeze dried seeds. We all need to learn Karate to fight off the mutants and on that note, (if its not underwater) dibs on Frank’s office, its bigger than my house.
And on the small chance that the SOUTH AMERICAN GODS were wrong about the end of time, Frank is going to do whats best for Frank. If Tacoma dies because frank leaves, then we were fooling ourselves to begin with.
The story ive heard is that so many years ago, Mr. Russel fell in love with this place, you can claim that its all business, but business is made of people, and people have hearts.
There is a je ne sais quoi, about tacoma that seattle does not have. Thats why im here, its probably why you are here, and business in hand, thats why frank is here. Perhaps if we could find that “something” that makes us who we are (where we are), and focus our energy on nurturing and valuing and (gasp) evolving that something, we would attract to ourselves the perfect suitors (ie:amazon, pirate bay, apple, disney, google, Toyota, progressatecture…).
The title of this thread is “Keeping Russell”, and it would defeat my point to pretend that the people who work for russell are not a valuable part of that special something that Tacoma has, but Tacoma is Tacoma because its one of the few places left in the world where HUMAN CONNECTION happens. Go to seattle and smile at someone in a coffee shop, you might end up arrested.
Smile at a stranger in Tacoma, and you might end up friends. Russell or no Russell, we need to know, remember and nurture what makes this such an incredible place to live and work.
Big surprise: its us.
C Christy December 23, 2007
It’s a little bit of everything, isn’t it?
Tacoma taxes have never been very friendly to businesses.
The overall crime rate in and around our city.
All of our city development efforts concentrated on one location. Not everyone wants to live in downtown, some of those educated people we’re trying to attract have families and probably don’t want to live in a condo with no grocery stores nearby. I’m afraid Tacoma’s starting to look like that guy in the gym with gigantic biceps and stick twiggy little legs.
Then of course transportation. Some of those big cities have free buses in the business areas. The link is sweet, but so far it’s a band-aid.
E Erik Hanberg December 23, 2007
Thanks, Daniel … Well said.
J jdub December 24, 2007
It sounds to me that at least Eric Anderson is beating on the doors of some people that might make a big difference in this puzzle. The senators and representatives that hold a key into the doors of federal funds that wound get matching grants for mass transit thus showing the world that we can get something done concerning the Tacoma region. Without a unified outlook that involves a comprehensive plan you’re seemingly sunk to chasing after potholes. Which as we all know after the last one is filled you have go back and filled the first one.
So, kudos the Anderson to taking this to a bigger stage and supporting a light rail system of any sort, I think he’s on the right track. And kudos to Morgan for the fight from day one.
This isn’t about a Walmart in downtown, its about growth in a good town with some serious issues. And this town needs growth.
We built a glass fronted convention center, then blocked the view with a hotel. Couldn’t we put the hotel behind it? We built a public square with rail running right through it, thus cutting it of from any real human involvement. (It seems to me that square was an afterthought anyway, a fill in). We let Sound Transit say getting to SeaTac from Tacoma isn’t needed! Why not? Better yet, getting to Tacoma from SeaTac isn’t needed! “nough said.
I love Tacoma, once I got off the freeway. How many years is that going to happen. Can you imagine six high rise cranes over this city scape and all those people driving by wondering what the heck is going on in Tacoma? Then they drive and discover that this place is really kind of cool, with really hip connected artists and small unique shops tucked in among the box retailers? You know there are small unique shops all over Manhattan and I bet rents here are fraction of those they pay.
Yes, growth hurts. Some businesses will fold, but without it we all die a slow dark dream in our sleep.
I don’t want that to happen to Tacoma, we’re better then that. I don’t know enough of the parking requirements, but I know if Russell has to spend 24 mil, its not going to stay just for parking requirements. That’s assinine to any corporate head.
But as I said, it sounds like Anderson’s on the job, lets send him cards and rallies and hellos.
R rich December 24, 2007
Like I said before, the effects on Tacoma to Seattle are night and day…..Seattle, it maybe makes page 5 in the paper…..in Tacoma….front page if they stay……almost points out how our leaders have kept a narrow mind about many issues too long…..I do feel, no matter how much people don’t think it makes a difference, the parking requirement needs to go ASAP…..let’s see what we can do in the next year or 2 to show what sort of developement changes we can make NOW……I say, right now….Mr. Mayor and Council….remove the parking requirement, and get rid of those taxes……NOW…..don’t wait for a deal to go through, do it NOW……show Russell you mean business….start the growth NOW…..DO IT……..don’t wait, don’t think about it, throw yourself infront of the train now, remove the parking requirement and stop the taxes on businesses….allow what growth can start to start now………you can’t sleep on this anymore, you can’t hire any more consultants to tell you what we already know…..DO IT NOW!!!!!!…….in the words of Nike……JUST DO IT!!!!!
I’m curious, what was the cause of Tacomas last decline downtown?
T TacomaSteve December 24, 2007
Why is it a community always thinks about business tax breaks first when trying to retain a company? Often, these negotiated breaks become proprietary, and thus not open for public scrutiny. This happened with Boeing, and it can easily happen with Russell. I think the biggest obstacle in retaining the company is not about space (which I agree is an obstacle), but about dealing now with an outside mega-corporation that owns Russell. Despite being started here, Russell is no longer a hometown company led by a family that knows its community. Before negotiating to keep the company at all costs, I think Tacoma needs to have the self-respect to evaluate what we’re willing to negotiate and what we’re not. My biggest fear is that we may be dealing with a company that will be thinking largely about its bottom line as opposed to a company that thinks about the ethical and moral relationship in the community which it resides. One can argue that Russell does give back to its community in many ways, but this is almost expected in community partnerships these days. To extend the Wal-Mart discussion, they often give the impression of giving to a community for marketing purposes, but really end up impoverishing a community in the process.
J Jenyum December 24, 2007
Everything Daniel Blue said.
Also, I am always suspicious of tax breaks, since they always seem to break down to less money for schools and services.
If we want Russell to stay, we can’t follow them around begging. Better to concentrate on making (and keeping) Tacoma cool enough that they wouldn’t want to leave.
Tacoma’s much more livable than Seattle, New York, or San Francisco, especially for people with families. We should have a “city swap” reality show. One family lives for one month in each city on the same salary and in housing they can afford on that salary.
In Tacoma, Russell employees are valued for their pocketbooks, in San Francisco they’d be lower middle class, scrabbling for tiny little condos or commuting 2 hours from Gilroy. Sure, there’s the caché of San Francisco, but just try living there on less than 200k a year.
L Les December 24, 2007
Telling was the statement ‘according to an analysis by the City of Tacoma of commute trip-reduction records Russell filed with the state, only 44 percent of the 1,100 employees who work in Tacoma live in Tacoma’.
R rich December 24, 2007
Only!!……only 484 or so high income families…..wow…..and now the standard “Tacoma” attitude hits the airwaves………this is the problem with the town of Tacoma……this “Status quo” attitude that we’re fine…if Russell leaves, no big deal……I tell you, this will have bigger effect on this town than anyone thinks…..developement will come to a stand still for a decade…..shops will close in downtown….a chain reaction will start…..but, once again, the status quo has always been good enough for this town, right…….oh, but don’t worry, we have the Port…..more lower paying jobs……as for the tax breaks, well, take away the taxes from 484 families and the corporate tax of Russell, and well….we’ll need a big tax increase just to maintain the schools and services that we have with the loss of revenue from Russell…..once again, why are companies wanting to move away from our little town, and not to? Afterall, everyone says we’re a, cough….“Destination”……..hmm….yeah….this is really working for us…..words are words…let see some action…..and sitting around letting corporations like Russell leave town is not the right path……once again, this is a reaction…..this is what needs to change, rather than reacting to what happens…why don’t we be proactive and choose the paths this city takes, rather than just sitting around and reacting to what happens……….it’s called having a vision, and developing that vision…..heck, we’ve known about the Russell decision for how long? and I’m sure those in City Hall knew about it well before us……when did this crash effort start?? is this once again, a last ditch effort that could have been started years ago by changing policies and doing everything people are suggesting then…rather than waiting until its too late……this is a bad time for this town to have to experience this sort of lesson……..but what do I know…….
anyways, obviously its the holidays and I have nothing better to do than to leave long posts….I promise come wed, I’ll lighten up on posts…..
J Jenyum December 24, 2007
I’m just saying, it seems like Russell has given us the “let’s see other people” speech.
Throwing things at them to entice them to stay may not be the right approach, that doesn’t mean leave everything the way it is right now, it just means let’s concentrate on getting our house in order rather than making concessions.
L Les December 24, 2007
Rich – It was ‘telling’ because of the number of folks who commute and only work here, that will play into the ‘decision’ which HAS NOT been made yet.
Regardless – it is a huge deal, which was put in motion when Russell sold in 1998 and no longer had local interests. But hey – “Failure is not an option,” said the leader of Project Destiny – Bruce Kendall…..feel better yet?
R RR Anderson December 24, 2007
Humbug! FrankR wants to move? Let the bastard move. The costs of changing all that stationary are going to be astronomical. Also look to Boeing. They moved to Chicago even after Seattle rolled over like a flop house floozy with every tax break and loophole in the book.
I’ll find myself in Hades before I ever find myself in the fellatio zombie line of any non-entity.
Even so, keep calm and carry on… then ask yourself: What has Frank Russel ever done for me lately?
R rich December 24, 2007
we should have been focusing on getting our “house” in order years before now…..so this is what it comes too, a last ditch effort to keep one of the long standing companies in town…….this is what happens when you don’t have a vision….other people/companies choose that vision for you, and then it comes down to this type of situation where you really don’t have a whole lot of control, so you have to do everything possible, even giving away the kitchen sink to hopefully keep this from happening…it’s sad, but it’s reality…….how many opportunites has this town had over the last decade to create a greater developed city for companies to be proud of? Instead, we’re out making dog laws and keeping it very difficult for business to justify moving here, or developing in downtown…….anyways, once again, what do I know…..I know I can go and grab a beer in a can at anytime in downtown……..lol……I still haven’t been to Cans….no desire to go….beer in a Can? seriously……in the NW home of the microbeer……maybe we really are just some blue collar town that won’t ever get past Tacroma…..who knows…..
J Jenyum December 24, 2007
high fives RR.
I don’t want Russell to leave, but I don’t want to run around flapping my arms yelling that the sky is falling, either.
Better to concentrate our energies on continuing to make our home a great place to live, if Russell doesn’t love us for who we are, we don’t need them. Neediness is very unattractive.
Change the parking requirements, build some more class A office space, possibly rant a little less about what’s wrong with Tacoma and get down to the business of making it better. Those would be my priorities, not that anyone asked.
R rich December 24, 2007
Actually until the decision is announced, I doubt any new Class A will be built…..not to mention, if they move, we won’t need any until 2020…….
Z zintradi December 24, 2007
If Tacoma wants to be in the big leagues and have this big league company then that need to start thinking like a large city… At least have a downtown core with high density allotments, drop all height requirements, and work with the developer on parking (perhaps, instead of requiring parking, develop an impact fee that goes towards centralized parking built by the city and the streetcar system.)
E Erik S December 24, 2007
I’m not sure that I can think of a single piece of Tacoma news that would be more depressing. Jenyum, I agree that Tacoma does have big advantages over Seattle/San Francisco for raising kids (unless you have a ton of $ for housing in just the right place) but if Russell leaves Tacoma’s going to be in danger of becoming the mother of all bedroom communities, some kind of avant garde Lynnwood. I know it’s “only” 1,100 employees but can’t afford to lose any of the small core of high end employers downtown.
I’m going to have to let this sink in for a while before I’ll have much more (that’s constructive) to say. I’ll just note that in spite of the hubub surrounding tax incentives, most research suggests that they have little or no influence on firms decisions to relocated.
Other factors in the business climate (such as government that helps rather than hinders good development) and lifestyle issues for employees (especially important for a high end service sector firm like Russell) are more important.
T TacomaSteve December 24, 2007
no problem on the development, as long as union wages are given to the people who build them. A livable city caters to all classes!
R RR Anderson December 24, 2007
any stoics in readership? how about: “do not regard as valuable anything that can be taken away.”
C crenshaw sepulveda December 25, 2007
Say I am cynical, say I’m barking up the wrong tree, but Diogenes had a lot in common with Siddh?rtha Gautama. Maybe too much in common.
M michael g. December 25, 2007
I hate to break up the more purely philosophical bent of comments 39 and 40, but…
I’m just glad Russell will soon make up its collective mind about what to do next. It sounds like a lot of decisions on office space and downtown planning in general are on hold (and have been for a while) until a decision is made.
If Russell stays, great. It’ll mean that Tacoma could become a more important business center in the near future, and more seamlessly continue its “renaissance.”
If not, I think the city will be OK, and maybe better than that. There will be a period of higher vacancy rates for existing office space, and some new construction will be deferred. But it will free up a bunch of relatively affordable office space that could allow for the growth of some innovative new businesses and make the city’s culture more “alternative” — more centered around smaller businesses, education, art, and government.
This feels like a big crossroads in the city’s history, but both forks probably lead somewhere good. Let’s get on with it!
R rich December 25, 2007
I know, I’m already shopping for my place in Seattle…..Since this town is going no where……
C Crenshaw Sepulveda December 25, 2007
rich, you can’t go to Seattle, we may have a whole lot of that vacant Class A office space that you have been hoping for when Russell leaves town. Victory is almost within our grasp.
D daniel blue December 25, 2007
um… everyone who wants Tacoma to be a “Big League, Class A” city, say, “I love smog and traffic and crime and money.” When I want to kick trash around the sidewalk I go to Pioneer Square and wait in line to get on the bus that sometimes cant hold me.
You cant claim we don’t have vision just because we don’t agree on what we are seeing.
Im starting a company called Rank Fussell that specializes in running fat cats out of town. R.R. is helping me draw up the plans, and Solar Richard is making our spaceship. All that to say: this is never going to be a ‘status quo’ kind of place, there are too many crazy people.
This town ISN’T going anywhere, rich and russell are (maybe/probably).
Shouldn’t there be some terms set? like Russell could say, “ok, we will stay if you build us an airport in the harbor”. or something?
i mean, parking, taxes, parades, running hot water….what do they REALLY want? aren’t we just kind of pretending we know what is going on agian?
Does not one of the beautiful angle dudes work at Russell? maybe he knows what they want.
R rich December 25, 2007
We should offer to have a hotdog vender outside the building….now that’s what I’m talking about…..it will make them feel like they’re in NYC………to be able to go grab a “dog” for a buck….now that’s the ticket….it’s a win win for everyone…..they can pretend they’re in a big city, and we finally get our street vending……….
C Crenshaw Sepulveda December 25, 2007
If Frank Russell is to leave Tacoma it will not be that Tacoma is at fault. It is not Frank Russell’s task to make Tacoma a better place but to make sure Frank Russell is the best they can be. If Russell’s needs have changed and Tacoma can not meet them there should be no blame anywhere. It was a good ride for Tacoma while it lasted and, sadly, Tacoma squandered the opportunity that Frank Russell gave us. It is most likely going to be history. I’m certain that the Russell company had some beliefs that their presence would have made a lasting difference on the downtown development and they are keenly aware that they did not have much of an impact at all. Those that should have followed did not. The Russell company will always have to respond to change in its industry, I believe they thought Tacoma would come along for the ride and change along with them. Don’t blame Frank Russell. Don’t even blame our selves. We just need to learn from this and realize the opportunities that are presented to Tacoma.
Now I really could go for one of those street hot dogs. Apparently the equipment is not expensive from less than $2000 to about $6000 for the mother of all hot dog carts. No sure about the regulatory hurdles, but the start up money is not steep. Seriously has there been a good reason to keep hot dog carts off the streets of Tacoma? I suspect that the lack of street food in Tacoma has a good deal to do with there just isn’t much life on the streets of Tacoma. Again, no finger pointing on my part, Tacoma may not be a street food kind of town. Our desire to emulate has to coincide with an actual possibility of success.
P Phil December 25, 2007
Hey, Tacoma, this is HUGE!!
There’s a measurable & significant economic multiplier attached to each and every one of these jobs. Russell vacating Tacoma will impact every man woman & child in this City & radius on every level. Russell is legally obligated to perform for its shareholders, NOT Tacoma.
I’d love to confidently stake my entire life savings on opening up a small business in downtown Tacoma. Indeed, it’s something I dream of. However, it’s entirely too RISKY, add too the capacity for this city to casually destroy your business using a 5-figure LID-assessment, bad tax policy, piece-meal or bad public policy or poor urban planning. It’s always just sitting out there waiting to happen. You can’t buy insurance for this sorta stuff…..
Tacoma, collectively, absolutely must step up to this challenge as if it mattered!
P pweikel December 25, 2007
Phil,
Have you considered that if it is too risky for you, and others like you, then it’s probably too risky for Russell? Some of us can’t help ourselves, we damn the risk and go ahead.:)
Pete Weikel, Owner
Stadium Bistro
P Phil December 25, 2007
And we celebrate your bravery! :)
Potential business owners fall all over map in terms of being able to absorb risk. Some of my friends can’t move back in with their folks if they lose. Some would make great business owners, yet have chronic medical conditions and can’t afford to walk away from employer-provided insurance. Some folks have a ton of cash stashed away to fall back on if it doesn’t work out. Some can’t.
I guess a healthy business climate affords the greatest number of talented individuals the opportunity to succeed in these ventures.
T TacomaSteve December 26, 2007
Phil,
Russell is privately owned. Thus, there is no obligation to squeeze every possible penny for its shareholders. As one element of a privately owned company, it can (and dare I say should) understand its moral and ethical obligations to assess the impact of its decisions on the community in which it resides. As you might imagine, I do not subscribe to the idea that corporations can be citizens and have rights similar to individuals. Given that the Supreme Court has affirmed this perspective, however, it is up to the ctizens of Tacoma and Pierce County to decide if we want to keep Russell here. And that should be handled in a very open process whereby locals can either support or reject the proposals and without the standard propietary clauses.
C CJ December 26, 2007
I’m curious, what was the cause of Tacomas last decline downtown?
I always thought it was because the Tacoma Mall opened and anything that was worth going down town for either moved to the mall or closed their doors due to the competition. Sound familiar.
G grubedoo December 26, 2007
Russell? I thought they made baseball gloves…
G grubedoo December 26, 2007
If we lose Russell and all their employees move out of Tacoma we’ll lose Beautiful Angle too. Tacoma would then return to the dark ages, or eighties — one in the same.
R rich December 26, 2007
perhaps they feel they are too good to be in Tacoma and should be in Seattle with all the other world wide companies……..when in reality, and I’m just throwing this out, if your a company like Russell…..you not exactly small change here……I would think it wouldn’t matter what the city is that your address says….You are Fricken Russell!!!! maybe they have a complex or something deeper….maybe we should get some psychologists to talk to them……..
J jdub December 26, 2007
The issue isn’t really about Russell Corp but about how the city will address and structure its future, this, as has been said, is about vision from our elected leaders. This issue finally puts it on the table. Hight restrictions, why? So we might lose a view not many people see from Fireman’s Park? Really, ask any of the people you see just passing by, how often they’ve enjoyed the view from Fireman’s Park? Let’s get on the ball and grow this city. Otherwise, we’ll end up like Oakland with a few good places to eat and all the really cool stuff in SF. The downtown merchants group should really push to get rid of height requirements and parking requirements.
And we should all send a message to Eric Anderson and the mayor and the council that the time is now for a new collective movement and vision. Not another assessment on how another renaissance will begin.
T tct2326 December 26, 2007
jdub is right on the button. Living in downtown the past 3 years has shown me that we need to make the tuff, but correct decisions now so we dont blow the city has accomplished the last decade plus. Lets do what we can about Russel(especially since it will help the value of my property) but do it in a way that will be good for downtown and the whole city. That all.
S Steve December 26, 2007
This is huge (repeating every comment already said), it’s up to the City and the Council to make it work with all available incentives. It’s up to Mr. Haub and his team (as my son would say, you rock dude!) and the various executive groups to lobby and use their creative business acumen. There are SO many other ancillary issues that will support their decision — transpo, hotel space, quality of life, etc.. These are long-term issues not easily remedied. The council and city government need to spearhead (with a laser beam) the quicker but heady issues — parking, taxes, building codes, etc.. This is a team effort, and make no mistake, this is a must win for T-town. As far as Tacoma the oddball on the Russell city list… I would hope that purchasers of Russell products are less concerned about a zip code than the product itself. I don’t think anyone buying a 2×4 in the early 80’s said “gee, if this big lumber company were in lovely Federal Way WaRshington, I think I’d buy it”. I wonder if Microsoft was concerned about being Redmond-centered rather than Seattle? (mental note: send KING5, KOMO4 and KIRO7 a christmas card with a thank you identifying once again that “another Seattle-area company” is on the best places to work list).
I also agree that Seattle or its ‘burbs are the major competition. 400+ Russell families are alot to relocate (or telecommute) and I hope the majority of those 400 quietly support their support of the Tacoma location.
And finally, three years to go on a lease for a company this size is concerning, it will move quickly.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it, fingers crossed.
p.s. I’m moving my $10,000 401k over to Russell…. I need about 10,000 of you out there to go along with me, anyone in?
C CJ December 26, 2007
If it means they will stay I would move mine. I want it in writing.
C CA December 26, 2007
I just wonder what our downtown would look like if our city council had been this frantic and proactive throughout the last 10 or so years.
I think this is exactly what we’ve needed for a long time. Now the city council has a reason to get up off their arses and do the things we’ve all been bitching about for so long.
And if we actually get these things done, I think we’ve got a great chance to keep the Russell company.
S Squid December 26, 2007
TacomaSteve @51 – acutally, Russell Investment Group (it dropped the Frank years ago) is owned by Northwestern Mutual Financial Network, which is a mutual company. As such, they answer to the 3 million NMFN policyholders, who receive dividends when there is a profit. As a subsidary of a larger parent, there is huge pressure on them to maximize profits.
I think we are lucky to have had the company this long – they are really a fish out of water here in Tacoma. My bet is that the move to Seattle or somewhere close to the airport is all but a done deal. Our universities really don’t offer them much. Russell hires primarily PhD’s and some MBA-types. You can hardly get in the door with just an undergrad degree, and the only way to do it is with a degree in international finance from somewhere like Stanford or Berkeley. None of the Big Three universities here offer PhD or do research in international finance, economics or any other related field Over half RIG’s employees already live in Seattle, including the CEO and most of the senior management team.
Coupled with that is the fact that Russell brings a lot of big mucky-mucks to their HQ, potential clients, big-time money managers, etc. These people need 5 star hotels and impressive cultural amentities that international cities like Seattle and SFO have to offer. You ever see those guys walking around town, exiting the Sheraton? No? That’s because they put all these guests up in SEATTLE and limo them here and back.
Stuff happens, things change. RIG has evolved more quickly than Tacoma. Do what we can to keep them, but on a parallel track, start planning on how to fill that building as quickly as possible.
C CA December 26, 2007
Squid, I personally know a young 20something who got his BA from UWT, internship at Russell, and now works there full-time.
R Republican (by Default) December 27, 2007
So many things to say, some already said. Where to start?
Russell isn’t the first company to leave Tacoma. This city has been hemorrhaging business (and jobs) for decades. Losing Russell will be big, but this is nothing new.
How can we stop the trend? This city needs to stop working against itself. Phil’s comment (#48) says a lot.
I see Tacoma’s problem is that it’s trying to be all the wrong things instead of what it really is. Tacoma is not ‘avant garde’, ‘alternative’ or ‘Class A’. It’s military (and other government), industrial, shipping, educational, residential, ethnically diverse and about 50% esthetically pleasing (see article on toxic waste barrels in #47).
By the way, Tacoma is not Seattle. And this area doesn’t need another Seattle, it already has one. We should try to be Tacoma instead.
For Tacoma to survive and thrive, we need to rally what we do have instead of trying to attract what we don’t have (and probably can’t support). Another museum isn’t going to help, nor will that stupid light-rail-to-nowhere or a convention center.
The light rail damaged too many businesses (who aren’t lucky enough to be near a stop or are unlucky enough to be where the tracks want to be) and really just duplicated several bus runs that were handling passengers on that route just fine (without spending millions and disrupting the entire downtown). The convention center didn’t do much good for downtown either, mostly because it just duplicates several other businesses in town (including the dome).
The political power center in downtown may be part of the problem. Too much money spent there with too little return for the community. Maybe government should stop trying to make downtown something it’s not, get out of the way, and let private enterprise shape something new out of it (capitalism is an amazing thing that needs the freedom to work). Maybe what we’d find is that being something new isn’t the solution. Maybe letting some of the old (and established) businesses in Tacoma take root there would draw more supporting businesses.
R rich December 27, 2007
trying to develop downtown with Class A/Retail/Hotels etc is not moving away from who Tacoma is……I personally view that this attitude is one of the problems….just because you add these to the mix, doesn’t change who we are as a city…it just adds more opportunities to add a diverse population to improve Tacoma as a whole…..why not strive to better ourselves, than to sit and let the dust settle on Pacific when Russell moves…….My gutt tells me, they are probably going to move…however I do believe as one of the previous posts, rather than sitting around for the next 4 years sulking, if they decide to move…well lets be VERY proactive at adding more business and developing the area so when they do move, it doesn’t create the effect that it would have without any developement………we don’t need to be a bedroom community to Seattle anymore…..I don’t believe that…but it’s time that we finally get off our butt and actually try to improve the city…….yes, MAYOR, I’m spreaking to you and the COUNCIL…..as the previous post says, let capitalism take control and see what happens….remove the barriers….
R rich December 27, 2007
also, HELLO!!!….we will know when X amount of Class A space will be available….you will have 5 years to fill it…..no reason that can’t be done ahead of time……..GET ON IT!!!! as soon as its filled on paper for that date, start building more………..get of your butts for once……
P Phil December 27, 2007
Sorry, Steve. I had incorrectly thought Northwestern had gone through the process of demutualization like the rest of ‘em.
S Squid December 27, 2007
CA@62. You are right. UWT, UPS and PLU have indeed placed a few grads at Russell. However, they hire very few freshly minted grads as a rule. They are a great company and usually cherry-pick people with experience. None of our colleges though has anything resembling a hiring pipeline to Russell.
As a life-long pretty much commie pinko Democrat, it pains me, but I find myself in agreement with Republican (by default).
E Erik S December 27, 2007
Republican by Default – You had me interested as I read the first bits of your post, but you lost me by the end. I believe that I understand (and, to a limited extent, agree with) your picture of what Tacoma is not and should not try to be.
What I did NOT get from your post is a clear sense what you feel Tacoma should be or of the strengths that you want to build on. 10-15 years ago downtown wasn’t a bustling place with older, established businesses, it was very nearly empty. Heck, it’s alarmingly close to empty even now. I get that you’re not as interested in focusing on downtown, but what would you like to do? Wall off downtown and have the other neighborhoods secede from Tacoma as a new City of Tacoma Fire/Police/School District, with no jobs whatsoever?
Help me understand.
R Republican (by Default) December 27, 2007
Well, Erik S, you really seem to have missed the point. The problem with downtown itself is that people are trying to make it into something… anything… that it’s not.
My point is that if left alone (in the urban renewal sense, not the crime prevention, clean-up, quality of life sense) it will become something viable on it’s own.
As a businessman I can say that downtown Tacoma has many qualities that are attractive to businesses in many different sectors and industries. But with the heavy-handed manipulation by politicians those qualities are overshadowed by high-costs and unintended consequences of well-intentioned programs and projects (such as traffic jams caused by light rail and the poorly timed traffic lights around it or the parking problems caused by an ideological emphasis on mass transit).
We’ve already spent big bucks on downtown and look where it’s gotten us. Maybe the money for the next well-intentioned project would be better spent in another part of town. I’m sure local business leaders and neighborhood councils from other parts of the city could contribute some excellent ideas (and a few bad ones) that would have a positive economic impact on other parts of the city. Or maybe that money could be given back to the community in the form of a tax break for businesses (which they’ll pass on as a savings to their customers in order to be competitive or maybe use the money they saved to help create another job within their company). And since the topic is Russell I’ll just say that maybe we need them more than we needed that stupid light rail or that ridiculous spire on top of the convention center… or even the convention center itself. Maybe the money spent running yet another museum would be better spent on something small businesses need (like lower taxes).
So to answer your question, I won’t comment on what Tacoma ‘should be’. I will only comment on letting it be what it is. Which, in the current context is mostly ‘not Seattle’.
The problem is a few people (mostly in government and a few periphery organizations) trying to force their opinion of what Tacoma ‘should be’ (and I’m not going to join those ranks). The solution is for them to get out of the way and let Tacoma be what it is.
C CA December 27, 2007
I think the museums, UWT, and the Link have been VERY beneficial for downtown. Without one or all of these I think it would be very ulikely downtown would have El Gaucho, Melting Pot, Harmon, Indochine, Pacific Grill, Sea Grill, etc….
Now all we need is for commercial development to catch up.
R Republican (by Default) December 28, 2007
Unfortunately, CA, your argument doesn’t hold water in this context.
-You didn’t mention the cost/benefit ratio of money spent on those big ticket items and the amount generated in the local economy by those restaurants.
- Those aren’t the only things in the area that might have attracted them. It is centrally located and has a waterway and freeway a block away from most of them.
- There’s no way to know if those (or other) restaurants or other support businesses would have located there if other businesses (not supported by tax dollars) had been able to locate in those areas.
- The number of jobs and the pay scales created by restaurants is relatively small compared to other industries.
- Being from a family of restaurant operators I can tell you that restaurants come and go. There’s really no way to know if the ones you mentioned will actually survive (three of them opened in 2005 and aren’t ready to be considered established yet).
And since the context is ‘Keeping Russell’, Tacoma has to decide how much is it worth to keep Russell here. My contention is that it’s not worth three museums, a multi-million dollar mass transit project that did nothing but replace a portion of an existing (and viable) system, or another university (to add to the multitude of other higher education institutions in the city).
So if you’re pointing to what happened on the other end of Pacific Ave. (downtown), you picked the wrong example. It hasn’t accomplished even a fraction of what’s needed to keep downtown alive.
Spending money on downtown isn’t going to be the solution. In fact, spending less might be the solution to attracting businesses back to that neighborhood.
R rich December 28, 2007
Ok, well Republican you seem to know what Tacoma is…..well share it with us……WHAT IS TACOMA? or are you just trying to instill YOUR opinion of what Tacoma is……..sooooooo…WHAT’S TACOMA??
and keep these facts in mind: Seattle has a port; Tacoma has a port Seattle was just as blue collar as Tacoma as one point; DT Seattle was dead 15 years ago, sorta like Tacoma is now….;there are more similarities to Seattle then you may think…and really, it’s not to Seattle….they are similarities to ANY TOWN before it becomes a CITY….so, are you saying you don’t want to be a CITY??? If your a “business man” wont’ the added revenue suit you fine? Why stand in front of growth…once again, just because a town grows up doesn’t mean that the soul disappears………
R rich December 28, 2007
Seriously, Republican, what are you thinking? do you seriously want to just let tacoma fade away along with your business???? I believe you have what is called a “Narrow” mind when it comes to developement…….developement takes years and years and little pieces to come together…..these little pieces like the light rail, convention center, UWT, may not seem like much right now, but they are all apart of the wide angle view of developement……we just need to have the leadership with a vision to continue ahead……..why just give up…seriously, I think there are some nice little towns on the east side of the mountains you could move to if you don’t want to be in a city…….Port Angleas is pretty nice too………You remind my of someone who was told that you would never amount to anything, so you just gave up……well, even though everyone says Tacoma won’t amount to anything, why give up?…..why not prove everyone wrong? why not except the challenge and kick some royal butt……..Tacoma is not suppose to be a town, at one point it was growing more than Seattle…..let Tacoma grow up…..
M Midnight Rider December 28, 2007
I remember the days when downtown WAS alive… the early 80’s. The sidewalks were filled with office workers, because they earned a living wage, they spent disposable income at People’s dept store and Woolworths plus many smaller shops and went out to lunch, after 5pm many workers gathered at the two bar and grills that used to be on 11th street.
What happened? businesses ran out of space and were renting floors of other buildings, makes it harder when your co-worker is a block away, its not productive.
So they had choices….. a new building but where? it seems Tacoma’s downtown had no vacant land? people loudly voicing don’t let the old buildings be torn down! Well not everyone views saving crumbling brick buildings as growth, its clinging to the past!
Large companies re-located to King County, plenty of land for new buildings to suit their needs and no pricy parking garage needed!
I wonder why they didn’t build new offices on the street that now has Glass Museum and new Luxury Condo’s, or vacant land outside of downtown at least those jobs would have stayed in Tacoma.
“When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take that step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen…there will be something solid for us to stand on….or we will be taught to fly” author unknown
R Republican (by Default) December 28, 2007
Psychoanalyzing me based on two short posts? It’s no wonder you got almost everything backward. So, Dr. Phulovit, don’t quit your day job.
And then telling me I should move away? Nice. I’m not likely to respond to you again, so enjoy it while you can.
Is it the word ‘Republican’ in my handle that has you all worked up?
Sorry if I don’t agree with your big government “let’s be like Seattle” ‘vision’ of Tacoma.
It’s the “Narrow” focus on downtown that is keeping Tacoma from becoming a city.
Seattle and King county keep focusing on downtown with their ‘growth management’. But downtown Seattle is becoming a cesspool. I worked in a building adjoining Occidental park. On hot summer days they had to hose the park down to keep it from smelling like a cesspool.
Seattle had it’s big transit project back in the 80’s and it failed to revitalize downtown. Remember the bus tunnel that everyone forgets about when they talk about light rail? That was supposed to reduce congestion, but it failed.
It was private enterprise that brought Seattle out of a slump, and it’s sinking back into one now that the bubble has burst. When the boom hit there were a lot of start-ups that needed space quickly, and the only place with infrastructure was downtown Seattle. It was a winner by default. If Bellevue and Redmond had been able to build infrastructure faster Seattle would barely have benefitted from the boom.
And is that your ‘vision’ for Tacoma? A string of failures just like the ones that Seattle tried?
And just where are those leaders with a vision? And do they all have the same vision? Does their vision include all of Tacoma or should we expect more Lakewoods to split off and annex themselves? Is the vision workable or are they just dreaming?
P.S. Midnight Rider, thanks for the insight. I’ve often wondered just what impact Tacoma’s obsession with it’s history has had on growth. Maybe we need a museum of Tacoma’s architecture.
C CA December 28, 2007
“My contention is that it’s not worth three museums, a multi-million dollar mass transit project that did nothing but replace a portion of an existing (and viable) system, or another university (to add to the multitude of other higher education institutions in the city).”
Multitude of higher education institutions in the city??? We need more not less and enrollment at UWT grows every year.
I dont want to hi-jack this thread and turn it into a debate, but I think most people would agree UWT has done a lot for downtown and is a great addition. Same for the museums.
Just a question. Have you been to these museums Republican??
M ma December 28, 2007
Reading this, a few thoughts enter my head.
It’s no mystery that when a company gets bought out, as Russell did, it usually also gets shut down, moved around, or somehow absorbed into the purchasing company- Northwestern Mutual in this case (headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin of all places!).
We could all run around like chickens with our heads cut off, or we can look around and appreciate what we have.
What I want to know is where are Tacoma’s Russells of tomorrow?
What is being done to help create new small businesses. Are we doing enough? And are we being innovative enough?
I was thrilled when I saw that the local business Chamber started an angel investors group… until I saw that nearly all the requests for funding were coming from OUTSIDE of Tacoma! Where are
Tacoma’s entrepreneurs? What is being done to cultivate an atmosphere of innovation in our schools, neighborhoods, and governments?
There was a comment above questioning dumping (pumping?) so much public money into the downtown core at the expense of the rest of the city. I won’t argue with this, but I will point out one major difference between Seattle and Tacoma (besides the obvious)- Seattle invests heavily in its neighborhoods. They have a Department of Neighborhoods, we do not. They currently fund $3.2 million dollars (approximately $5.59 per resident), Tacoma? $145,929 or .72 cents per resident. I believe people would like to see more investment in their neighborhoods and I think they would be willing to put in some elbow grease to do so.
While living in Seattle starting in the late 80s up until just a few years ago, I experienced first-hand the turn around of its neighborhood business centers (including downtown) and attribute it directly to the vibrancy if its people and strength its neighborhoods.
Now, I’m not saying that investing more in our neighborhoods will automatically result in decreased crime, a more engaged citizenry, better neighborhood identity (a popular exit133 topic), or even spur economic development. But once you realize that what gives a city a “there” is its people, the neighborhoods they live in, and the culture they create, things fall into place. It gives buildings (both new AND old) a reason to be.
Seattle also has an actual planning department dedicated to helping neighborhoods, not just developers. Tacoma has planners, but not a planning department. And, like much of our city staff, are swamped and are in a constant state of reaction as opposed to having time to be proactive.
J Jake Burton December 28, 2007
I’ve been reading this thread with some interest and enjoying some of the most recent posts, but I have to respond to the ruminations that somehow, an “obsession” with historic architecture has been a disincentive for economic growth. Warning and apologies that I am about to go off topic a little.
Actually, a good portion of the historic downtown got preserved by default, because there was nothing pushing redevelopment. In certain cases, such as the 1300 block of Pacific, an entire block was razed for the promise of development that never happened (all that remains is the Luzon, and this was a national historic disrict). The scraped lot sat vacant for nearly 20 years.
Both north and south park were also built following the demolition of blocks of buildings that were arguably historically important.
Much more recently, the city allowed the demolition of several blocks within a conservation district to make way for a Marriott Courtyard and the convention center, both of which have been commented on many times on this and other sites.
Certain buildings – Union Station, Old City Hall, etc are iconic and were preserved after rallying by citizens “obsessed” with history. Other buildings are here merely for lack of any other proposals. Others have been demolished for entirely dubious reasons (County Courthouse, now a surface lot). I’d assert that the presence of the monolithic parking garages downtown has hurt the economic climate of Tacoma more than many other things.
As for history, several hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in dozens of buildings, increasing occupancy and bringing new tenants into town. Obviously it is not the only solution, as neither are museums, but I take issue that it is negative.
Good Lord, there are many developable sites remaining in downtown; the issues holding Tacoma back range from external economics, to the demographics here (not so good), to recalcitrant/inept long term property owners who make it very hard to get into the Tacoma market, to inept public policy, to environmental remediation and physical constraints. I do agree with Republican’s points about dubious interventions and unintended consequences – much of Tacoma’s policy history and public projects have been somewhat unsophisticated, ill conceived, poorly implemented, or messed up badly by politics. It is not about history vs. development.
The historic “obsession” in fact has been a largely market driven enterprise.
To get back to Russell, I agree that a 45KSF trading floor will not be found in an existing floorplate. I’d imagine there are few consolidated properties that would fit this profile. Thinking just wishfully, properties that I’d like to see redeveloped into exactly this sort of thing include: the Budget rental car company and its lot, north park, the building at 9th and Pacific (Hal of a Sub, anyone?), the lots adjacent to the Vintage Y (which were going to be artist lofts), several places within the brewery district area, though this is a bit south. How about a campus type development in the dome area. Or on the slopes above UWT (oh, I forgot, this is part of the MASTER PLAN…until then, vacant).
Frankly, with the history of this town as an indicator, I’d expect that if all options were truly on the table, barriers would in fact be removed and Russell could be retained. Of course, this assumes that there really is a decision to be made and Tacoma actually is in the game still.
J jdub December 28, 2007
The cost effectiveness of light rail is the same argument I heard in Portland in the late ’70s as it built a light rail “to nowhere”. Portland realized that a different form of transport was essential to help form growth and spur business growth. Quickly they built additional lines. Now, it moves a lot a people that would otherwise be stuck in a car on a freeway to Beaverton. Yep, buses could be cheaper, but they’d still be stuck on the same freeway. And I doubt an army of buses would convince major businesses that we are seriously addressing future concerns about urban planning.
Yes, our light rail goes “nowhere” now, but it wont forever and that’s all good. Now we need leadership to mold a cohesive whole and come up with a plan that spurs growth and addresses local concerns, and yes, that means saving “old brick building” and rusty bridges. The Pacific Northwest is still a growth area because quite frankly, unless your a Packers fan I don’t think you want to live in Green Bay. Tacoma has stunning natural beauty (often lost from the freeway driveby.) I think Russell , or any other corp, wouldn’t mind staying if we showed an attitude that we can meet the challenges that face us for the next 20 years and more.
And a grown up 4 year downtown university is part of that plan. So is Morgan’s fight for a trolley system which would weave into the fabric of the geography here. I think Russell will take a look at all this weigh it out and we’ll see if the leadership can convince them that this is a city worth investing in. Because, after all, its all synergetic; business, civic, and quality of life.
J jdub December 28, 2007
by the way, does anyone have the architectural plans proposed from Haub hidden away in their trunk?
R rich December 28, 2007
Just for the record, I am against big governement……part of the issues in Tacoma is TOO much governement, but it takes a vision of what is needed and a relax of current regulations by the governement to allow capitalism to take a grip. And so what if there are a bunch of failers on the way to success, heck a basesball player with a .300 batting average is pretty darn good…..it’s when you stop trying is the problem……….just my two cents…….
R rich December 28, 2007
ok, so I really was trying to spell Failures…but only a half a cup of java into the morning…..
R Republican (by default) December 28, 2007
To clarify, what I meant by ‘obsession’ goes beyond just preserving architecture. I opened the phone book to ‘Museums’ and counted 12 with addresses in Tacoma. That’s not counting environs or the ‘Galloping Gertie Museum’ (if it’s still around and didn’t get demolished in the construction of the new bridge).
In my opinion, concern for the past becomes an obsession when it interferes with the future. Has that ever happened in Tacoma?
And in the context of ‘Keeping Russell’, is anyone for a ‘Museum of Frank Russell History’? If I can suggest (without being tarred and feathered) maybe we need to look at removing one or two ‘historical landmarks’ to make way for creating a new and brighter ‘history’ for Tacoma to enjoy in the future.
In light of ma’s comment on government spending on neighborhoods, does anyone know the ratio of tax dollars spent developing Tacoma’s downtown neighborhood verses similar spending on other neighborhoods? (Again, I’m not advocating more government spending. I’d just like to see what value our elected officials put on all of Tacoma, rather than just part of it.)
R rich December 30, 2007
thats it? are we done discussing Russell……??
R rich December 31, 2007
so Dan has more to the story today……..the mention of the building having Government employees in it really is sorta scary……not that I have anything against that……but…you take the average salary of the government employees and compare it to that of Russell……WOW….doesn’t even compare………talk about a HUGE step backwards………..hmmm….anways…….happy New Year…….
D drizell December 31, 2007
The point about government agencies occupying the building is a major one. I’m sure this has been brought up about UWT before as well. Like government agencies, educational facilities don’t have to pay property taxes. This was a really big problem where I went to college, because the university occupied about one quarter the land area of the whole city. Despite the fact that the university was the city’s largest employer and its thousands of students and staff helped out local businesses, the town missed out on a lot of tax revenue.
I don’t think the game with Russell is lost. I think there are enough people and resources in Tacoma that are committed to keeping the company here. What we need to do is set our differences aside on this issue and work together to retain Russell.
C Crenshaw Sepulveda December 31, 2007
Saving Private Russell
No particular reason for this, just wish we had subject lines for our posts. A good subject line is often better than the post.
M Mofo from the Hood December 31, 2007
TACOMA BLOG COMMENTER CRENSHAW SEPULVEDA HAS WISH. FIRST NIGHT ACTIVITIES OFFERS RELIEF: FOLD 1000 PAPER CRANES.
Yeah, this Russel situation. I’m not quite sure about the personal significance to my life, but with the help of these blog comments I think I can sort this thing out.
N NSHDscott January 2, 2008
I noticed that while more Russell employees live in Tacoma than anywhere else, it’s still less than half.
What if, in addition to state incentives that will hopefully be secured, the City of Tacoma offered a tax incentive based on increasing the number or percentage of employees who live in the City?
One scenario could be if the City took the amount of property tax paid by every employee who newly locates into Tacoma off the property tax bill owed by Russell. The incentive doesn’t hurt the City’s property tax collections much because it’s revenue-neutral, but helps Russell and also helps Tacoma shops and housing market (and thus the City via increased sales).
M Mofo from the Hood January 3, 2008
One of the arguments for keeping Russell is that the employees that live in Tacoma will all move and therefore the local economy will suffer. I don’t think it’s probable that every employee will leave and set up residence outside Tacoma.
Also, I think it is fair to point out that this company doesn’t produce tangible goods and so it isn’t buying local raw materials on a notable scale. No loss there.
What is notable and laughable is Haub’s offer, or taunt, to help out Russell financially. If I was around when that joke was conceived I would have said, “Yeah, and we’ll also throw in a fleet of helicopters so’s you can chauffer your buddies to and from partyin’ in Seattle.”
And also, does anyone else think that the Tacoma CEO was disclosing too much info about their dealings with the City?
Likewise, does anyone really believe that the Tacoma CEO has the power to decide to keep Russell in Tacoma?
But beyond all that, here’s a suggestion that is more common sense than business sense: It is a mistake to place any one entity in such an esteemed position.
I think that local brain power, money, and effort should consider dividing this one problem into several smaller tasks. It might prove wiser and cheaper to court several other self-sustaining businesses, whether from Tacoma or outside Tacoma.
R rich January 3, 2008
sorry MOFO, I strongly disagree…….Let’s face it, Russell is the largest white-collar work force in the city…and while others may say, so what, well just as folks whine about not enough housing for all classes in downtown, we need all classes of employment…….we can’t just survive on the blue-collar jobs…we need strong, well paid white collar jobs to attract similar jobs and corporations……and with the rate that their expanding their operation, we would be crazy not to do our best to keep them…..why would you let a corporation with a balance sheet such as Russell and who is growing so much go? Growth for Russell is growth for Tacoma…..and not too mention, Russell is a growing International company…sorta a big player in the financial industry, which can continue to work on putting Tacoma on the international map……
N NSHDscott January 3, 2008
A lot of these comments, such as daniel blue’s (#21) about Tacoma’s je ne sais quoi, remind me of an article that ran in Crosscut a while back. Turns out that it was one of their most-commented stories of 2007, just like this post is one of exit133’s most commented. Here’s the link:
http://www.crosscut.com/culture-ethnicity/4853/
(yes, that’s my Tacoma-centric rant at or near the bottom)
The article is essentially a reverse lament to ours: While we worry that Russell would prefer the glossy modernity of Seattle over the gritty character of Tacoma, the Seattlite author laments the loss of historic character up north that has turned Seattle into just another megapolis.
Of course the majority of comments were mocking the author, the typical Seattle response. But I totally agree with his point, and I’ll take the character over the gloss any day — even if it means losing Russell, which would be very unfortunate (but will not be the end of Tacoma).
R rich January 4, 2008
Well wouldn’t you say that a company that began in Tacoma many decades ago, hasn’t shared it’s character with Tacoma? I would say that they have……..you seem to think that they haven’t been a part of the character of Tacoma…what’s up with that?
C Crenshaw Sepulveda January 4, 2008
The fact that Russell has stayed in Tacoma as long as it has was a gift. I think that Tacoma blew it when it didn’t run with the gift and become the downtown I’m sure Russell was hoping it would become. I think that Russell shared the dream that many of us share. Russell didn’t drop the ball, the City of Tacoma did. Not sure what will happen to Tacoma if Russell leaves but you can’t blame them for leaving after giving Tacoma its best chance to turn things around.
L Laura Hanan January 5, 2008
If I were the Russell Company, I would seriously look at Tacoma’s inertia regarding downtown development when deciding whether to stay on in Tacoma.
For the amount of money that has been invested downtown in the past ten years, there is no excuse for what is missing – more business investment, more retail, sane parking and transportation plans, and better anchor tenants than low-income & DOC felon housing in dilapidated buildings for the north end.
Does anyone remember the great energy focused last year when the community came together to let the city know that they wanted the Winthrop to be restored to a five-star historic hotel? Does anyone remember how Prium stepped in and took the project out from under the Quigg group, who actually had experience in developing this kind of project?
Russell Company headquarters is mired in the shadow of this nine story albatross that continues to define and weigh down the Theater District.
It has been more than a year since Prium took over and what has been done to execute the Winthrop restoration? In reality the Winthrop restoration has been executed… as in dead project.
If you were a bright shining business star like Russell would you want to remain in a city that showcases this vertical barrio as its capstone?
C Crenshaw Sepulveda January 5, 2008
Laura, I really don’t think Russell is all that worried about the Winthrop. The Winthrop has been downtown for decades and they were well aware of it when they set up their headquarters. I tend to agree with you, however, that the City has pretty much taken Russell for granted and did nothing to build a downtown worthy of them or further investment by world class businesses. The problems from the Wintrop are limited to a few of the tenants and reflects a failure of the management there. It is incumbent on the management of the Winthrop to be good neighbors, not only for the sake of the neighborhood, but for the majority of the residents of the building that present no problems for the neighborhood. I’ve said this before, get the Korean Women’s Association running the Winthrop and I’d bet a good number of the readers here will want to move in.
D drizell January 5, 2008
It’s completely true that Tacoma has had lots of chances and stupidly thrown many of them away.
In my opinion, the foremost mistake as far as attracting new and large businesses to Tacoma was the City Council’s decision to push away a deal that would have created a million square feet of Class A office space in the Dome District. Cosmos International was set to go and the market conditions were ripe, yet the Council decided that new office space wasn’t in the city’s best interest. 6 years later, the Dome District hasn’t changed much, and we’re left wondering if LeMay is ever going to build that museum.
Tacoma has many dedicated small shopkeepers and entrepreneurs that have taken risks and opened businesses here, but the city really need its large companies more than anything. Think of the impact and talent pool Russell could have had if there were dozens of companies filling that 1 million square feet in the Dome District. I bet that development could easily have started a chain reaction that would see more developers pouring money in the downtown area. Downtown Tacoma could have attracted investment just like what has happened in Bellevue.
However, our Council instead decided that they didn’t want Tacoma to be a successful destination for large employers. As a result, the city is still stagnant in many ways.
The issue with Russell is entirely the fault of the City Council, without a doubt.
M Mofo from the Hood January 5, 2008
You know what would look cool in the Russell Bldg. windows on the waterside—-one of them rock climbing walls like at REI in Seattle.
C Crenshaw Sepulveda January 5, 2008
So, Erik B. the Winthrop would be fine as a “market rate” apartment building or a condominium? Just not suitable for public housing? Many building this size work quite well as condos or apartment buildings. Most of the residents love living in the Winthrop, just a few are problems. I don’t think we are in a position to really determine what the poor need in their housing choices. If it is good enough for the wealthy it should be good enough for the poor. I love it when people say that the Winthrop is unsuitable for the poor. Yeah, the rich know better.
S Sassy McButterpants January 5, 2008
Last time I visited the Winthrop the floor I was on smelled like wee and cigarettes. In my opinion, that’s not suitable for anyone. Even people only paying $25/month to live there.
C Crenshaw Sepulveda January 5, 2008
So what you are saying, Erik B., is that the poor are incapable of living in places that the wealthy can successfully inhabit. What I am saying is that the poor can successfully live in the Withrop with proper case management and the management acting more responsibly in renting out the units. My goal would be to see the Wintrop as both low income and “market rate” housing. I know is is the trend to move the low income out of the urban cores to make them more attractive to the wealthy but no number of studies can justify this practice, HUD’s included. They are now actively working to move the poor out to the ‘burbs, away from services and transportation. I know there have been horror stories from huge low income projects. I’ve also seen them from sprawling low income projects. If you remember the original Salishan, it was nothing like the Winthrop and more similar to the current Hope IV project you make reference to. Without proper case management the current project will not look much different than the old Salishan.