Sonnen's Pet Shop, among city's oldest stores, closes after over 130 years downtown
Second-generation owner David Sonnen, 81, has retired, and the last day for the store — a tiny alcove in the historic Hamm Building that sold birds, fish and other animal accessories — was in May.
Up until its final days, the store famously looked nearly identical to how it had in decades past. But the city around it had changed, David Sonnen said, and downtowns in St. Paul and elsewhere simply no longer serve the same purpose they once did, as a city's main retail hub.
'When I think back 20 or 30 years ago, it was just constant people, all day long, walking back and forth,' he said. 'They came down to go shopping. Everything was down here. But then, of course, the (suburban shopping centers) came and people started going to those, and the online stuff now. Times have changed.'
The business first began in the 1890s as an animal and seed store near what's now the corner of Cedar Street and Kellogg Boulevard, and moved several times. In 1934, amid the Great Depression, the then-owner's widow told young employee Louis Sonnen he could either buy the store or be out of a job. He took up her offer, renamed the store, stopped selling the cats and dogs he found smelly and, during World War II, moved the store to its longtime Hamm Building location. David Sonnen officially took over operations in the 1970s but his father, who died in 2001, remained active in the business.
'I liked being downtown, I liked the atmosphere and I liked taking care of the birds and the fish,' David Sonnen said. 'If things were better (downtown), I'd stay, because it was fun, and I grew up with it. But it just got to a point where it wasn't worth it anymore.'
As for why David Sonnen decided to close the store rather than finding a new owner, all his kids pursued different career paths, and he felt it 'wouldn't be fair for somebody to buy the place when it isn't in a location that's any good anymore and you can't make a living at it,' he said.
During its heyday, though, the store attracted not only everyday shoppers but the occasional celebrity, too. Jack Lemmon would stop in to buy dog food while shooting 'Grumpy Old Men' in the 1990s, David Sonnen said.
As for David Sonnen himself, he now has more time to take care of projects around the house, he said. He doesn't currently have any pets at home, though, he said with a laugh.
Expect traffic headaches Saturday with protest, sports, music, I-94 closure
Twin Cities transit: The B Line replaces the Route 21 on Saturday
MN Legislature: Xcel Energy Center shut out of bond funding for renovations
World's largest woodturning expo comes to RiverCentre this weekend
St. Paul Downtown Development Corp. seeks to acquire Alliance Bank Center
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Blame New York Democrats — not Washington — for new state budget crisis
The federal tax and spending changes signed by President Donald Trump on July 4 will have significant implications for New York. The most immediate: to reveal Albany's short-sighted fiscal decisions and long-ignored abuses — something criticisms of the changes conceal. The state spending deal reached in May by Gov. Kathy Hochul and legislative Democrats hiked outlays by 9.3%, three times faster than inflation. A big part of that growth was in Medicaid, the joint state-federal program ostensibly for the poor and disabled whose enrollment has roughly tripled since 2000. Today it and related programs cover a majority of New York City residents. In the last budget, Hochul and the Legislature hiked Medicaid spending by $6.2 billion (16%). That helped the state juice more federal money from the program, but it also painted a bulls-eye for DC fiscal hawks concerned about the $36 trillion national debt. Federal aid and borrowing aside, New York state government this year will spend $18 billion more than it would have if it had kept pace with the consumer price index since 2018. This profligacy was built on assumptions that New York's tax receipts would keep going up. That's more of a gamble than ever, because the state is more reliant than ever on a relatively small group of high earners who pay significantly higher state income-tax rates — and could pay no state income tax if they moved to a growing number of places outside New York. And it requires ignoring the signs of tax-base erosion that New York has already suffered since its 2021 tax hikes made the top combined state-local income-tax rates in New York City the nation's highest. Albany's bet that the good times would continue culminated in rosy revenue forecasts issued in February. But those outlooks stopped being worth the paper they were written on in April, after Trump's tariffs doused markets in uncertainty. Albany nonetheless marched ahead. The state's lethargic Republicans, fearful of upsetting various special interests, didn't much rock the boat. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! The first dose of reality came in June, after state budget officials slashed their economic growth forecasts. They estimated that tax receipts will be about $4 billion, starting next year, lower than previously expected. That, along with newly agreed-upon spending increases, means Hochul must address a $7 billion mismatch between revenues and faster-growing expenses in the budget she presents in January (a gap that gets wider each year). While turbulence in federal trade policy jostled markets, that overreliance on volatile tax receipts meant the state was facing a fiscal crunch even before Congress acted. This was the first of two bad bets by Albany. The second was that Congress would keep ignoring the bloat and distortions in New York's health-care apparatus. As the Empire Center's Bill Hammond has diligently chronicled, New York for a decade used a little-known provision in the Affordable Care Act to get federal taxpayers to pick up virtually the entire cost of a no-premium health-care system known as the Essential Plan. Originally created in part to cover immigrants who were ineligible for Medicaid, it now covers about 1.4 million New Yorkers, many of whom are well above the traditional Medicaid eligibility level. The eligibility threshold is so high that one health-care union appears to have jettisoned some of its lower-paid members from their union health coverage to sign up on the taxpayer-funded Essential Plan instead. The federal rules were so generous that the state wound up accumulating almost $10 billion in Essential Plan reserves because Washington sent Albany more than it could spend. Congress, under both parties, failed to do anything about it. Albany officials ultimately used a portion of the windfall to boost payment rates, subsidizing other parts of the health-care system. The GOP bill has cut off some, but not all, of that federal money. That will force the state to consider long-prevented reforms that address the high cost of both care and insurance coverage in the Empire State. New York in many respects is getting off easy: Its generation-long scam of taxing hospitals and health-care providers, then overpaying them to compensate and pulling down extra federal Medicaid cash in the process, will largely continue. Calls for a special legislative session, and demands for higher taxes, are inevitable. But the reasonably good health of the state's reserve funds (which Hochul has diligently guarded) means there's no real need for immediate action. Instead, Hochul needs to start making the case for the overdue structural reforms that would help Albany live within its means — and worry less about Washington. Ken Girardin is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Has Bentley Officially Surpassed Rolls-Royce?
Rolls-Royce and Bentley are tied to each other forever. As recently as the late 90s, the two automakers made vehicles that were virtually indistinguishable from one another. Each had its trademarks, badging, and in Rolls-Royce's case, the Spirit of Ecstasy and grille design. Fast-forwarding three decades, we find two brands with distinct personalities and heritage. Looking closer, we see two brands that have set out to accomplish similar things - and achieved on very different levels. But first, a quick history lesson. Bentley Motors began life in January 1919 as World War I ended, debuting its first car later that year. The company delivered its first car in the following year and won the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1927. Then, the brand repeated its wins in the three years following. Rolls-Royce bought the brand when it went into receivership on the heels of the Great Depression. The newly acquired now-subsidiary's first car was a Bentley 3.5-liter that appeared in 1933, powered by a Rolls-Royce engine. The latter part would prove to be a trend as all Bentley models produced after the merger until 2004 relied on Rolls-Royce engines and chassis. After changing hands in the 1970s, Rolls-Royce (including Bentley) went up for sale in the late 1990s. BMW and Volkswagen were poised to become the inheritors of the luxury crown. BMW was already providing powertrains for Rolls, and took further steps to purchase the name and logo for Rolls-Royce. For a sizable $703 million, Volkswagen purchased the designs, nameplates, and the facilities themselves. But, without the rights to the name and badging, a compromise needed to be met. Thus, VW took Bentley, and BMW got Rolls-Royce. Effective January 2003, the two brands were finally separate entities. After twenty-two years apart, how have they fared? Let's start with Rolls-Royce. The original nameplate has carried itself well into the 21st century, and 2024 saw the brand deliver 5,712 cars, its third-best recorded. Here, Bentley compares favorably. The Crewe-based automaker delivered nearly double the number of cars as Rolls, with 10,600 cars finding new homes. However, volume is only part of where these brands generate their revenue. Both place a heavy emphasis on customizability; Rolls-Royce has Bespoke, while Bentley offers Mulliner. Last year, Bentley saw revenue per car rise 10%, and a lot of that comes from the fact that 70% of the cars delivered had at least one Mulliner inclusion. Rolls-Royce says, similarly, that it saw a 10% increase in Bespoke content overall, enough to set a record for the brand. Bentley trounces Goodwood in volume, and profit is a similar story. Bentley reported a profit of $439 million. Meanwhile, BMW reported that Rolls-Royce generated around $140 million in profit, demonstrating that the brand is also very likely making less, percentage-wise, per car than the boys in Crewe. The story remains consistent no matter which arena you pick. Rolls-Royce, overall, accounts for roughly 1% of parent company BMW's profit. Bentley? Last year, despite a downturn in profits, the brand accounted for around 2% of Volkswagen's profit. We've established that Bentley is making more money than Rolls-Royce, but what does the future hold? Bentley certainly isn't resting on its laurels, just recently announcing three new stores for North America in desirable locations - Santa Barbara, California, San Antonio, Texas, and Oakville, Canada, a Toronto suburb. An exec was recently quoted as saying there's "no real limitation" on what the automaker can or would build you, even offering a pickup truck. Finally, Bentley also laid the ground for a new BEV assembly line back in March 2025. Then, in July, Bentley opened up a brand-new design studio converted from one of its oldest and most heritage-filled buildings. BMW isn't putting Rolls-Royce out to pasture yet, though. Last year, the brand added two new Private Office locations and an invite-only network for Rolls-Royce customers to configure their vehicles. Furthermore, the brand committed around $400 million to expanding manufacturing at the Goodwood facility. The numbers don't lie. It's a fairly accurate statement to say that Bentley has surpassed Rolls-Royce, at least for the time being. However, even after a century, both brands are still growing. Notably, the big B doesn't have a single all-electric model. Meanwhile, Rolls-Royce has cleaned up with the Spectre, simultaneously attracting a whole new kind of buyer and moving units. It's too early to tell which of these historic luxury brands is going to come out on top, but Bentley has certainly taken the lead, and is obviously working and spending hard to maintain it. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Los Angeles Times
6 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
California, epicenter of the nation's housing crisis, is finally getting a housing agency
After years of soaring rents, increasingly out-of-reach home prices and an enduring homelessness crisis that touches every corner of the state, California is finally creating a state agency exclusively focused on housing issues. You might wonder what took so long. Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom introduced a proposal to split up the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency — an awkward grab bag of disparate bureaucratic operations — into two fresh agencies: one just for housing and homelessness-related departments and one for everything else. The Legislature had until July 4 to veto the plan. It didn't (though some Republicans tried). Now the work of setting up California's first housing agency begins. Supporters of the bureaucratic reshuffle say the move is long overdue. In surveys, Californians regularly name housing costs and homelessness as among the state's top concerns. That alone warrants the creation of a new Cabinet-level advisor to the governor, said Ray Pearl, executive director of the California Housing Consortium, which advocates for affordable housing development. 'A Cabinet-level secretary who will sit with other Cabinet secretaries, whose purview will be housing … that is elevating the agenda to the highest level,' he said. Pearl, like virtually every expert interviewed for this article about the new agency, described the reorganization as 'just the first step' in bringing much-needed order and efficiency to California's network of funding programs for affordable housing. 'Simply moving people around and giving them a new business card doesn't change the system,' he said. A spokesperson for the governor stressed that the creation of a new housing agency is part of a broader effort by Newsom to prioritize one of California's most vexing issues. Since taking the helm of state government in 2018, the governor has ramped up pressure on local governments to plan for more housing, urged them to clear encampments of unhoused Californians and pushed for legislation aimed at ramping up construction. 'This is the first administration to make this a part of our everyday conversation — putting a magnifying glass on the issue of homelessness and finding ways to effectively address it. These structural and policy changes are going to create a generational impact,' said spokesperson Tara Gallegos. Among the seven Cabinet-level agencies, the BCSH has always seemed like the 'everything else' wing of state government. Affordable housing grantmakers, lenders and urban planning regulators share agency letterhead with cannabis and alcohol industry overseers, professional licensors, car mechanic watchdogs and everyone at the California Horse Racing Board. 'We used to call it 'The Island of Misfit Toys,'' said Claudia Cappio, who ran both the California Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and Community Development in the years immediately before and after 2012 when both were packed into the newly created BCSH. 'Imagine a staff meeting of all those things … I learned a lot about horse racing.' Aside from giving housing and homelessness their own box atop Newsom's organizational chart, the chief selling point of the reorganization has been to simplify the state's hydra of affordable housing financing systems. Currently, there is one state organization where affordable housing developers apply for loans, another where they go for most grants, a third where they apply for the federal tax credits that builders use to entice private investors to back their projects and a fourth for the bonds needed to secure many of those credits. This doesn't include one-off programs for veterans, transit-oriented development and short-term housing for homeless people, which are sprinkled across state government. Complicating things further, the tax credit and bond funding programs — the backbone of funding for affordable housing development across the country — aren't even under the governor's control. Those programs are run by the state's independently elected treasurer. 'Many, many states have what is essentially a housing finance agency that controls the majority of affordable housing funds,' said Sarah Karlinsky, who directs research at UC Berkeley's Terner Center for Housing Innovation. California's programs are split up, which is unusual. Beyond that, 'what makes California so unique,' said Karlinksy, 'is the fact that the resources are spread across two different constitutional officers.' That fragmentation appears to be adding to the cost of construction in California. A Terner Center analysis this spring estimated that each additional public funding source delays a project by, on average, four months, and adds an additional $20,460 in costs per unit. Affordable housing construction is already distinctly expensive here. Building a publicly funded project in California costs more than 2.5 times more per square foot than in both Texas and Colorado, a recent report from the Rand Institute found. Will the new housing agency solve that problem? Not everyone is convinced. Of the many ways in which the scarcity of affordable housing affects most people, 'the lines on the org chart' don't crack the 'top 100 list,' Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, a Napa Democrat, said about the governor's proposal at a hearing in March. Cabaldon noted that executive reorganizations are a semi-regular feature of California governance. The Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency is itself the product of a reorganization which spun off California's independent transportation agency. 'The dance of the secretaries we do constantly, always with grand ambitions,' said Cabaldon. 'Simply saying that it's going to cause more focus, that it will be streamlined, that it will cause leadership level action — but how?' As written, the new housing agency will consist of the current agency's housing-related entities along with a new Affordable Housing Finance Committee, which will be tasked with coordinating the housing subsidy programs currently under the governor's control. But the major funding sources managed by the treasurer's office will remain where they are. The California Constitution wouldn't have allowed Newsom to commandeer those functions from the independent treasurer even had he wanted to. That's a significant shortcoming, according to the Little Hoover Commission, the state government's independent oversight agency, which reviewed the governor's plan before it was passed along to the Legislature. In its final report, the commission recommended that the governor and treasurer strike a formal deal to 'create a unified application and review process' for all the affordable finance programs under their respective purviews. Neither the governor's office nor the office of state Treasurer Fiona Ma would say whether or how they are pursuing that goal. A single, unified application for every one of California's public affordable housing funding programs has been the bureaucratic holy grail of California affordable developers and policy wonks since at least the mid-1990s. Though the reorganization stops short of requiring that, it set up both constitutional offices to better coordinate in the future, said Matt Schwartz, president of the California Housing Partnership, a nonprofit that advocates for affordable housing. 'There's going to be a bit of diplomacy' between the two executive branches to work out a joint application, said Schwartz, who spoke to CalMatters earlier this year after the governor first introduced the proposal. 'That's the longer-term prize that many of us will be pushing to come out of this process.' Some affordable housing advocates have urged lawmakers to be cautious in mushing the various bureaucracies together. In a letter to four powerful Democratic legislators, the California Housing Consortium stressed that the application systems administered by the treasurer's office already 'function extremely well.' That process 'is not broken and doesn't need fixing,' said Pearl, the consortium's director. Before monkeying with it, he said, 'let's get the agency set up.' Pearl and the consortium also noted that past legislation has already mandated the creation of a working group to propose a consolidated application. The findings of that group are due on July 1, 2026. That's the same day the current BCSH is set to officially dissolve and the two new agencies will take its place. That's also just five months before statewide elections will be held to replace Newsom and Ma, giving voters a chance to decide who will shape the future of affordable housing policy in California. Christopher writes for CalMatters, where this article originally appeared.
