City Staff Presents Intriuging Preliminary Study of Business Park Needs for the City –
City Staff Presents Intriuging Preliminary Study of Business Park Needs for the City – Last night, the first of those commissions, the Business and Economic Development Commission (BEDC) would take the matter into consideration. From the onset, the commission was clearly not comfortable with the vague directive. For the most part they seemed inclined not to grant an exemption, but they were not ready to definitively reach that verdict instead they voted by a 7 to 1 vote to recommend no exemption at this point in time. The one dissenting vote actually wanted an qualifier removed.
Several commissioners probably would not support such an exemption at that point either however, reasoning that if there is a clear need for a business park, there is no reason not to trust the voters. But at the same time, there was a small but nagging distrust of the voters and giving them the final say that seemed to cause that last bit of hesitation.
However, even if the commission revisits the issue, there does not appear to be strong sentiment to create an exemption even then. The commissioners just seemed to not want to preclude future action if the need arose.
From my standpoint, even if there was a strong and overriding need to develop a business park immediately, Measure J should not grant exemptions. A well-thought out development would undoubtedly be approved by the voters should the need be demonstrated, but it would leave in place protections against poorly developed proposals that would encroach on agricultural land and open space. The public would remain the final arbitthe proers not only on the need for the development, but also on the form and location of that development. These are key issues that ought no be undermined.
One of the members of the public, Pam Nieberg, mentioned that there were key legal issues that were considered when they drafted Measure J originally. The reason that there were no exemptions granted is that they believed any exemption could cause the initiative to be thrown out by the courts, as many of these land-use initiatives have been. She warned that once you grant an exemption, the entire concept gets placed in danger.
The members of the commission at times seemed a bit perplexed by the task they were asked to perform and even Mayor Ruth Asmundson, the council liaison to the commission, acknowledged that the idea was formulated late at night by Councilmember Stephen Souza. While Councilmember Stephen Souza clearly has a concept of a green business park in mind, a concept that I believe most in Davis would support, there appears to me to be no compelling need for an exemption. Mr. Souza has generally adopted the attitude that he trust the voters, and he should do so in this case as well.
Broader Business Park Discussion
The city at this point is looking at long-term business park land needs in order to understand the city’s long term business park needs and determine how they should be addressed. One of the clear goals it appears is the desire for Davis to become a center for green-based technology business, research and development in order to take advantage of the new era of green-conscious technologies along with the proximity of the university.
Some of the key aspect that the study is looking at is the availability of land, the projected absorption rate for new development, the future vision of what Davis wants to be, and how this vision should be pursued.
Based on a 10-year historical development framework of 8.6 acres per year and a 25-year time frame, they are looking at 215 acres as a baseline for business park development.
To this point, they have identified 140.7 acres of available land that is zoned for business park uses. That includes the recently discussed Cannery Property. The problem with the Cannery Property is two-fold. First, the developers have sought more of a mixed used approach rather than a pure business park. Moreover, there is a clear segment opposed to the use of Cannery as strictly a business park and another segment trying to push for more housing development in the area. Some on the council and city staff including the city manager have suggested the possibility of masterplanning Cannery with the neighboring Covell Village for housing.
Even including Cannery in this inventory, the city remains about 75 acres short of the 215 identified by staff. As a map demonstrates, Cannery is by the largest of the available properties within the city limits–all over sites are far smaller.
However, the city has many weaknesses as well. Davis is considered a difficult place to market from a regional business attraction perspective where the perception is that it has nothing to sell from an inventory perspective. Moreover, most businesses consider Davis to be business unfriendly. There is a need for plentiful sites with a range of sizes, appropriate zoning, and most importantly a streamlined and predictable process. There are few remaining sites that are adequate for development. And Davis’ real estate and lease rates are comparatively expensive.
Staff clearly believes that a business park option is needed–that Davis would benefit from additional business park development. The problem is where they will find the land to do so. The first obvious site would be the Lewis/ Cannery property where the cannery used to reside. However, as several mentioned last night, there are problematic elements of that and even with that, the city falls well short of the identified 215 acres.
One might begin with the question as to whether 215 is the right number–just because staff pulled it out based on a 25 year build out and a certain development rate doesn’t mean we have to pursue that number. I think the number should be driven by other consideration including the availability of land, the need to preserve agricultural land and open space, the commercial and economic reasons for 215 acres as opposed to some other number.
Another point that was not made is the use of University land or joint ventures between city and university. Obviously much of this discussion is based on the proximity of UC Davis and yet very little consideration was made about working with UC Davis. In short, it was an interesting discussion but there seems to be a rush to justify the development of agricultural land without a good discussion on the economic needs to do so.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, it is worth mentioning that one aspect of the discussion last night was that the BEDC vote was also unanimous support of the Measure J question appearing on the June 2010 ballot in “as is” form. Despite the somewhat bizare introductory presentation of the topic by Katherine Hess, where she explained to the Commission that they were considering not the potential of a second and separate measure for Davis’ voters to vote on, but rather a revision to the “as is” language, the Commissioners sorted out what the true situation is and supported the “as is” approach.
It isn’t clear to me why Hess merged the two separate and distinct votes of the Council. The way she persented the issue to the Commissioners, they were expected to give the Council guidance on whether Measure J should be presented on the ballot “as is” or modified to include the Business Park exception. In public comment I pointed out that the Council had approved “as is” for a 10-year period, and that Council’s consideration of the Business Park exception was only as a second free-standing ballot question. Mayor Asmundson confirmed that Katherine’s interpretationwas indeed incorrect. Perhaps the Measure J “as is” renewal has more to fear from Staff than it has to fear from the Commission “cronies” (as Mike Harrington labeled them last week . . . it would appear erroneously).
Anyone hoping that the Business Park Lands Strategy Update (BPLSU) will generate a second vote by BEDC later in the process will almost surely be dissapointed. Chary Anthony Costello was very clear in saying that he hasn’t seen anything so far that makes him believe a Business Park is clearly a god idea. Joe Hruban said he simply didn’t see any value in making an exception. In his comments, Tobin Richardson referenced the forcefully made comments made during the Public Comment period.
That doesn’t mean that any of us should let up on our dilligence. There were close to 20 speakers in public comment last night, and all of them supported Measure J “as is.” Bill Streng was there and could have spoken for the other side of the argument, but he chose to be silent.
The Planning Commission meets on Wednesday and the Open Space Commission meets on Monday July 6th. Measure J is not on the Agenda for Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting. Even if they don’t formally discuss Measure J until their Wednesday July 8 meeting, I do not believe it is too soon to carry the Measure J “as is” and “no exceptions” messages to the Planning Commissioners.
David: There are two issues embodied in your detailed & thoughtful analysis of the Measure J/business park discussion @ Monday’s B&EDC meeting: (1) Measure J itself and (2) Land needs for business “parks.”
In my opinion, those two issues should be separated immediately, and we should should re-focus on the singular, most important issue at hand: renewal of Measure J, without exemptions of any type.
There is simply no justification to introduce exemptions into the language of Measure J. In fact, if any exemption were included, it could spell the demise of this excellent, citizens-based measure. Therefore, all peripheral discussions of business park exemptions should be viewed for exactly what they are: an attempt by developers (and their council “plants”) to introduce a “Trojan horse” into J’s language, with the ultimate goal of circumventing it & destroying it.
The second issue, land needed for potential business “parks,” is a totally separate issue. In fact, in our shrinking economy, and with a growing number of vacant business & office spaces throughout our City, it is absurd to even consider adding more land (let alone 215 acres!) for business “parks.”
So, as much as I admire your detailed analyses, PLEASE keep the Measure J renewal language separate from the land-use/business park issue. The immediate need is to get Measure J on the 2010 ballot in its present form, without exemptions, and renew it for a minimum of 10 years.
“While Councilmember Stephen Souza clearly has a concept of a green business park in mind, a concept that I believe most in Davis would support, there appears to me to be no compelling need for an exemption. Mr. Souza has generally adopted the attitude that he trust the voters, and he should do so in this case as well.”
Souza, to my mind, does not trust the voters one iota. Rather he has his own agenda to fulfill – to move on to higher political office (fat chance Souza!). In so far as the Measure J issue, Mr. Souza clearly was trying to figure a way to finesse weakening Measure J (even tho he earlier promised in campaign speeches he would support Measure J as is), just as Saylor tried to. Those two clearly are tied to developer interests. Ruth Asmundson is stupid enough to go along with these two, not knowing any better or beholden to developer interests. The arrogance of the City Council majority, and their disdain of citizen voters is palpable.
“Based on a 10-year historical development framework of 8.6 acres per year and a 25-year time frame, they are looking at 215 acres as a baseline for business park development. To this point, they have identified 140.7 acres of available land that is zoned for business park uses. That includes the recently discussed Cannery Property.”
What difference does it make to decide precisely how much land to set aside for business parks? It will depend on a lot of factors, and is not determinative of anything at the moment. We have the Cannery Property already “paved over”, so no ag land would be developed on. The Cannery site is zoned commercial. It has been a commercial property, and should stay a commercial property. I think you will find the majority of Davis citizens would approve a tech park for the Cannery site as a good use, despite a bit of noise from A FEW neighbors. A mixed use is just inviting trouble – it invites more residential building, talk of joining it with Covell Village IV, blah, blah, blah.
The City Council and appropriate commissions should be pushing for a business park on the Cannery site. We need the tax revenue, it will be a moneymaker for the city rather than a liability, unlike more residential housing. We don’t need more residential housing there – there are enough infill sites in the works to serve workforce housing needs.
The old Hunt-Wesson “Cannery Park” site should be our business park site for the foreseeable future for one overriding reason. Because it is already within our current city boundaries, we do not have to create a new tax-sharing agreement with the county. We are virtually guaranteed to receive more tax or equivalent exactions from a high-tech park located there than from a high-tech park in a peripheral, annexed site. While not all businesses located at such a park bring significant revenue, some can bring a huge amount of revenue.
High-tech business parks are very quiet, low impact and make good neighbors. They don’t create significant truck traffic as some fear and the traffic is usually about the same as the traffic from a housing development.
To me, it is also very important that it represents smart growth to locate jobs closer to existing housing, rather than outside of town where people would have to drive or walk to work.
Pam Nieberg told me that she attends meetings at a high-tech business park in the region, and that it is serene, park-like and pretty. There is nice landscaping, etc. We already have standards in place to assure only neighborhood-compatible companies at the site. We would have design review for any business park to assure attractive design.
The 70 useable acres at Hunt-Wesson would be a small business park by business park standards, but could accommodate a necessary critical mass of companies.
I think it is much more innovative and Davis-like to have modest-sized high-tech business parks scattered around the city — the mixed-use one at Mace Ranch, a true high-tech park at Hunt-Wesson, maybe one at Nishi some day — where people can ride their bikes and walk to work. I think it would be a pity to follow the old bedroom-suburb/commuter model.
[quote]High-tech business parks are very quiet, low impact and make good neighbors. They don’t create significant truck traffic as some fear and the traffic is usually about the same as the traffic from a housing development. [/quote]Long-term (and for the City of Davis’s fiscal health), this is probably the right approach. However, it is worth noting that the vacancy rates for industrial properties in our area are very high now.
According to this report ([url]http://www.grubb-ellis.com/PDF/metro_ind_mkttrnd/Sacramento1Q09.pdf[/url]) from Grubb & Ellis, Woodland alone has 2,038,018 vacant square feet! That’s a vacancy rate of 15.4% and rising. In the Sacramento area, there are 2,266,921 square feet of unleased industrial spaces designed specifically for “R&D/Flex” (which is high tech). That segment of the market is the softest of all segments of industrial properties. Grubb & Ellis notes that a net of 731,416 sq. feet of R&D/Flex became vacant in the last three months.
In the meantime, Davis has a 0.8% vacancy rate for apartments.
I realize that there may be important external factors over the next few years which change both of these situations — a better economy will shrink the industrial vacancies; and West Village will add apartment units — but as a matter of planning, we should really be thinking more about apartments, now, and less about R&D space.
[i]However, it is worth noting that the vacancy rates for industrial properties in our area are very high now.[/i]
Hey, if they’re vacant, they’re even quieter and lower impact.
[i]We should really be thinking more about apartments, now, and less about R&D space.[/i]
I totally agree. It comes across as crocodile tears to criticize student fee hikes, and then turn around and do so little about apartments. The rock-bottom apartment vacancy rate really suggests that students are being zoned out of town.
[quote]I totally agree. It comes across as crocodile tears to criticize student fee hikes, and then turn around and do so little about apartments. The rock-bottom apartment vacancy rate really suggests that students are being zoned out of town.[/quote]
The problem isn’t that students are being zoned out of town. The problem is that UCD has not stepped up and fulfilled its pledge to the UC Office of the President in the November 2002 ,em>UC Housing for the 21st Century report to provide housing for 38% of its students on campus by 2012. Which simply isn’t going to happen. Specifically the report says the following:
[quote]The Plan for New Housing at Davis
The University of California, Davis expects to see a substantial growth in enrollment over the next decade. Davis recognizes the need to provide a higher percentage of its students with housing opportunities and has plans to
build an additional 5,500 beds by 2011-12, bringing the projected percent of students housed to 38 percent.[/quote]
Elsewhere in the report specific UC system-wide goals by class are laid out as follows:
[quote]FIGURE 5
UC STUDENT HOUSING, SYSTEMWIDE AVERAGE
GOALS BY CLASS
2001-02 2006-07 2011-12
1st year new 85% 85% 85%
2nd year continuing 48% 48% 55%
New transfer 39% 40% 41%
All other undergraduates 20% 26% 27%
Graduate and professional 30% 32% 33%
TOTAL 39% 41% 42%[/quote]
So please place the blame at the feet of the proper governmental authority.
“I realize that there may be important external factors over the next few years which change both of these situations — a better economy will shrink the industrial vacancies; and West Village will add apartment units — but as a matter of planning, we should really be thinking more about apartments, now, and less about R&D space.”
We need business for the tax revenue. The need for student housing is a separate issue.
I support renewing Measure J as is with no exemptions. It should be on the 2010 ballot to be renewed for a minimum of 10 years. Measure J was a citizens-based measure that represents the will of the voters and that needs to be honored and not overlooked. I appreciate Councilmember Heystek’s attempt to make it permanent and I’m hoping that it will happen in the future.
I completely agree with Sue Greenwald and “Fed up with Council majority”. The Hunt Wesson site makes perfect sense for a business park. It is already paved over, so we don’t have to pave over more ag land, it is within the city, so it doesn’t have to go through that terrible Measure J vote that scares Steve Souza so much, it is well located for easy access.
I was appalled that some of the speakers last night were advocating for a business park closer to the freeway amounting to paving over ag land. I was also apalled to hear them refer to the death of a young woman years ago under the wheels of a tomato truck in arguing against a business park at Hunt Wesson. Using this tragic death in this manner is really disgusting.
I don’t know who is fueling this fire and depicting business parks as huge industrial sites with monster trucks moving in and out daily, but they are completely wrong. One speaker referred to the plan as a behemoth. A 60 acre business park is not large by any stretch of the imagination. Busness parks do not generate large amounts of truck traffic. We are not talking about another cannery or industrial use. We are talking about offices, labs, high tech business. The business parks I have visited are very quiet and almost truly park-like. They are actually quieter than many residential areas, as the traffic is mostly morning in and evening out and sound is shielded by the buildings and trees.
There was also another attack on staff last night re constantly bringing back the Hunt WEsson site as a potential business park site, as though staff has any control at this time over the current zoning of the site. It is zoned for commercial uses, not mixed use and not housing. Lewis Properties has walked away from their proposal, and, though they may come back, currently, the site is still a commercial site and rightfully included in the mix of lands suitable for a business park.
Hats off to the Business and Economic Development Commission for their position and vote on exemptions to Measure J. That is actually the most important thing that happened last night.
[quote]We need business for the tax revenue. The need for student housing is a separate issue.[/quote]
True, true. That was one of the very interesting discussion items during the Business Park report. Commissioner Michael Faust and Staffer Brian Abbanat briefly touched on the fact that some of the new businesses that have spun out of UCDavis generate virtually no sales tax revenue. One has to wonder whether those are businesses we should be working hard to attract to Davis. Their employees do generate added consumer business for Davis’ retail and service establishments, but does that really do anything to help the City balance its budget? Is the ideal new busines a sales tax engine? What services is the City going to have to provide for that kind of business? Bottom-line the Business Park study is in such an infant state that there really aren’t answers to those important questions yet. Hopefully, they will be forthcoming as the summer progresses.
David,
As mentioned above, first, the two issues of Measure J and land needs for business parks should remain separate and Measure J should have no exemptions. Second, just because the former Hunt Wesson cannery site is zoned “commercial” does not mean that in present day Davis it automatically is the “best site” for a business park. In fact, I would argue that virtually all residents of that sector of town do not want a business park there but instead something like the mixed site development proposed by the Lewis group. It makes much more sense for all kinds of reasons to have business park development occur primarily along the I 80 corridor.
[i]The problem isn’t that students are being zoned out of town. The problem is that UCD has not stepped up and fulfilled its pledge to the UC Office of the President in the November 2002, UC Housing for the 21st Century report to provide housing for 38% of its students on campus by 2012.[/i]
It was not quite a pledge, it was a goal, although I certainly agree that it is an admirable goal. The centerpiece of Davis’ promises to UCOP at the time was West Village, which would provide 2,000 of the roughly 5,000 beds that UC Davis hasn’t built.
But consider how Davis residents responded to West Village. They sued to stop the project. When that interesting UCOP report was written in 2002, West Village was viewed as a coup d’etat against zoning in the city of Davis. And there was some truth to that, since the university the city manager at the same time.
I haven’t seen West Village get started yet; it may be facing new trouble from the state budget crisis. I haven’t seen city leaders express regret over its delays. Again, even if it were built, it would only be less than half of the projected expansion. And even if UC Davis did build all of this 38% that it half-promised by 2012, would all of the other 62% find the housing that they want? UC Davis counted only 8,500 city apartments — many have more than one bed but they are not all rented by students. That does not look like enough for the university’s needs.
No, laying all of the blame for the student housing shortage at the feet of UC Davis is yet another square peg, round hole mandate for the campus. UC Davis should provide housing for thousands more students, but not by building subdivisions that the city won’t build.
[i]Commissioner Michael Faust and Staffer Brian Abbanat briefly touched on the fact that some of the new businesses that have spun out of UCDavis generate virtually no sales tax revenue.[/i]
That’s no surprise if you look at the offices of some of these businesses. Some of them look like five rooms, two employees, and one laptop. And the business model in some cases does not go beyond SBIR grants. Which is not to knock SBIR grants, but no, they don’t generate sales tax.
Besides, there is really no hiding the empty office and retail space in Davis right now. Regardless of what kind of business you would like to attract, vacancies do not generate taxes. At least if students could live there, they would shop.
To “No business park at the cannery site”. In my humble opinion, the Hunt Wesson site is the best site for a business park. It is already in the city, already paved over, and is easily accessible. It is far better than any other proposed sites we saw last night, other than the PG&E and Mace Ranch sites that are also within the city and already paved over. All the other sites are on agricultural land outside the city and some add to the potential for opening up a lot of land beyond them for development. This is something we have been fighting for years. And why would we want a business park next to I80 which just forces us to use our cars to get there?
As to none of the neighbors near Hunt Wesson wanting a business park near them, please present a list of all of the neighbors who do not want a business park there. If you are going to claim none of them want a business park there, you should be willing to let us know just how many three actually are who do not. As far as I can tell, from the council meetings and this meeting where people were there to protest a business park at the Hunt Wesson site, there are only about 6 people opposed, and it is always the same 6 or fewer, showing up.
The Hunt Wesson site is pretty well insulated from the surrounding neighborhoods. North is farm land; east is farm land; south is Covell Blvd.; immediately west is F Street and then mostly apartments with students who are not home much in the day, and probably would not care about a business park there.
But, to find out for sure, we need to survey them and the other neighbors to the west and south. I make a suggestion that the city actually do that. Send out a survey to residents who live to the south and west near enough to be impacted by a business park at the Hunt Wesson site. Make this part of the business park study. Then we can put this to rest.
My impression is that there is a handful of people opposed because they are being misled as to what a business park is and because some just cannot let go of the idea of putting housing there. It is so obvious that the city and landowners are trying to plan the Hunt Wesson and Covell Village sites together, and here are these people, most of whom fought Covell Village and don’t want it developed into a big housing sprawl, advocating for something that will do just that.
[quote]UC Davis counted only 8,500 city apartments — many have more than one bed but they are not all rented by students. That does not look like enough for the university’s needs.
No, laying all of the blame for the student housing shortage at the feet of UC Davis is yet another square peg, round hole mandate for the campus. UC Davis should provide housing for thousands more students, but not by building subdivisions that the city won’t build. [/quote]
The UC Davis Office of Resource Management and Planning 2006-2007 On-Campus Population Estimates say you are about 2,000 apartments too high, but given that over 16,000 students live in those 6,500 living units , the average beds per living unit is almost 2.5. UCD’s specific numbers are provided below.
[quote]Table 24: UC Davis Off-Campus Households, 2006-2007
2006-2007 Campus Population
UCD 2006-2007 Student Population (a) 27,602
Less Students Living Outside the Davis Area (b) (5,520)
Less Students Housed On-Campus (5,797)
UCD Students Living in the City of Davis 16,285
Subtotal: UCD Student Households in Davis (c) 6,514
UCD 2006-2007 Faculty and Staff (d) 11,483
Less Faculty and Staff Living Outside the Davis Area (e) (5,627)
UCD Faculty and Staff Living in the City of in Davis 5,856
Subtotal: UCD Faculty and Staff Households in Davis (f) 4,505
Total UC Davis Households in the City of Davis 11,019
Notes:
(a) Annual average for students representing Fall-Winter-Spring quarter averages (or in the case of Law students,
Fall-Spring semester averages)
(b) Approximately 80 percent of UCD students live in the Davis Area, including the UC Davis Campus.
(c) Assumes 2.5 students per student household.
(d) Does not include student employees.
(e) Approximately 51 percent of UCD faculty and staff households live in the City of Davis.
(f) Assumes 1.31 faculty and staff per household.
Sources: UCD Office of Resource Management and Planning 2006-2007 On-Campus Population Estimates, 2007;
UC Davis 2003 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR; City of Davis Internal Housing Needs Analysis, February 2003;
BAE, 2007.[/quote]
You are absolutely right that subdivisions are not the answer. Dormitories are.
I have seen your mean spirited postings before and you clearly are at it again when you over reach on trying to make your point. It makes no sense to even consider a huge business park at the Cannery Park site. It is ridiculous to think that the truck traffic would not be a safety concern to the city, no less to the area. I find your condescending remarks trying to discount a tragedy that I remember hearing about at the Covell and Pole Line site as pretty insensitive and in denial of what is likely to happen again if a huge commercial park is put at the Hunt Wesson site. I guess it is not appalling to you to invite such an accident to happen again but it is certainly appalling to me.
Also, it is absurd to assume that a 100 acre business is going to be “park like” and not have the large truck and traffic and air quality impacts. It is common sense that such a business park should be located along the freeway and not in the middle of neighborhoods.
[i]You are absolutely right that subdivisions are not the answer. Dormitories are.[/i]
Fine, then, dormitories. It’s really a non-distinction, because the dormitories have to be somewhere.
Your numbers are more relevant than the ones that I used, which were a survey of apartment buildings, whether or not students lived in them. What your numbers show is that UC Davis has a huge shortage of housing at all levels: students, staff, faculty.
You’re right that UC Davis is 5,000 beds short of its student housing goal, and I even agree with you that that goal counts as a half-promise. But given the way that both the city and state have behaved, where is the land or the money for that many dorm rooms?
A good point that P, G and E is paved over so that clearly would be a good site for a business park. It is in the city limits, zoned commercial in a great location on Fifth street also and is surrounded by mostly commercial. I have heard about the toxics on the site so it would not be any good for residential. P,G and E is a great site for business park.
[quote]But given the way that both the city and state have behaved, where is the land or the money for that many dorm rooms? [/quote]
Right on the core campus would be my first thought. The Nishi site would be another possibility if an overpass near the new campus South Gateway proves to be affordable. Nishi is out if the only ingress and egress is via Olive Drive.
I just posted the map up above. I think it’s very telling how few and how small most of the possible business park locations are.
Wow. Where to start?
How about with the tax issue? Sue Greenwald has an excellent point … the Cannery site is within the City limits and we would not need to negotiate a revenue sharing agreement with the county for a business park on that site. However, this is only relevant if you assume that the Cannery site would have the same adsorption rate as a site along the I-80 corridor. This assumption is simply not correct. A business park on I-80 with good visibility and access to an interchange would (1) have a much higher adsorption rate and (2) be a much stronger attractor of revenue generating tenants.
Bottom line … part of something big is much better than all of something small.
Also, the prediction that Davis will somehow be taken advantage of by the county in a revenue sharing negotiation with the county is unsupported by fact.
And, as long as we’re on the subject, what’s wrong with sharing with the county??!! One of their major responsibilities is providing a social services safety net for the disadvantaged people. Isn’t this one of our progressive values?
I second everything that Lets Get real said. Superb points!