It seems like Mayor Don Saylor is churning out a new op-ed that the Davis Enterprise runs in its prime Sunday slot once a week. In a way, I should be praising the Mayor, as after all he truly gets the need to promote and market and reach out to the voters.
The problem is that it is largely rhetoric and propaganda. No sooner did I churn out my piece last week about the Emperor’s lack of clothing than Mayor Don attempted to dress up his pig in new clothing.
Yes, I am excited by the Davis economy during a time in which we have double-digit unemployment with no end in sight, schools are losing money, social services are being cut to the bone, poor people and children are suffering, the university is contemplating pricing middle class kids right out of a college education, and the city may be insolvent in four years due in part to Mayor Don’s inability to hold the line of city employee salaries.
I am excited by the Davis economy, though, because you have assembled a team of people who sat down for an entire day on September 23 to come up with the same vision for the city that was created back in 1992, and probably before that even.
I am excited by the Davis economy because Don Saylor decided that he had six months of Mayorship to lend his mark on his city, and instead of addressing the most pressing issue facing the city, an issue that would cripple Davis’ economy, he has chosen to focus on self-promotion and propaganda.
I am excited because, while Mr. Saylor is given the prime spot in the Davis Enterprise every time he asks for it, he fills it not with substance but with bare propaganda.
I have read through his column, and I have no idea what he is trying to say. All I see are buzzwords.
Let me show you a few examples that illustrate why I am excited.
Mayor Don writes, “We are home to UC Davis, the major engine of innovation for the region and a world-class research university.”
I am impressed, two buzzwords in the same sentence.
He continues, “UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi has called for increased attention to technology transfer from the laboratory to the marketplace. Cities and counties throughout the region are working to support ‘green’ business and knowledge-based business startups. The Davis City Council has established objectives to promote appropriate partnerships with the private sector and the university community and develop and implement a comprehensive economic development strategy.”
No one can disagree with any of this. The question is how we intend to promote partnerships with the private sector. Apparently we are still developing and implementing the comprehensive economic development strategy. In other words, we have no plan. We’re still working on it.
So now Mayor Don tells us what DSIDE, Designing a Sustainable and Innovative Davis Economy, has done.
We get a lot of great rhetoric, but we never find out what they have done.
He writes, “DSIDE efforts, to date, address knowledge-based business startups and relocations. The DSIDE workshop on Sept. 23 focused primarily on actively creating an environment that will support a vibrant economy consistent with our community identity and unique niche as the home of a world-class research university.”
He continues, “The DSIDE workshop, held at the UCD Conference Center, was jointly sponsored by 12 local businesses as well as UCD, UCD Extension, the City of Davis, Davis Chamber of Commerce, Davis Downtown Business Association and the Yolo County Conference and Visitors Bureau. Representatives of the leadership of these organizations comprise the steering committee of this DSIDE effort, which has been underway since last spring.”
He adds, “Over the course of the workshop, the participants heard presentations from a series of speakers on the topics of technology transfer, regional economic development efforts underway, the successful startups of two Davis technology companies and the health of the Davis economy.”
So here is what I got so far. They had a workshop on September 23. Attending that workshop were the usual suspects in the business community and at UC Davis. And they had some presentations at this workshop. One of the presenters was UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and the others were two local business owners.
Then things get curious, “The DSIDE participants worked through several facilitated sessions to identify strengths and weaknesses of our community in the area of economic development and discuss the opportunities and obstacles.”
Is that not what Don Saylor, Michael Faust, and Bob Agee wrote about on September 5, also getting a prime spot in Davis Enterprise?
Back then Mayor Don wrote about the “Davis Economic Health and Prosperity Report” and in that he said, “The report represents the culmination of a multi-year commission effort to examine and measure some of the key factors defining economic development and community well-being, and to help policymakers and the community assess “how is Davis doing?” and “how do we know?””
In it, they assessed five indicators of the city’s economic performance: “business health, business climate, city revenue, quality of life and people.”
So they had a workshop which replicated in one afternoon the efforts that were undertaken over the course of several years by the Business and Economic Development Commission?
At least they arrived at something concrete and specific, right?
“Through this work, the group arrived at a set of strategic issues and suggested several actions. These actions can be grouped in the following broad categories, each with several specific actions.”
What are they? “Creating a shared community vision;” “Innovation park/eco-system;” “Economic development activities;” and “Business climate improvements.”
More buzzwords.
At least they lay out the next steps.
First, they wish to “continue to engage community members in building a shared community vision.” They encourage the public then to review all draft materials and make comments. Next, the workshop results will be presented to the BEDC in October and at a joint meeting with the council in November. I guess I’m still confused here, didn’t the BEDC already do this?
Next, they will “engage in UCD efforts to advance an innovation park or other elements of an ‘eco-system;'” and “explore necessary actions in enhancing Davis as a destination and other business enterprises.”
They then encourage the public to go to a website that does not exist yet to see information that will be posted in the future.
They conclude, “We are in an exciting time that holds much promise for our community. It is a time that demands our efforts. Together we must create and act on a vision that will utilize our unique advantages to support the identity and quality of life we all enjoy.”
We are in an exciting time. It is an exciting time because we face uncertainty both in our community, our state, and our nation. We are in the midst of the worst economic downturn in most of our lifetimes. We are facing the forces of extremism, threatening to undo much of the progress of the last quarter- to half-century.
There is no end in sight to this current state of affairs.
But the one thing that the Mayor of Davis has the power to control is the city’s budget policies and priorities that we face. Within four years, we face fiscal insolvency in this community, due in large part to the policies that Don Saylor has promoted in the last six years.
Mayor Saylor fought long and hard to get it to this point. He has insisted on serving as Mayor, through criticism of his decision to remain on past the November election. He could have used this time to help right this city.
Instead, he has created an empty-rhetorical vision for the future based on visions and goals that are not new, but re-packaged in bright new packaging.
There is nothing wrong with looking to improve Davis’ business and economic future. We need to do so. But any work that occurs there will occur behind closed doors and well out of public view. This is all showtime. The Enterprise is simply enabling the Don Saylor show.
The worst part of it all is that while Don Saylor goes around promoting his view of the future, he is ignoring the harder and less sexy problems. How is the city going to meet its obligations to its retired employees? How is the city going to continue to provide vital services to the community? How is the city going to manage to keep its streets and roads in good repair? How is the city going to generate new revenue during a time of flat real estate market with no residential growth?
None of these questions will get the Chancellor of the University and assembled dignitaries, but they are worthy of every bit as much attention as the DSIDE conference. Yet Don Saylor’s leadership on this issue, his willingness to get in front of it, his willingness to highlight it is conspicuously absent.
Perhaps because he does not have a good and clean solution to it. Perhaps because that would force him to explain his decisions to continue to ramp up benefits and spending on employee contracts that helped put him into office.
Leadership on tough issues isn’t sexy and exciting, but that is what real leadership is about. Anyone can walk around and cut ribbons and wave the pom poms. But real leaders do far more than that, they get their hands dirty, and they do what needs to be done.
Unfortunately, that is a language that Mr. Saylor just doesn’t know. He wants to have his cake and eat too. And he knows he can’t fix the city’s fiscal problems without angering the same groups he is counting on to support him on his road to the Assembly.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Benjamin: Yes, I am.
Mr. McGuire: Plastics.
Benjamin: Just how do you mean that, sir? [/quote]
I am sure many on this blog recognize these words form the movie “The Graduate.” (Those who don’t probably too young.) I’d make a similar comment about our future. One word. Are you listening?
Agriculture.
I know many on this blog (e.g. Don Shor and Sue Greenwald) are skeptical or think that the City may not benefit due to less favorable tax treatment, but I still think there are opportunities here. I doubt many people on this blog follow grain and Ag futures contracts but corn went limit up last Friday–soybeans are way up wheat is up, etc. Two billion people will be consuming more food and arable land is declining. This is not rocket science folks, its basic supply and demand. Technology can give us higher yielding crops. Yes there are environmental side effects, but would you rather the research is done in Davis or in St Louis? Which location not only benefits us but allows at least a small degree of influence?
Regular readers may have guessed I am not a member of the Don Saylor fan club and we can all breathe a sigh of relief that his mayorship will end soon, but that doesn’t mean the City shouldn’t try and develop Ag tech or green tech industries.
The reviews of the conference I have read are decidedly mixed but regardless its worth exploring and I hope Saylor does open the process to public comment, something he generally abhors.
Davis’ economy does indeed have problems though we have more opportunities that most of our neighbors.
Dr Wu, totally agree. Many stock analysts are saying the same thing and that ag stocks and commodities are the hot investments of the future.
Feel free to pound away on the lack of political will to solve the city’s fiscal issues. But pounding away on Saylor because of the DSIDE workshop is counterproductive. It simply does not serve the interest of the community. DG keeps insisting that the DSIDE ideas are not new. So what? Very little economic development progress has been made in our community because of tremendous resistance to change. Sabotaging the DSIDE effort because of political dislike for Saylor is shortsighted.
The talk of the “usual suspects” supporting the DSIDE effort is silly. Of course the business group stakeholders support economic development. Again so what? The entire community was invited to the DSIDE workshop. There was and is plenty of opportunity for the non-business community to provide input. This blog for instance is a source of input. How about providing constructive input DG? What DSIDE proposals do you think lack merit? And what would you replace them with?
I am not skeptical about the future of agricultural commodities, although I would note that short-term changes in the grain market are largely due to Russia banning exports after their massive wildfires.
What I am skeptical about is peripheral development of land for the purpose of ag and biotech businesses. The long term costs to the city aren’t covered by the up-front development fees or the ongoing property tax revenues. Overall, peripheral development is almost never cost-effective from the standpoint of city revenues.
As discussed on the prior thread on this topic, it seems that the only sites big enough for a Genentech-size business are on campus. It makes sense for UCD to develop land for ag and biotech businesses. It makes sense for the city to develop and promote our existing land and currently-zoned business properties for smaller startups.
The conference was probably worthwhile, though I still believe city funds should not be expended on things like this. I would probably attend any followup, provided it doesn’t happen during business hours.
Speaking of Genentech, they just donated $1 million dollars to the opposition to Prop 24, the ballot initiative that would repeal some of the business tax breaks enacted on behalf of legislative Republicans as part of the Feb 2009 budget deal:
[url]http://www.state-politics.com/west-coast/proposition-24’s-opponents-receive-a-1-million-contribution/[/url]
I was at the DSIDE workshop. Contrary to any propaganda being put out there to the contrary, BEDC is the mover on this issue, not Don Saylor. Saylor just acted as emcee as far as I know or from what it appeared at the meeting.
The people at that meeting were not just the usual suspects, but a lot of community members (like me) interested in encouraging business development in Davis. A lot of us would also like to have a better working relationship with UCD, and this is a first good step in that direction.
I echo every one of the above sentiments from commenters. I would also like to add the following information:
The four main categories that people can sign up for to brainstorm solutions are:
*Creating Community Vision
*Innovation Park/Eco-System
*Economic Development Activities
*Business Climate Improvements
There are twelve subcategories:
*Create and articulate a unified Council and community vision for economic development
*Establish a mechanism to measure performance and identify opportunities to change
*Maintain a transparent and inclusive process for economic development decisions
*Develop an Innovation Park – as described by Chancellor Katehi’s vision
*Provide space for growth and development of a diverse range of businesses
*Provide space and support to create opportunities for businesses spinning off from UC Davis research
*Complete a successful joint city/ campus economic development effort
*Economic development for diversity
*Maintain and enhance a vibrant downtown Davis
*Brand Davis and market what our area has to offer
*Make businesses feel welcome in Davis and implement city regulatory process improvements
*Create housing, education and transportation systems that adequately serve the desired populations
If you don’t like what DSIDE is doing, then be part of the process and make your views known. Otherwise, move out of the way and let those people who are interested at least try and come up with some solutions to some of the issues that have been identified. It matters not one whit if the problems are still the same – they still need solving.
Katehi made it clear UCD is moving ahead with or without Davis (I wasn’t too crazy about that veiled inference). If Davis can work WITH UCD, and provide some infill for startups, how would that be a bad thing, if it will bring tax revenue or other advantages to the city?
The negativism I see expressed in this article, and expressed in previous comments in other blog articles, and hear around town is exactly the reason Davis is percieved as a town not friendly to business. This is what DSIDE has identified as a big problem. We need to take a good hard look at why, and see if we can’t turn that perception around, and invite businesses that will be GOOD FOR DAVIS.
I get that we have serious fiscal issues facing the city, as every other city in this country does. But bottom line is this country needs jobs, jobs, jobs. Encouraging business will bring jobs with it, which is one way to help bring us out of this economic recession. Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility is supposed to break ground this Spring, and will bring with it 100 new jobs. Those Carlton employees will eat at Konditerei and use the little strip mall next door to it. It’s a tiny step towards improving the business climate and generating property and tax revenue, but a small step in the right direction.
What’s wrong with bio-tech? Machine tools? Business is what drives the economy. We need it, should be encouraging it, but making sure it is the right fit for Davis. Personally I would be happy if the only thing that comes out of the DSIDE process is a fairer process by which business wends it way throught the political process in this town. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?
I think it is unfortunate that people are letting their dislike of Saylor get in the way of what is a good project by BEDC to make some changes for the better in this town. If you fear the direction DSIDE is going, then join in, sit at the DSIDE table, and work to make things better in the way you feel is right, rather than just complaining from the sidelines.
Here is a report from the city’s general plan, with the results of a task force appointed in 1991. See pages 201 – 207:
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/gp/004-05-Economic-And-Business-Development.pdf[/url]
“The long term costs to the city aren’t covered by the up-front development fees or the ongoing property tax revenues.’
As I pointed out on the previous DSIDE thread, this simplistic view of economic development ignores the large multiplier effect of high tech jobs. Each high tech jobs draws dollars into the local economy in addition to up-front development fees and ongoing property tax revenues.
Even setting aside the multiplier effect, the statement is at best debatable and probably false. According to Navazio, the only development that doesn’t “pencil out” is lower-end residential (with a break even point around $500K). Retail and commercial are cash flow positive. In addition, it’s misleading to ignore sales tax revenue. As these businesses mature, some faction will produce sales tax revenue.
I have a brief correction. The genesis of the DSIDE effort is the Chamber / Council 2×2 meetings. Representatives of the GRC, YCVB, DDBA, BEDC, and UCD were then asked to join an effort to capitalize on opportunities created on campus. A County rep was invited to participate at a later date. And beginning with the actual workshop, the community has been invited to participate. Let’s have at it.
If you can prove that my statement is false, please do so. Nobody has been describing retail or commercial development. All the discussion has been about ag and biotech businesses, especially startup. Those don’t generate income for the city.
CalGene, as one example, never produced any sales tax revenue that I am aware of. I doubt if Plant Genetics did. It is possible that AgraQuest did; Pam Marrone could certainly verify.
I assume the multiplier effect accrues regardless of where the site is developed (UCD land or city land) since I assume you are referring to purchases and transactions by the businesses and employees locally.
[quote]I think it is unfortunate that people are letting their dislike of Saylor get in the way of what is a good project by BEDC to make some changes for the better in this town. If you fear the direction DSIDE is going, then join in, sit at the DSIDE table, and work to make things better in the way you feel is right, rather than just complaining from the sidelines.[/quote]ERM: Thank you for your posts. I participated as well, and feel like the sincere efforts of many members of the community that participated in this process are disrespected by the biased coverage here in The Vanguard. We all know DG is a Saylor-hater, but the cheap shots that are being taken at the process are out of line. Thanks again for setting the record straight.
DG: My advice … show-up or shut-up.
“If you can prove that my statement is false, please do so.”
Don: I think the burden of proof is on you since you keep repeating the canard.
DSIDE was focused on high tech, not limited to ag and biotech. Your sweeping dismissal of the sales tax revenue potential of these types of businesses is breathtakingly naive. We need to be forward looking, not mired in the present.
Of one fact we can be sure. The sales tax revenue from every high tax company that does not locate in Davis will be exactly zero.
[quote] As I pointed out on the previous DSIDE thread, this simplistic view of economic development ignores the large multiplier effect of high tech jobs. Each high tech jobs draws dollars into the local economy in addition to up-front development fees and ongoing property tax revenues.[/quote]
Local: I must have missed your post but I tend to agree. I have not seen specific studies about the multiplier effect of high-tech businesses (and one should always be careful who is conducting these studies–many consultants studies show that sports complexes raise revenue when the best academic work indicates otherwise). However I would guess you are right about high tech.
On campus development would also benefit Davis just as the entire University does, but a business in the City of Davis, especially one near downtown, would likely be better–it would generate some property taxes. Employees would spend money in the City, generate more jobs, etc.
For the record I have never suggested that the City of Davis fork over any money for local businesses or give any more tax breaks than already exist, though I’m not opposed to doing so if the benefits exceeded the costs.
Can we all agree that a dialogue on this subject makes sense even if Saylor may not be the best messenger?
So my statement is “a canard” (definition: false, unfounded, fabricated), and I am “breathtakingly naive?” I guess that pretty much ends any dialogue we might have on this.
Let me summarize my opinions about this.
Biotech, Ag tech and high tech companies yield excellent tax revenues for the state. In terms of generating revenues for local governments, they are among the least effective. If Davis is looking to increase city coffers, planners should be encouraging mixed-use downtown buildings of 3 – 4 stories.
From a very pro-industry study, the best local sales tax yield I could find worked out to 0.67% of revenues, compared to the local 1% yield of any retail development. Property tax rates for the land developed for these industries will only rise at the rate fixed by Prop 13. Here is the study: [url]http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/ernstyoung.pdf[/url]
I think it confirms some of what each of us have been saying.
These tech businesses do have a multiplier effect on local employment and on local business revenues (as does any kind of commercial development). They have that effect regardless of where they are situated.
The city has ongoing costs with any new development, whether it be retail, commercial, or residential. They have to provide services, and the major cost of those services is the personnel cost for providing fire, police, and infrastructure maintenance. Any peripheral development, for example, might trigger the need for another fire station. The cost of the personnel is going up, and will continue to go up at a rate faster than any revenue yields from the new development. Up-front development fees only cover a portion of that, if at all. Those personnel costs are driving the city’s long-term budget crisis. So added peripheral development could make the city’s fiscal condition worse.
On the other hand, if the university develops the land, the city gets the benefit of the multiplier effect without the long-term costs. The county gains a bit (I think), from the enhanced property taxes provided by the development, and presumably the county has little or no added cost (since the university provides police, fire, and infrastructure).
Finally, there is land already zoned for these sorts of businesses, at least smaller ones. I don’t see a city or county site locally for a big Genentech-size firm; at least, not a site that doesn’t have significant problems or conflict with other land-use goals such as preserving ag land. Large sites do exist on campus. Yet it seemed that there was advocacy at the meeting for peripheral development for the purpose of encouraging tech businesses.
Bottom line: develop on campus, encourage use of existing sites in the city. No peripheral development.
My problem with the conference is not that it was held, but that Don Saylor specifically said that the conference workshop and task force would produce policies that would be “refined by BDCE and adopted by council”.
These policies would likely include many provisions that would affect all citizens of Davis. I think the structure that Don Saylor was instrumental in establishing would tend to short-circuit the standard decision making process, and diminish the role of the community at large and of the council.
[quote]Personally I would be happy if the only thing that comes out of the DSIDE process is a fairer process by which business wends it way throught the political process in this town. Wouldn’t that be a good thing? [/quote]This statement assumes that the current process is unfair, or that there is something wrong with it. This is not the feedback that I have gotten from our high-tech businesses, or from many other businesses which have been recently established. In fact, the two high-tech business executives who spoke at the meeting said that the city had been very supportive and easy to work with.
I have gone out of my way to ask a number of new downtown businesses if they had any problems or delays when with the city, and I have been told that the city was very helpful. One small chain owner told me it was the easiest city he had ever worked with.
The above are all interesting discussions because implicit in advocating for one kind of economic develop or business venture or another are assumptions that reflect a range of principles and values as they relate to critical social, political and environmental issues of the day more broadly…not just for Davis.
A new direction in articulating one common set of values is called the “solidarity economy” and featured in the new issue of “Justice Rising” titled “Building an Economy for People and Nature” that you may read on-line at http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org and see top right of page.
Nancy Price,
Co-Chair,
Alliance for Democracy
“My problem with the conference is not that it was held, but that Don Saylor specifically said that …”
Sue: Had you attended the morning session, you would know that Don was very clear in disavowing the language that you object to. IMO he did so at the CC meeting as well. In addition, I believe both ERM and myself (and probably others) also pointed this out on the last thread.
Do you seriously think that the DSIDE conference was intended to short circuit the decision making process? The idea that we were in any way involved in setting policy and/or disenfranchising the rest of the community is ludicrous.
The community at large was invited to participate. We were all told that this was just the first of many conversations. And at the end everyone was asked to stay engaged.
Short circuit this, short circuit that. He said this, she said that. All hail to the process. Who cares? I applaud the blog participants who focus on making constructive suggestions and are willing to support and/or act upon them. I’m pleased that a number of them have been made in this thread. Keep it up!
For those who want to see summaries of the discussions at the conference, the Davis Chamber of Commerce has links on their home page: [url]http://davischamber.com/[/url]
This is a far more important issue than zipcars, burning firewood, reverse angle parking or many of the other issues we have all been forced to listen to at City Council.
The key issue for Davis going forward is how do we maintain our economy when our State and country are facing stagnation or worse? We live in a State which has a $20 billion structural deficit and many cities are struggling to survive– many will NOT make it.
How do we maintain our vitality? How do we generate “good jobs at good wages?” (Remember Michael Dukakis?) Retail jobs are low paying and retail is dying unless you are online, Wal-Mart/Target or very high end.
Our strength is in technology.
There are opportunities to significantly improve our Downtown retail sector, specialty retail in particular. But we have to improve our Downtown to take advantage of those opportunities. Granted, retail will create but a few high-paying jobs. Nevertheless, it behooves our community to capture retail sales rather than see them go out-of-town.
Yes, I would love to see a conference focusing on strengthening the retail areas downtown, the grocery-anchored neighborhood shopping centers, and the retail districts such as Fifth Street and Olive Drive. Parking and transit seem like key issues.
The council has signaled a 3-pronged approach to economic development: (1) taking advantage of the opportunities developed by UCD; (2) reducing the sales leakage outside the City; (3) strenthening the Downtown as a visitor attraction. Priorities 2 and 3 translate into strengthening the retail sector. The DDBA over the past few months has put forth a number of proposals to strengthen the Downtown, which the Council has adopted. I look forward to the implementation and completion of those proposals. A retail focused conference similar to DSIDE is worth contemplating. In the meantime, any proposals to strengthen the retail sector would be of interest to me. Perhaps it would make for good material for another thread?
Davis should be doing whatever it takes to bring in high-tech businesses and the good paying jobs that come with them.
rusty: “whatever it takes“
Can you define that a little more precisely?
If it means tax breaks, sweetheart land lease deals or (whatever) because good paying jobs are the lifeline to any community.
DTB: “I have a brief correction. The genesis of the DSIDE effort is the Chamber / Council 2×2 meetings. Representatives of the GRC, YCVB, DDBA, BEDC, and UCD were then asked to join an effort to capitalize on opportunities created on campus. A County rep was invited to participate at a later date. And beginning with the actual workshop, the community has been invited to participate. Let’s have at it.”
Thanks for the clarification as to who/what organization was behind the DSIDE effort.
Dr. Wu: “Can we all agree that a dialogue on this subject makes sense even if Saylor may not be the best messenger?”
Absolutely.
Don Shor: “The city has ongoing costs with any new development, whether it be retail, commercial, or residential. They have to provide services, and the major cost of those services is the personnel cost for providing fire, police, and infrastructure maintenance. Any peripheral development, for example, might trigger the need for another fire station. The cost of the personnel is going up, and will continue to go up at a rate faster than any revenue yields from the new development. Up-front development fees only cover a portion of that, if at all. Those personnel costs are driving the city’s long-term budget crisis. So added peripheral development could make the city’s fiscal condition worse.”
Very valid concerns, but is that any reason to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” and not move forward with some attempt to bring into the city business that will be good for Davis; or make the process to develop business in Davis fairer?
Sue Greenwald: “My problem with the conference is not that it was held, but that Don Saylor specifically said that the conference workshop and task force would produce policies that would be “refined by BDCE and adopted by council”.”
Saylor is not running the show as far as I can tell. Based on the invitation to continue the conversation I received, the citizen participants are going to pretty much determine the direction this is headed. That is the wonderful thing about citizen participation – it tends to keep things honest despite what a politician’s original agenda might have been. As “local” pointed out: “Sue: Had you attended the morning session, you would know that Don [Saylor] was very clear in disavowing the language that you object to.”
Sue Greenwald: “This statement assumes that the current process is unfair, or that there is something wrong with it. This is not the feedback that I have gotten from our high-tech businesses, or from many other businesses which have been recently established. In fact, the two high-tech business executives who spoke at the meeting said that the city had been very supportive and easy to work with. I have gone out of my way to ask a number of new downtown businesses if they had any problems or delays when with the city, and I have been told that the city was very helpful. One small chain owner told me it was the easiest city he had ever worked with.”
Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility did not find the system very fair. Target had a rough go of it, as did Borders, Radiological Associates (already in Davis but nearly ousted by Trader Joe’s before folding for economic reasons), the small restaurant in University Mall (Asian I think) that got caught up in the whole Trader Joe squabble, the grocery store wars, etc. ad nauseum. The system is easy only if the business is politically correct by Davis standards and is welcomed by the right people with the power in this town.
Dr. Wu: “How do we maintain our vitality? How do we generate “good jobs at good wages?” (Remember Michael Dukakis?) Retail jobs are low paying and retail is dying unless you are online, Wal-Mart/Target or very high end. Our strength is in technology.”
AMEN!
DTB: “There are opportunities to significantly improve our Downtown retail sector, specialty retail in particular. But we have to improve our Downtown to take advantage of those opportunities. Granted, retail will create but a few high-paying jobs. Nevertheless, it behooves our community to capture retail sales rather than see them go out-of-town.”
Very valid point – even one Don Shor can agree on 🙂
Don Shor: “Yes, I would love to see a conference focusing on strengthening the retail areas downtown, the grocery-anchored neighborhood shopping centers, and the retail districts such as Fifth Street and Olive Drive. Parking and transit seem like key issues.”
Excellent idea! Come to DSIDE and suggest it…
[quote]Sue Greenwald: “My problem with the conference is not that it was held, but that Don Saylor specifically said that the conference workshop and task force would produce policies that would be “refined by BDCE and adopted by council”.”[/quote][quote] “Sue: Had you attended the morning session, you would know that Don [Saylor] was very clear in disavowing the language that you object to.” [/quote]Fine Elaine. I am satisfied that Don “disavowed the language” that he had forcefully presented at council and that he had forcefully included in the written subcommittee report. He disavowed the language because I made a motion to change the language, and that motion obtained three votes.
As I said, I had nothing against the conference as long as Don disavowed the original language concerning the process.
Sue Greenwald: “Fine Elaine. I am satisfied that Don “disavowed the language” that he had forcefully presented at council and that he had forcefully included in the written subcommittee report. He disavowed the language because I made a motion to change the language, and that motion obtained three votes.”
And that is why you keep getting re-elected Sue 🙂
DTB: “There are opportunities to significantly improve our Downtown retail sector…
Since my business is not downtown, I would like to reiterate that retail sectors are in neighborhood shopping centers and other venues around town in addition to downtown. The health of the neighborhood shopping centers, in particular, should be of concern.
ERM: “Target had a rough go of it…”
Huh? Target was invited into the city by a sitting council member, encouraged throughout the process by city staff, promoted by two other council members, encouraged by BEDC, won a 4 – 1 vote for their proposal, and won a citywide vote.
What was rough about it? That they had to submit to a referendum?
Where the jobs will be in California: 2008 – 2018
The state is expected to add 1.6 million jobs over this decade.
Which categories?
1 Education Services, Health Care, and Social Assistance sector: 400,000 jobs
2 Professional and Business Services: 382,000 jobs
3 Government: 206,700 jobs
4 Leisure and Hospitality: 203,200
5 Retail Trade: 157,900
6 Wholesale trade: 98,100
7 Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting: 74,000 jobs
8 Computer Systems Design: 88,000 jobs
9 Construction: 70,900 jobs
10 Transportation, Warehouse, and Utilities: 41,000 jobs
11 Information sector: 16,900 jobs
12 Motion Picture and Videos: 16,600 jobs
13 Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing: 14,200 jobs
14 Residual Information: 11,400 jobs
15 Beverage and Tobacco Products: 10,500 jobs
16 Software Publishing: 10,400 jobs
Significant losses are expected in:
Manufacturing
Publishing
Telecommunication
Financial Activities
http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/indproj/cal$indnarr.pdf
Don Shor: “Significant losses are expected in:
Manufacturing
Publishing
Telecommunication
Financial Activities”
The loss of manufacturing and telecommunication jobs are bc of outsourcing. Publishing jobs are losing to the internet. Financial activities are losing bc people are not going to invest with such sanguine as before, after the mortgage meltdown…
Notice gov’t jobs are high on the list of expected job opportunities, even tho we have a pension crisis…
Don Shor: “ERM: “Target had a rough go of it…”
Huh? Target was invited into the city by a sitting council member, encouraged throughout the process by city staff, promoted by two other council members, encouraged by BEDC, won a 4 – 1 vote for their proposal, and won a citywide vote.
What was rough about it? That they had to submit to a referendum?”
My son worked on the “Yes on Target” campaign, and came in for a lot of ugly anti-big box store criticism. In fact there was a move afoot to try and stop Target from building bc of a “underground plume of toxins”, even tho housing was already built next to toxic dump (which never should have been allowed IMHO). Target barely squeeked by for approval from referendum. I wouldn’t say they had an easy go of it…
Well, I worked on the ‘No on Target’ campaign, and there was plenty of ugly criticism that we dealt with. Any political campaign generates heat. I really think the notion that Davis is “anti-business” stems, as I’ve said before, from the heightened level of citizen involvement here. In most communities, businesses go to city staff, who quietly put their projects before the council, which automatically rubber-stamps whatever staff recommends. That is how you get Vacaville’s growth pattern instead of what we have in Davis.
So the “citizen participation” you applaud above, and the review by commissions that you (and I) support on other threads, is what leads to the perception that Davis is “anti-business.” Most development — residential and commercial — is developer-driven in most cities. Here there is a community-developed General Plan (which, I would point out, Second Crossing egregiously violated). Developers don’t like public input; it is so messy. So when the public resists a developer’s plan, they are called NIMBY’s, or anti-business. It is, to use a term thrown about earlier, a canard.
Councilmember Greenwald wrote:[quote]Fine Elaine. I am satisfied that Don “disavowed the language” that he had forcefully presented at council and that he had forcefully included in the written subcommittee report. He disavowed the language because I made a motion to change the language, and that motion obtained three votes.[/quote]Sue: I’m a little shocked by this post.
You pulled the item from the consent calendar. The motion to strike the offending language was made by Joe, and seconded by Rochelle. You suggested some alternative language and Don passively agreed to it with the comment “that would be fine.” The motion passed unanimously. Quite different than the picture you paint.
[I would encourage anyone with any concerns/curiosity about this issue to watch the streaming video of the 9/7 council meeting. The relevant section starts at 4:51:14.]
Also, I would really like to know the factual basis is for your statement that Don “forcefully included the language in the written subcommittee report.” IMO it was probably drafted by a staff person supporting the Steering Committee (possibly one that doesn’t even work for the city).
I also don’t understand why you keep bringing this up. All four of your colleagues stated from the dais that the city council would obviously not be bound by anything that happened at the conference.
I meant that the language was forceful. I assumed that Don wrote it because the staff doesn’t write subcommittee reports. Subcommittee members write them.
I pointed out that the process outlined in the subcommittee report was inappropriate. The council agreed.
That said, you probably remember the specific sequence of events that led to the language revision at the council meeting better than I do. I’m happy that someone is paying close attention to the meetings.
Let’s all agree that misunderstandings about the role of the council vis-a-vis the conference/task force have been cleared up, and the conference was valuable.
Sue: You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own made-up narrative. If you misremembered, then fine. Case closed.[quote]Let’s all agree that misunderstandings about the role of the council vis-a-vis the conference/task force have been cleared up, and the conference was valuable.[/quote]I agree.
Don Shor: “Well, I worked on the ‘No on Target’ campaign, and there was plenty of ugly criticism that we dealt with. Any political campaign generates heat. I really think the notion that Davis is “anti-business” stems, as I’ve said before, from the heightened level of citizen involvement here. In most communities, businesses go to city staff, who quietly put their projects before the council, which automatically rubber-stamps whatever staff recommends. That is how you get Vacaville’s growth pattern instead of what we have in Davis.”
Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility “went to city staff” as you put it, yet could not get a fair hearing on their project. It took pressure from me, our commission and the Planning Commission to force the issue to a fair hearing. It is my understanding that the actual site involved had many other projects proposed for it that would have been even more suitable, but somehow pretty much the same thing had happened to them as well. The entire Radiological Associates/Trader Joe’s fiasco was very unfair. When it is easy for some businesses to get the “political process wheels greased” but not for others, that is NOT A FAIR PROCESS.
I would also point out that UNFAIR PROCESS AND/OR PERCEPTION THEREOF is one of the components to be worked on at future DSIDE meetings. So clearly many, many citizens feel the way I do.