Converting ConAgra to Mixed Use Appears to Trigger Chain Reaction of Peripheral Development –
While there are certainly worthy aspects to explore, and likely no one opposes the City of Davis maximizing its business park potential, the specifics of the plan were too quickly glossed over.
However, the second portion was more ominous. It comes down to the standard denial of responsibility for actions, by Mr. Souza and, by extension, the rest of the council. He defended approving portions of the report, suggesting that they were only going to explore, for instance, business parks in peripheral areas such as outside of the Mace Curve and in the Northwest Quadrant – as though somehow that gets one off the hook.
If one is opposed to a concept then there is no reason to support the exploration of the concept. And if one explores committing a crime, they are in fact committing a crime.
The reason for this “strategy,” which Councilmember Rochelle Swanson suggested was more a study than a strategy, is the ConAgra site, which came up later on the agenda and we will discuss tomorrow.
Council acknowledged that the true purpose of this item was to simply, in effect, clear the way for ConAgra to do its mixed-used development.
This is acknowledged in the executive summary of the staff report, “This information was desired in part to inform policy decisions regarding applications to rezone the City’s largest industrial zoned site (ConAgra).”
The idea is, let us say we take the largest existing property zoned for industrial use in the city, then what are the possibilities for developing business parks?
Did the study develop beyond that? Yes, it did and there is certainly value here. Writes the staff report, “As the study proceeded it evolved beyond that to also address the projected demand for business growth, measured by projected employment, and the economic value of growth in knowledge-based industry sectors best suited to take advantage of the presence of the University’s research strengths; highly-educated residents and workforce.”
But there is a warning sign as well, and that is the price that we will likely pay for developing ConAgra as a mixed-use 600-unit site, in that we will be looking at business park alternatives on the periphery.
In a series of 4-1 votes, with Sue Greenwald the only voice of reason on this occasion, council passed motions that would have the city pursue the development of the Nishi/ Gateway as a dynamic mixed-use innovation district and “Move forward to explore peripheral sites for future business park development to accommodate medium-scale (~150 employees) businesses.”
They also appointed a task force made up of Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson, along with representatives from the Planning Commission and Business and Ecomnomic Development Commission, to return to council with recommendations.
Council argued that this was not a direct-action item and that there would be intermediary steps, but this sets the process in motion to develop three of the more controversial sites in this community as business park possibilities.
Writes staff, “Staff recommends that the Downtown and the Nishi Property be identified as the hub for these innovation businesses in Davis. The Downtown provides restaurants, other goods/services, and a range of office spaces in an environment that fosters intellectual exchange. Nishi property, with its proximity to the downtown and campus, provides unique opportunities for an incubator, university-related research facility, and [for]high-density urban housing.”
Councilmember Sue Greenwald objected that this proposal would push huge traffic problems out onto Richards Blvd, but that objection fell on deaf ears, although staff is looking into University access. To me, the Nishi site always looks better than it is. As a site with University-only access it would be truncated from the rest of the community. As a site with Richards Blvd. access it would be a traffic nightmare, the likes of which we can hardly contemplate.
To make matters worse, this would require a Measure J/R vote, which is unlikely to pass anytime soon. It seems that for Council and the City to be spending this type of energy on a project unlikely to pass at this time is a tragic misuse of staff resources.
The staff report continues, “Staff recommends that the Mace Boulevard / I-80 area or the Northwest Quadrant be considered for additional development of this type of business park space. As the first step in exploring options for additional development, staff recommends a Task Force with representatives selected by the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Business and Economic Development Commission. The Task Force would be charged with conducting research and community outreach, and returning to the City Council with recommendations for further action.”
The community marched up to Woodland back in the summer of 2007 to oppose plans to develop these areas back then. We are talking over a 100 people in July. The community is not going to support developing these areas for business park use or any other. Development of a business park in the Northwest Quadrant is frankly sprawl-inducing. And the same is likely true for developing outside of the Mace Curve. It would only be a matter of time before projects come forward as infill north of Covell and East of Mace. The same kinds of projects the public opposed just a year ago.
So I think there are three key points that need to be made here.
First, I do not think the council took enough time to consider this matter. It may in fact be the first step in a chain of needed actions, but this sets things in motion and once in motion, projects start developing their own momentum. In this case, we are talking massive amounts of staff time.
Second, the argument for mixed-use housing at the ConAgra site has always been it would head off peripheral development at Covell Village. The fact is now becoming very clear that that is a very short-sighted view and that the more likely impact of mixed-use housing at ConAgra would be the peripheral development of the Mace Curve, Nishi, and the Northwest Quadrant. This is an unintended consequence, but where things are headed.
Third, there was much talk about the need for revenue in the city. I agree that we need to generate revenue, but as I have shown multiple times, if you look at the sales tax base compared to the unfunded needs of the city, we are not going to make a dent in that by expanding our economic base. Most of these business parks are not going to net us much in tax revenue. This is not a reason not to pursue them, but we need to be honest that this is not a fix.
As Sue Greenwald pointed out last night, if that were the fix, cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles would not be in the world of hurt that they are.
Bottom line is that this is perhaps the most dangerous proposal that has been put forth by city staff and council, it has been set in motion, and the crux of it is taking away business park land at ConAgra and placing it in other locations.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Great, instead of the “Gang of three” we know have the “Gang of four”.
It’s beginning to look like Rochelle and Joe are setting up their tents right in the middle of the Saylor and Souza camp. So much for a change and a refreshing new beginning. I wish I could take my votes back.
[quote]staff is looking into university access[/quote]As I said at the meeting, the problem is that the developers of the Nishi have clearly expressed that the railroad undercrossing which would be required for University access to and from the Nishi would only pencil out with very high-density residential between the railroad tracks and the freeway.
Many people, myself included, feel that high-density residential jammed between the railroad tracks and the freeway would not be a good idea. The BEDCE work plan which was approved by the rest of the council specifically states that Richards would be the entrance to the Nishi.
I am generally in favor of some business development, if it is done well, and something needs to be done at Con-Agra eventually.
However this City Council has a history of shooting first and asking questions later–only this time the stakes are a lot higher than with zip-car. As for Souza’s “if you build it they will come” argument, has he visited Roseville or for that matter Davis? There is a glut of commercial property out there now. And we can’t just say Davis is different. Milpitas also has a huge glut of commercial property as do many other cities in silicon valley. So lets make sure we know what we are doing here.
I’m all for bringing in business if we can get a good deal for the City, but what our City Councils have done in the past is just assume what’s good for real estate developers is good for Davis. It just isn’t true.
What guarantees or safeguards are built into this proposal? I see a number of things that can go wrong. For example:
1.The “mixed-use” becomes housing after commercial developers back out. The housing loses the City money (cost of services higher than tax revenues).
2.The City approves a business park and perhaps developers build something but as the economic downturn grinds on we give the developer more and more favorable terms.
Again I’m in favor of some business development, but if we’ve learned anything over the past few years (and apparently four of our City Council members have not) it’s that rushing this process is always a bad idea.
Is it a coincidence that all this is happening right before Saylor is leaving? Were any deals cut behind closed doors?
I don’t think any deals were cut behind closed doors.
I agree with Sue that I doubt deals were cut behind closed doors, but I do think that Saylor is trying to do as much as he can before he leaves and that is resulting in some bad decisions that will cost more time and money in the long run to repair.
dmg: “The Davis City Council, apparently not learning yet from their past mistakes that have come back to absorb huge amounts of community and staff time, has approved a massive 336-page Business Park Land Strategy on first reading.
While there are certainly worthy aspects to explore, and likely no one opposes the City of Davis maximizing its business park potential, the specifics of the plan were too quickly glossed over.”
Was the mixed use zoning change actually approved? Or is this just a “let’s explore the idea” move? I felt the ConAgra site should be a business park site rather than mixed use. Now that it appears a mixed use will drive a hidden agenda to further peripheral development, I am keeping less of an open mind. I don’t like this way of doing business (pardon the pun). If the City Council wants to develop on I-80 for a business park, or the Northwest Quadrant, bring it forth on its own merits. Don’t “game the system” with hidden agendas like this. I’m foursquare in favor of more business development, but in a straightforward and honest manner. Am I missing something here?
Sue:
I would be interested in more detail on how you view this since you are the only CC member who has consistently put Davis first and the only one who is willing to look into the details.
[quote]Was the mixed use zoning change actually approved? Or is this just a “let’s explore the idea” move?[/quote]
Job security for planners?
The only thing council did last night was approve by a 3-2 vote the processing of the application, story on that tomorrow.
Any development agreement for ConAgra should be put to the voters due to the size of the project. The council can do that, or citizens can initiate a referendum if there is broad opposition to a specific proposal for the site.
Nishi is fine, though very problematic unless the university will cooperate.
The other sites are a waste of planning time, since the voters are very unlikely to approve any peripheral development.
The Business Park Land Strategy last night was about just that, a strategy to attract Knowledge Based Industries to A park.
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/CDD/Business_Park_Land_Strategy/pdfs/BPLS_Executive_Summary.pdf[/url]
The motion I made was: Move forward to explore peripheral sites for future business park development to accommodate medium-scale (~150 employees) businesses. Appoint two City Councilmembers to form a Task Force with two representatives selected by the Planning Commission and the Business and Economic Development Commission to return to the Council with recommendations.
This is about exploring sites to find which SITE might be the best site for a Knowledge Based Business Park, Tech Jobs not retail jobs. I have my preference of the sites and it is not the North West Quadrant. I will wait for the task force to return with recommendations. And if we do not have the land set aside that Knowledge Based Business want to locate at it in Davis they will not come, they and the jobs will go elsewhere.
Finally, just a few words on Zipcar, $178,550 has been spent by Zipcar in Davis at University Honda so far. They plan to buy ALL of their cars HERE for Northern and Central California use. The City has not spent a dime of the Environmental Mitigation Funds that have been deposited by the 3 developments since about 1996 on Zipcar. So far there is about a 34% usage of the cars. That percentage will go up with Trader Joes opening on Friday.[url][/url]
“So far there is about a 34% usage of the cars.”
Mr. Souza, just curious, are you saying every Zipcar is in use an average of 8 hours of every day?
Hi Stephen,
It’s always good to see you posting here.
“I have my preference of the sites and it is not the North West Quadrant. I will wait for the task force to return with recommendations.”
Why? This is a key part from the pdf link you posted. It isn’t something for a task force to decide. It is policy, which is what the council should decide.
[i]Should Davis Pursue Additional Business Park Land
to Support Business Growth?**
NO:
Assumption: Con Agra
Site is Preserved for
Business Growth:
1. Facilitate construction
of infrastructure at Con
Agra property
2. Facilitate construction
and occupancy of
business park at
ConAgra property.
YES:
Assumption: Con Agra
Site is NOT Preserved for
Business Growth:
1. Explore appropriate
substitute business park
sites for Con Agra
property contiguous to
City boundary.
2. Confirm preferred
location for business
park.
3. Annex/entitle land.
4. Facilitate construction
and occupancy of
business park.[/i]
So what is your position? Do you prefer the NO position or the YES position? Should Davis annex peripheral land that is currently outside the city limits for a business park? If you have a preference, it seems to me the residents, particularly those in East Davis, should know what it is.
[quote]Stephen Souza: “So far there is about a 34% usage of the cars.”[/quote]
Stephen,
What period does this figure cover?
Does it include the ZipCars on campus, or only those on the City contract?
” I agree that we need to generate revenue, but as I have shown multiple times, if you look at the sales tax base compared to the unfunded needs of the city, we are not going to make a dent in that by expanding our economic base.”
David, is your point that the unfunded needs must be reduced to make a dent, or that economic development is not worth pursuing because it will create net excess revenue (cost will equal or exceed revenue)?
The first point I can understand, but the second does not make sense as business development is the only development that is revenue positive. Residential development is always revenue negative.
@ DMG; “taking away business park land at ConAgra and placing it in other locations.”
To repeat the quote I inserted in the last thread …
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
– Abraham Lincoln
The ConAgra site is not “business park land.” It is an old cannery site zoned industrial. That was the appropriate zoning many years ago, but residential grew up around it and the cannery went away.
Calling this derelict site “business park land” does not make it business park land any more than calling a tail a leg makes it a leg.
If you want to be intellectually honest about the discussion, research the current zoning. It is industrial, not business park. To be a business park it needs to be rezoned business park. So in point of fact, we do not have a piece of business park land that we are at risk of losing to residential. We have a dead piece of property, zoned industrial, with some sort of hard-to-understand PD designation to prevent it from being redeveloped for some noxious use (like a rendering plant).
The debate really comes down to what is the highest and best use of the land for the community and the property owners. It makes no sense for the City Council to force this this tax-favored property to sit abandoned any longer. Moreover, it makes no sense to demand a use (high tech business park) that is economically infeasible.
The ConAgra mixed use proposal is a good compromise. Residential will subsidize the costs of an economically feasible business park component integrated into the project.
And the electorate will decide if we need to annex in any more land for business park at Mace and I-80 and Nishi. These votes are coming whether or not the ConAgra business park red herring continues to pollute the dialog.
ERM: There is no hidden agenda for peripheral business park development. It was front-and-center at the DSIDE conference which you attended. You know that.
And this agenda is not being driven by ConAgra. It is being driven by the perceived post-great recession need for a real business park for real companies … not a fantasy business park that will never happen.
Most serious people that have engaged on this issue realize that it is not an effective strategy to try and browbeat the private sector into subsidizing an economically infeasible project.
The banks won’t touch it. The developers won’t touch it.
And there is a very strong consensus among brokers and end-users that, all things being equal, a business park at the Mace interchange would be much more desirable than one at ConAgra.
The fear-mongering about jumping the Mace curve is another red herring. As you know, the land is under the control of Measure R. The community will either support it, or they won’t. Either way, we will have more clarity going forward regarding the economic future of the city.
“… the only one who is willing to look into the details.”
Dr. Wu: Not true. Rochelle, for one, was amazingly well prepared last night.
“And the electorate will decide if we need to annex in any more land for business park at Mace and I-80 and Nishi. These votes are coming whether or not the ConAgra business park red herring continues to pollute the dialog.”
This is actually not necessarily true. The fact of the matter is that the city is committed to building a business park and attracting high tech business. That is a good thing. The question then becomes where.
Now is the ConAgra site ideal? No. But is it better than NW Quadrant, Nishi, and Mace? Yes.
If we do convert ConAgra from current land use designation, then we are consigning ourselves to a long and expensive planning process that will end with a Measure J vote that will probably lose. THat means several bad things: (1) we will spend a lot of time and resources that we do not have; (2) we still will not have a business park or (3) we will see a large number of new homes developed that we do not need and more peripheral growth.
[quote]”Dear Readers: For the first time in over four years I was unable to publish a Vanguard due to health reasons yesterday. I was suffering from the flu and ended up in ER. But we’re back at it today.”[/quote] Just stumbled onto this message from Tuesday, David. Glad to see you’re back on the job in fine form.
[quote]”The City has not spent a dime of the Environmental Mitigation Funds that have been deposited by the 3 developments since about 1996 on Zipcar. So far there is about a 34% usage of the cars. That percentage will go up with Trader Joes opening on Friday.”[/quote] This is a little confusing to me. Why is the point important? The City obviously already has spent thousands of dollars on this project; Is it better that it’s being charged to general funds or whatever. Why wouldn’t staff be charging time and materials to EMF if that’s what was supposed fund the project?
Second, I was out of town last week and must have missed the City’s Zipcar Kickoff. Wonder where the four reserved parking spots are? How many people have signed up? Why do you expect a big improvement in usage percentages on Friday?
Just Saying: “The City obviously already has spent thousands of dollars on this project” – what’s the break even point for the city in terms of usage?
Geez. Here we go again. Blah, blah, blah, and then, “OMG, somebody might actually take some action.” Let’s stall, delay, analyze, debate, and equivocate. My goodness, when will we ever overcome the resistance to substantative progress?
Kudos to city staff listening to the stakeholders, adapting to recently presented opportunities, and drafting a very intelligent proposal for economic development. And kudos to the Council for recognizing a well conceived proposal and enabling staff to take the next steps forward in exploring opportunities.
Staff’s proposal and the Council’s actions last night were not conceived in a moments notice under the cover of darkness. Rather, staff’s proposal is the direct result of at least 2 years work, including incredible amounts of research, outreach, and also the results of the DSIDE effort, the DDBA’s Framework (vision for the Downtown), the DDBA’s 5 Downtown priorities, and UCD’s desire to create an innovation ecosystem. Sure, I would change this detail or that detail, but the plan as a whole is excellent. It is certainly much better than was originally conceived and miles better than what had been going on under previous Councils (slow motion sprawl and land use decisions at odd with the GP and CASP).
This plan/study provides a framework for a compact, urban area, surrounded by open area. That is exactly what the GP and the CASP envision. The DDBA was afforded every opportunity to provide input,as were all other stakeholders, which the DDBA did from start to finish. And DDBA’s input is reflected in all aspects of the study.
And by the way, the posters who made positive comments about the DSIDE effort should be equally pleased.
GO DAVIS!
“My goodness, when will we ever overcome the resistance to substantative progress?”
Probably at the point at which we have a shared-definition as to what constitutes substantive progress.
Somehow I feel the cheerleaders for these projects are probably the ones who will profit the most from them.
That’s right, all us cheerleaders are actually scheming connivers seeking to profit off the hapless community.
Hopefully, the entire community profits from this endeavor and I’m part of the community. If we stick our heads in the sand, the community definitely loses.
It didn’t occur to me until just now, but Steward and Colbert each did hilarious segments following the passage of Obama Care. They showed short clips of various TV pundits, Fox pundits in particular, saying “Rams it through”, “ramming it through”, “Shoving it down our throats”. Great humour after a long days work.
Its all self inflicted. There is plenty of land here for all needs there just isn’t the political will for smart growth. Measure R constrains the community. The best solution would be build homes at covell village and a business park at conagra. As Sue said “We should put our homes where our jobs are.” But the community has voted against doing just that on the property adjacent to the cannery site. So building houses at the cannery site is a no brainer for the land owners because it is the last best place that can support a large housing project that doesn’t require a vote of the people. The city council should require Conagra to build housing that is affordable to median income families. These families don’t qualify for affordable housing and get priced out of market rate projects that sell for $700,000 per unit. Conagra already owns the land so they should be offered the opportunity to develop it for housing if they fill the housing needs of the city not maximize their profits.
What housing needs of the city are you referring to? Look around, many homes on the market not selling and most think another downturn in real estate is just around the corner. This isn’t a good time to be adding to the inventory. I wonder about these people that create these phony shortages, the developers really love it.
@ DMG: “Now is the ConAgra site ideal? No. But is it better than NW Quadrant, Nishi, and Mace? Yes.”
The best site is the one site that for sure won’t be developed as a high tech business park??? Not a smart choice if you truly believe your prior statement …[quote]The fact of the matter is that the city is committed to building a business park and attracting high tech business. That is a good thing. DMG[/quote]
The houses are not selling because of the relatively high prices. The prices are relatively high because of the constrained supply. That’s just simple arithmetic. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating for more housing at ConAgra. But I’m definitely arguing against 60 acres of commercial development at ConAgra. That’s inconsistent with the GP and CASP, harmful to the Downtown, inconsistent with the SOCAG Blueprint, and inconsistent with sustainability principles.
@ DMG: “Probably at the point at which we have a shared-definition as to what constitutes substantive progress.”
That’s probably not going to happen as long as you use your blog to frame this as a battle between DSIDE and NOPE.
You’ll get a lot of traffic though 😉
“It didn’t occur to me until just now, but Steward and Colbert each did hilarious segments following the passage of Obama Care. They showed short clips of various TV pundits, Fox pundits in particular, saying “Rams it through”, “ramming it through”, “Shoving it down our throats”. Great humour after a long days work.”
They did ram it through making last minute backroom payoffs to Senators Ben Nelson and Mary Landreau and not even bothering to read the law before voting on it. Hopefully Davis doesn’t have an ill advised housing project rammed down its throat.
Rusty said “What housing needs of the city are you referring to? Look around, many homes on the market not selling and most think another downturn in real estate is just around the corner. This isn’t a good time to be adding to the inventory. I wonder about these people that create these phony shortages, the developers really love it.”
Most of the unsold homes are overpriced and/or old rundown wrecks. Building new moderately priced homes that would be profitable would help to further reduce the value of the overpriced housing available in Davis. That would be a good thing for all who are not already underwater in their present homes. Of course when prices were up the owners in Davis didn’t say oh well, lets add to supply so that others could afford to buy here. So why should those others care about those who are watching their equity vanish?
When prices were high Sue Greenwald was arguing that you couldn’t build enough to change the supply and demand of Davis real estate so building was not a solution. Now she claims that the market is soft and supply shouldn’t be added because there is housing that is approved that hasn’t been built. So which is it? And if we shouldn’t build when demand is high and we shouldn’t build when demand is low, when should we build?
The argument that something was rammed down your throut is not a substantive counter argument. It’s merely a statment that one didn’t have enough time to determine whether the proposal has merit. Or that one didn’t have an opportunity to weigh in on the matter. But there was plenty of opportunity to weigh in on the matter. As I said, the staff report is the result of a 2-year effort. If one chooses not to participate in the process, then why start complaining now?
On the other hand, if one states that not enough time or opportunity was given to consider the proposal (i.e. rammed), how can one argue that the proposal has no merit? One is in no position to opine one way or the other.
Where’s the ref? There was a blatant foul earlier in the blog; a yellow card at a minimum. One of the blog participants stated that proponents of the staff report are motived by profits; presumably the opponents are motived by an unselfish desire to promote the common good. That’ an unsubstantiated attack for lack of a compelling argument.
[quote]”Dr. Wu: Not true. Rochelle, for one, was amazingly well prepared last night.”[/quote] I certainly agree, local. Although each of them had their individual moments last night, Rochelle was the only one consistently ready with good questions and/or comments, who’d obviously researched the agenda items and talked to citizens whose lives would be affected by the proposed actions and who seemed willing to be open to staff, public and other councilor views. Very impressive, I thought. [quote]”Just Saying: ‘The City obviously already has spent thousands of dollars on this project’ – what’s the break even point for the city in terms of usage?”[/quote] Maybe this is what you’re getting at (from the Joe-Stephen [u]Enterprise[/u] op-ed): [quote]”If the vehicles in the city were used 30 percent of the time, the cost to the city would be $20,659 per year. With 40 percent usage, the cost to the city would be $2,746 per year, and 50 percent usage would exceed the minimum amount due and have no cost to the city.”[/quote] In a broader context, however, there really is no “break-even point for the city,” only for Zipcar. The city has expenses, but doesn’t share in the profits except, I guess, for the sales taxes that any car rental operation would pay. Why do you ask?
My questions are aimed at Stephen’s contention that “not one dime” of mitigation money has been spent on this enterprise. If not, why not? Are we bootlegging the city’s costs to establish this business venture using general funds or some other earmarked pots? If so, we’ll end up yet again with no way to find the true cost to the city.
It’s good to hear that we’re already up to 34% usage on our four cars. It’s also a little surprising since there’s no evidence of the aggressive promotion the contract requires of the city. I just searched the [u]Enterprise[/u] to find that the most current Zipcar mention is in Dunning’s week-old column discussing the financial favoritism the Zipcar contract provides city employees. Not a peep about Davis’ Zipcar program getting underway. Is anyone other than staff renting the new cars and accounting for our 34% usage?
local: “ERM: There is no hidden agenda for peripheral business park development. It was front-and-center at the DSIDE conference which you attended. You know that.”
Yes I was at the DSIDE meeting, and the impression I had was the ConAgra site was the only large site left for a business park. I do not remember there being any discussion at the DSIDE meeting to make this site a mixed use. There was mention that if a business park were built on the ConAgra site, there would be a need for workforce housing SOMEWHERE. That is not the same thing as advocating a mixed use for the ConAgra site. My impression was since this the only infill site large enough to accommodate a business park, that possibility needed to be considered. I think you are trying to rewrite DSIDE history…
“Probably at the point at which we have a shared-definition as to what constitutes substantive progress. “
The existence of lack of shared goals is often directly attributable to the success or failure of business strategies. The best-practice process can be summarized as follows:
1. Leadership provides the vision. This requires that there is a compelling vision and the purpose/reason for the vision can be backed by objective fact and solid projections, and that the leader can communicate and sell the vision to the constituents. I see limited examples of quality leadership performance here at our local level. At the national level, Obama has demonstrated talent here.
2. Constituents debate the vision and help shape it into actionable objectives. Here is where the shared goals should be developed. It is the facilitated bottom-up debate process where all key stakeholders are given a voice and ideas are recorded and filtered. DCIDE was an example of this. I did not attend any council meetings, but it appears that the City did a good job here too. However, again, it lacked leadership communicating an upfront vision (“future state”). At the national level, Obama and the Democrats have done a lousy job here… they excluded their “enemies” – as Obama has recently described the folks he and congressional Democrats consistently exclude only because they have a different opinion.
3. The plans are developed and executed. We are not here yet with a new business park development. However, this step is where we seem to fall apart at the local level… especially in Davis. This were I get the most steamed as the army of NIMBY, blocking activists seem to show up at the eleventh hour bent on blocking anything and everything that smells of change. At the national level Obama and the Dems put their heads down and executed their plans… at least some of their plans.
Thinking about how this process plays out in a private-sector business… management has to do a good job with all three or be fired; and the change-blocking activists that appear in step #3 (unless backed by a union or members of an entitled-employee work-culture like HP) would likely be fired too. The requirement in business is that employees get a voice in the second step, but then have to support the final adopted shared goals. In the public sector, we can “fire” the poorly performing political leadership come election time. I wish we could also find a way to fire all the change-blocking activists… assuming they had adequate opportunity to participate in the shaping of the goals.
ERM: And I think you weren’t paying very close attention.
Katehi signaled that they were interested in Nishi (a business park within walking distance of banks, restaurants, and the campus … hmmmm, I wonder where she might be thinking). That, along with her thinly veiled threat that UCD would go it alone if the city couldn’t get it’s act together, set off a considerable amount of buzz during the afternoon session among the people I spoke with. The Mace idea came up repeatedly, along with speculation about what she might do on university land.
And staff’s recommendation of creating an innovation ecosystem district consisting of the Downtown, Gateway/Olive Drive, and the Nishi property is a direct response to Katehi’s comments regarding a vibrant mixed-use community in near proximity to campus which will be conducive to spontaneous innovation.
@ DT Businessman “And staff’s recommendation of creating an innovation ecosystem district consisting of the Downtown, Gateway/Olive Drive, and the Nishi property is a direct response to Katehi’s comments regarding a vibrant mixed-use community in near proximity to campus which will be conducive to spontaneous innovation.”
Which, in turn, leads inevitably to the need to identify land for larger companies. Successful startups tend to grow, and to build a viable innovation ecosystem there needs to be a place for these companies to relocate to when they outgrow the smaller spaces on Nishi.
Without this piece of the puzzle, Davis is a dead end street.
local: “ERM: And I think you weren’t paying very close attention.
Katehi signaled that they were interested in Nishi (a business park within walking distance of banks, restaurants, and the campus … hmmmm, I wonder where she might be thinking). That, along with her thinly veiled threat that UCD would go it alone if the city couldn’t get it’s act together, set off a considerable amount of buzz during the afternoon session among the people I spoke with. The Mace idea came up repeatedly, along with speculation about what she might do on university land.”
The Mace idea came up repeatedly? Who talked specifically about the Mace idea in the workshop in front of the audience?
I think my text is pretty clear. Regarding naming names of the people I spoke with – you know I’m not going to go there.