Yesterday the City of Davis had an economic development roundtable to discuss, among other things, the future of economic development in Davis. Few in this community would argue that Davis not only should develop economically but, given the goals and ambitions of UC Davis, ought to be poised to take advantage of such opportunities.
No one can argue that these should be the goals – the problems come from operationalizing these goals and working them into reality.
First of all, Davis must come to grips with the fact that their goals of becoming a high-tech hub for university spinoffs is not going to fix the city’s fiscal problems. Many of these types of businesses are simply not going to produce the type of point-of-sales revenue that the city needs and that is fine.
Retail is not going to be a huge answer either. I think the city was incredibly short-sighted in believing that Target was the answer for a large retail outlet. It is difficult to know its overall impact on city revenue because there has been such flux in the number of businesses that have left, and it is difficult to analyze where Target’s impact on decreased revenues for other businesses in the city ends and the recession begins.
The biggest problem is flat-out hypocrisy and inaction. There are three key points that I will raise here.
First, allowing Whole Foods to move into the spot formerly occupied by Borders will prove to be disastrous. Whole Foods will not produce the kind of retail and taxable sales that we need. It will take from existing business. And it will produce all sorts of collateral impacts on parking in an area not designed for grocery sales.
The city was too slow to react to this problem and now they have not only lost Borders but they have inherited a nightmarish situation.
Second, the Davis Diamonds fiasco is going to magnify this problem. City staff was working on alternative locations for Davis Diamonds – the actual threat of their leaving was probably just that – a threat rather than reality.
Council twice, made up of members running for reelection, voted to allow a conditional use permit to put the non-revenue producing entity at the automall, which the city still unfortunately has to rely on for tax revenue. Sue Greenwald, who voted for the permit twice, estimates the tax impact as ten percent in the coming years.
The fact of the matter is that the city did not have to do this. There were alternative locations – they were more expensive but they existed. Instead of holding off on the conditional use permit, they could have pushed for Davis Diamonds to find a way to bridge the final $80,000 gap or whatever it was. Now they have completely lost their leverage.
That leads me to the worst decisions – ConAgra. I understand that the ConAgra site is not ideal in terms of location – though I tend to believe with proper marketing and inducements from the city that could have been overcome. But the fact is that the site was a whole lot more valuable as a mixed-use housing project than as a future location for a business park.
So there was never any incentive by the owners to aggressively market it, and the city never attempted to force their hands.
So the council decided to allow the EIR to proceed for the ConAgra site, and they will go ahead creating housing that no one needs at this point in time, and that few will be able to afford at any point in time.
In the meantime, the largest contiguous parcel in the city zoned for high-tech or business park will be turned into more sprawl housing. Hey, we can tweak it and make it nicer than they’ve presented so far, but do we really need housing right now?
More importantly comes the domino effect. Now they need to find 100 acres of peripheral business park sites to house these fabulous university spinoffs that they want to produce.
It sounds great, but there are pitfalls.
First, putting a business park on the periphery requires a Measure J/R vote for approval. We know how the first two Measure J/R votes went, which is not well. The locations that have been suggested each have problems – particularly Nishi which looks inviting until you consider access issues and infrastructure costs.
Frankly, I can live with Nishi being developed if they can fix those problems in a way that does not drain city coffers.
The bigger problem is when you move to the periphery of town, to either east of Mace or the Northwest Quadrant.
You may think you can sell the public on a Measure J vote for a business park in a better economic time – assuming that ever occurs, but it is more difficult than you think.
The problem is that people are mortally afraid of sprawl. And why shouldn’t they be? We practiced horrible development in the 1990s. We have ugly peripheral subdivisions as a result of those bad practices.
Worse yet, it does not take a stretch to envision the argument – if they build the businesses, where are they going to house the people who will work at these businesses? The campaign against the business parks will be that they are sprawl-inducing and they have to be.
The problem that they face is that, in environmentally-conscious times you cannot build a business park without providing the housing to house the employees. You cannot convince environmentally-conscious Davis residents to build facilities that people will have to drive to in their cars, across the causeway.
That does not work. And because that does not work, you will never sell them on a Measure J vote because they know that a business going in is going to necessitate housing, and housing is not going to sell on the Davis periphery.
In short, the leaders of this city, who in many ways are extremely bright, have screwed up their order of operations. You do not take business park land away without assuring that you have a place to put your economic development and you cannot assume that the Davis voters will approve Measure J projects.
So, all of that work last night and over the past few months is going to be for naught, because those doing the planning are not thinking this through well.
We need business in Davis, but not if it creates new sprawl.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Davis Diamonds – the actual threat of them leaving was probably just that – a threat rather than reality.”
Thank you. Unfortunately our city council fell for this idle threat and the kids being used as pawns. Not what I would call leadership. It really seems as if they have no plan or vision.
[quote]First of all, Davis must come to grips with the fact that their goals of becoming a high tech hub for university spinoffs is not going to fix the city’s fiscal problems.[/quote]
If you account for spillovers I think its more important than you do.
[quote]allowing Whole Foods to move into the spot formerly occupied by Borders will prove to be disastrous. Whole Foods will not produce the kind of retail and taxable sales that we need.[/quote]
it anchors the shopping center and the downtown–and should the City micromanage all retail decisions?[quote][/quote]
[quote]In the meantime, the largest contiguous parcel in the city zoned for high tech or business park will be turned into more sprawl housing.[/quote]
I think you have a point here. THere are other sires for housing but not for a large business park or campus.
[quote]Sue Greenwald, who voted for the permit twice, estimates the tax impact as ten percent in the coming years.[/quote]So, why did she vote the way she did? Did she prefer to make cuts in city employee compensation/benefits, to make up the potential difference?
We have the Hunt Wesson site, which was zoned industrial, but is being pushed to be residential. We have auto sales zoning that is being turned into office and retail. There is land in far East Davis zoned for light industry, that has a non-profit theater (financed by a loan from the City that it still needs to repay, which the organization attempted to default on not so long ago) and other uses that are conditional.
Sue Greenwald clearly was after votes for her re-election with the Davis Diamonds issue. If the land was going to be allowed conditional use, then maybe light industry would have been better for the City. Right now, we lose the potential of sales tax and we have kids in a location that they cannot reach safely by bicycle, requiring many additional car trips up. Big mistake.
I don’t know that the City could do anything about Whole Foods. Remember, we tried to keep Borders out and failed way back when. People will still buy books, and will move their shopping to other book stores in town. Avid Reader is opening another satellite location and is reporting an increase in sales.
[quote]Sue Greenwald, who voted for the permit twice, estimates the tax impact as ten percent in the coming years.— [b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]I am perplexed, David. I don’t recall saying this. I don’t even know what it means.
What I did say at the meeting was that it was a huge mistake not to ask to Hunt-Cannery applicants to allow a lot more land for neighborhood-compatible high tech, non-profit and other community-serving uses such as Davis Diamonds. We should make the approval of any housing on the site contingent upon having a specified substantial number of finished lots available for these other uses.
As to “going after votes”, I certainly try to make decisions supported by our citizens.
Over 700 Davis children use Davis Diamonds. A huge number of parents wrote me and told me that Davis Diamonds played a central role in the children’s lives, so of course that was central to my decision.
And why on earth am I being singled out by David Greenwald? I am the only council member who voted to retain a significant percentage of the Hunt-Wesson as high-tech, so my vote was totally significant. I can tell it is election season at the Vanguard.
I mean “so my vote was totally consistent”.
On suggestion from Matt Williams, I attended an interesting pre-planning meeting with several veteran participants in city economic development tasked with presenting at this roundtable.
Being a newbie, I was more a fly on the wall. Here is some of what I learned.
– The short time given to presenters to prepare for this roundtable was an indication that either: 1 – The city wasn’t taking this very seriously, or 2 – It was another example of city incompetence on this subject, or 3 – Both.
– There are several committees/groups working on visions/plans/recommendations for city economic development. The whole is not well coordinated and the work largely overlaps.
– The quality, capabilities and capacities of city staff are far below what is required for a university town like Davis.
– UCD and the city are not partnering as much as they are both circling each other’s wagons playing defense.
What is aggravating to me is our inability to exploit so many obvious advantages and shared goals between stakeholders. The NIMBYs are a strong force in this town, and they have Measure J as a prime weapon to beat back development ideas. It seems that fear of Measure J-armed NIMBYs, combined with a history of business-hostile politicians like Mike Harrington has caused us to almost stop trying in substantive ways.
I think though that the current budget challenges and threats to school funding are helping turn the tide a bit against the NIMBYS. Especially for projects that provide clear, if even modest, tax revenue advantages, the statists are going to find it more difficult to use sprawl-fear tactics to win the day.
One thing is very clear to me… advocacy for a more robust economic development action plan is individually strong and plentiful. If they get organized, look out city and look out NIMBYs.
If you choose to describe a substantial (probably majority) percentage of Davis residents as NIMBYs and statists, you will simply perpetuate the adversarial situation. You’ve identified some problems, but they won’t be solved if you denigrate those you disagree with and trivialize their concerns.
David: “allowing Whole Foods to move into the spot formerly occupied by Borders will prove to be disastrous. “
Allowing? On what basis could city have disallowed it? At least that shopping center owner is keeping his spaces filled. Whole Foods will generate sales tax, just not as much per square foot as other types of retail. Whole Foods will generate foot traffic for the neighboring stores. It wouldn’t have been my first choice, but it’s better than sitting vacant waiting for the perfect tenant. We have enough problem with irrational leasing strategies elsewhere in town.
If you are concerned about sales tax revenues, look at the increasing vacancies in South Davis. The credit union has now moved out, leaving just Common Grounds and Dos Coyotes in the perimeter sites.
Moreover, the pads near Target sit undeveloped. I looked at the development agreement. As far as I can tell, Target was supposed to have moved on developing pads A and B within two years of opening. I assume there is no enforcement mechanism for that.
David: “[i]The problem is that people are mortally afraid of sprawl. And why shouldn’t they be? We practiced horrible development in the 1990s. We have ugly peripheral subdivisions as a result of those bad practices.”[/i]
I assume that the people who live there don’t share your opinion of their neighborhoods. What a weird thing to say about the places people live. “Ugly?” Where do you live? Is it pretty? Seriously.
We have all types of housing in this town. We are short on some types, and I would urge that housing policy encourage those in new developments (higher density). I guess you won’t be buying in Wildhorse anytime soon, but that is no reason to disparage it. Note: t[i]he voters of Davis approved [/i]Wildhorse and Mace Ranch. The voters of Davis approved those “ugly peripheral subdivisions,” with full awareness of what they were likely to look like. Projects can get approved by Davis voters.
Whole Foods is in for a big surprise. That parking lot is mostly full even today with Whole Foods not even being opened yet. I don’t think grocery shoppers are going to want to deal with the parking situation there especially when they just want to run in and get a few things for dinner and run out.
Don, it wasn’t my intent to denigrate them. However, there is definitely a difference in this population relative to other communities. I think it serves a good purpose to point this out.
It is human nature to resist change. It is also understandable when people protect their own personal economic interests (i.e. property values). However, when you have the benefit of a more empowered direct democracy like we do here in Davis, you should also be held to a higher standard showing some restraint and demonstrating the ability to accept shared sacrifice.
Me: [i]”- The quality, capabilities and capacities of city staff are far below what is required for a university town like Davis.”[/i]
I should have been more specific here. I meant the city staff involved in economic development.
Related to Whole Foods parking, what is the deal with all the reserved spaces around the south and west perimeter of the lot? Are those relocatable spaces?
It is always interesting to me how full that parking lot gets even without Borders being open. There is not that much retail there. It appears to me that that parking lot is being used for other purposes much of the time.
Sue, I get that you were lobbied heavily by parents of Davis Diamonds kids. It is what parent organizations do. But, we rely on you to do what is in the best interest of the City and we are struggling financially. We have so few locations appropriate for industry and you gave one major one away. We cannot afford to continue to re-zone the few areas we have for industries that generate business-to-business sales taxes or high revenue industries, such as auto sales.
[i]”First, [b]allowing[/b] Whole Foods to move into the spot formerly occupied by Borders will prove to be disastrous.”[/i]
David, what do you mean by “allowing”? How could the City have prevented the landlord from signing a deal with any tenant? I would imagine if the City tried to prevent Whole Foods from leasing that space the City would have put itself in legal jeopardy.
[i]”First of all, Davis must come to grips with the fact that their goals of becoming a high tech hub for university spinoffs is not going to fix the city’s fiscal problems.”[/i]
That is not much of a point unless the City has said, “a high tech hub is our panacea.” The only question regarding attracting high tech industry is whether the benefits of doing so outstrip the costs from the City’s point of view. I cannot imagine how they do not. One thing to keep in mind: Property taxes are based not just on the value of real property but also on “personal” property. High tech companies which have, say, very expensive testing equipment and perhaps some advanced robotics or other such gizmos must pay annual property taxes on all of that sort of “personal” property. That can be a substantial amount every year if the equipment is worth millions of dollars.
[i]”Many of these types of businesses are simply not going to produce the type of point of sales revenue that the city needs and that is fine.”[/i]
Maybe the City should be focused on bringing in high end auto sellers–and perhaps not permitting the few auto sales lots we have to be rezoned for gymnastics clubs which pay the City no sales tax?
[i]”Frankly I can live with Nishe being developed if they can fix those problems in a way that does not drain city coffers.”[/i]
Nishe?
Don Shor: [i]”If you choose to describe a substantial (probably majority) percentage of Davis residents as NIMBYs and statists, you will simply perpetuate the adversarial situation.”[/i]
We all tend to use labels as short-hand to help present our ideas and concerns, and unfortunately, many times the use of labels provokes an emotional, rather than rational, response. I think Jeff’s comments are valid with regards to describing people in this town wanting their corner of Davis to ‘always stay the way they like it’ and as a consequence blocking any effort to allow Davis to evolve with the times. You do the same thing when you describe (denigrate) those of us who want diversity in retail as being ‘pro-big box’ as if that is the only other option. I suggest that we all avoid short cut labels, and take a few minutes more to say exactly what we mean. Communication will be much better for it and we all might actually learn something instead of spitting back and forth at each other.
DON: [i]” Whole Foods will generate sales tax, just not as much per square foot as other types of retail. Whole Foods will generate foot traffic for the neighboring stores. It wouldn’t have been my first choice, but it’s better than sitting vacant waiting for the perfect tenant.”[/i]
I hope you are right, Don. I agree with you that the City had no better option. David’s notion that the City should have tried to prevent this lease is absurd.
I don’t think it is a deal-breaker for the City that Whole Foods itself will (I assume) pay less in sales tax than Border’s did. I think a great benefit of a successful anchor tenant is that it can draw people to downtown and those people will buy goods at Whole Foods and will then traffic other businesses downtown. I know for myself this is how Davis Ace works. I will often go there needing some item they sell–I went there a couple of days ago to buy a compact fluorescent flood light bulb–and then I stopped at a restaurant on G Street to get some soup to go.
That said, I think it is not terribly unlikely that Whole Foods will not succeed in that space. First, it looks too small to me to work for a supermarket. Second, most of its core customer types in Davis already shop at the Food Co-op or Nuggett and I cannot imagine why they would change their pattern for Whole Foods. There just are not that many people in town who will go there because it is more convenient than Nuggett or the Food Co-op. Third, the “supermarket sector” in Davis strikes me as overbuilt already. I don’t see Whole Foods adding new supermarket buyers who are shopping out of town, now. I see it simply dividing up the existing pie a bit more thinly than it is already divided. That won’t hurt stores like Safeway or Nuggett too much. But it might harm a marginal store like the Westlake IGA.
[quote]Whole Foods is in for a big surprise. That parking lot is mostly full even today with Whole Foods not even being opened yet. I don’t think grocery shoppers are going to want to deal with the parking situation there especially when they just want to run in and get a few things for dinner and run out. [/quote]
I’ve had this same thought every time I’ve been to Davis Commons since Borders closed.
Whole Foods will need much more parking turnover than Borders did in order to survive. Most shoppers will not want to carry groceries (especially for a family) on a bike. The presence of Whole Foods may hurt the revenues of The Habit, Pluto’s, Gap, [i]etc.[/i] once patrons find that parking is impossible. Fortunately, the restaurants get a fair amount of foot traffic when the weather is amenable.
It seems that many businesses that come to Davis are overoptimistic about the ability of the market to sustain yet another of a particular business type. The situation with frozen yogurt shops is a perfect example. Yogurt Shack and Cultive seemed to be doing well, so then YoloBerry, TuttiFrutti, and Sugar Plum arrived. Goodbye Yogurt Shack. Thai restaraunts and grocery stores seem to be the next wave of overcrowded markets.
[i]”Related to Whole Foods parking, what is the deal with all the reserved spaces around the south and west perimeter of the lot? Are those relocatable spaces?”[/i]
I don’t know this for sure, but I will speculate: The land on which Davis Commons was built was owned by UC Davis before it was developed. Going back to 1905, the farm that was there was sold to the University as one of the three original farms which made up the campus when the state decided to place the UC farm here. (The main farm, where North and South Halls were built, was owned by a guy named Sparks.) My guess is that when the Davis Commons parking lot was planned, the University requested a few dozen parking spaces be given to them, probably on a long-term lease basis.
[quote]We cannot afford to continue to re-zone the few areas we have for industries that generate business-to-business sales taxes or high revenue industries, such as auto sales.–[b]Ryan Kelly[/b][/quote]Then talk to the other councilmembers that voted to rezone the Hunt-Wesson to virtually all residential.
[quote] Property taxes are based not just on the value of real property but also on “personal” property.–[b]Rich Rifkin[/b][/quote]That is the why it used to be, Rich. Then the legislature granted exemptions for high-tech equipment tax. Unfortunately, high-tech is probably fiscally neutral to the city these days.
It will provide patrons for the all-important lunch trade for our restaurants (less so if it is on a peripheral site) and it will bring interesting people to town. I also think that we have some obligation as a University town to help the country create new jobs.
[i]” I suggest that we all avoid short cut labels, and take a few minutes more to say exactly what we mean.”[/i]
Mark, Good recommendation. Although I’m sure you will agree that tiptoeing around every sensitivity to certain labels and phrases can be exhausting. I would also suggest that we all practice paying attention to, and responding to, the points made and not drift to being word police. Having said that, I appreciate it when someone calls attention to something I write that offends, because I am well aware that my sensitivity meter can track on the low side sometimes.
I’ve thought a lot about the auto mall and Davis Diamonds since the issue first came up. There were a lot of variables to weight and the juggle in addition to the importance of retaining Davis Diamonds.
One of the problems is that we don’t have a crystal ball. The auto mall area of South Davis has been blighted for some time. I was hoping Cafe Italia would move down there and help turn the area around, but the elimination of the RDA put an abrupt halt to that possibility. Possibly we could have attracted quality auto dealers to all of the lots in the mall. But it is also possible that the general appearance of the area would keep away auto dealerships, and that an attractive and lively use at that site would make the remaining lots more attractive to dealers. It is also possible that the area would just continue to decline if we turned down Davis Diamonds due to the general contraction of the number of auto dealerships and shift to internet sales. Some decisions are obviously good or bad decisions, but this didn’t seem to be one of them to me.
Trader Joe’s has a serious parking problem, and they seem to manage it. I think a lot of retailers would be happy if their worst problem was that people had difficulty parking. Vacant storefronts are a whole lot worse. Whole Foods will, like Trader Joe’s, adapt their product mix to the demographic that shops there. I would guess a lot of students, some local residents from Aggie Villa, and a handful of downtown shoppers. They’ll probably do great business with ready-made meals, as Trader Joe’s seems to do.
People everywhere want their town to retain the reasons they moved there. That is basic conservatism with a small c. NIMBY is a classic way of disparaging what is really a basic and valid concern: major changes can detract from the character of a community. And since those changes are irreversible, it is wise to consider the views of those who live here. We all have some level of what we’ll tolerate in our back yards. I live next to an almond processing plant, around the corner from a major trucking facility, and for a while my neighbor had a gun shop. Pesticides are routinely sprayed here. People burn things! Imagine. That is rural living. We have zoning and growth plans for a reason when people live close together.
I think any peripheral project for tech, industrial, or housing has a high hurdle. But the other planning approach is driven by the lower cost of land, the ease of subdividing it. Those are advantages to the landowners. It is harder to do infill, and harder to lease locally. it is easier to just take raw land and contact the usual shopping center retail chains (of any size).
What Davis does is unusual for the level of citizen participation. But we have guiding documents that were developed with countless hours of citizen input. So any project should be within the principles of the General Plan and the supporting policy guides. Those call for density, infill, and avoidance of peripheral annexation.
[i]”That is basic conservatism with a small c. NIMBY is a classic way of disparaging what is really a basic and valid concern”[/i]
Don, like most things the definition comes down to some measure of reasonableness. From my perspective, the level of change-aversion in this town exceeds what should be considered reasonable. What community in California… especially one that sits astride the busy I-80 corridor… get’s to block so much change? I get the attraction to, and the desire to protect, Davis charm, but I think there is not some slippery slope of becoming less charming that justifies the level of development blocking that goes on around here.
New economic development adds some vibrancy to complement the charm and combats growing wear and tear that begins to turn off some potential residents and customers to our fair city.
We wring our hands over every damn change, and then for the few that actually get to happen, we settle into a new normal without suffering any significant hit to our Davis brand.
Jeff Boone: [i]”We wring our hands over every damn change, and then for the few that actually get to happen, we settle into a new normal without suffering any significant hit to our Davis brand.”[/i]
I think the best example was the amount of trepidation in advance of Borders opening in town, and now we are lamenting the same store’s departure. Keeping everything the same leads to stagnation and decline. Change brings new vibrancy, but if allowed to ‘run amok’ may destroy the character of the City. There is a balance however between the two extremes and that is where we should be headed.
The automall concept is dead (at least in Davis), as is evidenced by the long empty buildings. Those sales tax revenues are gone, and wishing that was not the case will not change reality. It is time to allow the region to evolve by bringing in new businesses that will stop the decay and create a vibrant location instead of continued blight.
Planning documents are great, but any business owner who sticks to his original business plan instead of evolving in response to reality will end up running a bankrupt business. The City is no different.
I’m not lamenting Borders departure at all. The predicted effects — significant loss of revenues to local bookstores — occurred exactly as predicted. With the demise of Borders our remaining bookstore is doing better and the owner is investing in ways that improve the vibrancy and diversity of the downtown.
The City IS different. Cities aren’t businesses. They are communities. As such, a community organizer’s mentality may be better than a business owner’s mentality in terms of fostering collaboration and achieving broadly-accepted goals. The place to lobby for your changes to the city’s planning documents is in the update to the General Plan. In that process, everybody has equal access and the process is public. That is certainly not how planning usually plays out in other communities. The results speak for themselves.
[quote]Now let me get this straight – the Vanguard’s position is as follows:
I) A high tech hub for university spinoffs will not produce needed revenue for the city. Neither will retail (even though Target may have been a net fiscal positive to the city).
II) The biggest problem is hypocrisy and inaction by the city because –
a) it allowed Whole Foods to move into the spot occupied by Borders;
b) it allowed a conditional use permit for Davis Diamonds on auto row;
c) it allowed the EIR to proceed for ConAgra as a mostly residential site, which will result in –
1) ugly sprawl housing
2) sprawl inducing peripheral business park development for university spin-offs
i) that will drive the need for more ugly sprawl housing
ii)which will never get off the ground because it will be defeated by a Measure J vote.
Conclusion: We need business in Davis, but not sprawl.
The logic of this argument totally escapes me –
A) If high tech spinoffs and retail will not produce revenue for the city, then why do we need business in Davis at all?
B) How could the city keep Whole Foods from leasing the space formerly occupied by Borders? Since when does the city have that kind of absolute power over a property owner?
C) What do you define as ughly sprawl housing? East Davis? West Davis? North Davis? South Davis? At one time Davis was tiny and located where the current center of Davis is situated, so most of the houses “on the periphery (East, West, North, South) would be considered “sprawl” at one time.
D) If business does not generate any needed revenue, then there would be no need for peripheral business park development, no? But then according to the Vanguard, Measure J would defeat peripheral business development as business and housing sprawl anyway, so there is nothing to worry about, right?
The weaving of all these issues together doesn’t seem logical to me. High tech spinoffs represent anchor businesses that drive the need for restaurants and shops to service them. Even if the high tech spinoffs themselves don’t generate sufficient tax revenue, the businesses they encourage very well might generate sufficient tax revenue. There is nothing like a bustling town full of people with money jingling in their pockets
to encourage tax revenue to stream in to city coffers.
I’m not particularly happy about Whole Foods locating where Borders was, but only time will tell if this store will make it. My guess is not. The location and parking are not right for this kind of store. The grocery market in Davis seems to be super saturated. I suspect only the largest and most successful will survive.
I agree that Davis Diamonds should not be located on auto row. My hope is that somehow, some way, the city can come up with an alternative site at the last minute that is far more suitable (hope springs eternal). But if Davis Diamonds does locate on auto row, be prepared that others will want to follow for the cheap land, and there goes the General Plan. And there may go auto row. The city should push hard for an alternative site for Davis Diamonds, and push for the used care dealer to take over the site Davis Diamonds wanted to pounce on.
As for ConAgra, I agree it should remain zoned for a business park, or at least bring a business park onto a portion of the land, then build the necessary housing for the employees of the business park to live in.[/quote]
Don’t know why my comment was highlighted in blue – it is not a quote! Just my thoughts…
By the way, I found the economic development round table discussion invigorating and very uplifting. UCD is ready and willing to work w Davis to develop startups in Davis; and to invite larger corporations here. Doby Fleeman followed up with an excellent discussion on a business strategy on how to make this happen. Either the city gets on board with this idea, or gets left in the dust by UCD who will “go it alone” and the city will see no benefits and all the down sides to having new business either nearby on county land or locate to other cities more welcoming… think about it…
[quote]As for ConAgra, I agree it should remain zoned for a business park, or at least bring a business park onto a portion of the land, then build the necessary housing for the employees of the business park to live in.–[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]I have never understood the implicit assumption that we can “build the necessary housing for the employees of the business park”. We can’t legally mandate who buys the houses, and to the best that I can determine, most of our new houses have been bought by people who commute out to other cities.
[quote]I have never understood the implicit assumption that we can “build the necessary housing for the employees of the business park”.[/quote]
Cannot the employer purchase the land and build the houses for its employees?
Secondly, if a business park is built on half the Cannery, bringing in a huge number of new employees, there is much more of a rationale for building more residential housing, no?
RICH: [i]”Property taxes are based not just on the value of real property but also on ‘personal’ property.”[/i]
SUE: [i]”That is the why it used to be, Rich. Then the legislature granted exemptions for high-tech equipment tax. Unfortunately, high-tech is probably fiscally neutral to the city these days.”[/i]
After you told me that last year, I looked into it. There has not been any change with regard to a “high tech equipment tax” in the last 30 years. None. Someone fed you bad info, or your understanding of what you were told is mistaken.
Here is verbatim what Joel Butler, whose office assesses this tax in Yolo County, told me when I asked him if high-tech equipment is taxed the same as other personal property used in a business: “Yes, all equipment used in a trade or business is taxable. That would include shelving for retail merchandise, kitchen equipment, tables, chairs, office equipment, manufacturing equipment, tractors, forklifts, etc. Even supplies on hand are taxable but inventory, things held for sale or rent in the normal course of business are exempt.”
I asked him which high tech company in the Davis region pays the most in personal property tax. Mr. Butler wrote this in reply: “Probably Novozymes (sic) is the largest assessment of manufacturing equipment at around $9.2 million.”
For those who don’t know the distinction, let me explain the difference between “personal” property and “real” property when it comes to property taxes.
Real property is land plus any buildings or other improvements on that land which cannot be moved or are not normally moved.
Personal property is everything else, including desks, shelves, computers, appliances, etc.
If a business operates on the site of the real property it owns–that is, it is not a renter–then its personal property will be added to the value of its real property and the total will show up on the “secure” property tax roll. If the business in question rents its space, then its personal property will be on the unsecured rolls.
[i]”We can’t legally mandate who buys the houses, and to the best that I can determine, most of our new houses have been bought by people who commute out to other cities.”[/i]
I think a “legal mandate” is off point.
If the 100 acres of Hunt-Wesson were re-developed into a campus for one company or perhaps four 25 acre campuses for four companies, it would not be unreasonable to include “employee housing units” on the campus or some on each of the four distinct campuses.
To make that work, the developer would have to find a buyer or buyers who wanted to build their offices, labs, assembly, R&D, processing, etc. in a campus setting. Then the developer and end-user would have to work together to include housing designed for future employees on the campus.
Certainly not everyone who would work for a company located at Hunt-Wesson would want to live there. But some would. And perhaps some others who don’t work there would find that setting appealing.
The idea of workforce housing on-site is attractive to me for two reasons: one, it results in a job without a commute. One of the great drawbacks of siting residences at Hunt-Wesson is the impact new residents might have on Covell Blvd traffic. But if many of the new workers also lived on one of the campuses, the impact on Covell would be substantially reduced; and two, it could be an effective way to create a strong sense of community for the residents. They work together. They walk to work together. They live next to each other. They know each other and care about each other. In sum, they would likely develop a community spirit, much the way the residents of Village Homes have always had a common spirit, much the way much of Davis had before Davis got so big.
Interesting that the university is able to discriminate in the sale of homes in Aggie Villa and West Village.
[url]http://westvillage.ucdavis.edu/[/url]
“Single-family homes in UC Davis West Village will be available for purchase by UC Davis faculty and staff. Construction of the model homes will commence in 2012…. Homes for sale to faculty and staff are planned to be priced at below-market values. Student residences will be competitively priced, as compared to other rental options in the City of Davis or on campus, based on location and amenities.”
[quote]After you told me that last year, I looked into it. There has not been any change with regard to a “high tech equipment tax” in the last 30 years. None. Someone fed you bad info, or your understanding of what you were told is mistaken–[b]Rich Rifkin[/b][/quote]. I hope you are right, but I was told that Mori Seiki was applying for an equipment tax exemption.
I will ask staff and report back.
Regarding companies buying land for housing their employees: This is a great idea, but they don’t usually do it. It would be wonderful if a company bought Hunt-Wesson and set aside land for housing their employees. This won’t happen if we rezone the parcel to residential, of course.
[b]@Don Shor:[/b] A company or the University could buy land and designate it for employees, but the can’t zone with this requirement and we are even legally limited to the extend that we can designate our affordable housing for people who work in Davis.
[quote]If the 100 acres of Hunt-Wesson were re-developed into a campus for one company or perhaps four 25 acre campuses for four companies, it would not be unreasonable to include “employee housing units” on the campus or some on each of the four distinct campuses.
To make that work, the developer would have to find a buyer or buyers who wanted to build their offices, labs, assembly, R&D, processing, etc. in a campus setting. Then the developer and end-user would have to work together to include housing designed for future employees on the campus. [/quote]
Bingo!
[i]”I was told that Mori Seiki was applying for an equipment tax exemption.”[/i]
Sue, you are confusing property tax and sales-use tax. California has some exemptions (though as far as I know nothing related to high tech) for sales of some kinds of equipment ([url]http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/faq426.htm#1[/url]), where the sale is not taxed in certain circumstances. These exemptions have nothing whatsoever to do with property taxes; and because Morei Seiki will be manufacturing maching tools in Davis, they will not qualify for any of the 6 categories which include exemptions:
[b]1. RTC section 6353(b), Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG),[/b] provides a full exemption from sales or use tax for qualifying sales and purchases of LPG. Qualified sales and purchases of LPG for household or agricultural use are fully exempt from California sales and use tax, as well as any applicable district taxes. To qualify for the exemption, the LPG must be delivered into a tank with a storage capacity equal to or greater than 30 gallons. Delivery into storage tanks with a capacity less than 30 gallons will not qualify even if the total LPG delivered exceeds 30 gallons. For more details, see Regulation 1533.
[b]2. RTC section 6356.5, Farm Equipment, Machinery and Parts,[/b] provides for a partial exemption from the state general fund portion of the sales and use tax for qualified sales and purchase including certain leases of new or used farm equipment, machinery, and parts. The farm equipment, machinery and parts must be purchased by qualified persons for use primarily in producing and harvesting agricultural products. “Primarily” means 50% or more of the time. Qualifying sales and purchases are still subject to a statewide tax rate, plus any applicable district taxes. A more detailed discussion concerning this partial exemption is available at Regulation 1533.1.
[b]3. RTC section 6357.1, Diesel Fuel,[/b] provides for a partial exemption from the state general fund portion of the sales and use tax for qualified sales and purchases of diesel fuel used in farming activities and food processing. Qualifying sales and purchases are still subject to the statewide local tax rate, plus any applicable district taxes. For a more detailed explanation of this partial exemption, see Regulation 1533.2.
[b]4. RTC section 6356.6, Timber Harvesting Equipment, Machinery and Parts,[/b] provides for a partial exemption from the state general fund portion of the sales and use tax for qualified sales and purchases including certain leases by qualified persons of new or used equipment, machinery and parts designed primarily for off-road use that will be primarily used in timber harvesting operations.
[b]5. RTC section 6358.5, Racehorse Breeding Stock,[/b] provides for a partial exemption from the state general fund portion of the sales and use tax for qualified sales and purchases of racehorse breeding stock. Qualifying sales and purchases are still subject to the statewide local tax rate, plus any applicable district taxes. For more details, see Regulation 1535.
[b]6. RTC section 6378, Teleproduction and Postproduction Services,[/b] provides for a partial exemption from the state general fund portion of the sales and use tax for qualified sales and purchases for teleproduction and postproduction service equipment. Qualifying sales and purchases are still subject to the statewide local tax rate, plus any applicable district taxes. For more details, see Regulation 1532.
No, this discussion was about equipment tax, but I will check again.
[i]”No, this discussion was about equipment tax, but I will check again.”[/i]
As far as exemptions to the property tax go, there are 19 types of exemptions (none of which have anything to do with high tech). You can read all about the 19 exemptions, here ([url]http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/exempt.htm[/url]).
[quote]”The problem is that people are mortally afraid of sprawl. And why shouldn’t they be? We practiced horrible development in the 1990s. We have ugly peripheral subdivisions as a result of those bad practices.”[/quote]And, which subdivisions built in the 1990s are “ugly…horrible development”? Your answer will go a long way to me understanding the disagreements we have about housing in Davis. (Go ahead, make my day….insult my neighborhood?)
Don: [i]”The place to lobby for your changes to the city’s planning documents is in the update to the General Plan”
[/i]
Planning documents are meant to be guides, not doctrines. In your case though, you seem to think they should hold the same value as the ‘word of God.’ If we stick to the ‘plan’ regardless of the reality around us, then we are no different than the proverbial ostrich and his view of the sand.
[quote]”UCD is ready and willing to work w Davis to develop startups in Davis; and to invite larger corporations here. Doby Fleeman followed up with an excellent discussion on a business strategy on how to make this happen. Either the city gets on board with this idea, or gets left in the dust by UCD who will “go it alone” and the city will see no benefits and all the down sides to having new business either nearby on county land or locate to other cities more welcoming… think about it…”[/quote]I’ve been surprised, Elaine, about how some of us see the university as competition to fight (or fight off) instead of potential for ever-increasing partnerships. Davis is a UCD town, not an auto-mall town.
I think Mark is correct about the downward prognosis for the old way of buying and selling autos. It’s interesting to see Sue’s similar outlook on auto row here, particularly after last night’s struggle to find a way to keep the artistic look of auto row by requiring the Davis Diamonds property to be fronted with a few rows of autos and the same giant, bright lights as its neighbors. (Julie must be rolling over!)
How do other university towns finance their governments? They can’t all depend on auto mall sales tax receipts. Maybe we should start looking to other means.
[i]”I think Mark is correct about the downward prognosis for the old way of buying and selling autos.”[/i]
What is your basis for saying this, as it relates to our City’s finances? I cannot think of any good reason to believe there is any long-term “downward prognosis” for car sales in Davis, unless, of course, we convert our most viable car sales lots into gymnastics playgrounds which don’t provide income to the City.
Rifkin: [i]”What is your basis for saying this, as it relates to our City’s finances? I cannot think of any good reason to believe there is any long-term “downward prognosis” for car sales in Davis, unless, of course, we convert our most viable car sales lots into gymnastics playgrounds which don’t provide income to the City.”[/i]
Vacant lots don’t bring in tax revenues. Seems pretty basic to me. What exactly don’t you understand?
Zoning for an automall, and maintaining a viable automall are two completely different things. Just because the land is zoned one way, does not mean that there is a viable business available to take advantage of the zoning. We may wish for the sales tax revenues from car sales, but if there is no business willing to take over the site, then the preferred zoning simply is a fallacy. How long does a building need to be empty before we realize that the zoning is wrong? How many years do we allow an area to deteriorate into ‘blight’ before we act to make changes. If the General Plan calls for a specific business that is no longer viable, then we need to ignore the General Plan and move on. Unfortunately we give too much credence to those who want us to remain ‘stuck in the past.’
To remain viable, Davis needs to evolve. We can argue over how quickly that process occurs, but sticking our collective head in the ‘General Plan’ is no different than choosing a hole in the sand.
[i]”… if there is no business willing to take over the site, then the preferred zoning simply is a fallacy.”[/i]
Come now. We have been in the steepest recession since World War II. The unemployment rate in our region has been over the last few years the highest in our history since the Great Depression. We are only now starting to come out of the recession in our region, and unemployment here is still quite bad.
But no one (who knows economics) would suggest we won’t soon enough have a recovering economy and it is all but certain that we will in time have some vibrancy to our local economy. That means growth in car sales. That means purposing the auto sales lots for what they were used for prior to the great recession.
What I question, what I thought perhaps you were trying to imply, is that there is some new model, such as internet sales, which will make the local car dealer obsolete. If that is your point, I would like to see the evidence of it. I am not a closed minded person. If the evidence is that brick and mortar car dealerships are going the way of the wooly mammoth, please provide the source for this development.
As far as I know, the reason we now have fewer car sales lots than we had in 2007 is because in a slow economy, fewer people buy cars.
My worry is that Davis will lose its economy of scale in car sales by chipping away at the auto mall. In fact, the person who told me some years ago why we should not rezone the car lots, and why we should lend money to Hanlees for their VW lot, was Sue Greenwald, who made the case that there is an economy of scale in that business, that each various mark helps the other nearby mark by attracting a variety of potential buyers. Rather than having a gymnastics club, I think we should, once the economy picks up, try to attract new brands we lack, such as Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Tesla and so on.
[i]Planning documents are meant to be guides, not doctrines. In your case though, you seem to think they should hold the same value as the ‘word of God.’ If we stick to the ‘plan’ regardless of the reality around us, then we are no different than the proverbial ostrich and his view of the sand.[/i]
Perhaps you could be more specific as to how you feel the General Plan and other guides should be applied in planning for growth and development in Davis with respect to housing, retail, and commercial development. What reality do you believe should override the principles of the General Plan? More generally, what do you feel the purpose is of developing a General Plan?
“From my perspective, the level of change-aversion in this town exceeds what should be considered reasonable. What community in California… especially one that sits astride the busy I-80 corridor… get’s to block so much change? I get the attraction to, and the desire to protect, Davis charm…..”
I think you have nicely summed up the issues here although perhaps inadvertently. The term “reasonable” like the term “common sense” is very subjective which you acknowledge with your opener, “from my perspective”. It would seem that to a majority of the citizens of Davis so far ir has seemed not only reasonable, but desirable to protect the small city ambience that Davis has managed to sustain so far. I see your next sentence from an entirely different perspective than the meaning you seem to be drawing. While every other community along the I-80 corridor has opted in favor of allowing their “downtowns” to wane while pursuing “freeway friendly”development in the form of fast foods, big box stores, outlets and the like, Davis is unique in having succeeded in remaining “unique”. I see this is a strength and an advantage rather than a sign of decay.
Growth is not synonymous with improvement . Change is not synonymous with progress. It is the automobile culture and homogenization of our culture as a whole that has driven the anonymity of communities along the freeway. I believe that there are a number of rapidly developing trends that are so changing our society that moves to see further expansion of the car dependent, suburban way of life as anything but “progress”.
Possibly the most powerful of these trends is technological . As Rich alluded to, Internet sales have and I believe will continue to make brick and mortar less attractive except in the small, niche category. The concept of sustainability as opposed to the culture of disposability is only going to grow and will eventually make Davis’ slow growth approach look highly “reasonable”. Finally we have the growing awareness that our sedentary, automobile and fast food dependent lifestyle is, quite literally killing us. Because of my job, I have been keenly aware of this for many years. I believe, from the media, and from my own practice, that the general public is starting to see this issue for what it is, a public health and economic disaster waiting to happen. This awareness will have a profound effect on how we view what is “reasonable” in community planning moving into the future. While I cannot see what that will look like, I suspect it will be closer to the current Davis model than to the freeway, strip mall model which is already so prevalent in this area.
[quote]Vacant lots don’t bring in tax revenues.[/quote]Incorrect. Undeveloped, vacant lots do bring property tax revenues. Developed lots which have no tenants/activity bring in more. A developed lot which has car sales bring in sales tax revenue. Developed lots with kiddie gymnastics, not so much (and perhaps, none).
Sue is probably the most pro-business current member of the Davis CC. She has 12 years of voting record to support my statement.
[quote]Just because the land is zoned one way, does not mean that there is a viable business available to take advantage of the zoning. We may wish for the sales tax revenues from car sales, but if there is no business willing to take over the site, then the preferred zoning simply is a fallacy.[/quote]
It is my understanding that there is an offer from a used car company to occupy the same building the Davis Diamonds wants to occupy…
[i]”… if there is no business willing to take over the site, then the preferred zoning simply is a fallacy.”[/i]
What is your time frame on this fallacy argument?
I concede that if the economy gains strength in our region and in the next 2-3 years no car sellers come forward, then the zoning should be changed to accommodate the new reality. However, for as long as I have lived in Davis (c. 1965), the freeway auto mall has been a winner, and no one has provided a compelling argument why it could not be one again in a strong economy.
Mark, I strongly disagree with your comments of last night. Simply ignoring agreed upon strategies and objectives is no way to lead a community. It results in aimless policy decisions and implementation. The proper course of action is to steadfastly execute agreed upon strategies/plans, revise as needed when insurmountable challenges and obsolete aspects are identified, all the while executing, executing, executing. What occurs in our community to often is the council simply ignores agreed upon strategies/plans without rhyme or reason, Sue’s rejection of the densification strategy set forth in the General Plan and the Core Area Specific Plan being a prime example. At no time has a council revised or rejected the densification strategy; indeed, it hasn’t even been debated. Another great example is the Diamonds decision. Can someone point to me the council decision identifying the auto mall strategy as obsolete and replacing it with a better strategy? No, instead they simply undermine the agreed upon strategy with a one-off, project-driven decision. Where is the leadership, the foresight, the keeping the eye on the big picture?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“Sue is probably the most pro-business current member of the Davis CC. She has 12 years of voting record to support my statement.” God have mercy on our local economy and our community.
Here’s a classic example of Sue at her “pro-business” best Tuesday night during the economic development shindig. I was struck by the juxtaposition of Andy Hargadon’s (Davis Roots) downtown incubator presentation with Sue’s comments. If you do the math on Andy’s presentation, we are going to need a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. of additional office space in the Downtown over the next 5 years to house the Davis Roots start-ups (5 employees = 1,000 sq. ft. x 8 firms per year x 5 years). We will need substantially more space if any of these firms grow beyond 5 employees. Sue appeared delighted with Andy’s presentation. Yet Sue, live, for all the world to watch, said she doesn’t want any additional downtown growth at all (making some reference to stucco construction as if stucco were the only exterior finish known in architecture!). How does she square her position with Davis Roots’ mission, let alone with the General Plan and Core Area Specific Plan, both of which call for significant downtown densification? How will the Davis Roots incubator ever get off the ground if there is no office space to house these companies? Sue has a serious disconnect (as does Mike apparently).
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Rifkin: [i]”What is your time frame on this fallacy argument?” [/i]
We have spent generations micro managing what retail businesses we allow in town, and where we will allow them to open. As a consequence we have the current situation where millions of dollars of tax revenues are lost every year to other communities (leakage) and we are overly dependent on one type of business (car sales). There is no easy answer to this problem as we have spent 40-50 years creating it. That said, continuing on the same path certainly won’t change the situation.
Some of the vacancies in our ‘auto mall’ predate the recession, and the only new venture that has been proposed required a significant investment by the City in the form of redevelopment funds, which still wasn’t sufficient inducement (and is now no longer possible). How long do we wait before we realize that all we are getting from our strict adherence to the General Plan with regards to the auto mall is increasing blight?
The question that we should be asking ourselves is what percentage of the things we need to buy to maintain our lives are available locally? Secondly, of those items that we can source locally, in what percentage of those items do we have a choice of stores and/or brands to select from? We are doing great with bicycles, but not so good with quality clothing. I want to shop in Davis, but frankly I find that in most cases it is not worth my time to do so because there are so few options. I do preferentially shop at certain stores because of their superior service and decent selection, but on the whole Davis is a shopping wasteland unless you are looking for groceries, bicycles and Thai food (yes that is an intentional exaggeration).
Elaine: [i]”It is my understanding that there is an offer from a used car company to occupy the same building the Davis Diamonds wants to occupy…”
[/i]
There was a definitive statement Tuesday night that there is no back up offer for the site.
Mark: you keep making all these comments about adherence to the General Plan, and you repeatedly refer to the lack of shopping options. So, third time: what exactly are you proposing for Davis?
Michael Bisch: [i]”Simply ignoring agreed upon strategies and objectives is no way to lead a community. It results in aimless policy decisions and implementation. The proper course of action is to steadfastly execute agreed upon strategies/plans, revise as needed when insurmountable challenges and obsolete aspects are identified, all the while executing, executing, executing.”[/i]
Michael, I don’t think we really disagree that much. I think the General Plan is a great document that should be used as the starting point for all decisions. I just don’t think we should view it as being ‘set in stone.’
This is the part that I believe we completely fail to accomplish.
[i][b]”revise as needed when insurmountable challenges and obsolete aspects are identified”[/b][/i]
I think we start with the General Plan, and then challenge the plan when things are not working. I don’t advocate willy-nilly decision making, and would have preferred to see the Planning Commission or City Council actually debate our adherence to the Auto Mall complex rather than making an ad hoc decision with regards to Davis Diamonds. What I don’t want to see us do is leave a building empty for multiple years while we wait in vain for the preferred business to come to town. That is what we have done far too often and is the core problem with our approach to business.
“There was a definitive statement Tuesday night that there is no back up offer for the site. “
Mark, the day after the original vote on Davis Diamonds, Ken Hiatt confirmed with me that there was another offer for the site. However, I have since been informed by city staff that that offer was pulled. The offer was pulled because of the perceived problematic nature of occupying that sight if Davis Diamonds were not allowed to have it. And what is more interesting is that the business involved as also affiliated with Mr. Santana. Another interesting tidbit I learned is that the reason Santana was the rep was he is seen as the access point for that property.
MW: [i] “It would seem that to a majority of the citizens of Davis so far ir has seemed not only reasonable, but desirable to protect the small city ambience that Davis has managed to sustain so far.”
One way to measure reasonableness in a more objective way is to look for comparable examples. I have many times asked my more anti-growth, anti-development blogging friends for examples of other cities we should model. I usually have to ask a few times to get an answer. When I do get a response, the examples are small cities in Europe. Do we really think that is a reasonable vision for Davis? I’ve never been to Europe, so I have to concede that I might be too ignorant about this and missing the opportunity to get behind a fantastic great idea to carve out a singularly unique small European city model in the heart of bustling California… but I don’t think so. What I think is that we have grown too fat, dumb and lazy (related to our economic development needs) living off the university. We have been able to block economic growth and development (this should always be primary and residential growth and development should be secondary to support it, IMO) only because the university was a stable, direct and indirect, revenue stream. But, this revenue stream is insufficient to sustain us, and so what are we going to do?
I have lived in Davis for 34 years even though for 20 of those years I worked in the Carmichael area, so obviously there is enough about Davis that appeals to me. I am proud to live here. I like the fact that my over-priced house has retained its value. I like the fact that the crime rate is lower and that the schools are safer. I like the downtown. I like the people.
Here is what I do not like:
•Inadequate city inflows; inadequate plan to increase inflows; inadequate plan to better prioritize and reduce expenses and long-term debt obligations.
•Too few good paying private-sector jobs (resulting in too few Republicans =).
•Underfunded schools and infrastructure.
•Sales tax revenue leakage.
•Failures to leverage the UCD connection to bring in more business and jobs to the town.
•Growing downtown shabbiness; lack of redevelopment; lack of vibrancy… all contributing to lower than potential customer attraction.
•Inability for the downtown plus small neighborhood shopping centers to cover resident shopping needs.
•Inability to purchase certain product categories; and limited choice of brands, etc.
•Inconvenience: drive times, parking options.
•Not enough stucco!
I think a useful plan could list all of the economic development categories and the matching plan objective that should be written: “Similar to so and so city”.
Frankly, if we cannot find any examples that we care to copy, then I think we might need to accept that we are being unreasonable.
Jeff: [i]I have many times asked my more anti-growth, anti-development blogging friends for examples of other cities we should model. [/i]
Actually, the last time you asked that question, I mentioned Arcata — vs Eureka, which I see as being more like Woodland.
[url]http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_17605607[/url]
Of course, when we turn the question around, you like to cite Folsom, which I have demonstrated has a far weaker downtown than Davis.
There is another problem with Jeff’s argument – let us suppose Davis is actually the model that we want to follow – who is to say you cannot improve on what we have by cherrypicking policies that you like from other communities in hopes that you can improve upon what we have and them at the same time.
Don – Yes, I did forget about that one reference. You do know that it has a population about 1/4 the size of Davis, right? It is also quite remote from any sizable population center.
Even so, I am interested in the specifics here. What about Arcata should Davis copy?
[i]”Of course, when we turn the question around, you like to cite Folsom, which I have demonstrated has a far weaker downtown than Davis.”[/i]
I think I wrote “something inbetween Folsom and Carmel”.
So great, Davis has a stronger downtown. I agree with you. However, as a resident of this city, I also care more about overall retail and economic development. Folsom kicks our ass on this. Why didn’t Davis attract Intel?
David – That was actually my point. First categorize objectives, then go find matching examples that you want to model. You can further breakdown the example for the great, good, bad and the ugly so you make it better. However, without any tangible examples as a basis for the vision, you are actually in R&D mode and that is expensive and risky.
Use the ideas of others. Why reinvest the wheel? We are not the only smart people trying to build a viable economic development vision and plan. If we cannot find examples that others have tried, then I suggest our vision is unreasonable. Even if can make a case for a completely one-off, unique vision, we simply cannot afford to try things that haven’t been sufficiently vetted before.
Might we have too many artists involved?
“One way to measure reasonableness in a more objective way is to look for comparable examples”
I agree that looking for comparable examples is one way to measure reasonableness. But certainly not the only, or necessarily the best one.
I would cite a number of other possible measures. Some of these would include, satisfaction of the majority of the citizens, desirability of the city to people wanting to move there, feeling of safety and community, educational, arts, music, theater opportunities, youth activities.
We are already rich in all of these areas.
I think a major difference in our world views is that your priorities tend to run more toward material growth and success while mine tend to be more experiential and minimalistic in nature. I don’t think that the bottom line on this is that one view is more “reasonable” than the other, simply that we have different visions for Davis based on our own life experiences and values.
And, as you have occasionally said to Don with regard to broadening his perspective, you might actually want to visit Europe sometimeif you have a chance.
Visiting with an open heart and mind might result in some different perspectives than you have experienced so far.
There are any number of university communities that could be considered for comparison. Corvallis Oregon comes to mind. It’s lovely, has similar population and demographics, and has much the same planning tensions as Davis.
My old stomping grounds San Luis Obispo has managed to develop retail and business without taking on population growth.
Some interesting planning ideas that probably go in the opposite direction that others here are considering;
“In June 2007, Benicia, a town of 27,000 people located about 40 miles northeast of San Francisco, enacted the following two ordinances, which stipulate that retail stores larger than 20,000 square feet and formula restaurants will not be approved unless they meet certain criteria.
The criteria include, for example, that the store be operated in a manner that “preserves the city’s . . . distinctive character and ambiance” and “enhances the economic health of the surrounding area.” The proposed store must also “contribute to an appropriate balance of local, regional or national-based businesses” and “avoid an appearance commonly associated with strip retail or shopping centers.”
The measure was prompted by growing concerns about the potential impact of large chain retailers on the city’s downtown and local businesses. Dozens of residents communicated their support for the measure in testimony at the public hearing or in letters to city council members.”
[url]http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/formula-business-restrictions/formula-business-restriction-benicia-ca[/url]
Same site.
“In June 2002, Arcata, a city of 17,000 about 5 hours north of San Francisco, enacted the following ordinance, which limits the number of formula restaurants in the city to no more than nine at any one time. (The city already had nine formula restaurants. If one closes, the ordinance allows another formula restaurant to take its place.) A formula restaurant is defined as one that shares the same design, menu, trademark, and other characteristics with twelve or more other establishments.”
Homer Alaska:
“HOMER – The Homer City Council has voted to fend off a feared invasion of big box stores by setting a size limit on new retail construction.
By a 5-1 vote, the council on Monday approved a limit of 35,000 square feet in the town’s central business district. That’s smaller than the 45,000-square-foot store Fred Meyer said it hopes to build in Homer.
The size limit is the first of its kind in Alaska, city officials said. Towns in the Lower 48 have used such limits as a way of shaping community development.”
[url]http://juneauempire.com/stories/041504/sta_homer.shtml[/url]
I like Corvallis Oregon. It would be good to dissect that town and see what we could plagiarize. Don I’m sure you know that there is a Home Depot in Corvallis.
San Luis Obispo probably has some take-aways; although I don’t think we don’t match up with vacation-destination coastal towns very well.
Benicia? I remember playing Benicia High in sports when I attended Dixon High during the mid 1970s and finding bullet holes in our school bus the next day after the game. I don’t remember the town being charming, but I haven’t been back to check.
Homer? Don, Homer has a population of 5300. You don’t even need many small-box stores in a town that size.
Yes, and the Home Depot was very controversial in Corvallis. The others I posted, as well as Arcata’s formula store limitation, are just examples of planning tools cities can use.
[quote]”The offer was pulled because of the perceived problematic nature of occupying that sight if Davis Diamonds were not allowed to have it.”[/quote]Says who? Did Ken Hiatt tell you this? How does he know this to be true? What is the “perceived problematic nature of occupying that [s]sight[/s]site”? This sounds like made-up bullshit, an attempt to stir up anger in the community, not just poor spelling.
What company pulled the supposed “back up offer”? Did you confirm with them that they made such an outrageous business decision? Any more such contrived gossip to pass along without giving the “person or persons unknown” in the city staff credit for their trouble-making comments?
I hate this [u]Vanguard[/u] “reporting” technique. It disguises false reports and/or encourages “city staff” to say things–a claim I can’t quite yet accept–they know to be false or don’t know to be true because they’ve learned the [u]Vanguard[/u] has no journalistic standards in this regard.
No matter how outrageous the alleged statement is, everyone knows there’ll be no effort to confirm the truth or to identify the speaker because the “fact” advances the [u]Vanguard[/u]’s preconceived narrative. There is no supportable rationale for this practice because it isn’t being used to elicit important secrets from the government, for example.
[quote]Here’s a classic example of Sue at her “pro-business” best Tuesday night during the economic development shindig. I was struck by the juxtaposition of Andy Hargadon’s (Davis Roots) downtown incubator presentation with Sue’s comments. If you do the math on Andy’s presentation, we are going to need a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. of additional office space in the Downtown over the next 5 years to house the Davis Roots start-ups (5 employees = 1,000 sq. ft. x 8 firms per year x 5 years). We will need substantially more space if any of these firms grow beyond 5 employees. Sue appeared delighted with Andy’s presentation. Yet Sue, live, for all the world to watch, said she doesn’t want any additional downtown growth at all (making some reference to stucco construction as if stucco were the only exterior finish known in architecture!). How does she square her position with Davis Roots’ mission, let alone with the General Plan and Core Area Specific Plan, both of which call for significant downtown densification? How will the Davis Roots incubator ever get off the ground if there is no office space to house these companies? Sue has a serious disconnect (as does Mike apparently). [/quote]
Fair points…