Perhaps the underreported comments of the week were made this past Tuesday during the city’s economic summit, in which leaders from the business community met with the Davis City Council at a public meeting to discuss the future of the city’s economic development, particularly in light of the loss of Redevelopment Agency funding.
One comment from the new executive director of the Davis Chamber of Commerce, Kemble Pope, drew attention from a number of people – some of whom thought that the comments were inappropriate for the Chamber representative to be making and others thinking they were comments long past due.
He then made three suggestions.
First he proposed a “ten day rule for good governance,” in which the city council would receive all staff reports and supporting documents ten calendar days prior [to] the council meeting.
The second proposal would be to have the council meet only twice per month and adjourn no later than 11 pm.
The Vanguard noted earlier this week that other city councils regularly receive their agendas at least one week in advance – that enables a full public vetting and allows the council itself to seek out questions from staff – not only does it fully inform the public but it expedites the meetings.
Toward the second suggestion, the Vanguard has proposed a version of that which would be to hold meetings every week and only have one major item for consideration per meeting. We are concerned that, given the council’s plate, it would be difficult for the council to appropriately discuss all items on the agenda by 11 pm if they continue to meet twice a month.
The final proposal turned out to be the most controversial.
Mr. Pope said, “Let’s plan now for the loss of Redevelopment Agency funding. Failure to plan really is planning to fail. Please ask for help from the community now to make the necessary budget adjustments so that we can minimize services lost.”
He then added, “To that end, consider dissolving the City’s entire Economic Development Department and eliminate all staff positions related to the department. Set a date certain in the month of March and these organizations will come back here and present a succession plan to take over those responsibilities.”
Some perceived that as a demand by the Chamber to fire everyone in the economic development department. Others merely saw this as an indication of frustration with the pace of change that has occurred with the city, in terms of economic development that everyone has considered a priority.
Pulling up the website for the economic development department, it is easy perhaps to see the source of frustration.
While the list of current and completed projects seems incomplete, it is also a bit telling.
Basically, according to this, the department has completed one project in the last three and a half years and that was Mishka’s Cafe and the Tank House Relocation. On the other hand, I think there have been a few successes that simply are not listed here, for whatever reason, including Mori Seiki, most notably.
The current projects are perhaps more telling. We have basically two  reports listed – both of which pretty much tell us what we already know, and the Business Park Land Strategy, from our standpoint, is very flawed.
They list the Downtown Parking Structure, which we have been very critical of and believe it to be a misprioritization of limited RDA funding. They do not list the Hotel Conference Center and the relocation of Caffé Italia.
They do list the Second Street Crossing which included Target, something that the Vanguard strongly opposed, but the remarkable thing is that while Target was completed in 2009, no other businesses at that site have been constructed and opened. From our understanding, at least part of that is a staff problem, a dragging of their feet on some businesses that staff apparently decided they did not want without community or even council input.
We could create a long list of problems that this city has had. We had the long-vacant Westlake Shopping Center. The staff could have been more aggressive in forcing the hands of the property owner, and there were also the long-vacant stores in East Davis Manor, the vacated businesses in South Davis, and the fiasco with Whole Foods moving into the Borders Space near the downtown.
We may not agree on the specific vision for Davis, and we may think that city and economic leaders are engaging on a fool’s errand with regard to peripheral business park development at the same time they are looking at mixed-use housing at the former Cannery site.
However, there is no denying that for too long the city’s economic planning has been disastrous, and to the extent we can put blame for that on city government, the Economic Development Department in Davis has been a problem.
At the same time, we are concerned that everyone is pushing forward with plans that may not have public support. Everyone supports, I think, business development. We support the idea of high-tech spinoffs from the university and figuring out better ways to capture the valuable point-of-sales tax revenue.
Where we are concerned is that this will lead to a push for development on the periphery, that will generate a renewed demand to build housing on the periphery, as well. We do not believe the public will support such efforts when it comes down to a Measure J vote. But we shall see.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Pope, but respectfully I just don’t happen to agree w his assessments –
1) A ten day rule sounds good in an ideal world, but in reality is not achievable IMHO. The Davis Diamonds is a perfect example. Negotiations were occurring up until the actual City Council meeting. It happens. Furthermore, city staff is extremely overworked now bc of fewer numbers, and are probably doing about the best they can in the time frames allotted. There are a myriad of thorny issues that have to be dealt with, and many items have had to be put on the back burner so the most important matters can be brought forward and dealt with. I’m sure the city staff would love to be able to get staff reports to the City Council 10 days prior to a City Council meeting, but with their horrendous work load now and the dynamics of each issue, I very much doubt such a goal is even remotely achievable.
2) To have the City Council only meet twice per month would jam pack every City Council meeting to unacceptable levels. To force the City Council to end meetings by 11 pm would either result in a) decisions not being made at all; b) decisions put off until the next meeting; c) curtail meaningful discussion. I much prefer the suggestion that the City Council meet once a week, to ensure that only one main issue per meeting is dealt with, and all issues are dealt with thoroughly. I waited around until midnight at the last City Council meeting, only to have the issue I was waiting for tabled to the next meeting. It was unfortunate, but nothing would have been gained by forcing the meeting to end at 11 pm, and the City Council to only meet twice a month. Such a scheme would have only delayed the decision on my issue even farther out into the future.
3) Who’s to say that dissolving the city’s entire Economic Development Dept. and allowing business leaders to somehow come up with a succession plan would result in any better business and economic development decisions? How much of the poor business planning had more to do with the poor leadership of past City Councils and/or former City Manager Bill Emlen?
And just for the record, I found the business roundtable to be very uplifting, with wonderful suggestions on how to nurture startups, invite larger corporations, and invigorate tourism. These were the positive messages I was looking for and that seemed appropriate for such a forum. Any kinks/disagreements in regard to an economic development plan would be best left to meetings where an actual strategy is hammered out… just my opinion…
“…and the fiasco with Whole Foods moving into the Borders Space near the downtown.”
What fiasco?
“Everyone supports, I think, business development. We support the idea of high-tech spinoffs from the university and figuring out better ways to capture the valuable point-of-sales tax revenue.”
To put it bluntly, this comment is divorced from reality. There are any number of loud voices in the community that do not share this view. There are many more voices in the community, even on the council, who share the view, but work at cross purposes or do not act to further the objective at all. I mentioned at the economic presentations this past Tuesday that it will be extremely difficult to effectively engage in economic development without addressing 3 aspects of our local political culture:
1) Community Sustainability (environmental, social, and economic)
2) Intolerance of creativity and innovation
3) Barriers and constraints to fostering a robust local economy
Sue is solidly in the camp of those working at cross purposes to economic development providing a CLASSIC example of political aspect #3 at the Tuesday evening discussion. 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? This is typical of Sue, it’s as if she has a broken calculator, which is why I predict the business community will overwhelmingly not be supporting her this upcoming election.
“The staff could have been more aggressive in forcing the hands of the property owner, and there were also the long-vacant stores in East Davis Manor, the vacated businesses in South Davis, and the fiasco with Whole Foods moving into the Borders Space near the downtown.”
This comment represents a classic example of political aspects #2 and #3. It is the job of government to determine zoning. It is not the job of government to determine to pick and choose who the tenants are in private developments. In so far as government picks economic winners and losers, this represents a political constraint to economic activity. I would have thought the 20th century had made it abundantly clear that command control economic systems are not particularly successful. This example crosses over into intolerance of creativity and innovation in that having government tell private business owners what they can and cannot do, apart from established regulations/laws/ordinances, arbitrarily restricts creativity and innovation.
The Chamber’s proposal signals extreme frustration with these 3 aspects of our political culture. It will be interesting to see the details of the Chamber proposal that will be forthcoming.
DT Businesman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
DTB: I think you are confusing people’s opposition to specific proposals to a general lack of support for ED. In my view, there are legitimate issues of concern in the details of the proposals that have been laid out to date. Those details may be sufficient to oppose specific projects. I agree that we generally need to figure our ways to expand our business community.
“It is the job of government to determine zoning. It is not the job of government to determine to pick and choose who the tenants are in private developments”
I have a differing opinion on the role of government than you do.
“In so far as government picks economic winners and losers, this represents a political constraint to economic activity.”
And to there needs to be for this society to work properly.
“I would have thought the 20th century had made it abundantly clear that command control economic systems are not particularly successful.”
You have taken a tremendous leap from the notion that government has a legitimate role in determining which businesses move where in a community to arguing against a command control economic system. This is not socialism where the government is attempting to control the means of production, this is the government controlling time and place considerations of where businesses should locate – something that is legally permissible in this society.
[quote]1) Community Sustainability (environmental, social, and economic)
2) Intolerance of creativity and innovation
3) Barriers and constraints to fostering a robust local economy [/quote]
This seems to me to be a fairly accurate assessment, altho I’m not quite clear on what “social sustainability” means! One of the problems the business community faces is there may be one or more City Council members who do not fully agree with the business community’s vision, which may stymy attempts to implement business and economic development. I sense that when Doby Fleeman gave his presentation on a business strategy. So I am going to propose a couple of ideas that I would really like to get some feedback on, especially from DT Businessman –
1) Have any efforts been made to form a committee between UCD organizations like Roots and city reps from BEDC (and/or DDBA/Chamber of Commerce) to work together to come up with solid plan on furthering economic development? I sensed this might already be going on behind the scenes, but is it a formalized effort?
2) Can the business community figure out what all CC members will agree to, and at least have some small successes that would lead to perhaps bigger successes? In other words, pin down the City Council with a check-in, to put them on the record as to what they will agree to; and on record as to what they will not agree to?
What fiasco? Did I miss something or is that a prediction of a fiasco?
[quote]DT Businessman: “It is the job of government to determine zoning. It is not the job of government to determine to pick and choose who the tenants are in private developments”
DMG: I have a differing opinion on the role of government than you do. [/quote]
Yes, you have a tendency to view the law as what it should be, not what it is…
“What fiasco? Did I miss something or is that a prediction of a fiasco?”
Fiasco refers to the fact that Whole Foods moved in to the space occupied by Borders which will costs the city a lot of sales tax revenue and also create parking problems.
“Yes, you have a tendency to view the law as what it should be, not what it is… “
The city government has the ability to control a number of things that they choose not to. And interestingly enough both you and DTB both assumed my criticism of Whole Foods is that the city did not prevent them from moving in, when in fact it begins far sooner than that.
[quote]The city government has the ability to control a number of things that they choose not to. And interestingly enough both you and DTB both assumed my criticism of Whole Foods is that the city did not prevent them from moving in, when in fact it begins far sooner than that.[/quote]
I’m not following you here. Please explain. What should the city have ultimately done to prevent Whole Foods from moving into the space where Borders is?
They should have been more proactive at the start helping the owner find a more suitable business to occupy that space.
“You have taken a tremendous leap from the notion that government has a legitimate role in determining which businesses move where in a community to arguing against a command control economic system.”
David, you are the one that has taken a leap, a fantastic leap. State law provides a set of tools for local governments to determine which businesses move where in a community, they’re called ZONING ORDINANCES. They provide a modicum of certainty to business owners, property owners, and the community at large. You are advocating for local government to govern through arbitrary exercise of power which sows uncertainty, results in an underperforming economy, and a meandering course instead of executing agreed upon strategies to aciehieve agreed upon objectives. This is exactly what is driving the business community crazy with frustration.
“I think you are confusing people’s opposition to specific proposals to a general lack of support for ED. In my view, there are legitimate issues of concern in the details of the proposals that have been laid out to date. Those details may be sufficient to oppose specific projects.”
When a challenge to the welfare of the community has been identified, it is incumbent upon community leaders to propose solutions. Simply saying “NO” is not an acceptable response to community challenges. If one disagrees with a proposed solution, then propose and advocate for a VIABLE alternative. Simply saying “NO”, makes you part of the problem, not the solution.
“I agree that we generally need to figure out ways to expand our business community.” Such ways are figured out on a daily basis; unfortunately, they generally are met with a hail of criticism “NO” crowd and apathy and flip flopping by the council. Furthermore, agreeing on the need to expand our business community and then refusing to allocate resources and actually executing a strategy to do so is absolutely fickle.
I will check back in to this conversation this evening to respond to Elaine’s questions.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Whole Foods will be a great addition to the downtown. They will sell lots of tax generating items. I would not be surprised to see them pay more taxes than Borders did because of higher sales volumes in general. They will provide a great anchor to that area and bring lots of other sales along with the increased traffic. Finally are the taxes the only thing that matter? What about the social benefit of having Whole Foods downtown.
The only bad thing about Whole Foods is that they are non-union.
DTB:
I like how you sidestepped the leap to planned economy.
You’ve leaped to a number of other conclusions here. I addressed with Elaine which is that you assume the only way to have dealt with this was to overtly have the government prevent WF’s from moving in. My concerns over this was handled begin well before that announcement was ever made, but I do think just as it turned out the city had power to compel the Westlake owners to eventually get serious about living up to their obligations, the city has measures it could have taken here and chose not to.
“Such ways are figured out on a daily basis”
The problem is the same problem we discussed a few months ago – a small segment of people speaking to each other come up with solutions without taking into account what the rest of the community thinks and moving towards buy-in. If that is what you mean, then this effort is doomed to failure.