By Michael Bisch
It has been an interesting journey to date on the road to the June 6 election with any number of newsworthy developments. From my perspective, no election story has been more substantive than the Davis Chamber PAC’s entry into the fray. Beginning with the PAC’s initial March 22, 2012 press release announcing “Chamber PAC Plans More Active Role to Promote Economic Vitality of Davis”, the Chamber PAC’s active participation in the election campaign has received extensive coverage, particularly by the Vanguard.
My most striking observation pertaining to the Vanguard coverage and commentary on the PAC effort is that, with rare exception, there has been a near absence of substantive debate. There has been a general unwillingness to debate the merits of:
- the rationale for the PAC’s city council candidate endorsements;
- fostering a robust local economy to ensure a truly sustainable community.
The near absence of substantive debate is remarkable in that the PAC objectives stated in the March 22 press release are hardly without import.
1. Crafting and executing electoral strategies that result in improvement of our members economic vitality and the quality of life for the entire community.
2. Interviewing all council candidates in a debate conducive to properly assessing their grasp of economic matters and the critical role a robust local economy has in fostering a sustainable community.
3. Considering recommendation and possible support of a council candidate or slate of candidates that support the mission of the Chamber.
4. Raising funds to support PAC activities.
5. Forming a broad-based, business community coalition to support these efforts.
These objectives are momentous when viewed in the context of the press release’s concluding statement, the Chamber’s mission statement and the common definitions of “sustainable community”.
PRESS RELEASE CONCLUDING STATEMENT: “These efforts are not intended to start and end with the June election. Rather, these efforts shall be ongoing to ensure we do not lose sight of the critical importance a robust, local economy has in sustaining the wellbeing of the community.”
THE CHAMBER MISSION STATEMENT: “The Davis Chamber of Commerce is a membership organization whose mission is to promote, support, and advocate the general economic vitality of its membership and the quality of life for the community.”
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY: A community that tends to focus on environmental, social, and economic sustainability.
[Note: The bold/italicized emphasis in the foregoing statements all mine.]
Let’s focus for a moment on the economic development policies and projects of the candidates as reported by the Vanguard May 4, 2012. I took the time to total the number of policies and projects that each candidate gave:
Stephen Souza = 43
Dan Wolk = 19*
Brett Lee = 9
Lucas Frerichs = 5
Sue Greenwald = 2
*Wolk is the only candidate that has called out a specific, measurable economic goal. He called for a 50% increase in Downtown economic activity within 5 years. It is astonishing that this goal has gone entirely without comment. Not even his council colleagues have addressed this bold, yet achievable goal in public.
By my count there were 78 substantive economic development proposals rattled off by the candidates, some fluff, some with meat, yet Vanguard readers choose not to engage in a substantive evaluation of the candidate proposals.
Well, if Vanguard readers haven’t focused on substantive debate regarding the PAC’s objectives, the PAC’s rationale for their endorsements, or the candidates’ economic development proposals, what exactly have Vanguard readers focused on? Here’s my chronological list of the debate that has ensued:
a) Whether the PAC/Chamber is involved in some nefarious plot to harm the community, including rampant conjecture, innuendo, demonization, and character assassination.
b) Whether the PAC/Chamber has the right to or should engage in political advocacy.
c) Whether the PAC/Chamber represents retail interests and/or is dominated by developer interests (although the definition of what constitutes developer interests has been a moving target).
d) Criticism of Souza’s actions/votes on the city budget.
e) Criticism of Souza’s actions/votes of 4 years ago on a peripheral retail development project (Second Street Crossing / Target).
f) Whether it was legal or ethical for West Yost to make a $1,000 PAC contribution.
g) Whether Greenwald is solely responsible for saving the community $100 million on the sewer treatment project.
h) Whether the PAC is in compliance with state and local campaign finance law.
The failure of Vanguard readers to engage in a substantive debate regarding these economic development issues raises a number of intriguing questions.
1) Do Vanguard readers reject, or don’t want to submit to the notion that a robust local economy is necessary to fostering a sustainable community?
2) Do Vanguard readers think the local economy is already robust and is not in need of fostering?
3) Do Vanguard readers think governmental policy and projects have no bearing on fostering a robust local economy?
4) And finally, are Vanguard readers representative of Davis voters?
What gives? Does your silence on these issues mean that you don’t care about the quality of our schools, the level of city services, the well-being of the community? That seems unlikely given the successful passage of Measure C and the likely passage of Measure D. Unfortunately, these measures only partially address the school district and city budget challenges. We owe it to our community to raise the level of debate, to engage in substance, instead of continuing to be distracted by irrelevant, superficial distractions.
Michael Bisch – Davis Chamber PAC Member
PS: Kudos to the Davis City Council for unanimously designating the downtown an arts & entertainment district. Already having been included in an innovation district, the council is increasingly recognizing the potential of the downtown to generate more jobs and revenue for the community. I look forward to the city taking further specific actions to realize this potential.
Contributions to the Davis Chamber PAC, (604 Third Street, Davis, CA 95616; ID: 980946) are needed to support this effort. Individual and business contributions limited to $1,000.
I like the Vanguard a lot, but I’m not sure how diverse the reader pool is. One thing is for sure, there’s a very small proportion who post on here. I think that’s due, in part, to the desire of people to have substantive conversations in public/face-to-face.
I do think you raise a good question about engagement by readers in discussion about economic development issues. There’s been plenty about water issues, but even with that, it tends to be arguing rather than anything constructive.
@Davis Greenwald, have you ever considered a once or twice a year gathering to discuss issues in person? It might be a fun experiment. Add that idea to Mr. Davis’ article on social sustainability, and I think you might have something.
Michael (aka DT)
“The failure of Vanguard readers to engage in a substantive debate regarding these economic development issues raises a number of intriguing questions.
1) Do Vanguard readers reject, or don’t want to submit to the notion that a robust local economy is necessary to fostering a sustainable community?
2) Do Vanguard readers think the local economy is already robust and is not in need of fostering?
3) Do Vanguard readers think governmental policy and projects have no bearing on fostering a robust local economy?
4) And finally, are Vanguard readers representative of Davis voters?
What gives? Does your silence on these issues mean that you don’t care about the quality of our schools, the level of city services, the well-being of the community? That seems unlikely given the successful passage of Measure C and the likely passage of Measure D. Unfortunately, these measures only partially address the school district and city budget challenges. We owe it to our community to raise the level of debate, to engage in substance, instead of continuing to be distracted by irrelevant, superficial distractions.”
I can only speak for myself as a single Vanguard reader, but my silence on these issues is not due to any of the above. It is due to my relative lack of experience with and understanding of economic matters. What would be helpful to me in formulating opinions worth discussing here would be a concise presentation of the candidates best ( in your opinion) proposals and why you think they would be good for the community.
Then we would have a basis for starting a conversation. This is really no different than if a close female relative of yours were to need a gynecological related surgery. I would not assume your initial silence on the matter meant that you thought she was just fine as is or that you didn’t care about the outcome, but rather I would think that maybe you didn’t yet have enough information to start formulating questions and opinions. Also, I would not consider it an “irrelevant, superficial distraction” if during our discussion you were to ask me if I had any special, personal gain in doing the surgery vs a less invasive approach, or if I was receiving compensation from a medical device manufacturer. Motives do count in outcomes, and are fair game for questioning.
For me, the Davis Chamber PAC would carry far more weight by presenting the details of what they support and why, rather than making fairly general statements about supporting x,y,or z candidate based on number of proposals made, or their rhetorical comments about supporting a “robust economy” or “vitality” without any kind of measure of what that actually means. My apologies if such a list of ideas presented by the candidates and critique by yourself or the PAC exists somewhere and I am just not aware of it. If so, please just point me in the right direction.
I LOVE your thinking medwoman. Education might be the best starting place. But, there hasn’t been a venue yet that provides that. Yes, candidates have spoken on their views relating to the local economy. But what the general public needs (me included!) is a group of folks to present something to help us understand the issues and ideas in depth.
I don’t have an economics background, so for me at least, this would be an important first step. We have a lot of people “preaching to their own choirs” here. And it goes well beyond the local economy discussion. I still find myself pretty darn uneducated about the complex water issues.
I could provide the venue for this discussion if someone could provide the speakers and facilitators to guide us in education, then discussion.
CC and Michael
What would be most useful to me would be a listing of proposals along with a balanced presentation of the benefits and downsides of each.
What we tended to see in the debate about the downtown parking structure/business plaza was each side stating their “sound bite” positions
without an in depth presentation of the anticipated financial, social, and environmental pros and cons. Same for the water issues prior to the WAC, and many other issues before the city council.
A forum such as CC is suggesting would be great. But I would settle for a written piece with factual information and realistic numerical predictions
Including what they are based on rather than a blanket “50%” within 5 years projection with your endorsement, but no information regarding how you see that as a reasonable goal, or what it would cost us, as a community, to get there, given that all change has cost as well as benefit.
medwoman, I’m pressed for time at the moment, so I’m only going to respond to one of your comments, although your other comments are far more substantive and interesting.
“Also, I would not consider it an “irrelevant, superficial distraction” if during our discussion you were to ask me if I had any special, personal gain in doing the surgery vs a less invasive approach, or if I was receiving compensation from a medical device manufacturer. Motives do count in outcomes, and are fair game for questioning.”
There is a qualitative difference between the neutral question you pose here vs. the accusation, “Hey gynecological surgeon, I know you’re in the pocket of the medical device industry and the only reason why you want to cut me open is to profit and harm me by doing so.” That’s not even a question, let alone neutral, nor is it conducive to a substantive debate. But that’s what has passed for debate here these past weeks.
-Michael Bisch
DT
Agree about the qualitative difference in wording. And this was part of the reason I chose to preface my comments with the statement that I was speaking only for myself.
I look forward to your comments on my more neutral version of the question regarding motives and the other , admittedly more substantive issues I raised.
[quote]1) Do Vanguard readers reject, or don’t want to submit to the notion that a robust local economy is necessary to fostering a sustainable community?[/quote]
I cannot speak for Vanguard readers as a whole. As a Vanguard reader/commenter/individual, I can unequivocally say I am in support of a robust local economy, as necessary to fostering a sustainable community as you have described. However, that does not necessarily mean I or anyone else agrees on how to achieve a more robust economy…
[quote]2) Do Vanguard readers think the local economy is already robust and is not in need of fostering?[/quote]
I as an individual believe we can do more to foster a robust economy. Parts of the downtown look shabby; parking is a problem that needs to be addressed in the downtown; bicycle safety in the downtown is another issue; bolstering failing business in the peripheral shopping malls throughout the city is a problem that needs to be addressed; the city needs to work closely with UCD to foster start-up businesses; the city needs to have more business friendly processes that are fair to all, etc.
[quote]3) Do Vanguard readers think governmental policy and projects have no bearing on fostering a robust local economy?[/quote]
Governmental policy, process and projects all have a definite bearing on fostering or hindering a robust local economy. Certainly improvements can always be made, and should be continually strived for…
[quote]4) And finally, are Vanguard readers representative of Davis voters?[/quote]
I have no idea if Vanguard readers are representative of Davis voters…
“a robust local economy.”
Another quick thought for DT Businessman, or anyone else to address.
I think that part of the problem is, that as a community, we are not in agreement with what is meant by “a robust local economy”. Some of us seem to consider any business that brings is tax revenue as being good for the community. Others seem to feel that “big box” stores ( for example ) may not have the same interest in promoting the well being of Davis as people who live here and have other than strictly financial interests in a business in this location.
The key for me, is in the word “local”. Given my extremely limited economic knowledge, it seems preferable to me to support businesses with a strong connection to Davis as a community rather than chains which may give back somewhat, but will bail if this particular location is not felt to be a strong performer.
Michael: what specifically do you want the council to do to promote economic development?
More big buildings downtown?
A parking structure?
A sidewalk promenade?
How do you feel the council can help the neighborhood shopping centers?
The problem with discussing economic development is people need to know exactly what it is you or others are proposing.
[quote]The key for me, is in the word “local”. Given my extremely limited economic knowledge, it seems preferable to me to support businesses with a strong connection to Davis as a community rather than chains which may give back somewhat, but will bail if this particular location is not felt to be a strong performer.[/quote]
What do you mean by “local”? Any business will fold up and move elsewhere if they are not doing well financially. Many “local” businesses over the years have done exactly that, popping up elsewhere. Secondly, if a business does not offer customers what customers want, why should they survive just because they are “local” (whatever that may mean)? Thirdly, so do you advocate implementing a “new ordinance” in Davis that no “chain” stores are allowed? What is the rationale for such blatant discrimination, if the chain store fills a niche customers need and want?
“Some of us seem to consider any business that brings in tax revenue as being good for the community.”
medwoman, I discuss economic development at length on a daily basis with a variety of individuals. I know of less than a handful of Davisites who would agree with your statement. Earlier today, you asked for a list of proposals. That list can be found in David’s May 4th article (I asked David to link to the article, but it didn’t happen) and the documents that are referenced in the May 4th article. Forums such as you and CC describe actually takes place multiple times each month. These would be the monthly meetings of the DDBA Visioning, Parking, and Marketing committees and the DDBA Brown Bag Lunches. These forums are all open to the public.
-Michael Bisch (DDBA Co-Prez)
Don, I have made numerous detailed proposals, including underlying rationale, both in writing and verbally in many forums including here. I don’t have time to list them all except for one.
It all starts with attitude, mindset, focus, and will. If you don’t want economic development, you will not have it. If you want it, then you will take the necessary steps to make it happen. So my first specific proposal is for the council to adopt the mindset and approach of Linda Katehi. I want them to drink whatever she is drinking. She said this morning that you cannot cut yourself to greatness. Austerity programs create downward spirals that inevitably result in in a dramatic decrease in the quality of life. To solve the challenges we are confronted with we MUST assess our resources and opportunities, develop farsighted strategies to take advantage of the resources and opportunities, and execute. This is the hallmakr of great societies and organizations. I concur. We have tremendous resources and opportunities. Do we have the will?
-Michael Bisch
PS: Don, each of the items you list requires a separate article.
Sorry, Michael, but this is the problem with these discussions. You go on about how people aren’t debating on your terms, then you won’t give specifics about what it is you want the council to do or the citizens to support. Adopt Linda Katehi’s mindset? That’s a pretty nebulous concept. And if I don’t do that, I don’t support economic development? You are talking in platitudes. Kind of like the incumbent you’ve endorsed.
Sorry, most of us don’t have the time or inclination to attend committee meetings or brown bag lunches. That doesn’t mean we aren’t interested; it’s just that expecting people to physically attend events is not reasonable
Bottom line: what do you want to build? Where do you want to build it? Who would pay for it?
Yup, that’s me in a nutshell, no details, all platitudes. Too busy arranging useless forums instead of posting treatises that meet Don’s approval. I’m also wasting my time on this useless open artist studios project at Court ‘N Cedar (231 G Street). Details at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Open-Door-Art-Studios/314886558563403 and http://www.opendoorartstudios.org/.
I’m also wasting my time on the useless Richard’s Tunnel Gateway Art Piece (details in the Enterprise). I’m also wasting my time arranging exhibit space for the Ceramics Conference (the details were for all to see a couple of weeks ago). I’m also wasting my time on the sculptures sprouting up around downtown the past couple of months. I’m also wasting my time on the murals currently being painted around downtown. I’m also wasting my time on the Downtown Davis Arts & Entertainment District that the council approved Tuesday (see staff report or the video). I’m also wasting my time on the Davis Innovation District (see staff report from Nov 2010). I’m also wasting my time finding tenants space (nestware for instance), filling space for landlords (Downtown UCD Bookstore for instance), facade renovations (508 Second Street for instance), assisting businesses in their expansion needs (YFCU for instance), forming innovation hubs, due diligence on EDCs, improved Dowtown lighting, parking, and wayfinding. I’m also wasting my time on the upcoming Buy Local Campaign that you surely won’t be interested in, Don. Yep, that’s me, blah, blah, blah.
This stuff has been, is being built, or will be built in Davis (except for the EDC which likely will be countywide). The private sector has built, is building, or will build most of this stuff.
-Michael Bisch
Disclosure: none of the foregoing is an individual effort on my part.
-Michael Bisch
Ok, never mind. I won’t try to discuss anything with you on the Vanguard again. You are simply too abrasive and don’t seem to want to have an actual conversation. Sorry, Michael, but I don’t think you serve the DDBA or the ChamberPAC well by your approach here.
Michael, thank you for including links in your article. The Vanguard is frustrating in that regard, with David and many commenters basing conclusions on short references to documents that aren’t easy to track down.
You’re wrong to chastise “Vanguard readers” for your perceived shortage of good contributions toward the topics you mention for several reasons:
1. Once David jumped on the contention that you were operating illegally, rational discussion about the merits of the things (and people) your organization is promoting pretty well came to a halt.
2. Don and Michael H. apparently have hated you for some time, and their immediate reactions to anything that includes your name (or Steven’s) drags the conversation down to personal invective. That you respond in an antagonistic way (perhaps understandably) contributes to the rest of us figuring it’s not worth taking sides, even on the merits.
3. The decision to endorse council candidates may be backfiring with respect to your outfit’s bigger issues. It’s almost as though the endorsement choices require those who support others to take opposition to your other issues.
Lots of people follow the Vanguard without speaking out. I think you’d do well to continue providing information while, at the same time, lightening up on Sue’s desire to maintain Davis quirkiness and ignoring Don’s and Michael’s baiting.
JustSaying: [i]Don and Michael H. apparently have hated you for some time[/i]
I can’t speak for Michael, but in my regard that statement is untrue. I think Michael’s approach is harmful to the interests he represents. I do not have any personal animus toward him, and on many issues we agree.
I promise I won’t take offence anymore at being told I’m a shill for evil developers, am engaged in illegal activity, and talk only in platitudes. Breath in, breath out. 🙂
OK, now that I’ve lightened up, who wants to discuss the merits of the projects I rattled off at 1:50PM, today? Or the merits of the projects and policies that the candidates rattled off? Or whether economic development is vital to the well-being of our community?
-Michael Bisch
Michael Bisch: “So my first specific proposal is for the council to adopt the mindset and approach of Linda Katehi. She said this morning that [b]you cannot cut yourself to greatness[/b]. Austerity programs create downward spirals that inevitably result in in a dramatic decrease in the quality of life. To solve the challenges we are confronted with [b]we MUST assess our resources and opportunities, develop farsighted strategies to take advantage of the resources and opportunities, and execute[/b]” (emphasis mine)
Don Shor: “[i]Adopt Linda Katehi’s mindset? [b]That’s a pretty nebulous concept[/b].[/i]” (emphasis mine)
I’m sorry Don but the concept doesn’t sound nebulous at all, in fact it sounds like a specific action plan.
[b]Assess resources and opportunities, develop farsighted strategies and execute.[/b]
When I consider our City Council, conversations around town, and especially those here on the Vanguard, I would say that we have a great deal of discussion (everyone has an opinion), we do less well on developing farsighted strategies (though here I give Rich Rifkin considerable praise for his efforts on pushing ‘total compensation’) and we completely fail on execution.
In my experience, Michael is someone who likes a list of action items at the end of any discussion and as a consequence I believe he gets frustrated with people (like you in my opinion) who seem to be stuck in the ‘talk about it’ mode. Perhaps instead of criticizing his approach you might try to responding to his specific ideas with ideas and action items of your own?
“3. The decision to endorse council candidates may be backfiring with respect to your outfit’s bigger issues. It’s almost as though the endorsement choices require those who support others to take opposition to your other issues.”
JustSaying, it sounds like you’re referring to partisanship?
-Michael Bisch
Develop Nishi, build a parking/retail structure, rezone land for greater flexibility, work with Target to develop Pads A – D, work with the owners of the neighborhood shopping centers to fill vacancies.
Elaine
“hirdly, so do you advocate implementing a “new ordinance” in Davis that no “chain” stores are allowed? What is the rationale for such blatant discrimination, if the chain store fills a niche customers need and want?
Of course not. And I think this kind of question is “a distraction” much as DT was accusing others of making.
No where did I say there should be an ordinance against any kind of business. I am merely stating my personal preference for the types of development I would like to see. I think we would probably still be allowed to have personal preferences without being some how judged as ignorant, selfist, or “drinking the koolaide” as some have implied.
Nishi is a massive opportunity for the community. Rezoning land for flexibility can be problematic depending on where and what you mean by “flexibility”. Develop pads A – D? I have mixed feeling with that one, but what’s done is done. A number of the neighborhood shopping centers are underperforming. That means they’re opportunity sites. I have my doubts that we will be able to realize the potential with the current owners. So, which mix of council members is most likely to move these projects forward over the next 4 years?
-DT Businessman
Don: “[i]Develop Nishi, build a parking/retail structure, rezone land for greater flexibility, work with Target to develop Pads A – D, work with the owners of the neighborhood shopping centers to fill vacancies.[/i]”
That is great Don, but now the question is which of the five candidates do you think will be able to get these things accomplished?
Michael
My ignorance is showing, but would you mind stating the name of the post of May 4th that you are referencing.
I cannot seem to find anything with the list you have referred me to on May 4th.
Also, I do not doubt that there are frequent meetings of business folks in town, much as there are frequent meetings of docs. The problem for me is that my schedule does not allow me to attend lunch meetings other than my own. Ob/Gyns really don’t have much opportunity to attend others forums. So I get most of my information from the local media and an occasional City Council or Board of Sups. meeting when I am able to go. This is not apathy, it is that I have a number of people to support.
What I have not seen, and what would be useful to me are proposals in which both the pros and cons are presented as factually as possible. I admit that I do tend to have a surgical mind set and just as I will explain to a patient what she stands to gain from a surgery, I also will explain what it will cost her interms of time off work, physical pain and anticipated recovery time, loss of fertility…. I want to know not only what your vision is, but what it is going to cost, not only financially, but also in terms of the other areas I mentioned including the environmental and social costs.
[i]”…now the question is which of the five candidates do you think will be able to get these things accomplished?”
[/i]
Probably Brett, Lucas, and Dan. The other question is how have the incumbents done in getting them accomplished?
In reply to the repeated statement that there has not been substantive discussion of economic development issues, I am copying and pasting my comments from the May 5 thread cited above.
—
Ok, Michael, I’ll bite. I read through Stephen’s list, and I think there is a lot of insider jargon.
I read the minutes of BEDC, but most people probably don’t know what BEDC is, much less what the CEDS is. I’ve read the CEDS. It is very broad, and to say “support” it is not very meaningful.
Support DSIDE? There is a blog that hasn’t been updated since it was created, and a website (which he links) which has barely been updated. If DSIDE is doing anything, it’s not being very public about it. So I don’t know what “support DSIDE” means.
Is someone in fact doing a cost/benefit analysis of an EDC? Is Stephen? Staff? Is that a serious proposal, and is it something that would typically be done in a community as small as Davis? Or is it a regional proposal?
He supports developing Nishi, which is good. It would be useful if either incumbent councilmember could give us an update on the status of that site and what council is doing to move it forward.
People may be interested to know that suitability assessments are being done for peripheral sites for a business park. They probably have no idea there is a special committee devoted to that, nor do most people realize one of the candidates (Lucas) is on that committee. I read the minutes. It seems a report is imminent. I expect there will be lots of public discussion when any actual action item goes forward to possibly develop the Mace Curve, the Parlin site, or other land that would require a Measure R vote. If Stephen supports annexing land for a business park, that would be useful info for the voters. But all he advocates here is studying the suitability of such a proposal. That’s actually rather vague.
Item 6: “Adopt and execute (including the allocation of necessary resources)”… Does that mean he advocates a budget item to increase staff time, or staff resources, for the listed proposals?
A “shop local” program is a great idea, but it requires staff, funding, and lots of volunteer action. Much of Item 6, if actively implemented, would require budget increases.
7 – 8: he supports the parking structure. Again with the jargon: a RFP means putting it out for bid, I guess. I thought there was already a proposal, a developer ready to proceed. Does he support the project that was before the council already? Or are we starting anew?
9. Downtown signage is great. I assume he’ll submit a budget proposal for that. It would be nice to have signage in other parts of town, too, such as directional signage to the shopping centers in East and West Davis.
Finally, I really would like to know how anyone plans to encourage redevelopment of non-historical properties. Once again, you choose to denigrate the downtown: “Soviet-style structures and older shacks.” I guess you have grand plans for some downtown buildings, but I wonder how the owners and existing business tenants feel about your descriptions and what their opinions might be of your assessment and plans.
Dan has some interesting proposals at the Enterprise op-ed that he linked. I might go into them in more detail, but there is the same problem with several: they require funding. There is little point in proposing an Arts and Entertainment District if it has no funding mechanism. Usually “District” means tax district. So if he is, in fact, proposing an assessment district to fund arts projects — I’d think that would be an added cost businesses and property owners would be averse to paying on top of the DDBA and parking assessments they already have. If he isn’t proposing an assessment district, then I’m not sure what he is suggesting.
He proposes streetscape improvements, and new bike facilities, etc. Again, with the current budget crisis, you’d have to go for only the no-cost options in the short run. That doesn’t mean you can’t develop a plan, with help from the bicycle commission and others. If it’s just parking and some re-striping, for example, probably it coul come out of existing funds. But there aren’t resources right now for major changes.
You can talk about promenades, and widening Richards, and all those other changes, but there are no funds any more. By the way: widening Richards has been before the voters more than once.
What all of this points out is that the top priority for the next council, and probably for the next four years, is the budget.
“Probably Brett, Lucas, and Dan.”
Yet you endorse Sue, Don. How do you square your statements? Also, Brett is ademantely opposed to 1 of your 5 proposals, the parking/retail structure.
-Michael Bisch
You know why I endorse Sue, Michael. I was answering Mark’s question.
Don, actually the CEDS is quite detailed with specific objectives and action items. To say you support the CEDS is absolutely meaningful. That’s why those council members that voted to adopt the CEDS and then voted against the retail/parking project absolutely flip flopped. It showed that their adoption of the CEDS was a fickle, meaningless vote. How dow one vote for a plan and then vote against the very first plan project that comes before them? Is it because they didn’t read the CEDS before they adopted it? The 2 votes came within 60 days of one another. That’s like calling a running play and then throwing deep.
-Michael Bisch
I agree, I’m not real sure what supporting DSIDE means. My guess is it means that you support an effort to promote economic development in the community.
-Michael Bisch
I already stated that an EDC would likely be a countywide effort. The effort is still very much in the conceptual stage and has not reached the point of meriting a cost/benefit analysis.
-Michael Bisch
Nishi, the city, with DDBA, Chamber, and campus support, applied for a grant in February(?) to conduct master planning of Nishi/Solano Park/Gateway, Downtown. I don’t believe a response has been received yet.
-Michael Bisch
Don Shor: “[i]The other question is how have the incumbents done in getting them accomplished[/i]?”
Not well, if you ask me, which is why we have done such a poor job developing a sustainable local business community.
Don: “[i]Develop Nishi, build a parking/retail structure, rezone land for greater flexibility, work with Target to develop Pads A – D, work with the owners of the neighborhood shopping centers to fill vacancies.[/i]”
I see only two ways that Nishi is developed. First, if we are successful recruiting a major tenant (on the same order as Genentech or Intel) or if we manage to create demand for the space by growing a large number of companies started from a UCD related incubator. Of the two, the latter is much more likely, especially considering how utterly unsuccessful we have been in recruiting a company to set up in a tech park at the old Hunt/Wesson site. Planning for Nishi therefore should focus in the short term on developing the space for incubating new businesses at other sites. Michael could tell you how much space Andy Hargadon has said we need, but what I know is that it is far more than we have, and more than we have on the drawing board. If we want Nishi, we need to be building the space for new business now, so that as they grow they develop a demand for Nishi. I don’t expect to see anything significant happen at Nishi for another 5-10 years.
The parking structure/retail space downtown died with the RDA. Not going to happen anytime soon (without new legislation) so it is time to start looking at other options (can you say ‘metered parking.’).
Building out the Target sites, flexible zoning, and improvements at the neighborhood centers all require a change in attitude by the City Council and the City staff. All require the City to get out of their collective command/control mindset and allow businesses to work. As long as the City attempts to keep control of what businesses goes where, and which businesses are ‘appropriate’ for Davis, we will fail on all three accounts.
To those of you who complain that improving economic development won’t get us out of our current problems (David), I would argue that it was the lack of economic development over the past 30+ years that has brought us to the position we are currently in. Improving the business environment in town won’t solve the problem in the short run, but it is the only solution for the long term. Getting rid of the bottlenecks, both on the City Council and among City staff, is the only way that we will overcome our problems. In that regard, institutional memory is a hindrance, not an asset.
“Testing” a Measure R vote on a business/research park has support from all 5 council candidates. All that means is that all 5 candidates are willing to let the voters decide whether a business park should be approved on a particular parcel. That said, there’s probably disagreement on the part of the candidates which parcels merit a test.
-Michael Bisch
A shop local program will require very little staff time, but will require a city subsidy. It will not necessitate a budget increase, rather, a shifting of priorities. The Buy Berkley program cost $35k initially decreasing $5k per year for 4 years after which the city no longer contributed to the project. Don’t quote me exactly on that but the numbers are somewhere around there.
-Michael Bisch
7-8, there is not enough support for the retail/parking project, nor is there RDA funding for the project that the RDA was considering funding. However, that does not preclude developing the city-owned surface parking lot for a higher and better use. Publishing a request for proposals says, OK developers, what is your best proposal for developing this valuable site?
-Michael Bisch
Downtown signage has already been budgeted although not nearly enough. The contract has already been awarded.
-Michael Bisch
Don, really? You do not recognize that many downtown properties are 50’s, 60’s, 70’s era structures with no architecturally redeeming values? That runs contrary to the many downtown studies and city planning documents. That’s like me gettin upset when someone says I’m not 6 foot tall. Well, I’m not. And no, I don’t think the landlord’s get upset when this matter is discussed. I think they recognize that their properties are not particularly appealing. That’s why many are updating their buildings. At least 5 have been updated to some extent in the last year. I’m pretty sure the tenants are quite pleased when the landlord updates their buildings. In fact, some of the leases require it. I really don’t understand what you’re protesting here. This is official city policy.
-Michael Bisch
So you think there is little point in proposing an Art & Entertainment district without funding. Well, I guess you missed my earlier post because the council did just that Tuesday evening. Time shall tell whether there was a point to the exercise.
-Michael Bisch
Streetscape improvements and promenades. You’re not observing downtown closely enough. It’s already happening. We had hoped to do a master planned project with RDA funding, but the council equivocated. Now we don’t have RDA funding. So we’re doing it incrementally, albeit haphazardly. There’s been at least 6 small projects completed since last summer and there are more pending.
-Michael Bisch
I don’t know of anyone seriously advocatin for widening the Richards tunnel. Not sure where that came from.
-Michael Bisch
“What all of this points out is that the top priority for the next council, and probably for the next four years, is the budget.” By this I take it you mean austerity. Wrong.
-Michael Bisch
medwoman, David’s May 4th post is titled “Vanguard Question Council Candidates on Economic Development (Update at 4 pm)”.
The forums I referred to are not exclusively for business folk. All manner of Davisites attend the Brown Bag Lunches. And interested members of the Davis community attend the Parking, Visioning, and Marketing committee meetings as well, particularly bike advocates and A&E enthusiasts. These are forums where “proposals in which both the pros and cons are presented as factually as possible”. All of these meetings are publicy noticed and the public is actively encouraged to attend. The meeting days and times are intentionally set to attract the greatest number of attendees.
-Michael Bisch, DDBA Co-Prez
There seems to be some good energy with the younger folks at the chamber and the reinvigorated DDBA.
But “changing your mindset” is kinda like putting up a new mural or changing the facade of a store.
What matters is the product inside. Eventually trends change, people move on, initiatives become deinitiated, and energy dissipates. Del Paso in Sacramento has been the scene of cycles of arts districts and the energy cannot be sustained.
Culture and cultural capital flourishes when there are less rules and less institutions trying to put a label on it. You don’t need a good label to know you like the wine.
medwoman, here is a link to the article Michael references [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5327:vanguard-question-council-candidates-on-economic-development&catid=50:elections&Itemid=83[/url]
Thanks Matt and Michael
So now I have read the article including attachments and agree that there are a number of ideas, some of which I support, some I would not.
But what is missing for me remains a balanced presentation of the advantages ( other than the rosey projections for 2025) and disadvantages
( costs in terms of crowding, increased cars in the central area, pollution, noise). Perhaps Michael you could direct me to written information on the financial costs of these proposals as well as the negative impacts ( not once mentioned in either Wolk’s or Souza’s comments).
Also I did not see in either of their pieces any statement expressing the concept of “enough”. Both seem to rely heavily on growth, but provide no information on what what they see as the optimal population for Davis. Surely if we are planning out to 2025, we need to have a consensus around what our target population would be and what demographic mix we favor.
What Wolk and Souza have layed out, in surgeons terms, is a rosy picture of life after the surgery. What is missing are the short and long term risks. I don’t suppose you would allow me to operate without knowing future limitations, length of time to recovery, cost of the procedure, common and uncommon complications, likely severity and duration of pain, impact on family members in terms of time off needed for caregiving
as a few examples.
Frankly, I am more concerned by the information I am not seeing than what I am. If this also exists, but I just haven’t found it, can someone direct me there.
“Culture and cultural capital flourishes when there are less rules and less institutions trying to put a label on it.”
civil discourse, I agree with your comment. I have been advocating quite strenously for the council and the community to embrace curiousity, exploration, innovation. All too often we punish it instead of being inquisitive. Much of the progress that has been made these past 7 months in fostering art & entertainment downtown has been by individual initiative without waiting to see whether staff or the council would support it. As it happens, staff and the council have supported it to their credit.
-Michael Bisch
medwoman, your description of the approach to a surgical procedure does not match my recent experience. 2 weeks ago we took my 8 year-old to the hospital because she was suffering severe abdominal pain. I can assure you the emergency room physician, upon admittance, did not explain “future limitations, length of time to recovery, cost of the procedure, common and uncommon complications, likely severity and duration of pain, impact on family members in terms of time off needed for caregiving as a few examples.” This all came much, much later.
What the physician did do is begin an examination to determine the scope of the problem. Costs began accruing the moment we walked into the hospital. The examination began with questions, then gentle finger probing, then urine and blood tests, and then a sonogram. At that point, and after much expense, a surgeon was brought in who diagnosed the problem, with approx. 98% certainty, as appendicitis, explained what you state should have been explained at the beginning of the process, performed the surgery, and all is now well.
Project development occurs in quite a similar fashion as to what my 8 year-old experienced. One doesn’t know at the outset the project scope, so there’s no way of knowing the things that you say must be known at the outset. What we do is begin an exploratory process which immediately triggers expenditures.
Anyway many of the projects that the council members have suggested have exploratory processes underway (e.g. Nishi), or were partially underway and then halted (e.g. the retail/parking project). The details are in the public staff reports.
-Michael Bisch
“”Culture and cultural capital flourishes when there are less rules and less institutions trying to put a label on it.”
What also flourishes when there are less rules are businesses which may be less than optimal for our well being. I will use fast food restaurants as my example. These flourished during our time of infatuation with the automobile, and combined with the decrease in exercise, have led to a literal epidemic of obesity including childhood obesity which threatens us as individuals as well as a society with the personal and economic costs of dealing with the renal failure, blindness, and cardiovascular complications of early onset Type II diabetes.
Again, I think it is important to consider total impact, not just a “growth is good, stagnation is bad philosophy”.
civil discourse, I re-read your post and based on my experience on the retail-heavy DDBA and in assisting my retail clients, I have a different take with this portion of your comment:
“But “changing your mindset” is kinda like putting up a new mural or changing the facade of a store. What matters is the product inside.”
New murals, updating facades, and periodically renovating interiors are frequently critical to retail success. No one knows about the product inside the store unless they go inside. Marketing and promoting are critical to retail success. Facade, decor, color scheme changes are all part of it. That’s why successful shopping centers are constantly updating their look and feel. There are obviously many other critical aspects to retail success, but the look is certainly one of them.
-Michael Bisch
DT Businessman
“explained what you state should have been explained at the beginning of the process, performed the surgery, and all is now well.
I am glad to hear that your daughter is doing well.
I did not mean to imply that all of this should have been explained at the beginning. There is no need to alarm a family for what might turn out to be a bad gastrointestinal virus. This is where I see the limitations of my analogy. It is not unusual in my profession to act first and discuss pros and cons later as in the person who presents exanguinating. This should, in my opinion never be the case in city planning where there is time to reflect on all the pros nd cons. As for the details being in the staff reports, this may be fine if one is in business, or is retired with many hours to review all of these reports. I think this is the point that concerned citizen and I were making about hearing or reading the “Cliff Notes” version
Of the pros and cons of the proposals before voting for City Council. I have made two of my selections based on direct discussion with the candidates at public forums. I would love to hear some detailed analysis, rather than rosey picture painting to help me decide on the third.
[quote]erm: so do you advocate implementing a “new ordinance” in Davis that no “chain” stores are allowed? What is the rationale for such blatant discrimination, if the chain store fills a niche customers need and want?
medwoman: Of course not. And I think this kind of question is “a distraction” much as DT was accusing others of making.
No where did I say there should be an ordinance against any kind of business. I am merely stating my personal preference for the types of development I would like to see. I think we would probably still be allowed to have personal preferences without being some how judged as ignorant, selfist, or “drinking the koolaide” as some have implied.
[/quote]
Let’s take a look at your exact quote:
[quote]erm: so do you advocate implementing a “new ordinance” in Davis that no “chain” stores are allowed? What is the rationale for such blatant discrimination, if the chain store fills a niche customers need and want?
medwoman: Of course not. And I think this kind of question is “a distraction” much as DT was accusing others of making.
No where did I say there should be an ordinance against any kind of business. I am merely stating my personal preference for the types of development I would like to see. I think we would probably still be allowed to have personal preferences without being some how judged as ignorant, selfist, or “drinking the koolaide” as some have implied.
medwoman:The key for me, is in the word “local”. Given my extremely limited economic knowledge, it seems preferable to me to support businesses with a strong connection to Davis as a community rather than chains which may give back somewhat, but will bail if this particular location is not felt to be a strong performer.[/quote]
This sounds as if you do not approve chain stores in Davis because they are truly not “local”. Your preference would be for no chain stores. Yet that would remove Nugget, Safeway, Jack-in-the-Box, etc. Nugget regularly gives to the community, as does Hanlee’s. I am at a loss as to your rationale against chain stores.
Sometimes, Doctor, analogies (like rubber bands) get stretched too far, particularily medical ones. Most of what we discuss here doesn’t have a black-and-white answer and, certainly, doesn’t have dire consequences if the wrong decision gets made. Keep them up, though, I’m learning more about medicine than I knew before.
[quote]medwoman: What I have not seen, and what would be useful to me are proposals in which both the pros and cons are presented as factually as possible. I admit that I do tend to have a surgical mind set and just as I will explain to a patient what she stands to gain from a surgery, I also will explain what it will cost her interms of time off work, physical pain and anticipated recovery time, loss of fertility…. I want to know not only what your vision is, but what it is going to cost, not only financially, but also in terms of the other areas I mentioned including the environmental and social costs.
Frankly, I am more concerned by the information I am not seeing than what I am. If this also exists, but I just haven’t found it, can someone direct me there. [/quote]
The problem here is that some issues cannot be quantified. Let’s take Target for instance. It has been shown that Target has generated much needed tax revenue – which should be a huge plus for Davis. Precisely how much is somewhat open to question, but nevertheless Target has generated tax revenue for the city. However, how do you quantify the possibility, albeit remote, that Target may have destroyed some downtown businesses in the process, e.g. Alphabet Moon (which I personally think is completely incorrect, having shopped at Alphabet Moon)? How do you assess how much tax leakage has been avoided by having a Target here in Davis, rather than Davis shoppers having to spend their dollars at the Woodland Target? How do you quantify the positive aspect that Target provides inexpensive merchandise for the low income who cannot get to Woodland as a practical matter?
Furthermore, what you see as a pro, may be a con to others, and vice versa. Many issues are difficult to assess/quantify. Sometimes good ideas implemented turn out bad; and we hopefully learn from mistakes. No one has a crystal ball. Sometimes you have to take risks, or you will never succeed at anything. Didn’t you take a risk in going to/paying for medical school that for some reason you might not complete your education? Failure can happen, but does that mean you shouldn’t try, even if there are risks involved?
Nugget is locally owned. In fact, the owners live nearby.
There are ordinances in some communities limiting the numbers of certain types of stores, particularly fast-food restaurants. Arcata has a “formula restaurant” ordinance:
“Limits the number of formula restaurants in the city of Arcata, including fast food establishments, to no more than nine at any one time.”
[url]http://eatbettermovemore.org/sa/policies/policy_detail.php?pid=57&policyID=90[/url]
“The problem here is that some issues cannot be quantified. Let’s take Target for instance. It has been shown that Target has generated much needed tax revenue – which should be a huge plus for Davis. “
I don’t think your explaining this right.
First we do not know that target has generated tax revenue. That would require it generates more than it has cost. A net positive. It is something that can be quantified but takes more complex modeling and methodology than what has been employed so far.
Re: Target — It would require access to information that is unattainable.
Don,
A good methodologist could probably do it
Elaine
“This sounds as if you do not approve chain stores in Davis because they are truly not “local”. Your preference would be for no chain stores. Yet that would remove Nugget, Safeway, Jack-in-the-Box, etc. Nugget regularly gives to the community, as does Hanlee’s. I am at a loss as to your rationale against chain stores.”
There is a big difference in saying I prefer locally owned businesses to national chains and saying that I think there should be an ordinance against chains. The latter was what you specifically asked me about. To me there is a difference between a locally operated “chain” such as Nugget with strong local ties and Safeway where the only true interest is profits. And no Jeff and Michael, i do not see profit as evil. But if i have a choice between protit with strong ties to the community or simply profit, i will tend to favor the former. There are some things that I think should be banned and the health sabotaging junk that is sold at most fast food restaurants would be on my personal list. However, I do understand that this will have to be approached in a public education manner much as cigarette smoking has been approached with a marked reduction in this lethal habit.
JustSaying
“. Most of what we discuss here doesn’t have a black-and-white answer and, certainly, doesn’t have dire consequences if the wrong decision gets made. Keep them up, though, I’m learning more about medicine than I knew before.”
Unlike what we would like to think, most things in medicine also do not have black and white answers. However one very important change has been happening during the 30 years that I have been in practice. When I started out, we largely followed an “expert opinion” model of care. We largely learned most of what we knew by fmodelling the behaviors of those with more experience. While this is still a larger part of training in learning procedures and surgical skills, we have moved more and more towards an evidence based model of care based on large prospective, double blinded studies. While I agree that the medical analogy can be stretched too thin, and have sometimes myself pointed out the limitations of my analogy, I think that we would benefit in city planning by taking a more evidence based approach.
Instead of saying either I favor no growth because I am happy with the way things are( pretty nebulous), or I want more business growth for a more vibrant downtown ( equally nebulous) I would like to see projections from all candidates and major publcly active groups not in terms of pretty statements but numbers ( what they would see as the optimal population in 5 / 10 / 20 years, what that would mean in terms of income generation, housing and infrastructure needs, water requirements for the target population, transportation needs, environmental impact …
I know that no one has a crystal ball, however, I would like to know exactly where each candidate and interest group would take the city if they could enact their vision. And I would like it expressed in more specific terms than “promote a more vibrant downtown”
And “support our community shopping centers”.
Also, I am not sure that I agree with your statement that making the wrong economic decision may not have disastrous consequences.
Economic errors in decision making prior to the recession led to many people losing their jobs and their homes. I am sure that they would count this as.a disastrous outcome from errors in economic planning.
medwoman: “[i]…what they would see as the optimal population in 5 / 10 / 20 years…”[/i]
At least with regard to the incumbents, we have a record to look at. Stephen Souza (and Kemble Pope) supported the development which would have added nearly 1900 housing units to Davis. Population at the time was about 60,000, 1900 housing units probably add about 4000+ population. Sue Greenwald voted against Covell Village on the council.
I don’t know what positions may have been taken at the time by Lucas, Dan, or Brett.
[quote]I don’t know what positions may have been taken at the time by Lucas, Dan, or Brett. [/quote]
Lucas was an avid proponent of Covell Village.
I was aware of Lucas’ position. Anyone know about Dan or Brett ?
I , for one, am still considering.
[quote]To me there is a difference between a locally operated “chain” such as Nugget with strong local ties and Safeway where the only true interest is profits. [/quote]
For the life of me, I cannot figure out what you mean by “local”??? Why does Nugget have strong local ties, but Safeway does not? Does the local Jack-in-the-Box qualify as more “local”? Rite-Aid? CVS Pharmacy? Dollar Store?…
Because the owners of Nugget live in Davis.
[url]http://www.nuggetmarket.com/history/[/url]
Elaine
Don said it best with his great illustration. For me local implies that those who stand to profit the most live in the community and thus have a stake in the community as a whole, not just their own bottom line. I agree with you that this is not black and white and that there is a continuum.
From my point of view, the optimal business would be one in which the owners lived locally, employed locals, and operated a business that
specifically met the needs of the local community while potentially drawing in business from outside the community. Some businesses will meet some, but not all of my preferred criteria. For example, some chains will be “owned” by franchise holders who live locally. What I personally find least desirable are large national chains with ownership and management living outside the community offering only lower level jobs to locals and therefore relatively willing to leave if that store is not amongst their most lucrative. I imagine that Jeff will defend this as just part of the “constructive destruction” of the free market system. I see it as “destructive destruction” in terms of the negative impacts on the lives of the folks who lose those jobs and those who end up living near the now abandoned and potentially deteriorating vacated store. Does closing a business happen to locals too as you previously pointed out? Of course, people’s businesses fail, they become too illl to continue, they reach retirement age. I have seen all these scenarios during my 25 years in Davis. However, I will take local with its social and community orientation as well as profit orientation over pure profit motive every time.