Move Demonstrates Davis is Serious About Economic Development – Davis has a reputation for being unfriendly to business, but it is working hard to change that perception. Last week, the city of Davis and techDAVIS launched what is being described as “a unique public-private partnership to enhance connections between the city and the technology industry.”
The city and the private company will equally share the funding for the new Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) position, which will report directly to the city manager and “is tasked with working on technology-based economic development throughout the community, branding, advocacy, and partnership enhancement with the business, research, academic, and capital sectors.”
techDAVIS is a 501(c)(3) business association comprised of current and former senior technology executives with close ties to UC Davis and/or the Davis community, as well as ex officio members from the government, academic, and business services sectors.
Their goal is to help grow the innovation economy in Davis and surrounding areas.
City Manager Steve Pinkerton said in a press release from Thursday, “Adding a CIO to city staff will provide the crucial link between the City and prospective businesses looking to move to Davis, and will help develop Davis as the innovation hub for the region.”
The CIO will be responsible for creating the culture, climate and environment that is needed for innovation, while removing barriers, both real and perceived, that hinder business growth.
In addition, “The CIO will provide economic development advocacy; be responsive to the needs of new and existing technology companies and University spin-outs; and operate effectively in the current ‘innovation economy’ developing a positive business climate supporting local business interests and growth of innovation/technology companies with an objective of creating high skilled, high wage jobs, increased private sector investment, new revenue generation and establishing Davis as a regional leader in technology innovation.”
The city contends, “This position will be a key resource in developing a customer service-driven, economic development-focused mindset across all City departments.”
Rob White was appointed to fill the new position by the city manager, and now becomes the Sacramento region’s first municipal chief innovation officer.
Mr. White is currently the CEO of the i-GATE Innovation Hub Initiative and the Director of Economic Development for the City of Livermore. The i-GATE iHub is a consortium of nine cities (including Davis), Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Sandia National Labs, UC Davis, other academic and research institutions, and the technology business sectors.
According to the city, “White was named a White House Champion of Change for Local Innovation in September 2012 and was recognized by the Alliance for Innovation with the Thomas H. Muehlenbeck Award for Excellence in Local Government in April 2012.”
Rob White will begin work March 25th, and will maintain his strong ties to i-GATE in his new role as Davis CIO.
The Contra Costa Times reports that Mr. White has been Livermore’s economic director since 2008 and “is noted for cofounding the Innovation for Green Advanced Transportation Excellence program — an initiative of more than 50 businesses, cities, academic and research institutions, and the Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories — and spearheading successful efforts to bring the Amgen Tour of California cycling race to Livermore for three consecutive years.”
He told the paper, “My hallmark moment is being able to say the relationship between the labs and Livermore has never been stronger or more important.”
In a news release, Livermore Mayor John Marchand commended Rob White “for advancing economic development in the city through building public-private partnerships.”
“Rob has been nationally recognized for his leadership in i-GATE and in the creation of the Tri-Valley’s innovation environments,” Mr. Marchand said. “I am grateful for the work that he has done promoting Livermore’s economic development and fostering our relationships with our national labs.”
The move by the city also drew an article from PublicCEO, a local government news site that is widely read by officials in California’s cities, counties and special districts.
In the city’s release, Mayor Joe Krovoza stated, “With more than 50 technology-based businesses, an emerging entrepreneurial sector, and an unparalleled research university in agriculture, energy and medical technologies, Davis will now aggressively extend its national example of a vital, knowledge-based economy. I am excited to welcome Rob to Davis.”
David Morris, Interim Managing Director of techDAVIS, stated, “We are very excited to enter into this important public-private partnership with the City of Davis. As Davis strives to expand its technology sector, the newly created CIO position will significantly enhance the City’s economic development capabilities. More importantly, we believe that Rob White will be a game changer throughout the region, catalyzing new synergies between the private sector, the University, and the City to accelerate the emergence of a significant innovation economy anchored by UC Davis.”
“I am ecstatic to be joining the City of Davis at this crucial juncture in creating an innovation ecosystem, and look forward to supporting the many local and regional partners while bringing a strong focus on technology-driven economic development in Davis,” stated Rob White. “Utilizing my strong ties to the San Francisco East Bay and the federal research labs, I am hopeful that the partnership between the City and techDAVIS will result in an opportunity to accelerate research, entrepreneurial activity, and growth in technology businesses across Davis.”
The move does come at a cost. Despite techDavis’ support, as the total compensation for this position is $240,000 annually, half of that would be picked up from the city’s general fund at a time when the city has asked firefighters and other city employees to take salary concessions. It is a three-year contract.
Writes city staff, “For the remainder of the 12-13 fiscal year, the total cost of the position will equal $80,000, with $40,000 of that coming from City funds and an equal amount from private funds.”
Funding for future fiscal years will be incorporated into the budget process.
Staff writes, “The City is seeking to create a new Chief Innovation Officer executive management position to provide economic development advocacy, strong leadership and additional staff resources needed to implement the City’s economic development priorities. Working within existing budget constraints, creation of this position is envisioned as a public/private partnership.”
The CIO is responsible for attracting and retaining technology businesses in the city, as well helping to develop a positive business climate that can support local business and growth in innovation and technology companies.
Staff envisions the position as providing a critical link between the city and prospective businesses looking to move to Davis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How does $240K compare to the city manager position?
We should not compare this to the firefighters because one is an operational expense and the other is a revenue development investment. I don’t care about $240,000 if the investment is worth it. What I would like to see is some definitive goals that this position would help achieve.
Also, I am a bit worried about the limited focus on technology. Is this the only economic development that the city can accept? I don’t think it is enough.
“Move Demonstrates Davis is Serious About Economic Development” -David Greenwald
Reading David’s statement this morning, I had a flashback to David’s list of biggest 2012 blunders (or something like that) with the Chamber PAC winning the #2 spot if memory serves me correctly. For those without a photographic membery, here is the mission the PAC was given by the Chamber when it activated its PAC last year (as stated verbatim in its launch press release):
“The Davis Chamber of Commerce does not relish engaging in local politics; it would much rather focus on policy, projects, and job creation to improve our quality of life. However, it would be irresponsible not to act. “Business as usual” is no longer a viable course of action. It is imperative that the Davis community has political leadership capable of fostering a community that is not only socially and environmentally sustainable, but also economically sustainable.
Our community deserves elected officials and government staff who are willing and able to work constructively with community organizations and private industry to find solutions for today’s problems.
We intend on mobilizing our resources to encourage our community to support or oppose ballot measures and elect a city council that will focus on already identified community challenges, craft effective strategies to meet them, and execute those strategies in a timely fashion.”
Does anyone still doubt that the Chamber PAC is fulfilling the mission that it was given?
-Michael Bisch, Chamber PAC
And here’s the list of economic policies and projects that the Chamber PAC suggested be pursued by the new City Council in the aftermath of the 2012 council election:
1) Entitle the Nishi / Solano Park / Gateway / Downtown area as a mixed-use, innovation district that would provide space for start-ups and tech businesses, as well as much needed high-density housing, both of which would be in, or in close proximity to UCD and Downtown so that residents and workers can walk and bike seamlessly between the two.
2) Develop and execute a plan to continue the development of the Downtown as an arts & entertainment district to attract visitors and residents. First step in this plan is to beautify the primary visitor entrance to our community and UC Davis by constructing the privately-funded Richards Tunnel Gateway Welcome Arch and Art Project that was proposed earlier in the year.
3) Develop and execute a Buy Local Davis program intended to shift 10% of the community’s purchasing power from national and regional retailers to locally owned retailers.
4) Increase and better manage the supply of Downtown parking. First steps would be to design and install wayfinding signs and to accurately determine daily peak utilization of existing parking capacity.
5) Develop and adopt policies to encourage densification, as foreseen in the General Plan, providing for additional mixed-use development, while increasing the share of bicycle and pedestrian travel (i.e. “smart growth”).
6) Re-examine and modify the zoning of the Target shopping center on 2nd Street to encourage the development of the vacant retail pads in a fashion compatible with our community vision.
7) Create a public/private economic development corporation (“EDC) that would attract, retain, and grow companies in specific industry sectors, leveraging community the regions assets, those of UCD in particular, pursuant to an Economic Development Plan to be developed by the EDC, with specific measurable goals. Such an EDC would dramatically boost and compliment, not replace, existing city staff economic development efforts.
#3 is the one item on the list that the community has yet to make substantive progress on.
-Michael Bisch, Chamber PAC
Frankly
” I don’t care about $240,000 if the investment is worth it.”
I have two questions for you.
1) what would the compensation be for the analogous position in the private sector ?
2) How would you define “worth it” ? In businesses created ? In tax revenue for the city ? In jobs created, and if so, at what salary range ?
“Does anyone still doubt that the Chamber PAC is fulfilling the mission that it was given? “
i don’t think it’s a matter of doubting the chamber’s attempts to achieve their mission, i think it’s a matter that the chamber stepped on that mission by getting entangled in politics, whereas the chamber has been most effective as an advocate outside of the political process.
put another way, we can all agree on positions like this, we all will disagree on the best councilmembers.
Michael Bisch:
It was No. 9 not No. 2.
[quote]9. ChamberPAC – The Davis Chamber of Commerce formed a political action committee and became much more active in local politics. In so doing, they became somewhat controversial in some circles and, at least in their initial foray, we can question how effective they were. The ChamberPAC spent most of its money supporting a parks tax that had no real opposition. They also supported the parcel tax, which likely would have passed otherwise. Their boldest move was in endorsing three council candidates: Dan Wolk, Lucas Frerichs and Stephen Souza. To call this disastrous would probably be too strong, but they ended up supporting two candidates that were going to win anyway and a third candidate who finished dead last and opened them to sustained criticism. We will see what the future holds for the ChamberPAC, but at least in year one, the efforts were largely a bust.[/quote]
I stand by those comments and agree with DP before me that the Chamber has been more effective as an advocate for business interests than they have in the realm of politics.
[i]what would the compensation be for the analogous position in the private sector?[/i]
I think $240,000 is on the high side, but getting a qualified person for this role probably requires something in the $160,000 – $220,000 range.
For comparison, the Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Association made $270,250 in salary in 2011.
However, she is an executive manager of the entire organization (about 10 employees I think) and reports to a board of directors.
I assume that this $240,000 is just salary, and does not include the cost of any benefits. But the question is what are some goals I would expect for our $20,000 per month Mr. White?
Ultimately this should come down to net revenue projections to the city. If this is a three-year position, then I would say that we need projections that at least result in a cost-benefit break-even by the end of those three years, and projects net revenue increases for the subsequent years. I think increasing the number of good paying jobs is another goal we should expect. Beyond that, maybe some more qualitative goals of improving the assessment of Davis’s business friendliness.
DP and DG, you fail to acknowledge that the business community was not making much progress in getting the political leadership to focus on economic development, let alone focus on community priorities, in the absence of political advocacy. The exact opposite is the case.
-Michael Bisch
I acknowledge that point, but I believe that the reason that they are paying attention now has more to do with the individuals on council and their commitment to economic development as opposed to previous members who gave it lip service.
Whoops! I meant to type, “…let alone focus on community sustainability priorities…”.
-Michael Bisch
DG: “[i]I acknowledge that point, but I believe that the reason that they are paying attention now has more to do with the individuals on council and their commitment to economic development as opposed to previous members who gave it lip service.[/i]”
One of the primary focuses of the Chamber PAC was to get individuals in office with a commitment to economic development as opposed to just ‘lip service,’ so if you acknowledge that there is a more receptive audience on the current Council, how can you say that the Chamber PAC has not effective? It sounds to me that you are confirming their effectiveness but don’t want to come out and admit it.
Perhaps, Michael, you could be more specific as to what the Chamber PAC (or Board) did to bring about the appointment of a Chief Innovation Officer.
Frankly
“Beyond that, maybe some more qualitative goals of improving the assessment of Davis’s business friendliness”
I agree with your first two points.This third is a little too ephemeral for me as stated.Within the past few years it looks to me as though a number of “business friendly activities” have been occurring especially in the downtown area with the renovation of old police department to 33, the new Mishkas,a number of new restaurants, upgrades of store fronts, and the quest for a permanent music venue. These types of projects, along with those that take advantage of our unique proximity to UCD I strongly support. If what you mean is greater openness to what I see as outmoded automobile based strip mall and large brick and mortar chain stores ….not so much so.
Don Shor: “[i]Perhaps, Michael, you could be more specific as to what the Chamber PAC (or Board) did to bring about the appointment of a Chief Innovation Officer.[/i]”
Perhaps I missed it, but where, Don, does Michael claim that the PAC was directly responsible for this appointment? By my reading, he is commenting on David’s statement that the “Move Demonstrates Davis is Serious About Economic Development” and pointing out that since its inception, the Chamber PAC has been working towards this goal of a serious move towards improved economic development. I don’t hear him saying they are solely responsible for the change, nor that they are functioning in a vacuum. I see it more as a comment to those, including you, who argued that the Chamber of Commerce was making a mistake getting involved in politics. You may still believe that, but I don’t think at this point that the facts support that belief.
I think that the Chamber getting involved in politics had mixed outcome. The manner and tactics chosen by the Chamber PAC were not good for the image of local business, IMO. At this point, Davis business is represented to the public by the actions of the Chamber PAC and the mistakes of our leading businesswoman in the last election. That isn’t great for the rest of us, and it’ll take a while for local businesses to recover from those image issues. I applaud the more positive actions taken by the Chamber, and by others such as John Natsoulas, to promote a more positive image of local business.
Since he keeps re-posting the objectives, and claims success in achieving them, it isn’t unreasonable for me to assume that they are in the context of the thread he has posted them on. So when Michael posts about the objectives and accomplishments of the Chamber PAC on a thread about a new Chief Innovation Officer, I assume he is making some tenuous link. Silly me.
“how can you say that the Chamber PAC has not effective? It sounds to me that you are confirming their effectiveness but don’t want to come out and admit it.”
Start with I don’t think they played much of a role in who is on council.
Frankly: [quote]What I would like to see is some definitive goals that this position would help achieve. [/quote]
I agree. I do like the split cost and the three-year term to the contract. I think this is an excellent approach.
[quote]Also, I am a bit worried about the limited focus on technology. Is this the only economic development that the city can accept? I don’t think it is enough.[/quote]
It’s what you can get broad consensus on. Think of it as the low-hanging fruit.
DTB and DG:
No doubt, the Chamber’s entrance into politics is controversial for some folks – that isn’t surprising. I believe the business sector realized that the City was falling far behind with respect the the economic sustainability leg of the stool, and decided that being more involved in the political side was necessary, given the loud, effective voices of the “NOE” crowd. While the ChamberPAC’s renewed efforts are relatively young, I believe the ChamberPAC is influencing the discussion and impacting the outcome of some of the important issues regarding economic sustainability. That doesn’t mean they necessarily caused an outcome,but I do believe they had an impact. In my view, that is good for Davis.
Don – you mentioned image problems for businesses. In your mind, how does that tarnished image manifest itself? Are these businesses being shunned somehow? If so, who is shunning them and how would you suppose those folks go about deciding which business to shun?
Don Shor: “[i]At this point, Davis business is represented to the public by the actions of the Chamber PAC in the previous election, and the mistakes of our leading businesswoman in the last election. That isn’t great for the rest of us, and it’ll take a while for local businesses to recover from those image issues.[/i]”
I completely disagree on both accounts.
The Chamber was instrumental in pushing economic development to the forefront in the last election, arguably making it one of the primarly focuses of the election. Their willingness to point out how one candidate’s actions on Council had been a significant impediment to economic development set the stage for evaluating the candidates not just on their positions, but also on their ability to collaborate and cooperate in order to get things accomplished. While I don’t think the Chamber calling out Sue Greenwald’s actions was the reason she failed to win re-election (I think that ultimately came down to her disastrous TV interview over the lawn signs imbroglio) I do think that making her actions a campaign issue gave voters the impetus to look for alternatives and to consider a more respectful and collaborative approach to governance. I think Sue’s supporters thought the approach was inappropriate, but I do not think that position was widely held in the community, nor do I believe the Chambers actions caused any significant image problems for local businesses. Quite the contrary.
As to your other claim, I don’t see how Jennifer Anderson’s poor decisions caused image problems for anyone but herself and her store.
On the technology focus, Don writes [i]”It’s what you can get broad consensus on.”[/i]
Does anybody want to take a stab at explaining why?
That is a very limiting business bias that does not make much rational sense to me if you are trying to achieve the following goal:
[quote]removing barriers, both real and perceived, that hinder business growth.[/quote]
As it at least implies that non-technology business is not welcome.
[i]As to your other claim, I don’t see how Jennifer Anderson’s poor decisions caused image problems for anyone but herself and her store.[/i]
I would take this one step further.
I don’t think Jennifer Anderson’s actions caused any damage to her or her store. Most shoppers don’t care. Those that do and have a big enough problem to boycott her store probably spend little money at her store. A percentage of those are also stuck having to shop at her store after having worked hard to prevent any alternatives from being developed in Davis.
Then we have people that like what she had to say, and were surprised to discover right-leaning prominent business owner in their midst. These people magically seem more drawn to her store.
Lastly, it still remains to be seen how caring and righteous her actions were compared to those that believe she was wrong.
frankly, i don’t think you understand how this hurts davis ace. you see, i’m not going to boycott them, i’m just not going to go out of my way to shop there when i can go elsewhere and spend less.
Frankly:
[quote]On the technology focus, Don writes [i]”It’s what you can get broad consensus on.” [/i]
Does anybody want to take a stab at explaining why? [/quote]
Tech is clean, it doesn’t siphon revenues from existing businesses, it ties in nicely with the presence of the university; tech firms tend not to need complicate infrastructure, they don’t create a lot of traffic. We have locations for them, and the least controversial site (Nishi) is amenable to tech firms. They could even fit in a business component of ConAgra, and don’t need a whole new peripheral location.
[quote]That is a very limiting business bias that does not make much rational sense to me if you are trying to achieve the following goal:
removing barriers, both real and perceived, that hinder business growth.
As it at least implies that non-technology business is not welcome.[/quote]
Not necessarily. Just other types of business are more difficult to locate, are less agreeable to neighbors. Everybody likes tech firms. Nobody likes things like steel mills and tomato canneries. So not all businesses are created equal as to how achievable they are.
[quote]I don’t think Jennifer Anderson’s actions caused any damage to her or her store. Most shoppers don’t care.[/quote]
Most don’t, some do. I have had comments from shoppers about it. It’ll pass, but at the moment she’s the most visible face of downtown business. Look, I like Jennifer and I think the Anderson family has done a lot for this town. I’m not saying I agree with those who were upset by the contretemps in November.
Mark: [quote]Their willingness to point out how one candidate’s actions on Council had been a significant impediment to economic development set the stage for evaluating the candidates not just on their positions, but also on their ability to collaborate and cooperate in order to get things accomplished.[/quote]
Then why did Stephen Souza come in last?
[i]Tech is clean[/i] (not necessarily, it depends on the business),
[i]it doesn’t siphon revenues from existing businesses[/i] (so then, Davis should only have one restaurant based on this thinking),
[i]it ties in nicely with the presence of the university[/i] (so do many other businesses)
[i]tech firms tend not to need complicate infrastructure[/i] (not necessarily, that depends on the business),
[i]they don’t create a lot of traffic[/i] (not necessarily, that depends on the business).
[i]We have locations for them…[/i] (yes, and we have a lot of homes for wealthy white people too, but we work hard to be a diverse community.),
[i]and the least controversial site[/i] (Nishi) is amenable to tech firms (and why not other firms?).
[i]They could even fit in a business component of ConAgra, and don’t need a whole new peripheral location[/i] (true, and so can other types of business).
Well, since you don’t like my arguments, let’s just hope the new CIO develops a process for getting input from across the community and works to develop consensus. That way you’ll have your say, and will get to see if there’s any support for expanding business development beyond tech firms in the short run.
[i]frankly, i don’t think you understand how this hurts davis ace. you see, i’m not going to boycott them, i’m just not going to go out of my way to shop there when i can go elsewhere and spend less.[/i]
Davis Progressive, I don’t think you know how many people now go out of their way to shop at Davis Ace because of Jennifer Anderson’s actions. I know quite a few people living in El Macero that told me that they stopped going to West Sacramento and now shop at Ace for their hardware and housewares after reading about what she did.
Keep in mind too that your lack of shopping does not hurt Jennifer Anderson as much as it hurts her employees and the city tax revenue. But, I certainly understand it if you need to “hurt” someone for having the audacity to take an anti-Davis-liberal stance on some political topic.
Personally, I rarely let politics corrupt my shopping habits, but that is just me.
[i]let’s just hope the new CIO develops a process for getting input from across the community and works to develop consensus.[/i]
For $240,000, I agree.
I am a bit confused with the conversation about this being about “technology” or “tech firms”. The position concerns [i]innovation[/i], which, presumably, could be very low tech. For example, would not the community welcome a firm that came up with innovative ways to harvest tomatoes that uses far less energy? Does that mean it would be a “high tech” intervention? Or what about ways to deliver nitrogen, in smaller amounts, to plant roots using existing irrigation technology (much decidedly low tech). These examples may be silly or unrealistic but I use them to suggest that innovation going forward may have more to do with better maximizing existing technologies rather than seeking new/better technologies.
Perhaps my confusion is over the word “technology” itself. What exactly do folks mean by that? Computers? Microbiology? Not sure. To me, innovation takes the intellectual strengths developed within the university setting and seeks ways to connect them to real world issues in our community–be that locally or further afield. Innovation comes in many forms and should be built around the comparative advantages developed at UC Davis. These may or may not be new technologies.
Robb: it comes from the first paragraphs of the article.
[i]”Last week, the city of Davis and techDAVIS launched what is being described as “a unique public-private partnership to enhance connections [b]between the city and the technology industry.[/b]”
The city and the private company will equally share the funding for the new Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) position, which will report directly to the city manager and “[b]is tasked with working on technology-based economic development…” [/i][/b]
MW: “[i]evaluating the candidates not just on their positions, but also on their ability to collaborate and cooperate in order to get things accomplished[/i].”
Don Shor: “[i]Then why did Stephen Souza come in last?[/i]”
I’m not sure of what your point is Don. Obviously, Stephen came in last because the voters thought the others were better candidates, but what does that have to do with a goal of a more collaborative and cooperative approach to governance? I think the three who won the election fit the goal pretty well, don’t you?
Frankly
“we have a lot of homes for wealthy white people too”
So does this mean that you do believe that we have racially discrimatory practices in Davis, at least as regards housing ?
[i]So does this mean that you do believe that we have racially discriminatory practices in Davis, at least as regards housing [/i]
No, we have under-representation of certain minority groups in our population because our housing costs are high… thus creating a filter of higher economic class which favors whites and Asians. However, we work to create affordable housing options as a way to help offset that disparity.
I was making the point that we should consider business in a similar way… strive for diversity.
I bet that the racial mix of owners and employees of these technology businesses closely match the racial mix of Davis less the affordable housing we create. I think that says something about our interests and motivations.
Frankly
“I think that says something about our interests and motivations.”
What do you think it says about our interests and motivations ?
[i]I think the three who won the election fit the goal pretty well, don’t you?
[/i]
Yes indeed. And I think the actions and endorsements of the Chamber PAC have almost nothing to do with the makeup of the current council.
Don: Who changed the conversation to focus on economic development and getting things accomplished? Sue Greenwald? David Greenwald? You?
The Chamber and the Chamber PAC changed the conversation, focused the election on economic development and good governance. You and David can go on thinking that they had nothing to do with the election results, but the change in the conversation has been a direct result of their actions. And don’t fool yourself, the importance of the election was just as much about removing an impediment as it was about adding better Council members.
Yes. Of course. The Chamber PAC is completely responsible. Silly of me again. Money well spent. I’m sure Brett is very appreciative.
Love the sarcasm Don, but you just don’t get it do you? Nobody, especially Michael, is claiming that the Chamber PAC was completely responsible, but it is wrong to say that they did not have an impact. I believe your distaste for the PAC has blinded you from the reality of the situation. Just my take.
I expect that Brett is appreciative that part of the focus of the election was on “how” people act, not just what they believe. If anyone benefited from that changed focus is was the candidate who was described at the time as the ‘better progressive than Sue.’ I am not a member of the Chamber or the Chamber PAC Board (though I did donate money during the election), but I doubt that they were disappointed when Brett prevailed in the election.
[i]I think that says something about our interests and motivations.”
What do you think it says about our interests and motivations ? [/i]
I think for some people living in Davis that claim strong advocacy for poor minorities, that advocacy stops when those poor minorities would move to their neighborhoods… in too great of numbers, and send their kids to the public schools… in too great of numbers.
Things that protect that from happening…
High housing costs.
Lack of retail to bring down the cost of goods sold through competition.
Limits to support for economic development which reduces opportunities for lower-cost commercial property to support more mon-and-pop businesses.
A tendency for the people living here to be snobish and unfriendly.
When you remove the student population, Davis is very highly white and affluent and I think there are a lot of people living here that like it that way, and use a presentation of caring for the poor as a front to keep them from being labeled as bigots.
Think about it this way. If Davisites really liked living with more poor minorites, there are many other places they would live. Or, they would advocate for more residential development and also expanded economic development.
[i]Yes. Of course. The Chamber PAC is completely responsible. Silly of me again. Money well spent. I’m sure Brett is very appreciative. [/i]
Somehow, even without the ChamberPAC’s endorsement, I expect that Brett (and Sue) understands the effectiveness of the business community’s message regarding Sue’s inability and unwillingness to listen to anything but the voices in her own head. The voters got that message (and not just from the ChamberPAC or other business entities) and made their decision – Hello Brett, goodbye Sue.
I think Brett is an outstanding council member, and understands the importance of good communication with the business community as well as the other interest groups in town.
Re: ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6201:chief-innovation-officer-bold-move-by-the-city&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86#comment-178583[/url]) On developing consensus
The argument that Frankly made highlighted a fundamental principle of that supports innovation, which is:
It is sufficient to list the concerns. It is unnecessary to prescribe the form of the solution.
From that post, the list of concerns (expressed as requirements) are:
The new firm:
o Is not dirty
o Does not compete with existing businesses
o Does not conflict with the university
o Does not require complicated infrastructure
o Does not create a lot of traffic
o Does not require a location we don’t have
o Does not require a controversial site we have
o Does not need a whole new peripheral location
With the list of concerns, it is unnecessary to prescribe the form of firm to be “technological”. Any firm that satisfies the requirements should be equally evaluated regardless whether they are “technological”. Doing so will include innovative firms that are not “technological” to come to Davis.
* * *
On Fair Compensation for the Agent
In terms of the payment for the CIO position, I think there is a fundamental equation that determines the fair salary for the position.
The pattern of that equation involves three stakeholders:
1) The Principal who would like to attract a new customer
2) The Agent who helps the Principal to find a customer
3) The Customer who is willing to pay the Principal for some benefits it receives from the Principal
The prompt is: how much should the Principal pay the Agent, and what wage setting mechanism would automatically balance/regulate the fair payment.
I think the prompt is well-defined, and a solution can be derived.
The solution can be applied to many situations in daily lives. It should be commonsense to the general public, as prevalent as arithmetic itself. The fact that we are asking this question tells us that such an equation is a cultural asset. If it can be identified, the culture will move a lot closer to a conflict-less ideal.
Frankly
Wow !
From your description, I would not even know that we were living in the same community.
“high housing costs” True, but you will find many who support the development of affordable housing but not if it is merely window dressing for the developers desire to build yet more high priced houses ( as in ConAgra).
“lack of retail to bring down the cost of goods through competition”
Well, the town got its 51-49 percent of the vote Target, and I fail to see how that has promoted your next point about helping mom and pop businesses.
“A tendency for people living here to be snobbish and unfriendly”
I have not found that to be the case here any more than in any other community in which I have lived. I also think that it is highly neighborhood dependent. If you live in a neighborhood in which many people are commuters building their careers and starting their families, if might appear so. If you live in Old East Davis, Village Homes, or one of the cooperatives…. Not so much so.
“Think about it this way. If Davisites really liked living with more poor minorites, there are many other places they would live. Or, they would advocate for more residential development and also expanded economic development.”
If I did think about it that way, and applied my thought to you based on your posts, I would come to the conclusion that you must love living and or working around white leftist effete snobs, otherwise you would choose to live elsewhere. But, I don’t look at it that way. I am well aware that each individual has a unique set of circumstances and values that cause them to make the choices they make and that I am not privy to those motivations.
[i]I would come to the conclusion that you must love living and or working around white leftist effete snobs[/i]
White, no.
Leftist, no.
Snobs, no.
Affluent, yes.
Socially-intelligent, yes.
The reason… the more affluent a person is, in general, the more socially-intelligent the person is and the less likely he/she will negatively impact my desired lifestyle. In my experience, lower income people tend to be messier, louder, more ignorant, and more prone to acting out, etc.
I like living in Davis for a number of reasons, including my low tolerance for these things.
However, there are things about Davis that I do not like. I don’t like the local hypocrisy. For example, residents that opine for more services to low income people but vote to keep housing costs high from limited residential development, and costs of good high from limited retail development. I don’t like it when residents claim they are advocates for the poor and minorities but otherwise posture that they want those people to live somewhere else or to be controlled so they act like affluent people. I don’t like academic elitism and aloofness and a tendency for these same people to be exclusionary while they preach inclusion to the rest of us. I don’t like excessive NIMBYism. I don’t like our low levels of commercial development and very low business tax revenue per capita. I don’t like our city financial situation and the fact that we are paying city employees WAY more than we need to or should given employment market realities.
In a nut shell, I don’t like the fake inclusion that many people in Davis demonstrate on a regular basis, and I don’t like economic stupidity and weakness for making the right economic choices. From my perspective, many Davisites are having their cake and trying to eat it to. Working hard to protect themselves from the impacts of a higher population of lower income and minority people, while trumpeting they care and demanding that the city and others do more to take care of these people and everyone else worthy of some victim designation.
What I would prefer is that Davisites be honest about their clear economic and social class bigotry, like me, and just admit that they don’t want to live with people that have not yet got their economic and social act together.
You see, I support Billybob’s freedom to park his cars on the weeds covering his front yard. I support his freedom for playing his loud country music through his front window while he changes his oil in the middle of the day. I support his freedom allowing his kids to run around the neighborhood screaming their heads off. I support his and his wife’s freedom to fight every other night after she gets home from work or when he gets home from the bar. I support his freedom to burn firewood to heat his house.
I support all of his freedoms, but I also support the freedom that my earned income provides me for living in a neighborhood that Billybob cannot afford. I don’t have a problem with Davis’s exclusionary tendency, just the hypocrisy about it, and the limited options for people to work here and grow their prosperity… especially young people and young families. I wish we had designated neighborhoods with more affordable housing, but I would not live there. Or if I did, I would be motivated to earn more money so I could escape to a neighborhood that better suited my lack of tolerance for certain low-income neighbor behaviors. It is not that this stuff is inherently bad… some people may not have a problem with it. Some do, but instead of moving away, they try to mix in Billybob with the rest of the population and then enact a bunch of rules to take away his freedoms and force him to behave a certain “acceptable” way. That is the Davis approach and why Billybob thinks Davisites are a bunch of elite snobs.
Target had some mom and pop pad space allotted, but it got shot full of holes from those that want to prevent any competition for downtown merchants and also keep the downtown looking like the 1970s.