A reader made the flippant remark that at least we’re not Stockton, and as Stockton continues to struggle with bankruptcy and getting themselves out of debt and obligations, we are quite fortunate. But for most places this side of Stockton, the news coming out this week is not good.
Somehow, approaching the five-year mark of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the city of Davis is still churning a not-so-insignificant $2 million deficit, which represents about 4.7 percent of the budget.
That means in order to close the gap, the city can make cuts, raise revenue or use one-time resources in order to balance the budget.
As the city manager notes, 71 percent of the general fund is tied up in police, fire, parks and infrastructure. In 1998-99, that figure was just 54 percent.
The news is actually a lot worse than all of this implies, as we start drilling down into the numbers. A former councilmember apparently is still claiming that he balanced the budget with a 15 percent reserve during his time.
We note that this council can make the same claims – if they fail to put any money into street maintenance, they can have a budget balanced on paper with a 15 percent reserve. But the failure to properly fund infrastructure, whether it be roads, parks or water, is part of what got us here in the first place.
Two months ago, a consultant report came back showing that if the city does not immediately infuse tens of millions into road maintenance, the city would be facing a deferred maintenance backlog of over $400 million within a few decades.
The bad news is that the current city budget is *only* putting $2.3 million toward street maintenance, and $1 million of that is the money budgeted from last year that was carried over as the city hopes to maximize the bang it gets for its buck.
The city will have to grapple with this issue, as well, on Tuesday night. Staff knows they are behind the eight ball here and recognizes “the potentially unobtainable fiscal needs of the earlier Scenarios” for funding road maintenance at a level likely to, at the very least, prevent the growth of the maintenance backlog.
The result is two proposals. One would provide an infusion of $25 million over the first two years and then increase funding in order to maintain an average PCI (Pavement Condition Index) at 68 for roads and bike paths. The current level was downgraded to 62.
The other scenario would spend the $25 million but maintain a steady funding level of $3 million a year.
Recall that in February, the original consultant projection was at about a $15 to $20 million infusion of money with about $7 to $8 million a year.
Clearly, without added revenue sources, the idea of the city getting to the $7 to $8 million a year level is unrealistic. This not only illustrates the depth of the problems, but also the irresponsibility of past council practices. To claim that they balanced the budget with a 15 percent reserve ignores the failure to fund and maintain not only the city’s road network, but also parks and water.
The second problem is well-documented, and that is the explosion in the early and middle part of last decade in employee compensation and post-retirement benefits.
In one of the shrewdest moves we have seen, the city manager who was directed to consider the fire staffing issue in the context of the budget as a whole, has simply incorporated both the staffing levels and labor agreements into the new budget.
The city manager’s budget, which contains a structural imbalance of over $2 million also assumes that there will be a fire staffing level of 11. Why is this an important move? Because now in order to raise fire staffing levels, the council has to essentially add an additional cost of $443,663 to the current budget deficit.
Already the city is going to be faced with service cuts, possible pool closures, possible reduced hours at key city services desks, and in that context the fire department is going to ask the city to restore their funding? That is going to be a very difficult task.
One council member told the Vanguard that the question is not going be 11 or 12, but rather 10 or 11. Recall that Joe Krovoza at the February meeting at least floated that idea, though the former interim fire chief was not on board with that. But then again, that was before these numbers came out.
At the same time, the heat gets turned up on both the firefighters and DCEA because they have held out on agreeing to the contract that the other five bargaining units have already agreed to.
That hold out now has a cost. Every month they hold out, they cost the General Fund $144,000. Think about that for a second – the labor contracts are nine months overdue, and that is a cost already to the city of $1.296 million.
The city manager projects about $1.7 million per year as the cost of the two labor contracts. That means that fire is not only asking for the city to spend $443,000 more for maintaining the staffing level but also has cost the city probably three-quarters of a million by failing to agree to a new contract.
The heat has definitely been turned up on the fire issue – the firefighters and their union are clearly obstructionists to reform and the path of fiscal sustainability.
Overall, the news is not good, but there is some good news here. No longer do we have a council that is content to proclaim we have a balanced budget with a 15 percent reserve, and ignore the deferred maintenance and the unfunded liabilities.
As the city manager notes, “Over the past two years the Council has been responsibly reshaping the City’s finances to address the challenges caused by the national economic downturn: the loss of long-term funding sources as well as dealing with unsustainable and unfunded costs.”
That is the key. Things are bad now, they are worse than most of us hoped they would be at this point, but the council and city staff is no longer hiding the truth – they are trying to address it.
But it is this realization that makes the failure to act on the fire staffing all the more critical. This is just another piece on the table and another complication.
If the council ends up getting a better solution because of the delay, then we can move. But there are still great risks and dangers here. It is these that should keep every responsible citizen up at night wondering how the city is going to fund our critical infrastructure needs, while maintaining the quality of life and city services in Davis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Despite all the hyperbole we are not Stockton. We are not ground zero of the housing bust.
Naive question but if the city manager is ‘shrewdly putting the staffing into the budget’, to accomplish the fire staffing issue, why wasn’t that done in years past? How can that get around the fire union staffing agreement with the city? Thanks!
[quote]Despite all the hyperbole we are not Stockton. We are not ground zero of the housing bust. [/quote]
That may be so right now, but it’s better to get the jump on our finances now before we become another Stockton.
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”As the city manager notes, 71 percent of the general fund is tied up in police, fire, parks and infrastructure. In 1998-99, that figure was just 54 percent.”[/i]
It would be very helpful to see the two breakdowns side by side. Are there 1998-99 categories that no longer exist? Or are severely reduced?
Is the difference in percentage simply due to different cost escalation rates?
“Despite all the hyperbole we are not Stockton. We are not ground zero of the housing bust. “
Which information provided here is hyperbole?
Matt:
This may help
[img]images/stories/GF-allocation.png[/img]
“why wasn’t that done in years past? “
I’m not sure I understand the question. Last year, the city manager put about $4 million in restructuring savings into the budget, then he brought in Chief Kenley in part to do the audit to create the staffing change plan, and now that has been added as part of the proposed savings in this budget.
No, it confuses me more. What budgetary categories are in the grey area?
You mean the gap between 71% and 100% – you have city manager’s office, support staff, some of the tech people, etc.
Yes, what took up 46% of our city taxes in FYI-99, but only cost us 29% in FY-12? This “grey area” must represent a lot of money; has it been increasing or decreasing in real dollars in the past decade?
“…FY-99…” “; how much has the grey area been increasing…”
P.S.–Thank you Matt and David for the excellent, unrelated information separately provided a week or so ago.
“A former councilmember apparently is still claiming that he balanced the budget with a 15 percent reserve during his time.”
Who is doing this? Does it accurately reflect what happened during “his time”?
[i]Despite all the hyperbole we are not Stockton. We are not ground zero of the housing bust.[/i]
The housing bust did not cause Stockton’s problems. It only accelerated their impacts. The root causes of Stockton’s and Vallejo’s fiscal messes are the same as what we are seeing: severe over-spending on the pay and benefits of city employees. However, Davis has the added problem of having previously rejected a level of economic development commensurate with our city needs.
[quote]Who is doing this?[/quote]I believe DG was being “cute”, by not attributing it directly to Don Saylor.
[i]”…having previously rejected a level of economic development commensurate with our city needs.”
[/i]
Davis voters have not rejected any economic development proposals that I’m aware of. I can’t remember any economic development proposals that have come before the council or the voters that have been rejected. The voters approved Second Street Crossing, and that’s the only large commercial project I can think of that any developer has brought forward.
The notion that Davis residents and political figures oppose economic development is not borne out by any evidence. This city is constrained by geography and history.
Davis has a history of opposing some, but not all, residential development. That is what has usually been proposed by local landowners.
[i] Davis voters have not rejected any economic development proposals that I’m aware of.[/i]
Don, you must be from out of town.
Davis voters routinely reject growth. They reject peripheral development. They reject parking structures downtown. They reject expansion of the downtown and higher buildings. Target barely passed approval.
Davis voters want to maintain their sleepy little college town feel. Then they elect politicians that give away the store to city employees and their unions in return for funding their campaigns. Then they side with these employees in solidarity since many Davis residents also live off the soft money of government. Then they wring their hands with worry over, or else bury their head in the sand while kicking the can down the road for others to deal with, our looming municipal fiscal cliff.
Frankly, I don’t understand, and perhaps, I don’t give a damn… voters “approved” Wildhorse”. Votes approved Second Street Crossing. They rejected Covell Village and Wildhorse Ranch.
Cite ONE time voters have weighed in (in the last 40 years), at the ballot box, on direct proposals for [quote]parking structures downtown[/quote],[quote]expansion of the downtown [/quote], and/or [quote]higher buildings[/quote]. Untruths are easy to make, harder to disprove. Reminds me of another “crime”.
Don Shor: “Davis voters have not rejected any economic development proposals that I’m aware of.”
hpierce: “Cite ONE time voters have weighed in (in the last 40 years), at the ballot box, on direct proposals for…”
Both of you are of course correct, but you are both conveniently ignoring the fact that for generations the citizens of Davis have elected City Councils that have created our current ‘economic development deficit.’
We (the voters) are responsible for the problem, even if we did not vote on specific proposals directly.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”You mean the gap between 71% and 100% – you have city manager’s office, support staff, some of the tech people, etc.”[/i]
JustSaying replied . . .
[i]”Yes, what took up 46% of our city taxes in FYI-99, but only cost us 29% in FY-12? This “grey area” must represent a lot of money; has it been increasing or decreasing in real dollars in the past decade?”[/i]
Or things that we probably should have continued to spend on, but now find ourselves deferring those expenditures.
[quote]”Cite ONE time voters have weighed in (in the last 40 years), at the ballot box, on direct proposals….”[/quote]Ignoring the historic issues in our campaigns for city council is one oversight; forgetting that we approved a direct proposal that now requires a public vote for every development proposal is another.
[quote]”The notion that Davis residents and political figures oppose economic development is not borne out by any evidence.”[/quote]But, what specifically have we supported enough have made it a reality? Doing nothing pretty well assures businesses will locate somewhere that seeks them out. And, what is the geographic constraint other than the fact that the university owns some of the peripheral property?
Does anyone believe that our very public reluctance to approve housing hasn’t had a negative effect on our ability to improve our economy? Or, our local business protectionism hasn’t slowed economic growth? Is our anti-growth reputation really so unwarranted?
Why don’t we just acknowledge that we like everything just the way it is, including our quaint and tiny, low-rise downtown? I’m pretty convinced that we’ll continue the fight to keep things that way, trying to depend on our auto row income until the car dealers disappear to a few historical retail hubs.
Why don’t firefighters even live here? (Just trying segue back to the city budget. Other than the IT specialists and some other support staff and the manager’s office, what cost 46% of our budget a decade ago and only 29% now?)
Mark,
Here’s a list of the council members since about 2000. I see plenty of slow-growth names, but a lot of pro-growth names as well.
Ruth Asmundson
Susie Boyd
Sheryl Freeman
Lucas Frerichs
Sue Greenwald
Michael Harrington
Lamar Heystek
Joe Krovoza
Brett Lee
Ted Puntillo
Don Saylor
Stephen Souza
Rochelle Swanson
Ken Wagstaff
Dan Wolk
Lois Wolk
It’s worth note that many of communities with faster growth policies weathered the downturn less well than we did both fiscally and in terms of sales tax base.
Don you ignore the impact of measure J that placed a choke hold on growth so that pro-growth majorities were thwarted at the ballot box.
[i]And, what is the geographic constraint other than the fact that the university owns some of the peripheral property? [/i]
Look at a map and tell me where economic development would occur.
Frankly: [i]Davis voters routinely reject growth. They reject peripheral development. They reject parking structures downtown. They reject expansion of the downtown and higher buildings. [/i]
Davis voters have both approved and rejected peripheral development of housing.
Davis voters have never been asked to vote on peripheral development of retail and commercial, except for Target. Davis voters approved that.
Davis voters have never even been given an opportunity to vote on parking structures. Some specific interest groups appear to have sidetracked that.
Davis voters have never been given the opportunity to vote on ‘expansion of the downtown’ (whatever that means) or higher buildings. There are higher buildings in downtown Davis, built by Chuck Roe.
I think you are taking the vocal objections of some Davis interest groups and ascribing them to the city as a whole. The voters here will approve projects that are presented well, and that don’t drastically change the character of the city. They won’t approve any and every project that comes before them, but you and I have watched Davis grow substantially over the years. At one time Davis was the fastest-growing city in the county.
But for as long as I can remember, the whole focus of development discussions here has been on residential. The property owners and developers simply don’t bring commercial projects forward. They always want to build high-end housing.
The hyperbole is in using Stockton as an example of what could happen in Davis. Davis didn’t overbuild its municipal infrastructure with borrowed money and the housing market here didn’t crash. Average incomes in Davis are higher too and the unemployment rate is lower. Davis has problems and is in the process of trying to address them but the idea that they are on the same level as Stockton’s or that we are going to go bankrupt is only true if we make no adjustments going forward suggesting otherwise is hyperbolic.
The problem is that wasn’t done.
Here’s what I wrote: “A reader made the flippant remark that at least we’re not Stockton, and as Stockton continues to struggle with bankruptcy and getting themselves out of debt and obligations, we are quite fortunate. But for most places this side of Stockton, the news coming out this week is not good.”
Now where do I state that Stockton is an example of what could happen in Davis. Davis’ problems were failure to invest in infrastructure and growth in compensation based on real estate values that did not keep pace and could not keep pace.
[quote]”Look at a map and tell me where economic development would occur.”[/quote]How many acres are you needing? A 200-acre shopping mall? A 50-acre research park? A 75-acre housing/business park?
There’s open land at the edges of Davis at the north, south, east and west. Now, mostly used for agriculture purposes, the soils also are ideal for development. Might UCD be interested in a joint city-university project using their land? And, we’ve already discussed the Nishi property.
Who has figures indicating whether Davis is much more than a bedroom community? Or, whether the people who have permanent jobs in Davis live here?
I’m trying to understand your point that geography has prohibited us from economic development rather than our attitude/reputation/lack of will/whatever. Please be a little more specific so I can get it.
Don: “[i]Mark, Here’s a list of the council members since about 2000. I see plenty of slow-growth names, but a lot of pro-growth names as well. And for quite a while there was a pretty pro-growth majority there.[/i]”
So? What is your point? We still lag the State average in [i]per capita[/i] Sales Tax Revenues don’t we?
How often in the past 30-50 years have we had Council majorities that favored business growth, job creation and increased sales tax revenues. ‘Pro-growth’ in the Davis vernacular refers to growing houses, not businesses and (non-construction) jobs. The citizens of Davis have voted against our own economic development consistently by our votes for City Council, by the development of our General Plan, and with our failure to support local businesses with our dollars.
I think it says a great deal about our poor choices when you consider that the so called ‘bicycle capital of the world’ is completely dependent upon the sale of automobiles for its economic health.
“I think it says a great deal about our poor choices when you consider that the so called ‘bicycle capital of the world’ is completely dependent upon the sale of automobiles for its economic health. “
Or to move us back on target, that the bicycle capital of the world’s bike paths will fail without the infusion of tens of millions over the next few years.
JustSaying: [i]How many acres are you needing? A 200-acre shopping mall? A 50-acre research park? A 75-acre housing/business park?
There’s open land at the edges of Davis at the north, south, east and west. Now, mostly used for agriculture purposes, the soils also are ideal for development.[/i]
“It is the policy of Yolo County to vigorously conserve and preserve the agricultural lands … especially in areas presently farmed or having prime agricultural soils and outside of existing planned urban communities and outside city limits.”
“Both Yolo County and the City of Davis require mitigation of farmland conversion at the rate of one acre preserved for every acre developed.”
–[url]http://www.farmland.org/programs/states/futureisnow/m_yolo.asp[/url]
Mark: [i]We still lag the State average in per capita Sales Tax Revenues don’t we? [/i]
Yes. And we always will. For reasons of history and geography, and the patterns of regional development.
And we always will. [s]For reasons of history and geography, and the patterns of regional development[/s]. For reasons of our own choices and the decisions of our elected officials.
Nope. Tell me, Mark, where’s all this sales-tax-generating development going to go? Note: see ag land comments above.
Don: “Tell me, Mark, where’s all this sales-tax-generating development going to go?”
Well, it [b]could[/b] have gone in all the places where we built houses, but we made another choice. The point is Don, that we chose to have our current situation with our past decisions and votes, not because it was done to us by “history and geography, and the patterns of regional development.”
Where now? Every commercial building in town, and every piece of empty real estate zoned commercial should immediately be rezoned to allow for retail (or at the very least, conditional use retail). The zoning of the core should be changed to allow for taller buildings, with every building located between 1st street and the South side of 5th street, and between the railroad tracks and the University property, rezoned to allow for retail. Prepare guidelines for how we want the development to look and then control things with design review, but allow the redevelopment to occur. You don’t need more land, we just need to use the land we have more effectively.
It doesn’t help the problem when we allow the University to take over prime commercial space for more offices. The old DISC site would have made a wonderful retail center (and restaurant), but now will be just another office building. Talk about short sighted.
I agree with all of those proposals.
[quote]””It is the policy of Yolo County to vigorously conserve and preserve the agricultural lands….”[/quote]Don, I want to understand your point about how there’s no land to develop around Davis because of “geography.” I don’t understand what the “policy” has to do with your geography point. I’m trying to be more appreciative of the limiting role of geography, but help with a response that has to do with geography.
Are you really claiming that the county policy to “vigorously conserve and preserve” is a geography issue, and one than means Davis cannot annex 150 acres for economic development (commercial and housing) purposes?
Why have we passed through the county millions to keep it from approving development on our borders if it would refuse to allow the city to expand onto the same land?
It’s my understanding that Davis politicians decided not to have the broader “sphere of influence” that most cities adopt in order to control peripheral land use decisions–correct me if I’m wrong.
What role has geography played in limiting our past growth? What economic development initiatives have we tried that have been unsuccessful due to the county? Or, for any reasons other than Mark’s “choices and decisions”?
Don: [i]”Here’s a list of the council members since about 2000.”[/i]
The only person on your list who never served on the DCC since 2000 is Lois Wolk (1990/06/20 – 1998/04/10).
The only two you did not list but fit the 2000 and beyond category are: Stan Forbes (1996/04/20 – 2000/06/20); and Julie Partansky (1992/06/20 – 2000/04/10). I doubt that those two did not both leave office on the same day in 2000. But the dates listed are published by the city.
Source. ([url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/council-meetings-information/council-member-history[/url])
So do I unbderstand that these are points of agreement?:
– Every commercial building in town, and every piece of empty real estate zoned commercial should immediately be rezoned to allow for retail (or at the very least, conditional use retail).
– The zoning of the core should be changed to allow for taller buildings, with every building located between 1st street and the South side of 5th street, and between the railroad tracks and the University property, rezoned to allow for retail.
– Stop allowing the university to take over prime commercial space for more offices when that real estate would make great retail space.
So, is peripheral development the only remaining argument against enhanced economic development within out fair little city?
I struggle finding another city that Davis might consider a successful model matching our complete lack of appetite for any peripheral development. Are we just smarter than all others, or just stubborn to a fault?
“Now where do I state that Stockton is an example of what could happen in Davis.”
You don’t state it you imply it. Otherwise why bother with the Stockton reference at all?
Davis hasn’t grown peripherally? How long did you say you’ve been here?
Yes, we agree on the other things.
Palo Alto probably fits the very slowly expanding footprint model of Davis, but there are so many other non-similarities that using it as a model is unrealistic. The biggest differences being 1) the average household worth is probably more than twice Davis’, and 2) Palo Alto is a regional retail hub. Davis is dwarfed by Sacramento from a retail perspective. Palo Alto has no such “big sister” to compete with.
– “The zoning of the core should be changed to allow for taller buildings, with every building located between 1st street and the South side of 5th street, and between the railroad tracks and the University property, rezoned to allow for retail. “
Sadly, over time, the residential part of downtown has been replaced by commerce while peripheral growth has been opposed. Then people complain that the peripheral growth is changing the bicycle culture of Davis as one of the arguments against “sprawl.” It seems that if you were truly against peripheral development you would also need to be against core development. Of course there is densification but that also changes the character of the community. The fact of the matter is that Davis hasn’t had a thoughtful development master plan in 30-40 years. Our history has been one of constant animosity and unintended consequences for far too long between those who want to lock the gate for their own reasons be they unrealistic limits to growth, life style, economic interest or preservation of ag land. Juxtaposed against this are the demands of a world wide increase in population and the vital role that Davis plays in the education and research of that population. Weirdest of all are those who are here because of UC but aren’t willing to let the university fulfill its mission because of their opposition to growth.
With that said, if we do want to try and achieve those goals, emulating Palo Alto with modifications is probably a good place to start.
I question whether Davis will ever be a retail powerhouse, regardless of how hard we try to make it so. The demographics simply aren’t there to do so. The over 55 year-old cohort is notoriously light when it comes to retail spending when compared to the cohorts between 25 and 55. The other large cohort in Davis, the under 25 year-old cohort isn’t a big retail spending cohort either.
Our population projections are that 1) the over 55 cohort will grow as our current population ages in place, 2) the under 25 cohort will grow as the number of UCD students grows, and 3) the 25-55 cohort will proportionally shrink as a result.
Not a formula for retail success.
One peripheral site that has good traffic access, poor soil, and probably less neighborhood opposition than other sites:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/DevelopableNWDavis.jpg[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/DevelopableNWDavis.jpg[/url]
Soils:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/DevelopArea.jpg[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/DevelopArea.jpg[/url]
(Pescadero silty clay, Willows clay)
What about these areas?
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/map1.jpg[/img]
Still poor soil, but even better access.
You both are on the right track. The soils of Don’s site are alkalai to boot. Here’s an image of what could be done in a Northwest Quadrant specific plan.
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/Northwest_Quadrant_Flood_Mitigation_Map_22x34_zps7b295410.jpg[/IMG]
The image has one of Frankly’s sites marked as drainage. I personally never liked that configuration. The accress road along CA 113 certainly would make sense as possible urbanization.
Note that the underlying graphic that was used to produce this image addressed Covell Drain Flood Management options. Will Marshall from the City of Davis was the source of the original graphic. The green and orange overlays were added to the original graphic to conceptually show some land use possibilities, with the green portion likely to go into permanent ag easement (mitigation) status and the orange portion into urbanization status, with buildout restrictions of as long as 25 years for the orange. Those buildout restrictions would protect the aesthetic interests of current west davis homeowners who (rightly or wrongly) believed that the fields north of Covell and west of Sutter Davis Hospital would remain open. If some version of the land use concept depicted in the green and orange were to be approved by the citizens of Davis, new buyers of homes in that West Davis area would know when they purchased their homes that the orange area was designated for future urbanization sometime after 2040 and the green area would be permanently agricultural.
From an immediate flood protection perspective the conceptual idea is that if the conceptual idea shown in green and orange were to be approved, then flood diversion capabilities could be added along the west edge of the green (in the vicinity of Pedrick Road) that divert the Dry Slough Overflow to the south down to the South Fork of Putah Creek. The benefits of that diversion would be twofold. First the historical sheet flooding in West Davis would be eliminated, and second, the flows into the Covell Drain would be almost completely eliminated, which would mean that the flow capacity of Channel A on the east side (and north side) of Davis would not be taken up by Covell Drain waters, thereby better handling the sheet flooding waters that originate to the north of the City.
Not sure why the image isn’t showing. I’ll try again.
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/Northwest_Quadrant_Flood_Mitigation_Map_22x34_zps7b295410.jpg[/IMG]
Don, the url is ]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/Northwest_Quadrant_Flood_Mitigation_Map_22x34_zps7b295410.jpg
Don… there is also the alkaline soil at the NE end of CV that is not suitable for ag use.
Matt, The comparison of Palo Alto has been brought up before. Palo Alto is about the same population, but has twice the number of businesses (10,000) as Davis (5,000). Palo Alto’s retail sales per capita is $26,751. Davis’s is $7,752.
Frankly, Palo Alto becomes a good model to support the points made about Davis having an anti-business, anti-growth, anti-retail, anti-change and a poor-economic development track record.
You make some good points about Davis not being a retail hub, but the reason for that is that Davis has failed to design and develop the retail to draw customers from outside areas, while these areas developed retail to draw away Davis customers. West Sacramento was not a place to shop less than a decade ago. Woodland wasn’t a big draw until the County Fair Mall went in with a Target about 20 years ago. Seems like now the retail development in these other areas is just a convenient excuse for the Davis NIMBY people.
[i]Woodland wasn’t a big draw until the County Fair Mall went in with a Target about 20 years ago.[/i]
Woodland was where Davis residents went to buy appliances and furniture in the 1970’s. Davis had a Sears catalog store; Woodland had the actual stores. Davis has never had a functioning department store that sold to a broad demographic, at least not one that lasted. Woodland has retail, Davis has cars. The cities have been symbiotic in sales for decades, at least as long as I’ve been here (1974).
Nobody has every proposed a large-scale retail project here. The combination of demographics and the lack of freeway-visible (by which I mean I-80, not 113) and easily freeway-accessible land for that type of retail has been a major issue. The visible land is in auto sales. The university owns the rest of what would normally be freeway development as in all our nearby cities.
Davis can’t develop retail to draw customers from outside areas (except where Target is, because there is no suitable place for it. Woodland and West Sacramento (and Dixon and Vacaville) had loads of retail-suitable acreage. The foregoing is what I mean when I refer to the history and geography being a problem.
It’s pointless to blame this on city leaders and voters. There has never been a time or place for the retail development, except where the auto dealers are. And those auto dealers generate a good, large amount of sales tax revenues. The landowners didn’t come to the city and say ‘we want to build stores there’. So far as I know, the landowners wanted to build houses and auto dealerships. So how is that the fault of the city and the voters? When we wanted to build a nursery, we bought the land and built a nursery. When Mark West wanted to build a wine business, he built a wine business. We found appropriately-zoned land and submitted our application.
At this point, all of the big retailers are going to find they don’t need such a huge physical footprint. Downsizing stores is the trend. There is going to be a glut of vacant big-box property. There are several categories of retail that are shrinking rapidly: electronics, office supplies, music, bookstore chains, and more. The big-box general merchandisers won’t need to have display space in those categories, and the specialty retailers are already shrinking or disappearing (Office Max merging with Office Depot, Best Buy on the skids, etc.). With continued slumping sales in many categories, Walmart is shifting their focus to small grocery outlets — groceries are one of their only profitable divisions over the last few years. Malls are a thing of the past, big box is a thing of the past.
Outside analysts and business planners don’t see Davis as a place to invest in new businesses, because of the demographics. They see Davis as a nice bedroom community. If Davis wants to draw people to spend money here, it isn’t going to be by building the same big retail stores people can go to anywhere else. It is going to be by being cute, funky, hip, and focusing on small retail and food shops. Destination shopping and dining, not mass merchandise. Businesses that fit with the image Davis already has, and the community identity Davis residents share.
“You don’t state it you imply it. Otherwise why bother with the Stockton reference at all? “
I don’t imply it, I specifically state that we’re not, but Stockton is the city in the news and so it becomes a jumping off point.
“It’s pointless to blame this on city leaders and voters. There has never been a time or place for the retail development, except where the auto dealers are.”
Except for along Second St on the north side and South on Richards. In reality not attracting business off the freeway has been a political decision.
Don: “[i]It’s pointless to blame this on city leaders and voters[/i].”
Who was it Don, if not the Davis city leaders and voters who fought expansion of retail outside of the core and maintained the protectionist approach to preventing competition for our ‘preferred’ businesses downtown? Was it the people of Woodland who worked to prevent the opening of University Mall? Borders? Target? Was it the people of Sacramento who chose to limit the types and sizes of stores in the neighborhood shopping centers? How about those fine people in Vacaville, did they write our general plan that precludes retail from most of our commercially zoned sites? Don’t blame the neighbors for our own failures Don. We are the reason that you could always buy a car in town, but only recently could find underwear.
Frankly, I hear and understand your point, but that train has left the station. I suspect that Home Depot would politely decline any outreach from Davis at this point in time. Lowes probably would as well. WalMart, maybe.
Further, do you really see West Sacramento as a shopping destination as it stands now? They have added the non-mall, mall-like stores. Target, WalMart, Home Depot. Other than Ikea, what shopping destinations in West Sac are anything other than the same old, same old that you get at any mall or mall-like shopping venue? If I want a Williams-Sonoma I can’t go to West Sac. If I want a Talbots I can’t go to West Sac. If I want an REI I can’t go to West Sac. I could go on and on and on, but I think you get the picture. West Sac for the most part is targeting a very different demographic niche than the one most Davis residents inhabit.
[i]Outside analysts and business planners don’t see Davis as a place to invest in new businesses, because of the demographics.[/I]
No, it is not because of demographics, it is because of the business unfriendliness and hostility from some. Davis is a fine draw for many retail businesses. The population is affluent and there are plenty of captive UCD customers roaming the sidewalks and streets. if we build it, they will come.
[I]They see Davis as a nice bedroom community.[/I]
I think this is how those that want to block growth see it, but not the rest.
[I]If Davis wants to draw people to spend money here, it isn’t going to be by building the same big retail stores people can go to anywhere else. It is going to be by being cute, funky, hip, and focusing on small retail and food shops. Destination shopping and dining, not mass merchandise. Businesses that fit with the image Davis already has, and the community identity Davis residents share. [/i]
We cannot afford that vision taking it to extreme. We are not a vacation destination. We are not Carmel. We can be cute, funky and hip without blocking everything that doesn’t fit in some narrow focused view of what cute, funky and hip is. Frankly, I think there is a lack of vision and creativity in this population in terms of city planning design and economic development. Maybe it is our city’s concentration of academics with their more challenged left brains.
Mark: [i]Was it the people of Woodland who worked to prevent the opening of University Mall? [/i]
It opened.
[i]Borders? [/i]
It opened.
[i]Target? [/i]
It opened.
[i]Was it the people of Sacramento who chose to limit the types and sizes of stores in the neighborhood shopping centers?[/i]
Nothing limits the types of stores, just the sizes. And when the store owners wanted them bigger, they were allowed to make them bigger.
Thanks for making my point for me.
Frankly:
[i]Don–Outside analysts and business planners don’t see Davis as a place to invest in new businesses, because of the demographics.
Frankly–No, it is not because of demographics, it is because of the business unfriendliness and hostility from some.
Davis is a fine draw for many retail businesses. The population is affluent and there are plenty of captive UCD customers roaming the sidewalks and streets. if we build it, they will come. [i]
The population is affluent and old, and it is college students. That is and always has been the reality. So Gottschalks can’t make it here, but Forever 21 can and does.
[i]They see Davis as a nice bedroom community. I think this is how those that want to block growth see it, but not the rest.[/i]
Hm. That’s how Mr. Niello sees it.
[url] http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city/niello-shows-davis-chamber-the-way-to-the-next-economy/%5B/url%5D
[quote] While city leaders have been ratcheting up their efforts to improve the tech business climate in Davis, especially with the recent hiring of Rob White as the city’s new chief innovation officer, when asked what Davis’ role could be in the plan, Niello spoke about it as an ideal place to live.
“Can you think of another region in California where you can live in a rural environment, an urban environment, a traditional suburban environment, an agricultural environment, a country environment, the mountains, any of those living opportunities and still be within 20 minutes’ drive to work?” Niello said. “Davis is one of the unique communities that provides that choice of quality of life.”[/quote]
[i]Don– If Davis wants to draw people to spend money here, it isn’t going to be by building the same big retail stores people can go to anywhere else. It is going to be by being cute, funky, hip, and focusing on small retail and food shops. Destination shopping and dining, not mass merchandise. Businesses that fit with the image Davis already has, and the community identity Davis residents share.
Frankly–We cannot afford that vision taking it to extreme. We are not a vacation destination. We are not Carmel. We can be cute, funky and hip without blocking everything that doesn’t fit in some narrow focused view of what cute, funky and hip is. Frankly, I think there is a lack of vision and creativity in this population in terms of city planning design and economic development. Maybe it is our city’s concentration of academics with their more challenged left brains.[/i]
I don’t propose taking visions to extreme.
But maybe our city’s residents prefer the city with its current character, and don’t want those big stores. Frankly, I think the lack of vision is people who want the same stuff here that they have in Woodland and West Sac.
Mr. Toad: [i]Except for along Second St on the north side and South on Richards. In reality not attracting business off the freeway has been a political decision.[/i]
As far as I know, those are zoned appropriately for retail. So (unless I’m wrong about the zoning) there’s nothing stopping a retailer opening there so long as they don’t exceed the store size limits. In fact, there has never been anything stopping Target, Walmart, Home Depot, Lowe’s, or any other store from opening in Davis in one of the existing shopping centers, or in those areas you describe.
When we wanted to build a nursery, we looked at a map of Davis and looked for available land. That’s what you do. They just all want to build giant 200,000 sq ft stores on the edge of town. That’s the retail model of the 1990’s, and it is what they’re stuck in. Some of those retailers are seeing the advantage of smaller footprint stores now.
it’s difficult to imagine a conversation as far off track as this one. we have to find huge amounts of money to cut in order not to go insolvent. in the short term, we can’t develop economically fast enough to fix this. in the longer term, we can produce more tax revenue, but it’s not clear how much that is going to help. look at how neighboring communities have fared with higher tax bases, it’s not a panacea.
[i]look at how neighboring communities have fared with higher tax bases, it’s not a panacea. [/i]
It is true that many communities over-committed despite the level of sales tax revenue generated. But we cannot fix our crumbling roads and maintain our parks and bike paths without money to do so. We can agree that economic development is not a short-term fix; but then when do we talk about it if not when we are facing budget shortfalls? Economists are generally in agreement that there will be no magic economic boom like we have experienced fueled by tech stocks and real estate equity. We better start building adequate economic infrastructure now, because waiting will just mean we have fewer options going forward.
[i]In fact, there has never been anything stopping Target, Walmart, Home Depot, Lowe’s, or any other store from opening in Davis in one of the existing shopping centers, or in those areas you describe. [/i]
“Nothing stopping?” Come on Don, are you serious? What might you do if Home Depot announced interest to build there?
The primary reason that these stores do not try to locate here is the hostility from those that would stop at nothing to prevent it. There are extra costs to build in Davis. Add to it the need to wage a political campaign to prevent the voters from rejecting your project, and it makes perfect sense why these companies go elsewhere… they go to other communities where they are much more welcome and have lower costs and risks to their business.
So basically you are saying people should not object. That when the public participates in the planning process, and when the General Plan reflects the community consensus and a shared vision, that is a bad thing?
They only need to wage a political campaign if they want to change the zoning. Nothing stopped the University Mall or Borders. Some people objected, and they opened anyway. This supposed hostility is probably not a factor in the decision-making processes of large corporate retail chains. That’s nothing new for them. There are plenty of communities where there is some citizen objection to large retail projects.
They go elsewhere because they don’t feel the demographics here would support their business, and/or because retail is overbuilt on the I-80 corridor and around Woodland, particularly in their business categories. Hip, youth-oriented retailers will still be happy to locate here.
If you want to shop at Home Depot, go to Woodland. Let’s make Davis a place that people in Woodland want to come for good food, a pleasant environment, and interesting shops. Let’s get Davis in Sunset Magazine as a destination for a day trip from the Bay Area. You won’t get that with box stores.
[i]So basically you are saying people should not object.[/i]
We are not just talking about some people objecting, we are talking about a large population of reactionary activists that will stop at nothing to block development, including using their own sizable personal wealth to file lawsuits.
I remember talking to a Verizon executive where Councilman Harrington and others blocked their proposal to put in a cellular antenna on the high school property and build a much needed equipment shed for the school in return. Not only was this rejected, but members of the community and the council routinely demonized this company. That executive told me that as far as he was concerned Verizon would never do business in Davis. Fast forward and Verizon cellular service in Davis is substandard compared to almost every other populated area in the state.
The word is out Don. Until it changes, the lack of economic development is directly a response to the experience and reputation Davis has as being filled with business-hostile, no-growth, reactionary activists with deep pockets. Meanwhile we still bring in about 30% of the sale tax revenue that Palo Alto brings in. Is Palo Alto one of those terrible places that the reactionaries claim Davis will become if expand our commercial real estate options and retail?
“We are not just talking about some people objecting, we are talking about a large population of reactionary activists that will stop at nothing to block development, including using their own sizable personal wealth to file lawsuits.”
You whine like a mule (jk), as Don points out these places still came to Davis.
[i]You whine like a mule (jk), as Don points out these places still came to Davis.[/i]
Sure David, and we have black CEOs. So I guess that is proof that corporate racial discrimination does not exist.
You are failing to count all that did NOT come to Davis. You know, that 50% less than Palo Alto’s numbers of businesses, and that 70% less sales tax receipts.
Do mules whine? Interesting analogy. I would prefer you attribute my actions to my Party animal and not yours. And elephants never forget!
“Sure David, and we have black CEOs. So I guess that is proof that corporate racial discrimination does not exist. “
You wrote and I quote: ” that will stop at nothing to block development”
BUT THEY FAILED. So how is that an excuse or even explanation for anything for anything?
“…what took up 46% of our city taxes in FY-99, but only cost us 29% in FY-12? This “grey area” must represent a lot of money; how much ha it been increasing or decreasing in real dollars in the past decade?”
David, did you ever figure out the answers to this?
Now that we’ve learned that Davis always has been a business-development friendly place–limited only by the prejudices of corporations, our unfortunate demographics and the constricting geography and forever forced to rely only on our wits and funkiness–we’d better look more closely at how we’re spending such a large portion of our budget.
Palo Alto has three major freeways, and is part of a solid stretch of urbanization with a million-plus people; the area is comprised of a couple of dozen cities that blend one into the other. Most people wouldn’t know when they’ve gone from Palo Alto to Menlo Park to East Palo Alto to Redwood City.
There is zero comparison to Davis, which is a little urban enclave in the midst of farmland.
“
David, did you ever figure out the answers to this?”
I have not.
Ross never opened.
Even if you say that stores like Target eventually opened what they had to go through makes others unwilling to try.
This maybe the way the majority wants it but its not whining for the minority to point out the foolishness of the majority and their resulting unintended consequences.
What Target went through was because they wanted to change the zoning and amend the General Plan. Any business knows that a change in zoning is going to slow you down. The very first thing we checked for our site was to make sure it was zoned for retail (there was some ambiguity on our side of 5th Street).
I wasn’t aware that Ross ever had a serious proposal for the city.
Meanwhile, thanks to those whiny Davisites:
“PLEASE SHARE:
Dear Friends, (customers seems insufficient with regards to this matter)
Thanks to your overwhelming support, courage and taking time out of your busy lives to write letters of support we have come to an agreement with the landlord. We are grateful for the opportunity to continue to serve you at our new location adjacent out old location next door! We look forward to welcoming you in three month’s time and personally thank you for your support. This would not be possible without your help. Grateful, Son & Michelle, Common Grounds.”
Don, Thanks for the information. That is awesome.
Of course though you are talking about the other side of whining. If we had more of this letter-writing support for other new business locating in Davis you could put it in your pipe and smoke it!
I do think you have painted yourself into a corner with your stubborn assertion that Davis is business-friendly and that ALL the business that WOULD locate her, HAS located here. I think you know better than that, but admitting it would not serve your position well.
In the end, you are still left with business tax revenue receipts significantly below EVERY other city we can compare ourselves to.
[i]”…Davis is business-friendly and that ALL the business that WOULD locate her, HAS located here.”
[/i]
Hm. I’ve never said that. Davisites are friendly to some kinds of business, and can be very loyal to some businesses–even to the point of signing petitions and writing letters to get their landlords to try and keep those businesses here. Some people in Davis are not friendly to big businesses locating here, but that is not the reason those big businesses haven’t located here. And there are plenty of opportunities for more retail in Davis. They just need to be small stores.
“What Target went through was because they wanted to change the zoning and amend the General Plan. Any business knows that a change in zoning is going to slow you down.”
Yes but a referendum?
Ross wanted to go in where Dollar Tree is but the usual suspects complained and Ross bailed out. Too bad Ross would have been a great store for Davis.
Who complained? When was a proposal submitted for a Ross where Dollar Tree is? I seriously think I would have heard of this if there had been an actual plan and project submission. Rumors, maybe? I’m not saying I don’t believe you, I just don’t think anything in that regard ever got to a firm stage, if at all. What evidence do you have that local opposition prevented a Ross?
Target went through a referendum (actually, put on the ballot by the council, but I’m sure a referendum would have occurred otherwise) because that project was a major change in zoning and a significant exception to the General Plan.
From Davis Wiki
“Ross “Dress for Less” opened in Woodland 2005-10-01. Ross is a discount clothing store similar to Marshall’s and TJ Maxx. They sell overstock or slightly irregular brand name clothes at a heavy discount compared to full department store price. Next door to The Tractor Supply Co.’
“A Ross was originally going to be built in Davis years ago but was shut out by the Davis City Council for not being upscale enough, and the oft repeated fear that it would threaten downtown business. There was a bit of an uproar about it since at the time there were few, if any, affordable clothing stores in town. It was said at the time that you couldn’t buy a pair of underwear in town.”
[i]”… was shut out by the Davis City Council”[/i] is nonsense. The Davis city council has no authority over what the owners of that mall choose or chose to rent to.
Are you aware of how Davis Wiki works?
Here is the author of that edit: [url]http://daviswiki.org/Users/RogerClark[/url]
Please explain to me how a Geology major at UCD knows anything about the topic. You have just confirmed to me that this is a rumor without substance.
Don Shor: “”… was shut out by the Davis City Council” is nonsense. The Davis city council has no authority over what the owners of that mall choose or chose to rent to.”
Sorry Don, this time you lose. At the time the zoning for the site required a grocery store, despite the fact that the site had been vacant for years and the three previous groceries had been financial failures (not to mention the presence of the new, extra-large Nugget store just a few blocks to the north).
[so much for your previous claim that certain stores were required or restricted at the neighborhood centers]
The City refused to consider a Ross store at the site because it was not a grocery and did not fit with the General Plan.
[quote]Please explain to me how a Geology major at UCD knows anything about the topic.[/quote]
That comment is beneath you Don. There is nothing that disqualifies a geology major (who graduated in 2003 by the way) from being knowledgable about Davis. Even a botanist might have something to contribute.
I think you owe Roger Clark an apology.
Why does everyone since Enrico Fermi beat up on botanists? Before I was a toad I was a botanist. By the way, I wonder who was on the council when this went down? Was it Greenwald, Harrington and Wagstaff? The same people who brought us measure J.