Earlier this week, the UC Davis News Service published an article that chronicled Dysonics, which is a startup company in San Francisco that spun out of fifteen years of research at UC Davis.
The News Service reports, “Since becoming the first ‘graduate’ from the Engineering Translational Technology Center, a technology incubator at the UC Davis College of Engineering, Dysonics has launched an iPhone app and is developing a broad product range for future launch. The company currently has 10 employees.”
What caught my attention was the fact that here was a startup, based on fifteen years of research at UC Davis, that is being launched not in Davis, but San Francisco.
In talking with Davis’ newly-hired CIO Rob White prior to his publication on Thursday, it became clear that Davis, in addition to taking the notion of economic development seriously, also needs to have some very serious discussions.
Mr. White made it clear that his job is not one of policymaker, but rather to take the policies passed by council and supported within the community and implement them.
Whatever decision the public wishes to make should be made from an informed discussion. What becomes clear is that, right now, Davis may be able to provide the home base for some startup companies that spin out of the university. Indeed, a company like Dysonics would seem almost ideally suited to remain in Davis.
The problem comes when these high tech companies wish to expand beyond their current needs.
As Mr. White mentioned in his column on Thursday, “There are several small technology companies (currently under 50 employees) that were founded in Davis and have grown so dramatically in the last 24 months that they are on track to double in size again in the next few years.”
“That’s a potential at least a few 100 new career-track and professional jobs that could be in Davis,” he writes. “These are companies that create products and require supply chains for their parts – and, some of these supply companies could (would) be in Davis. These are companies that serve global markets, which leads to increased exports and the potential for more imported capital.”
There is a notable problem, however – that is the lack of space for growth.
As Mr. White writes, “There is an extreme shortage of commercial and light industrial spaces that are greater than 10,000 square feet and appropriate for technology companies. And we have very few options for companies that need to develop facilities greater than 100,000 square feet.”
The result is that some very notable Davis companies might be about to leave town.
Why? Because other communities have space and Davis does not.
“I can tell you who does have these options available,” Mr. White writes. “West Sacramento, Woodland, Dixon and North Natomas. These cities are all within 15 miles of our community and almost every growing Davis business I have talked to has at least engaged one or more of these communities to determine their opportunities. The businesses will tell you that cost is a factor. Or that location is a factor. But the biggest factor appears to be that these other cities have empty spaces that are already built and require very little modification for move-in.”
That puts Davis in a precarious position. On the one hand, it wants to be the place where these university spinoffs come to sprout their roots and begin to expand. On the other hand, neighboring communities are much better positioned than Davis, due to land use and political considerations, to take advantage of the growth potential in these emerging markets.
Where does that leave us? The first place it leaves us is with a choice. One of the choices that the community may make is that we are the place where businesses begin but not the place where they will ultimately wind up. That may be all right.
The second choice is a land use decision. My natural first inclination is to look at existing properties. Cannery is the place where I have been advocating business park development. The problem is that most business people will tell you that businesses want to be closer to freeway access these days.
They do not want their employees having to drive through town and they do not want their customers and distributers to have to do so either.
While Covell Blvd. may have trouble accommodating another 1800 people living on the street, there is also the belief that a fully developed business park may have many times more people on the site during the day – exiting and entering at the critical hours of 9 and 5. The belief is there is simply no capacity for existing infrastructure to accommodate this.
We could get creative, perhaps, but that is what I have been hearing on this.
That leaves us with fewer and fewer options. There are the remaining spots on Second Street where Mori Seiki has emerged. The auto mall parcel owners are unwilling to sell, and there are competing uses there, anyway.
That leaves Davis with the choice to expand, either northward toward the Northwest Quadrant or eastward along I-80, east of Mace.
Some on the Vanguard suggested that for a business park, this would be a no-brainer. I am more skeptical than that. I think opening development along the I-80 corridor would be viewed by many as the Pandora’s box that we would never get closed again, even with mitigation agreements that would essentially lock the surrounding parcels into conservation easement in perpetuity.
Davis is going to have to make an interesting choice between the small sleepy college town it is and the potential it has to become a technological leader, perhaps on par with places in the Silicon Valley.
There are increasingly competing visions between the citys’ progressive tradition and the forward-thinking university that seeks to become a research power, and the business community that seeks to tap into that.
Rob White writes, “But for every company that can’t find a home in Davis right now, whether a local startup or one trying to move in to town, there is an unintended message that gets sent to the business community – we are full.”
He adds quickly, “Though this is a challenge, I believe that the Davis community has proven time and again that we can meet these obstacles and turn them in to opportunities. I think there is a growing awareness of the need for more jobs, more revenue for community needs and more diversity in our business landscape. “
The key question for me and others like me is whether we can do this and still remain faithful to our roots and preserve the small walkable mecca that we have created.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Mecca is a sacred city and the birthplace of one of the great prophets of western civilization and has been occupied for over 2000 years.
Davis is a university farm that was spun off 50 years ago. Davis was in the past quite walkable but it is already too big for that. It is still bike able and has good bus and train transport. Remaining faithful to your roots is romanticized nonsense and who is this we you speak of anyway. You haven’t created anything beyond this blog.
I think I agree with Mr. Toad is going with his comment. If you want to grow your business, SF has the cachet, the connections, the proximity to resources (including a large workforce pool) that you would want.
But another angle to the question is, where would you want to raise a family? For many SF/Bay Area is a more expensive place to raise a family, more crowded, less open space, etc. There are a number of parents who work/commute to the Bay Area but live in Davis. Highways, Amtrak, and telecommuting, and work scheduling options make Davis an attractive residential option. And as expensive as housing may be in Davis, it is often very competitive with Bay Area pricing.
Mr.Toad wrote:
> Mecca is a sacred city and the birthplace of one
> of the great prophets of western civilization…
> You haven’t created anything beyond this blog.
It seems like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today (“haven’t created ANYTHING” is pretty harsh)…
Take a look at any dictionary, there is more than one meaning for Mecca.
> Davis is a university farm that was spun off 50 years ago
Davis is also a farming community on State Highway 97 eight miles southwest of Charlotte in southwestern Atascosa County. It was named
for M. M. Davis, a local rancher…
Did you really think David didn’t know the most popular (at the local mosque) meaning off Mecca?
Yes, David even uses a lower case mecca, Still, in my mind Davis isn’t a walkable Mecca and describing it as such is a disservice to the community. Davis is at least 6 miles across from Rd.98 to El Macero, that is hardly walkable. Davis is a bicycle mecca with its bike museum, bike lanes, bike races, hundreds of thousands of bikes, bike clubs, innovative and experimental bikes and numerous bike shops. It is a community that is easily traversed by bike. There are many, I am sure, who even worship the bicycle. Would the mayor admit it?
Maybe the question should be how to keep Davis bike friendly as it grows? It is a question based in reality, one that doesn’t oppose growth trying to preserve something lost decades ago but instead seeks to create a livable community worthy of the great technical land grant university that gives this community its vibrant life.
[i]But another angle to the question is, where would you want to raise a family?[/i]
That is a part of the larger question: where do you want to live? The number of Davis families with kids is declining. The number of well-off seniors is increasing as a percentage of our overall population. That seems to be the vision of many that block change and development… a retirement community.
There are a lot of nice places to live. Davis is not so special that we need all this extra-special protection. And where is the vision. Making the point that we can’t compete with other communities for business is a copout. There are a lot of reasons that companies select to located in any particular area. A big part of the decision is simply where do the owners want to live. If Davis is so special a place to live, then owners will be attracted to it as a business location. But if there are no reasonable CRE options, they will go elsewhere.
Don’t believe this? The company I work for has been in Davis for 25 years. We are growing. I might have to move the company to another city due to the lack of suitable business space.
Frankly: [i]That is a part of the larger question: where do you want to live? The number of Davis families with kids is declining.[/i]
The overall birth rate has been declining for several years, and was not helped by the Great Recession. Second, if you compare with many neighboring school districts, Davis’ enrollments have been relatively stable, especially given that Davis’ enrollments haven’t been propped up by a strong growth model in recent years. This recent article ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/sunday-best/our-sunday-best-davis-continues-to-lure-families-with-school-age-kids-despite-cost-differential/[/url]) is mostly anecdotal, but reflects a narrative to the statistical trend.
This is from the minutes of the Innovation Task Force, comments by Jim Gray. I urge David to contact Jim to see if he will write a followup on his opinion of how conditions might have changed in the two years since his presentation.
Peripheral Innovation Park Task Force Meeting May 12, 2011 minutes
City staff introduced Jim Gray and Nahz Anvary, Commercial Brokers with Cassidy Turley BT, Commercial. Mr. Gray with over 30 years and Ms. Anvary with over 10 years experience assisting commercial businesses and technology companies in Davis and Sacramento Region.
Mr. Gray and Ms. Anvary provided background about the current context for regional office space and shared following points, with Task Force members and public members present contributing questions and comments:
•80 million square feet of office space in entire Sacramento region, 85 million sf with Solano County, with 20 percent vacancy rate
•There is also shadow space to be absorbed, vacant space not on market or fully utilized
•Existing warehouse space built to support construction sector deeply depressed
•80% of housing sold in Sacramento region sold as distressed; result is decimation of local economy
•Need to find economic engine to renew our economy
•Talking about new business park now is questionable, especially if existing property owners are looking at relocation.
•Discussion about absorption rates of Mace Ranch and Vacaville business park. Vacaville still 50% vacant to day.
•Difficult to forecast absorption rates that make sense, infrastructure will not be driven speculatively for 15-20 yrs.
•For Davis to compete need to be strategic about what leads to success, think intermediate and short term, id infill sites available (e.g. area north of Sutter Hospital, contact Sutter CEO to discuss) and increase incentives to enhance and be creative: waive fees, defer fees, defer impact fees, do creative investments and long term low interest loans
•Achieve public recognition of need to create environment where we can create jobs.
•Need to make bold community statements “if you are user of ______technologies, bring it on.”
•Still need for space to keep people here Innovation cannot wait, need strong leadership and champions to make community understand to get approval of Measure R
•Leverage smart people in Davis who believe and can contribute to this effort (local CEOs),
•Land doesn’t create growth, need to do business with those with right knowledge and experience
•Need to identify all infrastructure issues (major sewer & water)
•Effort needs to be development driven, need “right” skilled team, has capital and will to take risk
•Traditional developers are gone; now need wealthy individuals willing to tie up capital for a long time.
•Avoid retail – need job creating, R & D and office space and minimal design review
•City needs to be more collaborative in marketing and branding, there is no consistent database of information – need to look at how communities brand themselves and say “we are open” – What is the welcome mat for Davis?
•Get testimonials on website – People want to be in Davis but it has horrible reputation, despite many who think city has best city staff and city council.
“…6 miles across from Rd.98 to El Macero, that is hardly walkable”
Has the level of fitness fallen so low in America’s second most educated city ? At a mere 3 MPH that’s just a 4 hour hike !
Biddlin ;>)/
wdf1 wrote:
> if you compare with many neighboring school districts,
> Davis’ enrollments have been relatively stable, especially
> given that Davis’ enrollments haven’t been propped up by
> a strong growth model in recent years.
The “growth model” for the Davis schools is to get as many kids as they can from outside Davis, then tell the citizens of Davis that they need to vote for another parcel taxes so they can pay to educate all the kids that come here without paying a dime in property taxes or parcel taxes to Davis.
> This recent article is mostly anecdotal, but reflects
> a narrative to the statistical trend.
I was surprised that the Enterprise article actually said that Davis “encourages” families to send their kids to Davis schools (I knew that most (top 50) college educated white parents in Woodland and West Sac sent their kids to Davis schools, but I had not heard the district actually “encourages” it…
“When their elder daughter reached kindergarten age several years ago, Nichols and San Martin asked for (and received) a transfer into the Davis school district, so the daughter could attend a Davis elementary school close to UCD. (The Davis school district has encouraged UCD faculty living out of town to consider applying for transfers for their children.) “
SOD: [i]The “growth model” for the Davis schools is to get as many kids as they can from outside Davis, then tell the citizens of Davis that they need to vote for another parcel taxes so they can pay to educate all the kids that come here without paying a dime in property taxes or parcel taxes to Davis.[/i]
If you subtract out the ~500 students who come from out of town, then that would probably account for the “real” loss of students over the past 10-12 years. Even still, that’s a much smaller percentage loss of students than for Dixon, Winters, and Vacaville. West Sac, Woodland, and Elk Grove have maintained relatively level enrollment, but have relied on heavy development.
You can subtract out ~100 students from out of town who enroll in Da Vinci Charter, but don’t count toward the DJUSD budget or parcel tax.
There is also this:
[quote]Federal law also mandates that when a family living in economic distress becomes homeless, or is forced to move abruptly to a nearby community, parents have the right to keep their child in the same school.
Source ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/transfer-students-into-davis-have-counterbalanced-slow-decline-in-number-of-local-resident-students/[/url]).[/quote]
To get uptight because your school parcel taxes are covering these students is moralely wrong, IMO.
There is a significant portion of out of district students in Davis come from employees of the district. But the state regulation that allows for this happen also has to be applied equally to kids of other employees in the city or UCD. You can grouse about it, and indeed Jose Granda made it a key point in his opposition to the parcel tax, but I think it is an overall net benefit to our community because it tends to make the district employees more committed and productive, and as well.
The alternative is that the district would probably be under greater pressure to raise salaries for employees so that they might be able to live in Davis.
SOD: [i]I was surprised that the Enterprise article actually said that Davis “encourages” families to send their kids to Davis schools[/i]
I thought maybe you were referring to this article ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/transfer-students-into-davis-have-counterbalanced-slow-decline-in-number-of-local-resident-students/[/url]), but nowhere could I find that it said that the school district “encouraged” families to send their kids to Davis schools. It does say, “The district does send a letter to those families, [u]encouraging[/u] them to pay the equivalent of the parcel tax fees on a voluntary basis.” That’s about a different issue, however.
I’m not aware that the district is actively encouraging inter-district transfers. Because as it is, inter-district transfer requests get rejected because no space is available. I’m aware of 2 such cases in the past four years. It suggests to me that they get all the interdistrict transfer requests that they could handle, plus more, without much work on their part.
Maybe some of those restaurants will set up shop in North Natomas. It is a foodie wasteland — out there in the traffic, sprawl, and the faceless shopping malls. I’m serious. I meet friends in the area for lunch and it would be great to have some good options.
wdf1 wrote:
> To get uptight because your school parcel taxes
> are covering these students is moralely wrong, IMO.
Increasing the student to teacher ratio to decrease the amount of one on one time teachers can help Davis kids with spelling is also “morally” wrong.
If paying for out of town students to come here for school is good would you be favor of passing another parcel tax to send money to Woodland, Dixon and West Sac (I don’t see any difference)?
> I’m not aware that the district is actively encouraging
> inter-district transfers.
Take a look at the Enterprise article you linked to (and I quoted) that said: “The Davis school district has encouraged UCD faculty living out of town to consider applying for transfers for their children”.
If Davis closes a school they can save a lot of money (and fund even programs when they sell the site). The district won’t need to spend any money to build a new school when Davis grows since the land owners west of the hospital or east of the Mace curve will be happy to donate land and build a school if they get the OK to develop (and make millions)…
SOD: [i]If paying for out of town students to come here for school is good would you be favor of passing another parcel tax to send money to Woodland, Dixon and West Sac (I don’t see any difference)?[/i]
Under the current parameters, I don’t have a problem with it; DJUSD and the community benefit more than suffer. I don’t think you will find any tax scheme that will find a strong majority of agreement as being fair. You and I happen to disagree, here. During the campaigns, Jose Granda did a pretty good job of making his case that he thought this was unfair, just as you do. His position lost.
SOD: [i]Take a look at the Enterprise article you linked to (and I quoted) that said: “The Davis school district has encouraged UCD faculty living out of town to consider applying for transfers for their children”.[/i]
Thanks, I stand corrected. I suppose the district is letting folks know that it’s an option, but I don’t think it’s safe to assume that everyone will be accommodated.
SOD: [i]If Davis closes a school they can save a lot of money (and fund even programs when they sell the site). The district won’t need to spend any money to build a new school when Davis grows since the land owners west of the hospital or east of the Mace curve will be happy to donate land and build a school if they get the OK to develop (and make millions)…[/i]
Davis could probably function on fewer schools, but note how far the reconfiguration discussion went before it shut down. Which school should be closed? and why?
Note that students don’t come in even packages of students concentrated in right grades. That fact also complicates reconfiguration schemes.
wdf1 wrote:
> During the campaigns, Jose Granda did a pretty
> good job of making his case that he thought this
> was unfair, just as you do. His position lost.
We did not get to vote on paying for kids who live outside of Davis to go to our schools; we got to vote on a parcel tax.
A lot of people (like myself) voted for the parcel tax but still think having Davis residents pay a special tax to educate kids that live outside Davis is unfair.
Just like everybody (maybe even most of the people) that voted for Obama are not supporters of the war in Iraq everyone that voted for the parcel tax are not supporters of everything the district does.
SOD: [i]Just like everybody (maybe even most of the people) that voted for Obama are not supporters of the war in Iraq everyone that voted for the parcel tax are not supporters of everything the district does.[/i]
I think Obama ran effectively on getting out of Iraq and the U.S. has drawn down to the point that probably satisfies most of his supporters. Perhaps you mean Afghanistan, Guantanamo, or drone strikes? Then your point is well taken.
wdf can probably answer this question faster than I can. If all 500 of the interdistrict transfer students were denied entrance, how much lower would the DJUSD budget be?
If Rob is looking for a good starting point for guidance for developing land for business enterprises, he should look at the General Plan and the Innovation Task Force recommendations. The GP is due for updating, which generally involves lots of citizen input. So that process can be an effective way to (somewhat) gauge the community’s attitudes. And if the ITF recommendation from 2011 hasn’t been acted on by the city council, in the form of an endorsement or any kind of action guidance to the city manager, that would be a way to assess the political will for movement on developing business sites. And if the council really wants to get going, they can put annexation of Nishi on the ballot in 2014 for a Measure R vote.
Don Shor: [i]wdf can probably answer this question faster than I can. If all 500 of the interdistrict transfer students were denied entrance, how much lower would the DJUSD budget be?[/i]
$6000/student from the state; 500 students would be $3 million.
Seems to me the current situation where Davis hosts small high-tech and start-up companies is a good one; enabling university spin-offs and collaborations. Why not keep Davis’s character as a university town; if the companies grow to a larger size; let them move out of town (typically larger high-tech companies also have a higher proportion of lower-paid workers; who would not be able to afford Davis homes and would need to commute to Davis).
Or you could build housing so those workers could afford to live here and share our wonderful community with us.
I should have added,”Round trip.” I’m pretty sure I do about 20 miles/day with my cane, when I’m in the big city.
Biddlin ;>)/
Mr. Toad
[quote]Or you could build housing so those workers could afford to live here and share our wonderful community with us.[/quote]
Just out of curiosity, is there any point, or population number, for you at which “our wonderful community” stops being “wonderful” and becomes just another Vallejo, or Vacaville, or Woodland, or Sacramento ?
Does the unique character of Davis, which inevitably would be lost at some point of growth, not hold any significance for you ? Would you have us build until there literally is no more room for growth since Davis would now abut Woodland and Vacaville ? Or is there some point short of this at which you would feel that we have “shared” adequately ? If so, can you state what that point might be ?
As I have written, there are a lot of great places to live having more people and much more responsible economic development and allowing growth.
Here is your problem… you are attempting to block preipheral development but while also lacking adequate commercial real estate redevelopment options. If your goal is to prevent sprawl, then fine. But then at least there should be options for churn of existing commercial space. Santa Barbara is an example. It is a college town that most people on the planet would give a limb to live in. It is a bit land-locked in that it is circled by mountains and bordered by a Military airbase. However, there is enough CRE infrastructure that can churn and redevelop to meet a reasonable economic development need.
The basic vision I get from you is that you want Davis to stay a bedroom community sponging off the economic engine of the university and a small bit of retail. That simply is not a sustainable vision.
Frankly
[quote]The basic vision I get from you is that you want Davis to stay a bedroom community sponging off the economic engine of the university and a small bit of retail. That simply is not a sustainable vision.[/quote]
I see this relationship differently from you. I do not see Davis as “sponging” off the university. I see the university as an asset and resource to our community that other communities such as Winters, Woodland,
Vacaville do not have. They have resources that we do not have. There is room for diversity within our region.
I do not feel that it is either necessary, or desirable for each community to be the same. As for sustainability of vision, that depends upon what your vision is. If you want our community to look exactly like all the others, you are correct, my preferred model would not be the way to get there. However, Davis has grown quite extensively in the time I have been here. I do not desire more growth. I would pose the same question to you as I did to
Mark, what amount of growth would you consider optimal ? What is your target size ? Is there any size, short of being confluent with the surrounding communities that would seem desirable to you ? Do you see perpetual growth as the only route to sustainability ? Since you are the one promoting growth, I think it is incumbent upon you to specify how much growth you see as optimal.
“Or you could build housing so those workers could afford to live here and share our wonderful community with us. “
and you could turn davis into little palo alto, but it wouldn’t be davis anymore.
“As I have written, there are a lot of great places to live having more people and much more responsible economic development and allowing growth.”
so perhaps the people who want more growth can move there and leave this community to those who like it as it is.
“I see the university as an asset and resource to our community that other communities such as Winters, Woodland, Vacaville do not have.”
Actually these communities do have the University of California. We just host the Davis campus. My kid goes to school with the son of a Doctor who grew up in Vallejo. Vallejo, as well as the rest of California, send their best and brightest to Davis. The university is not a provincial asset it is a state asset. It is more and more a national and international asset.
How big should Davis be? I’d need to really think about this to come to an optimal size but I’m certain it should be bigger. It should be big enough that the price of housing is affordable for people who work here so they can live and work and send their children to our schools instead of commuting from Woodland, Winters or Dixon. It should be big enough to provide our human capital the infrastructure to develop their new ideas and create jobs. It should be big enough that well educated, taxpaying, employed, law abiding families don’t leave because they can’t afford it here.
I guess my fundamental philosophical difference is that i don’t view more good people here as a bad thing. i don’t think it is detrimental to quality of life. I think it adds to the social richness of our community. Open your heart Medwoman, I know that you have dedicated your life to noble work and that you are just the kind of person i want to have in my community, highly skilled, compassionate, well educated, law abiding, tax paying. How many people like that should Davis absorb? As many as possible.
[quote]t should be big enough that the price of housing is affordable for people who work here so they can live and work and send their children to our schools instead of commuting from Woodland, Winters or Dixon. [/quote]
We’ve played this game before, but we can do it again.
Davis average home price $550,000
Woodland average home price $322,000
Dixon average home price $385,000
So, how many homes do we have to build to bring down the Davis housing values to those of our surrounding communities? 10,000?
Mr. Toad
[quote]I guess my fundamental philosophical difference is that i don’t view more good people here as a bad thing. i don’t think it is detrimental to quality of life. I think it adds to the social richness of our community. Open your heart Medwoman, I know that you have dedicated your life to noble work and that you are just the kind of person i want to have in my community, highly skilled, compassionate, well educated, law abiding, tax paying. How many people like that should Davis absorb? As many as possible.[/quote]
I can understand this sentiment in a way. If all towns were utopias in which only people having the attributes you listed wanted to live, then they would surely also have the intelligence to see that resources in any community are limited. Uncontrolled growth in a single biologic organism has a name. It is cancer. Uncontrolled growth in a community also has names. Amongst them are overcrowding and environmental degradation. It is not only hearts, but minds also, that must be open in community design. For me, there should be room for more than one choice of living community type. We have plenty of more populous and growth oriented communities in this area. There is only one Davis of which I am aware.
It will be interesting to see the impact of Cannery on prices but your point is well taken that we are so far behind on growth that we need to build a lot of houses.
People are not cancer you kill cancer you aren’t suggesting that we kill people to control growth? What would you prefer Reverend Malthus; war, disease and famine or accomodation?
[quote]It will be interesting to see the impact of Cannery on prices but your point is well taken that we are so far behind on growth that we need to build a lot of houses. [/quote]
We are?
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/growthratesDavisWdldWestSac.png[/img]
Mr Toad
You are correct. I am not in favor of killing people. What I do support is the recognition of limitation of the capacity of an area to support an ever increasing population. I very much support responsible population growth. I have devoted much of my career to helping women have every pregnancy be one which is planned and desired. Likewise, I believe that there are limits to how much population a community can absorb and
still retain those characteristics that form its unique appeal.
[quote]It will be interesting to see the impact of Cannery on prices but your point is well taken that we are so far behind on growth that we need to build a lot of houses.
[/quote]
That, of course, was not my point. But — we are? So far behind?
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/growthratesDavisWdldWestSacsm.jpg[/img]
to paraphrase toad from the other day, he acts like 2008 never happened.
“What I do support is the recognition of limitation of the capacity of an area to support an ever increasing population.”
That would be great except world population growth is still increasing, adding over one billion people in the last 15 years, so what are we to do create havens for the elite while the rest of humanity suffers in slums that grow ever more crowded? As I said I don’t know how big Davis could get and still be a nice place to live but we can physically absorb many more people. Of course the moral imperative for the growth of Davis in support of the university and its mission reveals the selfish attitude of those who want to lock the gate as if doing so will protect us from the hordes of humanity.
Let me turn it around Medwoman, how big do you think Davis could get and retain its character? Of course this pre-supposes that retaining Davis’ present character is the highest and best purpose a notion I also question.
Shor and D.P. what is the point of each of your last posts? its hard to engage in an honest debate without one side defending its ideas.
My point was that we don’t “need to build a lot of houses.” Davis grew very rapidly for awhile, then the surrounding communities did. Each community had difficulty dealing with the effects of rapid growth, ranging from skewing of enrollment and school district facilities or the massive amounts of foreclosures when the economy tanked (presumably that is DP’s reference to 2008). Rapid growth has adverse consequences. And the Davis housing market doesn’t exist in a vacuum. There are macro considerations that will always keep Davis homes more expensive.
There is almost no reasonable amount of housing that could be built that would narrow the price disparity between Davis and the surrounding communities. What we do need to build is a lot of rental housing, and soon.
Mr. Toad
[quote]As I said I don’t know how big Davis could get and still be a nice place to live but we can physically absorb many more people. [/quote]
I would like to frame this idea a little differently for you. I will state in advance that my views, of course, have been shaped by my career. So on the individual level, I do not believe that it is responsible to have a child if you do not already know that you have the means to support that child to adulthood. I also think that a couple should decide, in advance, how many children they intend to have when planning their family rather than just hoping for the best. If they end up being able to support more children because they have done better than planned financially, fine, have more. But I do not think it is responsible to just say, we want more children regardless of our ability to support them.
Likewise, I do not believe that it is responsible for a community to just say “we want to grow” for what ever reason without thoroughly assessing the advantages and disadvantages to the existing community.
I do have my own idea of the ideal size for Davis which we have already surpassed. I would liked to have seen
Davis stop at the 50 – 60,000 level. I do believe that those who promote change including growth should bear the burden of proof that the advantages of their proposed changes outweigh the disadvantages. Bear in mind that we already know what my ideal version of Davis looked like, and we also know that we will never see that again.
So the question that I pose to you is not a rhetorical one. If you want growth, I believe that it is incumbent upon you to decide and to state publicly what your ideal size would be, and what it will cost us as a community to
achieve your vision.
Actually it is not incumbent on me or you to make these decisions. i have almost no influence at all. In fact, beyond sounding off here and challenging the malthusian dogma provided by a 1790’s enlightenment education, 1920’s Steiner eugenics education and 1960’s Ehrlich zero population growth education from which the anti-growth population of Davis received its succor, I have no influence at all.
You claim you would have liked Davis to stop at 50-60,000, you mean when the world had 1 billion fewer people in it. So what are we going to do? Stop immigration? Stop educating the youth. The real question you need to answer is why should Davis stop growing while the rest of the world keeps at it. To preserve what exactly?
“There are macro considerations that will always keep Davis homes more expensive.
There is almost no reasonable amount of housing that could be built that would narrow the price disparity between Davis and the surrounding communities.”
Nonsense Don, you could over build here just like anywhere.
toad: you don’t have as strong a point on the world growth rate as you think you do.
[img]http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/images/worldgr.png[/img]
That suggests the current rate is somewhere between 1.1 and 1.2 percent and expected to fall to .5 percent by 2050. The US growth rate is about .7 percent. Davis’ cap is at 1 percent. Seems like Davis is actually about right in terms of its official growth policy.
Actually, all other things excluded, according to your graph our projected growth rate has been lower than the actual world growth rate for more than 20 years. Of course your argument places no value on having an educated populace.
i don’t think you’re points in response to the info here change anything, mr toad
Of course they don’t in your mind but the numbers speak for themselves. When I moved to California in 1960 there were 16 million people in California in 2010 there are 38 million. That is a 1.75% compounded growth rate over 50 years. Of course Davis has grown faster because it is one of 10 locations in the state chosen to educate the top 12% of the states population. It is also the place where the UC system realized it had the most space for growth to absorb the increasing numbers of students seeking a UC education. This growth has resulted in Davis’ college rankings to soar in many areas.
As a result of rapid growth through the 70’s Davis imposed unrealistically low growth targets. It imposed the minimum allowed under law, 1% annually. So as the university bought thousands of acres to grow onto the city shut down growth. This has had consequences that many who already own property here do not want to admit. The disequilibrium between the growth of the university and the lack of growth in the town has driven up real estate prices, something, as Bob Dunning recently pointed out, is good for those who already own but bad for those who don’t. It has also caused many who work and study in Davis to live in cheaper surrounding communities, increasing their commute times and Carbon footprints.
Its sort of like our dilemma on parking in reverse. The university charges too much for parking so our streets are clogged with cars from out of town parking on city streets to avoid the cost of parking on campus. Likewise in the city housing is too expensive and people are forced to commute in by car and fill our street parking wherever they can.
The ultimate solution is for the city and the university to agree on their intertwined futures instead of people like myself and Medwoman. As long as the university intends to grow, something that is integral to the future of California, then the town needs to grow with it. The fight to bite the hand that feeds the town, the refusal to recognize the symbiotic relationship between our communities will only result in a less thoughtfully designed living environment for all. The peripheral development of West Village with its restricted access and the loss of revenue for the market at the Lake Shopping Center as a result of that restricted access is but one example of how convoluted and counter productive the outcomes of these development fights have shaped our landscape, the lives of the people effected and the carbon footprints of those forced to go farther to market.
Mr Toad
[quote]So what are we going to do? Stop immigration? Stop educating the youth. The real question you need to answer is why should Davis stop growing while the rest of the world keeps at it. To preserve what exactly?[/quote]
I do not share your pessimism about our inability to do anything. One example of what can be done is Honduras which has taken a very proactive response to their over population. They offer free long lasting reversible contraception provided by the government to any woman who does not want to conceive. Unlike in my own clinic here where I see women in my clinic who are not attempting conception, but are not contracepting, in one week of rural outreach clinics in Honduras, I met only two women not using effective contraception.
In this country, although the overall statistic of 1/2 of pregnancies being unintended has not changed, the rate of teen pregnancies is dropping significantly which I see as a
“That is a 1.75% compounded growth rate over 50 years. Of course Davis has grown faster because it is one of 10 locations in the state chosen to educate the top 12% of the states population.”
So pointing out the growth rate in the last fifty years in California is interesting, but not all that useful especially since immigration is at historic lows. i don’t get your point, but mine is that davis has grown relatively on par with other populations in the past and appears poised to do so in the future, your hysterics not withstanding.
Davis growth rate is 616 out of the 993 California cities that grew.
[url]http://www.usa.com/rank/california-state–population-growth-rate–city-rank.htm[/url]
But we know that is because the university forced it. The NYMBYs would have preferred we are number 994.
Let’s look at Palo Alto (2010 numbers)
– 65,000 population
– 28,216 housing units
– Number of firms 10,175
– Per capita sales revenue $26,751
Davis (2010 numbers)
– 66,000 population
– 25,869 housing units
– Number of firms 5,263
– Per capita sales revenue $7,752
Housing is not our problem. The lack of commercial real estate and a long history of crappy economic development is our problem.
Time to get our head out of our ass and start developing our economy.
Frankly,
You left out that the land and housing prices in Palo Alto are about double to triple those in Davis, except for some Stanford students I believe it is one of the most affluent suburbs in the USA; many residents actually have plenty of spending money for luxury items.
jimt – There is not a strong correlation with per capita income and retail sales. For example, Woodland has a much lower per capita income than Davis and about twice the retail sales. However, it is not just retail firms we are lacking. And with cheaper land we should have more firms.
And you can’t present Palo Alto in isolation the same way you do Davis. It is part of the whole Silicon Valley economy and metropolitan area.
It would be great to reduce the birth rate but i live in the world as it is not as i wish it to be. By the way the average child born in Davis will consume many times the resources of the average child born in Honduras.
“And you can’t present Palo Alto in isolation the same way you do Davis.”
Actually one of the problems anti-growth proponents have in Davis is looking at Davis in isolation. As the city of Davis has refused to grow to accommodate the growth of the university much of the growth has occurred in West Sac, Woodland, Dixon and Winters resulting in more traffic, longer commutes, fewer bike trips, more pollution and greater consumption of fossil fuels. Yet when projects like the Cannery or West Village come up people complain about the traffic. Traffic that travels shorter distances, consumes less fossil fuel, produces less carbon dioxide and is more bike friendly. The anti-growth advocates have the thermodynamics of commuting all wrong because they have defined their world as being inside measure R. The first thing they teach you in thermodynamics is that it all depends on how you define your system. I guess the anti-growth motto of Davis should be: THINK LOCALLY NOT GLOBALLY.
Mr. Toad–but much of the growth in Davis (since at least late 1980s) has been that of a bedroom community of people who commute to Sacramento. New housing that is built would be competed for by others who work in Sac; the bigger wallets of Sac workers with high-paying jobs who want to live/raise their kids in a safe environment will win out. Even with subsidized housing for non-affluent; I wager there would be competition from those who work in Sac but would rather live and raise their kids in safer Davis.
Toad, I agree completely with planning growth so that people don’t have to commute long distances; however desirable neighborhoods are often not near jobs. I’ll bet if the neighborhoods of Sac and Woodland were somehow cleaned out so that gangs, drugs, and other crime were not such a problem (and worrysome influence for parents with school-age children); then Davis would not be so desirable as a bedroom community. Wish I knew how to do this.
jim, this is because we grew too slowly for so long that developers could make the most money building high end housing. Its a free country there will always be some who choose to commute as long as there are roads that allow reasonable commute times but in Woodland you have entire subdivisions designed and priced for the Davis workforce. Last summer at Morley’s swim school in Woodland I met university professors and a Davis firefighter who couldn’t afford to buy in Davis. If Davis had increased supply instead of cutting it off in the eighties Davis would be a lot bigger today and it would be affordable enough for the people who work here to live here. The sad truth is that if much of the housing near Rd. 102 had been built at the Davis end both communities would have been better off with Davis prices up less over time remaining more affordable and Woodland prices not having crashed so hard on the downside.
Mr Toad
“…
It would be great to reduce the birth rate but i live in the world as it is not as i wish it to be. By the way the average child born in Davis will consume many times the resources of the average child born in Honduras.”
I believe that we have the ability, through our actions, to shape the world in which we live. The way to reduce the birth rate is to actively engage with those who have the ability to affect it, our children and young people of reproductive age. And this has been a major focus of my career.
Your second point is also well taken. And my response to this is that we would be acting much more responsibly as a community if we were to chose to live more simply and to consume less resources. I do not believe that our current path of each individual seeking as much in terms of possessions as he can acquire is either beneficial for ourselves, our society or our environment, or even sustainable. This is a lesson we could, and should be teaching our children. I do not believe that progress is synonymous with either population or economic growth and that it is up to us, as individuals and as a society to act as better stewards of our resources and our environment.
Me Toad
“Actually one of the problems anti-growth proponents have in Davis is looking at Davis in isolation. As the city of Davis has refused to grow to accommodate the growth of the university much of the growth has occurred in West Sac, Woodland, Dixon and Winters resulting in more traffic, longer commutes, fewer bike trips, more pollution and greater consumption of fossil fuels. Yet when projects like the Cannery or West Village come up people complain about the traffic. Traffic that travels shorter distances, consumes less fossil fuel, produces less carbon dioxide and is more bike friendly”
You are making a huge assumption here. You are assuming that the people who purchase in The Cannery will also be working here. This ignores the fact that many of these folks will have jobs in Sacramento, or Vacaville, or Woodland. So in a typical nuclear family of two parents, two kids, at least one parent, if not both will be commuting in one car, while the other parent drives the kids to school then goes off to their job.
I see the issue of looking at Davis “in isolation” almost completely the opposite as you have presented it. Davis should indeed be considered as a part of the entire region. We should recognize that we have a unique role to play within the region and should foster that unique contribution, not attempt to compete with and or mimic every other I-80 community. In this regard, I think Don has it just about right. What Davis has much more of than any surrounding community is students. It is the needs of our students, namely student housing (primarily apartments) that we should be providing. What we do not need more of, in my opinion, are more commuter homes in the 400,000 to 600,000 range.
Directly across the street on the southeast corner directly across Covell from the light at the entrance to the Cannery site is a Yolo Bus Stop that provides transport to downtown Sac for people who work there. In my view these people will add to the vibrancy of our community. I believe you are a compassionate person i ask you to open your heart, overcome your fears, and embrace the richness that more people bring to our community.
I have no problem with the richness, etc. It’s the fact that nothing is being done to address the [i]actual[/i] housing shortage here, the one which affects lower income families most.
[quote]overcome your fears, [/quote]
It’s really time for you pro-growthers to stop with this particular bit of nonsense. Being in favor of careful growth is not a fear-based position. Opposing urban sprawl and poor urban planning is not based on fear. It is rational, resulting from observation of the impact of uncontrolled growth on nearby communities, and some understanding of the costs of rapid urban expansion.
We’re not afraid of anything about growth. We think it is poor policy.
“Pro-growthers”? Nice Don. Glad to see you too are gifted at assigning names to people you disagree with. By classifying people having a common opinion into common group-names makes it easier to write about them. It works!
By the way I am not offended by that name. It is incorrect, but for the sake of this debate, it works well enough.
But let’s get back to your point about “fear” being incorrect. I would like to hear some succinct explanation of your concerns about growth. I have used the word “fear” exactly because of the explanations I have heard to date. They are all hyped, negative, glass half-empty assumptions. For example, “If we allow peripheral development we will end up like Vacaville!”. Or, “It will kill the downtown!”
My concerns are about peripheral development, not growth. I have expressed my support for some forms of business and housing growth. I have also explained my concerns about peripheral development. In sum: it’s bad urban planning, it destroys farmland, and it adversely affects the town character and the things most people like about Davis. Peripheral development increases the need for city services, often in a manner that costs the city more in the long run than it benefits; i.e., it has budget impacts.
If residential growth happens too rapidly, it can skew enrollment in the school district and have an adverse effect on facilities. It is difficult to plan for the enrollment consequences of rapid residential growth. Nobody is presently proposing rapid residential growth, so I’m just pointing that out as something we’ve had to deal with in the past.
Some kinds of business growth harm the downtown and the neighborhood shopping centers. Others don’t.
” I have also explained my concerns about peripheral development. In sum: it’s bad urban planning, it destroys farmland, and it adversely affects the town character and the things most people like about Davis.”
I happen to think that densification is worse and i would reiterate what I said earlier about forcing the rest of humanity into slums. Finally i don’t care about building out onto farmland. Silicon Valley was once farmland but the value added by nurturing tech has produced wealth and economic benefits that far exceed any commodity production that could ever take place there. So now we have come full circle i would rather have value added development while you would prefer a plantation model.
Don, if we never allowed peripheral growth the town would be a couple of square blocks in size. If we never allowed business growth that caused any competition we would only have one book store, one nursery, one shoe store, one restaurant and ten bars. If there is an optimum town size and scale that Davis has magically hit and justifies no more geographic expansion, then ALL other places larger would be crappy places to live. If developing land that can be used for farming is such a terrible thing, then why not demand that we go up and down the central valley and reclaim all that residential and commercial real estate so we can farm it again?
I think you have dug in your heels on a position and your arguments are fanciful and fatalistic.
Of course we can grow and develop our periphery and still remain a fantastic city. I think you lack imagination.
I think you should live somewhere else. I cannot for the life of me understand why you choose to live here.
[quote]If we never allowed business growth that caused any competition [/quote]
And of course, as usual, I have never advocated that position.
[quote]If there is an optimum town size and scale that Davis has magically hit and justifies no more geographic expansion, then ALL other places larger would be crappy places to live. [/quote]
This statement makes no sense. But I’ll just reply: no. They’re not Davis. Davis residents have voted to grow as slowly as legally possible. The general plan and subsequent planning documents reiterate the desire of Davis residents to keep the town relatively compact, walkable, bikeable, green, and with strong neighborhoods.
[quote]If developing land that can be used for farming is such a terrible thing, then why not demand that we go up and down the central valley and reclaim all that residential and commercial real estate so we can farm it again? [/quote]
Here we go again. Paving under farmland is something that we have come to realize is undesirable. It is something to be avoided. There is a general consensus that land use policies, to the greatest extent possible, should preserve farmland, open space, and natural areas. The fact that Californians developed cities in an undesirable manner in the past doesn’t mean we should continue to do so.
My position is far closer to that of most Davis residents than yours is, based on their votes and expressed preferences during planning processes.
[quote]I happen to think that densification is worse and i would reiterate what I said earlier about forcing the rest of humanity into slums. Finally i don’t care about building out onto farmland. Silicon Valley was once farmland but the value added by nurturing tech has produced wealth and economic benefits that far exceed any commodity production that could ever take place there. So now we have come full circle i would rather have value added development while you would prefer a plantation model.[/quote]
Slums? Hard to see how Davis land use policies, as expressed in the General Plan and as practiced, would lead to ‘slums’. Talk about hyperbole.
Silicon Valley destroyed some of the best orchard land in the world. It could have been planned and developed much more sustainably with respect to farmland. But more to the point: we aren’t Silicon Valley, nor do I think Davis aspires to be Silicon Valley.
What you guys don’t get is that most Davisites probably like Davis pretty much the way it is. I’m sure some growth is fine. Building a big business park on the edge of town? Pointless and probably wouldn’t pass a Measure R vote. Building a big housing development on the edge of town? I think it is very clear that wouldn’t pass a Measure R vote. Building a big retail center on the edge of town? Very unlikely to pass a Measure R vote. And Measure R reflects the will and preference of Davis voters. You probably should get used to that.
Nishi, in my opinion, would pass a Measure R vote.
“I think you should live somewhere else.”
This from a guy who lives somewhere else.
I also find it ironic that someone who lives on a farm advocates a development scheme that leads to other people living in dense conditions.
You may be correct that there is general opposition to developing farmland in this area but the point of the article was to discuss our options and try to figure out how to move forward. Maintaining all farmland as the highest and best purpose of our spatial resources is poor economics. It worked for a long time but never generated high living standards for farm workers. Like Medwoman’s romantic notions of a town limited at 50,000 your vision harkens back to a community of perhaps 1,000. If you want Davis to be like Winters, Yolo or Esparto lock up the land. If you want it to capitalize on the value that can be added by the brilliant minds of its human capital then we need to develop the space for that to happen.
I’m invested in this community, Mr. Toad. When you post under your own name, you can make your assertions about my hypocrisy. Until then, I’ve got 32 years as a local business owner and community member to put up against some guy who posts under a pseudonym.
I also have not said we need to “maintain all farmland.” Protecting farmland should be a high priority, as it indeed is for Yolo County. My vision is a well-planned community, not urban sprawl. In your anonymous years on this blog you have advocated for every residential and business development proposal, so far as I can remember. So the real question is: what would the Davis identity be if Frankly, Mr. Toad, and Mark West had their way? Would it be a city of 150,000? Would it merge with Woodland to the north?
[quote]but the point of the article was to discuss our options and try to figure out how to move forward[/quote]
That’s what we’re doing. My answer would be to move on the areas of broad consensus that have been discussed on the Vanguard before: annex Nishi, allow greater flexibility on downtown zoning, etc. My answer would be we don’t need a business park. I would urge that the city revisit its affordable housing strategies (which don’t work) and require greater density. Your answer may differ. In that case, I urge that it be put on the ballot so we can gauge, again, the sense of the community. I’d be willing to wager, if it were legal, that my vision would prevail. But I really do think that there are areas of agreement.
DSIDE met in, what, 2010? Since then, basically nothing has happened in terms of policy for economic development. The council has been focused on the water project, and now on budget issues. I say, get Nishi on the ballot, establish a task force to revisit zoning issues, make a decision on ConAgra, and start updating the General Plan. That is likely all that can happen in the next year or two, possibly longer depending on local politics and the economy. Stop tilting at windmills.
[quote]I happen to think that densification is worse [/quote]
I generally agree with this. But I think there is a need to factor both into a city’s growth strategy.
I am in New York, (upper west Manhattan) this week. The last two days I visited family in the New York suburbs. Talk about densification! However, there is Central Park. There is the bike path that runs the length of the Hudson. There are other parks around the city. But, there is shopping and restaurants and business galore. Davis is certainly not headed the way of New York, but the comparison demonstrates the simple-mindedness of those demanding that Davis does not grow. These people simple lack vision and imagination for a future of change.
Aversion to change is a natural human tendency that is meant to be overcome for real progress to ensue. It is more often an emotional impulse born out of fear of the unknown. The worst thing that can happen to a city is to let those emotional impulses rule since the residents would miss so many opportunities for developments that would enhance lifestyles and livelihood.
The key is to channel that change-blocking energy and instead use it to be visionary, creative and innovative to extract the greatest benefits from change.
We have allowed those change-averse activists to set the agenda for long enough. It is time for change agents to take charge and push the rest to the back of the room. Davis can be so much better. Those blocking change just don’t get that.
Frankly
[quote]but the comparison demonstrates the simple-mindedness of those demanding that Davis does not grow. These people simple lack vision and imagination for a future of change. [/quote]
[quote]It is time for change agents to take charge and push the rest to the back of the room. Davis can be so much better. Those blocking change just don’t get that.[/quote]
This is an inaccurate representation of my position. I would fully embrace dramatic change in Davis. It is just that our visions of what that change would look like are quite different. I would like to see Davis change from an auto dominant community to one centered around the more healthful activities of walking and biking. As a start
I would like to see a “no car” zone in the downtown area. I would like to see vast expansion of public transportation with low to no emission vehicles. I would like to see expansion and maintenance of pedestrian, bike, roller blade and skateboard paths such that all of the schools and neighborhoods have safe access thus diminishing the perceived need of parents to drive their children to school. This is not about me “wanting to walk around some European village”. It is about me wanting to promote a healthier lifestyle with cleaner air,
more exercise and less dependence on the automobile.
I would like Davis to embrace the fact that many of our students do much of their purchasing on line and not through brick and mortar stores. This necessarily means that looking forward, even more retail will likely be occurring on line as today’s children, raised on Internet access to almost everything, will do more of their shopping this way. From my own children’s ( now relatively old at 24 and 21) who did not have computer access in their preschool years , tendency to shop malls, outlet stores, and brick and mortar less and less, it would seem that the type of expansion of business that you have seemed to favor is not actually forward looking change at all, but rather a call to attempt to promote more of an unhealthy and out moded lifestyle here in Davis.
As a doctor, I fully appreciate the value of change, both individual and societal. When assessing change I believe it is most important to have a common vision of where you want to be at designated intervals, say one year, five years, ten years for example. I suspect that our real difference lies not in adversity to change, but in our vision of what an ideal living community would look like. I feel that current trends in our society and the presence of the university are driving us towards the creation of a town that would house more students, therefore, the need for more apartments, more restaurants, more entertainment, but not necessarily a lot more retail and certainly not more $400,000 to $600,000 dollar homes as proposed for much of the Cannery.
For me it is not a matter of change vs no change, but rather one of vision for what that change would create.
I am emphatically not in favor of more of the same but would welcome true innovation.
Frankly, we are talking about a business park, not the Guggenheim. All the glamour of Natomas, while you’re trying to sell Manhattan. Most people aren’t looking for the qualities of New York when they move to Davis. People who want the qualities of a big city should probably move to a big city. When I was choosing a university to attend, I ruled out all the urban areas because I didn’t want a big city.
I don’t lack vision. I’ve seen your vision, and chose not to live there.
Don, I am not talking about Davis being New York. I’m just illustrating how ludicrous it is to make this claim that growth equalled to a crappier place to live. There are also plenty of places in the US to live where there is little pressure for growth. Davis is not one of them.
But the issue in this article is economic development. We are in need of much more business per capita even if our population does not profoundly increase.
Don: I’m not proposing this, but rather want to see how you react to the thought. What if we had the voters asked to approve a business park east of Mace along the north side of I-80. Let’s start with 100 acres as a baseline. As part of the agreement, the owners of the adjacent area agreed to put 200 acres, immediately adjacent to this property into permanent conservation easement status. Is that a non-starter?
Development on the soils east of Mace are a non-starter for me, yes. My opinion is that Mace should be an urban limit line, with severe restrictions on what can happen to the remaining ag parcel within that curve as well. But that’s just my opinion. Permanent conservation easement wouldn’t be sufficient IMO to mitigate the loss of ag soil of that quality.
Here is what I posted in response to my earlier article (sorry for the duplication, just wanted to make sure it was seen by all those interested)…
All
Please excuse my absence in the dialogue as I have been celebrating with my family the graduation of my son from high school and acceptance in to Chico State. These are exciting times in the White family household, indeed.
Let me also thank each of you for 1) taking the time to read my article and 2) taking the time to wrestle with some very interesting issues. It is such an honor to be part of a community that can have rational dialogue and uncover our diversity, which I am sure is what makes this a celebrated and unparalleled community.
Though I am sure I won’t be able to address all of your input in one post, let me get this part out of the way. David (and others) are exactly correct in that my article is not any kind of policy statement nor was it meant to lead to any specific conclusions.
I am a staff member of the City of Davis. I answer to Steve Pinkerton, who answers to the City Council. The Council sets policy and direction, and it is my job to implement that policy under Steve’s direction. I take direction from him and no outside entities are driving my work product.
To answer a question often asked (though not in this forum)… Half of my salary is paid by businesses through the partnership with the non-profit techDAVIS, but they do not manage or control my work. And the businesses that have generously donated to techDAVIS for this effort are all at equal donation amounts and are comprised of local and regional banks, attorneys, specialty stores, land use reps and grocers. No one business segment dominates and the managing directors of techDAVIS are local residents that are mindful of the community’s concerns and needs. If you are interested in being part of the techDAVIS effort, please feel free to email them at info@techdavis.org
The article I wrote was intended to share the information I have heard directly from businesses over the last few months, not suggest outcomes. The community has a rich body of work on economic development from the past decade, and it is my job to help synthesize that in to a single unified (and measurable) effort which will be presented to Council during the upcoming budget year (hopefully in early 2014). This effort will be conducted in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, the City’s Business and Economic Development Commission (BEDC), the Downtown Business Association and other local and regional economic development orgs and groups.
And yes, I do cover innovation and attracting tech businesses as one of my many job duties, but I am also the City’s lead for economic development. That means all businesses – all types and all sizes.
Concerning where the businesses go… that is the question in which the community and City Council are struggling. As suggested, maybe Davis becomes a home to startups and mid-sized tech companies? Maybe when businesses grow to a certain size they must inevitably leave ‘the nest’ and move on. One factor to consider in this dialogue is that Council has set strong policy goals of trying to increase jobs and the number/diversity of businesses to increase revenues to the City, but there are a myriad of ways to accomplish this goal.
And as most of you know, the City does need revenue. We need it for better streets, open pools, replacement of aging infrastructure, delivery of police and fire services, parks, etc. And we are locked in to very few sources of that revenue do to State laws and practice. Typically these are made up of property taxes, sales taxes, grants and fees.
It seems apparent that increased property taxes is a significant opportunity for increased revenue, but not just from churn of existing housing stock. Companies like Mori Seiki install millions of dollars’ worth of equipment that is taxed as unsecured property. There are plenty of examples in California where a single plant full of high tech manufacturing equipment can generate as much tax annually as a neighborhood of a few hundred homes. And these are companies comparable in size (facility and number of people) to Mori Seiki.
Regarding where all of those new job holders will live… Bay Area Economics has opined that there is a 3,000 job deficit in Davis. That means that at least 3,000 people leave the City to go to work, in places like Sacramento and the Bay Area. By creating more job opportunities in Davis, some (and maybe even many) of these residents could work closer to home, which increases their quality of life dramatically and has a positive impact on sustainability goals of the City.
And regarding large corporations coming to town… the size of these corporations means that they have the resources to be significant philanthropist. Most of us can agree that we need more giving in and around Davis to help our struggling non-profit community. By bringing those with higher levels of disposable income and corporate giving mandates to Davis, we increase the potential that some of the good work these non-profits do each day will continue.
So these are just a few thoughts in answer to your input to date. I will try to read through the posts again and see if something else jumps out that I can answer specifically now.
But as I have said a few times to date, this is a dialogue and no one answer will complete the puzzle. I am convinced that a community full of highly-educated people working in collaboration to solve these issues will get us a best fit answer that the majority of the community can support. I certainly have a lot of experience and best practices to work from, but these will only help to inform us as we find our complete answer.
Of one thing we can be certain; we have realized that the economic base in Davis is not big enough or diverse enough to sustain our list of community desires and standard of quality of life. The City and community must utilize its best options for creating long-term revenue sources to continue our sustainability leadership and maintain the way of life that Davis residents have come to enjoy.
I welcome your thoughts and comments, and feel free to email me at rwhite@cityofdavis.org with suggestions.
[quote]And the businesses that have generously donated to techDAVIS for this effort are all at equal donation amounts and are comprised of local and regional banks, attorneys, specialty stores, land use reps and grocers. No one business segment dominates and the managing directors of techDAVIS are local residents that are mindful of the community’s concerns and needs.[/quote]
Thanks for your comments, Rob. Who are the members of techDAVIS? Is there a public listing of the donors? Your situation sets an interesting precedent of having a city employee paid by private enterprise, which could [i]theoretically [/i]lead to conflicts of interest. So it would serve the public well to have the names of those who are paying part of your salary be a matter of public record.
Don: I’m working to get that information.
[quote]And regarding large corporations coming to town… the size of these corporations means that they have the resources to be significant philanthropist.[/quote]
Do you have any numbers about how much Monsanto has donated to local groups? Or how much Roche International (Genentech) donated locally in Dixon? (For that matter, is Genentech still operating in Dixon? I know they were retrenching.)