There is an old adage in politics that if you want to understand why something happened – particularly something where all of the pieces do not seem to add up – you need to follow the money. An exercise that, as often as not, is easier said than done.
Since Tuesday’s vote where the council, by a 3-2 vote, rejected staff recommendations to pause the grant-seeking process with NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) and pursue a possible deal where the easement proposed on Mace Curve 391 could be swapped for one on the Shriner’s Property where Capitol Corridor Ventures had just finished the agreement to gain an option on that land.
As we have noted, there are certainly problems with the public process here, and how the public vetting of the deal was unfolded. But at the same time, there were also some rather curious bedfellows.
It is not a huge surprise that Councilmember Rochelle Swanson and Mayor Pro Dan Wolk, who have generally been more willing to consider development projects, would support the land swap, believing that the city needed land to put their proposed business park and to promote economic development.
On the other hand, Mayor Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Brett Lee have been stronger proponents of preservation of open space and agricultural land. Councilmember Lee seemed to favor discussing the possibility of the land swap, but not so, given the process. The mayor indicated he was inclined to go with the property that we had in hand and proceed with the original plan.
That those four came down as they did was not that surprising to the observer who follows the city council closely.
One of the biggest questions is why would Lucas Frerichs, who has generally been more inclined toward supporting development proposals, balk at this project.
“That’s frankly the heart of it for me,” he said. “This whole process has in my mind not been that transparent and it’s been very frustrating.” He would later tell me that it was not only the process issue that concerned him, but that it was, in fact, a big issue for him.
One dynamic going on is the notion of competing properties. David Morris of techDavis and CCV laid out in his comment why he believed the Mace Curve 391 property was the ideal – if not the only suitable – property in the city of Davis for this kind of development.
However, his proposal went against several years of land use decisions, themselves resulting from the actions of strange bedfellows. The original deal for the city to get an easement on Mace Curve 391 came together quickly and council was seemingly pressured into the deal.
Stephen Souza was one of the strange bedfellows who seemed to push the council away from Mace Curve 391 and toward the Howatt Ranch property.
He noted that he was part of the team that negotiated what he called “this highly leveraged best purchased open space in the city history.”
He said “I would not give up that bird in hand” and “that is something that isn’t going to come along, I don’t think again.”
But if we look at that original deal, the Vanguard has learned that Tim Ruff was part of the ownership group pushing for that parcel to be put into a conservation easement. According to the November 16, 2010, council staff report, the property had been foreclosed on by creditors earlier that year and the First Bank of NW Arkansas acquired it and placed it on the market.
Tim Ruff, according to the agreement the council passed, represented the city, with the bank represented by Lyon Real Estate in the brokerage agreement.
Tim Ruff happens to be part of the ownership team of the Nishi property, that also includes John Whitcombe, a close associate of Mr. Souza.
The city is, of course, looking into Nishi as a possible location for a business park, as well as east of Mace, with the third location being the Northwest Quadrant – north of Covell Blvd and west of Sutter-Davis Hospital.
It is these properties and their geographic distribution that combined to create some strange bedfellows in the killing of this project.
Enter Supervisor Don Saylor, who is generally known as one of the more pro-development forces, first on council and now as a county supervisor. The Vanguard has learned he was against the potential land swap.
Why would that be? One possibility is where the respective properties lie with respect to district boundaries. Putting a business park east of Mace puts the business park and the respective business activity in Jim Provenza’s county supervisor district. Whereas, supporting putting that land into a permanent conservation easement effectively precludes that possibility.
That leaves Nishi and the Northwest Quadrant as alternative possibilities for a business park. The city has already moved forward with an examination of Nishi as a potential spot – however, Nishi by itself does not appear large enough to accommodate the full nature of the business park that was envisioned for Mace Curve 391.
Lucas Frerichs, as we know, has close ties to Don Saylor and also to John Whitcombe, as he was a big supporter and volunteer for the Covell Village development.
This configuration also puts the Davis Chamber of Commerce in a strange position. They were notably absent from the meeting on Tuesday, despite the fact that the business park and economic development have been their big push. Why would they be absent?
There are some interesting conflicts there. Kemble Pope, the executive director, worked for John Whitcombe and Tandem Properties prior to his current position. Then you have Chamber Chair Gregg Herrington, who works for the Yackzan Group who controls a good portion of the Northwest Quadrant.
We are not alleging some sort of vast conspiracy here. Instead, we are showing that there are a variety of economic interests by a number of the stakeholders who came forward to speak out against the land swap.
One of the long-time debates in Davis is whether we should go to district elections. A district election would create more situations of this sort, as the council would not only be divided on the philosophic issues that already divide the community, but the parochial policy decisions about where to put key projects.
It also suggests why it is so vital to keep public disclosure forms as requirements for working on critical committees and commissions for the city.
Let us be clear, we are not accusing anyone of impropriety here. We are merely showing how economic interests, alliances, and policy preferences seemingly line up.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Editor note: Statement removed on one potential landowner after we had reason to question whether they owned land in the arrea specified in the article.
Good investigating David. I’m sure there’s still a lot more to this story. As it almost always is, just follow the money.
This is only what I was able to confirm without public documents.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Interesting analysis. It’s always odd when people act contrary to form. No conspiracy, but what a tangled web we weave…
You wrap this around an argument against district representation. But it would seem a district councilor would be as likely to to reflect a better understanding of the areas under consideration and to oppose or support a proposal based on that. Big philosophic visions aren’t necessarily the best drivers for good,decisions.
You close with an appeal to keeping disclosure forms for commissions, why? What did the practice have to do with developing this story or avoiding conflicts in the matter?
Good questions/ points Just Saying.
First, I’m not, as I think I wrote, trying to draw on a conspiracy. In fact, it seems like a bunch of people simply operating according to their own interests. It’s just that in some cases, the interests are not readily apparent on the surface,
I admit it’s probably disjointed, but that was the idea as to why I like the idea of disclosure forms. It’s why in the past I have suggested, though admit it’s complex, that people operating as agents or on behalf of interests – particularly those paid, ought to register like lobbyists before congress or the state should.
In terms of district elections – to me the question here is whether and where the best place is to put a business park. By creating a district election system, we add in a political element that a councilmember will want to put the park in his / her district. Or in a housing development, perhaps local pressures push development to another district. It adds in a new complicating element to already difficult decisions.
Do we have disclosure forms for commissioners noe? Seems like a good idea as past of the selection process and on some continuing basis, depending on the issues the commission faces.
With respect to the district representative, maybe he/she would have made a case for NOT having a business park in her/his backyard. But, you’re right, the councilor wound have one more consideration to make, for good or bad.
So, we can’t accept involvement from any participant that has a financial stake? This being the case, we need EVERY public-sector employee having any connection with public-sector unions from being involved in any public policy or project decision that might impact the number of public-sector employees.
so you think its okay for people with hidden financial interests to attempt to influence our government without disclosure?
Oh, and for the same reason we need to recuse Democrats from being involved in these decisions since the public-sector unions fund their campaigns.
I remember a conversation a few years back with someone who would locally be considered slow-growth, and the comment was that district elections could lead to disproportionate influence by local developers. In the case of East Davis in particular, which has never provided any significant number of candidates, the contention was that it would be easier for an unknown — with strong financial backing — to achieve a council seat than it would be for such a candidate to get elected city-wide.
as opposed to the easier solution there. glad we’re going to be logical. no one called for their exclusion here, only tranparency.
[i]so you think its okay for people with hidden financial interests to attempt to influence our government without disclosure?[/i]
It depends.
If we are talking about economic development, then how are you going to be successful if you exclude every person and every entity that has a connection with any person or entity that has a financial state?
I challenge this canard that transparency is the issue. The rabid reactionaries would chew just as hard on any information disclosed as they are this bone of conspiracy and non-disclosed conflicts of interest.
Note that a conflict-of-interest is only a risk. All risks can be managed. And far less than 100% of risks will result in negative impacts. Another risk is opportunity cost. This is the cost of no action because we are so fearful of change impacts.
And, as I point out, our political system is rife with undisclosed and institutionalized conflicts of interest.
Last point… people and entities are motivated to be involved because of interest. If you exclude all parties that have interest because of fear of conflict, you will get nothing done. Which probably suits the NIMBY, statist, no-growthers just fine.
So Don Saylor knew about this land swap, too. How nice. But the general public couldn’t be clued in until the day before the vote? Sorry, but this council cannot be trusted. The 2014 elections are going to be very interesting.
Do no-growthers have a conflict of interest being involved in economic development decisions if they own a business in town that might suffer competition, or if they own real estate that might get value impacts.
the irony of your comments here frankly is that you missed that david’s article actual focuses on the no-growth side, the people behind killing the deal. he calls for transparency not not banning.
“Do no-growthers have a conflict of interest being involved in economic development decisions if they own a business in town that might suffer competition, or if they own real estate that might get value impacts.”
All the more reason for decision-makers of any stripe to disclose their financial interests. It’s not a bar to public service, but it does allow voters to decide for themselves what may be motivating their leaders’ decisions.
Transparency does not end the motivation of those against the project to stop working to block it. In fact, it probably enhances their campaign against it. Which is why sometimes leading policy makers are motivated to take a more stealth approach.
The lie here is that transparency would have made a difference in how those against it would have responded. Would we have had a 3-2 vote in favor? No, I think given enough lead time, those against everything would have had more time to browbeat city council members into a 4-1 vote against.
[quote]So, we can’t accept involvement from any participant that has a financial stake? This being the case, we need EVERY public-sector employee having any connection with public-sector unions from being involved in any public policy or project decision that might impact the number of public-sector employees. [/quote]You obviously know little or nothing about the law, nor ethics. Disclosure of interests, if any, is key.
Your hyperbole is tiresome.
BTW, I have serious concerns re: unions, public sector or private sector. Some are necessary, most are not, but frankly, if more people like you, Frankly, are going to spout off that all public sector employees are overcompensated, lazy, inefficient, corrupt, etc., maybe the unions ARE needed.
5 – 6 posts in on this thread, Frankly, the logical conclusion of your argument is that it’s ok for the city and developers to hide deals from the public. Is that really what you’re arguing? I hate to put words in your mouth, but I can’t escape that conclusion from your comments.
Do homeowners have a conflict of interest when they vote on Measure J/R projects? City Councilmembers are not allowed to vote on projects within 500′ of real estate or business owned. But homeowners get to vote on land use decisions when they have a financial interest.
No, I’m saying two things:
One – Those against everything cause stealth approaches because otherwise nothing gets done. They need to look in the mirror and stop lying that anything resembling reasonableness and objectivity exists in their brains for anything related to city growth and development.
Two – Getting things done usually demands that parties involved have interest. Why worry about disclosing it when the goals are justified?
Related to number two, everyone with an opinion and a vote has a conflict of interest. The only people that matter are decision-makers… i.e. the politicians and city managers. If a private person or entity would get a financial gain for some development project, it is their right to try and influence decision-makers. This does not require disclosure as it is expected and standard human and company behavior.
The ONLY problem is when an elected official that is a decision-maker has a conflict of interest.
That distinction is HUGE. The folks on this blog are attacking Rob and the entities with a financial stake in a decision to possibly allow the eventual development of a business park. However, the ONLY conflict-of-interest that matters is those owned by the decision makers.
This in my main point. Public employee unions have a perpetual undisclosed conflict of interest based on the arguments made here. But it is the politicians that would/could have the ONLY material conflict of interest as they are the decision-makers. If they have any financial stake, then it absolutely should be disclosed. But ALL other parties involved in influencing the decision have an interest in the outcome of the decision, and hence also have a conflict of interest.
David wrote:
> There is an old adage in politics that if you want to
> understand why something happened – particularly something
> where all of the pieces do not seem to add up – you need
> to follow the money. An exercise that, as often as not, is
> easier said than done
It is getting harder to “follow the money” since more and more (even regular people like me) are paying money to make it harder for people to find out our personal financial information and real estate ownership.
If David calls a realtor to find out who owns my home he would get the name of a LLC and when he looked up the LLC on the Sec. of state web site he would get the name of my CPA (he would need a court order to get my name).
> that also includes John Whitcombe, a close associate of Mr. Souza.
I have never heard of Souza and Whitcombe doing development deals together? Does Steven and John have business dealings above and beyond Ultra Clean doing work on Tandems pools?
Frankly wrote:
> Public employee unions have a perpetual undisclosed
> conflict of interest
Today (almost) everyone knows that the unions own (most) politicians in the state.
The teachers union, prison guard union, SEIU and other unions don’t hide (most) of the money that they give so the conflict is not “undisclosed”…
[quote]The ONLY problem is when an elected official that is a decision-maker has a conflict of interest. [/quote]
Elected officials [u]and staff.[/u]
[quote]Do we have disclosure forms for commissioners now? Seems like a good idea[/quote]
Yes, every commissioner has to file a Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interests) annually. If you want to get an idea of my financial situation, all you have to do is ask the City Clerk for a copy of my 700.
[i]Elected officials and staff.[/i]
Agree. If they have a financial conflict of interest.
[i]The teachers union, prison guard union, SEIU and other unions don’t hide (most) of the money that they give so the conflict is not “undisclosed”… [/i]
They hide the monetary value of the free labor they provide, which often is more valuable relative to election outcomes than is the cash they deposit in Democrat politician’s campaign accounts.
Frankly wrote:
> They hide the monetary value of the free labor they
> provide, which often is more valuable relative to
> election outcomes than is the cash they deposit in
> Democrat politician’s campaign accounts.
I’m no defender of the unions, but they are not “hiding” time spent on Democrat campaigns any more than private business is “hiding” the time spent on a Republican campaign (say writing letters to their employees or talking to neighbors). There is no law that says people (like a teacher hoping a Democrat will give them a raise or a conservative hoping a Republican will “save” marriage) need to report the time they spend on any campaign.
People, the Internet is your friend. It contains a wealth of information to inform you. See, for example, the application to be on a Davis commission:
[url]http://city-managers-office.cityofdavis.org/Media/CityManagersOffice/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/General-Documents/Commission Application – Final.pdf[/url]
It specifically asks, “Do you have any interests or associations which might present a conflict of interest? YES (please explain).”
It also asks for your occupation, past and present government experience (employment or volunteer), and Civic Groups / Clubs / Professional Organizations with which you have been affiliated.
Interesting. An article discussing possible hidden agendas on the opposition side and what do we hear ……… crickets.
Um, nothing to see here folks. Just keep moving.
davisite4, that link does not work for me.
someone i ran into on the streets made the same comment about the lack of comments here.
Hate to contradict Jim Frame, but only a few Commissions require financial disclosure forms to be filed. Certainly, the Bicycle Advisory Commission doesn’t, even though we are hell bent on eliminating all motorized traffic in the City…..
David. Thanks for writing this article. Perhaps the idea that there were multiple hidden agendas (I count at least a half dozen) at play makes this too hard to gets one’s head around.
Or maybe this is is too toxic to discuss because it touches everyone from the Yolo Land Trust to the Whitcombe machine.
[quote]only a few Commissions require financial disclosure forms to be filed.[/quote]
My mistake — I assumed they were all treated alike. I’m surprised to learn that they aren’t.
Say, now that you mention it, we didn’t have to file Form 700 in order to become CERT members, either. Time for a major investment in disaster preparedness stocks? Oh, wait, I don’t have anything with which to invest…
[quote]Say, now that you mention it, we didn’t have to file Form 700 in order to become CERT members, either. Time for a major investment in disaster preparedness stocks? Oh, wait, I don’t have anything with which to invest… [/quote]
Sure you do….all that equity in that Central Davis mansion you occupy. Then, when it burns down in a disaster, you make out more ways from Sunday.
Oh, wait……..
[quote]Interesting. An article discussing possible hidden agendas on the opposition side and what do we hear ……… crickets.[/quote]
I’m not sure what there is to say. There’s a lot of overlap among real estate interests in and around Davis, and the politicians locally who they support.
Is that news?
I was a little curious that the Chamber and Downtown Davis didn’t weigh in on the issue, but given the hasty way it came up my guess is neither group had time to review it. Commissions and local groups such as the Chamber weren’t given any lead time. That speaks more to the inept way the deal was handled than any lack of interest on their part.
My guess is the Chamber and DD would have taken official positions on the land swap if they’d had an opportunity. Just as the Open Space commission, among others, would have taken a position.
In fact, it seems the intent of the process was to preclude any interest groups from having that opportunity. When you use the consent calendar, avoid commissions, and a key stakeholder (CCV/techDavis) is presented in a misleading manner, it seems that your intent is to slide the proposal through without full and adequate oversight.
It is possible that other landowners and interested parties locally had some awareness of what was going on. But the public certainly didn’t.
[i]are going to spout off that all public sector employees are overcompensated, lazy, inefficient, corrupt, etc., maybe the unions ARE needed. [/i]
Talk about hyperbole, when did I ever write that all public-sector employees are these things?
Go back and read what I have written please and prove this.
And while you are at it, consider that Unions reflect all their membership about as much as a private company reflects all their employees.
A relative of mine that is a senior lecturer at Boston University and is married to a tenured professor at Boston University was telling me how lousy the relationship between faculty and administration is. She said that her East Indian husband was subject to consistent and clear racism from both. She said that pay was too low for some, and much too high for others.
Of course she is a liberal Democrat and supports unions.
She would be better off with a professional HR department and individual employment contracts, but she does not even know it.
Unions are the problem, not the unionized employees. However, unions will corrupt and otherwise quality employee into a master of mediocrity.
Very nice action photo of our hard-working City Clerk striving to catch every word ….
[quote]”In fact, it seems the intent of the process was to preclude any interest groups from having that opportunity. When you use the consent calendar, avoid commissions, and a key stakeholder (CCV/techDavis) is presented in a misleading manner, it seems that your intent is to slide the proposal through without full and adequate oversight. “[/quote]The city manager spent more than five minutes explaining the the reasons that they generally put items on the consent calendar; didn’t his ramblings convince you?
One of the main reasons he expounded on was that putting something on allows for it to be taken off. I can’t remember the others ’cause they were very confusing. Hope this helps, Don.
David, fascinating article. I can feel all the lobbying for and against that land swap deal. Good for Joe and Lucas to vote it down; they are going to get brownie points from a wide swath of city voters for that one vote.
Sorry about the broken link; try this ([url]http://city-managers-office.cityofdavis.org/Media/CityManagersOffice/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/General-Documents/Commission Application – Final.pdf[/url])
To fight off any crickets, here were my thoughts upon reading the article, such as they were.
Let’s suppose David is right and that some were against building an “innovation park” at Mace Curve because they have some financial interest in one elsewhere (Nishi or Northwest Davis) and would prefer to see an innovation park. Even if that is true, there are still plenty in Davis who want to preserve open space and/or agricultural land. So, the two interests would have been arguing for the same outcome, but for different reasons.
What happens when the time comes to discuss Nishi and Northwest Davis? Do the current innovation park proponents join forces with those same pro-open space and ag interests to defeat it? Will they be foiled by their own strategy? Or will they be smarter and make a more persusasive (and community driven) case that wins over the electorate? That is probably easier to do with Nishi than Northwest Davis. But it might be possible. Time will tell.
should have been, “would prefer to see an innovation park elsewhere”
Crap, that link doesn’t want to post. Maybe this one will:
[url]http://city-managers-office.cityofdavis.org/city-clerk/apply-to-serve-on-a-city-commission[/url]
or this:
here ([url]http://city-managers-office.cityofdavis.org/city-clerk/apply-to-serve-on-a-city-commission[/url]).