As we move toward the fall, one of our concerns is that there are many movements afoot without an overall and overarching plan. In terms of land use, we see four critical issues: residential housing development, economic development of high-tech and university spinoffs, the Davis Downtown, and retail.
We begin by looking at housing. There are a number of critical questions: how much housing do we need in the next ten years? What type of housing do we need and where does that housing go?
One of the interesting things that has occurred is the widespread belief that Measure J and Measure R will continue to prevent additional peripheral housing. But the two projects that were handily rejected by voters contained fatal flaws. Covell Village was too large and roadway impacts were not adequately addressed. Wildhorse Ranch had occurred during the heart of the recession.
Fact is, voters did approve Wildhorse. It was a nasty, bitter and contentious campaign, but it was ultimately approved.
The type of housing will be interesting. We have heard calls for workforce and affordable housing to serve young families. We have heard arguments that providing more rental housing will free up existing housing stock for families. We have heard arguments that providing more senior housing will do the same.
The final question here is where do we go with housing? Right now we have a 547-unit proposal at Cannery – that council may or may not approve and that the voters may or may not put on the ballot.
One of my suggestions for the Nishi property would be to allow it to become the spot for high-density student housing. As university rather than city development, it would not be subject to a Measure J/R vote. But it could be a place to supply a large amount of student housing without huge impacts to traffic and other factors.
However, right now it seems like Nishi is being looked at more as a mixed-use site that would require a Measure J/R vote. Anything that has outflow onto Richards Blvd. is going to have huge traffic impacts, and that will make passage problematic.
Other areas of potential growth have been the re-opened possibility of both the PG&E property as well as the city’s properties on Fifth Street, as possible locations for high-density housing. The discussion this past week on Mission Residence shows that high-density housing around existing residences might be difficult to achieve on a wide basis, but those two properties have advantages of distance from existing properties.
The question then is whether those proposals are enough housing to meet Davis’ intermediate-term needs. We see Wildhorse Ranch with a potential small scale project as an additional possibility. We see Covell Village to be unlikely, as the developer has indicated that they have no plans in the immediate future to develop that property.
That takes us to economic development. Rob White, the city’s chief innovation officer, has noted that we have a lack of current sites that would accommodate big companies like Bayer, and some other companies that are seeking to grow.
The Cannery, for a variety of reasons that we have reported on, does not appear likely as a future business park site.
“I think when you look at the property,” said George Phillips, who is a consultant for ConAgra, “When you look at the property at what it should or could be, even though it’s zoned industrial, it makes sense in our mind that it’s a residential mixed use.”
“It didn’t and doesn’t make sense to us that it’s a business park site,” he said. In his opinion, that is because it was an anomaly that it was zoned industrial to begin with. It was an industrial site for agricultural purposes, as a tomato cannery that the city grew around. “Neighborhoods grew up around this industrial site. So if you chose a site today for an industrial or business park, you wouldn’t say this is the place to put it because of the residential neighborhoods around it.”
In addition to the unwillingness by the owner to pursue an industrial park, there are some other problems that consistently come up with regard to simply building a business park at the Cannery site.
As the city’s CIO, Rob White noted in a comment last week, “Many industrial uses are incompatible with residential… Noise, dust, traffic, and light can all be drivers that create hostilities within neighborhoods.”
He notes that accessibility is a challenge for the site, even as a housing development. The traffic impacts for a business park would be prohibitive.
Where does that lead? Nishi is one place that seems likely to be considered – at least with partially a business park component.
Personally, I think Interland, which lies along the south side of I-80 off Research Park Drive, could be recast and redeveloped as a multilevel unit that might accommodate some of the bigger parcels. Finally, I see the possibility of a reexamination of the Mace Curve 391 property.
That leads to questions about which of these options the public accepts. There is also the possibility of the less fertile lands west of Sutter-Davis Hospital for consideration.
That leads us to the next question: what is the vision for the Davis Downtown? Right now we have been dealing with the issue of parking – is the solution being put forth by the Downtown Parking Task Force acceptable? Do we need another parking garage?
But more importantly, what is the overall vision for downtown? Should we let it continue on its current trajectory as an environment and restaurant district? Do we need to invest more in retail in the downtown? Should it remain open to cars or become more of a walking and biking area?
Should we turn it into more of a mixed-use area where we grow upward, with retail on the bottom and housing and apartments above the retail, entertainment and restaurants?
These are all questions the community needs to weigh in on.
Finally, we have noted the leakage of sales tax dollars. We still have an underutilized shopping center in Target where the T.J.Maxx is about to go online this fall, but most of the other pods are undeveloped.
Davis allowed Target in, back in 2006, by a narrow vote, but the sentiment seems to be against another big box retailer in the city.
In addition, in an interview in August, Rob White said that we know right now that the city of Davis does not want a regional mall. That is a revenue source that many communities have gone to, but one that Davis has opted not to do.
Chamber President Kemble Pope noted that Davis has done a good job of identifying what it does not want to do, the regional mall being just one good example, and he said “that’s fine. Davis continues to be the master of its own fate.” But within that framework, Davis does have to decide what it is going to say yes to.
Large corporations are one way to go. In his article in August, Rob White cited the example of Intel in Folsom. “Since 2000, Intel has invested over $4.3 billion in manufacturing capital investment, much of that being done at the Folsom campus,” he wrote.
“In just under 30 years, the Folsom campus has grown well beyond the two office buildings and couple of hundred employees that started the facility,” he said. “Sound familiar? Think that a decade or two of growth for a company like Bayer Crop Science or FMC Schilling Robotics or Marrone Bio Innovations might make a significant difference to Davis?”
On Thursday he said, “Folsom will tell you, if not for Intel, Folsom wouldn’t be what we are today.”
The question for Davis voters and residents is which way does Davis want to go? Right now, Davis is suffering from a revenue problem at the city level. We wish to avoid additional taxes and avoid additional service cuts, and we have said no to a regional mall. The question is what do we say yes to?
That is the challenge going forward – producing something that solves our needs without harming the strengths of this community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Folsom will tell you, if not for Intel, Folsom wouldn’t be what we are today.[/quote]
If Intel did that to Folsom – the epitome of suburban sprawl and big-box hell – then, please, no Intels for Davis. Folsom used to be a charming little city, but it’s now a place I avoid. (Disclosure: as a young surveyor, I worked on the original Intel site in Folsom, helping to turn it from a poison oak and rattlesnake-infested rock pile into an industrial campus.)
The title of this article is a bit out of sync with the article’s contents, which are primarily focused on goals and objectives rather than vision. That isn’t to say that the article’s contents are bad, just that they abandon a discussion of what our “vision” for Davis is.
My personal vision for Davis is that it be [b]a high quality of life community with a self-sustaining economy that produces a municipal budget that pays for itself and a school district budget that pays for itself.[/b]
“That leads to questions about which of these options the public accepts?”
Which peripheral development will Davis citizens vote for? I’ve gotten the impression that no development (business park or housing or shopping center) is good enough to meet with our approval. Many folks don’t want anymore anything in or around our just-fine town.
You point to the a fatal-flaw logic of voting down Covell Village (“too large” and roadway impacts inadequately addressed) and Wildhorse Ranch (“during depression”?). Davis voters would approve developments without fatal flaws, you suggest, as evidenced by Wildhorse. I’m not so sure, at least in our lifetimes.
You bring up the “re-opened possibility of both the PG&E property as well as the city’s properties on Fifth Street as possible locations for high-density housing.” The last I heard the city and PG&E weren’t the least bit interested in selling out and are as recalcitrant a set of landowners as are the cannery property owners. What’s changed?
About the only thing that light industrial development at the cannery location had goimg for it was that no J/R vote would be required. Lately, we’ve learned that a referendum is the preferred option for small numbers to stop development within the city limits, so even that benefit seems illusory.
For years, we’ve protected our auto mall row and given these businesses favored treatment in the expectation that they will provide taxes needed to finance our government services. After driving by a similar, but completely vacated, 30-square-block area in Salem recently, I wonder if we’ve outlived this type of retail distribution and its promise of big revenue.
We’ve also made or pretty clear over the years that we want our downtown to stay its same quirky self. Although businesses always seem to want more free parking, there’s not much more vision that would change that area. Except the B Street wall, I wouldn’t expect to see any 50-foot-tall buildings constructed downtown without a massive fight.
I always thought that the city wouldn’t have difficulty passing a J/R vote for more light industrial land. When we decide we want a business park, I figured, we’d be sensible enough to approve the next logical step. I’m no longer sure that logic has much to do with these issues in Davis.
You finish with an excellent question: “We wish to avoid additional taxes, avoid additional service cuts, we have said no to a regional mall, the question is what do we say yes to?” Rhetorical, I presume?
That vision will be supported by a series of broad goals, one of which will be that [b]the self-sustaining economy shall capitalize on and collaborate with the community’s largest employer, the University. [/b]
In a recent e-mail exchange Robb Davis put forward his personal set of “guiding principles” the second of which expands on the goal I set out above, specifically that [b]Davis must draw upon, contribute to, and seek ways to join and leverage two of the primary resources in our region: UC Davis and our diversified agricultural base.[/b]
Once we establish the broad goals that support the vision, then the specifics that are covered in the article come into play.
Further, it is how Folsom implemented those specifics that caused the “epitome of suburban sprawl and big-box hell” that they now have. I would argue that the Intel contribution to a self-sustaining Folsom economy was more than likely consistent with a vision that most Davis residents would support; however, the specific steps that supported Intel and/or capitalized on Intel ended up straying mightily from the original vision.
“Davis voters would approve developments without fatal flaws, you suggest, as evidenced by Wildhorse. I’m not so sure, at least in our lifetimes.”
I’m not saying they would approve developments without fatal flaws, only that it’s conceivable and that the two Measure J votes do not prove or disprove that point.
Matt:
I see your point and I made the error of writing the title first. Although I do see these points as representing a collective vision for the future.
Matt, most Davis residents would come up with vision-goals-principles statements similar to your excellent ones. However, I don’t see much commitment in this city to moving to the next steps in order to get where we say we want to be.
Combine our vocal cadre of “whatever you suggest, ‘no’ is the answer” with our city leadership that seems focused on the next potential offices, and it’s difficult to see anyone dedicated to accomplishing things that advance community vision and goals.
I’d like to be more optimistic. After all, we live in one of the smartest cities in the world.
Wildhorse Ranch had no natural constituency, no support from any particular part of the population, and didn’t really appeal to anybody. And it had built-in opposition from the neighbors. That doesn’t mean a better project for that site couldn’t pass muster.
[quote] One of my suggestions for the Nishi property would be to allow it to become the spot for high-density student housing. As university rather than city development, it would not be subject to a Measure J/R vote. But it could be a place to supply a large amount of student housing without huge impacts to traffic and other factors.[/quote]
But Nishi has the potential to provide revenue to the city via business development as well as to provide some high-density housing. In fact, I believe it is that mixed-use development that is intended and moving forward. Nishi needs to integrate with the downtown and whatever becomes of the ‘gateway’ plans.
That is one of the reasons that I feel the Cannery site is a missed opportunity for higher-density housing.
Neither PG&E nor Fifth Street will happen within ten years.
Covell Village won’t happen within ten years.
[quote] The Cannery, for a variety of reasons that we have reported on, does not appear likely as a future business park site.[/quote]
I don’t know why you quote George Phillips on behalf of this contention. He’s trying to sell a housing project. Part of his ‘sell’ is that the only use the owner will ever accept is housing.
[quote] Many industrial uses are incompatible with residential.[/quote]
And many are compatible.
[quote] Large corporations are one way to go.[/quote]
We don’t have room. And Folsom is not a growth model Davisites are likely to admire or wish to emulate.
Ten years from now, Davis probably won’t look a lot different than it does now. And I think that’s how most residents like it. But there are economic development opportunities that have been discussed here before. Davis can grow carefully without losing the character that makes it unique.
One thing we do know: ten years from now the population will be nearly 5,000 more than it is now. And with our current planning trajectory, the apartment vacancy rate will be less than 2%, probably less than 1%, and the demographic divide will be even wider.
Matt: [quote] I would argue that the Intel contribution to a self-sustaining Folsom economy was more than likely consistent with a vision that most Davis residents would support[/quote]
I doubt it.
“One thing we do know: ten years from now the population will be nearly 5,000 more than it is now.”
Assuming you’re still talking about the additional students that UCD plans to dump on our community, how would it change our population? It these students cannot live in nearby cities or on campus, doesn’t it seem as though they’d displace families as they have been doing. No increase in population, just more demographic skewing.
We should build for the community we want, not be driven by the desire of the university to maximize its population without taking responsibility for housing their projected increases.
The idea that we have to unquestionably live with UCD’s growth and couple that with our own insistence that the city not grow is folly. It’s already catching up with us with bad results–it’s time to plan quality peripheral developments.
[quote]Assuming you’re still talking about the additional students that UCD plans to dump on our community, how would it change our population?[/quote]
No, higher densities in the existing housing stock. Which is what’s already happening.
[quote]It these students cannot live in nearby cities or on campus, doesn’t it seem as though they’d displace families as they have been doing. No increase in population, just more demographic skewing. [/quote]
As I noted, that will also happen.
[quote]The idea that we have to unquestionably live with UCD’s growth and couple that with our own insistence that the city not grow is folly.[/quote]
Yes, but that’s what we’re doing, and have been doing for a decade.
I’m so pleased we’re almost to complete agreement. So, where are on the following modest proposal:
“…it’s time to plan quality peripheral developments.”?
So long as they’re apartment buildings, I might support that.
JustSaying
[quote]Assuming you’re still talking about the additional students that UCD plans to dump on our community,[/quote]
Until you wrote the word “dump” I did not understand just how fundamental a difference of viewpoint there is between those who see the students as a “burden” on the community as you seem to, and those of us who see the students as a unique resource that is enjoyed by Davis, but not to the same degree by our surrounding communities. To me the students represent energy, sources of new ideas, innovative energy, and just plain fun for our community. They run various camps and tutor our school age children. They frequent downtown businesses including shops, restaurants and yes, bars. They participate to a degree in internships and to a lesser degree in public affairs and probably would do so more if our community were more welcoming to them, again instead of seeing them as nuisances or an unwanted item “dumped” on us by the University.
If you look back to the prior discussions re. the overwhelming need to convert the proposed cannery housing to student apartments, you’ll see why “dumping” is an accurate term.
UCD announced a dramatic increase in enrollment in the next decade without dealing with their housing needs (which already are inadequately accomodated on campus and in town). Don has been the main voice for gearing our housing plans to deal with this burden.
No disrespect of students intended–anymore than there would be if I complained about someone dumping too many chocolates on me means I don’t love chocolates and everything the bring to my life. I also love students and all the things bring to our community.
It’s the UCD administration that’s doing the dumping. No reflection on the kids. I agree with most everything you said about them. And I think most everyone in Davis welcomes and supports the UCD students’ tole in the community. Otherwise, what would we be doing here in an expensive university town?
Sorry my comment was misleading.
I would like to get us away from the notion that a large corporation on the scale of Intel would be good for Davis. It would do to Davis what it did to Folsom: completely change the character of the town.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/davisfolsomgrowth.jpg[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/davisfolsomgrowth.jpg[/url]
It has led Folsom to make major expansion plans that are of questionable sustainability, especially with regard to water supplies:
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/10/5484311/folsom-rush-is-on-to-develop-foothills.html[/url]
Folsom annexed thousands of acres in 1984, and has just annexed another 3000+ acres.
We already have one large employer. We have seen, as noted on this thread, what happens when that employer makes decisions about growth for its own benefit without consulting or planning it with the host city.
I don’t think there is much in the Folsom model for Davis to emulate.
UC and Davis grew together for years and some of the wealthiest people in town got that way because UC let private parties share in the prosperity of providing housing to the students of California. It is only since Davis said it didn’t want to grow that UC has gone its own way.
How long have you been here, Mr. Toad?
Mr. Toad
I have asked you before, but will try again. What do you see as the desirable population for Davis in 5 years ? 10 years ? 20 years ? And why ?
I have no idea but I’m not concerned about it. When i was born there were half as many people in the world. When i was in College there were around four billion. Now there are seven billion. In my daughters life we will probably get to at least 9 billion. All those people need to live somewhere and we can absorb lots of them. What we have, being a university town, is the ability to attract intelligent, hard working, employable people who want to raise families here. In my mind if they are law abiding, well educated, employed, tax paying family people we should make room for them. Why not.
“How long have you been here, Mr. Toad?”
You writing a book about me?
Why when I was just a tadpole we would splash around in them vernal pools down south of Davis but my daddy told me when them smarty pantses at UC invented the tomato harvester it was going to change everything and end that whole Bracero Program. Why we would watch Fred McMurray push Hunts Katsup on My Three Son’s we knew where they made the stuff, right here in Mayberry. I used to tell cousin Andy when Otis would sleep it off downtown that we needed a place for people like Otis to live but Floyd the barber down on Second and G by the old Depot Hotel, why he objected to any newcomers cuz the was you know DIFFERENT, IF YOU GET MY DRIFT. See being green like we is my daddy always knew who Floyd was talkin about so we never went there. Of course being amphibians an all we didn’t need to worry about hair cuts even though they called us hippies we didn’t mind although we didn’t really like what Monticello Dam did to the creek even though killing off all the salmon like they did was good for us and we didn’t need to worry about the eggs getting eatan anymore so we had a good time frolicking in Putah Creek back then. It was OK until that Dunning family came to the park homeless and all to use the bathroom. I bet he wishes they had storage lockers for the homeless back then.
Now i kinda understood what really bothered Floyd was he figured if we let all them greens in here that property values would go down. i get that especially the way us toads can have hundreds of tadpoles at a time but what really bothered us was him having a second home and a big farm where he didn’t want us around unless we was paying rent and demanding we should ride on bikes when everyone knows we would rather skinny dip with them aquadarts. Why we would sneak through Slaters Court and down into Putah Creek until they put up that fence with the poor folks go around sign and that redevelopment plan that would have made my daddy move his plumbing business from Toad Hollow on up to Cache Creek where the gravel was sooo good for spawning in those days before it all got mined out. It wouldn’t have been that bad but i’m glad that when i got a little older we still lived where i could hop across the tracks once in a while and try to meet up with one of them college girls at Froggy’s. i would always play it cool and aloof and if a girl asked me why i’d say “Its not easy being green.” And it isn’t, especially here in Davis where the locals just tell me i should get over being green and pull myself up by my frog legs andd get over it.
Great. Then you know that the last chancellor who cared what the city thought about UC growth plans was the same one who always won the milking contest on Picnic Day.
Sounds like an utterly great man.
Why should the University care? Who has the tallest building and a bigger budget? If it wasn’t for UC the City would be like the old Milk Farm in Dixon or Georges Orange (great Mexican food by the way). If the citizen’s of Davis don’t want to cooperate with the university there isn’t much UC can do about it. The University’s mission to do research and educate the people of the State of California is too important to get bogged down trying to accommodate a bunch of provincial ingrates. As long as the City wants to go its own way don’t expect UC to follow.
Good story, Mr.Toad. I assume Daddy and, later, you were smart enough to pick up one or two houses each time a new development went in over all these years. Sorry you suffered prejudice before it was discontinued in Davis. Nice tale.
Don, when Intel came to Folsom in 1984 they started with 300 employees in two buildings. It wasn’t until 8 years later that their employee numbers began to grow significantly with the building of the next two buildings. Now there are seven buildings and 7,500 employees. Those were subsequent downstream decisions in creating an alternative lower cost version of Silicon Valley. You are using an apple to condemn/excoriate an orange.
Can you imagine an Ag Technology company like Monsanto, ConAgra, Bayer, HM Clause, or Novozymes growing their presence in Davis like that? Intel’s connections were not to any university, they were to Silicon Valley. We aren’t looking for that kind of company, because that isn’t UC Davis’ academic core competency. The kind of companies who will be attracted to Davis will be those who believe they can leverage UCD’s Ag Research.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Yes, but that’s what we’re doing, and have been doing for a decade.”[/i]
That is true. That is indeed what we have done for a decade . . . and the result is that our City Budget is running at a serious deficit that is only expected to get worse. In an attempt to balance the City Budget services have been permanently cut and more cuts are on the horizon. Single threading our economy through UCD has gotten us to this juncture and affords us no way out of the crisis we face. Diversifying our economy will go a long way toward bringing it back to a level of self sustainability.
[quote]You are using an apple to condemn/excoriate an orange. [/quote]
Great! So now we can stop using Folsom and Intel as an example that is in any way useful for Davis.
[quote]Can you imagine an Ag Technology company like Monsanto, ConAgra, Bayer, HM Clause, or Novozymes growing their presence in Davis like that? [/quote]
No. Because we don’t have the room for that kind of growth, even if they want to.
[quote]our City Budget is running at a serious deficit that is only expected to get worse. In an attempt to balance the City Budget services have been permanently cut and more cuts are on the horizon. Single threading our economy through UCD has gotten us to this juncture and affords us no way out of the crisis we face.[/quote]
Cities with diverse employers have serious budget problems. In fact, I’d say that UCD being our primary employer is what has kept Davis from being in worse shape. The cities around us didn’t fare well in the recession either. They have similar structural budget problems. The stability provided by a large public employer has been very helpful to Davis over the years. Diversifying our economy by encouraging small private businesses is certainly a worthy goal, but it shouldn’t be a rationale for poor land-use and planning decisions.
[quote]self sustainability[/quote]
This is a meaningless term.
Don Shor
[i]”Great! So now we can stop using Folsom and Intel as an example that is in any way useful for Davis.”[/i]
That was exactly the point I was making to Jim Frame. Folsom is a meaningless comparison to Davis
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Cities with diverse employers have serious budget problems. In fact, I’d say that UCD being our primary employer is what has kept Davis from being in worse shape. The cities around us didn’t fare well in the recession either. They have similar structural budget problems. The stability provided by a large public employer has been very helpful to Davis over the years. Diversifying our economy by encouraging small private businesses is certainly a worthy goal, but it shouldn’t be a rationale for poor land-use and planning decisions.”[/i]
How has UCD being our primary employer kept Davis from being in worse shape? UCD’s layoffs and furloughs were a significant problem in this economic downturn. The only area where Davis did better than the rest of the cities in the region was in foreclosures, and that was totally divorced from UCD employment patterns.
With regard to land-use and planning decisions, Davis doesn’t have a current general plan. All our current land-use and planning decisions are application-driven and reactive and result in one-off general plan amendments. As a result we have no ability to proactively deal with any effort to achieve orderly economic stability. How could our situation get any worse than it is?
Self sustainability is meaningless? Redwood Barn is self sustaining. Otherwise it would go out of business. As a local business owner you live, breathe and eat self sustainability every day your business exists. Cities and local economies are no different than businesses. They either generate more income than expense or they perish.
“No. Because we don’t have the room for that kind of growth, even if they want to. “
Sure we do we just don’t have the vision or the political will.
[quote]Sure we do we just don’t have the vision or the political will. [/quote]
I think we have both: the vision not to become Folsom, and the political will to prevent it.
Yes but don’t confuse that with lack of space.
Jim and everyone, if Kraft Foods announced that it was going to locate its substantial food safety program here in Davis with 300 employees (I believe that is the same number as started at Intel in Folsom), would you see that as a bad thing for Davis?
Would such an announcement be consistent with your vision for Davis?
Would having Kraft Foods’ food safety program here in Davis with easy access to UCD’s strong academic food safety program pose a threat that Davis would be at risk of beginning a similar trajectory as Folsom?
[quote]would you see that as a bad thing for Davis? [/quote]
Depends entirely on how much space they need and where they want to locate it.
Don, you are putting the cart before the horse. The first and most important question is whether the addition of the Kraft Foods jobs to the Davis economy would add to our economic stability. How much space and where their facility would be located is a tactical execution decision that is downstream of the analysis of whether or not it is good to add their food safety program to Davis.
Given your historical posts, the Class 4 Alkali soils west and north of Sutter davis Hospital would be a possible location for their required space, as would Nishi.
[quote]Don, you are putting the cart before the horse. The first and most important question is whether the addition of the Kraft Foods jobs to the Davis economy would add to our economic stability. How much space and where their facility would be located is a tactical execution decision that is downstream of the analysis of whether or not it is good to add their food safety program to Davis.[/quote]
No, Davis voters need to know what the proposal is before they are likely to entertain any Measure R vote. So it depends on how much space they need and where they want to locate it.
More to the point, why this focus on international corporations? I’d rather have six companies providing 50 jobs each, dispersed around Davis, than one mega-company providing 300 jobs. I thought our focus was on start-ups and small growing businesses spinning off from UCD assets. I thought we were looking to build innovation parks, not just find raw land for a giant international corporation.
Kraft, if it needs space for 300 workers, will almost certainly go to Dixon or West Sac.
[quote]Given your historical posts, the Class 4 Alkali soils west and north of Sutter davis Hospital would be a possible location for their required space, as would Nishi.[/quote]
Thereby precluding us from using that space for small startups, growing local enterprises, and housing.
You need to scale your vision down, Matt.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”No, Davis voters need to know what the proposal is before they are likely to entertain any Measure R vote. So it depends on how much space they need and where they want to locate it. “[/i]
Again you are subordinating the City’s fiscal woes. Do you not care about our current, and soon to be growing deficit?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”More to the point, why this focus on international corporations? I’d rather have six companies providing 50 jobs each, dispersed around Davis, than one mega-company providing 300 jobs. I thought our focus was on start-ups and small growing businesses spinning off from UCD assets. I thought we were looking to build innovation parks, not just find raw land for a giant international corporation.
Kraft, if it needs space for 300 workers, will almost certainly go to Dixon or West Sac.”[/i]
My point in bringing up the Kraft example was twofold. 1) to refocus the Intel discussion on something that was more realistically aligned with Davis’ core competencies, and 2) to illustrate that synergies with UCD’s core competencies may come from more than one possible direction, because world class programs like food safety have much greater applicability/leverage in those companies that process enough foods that they have their own in-house R&D teams focused on food safety, and that they might perceive that those R&D efforts would be enhanced by being close to UCD’s food safety experts and research efforts.
You seem to want to define things in absolutes driven by either/or decisions. I don’t see the world as that clean-cut. Davis isn’t able to control the opportunities that are presented to it. We have to respond to them when they begin to formulate on the horizon. In some cases our response will be “no, after careful consideration the opportunity you present is not a good match for Davis.” In other cases the match will be clear. Programs like Food Safety R&D are just as “ntrepreneurial” as start-ups and small growing businesses. The only difference is that the letter that goes before the “ntrepreneurial” is an “i” rather than an “e.” For me there is no distinction between entrepreneurial opportunities and intrapreneurial opportunities as long as they 1) leverage the core competencies of UCD, and 2) contribute positively to the economic sustainability of the Davis community as a whole.
[quote]Again you are subordinating the City’s fiscal woes. Do you not care about our current, and soon to be growing deficit?[/quote]
Our deficit is largely driven by costs, not revenues. Just ask Frankly: we have a spending problem. Actually, we have a labor-cost problem. Nothing wrong with enhancing revenues, but that isn’t the solution to our ‘unsustainable’ fiscal trajectory.
By the way: ‘don’t you care’ questions aren’t very productive ways to keep a conversation going.
[quote] My point in bringing up the Kraft example was twofold. 1) to refocus the Intel discussion on something that was more realistically aligned with Davis’ core competencies, and 2) to illustrate that synergies with UCD’s core competencies may come from more than one possible direction, because world class programs like food safety have much greater applicability/leverage in those companies that process enough foods that they have their own in-house R&D teams focused on food safety, and that they might perceive that those R&D efforts would be enhanced by being close to UCD’s food safety experts and research efforts.[/quote]
Bottom line: you’re not going to appeal to Davis voters on a premise of annexing land to build a big facility for an international corporation.
[quote]You seem to want to define things in absolutes driven by either/or decisions.[/quote]
We have limited resources of space, due to our current policies of preserving ag land and open space and our oft-noted geographic limitations. In that regard, it is an either/or decision. You are making an ongoing case, here and over time, for aggressive expansion of the Davis footprint out into the lands of Yolo County. We can’t have both a Kraft facility and an innovation business park on the limited land that is available. If you are promoting Folsom-style annexation and development, just say so. All of your arguments are leading in that direction. Fortunately (IMO) the citizens of Davis don’t share that vision.
[quote] Davis isn’t able to control the opportunities that are presented to it. We have to respond to them when they begin to formulate on the horizon.[/quote]
Easy enough. It the opportunity is too big for the footprints that are available, the response is ‘sorry, but you might wish to locate in one of our lovely neighboring communities’.
[quote] Programs like Food Safety R&D are just as “ntrepreneurial” as start-ups and small growing businesses. The only difference is that the letter that goes before the “ntrepreneurial” is an “i” rather than an “e.” For me there is no distinction between entrepreneurial opportunities and intrapreneurial opportunities as long as they 1) leverage the core competencies of UCD, and 2) contribute positively to the economic sustainability of the Davis community as a whole.[/quote]
And for me, there [u]is[/u] a distinction between a Kraft and an AgraQuest and a Marrone startup. So we have different philosophies and values. I’d rather have many small and medium businesses than one large one, in conjunction with the university. We’d have more diversity, more insurance against economic downturn, and those companies fit better with the Davis style. And we don’t have room for both. It is an either/or situation. The smaller companies are easier to fit in following the ‘dispersed’ innovation park model put forth by the task force.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”We have limited resources of space, due to our current policies of preserving ag land and open space and our oft-noted geographic limitations. In that regard, it is an either/or decision. You are making an ongoing case, here and over time, for aggressive expansion of the Davis footprint out into the lands of Yolo County. We can’t have both a Kraft facility and an innovation business park on the limited land that is available. If you are promoting Folsom-style annexation and development, just say so. All of your arguments are leading in that direction. Fortunately (IMO) the citizens of Davis don’t share that vision.” [/i]
Don, just out of curiosity how many acres of space do you think a food safety R&D facility would need?
I’m not arguing for aggressive expansion of the Davis footprint. If anything I’m arguing for a clear cut urban boundary that defines the Davis footprint in restricted terms with either 1) permanently conserved ag farmland or 2) UCD fully surrounding the City. The Innovation Park Task Force report does a good job of defining the potential economic development areas. I agree with that report.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”And for me, there is a distinction between a Kraft and an AgraQuest and a Marrone startup. So we have different philosophies and values. I’d rather have many small and medium businesses than one large one, in conjunction with the university. We’d have more diversity, more insurance against economic downturn, and those companies fit better with the Davis style. And we don’t have room for both. It is an either/or situation. The smaller companies are easier to fit in following the ‘dispersed’ innovation park model put forth by the task force.”[/i]
Simple question Don. Which do you believe will have a larger employee count, 1) the intrepreneurian Food Safety R&D unit of a large corportation that is looking to capitalize on and leverage the food safety core competencies of UCD, or 2) AgraQuest (as we know it) or Marrone (as we know it)?
I think you will find that 1) typically has less employees than 2).
I think you will find that six companies with 50 employees each have the same employee count as one company with 300.
You need to scale down your thinking, Matt.
Since you are ducking the question Don, let me put it in terms that are wholly consistent with your most recent post. Do you believe the intrepreneurian Food Safety R&D unit of a large corportation that is looking to capitalize on and leverage the food safety core competencies of UCD, will have more than 50 employees or less than 50 employees?
Matt, you said it would have 300. You said that. You said: [quote]if Kraft Foods announced that it was going to locate its substantial food safety program here in Davis with 300 employees (I believe that is the same number as started at Intel in Folsom), would you see that as a bad thing for Davis? [/quote]
“”We have limited resources of space, due to our current policies of preserving ag land and open space and our oft-noted geographic limitations.”
Please refresh my memory re. the “oft-noted geographic limitations.”. We go one way, we hit the causeway. Other than bumping into other city limits and UCD, what geographically challenges us from growing like Topsy?
The university owns the best freeway-accessible land that would have been suitable for retail or business park development. The Causeway, as you note, blocks expansion to the east. The quality of ag soil surrounding Davis is, or should be, a limit to development in most other areas.
That was in the Intel parity part of the discussion. The discussion has evolved considerably since the Intel/Folsom comparison was dispatched to the grave yard.
You seem to be focused on labels rather than potential economic solutions. Perhaps you shouldn’t have said “there is a distinction between a Kraft and an AgraQuest and a Marrone startup” and rather said “”there is a distinction between a 300 employee employer and a 50 employee employer.”
FWIW, AgraQuest currently has 250 employees. I fully expect that both AgraQuest and Marrone (which currently has 109 employees) will pass 300 local (Yolo County) employees in the not too distant future.
Kraft smaft. What if Con Agra got turned down at Cannery and decided to put in a new industrial ag facility, a dairy, stock yard, meat packer or processsor. The town would go nuts.
Toad, wash your mouth out with soap.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”You need to scale your vision down, Matt.
You need to scale down your thinking, Matt.”[/i]
This same pattern came up during the water discussions back in the first quarter of this year. Then, as now, you tried to narrow the discussion, excoriating David for repeating the data that was in Doug Dove’s rate presentation that clearly showed that the revenue requirement for the Water Department was going to triple during the planning horizon (six years in Doug’s materials).
Here you don’t even want the possibility of visionary thinking to be considered or discussed. You have clearly said that no portion of the 4 part Innovation Park Task Force plan should be considered until the preceding portion is completed.
I don’t think that way. Outside the box thinking is every bit as valid for me as inside the box thinking. They have chocolate and vanilla for a reason. Feel free to “scale down” your vision and thinking if you want to. I will continue to mull over and discuss possibilities.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”By the way: ‘don’t you care’ questions aren’t very productive ways to keep a conversation going.”[/i]
When someone’s comments confuse me, I don’t assume, I ask questions to clarify the confusion. Plunging forward based on incorrect assumptions isn’t a very productive way to conduct a conversation either.
“Our deficit is largely driven by costs, not revenues. Just ask Frankly: we have a spending problem.”
I don’t agree anymore. I think we have gone a long way to deal with our spending problem. Ironically the biggest costs coming on the books are: water (which you supported), roads (which were neglected for years), and pension increases (which are out of our control). What we don’t have anymore is revenue increases to offset those costs.
[quote]Here you don’t even want the possibility of visionary thinking to be considered or discussed. You have clearly said that no portion of the 4 part Innovation Park Task Force plan should be considered until the preceding portion is completed. [/quote]
The only way you could get to a place where Davis has both large corporate employers and small startups, plus the housing we’ve discussed, is by large-scale annexation.
So apparently your term for that now is “visionary thinking.” The rest of us call it “urban sprawl.”
I have no idea what your point is with regard to the water rate debate.
[quote]You have clearly said that no portion of the 4 part Innovation Park Task Force plan should be considered until the preceding portion is completed. [/quote]
If land is annexed for a business park, it will compete with land that is being developed closer in. Build Nishi and infill projects first, get them occupied, then annex if necessary. Annex only what is needed, and at a pace that the city can absorb. That is also more likely to be politically successful, which certainly should be a consideration in planning principles.
You seem to want to annex right away and fill the site with some international corporation. Again: that would preclude other uses of that site. Again: we only have so much land, so one use is at the expense of another. So again: everything you’re saying and doing points to aggressive expansion of the Davis city limits out into farmland. That isn’t visionary thinking. That isn’t thinking outside the box. That is, in fact, standard operating procedure for Folsom and Vacaville and on and on.
I have been reading these posts with great interest… resisting the temptation to post myself before I could get a sense of where different people are with respect to vision.
There seem to be four discrete groups/mindsets:
1. Davis is awesome the way it is and the visions is to keep it as close to the same as possible for as long as possible.
2. Davis is quirky and quaint, but growing shabby and increasingly failing to meet the needs of our citizenry except for those in group #1.
3. Davis is in financial trouble. We are in fiscal decline and are failing to meet our fiscal commitments and obligations. We have lived beyond our means for too long, and now we have to cut spending and increase revenue.
4. Davis is failing to grasp and seize the opportunity to be a better little city: failing to fully leverage the relationship with our world-class research university and related industry, and failing to develop a balanced growth plan that serves to increase the vitality, diversity, strength and sustainability of the city going forward.
So, it is #1 against #2, 3 and 4.
Are there really enough people in this town with mindset #1, that can successfully block all significant development?
I might be wrong, but I think by taking a strong campaign to the youth in this city, the #1 group would be easily overwhelmed. I also think that the economic downturn and jobless recovery has also taken a bite out of the solidarity of the #1 group.
Again, I might be wrong… but I think Don Shor is no longer the majority mindset in Davis. His vision for Davis is old hat.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”The only way you could get to a place where Davis has both large corporate employers and small startups, plus the housing we’ve discussed, is by large-scale annexation. So apparently your term for that now is “visionary thinking.” The rest of us call it “urban sprawl.”
I have no idea what your point is with regard to the water rate debate.”[/i]
If the vast majority of the annexed land is annexed with Ag Farmland Conservstion Easements in place that will last for the life of each piece of conserved property, how is that urban sprawl? I call it the creation of a de jure urban boundary that is insulated against the possibility of leap frog development. The end result would mean that the City of Davis would multiply by orders of magnitude its agriculturally zoned land within the City Limits, and that agriculturally zoned land would be devoted to 100% agricultural use in perpetuity.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”If land is annexed for a business park, it will compete with land that is being developed closer in. Build Nishi and infill projects first, get them occupied, then annex if necessary. Annex only what is needed, and at a pace that the city can absorb. That is also more likely to be politically successful, which certainly should be a consideration in planning principles.”[/i]
Nishi is only 44 acres and the expectation is that well over half of that is going to be devoted to student housing in order to support Mrs. Katehi’s impending 5,000 additional students. The approximately 20 acres remaining will more than likely end up being incubator space for the truly small start-ups that spin out of UCD. Ones that want rental space rather than the kind of ownership space that The Cannery is going to provide for some of those incubator space start-ups that have succeeded enough to be able to afford to buy rather than rent.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”You seem to want to annex right away and fill the site with some international corporation.” [/i]
Annexation isn’t the goal at all. permanent ag land preservation is the goal, while at the same time creating options for companies like Bayer and Marrone and Novozymes and Monsanto and HM Clause and others to have options here in Davis. One of the basic capitalistic realities is that it takes a whole lot more money to capture a new customer than it costs to retain an existing customer. Bayer and Marrone and Novozymes and Monsanto and HM Clause and other existing companies located here in Davis are “existing customers.” Putting our community in the position to retain those customers, at low cost, is wise and proactive planning. Making a series of individual small annexation decisions is very expensive and anything but proactive or wise.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Again: that would preclude other uses of that site. Again: we only have so much land, so one use is at the expense of another. So again: everything you’re saying and doing points to aggressive expansion of the Davis city limits out into farmland. That isn’t visionary thinking. That isn’t thinking outside the box. That is, in fact, standard operating procedure for Folsom and Vacaville and on and on.”[/i]
You appear to believe that Davis does not have the ability to assess the appropriateness of individual suitors when and if they come along. You seem to see Davis as a randy post-adolescent who will simply jump into the sack with anyone who walks in close proximity on the street. It appears that I have more faith in Davis than you do.
[quote]1. Davis is awesome the way it is and the visions is to keep it as close to the same as possible for as long as possible.
…
Again, I might be wrong… but I think Don Shor is no longer the majority mindset in Davis. His vision for Davis is old hat.[/quote]
Given our long, detailed, and very clear discussions in the past, on multiple occasions, about what I support for economic development for Davis, this is not just a misrepresentation of my views. It is an intentional, willful distortion on your part. Again. I’m really not sure why you feel it necessary to completely misrepresent my positions so consistently on this issue.
It’s been an interesting conversation. But clearly the ones out of the mainstream here are Frankly and Matt Williams. As I’ve said many times before: put your vision(s) before the voters, and I know which outcome I’d be very, very willing to wager on. Slow, steady well-planned growth can be accepted by Davisites. That isn’t what either of you are proposing.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”But clearly the ones thinking out of the box [s]mainstream[/s] here are Frankly and Matt Williams.”[/i]
Fixed your post Don. I am very happy thinking outside the box. Innovation happens there.
Here is just one of several examples of my comments on economic development over the last few years. This was from, I think, just after the council elections.
—–
There are some things most people agree on; there are many things some people agree on (a majority?). And there are some things which will be controversial. It is probably most productive to move forward as quickly as possible on the areas of agreement.
There are areas of consensus.
Develop Nishi.
Accept some greater density and taller buildings downtown.
Allow more flexible zoning for both business and higher-density housing in downtown and some adjacent areas.
Encourage downtown improvements that are minimal cost to the city.
Encourage positive marketing campaigns (Buy Local Davis) that are minimal cost to the city.
Some things are either unexplored, or aren’t being discussed much in public.
Seek greater flexibility, assess impediments about developing Pads A – D near Target.
Assess issues creating high vacancy rates in some neighborhood shopping centers.
There are unanswered questions.
What consensus is there about parking issues and solutions for downtown?
What is the university willing to do to help develop business sites?
How will the ConAgra site be rezoned?
Some things are likely to engender significant policy debates; some require a vote of the public.
Does Davis need a stand-alone business park for medium to large tech businesses?
Will the voters accept rezoning and annexation of any of the three most likely business park sites?
If a parking structure is abandoned, what is the best use of the funds that have been set aside for that purpose?
—–
Within a few weeks of beginning their new council term, they will be dealing with three important issues that are likely to consume much of their time.
1. Budget/MOU’s/layoffs
2. ConAgra (I’m unclear exactly where the process is, but I expect they will have a report of some sort to deal with soon).
3. Water project and rates.
Somewhere in the next few months they will be able to start moving on economic development issues, but I expect the above to take precedence. That doesn’t mean the city’s economic development staff has to sit still. I’d urge the council members to direct staff to bring them reports and action plans for:
a. annexation of Nishi. Specific language for a ballot measure to be put before the voters within a year.
b. review and consideration of zoning changes for the downtown and parts of east and central Davis to allow greater flexibility for development proposals. Request review of potential development sites, input from property owners and residents.
c. review and consideration of specific sites in the downtown where taller buildings could be allowed. I don’t know what obstacles exist to greater density and height downtown. Request input from property owners, existing businesses, and nearby residents. There may need to be a “visioning” process as was done for B Street.
d. staff report on progress on filling vacant retail sites in existing shopping centers, and development of the additional pads near Target at Second Street Crossing.
“The quality of ag soil surrounding Davis is, or should be, a limit to development in most other areas.”
I don’t think that a policy is a geographic limitation; I’d call it a “current policy limitation,” instead. One (like the causeway) is almost impossible to overcome, and the other (like deciding to open 1,000 acres of peripheral ag land for revenue enhancing development and jobs) is simply a political decision.
What could we do to work with the university to allow city expansion to the south? If this is a grographic limition, it’s one that might have fairly easy solutions. We’ve spent lots of money overcoming less serious barriers.
So, our geographic limitations to additional city growth would vanish without this kind of circular discussion about what “should” happen. Allow me to slightly revise your suggestion about what hampers us: “We have limited our own access to resources of space, due to our current, policies of preserving ag land and open space and, to a much lesser degree, due to our oft-noted geographic limitation of the causeway.”
I’ve come to believe that the supposed overwhelming citizen concern about keeping adjacent farmland as it is really is another device (or a worthy excuse) to keep the city from expanding another inch.
The cannery site is key to the disposition of property near the hospital (some seem to call that the Northwest Quadrant, but I’m only referring to the parts of the “Parlin” property immediately adjacent to the hospital). If the Cannery site goes entirely housing, as planned, then the other site would be needed for a business park. If the Cannery site is rejected, then it remains (in theory) available for a business park. As to whether it would ever be developed as such, only the owners know.
The Task Force listed goals as near-term and medium-term. The annexation, as near the hospital, is medium-term. As I said to Mark West on a prior thread, that doesn’t mean staff can’t start the process of planning for it. But any annexation of that nature will require lots and lots of community outreach leading up to a Measure R vote. And the voters will need specificity as to what is planned. My opinion is that a site for small- to medium local startup and move-up businesses will be an easier sell than a site primarily for some division of an international corporation.
The problem, as I also noted on a prior thread, is that everything is inter-related. The severe shortage of beds that UCD has created has caused housing of a specific type to become our top priority — or at least, one of our tip priorities. So a key question that affects economic development anywhere is how much housing UCD is willing to add to their current stock (including West Village). It could also be asked whether UCD is willing or interested in providing space for economic development, as in sites for startup companies.
You don’t go to the medium-term projects until the others are underway. That is because you want to give the closer-in projects the best chance to fill up rapidly, and you want to get the public to buy in to all these changes. Do it too big, and too fast, and you’re likely to encounter opposition.
[quote]”We have limited our own access to resources of space, due to our current, policies of preserving ag land and open space and, to a much lesser degree, due to our oft-noted geographic limitation of the causeway.” [/quote]
It’s the soil that makes it a geographic limitation. [url]http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb_gmap/[/url]
“So a key question that affects economic development anywhere is how much housing UCD is willing to add to their current stock (including West Village). It could also be asked whether UCD is willing or interested in providing space for economic development, as in sites for startup companies.”
This is the best suggestion in weeks with respect to the student housing crisis imposed on the city by UCD’s administration. This also is a most logical starting point for advancing any efforts to get economic development moving in the community.
It’s hard to believe that the Big Shots aren’t having lunch each week to share plans, concerns and solutions. On the other hand, it’s hard to believe that they’re talking together at all, given the lack of public awareness about the massive UCD enrollment plans with so little attention to the housing critics it’s bringing to our city.
[i]”urban sprawl.”[/i]
Don, when you hype fear using terms like this with no basis of fact to back you up. It clearly puts you in the camp of someone having a NIMBY, no-growth hidden agenda.
Davis is one of the densest little cities in California (in more ways than one). We have packed all 90k plus people (when school is in session) into 9.89 square miles. We are so far from sprawl… we could increase our geographic footprint by 50%, say 14.84 square miles, maintain our current population and we would still be at the high end of density compared to all other California cities.
So what are the real problems that we would face with this mythical risk of urban sprawl that you and a few others are so fond of ginning up?
1. Traffic. Well, since you also deny peripheral retail, everyone has to travel to the core area. We already have a lot of traffic. We have a lot of stop and go traffic… with cars spewing carbon into the air. Since you deny any large footprint stores, we have to travel to multiple little village markets to complete our shopping.
2. Loss of farm land. Again, there are low grade soils around us, and farming is not some nirvana of environmentally-beneficial land use. Pesticides. Herbicides. Water use. Topsoil erosion. Dust. Eradication of natural habitat (something a planned development can at least partially preserve).
And despite your posturing that this farmland around Davis is somehow the most precious stuff, the fact is that we have lots of prime farmland up and down the valley… just lacking the water to irrigate it all.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/prime.jpg[/img]
What else?
Some people want to have a home with some land. They want to have a bit of privacy and to have their own garden.
But for some reason you think more of us should be forced to live stacked on top of each other.
To leverage opportunities for job-producing, tax-paying business, we need an inventory of commercial real estate. This includes developable land.
But for some reason you only want small companies and small buildings. You value the business of farming over other types of business even though farming produces much per acre dollar of social and economic benefit.
Smart planning and development can minimize the extreme cases that you like to point to.
I know you know that, but even so, you seem to be irrationally fearful of any significant geographic expansion of Davis.
No big companies… what is up with that? Why?
Only apartments for housing… why not other types of housing? Why are you so myopic on the types of housing we should build? You say it is for the students. So, is Davis ONLY a place for students? Are there no other classes of people that you support having a greater supply of different classes of housing for?
I find you positions on growth and development somewhat irrational and weird given how rational you are about most other things.
[quote]Don, when you hype fear using terms like this with no basis of fact to back you up. It clearly puts you in the camp of someone having a NIMBY, no-growth hidden agenda[/quote]
Complete nonsense. Yet you keep saying it. Why?
[i]business even though farming produces much per acre dollar of social and economic benefit[/i]
s/b…
business even though farming produces much [b]less[/b] per acre dollar of social and economic benefit
[i]Complete nonsense. Yet you keep saying it. Why?[/i]
Because you constantly contradict your assertions that it is complete nonsense. Primarily your absolute rejection of development on any peripheral acreage that you consider high quality farm land. That pretty much means you don’t support growth… or you support it only to a point where there is no other low grade farmland left.
And your rejection of large business.
And your rejection of new single-family housing.
And your rejection of peripheral development.
And your rejection of any retail above a village-sized store.
What is left is too limited to be of much use in a vision of growth and development.
Hence, I see you as being largely no-growth with just a few faux-growth, proxy development ideas that you will accept.
Davis is living beyond its means and your ideas come up way short of what we need to get our fiscal house in order.
Come take a walk down my neighborhood sidewalks and see how crappy the streets and landscaping are. You know that our budget problems will continue to result in starved services rather than reset pay and benefits.
We need more business. We need large business. We need the revenue and other social and economic benefits that would derive from it. We need more single family housing to support the workers that would want to live here and their families.
[quote]Complete nonsense. Yet you keep saying it. Why? Because you constantly contradict your assertions that it is complete nonsense. Primarily your absolute rejection of development on any peripheral acreage that you consider high quality farm land. That pretty much means you don’t support growth… or you support it only to a point where there is no other low grade farmland left. [/quote]
Preserving farmland is the stated policy of Davis and Yolo County. Too bad you don’t like that. Too bad you disparage farming and don’t respect it (don’t say my statement isn’t true: you do it repeatedly). I strongly uphold that policy because I believe urban development is the greatest threat to farming, particularly to small farms. The problem Davis faces is that most development would require annexing good farmland.
[quote]And your rejection of large business. And your rejection of new single-family housing. And your rejection of peripheral development. And your rejection of any retail above a village-sized store. What is left is too limited to be of much use in a vision of growth and development. Hence, I see you as being largely no-growth with just a few faux-growth, proxy development ideas that you will accept. [/quote]
I’ve been very specific as to what and where economic development and residential development can occur without causing undesirable consequences. In fact, so has the peripheral/innovation park task force.
The General Plan and the historic consensus of the city is to have neighborhood shopping close to residential development. In order to protect those neighborhood shopping centers as well as the downtown, we prevent peripheral retail development and you limit store sizes. That is the principle at the basis of our current retail zoning. You disagree with that, but it has kept the core area healthy and kept the neighborhood centers from complete failure. Failure = blight.
You don’t like that, you don’t agree with it.
I don’t reject single-family housing. It is simply what has been built for the last decade or so to the almost complete exclusion of the type of housing that I have strenuously advocated for here.
Large businesses will require a bigger footprint than we can provide without expanding onto prime ag land. See above.
[quote]Davis is living beyond its means and your ideas come up way short of what we need to get our fiscal house in order. Come take a walk down my neighborhood sidewalks and see how crappy the streets and landscaping are. [/quote]
Then get together with your neighbors and do something about it. I am quite familiar with the landscapes of Davis. Most are in very good order compared to our neighboring cities. I am aware of some that need help. I assume you support the staff and spending reductions the city has undertaken, and I assume you oppose increasing taxes. So I guess it’s going to be time for you to get out there with your weedeater and spiff things up.
[quote]You know that our budget problems will continue to result in starved services rather than reset pay and benefits. We need more business. We need large business. We need the revenue and other social and economic benefits that would derive from it. We need more single family housing to support the workers that would want to live here and their families. [/quote]
I’ve already explained that there are places to develop business, we have large areas of agreement about all that. We do NOT ‘need’ large business. There is no reason to believe that large corporations are any more beneficial to the city’s employment and revenue situation than are small ones, and very large corporations need, in most instances, larger footprint sites than we can provide.
Large corporations may well choose to occupy some of the space in the business park that will be built on the Cannery site after the housing is rejected. Or some of the small spaces at Nishi. Or some of the existing available land on Second Street, or in South Davis. Or, if the property near the hospital does get annexed, perhaps large corporations may choose to locate small operations there. But we aren’t going to get the Bayers and the Roche Internationals and other businesses of that size. That’s cool: Dixon and West Sac will be able to house those, and we’re all cooperating within the same economic region.
Let me be real clear: I am not NIMBY (that doesn’t even make sense), I am not anti-growth. I believe in managed growth at a level that a community can absorb without dislocation.
[i]Too bad you disparage farming and don’t respect it (don’t say my statement isn’t true: you do it repeatedly). [/i]
Absolutely not true. It is interesting how you weave your position around so much nuance, but then make binary assertions of others.
I see farming as just another business, another land use.
You have set it as an absolute live of demarcation.
For me, that puts you in the “extremist” category.
I don’t respond well to people that throw out absolutes. I think it is a lazy way to try to win an argument. Nothing is “all good” and nothing is “all bad”. There is a need for balance in everything we decide as individuals and as a community.
Building on farm land is not sprawl. It is not sacrilegious. It is not a bad choice in all cases when adding up the pros and cons.
Those that have set this line of demarcation are in the no-growth camp. There is no other reason to take this hard line position other than to create an artificial boundary of policy that prevents city expansion.
[quote]Building on farm land is not sprawl.[/quote]
It is, in fact, the very definition of sprawl.
[quote]It is not a bad choice in all cases when adding up the pros and cons. [/quote]
It is a bad choice if you wish to preserve farmland. And since it is always more profitable to build on farmland than it is to farm it, having a firm policy against development of good farmland is the best way to preserve it. And there are sites that are not high quality, which we have agreed upon in the past.
That isn’t no-growth, since we have agree there are sites that can be developed. Therefore, to call me extreme and no-growth is inaccurate. Again. It isn’t an ‘artificial boundary’ — it is defined by the soil itself.
What is your vision for Davis, Frankly?
How many acres do you want to annex and build on?
What is your ideal population size?
What do you think is a healthy growth rate, above and beyond the 0.75% per year increase that we’ll already be experiencing with the 2020 Initiative?
How many houses do you want to build, and where?
Where do you want these business parks? How big should they be?
Then we can compare and see who is more aligned with the local thinking.
Reposted from June 2013:
The fundamental problem is that open land always has a higher economic value for development than any other use, particularly more than for farming, open space, or wildlife habitat.
If you want to preserve farmland, open space, or wildlife habitat, the way to do it is precisely not to have the voters deciding on one project after another. Every land developer prefers to sell a single project than to try to deal with the overall policy issue. The way to do it is to have a firm policy in place to stop the relentless pressure for development on the fringes.
If you want to preserve that type of land, you need to have in place a broader policy limiting those other uses. Best is to have a regional policy, such as a county-wide measure like Solano’s Measure A/T (the orderly growth initiative which restricted development to existing cities). In the absence of such a policy, it is important to identify the most vulnerable sites that are likely to lead to further land speculation and development pressure. Those sites are open land next to existing cities. If you want to preserve farmland, you don’t develop prime farmland that is next to cities on one side and prime farmland on the other side. It’s that simple.
It seems to baffle proponents of annexation/development that I take these positions, because they can’t see any economic interest that I have in the issue. That is because they have difficulty understanding that not everyone takes positions based on economic interests. I’m acquainted with a lot of people who share my views who also have no stake in the outcome, one way or another, of these land use decisions.
Environmentalists, people who support orderly growth, and advocates for good urban planning – groups which overlap on many policy issues regarding land use — usually have no financial interest in the outcome of the policies they advocate. Small farmers often take an interest in these issues far from their own properties because they share the concerns of small farmers who might be affected. You don’t have to be very far from a peripheral development to feel threatened by it.
These annexation issues also seem to have blocked any progress or discussion of other economic development options. One of the reasons I keep saying these should be off the table is so we can get back to discussing and acting on the myriad economic development proposals that have broad consensus. The city council shouldn’t be wasting its time on land swap proposals or long-range annexation issues. It should be moving forward on other projects. But it seems all the discussion ceases, all the fervor falls away, all the pseudonymous posters disappear when we get back to mundane issues like Nishi, rezoning near downtown, collaborating with the university. You know: things we could be doing right now. They’re just not big, big, big enough, evidently. If you support all those things, but not some big land deal, you’re not in favor of economic development and jobs.
Accusations of elitism, NIMBYism, statism, anti-growthism, and all the attempts at guilt and shame, ‘what are you afraid of?’, ‘why don’t you want the people to vote?’ – all miss the point. Land use planning requires a bigger perspective. A couple of hundred acres here, a couple of hundred there – that is precisely how urban sprawl occurs. Given a chance to vote on those larger issues about the rate of growth, the protection of farmland, and sensible urban policy, Davis voters have been pretty consistent. If you want to develop and think a change in that direction is appropriate, then put that broader principle before the voters. I’m guessing you’ll lose. And I’m guessing you know that, which is why you want to fight it out one “small” project at a time.
Don and Matt, thanks for sharing your vision. You both have a deep knowledge of land use issues. However, neither of you get to vote. These issues will be decided by the registered voters in the City of Davis who will have no clue what the issues are and will be subject to the typical Davis campaigns of misinformation etc., etc., That is the problem with any true visioning process; planning by initiative is set up for failure and warfare on a parcel by parcel basis.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”[Building on farmland] is a bad choice if you wish to preserve farmland. And since it is always more profitable to build on farmland than it is to farm it, having a firm policy against development of good farmland is the best way to preserve it. And there are sites that are not high quality, which we have agreed upon in the past. “[/i]
Don, you are speaking in absolutes when absolutes really do not exist. Witness the farmland just to the west and north of Sutter Davis Hospital. Building on that farmland would be no worse a choice than building on the concrete slab area of The Cannery.
[quote]Don, you are speaking in absolutes when absolutes really do not exist. Witness the farmland just to the west and north of Sutter Davis Hospital. Building on that farmland would be no worse a choice than building on the concrete slab area of The Cannery.[/quote]
Yes, I know. I’ve said that many times. In fact, the part you quoted that says [quote]there are sites that are not high quality, which we have agreed upon in the past.[/quote]
is exactly that.
Don,
Please make sure you know what the definition of Agricultural Land is, as a nursery man I am confident you do. After you confirm your understanding of what the definition is, your tune will change or maybe you have painted yourself in a corner…..
Matt, your input is always on point, I urge you to do the same.
shamusd: with respect to annexation and development, it’s defined in the General Plan.
I’m not exactly sure what you are driving at shamusd, but in the thought process/planning I have done, I haven’t relied on just a single definition of Agricultural Land. I try and triangulate on a subject from multiple different perspectives. In this case the perspectives I’ve researched are 1) the electronic NRCS Land Capability maps and information I have received from Phil Hogan at NRCS, 2) the Zoning designation for each parcel in the Davis sphere of influence from the Yolo County Assessors office, 3) soil maps with Storie Index ratings from a Yolo County Planning Commissioner, 4) FEMA floodmaps from FEMA’s FIRM online system, 5) discussions with farmers about how non-prime soils can nonetheless be productive soils when the right crop is planted on them and the right agronomy practices are applied, 6) the publicly Managed or monitored Lands map I received from Bruce Boyd at the City of Davis, and 7) a whole myriad of ad hoc discussions with David Morrison, Heidi Tschudin, Bob Wolcott, Ken Hiatt and a myriad of other land use planners
I consider the first five of those inputs to be more important guidance than the definition of Agricultural Land contained in the City of Davis General Plan, especially if that definition is focused on annexation and development. Agricultural Land is so much more than simple annexation and development potential.
With all the above said, with the exception of A) El Macero, Old Willowbank, Oakside, Meadowbrook,North davis Meadows, Binning Farms and some of the Patwin area south of Russell and B) the municipal wastewater treatment and landfill sites, all the land that lies outside the Davis City Limits is classified as Agricultural Land.
Re: Don–“Accusations of elitism, NIMBYism, statism, anti-growthism, and all the attempts at guilt and shame, ‘what are you afraid of?’, ‘why don’t you want the people to vote?’ – all miss the point. “
Way to hang in there Don! We need people who can stand up to the brow-beating and relentless pressure for faster growth (which I believe majority of Davisites still oppose).
One of the classic ways that pro-growth is marketed to the public is that the development will help with tax revenue and jobs (I remember when I was growing up in Everett WA seeing the newspapers and TV news continually trumpeting what a great thing the Boeing plant expansion would be for jobs–and yes, tens of thousands of jobs were created; a few years later over 10,000 of these employees were laid off and there was a serious unemployment problem; cycles of Boeing boom and bust continued). Of course, look at most middle-size towns in CA and most of them have serious long-term revenue problems like Davis, and worse % unemployment, even those that host large businesses/corporate centers.
I would support Davis hosting start-up companies (makes sense with university ties); once the company takes off and grows and gets into the production phase; they can look outside of Davis for bigger business park (also most rank&file employees in larger businesses cannot afford Davis housing)
jimt’s example of Boeing illuminates a very important point, Everyone who has posted in the back and forth of this thread and similar threads that have preceded it are committed to the same thing when it comes to identifying businesses to add to the Davis economy, which is that the companies that are going to be attracted to Davis are going to be those that either leverage the academic research strengths of UCD, or spin off from that academic research.
The Everett situation with a major manufacturer like Boeing doesn’t fit that mold. There is nothing at UCD that they would be leveraging or spinning off from. As a result not only would they get no support in coming to Davis, but they would have little or no interesest in dealing with Davis’ high costs.
Further, when you look at the industries that did well during the most recent (current?) recession, agriculture was at the head of the list. It isn’t too much of a leap to believe that the agricultural orientation of UCD’s research programs will attract and/or spin off agriculturally oriented businesses, and that those businesses will be largely immune to the boom and bust cycles jimt describes.
JMHO
jimt – A 10,000 employee company going boom and bust will certainly impact the economy of the city it resides in. That is why we want economic diversity. Right now we are mostly a one-trick pony.
I expect UCD enrollment to start crashing in 5-10 years due to a myriad of new high-quality, lower-cost higher learning options that are being developed and promoted right now. Investment in this new high-tech learning industry has exploded. Silicon Valley is revved up to take over.
The business of higher learning has only itself to blame for this, as it has succumbed to bureaucratic bloat and layered hyper-inflationary cost increases on students and parents for decades. What it has done is opened the door for new technology-enabled, for-profit, service delivery models that will become the new education paradigm that will steal and share prestige with traditional models.
Here is the explanation in a nutshell. Students don’t need the fluff in the heads of the tweed-clad lecturer because they have access to all of this information in real time at their finger-tips… all the time. It is time to leverage the power of all this information access, and use it to lower the cost of a quality education. This mission of higher-learning to create “good citizens” while sucking away tens and hundreds of thousands of their parent’s money will be destroyed by a new model with a primary mission to create economically self-sufficient adults. Business will partner with new education service providers to create new credentialing programs that weave internship and instruction together to create a much higher value degree in terms of graduate employ-ability.
It used to be that colleges could deliver a bunch of fluff (e.g., diversity this and sensitivity that) and the kids would then graduate and find an entry-level job somewhere. That old model no longer works. Graduates are not finding work… unless you count flipping burgers as a good career move for a college graduate.
Of course these new education programs will not attract all students; but it will peel off more and more… taking increasing customer market share from old model colleges and universities like UCD.
UCD will most certainly get caught with its pants down and will stumble trying to keep up.
So, here will Davis that has been addicted to that soft UCD money… with declining everything because we were too stupid and too stubborn and too change-averse.
[quote]I expect UCD enrollment to start crashing in 5-10 years due to a myriad of new high-quality, lower-cost higher learning options that are being developed and promoted right now. [/quote]
Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggghhhh!
No, no it won’t. Certainly not in 5 years. We know exactly what is going to happen to UCD enrollment in 5 years. It is going to go UP by about 600+ students each year. You do the math. In 10 years? Maybe UCD will allow it to level off. Or maybe they’ll find their increasing enrollment of graduate students so lucrative, they’ll keep going. Very likely.
I hope to god no serious planner locally is listening to this nonsense you keep promulgating.
Don, did you say “Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgggghhhh” in 2004 when your realtor and your mortgage banker told you that real estate values would keep appreciating?
College enrollment is already declining…
[url]http://www.philly.com/philly/education/College_enrollment_plummeting.html[/url]
Investment is skyrocketing…
[url]http://chronicle.com/article/A-Boom-Time-for-Education/131229/[/url]
Say good bye to college as we know it…
[url]http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1352[/url]
For those that don’t like clicking on links to read…
[quote]We are all aware that the IT revolution is having an impact on education, but we tend to appreciate the changes in isolation, and at the margins. Very few have been able to exercise their imaginations to the point that they can perceive the systemic and structural changes ahead, and what they portend for the business models and social scripts that sustain the status quo. That is partly because the changes are threatening to many vested interests, but also partly because the human mind resists surrender to upheaval and the anxiety that tends to go with it. But resist or not, major change is coming. The live lecture will be replaced by streaming video. The administration of exams and exchange of coursework over the internet will become the norm. The push and pull of academic exchange will take place mainly in interactive online spaces, occupied by a new generation of tablet-toting, hyper-connected youth who already spend much of their lives online. Universities will extend their reach to students around the world, unbounded by geography or even by time zones. All of this will be on offer, too, at a fraction of the cost of a traditional college education.
How do I know this will happen? Because recent history shows us that the internet is a great destroyer of any traditional business that relies on the sale of information. The internet destroyed the livelihoods of traditional stock brokers and bonds salesmen by throwing open to everyone access to the proprietary information they used to sell. The same technology enabled bankers and financiers to develop new products and methods, but, as it turned out, the experience necessary to manage it all did not keep up. Prior to the Wall Street meltdown, it seemed absurd to think that storied financial institutions like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could disappear seemingly overnight. Until it happened, almost no one believed such a thing was possible. Well, get ready to see the same thing happen to a university near you, and not for entirely dissimilar reasons.
[/quote]
You keep posting these links, and I agree that some colleges will experience declining enrollment. And as I’ve said before, UC Davis is well-positioned to ride out changes in the college market. Their applications exceed their admissions by a very high margin. They have excellent graduate programs, pre-professional programs, and are very attractive to foreign students. There are any number of degree programs for which UC Davis is considered one of the leading institutions in the world, most especially in ag-related fields.
Yes, liberal arts colleges may have flattened or declining enrollments in coming years. But some colleges and universities will compete very readily for market share, and UC Davis is one of those.
The problem with this repetition of yours is that some people might come to believe it, and then come to believe that our serious rental housing shortage might resolve itself. We KNOW how much UC Davis is going to grow, because they’ve told us and they are right on track to meet their targets.
Again: it would be great to diversify the employment base in Davis. Again: it would be great to do that by encouraging small to medium businesses to open here. Let’s keep our focus on the ‘dispersed’ innovation park idea so we get those great startups here. No industry is immune to downturns and layoffs. Having a broader base of smaller employers makes more sense than trying to bring in one big one. And we don’t have space for both.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Having a broader base of smaller employers makes more sense than trying to bring in one big one. And we don’t have space for both.”[/i]
Don, earlier in this thread I asked you twice to clarify your definition of what constitutes a “smaller employer” and what constitutes a “big one.” Thus far you have not answered that question, so I renew her for a third time. The example I laid out for you was whether the food safety R&D unit of a large food corporation like Kraft Foods would have more employees or fewer employees than a small ag technology corporation like AgraQuest (250 employees at last count) or Marrone Bio Innovations (109 employees at last count). UCD is one of the academic leaders in food safety research, so both the Kraft unit and the two bio innovation companies leverage and synergize with UCD’s core competencies. Kraft is clearly a “big one” and as a result in prior posts you dismissed their potential as a member of the Davis economic/business community out of hand. AgraQuest and Marrone as smaller employers got your blessing.
With that as background, do you believe that the food safety R&D unit of Kraft would have more employees or fewer employees than AgraQuest? More or less than Marrone?
Here’s another “big one” question for you Don. One of Davis’ current employers is the Harris Moran Seed Unit of HM Clause which is part of Limagrain which had consolidated sales of 1.5 billion Euros in 2011 and 1.3 billion Euros in 2010. Definitely a “big one.”
Do we not have enough space for Harris Moran?
What kind of space does Harris Moran currently use in Davis?
1. a. [quote]With that as background, do you believe that the food safety R&D unit of Kraft would have more employees or fewer employees than AgraQuest? [/quote]
1. b. [quote]More or less than Marrone?[/quote]
2. [quote]Do we not have enough space for Harris Moran? [/quote]
3. [quote]What kind of space does Harris Moran currently use in Davis? [quote]
1. a. I don’t know; 1. b. I don’t know.
2. I don’t know.
3. I don’t know.
My preference is for locally-based businesses.
Don, I ask questions because any good Critical Thinking training program tells you that questions are much more effective than statements. They promote collaboration rather than confrontation.
I don’t have anything I want to say. i want an organic consensus to come from the citizenry.
Given your answers to the three questions, perhaps some additional questions are in order before making statements.
Regarding your preference for locally owned businesses, AgraQuest isn’t locally owned, CalGene/Monsanto isn’t locally owned, DSL/MoriSeiki isn’t locally owned, Schilling/FMC isn’t locally owned. Harris Moran Seed isn’t locally owned. Campbell Soup’s Seed Research Lab wasn’t locally owned. One could even argue that Marrone Bio Innovations isn’t locally owned any more now that they have issued their IPO.
Even with that non-locally owned stigma attached, do you think those companies were a detriment to Davis?