Month: October 2013

The revelation that ConAgra agreed to make a sizable charitable donation to David Morris’ non-profit Capitol Corridor Ventures raises far more questions than were answered yesterday.  I am still stuck at the same point I was originally: what exactly did ConAgra expect to gain out of the contribution and what did they think David Morris could do to advance their project?

There are several key points I think that need to be raised here.  First, let us talk about the project itself.  An easy point to be made here is that the project itself should rise and fall on its own merits.  I will drill down into this issue in a bit, but I do not see on the surface any reason why a charitable contribution should be the reason that this project succeeds or fails.

In what has been described as a “charitable contribution” from ConAgra to Capitol Corridor Ventures (CCV), the Vanguard has learned that the company, that has been working to entitle the Cannery project to put a mixed-use housing and commercial development on the site of the former tomato plant, has a $2 million deal with David Morris, the head of CCV as well as TechDavis, whereby ConAgra will make the contribution upon completion of the entitlement process.

The Vanguard, in response to an anonymous tip, conducted a nearly six-week investigation into allegations that, while vague, seem to point toward some sort of beneath-the-table deal.  This week for the first time, ConAgra consultant George Phillips and CCV’s David Morris acknowledged on the record this agreement, but downplayed the bulk of the criticism.

In his dissent last Tuesday, Mayor Joe Krovoza pushed back against a 391-acre or larger business park that some have been pushing on the Leland Ranch property east of Mace Blvd.

“I will not support the motion on the floor,” he said.  “I am completely puzzled.  For the three years I have served on this council, we’ve been considering straight up in public forums the option of a wonderful open space easement that we’ve been using our open space funds to acquire.”

The Cannery Project has in the last few months taken a side seat to the Mace 391 issue.  However, as the Davis City Council had its first workshop on the project last week and is scheduled for public hearings and questioning of the applicant, it seemed like this was a good time to look at some of the critical issues facing the project.

Much like we did over the weekend, these are not an exhaustive list of questions, but rather an effort to start the community discussion.

by Matt Williams

The first paragraph in last Saturday’s article on the upcoming Tuesday Cannery workshop read, “There will be no decision made on Cannery on Tuesday.  According to the staff report, “The purpose of the October 22 workshop is to introduce the project and applications to the City Council and the public. Although many of the materials will be available in advance of the meeting, Councilmembers are not expected to have fully absorbed the materials by the time of the October 22nd workshop.”

. . . no decision about Cannery was made.

I honestly believe, and have believed for some time, that the biggest mistake that was made in the lead up to the June 11 vote on Mace 391/Leland Ranch was that we didn’t get to vet the proposal in advance on a public site like the Vanguard.  Why?  Because every day thousands of people read this site and we get sometimes hundreds of comments.

Had we gotten to run a story – let us say on May 11 – we would have foreseen the problems that occurred just a month later.  We would have been able to discuss the ramifications of backing out of the grant process.  We would have discussed some of the concerns about the land use implications of building east of Mace, and the need for a business park and for finding new sources of revenue.

The Davis City Council has asked the Innovation Park Task Force to reconvene to initiate a community engagement process, providing opportunities for community dialogue about possible innovation center options and related issues.

The meeting, to take place on Tuesday night, will feature Rochelle Swanson and ostensibly Lucas Frerichs from the Davis City Council.  However, Councilmember Frerichs will be out of the country at this time.  It also will have Annaya Choudhuri and George Hague from the planning Commission and Steve Golemme and Brian Horsfield from what used to be the Business and Economic Development Commission.

by Rob White

With all of the discussion around a technology (or innovation) business park in Davis, questions that are often asked include the appropriate size (acreage), location, and justification. Though I can’t fully answer any of these questions, partially because some of the answers are dependent on community preference, I was asked by some in the community to attempt to provide a framework for some of the discussion.

Before we explore some of these parameters, I think it is important to note that this conversation in Davis (and the US in general) is not a new one. But there does seem to be a lot of energy lately, both at the local and national levels. And let’s make sure we are calibrated with the understanding that the terms tech park, innovation park, science park and business park are all relatively interchangeable for the purposes of our discussion.