Commentary: Critical Questions That We Must Address Through a Public Process

Tech-Park

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.

At the end of the day, however, I’m not sure that discussion would have changed as much as we might have thought.  At least for me, three factors have shifted my opinion slightly.  First, the loss of Bayer-AgraQuest should be a wakeup call that we will not be able to hold onto our companies without available land.

Second, the budget discussion showed that Davis, instead of climbing out of its hole, is climbing deeper into it.  The city has done a great job of reforming its compensation system, but at this point, it is not clear where else we can cut without impacting vital services.

Third, even achieving the modest concessions that we have has proven long and difficult.  The city has fallen deeper into hole trying to play out the impasse process with two bargaining units, at least one of which has done everything it publicly could to undermine the city’s standing – but, at least at this point, to no avail.

That said, there are key questions that need to be addressed.

First, what are the impacts to the city and what are the impacts to the Yolo Land Trust if we back out of the grant process now?  We have competing claims from people like Councilmember Rochelle Swanson and YLT’s Michele Clark about the consequences of backing out.  Unfortunately, I was unable to connect with Ms. Clark prior to her leaving on a pre-planned vacation following Tuesday’s meeting.

Second, where is the best place to put a business park?  We have had discussions here about the need for easy access to the freeway and the competing interest of protecting prime agricultural land and open space versus a business park.  That leads to the question as to where else we might be able to put it.  Some of that will depend on how large it needs to be.

Third, how much space do we actually need?  There is the debate starting to swirl over whether we need 400 acres or whether a more modest 200 acres will do.

Fourth, how much of that space has to be contiguous?  In other words, we know that some businesses are hoping to expand and would need a larger space, but how much of that space needs to be contiguous and how much can we mix and match throughout the area?

Fifth, can we get a win-win?  There has been so much of this analogy thrown around in the last meeting, but from my perspective a win-win means that everyone achieves some of their goals.  That means the business and tech community get their land for a business park.  The city gets its revenue.  The preservation of open space folks get prime agricultural land put into easements that forever protect it and prevent the door being opened to sprawl.  The community needs its urban farms and ag-urban transition areas.  So if we can protect critical ag land in exchange for this deal, that could be a win-win.  But we need to all agree on that.

Sixth, can whatever is proposed get through a Measure R vote?  We could all be spinning our wheels here.  The city is putting a tremendous amount of effort into Nishi, a property that will be very difficult to get through a Measure R process, given the access issues on Richards Blvd.

The city is going through a Cannery Process that could end up with citizens putting that project to a vote.

And any business park that is proposed on the periphery will have the same problems

We have heard that residents may react differently to commercial projects as opposed to housing, but quite frankly those are just guesses.

In the end, we need to have a community discussion because, while some of the stakeholders have come around to the idea of the need for increased commercial and economic development, the community has not yet been engaged on this debate.

Already a couple of letters have appeared in the paper opposing such development.

One wrote, “Their votes to open for discussion ‘all the possible land use options’ for this open space to the east of the city subjects the entire process to lobbying by businesses and developers and is not in the best interest of residents. Economic development is possible without sprawl.”

But against that we have a clear process here that will protect at every step of the way.

First, the council did not vote to reconsider, they merely voted to have the ability to reconsider their vote.

Second, counting votes, right now, there may be only one or two votes to actually reconsider.

Third, even if they do vote to reconsider, they would then have to have a full process – fiscal analysis, perhaps an EIR, and more.

Fourth, even if they did decide to put a business park on that property, the voters would have to agree to it.

There are multiple levels of safeguards in place here.  I am not advocating an outcome.  I am advocating only a conversation – a conversation that hopefully identifies our needs, the benefits, the costs and possible alternative locations.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Land Use/Open Space

202 comments

  1. “I am not advocating an outcome.  I am advocating only a conversation – a conversation that hopefully identifies our nee”

    I believe you when you say that all you want is a conversation. I do not believe that when it is put forth as their reason by community business leaders since they are clearly seeking a specific outcome.

  2. There is a site just south of Mace 391.
    There is land further up on the Mace curve.
    There is land near the hospital.
    All told, Mayor Krovoza mentioned some 475 acres available for business development. Mace 391 is not necessary for that purpose.
    Medwoman is absolutely right: the purpose of initiating the ‘conversation’ is a specific outcome — blocking the easement.
    If the conversation was to be about creative uses of an ag-conserved site, I’d be all for it. We can keep adding to a list of interesting, at-related, profitable uses for Mace 391 that would be in keeping with the character and values of Davis. Paving over farmland doesn’t reflect those values.

  3. [quote]There is land further up on the Mace curve. [/quote]

    I don’t understand why this would be brought into the conversation?
    Are you talking about the Shriner’s property?

  4. I’m still unclear about why this conversation didn’t happen BEFORE we got this far in the grant process. If the business park on Mace is such a great idea, and has such great potential to bring in revenue for the city why is it be presented at the 11th hour? Krovoza touched on this in his comments but I don’t believe anyone responded.

  5. Medwoman: If by specific outcome you mean a business park, then I agree. If by specific outcome you mean a business park at the Leland Ranch, I’m less certain.

  6. Don: “Medwoman is absolutely right: the purpose of initiating the ‘conversation’ is a specific outcome — blocking the easement.’

    Not for me. I think we need to decide if those locations you mention work or why they would not work.

  7. B. Nice: I thought Matt hit on it last night in the other article – a huge factor here is that the process from 2010 until now has not been public. We never had a discussion on whether the easement was a good idea to begin – I’m not saying it’s not. There were clear errors made in that this wasn’t brought forward in the last six month before June – that’s a clear error. But in the end, the more critical question is whether there is harm in reconsidering the easement and I regret not getting more information on that in the past week.

  8. Agreed David, however, I have to wonder as Don has implied, if there are other available sites, why reopen this particular issue unless that were your goal ?

  9. B.Nice

    [quote]I’m still unclear about why this conversation didn’t happen BEFORE we got this far in the grant process. [/quote]

    I think the key to your question may lie in the pronouns. While “this” conversation has not occurred previously on the Vanguard or in the Enterprise, I believe the mayor when he says that these issues have been considered over the past three years. The second question is with regard to the “we”. Does the “we” refer to the city’s decision makers, to the business community, to the readers and commenters on the Vanguard, or to the community as a whole ? I suspect that the answer to your question might be very different depending on which group you are referencing.

    As in previous issues in which individuals have felt that there were nefarious dealings or that something was being done “by stealth” what is really going on is that the individual simply has not been paying close attention to the issue at hand as it works its way through the process that is city government. I do not know that this process is taking place in this instance, but I am sure that most participants on the Vanguard can think of their own favorite example of this phenomena.