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.
What it does probably do is remove whatever remaining leverage ConAgra may have had not to do the second grade-separated crossing. That’s probably now a requirement for the reasons that Joe Krovoza outlined on Tuesday.
“News of this support for Mr. Morris’ project likely increases the difficulty of the Council getting to its final approval of the Cannery development,” the mayor said. “The city had made significant concessions to ConAgra in order to facilitate the Cannery project — most notably a weakening of our affordable housing requirements. Conversely, our Council has identified traffic mitigation measures and community needs related to the project that we believe ConAgra should support prior to approval.”
Some have criticized the mayor here, but I think basically he is spot on. The revelation will make it more difficult for ConAgra to get final approval from council and there is no way that will happen without them giving in on the second undercrossing issue.
Right now we believe there are two votes for passage, and possibly as many as three no votes. Joe Krovoza, Brett Lee, and Lucas Frerichs now each possess a lot of leverage on the food-giant-turned-Davis-real-estate-developer.
I don’t necessarily believe that this kills the project – it simply makes it inevitable that ConAgra will give more in the development agreement.
Second, the optics on this deal look bad – and, really, it is the lack of transparency that people are up in arms about. After all, if George Phillips, in his first conversation with the public when he presented the new project, talked about the issue of business parks and said, and by the way, we have agreed to donate $2 million to a startup fund so that there can be some sort of technology park in Davis even after we re-zone Cannery – I really don’t think many people would have objected.
There may have been some political calculation as to why they did not immediately disclose it. I believe that was a huge error.
But I do not see anything nefarious here. There have been conspiracy theories and allegations floating around behind the scenes. But, based on what we know, it’s hard to imagine what those could be.
First, there may have been a belief that David Morris could help expedite the process, but as George Phillips acknowledged, that “expediting sure didn’t work out.” He would quickly add, “I don’t think there was that expectation.”
Second, is there evidence that David Morris was a lobbyist here? Certainly not at this point, as several of the councilmembers have never really even spoken to him about Cannery, according to our conversations last month. They have talked to David Morris about Mace 391, but not Cannery.
Third, there have been insinuations that this bleeds over to techDAVIS and the hiring of Rob White. But I think Mr. White did a good job of debunking this on the Vanguard yesterday. First, by all accounts, the deal between David Morris and ConAgra was reached in 2010. None of the current members of council were here at that time, nor was Steve Pinkerton hired. Rob White would not come along for about two to two and half years later.
As Rob White explained, “I was approached by several individuals (Rochelle Swanson, Bob Medearis, and David Morris) back in late 2012 as someone that might be helpful in moving forward the innovation, entrepreneur and economic development ecosystem in Davis.”
He noted, “When I finally agreed to have a serious conversation about coming to Davis in Jan 2013, it was suggested by Dave Morris that a public-private partnership (be used) where compensation was shared 50%-50% by the city and techDAVIS might be the best way to get the effort done.”
There were some good reasons to do it this way. For one thing, the city still had a budget problem and Rob White had to come in at a similar compensation package to the one he had in Livermore. Of course, as soon as Mace 391 occurred, the city recognized that with techDAVIS and David Morris at the center of discussions, it would be better to insulate Rob White’s position.
David Morris planned to fund techDAVIS’ portion of Rob White’s position by obtaining thirty-six $10,000 contributions from business and tech leaders in the region.
The bottom line here is that the ConAgra deal has nothing to do with Rob White being here in Davis. Rob White comes with a great resume and a long track record.
I spent six weeks looking into a whole variety of conspiracy theories here, and I simply do not see them. However, there is no doubt that the donation is far from easily explained. It certainly does not help that there is no written agreement between the two parties that would spell out the nature of the relationship and what – if anything – ConAgra expects in return for a rather sizable donation or investment, depending on how you look at it.
I think at this point we have to at least question what ConAgra was thinking and their intentions. But they are not the only ones on the hook here. David Morris, in his quote to the Vanguard, noted that he had talked to a number of individuals and given them the PowerPoint presentation.
He said, “The CCV business plan and it’s proof-of-concept Cannery initiative has been discussed in detail with a large number of individuals over the last 3 ½ years, including a wide array of elected officials, city managers, senior city staff, tech executives and other business leaders, civic group leaders, academic administrators, faculty, attorneys, venture capitalists, community activists, etc.”
That leads us naturally to the question as to who knew what and when did they know it. Not only did David Morris and George Phillips fail to disclose this donation to the public, but past councilmembers, city managers, and others did, as well.
We are most saddened here by the failure of those who were given the public’s trust to divulge critical information to the public. Again, it is not that we have any reason to believe that this deal is nefarious. Although it remains a bit puzzling, it is the failure of transparency that, at the end of the day, causes us the most heartache and dismay.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David Morris is trying to put together a venture capital fund that is different than most because its a non-profit with the proceeds from any successful deals being plowed back into new deals. Almost all VC deals are for profit but what Morris is trying to do is a new kind of fund allowed by recent changes in the rules governing such funds.
Morris is visionary and seems to be getting beat up by a community that can’t be sold on any change. ( One wonders if people here would buy a Van Gogh before he was dead and famous.) Morris sees a community with great minds and wants to provide the capital to turn the dreams of local entrepreneurs into products that benefit humanity and enrich the local community. Whether or not you agree with Cannery being built or the disposition of 391 it is hard to imagine that anyone could fault Morris for trying to aggregate capital to use in this manner.
Conagra is a large food processor and must recognize the value of funding new products, some potentially coming out of this area, one of the premier agricultural research areas in the world. Funding a part of Morris’ plan is actually a natural business interest of a company such as Conagra.
Think of a progression where a university researcher comes up with an idea that can be both beneficial for human nutritional health and profitable. Morris provides start up capital. When the company expands and needs to raise more capital Conagra is aware of its potential and buys a stake providing both capital and its marketing system to aid in sales and distribution. Finally at some point Conagra might take over the entire venture folding it into its existing portfolio. Perhaps what Conagra was thinking is that Morris’ pitch makes good business sense for them and if they can pull off the Cannery project they would be willing to reinvest some of the profit back into this community.
Not everything that happens behind closed doors is sinful.
Not to be suspicious, Toad, but what are the guarantees this will play out this way? Maybe BECAUSE this type of non=profit is so new, it is harder to get a handle on the ‘apple pie’ aspects…..
“Morris is visionary and seems to be getting beat up by a community that can’t be sold on any change”
agree in part. he is a visionary and someone who is trying to advance funding for start ups and deserves to be commended. however, he is getting beat up because he’s extremely sloppy.
however, and i think this is a key point, he is a professor and researcher not a developer or a pr guy or a politician. the person who needs questioning here is not morris but phillips, he should know better
“Not everything that happens behind closed doors is sinful. “
while true, lack of transparency is a huge problem here.
soda: there are no guarantees. that’s why we need monitoring, trasnaprency and scrutiny
“Not to be suspicious, Toad, but what are the guarantees this will play out this way?’
There are no guarantees in capitalism, unless you are too big too fail, but of course that isn’t traditional capitalism. The way venture capital works is you pool capital and make lots of investments hoping one or two are grand slams. By diversifying in this manner you spread your risk out. Since an investment in young ventures can reap huge rewards you can afford many failures with a few successes. The chances of a big payout from ideas generated in this community is great. Davis has a proven track record going back decades to the tomato harvester and saving the walnut trees to Schilling Robotics, Calgene, Agriquest and now Marrone Bio Innovations. of course this kist leaves out many great things started locally. We have seen Monsanto, FMC and Bayer come in here and buy companies. The idea that Conagra wants to be in the hunt here is no surprise.
Yawn. This is one of the biggest “dog bites man” non-stories I’ve ever seen in the pages of the Vanguard. A private company made a contribution (investment, whatever) in a private nonprofit for their own reasons.
Yes, both are doing business (or hoping to do business) in Davis. That’s the only reason we’re hearing about it.
Yes, it is a lot of money. A lot to me or to you. But it’s not so much to a company like ConAgra that had $13.3 billion in revenue in 2012. We should be happy such a big company contributes to a local nonprofit, even if it’s not the one we might have chosen.
The outrage here seems to stem from the great number of Davisites who work in the public sector, where there is a reasonable expectation of transparency, oversight and guarantees of return. Reasonable because, in the public sector, ultimately it’s OUR money.
But this is not our money. Even if we have ideas on where it could be better spent, it’s not our money. Even if we think it’s too much with no guarantees of return, it’s not our money. And even though they want to build something in our community, it’s still not our money.
ConAgra and CCV could have spared themselves some bad press with better PR. That much is certain. But that is about it.
Mr. Toad wrote:
> David Morris is trying to put together a venture capital
> fund that is different than most because its a non-profit
> with the proceeds from any successful deals being plowed
> back into new deals.
I have a few friends and family that work in the VC world and I have a hard time figuring out where a “non-profit” VC firm will get any capital unless it is either directly “from” the Government or “encouraged” by the Government (invest with this firm and we will let you build on the land you own).
My friends and family that work in VC on Sand Hill Road are some of the smartest people I know (graduates of HBS,GSB and Wharton) yet they still lose on MOST bets. When the Government is involved with investing things are always worse and we get situations like Obama bailing out his solar buddies and the Bush family bailing out their S&L buddies with taxpayer money.
good government: i take exception to your comments. you state: ” A private company made a contribution (investment, whatever) in a private nonprofit for their own reasons.”
that’s not the end of it now is it because part of the contribution or whatever involves or could involve a public entity and the public process of entitling a property. that takes this out of the realm of simply of a private transaction.
[i]The city had made significant concessions to ConAgra in order to facilitate the Cannery project — most notably a weakening of our affordable housing requirements. [/i]
Are you kidding?
By what standard?
By Davis standards?
If you are basing this on Davis standards, we are so far out of any standard deviation for demand of candy features, that any developer is going to have to draw the line at some point of negotiation. There is not any partnership with developers, it is us-against-them extortion. We basically say “you can’t use your land for anything other than letting it lay fallow unless you meet our demands… and those demands are going to be an order of magnitude greater than they would be for any comparable city, and once you agree to our demands, we will make more demands. In fact, we will push you to a point where you will obviously have to reject our new demands, and then we will sleuth the situation and find a conspiracy to win the PR battle and make you look like the money-grubbing, community-destroying, uncaring and unfeeling crooks that we know you are!!!
“I have a few friends and family that work in the VC world and I have a hard time figuring out where a “non-profit” VC firm will get any capital …”
It was explained to me as the kind of thing people do altruistically to set up a self perpetuating fund for the benefit of the community. Sort of like crowd sourcing which the SEC just allowed for venture capital. Still I don’t know all the details even though it was explained to me once.
Frankly, I don’t think its such a bad thing for the community to make demands on Conagra to have them build a project that is in line with the values of the community. Of course it narrows their margins and drives up the cost of housing for those seeking shelter. What i find annoying is the conflicting, never ending demands, the prejudices and the selfishness of the opponents who will do everything they can to obstruct going forward with anything proposed.
How exactly does the contribution itself involve a public entity? How does the contribution itself relate to the public process of land entitlement?
If you’re talking about the supposed “lobbying” Mr. Morris did, that appears to have amounted to showing a PowerPoint to 50 people. I would happily show a PowerPoint to twice as many people for half the amount of money.
Mr. Toad, I agree. But we lose perspective. From the outside looking in we look like a bunch of irrational lunatics.
If ConAgra had agreed early to two grade level crossings, I have no doubt that the outrage would have been that there were not three.
There are areas of Texas where there are almost zero local zoning rules. The perspective there is that if you own land, you should have freedom to use your land.
Of course there are consequences to this extreme approach.
But I see Davis as being 100% opposite… where we are extreme in demanding that we control 100% of what a land-owner can do. And that 100% is a moving target as we continually pile on and make successive demands.
It seems that we need some significant restraint and balance. We need to partner with these land owners and developers. We start an adversarial relationship out of the starting gate, and it leads to a mess.
There should be shared goals a-plenty for a land-owner/developer and the city. We should be working together.
The problem is that we absolutely don’t honor ownership, and think we have the right to control everything to the nth degree. And compounding that problem… many of those most active in making demands for control don’t have any clue as to what is feasible and good. They are only verbal critics, not action-oriented visionaries.
“How exactly does the contribution itself involve a public entity? How does the contribution itself relate to the public process of land entitlement?”
because its an issue of paying for access
“If ConAgra had agreed early to two grade level crossings, I have no doubt that the outrage would have been that there were not three.”
i don’t think that would be the case. there are clearly people against everything, but i’m not sure that the people pushing the access issues fall into that category
“Not everything that happens behind closed doors is sinful.”
That sounds patronizing, and a little hypocrital.
Frankly wrote:
[quote]If ConAgra had agreed early to two grade level crossings, I have no doubt that the outrage would have been that there were not three. [/quote]
As someone who has worked hard to place this issue into the discussion I can tell you that I disagree with you on this. From the earliest work I have done with Con Agra (over two years now) on this we focused on the access along the railroad tracks because that presented the greatest challenges. However, we also talked about needed improvements out to the east because of the fact that there is only one way in and one way out of this property (essentially–there is a west bound exit only option but most traffic will come in/go out at J Street). I think we have been reasonable in our requests. The grade separated crossing to the west is not costly even accounting for improvements to the H Street tunnel which Con Agra agreed would need to be made. The big challenge to the west has been the fact that Cranbrook property owners are unwilling to grant an easement.
The big challenge to the east was, according to Con Agra, cost. At an estimated $2.5 million they have consistently stated it was too expensive. I do not begrudge them AT ALL their right to provide a seed fund for tech start-ups but I am frustrated that they seem unwilling to provide a similar investment in what is clearly a community priority (BAC 5-0 vote, Planning Commission 5-0 vote).
“because its an issue of paying for access”
Isn’t that what the mayor wants. He wants conagra to pay for better access.
“That sounds patronizing, and a little hypocrital.”
Not if you are married.
In fact, let me take my argument a step further Frankly. Members of the biking community (I among them) were approached by the owners of Covell Village with a plan to develop bike infrastructure along the entire Covell corridor and place a grade-separated crossing under Pole Line (your 3rd grade-separated crossing if you will). After listening to them I, and others, determined that including that in this project was unreasonable and a distraction (even though I would love to see a better way to connect Pole Line to the west). So, in fact, we rejected the idea of mixing in a third grade separated crossing and the BAC never took it up in motions passed (though we were asked to do so). So in fact, the process demonstrates that your assertion is not correct.
$ 2.0 million secret deal?? cannery is trying to buy off potential opponents. why so much teeth.grinding here as to motivations?
Its obvious.
Put.this mess on the ballot!
Frankly wrote:
> If ConAgra had agreed early to two grade level crossings,
> I have no doubt that the outrage would have been that
> there were not three.
Then Robb wrote:
> So, in fact, we rejected the idea of mixing in a third
> grade separated crossing and the BAC never took it up in
> motions passed (though we were asked to do so). So in
> fact, the process demonstrates that your assertion is
> not correct.
There is a big difference between people that have been working on an issue for years like bike connectivity, solar power and public safety to talk about the issue they care about as it relates to a new development.
I don’t think that anyone doubts that Robb and the BAC are primarily focused on bike conectivity and safety not killing a development since Robb has worked for years on bike issues.
I think Frankly is talking about the large number of people that don’t want the Cannary developed who pretend to have a big “new” interest in bike safety, solar power and public safety (like medwoman who seems really “concerned” that there are only two entrances to the Cannery but has not worried about the “safety” of the people in El Macero or Northstar that have been living with only two ways to “evacuate” for years)…
What did ConAgra get for the $2M donation?
Makes you wonder why City Staff and Council removed roadblocks and reversed opposition once Lewis Communities walked away. Perhaps the “sheparding” was very effective.
Robb, What SOD said.
There are people like yourself working for a specific and consistent community goal/attribute… then there are those that are convinced this, and almost any, new development is going to impact their lifestyle and either want a continued stream of concessions to make them feel better, or to make the land owner/developer scream uncle and go away.
There is a great ironic lie in the manufactured outrage for nondisclosure of tactics or agendas, because the same people making hay out of the new “conspiracy”, would have attempted to make the same hay out of the disclosure. They in fact cause the lack of transparency as movers and shakers realize there is nothing to be gained by honest and open negotiation and hedge their risks by working behind the scenes to get something done.
Davis Progressive said . . .
[i]”I agree in part. he is a visionary and someone who is trying to advance funding for start ups and deserves to be commended. however, he is getting beat up because he’s extremely sloppy.
However, and I think this is a key point, he is a professor and researcher not a developer or a PR guy or a politician. the person who needs questioning here is not Morris but Phillips, he should know better.”[/i]
I agree with DP’s perspective above about Morris. However, with that said, since my posts yesterday I did get a call from a local person I respect immensely who expressed concern that in incorporating Dave Morris’ quote verbatim, I was stating my acceptance of them as factually correct. I thought I was being pretty clear that some quote confirmation needs to be completed when I said “. . . transport ourselves back to early 2010 to an [u]imagined[/u] community vetting of the next step of the Dave Morris process . . . ” (underlining added for effect); however, an extended series of meetings like those described should have plenty of electronic “tracks” that can provide that confirmation.
With that said said, the title of today’s article is really the meat and potatoes of any ongoing story, if there is an ongoing story. What was ConAgra thinking when they decided to align themselves with Dave Morris?
One possible answer to that question (and I emphasize possible because I have no way of knowing!) was floated in one of the many conversations I’ve had in the last 24 hours. What was laid out was the very real scenario that caused Lewis to say “Bleep you Davis, we’re out of here!” in 2009, specifically the position (some people would call it a fantasy) being perpetuated by Sue Greenwald that a 100% technology park would be the highest and best use of the Cannery site. So with Lewis now gone, ConAgra had to deal with the Greenwald argument . . . either embrace it or neutralize it. The September 2008 Cannery Park, Davis Business Park Viability Study Prepared for City of Davis by the Los Angeles firm Economic Strategy Group (ESG) which can be read at [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/media/default/documents/pdf/citycouncil/councilmeetings/agendas/20080922/packet/cannery-park-viability-study.pdf[/url] said [quote]This report, prepared for the City of Davis by Economic Strategies Group (ESG), summarizes an analysis of the viability of business park development on all or a portion of the 98.4 acre Cannery Park site located at 1111 East Covell Boulevard in Davis.
The analysis assesses the viability and projects the absorption of business park development – defined as office, flex and industrial space – on the site. This analysis is based on a review of regional and local patterns of economic activity and employment trends from 1980 to 2005 and projections from 2005 to 2030. Particular emphasis is placed on assessing current and projected economic activity in the Davis area.
This report is a summary document that presents the key assumptions and conclusions of the analysis, and outlines the projected absorption of business park development on the Cannery Park site, presents an action plan for the City of Davis, and assesses ranges of general fund revenues and other economic benefits to the City of Davis from development of the Cannery Park site.
The Cannery Park site appears to be in a strong competitive position to capture future business park demand, especially in relation to the balance of the current vacant inventory that can accommodate this demand. The absorption [study contained herein] projects build out of Cannery Park within 14 to 17 years of development initiation. The first five year increment of development at the Cannery Park site will be critical to its long-term success since it would be establishing a new location for business park space in Davis.
A 14 to 17 year build out period (equivalent to two real estate cycles) is generally considered to be the feasibility limit for a moderately sized business park such as Cannery Park. Build outs that exceed this period are generally considered not feasible based on industry requirements for project financing and typically reflect mismatches between: 1) entitlements and market demand and 2) development costs and revenue streams.[/quote]
(continued)
ConAgra and Lewis had stated over and over that being on “the feasibility limit” of viability was not acceptable, but nonetheless the Council mandated that Lewis complete “dual EIRs” and that was the straw that broke Lewis’ back and they walked.
As was argued to me in this possible scenario, the missing piece of the equation for ConAgra was that the ESG study needed some “drill down” in the local Davis conditions, and that who better to illuminate that drill down better than the Davis Technology community itself. If the voices of those local technology leaders and companies could be brought forward, then that would be a meaningful local teasing out of the regional and global premises of the ESG study. That local due diligence would result in an adjusting of the 14 to 17 year buildout projection. The possible scenario then argues that since David Morris was in the process of organizing the technology sector already, then he made sense as a person who could accomplish the “drill down” and ConAgra made the decision to strike the contingency deal with CCV as a result.
My response to this possible scenario at the time is was laid out was, “That’s a lot to chew on. I’m going to have to do a lot of thinking about it. Give me some time to do that thinking.”
I’m sure that most of the Vanguard readers will feel the same way as I did when I first heard it. So chew away.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”If ConAgra had agreed early to two grade level crossings, I have no doubt that the outrage would have been that there were not three.”[/i]
That is hyperbole pure and simple. I can’t help but think you threw it out there just to hear yourself speak! That comment is so over the top that it serves no purpose other than to inflame the dialogue.
Most of the time I enjoy hearing your perspective Frankly, and I realize that you do have a tendency to say things for effect, in large part because your Conservative voice is in the minority here in Davis, but most of the time you exercise better judgment than you did in the quote above.
“If ConAgra had agreed early to two grade level crossings, I have no doubt that the outrage would have been that there were not three.”
A really non-thought-out comment. The Robb Davis Bicycles! proposal is right on target. That is what it takes for a large number of bicycle trips to be made conveniently without conflict with Covell. A third grade separation? Where? The only possibility without mostly duplication would be from the northwest corner under the railroad track. I believe most of us in favor of the Davis Bicycles! (two grade sep) plan recognize the extreme cost of that crossing (westward) for a more limited number of bicycle trips. It is all about cost/benefit ratio as neither: 1. Should a developer have a major affect on a community without mitigating investment, nor; 2. Should a developer have to spend more and more money on diminishing community returns that approach a lack of the ability for a reasonable profit. Where that balance “should be”, except for the ideologue extremist, is what current negotiations are about.
Now that we know $2 million in community investment for a single purpose is easy for ConAgra, a few million to help meet community values, circulation, alternative transportation, safe routes to school, etc. should be an easy ask.
Matt – First, good work on that explanation above. Your are a gifted forensic detective. I will wait patiently for your additional thinking as you do it so much better than me, I will save my precious grey matter for other uses.
[i]That is hyperbole pure and simple. I can’t help but think you threw it out there just to hear yourself speak! [/i]
It may be a bit of hyperbole, and I do certainly like to hear myself speak at times… and I also know it is potentially critical of those working to get ConAgra to include a second grade crossing… but you miss the larger point that I was making related to the heading of the article.
The question “What was ConAgra Thinking?” can be answered by just revisiting the way many active Davisites keep piling it on until the developer walks away. You make the same point about with Lewis pulling out.
Since landowner/developers have these type people to deal with, they have no choice but to start hard-line negotiations instead of sitting down with reasonable people like Robb to forge a solution.
Is there a way to muzzle those that destroy our ability to partner instead of compete?
I don’t think so.
But I believe we have not called them out enough. I don’t respect those “means justifies the end” tactics.
My example was a poor choice, by the point still stands.
after some soul searching on why this thing disturbs me, i hearken back to a book from the early 1990s, who will tell the people?
the take home point there was the corroboration between monied interests and elected officials.
in the present case we have:
1. dave morris – a professor/ researcher who came up with an idea
2. george phillips – a man who represents a multinational corporation and whose best known for another client he represented – steve gidaro
3. a bunch of elected officials and government officials
to me the real story isn’t that dave or george acted as private parties but rather the failure of the elected officials and government employees to shine the light in. that’s what bothers me most.
i’m sure people like mr. toad or frankly will try to explain away my anger, but i feel like time after time, the people simply are not represented in these processes and more often than not kept in the dark.
were it not for the vanguard, we probably still wouldn’t know.
DP – why don’t you run for council and work to improve transparency?
I don’t mean to get political, but your ideological side in power in Washington is the least transparent of any previous party in power. And the constituents of that party in power continue to support it, say they are satisfied with it, and basically continue to encourage the same bad behavior only because they like being in power.
But here is the thing… last I checked we were still a representative form of government and not a direct democracy. Frankly, neither you nor I are SUPPOSED to have everything related to a policy decision disclosed to us.
Where is it written that government is required to shine the light in on all their dealings?
The point I was making… if those that cry for transparency would control themselves and truly cooperate, we would have more transparency and more cooperation. But the win at all costs, and divide and conquer tactics do not foment cooperation and transparency. The two behaviors feed on each other in a destructive spiral.
I will agree with you on one point… that is that leadership has to take the first step. But the rest of us have to recognize and applaud it when it happens… even if it means we might lose a debate.
Can you do that? Can you recognize, honor and respect good leadership even if it does not produce the transactional results that you desire?
If not, then stop complaining about others and visit your own countenance in the mirror.
you know that i work for the state in the ag’s office? one of the things i have been working on is exactly that – improving transparency.
i’d be less concerned about you or i supposing to have everything if i believed the people actually making the decisions were fully informed.
DP – Nope – I did not know that. Keep up the good work then!
I agree with your second point. If that is you concern, then I share it. I’m not as concerned that the general public remains uninformed about things they don’t general care to take the time to understand. In that case, often the less that is disclosed the better.
As we see with the botched Obamacare implementation, government as an entity responsible for the accomplishment of complex projects will generally always lag behind private-sector best practices. My expectations are always very low with respect to project planning and execution that is government owned and operated.
We have all these committees in Davis in part because we have staff that lacks the horsepower to do the work… and in part because we have a lot of very high horsepower citizens.
I don’t think I am bashing government here. I just have an “it is what it is” opinion having worked in both domains for my career.
But greater internal transparency is a goal worth some effort, IMO.
“you know that i work for the state in the ag’s office?”
Perhaps you are looking in the wrong place. There is a lack of transparency at 391 on all sides. Why limit yourself. You might be surprised to find out you live in Chinatown.
[quote]If you are basing this on Davis standards, we are so far out of any standard deviation for demand of candy features, that any developer is going to have to draw the line at some point of negotiation.[/quote]
Candy features? It’s pathetic that features that should be included in ever new development any where, affordable housing, senior friendly housing, tree’s, parks, open space, bike bath, environmentally sustainability are considered “candy”. I see them as the main coarse.
[i]Candy features? It’s pathetic that features that should be included in ever new development any where, affordable housing, senior friendly housing, tree’s, parks, open space, bike bath, environmentally sustainability are considered “candy”. I see them as the main coarse. [/i]
I like candy too!
But keep in mind that a land-owner/developer is generally already motivated to create an attractive and feature-rich development. It increases the value for him.
We should be able to work together leveraging the mutual interest of candy and increased value.
Why are we not able to work together?
We are not able to work together because the list grows to unreasonable levels, and groups and people dig in their heels on single issues, and others wanting the project to fail leverage the disappointment of the previous to gin up controversy.
So we don’t get to play the game of cooperation. We melt down into a childish brawl. And the land-owner/developer knows this will happen because he has seen it happen before. She his effort turns to politics and PR so that he can accomplish something.
This gets back to answering the question “what were they thinking?”
Just curious if anyone has a guess what kind of profit ConAgra will make if the land if rezoned and they fulfill their development plans.
Don, the answer to that question depends on what proportion of the units are price controlled by Council. Right now from what I know as a biproduct of the extended discussions I have had with New Home Company about solar/photovoltaics, they expect Council to cap the sale price on the vast majority of the homes in Cannery. Whether that will come to pass or not is yet to be seen.
I wonder how long ago Swanson began planning an election campaign for council and whether her desire to be on the council relates in any way to the Cannery Project?
550 homes x $400,000 average price/ home= $220 million. The average is a little higher and the commercial part adds more. Construction costs $128 a square foot according to homecost.com. If you can find the average size of the units you can do the math. The land costs nothing plus the infrastructure costs. Also this doesn’t look at the commercial side.
If the average unit is 2000 square feet they make about $150,000 x 550 or $82 million before expenses on the housing. I’m not sure the average size is that big and the commercial isn’t something I can figure but I bet Frankly can give you an estimate. $82 million sounds like a lot of money but Davis demands a high degree of infrastructure.
Can you imagine the uproar if some fluoride producing company promised to pay $2 million to some non-profit organization in Davis that funds business start-ups and they would only pay up if the city voted to put fluoride in the water? How is this that much different?
eagle eye, I wonder when your brains turned to mush?
No personal attacks, please.
[quote]I like candy too![/quote]
It’s Halloween, I have a 7 and 9 year old, candy is going to be the bane of my existence for the next week! (Where is the fluoridated water when you need it!)
[quote]We are not able to work together because the list grows to unreasonable levels, and groups and people dig in their heels on single issues, and others wanting the project to fail leverage the disappointment of the previous to gin up controversy.[/quote]
I don’t see a lot of what is officially being asked for as unreasonable when you consider the profits to be made.
[quote]and others wanting the project to fail leverage the disappointment of the previous to gin up controversy.[/quote]
I’m not crazy about this tactic either. I’d rather people be straight forward regarding their motives in all circumstances.
[quote]Can you imagine the uproar if some fluoride producing company promised to pay $2 million to some non-profit organization in Davis that funds business start-ups and they would only pay up if the city voted to put fluoride in the water? How is this that much different?[/quote]
That would be have been soooo entertaining!
[quote]550 homes x $400,000 average price/ home= $220 million. The average is a little higher and the commercial part adds more. Construction costs $128 a square foot according to homecost.com. If you can find the average size of the units you can do the math. The land costs nothing plus the infrastructure costs. Also this doesn’t look at the commercial side.
If the average unit is 2000 square feet they make about $150,000 x 550 or $82 million before expenses on the housing. I’m not sure the average size is that big and the commercial isn’t something I can figure but I bet Frankly can give you an estimate. $82 million sounds like a lot of money but Davis demands a high degree of infrastructure. [/quote]
You left out some major costs. City Impact and Connection Fees, County Fees, School Impact Fees are around $70,000 per house. Infrastructure is around $40,000 per house.
So between the two of you, you’ve identified a cost of $260,000 per house. What average price are they going to sell for?
Toad, of the 550 (547 actually) units, 367 are single-family residences. The remaining 180 units are multi-family units which will probably seel between $180,000 and $200,000 each. That decreases your $220 million by $36 million to $184 million. It also decreases your $82 million by $36 million, leaving $46 million to costs of putting in the infrastructure.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”No personal attacks, please.”[/i]
Don, you missed one. 50% efficiency?
I remember reading something about the average price of a home was in the $400,000 + range.
There will also be 170,000 square feet of commercial space adding another $50 million in value to the project without taking out construction and infrastructure costs.
Toad, that is correct. The average price of the 367 homes will be in the $400,000 range. I don’t believe that the 180 multi-family residence units are included in that average price.
South of Davis
[quote]ike medwoman who seems really “concerned” that there are only two entrances to the Cannery but has not worried about the “safety” of the people in El Macero or Northstar that have been living with only two ways to “evacuate” for years)…[/quote]
1) The “two ways to evacuate” North Star are in opposite directions separated significantly along Covell.
2) I am not familiar with the configuration of El Macero and thus cannot address it.
3) More importantly, I do not see any point in “concern” about what is already built. However, if one can forsee and prevent a problem, that for me would have value.
All I take away from this long discussion is that nobody seems to know anything about ConAgra’s business plan for Davis, Ca. I am supportive of the Cannery Project in general, dream that there could be an underpass for bikes and pedestrians diagonally from the southwest corner of the Cannery to the Little League park (I acknowledge it’s too expensive, but it’s a dream nonetheless) but I don’t understand what ConAgra “gets” out of the contribution.
I was under the impression ConAgra was a capitalist enterprise interested in maximizing profits. If I understood how their contribution to CCV related to their interest in maximizing profits, it would dispell all concerns about hidden motives. I think most people have the idea they just owned the one piece of land, stand to make some money from the development, then will leave town with their bag of money. Under that scenario, the $2M seems suspect. That suspicion is shed if they have longer term interests. Talking about their longer term interests falls under the category of PR, I suppose.
I would like to see some PR from them.
I am guessing that the $2MM was an investment in diverting public interest in the Cannery site as a business park to Mace 391. That appears to be a well-founded diversion.
In this case, I assume that ConAgra expected a ROI exceeding $2MM.
Ummmm, I don’t think so Frankly. That’s a pretty expensive smokescreen for a project that has not generated a lot of opposition. I can think of plenty of other, more effective uses for the $2M. ConAgra’s stock price should plummet on that kind of profligate spending news. I think we still don’t know what the company is up to. I will therefore speculate that they must be interested in the GMO and food product type research at UCD and they don’t have the $2M in their budget for CCV unless they can convert the Cannery property into some cash. That is the only way to interpret their comments about “investing” in the future of Davis as they did in the Enterprise. If I’m right and that is what they plan on investing in, I’d say make them use all their cash on infrastructure. We don’t need anymore of their kind of “research”.
“I am guessing that the $2MM was an investment in diverting public interest in the Cannery site as a business park to Mace 391. That appears to be a well-founded diversion. “
They paid off the wrong non-profit, they should have gone with the Davis Bike Club.
davehart said . . .
[i]”Ummmm, I don’t think so Frankly. That’s a pretty expensive smokescreen for a project that has not generated a lot of opposition. I can think of plenty of other, more effective uses for the $2M.”[/i]
Dave, in the above statement you are applying 2013 criteria to a 2009/2010 decision. You are correct that the project is not generating a lot of opposition now in 2013, but in 2009 Sue Greenwald had just generated enough opposition to successfully demand that Lewis Homes double their EIR costs by mandating that parallel EIRs be completed, one for Lewis’ proposed housing-heavy, mixed-use design and the second for a 100% business park. That is some pretty tangible and pretty substantial opposition. I have heard it estimated that the second EIR would probably have cost Lewis an incremental $3 million. I don’t know enough about EIRs to know if that is correct, but if one accepts that $3 million cost as accurate, an then compares the $2 million to it, then the $2 million looks very different. The lesson from ConAgra/Lewis’ efforts that resulted in the dual EIR decision was that the applicant simply wasn’t effective in arguing against the practical viability of the 100% business park alternative, and that meant that the possibility of the technology community making that argument might have had considerable appeal . . . at the time.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”They paid off the wrong non-profit, they should have gone with the Davis Bike Club.”[/i]
Again, that is an answer that is framed in a 2013 reality rather than in a 2009-2010 reality. Davis’ bicycle community was silent about Cannery in 2009. Sue Greenwald was not silent.
“Again, that is an answer that is framed in a 2013 reality rather than in a 2009-2010 reality. Davis’ bicycle community was silent about Cannery in 2009. Sue Greenwald was not silent.”
Hindsight…..
Here is David’s article about what the council directed in 2008: [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1208:council-goes-with-equal-weight-alternative-eir-on-cannery-site-by-4-1-vote&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url]
It wasn’t just Sue that focused on it. It was a 4 – 1 council vote.
Don, where in anything that I wrote did I say that [u]just Sue [/u]focused on it?
What is it about “. . . Sue Greenwald had just generated enough opposition to successfully demand . . .” that is hard to understand. Some of that “opposition” came in the form of the other three Council votes.