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 a statement late Tuesday from David Morris, he explained, “Capitol Corridor Ventures (formally known as Capitol Corridor Fund) will receive a $2 million charitable contribution from the Cannery for the sole purpose of establishing a non-profit venture capital fund to launch new tech startups in the City of Davis.”
“It is paid out when the project is moving forward,” said George Phillips, a consultant working on the application process for ConAgra. “The project moves forward when its approved by the city, there aren’t legal challenges, we’re not subjected to a referendum and we have all of our permitting in place so that the project actually has a chance to proceed.”
The earliest that would take place, assuming no referendum or lawsuit, would be the first quarter of 2014.
This “charitable contribution” was negotiated in early 2010 right after the failure of Lewis Planned Communities to move the previous application forward. Mr. Morris notes, “It is an initiative between two private parties attempting to increase the rate of tech startup launches in Davis.”
One of the critical questions is what ConAgra received in exchange for the contribution. According to George Phillips, the contribution was made with “the understanding that Dave (Morris) would establish his non-profit. The non-profit’s mission would be directing those funds towards start-up companies in Davis.”
“I was aware of concerns made by Michael Bisch approximately a month ago,” the city’s Chief Innovation Officer Rob White said in an interview with the Vanguard late on Tuesday. “Those concerns being that there was an amount of money that would be obtained by Capitol Corridor Ventures for essentially work (by David Morris) on behalf of moving the Cannery Project forward.”
Rob White said once he was made aware of this concern he asked questions of both David Morris and George Phillips.
“Both let me know that approximately two to two-and-a-half years ago… that Dave Morris had approached the ConAgra land owner and had said in return for me [Dave Morris] helping to shepherd the project forward… would ConAgra be willing to support the entrepreneurial community by creating a donation that they would donate over to Capitol Corridor Ventures for use in funding small startups,” Mr. White explained.
George Phillips explained that while the agreement between ConAgra and David Morris “is acknowledged in the agreement with New Homes” – a company that has been brought in to design and build the housing development – “that the commitment exists, but beyond that, no,” there is no formal agreement between the parties.
Further complicating this matter is that, during the process of moving forward, ConAgra has advanced Mr. Morris small amounts of money. “He has been advanced some monies,” George Phillips told the Vanguard. However, he indicated that he did not know the amount of the money that was advanced.
What was ConAgra expecting to get in return for this contribution? According to Mr. Phillips, “I don’t think they were expecting to get anything.”
Instead, they saw it as a potential PR move to counter complaints that the housing development proposal was converting land that had been zoned to be a business park and putting housing there.
While some have made the claims that Dave Morris was specifically brought in to move the process forward, significantly working with city staff and the council, Mr. Phillips argued that it was more that this was a good thing to do.
He said that, at that period, it was a good idea to get the project moving again, “but, expediting sure didn’t work out.” He added, “I don’t think there was that expectation.”
However, if this was meant to be a PR move, why would the issue not come out until this point in time? “I guess we probably should have,” George Phillips admitted on Tuesday. “There was a decision that we weren’t going to thump our chest about it or hold it out there as some kind of leverage with the city. So we just didn’t do it.”
However, various leaders and entities within the community have been looking for ConAgra to fund things such as a second below-grade crossing to enhance bicycle and pedestrian connectivity from the site to the rest of the city.
Mayor Joe Krovoza told the Vanguard, “The city had made significant concessions to Con Agra 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 Con Agra should support prior to approval.”
“I can only hope that Con Agra designating $2M for a project not prioritized by the Council does not complicate the City’s ability to come to terms with the developer,” the mayor added.
For George Phillips, he believes that this has become an issue because “there are people now who want that money.” He said that the issue of connectivity will be worked through with the city through the development agreement discussions that are ongoing.
The concept, David Morris explained to the Vanguard in the phone interview on Tuesday night, followed his idea for using capital from real estate to fund a venture capital fund.
“I thought what if we could finance a venture capital fund that was capitalized not from money from limited partners but money from real estate development,” he explained.
In his statement he explained, “The non-profit structure of the fund means that (unlike a for-profit fund) there are no shareholders, limited partners, or carried interest. As a consequence, all capital gains from companies in the non-profit’s portfolio will be recycled back into the fund to launch additional tech startups. If the CCV business model succeeds, the fund will become a sustainable engine for local startup capital.”
Mr. Morris added, “The CCV/Cannery initiative is the prototype of an innovative private sector solution to the problem of inadequate seed-stage venture financing in this region. CCV’s mission is to play a synergistic role with ongoing efforts to create a world-class innovation ecosystem anchored by UC Davis.”
The big question became who knew about this donation of money to the Capital Corridor Venture Capital Fund and when did they know it. George Phillips acknowledged that, from ConAgra’s end, the idea was not publicized.
However, David Morris said he has spoken to well over 50 individuals, many of them leaders in various sectors of the community, since 2010.
“In 2010, I started socializing this business model,” Mr. Morris told the Vanguard. “I have a PowerPoint presentation and I went to talk to anybody and everybody who I could get to sit down and talk to me.”
“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 three and a half 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.,” David Morris told the Vanguard.
Major Joe Krovoza told the Vanguard, “I heard probably a year ago that ConAgra had given Dave Morris $100,000 for a project related to his Capitol Corridor.”
He said ten days ago is when he first heard that this was in the $2 million range and that a few days ago he had heard that George Phillips was confirming “the rumor.” “That was much more concerning to me,” he said.
However, while Mayor Krovoza was concerned about the amount of money, Councilmember Rochelle Swanson told the Vanguard, “I don’t think there is anything nefarious behind it.”
“We have developers that add money to causes all the time,” she said.
The city’s Chief Innovation Officer Rob White, on Tuesday, agreed.
“I wasn’t really aware of that arrangement prior to (September),” he added. “I knew that there was a relationship between Capitol Corridor Ventures specifically Dave Morris and working on behalf of the Cannery Project.”
“Now that I know about the relationship, I don’t personally have any problems with it,” Mr. White stated. “I think a donation from an entity to a non-profit organization that is trying to help small startups in the Davis community – that’s a space that isn’t well-funded, there isn’t a lot of investment there. Quite frankly we need as much small startup company venture funds as we can possibly sink our teeth into in the Davis area.”
“I think it’s disappointing that it’s coming over in this manner,” he said. “I don’t know why an accusation or a concern raised by an individual is the catalyst for what otherwise should be a good news story.”
Rob White said that he had asked Dave Morris a number of times why this has not been more broadly shared and “I think he made a bad choice. He bought into some of the negativity that can sometimes be in Davis and believed that he would be criticized for what should otherwise be seen as a big success metric of having a large corporation that has roots in Davis make a donation to create a venture fund.”
“That’s a huge success,” he stated. He argued had it been another commercial entity or a wealthy individual in the region, no one would have any questions. “It’s just the fact that it’s tied to this very controversial project that makes it, I guess, controversial.”
“Taken in context in another community,” Mr. White argued, “no one would think twice about this conversation.”
“I think Dave made the mistake – and I think it’s a pretty common mistake in Davis – of not being vocal about his efforts,” he added, stating that he was likely worried about the same criticism that is happening now.
For some, that criticism is coming from unexpected quarters – for instance, from Michael Bisch, a commercial real estate broker who, for a time, was the president of the Davis ChamberPac.
Dave Morris told the Vanguard that Mr. Bisch was briefed on this endeavor back before the 2012 election. Mr. Morris wants to know, “Why is this an issue now? At the 11th hour of the Cannery Project and after some creative ideas about how to solve the Mace 391 dilemma we put on the table.”
Here he was referring to the proposal that would take the conservation acreage at Mace 391 and develop a business park, while taking the Shiner Property and putting it into its own conservation easement.
“Why is this a problem now since he’s known since the last election?” Mr. Morris added.
Michael Bisch, at several points during the Vanguard’s investigation, declined to speak about this issue on the record.
Davis Chamber Executive Director Kemble Pope reiterated the Chamber’s support for both the Cannery Project as well as Mace 391, contained in previously released letters. However, he stated that could not comment any further without authorization from his board.
Davis City Manager Steve Pinkerton also declined to comment.
Still, there are questions that remain. Why did the Cannery consultants not come forward about this arrangement at an earlier time? Why was the agreement never formalized? And most of all, why Dave Morris?
For George Phillips the answer was, “Why not?” “He is a guy who is just on a mission” to create capital opportunities for startups in the Davis Community and the region. Mr. Phillips added, “He is passionate about this. He has impressed us with his commitment about getting this whole idea of his off the ground.”
However, for skeptics if not critics like Joe Krovoza, this is not the way to go about creating funding for projects that have been unapproved by the city council.
He told the Vanguard, “If Con Agra wishes to support the development of new businesses for Davis, then there are a series of existing city and university programs being advanced by our chief innovation officer, Rob White — the most notable being our DavisRoots project with UC Davis.”
Mr. Phillips also made it clear that there was never any connection between Mace 391 and their charitable contribution.
“There is no connection,” he stated.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A clarification has been added to a quote by Rob White regarding Dave Morris.
[quote]”It’s just the fact that it’s tied to this very controversial project that makes it, I guess, controversial.”[/quote]
Ya think ??????
Great reporting David. It looks like as many have suspected that all along it has been all about the money.
[quote]or skeptics if not critics like Joe Krovoza, this is not the way to go about creating funding for projects that have been unapproved by the city council.
He told the Vanguard, “If Con Agra’s wishes to support the development of new businesses for Davis, then there are a series of existing city and university programs being advanced by our chief innovation officer, Robb White — the most notable being our DavisRoots project with UC Davis.”
[/quote]
I would have no problem with this type of “charitable contribution” if it were being used to support an already council approved project. As it is, it has at least the appearance of being a “quid pro quo” in order to help influence the acceptance of a controversial project. This I find problematic even if Rob White and Rochelle
Swanson do not.
bump·tious
ˈbəmpSHəs/: 1.self-assertive or proud to an irritating degree.
[img]http://placemanagementandbranding.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/welcome.jpg[/img]
those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. is there something nefarious here? smells like it. why? because they didn’t come clean with the deal. it’s a handshake deal. no specifics. seems like there are varying explanations for what conagra is going to get for the deal.
i don’t like this. think this will kill the project.
[quote]This I find problematic even if Rob White and Rochelle
Swanson do not. [/quote]
I fully agree. It looks like full damage control is going to go into effect. In my opinion this all stinks. I have to believe that this is going to cause many to rethink their opinions about the Cannery Project and the Tech Park.
[D.P.
quote]i don’t like this. think this will kill the project. [/quote]
What project? Cannery? Tech Park? or both?
“This “charitable contribution” was negotiated in early 2010 right after the failure of Lewis Planned Communities to move the previous application forward.”
“He (Mayor Kravoza) told the Vanguard, “If Con Agra’s wishes to support the development of new businesses for Davis, then there are a series of existing city and university programs being advanced by our chief innovation officer, Robb White — the most notable being our DavisRoots project with UC Davis.’ “
I think Rob White was hired much later than this was negotiated and Davis Roots didn’t exist until 2012 either. So the two vehicles the Mayor cites couldn’t have been used at that time. Also in 2010 the national economy was bad and unemployment was bad. Perhaps Conagra saw this as a way to help put some people to work at a time when the economy was looking pretty bleak going forward. Only in Davis would giving money to a non-profit that wanted to try to create jobs be controversial.
Agree with above comments. Here we go again. David Morris does not seem to have learned from the June Mace/easement fiasco. I agree that DAvis Roots would have been a better choice. This arrangement, just now coming to light and not because of either party, but because of investigative reporting, is odorous. I believe the city needs to get on the record here. The ‘arrangement’ is between two private entities yet the city is involved.
The CCV hits just keep on comin’. First the non-profit that wasn’t (but might be now), then the 11th-hour Mace 391 ploy, and now the mutual-backscratch deal with the *other* controversial land-use matter in town. Dave Morris is either so slick that he’s two steps ahead of everyone else, or he needs a PR handler in the worst way. My money is on the latter.
I don’t think this helps ConAgra much, either. For a few the appeal of a $2M contribution to a tech incubator might tip their view of the Cannery into the favorable column. For most, I think, it just smells bad. ConAgra isn’t actually on the hook for any money, though — even if the Cannery gets approved, it sounds like they don’t have any legal obligation to donate a nickel to CCV.
Mr. Toad
[quote]Only in Davis would giving money to a non-profit that wanted to try to create jobs be controversial.[/quote]
Demonstrably not true. Many have been criticized for giving money to say for example, Planned Parenthood, which is a non profit employer by those who would like to halt the activities of Planned Parenthood.
[quote]I think Rob White was hired much later than this was negotiated and Davis Roots didn’t exist until 2012 either. So the two vehicles the Mayor cites couldn’t have been used at that time.[/quote]
True, but I do not believe that anyone is implicating Rob White in this decision. I was simply stating my disagreement with his point of view as expressed by David. And while Davis Roots didn’t exist at the time, I am quite sure that there were other city council approved projects that could have been supported as alternatives.
[quote]Instead they saw it as a potential PR move to counter complaints that the housing development proposal was converting land that had been zoned to be a business park and putting housing there.[/quote]
Exactly. Many want the Cannery to remain zoned for a business park. Funny how the whole Mace 391 proposal and the big push for a new business park site all is happening close to the time of the council Cannery vote. Just coincidence?
Toad:
[quote]Also in 2010 the national economy was bad and unemployment was bad. Perhaps Conagra saw this as a way to help put some people to work at a time when the economy was looking pretty bleak going forward.[/quote]
LMAO. Toad, you’re really having to reach.
that’s a reach gi. the city has done several iterations of business park process starting in 2010 with the innovation park task force, the illfated effort to hire mcdonough, and the successful hire of rob white. the cannery process has played out for some time and has come down at this point.
Wow, developers are investing money to try and work the political processes in a town that can’t get anything done because everything is constrained by the political processes and we call this… a scandal?
Come on now. Grow up.
Those dedicated to blocking economic development are so desperate they will try to make hay out of crap.
Open and transparent does not work in this town very well at all.
Vanguardians – I want make the comment that I have tried my level best to be open, transparent and descriptive within the bounds of my city employment. I willingly come on to this blog under my own name, where many have chosen to remain anonymous, and write abundantly about the efforts being conducted by the City with respect to economic development, innovation, and the tech sector.
I have again been open and transparent on this latest topic, and I would agree with medwoman that I am not the topic of discussion. If there are further questions about me, my contract (which is online), my focus (which is Council approved and also online), or other aspects of what I am working on, please let me know and I am happy to write profusely about them. I admittedly am growing weary of being associated with issue or question when I am willingly open and transparent. David Greenwald knows I am always a phone call away and happy to answer any question. Those that still believe I am here on a mission other than what is stated should sit down with me and get to know me before casting aspersions.
As I am finding out, there are many decisions and agreements made long before I was recruited to Davis. After working together for 2 1/2 years on a regional innovation effort (the i-GATE iHub), I was asked to come be part of the city staff by Bob Medearis, Rochelle Swanson, Steve Pinkerton, as well as Dave Morris. Bob and Dave provided the original financial catalyst for me to be part of the community through a public-private partnership (modeled after the same type of agreement that San Leandro has with OSIsoft), but that has since been changed due to concerns raised.
I do think venture funds are badly needed in the Davis tech ecosystem. The CCV fund was conceived back in 2010 and should have been socialized with the public then. It is not within my commission to divulge private deals, though I do encourage proponents to be public about as much of their deals as they feel comfortable with. When I learned about this agreement, I encouraged the parties to tell their story. They did not. I think it may be because Davis has a history of being suspicious of the efforts of business entities (and some with good reason). But I think we can only hope for greater transparency when we listen with open minds, accept that not everyone will do it just like us, and help to encourage a better outcome through civil debate and critique.
Thank you for letting me be very clear that this arrangement between Con-Agra and CCV predates me, and I am not personally involved. This agreement is subject to the discussions between the private parties and the City Council as the approving body of the Cannery project. I am not part of the Development Agreement team, so my ‘opinion’ really matters very little on this subject.
Thanks again.
[quote]”Both let me know that approximately two to two-and-a-half years ago… that Dave Morris had approached the ConAgra land owner and had said [b]in return for me helping to shepherd the project forward[/b]… would ConAgra be willing to support the entrepreneurial community by creating a donation that they would donate over to Capitol Corridor Ventures for use in funding small startups,” Mr. White explained.[/quote]
ConAgra was paying Dave Morris for Rob White to promote ConAgra’s project. That’s what it looks like, anyway. “In return for” suggests undue influence by one large developer on city staff.
There are simply too many conflicts of interest involved in this whole process, directly affecting the city’s decision-making process regarding Cannery and business park development.
“Many have been criticized for giving money to say for example, Planned Parenthood, which is a non profit employer by those who would like to halt the activities of Planned Parenthood. “
Davis doesn’t have a planned Parenthood office you would need to go to Woodland for those services.
“I am quite sure that there were other city council approved projects that could have been supported as alternatives.”
Of course Conagra would have been attacked for trying to buy off the City Council if they gave money that way.
[quote]”Both let me know that approximately two to two-and-a-half years ago… “[/quote]
By my math early 2010 to present is three-and-a-half years. None of the current Council members were in office. Bill Emlen was City Manager. Paul Navazio and Ken Hiatt hadn’t departed for Woodland. Is there anyone in the early 2010 cast of players other than George Phillips and Dave Morris who is still around?
“ConAgra was paying Dave Morris for Rob White to promote ConAgra’s project. That’s what it looks like, anyway.”
Rob has not promoted Cannery as he explained above and didn’t even come here until two years later.
Don Shor:
[quote]There are simply too many conflicts of interest involved in this whole process, directly affecting the city’s decision-making process regarding Cannery and business park development. [/quote]
Exactly, IMO it’s time to take a step back and reassess the whole thing.
Don – I asked David Greenwald early this morning to fix that quote, as it is incorrect. It should read:
“that Dave Morris had approached the ConAgra land owner and had said in return for me (Dave Morris) helping to shepherd the project forward…”
I am disappointed that I keep being implicated for wrong-doing when I have strived so hard to be transparent. I am very disappointed that the accusation comes from you, Don, when you should know better, especially since you converse with David Greenwald as part of his editorial board and David has vetted me 10 ways to Sunday.
This has gotten down to a level I could not fathom. Again, I am not the story. I have been, it was vetted, and we should be over it. I am disappointed, beyond description. I do need to think long and hard about continuing to subject myself to innuendo, direct attacks, and supposition. A saying about “eating their young” comes to mind.
Rob: [u]I am not on the editorial board of the Vanguard. I am a volunteer moderator.[/u]
I don’t converse with David Greenwald or the other members of the editorial board about the stories that are going to run. I read them when you read them.
Your revision of the quote makes a big difference.
Rob, please reconsider removing yourself from the DV. We appreciate your sharing your thoughts on a weekly basis….
You need to realize that the putting together of the TechDavis part of your early salary and now the realization that some of that money COULD have come from ConAgra is surprising and upsetting to some of us as you were brought in as a partly funded (now completely funded which is better) city employee.
I for one, am upset at this new ‘turn of events’ and see your inadvertent part in it (above) but do appreciate what you bring to the DV……
Stay in 🙂
“Mayor Joe Krovoza told the Vanguard, “The city had made significant concessions to Con Agra in order to facilitate the Cannery project — most notably a weakening of our affordable housing requirements.”
Seems like Davis is becoming a town of students, middle income renters, and high income folks.
Maybe we should move away from all the finger pointing and move on to something positive. If Conagra can make enough money to invest $2 million in a charity why can’t they put $2 million more into a second bike crossing? How much more does a second crossing cost? How much is Conagra willing to put into it? The idea that they can’t come up with more money to make the project acceptable to the community is blown up by this story. They are arguing that they can’t afford it because they already gave at the office. Its a dog that no longer HUNTS. When I whip the votes its questionable if they can get it done without a second crossing. If you go back and listen to the last CC meeting you hear over and over concerns about the bike access. While this is an interesting story the project getting approval from the CC rests on the bike access not whether Conagra is donating to Dave Morris’ non-profit. What this story tells us is that claims of too small margins in the project lack credibility.
Note to Conagra build the second bike crossing. When you have lost Mr. Toad you have lost the community.
“ConAgra was paying Dave Morris for Rob White to promote ConAgra’s project.”
Don: This is simply not accurate. Rob White wasn’t even in the picture when the deal happened in 2010. Yesterday you came down on Mr. Toad for spreading rumors, now your doing the same thing.
No, David, I read the quote with the misuse of pronouns, which has been clarified by Rob.
The insider game suggested by these connections is deeply, deeply disturbing. Are tech-development schemes and schemers now the real power in city politics?
Plain and simple. The money was spent to divert all attention from any consideration of a business park proposal on the Cannery, thus the 391; and there is a link to Shriner’s also. This has nothing to do with staff.
Don – I apologize for my misunderstanding on your role with the Vanguard. Thank you for the clarification. But it doesn’t excuse the rapid movement to suspicion without clarification. I am hopeful that everyone on this blog will seek rationality and clarity assuming innocence before guilt, and always striving for a better community as we wrestle with the answers we are seeking. Not platitudes, just common sense.
SODA, as I read the information provided herein, no money has changed hands between ConAgra and CCV. If CCV had no money from ConAgra, your statement [i]”and now the realization that some of that money COULD have come from ConAgra”[/i] is wholly and completely false.
You know I respect you a great deal, and everyone makes mistakes. Your choice of words above was just such a mistake, and I believe you should retract it.
The only thing that connects Rob White to this story is that Dave Morris/CCV/techDavis was involved in the proposal that Rob’s position be paid 50/50 by the private sources that Morris controls. That has been resolved and Rob has been an active part of public discussions about the development issues he’s involved in.
The questions that come up have more to do with staff and transparency.
Dave Morris has had involvement in the Cannery project since 2010 (“in return for me [Dave Morris] helping to shepherd the project forward.”
Morris is the primary proponent of the land swap on Mace 391, and evidently had conversations with staff about that some time before it became public.
When the proposal for joint funding of the CIO position was made, did staff make the council aware of Dave Morris’es involvement in those two high-value land development projects?
Someone who is actively involved in large-scale land development projects should not have been involved in funding a staff position. That should be obvious to everyone. It is the appearance of conflict of interest that has been a problem throughout, and now that problem extends to the two major development projects before the city.
Public disclosure is crucial to retaining public trust. This taints the whole process, and probably affects the likelihood of either project going forward. I don’t think there were three votes for Cannery before this, largely due to access issues. I don’t think there are three votes to scuttle the easement. I don’t think this disclosure makes three votes on either of those more likely. It probably makes three votes less likely. And it almost certainly would make a Measure R vote even more challenging for Mace 391.
don: i believe you have misconstrued rob white’s station. clearly it was dave morris not rob that was getting paid to promote cannery. i think you owe him a public apology.
Great article Good to see the Return of the Dark Underbelly.
This entire Cannery Project smells. ..and.why do we need.all these expensive houses??
Put it on the ballot!
OK. This is how I understand this. 1) A housing development is proposed for land zoned for industry. 2) Anticipating that people will argue that the zoning should not change due to the desperate need for a business park type development, the developer reaches out and says they will donate money to a non-profit dedicated to investment in business start-ups in the City of Davis. 3) They don’t announce this or advertise this, not wanting to muck up the standard planning process. 4) Someone finds out, because the potential recipient of these funds has blabbed it around town, 5) People are immediately suspicious and look into it more closely and find out that there is this agreement to donate funds to a non-profit that will grant funds for start-ups in Davis (God forbid!) 6) A small group of people believe that this is outrageous and now want to kill the development at ConAgra due to “nefarious” dealings.
Summed up: “I’ve found my nose. Now where are my scissors?”
Geez, people, would having the developer withdraw his commitment to donate to the non-profit help? Or maybe have the non-profit reject the gift? What is it that people really want here, other than to stop development of any kind whatsoever?
[quote]don: i believe you have misconstrued rob white’s station. clearly it was dave morris not rob that was getting paid to promote cannery. i think you owe him a public apology.[/quote]
I agree. I apologize to Rob.
Its just private sector business as usual working in self-interest and public employees must react to these deals/issues as they are presented; many times presented to them in half-baked fashion. Its not City staff’s fault. Davis is fortunate to have Rob if Davis is sincere about economic development; he knows better than anybody the pulse of the region.
Clarification on the Chamber’s Position.
Kemble Pope said, “The Chamber has NEVER supported a land-swap or any other deal concerning Leland Ranch (aka Mace 391 property). Our position has consistently been that there needs to be more transparency. We hope that you can make this clear to your readers.
The Chamber’s actions are guided by the official position statement that was created by the Davis Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors at their regular meeting on Thursday, September 26th,2013:
“The Davis Chamber of Commerce requests that the City Council reconsider the June 11th, 2013 vote regarding the city-owned Mace 391 property on the basis that the community has not had an adequate opportunity to fully explore and understand the full implications of the decision.
The Chamber recommends that the results of the original vote be vacated and the matter returned to Staff for an expedited, but more complete presentation of the options and long-term ramifications of this decision as regards both the planning for long-term agricultural easements together with the long-term needs to accommodate viable locations for desirable technology employers within the community.
In recognition of March 31, 2014 deadline for finalization of the NRCS Grant funding agreement, we further urge the Council to set an accelerated process for presentation of this necessary, supplemental material in order to allow all Davis citizens to fully understand the long terms ramifications of this decision and its implications for the future of this community.”
“What is it that people really want here, other than to stop development of any kind whatsoever?”
Speaking for myself I’d like a much bigger Toad Tunnel under Covell near Nugget.
Ryan: [quote]1) A housing development is proposed for land zoned for industry. 2) Anticipating that people will argue that the zoning should not change due to the desperate need for a business park type development, the developer reaches out and says they will donate money to a non-profit dedicated to investment in business start-ups in the City of Davis. [/quote]
Who reached out to whom?
We also don’t know what was expected in return for the donation.
What did Dave Morris do to “shepherd the project forward”?
What were the “small amounts of money” for?
Usually someone like ConAgra would hire a PR firm to do those things; in fact, they have paid spokespeople. I don’t think we’ve heard of any specific involvement by Dave Morris in the Cannery project before, but maybe I missed it.
My thoughts on this pretty much parallel Rob White’s. Somehow, if [u]we the people[/u] had somehow learned about the socializing of this agreement and its purpose that Dave Morris apparently did starting in 2010, then we probably wouldn’t think much of it. The timing is what makes it odorous (as Growth Izzue, SODA and others have labeled it).
The thing is that like so many other things in Davis, we rarely judge things based on the effort that goes into them, we judge them on their eventual end result. I fall into that trap myself. But, I cant help but step back for a moment and reflect that what we are saying is that:
— It is clear that the current perception is that end result that Dave Morris described was not good enough.
— Speaking to “well over 50 individuals, many of them leaders in various sectors of the community” wasn’t good enough.
— Creating a PowerPoint presentation and going to “talk to anybody and everybody who I could get to sit down and talk to me” was not good enough.
— Discussing the CCV plan “in detail with a large number of individuals over the last three and a half 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.,” wasn’t good enough
I really think we all need to look in the mirror and do some self examination when we read those four bullet points, and dovetail them together with the very astute comment made by Toad, “Rob White was hired much later than this was negotiated and Davis Roots didn’t exist until 2012 either. [u]So the two vehicles the Mayor cites couldn’t have been used at that time[/u].” and his further cogent observation that if ConAgra had put the money into City projects that “Of course Conagra would have been attacked for trying to buy off the City Council if they gave money that way”
I 100% agree with Jim Frame when he says “Dave Morris is either so slick that he’s two steps ahead of everyone else, or he needs a PR handler in the worst way. [u]My money is on the latter[/u].” I have added the underlining to indicate that my money is on the latter too.
But bottom-line I know I am not perfect, and I have to occasionally beg for forgiveness (especially from my wife). Dave Morris and George Phillips may not have communicated as well as we might have liked, but the truth is that we have done an even poorer job of listening and paying attention.
We also are guilty of practicing a double standard. The conservation easement process is being touted as a a three year robust communication process by many people including the Mayor from Council dais, and yet we the people were almost totally and completely blindsided by it. Perhaps . . .
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Hqii8Hu1DWM/TbSuI8iuwUI/AAAAAAAADVM/R_5so3W1IO8/s400/Pogo+3.jpg[/img]
[quote]
yeahmyam
10/30/13 – 09:26 AM
…
Plain and simple. The money was spent to divert all attention from any consideration of a business park proposal on the Cannery, thus the 391; and there is a link to Shriner’s also. This has nothing to do with staff.
[/quote]
Agreed.
Matt:
[quote]SODA, as I read the information provided herein, no money has changed hands between ConAgra and CCV.[/quote]
From the article:
[quote]Further complicating this matter is that, during the process of moving forward, ConAgra has advanced Mr. Morris small amounts of money. “He has been advanced some monies,” George Phillips told the Vanguard. However, he indicated that he did not know the amount of the money that was advanced.[/quote]
What does it matter, Don? Does it change the project? Would a hired PR firm work in Davis, considering the colossal failure of previous hired PR campaigns in by previous projects and campaigns? I too don’t think I’ve heard of any involvement by Dave Morris in the Cannery project, so what is the problem?
[quote]I too don’t think I’ve heard of any involvement by Dave Morris in the Cannery project, so what is the problem? [/quote]
Then what were they expecting for $2 million? And if they have $2 million to contribute in that manner, to no apparent reward, why won’t they spend more money to make the project changes that might get it approved?
Don: That’s the biggest puzzle to me still – what were they expecting for $2 million and there are various versions ranging from they thought Dave Morris could bring council votes to this was strictly a move to counter the criticism that cannery was taking business park land out of circulation.
I smell a “naming opportunity” for the bike underpass a la Mondavi Center.
“why won’t they spend more money to make the project changes that might get it approved?”
They have spent much more than that on everything from solar panels to community gardens. The project is like a giant Christmas tree trying to break through community opposition from all the usual suspects. The question is how much more, not how much, and, I think the answer is a second bike crossing or at least a hefty contribution to adding one when combined with other funding sources.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”Maybe we should move away from all the finger pointing and move on to something positive.” [/i]
That would be nice.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”If Conagra can make enough money to invest $2 million in a charity why can’t they put $2 million more into a second bike crossing? How much more does a second crossing cost?”[/i]
Unless ConAgra renegues on their commitment to Morris, then that money is already registered on their Balance Sheet as an accrued liability. Said another way, the money is pre-spent.
To gain votes for a project, it was “advised” that the builders of an apartment complex in East Davis near the police department donate land to a non-profit that used it to build senior housing and also include a portion of land dedicated to a community garden for the residents of the apartment and the senior housing. Another project on the corner of Catalina and Covell, before gaining approval from the City Council, the developer of the project was “encouraged” to gift a strip of land bordering the neighboring apartment complex (and provide water) so neighbors could continue to have garden plots on the property.
If people find gifts and donations so offensive, why is it almost an expectation that developers will need to give things to the community to gain support for their projects. That and our distaste for professional PR campaigns. The fault lies with us. We set up this expectation.
[quote]developers will need to give things to the community to gain support for their projects.[/quote]
ConAgra could have gotten considerable advantage if they had given $2 million to ‘the community’. CCV is a private venture. In fact, I’m not entirely sure what CCV does.
DG:
“However, for skeptics if not critics like Joe Krovoza, this is not the way to go about creating funding for projects that have been unapproved by the city council.”
medwoman:
“I would have no problem with this type of “charitable contribution” if it were being used to support an already council approved project.”
The implication here that the Mayor or the City Council should govern which non-profits are “allowed” to receive contributions from private entities. I don’t like that one bit.
Ryan wrote:
> To gain votes for a project, it was “advised” that the
> builders of an apartment complex in East Davis near the
> police department donate land to a non-profit that used
> it to build senior housing and also include a portion
> of land dedicated to a community garden for the residents
> of the apartment and the senior housing.
Years before the building Ryan it talking about another apartment developer (on the other side of 5th) was “advised” that to get the OK to build a “donation” of some of their land for a subsiidized apartment might “help” get it built.
It seems like real estate developers are extorted out of more money that most other business. I’ve never heard of a Honda dealer being forced to give 10 cars to a non profit (and continue to sell 10% of their cars at a doscount to low income prople) before they can build a dealership in a town.
SODA, as I read the information provided herein, no money has changed hands between ConAgra and CCV. If CCV had no money from ConAgra, your statement “and now the realization that some of that money COULD have come from ConAgra” is wholly and completely false.
Matt:”You know I respect you a great deal, and everyone makes mistakes. Your choice of words above was just such a mistake, and I believe you should retract it.”
Matt, I also respect you and your thoughts generously shared on the DV. If I offended Rob. I apologize as I was trying to encourage him from not dropping out of contributing here while trying to connect the dots for the PERCEPTION of his involvement because of the info from today’s story that ‘some’ (no one sure how much) has been paid by CA to CCV.
In no way was I disparaging Rob. I appreciate his honesty and involvement on DV.
Friends again Matt?
Please read the following if you want additional clarity on the original public-private partnership arrangement that brought me to Davis. This has largely been described before (a few months ago), but for the readership at large, it may need repeating.
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. I was working with the City of Davis as part of the i-GATE Innovation Hub I co-founded with Sandia and Lawrence Livermore National Labs, in large part due to the long research relationship between the national labs and UC Davis. additionally, the connectivity came at the urging of Congressman Garamendi because he has stated for some time that Davis is an integral extension of the Bay Area research and entrepreneur culture. Davis joined the i-GATE iHub in mid-2011 (I think, but I don’t have the date at my fingertips).
I was doing well in Livermore as the City of Livermore Economic Development Director and the CEO of the i-GATE iHub and being recognized regionally, nationally and internationally as a leader in economic development and innovation. So, I was humbled and intrigued by the exploration of an opportunity in Davis. I know there had been talk of a county-wide economic development corporation, but my sources at the cities of Davis, West Sacramento, and Woodland indicated that they were unwilling to fund this enterprise. So a position with the City of Davis seemed ideal.
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 where compensation was shared 50%-50% by the city and techDAVIS might be the best way to get the effort done. I was asked by the City and Dave Morris for suggestions on how that partnership could be crafted, and I suggested the arrangement that San Leandro had come to with OSIsoft (a large software company in San Leandro). I was aware of the public-private partnership that was created by San Leandro in mid-2012 because I helped to craft the idea, working with their city manager as part of my regional innovation efforts with the i-GATE iHub. The San Leandro arrangement was publically vetted and approved by their attorneys, so I figured it would be a good model here in Davis. And on the surface of it, the Davis attorneys agreed.
Though the funding model morphed over the time of the discussions (Jan to Feb), it was agreed to in late February 2013 that the funding should come from 36 donors of no more than $10,000 each for the 50% share of the private contribution to my salary mix. It was reasoned that then no one entity could be in control. And it was agreed that the mix must be multi-industry.
(continued from above)
I also agreed in negotiations with the City Manager that I would work under an employment contract like the City Manager has (instead of as an employee with property rights) so that my employment would be directly tied to outcomes and goals. I agreed to a modest $2,000 annual increase in base salary, but took a reduction in my pension and now pay about $300 monthly for my dental and health benefits, whereas I was refunded $500 a month in Livermore and my full benefits were covered, including AFLAC and increased accidental death insurance. For you doing the basic math at home, that is about an $800 negative delta per month ($9,600 annually) to with less benefits. This is all public record and has been vetted pretty thoroughly at this point. Trust me, my wife was thrilled having my compensation package on display for all to see. So, why do it? I would be closer to home (West Sacramento), exciting university town, growing tech sector.
The item was “rushed” to Council on March 5th because I was being pressured in Livermore to sign on to a 2-year contract. Those involved here in Davis moved the ball fast on my behalf and for no other reason than my needs. And I am grateful for their hard work. The choice was to either meet that timeline, or I was going to need to stay in Livermore. If you want to blame anyone for that expedited effort, blame me.
But for those worried about my bona fides, I had been vetted for 2 1/2 years at that point because of my work through i-GATE with the City Manager, members of City Council, some members of DSIDE (including reps from the Chamber), and several community leaders. Additionally, I was a known commodity for some as I have lived in West Sacramento for 10 years and worked with some Davisites and UCD staff in other capacities, including Meg Arnold (SARTA), Barbara Hayes (SACTO), Babs Sandeen (former UCD Vice Chancellor), Gregg Herrington, and Larry Green (SMAQMD).
My point in reiterating all of this? Much of it was not ‘known’ by the community in advance of the decision to hire me, and yet none of it was nefarious or done with lack of positive justification. And I have happily shared this story with many (at least those that want to hear it) and never hidden it. If there are still questions about how I got here, or who came up with what idea when, I am happy to delve into it farther. The rest, as they say, is history.
SODA – it’s fine. We are all just trying to sort through the LEGOs to build something good. I welcome your questions.
Put this mess on the ballot
“Unless ConAgra renegues on their commitment to Morris, then that money is already registered on their Balance Sheet as an accrued liability. Said another way, the money is pre-spent.”
I wasn’t suggesting they reallocate that money. I was trying to explain that if they can do that they shouldn’t claim they can’t afford the thing that they need to close the deal with the CC, a second bike crossing.
A common way to influence in Sacramento (insert any political city here) is to give money to a nonprofit in exchange for their support for a project.
Many citizens have this halo-producing image when they hear the term “non-profit”. Political support from nonprofits in exchange for money for “another purpose” is common and how business in done in Sacramento. Citizens must wipe this idea from their minds that a non-profit is inherently “good”.
Often funds are further masked by being laundered through a consultant or lobbying firm. Those who manage a nonprofit can funnel funds in various directions and pay themselves and friends handsome salaries; whenever money changes hands, a portion is skimmed off by those who handle the transaction, directly or indirectly. Nothing is ever “solely” used for its intended purpose, especially a pot of money that large; there are ways to disguise line items on the books to appear legitimate; possibly they are legitimate — often a recipient’s only motivation is a job (or funded salary for a period of time). Nonprofits do not have to disclose contributions publicly the way a politician does. This is most often perfectly legal.
Corporations usually make contributions when they believe that a contribution may gain greater benefit to the corporation than the investment. That is the cost of doing business. What is the motivation for ConAgra giving $2 million — let that sink in for a moment — two – million – dollars (ten people making the equivalent of $100,000 for two years) — to stimulate business in Davis? That’s the same out-of-state firm that tore down millions of dollars in solid industrial warehouse infrastructure on land zoned for industrial use. The same firm that is balking at further investing in bicycle connectivity for the City, one of our core community values.
What use could ConAgra have in having a local mover/shaker promote business startups locating elsewhere in Davis? Hmmmmm.
This is all perfectly legal. There are probably dozens of such deals with similar quid-pro-quo expectations that never get exposed. That’s why companies make such investments. My point is that we should see this for what it is, and not delude ourselves that ConAgra is doing this out the goodness of its “heart” and its “love” of Davis. We may not like that such deals are what influence decisions; however, that is how it works and why companies invest in this way.
What we know because of this exposure is that ConAgra can afford to invest in community infrastructure. Obviously an investment of $2 million is right in line with the order of magnitude that is acceptable to make a project happen. Now that we know this, perhaps a $2 million contribution in a grade-separated bike crossing would be a nice gesture . . .
. . . since, in it’s heart of hearts, ConAgra loves Davis and its citizens so much . . . or perhaps as a very visible quid-pro-quo in exchange for a zoning change and allowing ConAgra to develop the Cannery as residential.
I can’t believe the arrogance of Krovoza!
“News of this support for Mr. Morris’ project likely will increase the difficulty of the council getting to its final approval of The Cannery development…”
Krovoza already opposes Cannery! He even circulated a petition calling on people to “say NO to Cannery unless there are two high-quality, grade-separated bike/ped crossings of Covell”. In my opinion, it’s highly unethical for an elected representative to circulate a petition like this before he/she has heard the item in an open meeting. Talk about being prejudiced on an issue before it has come before you!
“The city had made significant concessions to ConAgra in order to facilitate The Cannery project — most notably a weakening of our affordable housing requirements.”
Krovoza knows a thing or two about weakening affordable housing requirements. In July he voted to allow granny flats to partially count toward the city’s affordable housing obligations, even without any affordable regulations tied to them! That weakens our affordable housing requirements city-wide!
“I can only hope that ConAgra designating $2 million for a project not prioritized by the council does not complicate the city’s ability to come to terms with the developer…”
A thinly veiled threat.
“If ConAgra wishes to support the development of new businesses for Davis, then there are a series of existing city and university programs…” The Mayor doesn’t get to decide which nonprofit organizations are worthy and which are not! Maybe in Krovoza’s world he’s the decider of all things, but not in the real world.
[quote]Unless ConAgra renegues on their commitment to Morris, then that money is already registered on their Balance Sheet as an accrued liability. Said another way, the money is pre-spent.
[/quote]
It’s not pre-spent. According to the information at hand, at this point the “obligation” is a nothing more than a statement of intent, and a contingent one at that. I can’t see anything that would prevent ConAgra from directing that money to Cannery infrastructure improvements, or executive bonuses for that matter. Doing so might disappoint the CCV folks, but CCV and ConAgra appear to be little more than fair weather friends; the nexus is pretty thin.
I don’t know but to me if this $2 million donation was such a great thing for the community don’t you think the parties involved would of made it widely known?
No, then people would accuse them of bribery or trying to influence the process. We do want to know and are upset when we aren’t told, but then again we are upset if we are told. Very confusing community, Davis is.
It is not pre-spent. It is a donation – so the term that could be used is a “pledge.”
Let’s see ConAgra’s motto is: “We make the food you love.” Well, I guess maybe they prefer making development happen. Maybe we should build a new state-of-the-art cannery at The Cannery – I sort of like that the name of a development really means something, and we plant the fields east of Davis in tomatoes. There would be business income, land in agriculture, and jobs.
“Maybe we should build a new state-of-the-art cannery at The Cannery – I sort of like that the name of a development really means something, and we plant the fields east of Davis in tomatoes.”
Problem is canned food is in decline wiped out by globalization. Why buy canned tomatoes when you can get them fresh from Mexico?
This “charitable donation” is a nice tax deduction to offset profits earned from the Cannery project.
I’m hugely disappointed in Rochelle Swanson and Rob White for keeping Morris’ deal a secret from the public – never mentioned at a city council meeting.
Morris has been functioning like an unregistered lobbyist.
eagle eye
[quote]I’m hugely disappointed in Rochelle Swanson [/quote]
I voted for her and wish I could take that vote back.
Ryan:
[quote]No, then people would accuse them of bribery or trying to influence the process. We do want to know and are upset when we aren’t told, but then again we are upset if we are told. [/quote]
You have a point to a degree, but either way they would’ve had a better outcome then they do now if they had been upfront about the money. Finding out this late in the game just stinks.
eagle eye said . . .
[i]”This “charitable donation” is a nice tax deduction to offset profits earned from the Cannery project.
I’m hugely disappointed in Rochelle Swanson and Rob White for keeping Morris’ deal a secret from the public – never mentioned at a city council meeting.”[/i]
eagle eye, how did either Rochelle or Rob keep any secret? A full three years earlier, a serious attempt to socialize the deal was conducted that included [b][i]”creating a PowerPoint presentation and going to talk to anybody and everybody who I could get to sit down and talk to me” [/i][/b] resulted in [b][i]”well over 50 individuals, many of them leaders in various sectors of the community […] 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.,”[/i][/b]
Given that history, what secret was there to keep?
The reality is that you and I and everyone who has been “surprised” by this . . . and I have to admit that I indeed been surprised . . . has no one to blame but themself. We simply were not paying attention. Tom Sakash’s predecessor as the city beat reporter at the Enterprise clearly wasn’t paying attention. David Greenwald clearly wasn’t living in circles that included elected officials, city managers, senior city staff, tech executives and other business leaders, civic group leaders, academic administrators, faculty, attorneys, and venture capitalists.
When we get blindsided by a broadly know piece of information like this one using an elected Council member and our Chief Innovation Officer as a scapegoat is self delusional.
[img]http://www.mindparts.org/blog_images/pogo.jpg[/img]
The key things to remember:
…is not to hit the key before you’re done formulating your thoughts. (Back in a bit. The inning just got underway again.)
“key” = “Enter key.” The brackets made it disappear. 🙁
[quote]Krovoza knows a thing or two about weakening affordable housing requirements. In July he voted to allow granny flats to partially count toward the city’s affordable housing obligations, even without any affordable regulations tied to them! That weakens our affordable housing requirements city-wide! [/quote]
I think this is what Joe was referring too when he said this,no?
[quote]”The city had made significant concessions to ConAgra in order to facilitate The Cannery project — most notably a weakening of our affordable housing requirements.”
[/quote]
Sorry for clogging up the thread. I’m not multitasking well tonight.
As I was saying, the key things to remember are:
1. ConAgra hasn’t done anything illegal. Their pledge to CCV is aimed at accomplishing their primary goal: getting the Cannery project approved with minimum expenditure.
2. The disclosure (or resurrection, if you prefer) of the pledge *has* hurt ConAgra’s position with regard to its claims that spending more on infrastructure desired by the city won’t allow it to make a fair profit.
(3. The Cardinals are blowing it big time.)
Matt Williams:
” A full three years earlier, a serious attempt to socialize the deal was conducted that included “creating a PowerPoint presentation and going to talk to anybody and everybody who I could get to sit down and talk to me” resulted in “well over 50 individuals, many of them leaders in various sectors of the community […] 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.,””
And with all that effort and expertise there was no press release or any other form of communication with the community at large.
[sarcasm] Yeah, ConAgra and CCV tried really really hard to get this information out. We ignoramuses just couldn’t bother to listen. [/sarcasm]
Matt
[quote]The reality is that you and I and everyone who has been “surprised” by this . . . and I have to admit that I indeed been surprised . . . has no one to blame but themself.[/quote]
I think that this is too simplistic a view. I think there is plenty of “blame” to go around. I certainly blame myself because I was not paying attention. However, I think that the developer is also to blame as is the proposed recipient. I attended one of the early community outreach discussions of the project. At no point during this presentation was this plan presented during that meeting. This would have been the ideal time to suggest that there were $2 million dollars worth of money to be spent in some way to facilitate this project. This would have been an excellent opportunity to solicit community suggestions. Other opportunities would have been to present this information to the community at a city council meeting, in the Enterprise or on the Vanguard. I honestly do not see the presentation to relatively small groups, apparently carefully selected, as a sincere attempt at community engagement. If I missed in any of this type of outreach, I will happily admit my error and retract my statement.
I don’t know what the city’s lobbying rules are, but shouldn’t David Morris have to register as some sort of agent for the Cannery project? He would seem to have a clear financial interest in its passage. And, according to David, “ConAgra has [already] advanced Mr. Morris small amounts of money.”
Kinda makes me wonder what else is going on behind the scenes … and who’s really calling the shots at City Hall.
And ditto to other comments about Rochelle Swanson. What a huge disappointment she’s been.
There is a distinction between not actively attempting to get the word out, and actively trying to hide what your doing. I don’t see that either apply in this scenario.
“creating a PowerPoint presentation and going to talk to anybody and everybody who I could get to sit down and talk to me” resulted in “well over 50 individuals, many of them leaders in various sectors of the community […] 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.,”
This is what bothers me, not one of these 50 people thought this was something the public should be made aware of?
Good Government:
[quote]Krovoza already opposes Cannery! He even circulated a petition calling on people to “say NO to Cannery unless there are two high-quality, grade-separated bike/ped crossings of Covell”. [/quote]
Here’s what’s actually on Joe’s Facebook page:
[quote]
October 11
Join me in advocating for an acceptable circulation elements for the Cannery Project. Our Planning Commission and Bicycle Advisory Commission say NO to Cannery unless there are two high-quality, grade-separated bike/ped crossings of Covell. Lower GHG, reduce car traffic on Covell for all, and increase active transportation — all accentuate the Davis quality of life. Imagine a Cannery parent driving a child to NDE or DSHS that could otherwise ride? Anyone driving to Nugget? Makes no sense, unless you fear crossing a busy arterial. Sign the Davis Bicycles petition to make sure the project is done right. This is at the core of our Safe Routes to Schools efforts. Share this widely. Thanks.[/quote]
One of the problems I have with myself — and my eternal curiosity as a “more-is-more” person causes me to pay attention to what is happening in this town more than most people do — is that I can easily fall into the trap of using 20/20 hindsight to evaluate a situation. Its easy to say, “What would I have done in such-and-such a situation?” but the reality is that when I pose that question I’m not actually in the situation I’m describing.
For instance, Jim Frame has said that his money is on the fact that David Morris desperately needs to not be his own PR person. Morris himself would probably agree with Jim’s assessment. However, a PR person doesn’t suddenly appear out of thin air for free. It is easy to spend someone else’s money. It is another thing to actually spend one’s own money, especially when that money is in short supply.
noname asks whether Dave Morris should have to register as some sort of agent for the Cannery project, and then lays the blame for that on Rochelle Swanson. A quick check with 20/20 hindsight tells me that Rochelle wasn’t even on the Council in the early 2010 timeframe when this transaction happened. Using those criteria for holding a regular citizen like you and me accountable for specific governmental actions is a bit strange. If those criteria are indeed the litmus test, then noname must consider himself/herself as a huge disappointment when he/she looks at himself/herself in the mirror.
If I were going to hold anyone accountable for making sure that anyone who is acting as an agent is “registered” the person who would appear to best fit that accountability expectation would be the City Manager. So noname, here’s a question for you, “Is Steve Pinkerton a “huge disappointment” too?” Wait, before you answer that, let’s check on who was City Manager in early 2010. Was it Pinkerton? No. Was it Pinkerton’s predecessor? No. You have to go back two City Manager changes before you can actually come up with a name that was “on duty” when this deal was struck.
medwomnan has said that, [i]”Other opportunities would have been to present this information to the community at a city council meeting, in the Enterprise or on the Vanguard.”[/i] In early 2010 we were in the midst of the election cycle. Lewis had just turned the property back to ConAgra. Would any of us have paid attention? Mid to late 2010 was the timeframe when Mace 391 was purchased in an agendized Council Meeting. How many of us knew in late 2010 that that purchase had taken place? I know I certainly didn’t.
All this 20/20 hindsight reminds me of the often asked question, “If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there, does it make any sound?”
To put that question into perspective here’s a few early 2011 questions for everyone,
1) How many candidates dis City Council publicly interview in the process to select Don Saylor’s replacement on the Council?
2) Excluding Dan Wolk, how many of those candidates can you name? (I personally can only name one.)
3) How many public “interviews” of the candidates did Council conduct?
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”This is what bothers me, not one of these 50 people thought this was something the public should be made aware of?”[/i]
Not meaning to single you out B. Nice, but how many of the above three questions did you have the correct answer for?
We don’t know what those 50 people thought. We only know that we-the-people never became aware of any “noise” that happened in the Davis “forest.”
Matt
Taking your “tree in the forest” analogy a little further. If the tree is being felled by a lumberjack, he has the obligation to call out “Timber”
Whether or not he believes anyone is listening or cares.
We are not discussing a force of nature, or something of no potential interest to the public. These kinds of projects affect the entire community
And therefore deserve vetting before the entire community.
I also am perplexed by why you think awareness of the details of Dan Wolk”s selection process are relevant. Each individual certainly has the right to educate themselves and participate in the issues that matter the most to them. Many of us work very hard to promote an issue of personal importance, but never process or remember for long, the details. I am sure you know I was quite engaged in a recent controversy and yet I cannot remember the names of more than 4 members of the WAC. And at least one I consider a personal friend ; )
“These kinds of projects affect the entire community
And therefore deserve vetting before the entire community.”
Are you suggesting that Cannery isn’t being adequately vetted?
David Morris is trying to put 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 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.
Mr.Toad
No.
I am suggesting that the proposed $ 2 million dollar transfer of funds apparently as part of a Cannery project promotional arrangement was not thoroughly vetted. If this was a compensated lobbying effort ( even if indirect and subsequently funded) it should have been a matter for full public vetting in my opinion.
“We don’t know what those 50 people thought. We only know that we-the-people never became aware of any “noise” that happened in the Davis “forest.”
A few years ago I was part of an public organization were I and others were asked not to discuss some information publicly because it “raises too many questions” and it “solicits to much input”. The person in charge preferred to do things quietly because it was easier to get things done, and more importantly get things done his way. He would hold pre-meetings before the public ones with select individuals to try and get them on his side. I was very uncomfortable with the situation and resigned after a few months.
What really bothered me, was that no one else in the organization was bothered by what was happening, it seemed sort of status quo.
I don’t know details of this story but it seems reminiscent of my own. While I don’t think anyone had any legal requirement to ensure that information was actively made more available to the public, I’m surprised that it didn’t bother anyone enough to make sure it was.
“Not meaning to single you out B. Nice, but how many of the above three questions did you have the correct answer for? “
Matt, none, but to paraphrase myself, in 2011 I couldn’t of told you who was on city council, where or how often they met. It’s only since discovering the Vanguard 6 months that I’ve become much more aware of local politics. Which explains my cluelessness on most issue, and why I appreciate the time you take to answer all of my questions:-).
B.Nice
I agree with you that it is likely that nothing illegal occurred here. And if this had been merely a private arrangement with regard to two businesses with no implication for the community as a whole I would have no problem. However that is not the case here. One private party
ConAgra was attempting to enact a major change in zoning with many, many impacts on the entire community and it appears was attempting to enlist, via financial means another private party to help in these efforts. This I do have difficulty when discussed only with select groups in settings not well publicized.
Us common folk out here in the sticks had no idea who CCV was until they entered the fray on the Mace 391 fiasco. Now we learn a few months later that CCV cut a deal with ConAgra and we’re not supposed to be skeptical?
Hello !
[quote]This I do have difficulty when discussed only with select groups in settings not well publicized.[/quote]
This doesn’t sit well with me either. It has an “inner circle” feel to it. My point: I’m surprised that none of those included in the “inner circle” felt uncomfortable enough with the situation to actively go public with it. I may have missed this, why did the they decide to go public now?
medwoman said . . .
[i]Matt, Taking your “tree in the forest” analogy a little further. If the tree is being felled by a lumberjack, he has the obligation to call out “Timber” Whether or not he believes anyone is listening or cares.
We are not discussing a force of nature, or something of no potential interest to the public. These kinds of projects affect the entire community And therefore deserve vetting before the entire community.[/i]
I don’t disagree with your point medwoman, but have to wonder whether “Timber” wasn’t actually yelled at full throat in 2010. The follow-up question to that wondering on my part is, how does an individual citizen get the entire community to engage in the kind of vetting process you describe?
ConAgra and Capitol Corridor Ventures are both private companies. They are free to spend money on PR and advertising and strategy.
This “news” is so laughable because it is clearly manufactured outrage over behavior that is common and expected everywhere else.
And if you can pause and think about it, you will recognize the superficiality of that outrage… it is as if those demonstrating the outrage have no self-confidence that they have enough rational arguments to make their case… so they gleefully flock to some emotive, character assassination strategy as a diversion.
The end justifies the means, right?
How about we get back to debating the issues on their merits instead of chasing nebulous and useless conspiracy theories?
We don’t want the Vanguard to become a community National Inquirer do we?
One last thing… you all KNOW that full disclosure would have just started the witch hunt earlier.
What I wonder is if anyone who was for the project is now against it because of this. Otherwise its just noise, it did move me a little. i now think they should help with a second crossing at covell. Anyone else have a changed position?
medwoman said . . .
[i]”I also am perplexed by why you think awareness of the details of Dan Wolk”s selection process are relevant. Each individual certainly has the right to educate themselves and participate in the issues that matter the most to them. Many of us work very hard to promote an issue of personal importance, but never process or remember for long, the details. I am sure you know I was quite engaged in a recent controversy and yet I cannot remember the names of more than 4 members of the WAC. And at least one I consider a personal friend ; )”[/i]
My point was that that process was a very clear example of an entire community vetting . . . and that despite what was an incredibly public process covered extensively by the press, our individual and collective memories of what transpired in that vetting process are sketchy at best. We really only remember the outcome.
The recent WAC controversy is a superb example, as is the WAC controversy that preceded it. In both cases we really only remember the outcome.
So, with that in mind let’s join Peabody and Sherman in the “Way Back Machine” and transport ourselves back to early 2010 to an imagined community vetting of the next step of the Dave Morris process of speaking to “well over 50 individuals, many of them leaders in various sectors of the community […] 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.” The question I have for myself is what is the outcome in that process that equates to the selection of Dan Wolk, or the decision on fluoridation, or the decision about the surface water plant?
My suspicion is that the reason that we don’t have any memory of the vetting process that Dave Morris did is that most people who heard about it probably said “this is a pipe dream” or “there isn’t any there, there” or “why should I wast valuable City time and resources on this fantasy when there is real work that needs to get done.”
All of the above is why I brought up the Dan Wolk selection example.
[quote]This “news” is so laughable because it is clearly manufactured outrage over behavior that is common and expected everywhere else. [/quote]
The fact that it is common and expected it the worrisome part.
“Otherwise its just noise, it did move me a little. i now think they should help with a second crossing at covell. Anyone else have a changed position?”
two key points you raise. first, it impacts the leverage as david suggested this morning. second, it may make it tougher to find a third councilmember. i was against the project going in, believed it would pass and therefore wanting the project to have more for the community, so ironically this could be a good thing.
Will a second underpass be lemons into lemonade or the straw that broke the camels back. Stay tuned to this channel. But Mr. Peabody we are the way back machine.
Matt
[quote]how does an individual citizen get the entire community to engage in the kind of vetting process you describe?
[/quote]
I think that doing the things I mentioned would have been a good start. Maybe an article for the Enterprise,
a piece for the Vanguard, presenting this as part of the strategy at the public presentations of the project.
The one I was at was very well attended. Maybe a presentation before the City Council of the plan. These are just the ideas off the top of my head. I am sure that a business person who is used to selling their product or ideas could come up with many creative ways to get this out to the community. Of course the “entire community” is not going to engage. But in a town of over 60,000, I don’t see speaking to around 50 inidvidual represents much outreach.
[quote]how does an individual citizen get the entire community to engage in the kind of vetting process you describe? [/quote]
There’s a whole industry devoted to this process. It’s called public relations.
We need a community organizer. Maybe we can convince Obama to quit his current job and help us. I think we would all be better off!
[quote]We need a community organizer.[/quote]
We already have one. Frankly, meet Matt.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”I think that doing the things I mentioned would have been a good start. Maybe an article for the Enterprise, a piece for the Vanguard, presenting this as part of the strategy at the public presentations of the project.
The one I was at was very well attended. Maybe a presentation before the City Council of the plan. These are just the ideas off the top of my head. I am sure that a business person who is used to selling their product or ideas could come up with many creative ways to get this out to the community. Of course the “entire community” is not going to engage. But in a town of over 60,000, I don’t see speaking to around 50 inidvidual represents much outreach.”[/i]
Okay, lets tease that out a bit. You are Debbie Davis and Lewis Homes has just abandoned its option for the site and turned it back to ConAgra, and this tall bearded professorial type comes in and submits an article to the Enterprise describing his dream for a non-profit technology venture capital fund that might get funded by ConAgra when and if ConAgra gets approved entitlements for a housing project on the site. How many column inches of the Enterprise do you devote to that story?
The Vanguard will only be devoting electrons to the story, not column inches, so the chances of a meaningful publication of a story by David in early 2010 has a higher probability of actually getting published. It would be interesting to look in the Vanguard archives to see what kind of stories were getting what kind of readership in early 2010. The Krovoza, Swanson, Vergis and Li campaigns were swinging into action. The Measure J Renewal (Measure R) was in full swing. The Measure Q School Tax was a hot topic. I suspect that even David might have found the Morris/CCV/ConAgra story uninteresting at the time.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”There’s a whole industry devoted to this process. It’s called public relations.”[/i]
So Don, am I correct that if you were David Morris in 2010, you would have hired a PR firm to extend the reach of your public outreach when none of the “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.,” took up the flag and began waving it in a public outreach process? Is that right?
Matt
[quote]You are Debbie Davis and Lewis Homes has just abandoned its option for the site and turned it back to ConAgra, and this tall bearded professorial type comes in and submits an article to the Enterprise describing his dream for a non-profit technology venture capital fund that might get funded by ConAgra when and if ConAgra gets approved entitlements for a housing project on the site. How many column inches of the Enterprise do you devote to that story?
[/quote]
[quote]So Don, am I correct that if you were David Morris in 2010, you would have hired a PR firm to extend the reach of your public outreach when none of the “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.,” took up the flag and began waving it in a public outreach process? Is that right?[/quote]
I want to preface my comments by saying that I do not know David Morris, and do not know enough about any of the business concepts involved to know if his ideas are great or not. They might be, as one poster said,
“visionary”. Let’s say for the sake of discussion that they are, and that they would be truly great for the community. Then I would say that no one involved made the best decisions in getting these ideas out to the public. So let’s take your groups one by one. Surely with truly visionary ideas :
1) Such ideas would surely be worth an OpEd space. May be they might be worth one Dunning, Jack or Rifkin space ?
2) We have all seen a “slow news” day on the Vanguard. We have, at times, sought ideas and asked for contributions of articles for the Vanguard. Maybe visionary ideas worth $ 2 million dollars might have fit the bill.
3) From the point of view of the visionary. If you have ideas in which you are so invested, do you stop with 50 or so people if your ideas would have a major impact on the community, or do you attempt to take your ideas community wide ? I am no visionary, so I truly don’t know the answer. It just seems to me that perhaps some avenues were left unexplored.
4) How about the “community leaders” that were spoken to. Surely if some of these leaders saw the potential in the ideas, they had the opportunity to promote these ideas within their various circles of influence.
So Matt, I don’t know what I would have done in any of these circumstances. It just seems to me, that if these are truly great ideas for the community, then perhaps private discussions with 50+ out of 60,000+ folks,
and the possibility of a quiet exchange of $ 2 million dollars from a company attempting to get a project approved may not be the most effective or open approach.
medwoman, I was with you 100% until your last three lines . . . if what Dave Morris has told the Vanguard and Enterprise is true, and I personally haven’t talked to any of the 50 people myself to know first hand that it is, but I have considerable confidence in both Tom Sakash’s and David Greenwald’s investigative reporting diligence to believe that they would not have published the quote if they did not have first-hand knowledge that it accurately portrays what happened . . . therefore I do not see the events of 2010 as a “quiet exchange.” Rather I see them as a public exchange with a broad array of community-wide stakeholders that simply never got any traction with any members of that community-wide stakeholder audience.
Which brings us around to the “if a tree falls in the forest . . .” metaphor.
[i] if these are truly great ideas for the community, then perhaps private discussions with 50+ out of 60,000+ folks[/i]
A project stakeholder is a person, group or organization with an interest in the project.
There are not 60,000+ people that had an interest in this project.
But let’s assume that your point is that there were more than 50 people with an interest in the project and a less than adequate number were included.
This then demonstrates one of two things about you meds.
One – you don’t know much about project management.
Two – you want the project killed and know that involving masses of people in the beginning is the best way to do that.
The first steps of any complex project are feasibility, proposal design and project-approach design. There are the “white board” meetings where project champions and visionaries out their heads together and come up with the initial project artifacts.
90% of stakeholders do not do white board stuff well. They need someone else to give them a picture so they can get inspired to add ideas or criticize. Involving these people too early will cause a mess and derail a project before it even gets started.
But involving too few visionary-capable stakeholders can also derail a project as too many issues, opportunities and risks are overlooked.
The key is to optimize those involved at each milestone of the project.
But in Davis, optimization is difficult to impossible for two reasons:
1 – There is a larger number of people that THINK they should be involved and a large percentage of them are professional critics of the hard work of others.
2 – There is no honoring of a formalized vetting process where analysis and review takes place and then ends with a final decision. We have people with resources that will stop at nothing to ferment their sour grapes forcing everyone else to drink their personal crappy wine.
From my perspective, enough people were involved in the initial project proposal design, and ConAgra came up with a valid project-approach they thought would improve their chances of succeeding.
What I am hearing are just a manifestation of sour grapes from those that don’t want Davis to change, or that have some rigid opinion for what they will or won’t accept. The $2MM charitable donation was simply part of the project-approach design. There is nothing conspiratorial about it. It is a separate argument from the second grade-crossing cost, since ConAgra obviously considered it a necessary PR expense for them to succeed.
Here is the way I see it. If you want to blame the something for the $2MM wasted on PR that could have otherwise been used for a second grade crossing, just look in the mirror. It is the dysfunction of our decisions processes (as demonstrated by Measure J and Measure R) exacerbated by the large number of active citizens feeling entitled to get their candy (including their candy of preventing change) that cause a land owner/developer to have to invest so much in PR and political maneuvering… money that would otherwise be put back into the project.
And if you doubt this point… just find me other examples of other communities that approach new developments the way that Davis does. There are few if any. Most communities are begging for projects like the Cannery. And they think they have died and gone to heaven with visions of a 391 acre innovation park on their periphery.
At this point I’m getting confused. Did Mr. Morris, in his 50+ discussions with people, talk about the Cannery project? I thought he was talking about his ideas for the Mace 391 land swap/tech park.
Ok, I see the answer is partially answered here:
[quote]Mr. Morris added, “The CCV/Cannery initiative is the prototype of an innovative private sector solution to the problem of inadequate seed-stage venture financing in this region. CCV’s mission is to play a synergistic role with ongoing efforts to create a world-class innovation ecosystem anchored by UC Davis.”
The big question became who knew about this donation of money to the Capital Corridor Venture Capital Fund and when did they know it. George Phillips acknowledged that, from ConAgra’s end, the idea was not publicized.
However, David Morris said he has spoken to well over 50 individuals, many of them leaders in various sectors of the community, since 2010.
“In 2010, I started socializing this business model,” Mr. Morris told the Vanguard. “I have a PowerPoint presentation and I went to talk to anybody and everybody who I could get to sit down and talk to me.”
“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 three and a half 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.,” David Morris told the Vanguard.[/quote]
[quote]Most communities are begging for projects like the Cannery[/quote]
Most communities seem not to care that a project like the Cannery goes net negative for the city around year 18 and keeps going in that direction to the tune of over $100k per year. Absent a pressing need for the housing mix in a project like this, why endorse a long-term liability?