Staff Gets an Earful on the Breakdown of Transparency Back in June – The agenda item may have said informational, but the decision that the council would make on Tuesday night was critical to the future of the possibility of a business park at Mace 391, or at least the discussion of its possibility.
The council would open that door by a 4-1 vote, with Mayor Joe Krovoza vehemently dissenting, on a motion made by Councilmember Rochelle Swanson. Her motion moved to direct staff to bring back on November 12 an item “with a full range of options for the Mace 391/Leland Ranch properties.”
Councilmember Brett Lee would ask for two friendly amendments, including the staff to investigate the legality of using this property, partially obtained through Measure O funding, for other purposes, as well as to explain why a 200-acre property is not of sufficient size and why we need nearly 400 acres for the business park.
While the vote opens the door to further discussion on this item, it does not suggest smooth sailing. In many ways, the dynamics of the council split, from the original 3-2 vote in June, remain.
Councilmember Lee, who might be considered the swing vote on this issue, noted that we need to have a full discussion here and suggested that Michele Clark of the Yolo Land Trust needed to be at the table during that discussion, rather than limited to three minutes.
“I want an open and honest discussion about the best use of this property for the community of Davis. I’d like to see a wide variety of options presented to us, understanding that whatever we choose, sadly we’ve, at this decision point – either decision is not going to be ideal,” he lamented. “If we would have had this discussion a year ago it could have been the ‘win-win’ but at this stage it’s going to be a ‘win-lose.’ “
“I would want that open and transparent discussion,” he said. “The key here is transparent, I am extremely disappointed in the way this information trickled to us as council people. I do not believe that staff upheld the high standards that we expect of them. I’m not very pleased with the closed session information we received at the time and I’m not pleased with what was presented to us in June.”
Lucas Frerichs supported having the discussion, but made it clear, “I voted to proceed with the conservation easement. I don’t regret that vote. I support it. I think the way the process played out in June was not an open honest dialogue.”
“On June 11 one of my primary issues had to do with process,” he said. “The prospect of a land swap was not vetted in the community at all. I’m not frankly sure that that’s the right direction for us to go.”
“I’m supportive of Rochelle’s (Swanson) motion this evening because I do think we need more discussion about a range of options out there,” he added. He said that he has stated his support for maintaining the conservation easement and he doesn’t think he’s moving off this position.
Roberta Millstein of the Open Space and Habitat Commission read the official position that the commission took, noting that the commission is aware of discussions about reopening the discussion of Mace 391/Leland Ranch and “the commission reaffirms” their original decision. They asked council that if they choose to reconsider the decision, to use the commission to evaluate any open space alternatives that arise in connection with the property.
Greg House of the commission said, “The use of Measure O funds for anything other than open space purposes is not permitted in the Davis municipal code and is quite likely illegal.”
Mr. House read from the city municipal code and argued, “There is no mention of industrial uses for business parks, no mention of using these funds to buy property and later changing your mind about its use in open space if a new idea comes along. No mention about borrowing from the fund for any purpose.”
He noted that the property on Mace was purchased with $1.35 million from the Measure O fund money. He argued, that “could not be used for anything other than open space purposes.”
“Your hands are now tied,” he warned. “So please, councilmembers, beware of getting involved in legal disputes over the use of this special fund.” He added that while he’s not a lawyer, he works as an expert witness and has testified many times in court. “I know how expensive and debilitating lawsuits can be, so be careful.”
Michele Clark of the Yolo Land Trust (YLT) noted that they are the sole grantee of the grant agreement with NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). She noted, “The Yolo Land Trust has had a very long history of not getting involved in land use matters. We’re proud of that history and we’re not changing that here.”
She said her sole focus is on “the fact that we have signed a grant agreement with NRCS for over $1 million for the use of those funds for the purpose of a conservation easement.”
She added, “You cannot dismiss the potential impact on the Yolo Land Trust and frankly on the City of Davis if the council were to change their decision and those funds would have to be returned. It’s a highly competitive process to apply for those funds.”
In 2011, this was 34% of the total allocation for the state of California.
“It would be particularly distressing to me, to the Land Trust, if the council were to change direction and we had to turn back those funds. They cannot be used for another site. They would be returned to Washington, DC. And that potentially has an impact on the Land Trust,” she warned.
Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk expressed some concern here. In his comments he said he wanted to make sure that there was an exploration into what Michele Clark was talking about. “Any harm that might come to the Yolo Land Trust, which I think is really critical,” he said. “If there’s any kind of long term harm that’s going to come to the Yolo Land Trust should the city end up exploring or going with some of these other options.”
He said, if that’s the case, “I’m going to at the end of the day have a very hard time exploring some of those options.”
Mayor Joe Krovoza was the lone dissenter for even discussing the possibility of re-opening this process.
“I will not support he motion on the floor,” he said. “I am completely puzzled. For the three years I have served on this council, we’ve been considering straight up in public forums the option of a wonderful open space easement that we’ve been using our open space funds to acquire.”
“We concurrently embarked upon the Innovation Park Task Force study to look for lands around the city that we can open up for economic development,” he noted. “We constructed a process with city council members, planning commission members, and business and economic and economic development commission members to serve on that (task force).”
“Many of you in this audience attended those meetings,” he said. “You participated in those meetings. That process resulted in the identification of by my estimation of approximately 450 acres around Davis, California, that can be opened up for economic development and business park. And for that entire process, this land use easement was considered to be surrounding one of the major parcels of that recommendation.”
“That’s one reason why we recommended the 200 acres outside the Mace Curve because it had this wonderful land conservation potential around it,” he added.
However, at least for the discussion phase, the mayor was outvoted 4-1. Rochelle Swanson, just before the vote, noted that she disagreed with the idea this was a win-lose for the community.
She said, “The difference is that Shriner’s is on the table. I have been here for over 20 years, I would love to see a true ag buffer around our community. I don’t see an option where we don’t talk about conservation land.”
“That’s what made any of these decisions compelling,” she said. The key, she said, was truly putting an ag buffer onto the east side of town to protect the remaining ag land. “That’s what made this compelling.”
“When we build an innovation park, it’s not build it they will come,” she said. “It’s if they don’t build it, they leave.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]”When we build an innovation park, it’s not build it they will come,” she said. “It’s if they don’t build it, they leave.
[/quote]
This makes it sound as though once a given company leaves, nothing new will take its place. I think the more proactive question is what size of company do we feel that Davis needs to be able to support ?
Are we going to accept that there are doubtless some size limitations and define what we are targeting, such as relatively small start ups being generated on an ongoing basis by UCD which will move on when they exceed the capacity of Davis. Or are we going to go with a “bigger and more” equals better philosophy. I would favor a balanced approach that takes into account both opportunity and reasonable expectation of limitations.
“nothing new will take its place.”
I think it’s akin to cutting down a large number of mature trees and then replanting new trees. Yes, you are replacing the loss, but it will still be a lose for years before they grow to maturity. Companies work the same say. So yes, we can replace Bayer/ Agraquest with a start up that can mature, but we are losing the mature company and the expected growth that precipitated that move.
[quote]He noted that the property on Mace was purchased with $1.35 million from the Measure O fund, money, he argued “could not be used for anything other than open space purposes.”[/quote]
Is this wishful thinking? Or does this claim have real legitimacy?
[quote]”Your hands are now tied,” he warned. “So please councilmembers beware of getting involved in legal disputes over the use of this special fund.” He added that while he’s not a lawyer, he works as an expert witness and has testified many times in court. “I know how expensive and debilitating lawsuits can be, so be careful.”[/quote]
I’m assuming this is a threat not just a warning…
“Is this wishful thinking? Or does this claim have real legitimacy?”
Council asked for legal analysis. I’m a bit skeptical, otherwise all the council would have to do is purchase properties with Measure O funds and they would have to use them for open space, no need for an easement.
Just another chapter in our PROdevlopment council.
[quote]I think it’s akin to cutting down a large number of mature trees and then replanting new trees. Yes, you are replacing the loss, but it will still be a lose for years before they grow to maturity. Companies work the same say. So yes, we can replace Bayer/ Agraquest with a start up that can mature, but we are losing the mature company and the expected growth that precipitated that move.[/quote]
I see your point. And I see the limitations of the analogy. Trees, unlike companies cannot chose to get up and move. While it is true that constant turn over would mean that we would be losing “mature companies” however, there is no guarantee that these companies will chose to stay with us even in the presence of a larger space. What happens if they outstrip the new enlarged space, or their owners perceive another location as more favorable for any of a number of reasons both foreseeable and not foreseeable. What happens if the larger business goes out of business ? I think the only thing that we can rely on with regard to the university as incubator is that the university is not going to pull up roots and move away from Davis. The university and agriculture provided the basis for this community. With this statement, I am not looking backwards, as some have claimed. What I am saying is that we need to be very careful in establishing our priorities. Some would say that for a long time, this community has not been business ( financially ) friendly or responsible.
My argument is for a careful balancing of all interests, not an exploitation of the city’s current finances to push a rapid growth agenda ( either economic or demographic) but rather a very deliberate process that considers everyone’s values. I would argue against platitudes from either side such as growth will necessarily make Davis
“even better” than it is now as some have said, without defining the parameters of their desired growth, or those which are sometimes heard from my side that smaller is necessarily more desirable.
I believe that size, planning and vision matter and that everyone’s concerns need to be addressed thoughtfully without denigration or making the assumption that one’s own preference is what is in everyone’s best interest.
David, your paragraph describing my comments reads ambiguously to me. The Open Space and Habitat Commission re-affirmed its support of the Council’s June decision to go forward with the grant and the easement on Leland Ranch, not its support for reconsideration of that decision.
We do hope that if there is a reconsideration, that the Council allows the Open Space and Habitat Commission to perform the same kind of analysis on potential properties that it performed on Leland Ranch. All acres are not equal.
Apologies Roberta, that was sloppiness on my part due to lack of sleep. We’ll tighten it up.
“I think the more proactive question is what size of company do we feel that Davis needs to be able to support ? “
You have this backwards. The question should be what size companies do we need to support the city.
The statements by Michelle Clark and Mayor Krovoza reflect my views and seriously undermine many of the assertions that have been made by others on this blog over the past few weeks.
Bottom line from this vote: staff will report on the “options.” I don’t see 3 votes to overturn the easement decision here, based on what I’m reading in David’s report. So maybe it’s time for all the business leaders who have been arguing so vigorously for Mace 391 to turn their attention to development of other sites.
If the council were to overturn their initial ruling then it sounds like a given that the lawsuits would fly.
“If the council were to overturn their initial ruling then it sounds like a given that the lawsuits would fly.”
Based on the opinion of a non-lawyer? I need a little more than that. As I noted above, and I’m not a lawyer, but if Measure O funding is all that was needed here, why go to the next step of an easement?
The city is to use measure O funds for the aquisition of open space. The city purchased the Mace 391 property using measure O funds. If later things change – the city budget is awash in red ink, there is a tremendous demand and need for business development, the Mace 391 property become much more valuable as a business park – the city can sell the previously acquired Mace 391 property to return the Measure O funds and then use those funds to aquire new open space in other areas that are not in demand for business development.
This then becomes a win-win-win.
Those demanding that we prevent the consideration of a business park on the Mace 391 property are guilty of certain bias that values one win at the expense of other losses. That is unacceptable. Frankly I think the Mayor is making a mistake and ignoring his fiduciary duty. That duty should come before his duty to preseve open space.
Related to this point, if you consider Davis similar to a single big residential property owner in our region and city, our insistance that we block and prevent economic development to preserve open space is akin to that single property owner demanding his house in the middle of a vast expanse of many acres of yard stays protected even as other residents cannot find work and cannot find affordable housing. Thinking about how you would feel about that situation you can start to understand how other non-Davis residents feel about Davis’s myopic policy of creating a farmland moat around the city.
Open space is a luxury. If we want it, we have to first get our fiscal house in order. Those demanding the continued preservation of open space need to particiapte in solving our fiscal problems. Otherwise, in my opinion, the lack credibillity to have their arguments considered. You don’t get to enjoy luxuries before you pay the bills. Figure out how to pay the bills and then we can open up the discussion about open space.
Is “Mace 391” the “exact” same parcel as “Leyland Ranch”?
I tried to answer my own question with a Google Search and it looks like the city of Davis is trying to sell the “Leyland Ranch” property for $3.6mm/$10K/acre:
[url]http://www.landandfarm.com/property/LELAND_RANCH-1069896/[/url]
Any idea how the city picks a broker to market multi-million dollar property? Do they look for the person with the most experience, allow any broker to put in a proposal (or like most cities) give the deal to the broker that made the most campaign contributions?
Frankly wrote:
> Frankly I think the Mayor is making a mistake
> and ignoring his fiduciary duty. That duty should
> come before his duty to preserve open space.
When you are running for higher office you need to make sure that you keep donors that want more open space happy…
rmillstein said . . .
[i]”David, your paragraph describing my comments reads ambiguously to me. The Open Space and Habitat Commission re-affirmed its support of the Council’s June decision to go forward with the grant and the easement on Leland Ranch, not its support for reconsideration of that decision.
We do hope that if there is a reconsideration, that the Council allows the Open Space and Habitat Commission to perform the same kind of analysis on potential properties that it performed on Leland Ranch. [b]All acres are not equal.[/b]”[/i]
Roberta makes some very good points, and I wholeheartedly concur that the Open Space and Habitat Commission should be active core participants in the analysis process when and if it does go forward. No group of people know Measure O any better than the members of OSHC. Any decision needs to be a balanced consideration of all the factors. To see the pendulum swing too far in any direction will almost surely produce a suboptimal result. The reason the Vanguard reached out to OSHC to ask them to share that knowledge and perspective here in this community dialogue is that we can all benefit from the OSHC’s accumulated knowledge.
In order to begin the process of addressing the very important issue Roberta raises in her second paragraph, last night after the Item was completed by Council I sent the following request to City Staff [quote]as follow-up to a meeting I had on Friday, I am reaching out to you to ask you to produce a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system report for each of the three Leland Ranch parcels, as well as each of the parcels that are identified as Potential Incremental Easements in the most recent Urban Fringe / Conservation Boundary graphic.[/quote]The LESA system was created by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to standardize a method for assessing the the capabilities of that site for agricultural use. When LESA is applied, a value for land evaluation is combined with a value for site assessment to determine the total value of a specific site for agriculture. The higher the total value of a site, the higher the capabilities of that site for agricultural use.
The LESA system can help units of government meet the following two overall objectives:
Facilitate identification and protection of important agricultural land.
Assist in implementing farmland protection policies
[url]http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/nri/?cid=stelprdb1043786[/url]
With LESA score reports for every single parcel being discussed we will have objective information that allows us to address Roberta’s point that all acres are not equal.
Open Space Protection Special Fund Report
[url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Open-Space-and-Habitat-Commission/Agendas/20130603/05b-Draft-Measure-O-Report-2013-05-24.pdf[/url]
[quote]…if Measure O funding is all that was needed here, why go to the next step of an easement? [/quote]
The answer is….”FOR THE MONEY”
[quote]Those demanding the continued preservation of open space need to particiapte in solving our fiscal problems. Otherwise, in my opinion, the lack credibillity to have their arguments considered.[/quote]
Among the various proposals I’ve made or agreed with over the past couple of years on the Vanguard:
Moderate economic expansion, focusing on the poorer soils northwest of town.
Short-term increase in the sales tax.
Identification of obstacles to economic development on infill properties.
Develop Nishi.
Relaxed zoning adjacent to downtown.
[quote]Figure out how to pay the bills and then we can open up the discussion about open space.[/quote]
Measure O is for open space (and ag land preservation). We don’t need to “open up the discussion.” Open space, being mostly farmland, is not a “luxury” unless food and farming are luxuries. Measure O exists to preserve ag land, and is being used very appropriately to preserve Mace 391. There is other land available for economic development. The Innovation Task Force can help move the development of other sites forward.
“I don’t see 3 votes to overturn the easement decision here, based on what I’m reading in David’s report.”
Perhaps you are blinded by your biases. Last night there were four votes to reconsider. You can pick up one vote and still have the council vote against the grant.
[quote]Last night there were four votes to reconsider. [/quote]
No, there were four votes to get a staff report.
Yeah I agree with Don. Lucas and Joe are clearly against rescinding the grant. Brett is in the middle at best and even Dan could go against such a move if it would hurt Yolo Land Trust.
To me this isn’t just about Mace 391, it’s about finding a good location for a business park.
“Open space, being mostly farmland, is not a “luxury” unless food and farming are luxuries”
They are commodities and you are over valuing these commodities in your personal cost benefit analysis. Although Davis is in an farming region Davis itself is not a farm town, it is a university town. As such preserving ag land at the expense of other needs of the community, space for technological innovation and space for the densely constructed community to recreate are two of those needs.
The 391 and Shriner land swap addresses two of the needs of this community. Protection of the farm commodity economy should be a lower priority in light of all the land that has already been preserved and the additional land that will be preserved in the future.
[quote]Perhaps you are blinded by your biases. Last night there were four votes to reconsider. You can pick up one vote and still have the council vote against the grant. [/quote]
You’re forgetting one big vote Toad, even if the council votes against the grant and decides to go with the tech park this all has to pass a Measure R vote. Boy wouldn’t the council look foolish to lose the grant and still have the business park voted down by the people.
[i]You’re forgetting one big vote Toad, even if the council votes against the grant and decides to go with the tech park this all has to pass a Measure R vote. Boy wouldn’t the council look foolish to lose the grant and still have the business park voted down by the people. [/i]
If the council decides to decline the easement, it will be in part because there are very significant economic advantages to the City to do so, and it is likely that there will be some additional commitment to open space preservation or $$. If that is the case, I think there is a very low likelihood that the overtaxed citizens of Davis would decline to move forward with the council’s decision.
Who knows what the voters will do. The CC should pursue what is in the best interest of the community.
An interesting article about the importance of technology for our economic future. Although the article talks more generally the article reveals the choice we face, growing our way to prosperity through innovation or stagnation through lack of dynamism.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/23/can-america-innovate-its-way-to-growth/
[quote]If that is the case, I think there is a very low likelihood that the overtaxed citizens of Davis would decline to move forward with the council’s decision. [/quote]
Ever hear of Covell Village, Wildhorse Ranch? Both were soundly defeated by the people.
[i]To me this isn’t just about Mace 391, it’s about finding a good location for a business park.[/i]
I think you just contradicted yourself.
[i]Ever hear of Covell Village, Wildhorse Ranch? Both were soundly defeated by the people. [/i]
Long ago, different times and a completely different type of development. Neither of your examples aided economic development nor provided significant additional tax revenue for Davis.
The Innovation Task Force identified more than one location for a business park.
[quote]Long ago, different times and a completely different type of development. Neither of your examples aided economic development nor provided significant additional tax revenue for Davis. [/quote]
Agreed, but also you no way of knowing there’s a “very low likelihood that the overtaxed citizens of Davis would decline to move forward”. I would say that there was a very good chance that it would be voted down.
And is it worth risking losing the grant when there are other sites where a business park could be situated?
The appreciation of the land value from date of purchase exceeds the value of the USDA grant. The loss of that money is a non-starter argument. Also, there is no reputation impact to Davis or the Yolo Land Trust.
If the budget was balanced and our finances were sustainable we would not even be having this debate. Knowing that the open space folks should be working on that very problem.
I have 3 questions for folks: What is the right size for a Tech Park and What do you think is the average size of a Tech Park in USA? Why not have a dispersed Tech Park model?
GI: “[i]And is it worth risking losing the grant when there are other sites where a business park could be situated?[/i]”
If we are truly interested in examining our options, and getting to a decision on what is best for the community, then rejecting the grant is the easiest decision, and the most prudent approach. The value of the grant is trivial in comparison to the potential value of this asset. We need a full and transparent, community-wide discussion on what is best for our future.
[quote] Also, there is no reputation impact to Davis or the Yolo Land Trust. [/quote]
See Michele Clark’s comments above.
Mark West: [quote]We need a full and transparent, community-wide discussion on what is best for our future. [/quote]
Mayor Krovoza: [quote]”For the three years I have served on this council, we’ve been considering straight up in public forums the option of a wonderful open space easement that we’ve been using our open space funds to acquire.”
“We concurrently embarked upon the Innovation Park Task Force study to look for lands around the city that we can open up for economic development,” he noted. “We constructed a process with city council members, planning commission members, and business and economic and economic development commission members to serve on that (task force).”
“Many of you in this audience attended those meetings,” he said. “You participated in those meetings. That process resulted in the identification of by my estimation of approximately 450 acres around Davis, California, that can be opened up for economic development and business park. And for that entire process, this land use easement was considered to be surrounding one of the major parcels of that recommendation.”[/quote]
“Full and transparent community discussion” just means ‘we want to have more time to try and sell this business park idea’.
The Innovation Task Force reviewed sites. There are other sites. The easement has been through the appropriate process.
Don, has the Finance and Budget Commission reviewed the easement? If not, why not?
Why would they? Do you want every commission to review every proposal? How many commissions actually did review it? At how many open meetings was it subject to public comment and agendized?
It was an open space proposal, not a development proposal. It wasn’t in the city limits. If it became an actual annexation and development proposal, I’d expect them to review it.
Mark, I think it is premature to make a determination on the easement/grant at this time . . . either way. I believe the most appropriate path is to aggressively explore the options in the next 90 days, and at that point we may actually be in a position of enough knowledge to make such a decision. If knowledge is still elusive at that point, then my personal bias will be closer to proceeding with the easement/grant process rather than rejecting the grant/easement.
Don Shor: “[i]Full and transparent community discussion” just means ‘we want to have more time to try and sell this business park idea'[/i].
No Don, it means we should evaluate all the options to determine which is the best for the City. I would be fine with an easement if that is what the community decided after a full analysis and discussion. The City never considered any other option than locking this piece of land away forever in spite of the considerable potential value to the community.
“If it became an actual annexation and development proposal, I’d expect them to review it.”
A proposal was made in June. While I don’t believe that in the end that proposal would be selected as the best option, the fact remains that the City, let alone the community, has failed to review it adequately.
Rochelle pointed out in response to joe’s dissent that what has changed is the Shriners property being in play and more land becoming accessible to the residents of Davis at Shriners than at 391. i think when all the options are examined the CC will opt out of the Federal money but who knows. One thing I question is if you didn’t want to go a different way you would have voted no with Joe and put it to bed for good so i don’t concur with David’s whip count. Dan and Rochelle went for the Shriners deal twice and the only one who has been consistently against the change has been Joe. I see the momentum going the other way.
Don Shor: “[i]The Innovation Task Force reviewed sites. There are other sites.[/i]”
In reality there is only one, the northwest quadrant, as the Nishi property is much better suited for high density housing and mixed use. The best way to ensure that the citizens of Davis get the worst financial outcome is to reduce our options to one. Why do you think so many people were upset about having only one bidder for the water project? Multiple potential sites means more options and a better negotiating position for the City. The other big difference is the City owns this site, so the potential economic gain is much greater with regards to the City’s bottom line.
“[i]The easement has been through the appropriate process.[/i]”
I agree, the easement part of the process was appropriate. Once the Innovation Task Force identified the site as a preferred site for development however the City should have paused the easement process and evaluated the development potential, including asking for community input on which choice was the better option for our future. Neither you or the Mayor can point to any evidence that they did so.
[quote]Why do you think so many people were upset about having only one bidder for the water project? [/quote]
And how did that work out?
By the way, you all know that there’s about 200 acres south of Mace 391, right along the freeway, and I’m guessing those landowners haven’t been interested in selling a conservation easement. Perhaps you all should turn your attention to those two parcels now.
[quote]”Full and transparent community discussion” just means ‘we want to have more time to try and sell this business park idea’. [/quote]
Exactly.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/Mace391map.jpg[/img]
This is from the city report in June.
From the Enterprise: [quote]If the city accepted the conservation easement for the 391-acre property, the next step for a business park likely would be roughly 200 acres of privately owned land near the Mace/I-80 interchange. But city officials have said a 400-acre business park would be ideal for the local economy.[/quote]
Which city officials said that, and on what did they base it?
Matt Williams: “[i]If knowledge is still elusive at that point, then my personal bias will be closer to proceeding with the easement/grant process rather than rejecting the grant/easement.[/i]”
I think if knowledge is still elusive, then the default position should be to do nothing. This is a permanent decision and should be given a full review, regardless of how long that takes. All the grant does is force an artificial deadline to the discussion.
Keep in mind two things. One, we can always put the easement in place at any time in the future as we own the land. Two, what damage is caused (if in fact there is any) with regards to receiving future grants, it will be due to the delay in returning the money, thus preventing it from being used on another property. Since the grant funds are trivial compared to the importance of the decision (and potential value to the City), we should reject the grant now and allow the NRCS and Yolo Land Trust to put their resources elsewhere.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”If want to find out whether a particular commission has reviewed any topic, you can look at the agendas and minutes that are publicly posted on the city’s web site. So you can answer your own question.
Why would they? Do you want every commission to review every proposal? How many commissions actually did review it? At how many open meetings was it subject to public comment and agendized?
It was an open space proposal, not a development proposal. It wasn’t in the city limits. If it became an actual annexation and development proposal, I’d expect them to review it.”
Don, the answer to your question “Why?” is incredibly simple. The Finance and Budget Commission (F&BC) looks at the City’s finances and budget. The Financial Reports that F&BC looks at are made up of Assets and Liabilities . . . and the Mace 391 parcel is an asset that can be valued as low as zero net dollars per acre to as high as $250,000 per acre. That means its impact on those reports is as low as zero net dollars to as high as $75 million. Further, F&BC reviews revenues and expenses (both incurred and deferred) and the Mace 391 parcel has the potential to be either a net drain on the City’s bottom-line (revenues less expenses) or a net contributor.
Said another way, the Mace 391 parcel has an approximately four-fold larger impact on the City’s financial picture than the Cannery does. Given that impact the more appropriate question is “Why wouldn’t you want F&BC to review Mace 391?”
[i] Also, there is no reputation impact to Davis or the Yolo Land Trust.
See Michele Clark’s comments above.
[/i]
Rochelle had a different view. She recounted a personal conversation that she had with USDA NRCS personnel in Davis who told her that there would be no harm to the relationship with YLT or the city (I am paraphrasing from Rochelle’s comments last night, so the wording is not exact, but the gist of what she said is accurate).
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”What’s being proposed for the Ramos property? The maps are a little confusing.”[/i]
Regardless of what is proposed for the Ramos site, when voters step into the voting booth for a Measure J/R vote on that site, for a huge number of them their vote will be determined by one word, “Ramos.” Some reasonably informed minds guestimate that will mean the election will start with a de facto yes-no vote count of 0,000 to 4,000. Further, for many voters for whom the name Ramos doesn’t ring a bell, the two words “Mace Ranch” will drive their “no” vote, and the guestimates of the incremental addition to the first 4,000 “no” votes will be between 1,000 and 2,000.
What does that mean? In a typical Davis election turnout of 13,000 starting with 5,000 to 6,000 “no” votes means that the remaining 7,000 to 8,000 votes will need to be over 80% in favor of the project in order for the measure J vote to pass.
Don wrote:
> What’s being proposed for the Ramos property?
What specific “Ramos” pacel are you talking about (Ramos owns/controls a lot of property in Yolo and Sacramentnto Counties)?
then Matt wrote:
> Regardless of what is proposed for the Ramos site,
> when voters step into the voting booth for a Measure
> J/R vote on that site, for a huge number of them their
> vote will be determined by one word, “Ramos.” Some
> reasonably informed minds guestimate that will mean
> the election will start with a de facto yes-no vote
> count of 0,000 to 4,000.
Within the small group of Davis residents that actually have any idea what “Mace 391” and “The Ramos Site” are there are a lot of people that don’t like Ramos, but I’m betting that if you were to take a walk around town you would talk to well over 100 people before even one could tell you “Who is Ramos” and “Where is the Ramos site”…
This needs to be cleared up…
The “hurt feelings'” argument for the USDA NRCS grant needs to be deleted from the debate. The NCRS grant criteria includes probability criteria… that is probability of funds being successfully allocated and disbursed. But this criteria is based on the current grant request… not looking backwards at previous successes or failures. You have to understand that the grant process is driven by government officials, and those government officials are motivated to move the money. They will be motivated to move the money on a project-by-project basis. This is not like some spurned lover with hurt feelings that will reject the next advance. Please… stop with that type of emotive projection. This is business… the business of big government giving away money to meet public policy goals. If the directors of these programs meet their public policy goals they get a biscuit from their commanding politicians. If they don’t, then they get a lump of coal. If Davis or the Yolo Land Trust comes to the table with a future grant request, that grant request will be evaluated on its own merit. Nobody in the USDA NRCS program will remember the one that got away.
The only real tangible impact would be some lower rating of the probability rating for Davis being a reliable ag easement community. But here is the reality… there are not many communities that would be willing to sell out economic improvement opportunities to protect sacred farmland. Davis is an abnormality in this. And USDA NRCS would continue to be attracted to Davis-area grant requests for this reason. Even if the Mace 391 decision is to forgo the grant, we are still going to be the attractive date at the party.
[quote]we can always put the easement in place at any time in the future as we own the land.[/quote]
“Can” and “will” are two very different things. The value of establishing an urban boundary in the proximate future is of considerable value to many of us, and will likely play a big role in any Measure R campaign that might arise from a reconsideration of the NRCS grant. Absent an overwhelming consensus — among the citizenry, not just the electeds — to put Mace 391 in play, going forward with the easement should be the default decision.
Current federal jobs report was disappointing in that it did not meet the meager expectations. However, the unemployment rate declined by .10%.
The reason the unemployment rate declined is an increase in discouraged workers.
The LFPR (Labor Force Participation Rate) is the lowest it has been in 35 years.
In 2000 we had 4.8 workers aged 18-64 that were paying the taxes that supported the 65 and over population. Today that number is 2.8 workers.
I just posted a 20-hour per week office assistant intern job paying $12 per hour with no benefits on the UCD Job Link board and in two weeks I have 45 applicants. 19 of them are graduates. Most of them are qualified.
I am, frankly, quite committed to make a lot of noise about these statistics relative to economic development in Davis. I am also willing to use a lot of my personal and company resources to support candidates that commit to moving Davis’s economic needle forward. Those resting on their previous success winning the no-growth measure fight should be very weary. The times have changed. Open space and no-growth was not considered a luxury prior to 2008 because even the lower income Davis residents and students felt secure in their future. That is not the case now. Young people are currently screwed, and seniors will soon be screwed because there are not enough good jobs.
Bottom line is that there is a lot of ammunition available today to shoot holes into the campaigns of those that continue to support the statists.
Mace 391 might not be a viable location for a business park. But making a decision to turn it into a permanent ag easement without careful vetting is going to be an act of political war that I think this city will regret.
Matt: [quote]The Financial Reports that F&BC looks at are made up of Assets and Liabilities . . . and the Mace 391 parcel is an asset that can be valued as[/quote]
But the Mace 391 parcel was bought with conservation funds for the purpose of conserving it. It was not purchased with the intention of developing it. In fact, I think Davis taxpayers might have some concerns if the City of Davis got in the habit of shopping for land to then sell for develop. It’s asset value was it’s conserved value. Only late in the game did anyone, and rather surreptitiously at that, attempt to change the use and value of the land.
Frankly:
[quote] I am also willing to use a lot of my personal and company resources to support candidates that commit to moving Davis’s economic needle forward. [/quote]
Davis doesn’t have a jobs problem. We’ve discussed this before. Make as much noise as you like. I’ll reply with statistics that will negate your anecdotes.
Interesting factoid: a few years ago the “value” of Central Park was estimated in excess of 500 billion dollars. Silly New Yorkers. Why don’t they just develop it? They could use the housing, and it sure would improve their budget.
[i]Interesting factoid: a few years ago the “value” of Central Park was estimated in excess of 500 billion dollars. Silly New Yorkers. Why don’t they just develop it? They could use the housing, and it sure would improve their budget.[/i]
Fine, do like New York and put parks in the middle of commerical and residential development.
I don’t see how you are connecting this type of comment with your dogged determination to protect farmland. You have never advocated Mace 391 as a central park.
The central park vision is exactly the one you seem to be missing or ignoring. With a 1-2 development to open space requirement, we could have mega parks in all new developments. But not if you want all the open space to be farmland.
[i]Davis doesn’t have a jobs problem. We’ve discussed this before. Make as much noise as you like. I’ll reply with statistics that will negate your anecdotes.[/i]
Well, first you are flat wrong.
Second, your argument will lack the emotives that your ideologocal side is so fond of exploiting for political gain. Those emotive weapons are on the other side now… ironically due to your side’s avoidance of any real math.
I suggest you get out and talk to young people and other middle-class families living in Davis, but not lucky enough to have one of those cushy government jobs. There are a lot of those people in Davis and they are in a pretty lousy mood because of the economic malaise. They blamed George Bush before, but today they are starting to pin up Don Shor’s poster to throw darts at.
Don Shor: “[i]But the Mace 391 parcel was bought with conservation funds[/i]”
I don’t recall the specifics, but my recollection is the vast majority of the funds used for the purchase had nothing to do with conservation. I recollect that they were from a road fund, probably acquired through development fees.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/unemploymentDavisJuly2013.jpg[/img]
The Federal Reserve considers the natural rate of unemployment to be around 5 – 5.5%.
[quote]I suggest you get out and talk to young people and other middle-class families living in Davis, but not lucky enough to have one of those cushy government jobs.[/quote]
I’m not the one that needs to get out of my echo chamber, dude.
By the way, didn’t you start posting anonymously because of blowback about your political positions? And yet, you’re willing to declare war on council candidates locally? Do your investors, partners, and employees agree with this aggessive political stance you’re taking?
The funds for Mace 391 were, if I recall, [i]borrowed[/i] from the roads fund. The intent of the purchase was conservation, not development. The asset was never intended to be valued for its development potential. Do you think Davis should take taxpayer funds now and begin speculating in land development?
[quote]The value of the grant is trivial in comparison to the potential value of this asset. We need a full and transparent, community-wide discussion on what is best for our future.
[/quote]
Why didn’t we have the conversation before we applied for a the grant? Or before Measure O money was used to buy this land?
Don your stats don’t help your argument.
[i]
By the way, didn’t you start posting anonymously because of blowback about your political positions? And yet, you’re willing to declare war on council candidates locally? [/]
I would prefer that you just stick to the topic instead of attacking posters you disagree with and ratting out their anonymity.
But let’s just say that I care about young people more than any farmland religion or open space luxury or irrational fear of sprawl. This is a big deal.
[quote]Don your stats don’t help your argument.
[/quote]
Posting the unemployment rate doesn’t help with a discussion about the unemployment rate?
I didn’t “rat out your anonymity.” I asked a simple question. You’re the one who threatened to bring your and your company’s resources into the fray.
A summary of our previous discussions about jobs:
Davis has historically had what the Federal Reserve considers to be the natural rate of unemployment. If the university meets its expansion goals, along with some smaller developments, Davis will very likely be, again, at the natural rate of unemployment reasonably soon. In fact, we’re nearly there. Compared to the surrounding communities, jobs have never been an issue in Davis because we have a strong, stable, and growing employer. From a planning standpoint, jobs are not our greatest planning issue, and never have been.
You can argue for a business park from the standpoint of improving the city’s finances, or to retain growing local businesses that we value. But jobs simply aren’t a reasonable or compelling argument for it. More than likely, increasing jobs here at a [i]rapid[/i] clip would have two results:
— it would increase our housing shortage, as new employees try to buy houses in a market saturated with student renters,
— and it would increase the number of people who work here but live elsewhere.
Frankly
[quote]irrational fear of sprawl[/quote]
Dislike of sprawl, note I did not say “fear”, I said dislike, is anything but irrational. I remember Orange County when there were still orange groves and strawberry fields where there are now miles and miles of tract homes and fast food restaurants, gas stations, and strip malls. If your highest priority is how to make money in the short term with no thought to the consequences on the environment or people’s health, then one could promote turning Davis into a mini Orange county, or Vacaville, or Folsom. My vision has nothing to do with fear, it has a lot to do with experience and reality.
South of Davis wrote: “I’m betting that if you were to take a walk around town you would talk to well over 100 people before even one could tell you “Who is Ramos” and “Where is the Ramos site”…
It is those 100 “people” who will be voting on the project- the 100 people who have no idea what the issues are. Ramos 200 acre project is a tough sale under those conditions. Now add 391 acres to the 200 acres and you have a 591 acre business park. Good luck on that with the 100 idiots who now control the future of Davis via Measure J.
Medwoman: “[i]Dislike of sprawl, note I did not say “fear”, I said dislike, is anything but irrational.[/i]”
I think Frankly’s point was that the fear was irrational, in part since we have so many safeguards in place to prevent sprawl here in Davis, including a 1% max housing growth rate and measure R. To dislike ‘sprawl’ is perfectly rational, and though I expect we all have different personal visions of what exactly constitutes ‘sprawl,’ I doubt that you would find many posters here, or residents of the town for that matter, who would advocate for more of it. The irrational aspect is to attack any suggestion of development or change as ‘sprawl inducing’ and to accuse those who advocate for these of “turning Davis into a mini Orange county, or Vacaville, or Folsom.”
“turning Davis into a mini Orange county, or Vacaville, or Folsom.”
Since those places don’t have a UC campus as the economic engine of the community we aren’t going to turn into them.
“The Federal Reserve considers the natural rate of unemployment to be around 5 – 5.5%.”
So?
[quote]Since those places don’t have a UC campus as the economic engine of the community we aren’t going to turn into them.[/quote]
Are you suggesting that the presence of a UC campus is in some way a protection against sprawl ? If so, how?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Davis has historically had what the Federal Reserve considers to be the natural rate of unemployment. If the university meets its expansion goals, along with some smaller developments, Davis will very likely be, again, at the natural rate of unemployment reasonably soon. In fact, we’re nearly there. Compared to the surrounding communities, jobs have never been an issue in Davis because we have a strong, stable, and growing employer. From a planning standpoint, jobs are not our greatest planning issue, and never have been.”[/i]
Don, there is one rather major achilles heel to your argument, which is that none of those University jobs exist in the City of Davis. As a result the direct impact on the City of davis municipal revenues of any change in the number of jobs at the University is zero. It is important to remain focused on the problem, which is that:
— The City of Davis municipal budget is currently running at a significant deficit, and that deficit is expected to increase.
— Significant cuts to costs such as the “3 on an engine” cuts to the Fire Department and the outsourcing of tree trimming have been implemented and/or proposed, and said cuts have produced significant pushback from substantial portions of the Davis community.
— Therefore, in order to balance its budget, it is apparent that Davis needs the tax revenue that derives from increased local business growth.
— As a community, we have a responsibility to work with the university and other regional economic development entities to grow the regional economy.
— If UCD’s core competencies are collaboratively leveraged, then Davis could end up growing business at a controlled rate of growth per year that will mean that the municipal budget deficit will become a relic of the past.
I don’t understand how you can read the above problem statement and not understand that jobs here in the City of Davis is indeed the problem. Do you expect the businesses that we retain to be fully automated to perform all their daily tasks using robots?
There is a long history of fear mongering that Davis is going to turn into Vacaville, Elk Grove or Orange County. Yet we are so far from that reality such arguments can only be described as paranoid. First we have UCD that provides cultural, recreational and intellectual resources that these other communities lack. We also have an Amtrak station and a great bike path system that provide an efficient alternative transportation system. Finally we have both a city and county with a fierce history of limiting development, so much so, that we have fallen far behind our needs. While Elk Grove seeks to annex thousands of acres for development we fight over a 100 acre state of the art subdivision. While we vote over adding Target, Vacaville builds giant outlet malls. Equating these things is like equating Davis with Dante’s Inferno.
One thing that Vacaville has that we should be jealous of is a giant research center where Genentech just announced they would add hundreds of jobs. i guess that means more commuters on the highway from Davis.
“There is a long history of fear mongering that Davis is going to turn into Vacaville, Elk Grove or Orange County. Yet we are so far from that reality such arguments can only be described as paranoid.”
You need to be more careful with this argument than you are. The reality is that Vacaville is about 30,000 people more than Davis, and the reason we are as far from that reality as you describe are the very policies you oppose. You yourself have advocated on numerous occasions here the need to reduce significantly the cost of housing – how do you expect to achieve that other than by growing the population considerably?
Mark
[quote]accuse those who advocate for these of “turning Davis into a mini Orange county, or Vacaville, or Folsom.[/quote]
There is a difference between attribution and accusation. It was Frankly who on previous threads at different times noted both Vacaville and Folsom as communities whose approach to business growth he would prefer to that of Davis. I admit that Orange County is my addition because of its well known example of what happens when a city ( Anaheim for example) or county decides in favor of rapid, largely unplanned growth for relatively short term profit.
Frankly has also stated in the past that he may or may not choose to maintain his company here in Davis. Is it really so surprising that he would be making arguments in favor of and being willing to put his personal and business assets behind what he sees as being in his ( and his company’s) best financial interest ? This does not make him evil or conspiratorial. What it does mean is that he is acting in his own perceived best interest based on his values. He and some others are choosing to frame their arguments in terms of what is “best for the city”. There are some of us who are not necessarily in agreement with the values that allow one group of personal financial interests to claim sole knowledge of “what is best for the community”. He has also stated that he does not plan to retire in Davis. So what Frankly has said over time is that he perceives this as a community whose growth will benefit him and his business now and which he then intends to leave. My intent is to stay in this community where I have lived for over 25 years. I am not telling Frankly that “slow growth” is actually better for his business. I find it ironic that he has, in these threads, told me that I would actually like
Davis better as it grows. Bear in mind that I have never spoken with Frankly personally, so he would have no idea what I do and do not like other than what I have written on the Vanguard. What he, and others, are doing is to take their ideal, and try to convince me that I am going to like it and that it will be what is “best” for the community.
What I am objecting to here is the attempt to portray what is clearly in the short term best interests of some
as necessarily in the overall best interests of all.
[quote]Don, there is one rather major achilles heel to your argument, which is that none of those University jobs exist in the City of Davis. As a result the direct impact on the City of davis municipal revenues of any change in the number of jobs at the University is zero.[/quote]
Except for the ripple effect of jobs on the local economy.
As noted the last time you made this argument:[i] jobs[/i] don’t create revenues for the city directly. Regardless of whether they are at private businesses or on campus.
My point has no “”Achilles heel.” We weren’t discussing the effect on the city’s revenues of adding jobs.
I was responding to Frankly’s assertion that we need to increase businesses because of the unemployment rate.
“The reality is that Vacaville is about 30,000 people more than Davis, and the reason we are as far from that reality as you describe are the very policies you oppose. “
Not exactly. I’ve never argued for an outlet mall. I think I said I wanted a Home Depot a few times. How many people could you get into Cannery and Covell, two parcels that have had the city grow up around them. i have advocated for all types of housing to make Davis friendly and affordable for those that want to live here. Sadly as we see with Cannery we want to tack on every wish from any dream in the community like a subdivision is a big Christmas tree without regard to how much it adds to the cost of housing. Still a bigger Davis doesn’t need to be like Vacaville or Elk Grove and wouldn’t be for the reasons I stated.
Mr Toad wrote:
>”turning Davis into a mini Orange county, or Vacaville, or Folsom.”
> Since those places don’t have a UC campus as the economic engine
> of the community we aren’t going to turn into them.
FYI, UC Irvine is in Orange County…
[i]I didn’t “rat out your anonymity.” I asked a simple question. You’re the one who threatened to bring your and your company’s resources into the fray.[/i]
My company’s mission is economic and community development focused on the development of jobs throughout California, and also in Nevada and Arizona. We have a mandate to give back a portion of our net excess earnings to non-profits and political causes that serve the greater community and economic development for the areas we serve.
Executive management and our board of directors believe that growing good jobs is one of the greatest altruistic endeavors.
In addition, my company hires professionals with experience in commercial real estate lending. Often these are younger single people, or people with young families. Davis has grown less attractive for them as a place to locate to because of housing costs, crappy shopping and demographic changes. It is very difficult for me to attract needed talent to my Davis office location.
Lastly, and most importantly, a community does not function well when its budgets don’t balance and its finances are unsustainable. The community cannot pursue progressive ideas. It becomes more defensive in strategy and there is more conflict at the tactical level. Infrastructure starts to take a back seat and the town starts looking shabby. That, in-turn, cases the broken window phenomenon where residents and business owners stop taking good care of their properties. Without balanced and sustainable finances we start a slide downhill.
You have to pay to play. Open space is a luxury that we have to earn. We already have a lot of open space preserved. Celebrate that and support doing what is necessary for us having balanced and sustainable finances, and then get back to preserving more open space.
[quote]Celebrate that and support doing what is necessary for us having balanced and sustainable finances, and then get back to preserving more open space.[/quote]
Although I don’t believe conservation of ag land (or wildlife habitat) is a luxury, I agree with your call for a more balanced economy for Davis. Therefore, i hope you will take your energy and urge your fellow business owners to press for development of a business park on suitable land. All of the energy to date has focused on one site only. There are others.
Medwoman: “[i]What he, and others, are doing is to take their ideal, and try to convince me that I am going to like it and that it will be what is “best” for the community.[/i]”
And exactly how is that different from what you are doing?
Don Shor: “[i]Therefore, i hope you will take your energy and urge your fellow business owners to press for development of a business park on suitable land.[/i]”
That is exactly what we are doing Don.
[quote]That is exactly what we are doing Don.[/quote]
Which site other than Mace 391 are you and your fellow business owners advocating for?
Just some musings about the jobs discussion, based solely on my experience as an economic development professional and having nothing to do with official City policy…
Jobs within any close range to a jurisdiction are relevant. The closer the employment center, the more relevant of course. This is true because jobs usually mean economic activity. Most private sector employees buy goods and services near where they work. The higher paying the job, and the more dynamic the changes in pay scale, the more likely the employee is to have discretionary dollars and spend them during the work day. On lunches, gas, personal services, groceries on the way home, etc.
As a general rule (though certainly not absolute), government funded jobs are less likely to result in discretionary spending because the pay scales are often lower and much less dynamic. Since many people maximize their living style to meet (and sometimes exceed) their means, government jobs don’t typically create the freedom for buying discretionary services because of the lack of additional income. Less raises, bonuses, or other merit pay means the employee is less likely to have one time or new income frequently coming in. And as we have learned, government jobs pay exceptional benefits, making turnover and churn less likely, so people have likely become locked into a budget. In other words, they are less likely to eat out (often bringing their lunch), less likely to buy a coffee, less likely to shop at more expensive grocery stores, etc. Again, this is not universal and each of you will cite anecdotal examples in your head of people that do not fit this model.
Let’s illustrate this using some local examples. Notice that in downtown Sacramento there are very few good lunch places to eat? And even fewer dinner places? Yet a few blocks away in the neighborhoods of mid-town Sacramento there are almost 50% more eateries and almost double the amount of locations providing personal services like haircuts, nails, boutiques clothes, etc. And many will complain about how downtown is a ‘ghost town’ after 5 pm. This is because the largest sector working downtown is government and professionals serving government. The government workers are not spending much money downtown for the reasons stated above. I can personally attest to the ‘vacant’ feeling on most evenings as I live just across the river and walk over to downtown Sacramento often.
Now let’s translate that downtown example to Davis, again applying un-researched generalities. Have you noticed that most weekdays that there are very few university employees in the downtown? You can usually identify UCD folks by the badges they wear everywhere. And most of the people eating lunch are private sector professionals and students looking for relatively inexpensive lunch options. At weekday dinner, the crowd becomes more heavily skewed towards students, many of which are looking for cheap eats. And most of the university employees are not working during the weekends, so campus is even more of a ghost town (that’s 28.5% of the time, for those counting). On Farmer’s Market nights or event nights, the number of residents is noticeably increased in the downtown, but that is just 2 (maybe 3) nights per week on average (or 42.8% of the time on a good week).
That means our dining and service industry downtown must make a sizable amount of their revenue on students and weekday employees from local businesses. This is true in most university towns. And to reiterate, these are not usually the segment of the population that have the highest amount of disposable income.
I think you can take it from here and extrapolate your own scenarios. But through this example, I hope we can quickly realize that not all jobs are equal nor do they have the same impact. High-paying, private sector jobs are the most robust opportunity for us to quickly grow our local economic base because these employees have disposable income, demand services, and are constantly churning through the payscales. And if we can get them to live nearby those services, we get even more of their disposable income. Its why tech professionals (of all ages) are paying ridiculous process to live in Palo Alto, Redwood City, downtown SF, etc. Those environments have figured out how to ‘host’ these highly paid folks and convince them to spend their money.
[quote]You can usually identify UCD folks by the badges they wear everywhere.[/quote]
Huh? I’ve never seen a professor wearing a badge.
Sorry, Rob, but I really don’t think your analysis holds up here. You would have to give us more credible data about the impact of, say, the 300 new faculty members UCD is adding compared to 300 tech-sector employees. Your premise seems to be that private-industry jobs lead to greater ‘ripple effect’ than public sector jobs. Most of the university towns in California have high-income university employees living close to campus, eating at the local restaurants, and shopping locally.
I get your point, Don, but I would counter with the same. What is your data that says that is true, other than anecdotal? University towns like Chico and SLO I can absolutely see your point… there is not much else around. For Davis, I am told often by a wide-ranging group of university staff and faculty that they don’t frequent the downtown. I realize that I my experience, but there is not much to point to that says the opposite is true, other than anecdotal experience as well.
As a case in point, I recently suggested a lunch meet with a high-ranking and well paid university official at a high-profile, downtown Irish eatery and they didn’t know where it was. I am not saying it doesn’t happen, I am saying that the occurrence is much lower than that of private sector employees. Having been both a private sector and government employee in downtown Sacramento, I can tell you it was hard to find a friend to go to lunch with in the government ranks, but I never wanted for a lunch buddy from the private sector. Again, anecdotal, but I am fairly certain it holds up as a basic premise.
Bottomline, you can hopefully agree that not all jobs are created equal and that high-paying, high disposable income jobs will do Davis the best service.
UC Davis has over 1500 “ladder and equivalent rank” tenured faculty, the second highest in the UC system: more than Berkeley, less only than UCLA. These are tenured and tenure-track faculty. A full professor makes about $150,000. The number of full-time equivalent employees at UC Davis is also second-highest in the system. Just a look at the demographic spread for Davis shows that we have a lot of high-paid UC employees living here.
Median income (2010) for a family in Davis is $74,051. Woodland is $48,689.
Don Shor: “[i]No, I don’t agree that high-paying private sector jobs are better for Davis than high-paying public sector jobs.[/i]”
If one only considers the impact of the salary taken home by the employee, then there is no difference between a high paying public sector job and the high paying private sector job. Both put money in the employee’s pocket to be spent as he or she will. But that isn’t all that should be considered if one is looking at the impact of each on the City.
In order to support that high paying private sector job, a private company will pay business taxes to the City (license fees) based on annual revenues, property taxes on their land, building and equipment and collect sales tax from its customers, a portion of which goes to the City, pay taxes on any profits gains through the course of doing business, and if they so choose, contribute back to the community through donations and in-kind support. In short, the Davis based business puts money into the community and into the City’s general fund in addition to paying the employee’s salary.
The public sector of course does none of these things, in fact, the public sector job is paid for with tax dollars, so by definition, it is taking money out of the community and out of the City’s general fund.
mark: you’re view of the public sector is too limited. you are failing to note the role of grants and research institutions like ucd in generating not only jobs but spinoffs that lead to more jobs.
Don Shor said . . .
10/23/13 – 05:21 PM
[i]”[b]Davis doesn’t have a jobs problem.[/b] We’ve discussed this before. Make as much noise as you like. I’ll reply with statistics that will negate your anecdotes.”[/i]
Don Shor said . . .
10/24/13 – 07:15 AM
[i]”As noted the last time you made this argument: [b]jobs don’t create revenues for the city directly[/b]. Regardless of whether they are at private businesses or on campus.”[/i]
To jog your memory I provide you with your 10/23 comment above.
Now to address the semantic argument you make in your 10/24 comment above. The vast majority of jobs can not exist in a vacuum. They require infrastructure. There are hundreds of University jobs that are directly supported by the infrastructure known as Mrak Hall. There are also hundreds of non-University jobs that are directly supported by the infrastructure known as Schilling Robotics. The Mrak Hall jobs infrastructure generates no direct taxable income for the City of Davis. The Schilling Robotics jobs infrastructure generates substantial [u]direct[/u] taxable income for the City of Davis. When/if those Schilling Robotics jobs move away from Davis, substantial [u]direct[/u] City of Davis tax income will evaporate.
DP: “mark: you’re view of the public sector is too limited. you are failing to note the role of grants and research institutions like ucd in generating not only jobs but spinoffs that lead to more jobs.”
And where do you think the grant money comes from? The vast majority is paid for by taxes.
The ‘spinoffs’ are private sector businesses that are creating private sector jobs. That is what we are trying to build a place for. I am not saying that the University is bad, only that the positive impact of a private sector job on the community is far greater than an otherwise equal paying job at the University.
Matt, I’ll keep this simple, because we’ve had this discussion before. [u]Jobs[/u] don’t provide revenues to the city. [u]Businesses [/u]do.
So this statement: [quote]When/if those Schilling Robotics jobs move away from Davis, substantial direct City of Davis tax income will evaporate.[/quote]
is incorrect.
If Schilling Robotics, [u]the business[/u], moves away from Davis, some tax income will go away — because they will no longer be paying unsecured property taxes. If another business fills their space, and purchases and maintains a similar amount of unsecured property on which they are taxed, there will be no loss of income to local government. Based on the apparent high demand with respect to supply of commercial space that we are being told exists, it seems likely their spot would fill quickly.
Schilling is a great business to keep around because of the stuff they own. The number of jobs they provide has nothing to do with the benefits to the city from direct taxation.
mark: that’s fair analysis. you’re previous post seemed to minimize public sector jobs implying that it was basically deadend money.
matt: thanks for that. what i was asking or meaning to ask is whether the model could be “up converted” for lack of a better term
[quote]The public sector of course does none of these things, in fact, the public sector job is paid for with tax dollars, so by definition, it is taking money out of the community and out of the City’s general fund. [/quote]
I think there is no question that more tax dollars flow into Davis than out, due to the presence of UCD. Personally I’m not concerned about whether our money locally comes from public or private dollars.
But your other points all explain the benefits private businesses bring. In terms of the ripple effect, though, I don’t think Rob’s analysis holds up.
Now I kind of wish I hadn’t created this digression by replying to Frankly. So my point is simple. Arguing on behalf of a business park to create jobs, as Frankly suggested, isn’t a particularly strong argument. On the other hand, having more businesses is good for various reasons: diversifying our employment base, adding taxes to the city’s coffers, and more. I have not disagreed with the need for economic development locally. We are debating where and how much, not whether.
Don, you are dancing on the head of a pin. The simple trout his that you can’t have a business without jobs and you can’t have jobs without a business. Chicken meet Egg.
I’m not sure why you are working so hard to play the semantics game you are playing. Can you help me out of the wilderness?
No, Matt. I’ve been very clear. Jobs are not a compelling argument for adding businesses in Davis. I’ve said it three times now. There are other good reasons.
Don Shor: “[i]I don’t think Rob’s analysis holds up[/i].”
I think Rob’s analysis is spot on, and since he has far more experience and expertise in this area than you do, I will go with the expert.
He has expertise in analyzing the ripple effect of jobs from different sectors? He stated his evidence was anecdotal, and he claimed no such expertise.
Don Shor said . .
[i]”No, Matt. I’ve been very clear. Jobs are not a compelling argument for adding businesses in Davis. I’ve said it three times now. There are other good reasons.”[/i]
No Don. I’ve been very clear. Jobs [u]are[/u] a compelling argument for adding businesses in Davis. I’ve said it three times now. You can not add any businesses to Davis without adding jobs to Davis. Your argument that Davis needs no more jobs means you are arguing that Davis needs no more businesses. That simply isn’t the case.
The one part of your statement that I agree with is that “There are other good reasons.” That is a both/and reality.
[quote]Your argument that Davis needs no more jobs means you are arguing that Davis needs no more businesses. [/quote] Haven’t said that, and I’m tired of your distortions. So this discussion is over.
Mark West
[quote]And exactly how is that different from what you are doing?[/quote]
Here is the difference that I see. Frankly and Mr. Toad have both spent time trying to convince me that my
“fears” are irrational and that I don’t really understand my own preferences and that I would actually like Davis more if it were to grow. Both have said as much, not just implied it.
I have never attempted to tell either of them that they would like my preferences more than their own. I realize that not everyone agrees with my slow growth preference. I am not going to try to convince anyone else that their ideas are “unrealistic” or “too idealistic” or ” a fantasy” as they have claimed with regard to mine. I have never called either of them a name, as both have done on other threads. Enough “difference” for you ?
[i]No, I don’t agree that high-paying private sector jobs are better for Davis than high-paying public sector jobs.[/i]
Just got back from a business trip, so I was eager to read the debate.
Sorry Don is no longer in it. He contributes a great deal helping me to understand the perspective of opposition.
But related to his previous point above, I don’t disagree. But I fail to understand the relevance to his arguments about Davis not needing jobs. Does he have some inside information about UCD adding a lot more good-paying jobs?
If Don or anyone else wants to focus more of our city efforts to help increase the number of good paying UCD jobs, I would be interested to hear ideas for how to do that.
My idea is that building one or more good sized innovation parks we contribute to the education value UCD provides. We also contribute to the research arm of UCD. Both would have the effect of increasing student demand and the university could increase the number of academic and administrative jobs needed to support this demand.
It is also really quite silly, IMO, to argue against the relationship of area employment and area economic activity. There is an absolute correlation. People spend money around the area they work. They seek services like insurance, accounting, auto repair. They buy groceries and supplies. They frequent restaurants. They fill up hotels and use meeting and entertainment venues.
I don’t know how to account for any difference in consumerism between UCD employees and other employees. I do know that professionals in the US private sector are some of the hardest working in the world. They tend to work more hours than public sector workers. They have fewer vacation days, fewer sick days and fewer holiday days. They seek time-saving conveniences. And they will spend money in Davis just because they don’t have the time to do their personal business elsewhere.
I also know that my company of 22 employees spend a lot of money in town. We employ landscapers, and building contractors. We put visiting staff in area hotels. We purchase appliances, office equipment and office supplies. And we purchase food… a lot of food. My employees like to eat. And most of them have gym memberships or use other exercise services in town. Those that live in Sacramento shop for groceries in town. They take their cars to get serviced in town. They visit doctors in town and purchase their prescriptions in town. Some of them would prefer to live in Davis, but they cannot afford it. But they do spend money in the Davis.
There is absolutely no question that jobs added to a local economy improves that economy.
Jobs and economic development are really the same. Those companies providing the most good-paying jobs should be the most lauded and the most coveted and the most protected.
But I would take the issue of jobs to another level of consideration. I frankly don’t get the heartlessness of some to dismiss the terrible employment situation the country is in. California is one of the highest unemployment states. The Sacramento region has unemployment numbers greater than the state averages. Yolo county too.
Davis’s unemployment is understated because students are not counted.
The jobless recovery has had the greatest impact on these young people. They have fewer options for working while attending school. They have higher student debt because of this. They are graduating without job options and a larger pile of student debt. They are moving back in with their parents.
And by forgoing opportunities to grow a supply of good jobs for these bright kids, we are increasing the damage to their lives.
And we do this for what reasons? Because we see the business of farming as being more sacred than all other business uses of the land. Because we don’t want our farmland views interrupted. Because we don’t want any more traffic. Because we have an irrational fear of sprawl (irrational because those using the term do not appear to know the actual definition… and if they did they would clearly see that Davis is not at any risk of sprawl).
When I add the sorry state of our city budget and finances to the need to help young people grow a prosperous life, I can’t help be seeing those blocking economic development as being quite selfish.
medwoman, I can’t speak for Mr. Toad, but I never post to try and change the mind of any other poster except those that are open-minded or undecided. All I am doing it pointing out cracks in your arguments and positions from my perspective so that other readers having an open mind or that are undecided can make an informed decision. I frankly expect you to dig in your heels more with each of my posts. I think we have that kind of blogging relationship.
[quote]Does he have some inside information about UCD adding a lot more good-paying jobs?
[/quote]
[url]http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10513[/url]
[quote]Planning models developed for the Joint Report of the 2020 Task Forces project that when the initiative is fully phased in, net revenues from additional tuition and fees might range from $38 to $50 million a year. These funds in turn will be deployed to high-priority campus needs. [/quote]
[quote]The campus is committed to maintaining current student faculty ratios, and anticipates that the addition of 5,000 undergraduate students will involve [b]hiring about 300 additional faculty[/b] as well as significant increases in graduate student enrollment. [/quote]
[quote]Construction of new facilities such as classrooms, student services and research space will be aligned with growth as the initiative proceeds. [b]Investments are also anticipated in the hiring of staff who provide advising and other critical support services[/b] for students and the campus.[/quote]
[quote][b]UC Davis now generates $7 billion a year of economic activity for the region and nearly 70,000 jobs,[/b] an impact that will increase by 2020. [/quote]
Irvine is in Orange County. Yes it is but most of Orange County is not in Irvine.
Medwoman if you feel insulted by the things I say about your vision I’m okay with it. You deserve to be called selfish for your willingness to deprive others for your own pleasure. You seem comfortable putting your views out there so why be bothered by being confronted about them? Maybe you are not familiar with being challenged for saying things that someone finds insulting but if you write things that forth rightly are self centered at the expense of others you should expect people to push back at you.
i don’t see what the difference is about public or private sector jobs. The idea that someone would argue we don’t need more jobs is mind bogglingly absurd. Maybe you don’t need a job or need a better paying job but lots of people do.
We sit at a crossroads of tremendous prosperity for lots of people in one direction and the status quo in another direction. Perhaps you have your material needs met but many others still struggle. Sadly it seems many in this community have callously forgotten the words of Phil Ochs who reminded us that “There but for fortune go you or I.”
[quote]You deserve to be called selfish for your willingness to deprive others for your own pleasure. [/quote]
By that simplistic criterion pretty much everyone in Davis — if not the entire western world — is selfish. There are billions of people in Africa and Asia who have but a tiny fraction of the wealth, health and comfort that even the poorest American citizen has; by choosing not to give away our wealth to assist those impoverished people we’re being selfish.
It’s not a useful definition of the term, unless one’s intent is to demean rather than to elucidate.
To paraphrase something Medwoman said earlier, we all act in concert with our own perceived self-interest, but that self-interest needn’t be limited to things that can be denominated in dollars. We all draw the lines in different places, but if making Davis accessible to everyone means destroying its desirable character, then being “unselfish” is also being foolish.
” but if making Davis accessible to everyone means destroying its desirable character, then being “unselfish” is also being foolish. “
Pretty big if to claim that allowing more people to prosper here will destroy our desirability. I guess it depends on how you define desirable. Sadly it seems many define it with a moat in the most reactionary terms where a few wealthy people simply pay more and more to protect themselves from the impoverished hoards commuting here as service workers while others have a more robust idea of desirability based on shared prosperity, diversity and embracing change that makes the world a better place for humanity.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/grim-math-working-class-housing-crisis/7321/
And we are just a microcosm of the big city.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/7205/
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Your argument that Davis needs no more jobs means you are arguing that Davis needs no more businesses.
Haven’t said that, and I’m tired of your distortions. So this discussion is over.”[/i]
I am not distorting your words. I realize, as does everyone else who posts here, that you have indeed said that Davis can benefit from additional businesses. I acknowledged that when I said, [i]The one part of your statement that I agree with is that “There are other good reasons.” That is a both/and reality.[/i]
What I am pointing out is that your words logically contradict one another. That is the both/and reality. You are saying [u]both[/u] that Davis needs businesses [u]and[/u] doesn’t need jobs.
I’m not sure why you hammer away over and over and over that Davis doesn’t have a jobs challenge. Because we are the home of a premier research university we are faced with an employment challenge that other cities in the United States don’t face, and which is not reflected in Davis’ unemployment numbers, specifically, the significant stream of PhD and Masters students who receive their degrees each year and have little or no opportunity to find a job in their field her in Davis. By the time those graduating research students are reflected in any employment statistics, they more often than not will have left Davis for employment elsewhere. That is indeed a jobs problem.
The question that one has to ask about that jobs problem is, “Is it in Davis’ best interests to address that problem?”
My answer to that question is that if the graduating research students are coming from one of the fields of UCD’s core competencies, then yes we should be looking to leverage that community strength and make Davis not only a place where one can get the world’s best education is specific fields, but can also find productive, innovative employment in those world-class fields after one graduates. Doing that will result in an increase in Davis’ intellectual capital. Further, I would say that that increase in intellectual capital will happen on the scale of one new job at a time rather than the scale of one new business at a time.
Mr. Toad – RE: your Atlantic article post on the San Fransisco situation…
About 5 years ago I convinced a talented credit manager to leave her job working for our competitor located in downtown S.F. to move to Davis. She was in her late 30’s and single (now she is in her young 40s).
In six months renting in Davis she decided it was a terrible place for single professionals to live unless you are a nerdy academic type.
Then she tried Sacramento and purchased a house in the Land Park area.
But the neighbors were nosy and she wasn’t meeting enough compatible people.
She moved back to SF and is commuting.
She has been trying to buy a house in the Bay Area for the last 18 months.
Every offer she has lost to cash offers above the asking price.
It is primarily wealthy Chinese nationals buying up second homes.
Davis would not have that problem.
“Davis would not have that problem.”
We will see.
Frankly
“My idea is that building one or more good sized innovation parks we contribute to the education value UCD provides. We also contribute to the research arm of UCD. Both would have the effect of increasing student demand and the university could increase the number of academic and administrative jobs needed to support this demand. “
I am confused about your vision for the future of UCD. I thought that you had recently posted that you believed that due to changes in the nature of education, you believed that UCD was going to shrink substantially. If you were to be correctin this projection, would one not anticipate seeing less not more need for companies whether high tech or not to accommodate a decreasing number of graduates ?
Am I misunderstanding your concept, or your timeline, or perhaps both ?