By Tia Will
An interesting question recently resurfaced in an opinion piece in The NYT. The best known recent fictionalization of this concept was in the form of the novel and movie The Children of Men. The central premise is how our behavior might change if there were no future for humanity. For me, this would represent the epitome of the potential for purely selfish thinking.
A Vanguard poster whose views frequently run contrary to mine put forth his ideas that we “slow growthers” are not thinking of future generations, but are considering only our own selfish interests and that those are based on our fear of change. This caused me to take a close look at my actual motivations. What I discovered is my bias and how I arrived at it. So I thought I would share my perspective on change and interests over time.
I realized that my bias is largely based on my professional training and how I have come to view the world through the prism of medicine. In medicine, both the profession itself and the treatment of individual patients, change is the only true constant.
A patient’s condition may change from minute to minute in a true emergency or in the operating room. It may change from hour to hour in a hospital setting, or from day to day or week to week in the office setting.
How quickly we need to analyze the situation and respond depends upon the time frame in which we are working. I have worked in all of these settings and have come to be able to judge fairly reliably how much time I have to make a decision.
This will determine whether I make the decision within seconds or minutes on the fly based on my previously obtained knowledge and experience, or whether the patient will be best served by me contemplating, perhaps researching the most recent literature or consulting with subspecialists.
Each approach will have its advantages based on the circumstances. Some patients may become impatient while waiting for me to fully consider all the options. Most will appreciate my thoroughness and come to understand that I am acting in their best interest even if not at their preferred pace.
What they can be assured of is that I have no profit motive since I am paid exactly the same whether I am operating, or whether the patient and I are in my office talking.
The profession itself is also rapidly changing. Within our department, I am considered an early adopter of change. I was one of the first to begin the process called” tracking”, the deliberate narrowing of our practice to special areas of expertise based on our interests and individual skill sets. This is a new and threatening concept for many, but is necessary due to the explosion of medical knowledge within the past 40 years and the decreasing need for surgery due to less invasive treatment options.
I have been appointed by our chief to participate in or head a number of projects that are designed to address effecting change in a department of around 70 docs.
I do not fear or dislike change.
I actually am excited by and enjoy the opportunity to provide continuously improving care. I also feel it is important in effecting change to preserve that which is good while changing only that which is not working well. If there is no urgency, then each change should be made slowly and deliberately with careful re evaluation of each incremental change to see what is working well and should be preserved as well as what should be changed.
I have learned that it is fine to pilot change. It is also good to not do anything irrevocable until you have fully assessed all the pros and cons including the unintended and unforeseen consequences.
There were several analogies from my practice that I found particularly useful in understanding the perspective that I bring to issues in the community.
The first is with regard to what is the best action in the present. So let me share how I approach the situation of a patient who comes in having been told that she needs elective surgery and is seeking a second opinion.
My first thought is that surgery is permanent, irrevocable, and could be done at any time in the future. There is no urgency in the situation.
This allows me to ask what other options she has tried. Has she tried all the appropriate behavioral approaches that are demonstrated to help with her condition and have no side effects ? Has she tried all the known beneficial over the counter, alternative, and prescription medications ?
Has she tried less invasive surgical techniques which carry lower risks than the proposed surgery ? If not, would she be willing to do so given the risks and permanency of the proposed surgery?
Often, I find that the patient has not explored all the alternatives and prefers a trial of one of the less invasive options first rather than going directly to surgery.
So what does this have to do with how I view the community ? I believe that changes that will affect the entire community should occur slowly and deliberately with a careful consideration of alternatives and potential unintended consequences before permanent change is effected.
My preference is for change that enhances the well being of all members of the community. I also prefer change that would be potentially reversible if it did not work out. I see removal of a piece of a land from open space in much the same way as I view removal of a body part. It may be desirable or necessary.
But it should not be the first choice. Building and developing can occur in the future as well as in the present if that is deemed the best course.
Once a major development is in place, it will not be undone, even if it proves problematic. The recently published aerial maps illustrate that there has already been significant change and growth in Davis over the last few decades.
Just as a scan that showed that one of a patient’s ovaries had already been removed might alter my thinking about whether removal of her one remaining ovary was really such a good idea, this alters my thinking about land use. Once land is developed, it is not going to revert back to its native state even if future generations wanted it to, any more than my patient will grow back another ovary if she decides removal was a mistake.
The second analogy from medicine that I see as applicable involves planning. Planning for the present time, planning for the next few years, and planning for many years into the future.
All are valid considerations. Lack of planning may well have adverse implications if all time frames are not considered ahead of time and each weighed carefully in terms of established priorities.
In my field, I am frequently consulted about family planning by a couple undecided about whether they want to have their first child or add to their existing family. Frequently they will be swayed by the thoughts of the warm cuddly bundle of joy that they envision, especially if this will be a first.
What is often not considered is what will be entailed in adequately caring for this wonderful human being in five years, in ten, in eighteen. Too often not considered in advance are what this new being will cost, not only financially but in terms of the sheer physical and psychic energy that raising a child entails.
There will often be a difference of opinion between the couple with one liking life the way it is, and one wanting the new baby badly. If there is not agreement, I recommend delay with further soul searching, not immediate conception.
Likewise with the city, if it can be demonstrated that a permanent change is a positive for the community both in the short, mid and long term, then I think the change should move forward. If there is not clear consensus, I believe the default should be to delay and consider further.
Finally, with regard to time, I tend to look at the long term. I have been around long enough to have seen many, many changes. In my lifetime, we have been in good financial times and bad.
Good and bad financial times will likewise occur in the future. What is important to me at this point is not just how are we doing right at this moment, but how will we be doing in ten, twenty, fifty years from now.
I know what my children’s current preferences are. They are both in their twenties and like an urban lifestyle best. If I were considering the short term only, I might want to turn Davis into a little urban heaven for them.
What I do not know is what they will want when they are in their 40s or 60s. I do know that I find it preferable to find potentially reversible solutions to our current problems that do not involve limiting our children’s future choices and those of their children.
I want them to have as many options available as possible. The lighter that I chose to live upon the land, the less irreplaceable resources I use today to solve my immediate problems, the more options our children will have in the future.
What would I do if I knew humanity had no future ? I have no idea. Maybe I would consider only what I personally want in the short term. Maybe I would be focused on helping others who have less than I do to enjoy their time here optimally since I would have no future generations for whom to save or plan. Maybe I would still take a longer view and want to preserve the environment for the remaining species since human well being would not be a concern and therefore would not conflict with the needs of other species.
I have no definitive answers since I am not a definitive kind of person. My perspective has changed a great deal through the years. I would like to thank Frankly for his comments that caused me to do an introspective on why I see the world the way I do. I would invite everyone who has not taken a close internal look recently to do so and if so inclined, to share their perspectives. A better understanding of each other can only lead to better conversations and hopefully better decisions.
To my fellow Vanguarders
My timing with this article has not been great. I will be leaving town in a couple of hours and not returning until this evening. There will be a lag in responses, but I will respond to comments upon return.
“I want them to have as many options available as possible. The lighter that I chose to live upon the land, the less irreplaceable resources I use today to solve my immediate problems, the more options our children will have in the future.”
Preserving land in perpetuity with conservation easements reduces the options of future generations even more than development does. Just look at the Cannery it was once an industrial site and now it has returned to open space and is about to be reused for housing. Although these are long time frames they are less inflexible than perpetuity.
A conservation easement is about as easy to remove as is a housing development. Both can be accomplished — in the former case it requires that all parties exercising control over the parcel agree to remove the easement — but in practical terms, both are permanent.
A conservation easement can always be turned into a housing development, but once a housing development is in place it can’t ever be turned back.
Second opinion for elective surgery? We can only wish that were the proper analogy. The community is hemorrhaging cash with no end in sight and has not been practicing standard health maintenance and dental hygiene for quite some time to the point where it is suffering arteriosclerosis and teeth are falling out. Furthermore, it is abundantly evident that the community is suffering from additional health issues, which the health practitioners haven’t had the time or resources to fully evaluate.
I realize it sounds a bit alarming, but how else to describe the current condition?
-Michael Bisch
Posting for Frankly, who is having site problems:
——–
Medwoman, Thanks for the thoughtful article. It is a bounty of food for thought and comparison of perspective.
I would like you to contemplate our social ecosystem as a human body that you work to heal and keep healthy. As with a human body, our social ecosystem is served by multiple subsystems. One of those is our economy. I view our economic subsystem as the heart and circulatory system of our social ecosystem. Without it we would cease to function. And the health of this subsystem, like for the human body, is paramount in importance to feeding all other subsystems.
Whether you like it or not, money is the lifeblood of our economic subsystem that keeps our social ecosystem functioning. Restrict its production and flow and many parts of the larger system start to fail.
Government is another subsystem. It’s redistribution process is analogous to just adding more veins. We would need a larger heart and more blood volume to insure blood pressure remains adequate.
From my perspective your value system focuses on maintaining and improving the health of certain subsystems within our social ecosystem at the expense of our economic subsystem.
Now I admit that there are trade-offs to be considered. There are parts of Texas where the economy is pumping very well, but the natural environment has taken a beating and everyone has to use a car to get anywhere.
Just like you advocate for your patients, the key should be to implement a balanced design. A balanced social ecosystem has benefits to the whole just like a balances life will benefits the subsystems of a human body and make it more whole.
Today it is more than clear that our nation, our state and our city is significantly out of balance with respect to our economic subsystem that feeds our social ecosystem. I have repeated the facts ad nauseam that prove our young people are being significantly damaged with respect to their future prospects for living in a world where their economic heart and lifeblood will pump well enough to allow them to lead a healthy and happy life.
In terms of balance, Davis has spent significant effort over the decades favoring other subsystems. Our schools, our natural environment, our open space, our bike paths, our density…. all of these things can be measured as putting Davis at the very top of the list for all comparable cities. Those subsystems are more than healthy, they have worked out at the gym for years and are not at any risk of breaking down anytime soon. But our economic measures put us at the bottom of the list of all comparable cities. Those of us lucky enough to be old enough to have already established our financial security don’t feel much pain from our weak economy. But the kids do. More importantly, they are faced with a significant slope of more pain in the coming years.
My point is that it is selfish of us to not consider these young people and to not support improving the health of the economic heart and circulatory system that they need to feed a health social ecosystem. If it is not selfish, then it is at least ignorant. In either case, it is wrong.
Your professional domain is medicine with a mission of healing the human body.
Mine is small business financing with a mission of community and jobs development.
We can both do great things to improve the lives of the people we serve… as long as we don’t contribute to causes and actions that prevent us from pursuing our respective missions.
I think the proper analogy is a patient with serious health issues confronted with the choice of radical surgeries or a radical life style change requiring a strict dietary and exercise regimen mixed with meditation and other stress reducing techniques. What’s really concerning is the patient doesn’t even appear to recognize the magnitude of the problem and is unwilling to make the choice. Instead, the patient appears to be seeking 2nd, 3rd, 4th opinions until the patient hears the answer it wants to receive, i.e. everything is just hunky dory.
-Michael Bisch
Interesting article Tia…..reminds me of a change quote: “The only one who wants change is a wet baby!”
Seriously, I believe your perspective primarily from your professional experiences has undoubtedly grown over time….I wonder if many of us have relied on more of our personality traits rather than professional skills to define our concepts/beliefs regarding change….but then do our personalities help determine our professions or the other way….I wonder?
What would be a great change, a not for profit development, where community values are not assessed by their dollar amounts. Where decisions were based on what’s best for the individuals living in community and the larger community around it, not by a cost benefit analysis. A developer whose main goal is not to maximize profits to keep shareholders happy, that would be a great change.
dave morris was trying to do exactly that and has been slammed at every step of the way.
Some of the responses above seem to conflate accomplishing the conservation easement on Mace 391 with opposition to the idea of implementing measures to resolve the budget imbalance. It’s not an either/or situation; we can conserve Mace 391 *and* develop one or more business parks to generate additional revenue.
i guess i’ve come around to wondering why we need a conservation easement when the land is owned by the city.
[quote]i guess i’ve come around to wondering why we need a conservation easement when the land is owned by the city. [/quote]
The idea is to sell the land encumbered by the easement so that the funds can be reused to conserve additional land.
Medwoman: “[i]What I do not know is what they will want when they are in their 40s or 60s. I do know that I find it preferable to find potentially reversible solutions to our current problems that do not involve limiting our children’s future choices and those of their children.[/i]”
This is exactly right, and to me explains why the conservation easement is every bit as bad an idea as rushing headlong into developing the parcel. We need to carefully consider the options, for today and the tomorrows to come, before we lock ourselves into any permanent solution.
[quote]i guess i’ve come around to wondering why we need a conservation easement when the land is owned by the city.[/quote]
My understanding, to protect it from future development pressure.
but how much pressure is there going to be to develop a parcel out there that is owned by the city? and shouldn’t future generations get a say in that?
[quote]but how much pressure is there going to be to develop a parcel out there that is owned by the city?[/quote]
I think the current discussion should give you an indication. As long as it’s owned by the city and not in conservation, there will be developers dangling proposals in front of city staff and council. The pressure will be relentless.
perhaps that is true. but perhaps these are unique circumstances and that once the council makes a decision on where to put a business park, so of this pressure will go away. after all, we do not see pressure to develop howatt ranch.
Development pressure always exists where a high value could be obtained from annexing and building on property. Agricultural soil next to a city is most vulnerable to development pressure. The purpose of putting some lands into easements, and not others, is to direct the development where it is less harmful to a desirable resource such as prime farmland, wildlife habitat, watershed, riparian sites, etc. It makes it clear to land developers where they can and cannot develop. If you don’t make it permanent, the pressure never abates.
The point is that there are, in fact, other sites that could be developed for business.
my point is that taking it out of circulation permanently precludes future generations from making the decision. i don’t see that pressure to development is the worst thing in the world as long as you have both a city council vote as well as a measure r vote that acts as the countervailing force.
[quote] i don’t see that pressure to development is the worst thing in the world as long as you have both a city council vote as well as a measure r vote that acts as the countervailing force. [/quote]
The history of city councils resisting development pressure is pretty dismal. Measure J/R was instated for that very reason, to act as a “countervailing force” to council majorities unable to resist the allure of building big things. Conservation easements are, by design, very difficult to unwind for this same reason.
And the history of county supervisors resisting development pressure is also dismal.
i agree – that’s why we have not only the council, but measure r. and the county supervisors can’t build on land that the city owns. to me, controlling our destiny is important but an easement takes control out of our hands.
[quote]In the spring of 1986, Davis debated whether to approve Davis Technology Center, the 94-acre project located within the city’s sphere of influence. Ramos needed the city to approve an annexation request and to change the site’s designation on the Davis General Plan land-use map from agricultural reserve to industrial. “The project sponsors propose to construct over a period of years a series of quality facilities for the housing of appropriate technology firms. The intent is to provide a campus-like atmosphere, with distinctive architectural style and innovative site planning,” developers explained in a project description. [2] They emphasized the project could lure high-technology firms wanting to be near UCD and would provide badly needed jobs for local residents with technical expertise. Ramos estimated the 94-acre project would create about 3,000 permanent jobs and add about $1 million to city coffers annually through property, sales and other taxes. [/quote]
[url]http://community-development.cityofdavis.org/growing-pains-chapter-6[/url]
Some things never change.
a few things…
one change, it will be dan ramos rather than frank ramos this time.
second, the city seems more concerned about tech development.
imagine if the city had been able to develop those kinds of tech jobs.
It can. There are other sites for business development.
i agree the may be other sites for business development. i still think we should consider it.
[quote]that’s why we have not only the council, but measure r.[/quote]
Measure R is an excellent tool, but it relies upon an informed electorate to work as designed. The record of money in elections is persuasive: throw in enough and you can successfully confuse enough of the electorate to produce the desired outcome. The nature of Measure R elections is such that the pro side is almost guaranteed to be better-financed than the con side, usually by a whopping margin. That’s enough of a disadvantage to render Measure R a last-ditch protection rather than a first line of defense. Since elected officials tend to be too easily swayed by the same monied interests, the resulting condition is a single point of failure in the slow-growth structure.
Thus far no one has poured enough into a pro-Measure R campaign to win, but it’s early days yet.
I don’t agree Jim. Covell spent like $800k and still lost by 20%
[i]Development pressure always exists where a high value could be obtained from annexing and building on property. Agricultural soil next to a city is most vulnerable to development pressure. [/i]
I don’t think I need to add much to DP’s rational points; but I have to ask what might our city council think to be thought of as such tools. Really? With our minimalist development we are going to just allow the inference that our city council is prone to developer influence? If anything it is the exact opposite. Our city politicians have been prone to bending to the pressure from no-growth zealots, slow-growth demanders, open-space purveyors, downtown merchant anti-compete fans and environmental extremists.
And we have measure R.
And we have measure J.
And we have a history of minimalist development.
And even with these policy controls and this history, we have people still the fear arguments of run-away: growth, sprawl, annexation and disappearing farmland. Because of the previous points, it has to be called irrational fear. They use these irrational fear arguments to demand permanent ag easements so they can sleep better and night knowing that no dirt will be disturbed.
And they wield those irrational fear arguments in the face of clear problems and challenges: a broken city budget, unsustainable finances, too few jobs for young people who are seeing their economic future crumble, a university with expansion plans and education value enhancement strategies, problematic city demographic changes with fewer families and a complete absence of young professionals.
Frankly I don’t get it from those I know to be more intellectually grounded and caring.
BNice wrote:
“What would be a great change, a not for profit development, where community values are not assessed by their dollar amounts. Where decisions were based on what’s best for the individuals living in community and the larger community around it, not by a cost benefit analysis. A developer whose main goal is not to maximize profits to keep shareholders happy, that would be a great change.”
Very well written.
Frankly, you may want to define a “complete absence of young professionals.” Surely you are exaggerating?
“I would invite everyone who has not taken a close internal look recently to do so and if so inclined, to share their perspectives. A better understanding of each other can only lead to better conversations and hopefully better decisions”
Dr. Will, Thank you for the above thought provoking invitation.
“The lighter that I chose to live upon the land, the less irreplaceable resources I use today to solve my immediate problems, the more options our children will have in the future.”
Seems to summarize my opinion, also. Concise, very well written.
[quote]I don’t agree Jim. Covell spent like $800k and still lost by 20% [/quote]
Clearly, they didn’t spend enough.
i disagree. the point is no amount of spending would have worked.
BNice said . . .
[i]”What would be a great change, a not for profit development, where community values are not assessed by their dollar amounts.
Where decisions were based on what’s best for the individuals living in community and the larger community around it, not by a cost benefit analysis.
A developer whose main goal is not to maximize profits to keep shareholders happy, that would be a great change.” [/i]
BNice, That is a remarkably good description of the non-profit venture capital fund called Capital Corridor Ventures.
Frankly: [quote] And even with these policy controls and this history, we have people still the fear arguments of run-away: growth, sprawl, annexation and disappearing farmland. Because of the previous points, it has to be called irrational fear. They use these irrational fear arguments to demand permanent ag easements so they can sleep better and night knowing that no dirt will be disturbed. And they wield those irrational fear arguments in the face of clear problems and challenges: a broken city budget, unsustainable finances, too few jobs for young people who are seeing their economic future crumble, a university with expansion plans and education value enhancement strategies, problematic city demographic changes with fewer families and a complete absence of young professionals. Frankly I don’t get it from those I know to be more intellectually grounded and caring.[/quote]
Again, I will say that it is unnecessary to characterize those you disagree with. I am not irrational, am not fearful, am not uncaring, and do not lack intellect. I will not characterize you just because we disagree about this. I don’t know why you are incapable of having a discussion without doing this sort of thing.
I have repeatedly stated my position on our budget, so I see little point in repeating that here.
Regarding Mace 391 I will just repost what I said last time: that you have other sites where you can develop a business park, that Mace 391 is high quality for its current and historic use, that developing on it is likely to cause development pressure further to the east, and for those reasons it is best conserved permanently for the benefit of our region and for future generations.
[quote] the point is no amount of spending would have worked. [/quote]
A quaint perspective, but one I don’t share.
[quote]BNice, That is a remarkably good description of the non-profit venture capital fund called Capital Corridor Ventures.[/quote]
[quote]dave morris was trying to do exactly that and has been slammed at every step of the way.[/quote]
The way the 2 million dollar deal went down is not sitting well with me. I’d prefer a more proactive transparency policy in my dream not for profit developer. That being said I know next to nothing about Morris or Capital Corridor Ventures and acknowledge that my not sitting well feeling may be misplaced.
When D.P. says this:
[quote]i agree – that’s why we have not only the council, but measure r. and the county supervisors can’t build on land that the city owns. to me, controlling our destiny is important but an easement takes control out of our hands.[/quote]
I think, yeah, this is a good point, maybe there are other less drastic and permanent ways to protect farmland then a permanent agriculture easement
When Frankly says things like this:
[quote] And even with these policy controls and this history, we have people still the fear arguments of run-away: growth, sprawl, annexation and disappearing farmland. Because of the previous points, it has to be called irrational fear. They use these irrational fear arguments to demand permanent ag easements so they can sleep better and night knowing that no dirt will be disturbed. And they wield those irrational fear arguments in the face of clear problems and challenges: a broken city budget, unsustainable finances, too few jobs for young people who are seeing their economic future crumble, a university with expansion plans and education value enhancement strategies, problematic city demographic changes with fewer families and a complete absence of young professionals.[/quote]
I think, holy sh*t we better start putting agriculture easements on every available piece of land as quickly as we can, because there are people are out there playing on other peoples fears regarding a broken city budget, unsustainable finances, too few jobs for young people who are seeing their economic future crumble, etc…in order to convince them to sell out their cities open spaces.
The question of city ownership as a land preservation strategy is moot, since the amount of money required per acre preserved is minuscule compared to the current process. With regard to the concept of the city as owner of commercial development property, I have some questions as to how that would work, and I’d be interested in seeing the way the budget numbers that have been put forth were derived.
“…there are people are out there playing on other peoples fears regarding a broken city budget, unsustainable finances…”
Hm, apparently Don is a fear monger when he says that a number of dramatic actions are required to bend the unsustainable budget around. I have heard him post repeatedly that we need to raise the sales tax, entitle Nishi, entitle a peripheral business park, and densify the area around the downtown. Other than the sales tax increase, which of Don’s proposals would have gotten any traction 3 or 4 years ago?
-Michael Bisch
Frankly
[quote]And we have a history of minimalist development.[/quote]
Can you please define “minimalist development” in quantitative terms. When you use generalities such as this
I cannot understand what you mean. Looking that the aerial views, the development in the last few decades would definitely not meet my view of “minimalist”. Perhaps my difference in opinion is because I we are working with different definitions of minimalist.
[quote]That is a remarkably good description of the non-profit venture capital fund called Capital Corridor Ventures.[/quote]
Perhaps it would be helpful to have a more direct description of what Capital Corridor Ventures actually does.
Not what it states it would like to do, but what projects it is developing now, what projects has it completed that have brought value to the community ? If I have somehow missed this part of the discussion, I am sorry and someone can just direct me to the appropriate source.
“BNice, That is a remarkably good description of the non-profit venture capital fund called Capital Corridor Ventures.”
I agree with Matt. A well known hallmark of non-profits and worthy causes is conducting their business in secrecy. That’s why Meals On Wheels, STEAC, SPCA, and Davis Roots, for example are all secretly shepherding large real estate development projects through the entitlement process for undisclosed multi-million dollar fees (whoops! I mean donations) and speculating with multi-million dollar city-owned ag-properties on consent calendar. All of which explains why for-profit developers and speculators are squealing like pigs. The for-profit folks have been squeezed out of the market by the non-profits. It’s an upside down world we live in that’s for sure.
-Michael Bisch
Frankly
[quote]a complete absence of young professionals.[/quote]
Demonstrably not true. On the current city council we have three or four “young professionals” depending on your age cut off who live in the city. About 1/3 of the doctors I currently work with would most likely be considered “young professionals” and they live in the city of Davis. Many folks employed at the University would be considered “young professionals”. So unless you are limiting your concept of “young professionals” to certain areas of employment and have just not made that clear, then I really cannot give credibility to this statement.
Frankly
[quote]in the face of clear problems and challenges: a broken city budget, unsustainable finances, too few jobs for young people who are seeing their economic future crumble, a university with expansion plans and education value enhancement strategies, problematic city demographic changes with fewer families and a complete absence of young professionals. Frankly I don’t get it from those I know to be more intellectually grounded and caring.[/quote]
Let me see if I can help you with another example from medicine.
A patient comes in to the office in a lot of pain. She has multiple stressors in her life. She has lost her job, she and her husband are having difficulties, one of her teens is acting out, and she is having pelvic pain. Her perception is that the only thing that I can do to help her is a hysterectomy. From many years of experience, I know that there are many ways to alleviate her pain, and that she will still be left with all of the other problems. So we do have some of the economic problems you have mentioned. Some are serious, some not so much so. But like my patient, you have wrapped them up into one overwhelming scenario. Yes, all the issues that you have mentioned need addressing. However, it is not uncaring for more me to point out to her the alternatives and the limitations of her initially preferred approach.
B. Nice: [i]I think, holy sh*t we better start putting agriculture easements on every available piece of land as quickly as we can, because there are people are out there playing on other peoples fears regarding a broken city budget, unsustainable finances, too few jobs for young people who are seeing their economic future crumble, etc…in order to convince them to sell out their cities open spaces.[/i]
Two responses:
1 – You left out the balance part and the fact that we are out of balance.
2 – Each of those point I made are fact-based. Let me know if you want me to post those facts AGAIN.
Conversely, the concerns that someone like Don Shor provides are only projections. For example that the development of Mace 391 will cause more development east, and that developers will influence the council without ag easements. There is no data to back up any of the concerns of the open space, no-growth and slow-growthers. They can only enflame fears in the hope that folks like you will join them.
[i]a complete absence of young professionals.[/i]
This was an unfortunate overstatement. What I wanted to write was…
“An absence of young professionals.”
Of course there are young professionals working in some private Davis companies, for the city and the university. That number is declining as a percentage of the population and is already significantly below a comparable city like Palo Alto. The two single young professionals that work for me tell me that the dislike Davis’s social scene because they meet few compatible people.
[quote]Conversely, the concerns that someone like Don Shor provides are only projections. For example that the development of Mace 391 will cause more development east, and that developers will influence the council without ag easements. There is no data to back up any of the concerns of the open space, no-growth and slow-growthers. They can only enflame fears in the hope that folks like you will join them.[/quote]
All I have to do, Frankly, is post those maps of how and where Davis has grown.
Then maps of how and where all the other cities in the Valley have grown.
Then I can provide you with the data as to the rate of farmland conversion to urban uses, as tracked every two years by various agencies and collated regularly by the Agricultural Issues Center right here at UC Davis.
Finally, I can direct you to Mike Fitch’s history of growth issues in Davis.
Then we can review the discussions right here on the Vanguard, including your very own assertion that the Yolo Bypass is our effective urban limit line, and Stephen Souza’s suggestion that land further to the east be set aside in reserve for a future ag tech park.
There is loads of data and other evidence to back up the reality of development pressure on farmland that is adjacent to urban areas, and specifically to the farmland that is adjacent to the city of Davis.
[quote] and that developers will influence the council without ag easements[/quote]
You mean like they did with Mace Ranch, Wildhorse and Covell Village? Those projects didn’t get council approval as a result of community demand; the developers enticed (Wildhorse, CV) or threatened (Mace Ranch) the respective councils into approving them.
[quote]You left out the balance part and the fact that we are out of balance.[/quote]
Frankly when you refer to people’s concerns over and over again as “irrational fears” it does instill the sense that you are trying to create balance.
[quote]Each of those point I made are fact-based. Let me know if you want me to post those facts AGAIN[/quote]
I never claimed they weren’t factual. What I’m questioning is your implication that the placement of agricultural easements on peripheral property’s will keep these problems from being solved. I think both can be accomplished.
[quote]There is no data to back up any of the concerns of the open space, no-growth and slow-growthers. They can only enflame fears in the hope that folks like you will join them.[/quote]
And there is no data to suggest that this is the only viable site for a business park. Your suggestions that it is, and with out it we will never fix the city’s budget problems, and no jobs will exist for our young professionals, etc. can only enflames fear. Is this done in the hope the folks like (fill in blank) will join you?
Frankly I forgot to say, your postings regarding this issues enflame my fears far more then Don’s.
Sure B Nice… You are Don’s target. I am not writing to convince you. It is a lost cause on this topic.
By the way… ask Don how many of those developments that have been done, or that those developers have almost succeeded in influencing the council to do if not for the will of post-Great Recession people, have been business parks.
Frankly, how many sites in or near Davis could possibly be developed into business parks? How much time has been spent discussing any of the other possible sites for business parks in or near Davis over the last months?
“Sure B Nice… You are Don’s target. I am not writing to convince you. It is a lost cause on this topic. “
Hardly, I’m not convinced an easement on Mace Curve is the best option, but your arguements much more so then Don’s are pushing me in that direction.
I strongly urge the re-constituted Innovation Task Force to
focus with considerable effort on the Ramos/Bruner parcel, the
property inside the Mace Curve, the parcels near the hospital, and on
identifying any remaining undeveloped parcels on Second Street and in
South Davis. And, of course, keeping Nishi moving forward.
If they meet and spend all their time discussing the benefits that
might accrue from developing Mace 391, then there’s little point in
having revived that Task Force. Anybody can see how much money can be made developing farmland into businesses and homes. That’s a five
minute conversation. But we, as a community, have spent months now
debating Mace 391 — even as it’s on track to be taken off the table.
And we’ve barely spent five minutes discussing the obstacles,
opportunities, and possible outcomes of the 475 other acres that
Krovoza was referring to in his dissent.
I said some time ago that we’ll need to get Mace 391 off the table in
order to actually start discussing economic development. We’ve been distracted by attempts to make some ‘grand bargain’ linking economic development to greenbelts and conservation. We’ve had strenuous arguments made that we’ll solve our budget problems by selling Mace 391 for development. Neither linkage is apt.
We have commissions and processes in place to deal with land
conservation. We have a task force to help push forward actual
economic development proposals. Those processes occur in the open, in
public view. We don’t need people coming in out of left field with
half-baked proposals, back-room land swaps, big corporations buying
access.
We all know what we need to do to solve our budget problems. It’s a balanced approach involving moderate development,temporary taxes, contract changes, and keeping in place the budget cuts the city has implemented. It’s a steady process. It doesn’t hinge on land development exclusively, nor does it exclude development.
Don, that’s fine. But I don’t want us to permanently close off consideration for Mace 391 with permanent ag easements. I have more confidence in our ability to develop where it makes sense and farm where it makes sense. That is the basis for our disagreement. We have heard that this area is prime real estate for a business park. Maybe there are other viable options. Regardless, we should not lock it up. In doing that we would be making a decision that is not our decision to make. Young people that come after us should be given the option to decide what values and attributes they want for their city. And, we need more revenue that derives from increased business activity… and we should not eliminate any land for consideration in growing our economy.
B. Nice – Like I said.
Go back and read your positions from day one. They have not changed. Don’t fein objectivity here.
[i]We all know what we need to do to solve our budget problems. It’s a balanced approach involving moderate development,temporary taxes, contract changes, and keeping in place the budget cuts the city has implemented. It’s a steady process. It doesn’t hinge on land development exclusively, nor does it exclude development. [/i]
A nice speech, but empty.
I don’t think you do know.
If you did you would admit that land use is the essence of economic development, and location is always an important attribute. Again the point is that your demand land gets locked up. We have already increased fed, state and local taxes on young people. We have already destroyed their chance for a prosperous life. Now you want to take away their options to solve these problems. For what?
“Go back and read your positions from day one. They have not changed. Don’t fein objectivity here.”
Not feigning anything. I like Matt’s plan, and stated on this blog that if his idea’s were feasible I’d support the land swap.
“We have already destroyed their chance for a prosperous life.”
Well I guess they can legitimately claim “victimhood” when they enroll for welfare then.
Don: [quote]We all know what we need to do to solve our budget problems. It’s a balanced approach involving moderate development,temporary taxes, contract changes, and keeping in place the budget cuts the city has implemented. It’s a steady process. It doesn’t hinge on land development exclusively, nor does it exclude development. [/quote]
Frankly: [quote]A nice speech, but empty. I don’t think you do know. [/quote]
I’m not sure how much more specific I can be. Certainly a lot more specific as to economic policies than you have been. And what I’ve outlined addresses short-term fiscal issues, whereas you put all of your faith in revenues that will come either from sale or development of land.
[quote]If you did you would admit that land use is the essence of economic development,[/quote]
When have I ever suggested otherwise? How many times do I have to state that there are other sites, other parcels of land, that can be developed for business purposes?
You fail to acknowledge the importance of our agricultural economy, and the importance of land and soil in sustaining that. In fact, you deride agriculture, and seem to consider it of little value locally. You repeatedly trivialize the loss of ag land. The point I have made repeatedly is that we should direct development onto land that is of lesser agricultural value, and which does not, by its proximity to good ag land, increase the likelihood of losing that valuable resource. It is a matter of good land use planning. That’s the point of the easement, and of zoning, and of urban limit lines.
[quote] and location is always an important attribute.[/quote]
And how many times do I have to state that one of the parcels in question is literally right next to Mace 391, even closer to the freeway? Nor do I think you are accurately assessing the value of properties near 113.
[quote]Again the point is that your demand land gets locked up. [/quote]
And you demand that land be paved over and developed. Those do seem to be the choices here. I’ll go with locked up for part, development for others. Compromise, we call that. Once again I’ll ask: I’ve said where I would develop. Where would you not develop?
[quote]We have already increased fed, state and local taxes on young people.[/quote]
If you refuse to look at revenues, then you are the one being dogmatic and immoderate.
[quote]
We have already destroyed their chance for a prosperous life. Now you want to take away their options to solve these problems. For what?[/quote]
I have stated what needs to be done to resolve our fiscal problems. I have stated that development can and should occur in some locations.
Frankly
[quote]We have already destroyed their chance for a prosperous life. [/quote]
Ever since your previous article delineating what you meant by specific, material concerns, I have better understood your point about how vague you found my comments at times. I have come so understand your point to the degree, that I am now seeing the world a bit that way myself. So for clarity, what do you consider a prosperous life ?
I would consider a person “prosperous” if they are able to support themselves. If they are able to feed, clothe, provide basic needs for themselves and their families within a time frame that our society has deemed customary, usually a 40 hour work week. It would also be optimal if they can do this at a job that they find fulfilling. My definition of prosperity can be obtained in many different fields, including farming. So from my point of view, reduction of the land available for farming is in one way, reduction of someone’s chance for a prosperous life. A concrete example of this would be my hometown of Gig Harbor, Washington. When I was growing up there, the population was 2000, and part of my father’s “prosperity” was his ability to shoot pheasants and quail within a short walk of our house. There were many fully functional single family farms and orchards all around us. The population of Gig Harbor is now over 60,000. There is no shooting anywhere within the city limits. I do not no if there remain any family farms or orchards, but there are no more on our side of town. What there are are developments of luxury homes. I am sure that these are very nice for the people who own them. What is not so nice is the destruction of a very independent and yes, prosperous way of life that was taken away from those who had been established there, by those who had enough money to turn the community into a tourist destination, now complete with its own peripheral shopping including a Target thus ensuring that the downtown is now home to only gift, novelty and arts stores.
This added to the prosperity of those who already had plenty of money. It destroyed the prosperity of those who were more self reliant and whose prosperity was dependent upon the existence of open space. So in discussing destruction of prosperity, I think definition of terms is important.
[i]And you demand that land be paved over and developed.[/i]
Don, here is the distinction.
You do not need to “pave-over” 100% of the land for a business park. That would never happen. You have used this exaggeration before. First, we have a 2-1 requirement. Second, as Stephen Souza has posted, there are many, many examples of very smart and beautiful business park designs. Those designs include many acres of public-access usable space. Since we are talking about primarily ag-tech, the structures would include farm land tied to the R&D or operations of the company. So we could have farmland included in the business park.
You just seem to ignore these point and keep coming back to the emotives to strike fear into people (e.g., we will be pouring concrete over every square inch of that big brown field!)
I have said over and over again, I don’t care where we put our business parks as long as:
1. They are located where the business demand is.
2. They are adequate in size for the type of demand we want to attract.
I really don’t care. I have no specific interest in us seeing the Mace 391 property become a business park, except that:
1. The city owns it, and the city is drowning in red ink. The ownership of it and the fact that we are drowning in red ink, makes it a higher priorities and a fiduciary responsibility for our leaders to consider leveraging our position for financial benefits rather than to pursue additional costly open space preservation. We already have 2500 acres preserved. We are already at the top of the food chain for open space preservation for any comparable city. We are at the bottom of the food chain relative to our economic measures.
Much of the existing 2500 acres of Measure O-acquired open space is already designated farm land. We are short on useable recreation space for the residents of this city that are taxing themselves to fund the acquisition of open space. A smartly design business park at Mace 391 can provide more useable recreational open space.
2. The acquisition of it came by chance… it was not part of some earlier master plan for land preservation because prior to the bank REO disposition, because it was not for sale. It was an opportunity for an open-space land grab. And that land-grab was not sufficiently vetted by the residents of the city in terms of what other uses it could and should support.
4. The acquisition required the city to raid the road fund… a fund that is significantly sort (by $50-$70 million).
5. There are obvious win-win-win options on the table where the Mace 391 park development or sale as a business park would fund an increase in the number of acres of open space, while also helping the city bring in revenue to shore up its budget over the long haul.
6. We have heard from a number of companies that they will leave if Davis does not develop a park with adequate space. Mace 391 is owned by the city. Businesses have said that the location is perfect and other alternative locations are not. We have heard from outside companies that they would locate to Mace 391, but not other locations like the Cannery if it were to be a larger business park.
7. Without a clear path for UCD to get assurance that Davis is supporting them in their strategy direction for the Wold Food Center, and for being the premier ag and food science university in the US and world, I would expect us to soon hear that Solano county and the university have partnered to develop a business park south of I-80 adjacent to the campus.
But despite all these point, our debate boils down to a simple one. You want to lock up Mace 391 into an ag easement as soon as possible. I don’t. In fact, because we adults have effed up the economic circumstances for the generations that come after us, I think we should have our keys to the car taken away. I don’t think we have earned the right to lock up ANYTHING that removes options for these future generations to try and fix what we have totally screwed up.
” Mace 391 is high quality for its current and historic use, that developing on it is likely to cause development pressure further to the east, and for those reasons it is best conserved permanently for the benefit of our region and for future generations. “
your ignoring something here and that is that the mace 391 proposal contains within it, the proposal that adjacent land be mitigated in order to avoid the scenario of transferred development pressure. i wouldn’t support mace 391 without at least twice and probably three times that land being locked into easements or otherwise precluded from development.
[quote]You do not need to “pave-over” 100% of the land for a business park. That would never happen. You have used this exaggeration before. First, we have a 2-1 requirement. Second, as Stephen Souza has posted, there are many, many examples of very smart and beautiful business park designs. Those designs include many acres of public-access usable space. Since we are talking about primarily ag-tech, the structures would include farm land tied to the R&D or operations of the company. So we could have farmland included in the business park.[/quote]
Only Stephen Souza was talking about an ag tech park. Not David Morris, not you, not anyone else.
Of course business parks can be pretty. I assume that any business park proposed for any site in or near Davis will meet LEED standards, have pretty landscaping, etc. But they aren’t going to be farmed, or farm-oriented. There isn’t going to be “farmland included in the business park.”
The companies that have expressed an interest aren’t looking for farmland within the city limits. Marrone and others can lease farmland for their trials in the county, and presumably already do.
Farmland that is developed into a business park is not farmland, ever again, not by any stretch of the imagination. It’s a business park.
[quote] . The acquisition required the city to raid the road fund… a fund that is significantly sort (by $50-$70 million).
[/quote]
Any use of Mace 391 will repay the road fund, regardless. So this is a moot point.
[quote] There are obvious win-win-win options on the table where the Mace 391 park development or sale as a business park would fund an increase in the number of acres of open space, while also helping the city bring in revenue to shore up its budget over the long haul.[/quote]
This is a fantasy. No, it’s not a win-win when you develop farmland. There is nothing that would guarantee those funds would be used for acquisition of open space. Your own posts indicate the high priority of using those funds for budget purposes. And we don’t need those funds for acquiring open space. We have Measure O, working just fine.
[quote] Businesses have said that the location is perfect and other alternative locations are not.[/quote]
If Mace 391 is perfect, then Ramos/Bruner is even better by every possible measure used by those businesses.
[quote] You want to lock up Mace 391 into an ag easement as soon as possible.[/quote]
Yep. And largely because of people like you.
[quote] I don’t think we have earned the right to lock up ANYTHING that removes options for these future generations to try and fix what we have totally screwed up.[/quote]
Great. Let’s sell the national parks, by that logic. I don’t even agree with your premise, actually. I’ve worked to make a better world. And part of that involves protecting resources that would be used up forever as a short-sighted response to short-term budget issues.
“Great. Let’s sell the national parks, by that logic. “
that’s not exactly the same thing.
Conservation easements exist to protect any number of land uses from permanent alterations that would affect their future use. They are used to protect water quality, conserve watersheds, protect forest lands from development, protect streams and lakes, keep scenic views, and protect farmland and ranch land. All of those are permanent. People like Frankly see them as taking resources away [i]from[/i] future generations. I see them as conserving resources [i]for[/i] future generations.
and i think there’s a middle ground here where we can protect the current open space without permanently precluding development down the line if the need arises.
[i]”Great. Let’s sell the national parks, by that logic. “[/i]
This is a non sequitur and hyperbole.
National Parks are used by all and generates tremendous material value to the entire population. Farmland is used by a farmer and generates de minimis material value to the population.
[i]You want to lock up Mace 391 into an ag easement as soon as possible.
Yep[/i]
There you have it kids. Don just does not care that your financial future has been destroyed by his generation. He does not care that permanent ag easements destroy your future ability to make ends meet.
He does not care about those things as much as he cares about locking up as much land as possible to ensure it can only be used for farming.
Let’s lock it up because people like Frankly are willing to give up some of our open space luxury amenities so that more of you have a better chance for a prosperous life and the city has a better chance paying its bills.
Just like all the binding government labor contracts put in place by your so-called smart baby boom contemporaries, apparently that generation is fond of passing on the bills to you while also preventing you from having any tools to pay them.
I think it is a wonderful thing to put a farmland moat around the city… but only for all us old farts that have already established our financial security… we have our house and our pension. We are either already retired or have it on our radar and like thinking about making or final home here in Davis… the way it is today… or in medwoman’s case… the way it was 30 years or so ago.
The problem is that you will not even be able to enjoy those surrounding views of brown dirt and the periodic green-to-brown crops grown on them. Your younger siblings will find it increasingly too expensive to attend school here given the lack of jobs to supplement the hyper-inflated costs of attending. And graduates will have no choice but to leave for greener pastures (pun intended) due the lack of jobs and the lack of affordable housing.
What Don and others are really doing is to ensure Davis is an economic gated community where only a lucky few old-dogs get to live.
If your feel any resentment over your treatment, I join you. However, you might find some relief in knowing that even the old farts trying to lock you out are heading toward a financial collapse of the town. As we become increasingly fixed-income retirees, we will start to run out of residents willing to tax themselves to prevent and change and maintain their sleepy lifestyle. And in the end, you can look back and be thankful that your were effectively locked out of making a life here, because it will not be a very nice place to call home at that point.
What’s amazing about all of your responses on this is that [u]I advocate for the development of some parcels for buisness park, and the protection of others for farming and open space.[/u] I have a middle-ground approach between development and conservation. You don’t. You want all land available for development, regardless of its value for other uses.
You simply won’t answer the question: [i]where would you [u]not[/u] develop? [/i]
[quote]… permanent ag easements destroy your future ability to make ends meet. [/quote]
Total garbage.
DP: [quote]and i think there’s a middle ground here where we can protect the current open space without permanently precluding development down the line if the need arises.[/quote]
We have 475 other acres for development. How many do you need?
[quote]Farmland is used by a farmer and generates de minimis material value to the population. [/quote]
Agriculture is the foundation of Yolo County’s economy. Also, I’ve never heard [i]food [/i]called [i]de minimis [/i]before.
that’s not the first question to be asked don. the first question we should ask and figure out is where is the best place to build a business park, then how large it needs to be. i’ve yet to see the analysis on either point.
once we decide that, we would need to put either two or three times as much land into protection as gets developed.
our differences here are probably less philosophical and more order of operation.
If there is one thing we should have learned relative to our city financial problems, do not create any barriers for future residents to pull back or reverse course if necessary.
Permanent agriculture easements are fine for well-off cities with aggressive development around them, little existing open space preserved and lacking tools like pass-through agreements, and Measures J, O and R.
They are foolish for us at this point in time.
Permanent agriculture easements are appropriate wherever there is urban development pressure in the midst of prime ag land. Farmland is not a luxury. It is the foundation of our regional economy.
The appropriate balance is done by identifying where development can occur on soils of lesser quality, and/or where development is less likely to lead to further pressure to develop adjacent sites.
medwoman wrote:
> I would consider a person “prosperous” if they are
> able to support themselves. If they are able to
> feed, clothe, provide basic needs for themselves and
> their families…
This is a lot harder today than it ever was… When my parents got out of High School in the 50’s just about everyone with a HS diploma could buy a home in Northern California and support a family with one income. By the 80’s few HS grads could afford a home and support a family and it typically took two incomes from two college grads. Today people will laugh out loud if a High School grad talked about buying a home and supporting a family and most college grads can’t do it either. Even people with advanced degrees from “top 20” schools are having a tough time these days without help from family.
> A concrete example of this would be my hometown
> of Gig Harbor, Washington. There is no shooting
> anywhere within the city limits.
I don’t think that many Davis residents are upset that they can’t shoot dinner in the city limits…
> I do not no if there remain any family farms or orchards,
> but there are no more on our side of town. What there are
> are developments of luxury homes. I am sure that these are
> very nice for the people who own them. What is not so nice
> is the destruction of a very independent and yes, prosperous
> way of life that was taken away from those who had been
> established there. This added to the prosperity of those
> who already had plenty of money. It destroyed the prosperity
> of those who were more self reliant and whose prosperity was
> dependent upon the existence of open space.
I don’t think that many (if any) Davis residents want to head out to a field and shoot dinner and if we built a 100 acre tech park we would lose a few farm worker jobs but gain hundreds (maybe even thousands) of much higher paying jobs.
Frankly wrote:
> permanent ag easements destroy your future
> ability to make ends meet.
Then Don wrote:
> Total garbage.
I’m wondering if Don has a “permanent ag easement” on his property and if not tell us why not.
It is only 72 acres, but you get the picture…
[url]http://thetechnologyfarm.com/about-the-tech-farm/[/url]
[quote]Sitting in the middle of a 72 acre apple orchard, The Park opened in 2005 with one lab, 4 offices, an administration suite and 3 tenants. In the summer of 2006 we began developing the inside of the building adding to the existing facilities, 13 more offices , another lab and 4 production facilities. At this time only 3 offices remain unspoken for. The parking lot is full most days and we have a very eclectic group of 10 emerging businesses residing in the Tech Farm.
The mission of the park is to provide a campus for research and development in the areas of food and agriculture. Our flexible policies regarding the development and ownership of intellectual property make The Technology Farm exceptionally business-friendly, and give your business a unique competitive advantage.[/quote]
[quote][b]Mission/Goal[/b]
The Cornell Agriculture and Food Technology Park Corporation shall have the following two-fold mission:
– To serve a s a financially self-sustaining entity to foster the creation, retention and expansion of agriculture and food-related technology-based facilities and related businesses for the benefit of both the State and local economies;
– To foster partnerships between the New York Agricultural Experiment Station and the enterprises seeking commercial applications of technology related to agriculture and food sciences as a means of enhancing the long-term viability of the Geneva Experiment Station.
[/quote]
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/CornellFarmPark.jpg[/img]
[quote]The Cornell Agriculture and Food Technology Park Corporation, a public/private sector initiative, retained Saratoga Associates for a market positioning strategy, physical development plan, infrastructure engineering, permitting, environmental remediation, and funding and implementation strategies for the proposed research and development business park. The project uses 72 acres to accommodate the needs of food and agriculture companies, including lease and purchase space and access to college faculty and facilities. The project has been successfully launched with the construction of the 20,000 GSF Flexible Technology Incubator Building and the USDA’s commitment to contract the 80,000 GSF Grape Genetics Research Facility.[/quote]
I already answered that question the last time you tried to make an issue out of where I live.
Solano County has Measure T, also called the Orderly Growth Initiative. My land is zoned for agriculture and cannot be rezoned for any other purpose. Development can only occur in Solano County within existing cities. All land that is designated as agriculture or open space is protected from urban development. It would be great if Yolo County would pass a similar initiative. Until we do, it’s each city for itself in terms of appropriate land use.
[quote]It is only 72 acres, but you get the picture…
http://thetechnologyfarm.com/about-the-tech-farm/ [/quote]
Ramos/Bruner could accommodate that, plus 40 acres for Schilling, plus whatever Marrone needs, with room left over.
SouthofDavis
[quote]I don’t think that many Davis residents are upset that they can’t shoot dinner in the city limits…
[/quote]
I agree. And I believe that the reason this is true has been the development that has occurred so far. We have becoming increasingly urbanized. This also limits one’s choices of activities although those of you who favor rapid growth do not seem to perceive this kind of limitation of choice as a problem.
SouthofDavis
[quote]This is a lot harder today than it ever was… When my parents got out of High School in the 50’s just about everyone with a HS diploma could buy a home in Northern California and support a family with one income[/quote]
I agree. And again, I think it is not very forward thinking to assume that the very old concept that every generation was expected to do better (financially) than their parents needs to be continuously re evaluated.
Clearly there will be limits to this eventually. We may be at that point now, or not. I don’t think that any of us have the answer to this. What I do think we need to face is that ever expanding material wealth across generations is a bubble. It is an illusion that is not sustainable. I think that we would be doing future generations a bigger favor by preserving as much of the natural world as we can for them and stop the expectation that more is what we should always see as better. The two are not synonymous.
I asked:
> I’m wondering if Don has a “permanent ag easement” on
> his property and if not tell us why not.
Then Don wrote:
> I already answered that question the last time you
> tried to make an issue out of where I live.
You deleted the last post when I asked a specific question that mentioned the area where you lived, so to respect your privacy I did not give any information about where you live when I asked this time.
> Solano County has Measure T, also called the
> Orderly Growth Initiative. My land is zoned for
> agriculture and cannot be rezoned for any
> other purpose.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Measure T only prohibits re-zoning for 20 years (and has some other exceptions).
Would you be OK locking in the use of any land you own in the state “forever” (like you want the city of Davis to do with the Mace 391 site)?
Medwoman wrote:
> I think that we would be doing future generations a
> bigger favor by preserving as much of the natural
> world as we can for them and stop the expectation
> that more is what we should always see as better.
I know a lot of people that want to live in Davis for many of the same reasons that Medwoman says she has decided to stay here.
Many of these people drive in to Davis a few days a week from Woodland and Winters so their kids can go to pre-school.
I really think that most kids (and most parents) would be happier riding their bikes to pre-school than to have a little more dirt around Mace and I80.
I remember when all of Mace Ranch was farmland, yet if I ever want to show my kids what the open space looked like I can just turn them around and have them look north.
[quote]Would you be OK locking in the use of any land you own in the state “forever” (like you want the city of Davis to do with the Mace 391 site)? [/quote]
Yes. But that would just be a windfall for me, since I’m not in the path of development, have no plans for development, and couldn’t rezone the property even if I wanted to. No Land Trust in their right mind would pay me to establish a conservation easement on my land. We bought it as farmland and intend to keep it as farmland.
Don wrote:
> No Land Trust in their right mind would pay me
> to establish a conservation easement on my land.
You don’t need to get “paid” to establish a conservation easement.
Any owner of ag land can do this to their land if they truly believe in the concept (vs. just wanting the owners of “other” land to ban development forever)…
I truly believe in the concept. It’s not necessary for my property. I’m not a hypocrite. Now, I’ve asked you before to stop your constant references to where I live. Please don’t do it again.
[quote]You don’t need to get “paid” to establish a conservation easement. Any owner of ag land can do this to their land if they truly believe in the concept[/quote]
A conservation easement, like any other easement, is a real property estate with a value that can be denominated in dollars. There is no reason to expect anyone, whether a public or private entity, to encumber their land with an easement without adequate compensation. The immediate market value of the easement proposed for Mace 391 is the difference between the land’s value without the easement in place and the value with it in place. That’s what the city will “buy” and transfer to the management entity (YLT in concert with others) once the easement is in effect.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”We have 475 other acres for development. How many do you need?”[/i]
The answer to your question Don really depends on the tme horizon you are using for your planning process. The “grand bargain” I have laid out with the intention of putting upwards of 3,000 acres of the Urban Fringe (as defined by Measure O) into permanent conservation easement has a 50 year time horizon.
The principle is to [u]permanently[/u] define what Davis is, and what Davis is not. By doing so, we remove any uncertainty from the equation.
Don wrote:
> I’m not a hypocrite. Now, I’ve asked you before to stop
> your constant references to where I live. Please don’t
> do it again.
The one time I made a vague reference to where you lived you deleted my post so I have not mentioned it again.
It was you that posted where you live on this thread (then said you are not a hypocrite and told me to stop doing something that you were doing)…