By Robb Davis
Editor’s note:In September this article was first published. Based on the recent discussion, the author asked that it be republished.
Markets fail when transactions do not result in efficient outcomes from a societal point of view. One cause of market failure concerns the problem of one partner in a transaction having more or better information than the other. The lack of (quality) information by one party leads to power imbalances that can harm one party and inappropriately confer benefits on another that a free market transaction would not allow.
Two recent examples of information asymmetries related to land use decisions in and around Davis explain why we as citizens tend to approach such decisions in what appears to be narrow, self-interested and ultimately very conservative ways. In both cases it is clear that one party in the transaction possesses more and better information that risks placing the City at a disadvantage in the transaction it is negotiating.
1. The Cannery project, whatever its value in terms of housing provided, suffers from a significant problem of lack of connectivity to the rest of the city. This is especially true for alternate forms of transportation such as biking and walking. This problem is significant because the City has set clear goals concerning the reduction of carbon emissions-most of which are generated by transportation choices. Developing Cannery in a way that people living there have choices concerning transportation is therefore in the City’s interests and the City should negotiate any agreements with owners/developers/builders with this goal (among others) in mind.
But the City is at an information disadvantage because the owners can merely say (and have said), “What you are requesting (in two grade separated crossings, for example), is too expensive.” But of course the question in return must be: “Too expensive relative to what?” Since the owners/developers/builders are not required by law to disclose how much they stand to earn from the City’s decision to change the zoning classification that will allow them to develop it according to their wishes, it is not possible for citizens to judge the veracity of the owner’s statement
Of course the City can hire (and apparently has hired) an independent firm to estimate this. Of course the owner can merely dispute these estimates. The result is that the citizens of Davis are not privy to the actual information and therefore cannot determine whether they can and should press for the preferred infrastructure changes. Further, when the owner asserts that it has the best interests of the City of Davis in mind and also wants “connectivity”, this assertion is not useful information (from a transaction point of view) because it may or may not be true.
In addition, the owner has much more information about the City because the City is required to conduct its business in a transparent way whereas the owner is not required to disclose private deals that concern the property. The owner also has information about individual decision makers and their needs and what it may take to sway them to accept its proposals. This is not an accusation of wrongdoing but merely highlights that information asymmetries exist at multiple levels and leaves citizens in a position of not really knowing whether they are getting all they might get out of the project.
2. The so-called “land swap” concerning the Shriner and Mace 391 properties also suffers from information asymmetries-also at several levels. Peripheral development will always be a cause of much public debate in this City given the value of the surrounding land for agricultural purposes, concerns about sprawl and the need to consider the best ways to grow revenue and jobs for Davis. However, the debate is almost always constrained by the lack of full information available to citizens that will inform them as they negotiate with landowners/purchasers/developers.
In this case there are several pieces of information held by those proposing the project but not shared with the public. This information would greatly enhance the citizens’ ability to consider the pros and cons of the project and negotiate from an informed position. These include (but are not limited to):
- What information indicates that 493 acres is necessary for a park? What market research indicates that this size is critical?
- What kinds of firms have indicated an upfront interest in moving into such a park should it be developed? (I realize that it is not possible to name the firms-there are privacy issues that must be considered, but what kinds and size of firms from what sectors have expressed interest would seem to be the kind of information that should be forthcoming).
- What are the 2:1 mitigation options that have been considered, and are they demonstrably in the interests of the City? Or does mitigation occur on land far away in a way that does not preserve farmland of equal value to that which is lost?
Again, it is not helpful for those proposing the project to merely state that “This project is a win/win for the City” or “As long-term residents of Davis we have the best interests of the City in mind”. This information does not inform the discussion but merely opens any critique of the project into accusations against those making the critique of engaging personal attacks against people who clearly have the best interests of the City in mind.
Further, as in the case of the Cannery, those proposing the project have much more information about City decisions and have the ability to use that information as leverage points to sway votes in their direction.
Is any of this evil? No. It is just good old deal making. It is people acting in their self-interest to achieve an end that will benefit them financially. There is nothing evil in that and I do not begrudge them of it. However, we as citizens must recognize that we are at an information disadvantage here. We need to acknowledge that significant information asymmetries exist and they risk placing us in a position of achieving a less than optimal transaction from the perspective of what our City needs.
This explains why I, and many others, approach such transactions in a very cautious way. This is why we ask for things like Measure R and “slow go” approaches. We know that the asymmetries exist and we want the time to gather as much information as we can. We want to compel those proposing such “deals” to expose as much information as possible. We want to create less information imbalance so that our interests are not subordinated to the interests of others.
I have no illusions that we will ever achieve something approaching “Pareto optimal” outcomes in such transactions but it is absolutely in our interests to reduce the asymmetries as much as possible to achieve outcomes that contribute to the broadest social good as possible.
Robb and David
Thanks for reposting this. It expresses very clearly the basis for my concerns about the recent story of the proposed donation by ConAgra of $ 2 million dollars to a private non profit. It is the lack of information about interactions that have major community impact that is disturbing, not the question of legality or questions of conspiracy, but just the lack of information needed to make sound decisions. Not whether or not private companies have the right to invest their money as they see fit, but the lack of information.
David- I don’t want to nitpick too much here but I actually did not request that you repost this piece. I merely pointed out that the current situation illustrates ts relevance.
That’s true, Matt did. I agreed.
” Since the owners/developers/builders are not required by law to disclose how much they stand to earn from the City’s decision to change the zoning classification that will allow them to develop it according to their wishes, it is not possible for citizens to judge the veracity of the owner’s statement.”
I did not realize this. In theory is it feasible for a city to require full disclosure of financials as part it’s contract with the developer?
“What information indicates that 493 acres is necessary for a park?”
Are you talking about a business park or a farm/park. There has been more transparency about the business park than about the Conservation proposals.
Some questions the community needs to have answered are:
1. What is the community farm part of the proposal?
2. How is the farm going to be run?
3. Who is going to run it?
4. How will it be funded?
5. What will happen with any produce?
As far as I know I haven’t seen this concept explained in any manner.
Mr. Toad
Good questions. Is there an actual proposal, or is this in the purely conceptual stage ?
The back side of the Cannery site is a Swainson Hawk foraging habitat. It has been this way for years. They will have to do Swainson Hawk mitigation.
“The Swainson’s Hawk Mitigation Plan allows projects that are less than 40 acres to pay a fee, which is currently $8,660, at a 1:1 ratio. The interim program currently requires project that are 40 acres or more to acquire conservation easements at a 1:1 ratio.” Yolo Habitat JPA
A Community Farm in Burlington, Vermont:
[url]http://www.intervale.org/about-us/history/[/url]
I suggest that the city invest in designing a development project approval process that includes disclosure of details at various milestones, and an inventory of committees representing all critical stakeholder groups, and these committees have delegated authority to contribute to the project in their domain of expertise and that everyone else accept this form of representation and shut their trap if it does not end up as THEIR personal selfish vision in the end.
I really want to be able to say “please shut the heck up” when one of my fellow davisites starts whining about a development project after having gone through this formalized vetting and design process.
If land-owner/developers have some certainty in being able to rely on this process instead of running with the constant risk that a Mike Harrington will use his personal wealth to file law suits and gin up controversy with his unhappy band of no-changers (sorry Mike, just using you for my example), then they would more likely NOT invest $2MM in PR and would otherwise have more dollars available to agree to costly design features.
Frankly
I agree. With the addition of one very important point to your comment. If a concern is raised, it must be addressed, thoughtfully, fully and explicitly. I do not consider belittling, trivializing or ignoring the concern as a legitimate response. If each concern is not addressed, I do not consider the vetting process complete. Do you agree ?
[quote]I suggest that the city invest in designing a development project approval process that includes disclosure of details at various milestones, and an inventory of committees representing all critical stakeholder groups, and these committees have delegated authority to contribute to the project in their domain of expertise and that everyone else accept this form of representation and shut their trap if it does not end up as THEIR personal selfish vision in the end. [/quote]
Great idea. Can we apply the same philosophy to school parcel taxes that are approved by a 2/3 majority?
[i]If each concern is not addressed, I do not consider the vetting process complete. Do you agree ?[/i]
It depends. If the concern is real and material, then absolutely.
If the concern is immaterial (e.g., no quantifiable cost, risk, damage or opportunity cost… or that would have tradeoffs if considered that would cause the need for a extensive, costly and unnecessary re-analysis), then absolutely not.
Project management includes tracking of these things. The key is to assess what requires attention, and what does not require attention. You simply cannot please everyone. And the energy spent responding to Johnny Come Lately critics lacking material concerns is energy that should otherwise be spent making progress on the project.
The ideal solution is to have a robust front-end vetting process that stakeholders honor and subscribe to. It requires a cooperative mindset and acceptance of the outcomes.
In the corporate world, if the process is rigorous and inclusive and accepted by the whole, individuals that continue to criticize and undermine the project are at risk of losing their job because of the potential damage to the whole.
Of course we cannot fire citizens that attempt to undermine a project for selfish and unjustified (from a quantitative perspective) reasons; so in that case belittling, trivializing and ignoring are the tools we need to utilize. No community can progress if we don’t cut off debate at some point and move on. Those that become enemies of the decision and are bent on undermining the vetted project should become public enemy #1 and earn some scorn from the rest of us.
[i]Can we apply the same philosophy to school parcel taxes that are approved by a 2/3 majority?[/i]
Sure. Until the need to renew it, or an effort to approve another one.
[quote]Of course we cannot fire citizens that attempt to undermine a project for selfish and unjustified (from a quantitative perspective) reasons; so in that case belittling, trivializing and ignoring are the tools we need to utilize. No community can progress if we don’t cut off debate at some point and move on. [/quote]
Many of the reasons for opposing a project do not lend themselves to quantitative analysis. They reflect differing values.
Frankly
[quote]Of course we cannot fire citizens that attempt to undermine a project for selfish and unjustified (from a quantitative perspective) reasons; so in that case belittling, trivializing and ignoring are the tools we need to utilize. No community can progress if we don’t cut off debate at some point and move on. Those that become enemies of the decision and are bent on undermining the vetted project should become public enemy #1 and earn some scorn from the rest of us. [/quote]
Geez Frankly, aren’t the people that want a business park the ones who couldn’t except the decision to make Mace 391 open space using Measure O funds? Should they become public enemy #1 and earn some scorn from the rest of us?
GI – LOL. Well, leave it to you to turn my own gun around to shoot me!
You see, I don’t think the ag easement thing has been properly vetted. As I have written, I don’t have much problem with Davis using Measure O funds to acquire land for open space. But not permanent ag easements. And the city also used road funds to acquire Mace 391… that adds an entire new consideration since our road fund is short over $50 million at this point.
Also we have a severe budget problem that was not as clear when Measure O was passed.
Lastly, Measure O was not/ is not a project as much as a policy. And policy should always be subject to re-evaluation and change.
Frankly, I had to sit on the “add comment” button a few seconds before I sent that one. I didn’t know if I wanted to piss off my fellow buddy in the conservative fox hole of Davis. I’m actually coming around to having Mace 391 be a business park as long as we gain more open land and a buffer (like Matt outlined) in the deal. See, I can be reasonable.
[i][b]The Unseen Hand In Davis Politics[/b][/i]:The City of Davis is one of 544 American cities that are participating members of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Much information concerning this massive, multi-tentacled, organization can be found at http://www.iclei.org.
How much of the frenetic planning effort currently being experienced within (and around) Davis can be attributed to ICLEI efforts and influence? ICLEI is a private, non-profit foundation dedicated to helping local elected officials (mayors, city councilmembers, etc.) implement progressive regional and international planning within their community as well as in adjacent unincorporated areas. Because of extensive unfavorable local reaction to a variety of ICLEI’s “Sustainable Development” and “Innovative Development” proposals within the Bay Area and other regions, ICLEI has had to rebrand itself as” Local Governments for Sustainability” to continue to gain access to and support of community staff and residents. Once support is gained, ICLEI can then provide numerous resources to the community. An essential step is to recommend that the community hire a full time “sustainability manager,” to implement relevant ICLEI policies. Once that is done, other benefits follow. Some of these include: (1)access to a network of Green experts, newsletters, conferences and workshops; (2) software programs to help set the goals for community development; (3) toolkits, online resources, case studies, fact sheets, policy and practice manuals, and blueprints successfully used by other communities; (4) notification of relevant grant opportunities conforming to ICLEI objectives; and, (5) training workshops for staff and elected officials on how to develop and implement ICLEI programs. Is this what we want here!?!
For a recent ICLEI “Success Story!?!” , please read how their “One Bay Area Plan”( http://onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan-bay-area.html)
was successfully rammed through the Nine County Bay Area in spite of massive public objection: ( http://www.onebayarea.org/news/story/Plan-Bay-Area-Adopted.html ). Is this what will be happening here?
GI. Ha! Don’t hesitate next time. I don’t take things personal unless they are personal. And nothing about this issue is personal.
I like where you are headed with your thinking. It is the same as mine.
I like open space… want lots of it. Prefer a mix of ag land, recreation land and natural space.
I’m not worried about growth or sprawl at this point. We will never allow enough development to get us to that level of concern. We already have traffic. The planned growth of UCD will add to it.
But we need more revenue coming to the city.
And we need more good jobs for young people.
And the city benefits from adding more young professionals to our demographic.
And we have not done near enough commercial/economic development in Davis. We lag way behind on almost every economic indicator for economic development.
Conversely, we lead in density, environmental sustainability and open space preservation. We are far enough ahead that we don’t need to be so extreme in our demands for more.
UCD has largely contributed to our history of being a great – but quirky – community. We owe UCD a level of cooperation beyond what we have been giving. I think the business of higher learning will start to suffer a drop in demand in the next 5-10 years due to high-tech alternatives that are less expensive and do a good enough job educating kids for undergrad degrees. That will mean UCD has to increase its value proposition to better compete for a shrinking pool of well-off smart kids. A more robust private sector having a greater supply of job opportunities for students will go a long way in improving and cementing the value proposition for UCD.
And, if Davis keeps denying and blocking business park development, I absolutely expect to hear that we will have one across I-80 on Solano County land.
Like you, I like where Matt is headed… looking at the entire periphery of Davis and identifying parcels we can acquire for open space… AND parcels that we can and should reserve for future economic development.
[i]Many of the reasons for opposing a project do not lend themselves to quantitative analysis. They reflect differing values[/i]
Agreed. But since there is never going to be a perfect solution when there are conflicting values, we all will win some and lose some. We just need to get over it and move on to the next project.
Again, this approach demands a rigorous up-front vetting of competing values.
What I am really suggesting is for us to start focusing on the process and not the outcomes.
Jim Sochor had this coaching approach and it worked for him.
The proper web site citation for ICLEI is http://www.iclei.org/ Sorry for the inconvenience!
Frankly
We might or might not be in agreement. It depends on what you consider “quantifiable”. Do your consider automobile emissions quantifiable ? How about car trips per day ? How about the increased congestion in downtown from automobiles, which some are suggesting that we combat with guess what, more spaces for automobiles at a material cost of thousands of dollars per space ? Are we going to add in the costs to maintain our roadways and provide services to these new enterprises and neighborhoods ? All of these and I am sure many, many more seem quantifiable to me, but may not seem that way to you.
Then there are the harder to quantify, but still clearly objective factors. Increased need for police , fire and other city services. Increased need for health care, social services and community recreational services as the population increases. Not readily apparent, but clearly present decreases in the health of individuals who are more automobile dependent.
And then there are the ephemerals or as Don says the values. I realize that these seem expendable to you, but they are not to me. So whose vision gets to prevail ? I would like to point out to you that this was the point I was trying to make when you raked me over the coals about the differences in our values. You have expressed again and again that you would only take into consideration the “material” considerations where as I consider the life style or value considerations to be most important once the basic material necessities have been secured.
Steve Hayes
[quote]The Unseen Hand In Davis Politics:[/quote]
And here I thought the “conspiracy theory” was pointing in the direction of the developers. Guess neither side is immune from conspiracy fantasies.
[quote]Is this what we want here!?! [/quote]
I don’t know. I guess it would depend on whether or not you liked the particular policy in question wouldn’t it ?
If for instance you were in favor of a particular “green project” it might be very nice to have access to expertise from those who have already implemented similar programs. Kind of like getting advice and free plantings at the arboretum. If you don’t like the policies, doubtless you are going to see it less favorably.
meds, I believe that things have to be quantified to support decision-making. These things don’t have to be completely objective measures. They can be subjective, but then they have to be surveyed and collected so that we can get quantitative results.
For example, ask the question: “How do you feel about the risk of greater auto congestion if resulting from a new business park and/or new housing?”
1. Absolutely concerned.
2. Somewhat concerned.
3. Neutral.
4. Slightly concerned.
5. Not concerned.
Then tabulate the results from the residents. Even something this potentially-emotion-based and incomplete is useful data that contributes to decision making… because it is test a population.
Just some comment that “many people are concerned about increased congestion” is not useful.
Ideally we would have a study that clearly indicates the amount of increased congestion that would result from a proposed project. AND, it would be presented as one of many “cons” along with all of the “pros” for the project. And this information would be included along with the question being asked. Because for any decision, there are trade-offs.
Your value system evaluating these pros and cons will be different than others. But the final decision should be based on quantifiable data so that we get to mathematically blend the values of the population and we use that to make optimal decisions.
In the end, the decision-makers are the decision-makers and their decisions prevail. But knowing that our values were mathematically factored and considered, we should better accept the decisions.
Criticism sans quantifiable data looks like fear. It is okay to voice those concerns, but I would not want us to make decisions based on them.
Steve Hayes:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but reading over [url]http://www.iclei.org/[/url], I see nothing about economic sustainability.
Am I missing something?
Lacking that I don’t see how this organization can be take seriously.
Frankly
I know that you care deeply about your family. Perhaps I can help you understand my view of intangibles better by making it personal. I am an individual who cares more about experiences than I do about physical gifts and luxuries. I value the smile and hug I get from my partner each morning and evening far more than I do his financial contribution to our household. Likewise, I am more pleased by my children’s casual banter and ganging up on me playfully which is their expression of love than I am with any material gift that I have ever been given. These “gifts” of the spirit are not measurable or calculable but they are beyond value to me.For me this prioritization of intangibles goes beyond human relations and my family. When I said on a previous post that to some, the land is “sacred” I was not using that term flippantly. I personally value open space for what it is, open space, not just for what it may provide economically.
It seems to me from your posts which frequently include the word “material” that you value the economic aspects of life more highly than I do. This is not true simply because I am now financially comfortable. Even when I definitely was not, my preference was still for the experience, the unmeasurable, over the tangible and material. I was once told by a friend that I am a “minimalist”. It is a different way of being in the world from many people I know who place a higher value on things than I do. But it is my way in the world and has been as long as I can remember. This used to drive my sister crazy when we were little because she could not understand why I preferred an experience to getting a present. I believe that mine is the minority position in our culture, but I do not believe that I am entirely alone. Maybe this will help provide some context for some of my comments.
Robb Davis said . . .
[i]”David- I don’t want to nitpick too much here but I actually did not request that you repost this piece. I merely pointed out that the current situation illustrates its relevance.”[/i]
David M. Greenwald replied . . .
[i]”That’s true, Matt did. I agreed.”[/i]
A Paul Revere moment . . . No republication without representation!!!
Stephen Souza said . . .
[i]”The back side of the Cannery site is a Swainson Hawk foraging habitat. It has been this way for years. They will have to do Swainson Hawk mitigation.”[/i]
Steve will the mitigation you describe be in addition to the 300 acres that ConAgra recently transferred over to Yolo County ownership?
[quote]Again, it is not helpful for those proposing the project to merely state that “This project is a win/win for the City” or “As long-term residents of Davis we have the best interests of the City in mind”. This information does not inform the discussion but merely opens any critique of the project into accusations against those making the critique of engaging personal attacks against people who clearly have the best interests of the City in mind.[/quote]
Thank you for this. It is hard for me not to get angry when people refer to the proposed land swap as a “win/win.” It [i]might[/i] turn out to be a good compromise (although I maintain, as I have said before, that no such conclusion can be drawn without Shriner’s being evaluated in the same way that the Open Space & Habitat Commission evaluated Leland Ranch, among other considerations). However, if a tech park is built on Leland Ranch, then the open space and agricultural land will be lost. Period. A deal that involves a loss is not a “win/win.” It is a compromise. We don’t “get open space and our tech park, too.” If there were a swap, we’d lose some open space, get a tech park, and get different open space — open space that may or may not be similar, and that we might have been able to preserve anyway. Really, those who say that a land swap would be a “win/win” should have more respect for the people who want an easement on Leland Ranch — people who can tell when they are losing something.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”GI – LOL. Well, leave it to you to turn my own gun around to shoot me!
You see, I don’t think the ag easement thing has been properly vetted.”[/i]
In prior threads I noted in the timeline that Staff provided to Council that there had up until that point been only three meetings where the public had an opportunity to give public input to the easement process . . . the 10/10/2010 HSHC meeting, the 11/16/2010 Council meeting and the 6/11/2013 Council meeting.
Based on the missing minutes of the 11/16/2010 Council meeting, which Zoe Mirabile ran down for me (and will soon be available on the City website), that number three has to be reduced to two, because the 11/16/2010 Council Meeting took up the acquisition/easement in the Consent Calendar with neither a public presentation of a Staff report nor any public comment. If you blinked you missed it. For all you Bert and I fans out there, it was a “Which way to East Vassalboro?” moment. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jn61NUd0q8[/url]
rmillstein said . . .
[i]”Thank you for this. It is hard for me not to get angry when people refer to the proposed land swap as a “win/win.” It might turn out to be a good compromise (although I maintain, as I have said before, that no such conclusion can be drawn without Shriner’s being evaluated in the same way that the Open Space & Habitat Commission evaluated Leland Ranch, among other considerations). However, if a tech park is built on Leland Ranch, then the open space and agricultural land will be lost. Period. A deal that involves a loss is not a “win/win.” It is a compromise.”[/i]
Roberta, one of the bedrock principles of Negotiation Theory is for each participant in the negotiation to define the BPA (Best Possible Alternative) and their LAS (Least Acceptable Solution). The BPA is the “dream outcome in a perfect world” . . . but we all know there is no such thing as a perfect world. The LAS is the “walking away point.”
Once each of the negotiators defines their personal BPA and LAS then you get a picture like this . . .
BPA………………………………………………LAS
_ _ _LAS………………………………………………BPA
In each case in this hypothetical illustrative scenario one party’s BPA requires more than the other party’s LAS, and therefore the area to the left of the bottom LAS and to the right of the top LAS are outside the respective “walking away” points, and by definition is either Win-Lose or Lose-Win. However, all the area between the two respective LAS points defines the Win-Win playing field. We all have to look in the mirror and define our personal LAS and BPA values. That process is a Delphic Maxim moment (different from a Bert and I moment) as inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi . . . “Know thyself” If you do that, then no compromise is required.
We don’t “get open space and our tech park, too.” If there were a swap, we’d lose some open space, get a tech park, and get different open space — open space that may or may not be similar, and that we might have been able to preserve anyway. Really, those who say that a land swap would be a “win/win” should have more respect for the people who want an easement on Leland Ranch — people who can tell when they are losing something.
I value many of those same things. I am not a minimalist, but I do like donating and discarding stuff to get organized and uncluttered. But these are all are individual values we are talking about.
But we are not talking about individuals values with respect to my points… we are talking about a community. You have to quantify community values for us to support a fair decision process… otherwise it is just competing individual values. I expect individual values to be competing, but I won’t be happy if any values prevail over others if we have not sufficiently vetted the options.
“Material” does not mean physical or monetary. It means measurable and/or quantifiable. Someone says “it hurts my feelings.” Well I don’t generally respond to that. But say: “When you talk to be like that, it hurts my feelings to the point that I cannot focus on the task at hand and I make mistakes.” I start to see the impact. It starts to be tangible and material.
I would go to the next step. How many more mistakes result from a situation where a person is talked to like that?
Assuming there is a difference, it would be material and actionable.
My brain does not get “when you talk to me” and “hurt feelings”. I understand the concept and have had it happen to me, but it is not actionable. It is fleeting. It is something we struggled with as children, but we should have learned by now that words can sting and we need to quickly get over it and move on. As an adult, I consider it my problem being too sensitive. I see hypersensitivity as being a childish tendency; but made more difficult to overcome when having a personality type of high sensing.
But I get “when you talk to me like that” and “cannot focus and make mistakes.” That gets my attention. It is material. My brain can process it as harm or potential harm.
The best way I know how to vet decisions in the projects, teams, department, divisions and companies I have led is to do quantitative analysis and share the results and use them for decision support.
Someone says, “I don’t like this or that.” I can come unglued and snap at them. I say, don’t speak unless you have at least a guess as to what you don’t like and why, and what you do like and why. And for the why, be prepared with some basis of fact to explain to others.
We are all different. And the most sensitive cannot rule the world. We need balance for all our competing values. Those with low sensitivity need to learn how to reach out and ask for quantification of concerns and harm. Those with high sensitivity need to learn how to quantify and communicate in more concrete terms.
You tend to communicate your values and concerns in very vague terms (from my perspective). For example, you might say or infer that your “don’t like” or “like” certain things as per your values. Without more concrete valuation of those things, they appear to me to be largely emotional, irrational or fear-based. I am not saying that they are not important and not worth consideration. I am just saying that it is next to impossible to use them in vetting community decisions unless we quantify them.
You say you like Davis small. I don’t know what that means. Define it. Why? What is “not small enough”. The term is too subjective to be worth anything. Davis is much bigger than Dixon. Why not live in Dixon if you only want small.
You don’t like traffic congestion. Who does? We already have it. If you are talking about more traffic congestion, how much more? You seem to support the university growing and that will lead to more traffic too. If you don’t like traffic congestion, why is one source more acceptable than another? Dixon has less traffic congestion. Why not live there.
I like open space. You like open space. Again, there is no context. We already have open space. We have more open space that just about any other comparable city. I like a city with more jobs, and more young professionals. We have fewer of those (when counting students that want to work but cannot find work) than any other comparable city. I can quantify my value of having more jobs as a real community need. You have not quantified this push for more open space preservation as anything other than your own personal value.
Now, I think there has been some quantification work done to back your value of having more apartments. However, we are already have the highest population density of any comparable city. So that work is at odds.
But getting back to my thesis. I don’t think we should rule out any values, we just need to collect them, count them, analyze them and quantify them in a rigorous vetting process and then go get something done and move on to the next thing, and everyone should stop whining that they did not get their way.
[i]However, if a tech park is built on Leland Ranch, then the open space and agricultural land will be lost. Period.[/i]
Am I the only one that sees tremendous evidence of the hidden agenda here?
“lost”?
That word says it.
All of Davis is built on “lost” agriculture land based on this definition?
Is all existing agricultural land “lost” if we develop on it?
What does that even mean?
You have land. Land has uses. You decide what the best use is at the time. The land was not farmland before it was farmland, it was natural habitat. Maybe hunting grounds of native Americans. We lost that use of land when we allowed it to be farmed.
So now we are talking about a possible different use.
Unless you agenda is to lock up every acre of existing farmland into permanent easements, “lost” would not even be in your vocabulary for this.
There is no hidden agenda here. My values are here for all to see. I value open space, some of it as habitat for other species, some of it as agricultural land — and some for both, if it’s done right.
And I don’t need a pedantic lecture to explain to me what a “loss” is.
I’m reposting in the hope that i can break through the opaqueness of the easement at 391 proposal. Maybe
RMilstein would care to answer these questions to elucidate for the community so it can better evaluate its options.
…
“What information indicates that 493 acres is necessary for a park?”
Are you talking about a business park or a farm/park. There has been more transparency about the business park than about the Conservation proposals.
Some questions the community needs to have answered are:
1. What is the community farm part of the proposal?
2. How is the farm going to be run?
3. Who is going to run it?
4. How will it be funded?
5. What will happen with any produce?
As far as I know I haven’t seen this concept explained in any manner.
Frankly
[quote]”Material” does not mean physical or monetary. It means measurable and/or quantifiable. Someone says “it hurts my feelings.” Well I don’t generally respond to that. But say: “When you talk to be like that, it hurts my feelings to the point that I cannot focus on the task at hand and I make mistakes.” I start to see the impact. It starts to be tangible and material. [/quote]
Thank you for taking the time to clarify. Although I doubt that you and I will be metaphorically be walking off into the sunset arm in arm singing Kumbaya, I do think that this clears up some of my misconceptions about your position. I have been interpreting “material” in your posts as equivalent to monetary. Your example of needing the example of what specific harm is done in order to relate was especially helpful. I will now be able to include in my explanations what I have previously thought was explicit in my posts.
In return, I would like to ask you two favors. When I have been very explicit as I have been about population size having stated clearly in the past that I would have preferred that Davis remain about 50,000 but that I acknowledge the 1% growth cap, I would like you to acknowledge that I have been specific. Whether or not you agree is not the point. Specific is specific. The second favor is that you also specify consequences in your posts. If I say that something makes me sad ( and you do not relate because I have not specified the consequence) this is objectively the same as you saying as you have done on multiple occasions, that you are angry. Anger is just as much an emotion as is sadness and if we are having a conversation, we should both adhere to your stricter criteria of specific consequences. Agreed ?
Mr. Toad, the main issue is the easement at Leland Ranch vs. a tech park at Leland Ranch. (Or, to put it another way — to continue down the road that we’ve been travelling for the last 3 years and to follow through on our commitments, or to abandon course for unknown, unvetted, and unlikely possibilities).
Given that you have accused all of the members of the OSHC commission of shady dealings (and anyone else involved with the acquisition), I have no incentive to discuss the proposal for a community farm with you — an issue that, as I have said before, the OSHC would love to discuss at a Council meeting. But there is no point in discussing it until the easement issue is settled. And certainly not with someone who has made accusations against me.
Frankly:
[quote] “However, if a tech park is built on Leland Ranch, then the open space and agricultural land will be lost. Period.”
Am I the only one that sees tremendous evidence of the hidden agenda here? ”lost”? That word says it. All of Davis is built on “lost” agriculture land based on this definition? Is all existing agricultural land “lost” if we develop on it? What does that even mean? You have land. Land has uses. You decide what the best use is at the time. The land was not farmland before it was farmland, it was natural habitat. Maybe hunting grounds of native Americans. We lost that use of land when we allowed it to be farmed. So now we are talking about a possible different use. Unless you agenda is to lock up every acre of existing farmland into permanent easements, “lost” would not even be in your vocabulary for this.[/quote]
Matt:
[quote]
However, all the area between the two respective LAS points defines the Win-Win playing field. We all have to look in the mirror and define our personal LAS and BPA value.[/quote]
I’ll keep the answer simple.
There are now two choices for Mace 391: develop it, or farm it. In order to keep farming it, it is now necessary – because developers will not stop trying to develop it – to conserve it.
If you pave over it, you can never farm it again. There is no swap, compromise, middle ground, win/win situation in this choice.
You can pretend that you’re getting land somewhere else from having paved over it. But that’s just a pretense. That’s Matt’s argument: his constant attempt to link development of Mace 391 to establishing a greenbelt elsewhere.
It is not necessary to develop Mace 391 to continue the process of conserving farmland, open space, and wildlife habitat elsewhere. Measure O will continue, the OSH commission will continue to work to identify sites for conservation, and Davis can easily continue to protect land that is of high farming value.
There is no “hidden agenda” in the desire to conserve agricultural soils and protect habitat and open space. There is no absolutist principle. Once again, you have taken a rational position – protect as much farmland as possible by directing development elsewhere – and tried to make it seem absolutist and dogmatic by absurd reductionism and exaggeration. But, yes: agricultural land is “lost” if you develop something else on it. That seems self-evident to me, and I can’t really see why you’re even debating the point. I am unaware of housing or business parks being razed and re-converted for farms anywhere. So once you pave over it, it’s no longer farmland. Thus, ipso facto, when you develop on farmland, you’ve lost farmland.
Historically, urban growth patterns in the Valley did not take soil quality and agricultural production into consideration. Nor did urban growth patterns in other areas take natural habitat into consideration. Deforestation, encroachment on ag land, filling in of riparian areas for housing – there are lots of examples of poor urban planning practices from our past. Even things as simple as where you locate a freeway can make a very big impact on the natural and agricultural landscape.
We are more aware of these things than we used to be. We have also observed, mapped, and quantified what has happened to the prime agricultural soils that surround the cities in the Central Valley. The fact that something used to be done with reckless disregard for our primary resource does not excuse continued recklessness.
So those of us who oppose developing on Mace 391 are simply saying that you have other sites where you can develop a business park, that site 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.
What Don has defined as his personal BPA and LAS is the following Win – Win field . . .
BPA………………………………………………LAS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LAS……….BPA
Why does his personal BPA / LAS picture look like that? Because A) he chooses to look at the challenge Davis faces only from the perspective of a single decision about a single piece of land, and B) because he assumes that the same decision must be made about each piece of land on the east side of Davis and the north side of Davis. The farmland on the Ramos/Bruner property is every bit as good as the Mace 391 property, so when the time comes to have this discussion vis-a-vis the Ramos/Bruner property, Don will be making the same arguments. As he will be when the Mariani Nut property is discussed. As he will be when the Shriners property is discussed. Each position is self contained and isolated. I can respect that position. I just don’t believe that the world we live in is that “siloed” and therefore I remove “siloing” from my analysis and look at the whole picture to attempt to achieve something that is frequently referred to as a “greater good.”
Reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably.
[quote]so when the time comes to have this discussion vis-a-vis the Ramos/Bruner property, Don will be making the same arguments. As he will be when the Mariani Nut property is discussed. As he will be when the Shriners property is discussed. [/quote]
Nonsense. I’ve previously stated my opinions on those properties. Please don’t misrepresent my positions.
Well Don, since those sites more than likely have higher LESA scores than Mace 391, what is your position on those three properties?