On Tuesday evening there was audible frustration expressed by some in the room about the confining influence of Measure R on the process. However, if Mace 391 is unable to go through for a variety of reasons, the Innovation Park Task Force recommends three Measure R votes – at Nishi, east of Mace, and west of Sutter-Davis, north of Covell Blvd.
On Tuesday, we saw a clear need for a broader representation in the room and, on Wednesday, we opined that this process will only work if all groups in the community are part of the conversation – including the group that pushed through Measure O and Measure J.
As one commenter noted, “David listed some of the most no growth people in town and said they should be included. It would be interesting to see if they are willing to participate or if they only wish to continue to block everything.”
The problem here is that the commenter misses the point – the people listed will be involved in the process at some point. They can either be brought in early in an effort to form some sort of consensus, or they can come in late and simply use their power of numbers to “block everything,” as the commenter puts it, when it comes to a vote.
We see this most clearly in some of the comments made on Thursday with regard to the trees at Cannery. As one poster put it, “This is why people end up feeling we have to vote on every darn thing. The developers are showing their true colors here, ready to remove all those trees and not caring.”
There was a clear sense by several that ConAgra does not represent the community’s values here, and I have heard increasing concern in private quarters about the linkage between Cannery and a business park embodied in the $2 million contribution from ConAgra to Capitol Corridor Ventures.
If people want to dismiss those who prefer slower growth as “Nimbies” as some did on Wednesday, that’s fine. But they do so at their own risk.
In 2010, Measure R was passed with 76% of the vote, a similar score to the margin that Measure P was voted down in 2009, and somewhat higher than Measure X was voted down in 2005. In fact, Measure J went from a close nail-biting vote in 2000 to a landslide in 2010. That is a sign that Measure R is not going anywhere, and those who wish to complain or lament its influence are basically wasting their time.
The bottom line is that you can talk all you want about whether the slow growthers “would give an inch,” but without getting them in the room and getting some sort of agreement, all of this is DOA – dead on arrival.
Making matters worse for those who are more inclined to see small but tangible economic development is the prospect of an internecine war between developers. This is currently setting up behind the scenes in Cannery – with one faction supporting the Cannery project and signs that another faction is conspiring to kill Cannery.
That battle may be accentuated by proposals that developers compete over where and how to develop a business park. In theory, of course, competition brings the best result for all involved. In reality, of course, money makes people and businesses do strange things, and it may become a free-for-all to see who can capture majority influence on council, rather than a battle over who has the best plan or idea.
Between the $2 million and the tree issue, it seems much more likely now than a few weeks ago that there will be a Cannery vote on the ballot in the coming months. That means suddenly we are facing two, three, or even four development elections, several of them Measure R votes, in the next few years.
All of these happenings reinforce, in the community that pushed through Measure J, Measure R and Measure O, that we continue to need the vote because it is tougher to buy 50% of the electorate than three votes on council.
For example, the 2005 Covell Village campaign disclosed in 2006 that it had spent $385,274.75 for the campaign that lasted from July 28, 2005 until December 31, 2005. The Vanguard reported in 2009 that the actual expenditures topped $600,000 and were perhaps a good deal higher than that.
And yet, for all of the money they spent, they lost the election 60-40.
From our perspective, then, any conversation that does not include those who helped to oppose Measure X and those who supported Measure J, Measure R, and Measure O is likely headed down the same path, especially with the need to conduct two, three, and possibly four development campaigns in the next few years.
The commenter who said, “You could invite all the nimby’s mentioned. It would be interesting to see if they would give an inch. I would rather see some young people included. This seems to be a debate between old people many of whom are resistant to change no matter what the consequences” – may want to consider what inches they are prepared to give, because right now it seems that the nay side has the power to block and it is incumbent on the aye side to find reasons by which the nay side should come to the table and be prepared to compromise.
This is going to be a tough battle and by immediately attaching negative labels to those with differing viewpoints or attempting to exclude them from the table, you almost assure another loss.
The Vanguard believes that the issues here need to be discussed. We believe that the electoral process remains necessary to ensure that the people are represented in every step of the process.
Those who argue that the representative democracy process is working need to note that a 4-1 council vote for Covell Village turned into a 60-40 defeat at the polls. Obviously, something was amiss.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
So invite them in. It will be interesting to see what you get. Of course many of those you describe were opposed to the water project so you may be wrong about anything other than housing.
The progressive community was split on water. For example: Ken Wagstaff ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6116:former-mayor-supports-measure-i&Itemid=83[/url])
Yes, bring Sue Greenwald back to the table or the various people with monikers Davisite 2-4 see where they are willing to compromise. Who would you suggest? How about Dick Livingston. Never mind he is already included by proxy.
You’ve suggested people, do you have any indication that they would do anything but obstruct?
You are missing a key point here – if people want to obstruct they can. Including them in the conversation early, makes it less likely that they will instruct late.
Instruct? Sue Greenwald was in on every discussion for twelve years. Was she helpful on any issue in all that time? Give me an example of where the people you describe have ever given an inch on anything?
Give me an example where a Measure J vote succeeded.
Staring at my phone …. not.
Mr. Toad
I think you are missing some nuances here. There are a variety of reasons for preferring slow growth. These may include :
1) Desire to retain a small town atmosphere for nostalgic or personal reasons
2) The belief that this will maintain housing prices ( whether warranted or not)
3) Desire for preservation of land for specific purposes ( farm land, open space, animal habitat….)
4) Preference for change of a different type than we see when what are essentially upscale tract homes by
more attractive names are built
5) Preference for non automobile dependent communities
I am sure that there are many more reasons to prefer slow growth. ( We know that some is legally necessary)
Considering that substantial growth has already occurred ( those aerial photos again) I would prefer that future growth be slow and thoroughly considered. I think you do we “slow growthers” and yourself in the process a disservice by pretending that our goals are all the same and all based on individual greed.
I guarantee you that if there were an affordable housing rich project in a safe location based on a non automobile based transportation mode incorporating the kinds of innovations that have made Village Homes such a success but updated to reflect our current technologies, it would have my support. I am simply not seeing it. Just because you do not share my vision for growth and change does not mean that I don’t have one.
Medwoman i think you may be describing something like the PGE Corp Facilities Maintenance Yard. BTW Sue Greenwald and I advocated for this infill location more than 10 yrs ago.
I feel that I should clarify. My comment above was related to the population aspect of growth, not the tech/ business side. Given the comments regarding obstruction before the discussion process is even under way, I think the same types of values, principles and arguments will apply.
Today’s article on the Marrone IPO is very timely in exploring this issue.
Some posters on this blog would have us believe that the environmentalists and those promoting environmental health and wellness have hegemony in the local balance of business vs environment as though these two were inevitably in opposition. A map of the SARTA innovation sites tells a different story and can be found on the SARTA web page. What it shows is that of the 18 MedStart companies added within our region in 2013, four are in Davis. I don’t know how to post this image, but perhaps David or Don can help.
This certainly does not seem like a dearth of progress and development to me. But I admit that I am missing any specific statement of goals in terms of number of companies or income generation. I lack this because despite asking on numerous occasions, I have not received an answer from those promoting what I would see as “rapid growth” just what their goals would be. What is the “right” number of new businesses ?
Is it four, as this year ? Is it ten or twenty ? I do not share a benign “more is better” approach.
I would like to see some actual targets and “material statements” of goals from those actively promoting rapid growth. So once again, Mr. Toad, Frankly, and anyone else who would care to weigh in, in view of the current increased activity hailed in Carey Adams’ article what is your quantifiable vision? This is nothing more than the same question you folks have asked of me with regard to my size preferences for the population of Davis, just applied to the tech/ business sphere.
MH
[quote]Medwoman i think you may be describing something like the PGE Corp Facilities Maintenance Yard. BTW Sue Greenwald and I advocated for this infill location more than 10 yrs ago.[/quote]
I was very busy with career building and raising two children as a single mother so not civically involved then.
Can you tell me a little more about this ?
Medwoman: im back East on an aircraft accident case and my thumbs are too big for typing much on this little phone Maybe another time or i can brief you via phone.
I would wonder if the new residents to Davis since the Covell Village vote would tend to be as well informed and vote the same way if we had another Measure R vote today….as we grow are we becoming less ‘involved/informed’. Sure hope not.
I agree with David’s article today and early engagement is key. “Involvement breeds commitment” is a favorite quote of mine….
The PGE Corp facilities is a pipe dream. PG&E is not moving any time soon, if at all. It is great to WANT that as infill, but it does not exist.
We cannot plan a city based on wishes and dreams. These things are only distractions and tools for those that want to block progress.
If and when we get a clear indication that PG&E wants to move or plans to move or is considering some opportunity to move, then we should bring that to the table. Otherwise it is a waste of time to keep bringing it up.
By the way, me and some investors are going to purchase the San Francisco 49ers franchise. Oh, I didn’t note that they are not for sale and I don’t have the money.
Frankly: I’ve been told otherwise recently about PG&E. But since we’re talking more about business park than housing, I’m not sure really what that brings to this discussion.
Frankly
[quote]By the way, me and some investors are going to purchase the San Francisco 49ers franchise. Oh, I didn’t note that they are not for sale and I don’t have the money.[/quote]
Good luck ! I suspect that if you spent more time on advancing that project, we would both be happier with your success ; )
And on a more serious note:
[quote]We cannot plan a city based on wishes and dreams. These things are only distractions and tools for those that want to block progress.
[/quote]
I agree that we cannot plan based on wishes and dreams. This is precisely why I have been asking you to quantitate your vision so that I can judge where we are in agreement, and where we are not. Without knowing the specifics you have in mind, your desire for “growth” is to me like asking me to sign a blank check. I may not know much about business, but I do know that is not a good idea.
[i]1) Desire to retain a small town atmosphere for nostalgic or personal reasons[/i]
Personal = selfish when those reasons cause harm to others. And, you need to go a bit further with this “small town atmosphere” point since it is too nebulous to be useful. There are many that think that Davis is too big of a town. That is why they live in Winters or Dixon.
[i]2) The belief that this will maintain housing prices ( whether warranted or not)[/i]
Growing our business sector will result in more demand for housing and so it will likely increase the value of existing residential real estate. We can build more homes at a rate that maintains a balance.
[i]3) Desire for preservation of land for specific purposes ( farm land, open space, animal habitat….)[/i]
One is not exclusive of the other. However, we already have 5000 acres secured. You seem very, very greedy here.
[i]4) Preference for change of a different type than we see when what are essentially upscale tract homes by more attractive names are built[/i]
I am not 100% sure what you mean here, but we can design and build creative housing. The Cannery is actually very progressive and meets most of the current trends for SMART developments.
[i]5) Preference for non automobile dependent communities [/i]
We already are. I think you live in the core area. Your understanding of Davis with respect to transportation is quite myopic. Most of the population already lives outside of the core area. And since we have not allowed much peripheral retail, most people have to drive to shop. And many have to drive out of the area. And since we do not have enough affordable housing, many that work in Davis live outside of Davis and drive to and from work. So, at the very least, you need to acknowledge the conflict in your statements and positions with respect to what you say you desire. A larger community does not translate into increasing auto traffic if the design of that growth is done well. In fact, with growth we can actually correct some things currently contributing to the need for more traffic. For example, some more peripheral retail. And if you are worried about it impacting downtown merchants, then give those merchants some advantage in opening a second location. For example, Davis Ace opened a small satellite store at the Save Mart shopping center.
mr. toad: what you are proposing is more of the same, silo-style discussions, that draw on one side of the room but not both. it has failed and is doomed to fail. if you want a chance of making your ideas work, you have to be the one who reaches to the other side and opens the door. if you want to continue to caste aspersions, call people nimby’s, then i’ll be more than happy to oblige and continue to vote no. your call.
[i]Frankly: I’ve been told otherwise recently about PG&E. But since we’re talking more about business park than housing, I’m not sure really what that brings to this discussion.[/i]
David – that is interesting news. The last I heard, PG&E was not going to budge.
All these infill ideas in the core and near core area sound great until you consider the density issues. Medwoman hates auto traffic. Does she understand what densification does to a location’s traffic trends? I think she and others are either using arguments for densification as a smoke screen to block other development, or they really cannot envision what a denser Davis would look like.
My sense is that the growth-blockers have dug in their heels to prevent more of what they already dislike, but have not recognized that their prescriptions will lead to an acceleration of what they dislike.
Basically, they are advocating a farmland moat around the city and denification of the core. If you think about that from a traffic perspective and envision a bike wheel, you are talking about increasing the width and depth of the hub without increasing the diameter of the wheel and without adding spokes. So, although you will not be materially increasing the traffic around the wheel and down the spokes, you will be increasing the traffic within the hub and from the hub out on the existing spokes. You will also be increasing the traffic from outside the wheel to and from the hub.
Ideally you create other smaller wheel designs outside of core to keep more people self contained. In some case neighborhood shopping centers help. But we would need a more robust regional center design to truly help prevent so much flow in and out of the core.
The point I am trying to make is that infill like the PG&E property will cause the very problems that those advocating for infill give as reasons for demanding no or limited peripheral growth.
[quote] You seem very, very greedy here.[/quote]
Interesting that people who want to develop land for profit consider those who want to preserve land for future generations ‘greedy’.
“All these infill ideas in the core and near core area sound great until you consider the density issues. Medwoman hates auto traffic. Does she understand what densification does to a location’s traffic trends? “
Most people who live in the core right now probably drive less and bike and walk more, so it may balance out.
Frankly
A few counter points to your response
1) So you feel that an action is selfish if it causes another material harm. If someone’s material value is to retain open space, is not building on the space selfish of those who wish to benefit economically from developing it ? As in my previously posted comment about my family living largely off the land until my father’s death for example.
2) You don’t state what you consider that “balance” to be. As you demonstrated to me, descriptives without
numerics are empty, emotive, and indecipherable. So please tell me how many companies, of what size,
with how much anticipated increased revenue to the city you envision and then we would have something
to talk about.
3) I agree, one is not exclusive of the other. And you have not answered by question regarding the 4 new
tech companies within Davis in the past year. How many do you see as optimal ?
4) You and I have a different vision of progressive. The Cannery might have been progressive around the time
that Village Homes was being built. Please tell me of one “innovation” being put into place there that is
not in common existence today already.
5 ) At last, a point of agreement. We share a common view that each others understanding with respect to transportation is quite myopic. Just because we have something, doesn’t mean that we should introduce more of it. The private automobile is necessary the way we are currently configured, just as the oxen pulled plow was once a necessary part of agriculture. It is however a dirty, dangerous, polluting,means of transportation that has wreaked havoc on our health while moving us from place to place faster, or not when there is a traffic jam. Just because something exists does not make it ideal or healthy. I do not have to acknowledge an inconsistency in my position. I know that change will need to be very gradual.
I have lived in an outlying car dependent community and I am very aware that this is not a healthy approach to living. I know that this change will have to occur very slowly over time. However, I also know that if we do not start planning future communities in a more ecologically friendly manner now, it will take much, much longer to convert to a healthier transportation model.
A final comment. These are not [u]my[/u] points. Some I agree with, such as open space preservation and minimizing private automobile usage. Some are irrelevant from my point of view, namely the idea that some are defending their property value by obstructionism. I do not know of anyone who is truly using the strategy, but it has been imputed here many times so I included it.
[i]Most people who live in the core right now probably drive less and bike and walk more, so it may balance out[/i]
I guess we need some population map of the city. If we expand the commercial zoning into the near core, then we are going to have to build up to maintain or grow residential density. If we maintain or expand the commercial density of the core, then people outside the core are still going to need to travel in to shop.
If we are just planning the city to benefit the residents living in the core (something I have suspected for years) then maybe this is the way to go. However, you would need to show me a city with a dense commercial and residential core that does not have auto traffic congestion up the wazoo. I am not aware of any. That is why I think this is a bogus argument or else a flawed vision.
[i]Interesting that people who want to develop land for profit consider those who want to preserve land for future generations ‘greedy'[/i]
I think that is obvious.
There are a lot of people like myself that are advocating growth even though I have nothing material to gain, and it will likely have some negative impacts only because I think it is the right thing to do.
If you continue to demand more and more open space preservation at this point when we have already preserved 5000 acres… the size of our city… when 95% of it cannot be used by the public… and by doing so you block or even limit our opportunities to grow the economy to fix our long-term fiscal problems, assist the university in its quest to improve its business, to help young people get jobs, etc., etc., etc., … well yes, it seems a bit selfish to me.
At the very least I would expect some celebration of what open space we have acquired in our portfolio and a turn to be open to more development as a result of that success.
[quote]At the very least I would expect some celebration of what open space we have acquired in our portfolio and a turn to be open to more development as a result of that success.[/quote]
How many times do I have to repeat that I believe there are sites that could be developed for business purposes?
What I should have written…
[quote]At the very least I would expect some celebration of what open space we have acquired in our portfolio and a turn to [b]not demand any more agriculture easements for land that is potentially valuable for business park development[/b].[/quote]
Frankly
[quote]If we are just planning the city to benefit the residents living in the core (something I have suspected for years) then maybe this is the way to go. However, you would need to show me a city with a dense commercial and residential core that does not have auto traffic congestion up the wazoo.[/quote]
Groningen–pop 200,000, 25,000 students, density 6000/square mile. Check out the video.[url]http://www.outsideonline.com/news-from-the-field/The-Most-Bike-Friendly-City-is-Dutch.html?227833091&utm_campaign=googlenews&utm_source=googlenews&utm_medium=xmlfeed[/url]
(I know… it’s in EUROPE (the horror))… But…you asked)
Robb. Thanks. Never been there. Maybe one day.
Obviously we have a lot of challenges to model ourselves after a Dutch city.
But a from a quick check of the demographics and business climate there, it is clear we are not a good match in a number of areas. For one, the city is teaming with young professionals. It is an economic center and hub for the Netherlands.
So, where are you going to put all those businesses you will need to grow Davis to be similar to Groningen? I’m game to work toward implementing a similar vision, but we cannot just cherry-pick a few things that we like… a city works well or does not work well based on an interconnected web of social, demographic, geographic and economic subsystems. You have to tend to them all.
Frankly, you asked a narrow question and I answered it. I am not suggesting we “become” Groningen nor that we “match” it in every sense but it is a dense, university town with a thriving core that does not have traffic problems. Its mixed use core is a model for how denser housing need not lead to car congestion. Like it, we have rail/bus links to the entire state and beyond, we have a public transit-accessible airport and a decent county bus system. We have sources for meeting basic needs in our core (two grocery shopping options) and if we move to parking maximums instead of parking minimums in redevelopment we can encourage more walking, biking and transit use. These are not “novel” ideas or approaches.
To answer your question about “where are you going to put all those businesses”? Well, as I noted the other day, we have an Innovation Task Force report (now over a year old) with three recommended sites around the city for business development. We have some space within the City. Why not start there?
I concur that we do need to tend to all elements of the system. That is always done within the context of the unique resources and constraints within the system.
Robb – You examples are very limited I think. And they are limited for the single main reason that it only works if your center is the place were people both work and live.
My wife and I have not had much time (and money given we are still paying for our second son to finish college) to travel to Europe. But we like watching a show on TV called House Hunters International. There was an episode of some expats looking for a place to rent in Groningen, and they were dealing with a tradeoff of super high rent for a small place within biking distance to the city center and a more suburban property with a yard that would require a car or public transportation.
But they ended up taking the smaller more expensive apartment because the center was a happening place.
The reason they could afford it was that the husband had a good-paying job for a business located in the center.
If we are not going to grow business on the periphery because we want this bike-centric lifestyle, then we better start looking at complete redevelopment of our near-core area that is currently mostly single-family homes with big yards and gardens.
And this then gets back to my point… what medwoman are advocating would lead to a completely different downtown and core area… it might have less traffic, but then meds will have to give up her peaceful garden space for a more dense apartment living arrangement. Or she will have to move to the suburbs to get some land she could call her own.
Frankly
[quote]a city works well or does not work well based on an interconnected web of social, demographic, geographic and economic subsystems. You have to tend to them all.[/quote]
Another point of agreement. Where we disagree is on which aspects are being neglected and which we should emphasize. Yes, we have economic difficulties. However, a large portion of that was caused by the recession and by some bad decisions made with regard to expenditures. On this we probably agree. However, I see that public health has been at least since the 50’s largely subordinated to a culture of the private automobile and to rapid and at times largely unplanned development. I realize that you are not advocating for this approach.
However, until you are willing to articulate exactly what your approach is rather than more of the same, with every changing names such as “power center” or “innovation park” you probably will continue to meet opposition that would not be there if we were to openly, honestly, and yes, quantitatively rather than emotively discuss our positions from the outset rather than late in the game.
Robb
Thanks so much for posting this. I had seen it and actually referenced it earlier, but could not find it when I was looking for it earlier this morning. While we obviously cannot become Gronigen, I think they embody many concepts that we could incorporate to improve our quality of life overall.
[i] Yes, we have economic difficulties. However, a large portion of that was caused by the recession and by some bad decisions made with regard to expenditures.[/i]
Yes and no.
We still take in 35% less in tax revenue than the average California city. And considering our affluence and lifestyle demands, we should be at the top of the list for revenue per capita.
Our economic difficulties are a direct result of our failure to grow our business and retail sectors, and our failures to control our spending and expense commitments. The recession was a correction of a false economic situation that made us all think we could weather the economic storms we were creating with our selfish pursuits to keep Davis from changing by limiting economic investment and growth. But now we know better. Yet some are still stuck on demanding that old model as if some miracle will occur later to pull us out of the fiscal hole we keep digging deeper.
[quote]They can either be brought in early in an effort to form some sort of consensus, or they can come in late and simply use their power of numbers to “block everything,” as the commenter puts it, when it comes to a vote.[/quote]
I say let the slow growers and “Nimbies” plan the project, then bring the developer in at the end to fight for the “goodies” it wants.
To clarify Measure R. Is the vote to allow development on peripheral land, or to actually incorporated said land into the city?
[quote]Our economic difficulties are a direct result of our failure to grow our business and retail sectors, and our failures to control our spending and expense commitments[/quote]
Can you give me an example of how we have failed to grow our retail sector? From my unscientific observations it seems that our retail sector has grown a lot over the past 20 years that I’ve lived in Davis. Is their specific examples of something we’ve done to limit specifically retail growth?
[i]Can you give me an example of how we have failed to grow our retail sector?[/i]
Come on B. Nice. Do you really think that our city of 65,500 or so people with a great number of them being highly affluent has the average amount of retail?
From the government census data, Davis has retail sales of about $7700 per capita. The average for the state is about $12,500 per capita. Palo Alto for example (another town of about the same population with a prestigious university) generates $26,700 per capita.
Go here to check it all out: [url]http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0655282.html[/url]
Davis and Woodland are basically reversed with respect to reliance on property tax vs. sales tax.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Of course, Woodland has a sales tax rate that is 0.25% higher than Davis.
Davis 2011-12
Property tax:$14,829,182
Sales tax: $8,279, 385
Woodland 2011-12
Property tax: $8,773,000
Sales tax: $15,165,000
Frankly, my question was actually a question (not one of my snarky commentaries masked as a question). I can think of specific examples of the community blocking housing developments. The only backlash against retail development in recent history I can think of is Target. Has there been any other action taken to specifically block retail development? Again from observation it seems a lot of retail development has occurred in the past 20 years.
B. Nice – it is measures J and R and the history of a city council elected by the well-connected wealthy no-changers that has led to very limited retail development over the decades. We have fallen far behind all other communities including those that are considered equally nice to live in.
I made the comment at one point that we are not Carmel, but there are well off people in this town attempting to control growth just like we are Carmel. They seem to look at our surrounding brown fields as needing protection similar to coastal lands.
So, what do you think of a power center shopping developing on 113 on the north-west corner of Davis? I estimate it would increase Davis’s annual sales tax and property tax revenue by about $1 million.
Just to see what a 0.25% sales tax increase would do, multiply $8,279,385 x 1.25 to see what our revenues would have been in 2011.
[quote]Has there been any other action taken to specifically block retail development?[/quote]
Other than Second Street Crossing (Target), nobody has proposed any other retail development that I’m aware of in the last couple of decades. Our General Plan doesn’t allow for regional shopping centers. I affirms the primacy of the downtown and the neighborhood shopping centers. A “power mall” (just new jargon for a peripheral mall) would violate our General Plan, so if there is actually such a proposal out there it would have to follow an update of the General Plan.
[quote]So, what do you think of a power center shopping developing on 113 on the north-west corner of Davis? [/quote]
And, more to the point and the topic at hand, that is one of the sites under consideration for a business park.
[quote]So, what do you think of a power center shopping developing on 113 on the north-west corner of Davis?[/quote]
I don’t know, because I’m not sure what you mean by “power center shopping development”. How is it different from the 2nd St. crossing? Also what kind of additional retail would you like to see in Davis?
[quote]And, more to the point and the topic at hand, that is one of the sites under consideration for a business park.[/quote]
So what would generate more revenue at business park or a power center shopping development?
[quote]Just to see what a 0.25% sales tax increase would do, multiply $8,279,385 x 1.25 to see what our revenues would have been in 2011. The answer: $2,069,846, and we would have the same sales tax rate as Woodland.[/quote]
Yeah, but Woodland still gives plastic bags away for free, so that might need to be considered into these calculations.
What generates the most revenue per acre is multi-story mixed-use buildings downtown. [url]http://bettercities.net/article/best-bet-tax-revenue-mixed-use-downtown-development-13144[/url]
[i]So what would generate more revenue at business park or a power center shopping development?[/i]
It depends.
Apparently the IKEA power center bring in $4-5 million per year for West Sac.
I understand that the average regional shopping mall will bring in $1-$2 million per year.
But Mori Seiki supplies a full 1% of Davis’s property tax and I think the same percentage of sales tax. It is not a very large property, so if you consider a business park with several Mori Seikis… with some being much larger… well it seems obvious that city would collect plenty of tax revenue to stop the bleeding and start building a reserve.
So, let’s say we take Don’s approach and tax everyone another quarter of a cent for every dollar they spend. Of course it does not sound like much. If Don’s calculation is correct, it amounts to about $30 per year per resident. That is not a big deal for me. But what about those families barely making enough to get by. What about the students? It is $30 on top of the other federal and state tax increases we have been hit with. It is just more piling on. What it means is less discretionary money left at the end of the month. For a low income family on a budget, that might kill that one pizza dinner they get to go to every month. It might be the difference for the family being able to afford to send their child to the dentist. Or maybe they decide that they have to skip buying toothpaste this month.
And why would we do this? We would do it because Democrats have given away the city treasury to the public employee unions that helped them get elected and stay in power. In Davis we would do this so that we don’t have anything blocking our views of brown fields as we drive out of town to shop.
Not good enough reasons in my book.
Frankly: every community around us charges higher sales tax. All of your arguments about poor students and low income families and discretionary income apply in equal measures to Woodland and all of our neighboring communities. They use it for services for their constituents.
You frequently accuse open space advocates of extremism, of being dogmatic and uncompromising. But if you truly believe we have a budget crisis, then you will not rule out a revenue source. If you do, it is clearly due to ideological extremism and an unwillingness to compromise.
You often like to mention that you go to other towns to shop. Has the higher sales tax in those towns given you pause? Does it make you reconsider your shopping decisions?
I have stated before that our budget situation probably requires short-term tax increases as well as moderate economic development on peripheral properties. You only want to do one of those things. That makes you an extremist.
Raising the sales tax is an easy, short-term way to increase our revenues, but it will be a drop in the bucket for what we need to make the budget sustainable in the long run. In addition, increasing sales tax, or adding some other new tax to cover our deficit, will disproportionately impact the less affluent in the community as they are the ones who will have the most difficulty paying the new taxes. Economic development on the other hand, increases property tax revenues, sales tax revenues and provides more jobs for the community, without having a disproportionate negative impact of the less affluent. In short, economic development will put money into the community, whereas increasing taxes and fees will do the opposite.
[quote]In Davis we would do this so that we don’t have anything blocking our views of brown fields as we drive out of town to shop.[/quote]
To be fair, it’s not about blocking views.
[i]every community around us charges higher sales tax.[/i]
But they all have much lower housing costs.
And they have more discount shops.
Still, do I support it in those communities? No.
One way to look at it. It was the very people that most contributed to the overspending that are now going to make our most disadvantaged neighbors carry a larger burden of paying for it.
Our fiscal problems were caused by long-term problems, and we need long-term solutions. Temporary tax increase also have the effect of allowing politicians to paint rosier pictures so they can give away more things that gets paid back with votes. That is how we got into this mess in the first place. Raising taxes will just cause more kicking the can down the road.
If we start building one or two business parks today, and start working with the university and other groups like SARTA and SACTO to help attract good companies to them, we will fix our fiscal problems in 5-10 years… permanently. And at that point we still risk having politicians giving away more than we take in. But my guess is that our political demographics have shifted and will continue to shift to more fiscal conservatism… and the unions are not going to win that game again.
[i]To be fair, it’s not about blocking views.[/i]
To be frank ly, it absolutely is for many that are hell-bent on open-space preservation.
And I get it.
But let’s be honest.
[quote]Economic development on the other hand, increases property tax revenues, sales tax revenues and provides more jobs for the community, without having a disproportionate negative impact of the less affluent. In short, economic development will put money into the community, whereas increasing taxes and fees will do the opposite. [/quote]
What kind of economic development are you suggesting? I don’t think most people are against development, but I think people are concerned about what type of development we allow, and where we locate this development. The wrong type in the wrong locations could have negative economic impacts on the city.
[i]The wrong type in the wrong locations could have negative economic impacts on the city[/i]
I don’t get this. Please explain.
Note that we are not talking about gravel mining or a coal-fired power plant.
[quote]And why would we do this? We would do it because Democrats have given away the city treasury to the public employee unions that helped them get elected and stay in power.[/quote]
I’m trying to get a better understanding of the city’s finical troubles, so the following is not an attempt to push any personal agenda. If the city treasury had not been “given away to the public employee unions”, would it have a stable economic budget, or have other factors significantly contributed to our current financial woes.
[quote]Raising the sales tax is an easy, short-term way to increase our revenues, but it will be a drop in the bucket for what we need to make the budget sustainable in the long run. In addition, increasing sales tax, or adding some other new tax to cover our deficit, will disproportionately impact the less affluent in the community as they are the ones who will have the most difficulty paying the new taxes. Economic development on the other hand, increases property tax revenues, sales tax revenues and provides more jobs for the community, without having a disproportionate negative impact of the less affluent. In short, economic development will put money into the community, whereas increasing taxes and fees will do the opposite. [/quote]
I agree. We should raise the sales tax for 3 – 5 years, with voter renewal required at that point, and begin the process of developing some of the business park sites identified by the Innovation Park Task Force. Under any conditions it is going to take a couple of years to run a Measure R vote, annex the land, develop it. I can’t see any revenues coming into the city from economic development in less than 2 – 3 years, even from Nishi. So a sales tax would bridge the financial shortfall. If the voters then choose to renew it, as Woodland voters have done, then they’ve decided they don’t find the extra 0.25% as onerous as Frankly seems to think they would.
I see a sales tax increase as a stalling tool for the open-spacers.
[quote]To be fair, it’s not about blocking views.
To be frank ly, it absolutely is for many that are hell-bent on open-space preservation.
And I get it.
But let’s be honest.[/quote]
“Scenic vistas” are only one component of open space preservation. There are others, and for most people the others are probably of equal or greater importance: wildlife habitat, conserving prime ag soil, protecting riparian sites, etc.
[quote]The wrong type in the wrong locations could have negative economic impacts on the city [/quote]
Different types of development cause differing impacts on city services required, ranging from infrastructure to safety personnel.
[i]would it have a stable economic budget, or have other factors significantly contributed to our current financial woes.[/i]
It would be stable.
The financial collapse certainly pounded pension funds. But the projections for returns where based on assumptions that were too aggressive to begin with.
And economies are always cyclical… we always have recessions. Always have and always will.
Even if this recession had been milder and we had not lost 35% in all the investment market, we would still be heading toward insolvency. We had been talking about these trends well before 2008. We could see almost 20 years ago that the compensation an benefits we were paying and committing to the members of our government employees was leading us to unsustainable finances. Yet we did do much to turn it back. In fact, Democrats kept adding more goodies.
Police and fire in Davis cost us over 50% of our entire general fund budget. That trend is increasing. CalPERS keeps asking the city for more money to fund retirees and future retirees pensions and healthcare costs. The City has already cut staffing down to levels we had about 15 years ago… even though we have more people. In 5-6 years the city will have burned through our reserves. We are short $60-70MM on our road maintenance fund. The list goes on.
[quote]I see a sales tax increase as a stalling tool for the open-spacers.[/quote]
Any balanced budget approach will look at revenues and expenses. Sales tax is one of our important revenue sources. Refusal to consider it is an extreme, uncompromising position.
“[i]What kind of economic development are you suggesting[/i]?”
I think it would be reasonable to assume that I am referring to the AgTech Innovation park proposal that has been the subject of several recent articles and hundreds of comments (some of them yours) over the past few weeks, but from an economic point of view it doesn’t really matter. Economic development is the only long-term solution to our problems.
Don wants us to increase our sales tax rate by a quarter of a percent, and he presents the idea as if it will take care of most of the problem, advocating for increasing taxes and ‘moderate’ economic development. Raising the sales tax rate will perhaps bring in $2-3 million more this next year, and while that amount isn’t chicken feed, it is only a small fraction of the $20+ million that we need to find this year to cover just the first installment of the $100+ million in deferred road maintenance costs that we owe.
I don’t think the community has been given a complete picture of the total extent of our budget deficit, but if we look only at road maintenance it should be clear to all that raising taxes is not the answer. The question we should be asking is how many more ‘Mori Seki sized’ businesses do we need to balance the budget? Whatever that number is should be the minimum starting goal for any discussion of our economic development needs.
[quote]The wrong type in the wrong locations could have negative economic impacts on the city
I don’t get this. Please explain.
[/quote]
When when we bought our first house we made the decision to pay ALOT more for one in Davis, instead of one in any of the surrounding communities we had to choose from. A lot of people have done the same. We pay more to live in Davis for reasons. Because we live in Davis, we shop in Davis, we go out to eat in Davis, we pay higher property taxes because houses are worth more. I don’t want bad development decisions made for the purposes of fixing our budget problems to change what Davis is, and what makes it such a desirable place for people to live.
[i]Different types of development cause differing impacts on city services required, ranging from infrastructure to safety personnel[/i]
Infrastructure costs are part of the business park development… one that will return net revenue to the city. I can’t even understand your point unless you are talking about the costs. And if that is what you are talking about, then what it really means is you are concerned that some business might not bring in as much revenue to the city as others because that revenue is offset with higher costs.
That being the case, we would want a diversity of business types… some giant cash cows, and some baby cash cows. But ALL of them should be net-positive revenue producers… because that is what business does… seeks revenue.
Some business parks are void of all but the basic infrastructure and the businesses have to contribute to funding it and developing it.
More often cities are developing a more “plug and play” style park where there are even some structures for lease… and all the infrastructure is developed and the sites are ready to build.
It takes an investment but assuming the park is occupied, there is always a good return on that investment.
If you are worried about environmental impacts, well rest assured that it is highly unlikely this day and age that any company can hurt the environment with all the regulations they must comply with. We could not have a Court Galvanizing here today.
[quote]It would be stable.[/quote]
[quote]We could see almost 20 years ago that the compensation an benefits we were paying and committing to the members of our government employees was leading us to unsustainable finances.[/quote]
I understand that the city has re-negotiationed most of it’s compensation packages. Do these new packages in seem fiscally manageable in the long term? If so, couldn’t a temporary sales tax help pay for the current deficits caused by past benefit packages, putting us back into a stable position down the road?
[quote]Don wants us to increase our sales tax rate by a quarter of a percent, and he presents the idea as if it will take care of most of the problem, advocating for increasing taxes and ‘moderate’ economic development.[/quote]
No, sales tax would take care of part of the problem while we wait for economic development revenues to come in. I’d be curious how quickly typical business parks get filled.
[quote]The question we should be asking is how many more ‘Mori Seki sized’ businesses do we need to balance the budget? Whatever that number is should be the minimum starting goal for any discussion of our economic development needs.[/quote]
If Mori Seiki is, in fact, providing 1% of our property and sales taxes, then based on 2011 numbers that is about $150,000 in property taxes and about $83,000 in sales taxes. So that one company is providing about $233,000 to Davis.
Based on Google Earth, they occupy about 10 – 12 acres of land. So a 200 acre site such as Ramos/Bruner, using 50% of it for building sites, could fit about 8 – 10 Mori Seiki-size businesses. Basically another $2 million in revenues. Lots of variables, obviously.
Develop a similar-size site near the hospital and you get another $2 million in revenues.
Here is David’s graphic from an April 2012 article on the road maintenance issue:
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/images/stories/road-maintenance-cost-2.png[/url]
The proposal then was for funding $2 – 3.5 million annually to reduce the maintenance backlog.
As noted, a sales tax increase would take care of much of that while we wait for business development to begin to produce revenues on the ITF-identified sites.
Really, what all this shows me is the importance of what Robb Davis has asked: show us the numbers for different iterations of business parks at the various ITF sites.
So Don, to use your numbers, we would need roughly 400 acres of business park development just to cover the backlog in road maintenance cost, without any consideration of our unfunded employee compensation, health care and pensions, plus the increased costs for City’s water and waste water use, and the restoration of services that have been or will soon be cut to deal with the immediate crisis. I suspect that if we got rid of the smoke and mirrors in our budget numbers and totaled all the real costs, we would need closer to 1000 acres of development over the next 20 years to have a chance of creating a sustainable economic future. That sounds like Leland Ranch/Ramos, Nishi and Northwest quadrant combined.
And you know very well that isn’t going to happen. So let’s be realistic about budget numbers, actual likelihood of annexation and successful Measure R votes, and plan accordingly. We’re not going to annex and build on 1,000 acres, nor should we.
Also, some actual numbers from staff would be helpful.
[quote]So Don, to use your numbers, we would need roughly 400 acres of business park development just to cover the backlog in road maintenance cost, [/quote]
Or 200 acres plus a 0.25% sales tax increase, each generating about $2 million per year.
The road backlog is serious. In the May 21, 2013 Staff report we read:
[i]Staff recommends the scenario for streets to be the one that targets a PCI for the different classifications, Scenario B-Mod (PCI Goals with front-end loading). For bike paths, Staff recommends Scenario A, maintaining the unfunded backlog. This results in the average PCI of the paths increasing to 67 at the end of 20 years.
[/i]
If I am reading the table correctly Scenario B-Mod for streets and Scenario A for bike paths works out like this (but there is something off because these numbers do not add up to what staff says is needed in the first two years):
[i]PCI in 2032: Streets 63, Bike Paths 69
2014 Funding: Streets $9.7 million, Bike Paths $140,000
2015 Funding: Streets $6.5 Million, Bike Paths $230,000
Years 3-20 Average Funding: Streets $7.6 million, Bike Paths $708,000
Total Funding 20 years: Streets $153 million, Bike Paths $13M
Backlog in 2032: Streets $110 million, Bike Paths $1.6M[/i]
SOMEONE PLEASE correct me but I think the CC voted to accept the recommendation BUT, I don’t think that the means of funding this has been decided yet. Staff is to return this fall with with [i]an update on the long-term pavement maintenance budgeting plan with contracts for Design and Public Outreach Consultants for next fiscal year’s Pavement Maintenance project.[/i]
Even if a park gets designed, approved by voters, and built, we have no guarantee that it will fill up quickly. We have the advantage of some home-grown firms that want space here, but that doesn’t get the place to capacity quickly. Redding built a business park in 2008 that is still struggling: [url]http://www.redding.com/news/2012/aug/18/stillwater-contract-up-for-renewal-as-lots-empty/?print=1[/url]
Recession, location, other factors are likely part of the problem. But I think that for the City of Davis to bank on revenues from a business park before about 2016 -17 or so would be irresponsible. Hence the need for a reliable revenue stream before then, assuming you and the voters all agree that we have a serious budget problem.
Personally, and I hope I am not alone in thinking this, I am waiting to see what revenue growth scenarios staff is going to bring before the CC that will cover short-, medium- and long-term needs (including infrastructure backlogs and the growing burden of employee benefits).
This may include a short-term tax (sales tax?) increase with projections on what business development on ITF-proposed sites would yield over a 5-10 year period (using the new fiscal model as a basis and making assumptions about the types of businesses we are likely to attract).
We should all keep in mind that any tax increase as well as any business development on peripheral ag land will require votes of the population (2/3 majority in all cases). So… we will ALL have a say. CC is going to have to be united in moving any of this forward BECAUSE it will need to collectively convince the population of the importance of the actions to be taken. This is not going to be easy but it will have to be done.
Don Shor: “And you know very well that isn’t going to happen.”
Why? I agree it won’t happen today, but I don’t see it as an unreasonable number for the next 20-40 years. I expect it will happen sooner as we voters begin to fully understand just how underwater our budget currently is. Look at Robb’s numbers above for just the roads and it isn’t hard to figure out that we are grossly underestimating how much we need to increase our revenues to meet our needs today, let alone those of the future.
The no-growth crowd has put us in a huge hole by failing to expand our economic base these past 20-40 years. Time for a change in direction.
It is very clear.
If ya’ll want repaired roads, nice and plentiful bike paths and pretty parks and acres of green spaces… ya’ll will need to allow business development… lots of business development.
And probably a regional shopping center too.
Better get started. Stop with the silly ag easement crusade and start building parks and recruiting business like the rest of the world does.
We will be fine.
We will be better.
If our surrounding farm land is so important, how about a Carneros Inn style resort right smack in the middle of one of those parcels overlooking the causeway.
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/carnerosinn.jpg[/img]
You think I am kidding?
[quote]You think I am kidding?[/quote]
Views of the causeway may not be so appealing.
[quote]Stop with the [s]silly [/s]ag easement crusade and start building parks and recruiting business [s]like the rest of the world does. [/quote][/s]
I crossed out the word I don’t like. First “silly” I give up, second, I don’t want to be like the rest of the world which is why I bought a house in Davis (and paid a lot more for it then other I would other places in the world.)
To the rest, why can’t we do both?
[i]Views of the causeway may not be so appealing[/i]
Hee hee. I guess you do know that I was kidding.
How about turned the other way looking at our marvelous shining city without a hill?
It is funny though. People said that the Carneros Inn people were crazy putting that $600/night resort hotel right in the middle of a brown field and pretty far away from other services.
I only got to stay there for a few nights on someone else’s dime, but it is a marvelous property. I wonder what class soil it was built on? I see grapes and other crops all around it.
[quote]And probably a regional shopping center too. [/quote]
I’m curious about what you think this would look like.
[i]I crossed out the word I don’t like. First “silly” I give up, second, I don’t want to be like the rest of the world which is why I bought a house in Davis (and paid a lot more for it then other I would other places in the world.)[/i]
I paid a lot for my house too… and I think more shopping, more sit-down and served restaurants, more hotel and meeting space, more young professionals, more kids, more jobs, more tax revenue, more UCD success and advancement… is worth more traffic… which frankly is the only TRUE negative lifestyle impact I can honestly factor.
I think what could be sold to the voters of Davis, who have a very clear, provable, long history of slow-growth preference, would be
— if revenues aren’t increased, the condition of the roads will get poorer over time, and the backlog of maintenance will increase. So a special tax increase dedicated to that, over five years, would improve road quality and reduct the backlog.
— if revenues aren’t increased over the long run, the budget will not be sustainable during periods of economic downturn. So revenues from a business park or two, which will take several years to materialize, will help the Davis economy and budget over the next decade.
Those would require 2 – 4 votes: a sales tax increase, a Measure R vote on Nishi, and Measure R votes on one east Davis and one northwest Davis business park.
Even those Measure R votes are not close to guaranteed outcomes. You need more than just business boosters and hard-line high-growth conservatives talking it up. And you won’t get that if you disparage people and their motivations, overstate the severity of the fiscal problems, and refuse to consider all the options.
[i]I’m curious about what you think this would look like.[/i]
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/mall1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/mall2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/depot.jpg[/img]
[i]overstate the severity of the fiscal problems[/i]
Who is overstating the severity of the fiscal problems?
I think you are understating them.
And I think you are overstating the need for farmland preservation.
And I think you are overstating the need for open space.
And I think you are understating the amount of land already preserved.
And I think you are overstating negative impacts from business growth… including peripheral retail.
In fact, I think you routinely overstate and understate as part of your normal shtick.
But I don’t think anyone has overstated our fiscal problems.
The fact that you would post that is curious. Do you really not think our fiscal problems are not serious?
[quote]I’m curious about what you think this would look like. [/quote]
First impression, no one would ever go downtown again. And we’d have to nix the home depot.
I do like the pedestrian feel to it. Ideally I would really like to see something like this downtown, or at least more centrally located.
[quote]I paid a lot for my house too… and I think more shopping, more sit-down and served restaurants, more hotel and meeting space, more young professionals, more kids, more jobs, more tax revenue, more UCD success and advancement… is worth more traffic… which frankly is the only TRUE negative lifestyle impact I can honestly factor.[/quote]
I think we can have all this, and open space around the periphery.
[i]I think we can have all this, and open space around the periphery.[/i]
I certainly agree. But how much? Remember we already have 5000 acres secured.
If you are talking about all, or even most, peripheral land being locked up, then I think we will not succeed in the improvements I listed.
[i]First impression, no one would ever go downtown again. And we’d have to nix the home depot[/i]
I doubt that, but the downtown would have to work on revitalization.
No nixing the Home Depot.
You know you already drive to Woodland to shop there.
By the way, I am heading there right now to purchase a bunch of wood that I need for this weekend… doing home remodeling projects and teaching my son how to build himself a coffee table. It would be nice, B. Nice, to keep those tax dollars in Davis.
Don Shor: “[i]And you won’t get that if you disparage people and their motivations, overstate the severity of the fiscal problems, and refuse to consider all the options.[/i]”
We also won’t get there if the opponents continue to understate the severity of the problem, disparage the proponents as “hard-line high-growth conservatives” and ignore the reality of our situation.
I don’t hear any of the proponents of economic development refusing to consider all the options. I hear people saying we should look at every option, including all of the assets that we currently have. You on the other hand want to ignore one of the best options we have by locking the land away in an ag easement.
Frankly wrote:
> However, you would need to show me a city with a dense
> commercial and residential core that does not have auto
> traffic congestion up the wazoo.
Then Robb wrote:
> Groningen–pop 200,000, 25,000 students, density 6000/
> square mile. Check out the video.http://www.outsideonline.com/n…um=xmlfeed
Frankly wrote:
> However, you would need to show me a city with a dense
> commercial and residential core that does not have auto
> traffic congestion up the wazoo.
Then Robb wrote:
> Groningen–pop 200,000, 25,000 students, density 6000/
> square mile. Check out the video.http://www.outsideonline.com/n…um=xmlfeed
It is great to ride a bike in Groningen (and Amsterdam) but it sucks to drive a car there (even with a Euro chip in the Garmin GPS), worse than almost anywhere in the US (but not as bad as Rome)…
[quote]No nixing the Home Depot. [/quote]
I’ll trade you a Costco.
[quote]disparage the proponents as “hard-line high-growth conservatives”[/quote]
First time I’ve done that, and I did it for a reason. Sit down with your friend Frankly sometime and explain to him that, in terms of advancing his beliefs, he is his own worst enemy.
There is not going to be a peripheral retail center unless you do a major revision of the General Plan. And there won’t be a Home Depot.
Don Shor: “[i]First time I’ve done that[/i]”
First time you have used that particular (mis)characterization, but by no means the first time you have disparaged those who disagree with you.
What Frankly says is his issue, not mine, and you are the one trying to preclude options you don’t like, not me.
[quote]you are the one trying to preclude options you don’t like, not me. [/quote]
I have called for a balanced approach including conservation, temporary taxes, and development. I am unaware of any such proposal from you. I believe Frankly has advocated exclusively for development, opposed conservation, and refuses to consider tax increases.
[i]I have called for a balanced approach including conservation, temporary taxes, and development. I am unaware of any such proposal from you. I believe Frankly has advocated exclusively for development, opposes conservation, and refuses to consider tax increases.[/i]
I want more cuts. In fact I have demanded over and over again that we outlaw public sector unions and take all public sector employees back to market wages and market benefits. Immediately I would increase the retirement age and demand they contribute more to their healthcare and more everyone to defined contribution plans to replace their defined benefit plans.
I have no problem with conservation. I voted for Measure O. We have 5000 acres conserved. I am fine conserving more. I would prefer it is accessible space. I am absolutely 100% against any permanent agriculture easements on any peripheral around Davis. Go out a mile or two, then ok. You seem to mix those two positions up on a regular basis even though I keep repeating myself.
I am 100% against any sales tax increase because it hits the most vulnerable people the hardest, it is a bailout of irresponsible governance and practical theft of our citizen’s hard earned dollars to that were used to pay off the unions for political favors… and lastly… the parties of the left that have ruled our state and federal government have already gone on a tax-raising tear. Young people, for example, are getting reamed by the increase in their healthcare costs from Obamacare.
So you are 2/3 wrong.
I only don’t support tax increases. They are a lazy and damaging solution from the left because they cannot govern.
To put this discussion into a context, here are a few excerpts from the FY 2013-2014 Budget:
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/FY201314GeneralFundFive-yearForecastTable_zps58aabc1c.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/FY201314GeneralFundFive-yearForecastGraph_zpse3535c56.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/FY201314GeneralFundMajorRevenueAssumptions_zps1651acc9.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/FY201314GeneralFundSummary_zpsad2a48a8.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Don Shor said . . .
“Here is David’s graphic from an April 2012 article on the road maintenance issue:
[img]https://davisvanguard.org/images/stories/road-maintenance-cost-2.png[/img]
The proposal then was for funding $2 – 3.5 million annually to reduce the maintenance backlog.
As noted, a sales tax increase would take care of much of that while we wait for business development to begin to produce revenues on the ITF-identified sites.”
I have verified with both Rochelle Swanson (who used the graphic in her Wednesday presentation to the Davis Progressive Business Exchange) and Rob White (who used the graphic in his Tuesday presentation at the Innovation Park Community Forum) that the Budget numbers do not include any of the funding to address the road maintenance issue. So you can add Don’s $2 – 3.5 million annually to the deficit numbers which means the $15.07 million cumulative deficit in FY 2017-2018 rises to between $25 million and $32.5 million.
Given that our entire Sales Tax contribution to Revenue is $9.4 million based on the current 8.75% It would seem that each additional 1.0% added to the 8.75% Sales Tax will net the City $1 million per year. So if we jump the Sales Tax rate to 9.75% the cumulative deficit comes down to as low as $10.07 million (if no streets work is done) or as high as between $20 million and $27.5 million (if the streets maintenance issue is addressed)
Frankly said . . .
[i]”I am 100% against any sales tax increase because it hits the most vulnerable people the hardest.”[/i]
The only tax scheme that is more regressive than sales tax is the lottery.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”Young people, for example, are getting reamed by the increase in their healthcare costs from Obamacare.”[/i]
What we all pay for healthcare is insurance. Young people are not getting reamed. They are simply paying based on their lifetime expectancy of the healthcare benefits that they will receive over their lifetime. Under the current system many, many young people are “rolling the dice” and going without health insurance, and reaping the benefit of not paying premium payments. However, when a catastrophic healthcare event happens to a young person without health insurance the healthcare system provides them the care they require free of charge and then distributes those costs to all the people who do pay for health insurance. That is not comparable to taxes in any way shape or form.
[quote]I have verified with both Rochelle Swanson (who used the graphic in her Wednesday presentation to the Davis Progressive Business Exchange) and Rob White (who used the graphic in his Tuesday presentation at the Innovation Park Community Forum) that the Budget numbers do not include any of the funding to address the road maintenance issue.[/quote]
The city manager’s summary and overview indicates that the 2013/14 budget [quote]Includes $2.3 million for Street Maintenance. This includes $1 million which was originally included in the current year budget.[/quote]
Also notable:
[quote] there may be a need to explore additional revenue sources since the supplemental Sales Tax expires in 2016 and the Parks Maintenance tax expires in 2018. The one-half cent supplemental Sales Tax annually generates approximately $3.7 million and the Parks Maintenance Tax brings in about $1.3 million per year.[/quote]
[quote]The only tax scheme that is more regressive than sales tax is the lottery. [/quote]
Progressive income taxes are not an option for municipalities.
[i]That is not comparable to taxes in any way shape or form.[/i]
It is most certainly another tax. Even our conservative Supreme Court Justice called it a tax as he decided to allow it.
Take those young and healthy young people doing the right thing purchasing high-deducable catostropic policies and they just got stuck with a doubling and trippling of their premiums. Then they drop their coverage and just pay the penalty… or they pay the higher premiums as another tax increase.
Other families with high deducatable policies and those non-union (because all those union benecaftors of the Democrat party got exceptions) high-end policy holders, and picking up the tab as addditional Obamacare tax increases.
[quote]ake those young and healthy young people doing the right thing purchasing high-deducable catostropic policies and they just got stuck with a doubling and trippling of their premiums.[/quote]
The overwhelming majority of them are subsidized for a very large percentage of their premium.
We will have to agree to disagree Frankly. The problem isn’t the young who are choosing high deductible policies, it is the young choosing to have no coverage at all.
[quote]Obamacare mandates are already forcing many colleges and universities to drop student insurance completely or reduce benefits extended to employee spouses, as the University of Virginia recently did.
A letter sent to parents of students at Indiana’s Taylor University this summer explains the school had to choose between dropping student insurance coverage completely or raising premiums by about 110 percent (from $430 to $946 annually for U.S. students). Taylor chose the former, explaining in writing that the private school’s insurance premium costs would rise even higher after the 2013-14 school year.[/quote]
[quote]Today, the Manhattan Institute released the most comprehensive analysis yet conducted of premiums under Obamacare for people who shop for coverage on their own. Here’s what we learned. In the average state, Obamacare will increase underlying premiums by 41 percent. As we have long expected, the steepest hikes will be imposed on the healthy, the young, and the male. And Obamacare’s taxpayer-funded subsidies will primarily benefit those nearing retirement—people who, unlike the young, have had their whole lives to save for their health-care needs.[/quote]
[url]http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2013/what-will-obamacare-cost-you-map.html[/url]
Don Shor
[i]”The city manager’s summary and overview indicates that the 2013/14 budget Includes $2.3 million for Street Maintenance. This includes $1 million which was originally included in the current year budget.”[/i]
That is correct Don, and [u]that $2.3 million does not address the deferred maintenance backlog[/u] that was recently presented to Council. Council has agreed that the problem has an aggregate capital expenditure value of between $25 million and $55 million, but as yet they have not come to any decision about how to fund that $25 million to $55 million. The likely method will be to sell bonds, and the annual debt service on $55 million of bonds at 5% interest is $3.543 million and on $25 million is $1.610 million.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Progressive income taxes are not an option for municipalities.”[/i]
The property taxes paid by Mori Seiki are not regressive. If the City used a Special Assessment District Levy as a method for extracting the liquid value of the real estate appreciation of land it currently owns, that would not be regressive.
A tax does not have to be progressive in order to not be regressive.
The problems you are citing would all go away 100% if we went to a single payer risk pool. The political compromises that are part of the law that was passed have indeed created some of the problems you cite. It is a perfect example of how a half-way measure can often be a half-assed measure.
We would be much better off if we had taken the actuarially wise all-the-way approach.
I have assumed that a Special Assessment District Levy can be applied to any land, whether it is privately or publicly owned. As, for example, the Business Improvement District that funds Davis Downtown. Such a levy could be applied to any of the sites identified by the Innovation Park Task Force.
That is correct, but the revenue extraction from land that the City does not own is significantly less than the revenue extraction from land that the City does own.
[quote]The likely method will be to sell bonds, and the annual debt service on $55 million of bonds at 5% interest is $3.543 million and on $25 million is $1.610 million.[/quote]
Thus, a short-term increase in the sales tax would largely cover this, at least at the lower end of the range.
So your solution is take from the poor and give to the rich?
With that said, currently our 8.75% sales tax rate only results in $9.4 million in City Revenue. That works out to just over $1 million per percentage point because the State takes the lion’s share of Sales Tax revenues and keeps them. Why do you see that kind of skewed fiscal equation as being good for the residents of Davis?
[i]The problems you are citing would all go away 100% if we went to a single payer risk pool.[/i]
Sure Matt. How might THAT technology have worked?
There are only two problems with our health care system in this county:
1. Access for people with pre-existing conditions.
2. Cost.
Here is where we are headed in this country… [url]http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-29/is-concierge-medicine-the-future-of-health-care[/url]
I see a raise in the sales tax as an option that has been applied by nearly every one of our neighboring communities. A 0.25% increase would lead to $1 – 2 million more in revenues for the city each year. I’m not sure what you mean by “skewed fiscal equation.” I thought the goal was to use available means to bring the city’s budget into balance. But I guess we can put you in the ‘no new taxes’ camp.
I think health care is off topic.
Matt: [quote]With that said, currently our 8.75% sales tax rate only results in $9.4 million in City Revenue. That works out to just over $1 million per percentage point because the State takes the lion’s share of Sales Tax revenues and keeps them. Why do you see that kind of skewed fiscal equation as being good for the residents of Davis?[/quote]
Don: [quote]A 0.25% increase would lead to $1 – 2 million more in revenues for the city each year.[/quote]
Just in case others are puzzled by the math and the difference from my prior numbers: our local sales tax is 1%. A raise of 0.25% increases that $9.4 million by $2,350,000 per year. The figures I cited earlier were from a prior budget year; Matt’s figure of $9.4 million is for 2013-14. Retail sales and sales tax have been increasing slowly but steadily.
From Wikipedia
At 7.50%, California has the highest minimum state sales tax in the United States, which can total up to 10.00% with local sales tax included.[1] Some claim that this rate partially compensates for the much reduced property tax revenue brought on by Proposition 13. But others point out that, in most counties (all but the rural counties), property tax revenues today are higher than the year before Prop 13 passed, even after adjusting for inflation and population growth. Sales and use taxes in the state of California are collected by the publicly elected Board of Equalization, whereas income and franchise taxes are collected by the Franchise Tax Board. The statewide 7.50% is allocated as:[2]
7.50% – State + Local
6.50% – State
5.00% – State – General Fund
0.25% – State – Fiscal Recovery Fund
0.50% – State – Local Revenue Fund — distributed to counties for health and welfare responsibilities
0.50% – State – Local Public Safety Fund — distributed to counties and a few cities
0.25% – State – Education Protection Account (Prop 30)
1.00% – Uniform Local Tax
0.25% – Local County – Transportation funds
0.75% – Local City/County – Operational funds — directed to general fund of jurisdiction where sale occurred
0.50% – Supplementary sales tax
So the numbers I provided in my earlier post are now able to be more granularly evaluated. The $9.4 million in Sales Tax Revenue shown in the Budget Graphic appears to b the combination of the 0.75% – Local City/County – Operational funds plus the 0.50% – Supplementary sales tax (set to expire in 2016). The earlier cited quote “The one-half cent supplemental Sales Tax annually generates approximately $3.7 million” is consistent with that.
So is Don’s suggestion appears to be that we raise our sales tax rate to 8.50% for the duration of the 30-year streets maintenance bonds (for the $55 million streets plan) or 8.25% for the duration of the 30-year streets maintenance bonds (for the $25 million streets plan). Is that correct Don?
[quote]Is that correct Don?[/quote]
No. You can go back and read what exactly I said. It wasn’t anything like what you just wrote.
As to specifics, though, I suggest we wait until the city manager does a budget update and see what his revenue suggestions are. Meanwhile, the best thing the ITF can be doing is developing numbers, as Robb Davis has requested, for various options on the different sites. I would put particular emphasis on the 475 acres Mayor Krovoza mentioned in his dissent, since there has been little discussion about those to date.
For the record, the taxes I file on my retail sales are as follows:
State tax 6%
County tax .5%
Local tax 1%
District .5%
Frankly said . . .
[i]”Sure Matt. How might THAT technology have worked?
There are only two problems with our health care system in this county:
1. Access for people with pre-existing conditions.
2. Cost.”[/i]
Actually that technology would have worked very well, because it would have been implemented using the existing private sector TPA capabilities, very much the same way that Medicare is implemented. The Feds would only have been involved in calculating the actuarial pool and providing the private sector companies with the cost information for the available plan options.
Your two problems are a good start. But your Cost problem is far too simplistic. You need to drill down into the various components of the Cost issue, for example:
— The amount of money we currently waste on non-covered uncompensated care is astronomical. $170 million per year at UCDMC alone. $170 million will cover a whole lot of care. That $170 million will no longer be a writeoff for the hospital. And that is $170 million for just one hospital out of thousands.
— Think about all the totally wasted and wasteful money that insurance companies spend on marketing and sales. All those hundreds of millions (dare I say billions) of dollars would be redirected into paying for preventative care.
— In a single payer system the number of billing and collections personnel that work for hospitals would be halved.
— In a single payer system the number of claims adjudication personnel that work for insurance companies would be halved.
— In a single payer system virtually all the financial analysis department personnel in hospitals and supporting physicians groups would be eliminated and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent thereon redirected into care.
— In a single payer system virtually all the financial analysis department personnel in insurance companies would be eliminated and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent thereon redirected into care.
— In a single payer system you would wipe out a whole cadre of unnecessary middle managers. In essence the parasites sucking the life out of care giving would move on to other industries.
When I came into healthcare in the early 80’s, administrative overhead was in the 8-10% range. Now it is in the vicinity of or above 20%. The waste is mind boggling, and all of that waste goes directly into the cost of healthcare that is passed on to you and me.
Don Shor
[i]”No. You can go back and read what exactly I said. It wasn’t anything like what you just wrote.”[/i]
Help me along Don. The annual debt service on the streets maintenance bonds will last for 30 years. Doesn’t that mean that your local sales tax solution for paying that annual debt service will also have to last for 30 years?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”For the record, the taxes I file on my retail sales are as follows:
State tax 6%
County tax .5%
Local tax 1%
District .5%”[/i]
Your numbers and the numbers I posted from the Wikipedia breakdown are identical. The labels are slightly different.
Your State tax 6% is the sum of Wikipedia’s 5.00% – State – General Fund, 0.25% – State – Fiscal Recovery Fund, 0.50% – State – Local Revenue Fund, and 0.25% – State – Education Protection Account (Prop 30))
Your District tax .5% is Wikipedia’s 0.50% – State – Local Public Safety Fund
Your County tax .5% is the sum of Wikipedia’s 0.25% – Local County – Transportation funds and 0.25% of the 0.75% – Local City/County – Operational funds
Your Local tax 1% is the sum 0.5% of Wikipedia’s 0.75% – Local City/County – Operational funds plus the 0.50% – Supplementary sales tax that expires in 2016.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”– if revenues aren’t increased, the condition of the roads will get poorer over time, and the backlog of maintenance will increase. So a special tax increase dedicated to that,[b] over five years[/b], would improve road quality and reduce the backlog. “[/i]
Don, like you asked I have gone back to find what you posted and have quoted it herein. if you were a Davis voter how would you reconcile the difference between what you have said, “… over five years” and what the debt service reality is “…over thirty years”? Wouldn’t you feel that someone was trying to pull a fast one on the voters?
[quote]So is Don’s suggestion appears to be that we raise our sales tax rate to 8.50% for the duration of the 30-year streets maintenance bonds (for the $55 million streets plan) or 8.25% for the duration of the 30-year streets maintenance bonds (for the $25 million streets plan). Is that correct Don?[/quote]
I didn’t say that, didn’t imply that was what I supported, and consider it a misrepresentation for you to say what you said above.
[quote]Help me along Don. The annual debt service on the streets maintenance bonds will last for 30 years. Doesn’t that mean that your local sales tax solution for paying that annual debt service will also have to last for 30 years? [/quote]
That would depend on the other revenue sources, what happens to the economy, and many other factors. That’s why the actual numbers matter.
I’ll be happy to make an Obamacare thread on the Bulletin Board and move your posts there if you like. It’s an interesting conversation, and will just get lost here, and is rather off topic.
Its a diversion, and only Frankly and I really care about it at this hour, which is well past medwoman’s bed time.
Don Shor said . . .
“So is Don’s suggestion [one that] appears to be that we raise our sales tax rate to 8.50% for the duration of the 30-year streets maintenance bonds (for the $55 million streets plan) or 8.25% for the duration of the 30-year streets maintenance bonds (for the $25 million streets plan). Is that correct Don?
I didn’t say that, didn’t imply that was what I supported, and consider it a misrepresentation for you to say what you said above.”
I wasn’t implying anything. I was asking you a question. You have answered that in your follow-up post when you said, [i]”That would depend on the other revenue sources, what happens to the economy, and many other factors. That’s why the actual numbers matter.”[/i]
The thing I don’t understand is how you expect to get “actual numbers” for years 6 through 30 of the debt service period. We know the actual debt service amount will be the same each and every year for the 30-year period. With your plan, we know that there will be a regressive taxation scheme in years 1 through 5 and then no supplemental sales tax revenue in years 6 through 30. We also know that the deficit run rate is in excess of $5 million in year 5 without the debt service. So my follow-up question to you is, [i]What “actual numbers” are you looking for?[/i]
Mike Harrington: “Staring at my phone …. not.”
Don’t hold your breath Mike. Yes, let’s bring Mike to the table and negotiate with him. Is that what you want? He forced a vote on water and lost then he filed a lawsuit. Of course you think we should negotiate with him and the schools should with Granda too because they can create mischief. Now with measure R we have institutionalized this process but I think if we have continued measure R votes that fail you are going to see reduced services and degraded infrastructure.
Yes let’s bring B. Nice and Medwoman to the table and have them lay out for us what they would accept that would ever pencil out. B Nice seems to think they have done enough just by buying here and paying a premium. Med woman thinks we should build low cost housing in on the highest cost land with the most amenities in existance. As my nimby friend says people should move to Dixon or Woodland because he doesn’t want more people here. So how do you negotiate with people who have no interest in actual solutions.
As for Don Shor and Davis Progressive who are telling me that not kissing their you know whats is going to alienate them, oh well. Let’s put it in prospective you don’t like my opinions and i don’t like yours so now let’s negotiate. Being like oh, I won’t negotiate with you because you insulted me is so immature, its just an excuse not to negotiate. Of course if you bring nothing to the table there is really nothing to negotiate.
By the way I’ve always agreed with developing PG&E. Its just never been in play and until it is there is nothing to negotiate.
“Just because you do not share my vision for growth and change does not mean that I don’t have one.”
Medwoman, this is a very good sentence.
Mr. Toad
[quote]Med woman thinks we should build low cost housing in on the highest cost land with the most amenities in existance. As my nimby friend says people should move to Dixon or Woodland because he doesn’t want more people here. So how do you negotiate with people who have no interest in actual solutions.
[/quote]
Probably about as successfully as people who believe the following are good negotiating positions:
1) Answer to legitimately posed question about real concerns is “I am not worried about that you Nimby”-
Mr.Toad
2) We already have cars, congestion and pollution, so let’s not worry about introducing more of the same.-
Frankly
3) Or my favorite. If you don’t like the only changes that I will accept as “actual solutions”, namely mine, then you should move. – both of the above at various times.
So please tell me why it is that when you are attempting to “to introduce solutions that will inevitably change the very nature of this unique town, and this is your stated goal, and there are already many other communities that fit the description of what you find desirable in fairly close proximity, that I should be the one to move. If anyone should consider moving, should it not be the person who wants that particular form of change ?
Five years ago in a Yolo County leadership meetings we had several conversations about augmenting the sales tax on a county wide basis to cover the needed roadway maintenance given that the federal transportation bills were not being passed. Those federal $’s use to help all cities pay for a large part of roadway maintenance. [ url] http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/fundchrt_files/Transportation_Funding_in_California_2011_rev_050112.pdf#zoom=65 [ /url]
Sales taxes are going up throughout the state to 9% or more in many cases to fund transportation and public safety needs.
[ url] http://www.sale-tax.com/California [ /url]
[ url] http://peisnerjohnson.com/resources/state-sales-tax-rates/#california [ /url]
[i]We already have cars, congestion and pollution, so let’s not worry about introducing more of the same.[/i]
Not quite.
What I have said is that we already have traffic congestion at times and primarily in the core area, but you want to increase density instead of building out. I was simply pointing out the incongruity of your position and arguments, and suggesting that your dislike of existing traffic congestion might be causing some irrational thinking on the topic of growth.
As far as pollution goes, the only thing I can see as being connected with growth is more cars. But pollution from cars is being addressed by auto emissions standards and hybrids. You don’t need to worry so much about that.
The point about moving was simply related to the point that you made that you want Davis to go backwards in time to be smaller. If you are not 100% happy with the existing size of Davis, then it makes perfect sense to ask why you live here and somewhere with a smaller population.
Note your own words meds, you are saying that growth will change the nature of the town. So it is clear you are operating from a position of change aversion. Not all change is bad, and you can’t prevent change from happening. You will waste a lot of energy putting up that fight that should be better used helping to optimize the change that is inevitable.
[i]fund transportation and public safety needs.[/i]
Let’s be clear about this. It is to fund the gross over-payment of public safety union labor. The needs of the public are just being starved as leverage for perpetuating that standard of gross over-payment.
But the idiot public votes for these tax increases. I guess they like making millionaires out of police and fire employees.
Stephen Souza said . . .
[i]”Five years ago in a Yolo County leadership meetings we had several conversations about augmenting the sales tax on a county wide basis to cover the needed roadway maintenance given that the federal transportation bills were not being passed. Those federal $’s use to help all cities pay for a large part of roadway maintenance.
Sales taxes are going up throughout the state to 9% or more in many cases to fund transportation and public safety needs.”[/i]
Steve, glad to see your voice added to this discussion. Here’s hoping you join in on many other discussions on a regular basis.
With that said, the fact that jurisdictions throughout the State are raising sales taxes to pay for transportation does not change the fact that sales taxes are regressive taxes that place a much heavier burden on the poor than the rich. They are Robin Hood in the reverse.
Increasing our gasoline taxes to fund transportation needs is a much more appropriate nexus.
Frankly
[quote]The point about moving was simply related to the point that you made that you want Davis to go backwards in time to be smaller. If you are not 100% happy with the existing size of Davis, then it makes perfect sense to ask why you live here and somewhere with a smaller population.
Note your own words meds, you are saying that growth will change the nature of the town. So it is clear you are operating from a position of change aversion. Not all change is bad, and you can’t prevent change from happening. You will waste a lot of energy putting up that fight that should be better used helping to optimize the change that is inevitable.[/quote]
Not quite Frankly. This is typical of your misrepresentations of my positions. What I said, and clarified several times in different posts is that my preference would have been that the population not exceed 50,000. I have never said that I want Davis to go back or shrink. It is ridiculous to attempt to make impossible change regardless of one’s preference. But I do think that this nicely makes that point that once growth has occurred, it will not be rolled back. Therefore, each major change must be made very carefully and thoughtfully with all points of view considered.
Now about my own words that growth will change the nature of the town. This is a true statement. However, it is not synonymous with me saying I do not accept change. I would like to see a lot of changes. The type of reconsideration of how we organize transportation , shopping, and the basic structure of our lives with Robb’s clip of Gronigen as one specific example of the type of change that I would not only embrace, but actively promote. Likewise I would like to see health and safety as basic premises of future developments rather than the current model which seems to be the developer makes a proposal and then the considerations start with regard to EIRs and the like. How is that for change ?
Another question for you in your own words. If you are not 100% happy with the existing size of Davis and would prefer a larger population, it makes perfect sense to ask you why you live here instead of somewhere that already has a larger population ? I suspect that answer for both of us would be because we love Davis, have established roots and don’t want to move. But it is you that is pushing for traditional types of change.
Nothing that you are suggesting is innovative within the United States. What you are suggesting is simply more of the same under the guise of updated names which you then label as innovation.
Again an example from my profession. Like all of the assistant chiefs, I frequently come up with ideas for changes suggested by the physicians in my small group. The chief, doing her job appropriately prior to accepting the idea wants to know specifics:
1. Is it safe and superior to what we are doing now ?
2. What value will the change add ?
3. What will it cost in financial terms ?
4. Is there a less expensive or disruptive way of achieving the same goal ?
5. What are the less tangible advantages and disadvantages in terms of satisfaction for all stakeholders,
patients, doctors, nurses, office staff ?
6. What effects positive and negative will it have on other departments and support teams ?
7. Will it get accepted by the higher administrative levels ?
If there are concerns within the administrative team about any of these impacts, our model is to work through them one at a time until everyone is able to support the change. This is a slow and painstaking process. However, we learned early on in my tenure on the team that if the 7 member administrative cannot unanimously support a major change, it needs more work.
I would like to see the same collaborative approach work in city planning.
I would see that as a major, major change to the way things seem to work now.
oops! Make that the 7 member administrative team….
[i]Another question for you in your own words. If you are not 100% happy with the existing size of Davis and would prefer a larger population, it makes perfect sense to ask you why you live here instead of somewhere that already has a larger population ?[/i]
I don’t get caught up in any superficial characteristics of a city. I have a second office in Pasadena. I would have no problem living there. There are many great residential options in Pasadena and other places bigger and smaller. Danville is a smaller city I like. But my business headquarters is stationed in Davis. Also, my dad and his family are in Dixon, and I have other family in Davis, Winters and Vacaville. So that certainly influences my decision for where to locate. Knowing what I know today about the Davis schools and my two kids, I would have moved to Folsom before they hit Junior High grades. But we did not move and so here we are.
But if you want honesty, the reason I like Davis is that it has a higher percentage of affluent and educated residents and the city has an inventory of reasonably good amenities. I would like more retail choice, more good restaurants and more hotel and meeting space… but other than that the town has qualities that I value.
But we are in decline with respect to our amenities and we are in a world of financial hurt. That issue takes precedence.
The problem is that because of folks like you having an aversion to any change that might have the slightest risk of impact the “character” of the town (that you have yet to sufficiently quantify in terms of real risks of being impacted by growth, IMO), and because the amenities we all demand have a high cost associated with them (bike paths and parks for example), and because some of the amenities that a minority of activists demand have a super-high cost and are in conflict with our ability to protect and ensure the amenities that the rest of us demand… well, we have become very over-extended and something has to give.
And when looking at the playbook to help determine what should give, it is clear that our pursuit of open space preservation needs to take a hiatus for a while. We have already secured 5000 acres of open space. And now our city finances are heading to a cliff. We do not have enough money coming in to continue to maintain our road, our bike paths and our parks. We don’t have money to do creative things the city should be known for. Business growth is the ONLY way to increase city revenue without hurting our most vulnerable residents. In fact, increasing revenue from business expansion will HELP all of our residents.
For you and others to keep demanding we lock up peripheral land in permanent ag easements, and to keep blocking and denying economic development because you fear it may change the character of the town, is the epitome of greed and selfishness. That might be fine if you and other would just admit it like I admit that I want to live among affluent and educated people. At least then I would be able to connect the dots with your demands. But since you wear your liberal people-saving heart on your sleeve and claim that your MO is first and foremost caring about others… it absolutely does not jibe with your arguments to raise sales taxes and keep Davis the same (or send it backwards to 1987). Because doing so hurts those most vulnerable residents and also continues to destroy other city amenities most of us value.
[quote]If anyone should consider moving, should it not be the person who wants that particular form of change ?[/quote]
Yes. There are plenty of other communities that very willingly sacrifice open space for revenue to choose from. (Some even have effluent educated people living in them.)
There is an acronym to deal with those “effluent educated people” . . . WWTP.
Matt – LOL!
My language skills prove that I must be education-challenged. That is why I like hanging with these more educated folks so they can help me edit my poorly done written work.
B. Nice – Most cities having a high percentage of affluent and educated people have a similar interest, just not as extreme and not as myopic in the face of so much looming economic catastrophe.
It is clear when you look around at which cities are doing well and which are in severe financial trouble, it is the 1-2 punch of way too high public sector labor costs and not enough business contribution of tax revenue.
Open space is wonderful, fantastic, great, tremendous! Who in their right mind would not want it… more of it… copious amounts of it?
The debate does not contain any person that does not like and value open space… the debate is simple one where there is a minority of open space activists that are greedy in their demands… and they are joined by another minority that wants to block any risk of change… and together they are ready and willing to pursue their join selfish interests at the expense of great damage to the rest of us.
The political left has really boxed themselves into a corner and are throwing a tantrum that there is nobody left to blame but themselves, so now they are just ignoring logic and seeking some emotional high ground to keep demanding their over-priced luxury values while the flood of economic malaise keeps creeping up and up drowning those on lower ground before it reaches them.
I have often said that some people seem to fear admitting their errors and wrongness more than death. I don’t see individuals being at risk of death, but I do see Davis as heading for a great economic sickness that will be more and more difficult to heal while we stall debating this stupid claim that we need to put so much peripheral land into permanent ag easements.
“Extreme, myopic, selfish, throwing a tantrum, ignoring logic, demanding, and stupid.”
All in one blog post. Well done! This may be a record for you.
Frankly
[quote]I don’t get caught up in any superficial characteristics of a city. [/quote]
Really? I seem to recall you referring to downtown Davis on numerous occasions as “shabby”. What I see is an environment that is welcoming and cozy. Both sound pretty subjective and superficial when written down.
You seem to look down upon the “brown fields” around us as somehow inferior to the ocean vistas of Carmel. This would seem to me to be a very superficial and highly subjective assessment. You say that you want “more nice restaurants” and hotel space with no quantification of how much would be “ideal”.
“Greedy in their demands”. That sounds pretty subjective to me. And a fairly superficial assessment since you do not define it. It would seem that anyone who does not define growth in exactly the same way you do is
“greedy”.
Frankly
[quote]That might be fine if you and other would just admit it like I admit that I want to live among affluent and educated people. At least then I would be able to connect the dots with your demands. But since you wear your liberal people-saving heart on your sleeve and claim that your MO is first and foremost caring about others… it absolutely does not jibe with your arguments to raise sales taxes and keep Davis the same (or send it backwards to 1987). Because doing so hurts those most vulnerable residents and also continues to destroy other city amenities most of us value.[/quote]
Ahh, the master of telling me what I think. Ok, let’s take this one step at a time.
1) Please show me one post that says that I favor raising sales taxes. Want to know what I would really favor ?
I would favor a system, which we do not have, in which you, and I and anyone with an income over “x”
donate a certain percentage of our incomes to pay for the amenities that we like without charging anything
to those that make less. Obviously we would all have to do it to have it work.
That would be quite a change wouldn’t it ?
2) Favor keeping Davis the same. These are your words, not mine. I have put forth some very dramatic
changes that I would like to see. Because you do not agree, you choose to ignore them. The same with
many posts from Don, so at least I don’t feel arbitrarily singled out. You truly distort the positions of all
who disagree with you equally.
3) [quote]liberal people-saving heart on your sleeve and claim that your MO is first and foremost caring about
others.[/quote]
Again, please, one single post in which I have said this. You have said it many times about me. But that is
nothing more than your misguided interpretation. I have said many times that I am comfortable. I claim
nothing different. I have stated many times which particular aspects of Davis I like. They are not the same
as yours
But you choose to portray me as though I were something that I am not.
Classic straw man argument and of no objective value, but it seem to provide you with some emotive value
to continually repeat that which has no merit.
Just a couple more thoughts. In discussions in highly effective collaborative teams the generally accepted ground rules are that we do not denigrate each other. We do not call each other names. We do not deliberately distort the other persons words or positions. Maybe that is only in medicine and the rest of the world works best on name calling, stirring up enmity rather than discussing concepts, and disparagement of anything with which one does not agree, but somehow, I doubt it.
[i]Really? I seem to recall you referring to downtown Davis on numerous occasions as “shabby”. What I see is an environment that is welcoming and cozy. Both sound pretty subjective and superficial when written down.
You seem to look down upon the “brown fields” around us as somehow inferior to the ocean vistas of Carmel. This would seem to me to be a very superficial and highly subjective assessment. You say that you want “more nice restaurants” and hotel space with no quantification of how much would be “ideal”.
“Greedy in their demands”. That sounds pretty subjective to me. And a fairly superficial assessment since you do not define it. It would seem that anyone who does not define growth in exactly the same way you do is
“greedy”.[/i]
Fair enough. I get your point.
I guess thing like “character”, “congestion”, “pollution” are too abstract for my mind that craves objective measures and comparisons. It seems like you are just throwing out these concerns as a place-holder until you can come up with the words that more succinctly describe the basis for your ongoing opposition to growth and economic development.
I can define shabby and have… mostly G street between 4th and second and second between D and D. Also I think E street between 3rd and 1st can use some work. I can walk around and point out each building, each ugly bit of sidewalk, etc. I don’t think anyone can argue “shabby”, but they might certainly disagree with what they like. Some people like shabby and use different words to describe it. But it is still shabby.
And brown fields… well yes this might be subjective in that some may love looking at them. I certainly heard quite a few complaints last week when the wind blew for three days straight and all that brown became airborne. I think it is quite common that most people would prefer looking at green space or interesting architecture. But I am making an assumption about this based on my experience talking to others.
And position distorting is not quite what I would call it. If I mis-characterize your position or Don’s position it is generally because your arguments are incongruous… and in some cases completely conflicting.
[i]Want to know what I would really favor ?
I would favor a system, which we do not have, in which you, and I and anyone with an income over “x”
donate a certain percentage of our incomes to pay for the amenities that we like without charging anything
to those that make less. Obviously we would all have to do it to have it work.
That would be quite a change wouldn’t it ?[/i]
Ok, I take it back, you are not a bleeding heart liberal, your are socialist bordering on Marxist. It is the old “from those that do, to those that don’t” idea. You do know that Marx, before he died witnessed some of the success of American-style capitalism and was rethinking his philosophy… especially given the copious human misery and suffering that was mounting in collectivism’s wake?
But I get your drift… you think there are enough well-off people that could tax themselves more to pay for all the goodies you like.
There are a few problems with that view that should stir your altruistic heart. First, where will all the jobs that people need come from? Or are you thinking that we need fewer people working and just increase taxes on those that are lucky enough to have a job to pay for the growing number that don’t?
Second, if more people are let off from helping to fund their goodies, will they be good stewards of them? Will they not just grow untitled and disengaged lacking ownership? I certainly think so.
I think you can destroy the spirit of a person this way. Conversely, when people work and have plentiful opportunity for personal career growth, they maintain their spirit and also help others.
Meds, I can’t help but seeing your ideas as a slow spiral downward to no good. I know you mean well, but we all know about that road paved with good intentions.
[img]http://redwoodbarn.com/images/sunflowerfarmhouse.jpg[/img]
Some of those unsightly brown fields around us.
[img]http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff276/redwood81/sunsets/BarleyMaysunset.jpg[/img]
Another ghastly view.
[img]http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff276/redwood81/sunflowersbarley.jpg[/img]
I don’t know how people can even stand it. It’s so ugly and brown.
“Ahh, the master of telling me what I think. Ok, let’s take this one step at a time.”
You go, girl. Um. woman.
Well said.
[img]http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff276/redwood81/almondorchard.jpg[/img]
It’s especially awful in late winter.
“Meds, I can’t help but seeing your ideas as a slow spiral downward to no good. I know you mean well, but we all know about that road paved with good intentions.”
Frankly, if you can’t explain your position, just patronize the person. That’ll work.
Don – Are those pictures of Mace 391?
Where did you take the pictures of the orchard? Is that any land around the periphery of Davis that is targeted for Measure O funds? If you want, why not drive to Napa and take some pictures there too to make your point.
And what percentage of time do these farm fields look like that?
Of course it is a rhetorical question. You know the answer is less than 25% of the time.
But if your point is that the fields are beautiful at some points, I agree 100%. That is one reason why I support open space that is farm land.
But not to lock it up in ag easements for eternity only for that 25% view when there are other higher-priority needs.
[quote]Of course it is a rhetorical question. You know the answer is less than 25% of the time. [/quote]
You refer to “brown fields” on a regular basis. Fields are brown here between harvest and the winter rains. Most fields are not brown 25% of the time. Most farm fields around here are in active production most of the year. Your constant reference to “brown fields” is a misrepresentation of what it looks like to live in the Sacramento Valley.
You routinely disparage agriculture and what it is like to live in a farming area. Agriculture is our major resource here, and the land is what makes it possible.
Yes: prime ag land should be placed in agricultural easements when it is threatened by development. You have other sites to develop.
JimmysDaughter: [i]Frankly, if you can’t explain your position, just patronize the person. That’ll work.[/i]
Pot meet kettle.
Although the difference is that I have explained my position over and over and over again. It is easy to understand. The problem is that you and meds and Don just don’t like that position. And since you don’t like it, you conflate “patronizing” with what is really just your internal irritation having to listen to valid points that challenge your worldview. And, instead of delivering a valid counter point (that I would welcome), you just go about attacking the messenger for being mean.
It is a standard tactic for people of certain groups, but I can’t help you much there. And if I was just having a one-on-one conversation I would have stopped talking and listening by now because nobody on either side is going to budge.
The only reason to keep posting is for the sake of others trying to figure out what is the right thing to do.
Don – I will go out and take some pictures tomorrow and post them.
Why? I have dozens of pictures of local agriculture. It’s one of my favorite photographic subjects. Fallow fields, cultivated, growing, sunsets, irrigation ditches, you name it. I consider ag land very attractive and take lots of pictures of it. I consider shopping centers butt-ugly, think parking lots are dismal, particularly dislike the standardized appearance of box stores. Imagine that. Business parks are mostly boring and unattractive, though some do try to look better than just a bunch of tilt-ups surrounded by unnecessary lawn. But not most.
So you can take pictures of dusty fields if you like, but you aren’t going to persuade me of anything by doing so.
[quote] And since you don’t like it, you conflate “patronizing” with what is really just your internal irritation having to listen to valid points that challenge your worldview.[/quote]
Great example of patronizing behavior. Why do you insist on presuming to know what motivates other people’s behavior.
I won’t waste any more of David’s bandwidth. For awhile I was using a photo hosting site based in Russia because it boasted unlimited free bandwidth. Here’s a photo album that is mostly farm scenes from around the Davis to Dixon area. [url]http://imgsrc.ru/redsol/19454406.html[/url]
[img]http://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/p4/Home-Depot–Exterior-md.jpg[/img]
Yeah, this is so much better.
Farm fields that Don, B. Nice, JimmysDaugter and Medwoman like to look at and lock up for eternity versus allowing the development of needed business to generate economic activity that provides jobs for people to make a living, and that balances the city budget and gives us a surplus to fund things like getting fluoride drops to needy children.
Great. I get it now.
Its a priority demand to protect ascetic values over economic health of a city and the people living in it.
I’m sure happy I don’t share those priorities.
[quote]Farm fields that Don, B. Nice, JimmysDaugter and Medwoman like to look at and lock up for eternity…[/quote]
You are kind of out numbered right now…where’s your back-up?
Don, great pictures btw.
[i]You are kind of out numbered right now…where’s your back-up?[/i]
I am guessing one or two things.
1. The open space mafia took them out
2. They have better things to do on a Saturday night.
[quote]I am guessing one or two things.
1. The open space mafia took them out
2. They have better things to do on a Saturday night.[/quote]
Hopefully it’s the first, the second make me feel a little pathetic.
[quote]lock up for eternity versus allowing the development of needed business to generate economic activity that provides jobs for people to make a living, and that balances the city budget and gives us a surplus to fund things like getting fluoride drops to needy children.
Great. I get it now.
Its a priority demand to protect ascetic values over economic health of a city and the people living in it.
I’m sure happy I don’t share those priorities. [/quote]
Well, more likely aesthetic was what you meant. Spellcheck does some weird things to my posts sometimes, too.
No, Frankly.
I do happen to think this Valley we live in is very beautiful. I appreciate the aesthetics very much. I also am amazed, as an ag science major and nurseryman and farmer, by how unbelievably productive this region is in producing food for the world. And I am very troubled by your apparent disregard for the value of what is grown here.
Your focus on “the health of a city” is telling. Not the health of a county, or a region. or a farm-based economy. Not the jobs those farmers and ag industries provide. Not the [i]county’s[/i] budget, or the ripple effect of all the production from some of the best soil in the world.
No, your focus in the budget of the City of Davis, not the County of Yolo or the region. That is amazingly narrow-minded, and I really hope others here take a broader regional view.
People make a living farming, growing food and creating value. So if there are sites that can be developed that minimize the loss of farmland, I think we have a responsibility to develop those sites rather than the more productive land.
LOL. Me too.
But a little wine helps.
And yes I know Don, it takes farm land to produce the grapes for my wine.
Medwoman “3) Or my favorite. If you don’t like the only changes that I will accept as “actual solutions”, namely mine, then you should move. – both of the above at various times.”
i doubt that i have ever suggested you move. Its one thing I always try to avoid saying. I have suggested you give up one of your two houses in the context of you having a desire for the community to remain small but I think that is different.
You could tear down the one that is on the development you continually decry was open space in earlier photos and live in the other one. You could lead by example instead of suggesting others bear the consequences of your philosophy and life style choices.
Mr. Toad
[quote]You could lead by example instead of suggesting others bear the consequences of your philosophy and life style choices.[/quote]
Are you seriously suggesting that no one else will have any “consequences to bear” if your philosophy and life style choices, namely your demand for growth and change prevail ?
Frankly
[quote]Great. I get it now.
Its a priority demand to protect ascetic values over economic health of a city and the people living in it.
I’m sure happy I don’t share those priorities. [/quote]
No Frankly, you don’t get it now. And I suspect that you simply don’t want to see that everything does not have to be “the good guys” vs “the bad”. I am sure happy that I can see nuances.
[i]Well, more likely aesthetic was what you meant. Spellcheck does some weird things to my posts sometimes, too.[/I]
Spell check and Apple devices don’t do a good enough job. Thanks for the catch!
[I]No, Frankly.
I do happen to think this Valley we live in is very beautiful. I appreciate the aesthetics very much. I also am amazed, as an ag science major and nurseryman and farmer, by how unbelievably productive this region is in producing food for the world. So when someone routinely disparages farming and the farm landscape, I take umbrage and choose to show the beauty. And I am also very troubled by your apparent disregard for the value of what is grown here. [/i]
Don, although I am not 100% with you on the aesthetic value of fallow fields, I get all that and understand all that. You might know that I worked for Farm Credit Bank of Sacramento for 14 years out of college. I completely support and understand the business of farming in California and other western states.
But it is just another type of business.
After going around and around with you on this topic, I see that you and I really have similar values. It is just that our priorities for those values are not in sync. Frankly, I see you as being out of balance in demands for farm land preservation over support for alternatives for economic development.
I think ag easements are an extremist’s tool for permanently blocking development in the face of obvious need. The other aspect of damage caused… and this one really gets my goat as a father and as someone committed to doing everything I can to help young people develop to become economically self-sufficient and prosperous… is the elimination of peripheral land to be considered for future development at the same time we have kicked the economic can so far down the road it will be devastating to our kids and our future generations.
Drop the ag easement demand, and we are probably much more in synch with development and land preservation. And I might even admit that I love looking at farm land too… when it is not dumping tons of dust into the air on those windy days we are known for.
By the way, if you go here you will find some sunflower pictures of the area by someone very close to me: [url]http://www.anitasphotos.com/galleries/Pictures_and_Products/Index.html[/url]
I was driving home from a trip to Woodland Home Depot with my son yesterday (he was home for the weekend from college), and when we got near the Covell exit he asked me why we didn’t build a Home Depot right there. He said “there is nothing there and it would be a perfect place.” He then asked “Why doesn’t Davis build more stores and things out here?”
Now, this was all unsolicited. He does not pay any attention to my blogging or issues in town. He is a musician and is studying electronic music production at Chico State.
My answer to him was that there are people in this town with time and money to gin up fear of impacts and that we have Measure R that requires a vote of the people to allow development on land that is not in the city limits and would need to be annexed. And the two of them together are tremendous blocking forces that keep the city from being able to add stores and develop its economy.
His comment, “That sucks.” was succinct and to the point.
I’m not sure why Home Depot would build a store five miles from another Home Depot. Actually, the way things are going for big box stores, I’m not sure they’ll be building any more 150,000 sq ft stores in the long run. Lowes bought OSH, and industry analysts note this is probably a shrewd move into smaller-footprint stores for them. Note that the average OSH, at 36,000 sq ft, could locate in any shopping center in Davis right now without a zoning change. Maybe that’s the way to revitalize the Arlington shopping center.
Others who are anti-growth my not share my view on this, but to me the purpose of ag easements is to direct development to other areas. It’s not to prevent growth on all edges of town. And the foundation for deciding where the ag easements (and other tools of an urban limit line) would be used would include the quality of the soil and the proximity to other good soil sites.
So the way this works is: an easement on Mace 391 prevents likely development further east. Thus the property to its south (Ramos/Bruner parcels) can be developed because they are not likely to spur development on adjacent parcels. On the other hand, if you develop Mace 391 it is a near certainty that Ramos/Bruner will also be developed.
Putting an easement on Mace 391 also redirects development planning to the northwest quadrant, the other site already identified by the ITF. The particular parcels there do not instantly increase development pressures around them, but there would remain a large block of land directly to the west of them that is already within the Davis sphere of influence. Nothing would preclude that land from further development over the next few decades. Development could even possibly occur up along Highway 113. Davis officials need to meet with Woodland officials to understand the new General Plan the Woodland council just approved. The two cities probably need to plan together for both development and open space between the communities.
So in the long run, putting an ag easement on Mace 391 would lead to better urban planning and would not prevent further economic development for future generations. It would simply tell developers: go there, not here, because these east Davis soils and sites are better for their current and historic purpose of farming.
[i]Others who are anti-growth may not share my view on this, but to me the purpose of ag easements is to direct development to other areas[/i]
Permanently. Thereby eliminating it for any different use consideration by future generations after you and I are gone.
Just because you want it to stay farmland, you will force it on others into perpetuity. Even if in the future as the periphery of Davis needs to grow and the citizens of Davis want it to grow, they will be precluded because of your legacy in preventing them.
I think that is wholly irresponsible just like it was for us to burden future generations with unsustainable pay and benefit packages to city labor unions.
Frankly, I’ll resist asking you this in a snarky way. Why don’t you buy your lumbar at Hibbard?
[quote]Just because you want it to stay farmland, you will force it on others into perpetuity. Even if in the future as the periphery of Davis needs to grow and the citizens of Davis want it to grow, they will be precluded because of your legacy in preventing them.
I think that is wholly irresponsible just like it was for us to burden future generations with unsustainable pay and benefit packages to city labor unions.[/quote]
Just because you want to develop it, you will remove it from agricultural production into perpetuity. Farming on that site will be precluded because of your legacy in developing it.
I think that is irresponsible land stewardship and irresponsible urban planning, especially when there are other options.
[i]Frankly, I’ll resist asking you this in a snarky way. Why don’t you buy your lumbar at Hibbard?[/i]
Because of poor lumbar support. 😉
Four reasons.
one – their hours are lousy for people that work for a living not in the construction industry.
two – harder to get to.
three – often do not carry what I need and it has to be ordered.
four – higher prices (although I would accept higher prices if the other three issues were not there.)
My biggest problem with them is #1.
[quote]one – their hours are lousy for people that work for a living not in the construction industry. [/quote]
[quote]I was driving home from a trip to Woodland Home Depot with my son yesterday (he was home for the weekend from college)[/quote]
What time of day were you driving home? My son doesn’t usually get up so early that Hibbert’s Saturday hours would ever be a problem.
[i]Just because you want to develop it, you will remove it from agricultural production into perpetuity. Farming on that site will be precluded because of your legacy in developing it.[/i]
First, it won’t be my legacy because I am not advocating Mace 391 as an immediate business park site if there are others that will work well enough. It remains to be seen if the others will work good enough. It is very clear that Mace 391 will work well for a business park, but that is for others to decide.
Here is the thing Don. The land surrounding a city like Davis with a world-class research university that is growing in size and prestige and needs support of the city to do so, and a city that is great risk of financial collapse in the coming years, has become more valuable for uses other than farming.
The northern CA valley is not at risk of losing too much farmland. There is not enough economic development demand at this point, and probably forever after, to threaten it from a macro perspective. Yours is a micro concern that you are overlaying with the macro fear argument. That macro argument is a false concern, IMO. If you have evidence to the contrary I would be open to consider it.
I drive up and down I-5 all the time. The majority of that drive is spent viewing open fields… farmland, ranchland, and open space. There is alot of it. Much of it is fallow because we lack the water to farm it. There is no demand to develop an business park on 99.999% of it. Of course most of the communities surrounded by this open land would jump at the chance to have a business innovation park next door, but it ain’t gonna’ happen for them.
In consideration of this macro view of available and economically-protected farm land up and down the valley, your continued demand that we lock up our surrounding land is selfish and harmful to the citizens of the city without much of any return… again, from a macro perspective.
And, from a micro perspective, Davis should keep all peripheral land open for potential future development.
Sure, it assaults our senses today thinking about that land developed, but decades from now it might not so assault the sense of our future population of citizens.
Given that it will not do much of anything in terms of a percentage bump mitigating the risk that we run out of prime farmland in the valley, while causing great material harm to those that follow us by removing the key tool to help meet the economic needs of the city, I think it is foolish to keep demanding ag easements for any land around our periphery. I think we can envision a 2-3 mile buffer between us and Winters and us and Dixon at the current center-line, and focus on preserving that land as ag easement land to keep our cities from growing together, but anything within 1-2 miles should be left alone for future residents to decide what direction is best for them.
And don’t forget, we are already a hyper-dense little city. We cannot keep demanding we pack everyone into our small 9.6 square mile footprint. 6,600 people per square mile is dense for any city comparable to ours. It is certainly not like any other farming community I can locate.
Hibbert is closed at 6:00pm m-f, 5:00pm on sat and is not open Sunday.
Home Depot is open until 9:00pm m-s, and 8:00 pm on Sunday.
Going there in a few minutes to get some more wood for a project that I am working on and ran short.
Too bad Davis does not have a place to purchase the materials where the tax revenue can stay here.
“Too bad Davis does not have a place to purchase the materials where the tax revenue can stay here.”
They do, you could have gone there yesterday. Seems like for someone who is so concerned with keeping revenues in Davis you would shop here when possible, and go else where only when it’s not. I wonder how much revenue would stay in this city if people followed his philosophy. Maybe enough so that we wouldn’t need to covert ag. land to ugly box stores.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”So the way this works is: an easement on Mace 391 prevents likely development further east.”[/i]
Don, the land to the east is already owned by the City of Davis. Development of that land is already effectively prevented. Do you disagree?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]” Thus the property to its south (Ramos/Bruner parcels) can be developed because they are not likely to spur development on adjacent parcels.”[/i]
Don, most people know me as an eternal optimist, but what you are going to hear now is my pessimistic side peeking through the clouds. Specifically, I believe we are now on track for a series of sequential Measure J/R votes, and that each and every one of those votes will go down to defeat. The first Measure J/R vote will pertain to the Nishi property, then the Ramos/Bruner property, then the West Innovation Park around the Hospital. My crystal ball tells me that after the Nishi vote fails, and after the Ramos/Bruner vote fails, the West Innovation Park team will never even ask for a vote on their property.
The reason I feel that way is that as a free-standing Measure J/R vote, Nishi brings no compelling positive answer to the crucial “What’s In It For Me” question that each voter will be asking themselves. My suspicion is that medwoman is representative of a large cohort of people that will see no compelling positive in whatever is brought forward as the Nishi proposal . . . and i think that cohort numbers in the thousands. Why do I believe that? Because most people are going to see Nishi as really being at its heart a housing proposal. The innovation incubator space that will be part of the Nishi proposal, while incredibly important as part of an overall innovation strategy, [u]will not reach out and personally touch very many voters[/u]. The reason is that most current Davis residents simply won’t know very many, if any, of the people who will fill the jobs that are created in that incubator space. Therefore, when the inevitable “no-growth” argument does begin to circulate, there won’t be any counterbalancing “this is good for me” argument.
The Innovation Park East (the Ramos/Bruner parcel) will not be as impersonal as Nishi, because the 300 employees of Schilling Robotics are indeed real, and the revenue contribution of Schilling Robotics is quantifiable, but again for the vast majority of Davis voters Innovation Park East brings no compelling positive answer to a “What’s In It For Me” question posed by each potential voter. Further, the “no-growthers” will have a natural group of allies whose crusade will be to preserve the eastward facing viewshed of the Sacramento Skyline.
One possible scenario has the Measure J/R votes for both Nishi and Innovation Park East coming before the voters in the same election. I suspect that will set off an interesting cacophony as each of the two teams tries to outdo the other. For all we know, they may be able to get their respective acts together in early 2014 so that the June 2014 election includes the Council race as well as both measure J/R votes.
I think it is a budding recipe for disaster that putting the purple Urban Fringe into conservation easement would have defused.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Putting an easement on Mace 391 also redirects development planning to the northwest quadrant, the other site already identified by the ITF.”[/i]
As I noted above, after both Nishi and Ramos/Bruner go down in flames, I doubt the owners of the northwest quadrant parcel will have any appetite to proceed . . . especially since they were themselves on the losing side of the 75%-25% Measure P vote in 2008.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”So in the long run, putting an ag easement on Mace 391 would lead to better urban planning and would not prevent further economic development for future generations. It would simply tell developers: go there, not here, because these east Davis soils and sites are better for their current and historic purpose of farming.”[/i]
That may indeed be what happens, but I think that putting an ag easement on Mace 391 will lead to absolutely no urban planning . . . as well as $30 million per year of increased taxes for Davis residents.
JMHO
So, Matt you are suggesting that we go forward with the Mace 391 easement for what reason? Or do I misunderstand that point?
[i]That may indeed be what happens, but I think that putting an ag easement on Mace 391 will lead to absolutely no urban planning . . . as well as $30 million per year of increased taxes for Davis residents. [/I]
This makes sense to me, but it seems to conflict with your previous points.
I am more of an optimist about any Measure J/R vote on a business park on the periphery because the “what’s in it for me” argument has never been stronger. The city’s financial picture is downright terrifying. Nobody needs to manufacture fear about the future catastrophe if we do nothing but raise sale tax by $.0025.
My thought is that the city acceptance of more housing would come after more business development.
But I am still of the mind that one of the thing that drives Davisites to repel more housing is that they are already feeling crowded and don’t want more people in their space. It is ironic because the lack of new housing development causes them, in fact, to feel more crowded from the growth of UCD and a resulting growing shortage of housing.
This town needs a real sophisticated marking and education campaign to counter the power of the No-Grows.
Matt wouldn’t we need to pass a measure R vote to build a business park on the Mace 391 property?
Frankly, with respect to the Mace 391 easement, I’m beginning to feel that it will eventually fall into the category of “While Davis fiddles, opportunity burns.”
My argument for going forward with the easement is because by doing so we will be seeking the highest and best use for Mace 391. Michael Bisch’s point about Mace 391 is that it has a market value of between $200,000 and $250,000 an acre, which extends out to between $78 million and $97 million total value.
However, there are moral obligations and practical realities that I believe come with a decision to leverage the easement. The moral obligation is the “Measure O funds use” issue, which I think must be honored. The practical reality is that a core problem with any development scenario is the build-out time, especially in those scenarios like the ones Michael Bisch and Kemble Pope have proposed where the City is the developer. I believe that any scenario where the City tries to be the developer itself is a recipe for disaster. The City trying to be the developer is the Peter Principle in spades.
The scenario that is the most morally and fiscally responsible one has the City giving up a certain amount of control to an entity that knows what it is doing. This scenario allows us to set up an economic model that accelerates the receipt of funds substantially. The scenario has six major milestones as follows:
— Milestone One = Raw Land has a value of $10,000 per acre
— Milestone Two = An assembled parcel in an area designated in the General Plan for urbanization has a value of approximately $40,000 per acre
— Milestone Three = Entitling the assembled parcel with a programatic EIR ups it to $50,000 per acre
— Milestone Four = Amending the programatic EIR by approving a Specific Plan for the parcel ups it further
— Milestone Five = Approving a Tentative Map for portions of the parcel ups it further
— Milestone Six = Establishing/building infrastructure improvements takes it up to Michael’s $200,000 to $250,000 per acre value.
Think of the above description as steps on a ladder . . . or as noted, milestones in a series of events. In this alternative value can be extracted at each milestone.
So Milestone One has a value of $4 million and can be achieved in calendar year 2014 (as early as March 2014)
— Milestone Two has an incremental value of $12 million and can be achieved in calendar year 2014 (as early as June 2014 if we worked hard)
— Milestone Three has an incremental value of $4 million and can be achieved in late calendar year 2014 or early calendar year 2015 (FY 2014-2015)
— Milestone Four has an incremental value of $10 million and can be achieved no sooner than FY 2014-2015
— Milestone Five has an incremental value of $20 million and can be achieved no sooner than FY 2014-2015
— Milestone Six has an incremental value of $30 million to $50 million and would be achieved in a measured way over the 50-year build out of the project
The key is to set up an economic model whereby each milestone has an appropriate value realization. Traditional Property Taxes will (within the bounds of the provisions of Prop 13) realize some of that value for the City, but only if the City is not the land owner. However, one of the challenges associated with Property Tax revenue streams is that they have a delayed realization timeline.
However, that challenge is effectively mitigated in this alternative because the City is in the enviable position of being able to extract the full amount of Milestones One and Two as a lump sum payment by selling the property under the right terms. The Milestone One $4 million would be used to pay back the Measure O and Road Fund amounts used to purchase Leland Ranch. The Milestone Two $12 million would be used to purchase the pre-negotiated conservation easements described in my plan.
The City would receive no lump sum payments for Milestones Three through Six, but rather an inclining scale Special Assessment District Levy (over and above traditional Property Taxes) that begins generating revenue for the City in FY 2014-2015 when the parcel is entitled with a Programatic EIR after the General Plan is amended. Thus there would be real revenue streams into the General Fund as early as FY 2014-2015, and those revenue streams would increase as Milestones Four, Five and Six are achieved in a measured/controlled Development Plan/Agreement.
Because the Special Assessment District Levies represent a tangible revenue stream of some negotiated percentage of the aggregate $64 million to $84 million incremental total of Milestones Three through Six, the City would be able to issue the Roads Bonds and know it can pay the annual debt service.
Of course all the above will be moot because in our own little drama of “Rome burned while Nero fiddled” we have probably squandered our opportunity by unnecessarily putting our partners (Yolo Land Trust and NRCS) into a compromised position.
The net result is that we are disposing of a $97 million asset for approximately $4 million . . . and in the process snatching the positive answer to the “What’s in it for me?” question right out of the mouth of any Davis voter who values ag land conservation. They could have had 3,000 acres of conservation of the Urban Fringe, but instead they will be presented with a Measure J/R vote that offers up 370 acres in one case . . . of 88 acres in the second case . . . and 400 acres in the third case. And there is no guarantee that any of those acres will be within Davis’ Urban Fringe.
The only reliable funds you are going to get from Mace 391 would be $3.639 million, assuming a buyer can be found for the land with the easement on it. Everything past that point requires a Measure R vote.
Of all the Measure R votes necessary for any scenario, [i]by far[/i] the easiest one to defeat will be a Measure R vote on Mace 391/421. By far. At this point that proposal has so much negative baggage and so much built-in opposition already created, it doesn’t take a brilliant political analyst to see it stands very little chance of success. I would rank the other Measure R votes as much more likely to succeed.
But if the easement gets cancelled, all the city gets is a revenue stream from leasing it for agriculture. I’ll let somebody else do the math as to how many years it would take for that to add up to $3.639 million.
[quote]This town needs a real sophisticated marking and education campaign to counter the power of the No-Grows.[/quote]
Sophisticated marketing sounds like your trying to trick people into thinking they need something they really don’t. Educate great, get the facts out there and let people make decisions based on those, not a slick campaign.
Wrong Don. The price per acre for a fee simple title transfer of entitled acres would be between $40,000 and $50,000 per acre . . . cash at the time of settlement. That is the current value of the Ramos/Bruner acres. That would be the value at the time of entitlement for the Mace 391 acres if they were conjoined with the Ramos/Bruner acres at the time of the fee simple title transfer.
Because Davis has a love affair with reactive planning on a 0-5 year time horizon, we fail to look at things from a much wiser 50-year perspective. When you start to ask questions from a 50-year perspective lots of synergies present themselves.
Our General Plan is defunct. It expired many years ago, so we have no choice other than to deal with our planning decisions as one-off General Plan amendments.
[i]But if the easement gets cancelled, all the city gets is a revenue stream from leasing it for agriculture. I’ll let somebody else do the math as to how many years it would take for that to add up to $3.639 million.[/i]
It would still be an asset on our balance sheet and it could be a business park later. Sounds good to me… an asset with a revenue stream that continues to appreciate and later it can be used to help fix our fiscal problems.
Of course I don’t agree with your fatalism view. I think it is a self-serving show that plays in your mind and a few others. But most voters are not paying attention to all these high level shenanigans and won’t even care until we start talking about it on the ballot.
And I wonder how the Enterprise and Dunning will come out. Probably on the side of reason which means build a park to save the city.
Frankly, here’s an article you will find to be really interesting reading [url]http://www.salon.com/2013/11/10/walmart_an_economic_cancer_on_our_cities/[/url]
The subject of the article is Asheville, North Carolina whose population was 83,393 according to the 2010 United States census. That isn’t very far from the combined Davis/UCD population.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Of all the Measure R votes necessary for any scenario, by far the easiest one to defeat will be a Measure R vote on Mace 391/421. By far. At this point that proposal has so much negative baggage and so much built-in opposition already created, it doesn’t take a brilliant political analyst to see it stands very little chance of success. I would rank the other Measure R votes as much more likely to succeed.”[/i]
The above statement is grounded in the reactive mindset of 0-5 years. If you reframe your thinking into as 50-year perspective, what results is a single vote to amend the General Plan with the permanent Urban Footprint of Davis defined for all time, and the clear knowledge that the areas designated for technology transfer from UCD (and the stewarding and husbanding of the Davis businesses that evolve from that technology transfer) are a precious and limited community asset that needs to be used very wisely in a measured way over the 50-year planning period. Use it too fast and it is all gone . . . and because we have put the 3,000 acres of our Urban Fringe into permanent conservation easement, there simply will not be any future additions to that precious and limited community asset. Frankly will scream and yell that we are mortgaging our future . . . I believe we will simply be planning it wisely.
[quote]Wrong Don. The price per acre for a fee simple title transfer of entitled acres would be between $40,000 and $50,000 per acre . . . cash at the time of settlement. That is the current value of the Ramos/Bruner acres. That would be the value at the time of entitlement for the Mace 391 acres if they were conjoined with the Ramos/Bruner acres at the time of the fee simple title transfer. [/quote]
The money the city can get is for the lot it owns, and the money the city can count on is what it is currently being marketed for. $3.69 million dollars. Ramos/Bruner is privately owned, the city can’t count on anything from it. If you’re proposing to “conjoin” those two sites and put them up to a Measure R vote, your proposal just died.
Seriously. I think you and others need to be realistic about these things.
[quote]Our General Plan is defunct. It expired many years ago, so we have no choice other than to deal with our planning decisions as one-off General Plan amendments. [/quote]
Not true. A General Plan continues to be the guiding planning document for any city until and unless it is updated. It is the only document that reflects community consensus. Parts have been updated. The General Plan currently shows as a 2007 revision. If you read the General Plan, you’ll find most of it probably reflects Davis values. If you disagree with that, then move for a revision and update. The notion that it is defunct has no legal or practical basis.
[quote]And I wonder how the Enterprise and Dunning will come out. Probably on the side of reason which means build a park to save the city.[/quote]
Neither the Enterprise nor Bob Dunning has a strong track record with respect to how the Davis public will vote.
“Neither the Enterprise nor Bob Dunning has a strong track record with respect to how the Davis public will vote.”
Also I find Mr. Dunning’s articles to be misleading at times.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”The money the city can get is for the lot it owns”[/i]
Correct
[i]”… and the money the city can count on is what it is currently being marketed for. $3.69 million dollars.”[/i]
Wrong. If a buyer steps up and offers an amount different from what it is being marketed for, that is either called “a bid higher than the asking price” or a “bid lower than the asking price” That happens every day of the week in real estate transactions. A buyer can offer any amount of money that the buyer wants to offer. If Leland Ranch were put on the market with no conservation easement, with entitlements in place it would have a demonstrable vlue well in excess of the current asking price.
[i]”Ramos/Bruner is privately owned, the city can’t count on anything from it.”[/i]
Wrong. You yourself have said you expect it to be entitled as the East Innovation Park. The City will receive Property Tax revenue from it at the very least. It may even have a Special Assessment District Levy as well. That all depends on what kind of Development Agreement is negotiated.
[i]”If you’re proposing to “conjoin” those two sites and put them up to a Measure R vote, your proposal just died.”[/i]
That is your [u]opinion[/u]. You are free to have that opinion. What the election outcome might be is a matter of speculation. If the voters see 3,000 acres of Urban Fringe being conserved as part of the the value received in exchange for the entitlements, I think you will be proven wrong, especially if the Special Assessment District Levies realize a substantial portion of the total $97 million capital appreciation value.
[i]”Seriously. I think you and others need to be realistic about these things.”[/i]
Why?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Not true. A General Plan continues to be the guiding planning document for any city until and unless it is updated. It is the only document that reflects community consensus. Parts have been updated. The General Plan currently shows as a 2007 revision. If you read the General Plan, you’ll find most of it probably reflects Davis values. If you disagree with that, then move for a revision and update. The notion that it is defunct has no legal or practical basis.”[/i]
As a global sense of the community values, yes it does continue and it does reflect a broad community consensus, but as a planning document that [u]controls[/u] the decision process, no it does not continue. We have long since exceeded the metrics that the General Plan laid out, because those metrics only covered the time period up until 2008. Our community has continued to evolve. The General Plan has not kept pace. The Saylor-Souza-Asmundson-Greenwald-Heystek Council considered initiating an update, but the cost was perceived to be too high given that the sting of the Great Recession had just begun to be felt. That Council felt that we were better off following a reactive, narrow, on-off approach to planning. Legally, virtually nothing can be approved without a General Plan Amendment. That is the practical reality that our City faces every day. As a working document it is defunct. Its vision lives on . . . as it should. But it is no longer a functional document.
[quote]As a working document it is defunct. Its vision lives on . . . as it should. But it is no longer a functional document.[/quote]
Not true. Ask a planner.
[quote]You yourself have said you expect it to be entitled as the East Innovation Park[/quote]
I have said I would support it being proposed for a business park if there is an easement on Mace 391.
[quote]that is either called “a bid higher than the asking price” or a “bid lower than the asking price” That happens every day of the week in real estate transactions.[/quote]
My guess is nobody will bid higher than the asking price. Not a very common occurrence, I’d think, at least not in this real estate market.
[quote] If the voters see 3,000 acres of Urban Fringe being conserved as part of the the value received in exchange for the entitlements,[/quote]
This linkage of yours is a complete fantasy and is getting no traction. We don’t need to develop Mace 391/421 to achieve open space conservation. All that will happen if you continue on this quixotic and polarizing venture of yours is that you might manage to enable getting the easement abandoned. Then Mace would get developed. And then you’ll be shocked and dismayed when the conservation process just proceeds at its current pace and process, and the funds from Mace 391 get waylaid into the budget.
All of these false linkages need to stop. They are distractions from the actual decision the council has to make. Every one of these swaps, linkages, and deals is simply a means to an end: developing Mace 391.
The General Plan is subject to state law. Davis is not a charter city.
[url]http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/planning_guide/plan_index.html#anchor156525[/url]
[quote]The Blueprint
The local general plan can be described as the city’s or county’s “blueprint” for future development. It represents the community’s view of its future; a constitution made up of the goals and policies upon which the city council, board of supervisors, and planning commission will base their land use decisions. To illustrate its importance, all subdivisions, public works projects, and zoning decisions (except in charter cities other than Los Angeles) must be consistent with the general plan. If inconsistent, they must not be approved.[/quote]
Regarding this statement: [quote]That Council felt that we were better off following a reactive, narrow, on-off approach to planning.[/quote]
I am unaware of any specific council decision that the General Plan was to be ignored. Nor could they make such a decision. Statements like [quote]Our community has continued to evolve. The General Plan has not kept pace. [/quote]
… are simply inaccurate with respect to the General Plan. But if you and others really believe this, then basically all planning and development needs to cease now while we update it. I don’t think that’s what you really want.
Don Shor
[i]”I am unaware of any specific council decision that the General Plan was to be ignored. Nor could they make such a decision. Statements like.[/i]
Talk to Saylor. Talk to Souza. Talk to Asmunson. Talk to Greenwald. Talk to Heystek. Talk to Navazio. Talk to Emlen. Talk to Hiatt. Talk to Hess. Talk to members of the Planning Commission
Every one of those (and more) will confirm that the Council and Staff wrestled with whether to continue to have to deal with each and every application as a specific General Plan amendment, or alternatively to update the General Plan and thereby allow the City to process applications within the parameters of an updated General Plan.
Just because you do not know about something does not mean that it doesn’t exist.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”The Blueprint — The local general plan can be described as the city’s or county’s “blueprint” for future development. It represents the community’s view of its future; a constitution made up of the goals and policies upon which the city council, board of supervisors, and planning commission will base their land use decisions. To illustrate its importance, all subdivisions, public works projects, and zoning decisions (except in charter cities other than Los Angeles) must be consistent with the general plan. If inconsistent, they must not be approved.”[/i]
Your paragraph perfectly describes why/how our current General Plan is no longer functional. It is a blueprint thasets a specific “maximun extent of urbanization” that we have exceeded. I have copied and pasted the controlling section below, As I said before, as a global sense of the community values, it does reflect a broad community consensus. However, because we have exceeded its specific upper bounds of allowable urbanization, as a planning document that [u]controls[/u] the decision process in an orderly way, it no longer functions. It is a blueprint of an old house that once stood on our “lot.”
[i]GOALS, POLICIES AND ACTIONS GROWTH MANAGEMENT
GOAL LU 1. Maintain Davis as a small, University-oriented city surrounded by and containing farmland, greenbelt, and natural habitats and reserves.
Policy LU 1.1 Recognize that the edge of the urbanized area of the City depicted on the land use map under [u]this General Plan represents the maximum extent of urbanization[/u] through 2010, unless modified through the Measure J process.
Actions
e.[u]Create and maintain an effective growth management system designed to keep the population of the City below 64,000[/u] and the number of single-family dwellings below 15,500 in 2010, which corresponds to a sustained 1.81 percent annually- compounded growth rate from January 1, 1988 to January 1, 2010 and a sustained 1.4331 percent annually-compounded growth rate from January 1, 1996 to January 1, 2010 due to “front loading”.[/i]
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”… are simply inaccurate with respect to the General Plan. But if you and others really believe this, then basically all planning and development needs to cease now while we update it. I don’t think that’s what you really want.”[/i]
What you have described above is the dilemma that Saylor, Souza, Asmunson, Greenwald, Heystek, Emlen, Navazio, Hiatt, Hess and others all wrestled with. Because of the hard 64,000 maximum urbanization limit, Davis could no longer add the ability to increase population without amending the General Plan one way or another. The basic options were two, either initiate a process to update the General Plan to establish new parameters/thresholds that reflected the current reality of Davis, or follow a process of individual General Plan Amendments that covered each and every application submitted to the City that would add urbanization capacity. For reasons that largely had to do with cost, they collectively chose the second option.
[quote]Your paragraph perfectly describes why/how our current General Plan is no longer functional.[/quote]
No, you are incorrect. Our General Plan is fully functional. Parts are updated at various times, some by state law (housing element), and others as needed. That part is due for an update, but the General Plan still reflects the growth goals of the city voters. [quote]as a planning document that controls the decision process in an orderly way, it no longer functions.[/quote]
Is flat-out untrue, and is merely another argument to disregard the planning process in order to push for development.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”This linkage of yours is a complete fantasy and is getting no traction. We don’t need to develop Mace 391/421 to achieve open space conservation. All that will happen if you continue on this quixotic and polarizing venture of yours is that you might manage to enable getting the easement abandoned. Then Mace would get developed. And then you’ll be shocked and dismayed when the conservation process just proceeds at its current pace and process, and the funds from Mace 391 get waylaid into the budget.
All of these false linkages need to stop. They are distractions from the actual decision the council has to make. Every one of these swaps, linkages, and deals is simply a means to an end: developing Mace 391.”[/i]
Feel free to see it as a fantasy if you so desire. That is your prerogative. I can assure you that it has gotten plenty of traction, and if we weren’t in a “Nero fiddled” situation it would actually be moving forward aggrssively. However, as Council has pointed out from the dais, we have willfully put ourselves into a position that has the potential to do real damage to our partners in land conservation, the Yolo Land Trust and NRCS. That real chance of doing damage to others is the major reason that you are not seeing more aggressive action on the leveraging of one asset to accomplish much, much more.
As Mick Jagger has often said, [i]”You can’t always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes you get what you need.”[/i]
I am very comfortable with the fact that I am trying to do something that makes our City a better place for its residents, and in the process makes our County a better place for its current and future residents.
[i]However, as Council has pointed out from the dais, we have willfully put ourselves into a position that has the potential to do real damage to our partners in land conservation, the Yolo Land Trust and NRCS. That real chance of doing damage to others is the major reason that you are not seeing more aggressive action on the leveraging of one asset to accomplish much, much more.[/i]
Well, with this explanation, I’m not sure that the Yolo Land Trust is a true partner. And we need to stop the concern that we are damaged in our relationship with USDA in any way shape or form. Federal agencies have short memories and operate more like cats than dogs. Their loyalties drift toward wherever the mice are.
In either case, for them to pursue and push for the locking up of this valuable city asset means they only care about their agenda and not the people of the community. Last I checked, that type of behavior is not one that should be valued in a true partnership. What would be valued is understanding of our dire fiscal situation, and then to back-off and seek land preservation targets that destroy so much monetary opportunity.
The barn is burning and we have these people throwing tantrums and stomping their feet that we don’t acquire more horses.
The word “prioritization” exists for a reason.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]Is flat-out untrue, and is merely another argument [b]to disregard the planning process[/b] in order to push for development.[/i]
Don, reading is fundamental. Go back and reread my statement. Nowhere in that statement do I either advocate for or even imply that I support disregarding the planning process. That is a figment of your imagination. I embrace the planning process wholeheartedly . . . 150%. The current environment where every application that would add any urbanization above the General Plan threshold population of 64,000 is what we have. It is inefficient, costly, and bottom-line it creates a “make work” environment. Absent a General Plan that includes the community’s current consensus expectations, that is the world we legally have to live in. The only way out of that reactive, short-sighted, inefficient, costly make-work situation is to update/amend the General Plan.
My support of updating the General Plan does not in any way shape or form mean disregarding the planning process. Rather it means a full bear hug embracing of the planning process, and at the end of the General Plan Update having a General plan that promotes open, transparent, robust, efficient, non-costly handling of the applications that are submitted to the City Planning Department.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”This linkage of yours is a complete fantasy . . . All of these false linkages need to stop.”[/i]
Don, I truly thank you for this warm, supportive concern you have expressed about the condition of my mental health. I was talking to J. K. Rowling just a while ago and she wants you to give her a call in the hopes that you can help her with her fantasy issues.
With that said, let’s for a moment hypothetically assume that your assessment of my fantasy is correct. If that is the case, why is it so important to [u]you[/u] that I stop voicing [u]my[/u] fantasy? After all, if you believe that it is very transparently and clearly the case that it is a fantasy, why is it that you have any doubts that everyone else doesn’t also see it as a fantasy?
[quote]After all, if you believe that it is very transparently and clearly the case that it is a fantasy, why is it that you have any doubts that everyone else doesn’t also see it as a fantasy? [/quote]
Not taking sides but to be fair Don has more knowledge regarding these issues then the general public and can thus more clearly evaluate the potential end results. My kids believe in Santa and because they don’t have enough knowledge of physics and the space time continuum convincing him of his existence is easier.
Don has more knowledge, but he is hopelessly biased and prone to relying on a platform standing on two study legs.
[quote]Don has more knowledge, but he is hopelessly biased and prone to relying on a platform standing on two study legs[/quote]
Because this statement is coming from someone who I consider hopelessly biased it holds very little weight.
I need an unbiased opinion of Don’s biasness….
I don’t qualify on that score B. Nice.
[quote]I don’t qualify on that score B. Nice.[/quote]
It seems that most people have respect, even if they don’t always agree with Robb Davis. Here is what he had to say about this in June 12 article of the Vanguard:
[quote]I also think that if I were a City Council member I would want Don Shor to be one (not the only one) of the key people advising me on land use issues. I work with and know several farmers around Davis and more than anyone else writing here Don captures their concerns. And by the way, these are not large, wealthy farmers but smaller ones who are most concerned with bringing food directly from their fields to our plates. They understand the value of the land we are preserving and they take a long view on the value of this land to do what it does best: grow food.
Thanks Don for a reasoned view. Your alternative sites of Nishi (though it has many challenges) and the area around/near Sutter show that you are open on this issue. [/quote]
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7376:council-pulls-back-from-mace-curve-land-swap-in-the-face-of-overwhelming-public-criticism-about-process&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86&cpage=0[/url]