In yesterday’s column was my effort to debunk the notion that slow or no-growther policies are the primary blame for the current fiscal situation in Davis.
In response were nearly one hundred comments, of which I will highlight three.
First from Mark West:
“Your article does a decent job of describing some of the major historical issues on the expense side of the ledger, but in your desire to affix blame on your favorite ‘whipping boys,’ you have completely ignored the equally important problem with the revenue side of the equation. Our situation is due to an imbalance between the revenues we bring in, and the expenses that we pay out. Overpaying employees (especially in terms of total compensation) is a major issue that needs to be addressed, but that excess compensation would be less of an issue if we had not ignored business development over the past couple of decades.
“Now you could argue that if we had the additional revenues ten years ago we would have just overspent on a grander scale, and you may well be right. I think it is clear however that our lack of investment in economic development due to the no-growth approach that has pervaded Davis political thinking, has exacerbated our ability to recover from the down turn, and given us fewer options for moving forward today. This is especially true when you consider the common misconception that economic development equates to housing and big box retail.
“I agree that we have to understand what happened to get us to our current situation so that we don’t repeat the experience. I just think it is important that we look at the total story, and not just the part played by your preferred villains.”
Second from Frankly:
“I think the benefit in replaying the past and pointing to the ‘villains’ if you will, is contained in this part of your comment:
“’Now you could argue that if we had the additional revenues ten years ago we would have just overspent on a grander scale, and you may well be right.’
“It does justify repeating that we screwed up on our over commitments to city employee pay and benefits.
“My problem is that David missed the bigger picture of villain. IMO the villain is the Davis voter and a left-leaning worldview that demonizes business and development in general. You can have a left-leaning worldview without being anti-growth, anti-business and anti-development. But the history of Davis politics has been such that the “antis” and the left-leaning power brokers have been one in the same… or else joined at the hip.”
Finally from Don Shor:
He responds to a comment from Frankly, “A city takes in roughly 13% of the sales tax revenue. So, if Davis, at $7,752 in sales revenue per capita just generated the state average of $12,561, we would be generating another $4,809 in sales revenue per capita. With 65,000 residents, that would be $312,585,000 in additional sales revenue. The total sales tax on these sales would be $25,006,800. 13% of that would be $3,250,884.”
Mr. Shor argues, “Davis sales tax per the 2013 budget was $9.4 million, which was from 1.5% of the 7.75% sales tax paid locally. If Davis increased sales tax by 0.25%, it would increase that revenue by about $1.56 million per year. Double that to $3.1 million if sales tax is increased by 0.5%. So an increase of the local sales tax by 0.5% would have the effect of bringing Davis per capita sales tax up to the state average. And it would put Davis sales tax right about in the middle of what other cities charge.”
I want to offer a few points in response to these goods points raised by several posters.
First, if you look at cities that have much larger reliance on sales tax revenues than Davis, none of them fared as well during the recession as Davis. I think the bottom line here is that, if we had greater revenues ten years ago, we simply would be in a deeper hole because we would have spent more.
I have focused on the revenue side of the equation for most of the existence of the Vanguard because, without getting that in order and keeping it in order, we simply adjust our spending to our revenue.
Second point, City Manager Steve Pinkerton for the last year has been arguing that Davis’ problem at this point is not a spending problem but a revenue problem. I agree for the most part.
Third, while I think we could save a little on the sales tax leakage, bringing in a bunch of chain stores is not really the vision I have for Davis.
I post Don Shor’s figures on a tax increase to illustrate that we really do not need to do much more in terms of retail development to receive the benefits. We can stay Davis and not become Anytown USA and we can do it without raising our sales tax rates above median.
That leads me to the fourth point, I believe we ought to take advantage of our proximity to a world-class university by working hard to keep university spinoffs at home and give startups a place where they can grow.
Some have argued this means making Davis a new Silicon Valley; I think that’s an overly-dramatic interpretation of what is being called for, which is creating a relatively small business park on the edge of town.
Peripheral development in Davis will be controversial – it comes with a necessary election and that means there will be a political battle.
In order to pass a peripheral development you have to convince a portion of the people that voted against Covell Village, against Wildhorse Ranch, and for Measure R to vote for the project. As one poster noted, you don’t bring people together on volatile issues by throwing out pejorative terms.
Voters in Davis, and I include myself, are going to need reassurance that we are not simply opening the floodgates to development pressures. We have already seen Mace 391 put into an easement, but we are going to need more than that. In order to get the voters to approve an east of Mace development, most of the rest of the land east of Mace and north of Covell needs to be taken out of the equation for future development.
Even then, the voters may not approve a peripheral development. The city should be looking at what land might be recast or densified to accommodate some of the economic growth that we need.
But none of this will work if we do not keep our fiscal house in order, and I have a real fear that we are one council vote away from backsliding toward the same unsustainable fiscal practices of the past and that’s why I keep hammering away on our history, because those who forget history or refuse to learn its lessons are condemned to repeat it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
We’re still working on the new comment system – at this point it appears that you can’t post unless you are registered.
the key question for here is if we made huge amounts of new revenue – what keeps spending in check?
In order to pass a peripheral development you have to convince a portion of the people that voted against Covell Village, against Wildhorse Ranch, and for Measure R to vote for the project. As one poster noted, you don’t bring people together on volatile issues by throwing out pejorative terms.
Again, I think we are missing the point that at no other time has there been so much clarity about our fiscal problems. If we cannot cut any more as our city manager indicates, then our choices are only to raise taxes or increase revenue through economic development. Sales tax increases are problematic. They hurt lower income folks the most. They impact spending since families have less discretionary income available at the end of the month due to more of it going to sales tax. How many Davis residents that want to buy a new car would forgo it as a result of that next .50% tax… the straw that breaks the camel’s back of affordability.
As pointed out by me and others, Davis is a significant outlier in terms of sales revenue generated per capita. We generate about 60% of the state average, and much less than half what comparable cities generate. If we only got to the state average of revenue per capita, the city would bring in over $3 million a year in additional revenue. Of course those vested in status quo make excuses. “Davis is not like those other cities!” Apparently we are so special that we are supposed to accept that we are a fiscal mess.
We are also hyper dense because we have rejected allowing any significant peripheral land from being developed. Our population per square mile is an order of magnitude greater than any comparable city. We have got our underwear in a bunch over development on farmland. We are surrounded by farmland. The sate of California has millions of acres of high-quality farmland laying fallow because the state does not have enough water. So, it is a lie that we are at risk of losing too much farmland. It is a convenient lie for the land preservation extremists. It is a convenient lie for those Davisites that are change-averse and stuck on the status quo.
We don’t want more traffic. That is the bottom line rational argument against peripheral economic development.
We already have traffic. Davis is one of the most aggravating cities to drive in. The lights do not synchronize. When school is in session there is a San Francisco-esc confluence of cars and pedestrians… with the added bonus of copious bikes. But one of the big reasons we are so concerned about traffic getting worse is that we are so population dense. We cram everyone into a super small little area and then we reject additional growth because it will cause more traffic. There is a complete lack of rational thinking on this. If we develop on the periphery… both business and retail, we will direct more traffic to the periphery and release some traffic pressure on the core area that is way over saturated.
Pejoratives are justified if economic development is rejected yet again. I must be more used to being called names given my political orientation. When your ideology is claimed responsible for so many problems, I think you need to take your medicine. Maybe those with the opposite worldview have not evolved enough yet to make decisions on a rational and factual basis instead of emotional tirades. If not then I vote for a Davis in bankruptcy because apparently that is what it will take for those people to grow up.
You’re going to have to move a lot of people to win this. If you use pejoratives, you’ll just lock people into their current position and they won’t listen to you.
Certainly I would expect some people to dig in their heels, but then the first thing they tell an alchoholic on their road to recovery is that they have to admit to being an alchoholic. We have to be honest about the causes if we are going to prevent the problems from recurring… the point DP mmakes above. If we have to sugar coat and denie the causes only to make people feel better so that 51% vote for it, I am more likely to support us heading to bankruptcy because the lessons will not be learned and we will continue to risk going back to insolvency. This is a battle for the future for our children. Those that continue selfish pursuits at the expense of future generations deserve to be called out on thier selfish behavior.
Is it the label or the identification of contribution to the problem that locks people into their current position? I think it is the latter, and their problem with the label is only that it works in indentification. Time for us all to take our bitter medicine and get better.
See there you go, connoting a public policy position with alcoholism. That’s not the way to win friends and influence people. I think the problem with the label is the purpose behind it. I consider myself a slow growth advocate, but will be willing to support some development if it comes with locking up other development into easements.
Alcoholism is behavior that makes a person feel good i n the short term but is destructive in the long term. I see a correlation.
Sorry, I don’t see how walking on eggshells trying not to hurt anyone’s feelings is going to help. The problems require introspection. They require that people accept responsibility for how their mindsets and expectations are out of synch with reality in terms of what is good for them going forward. I am a realist, not a politician.
And I know this is the problem with the GOP and conservatives. We don’t tend to work at that sensitive emotional level that seems to be all the new rage. If I recognized an adequate sense of urgency in solving the problems from those demanding a less direct style of debate, I would happily go there. But there is a lot of denial and a lot of irrational posturing and projecting. I don’t have the time nor the patience to play a game that allows people clearly in the wrong to maintain some dignity in their wrongness and slip away from having to take responsibility.
I’m still pissed about the Mace 391 decision. That is a prime example of what we get when we demand and accept emotional rather than rational consideration. What was the true opportunity cost of that decision only because of some false emotive arguments about the YLT being harmed?
If the meek will inherit the earth, I will make sure to identify them as responsible for the damage they inflict with the decisions they make.
We all need to put on our big boy pants and behave like adults.
” I don’t see how walking on eggshells trying not to hurt anyone’s feelings is going to help.”
You have it reversed, being nasty to people will make them less likely to listen to opposing points of view.
Frankly
‘I’m still pissed about the Mace 391 decision’
Again, you do not seem to consider anger an emotion. Others are thinking illogically, but you are “pissed” and of course, that is a prime example of logical thought. I don’t think reading your posts that the liberals are the only one’s who lack introspection.
Both Don Shor and I have posted on numerous occasions what we both see as a rational plan forward, namely continued prudence with regard to spending, short term tax increase and long term tech development. I am not hearing anyone who is currently posting denying that we have to do more in terms of fiscal responsibility and yet you choose to act as though there is some huge move to protect the status quo. Just because someone does not agree with your more limited approach,
namely my view of the business way or no way, does not mean that change is not being advocated.
I agree with your first paragraph 100%. Frankly’s rhetoric isn’t going to move the ball toward collaboration.
With respect to the rational plan that you and Don have put forward, I’m having a hard time rationalizing that plan with the stark reality of the numbers presented by the City manager and Staff at the December 10th and December 17th Council meetings. The General Fund deficit for the budget (which includes $2 million per year to partially mitigate the ever-increasing streets maintenance backlog) shows as a $5.07 million deficit in FY 2013-14 and an aggregate $32.11 million over the 5-year period. Those numbers already include the salaries and benefits reductions recently imposed on the firefighters and DCEA employees. What they do not include is the annual and 5-year share of the $164 million that Staff identified is needed to keep the streets at their current 60 PCI (pavement condition index). The annual share is $8.2 million and the 5-year share is $41.0 million.
Nowhere have I seen either you or Don articulate incremental revenue generation in your plan that covers that combined $13.27 for FY 2013-14 or the combined $73.11 million for the next five years. Don has advocated for adding 0.5% to the Sales Tax, and the City manager’s December 17 presentation indicates that will generate $3.61 million of additional annual revenue, but that still leaves us $9.66 million short. Where do you see that $9.66 million coming from?
Note: The City manager’s presentation indicated that a $135 per parcel Parcel Tax would generate $3.68 million. Some quick math says that a Parcel Tax of $400 per parcel plus the 0.5% incremental addition to the Sales Tax would cover the lions share of the $73.11 million and completely cover the $13.27 million. Is that what you and Don propose?
Frankly’s rhetoric isn’t going to move the ball toward collaboration.
I don’t think we can effectively collaborate. You keep bringing up the same facts without seeing any action, only a greater effort to argue in defense and stall, and eventually you realize that you need to change tactics.
At this point I don’t trust those on the other side of land use for economic development. I think they put up a front of cooperation only to jump in and block the next proposal and the next proposal. For them it will never be good enough. They will always find something wrong.
I think there are plenty of voters in this town open to the idea that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing willing to see the city go down before they give in. I will point them out.
Be fair Matt. Who HAS put forward a plan to deal with the $9.6 million shortfall? If someone has, I have not heard it.
There was a very strong opportunity to use the Mace 391 property to deal with the ongoing budget shortfall while also bringing in enough of a windfall to take care of much of the road maintenance shortfall.
At the same time, it would have provided more open space preservation.
But that was not good enough.
Why?
Because those on the side of no-growth and land preservation think they can still have it all.
If I had a Council vote, I probably would have voted for 391. However, one thing the Council had to be mindful of was its very low chances of making it through the Measure J process. If it was 98% likely to fail, and it was worth a $10 million profit, that profit has to be discounted by 98% (and hence it would be said to be worth $200,000).
Having said that, I think your basic premise is right: that there is a strong anti-growth sentiment in Davis which killed 391. But, that is a popular sentiment. And in a democracy, it’s natural that Council votes will reflect that popular point of view, whether it is best for the city’s coffers or not.
Rich, if you calculate risk/reward that way, nothing will ever get done.
You are advocating for a model of doing the same thing over and over again and as a result getting the same expected results.
Because we have a very large hamburger bill in our hands, and no hamburger to eat, we have to think in different ways. If we don’t we will starve.
Robb, if I read Tia’s post correctly she said that she and Don had. Her words in her 4:08 pm comment were, Both Don Shor and I have posted on numerous occasions what we both see as a rational plan forward, namely continued prudence with regard to spending, short term tax increase and long term tech development. I am not hearing anyone who is currently posting denying that we have to do more in terms of fiscal responsibility . . .
And, what public parks, greenbelts, open space, etc., does El Macero residents pay for?
And what public parks do El Macero residents use Hortense? We pay Sales Tax just like you do for our purchases in Davis and see no benefit from that Sales Tax. Because all of the local component of our property taxes stays in the County instead of flowing to the City, we contribute proportionately more than Davis residents to County Services like Health Care, Drug and Alchohol Treatment, County Roads Maintenance, etc. The reality is that in the end the collaboration on services between jurisdictions causes the monetary ledger to “even up in the wash.”
The reason that El Macero historically hasn’t wanted to be annexed is because of all the “command and control” regulations that Davis imposes on its residents. Jusk ask Don Shor how much fun it was getting the City of Davis Community Development Department to approve the color of paint he painted his business with.
Out of curiosity, do you serve on any volunteer Boards in Davis? In addition to the WAC and the NRC I volunteer on the Boards of VCAC, SCD, the Davis Art Center, as well as the Editorial Board of the Vanguard. In the County I served on the Health Council for three years and now chair the Yolo County General Plan Advisory Committee for the South Davis comment area. One minor School Board Committee as well. We’re all part of one community.
Matt, since you don’t live in Davis, back off. I think you’d love having Davis citizens paying more for services for which you and your neighbors do not pay… particularly sanitary sewer, which El Macero, last time I checked, is seriously in direars with.
Hey-be nice. Matt contributes a lot to Davis, even if he doesn’t technically live here;-)
See above Hortense. El Macero residents do not pay less for services than Davis citizens do. We don’t pay for City parks, we pay for County parks.
In violation of the California Constitution Article XIII, the City of Davis charges the County (on behalf of the El Macero residents) for sewer services that the El Macero residents never use. The County legally notified the City of this violation in 2008, proposed a solution that was acceptable to the City Finance Director and the City Manager, but was unacceptable to Bob Weir and Sue Gedestadt of Public Works, because Bob and Sue knew that if they accepted the County’s offer then residents of the City who had the same problem of being charged for sewer services they were never using would have an outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual proportionality abuse. As has happened in a number of other situations, the politically-driven sewer rate decision has bitten and will continue to bite Davis. Sewer is created by people. It is not created by lawn irrigation nozzles.
Yolo County Superior Courth Judge McGuire’s decision in a couple of weeks will establish the resolution for the sewer impasse between the City and the County.
My sense from observing the questions Judge McGuire asked the lawyers on December 16th, was that he heard the message loud and clear on that people create sewage and as a result generate sewer treatment costs, but that lawn irrigation heads do not generate either sewage or sewer treatment costs.
BTW, you do know that the County has paid the City in full since 2008 for sewer charges based on the proportional (average per capita) costs of sewer treatment across all the Single Family Residences in Davis.
The only amount unpaid by the County is the incremental amount that the City is trying to charge all the irrigation sprinkler heads in El Macero that work hard in the winter to keep plants from desicating, and in the process of that yeoman’s work create no sewage or sewer treatment costs.
I don’t care if you demonstrate emotion as long is it leads to a logical opinion or action.
Neither Don nor you have offered up anything except the most very general ideas. The analogy is that we need to get toys to the kids for Christmas and you report that you might believe in Santa as a contribution to the cause.
Have you really studied the financial circumstances of the city? Do you really understand what is at stake with respect to our deficit trajectory?
If you had, there is no way you would rationally accept anything other than a great urgency to develop our economy.
Either you don’t understand the magnitude of the problem, or you don’t care enough to support real solutions.
BTW do you live in Davis or in the unincorporated areas (Binning/Willowbank/El Macero)?
I think you have an obsession Hortense. Frankly lives in the City.
“Sorry, I don’t see how walking on eggshells trying not to hurt anyone’s feelings is going to help. The problems require introspection. They require that people accept responsibility for how their mindsets and expectations are out of synch with reality in terms of what is good for them going forward. I am a realist, not a politician.”
This is not about walking on eggshells to protect people feelings or sugar coating anything. You may see land preservation policy’s as analogous to alcoholism, but this is just your opinion, not a fact. I see your views on many issues as being just as dangerous and destructive as alcoholism, but again those are my opinions, and ones I will probably never get you to share, no matter how many names I call you.
The economic problems of this city are not going to be solved by calling each other names in the hopes that doing so will convince a group that they are wrong.
I’m not so sure. Worked well for the Democrats in the national elections.
What is “dangerous” or “destructive” about my opinions on this topic?
I was thinking about some opinions on other, off topic so not to mentioned here, subjects.
While this sort of name calling may prove successful at times, for BOTH parties, in getting people elected, I think it has been proven ineffective, over and over again, in actually getting much done.
I’ve been thinking about this a little, and I wonder Frankly is there any way I could convince you of the dangerous and destructive consequences of the wide spread distribution of single use plastic bags? Would calling you a lazy, over-consuming resource hog, help you “accept responsibility for how your mindset and expectations are out of synch with reality in terms of what is good for them going forward.” Or would sending you a usable bag better help me achieve my goal of ridding the planet of the evil plastic kind?
That is not an effective analogy since it is irrational. You cannot explain how single use plastic bags in Davis are dangerous and destructive because they are not.
But many have made copious rational arguments to demonstrate that the city is heading toward a very bad financial situation… in fact, it is already in a very bad financial situation. That is clear, definitive, absolute, calculated, rational, objective.
If you would do the same with the anti-plastic bag arguments and I still continue to block and oppose bans, then I would deserve labels and prerogatives, IMO.
My point is that I believe theses arguements have been made , you just aren’t buying them, calling you names isn’t going to change that.
“but will be willing to support some development if it comes with locking up other development into easements.”
That boat sailed when we gave away Mace 391. That piece of property was unique in that it would have supplied the money to pay for the easements that you now want, and according to Matt, supplied the appropriate ‘trade offs’ that many of the involved land owners needed to move forward with easements on their own properties. The ultimate stupidity of the Mace 391 decision is that it will result in far fewer acres of land being preserved than would have happened if we had developed it.
Now for your insistence that more land be preserved before you will agree to any development on the periphery all I will say is that if your opinion prevails, we will become insolvent due to our refusal to invest in economic development. We cannot tax and cut our way out of the mess we have created.
I would prefer that we make the necessary investments and use economic growth to solve our problems, but if we are going to sit on our hands and go bankrupt, then I think we should do it sooner rather than later so that we can stop throwing our tax monies down the drain. Short-term tax increases to fund long-term investments in economic development are appropriate. Short-term tax increases without the investment is just more money down the drain.
So David, I think it is time for you to decide if you want to invest in economic development, including building a significant business park on the periphery, or do you want the City to go bankrupt. That is the choice in front of us, even if you are unable or unwilling to admit it.
That boat has not sailed in the least. Any development that goes to Measure R requires 2:1 ag mitigation. I’m simply expanding that requirement.
The 2:1 mitigation is required (i.e. automatic) so there was no reason for you to mention it. Clearly you were demanding more, and that ‘more’ boat has sailed.
I disagree that that boat has sailed. In fact, the 391 mitigation actually helps in this regard.
How does it help David? I’m not sure that I follow your thought process.
Except, the City paid for it, not a developer…
BTW is anyone else having more “pop-ups” with the new vanguard server?
I haven’t had even one.
I haven’t had any pop-ups.
“Now for your insistence that more land be preserved before you will agree to any development on the periphery all I will say is that if your opinion prevails, we will become insolvent due to our refusal to invest in economic development.”
This was directed at David but I’m going to pretend it was directed at me so I can get my 2 cents in. I’m not insisting that more land be preserved before I will agree to development. I’m saying that IMO it would be more likely to get moderate slow growers to support a business park development IF a firm ag. easement was in place. So my recommendation to those who are pushing for economic development is to support the slow-growers efforts in this regard, if of coarse the goal is a indeed economic development and not the finical collapse of the city so they can say, “told you so”.
Here’s a creative way for Folsom to expand its tax base — revive drowned communities:
Lost city revealed as Folsom lake levels drop
(Maybe something lies beneath Stonegate Lake?)
Like.
And… as an aside. It is looking more and more like the water people have screwed up releasing so much from our reservoirs as it appears this is going to be a very dry winter.
Interesting that Southern CA heeded the climatologists predictions that this winter would be dry. Their reservoirs are full.
Of course there is an apt metaphor here.
I have no idea which “Southern CA reservoirs” you are referring to, but your assertion is inaccurate and makes your supposed metaphor less apt.
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/reports/EXECSUM
“(Don Shor) responds to a comment from Frankly, ‘A city takes in roughly 13% of the sales tax revenue.'”
There are two distinct types of sales tax in California: the main being that charged by the state (7.5%); and the latter an add-on charged by a city or a county. In Davis, we already have a 1% add-on in addition to the state sales tax. That is why our current sales tax is 8.5%
I presume that Don’s 13% collected figure is based only on the state’s 7.5%. If so, he is basically correct. Cities (normally) get to keep 1 cent out of every 7.5 cents. That is 13.33%. (I think there are some exceptions to this.)
However, if you consider that our sales tax is really 8.5% and Davis keeps about 2%, our kept share is about 23.53%.
Current sales tax, Davis/Yolo:
State tax 6%
County tax .5%
Local tax 1%
District .5%
Total = 8.0%
As I understand, the maximum additional local sale tax increase is 2%. Does the district .5% count as part of our local sales tax increase? In other words, does a .5% local sales tax increase max out our state allowance for sales tax increases?
Don, you’re right. I was wrong. Davis now gets 1.5%: the first 1% as its share of the state mandated tax; the last 0.5% from the measure we passed in 2003.
Note, however, that when we passed that add-on, we did so with the argument that so many other local governments (including Woodland) had done so, and therefore we should, too.
The present argument is that others have hiked their add-on rate even more, so again, we should, too.
It seems to me a costly cycle, when most of the problem we have is due to our unwillingness to adequately control the cost of labor compensation.
Although I wouldn’t mind paying more, Rich’s “costly cycle” observation reminds me that one of our councilmen (Lucas Frerichs, as I remember) wanted to wait on the four-on-a-truck decision–hoping we could find some room in the budget so “we wouldn’t have to cut back to three” or some such reasoning. Wouldn’t Lucas be the first in line, attempting to direct any additional revenue to benefit the firefighters’ union?
Its doubtful. Raises, if there are any, are going to be across the board going forward. Also you are projecting much more into what Lucas said than reality suggests.
As Frankly correctly observes, 391 was the last vote on an issue involving merely “the continued discussion of economic development as a desirable option for the community” and it was body slammed 5-0 in favor of an land use decision that provides no potential of any economic benefit to the community.
With no disrespect to the agricultural and farming community, and nothing but admiration for their traditions and perseverance, but money literally does grow on trees in their business model. Their advocacy group is well organized, with strong convergent ties to the community both politically (as witnessed in the 391 vote) and culturally and clearly understands the rules of the game. Any chink in the armor could result in measurable damage.
When our elected city council can’t even get beyond that type of challenge – which was literally nothing more than a “continued discussion” of the options available – it does not augur well for their willingness to any real money or earnest political capital behind the type of substantive measures that will be necessary if the community is to have an honest opportunity for a healthy and open debate concerning the potential benefits and associated challenges of economic development.
It is going to straight-talking leadership and a willingness to advocate for the financial investment necessary to execute a professionally-led visioning process if we expect to faithfully involved all constituent groups in the process and outcome. Bottom line, it is going to take a lot more than a reconstituted Innovation Park Task Force to cause any meaningful movement on this issue.
Perhaps this reality is the leverage which the community holds in terms of approving another “temporary increase in the sales tax component”?
While I agree that Mace 391 provided economic opportunity for the city, I don’t think it was the holy grail that some make it out it be, if it was, my guess is that council’s vote would have been a 5-0 in the other direction.
There is where we disagree. The council punted because the NIMBY, no-growth, change-averse, land preservation extremists made it clear that those voting against the easement would pay the political price for doing what they knew was the fiscally prudent thing to do.
And what political price would that be?
1) Having to explain their vote if the financial risk didn’t turn into financial reward.
2) Having to explain how the process was allowed to stay in the closet all through 2011 and 2012, and then in 2013 result in a last-minute public rejection of the ministrations of the NRCS and the YLT.
Seems like they have to do these things anyway. (Change 1. to having to explain sacrificing the potential finical gains. ).
Actually they probably won’t. The logical people will move on because they see no alternative but to move on. Can’t change the past, and the Mace 391 decision is now in the past. The passionate/idealistic people won’t be asking any questions because they got their way.
I disagree B. Nice. The Mace 391 vote boiled down to risk/reward and uncertainty/certainty. Those two trade-off axes existed both in the political sphere and the financial sphere. As you pointed out in the Mace 391 discussions, certainty did not exist with respect to the specific cash-flows (returns) Davis could expect to realize. That translated to risk, but because of the fee-title ownership, the potential fiscal reward was substantial. Higher risk meant higher financial reward.
On the political side if the criteria was immediately tangible reward, the risks far outweighed the rewards. Standing up to that immediate political pressure was like the classic line uttered by the character J. Wellington Wimpy in the Popeye cartoon series . . . “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” In the end the Council couldn’t say no to the hamburger.
It wasn’t a holy grail, just a hamburger.
I’ll ask a similar question I asked Frankly, what were the immediate tangible political rewards?
We have been through this all.
3-1 open space acquisition
The tremendous increase in value per acre of a business park… the earnings from this could have about paid for our road fund deficit. Possibly more to help build a reserve.
The development fee revenue.
The ongoing property and sales tax revenue.
The private companies that contribute to the community.
All of these things should have translated into tangible political rewards since I would argue that the first priority of politicians should be to ensure a sustainable fiscal house.
But the NIMBY, change-averse, no-growthers, and the land preservation extremists would have none of it.
I was asking what the political rewards council members received for their Mace 391 decision.
Immediate gratification/placation of a very vocal constituency.
The opposing constituency also seemed pretty vocal, no?
Yes, but in a predominantly leftist community like Davis, the opposing community doesn’t represent the number of voters that their conterparts represents . . . probably by a factor of 20 to 1.
So it could be argued that the majority voted in council members that share their views on land conservation issues, and council’s vote was reflective of their personal values, not an attempt to gain political rewards.
Absolutely. That is democracy in action. The problem is not one of democracy, but one of fiscal stability and accounting. Sometimes democracy and fiscal stability are at odds with one another. This is one of those situations.
If you are a politician considering running for State office as a Democrat I think it is fair to say that you will remember that you ran into the current Governor at the Yolo Land Trust fund raiser and think twice about going against the wishes of this well connected organization.
I think one of our best presidents was Hoover, but he was one term primarily because of the bad luck of US economic cycles, but also because he actually worked to get government to do more with less… and voters at that point were already hooked on government money. If not for the 1929 crash we might have learned many things from his efficiency movement. Instead we got from him the genesis of government over-spending and over-committing… he just started the play and FDR ran with it.
The bottom line is that the people are to blame because of the greed to get their bit of redistribution. The YLT is no different… they don’t exist without this expansive redistributive system… one that dumps billions of dollars into programs that help the politically powerful fluff their egos and CVs with politically-correct social causes while they ignore the boring and potentially politically-damaging responsibility of making government work within its means.
I don’t share your positive views of Hoover as president. However, one of the terrible bits of bad luck he suffered as president, which actually happened before he took office in 1929, was the death of Benjamin Strong at age 55 in 1928.
Strong was the head of the NY Fed. That was the most powerful economic position in our country at that time. Strong was very capable. And he would never have let the Board of Governors of the Fed pursue the stupid belt tightening it chose to follow–at Hoover’s urging, by the way–if he had been alive. He would have followed the normal pattern of lowering the discount rate and feeding cash into the economy. But without Strong, the Fed had no good leaders. They were mostly a bunch of idiot bankers from the Midwest, who had no understanding of the larger role of money in an economy. And they turned a normal recession into the Great Depression.
Hoover gets more blame for his endorsement in 1930 of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs. That cut off most of global trade, once other countries responded to Hoover’s idiotic moves. And thus, our Depression went global.
It’s also the case that widespread anti-Semitism among the Hoover and Coolidge appointees on the Fed caused them to think it was wise to starve “Jewish banks” of cash during the crisis. That caused those NY banks to fail; and that helped starve the entire economy, as banks all over the country needed the money-center banks for their liquidity.
But it should be said that even the Jews on the Fed–Hoover appointed Eugene Meyer as chairman in 1930–were stupid when it came to monetary policy. Meyer was a stock trader and an investment banker–he later bought the Washington Post; his daughter was Katherine Graham–but he didn’t know a damn thing about running the Fed.
Again, if Strong lived, we never would have had the Great Depression. Possibly, without the Depression, Germany never would have put up with the Nazis, and WW2 may have been avoided.
Rich Rifkin, somehow I knew I would hear from you the minute I mentioned Hoover.
Good history lesson.
I’m not sure I am ready to single out Hoover for anti-Semitism in 1930. And I am certainly not willing to rewrite the history of WWII and Germany had the US economic policy been different. One could make many arguments about how things might have turned out differently had certain leaders lived or died.
There are conflicting opinions about what caused the crash of 1929. I do think the Hoover Administration made great mistakes that perpetuated the Great Depression. However, I think FDR did too… and for not WWII I think it would have lasted much longer.
The thing that impresses me about Hoover (and Coolidge) was his willingness to face that apparently thankless responsibility of making government run within a budget and making that budget lean.
Going back to 1920, for that decade the federal government ran at a surplus. That was Coolidge and Hoover.
But from 1931 to current time, there were only eight years where the federal government ran at a surplus. The other 90% of the time the federal government ran at a SIGNIFICANT deficit.
But we don’t hear much about Coolidge and Hoover. We hear ALOT about FDR. Of course he was our only 3-termer and he was our President during WWII; but he spent us into a huge hole.
My point was that we have few leaders doing the right thing. They will piss off people that are used to getting paid from government redistribution. Our City Council is no different.
I’m not sure I am ready to single out Hoover for anti-Semitism in 1930.
Hoover was not anti-Semitic. I am sorry if I made it sound like he was. The anti-Semitism was among the Midwestern bankers serving on the Fed that he and Coolidge appointed.
Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of Americans were anti-Semitic and racist back then. Jews, of course, had it a lot worse in other countries, and blacks had it much worse here.
Notably, what really changed America’s religious prejudice (for most Americans) was Hitler and our fight against him in WW2. After that, being an anti-Semite in the U.S. and in most of the modern world was no longer acceptable.
An irony of history is that the Jewish people survived and stayed a people (as opposed to just a minority religion) because of anti-Semitism. Today, in countries like the U.S., Canada and Britain, there is (other than among the super religious) no more Jewish community or culture. Jews are fully integrated. It was the forced segregation and legal restrictions which caused them to develop the skills they needed to survive and advance. But as time moves forward, that edge will be gone. And that is mostly for the good. But, as a Jew, it’s hard not to have a nostalgic feeling for the old ways which are being lost and will never be replaced.
“‘I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.’ In the end the Council couldn’t say no to the hamburger.”
I see it exactly the other way around: the council turned down the offer of Tuesday payment — the riches that were purported to flow into city coffers from a vaguely-defined high-risk speculative development — and declined Wimpy’s request that it buy him a hamburger, retaining instead the price of same in the form of the bird-in-the-hand Mace 391 easement, which meets policy goals of long standing.
There’s a reason developers sometimes make big money: it’s because they’re in a high-risk business. Business park development is the job of the private sector, and public monies shouldn’t be put at risk competing with private enterprise.
Fair enough Jim. The reality is that Council played the cards they were dealt. To carry forward your interpretation/reading of my hamburger analogy, they did indeed decline Wimpy’s request that they buy him a hamburger, and at the end of the day they were still left holding a $13 million annual bill . . . which they currently don’t have the money to pay for.
The November 19th Staff report to Council very clearly says, “During the second half of 2012 and in early 2013, City staff also had several internal discussions about the potential for swapping privately-owned acreage identified in the evolving Innovation Park Task Force recommendations with some of the City-owned acreage on the Mace 391 property.
The concept being explored would have facilitated approximately 70 acres of the privately- owned 185 acres identified in the Innovation Park Task Force recommendations for an eastern edge innovation park to be relocated down along Interstate 80 where visibility and accessibility would make the land more desirable for a business park. Several meetings were also held with the Yolo Land Trust and the USDA NRCS about this swapping option. In October 2012 the NRCS responded that the swap of acreage was inconsistent with the grant award.”
If Staff had conducted the kind of robust, open, transparent, forward-thinking discussons that they should have conducted in 2012 and early 2013, the Council wouldn’t have been left holding the hamburger bag (and bill).
You all keep going round and round yet it seems nobody ever moves. There are only so many fiscal cards to play. Anyone who sees any card as off the table needs to be willing to step up to make the numbers work. If no growth can raise the money through increased taxation perhaps we can make that work. If pro growth can raise money through growth perhaps that can work. In my mind we are going to need to do both with some growth and some taxes lessening the burden on any particular segment. Otherwise you just make things worse.