I have already seen a few emails from residents in the vicinities of the various proposed innovation parks expressing concerns about need for the project, location of the project and traffic impacts.
The planning process at this stage can be difficult because the developers and proponents are speaking conceptually, in general terms, about the project. The people who live near innovation parks and proposed locations are thinking specifically about how to handle things like traffic impacts and other impacts to their way of life.
The points that I think need to be made early in the process are why we need an innovation park at all. That is a critical element that I have not seen in the pushback, if you want to call it that, from the community. This is the case we have been laying out from the start and the public really needs to understand it.
The city faces a continued fiscal crisis. This is not a small problem that will be fixed in the short term. We passed a sales tax measure in June, but our problem is far bigger than that. We have huge and compounding costs due to deferred maintenance – the roads that are on the verge of catastrophic failure, parks that have millions of infrastructure costs, pools that are leaking and have huge maintenance costs, and city buildings badly in need of upgrades.
The city does not have funding in place to address those needs. And, while the city is still trying to shore up its compensation system, in the long term we are facing ever-increasing taxes, loss of amenities, closure of parks and green belts – or we can attempt to build our tax base.
Davis has one of the lowest sales tax captures per capita in the region, and so the question is how best to shore that up. We do not have existing space to meet those needs – that case needs to be made very clearly to the public. So, while we can look to the downtown, densification and bringing in startups, in terms of generating the revenue that we need, we need space and the only place we have space is on the periphery.
We have kind of assumed here – and I think the polling by Godbe supports this – that the public would be more amenable to university research that spins off to new startup companies, and growing high-tech companies moving into these spots, rather than relying on big box retail, which would be another option.
I might be biased here, but the fiscal analysis is black and white and clear as anything – we cannot maintain the services that we have on the tax revenue that we generate. That is a relatively easy case to make to the public.
Second, we need to address the “where” issue, because yeah, I get that people living in portions of the community value their open space and current living conditions. I don’t think the argument that people are now living on what was once new developments really addresses the point.
Unfortunately, while I agree with those who wish to improve existing space, we need new space to generate the kinds of sales and property tax revenue that will make our budget sustainable.
While Davis is looking at Nishi, which is closer to the university and the downtown, we really don’t have the volume of space needed in that location to generate the revenue that we need.
I have heard people talk about the need to create a community vision – I get that. I have heard that from both sides of the aisle. Those who want Davis to expand its innovation parks but believe that we need a vision to get there, and those who are probably stalling for time.
I am not opposed to a community vision effort, but I think time is largely ticking on this, the time to act is now, and so if a vision effort can facilitate and get us on the same page within the current time frame, go for it. If it slows us down, I think we can rely on the facts to make this case.
The community needs to be shown in a concrete way what this can look like. At some point we will have proposals, EIRs, and other more specific means to know. But in the shorter term, I think we can show the public the possible by showing them examples of good innovation parks (and perhaps some bad ones, to avoid the pitfalls) and how they can both fit in with and enhance this community.
The final point to make for now is that the public needs to understand that this is at an early stage. Yeah, I get it, there are chances that there will be environmental impacts and traffic impacts. That is why we have environmental impact reports. That is why we have traffic engineers who will help develop a way to create these parks without huge traffic impacts.
These are things that can be addressed later in the project and I will tell everyone right now, if the city and developers do not come up with good solutions to real concerns, I’m not going to support the projects and neither should anyone else.
We are not handing them a blank check here. That is why we have Measure R.
At the same time, we face very real dangers and we cannot afford to let the search for perfection be the death of the community as we know it. Imagine Davis without its parks, greenbelts, bike lanes, and pools. Imagine a Davis with crumbling roads, buildings in disrepair, and no means to raise additional revenue.
Some will say this is a scare tactic. But I have poured over these numbers for years and they aren’t getting better. I voted against Covell Village and Target, but this is something that we need if we value the Davis we have. If we build it right, it won’t be a detriment to the community but rather an enhancement.
But we can’t concede this battle or it will be lost before it begins.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
I remain a three, not a four on the innovation park concept. However I do take exception to several points you have made.
“this is something that we need if we value the Davis we have”
This ignores the concept that if we make these particular changes, the Davis that “we have”
will fundamentally not be the “Davis that we have now”. Some are going to like this, some are not, but to frame this as “saving the Davis that we have now “is erroneous.
“we cannot maintain the services that we have on the tax revenue that we generate”
I would modify this to read “the tax revenue that we currently generate”. This does not mean that we could not choose to tax our selves more. It also misses the point that with each of these new additions will come new costs. At what point do we feel secure that we will have
“grown ourselves out of the economic problems created by past poor choices” without having created yet more need that we then have to expand further to ameliorate. I am always skeptical of the idea of simply growing out way out of problems.
“there are chances that there will be environmental impacts and traffic impacts”
These are not chances, these are certainties. The bet that is being made here is that the outcome will be worth the downsides. I would say that this burden of addressing these certainties is on those who are promoting the change for their benefit.
Tia: I subscribe to the view that Davis is going to change because the present arrangement is not sustainable. The question therefore is which changes us the least.
Dr. Will: “This does not mean that we could not choose to tax our selves more.”
Dr. Will is correct, we can choose to further raise our taxes, and in the process make Davis a more expensive place to live for everyone (thus protecting her perceived ‘way of life’) or we can choose to grow our economy, providing job opportunities for our youth and lowering everyone’s tax burden (thus improving all of our lives).
We have effectively been following Dr. Will’s preferred prescription for the past several years, failing to invest in our economy, raising taxes and increasing services while ‘protecting’ one thing or another. This is a big reason why the City is going broke, why our tax rates continue to go up, and why we have a deficit of several thousand jobs compared to a typical California City of our population.
We have a clear choice, and as David points out, the only certainty is that Davis is going to change. We can choose to continue on our current path of decline, or we can invest in our future and create something better. The details are important, and there are many questions that still need to be answered with regards to the proposed projects, but there is no doubt that choosing to invest in our economy will provide the greater benefits to our community as a whole.
We’ve already taxed ourselves enough. I and many others don’t have a doctor’s salary to always come back to the same old trough of just taxing the people more.
This is a crucial point – some are willing to tax themselves more because they can afford it. There are many who cannot afford it, and would be forced to leave town, making Davis even more unaffordable than it already is. It will also head us toward being a retirement community, because young families typically cannot afford higher taxes because of all the expenses of raising kids.
Taxing themselves… works… taxing OTHERS so that I may make a ‘tax’ contribution, not so much.
Perhaps those of means, who would prefer mainly a tax revenue solution, should seriously consider supporting Davis becoming a ‘Charter City’, AND imposing a local, graduated income tax for increased revenues. More progressive than a parcel tax, and we could exclude, say, $50,000/year. Those between 50k-100k, 1%… 100k-200k, 2%… 200k and above, 3%. I could support that more readily than another parcel tax.
Higher income folks could write-off a portion of the local tax.
hpierce
Agreed. And I would point out that I have stated many times that not only would I be amenable to such a solution, it is how I believe that taxation should be handled. Those of us who have most successfully navigated the financial aspects of our society should indeed be willing to pay more. I would happily pay much more in what I have, money, rather than lose what I value more, again.
However, what I feel is being disregarded here is that I will not be allowed to do this but rather, I will “pay” more, but not in terms of money. My “contribution” will be the degradation of the lifestyle that I prefer due to the unwillingness of others to contribute in the way I prefer. There are many ways of paying…..not all are monetary. This will not be the first time that I have “payed” with the loss of my preferred lifestyle. It will be the third. All three times will be because people who stand to gain financially have decided that the best solution is to “grow our way out” in what they see as the “only solution”. I watched my rural hometown go from a population of
2000 in a fishing / farming community to a 65,000 tourist and millionaire playground with the complete destruction of a way of life. I was certainly not a “rich doctor at that time” and I didn’t favor it then.
I watched this happen in Orange County where strawberry fields and orange groves disappeared in favor of strip malls, fast food chains and large shopping malls. I was not a “rich doctor” then either, I was working minimum wage and I didn’t want it then either. I understand the point made by Anon in a previous thread that Target’s and Applebee’s and the like are liked by some and convenient to have. My point is that they are already ubiquitous. The trend in this country is relentlessly towards
“developing” over land and natural resources in favor of money, convenience, more “choices” of places to eat and shop ( never mind that most of the time the “choice” already exists within 30 minutes of where you are.
What is being ignored in this endless quest for “expansion” is its cost in terms of our environment, our enjoyment of anything that does not involve the expenditure of money and most important of all, our children’s future choices. It is this “growth will solve everything” mind set that I feel is unsustainable…..not in the next five to ten years, maybe not in the next fifty …..but certainly as a species, we simply cannot believe that “growing out way out ” is a sustainable long term solution… and yet, it is the only solution that I see being put forward and has been since I was a child.
Yup. No doctor’s salary here.
There is no doctor’s salary in this house and I agree with Tia completely.
Good, then write the city an extra check for what you can afford.
If the city offered a plan by which this could be arranged, I would totally be on board. I do not have any more idea of how to make this happen than most of you would have on how to do a hysterectomy.
I’m sure if you write a check to the City of Davis General Fund they will be more than happy to cash it.
“This does not mean that we could not choose to tax our selves more. It also misses the point that with each of these new additions will come new costs. ”
as someone noted, taxing ourselves more puts more strain on low income/ fixed income residents. the new additions come with costs, but so too does more taxes.
I do not believe that taxation has to place more of a burden on the poor.
We have the ability to change our tax codes or offer subsides to off set the increased cost to the poor. What we do not have is the will to make the necessary changes.
I am reading a book recommended to me by DT Businessman and a couple of other posters. It is Startup Communities by Brad Field. It is basically the story of Boulder Colorado becoming a business startup and entrepreneurial center. It is an interesting read.
In 1970 the population of Boulder was about the size of Davis today. IBM already had located their data storage division there. There was one of two other large private employers at the time. So in that respect, Davis is not quite a good match. We have several small-mid sized tech companies in our midst, so we are not a complete business backwater by comparison… assuming we can keep them… but Boulder definitely had an advantage out of the starting gate when the information economy started to blossom.
But reading of the history of the city of Boulder and the country of Boulder, and all the current planning information, there is a glaring difference between them and us. The difference is the inclusion of economic development and the expectation of urban growth. Boulder residents largely had it and have it, Davis might be coming around to it, but has previously lacked it.
Few residents of Boulder seemed to envision their city as a bedroom and retirement community as is the case with Davis. They had bigger and better things in mind for their city… and they seemed to understand that change was inevitable and they had to participate in designing and executing the change instead of attempting to block it.
Compared to Davis, the level and quality of participation in Boulder’s change planning and design has been orders of magnitude stronger.
I see us at an inflection point in leadership. Davis has previously been led by the enemies of change. The defeat of John Munn, a candidate who despite his strong fiscal conservatism was strongly aligned with the no-growth camp, in the last CC election was an indication that the tide has turned.
What we need is an infusion of greater entrepreneurial leadership. Not just in the business area, but in all area. For example, even our environmental pursuits seem stuck and following. We chase bag bans and green container policies as if we are having an anxiety attack about falling behind in our liberal progressive image… not because we have a grand vision and are pursuing a grand vision. And our open space preservation is amateurish. Other communities use these valuable opportunities to create usable open space… while Davis’s programs seem to be led by people with a myopic goal of just adding acquired acres to their portfolio and resume.
We need these peripheral business parks for a number of reasons, but one is that we need an infusion of creative class people to help us lead Davis back to the level of prominence that we deserve… and one that leverages the significant brain trust the town is blessed with.
And like for the people of Boulder, we will all benefit from it.
“I see us at an inflection point in leadership. Davis has previously been led by the enemies of change. The defeat of John Munn, a candidate who despite his strong fiscal conservatism was strongly aligned with the no-growth camp, in the last CC election was an indication that the tide has turned.”
My analysis was that Munn fell short largely because he focused exclusively on fiscal and water issues and was unable to address other substantive issues. Given the small margin of his defeat, I don’t really see it as a defeat of the no-growth camp. JMO>
I think Munn lost because he’s a conservative in a very liberal town. He did well to get the votes he did.
That’s where I was going with that (in part), but you stated it more succinctly.
So – Is you point that the no-growthers and enemies of change are still in power?
I know that I would have voted for Munn had he not been in the no-growth camp.
So related to this, why did Sheila Allen fail so badly. She came in will all those liberal progressive vibes.
Sheila’s defeat was the result of being associated with both the stepping-stone political machine and the Julie Crawford debacle.
Jim… do you believe in the existence of “the machine”, or are you just acknowledging the ‘perception’ of “the machine”?
I agree that the Peterson/Crawford debacle (good word for it), and comments/actions related were a factor, and perhaps another “machine” that might exist that would support Robb Davis (as I did, but independently of a possible “machine” — in fact, IN SPITE of that theoretical “machine”)
The term “machine” is overblown; I think it’s more than perception but less than Tammany Hall. I don’t believe there’s a top-down big-money kingmaking hierarchy holed up in a smoke-filled room, but I do believe that the close-knit network of political activists centered on the county Democratic Party apparatus often leads to consensus candidate selection and support from within the network. That support, in the form of contributions, endorsements and advice, can be difficult for an unconnected candidate to overcome. Further, I think that those co-dependent relationships make it difficult for an elected official to take action that goes against the explicit or inferred will of the network. Not that examples to the contrary can’t be found, but I do believe it has been, and to some extent still is, a powerful factor in local politics.
At the City Council level, that power has been in decline since Saylor, Souza and Asmundson left office. The need to actually begin cleaning up the mess they made finally became too dire to ignore, and we saw Brett, Rochelle and Joe ascend to the dais in response. (Sue was always the outsider elected, but was so difficult to work with that she finally alienated herself out of office. More’s the pity, as for years hers was the only voice speaking out against the unconscionable budget actions that her colleagues whitewashed for public consumption.)
I think the “machine” aspect is most evident in the stepping-stone officials, the ones for whom a Council or DJUSD seat is a resume-building stopover on the way to higher office. In their best moments they work very, very hard to make the city a better place, but in their worst they trade the good of the city for political capital. Sometimes I wonder if they do this consciously or not, but — my cynical perspective aside — the result is the same.
I would replace “machine” with “clique”
Glad you’re reading it Frankly! It’s a start… and I think Davis can move forward toward becoming an innovation hub. But we have a lot of work ahead of us. And you’re right, “What we need is an infusion of greater entrepreneurial leadership. Not just in the business area, but in all areas.”
From my perspective, it’s not a lack of ability, it’s a lack of compelling vision. If we get the right people on-board, I believe a compelling vision can be developed. The question is, will the nay-sayers work to put up roadblocks or help to remove them?
“we will all benefit from it.”
We will all benefit from it if our highest aspiration is to grow economically at the cost of other factors. Those of us who perceive this as a loss will not benefit from it.
I understand that this is the change that will occur. I accept that and will continue to do as much as possible to mitigate what I see as the negative consequences. But what I see as extremely disingenuous, if not dishonest is too repeatedly sell this as a benefit to all. It is not.
I repeat. We will all benefit from it.
Look at it this way doctor.
It was reported that Farah Faucet rejected chemo therapy because she would loose her hair. She died young.
Steve Jobs also rejected cancer treatment because of his stubborn views and distrust of doctors and was sure he could solve his own health problems with diet. He died young.
Here is where you are… you have other “doctors” telling you that the city is sick and needs certain treatment. And as a result, the city will be much more healthy and not suffer the death of insolvency.
Yet you refuse the doctor’s prescription because of your stubborn views, distrust of private business development and because you are worried about losing your hair (metaphorically speaking).
The difference here is that we all occupy the metaphorical body.
Frankly: “The difference here is that we all occupy the metaphorical body.”
Exactly, and as a consequence our discussion should be focused on what is best for that ‘metaphorical body’ as a whole, and not on the wants or needs of one individual component part. In fact, I would argue that while our individual wants/needs/preferences will absolutely impact how any one of us will vote in the end, those same wants and needs have absolutely no place in the discussion of what is best for the community. This is not a discussion about what is best for Frankly, or on finding a new job for Matt, or how much tax Barack Palin needs to pay next quarter, it is a discussion on how best to deal with the City’s fiscal crisis and our community’s economic future. We need to address this issue on the basis of our collective needs and values, not those of one, two or five verbose individuals.
Dr. Will: “But what I see as extremely disingenuous, if not dishonest is too repeatedly sell this as a benefit to all.”
If we are successful in solving the City’s fiscal crises and securing our economic future, it will be a benefit to us all, even those who do not like it.
Frankly
As usual you have decided to tell me why I feel as I do instead of considering what I have actually said. I do not believe that the answer is to attempt to grow our way out of financial difficulties that were caused by misuse of funds. I do not believe perpetual growth is a sustainable strategy. I do not believe that monetary value and economics are the only values worth considering. I know you disagree, but let’s please be honest about what we are disagreeing about.
Where did I write that I am telling you why you feel the way you do?
My post was to explain the consequences of your position using an analogy that I expected you to understand.
Can you not connect with that analogy, or are you just refusing to listen?
This constant drumbeat of “We must approve an ‘innovation center’ or else” reminds me of the meme with someone holding a gun next to a dog: “Do X or the puppy gets it.”
No innovation center will be getting my vote unless I actually believe the numbers pencil out in such a way as to truly benefit the city financially. I don’t want to hear about some academic study or a paper funded by development interests. Show me the numbers. Be specific. Convince me.
Unfortunately, I’m already skeptical about developers’ promises. The Cannery project is underwhelming. I was told that a vote for Target would be a huge sales tax boon for the city. Ha. And look at al those long-term vacant buildings surrounding Target. Why were those approved again? Look at the vacant office space on the south side of I-80 near Drew Ave.
I don’t relish the idea of higher taxes either. But if we’re not going to cut our city employee costs further, than what choice do we have? Reduced city services? Maybe that’s the price we as residents pay for electing past leaders who made promises that we can’t afford.
Target generates at least $200,000 a year for the city, is my understanding. It is not overwhelming, but certainly a net positive. However, I do agree with your point that any innovation park has to pencil out to generate significant sales tax revenue. It is also my understanding that there will be a push by the city to create a assessment district for these innovation parks that should generate a steady stream of tax revenue to the city’s general fund. Robb White has conservatively estimated it to be about $12 million a year. Now it is not clear to me how much of that would go to the county, which is another wrinkle that needs to be worked out ahead of time. Nevertheless, there is tremendous possibility here, that should not be ignored, but be embraced (with caution).
Rob White, until recently, had half his salary paid for by someone who has develop interests in the city. I know he is widely respected on this board, but I take everything he says with a large grain of salt.
i thought that was when he was initially hired and once the city recognized the bad perception, they changed the arrangement. regardless what part of the statement “conservatively estimated it to be about $12 million a year. ” we have seen enough numbers rolled out to know there is validity there and that doesn’t include the construction fees.
I want to clear up the misconception on my salary and compensation – The originally approved way that my salary would be shared with the private sector (approved by Council in March 2013), was changed in July 2013. Not because any one entity was funding me (in fact the model was to have 36 different business entities across all sectors equally funding my position, both local and regional), but because no one wanted the perception to persist. It was a reasonable change. But the change is now over 15 months old… yet it keeps cropping up like the latest dandelion in an otherwise healthy garden. I think it’s time to pull that thing out by the roots and be done with it. 🙂
I’m sorry, but your past fast financial connection to David Morris (and others with development interests) is not a misconception, nor is it irrelevant. You may wish it to disappear, but Davis residents can decide for themselves what to do with the information.
alright, i’ll play. what should we do with this information in your estimation?
Whatever you want, DP. Dismiss it. Consider it. File it away.
alright, i’ll ask the question another way: why does this concern you? what are you afraid will occur because of the relationship?
Noname, no need to apologize. You’re incorrect, but you are welcome to your opinion. For those that do care to have the facts, I don’t have, haven’t had, nor was ever planned to have a financial connection with David Morris. He set up an org (techDAVIS) that has a board that then asked for contributions to fund an agreement made with the City back in March 2013. It was an above board agreement, which was published, reviewed by the City attorney, and then City Council approved it in a public forum. The concept was actually mine and was modeled after a successful public-private partnership in San Leandro where a single private company pays half the salary of the CIO.
I am also sure it is not lost on the Vanguard readership that an anonymous poster is making accusations about interests that are less than obvious. I have been open book about this from the beginning. Perhaps you should do so as well? 🙂
Don’t like the message, so attack the messenger, eh? I cherish my First Amendment rights, but I also cherish having a job. Sadly, my employer frowns upon employees speaking publicly about hot-button issues.
You say you had no financial connection with David Morris. According to TechDavis’ website, David Morris was one-half of TechDavis’ board. TechDavis supplied funding for half of your salary. Now I suppose TechDavis could have generated all that money from donations from nuns or martians and perhaps not a penny came from Mr. Morris or anyone else who wants to see more development in Davis. But I doubt it.
Mr. Morris is now promoting, or at least has promoted, 200 acres just east of the city for a business park.
No need for an apology, Mr. White. You’re entitled to your opinions, too.
While the error in your statement above is understandable noname, there is much more current information available about TechDavis’ board than the information you shared. If you Google “TechDavis” you will find an October 20, 2013 Davis Enterprise article (see http://www.davisenterprise.com/business/techdavis-names-new-board-members/ ) that states:
Noname – As was pointed out above, that WAS the agreement. That agreement was terminated after only 3 months. At that time, the City Manager crafted a different agreement directly with techDAVIS that has nothing to do with funding the CIO position, in any way. As the record will reflect, my salary comes from just the City. And that has been the situation since early July 2013. But discussing this 15 months later does lead me to echo the sentiments of DP above.
Rob
In your quest to pull “that thing out by the roots and be done with it” I think that you are missing the essential point.
It is not that anything nefarious was done or that this was a dishonest approach. I believe that it is a reflection of the mind set that you had and that you continue to have, and for which you were hired. That is the mind set that growth is the solution to our problems. This mindset is aligned with the business portion of our community. It is not aligned with the vision of the no to slow growthers. You have been honest, open and straightforward with your approach. However, it is a mindset as you clearly know that is not shared by everyone. I think that you should just own it in the same way that I own the fact that I remain an advocate for growth as slow as possible , for preservation of a vanishing way of life (rural, small town/city) as opposed to aggressively turning ourselves into yet another urban center.
Would anyone not think it ridiculous if I were pretend that my views are somehow representative of everyone in the city and that everyone would benefit from doing things “my way”. However, there is a major difference between us. I am not being payed by the citizens of the city for my activities. You are. Those of us who see things differently do not have a hired city advocate, say a ” Davis lifestyle preservation officer”. So if you believe that the folks who are not aligned with your view point are ever going to stop pointing out that you are not aligned with their view, I think you are mistaken. I agree with you that the way in which you were hired should be dropped since it is a moot point. You were hired to represent a specific favored set of solutions and you are doing that job well. Trying to both represent, and distance yourself from that perspective will not be a winning solution. My recommendation would be to just do your job which you are doing very well, and do not worry about those of us who point out that we have differing points of view.
“This mindset is aligned with the business portion of our community.” -medwoman
What medwoman needs to “own” is her prejudice in regard to the business community. What’s “ridiculous” is her “mind set” that the Davis community is monolithic in respect to growth*. There are Davis business owners who are no growth, slow growth, smart growth and pro growth on steroids. The wide spectrum of Davis business owner opinion on this subject can be seen daily on the VG. Any characterization to the contrary indicates gross ignorance and prejudice.
*That the term “growth” continues to be used so recklessly continues to amaze me. Are the posters using the term in regards to housing growth, commercial RE growth, expansion of the city limits, increasing productivity, increased economic activity, greater efficiencies, or what? These are all widely differing things.
-Michael Bisch
So you are a city employee. I haven’t seen this dandelion preciously. I’ll try to make wine.
““We must approve an ‘innovation center’ or else” reminds me of the meme with someone holding a gun next to a dog: “Do X or the puppy gets it.”
The “puppy” in this case are the:
– City services
– City infrastructure
– City employees
And yes, if we don’t grow our local economy to increase tax revenue, the puppy will get it.
Maybe you are okay with that, but my guess is that you are either ignorant of the true city financial situation, or you are in denial. Neither is admirable.
And if you don’t like innovation parks or other economic development, then you should come to the table with your alternatives. Because critics are a dime a dozen and more problematic than helpful at this point. By part of the solution, not just a continued part of the problem.
A dime a dozen, eh? Well then you certainly have your work cut out for you, particularly with your paint-everything-in-black-and-white approach and general condescension.
I’ll vote for a business park, but not blindly. I’m well aware of the city’s “true financial situation.” I’m also aware that approving a dozen business parks tomorrow would not eliminate the likely need for more cuts and more taxes in the short term..
But you keep up the Do-What-I-Say-or-You’re-Stupid campaign. I’m sure it will serve you well at the Measure R vote.
i agree with you on frankly, i think he’s his own worst enemy. that said, i agree with his overall point about the costs and why we need to examine innovation parks.
LOL.
This reminds me of so many children.
“If you hurt my feelings, I will oppose the thing just because of you!”
Do you actually think deeply about this point that Frankly “is his own worst enemy”. What the hell does that mean anyway. Either I am right or I am wrong. Make your case if you think I am wrong. I actually listen.
Listen… don’t listen. Then you will be responsible for the outcome. If you need someone to hold your hand and make you feel good about yourself to encourage you to do the right things… then look somewhere else. This is not my style and never will be my style.
I am with you. When the innovation park cheerleaders on this blog start showing me numbers, I will try to be convinced. Right now INNOVATION PARKS are the rage across the country. I suspect the folks who WILL make money on the “parks” have a real nice budget for promoting them. They are creating a demand for something we didn’t know we needed until they came along. Follow the money.
i think you are factually incorrect on several points.
first, the business park/ innovation park discussion goes back a long ways, but it got serious with the 2009 and 2010 workshops.
second, what is unique about this discussion in davis is that while there are people who stand to make money off this, they weren’t the ones driving the discussion in 2009 and 2010
third, instead, the push came from the city, the community and the council and it was really not until the rfei, that we finally really saw developers enter the discussion.
Interesting comment DB, where are you seeing that rage blooming? Very few communities have an innovation engine like a research university like UCD or an applied research facility like the Lawrence Livermore Labs. It seems like the critical mass of communities that are able to harness an innovation stream is limited. Davis is one of the few that are in that position.
“Serve me well”?
Believe it our not, it is those trying to get this done that are attempting to serve all of us well despite our own selves.
I didn’t write that you are stupid. I wrote that you appear to be ignorant about some things. Otherwise you would not have written what you wrote.
And I stand by the point that critics are a dime a dozen. You still have not written what you would do to solve our SEVERE budget deficits. How about putting your opinion on the line here… or do you just feel more satisfied cutting down what others are trying to do to help?
” …. or do you just feel more satisfied cutting down what others are trying to do to help?”
HA! Pot meet kettle.
As I’ve said before, I would vote for a business park, if I believe it pencils out. In either case, it’s clear we’re going to need both higher taxes and cuts. Unless you plan to make a large voluntary contribution to the general fund, I don’t see any other way in the short term to pay for the bills that have been sent to us by poor decisions of the past.
I think you are right. We already did get a sales tax increase. And I expect we will end up with a $50 or maybe $75 parcel tax. I doubt anything higher will be approved. I think even this will have the potential to fail a 2/3 vote. But it would be just enough to do the minimum road maintenance… assuming it isn’t pilfered again to pay city employee pay and benefit increases. It will not cover pools and other infrastructure… and the roads will still fall behind. And over time the budget deficit will continue to take us toward fiscal insolvency.
From mine and others’ calculation the city would need a $600-800 per year parcel tax increase to take care of its obligations and satiate the NIMBY, no-growth, change–averse crowd. It will not happen. We will be far short. So we need to grow our local economy to increase business tax receipts. And we either can focus on retail, or innovation business, or both.
David Greenwald: “At the same time, we face very real dangers and we cannot afford to let the search for perfection be the death of the community as we know it.”
Well said!
david sounds more and more like a pro-development guy. weird.