Right now we are looking at a spring 2016 vote date for a Measure R vote on at least one and possibly three innovation parks. I have previously made arguments against putting competing measures on the ballot, but the decision is clearly coming much sooner than we would like to believe.
Last week, we ran Jason Taormino’s comments on why he wants an innovation park and I kept thinking that those reasons are not really my own. He speaks like a pro-development person. I, on the other hand, am a self-proclaimed slow growther.
I have remained in Davis to raise my family here because I prefer the smaller college town lifestyle to the bigger city. I have lived in cities during periods of my life and prefer smaller cities with less traffic, bike and walkable communities. I am also against continued sprawl for housing developments on the periphery. I am willing to support some densification and I would have an open mind for a highly innovative new housing development, even on the periphery, under the right conditions.
So why I am I willing to support a peripheral innovation park? First of all, let me be clear that my support is not unconditional. I will vote for a Measure R project if it has at least 2 to 1 adjacent mitigation. By that, of course, I mean that the innovation park does not become the gateway to new peripheral housing.
Second, it has to be net zero energy. I will not support another housing project of any sort that isn’t net zero energy and I hope Davis will pass an ordinance prohibiting that. Third, it has to have alternative transportation components built into it. Fourth, it really should be like the high tech campuses that we see in the Silicon Valley – I really believe a design like a college campus will fit this community and enhance it.
So the real question is why should slow growthers be willing to support a 200-acre innovation park on Davis’ periphery?
For me, it starts with the budget and our needs. Davis got hit a lot harder than probably many people expected during the last recession and it has been slow going coming out the recession. Part of the problem is that leading up to the recession we greatly expanded employee compensation – salaries, health care, and pensions. We built up large unfunded liabilities.
During the onset of the recession, we balanced the budget in part by cutting spending on infrastructure – roads, parks, bike paths, greenbelts, city buildings, pools, etc. We have racked up over $100 million in deferred maintenance costs.
Despite an improving economy, we are still in the same mode for funding these, with the options to cut city services, raise taxes, or build the economy. We live in a community that is not going to accept a long-term decrease in city services. We have families who enjoy the pools, the parks, and recreational services.
We have liberals who are not going to accept mass outsourcing of positions.
We have come to expect working roads, parks in good condition, and a beautiful network of greenbelts and bike paths.
We can increase our taxes every time hard times hit but that is going price this city out of the reach of even the middle class.
[callout bg=”#000000″ color=”#ffffff” font=”0″ fontsize=”14″ bt_content=”Donate Now” bt_pos=”right” bt_style=”undefined” bt_color=”red” bt_link=”https://secure.yourpatriot.com/ou/dpd/friends_of_the_vanguard/donate.aspx” bt_target=”_blank” bt_font=”0″]If you haven’t already signed up to become a subscriber – Please donate today by clicking on the link. You can also make a one-time payment starting at $120 to become a subscriber. You can do so either by credit card at the previous link or by mailing a check to Davis Vanguard, PO Box 4715, Davis, CA 95617[/callout]
I increasingly believe that the center will not hold here. We cannot in the long term hold down labor costs, operate on a shoestring, and cut back on services. We also cannot continue to survive by passing parcel taxes and increasing sales tax.
At some point, the pressure is going to mount for new revenue sources, and the best way that I have seen that preserves our community is an innovation park.
Fairly soon we will get the independent analysis of how much revenue an innovation park with three to four million square feet will be expected to generate, what the build out rate will be, etc. But in the long term, those revenues will help us avoid needing new taxes and, I think, avoid needing new homes.
I am not necessarily opposed to mixed use at these parks, as I believe that a confined housing that serves workforce needs will accomplish much of what I want to accomplish with these parks anyway while further reducing the need for new housing. However, that may be too thorny a political leap.
But I actually believe that by building relatively small, 200-acre innovation parks, we decrease the 0verall demand on housing. Building housing on 200 acres of land is not going to generate much new revenue for the city in the long term. It is also not going to drastically decrease the price of housing or the overall cost of living.
The best model for a regional approach is to look at economic scales –where is the best place to put new high tech job space? Near the university is a good answer. That is where the students are, it is where the money is from the research engine of UC Davis, and it is where the intellectual capital lies.
Where is the best place to put housing? I would argue there are a lot cheaper locations for new housing than Davis and if we can utilize alternative modes of transportation, we can accomplish the jobs-housing balance regionally at a much lower cost to the workers. We simply need ways to transport commuters without adding to our carbon emissions.
If we do this right, we can generate good jobs, balance our budget, and utilize better housing locations in the region. And if we do that, we actually reduce the demand for new housing and create a more balanced community.
In short, I see the economic and budget drivers as being a critical reason why we need the innovation parks. It will generate revenue for our city, reduce the need for new taxes, allow our city services to stay up where we expect them. If we design them correctly, they can reduce rather than increase the need for new housing and that can help protect our farmland and the periphery from future growth.
We are a university town. We have a world-class university that I know a lot of people believe is on the forefront of becoming a leading academic center for the 21st century. This is a way for us to help in that process without harming the fundamental character of this community.
The technology we help to bring in will help with the next wave – clean-tech, green-tech, and ag-tech which are, at least in my view, needed to produce a cleaner future that remains economically robust.
To me that is why we need to build innovation parks – we need to ensure our community’s economic well-being as well as to continue our value of environmental stewardship.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“So why I am I willing to support a peripheral innovation park? First of all, let me be clear that my support is not unconditional. I will vote for a Measure R project if it has at least 2 to 1 adjacent mitigation. By that of course I mean that the innovation park does not become the gateway to new peripheral housing.
Second, it has to be net zero energy. I will not support another housing project of any sort that isn’t net zero energy and I hope Davis will pass an ordinance prohibiting that. Third, it has to have alternative transportation components built into it. Fourth, it really should be like the high tech campuses that we see in the Silicon Valley –I really believe a design like a college campus will fit this community and enhance it.”
I am confused:
1. It has already been noted that there will be 2 to 1 ag mitigation, so I don’t think that will be a problem.
2. This is not a housing project, so I don’t understand the reference to “I will not support another housing project of any sort that isn’t net zero energy…”
3. What sort of “transportation components” are you talking about?
4. Exactly how must it be like a college campus?
“But I actually believe that by building relatively small, 200 acre innovation parks, we overall decrease the demand on housing. Building housing on 200 acres of land is not going to generate much new revenue for the city in the long term. It is also not going to drastically decrease the price of housing or the overall cost of living.”
How the heck would an innovation park that brings several thousands jobs to this area decrease the demand on housing? Secondly, businesses will be “housed” at the innovation parks. Thus far no housing is slated to be built at the innovation parks (except Nishi). This paragraph just doesn’t make sense. Please explain more fully what you meant, because I am at a loss.
“1. It has already been noted that there will be 2 to 1 ag mitigation, so I don’t think that will be a problem.”
You left out the word “adjacent” is there is a reason for that?
“2. This is not a housing project, so I don’t understand the reference to “I will not support another housing project of any sort that isn’t net zero energy…””
Typo, meant to say “project” not specifically “housing project.”
“3. What sort of “transportation components” are you talking about?”
Ways to get there without using a car.
“4. Exactly how must it be like a college campus?”
Look at Facebook, Google, PayPal, etc. as examples of what I mean.
“How the heck would an innovation park that brings several thousands jobs to this area decrease the demand on housing? Secondly, businesses will be “housed” at the innovation parks. Thus far no housing is slated to be built at the innovation parks (except Nishi). This paragraph just doesn’t make sense. Please explain more fully what you meant, because I am at a loss.”
My point is that if you built the innovation park and it produces revenue, as long as we plan the transportation component, we will not have a demand for new housing.
The mitigation has to be ‘adjacent’? Is that even physically possible for these proposals?
Mace already has the mitigation land next to it (yes it would not be the official mitigation land), so I was really thinking about a similar arrangement in the northwest.
I don’t understand your answer. The land next to Mace is owned by the city. That’s your mitigation for Mace? If not, what do you mean by adjacent, and how do you feel Mace should be mitigated?
Sorry – what I was trying to say is that the land next to Mace is largely already in a conservation easement so my adjacent requirement really applies to northwest, not Mace.
Will that answer satisfy Mike Harrington?
We’ll see
My thoughts exactly Don. I’ll be interested to hear David’s answer.
Regarding your second question, not to the best of my knowledge.
I’ve been telling the City Planning department for years that they aren’t accessing the right data set for UC Davis employment, here is the most accurate accounting:
http://budget.ucdavis.edu/data-reports/documents/campus-profiles/ptotlpop_ycurr.pdf
As you can see, there are about 12,000 folks employed on campus. Another 12,000 at the Med Center and elsewhere. The rest of the number they are using includes work study students — which are already included in enrollment figures. While the number is still impressive, it is nowhere near 27,000+.
Where’s the 3-1 mitigation? More junk land in the county?
Where are the fiscal calculations showing overall net revenue to the city government ?
“Where are the fiscal calculations showing overall net revenue to the city government ?”
I stated in the piece we are waiting on that study.
“We can increase our taxes every time hard times hit but that is going price this city out of the reach of even the middle class.”
I would like to see the information ( in actual numbers) that leads you to believe that increasing taxes to support our current level of services ( as opposed to some vague “every time hard times hit”) is going to price this city out of the reach of even the middle class. At what point precisely would you see the “middle class” being priced out of Davis by taxes.
Tia wrote:
> I would like to see the information ( in actual numbers) that leads you to
> believe that increasing taxes to support our current level of services
If you want to see some “actual numbers” grab one of your property tax bills and you will see that every Davis homeowner pays about $1,000 a year in local parcel taxes and bond debt.
P.S. The lack of development that results in crappy homes selling for over half a million is the main reason for the shrinking middle class in Davis (not the parcel taxes)…
One other point about “when hard times hit”.
When hard times hit, they frequently affect businesses just as they affect individuals. What I would like to see is a range of predictions about what the contribution of these “innovation parks” would be not only at the rosiest of predictions, but also their anticipated contribution in an economic downturn such as we have recently experienced ?
We have the recent example of the Target not bringing in as much revenue as had been projected by its proponents although no definitive numbers have been presented that I have seen. Like David, I have not come to any firm opinion on these developments, but one thing for which I will be watching is realistic best and worst case scenarios, not just glossy presentations and candy coated projections before I vote.
“but one thing for which I will be watching is realistic best and worst case scenarios, not just glossy presentations and candy coated projections before I vote.”
Glossy presentations = Positive thinking
Alan
Glossy presentations = positive thinking ……or
Glossy presentations = polished sales pitch ….depending on your point of view.
Which is why I want to see best case and worse case projections, so that we can make our own decisions on the risk/benefit ration prior to voting.
I think we’re saying the same thing. My point is, “positive thinking” is not. Often, it is used to put people down, as “not positive thinkers”, which in itself is rather “negative”. Additionally, often “negatives”, which are actually issues, challenges and costs, are ignored. What I want, most especially out of someone paid by tax dollars, is a square meal, not a pile of sugar.
Some people will need a spreadsheet of data to support the proposition that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Others just open their eyes.
When life long residents of Davis, who are successful small business owners, with two teen age kids in school, have to move to Woodland to find a house that they can afford it becomes perfectly clear that the Davis is too expensive for the middle class. Maybe if fewer wealthy physicians stopped buying up properties to rent to students we wouldn’t have this problem, but then again, maybe we should just build some more homes.
Or maybe we should just build more rental units.
Don: I specifically used the term ‘home’ rather than ‘house’ since there are many different forms of housing that could be considered a home. Davis needs more homes.
Home: noun
1.
the place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household.
Mark wrote:
> Some people will need a spreadsheet of data to support
> the proposition that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.
And after we give them the spreadsheet they will argue that we need a multi-year study to determine how often a solar eclipse might block the sun as it rises…
The “breaking point” is different for different people. $1,000 more per year is a fair amount of money and will be enough for some families to decide not to buy a specific home (or car) while $1,000 is not a big deal for most top 1% physicians who own over a million dollars of real estate…
“while $1,000 is not a big deal for most top 1% physicians who own over a million dollars of real estate…”
When I run into one of my colleagues who meets this description, I guess I could ask them if they consider $1,000 a big deal or not.
Tia, talking to many, many middle class parents who have raised their middle class children here in Davis (and surrounding portions of the unincorporated County) they believe their “middle class children” are already priced out of Davis by the current level of taxes and property values.
Matt
And that may well be the case when they are first getting started, just as it was for most of us also. I could not have made my first house purchase here at the time I was first starting out. I made my first purchase where I could afford it and then moved up when I could as have many others. I believe this is still possible today and simply do not see the need to provide for those who are fully able to look after themselves instead of those who are not so fortunate.
I understand Tia, but that doesn’t change the fact that the current Davis housing “package” is not affordable for huge portions of the Middle Class, which was the original premise posited … and that adding incremental additional tax burden to that already largely unaffordable housing “package” only makes the situation worse.
South of Davis
“If you want to see some “actual numbers” grab one of your property tax bills and you will see that every Davis homeowner pays about $1,000 a year in local parcel taxes and bond debt.”
While it is true that I can easily access my own property tax bills, this does not address the issue of what David feels is the “breaking point” at which a “middle class” family will be “driven out of Davis” as opposed to say deciding that a smaller home in Davis is preferable to a larger home in some other community. It is this projection of the perception of worth that is critical because what we are weighing is one set of values measured against another. I have a number of acquaintances who gladly live in more humble homes in Davis rather than “mini mansions” in other communities. I also have friends and acquaintances who value larger homes more than they value the location of Davis. Unless shown clear evidence of people being driven out as opposed to just making a values choice, I remain skeptical on this point.
I am a firm believer in expressing our values. However, I also believe that if we are going to make claims that “the middle class” will be forced out of Davis, we should provide the calculation upon which we are basing that opinion.
Tia wrote:
> I have a number of acquaintances who gladly live in more humble homes
> in Davis rather than “mini mansions” in other communities.
As you can see from your property tax bills Davis charges the same high parcel taxes to the people in town with older small “humble homes” as they do to the rich that own $1 million + “mini mansions”…
Yesterday you argued that we need to pay employees more (only to keep the good ones of course), and today you set down preconditions to justify your vote against business development. I guess the fiscal crisis is over.
Davis is already too expensive for the middle class, and by the way, we never balanced the budget, we just ignored what is now greater than $100 Million in future obligations all the while showering employees with high pay, life time health care and 6 weeks or more of paid time off every year (oh yeah, and that insignificant little pension).
We need a comprehensive solution to the fiscal crisis. A solution that includes tax increases, further reductions in spending, particularly payroll, and significant new business development. So far, all we have done is raised taxes, overpaid for a new City Manager, drank a few cocktails together, and then sat back and watched the Mayor convince us all that the crisis has been averted. Mission accomplished!
Maybe we will all grow up and act responsibly when the bill reaches $200 Million…nah! Go for the glory, make it an even $ 1 Billion.
“Yesterday you argued that we need to pay employees more (only to keep the good ones of course), and today you set down preconditions to justify your vote against business development. I guess the fiscal crisis is over.”
There’s a radical misinterpretation of both columns. Good job.
Lots of words to obfuscate your underlying position. No misinterpretation at all.
Considering I flat out stated my positions in both cases, I didn’t leave any room for obfuscation.
David wrote:
> There’s a radical misinterpretation of both columns. Good job.
If it is truly a “radical misinterpretation” cut and paste the sentences below and add “this is my position”
I believe that Davis city employees should not get any more pay and benefits
I do not believe that we should put any preconditions on any tech park development
If you don’t cut and paste the two sentences in to a new post we all know that Mark is spot on and you are just (to quote Mark) using “Lots of words to obfuscate your underlying position”…
The only reason to set preconditions for your approval of a project are to justify your opposition down the road. You have consistently set preconditions for your support from day one in this process. Today’s piece is nothing different.
I just reread yesterdays post, and I agree that I misstated your position as written in that post. I misread your repeated statements (in multiple posts) that we are underpaying management relative to other locales, and your concern for losing good employees, as being support for increasing their compensation. I apologize.
“The only reason to set preconditions for your approval of a project are to justify your opposition down the road. ”
How about the reason that I want those features in the final project, all of which I believe are achievable?
Then state that is what you ‘want’ in the project, not what your ‘need’ to have included in order to engender your support.
That really is the story of Davis. Everyone has their preconceived requirements that have to be satisfied before they will come to the table to discuss solutions, and if they don’t get their way, they will take their toys and go home. People in this town act like a bunch of spoiled children.
“Davis is already too expensive for the middle class”
This is opinion, not fact.
There is no rule of which I am aware that states that the “middle class “is entitled to a specific number of square feet or a certain number of bedrooms or bathrooms or a certain size back yard. Well prior to becoming a “wealthy physician” I had bought my first home, a very humble two bedroom, one bath bungalow, in need or repairs in a not so desirable neighborhood which served my family of three very well at the time. One purchases what one can afford, at least according to the more conservative members here. So why are we making exceptions for specific groups that we favor instead of perhaps choosing to help those in actual need ?
Tia wrote:
> This is opinion, not fact.
The median household income in the US is ~$50K/Year ($4,166/month).
Do you really think that many families of four making $4,166 (before taxes) will say that Davis is NOT “too expensive”?
“Do you really think that many families of four making $4,166 (before taxes) will say that Davis is NOT “too expensive”?”
And Palo Alto, most acceptable areas of San Francisco and many other Pacific Costal areas are “too expensive” for me. Does that mean that these communities are obliged to alter their housing supply to accommodate me ? I certainly hope not, because I have the ability, just as anyone else in the middle class does to chose to live somewhere less expensive, or to live in a more humble home or an apartment. I am not in need of anyone else’s assistance and neither are the young couples or families who would like to be living in a three bedroom two bath home in Davis but only feel that they can afford what they want in Vacaville, Woodland or Sacramento.
http://www.city-data.com/city/Davis-California.html
Median Value of home in Davis (2012) $503,000
Median household income in Davis (2012) $53,000
Assume 10% down payment, $450,000, 30 year fix rate mortgage at 4.5%
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/income-required-mortgage-calculator.aspx
requires a household income of $97,700.
Davis is too expensive for the middle class, and that doesn’t include all the extra taxes that some want us to pay.
“Davis is too expensive for the middle class, and that doesn’t include all the extra taxes that some want us to pay.”
Numbers are appreciated. Interpretation is different. You have cited the cost of the median home. This means that 1/2 of the homes cost less. It assumes that everyone who is “middle class” must own their own home. It also neglects that people have the option of buying less expensive “starter” homes and moving up when they have saved enough to do so. I would have been considered “middle class” for at least 6 years before I made my first home purchase with money saved while renting and living very frugally.
What is the price of an entry level house in Davis? $300,000? $350,000? Perhaps the current market value of your little bungalow? Take a look on Zillow and see for yourself.
Two adults with two kids (one boy, one girl) need a minimum of 3 br and 1ba. I just found a townhouse that would fit for $310,000. Using the same criteria used above they would need a household income of $59,000 to qualify for the mortgage. So greater then half of the households in town could not qualify to purchase what is clearly an entry level home for a small family. We are not talking about a McMansion here.
People like to compare Davis to Palo Alto so much why don’t we look at what a middle class couple could buy there? And if there is no Palo Alto middle class, is it okay for Davis to have higher home prices than, say, Sacramento? Here it is: Palo Alto average price per square foot is $1,158 or average listing price $3,936,5215 while The average cost per square foot in Davis is $305 and average listing price is $524,467. Now if our home prices were comparable to Palo Alto’s maybe we wouldn’t have a budget crisis. Palo Alto has a housing mote (it’s solid housing) so let’s keep our agricultural mote and let those prices follow the market cause we know the market is ALWAYS correct.
“Maybe if fewer wealthy physicians stopped buying up properties to rent to students we wouldn’t have this problem”
Total number of houses “bought up” by this physician for this purpose equals zero.
Tia wrote:
> Total number of houses “bought up” by this physician for this purpose equals zero.
Yet many other “wealthy physicians” ARE “buying up properties to rent to students”…
I don’t think we need to limit this to “wealthy physicians.” I think college professors, local business owners, and a variety of other professionals own rental housing. It’s amazing how many people I know who own a house or duplex or small apartment unit.
I agree with Don that this speaks directly to the need for rental housing rather than to the need for more “middle class” single family homes.
Don wrote:
> many people I know who own a house or duplex or small apartment unit.
So do I, since the city makes it so hard to build actual apartments many people buy “homes” and convert them in to income producing student apartments/mini-dorms…
P.S. Can anyone think of a small (under 25 unit) apartment built in Davis in the last 25 years?