Davis, Let’s Be Resilient And “Double-Down” On Economic Development!!

innovation-park-ex2By Jim Gray

I was disappointed to read that the Davis Innovation Center near Sutter Davis has been put “on hold.” I offer the following observations and encourage the citizens of Davis and our elected officials to do what our former City Manager and Vice Chancellor John Meyer has offered which is to “double-down” on economic development and keep our “foot on the accelerator.”

SKK Development, Hines, and the rest of the development team had the experience and expertise to have delivered on this project. So what happened? My sense is that there was just too much risk and not enough certainty given the Measure R vote, the checks kept getting bigger (probably $1-2 million dollars already spent), and the time to a real payday kept getting pushed out with no end in sight. Most investment decisions come down to opportunity cost and the allocation of capital. If there are other projects that can be delivered with more certainty, for a greater return and less risk, those projects will most likely attract and retain the investment dollars. These innovation park projects likely will take 25-50 years to build out, no different than Mace Ranch in East Davis or University Research Park in South Davis. The capital expenses are front loaded and it will be years before the investors get their investment back and even longer before they make a profit.

Let’s wish the previous developer team all the best. The obstacles to success are not just about city approvals and processes, but also market and economic conditions. The competition and forces affecting value are not only the other proposed parks in Davis or about getting approved by the Davis voters, but they also include the competition from thousands of acres of already zoned business park land within the region. At the macro level, more and more businesses and their employees are shifting to more urban settings from the suburbs and not only manufacturing but also service jobs are getting globalized. Many users and investors are re-evaluating the suburban office business model..

So what does this mean for the citizens and community of Davis?

As Mayor Dan Wolk says, we need to “Renew Davis” and may I add, to reinvigorate, retain, and attract great companies, institutions and jobs. Clearly, this is a setback to the City. But the City staff and the City Council are not to blame. Fostering economic development is not a sprint or even a marathon. In this case, it is a “relay ultra-marathon.” Let’s reflect on lessons learned, find another team or even invite other sites, and pass the baton to someone to run the next leg.

This is amongst the best City staff and Council that I have seen during the past 35 years. They are to be commended on their efforts to stimulate economic development. We should thank them, encourage them to be resilient, and ask them to stay focused on economic development for Davis. A City and its leaders have to think long term and make plans and investments for 50+ years to leave a legacy for our future generations.

I offer these observations and suggestions in the spirit of focusing forward.

  1. The City should continue to encourage Mace Ranch/Ramos and Gateway/Nishi, the applicants currently pursuing innovation park proposals, to keep working with the City to gain approval. The City shouldn’t reduce their aspirations and stated goals of what they want in exchange for entitlements, but we need to streamline our regulatory processes! City staff and the paid consultants need a gut check on how complex it is to gain approval in Davis. The level of minutiae being studied and evaluated is unbelievable, enormously time consuming and expensive. Everyone needs to be aware of the real costs and the forecasts for breakeven and returns. If the projects don’t pencil out, they will never get built. About 15 years ago, the University of California at Davis sponsored a request for proposals to build a business park on University land near the UCD off-ramp of I-80. World class developers competed, a team was selected, and then as the plan evolved, and the costs became clear, and the alignment of interests and risks and rewards became more clear, and then like now, the developer put the project on hold.   But that doesn’t mean give up. It means that as a City and as a University we have to learn our lessons. We need to consider choosing more affordable properties for development that can be phased and paid for as they build out and that will become sustainable more quickly.
  2. Developing and offering competitive sites will serve us as a community long term. Companies want choice, and competition will help the remaining applicants stay focused and will likely lead to better projects. And we as citizens of Davis should not put all of our eggs related to future job growth in one basket.
  3. The City of Davis might consider new public/private partnerships for the underutilized land and facilities of the City and the School District. The City, School District and County all have a mix of latent resources that could be refurbished and enhanced or scraped and redeveloped as infill commercial sites for new labs and offices. Consider the current Civic Center, the Public Works yard at 5th and Pole Line, and potentially relocate the community garden next door to it and then add the School District yard next door. Now we are talking about an infill site with real scale. Then there is the paint ball/go kart track. How about crafting a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) dealing with municipally owned properties? Clearly there are tradeoffs, but it would be valuable to consider.
  4. As a community we give lip service to economic development, but we have a difficult time approving and implementing real estate development as a necessary component of economic development. Economic development that relies on real estate development is a tough and lengthy process. We have a critical shortage of modern facilities for businesses to start, grow or flourish within our community, and we must address it.
  5. Finally, let’s as a community along with our Council and City staff amend and fine tune Measure J/R. We can still manage our growth in a manner that makes us a more vibrant, dynamic, affordable and sustainable community.

Davis needs to develop the real estate infrastructure required to lead us into the future. Our forefathers and mothers had the vision to build a railway station, to gain a charter and obtain the land for the University farm now UC Davis. We have had a great downtown evolve. The University evolved and brought us the Arboretum and diversified its offerings beyond Agriculture and Life Sciences to include Medicine, Law, Management, Arts, the Mondavi Center and much much more.   We have great schools a highly educated work force, and a high quality of life. We have much to be proud of. Going forward we need leverage our existing assets and position Davis for the future. We cannot miss a long overdue opportunity to bring creative, innovative world-class jobs and companies to Davis. Carry on, double-down, and let’s make it happen!

— Jim Gray is a longtime Davis resident, a Senior Vice President and shareholder of DTZ Commercial Real Estate and a commercial real estate broker and developer for over 30 years.

Author

Categories:

Breaking News City of Davis Economic Development Land Use/Open Space

Tags:

133 comments

  1.  
    Jim,

    It’s great to have the voice of a long time resident with a true understanding and appreciation of the risks inherent, for the developer, in promoting transformative development efforts.  Thanks for weighing in with a positive message that challenges us to think more broadly about prospects for the future.
     
    People often seem to forget the distinctions between the risks involved, particularly in Davis, between residential housing projects versus large, commercial developments – particularly commercial developments that focus on attracting and retaining world leading technology companies.
     
    Uncertainty is often the greatest impediment to exploration and investment.  So, in a very real sense, it is in the best interests of both the community (with its concerns over the future direction and needs of the community versus the impacts of potential new development), and the prospective developer (with its concern over the uncertainty of project approvals and future market demand) to encourage a public/private partnership to aggressively explore what this new, clean-slate, built reality might offer.
     
    Such a collaborative approach would help to insure that community values and community visions did not end up as second fiddle to the preferences of the development community. By the same token, this is not to say that these developments become some free candy shop for the community.  A truly collaborative approach would help all parties to better understand the realistic challenges, constraints and potential opportunities available.
     
    What do our citizens need in order to truly understand what their future Davis might need, and how it might look 20 to 30 years in the future – along with how we expect to pay for those improvements?

    So, how do we get from here to there?  When do we start the process of exploration? Who is to lead the conversation?    How do we insure that all voices will be heard in the process?  It seems these are the real questions we need to be asking if we are to effectively confront today’s log jam of fear and uncertainty.

    1. As a Downtown guy, Doby, you must more acutely aware of this than most of us. Good thoughts to the author and this comment from Doby.

      One thing I used to see in my small town was the County and City, knowing growth in important for survival of the community (many small towns are speed bumps now, as you know), made a plan, to benefit the community, put the word out, and asked for input and maybe a vote. Land was earmarked and some infrastructure was planned before they had a vote on it.

      Here – they imagine some grand scheme, hire consultants to do  a “study”, solicit bids or RFEI proposals, talk is generated, and before anything gets voted on. Cart before the Horse. And all the way, someone gets money that should have been spent in the community. People are feeling like they are being scammed for the benefit of a few. Then people make it political.

  2. This is a well done piece from one of the most knowledgeable and respected resident real estate experts.   Jim hits on some very key points and he does in a way that should not ruffle any feathers.  But I think he is not frank enough on some other points.

    Frankly, (because I am), there needs to be more admonition about the screwed up politics of Davis.  Namely, we are a voter-empowered city of liberal-conservative reactionaries that bark about anything and everything… throwing temper tantrums about any and every potential change that generates even the most minor of impacts.  And we tend to elect politicians either constrained in their ability to get anything substantive done, or else happy to just keep the peace while taking responsibility for only feel-good policy changes that everyone can sing Kumbaya about.

    Jim does a great job singing the praises of the city and the people in it, while also advocating for change.

    I cannot be that complementary.  I see significant dysfunction at play and it has become the absolute enemy of the good.  Unfortunately there are no easy fixes for what ails us.  The cat of empowered, disruptive, change-blocking expectations is out of the bag and will scratch and claw at any attempt to put it back.  So, we will spiral downward in one missed opportunity after another… to a point where we will not be provided any more.  Our regional neighbors will be only too happy to accept what we reject and high-five each other for their blessed luck to have dysfunctional Davis around to generate it.

    1. “Frankly, (because I am), there needs to be more admonition about the screwed up politics of Davis.  Namely, we are a voter-empowered city of liberal-conservative reactionaries that bark about anything and everything… throwing temper tantrums about any and every potential change that generates even the most minor of impacts.”

      frankly, because you are, your pissing into a gale which is not going to be heard and is only going to get your face wet.  you’re not going to win a battle like this, waged in this way, in a city like davis.  you can’t change everyone’s mind.  where i think you can make headway is at the margins and i think jim gray actually paints a decent way forward.

        1. Yeah, Frankly! Bring in the Facists bulldozers! If we just obey the dictates of the growth at all costs class, those projects will get built no matter who objects or who gets hurt! Now that’s the way to get pesky citizens with non-conformist ideas out of the way (let’s build some concentration camps for dissenters–more money for private prisons and private profit). Democracy is just too messy and inefficient so let’s not let the liberals vote at all…voting is a privilege for the privileged class.

        2. Wow Davis Burns.  I surprised that you didn’t throw in the Nazi reference too.

          I love the old game being played… defend actual extremism by accusing the opposition of demanding extremism.

          Please settle down and do a bit of math.   With math you should easily see that Davis is far, far away from any slippery slope of anything close to what you are in opposition of… and well on its way down the slippery slope of decline from what you would defend.

        3. I think the Progressives should support a large development of low income and Section 8 housing. Then tell me how horrible a small Innovation Center would be. Maybe add some room, too, for another mobile home park and a (medicinal) marijuana grow.

      1. [moderator] Request that we not use the term Fascist at all on the Vanguard. Thanks.

        Which, ironically, is a bit of f*****t declaration.

    2. Good points. I expect more development in Dixon in the future, and then company employees can still live commute to Davis, and we lose the revenue benefits.

      About being “frank”, I think the City Manager / head bean counters need to spell out how the costs will skyrocket if there unmet backlog on roads and other critical infrastructure facilities are not met. Is it $120 million now, $200 Million in 5 years (with the set aside for some road work), and $400 million in 10 years? I recall reading that if we let roads crumble beyond a certain point, the costs just skyrocket.

      The empty city lots make for an interesting consideration. I also think we should put a good deal of thought into locating some sport courts here – softball, soccer, etc – so that all of our children and community don’t have to travel out to some exterior mega-sports complex. Current sports facilities augmented by a few new additions may forestall the need for some new megaplex, and allow citizens to walk or bike to competitions, and then have a drink or pizza downtown. Study the cost-benefit / ramifications.

      I think some of the new architectural plans also look very unappealing, like the proposed Nishi hotel. Why is everything modern, cold, ugly? If we made the look and feel softer and more inviting, it might deflect some of the negative reactions. I like the redwood-shingle look, trellis, vines.

      1. “I expect more development in Dixon in the future, and then company employees can still live commute to Davis, and we lose the revenue benefits.”

        i think the development is less going to be in dixon and more the south side of the uc davis campus.

        second, part of the problem right now in the city is we lack “bean counters” – the finance director has just retired.  the city manager doesn’t have a background in finance.  so a few years ago we had paul navazio and steve pinkerton, now we really lack anyone with that kind of background.

        “Why is everything modern, cold, ugly?”

        you end up in a matter of taste, obviously not everyone views it as cold and ugly.

        1. I believe we already had one report / estimate that showed how road repair costs skyrocket with the delay in repair. I’m not sure we need a new person, just someone with a bully pulpit and some basic math skills to bring those realities to life.

  3. here’s a problem: where are the progressives?  they seemed disengaged from the political process but will show up to thwart change.  somehow the community needs to reengage the progressives in politics.

    1. I think Davis does not really have many “progressives”… more change-averse reactionaries sprinkled with some agitated social justice crusaders and left-leaning politicos.

      We are really not progressive.  At best, we only follow other communities for the feel-good policies.  The Toad Tunnel was the last progressive things done… and I’m sure you appreciate the magnitude of benefit derived from that unique policy decision.

      If you disagree, please provide a list of things done that justify this “progressive” label.

      1. i agree with your point that davis isn’t that progressive – although with the caveat that i think you misinterpret the term in general.  that said, that wasn’t really my point.

    2. If the community wants to engage progressives in the process, it needs to take their concerns seriously, not ridicule and exaggerate them.  It needs to convince people of the benefits of and the need for development, not just assume (as this article does) that more economic development is good and needed.  If you want to engage people you have to meet them where they are (not necessarily literally, although that can help) and actually listen to what they have to say and acknowledge their concerns.  I have not seen any such behaviors from the pro-development forces in town.  Then they are surprised when the progressives aren’t on board.

      1. …It needs to convince people of the benefits of and the need for development, not just assume (as this article does) that more economic development is good and needed.

        And the pro industrial parks folks need to talk about the negative impacts of such development including more traffic congestion, loss of agricultural land, need for more infrastructure, more water usage, and the inevitable pressure for more housing that will result from more people in town.  If those of us that don’t want to see Davis go the way of Vacaville or Roseville are ignored, then don’t be surprised if there is a defeat when this thing comes up for a vote.

        1. Agreed.  It’s not like the voters are unaware of these negatives.  So, the developers need to address them head on, not sweep them under the rug, “nothing to see here.”  How are they going to be mitigated?  What is going to be so beneficial about the business parks that we put up with these negative impacts?

        2. Exactly.  Is it really so difficult for our City Council members to see the wisdom of these comments?  It’s not up to the industrialists to explain to the community why their developments will add value to the community. 

          Of course they will, but only the community can define what constitutes “value added”.  Until the citizens of Davis are provided with a legitimate platform to express their concerns, their dreams, their expectations – along with a discussion of how we might expect to pay for all these important programs and amenities – the entire exercise is a waste.

          1. ” It’s not up to the industrialists to explain to the community why their developments will add value to the community. ”

            I don’t think I agree on that point.

  4. Excellent article. I agree that Measure R needs some serious modification for 2020. The Ramos idea for an advisory vote makes sense and so does a change to a simple majority for passage.

  5. Our forefathers and mothers had the vision to build a railway station

    Or perhaps they were just tired of sitting on a bench in the rain while waiting for a train.

  6. A few thoughts/reactions.

    1. I appreciated the thoughtfulness of the article and the specific recommendations.  There is certainly something here for city officials, citizens at large, and business people and investors to consider.
    2. I don’t expect Jim to respond here but a question I have concerns this statement: “…the time to a real payday kept getting pushed out with no end in sight.”  I am not sure what this means given that nothing in the timing has changed since last July.  Indeed, timelines have been respected.  Perhaps Jim is referring to the overall development environment.  From the City’s perspective we were moving quickly to bring these before Council so we could vote on whether to place them on the ballot next year.  Nothing was pushing that back.  I explicitly asked the D.I.C team members this question.
    3. Jim wrote: “The City of Davis might consider new public/private partnerships for the underutilized land and facilities of the City and the School District.”  I cannot, of course, speak for the school district, but I can say that one of the purposes of conducting a citywide update of property inventory is to determine what sites might be appropriate for redevelopment.  This is dealt with in two different locations within the City Council goals with action expected later this year and next.  I am also curious in regard to “public/private partnerships” what people have in mind, what models are out there and what people suggest in this regard.  Again, keeping in mind the “ends” of a more diversified and resilient economy, what are some other public/private partnership models we might consider?
    4. Finally (for now), Jim wrote: “Finally, let’s as a community along with our Council and City staff amend and fine tune Measure J/R. We can still manage our growth in a manner that makes us a more vibrant, dynamic, affordable and sustainable community.”  I have heard David mention this and now Jim.  I would be very interested in seeing specific proposals from those who support amendment or fine tuning.  Measure J was passed as a citizens’ initiative and I would like to hear what citizens have to offer in terms of concrete proposals in regards to modification or fine tuning of Measure R.  This is sure to be a contentious issue but I would be interested in what those with specific ideas have in mind.

      1. exactly.  if you pushed the vote to the first part of the process, then if approved, the council could entitle the property as any other.  you would just have the admonition that there be no bait and switch – it has to remain economic development with no housing.

      2. The specific proposal I have seen over the last couple of years is to have the Measure R vote earlier in the process.

        So citizens can vote on a vague plan that will be detailed later.

        1. Citizens would vote on the annexation and zoning change, the council would control the details of the plan within general guidelines set by the vote. Details would be part of the development agreement. By the way, I’m not advocating for or against this; it’s just what has been discussed here before over the years.

  7. Don – I have heard that too but wonder how that fits with the ordinance–especially the parts I highlight below (the point being, how specific must the “baseline project features” be and how early in the process can they, realistically, be defined):
    (By the way, anyone who wants to brush up on the ordinance can start here and go to Chapter 41

    Any application for an amendment or modification of the land use map that proposes changing the land use map land use designation for any property from an agricultural, open space, or urban reserve land use designation (e.g., agricultural, open space, agricultural reserve, urban reserve, environmentally sensitive habitat, Davis greenbelt) to an urban land use designation or from an agricultural designation to an urban reserve designation shall require:
    (A)   Establishment of baseline project features and requirements such as recreation facilities, public facilities, significant project design features, sequencing or phasing, or similar features and requirements as shown on project exhibits and plans submitted for voter approval, which cannot be eliminated, significantly modified or reduced without subsequent voter approval;
    (B)   Approval by the city council, after compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State planning and zoning laws and any other applicable laws or regulations; and then
    (C)   Approval by an affirmative majority vote of the voters of the City of Davis voting on the proposal.

    1. i think you just need an exemption to circumvent that requirement for projects that are economic development and no housing.  the voters still need to approve it, but in concept only.

      1. i think you just need an exemption to circumvent that requirement for projects that are economic development and no housing.  the voters still need to approve it, but in concept only.

         

        DOA.   Voter approval “in concept only” is a green light for the CC to get creative with words and do whatever it wants.

        1. Yes, and if they did so, they would be subject to recall just as would any action they took be subject to referendum.  50% + 1.  I realize this is a hard concept to grasp.

        2. Yes, and if they did so, they would be subject to recall just as would any action they took be subject to referendum.  50% + 1.  I realize this is a hard concept to grasp.

          It’s an easy concept to grasp — despite your repeated sarcasm to the contrary — but a very difficult one to implement.  Thus the likelihood that the voters would not choose to surrender their veto.

           

      2. No… it needs to be revised, but in such a way that it applies to all major projects.  The other alternative (that I believe is practical), is total repeal, and use the referendum process as necessary.

        1. I don’t think you’ll get the votes to repeal it and it will be very difficult to modify it. Putting housing in would doom any effort to tweak it.

        2. Well, I wouldn’t seek the votes, as there are too many fools who don’t realize the power they had before measures J/R.  The “difficulty” amending it doesn’t have anything to do with the ‘wisdom’ to do it.  Fools will be fools, and they will have to deal with that.

          I’ve gotten beyond needing to change fools’ minds. I will challenge their purported “facts”, if they are not facts, so as not to grow the population of fools.

        3. “Putting housing in would doom any effort to tweak it.”  Stated as a fact, not an opinion.  [after all, you are a ‘reporter’] The opinion may well be valid.  But, it is not a FACT.

          And yes, feel free to ‘connect the dots’.

          1. You’re correct, meant as my opinion (though I’d probably attach a lot of certainty behind that opinion, it is in the end, my opinion).

  8. 2. I don’t expect Jim to respond here but a question I have concerns this statement: “…the time to a real payday kept getting pushed out with no end in sight.”  I am not sure what this means given that nothing in the timing has changed since last July.  Indeed, timelines have been respected.

    Project timelines are only part of the consideration for investment in a project like this.  Outside of external forces that impacted the cost-benefit feasibility, I suspect that the realization of mounting internal city-approval-related costs and opposition pushed the project over the edge for no longer being feasible.

    The unfortunate thing from my perspective is the CC and city staff decisions and behavior leading up to this unfortunate decision by the developer appear to synch nicely with the outcome.  You have written quite strongly in opposition to my assertion that not enough was being done on the economic development front.  Well if I was just to shift to measuring outcomes and not doing so much speculation, my early assertions seem very well founded.

    If symbolism matters, then city leadership has symbolized a turn against economic development even as we are told that great work is being done to promote it.   Either that or the front-line support for economic development was darkened as everyone put on their detailed analysis hats to help make perfection the enemy of the good.

    And what do we have to show for all of that?  One dead innovation park and another on the ropes.  In the end maybe all we get is more high density housing at Nishi… the thing that we just can’t seem to stop wringing our hands about and a thing that will just make our fiscal problems worse in the long run.

    1. Point is, it doesn’t really matter exactly what Jim meant by his observation.  He answers the question in the following two sentences:

      Most investment decisions come down to opportunity cost and the allocation of capital. If there are other projects that can be delivered with more certainty, for a greater return and less risk, those projects will most likely attract and retain the investment dollars.

      As I intended to emphasize in my earlier comment: Uncertainty is often the greatest impediment to exploration and investment.

      Often it’s not about “not doing anything wrong”, but rather “trying to doing every within your power to demonstrate your unwavering commitment to seeing the process through to a successful conclusion” and that “everything” often includes a lot of hand holding along the way – particularly when you are asking a private investor to go at risk on hundreds of millions of dollars.  If we’re not prepared to recognize that reality, and respond accordingly, then we’re not prepared to be playing in this league.

    2. Well, Frankly, it appears that you are insisting on having your pound of flesh.  The decision by the Davis Innovation Center partners to put their project on hold simply MUST be the fault of the City Council and staff.  It must be!

      The unfortunate thing from my perspective is the CC and city staff decisions and behavior leading up to this unfortunate decision by the developer appear to synch nicely with the outcome. 

      What behavior, precisely, are you talking about–and I mean specifically?  Because the decisions have been to do exactly what is required by law and best practices to move a project forward.  So, tell me exactly what we have done–what decisions we have made that precipitated their decision?

      Well if I was just to shift to measuring outcomes and not doing so much speculation, my early assertions seem very well founded.

      But they remain assertions without any basis in causality.  Interestingly, I have had two extended conversations with the principals and they have mentioned NOTHING along this line.  Perhaps you or someone you know has other information.  Please, bring it to the table.  Don’t be shy.  What have they told you that they were unwilling to tell me?

      If symbolism matters, then city leadership has symbolized a turn against economic development even as we are told that great work is being done to promote it.   Either that or the front-line support for economic development was darkened as everyone put on their detailed analysis hats to help make perfection the enemy of the good.

      Again, what exactly have we done that symbolizes a turn against economic development?  Please be specific.  

      The detailed analysis you decry here is the simply the nuts and bolts of putting a project like this together from a regulatory and economic assessment perspective.  The consultant we have on board shepherding the process is highly respected in the region and the state and assures me that what we are doing is simply standard operating procedure.  No “perfection enemy of the good” going on here–just people doing their jobs to get this done.

      You have your narrative but there are other narratives out there as to why the proponents pulled out.  

      How about this one:

      The proponents looked at the Davis community and saw no active support for their project.  They were aware of detractors–a few people who had concerns, but they saw no one stepping up with active support. They saw no one coming forward from among the population asking what proponents could do to make their project a success.  They saw so-called supporters on the VG lashing out at opponents, but they did not see that ardor translated into active support. They saw no supporters showing up at public meetings or during the listening tour.  They concluded that there was no strong community support for their project.

      They also realized that Davis is not the kind of community with strong support for start-ups–there are very few local investors investing locally (Davis Roots an execution).  They saw a very lightweight “start-up ecosystem” and it concerned them because they want to fill their park with successful companies with strong local support–not just heavy hitters from out of town who have no commitment to the community.

      They also experienced a whispering campaign that suggested their project was less well suited than the other one.  This did not come from no-growthers but from community members who publicly supported the innovation parks.  They realized that Davis development is “inside baseball” and realized that they did not have the support they needed.

      Why not engage this narrative and ask what you can learn from it?

      1. The proponents looked at the Davis community and saw no active support for their project.

        You mean Frankly and his friends weren’t organizing outreach and political activities on behalf of these peripheral developments they favor so strongly?

      2. Robb – thanks for responding.  You make several interesting points that warrant further discussion.

        First though I need to explain something about the difference between private and public “outreach” and advocacy for peripheral land use.  And while we are on this topic, let’s not forget about the CC decision on Mace 391 and the private advocacy for it to not be pissed away on the continued farmland moat pursuit.   I know, I know… there are a thousand reasons why the CC had to concede to the Yolo Land Trust and USDA untruths that they would be harmed by a decision by the city to do the economically prudent thing… but the sad fact remains that the CC did NOT do the economically prudent thing.  You see, in addition to economic considerations of that decision being dismissed, it was also a lost opportunity for a teaching moment by city leaders.  That teaching moment was to say that our economic ecosystem, and not our natural ecosystem, was the most need of repair and that we voters in Davis better get behind the need to repair our economy or else.

        But back to your points.

        There are several problems with this expectation that the private business side of the Davis population can somehow push the economic development builder up hill.

        1. As you know there is a limited inventory of private-side business folk in this town.  And many are small retailers that have benefited from the lack of competition resulting from the blocks on growth.  And look at other cities… they staff the economic development resources.  Instead, we staff for open space acquisition.

        2. Any business leader that pushes for new development will be immediately denigrated in this partisan divide and conquer political climate where “corporations”, “CEOs”, “business owners”, etc… are branded as evil and/or only pursuing their self-interest at the “expense” of the “people”.   Just look at what Don Shor writes about the Kings Arena in downtown Sac to get a flavor of that tactic.

        3. Unlike public-side business, most private-side business today is hyper-competitive.  Business leaders cannot so easily take time off to develop and run a political campaign to sell voters on the benefit of peripheral development for economic expansion.

        Again, what exactly have we done that symbolizes a turn against economic development?  Please be specific.

        – The railroading of Steve Pinkerton

        – The silencing of Rob White

        – The rise of the demand for housing to be included in the parks

        – The Dan Carson factor… inferring that our budget problems are over since we have a surplus

        – The hand wringing over the competition between parks, instead of advocacy for all

        – The lack of substantive and ongoing communication from leaders in city government focusing on economic development instead of the din from fluoride, bags and MRAPs.

        The big roadblock is simply one of land-use.  The comparisons are all there in plain sight for everyone to see.  Davis is so far outside the standard deviation of economic metrics that we should not even really be debating IF we should develop business parks… the debate should be simply WHAT we want the business parks to look like.

        There is no doubt in my mind that you and other CC members and many city staff are working hard for the city.  My complaint is that there has been a clear focus away from economic development leading up to the Davis Innovation Center developers pulling out.

        Remember that the governor killed RDA to give more money to his political benefactor CA teacher unions.  In killing RDA he wiped out a lot of the public AND private resource infrastructure that previously helped shepherd economic development.

        But again, we are talking about land-use here.  That is a public policy challenge that cannot be overcome by private parties… especially when the reception from our elected officials is at best lukewarm.

        1. Frankly–so the reason the DIC partners pulled out is because of all the things that have angered you about Council decisions over the past year.  You have freighted their decision with everything you dislike about local governance.  I get it but don’t find it helpful.

          In terms of causality (why the partnership put their project on hold):

          Mace 391 happened long before the partnership came to town.  If it was a “flashing red light” they saw it long before they submitted anything.
          Pinkerton was gone before they submitted a proposal.
          Whatever you perceive to have happened with Rob White the fact remains he and Sarah set up an ambitious work plan that NO member of staff or Council has thwarted.
          Dan Carson does not work for the city and does not speak for the city government. You may as well blame Dave Ryan of the Enterprise for writing about the improving revenue picture.
          No staff or CC has wrung their hands over competition–most thought it was a good thing.  Loading 3 projects onto a single ballot may have been a problem (that was called out) but it was far from hand wringing.
          The lack of ongoing communication… I am confused by that one.  You have not been to the listening tour sessions.  You have, apparently, not followed discussion of the ongoing fiscal challenges the city face that CC members have addressed over and over in Council meetings.
          All the “side issues” you name are part and parcel of running a city the size of Davis.  As I have said before, so many things we do on a week to week basis form the foundation of solid and sustainable growth but you conveniently (continue) to ignore them. Why?

          I am sorry, I am just not seeing your point. I do know this: when people in this town really want something, they tend to give up weekends, evenings and part with their own money to get the word out, table at the market, go door to door, etc.  I see that busy business people cannot do that, I am just saying that that is how successful campaigns are run here.

          I am going to let this conversation go Frankly.  We clearly do not agree.  You feel the city failed in some systemic way and is responsible for the decision, I feel it is far more complex than that.

          Yes, this is about land use and the voters, until something changes about Measure R, have the final say.  My job is to make sure if I send them something on a ballot that I have done my level best to provide a project that is in the City’s interests.  That is what we have been working towards.

        2. Perceptions are reality Robb.  You can argue the facts from your perspective, but I am far from alone in having the perception that the city is doing more to kill these projects than to move them along to fruition.

          I agree that the reasons that DIC pulled out are more layered and complex than this; but it then connects to my disappointment that city leaders have not put economic development as the highly-visible, top-level focus.  This is pushing a giant bolder up hill.  We all need to be working to push it up, not standing on it jumping up and down on it and demanding more concrete be added to it.

          Believe it or not Robb, when you and other CC members talk, people listen.  You have the power and influence to move the needle with voters to be more supportive and less skeptical of these projects.

          I think Doby has advocated for a facilitated visioning process that incorporates the myriad of Davis DNA wants and desires.   Personally, I think we have spent enough time and effort with visioning and planning, and we are only left with this peripheral land-use challenge.  But I would support anything that helps move us forward to a collective recognition of voters that we must support peripheral economic development.  Who will lead that effort if not our elected representatives and the city staff?  As we can see by the decision of the DIC, the private side will not invest in it unless there is some reasonable clear path.

        3. I do not know how detailed these proposals are, or Interest statements, but I only remember a bid my dad submitted for building a part of a plant in Indiana years ago. Another builder came in with a bid $10K under on about a $250K project, and my dad always put in specifications for floor strength, nuts, bolts, windows, doors, etc. They got the job, but specified none of it, and at the ribbon cutting, they walked into a building with no floor. Dirt. When asked “how much is that” the guy said $10K.

          So how detailed are these proposals going to the voters? Concepts? Nice Drawings? Press releases? Seen all that. What else?

          Also, how many of the elected officials have ever turned a shovel and seen a project through? Are they getting the “Sales Pitch” take on it, or working from experienced people’s reviews, which some of you seem very experienced at looking over?

        4. Miwok – this is different.  The Developer is developing a project that he will sell off to various buyers.  He has to make the project fit the needs/wants of prospective buyers.  In other words, we don’t need a lot of detailed specifications because of the difficulty the developer would face selling a building without a “floor”.

          Also, we have copious city, state and national requirements for development that precludes a developer from not including a “floor”.

          Now, there are the all the goodies that the city wants, and those need to be spelled out in the developer agreement with the city.  Many of those are not in the developers best interest (benefit the city, not help increase the value to the prospective buyer) so the city needs to not only make sure the agreement includes these things, but also must demonstrate that it will enforce them.  We can see from the recent CFD decision for the Cannery that the city sometimes does not enforce these agreement terms.  That needs to change.

        5. Thank you, then they really do just sell the “sizzle” and not the steak?

          The drawings they present are not the way it will look in real life? I can see the problems..

  9. Quoting my earlier comment, David wrote:

    ” It’s not up to the industrialists to explain to the community why their developments will add value to the community. ”

    I don’t think I agree on that point.

    David,

    Does that mean you disagree with my subsequent statement:

    Of course they will, but only the community can define what constitutes “value added”.  Until the citizens of Davis are provided with a legitimate platform to express their concerns, their dreams, their expectations – along with a discussion of how we might expect to pay for all these important programs and amenities – the entire exercise is a waste.

    In the end, who is it that makes the call?

     

      1. We have no argument here, but most communities would see the inherent value in a proposal to bring a clutch of well-paying, leading edge job opportunities to town.   If you take that point as a given, then the conversation can pivot to a more, in-depth conversation and analysis of how to best fit that opportunity into the community.   The real excitement and challenge lies in managing the process to a successful outcome for the community.   If the community isn’t interested in the basic proposition, as they say, you can’t make a horse drink.

        I’m simply trying to make a point which thus far seems to have eluded the conversation:

        The true challenge for the developer is convincing clients and tenants to occupy the space they have imagined.  Of this, there is no sure guarantee.   Somehow, we seem to have discounted this component of the equation to zero – as if it has no consequence to the calculus behind the effort.