By Doby Fleeman
“The city is developing a reputation of supporting business development. A number of major businesses have chosen to locate in Davis. Should the city now dim its focus and investment in economic development, that action will be broadcast throughout the region by your competitors.
“While our regional leaders are all polite and publicly supportive of one another, any move by Davis to reduce investment in economic development activities will be branded as a lack of support and will be whispered by surrounding communities to businesses under recruitment.
“Davis has assets that other communities envy, but only Davis can tell this story — do not expect others to do this on your behalf.”
— John Meyer, former Davis city manager and UC Davis vice chancellor, in his April 2015 report on the state of the city.
Few people, much less highly accomplished public administrators, know and understand the history and culture of Davis as does John Meyer. While his report is very broad-based and far-reaching in its observations, the focus of today’s article is the issue of economic development.
John went on to write: “Economic development officials share something in common with governors and presidents — it is difficult to quantify their contribution to the economic activity, but they often get credit or blame depending on economic trends.”
We can add to that list the title of head coach. By definition, coaching a team involves organizing, training, motivating and focusing the players with a singular goal of winning the game. Yes, coaching is teaching, and I don’t mean to diminish that role, but in the big leagues it’s more about winning the game.
Coaching in Davis is admittedly a risky business, what with all the parents who know what is best for their kids. But truth be told, most parents still expect our teams to win every time their kids walk out onto the field.
Leading the charge for economic development in Davis isn’t very different — except for two things that make it much more difficult: Many folks here don’t seem to understand that economic development is a competitive affair, and fewer still will acknowledge that positive outcomes are possible.
I don’t say this as a criticism of our residents. I view this sentiment as a basic failing in our efforts to unite the community around a common vision of our shared economic future and its essential role in our ability to generate and maintain the type of financial and economic resources necessary to keep our vaunted position atop of the pyramid of leading, sustainable communities across the globe.
Whether it’s putting the right coach in place, or recruiting the best players for the right positions, at some point the success of any team or venture gets back to fan support.
It really starts with goals of the team and the expectations of the fans. First, we need agreement on what game we are playing and, secondly, why it’s important to win. If the stakeholders don’t really understand the point of the game — and, more importantly, the benefits to them as stakeholders — then such efforts are doomed from the start.
Leaders in most communities clearly recognize the importance of economic development to achieving the full potential for both citizen and community. Besides taxes, economic development is the fundamental building block for community finances and all that follows.
Where this connection is not so obvious, it is all the more incumbent upon the advocates to present their case in form and format that makes sense to the majority of the community
In summary, its one thing to have a coach, but a coach can only do so much when the fans haven’t yet decided if they are even interested in the game. Cheerleaders may be helpful, but until the fans understand this is a game in a league worth winning, there is absolutely no point in having a coach, or in trying to recruit franchise-winning teams.
We are a community with high expectations and from this point forward, it should be our common cause to explain the rules of the game, be honest about what comes along with building new playfields, and most importantly, be prepared to explain what we, as stakeholders, expect from winning.
Today, we have a long way to go.
Doby Fleeman is a co-owner of Davis Ace Hardware. This editorial originally appeared in the Davis Enterprise and was submitted to the Vanguard by its author.
Doby… as a friendly amendment… we need vision AND leadership. But pretty sure you know that, but didn’t get the emphasis in the caption, nor the article. Most of what you wrote I either knew, or resonated with. Thank you for your contribution.
hpierce,
First we need recognition of the need to establish a shared vision – today I don’t see the recognition of that need. How one leads without it – I don’t know.
We’re on the same page, I think… how can someone lead [assuming you want a good outcome] if you don’t know the destination. When I backpack, if I am the leader, I need to know where we are, the destination, a map and a compass, and back that up with a GPS device. But that’s just me.
Today, I see the need for leadership first in acknowledging and artuculating the need for a shared community vision.
Following, there needs to be a process identifued which insures every constituent a legitimate pathway and access to engagement.
It’s now more complicated than before because we are asking – over the long term – both how the ensuing vision for the community can be faithfully executed AND how it is to be sustainably financed.
This article is well-written and clear. I have a brief comment about process.
I believe that many of the the taxpaying residents of Davis would approve of having a taxpayer representative at the bargaining table when elected officials and union prepresentative negotiate benefits, pensions, and the like for public sector employees. This lack of representation applies at all levels of government from Governor Brown and the powerful State Labor Unions ( CSEA, CTA, and the like) in Sacramento, down to to our own elected City Officials and City staff working within Davis proper.
Taxpayers often feel betrayed and excluded when they are not part of the negotiaton process. When an unanticipated budget shortfall occurs. the beleaguered taxpayer is often called upon to make up the difference through cuts in services (reduced office hours/access to facilities, etc.), tax and rate hikes, and other measures. The final straw for many taxpayers is to be assigned blame for the shortfall (be it partial or otherwise), and then be requested to resolve the shortfall through means that they do not support.
I suspect that some of the opposition to Innovation Parks as an answer to balancing the City’s Budget is a reaction to this flawed process.
Your comments present an interesting juxtaposition. In your view, is it the outraged fiscal conservative or more a compilation of irritated taxpayers who would form the nucleus of your imagine opposituon group?
Doby: I certainly would like to get together with those outraged and irritated firebrands you described as my imagined opposition group. After a cup of coffee or a beer or two, they would probably be disappointed to find that my posting (above) was primarily to inform citizens of an often overlooked issue that adversely impacts the economic development process. The end result of our discussion would probably have been “Cheers” rather than “Charge!”
“I believe that many of the the taxpaying residents of Davis would approve of having a taxpayer representative at the bargaining table when elected officials and union prepresentative negotiate benefits, pensions, and the like for public sector employees.”
I am confused by this comment. As far as I know, all city council members are Davis residents and thus taxpayers themselves as well as “taxpayer representatives”. Since it is they who are ultimately in charge of the outcomes from the “bargaining table” how is your proposal different from what we have now ? Council members do not stop being taxpayers when they assume their position on the dais.
Or do you mean taxpayers only from a certain philosophic view point ? If this is the case, I am fairly sure that you would not want me as your “taxpayer representative” even though I have paid taxes to the city for over 25 years.
Tia :The “gold standard” for public employee pensions, benefits, and the like is being set at the State level in California, not at the County or City level. The State level is where a taxpayer representative would be well placed as a buffer between our Governor and his representatives and the State Employee Union representatives. As the negotiation process plays out at the City and County level, these generous benefits can’t always be matched by the average taxpaying citizen within these smaller jurisdictions. Although the high cost of increased employee benefits within the City of Davis and Yolo County have clearly been stated within local newspapers as a source of budget shortfalls recently, I regret that I didn’t make this issue clearer in my original posting . Where is Governor Walker when I need him!
For more information concerning the influence of Public Employee Labor Unions and the politics of California, please see: http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2015/05/19/californias-government-unions-collect-1-0-billion-per-year/
Not presuming to answer for Durant, but something must be disfunctional when entire classes of professionally represented employees are left to defend retirement plans that are 70-75% funded and post retirement healthcare plans that are typically unfunded in their entirety.
I would encourage you to think about how such performance would be viewed in your company?