by Robb Davis
On May 7th I was invited to represent the City of Davis at the launch of the UC Davis/HM.CLAUSE Innovation Center. I am providing an annotated version of my brief remarks that day in order to share some of the factors that I considered during their preparation. I am also sharing it here to stimulate a conversation about the issue of “ends”—especially the question of how we create clarity about the “ends” we seek in discussing “economic development” in Davis. I would encourage you to read the entire set of remarks first, skipping over the italicized annotations, to get the flow of the remarks and then go back and consider the annotations. Finish by considering the “Final Thoughts” at the end.
As you read the text and then the annotations please consider the following questions:
- What is the City of Davis’ role in helping develop and nurture the innovations flowing from UC Davis?
- What are the “ends” of economic development in Davis?
- What are the appropriate means for achieving these ends?
May 7, 2015: 28605 Mace Blvd
Sachant que beaucoup de ceux qui sont avec nous aujourd’hui représentant HM Clause sont de la France, je voudrais offrir un accueil chaleureux et vous remercie de ce que vous enrichissez notre communauté . Nous nous réjouissons de la collaboration fructueuse à venir – une collaboration qui permettra d’améliorer le bien-être des populations à travers le monde.
It might seem strange to start the remarks in French, but I did so in honor of the numerous HM Clause employees who have come to our community from France. In particular I thanked them for the way that they enrich our community. I had met several of these employees previously and was reminded of how fortunate Davis is to be the home of many gifted people from around the world. Walking around our downtown on a typical evening, one is struck by its international flavor—a fact that unusual in a small town anywhere in the world. The cultural diversity we take as part of the landscape is offered by the fact that we host a major university and I believe that diversity enriches us in many ways. HM Clause is here in part (I assume) because of the University but its international employees tell me that they want to be here because our City is a great place for them and their families. This illustrates the mutual benefit that both entities—the City and University—derive from the presence of the other. My hope, expressed in my remarks, is that the collaboration afforded by this reality will grow and contribute to the well being of people around the world. This is one reason I have devoted significant time to exploring ways to deepen, at many levels, our City’s relationship with the University.
On behalf of my colleagues on the Davis City Council I want to thank the University and HM Clause for the development of this innovation center. We view it as another example of how our bioregion provides links in a chain that, together, help improve the health, nutritional status and well being of people everywhere. And while this center accommodates the broader life sciences, because of its connection to HM Clause and the University, this space is clearly a critical link in the chain that leads to increased food security across the planet.
The concept of “links in a chain” is an important way of thinking about our relationship with the University (and Davis-based companies). Another way of talking about it is to recognize that we all have gifts—both individually and institutionally. It is only by bringing to the table what we can uniquely offer that we help to complete the chain that enables ideas that start in the mind of young university student to blossom into ideas, approaches, tools, and products that can enrich people—locally and the world over. Identifying our unique contributions is key. I remarked in an aside that my entire career in international health had been enabled by being a link in a chain that took medicines, health products, and best practices from laboratories and research centers to thousands of communities around the world for the betterment of maternal and child health. I have “seen” the chain, even been part of it, and it is an amazing thing to see how myriad contributions come together to bring change.
This chain contains links from all the disciplines represented at this university, from the bench science conducted here, to farmer and field trials, to the environmental assessments to reduce natural resource waste, to the focus on behavioral changes that improve the nutritional status of the most vulnerable populations. All these disciplines, all these gifts, all these links, are critical to achieving the ends of sustainable food production—one of the critical ends to which all of today’s participants are committed. For we know that this chain of collaboration runs from this space to find its ultimate end in the local food and health production systems in thousands of communities throughout the world.
Here I expand on the idea of a chain of contribution to consider the issue of the ends we seek in creating such collaborations (intentional or not). My entire goal in sharing these thoughts was to challenge all the participants to think about the value of clarifying the ends we want to achieve. This concept runs through the rest of the remarks because it is important, I believe, for all of our efforts to clearly define the ends we want to achieve. The question should always be variations on: “Why do we want a deeper partnership with the University?” “What is the goal of economic development efforts in Davis?” “Why is it important for us to be the home of an HM Clause, or a Marrone Bioinnovations, or other?” These broader “ends” questions focus us on whether our partnership is founded on the solid ground of shared goals and intentions or whether our goals diverge in important ways. Mature relationships are grounded in a clear sense of shared ends we desire to achieve together.
A focus on these ultimate ends of food production and security, and well being is critical. As French sociologist Jacques Ellul noted in the years after the Second World War: “The first enormous truth flowing from our civilization is that, today, everything has become “means.” There are no longer “ends.” We no longer know towards what we are headed. We have lost our collective goals. We dispose of enormous means, and we put into action prodigious machines to reach nowhere…”
Now you may say, Robb, why such somber words on a day of celebration?
It is because days such as today, a day full of emotion, of hope and of vision for a better tomorrow, are ones not soon forgotten. It is, therefore, in my view, right and fitting that we add to them solemn reminders of the ends we seek to achieve.
The ends are not in the awards, in the successful transfer of technology, in academic advancement flowing from this research space, or even in the seeds and other food- and health-related technologies that this space will foster. Rather, the ends are in a world in which the innovations born and nurtured here flow to improve the health and wellbeing of the vulnerable populations wherever they are found.
Ellul was a French jurist, sociologist, environmental activist and writer who had seen, first hand, the results of technical innovations that had been developed without reference to clear ends. He (and others like him such as Albert Schweizer and Ivan Illich) had seen the incredible technical accomplishment of “splitting the atom” turned to the end of destroying tens of thousands of innocent lives and they were horrified. Ellul wrote about the problem of “technique” the idea of having the most efficient “means” to solve problems without reference to the clear “ends” to which they should be turned—presciently warning about the world in which an inattention to systems approaches to problem solving creates “black-swan-prone collapses.” The issues we face as a city and region are complex and interrelated. They require careful analysis and a consideration of unintended consequences. They require a constant return to the “ends” we seek. On the day of my remarks I applied this concept to the innovations flowing from the research space we were inaugurating—to remind the scientists, venture capitalists, investors, local business leaders and university employees that in all we do we must not lose sight of the ends; to not become enamored by the prodigious means at our disposal; to stay fixed on the collective outcomes that led us to seek out a fruitful partnership in the first place.
And this really gets at our—the City of Davis’—interest in, and support for, this collaboration: we know that the outcomes (the ends) of the innovations realized here will resound to the benefit of our local community here in Davis, in Yolo County, and beyond.
The City of Davis is proud to be part of the home to this collaboration to share the wealth of this location, of this nearby, of this bioregion, with our brothers and sisters around the world. Tell us what we can do to fully play our role, to add our gift, to add our link in the chain that will enable us to, together, achieve the ends we seek. Thank you.
The clear message that I wanted to leave with those in attendance was that, as someone who aspires to provide leadership in Davis, I am keen to discover how we can be the effective partner—the faithful “link” in the chain—that will enable innovations to flow from the campus, through our community and to our region and the world. After the event—both that day and since— I have had the chance to talk in more depth with the scientists whose ideas have the potential to help us solve significant challenges in our world. I do not believe that science and technology (or “technique” as Ellul spoke of it) can save us. But I do believe that with a clear focus on “ends”, the ideas that start at the University can be useful means to achieving them. And this is one way I think our “economic development” efforts in Davis: can we find ways to encourage and enable these means, always carefully considered within the context of critical ends, to grow, thrive and development for the betterment of our community, our region and, perhaps, our world.
Final Thoughts:
A friend of mine writes “there is no community without economy.” He borrows from the summary of interview with the venerable Wendell Berry, which notes:
(F)or (Berry), economy is not finances or GNP or means of production or supply and demand. He harkens back to the old Greek notion that economy (oikos) is housekeeping and homecoming. It’s living harmoniously on the land in concert with others while keeping faith with generations past and generations future.
I want Davis to thrive not just today but into the future. The “end” that I seek for Davis is that it be a socially, environmentally and economically healthy place—a place that continues to draw on and provide a home for many people, with great gifts, who come to or because of UC Davis. I want our discussions about the “economy” of Davis to focus on what that healthy place looks like.
An economically healthy place has a diversified economy and provides jobs for its residents of all skill levels and gifts. In economic terms, that is the end I seek.
To achieve these ends I believe we must examine the important means that might help us achieve them: a strong and trusting relationship with the University; provision of space to entrepreneurs and companies of various sizes whose ideas emerge from the university or seek to come here to be near it; a focus on finding ways to allow the wealth created locally to circulate within our community (rather than simply leak away to distant investors); and building a municipal budget that takes a long view on planning to pay for the wonderful amenities that help our community be that thriving social space that attracts so much human giftedness to Davis.
Robb,
Thanks for sharing this background and your thoughtful views on the interrelationship of our social future and economic development.
And, thanks for your leadership in reaching out in support of this important member of our Davis business community.
to me the key questions are what does this look like, what is our end goal for econ development, and what does the land use policy look like. until i see a real well articulated vision i think wide-scale economic development fails in davis. the person with the best articulated vision that i’ve see has been effectively run off.
“the person with the best articulated vision that i’ve see has been effectively run off.”
Hmmmm, I wouldn’t necessarily say “run off”, but certainly wasn’t enthusiastically encouraged to continue, so decided to put the project on hold – but may come back with the right incentives/timing/business atmosphere.
Think he meant Rob White
Good stuff.
“There is no community without economy”
Everyone needs to repeat that.
I also think everyone needs to embrace economic dynamism. With the proper understanding and support of the principles of democratic (reasonably-free) market capitalism, the “ends” are always better than the ends achieved with the alternatives. It is an imperfect system that causes great stresses to some people, it is just that it is better than all other systems.
Economic development is fundamentally about recruitment, retention, and growth of businesses (including startups) that provide tax revenue and jobs. This, in turn, provides downstream benefits to the community.
We need to stop over-thinking this.
For better or worse, the city is hitting reset on 7/1/15. In the next election, the city leadership needs to be held accountable for their progress over the next 11 months.
I’m talking about tangible stuff that moves the needle. What companies were added and lost? How many jobs were added and lost? How much new investment? Specific data on recruitment efforts. Specific data on expansion of our existing companies.
For those fixated on the home-grown strategy – adding a few new startups ain’t going to cut it.
The Yancy op-ed:
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/what-does-economic-development-mean-to-you/
“For those fixated on the home-grown strategy – adding a few new startups ain’t going to cut it.”
Spot on!!!
One of the key needs is the lack of large spaces for either established companies or start ups to move into.
For those fixated on the build-it-and-they-will-come strategy – entitling a few hundred acres also ain’t going to cut it.
Robb: I am sorry that I wasn’t there when you delivered your remarks to HM Clause. They are such an outstanding, global firm, focused on food production and agriculture. I am not sure that your readers are familiar with Clause’s Cooperative –“Grower Owned History”, and their civic contributions; Clause is a great corporate citizen in Davis and throughout the World.
I am sure that it “impressed” them when you began your remarks in French! Good touch..Also your remarks about diversity and our international flavor and our small town feel must have resonated with the audience as it did with me. Global, Local, Regional!
But here is something that I think the readers should consider. The Innovation Lab that you delivered your remarks at is not in the Davis City Limits—it is actually located in the un-incorporated Yolo County. The collaboration that you were acknowledging is actually not taking place within the boundaries of the City of Davis! The region and the global agriculture are benefiting but the infrastructure investment in this case was not made in Davis. The University and Clause had to not only go off campus but also out of the City to house the Innovation Center.
HM Clause is currently developing millions of dollars of labs and greenhouses and those activities are in our region, and with our prized University but not in our City.
In your remarks you said; “And while this center accommodates the broader life sciences, because of its connection to HM Clause and the University, this space is clearly a critical link in the chain that leads to increased food security across the planet”.
And further you said; “Tell us what we can do to fully play our role, to add our gift, to add our link in the chain that will enable us to, together, achieve the ends we seek.
The clear message … those in attendance was that, as someone who aspires to provide leadership in Davis, I am keen to discover how we can be the effective partner—the faithful “link” in the chain—that will enable innovations to flow from the campus, through our community and to our region and the world.”
I believe that leaders like you, Robb, should also go out of your way to point out that infrastructure and investment and innovation is taking place around us but increasingly Davis is missing out on that opportunity because of poor land use planning. We argue and bicker about growth – and yet if we are not careful we will not leverage our real resources and promote community and economy.
Thanks for your thoughtful remarks and your “focus on the ends”. It is a great business principle and a good way to develop public policy as well – “begin with the end in mind”.
Community, Economy, Great Design, Sustainability … We can do that and we need to plan for that instead of the constant bickering that dominates so much of the civic discussion in Davis today.
Jim,
Thanks for highlighting this important distinction. I does seem, over the years, that the “community” has lost track between this essential linkage between physical location and the jurisdiction receiving the associated tax benefits. Bottom line, as with many things in life, location does matter. This is a critically important point that should reside at the core of our strategic planning as we look towards the future and the appropriate role for Davis in the context of the region.
Jim and Doby – I actually had a nice discussion about the location issue with some of the UCD and HM Clause leaders that day. Indeed I asked some of the HM Clause folks why the City was invited to attend given that the lab is in the unincorporated county. Their response was twofold: 1) We understand that but we also see Davis as the place where our employees live–their home. 2) Our administrative offices are in Davis. Davis is our home.
However, I understand the points you make. In recent weeks I have had discussions with staff about tackling the huge issue of updating (at least) the land use elements of the General Plan. My thinking is the same as in these remarks: the ends we want to achieve as a community take a back seat to long and often contentious discussions about means. It is time to refocus on ends and determine how land use (a means) can help us accomplish them. There is some heavy lifting to do in this regard and it won’t be easy but, in my opinion, right now our land use decisions are piecemeal, disjointed, lacking in direction and terribly inefficient. I think that must change.
Personally, I will remain very conservative about peripheral growth (I made that clear when I ran for office and I still feel the same). Our farmland (despite what some posters here continue to insist) IS a global resource. Our local water resources HAVE (to date) been managed well. The combination means that we are uniquely positioned in Yolo County to grow food–this at a time when good ag land continues to disappear around the world. HM Clause understands the value of this land. It, along with UC Davis’ presence, are clearly reasons they are here. They themselves did not build a large new facility on Mace, they moved into the old Campbells’ soup facility.
My point here is that there is a reason our land use decisions are difficult. I am not opposed to any and all growth but I believe we must conserve (not preserve as in a museum) the tremendous resource at our borders, while finding the means to provide space for companies moving and/or starting and growing in Davis. A difficult challenge, filled with the not atypical trade-offs that characterize most important decisions. But a challenge we can be, in my view, more intentional about.
Robb:
Thanks for the follow-up. It is not going to be easy and it is not going to take place without good clear explanations of the challenges and the trade-offs. I merely, wanted to remind you and point out to the readers of the Vanguard that much of the implementation and much of the civic amenity and infrastructure — and increasingly the community and economy are “passing on Davis”. If great companies find it difficult to impossible to set down roots and if our children can’t find homes to buy or rent within our City — our community legacy will be short sighted,exclusionary, and missed opportunities…
That said I also found your remarks ones that I could agree with. ” Personally, I will remain very conservative about peripheral growth (I made that clear when I ran for office and I still feel the same). Our farmland (despite what some posters here continue to insist) IS a global resource. Our local water resources HAVE (to date) been managed well. The combination means that we are uniquely positioned in Yolo County to grow food–this at a time when good ag land continues to disappear around the world. HM Clause understands the value of this land. It, along with UC Davis’ presence, are clearly reasons they are here. They themselves did not build a large new facility on Mace, they moved into the old Campbells’ soup facility.
My point here is that there is a reason our land use decisions are difficult. I am not opposed to any and all growth but I believe we must conserve (not preserve as in a museum) the tremendous resource at our borders, while finding the means to provide space for companies moving and/or starting and growing in Davis. A difficult challenge, filled with the not atypical trade-offs that characterize most important decisions. But a challenge we can be, in my view, more intentional about.”
We can be great stewards of our community and aware and committed to protecting the environment but we can’t be afraid of change. We can set a course that allows us to protect our core values and to grow the opportunities in our City. 30+ years ago when these issues were being grappled with throughout the region, Yolo County created a General Plan that included principles that stated that within the unincorporated County we would protect Farmland by not encouraging/permitting “urban style development”.
The Cities of Yolo County, Davis, Woodland, West Sacramento, and Winters would be the location for compact, smart , urban uses = Houses, Offices, Factories and etc… But it is hard to show that recently Davis has done it’s fair share. And maybe as a result good farmland in other jurisdictions is being converted and other environmental detriments are being created because we don’t do our fair share?
Concurrent with that Plan, the City of Davis adopted it’s General Plan, that would allow for a reasonable tempo and mix of urban uses. Long Term plans take a while to implement and periodically they need to be re-visited and updated. Look at all of the changes since the 80’s… And since then we have become focused on “just say no”. As a community we don’t like sprawl. Apparently the only thing we like less is “infill”! But really we should see the choice as good plans and projects or bad plans and projects!
Over the last 25-30 years Davis has morphed from 1)Slow well planned growth, 2) To 2% Growth rate, 3)To no growth! It is hard to attract innovators and young people and to create opportunities for ourselves and our children and to meet our internal growth needs if we just say no. The Univeristy leadership, in order to protect its commitment to higher education and research and community service had to accommodate it’s own needs by altering UCD’s Campus General Plan/LRDP to create West Village. They even tried to develop their own Business Park but that effort got scuttled. The Ag Research Companies and Seed Companies either develop in the unincorporated farm land areas or relocate outside of Davis.
Our local economy in many regards has stagnated when you consider the unrealized potential and what we could have done. Innovation labs can’t find offices, labs and partners in the City Limits and adapt by taking their “urban/R&D,Knowledge” workers outside our City. Our downtown is a jewell in many regards but in some regards it is more like a “food court” than a dynamic mix of commercial mixed use.
We can do better! If we realistically look at what is going on — that companies have few choices in Davis. That the lack of competition has slowed the re-investment in existing plants and infrastructure that the environment is probably more detrimentally impacted by forcing people who live or work in Davis or at the University or within other institutions and businesses in our community to commute further and consume more natural resources and pollute the air with their emissions.
We have to have leadership and develop community support that will enable investment, well planned growth, and new community amenities and infrastructure.
I congratulate you for facing the challenges and with the end in mind working to influence an approach to both improve our community and our economy and protect important values. Those values have to be about quality, and opportunity and consistent with what you described as “Conservative” but in Davis might be “Progressive”? We can be both! We could foster high quality well planned environmentally responsible infrastructure and civic amenities.
No need for the question mark Jim. You are absolutely correct. California has more prime farmland than it can farm because of the lack of water in our semi-arid north and arid south. And another thing about California farming that gets scant attention… it is a government-subsidized business, and most of the farmed acreage in California are corporations feeding off that government trough (pun indented).
I believe that the farmland preservation argument for preventing peripheral growth is either: 1) a convenient deflection away from a NIMBY, no-change, no-growth extremist position; or 2) rooted it ignorance about the business of farming and the fact that by forgoing peripheral development that would otherwise benefit the entire community, we are basically helping to increase the giant corporate farming welfare state… basically benefiting a few wealthy farmers at the expense of everyone else.
So Davis makes this our crusade and it just causes other communities that are also surrounded by high quality farm land, but that “get it”, with greater opportunity to grow community-enhancing development on their periphery. And so the acres of farmland still disappear but without the smart development principles that Davis would demand, and without any benefits going to Davis.
For being a bunch of smart people, we sure look silly.
With respect to Yolo and Solano Counties, I have debunked this notion of yours so many times I can’t count. It’s complete nonsense with regard to farmers in our area. So it’s pointless for you to keep repeating it.
Not all farming is government subsidized.
Most local farmers are not wealthy (and what a very curious thing for you to even comment on).
Yolo and Solano Counties have specific policies in place to protect farmland.
To use your own terminology: for a smart person, you are surprisingly ignorant about local farming, local land use, and local water management, and you sure look silly when you talk about these issues.
You should stop insulting farmers.
Lest anybody believe Frankly’s comment about federal subsidies as it might apply to farmers locally:
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/10/local/me-subsidy10
Ignoring the subsidized water Don? Did you forget?
My water isn’t subsidized. Is yours?
In what sense is water from Lake Berryessa, which supplies SID, subsidized? Do the farmers in SID pay for their water?
In what sense is water from Indian Valley Reservoir, which supplies YCFCWCD, subsidized?
The reason I’m getting petulant about this is that you keep repeating this stuff, but you clearly don’t know anything about local agriculture. Which is a little surprising to me. Please stop maligning local farmers.
Yolo and Solano county agriculture water is managed conjunctively to sustain the groundwater for use during drought years. Notice that farmers here have water sufficient right now to irrigate new orchards and row crops? Wonder why that is? Agriculture in our counties is probably more appropriate and sustainable than many other parts of California. Your repeated comments about agriculture are pointless and filled with logical fallacies, and completely irrelevant to our area.
Don, agriculture consumes 80 percent of California’s developed water, even as it accounts for only 2 percent of the state’s gross domestic product.
California farmers’ water is heavily subsidized. Ag business is highly inefficient in consideration of land and water use in economic production.
So is your demand that we put people and all non-farm and non-ranch business in the places where water is less accessible and keep all the northern CA farmland and ban people and ban non-farm business?
I understand your attraction to farming given your profession, but it does not meet the requirements of a religion.
Frankly, I will say this again. Yolo and Solano county farmers’ water is not heavily subsidized. I just put the facts in front of you.
Yolo and Solano county farmers’ water is not heavily subsidized.
Yolo and Solano county farmers’ water is not heavily subsidized.
Yolo and Solano county farmers’ water is not heavily subsidized.
So your statement about what happens for farmers in other parts of California is irrelevant. In fact, there are only certain parts of this state where your statement really applies, and only certain crops, and none of them have any relevance to Yolo County and Davis land use planning issues.
I don’t even know what you’re trying to ask me.
And inasmuch as I support the development of a couple of peripheral business parks next to Davis, two of which would be on prime ag land but surrounded by conserved land and the highway, I don’t really even understand your whole point here.
I support conserving prime ag land to the greatest extent possible. Hence my support for conserving Mace 391 and then developing Mace 200. I have made that clear over many months in many discussions. That is not an extreme position, in spite of your many efforts to make it sound extreme.
The point I am making is that there is some balance to be struck with land use based on the regional and local need. You are on the side of balancing it far toward permanent ag easements for peripheral land when there is copious other farm land available. And when you do succeed in blocking development of Davis peripheral land the need is just met somewhere else and Davis suffers the lost opportunities.
Since 1960 farmland loss to urban sprawl is largely a myth perpetrated by slow growth advocates and the USDA in their greedy pursuit of perpetual programs to keep their public sector gravy train flowing.
From 1960 to 1990, the amount of agricultural land taken out of production was the size of Texas. But of that total, only one-eighth of the area was used for urban or suburban development.
We are not facing any lack of farmland crisis. And we are not facing any lack of open space crisis.
It is all made up BS. The big hit came in the 1960s as the baby boomers needed housing and the post war economy was expanding. Since then the rate of farmland loss has slowed significantly at a rate much less than the population growth. California in particular is even less in crisis. The rate of farmland loss is much less than the rate of population growth. This population-to-farmland acres is an inconvenient metric for the no-growthers and the USDA, so they just don’t mention it.
And the other thing they fail to mention is how urbanization is not the only cause of farmland loss since 1960. In fact it is the subordinate cause. Other causes are forest and natural habitat reclaimation. Also, a lot of CA farmland lies fallow because of environmental regulations (e.g. “save the Smelt!).
I think the point you make is that the land around Davis is special farmland that requires preservation because it is valuable as farmland.
The point I am making is that the land around Davis is special and valuable for peripheral development based on real needs, and that we are not in crisis for lost farmland but we are in crisis for use of that land for other purposes.
Who’s point is more accurate? Because we can’t have it both ways.
My point is more accurate, if you insist on a false dichotomy.
I could disprove most of your assertions above, but it would obviously be fruitless since you always just repeat the false assertions again at a later date. And since I favor development of specific parcels around Davis, including two that are prime ag land, then obviously it is not my position that is extreme.
You do not value farmland, you disparage farming and farmers (I could prove that without any effort), you favor every single possible development proposal, you have advocated developing Davis all the way to the Causeway, you would support a population for Davis far in excess of 150,000, and you resort to bizarre and fallacious arguments about the state of local agriculture in order to prove your very extreme pro-development viewpoint. And you call people names who don’t share your extreme positions.
In your rhetorical behavior and the false dichotomies that you propose, you play very readily into the hands of those who would oppose reasonable development proposals.
Policies of good land stewardship are compatible with reasonable growth and development.
Of course I don’t expect to change your mind Don. You have your bias and you are stuck on it. I can back every point I make with real data… Just not the popular groupthink political narrative.
It comes back to balance. I say you are extreme on farmland preservation and you say I am extreme on development. Neither of us are absolute (by the way, I have family that farm and worked for Farm Credit for 14 years and participate in USDA rural loan programs, and you own and operate a business that is built on prime farmland), but we are both at differ in what we think is the optimum balance.
I write to help others decide.
All good points, and I think you and Robb have started an excellent discussion here.
A couple of points:
— ag research and seed companies very appropriately locate outside the city limits on county land, because those are, in fact, ag uses. They are appropriate to ag-zoned land and are suitable uses for farmland.
— as to UC’s decision to build West Village: they are so far behind on their provision of housing due to their own growth that I really think they’re playing catchup due to their own poor planning. For a decade of so, UCD built like crazy…but didn’t build housing. And they added thousands of new students before the chancellor’s 2020 Initiative and still didn’t plan for the ramifications. While the city certainly should and could be planning better, most of our housing shortage is a direct result of UC’s expansion without them providing what they should and what they promised to provide.
— “Innovation labs can’t find offices, labs and partners in the City Limits” — at the moment there is a lot of vacant space for them on Fifth Street where CalGene used to be….
Don:
I have to be very careful how I say this.. But the former Calgene/Monsanto building on 5th Street has a number of challenges. It is functionally obsolete. It has about 1 to 1.5 parking spaces for ever 1,000 feet of office.(4-6 spaces per thousand is current standard) It is landlocked the City park/drainage pond is to the south and more buildings make the geometry of change tough.
It was built as 2 x 1 story small Industrial Buildings that are connected with a Glass Store Front. Second Stories were added within the 1 story envelope– There is much more office than lab space and the lab space is 25 + years old and probably needs to be totally upgraded. Much of it doesn’t have natural lighting and standard ceiling height. I have shown it to clients and I am aware of other companies and institutions who have looked and so far it hasn’t been a fit when folks do their “due diligence” and add the costs of updating and refurbishing the building or evaluate if it is possible to accomplish what there business needs at that location.
It clearly needs to adapt and be re-used — but it is not a “competitive offering” for most modern innovative companies.
If you want that building to evolve a couple of things might help. Create real competition so that the current owners either re-invest or sell it to someone who will. And maybe that section of 5th Street should be “up-zoned” for high density mixed use and the City and School district should apply that to their properties on 5th Street as well.
Sometimes buildings are vacant and available for a reason… They might be in the “supply” but they don’t generate “any demand”.
Go for it!
To expand on Gray’s comments, there is another noteworthy example that should also be highlighted – Monsanto just southwest of Woodland. Monsanto is instructive because they recently shut down their 40,000 sq ft R&D facility on 5th Street. This is the second major Agtech end user that Davis lost in recent years (the other being Agraquest). The Monsanto facility dates back to when it was Calgene. The world’s-first agtech company. A UC Davis spinout. It housed multiple generations of highly-skilled employees that lived and raised their families in Davis. While I understand their reasons for wanting to consolidate operations in a new facility, as well as (presumably) get out of a town where they were unwelcome by some elements of the community, it was a great loss to Davis.
Recruitment. Retention. Growth.
We lost jobs. We lost tax revenue. We now have a 40,000 sq ft space sitting chronically empty. We took another big hit to our rhetoric that Davis is the place to be in agtech.
Seed breeding company to double size of Woodland headquarters
Monsanto opens huge new lab in Woodland
Calgene, Monsanto subsidiary, moving out of Davis into Woodland facilities
HM Clause was a big supporter of Cannery, citing the need for housing for their employees.
Some might find these maps instructive for assessing land that might someday maybe somehow get developed for some purposes.
http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20080506/Packet/09-LAFCO-Sphere-of-Influence.pdf
Unincorporated Yolo County is approximately 621,000 acres.
Of this approximately 600,000 acres is zoned for agriculture.
As a nexus for 21st agriculture research, development, and policy and location of a world-class research university, Davis can certainly justify a reasonable amount of peripheral development to help create a healthy ecosystem to host UCD and a growing technology sector. This means tech parks as well as residential developments to accommodate the housing demand created by the influx of new employees.
To put things into further perspective, there are approximately 35,000 harvested acres of tomatoes in Yolo County. The 200 acre Mace tech park site is planted in tomatoes. We’ve managed to string out the process of bringing the property into the city since 2010, with an uncertain outcome if it ever reaches the ballot.
To “preserve” 0.6% of the Yolo County tomato crop? Really? This should have been a no-brainer.