Sponsors of the Mace Ranch Innovation Center project today announced that they are putting the proposal on hold to re-evaluate its feasibility.
The Mace Ranch Innovation Center (MRIC) project is proposed by Ramco Enterprises, The Buzz Oates Group of Companies and Reynolds & Brown on 212 acres at the northeast corner of Mace Boulevard and Interstate 80. It is anticipated to accommodate nearly 5,900 jobs at build-out.
A study prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. and reviewed at the Monday, April 11, Finance & Budget Commission meeting concludes that the project might not be feasible, given that only 128 acres or 60 percent of the site are considered developable and that infrastructure costs are high. The estimated infrastructure costs of more than $50 million are four times the industry standard for similar projects, according to the project sponsors.
“We remain highly committed to the project but need to figure out how to make it work,” said Dan Ramos, project manager. “We appreciate the efforts of city staff to move our project forward and are disappointed that we have to take this step. We’ve invested considerable funds, gathered a significant amount of community feedback and taken substantially more time than is customary to process our proposal.”
Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis told the Vanguard, “I am disappointed to arrive at this pause after all the hard work by staff and commission members. I will note that EPS highlighted the question of feasibility without housing in their original fiscal analysis. Staff and the Council subcommittee will meet with the proponents to discuss next steps.”
“We want to develop a true state of the art innovation center that’s worthy of the site and the City of Davis, that can withstand the test of time, and that all of Davis can be proud of,” Mr. Ramos said.
“Through this process we’ve concluded that one way to make the center more feasible is to include workforce housing in addition to the innovation space, which along with providing environmental benefits would help the project build out faster and more quickly generate needed revenue for the city. Potential tech users from Davis and elsewhere have indicated that they are looking for well-planned projects where their employees can live, work and play,” Mr. Ramos said.
“We also need to explore other potential funding avenues such as the establishment of an enhanced infrastructure financing district, state grants, and cap and trade funding opportunities to improve the project’s economics. We will need to be very creative,” said Ramos.
An earlier EPS study indicated that the MRIC at build-out would generate a projected $2.2 million annual surplus for the city to fund services like parks, libraries and public safety. The study also estimated that the MRIC will create more than 10,600 direct, indirect and induced jobs in Davis and Yolo County, and annually generate $651 million of labor income, and $2.6 billion of output.
There currently is no timetable for the project team to decide when or if it will proceed.
“While we’re taking this pause to reassess, we look forward to participating in the community discussion on what needs to be done collectively to move this project forward,” Mr. Ramos said.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Not surprised. This reminds of the GOP primaries. The good guys suspend their campaigns while Trump surges. We have our own local Trump (Harrington) and his Trumpkins (the no-growthers).
Time to get rid of Measure R. It has given far too much power to the fools.
Let me guess… other opportunities with the county and Woodland or maybe Solano County and Dixon?
People throughout the region are going to once again confirm that Davis is a sinking ship of graying foolish people.
Frankly
“People throughout the region are going to once again confirm that Davis is a sinking ship of graying foolish people.”
Or a highly desirable place to live despite our challenges. A lot depends on one’s point of view.
Ah, but then you seem to have this tendency to project the past as the present. The present is not good and will only get worse. You will see streets crumble and parks go maintained. And of course the old fools in town will demand that $500+ per year per unit supplemental parcel tax so they rest easy at night knowing their little retirement village stays the same.
And here is the other thing… suddenly there is more justification for a 5.5-story Trackside building.
It must be exhausting to try and block every development and disappointing when you figure out you have done nothing really beneficial in trying.
Amen Tia! I like to think of Davis as a desirable place to live, without it trying to be an industrialized complex.
Right now it is. But when the roads crumble, parks fall into disrepair, students are packed into mini-dorms, it will lose a lot of luster. We are on the edge.
I would much rather try to work toward parcel taxes to fix what’s broken, than to stare at concrete buildings that mean nothing to me except money in the pockets of developers.
Let me guess. Government employee. Or more likely a retired government employee?
Because all that extra tax money will also help city employee unions and associations grab for more and hold on to their millionaire retirement at 55.
And the rest of us with money will consider other places where there are fewer of you gifting yourself with our hard earned dollars.
And we will go to these other places and open businesses (because there are actual properties there to do it in) and provide jobs and tax revenue for those communities.
And Davis can continue to whittle away as an old-government-employee retirement village with crumbling road, dying parks, more pizza restaurants and night clubs and a big fat tax bill for everyone that wants to stay.
citywatch: “I would much rather try to work toward parcel taxes to fix what’s broken, than to stare at concrete buildings that mean nothing to me except money in the pockets of developers.”
Do you realize how big a parcel tax would have to be to cover $32 million a year?
David wrote:
> Do you realize how big a parcel tax would have
> to be to cover $32 million a year?
If all 14,736 single family homes paid an extra $2,171 a year (less than the cost of a new Prius over 10 years) we would hit $32 million (and avoid the pain of looking at new buildings next to the Mondavi Center when we drive to San Francisco or Napa for the weekend). The average rent increase of $180/month would be a big deal for families renting in Davis, but not be a big deal when it is split 5 ways (or 7 ways if the owner converts the garage in to a couple more bedrooms) at one of the a mini-dorms that will be created every time a family moves out of town.
Dan: where is your land mitigation? I’ve asked you for that information every single time I’ve seen you in the past couple of years.
As you know, I love 3-1, outboard, fee simple mitigation to the City that seals off part of the city borders that touch on wide open private land. This ends the political land use fights that have defined, and divided, this city for decades. For that, I might get behind some housing out there.
I know you own some very desirable land close in or touching the city borders, and I have never understood why you don’t lead with the best first: mitigation in fee simple to the City’s open space habitat collection. I’ve told you for years that mitigation is the way to do it, and get the environmental community to stand down, or even support, your project. Office 759-8440. Phone lines are wide open for you.
Michael Harrington said . . . “I know you own some very desirable land close in or touching the city borders, and I have never understood why you don’t lead with the best first”
Mike, thanks to Mace 391 I’m intimately familiar with the land ownership around the City, and just recently refreshed that knowledge together with Jean Jackman when we called for the “mid course check-in” for Measure O. To the best of my knowledge neither Dan Ramos nor any of his partners have any “very desirable land close in or touching the city borders.” Where is the land you refer to?
Several years ago One of the Ramos partnerships had control of the 47 acres inside the Mace Curve, but that parcel has reverted back to ownership by Mariani Nut Company. For almost 20 years another Ramos partnership owned 125 acres across from the intersection of Mace Boulevard and Montgomery Avenue, but ownership of that parcel is now in the hands of AKT Development Corporation. I actually think the Ramos Cupboard is bare.
Frankly: we are about to fast-run an initiative to strengthen R and patch some serious process holes that became obvious with the rush vote on Nishi for the June ballot. I’ll pass the signature clipboard over the fence for your review and signature if you like it.
I’m inclined to fast-run an initiative to end Measure R.
And given the fact that we agree with this and not much else should be a sign of something.
I don’t think Measure R is a good thing for this city Mike. It has been exploited and corrupted beyond its useful intent. I know you don’t like development and don’t want the city to change, but it is really foolish, IMO, to keep denying that you happen to live in a city with a very popular world-class research university, and that you benefit from the university being here, and that the university has been growing and will continue to grow.
When I attended college about 10% of kids my age would go on to get a 4-year degree. Now it is over 50%… and probably should be 60%… with the rest going into trades.
The pressure for Davis to grow is a symptom of life forces you seem to just conveniently ignore. You are no alone, but I think you are likely a growing minority.
I am going to see about working with some folks in town… getting the college kids out to vote… to overturn Measure R. It is time the young vote showed all us old residents a thing or two.
Frankly, I don’t understand your position. Weren’t you against housing on the site? The developer is saying an industrial park only project isn’t feasible but that’s what they presented from the beginning. Why all of a sudden doesn’t that pencil out? Don’t you think they should’ve known that? As you know I’m all for an industrial park and feel it would’ve easily passed a Measure R vote. So why is Measure R the problem now? I don’t understand where you’re coming from? Are you now mad because you feel Measure R stopped any included housing that wasn’t part of the original project?
I think Frankly was opposed to housing for political reasons and the political reasons just collapsed under their own weight.
I also don’t understand Frankly’s position, regarding the developer’s decision to withdraw the proposal. I recall that Frankly thought that all of the space at MRIC was needed for commercial development. I also recall him mentioning that including residential would change (and increase) the types of city services required for the development.
It’s unfortunate that this commercial development was withdrawn, before voters could even consider it. If the developer re-introduces the proposal (with housing), I don’t think it will pass. I believe that many will actively work against it, if the developer chooses that path.
BP – The housing was not necessary for the development to pencil out if it wasn’t for:
1. Measure O requirements.
2. The cost and risk to fight and with a Measure R vote.
3. The over-the-top Davis perfectionist demands for all the feel good liberal amenities.
4. The stunning and suffocating permitting and code costs that the state and county and city pile on.
The last one isn’t easy to solve. The third one is just the fact that the city is filled with folks that are liberal do-gooders… that isn’t going to change.
The problem is that with these AND the first two, the cost of development in Davis puts projects way outside the norm… and then causes the developer to seek relief. And in this case that relief was housing.
I am against the housing only because we need every acre for commercial and the tax revenue it brings in. We are short of commercial space because we have not built much in the last 40 years (had to protect those downtown merchants from competition).
But I get that the developer was looking for relief with the housing.
And now the developer is seeing the Harrington law suit and all the no-growthers com after the Nishi development. He is looking at the potential upside and the risk that he could be wasting his time with so many fools and foolish people… including the members of the CC… and concluding the risks do not balance out given the reward.
If the reward was bigger he might stay in the fight.
And my other reason for not supporting housing is that folks like you that are more reasonable would not vote yes with housing.
We need to unpack that $50M claim and see why the costs are so high. Using housing to subsidize infrastructure is a bad economic development strategy. If R&D development doesn’t pencil in Davis we need to understand why … and then fix the problem.
Frankly: When I attended college about 10% of kids my age would go on to get a 4-year degree. Now it is over 50%… and probably should be 60%… with the rest going into trades.
NYT, 25 April 2014:
That is because of the escalating cost of college and the lack of jobs resulting from the first jobless recovery in the history of the US.
Ironically one of the things driving up the cost of college is the cost of housing, which in this state, is made more expensive from people like we have in Davis. Baby Boomers that got theirs and really don’t give a crap about anyone in subesquent generations. They didn’t label our generation the “me myself and I” generation for nuttin’.
The Atlantic, 11 Jan 2016
Is this all about sour grapes because the developer didn’t get housing?
Is this another end around in hopes of getting housing added to the mix?
I don’t know the answers but it’s interesting that housing came up in the statement.
Do we have another full court press coming trying to get council to change their minds?
Stay tuned…………
You don’t seem to understand that economic development in Davis is dead. Get ready for massive tax hikes.
That won’t happen because the voters will never agree.
Of course they will. They don’t want their precious parks and swimming pools and greenbelts closed.
Not “massive” tax hikes. Maybe some smaller hikes.
Where are we getting $32 million in unmet needs if there is no economic development?
This is bad news for the school district as well
“Not “massive” tax hikes. Maybe some smaller hikes.”
$2,000-2,500 per year in perpetuity is what will likely be required, assuming that the City’s rate of cost inflation is 0%. If we continue on the same path we are on now, the tax will need to be indexed to match the rate of cost inflation.
That was going to happen anyway. The fiscal benefits of any Davis R&D development is many years into the future. Ramos still has undeveloped industrial land that was entitled in conjunction with the 1987 Mace Ranch Specific Plan. And the inventory would be much larger today had they not been allowed to up-zone a big chunk for the Target Center.
Entitlement does not simply translate into revenue for the City in the near term. Given the long track record of the developers on 2nd Street, it would be prudent to assume it will take them decades to build out MRIC if they can get it approved.
The City of Davis economic development policy is now officially in tatters.
Very true, stark and accurate statement.
So let us review. In spring of 2014, we put out RFEI’s with Pinkerton as the City Manager, Rob White as CIO. Pinkerton left.
City Council eventually hired Dirk Brazil. It was obvious that he marked a change in policy and when Rob White was first put on ice and then bounced, it was clear that the Innovation Parks were dead with him.
The reality is:
Davis Innovation Center died last spring
MRIC is about to die
Nishi will be voted down.
And yet there will be no accountability. Dirk Brazil will not be held accountable. Dan Wolk will not be held accountable. The city council will not be held accountable. Dan Wolk will be replaced with his former campaign manager. I’m not sure what Rochelle is thinking, but this is a disaster and no one seems to notice that the sink is going down.
I think you’re wrong.
Just remember my words
You remember mine too. Nishi will pass as long as it can get past its legal bumps.
I won’t predict (yet) if Nishi will pass or fail… but I predict a VERY slim margin either way. Pretty much know there are four votes in this household against it if it includes motor vehicle access to W Olive.
If no access, likely 2-4 votes in favor.
You may be right. Brazil doesn’t believe we need economic development.
One other thing that this MRIC announcement has done is change the complexion of the City Council election. We have over $30 million a year of unfunded liabilities for roads, bikepaths, buildings, parks, pensions and retiree healthcare. Now with any potential revenue from MRIC gone, and a minimum of three years before any revenues flow to the General Fund from Nishi, the Council for the next four years is going to be consumed with cost cutting and the only possible source of additional revenues being justification to the voters of the need for additional taxes.
The Sacramento Bee stated in their endorsement editorial last Friday,
Well, the “significant development” just evaporated, and the “good work” facing the Council isn’t “collegiality” it requires thoughtful and diligent fiscal and technical expertise. We need a Council that avoids fiscal giveaways like the Cannery CFD ($5.9 million given away by the City to date with $0 received by the City in return).
Further, if Will Arnold is elected, the Bee’s editorial words about him are going to be very prophetic.
Fasten your seatbelts, we are about to enter a period of extreme turbulance. To torture Will’s campaign slogan (“Just reach out your hand”), we are going to need “all hands on deck.”
What a mess this town’s in tatters . . .
. . . nothing the Yolo Rail Realignment Partnership can’t solve:
Here they come to save the DAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!
You have your comedian hat on today Alan. Good to see. Glad you are back from the brink.
Barack and hpierce: we are full-steam ahead in the opposition to Measure A. There IS Olive access, and so there is every reason to vote NO to Measure A. We need your help.
Don Shor: the City never had a feasible economic plan to be in tatters …. Rather than giving the city budget another haircut, looking at where to save, then adjusting tax revenue to fit the need, THEN going for these larger projects, the City fiddled around for 3-4 years on these three larger sites and did nothing else.
I settled the water case to give Mayor Wolk a clean shot at those economic and city accountability programs and goals, but nothing was done during his two years to solve those challenges. (Sorry, Dan, but that’s the truth.)
Now we have Robb Davis stepping up to the top position, and he couldn’t get the CC to do anything at all to attack the budget over-spending, and lack of a coherent tax plan. And now, Matt Williams and the finance and Budget Commission have laid down the marker that the city has to fix its budget and lack of accountability programs BEFORE even getting to new revenue. The hour is so late that I highly doubt the City will have any sort of tax plan in place for November.
As I said over and over when I was on the CC, one of the biggest problems I have with these big controversial projects is they suck huge amounts of time and energy from the city and the voters with these sorts of Hail Mary projects. Instead the City should pay attention to the basics, and set up a general plan update, and the bigger projects can be thoroughly vetted by the RESIDENTS before they become back room deals between the developers, a few staff, and CC member private chats.
So under Rochelle Swanson’s cheerleading for any thing commercial, and big, and expensive, and controversial, these past four years, nothing was fixed in a fundamental sense as to budget and quality control. (There were some good votes I will admit on some employee comp and benefit reductions, but not enough.)
Nishi should have far denser housing, and that is what I would support if we can knock down this current real estate proposal known as Measure A.
Mike, with all due respect, I think you are being a destructive, not helpful, force in this town. I think you are in far over your head and don’t realize it.
Then you buried the city budget forever Mike, by giving 3% at 50 retroactive unfunded pensions to the cops and firefighters. So let us not selectively look back to when you were on the council without discussing the whole record. You want to be a hero but consistently fail to accept responsibility for your role in creating the financial hole the city now finds itself trapped in.
Frankly: I like new in-fill projects that your nonprofit can fund with loans. I like local builders constructing those projects. I like local parts and lumber sellers selling their products for these infill buildings. I just don’t think that we need any fairly staid and traditional and somewhat tacky exterior projects that generate large amounts of greenhouse gases .and little solid economic profits to the city .. unless you show me fee simple mitigation that I just gotta go along with it. I am consistent. If Nishi and Ramosville do not want to show us their mitigation … then they are not leading on what should be their best foot. It’s strategy ….
Dan Ramos: waiting for your call. The lines are open for you. 759-8440.
Mike – You have opposed every infill project within five blocks of where you own other property in town. I’m sorry, but I see no evidence that you support infill. You opposed Trackside. You oppose the Sterling apartment complex. Am I wrong?
I cannot fund loans to help small business grow and create good paying jobs for people if folks like you never let any land be used for building more commercial inventory.
Business needs land. You pucker up and prevent the land from being used, then there is no business… only a bunch of puckering.
You like them is a euphemism for you can’t do much to stop them.
Those that support growth will always work toward that end – what will happen 2, 3, 4, 5 years in the future? They’ll be knocking on the voting door once again – it’s never enough. Even if Nishi is passed, even if Mace goes forward, an empty piece of ag land will be fair game for those that want more and more from our space. Driving around Davis in the gorgeous country, I see what the developers and “city lovers” see – dollars! But I just don’t buy into their desires to turn Davis into a “city”. It’s a beautiful “town”. Every time I pass the Cannery, I cringe. The area next to Cowell is appealing but looking to the distance is akin to looking at the housing on Pole Line across from Costco. You want to call us names like “graying, foolish people”, so be it – I may be graying but I’m not foolish to want to live in a community like Davis.
Sorry, Covell
You are foolish in my opinion because you don’t seem to understand or are in denial of the fact that Davis is smack dab in the middle of one of the fastest-growing regions in the nation. And you are foolish because you don’t seem to understand or you are in denial that UCD has grown by thousands and is continuing to grow by 1000 every year.
It is foolish to deny these things. You and others that do this are only responsible for creating a bigger mess. A decision to do nothing is still a decision with consequences.
I have lived here over 40 years. My wife for over 50. I am one of those older people in town. I like Davis small. I really don’t want it to grow. But I am not a head-in-the sand denier. I recognize that there are forces pushing the town to grow that are outside our control to stop it. What we should be doing is to working to make the growth all smart and attractive (not perfect… because that does not exist). Make sure that as Davis grows it does so in a way that makes it a better place. More people and more development does not mean less good.
The city has already changed and it will change more. Woodland will just keep expanding to take up the overflow capacity. The county will cancel the pass-through agreement and build things on Davis’s door step. Solano County will get in on the game. Then we will get all the impacts with none of the tax revenue and without any say in how these developments are designed.
Yes, that would be a very bad outcome and it would be very indicative of fools running the show.
Contrary to what you think, I am not in denial. What I am tired of is Davis being a growth target. Just because it is in the Middle of one of the fastest-growing regions in the nation, doesn’t mean it needs to be propelled toward “city” status. I think we’ve exhausted this disagreement!
Davis may be beautiful in your eyes, but it is broke and cannot pay its bills. Our infrastructure is decaying, and all the amenities you love so much will soon be unusable. We need to nearly double our current General Fund budget by adding $30-35 million in sustainable revenues if we wish to stop the ongoing civic decay.
We can choose to pay for it, to the tune of $2000-2500 per year (as long as costs stay static) making everyone poorer, or we can increase our economic vitality by expanding business and growing wealth in the community. What we cannot (or at least should not) do is continue to ignore reality and the expanding infrastructure decay, while passing on the costs of our amenities to those who will live here in the years to come.
“We can choose to pay for it, to the tune of $2000-2500 per year (as long as costs stay static) making everyone poorer, or we can increase our economic vitality by expanding business and growing wealth in the community.”
Or, we could do a combination of both in a collaborative effort between those ( such as myself, who believe that we have an obligation to pay our own bills) and those who favor enlisting the help of others to pay those bills. I am fairly sure that most of us believe that both approaches will actually be necessary regardless of how much we favor one over the other.
The reality is, it is more a matter of “drafting”, than enlisting… unless you are a “charity”… soda tax is example… 50% +1 could “volunteer/enlist” (even if they drink no soda), and everyone else who drinks the stuff would be “drafted”.
Asking the community to “gift” the community is “enlistment”… taxation avenues are “drafting”… I remember the “draft” in the early 70’s… was subject to it, but had a high “lottery number”… didn’t particularly want to go to Vietnam to kill others (or be killed)… resolved I’d do what my Dad did thirty years earlier… if it looked liked I’d be “drafted”, I’d enlist instead, and do my damnedness to serve as a medic. Was spared that choice.
Frankly: “Time to get rid of Measure R. It has given far too much power to the fools.”
What in the world has Measure R got to do with MRIC and the reason for the pause? The reason given for the pause is: “A study prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. and reviewed at the Monday, April 11, Finance & Budget Commission meeting concludes that the project might not be feasible given that only 128 acres or 60 percent of the site are considered developable and that infrastructure costs are high. The estimated infrastructure costs of more than $50 million are four times the industry standard for similar projects, according to the project sponsors.”
Secondly, I am trying to figure out why only 60% of the site is developable. Can anyone explain this to me?
Thirdly, why are the infrastructure costs 4 times the industry standard?
Fourthly, perhaps it is time to revisit the issue of housing on MRIC, if the project is otherwise fiscally unsustainable. I really need more information here, to better understand why this project is not penciling out for the developer, and how that can be corrected. I have to wonder if the underlying plan is to move the project a short distance up the road or across the Causeway, where there is less resistance/lawsuits. DIC ended up doing just that. If this city has to raise taxes in a big way long term to pay for city services that drives the middle/lower income folks out of town, you know who you have to thank for it – the no growthers who will stop at nothing to get their way. No-growthers will use every dirty trick in the book – lawsuits, spreading misinformation, disruption of public meetings, etc. And all of those dirty tactics are a clear attempt to prevent voters from having their say via Measure R!
I have been mistaken in thinking that Measure O is where the 2:1 ag mitigation comes from… but I see now it is a city ordinance. Isn’t this the explanation for why only 60 acres can be developed?
No, that is not why. The biggest portion (64.6 acres) of the non-developable land is for green space. The largest portion of the 64.6 acres is the agricultural buffer that runs along the east edge and north edge of the property.
Why the green space and the ag buffer if not the 2:1 mitigation?
Anon asked . . . “Secondly, I am trying to figure out why only 60% of the site is developable. Can anyone explain this to me?”
Anon, the following table on page of the MRIC Land Economics analysis by EPS shows the breakdown (see http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/Finance/Commission%20Agenda%20-%20April%202016/April%202016/Item%205c_MRIC%20Land%20Economics3%2004%2006%2016.pdf).
With Harrington’s Measure R Nishi lawsuit we are in uncharted legal territory so now it seems even if you go to the ballot you can’t rely on the results. This adds a measure of uncertainty that could have scuttled the project until we see what the courts do about Nishi.
Measure R adds substantial extra costs to the project because of the costs of running an election and the potential for litigation and failure risks under Measure R. I don’t think it accounts for all the additional costs but does add to the overall cost.
If I were to take a guess I think the downturn in the price of oil and the reduction in capital spending in the oil industry caused Schilling to drop its expansion plans and that killed the project because Ramos lost his biggest tenant. We will know more if and when Schilling announces what they are going to do about their new factories that were planned for MRIC. If they build in West Sac or Woodland it will tell us that the anti-growth sentiments killed the project. If they don’t build or delay construction it tells us that it was the economics of the energy industry that killed the project.
Good points.
Since the developer originally planned to build an industrial park with no housing how in the world are they just learning now that the project isn’t feasible as planned? I mean they have to have already put hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars into the planning and they’re just discovering this now?
I’m can’t help but feel that we’re being played.
I was wondering the same thing.
Unless they got cold feet because of Harrington’s lawsuit, or a better offer by Woodland or West Sac. We know what happened with DIC – it went north a few miles to Woodland, where they were more welcoming.
Maybe so. But, Ramos still owns the proposed site for MRIC. Unless he wants to continue farming it and/or use it for agricultural mitigation, there will likely be a proposal that includes housing (as noted in his comments, in the article above).
It’s going to be an ugly fight.
To Ron: Which is preferable, MRIC with workforce housing, or no MRIC or MRIC located in Woodland or West Sac?
That’s easy to answer, for me. I was a reluctant supporter of a commercial-only MRIC, as originally planned. Introducing housing dilutes at least some of the benefits that a commercial-only MRIC would bring. (Housing would increase the type and need for city services.) With housing, the negatives that MRIC would bring (e.g., traffic, congestion, and sprawling beyond our city’s boundaries) would no longer be outweighed by the positives (e.g., financial benefit). I would also argue that the negative impacts would be greater, with housing.
It’s unfortunate that our local cities have to compete in a “race-to-the-bottom” mentality, to attract businesses. It would be better if tax revenues could be shared, perhaps on a regional basis. (I know that this isn’t going to happen anytime soon.)
I have seen all of the arguments regarding the need for commercial development. However, these arguments are not sufficient for me to support MRIC with housing. (I would likely be actively involved in a campaign to defeat it, if/when such a proposal arises.)
To Ron: “I have seen all of the arguments regarding the need for commercial development. However, these arguments are not sufficient for me to support MRIC with housing. (I would likely be actively involved in a campaign to defeat it, if/when such a proposal arises.)”
So my question to you in the same one I posed to city watch: “1. And how would you suggest the city pay for services and infrastructure repair/maintenance in the years to come? More taxes? Cuts in services? Neither of those solutions seems superior to well planned economic development, especially if you are on a fixed income or are low-middle or low income and will be driven out of town by higher taxes.”
I guess this would depend on how one defines “well-planned”.
As originally planned, a commercial-only MRIC would (apparently) bring a modest financial benefit to the city. Perhaps more importantly (and telling), some individuals who may be considered “slow-growth” were involved in the initial processes to examine/encourage economic development (in the form of “innovation centers”). As a result of those processes, a commercial-only MRIC arose.
The developer was on track to have that plan considered by the voters, but has now backed out. I suspect that the developer believes that much more money can be made (for his own interests), if housing is now included. (The city would likely lose some benefits if housing is included, and the negative impacts would be much greater.)
I understand that some slow-growth individuals were also (initially) involved with Nishi, but have now apparently turned against it. The same thing will happen with MRIC, if/when it reappears with housing. I also suspect that most in Mace Ranch, Wildhorse, and others who depend on Mace/Covell Boulevard will also oppose it.
city watch: “Those that support growth will always work toward that end – what will happen 2, 3, 4, 5 years in the future? They’ll be knocking on the voting door once again – it’s never enough. Even if Nishi is passed, even if Mace goes forward, an empty piece of ag land will be fair game for those that want more and more from our space. Driving around Davis in the gorgeous country, I see what the developers and “city lovers” see – dollars! But I just don’t buy into their desires to turn Davis into a “city”. It’s a beautiful “town”. Every time I pass the Cannery, I cringe. The area next to Cowell is appealing but looking to the distance is akin to looking at the housing on Pole Line across from Costco. You want to call us names like “graying, foolish people”, so be it – I may be graying but I’m not foolish to want to live in a community like Davis.
“1. And how would you suggest the city pay for services and infrastructure repair/maintenance in the years to come? More taxes? Cuts in services? Neither of those solutions seems superior to well planned economic development, especially if you are on a fixed income or are low-middle or low income and will be driven out of town by higher taxes.
2. Somehow a big fat empty lot is preferable to the Cannery housing development? Really?
3. I’m confused – if you are not foolish to want to live in a community like Davis, then why are you here or if you don’t live here, why do you care?
Mark West: “Davis may be beautiful in your eyes, but it is broke and cannot pay its bills. Our infrastructure is decaying, and all the amenities you love so much will soon be unusable. We need to nearly double our current General Fund budget by adding $30-35 million in sustainable revenues if we wish to stop the ongoing civic decay.
We can choose to pay for it, to the tune of $2000-2500 per year (as long as costs stay static) making everyone poorer, or we can increase our economic vitality by expanding business and growing wealth in the community. What we cannot (or at least should not) do is continue to ignore reality and the expanding infrastructure decay, while passing on the costs of our amenities to those who will live here in the years to come.”
Very well said… and sickeningly true. No exaggeration.
Anon
“ and sickeningly true”
Perhaps in your eyes. But then it was not so long ago that you were remarking on how “shabby” Village Homes looked to you at the same time that my partner’s house was selling for significantly above asking price in a bidding war. The point here for me is that beauty does indeed seem to be in the eye of the beholder. If Davis were not such an attractive place to live, we would have only the UCD students actively trying to find places to live here, and yet we have many arguing that young professionals and young families also want to rent and/or buy homes here. Also, there do not seem to be droves of older people fleeing Davis when their own children are out of the home. Why do we believe that this is the case if Davis is not an attractive community in which to live ?
We are being played …. The developer is just NOW learning the project must have significant housing to be economically viable ? These guys are way too smart to spend all that dough this past year to be in such a jam.
Frankly: I love you as my neighbor but don’t swallow the tale from Ramosville ….
Okay, found out one fact. Only 60% of land is developable because of the city parcel, the open space, and whatever land is necessary for roads and parking lots.
Another fact. EPS did a further analysis, and the expected rate of return for a project like this should be about 12%. But unfortunately the project as envisioned without housing is coming in at about 3-4%, which is way too iffy. Not sure I understand all the reasons why, but it has to do with various assumptions made about various factors. Essentially the city must continue to work with the developers to see if they cannot come to some agreements about various aspects of the project that will get the expected rate of return back up to 12% where it belongs.
If you care to wade through the EPS report, it can be found under the F&BC’s agenda @: http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/Finance/Commission%20Agenda%20-%20April%202016/April%202016/Item%205c_MRIC%20Land%20Economics3%2004%2006%2016.pdf
Ron: “That’s easy to answer, for me. I was a reluctant supporter of a commercial-only MRIC, as originally planned. Introducing housing dilutes at least some of the benefits that a commercial-only MRIC would bring.”
Actually introducing housing does NOT dilute the benefits that a commercial-only MRIC would bring. There was going to be exactly the same amount of R&D space with or without the housing. If housing was included, the R&D space would go up and not out. A question was then asked in a MRIC forum then why not have even more R&D space in a commercial-only MRIC? The answer was there is a certain absorption rate, so that MRIC has already maximized to the extent economically feasible the R&D space. Any more R&D space would sit idle and not draw new business. Furthermore, adding housing has the advantage that the project becomes more attractive to businesses if it includes workforce housing. Then the question was posed as to how could it be guaranteed that employees of the company would purchase the homes. The answer was the housing can be designed in such a way that it would essentially only be appealing to the workforce employed within the project, e.g. lofts directly over workspace.
There’s really not much point to this housing debate, in my opinion. The credibility of the Mace Ranch team is shot. It was already shaky with the addition of housing to the debate over the last couple of months. Now to pull the project? They won’t be good partners for the city to work with. I’d guess that as long as they own that land, it will be farmland at this point. The only way it will get developed is if they trade or sell it to someone else.
Well I’m not willing to give up, even if you are… which is essentially allowing Harrington and his ilk to run this town…
Adding housing increases the type and cost of city services (which typically aren’t covered by the taxes collected, over time). This reduces the promised financial benefits of a commercial-only development (which were rather modest, to begin with). Adding housing brings in new residents to fill jobs that might otherwise be filled by current residents. (Sort of a vicious circle – add new jobs, then bring in non-residents to fill them.) Sort of defeats the purpose, in terms of job creation.
Adding more housing outside of city limits would increase negative impacts regarding traffic, congestion, etc. (I don’t buy the argument that housing would reduce such impacts.)
Adding housing might also complicate matters, regarding the types of commercial activities that can be conducted adjacent to housing.
We either need commercial development, or we don’t. Arguments that suggest that a commercial-only development (as originally planned) would not be rapidly absorbed (might) suggest that there isn’t a huge demand for commercial space, in Davis.
“The estimated infrastructure costs of more than $50 million are four times the industry standard for similar projects, according to the project sponsors.”
Can someone expound on this huge cost difference?
How much of it is city and county fees? Do-gooder add ons?
Frankly: A $500 per year parcel tax is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need. But it is roughly the size of the school district’s, having two on the ballot in November is going to be a huge problem for the school district.
If large tax increases are going to be the answer I hope the council realizes you can’t just do this through parcel taxes on the backs of homeowners. We actually have more people in town that don’t own property that use city services and need to pay their share too.
Unless Davis becomes a charter city, the options for taxation are very limited.
In preparation for his hour-long video candidate’s interview with me, Jon Li has provided me with a multi-page white paper on Charter City status. He wants to devote the whole hour of the interview to a discussion of the pros and cons of what a conversion of Davis to a Charter City would be.
I’m not sure that video discussion will be an optimal use of that hour for my campaign, but it could be very interesting.
Here’s my folder from the Measure N debate several years ago. http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/charter%20city%20info/
Don Saylor, Nancy Price, and I appeared on DCTV to argue against it. Nancy, Pam Nieberg and Rick Entrikin and I co-wrote an op-ed against it as well. Not very many issues where you’ll find that group together….
BP wrote:
> We actually have more people in town that don’t own
> property that use city services and need to pay
> their share too.
They will pay their “share” every month when rents go up…
BP said . . . “If large tax increases are going to be the answer I hope the council realizes you can’t just do this through parcel taxes on the backs of homeowners. We actually have more people in town that don’t own property that use city services and need to pay their share too.”
BP, in anticipation of this very concern, I sent a request to staff for a clear understanding of both the burdens and revenues associated with Davis’ current parcel taxes. Kelly Stachowicz sent me the Parks Tax ordinance, which was approved by the voters in the June 2012 election. You will note that the rate per apartment is the same as the rate per single family residence, which clearly indicates that the past practice has been to “load the backs” of homeowners and non-homeowners at the same level of burden. The $24 per year Measure O Open Space Tax is set up the same way … equal burden for homeowners and non-homeowners alike.
But Matt, correct me if I’m wrong, I thought the school parcel tax lawsuit changed how we can tax renters.
BP wrote:
> I thought the school parcel tax lawsuit changed how
> we can tax renters.
I just found the link below. Any idea if Davis shares school parcel tax income with charter schools?
http://edsource.org/2016/district-settles-lawsuit-agrees-to-share-parcel-tax-with-charters/95465
BP, after you raised this issue a while back I checked with the City Attorney and she was crystal clear that the DJUSD lawsuit settlement does not affect City of Davis parcel taxes at all. She and I did not get into an extended discussion. She was unequivocal. I defer to her knowledge and expertise.
There are other tax options, but the parcel tax provides the near-certainty that there is a shot at the money going to what was described to the voters. Any tax providing funds to the general fund in any quantity will most likely get directed by staff and the CC to increased staff salaries and sweet pensions and benefits. Sorry, that is the long, long history. Even as recently as November last year, the tricky staff and CC gave away huge raises in a packet released just before Thanksgiving Weekend, and slipped through on consent that next Tuesday.
So it’s a parcel tax or bust. And because neither Dan Wolk nor Robb Davis have done much to get the city’s budget in order and defined what the needs are and how the money will be monitored if there is a new tax, between the two of them they have wasted four years without any meaningful resolution or plan.
The exterior development projects would not pay any significant dollars to the city for 4-5 years anyway, even if you believe the hocus-pocus “voodoo” fiscal analyses, so what was the CC going to do about some new tax revenue in the meantime? Obviously nothing, because nothing has been done.
IT doesnt have to be taxes folks.
Community owned Fiber Optic Networks generate revenues for cities.
Support DavisGIG, right now! To get this done in Davis. We are raising $125k to fund a feasibility study for this type of network for Davis. You concerned about the revenues? I am too. This is part of the solution friends.
Here are some quotes from muninetworks.org economic development page.
A study by Broadband Communities revealed that access to FTTH services increased the value of a $300,000 home by an average of $5,000 – $6,000.
In the town of Spanish Fork, Utah, a municipal network is responsible for community savings of $2 million annually, as well as local government revenues exceeding $1 million, which can be used for community projects and initiatives.
The Dalles, Oregon, received a much-needed economic boost in the form of 200 jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenues when Google invested $1.2 billion in a data center that used the city’s municipal fiber network, Q-Life.
And a topical link:
http://schroederconnections.com/2015/09/28/municipal-broadband-bring-town-money/
This is incorrect. You have been to zero Finance and Budget Commission meetings over the past 2 years. I know this because I have been to every single one. In these meetings, and in a number of meetings with staff, we have systematically defined all the maintenance backlogs in the city. I pushed this through a concept paper I wrote over a year ago concerning the need to establish clear reserve analyses and funds. It took a while because no analysis had been done in many years-because NO Council had requested such an analysis in many years. We are now at the point of building needed replacements into budgets and will, I hope, begin listing all unfunded replacement liabilities into budgets (as we now must do with pension and OPEB liabilities). With this information transparently shared with the population we will be able to describe needs and how we might address them. Next steps: figure out how to implement effective cost containment and grow revenue via things we can control-like hotels.
Your assertion is wrong.
I don’t understand the the sky is falling scenarios that are being thrown out there by people who claim all of a sudden that we need massive parcel taxes. Parks closing, potholes, service cutbacks, library closings, less cops, less firemen……give me a break……even if the innovation park was built it was going to take a decade or two before we started realizing any real revenue.
BP said . . . “I don’t understand the the sky is falling scenarios that are being thrown out there by people who claim all of a sudden that we need massive parcel taxes.”
The answer is simple BP. Since 12/1/2015 (in the last 135 days) City Staff has presented to Council a combined projection of greater than $655 million in unfunded liabilities for the City over the next 20 years … including $200 million for roads, $354 million for buildings and parks, and $114 million for retiree pension and health benefits. That amounts to over $30 million dollars per year of incremental spending on infrastucture year after year after year after year (for 20 years).
Read the staff reports . . . and weep.
Matt, my point was any MRIC revenue was a decade or two away and small in comparison to what’s needed. So why are some using this setback and saying get your checkbooks out and the city is crumbling scare tactics when MRIC would’ve barely put a dent in that $30,000,000/year budget?
Remember, we have always talked in terms of a short-term strategy to deal with immediate infrastructure and other needs – that’s why there was talk about a parcel tax or UUT that has been put off. But there those discussions were always bracketed with discussions about a long term sustainability strategy.