In yesterday’s column, the Vanguard noted that the city of Davis faces $655 million in unfunded and unmet needs over the next 20 years. When Studio 30 developed the dispersed land strategy, they estimated that Davis needed about 200 acres for business development and expansion over a 20-year time horizon, and that the existing land was insufficient to accommodate that need.
While Nishi can supply 325,000 square feet of R&D (research and development) space, the city needs far more to make even the modest projections laid out in the Studio 30 report.
A year ago we were hearing about concerted collaborations between the university and regional leaders regarding the possibility that the university would simply bypass Davis, either going to the Sacramento railyards (which they are going to, at least with the World Food Center) or putting a large innovation park directly to the south of the campus in Solano County, which would bypass both Davis and Yolo County in the discussions.
However, last fall the university appeared to take that option off the table. During their LRDP (Long Range Development Plan) discussions, Bob Segar showed a slide that basically announced the land to the south of campus would no longer be considered for an innovation center.
What happened? At the time, he simply stated that the city had made significant progress with tier one innovation centers that the university no longer needed to develop one of their own on campus.
But that always seemed an odd explanation. For one thing, the city was considering two innovation centers in the summer of 2014, and yet the Vanguard heard that high level meetings took place in the spring of 2015. It was after that point in time that the Davis Innovation Center ended its bid. If anything, by the fall of 2015, things were more and not less precarious than they were in the spring.
Now that MRIC (Mace Ranch Innovation Center) has also paused – the question comes back to where is the R&D space going to go? Clearly, Area 52 and Nishi, if approved, can be places close to campus that would be ideal for startups and incubator space, but the large-scale needs are elusive.
The Vanguard has not gotten a lot of information about the plans for the former Davis Innovation Center, but it appears that they have moved to Woodland, due to the uncertainty of the Measure R process and a battle with the neighbors. Just three miles up the road they are being greeted with open arms, enthusiasm, and a much more certain prognosis.
Think about it – Davis will face similar traffic pressures of people going from the university up Highway 113, but it will not get the tax revenue and the jobs will go to Woodland.
Another thing that has apparently, at least, landed on my radar is the idea that the county could simply bypass Davis on the innovation center.
Right now the city and county have a pass-through agreement by which the city funnels $3 million a year through the former RDA (Redevelopment Agency) to the county in exchange for the county not developing within Davis’ sphere of influence.
But one thought at least circulating around is why shouldn’t the county work with, say, either Ramos or the owners of the land on the Northwest Quadrant to develop an innovation center?
Think about it. There would be no Measure R requirements. The development would immediately void the pass-through agreement, but the revenue that the county would generate would far exceed the $3 million from the pass-through agreement.
Once again, Davis would lose. Davis would not get the tax revenue from the development but the impact on Davis’ roads and community would just be the same. And the elimination of the pass-through agreement, coupled with the jobs and the need for housing might open county land up for houses to support the new innovation center.
While there are a lot of reasons to believe this could happen – the need for research space, the county’s need for revenue, UC Davis’ need for relatively nearby space for tech transfer – there are also a lot of reasons why this probably won’t happen.
The county at this point is much less pro-development than they were a decade ago, when the County General Plan contemplated study areas on the Davis periphery. The threat of study areas was enough to cause 100 Davis residents to angrily denounce the plan, which compelled the board to kill the idea.
However, housing had a much more uncertain prospect for county revenue than a tech park would.
Still, it seems unlikely that the County Board of Supervisors would do this. That might re-open the possibility of UC Davis putting a massive tech park in Solano County – away from Yolo County’s influence and away from Davis’ ability to put a stop to the project.
What this does illustrate is that Davis’ ability to lock down land processes on the periphery is going to eventually lead to unintended consequences. UC Davis is ambitious and they see research and development as their way forward to a more powerful and prestigious university. They also see Davis not so much as a partner but an obstacle.
Davis sees UC Davis, especially on the housing front, as a less than reliable partner as well. However, UC Davis has alternatives that Davis lacks. If Davis stalls on economic development, UC Davis simply moves forward with their third campus at the railyards, potentially also collaborating with others in the county on innovation centers, and moves forward without Davis.
The point that we make here is that Davis’ level of protection against development on its boundaries is much more in the hands of others and the decisions that they make than we realized. There are ways available to build on Davis’ periphery without our permission and, if the actors involved want to play it that way, it might be far more difficult to stop than we think.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The point that we make here is that Davis’ level of protection against development on its boundaries are much more in the hands of others and the decisions that they make than we realized.”
Who is this “we” of whom you speak that did not realize that we are not the only decision makers regarding decisions that affect our periphery. I first made the realization about the ability of university administrators to make decisions that had a profound effect on those of us living in Davis when the medical school was relocated to Sacramento. Inconvenient for me, but clearly the right decision since it is only sensible to have your students located where the patient’s are even if that inconveniences some doctors and instructors. I am sure that there are many in the community who made this realization much earlier than I did.
This change prompted me to think much more holistically about the needs of our region as opposed to just the needs of our city. We have close proximity to the main campus of the university. This does not mean that we are “losing” if another campus or related businesses are located in other cities within our region. It is rather a balancing and a gain for another community. Constantly perceiving this as a city vs city competition ignores the benefits of strengthening the region.
I think of it this way. As health care providers, UCD, Sutter, Mercy and Kaiser are the four major providers of health care in our region. It is both sensible and desirable for us to have a hospital in Davis. It would be neither sensible nor desirable for all four groups to have hospitals in Davis. It is true that a Kaiser hospital in Davis would generate revenue, but it is also true that the costs would outweigh the benefits. Given that I do not see pros and cons as reducible to only amounts of money generated, I simply do not believe that competition ( in this case between cities) is the best way to go. I think it is time to realize that like with the distribution of heath care facilities, the best approach may be to accept that not every major endeavor must be located in Davis and that we are not necessarily “losing” if someone decides that a location outside the city is a better fit for them.
You are a hoot.
The decision for UCD to locate the medical center in Sacramento was a decision you support because of a logical determination for what made the most sense from a UCD business perspective.
Right.
Since when have you every factored what made sense from any business perspective?
I think this is just your standard outcome-oriented analysis. You start with the outcome you want and then you work backwards in analysis to create some logical argument in support. The problem with this approach is that your total repertoire of arguments has so many contradictions that your shroud is full of holes and your true agenda is illuminated.
You, with your high income and high wealth, are privileged in being able to select downtown Davis as your perfect retirement location. Your agenda is to see that it stays exactly as you envisioned it when you made that decision. That agenda has been clearly illuminated.
Your stance on growth does not line up with other positions and principles you claim to follow. You may be liberal, but certainly not a progressive type. And there are quite a few people in Davis like you. There are not enough of you to call the shots, but you get strength in numbers from other true conservatives that are at least honest about their position and reasons to limit growth.
The future of Davis will require that the influence of this block of voters you belong to… to be significantly diminished.
Frankly
Well once again we have a common belief. We find each other to be a “hoot” !
“The decision for UCD to locate the medical center in Sacramento was a decision you support because of a logical determination for what made the most sense from a UCD business perspective.”
This is not at all what I said. I said that it made sense from an educational perspective not from a business perspective ( which would appear to be what you translate everything to mean). I said that it made sense to put the students where the patients were. This, to me made sense since it facilitates students learning to have them have classes or discussion sessions in close proximity to where the patient’s that have the relevant conditions are found. It is also beneficial from the point of view of the professors who are also UCD physicians to be able to walk directly from classroom to ward rather than having to schedule time to commute between the two facilities. I was not at all thinking about the business aspects when I wrote the post.
“Since when have you every factored what made sense from any business perspective?
I factored in what made sense from a business perspective when it was relevant to my job. Namely during the 10 years that I served on our administrative team as an assistant chief. I also factor it in when helping to design efficient collaborative practices that lessen wait times and improve patient service and satisfaction. I still participate actively in the latter process even though I am no longer on the administrative team.
“You, with your high income and high wealth, are privileged in being able to select downtown Davis as your perfect retirement location. Your agenda is to see that it stays exactly as you envisioned it when you made that decision. That agenda has been clearly illuminated.”
That agenda has been clearly trumpeted by you and others that believe that you know my motivations better than I. The question that you have never chosen to address, and I suspect will ignore today as well is, if this is true, then why did I have the same perspective on growth when I was a student here living off my savings from having worked full time while taking a full class load and my Regent’s Scholarship ? I was hardly a wealthy, privileged individual at that time, and yet still saw that issue from the same perspective as I see it today. Please explain how you align this inconvenient fact with your “knowledge” of how my wealth is the cause of my current position ?
Well, since you had a Regent’s scholarship, you were indeed, privileged…
Guess I was, as I had a National Merit Scholarship (covered tuition, but nothing else). I was a 1%-er, based on SAT’s, NMSQT, GPA, etc. Yeah, I had it ‘easy’. [and yes, I worked all summers from Jr. yr in HS, thru my college years.]
Financially, from what you’ve “shared”, I was raised in a household that was the same, or slightly (ever so slightly) more financially advantaged than yours. Both parents worked (neither attended college, due to finances, and that thing called WWII), and it was still a strain, with them having only one child, for me to get a college education. Cry me a river…
More hooting…
That is business sense. Just like it is business sense to put the innovation centers next to source of all the innovation talent. And this would be especially true in your car-less utopia.
My first point is that you cannot keep using your past as a poor person to escape the fact that you are now a wealthy one-percenter. I have the same story… in fact, I would venture a guess that you have more career years in that category of well-off than I.
Second point is that you might have been thinking about retirement while taking a full loan off your Regent’s Scholarship. In fact, it would appear that way if your views on growth are no different today.
Just admit it… you are clearly putting your lifestyle interests above the needs of younger people that need a home to rent and access to employment and career opportunities. Your regional argument is another hoot… because it is the growth of the region that is also putting some pressure on Davis to grow… to do our fair share.
Why is it not correct to call someone with your views selfish… to demand protection of your lifestyle wants at the expense of others being able to acquire only a piece of what you have managed to acquire (your current level of privileged)? From my perspective it isn’t much different than what Gordon Gekko displays… the difference is the level of honesty about it.
One way to look at your position… it is sort of like a mini economic apartheid… keeping THOSE people out with the soft bigotry of contrived economic barriers wrapped in a facade of caring about the environment.
Frankly
“Second point is that you might have been thinking about retirement while taking a full loan off your Regent’s Scholarship. In fact, it would appear that way if your views on growth are no different today.”
Well it would certainly be consistent with your thinking. I, like so many people just starting my career had not given a single thought to retirement, or even to how much I would be making as a physician. I had never met a doctor personally and had absolutely no idea how much I might expect to make.
“Just admit it… you are clearly putting your lifestyle interests above the needs of younger people that need a home to rent and access to employment and career opportunities. “
Like you, I will not admit to what I do not perceive to be the truth. I am actually providing rooms for young people at below the market rate. Are you doing that ? I volunteer my time training and speaking to medical students and pre meds helping to lower the cost of their education ? Are you doing the equivalent ?
“Why is it not correct to call someone with your views selfish… to demand protection of your lifestyle wants at the expense of others being able to acquire only a piece of what you have managed to acquire”
I guess if you want to call every developer in town “selfish” because they hope to personally profit from their projects, if you want to consider yourself “selfish” because you expect to profit from your business, if you want to call every farmer “selfish” because they want to sell their products at a profit, then you could call me “selfish” as well. I don’t believe that this is the claim that you are making. And yet I rent my house at below market. Are the developers and investors planning to sell or rent at below market ? Do you deliberately underprice your services ? I doubt it, but I could be wrong.
“to demand protection of your lifestyle wants at the expense of others being able to acquire only a piece of what you have managed to acquire (your current level of privileged)?”
Interesting. Is this not exactly what you are advocating when you argue in favor of tightening our border and deportation of the undocumented ? How is this not “protection of your lifestyle wants at the expense of others” ?
Good question.
I am not advocating to protect my lifestyle, I am advocating for all the low skilled and low income and young people that either cannot get work, or else have been told that “Americans don’t want to do those jobs”, or see wages so low (because of over-supply of labor and under-supply of jobs) that they are better off getting public assistance benefits.
I know I will be fine regardless. So will you.
I have been consistent. I don’t care as much for those that already have theirs and have already lived most of their life as I do for those that don’t and have not.
But despite my tone (yes, I am irritated with the blocking attempts of the innovation parks), I really appreciate the continued debate with you. I am happy to see you have not told me to go take a leap yet. I probably deserve it.
” …Davis’ ability to lock down land processes on the periphery is going to eventually lead to unintended consequences….They also see Davis not so much as a partner but an obstacle. ”
And your unintentionally hilarious final sentence tells the story well.” There are ways available to build on Davis’ periphery without our permission and if the actors involved want to play it that way, it might be far more difficult to stop than we think.”
But you’ll continue to try and stop them, because accommodating those who would build in Davis (and enhance its economy) simply isn’t the Davis way.
It seems you are using the pronoun “you” to refer to very different targets in paragraph one versus paragraph two
And, you appear to be playing ‘word games’, and ignoring content… fine…” it’s your blog, and you can do what you want to…”
[apologies to Leslie Gore, et al.]
I’ve often wondered about the cost of providing sewer and water service to a large development adjacent to the city if the city denied connection to its own facilities. How much would it cost to build a standalone sewer treatment plant that meets discharge requirements, and water facilities that meet clean water requirements, and would those costs render the development infeasible?
Perhaps hpierce or someone else with knowledge in this area will comment.
This situation is so laughable.
Here is what I foresee. The NIMBYs and their Measure R tool will prevent Davis peripheral development, and so the county will go to work to build it just another mile out, and eventually the development will be annexed… but it will be a development lacking all the Davis-DNA amenities we like to demand.
Well, there are wells, and at the other end (so to speak), this is only one answer…
http://www.pollutioncontrolsystem.com/Page.aspx/31/PackagePlants.html
I understand that WildWings, just outside Woodland uses a package treatment plant… as a former president might say, “what is ‘large’?”
Have no opinion of costs… not my forte…
It’s certainly not mine, either, though I found one estimate for residential development of about $50k to $80k per dwelling unit for a small treatment facility, exclusive of operating costs. That seems like a pretty hefty surcharge on each parcel.
Regarding the use of wells as a water source, wasn’t the main driver behind the city’s move to river water the inability to meet safe drinking water standards from well water alone? Wouldn’t a multi-unit development project face the same problem?
There are ‘package’ water treatment options, too… ranging from single faucet units, home units, etc.
It would be interesting to know what the unit costs were for WildWings… don’t even know where to find it… but, it it is $80k per unit, financed over 30 years, @ say, 3.5%, doesn’t seem to be all that daunting, in the context of the others costs of development…
@ $80k/unit, for a 1,000 unit subdivision, $80 million dollars seems more than a tad on the high side… so does $50k per unit… but, again, not within my area of expertise…
[there definitely is an “economy of scale” thing… why I asked ‘what is large’… of that I am certain…]
How does that compare to the permitting costs and affordable housing taxes that the City charges for new dwellings? I think the total costs for hookup will be similar.
Tia Will: “This change prompted me to think much more holistically about the needs of our region as opposed to just the needs of our city. We have close proximity to the main campus of the university. This does not mean that we are “losing” if another campus or related businesses are located in other cities within our region. It is rather a balancing and a gain for another community. Constantly perceiving this as a city vs city competition ignores the benefits of strengthening the region.”
But what you are ignoring is that if innovation parks are built a few miles up the road, Davis will suffer impacts without any of the economic benefits. You are also ignoring the unmet fiscal needs (repair/maintenance of roads & bike paths, buildings, pools) in this community that will NOT be supported by any new tax revenue from innovation parks. Would that really be a more desirable outcome for the city?
nameless
“But what you are ignoring is that if innovation parks are built a few miles up the road, Davis will suffer impacts without any of the economic benefits. “
I am not ignoring this. I just see a bigger picture than what is “good”just for Davis. What those who want the cities of the region to compete are essentially saying is that it is OK for us in Davis to build a large industrial complex that will impact our neighbors in other communities ( much as the university does now) without them having any say in the matter, but it is not OK if they do the same to us. I reject a competitive model as the best practice that we can aspire to. I believe that we have the capacity to build a collaborative region with each community building on its own strengths and preferences rather than each trying to “best” the other in terms of attracting businesses to the detriment of the others.
“You are also ignoring the unmet fiscal needs (repair/maintenance of roads & bike paths, buildings, pools) in this community that will NOT be supported by any new tax revenue from innovation parks.”
I am certainly not ignoring the unmet fiscal needs of the city. I posted as recently as yesterday some suggestions for how to address our shortfall. I have posted on many occasions that I believe in a three pronged approach to meeting our needs. I believe that it will take new taxes ( both extensions of current and acceptance of new forms), responsible accounting and prioritizing on the city level, and appropriate business development. A simple skim back through my posts will verify this as my position. It is only my branding by the “grow as fast as we can group” as someone who will accept no change that continues this false representation of my position.
You posted ideas that will raise thousands in new revenue (at best). We need millions. So, yes, you are ignoring the unmet millions.
hpierce
“since you had a Regent’s scholarship, you were indeed, privileged…”
Once I got it, yes. Before I received it, not so much so.
As for “cry me a river” , I can’t remember the last time that I felt “victimized”. This is the expression that often comes to mind for me when the economically advantaged posters here decry the spending of their “hard earned money” to support those less economically blessed. I am just usually not so blunt as to say so.
The reality is that unincorporated innovation centers would be the best possible alternative for Davis.
In any of the alternatives, we wouldn’t need to provide police, fire, water, sewer, public works, parks & rec, or anything else. In other words, our costs would be zero. Yet we would get all of the ongoing sales tax benefits when the residents and/or workers shopped or dined in Davis. And, we wouldn’t have any investment
And, for Nishi, we wouldn’t need to cut into Olive drive and create traffic issues. The owners would instead need to work with the University (to provide access to Old Davis Road, either directly, or through a road cut behind the parking lot across from the Mondavi parallel to the freeway). And, since road access would be inconvenient, residents would need to use their bicycles or their feet to access campus and the rest of the city. The traffic problems would thus be eliminated and the project would become “green”.
Nishi, perhaps, could negotiate with UC Davis to provide police and fire protection. Alternately, they and Davis Innoviation Center and Mace Ranch Innovation Center could rely on the Sheriff. Unfortunately for them, Sheriff’s response times would be spotty since there are relatively few deputies on patrol (reflecting the sparse rural population) spread out over a very large geographic area.
Fire protection would be even more difficult. Most of the unincorporated county is serviced by volunteer fire departments located in Woodland (near the airport) or in West Sacramento (down River Road). So, the alternatives would be to convince the county to build a nearby station (and thus pay for full-time staff) or rely on those who would “volunteer” to protect developer’s projects.
All of this discussion misses the key point. The projects are stalled because of competition. There is a lot of vacant space in Davis, in West Sacramento, in Vacaville, and in Woodland. And, there is even more vacant land in all of those places that already has commercial zoning, roads, and utilities. Since these land owners don’t need to pay these costs, they could easily undercut the Innovation Centers on price.
So, why did Davis Innovation Center drop out first? Simple, the developers would need to share the profits with the land owners. So, with lower developer profits, the economics didn’t make sense.
Why did MRIC continue to this point? Simple, the developer is the land owner. So, they get all of the profits. Unfortunately, the reality is that they are now looking at the competition from a lot of unoccupied buildings and a lot of vacant land. Will anyone pay an extra $20 per sq. foot (vs. a build to suit on other vacant commercial land) or $100 per sq. foot (vs. an existing building) to go to an Innovation Center? Probably not.
Also, Schilling Robotics may no longer in a position to be the anchor tenant and take 8% to 10% of the entire site. Two years ago, when Tyler Schilling went to the City Council and demanded immediate action on a new potential site, crude oil was at $110 per barrel and their parent (FMC) corporations stock price was $65. Since then, oil prices crashed and Schilling has had two lay-offs. And, oil is at $43 and FMC is at $28.
So, why is Nishi going forward? Simple, it’s a RESIDENTIAL PROJECT!!! A minimum of 70% of the development is residential. And, there is no requirement for them to build any of the commercial/office/R&D space.
Highlighted just one of your points, but an interesting overall analysis.
A few things, UCD isn’t building a facility to be housed by high tech companies. The experience with the U.S. Bank branch on campus and protests at Monsanto preclude UC from housing such a facility on its own land where it would be vulnerable to protests by students..
Also the county isn’t going to throw away the $3 million a year and build on the periphery. Neither Jim Provenza or Don Saylor would allow it because it would be political suicide for them since Davis voters make up a large portion of their constituency.
What is going to happen is that one of the parks will get built in Woodland and when the oil services industry recovers enough FMC Technologies (Schilling) will expand in West Sac. U.C. Davis will build the World Food Center in Sacramento. As for Davis we will continue to struggle to cover the budget and our infrastructure will continue to decline.
As for housing UC will eventually realize that they will need to build lots of housing and do so while the city will build what it can as infill but it won’t be enough to balance the budget of the city.
As long as Measure R is in effect there is no way to a brighter economic future for the city through capitalizing on our location near UCD. When Robb Davis declared that “Davis is open for business” he underestimated the intensity of the death grip Measure R places upon the city. Davis is not open for business and hasn’t been for a long time, not since Measure J passed 16 years ago.
I see no flaw in the above analysis.
I would add that the death grip of Measure R is self-perpetuating. As the regional and local demand for housing increases, rents and land values will continue to climb, placing even more value on stifling increased housing stock. Not only home owners have economic incentive, but rental agencies, real-estate agents and landlords, all of whom can fund anti- campaigns even if not residents. They all win if less housing is built, and Davis continues to become an ever-more-expensive place to live.
Glad to see you acknowledge that UC Davis will eventually acknowledge (and respond to) the need to build housing on campus for its own needs.
Regarding the budget, housing generally does not pay for the cost of services that it generates. That’s why Davis (and other cities) are having financial difficulties in the first place. (The problem wasn’t caused by a lack of housing.) If you’re looking toward housing developments to solve the city’s financial needs, it will ultimately lead in the opposite direction (of your implied financial goal). Perhaps this inherent problem is also the reason that the University has been dragging its feet on this issue (so far).
“When you find yourself trapped in a hole, the first thing you should do is to stop digging.”
There are other legitimate reasons to pursue infill that fits in with surrounding neighborhoods.
Ron said . . . “Regarding the budget, housing generally does not pay for the cost of services that it generates.”
Ron, if the City acts on the FBC recommendations of a Full Staffing Analysis (building on the April 2015 John Meyer report) and a Business Process Reengineering engagement, then the annual inflation of City Costs will be mitigated and/or arrested. If that happens, then the annual inflation rate of costs will almost surely be lower than the annual inflation rate of revenues. When that is achieved, your statement above will no longer be true. If you have questions about why that will be the case, I will be glad to post the details.
Sounds like it’s time to run an initiative to make J/R permanent, except by change from a future vote.
It is both arguably stupid and ignorant to make ANYTHING “permanent”… also illegal… but I’d assume a competent attorney would at least know the latter…