by Elaine Roberts Musser
(Editor’s note: following the decision by Mace Ranch Innovation Center to put its pending project on hold, the Vanguard decided to re-start a community discussion on the future of economic development in Davis. As such, we are reaching out to a very diverse group of people and starting May 1 we are hoping to publish one op-ed a day on this subject. We are pleased to announce that so far we have over 40 commitments and counting. Beginning today, we will publish one article per day for the month of May into June. If you would like to add your voice – please submit your piece on the future of economic development in Davis (800 to 1000 words).
My hope is the Nishi project will be approved by the voters in June. Nishi has the potential to improve traffic around the Richards Blvd. underpass, by diverting traffic away from the tunnel via an extension of Olive Dr. or through Old Davis Road, and by making improvements at the freeway interchange. But more importantly the tax revenue generated to the city could be as high as $1.4 million, with another $400,000 going to Davis schools. Nishi would provide much needed research and development space, as well as new jobs and student housing. Juxtapose these arguments against those of the opposition, and I believe the stronger position favors Nishi.
My expectation is that MRIC is on pause only, and that the developer will take seriously the suggestions of the Finance & Budget Commission to:
- Pare down the amenities to something more reasonable;
- Farm on a portion of the land until the project is halfway built;
- Finance the project on the open market rather than thru a CFD;
- Put housing designed for the workforce, e.g. lofts above work spaces, in the project.
Adding workforce housing to MRIC would be a controversial step, but one I think citizens need to seriously think about. It will make the project more attractive to potential business customers, resulting in a faster buildout time. The amount of research and development space would not decrease, but be built up rather than out. Some have wondered why not increase the projected research and development area? The problem is that the absorption rate for businesses is not infinite. Estimates have been made as to what that absorption rate will be, and the developer has predicated the amount of space allocated on that absorption rate.
Opponents of the innovation parks have used every excuse possible to defeat the innovation parks, including traffic congestion, poor air quality, lack of high enough LEED certification, interference with viewscapes, and the like. When one issue is addressed by the developer, the target is moved to encompass some other perceived flaw in the project, e.g lack of affordable housing. If that doesn’t work to disgruntle the public, then other questionable tactics are employed, e.g. disinformation campaigns, disruption of either public meetings or tabling at the Farmers Market, filing frivolous lawsuits. The opposition knows the “perfect is the enemy of good”. Demanding perfection and continually raising the bar for something better is the name of the game to defeat a proposal. Eventually the project will not pencil out fiscally for the developer, if enough unreasonable requirements are made.
The harsh reality is that if innovation parks are not welcomed here, they will move right up the road to Woodland or over the Causeway to West Sacramento. This already occurred with the proposed Davis Innovation Center, which has now relocated to Woodland. Unfortunately Davis will likely suffer impacts from the Innovation Center now located just north of our city, while failing to garner any of its benefits. Opponents of the innovation parks may perceive that as a “win”, but ultimately the city lost a big chunk of potential tax revenue as well as community amenities.
So I have repeatedly asked opponents of the innovation parks where the city was going to get the funding to pay for city services as well as for repair and maintenance of city infrastructure if not from economic development. Either there is deafening silence, or there is a call for increasing taxes and/or cutting services or personnel. When I ask which personnel, again silence. And do the opponents truly believe citizens will agree to ever increasing taxes? History shows parcel taxes are just barely squeaking by as it is. Any new taxes are unlikely to be approved. Then what? All that is left is to begin cutting services and continue to allow city infrastructure to deteriorate. Take a look at the current state of the roads and bike paths in Davis – it is abominable!
Those who are change averse, who want to keep Davis small in size, don’t see what I see, the graying of our population. Fewer families with young children are locating here. Does Davis want to become a retirement community, or remain vibrant with a mix of folks who all contribute to the fabric of the city? New jobs and more housing are necessary for this city to truly thrive. Innovation parks are the wave of the future, eminently suitable for a city surrounding a research university. Innovation parks do not compete with already existing businesses, but bring more customers in to them.
However, the city itself needs to support the innovation park concept more than it has. I believe the city made a huge mistake when it fired the Chief Innovation Officer Rob White. It sent the wrong signal to the innovation park developers, one of whom got cold feet and went elsewhere. Since that time, a new innovation officer has been hired, but not much has been heard from her. City staff are working diligently with the developers, but there is no PR campaign from the city to bolster the innovation parks. No articles in the Davis Enterprise as Rob White used to do, for instance. If Davis is not willing to put out the welcome mat for innovation parks and continues to remain essentially neutral, surrounding cities like Sacramento, Woodland, and West Sacramento will roll out the red carpet. There are times when I feel as if Councilmember Swanson is alone in her quest to bring well planned economic development to Davis.
One final thought. Many have indicated the belief that Measure R is the problem causing innovation parks not to be built. On the contrary, Measure R allows all citizens to weigh in on a potential project outside the city limits. Opponents of the innovation parks are trying to prevent a Measure R vote from happening. They don’t want voters to weigh in. The reality is that if there was no Measure R, opponents would still carry out their disreputable tactics, including frivolous lawsuits, in attempts to chip away at citizen support for economic development.
Previous installments of the Economic Development Series:
Thanks for your thoughts, Elaine. I personally share your view that we should move forward with Measure A. I am speaking as an individual and not in behalf of the Finance and Budget Commission of which I am a member.
I would also clarify for the record that while the Commission explored the findings of the city’s consultant in regard to MRIC and what to do about it, we did not as a group adopt any particular set of recommendations on how to move forward. Rather, we were in the process of organizing our questions and doing fact-finding about the data on MRIC land economics that we had been presented by EPS, one of the city’s economic and fiscal consultants, and explored some of the concepts Elaine mentions. The announcement that the project had been put on hold did not occur until two days after we met.
“Many have indicated the belief that Measure R is the problem causing innovation parks not to be built. On the contrary, Measure R allows all citizens to weigh in on a potential project outside the city limits.”
Measure R is strangling this community, it allows the kind of anything goes opposition you describe to wear out any potential project applicants. It also exploits the fact that the citizens who live just outside the city limit on UCD property and who might have a different perspective are not allowed to participate in the election. The failure of Davis to enfranchise these people through annexation of the University results in an election that isn’t truly representative of the will of the people in the community. Measure R generates a skewed sample. It has failed to generate a single project approval to date and even if Nishi passes it has become the basis for litigation designed to defeat, delay and make development even more expensive.
Until the voices who want to seem reasonable challenge the idea that ballot box planning in Davis is a good thing nothing will ever get done. Win or lose Nishi will be the last Measure R vote brought forth for a long time, if ever, exactly for the reasons you state. Measure R gives too much power to the people who oppose growth by any means possible. The possibility for the community to weigh in already exists through the normal planning process but measure R adds too much uncertainty, expense and risk for investors to bite on the Davis apple. Both MRIC and DIC thought about it and bailed out. FMC Technologies (Schilling) will now likely build its new factory in West Sac while DIC goes to Woodland. Both these events will likely result in more ghg’s being produced than if they were built in Davis. How much wealth creation must Davis forego before it wakes up to the fact that Measure R is costing this city the millions it needs to provide the community Davis thinks it ought to have with decent schools, roads, parks, bike lanes and city services?
Tilting at Windmills
The relentless battle against imaginary enemies.
Posts like Don’s is how I justify that I’m not just wasting my time on the V.
This illustration demonstrates why the moderator of the Vanguard should not also be a commenter. Why is it okay for the moderator to insult the commenters in this manner in violation of its own policy? Why can you put this up but I can’t call you an asshole for doing so?
Measure R expires in 2020. It needs to be reformed or voted out. When it went to the voters for renewal in 2010 there was no organized opposition. I am hopeful that 2020 will be different and I am making that case starting now.
Misanthrop – First, I agree with your point above. Second, I urge you to look at Don’s post differently than a slight against you. I see Don’s post as simply saying that overturning Measure R is, in his opinion, a non-starter. I disagree with him for the simple reason that there is an increasing number of UCD student voters and a shrinking number of no-growers as they die off or go away to a care facility. A well run “get out and vote” campaign for overthrowing Measure R could succeed in my opinion. Especially tying it to high taxes, high housing costs, lack of good jobs and crappy roads. But, I don’t have any problem with the use of a thoughtful illustration covering a good argument
Can I still vote from the facility, if it’s located in Davis?
I think some are very uninformed if they think the Davis slow growthers are mostly over the hill old farts. I know three young families with kids that would classify themselves as slow growthers. So can we can it with the generalizations that the slow growth crowd are a bunch of geriatrics.
BP – I am talking voting demographics. Certainly not all that vote to stop any and all development are old farts, but there are not enough of them to control the voting outcomes without the old farts. And more of our housing is going to the students and fewer new old farts can afford to move here. So, ironically, it is the position of the old fart no-growers that will eventually undermine there very lock on Measure R outcomes.
One way to look at this… if the Measure R vote for Target were to happen today, it would pass with a larger margin.
Measure R passed by a higher margin than Measure J. It passed with 76.7% in favor. That’s a very high hurdle to overcome by means of student voters. I also don’t think there’s any specific age spread to support for slow growth. If anything, it’s the reverse: people who consider themselves environmentalists also tend to support restrictions on urban expansion, and millennials favor traditional environmental positions at a higher rate than any other group.
This is why I think it’s tilting at windmills, and really a distraction from the topic at hand.
I also think it’s unnecessary and counterproductive to use disparaging terms about those with whom we disagree on these issues.
BP: I agree.
Also, I think that the oldtimers will eventually be replaced by newcomers, who hold (or will develop) the same views. (Didn’t mean to use the word “develop”, in this post!)
Younger generations also tend to be more environmentally-aware than older generations.
The overall “larger” trend (even beyond Davis) is also toward “smart growth”, preserving farmland/open space, etc. (At least compared to the “old days”, when developers made all the rules.)
Cities like Davis lead the way, toward a sustainable future.
Don Shor: “I also think it’s unnecessary and counterproductive to use disparaging terms about those with whom we disagree on these issues.”
Which is why you posted the graphic…a picture is worth a thousand…
“Measure R passed by a higher margin than Measure J. It passed with 76.7% in favor. That’s a very high hurdle to overcome ”
True. But Measure R had no campaign run against it. Measure J had a vigorous one. Measure R was passed at the height of the recession. Measure R was passed before the surge in student growth. It’s a different game now, I’m not saying Measure R wouldn’t pass, but if there is a real campaign against it, it’s a lot closer than the 76.7 indicated.
Ron said . . . “Cities like Davis lead the way, toward a sustainable future.”
Absent unilateral birth control, is your argument above attainable in California, or the USA or the World?
Said another way, is the refusal of Davis to accept additional population going to make that population disappear, or Davis simply going to push that population to other California cities?
Strange – the author of this article (Elaine Musser) is stating that opponents don’t want a Measure R vote (presumably because a given development might be approved by voters). Simultaneously, Misanthrop is taking the opposite view, stating that Measure R ensures that developments won’t be approved.
And – both are generally “pro-development-minded” individuals.
Simply because she is still hopeful that reason might prevail while I have come to realize that for the very reasons she lays out that is not possible.
I think that you’re wrong, about this. There are a wide range of views regarding development, in general.
On a related note, I particularly like Mike Harrington’s suggestion to ask developers to identify the specific agricultural mitigation parcels.
To Ron: The developer did lay out his plans for ag-mitigation, contrary to Harrington’s claim. See: https://davisvanguard.org/2016/02/mric-goes-outside-the-box-to-look-into-howatt-as-mitigation-land/
nameless:
You’re referring to the MRIC’s exploration of using city-owned land as a mitigation. (There was a discussion regarding that, yesterday.)
I wasn’t necessarily referring to MRIC. In general, I’d like to know the land that developers are planning to use as mitigation, before a vote occurs. (I support Mike Harrington’s proposal, to include this as a future Measure R-type requirement.) If developers offer “quality” mitigation, they may find allies in unexpected camps.
With Nishi, the developer has not identified the land that that is proposed as mitigation.
Wow, that is surprising!
The better idea is to get rid of this damn ordinance as it is only fodder for those against all development. Each development should be evaluated and approved based on its own merits of serving the city. In terms of ag mitigation, Measure O provides us plenty of ammunition for your desired farmland moat.
Frankly:
Well, I understand your argument. But, my primary point is that developers might find themselves with some unexpected allies, if they offer “quality” mitigation. (Mike Harrington also said something similar to this.)
And yes – at some point, I’d like to see an urban growth/development boundary that’s relatively stable. (I’m probably different from you, in that respect.)
Of course, having “protected” status isn’t necessarily permanent (for all time), either. Who knows what might happen, in the future.
There are three types opposing Nishi:
1. No-growther – There are people that will never support any significant peripheral development, even as they feign objectivity, and want a farmland moat around the city. Some of them are interested in keeping their housing values inflated. Some of them just do not like change. And some of them want Davis to stay exclusive (not let the riff raff in).
2. Slow-Grower – These are people that might be swayed by more goodies from the developer… but today should be already swayed by the existing goodies from the developer.
3. World-saver – These are people in the “perfection is the enemy of the good” camp… they can’t stop raising the bar for forcing a development to comply with every environmental-happy demand they can make up. The developer would have to agree to develop at a loss to make these people happy.
So, there is really nothing to gain expecting the developer to bring more to the table.
Again, I understand your points. However, I think it’s an over-simplification. As Tia pointed out, there’s some overlap between the different “types” of voters in Davis. Also, if I were to engage in this type of stereotyping, I might come up with some additional categories regarding those who support lots of unquestioned development. But, I don’t think it’s useful or accurate (for most).
For any given development, some may automatically support it, while some may automatically oppose it. But, I suspect that the vast majority are somewhere in-between.
For developers, I would think that a good starting point is to engage those who are in the slow-growth camp, before submitting a proposal. (Didn’t Mike Harrington repeatedly offer to meet with developers, to discuss possible mitigation?)
Of course, Mike Harrington does not possess any authority, and does not automatically speak for everyone (including me). But, if he and others in the “slow-growth” camp are engaged/involved with proposals early in the process, outcomes may be different. (It seemed that this is what occurred with MRIC to some degree, before housing was proposed.)
Nah – on second thought, let’s just blame those damn “no growthers”! They’re obviously too selfish, ignorant, and untrustworthy to deal with. Also, since they’re all old farts, let’s just wait for them to die off!
(Seems like the topic of “farts” also came up yesterday, in a different context.)
Misanthrope: “It has failed to generate a single project approval to date and even if Nishi passes it has become the basis for litigation designed to defeat, delay and make development even more expensive.”
Measure R was NOT the basis for litigation. The lawsuit was filed BEFORE Measure R was even permitted to take place. Make no mistake. The lawsuit against Nishi is an attempt to keep voters from having their say via Measure R.
Yup.
Doesn’t matter when landowners and landlords in Davis profit by voting against all Measure R projects, thus limiting housing stock, thus stabilizing or raising land values for the very same people.
If Nishi fails, there will NEVER be a project built on the Davis periphery, and land values in Davis will skyrocket as the University grows. We will be the Santa Cruz and Berkeley of the Central Valley, as far as extreme student rent payments.
You think mini-dorms are bad? Wait until students are paying $400/mo to cram a bed into someone’s closet and call it home. I saw this very scenario in a house in Santa Cruz.
Elaine,
Since Dan Carson has set the record straight here, your article has misinformation that needs to be corrected regarding the Finance and Budget Commission recommendations. It is important to correct this yourself with a statement here in the Vanguard, or else I believe it is possible for David Greenwald to edit that section for you with your corrected information on the web here if you send that in this morning. It sounds like these are your desired recommendations and you need to clarify that and not try to make your recommendations, the recommendations of the Finance and Budget Commission.
I certainly hope that if you submitted your article to the Enterprise that you correct this section before it is published or posted by the Enterprise. Otherwise, people like myself will respond in writing also to all media making clear that what you have written is misinformation and you were notified about this with time to correct it before it was circulated any further.
And my appreciation to you Dan for coming forward with the correct information explaining that the Finance and Budget Commission has not made any new recommendations regarding MRIC.
Eileen Samitz: “Since Dan Carson has set the record straight here, your article has misinformation that needs to be corrected regarding the Finance and Budget Commission recommendations.”
Note what the article says: “suggestions of the Finance & Budget Commission” and Dan Carson followed up with “I would also clarify for the record that while the Commission explored the findings of the city’s consultant in regard to MRIC and what to do about it, we did not as a group adopt any particular set of recommendations on how to move forward.” It seems to me all Ms. Musser was trying to point out is that there are possibilities explored by the Finance & Budget Commission that the developer needs to think about as possible solutions to MRIC’s fiscal situation that the project rate of return is only around 3-4% rather than the healthy 12% rate of return that is optimum. Never did she say the bulleted items were RECOMMENDATIONS of the Finance & Budget Commission.
Eileen Samitz: “Otherwise, people like myself will respond in writing also to all media making clear that what you have written is misinformation and you were notified about this with time to correct it before it was circulated any further.”
Why the animosity? Dan Carson clarified, so where’s the problem?
Eileen, looking at the four points Elaine noted:
The first one was definitely suggested in the FBC discussions. I personally registered my dissent regarding full-bore pursuit of this suggestion because of the “quality-message” of the linkage to UCD intellectual capital creation and research product. Wholesale jettisoning of amenities would run the risk of MRIC becoming just another generic business park.
The second one was robustly discussed, and I personally expanded the concept to point out that the 150 foot ag-buffer on the east side and north side of the property could be planted with the same nut trees as Mace 366 is planted with, and farmed under a revenue producing/augmenting contract by the Mace 366 farmer.
The third one was also robustly discussed, for most of the same reasons that a non-CFD approach was strongly supported by FBC for Nishi.
I do not remember the fourth one being discussed at all.
Misanthrop,
For someone who “throws stones” at others frequently on the Vanguard, I suggest you may want to relocate from the “glass house” you seem to be residing in, with the snarky comment you made at 8:10 AM. This was nothing but a light-hearted illustration, which is actually quite funny.
Misanthrop,
Also, thanks for the “heads-up” for 2020. I will start organizing early for that renewal of Measure R.
One thing I think we should do is have a discussion at some point about what Measure R looks like. I’m fully supportive of it in concept, but I fear that a lot of potential developers will look at a $5 to $10 million price tag pre-development and not put forward a proposal. Is there a way we can structure the uncertainty so that they take less risk in advance? I don’t know.
There is a way, if you simply voted on an annexation and zoning change then a property owner can ask for a vote with little up front expense instead of hammering out every detail at great expense and risk without a guarantee of an approval or interference on every point. For instance a vote could have been taken years ago on Nishi asking the voters if they want the land annexed and developed for housing, retail, commercial or whatever. The voters could say yes or no. The voters give up the ability to intervene in every aspect of a project and only get to decide the broad outlines and scope of a project as defined by the zoning. It would then be up to city staff and the council to hammer out the details.
Didn’t you read Harrington’s comment from yesterday – he has to know where the mitigation land is. Doesn’t matter than quantity and relative location are spelled out by ordinance. He has to know. BP I think agreed with him. How are you going to get just approval for annexation and zoning change?
Of course Mike will oppose my idea. The question was how could it be workable. That is what I’m laying out for you. If Davis wants an election for annexation this is a workable solution. If Davis wants to block all annexation then we need to reapprove what we have now.
Fair enough as long as both posts remain.
nameless:
There was no animosity intended. Just information stated in the article to be correct. The problem and concern is by using the wording “suggestions by the Finance and Budget Commission” that can easily be misinterpreted as “recommendations”. Perhaps if the word “exploring concepts” had been used, that would have made it far more clear, and not as misleading.
Also, were the “suggestions” listed in the article from the Finance and Budget meeting made by this article’s author or other attendees of the Finance and Budget Commission, or by the Commissioners? That clarification would be helpful.
Dan clarified, so I just am not seeing a problem here. How can “suggestions” be misinterpreted to mean “recommendations”?
Suggestion: “an idea or plan put forward for consideration.”
Recommendation: “the act of saying that someone or something is good and deserves to be chosen”
Furthermore, the bulleted points were for informational purposes, to illustrate potential solutions MRIC could consider.
If you disagree with the author, fine. But to demand a “correction” – or else – seems a bit over the top. Why can’t the discussion remain civil and substantive, rather than devolving into nitpicking over semantics? If you disagree with the premises of the article, fine, say so.
nameless
“Suggestion: “an idea or plan put forward for consideration.”
Recommendation: “the act of saying that someone or something is good and deserves to be chosen”
I think that your definitions do not truly cover the way these words are often used. When counseling patient’s or offering a second opinion to a colleague, I will frequently say ” I recommend”….but I am just as likely to say ” I suggest…”. I actually did interpret this to mean a recommendation until I read Dan’s clarification and the subsequent comments.
Eileen, the suggestions Elaine included on her list above were a mix of both items the commission as a whole discussed and that some individual commissioners like me are exploring.
For example, the idea of not using a CFD to finance infrastructure but instead using what could be less expensive private sector financing to spread out these costs was essentially my borrowing of a concept one of my commission colleagues proposed for Nishi, one that the applicant in fact did ultimately employ. Would that work for MRIC? I don’t know yet. I had begun to put together questions and concepts to explore when MRIC was put on hold, but I am personally not ready to make any recommendations without more information in hand. I do think solutions are achievable with some additional work.
I think I recall that the CFD for MRIC was to be a ‘hybrid’, including an on-going assessment for City maintenance/operation epenses associated with the project… I may be mistaken…
Eileen, hopefully I have provided that clarification in my personal recollections.
I think it is very important that these discussions remain issue based. If they degrade into bickering, I fear that people will not want to participate.
“However, the city itself needs to support the innovation park concept more than it has. I believe the city made a huge mistake when it fired the Chief Innovation Officer Rob White.”
Amen. I’m sure Dirk Brazil will not write a piece, but I would be interested in his views on the innovation park concept.
I was concerned to read yesterday that Robb Davis was escoriating the Vanguard for being too supportive of the innovation park, when if you read the Studio 30 report, the dispersed strategy calls for a combination of existing space, Nishi and a peripheral site. We don’t have enough space without the peripheral sites especially if our goal is to keep the Agraquests and Shillings here in Davis.
Elaine
I agree with many of the points that you have made and at present, share your support for Nishi.
“Innovation parks are the wave of the future, eminently suitable for a city surrounding a research university.”
With this statement however, I disagree. I do not believe that the statement “innovation parks are the wave of the future” would have been accurate at any time within the past 10 years. They have been around in the current iterations for well over 20 years. While they are still a potentially valid part of a comprehensive plan for economic development of a community, they are far from a “futuristic” or even “innovative” approach. UCD has become a leading university. I do not believe that Davis will become a leading community while using the strategies of 1-2 decades ago.
What I believe in is a balanced approach with new business preferably in the form of university inspired and connected start ups, increased taxes, and prudent use of our financial resources. I would not put all of my eggs in one basket whether that basket is UCD or the auto malls as was done previously or attempting to emulate some other community that has already built out their “innovation centers”.
“With this statement however, I disagree. I do not believe that the statement ‘innovation parks are the wave of the future'”
Context and perspective, in Boston they are not the wave of the future, but in time warped Davisville, they’re like tomorrowland.
Folks, you need to get back on topic. Elaine Musser likes to complain about those who disagree with the current course. Yet, she neglects to offer a defense of the City’s misguided approach or an alternative that we might follow.
MRIC backed out because the math doesn’t work. They realized the consultant’s overly optimistic projections were unrealistic. The projectioins for Nishi are even more optimistic. If it won’t work for the developer, it won’t work for the City.
The City needs to find a rational and responsible way forward. Perhaps a future writer will offer such a proposal???
What alternative would you suggest?