As we noted earlier this week, Davis, probably not surprisingly, is near the bottom in terms of per capita retail sales tax, with the city generating about $8400 in a year per person in retail sales. That puts them in the same ballpark as other college towns like Isla Vista, Berkeley, Merced, and Claremont, but trailing all of them and well behind some regional comparisons.
This chart compares Davis’ per capita retail sales to a number of other college towns, and also to some regional neighbors like Dixon, West Sacramento, Woodland, and Walnut Creek.
While some of these cities have some huge built-in advantages, such as Palo Alto with a booming tech market and San Luis Obispo with tourism and a regional hub, others have advantages that are far less clear cut.
For instance, Woodland, West Sacramento and Dixon are really not that different from Davis in terms of tourism and geography, and yet they are racking up 2.5 to 3.5 times more per capita in retail sales.
That doesn’t mean we should necessarily aspire to be like our regional neighbors nor does it mean we should attempt to replicate what San Luis Obispo or Palo Alto have done. However, even if we aspired to have our tax base look like that of Woodland or Isla Vista, we might be in far better shape.
As we noted in the previous article, the short-term picture is slightly improved over where we were five years ago. Nevertheless, the growth picture seems relatively weak for the next ten years – heavily reliant on the economy to continue to grow and the community to renew the sales tax.
At the same time, barring another major revenue measure, the city is going to have difficulty generating revenue to repair its infrastructure and keep up with its obligations to retirees in the face of increasing health care and pension costs.
For years, the city has talked in terms of sales tax leakage to other communities. Davis built a Target as one way to plug that leakage, but it is fairly obvious that West Sacramento, Woodland and Dixon, with far more in the way of retail options, are doing markedly better than Davis.
Davis, however, has resisted adding peripheral retail and big box other than Target, and if it wants to continue that policy, it has to look for other ways to generate sales tax.
That is where the notion of innovation centers and tech transfer came into the thinking. The idea was that the university has raised over a billion dollars for new research. Much of that research has at least the possibility of becoming monetized and transferred from the university setting into the private market.
The investment of technology and capital infrastructure into existing or new facilities would increase the value of the property and thus increase property tax rolls. Moreover, as new technology is developed, there would be the potential for point of sales revenue for the city.
While we can see from this chart that a more developed retail sector would lead to more sales tax, there are questions as to whether we could do it in a way that doesn’t simply lead to peripheral retail, a continued decline in the core of downtown, and a decline of our native business base.
We will be taking a closer look at San Luis Obispo in the next week or so. When I moved out of San Luis Obispo, 20 years ago, the population was only about 2000 people fewer than it is now. What has greatly expanded is its retail base, adding a number of big ticket stores from Costco to Target to Home Depot and the like. At the same time it has developed on the Ag-tech front – something that Davis would have liked to have done in MRIC (Mace Ranch Innovation Center) and other proposed innovation centers.
San Luis Obispo, of course, has some advantages over Davis. It is the largest population center in its country – although some of the big box and other retail is duplicated to the north and south.
It has a huge tourism base that draws people into the area year-round and allows for a greater number of purchases than a city of its size otherwise might have.
But, as we can see, while San Luis Obispo might be unique, certainly West Sacramento, Dixon and Woodland have done better than Davis in terms of retail sales.
Another possibility is virtual tourism. One person told the Vanguard that a huge amount of people flow into a city like Palo Alto every day to work in R&D (research and development) and the high-tech field. That means they purchase their food and potentially small goods in Palo Alto, adding to their sales tax base.
In Davis, while there is an influx of people into the city, many are students who are already tapped out in terms of purchase power. Can an innovation center focusing around Ag-tech, Med-tech and other high-tech production lead to more people in Davis each day who are then purchasing food at restaurants or buying products at local retailers?
These are concepts that bear more exploration. What is clear is that right now, with a huge unfunded liability and unmet needs, we need to find ways to increase our very meager sales tax intake, and I think most people would like to do so without a huge influx of big box and other peripheral retail.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Correction: the original version inaccurately identified the statistic as per capita sales tax rather than per capita retail sales
and, once again, let’s thank the realtors and developers in this town for that also….
Many long-term businesses, for example… De Luna and now Outdoor Davis, and I am sure my pal Wendy Weitzel could name so many more, have been pushed out recently by the likes of the owners of the Brinley buildings….
And, my friends Rhonda Gruska and hubby got pushed out by the developers of the sad 8th St. mall not long ago… did the city do “it’s job” in ensuring that mall owner kept up his agreements????? nahhh…
nah ……now we have to drive all the way to Sac to go to a decent farm to table restaurant, when we had one here until a few months ago…
and, we are now getting more chinese food …truly, is that needed?????
and, last year we also lost Tuco and also my fave downtown consignment store and some other truly fave stores….
they were all way too busy pushing and pimping for the Yes on A, Nishi….
In the South Davis Nugget mall, both Tuesday morning and Mocha Joe’s got pushed out…in favor of Starbucks (gag me) and who knows wtf they had against Tuesday morning…
Before that, the only decent pharmacy in town, a compounding pharmacy, got run off due to the horrific costs to do business in that mall…
The developers who own the malls and buildings all over town are causing many of the vacancies these days…and there is no control over them… they are now charging exorbitant rents which the older businesses just cannot keep up with…
Yeah, I know, some of them are due to “new guys” coming in who “have to”….
do they really have to, or do they want to????
Are, they truly “new guys” or old Davis guys in new sheep’s clothing????
And, who cares if they are new to town…they don’t care about our old businesses and they are ALL well off (caps for emphasis)…..
.or else they couldn’t afford to buy those buildings and malls…
PS> and thank the old time developers and realtors for creating such high priced real estate in this town right now….
good morning all….and have a good day 🙂
Marina said: “they were all way too busy pushing and pimping for the Yes on A, Nishi….”
And the other two larger exterior projects.
One of my main reasons against the City promoting all this new junk is that it pushes aside City and community resources from fostering and promoting the current businesses in town … there is not enough staff time and CC and PC agenda time to do it all. The junky stuff is just a distraction, but it does feed and cloth the planners who are paid hourly by the applicant for working on it.
true, MH, and one can go round and round and read the other comments on this thread, and see the same players and yet the same rehashed nonsense…
once again, one would think this was the most important thing going on in this town, county, state and USA>>..not to mention the world….ha ha….by the number of responses and the passion….
when truly there are real life/death matters on the other threads…. oh well…hope you are enjoying the show….
PS> if one watches what truly goes on in this town, and actually looks at Woodland more closely, one will understand what went on there..
When the county fair mall opened in the 80s or so, it killed off the downtown…..took many years for it to come back, but come back it did….way better than ever…
As a result, the county fair mall fell apart and died….many in the country-side like the unique shops and restaurants that have sprung up….
they, like me, become loyal to small businesses and wouldn’t be caught dead supporting the likes of Walmart or even Target…. cringe….
From our South Davis home, it is now faster to zip up 102 to Woodland than it is for me to head to my office on campus….
there is plenty of free parking and also a lovely ambiance more suited for the non-student population…
not too many fights either…and even though Woodland supposedly has more gang members, I have yet to see any of that….
Davis continues to be a conundrum, so much talk and little action, by the esteemed CC and city planners…
in the meantime, we love to eat out at Winters and Woodland, and now downtown Sac…even Sac is not that far if one times around the traffic….
as I keep saying to those who are so clueless on the DV and who still think the CC and the city do such a wonderful job, just look around and vote with your dollars and your feet when ever you can…and then perhaps some more will wake up…
don’t count on it happening any time soon, though….the developers are now so fully in charge, and though I love Brett, he is a lone voice of sanity on that CC council majority….
Marina: Brett voted multiple times for horrible water rates, and the project itself, and for Nishi, and he was the third and truly deciding vote for Blondie’s. which was represented by Attorney Kopper. Blondie’s is a first class disaster for D St. The other night they were pounding out the loud music, and I cringed for those poor owners and tenants living in the upper floors of Chuck Roe’s building at 5th and G St. (Any realtor renting or selling one of those nice units had better disclose what Blondie’s is doing a block away … the music was so loud I doubt those units are habitable.) The downtown plan emphasizes residential and mixed use, and these nightclubs are making it impossible to live downtown. This is a sea-change from several years ago, and your friend Brett made it happen for Blondie’s.
I doubt that the living units in Grace Chen’s big building at 2nd and G are habitable anymore for night sleeping. Again, planning allows those night club uses, and the shut down times are way to late. (I think that Chen probably has a cause of action for nuisance against the City and those clubs if she wants to make a point …)
But Planning is so hungry for those fees, and the CC for the sales tax revenue, that the City continues to allow these places, driving out other businesses.
I have lived and worked downtown since 1995. 24×7. I know.
yep MH…you and I have been on the same side of many an issue over the decades…
Brett may not be perfect, but heck , his record is way better than the others….as I said, there is no one who is not beholden to developers (and/or related to developers) on the council at the moment…
mixed use can be a good thing, and I like the concept overall…..it should not be forced down the throats of those who created a life for themselves, only to have the game changed on them…that include Blondie’s and of course, Kopper also served his time on the CC and then went on to better pastures…representing those with the bucks in this town to force anything they want ….in the name of more dollars for themselves and their pals and so it goes…
many of the same players for the last how many decades?
That whole water project fiasco, and then to find Alan who led that nonsense, then have to lead the fight against the fluoridation, well that was some kinda ” poetic justice ” I guess….of course, if not for Matt on the water board, that would likely have been rubber stamped by the same current council majority that “believes” the ADA truly is for dental health and so on…
Marina said . . . “there is no one who is not beholden to developers (and/or related to developers) on the council at the moment …”
Marina, I completely disagree with your statement above. How is Brett “beholden to developers and/or related to developers”? How is Robb “beholden to developers and/or related to developers”?
You have painted with a very inaccurate broad brush in my opinion. My very strongly held opinion.
Marina said . . . “Kopper also served his time on the CC and then went on to better pastures…representing those with the bucks in this town to force anything they want ….in the name of more dollars for themselves and their pals and so it goes…”
Here too you are out of bounds. Can you name even one project where Bill Kopper represented “those with the bucks in this town”? I can’t, and I pay pretty good attention to these issues . . . and served on the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) where Bill was one of the strongest voices for a full and complete airing of all the reasons why the surface water plant as proposed was flawed.
Marina said . . . “I guess….of course, if not for Matt on the water board, that would likely have been rubber stamped by the same current council majority that “believes” the ADA truly is for dental health and so on…”
I am afraid your guess is wrong. Mark Siegler, Bill Kopper, Walt Sadler and Michael Bartolic were much stronger opponents of any “rubber stamping” consistently throughout the WAC process. I adamantly opposed the original plant sizing and the population growth and historical water use data that was used to justify the original oversized plant, but my opposition to the plant in its entirety was no where near as strong as Mark’s, Bill’s, Walt’s, and Michael’s. They are the ones on the WAC whose positions were closest to what you are describing.
Matt, I was talking about the fluoridation issue…was not so heavily involved in any meetings on the water project…. truly, was too inundated with many other things at that time also.
Kopper was involved as an attorney pushing through the Blondie’s project after leaving the council
and, if one looks at campaign contributions, one can see if Brett and Robb received funds from developers and realtors and others in those industries…
Given what was on my plate, I was making observations based on final votes, as reported in the local DE….and the strong support for Nishi, regardless of so many reasons why not, kinda supported my perception.
Also, the giveaway to the cannery to the tune of $1o mil, within days of “final agreement on the negotiations….
those are 2 recent reasons why I said what I did…….and perhaps that is a strong term, but that was a ton of bucks also…
Marina said . . . “I was talking about the fluoridation issue…was not so heavily involved in any meetings on the water project…. truly, was too inundated with many other things at that time also.”
Fair enough Marina. I know what it feels like to be inundated. It is worth noting that I was unavoidably out of state for the WAC vote on fluoridation, so I personally get/deserve no credit one way or the other regarding the WAC and fluoridation. Further, if my memory serves me correctly, I believe the WAC did not recommend to the Council that they proceed with fluoridation. They also did not oppose fluoridation. It was a split vote.
Marina also said . . . “Kopper was involved as an attorney pushing through the Blondie’s project after leaving the council.”
I forgot about that one example Marina. You are right about that one. Are there any others in32 years since Kopper last served on the Davis City Council in 1984.
Marina also said . . . “and, if one looks at campaign contributions, one can see if Brett and Robb received funds from developers and realtors and others in those industries…”
I shared the Treasurer duties for Robb’s campaign with Mont Hubbard, and I am intimately familiar with the data in the Form 460 filings. Bottom-line there were 250 individual contributors to Robb’s campaign, and exactly one of those 250 fits the description of “developers and realtors and others in those industries…” I am not as familiar with the details of Brett’s contributions (but they are on file with the City, so it would be relatively easy to check). but my suspicions are that his contributor records are similarly devoid of any “developers and realtors and others in those industries…”
Marina also said . . . “Also, the giveaway to the cannery to the tune of $1o mil, within days of “final agreement on the negotiations….
those are 2 recent reasons why I said what I did…….and perhaps that is a strong term, but that was a ton of bucks also…”
I agree the Cannery giveaway was a ton of bucks, but both Brett and Robb voted against it. So it is hard to blame them for that.
“Blondie’s is a first class disaster for D St. ”
Blondies isn’t on D St and has it had even a single problem
I went to Blondie’s, the Pizza was disgusting and the “arcade” was already broken down in the first week. That place is nothing more than a bad night club.
Am I missing something here? This can’t be right, that number is rediculously high. David can you explain?
I screwed it up – it’s actually per capita retail sales not sales tax. The same story, just a different metric.
I noticed, David, that you substituted one verb from your previous one… BRAVO… five gold stars for ‘owning up’… I hope to (and hope others will) follow that example, as necessary…
I would bet that UCD grossly inflates the “business tax” for the town….much UCD business now takes place within the town city limits and that is why it is so high…….it is cheaper for UCD to lease buildings within the town right now, than it is to build to the public sector ADA mandated requirements…and thus, again, the UCD is bailing out the town…
It doesn’t because UCD isn’t in town and therefore generating sales tax for the county rather than the city.
If UCD buys something from me, they pay sales tax on it.
David, someone more in the statistics side of UCD could pipe in better, but if you drive around town, you will see the ANR and the shared service centers on second street…and all around the downtown area there are hubs of “offices” and even some labs sprinkled throughout… for example, the cousteau area and there have been negotiations for the old Monstanto labs…
drive down A street, and counseling and others are on that street…
in South Davis the UCD bookstore has a huge presence, where the books and merchandise are delivered.
The Center for Neuroscience and the payroll, and many central services are near the Richards on South Davis side.
Office of Research takes up significan real estate near the baseball field.
All of those deliveries pay full city taxes as those units are in the town proper..
And, the UCD bookstore presence in downtown, which sells UCD related items – the purchasers of those items pay full taxes, and UCD bookstore in turn sends that to the state…
If anyone knows Bob Seeger, he could likely give the sq footage of UC leased in town properties …. I don’t have time to look up those statistics at the moment.
I think we’re getting off track here – the point is that Davis is at the bottom of the list.
For the properties you mention, Marina, sales tax is the least of our worries… it’s the loss of property tax…
huh? we would be even lower if not for the UCD….that is the point…
and, truly the real issue is that decisions have been, and continue to be made, that kill off the small unique specialty shops….
not so, David, read and try to understand what I just posted….okay???
UCD gets a sales tax break for deliveries to campus…they pay full city of davis taxes on items delivered into town…
just call Accounts Payable on campus if you still have questions…truly….unreal….that you would question what I say on such business matters…
Marina, as usual your response is unpleasant.
It is true that sales on the UCD campus pay county, not city tax. I believe that UCD is walking a fine line when they buy something from a store in Davis but then have it delivered to campus rather than picking it up, paying only the county tax on their purchase. I wonder how much the City is losing out by this practice.
gosh, no matter how I try to clarify, some just don’t get it…that is frustrating, ryankelly…when I clarify because the point is being missed and yet the op and others keep repeating the inaccuracies…
Marina, as usual, you are spot-on with flair and humor ….
Dixon’s per capita retail sales is $22,560. Truly amazing considering Dixon’s per capita income is only @ $28,000. That just shows how much retail leakage travels from Davis to Dixon. I’m trying to think what the big draw is, Walmart?
Someone suggested to me that it might be truck sales in addition to sales tax leakage driving that figure.
Also likely, Syar… http://www.syarconcrete.com/concreteDixon.html#anchor… that could also be a strong, solid, contributor (in the aggregate) to the Dixon numbers…
very clever…..
But BP, Syar’s sales are enormous…
Yes I get that. I was referring to what I thought was a play on words as in the aggregate to Dixon’s sales and Syar also sells and delivers aggregate.
I guess it’s too much to ask of our leaders (across the region) to devise a method to share sales taxes (although I’ve heard that this works, elsewhere). (I’m not sure where, as it was cited by someone else.)
“Negotiating power” might include a commitment to NOT build a given commercial development in Davis (which would compete with adjacent communities). (Unless we all want to have our own Walmart, etc.)
Another idea – let higher levels of government (e.g., the county) exclusively collect/distribute sales taxes?
LOL, who would fall for that? They already know we won’t.
B.P. “LOL, who would fall for that? They already know we won’t.”
Well, I agree that we probably wouldn’t allow a Walmart. However, we might allow an “innovation center”, for example. And, it seems that developers are going to take the position that they won’t build one without housing. Some on the Vanguard will then try to make a case for that (even though housing would reduce the benefit).
(Perhaps) just as important – regional “cooperation” might result in better planning, overall.
(Actually, this idea is probably more closely related to sharing of property taxes, assuming that there’s not much retail sales in an “innovation center”.) However, the principle remains the same.
Yeah… that ‘sharing of property tax’ revenues has worked out REAL well for counties and Cities… NOT!
Care to explain? Honest question – I don’t fully know the mechanics of the current system, or how it (might) be improved.
Just know that it doesn’t make much sense to me, for individual cities to “compete” with each other (if it produces a worse overall result for the entire region, or for a particular city). Again, this is just an exploration of ideas – not an “advocacy” at this point.
Otherwise, we’ll continue to view “dreaded” Woodland, West Sac, Dixon (etc.) as our mortal enemies in the race for development. Hey – it’s “us” vs. “them”. (Slightly exaggerating, I know.) 🙂
Perhaps there’s a better way?
I’m not an expert but your ideas on revenue sharing are really off the mark. One of the problems is that Davis captures a lower share of its revenue than many places. Plus Davis has been paying the county for years not to build on the periphery draining tax money from the city. I’m sure others can explain it better.
I appreciate the straightforward response.
Regarding the “lower share”, I’m not sure that I understand this. (Lower sales tax rate, or fewer opportunities to collect it?)
Regarding “paying the county” to not build on the periphery, that sounds like blackmail.
Overall, I’m just encouraging everyone to think outside the “big box” (pun intended). I expect all levels of government to act responsibly, and we all need to hold them to it.
In any case, it seems that the “current system” isn’t working all that well, either.
I’m also wondering how important sales tax is compared to the overall city budget.
You’re certainly not the first to make that observation.
Here’s the history of the pass through agreement.
http://cityofdavis.org/about-davis/history-symbols/davis-history-books/growing-pains-chapter-6
Ron.. a primer for you… http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2012/tax/property-tax-primer-112912.pdf
Thanks, hpierce. I appreciate the link. It’s an informative publication.
If you’d care to explain the problems in the current allocation that you mentioned, please do so.
I’ll look at all of this again, later.
Don: Thanks for providing the link regarding “pass-through” agreements. (I figured that’s what Misanthrop was referring to, but I thought it had to do with developments that ARE approved.) I will read it.
I reallize that one has to fully understand the situation, before jumping to any firm conclusions regarding possible improvements to a process. (Makes me appreciate the knowledge that’s needed by government officials, to make sound decisions. Not always easy or straightforward.)
Ron… before I attempt to respond to your 9:55 post, and so I can put in context for you, it would be helpful to know:
Are you younger than 50 (to fully understand how Jarvis/Gann [Prop 13] changed the financial landscape of local government financing)?
Do you know what ERAF is, and its implications for local government ans schools financing? http://www.californiacityfinance.com/ERAFfacts.pdf
Will tell you right now, in at least one jurisdiction I worked in, property taxes actually WENT UP due to Prop 13… the city reduced it’s tax rate three years running prior to Prop 13, as the inflationary rates (double digit), were inflating property values (hence, taxes) well beyond the City’s needs, and it was a City where they paid, and compensated their employees quite well, were covering infrastructure needs, etc. They realized those days were over, so upped the tax rate to the maximum. Ironic.
Let me know, and maybe I’ll be able to fill in some blanks for you… read the ERAF piece before you respond, please.
ERAF was one of those “tax-sharing” things that you are curious about espousing…
For schools, it was the Serrano-Priest decision that helped muck things up… also a means of “revenue-sharing”.
Since old Moonbeam killed RDA to reward his teacher union campaign contributors, the pass-through agreement with the county isn’t worth much to the county on a go-forward basis. In fact, since Davis voters have killed all peripheral development projects, there is nothing for the county to look forward to from this old document. I fully expect to hear about a Davis peripheral development project that the county and UCD is leading. The county would just scrap the pass-through agreement that provides them less than $2.5MM per year since the new development would provide them significantly more in tax revenue.
That will be a hoot when it happens. And it will.
Ron the vagaries of property tax sharing are incredibly complex. Bottom-line, the “sharing” literally varies by neighborhood within Davis. That is because of the idiosyncrasies of Prop 13 way back when it was first passed and implemented in 1978.
With regard to The Pass Through Agreement payments by the City to the County, that would only be blackmail if the receiving party (the County) had requested the creation of the Pass Through Agreement, but in this case the paying party (the City) was the the jurisdiction that requested the creation of the Pass Through Agreement.
Frankly, while I have no fundamental difference with the points you make, the $2.5 million annual number you cite is a bit low. Based on the last time I checked the RDA Standard Pass Through Amount was $3,493,987.62. The way the payments are structured in the Agreement that number increases each year, so the $3,493,987.62 amount is probably lower than the current annual amount.
Thanks for the correction Matt. I admit that mine was a swag.
Ron, here’s a 2002 draft bill that was attempted in California in 2002. ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_680_cfa_20020614_120421_sen_comm.html
The problem is that any such plan is a “zero-sum game” and therefore there will be winners and losers, and no politician wants to be responsible for his/her jurisdiction being a “loser.”
As Matt pointed out in another thread, online shopping is potentially the biggest leakage. For the long run, I’m not convinced that we should move to build more big box retailers. I’d be very much for a more friendly environment for local small business.
My viewpoint has been that Davis is unique because of UCD. And the city should play this card to its greatest potential. With so much research activities going on, my belief is that we should keep the dialog going on for promoting technology-oriented business. In recent years, UCD has been pushing very hard, by providing funding, investor relationships, legal and business development support, for technology transfer. The city should capture these opportunities.
It hardly makes any difference to most small retailers whether the bix boxes are within the city limits or in adjoining communities. It does make a big difference to our revenue situation. That being said the big boxes are already built and COSTCO is unlikely to build one here because we have decided that now they can.
Another strategy is required.
Doesn’t online shopping charge sales tax now based on the jurisdiction of your zip code?
Does that tax flow to the city of Davis?
good questions…I believe the answer is yes.. because the amounts charged are based on the zip code delivered to…or at least in the case of UCD>… campus proper is a different deal than davis downtown though…
The answer to Misanthrop’s question is that (based on my understanding) different Internet retailers handle sales tax different ways. For the base Statewide tax percentage of 6.25% some Internet retailers use their own shipping location as the sales tax jurisdiction, others use the delivery address. The base Local tax percentage of 1.25% follows that same pattern. Very few Internet retailers collect any of the incremental local taxes (like Davis’ 1.0% approved under the provisions of Measure O).
In today’s computerized world there is no reason that the Internet retailers can not collect all the sales tax monies and provide the State the information so that they can be distributed appropriately.
In that case I would have my amazon shipments delivered to a drop box in woodland
Would that pencil out for you. For every $10 purchase that amounts to 10 cents of local tax. A gallon of gas now costs $2.32 and the depreciation amount on your car paid by most employers for employee use of their cars for company business was more than 25 cents a mile. So the 24 mile round trip from Davis City Hall would cost $1.85 in gas and $6.00 in depreciation, which means any purchase that is less than $785.00 is a loss for you . . . and if you value your time, even more of a loss.
How many purchases a year do you make from Amazon that are over $200?
How many under $200?
I wonder why Davis hasn’t tried harder to bring in more auto dealers? It would seem like that would be an ideal sales tax generator.
Are you being sarcastic?
Topcat, the problem (as I understand it) is that the sales tax from the sale of a vehicle does not flow to the jurisdiction where the vehicle is sold, but rather to the jurisdiction where the vehicle is registered (see http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-aa2-snapshot-sales-tax-20141128-story.html)
hehe..Topcat…and yet, the answer is never that simple….
also, Davis CC has been known to “kickback” taxes or forgive negotiated promises …to the businesses they wish to subsidize…
online shopping is a factor…I truly doubt most davisites would head to Walmart in Dixon…
however, in upscale areas, like many of those on the list, people tend to shop more at unique shops for unique items…browse and support local small businesses and eat out , a lot, at truly farm to table restaurants…not cheap fast food chains…
Woodland, Dixon and West Sac welcome the types of heavy industrial that Davis would truly cringe at….that puts those towns as “unlikely listmates” of the likes of Palo Alto and SLO…
But, there is a truly great gem of a restaurant that we love to go to in Dixon, and their little downtown is also charming…so it is likely a combination…..and yet, their total population is also much smaller…thus per capita is per way fewer folks also…
Go to Walmart in Dixon you will be surprised by how many of your neighbors you will run into.
My wife often goes there. Since it’s a Super Walmart they have a great food prices and a good produce and grocery section.
long long ago, I made a concerted effort to never support the big corporations…and if you shop at Walmart, you won’t be seeing me….I also likely spend way less on my food costs than those who shop at those kinda places…I would venture I spend WAY less on health issues also…choose your poison…I say…
I don’t go to Walmart but I go to Coscto for sure, and I think it’s just because Coscto is closer to where I live.
UCD has raised a billion dollars but where does it get spent? Much of it not in Davis. With so many UCD employees living out of town and in places that have more competitive prices much of the money that goes into UCD doesn’t stay in town. We shop mainly at Co-op, Trader Joe’s, Arco and Target locally. We bought a few cars over the years in Davis and we out at local restaurants. Still we also go to Ikea, Home Depot, Orchard Supply, La Superior, Best Buy and Big Lots. That is a lot of tax money going out of town. I only go to Ace when I’m too lazy to leave town or the item isn’t too expensive to get elsewhere.
Davis has chosen a model of not building retail, industrial/tech or housing but paying competitive public sector wages. The only way to do that is with the locals paying higher taxes for schools and services. As long as Davis residents vote to pony up that model might remain sustainable but that is a mighty big “as long as.” We are already falling behind on maintenance and our unfunded liabilities continue to grow. When will the music stop? I don’t know but when it does it won’t be pretty. I think as long as Davis can pay its bills and paper over its crumbling infrastructure nothing will change.
We need research and manufacturing that produce big ticket items that are sold to other businesses. This needs to be in town and not on campus. We have very little of this and stand to lose one of our larger manufacturing companies to West Sac if we don’t move on creating space for them to expand.
Schilling would be gone already if the price of oil was higher.
have all options already been looked at for Schilling? including the Moeller space and some others…what about the former monsanto complex on 5th…and have they maximized their space footprint they already occupy???? can they build up or out any further?
Yes. No, no, won’t work. Yes. And no.
Shilling wants to stay in Davis, but there is no location within City limits that he can build a facility large enough.
Wake up you Davis NIMBYs. Woodland’s downtown is growing more vital every day. The residential property values in Woodland are advancing. Part of the reason is that Davis housing market sucks and Davis shopping options suck.
And frankly (because I am), Woodland has a much better supply of interesting older architecture that is being re-developed.
Basically Woodland and Dixon are on a slope toward increased economic vitality, and Davis is on the opposite slope to decline.
I was thinking about this and the personality types that seem to concentrate in liberal college towns like Davis. It is not uncommon for other liberal college towns to have similar problems… although as pointed out in this article, Davis leads the pack.
Here is what I see. These personality types (they can be labeled NIMBYs) tend to be risk-averse, and tend to be uncomfortable with change except if it is small, incremental and slow as molasses. They also tend to have a weird aesthetic twitch… either their right-brain is so lit-up that stylistic considerations explode in their consciousness and seem to cause them some stress… or they are so left-brained that they can only tell what they like or don’t like when the see it.
Then we add this population to those greedy with property value, and those short-sighted merchants that want to prevent any competition.
And all the people that studied science but skipped economics and accounting.
And then we wrap it all up with a direct democracy package of Measure J/R.
Well there we have a toxic soup of economic stasis and stagnation.
The only thing that isn’t sitting still is the rising cost of city labor.
And we just learned that CalPERS significantly under-performed in returns for this last fiscal year (ending June) and will require the City of Davis to contribute more per employee.
10-20 years from now, Woodland will be the destination city in the region. Davis will be… a bigger mess.
The only thing that will change this trajectory is if Measure R is defeated, or too many of those Davis personality types move to Woodland… God help Woodland.
Actually, Woodland has always been the retail destination city in the region. When I moved here (1974) Woodland was where you went to buy appliances and furniture. Davis retail has always focused on the student demographic, and car sales.
On a side note: I’m getting lots of customers from Spring Lake these days.
Ahhh… ‘memory lane’… Cranston Bros. [Woodland, Main Street] was where you went to find replacement parts for 15-20 + year old hardware! Funky in its layout, but everyone who worked there either knew their shit, or could quickly connect you to someone who did!
I have come to sorely miss that place, but there are still a few select folk at Davis Ace and Hibbert who have the similar knowledge and work ethics… even run into the “gems” from time to time at Home Depot, Lowes, and Orchard Supply.
nice….glad they have found you….most of those folks work at UCD and many of those kids go to Davis schools…they don’t call that area north north davis for nuthin’
my friends who live there and work in my building on campus get to work faster now than my travels from home in South Davis….one can no longer drive “80” and the streets of the city are impossible also…
ps… unitrans is not convenient for the crazy hours I keep and a bike is out as I lug so many things back and forth with me wherever I go…not to mention, that due to some health issues, it is not safe for me to ride in this heat nor in the dark….
Frankly: Always entertaining, at least! (I think you generally have some grains of truth, but it isn’t the whole story.)
Davis has been, and always will be, a relatively stable and desirable university town (conveniently located along I-80).
Davis has some issues that reduce retail development here. The prime freeway locations in the city limits are already auto dealerships, owned by UC, or sites like Nishi with access issues. If Davis were to annex more freeway frontage along Chiles Rd., maybe that could be developed. In town, most retail chains that look at Davis are those marketing to college-age shoppers, like Forever 21. The steady shrinkage of retail sites as restaurant chains open is a factor. There are no big buildings to repurpose for retail. The edge of town isn’t desirable for retail, even if the voters were likely to approve it, with the possible exception of development near the hospital (and Chiles, as noted).
The history of the town is that big retail always has gone to Woodland, and small specialty retail is what locates here. The voters did allow Target, but a lot of bigger retailers just look at the combined populations of Woodland and Davis and consider it simpler to locate along I-5 up there; as far as those retailers are concerned, Woodland and Davis are basically one big market. Woodland is not just a retail hub, it’s a trucking/transportation hub. If you were a planner for a larger retailer, Woodland would simply have numerous advantages over Davis as you select expansion locations.
Davis is likely only to expand retail in the form of specialty shops. Those can generate a lot of sales tax per square foot.
Creative history, Don. The major retailers looked at Davis and saw the population of highly paid public employees with disposable income and wanted to locate here, but Davis told them to go away. There was no decision that I5 was the better location; rather that Woodland was welcoming and Davis was not. We gave away the retail options by choice, with the justification being to protect the politically connected downtown businesses and property owners. What we have to show for it are decades of de facto public subsidies to those property owners, an ever decaying public infrastructure, and no source of revenue growth beyond greater rates of taxation.
Good thing we protected the Downtown as our retail center, otherwise it would only be an entertainment district today and we would all need to leave town to shop.
Which major retailers wanted to locate here? Where? When? Who told them to go away?
You are funny, Don. Do you want me to prove that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow as well?
Davis has a long history of fighting against major retail businesses coming to town. We even have a history of fighting small retailers coming to town if they compete with one of the favored downtown establishments (or heaven forbid, use ‘golden arches’ as their business identity). No one needs to provide you with a list since you have been one of the loudest opponents of major retail coming to town, and loudest proponents of our ‘protect the downtown at all costs’ mantra.
Hey, Mark, just name one. One retailer that wanted to locate here. Which site? When? Seemed like a simple question. Walmart? Home Depot? Lowes? Any of them?
You well know, Don, that Davis set an artificial restriction on the size of retail businesses specifically to exclude major retailers from coming to town. We announced to the world that those stores were not welcome through our zoning. Up until Target, Davis didn’t allow stores above a certain size unless they were owned by a certain downtown property owner. Those restrictions are still in place. In a recent discussion here about the commercial space at the Cannery, you argued that those restrictions needed to be continued. The argument about Target was over a change in zoning, from commercial to retail, and an increase in store size above the artificial limit. You argued against those changes, as well as against a later request to increase the size of the secondary stores at the complex.
In addition to the size restriction, we created regulations that required that the major store in all of our neighborhood centers had to be a grocery store, even when no grocery wanted to use the space. The Manor Center anchor store site was vacant for close to a decade because of this restriction, even though reports at the time stated that various retailers were interested, but were turned away by the City. You have argued in favor of that restriction as well.
We fought against the Target, against Borders, and more recently against Whole Foods. We are the city with the disposable income to support major retailers, but most of the stores are located in Woodland and Dixon instead because we excluded them from town (right along with the Golden Arches). Zoning restrictions, even well meaning ones, have consequences.
You said
I asked for examples.
So the examples you give me are all stores that actually opened here. So you have none. Your statement was actually false. There are no examples of stores that “wanted to locate here” but were “told to go away.”
The store size limitation doesn’t discriminate. Any large retailer can open a store under 45,000 sq. ft., or whatever the exact limitation is these days (note that it was increased to accommodate Nugget). Walmart has stores smaller than that. Lowes bought OSH, which has stores smaller than that.
So, you keep saying this, but it isn’t true.
4444 Chiles Rd. Just in case you missed it.
I’m not playing your silly game, Don. When you are opening 80-100,000 sf stores all around the country, and one little burb with visions of grandeur says ‘nothing larger than half that size,” you go elsewhere. It really isn’t rocket science.
Tell me, Don. Where in Davis is there a site today that is properly zoned for a 45,000+ sf Orchard Supply store? Was that site available (and zoned) 10-20 years ago? Prove that the sites were available when the stores were being built or your argument is nothing more than used cow food.
They sites didn’t exist, so the stores were built elsewhere.
Your statement was false. I proved that. Game is over.
Target opened here. That proves you wrong as to sites not having been available. But small footprint stores owned by Walmart these days are about 20,000 sq. ft. OSH are 30,000 or so. Target actually does small footprint stores as well. Any of those could easily have been accommodated in the Marketplace when it opened 20 years ago, if there had been an interest. And Davis isn’t the only “little burb” with store size limitations.
Evidently nobody came to Davis, wanted to open a store, and got told to go elsewhere. If you’re moving the goal posts as to your claims, we can certainly play that silly game.
4444 Chiles Rd. Just in case you missed it.
We excluded McD’s from Davis for more than twenty years until they agreed to have a site that didn’t have the golden arches out in front.
Seems like they could have agreed 19 1/2 years sooner.
You have not proven anything Don, except your willingness to ignore history when it is inconvenient. Davis has a long history of being opposed to major retail establishments coming to town and allowing retail to expand beyond the downtown. You have been one of the most strident proponents of those positions. The per capita sales tax numbers are a direct result.
So, Ross. That’s it, apparently. Davis blocked Ross, and that proves your point? Not sure that is a “major” retail establishment. And that site is now filled with an apparently successful store that meets the neighborhood’s needs. All of your other examples of the apparent intransigence of Davis — Target, Whole Foods, and Borders — opened. They came, they built, they opened. So it may well be that some Davis residents express opposition to certain types of retail, but that hasn’t prevented those stores. You haven’t made your point at all.
I opposed Target and would oppose any other peripheral big box store. Is that what you are supporting? Be real specific, Mark. Which large retailer do you want? Where?
I have explained the history of retail in this town many times. You seem to want to blame people for what is largely a result of location and demographics.
Davis has always been a minor retail center compared to Woodland for reasons that I’ve explained. You have an alternative theory as to why that is the case that involves blaming city councils, voters, and apparently anyone who disagrees with you.
To be specific: I would not oppose consideration of a new shopping center, but would oppose any change in the store size limitation. I don’t personally care if chain stores open, so long as the playing field is level. Store size limits help to level the playing field. Any addition of a shopping center needs to be considered in light of the impact on existing neighborhood centers and the downtown. When Woodland went ahead with the new peripheral retail along I-5, they had to assess the impact of that decision on the existing retail. Their analysis showed that it would have significant and unavoidable impact on the existing retail centers. But they went ahead with it anyway.
Woodland has a long history of cannibalizing existing retail to make new sites. It’s good for the city’s bottom line overall, but bad for neighborhoods and particularly harmful to small independent stores that are already there. The Woodland mall killed the downtown. The peripheral development killed the mall. Now the peripheral development is harming other neighborhood centers. That’s all very predictable, and doesn’t have to happen. Just because a big retailer prefers to build big stores, doesn’t mean a city has to accept that. Just because a chain wants a particular look to their franchise, doesn’t mean a city has to accept that. Cities can choose not to homogenize in appearance and shopping alternatives. As Frankly might say: if you like what Woodland has to offer, and the planning mentality that leads to it, maybe you should move there.
Which neighborhoods? I don’t see any neighborhoods damaged by Woodlands retail development. I think this is a bit of a hyperbole instrument that you frequently use in your arguments against square feet.
Davis should develop a small factory outlet mall on the periphery… as well as work to try and attract more auto dealers.
Sure, right along Chiles Rd. would be suitable. Someone should see what the property owners are thinking. I think factory outlet malls are a little passé, though. There’s probably better ways to capture some of that freeway traffic.
Sorry.
” It’s good for the city’s bottom line overall, but bad for neighborhood [centers] and particularly harmful to small independent stores that are already there.”
The point is that existing retail is always harmed by adding more retail. Small retail centers are especially vulnerable. And it can, in fact, lead to blight. Vacant buildings can deteriorate, parking lots don’t get upkeep, graffiti and vandalism can occur and aren’t corrected as quickly because the sites are losing money. The east Davis shopping center deteriorated badly over time until they finally cleaned it up for new tenants.
I think Woodland is going to have to figure out what to do with the County Fair Mall within the next few years. From the look of it, I’d guess they’re on the edge of bankruptcy.
so true, Frankly…on many points, but it has little to do with J/R….Davis’s idea is to stuff more ticky tacky overpriced onto the lots where the historic homes once stood…taking out trees and etc as they are in the way….
in fact, the lovely old historic Nishi farmhouse had a truly unfortunate “accidental” fire which leveled it once developers were sniffing to get it built up…..not accusing anyone of anything, however, as we well know in Davis, historic water towers, and trees and etc can put a crimp on the developers forward motions to raze everything in sight and replace it with the nondescript “new high to medium density” infill or outfilll…doesn’t matter…
Oh oh, Frankly’s on a tear again. I see some medicinal smoke rising out of the upper windows of his offices …. I really could use some of that about now …. I’ll see if a packet gets thrown across the drive and fence for me …
That is the smoke from all that business activity Mike!
Yes, Frankly. You have made me see the light. It is absolutely terrible here in Davis and that is probably why absolutely no one wants to live or work here.
The one person on this forum who seems to dislike Davisites more than anyone else (Frankly, of course) has the audacity to tell the rest of us to move so he and his cohorts can convert Davis to a conservative enclave occupied by strip malls, sprawl, industry, and development opportunities with NO input or vote into the future of this city by it’s citizens.
Frankly, have you ever considered that maybe, JUST MAYBE, YOU are the one who should move elsewhere? I’m sure you will find many more like-minded people in places like Woodland, Dixon and Elk Grove. A matter of fact, you are a perfect fit in most of those places.
Davis is, and has always been a liberal, progressive, town. If you don’t like it that way, then stop your b*tchin’ and just move elsewhere already.
Odin, I live in Davis for some of the same reasons that I keep reading the New York Times. Somebody has to watch you people!
And believe it or not, there are quite a few closet conservatives living in Davis. They just are not as brave as me to challenge the local liberal intelligentsia. Hopefully I can inspire them a bit because you folks need some help.
One thing Davis could do is take advantage of what it has already, a pretty nice downtown. Davis could easily bring more people in to the downtown from the region if it was more accessible. Rather than building Lincoln 40, Davis should be looking at building parking with a walking bridge or tunnel to the train station, thus creating more train parking (the lot fills by 6:35am every day) and providing downtown parking easily accessible from the freeway. I recognize the need for more housing, but there is no where else in town that you could build such freeway and downtown accessible parking.
You could even have a bike share station or bike rental concession by the train station and make it even better.
Why build parking for accessibility to a location that fewer and fewer people will have a reason to visit?
That is pessimistic beyond credibility. Downtown Davis may have less retail, but it has more restaurants and entertainment businesses than ever. One can argue that it is not a desirable balance, but it is hard to argue that the downtown is fading away. If anything, it is expanding and pushing into adjacent neighborhoods.
So only restaurants and bars? And by entertainment, you mean the movie theaters?
And what restaurants are you referring to? Pizza?
Yes, the downtown is fading away unless you are a low-income hungry student.
It is a bit funny… like Davis downtown can be successful with a tourist-style service model… while the city also lacks utility shopping choices.
I assume you live in the core area or near core area.
We should rename Davis downtown to Nimby Fantasy Land.
I would love to see more retail downtown (I remember Wingers), but I think the reality is that it is unlikely there will be new big box stores downtown. Specialty stores are still surviving, and could do better with more foot traffic. Maybe entertainment and restaurants alone is not my first choice, but I would rather have that than a dead downtown with peripheral Walmarts as I have seen in other cities across the country. I am of course worried about what will happen with the increased rents on the Brinly properties, and what redevelopment will come next, but it seems like adding parking by the freeway could only help the situation. What I am really suggesting is that we play to our strengths, and bring more people to the businesses we have.
Grok – you don’t understand retail business very well. That ratio of fixed cost to sales potential has become so high in Davis (because of high rents and small store-space) that only certain types of business can pencil out… and as the rents go up, more that barely make it are priced out.
College student eating establishments, bars and office space start to be the only things that can work.
Boutique retail venues can work only if the area attracts visitors with money to spend. But the downtown and the city is shedding people with money opting instead for more old people and more college students.
Too bad Nishi was not approved. Think of those young professionals that would support a Nordstrom Rack and higher-end restaurants. That then starts to attract others from wanting to come downtown.
You NIMBYs in trying to keep things the way they are… well you are actually causing more change… more negative change.
Frankly, serious question . . . how do the Davis rents per square foot for first floor commercial space compare to other cities like Chico and Palo Alto and San Luis Obispo? Are our rental rates really higher than theirs?
Following the business adage “Think Like an Income Statement” I have to wonder if the shrinking revenues (sales) per square foot due to the shrinking customer base isn’t a bigger problem for retailers than expenses per square foot. What say you?
Matt – Davis rents are 2-3 times what similar space in Woodland, West Sacramento and Dixon cost.
Here is a good resource for Davis rents. I will see what I can dig up for comparison.
http://ctbt.com/email/SAC/Davis_Qtly_Newsletter/midyear2016/DavisOffice_CRE_2016_MidYear.pdf
Note too that Davis downtown rents are jumping significantly after the Brinley sale.
Its true about the rents from the Brinly sale, the city better act fast or it is in danger of loosing some lovely long standing businesses that enrich our community. Better freeway adjacent parking with easy access to the downtwon is just one idea. Marina had another. I would love to hear more. Frankly what positive solution do you propose?
Build Nishi, build MRIC, build 1000 acres of commercial space over the next 30-40 years.
The parking lot would just fill with commuters from Sacramento and cities to the North, looking for free parking near the train station. Olive Drive could use a path over the tracks north of Richards Blvd. and we should really do that, regardless of your parking garage idea.
The days of free parking in Downtown Davis are coming to a close, and certainly all day parking in a lot like this must have a cost. Commuters from out of town already use the Amtrak and the 4th and G lots taking valuable spots and they have to come through the Richards tunnel to do so. Besides, every commuter that goes through that train station is a potential customer for downtown businesses.
Like I said, Davis needs to take advantage of what it has. Davis has a Capital Corridor train station that will draw commuters from out of town. We can either pretend it isn’t happening, or we can plan for it and capitalize on it.
If the lot is built large enough there will be room for both commuters, and out of town visitors.
Grok, people come to shop in a particular place because of “magnets” or they are attracted to non-shopping “magnets” in the town and then as a bi-product of their visit do some shopping while there. What do you think Davis’ current “magnets” are?
That is probably more true of strip malls than a downtown like Davis. The main draw is that Downtown Davis is a nice place to walk around, have dinner, have a coffee, enjoy and maybe do a little light small business shopping. I am not suggesting it is going to be a major tourist attraction, but people in other towns do enjoy stopping in for a visit, and if it was easier they would do it more often.
I am not trying to suggest that this alone will solve all of the economic woes lamented here on this blog, but rather that Davis should play to its strengths and the downtown is one of its strengths. OK, so it is more entertainment than shopping district lately, well, lets be glad we have that instead of a dead downtown. It would be enhanced with more parking, especially freeway and train adjacent parking. Other stores will gain with more foot traffic too.
Grok
“ lets be glad””
I think this is the best comment that I have yet heard on this subject. We live in a wonderful community that many, many people want to live and work in. We have problems like every other community. But many of us have established comfortable lives in careers that we find meaningful. Many others are working to build their careers, families and lives. Success does not look the same to all of us. But I think that all can appreciate what we do have, a beautiful small city, generally safe, with a number of neighborhoods in which people genuinely care for and look out for each other.
I am an optimist and an incrementalist. I do not fear change. But I also do not worship change and growth for their own sake. Davis has provided me with a very good life once I had earned the ability to settle here. I honestly do not recognize the dark gloomy Davis that some here seem to see. So I will join Grok in saying “let’s be glad”. Let’s be glad for all we have and all the we can be if we act prudently and not based on a state of fear propagated by those who would declare growth as a panacea for some imagined terrible fate.
You both have this right. (Even Frankly previously noted that we’re lucky to have the University, etc.)
Great town, let’s not mess it up.
And Grok, you’re right about downtown. For example, I have family members who sometimes stop downtown (without visiting me), on their way to/from the Sierra. They enjoy having a place to stop, eat, and walk around in a safe, pleasant town such as Davis. (The Nut Tree sort of provided that, when I was young.)
And Grok – I like your idea regarding a parking lot on the proposed site of Lincoln 40. (This would allow people to park near the train station and downtown, without affecting traffic through the tunnel/downtown.) I appreciate Adam’s interest in this, as well.
Ron… there is only one way “out” of Olive Drive… that would be the intersection of Olive/Richards… if you think ANY additional traffic from Olive has no effect on ‘the Richards tunnel’, at any of the peak hours (AM, Noon, PM), the most charitable thing I can say is, “you are mistaken”. The Richards tunnel is a ‘choke point’, and the intersections on either end are the problem, not the tunnel itself.
If the intersections on that corridor were to be eliminated, the tunnel would serve quite nicely… that ain’t a happening thing.
hpierce: “Ron… there is only one way “out” of Olive Drive… that would be the intersection of Olive/Richards…”
Yeah, I guess you’re right about that. (Similar argument as Nishi – avoid the tunnel, but not the intersection.)
Wouldn’t Lincoln 40 cause the same problems (unless they were prevented from parking cars or driving to/from the property)? This doesn’t seem realistic, either. (And, I understand that apartment complexes also ultimately have a negative impact on city finances, and of course do next to nothing for schools. Not intended as an argument against all apartment complexes, but something to consider.)
At least a parking facility has the potential to help support downtown businesses and promote train ridership for current regional residents.
In fact, wouldn’t bicycle/pedestrian traffic from Lincoln 40 also affect the same intersection (Olive/Richards), perhaps unless the track undercrossing was provided (by the developer)? (I’m guessing that you thought of this, already. I see that Matt had some comments, regarding this.)
a better idea is to expand the park n’ ride and commuter lots on the outskirts of town, including at UCD, and run a nonstop shuttle to the train station…. for now, that would be way more cost effective and minimize adverse effects within the town and on the roadways… large parking lots downtown are a poor use of valuable real estate…
I am not exactly talking about a new parking lot downtown. I am talking about a parking garage on Olive Drive that has pedestrian access to the downtown. The train station is already a transit hub with taxis, regional buses, local buses, trains and zip cars. As mentioned above it would be even better with a bike share or bike rental concession added to the mix. Pedicabs would be a welcome addition too. This idea builds on existing strengths rather than creating a whole new transit center.
To keep on focus to the article. this could increase revenues in Davis by making Downtown Davis accessible to more people.
olive drive cannot handle more traffic, and now it it impossible to quickly get to the train from that side….most americans and especially the younger ones are too lazy to walk “so far” to head through the tunnels to get over there in a safe manner……..
Maybe I didn’t explain clearly. The proposed Lincoln 40 site is immediately across the tracks from the east end of the train station. A pedestrian tunnel or bridge would be part of the project connecting the lot to the station. It would be a very direct path to downtown and the train station.
Admittedly traffic on Olive Drive is the biggest problem, but parking on Olive would reduce trips through the Richards tunnel which is a positive, and it would at least be directly accessible from eastbound 80 by way of the Olive Drive off ramp.
Grok is correct. A bike/ped tunnel from Olive Drive to the Amtrak Station triangle would be a very solid bi-product of the Lincoln 40 proposal. In 2007 the City, DJUSD, UPRR, UCD, and Capitol Corridor collectively supported Project No. in SACOG Master Plan 07-12-07 the Olive Drive Bike/Ped Undercrossing of UPRR (see LINK).
Lincoln 40 at its current size would more than likely not fully pay for that underpass, but if it were allowed one additional story of units, it would cover a whole lot more of the cost. Further, with that tunnel in place, Lincoln 40 could be a car-free apartment, with a Zip Car and/or UBER location on site o handle the occasional trips that are not to the UCD campus.
I am less excited about Lincoln 40. That site would be far better for parking.
Grok, serious question, what are the things about Lincoln 40 that you do not like?
I personally don’t like the idea of any resident automobiles there, but I’m willing to consider an all bike-ped complex with the bike-ped undercrossing to the Amtrak Station triangle.
While I think housing is needed, that particular lot is better situated for a large parking structure.
The train station needs more parking in part due to the people who come from Woodland, Dixon and Sac to catch the train (yes sac, many people prefer the Davis station because it is easier to get to even if slightly farther). this lot would allow for that without the commuters having to come under the Richards tunnel and freeing parking closer into the downtown.
The downtown needs more parking, an this is the only open space adjacent to the downtown that could handle a large new lot.
Both of these are in the interest of economic development for Davis. having commuters come to Davis daily, particularly by the downtown can result in more business downtown. Providing easier parking by the freeway can encourage more people to come eat and shop in downtown as well.
In regards to Lincoln 40 itself, if there is no connection to the train station it is not a great place to bike or drive into town from. While it is no Nishi the air quality is not great and living by the train can be quite noisy. Don’t get me wrong i am not advocating for tearing down anything that is already built there, I just think parking would be a better use and would not have the same issues.
Interesting idea to promote nearby businesses, and to encourage more people to take the train.
Thanks for the thoughtful answer Grok. I agree with your statement “Woodland, Dixon and Sac (yes sac, many people prefer the Davis station because it is easier to get to even if slightly farther).” I’ve been aware of that Sac phenomenon for years. My understanding is that right now the Sac commuters are more likely to exit at Mace and come down 2nd Street and park on the street in Old East Davis for free rather than pay in the Amtrak lot, but it has been a while since I updated my info on that subject.
Would you see a parking lot on the Lincoln 40 lot as a City of Davis financed or privately financed venture?
Grok said . . . “Both of these are in the interest of economic development for Davis. having commuters come to Davis daily, particularly by the downtown can result in more business downtown. Providing easier parking by the freeway can encourage more people to come eat and shop in downtown as well.”
and Ron responded . . . “Interesting idea to promote nearby businesses, and to encourage more people to take the train.”
Grok and Ron, I’m trying to wrap my head around Grok’s idea that rail commuters to the Bay Area would stop in Davis to eat either before their outbound travel or after their return travel. I looked at the Capitol Corridor schedule and the 5:30 am Davis departure gets into Berkeley/Embryville/Oakland between 7:03 and 7:21, which gets the commuter to their office by 8:00. Then at the end of the day they catch either the 4:50 or the 5:30 return which gets them to Davis between 6:22 pm and 7:07 pm. If a commuter stops in Davis for dinner, then he/she gets home to his/her spouse and children at about 9:00 pm, and then has to get up again the next morning at 4:00 in order to catch that day’s 5:30 outbound. Is that kind of daily grind really going to “encourage more people to come eat and shop in downtown Davis”?
And students could live in cars and plug in at night instead of in apartments. Of course building parking lots on Olive Drive instead of student housing doesn’t help solve the housing shortage.
Matt, I believe parking is currently free at the Amtrak station and 4th and G with a free parking pass from the train station, so commuters park in both of those locations. Some commuters do park in Old East Davis where it is allowed but it has more to do with parking availability than cost. The Amtrak lot fills up by 6:30am most days.
Matt, in regards to your comment that you have a hard time imagining rail commuters stopping in Davis on their way home to shop. Some do now. Frankly, if you have a busy day the easy place to grab a bite or some small necessity is even more helpful. Plus, a new parking facility could also provide an opportunity to have business that cater a little more to the commuters as detailed above (and generate more sales tax revenue).
Commuters are going to several places along the capital corridor and they do it at different times of day, and different days of the week. It seems that many of the commuters who travel all the way to the bay area don’t do it every day and have some flexibility about their hours. Work is changing and becoming less location and time specific for may professionals and it provides greater flexibility for commute times. Additionally taking the train is much less of a grind than driving.
This proposal definitely takes advantage of a Davis strength – there are very few cities that have capital corridor stops and ridership is growing on the train.
I forgot to mention a lot of commuters work on the train so the work day can have very different hours than you suggest, although there certainly are commuters that come through Davis that do exactly what you suggest.
Grok, let’s drill down into your thoughts a bit. Let’s take the typical commuter with spouse at home, either as a full-time child rearer or after a day of work. Is stopping for an eat out meal on the way home really going to stoke harmony at the family domicile? For workers who are unmarried your possible scenario might work, but I could be wrong, but I don’t see it working well for working families.
With that said, it gives me the opportunity to re-ask my restaurant magnet question a slightly different way. Imagine you have just gotten off the eastbound Amtrak or Capitol Corridor train. What Davis restaurants would magnetically draw you there for your dinner meal?
Matt, You are focused on the wrong things here. Let me redirect you. Reason #1 to build parking at the Lincoln 40 site is to make more parking for the downtown to make it easier for more people to visit downtown. An Olive Drive parking garage would provide easy downtown parking for people coming from the freeway or south Davis. This would be a boon to Downtown businesses and could be used to encourage people to come into town to dine or shop. Better parking, especially easy to get to from the freeway will bring more people into the downtown and do it without adding more cars to the downtown streets. More people in the downtown = more $ spent in Davis. More $ spent in Davis = more tax revenue.
There is space to build a garage large enough that train parking can also be located there thus creating more space for short term parking in the Amtrak and C street lots, (and as you note probably getting some cars off the street in old East Davis to a lesser extent). It was pointed out that this might bring more commuters from out of town to use the Davis train station. My response to that is great. Davis already has a quite a few commuters from out of town using the Amtrak and C street lot for free, have them use the new lot and charge. The lots will all charge as Davis moves to pay to park systems for all of downtown. That is not intended as a major revenue stream but it would certainly help pay for the lots and place a value on parking downtown.
Let’s get those commuters off the freeway, and a nice side effect of having commuters use the Davis transit hub is commuters bring their $ to Davis too. Commuters may not be in town to by a mattress, but they will by a coffee or a quick meal. They may even occasionally stop for more like a birthday gift.
Revenue can be further gained from commuters by having commuter oriented businesses located at the Olive parking garage. Have a car repair place so it’s easy to drop your car off the way to work. Have a dry cleaner so it’s easy to get your suites cleaned (FYI if you want to see Davisites and suites, your best bet is probably going to the train station on early weekday mornings.) Cable Car was could certainly capitalize on accepting cars from the lot for detailing in the morning.
You raise concerns for the family life of commuters, which is big hearted of you but you fail to understand how people are commuting through Davis. There certainly are many commuters who do the trip daily, but there are also a large number of commuters who do the trip a few days a week or even a few days a month. Further the commute on the capital corridor is no horrible grind and may people use the time for work or leisure
While I am sure everyone appreciates your concern for the wellbeing of commuter’s marriages I think your understanding of how people work and commute is about a decade out of date, at least in this region. The types of jobs that work well with this type of commute are not traditional 9-5 clock punching jobs. They are intellectual capital jobs that often require less face to face or geographic specific work locations and these commuters do not commute daily. Besides, sometimes stopping and having a slice of Pizza before heading home is better for a marriage.
Hopefully this better explains what I intended as a modest proposal. We should play to our existing strengths. Davis has a nice Downtown that draws people in for food, entertainment and a little shopping. We should capitalize on our strength and build more parking for the downtown to help downtown businesses bring in more customers. Build it with easy freeway access on Olive with a tunnel for pedestrian access into the downtown. Build it in a way that it also moves commuters out of the closer in Downtown lots. There is no better place than the Lincoln 40 site for a new parking garage and the city is losing a huge opportunity to increase sales tax revenue if they build mediocre train adjacent apartments that are not well attached to the rest of Davis.
Grok, I understand all the Supply side reasons you have reiterated in your thoughtful thorough comment above. I don’t (and haven’t) disagreed with any of those ideas. However, the Supply side is only half of any microeconomic equation. What my questions are designed to flesh out (and you have thus far not engaged) is how the potential Demand brought by the additional commuters driving from Sacramento, Dixon and Woodland would translate into real Demand for existing (or not currently existing) downtown Davis businesses.
Your example of the two new services businesses built into the parking garage are good ones, but they are services, not retail. Your example of Cable Car Wash is also a good one, but again not retail. So far you have not identified any downtown retail businesses (retail or restaurants) that have the “magnetic” characteristics that are going to cause a business commuter to get off the train, walk through the new bike-ped tunnel and patronize the business’ products and/or services (like that slice of pizza you mentioned). I ask this question because their alternative is to get off the train and get in their car and drive back to a location close to their home in Sacramento, Dixon or Woodland and patronize a business that is more familiar to their spouse and children.
Said another way, what are the existing strengths of Davis’ downtown that would cause a commuter to walk through the bike-ped tunnel to satisfy a specific real Demand that they have.
Tia has provided the very good example of bringing dinner home to the spouse and children. If you were a Sacramento, Dixon or Woodland based parent, what Davis restaurant would you go to to purchase your take home meal for your family?
I think I see what your missing Matt. The primary reason to build this garage is because downtown Davis is a destination that already draws people to it for a verity of reasons. Demand is already there, but parking supply is not sufficient. The demand is largely for entertainment, and dinning, but there are also nice stores that can and do benefit from visitors from both in town and out.
You seem insistent that these visitors are commuters dropping in from 80 on their way home, but that is not what I am suggesting. Perhaps it is unclear because of the extensive discussion of train commuters. The primary reason to build additional parking is to meet the existing demand for access to downtown Davis for people who are coming to downtown Davis, to come to downtown Davis. It is not one store alone that drives this demand, it is the Downtown in its total that creates the sense of place that is desirable to visit. It is all of the stores, bars restaurants and events together. With the increase of supply, especially easy freeway accessible supply this demand will increase.
Grok, help me along in my due diligence. On average what percentage of the proposed Lincoln 40 garage do you believe would be filled by the cars of commuters and what percentage by non-commuters (presumably using the downtown to shop or work)?
I don’t think I am in a good position to answer that. More research would be needed to really answer this.
here is what I can tell you:
A quick survey of the Current Amtrak lot looked like there were about 100 spaces and it fills every day by 6:35am or so. The Lincoln 40 parcel is at least that big (not including land occupied by existing structures, but to be conservative lets say you could fit 100-120 parking spaces on a flat lot. Under that scenario it would be 100% commuters from Davis or other places, but it would free up ~80 space in the current Amtrak Lot, allowing for increased handicap parking closer to the station.
With a multi-story parking garage, the percentage would change dramatically depending on how many floors were built and how many spaces could be fit on each floor.
Really though this needs much closer professional research to give a real answer. It is very hard to tell how many cars are parked in other places that would be parked in the new lot or how many cars a new lot would attract.
The size of the lot and the amount of money charged to park there each day needs to cover the financing costs of two major capital construction components . . . the parking venue itself and the grade-separated crossing (either over or under the UPRR) to the Amtrak Station and Downtown. On May 3rd Staff presented four overcrossing alternatives of the north-south UPRR tracks at Cannery with costs ranging from $6.4 million to $7.8 million, as well as two undercrossing alternatives with costs ranging from $10.4 million to $10.7 million. Increased sales tax revenue from Downtown will help cover the annual costs.
Based on what we learned from the Cannery CFD, the bond amount will need to be $2 million more than what is needed for the project, so for the grade separated crossing that would mean either an approximately $9 million bond (for an overcrossing) or a $12.5 million bond (for an undercrossing) That means a range of a high of $900,000 a year of debt service for 30 years down to a low of $550,000. Covering the cost of construction of the parking structure itself would be over and above those annual grade separated crossing debt service costs.
I recognize that that there are significant costs involved here and it definitely merits exploring. There are several parts to the equation to determine if this pencils out in the long run and I am not going to pretend to even begin to be able to come up with the numbers in a blog posting. What I can tell you is the Cannery grade separated crossings are all significantly different from what would be done at the train station because the Cannery crossings had to address the F street channel. Train station crossing may cost less significantly less.
The concept of a parking garage to service downtown and the train station is interesting Grok. Given the size of the parcel, how many parking places do you think we could get in a garage there?
I am no expert on how many parking spaces can fit in a given lot. The open Lot where Lincoln 40 is proposed is a little larger than the Amtrak lot which I think has around 100 spaces. So if it where one story it would probably be over 100. Plus another 100 or so for every story. That is a conservative estimate, it could be more. If built to fill the whole area, I think it would be one of the larger lots in Downtown Davis. If it where multistory it certainly could be the largest.
Of course the site could also have space for a business. For example a car repair place, a car detailer, a dry cleaner, or a coffee cart could be located as part of the parking facility to cater to commuter needs.
in some of my fave towns up and down the coas one can see unique solutions.., such as in long beach, they have a lovely open air tram that drives the main shopping areas and folks don’t clog up the streets with their cars and such…
Maybe Davis would benefit from some version of SF’s Legacy Business Registry & Preservation Fund:
http://www.sfheritage.org/legacy/legacy-business-registry-preservation-fund/
Or have too many legacy businesses already departed?
Roberta wrote:
> Maybe Davis would benefit from some version of SF’s
> Legacy Business Registry & Preservation Fund
If private citizens wanted to help a historic business I’m fine with that but I don’t think it is a great idea to tax a sandwich shop or restaurant that is having a tough time as it is to “preserve” the Davis Wagon Wheel repair shop or Record and 8 Track tape store.
yep, it is kinda like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped….so many long time businesses have fled in recent years that are there hardly any legacy businesses remaining….. Davis Ace and Hibbert come to mind, but so many of the other decades old businesses are no longer around here…
the other day, I was driving down Main in Woodland, and I see a bunch of oldies but goodies which left Davis – some restaurants, the Sears home store, etc.
which left Davis and are now in Woodland…enjoying better rents, easier and free parking, and more customers and it is hardly further to get there instead of sitting in the traffic in Davis these days…
“So the examples you give me are all stores that actually opened here. So you have none. Your statement was actually false. There are no examples of stores that ‘wanted to locate here’ but were ‘told to go away.'”
Ross.
don’t forget, Tuesday morning was booted away recently and so was Mocha Joes and so was the compounding pharmacy in the Nugget mall at mace…
That from my discussions with their management…they loved Davis, and it was a good fit…my fave store near my Davis house…
Tuesday morning is still looking for a spot in Davis (or likely at this rate they will end up in a surrounding town)….
The new “developers” buying up the prime downtown and other Davis real estate want their kinda garbage in place…
do we need another starbucks in Davis? who would even go to that chain if they new any thing about health…and now we have that and no Mocha Joe’s….
as I keep saying those who show up in this town to make a buck are killing off the small businesses and instead installing more garbage commercial big chains…
Do not believe it was a cop undoing pharmacy and they left because owner got an academic job in Texas….but agree with Mocha Joes (which now has been empty for almost 2 yrs I think). Starbucks (I am no fan and avoid) finally opened and I saw folks lined up yesterday in drive thru line and very busy inside. Guess they did their homework….but I much prefer local too. On that I have found something we agree on Marina; have a good day!
Marina, you have piqued my curiosity. How do Mocha Joe’s and Starbucks differ for anyone who knows any thing about health?
I was a regular patron of Mocha Joe’s for many, many years, and I do miss it, but I’m not sure how my cup of black dark roast coffee there was more healthy than a cup of dark roast coffee at Starbucks.
Marina wrote:
> Tuesday morning was booted away recently and so
> was Mocha Joes
Mocha Joe’s was not “forced out” they got a great deal and decided to close.
Mocha Joe’s owners Jason and Sophie Te made a deal with the property management company, which plans to remodel the center. “Sooner or later, we planned to sell anyway,” Jason Te said, noting that he’s almost 60. “It’s been 18 years. It’s time to move on — and relax.” The Davis residents plan to stay here, and look forward to taking it easy. They’ve worked at least six days a week, Jason arriving at 4 a.m. to start baking, and Susan at 5:30 a.m. They don’t leave until after the shop closes at 5.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/business/mocha-joes-to-close-center-expansion-planned/
Woodland has always been the retail hub. It’s the city that serves the surrounding rural population, had and has the ag supply firms, had the larger retail outlets. Woodland was where Davis residents went to buy appliances and furniture in the 1970’s. Davis had a Sears catalog store; Woodland had the actual stores. Davis has had a couple of department stores that sold to a broad demographic, but their focus was always heavily on the student population. Woodland has retail, Davis has cars. The cities have been symbiotic in sales for decades, at least as long as I’ve been here (1974).
Prior to Second Street Crossing nobody had ever, to my knowledge, proposed a large-scale retail project here. The combination of demographics and the lack of freeway-visible (by which I mean I-80, not 113) and easily freeway-accessible land for that type of retail has been a major issue. Going down the freeway, the visible land is in auto sales. The university owns the rest of what would normally be freeway development, and then you’re in another county.
Davis can’t develop large-scale retail to draw customers from outside areas because there is no suitable place for it. Woodland and West Sacramento (and Dixon and Vacaville) had loads of retail-suitable acreage. This is what I mean when I have said repeatedly that the retail shortage in Davis is largely due to the history and geography and demographics.
There has never been a time or place for the retail development, except where the auto dealers are. And those auto dealers generate a good, large amount of sales tax revenues. Davis landowners didn’t come to the city and say ‘we want to build stores there’ and get rejected. So far as I know, the landowners wanted to build houses and auto dealerships. Nobody’s proposing significant retail and getting told no.
Even if we wanted another 15 – 20 acre retailer, that isn’t happening any more. The big retailers are finding they don’t need such a huge physical footprint. Downsizing stores is the trend. There is going to be a glut of vacant big-box property. There are several categories of retail that are shrinking rapidly: electronics, office supplies, music, bookstore chains, and more. The big-box general merchandisers won’t need to have display space in those categories, and the specialty retailers are already shrinking or disappearing (Office Max merging with Office Depot, Best Buy on the skids, etc.). With continued slumping sales in many categories, Walmart is shifting their focus to small grocery outlets — groceries are one of their only profitable divisions over the last few years. Malls are a thing of the past, big box is a thing of the past. Outside analysts and business planners don’t see Davis as a place to invest in new businesses largely because of the demographics. They see Davis as a nice bedroom community. If Davis wants to draw people to spend money here, it isn’t going to be by building the same big retail stores people can go to anywhere else. It is going to be by being cute, funky, hip, and focusing on small retail and food shops. Destination shopping and dining, not mass merchandise. Businesses that fit with the image Davis already has, and the community identity Davis residents share.
Don: Overall, I think you have this right.
Don,
As the new person in this town I completely agree with you. Davis has two obvious assets, walk-ability and college students. The pedestrian/bike tunnel idea from Olive drive to the train station is great, put parking on olive and let people walk to downtown. If possible make it lucite so people can look up and see the tracks.
People also like to hang where young, vibrant, attractive people are. Even if they go to separate venues the energy pervades.
Actually, given utilities, clearances, etc., an OH crossing (not UG), a la Emeryville Station, makes much more sense… probably similar costs given ADA requirements for grade, and land available…
yes, Don…back in the 70s Woodland was way larger in terms of residents and retail, and industrial and all other ways…it was and still is the county hub….
West Sac was likely bigger due to the port and such, but most of us didn’t really pay it any attention on the other side of the causeway, it seemed more an appendage to Sacramento than a true part of Yolo…….
Frankly summarized these points of agreement from a discussion on this topic in 2013. I thought it was noteworthy enough to copy and paste it out then.
– Every commercial building in town, and every piece of empty real estate zoned commercial should immediately be rezoned to allow for retail (or at the very least, conditional use retail).
– The zoning of the core should be changed to allow for taller buildings, with every building located between 1st street and the South side of 5th street, and between the railroad tracks and the University property, rezoned to allow for retail.
– Stop allowing the university to take over prime commercial space for more offices when that real estate would make great retail space.
Conditional use I can “buy”… automatic rezone is silly and would likely have unintended consequences… and probably not good ones…
This is nonsense, Plenty of retail would come to Davis if it were not so hard to deal with the no growth nonsense. Ross wanted to go where Grocery Outlet is but got too much resistance to name one as Don Shor requested. Too bad as Ross is a great chain that sells discounted stuff. The fight over Target was ridiculous and prevents others from trying. Davis needs a good electronics store and a big box hardware store. There are none between West Sac or Woodland and Vacaville. Of course a big Garden Supply store would put Don Shor out of business just as a big box hardware store would kill Davis Ace. I get that people would be hurt but it wouldn’t hollow out existing retail if it was done correctly and was done at a rate that the community could absorb without destroying existing retail areas. The spaces created could be taken over for other uses. The real question here is why should Davis residents pay more to protect existing businesses from competition.
No it wouldn’t.
I do happen to think that singling me out this way is inappropriate when you post under a pseudonym.
Just exactly like TJ Maxx. Same demographic.
You might not have noticed that electronics stores have been going out of business all over the country. A big box hardware store would seriously damage our core downtown business.
It’s clear you don’t know much about retail, whoever you are.
Ross is cheaper than an TJ Maxx…a coupla steps below, yet much of the same stuff is sold….
and, yes, those who post under pseudonyms should not be allowed to take inappropriate pot shots …and keep their agendas hidden while…. those who post openly get called out for the above …..(like Don) and me for (for excample by ryankelly for behavior unbecoming a UCD manager ha ha)….
Are there other business people posting arguments against competition? I didn’t insult Don Shor I simply stated the obvious that a big box retail garden supply store in town would be bad for his business and in my anonymous opinion could very well put him out of business. As for competition with Ace that space could easily be converted to other uses.
a Ross woulda been nice..much more suited to our town than Dollar General…now if only they had wanted to go into that mall…
Target was not needed and still isn’t….of course, some may disagree… but I find no need to ever set foot there…
And, those who are smart, and understand that one gets what they pay for, will pay for the service a true garden store like Don provides, instead of cheap, pesticide laden garbage one gets in the big-box “garden shops”…
Matt
“ If a commuter stops in Davis for dinner, then he/she gets home to his/her spouse and children at about 9:00 pm,”
Not if he/she calls ahead and picks up dinner for the whole family thus allowing the other spouse to also have a break. We do this on occasion even now that there are only two of us.
yes, and my fave place is the Farmer’s Kitchen Cafe Subscription service…if someone is not familiar, I highly recommend you find out about it…it is certainly not cheap, nor is it particularly fast and so on…but when one needs a break and doesn’t eat garbage, like fast food, nor stuff cooked in the most horrific GMO laden soybean oil nor canola, that is the place to “pickup”….and head home… there are a handful of other places that do not use those Obama gov subsidized commodity oils…but they are very rare in this town….
Great point Tia. Now imagine you are a Sacramento resident commuter who has just gotten off the train in Davis. You want to make your spouse and children smile when you walk in the door with dinner. Will you want that food to be hot or not-so-hot?
Bottom-line, I’m going to pick up the meal as close as possible to home so it is as hot as possible. Further, I am going to want to pick up the meal from a place that is a favorite of the children.
Which gets me back to another variation of the question that I asked Grok, Imagine you have just gotten off the eastbound Amtrak or Capitol Corridor train. What Davis restaurants would magnetically draw you there for picking up your take home dinner meal for your spouse and children?
I realize I am being doggedly practical in my approach to this, but that’s how I roll.
Matt, Tia makes a great point here, but you seem determined to argue against increased parking for the downtown because it will somehow be bad for people’s marriages. You have been doggedly questioning the dollars commuters will spend in Davis and overlooking the benefits to more parking for the Downtown, and specifically freeway accessible parking that avoids the Richards tunnel. Since your focused on the commuter question, why don’t you go down to the station this evening and talk to some people when they get off the train. then go over to the Village Bakery and talk to them about how may commuters they see in their store. The primary benefit to a parking garage on Olive is it can help bring more people into the downtown to spend their money. Secondarily, commuters also spend some money downtown.
Grok, I will definitely go to Village Bakery and do exactly what you have suggested. Good suggestion. That will help illuminate at least one data point on the Demand side.
With that said, your answer above has created some interesting parking Supply questions. It is easy to see how the proposed parking structure would support Sacramento-based Capitol Corridor commuters. The would be coming west on I-80 and exit on Olive Drive and then drive down Olive to the Richards intersection when they leave the parking structure. Woodland and Dixon based commuters would access the parking structure through the Olive-Richards intersection both coming and going. What portion of the Davis resident population do you think the structure would serve?
FWIW, doggedly questioning alternatives is what due diligence is all about. All we are practicing here is the due diligence that is typical of good business analysis..
The Sac, Woodland, Dixon commuters are already using the station, only currently they largely come through the Richards tunnel coming and going. Admittedly better parking would increase this some, but that should be counter balanced by charging to park and the fact that commuters will spend some money downtown. As noted above, the traffic impacts on Olive and Richards are an issue, but it does take people out of the Richards tunnel who currently use it to get to the train station and is possibly better than the addition of the Lincoln 40 apartments.
this is a very important question and the answer as I see it has several levels to it.
1) The business owners downtown would benefit from increased patronage both by increased accessibility for Davis residents and visitors
2) A Olive Drive parking garage would be a good place for people from South Davis to park avoiding the Richards tunnel.
3) People from Davis west of 113 often use 113 and 80 to get to South Davis and to some locations in downtown. With better accessible parking, some people from west Davis would park on Olive to access Downtown.
4) People from all over Davis would benefit from the increased availability of parking in the c street and Amtrak lots created by shifting commuters to the Olive lot.
5) People in Old East Davis (in the areas were there is not currently permit restricted parking) would benefit from having fewer Train commuter overflow parked on their streets.
6) All of Davis would benefit from increased sales tax revenue from Downtown Davis.
Again, thank you for the thoughtful answer.
(1) is certainly the principal goal. If (1) isn’t achieved then the project doesn’t have an economic rationale.
(2) makes sense. With a dedicated right turn lane built into the northbound Richards Corridor traffic, it is even arguable that South Davis automobiles with Downtown shopping/eating on their mind(s) would add less congestion to northbound Richards by going to the Olive parking structure than they would by going through the tunnel . . . more free turns. Adding substantially to the traffic volume coming out of Olive would mean significant changes to the programming of the Olive-Richards traffic light, but that can be modeled to see what the impact would be.
(3) is more intriguing. I can’t see the west of 113 cars going to South Davis using the Olive parking structure, and given the significant volume increase on Richards caused by the UCD enrollment explosion, I’m not sure many west of 113 cars still use that loop route to Downtown.
(4) is a symbiotic twin to (1)
(5) is also a symbiotic twin to (1)
Given the essential nature of (1), we come back to my questions about the impact of demand on the economic model of Downtown. I’m still not convinced that the external commuters from Sac, Woodland and Dixon are going to add any material sales volume to Downtown due to stopovers at either the beginning or end of their commutes (regardless of when that commute takes place). I do; however, see how your proposed structure would cause Davis residents to see Downtown as a less onerous shopping/eating environment.
With that said, in one of your prior comments you indicated that you find Davis a pleasant downtown to take walks in. What are some of your favorite stroll routes, and what do you see as the highlights n those routes. if Davis is going to promote strolling for its visitors it needs to provide them with more than a tabula rasa. other than strolling to the Farmer’s Market on Wednesdays and Saturdays (from wherever I have parked), I haven’t got much experience strolling the Davis downtown.
Matt,
I agree that “(1) is certainly the principal goal.” That is why it is (1).
I agree with your analysis of (2). Traffic impact is the toughest part, but I think it beats adding to the cars in the downtown.
“ I can’t see the west of 113 cars going to South Davis using the Olive parking structure” I am not trying to suggest that they would use the parking structure to go to south Davis, rather that travelling from 113 to 80 to the Richards off ramp is already used by people from west davis to go to south Davis and some places down town. With parking on Olive, it would be an even better route to parts of downtown for the same people from west Davis.
(4), (5) and (6) are indeed related to 1, but it is important to not how the benefits from one filter out into the community.
“I’m still not convinced that the external commuters from Sac, Woodland and Dixon are going to add any material sales volume to Downtown due to stopovers at either the beginning or end of their commutes” you are still missing the point that people from other towns come to Downtown Davis to enjoy downtown Davis. We are not just talking about commuter stop overs we are talking about Downtown Davis as a destination. Are you intentionally trying to avoid this? I have explained it several times now. People come to Davis from other communities to go to restaurants and shop. The easier it is for them to do that the more they will do it.
No, I’m not trying to intentionally avoid it. I simply don’t see it. I don’t see the magnets that would draw people from other cities to downtown. The Farmers Market twice a week I can see. That is indeed a magnet. First Friday Art About once a month I can also see. When I am downtown at Mishka’s or Peets, the vast majority of people who walk by fall into two categories, students and Davis residents. The Dixon and Woodland and Sacramento residents that I have seen at so many Farmers Markets while tabling over the years don’t appear as strollers moseying past downtown businesses like Peets and Mishka’s.
With that said, since I am an individual member of the Chamber I will talk to my contacts there to see if the Davis businesses have ever done a Zip Code sourcing study regarding the makeup of Davis consumer revenues. I’ll also contact the Yolo County Visitors Bureau.
Perhaps I am too focused an individual. Since arriving in the Davis Community in 1998 my strolls have been pretty limited. The Pence Gallery Garden Tour is one I frequent regularly, although that rarely includes Downtown locations. The UCD Arboretum is one I frequent regularly, although again that rarely includes Downtown locations. The Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday Brsssk Walkers 4-mile walk is one I do each week, but that never includes Downtown locations. Strolling through Village Homes is a pastoral respite, but far removed from Downtown. Bottom-line, the occasional First Friday Art About stroll is the closest to what you are describing. I’ll go look at the those visitor guides to see if there is anything that I’ve been missing.
With that said, the examples you have provided links to may be much more useful to others who are not as singularly focused as I am. Thanks for providing them.
Matt, there are scores of other events that bring people to downtown Davis throughout the year, you are pitifully underestimating the draw of downtown. There are also people who come to downtown Davis, just to come to downtown Davis. With more parking accessibility the numbers would increase.
No one is suggesting that this will solve every economic problem in Davis, but providing more and better parking options is important to the Downtown. Adding it on Olive provides the parking without adding to the downtown congestion.
Matt (and Grok):
In addition to seeing Davis as a destination itself, I see possibilities of increasing “stopover” visitors, on their way to/from the Bay Area (to Sacramento, the Sierra, Reno, etc.). It’s already happening among people I know, to some degree.
It may take some vision to see related possibilities that were previously mentioned but aren’t in place, e.g., the “fork-the-farm” movement – as I like to say (and related events), bird-watching, etc. This might appeal to stopover visitors.
In the “old days”, visitors stopped at the Nut Tree. Perhaps as traffic continues to get worse on I-80 (e.g, on weekends), travelers will again need a place to stop, eat, walk around, relax and wait for traffic to die down, for example. No other town along the I-80 corridor offers the unique, safe, walkable downtown that Davis has. (Much more appealing than a shopping mall, somewhere else along the I-80 corridor.)
Ron, I don’t disagree with the premise as a goal. What I’ve been trying to get Grok to engage is what destination attractions/magnets do we have now?
The US Bicycle Hall of Fame has potential, but its current location is a detriment to achieving magnet status. If it were one of the cornerstones of a multi-story convention center hotel complex at the location of the current Amtrak parking lot, with bicycle trails heading east north and west, then it would be a much more effective magnet. Bicycle riders from the Bay Area and Sacramento and beyond could get on the train with their bicycles and get off in Davis as the epicenter of regional bike trails.
When you say “It’s already happening among people I know, to some degree” what are the stopover people coming to see? I have heard many, many people describe Davis as an aesthetic backwater. Some have even called it an oxbow.
You are right, it will take vision to not just see the possibilities, but make them real. BTW, I am a very active bird watcher with over 500 species on my life list, and birders are as a rule very frugal as a group, and the locations where they go to see their birds are usually rural/open space venues like the Yolo Bypass. I’ve known many, many more birders who pack in their own food because they want to take the fewest possible minutes away from the place where the birds are . . . places like the Yolo Bypass or the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge or the top of Yuba Pass.
So, imagine you are talking to an out of town friend/acquaintance and you are trying to convince them that a stopover in Davis will be rewarding for them. What are the magnets/attractions that you are going to tell them about?
For the record, when asked that question I talk about a walk in the Arboretum. Going to the Saturday Davis Farmers Market for style over substance, and then the Sunday Sacramento Farmers Market for substance over style. The Putah Creek Cafe, the Palms, Grass Valley, the wineries in Plymouth, Murphys, Walnut Grove, Point Reyes, Mendocino and Napa/Sonoma . . . and for food the Fatted Calf, Lemon Grass, Vientianne, Yakitori Yuchuan, Thai Recipes, The Mustard Seed, Seasons, Konditorei and Guadalajara.
You will note that none of those suggestions involve the retail acquisition of “things.” At my age I am trying to get rid of things rather than acquire them. Harkening to one of our prior conversations, that may bias my perspective of how “magnetic” the appeal of Davis is for those considering a stop over.
Matt:
Just some thoughts:
The “basic” appeal of Davis is already in place. (Small, safe, walkable University town along the I-80 corridor.) A good place to stop and get off of busy/backed-up I-80 (which, no doubt, will become more and more congested). No other place like it, along I-80. Lots of small restaurants. A good/convenient “halfway” point, between the Sierra and Bay Area.
That’s what appeals to people I know.
Other attractions might include bird-watching in the adjacent bypass, visiting/walking through a world-class University (including the Arboretum, as you mentioned). As a side note (and not my main point), I’m not convinced that all bird-watchers are “cheapskates” 🙂
As more people retire (and the population ages), they have more time to stop and explore places that they might have bypassed when they were younger. These people may be looking for places to eat, events related to farm-to-fork, etc. Maybe some events at the University, itself (e.g., including Mondavi).
Yeah, retirees may not be looking to acquire “things” that much. (But, that never has been one of Davis’ strengths.) Frankly, most Americans have too much “stuff”.
Also, if easy/convenient parking is located adjacent to I-80, it will encourage people to stop and visit. (That’s one reason that I was intrigued by Grok’s idea, regarding the site on Olive.)
“What I’ve been trying to get Grok to engage is what destination attractions/magnets do we have now” – Matt
I have given you examples and I have posted links. You claim to be local yet you act like you can’t figure out that there are draws in Davis from out of town. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding and overlooking. Ron and I are telling you it is already happening – people come to Downtown Davis because its a nice place. Now your weaving some big convention center pie in the sky at the train station pipe dream.
take a step back, you have to start by assessing the good things you have, valuing them and finding ways to enhance them. its called playing to your strengths. Downtown Davis as a whole is one of Davis’s great assets. People come to downtown Davis regularly from Davis, the surrounding communities and thanks to the university, from around the world.
Your the retired guy running for City Council, if what Ron and I are telling you is not enough to satisfy your curiosity, why don’t you go downtown and talk to people at the local businesses about the need for parking and where their business is coming from .
Grok and Ron, the draws you have both described are what I call “inside out” draws. Those draws are what cause the residents of Davis to love Davis as a place to live. The draws that bring additional visitors (dare I say tourists) to Davis are “outside in” draws. Inside out draws can (and do as Ron has pointed out) bring some people here to experience the low key environment Ron has described (small, safe, walkable, with intelligent residents because of the University), but the question is do those inside out draws cause people to come visit “a nice place” and to spend meaningful amounts of money on retail purchases and/or meals? Our bucolic, intellectual town is what it is. It isn’t a magnetic, transaction-generating, economic engine. Playing to our existing strengths is indeed going to preserve small, safe, walkable, intelligent, bucolic and nice . . . and visitors like the ones the two of you have described can have all of the small, safe, walkable, intelligent, bucolic and nice aspects of Davis for free.
Oh Matt, your inside out outside in stuff is a bunch of nice words, but it’s not how the real world works. Many of the things that draw people to visit Davis, are the same things people who live in Davis like to do. And yes, people do make transactions when they are visiting. If there was more parking, there would be more people and more transactions.
I am finding it increasingly hard to believe what you are arguing today you have argued the following:
Arguing against bringing more people into the downtown to spend their money.
Arguing against providing easily freeway accessible parking for downtown
Arguing that there are not businesses in downtown that draw people to Davis.
Arguing that Downtown is not an economic engine of the city where meaningful transactions are made.
Arguing that people who commute on the trains through Davis are in danger of ruining their marriage if they stop and bring home dinner.
Arguing that Davis might not be a pleasant town to take walks in
Arguing that the farmers market is one of the only reasons to go downtown.
And arguing that a Hotel and convention center should be dropped into the Parking lot at the Amtrak station.
There is no way you really believe all of that, and if you do you should probably not run for city council.
Arguing against bringing more people into the downtown to spend their money. Where have I argued that. I have said that the current mix of retail businesses selling “things” do not represent much of a magnetic draw for non-Davis residents to come and buy things from retail establishments.
Arguing against providing easily freeway accessible parking for downtown. I don’t think you can point to a single statement by me arguing that.
Arguing that there are not businesses in downtown that draw people to Davis. Name one retail business that is a magnetic draw for people who life outside Davis.
Arguing that Downtown is not an economic engine of the city where meaningful transactions are made. I don’t think you can point to a single statement by me arguing that.
Arguing that people who commute on the trains through Davis are in danger of ruining their marriage if they stop and bring home dinner. Absolutely wrong. I said very clearly that when they choose to stop and bring home dinner, they will prefer to purchase that dinner food close to their homes in Sacramento and Woodland, etc.
Arguing that Davis might not be a pleasant town to take walks in. Again, you read more into what was said. Take walks that result in Downtown retail business sales.
Arguing that the farmers market is one of the only reasons to go downtown. For non Davis residents . . . that is the principal reason they go downtown
And arguing that a Hotel and convention center should be dropped into the Parking lot at the Amtrak station. Yes I do think that is an idea that merits serious consideration. It won’t happen, but it is an intriguing possibility, especially if it results in the relocation of the US Bicycle Hall of Fame to that central location acting as the hub for spokes of bicycle paths leading east, north and west.
OK Matt,you really need to explain yourself better because you seem to take both sides of all of these and seem to have a pretty gloomy view of the City you chose to move into.
Grok, you re reading political calculation into an evidence discussion that is full of more questions than answers. I’m not in any hurry to jump to conclusions.
If a person were to jump to conclusions, one conclusion that might make sense to infer about your commentary is that you appear to be just as opposed to a student apartment complex at Lincoln 40 as you are supportive of a downtown parking structure there.
🙂
Not the first time I’ve heard (and experienced) this, regarding communications with Matt. (I normally wouldn’t point it out, except for his interest in running for council.)
Never quite sure of his motivations, when he plays the “devil’s advocate”. Also, Matt doesn’t acknowledge that there is sometimes no such thing as truly “objective evidence”. (Or, more accurately – that it doesn’t necessarily tell the whole story.)
“you appear to be just as opposed to a student apartment complex at Lincoln 40 as you are supportive of a downtown parking structure there” now that’s a stretch, I hardly mention the Lincoln 40 apartments other than it is a better place for parking because it is the only sizable open lot adjacent to downtown by the freeway. pretty simple really. .But now I get it, your pushing for Lincoln 40. OK. are you a paid consultant on the Lincoln 40 project?
Grok, not a paid consultant on Lincoln 40 or any project. Haven’t ever been a consultant, paid or otherwise, on any project.
I do not see my role, either as a citizen or as a community leader, to be an advocate of any individual perspective or project. I do see my role, both as a citizen or as a community leader, to be a community dialogue facilitator within an open, transparent, reliable repeatable framework, so that the community can make informed decisions about its future. The one thing I do advocate for is doing our homework and robustly sharing the information garnered from that homework.
The questions I have been asking you are all part of that homework (due diligence) process.
Ron said . . . “Never quite sure of his motivations, when he plays the “devil’s advocate”. Also, Matt doesn’t acknowledge that there is sometimes no such thing as truly “objective evidence”. (Or, more accurately – that it doesn’t necessarily tell the whole story.)”
Ron, if the whole story has not been told, then all the evidence is not out on the table and more questions need to be asked in order to get that evidence into the dialogue.
As I have said many times before, my motivation is very straightforward . . . robust, open, transparent dialogue in support of a reliable, repeatable, consistent process.
If we commit our selves to that kind of thorough process then we will live the old Joe Tamburro mantra “Choice, not chance at a Butterball Dance.”
OK Matt, so you see yourself as a “leader” but not an “advocate,” but you advocated for Measure A.
Now you have self assumed a unellected job to create “robust, open, transparent dialogue in support of a reliable, repeatable, consistent process.” Yet you claim you are not advocating.
Leader: “the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.” So where are you leading to with your robost questions and transparent dialog? Is it all just about the process or do you have a moral compass?
The more you write, it seems the more you need to explain your self better.
Grok said . . . “OK Matt, so you see yourself as a “leader” but not an “advocate,” but you advocated for Measure A.”
I suspect that you and I have very different understanding of the term “advocate.” Merriam-Webster defines Advocate as follows:
Since Measure A was not before either a tribunal or court, the first definition does not apply. With regard to the second definition I neither defended nor maintained either the cause or the proposal contained in Measure A. In fact, I very clearly and publicly stated that as an elected representative of the people, on February 16th I would not have supported the rushed decision to put Nishi on the June ballot. In that high impact vote I would have defended and maintained a cause and proposal, and represented the interests of the people. All through the campaign I was crystal clear, my February 16th vote would have been “I oppose putting Nishi on the June ballot!” That is being an advocate.
I was also crystal clear that because both votes on Measure A were fatally flawed. Both voting choices were bad choices and I judiciously did not defend or maintain the cause or proposal of either Yes or No and I did not support or promote the interests of either Yes or No.
In a democratic process where each individual man/woman has only one vote, in the voting booth I am only representing myself, and just as importantly I have the right to cast that vote in secrecy. Unfortunately, the electoral process does not respect those boundaries and I acceded to the fact that people wanted to know what my personal vote was going to be. When answering that question when it came up I was always very clear that both choices were both bad and highly subjective. I went on to explain my opinion that each voter was faced with the prospect of choosing which of the choices was the least worst of the two.
I then reiterated my advocacy for a process that presented the voter with fully fleshed out proposals for which they could make an informed vote.
That is being an advocate.
Grok said . . . “The more you write, it seems the more you need to explain your self better.”I believe that is a problem of you own making . . . specifically in the listening bias that you bring to your reading of what I write. B oth you and Ron appear to want me to fulfill an advocate role, which is something that I have continually and consistently said is not how I see either leadership or my role. I do not place ideology over process. The one thing I do advocate for is doing our homework and robustly sharing the information garnered from that homework. The purpose of asking questions rather than making statements is to illuminate the full breadth of the evidence so that the community can make an informed collective decision about its future.
I don’t expect this of you. However, I do expect anyone (running for council) to have an overall/clear “vision”, regarding growth/development.
I think I understand the vision of most council members, better than I do your vision. (I suspect that some are more pro-development, and some are less.) And yet, they don’t comment on the Vanguard, much.
I think you have some weakness as a candidate (lack of understanding?), regarding this concern.
Well that’s just ludicrous Matt. You didn’t believe it should be on the ballot but you voted for it. You can split hairs all day, but you were clearly an advocate for Measure A. You may not have been the most vocal, but you where an advocate.
The idea that both voting yes and no measure A were fatally flawed is equally ludicrous. If Measure A is fatally flawed, then by definition the thing to do is vote against it. I fully expect you to make some mealy mouthed counter argument splitting hairs telling us all the reasons you supported the “fatally flawed” yes vote.
I notice you dodge the Moral compass question, I understand that that is hard for you to answer because you’re a process guy not a do the right thing guy.
Finally I could care less if you’re an advocate or a leader, but I do expect a council member to do both.
Ron said . . . “However, I do expect anyone (running for council) to have an overall/clear “vision”, regarding growth/development.”
Ron, do you believe the 65,000 residents of the City of Davis have an overall/clear “vision” regarding growth/development?
If your answer to that question is “no, I don’t think they have an overall/clear vision” then why is it appropriate for someone who is tasked with representing those 65,000 residents to impose his/her personal vision regarding growth/development on the community? That would be (in my opinion) hubris.
I do expect anyone running for council to be committed to fostering the necessary community dialogue so that the answer to the answer to the vision question transforms from “No” to “Yes.”
If your answer to the vision question is “yes, I do think they have an overall/clear overall/clear vision” then I personally disagree with your assessment, because I believe there are $655 million reasons the answer is “no, I don’t think they do.”
Grok said . . . “Is it all just about the process or do you have a moral compass?”
Moral decision making is a very complex, highly contradictory, and extremely personal venue. So much of it depends on what framework of moral decision-making is a person’s preference. In 2003 team at Santa Clara University published a paper that discussed five different approaches to thinking morally. Which of these five approaches describes your moral compass Grok, or, like so many people, do you have a moral decision-making model that doesn’t fit any of them?
· First off there was the Utilitarian approach, which was developed in the 19th century to determine what laws were morally best. To analyze an issue using the Utilitarian approach, we first identify the various courses of action available to us. Second, we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived from each. And third, we choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number.
· Next there was the Rights approach. Developed in the 18th century, this approach dealt directly with an individual’s right to choose for him or herself.
· Then there was the Fairness or Justice approach which is rooted in the teachings of the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle who said, “equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally.” Meaning that everyone should be treated equally with no favoritism shown or discrimination. This is a common aspect of most businesses today because of the anti-discrimination acts and equal opportunity employer (EOE) laws in effect.
· The teams’ next approach was the Common-Good approach. The team states that this approach focuses on “ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all.” To make a decision based on the common-good of all involved in the decision would be to make sure that that outcome provides a benefit to all individuals.
· Last discussed was the Virtue approach which “assumes that there are certain ideals toward which we should strive…”
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Leadership-Structures-and-Systems.jpg
In other words, the “evidence” that one chooses to examine is subject to bias, in the first place.
Ron, we have had that discussion before (see LINK)
Bias absolutely exists in everything we do. What we ask, What we say. And apparently what we remember.
We have, indeed. And now, you’ve got another person who’s had the same reaction to your approach. I’ve heard this from others, as well (perhaps not stated as directly).
The problem is that it “appears” that you are taking sides (without acknowledging this), while also perhaps not acknowledging “evidence” that contradicts the position that you’re taking on a given subject.
It’s rather frustrating, at times.
I also still find it strange that you don’t acknowledge that a council position IS a political position. (And, when you’re running for council, potential voters are trying to figure out what your overall position is, regarding growth/development.)
Ron there are a lot of people who don’t understand my let’s keep the pronoun “I” out of the process approach to community dialogue. Many of those people are driven by ideology. They are willing to pre-judge a situation based on how it comports with their ideology. My brain doesn’t work that way. At the heart of good decision-making, ideology does not trump process.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that that makes you and I very different beasts, because you appear to be a person who is first and foremost driven by ideology.
Further, is suspect that the primary reason that you feel that it “appears” that I am taking sides is that questions designed to get all the sides of an issue discussed mean that you are having to listen to things that go against the grain of your ideology. Your concern that the positions/evidence that you are presenting is not being “acknowledged” is indicative of the fact that you are passionately ready to jump forward to an ideologically based decision while I am dispassionately still very much ensconced in the evidence gathering stage.
I suspect that what you are looking for in a Council member is an ideological ally rather than a democratic process facilitator. If that suspicion is correct then I will regularly continue to frustrate you because I will (almost) always choose an inclusive process rather than an exclusive ideology.
With regard to your final paragraph, I do not believe that a Council position is a political position. Getting elected is a political process, but a Council position is one of public service, not politics. My beliefs are that politics is all wrapped up in the pronoun “I” while public service is about the pronouns “we” and “you.”
That’s just the way I roll. I am sorry that it is frustrating for you.
I’m not sure I’d call it “ideology”. I’d call it more of a “vision”.
For example, I envision Davis as a slow-growth community. I don’t think that most residents want it go grow beyond its current boundaries at this time, or build massive infill developments. You can look at the “evidence” that already exists (e.g., results of elections, concerns stated on the Vanguard and to the council, etc.), regarding most residents’ preferences. I realize that there are other views (as well as a “range” of views), but I think I have this right, overall. (Regardless, most won’t be swayed by additional “evidence”, one way or the other.)
You seem to be searching for “other” (additional?) evidence.
Regarding “acknowledgement”, I was repeating what Grok said to you (this time). But, I could see it, as well. You’re somewhat mistaken, in that I didn’t have a real strong opinion, this time. (I mostly observed the interaction between you and Grok.)
You’re right, that I would like to see more “slow-growth” candidates for council. But, I don’t expect this of you (even though at times you’ve denied being slow-growth, while other times you’ve said that we’re “closer” regarding our respective views than I might think – something like that).
Regarding Nishi, this wasn’t necessarily a “litmus” test, for me. However, I’m truly relieved that it wasn’t approved.
Regarding the council being a “political position”, it boggles my mind (to some degree) that you can’t see that it is. If you’re ever elected, you’ll have to make decisions at times that are not based on “objective evidence”. (That’s when you’ll need to rely on your internal “vision”, or “moral compass” – as Grok described it. And voters would probably like to know what your vision/compass is – before you’re elected.)
Most who run for counci have a “vision” regarding what they’d like to see for the city. (For example, fiscal stability, slow growth, whatever.) You’ve essentially never shared any vision, other than stating that you’d like to use an “evidence-based approach” (whatever that means).
I don’t find you frustrating, anymore. But, I still find that you have no vision that I can detect. And, that might be unfortunate, since I suspect that you do have a vision that might be worthwhile.
Not sure if I can explain it, any more than that. In any case, I hope that you don’t find this personally insulting.
I suspect that at heart, you’re not a politician. (And, you ultimately have to be a good politician, to be effective in any elected office.) You seem to have a negative view of politicians, since you’d apparently like to “distance yourself” from it (and perhaps hide behind “objective evidence”).
Thank you for the thoughtful response Ron. It is one of many that we have had over the recent months. I look forward to many more.
Ron said . . . “I’m not sure I’d call it “ideology”. I’d call it more of a “vision”. For example, I envision Davis as a slow-growth community.”
For a vision to truly be a vision (a course charted from one place to another place, or from one time to another time) it needs two key components . . . it needs to be sustainable and it needs balance. Absent those two key components it will in time become the arm of a hydra and eventually fall off. Said another way, it will be the first song on Savoy Brown’s third album.
Sustainability is achieved by successfully balancing three factors, Social Durability, Environmental Durability and Economic Durability.
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Sustainably-Durable-Triple-Bottom-Line.jpg
To date the slow growth arguments have covered those first two factors well, but have been almost wholly silent with respect to Economic Durability. A Vision that doesn’t address economic durability isn’t a Vision, it is an Ideology.
Ron also said . . . “You seem to be searching for “other” (additional?) evidence.”
Yes, I am. The evidence of Economic Durability.
Ron said . . . “Regarding the Council being a “political position”, it boggles my mind (to some degree) that you can’t see that it is. If you’re ever elected, you’ll have to make decisions at times that are not based on “objective evidence.” (That’s when you’ll need to rely on your internal “vision”, or “moral compass” – as Grok described it.”
I couldn’t disagree more. That approach is how Measure A got on the ballot. Instead of caving to an arbitrary decision timeline with inadequate information, you stand up and show some backbone and send the item back to Staff so they can do the job they should have done in the first place. The City Manager should not be putting items on the Council Agenda until and unless they are ready for an informed decision.
Ron said . . . “Most who run for Council have a “vision” regarding what they’d like to see for the city. (For example, fiscal stability, slow growth, whatever.) You’ve essentially never shared any vision, other than stating that you’d like to use an “evidence-based approach” (whatever that means). I don’t find you frustrating, anymore. But, I still find that you have no vision that I can detect. And, that might be unfortunate, since I suspect that you do have a vision that might be worthwhile.”
Perhaps if you visit my website www,matt4davis.com you may discover that the answers you have been looking for are right there on the front page. And if you click on the ISSUES link at the top of that page you will find 12 different drill-downs into key issues our City faces. That is more than all the other three candidates had . . . combined.
Ron also said . . . “Not sure if I can explain it, any more than that. In any case, I hope that you don’t find this personally insulting.”
I don’t find it insulting at all. I find it engaging and intellectually stimulating.
Ron concluded by saying . . . “I suspect that at heart, you’re not a politician. (And, you ultimately have to be a good politician, to be effective in any elected office.) You seem to have a negative view of politicians, since you’d apparently like to “distance yourself” from it (and perhaps hide behind “objective evidence”).
You are right. At heart I am not a politician. At heart I am a public servant. Davis is in the mess that it is currently in because all too often our politicians have licked their thumbs and held that wet thumb up in the air to see what way the wind is blowing from a very small interest group. That is the antithesis of being effective . . . and the bottom-line for Davis is that our own Staff has told us that we have $755 million of unfunded liabilities over the next 20 years.
The future of Davis is currently at a crossroad, and what Davis looks like in 20 years depends on which direction we choose to take. Politicians have produced our current direction … one that has mortgaged our future by:
— Letting our infrastructure deteriorate by deferring critical repairs;
— Surrendering $10 million and receiving $0 in return when the Council as a whole (with two dissenting votes) approved the Cannery CFD;
— Siphoning $1 million a year for 30 years of taxpayer money ($30 million total) out of the local economy and giving it to out-of-town bond brokers;
— Wasting $4 million per year by borrowing millions of dollars at a 6% interest rate while simultaneously squirreling away over $100 million in investment accounts that earn less than 1%;
— Giving unsustainable pay raises to employees through Consent Agenda decisions; and
— Reducing the levels of municipal services as they are pushed aside by rising retirement benefit costs, such as CalPERS projection of a 22% increase in employer contribution rates by 2021.
If we choose to continue that politicians’ path, Davis will face the specter of bankruptcy.
Although you have appeared to have missed it when it was published in a number of venues during the campaign, my Vision for Davis is to maintain and continue a high quality of life in an economically and socially sustainable way — preserving Davis as a community that nurtures our lives and the lives of our families — building a sustainable, resilient Davis 2030 – 2040 – 2050.
Classic Matt – spout a bunch of stuff with enough complexity, but never really state an opinion or much about your self, then try to get some one else to answer instead. No Matt, I am not the one running for City Council (2 years before the next election) you are, tell us about your moral compass or what ever you meant to call it. What are your values?
Your website really doesn’t say much about you except perhps the most tellingfact, “Woodstock on a $1.16 budget.” rather than this being some clever example about your thriftiness, it shows that you were totally unprepared and then relied on the kindness of others to survive the weekend, or maybe that is what you are suggesting electing you to city council will be like.
Matt:
You certainly are a “wealth” of information. I get overwhelmed by it, at times.
Just a couple of quick responses:
Regarding economic sustainability, I agree with some of the more “conservative” types, regarding the need to ensure that our costs are not allowed to outpace our revenue. I recall that Rich Rifkin (of all people) had some ideas that seemed pretty good, in an Enterprise article a couple of days ago. (For example, I recall that he suggested that the risk of rising health care costs be placed on retirees, instead of the government.) Perhaps the largest savings can still be found in public safety employee retirements.
If costs are not allowed to exceed revenue, that should help ensure economic stability. However, I also have some suggestions (near the end of this article), regarding further opportunities to replace some of the “older/uglier” commercial buildings (circa 1960s) in the downtown area. I appreciate many of the recent replacements that have already occurred, in the downtown area. (This should result in higher reassessments, and increased business opportunities.)
Regarding Measure A, the decision to put it on the ballot (at all) was a political decision. (Not just the “timing” of it.) I’m not attempting to debate it again, here. I realize that many had justifiable reasons to support it, but I’m pretty sure that the city made the right decision regarding that development (and all other developments that have been considered, under Measure R). (Also, I think that some may have supported it in the “hope” that it would relieve pressure to develop elsewhere. If so, I think that this is mistaken logic.)
As demonstrated by recent elections, comments on the Vanguard and to the council, I don’t think that the “slow-growth” movement is a “small interest group” (especially within Davis). (Not sure if that’s the group/movement you’re referring to.) However, I realize that some are more vocal than others, and that there’s a range of thought, within that movement.
That’s the difference between me and you Grok. You want self-centric and I want community-centric.
We have a text book example of self-centric in the Presidential Election. Is that what you want from your elected officials?
Hey – I think I just “fell for it” again! (You’re probably a little smarter than I am!)
Ron said . . . “Regarding economic sustainability, I agree with some of the more “conservative” types, regarding the need to ensure that our costs are not allowed to outpace our revenue. I recall that Rich Rifkin (of all people) had some ideas that seemed pretty good, in an Enterprise article a couple of days ago. (For example, I recall that he suggested that the risk of rising health care costs be placed on retirees, instead of the government.) Perhaps the largest savings can still be found in public safety employee retirements.”
Ron, the focus of Rich’s comments in his article is on the expenses that are currently included in the $53 million per year General Fund Budget. His comments in this particular article do not relate to the $755 million (over the next 20 years) that currently are not included in that $53 million General Fund Budget. So over and above Rich’s recommendations for attempting to keep the $53 million a year under control, we need to come up with an additional $32 million each year for the next 20 years.
For the record, I agree with you wholeheartedly that the “slow-growth” movement is not a “small interest group” in Davis.
O.K., Matt. I guess it’s a more long-term solution.
In keeping with Grok’s comments, what would you specifically do about it?
No Matt, your the one who is self centered and arrogant enough to think that after being trounced in one City Council election you should just keep running for office for another 2 years. That is hardly community-centric.
You still haven’t managed to answer a question about where your moral compass points or what your values are. Any one on city council eventually has to not just cast a vote, but campaign for what they believe in. For example, Brett recently chose to initiate a 2 by 2 with Yolo County Animal Services to try to work to lower the euthanasia rate. It is a value decision to decide that is important to do something like that. What are your values Matt?
What drives you to want to be on Council? don’t tell me it is just that you want good process.
Ron, I have previously published 15 specific steps I believe should be taken. You must have missed them. Here they are again.
Here is a start that I put together as I wrestled with the community’s challenges over the past 6 months.
Some of the positive steps I would take to address the challenges Davis faces
(1) Establish a Culture of Accountability within the City operations.
___ (A) Currently there is no Budgetary reporting to the public about what has been spent during the prior period, and whether the money spent was spent efficiently and effectively.
___ (B) No additional tax or extension of an existing tax would be approved for going to the voters until:
_______ (i) The staff provides a detailed scope of proposed and/or deferred capital infrastructure projects, as well as proposed new services, and
___________ (a) Said scope document shall include specific measurable success metrics for the proposed new services and projects, along with an inventory of the specific costs that will be incurred to provide said proposed services or complete said project;
___________ (b) Each deferred capital infrastructure project shall include its expected success metrics, as well as an anticipated budget; and
___________ (c) The scope document will be updated each year as part of the Budget adoption process;
_______ (ii) The staff provides detailed report/s in conjunction with or as a part of the annual Budget adoption process documents submitted to City Council that;
___________ (a) Reports the specific work done (accomplishments) the prior Fiscal Year on staff proposed services and projects
___________ (b) Defines where the revenues collected from any new tax/increased tax measure(s) spent on services and/or projects.
(2) Save $1 million per year of interest costs each year, every year by reducing the $14.65 million dollar net unfunded OPEB (Retiree Healthcare) liability down to $0.
(3) Pay off the $69 million of high interest rate bonds (averaging 5.66% interest rate), reducing our annual debt service costs $6.1 million … every year. Brett Lee has expressed grave concerns about this step in Council commentary. He appears to be worried that the funds used to pay off the bonds in question could go into default. His concern is heard, but because each of the bonds is backed by an existing, continuing revenue stream of payments, if an economic downturn caused broad economic problems down the road for the City as a whole, the continuing revenue streams would provide robust protection, because those revenue streams are property-based (Mello-Roos, CFD, etc.). Brett’s other concern is that the whole $122 million is not truly liquid, with some of it destined to pay for the costs of the WDCWA plant and the Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade. Before any final decision on how much, and what, bonds to pay off, a thorough, open transparent analysis should be completed by an independent financial expert. Such an analysis should take no longer than 30 days to complete.
(4) Then redirect that $7.1 million annual savings into maintenance/repair of our sadly neglected capital infrastructure (roads, parks, buildings, etc.).
(5) Work with Robb Davis to accelerate the completion of a full staffing analysis to determine match between service delivery needs and staffing, which will build on John Meyer’s April 2015 study completed last year, but largely unimplemented. This should save $1 million per year in employee costs
(6) Accelerate the completion of a thorough Business Process Re-engineering engagement to address poorly designed, inefficient, ineffective service delivery processes. At its second April meeting, the Finance and Budget Commission recommended immediate funding of $575,000 in the current fiscal year for this effort. That funding will come from the current year Budget surplus, and will be an investment in the community … a gift that keeps on giving budget savings year after year after year.
(7) Expand the 3-day (72 hour) notice period for public meetings mandated by the Brown Act to 10 days (240 hours) to ensure more open, transparent and inclusive processes. Staff Report material would be made available in full at the time of the meeting notice.
(8) Establish process standards for CEQA determinations, with, at a minimum, a focused EIR on any CEQA process that uses an outside expert/consultant to review a component of the environmental impact of the proposed project.
(9) Establish process standards whereby the findings of a focused EIR must be heard by the relevant City Commission covering that focused policy area.
(10) Establish process standards whereby all zoning variance requests must be declared at the time the project pre-application is filed. A public hearing on the declared zoning variance must be convened to get city-wide input regarding whether the zoning variance is in the best interests of the community
(11) Begin the process to change both the Zoning Code and Affordable Housing Plan to require any and all infill developments to provide the same proportion of affordable housing in the completed redevelopment as exists in the current land use. For example, Rancho Yolo is currently 100% affordable, therefore any redevelopment must also attain the same level of 100% affordability
(12) Based on the results of the completion of the full staffing analysis, establish employee compensation for all the redefined positions, matching the value of the services being delivered to the compensation level. Compensation will match the fair wages being paid in the marketplace for delivery of the same services, with the same level of employee tenure.
(13) Based on the results of the Business Process Re-engineering, completely replace the City’s out-of-date accounting information system. Implementing modern decision support technology designed to support the “best practice” human processes that emerge from the Business Process re-engineering.
(14) Work to change the planning process so that it promotes proactive thinking rather than reactive thinking. Sustainable Planning means we balance four key components, Social Sustainability, Economic/Financial Sustainability, Environmental Sustainability and Cultural Sustainability. Engage those four components with reliable, transparent, repeatable processes that engage the public, set clear expectations and then deliver on those expectations.
(15) To start that change in the planning process we have to assess the current status of our General Plan. My belief is that approximately 90% of our current citizen-based General Plan is still just as good as it was when it was adopted. The remaining 10% of the General Plan is causing 100% of our planning process problems, and there is no reason to tamper with the parts of the current General Plan that are still working well. We don’t need a “from scratch” citizens effort to recreate what is already good. We do need an inclusive citizen-driven update of the portions of the Plan that are not working well. That starts by decide how the various parts of the current Plan fall into the two categories … working or not working. Having an independent expert take a first pass at that categorization, and then share his/her assessment with the Davis community for discussion, adjustment and ratification will put us on the fast track to having the citizens weigh in on how the out-of-date portions should be updated … inclusively, transparently and openly.
That is fifteen things I would work hard to get done. The process for getting them done needs to be inclusive. It can’t be imposed on the citizens. It needs to flow from the citizens.
I believe these issues should be front–and-center in the public dialogue.
Since you asked Grok
In the just completed election I ran because of my belief that “If you are going to complain, you have to be willing to contribute.” I wanted to contribute to the quality of life in Davis by being your elected public servant.
I have been, and will continue to be, an Independent Voice for ALL Davis Citizens. If I had been elected in June, I would have been 75 days from my 69th birthday. Age 69 is way too late to start a political career, and as a result my campaign was not to be elected to political office, rather it was to become an elected public servant in support of the citizens and residents of Davis.
I will Fight for Sustainability . . . Economic Sustainability, Quality of Life Sustainability, Energy Sustainability and Environmental Sustainability. As good as the quality of life in Davis has been, there are significant threats to the sustainability of that quality of life.
The cracks we all see each day in our streets have appeared because we have not managed our finances prudently or responsibly. We have failed to do necessary maintenance to our bike paths, streets, sidewalks, park structures, pools, tennis courts, traffic signals, as well as our urban forest, playgrounds, irrigation systems, fire stations, and city building.
I am a Voice for Fiscal Responsibility. Our annual City Budget has all too often been created with an “out of sight, out of mind” perspective. Our leaders have touted the level of our General Fund reserve, while at the same time not acknowledging the massive number of dollars that was accumulating outside the boundaries of the formal budget document. We simply have not been honest with ourselves.
The City of Davis needs to Pay Its Bills just like every individual Davis household does. We need to live within our means. We can’t continue to hide our deferred maintenance costs off the books. Hiding from our financial obligations doesn’t work in our personal lives. Pretending it works in our city government is both foolish and wrong.
That is my moral compass.
Matt:
Skimming through this, some of your ideas to essentially “increase efficiency” sound good.
Regarding development/growth, what do you personally value? In other words, if there are two conflicting positions (with some advocacy on both sides), which one would you choose?
Example – On the one hand, low vacancy rate combined with University plans to expand (without a final LRDP in place to address it). Some complaints regarding getting “pushed out” of the market.
On the other hand, an existing population that (for the most part) doesn’t want peripheral development, or large-scale infill.
Short of conducting an election or formal survey, what would you do? (Welcome to a “political decision” that you might have to make.)
Matt, looking at this epic thread, I think this quote of yours might sum up the problem these guys have with you. It’s a nice thing to say, but eventually you would have to vote on contested issues.
Fred said . . . “Matt, looking at this epic thread, I think this quote of yours might sum up the problem these guys have with you. It’s a nice thing to say, but eventually you would have to vote on contested issues.”
Thanks for joining in Fred. Your assessment is correct. Eventually one does have to vote on contested issues . . . and the issues that Ron has shown the most concern about are the ones that (A) are the most contested and (B) would be most impacted by a robust community dialogue leading up to a General Plan Update that the citizens themselves chart the direction of with the results of their participation in that public dialogue process.
Prejudging the outcome of that public dialogue process makes no sense to me. As a community we are woefully short on answers about (and a plan for) what it will take to build a sustainable, resilient Davis 2030 – 2040 – 2050. The vast majority of Davis residents are living in the present, and the rhythms of their personal lives do not cause them to engage the reality of the massive $655 million (and growing) freight train that is barreling down the tracks at us.
The questions Ron asks about in his comment right above yours, development/growth, low apartment vacancy rate, working families getting “pushed out” of the rental housing market, peripheral development, and large-scale infill all have to do with three key themes . . . land use, taxes, and paying our bills.
Those are very big, very important and very interlocking issues, and in order to have a community plan that all the residents understand, the answer to Ron’s “Short of conducting an election or formal survey, what would you do?” question, is that you conduct a formal community dialogue.
Elections are Manichean. They resolve down to narrow questions of Yes or No. They are not holistic. Measure A said “No.” If the Council put a 20-year parcel tax to the voters that would cover the $655 million (soon likely to become something in the vicinity of $755 million due to the PERS announcement that Rich Rifkin wrote about last Sunday, what do you think the chances would be that its approximately $3,000 per parcel per year level would get a “Yes” vote? In addition, elections have as much to do with theater as they do community consensus.
So, Ron, on the issues that you feel so strongly about, my principled answer is that it is essential to conduct the formal survey . . . and prejudging the outcome of that robust/holistic community dialogue is not in my DNA.
Bingo! (Thanks, Fred.)
Man, that would be one important (and contested) survey, including the exact “wording” of it. You’d probably need a “survey” just to decide on the wording of the subsequent “survey”. Given the number of controversial proposals that would arise, there would probably be a lot of surveys.
If I were running for council, I would probably just say “here’s my basic position” regarding various issues, and let the voters decide if they wanted to support me to represent them.
It seems like you’re trying to take the “personal responsibility” out of politics, and consult the general population whenever attempting to make a controversial/contested decision. All such decisions will essentially be subject to a Measure R-type vote/survey. (I know that you’ll disagree with that comment.)
Just wondering if you would also conduct a survey to determine if a proposal should be placed on the ballot in the first place?
I don’t know if your overall method for dealing with contested/controversial decisions will work.
Matt:
Or, perhaps you’re proposing one “massive” survey, to essentially cover all areas of planning. Yeah – “that’s the ticket”! (I can’t help making some sarcastic comment regarding this.)
🙂
Matt:
I agree that most of the current general plan is fine. But, just wondering how you determined that “90%” of it is “working well”? Did you conduct a “survey” to determine this? Also, which “portion” of the plan comprises the 90%, vs. the 10% (in your view)? In other words, where (e.g., locations) exactly are the “problems”? (It seems somewhat “out of character” for you to make such a statement, without “consulting the community”, first.)
Ron said . . . “Or, perhaps you’re proposing one “massive” survey, to essentially cover all areas of planning. Yeah – “that’s the ticket”! (I can’t help making some sarcastic comment regarding this.)”
Ron, it’s called a General Plan Update.
Ron said . . . “I agree that most of the current general plan is fine. But, just wondering how you determined that “90%” of it is “working well”? Did you conduct a “survey” to determine this? Also, which “portion” of the plan comprises the 90%, vs. the 10% (in your view)? In other words, where (e.g., locations) exactly are the “problems”? (It seems somewhat “out of character” for you to make such a statement, without “consulting the community”, first.)”
Ron, since you were able to go back and find where I wrote the specific 90% figure, then you can (1) also find the rest of my statement about how well (in a broadest terms guesstimate for the purposes of Vanguard discussion) the current General Plan is functioning, and (2) also find my recommendation for a PROCESS that will help us determine in much less broad terms how to proceed forward with an effort to transform those broadest terms into targeted dialogue., and (3) find how I responded to the concerns Eileen Samitz raised about the 90% broadest terms guestimate.
Since you appear to be interested in how I put together my discussion promoting toss-up questions (a nod to Allen Ludden and the GE College Bowl), here ishow Iput together that 90% figure. First, I went to the Table of Contents of the General Plan (see LINK). Second I referenced the number of Chapters in the General Plan (approximately 30). Third, I probed my recollection about which of those 30 chapters were creating any appreciable amount of discussion or extra work or GP Amendments (I came up with 4 at the time, but would add a 5th now) and instead of reporting 86.67%, which would be cumbersome (and meaninglessly cumbersome) for discussion purposes I rounded to 90%. 80% would have served just as well, but for the purposes of discussion both say the same thing . . . specifically that the citizen-driven plan for the most part is functioning well, and that only a few specific sections are running into regulatory limitations/constraints.
Ron said . . . “If I were running for council, I would probably just say “here’s my basic position” regarding various issues, and let the voters decide if they wanted to support me to represent them.”
Ron, that would indeed be the easy way out. It would be licking your thumb and holding it up in the wind to determine your fate. I prefer to roll up my sleeves and do the hard work necessary to truly get a sense of the pulse of the community, not just the pulse of a small portion of the community.
Ron said . . . “It seems like you’re trying to take the “personal responsibility” out of politics, and consult the general population whenever attempting to make a controversial/contested decision. All such decisions will essentially be subject to a Measure R-type vote/survey. (I know that you’ll disagree with that comment.)”
As I said to Fred, elections are both Manichean and theatrical. Measure A was a perfect example. The only choices were Yes and No, and the masterful work of Colin Walsh putting together the daily activity of the No On A Facebook page with its attention grabbing memes took advantage of that polar Yes-No duality. Community dialogue leading up to the tough decisions about a General Plan Update will create a playing field that will set the community’s expectations about Social Durability, Environmental Durability, Economic Durability and Sustainability. Those expectations will guide Council members, Commission members, Staff, residents and project applicants alike.
Matt:
I would guess that 90% of the city is not under threat of redevelopment, regardless of anyone’s analysis.
The 10% is the concern. Part of the problem is that some may be (somewhat) supportive of increasing density/development (in theory), as long as its not in “my backyard”. (Under your plan, 90% would essentially have “nothing to worry about”.) Then, the “unlucky 10%” might (uniquely) bear the burden, as a result. (Part of the weakness of a survey.) As I said above, surveys have limitations, depending on the questions asked.
On a related note, I think that some may have supported Nishi, in the (mistaken) belief that this would reduce development pressures in their own neighborhoods.
Regarding your other point, I don’t view “taking a position” on something as an “easy way out”.
This is my final comment on this thread, regardless of your response.
Ron, your single-minded ideological approach is very clear in your response above. When you asked for clarification of how I arrived at my 90% figure, I referenced both the 30 sections (some would call them “elements”) of the General Plan and Table of Contents that lists those chapters/sections/elements. Nonetheless you “heard” what I said through the filter of your slow-growth ideology and translated my words into your statement, “I would guess that 90% of the city is not under threat of redevelopment, regardless of anyone’s analysis,” which, of course, is a very different analysis than the expert analysis that I included in my step 15 of my 15 Positive Steps I would take to address the challenges Davis faces (quoted below)
I already anticipated this response from you. (See comment above.)
Also, you suggested a “survey” (or “surveys”?). (Please see my responses to that suggestion, as well.)
Your basic idea of engaging the community more is admittedly appealing. However, I think there’s significant challenges in doing so (see comments above). And ultimately, I don’t think you’d be able to avoid “taking a stand”, regarding contested decisions.
But, I’ll take you at your word that you essentially have no direction/values, other than attempting to adhere to the desires of the community at large (while challenging others to help solve concerns, along the way). Hard to believe that one goes into politics without any vision, other than that.
With that, let’s put an end to this thread (probably to the relief of all other Vanguard readers)!
Can’t resist responding to this.
Suggest that you go back and read the concerns that I raised, to see if they’re all “ideologically-driven”. (I was trying to show you some practical concerns, if you rely solely upon what you describe as “evidence-based” information gathering.)
For someone who prides themselves on “listening”, I’m finding that you’re not doing a very good job of that. Again, it’s the 10% that would probably cause a concern.
If this is how you’d run a “workshop” or “survey”, I don’t have a lot of confidence in your ability to determine “objectivity”.
Regarding your self-described “expert analysis”, perhaps others should defer to your obvious superior analytical abilities.
Ron, I suggest you go back and read my comments on the subject of a General Plan Update, as well as the dialogue with Eileen Samitz. I have been crystal clear and continue to be crystal clear that General Plan Analysis is a very specific field with a very specific set of skills. I personally don’t even scratch the surface of those specific skills, and no Davis Council member has ever had those specific skills. The experts needed come from outside the City. I would trust Bob Wolcott, member of City Staff, to do the needed analysis, but my understanding (which could be incorrect) is that his cup is so full that it runneth over.
If you were trying to illustrate practical concerns (with the exact same 90% number) then I suggest you need to write a transition paragraph to reset the reader’sframing to match your refocused points of argument. You might have referenced the General Plan chapter/element that you were drilling down into.
So, if I understand you correctly, your 90% comments relate to Chapter 1 – Land Use and Growth Management, Chapter 3 – Urban Design, Neighborhood Preservation and Community Forest Management, and Chapter 4 – Housing.
The last General plan update took over 6 years and involved hundreds of citizens….
Hi Matt,
I am pretty done with this thread too. Ron and I have both offered you some input that I think is pretty solid. Despite your claim to be the great listener, you don’t seem to want to hear it. that’s your choice. Here is what I hope is my last attempt to help you out.
You should put your 15 points on your web site. It’s the best thing I have seen from you. You should make a value statement for the financial points like you do for the accountability points so people know why you want to do them.
Ron has really got it pretty right on when he is telling you that your ideas sound good on the surface, but it is important to know why you care and what brought you to these ideas.
Similarly I like your ideas for expanding the notice and openness for the 3 day notice and CEQA and EIR and zoning process. Maybe say something about why you believe in open government. These are solid points, but what brought you to them?
This is reasonable to, but being a “voice for all Davis Citizens” is a little far-fetched.
Then add why you care about sustainability and fiscal responsibility and you have a more reasonable presentation of yourself.
I hope this helps you.
“What are some of your favorite stroll routes, and what do you see as the highlights n those routes. if Davis is going to promote strolling for its visitors it needs to provide them with more than a tabula rasa. other than strolling to the Farmer’s Market on Wednesdays and Saturdays (from wherever I have parked), I haven’t got much experience strolling the Davis downtown.”
Sorry Matt, I am not going to take the time to give the same detailed answer to this question. As I understand it you’re a new Davis resident, but you have lived near Davis a long time so I am surprised by your question if you haven’t strolled the downtown yet you should go do it, and you don’t need a guide from me to help you enjoy it. If that’s not enough, start at the corner of 2nd and G and have a look at the visitor information metal sculpture billboard thing on the corner. You will figure it out.
Here are other resources for you to help you get to know Davis better:
http://davisdowntown.com/
The 2nd Friday art about is a nice thing to do. http://davisdowntown.com/2nd-friday-artabout/
http://www.davischamber.com/ (look at the Welcome to Davis tab)
As to what Downtown Davis does to market itself, you should talk to the Chamber of Commerce, and the Downtown business association
Matt, I don’t drink coffee, so not much for me really….
I don’t think they served organic either, but there is a lot more to it…
Mocha Joe’s baked home made treats and they also were not quite ready to retire….and this enticed them…that is nice…I recall that DE article and I also talked to them….
they were melancholy about moving on…they and their family enjoyed the interaction with the people who stopped in…watched and shared about their children growing up… it was a real family business and a true part of the community of South Davis….
that isn’t really a strong suit of a Starbucks type operation….and that is the difference between supporting locals and not…
Tuesday morning did NOT want to leave and their lease was simply not renewed.
And, the compounding pharmacy – there was way more to that story also… I don’t recall the details exactly, but I did speak with them also….
As far as parking structures, okay…put them at the outskirts like at the park and ride on that end and at the campus borders at main freeway intersections…
provide an open tram to shuttle people all over ….and that will allow those to stroll and get on and off when tired and keep the cars out of downtown and yet allow everyone to enjoy….
nothing more is needed at the horrific Richards/olive intersection….really folks….
Here is what is broken in Davis retail “thinking”.
There are these retired and semi-retired people, and others that for various reasons have a good inventory of leisure time on their hands, that live in the core area and near core area. They are generally the “low materialist” type that Tia Will has decided we all should become.
They are unique in that their utility shopping needs and their entertainment needs are such that most of then are satisfied by the type of downtown we have.
Well not really satisfied with some aspects of the downtown, but apparently satisfied enough.
What they advocate for is a sort of old-town entertainment zone that would tend to by more in line with what tourists would like. Sonoma is a good example of this… the Sonoma Square is primarily a tourist shopping zone. Similarly, the Yountville downtown caters to visitors and tourists.
The difference here is that Davis does not attract tourists in any material way. Comparing Sonoma and Yountville downtown restaurants with Davis downtown restaurants is laughable.
So Davis is attempting to be like Sonoma and Yountville but in a Podunk way that does not work because there are not enough paying customers.
For example, Watermelon Music generates a very small amount of sales from walk-ins to the store. A lot of students come in and check things out, but they don’t have the cash to spend.
And then there is the other missing part of the retail consideration: the need for resident utility shopping.
For those people that still work and have families, their days are not at all leisure and retirement. They have limited time. They need supplies and materials. And Davis does not have them.
So they have to drive in a car to outside of the area. And they send their tax dollars to other cities.
The same is true for Sonoma and Yountville, but both of those generate copious sales tax revenue from tourism downtown.
So let’s say that Davis starts working on a plan to bring in more tourism dollars… making downtown more attractive to visitors that would come here. And that all of our utility shopping remains out of the area. We would need another boutique hotel or two downtown. We would need more good restaurants and more higher end shops. We would need to be more like downtown Napa.
The difference (and problem) is that we have 30,000 low-dollar students also focusing on the downtown. Also, we lack the young professionals that would be the base customer for the higher-end shops. We rejected adding them when we rejected the Nishi development.
And sadly, Davis is only a destination legend in our own minds. It isn’t going to bring in many tourists unless we have major redevelopment of the downtown.
So we have the worst of the worst… a declining downtown with low-end service for low dollar residents, and utility shopping choices out of the area.
Basically we do both of these things badly.
Maybe we should just pick at least one and do it well.
When your friends and relatives come to visit, what do they like about Davis?
Fair question.
But they also like Woodland and Pasadena and Santa Cruz and San Fransisco. A couple of them even like Dixon. They love Winters. They love the entire Napa and Sonoma area. They don’t like parts of Sacramento.
Here is what I think people like.
-Aesthetics (this is the primary thing)
-Trees and green space
-Fun stuff to do
-Good stuff to eat and drink
-Good entertainment options
-Just enough people around
-Few sketchy-looking people around
-Young and fit people around
-Families and kids around
-Diversity of people around
-Not too much traffic
-No cars playing loud rap music driving around
-Reasonable selection of parking spaces
-A feeling of safety
Although it is different for me now that I am single, I’ll answer Don’s question based on the first 16 years of my Davis residency.
The most frequent statement about Davis (in one form or another) is that “It is nowhere, but close to everywhere.”
The second most frequent statement is a passionate appreciation of the open space and agricultural and wildlife richness we enjoy here
The third is the intellectual vibrancy and opinionatedness of the populace. We are a somewhat tedious and very interesting group of people.
When our friends and relatives come to Davis, they see Davis as a base of operations for a diverse and myriad universe of travel opportunities. The 12-day 3,700 mile driving trip I just completed is a good example. A great friend came to visit for an artisan cheese trip that covered 1,900 miles and never left the state, going from Davis to Shasta to Lassen to Shast to Lassen to Eureka to Trindad and Orick to Ferndale and the Lost Coast to Mendocino to Marin and Sonoma and back to Davis. Our family had a family reunion in Squaw Valley. The WPA Rock Garden in Land Park is truly superb. Grass Valley and Nevada City are about as nice a place to be in the weekend after Thanksgiving as you can imagine. The Mondavi has great music. The DeYoung Museum in Golden Gate Park does a world class job bringing art exhibitions of the Great Masters. Sunset at Nepenthe is hard to beat. The Asian markets along Stockton Boulevard are a delight for my Thai daughter-in-law restaurateur/chef. Lotusland in Montecito is a truly world class garden.
Matt – Agree with the central location, but so is Dixon, Winters, Woodland and West Sacramento. And you can get a lot of open space in many rural cities throughout CA. So what is left in your points (unless I am missing any) is the intellectual vibrancy. And I agree with that completely. Too bad more others don’t recognize that in support of the primary cause: UCD.
Matt
I think that you maybe over emphasizing the importance of your hot meal, or the difficulty of making it home while it is still hot.
However, I am having fun with this game, so I will play again. With the downtown as it is now, I can see a commuter doing the following.
Call in for take out dinner at any of the following restaurants : a pizza for the whole family from Village Pizza, Woodstocks, Steve’s, the new place near Whole Foods whose name I don’t remember, or maybe some sushi from Mikuni’s or Zen Toro, mexican food from Tres Hermanas, maybe something from Our House, Season’s, Thai from Sophie’s, or pot stickers or Chinese from a number of places downtown. If the food isn’t quite ready our commuter might pick up a book from the Avid Reader, a piece of jewelry from one of our remaining downtown jeweler’s, maybe some sheet music from Watermelon for one of the kids, or a scarf or from one of our downtown boutiques or shoes from Sole Desire or Fleet Feet, a bottle of wine from Vino, or some candies from Osman on third street. Maybe pick up the framing that was dropped off previously at the Paint Chip or the third street shop. Make it home before dinner is cold and still have family time left over.
Thanks for engaging the concept Tia. You have described it from the inside out. Let’s apply the same logic to you and imagine that you are in Midtown Sacramento or Downtown Woodland and using your phone to order dinner for you and Robert to be picked up by you on your way from your external Davis origin to your destination in Davis. Would you call Steve’s Pizza at 731 Main Street in Woodland or Steve’s at G Street in Davis? Would you call Rico’s or Manny’s in Woodland or Woodstock’s? Would you call Masullo’s on Riverside Boulevard or Hot Italian in Davis Commons. Would you call Tres Hermanas on K Street in Sac or Tres Hermanas on 2nd and G? Would you call Vientianne on Jefferson in West Sac or Sophia’s? Would you order take out from Water Boy in Midtown Sac or Season’s?
I won’t belabor this point any more. I think I know what your answers would be . . . and Robert’s as well.
good call, Matt, some of the brick wall posters will never get a point….and thus, sometimes one has to walk away…not easy, as when one observes the “brick wall” mentality…which I also call “cannot see the forest for the trees” and other such truly archane statements, it is hardly worth bothering….but, the vast majority of readers, who never, ever post….are getting “enlightened” each time you speak out….they are the voters who will vote you in during the next go round….he he…
trust me on that….the others left are not nearly as popular as Brett and thus it will be easier to get you in despite the many good ole boys on the entrenched network…
if you had only been on the “correct” side of Nishi this last time, you would be on the council…but perhaps it simply wasn’t time yet…
things always happen for a reason.. and this is one of the reasons…and why…
We have a tourist draw already. Its called the University. People come here to check it out or for activities or ceremonies. Yet its funny when people start talking about drawing people in for some other reason other than UCD. The one other draw for Davis is its proximity to I-80 but Davis has a long history of not wanting to offer services to those travelers so all these suggestions about being a destination. Building parking where housing can go is just plain absurd unless you want to open the periphery to housing. Most of the suggestions here are absurd. The one thing that we could do if we want to capture tourist dollars that is obvious is build the hotel conference center.
Misanthrop – which hotel do you mean? Embassy Suits?
I am open to considering other places for housing. There is no other lot adjacent to downtown that could provide parking like that the Lincoln 40 site.
Other sites for housing? Like where? Don’t forget for a parking structure the city would need to buy the land and the land is very valuable for housing. I don’t see a parking structure to be in any way economically feasible.
What?? You can hardly refer to In and Out, Redrum, Caffe Italia, Dutch Bros., KFC, Del Taco, IHOP, Applebees, two hotel complexes and two gas stations as a “history” of not catering to traveling folk.
Good point, I guess i hadn’t thought about it that way but I do recall many years ago a definite bias in the community against tapping I-80 as a revenue source particularly for larger commercial projects like a mall with easy freeway access. I’m not saying we should go there I’m simply trying to point out that we haven’t maximized our freeway frontage like Vacaville has to bring in needed revenue. I doubt building a parking structure on Olive drive is going to have much impact considering the magnitude of the unfunded liabilities.
Misanthrop, I completely agree. The University is a huge draw for the parents of students, for the families of prospective students and for alumni.
What is interesting about all three of these groups is that if they buy any “things” they probably buy them on the campus at the retail venues therein. Are the parents of a student going to buy any retail items at (for instance) the departed deLuna Jewelers, or Avid Reader, or Mother and Baby Store, or Hibberts Lumber, or Watermelon Music or The Artery or Redwood Barn Nursery or any of the universe of Davis retail establishments? I suspect the chances are much higher that they will buy their child something at Target than at any of those other Davis retail establishments. The parents of prospective students aren’t likely to by anything off campus. Alumni in for a visit to the alma mater may be a bit more diverse in their buying demand, but they are still not going to be terribly active retail buyers. Object de Art at the Artery or the Pence, or in its day, deLuna would be the most likely exceptions.
So the University brings people here, where they purchase services like hotel rooms and restaurant meals but very little retail.
Misanthrop
“We have a tourist draw already. Its called the University”
I think you have this right, but perhaps are looking at it from too limited a perspective. What the University offers by way of a more consistent draw is the Mondavi and with any luck the Shrem museum soon. I know out of towners who come for the Mondavi proceeded by dinner in Davis which gives them at least a glimpse of shopping available if they wanted to spend a little more time on their next trip in. Obviously not talking about huge amounts of money. But not gloom and doom either.
Exactly Tia, Lets focus on the positives of what we actually have in place now and talk about how we can make the most of it. Davis is a nice place and people enjoy it. We should not let ourselves sink to a place of doom and gloom.
I see families on college scouting trips here all the time. Its not just Mondavi or Shrem. At graduation time the town was full of out of towners. People come for conferences or educational programs all the time.
Misanthrop
Absolutely true. But the influx of campus tours is seasonal and once yearly. The Mondavi and Shrem will be year round and thus a more steady source.
Tia Will
August 5, 2016 at 10:13 pm
Misanthrop
Absolutely true. But the influx of campus tours is seasonal and once yearly. The Mondavi and Shrem will be year round and thus a more steady source.
Really, Tia? edit let me clarify, are you really talking about the UCD campus?????????
for someone who claims to be such an expert on all things related to UCD, and especially the Chancellor and her business, did you really say this and did you really mean it?
the campus has a team of well trained students who provide campus tours year round….and they are kept busy, guess what, year round….
and finally, did you know that even parents and potential students visit year round…
and so do so many other visitors….from many countries and for many reasons….
edit
[moderator] edited. Please stop the personal attacks.
Agreed.
I realize that this may bring its own set of concerns (and comments), but the purchase of (an entire block?) of downtown by some outside investors must be a sign that they believe in the future of Davis and downtown, even “as is”. (I think that others know what purchase I’m referring to.)
Agree regarding Mondavi Center, as well. A definite draw, and helps support restaurants and possible shopping.
excellent point
I realize that this may bring its own set of concerns (and comments), but the purchase of (an entire block?) of downtown by some outside investors must be a sign that they believe in the future of Davis and downtown, even “as is”.
Ron is possibly correct. Or it could be that the investor looked at the current situation and knows that the city is in trouble from a financial standpoint. Further, perhaps the investor realizes that there are tremendous opportunities to improve the properties and downtown as a whole. Buying now, ahead of what the investor may view as inevitable changes, allows the investor to capture the financial upside. Or it could be what Ron said. Time will tell.
Exactly Tia, Lets focus on the positives of what we actually have in place now and talk about how we can make the most of it. Davis is a nice place and people enjoy it. We should not let ourselves sink to a place of doom and gloom.
The problem is that the City of Davis has a financial sustainability issue. It is bad now, and getting worse. If we do nothing to solve our financial problems, then the hole keeps getting deeper. There are multiple potential avenues for the City to bring its revenues and expenses in line. We can raise revenue by generating additional economic activity and raising taxes. We can lower expenses by reducing services and compensation and benefits (and the growth of both). In all likelihood, a combination of actions will be needed.
To Grok’s point, focusing on the positive things about Davis is a good place to start – we can and should focus our revenue growth efforts on building from what we have. But economic growth will have some consequences. Traffic might get worse in some areas. Some neighborhood or houses may have to bear some new construction. The “common good” and “shared resource” of the financial viability of the City will require some sacrifice. Unfortunately for Davis, “as is” and “doing nothing” is not sustainable and hopefully not our future.
Not disagreeing with this part of your statement. I fully expect the investor to make “improvements” to the properties (while probably also raising rents, paying more in property taxes, etc.). This may force some businesses out, and replacing them with less “preferred” businesses, so to speak. (I’m not taking a position, on that.)
But, it’s a sign of confidence in Davis and the downtown, regardless. And, the increased property taxes (as a result of reassessment) should benefit Davis. (And, “we” didn’t even have to “do” anything, to make this particular transaction occur.) It seems likely that investors will continue to be interested in Davis and downtown. (Perhaps the “slow-growth” movement makes Davis/downtown even more appealing, for successful investors.)
Not probably, Ron, even without “improvements” rents are already being raised….and that is why the old timers are bailing… or being forced out or…
the ones who have the most confidence are the newcomers, as they show up from more expensive places and see “bargains” galore…
that only further drives out the family businesses which have made Davis downtown what it was….and instead we get more fast food chains for the “student” crowd….
driving up the cost of business, and therefore the cost of purchasing products by those who live here…
Marina: No argument from me, regarding the points you made. (The reason I brought it up is because some pro-development types seems to be stating that downtown is “dead”.)
Interest from outside developers is (at least) a sign of confidence (my main point).
I do think there’s an opportunity to replace some of the older, uglier buildings downtown, over time. (Often single-story, and appear to have been built in the 1960s.) I realize that this will result in the concerns you cited, but it might make the city better in some ways.
Name one downtown “family business”, in Davis, 25 years old or more that is/has been forced out due to downtown rents… just one… should be easy… if true…
de lunas
While it is true that de Lunas closed slightly prematurely based on cost, it is also true that the owner as expressed directly to me in a conversation about when we were planning on retiring, was contemplating retirement in the near future in any event. I don’t know what he considered to be the “near future” and I realize from my own experience that one can be “off” by years, but it did not seem that this was terribly untimely for them.
According to Dick, that was not the cause… failure to make point…
Uh, meant for Fred… not Tia, who reinforced the point… oops!