It seems like every time we move the discussion of economic development forward in this community, we have to circle back so that people can understand the problem that we are trying to resolve. Will there be community consensus around this point – that seems unlikely.
However, for me economic development is an answer to a problem that starts with a very basic number – $8 million. We can dispute if the actual number is higher or lower – to me it really doesn’t matter – but that is the shortfall or at least one projection of the shortfall that the city has in taking it’s current levels of service and being able to pay for things like infrastructure, roads, unfunded liabilities and the like.
We needed to be reminded again that the voters fell short of the two-thirds mark needed to pass a roads tax and the need to pave the roads in this community did not simply disappear. There is not one answer as to how to solve this problem of course. We can – should continue to – look at cost containment as a we to hold costs in line.
We can cutback on the services provided by city government. We can look at taxes to fund infrastructure needs – though the loss of the roads tax underscores the risky nature of that approach, or we can look to economic development.
From my standpoint, though I think it is not really an either / or situation, economic development is an obvious way forward. Understand that without cost containment, no amount of revenue generation will solve the city’s problems. Furthermore we should look at making the system more efficient.
Understand further, that building an innovation park for example, would not solve this problem overnight anyway. An innovation park would have a 30 to 50 year build out and thus, we are going to need 
taxes to bridge the gap in the short term.
But as I noted yesterday, when you think in terms of food security, clean technology, alternative fuel cars, medical and bio technology, that economic development is a solid fit into the core values of this community – the notion of environmental stewardship, the threat of global warming, the social justice implications of food scarcity and security issues.
I hearken back to a conversation I had in August 2013 with then Chamber CEO Kemble Pope and then Chief Innovation Office Rob White, who has been gone from city since 2015 and is taking a job heading up the Vallejo Planning Department starting on Monday.
In March of that year, the city brought in Rob White from Livermore, hoping to job start the city on its way to economic development.
The backdrop to the discussion, the city of Davis was losing Bayer CropScience to West Sacramento. Bayer CropScience bought out what had been the homegrown success story of AgrQuest. Started as a small start up in Davis in 1995 by Pam Marone, in 2012 the company was bought by Bayer CropScience for a whopping $425 million.
Bayer announced the following year, that with the absence of available space and the lower cost of space in West Sacramento, it was leaving Davis with its more than 200 jobs.
Last year, it was announced that they would be starting their own innovation center in West Sacramento – another seeming blow to Davis which has not been able to create its own center despite having two proposals on the table as recently as 2014.
But why go the route of high tech, research parks in search of more local tax revenue.
Back in 2013, Rob White explained, “Universities attract investment and that investment is usually research dollars attached to global or national corporations.”
It was clear in 2013, that UC Davis had ambitions – those have only increased and intensified in the years since. With the launching of Aggie Square, UC Davis made it clear that they were moving forward with or without the city of Davis. However, Barry Broome this past week, made it clear that Davis offers unique conditions to the rest of the region – we have not lost our opportunity – if 
anything it remains there for the taking.
The answer as to why economic development seems fairly obvious – we have the need for revenue. There are of course other ways to generate that revenue. But again, the voters voted down the roads tax and while communities have gone the way of peripheral retail – retail itself is struggling in the new economy and long go, this community decided that it did not want to go the regional mall route.
Can we do this with cuts and taxes? We can. But I don’t know that this can remain the vibrant and dynamic community that we have by shrinking our city services. One of the things that makes our community great are the parks, the greenbelts, and the bike paths – much of which was envisioned and formulated in the early 1970s and as part of the 1972 General Plan.
As I have argued elsewhere we face a real standard of living crisis. What if we can no longer afford to maintain our roads, keep our parks in working order, keep the greenbelts green, keep the bike paths safe? What kind of community will we live in?
On the flip side, the cost of living in Davis might not compare to the Bay Area, but right now we are keeping our schools great through parcel taxes, we are funding our basic services through a sales tax that expires in less than two years, and we still cannot maintain our roads – do we want to make the cost of living in Davis that much more expensive by passing ever-increasing parcel taxes for schools, roads, and other infrastructure?
That is where I saw the need for a 200 acre peripheral innovation center? Over time, that has the chance to generate thousands of jobs which can turn into new sources of revenue for the city through direct taxes and also the multiplier effect. It has the chance to generate millions in property and sales taxes that can feed our city coffers.
The best part, as I have formulated is that we can do that without damaging the core values of this community. Putting the project at MRIC makes some sense as it would be basically surrounded by land in conservation easement preventing the development at MRIC from leading to sprawl.
And we can design it around the types of startups and companies that can specialize in the industries that make sense for Davis – Ag Tech, Bio Tech, Clean Tech – for me then, we can help solve our fiscal problems, we can help the world solve problems like climate change and food scarcity, and we can do it without sacrificing the core of what this community is about.
That’s the win-win we are seeking. But if we fight this, then these opportunities will likely pass us by. And we will be forced to pay for more services and infrastructure with less resources to do it and the need for ever-increasing taxes.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
From article:
How odd – I didn’t realize there was a university in West Sacramento.
In any case, I recall that someone (Don?) noted that Bayer was offered a deal in West Sacramento that was essentially too good to pass up.
That’s what Davis would have to compete with.
Strange, how Davis was able to make it this entire time without an innovation center (while still having 40-65 years of commercial space inventory).
I didn’t either, but there must be. Just look in a 200 yard radius of the innovation center!
close the thread: we have a winner!
And then there’s Aggie Square, which won’t generate one dollar of property taxes (since it’s on UCD Medical Center land). And yet, it’s still requiring other government dollars to build.
In the meantime, the city of Davis is still handing out raises to employees (which also increases the cost of future pensions).
And yet, there is government investment in Aggie Square. Maybe that means there is a lot you need to learn about innovation and economic development. Think about the concepts: job creation, tech transfer, sales tax, multiplier effect.
Regarding job creation, the article claims that thousands will be created. (Far more than what would be accommodated on-site, even if employees occupy the housing. Since you claim to be concerned about housing needs, why would you want to make the problem worse?)
Regarding tech transfer, the same question would apply.
There is essentially no sales tax generated from innovation centers. They are not retail establishments.
In 40-65 years (when the current commercial space is finally occupied), perhaps then the city should consider a peripheral development.
Or, maybe UCD can do this on their own land, as they’re doing with Aggie Square.
I think you really need to research first, post second.
“There is essentially no sales tax generated from innovation centers. They are not retail establishments.”
Plescia calculated about $1.2 million annually in sales tax from MRIC. That was a relatively conservative assumption and it assumed that Measure O (2014 sales tax) was not renewed.
Here’s a Bee article discussing Sacramento Measure U, the sales tax that would leverage Aggie Square: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article215581080.html
Craig: In glancing at the article you posted, the increase in sales tax (paid by everyone in Sacramento) is to fund the development. (Not the other-way around.)
Regarding sales tax generated by MRIC, let’s see a reference. (Note that there isn’t even a proposal or fiscal analysis, at this point.) There will be plenty of time for development activists to cook the theoretical books.
https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article212750769.html#storylink=cpy
You say that like it’s a good thing.
Ron,
West Sac and Woodland are interested in supporting tech transfer from UCD, creating well-paying local jobs and generating associated property taxes.
Davis not so much – as in doesn’t seriously concern itself with how it pays for essential services like maintaing its roads or creating, local well paying jobs for its graduates.
How well is that working out for the community, aspiring young people and how long is that approach going to work?
You seem to be full of ideas, do you have any recommendations or just more carping? Sorry, but that’s how it comes off to those interested in exploring opportunities to move the needle in positives new directions.
Maybe you could outline what might make Davis into an even better version of itself and what you personally are willing – in time and energy – to contribute to make that happen.
John: One thing that I’m willing to do is to help fight sprawling developments that make problems worse (and devour prime farmland beyond logical borders for the city).
I’m also willing to point out the flaws in the arguments used by development activists, to justify their goals (which actually have nothing to do with making the city, better). And, which usually make problems worse.
There is a vast difference between an individual needing a job, vs. increasing the number of jobs in the city (where there’s already a net inflow of commuters, and claimed housing challenges).
Having said that, I still generally respect the tone that you use in these articles.
Hey Ron, there’s no need to apologize for not wanting Davis to end up looking like Natomas or Elk Grove.
Thanks, Keith.
Yeah – Natomas needed additional taxpayer dollars just to keep the flood waters out, and make the land developable. (At least, until the “improved” levees fail at some point, requiring another taxpayer “bailout”.) But, not to worry, as the developers will have made their money (and will be long gone), by then.
There’s a reason they call it Natomas “Basin”.
Ron,
From that standpoint,
and I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but couldn’t one conclude that the entire university and community of Davis are nothing more than a eyesore on the landscape?
How is the community supposed to move beyond that somewhat arbitrary line in the sand set decades ago?
Is Davis now the perfect size? Could it not become a better version of itself? How are tomorrow’s generations supposed to fund the maintenance and add further enhancements?
But maybe more to the point, what do you say to a generations old farming family whose kids have graduated from UCD and have a dream of building the World’s Food Center – reflecting their view of what is the best use for their land, their community and for helping to feed the world on what is now a field of row crops or almond trees?
I think everyone gets your larger point about desiring to protect “farmland” and having beautiful, natural buffers around the city, but why is the five mile radius around Davis best preserved as farmland? How would you feel about creating a pluses and minuses chart to evaluate the proposition? Who would get to have input on the elements to include in the chart?
Or, is the real answer, that there will be no discussion of your proposition?
John: You’ve asked a lot of interrelated questions, here.
First, I’d say that if a “line” isn’t drawn somewhere, then the line will continue to be moved outward, indefinitely. That’s been the pattern in most places, and you can see the result (which is continuing).
I’m not sure which old farming family you’re referring to, or the parcel. But, I’d suggest that no one should automatically assume that zoning and land use should be changed to match their personal goals. Farmers (some of whom are quite wealthy) also have options that aren’t available to others, including receiving agricultural/open space mitigation funds, and Williams Act tax breaks just for owning the land as it’s currently zoned.
I often wonder who (other than those who stand to make money) looks at the site of the proposed MRIC (or Covell Village, etc.), and honestly believes that Davis would be so much better, if only “this” land was paved over for another development. (Followed by the next parcel, and the next one . . .)
Same question would apply regarding the resulting impacts on local and regional travel, as well as water supplies in the region and beyond. (It’s as if crazy people are in charge of planning and approving developments, regionally and beyond.)
The most promising sites for a business park seeking to benefit from UCD research would be at the far west end of Chiles Rd., directly across the freeway from Nishi. Some of that land is owned by the Hamel family. They’ve been in Davis for generations, active in First Northern Bank of Dixon and farming south of Davis for decades. There is freeway access from both directions, it is directly across from UCD, and there is already the South Campus of UCD further west. It would be ideal for any ag-related businesses that need greenhouses and farmland for research.
The only problem is, all of that freeway-frontage land is in Solano County. Perhaps Davis, Yolo County, and Solano County could seek a revenue-sharing agreement, or annexation into the county or city could occur. I recall years ago hearing about a proposal for one of those sites, but it got abandoned because of the complexity of this situation.
There is no “next parcel, and the next one” next to MRIC that could be paved over. That’s the point of the ag conservation easement on the next parcel.
So, I take it that’s a “NO” to the chart idea?
You mentioned tax holidays on agricultural properties – how is that all working out for local county infrastructure maintenance?
Last week I was visiting with some folks who live on a small farm in a rural area of Caldwell, ID.
They no longer can pump water from the wells on their land, having been notified that long term effects from fertilizers, chemicals and dairies has so polluted their shallow aquifer in their valley. But that’s not an environmental impact, right, because it’s ag land?
It gets old sometimes, what comes off as a holier than thou approach as cities are asked to take their storm water runoff and return in better condition than when it arrived from the river or aquifer. What if that same standard were applied to farming? Not a fair question?
You mention water usage. How much water would a fully built MRIC consume on an annual basis versus an almond orchard? You throw out these comments, but do you have anything to back them up?
Just saying, this is your “cause” we’re talking about.
Of course there is.
The “next one” would (probably) not be adjacent to MRIC. However, it would be caused/enabled by MRIC. It might be Covell Village, the Shriners’ property, . . .
But, of course, other times you tell us that developing MRIC will compete with other existing commercial sites, and that there’s an oversupply of sites already in town.
It absolutely is an environmental impact, caused by using water that’s not being replenished (and by modern agricultural methods, which is used to support an ever-increasing urban population). This is another example regarding the unsustainability of increasing growth and development and resulting impacts – beyond actual urban footprints.
I agree.
My comments regarding water purposefully drifted into impacts regarding regional development. However, if we want almonds, then yeah – water is needed for that. I’d rather see water used for an orchard, vs. another housing development.
You’re misunderstanding what I stated, regarding housing vs. existing commercial space. In addition, the commercial site “oversupply” is from the analysis regarding 3820 Chiles Road, and is not something that I made up.
Regarding the impact of MRIC, it will encourage additional housing somewhere (e.g., Covell Village, Shriners’ property, etc.). This will occur even if some is included on-site. Note that the article itself claims that “thousands of jobs” would be created. Last time I checked, workers are needed to fill jobs (unless automation is used to replace them).
There’s already development activists clamoring for more housing, even without an innovation center. Do you think they’re going to stop anytime soon? Also, do you think they (all) actually care about the needs of people or the city? Or, do you think the root of their concerns lie elsewhere?
And again, if housing is actually included at MRIC, service costs (for the city) will increase. Thereby negating much of the claimed purpose of an innovation center.
Not to worry, though. The development activists will have plenty of time to cook the theoretical books. With help from some from optimistic officials.
It is truly amazing that Davis has been able to exist so far, without an innovation center. I’d call it a “miracle”.
And, despite the fact that 2-3 of them have failed, and have been converted to housing instead (Nishi, the Davis Innovation Center, and the Cannery).
Odd use of the term ‘failed’. Nishi was voted down. The Cannery owners never considered and would not consider anything except housing, period.
“In addition, the commercial site “oversupply” is from the analysis regarding 3820 Chiles Road, and is not something that I made up.”
I read the report/ analysis, there was no discussion of oversupply. The question was whether a standalone commercial site could succeed and they believed that the pressure from newer and larger sites would mean that it would not. You’re mischaracterizing the report – greatly.
Craig: Here is what the report states (regarding 3820 Chiles Road), retyped-below:
And yes – the report also specifically noted that the specter of MRIC was influencing the decision to request rezoning of this commercial site. (In other words, counting your chickens before they’re hatched.) I can retype that section of the report, as needed (without any reference to chickens).
Contained in your quote is the point I was making – “better located for a business park” – location, not oversupply.
You’re misreading your own quotes.
No one ever proposed Cannery as an Innovation Center. It’s not in the Innovation Report.
Nishi was voted down with commercial usage, but approved with housing only. (Even though housing is “supposedly” more difficult to obtain approval for, via Measure R.
The Davis Innovation Center proposal was withdrawn, but came back in the form of senior housing (WDAAC, which was approved).
The MRIC owners were given the green light by the council to process a commercial development, but the developers withdrew their proposal.
Which, along with the other examples, demonstrate what developers prefer to build.
Seems like you’re supporting my points. Developers want to build housing.
Read it again, Craig. The citation is referring to locations within Davis (“already zoned for”). It then goes on to note the 40-65 year supply of available sites within Davis.
It is not even subject to misinterpretation, unless one willfully does so (or simply misreads it).
This is not a concept you understand. The problem with the site – as noted in the report you cite, but don’t appear to understand – was that it was a small site, isolated from other innovation. Most of the sites in Davis have the same problem. The exceptions – URP, 2nd Street, the 20 acres at Cowell/ Chiles, and MRIC.
Craig: The proposed site of MRIC is not “already zoned for” commercial use. It is not included in the 40-65 year supply of available commercial sites within the city that EPS referred to, in the report. (Which also doesn’t include the site at 3820 Chiles Road.)
Are you actually having trouble understanding this?
I’m not having trouble understanding anything, but your reading comprehension SUCKS because I didn’t say anything remotely close to what you just said I did.
Then, I guess you’re not disagreeing with what EPS stated in that report, and are simply making some other unrelated point. Which doesn’t have anything to do with the 40-65 year supply of available commercial sites within the city, suitable for commercial/R&D development.
Seems like you engaged in an unnecessary conversation.
That is factually incorrect. I believe that Sue Greenwald, for one, brought it up. Probably others, as well.
It was, after all, previously a commercial site.
As Don noted, the owners refused to consider it. Can you guess what they preferred, instead?
Sue and Ruth, in one council motion that I recall, proposed an equal-weight EIR be done for the site with a portion of it in commercial and the rest in housing. ConAgra said no. They did not wish to build anything on the site except housing. They made that quite clear, over and over. The site was not seriously considered for commercial by anyone who would have actually invested in the development there. ConAgra is/was not a commercial development firm. They simply wished to rezone, sell, and leave. Putting it another way: nobody who could have made it happen ever proposed a commercial development there.
That sure sounds familiar.
Typo, should have been 3 mile radius – making it the same area as Palo Alto for reference.
Nah. Let’s wing it.
Alan,
Hit it one the money!
That’s exactly the problem with discussions to date – a siloed conversation focused on a single element of a very complex discussion – call it the “Davis way”. Maddeningly, David really doesn’t seem to appreciate why this singular focus is so corrosive and damaging to larger issues at play.
You’re never going to win over the community focused solely on the reality that we need more revenue to support city services. And, as I mentoined yesterday, it seems that nobody is willing to “go there” in terms of understanding “why” our per capita revenues have fallen so far behind those of other peer communities.
This is actually a different question that asking why our per capita spending has increased so dramatically even as our staffing has shrunk. Every community has had to face this spending challenge.
I agree with you that the focus needs to be broader than revenue – though I think revenue goes to things like quality of life. You can talk about jobs and prosperity, but again, read Ron’s comments, he’s arguing that we don’t need more jobs, that just creates more housing. I also think it would be helpful if people like you and Jeff and others put out your own narratives on economic development. Everyone has a different perspective. I don’t claim any kind of monopoly here.
David Greenwald said . . . However, for me economic development is an answer to a problem that starts with a very basic number – $8 million.
David is correct, economic development is an answer. There are other answers as well. One is raise local taxes by $8 million per year. Another is to reduce the level of community services by $8 million per year. A third is to blend increased taxes and reduced services to produce a blend equal to a net $8 million per year.
How does our community choose between those four possible answers (disclaimer: there are other possible answers that should possibly also be considered)?
The answer to that question depends a lot on how one sees “or community.
— Is our community comprised of people who see Davis as a “University Town” and want to hold on to the illusion that nothing has changed?
— Is our community comprised of people who are willing to hold onto the University Town identity and deal with the collapse of the pre-2008 Ponzi Scheme by paying the additional taxes needed to cover the costs of the City’s services to which they have become accustomed.
— Is our community comprised of people like David who acknowledge the collapse of the pre-2008 Ponzi Scheme, but do not want to see Davis become more and more expensive to live in.
— Is our community comprised of people who acknowledge the single-threaded University town economy that we historically and currently have is both unbalanced and fiscally unsustainable … and want to add the companies and jobs needed to reduce the community’s reliance on the University. They also see a related benefit of this approach in addressing the ever-shrinking number of students in the local school system.
Until we decide what kind of community we are (it will be a blend of the above examples), we really can’t effectively answer the “How does our community choose …” question.
Matt: How does this compare with other similar communities in the region and across the state, in regard to unfunded liabilities? And, have those communities solved their problems via innovation centers or other similar developments? Or, are they struggling as well – especially if they’re trying to reuse existing retail centers?
Since there are statewide concerns, what do you think the chances are that all of these communities will collectively solve their own problems without state involvement? (Especially since we’re apparently in the beginning stages of another market downturn, which impacts the housing market, property taxes, CALPERS’ investments, and other investment tools used by local governments and schools?)
Ron, it has been a long time since you and I have had a version of this discussion. My personal opinion (and it is 100% opinion) is that the chances of the State helping individual or collective localities is somewhere between slim and none … and slim has left the building. As a result how the Davis unfunded liabilities compare to the unfunded liabilities of similar communities is meaningless.
For what it is worth, I personally believe the $8 million per year is substantially understated.
Matt: I believe you’re not considering all of the possibilities, regarding “state involvement”. It may not be in the form of “help”, at least for employees relying upon CALPERS and similar organizations.
I’d say that the chances of all cities, counties, and the state itself solving their individual unfunded liability challenges are less than “slim”. And, “Slim” himself has already left the building. (I understand that school districts are facing similar problems.)
Again, the challenges that Davis (and other communities) are facing is largely invisible, to the general public. You might as well claim it’s a billion dollars.
Not sure if you saw my “suggestion”, regarding going out late at night to make the potholes bigger. Or, we can wait for the increased traffic from new development to do that for us.
One thing I’m hoping for (from you) is an objective analysis, regarding any developments that come forward. We need some “balance”, compared to what the former chairperson (who is now on the council) put forth. You did an excellent job raising concerns, regarding Nishi 2.0. (Unfortunately, your concerns were apparently not enough to convince others.)
In reference to my post above, please disregard the use of the word “billion”.
“Trillion” is more accurate, regarding California’s pension debt:
http://www.pensiontracker.org/
Now, that’s one heck of a lot of innovation centers! (I hope those other communities haven’t “caught on” to that idea, yet.) “Mum’s the word”! 🙂
I just saw this article, with the following title:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article222581865.html
This seems to be an example of “adjusting the community” to meet school district needs. In any case, do you think that there’d be many children living at an innovation center? (I recall similar questions being asked, regarding WDAAC.)
I recall that someone else noted that the Cannery only resulted in a handful of new enrollments in Davis schools, even though it’s primarily family-oriented housing.
Ron, a substantial component of the value of each parcel in Davis is the quality of the education that DJUSD delivers. As such, putting the school district in a position to thrive is a win-win proposition.
Matt: I don’t think that translates into a dollar-for-dollar “return on investment”. Regardless, it is not a reason to artificially prop up an institution that might resist adjusting to the community’s needs. It is akin to propping up an automaker that still makes gas-guzzling cars.
Ultimately, change will be forced upon it. It’s just a matter of time. Children are not coming back to Davis in large numbers, innovation center or not. (In fact, that’s going to occur in more-and-more communities, over time. It’s part of the trend toward having fewer children, the aging of the population, etc.)
Another commenter noted that the Cannery only resulted in a handful of new student enrollments. (And yet, the Cannery is primarily family housing.)
Ron, who said “artificially prop up”?
Matt – I did. It’s right there, in black-and-white. 🙂
If there’s declining enrollment, doesn’t it make sense to adjust the schools accordingly? If not, then you’re artificially propping them up – beyond the actual demand for the service.
There’s also arguments to be made regarding parents not paying the full cost of having children (and expecting others to do so for them), but perhaps not something that I want to get into further, here. It is not a particularly popular argument to make, among some. Especially in a town that generally regards schools as sacrosanct.
Ron, no one said that it is an either/or. The School District needs to appropriately size itself … for both enrollment declines and enrollment increases.
What statistics do you have that support your statement that “Cannery is primarily family housing.” I doubt the actual demographics show a substantial percentage of Cannery residences with 1 or more residents under the age of 19.
Matt: I’m pretty sure that you could easily find the mix of housing that exists at the Cannery. There are a significant number of single-family dwellings, there. In fact, I’d describe them as “traditional” family houses (albeit with small yards). I visited the development (and its model homes) quite a few times.
Families might occupy other types of dwellings there, as well.
How would you describe “family housing”? Something different than what exists at the Cannery?
I’m not sure why you’re describing the declining enrollment at Davis schools as an “either/or” situation. It’s not likely that there’s going to be a significant increase, unless there’s a successful attempt to increase the number of pupils who reside outside of Davis.
Certainly, there’s not going to be a large number of school-age children living at WDAAC, Nishi, or any innovation center site. Are you advocating development, just to increase the number of school-age children in Davis?
In other words, are you advocating “adjusting the community” to meet the school district’s needs?
Matt: “The School District needs to appropriately size itself … for both enrollment declines and enrollment increases.”
Ron: “In other words, are you advocating “adjusting the community” to meet the school district’s needs?”
I guess I’m missing that in Matt’s comment. Once again, I have to ask, are you not understanding the arguments here or intentionally misrepresenting them? This is becoming a pattern and I feel like you have done this with some of my points as well.
David: I don’t know how you’re arriving at that conclusion, so I’d ask the same question of you.
The thread started out by noting that even when family-type housing is provided (e.g. the Cannery), school enrollment is not increasing. It appears that the long-term trend will be toward further decreases. There aren’t going to be many new children living at Nishi, WDAAC, or any innovation center.
I suspect this is really part of a larger trend, toward smaller families. But, the families that do want to move to the Davis area are apparently ending up in the new developments in Woodland, with some sending their kids to Davis schools. And, nothing that Davis builds will reverse that trend.
Ron, you clearly did not understand the premise of the original comment. To put it in hypothetical numbers, if the City of Davis and UCD were able to collaborate and add 5,000 intellectual capital jobs to the city’s employment landscape, the number of new employees in the 25-54 year-old demographic cohort would rise substantially and with that rise would come a parallel rise in children between the ages of zero and 18. Those added children would represent incremental demand for DJUSD schooling over and above the existing demand.
The either/or was either adjust the current school district to the current declining enrollment trend (which I strongly support) or add thousands of intellectual capital jobs to the local work force (which I conditionally support). Those two are not either/or in my opinion. They have the potential to be both/and.
David Greenwald said . . . “Once again, I have to ask, are you not understanding the arguments here or intentionally misrepresenting them? This is becoming a pattern …”
David, my personal belief is that Ron did not understand my original point.
FWIW I know I am doing a good job being a Centrist (moderate?) when in recent days I am having heated arguments with the polar opposite viewpoints of Rik and Ron on the left and David on the right.
David’s on the “right”? 🙂
(I know that he’s aligned with that, regarding development viewpoints.)
Yeah, I think I didn’t understand your original point. I believe we are essentially not in dispute, regarding the Cannery.
Good point, David is now very right leaning when it comes to development. I have my suspicions why.
The final series of questions, for now:
Davis has existed as primarily a university town for 100 years. Why would the claimed “imbalance” in Davis suddenly be an issue now (compared to other communities)? For example, as the economy worsens (and investments become less viable), it would generally cause communities which rely more upon economic development to suffer more, compared to one that hasn’t.
Also why haven’t the existing commercial sites been occupied? (Other than claims regarding “synergy”, distance from UCD, lack of Feng Shui, or whatever other reason put forth). (This is a “trick” question, as we already know what developers prefer to build.)
Ron
Apparently you have liked the answer that you’ve been given as to why the commercial lots have not yet been aggregated and developed. The cash costs are 15-40% more to assemble those parcels, plus there’s additional transaction costs for negotiating each transaction. And before a plan can be developed and the finances lined up, all of those parcels have to first be assembled. That extends out the time line of these projects, which adds further to financing costs. So, it’s not a trick question because it has an obvious answer that’s been shown in empirical studies. (And maybe David will add me to the authors index so you can find my article on this from last year.)
And the world is a dynamic place, so what worked for the last 100 years may not work well for the next decade. Ask buggy whip makers in 1900…
Richard: You’re presenting this as an “either/or” choice, regarding a massive peripheral development (that will take decades to be occupied, by all accounts), vs. the 40-65 year inventory of existing sites in the city, including some that are several acres in size. (With more sites and opportunities for expansion downtown – if it’s densified with commercial buildings, vs. residential development. For that matter, University Mall could remain commercially-zoned, but densified.) Sacramento and San Francisco have some pretty large commercial/office buildings in their respective downtowns.
If MRIC is pursued, Proposition 13 will also have time to “work its magic” on that property (to weaken the “profit” for the city), during the decades-long period for build-out. (Not including the residential portion, which would be built “tomorrow”, but would also be impacted by Proposition 13.)
What I see occurring is that some are pushing out commercial opportunities/zoning from existing sites, for the purpose of building another city on the periphery, where freeway access is easier. (In other words, “sprawl”.)
A 200 acre site surrounded by land in conservation easement isn’t massive peripheral development.
A 200-acre site on prime farmland outside of city limits (and beyond a logical boundary), adjacent to a freeway access point is “freeway sprawl”, similar to what can be seen elsewhere along I-80. (And, everywhere else there’s a freeway.)
By the way, the several-acre site around Ikeda’s fruit stand was also mentioned, for possible development.
But, again, MRIC can (and will) cause additional sprawl elsewhere. We’re basically playing “whack-a-mole”, at this point.
How about if the Vanguard works on that large piece of land inside the Mace Curve, behind the junior hight? (Throw a dog a bone, once in awhile?)
That’s my way of pointing out that “massive” is a subjective consideration.
Moreover, there were (as of 2015) 153 net acres remaining of commercially zoned land in Davis. But that’s within 32 properties. That means on average, less than five acres a property and thus not conducive for this type of development. All the research suggests the need for campus style economic development – and a point that Richard made is that with smaller properties, the cost goes way up.
David: All evidence suggests that developers don’t want to build commercial developments, including innovation centers (unless housing is included – the “real” prize for them). Should we run through that evidence, again? (Including the conversion of existing large sites, and the withdrawal of other innovation center proposals – all of which are being developed as housing, instead?)
As you noted, Aggie Square is on UCD’s own land, but is still requiring government subsidies.
Even without considering the large sites that are undergoing residentialization, there’s a 40-65 year inventory of commercial sites, according to EPS. Surely, not all commercial interests are simply holding out for a 200-acre peripheral innovation center, which has a very good chance of being rejected.
Not sure what your comment has to do with this discussion, but I have pointed out a number of times there are reasons why housing is important to commercial project – particularly in Davis. It helps with both financing (especially for larger innovation parks), it helps with recruitment because companies need to know where their employees will like, and is in general smart-growth planning to put housing and jobs in closer proximity. None of that negates the need for us to undergo economic development.
I strongly suspect that developers may not be telling you the actual reason, that they desire housing within their developments. I really doubt that it has anything to do with recruitment. Even if it did, can you remind me why Davis needs to build a commercial development AND housing for companies and people who aren’t in Davis? And, why those residents wouldn’t simply choose to live a few miles away? Or, why those companies don’t pay their employees enough to live in Davis?
There’s also a reason that these things prefer to be next to freeways. I’m pretty sure that their employees would make good use of the freeway, as would the occupants of the innovation center (who may very well work elsewhere).
Again, if housing is included, it weakens the “profit” that the city would receive from a commercial development. At that point, the original justification for it is gone.
My source of knowledge is not just from developers. Look at the major innovation centers, they have housing. Look at the research on mixed-use, innovation, high tech, etc.
In terms of your last point – everything depends on your goal. If you’re fine with the status quo – then there is no need. If you believe we should deal with our fiscal issues mainly through cuts and taxes, then you should pursue that. If you want to do economic development, that requires you adding jobs and with jobs, likely housing. There are choices, there is not one way to do things, there are tradeoffs to each approach.
But what I can tell you is that the status quo won’t hold. Change will happen. Right now we still get to choose which change we want.
If you’re referring to “innovation centers” in the Bay Area, you might have an argument regarding the availability of housing. But, it simply doesn’t hold in Davis (due to the much lower cost in Davis, and the surrounding communities).
Even in the Bay Area, the motivation to include housing might very well be driven by profit, vs. other claimed concerns.
Again, I’d start by examining the fiscal condition of other communities, and whether or not innovation centers or other commercial developments have “saved” them. And then, I’d look at what Rik noted, regarding the amount of commercial development that would actually be needed, to make any kind of dent in the challenges you see. (Of course, you’d also have to account for the fiscal cost of housing that would be needed, on or off-site.)
I strongly suspect that the state is going to be forced to respond, regarding unfunded liabilities throughout the state. Especially during the next downturn, which is now in its early stages. And, which will also impact the feasibility of innovation centers to “save” the community.
The bottom line is that commercial markets are more regional in nature, and have no particular reason to locate in Davis. You’ve already seen evidence of that, in the form of Bayer and the other innovation centers that communities are fawning over. The same communities that haven’t solved their own problems, via commercial development.
In the meantime, get ready for the latest sprawling, semi-residential freeway development proposal, on prime farmland.
I’m thinking it must be frustrating for development activists to continuously harp on invisible challenges, while simultaneously suggesting solutions that would be anything but invisible. (The same “solutions” that are the “status quo”, in communities that are nevertheless struggling more than Davis is.)
Maybe they should go out late at night, and make the local potholes larger. (Or, we could just wait for the increased traffic from new developments to do that, for us.) But, not to worry, as the increased traffic will discourage our excursions, regardless.
Ron, the reason that the claimed imbalance is “suddenly” an issue is pretty straightforward.
First, I would argue that the imbalance existed well prior to the Year 2000. In my opinion, the imbalance was “masked” by the Ponzi Scheme effects that had existed prior to 2000.
Second, the imbalance was further “masked” by a series of decisions (contrary to repeated staff recommendations) by Council to defer budgeted expenditures.
Third, because of the nature of the capital maintenance being deferred, the cost of the deferred capital maintenance expenses have more than doubled as the capital assets continued on a recurring deterioration. Bottom-line, greater deterioration moves the needle from planned maintenance, to major maintenance, to rebuild.
There are other reasons, but those are the Big Three.
The answer to the “occupied” question you pose in your second paragraph is also pretty straightforward.
First, the demographic changes in Davis from 2000 to 2010 show an over 2.400 person decline in the key demographic segment (young parents 25-54 and their children). So the demand for retail commercial shrank in absolute terms
Second, the changes in retail nationwide have meant the demand for retail commercial shrank in absolute terms by even more.
Third (in my opinion), UCD’s commitment to the retention in the Davis community of the intellectual capital UCD creates each year is either tenuous or ineffective or both. The best evidence of that factor is the recent announcement by UCD of the record number of startups for 2017-18. First, it is a modest 16 commercial companies, and all but one (or two) of those are not from the Davis campus.
Fourth, the historic relationship between City of Davis leadership and UCD senior management has been either painful or full of mistrust or both.
Matt, I was wondering the same thing as we’ve read litany after litany against any proposals. There’s always a long list of objections, but never any counterproposals. (Waiting to be saved by someone else doesn’t count as a proposal.) The most common theme appears to be “leave things be” which doesn’t address any of our current or forthcoming problems. Every counterargument is offered up in isolation with no holistic view of where we might head. And I see Don Shor has picked up the flag on this issue as well.
I see the issues that have to be addressed as follows:
– Improving jobs/housing balance in Davis, both to improve financial and fiscal health but also to reduce our impact on the environment.
– Sustainable funding for our school system which has aging infrastructure and underpaid teachers.
– Implementing sustainable and resilient environmental policies that are cost effective.
– Implementing an economic development plan that focuses on sustainability and resiliency.
– Reducing burdens on new businesses in town so as to improve vitality and our fiscal situation.
– Improving our housing stock in a manner that reduces upward pressure on rents and improves affordability for those who work here but are not paid as well.
– Providing a supportive community for university students as they transition into adulthood, including accommodating their residing in our neighborhoods as part of their journey.
I see any counter proposals as needing to address all of these issues (plus others I’m sure I missed.)
Let’s look at Richard’s list:
Improving the Jobs part of that balance/ratio will help. Changing the Housing part in isolation will not produce any lasting effect. With that said, given the student housing situation in Davis, the jobs/housing balance is going to get worse in the next 10 years, not better.
I’m all ears. Where do you see that sustainable funding coming from?
As Will Arnold said in September, ““My biggest question I think is the biggest question that remains for everyone – how do we get from here to there? That seems always to be the central question when we do these type of plans.”
I agree, and hope that the efforts of the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee, in concert with retaining in Davis the intellectual capital of the sustainability and resiliency academic achievements of UCD
The DPAC, Planning Commission, Finance and Budget Commission, and Utility Rate Advisory Commission are working in concert on this.
A worthy goal, but as long as we attempt to reduce upward pressure on rents and improves affordability by building new housing, we will fail … and fail badly. The costs associated with new construction, new entitlements and new land acquisition will consistently INCREASE upward pressure on rents and further erode affordability.
There is a one word answer to that one … jobs.
Richard McCann said: I see the issues that have to be addressed as follows: – Improving jobs/housing balance in Davis, both to improve financial and fiscal health but also to reduce our impact on the environment….”
What do you think the job-housing balance in Davis is compared to other areas? In your view what would consist of “improving” it? What level to we need to bring it to?
In reality, Davis already has a very strong jobs-housing ratio. Based on this document from 2015 [http://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/7a_-_attachment_a.pdf], the SACOG regional average jobs-household ratio was 1.19 in 2008, (see Table 1 on p. 4). Davis is at 1.32 (see Table 3 on p.9), so it already is higher than the regional average and is higher than the 5 other counties in the region besides Yolo.
And, as shown in Table 4 on p. 10, Davis as an employment center has the longest automobile commute times in the region compared to the 13 other employment centers listed. Average commute time to Davis is 33.4 minutes compared to the average of the others at 26.5 minutes.
Seems to me the bigger problem is that we are approving housing developments (e.g., The Cannery, Nishi, WDAAC) that don’t address our workforce/family housing needs. That leads to results something like 50% of Davis workers not living in town as the city caters more and more to students and seniors, and the wealthy.
Looking at ratios may not be a good way to analyze the situation in Davis. According to stats that we have, a huge number of people who work in Davis, live outside of Davis and a huge number of people who live in Davis, work outside of Davis. So there is a jobs-housing mismatch.
What happens is you have a large number of people in the morning getting into their cars and driving outside of Davis to their job. And a huge number of people getting into their cars and driving into Davis to their job.
Yeah, the SACOG report addresses those “mismatcheS”. What policy proposals do you have to address that?
The point is that there isn’t a jobs-housing “imbalance” in Davis. And that we are failing to provide housing for our workforce.
Seems like a lot of words in the article to make the simple point that things that decrease the City’s projected annual budget deficit of $8 million would be good and things that would increase it would be bad.
But I don’t see actual numbers being batted around that might inform us about the amount of “economic development” that would be needed. So with the help of Matt Willams’ excellent summary from April of this year, let’s jump in: https://davisvanguard.org/2018/04/nishi-numbers-dont-add-honesty-transparency-missing/
The 2016 Nishi (“1.0”) project was touted by project proponents as having 325,000 sq. ft. of research and development space and creating 1,500 to 1,800 permanent jobs on 46 acres. The EPS fiscal projections for the proposal had it coming in at a $106,000 annual deficit for City revenues. Based on this I have the following Modest Proposal: we just would need about -75.5 Nishi 1.0 projects containing -24.5 millon sq. ft. of R&D space on a total of about -3,500 acres (about -5.4 sq. mi.), and creating -113K to -136K jobs to erase that $8 million deficit. I SEE NO PROBLEMS WITH THIS PLAN.
Finally – someone more sarcastic than me! (I like that plan, as well.) 🙂
OK, with that encouragement, I have a Slightly More Modest Proposal:
Based on the 2010 report Final Business Park Land Strategy on the City of Davis’ Economic Development webpage: https://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/city-manager-s-office/economic-development we can estimate the number of business/research park jobs needed to net $8 million in annual City revenue. It turns out that at about $350 per job (see Table 9 on p. 29 of the report), we only need to create about 23,000 new jobs to get to $8 million. THIS SEEM ENTIRELY REASONABLE
It’s really “unfortunate” that the development activists have to deal with someone who actually reads and analyzes reports. You might want to consider volunteering for the city’s finance and budget commission.
Hey Rik,
23,000 new jobs….that’s quite a coincidence. Corresponds precisely to the number of unemployed university students currently living in Davis and in search of affordable housing.
Meanwhile, Palo Alto, with exactly 68,000 residents – same population as Davis – supports 100,000 daytime workforce jobs.
Don’t suppose there is any compromise number that might be acceptable to you and Ron.
John D.: I’m posting some satirical comments that have an underlying serious point: no one has been talking about how many jobs we’d need to add to put any kind of a dent in that City budget deficit. And a lot of economic development projects would have negative fiscal impacts (but are being sold to us as positive by some leaders using bad data/analysis). We’d best choose wisely.
“no one has been talking about how many jobs we’d need to add to put any kind of a dent in that City budget deficit.”
While jobs are a benefit to the community and the region, jobs aren’t the driver for city revenue. At least not directly. The two biggest revenue generators for an innovation center are property tax (which in a place like Mori Seiki, not only includes the land, but capital equipment) and sales tax. The city has also looked into things like per square foot CFD’s to generate revenue.
John D: your figures point to the fact that Palo Alto relies on other jurisdictions to a massive degree to provide housing for the employers within its city limits . Not sure that other communities could (or would want to) emulate that.
That’s part of why you are seeing a push for workforce housing in Davis.
The much bigger reason is because housing is what developers want to build. They do not give a damn, about workers.
If they could do away with the innovation center component entirely (as they did at Nishi and the Davis Innovation Center) and just build housing, they would do so.
And when housing is included in a peripheral commercial development, service costs increase.
It’s disgraceful that the Vanguard is nakedly advocating for developers, these days. There’s not even an attempt anymore, at unbiased coverage. The Vanguard is harmful to the community, in the same way that business interests can be.
I don’t believe any of this is an accurate statement. They believe that housing is necessary to include with the innovation center – you can agree or disagree with that assessment – but MRIC is being proposed as innovation, not housing. When housing is included in commercial development, it eases issues of financing and it also addresses a key question – where are the employees going to live which has been one barrier to economic development in Davis.
It was the voting public that basically made that choice. And you opposed both versions, if I recall.
Different developers.
David has advocated for economic development as one of the keys in a strategy to restore fiscal solvency to the city. What’s your strategy?
The reason that it “eases” issues of financing is because it is more profitable, for developers. However, it will end up costing the city more money.
There is no guarantee that residents of an innovation center would work there.
There’s a reason that this is being proposed at the only remaining, relatively easy freeway access point. As is usually the case, the developers want to take “free” advantage of that freeway access (and screw it up, in the process).
That freeway access will be used by commuters to the innovation site, from elsewhere. It will also be used by residents of the innovation center, to commute elsewhere.
MRIC would essentially be its own city, isolated from the rest of Davis.
One of the reasons that it eases financing is that a buildout period of 30 to 50 years makes it difficult for a project to deliver immediate returns on the investment.
There is never any guarantee, but I had a good talk with the folks at URP who believe that they will primarily get people who work at URP to live there.
WHy would MRIC be its own city? And isn’t that an argument to have housing there? Also, you are talking about tens of million in revenue for the city.
David Greenwald said:
“While jobs are a benefit to the community and the region, jobs aren’t the driver for city revenue. At least not directly. The two biggest revenue generators for an innovation center are property tax (which in a place like Mori Seiki, not only includes the land, but capital equipment) and sales tax”
Yeah, those calculations I posted take those into account. I merely expressed them in terms of revenue per job to give us an idea of the scale. If you have some different numbers go ahead and post them.
Rik: Regarding “revenue per job”, I’m wondering if that includes the long-term fiscal costs to the city, related to housing for those additional employees/residents.
It should also be noted that the city only receives a very limited portion of property taxes, and must also share taxes with the county (for peripheral developments).
What I fear is that some will purposefully downplay these realities, when the proposal is launched. We’ve already seen that occur with Nishi, and with the original version of MRIC.
Hi Ron. I asked a simple question and you reposted someone else’s satirical reply
With regard to the city’s fiscal deficit and restoring budget stability, what’s your strategy?
Don: Note that EPS’ analysis (referenced by Rik) was not “satirical”. No one should assume that a proposal would benefit the city, especially if it includes housing.
I always like it when I’m asked to “fix” something that others have screwed up. (Almost always as a result of prior development decisions.) But, I’d suggest that some are purposefully and repeatedly focusing on challenges simply because they want development – not because it’s a solution.
The first thing I’d suggest is some perspective. Davis is not alone, regarding fiscal challenges. It’s likely much better-off than many other communities (who embrace the type of development that you seem to prefer).
I’d suggest that some of the solutions will become apparent statewide, over time. I do not see any reason whatsoever to overreact (to problems that aren’t even apparent). Honestly, if I didn’t read the Vanguard every day, I wouldn’t know about the constant “crises” that some claim are occurring. (However, I’d certainly notice a sprawling peripheral development on prime farmland, and would be saddened to see it.)
In any case, I probably wouldn’t suggest raises for city employees at this time, like the one that the council just approved.
And, I’d suggest that the school district should adapt to the needs of the community, rather than the other way-around.
Your solution to the city’s fiscal deficit is:
there isn’t really a problem;
the state will probably solve whatever problem there is;
don’t give employees raises;
downsize the school district.
.
Am I understanding that correctly?
If you are a voter, taxpayer, property owner, or business owner in Davis, you’re part of the problem and part of the solution. All we need to know is what outcome you prefer and how you’d like to get there.
I assume you pay property taxes here. Are you ok with paying more?
If not, are there city services you would like to cut?
If you don’t want to cut services or raise taxes, is there a way that you can see how economic development could provide revenues for the city?
If not, how do you propose bringing revenues and expenses into balance?
*yawn*
If a claimed crisis is not impacting anything obvious, I’m having trouble labelling it as such.
But again, I’d certainly notice a sprawling “solution”, on prime farmland beyond a logical boundary for the city. To me, that would be a “crisis”. (I’ve seen a lot of those solutions, and they don’t seem to work as claimed.)
Don: the numbers are real. If you are advocating “economic development” as a solution to a certain problem it is incumbent on you to show the numbers for the kinds of projects you think will get us there.
Ron isn’t a public official; he is providing a needed critical perspective on the types of proposed “solutions” that often are the opposite. A “community watchdog” journalistic enterprise should be doing the same. That’s not the case here though.
I don’t need Ron to provide a detailed budget analysis. I simply want to know which of the methods of dealing with the city’s fiscal shortfall he prefers. You are welcome to answer as well, of course, although the question was not directed at you. Increase taxes and/or increase revenues; reduce expenses and/or cut staff and facilities. Some balance of those is going to be what balances the city’s budget.
Here’s a simple chart, over a decade old but useful in showing the possible proportional outcomes. Feel free to critique from your area of expertise.
http://www.californiacityfinance.com/FiscalComparison.pdf
Don: If you’re going to post charts, I’d suggest you first explain its relevance to whatever argument you’re trying to make.
The column for multi-family residential (which would probably be included at MRIC) shows a deficit, for one thing. Also, any Affordable housing parcel within the development would add to that deficit. Those deficits increase, over time.
Don: based on that chart link you just posted, Davis would only need to develop about 3,150 acres (or 4.9 sq. miles) as “Industrial” in order to reach the $8 million net City budget revenue mark. That’s only an area about 70x the size of the Nishi project. SEEMS REASONABLE.
Rik: I believe that you forgot to account for the deficit created (as shown in Don’s chart), by the inclusion of additional multi-family residential and/or Affordable (either onsite, or elsewhere).
Looks like about 3 acres of industrial is needed to offset the cost of 1 acre of multi-family housing. (Not including Affordable housing, which pays no property tax whatsoever.)
The original plan for MRIC was largely commercial with some local retail, and no housing. I believe that is what the EIR was done for. That would provide some property tax and sales tax revenues to the city, and provide some commercial space for businesses that want to locate in Davis. My opinion is that it would be a mistake for the developers to submit anything that varies markedly from that original proposal. I think a Measure R vote for MRIC is less likely to pass, for various reasons, than the other two recent ones, and that housing in the plan would worsen the prospects.
Don: What you and I “think” should occur is almost certainly different from what will occur, in regard to the proposal.
This thing is going to include housing, and a lot of it. They already turned down the opportunity to pursue a commercial development.
You may be correct, but that has not been determined.
The irony will be that the same people arguing that there shouldn’t be housing will then turn around in an election and ask where are the employees going to live and how will they get to work.
David: That may be so. In that case, those costs would still have to be accounted for, but at another location within the city. But really, it’s part of the cost of this proposal – even if not included in “official” analyses.
Having been through the rabbit hole previously with you, I will simply state, I don’t agree with your conclusion on the fiscal impact of housing.
What you’re really stating is that you don’t agree with the analysis posted by Don, the analysis for Sterling, etc.
Unfortunately, the city actually performs very little analysis regarding housing proposals. (Witness the 75% “across-the-board” cost allocation regarding WDAAC, for example. Concerns regarding that did not originate from me, but were effectively shut down by the chair of the FBC – who is now on the council.)
There was no external analysis performed for Nishi 2.0, nor was there any analysis whatsoever regarding the megadorms within the city (other than Sterling, which showed an ever-increasing deficit). Despite specific suggestions to examine the fiscal impacts of these large-scale megadorm developments.
Don’s post was not specific to Davis. I’ve been over a variety of fiscal analyses from the city to have an understanding of the differing outcomes and also the two camps (for lack of a better term) on how best to analyze housing costs. I believe I have explained my viewpoint to you often enough that you understand it, and don’t see the need to re-enter the rabbit hole.
The 75% “across-the-board” cost allocation that the FBC performed also applied to Nishi 2.0. There was no basis presented for this allocation.
You can try to explain this (and the city’s ongoing deficit) however you’d like, but the fact is that the deficit is caused by the cost to serve existing developments. There is no other cost factor.
Something about finding oneself in a hole, and digging deeper.
Setting aside for the moment whether housing would (or should) be included in an “economic development” proposal, I’m wondering where Don and David think we should find the 3,150 acres or so needed to address the $8 million City budget shortfall if we focus on industrial development only.
I don’t know anybody who is arguing that we should focus on industrial development only. The original process of identifying an economic development strategy, which began with a commission in about 2010, was for three sites that would have totalled about 500 acres. Those are MRIC, the site in northwest Davis, and Fifth Street, along with a small commercial component at Nishi.
The argument has been that economic development is one of the 3 – 4 things a city can do to be fiscally stable. I’ve already identified the others.
Don: I illustrated how much industrial development would be needed to address the problem that Greenwald states is the main reason we need economic development in the first place.
What these back-of-the-envelope cAlva show is that economic development is likely to be only a very small portion of any solution. It also shows that we should be really skeptical of claims to the otherwise. And that we should be wary of a lot of proposals that might have negative fiscal impacts, and we need to conduct due diligence as a community.
It is interesting, as Ron brought up, that the new Council member who touts his fiscal/budget experience has been the most irresponsible in pushing for certain types of project fiscal analysis that ignore broader true costs and impacts.
I disagree that we need 3150 acres to produce $8 million in budget revenue. I also would point out that a 30 to 50 year build for an innovation center means you also will need taxes and cost containment to go along with economic development. Although I do believe the hotels, increased TOT taxes, and cannabis will cut into that $8 million figure.
I think each of the original proposals included a hotel, so they would have the TOT taxes. Here is what Studio 31 was working with in their 2012 report.
David: I was using the numbers that Don linked to for industrial development. Based on the assumptions embedded in the report it would take that many acres. It also provides us with a sense of the scale that we are talking about if we are going to start to chase our own tail and try to build our way out of deficits.