At last week’s forum I asked a question of Danielle Casey that seemed straightforward but at the same time turned out to be fairly sobering.
How does the region view Davis from the standpoint of economic development? What do you hear from commercial entities looking to locate in this region?
Her answer was worse than I thought it would be.
“When we work with firms that are looking at coming into the region, they’re looking at expanding, it has already been said in terms of certainty… We have innovative companies that are looking at connecting with Greater Sacramento. I’d say, for the most part, Davis isn’t even considered because they’re going to do a look at a requirement in terms of commercial space availability and they’re just not finding it,” she said.
“They don’t even see it all,” Danielle Casey said. “So you’re not even getting a look to begin with.”
More broadly, Danielle Casey noted that, for a long time, the Sacramento region wasn’t even on the map.
“The scary thing,” she said, when she lived elsewhere, “I never heard anything about the Sacramento region. Which is another issue and concern and something we’re really looking to drive forward.”
UC Davis is a huge selling point, and she said, in terms of the region and the assets of this region, “That’s completely different.”
Echoing Barry Broome, she said that “they see it as an untapped resource but also as the gateway to Silicon Valley.”
She noted, “The perception (of UC Davis) is very high.”
The quality of the community is seen as being at a very high level but “it’s also seen as hard to tap into. Hard to access. Some of that is also the perception of the university itself. It’s a 
challenge.”
She told the audience on Wednesday that the challenge with small firms is “how do I connect with the university” and “how do I get in there?”
From the perspective of the city, this gets back to the data that Danielle Casey presented in the first part of her presentation. The lack of office and industrial space in Davis. The lack of the commercially zoned land for the city overall.
We currently see both the upside and the downside of this. The upside is that when the space needs are small and there is space available, we are seeing some positive movement.
Consider Mars or Archer Daniels Midland Co. coming to Davis, or Nugget moving its headquarters here or Sutter Davis expanding. We also know that Sierra Energy has tapped millions to expand its research center. Fulcrum spent tens of millions to purchase Interland and now expand that facility.
So clearly there is a demand and companies and developers with resources are looking at Davis as a market to tap into.
But there is a downside here. We first saw it in 2013 when Bayer/AgraQuest, which had been founded in Davis as a small company by Pam Marrone, left. It went to West Sacramento and is now in the process of creating its own innovation center.
There are probably two more companies native to Davis that are likely to move out of Davis in the next few months, most notably Shilling Robotics.
We know that bigger companies like Genentech bypassed Davis for regional markets.
That is the reality that we face. And I think that Danielle Casey summed it up rather perfectly. Companies looking to locate in the Sacramento region are not looking at Davis because they have no place to go in Davis.
A key question that I think the residents of Davis need to ask themselves is whether that matters to them. It may not. There are people reading this column saying, we have what we need here, this is a nice community, I want to keep it small, keep these tech companies out of here.
I don’t happen to agree with that view, but I think it is a legitimate view and why I continue to support community choice in the form of Measure R.
But I also think we need to lay the numbers on the table. If Davis continues to add commercial development at the rate they have for the last two decades, then we really don’t need to add commercially zoned land.
We have to understand that that means we lose AgraQuest, we lose Shilling, we lose other medium-sized companies that cannot find space for their current and future plans, and it also means we do not get looks from other mid-sized companies.
On the other hand, if we want to do more, then we need some space. I have argued in the past that we need about 200 acres. That would be large enough to allow current companies to grow while attracting new companies, and that would help increase our revenue – making our city coffers more stable and allowing us to avoid more tax increases in the future.
But really, the future of this community is up for the residents to decide.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“There are people reading this column saying, we have what we need here, this is a nice community, I want to keep it small, keep these tech companies out of here.”
“I don’t happen to agree with that view, but I think it is a legitimate view and why I continue to support community choice in the form of Measure R.”
Huh? That makes no sense. You disagree with the argument but support the tool that maintains the stranglehold.
I view one as a policy preference and one as a process.
David – I think you are failing to take into account how financial risk impacts development proposals, and the high level of risk and uncertainty that is caused by Measure R for those businesses looking to build in Davis. Measure R is killing our opportunities for economic development and as a consequence, our opportunity for creating a fiscally sustainable community. Bad roads, high local taxes, unaffordable housing, and reduced services are all thanks to Measure R and the resulting lack of investment by businesses and developers.
I’m not failing to take that into account any more than others are failing to take into account the political realities of Davis.
Mark… I take some exceptions to your 9:06 post…
Roads aren’t that bad, but unless we invest much more in maintenance/repair, they will be… a nuance. Damaged pavements allow water in the subgrade, which accelerates the problem… much cheaper to keep up with maintenance/repair than to have to go to a reconstruct… so, I believe it is clear that we act to deal with that… am pretty sure you’ve seen the “curves”… was involved in many over the years…
As to ‘reduced services’… have not really experienced that, but would (again) be interested in seeing what you see as reduced services,and, if ‘triage’ is necessary, what services are ‘needs’, and which are just ‘wants’? What would your cut/add list look like?
Haven’t seen a response from you when I posed a similar question on another thread. You ran for a CC seat, as I recall… “fish or cut bait”, if you understand the referent, which I believe you do.
Am genuinely interested in the above, and on the expenditure side (assuming revenues are flat, no ‘fairy god-mother’, huge un-met liabilities), where would you cut? Perfectly honest question,and if provided, would share where I believe cuts could rationally be made. I think that constitutes a fair question.
Then you haven’t looked. I responded a few days ago while at the same time pointing out that I had previously answered the same question from you.
The majority of the residents in Davis are renters. If they voted in their best interests we would be rid of Measure R tomorrow.
Voters (and blog writers) complaining about rent increases, housing scarcity, high taxes, and the lack of economic development, while simultaneously supporting the continuance of the very policy most responsible for those challenges, is the political reality (aka lunacy) of Davis.
David
“Accounting for political realities” doesn’t mean that you have to support a particular policy that is destructive to the communities’ political reality. Mark is dead on about the problems of investment risk from the way Measure R is set up now. Have you noticed that the only Measure J/R projects pursued to a vote were developed by local residents? No outside investors are willing to take the risk, and only the locals believe that they can navigate the politics to a successful vote. That greatly narrows the opportunities for innovative, vibrant new developments. And instead those developers go to other communities where they create developments that are much less favorable to larger environment and to the local economy of Davis.
Funny… thought the purpose of politics, here or anywhere else, was to change “realities”… but I’m not a poly sci guy…
Gravity is a reality… economic development, affordable housing, etc., appear to be more “constructs”, rooted in politics… but others have tried, in the past, to deny that gravity is a reality… some limited success, in the short term…
According to the chart from this same presentation, they look at it as part of the “Davis/Woodland” region. The same region that has already approved plans for a 2 million square foot, 1,600 home “innovation center” about 7 miles from UCD, via a lightly-used freeway.
With thousands more houses recently built, and/or with imminent plans for construction.
For some reason that is how their data that was available was broken down.
However, the innovation center has not been built, and if anything that puts a further impetus on Davis to create space or risk companies leaving and not coming here.
Ship = sailed.
For one thing, Davis is not able to compete on cost. MRIC/ARC would have to make their money on the housing, in which Davis can command a premium. It’s certainly a convenient location to commute to Sacramento, to/from.
I disagree that the ship has sailed. One of the things that people talked about on Wednesday is that Davis with space will be very competitive because Davis has faculty and students and the name. Cost is actually a lot less of an issue than people think because Davis will be far cheaper than Silicon Valley. ARC is not going to make money on housing without the innovation center, in fact it won’t even be able to build housing until phrase three.
The cost would be compared with the Woodland innovation center, as well as costs in West Sacramento, Dixon, etc.
Ask the developer if he’d prefer to build a housing development, only. I strongly suspect that he’d make MORE money that way. It’s “unfortunate” for the developer that the city probably won’t allow it, this time. (As they did with 2-3 other innovation center sites.)
You’ve really got your work cut out for you this time. I almost feel kind of bad for supporters of this sprawling proposal. (But, not really.)
He wants an innovation center. He’s going to put in stipulations as to when housing can go in, but he was very clear this is not a housing project, he sees housing as an auxiliary.
Uh, huh.
Ron
You’re now speculating on something that you have absolutely no knowledge about. David answered your question from the source. If you have doubts, you need to run the numbers and back it up rather than just continue insinuations as though they had validity.
Richard: I’m not the one who lumped-together the “Davis/Woodland” commercial market.
Really, the boosters of this thing ought to come out with some kind of cohesive sales pitch. It’s been one screwed-up, after another. Starting with the inclusion of housing.
If that’s what was happening then you might have a point. But I asked Danielle to present a regional view of economic development and situate Davis in it. The data she presented is what they were able to find. She was never asked to make a case for ARC or any project.
No – that sub-task is apparently *your* non-profit job. But the presentation didn’t help you, to say the least.
I rather disagree. I think the case is made that there is a lack of commercial space, that companies aren’t going to look here without it, and the it’s up to the voters if that’s what they want to figure out a way to solve that problem.
This reminds me of the time that Will Arnold put the old east Davis neighborhood “on the spot”, regarding the feasibility of a smaller Trackside.
Let’s see the developers go first, regarding “opening their books”. And let’s be honest, there’s no way this thing gets built without (850 units?) of housing. That’s where the money is, for developers. Any other claims (e.g., regarding providing housing for their workers – when TONS of cheap housing are available nearby) are simply hot air.
Any idea how much parking there might be (for this freeway-oriented development), at this point? Or, how it might be divided between residents, and commuters to the site?
And more importantly, where can I go to observe the resulting traffic mess (for amusement), without getting caught it in myself? (Have to admit that I already get a “kick” out of observing I-80, from a “safe distance”.)
Of course, there is no “safe distance” from the pollution, or the increased “hot air”.
David/VG… the “shot clock” for editing one’s own comments is definitely compromised/broken… had 3+ minutes on the clock, and got, “You can no longer edit this comment”. [I was only trying to put a ‘space’ in, not a re-write]
Suggesting that if it can’t be fixed, eliminate it… go to what you post is what you post. No do-overs, no edits… current situation makes me think of a new “game” based on an old one… ‘VG roulette’…
BTW, understand that ‘some’ have privileges to edit/re-write much longer than the 5 minute shot-clock…
I have sent a request to the web folks, I will check back tomorrow with them as they are closed today.
Understood. Thanks for looking at it again.
Hence, leading to the cancerous sprawl spreading along Highway 505.
Same old, same old.
If you really want to sober up: check out the anemic real-world performance of the vast majority of “innovation” centers/business parks vs. the pie-in-the-sky field-of-schemes promises their boosters make as they try to pitch their snake oil to gullible communities.