By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – On the one hand, Measure J campaigns almost ensure that the opposition has to go negative—after all, without pointing out the flaws of the prospective project, how are you going to get voters to vote against it?
On the other hand, why the need for personal swipes? Stephen Wheeler, who was one of the signers of the No on Measure H Ballot Statement now being sued with a hearing set for Tuesday, has gone not only negative but personal.
He writes in an op-ed this week, “DiSC represents neither innovation nor sustainability. It is another big piece of suburban sprawl promoted by one of Davis’ most aggressive sprawl-builders, Dan Ramos.”
While it is questionable in content—the last project built by the Ramos family was Mace Ranch in the 1980s, it seems you could find more prominent developers in recent years. Still, even if you want to argue that’s true, what is gained by taking a personal swipe if you have the facts on your side?
Wheeler argues that “DiSC is essentially a greenwashed business park. Business parks are a traditional, much-discredited economic development approach in which cities designate a large area of land on their periphery for whatever commercial development they can manage to attract. These projects are highly motor-vehicle-dependent and undercut efforts to revitalize more centrally located downtown areas.”
On the contrary, Innovation Centers are popping up all over the region, the most recent being Aggie Square, the collaboration between UC Davis and Sacramento.
As Bruce Katz and Julie Wagner wrote in the Brooking Institute’s seminal study, The Rise of Innovation Districts, “These districts, by our definition, are geographic areas where leading-edge anchor institutions and companies cluster and connect with start-ups, business incubators and accelerators. They are also physically compact, transit-accessible, and technically-wired and offer mixed-use housing, office, and retail.”
It has been a decade now since the Studio 30 report recommended Davis set aside around 200 acres on the edge of town for large scale economic development. In fits and starts over the last eight years, various proposals have struggled under Davis’ land use laws, and DiSC 2022 would represent half of the recommended acreage.
Wheeler continues his attack noting, “Ramos has no clients signed up for this site who will represent innovation or sustainability. If none appear once the project is approved, he will come back to the city asking for changes in previous agreements about uses and types of buildings at the site.”
There are of course two problems with this attack. The first is that, if the developers want to change the usage of the site or the types of buildings, it would have to go back to the voters as the design details are in the Baseline Project Agreements.
Moreover, the frequent criticism of the site is that there are no clients signed up for the site—but why would there be? Most clients looking to expand want a shovel-ready project and DiSC has to gain voter approval and begin to build out, which will take several years as we have seen.
Aggie Square we saw quickly filled out their space. Regional Start up centers like AgStart and Inventopia have both filled up their space and are looking to expand, or have already done so.
Wheeler warns the result of this invented failure is that “20 years from now is likely to be a motley collection of freeway-oriented retail and commercial businesses on our eastern edge, along with high-end housing catering to commuters with jobs in Sacramento or the Bay Area. The I-80 causeway will be even more congested than it is today. And with those homes and businesses attracting drivers from around the region, our greenhouse gas emissions will be higher as well.”
This is the whole shtick but it ignores Measure J—ironic as that might seem. As we have pointed out, there are insurances built into this project to prevent these kinds of worst-case scenarios. In addition to the development mix, there is also a number of sustainability requirements that will prevent this from becoming a problem for climate change.
The Baseline Features requires simply that “DiSC 2022 will achieve carbon neutrality by 2040.”
The DA adds, “To achieve this goal each individual development must, prior to the issuance of building permits, demonstrate consistency with the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan by demonstrating a fair-share reduction of GHG emissions.”
There are a host of requirements to achieve all of this—everything from renewable power requirements to other mitigations and, if they don’t meet it, it is written into the agreement “developments may not progress unless project applicants can show they are reducing greenhouse gas emissions in an amount equal to production.”
Wheeler suggests a better form of development, arguing, “New building should take place in walkable, transit-accessible locations near existing homes, shops, offices, and schools. For Davis this means more incremental development of our downtown, the commercial centers in each neighborhood, and opportunity areas such as the East Fifth Street corridor (which is walkable and bikable to downtown).”
I’m all for that. There is nothing that would preclude this sort of development in Davis. But if Davis wants to be the landing spot for Tech Transfer, the place where high tech and environmentally friendly research-oriented business wants to move or a place where Marrone Bio Innovations, AgraQuest or Schilling Robotics want be able to remain, even as they grow, then Davis needs more space.
UC Davis is a place where research is taking place to help feed the world.
For example, a recent article from UC Davis news talked about the need to develop food without the need to slaughter and process animals.
They write “it’s set off an investment boom in recent years as startups vie for the technology that could win an entire new food sector.”
“The societal need is to provide dietary protein for a growing population,” said David Block, professor and chair of the UC Davis Department of Viticulture and Enology and professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering. “If the current food system can’t expand, we have to come up with alternatives.”
The team received an NSF Grant in September 2020 to study this issue, and, “With support from two nonprofits, the Good Food Institute and New Harvest, the consortium aims to meet needs of the new industry for research and growing interest from graduate students.”
Eventually that could be the type of high tech business that moves to a place like DiSC should they develop the research that could go to market. Or it could be the next Genentech which started out at UC Davis but went to Vacaville because Davis lacked the space. That was a huge loss for Davis.
Wheeler concludes, “Don’t be fooled by DiSC proponents. Ramos and his friends will use terms like ‘innovation’ and ‘sustainability’ as much as they can to get the initial entitlements to build. But once the project is in motion, they will work the city to let them build whatever will make the most money.”
But that’s precisely why we have Measure J, which has safeguards and requirements to prevent the very type of subterfuge that Wheeler and other opponents are concerned about.
David, at the risk of making a personal observation, this article of yours is myopic. Let me give some examples of the blinders it has on.
1) Regarding your response to the comment “It is another big piece of suburban sprawl promoted by one of Davis’ most aggressive sprawl-builders” Mace Ranch is indeed one of the biggest developments in Davis history. That is factually correct. In addition, you ignore the fact that the aggressive build-out timeline of mace Ranch was the reason Measure J was conceived and passed. And you also ignore the Ramos history developing Southport in West Sac.
2) Regarding your response to the comment “If none appear once the project is approved, he will come back to the city asking for changes in previous agreements about uses and types of buildings at the site” you appear to be ignoring the examples that both Robb Davis and I provided yesterday of similar “asks.” Davis has a long and active history of such developer asks. That is factually correct. Further, there is nothing in Measure J that prevents a developer from asking for changes. Measure J only specifies the processing method for handling those “asks.”
3) Regarding your concluding comment “But that’s precisely why we have Measure J, which has safeguards and requirements to prevent the very type of subterfuge that Wheeler and other opponents are concerned about” in addition to your doubling down on your flawed Measure J position, you are falling into the exact same trap you castigate Wheeler for … you have launched a personal attack of your own where none was called for. Pot … meet Kettle.
According to Robb Davis, the baseline features are outside of the development agreement (in some form in the legal docs of the measure I’m guessing?). So if uses and types of buildings are part of those baseline features; the council can’t change them without another voter approved change to the baseline features.
I don’t see any personal attacks on Wheeler in David’s article. The use of the word “subterfuge” is descriptive of the type of attack that David believes Wheeler used in regards the project being discussed. I do not see anything personal about it. But then I wouldn’t consider Wheeler’s comments overly personal about Ramos either. They’re factually correct if not a bit colorful.
Keith, you and I see both sets of comments the same way … neither are particularly personal. However, David argued for a more stringent threshold of “personal attack” in his assessment of Wheeler’s remarks. At that more stringent level he is guilty, in my opinion, of pot/kettle equivalence.
I could be wrong, but I think you and I agree that there was no reason to write the article.
Eh, the article is once again; David’s opinion; so I don’t see an issue with it. He wrote a rebuttal to comments that Wheeler made (in which he did not reference the original article). The problem is that in matters of Davis land use; the David’s opinions come fast and furious so that it seems like the Vanguard appears to be purely biased to one side of land use issues. David is admittedly biased but that’s fine; his articles are mostly his opinion. The problem is that the Vanguard doesn’t openly court opposing opinions to David’s. He’ll publish opposing opinions but there does not appear to be a part of the Vanguard that generates opposing opinion articles either internally or externally. So there’s like a 10:1 of publishing of YIMBY/NIMBY (to crudely divide the camps) articles. He wants to distance himself from being the lone or primary voice of the Vanguard and in the various regional legal stuff he’s been successful. But the land use articles are almost all David.
Agreed
“But that’s precisely why we have Measure J, which has safeguards and requirements to prevent the very type of subterfuge that Wheeler and other opponents are concerned about.”
Not really. Measure J was promoted by people opposed to growing Davis. It has been completely successful to date with not one thing subject to the ordinance having been built in 22 years.
As for attacking Dan Ramos there are many people in Davis who are still not over how his father got Mace Ranch pushed through in the 80’s. I had one local business person, who shall remain nameless, tell me they would never vote for anything associated with Ramos because of Mace Ranch. My guess is that unless you have been here for more than 35 years its not an effective election strategy.
Here’s a link to Stephen Wheeler’s article, since David did not include one:
https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/commentary-disc-is-anything-but-sustainable/
As far as David’s claims (in his own article):
I’ll say.
First, it (The Davis Innovation Center) has to fail in Davis – before even reaching voters, move 7 miles up Highway 113 (to a city that does everything possible to approve it), add 1,600 homes, and then still have no commercial tenants.
Aggie Square is heavily subsidized, and the first phase is 8 acres. When they find clients for the rest of it, it will be 24 acres total.
Both of which are small non-profits, both of which are heavily subsidized.
You continue to ridiculously compare Woodland to Davis and the I80 corridor. You know that Winters and Zamora don’t have viable hi-tech/innovation biz parks either right?
That’s how many start ups begin. For a time I used to work with seed state start ups…the kind that came out of Universities and Incubators. Companies that come out of these phases that are looking to expand are often partnered with their Universities and even the corporate development arms of some related bigger business (one of my favorites was In-Q-Tel the CIA’s venture capital arm. The Q in the name was homage to “Q” from the James Bond books/movies…..I also visited Xerox PARC and looked at some of their innovative stuff they put out there for possible biz development…it worked for Steve Jobs…but nothing came of it for me). The fact that these start ups are subsidized is irrelevant. When they want to expand they usually either have growing sales and/or new investors.
Keith, the Davis Innovation Center failed in Davis, before it moved 7 miles up an uncongested freeway. “AgStart” (cited in David’s article) is already located in Woodland, in a much-less convenient location.
You’re claiming with a straight face that companies won’t even look at the site? I call b.s., on that.
https://www.cityofwoodland.org/583/Woodland-Research-Technology-Park
And what replaced it in Davis, you ask? Housing, of course – in the form of WDAAC.
The fact that these start ups are subsidized is irrelevant.
They wouldn’t exist, if they weren’t subsidized.
Was Hewlett Packard, Apple, and Facebook subsidized (to name a few)? I don’t think so.
In what way did it FAIL in Davis? What about Agstart? Sure, companies will consider Woodland. But it isn’t going to be as desirable as the I80 corridor or the city that originally spawned some of the companies looking for space.
Yaaay! Let’s hear for small sample size! Once again a triumph for those with limited knowledge on a subject. Did you type that with a straight face? And it could be argued that Facebook was informally incubated (subsidized) by Harvard when it started.
It didn’t. The investors chose to go elsewhere. There are plenty of good reasons that they would make that decision, including Measure J.
No commercial demand. Same reason that MRIC/ARC failed, as well. (At least twice, as I recall.) Until they added 460 housing units. Same reason that The Cannery wanted no part of an “innovation center”. Same reason that Nishi jettisoned their commercial component. (Same suspect that Nishi had only included the commercial component to avoid Affordable housing requirements.)
Pretty-much the opposite of what you have been claiming.
It’s in Woodland, in a less-convenient location than the technology center site. I believe there’s some other agricultural/seed companies just outside of Woodland, as well.
From what I’ve heard, commercial interests aren’t as interested in specific locations (compared to residential developers). Which makes sense.
Yeah – I did type it with a straight face. Came up with it in about 30 seconds, off the top of my head. I’m sure that there’s thousands more, which didn’t require an ongoing subsidy.
It absolutely DID fail. So did MRIC and ARC, before it even reached voters.
Measure J cannot be blamed, given that the Davis Innovation Center was replaced by a successfully-proposed housing development (WDAAC) – on the same site. Approved, via Measure J.
And yet, some claim that Measure J prevents peripheral housing developments, more than commercial developments.
The facts don’t back up that claim. In “fact”, the “facts” are so far-off that not even the most creative development activists can make sense of their own claims.
How did you determine that it was due to demand?
No, I said your comparison of Woodland and I80 Corridor to Woodland was ridiculous. It’s like the difference between locating a tech company in San Jose or Morgan Hill. Sure you can do it and some are located down there. But it’s nowhere near the same market as San Jose or the rest of Bay Area. Morgan Hill is on the periphery of the Metro Area…..as is Woodland to the I80 Corridor. And for Stanford start ups looking to grow; most of them want to stay closer to Stanford (as well as Sand Hill Road).
I’m still not getting your point.
From what I’ve heard, commercial interests aren’t as interested in specific locations (compared to residential developers). Which makes sense.
It depends on the commercial project. You can’t just lump all commercial real estate together. Retail is going to generally favor being off of the freeway (obviously). Industrial/Class C isn’t going to be as picky because it can often times go anywhere (as long as there are no environmental impact issues). Then you boil it down to specific industries. In the case of tech, bi0-tech and med-tech it’s all going to be tied to Sacramento, the Bay Area and UCD. Why? Because headquarters are often still located in the Bay Area. Business contacts, funding sources…etc…are still located there. The connection to Sac is needed for legal political connections necessary for those businesses. I’m guessing here but I think Ag business (which i have little experience with) has little connection to the Bay Area but does with Sacramento and UCD.
Yeah – I did type it with a straight face. Came up with it in about 30 seconds, off the top of my head. I’m sure that there’s thousands more, which didn’t require an ongoing subsidy.
It took you 30 seconds to come up with Hewlett Packard, Apple and Facebook? I’m not sure it’s possible to continue this part of the conversation. Seriously, I used to visit all the incubators in the Bay Area; Berkeley has it’s own Haas (school of biz) incubator (had?…there’s some skydeck biz accelerator there now). There was a women’s biz incubator adjacent to Panasonic’s incubator in the Potrero Hill area of San Francisco. New business ideas primarily come from two sources: established business spinoffs and university research. To what degree they are subsided is up for discussion. I’m guessing med, bio and ag biz is going to be far more research, academic and government related partnership, subsidized research…etc…than computer hardware and software companies.
I don’t think it is. Both the “Davis Innovation Center” and the “Woodland Technology Center” (or whatever it’s called) are actually on the same Highway 113 corridor, separated by a few easy freeway miles.
Just curious: How do you suppose the retail in Vacaville is doing these days? (I don’t have an answer to that, but I suspect it’s taken a hit.)
I do know that Vacaville is nowhere near a university, has had other business failures, and looks lovingly upon sprawl. They’re also closer to the Bay Area.
How are Vacaville’s city finances doing, and (in the unlikely event it’s “positive”) does that actually benefit the residents’ own pockets? (Other than those directly connected to developments, and/or receiving federal rescue funds handed out to business interests?)
Bwahahaha!!! You my friend are PREDICTABLE. As soon as Vacaville is brought up you start complaining about sprawl and other irreverent things.
Irrelevant to this discussion.
Sure it’s close to a University. It’s 15 miles to UCD and you’re right; it’s closer to the Bay Area….something important to Genentech. Woodland is close Sac and UCD; probably why ag biz will locate there. But biotech and med tech are probably more likely connected to Sac, UCD and the Bay Area.
I do not know. Retail in general has taken a hit over the past couple of years. So the city’s finances probably took a hit (like most cities have). Positive revenue into the city; should translate into services provided by the city…I dunno parks? Also, if they’re growing residentially then they need to fund providing more residential services with new business development.
You’re the one who brings up Vacaville as your poster child, and you so so again in your subsequent comments. “Sprawl” IS my concern – and is the primary relevant issue (and a direct result of the pursuit of additional economic development). Again, DiSC is just the beginning of what developers and a supportive city council have in mind for that area (see Shriner’s, the “other half” of DISC, Palomino Place, and the space inside of Mace Curve).
Woodland is a heck of a lot closer to UCD and Davis than Vacaville is. In fact, I’d argue that the Woodland technology center (planned business park) is easier to get to from UCD and parts of Davis, than “MRIC/ARC/DISC/DiSC” is.
Seems to me that (in general) knowing the answer to this is key, regarding the supposed-connection between city finances and residents’ well-being. After all, isn’t this supposedly the primary reason for Davis voters to support it?
And remind me again how that’s supposed to help existing residents.
Regarding Keith’s “that’s how many start ups begin” comment, I again agree with him … and I would go further to state my belief that Davis would have a better economy if UC Davis and the City had a robust and active and mutually-supportive collaboration for technology transfer out of UCD into the private sector. However, as has been pointed out by David in past Vanguards articles, DiSC needs to lease a minimum of 90,000 square feet of incremental space each and every year in order to cover its bills (90,000 going to 180,000 going to 270,000, etc as the years progress from 1 to 2 to 3 and so on), and start-ups simply aren’t going to amount to anything close to that amount of square footage … plus they are going to strongly advocate for below-market rents in order to survive the realities of being a start-up.
I did not mean to imply that start ups would be taking DISC space. Usually 9-10 start ups fail. But the ones that do progress go on to expand, need space. So ideally a good pipeline of start up companies can continue to feed business parks in and around Davis. They aren’t going to fill those business parks but they would at least fill some of the space. Luring companies to Davis is the other part of the equation. It’s these companies that usually need custom facilities that usually come from new business parks. I’d imagine that start ups and other smaller companies could fill up the existing commercial space (if it’s fixed up or redeveloped).
Generally the types of businesses that have been discussed for these business centers haves been move-ups, not start-ups. Seems those terms get conflated. Local businesses that need more space, for example. But also some of the larger ag science and tech businesses, including international firms that do plant breeding, biotech, pest management, bio-med, etc., that might want to have facilities near UCD for the labor pool and for proximity to UC research. Just look at the ag industries that are already located and locating around the area.
Keith, I’m not sure that your I-80 Corridor argument is as much of a slam dunk as you make it out to be. For example, Monsanto chose Woodland as the location for its expansion and centralization of research operations … specifically vacating their existing Davis operations and moving them to Woodland. Your point still stands as a rule of thumb, but not a universality.
Don, you say “Just look at the ag industries that are already located and locating around the area.” It would be helpful to the ongoing dialogue if you can provide a list or a link to a list?
As far as greenhouse gasses are concerned, it seems to me that households with only “one” car might be incentivized to get or keep another old junker:
Fighting escalating gas prices: California Gov. Gavin Newsom proposes $400 for households with one car and $800 with two cars. Other states suspend their gas tax. (msn.com)
Yay!
From the state that brought you the offsite carbon “mitigation” program.
Have you looked at a map recently?…Aggie Square is smack in the center of the entire Sacramento region. It meets the classical definition of central infill on underutilized urban land. Plus because of the transit connectivity and local residential population density, it will have some of the lowest residential and employee VMT ratios in the region. DiSC on the otherhand, is the antithesis of Aggie Square because it a peripheral project sprawling out onto prime farmland outside of town that relies almost completely on commuters from out of town to get to work thus dramatically increasing the projects carbon footprint.
What about Vacaville’s?
Buzz Oats has a $750M industrial park going into Placer County
HUNT IS ON FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND: (paywall) Available industrial properties in the region are harder to come by as demand outstrips supply
By the way, do you all know what was originally-planned for the site of the Woodland technology park?
A (strictly) commercial site, as I recall seeing on earlier plans for that area.
And yet, it will now have 1,600 homes included, as a result of recruiting the failed Davis Innovation Center. (Which will now also be covered in housing.)
And still has no commercial tenants.
What does this tell you, regarding the demand for housing (vs. commercial) development? In addition to all of the failures to “force” an innovation center in Davis.
Five comment rule is in effect.
How does that even mean anything?
Not seeing that. Isn’t your saying he’s going personal and negative going personal and negative?
What personal swipe?
Aggie Square is in the middle of a densely populated area of Sacramento and is heavily subsidized. Not seeing the parallels.
Attack! Attack! I’m not seeing this as an attack. That’s a pretty hawkish word. He’s more making an argument against a project. Isn’t your calling at an ‘attack’ more of a personal attack than your oddly calling his words an ‘attack’ ?
Aggie Square is heavily subsidized and who wouldn’t want to be subsidized if you have a choice, so of course it filled up.
Those are small, subsidized and very unique businesses. That isn’t an argument for a business park.
I believe ‘invented failure’ are DG’s words – another attack?
As likely as what is claimed by the pro side, including ‘saving the world’.
Nonsenical as that might seem.
As I pointed out, not so much.
As I pointed out, you can require something solid like a bridge or an intersection improvement that is solid and real. Climate Goals are measured in models and are in the future. That can all be argued away in court with dueling experts. Should not be allowed.
See above.
See above. And has been pointed out, DA’s can be changed without voter approval.
All the way to ‘other mitigations’ ? Wow! Those ‘other mitigations’ are so impressive!
Through models predictive of a future and sqishy.
Davis is not a single entity.
That and convincing six billion more people to become vegetarians.
Vegetarianism is probably as old as the human race, and is already expanding.
Maybe the societal need is to reduce the population, instead.
Like I said, alternatives, like less people.
Or you could just go to the Davis Food COOP and find lots of vegetarian options created with good old entrepreneurial spirit.
Should they . . .
Or it could be the next Murder Burger that died in Davis, ironically by selling meat.
Or because they liked Vacaville and didn’t want to hurt Davis’ feelings.
And a huge gain for Vacaville. What’s your point?
Cannery! Cannery! Can-Ner-Reeeee!
Measure J has what now?
I don’t get the point. Why was this article written. Who attacked who, ‘personally’ ? How is ‘opposing’, ‘going negative’ ? Being against something isn’t ‘going negative’.
Couldn’t hiring a sitting City Councilmember be considered ‘going negative’ ? It sure is for me. I was leaning towards voting for the project, because I saw it as a way to get a piece of bike infrastructure built and getting some need housing and business space (whatever it will be, I don’t really care or buy the cheerleading — and I certainly don’t think whatever it is will save the world). But having a sitting City Councilmemeber be the Honorary Chief of Litigation was like walking up to me at breakfast and dropping an türd in my Wheaties & milk.
I like my Wheaties & milk without the türd, thanks.