Special to the Vanguard
For almost two decades, Davis has studied options for an innovation park with the goal of leveraging UC Davis’ international reputation for academic and research advancements in agriculture, biotech, green-tech, and food science research. Four options studied initially appeared to be viable, but these have since been reduced to one.
One side sees new jobs, housing, and city revenue. The other sees traffic gridlock, growing demand for housing, and 
exaggerated economic benefits.
Davis voters will decide on June 7 whether to annex agricultural land for the Davis Innovation and Sustainability Center (DiSC 2022). This is a scaled-down version of a project defeated by Davis voters two years ago.
To help voters decide for themselves how to vote on the new proposal, the League of Women Voters (LWV) Davis Area has prepared a nonpartisan Pros and Cons on Measure H.
In table form, the document provides a summary of the pro-and-con arguments on important issues: impact on city and school revenue, the environment, housing, jobs, traffic and impact on the downtown. An overview and history of the project also are provided.
The document can be viewed at bit.ly/MeasureHProCon.
More information about the Davis League—and a copy of the document—are available on the organization’s website at: lwvdavisarea.org.
Quick and simple pro vs con list, thank you.
One thing I didn’t realize was that the No on Measure H campaign is run by Michael Corbett. I was curious how the No on H group was so coordinated and well funded.
I get it now. Michael Corbett and his son have made a lot of money by building fancy expensive housing in downtown Davis, they probably stand to lose money with any expansion of housing outside of their own economic benefit and the anti-growth mentality. Michael Corbett is a great guy, but it’s important to understand the economic incentives of the No on H campaign.
I don’t think that’s accurate.
It’s definitely not accurate.
There aren’t any, other than encouraging redevelopment of existing properties within the city.
Don’t know (or care) if Michael Corbett is a “great guy”, but DiSC would create a housing shortage (if the commercial component is actually successful) – which subsequent peripheral developers would surely (normally) enjoy.
That’s definitely not accurate…
Do tell. No one is a mind reader on here.
I’m not aware of personal economic incentives for advocating against DiSC, other than avoiding the costs from being being stuck in the resulting traffic. I do know that there are personal costs for participating in the campaign, itself. (And that those costs have increased, due to Carson’s lawsuit.)
Though now that I think about it, there is a threat to downtown businesses (and commercial property owners), if DiSC is approved.
Is that what you’re referring to? The costs of being stuck in the resulting traffic, and the cost of urban blight for existing commercial properties? (Including, I suppose – the existing hotels? Three of which are new – including one right across the street from DiSC.)
In fact, I don’t even see how advocating against a housing shortage would benefit an infill housing developer, either.
Housing shortages benefit both infill and peripheral housing developers.
In any case, looking forward to your explanation.
Don/Ron: more accurate to say he is one of the people running it? He is listed on many of the No on H documents and more specifically he is listed as the point of contact for the lwv document in the article above…
Ron, it seems like you answered your own question, housing shortages will increase infill demand and infill property that Michael owns and renovates will increase.
No – he’s not running the campaign.
Your conclusion is the opposite of what the EIR itself notes, in that DiSC promises to create more jobs (new workers) than it will house.
This is the really odd part of the “Yes on DiSC” side, as these are the same people who (normally) complain about “housing shortages”. And yet, here they are – arguing for one.
As such, your theory regarding Mike Corbett’s involvement does not make sense. I don’t know the reason for his involvement, as I’ve never met or spoken to him. Maybe he just thinks its a bad development.
Zane, you are assuming a fact that is not in evidence. The core participants in the No On DiSC effort had their first meeting on September 11, 2021. They have met by Zoom every week since … 36 meetings … and Mike Corbett has not participated in any of those 36 meetings. He is not one of the people running the No on Measure H campaign,
When the League of Women Voters Davis Area (LWVDA) decided to assemble a non-partisan Civic Summary covering Measure H they reached out to Gloria Partida on the Yes side and Mike Corbett on the No side to act as sources of information on the two sides of the Measure H issues. When he was contacted by LWVDA, Mike agreed to help them … just as Gloria Partida did on the Yes side.
If you apply the same logic you have used in your comments above, are you also asserting that “the Yes on Measure H campaign is run by Gloria Partida?”
Thank you for the correction Matt. I appreciate the thorough response.
Any idea how many of the No’ers for the H committee were also No’ers for Target (measure K) all those years back? Has got to be some overlap. No’ers are pretty consistent when denying the needs of students and startup companies alike. When I was a student in 2006 I remember the hypocrisy of the No’ers then.
Ron, you made the statement that you are not aware of any economic benefit for anyone in the No on H, my use of Michael as an example, is that there maybe financial benefit to the stakeholders behind No on H.
In my experience with the No on the last mace ranch park and last two Nishi’s is that the No’ers are more coordinated and more funded now than previously. This may just be my perception but this makes me question the financial motivations of some of the No backers.
Or maybe the No’ers just have more time on their hands.
Here is your first comment, above:
Arguing against DiSC (and the housing shortage it would create) would not benefit someone like Michael Corbett, per the claims you put forth above.
I can envision scenarios in which opposing it would benefit existing commercial property owners (including hotel owners). And of course, opposing it would also benefit anyone subject to the costs of being stuck in the resulting traffic. (Both of these examples were subsequently noted.)
Again, there are none for that group of people. The campaign has cost them money, and Dan Carson’s lawsuit increased that cost. It’s unfortunate that there’s no appreciation expressed on this blog, for those personally willing to fight for Davis. Instead, they’re consistently vilified.
You keep putting forth allegations which are not supported, and which don’t even make any sense.
For that matter, not all of the “No on DiSC” people consistently oppose all proposals. In fact, I believe one of them supported Nishi (or was not opposed to it), using your example.
Zane, my pleasure. Some people complain that my responses are too thorough (wordy? detailed?), but I’m afraid that this 75 year-old isn’t likely to change that approach any time soon. It is a well established behavior pattern.
Regarding your excellent question about Target, I have forwarded that question to the core group. It will be interesting to hear the answers I get. I will forward them on when I get them. I know that my personal answer is “I had no opinion either yes or no on Target.” The first two responses I’ve gotten are as follows:
.
——————
Regarding the “denying the needs of students” part of your comment to me is share with you the following:
.
That very simple statement was made last Wednesday here in the Vanguard by Edgar Wai (a UCD PhD graduate and now an employee of DMGMori). It is powerfully elegant in its simplicity. Is there any reason that you disagree with Edgar’s statement?
——————
Regarding the “denying the needs of startups” part of your comment to me. I have been a resident of the davis community since 1998, and during those 24 years until the DISC 2020 and DiSC 2022 proposals came along there haven’t been any questions formally placed before the community regarding startups. Further, nowhere in the “No” opposition to either of those projects is there a single word about “denying the needs of startup companies.”
The problem for startups isn’t with the No on DiSC opposition, but rather, as Tim Keller so clearly stated yesterday with the landlords of the substantial amount of existing space in Davis.
If the commercial vacancy rate in Davis is as low as you indicated in a previous comment, the amount of commercial space in Davis is not ‘substantial’. Have you been able to verify the 2.7% commercial vacancy rate?
Would that include all types of commercial space (e.g., including existing buildings, under-utilized space, vacant land, etc.)?
As an example, won’t the Trackside and University Mall redevelopments supposedly “increase” commercial space, on the same amount of land? Wasn’t that one of the arguments that proponents put forth?
But more importantly, do you have any concerns regarding the resulting residential vacancy rate, if DiSC is approved?
Given that DiSC would create a housing shortage, if the commercial component is successful.
Or, are you “counting on” additional residential developments being approved (such as Shriner’s, and the other half of DiSC) – despite the fact that approval is by no means “automatic”?
It would be whatever the standard is in the industry for calculating the vacancy rate.
As to your other questions, I haven’t taken a position on DISC.
I gave a number of presentations against Measure K (Second Street Crossing aka Target). I recall Peri Drips, Pam Nieberg, Sue Greenwald, and others being some of the organizers and individuals on the ‘No’ side. Primary opposition came from downtown merchants (and some other business owners such as myself) and those who lived in the neighborhoods next to the project proposal. I don’t happen to recall Alan Pryor or Mike Corbett or Darell Dickey or Colin Walsh or Roberta Millstein being involved in that campaign, but I was not involved in the day-to-day operations of it.
No. That specific number was from one person from the Yes side of the divide.
Given the huge definitional variances of what constitutes “commercial” I leave any such verification efforts to much more knowledgeable folks than I am.
With that said, have you been able to verify whatever the standard is in the industry for calculating the vacancy rate?
No. I’m not the one who posted a number that couldn’t be publicly verified.
I don’t actually care what the “standard” is so long as we get an apples to apples comparison: commercial vacancy rate in Davis vs Woodland, vs West Sac, vs Sacramento.
I assume that it would include actual commercial properties that have no tenants, not hypothetical properties that might someday be redeveloped or developed. It doesn’t really matter. A vacancy rate is a snapshot in time within the existing market. What matters is where Davis stands with respect to the surrounding communities in the same basic market.
Let us know when you get your 2.7% number verified. Seems like an important data point.
.
Don, it is not my number. I was crystal clear in that when I first shared that number in the following comment.
Since the source of the 2.7% vacancy number was an adjunct member of the Yes on Measure H campaign team, I will contact Dan Ramos and pass on to him your verification request. I will copy you on the e-mail that I send to Dan.
I think the range of the market is broader than you listed. I’d include Sacramento, Roseville (City approves $1.16 million funding for Roseville Venture Lab) , Rocklin and Vacaville.
There should also be a breakdown of types of commercial space available. Retail space, Class A & B office space…light industrial…etc…. And more important than just the data (which is important) is a qualitative analysis to go with the numbers generated. Interview prospective companies and commercial real estate brokers to learn what they’re specifically looking for and why.
Interestingly the quote below is from one of the strongest opponents to Target
.
This is my fourth comment today in this thread. I will limit myself to one additional comment today.