By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – As noted earlier this week, this has been a fairly quiet council election. Granted, the fact that we have district elections and only one district is voting in this special election, means that 80 percent of the town therefore is uninvolved plays a role.
I would also add that there is not a huge difference between the two candidates on the positions plays a role as well—and on most of the key issues facing this community, I don’t see this being a narrowly divided council. Add it all up—a fairly low-key race.
Without polling—the factors I look at are: money raised, endorsements, and letters to the editor.
At this point, I think most people believe that Donna Neville has a clear advantage 
here. I largely concur, with a couple of caveats.
This week the most visible endorsement came down—the Davis Enterprise. I was actually more struck by the magnitude of the advantage Neville had among the establishment—a huge number of current or recently former elected officials are backing Neville.
Three of the four current councilmembers, everyone but Bapu Vaitla. Both Davis County Supervisors. Not to mention Mike Thompson (Congress), Bill Dodd (Senate) and Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (Assembly).
Another area where there is a clear advantage is on money raised. As long-time readers know, I’m not a huge believer that money actually matters a lot in Davis. That’s because what are you going to do with money? Send out more mailers? Put TV ads on TV? None of those things seem to make a huge difference.
But money is raised at a rate of $150 per person, so the more money raised is a good indicator of breadth of support.
Here Neville—at least as of March 18, the date of the last filing—had about a two to one monetary advantage, or $22,000 to $11,000. The problem is that was almost a month ago, so we don’t have a great idea of what has happened in the last month.
One area where Francesca Wright has done well is on letters to the editor. In the last month, I hand counted a 12 to 11 advantage there for Wright. That’s a good indicator of both support in the community and campaign organization.
It’s definitely not a huge volume of letters either way—but it demonstrates that Wright has an organization that can help get letters to the editor.
Probably the most important factor in politics in Davis is the ability to have volunteers and a campaign organization that can walk and talk to voters. The campaigns that do well can reach the voters and, now that the electorate has shrunk, the advantage of a strong campaign organization has only increased.
We may get a little better idea of the money issue when the next filing comes through. At the same time, we are about two weeks out from the election and it appears right now that Neville is a clear favorite.
As noted earlier in the week, there is not a huge difference on the issues.
In its endorsement of Donna Neville in the middle of last week, the Enterprise focused on Neville’s experience more than issues.
The Enterprise focused on two issues, housing and homelessness.
They write, “On the city’s persistent housing shortage, Neville aims to promote affordable infill housing by streamlining the city’s permitting process for infill and for accessory dwelling units; backing the Housing Trust Fund with a steady revenue stream; and collaborating with the school district on identifying surplus district property that can be used for housing within the city limits.”
But again, that’s not much different than Wright’s views.
They also looked at homelessness and the need overall for “more staffing” as she also cites “understaffing as one reason the city is having trouble delivering the level of services Davis voters expect, especially in the case of infrastructure. As befits someone with experience in the state auditor’s office, she sees the need to bring in more revenue to the city as a critical component to shore up lagging services.”
On the issue of housing, for example, there is not a huge difference between the two candidates.
In last week’s weekly question, Donna Neville on housing noted, “(W)e are now faced with the reality that we may not be able to meet our Regional Housing Need Allocation. Council is currently working to develop criteria that it will use to decide which peripheral projects to place on the ballot but decided not to place any such projects on the ballot until 2025 at the earliest. We need to ensure that any project that goes on the ballot meets the needs of the City and has the support of our residents through smart planning and an engaged process.”
Meanwhile, Francesca Wright wrote, “Our community has a shortage of both workforce and affordable housing. I support pressing for infill while we have rigorous community conversations about the conditions under which we’d support bringing projects forward for annexation.”
When they attended a candidate forum, they were asked about the fiscal health of the city.
Donna Neville noted issues like roads and unfunded pension liability.
She argued that “we need more revenue.” And explained, “This requires a robust economic development plan that sets out our priorities for attracting and retaining businesses in our downtown and other commercial hubs. We can’t flourish if we have empty retail spaces. Second, we need to find ways for the innovative businesses that want to locate and stay in Davis to stay here.”
Francesca Wright also noted the annual shortfall of $7.6 million on roads and other services. She noted, “I’m in agreement here, we need strategies to maximize revenue, and that includes property taxes, sales taxes, hotel taxes, while preserving the character of our town.”
Later she added, “We need a champion to help our local businesses revitalize and our innovators to plant roots to grow the enterprises of the future.”
On the big issues facing this community—there is not a huge difference between the two which why the focus turns more to experience and background. There are definitely clear differences in who is backing each of the candidates.
At the end of the day, we’ll see who the voters of District 3 choose.
Regarding retail in Davis, the ship has largely, but not totally, sailed on that issue. For decades Davis has essentially had a giant “you’re not wanted here” billboard on full display. Both developers and retailers got that messagee loud and clear. They have placed their bets elsewhere on neighboring cities. They have executed a strategy I call ‘everywhere but Davis.’ These retailers and restaurants include Raley’s, Costco, Walmart, Best Buy, Lowe’s, Home Depot, Crumble Cookie, Mod Pizza and Red Robin.
Did it ever occur to you that this may be what makes Davis kind of special, why people like living there? That Davis doesn’t have a deluge of the cookie cutter housing sprawl and strip malls that you see in almost every other city?
Those cities do collect a lot of retail tax revenue and don’t have major budget deficits.
That is correct Walter. And it is the “price” that comes with Keith’s “Did it ever occur to you that this may be what makes Davis kind of special, why people like living there? That Davis doesn’t have a deluge of the cookie cutter housing sprawl and strip malls that you see in almost every other city”
I’ve done some calculations based on the City’s own reports of the 20-year unfunded liabilities forecast of more than $200 million ($10 million per year) and it amounts to approximately $1,500 per person for the 70,000 residents.
The question for Keith … and all of the folks in the community (including the County residents who like me live in the community but outside the City Limits) … is whether they are getting $1,500 per person per year of additional value because of the community vision that Keith has described.
The $10 million per year shortfall could be substantially reduced if the City and UCD negotiated a similar agreement to the ones that are in place in Berkeley and Santa Cruz, where the University pays the City several million dollars (somewhere between $1 million and $5 million per year).
What say you?
The basis for those agreements, if I recall, was the services that the cities were providing to the UC campuses. UCD doesn’t need any services from the City of Davis.
Is it, in fact “correct”? Especially with the decline of retail?
As I recall, Davis is in the “middle of the pack” (using Donna Neville’s words, I think) regarding fiscal deficits. I’ve looked at the analysis she referred to myself in the past (and posted links to it on here), and found that conclusion to be true. (And that was before the pandemic took another bite out of retail.)
I do find it odd, however, that some wanted to hold up redevelopment of University Mall, and criticized the developer for wanting to do so. Especially since it’s the same folks who claim to be concerned about retail.
Although I could be wrong, I believe the agreements for the payments was prompted by the awareness of the impact on City provided services by the respective UC students living in the respective cities. Each of the UCs is a customer for direct services like any other corporate entity. But the annual payment(s) are made to offset the indirect impact on services provided.
Don, here is the language of the Santa Cruz agreement, which is available in the January 2017 FBC meeting packet.
NOW, THEREFORE, ni consideration of the mutual covenants, agreements, representations, and warrantiescontained in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City, County, University, CLUE, et al., and Stevens, et al. agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
For as long as the 2005 LRDP is in effect: ENROLLMENT
1.1 Full-time equivalent (FTE)’ on-campus 3-qtr average (fall-winter-spring)
enrollment (hereinafter referred toa s “enrollment”) forundergraduates willn o t exceed 17,500. In addition, for purposes of planning implementation of infrastructure development to accommodate enrollment growth, UCSC projects the following on-campus combined graduate and undergraduate enrollment levels:
16.360 in academic year 2011-2012;
17,615 in academic year 2015-2016; and
19,480 in academic year 2020-2021.
An FTE student is defined as (1) an undergraduate student who enrolls for 45 credit hours per academic year; or (2) a graduate student (master’s level or doctoral student not yet advanced ot candidacy) enrolled in 36 hours per year; or (3) a graduate doctoral student who has been advanced to candidacy. This does not include students at locations other than hte City and County of Santa Cruz, including, but not limited to, UCSC’s MBEST, Silicon Valley Campuses. UC programs in DC or Sacramento, or Education Abroad Programs
1.2 In recognition that campus population growth may outpace implementation of infrastructure improvements contemplated under this Agreement and that UCSC’s ability to meet its housing commitment is dependent on enrollment growth, the parties agree that upon execution of this Agreement:
a. UCSC will immediately initiate planning for on-campus housing on the west
Campus;
b. The City and UCSC will immediately comply with the traffic commitments in Section 4.13 of this Agreement; and UCSC has targeted new freshman enrollment growth until at least the commencement of the Fall 2009 Ouarter to not exceed the Fall 2007 entering freshman class (3,730) (exclusive of transfer students).
1.3 As a means of enforcing UCSC’s housing and water commitments herein, UCSC will adjust enrollment in the next Fall admissions cycle so as not to exceed, within a margin of error defined in Section 1.5 of this Agreement, the enrollment levels of the previous Fall admissions cycle, in the event of one or more of the following:
a. UCSC’s housing commitment, described in Section 2.1 of this Agreement, is not met;
b. UCSC increases its water demands on the City water system during a City service area-wide moratorium on new connections because of a water supply emergency declared consistent with State Water law, as described in Section 3.2(a) of this Agreement.
1.4 If the traffic commitment in Section 4.1 is exceeded, the commitment will be enforced by requiring UCSC to reduce ADT by one or more of the following measures: adjusting enrollment, adjusting on-campus workforce, or through implementation of ADT reducing measure(s). The choice will be determined from this list by The Regents or its delegate. When UCSC main campus trips are within 1,500 of the applicable traffic commitment in Section 4.1, UCSC will hold a meeting to solicit public input regarding the choices listed above for the reduction ofADT. Within 90 days of the meeting, UCSC will initiate the process necessary to gain approval from The Regents or its delegate of its selected choice(s) for reduction of ADT. In addition, to further effectuate compliance and enforce the traffic commitment in Section 4.1,
UCSC agrees to a penalty payment in an amount equal to three times the City’s citywide Traffic Impact Fe (TIF) then in effect for every average daily trip (ADT) ni excess of the commitment (i.e., if the City’s current citywide TIF were applied thepenalty amount would be $1,098 pertrip (3x $366)). Penalty payments will be made annually until such time as the ADT is equal to or below the traffic commitment in this Agreement. For purposes of calculating the penalty, ADT will be measured per 4.1 below. Penalty funds will be deposited into a dedicated account for use by the City and UCSC to reduce ADT to UCSC. UCSC and the City will work cooperatively to identify appropriate and effective trip reduction programs, including, but not limited to, increased SCMTD transit service to the UCSC campus, with the expenditure of funds being subject to approval by the City.
1.5 For purposes of 1.2(c) and 1.3, enrollment will be calculated within a 2% margin of error averaged prospectively overthree years to account for the fact that the University admits students approximately six months prior to the start of the new fall term based on a projected “take rate” (i.e., the percentage of students that accept an offer ofadmission). In addition, retention/graduation rates fluctuate. Accordingly, enrollment may fall slightly above orbelow UCSC’s projections within a 2% margin of error. Enrollment levels will be calculated based on the Fall third-week census. UCSC’s commitment in 1.3 will take effect the next Fall admissions cycle and all subsequent Fall admissions cycles until the applicable commitment is met.
then
4.1
UCSC agrees to not exceed 28,700 ADTtothe main campus (24,800 ADT 2005 IRDP baseline +3,900 new ADT) for as long as the 2005 LRDP si ni effect. Compliance wil be monitored by arriving at an ADT through weekday (Monday – Friday)traffic volume counts at the two campus entrances for at least two weeks beginning on hte fourth week of Fall and Spring quarter (when school is in session for the entire week) of each corresponding calendar year.
4.2 Within three months from the approval ofthis Agreement, UCSC agrees to contribute funds in an amount equal tothe City’s TIF in three consecutive annual payments for off-site traffic improvements for the 3,900 new ADT in Section 4.1, above. UCSC acknowledges that the TIF is revised annually on July 1, based on theEngineering News Record Cost ofConstruction index, and that as a result, each annual payment will be calculated by the current TIF rate at the time of payment. At its discretion, UCSC may make a one-time payment of $1,427,400within 15 days of entry of the Agreement as a final judgment, as provided for in Section 7.1. Funds contributed to the City under this section will constitute UCSC’s share of the
cost of improvements to the Bay Corridor between Mission and High, including improvements to the Bay/Mission and Bay/Escalona intersections and any other intersections identified inthe City’s TIF program to which UCSC contributes traffic. UCSC’s payment is based on the City’s 2007-2008 TIF and traffic model.
3,900 ADT × $366/trip = $1,427,400
Within three months of executing this Agreement, the City and UCSC will meet to identify TIF projects for immediate implementation. Identified and agreed upon improvements will be initiated by the City within one year.
Here is the UC Santa Cruz press release
©2008 UC Santa Cruz
Highlights of Settlement:
UCSC undergraduate enrollment will not exceed 17,500
While the 2005 LRDP projected a total enrollment of 19,500 on-camps students by 2020-2021, UCSC’s undergraduate enrollment will not exceed 17,500 during the life of the LRDP. The agreement allows the campus to continue growing graduate enrollment.
UCSC housing to accommodate 67 percent of new students
UCSC will provide housing to accommodate 67 percent of new-student enrollment within four years of reaching that enrollment. (The 2005 LRDP originally called for UCSC to provide housing for 50 percent of undergraduates and 25 percent of graduate students during the life of LRDP.) At a total enrollment of 19,500, which is unlikely to occur earlier than the 2020-21 academic year, UCSC would provide university housing for 10,125 students.
City of Santa Cruz agrees to enact an ordinance regulating residential rental properties tomake on-campus housing more attractive to students, and UCSC will match city funding for two compliance officers to enforce the ordinance.
UCSC to pay additional fees for new water supply
To continue city-provided water service to support additional on-campus development, UCSC will pay the city $6,530-or the fee then in effect-for each 85,000-gallon increment of water over existing campus usage to support the city’s development of new sources of water supply. The fee is in addition to those already paid by the campus for its monthly water usage, and is equivalent to “system development charges” that the City assesses developers.
UCSC will submit an application to the Santa Cruz Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for inclusion of the North Campus area as part of the City water department’s service area. If the LAFCO application is denied, there is a legal challenge of its decision, or fi LAFCO decision takes longer than 18 months to be reached, the housing capacity commitment as originally stated in the 2005 LRDP is reinstated.
UCSC agrees not to put additional demand on the City’s water supply during a City-declared water-shortage emergency.
UCSC makes fair-share contribution to transportation improvements
UCSC agrees that under the 2005 LRDP new “average daily trips” (ADTs) to the main campus will be limited to 3,900 and to pay the City approximately $1.5 million (based on a fee of $366/new trip, equal to fee paid by private developers). UCSC will also pay city approximately $420,000 in ADT fees related to Delaware Avenue offices.
http://Irdp.ucsc.edu/settlement-summary.shtml
Yikes – Santa Cruz really lays down the hammer!
Good for them.
I just want to point out that UC Santa Cruz is within the city of Santa Cruz’s city limits. So to some degree the city of Santa Cruz and UCSC need to come to an agreement. This is not the case with UC Davis and the city of Davis. Both have decided to go their separate ways in terms of community commitments. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t work together. But it’s a relationship that is in each’s own self interest and not out of obligation.
Keith is correct. For both Santa Cruz and Berkeley there is a direct geographic and jurisdictional relationship between the university and its host City. In each case the university is a direct consumer of City services, just as Sutter Davis Hospital, and DJUSD and DMG Mori and FMC are. Here in Davis, UCD is a direct consumer of only the City’s water services. However, all three universities are indirect consumers of their respective City’s broad array of services through the demand for those services that their students (both on-campus and off-campus) generate. The Santa Cruz agreement specifically calls out transportation/roads services as being severely impacted by university-generated demand.
So the jurisdictional difference that Keith highlights, tells part of the story, but not the whole story. He is absolutely correct when he says “ Both have decided to go their separate ways in terms of community commitments. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t work together. But it’s a relationship that is in each’s own self interest and not out of obligation.” They have chosen not to collaborate. That is true with respect to City services and it is unfortunately true with respect to economic development.
You can’t ‘collaborate’ with an unreliable partner. I would say the MOU is as far as UCD is willing to go with the City of Davis, for reasons that should be obvious to any longtime observer.
Don is correct. The history is what it is and has been.
With that said, we (and UCD) can either be captives of that history or we can chart a new path. The reality is that other than UCD, Davis has no significant/meaningful activities or entertainment to offer anyone who may be thinking about stopping and spending a couple of hours spending their money in Davis.
I would love to be proven wrong in that statement, but right now I believe the statement is true.
“That Davis doesn’t have a deluge of the cookie cutter housing sprawl and strip malls that you see in almost every other city?”
Actually Davis is predominately made up of such cookie cutter homes. I remember when we were looking for a house and Corky Brown asked me what model was the home I was looking at? He knew the layout from the model name. Most subdivisions in Davis have a few models that the original owners can choose from interspersed with some custom homes. I’ve been in several homes that are exact replicas of my own house.
So builders should add more cookie cutter sprawl to Davis?
I see lots of differences between these two candidates, despite David’s conclusions. Note this more subtle-response from Wright, for example:
This does not sound like someone who’d immediately jump on the bandwagon for peripheral development.
In contrast, here’s a key statement from Donna Neville, which causes me to believe that she’ll be pushing for DISC again. This is the exact same argument that was used repeatedly by David and others.
These two candidates are not the same.
One is an “establishment”, development-oriented candidate (Neville), while the other one is (for lack of a better word) more of a social justice type (but not one who has bought-into the establishment answer regarding development – unlike some others).
Actually, I’m thinking the latter description might also describe Bapu, but it’s too early to tell.
My impression, at least.
Ah – I hadn’t even noticed this, when comparing Francesca Wright with Bapu Vaitla. This may support my conclusion regarding overall similarity between the two.
It’s not necessarily that spending the money creates a different outcome, though it probably does. The same reason that products and services are advertised.
But it’s more telling regarding the amount and source of the money, in regard to the candidate that they support.
This is also the reason that when considering who to vote for (or “what” to support), I the first thing I do is to look at the sources of their funding and support. Often times, this tells me more about the underlying reasons for the candidacy (or issue) than any ballot statement.
And unfortunately, our political system usually “weeds out” those (candidates and issues) which aren’t beholden or part of moneyed interests in the first place – well-before they even make it to the ballot.
This is also the reason that vast sums of money end up being spent for political positions which are both temporary, and pay very little.
Continuing the discussion a few posts ago about the viability of retail in Davis. Don Shor and Ron Ortel how much tax revenue (because it sells a lot of untaxable food) Costco generates.
Going on about Manteca and the conversation with Matt Williams about retail and if Davis has any draw. One of the draws this town has are students. One of the things Davis should do is create a student quarter. An area of mixed use that targets students. Student retail and most importantly student entertainment (good lord how can a college town not have at least one bona fide dive bar???). But here’s the thing, young people like to hang out with other young people. So the idea is to not only focus on students but drawing in out of town youngsters to socialize and spend money with the college kids.
Now on to Manteca and destination retail. A couple decades ago, I worked for one of the largest destination retailers in the world (5M+ square feet malls with water slides and bungy jumping..etc…). To be clear, I’m no expert in commercial retail…I worked for a regional residential development arm. But I’m at least familiar with destination retail. As for Manteca, funny enough just a few weeks ago my family spent a couple days at the Great Wolf Lodge in Manteca. Basically giant indoor waterslides and pools for kids. I’m talking about some slides that can hold a 5 person innertube. My kids and their friends loved it. Us parents tolerated it.
Continuing the discussion a few posts ago about the viability of retail in Davis. Don Shor and Ron Ortel how much tax revenue (because it sells a lot of untaxable food) Costco generates.
Going on about Manteca and the conversation with Matt Williams about retail and if Davis has any draw. One of the draws this town has are students. One of the things Davis should do is create a student quarter. An area of mixed use that targets students. Student retail and most importantly student entertainment (good lord how can a college town not have at least one bona fide dive bar???). But here’s the thing, young people like to hang out with other young people. So the idea is to not only focus on students but drawing in out of town youngsters to socialize and spend money with the college kids.
Now on to Manteca and destination retail. A couple decades ago, I worked for one of the largest destination retailers in the world (5M+ square feet malls with water slides and bungy jumping..etc…). To be clear, I’m no expert in commercial retail…I worked for a regional residential development arm. But I’m at least familiar with destination retail.
Do I think Davis should have such a behemoth of a retail and entertainment project? Probably not. But think about how much revenue something as simple as the Nut Tree and the Outlets generate for Vacaville. I think these examples show that it takes deal making and compromise to get revenue generating retail to a location like Davis. The true uphill climb is convincing people that this kind of economic retail expansion is necessary to fund things we want in the community like road maintenance…and while most people believe housing is important; people need to understand that you need a generator of funds to grow out the infrastructure necessary to support residential growth.
Interesting, regarding the amount of taxes generated by CostCo in Manteca. (I believe that the conversation regarding CostCo was between me and David, and did not involve Don Shor.)
But it’s not likely they’re going to put another CostCo a few miles from the one in Woodland, at this point. (Years ago, I recall responding to a survey while in Davis, regarding businesses I’d like to see in Woodland. I believe that the only thing I suggested was CostCo.)
All of this is really an argument to “force” cities to share their regionally-generated revenue. But I realize this will never happen.
On a related note, I sometimes travel on Highway 37 to Marin, and periodically get caught in a massive amount of Sonoma Raceway traffic (which I believed used to be called “Sears Point”.) When that occurs, I kind of figure they should be paying me for my time (and wear-and tear on my vehicle), but I haven’t received a check so far.
Sure – if residential growth is someone’s goal in the first place. In Davis, any additional revenue-generating development would just be used as a “reason” to pursue more residential growth (thereby creating a fiscal “wash”, at best.)
On a broader note (regarding commercial space), the entire country is heading into a real disaster related to loans for commercial property. It’s in the news, constantly.
My point wasn’t about bringing a Costco now to Davis (maybe it’s still possible but I doubt it). My point is to show how stupid it was for Davis city leaders (and the community) to not contend with Woodland for Costco (Davis has the greater and more affluent population). My point is also to further emphasize how badly more retail is needed in Davis for fiscal reasons.
I don’t want residential growth. I don’t want more people on the roads or taking parking. I like the open fields around Davis. For me residential growth beyond what is required should be for the betterment of the existing city. First and foremost Davis has to meet it’s RHNA numbers. But beyond RHNA numbers; housing needs to support the economic growth for the city. Residential by itself doesn’t pay the bills (and if fact costs the city). But residential that supports jobs and feeds retail does. So why feed retail? In the very least to fund the city to get out of it’s fiscal deficit. So for me economic growth and to the degree that residential growth supports it should be with the goal in the very least to eliminate the city deficit and to fund fixing and improving the roads (I want timed lights on Covell).
Okay…I’ve lost my patience with you….I forgot why I had stopped paying attention to your posts.
1. RHNA numbers are real. Fiscal deficits are real. You shouldn’t even be in this discussion if you think you can just cut services to meet the budget deficit without significantly impacting the quality of life in Davis. Neither the RHNA nor the fiscal deficit are going to go away magically without doing something (other than just raising taxes).
2. The decisions are forced upon us due to growth in the surrounding area and the erosion of and insignificant revenue (because of the stupid limitations and bans on development) to pay for things in Davis. THERE YOU GO WITH THAT IGNORANT CRAPTACULAR PONZI SCHEME GARBAGE AGAIN. YOU’RE LIKE BROKEN RECORD. I’ve been the one yelling to everyone here that will listen that development costs cities because of the required infrastructure and services. We’ve discussed this before…I’ve even acknowledged that many cities have taken the short term money at the cost of long term financial health. No one here is talking about development for the sake of one time development fees and pushing of the costs of paying for infrastructure and services later. But because you’re freakin anti-growth ZEALOT you fail understand (or are incapable of understanding) that DEVELOPMENT CAN AND OFTEN IS A POSTIVE REVENUE GENERATOR FOR CITIES.
For all I tend to disagree with Keith on, I think he nails it in this post.
” if you think you can just cut services to meet the budget deficit without significantly impacting the quality of life in Davis. ”
It’s actually already happened. The city balanced the budget following the great recession by attrition and not funding infrastructure. That meant they basically cut 25% of their staffing positions and didn’t replace people as they left. It meant they simply didn’t fund infrastructure upgrades and repairs. And they held staffing compensation at level near inflation and below market rate.
At least for me, the plan was always to hold spending until we could find new revenue, but ever effort at doing that has failed. So now we are at a point where quality of life in Davis is starting to suffer.
” Neither the RHNA nor the fiscal deficit are going to go away magically without doing something”
Ron’s of the belief that the state push for housing is going to collapse and die. That’s his entire strategy.
But the housing strategy is also hammering quality of life. Housing costs are forcing people to leave the state. It’s also leading to huge homeless problems. It’s also about to start hammering schools.
Something is going to have to give.
And does everyone remember who the City Manager of Manteca was at the time those agreements were hammered out? Steve Pinkerton. Remember him? Too bad we couldn’t hang on to him here rather than his successors who appear to be running the city into a ditch.
There’s probably not a lot that Pinkerton could have done for Davis nor any other City Manager. Davis has painted itself into a corner with it’s growth policy restrictions (Measure J, retail store size limitations….etc..). The limitations are the Council who are in turn limited by the community itself. It’s going to take city leaders to convince the people to support a vision of “smart”/targeted growth to support the economic health and residential needs of the city. That’s going to be a hard pill to swallow and a hard sell for leaders in a community where many still see it as a sleepy quaint college town.
While it may sound like I disagree with Keith Y a lot, it’s really on just two specific issues–whether increased housing supply lowers market prices and whether we as a community have an obligation to UCD. But in general his observations are accurate. I much appreciated his point of view. This one is particularly valuable that ALL of us should digest.
As far as the Great Wolf Lodge goes; I can say that it probably doesn’t have a lot of locals using the facilities. Manteca isn’t that far from Davis. So we looked at just going for the day and to see if they have day passes. For the most part they don’t (or don’t advertise them) and if they did, the cost of one would be for a family of four (kids aren’t allowed to be there by themselves) at least as much or more than staying overnight (hello hotel occupancy tax!). So we stayed overnight.
First, I’d like to thank Keith for sharing the Manteca information. It is really helpful to have specific information like he has provided in order to keep the discussion on track.
Second, I share his frustration with Ron Oertel. Late last week Ron and I had a long protracted email discussion (he is just as tenacious in e-mail as he is here in this blog). Keith’s word Zealot to describe Ron’s passionate approach is spot on. I came away from the last email thinking “Ron is a second coming of Jerry Falwell … a born again Jerry Falwell” … passionate belief with no room for any middle ground.
Third, the Manteca story illuminates a number of important lessons for Davis. The City of Manteca and the City of Davis are comparable in population. Both were 67,000 plus or minus in the 2010 Census. As Keith pointed out, Costco’s management was very clear with Manteca that their population did not meet Costco’s demand model thresholds. In making their counter offer to Costco, Manteca was betting that they could entice people from outside the City Limits to come spend their money at Costco. The sales numbers of the Manteca Costco since it opened in 2007 show that (1) Manteca made a good bet and (2) Manteca had a substantial pool of people living close to Manteca, but outside the City Limits. Their local school district has six high schools and 20 Elementary Schools and 23,000 students. That is a lot more “other people’s money” than Davis has.
The Great Wolf example also illuminates “other people’s money.” Although we don’t have actual figures, it is easy to surmise that well over 90% (perhaps over 99%) of Great Wolf’s overnight guests come from outside the Manteca City Limits.
James and Deborah Fallows wrote a really excellent book called “Our Towns” which is described as follows:
One of the cities profiled in the book is Winters California. The authors chose Winters because of the focused effort that Witherspoon owner of the Buckhorn put into choosing a location to put his restaurant. He used the following formula in that effort … for every hour that a visitor to Winters has to travel, there needs to be at least two hours of activities/entertainment. That formula is very helpful in looking at Davis’ potential to attract “other people’s money” to Davis. If you assume a one hour to two hour dive for a visitor to Davis, what are the two to four hours of activities/entertainment they are going to find in Davis?
That’s the thing about the region. It’s growing. Davis doesn’t haven’t do anything as drastic as luring something like the Great Wolf Lodge (though that would be great for the local economy). Manteca is out in the middle of nowhere. It’s close Stockton and Modesto. Decent sized cities but not major metropolises. Davis on the other hand is next to one of the greatest growing regions in the entire state (and the country); Sacramento. Davis is also on a major highway corridor between the Bay Area, Sacramento and Tahoe. So, I’d argue that Davis does not have to create major destination retail and entertainment (though it would be better) to create economic growth through “other people’s money”.
Keith, let’s draw a parallel. Fairfield is midway between Davis and San Francisco. Have you ever stopped in Fairfield while going up and down the I-80 corridor? I’ve lived here for 23 years and never once stopped in Fairfield just because it is midway between my starting point and my destination. People need a reason to invest their time in a stop. What reasons does Davis offer the I-80 traveler to warrant a stop here?
We actually do have one activity/attraction, the Saturday Farmers Market, but it is ephemeral.
Our biggest attraction has very emphatically stated by words and actions that it does not want to collaborate with the rest of Davis.
We are a ship out on the high seas that does not have sails or oars or a rudder.
Yes. I used to travel that corridor at least twice a month when I lived San Francisco and traveled to Davis. I frequently stopped there for Peet’s coffee (I knew every stop for Peet’s from the city to Davis). Fairfield was the midway stop; Pinole was usually too close to the Bay Area and Vacaville was too close to Davis. There was also an In & Out Burger near the Fairfield Peets at the same stop. I’ve also stopped at Rubio’s for fish tacos a few times. A couple of times we’ve met my nephews (who were coming from the Berkeley/Oakland area) for a birthday get together at Scandia (miniature golf, video games, go karts and batting cages) in Fairfield.
Eh, I’m not sure Davis’ Farmers Market is enough of a draw to get people to drive into downtown Davis. I mean most places have Farmers Markets. Sac does, San Francisco does.
I think the easiest and lowest hanging fruit (so to say) to create a draw is if Ikeda’s grew out to be a more substantial fruit/veggies/nuts stand. They have one Auburn where you can sit down and eat. I mean the Nut Tree sort of started off the same way. I’m not saying we should recreate the Nut Tree. But I think the easiest and most likely place to start is with Ikeda’s or around and near Ikeda’s. A place for people to get off the road and eat? Let the kids play. Shop? Maybe the Farmers Market should move out there on Fridays and Sundays (weekend commute)? I dunno…IMO it’s a start.
When I first moved here (1974) The Nut Tree was a huge destination draw. In fact, the only reason it didn’t continue was apparently a falling out among the family heirs. In the 1980s the Cattleman’s in Dixon was the top-grossing one in that restaurant chain, and I have little doubt it is still very high-grossing. When I was living in Dixon, that city made the decision (perhaps unintentionally; I never sensed that planning was a strong point in city government there) to allow any and all freeway commercial developments that wanted to build along I-80. It decimated the Dixon downtown, but I’m sure it was great for the city’s revenues. Dixon has much higher per-capita sales tax revenue than Davis.
Davis does have a problem in that the most visible freeway part of the city is owned by UCD and the rest is occupied by auto dealers. But the whole area along Chiles Road could, in theory, be annexed and developed on the south side of I-80 for both highway commercial and some residential, and there would likely be very little local opposition to that. Hard to say what the landowners want to do, but it might be worth somebody inquiring. It seems to me that freeway-frontage retail could be very beneficial to the city and/or the county, and that some housing could probably be integrated readily into that.
Matt
You’ve seen the article that Anya and I wrote (and was published in the Vanguard in 2018) on how to create a destination of this magnitude in Davis, but it will take cooperation with UCD. The Mondavi Center has all of the ingredients for a day long trip when combined with the Farmers Market if we also encourage dining establishments that are attractive to Bay Area tourists. But we need a vision to pull this off.
Richard you have hit BINGO! The one … and I would argue only … draw that Davis has is UCD. And it is a humongous draw. Lots and lots of activities/entertainment. Yours and Anya’s article leverages just one of UCD’s core competencies. There are many others that are equally leveragable. The Creamery at the University of Delaware is a must stop destination for Landon and me when we are visiting family and friends in the Philadelphia – Wilmington – Baltimore corridor. Locating a creamery next to the Häagen-Dazs research apiary is a natural … or as part of the Mondavi Food Center. Just off I-80. Easy access, but it won’t happen without collaboration between UCD and the City. It also won’t happen without a Vision of what Davis wants to be in 20 years.
Right now the leading contender for what Davis wants to be is a bedroom community for three groups … (1) retirees, (2) commuters to government, healthcare and Bay Area jobs up and down I-80, and (3) UCD students.
On a related note, residents in the Roseville area were fighting against a CostCo, there.
https://goldcountrymedia.com/news/9308/residents-vow-to-fight-big-box-store
There were also fighting against a massive commercial development adjacent to “their” backyards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swmoXAfm2nI
Turns out that folks understand how developments have a direct, negative impact on their own lives, and are generally less-concerned about city finances. Especially when cities spend money on retirement benefits that they don’t have in the first place.
There’s really only two choices regarding this:
1) Continue to ignore residents’ concerns, and try to convince them of the plight that their city is facing – and the “solutions” proposed which will make their own lives worse (good luck with that).
2) Stop making decisions which encourage cities to pursue growth and development as a “solution” in the first place. Especially since it usually only consists of one-time “Ponzi scheme” funds.
I know which one I’d choose, which is probably the reason that folks like me aren’t supported by those more-interested in “solution #1”.
Why not dissolve city governments and have everyone share everything? Your idea is ludicrous.
This is really not related to Davis retail, but have it your way. Why should Marin pay you for getting stuck in heavy traffic when there are other methods to get to Marin?
Imagine all the people . . . sharing all the world . . .
Never mind, let’s put as many Walmarts as possible, in every city. Perhaps even more Amazon distribution centers than Walmarts, at this point. 🙂
It’s not “Marin” that costs me anything (or anyone stuck in traffic along that highway, as a result of “race day”). It’s the business (Sonoma Raceway, in this case) which causes a disproportionate impact to others traveling through.
(As a side note, my destination was usually not in Marin itself. Even Marin doesn’t own the highways which pass through it. Just as Davis doesn’t own I-80.)
There should be a Walmart store and Amazon distribution center in every city. That’s an excellent idea for a change coming from you.
Sonoma Raceway posts their events schedule online. I found it in seconds. You are simply unwilling to plan ahead. They don’t have events going on every day and time of the year.
Why should “I” or any other traveler have to check a business’ schedule to see what days they’re planning to create gridlock on a public road? What if every business took this approach (e.g., “here’s the days when we’re going to crate a problem for everyone else”?)
This is a business, not Caltrans performing road maintenance. (For that matter, even Caltrans attempts to perform road work during “off” hours – including at night.) They do so to avoid creating problems for travelers.
Also, Sonoma Raceway often schedules these events when others have scheduled their own trips – which are just as important (and more so, when you look at what Sonoma Raceway’s business is based upon).
Why are we even encouraging a business model which is totally based upon recreational and purposeful gas-burning, motor-vehicle activities in the first place – let alone kowtowing to their “schedule” and “plans” to create gridlock for everyone else?
By your logic all large scale events should be outlawed including all conventions and sporting events in all parts of the United States.
You do have a point regarding “disproportionate impact” created by them (impacting everyone else), though I’m not suggesting “outlawing” them.
But Highway 37 is already a unique bottleneck.
My guess is that the county wouldn’t even approve that type of development (in that location), these days.
The RHNA numbers are unrealistic – statewide. This is widely acknowledged, and not just my “opinion”.
Fiscal deficits won’t “go away” for any of the cities (again, statewide) – until something “breaks” or the state steps in. Again, much of it caused by promising benefits to retired employees that cities cannot deliver.
You and I actually make the same point – that a “disproportionate” amount of residential development (compared to commercial development) is a lot of the cause of the problem.
Unfortunately, in Davis – any additional commercial development will then cause the development activists to push for more residential growth – leaving the city right where it is now.
The “other” problem (for those pushing for more commercial development) is that UCD and Sacramento (and to a lesser-degree, other locales) provide all of the employment opportunities that Davis needs – already. And as folks retire (and age, as they are in Davis), they need even fewer employment opportunities than younger people. I believe the entire state’s average age of its citizens is rising.
Then again, older people generally don’t have as many public “needs” in the first place (e.g., schools, sports parks, libraries, well-paved roads, etc.). Those are generally what “young” people demand.
Matt, I can tell you that your own sense of how some of your comments come across are not shared by others. I was literally told this (and one commenter tried to point it out, but his comment was not posted).
It takes quite a bit of (let’s just say “confidence”) to criticize someone else without acknowledging one’s own part in the exchange.
Your attempt to “personalize” everything I say (e.g., interpreting my analysis regarding Donna Neville as a “personal attack” – as you repeatedly attempted to do during our email conversation) is detached from reality. As was digging up some other comments from 5 years ago, or so.
t’s pretty clear that you hold a grudge regarding your own irrational conclusions, and would rather engage in what is essentially name-calling, purposeful misrepresentation of what I said, and false comparisons. Have at it, as it doesn’t bother me – and is more of a reflection of your personality.
You may not be as smart as you seem to think you are.
Ron O
In meeting with both of these candidates for extended conversations, they have both made versions of both of these statements. They both want to encourage innovative businesses that fit with a vision of Davis, not just random firms, and additional housing to meet the needs of working families and to staff those businesses. They might use different words, but they have similar outlooks. You’re trying to find a difference that isn’t there. If you had real connections in Davis you would have had the opportunity to explore those issues with each of them.
Why do persist on spelling Costco as “CostCo”? The 2nd ‘C’ isn’t capitalized. It may have been that way a long time ago, but definitely not in over a decade.
If you post a comment on this website, it’s fair game for everyone. There is no such thing as a 2-person conversation in the Davis Vanguard comments sections. If you want to engage in such a conversation, you will have do so by other means.