An interesting debate emerged on Tuesday with regard to the city’s budget situation. It began with a comment from an anonymous poster, “Scooter,” who put a huge amount of blame on what he called “no growther types” who are “anti-everything.”
The poster writes, “Fascinating that people want ‘Assurances’ of what the future will hold if steps are taken now to address visible short falls in revenue. The ASSURANCE they can depend on is that the option of doing nothing (which they imply is OK with them) will seriously erode the quality of life and economic viability of their town. Then they will be the first to blame the consequences on ‘those politicians’ when the real truth in the matter is that these anti everything – no growther types haven’t the testosterone to run for office and actually attempt to do some thing positive and helpful for Davis.”
Frankly would add, “The blame is completely on the no-growthers and the liberal Democrats that have run this town and run the city budget into the ground. And they are one [and] the same.”
But of course this is not true. The city’s economic problems stem from the influence of the firefighters, who emerged as leaders of employee groups in the late 1990s and strengthened their control of council in the last decade.
To call the firefighters and their allies “no-growthers” is completely inaccurate. The firefighters supported Covell Village as did their council advocates: Don Saylor, Stephen Souza, Ruth Asmundson, and Ted Puntillo. These are not the “no-growthers.” In fact, in addition to being backed by firefighters, they were backed by the pro-Chamber and pro-Development crowd.
One poster largely got the history correct. In 2000, fire and police made roughly the same in the city of Davis, and there was virtually no gap between City of Davis fire and UC Davis fire.
The firefighters, with the help of their allies, pushed through changes like four on an engine and 3% at 50, but the big changes came in the 2005 MOU. Instead of taking the sales tax funds and using it to shore up the parks and other infrastructure like the city promised in 2004, they gave the roughly $3 million straight to the firefighters in the form of about a 36% pay increase over the course of the 2005-2009 MOU.
Had the city council instead given the firefighters the same raise as police officers, they could have used that money to shore up the roads funding that is now a huge part of the culprit in the emerging $5 million deficit.
While the deficit might be out of the current city council’s hands, steps taken ten years ago could have blunted most of its force. Right now, the City of Davis firefighters make at least 25% more than their UC Davis counterparts. Saving that cost would allow the city to cut the current deficit by one-third.
From 2000 until the current year, the city itself had put less than $1 million of its own funds into road repair. The city banked on over a decade’s time of state and federal roads funding, which was sporadic at best and less reliable as time progressed. Had the city simply allocated $1 million of city funding over that time, we might not be in the roadway crisis we are in.
Those decisions rest on the backs not of slow-growthers, but rather the pro-development council that was in control for most of the last decade. In 2009, the council had the opportunity to hit on some of the structural changes that were finally agreed to and imposed over the last year.
So, what can we blame on slow-growthers? First, it would seem we would need to define slow-growther. We have had three public votes on growth in the days since Measure J and Measure R were put on the books.
In 2005, we saw 60% of the voters oppose Covell Village. In 2009, we saw 75% of the voters oppose Wild Horse Ranch. The only economic or commercial development was Target and that was approved by a narrow margin.
The last five years we have seen a depressed real estate market and housing market, largely due to national conditions. It is interesting to note that had Covell Village been approved, we might actually be in a lot worse shape, as the developers would have taken a huge hit during the housing crisis.
But the bottom line is that it seems ludicrous to blame slow-growthers (or no-growthers) for these problems. The votes against the two housing developments extended well beyond what most people would consider slow-growthers.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened with Covell Village had the first vote been to create a commercial center that mirrored the Nugget Center from across the street, rather than a huge housing proposal.
The bottom line is that in the last 15 years, we have seen exactly one commercial development put to the voters and it narrowly passed. If the voters haven’t had the options for business parks or other economic development, how do we blame them for the current shortfall?
In recent months (and well beyond that time frame), I have heard commercial developers blame Measure R for the lack of project proposals. While that is a viable theory that should be explored, at the same time, when Measure R went to a vote, 75% of the resident supported it. Again, that would seem to go well beyond the slow-growther core constituency.
The community itself has been consistently opposed to another big box or some sort of retail mall along I-80. That is a community consensus that has been fairly consistent since Target was approved – that means we need to go in another direction.
To me, the slow-growthers are a convenient culprit in this game, but those casting the blame often fail to take responsibility for the mess created by past councils’ failures to check the power of the firefighters and other employee groups. Without the huge deficit hanging over us, we could take more time to create a shared vision of what Davis should look like.
That is to me the biggest problem – we do not have agreement across the groups on what the community should look like. There are forces that will oppose any development, but that is not the end of the game. There were forces that opposed Target and there will be those who oppose any business park proposal.
The question will be whether we can bring enough people together to approve a Measure R vote for a business park. If we cannot, that is a reflection of the goals of the majority of voters in the community and should not be put on a smaller group of people who are active and more vocal.
It is up to the leaders to bring the community together, and casting out disparaging terms for certain groups of citizens is rarely the way to forge consensus.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The city of Woodland has grown aggressively, has a large retail component on the edge of town, and has a near-mirror reversal of property tax to sales tax revenue proportions compared to Davis. How is Woodland’s budget situation? Did they weather the recession better than Davis? Is there a correlation between high-growth policies and budget stability?
That’s a good point and certainly cities like Roseville and Folsom that have much larger retail bases were hurt far worse than Davis during the recession. The question is whether going forward, they will fare better or worse than Davis.
Clearly the communities of Roseville and Folsom will fare better than Davis from the rebound in sales tax receipts. But Folsom & Roseville also feature much more diversified employment demographics which also help in that regard. Going back twenty years, they made significant efforts to attract a diversified based of larger, national technology employers at the same time they made concerted efforts to develop a robust destination retail identify – going head to head with Arden Fair in Sacramento – while simultaneously adopting a no-limits approach to housing development and growth.
You truly cannot tease out only a part of that equation and expect to get meaningful results.
One thing about Davis which nobody can deny is our reputation the center of academic excellence for the entire region. Together with that reputation, we are now beginning to establish our presence as a center of excellence for jobs and talent in the areas of sustainable agriculture, biotechnology, medical research, and sustainable energy solutions.
If we are to ask ourselves, what is our value proposition to the region? What is our brand? What is our regional competitive strength in the sense of positioning ourselves as the regions most compelling location to do business? It is hard to deny that Davis has all the attributes necessary to be a leading center of excellence on the frontiers of research and technology employment.
It seems like the question should be: Can Davis leverage that strategic advantage to evolve, on its own unique terms, as a world leader in sustainable planning and development – retaining a distinctive small town personality while offering the types of qualify of life amenities that are such a distinguishing characteristic of the community?
The potential is here. The opportunities are here. Do we have the will and desire to accept the challenge?
An interesting question whether Woodland has fared any better these past few years. On the whole, one suspects not, as their property tax based was likely slammed during the recession but it would be interesting to know.
One this topic, whether we’re talking about the ability to compare financial performance between communities or within the community over time, the tools commonly available in financial reports are poorly suited. This is a serious challenge for anyone charged with the task of overseeing and managing district performance.
Unlike private sector annual reports where 5 and 10 years comparative financial statements are regularly issued, the comparative reports contained in annual city Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports do a very poor job of highlighting the year to year trends in comparative general fund expenditures. Nowhere, for example, does the typical annual report show the percentage change, year over year, in a multi-year format that seriously help to highlight and isolated the annual growth in departmental operating expenditures alongside the annual and cumulative changes in ending cash position.
As a practical matter, from the perspective of the electeds, and as a tool of financial management, the 250 odd page annual reports is functionally useless as a tool to understand the underlying trends and related insights which they might convey.
From my point of view as an admitted “slow growther” I would like to make a couple of points that i think are typically overlooked by those who favor rapid growth. One is a regional perspective. Counting Vacaville, Woodland,
Winters, Davis, West Sacramento and Sacramento as the major communities in our region the rapid growth proponents tend not to look at the region as a whole and thus value the unique contribution to this mix. From my perspective, each community has inherited, or chosen a different path which contributes differently to the regional whole. For those in government, Sacramento is obviously the hub. Woodland and Vacaville have chosen commercial development in the form of outlets, big box stores and malls as a large part of their model. For Davis, the unique ongoing contribution will center around the presence of the university. I feel strongly that any development that we consider for the future should be focused on optimizing this unique aspect of Davis. This is a large part of the reason that I would consider some version of a tech park preferable to projects such as the Target and surrounding pads which offer nothing unique, and I do not believe have lived up to the projections about revenue generation. Given the current tendency for more and more shopping to be done on line, especially by the younger folks, I think we need to be willing to be more forward looking and give up on the old big box and mall models.
As for the comment that the “slow growthers” are looking for assurances, this is not correct. Most slow growthers that I know are keenly aware that life does not offer guarantees. What I am seeking is some kind of realistic projection of what any given project will cost the community in both the long and short run as well as the best estimate of what financial and other benefits are likely to be seen. As a manager for the past 5 years as well as a doctor for the past 30, I do not think it makes sense to attempt to move any project forward without a clear statement of anticipated costs and benefits. This is the same whether the “project” is a given surgery for an individual patient, whether it is considering the hiring of a new partner, or the implementation of a new policy, or
the building of a new clinic or hospital. I fail to see why a cost benefit analysis, which is what is being requested, should seem so onerous and unreasonable to those promoting growth, either economic or population or both.
While there are no hard and fast assurances when it comes to change, it only seems fitting a community like Davis would be able to have a honest and open conversation about the opportunities and challenges of doing nothing versus exploring alternative futures.
As for the economics question, the simple answer is that the City has not had in place an economic model for new development which incorporated a component to address anything but the “direct costs” (attributable new expenses in police, fire, schools, roadway impacts, etc) associated with potential new projects. One important reason for the limited model was that the majority of projects (with the exception of Measure K retail component) have been of a residential model.
Economic development models which take into account the secondary economic benefits (beyond simply new sales and property taxes) of new development and include such elements as net new jobs and resulting increases in associated local spending and its multiplier effects, increases in local business to business spending (again something not associated with housing) and its multiplier effects, magnet effects of other, new businesses seeking to be in close proximity to the generally larger, early adopter employers seeking closer proximity to research, intellectual capital and employee talent. Part of the phenomenon is based on critical mass (and this is the challenge of losing a stable, well-recognized larger employer like Bayer) where other successful companies in a certain industry sector want to be near others. We see that to some degree with the nexus of Downtown Restaurants and where Davis has become a destination for such activities. Same is true with technology companies in their decisions where to locate. Even the notion of a Tech Innovation center is generally dependent upon a supportive critical mass of suitable employers seeking the benefits of such collaboration. All of these factors come together and must be incorporated into a much more complex economic model when seeking to assess the prospective costs and benefits for this type of development decision. The question then, is who should be obliged to bear the burden of the cost for this type of analysis tool? Many communities make the decision that the city should bear much of the up front cost as they city as a whole will be a co-equal beneficiary of the ultimate economic benefits associated with such development.
One thing is for sure, that without a more holistic approach to the discussion about the future of our local economy, including how we are going to support essential municipal services, the forces of inertia will overwhelm whatever good intentions and potential benefits which might lurk beyond the horizon.
The ONLY reason Davis is not currently a San Bernardino bankruptcy case is the captive customer population of a successful UCD. Said another way, if not for the growth of UC Davis the city would not have the property value protection it enjoys, and because the city has failed to adequately develop its economy, it would be in a much, much worse financial situation.
And making the case that Don Saylor, Stephen Souza, Ruth Asmundson, and Ted Puntillo where all the only city leaders at fault and that they were pro-business development is like saying Barak Obama is the only politician at fault for the country’s joblessness and he is pro-business development. Both are false.
If you are pro-business development, you are largely anti-union. And if you are anti-union, you don’t make friends with public sector unions to help fund your campaigns.
The Davis Chamber and the Davis Downtown Business Association have both had a history of being pro-downtown, but not necessarily pro-business development. The Chamber at least appears to be moving toward a more reasonable pro-business position.
I think the problem here is that many don’t know what being pro-business development looks like. The reason is that we have never had any city leadership that has been truly pro-business development. The no-growthers – primarily liberal Democrats – have controlled the elections and no true pro-business development candidate would have a chance.
This is just an attempt by the political power in this town – one that is totally liberal Democrat – to try and push off the total fiscal mismanagement on a few city leaders that have shades of Republican because they are somewhat less left that the standard issue city council member. It is precisely a left fiscal worldview combined with Democrat politicians’ historical appetite for union campaign dollars that has got us here.
A sense of civility should motivate me to steer clear of any ideological argument. But it is a lack of ideological introspection that is at the root of the problem and risks preventing us from implementing adequate corrections. We cannot solve our problems if we are not honest about the cause. And the solution will require us to rethink the vision of Davis and get used to the change that is necessary for us to remain a sustainable municipality.
A heavy dose of liberal Democrat worldview tends to help add attractive amenities and prevents unattractive change. I am a conservative living in Davis partially because of the benefits to the community derived from the results of the views and work of liberal Democrats (and note I include Davis “progressives” in this group). However, like all things in life we need balance. And we have been way out of balance with respect to economic development and city spending. And because we are so far out of balance, we are sitting on a precipice of a tremendous decline in the very amenities that we have worked so hard to earn. Getting back to balance requires us to move with urgency to develop our economy. But unfortunately that liberal Democrat worldview keeps us in denial of our problems, and demands that we stall and delay.
And it is clear that this finger pointing backwards to blame a few leaders with a slightly less bent is just a tactical diversion toward more stalling and delaying.
“The ONLY reason Davis is not currently a San Bernardino bankruptcy case is the captive customer population of a successful UCD.”
That’s also the only reason that Davis is a town of 65,000 rather than 10,000.
I agree. I think they are both the same point. And this is basically a point that the city residents have been living off that soft money of the university. And that would all be great if we had sustainable finances. But since we don’t… and since the gap is huge… it is clear that we have been living a lie. Demanding the amenities of quaintness and quirkiness and no big box and no peripheral development and a farmland moat and competition-protected downtown merchants and copious parks and greenbelts and bike paths… etc. Again, these are all things that I value too, but not enough to cause the city to become insolvent.
And my purpose for writing this was in part to show that bad fiscal policy as much as bad land use policy led to the city becoming insolvent.
One point of clarification with respect to pro-business development necessarily being anti-union. That statement is largely true when viewed from the standpoint of the majority of business operators. However, virtually every major technology headquarters and production facility in the Bay Area has been built by predominantly union personnel. Call it a pragmatic reality, but at least that component of acceptance has been achieved owing largely to the size, scale and specialized construction demands of such facilities and the demonstrated ability of the professional trades to deliver. Similarly, one doubts that the entertainment industry, including both film and professional sports, are anti-growth or anti-union in any respect. Point being, the two are not mutually exclusive.
I think most people involved in the building and operation of a business would prefer that it did not require any unionized labor. It is the pragmatic reality. It is also the unfortunate reality in many cases, because the cost-per unit of production is often significantly higher than it would otherwise be. Union labor is just another tax that business has to pay.
I had to double check, when I first read this article I thought it was written by Davis Progressive.
Once again you want to argue about how we got here instead of how we go forward. In my vision we grow the local economy and bridge the gap with a limited tax increase. What’s your vision?
In my view, you have to understand what went wrong to fix the future. My view is to continue to hold down costs, have community discussions to attempt to reach consensus on moving forward. Bridging the short term gap with a tax is probably inevitable as well.
No, you want to beat a dead horse, then you want to reinvent some vague political process. In reality we already have the political structures to address our needs. We simply need to use what we have in place and have the debate through the existing structures.
Davis generates about $7,000 per capita in taxable sales revenue. In Folsom that number is $26,000. Palo Alto is $29,000.
Asking how these cities are fairing today is asking the wrong question. The truth is that almost all city, state and national governments have had a propensity to overspend. They overspend because the spending buys them votes or campaign contributions.
So Davis might be in better shape because we have the opportunity for business development to solve our problems. Folsom and Palo Alto are pretty well built out.
Davis has lots of peripheral land that can be annexed and developed for business parks and retail.
Woodland generates about $12,000 per capita in sales revenue per year.
Just assume that Davis grew its economy to the same level.
First we would also generate additional property tax revenue. 21% of property tax revenue goes to the city and 45% to local schools. Second, that additional $4,300 in sales revenue per capita in our city of 65,000 would generate another $2,925,000 per year in city tax revenue (another $45 in tax revenue per capita per year).
That is our opportunity. We need to be pursuing it with urgency… instead of continuing to pursue the development of the farmland moat.
In reading your latest post, it occurred to me that part of our seeming endless differences in how we see the world may hinge on a lack of understanding on my part. I have some questions. You frequently post that we need to focus on root causes. You also frequently post that you feel that much of our current situation has been based on
“boomer greed”. And then you post solutions that largely center around more material acquisition since that is essentially what favoring more per capita “sales” revenue would entail. I am confused about how you reconcile
opposing “greed” with the promotion of more revenue largely generated by ongoing sales of items that no one really needs. Can you clarify ?
There is no way around accepting that we live in and benefit from a market economy and that higher market transaction activity is good for us in terms of the revenue it produces.
Your worldview and related demands for Davis are decidedly anti-market. It is clear that you see higher market transaction activity as undesirable.
Other than economic development and business growth, there are only two alternatives for generating enough tax revenue to allow a balanced budget:
1. Additional cuts to spending.
2. Additional increases to tax rates.
But we know that those two solutions are at least problematic, and are probably unachievable.
So economic development / business growth is the only solution. And it is a long-term solution. And of course this also includes the need to manage our spending going forward so that we don’t again over-commit and overspend. I have some faith that there are enough of us that would pounce on any city politician paying off his union benefactors again given what we have learned from our pains.
If I am wrong, then please tell me what your solution is to balance the city budget.
1. Additional/continued cuts to spending.
2. Additional increases to tax rates.
3. Development of sites for tech businesses.
So you have confirmed that these are the three.
1. It is unlikely that we will get much more out of spending cuts.
2. It is probable that a sales tax increase measure would fail.
3. Would have been great if you had supported Mace 391 as a business park instead of a farmland moat. I’m not sure I believe you actually support business park development at this point.
Also, we need to develop some more peripheral retail. I know this is something you don’t support.
Bottom line for me is that your tack record on #3 is very weak. And that is the main problem. We should be pursuing #3 with great urgency; yet you have been more active in your urgency to prevent it.
I think it is very likely that a sales tax increase would pass in Davis, since voters in every surrounding community have passed sales tax measures. I have been very specific about where business development could occur, so I don’t know why you pretend you don’t know my position on that. The Innovation Task Force is charged with identifying and assessing the peripheral sites. My track record on those sites is just as strong as yours.
You are correct that I would oppose peripheral retail, but I would not oppose another neighborhood shopping center. Nor would I oppose upgrades to the existing neighborhood shopping centers.
In response, I would like to share, as I have before my vision for our community, but also my larger vision for a more sustainable and healthier community, country and world. And in saying this, I firmly believe in thinking globally and acting locally which I believe to be not only cliche, but also true.
First regarding our local issues, as I have said before, I would favor a three tiered approach. 1) Be willing to go through a period of less “amenities”. 2) Being willing to finance the agreed upon priority amenities with a short term tax increase.
3) Consider economic development projects that are truly innovative and that leverage the unique factor driving our economy, the university. Clearly my vision does not include retail shopping malls or the like which provide nothing new, distinctive or innovative.
This gets me to my broader perspective. I agree with you that much of our current problems do indeed stem from greed. Where we seem to differ is that I include the constant demand for ever more and redundant material acquisitions as part of that greed. So in the short term, what I would recommend is that we as individuals make the decision to focus not so much on what we can acquire, but rather what we can contribute. I know that this would represent a radical change in thinking for many Americans who have been raised on the clearly unsustainable, and in my mind false, goal and promise that each generation should be, and indeed is entitled to be materially better off than their parents. Note, I do not mind the concept of each generation being “better off”, I simply do not define this as having larger houses, luxury vehicles and fancier toys. While I agree that this is our current consumption based market economy, I do not agree that it has to be, or should be our future. I believe it is possible to gradually change our society to a more sustainable and responsible model by what we choose to teach our children. The choice is ours and well being does not have to be defined by material possession.
Increasing per capita sales tax revenues in Davis is not an issue of generating more ‘boomer greed’ it is an issue of having the purchases that people are already making occur in Davis instead of another community. The issue is reducing sales tax leakage, not increasing personal consumption.
Economic development involves two separate but related fronts. First, increase retail options in town so that we can reduce sales tax leakage. Second, increase business growth in town in order to create good jobs, grow net community income, and increase property tax revenues to the City from the expanded business activity.
I don’t see where either of these approaches require increasing ‘boomer greed’ or population growth for that matter.
Well said.
I think “boomer greed” in the context of Davis’s budget situation is more identifiable in the continued demand for amenities without accepting the changes which are the means to fund those amenities.
‘The issue is reducing sales tax leakage, not increasing personal consumption.’
Is there some estimate for who much leakage is happening?
Instead of stopping leakage I think a better goal would be to attract people to Davis. Building strip malls with the same stores every other community already has does not seem the best way to do this, and doing so puts our current mom and pop owned stores at risk.
Who said anything about strip malls or ‘the same stores every other community already has?’ That is the basic problem here in Davis. Any discussion of retail growth immediately devolves into ‘Oh My God! We don’t want Big Box’ with the underlying assumption that the only way to build retail diversity is through strip malls and big box stores.
Berkeley instituted a ‘buy local’ program a few years back that shifted millions of dollars in local purchases towards locally owned stores (http://buylocalberkeley.org/). By definition and design the program excluded big box national chains since they were not ‘locally owned.’
The big problem that we face here in Davis is our collective refusal to expand our thinking beyond the false premise that any discussion of increasing retail diversity in town is a fight between Downtown and peripheral Big Box. I keep hoping that we will grow up and take a more intelligent approach but I find that I am continually disappointed.
First mention of peripheral retail and Big Box on this thread was by Frankly. Second mention of it was by you. You’re right, it is disappointing.
I think that some of us when considering whether or not to accept the suggestions of those who want more retail as a major source of revenue look to the reality of what has already happened. Whether or not it was what necessarily had to happen the reality of what did happen is a Target and a TJ Max. No innovation, no forward thinking and not even a maximal realization of projected revenues. So unless we are supposed to entirely ignore our history I would say that the tendency has been for redundancy and lack of innovation. I cannot promote more of the same and feel it is unrealistic to expect that others will not since Frankly already has promoted more of the same, just by a different name.
What’s wrong with TJ Max and Target? Soon we’ll have a Red Robin and a few aother stores there. Across the street we now have a Chase Bank and Beach Hut Deli. Other stores will be coming in too. With the free parking as another attraction it’s definately going to hurt the downtown core. Tia Will, what’s your idea of innovative retail?
“Who said anything about strip malls or ‘the same stores every other community already has?”
Frankly, I think at one point he recommended Home Depot open a store in Davis.
I don’t have a problem with more retail as long as it’s addition doesn’t hurt business that currently exist in Davis, especially locally owned ones. I think there is more to gain economically if we focus on attracting consumers to Davis rather then focusing on stopping leakage.
I curious B. Nice. How do you propose enticing new customers to come to Davis to shop if we cannot entice current residents to do so?
We’re not going to entice new customers to come to Davis to shop. You may however, convince them to come for entertainment and food. For instance, why would someone come to Davis for Target, if every city in the region has their own Target?
I agree that we can expand the entertainment aspects of the Downtown, and by doing so bring more people into town to spend money, but that will have zero impact on the leakage issue.
How much smaller would our current deficit be if our per capita sales tax revenues equaled the average for the State?
Which goes back to a question I asked earlier. How big is the leakage factor and is it worth us investing resources to fix it? Would these resources be better spent attracting dollars to Davis rather then trying them from being spent elsewhere?
I don’t have the exact numbers, but Frankly has posted them several times and can direct you to the source. If I recall correctly, the per capita sales tax number for Davis is around $7,000, while Woodland is $12,000. At 65,000 residents, that $5000 difference is in excess of $300 Million in potential additional taxes. I don’t recall what fraction of that would come to Davis, but it isn’t chicken feed. Some City’s have per capita numbers in excess of $20,000.
Mark, if I do some quick math at 8% sates tax rate, the taxable retail sales per capita amounts to $87,500. Do we really generate that much retail sales per resident? Woodland’s retail sales per resident calculates out to over $145,000 per resident (@ 8.25% sales tax rate). Do those numbers make sense to you?
Mark, I was afraid someone was going to ask me that. Honestly the idea just popped into my head as I was writing (my guess is that other’s have proposed this idea so it was somewhere in my subconscious).What led me to it today was your comment about leakage. I wondered how much revenue we were losing this way to big box, generic chain stores in other communities. I wondered if it was enough to support those kinds of stores in Davis, because since they already exist in neighborhood communities they wouldn’t attract people from outside Davis to shop at them. Which led me to the not well thought out idea of enticing new customers to Davis by offering them something that doesn’t already exist in their community. A wise poster has suggested on previous topics that we break the mold, and start thinking in new and innovative ways, instead of relying on the way we have always done things. Maybe he has some suggestions….
I would be fine if Davis Ace moved to the periphery, kept better hours, and stocked a better selection. I would prefer that over a Home Depot. Especially since the G street area could then be re-developed.
“That is our opportunity. We need to be pursuing it with urgency… instead of continuing to pursue the development of the farmland moat.”
Having a secure “farmland moat” in place could actually help the development effort. Creating that secure urban fringe , and thus a clear boundary line, may help the more moderate slow growers, who I believe outnumber the more extremist variety, feel more comfortable supporting expansion.
The problem with this logic is that the farmland moat is the immediate adjacent land. Are you suggesting we develop outside the moat?
We don’t have a farmland moat. This is a myth. We have sites for economic development. They’ve been identified and are being reviewed by an appointed task force.
We don’t have a defined urban boundary? We don’t have 5000 acres already in permanent ag easement, and close to half of that in and around the periphery? We don’t have Measure O and land preservation activists working with organizations like the Yolo Land Trust to make that urban boundary permanent?
Of course we have these things.
We don’t have a farmland moat yet, but that is what is being worked on. Much more effort has gone into that than has business development.
‘We don’t have a farmland moat yet, but that is what is being worked on. Much more effort has gone into that than has business development.”
Sounds like the land preservation people are doing a great job reaching their goals, maybe the business community should ask them for advice, instead of blaming them for their failure to do the same.
Also I’d advice laying of the slow-growth bashing, as it pushes those of us with more moderate views on this topic closer to the extremist end of the spectrum.
Let’s see if I get this…
If I don’t stop calling you a slow-growther you will become a no-growther…
Do I have it right?
Calling someone a slow-grother is fine, attaching negative connotations to the term is when you start having problems. Unless of coarse your goal is to galvanize the hard-core no growers, if that is the case, by all means keep up the negative and inflammatory rhetoric.
I believe you are referring to the Mace 391 property, which I really see as an more of an outlier in this scenario. A series of random occurrences culminated in a “perfect storm” of public controversy and debate. The chances of this scenario repeating itself seem statistically unlikely. (i.e. a property like this, which is both prime farm land and a prime spot for a business park, going into foreclosure at a time when developers had no interest in developing a business park.)
When I think of a moat, I think more along the lines of ag. easements being placed on land not immediately adjacent to city property. As a moderate slow-grower, moderate being a term that I think describes a majority of slow-glowers (although we are not the loudest), I would be much more likely to support expansion knowing there was an permanent ag boundary in place.
Woodland budget before proposed 2013 cuts:
2013 – 14 proposed cuts:
Woodland budget after proposed budget cuts; renewal of 2 sales tax measures included:
Again, all cities over-spent and over-committed.
Palo Alto is a better comparison. This as reported…
“”We need additional contributions by our employees,” Administrative Service Director Lalo Perez told the council. “It’s not going to be possible for us to close these deficits unless we have future participation.”
Public-safety workers — notably the firefighters — present a particular concern to finance officials. Perez said if the city’s public-safety unions agreed to the same type of concessions that other bargaining groups have accepted, the city would not have a deficit in fiscal year 2012. Under the current projections, Palo Alto is slated to have a deficit of $937,000 in the current fiscal year (which ends June 30) and deficits of $2.3 million and $6.7 million in the next two years, respectively.
“We must have participation by all bargain units,” Perez said. ”
Sound familiar?
The point is that Davis is actually in better shape because we have done so little economic development. We have peripheral land capacity that Palo Alto does not have.
For a more accurate comparison with Davis, you would need to add back the full OPEB contributions to which Davis has now committed. They haven’t set aside one cent towards their $61MM obligation. Maybe that is the Boomer Greed to which Frankly refers – that is a to a generation of let’s spend now and leave the bill to the youngsters.
Boomer greed is absolutely identifiable by the sound of that can being kicked down the road again and again and again.
And by the sound of cash registers or card swipes from purchases of luxury and status related items. Please let’s not leave out what really fuels all of this
“market based economy”.
This comment seems pretty full of class bias. Why would you care if luxury items are being sold? Have you priced products at the Artery downtown?
In terms of “status” purchases, how many Davisites drive a Prius?
Davis is affluent. We already buy the things you lament. We just buy them in other places. Why not put the stores here where we at least get the tax benefits?
There is nothing “classist” about my statement. You are well aware of my minimalist philosophy. You also know that I do not believe that we have to accept the current model of materialism above all else. You are aware that as a society I believe that we have enough wealth to feed and clothe and educate our entire population and that we should by any moral standard do that before we provide luxuries for the few. I know that you do not agree with me. Fair enough. Then make your case. But please do so without the useless and inapplicable derogatory comments.
Come on now Tia, accept the tone and content of your original words:
“And by the sound of cash registers or card swipes from purchases of luxury and status related items.”
I know you are a minimalist, but there are many others that are not. And you can thank those that are not minimalists from doing the part to keep the economy humping.
I’m sure you can be a recluse and isolationist… Live off the grid. Grow and hunt your own food. Make your own clothing. Drive a horse and buggy. In some ways that would be impressive and worth of praise. However, in a society that relies on the trade of goods and services, you would not be contributing very much to it. In fact, one could make the case that consumer minimalists are being selfish… either hoarding their cash or giving it away to others to fee their ego… instead of living a life that includes at least an average level of consumerism.
Remember, when you spend money at a business, it goes to help fund the pay and benefits of the employees that work for the business. It also helps keep grow the value of the stock of that company so that retirees get a good return on their investments and pensions don’t run out of money.
It is in fact very altruistic to spend money in the marketplace.
“It is in fact very altruistic to spend money in the marketplace.”
I’m going to work this angle when my husband see this month’s credit card bill;-)
Now, as long as you are able to make the payments, it is altruistic IMO.
The balance will be paid in full, interest payments are where I draw the line on my altruistic spending habits.
And I am sure that you know that I am not arguing to return to horse and buggy days. As a matter of fact I agree with one point you made. You said that we are out of balance. I agree. Our society is far too materialistic and we have lost our way as far as other values are concerned. I would like to see a restoration of balance to a society that values care for others over material acquisition. Do you really believe that would be so bad ?
I don’t disagree that our society is materialistic, but I would argue that we already go way overboard in caring. Look at how much money the US spends caring for its people and people of other countries. It is not helping. The list of people demanding care keeps growing. It is insane. We are doing the wrong things.
The problem is that “caring” is in itself a very complex concept when it comes to humans. I believe the best way to care for as many people as possible is to focus on improving the human condition through opportunity for growth to eventually achieve self actualization. Teaching and coaching should be the primary assists… a hand up when needed, but never a hand-out. I think the hand-out creates a co-dependency. And I don’t see how creating a co-dependency is helping anyone.
By the way, you do not that government transfer payments are not counted in any of the statistics for the “income gap” that lefties and the left media like to use in their divide and conquer class war strategy.
In other words, you can be a millionaire minimalist and give away your millions to the government to redistribute and it statistically will not help shrink the income gap.
In fact, take a low income family and have the government give the entire million to them and they will still be registered as low-income because it isn’t “their” earned income. It is just a “temporary” gift from the government.
So, if you really want income equality (and I know you do because you have posted and told me that you do), then you would be putting more of your discretionary income to use spending it in the marketplace so companies would have to hire more people and those people could earn their own money.
The people who founded this charity disagree with you Frankly, and they have had some interesting results: https://www.justgive.org
David:
Your article does a decent job of describing some of the major historical issues on the expense side of the ledger, but in your desire to affix blame on your favorite ‘whipping boys,’ you have completely ignored the equally important problem with the revenue side of the equation. Our situation is due to an imbalance between the revenues we bring in, and the expenses that we pay out. Overpaying employees (especially in terms of total compensation) is a major issue that needs to be addressed, but that excess compensation would be less of an issue if we had not ignored business development over the past couple of decades.
Now you could argue that if we had the additional revenues ten years ago we would have just overspent on a grander scale, and you may well be right. I think it is clear however that our lack of investment in economic development due to the no-growth approach that has pervaded Davis political thinking, has exacerbated our ability to recover from the down turn, and given us fewer options for moving forward today. This is especially true when you consider the common misconception that economic development equates to housing and big box retail.
I agree that we have to understand what happened to get us to our current situation so that we don’t repeat the experience. I just think it is important that we look at the total story, and not just the part played by your preferred villains.
I think the benefit in replaying the past and pointing to the “villains” if you will, is contained in this part of your comment:
“Now you could argue that if we had the additional revenues ten years ago we would have just overspent on a grander scale, and you may well be right.”
It does justify repeating that we screwed up on our over commitments to city employee pay and benefits.
My problem is that David missed the bigger picture of villain. IMO the villain is the Davis voter and a left-leaning worldview that demonizes business and development in general. You can have a left-leaning worldview without being anti-growth, anti-business and anti-development. But the history of Davis politics has been such that the “antis” and the left-leaning power brokers have been one in the same… or else joined at the hip.
Building sales tax revenues:
In the old days, Discoveries was a store that was a regional draw. Nowadays ‘boutique malls’ have the potential to generate a lot of sales tax per square foot. They add to the charm of a downtown area. Small stores, high turnover, but they provide opportunities for local businesses that would have difficulty renting space in more traditional shopping centers.
Examples:
Union Lumber Company Store, Fort Bragg; excellent re-use of an abandoned building
Broadway Boutique Mall, Cookeville TN: http://www.broadwayboutiquemall.com/Booths.asp
Other ways to increase revenue to the city of Davis? Just some ideas:
Focus on underutilized and unutilized properties in the downtown. Anderson and McNaughton families in particular have property that could be producing more sales tax per square foot.
Anderson approved a single agent to discuss the redevelopment of the site that includes KetMoRee and G Street Pub, to increase parking and develop retail. Is that moving forward?
Empty Davis Enterprise building is in a prime location for boutique retail.
Focus on the struggling shopping centers. Arlington Shopping Center vacancies, South Davis vacancies. Are there policy or infrastructure issues preventing them from getting tenants signed? Are they marketing them effectively?
Second Street (Target): what is keeping the pads from getting filled?
Infill.
Look at a map and identify the sites and property owners of vacant lots within appropriate zoning. I’d focus on the area between 2nd and 5th in East Davis, and on any open land in South Davis. Contact the owners: what are their development plans, and planning horizons? Are there policy, zoning, or infrastructure issues preventing them from moving forward?
Consider more flexible zoning on areas around the downtown to allow residential with commercial and vice versa.
Are there incentives (reduced taxes, fees; streamlined permitting) that could motivate any of these property owners, including Anderson and McNaughton, to develop sooner than they planned?
Gateway. Is there a retail component? I have no idea what the status of this is.
Government-owned properties.
The city corporation yard on 5th Street was on the edge of town when it was located there. It could be moved to the new edge of town. Note: any redevelopment of 5th Street should preserve the community garden. Community gardens are like city parks and provide important benefits. The focus on 5th and on 2nd has been service businesses, esp. auto.
The USDA owns property on Chiles Rd., but I don’t believe their forest nursery has been functioning for many years. Is that land possibly available?
Could another auto dealer be located in South Davis?
The school district headquarters on 5th and B Streets is especially well-located for retail development.
The Depot could possibly house additional retail or restaurants.
Some of these are ongoing (Gateway, G Street). Is available staff time or prioritization a problem?
“Look at a map and identify the sites and property owners of vacant lots within appropriate zoning.”
Don’t forget the Hibbert Lumber site — half of an entire city block located right downtown. The Hibbert girls are sitting on a large parcel — with frontage on two streets, no less — that’s ripe for redevelopment.
In a sales tax analysis study (“leakage” study) done about a decade ago, Davis had highest ‘leakage’ in apparel, general merchandise, home furnishings and appliances, and building materials. Target and TJ Maxx presumably cover the first three categories to some degree.
Davis had highest ‘injections’ (opposite of leakage) in food stores, eating and drinking places, ‘other retail stores’, and especially auto sales.
The question BNice is asking higher up in this thread is, in effect: should Davis planning and proposed developments focus on reducing the leakage, or on improving the injections. The way I would frame it is: should Davis try to compete with surrounding communities, or should Davis build on its image and strengths.
“Frankly would add, ‘The blame is completely on the no-growthers and the liberal Democrats that have run this town and run the city budget into the ground. And they are one [and] the same’.”
“But of course this is not true. The city’s economic problems stem from the influence of the firefighters, who emerged as leaders of employee groups in the late 1990s and strengthened their control of council in the last decade.”
But, of course, you’re both partly correct. Neither is completely accurate. Why set this up as an argument?
+ + + +
“You are correct that I would oppose peripheral retail, but I would not oppose another neighborhood shopping center….”
“And, how’s this working out?” I keep thinking as I drive by the unused and under-used spaces in our neighborhood shopping centers.
They work when they are on a major street, have nearby student population at high densities, and have a strong grocery store.
Like the one between 5th and 8th anchored by the Co-op?
That only meets one of the criteria I listed.
Nearby student population, a block from two main streets and a busy, popular grocery store?
How about the one on Lake Blvd.? How about the one with the Grocery Outlet?
Where will you locate it to be more successful than the weak ones we already have? And, whether it “works” or not, how much will yet another one help resolve the problem under consideration.
“Like the one between 5th and 8th anchored by the Co-op?”
The big problem there is ownership. It was originally built by a couple of partners, but has since been divided among so many heirs that they can never agree to do anything with it. And it’s fully paid for, so there’s no outside pressure for them to bury their disagreements.
A couple of years ago one of the owners told me that they’d hired an architect to design an update, but I never heard anything more about it.
Mark West: I don’t have the exact numbers, but Frankly has posted them several times and can direct you to the source. If I recall correctly, the per capita sales tax number for Davis is around $7,000, while Woodland is $12,000. At 65,000 residents, that $5000 difference is in excess of $300 Million in potential additional taxes. I don’t recall what fraction of that would come to Davis, but it isn’t chicken feed. Some City’s have per capita numbers in excess of $20,000.
You can go here http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0618100.html to see the stats on any city in the US.
A city takes in roughly 13% of the sales tax revenue. So, if Davis, at $7,752 in sales revenue per capita just generated the state average of $12,561, we would be generating another $4,809 in sales revenue per capita. With 65,000 residents, that would be $312,585,000 in additional sales revenue. The total sales tax on these sales would be $25,006,800. 13% of that would be $3,250,884.
If you think about what has happened to Davis over the years, we have allowed ourselves to slip far behind in the competition for sales tax revenue because our property tax revenues had been kept high.
Thinking about this based on the math above… it has costs us about $3 million a year in lost revenue opportunity to keep the NIMBY, no-growth, slow-growth, change-averse, land preservation extremists… all happy.
“The total sales tax on these sales would be $25,006,800. 13% of that would be $3,250,884.”
Davis sales tax per the 2013 budget was $9.4 million, which was from 1.5% of the 7.75% sales tax paid locally.
If Davis increased sales tax by 0.25%, it would increase that revenue by about $1.56 million per year. Double that to $3.1 million if sales tax is increased by 0.5%.
So an increase of the local sales tax by 0.5% would have the effect of bringing Davis per capita sales tax up to the state average. And it would put Davis sales tax right about in the middle of what other cities charge.
I think there’s something wrong with my ‘state average’ number. But the point is: local sales tax increase would yield the amount Frankly calculated above. Even better: get more local retail that complements our existing stores.
So, in effect, hurt the most vulnerable residents with a tax increase just so the downtown merchants don’t have any competition and we can continue to keep the NIMBY, no-growth, slow-growth, change-averse, land preservation extremists happy? That sounds like a very mean and expensive drug.
Note that I was using the state average for per capita sales revenue. Given the general affluence of Davis residents and the location of our world-class research university and the business it would attract, there is no reason that our sales revenue per capita should not be higher than the state average. Again, we are about $7,700 per capita and Palo Alto is almost $27,000 per capita. The city of Palo Alto has a world class university and about the same population, and it generates almost $20,000 more in sales revenue per capita!?
We should increase our sales revenue per capita only to help us not be embarrassed.
“So, in effect, hurt the most vulnerable residents with a tax increase just so the downtown merchants don’t have any competition and we can continue to keep the NIMBY, no-growth, slow-growth, change-averse, land preservation extremists happy?”
Do you ever want to actually discuss things, or do you just want to sling insults?
Again: every community around us has a higher sales tax rate than Davis does.
” there is no reason that our sales revenue per capita should not be higher than the state average.”
As I’ve said many times before: history, demographics, and geography are the reasons.
Frankly, although I agree with much of what you’re saying comparing Davis to Palo Alto isn’t really fair because Palo Alto is one of the most affluent areas in the world.
GI – Ok. Let’s use Folsom. It is about the same population and has about the same revenue per capita as Palo Alto. Or Santa Cruz… that is $15,100 per capita… that is right!… Santa Cruz! That quirky city far away from population centers and without easy freeway access with hyper environmentalists on every corner. Even Santa Cruz generates about twice the economic activity as Davis. How will Don Explain that difference? I’m sure he will make up something to deflect from the truth that Davis is the way it is because of the competition-averse downtown merchants and the NIMBY, no-growth, slow-growth, change-averse, land preservation extremists.
I’ve decided that as long as you continue to use epithets in any conversation I will just leave it. Bye.
Santa Cruz has a tourist economy that Davis doesn’t have — S.C. Beach Boardwalk, beaches, etc.
With respect to Folsom, keep in mind that Folsom lists a poverty level of 4.4%, Davis 26.4%. That reflects some difference in purchasing power.
wdf1, what does the difference in “poverty level” of the two cities actually mean? (If more than one-quarter of our residents live below the poverty line, we certainly must be providing much more than our share of affordable housing.)
Good points. I tried posting on this same point a few minutes ago and it placed my comments way up the page. Same points, but with additional context.
That Davis poverty metric is false because it includes students. Students don’t make enough to be above the poverty line, but they are spending mom and dad’s money. I’m sure Folsom has REAL poverty rates at least as high as Davis and probably higher.
Palo Alto is different.
Folsom is different.
Santa Cruz is different.
Sure, you can find differences in every city. Is that the game then, to make sure we eliminate everything that Davis can compare to so that we can make the argument that we are righteous in our designs and desires?
If you really think about that position it is highly arrogant. It says that we are so much more progressive and intelligent that we are charting a unique and ground-breaking course.
I think just the opposite. I think we are the chumps. If you cannot find another community that matches up for comparison, then we are likely making bigger mistakes.
But in our ignorance we have unknowingly given ourselves an easier solution than these other communities. Because we have done so little economic development and have so much available peripheral land to annex and use… and because we have a tremendous demand for business parks and additional retail provided us by the success and growth of UCD, we can move with urgency with new economic development to solve our long-term fiscal problems.
Frankly: “That Davis poverty metric is false because it includes students.”
Not really. In this discussion it represents real purchasing power. Even if you want to argue that all 26.4% of poverty level residents are really all UCD students (keep in mind that DJUSD reports 21.7% of students on free/reduced lunch), those residents are not purchasing the latest model cars, garage door openers, or remodeling their deck or bathrooms.
“Sure, you can find differences in every city. Is that the game then, to make sure we eliminate everything that Davis can compare to so that we can make the argument that we are righteous in our designs and desires?
If you really think about that position it is highly arrogant. It says that we are so much more progressive and intelligent that we are charting a unique and ground-breaking course.”
And are you making the argument, “why can’t you be more like your older brother?” Comparisons like you suggest are great, but it’s just as iprudent to note differences. I’m sure you’re not opposed to assessing strengths and weaknesses to develop a strategy that is appropriate for Davis?
I understand what you are saying WDF, but there is a disconnect. A student'[s personal income is counted for poverty determination purposes; however, their purchasing power is a combination of the money they make plus the money they get from family, grants, scholarships, etc.
Frankly, your selective concern for the plight of our most vulnerable residents is touching.
As is your selective concern too B. Nice
Thanks B. Nice. But then you should know by now that conservatives tend to be more generous and altruistic with their own resources.
“So, in effect, hurt the most vulnerable residents with a tax increase just so the downtown merchants don’t have any competition and we can continue to keep the NIMBY, no-growth, slow-growth, change-averse, land preservation extremists happy?”
Do you ever want to actually discuss things, or do you just want to sling insults?
Again: every community around us has a higher sales tax rate than Davis does.
” there is no reason that our sales revenue per capita should not be higher than the state average.”
As I’ve said many times before: history, demographics, and geography are the reasons.
every community around us has a higher sales tax rate than Davis does.
Every community around us generates significantly higher sales revenue per capita than Davis does. Those communities have fewer options than does Davis.
As I’ve said many times before: history, demographics, and geography are the reasons
You can say it as many times as you want to, but those are not reasons, they are symptoms of Davis having a population of competition-averse downtown merchants plus a population of NIMBY, no-growth, slow-growth, change-averse, land preservation extremist voters demanding that they be kept happy.
No, this is simple. The locations that would have been suitable for freeway-based retail are occupied by auto dealers. The university owns the best other property that would have been suitable. That is the geography.
Davis has always been a campus town, not a commerce town. Anybody building an appliance store built it in Woodland, which was the regional center. We got the Sears catalog store, they got the actual furniture store. That is the history.
Demographics is why Gottschalks failed but Forever 21 succeeds in the same spot.
There is no place for big-scale retail that any sane land developer would look at. The population age spread doesn’t lend itself to big general merchandisers, and never has.
Interesting that the website is putting all replies at the top of a thread and not indenting. Something broke?
Don, it is just short-hand for:
People that don’t want development near where they live, or want the city to stay the same size, or want the city to grow very slowly, or don’t like change in general, or think that we should be giving a much higher priority to preserving farm land and don’t support developing on it.
I don’t have time to write that every time.
Although many here disagree with the cause of our current financial situation, it appears that we can all agree that we have a problem that needs to be addressed. So does it bother any of you that instead of addressing the main problem, our CC and CIty Staff have been spending a great deal of their time arguing about plastic bags and old bathrooms, and giving away our assets and resources to non-profits? We have a serious deficit to address so why are we wasting time and money on non-essential issues?
It seems like the city is addressing the problem, isn’t that why Rob White was hired and the innovation task force assembled. While plastic bags and bathrooms have gotten the most media attention, and elicited more interest at council meeting then say transportation planning, I would argue that they are not what council and staff are spending a majority of their time on.
DG: “The city’s economic problems stem from the influence of the firefighters, who emerged as leaders of employee groups in the late 1990s and strengthened their control of council in the last decade.”
My view is that the problem is much larger and broader than just the firefighters. I think the genesis of our city’s fiscal problem* (on the spending side) is from four sources:
1. That our city has never taken full measure of total compensation and kept its growth in line with the growth of the City’s revenues for all categories of employees;
2. That on an ideological basis we have largely elected “pro-labor” members of the city council, and those folks do not believe that it is their duty to negotiate against the City’s employees, but rather to give them what they want because they believe in the cause of union labor and they believe (paternalistically) that it is the duty of an employer to take care of his employee’s needs, even if the employer cannot afford to do so or even if the employer can fill its ranks more cheaply; and
3. That our City Council in the case of the firefighters alone appears to have been corrupted due to campaign considerations and for that reason that one union is overcompensated and has unduly affected other city policies, such as staffing levels and the city-university service boundary; and
4. That Davis has suffered as a consequence of competing in a market for labor (especially at the higher end) with hundreds of other local agencies which have been irresponsible with their compensation practices; and the end result is all of these entities are in trouble.
A point can also be made that the state has not helped matters since Gray Davis moved to give the CHP and the CCPOA 3% at 50 in 1999, which kicked off the benefit spiral upward; and that CalPERS has made it hard for cities to plan properly because of its erratic rates for employer funding (which were stupidly set at 0% for a few years when the stock market was hot, only to be jacked up when the market cooled); and that medical premium rates, also set by CalPERS, have inflated far faster than any employer can handle, as long as the employer takes on a substantial share of the cost of medical benefits for retirees and employees.
————————————-
*I think you are using the wrong words when you refer to the City’s ‘economic problems.’ I think you probably mean ‘fiscal problems.’
A very vigorous, engaging and healthy conversation on economic development. A couple of points I would encourage all to keep in mind:
1) The City of Palo Alto features a daily workforce population of between 60,000-80,000 FTE’s depending upon the source and the year reporting. That compares with 30,000, including jobs at the Davis campus of UCD. Populations of the two cities are identical. What impact would an additional 30,000 daily employees (besides of lots more traffic) have on the city sales tax revenues?
2) Particularly when comparing Davis to other communities like Folsom which features not only the region’s strongest anchor tenant and upscale malls, but also a vibrant and robust technology employment sector and a minimal student population.
3) Last time I checked, Santa Cruz was still located on the Pacific Ocean and serves as host to a vibrant tourist trade – particularly in the long hot summers when half of Davis population disappears. How does that destination tourism thing work anyway in terms of per capita sales tax generation? More recently, Santa Cruz has become the darling of the uber wealthy and sometimes not-so-green engineers and scientist whose jobs are located just over the hill in Santa Cruz. How does the presence of this type of private sector wealth circulating in the local economy factor into the sales tax equation?
4) Last time I checked, the city of Corning led all California cities in per capita sales tax collections. Funny thing that. Might be worth looking into.
Point being, all is not necessarily as it seems when it comes to averages and comparisons. With respect to its potential for retail sales generations, and associated taxes to support vital municipal services, everything should be fair game as long as more significant variables have been suitably adjusted to allow for useful and meaningful comparison.
@ Realchanagz, December 26, 2013 at 7:30 pm
You make some good points and ask some good questions.
Another interesting comparison is the number of companies located in these different communities, and population density.
Palo Alto has 10,175 companies, and 2,696 people per square mile and $26,751 is sales revenue per capita.
Folsom has 6,145 companies and 3,290 people per square mile and $26,474 in sales revenue per capita.
Santa Cruz has 7,116 companies and 4,705 people per square mile and $15,118 sales revenue per capita.
Davis has 5,263 companies and 6,637 people per square mile and $7,752 sales revenue per capita.
Do you see the correlation?
It is all about land use. The higher the population density, the fewer companies. The fewer the companies the lower the sales revenue.
Davis is a complete outlier. And it is not for lack of available land like Palo Alto and like Santa Barbara. Davis’s lack of business land is completely self-inflicted. Our “smart” politicians and residents want those views of fields and that change-preventing farmland moat no matter what the cost.
” Our “smart” politicians and residents want those views of fields and that change-preventing farmland moat no matter what the cost.”
Mostly we don’t want to be Palo Alto or Folsom. Santa Cruz? Well, it might take a few millennia for the ocean to get here.
Both valid points, but please let’s stop referring to it as a moat. If it were a moat then perhaps we could utilize it as another, alternative form of transportation.
More importantly, it hah been my understanding that one of the proposed alternative uses for the Mace 391 would be as an orchard. Far from a non-revenue producing alternative, but with the attendant economic advantage being enjoyed by the operator with presumably no economic advantage for the city (other than an impeded viewscape).
If it was a moat then we could build a bridge for Frankly to live under.
(Frankly I’ve to tell you, ever since you posted that picture of “yourself” siting under a bridge typing on a computer, my kids refer to you as the “troll guy”.)
That’s adorable.
For the kids…
Try Again…
Give up. The blog tags are not standard HTML.
Now I have that annoying song from Dora the Explorer stuck in my head, “I’m the grumpy old troll, living under the bridge….”
What are you trying to do? Post an image?
We’re still working on the new comment system – at this point it appears that you can’t post unless you are registered.