One of the big questions this year has been the question of how to improve Davis’ business climate and to bring in new businesses. Toward that end we have seen things like DSIDE (Designing a Sustainable and Innovative Davis Economy), surveys done by the City of Davis, and partnering with the university on concepts like the Innovation Hub.
We have not always agreed with the approach. For instance, we have concern about plans to bring business parks into peripheral land in the Business Park Strategy. And we question whether the city should re-zone Cannery for housing or mixed-use, when the zoning change can set off a cascading impact on land-use policy.
Sponsored by the City of Davis and the Davis Chamber of Commerce in March, volunteers from business and civic leaders visited 184 businesses and interviewed approximately 164 businesses.
They focused on three key questions – How is business? What do you like about doing business in the area? And what should be done to improve business?
“The findings were relatively positive in the Davis business community,” they reported, with over three-quarters of those visited expressing steady to good business. “When asked what they like most about doing business in Davis, three things stood out: 1) sense of community, 2) clients and 3) students/University of Davis.”
There is a need for improvement in doing business in Davis. The biggest cited needs were parking issues, lowering the costs of doing business and increased marketing and events.
“Another challenge that Davis businesses face is government regulations,” they report. “Despite these complaints, the data shows that very few companies are planning on closing or relocating.”
They key question for policymakers and others is what can be done to improve business. Here we get a glimpse as to what business itself believes needs to be improved. Only 16 percent of businesses that were surveyed would say that nothing in Davis needs improvement.
Nearly a third cited parking and street improvements as their top concern.
“Many feel that street and parking issues are continuous and need to be addressed. Parking has become a deterrent for business due to time restrictions (two hours) and/or the cost to park,” they write.
The report continues, “Some business owners feel that this issue has restricted them from hiring new workers. Some suggestions are to increase parking hours, improve the parking machines, more leniency on ticketing customers, providing parking passes for owners and building additional parking lots.
They also cite the need for road improvements. The report says, “More specifically, suggestions related to street improvements were to improve main roads, fix potholes, extend power lines and add more street lights.”
These, the parking and the road conditions, are both issues that we have continuously raised. We never understood why a two-hour limitation on parking was considered a good idea. It became worse when they added re-parking restrictions. It seemed that business would want to make it easier for people to spend more time in the downtown core, not less.
At that same time, the city has allowed its road maintenance to lag. The city is finally budgeting general fund money to prop up the flagging program, but even that amount is not sufficient to improve the condition of roads.
“The second most reported issue (24 percent) was the cost of doing business in Davis,” the report continues. For those that have lived in Davis, it is no surprise to hear that the cost of doing business in Davis is a big concern. “Davis can be viewed as being ‘unfriendly’ to businesses due to these factors,” the report argues.
Frankly, this may be underreported in this survey because whenever someone goes out of business the cost of doing business in Davis seems to get cited. That suggests a selection bias in the data as the survey selects those less likely to have those issues since they have remained in business and in Davis.
The report cites permits, fees, taxes and high rental rates among the critical challenges that the Davis business community faces.
“Businesses are frustrated with the number of permits they need to obtain and also with how long it takes to get the required permits approved. This slows down business and creates an ‘unfriendly’ business atmosphere,” the report continues.
The bottom line, “Many companies want to stay in Davis but realize that West Sacramento and Woodland have lower fees and less tax. Some businesses are struggling and need relief when it comes to their rent; rent prices are very high compared to surrounding areas.”
Another quarter of respondents believe that Davis needs better options for marketing and events.
They report, “Businesses want to have events that target customers who are going to buy and who are interested in supporting local businesses. Respondents are also looking for the events to be advertised on a central Davis website as well as the chamber website.”
They go on to cite government regulations as another problem for just 17% of businesses. This moves beyond just Davis, as they mention the state level as well.
They report, “Businesses are frustrated by regulations at both the city and state levels, mentioning that there are too many ‘nit-picky’ things that prevent businesses from operating. Davis businesses want to be able to make minor changes to their business without the government slowing them down.”
They add, “Compliance with all of the federal, state and city regulations can be time-consuming. Respondents requested clearer rules and regulations.”
The report also cites security, but that is only 10 percent of respondents. Here they cite problems with break-ins, vandalism, and the homeless.
“Business owners reported issues with being harassed by the area’s homeless who hang out around their buildings. Companies have had their property stolen or vandalized multiple times. Respondents would like to see increased support from local police on these issues,” the report indicates. It is less clear as to why this would be a bigger problem in Davis than elsewhere.
The report notes that improving the economy would help Davis businesses.
“Creating jobs and filling the vacant stores are on business owners’ minds,” the survey reports.
Toward that end, “Many are looking for more lenience on letting a variety of businesses into Davis in an effort to fill vacant spaces.”
Something perhaps that people do not think about is the impact of the cost of education on the business community. They write, “Businesses are feeling the effects of higher education costs, resulting in a reduction in the number of students who are able to shop.”
Finally, sign regulations are an issue in Davis. While they may understand the need to keep Davis looking “professional” they also would like more visibility. “Some signs are also being blocked by trees and construction, which seems to be unacknowledged by those who approve additional signs,” they write.
None of these findings are particularly surprising. The question is always how best to deal with competing needs – the need to keep this community small, and the need to be environmentally-friendly while at the same time being friendly to business.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Businesses call for less regulation like crows caw in the morning. What would be useful to this sort of discussion is more detail. Exactly which regulations do which kind of business want reduced? I imagine the current manifestation of the company placing those G4 towers all over town wants our ability to regulate their activities reduced.
From the point of view of the Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation (TPCF) there is regretfully a very negative business climate in Davis. TPCF is the largest co-op investor in cooperative development organizations in the USA. Almost every food, worker and mobile home park co-op in the country that borrows funds to get started, to purchase property, to expand or to obtain additional stores is funded partially by TPCF dollars.
However, in all of the lending TPCF plays a role in (over 50 different co-ops each year in about 30 states) we have no other borrower that is facing a law suit for breaking various state laws. TPCF relies upon lead lenders to enforce bylaws and laws and thankfully in all of our other investments the lead lender does that. However, here in Davis, DACHA began to have ineligible board members beginning in 2005. Beginning in 2006, the ineligible board of DACHA began to break numerous state laws.
TPCF took action against DACHA for breaking state law and then later we found that the city staff agreed to suspend mortgage payments for 17 months so that DACHA could defend itself against the allegations of breaking the law.
Nowhere in our other lending have throughout the country have we a case of a city suspending their loan payments so that the co-op could fight breaking state and co-op laws.
Under these present conditions in the City of Davis, TPCF cannot dare lend to any co-op in which the city plays a role. Given our experience with DACHA TPCF cannot afford to be a lender in Davis while this negative business climate exists.
David Thompson, President, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
http://sites.google.com/site/itsthelawdacha/home
I think at the moment, Davis has two serious issues regarding new businesses. One is the *Banana Group* – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone. No matter what business is going in or where, this group will oppose it for some reason or another. The other issue is the ridiculous parking situation downtown. I’m not going to circle for half an hour looking for parking. If I can’t find a space on the first loop around, I’m going to Woodland or West Sacramanto.
So
you can be a nonprofit in Davis;
your entire board can be ineligible to serve;
the board members can conduct self dealing transactions with the City appointee participating in the votes;
you can face a law suit alleging your breaking of the law;
city staff will allow you not to pay your mortgage and call it a loan; you then use the city allocated funds to defend yourselves against a law suit which claims you have broken various state laws;
even so you are allowed to borrow $4 million from the City;
however, you actually never pay the loan of city funds back;
you owe your first lawyer $90,000 and now you owe your next lawyer money; you use corporate funds to avoid compliance with state law, which is itself against the law;
city staff and city council are given evidence that the board members are delinquent and therefore ineligible to serve;
The City Manager is required by the municipal code to uphold the law but seemingly does not and
you wonder about the business climate in Davis?
The City has not yet admitted that the DACHA board members were ineligible to serve nor apparently taken any action even thought it knows the board members were ineligible.
At the core of business development in a community is belief by lenders that co-lenders, including the city will do their due diligence and take action when a board breaks its bylaws and state laws.
The DACHA board fiasco has blasted a gaping hole in the business climate of Davis.
David Thompson, President, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Hi David,
The focus of this survey was issues facing retail and professional businesses, primarily downtown. I think you’ve made your case regarding DACHA. Please keep comments on this thread on the topic of this business survey.
Thanks,
Don
Dear Don:
In David’s report there is only one mention of downtown.
However, TPCF is a professional business downtown and we have made loans to businesses downtown. As the President of Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation I am answering on behalf of our organization two of the three questions that the survey asked.
What do you like about doing business in the area? And what should be done to improve business?
So to question one.
Given what happened with DACHA TPCF is very concerned about doing business in Davis.
and to question two.
The City should not lend to organizations composed of illegal board members.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
An anecdote about my own experience which may have proved wrong what I thought was the case:
A bit over a year ago, the spring on my garage door broke and I looked in the Yellow Pages for a Davis-based company to come repair it. I couldn’t find one. There were maybe 15 companies to choose from and I ended up going with M&D Overhead Door Co. out of Woodland. (Most of the other companies listed were also based in Woodland.)
After the job was done, I asked the repairman why he thought not one garage door company in our area was Davis based? I presumed the answer was that compared with Woodland or West Sac, Davis is bad for business from a regulatory perspective. I’d noticed that (with the exception of a lot of handyman outfits) almost all of the blue collar service companies I’ve called over the years for repairs are based in Dixon or Winters or Woodland, but almost never in Davis.
To my surprise, the garage door guy — who was one of the owners of the company — said he didn’t think Davis was more pro business or more anti-business than Woodland or any of the other places. He said the area cities are all about the same when it comes to regulation, though in some cases he said Davis charged higher permit fees.
So why was it he was based in Woodland? Why are none of the companies based in Davis? He said (paraprhasing): “Look, Davis costs twice as much to own a home. The guys who run garage door companies, and the roofers, and the landscapers and so on tend to live in Woodland, more than Davis, just due to the cost of living. Other than guys who started out in Davis a long time ago, when houses were less expensive, you just are not going to find as many blue collar outfits opening up in Davis. It’s not about regulations.”
I don’t know if his answer is right or wrong. I suspect it might be right. If so, it disabused me.
I think Rich is on to something that is part of the problem. Business owners are people too, and Davis is an exclusive town with higher property costs.
Behind labor, fixed asset costs are usually the second highest cost for a business. The availability of inexpensive student labor is a draw, but the high property costs can cause the project to not pencil out. For example, I worked on a potential franchise proposal for a business in Davis. Everything about Davis was a fit except for the availability and cost of suitable retail real estate.
If you want to live where you work, Davis means a smaller and more costly house. I think some people that say they cannot afford Davis really are saying that they don’t like the little house and little lot they would end up with compared to what they could afford in the surrounding areas. To be a Davistite, you either must be the kind of person that can either afford the higher price, or otherwise value other things than a McMansion on a ½ acre lot.
Then there is the issue of commute and doing business in a local area market.
Having agreed with Rich’s point, I think there is much more about Davis that justifies its reputation of being anti-business. Remember when Borders came to town? What about Target? I remember years ago working with Verizon to try and get a cell tower installed somewhere in town where us in West Davis technical purgatory could get a signal… that got rejected twice by different councils. The anti-business climate here is grass-roots and strong.
My thinking on this is that Davis has a high percentage of residents living on the soft money of government and, frankly, they are a bit disconnected from understanding, or other otherwise do not care about, where all the hard money that pays their salary comes from. Just like our current President that refuses to expand oil exploration in our own territory (even though we consume more than any other, and our rejection causes more oil exploration to occur in other countries’ territories), many of our residents don’t care that “ugly” big-box shopping and industry cannot easily locate in Davis and must do their “dirty” business in other places. Or, they want us to keep Davis like the quaint European villages they pass through vacationing every other year.
I also think we are too hyper-protective of the downtown businesses. We are giving many of the downtown merchants a sort of “competition welfare”, when they should be able to handle a bit of periphery shopping in a town this size.
Lastly, the City Staff are not all well trained and/or are not the caliber of employees that I would expect for a city like ours. Little delays can be very costly for any business startup or relocation project… Davis seems to own one of the most bureaucratic and politicized development processes in the area.
David made a point that the survey probably should have included businesses that have recently gone out of business or left Davis. I would add that including businesses which have recently looked at but rejected Davis as a location, or businesses that are currently looking at Davis in comparison with other locals would provide helpful insights.
I agree with Jeff that the large percentage of government (state, UCD, city and school) employees in Davis leaves Davis with a significant portion of the population that doesn’t really understand or care significantly about the issues important to private businesses. I don’t have any insights into city staff capabilities, but my sense is that city staff are much more welcoming of businesses locating here and/or expanding than are the voters.
Adam Smith and JB
I am curious about the basis for your belief that a “large percentage of government (state, UCD, city, and school ) employees in Davis leaves Davis with a significant portion of the population that doesn’t really understand or care significantly about the issues important to private business.” I think this belief confuses two separate issues and sets up a false dichotomy between private business owners and public employees. Just because one has never run a private business and therefore has never had to learn the nuts and bolts of operating one does not mean a lack of interest in the success of business owners. I am not myself a government employee, but count many amongst my friends and acquaintances. Most are keenly aware that their jobs are dependent upon taxes ( which they also pay) and that this income is dependent on the financial well being of the community.
I am also curious about the differentiation of “soft money” of government vs the “hard money” presumably associated with the private sector.
Money, being nothing more than an exchange medium, is worth only what someone is willing to trade for it, whether their time,labor,goods or services. It seems to me that your distin
ction of soft a bit contradictory to me to believe that we are over protective of our downtown businesses.
If you are true believers in a “free market” then surely what businesses are promoted would be dependent on what the majority favored. Thus, as in the case of both Borders and Target, the majority did decide in favor of these large stores. Surely that is the way your idea of a “free market” is supposed to work. I do not see anything in the writings of Ayn Rand that says there is an obligation to make it easier for any given
enterprise, only that each should be allowed to compete. Surely in such a competitive market, those who favor small and local over large and redundant (such as Target) should have equal rights to promote what we see as in our best interest without being labelled ignorant, uncaring or antibusiness.. Unless of course you promote a very narrow reading of Rand as to apply to economic ( or material) gains only and not to the free pursuit of what the individual perceives as in their best interest in all areas of their life.
Oops, deleted a whole section in middle.
Intended to say that I find the distinction between hard and soft money nothing more than a divisive tactic pitting public workers against private businesses In a false dichotomy.
Separate point intended about the contradiction that we are “over protective” of downtown businesses while presumably somehow unfairly hostile to “big box” stores.
medwoman –
I wasn’t attempting to argue in favor of one business vs another, although I think it is clear that many Davis citizens are very concerned about the ability of small locally owned businesses ability to compete against the larger big boxes. Rather my argument was more in the vein that Davis in general doesn’t “show well” vis a vis some other cities which are more encouraging to new business development with fewer regulations, fees or permit requirements.
For the record, many of my Davis friends are employed by the government. I like and respect them very much. However, in my experience, there is no doubt that the job security (at least until recently) and the pension/healthcare benefits allow them to think differently about the need for making and saving money than many proprietors and employers in town. IMO, in general, there is a different mindset and lack of appreciation in understanding the difficulty of running a business, making payroll, paying loans and saving for retirement and paying for healthcare.
medwoman:
Sorry I have been slow to respond… nursing a nasty spring cold virus.
[i]”Surely in such a competitive market, those who favor small and local over large and redundant (such as Target) should have equal rights to promote what we see as in our best interest without being labelled ignorant, uncaring or antibusiness.”[/i]
[i]”Separate point intended about the contradiction that we are “over protective” of downtown businesses while presumably somehow unfairly hostile to “big box” stores.”[/i]
[i]” Thus, as in the case of both Borders and Target, the majority did decide in favor of these large stores. Surely that is the way your idea of a “free market” is supposed to work. I do not see anything in the writings of Ayn Rand that says there is an obligation to make it easier for any given enterprise, only that each should be allowed to compete.”[/i]
Although impractical, it would be interesting to poll the true shopping habits of Davisites against big-box peripheral shopping. My guess is that many of them shop at Woodland Costco and Home Depot from time to time.
I suppose you can defend this behavior as pursuing one’s self interest (i.e., keeping the ugly big-box stores in other cities to protect the downtown and maintain our small town charm); but I think it smacks of ignorance or elitism and hypocrisy. Analogous to this is the Democrats’ refusal to allow more oil and natural gas exploration on federal land ostensibly to protect the environment; meanwhile we still consume oil and natural gas that other countries must produce. Again, I suppose you can make the argument that saving our natural environment over the environments of other nations is a rational pursuit of our interest; but again, I think it also demonstrates ignorance or elitism and hypocrisy.
[i]” I am also curious about the differentiation of “soft money” of government vs the “hard money” presumably associated with the private sector. “[/i]
I am not using the terms in a classic sense (i.e. defining different types of campaign donations or types of currency). My point is that public sector employees can be disconnected from a root understanding of what pays their salary. Government money is “soft” money because, unlike for the hard realities of private business, government employees don’t usually have to personally face the financial consequences of insolvency. Instead, they believe, their politicians can always raise taxes… again. To them the money supply is more elastic (more soft) versus the private sector that knows too well that running out of cash and/or credit spells the hard end.
JB
Sorry about the cold, hope your feeling better.
It is interesting to me that you seem to favor pursuing your best interest or “free market”only when it aligns with your own ideologic viewpoint and favor the use of perjoritives when the view point is different. I don’t see anything hypocritical about not seeing the need for a 10th Target
When there are already 9 within a 30 minute travel distance from Davis (depending on what part of town you live in). This is not “keeping the big box stores in other communities”. Each of those communities also had a free chose about whether or not to accept a big box store. It would only be hypocritical if one were to force another community to accept what you will not accept in your own. It is on this point that your analogy with our national energy policy does not hold. Unlike the US, Davis is not forcing any circumstance on anyone else for our gain. I happened to value the environment over the right to have yet another Target, even if it did, completely hypocritically, label itself green as when
instructing employees to dispose of surplus, fully useable shelving by throwing the shelves away.
And what you call “elitist” I call preferring an aesthetically pleasing and unique environment to being surrounded by strip malls and generic fast food restaurants. If enough of my fellow citizens have similar preferences and are able to sustain these unique businesses through our spending habits, surely this is the “free market” you advocate in action.
As to the last of you perjoritives, “ignorance”, I doubt that it has escaped the attention of any of the teachers who have been pink slipped, public employees who have experienced furloughs or had other reductions in their compensation, or those whose postions have been eliminated, that their personal circumstances have changed for the worse and why that has happened. I suspect that there are very few, either in the private or public sectors, that do not understand that in order for their salary to be paid their has to be a source of income.
I happen to favor a system in which people who have worked hard and played by the rules all their lives can have piece of mind and security.
I would favor such a system not only for public sector workers but for all, and believe as a nation that what we lack is not the wealth, but the will to provide this for all. I see no virtue in your “hard realities” when it does not have to be that way.
[i]” I see no virtue in your “hard realities” when it does not have to be that way.”[/i]
I have typically had as many friends with liberal views as with conservative views. I always found it fascinating how we could have so much in common; but then diverge 180 degrees on an inventory of issues. I think the root of those differences is a fundamental different understanding of natural human behavior that is selfish by design.
Collectivism fails because there is very little absolute virtue. The fact that we celebrated Mother Teresa is proof of this point. In Christianity the prominent sacrament for the forgiveness of sins is more proof. We are a needy animal; wired for survival first and foremost and then to pursue our individual pleasure and contentment. When we are content, we can be more charitable. However, we constantly burn fuel in our contentment tank that must be replenished in some way. We will blindly do so at the expense of others if our fuel drops too low. Our ideological differences are often only delineated by the variability in the list of people we would feel comfortable harming pursuing our individual selfish interests. We categorize these people into strata of deserving to help satiate the guilt we would otherwise feel.
Democratic free market capitalism is a system that best exploits humans’ natural selfish tendencies to provide the best overall outcomes. It is an artificial system in the sense it is largely disconnected from the natural world… and the structures that sustain it (financial and technical systems) are man-made and destroyable. However, the US stumbled on a formula of social governance that provided an effective balancing mechanism.
I simply have more faith in people and more hope for humanity exploiting this artificial system that provides a framework of controlled chaos for humans pursuing their own selfish interests. I think morality is a key component that must be perpetually taught, and I trust Christian principles combined with community and family structures more than I trust any more centralized structure of governance. Note how the former are being attacked and are degrading while the latter is being ramped up.
Maybe I am wrong and humans can be rewired to thrive in the Borg collective. I doubt it.
JB
We have really diverged a long way from the initial topic, but I cannot help but respond since there is much that is fascinating in your post.
And ,I have to agree, we have a 180 degree divergence almost immediately with your belief that natural human nature is selfish by design.
This statement implies that you believe that selfishness trumps all. To me, this is demonstrably not always the case as in people who readily give their lives for the welfare of others. There are countless examples of.this in human behavior. This belief that selfishness is the basic underpinning of all human behavior completely ignores what I believe is as deep a driving force, that
of love and yes altruism which I do not always believe is based in guilt as you seem to imply.
“collectivism fails because there is very little absolute virtue.”
I do not believe that collectivism needs “virtue” to succeed. Humans are animals, and social animals at that. Virtually all primates are collectivist to some degree. Just because we have come up with elaborate explanations to justify individual and corporate greed does not alter the fact that our social needs are just as basic to our nature as is “selfishness”.
While I agree that “Democratic free market capitalism ” exploits humans natural selfish tendencies” ,I do not believe that it results in the best possible outcomes. Unless of course you believe that some people having control of millions of dollars, while others working far harder live in poverty is a best possible outcome. Also, free market capitalism tends to exploit only the selfish aspect of human nature while ignoring the benefits of collaborative endeavors.
I find it very hard to believe that you “have more faith” in people when you seem so focused on selfishness as the core principle of human behavior. I feel that humans are extremely complex and exist along a spectrum of behavior with some demonstrating more competitive traits and others demonstrating a greater tendency towards collaboration. I think that any system which favors one of these traits excessively over the other will have adverse consequences, whether that is complete surrender of individuality for survival as in the Borg collectivist extreme,or whether it is the specter or children dying of heat prostration in our fields or in sweat shop fires in the case of inadequately regulated free market capitalism. Both have
Continued. ; )
happened in the not so distant past. To me, it seems self evident that for a group to prosper, basic needs must first be met and that as in the game of “Win All You Can” ( easy to google under game theory if you are not familiar), it is in the interest of the individual as well as the group for all to prosper.
Since we are capable of cognition and abstraction, it is simplistic and inaccurate to describe human behavior as if it is based entirely or even largely on biological imperatives. We aren’t hardwired to absolutely do anything. We are capable of making choices that are to the benefit of others for reasons that have little or nothing to do with our evolutionary origins.
The notion that collectivism never or rarely succeeds is not provable or falsifiable, since there are too many variables involved (how big? how long? how to define success?). Collectivism balanced with individual freedoms can be a very workable basis for organizing ourselves. Similarly, free-market capitalism balanced by regulations and with agencies to enforce competitiveness (sorely lacking nowadays) proves to be a workable basis for our economy. Hence the mixed economic systems throughout the world. China recognized that total government control was failing, and implemented limited free markets. They encourage entrepreneurial behavior but retain strong government control. Countries with unbridled capitalism quickly see the limitations of that as monopolies and oligopolies form, and develop government mechanisms to control that. As it happens, the federal government is the most effective agency, because states have limited resources and local governments are too easily corrupted.
Davis is an excellent example of an engaged and active public helping to shape the growth policies of the city, and hence the business climate. Unique among the local cities, it has a strong downtown core and viable neighborhood shopping centers. Other local cities have typical developer-driven planning, which invariably leads to:
— peripheral shopping
— peripheral housing and commercial development
— decline of the downtown and neighborhood centers
— loss of community identity
— loss of locally-owned businesses in favor of chains (easier for developers to work with) and box stores.
If that is what the residents of Woodland, Vacaville, Fairfield, and Dixon wanted, fine. But I have no evidence of that, since those communities rarely vote directly on growth proposals and their local commissions tend to view their roles very narrowly. I do know that when growth restrictions are put before the voters of those areas, they tend to pass. So there is little evidence that these communities would have chosen the direction they grew. Only that the land developers made the choices, presented them to local city staffs, and that those choices were accepted by local councils.
Vacaville is what you get when your community is “business-friendly.” The only way you will find downtown Vacaville now is when you pass under the banner that identifies it. Otherwise, you’d have no idea where it is. And if you look at what is occupying much of it, you’ll see what happens when a city goes the route of peripheral development.
medwoman:
[i]”This statement implies that you believe that selfishness trumps all.”[/i]
No, it does not. As I said, as our needs are satisfied, most of us will grow more altruistic. But our true altruism is tenuous because our needs always expand. This is why millionaires want to become multimillionaires, and they billionaires. It is also why people that find their calling helping people want to help them more or help more people. This tendency for our individual needs of fulfillment to keep expanding is the reason we went to the moon and the reason we have iPhones. In addition to our ever expanding need for fulfillment supplanting our altruistic ways, we can also fall backwards with our individual needs for safety, love and acceptance. Just seek any executive director of a non-profit who is going through a divorce and he will explain this to you.
Most people lacking adequate needs fulfillment, but still demonstrating the behavior of an altruist, are actually doing so seeking their fulfillment. For example, they might work in a social service capacity because it satisfies their need for acceptance and belonging to some social group. Not that there is anything wrong celebrating that choice in life. It is just wrong (an I think dangerous to some degree) to assess more virtue to a person working in a soup kitchen or a free health clinic than you would a mechanic or a banker assuming all are moral people.
There is some irony in our positions on this concept. I believe all are fundamentally selfish and self-centered from birth. Because of this I set expectations for human behavior that I think are more realistic. It allows me greater forgiveness for human faults. I don’t see “bad people and good people”, I see just people that make “bad decisions and good decisions”, but on a transactional level (meaning tomorrow is a different day). For example, I am no more surprised about John Edward’s behavior than I would be for any other man or woman in his circumstances. This perspective also allows me to see people as being more equal: equally capable of failure and success. However, it does not mean that I less apt to expect people to suffer the consequences or reap the rewards of their actions because they are so flawed or capable. Quite the opposite is true because we are all fundamentally equal.
There are certainly heroes and angels among us, but I think they are few and far between. You, however, seem to more readily dole out assessments of virtue and scorn based on an enlightened model of human behavior that you wish to legislate. It is a model with no historical precedent other than copious human misery and suffering. Just read up on Cuba to understand from a modern perspective.
[i]”To me, this is demonstrably not always the case as in people who readily give their lives for the welfare of others.”[/i]
With some exception (like I said, there are some heroes and angels among us) you show me a person “giving their lives for the welfare of others”, and I will be able to point out that they are doing so for their own selfish reasons. Complete selflessness is very rare because it is unnatural. Frankly, I am slow to trust anyone that claims it because they are likely to have a screw loose.
Don: I like Vacaville. I think the downtown is charming and vibrant, and there are plenty of nice neghborhoods with affordable housing.
JB
And yet it is not me who uses the terms looters and moochers.
It is not me who states that we are all fundamentally equal while heralding American exceptionalism and clinging to the belief that people from “inferior cultures”should “assimilate”, a key tenant if the Borg Collective by the way.
medwoman:
I believe in American exceptionalism because I am an American and live in America. I would probably believe in Brazillian exceptionalism if I was a Brazilian national living in Brazil. Many Europeans think their cultures are superior to US culture. We are the “ugly Americans” right?
I think we are all fundementally equal as human animals. Yet we can have different cultures. I value traditional American culture and don’t want to see it diluted or too drastically changed by the influence of people from other cultures that chose not to assimilate into our culture. Historically our culture has been flavored by many cultures, but never in these numbers.
Blame Rand for the “moocher” reference. The word may be offensive to some, but it fits in the context I am using it… and frankly it only has meaning when combined with the “looter” actor. Note that I consider businesses that hire illegal immigrant labor as looters too. They impose a tax on other working Americans (the producers)… it is the tax of lower wages and lost job opportunities.
Illegal immigrants are in good company in this mooching country… since over 50% of our existing residents pay no Federal income tax and receive copious services. Who can blame them for breaking in?
The Borg forced others to assimilate. Immigrants have a choice. They can stay in their home country.
Comparing the downtowns:
Davis city population: 63000
DDBA members:
retail 86
dining 79
entertainment 11
Vacaville city population: 92000
Vacaville BID members:
retail 46
dining 24
entertainment 2
Vacaville growth policies have systematically killed their downtown.
I just watched a great new History channel TV show “How the States Got Their Shapes” [url]http://www.history.com/shows/how-the-states-got-their-shapes[/url]
and learned that Texas has no zoning laws. The host interviewed a guy owning a beach-front house for 20 years that recently had an amusement park developed right behind him. He just rolled with it.
I’m not sure I am a fan of zero zoning laws, but it does illustrate a vastly different viewpoint related to individual property rights and community and reinforces my thought that our Davis development underwear might be on too tight. Don brings up a good point that other communities do not vote on development projects. My concern is that the Davis stasists’ power continues to expand.
As an aside, I think this show is an example of tools we could develop to better deliver education to K-12 students.
Do you believe residents of a city should not directly shape their growth policies?
Don: [i]”Vacaville growth policies have systematically killed their downtown.[/i]
“Killed?” That is a bit strong of a statement don’t you think? The Town Square is a happening place. They have music festivals and a farmers market. It is a transformed and revitalized downtown, but not killed by a long shot. Try to find parking there. Dixon’s downtown was killed, but now seems to be coming back. Woodland’s downtown seems to be developing nicely.
Frankly, I think Davis’s downtown is in need of some revitalization. I think we need a bit more creative redevelopment that would come from greater competition. Out of our 79 downtown restaurants, I think 30 of them are Tai food or pizza.
[i]”Do you believe residents of a city should not directly shape their growth policies?”[/i]
Sure, within reason, as long as the NIBYS don’t take control.
Music festivals and a farmers market don’t overcome the fact that Vacaville has a much lower ratio of downtown retail than Davis, by a long shot. Take a closer look. I’ve walked around Vacaville’s downtown. The storefronts are largely occupied by professionals and real estate, with nothing like the diversity Davis has, in a town 50% bigger in population.
Dixon coming back? Not at all. Dixon’s downtown has been dead for over a decade, and will remain so. Dixon chose, intentionally or otherwise, to grow along the freeway, thereby killing what little downtown business there was.
Woodland is an example of the worst kind of urban planning. The county fair mall killed the downtown, then the peripheral big box killed the county fair mall. Look at the vacancy rate there, which has been high for several years and getting worse; they’ve lost their key anchor tenants, and will likely not be able to replace them with effective tenants. The downtown retail in Woodland declined to the point that an RDA was necessary, and the plan for that IMO will not halt the slide. But the developer leading the RDA planning will do nicely. And he happens to be the same developer who largely built the peripheral retail: Petrovich. The only city worse with regard to urban planning is Fairfield.
Seriously, Jeff, every community around Davis shows the results of terrible, developer-driven growth with little in the way of any coherent growth policy. Lack of citizen input is the key missing factor. The vitality of Davis downtown is a result of conscious planning decisions embodied in our general plan. Davis downtown is much more diverse and stronger than the downtown core of any surrounding city. An important factor is the placement and protection of neighborhood shopping centers as part of that plan. Store size limits make sense because they preserve those neighborhood centers. The biggest threat to the health and continued prosperity of any downtown and satellite neighborhood centers is the development of peripheral commercial and especially big box retail. Peripheral residential is a concern if the shopping needs of those neighborhoods are not accommodated.
The last people who should be making these decisions are the landowners. And the mechanism that government and the people have to manage the growth is the zoning process, and the general plan.
JB
So for clarification, you believe that Americans should be able to shape their culture by excluding influences that they deem as too foreign
by limiting immigration to those who are willing to assimilate, but feel tbat residents of a city should be able to shape their growth policies
“within reason, as long as the NBYs don’t take control.” regardless of how “foreign” they may feel a business is to the nature of their town.
It is sounding as though you feel that only those who agree with your ideology hold the key to what is “reasonable” and that “elitism”somehow does not apply to your brand of exclusivism. For me, it is the heightr of elitism to say to immigrants”you can come here, but only if you adopt my culture.”
You can’t build your “big box store here” is peanuts by comparison on the elitist spectrum.
Don –
I believe your statistics ignore the 30,000 students that UCD brings to our city, as well as the cultural, retail and dietary diversity required by our city’s more diverse population.
I don’t know whether Vacaville’s residents are more pleased with their situation or not. They have better shopping alternatives than we do, with much lower cost of housing. We have a more exclusive community, better schools and very limited shopping options.
medwoman:
[i]”You can’t build your “big box store here” is peanuts by comparison on the elitist spectrum.”[/i]
I get your point, but you are missing some making it. First, Target is part of our culture, like it or not. Second, we need shopping choices that don’t require driving 10-15 miles. Third, we need the tax revenue to pay for things like teachers.
You also associate political choice to free market capitalism which does not fit. A choice to purchase a product or service is an individual choice. A choice to allow or disallow a Target in Davis was a choice made my some over the preferences of others.
Other points: I fully support legal immigration. I fully value other cultures.
I do see your point about a Target changing the shopping culture of Davis… I think this is part of Don’s point too. However, on this point I think we are too extreme and unbalanced. Davis residents that want to shop at Target will drive to Woodland.
[i]”Music festivals and a farmers market don’t overcome the fact that Vacaville has a much lower ratio of downtown retail than Davis, by a long shot”[/i]
Don, think about this for a minute. What are we protecting in Davis? If Vacaville has a vibrant and attractive downtown that draws the residents to the location, and the residents have adequate shopping choices throughout town, then why does it matter that there are fewer retail businesses than Davis? What exactly are we protecting here?
Here is a related question: where do you buy men’s clothing in downtown Davis?
Always looked forward to DTBusinessman’s observations on these matters. Haven’t seen anything from him in recent months. Has he moved to Vacaville to earn a living?
JB
I used to buy men’s clothinng at the haberdashery on F St. Which went out of business after more than 20 years at that location.
Might be coincidence, or not, that that happened within one to two years of the Target opening.
And I agree completely with your statement that people who want to shop at Target can just drive to Woodland. It actually takes less time if you live in North Davis. Or one could go to Vacaville if you live in West Davis, or to West Sacramento if you live in East Davis. Or you could save the time and gas and make your Target purchases on line. So why exactly did we need yet another Target ? As for your “statement Target is part of our culture, like it or not, so are tobacco smoking, prostitution, and pit bull fighting. That doesn’t mean I should support them or not do my best to prevent them.( Deliberate choice to choose both legal and illegal activities)
As to your question to Don ” what exactly are we protecting here” I can only answer for me, but as a twenty four year resident, I’ll give it my best shot. What I would like to protect :
1) The ability for young parents to feel completely safe walking their children through a friendly welcoming downtown on a summer night the way I was able to.
2) Interactions at restaurants and shops whose owners you know by name
3) Open vistas instead of strip mall sidewalks when taking a walk
4) The feeling of “living in a park” as expressed by one visiting scholar
5) Choices of foods that do not involve a burger on a white bun
6) A unique environment rather than just another anonymous strip of characterless stores which could just as easily be Vacaville or Roseville
Or any of a thousand other ” villes” only distinguishable by the sign on the highway.
Well said medwoman and amen.
JB: I buy my men’s clothing at the Gap. And the Target in Woodland is less than 10 miles from much of Davis.
It is neither necessary or nice to take cheap shots at teachers. And the vast majority of Target’s tax revenue goes to the city, not the school district.
JB: Oops – That last comment should have come from rdcanning, not medwoman. I doubt she buys any men’s clothing at the Gap. Just substitute my sarcasm for her usual earnest comments. 🙂
Didn’t seem that strange to me rdcanning, after all wife’s can buy their husband’s clothing for them.
rdcanning: [i]”It is neither necessary or nice to take cheap shots at teachers”[/i]
I wasn’t. Tax revenue is tax revenue. The more we have the easier it is to fund other things competing for dollars that could otherwise be used to pay teachers.
[i]”Buy men’s clothing at the Gap”[/i]
The GAP is all we have for a city of nearly 70,000? Thanks for making my point. I assume your job does not require business casual attire or blue collar work clothing? Regardless, my question about men’s clothing was just a proxy making a point that there are many things we cannot buy in Davis. Driving to Woodland Target is the answer? What do the Freshman students do then? What about other residents without a car? Isn’t a trip to Woodland about a gallon of gas for most cars? What about carbon emmissions and global warming? It seems the downtown business association, with their twice as many stores, are not meeting our shopping needs and taxing the environment as a result.
medwoman: I have to agree with David… that was well done.
I have lived here since 1978 (Dixon 1974-78) and my wife since 1965. We stayed living in Davis for all these years for many of the same reasons you stated… with one exception… the “open vistas” are my small lot backyard behind my small house surrounded by much taller two-story houses. For the price I paid for our house, I could have had much more open vistas in the Sacramento area where I worked for 24 years. However, having agreed with you on the other things on your list, I disagree that more retail shopping choices will harm them.
Frankly, I think you and others are way overboard on your fears and are stuck in a rut blocking beneficial community change. All those things you mention are available in other communities with many more peripheral shopping options and a stronger tax base.
medwoman: [i]”As for your “statement Target is part of our culture, like it or not, so are tobacco smoking, prostitution, and pit bull fighting.”[/i]
As I said, “I think you and others are way overboard on your fears.” Are these really equal comparisons in your mind?
JB
1) Driving to Woodland is a wash for those of us at the extreme north of Davis. As for saving gas, I simply don’t buy Target as a green solution.
It would be interesting to know how many of our towns people without cars walk or ride their bikes to the Target to shop vs those who get rides with friends when they need to make those kinds of purchases.
2) The students do what I did as a student here for four years without a car from 1979 to 1983. Plan ahead, make clothing purchases during trips home or on excursions with other students, or as has now become possible, they can make these purchases on the Internet.
I really don’t believe I suffered from my inability to drive, on the spur of the moment, to the local Target ( maybe 5 miles closer to my home that the next closest Target.”
3) As for your green concerns, emissions and global warming, again, shopping the Internet largely obviates these concerns and is a very viable option to building more and more big boxes.
4) As for overblown fears, we will just have to disagree on this. I drive to Roseville two to three times monthly on business and so get a first hand view of the results of building on the periphery for shopping convenience. It is definitely not what I would choose for our town.
5) As for the rut. I do not believe that it is me that is stuck there. The old model of suburban development with big box stores on the periphery
Which virtually forces people into their cars to get to shopping or to work is what needs rethinking. For many reasons including our personal health, the environment including the immediate problem of air pollution as well as the longer range issue of global warming, and our finances in terms of gas expenditures, what is needed are communities that have an increased walkability index, not more of the same automobile dependent sprawl.
6) Finally, no, smoking, prostitution and dog fighting are not equal in my mind to urban sprawl. While I stand firmly against all three of the former, the latter is far worse because of it’s pervasive effects throughout our society. While the former three affect only the relatively small numbers ( by comparison) of individuals engaging in these activities, our culture’s unthinking acceptance of the harms brought to us, other species, and the planet as a whole by our insistence that materially speaking more is always better , especially if it involves acquiring that more in our car at our own peripheral big box is far more damaging than the other three.
medwoman: Okay, now I know where you stand and it is extreme. I continue to stand by my comment that you and others are overboard in your fears. Note that that there are many, many more people living in all these “terrible” places outside of Davis and they are very content with their community. It is okay to be proud of your city (I am too), but you and Don make it sound like you are disgusted with every other city in the state because they allow peripheral development.
Note that I have a hard time attracting quality professional employees to this town in my industry if they are single or without kids. I was able to attract one talented underwriter that previously lived in Novato and worked in S.F., by showing her the Land Park area and downtown Sacramento. She purchased a house in Land Park recently. She says Davis is “too sleepy” and too inhospitable to singles.
We need to consider how narrow our vision has become for this city. Our demographics are changing to be only students, UC employees, wealthy retirees and homeless people.
medwoman:
You say: [i]”The old model of suburban development with big box stores on the periphery Which virtually forces people into their cars to get to shopping or to work is what needs rethinking.”[/i]
But apparently it is okay to force people to drive to Woodland, Sacramento and Vacaville to shop.
Don’t you see some inconsistency with this?
[i]”and they are very content with their community.”[/i]
How do you know?
[i]apparently it is okay to force people to drive to Woodland, Sacramento and Vacaville[/i]
Nobody is forced to drive anywhere to shop. They choose to do so. I’m sure there are some people in Davis who shop at WalMart, but that doesn’t mean building a WalMart store here would be a good planning decision. You won’t have every shopping opportunity everywhere.
By the way, Target (or any other large retailer) could have simply chosen to build or occupy a store that was within the size limits, at an existing shopping center in Davis. Both the large retailers do build smaller-size stores. Petrovich could have evicted OfficeMax; they could have muscled their way into the PetCo site in Marketplace. Or they could have chosen to locate in Oeste Manor or Westlake. It wouldn’t have even gone to the ballot.
It is the oversized peripheral development that is of concern, not the specific tenant. And it is the demands of these big-box retailers that is driving planning and growth decisions. When WalMart wanted to expand their 80K store in Fairfield into a Supercenter, the city council initially resisted. WalMart simply threatened to move to Suisun City. The city council promptly rolled over and allowed the expansion.
[i]I assume your job does not require business casual attire or blue collar work clothing[/i]
James Anthony closed a year or so after Target opened.
Don: “How do I know?”
Because I know a lot of people living in other places that are very happy with their communities. Don’t you? As an aside, many of these same people ask me on a regular basis how I can live in Davis. Our fantastic way of life is either still a secret to them, or they don’t value the same community attributes that we value, or something else is clouding the perspectives of one or more parties.
[i]”Nobody is forced to drive anywhere to shop”[/i]
Yes they are if they need men’s clothing that GAP does not sell… or if they need a myriad of other products not available in Davis. Are you seriously making a case that downtown Davis provides everything anyone should need?
You know, I think downtown Davis is much more at risk for business decline lacking redevelopment than it is from new peripheral shopping. I think we will be sorry down the road forcing people to drive to other cities, as these will be come more attractive shopping destinations. All we need is a new mega mall in South Woodland, East Dixon or West Sacramento with free shuttle service to and from Davis. Put in a big new theater and several good restaurants and it will do the trick.
[i]”James Anthony closed a year or so after Target opened”[/i]
Are you making the case that it closed because of Target? Because I know that to not be the case.
No, I don’t know why they closed. I assumed it was due to retirement or unfavorable lease terms. But it is less likely now that men’s clothing will be available in downtown Davis since Target opened. The fact is that in the years I’ve lived here (since 1974) men’s clothing options have been limited: Winger’s, Lawrence’s, James Anthony, J. Tingus, and Gottschalk’s. All I need are Levi 501’s, and it has always been a challenge to find them locally in my size.
[i]”Because I know a lot of people living in other places that are very happy with their communities. Don’t you?”[/i]
I am unaware of any survey of consumer satisfaction in any community about shopping options. Anecdotal evidence isn’t much use. I do know that Davis has a general plan that was the result of many hours of community hearings, with considerable public input. Given the option to vote on one shopping choice (Second Street Crossing/Target), the voters decided narrowly to approve peripheral shopping.
I don’t think any other community has held a city-wide vote on the subject of shopping options and peripheral growth. In every other community, the landowner decides he/she wants to develop, the developer submits a proposal, and staff and council approve it. I don’t believe those communities have anywhere near the level of citizen input as their general plan is formulated and as these issues are decided. So it is arguable that the growth policies of Davis more closely reflect the wishes of its citizenry than do those of surrounding communities.
I could be wrong: Woodland may have voted on some of its peripheral developments. Matt Rexroad might know. It hasn’t happened in Dixon in the years I’ve lived in or adjacent to the town (since 1976). Solano County voters have affirmed growth restrictions resoundingly twice.
Retail is vastly overbuilt along Hwy 80 and 50, and pretty much everywhere in California. I think the risk of any mega-mall being built is very slim. Anyone who would consider financing it should have his head examined.
[i]”As an aside, many of these same people ask me on a regular basis how I can live in Davis.”[/i]
Given your fondness for Texas and Vacaville, I wonder the same thing.
JB
Your comments basically boil down to “different people have different values and preferences”. I agree wholeheartedly.
Not everyone is going to like the “sleepy” atmosphere of Davis. I do not like the sprawl of the surrounding communities. This is a matter of personal preference, not of right or wrong. There are people living in New York City who would never move and others who would never leave the isolated family farm. I fail to see this as an argument in support of anything at all.
I will stand by the point made by Don that no one is forced to drive anywhere to shop. No one is making the argument that Davis provides everything that anyone needs. But I am certainly suggesting that there are very reasonable alternatives to peripheral sprawl. I know very few people who never leave Davis.
Why not simply plan ahead and shop while you are already in close proximity to the big box store of your choice? Or as you have chosen to ignore several times, avoid driving altogether by shopping on line. I have started doing this more and more and am finding it quite satisfactory
and a real gas,time, and energy saver. Anyone who has read my posts knows that given my degree of technical IT proficiency, it must be
pretty simple.
Finally , I agree with Don that there were certainly other businesses ( or a smaller Target) that could have occupied existing space and would have had my full support. It is not business that I oppose. It is peripheral sprawl. And rather obviously, I would not oppose any business that I felt was beneficial to the community. We just disagree on what is beneficial.