The Davis Vanguard will host an Innovation Park Informational Forum at the DMG Mori Seiki Conference Center located at 3805 Faraday Ave. in Davis, on Thursday, October 16 from 6:30pm to 8:00pm. The forum will be a town hall style discussion with panelists who will answer questions from the community about the potential innovation parks.
The panelists chosen have a variety of experiences relating to Land-Use and Economic Development.
Panelists include:
Matt Yancey, Davis Chamber of Commerce CEO
Louis Stewart, Deputy Director, Innovation & Entrepreneurship Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz)
Jim Provenza, Yolo County Supervisor
Pam Gunnell, Former Davis Planning Commissioner
Michael Bisch, Davis Downtown
Jim Provenza, Yolo County Supervisor
Pam Gunnell, Former Davis Planning Commissioner
Michael Bisch, Davis Downtown
“The purpose of the forum is to answer community questions and concerns about proposed innovation parks and spur additional debate about what the community views as essential components of any successful innovation park. Questions will be accepted in advance and the event is free to the public, so we encourage people to attend and ask questions,” said Daniel Parrella, Editorial Board Member of the Davis Vanguard.
For additional questions please call David Greenwald, Executive Director of the Vanguard at (530) 400-2512 or emailinfo@davisvanguard.org
PLEASE NOTE: Pam Gunnell had to bow out due to personal reasons. After a lengthy search for a replacement, Tia Will has agreed to participate.
impressive panel and great idea. hopefully people will comment on this and get people’s attention.
what questions do people want to see addressed at an event like this?
Where are the 600 acres of mitigation?
What are the reasonably certain fiscal benefits to the existing community ?
We need to blow the borders to get more money for what? To pay for a city government that is still far too expensive for the services we get?
Are those your three “audience questions” Mike?
Matt, yes. And what about the cost of providing city services to the housing that will have to be built for these massive new developments they are talking about?
Mike, to the best of my knowledge the cost of services to the housing contemplated on the Nishi-Gateway project is included in the project planning. To the best of my knowledge the Mace Innovation Park has specifically excluded housing on their 200 acres. Housing for the added employees will be absorbed by the existing housing stock.
Matt
In a conversation with the Mace Innovation Park development team, they confirmed that their would be no housing on their 200 acres, and to their credit were honest in their estimation that the existing housing stock would in their estimation not meet the needs of the additional employees and that their project would create a need for more housing. When I asked how much more housing would be needed, they were also honest. They anticipated in the hundreds, but were clear that they had no idea.
Think of Davis as two ponds. One is nearly empty. It is the number of jobs. The other pond is filled to the brim with people living here. But the second pond drops to about 35% full during the work day as people leave the city to work outside the city.
Davis does not have anything close to a healthy job-resident ratio. With the added jobs from the innovation parks, the ratio will begin to repair and the ponds will begin to equalize. Current residents that commute will find local jobs. Some people will move away from Davis to be near their children or to relocated for employment reasons, and those homes will be purchased by innovation park workers.
I agree that the innovation parks will put pressure on housing.
But Palo Alto is an example of a city that has the same population but 3-times the number of jobs.
Don’t buy into the housing fear tactic.
Think of J/R as the wall of the ponds.
I see Davis just lost another company and 50 jobs to a neighboring city. Calgene, an offshoot of Monsanto, is packing up and moving to Woodland. Is this all because of a new facility in Woodland or does the fact that our local activists were picketing Monsanto about GMO’s a short while back also play into it. Either way it’s a loss for Davis.
BP
It is my understanding that companies have a right to move their location for any number of reasons. One might be size, another might be better facilities, another might be anticipated better access to some resource of better physical location.
One might be perceived community hostility. But I sincerely doubt that a few days of picketing by a very small number of folk is going to cause a giant like Monsanto to pack up an leave an otherwise satisfactory situation.
A set of questions that I think needs to be asked are
1. To what extend does a city need to cater to the desires of a particular business in order to get them to stay ?
2. Should we be helping them to find more a more appropriate location ?
3.Should we be re zoning ?
4.Should we be annexing land for the benefit of revenue generation ?
5.Should we be essentially creating an economic monoculture that might be more susceptible to collapse as business models change ?
6. And a set of ancillary questions. Should we be favoring one set of businesses over another ? Is this not basically a form of picking the winners and losers in advance ? Is there a size limitation ( too large or too small) for the city to “help” ? Should we be selling or trading assets in order to meet a developers specifications.
Tia… gotta love your ‘loaded’ questions:
1: “… cater to desires… (of a business)”
3: “should we be re-zoning?” Duh, what answer can the project proponents have other than ‘YES’?
6: “Is this not basically a form of picking the winners and losers in advance ?” (almost like, “yes or no, have you stopped beating your spouse?”)
“Should we be selling or trading assets in order to meet a developers specifications.” More subtle, has a “Paso Fino ring to it, but still implies selling/trading a birthright for a mess of pottage.
Tia, straight-forward questions actually seek information, and don’t try to “make a point”. Which (making/scoring points) is fine, just be honest about it. Harrington is… “where’s the mitigation?” (northwestern Wyoming)? And the part about raising more money to ‘further bloat obscene employee compensation’.
“5.Should we be essentially creating an economic monoculture that might be more susceptible to collapse as business models change ?”
No, we should sit back and do nothing, not take any chances and just pay higher and higher taxes or let our streets crumble.
One of my friends at NSA just passed on this phone conversation that they’ve been monitoring.
“Aviator, this is Doc.”
“Doc, good to hear from you. Haven’t seen you since the last Citizens Against Virtually Everything meeting.”
“Yes, Aviator, thanks for buying the drinks at the last meeting.”
“After being able to extort all that money from the City, which I couldn’t have done without CAVE and the Citizens for Preserving Toxic Wells, it was the least I could do. I’m so flush, I might even pay my property taxes.”
“In any case, Aviator, I wanted to make sure we had as many CAVE members as possible at the Innovation Park meeting this evening.”
“Definitely, we can bring in the same storm troopers that have attended the Nishi Meetings. “
“Thanks, Aviator. I’ll start spreading misinformation that the Park will lead to rampant runaway homebuilding – I will place my first post on the Vanguard this morning.”
“Great, Doc. That one always riles the rest of the gray hairs – and since us old folks are the only ones who vote, it will certainly scare all of our Council Members preparing their campaign for their next office.”
“Exactly, Aviator. It is amazing how gullible the general public is. They don’t realize that you permanently sealed our borders back in 2000. There is a better chance of getting a nuclear power plant in Davis than a new housing subdivision.”
“But you and I both know that the sovereign nation of UCD has thousands of acres that they could develop with housing for all of those annoying students and faculty. And if they build all those units, no one will want to over pay for my poorly maintained rental units.”
“Yes, Aviator, and an Innovation Park would create lots of jobs for all those annoying students, and then they might stay here and never go away.”
“They may never go away Doc, but they will all have to live in Woodland and Dixon.”
“That’s okay, one of our coalition member owns land over there in Dixon, and he will profit heavily when he gets his land put into their General Plan.”
“It is amazing how environmentalists turn into developers whenever homes reach their farmland. Yes, just like we all turn into no growthers when we want to protect the values of our homes and all of our rental properties.”
“Yes, it is Aviator, well I will start marshalling the troops and creating hysteria on the Vanguard.”
“Great, I will be busy figuring out my next lawsuit against the City — I’ve got lots of ways to tie up these Innovation Parks for years!”
good satire, needed to get harrington and sue greenwald in there.
Great non-fiction writing!
1. To what extend does a city need to cater to the desires of a particular business in order to get them to stay ?
I learned that UCD cannot find enough land to develop on so is moving to Sacramento.
2. Should we be helping them to find more a more appropriate location ?
We don’t have to help them do anything. And they don’t have to provide any benefits to a community where they don’t reside.
3.Should we be re zoning ?
Ever? What would Davis look like today if we never zoned and rezoned to meet the needs of the community?
4.Should we be annexing land for the benefit of revenue generation ?
Ever? What would Davis look like today if we never annexed land to meet the needs of the community?
5.Should we be essentially creating an economic monoculture that might be more susceptible to collapse as business models change ?
Compared to creating a bedroom community that does not generate enough tax revenue to meet the needs of the community?
6. And a set of ancillary questions. Should we be favoring one set of businesses over another ? Is this not basically a form of picking the winners and losers in advance ? Is there a size limitation ( too large or too small) for the city to “help” ?
There is a valid question in here… one I plan to ask. And that is… how do we discriminate for and against certain types of business that will or won’t locate in these business parks. Personally, I would like a gun and cigar manufacturer to locate here, but I am guessing some of more fussy social justice type Davisites would disagree.
Should we be selling or trading assets in order to meet a developers specifications.
Now here you have lost me. What assets? You mean Mace 391? We gave away that asset for a $500,000 loss. None of the other peripheral land that is being proposed for business park development are city assets. Although the Davis Ranch property would become a city asset if and when we do decide to develop it into a business park. But otherwise would not be a city asset. Maybe you don’t understand property/land ownership. The “asset” we would get if we annex and build is all the value provided.
Tia, I really appreciated your point of view on the panel last night. I also agreed with Michael Bisch about infill. I was glad to hear some honesty about increased demand for housing. I had a look at the Studio 30 plan from two years ago. Seems like just what we are talking about here.
There is such a push on for four or is it five innovation parks right now, I start to feel like its an advertising campaign and when there is an advertising campaign, I want to follow the money. Who has skin in this game? Yeah, yeah, its going to save the city by bringing in bags of money. At least that is the refrain that gets sung relentlessly. What will it cost the city? Well, its too early to do a cost benefit analysis but trust us it will be GOOD. In the end, we can become Palo Alto! Just because we have similar population size doesn’t mean we are the same.
I am also so completely turned off by the nasty, name calling tactics of the proponents, I’m ready to move right out of camp 3 (willing to consider voting for one of the projects) into the camp 4, no way, no how do I want a business park with high tech companies in a campus like setting with cafes so these highly intelligent creative people can encounter each other without leaving the campus, have coffee together and change the world with a sketch drawn on the back of an envelope. Raise my taxes, cut services, this is a way for high tech businesses to get rich and its a crap shoot as to whether it will benefit or deplete the city coffers.
For all you rabid proponents, it wasn’t Tia’s comments that got me here, it is your attack-dog response to any idea that gets the goose stepping marchers out of sync. Innovation Park Proponents, get some manners because you aren’t winning anyone over with your current attitude otherwise, I’m going to decorate my CAVE!
Dude (generic salutation)… so you would throw a tantrum and vote no knowing full well it would damage the city not having the revenue just because you don’t like the tone of some people in opposition to your opinion?
From this is sounds to me like you probably have been deserving of the tone.
How about sticking to the facts and try not to take things so dang personal?
I also agreed with Michael Bisch about infill
First, thanks to Tia and Michael for participating on the panel. I think they both did great.
But I am a bit dumbfounded about this “infill” argument. I am a practical and visual person, so somebody needs to explain in practical terms what this looks like and how we do it. Frankly, because I am, I don’t see what nor how… and tend to view this demand for infill as a blocking tactic for those against peripheral development for any and all reasons.
But if it can be explained, I can jump on board if it makes sense.
Infill… you mean redevelopment? Because I don’t see much yet undeveloped land within the small 9.8 square miles of our already hyper dense little city. And if you are talking about infill serving the same or similar business that would otherwise opine for one of our new business parks, you are talking about building up… six or eight story buildings downtown anyone?
I suppose we can rezone core area residential to commercial and start building this business infill. I might be okay with that, but what will Davis citizens say about it? What would Davis citizens say about having taller buildings downtown?
And then how the heck do we get that done without RDA or other redevelopment financing tools?
These same characters must follow me to every university I’ve worked at — particularly in the towns where the campus is the dominant force in the community. They always want infill instead of growth — but when you propose infill, they fight it death — claiming they support infill but not this particular project. They are particularly prickly when the evil university (that provides most of the jobs in town) has the temerity to expand its footprint in an attempt to promote infill, a walkable environment for students, etc. I will say that in most of these towns they usually end up having to erect research facilities on the edge of town — which isn’t ideal, but at least they are keeping the jobs nearby. This is the only place I’ve ever been where you have folks openly advocating that we run the jobs out of town — I’m used to the NIMBY folks just wanting all the people to leave town. Davis is similar to these towns, but definitely number one in self destruction.