Perhaps the underreported comments of the week were made this past Tuesday during the city’s economic summit, in which leaders from the business community met with the Davis City Council at a public meeting to discuss the future of the city’s economic development, particularly in light of the loss of Redevelopment Agency funding.
One comment from the new executive director of the Davis Chamber of Commerce, Kemble Pope, drew attention from a number of people – some of whom thought that the comments were inappropriate for the Chamber representative to be making and others thinking they were comments long past due.
He then made three suggestions.
First he proposed a “ten day rule for good governance,” in which the city council would receive all staff reports and supporting documents ten calendar days prior [to] the council meeting.
The second proposal would be to have the council meet only twice per month and adjourn no later than 11 pm.
The Vanguard noted earlier this week that other city councils regularly receive their agendas at least one week in advance – that enables a full public vetting and allows the council itself to seek out questions from staff – not only does it fully inform the public but it expedites the meetings.
Toward the second suggestion, the Vanguard has proposed a version of that which would be to hold meetings every week and only have one major item for consideration per meeting. We are concerned that, given the council’s plate, it would be difficult for the council to appropriately discuss all items on the agenda by 11 pm if they continue to meet twice a month.
The final proposal turned out to be the most controversial.
Mr. Pope said, “Let’s plan now for the loss of Redevelopment Agency funding. Failure to plan really is planning to fail. Please ask for help from the community now to make the necessary budget adjustments so that we can minimize services lost.”
He then added, “To that end, consider dissolving the City’s entire Economic Development Department and eliminate all staff positions related to the department. Set a date certain in the month of March and these organizations will come back here and present a succession plan to take over those responsibilities.”
Some perceived that as a demand by the Chamber to fire everyone in the economic development department. Others merely saw this as an indication of frustration with the pace of change that has occurred with the city, in terms of economic development that everyone has considered a priority.
Pulling up the website for the economic development department, it is easy perhaps to see the source of frustration.
While the list of current and completed projects seems incomplete, it is also a bit telling.
Basically, according to this, the department has completed one project in the last three and a half years and that was Mishka’s Cafe and the Tank House Relocation. On the other hand, I think there have been a few successes that simply are not listed here, for whatever reason, including Mori Seiki, most notably.
The current projects are perhaps more telling. We have basically two reports listed – both of which pretty much tell us what we already know, and the Business Park Land Strategy, from our standpoint, is very flawed.
They list the Downtown Parking Structure, which we have been very critical of and believe it to be a misprioritization of limited RDA funding. They do not list the Hotel Conference Center and the relocation of Caffé Italia.
They do list the Second Street Crossing which included Target, something that the Vanguard strongly opposed, but the remarkable thing is that while Target was completed in 2009, no other businesses at that site have been constructed and opened. From our understanding, at least part of that is a staff problem, a dragging of their feet on some businesses that staff apparently decided they did not want without community or even council input.
We could create a long list of problems that this city has had. We had the long-vacant Westlake Shopping Center. The staff could have been more aggressive in forcing the hands of the property owner, and there were also the long-vacant stores in East Davis Manor, the vacated businesses in South Davis, and the fiasco with Whole Foods moving into the Borders Space near the downtown.
We may not agree on the specific vision for Davis, and we may think that city and economic leaders are engaging on a fool’s errand with regard to peripheral business park development at the same time they are looking at mixed-use housing at the former Cannery site.
However, there is no denying that for too long the city’s economic planning has been disastrous, and to the extent we can put blame for that on city government, the Economic Development Department in Davis has been a problem.
At the same time, we are concerned that everyone is pushing forward with plans that may not have public support. Everyone supports, I think, business development. We support the idea of high-tech spinoffs from the university and figuring out better ways to capture the valuable point-of-sales tax revenue.
Where we are concerned is that this will lead to a push for development on the periphery, that will generate a renewed demand to build housing on the periphery, as well. We do not believe the public will support such efforts when it comes down to a Measure J vote. But we shall see.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Pope, but respectfully I just don’t happen to agree w his assessments –
1) A ten day rule sounds good in an ideal world, but in reality is not achievable IMHO. The Davis Diamonds is a perfect example. Negotiations were occurring up until the actual City Council meeting. It happens. Furthermore, city staff is extremely overworked now bc of fewer numbers, and are probably doing about the best they can in the time frames allotted. There are a myriad of thorny issues that have to be dealt with, and many items have had to be put on the back burner so the most important matters can be brought forward and dealt with. I’m sure the city staff would love to be able to get staff reports to the City Council 10 days prior to a City Council meeting, but with their horrendous work load now and the dynamics of each issue, I very much doubt such a goal is even remotely achievable.
2) To have the City Council only meet twice per month would jam pack every City Council meeting to unacceptable levels. To force the City Council to end meetings by 11 pm would either result in a) decisions not being made at all; b) decisions put off until the next meeting; c) curtail meaningful discussion. I much prefer the suggestion that the City Council meet once a week, to ensure that only one main issue per meeting is dealt with, and all issues are dealt with thoroughly. I waited around until midnight at the last City Council meeting, only to have the issue I was waiting for tabled to the next meeting. It was unfortunate, but nothing would have been gained by forcing the meeting to end at 11 pm, and the City Council to only meet twice a month. Such a scheme would have only delayed the decision on my issue even farther out into the future.
3) Who’s to say that dissolving the city’s entire Economic Development Dept. and allowing business leaders to somehow come up with a succession plan would result in any better business and economic development decisions? How much of the poor business planning had more to do with the poor leadership of past City Councils and/or former City Manager Bill Emlen?
And just for the record, I found the business roundtable to be very uplifting, with wonderful suggestions on how to nurture startups, invite larger corporations, and invigorate tourism. These were the positive messages I was looking for and that seemed appropriate for such a forum. Any kinks/disagreements in regard to an economic development plan would be best left to meetings where an actual strategy is hammered out… just my opinion…
“…and the fiasco with Whole Foods moving into the Borders Space near the downtown.”
What fiasco?
“Everyone supports, I think, business development. We support the idea of high-tech spinoffs from the university and figuring out better ways to capture the valuable point-of-sales tax revenue.”
To put it bluntly, this comment is divorced from reality. There are any number of loud voices in the community that do not share this view. There are many more voices in the community, even on the council, who share the view, but work at cross purposes or do not act to further the objective at all. I mentioned at the economic presentations this past Tuesday that it will be extremely difficult to effectively engage in economic development without addressing 3 aspects of our local political culture:
1) Community Sustainability (environmental, social, and economic)
2) Intolerance of creativity and innovation
3) Barriers and constraints to fostering a robust local economy
Sue is solidly in the camp of those working at cross purposes to economic development providing a CLASSIC example of political aspect #3 at the Tuesday evening discussion. I was struck by the juxtaposition of Andy Hargadon’s (Davis Roots) downtown incubator presentation with Sue’s comments. If you do the math on Andy’s presentation, we are going to need a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. of additional office space in the Downtown over the next 5 years to house the Davis Roots start-ups (5 employees = 1,000 sq. ft. x 8 firms per year x 5 years). We will need substantially more space if any of these firms grow beyond 5 employees. Sue appeared delighted with Andy’s presentation. Yet Sue, live, for all the world to watch, said she doesn’t want any additional downtown growth at all (making some reference to stucco construction as if stucco were the only exterior finish known in architecture!). How does she square her position with Davis Roots’ mission, let alone with the General Plan and Core Area Specific Plan, both of which call for significant downtown densification? How will the Davis Roots incubator ever get off the ground if there is no office space to house these companies? This is typical of Sue, it’s as if she has a broken calculator, which is why I predict the business community will overwhelmingly not be supporting her this upcoming election.
“The staff could have been more aggressive in forcing the hands of the property owner, and there were also the long-vacant stores in East Davis Manor, the vacated businesses in South Davis, and the fiasco with Whole Foods moving into the Borders Space near the downtown.”
This comment represents a classic example of political aspects #2 and #3. It is the job of government to determine zoning. It is not the job of government to determine to pick and choose who the tenants are in private developments. In so far as government picks economic winners and losers, this represents a political constraint to economic activity. I would have thought the 20th century had made it abundantly clear that command control economic systems are not particularly successful. This example crosses over into intolerance of creativity and innovation in that having government tell private business owners what they can and cannot do, apart from established regulations/laws/ordinances, arbitrarily restricts creativity and innovation.
The Chamber’s proposal signals extreme frustration with these 3 aspects of our political culture. It will be interesting to see the details of the Chamber proposal that will be forthcoming.
DT Businesman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
DTB: I think you are confusing people’s opposition to specific proposals to a general lack of support for ED. In my view, there are legitimate issues of concern in the details of the proposals that have been laid out to date. Those details may be sufficient to oppose specific projects. I agree that we generally need to figure our ways to expand our business community.
“It is the job of government to determine zoning. It is not the job of government to determine to pick and choose who the tenants are in private developments”
I have a differing opinion on the role of government than you do.
“In so far as government picks economic winners and losers, this represents a political constraint to economic activity.”
And to there needs to be for this society to work properly.
“I would have thought the 20th century had made it abundantly clear that command control economic systems are not particularly successful.”
You have taken a tremendous leap from the notion that government has a legitimate role in determining which businesses move where in a community to arguing against a command control economic system. This is not socialism where the government is attempting to control the means of production, this is the government controlling time and place considerations of where businesses should locate – something that is legally permissible in this society.
[quote]1) Community Sustainability (environmental, social, and economic)
2) Intolerance of creativity and innovation
3) Barriers and constraints to fostering a robust local economy [/quote]
This seems to me to be a fairly accurate assessment, altho I’m not quite clear on what “social sustainability” means! One of the problems the business community faces is there may be one or more City Council members who do not fully agree with the business community’s vision, which may stymy attempts to implement business and economic development. I sense that when Doby Fleeman gave his presentation on a business strategy. So I am going to propose a couple of ideas that I would really like to get some feedback on, especially from DT Businessman –
1) Have any efforts been made to form a committee between UCD organizations like Roots and city reps from BEDC (and/or DDBA/Chamber of Commerce) to work together to come up with solid plan on furthering economic development? I sensed this might already be going on behind the scenes, but is it a formalized effort?
2) Can the business community figure out what all CC members will agree to, and at least have some small successes that would lead to perhaps bigger successes? In other words, pin down the City Council with a check-in, to put them on the record as to what they will agree to; and on record as to what they will not agree to?
What fiasco? Did I miss something or is that a prediction of a fiasco?
[quote]DT Businessman: “It is the job of government to determine zoning. It is not the job of government to determine to pick and choose who the tenants are in private developments”
DMG: I have a differing opinion on the role of government than you do. [/quote]
Yes, you have a tendency to view the law as what it should be, not what it is…
“What fiasco? Did I miss something or is that a prediction of a fiasco?”
Fiasco refers to the fact that Whole Foods moved in to the space occupied by Borders which will costs the city a lot of sales tax revenue and also create parking problems.
“Yes, you have a tendency to view the law as what it should be, not what it is… “
The city government has the ability to control a number of things that they choose not to. And interestingly enough both you and DTB both assumed my criticism of Whole Foods is that the city did not prevent them from moving in, when in fact it begins far sooner than that.
[quote]The city government has the ability to control a number of things that they choose not to. And interestingly enough both you and DTB both assumed my criticism of Whole Foods is that the city did not prevent them from moving in, when in fact it begins far sooner than that.[/quote]
I’m not following you here. Please explain. What should the city have ultimately done to prevent Whole Foods from moving into the space where Borders is?
They should have been more proactive at the start helping the owner find a more suitable business to occupy that space.
“You have taken a tremendous leap from the notion that government has a legitimate role in determining which businesses move where in a community to arguing against a command control economic system.”
David, you are the one that has taken a leap, a fantastic leap. State law provides a set of tools for local governments to determine which businesses move where in a community, they’re called ZONING ORDINANCES. They provide a modicum of certainty to business owners, property owners, and the community at large. You are advocating for local government to govern through arbitrary exercise of power which sows uncertainty, results in an underperforming economy, and a meandering course instead of executing agreed upon strategies to aciehieve agreed upon objectives. This is exactly what is driving the business community crazy with frustration.
“I think you are confusing people’s opposition to specific proposals to a general lack of support for ED. In my view, there are legitimate issues of concern in the details of the proposals that have been laid out to date. Those details may be sufficient to oppose specific projects.”
When a challenge to the welfare of the community has been identified, it is incumbent upon community leaders to propose solutions. Simply saying “NO” is not an acceptable response to community challenges. If one disagrees with a proposed solution, then propose and advocate for a VIABLE alternative. Simply saying “NO”, makes you part of the problem, not the solution.
“I agree that we generally need to figure out ways to expand our business community.” Such ways are figured out on a daily basis; unfortunately, they generally are met with a hail of criticism “NO” crowd and apathy and flip flopping by the council. Furthermore, agreeing on the need to expand our business community and then refusing to allocate resources and actually executing a strategy to do so is absolutely fickle.
I will check back in to this conversation this evening to respond to Elaine’s questions.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Whole Foods will be a great addition to the downtown. They will sell lots of tax generating items. I would not be surprised to see them pay more taxes than Borders did because of higher sales volumes in general. They will provide a great anchor to that area and bring lots of other sales along with the increased traffic. Finally are the taxes the only thing that matter? What about the social benefit of having Whole Foods downtown.
The only bad thing about Whole Foods is that they are non-union.
DTB:
I like how you sidestepped the leap to planned economy.
You’ve leaped to a number of other conclusions here. I addressed with Elaine which is that you assume the only way to have dealt with this was to overtly have the government prevent WF’s from moving in. My concerns over this was handled begin well before that announcement was ever made, but I do think just as it turned out the city had power to compel the Westlake owners to eventually get serious about living up to their obligations, the city has measures it could have taken here and chose not to.
“Such ways are figured out on a daily basis”
The problem is the same problem we discussed a few months ago – a small segment of people speaking to each other come up with solutions without taking into account what the rest of the community thinks and moving towards buy-in. If that is what you mean, then this effort is doomed to failure.
Related to Kemble Pope’s three recommendations, I don’t enough experience with Council business to have an opinion on the first two; however, I completely agree with where he is headed with #3.
The company I work for is a Certified Development Company; a private 501(4)(c) corporation providing small business loans through federal government programs focused on economic development. The business model is a private-public partnership. The public side focuses on program design and compliance, while we focus on service delivery and ongoing help to the end user.
A CDC is one of many types of private entities out there working on the single goal of economic development. One type – Economic Development Corporation (EDC) – would be the correct match for what Davis needs.
See here: [url]http://www.sandiegobusiness.org/[/url]
[quote]” EDC implements strategies that set the San Diego region apart from our competitors as a thriving center of technology and entrepreneurship. Fueled by the support of 150 companies deeply committed to regional prosperity, our mission is to strengthen San Diego’s diverse economy to compete in the global marketplace, and to position the region as the world’s premier business location. Our job-growth strategy leverages the region’s highly skilled workforce, innovation economy, leadership in cutting-edge industries, and outstanding quality of life.
Economic development in a competitive global economy requires a blend of aggressive business development and proactive policy initiatives.
Our business development program focuses on corporate expansion through outreach to executives in high-wage, high-growth, technology-driven industries. Through targeted attraction campaigns and a network of partners, we promote regional assets to attract corporate investment from innovation industries. In partnership with Imperial County and Baja, California, we leverage the unique assets of our bi-national mega-region Cali Baja to position San Diego at the forefront of the economic upturn and capture high-paying jobs in our region.
EDC’s policy program also reflects the priorities of our investors and technology industry association partners. Our role is to lead proactive initiatives to enhance the region’s competitiveness for corporate investment and jobs.[/quote]
Davis city government staff lack the sophistication required to do the job. The dissolving of RDA’s provides a unique opportunity for the city to transform ED in this city. There are many highly sophisticated business leaders in this community with a significant stake in economic development. My suggestion is to leverage the power of this group by forming a Davis Regional Economic Development Corporation. Operating funds could come from the city (from the savings having eliminated ineffective internal staff) and UCD, membership dues and federal and state grants. This EDC would provide an effective private-public partnership between the business community, the city and the university.
For the record, there is NO Economic Development [u][b]Department[/b][/u] in the City… staff involved in “economic development” for the City are primarily in the Community Development and Sustainability Department, or City Manager’s office.
[b]DT Businessman:[/b] I said that I wanted to preserve the character and the human scale of the commercial core, and vast majority of citizens that I have spoken with agree with me.
I also think that, as co-president of the DDBA, you might want to check in with your merchant members before you suggest any zoning changes that might facilitate tearing down their place of business.
I don’t know what your specific proposals for downtown are, but if they do not preserve the character and the human scale of downtown and protect existing businesses, I don’t think that they will be popular with the citizenry at large.
Present city awards at its own time and place. That is one reason there wasn’t time for agenda items.
How much sales tax is Mori Saki going to bring? The building is massive and some could say IS our industrial park.
HP: I was just going to say that. You beat me to it.
Also, under current projects–Oct, 2011*, it looks to me like they have far more going on than David’s presentation suggests. If you go here ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/CDD/projects/Current Projects list/CPU Table October 2011.pdf[/url]), you will see there are six pages (small print) of projects various members of the CD&S Dept. are working on.
*October, 2011 is the latest date they have up.
**I have an idea why they did it–lefty political correctness, of course–but what a dumb move to change the name of the Planning Department to the Community Development and Sustainability Department. The former is logical. The latter is a bad prom dress made by a committee. If Joe Krovoza reads this, I suggest he should put an agenda item on the Council calendar as soon as possible to change the name back to Planning.
“I have an idea why they did it–lefty political correctness, of course”
I see it as righty political correctness, trying to make it look like it’s not a planning department in order to sell it better to those tired of having development shoved down their throats.
[i]”check in with your merchant members before you suggest any zoning changes that might facilitate tearing down their place of business.”[/i]
It is true that a low vacancy rate in the core downtown area makes large-scale redevelopment difficult. With limits to peripheral commercial development to protect the downtown we also ensure the downtown never realizes it’s potential. This nebulous concept of “character preservation” would seem to come at a very high cost.
[quote]Whole Foods will be a great addition to the downtown. They will sell lots of tax generating items. I would not be surprised to see them pay more taxes than Borders did because of higher sales volumes in general. They will provide a great anchor to that area and bring lots of other sales along with the increased traffic. Finally are the taxes the only thing that matter? What about the social benefit of having Whole Foods downtown.
[/quote]
I concur that bringing Whole Foods to the former Borders site is a good idea. As far as sales taxes, lets do some math:
Avg Borders sales per sq ft $179 (though davis probably did better)
Whole Foods $550
% grocery sales taxable 30%
Whole Foods taxable sales per sq. ft $165
Not much difference.
However most Whole Foods sales will displace other sales, Borders obviosuly took sales away from Avid reader and some other stores (some defunct now) but not as much.
However Whole Foods will drive more people downtown. that is what you want with an anchor store–that is what you get with Whole Foods.
Toad: [i]”The only bad thing about Whole Foods is that they are non-union.”[/i]
Same as Nugget. Basically, non-union markets tend to provide higher-quality service. So, if we are interested in sustainability, it is a good thing that Whole Foods is non-union. I wonder, would non-union schools provide better service too?
Speaking of sustainability… groceries are one of many retail segments mostly insulated from competition with Internet retail. While the irrational fear of big box stores permiates our retail development mindset, Amazon.com continues to grow.
[i]”How much sales tax is Mori Seiki going to bring?[/i]
I looked at the City documents for an estimate but could not find one. Here is what Mori Seiki said about this on February 10, 2011: [quote] The product made at this facility is sold all over N. America. The western region represents about 15% of this market with about one half of that consumed in California. Sales tax revenues can be extrapolated from these assumptions.[/quote] If I understand how this works, Mori Seiki (or rather its customer) will only pay California sales tax on items sold to manufacturers located in California. If a manufacturer is located in say, Texas, MS will ship the machine tool to its Texas sales office and the sales tax will be charged in Texas, not in California.
So say, for example, Mori Seiki has $100,000,000 in annual sales of its products made in Davis. According to what I quoted above, that means $7.5 million of that would be in California and would pay our state and local sales tax. The City of Davis gets approximately 1.5% of that or $112,500 per year. Mori Seiki will also pay a good amount in property taxes. (I will explain that in my next post._
[i]The building is massive and some could say IS our industrial park.”[/i]
The manufacturing space is 209,820 s.f. That is big, especially since it is all for one company. However, if you compare it to, say, what could go at the Nishi Property site, 200k s.f. is not that big. Nishi is 44 acres. If 15 acres were developed as the “innovation hub”*, that would be another 653,400 s.f. Likewise, if 34 of the 100 acres of the Hunt-Wesson site were developed for industry, that would be 1,481,040 sq. feet.
*I assume a railroad overpass to Old Davis Road is feasible.
Mori Seiki will also pay property taxes.
They will be manufacturing industrial tools and doing so using expensive machinery. Mori Seiki, like any company, will pay a 1% annual property tax on their equipment and other business assets (not counting inventory). The real property, also, is subject to 1% property tax. I don’t know who owns it.
If MS has $50 million in equipment–I have absolutely no idea what their equipment is worth; I am just using this as an example–they will pay $500,000 in property tax on that every year (assuming it does not depreciate faster than new equipment is added). The City of Davis’s share of that is 18.5850% or $92,925.
The largest share of the property tax goes to the Davis Joint Unified School District (36.4777% or $182,388.5); and the second largest share goes to the state from ERAF and then back to the schools (23.8035% or $119,017.5).
“I wonder, would non-union schools provide better service too?”
It’s already a fact as the private schools have proven.
[i]”I see it as righty political correctness …”[/i]
LOL!
The City Council, composed entirely of liberal Democrats, made the decision to change the name from Planning to whateverthefucktheyarenowcallingit.
Using the term “sustainability” is not exactly in the Newt Gingrich lexicon. Then again, planning probably is not either.
Regardless, the new term is clumsy. The old, tried, true traditional term worked just fine. Let’s go back to it.
[i]” Basically, non-union markets tend to provide higher-quality service.”[/i]
Wal-Mart?
Jeff
“Davis city government staff lack the sophistication required to do the job. The dissolving of RDA’s provides a unique opportunity for the city to transform ED in this city. There are many highly sophisticated business leaders in this community with a significant stake in economic development. My suggestion is to leverage the power of this group by forming a Davis Regional Economic Development Corporation. Operating funds could come from the city (from the savings having eliminated ineffective internal staff) and UCD, membership dues and federal and state grants. This EDC would provide an effective private-public partnership between the business community, the city and the university.
So let me rephrase to make sure I understand your position. You want the city to fire people whose work you do not like, and then use those savings to finance a project which you choose to call a public-private partnership, the agenda for which will be determined by people whose philosophy mirrors your own. Do I have it about right ?
If I am even close, please explain to me how this would be in my best interest as someone who does not share your economic vision for Davis.
Regarding Kemble’s calls for the elimination of the city’s economic development group – the root of the problem lies with the leader, Katherine Hess. In addition to the general lack of performance by the team under her supervision, she has also been at ground zero on numerous mismanaged SNAFUs over the years.
Point in case, her mishandling of the RDA’s input on the Results Radio application led directly to an erosion of the power of the Pass-Through Agreement and set the stage for the controversy over siting a new tower (with highly intrusive strobe lights and significant wildlife impacts) directly in the Green Zone between Davis and Woodland. This was unanimously opposed by the siting City Council but they were in a very weak position because of Hess.
Her mishandling of the NewPath process is another good case in point. In this case, the city was sued as a direct consequence of the actions of Hess while in the position of Planning Director.
Most people that have been engaged for any length of time have similar stories.
My point is that it would be unfortunate if the lower level staff is scapegoated while the leadership escapes accountability (once again). The problems with Hess extend well beyond the bounds of the economic development group.
[quote]but what a dumb move to change the name of the Planning Department to the Community Development and Sustainability Department. [/quote]Perhaps, “we aqin’t seen nothing yet…”
http://www.ralphandersen.com/jobs/davis_gm_utilities_dev_and_operations.html
As far as I know, the job description has yet to go before the City Council…
[quote]It is true that a low vacancy rate in the core downtown area makes large-scale redevelopment difficult. With limits to peripheral commercial development to protect the downtown we also ensure the downtown never realizes it’s potential. This nebulous concept of “character preservation” would seem to come at a very high cost.–[b]Jeff Boone[/b][/quote]I don’t think that “character preservation” is a nebulous concept at all. Most people I talk with don’t want “large-scale redevelopment” downtown. Most people I talk with love our downtown, and that includes Davis residents and visitors.
And how exactly would peripheral commercial development ensure that downtown reaches your idea of it’s “potential”, whatever that may be?
Re Mori Seiki and sales tax: I have talked with staff recently, and yet know if we will get any sales tax from Mori Seiki, or how much it would be. Everything is speculation at this point.
Make that “and we don’t know yet” if and how much sales tax we will receive from Mori Seiki.
Jeff
Perhaps it would help to understand what your vision of the potential of downtown Davis actually entails? Can you describe it in plain, concrete terms which a non business person will understand ?
medwoman: As I have written before, my vision requires that we stop asking the question only as it relates to the downtown and retail, and consider these as sub-categories to a city-wide vision of economic development.
Personally, I would like to see the parking complex built and have it connected to a pedestrian promenade that creates an outdoor mall. I would like to see G street between 4th and 2nd redeveloped.
My view is that our downtown is too small to provide full-service retail. We have a lot of sales tax leakage due the lack of product categories and brand choice. I would focus the downtown on speciality retail and entertianment venues combined with more office space.
G Street between 4th and 2nd? You mean Davis Ace (part of it, anyway)?
Davis is too small to provide full-service retail, especially given the constraints of the ownership status of the freeway properties and the realities of the regional economy. We should stop fixating on sales tax leakage in specific categories, and focus instead on making Davis a regional draw. Frankly, that means more boutiques, not fewer. And on a square-foot basis they provide more sales tax than other options.
Me: [i]” Basically, non-union markets tend to provide higher-quality service.”[/i]
RR: [i]Wal-Mart?[/i]
Maybe what I should have said is that non-union stores tend to execute their mission better.
Walmart’s mission:
[quote]”We save people money so they can live better.”[/quote]
As a contrast, here is Sears’ mission statement:
[quote]Sears Holdings is committed to improving the lives of our customers by providing quality services, products and solutions that earn their trust and build lifetime relationships. In our associates we value teamwork, integrity and positive energy. Our culture is defined by a clear vision, mission, pace and values.[/quote]
Don: [i]”Frankly, that means more boutiques, not fewer. And on a square-foot basis they provide more sales tax than other options.”[/i]
That is what I meant by “specialty retail”. So, we appear to agree. Although I thought you debated this idea in the past.
Davis isn’t too small if you consider peripheral commercial development north and west of town.
Sue
How about property tax from Mori Safi?
SODA, I answered that above (11:53 AM), in case you are not simply asking again to see if Sue thinks I have it wrong.
What kind of staffing do we have in the “Community Development and Sustainability Department”? How much does it cost us to maintain? It certainly wouldn’t hurt to take a close look at how effective this department has been over the last decade, and make changes now that we have a new city manager and a collapse of the RDA boondoggle.
Don, the last time this general topic was reviewed, you suggested Corvallis, OR, as a city at which to look for ideas. So, I drove around Corvallis yesterday to see what you had in mind. I’ll get back to you on my study, but the town looks a lot like Davis (overwhelming presence of state ag. college, interest in downtown vitality, environmentally and politically correct populace, etc.).
A noticible difference between Corvallis and Davis: they don’t have to drive to Woodland or Sacramento for [u]anything[/u]! Also, they don’t seem to be fear economic development and they don’t seem to have put all of their municipal finance eggs in an auto-row basket.
David: [i]”They do list the Second Street Crossing which included Target, something that the Vanguard strongly opposed, but the remarkable thing is that while Target was completed in 2009, no other businesses at that site have been constructed and opened. From our understanding, at least part of that is a staff problem, a dragging of their feet on some businesses that staff apparently decided they did not want without community or even council input.”[/i]
I would like to have you confirm this, since Target is apparently in violation of their development agreement by their failure to begin development of two pads within two years of having opened. My guess would be Target is the obstacle, since they probably won’t consider any businesses that compete with them.
Whole Foods is not a “fiasco.” I hope you will stop criticizing this business decision. Whole Foods will adjust their product mix to the site and make it work. At least we have a shopping center owner who moved quickly to fill vacant space. I have no idea what you mean by suggesting city staff should have been “proactive” in seeking tenants for that site. I get very nervous about city staff getting involved in decisions of that sort.
[quote]”SODA, I answered that above (11:53 AM), in case you are not simply asking again to see if Sue thinks I have it wrong.”[/quote]Doesn’t it seem as though we’d have a handle on this [u]before[/u] construction begins?
Rich, I just noticed I owe you a response about how I know we no longer can depend on auto row to finance our city government. I’ll get to this soon, when I won’t be “off topic.”
JustSaying: [i]So, I drove around Corvallis yesterday to see what you had in mind. I’ll get back to you on my study … they don’t have to drive to Woodland or Sacramento for anything![/i]
Had I not ended up in Davis, I would have gone to OSU. It’s been a long time since I’ve been there, but my impression at the time was that Corvallis is very similar to Davis in many respects.
I have looked at their planning debates a bit. Corvallis residents who want to shop at WalMart, Target, or Lowes drive to Albany. Home Depot is a recent addition, and it was controversial. I wonder how the local hardware/lumber stores are doing with that.
[quote]Doesn’t it seem as though we’d have a handle on this (our taxes) before construction begins? [/quote]That is the same question I have been asking staff.
[quote]How about property tax from Mori Seiki?[/quote]Again, I have been trying to get clarification on the equipment tax and sales tax since the week before we voted on this project. I still have not gotten clarification, and it hasn’t been for want of asking.
The only thing I know is that we will get tax on the construction cost (not market value)of the building and value of the property.
Don, time to come back. People who want to shop at WalMart and Target shop at Fred Meyer. People who want to shop at Lowes shop at Home Depot. They seem to be happy in their dilemma,
They have fewer Thai restaurants and pizza parlors, but, thank God, they have Woodstock’s. I’m still engaged in research.
I would have to say that I completely agree with Kemble Pope’s statement regarding the elimination of the most incompetent city staff section which has been long overdue. It is no surprise that the Economic Development section is a complete failure since Katherine Hess has been in charge of it.
Hess has a long history of performance failures including being responsible for the Crown Castle cellular tower lawsuit that she brought upon the city and the chaos that she has caused for so many Davis residents now fighting Crown Castle. This is one of the many reasons why Hess was demoted from the City Planning Director position. Hess approved the permits for cell towers and then had the audacity to try to blame her actions on the Public Works department who were put in the unpopular position of processing the permits. It was clear at one Council meeting that Public Works staff members were disgusted with Hess as well as the public. It also made clear that Hess has integrity problems in addition to her incompetency issues.
So the obvious question is, why wasn’t Hess fired at that point due to causing this lawsuit on top of having a long history of other incompetency’s including alienating neighborhoods like Chiles Ranch, Village Homes, Davis Manor, Willowbank Park and L St. just to name a few?
The Council has made clear that the City needs to have major cuts in staff costs. Downsizing the most incompetent staff member who is paid over $125,000 is a good place to start. Hess has caused much pain to Davis residents and the City as a whole due to a multitude of bad decisions and “leadership” when she was head of planning. Now we have a disaster replay of her inability to perform in one of the most critical departments for the financial survival of the City. All of this winds up costing us in financial losses, not to mention her hefty $125,000 salary, and the damages she has cause to so many neighborhoods and the City as a whole.
It is hard to understand why Pinkerton has not acknowledged Hess’ inadequacies and downsized her by now. Let’s hope that Pinkerton does not have the same incompetency problems as Hess, but time will tell.
Rich
Yes asked Sue about prop taxes as she seemed to differ from you on sales tax.
So, now, why was this a good decision for the city. Massive building; yes understand other parcels may yield more, but this is ONE massive building. I am not sure the neighborhood behind it is happy. Anyone see the New Harmony complex lately?
That’s right, Fred Meyer is all over the northwest. The original supercenter. Here’s an interesting idea from the Fred Meyer store in Corvallis:
[url]http://www.gazettetimes.com/business/local/article_7d26acba-e5be-11e0-95e0-001cc4c002e0.html[/url]
“[i]Fred Meyer hosted its annual Oregon State University College Night, where it reopened its doors at 11 p.m. for student-exclusive deals until the store closed at 1 a.m. Thursday. Patrons had to flash their OSU ID before entering the store, and they found sales like 20 percent off on home goods, beauty and apparel and 10 percent off food. The store also provided food samples and live music from rapper Tilson.
Fred Meyer sees about 2,500 students at College Night, which the Corvallis store has hosted for 10 years. In fact, Corvallis’ Fred Meyer was the first store to start College Night. Since then, 27 other stores near colleges and universities have joined on to provide annual late-night sales for students.[/i]”
Linden: Pinkerton squandered his honeymoon period by failing to downsize immediately. Pope has given him a gift of sorts by reopening the issue. If he does nothing – or just throws some junior staffers under the bus – I will be very disappointed. Although Hess is out as Planning Director, I sometimes get the feeling that some other senior members of the staff are afraid of her. I also get the impression that she’s being protected by Steiner. The CC gave clear direction to staff regarding their position on the Results Radio tower, and yet staff essential sent the prior staff recommendation from Hess to the BOS. This resulted in the City Manager having to make a very embarrassing clarification. With a bloated Planning Department, the elimination of the RDA, and the constant missteps … the rationale for the proposed downsizing seems pretty clear.
[quote]”Kemble Pope, drew attention from a number of people – some of whom thought that the comments were inappropriate for the Chamber representative to be making and others thinking they were comments long past due.” [/quote] I don’t see anyone quoted on either of the two sides you set up here (except you, and you’re sort of on both sides). Did our city council members think Kemble’s suggestions were inappropriate or overdue? How about the business community representatives–did they support Kemble’s suggestions?
Wow. Regarding Anon. I did not realize how far Hess’ incompetence reached. I had read a recent Op-ed not long ago on the County radio tower issue but had not realized that Hess had played a major role in compromising the City’s position on that issue as well. It seems hard to believe that the City has laid off hard working lower level workers who do their jobs well, in order to preserve the positions of higher ranking administrators who are incompetent and work against the residents of Davis.
Why hasn’t the new City Manager Pinkerton done anything to rectify this situation? The payment of a $125,000 salary supporting Hess’ incompetence and a failed “Economic Development” plan due to her are coming from the city taxes that we are paying? Who is responsible for the performance of Pinkerton?
“So let me rephrase to make sure I understand your position. You want the city to fire people whose work you do not like, and then use those savings to finance a project which you choose to call a public-private partnership, the agenda for which will be determined by people whose philosophy mirrors your own. Do I have it about right ?
If I am even close, please explain to me how this would be in my best interest as someone who does not share your economic vision for Davis.”
Medwoman, I thinking you are reaching here. How do you know the agenda will be determined by people whose philosophy mirror Jeff’s? Do you know something I don’t? Do you know who will be crafting the proposal that Pope referred to? Do you know the details? And how do you know the economic vision/strategy currently being executed by city staff is in your best interest? Do you even know what the current strategy is? Does staff know what the current strategy is? Does the council know what the current strategy is? I’m pretty sure nobody knows the answers to any of the questions I pose here because these are the questions the business community has been asking and I have yet to hear a coherent response. As far as I can tell, we have been making economic decisions in a haphazard fashion for many, many years. 4 years into a recession / halting recovery, city services cut after cut with plenty more on the way, $22 million in RDA funds up in smoke, this has got to change.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properies, DDBA Co-Prez)
“3) Who’s to say that dissolving the city’s entire Economic Development Dept. and allowing business leaders to somehow come up with a succession plan would result in any better business and economic development decisions? How much of the poor business planning had more to do with the poor leadership of past City Councils and/or former City Manager Bill Emlen?”
Elaine, good questions. I suppose we’ll be in a better position to answer them once Pope unveils his proposal.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properies, DDBA Co-Prez)
“This is not socialism where the government is attempting to control the means of production, this is the government controlling time and place considerations of where businesses should locate – something that is legally permissible in this society.”
David, you’re only partially correct. It’s stupidity, not socialism. Socialism, depending on your definition, is far superior. For a robust economy, government needs to make the rules clear to the private sector BEFORE entrepeneurs begin their business/investment planning process not at the END, or even AFTER. [Jimmeny Cricket! What part of that doesn’t make sense to you?] And because the Davis City Council does it over and over again at the End, it is by definition a command/control economy. The City Council fosters a decision-making system that is completely arbitrary with no discernible rhyme or reason. It is not just me making these statements, it is virtually every business leader in the community, and by the way, the city economic development staff. Staff is just as frustrated as business leaders with the capricious council decision-making.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properies, DDBA Co-Prez)
Correction to my immediately preceding post. Every community business leader other than the ones Sue Greenwald keeps referring to, whoever they might be. In fact, Sue, do you mind sharing with us who all these business leaders are that share your economic vision/strategy? It sure as heck isn’t the DDBA board, the Chamber board, the DSIDE Steering Committee, the BEDC. We know it’s not any of the aforementioned business leaders since you consistently take positions contrary to their positions.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properies, DDBA Co-Prez)
Anyone know how much the downtown parking garage fiasco has cost us to date? (The 3rd to 4th, E to F block.)
One of the fundamental problems in our city government structure is we lack a Citizens Audit Commission that can study programs and the money.
This is something I am interested in pursuing at some point, via initiative if the CC wont do it.
Good question, Mike. We’d have to start with city expenditures made while you were on the council and roll forward. I’m sure it’s close to a million if you include staff and council time. It would be over a million if you include opportunity cost.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properies, DDBA Co-Prez)
My slogan for Walmart would be:
Walmart: A race to the bottom.
DT Biz: sorry about your parking garage hopes. It was a bad idea, adopted by a new CC (like the Zip Car Contract, and the Surface Water Plant). What I would like to know is how much have we paid for those high interest bonds that the City purchased?
Also, I hate to say it, but after the water plant debacle, I have to ask: who made money off those bonds that the CC rushed to secure at high rates?
Sue: do you know anything about this?
The parking/retail project was the culmination of a long planning process, strongly supported by the DDBA board.
DOn: thanks for the history. I live and work downtown, and more cars jamming our streets is not the answer to the problems of the downtown.
A previous DDBA Board supported Target. What can I say?
According to Davis Wiki: “Mike Harrington, aviation and marine attorney, is a former Davis City Council member who served from 4/20/2000 to 3/23/2004.”
The retail and parking project that came before the council last year was Scenario 1 from a feasability study, paid for by the RDA (i.e. the city council), that was published June 18, 2004. It is an absolutely misleading statement by Call-Em-As-I-See-Em Harrington to state “It was a bad idea, adopted by a new CC”. Mike, did you sleep through all the staff reports and council retreats leading up to authorizing the expenditure for the feasability study?
Dave or Don, can you link to the feasability study so that other Vanguardians can verify for themselves that Harrington is blowing some serious smoke?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“I also think that, as co-president of the DDBA, you might want to check in with your merchant members before you suggest any zoning changes that might facilitate tearing down their place of business.” Sue, there’s no need for you to try to put words in my mouth; you never get it right anyway. I’m more than capable of speaking for myself.
“I don’t know what your specific proposals for downtown are, but if they do not preserve the character and the human scale of downtown and protect existing businesses, I don’t think that they will be popular with the citizenry at large.” Sue, you must have slept through 2 years of DDBA advocacy, including 1.5 years worth of DDBA/Council 2x2s, and 2 council retreats. To bring you up to speed, here is what the DDBA has been advocating for all this time:
1)Design and construct improvements between the Davis Commons open area and E Street Plaza, enhancing the south entrance to Downtown and creating an “E Street Promenade”.
2)Foster a world-class U.S. Bicycling Hall of Fame in the Downtown.
3)Seek development proposals for City-owned parking lots.
4)Begin development of at least one modestly-sized parking structure.
5)Installation of year-round, weatherproof LED lights in trees and bushes and as an across-the-street light canopy to add a festive quality to Downtown evenings.
Are any other Vanguardians seeing these 5 Downtown Priorities for the first time?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“The parking/retail project was the culmination of a long planning process, strongly supported by the DDBA board.” Correction Don, the project was strongly supported by the DDBA board, the Chamber board, the YCVB board, and the BEDC. Am I missing any local business organizations?
But that’s really beside the point. That project has come and gone. What is still relevant is Harrington’s struggle with making truthful statements.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
DT
My comment was directed to Jeff specifically with regard to his remark.. It should not be interpreted in any broader context.
medwoman, sorry, my apologies, sheepish smile.
Michael
This blog has hosted several discussions regarding economic opportunity and job creation in Davis. From time to time, some pro business bloggers have posted that Davis has a reputation as a terrible place to do business. The no growth group generally cries foul, usually stating that Davis’ reputation is worse than the facts support.
However, today, and recently, we’ve seen direct examples of exactly why Davis’s reputation is well-deserved. To wit:
1. A water project, designed to preserve and provide and clean water supply for the city for decades, is planned for at least a decade, and when it comes time to approve it, a group of citizens comes unhinged and puts pipe wrench into the water project gears.
2. A parking garage, long recognized as critical to the downtown businesses, gets waylaid at time it is ready to go,and after money has been borrowed to finance it.
3. Finally, a radio tower, appoved by the Davis CC only a year ago, is subjected to serious risk for a project that has tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, because a very few vocal citizens decide to protest what has already been approved.
My point is that businesses depend, among other things, on clear direction and planning from the locations in which they seek to build their operations. Davis appears not to be able to find its way out of a wet paper bag without reversing decisions multiple times regarding whether it would be better to have been in a wet plastic bag or wet renewable bag, how we should get out of the bag, before finally deciding that the wet paper bag is quaint (if old fashioned), and maybe, we should just stay in it.
Sue – DT Businessman is Co-President, elected by the DDBA Board and membership. I think he probably has a pretty good feel for what the group wants – otherwise, I don’t think they’d elect him to represent them. You might spend a little more time listening to the group, instead of telling them what you think.
The Davis downtown is far from what it could be. Don Shor has asked multiple times for examples of downtowns that we should emulate. I’ll offer up San Luis Obispo and Palo Alto, two college based communities with lively, attractive downtown centers, which are vibrant, useful and fun. Great mixes of national retailers, fantastic restaurants and niche based locally owned stores. Davis would do well to follow them.
I take serious offense to Sue trying to put words into my mouth, but Adam, feel free anytime. Hey, council. If you think a project or policy is not in the best interest of the community, say so right off the bat, don’t lead the community down the path only to reverse yourself. If you disagree with the General Plan and Core Area Specific Plans, then lead the community in a discussion to create a new community plan. If you approve any plan, for godssake, don’t start undermining it at the very next council meeting. And whatever you do, don’t follow David’s advice to make-it-up as you go along. Set the parameters, the rules, the ordinances, whatever you want to call them, and then let the private sector have at it.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[b]D.T. Businessman:[/b] You have talked many times about easing up on zoning requirements downtown, which would in fact encourage the tearing down of buildings where existing business space. That is a fact.
[quote]Seek development proposals for City-owned parking lots.–[b]D.T. Businessman[/b][/quote]None of the merchants or restaurant owners that I have talked with want to see the city-owned surface parking lots replaced with buildings. The business owners that I talk with want to keep the surface parking available for costumers.
[quote]Sue – DT Businessman is Co-President, elected by the DDBA Board and membership. I think he probably has a pretty good feel for what the group wants – otherwise, I don’t think they’d elect him to represent them. You might spend a little more time listening to the group, instead of telling them what you think.-[b]-Adam Smith[/b][/quote]I actually talk with the business owners themselves, and to be frank, I get an earful about some of the above mentioned proposals.
Sue, you still haven’t provided us the answer to your riddle. Curiosity is killing me. How do we house 40 Andy Hargadon start-ups, requiring +40,000 sq. ft. in the downtown, without building any additional office space? While you’re answering that riddle you may as well provide the answer to the other riddle you recently posed. Surely you remember? No, you don’t recall? Last week you stated unequivocally that the downtown is not conducive to high-tech start-ups. Never mind there currently are high-tech related firms in the downtown. You even stated that a number of unnamed high-tech experts supported your position. Yet, you were making supportive comments of Andy Hargadon’s downtown incubator project at last Tuesday’s council meeting. These two riddles really have me stumped. How is Andy going to foster 40 new start-ups over the next 5 years in the downtown when downtown is not conducive to high-tech and we’re not going to build any news space to house them anyway?
DT Businessman (riddle aficionado)
DT Biz: the garage was studied; the CC determined it’s a bad idea. Moving on … since you seem so full of dripping disdain for so many CC decisions and CC members, past and current, may I suggest that if you think you can do better and make your voice heard, why dont you run for CC yourself? It’s a good field so far, but room for more, especially in the pro-business category and background. Good luck!
[quote]The parking/retail project was the culmination of a long planning process, strongly supported by the DDBA board–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, it was a very, very different proposal than the one that was planned, and actually for years the DDBA was ambivalent about it, at least as expressed at the 2×2.
The project that was before us recently was a very different project, i.e., it had a much-shrunken footprint and as a consequence would be have to be taller to provide much parking, and it had very little retail incorporated.
It was an entirely new project.
Mike: ” the garage was studied; the CC determined it’s a bad idea.”
That’s funny, I thought the CC decided to review it after doing a parking/circulation study.
Sue: Michael Bisch was re-elected as co-president of DDBA. Thus he had the support of a majority of the voting members of DDBA. All members of DDBA have the right to vote in their board elections. You, on the other hand, are citing un-named sources. Thus you have no provable support for your contentions about downtown issues, while Michael Bisch speaks with provable, and recently proven, support.
Your confrontational attitude toward the organization that represents downtown interests is very problematic.
Michael Bisch: you always use your Co-Prez handle when you post. May I ask: did the DDBA Board and its rules allow you to post with that title? I think that many, if not most, of the DDBA members I know from living and working downtown since 1995 would find your comments as coming from a strictly personal basis, and not from the DDBA.
“None of the merchants or restaurant owners that I have talked with want to see the city-owned surface parking lots replaced with buildings.” Sue, it looks like you’re suffering from the Harrington malady. Your statement is provably false. As I mentioned already, you have received letters of support for the retail and parking project from the DDBA board, the Chamber board, the YCVB board, and the BEDC. That alone must total 40 or so businessowners many of whom are merchants and restaurant owners. This doesn’t even count the numerous letters and emails of support that were sent to directly. Nor does it count the many supporting letters sent to the Enterprise. No doubt these supporter, who are on the record, don’t carry as much weight as your unnamed sources, but surely they count for something? Do you care to retract your false statement?
DT Businessman (bullshit detector)
Careful, Mr Harrington… when you were on the Council, did you or did you not, try to pressure staff to have a developer “give up” land for a client/friend/whatever? the first and last letters of the citizen’s anme are S & o…
DT Biz: would you please email the DDBA Rules for the organization and its officers? I looked on the website and did not see them. THank you very much.
Don, perhaps the council will pursue a modest sized parking structure located somewhere, financed somehow, someday. However, it’s unlikely that Scenario #1 from 2004 (Sue do you also have trouble reading dates?) will be realized.
Mike, you purveyors of “NO” can’t have it both ways. Sue was giving me grief for not identifying myself as a DDBA Co-Prez even though my identity was pretty clear from the content of my postings. Now you’re giving me grief for mentioning that I’m a DDBA Co-Prez, which is it? Besides, my views are my views unless I ascribe them to the DDBA. Instead of making additional goofy insinuations/accusations, why don’t you retract your previous goofy statements?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, or not)
The Results Radio tower is not a Davis economic development issue. Fees to the county are nominal and the city gets nothing. Also, the argument that this type of old media would have any measurable positive impact on our Davis economy is optimistic at best. If it is ever built, the tower and it’s white strobe lights will degrade the agricultural vistas to the north and serve as a black-eye to our environmental reputation. The Davis CC, in a rare showing of unanimity on a controversial issue, voted 5-0 against this proposed eye-sore.
Just drive over to Radio Road in Natomas and ask yourself if this type of butt-ugly development is really going to attract technology companies (and the people that start and run them) to our community.
Apparently Hess thought it was a good idea and concocted a torturous argument that the Pass-Through Agreement is not violated by urban development that doesn’t interfere with farming (screw the wildlife and the agricultural viewscapes). She also apparently didn’t see anything wrong with cell towers on peoples lawns and outside their bedroom windows.
These two SNAFUs consumed huge amounts of time, energy, and (especially in the case of the cell towers) money from the general fund.
Note to all: I just pulled one comment. Let’s try to be civil and avoid personal stuff.
Hmmmmmmmmmm… Mr Harrington operates his business (legal services) in the Core Area, yet must not belong to the DDBA as he asks what the organizational rules are…. interesting…
Don, I wish to clarify my last posting where I wrote “Sue, do you also have trouble reading dates?” I did not mean “also” as in Sue in addition to you. I’m quite confident you know how to read dates. I meant “also” as in Sue, in addition to having difficulty reading dates, has great difficulty reading letters, doing simple arithmetic, or making two consecutive statements without contradicting herself.
DT Businessman (some mysterious guy)
He belongs to DDBA in the sense that anybody does. DDBA is a business improvement district; an assessment district. You “belong” if you own a business or property within the BID. You don’t join, and you can’t opt out. So he is welcome to attend meetings, seek to be on the board, and has a vote.
…. sigh ….
Mike, please contact the DDBA office at stewart@davisdowntown.com, state that you are a DDBA member and would like to have a copy of the Bylaws. FYI: This posting is in my capacity as a DDBA Co-Prez.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Hang in there, Don… someone has to be the adult… tag… you’re it… I have great respect for you, Don…
[quote]Sue: Michael Bisch was re-elected as co-president of DDBA. Thus he had the support of a majority of the voting members of DDBA–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, everyone who pays into the DBID is a “member” of the DDBA. Do you have any idea of how many votes were actually cast for Mike Bisch?
Don, I live downtown and I actually talk with a huge number of business owners. I can tell you that this platform, taken as a whole, does NOT have broad support among the business owners (although I am sure that they would like a parking structure as long the city parking lots are not replaced with buildings as advocated by Mike Bisch).
Of course I will defend the twinkle-light component, being that I campaigned on a twinkle-light platform and successfully lobbied for the first batch of twinkle lights which were installed and then unceremoniously removed and thrown out by the street tree crew and long, long before Mike Bisch came to town.
And yes, I have been pestering staff the have them reinstalled ever since. I don’t know why it has taken so long; they were supposed to be replaced right after their mysterious and odd removal. They will be going back up in a few weeks, I have been assured (although I have been assured of that for a number of years, so we’ll see). If you think I haven’t been on staffs’ case about this for years, just ask Ken Hiatt.
[i]Mike, did you sleep through all the staff reports and council retreats leading up to authorizing the expenditure for the feasability study?[/i]
DTB – hope you are not waiting up for a fact based response. It just never happens with Mr. Harrington.
[i]I live and work downtown, and more cars jamming our streets is not the answer to the problems of the downtown.[/i]
Well, of course not. Since there is inadequate parking downtown, we certainly don’t want the cars constantly circling the block, threatening the pedestrians trying to navigate those dangerous cross walks.
Downtown needs shoppers and consumers, however they get there. And they need more than they are getting now. Dr. Wu accurately pointed out that Whole Foods is going to be great for downtown – bringing in lots of folks to the core.
Isn’t it great that David Greenwald, a political hack, can determine that the parking at that site is inadequate, when Whole Foods, an enormously successful retailer with hundreds of locations and a real estate services group that has perfected the dynamics of successful locations and situations, is out to lunch. Perfect example of why “community driven projects” will never succeed. Communities need to set zoning and policies, entrepreneurs will drive the project. It can’t be otherwise, if project success is the desired outcome.
[i]Do you have any idea of how many votes were actually cast for Mike Bisch? [/i]
More than anyone else (except perhaps the other co-president) who I think also supports the concepts and ideas that Mike promotes. Mike’s re-election occurred very recently, and if the DDBA membership disapproved of Mike’s support for these projects, it seems very unlikely that they would have chosen to re-elect him.
“None of the merchants or restaurant owners that I have talked with want to see the city-owned surface parking lots replaced with buildings.” FABRICATION.
“Don, I live downtown and I actually talk with a huge number of business owners. I can tell you that this platform, taken as a whole, does NOT have broad support among the business owners (although I am sure that they would like a parking structure as long the city parking lots are not replaced with buildings as advocated by Mike Bisch).” No, let’s replace buildings with a parking structure. Wait, no, we can’t do that. Sue you already said earlier this evening we can’t displace any tenants to make way for new construction. In fact, you said we can’t have any new construction in the downtown at all. Geez, where and how are we going to get this new parking structure? Perhaps we can levitate it over the railroad tracks? No, that won’t work, it’ll be more than 4 stories and you said that was a no, no.
Sue, you’ve long since lost all credibility as a pollster with all your unnamed sources. Let’s just put the matter to a vote. Put it on the ballot with a referendum, initiative, or whatever. Let the residents decide what kind of community they want instead of the community being subjected to the voices in your head.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[i]Don, I live downtown and I actually talk with a huge number of business owners.[/i]
Have you talked with…
Jennifer Anderson, Davis Ace.
Rosalie Paine, nestware
Janis Lott, Newsbeat
Alzada Knickerbocker, The Avid Reader
…and the other members of the DDBA board who endorsed the project?
Sue, you need to stop personalizing this issue and the other downtown issues. You need to work with the stakeholder group that represents the downtown businesses and interests. In fact, you supported a parking project, and only changed your position when another interest group came forward to raise objections. Your rationalization for changing your position (the footprint had changed) seems, to be blunt, rather flimsy. You just got blowback from some among your core supporters, and you don’t have strong alliances with downtown business interests.
But you still have to work with the DDBA as the duly constituted organization that reflects the views — not unanimously, but by majority principles of a representative board — on issues that affect them.
Don, it ain’t going to happen. There’s a reason we don’t have a DDBA/Council 2×2 anymore. Sue would walk into the room, declare that the DDBA board doesn’t represent the downtown, let alone the DDBA, and spend the rest of the hour pontificating. That is the craziest shit I have ever encountered in a business or policy setting.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
It seems astonishing that everything Hess has handled winds up screwed-up. Apparently, her mishandling of the radio tower issue also created havoc as well. Since Hess had been in charge of affordable housing at one time wasn’t she involved in the DACHA issue as well? And that issue has also resulted in a lawsuit for the City. What a track record… which begs the question, what is the next Hess mess? Downsizing Hess is an obvious preventative measure to avoid more disasters, all of which are costing Davis residents.
Does anyone have an answer to my question of who does City Manager Pinkerton answer to? Does he think that his lack of leadership regarding taking no action to address Hess’ consistent incompetency is going to be unnoticed by the public? Hess’ is draining the city with her $125K salary and lawsuits that she has caused and that we are paying for. If Pinkerton is going to try to “hide the ball” on this, we need to start looking for a new city manager who can handle the job.
Also, didn’t Pinkerton work for the City of Stockton at one time which has just declared bankruptcy? Is this where Pinkerton’s leadership is bringing Davis?
[i]There’s a reason we don’t have a DDBA/Council 2×2 anymore.[/i]
Perhaps another council member would like to take on the liaison role.
Linden: the city manager serves at the pleasure of the city council.
[quote]Your rationalization for changing your position (the footprint had changed) seems, to be blunt, rather flimsy. You just got blowback from some among your core supporters, and you don’t have strong alliances with downtown business interests—[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]This is a bit irritating, particularly coming from a moderator. You are not a mind-reader. You don’t know what I was thinking.
You’re wrong. This was a completely different project, and one were the positives did not outweigh the negatives in my opinion. And of course I gave it a lot of thought. You not even at the meeting, Don.
The appeal of the project that took the entire block or most of the block was the combination of parking and major new retail space that we could have designated for downtown anchors. And it didn’t need to be as tall because it had a far larger footprint.
In fact, one of the merchants that the DDBA had rounded up to speak in favor of the project told me later that she was never told that it was going to be five stories of tall. She didn’t sound pleased with this new information.
[quote]Sue, you’ve long since lost all credibility as a pollster with all your unnamed sources. Let’s just put the matter to a vote –[b]D.T. Businessman Michael Bisch[/b][/quote]Michael, I suggested some time ago that we but the DBID to a real vote instead of a protest vote. A real democratic vote would mean that everyone who pays into the DBID gets to vote on renewing it, with a majority of votes cast needed for the renewal, as in any normal election.
As it stands, it is like a water rate protest, not a democratic election. It is virtually impossible for a renewal to be defeated in a protest vote, because one never gets 100% turn-out in any election.
You refused my offer to support a democratic election. So I don’t think you are really confident that you have majority support.
I think that the DBID could pass a genuine democratic vote if the DBID tax money collected were used only for maintaining and improving the downtown and for downtown promotion, and if the DDBA stayed away from formulating and pushing political platforms that don’t even have majority support among DBID members.
Why not put the DBID renewal up for a genuine, democratic election by secret ballot among DBID payers? Then we will know who is collecting more accurate information: You or me.
“[i]and if the DDBA stayed away from formulating and pushing political platforms that don’t even have majority support among DBID members.”[/i]
How do you know what does or doesn’t have majority support among DBID members?
The board represents the DDBA membership. They can change the board membership if they don’t like the positions of the board. They’ve done it before.
[b]@Don Shor[/b]: I am confident enough to support a democratic vote of the DBID members on the renewal of the DBID, and Michael Bisch is not.
[quote]The board represents the DDBA membership. They can change the board membership if they don’t like the positions of the board. They’ve done it before–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]This is like assuming that the citizens of Davis approved of Covell Village and Wildhorse Ranch because the city council voted for it and the council represents the citizens. It just doesn’t work that way. Most merchants don’t have time to run for the DDBA positions. That doesn’t mean that they approve of the policies. In fact most don’t even know what the DDBA policies are until I tell them.
Since you continue to denigrate the DDBA leadership and question their validity to represent downtown interests, I don’t believe you should be the council member acting as liaison. You are dismissing the efforts of a dozen board members who spend many hours on DDBA projects. I listed four above.
How DDBA handles the DBID is frankly none of your business, and for you to be pressing for that vote and disparaging Michael for not acquiescing to your demand on that is just adding insult to what is obviously a non-functioning relationship between yourself and the members of the board. Call Jennifer Anderson and see how she feels about your positions on these issues. Or Janis Lott. Or Alzada or Rosalie, or the others who run the downtown events and do the volunteer work of DDBA.
[i] Most merchants don’t have time to run for the DDBA positions.
[/i]
I’ve been involved in volunteer organizations. As you know, 5 – 10% of any group does 90 – 95% of the work, makes the decisions, and periodically gets their actions ratified (or not) by means of a board election. There is a simple rule in these groups: silence means assent. You can’t complain about activities of your elected board if you don’t participate. If any DDBA member is complaining to you and not to their own board, they are wasting their time and yours.
[b]@Don Shor:[/b] First off, Michael Bisch started attacking me long ago. Secondly, I am not the liaison. Thirdly, any DDBA member who complains to me or any other councilmember is certainly not wasting their time, because any decisions to close a downtown street against the will of the merchants on that street, or to take away a customer parking at a city parking lot and turn it into private sector buildings, or to change the zoning that encourages adaptive re-use of the older cottage into charming restaurants and instead institutes zoning that encourages tearing down older buildings, many housing small businesses and replacing them with large multi-story buildings with no setbacks, or to move the bicycle museum at taxpayer expense and against the will of the board of the bicycle museum, is ultimately a decision made by the Davis City Council and not by Michael Bisch.
Finally, you have the option of getting involved and you also have the option of complaining about your board or complaining about the very existence of the DBID that you are forced to join and pay taxes to if you think it is working against your interests. Complaining is constitutionally protected right.
[quote]How DDBA handles the DBID is frankly none of your business–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Well…. you have raised some legal fine points that I wasn’t going to bring up. This is true if the DDBA is using the money collected in a manner consistent with state law. So here it is: [quote] By state law, the BID money can only be used to support general business activities, promote public events, decorate public places and provide music and entertainment in the BID area.. [/quote] The type of political and policy advocacy being done by the DDBA is potentially not legal if DBID resources or staff time is used on it. Would moving the bicycle museum from one part of downtown to another be helping all DBID payers, including those with professional offices? To the extent that DBID resources and staff time are being used for this type of advocacy, that question must be asked. Our city attorney has said that the use by the DDBA of the DBID money is, in fact, something we might need to look into.
I am only reminding you of this because you said bluntly that “how the DDBA handles the DBID is none of your business”, when, in fact we have a legal responsibility the oversee the DBID expenditures to make sure they are handled consistent with state law.
This is an odd discussion.
I wasn’t aware of the level of animosity between Sue and the downtown business community before. Publically challenging the concerns and legitimacy of the DDBA leadership and the organization itself seems a really weird position for a sitting city council member to find herself in. Let alone to be aggressively promoting such a schism, assuring little communication and cooperation between her and those representing our downtown businesses in future years.
I was almost as taken aback a few weeks ago to read Sue’s contentious stand regarding UCD planning for hotel/conference needs. Her comments seemed out of place and desperate for someone promoting the city conference center and Italian eatery move (away from downtown!) RDA initiative that could have evaluated as complementary to the university’s undertakings.
If Sue has picked such odd fights with such significant partners in the past, I guess I just wasn’t paying attention. I’m used to her taking on projects and issues out of an apparent conviction of the rightness of her cause. People can disagree about a project or a specific issue then move on to work together. It would seem that this hostile, personal attack mode makes future cooperation between a council member and key constituencies and their leaders difficult.
————-
Don, Corvallis evaluation update: OSU and UCD each pretty much take up what would could be seen as the Southwest quadrants of town and extend west into the countryside. The performing arts center/alumni center/sports facility there has a Hilton hotel as part of the complex. Wandering around the large campuses seems about the same experience.
The working relationship seems different, however, at least on first glance. I was struck by how the chamber of commerce actively promotes the university as a meeting and conference destination. The chamber publications have OSU in the conference lead, knowing that the whole community benefits from such cooperative effort. I’d like to see more serious partnership undertakings here instead of the competitive nature of some of our dealings.
Ok. So I dropped in on our friendly DDBA website, and found a link to a story about the ‘new wireless network’ being built downtown. But hit the link, and you get:
[i][b]Naked Man Scuffles With Sacramento Police Officers[/b][/i]
Heh…. I don’t care who ya are, that’s funny right there.
Good morning.
The Davis Chamber of Commerce is a membership organization whose mission is to promote, support, and advocate the general economic vitality of its membership and the quality of life for the community. To that end, we, along with many other individuals and community organizations, want to support the City’s work in these challenging financial times. In order to allow all of us to actually have the time to help, we make two simple procedural requests. Please note that these procedures work just fine in many other communities across the country.
1. TEN DAY RULE – Only consider Council Meeting Agenda Items that have been available on the City Council meeting website with ALL staff reports and supporting documents for 10 calendar days.
2. NORMAL TIME RULE – Meet only twice a month and adjourn no later than 11pm.
Regarding my third statement, the Chamber has not called for the dismissal of any particular City of Davis staff members. We simply recognize the serious budget constraints and an opportunity to improve our community. Jeff Boone is exactly right, a public/private partnership for economic development is the most efficient, nimble and effective way for our community to revitalize our local economy.
I urge all of you to read about the broadly supported organization DSIDE aka Designing a Sustainable & Innovative Davis Economy. The Chamber of Commerce has endorsed DSIDE’s mission, guiding principles and priorities. [url]http://dside.org/about/[/url]. That entity IS the place where UC Davis, City of Davis, Yolo County and every business and economic development organization in this community have found common ground.
[b]If[/b] the City Council asks the Chamber of Commerce for help, [b]then[/b] we will diligently work with our partner organizations to craft a succession plan to assume responsibilities for business and economic development activities.
And now, on to my work day. If you have any questions about the Chamber’s activities, please stop by our website or give us a call at 756-5160.
Sue Greenwald said “None of the merchants or restaurant owners that I have talked with want to see the city-owned surface parking lots replaced with buildings”
Now clearly you’re forgetting that the owners of Newsbeat and Nestware spoke at the council in favor of the new structure check the tape. Maybe when people speak at the council you don’t hear them or maybe it doesn’t count as speaking to you when they speak at the council but for you to use the word “none” is provably false and calls into question your honesty or lucidity. Maybe all these critics of your unnamed sources are on to something Sue. Maybe after 12 long suffering years on the council you only hear what you want to hear your mind tied to the mast like Ulysees. Watch out for the rocks Sue election dead ahead.
“I wasn’t aware of the level of animosity between Sue and the downtown business community before.”
To kick off a policy discussion with a vested stakeholder with “I don’t recognize you as the representative of the entity you claim to represent. You have no legitimacy here” is no way to govern. Keep in mind the comment was not directed exclusively at me; it was directed at the entire DDBA board represented at the 2×2 by the 2 co-presidents and the executive director with the 2nd Council representative and 2 city staffers attending. This is by far an isolated incident. It happens over and over again. It’s one thing to listen attentively during a policy discussion and then voice differences. It’s quite another to stick your fingers in your ears and say “blah, blah, blah” until the meeting time is up.
Even here, in this forum, Sue does not respond at all to pointed comments about her economic development and downtown policies, or lack thereof. She refuses to address the wide discrepency between her policies and the General Plan and Core Area Specific Plans. She refuses to address the contradictions in her statements when brought to her attention. She refuses to respond when called out on one of her regular misstatements of facts. She bases her positions on nothing but unnamed sources. Really, this behavior is the exact opposite of effective community leadership.
The community deserves better leadership and must have better leadership to meet the challenges we are confronted with. I look forward to a vigorous ongoing debate over this issue between now and June.
Michael Bisch
@ Linden… the City Manager “serves at the pleasure of the City Council”… at any given, properly noticed meeting of the CC he/she can be let go. I’ve heard it said that ‘a City Manager needs to count to three’.
Interestingly, I understand that the current CM’s contract provides that the CC will not remove the CM in the 3 months preceeding, and 3 months following a CC election. Nice. Also, interestingly, you can see the all the Memorandums of Understanding for city employees on the City website… except for: the City Manager, and individual department heads.
Also, it is interesting that the stipends, benefits (including ‘retiree medical’) of the City Council are not on-line.
Pinkerton needs to do more than just rearrange the deck chairs. If this is all that he can accomplished by June of 2012, then I suspect a consensus will emerge that he isn’t the right person for the job and we need to go in a different direction with a new CM.
The irony is that he came in with a reputation as a hatchet man based on his efforts to downsize and revitalize the Manteca city government.
From DG 8/28/2011 – “The Manteca Bulletin had a story on the end of their Pinkerton era, a three-year period of huge change. [b]It becomes clear reading this article exactly why the City of Davis hired this guy – he is going to be the hatchet man.[/b]”
So the main question is … what’s he waiting for? I’m beginning to wonder if he’s in over his head. Is he afraid of senior screw-ups like Hess? Is the CC so dysfunctional that he doesn’t feel like he has a real mandate? Is he being rolled by the union?
Although Kemble won’t come out and directly address the issue, downsizing Hess is a no-brainer. The RDA is gone. The economic development effort has been a joke. As head of planning, redevelopment, and economic development at various times, Hess has repeatedly hurt the city by mismanagement of her responsibilities. Hess, unfortunately, has become both emblematic of our economic failures and a test for Pinkerton.
[i]”The appeal of the project that took the entire block or most of the block was the combination of parking and major new retail space that we could have designated for downtown anchors. And it didn’t need to be as tall because it had a far larger footprint.”[/i]
Sue, this and other comments protecting the downtown status quo leads me to consider that there is a (natural?) conflict between residents of the core area and business owners, and you are more apt to side with the residents. In the time I have spent participating in business-side discussions, I have not heard anyone echoing your positions. Either you have tapped an underground business association, or you are ignoring the business voice in favor of supporting residents with no direct financial interests to downtown redevelopment, and who are generally more change-averse about their neighborhood.
In either case, it appears to me that you are not the right council member to be the business liaison.
Mike Harrington is spewing lies here…again. The downtown parking garage was in the works when he was on the City Council and he was a supporter of it. He now calls it a recent project and a “fiasco.” I think Mike wants us to forget that he was on the City Council and, per his own statements, the only thing he did was to be the third vote to not include Covell Village in the General Plan. He did nothing to avert the current financial disaster regarding our water system by adjusting rates slightly to build reserves. He forced landowners to give away portions of their land to get his votes on infill housing developments and contributed to generally making the City a difficult place in which to do business.
Anon: One problem is probably that Ms. Hess is no longer an at-will employee which she was as a department head. So they probably can’t fire her without cause.
One point I would note is I wonder how much she is really in the loop at this point. When I did my story on the RDA, I called her and she was really out of the loop as to what was going on, but the City manager knew every detail.
Ryan: Sue and Mike are largely correct that while the idea of a parking garage is nothing new, the specific project is fairly recent and I think for the most part objections are to the specifics of this project.
Sue – I think that a few downtown merchants have your ear and you are meddling where you should not. I think that you are part of why things just don’t seem to get done in the downtown region. I have personal experience of the conflict between what the DDBA is trying to do and several individual business owners. These business owners seem to be able to involve you in their complaining. It really isn’t your business to get involved. You should be telling these people to take up their complaints with the DDBA.
“…the specific project is fairly recent and I think for the most part objections are to the specifics of this project.” David, I don’t understand your motivation in repeating this false assertion. Sue and Mike’s motivations are clear, distancing themselves from their porject involvement. The project specifics were from a 2004 feasability study paid for by the RDA / City Council. It was Scenario #1. I asked you and Don how we can go about providing a link to the feasability study, but have not received a response. I’ll just go ahead and email it to you and Don.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
I don’t have a motivation for repeating a false assertion, but I believe that the facts on the ground have changed since I have been observing the process. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’m all ears.
David: Isn’t there a difference between downsizing and firing? Pinkerton needs to downsize the staff. Firing is not necessary.
Anon, I think you are right here. With no more RDA these positions – including Hess – are no longer required. This provides an opportunity to reduce city employee expenses. In fact, I would argue that it is Pinkerton’s responsibility to make the staff reductions.
David, I cited the 2004 feasbility study last night in one of my many postings. Perhaps you overlooked it. I cited the study numerous times on the Vanguard during the long public debate last summer and fall. Perhaps you overlooked it. I emailed the study to you moments ago.
There’s really no point in perpetuating project myths. There was a window of opportunity that has since closed. The relevant issue now is the credibility of council candidates in the run-up to the June election. Sue asserts, as do you and Mike Harrington, the project scope was new or recent. Harrington’s assertions are particularly egregious since he was on the council at the time and is now a vocal Sue supporter. These assertions are demonstrably false. See report.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
All, as I have read through this thread, one thing has become very clear to me that I think we as an online community should seriously consider.
Specifically, numerous times there have been very pointed calls for individuals to lose their jobs. Some of those calls have come from posters who post under their real name. Michael Bisch and Mark West and Jeff Boone and Ryan Kelly and Mr.Toad have all called for Sue to lose her job as City Council member. Anon and Linden have called for Katherine Hess to lose her job.
I realize that posting anonymously has its place here in the Vanguard, but I believe out of common decency posters should not call for job loss unless they do it under their own name. If Mr.Toad and Anon and Linden feel as strongly as they appear to on these specific job situations, then please give the job holder a reasonable level of courtesy.
There are plenty of real life examples that support this. Eileen Samitz filed her appeals of the Results Radio tower decisions by the County and the FCC using her own name. For me Eileen’s actions carry a whole lot more weight than Anon’s comments about the same issue here in the Blog.
Similarly, when I recently recounted my initial interaction with Sue, if I had done so anonymously, what would her recourse have been to present what she remembered her side of the story to be? Think of all the thousands of interactions Sue has with constituents. Giving her an avenue of recourse (and rebuttal) seems fair . . . and in that interaction I wasn’t even calling for her to lose her job.
So, if you are going to call for someone to lose their job, as Mr.Toad and Anon and Linden have, please do it under your real name, while at the same time feeling free to use your pseudonym for other non-job loss topics.
JMHO
Here are the files Michael Bisch is referring to above.
[url]http://peoplesvanguard.com/parking/[/url]
Note: AppendixAB and the file with attachments are large files, 1.6 MB and 4.6 MB.
Anon: Downsizing is possible, but employees would be retained by seniority.
[i]”Anon: Downsizing is possible, but employees would be retained by seniority.”[/i]
That does not make sense if the entire position is eliminated. Employees are not just transferable to another role that they have limited expertise in.
[b]RE: Michael Bisch.[/b] The first time I met Michael Bisch, he walked into the DDBA 2×2 and said that the downtown had stagnated, nothing had happened in years, that it had to be changed quickly and we had to build more. His major focus seemed to be a program to turn our city-owned downtown surface parking lots into private buildings.
I was shocked at his negative attitude towards the downtown, having witnessed the transformation of downtown over the preceding decade. I asked him “How long have you lived in Davis?”, and he said “I don’t live in Davis, I am a commercial real estate broker and I work in Davis”. I said, “okay, how long have you worked in Davis?” and he answered “2 years”.
So I tried to explain the wonderful transformation of the downtown during since the mid 1990s, when there wasn’t a person or a car to be seen during the summer or the university holidays.
I love our downtown, and visitors tell me it is the best downtown they have seen. I have invested about 15 years of my life into trying to help make the downtown the gem that it is today. I witnessed downtown Berkeley turn from a delightful area into a blighted one, in spite of considerable development in infill.
Downtowns are fragile and need to be nurtured with care. Preservation is a critical component of that. Again, I think our downtown is wonderful, and I didn’t like hearing anyone tear it down, particularly a president of the DDBA.
I would just like to add that I have only been responding to continual personal attacks by Michael Bisch, co-president of the DDBA. As the downtown’s most stalwart council supporter over the years, I find it just plain strange that Michael Bisch is compulsively attacking me, and I will continue to work directly with the downtown merchants and restaurant owners who make this the wonderful downtown that it is.
Matt Williams,
You make a very good argument… especially as it relates to city staff. However, I may not set the bar as high for politicians.
Note though that I am not advocating for Sue to lose her position on the council. I am just suggesting that she may not be the best choice for a business liaison.
I don’t have any direct experience with any of the city staff involved in ED, so I cannot comment directly on their performance or lack of performance. However, it appears that there is an opportunity here to eliminate some high-paid positions that are no longer needed while considering another approach for a private-public partnership that could significantly enhance city ED performance.
Matt Williams,
You make a very good argument… especially as it relates to city staff. However, I may not set the bar as high for politicians.
Note though that I am not advocating for Sue to lose her position on the council. I am just suggesting that she may not be the best choice for a business liaison. Her vision seems to be at odds with the general business community.
I don’t have any direct experience with any of the city staff involved in ED, so I cannot comment directly on their performance or lack of performance. However, it appears that there is an opportunity here to eliminate some high-paid positions that are no longer needed while considering another approach for a private-public partnership that could significantly enhance city ED performance.
Matt, Sue is running for re-election. That’s different than a job loss. It would be strange indeed to not raise issues related to her fitness to lead the community. Lack of credibility/truthfullness, poor listening and reading skills, inability to do basic math, flip flopping, inconsistency, lack of understanding of basic business principals, antagonizing key partners such as the business community and the university, undermining agreed upon community plans and objectives, or apparent indifference and/or unfamiliarity of such plans and objectives, inability to articulate a coherent/compelling vision/argument/strategy, erratic/offensive behavior, these are issues that the voters should be aware of and weigh when considering Sue’s candidacy. Are these things not relevant?
That’s me Mr. Negative. You can always count on me to obstruct and say “NO”. Sue, not only are you misrepresenting my comments/positions, you are merging a year’s worth of monthly 2×2 into one meeting. Get it together.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Jeff, re: the Economic Development Corporation model. I am familiar with these in larger cities, but is it common in smaller cities the size of Davis? I can’t think of any at this scale.
I have to the best of my recollection never said anyone should be fired from their job although the arguments of others have given me serious doubts about one person employed by the council. Be that as it may I have been straight forward about my feelings that Sue should be voted out. Its somewhat different than going after someone’s career going after votes. Sue seems to be quite able to make her case. I will do my best to stick to the facts that Sue sat on the council when the owners of Newsbeat and Nestware asked for the parking project to go forward but claims nobody she spoke to was in favor. Its on the tape. Sue’s behavior with Ruth is on tape with the part off tape reported by David Greenwald. Sue’s failure to Run for Supervisor while publicly speculating she would run up to the last minute to file was in the Enterprise. Sue’s tenure of twelve years on the council is well known. So what is the problem Matt? Could it be that your opposition to growth makes you want to silence her critics? Is it my flourish for rhetoric comparing her to Ulysses tied to the mast that is too good. I’m a little proud of that shot if I must say so myself.
[quote]This seems to me to be a fairly accurate assessment, altho I’m not quite clear on what “social sustainability” means! One of the problems the business community faces is there may be one or more City Council members who do not fully agree with the business community’s vision, which may stymy attempts to implement business and economic development. I sense that when Doby Fleeman gave his presentation on a business strategy. So I am going to propose a couple of ideas that I would really like to get some feedback on, especially from DT Businessman –
1) Have any efforts been made to form a committee between UCD organizations like Roots and city reps from BEDC (and/or DDBA/Chamber of Commerce) to work together to come up with solid plan on furthering economic development? I sensed this might already be going on behind the scenes, but is it a formalized effort?
2) Can the business community figure out what all CC members will agree to, and at least have some small successes that would lead to perhaps bigger successes? In other words, pin down the City Council with a check-in, to put them on the record as to what they will agree to; and on record as to what they will not agree to?[/quote]
Still waiting for a response to my two questions… thanks in advance…
By the way Matt for people employed by the city I generally agree with you because i don’t like to mess with anyone’s job unless I have some direct contact with that person and have tried to address it with them. in fact I have been critical of the off with their heads attitude of so many about so many. its just that elected officials in a contested election are different. My anyone but Sue position is reasonable based on her public behavior and people will judge it for themselves on election day.
1) This effort is underway at DSIDE, the Chamber of Commerce, the DDBA, and the YCVB. That said, the UCD reps are generally the governmental relations people. City staff is having ongoing joint planning discussions with UCD regarding Nishi/Solano/Downtown/Gateway (which Sue is working against).
2) To my knowledge, the business community has been unable to pin down the CC with a check-in, we have no idea what they are willing to agree to or not agree to on the record. This conversation simply has not been happening. I have had a list of 15 – 20 written, economic-related questions, prepared at the beginning of the year, but have not posed them for lack of a forum.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[i] “re: the Economic Development Corporation model. I am familiar with these in larger cities, but is it common in smaller cities the size of Davis? I can’t think of any at this scale.”[/i]
Don – that is a great question and brings up a good point about scale and scope for this type of organization.
Typically an EDC will cover a multi-county geographic area:
[url]http://www.centralcalifornia.org/[/url]
[url]http://www.upstatecalifornia.com/[/url]
Or a larger metropolitan area like the San Diego EDC.
However, there are more targeted EDCs like this one:
[url]http://www.edcsouthwestcalifornia.com/[/url]
Here a unique “alliance” model that might be more appropriate between the city and UCD:
[url]http://www.eastbayeda.org/east_bay_economic_development_alliance/index.htm[/url]
I think the Irvine Chamber of Commerce takes on much of the ED responsibility for the city. Here is their website. Pretty impressive.
[url]http://www.irvineecondev.com/[/url]
The elimination of RDAs will create a gap in the public-side ED capability for many cities in California. Many cities previously had shifted ED to their RDA entity. So, with RDAs going away, what is the new model? Other cities appear to be reabsorbing the RDA agency by making the city its successor agency.
Davis is a small city, but we have a greater opportunity for ED given the gem of a university in our midst. I am suggesting that a Davis-area EDC might make sense.
[quote] City staff is having ongoing joint planning discussions with UCD regarding Nishi/Solano/Downtown/Gateway (which Sue is working against)–
[b]DT businessman Michael Bisch[/b].[/quote]You are misrepresenting my position, Michael. I think the Nishi would make an ideal business park site if the traffic can exit under the tracks and out the UCD exit. The site is landlocked to the West where the railroad tracks cross I-80. Without a means of exit at the Western end of the development, it is unsafe. In case of emergency, people would be trapped between the Union Pacific fence barricade and the freeway.
Additionally, without the UCD/I-80 interchange exit, downtown would be gridlocked since the University has great plans to redevelop the Solano apartment site at the arboritum, and much of that that traffic also will be exiting downtown. It is already gridlocked at rush hour at First and B Streets and of course Richards interchange as well.
I think it will be difficult to make the Nishi pencil out given the access costs. There is a reason that it is still completely undeveloped. Before spending staff time and money planning the site, I would get agreement from the University to allow the traffic to exit out the UCD exit (which will involve routing a lot of traffic around or in back of the Mondavi center) and get a solid estimate of the transportation infrastructure costs to see if it even will even roughly pencil out.
It’s my understanding the focus of the BEDC and DSIDE is on a countywide EDC. A countywide EDC would have sufficient workforce, infrastructure, land, facilities, funding, together with UCD, to be successful. A Davis-only EDC would be very challenging due to scale. The issue countywide of course, would be the potential for devolving into a squabble over how the pie is to be divided, instead of focusing on growing the pie.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Michael, re: countywide EDC. Makes sense.
Here is the website to the Solano County EDC:
[url]http://www.solanoedc.org/[/url]
In all cases there would be conflicts between stakeholders. It just requires good governance and a focus on the shared goals.
One thing is apparent, Davis and Yolo county are behind many other jurisdictions on the level of sophistication for doing ED.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez) said . . .
[i]
“Matt, Sue is running for re-election. That’s different than a job loss. It would be strange indeed to not raise issues related to her fitness to lead the community. Lack of credibility/truthfullness, poor listening and reading skills, inability to do basic math, flip flopping, inconsistency, lack of understanding of basic business principals, antagonizing key partners such as the business community and the university, undermining agreed upon community plans and objectives, or apparent indifference and/or unfamiliarity of such plans and objectives, inability to articulate a coherent/compelling vision/argument/strategy, erratic/offensive behavior, these are issues that the voters should be aware of and weigh when considering Sue’s candidacy. Are these things not relevant?”[/i]
Michael, I completely agree that those things are indeed relevant . . . more than relevant. I don’t advocate not posting them, but rather, since the bottom-line of your comments is that Sue should be removed from office in June, that you make those comments (as you clearly have) under your real name rather than as a pseudonym.
Sue Greenwald: Additionally, without the UCD/I-80 interchange exit, downtown would be gridlocked since the University has great plans to redevelop the Solano apartment site at the arboritum, and much of that that traffic also will be exiting downtown. It is already gridlocked at rush hour at First and B Streets and of course Richards interchange as well.
But Sue didn’t you oppose fixing the underpass at Richards? Now you are complaining about the consequences of your previous positions. Did you not understand that voting against fixing the underpass meant gridlock downtown?
[b]@Matt Williams[/b]Focus on policies rather than personalities would make for a better discussion. People tend to like people who agree with them and to dislike people who don’t. That is only natural, but it doesn’t make for the most interesting dialogue.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”Be that as it may I have been straight forward about my feelings that Sue should be voted out. Its somewhat different than going after someone’s career going after votes. Sue seems to be quite able to make her case.
I will do my best to stick to the facts that Sue sat on the council when the owners of Newsbeat and Nestware asked for the parking project to go forward but claims nobody she spoke to was in favor. Its on the tape.
Sue’s behavior with Ruth is on tape with the part off tape reported by David Greenwald.
Sue’s failure to Run for Supervisor while publicly speculating she would run up to the last minute to file was in the Enterprise. Sue’s tenure of twelve years on the council is well known.
So what is the problem Matt? Could it be that your opposition to growth makes you want to silence her critics? Is it my flourish for rhetoric comparing her to Ulysses tied to the mast that is too good. I’m a little proud of that shot if I must say so myself.”[/i]
Actually no problem at all with the substance of your comments. I agree that Sue is capable of making her case, and here in this Blog I’ve been criticized by davisite2 and Anon and others for my comments that pointed out concerns or corroborated the concerns of others. I simply feel that in certain situations, like the ones I’ve described in my post that posting under a pseudonym is less than ideal.
One of the ironic things about pseudonyms on this Board is that by now it is relatively easy to assign a real name to the person using the pseudonym. For example, I would be willing to bet that Sue knows who the real person is behind the pseudonym Mr.Toad. I have a pretty good idea who the real person is behind the pseudonym davisite2. With that said, for the casual reader the pseudonyms provide some anonymity.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”By the way Matt for people employed by the city I generally agree with you because i don’t like to mess with anyone’s job unless I have some direct contact with that person and have tried to address it with them. in fact I have been critical of the off with their heads attitude of so many about so many. its just that elected officials in a contested election are different. My anyone but Sue position is reasonable based on her public behavior and people will judge it for themselves on election day.”[/i]
Fair enough. In fact I believe I have witnessed you engaging in just those sorts of conversations with Sue at the Farmers Market.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Focus on policies rather than personalities would make for a better discussion. People tend to like people who agree with them and to dislike people who don’t. That is only natural, but it doesn’t make for the most interesting dialogue.”[/i]
Actually Sue the issue that Michael and Mark and Mr.Toad have raised is very much a policy issue . . . specifically that 1) part of the responsibility/role of a Council Member is to be an ambassador for the City, and 2) that you appear to be [based on Michael’s comments] unilaterally ignoring the economic development policies and/or programs that are written into various formal documents.
What is it about the issues that Michael and Mark and Mr.Toad have raised that you feel is not a “focus on policies”?
Jeff Boone said . . .
[i]”You make a very good argument… especially as it relates to city staff. However, I may not set the bar as high for politicians.
Note though that I am not advocating for Sue to lose her position on the council. I am just suggesting that she may not be the best choice for a business liaison.”[/i]
Fair enough Jeff. I stand corrected.
You know that an argument could just as easily be made that people who have chosen to live outside the city limits should stay out of city politics. But hey its a free country so I don’t go there. You have no idea why I post anonymously or at least you haven’t said why.
I have a friend who is a famous writer but writes under a pen name. I told him that I think he is a famous writer but he denies it. Recently another friend who passed away, who was a not so famous writer had in one of his obituaries that he knew the same person. My friend denied being that person and I left it alone out of respect for his wishes.
I would say the same to anyone about other people and their pen names, leave it alone.
“One of the ironic things about pseudonyms on this Board is that by now it is relatively easy to assign a real name to the person using the pseudonym.”
This is of course a good argument for going back to a system where you could put in any name or have many names so that when you feel someone is on to you you can change it up. Of course its David’s blog so we play by David’s rules.
[quote] you appear to be [based on Michael’s comments] unilaterally ignoring the economic development policies and/or programs that are written into various formal documents.–[b]Matt Williams[/b][/quote]That is a substantive issue worth discussion.
First off, an elected official is not obligated to support all “positions or programs that are written into various formal documents”. Does every congressman support the status quo that is written into “formal document”? Of course not. That is not how are system of representative democracy works.
Secondly, there is nothing even in the formal documents and their policies that support Michael Bisch’s interpretation of their implementation over my interpretation of their implementation. I know that because I have been actively involved in the process of writing them over the years.
“This is of course a good argument for going back to a system where you could put in any name or have many names so that when you feel someone is on to you you can change it up.”
There is nothing to stop one from changing their user name. Even under the old system I could generally tell the regulars by who they wrote. Then again, all you really need is plausible deniability.
You misread my intent. I have come to accept the posting under pseudonyms that goes on in the Vanguard. I’ve had a personal conversation with more than one of the people who post under a pseudonym and see the logic of their doing so. Further I have no desire to know why you do so. That is your business, and your business alone. I simply was making a point that added caution in the using of pseudonyms seems prudent when the topic being discussed is the loss of job for the person being talked about. You yourself agreed that that made sense for employees. You and Jeff also both made the point that elected officials are in a different category than employees.
Please consider your point both made and heard, and that it is indeed an important point.
I believe there is a value to anonymity. One of the reasons that I believe that is that when I first started this, there were people afraid to speak out on certain issues. I think that has subsided. But the one thing that I do find problematic is public attacks on named people using a pseudonym. That is problematic but there is no way around it from what I can tell.
Since we’re discussing the performance of Community Development and “Sustainability” (of what?), the decisions and cost of the failed parking garage project should be reviewed. There is a very real downtown parking problem in Davis. It is hard on both merchants and visitors. Other CA cities have found successful and cost effective solutions for the problem including smart meters, active promotion of existing garage structures and well organized city websites that clearly define parking costs and options.
For Davis, CDS came up with the idea of a large and expensive parking garage downtown. On March 1, 2011, a bond for $13.31 million was sold to pay for it. This is somewhat confusing because there was no formal design, environmental review or opportunity for public comment. Interest rate on the 25 year bond is 7.25%. This is a junk bond rate. It is roughly double the typical municipal bond. Monthly costs are approximately $96,205. As of next month, the City has spent approx $1,154,467 in principal and interest. Total cost of the 25 year bond will be $28,861,678.
In any review of the decisions made by CDS, the outcome of this project should be included. We still have a terrible parking problem and there’s now the annual million dollar cost.
FEATURED SPONSOR
ADVERTISE
LOGIN
Hi Jim Watson,
BULLETIN BOARD
BULLETIN BOARD
MORE ON BUDGET IN:
CITY OF DAVIS
YOLO COUNTY
SACRAMENTO REGION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS SCHOOL DISTRICT
JUDICIAL WATCH
New section keeps an eye on Yolo County law enforcement issues.
JUDICIAL WATCH HOME
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
We designed this new website to make it a cinch to write your own blogs. If you write a good one we might even publish it in the main news section!
Go to the community blogs section
Submit a quick news tip or idea
Give us feedback on the website
Log in or join for author privileges!
ADVERTISE
ADVERTISE
ADVERTISE
Latest from the People’s Vanguard of Davis
What is the Obligation to Clarify the Public Record and Ensure that Lies Are Corrected?
Guest Commentary: Recommitting Ourselves to the Environment
Critical Comments by Davis Chamber Executive Director Toward City’s Economic Development Efforts
Sunday Commentary: Lawyers, Lawsuits, and Public Cynicism
Guest Commentary: Water Process Interest Groups – Those Who Are Either Opposed or Concerned
© Copyright 2012 Davisvanguard.org, All Rights Reserved. Website design by Hathway. Sitemap.
ded. There’s still a parking problem and there’s now the million dollar carrying cost.
I am very sympathetic with the problem David, since anonymity has become customary. Things have changed so much. When I was first on the council, the public forum was the letters to the editor section. Not only did people have to sign their names but the paper called to verify the signature.
I do know that a lot of my friends have told me that they don’t read the Vanguard any more due to the tone of the comments. If someone slips up occasionally, it is one thing. But a perpetual barrage of nastiness by repetitive posters does ruin a public forum, and no one side of any issue seems to have a monopoly on it.
Going back to Katherine Hess:
I think Hess had a role in the Wildhorse Windfall (a share in $11 million lost to City by City Attorney Steiner)
Hess certainly worked with the staff member who got a Wildhorse Windfall
Hess had a major role in the “Marden Mess”
Eight homes meant to be “self help” that were built by the developer, Homes that went to “family and friends”
A home in Marden went to one of the families who got A Wildhorse Windfall
I think Ms. Hess may have approved both of the homes going to the same family
I think Hess and Steiner (City Attorney)forgot impact fees or other fees relating to Sharps and Flats and the City now loses income every year as a result.
Then there is of course DACHA
There is a great deal amiss at City Hall
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners, LLC.
Matt: [i]”Specifically, numerous times there have been very pointed calls for individuals to lose their jobs.”[/i]
I think there is a big difference between advocating (positively or negatively) a political opinion and calling for a specific person to be fired from their City job. I think there are valid arguments for allowing anonymity with regards to political discussions (including elections), but I do not think there is any valid reason to allow attacks on private citizens by anonymous posters.
I have advocated that a specific City Council member in my opinion is not a good representative of my interests as a citizen of Davis and consequently should not be re-elected. I have stated my reasons and signed my name. I have never advocated that a specific person should be terminated from City employment.
Matt, I am disappointed that you have chosen to equate these two quite disparate things and included me as part of your argument in doing so.
“Fair enough. In fact I believe I have witnessed you engaging in just those sorts of conversations with Sue at the Farmers Market.”
Sorry Matt,
I have not had those types of discussions with Sue ever.
I don’t think Pinkerton and Hess qualify as “private citizens” that should somehow be shielded from discussion by anonymous posters. These are both senior staff people in highly politicized positions. I do, however, agree that the rank-and-file city staff should not (and have not to the best of my knowledge) been the subject of this sort of dialog.
Perhaps Matt is coming to Hess’ defense because she was instrumental in orchestrating movement of the impacts of the proposed Results Radio tower from his neighborhood to northeast Davis.
[quote]For Davis, CDS came up with the idea of a large and expensive parking garage downtown. On March 1, 2011, a bond for $13.31 million was sold to pay for it. This is somewhat confusing because there was no formal design, environmental review or opportunity for public comment. Interest rate on the 25 year bond is 7.25%. This is a junk bond rate. It is roughly double the typical municipal bond. Monthly costs are approximately $96,205. As of next month, the City has spent approx $1,154,467 in principal and interest. Total cost of the 25 year bond will be $28,861,678.[/quote]Are we really paying almost $100,000 per [u]month[/u] to sit on borrowed money for an RDA project that we can’t build?
“Secondly, there is nothing even in the formal documents and their policies that support Michael Bisch’s interpretation of their implementation over my interpretation of their implementation. I know that because I have been actively involved in the process of writing them over the years.” – Sue Greenwald
Sue that reading impediment of yours is flaring up again. Here we go:
From the 2001 General Plan Update, Land Use Element, Principle #2: Focus growth inward to accommodate population increases. Infill development is supported as an appropriate means of meeting some of the city’s housing needs.
From the 2001 General Plan Update, Land Use Element, Principle #3: Create and maintain housing patters that promote energy conserving transportation methods.
From the 2001 General Plan Update, Land Use Element, Principle #4: Accommodate new buildings with floor area ratios that can support transit use, especially within ¼ mile from commercial areas and transit stops, but maintain scale transition and retain enough older building to retain small-city character.
From the 2001 General Plan Update, Land Use Element, Principle #5: Support the opportunity for efficient public transit by siting large apartment complexes on arterial streets, in the core and near neighborhood centers and the University.
From the 2001 General Plan Update, Land Use Element, Principle #6: Site local services, retail and recreation strategically to minimize the lengths of trips and to facilitate walking, bicycling and transit use as alternatives to auto use.
From the 2001 General Plan Update, Land Use Element, Principle #18: Focus community-serving retail shopping uses in the Core Area and to a limited extent in areas designated Neighborhood Retail and General Commercial…..
These principals are not the exception of the Land Use Element, they are the rule.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Second part countering Sue’s goofy assertions:
From the 2001 General Plan Update, Business and Economic Development Element, Action ED1.a: Use media, publications and technology to encourage retailers and entrepreneurs to locate and build in downtown. [Michael’s note: “Encourage” not “discourage”.]
From the 2001 General Plan Update, Business and Economic Development Element, Action ED1.b: Recruit specialty stores to the Core to create a critical mass of retail in the downtown. [Michael’s note: Geez, this sounds vaguely familiar.]
From the 2001 General Plan Update, Business and Economic Development Element, Action ED2.a: Promote downtown Davis to current residents and the region as a shopping destination. [Michael’s note: To promote a shopping destination one has to have sufficient retail-quality space to start with.]
From the 2001 General Plan Update, Business and Economic Development Element, Goal ED2.1.: Promote Davis as a destination for visitors with interests in eco-tourism, university/academic events and conferences, athletic events, culture and arts, and downtown shopping. [Michael’s note: It’s tough to promote something when you advocate for slashing the promotional budget 30% as Sue did in December.]
From the 2001 General Plan Update, Business and Economic Development Element, Policy ED 3.1F: Maintain regular contact with the Chamber of Commerce, the DDBA and other business groups to ascertain what types of support businesses need from the City. [Michael’s note: How’s that working for you, Sue?]
Honestly, what part of the General Plan isn’t Sue actively working against? I don’t have time to provide an analysis of the Core Area Specific Plan and the Downtown and Traditional Neighborhood Design Guidelines right now, but I assure you they go on at length about downtown densification.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“Are we really paying almost $100,000 per month to sit on borrowed money for an RDA project that we can’t build?”
Yes, yes we are. Flip flop, equivocate, money flushed down the drain. But it’s successive city councils going back 10 or more years that have directed staff down this path.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
[b]@Michael Bisch[/b]As in all consensus documents, the general plan is broadly written and has varying goals that have to be balanced. I agree with most of the general plan goals that you have listed, but would put more emphasis on preserving the character of downtown than I believe you do. Or, more accurately, I think we have different ideals of what an attractive downtown would look like aesthetically.
I do firmly believe that a majority of Davis citizens lean more towards my view of what constitutes the charm of downtown.
With your listening skills, Sue, I have no doubt that you believe the majority of citizens agree with you. As I stated previously, let’s put the 5 Downtown Priority Action Items to a vote, then we don’t have to rely on your flawed listening skills.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
“I do firmly believe that a majority of Davis citizens lean more towards my view of what constitutes the charm of downtown.”
Shocking!
Please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that those bonds were sold before the state could take all the money away from redevelopment agencies. If I am wrong and the bonds were actually sold to build a project that we are not going to build we should call some bonds (those bonds may not be callable) and pay down the debt. Otherwise we need to find a project and put the money to good use. Investing in a negative carry trade where we pay high long term interest to invest the money at low short term rates could be the dumbest thing of all time in Davis history.
Mark West said . . .
[i]
“I think there is a big difference between advocating (positively or negatively) a political opinion and calling for a specific person to be fired from their City job. I think there are valid arguments for allowing anonymity with regards to political discussions (including elections), but I do not think there is any valid reason to allow attacks on private citizens by anonymous posters.
I have never advocated that a specific person should be terminated from City employment.
Matt, I am disappointed that you have chosen to equate these two quite disparate things and included me as part of your argument in doing so.”[/i]
It is clear from the comments posted here, that my thoughts on an elected position being a job are in the minority. I stand corrected, and as such Mark, your comments about a Council member fall into a different realm than Anon’s comments about a City employee. I thought I was clear about who commented about whom, but obviously I wasn’t.
Anon said . . .
[i]”Perhaps Matt is coming to Hess’ defense because she was instrumental in orchestrating movement of the impacts of the proposed Results Radio tower from his neighborhood to northeast Davis.”[/i]
Interesting interpretation Anon. Where did I come to Katherine Hess’ defense? I simply said that the same comments would be more appropriate if they were posted under a real name rather than a pseudonym. I even gave the example of comparing the same comments if they came from Eileen Samitz who used her real name on the County and FCC documents appealing the Results Radio decision, as opposed to your comments about the Results Radio decision using a pseudonym. There was never any question about whether Katherine Hess is open to criicism, just that perhaps you should take a lesson in form from Eileen.
There was an excellent Enterprise article last year (8/17/11) on Community Development’s finances. Before borrowing the $18 million (for the garage concept and a possible hotel), Community Development owed $29.9 million. The garage project was voted down. Why wasn’t the bond paid off? Again, why weren’t other less expensive approaches even considered? There are several CA cities which have done well with alternative solutions. Not only was the proposed garage expensive (think $49,000 per space) but it would have been an ongoing money loser. I don’t know the details. Maybe the parking fees and ground floor rentals would have generated enough to cover the 94k/month.
I don’t think the various city councils are the only ones responsible for the questionable bond sale and $100k/month payments. I’m going to suggest that Redevelopment had considerable interest in borrowing money to service existing debts and keep the doors open. While Davis has serious financial challenges, RDA sells an expensive bond for a loosely defined, unapproved (and unpopular) project.
A large thanks to DDBA’s new Executive Director for starting a long overdue conversation about the performance of RDA. It’s time to look at the organization’s decisions, costs, results and ethics.
[quote]”I realize that posting anonymously has its place here in the Vanguard, but I believe out of common decency posters should not call for job loss unless they do it under their own name….So, if you are going to call for someone to lose their job, as Mr.Toad and Anon and Linden have, please do it under your real name, while at the same time feeling free to use your pseudonym for other non-job loss topics.”[/quote]I’m all for “common decency,” Matt, but I’m unable to understand how following your suggestion will change anything here.
You’ve given two examples of things that should require a real name to post: 1) calling for someone to get fired, and 2) criticizing Sue. For the first one, you provide no rationale; for the second, you suggest the practice would allow Sue to track us down when remembers her answer.
Based on years of reading the [u]Vanguard[/u], there seems to little difference in the “common decency” reflected in posts based on anonymity. It is just as true that “common sense” doesn’t seem to be particularly weighted toward the anonymous poster or those who use their “real names.” Regular readers come to “know” their colleagues here regardless of what names are used. Opinions are weighed whether anonymous or not.
Are you hoping that there’ll be fewer calls for people to be fired and fewer criticisms of Sue if “common decency” is honored by using real names when posters decide to attack? If not, Matt, what benefits do you expect to see evolve from this common decency approach? If your name really is Matt, that is….
Just Saying, first I don’t believe it would change either the frequency or the ferocity of such posts, be they in either category.
Second, the only rationale for the first category is that if you are calling for someone to get fired, which is clearly a life altering event, don’t do it from behind a veil.
Third, I have already acknowledged that the preponderance of opinion here today is that voting a person out of office is wholly different than calling for someone to be fired, and that given that difference, removed the second category from my suggestion. I gave the example regarding Sue, because I knew it intimately. I probably should have used Michael Harrington’s criticisms of Steve Souza vis-a-vis the water project. My bad. But regardless, please consider category 2 voted down by the democratic process.
For that matter you can consider the whole idea voted down by the democratic process. Some ideas are destined for the cutting room floor. 8>)
Test
To add my voice to the chorus, I think the city is in a difficult position and has to consider cutting back ineffective departments. Dissolving the City’s Economic Development Department and eliminating all staff positions related to the department is a good choice. This group seems to be promoting projects that citizens do not want and causing havoc that will force the city to accept projects it does not want, and potentially cost the city a lot of money.
The biggest mistake that comes to mind is the issuance of permits to New Path/Crown Castle Corp for a distributed antenna system network that ignited a lawsuit that currently looms over the city. I believe the person responsible for this was Katherine Hess.
There are other unwanted projects that have been promoted by the same staff: development of the horse ranch on E. Covell, Covelll Village, Results Radio tower on the Yolo County landfill — and projects that raised money and were never moved forward ie: crosswalks and bike lanes on 5th street.
This is a good opportunity to save the city some money, and potential future grief. Let the Economic Development Department and its staff go.
Davis_citizen10
Don Shor: This current article in the Davis Enterprise kind of shoots a big hole in your position that Target has harmed the downtown…
[quote]When the city first proposed luring Target to Davis, many people worried the big-box store would harm local businesses, especially in the downtown core.
But au contraire.
According to a study by a research team from the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, the downtown has not seen a substantial reduction in shopping frequency since Target opened in 2009 on the east side of the city.
“The biggest changes we saw were for shopping outside of Davis. That declined,” said Susan Handy, the UCD professor of environmental policy and planning who oversaw the study. “Shopping at stores outside of downtown declined after Target opened (as well), but for shopping downtown, we did not see very much change.”
Handy and her research team — made up of two faculty members, a research economist, a postdoctorate student and a graduate student — set out in 2009 on a “before-and-after” study that focused on vehicle miles of travel trends for Davis shoppers.
The team wanted to find out how far and how often Davis shoppers were traveling to different places of commerce.
The study found that Davis shoppers were traveling 97 miles a month before Target was built, and about 79 miles a month after Target.
In effect, Handy and her team discovered Davisites already had been hopping in their cars to drive to Woodland or West Sacramento to shop at big-box stores and that the Target store in Davis now kept that lost sales tax revenue in town.
As for the impact on the downtown, the research team had asked a random sample of about 1,000 Davisites, among other questions, what types of items they bought in various shopping locations in the area, including segments such as the downtown core, stores in Davis outside the downtown, at Target and at stores outside of Davis (not Target).
According to Handy, the study showed shoppers, generally, did not begin shopping for goods at Target that they previously had shopped for downtown.[/quote]