Our Sunday Commentary this past weekend focused on an op-ed written by the chamber in which they talk about the necessity of a balanced approach.
As several people noted, the PAC positions that we quoted suggest that we need both economic development and budget cuts.
We agree with that approach. The problem is not the approach, but the time frame.
The PAC, as embodied by Steve Greenfield, Gregg Herrington, Kemble Pope, Michael Bisch, Janis Lott and Tom Cross writes, “To achieve a level, sturdy and enduring stool, all three legs must be kept equally strong or fear tipping over. Clearly, Davis’ economic leg needs support if we are to meet our present and future challenges.”
As we noted on Sunday, in the long term, we do not disagree with this contention, but we believe that all is not equal in the short term and that we have an urgency to act in one area if we wish to even have a city that is around to facilitate the other areas.
They write: “Focusing only on expenditure cuts decimates our community service programs.” They add, “Economic growth resulting from the successful application of economic development strategies will provide a more balanced, sustainable approach that actually would result in an improved city fiscal health condition.”
They add, “Let’s place a priority on increasing city revenue to soften the blow of serious budget cuts while helping to sustain services and facilities that our community cherishes.”
They even write: “We are not implying that it won’t be necessary to cut spending, share resources and revamp public employee pension programs to match current economic realities and longer life spans. We strongly believe employee-paid contributions will need to be stepped up for both current employees and future ones to keep the employer, our city government, healthy. We strongly believe we are at a tipping point requiring dramatic city and school reform if we are to remain a sustainable community.”
The problem, as we tried to articulate, is that we are in an immediate two to four year crisis in which the only solution to stave off catastrophe will be dramatic and draconian budget cuts that accompany labor concessions.
We have simply waited too late to act. The council took dramatic action back in June 2011, whereby it would have cut $2.5 million from personnel costs and placed that money to go toward unfunded liabilities and deferred infrastructure maintenance.
Unfortunately, that $2.5 million in savings never actually materialized. Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza argued against the 2011 budget and, in fact, of using the MOU process.
However, even with a successful bargaining on contracts in the next month, it is difficult to foresee the council realizing even $2.5 million in savings. Even if we did, that would only get us one-third of the way there.
While I agree with some that we cannot cut our way into prosperity, at this point that is not the goal. The short-term goal is solvency. The longer term goal is economic development and prosperity – a prospect made far more difficult by the loss of redevelopment money.
As Rich Rifkin notes in his comment on the Enterprise: “We have a $150 million liability to our employees and retirees. Of that, $90 million is our underfunded pension debt; and $60 million is our unfunded retiree medical liability. It is completely off the mark for this group to think we can fix this problem by cutting some programs and improving the business climate.”
He continues, “It saddens me that the Chamber of Commerce has chosen to bury its collective head in the sand and ignores what we have to do: Fix our unsustainably expensive labor deals for now and into the future. All the rest – including everything which this Chamber PAC is calling for – is meaningless window dressing.”
In the short-term – the next two to four years – he is absolutely correct.
The Chamber PAC writes, “Focusing only on expenditure cuts decimates our community service programs,” and adds, “Economic growth resulting from the successful application of economic development strategies will provide a more balanced, sustainable approach that actually would result in an improved city fiscal health condition.”
That is not something that is going to possibly generate meaningful revenue in the next two-four years.
By 2015, the city at the very least is going to have about $7.5 million in additional costs resulting from pensions, retiree health, and deferred maintenance. That may not sound like a huge number, but it is actually more than 20% of our general fund budget, that is comprised itself of around 80% in employee compensation.
I like to illustrate what I will call the insufficiency of an economic development strategy using the Target example. Target was projected to produce about $600,000 in net tax revenue.
In order to economically develop our way out this problem, we would have to develop around 12 pure Targets in two years.
Now as we know, it is unlikely that Target generated anything close to that kind of net revenue. We know that retail options would not produce that kind of net marginal return over and above the current Target. We know that the economic times are still challenging.
And moreover and more importantly, the kinds of businesses that the city is likely to produce are not going to generate that kind of point of sales revenue, anyway.
To understand the time factor, the city is looking to use some of its remaining redevelopment money to produce a hotel conference center. That is one of the few things that would produce the city tax revenue. But to expect it to be online in two years is very optimistic, to say the least.
The city is about out of money from redevelopment.
To be blunt, does anyone believe that we can add economic development that would produce even $1 million in net revenue by 2014-2015? I do not believe anyone believes that.
Even if we could do that, we are still talking about needing to cut another $6.5 million from the 2014-2015 budget to avoid a fiscal crisis, the likes of which we have never seen before. We are talking about the need for quick and steep cuts.
That is the disconnect that the Vanguard wrote of on Sunday.
Michael Bisch on Sunday wrote, “The fact that the Chamber PAC has flatly stated that it agrees with their budget position does not dissuade them from their spiteful attacks in the least.”
He adds, “What is striking is that there is very little daylight between the Chamber PACs stated positions, on a very narrow range of subjects, and those of you and David.”
The daylight is between the actual language employed by the Chamber PAC here. The Chamber PAC offers a mixed approach, which is fine as a long-term strategy, but they never acknowledge that in the short term we need to cut and cut deeply.
That fact and that fact alone triggered the Sunday column.
I have never seen an acknowledgement by either Mr. Bisch or the chamber that this is precisely where we are headed if we do not make immediate cuts. And that is where the problem is, that I see.
Why is this important? Because if we are to cut deeply into programs – the public needs to understand why this is necessary, why revenue generation in the short term will not work, and only then can we come to terms with what we need to do. Right now the former council and city manager covered up the problems so thoroughly that it was actually a shock to the public that a pool had to be closed. That was just a warning shot in what will happen in the next two years.
What is this going to entail? A combination of deep cuts to some segments of public safety where we have misprioritized resources, for instance through employing four-person fire crews.
But even that will not get us all the way there. We are going to need to close more community pools, brown some of our greenbelts, close our parks and more.
Is that drastic? Yes it is. But that is what happens when you need to cuts millions from a budget and have forestalled the inevitable since 2008. The clock is ticking toward 2015, and no one even knows the fuse has been lit.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The daylight is between the actual language employed by the Chamber PAC here. The Chamber PAC offers a mixed approach which is fine as a long term strategy, but they never acknowledge that in the short term we need to cut and cut deeply.
That fact and that fact alone triggered the Sunday column.
I have never seen an acknowledgement by either Mr. Bisch or the Chamber that this is precisely where we are headed if we do not make immediate cuts. And that is where the problem that I see is.”-David Greenwald
I’m going to give this a shot and see if I hit the mark. I acknowledge, “that this is precisely where we are headed if we do not make immediate cuts.” I don’t know, perhaps David still thinks I’m equivocating. I’ll make it shorter, “I acknowledge.” Well, perhaps “acknowledge” isn’t a strong enough term to meet David’s demands. Let’s try “agree”, I agree. There, that felt right, but maybe it wasn’t loud enough to suit David. I AGREE. I’m feeling pretty good about that one. Maybe if I add an exclamation mark. I AGREE!!!. The first exclamation mark felt pretty good, so I added 2 more, but now it looks a bit belligerent. I’ll try repetition. I AGREE! I AGREE! I AGREE!
David, your criticism is silly. You’re fabricating a controversy out of thin air.
-Michael Bisch
I don’t understand why the Vanguard is fixating on this non-controversy, making it sound as if there is some sort of issue. The Chamber is advocating for economic development AND economic sustainability. The two solutions to our budget problems are not mutually exclusive, where only one option can be chosen at any given time. The Vanguard appears to be putting words in the mouth of the Chamber of Commerce PAC that were never said/meant. I’m shaking my head in puzzlement…
Elaine – He’s saying that the capitalists in town aren’t sufficiently anti-union.
Michael: I appreciate your post and your concurrence here. The reason I think this is important enough to make a second post is that I do not believe the average person in this community knows what we are about to face.
Greg: No I’m not. I’m not anti-union – more explanation in this article ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5391:commentary-too-neat-and-tidy-analysis-of-unions-and-construction-projects&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url])
Yeah, I know, the problem is only some unions. Namely, our local unions. It’s always easy to cheer for unions that you don’t feel that you pay for.
No I have a problem with CCPOA, PORAC, and some others if those are indeed unions as opposed to associations.
PASEA, DTA, … It’s just a question of listing all city and school district unions. It’s true they aren’t all technically unions. They are all bargaining units, which comes to the same thing.
[quote]We are going to need to close more community pools, brown some of our greenbelts, close our parks and more. [b]The David Greenwald vision for Davis[/b][/quote]
“The problem, as we tried to articulate, is that we are in an immediate two to four year crisis in which the only solution to stave off catastrophe will be dramatic and draconian budget cuts that accompany labor concessions. We have simply waited too late to act.”
You did articulate this. Why are you articulating it all over two days later? Your problem isn’t that you didn’t articulate it adequately the first time, but that you tried to turn the Chamber into the villain here.
Sunday, you used the weak reed that their endorsement letter somehow wasn’t adequately urgent about short-term city actions and that their choice of candidates somehow belied any claim of concern.
You acknowledged that you pretty much agree with everything represented by the Chamber’s three-legged stool except their supposed time frame (and, of course, their choice of candidate endorsements). Yet, you’re still picking a fight.
So, where’s the argument? Where’s the “daylight”? Why does the Chamber have to share the blame for our failure to act with our city council?
I’m surprised that the response to your Sunday commentary didn’t do two things for you. First, the comments made it clear that others did not see any significant conflict between the Chamber’s positions and yours. Second, the comments made by the Chamber made it clear that they intended no daylight.
Fascinatingly apparent by its absence in today’s follow-up is your Sunday criticism about the Chamber’s candidate endorsements, especially your lengthy list of Stephen Souza’s failures to act in accordance with your views about how someone concerned with the city’s finances should have.
Since your first support for the Chamber’s getting involved, you’ve gone after them several times on oddly minor matters–first, suggesting that they were operating their PAC illegally and, now, that there’s some alleged difference with you in the urgency of budget cuts. And, you repeat the same concers over and over again in spite of the fact that they don’t get much traction.
I suspect, because of the timing, that you lost faith in the Chamber’s political involvement as soon as you saw their endorsements for the city council race. There’s no other apparent reason for your obsession with such minor, real or imagined “sins” that you write are being committed by the Chamber.
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I like to illustrate what I will call the insufficiency of an economic development strategy . . . “[/i]
David, once again you are [u]artificially[/u] constructing an either/or scenario in looking at what the Chamber PAC has said. That either/or scenario simply does not exist.
Nowhere in anything that they have written are they saying “Don’t pursue this course of action. Instead pursue a different course of action.” They are simply saying that in the process of focusing on this broad and deep fiscal challenge, don’t lose sight of the fact that budget cuts are not the only tool that we have in our toolbox. They are saying, lets use all our tools.
You and I talked about this on Sunday, and based on that conversation I did some follow-up yesterday. Here is what I found. As you know the City conducts 2×2 meetings and one of those 2x2s is with the business community. I was told yesterday that in the recent 2×2 meetings the business community has been very direct and very firm with the City representatives in the 2×2 about the incredibly pressing need to take the necessary steps to cut enough costs to get the budget deficit resolved. In response to those very direct and firm statements the City has said, “We get it. You have been saying that in all our recent meetings. You don’t need to say it again. We get it. Please concentrate your efforts on the things you really can impact, specifically improving the business climate so that our local businesses thrive and generate more transactions and more sales tax as a result.”
So bottom-line, your article today appears to be missing an important component . . . context. If you had attended the 2x2s you would have been privy to both the context and “the rest of the story.”
Greg: Once upon a time my wife, who was a union organizer explained the difference, it’s not as subtle as you suggest. Nevertheless, I think my point stands.
PSDavis: That’s not my vision for Davis, but it is a possible result of the fact that for four years, we have not taken steps that were needed to fix our problems. Are you aware that in addition to the unfunded liabilities we also have $20 million in deferred maintenance on streets? I mean, what is your solution to finding 20%o f the general fund to cut over the next three budgets?
JS: “Fascinatingly apparent by its absence in today’s follow-up is your Sunday criticism about the Chamber’s candidate endorsements, especially your lengthy list of Stephen Souza’s failures to act in accordance with your views about how someone concerned with the city’s finances should have. “
Seemed to me that was a distraction from my intended point which was the state of the budget and the fact that we are not going to fix the immediate problem through a balanced approach.
Michael Bisch is willing to accept that – that’s good enough for me, but that’s not how either I nor Rich Rifkin read the initial article.
“Michael: I appreciate your post and your concurrence here. The reason I think this is important enough to make a second post is that I do not believe the average person in this community knows what we are about to face.”
I don’t see that anyone, least of all the Chamber, does not understand and “concur” with the core issue you raise about the ciy’s urgent budget issues. But, why are you trying to pin it on the Chamber that they somehow aren’t with you on this matter? You haven’t been pointing at “the average person in this community” until now.
Can you explain your reasoning for this continuing attack on the Chamber’s city finance stand in one or two sentences? Without repeating all the extended rationale about why they should agree with you and the rest of us on this matter?
The Chamber representatives write: “We strongly believe we are at a tipping point requiring dramatic city and school reform if we are to remain a sustainable community.”
What exactly do they mean by “city and school” reform? Since when did school reform become a policy area? I’d like to see a concrete set of proposals that can then be discussed and debated properly, including their definition of sustainable….a word that has range of meanings and policy implications.
JS: I simply disagreed with what I saw as a problem in their originally piece that we need to take a balanced approach to the budget and the belief that we can grow (in the short term) our way out of it. And I think that plays into the hands of those who believe we are not in immediate peril and do not have to cut everything immediately. I appreciate Michael Bisch’s statement, I respect him, but I wish they would have made that more clear in their piece.
[i]Unfortunately, that $2.5 million in savings never actually materialized. Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza argued against the 2011 budget and, in fact, of using the MOU process.[/i]
David – you should be writing about Sue Greenwald and Steven Souza, not the ChamberPAC. Sue, who is the darling of the cost cutting crowd refused to vote for the 2.5MM in cuts because it would result in 20 layoffs. If David’s scenario is right, there are going to be many more than 20 layoffs. I think it is Sue who doesn’t get it. The ChamberPAC acknowledges cuts in services is necessary, but they emphasize developing revenue sources to grow our way out. Sue – she can’t even bring herself to layoff or grow revenue.
The Chamber PAC has it right, Sue has it wrong. David, if you want to provide clarity for Davis voters, focus on the actions of Sue and Steve. The Chamber PAC position should be welcomed, not attacked.
[quote]Matt Williams: So bottom-line, your article today appears to be missing an important component . . . context. If you had attended the 2x2s you would have been privy to both the context and “the rest of the story.”
[/quote]
Thanks for the additional context. Let’s hope city staff/city manager/CC “get it” inre the budget crisis. Frankly, that ought to be where the Vanguard’s attention is focused on matters of the budget, rather than on picking a fight with the Chamber of Commerce PAC…
[quote]I suspect, because of the timing, that you lost faith in the Chamber’s political involvement as soon as you saw their endorsements for the city council race. There’s no other apparent reason for your obsession with such minor, real or imagined “sins” that you write are being committed by the Chamber.[/quote]
That’s my sense of why the Vanguard is obsessing on this imagined rift with the Chamber of Commerce PAC…
[quote][u]JS[/u]: “Fascinatingly apparent by its absence in today’s follow-up is your Sunday criticism about the Chamber’s candidate endorsements, especially your lengthy list of Stephen Souza’s failures to act in accordance with your views about how someone concerned with the city’s finances should have. ”
[u]David[/u]: “Seemed to me that was a distraction from my intended point which was the state of the budget and the fact that we are not going to fix the immediate problem through a balanced approach. Michael Bisch is willing to accept that – that’s good enough for me, but that’s not how either I nor Rich Rifkin read the initial article.”[/quote]Good point. That dang Michael is just too willing to accept everything you have to say (or, in this case, not say).
Again, the defective presentation you thought you uncovered was understandable: The op-ed was nothing more than a sales pitch for their endorsed slate of candidates. The few sentences setting the stage shouldn’t have been expected to be a complete accounting of Chamber’s “balanced approach.”
Maybe you don’t see Stephen Souza as the one to lead the charge, but are you now satisfied that Michael and the Chamber are in complete alignment with your own sense of urgency regarding the need for city budget cuts?
“The few sentences setting the stage shouldn’t have been expected to be a complete accounting of Chamber’s “balanced approach.” “
That’s a fair point – my concern remains that the public is really unaware of the depths of our problems.
I think Mr. Bisch’s view is fine at this point. I understand that the city told the Chamber to back off on the budget – I’m not sure I agree with the city there, but we are where we are.
[i]”The Chamber PAC position should be welcomed, not attacked.”[/i]
The Chamber position seems to be all about personalities–namely, who Kemble Pope and Mike Bisch like and who they do not.
If you are informed about the City’s long-in-the-making fiscal crisis, it is impossible to read Kemble & Mike’s op-ed and not notice that their analysis of what needs to be done ignores the labor compensation problem entirely, when the labor compensation problem makes up virtually all of the City’s fiscal crisis.
So why, then, did Kemble & Mike ignore this when theywrote their op-ed? Because doing so would make at least one of their endorsements seem awfully strange. And it would raise the question why they chose not to endorse the City’s strongest advocate for fiscal responsibility.
Kuperberg: [i]”He’s saying that the capitalists in town aren’t sufficiently anti-union.”[/i]
There is only one person on this blog who I can ever recall who explicitly declared that he personally is “anti-union.” That person? Greg Kuperberg.
For the record: Unlike Kuperberg, I am neutral on unions. As long as unions don’t engage in corrupting activities (like Local 3494 has in Davis) and as long as those whose responsibility is to negotiate [i]against[/i] the unions understand that is their duty and they act as agents for the present and future taxpayers (or ratepayers) in all dealings with unions, then labor negotiations should produce an outcome both sides can live with for the long-term.
In a free market situation, where workers have the right to join a union or not join one, and employers have the right to hire or not hire unionized workers, I have no objection at all to unions. The problems arise when government steps in and requires workers to join a union (or pay the union to negotiate on their behalf against their will) and when government requires employers to either hire union workers or to pay a union compensation package to their employees. The problem in these cases is not the unions, it is the unions’ control of government and the anti-competitive laws and rules which follow.
[quote]”The Chamber position seems to be all about personalities–namely, who Kemble Pope and Mike Bisch like and who they do not….Because doing so (analyzing labor compensation) would make at least one of their endorsements seem awfully strange. And it would raise the question why they chose not to endorse the City’s strongest advocate for fiscal responsibility.”[/quote]Just as Rich’s position seems to be all about personalities–namely, who he likes and who he does not like. That would be Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza. That’s pretty much what elections of people come down to these days.
I am trying to figure out why you are so at odds with the Chamber PAC people. It really isn’t clear. Don’t we need our business men and women to be involved in the community? I’m just not getting why what they are doing is so outrageous.
I agree that there needs to be dramatic city and school reform to remain a sustainable community. We can’t continue on the same path for either entity. The community is unlikely to agree to pay yet another school tax to make up for the deficit in the school budget. The Chamber has a vested interest in the health of our schools and it is often businesses that step forward to donate time, services and money during fundraising efforts. I don’t understand why the Chamber’s effort to focus efforts in this area would be open to “discussion and debate.” It just seems like there is an underlying hatred directed toward people that is driving this discussion.
[quote]Just as Rich’s position seems to be all about personalities–namely, who he likes and who he does not like. That would be Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza. [/quote]
It is interesting how much people can look through such subjective colored lenses filtering their candidate preferences when expressing an opinion on an issue…
Rich – You’re just not getting it. The city’s so-called strongest advocate for fiscal responsibility, is actually the city’s biggest bull in the china shop of fiscal responsibility. She would do for fiscal responsibility what Lyndon Johnson did for peace and freedom in Southeast Asia.
The saving grace is that in our manager-council system, when the council breaks down in dysfunction, the city staff can still quietly run on autopilot. Which might already have happened more often than people realize.
[i]”Just as Rich’s position seems to be all about personalities–namely, who he likes and who he does not like. That would be Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza.”[/i]
I personally like Sue and Stephen both. I have no idea what JS is talking about here.
Ryan – I would say rather that there is an itch for revolution as much as there is a fixation on specific personalities.
And for the record, I am on more than cordial terms with Brett, Lucas and Dan. I also am on good terms with Joe Krovoza. I have no personal problems with Rochelle, but I have never had any personal interactions with her (save one time we spoke briefly at a party, where I was talking with her husband, Charlie, who was a classmate of mine going all the way back to 7th grade at Holmes, where he and I were math superstars, little good that did for either of us).
I can let Mike Bisch speak for himself regarding his personal feelings about Sue Greenwald. But I am sure he would confirm that his dislike for her goes way beyond any differences on issues. And Kemble’s personal disdain for Sue appeared clear to me when he tried to moderate the Chamber’s candidate forum.
“We are not implying that it won’t be necessary to cut spending, share resources and revamp public employee pension programs to match current economic realities and longer life spans. We strongly believe employee-paid contributions will need to be stepped up for both current employees and future ones to keep the employer, our city government, healthy. We strongly believe we are at a tipping point requiring dramatic city and school reform if we are to remain a sustainable community.”
-Chamber PAC
“If you are informed about the City’s long-in-the-making fiscal crisis, it is impossible to read Kemble & Mike’s op-ed and not notice that their analysis of what needs to be done ignores the labor compensation problem entirely, when the labor compensation problem makes up virtually all of the City’s fiscal crisis.”
-Rich Rifkin
Honestly, I have been entirely perplexed by Rich, Don, and David’s PAC criticisms throughout this election. They persist in reading things into PAC releases that have not been said all the while overlooking things that the PAC has specifically stated. And constantly personalizing the debate. It is really bizarre behavior. To what end?
-Michael Bisch
Kuperberg: [i]”Rich – You’re just not getting it. The city’s so-called strongest advocate for fiscal responsibility, is actually the city’s biggest bull in the china shop of fiscal responsibility.”[/i]
You are right that I don’t get what you are saying. If you could eschew analogies for a moment and indulge me, please give one or two concret examples where Sue’s “bovine” actions (in your view) “broke the china” and needlessly cost the City money.
So, Rich, do you maintain your position that the Chamber PAC’s op ed “ignores the labor compensation problem entirely…”?
-Michael Bisch
This debate is like picking shades of gray or beige between two bloggers (well, one former blogger now Chamber PAC guy).
“I’ll have a hint of cost cutting with a side of better labor negotiations, plus some economic development”
“I’ll have a bit more economic development, pass on the cost cutting, and a smaller portion of better labor negotiations”
I can’t wait for this election to be over. Keep Davis Boring.
“Honestly, I have been entirely perplexed by Rich, Don, and David’s PAC criticisms throughout this election. They persist in reading things into PAC releases that have not been said all the while overlooking things that the PAC has specifically stated. And constantly personalizing the debate. It is really bizarre behavior. To what end?” Michael Bisch
Unseating Souza.
[quote]”The Chamber position seems to be all about personalities–namely, who Kemble Pope and Mike Bisch like and who they do not….Because doing so (analyzing labor compensation) would make at least one of their endorsements seem awfully strange. And it would raise the question why they chose not to endorse the City’s strongest advocate for fiscal responsibility.”[/quote]I was trying to point out that elections are “all about personalities.” The chamber folks like three people, including one you don’t (the one whose labor compensation background makes him unworthy of endorsement) and one you do (“the City’s strongest advocate for fiscal responsibility”).
That’s what I’m talking about here. I can let you speak for yourself about regarding personal feelings about Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald and their suitability for the city council. But, I thought you just had.
You’ve concluded lots from your observations about how Kemble Pope and Mike Bisch personally feel about the candidates. I just thought you were just as revealing in your comments.
I wasn’t trying to suggest that you don’t get along swimmingly with all of these full-fledged personalities. Don’t you figure Keble and Mike do, as well?
[i]”You’ve concluded lots [u]from your observations[/u] about how Kemble Pope and Mike Bisch personally feel about the candidates.”[/i]
I have Michael Bisch’s vituperative emails sent to me telling me his [i]personal[/i] feelings about Sue Greenwald. These were sent recently and I think they explain his point of view.
I don’t know why you seem to insist that my position is based on personalities or personal animus. It is not in the least. As I have stated over and over, I like all of them. I have nothing personally against Stephen. I think he is a great human being. I have enjoyed extremely good tequila in his house. In fact, I bought a bottle of Corralejo Reposado Tequila a couple of days ago (under $30 at La Superior on W. Court Street in Woodland) in part because I discovered this mark at a tequila party at Stephen’s house.
I concede that I am just conjecturing about Kemble Pope’s views on Sue. I don’t know Kemble personally. However, it was clear to me he was unduly harsh toward Sue in that Chamber debate and pleasant toward all the others (though a bit rough with Brett on one question where Kemble mischaracterized Brett’s words).
[quote]So, Rich, do you maintain your position that the Chamber PAC’s op ed “ignores the labor compensation problem entirely…”? [b]-Michael Bisch[/b] [/quote] In my opinion, the emphasis in your op-ed was off the mark.
Where you wrote — “We are not implying that it won’t be necessary to … revamp public employee pension programs to match current economic realities and longer life spans.” — I found that at best vague. What does it mean to “revamp public employee pension programs”?
You added: “We strongly believe employee-paid contributions will need to be stepped up for both current employees and future ones to keep the employer, our city government, healthy.”
Yes, but to what levels? Almost all city employees are now paying substantially more than they were paying a few years ago. But these newly increased pension payments are still inadequate to cover the rising costs (imposed by PERS). It’s unclear to me that you get the magnitude of the pension cost problem.
And you don’t address any of the other substantial labor cost issues. For example, the cafeteria cash-outs, the retiree medical costs, the fire-staffing issue, the massive cost of excessive paid time off for all employees, the costs of incentivizing early retirements, etc.
You wrote: “There are three choices in solving any budget crisis: Cut expenses;[/b] Increase revenue; or Combine expense cuts with increased revenue. Focusing only on [b]expenditure cuts decimates our community service programs that support youths and seniors alike; erodes public employee morale; … [/b]”
You have it wrong. The entire idea of fixing the city’s labor contracts is to be able to NOT CUT OUR COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS. The only way they can be saved is to properly manage the cost of total compensation for labor.
Will doing that reduce employee morale? Yes. Will not solving the problem keep employee morale up? I doubt it. There is good reason to think that employee morale is quite low now. And the big changes have all been put off. If we keep on burying our collective heads in the sand–as I believe your op-ed would have us do–we will go bankrupt. We are on our way there, now. And as we head toward bankruptcy, that will mean a massive number of employee layoffs from all departments (other than perhaps fire). Mass layoffs and program cuts will certainly devastate employee morale.
So our best option is to focus on fixing the labor contracts to make the cost of labor sustainable. The Chamber op-ed missed the mark on that, and that should be the central issue in this campaign.
Fortunately, I believe all five candidates running this year understand that is the central issue. It’s a shame that the Chamber does not.
[quote]”There are three choices in solving any budget crisis: Cut expenses; Increase revenue; or Combine expense cuts with increased revenue. [b]Focusing only on expenditure cuts decimates our community service programs that support youths and seniors alike; erodes public employee morale[/b]; … ” [/quote]I figured they were talking about more than just the city labor contracts when they were making this point (that we should do more than cut back spending). Like any Chamber of Commerce, they like to encourage improving business and bringing in more taxes.
It’s difficult to argue with their point or yours; there doesn’t seem to be much wrong with the things each of you emphasize.
If all five candidates understand the importance of fixing the labor contracts and the rest of us do and the Chamber talkers say they do, maybe you’ve been successful in bring everyone along.
Rich, first you say “ignores the labor compensation problem entirely…”, which was provably false. And now you say, “…the emphasis in your op-ed was off the mark.” The emphasis?
Also, referencing private correspondence in an open forum is definitely not cool, Rich, particularly in that I prefaced my email to you with the statement that I have agreed to not engage in negative campaigning. And my private comments to you were not personal, rather, they spoke to Sue’s demeanor and behavior as a public official (which many here have commented on). Speaking to a candidate’s demeanor, leadership and interpersonal skills is absolutely fair game. I spoke only to Sue’s official capacity and her duties, nothing else.
-Michael Bisch
Rifkin: “[i]So our best option is to focus on fixing the labor contracts to make the cost of labor sustainable. The Chamber op-ed missed the mark on that, and that should be the central issue in this campaign.[/i]”
Rich, over the past several years you have been so successful in defining this as the central problem that everyone already ‘gets it.’ The candidates and the current Council have already accepted this premise. What is interesting to me is how did we get to this point. Some of it is due to our providing unsustainable benefits in the past, but another large part is our failure to invest in economic development and revenue generation. The failure on the revenue generation side has exacerbated the impact of our being overly generous.
How we get out of this problem will require two approaches, cutting back on being overly generous AND growing revenues. Unfortunately, the current Council, and every Council back for 20+ years have completely ignored economic development, which in large part is why we have such a poor reputation as a business environment. You are focused on the first problem. The Chamber, acknowledging your fine work in this area, was able to put their emphasis on the second. You (and David) fault them for not jumping up and down and screaming with you about the first problem, when in fact I think they figured out that you don’t need the help and their resources were best spent addressing the second issue. They never said they didn’t agree with you, they just emphasized a different aspect of the problem.
I think that this dichotomy in addressing the overriding issue (budget deficit) can also explain the differences in endorsements. With regards the over generous compensation, you see Steve as part of the problem from his past decisions, and Sue as the ‘savior’ who has continually fought this battle. From a business development approach however, Steve has the much stronger position (regardless of what Don thinks), while Sue is a huge impediment both through her policy positions and interpersonal approach. If all of the candidates ‘get it’ with regard to reducing total compensation, then we seemingly no longer need a ‘savior.’ From a business development side, we are so far behind the eight ball that we can ill afford an unnecessary ‘impediment.’
This really shouldn’t be a fight because you (we) are all working for the same goal; improved economic health for the City. If you look at what people are saying, and not make assumptions about things they did not say, you will see that there is very little daylight between the two groups. Collaboration, cooperation and respect will go a great deal further in ensuring the financial future of Davis, than will throwing mud. I am voting for the three candidates that I think will approach our problems with collaboration, cooperation and respect and none of these attributes appropriately describe Ms. Greenwald’s past or present approach on the Council.
[i]”How we get out of this problem will require two approaches, cutting back on being overly generous AND growing revenues.”[/i]
To make my own position clear: I am very much in favor of growing revenues, as well. Only with the exception of new projects which impose unavoidably large costs on other existing properties or people (what economists call “externalities”) or those which will generate real costs* for the City of Davis but will not produce the tax revenues to cover those costs, I am in favor of attracting business investment in Davis.
But no matter how successful we are in bringing in new business to Davis or how much we screw the pooch with our regulations or with our reputation for being hostile to investors, the problem only gets solved by fixing the labor contract issues I have long described.
In reading your words, Mark, I can better understand what the Chamber was thinking. I appreciate your explanation. I wish the Chamber writers had simply pointed out what the heart of the City’s fiscal problem is, that they believe that all of the candidates have a good understanding of what needs to be done, but they believe their three favored candidates would be the best at bringing in new revenues.
*Sometimes the given estimates for future costs of city services are dubious IMO. Those numbers can assume a long term inflation in the cost of say, police and fire, based on the past inflation of police and fire. Doing that ignores the fact that we, as a City, have a lot of control over how much the cost of cops and firefighters will be going forward. I have advocated for a total compensation approach to labor costs, fixing the inflation at the level that revenues tend to grow. At some point this may not be practical, because our total comp might be too low to compete for good cops or firefighters, for example. However, that is a long, long way off. The number of applicants for each of jobs is amazingly large, due to the high level of pay and benefits and pension, etc.
Mr West – Thanks. I think you have done a really good job laying out how it is that folks have been talking past each other a bit on these issues. I also appreciate and hope everyone will keep in mind your statement:
“This really shouldn’t be a fight because you (we) are all working for the same goal; improved economic health for the City.”
Whatever the outcome of this election the only certainty is that we will HAVE to work on these issues together. As we go into the many challenging decisions that are coming if we can keep in mind your statement we will be well served. Thanks.
The focus of the Chamber and the ChamberPAC has been on economic development more than on budget issues. Economic development involves decisions by private property owners, public policy makers, and the voting public. It is easy to agree in principle, but every proposal will be judged on its own merits. Through the lens of fiscal prudence, the key question is whether a proposal requires any immediate outlay from city coffers.
A key point David’s articles have been alluding to, I think, is that budget cutting as a priority may in fact conflict with some proposals that would be considered economic development. So at times, budget policy may be an obstacle to immediate pursuit of economic development.
There are some things most people agree on; there are many things some people agree on (a majority?). And there are some things which will be controversial. It is probably most productive to move forward as quickly as possible on the areas of agreement.
[i]Possible areas of consensus.
[/i]Develop Nishi.
Accept some greater density and taller buildings downtown.
Allow more flexible zoning for both business and higher-density housing in downtown and some adjacent areas.
Encourage downtown improvements that are minimal cost to the city.
Encourage positive marketing campaigns (Buy Local Davis) that are minimal cost to the city.
[i]Some things are either unexplored, or aren’t being discussed much in public.
[/i]Seek greater flexibility, assess impediments about developing Pads A – D near Target.
Assess issues creating high vacancy rates in some neighborhood shopping centers.
[i]There are unanswered questions.
[/i]What consensus is there about parking issues and solutions for downtown?
What is the university willing to do to help develop business sites?
How will the ConAgra site be rezoned?
[i]Some things are likely to engender significant policy debates; some require a vote of the public.
[/i]Does Davis need a stand-alone business park for medium to large tech businesses?
Will the voters accept rezoning and annexation of any of the three most likely business park sites?
If a parking structure is abandoned, what is the best use of the funds that have been set aside for that purpose?
Don: [i]”There are unanswered questions. … How will the ConAgra site be rezoned?”[/i]
I’ve given the ConAgra site some thought lately. It is zoned for “high tech” industrial. Some seem certain that since the cannery shut down so long ago–it last operated in 1999–that there is no chance that any high tech companies want to locate there. They might be right. But my thought is that the landowners may have never pursued a high tech build-out option, because they have always believed they could make more money with residential development. That is, by getting the land rezoned for residential (or a mix of office and residential), the land itself would achieve its highest price. And if that is right, it is perfectly understandable that they don’t care to pursue high tech, and that they will keep pursuing a rezoning to residential.
Up to now, the Davis City Council has never flat out turned down a re-zoning. AFAIK, the process has just meandered along, first with the Lewis Homes idea and later with ConAgra’s revamp of the same plan (more-less).
I think there are some ingress/egress and traffic impact issues with any development there. (Covell has a lot more auto traffic now than it did when the cannery was built.) But if the City Council decides it should be residential, so be it. That will presumably create a lot of value for ConAgra. On the other hand, if the City Council decides re-zoning is contrary to the City’s best interests, it should explicitly say this, reject the ConAgra plan in no uncertain terms, and partner up with ConAgra (or a successor landowner) to find a company or multiple companies who want to use that site for high tech. And that partnership should be time limited. Say 5 years or so. If after that period of time, if both parties fail to attract high tech industry, then the property ought to be rezoned to something everyone can live with.
My belief is that there are tech companies who would like that site, if it were built out with amenities they need (maybe including some housing for some of their workforce). I don’t buy the notion that it is too far from I-80 for high tech. I think its proximity to UC Davis would be a plus for many companies. I think the reputation of the Davis K-12 schools would be a plus for many. I think having 100 acres, which could be nicely developed into a “campus” would be a big plus for many companies. But up to now, I don’t think the landowners have wanted to pursue this option. Only by explicitly rejecting ConAgra’s current proposal would they give it a 100% effort.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”In my opinion, the emphasis in your op-ed was off the mark.”[/i]
Rich, how is your statement above correct, given that the City has told the business community to in effect “mind your own business” after the business community has raised the budget cost cutting issue in the multple 2x2s . . . and further told the business community to [u]focus on those issues where it can actually have an impact[/u].
The focus they have been asked to pursue = the emphasis of their OpEd.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”Fortunately, I believe all five candidates running this year understand that is the central issue. It’s a shame that the Chamber does not.”[/i]
The fact that there is every appearance that [i]all five candidates understand the central issue[/i] is exactly why the Chamber was appropriate in focusing on the other non-central (but nonetheless important) issues.
“I’ve given the ConAgra site some thought lately.” Rifkin
Obviously not enough. ; )
A business park is not economically viable on this site. Neither the landowner or other private sector investors are going to subsidize such a project (for obvious reasons). The only way this happens is through an eminent domain action, which the city can’t afford.
It’s time to move on and put the property to good economic use. Keeping the illusion of a ConAgra business park on the table is just a strategy to avoid making the ultimate decision that has to be made (which is just fine with the no-growth crowd). If the voters want a business park in Davis, then they’ll vote yes when the Mace and/or Parlin properties make it to the ballot. If they don’t, then they’ll vote no and we’ll have to adapt our economic development strategy accordingly.
psdavis
“It’s time to move on and put the property to good economic use”
What do you consider “good economic use” for this property ?
PSD: [i]”A business park is not economically viable on this site.”[/i]
Your declaring that it is not economically viable does not make it not viable. If you have actual rational reasons, give them up. Otherwise, I find your conclusion not supported.
PSD: [i]”Neither the landowner or other private sector investors are going to subsidize such a project (for obvious reasons).”[/i]
I have no idea where you come up with the notion of ‘subsidies.’ The question is whether there is a tenant or who wants to locate there or perhaps multiple tenants who find it a desirable place. I strongly believe there are high tech companies who would be happy in that location, if the developer built it to suit those companies’ needs (which of course is true with any such development).
[i]”The only way this happens is through an eminent domain action, which the city can’t afford.”[/i]
I have no idea why you think there would have to be eminent domain. The property is zoned for high tech industrial right now. But the landowner wants to change the zoning primarily to residential, which brings far less cash flow into the City’s coffers and provides a product, single family housing, which we have an excess of supply for the time being. If the City is clear that the zoning will not change, then the landowner will (for the first time) have an incentive to make a high tech industrial concern work there.
[i]”It’s time to move on and put the property to good economic use.”[/i]
No one has ever tried to make it into what it is zoned for–high tech industry. You have given no reasons why you think that cannot work.
[i]”Keeping the illusion of a ConAgra business park on the table is just a strategy to avoid making the ultimate decision that has to be made (which is just fine with the no-growth crowd).”[/i]
Lord knows I am not a ‘no-growther.’ I am a realist. If it is shown that a high tech industrial campus cannot succeed there, then so be it. The zoning should be changed if that is the case. But for you or anyone else to claim without explanation that it cannot succeed as industry is not convincing.
[i]”If the voters want a business park in Davis, then they’ll vote yes when the Mace and/or Parlin properties make it to the ballot.”[/i]
This is beside the point for ConAgra, as it is not subject to a Measure R vote and it is zoned right now for high tech, though no one seems to have ever truly pursued a high tech development on that 100 acre site.
Rich, the simple fact is that the marketing studies that Lewis conducted for a high-tech business park on that site showed a 40-year duration from the point of first marketing to the point where the park would be full. The payback from such an extended period of partial occupancy is virtually nonexistent.
In all the 12 years that Sue has touted the viability of a high-tech business park there, how many potential tenants has Sue (or anyone from the City) brought to even preliminary discussions . . . zero.
Zero prospects in 12 years is a pretty convincing statistic.
Bottom-line, the most ardent of salespeople for this idea hasn’t brought it one micrometer closer to reality. If you had an employee working for you as a salesman who produced zero sales and a pipeline of zero prospects in 12 years, would you continue relying on that salesman?
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”This is beside the point for ConAgra, as it is not subject to a Measure R vote and it is zoned right now for high tech, though [b]no one seems to have ever truly pursued a high tech development on that 100 acre site[/b].”[/i]
Sue has talked and talked and talked about it . . . is that not “true pursuit”? If it isn’t, why isn’t it?
[i] the most ardent of salespeople for this idea hasn’t brought it one micrometer closer to reality.[/i]
With the owner pressing for rezoning and refusing to discuss any other options, it would be a pretty tough sell.
The reason I listed ConAgra under ‘unanswered questions’ is because that is what it is. As such, it probably isn’t the place to begin in pursuing economic development. We do have people who keep posting here, very emphatically, that it can’t ever be a business park. But they never give evidence, nor do we know who they are. There are plenty of other things to work on first. To me, a more immediate unanswered question is what to do about a parking structure (if anything) and what to do with the funds (if not a parking structure).
But there is enough for the city’s economic development staff to work on among the areas of consensus, assuming that city department isn’t dissolved.
I agree Don that given the owner’s orientation there shouldn’t be any Staff time spent on recruiting potential high-tech tenants for the ConAgra site. That would be a waste of paid employee time . . . and that is all the more reason that Sue puts herself in a “put up or shut up” position when she touts a high-tech business park for the Cannery. She has absolutely no one to blame for the failure on that site other than herself.
She advocated a 50:50 EIR and the developer walked. So I disagree with your assessment of fault. But again: that isn’t the site I’d be focusing on if I was interested in the topic of economic development.
I have a neophyte question: What is it that makes a business park attractive from the city’s perspective? Is the per-acre assessed value of the improvements substantially higher than for residential? (I wouldn’t think so.) Even with high-tech industrial tenants, wouldn’t most of the expensive equipment be taxed as personal property? (Does the city get any of that back from the county?) With industrial there wouldn’t be any significant sales tax revenue (sales would be almost exclusively wholesale). The employees would generate some sales tax revenue when they shop in town, but enough to make a big difference? Demand for housing would increase, but I’m of the understanding that residential development is a break-even deal at best from the city’s viewpoint. So what makes the numbers work?
I nosed around the city’s website and the web in general, but I was unable to find any useful information on the comparative tax values of various land use types. I figure someone here can give me a quick-and-dirty explanation of the reason business parks seem to be the holy grail of economic development efforts.
Thanks!
.
I agree with most of what Don posted at 5:40pm, the 9:26pm post a little less so. A viable business park at ConAgra is by no means impossible, but there are at least 3 reasons to believe that it’s a dog:
1)The Interland site, consisting of 306,000 sq. ft., took 30 years to fully build and rent out. These 30 years span a time when the economy was generaly growing. Demand is now soft there and rents are plunging to the point where the developer would lose money if it was built today. The 20 acre ConAgra commercial component that staff is imposing on the developer is projected to have 400,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. What leads anyone to believe that absorption at the ConAgra site would be any faster, and at higher rents, than at the Interland site?
2)Why have no developers, brokers, or owner-users stepped forward to make ConAgra a purchase offer for research park use? I guarantee you I would be in touch with ConAgra, city staff, and individual council members if I had a tech user in my hip pocket. I have heard of no such contacts. That doesn’t mean such contacts haven’t happened, but I certainly have not heard of any.
3)UCD has made it absolutely clear that they would like to see a research park component developed at the Nishi site. Indeed, they are a grant co-applicant with the city to study just such a development. University officials have stated that they fully intend on encouraging corporate partners and start-ups to locate at Nishi once it is developed. Has UCD made any such comments or taken any actions regarding ConAgra? None to my knowledge.
So, what are the indicators that suggest there is demand for research park space at the ConAgra site? No developer is going to spend any money or time on due diligence for a research park unless it has a reasonable expectation that it’s going to make a profit. There are many indicators that there is demand for high-density housing on the site.
Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”She advocated a 50:50 EIR and the developer walked. So I disagree with your assessment of fault. But again: that [b]isn’t the site I’d be focusing on if I was interested in the topic of economic development[/b].”[/i]
I agree with your bolded statement, and further would say that an EIR is looking at the site and I haven’t seen a site yet that qualifies as a tenant. If anyone (especially Sue) wants any business park to happen anywhere within striking distance of Davis, they need to concentrate their efforts on finding companies that will occupy the business park. Absent such occupants all you have are Don Quixote retreads . . . or Donna Quixote in the case of Sue.
From the Business Park Land Strategy report (2010) we have this nugget:
“UC Davis administration has confirmed the business park south of I-80 is no
longer being pursued [b]due to an absence of private development partners[/b] able to
finance and construct the project and necessary infrastructure and access
improvements.”
Emphasis added.
So UCD couldn’t find partners for a business park.
Given what Michael has posted about Interland, and the perceived lack of viability of ConAgra as a business park site (requiring many years to build out and occupy), why would any of the peripheral sites be any more viable, or build out and occupy any faster?
It seems the city would do better to focus on economic development projects and policies that take the least public investment and the fastest economic yield.
I also think Jim Frame has asked some very incisive questions.
Rifkin:
Economic viability –
Matt nailed this answer. 40+ years to adsorb. This number is now worse due to the economy, growing competition along the I-80 corridor, the ongoing perception by the business community that Davis is a bad economic development partner, etc. See point by Michael Bisch on the Interland comp.
Subsidy issue:
A business park at this site is not economically viable. Unless the project is subsidized, it will not pencil out. The landowner and commercial real estate professionals all understand this. It would require the city to identify and secure subsidies to get the property to a point where there are shovel ready lots.
Tenant interest:
All things being equal, tenants will prefer to locate at Mace or Parlin (or perhaps Interland or Second Street if there is available land/space). If a subsidized business park were to magically appear in lieu of a peripheral business park, some companies will indeed locate there but many that would otherwise be inclined to locate in Davis will go elsewhere rather than to an internal business park adjacent to residential.
Eminent domain:
Check ConAgra’s balance sheet. They will not be intimidated by Davis into doing a non-economic project. The mixed use proposal on the table represents a consensus assessment of the highest and best use for the property. If they are denied, I believe the property will remain derelict. The only way the city can advance the business park idea without the support of the property owner is through eminent domain and project subsidies. This, in my opinion, is a really stupid economic development strategy.
Lack of effort:
Your claim that no one has diligently tried to bring high tech to the site is untrue. Just because you are unaware of these efforts does not mean they didn’t happen. Lewis aggressively marketed the site, and the regional commercial brokers have been aware of, and actively pitching, the site since the plant shut down. The reason no one has ever put a business park proposal in front of the council is because it takes considerable time and money to bring a project to the application stage. It never gets that far because it’s not a viable project.
Realist issue:
The documentation is all out there. Studies, staff reports, expert testimony, etc. (I would start with the ESG report which Matt has already referenced). Don’t take my word for it.
So the questions I would be more interested in getting answers for are…
Would the project developer for the downtown parking/retail structure be willing to scale back the size and add more ground floor retail?
How can Nishi be fast-tracked to a public annexation vote?
Are there specific sites that would benefit from more flexible zoning?
What proposals, if any, have been discussed for the vacant pads near Target?
All good questions Don.
“Would the project developer for the downtown parking/retail structure be willing to scale back the size and add more ground floor retail?” -Don Shor
Yes, the developer would be willing to scale back the size and add more ground floor retail. Scaling back the size was never an issue. The appropriate size and mass would have been addressed as the project moved forward with architectural and community input. Of course, the project opponents were not interested in allowing the input, which is why they worked the council to stop the project before it reached these critical steps.
The size of the retail component was limited by the arithmetic, not a lack of desire to have more retail. The only way to have been able to increase the retail component would have been to have 2nd and 3rd floor retail in addition to ground floor retail. The entire ground floor was planned for retail. The rest of the ground floor area was for ramps, stairwells, elevator shafts, garbage enclosures, setbacks, etc.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]UC Davis administration has confirmed the business park south of I-80 is no longer being pursued[/quote]
That information may no longer be current.
.
This has been a pretty interesting thread. I find I pretty much agree with Rifkin on this topic. Even if the op ed wanted to focus on econ development, it did miss an opportunity to point out the magnitude of the budget issue. One can believe that the citizens and candidates all are aware of this as an issue, but that is debateable at best, particularly when one considers the lack of progress in the last 18 months. Even if all are aware, it doesn’t make it a non issue. how do they plan on fixing it? If in fact it has been discussed and ignored at 2 x 2 meetings, all the more reason to bring it up in an op ed piece.
All I heard Rifkin really say is that an opportunity was missed. In my view, it was.
I also tend to agree with him on the cannery site. Just because home builders and their consultants tell you a location is not suitable for R&D, does not necessarily make that the case. There might be a different conclusion reached if the possible consideration of rezoning was removed.
Going back to the original point: The time scales are so different. Economic developments take many years to yield millions in tax revenues!
The million-dollar budget crisis in now – this year, and next year and the year after, etc. More than 5 years ago, Rifkin, in one of his great investigative pieces, warned of the fiscal crisis Davis now faces. He even suggested several ways to recoup some of the costs of the give-away mistakes of the previous councils in approving cchoice employee contracts – contracts we can never fulfill without degrading Davis as we know it. The Firefighter mandatory overtime and paid time-off for union matters cost close to $1 million a year. Healthcare cash-outs – available for all employees – cost several million a year, and so on!
dlindsay said . . .
[i]”I also tend to agree with him on the cannery site. Just because home builders and their consultants tell you a location is not suitable for R&D, does not necessarily make that the case. There might be a different conclusion reached if the possible consideration of rezoning was removed.” [/i]
I would agree with you if Sue had brought forward even one potential tenant. The failure of the City with respect to a high-tech business park at the Cannery is on the demand side not the supply side. Even if the spectre of a rezoning consideration were removed, do you really think the demand for that property would increase even 1% from high-tech firms? If you say yes, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you. Bottom-line, there needs to be demonstrated interest in (demand for) the property, otherwise we will be in a “build it and they will come” scenario.
Getting out on the road and selling Davis as a place where companies who pay taxes and wages should want to come is one of the things I am looking for from each and every Council member. That is what [i]being an ambassador[/i] is all about. Sue simply doesn’t get that. She thinks being an ambassador only takes place within the city limits of Davis.
MW: [i]”Rich, the simple fact is that the marketing studies that Lewis conducted for a high-tech business park on that site showed a 40-year duration from the point of first marketing to the point where the park would be full.”[/i]
Lewis Homes wanted to build homes there. Lewis Homes did not want to build a high tech campus there. That is why the Lewis Homes study found no viability for a high tech campus. I would believe an honest study, not one conducted by an interested party with its own agenda.
I don’t blame the landowner for wanting to change the zoning to its highest value for the landowner. However, we don’t presently need more single family houses in Davis and we know that industrial use would better serve the City’s coffers, if that is viable.
[i]”In all the 12 years that Sue has touted the viability of a high-tech business park there, how many potential tenants has Sue (or anyone from the City) brought to even preliminary discussions . . . zero.”[/i
No one has had any financial incentive to interest any high tech users for the ConAgra site. If the rezoning plan is rejected, then the landowner will have an incentive to act.
[i]”Zero prospects in 12 years is a pretty convincing statistic.”[/i]
No, it is not. It just means that the landowner has for 12 years pursued the idea that the best use is for single family homes. I have no doubt that is right in terms of getting the highest appraised land value. But since that does not benefit the City of Davis, why should the City change the zoning, if the present zoning works better for the City?
[i]”If you had an employee working for you as a salesman who produced zero sales and a pipeline of zero prospects in 12 years, would you continue relying on that salesman?”[/i]
You hit the nail on the head. Your head. No salesman has ever been hired for a commission to bring in high tech users. Not one single salesman. Not one single offer of a commission. That is why there have been no takers. Take an aspirin for your head injury.
pbradyus said . . .
“Going back to the original point: The time scales are so different. Economic developments take many years to yield millions in tax revenues!
The million-dollar budget crisis in now – this year, and next year and the year after, etc. More than 5 years ago, Rifkin, in one of his great investigative pieces, warned of the fiscal crisis Davis now faces. He even suggested several ways to recoup some of the costs of the give-away mistakes of the previous councils in approving cchoice employee contracts – contracts we can never fulfill without degrading Davis as we know it. The Firefighter mandatory overtime and paid time-off for union matters cost close to $1 million a year. Healthcare cash-outs – available for all employees – cost several million a year, and so on!”
Excellent post. You have summed up the “both/and” proposition that the Chamber has espoused. [u]Both[/u] budgetary cuts and prudence by the City Manager and Council and economic development by the business community supported by the City Manager and Council.
PSD: [i]”40+ years to adsorb.”[/i]
You are relying on a made-up number by a party whose sole desire was to build single family homes on this site. That is your proof?
[i]”This number is now worse due to the economy, growing competition along the I-80 corridor, the ongoing perception by the business community that Davis is a bad economic development partner, etc.”[/i]
If the problem is “the ongoing perception by the business community that Davis is a bad economic development partner,” then why would you cite other Davis sites as being at a competitive advantage?
[i]”A business park at this site is not economically viable. Unless the project is subsidized, it will not pencil out.”[/i]
Your only basis for this preposterous claim seems to be a study by Lewis Homes, which was designed to help Lewis Homes get the chance to build single family homes on this site. You have no evidence it won’t pencil out. If the landowner wanted it to work as a high tech campus, and he could attract a major tenant, it would pencil out just fine.
Now, I have said all along that I don’t know if a major tenant would want to locate there. No one knows. No one has tried. No one has had a financial incentive to make it work for high tech, as long as the prospect has been there to make it more housing.
[i]”The landowner and commercial real estate professionals all understand this.”[/i]
Well, unlike you, I actually have a background as a professional in real estate development and I don’t buy your claim. Until someone tries to make it work as a high tech campus, no one knows.
[i]”It would require the city to identify and secure subsidies to get the property to a point where there are shovel ready lots.”[/i]
There are hundreds of viable high tech campuses and business parks all over California which have never been subsidized (not counting municipal infrastructure upgrades). So your claim seems quite strange that this one park would need this subsidy.
[i]”All things being equal, tenants will prefer to locate at Mace or Parlin (or perhaps Interland or Second Street if there is available land/space).”[/i]
Why? We’re not talking about freeway retail. There is no great advantage to locating on the locations you cite. So a delivery truck gets there two minutes faster?
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”You are relying on a made-up number by a party whose sole desire was to build single family homes on this site. That is your proof?”[/i]
Rich, it has taken Interland 30+ years to buildout its South Davis property and that isn’t nearly as large as a 100% high-tech business park at the Cannery would be. 40 years may actually be very, very conservative in this economic market.
Rifkin
[i]”Now, I have said all along that I don’t know if a major tenant would want to locate there. No one knows. No one has tried. [b]No one has had a financial incentive to make it work for high tech[/b], as long as the prospect has been there to make it more housing.”[/i]
Rich, someone in town has had the biggest incentive of them all for the past 12 years . . . a political incentive. Given that huge political incentive, what tangible results does Sue have to show for all her efforts and rhetoric?
DON SHOR: I messed up the italics on my 5:16 post. If you could fix that and erase this, I would be most pleased. Sorry for my mistake.
Rich, I tend to agree with your other points in your reply to psdavis.
Rifken: Your mind is obviously closed to the reality of the situation.
PSDAVIS: Rich has a pretty good mind and put forth actual arguments. You on the other hand have argued by assertion. As for me, I question the degree with which alternatives to housing were explored and I question the validity of the report – I think city governments are skilled enough to get the results they want.
Brian, how do you square your comment above with the reality of Interland’s 30 year build out?
Matt Williams and psdavis have just made excellent arguments against [i]any[/i] business park anywhere on the edge of Davis. So Mace Curve and Parlin might as well be off the table as well. Let’s just move ahead with Nishi and leave it at that. And there’s no hurry on rezoning ConAgra either.
[i]”Rich, it has taken Interland 30+ years to buildout its South Davis property and that isn’t nearly as large as a 100% high-tech business park at the Cannery would be. 40 years may actually be very, very conservative in this economic market.”[/i]
I cannot speak to Interland’s experience. It’s a different site and a different model from what I think ConAgra could and should be. It is entirely possible, nevertheless, that you are right and that if ConAgra tried to build a high tech campus on its 100 acre site it would take an impossibly long time to find tenants.
My point is that no one has yet tried this. No one. Lewis Homes did not want to build a business park. ConAgra wants to change the zoning to housing and then they will sell off the lots to home builders.
Your contention that Sue Greenwald had not convinced any corporations to invest in the ConAGra site is … pathetic on your part, Matt. You have never considered how absurd your suggestion is. Sue had no authority from anyone–not from the City of Davis or the landowner–to sell the idea of relocating to Davis. No one was offering Sue or anyone else a commission to find tenants for the ConAgra site.
Imagine a corporate office in Dallas, Texas, a high tech company, a high rise building, two corporate execs and a city councilwoman from Davis, California:
Sue holding, but not smoking, a cigar: “Boys, what do you think about your building an R&D facility at the ConAgra site in Davis, California?”
Heavyset CEO smoking a heavyset cigar: “Do you represent the landowner, Ma’am?”
Sue: “Well, no. The landowner has no interest in you or any other corporation building an R&D facility on the ConAgra site.”
Skinny COO smoking a skinny cigar: “So why would we even take a look at it if the owner of the land doesn’t want us there?”
Sue: “That’s a good point.”
[b]Fade to black.[/b]
[i]”… from what I think ConAgra could and should be.”[/i]
Let me draw out a bit what I think ConAgra could be. I don’t think it should be developed for 10 or 15 or 20 companies. I think it should be for one major company and, if that one major company requires it, for a few of its supplier companies. I don’t think it should be an ordinary office park like the Interland development around Drew Avenue. I think it should be built up like a campus, with open space and parks and greens, much like major Silicon Valley companies and MicroSoft and others around the country have. I think it should include a housing element … but just to fit the needs of the one major company.
Is there a big R&D company that needs a 100 acre campus near a major research university? Would a big pharmaceutical company, say Novartis, think that is a good spot for their US R&D? I don’t know. The only way to know is to give it a try. And no one will try as long as the landowner is pursuing a zoning change.
Rich, just as ridiculous, if not a whole lot more irresponsible is to spend a combination of public and private money to build business park buildings and have them stand vacant as part of the substantial vacant business park building inventory that litters the Sacramento Metropolitan Area landscape.
If you are going to stand in the middle of the road with your hand up, advocating a specific solution, then you better show some entrepreneurial initiative.
Now to teas out your scenario a bit, if the corporation in Dallas, Texas is investing in excess of seven figures into research funding at UCD, then working to show them that not only does UCD appreciate their presence in town, but the City of Davis government and the Davis business community do as well, is anything but a fade to black script. If that company chooses to expand its presence in Davis (the way Mori Seiki did) it may not specifically choose the Cannery site as its landing place, but no matter where in Davis they choose to expand their presence, Davis is likely to be a winner . . . and the inventory of vacant business office space will not be increased.
If our Council members show a bit of collaboration and consensus building with UCD, the business community, Yolo County and companies who have the potential to thrive in the Davis Agricultural, Educational and Research environment, then we will be talking about our supply of possible sites in an entirely different light.
Sue is so wedded to entitlements and costs that coming over to the entrepreneurial side of the equation and thinking about the kind of companies that make sense to add to Davis may well be an impossibility for her. She simply hasn’t shown us even a smidgen of that kind of thinking in her 12 years on the Council.
You may call me absurd, I simply see your argument above as myopic . . . and you are too smart to wear the blinders you have chosen to don for this election cycle.
Bottom-line, tilting at windmills is indeed absurd. Targeted outreach in concert with your university partners, business community partners and County partners is anything but absurd.
[i]”Rich, just as ridiculous, if not a whole lot more irresponsible is to spend a combination of public and private money to build business park buildings and have them stand vacant …”[/i]
First, Matt, I am sorry about your head injury.
Second, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Rich, it is simple. Sue wants us to build a high-tech business park on the Cannery site come hell or high water. If she gets her way, it will more than likely be a highly vacant high-tech business park.
She doesn’t want to do it herself, she doesn’t want the city to do it. Nobody is proposing that the city spend any money on a business park. She just wants to keep the zoning for it, for private development. And she was willing to go to a 50:50 split, as Brett Lee has also indicated he would support. So the question facing the next council is whether ConAgra gets to sell off all the land for housing, or only half of it.
It’s pretty clear the site isn’t a factor in economic development for the near term. And there’s no urgency about rezoning it for housing. So this is a low priority, and a distraction for anyone who really wants the city to improve revenues.
“It’s pretty clear the site isn’t a factor in economic development for the near term.”
Of course it’s a factor. Debates like the one here make us the laughing stock of regional professionals engaged in economic development. If you think this doesn’t directly translate into economic harm to the city, you are sadly mistaken my friend.
“And there’s no urgency about rezoning it for housing.”
Not true. We have to deal with our RHNA obligations. And houses, like business parks, do not magically appear out of thin air just because we want them to.
“It’s pretty clear the site isn’t a factor in economic development for the near term.”
Of course it’s a factor. Debates like the one here make us the laughing stock of regional professionals engaged in economic development. If you think this doesn’t directly translate into economic harm to the city, you are sadly mistaken my friend.
“And there’s no urgency about rezoning it for housing.”
Not true. We have to deal with our RHNA obligations. And houses, like business parks, do not magically appear out of thin air just because we want them to.
psdavis said . . .
[i]”And there’s no urgency about rezoning it for housing.”
Not true. We have to deal with our RHNA obligations. And houses, like business parks, do not magically appear out of thin air just because we want them to. [/i]
psdavis, for a while I’ve suspected that you are in real life Eileen Samitz, but your comment above cured me of that suspicion. Eileen (and all the people on the Housing Element Steering Committee) know that in the last Housing Element, The Cannery with its 100 acres was indeed on the list of “RHNA qualified” sites that was submitted to SACOG and the State. Therefore she would not have made as uninformed a statement as yours. You are clearly much smarter than that statement indicates. I look forward to reading the kinds of informed posts of yours that I’ve come to expect.
Further, given the fact that so many of the sites with entitlements have not been built out during the housing slump, Davis already has many, many more RHNA qualified sites than we can ever expect to get in our next RHNA obligation.
Bottom-line, there is no magic needed in order to be proactively prepared for RHNA . . . we are already there.
psdavis said . . .
[i]”And there’s no urgency about rezoning it for housing.”
Not true. We have to deal with our RHNA obligations. And houses, like business parks, do not magically appear out of thin air just because we want them to. [/i]
psdavis, for a while I’ve suspected that you are in real life Eileen Samitz, but your comment above cured me of that suspicion. Eileen (and all the people on the Housing Element Steering Committee) know that in the last Housing Element, The Cannery with its 100 acres was indeed on the list of “RHNA qualified” sites that was submitted to SACOG and the State. Therefore she would not have made as uninformed a statement as yours. You are clearly much smarter than that statement indicates. I look forward to reading the kinds of informed posts of yours that I’ve come to expect.
Further, given the fact that so many of the sites with entitlements have not been built out during the housing slump, Davis already has many, many more RHNA qualified sites than we can ever expect to get in our next RHNA obligation.
Bottom-line, there is no magic needed in order to be proactively prepared for RHNA . . . we are already there.
MATT: [i]”Sue wants [b]us[/b] to build a high-tech business park on the Cannery site come hell or high water.”[/i]
I am going to assume you actually think this, Matt, as wrong as it appears to me you are. You actually think that Sue wants “us”, the people of Davis, the taxpayers, the residents, the city staff and so on to “build a business park.”
I am quite amazed you actually believe what you are saying. It is so completely wrong-headed and off-base. What you think Sue wants is explicitly untrue.
As Don noted, the land is zoned for an R&D industrial park. Sue has said that use (by a private company, not by “us”) would bring the most benefit to the City in terms of taxes generated. For that reason she has said she wants the zoning to stay the same.
As I have argued in a number of posts, we don’t know if a high tech park will work there or not. No one–certainly not PSD in his snarky and factually vacuous comments–has presented a cogent argument why that site is so unworkable for R&D. My view is that if the City of Davis is explicit and starkly clear to the landowner that the zoning will not change, then the landowner (or a successor) will for the first time try to make it work for R&D industry. That does not mean that the City of Davis, the taxpayers, the residents of Davis, etc. have to put in money for the landowner. He has to try to succeed on his own, same as the Nishi Property landowner (who has told me in a few different emails that his preference for his land is condominium owner-occupied housing) needs to do with his land.
Again, because we don’t know whether an R&D park will work at ConAgra or not (or why it won’t work, if it won’t), we need to give that some time and see some real effort by the landowner. And if it cannot work, then the City should consider rezoning, but not before that.
All that said, I am perfectly aware that the finance markets (which, I might add, I have a professional background working in real estate finance) are illiquid. That is, banks and others are not lending for new real estate developments, be they housing or industry. So until the excess inventory in real estate in our state is better absorbed–this is still the key problem in the US economy–no substantial projects are apt to be built by any private builders.
MATT: [i]”Sue wants [b]us[/b] to build a high-tech business park on the Cannery site come hell or high water.”[/i]
I am going to assume you actually think this, Matt, as wrong as it appears to me you are. You actually think that Sue wants “us”, the people of Davis, the taxpayers, the residents, the city staff and so on to “build a business park.”
I am quite amazed you actually believe what you are saying. It is so completely wrong-headed and off-base. What you think Sue wants is explicitly untrue.
As Don noted, the land is zoned for an R&D industrial park. Sue has said that use (by a private company, not by “us”) would bring the most benefit to the City in terms of taxes generated. For that reason she has said she wants the zoning to stay the same.
As I have argued in a number of posts, we don’t know if a high tech park will work there or not. No one–certainly not PSD in his snarky and factually vacuous comments–has presented a cogent argument why that site is so unworkable for R&D. My view is that if the City of Davis is explicit and starkly clear to the landowner that the zoning will not change, then the landowner (or a successor) will for the first time try to make it work for R&D industry. That does not mean that the City of Davis, the taxpayers, the residents of Davis, etc. have to put in money for the landowner. He has to try to succeed on his own, same as the Nishi Property landowner (who has told me in a few different emails that his preference for his land is condominium owner-occupied housing) needs to do with his land.
Again, because we don’t know whether an R&D park will work at ConAgra or not (or why it won’t work, if it won’t), we need to give that some time and see some real effort by the landowner. And if it cannot work, then the City should consider rezoning, but not before that.
All that said, I am perfectly aware that the finance markets (which, I might add, I have a professional background working in real estate finance) are illiquid. That is, banks and others are not lending for new real estate developments, be they housing or industry. So until the excess inventory in real estate in our state is better absorbed–this is still the key problem in the US economy–no substantial projects are apt to be built by any private builders.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]
“MATT: “Sue wants us to build a high-tech business park on the Cannery site come hell or high water.”
I am going to assume you actually think this, Matt, as wrong as it appears to me you are. You actually think that Sue wants “us”, the people of Davis, the taxpayers, the residents, the city staff and so on to “build a business park.”
I am quite amazed you actually believe what you are saying. It is so completely wrong-headed and off-base. What you think Sue wants is explicitly untrue.
As Don noted, the land is zoned for an R&D industrial park. Sue has said that use (by a private company, not by “us”) would bring the most benefit to the City in terms of taxes generated. For that reason she has said she wants the zoning to stay the same.”[/i]
Rich, you usually don’t try as hard to be obtuse as you are in this thread. “Us” is the community of Davis, which as I have [u]explicitly[/u] listed in my earlier posts is in ideal circumstances 1) the City of Davis government, 2) UCD, 3) the Davis business community . . . both consumers and businesses, and 4) the Yolo County government.
Further, 100% of nothing is nothing. Other than the underlying property value taxes that the ConAgra site is generating (which can’t be all that high given the likelihood that the assessed value is based on a very ancient purchase date and purchase price), Sue’s approach for the site produces absolutely zero “benefit to the City in terms of taxes generated.” If Sue wants that 100% to be of something rather than of nothing, then she is going to have to tap into her “Ambassador skills” and get out and find a way for nothing to become something. Otherwise she is standing on the upwind side of the ship.
In Texas, they describe the approach Sue has pursued vis-a-vis the Cannery as being “all hat and no cattle.”
So back to your purposely narrow definition of “us” . . . you, Rich Rifkin are part of us, and I, Matt Williams am part of “us” and Gary Sandy, who works at UCD and lives in Woodland is part of “us” and Babs Sandeen who works at UCD and lives in West Sacramento is part of “us.”
[b]Fade To Black[/b]
Rifkin said . . .
[i]
“MATT: “Sue wants us to build a high-tech business park on the Cannery site come hell or high water.”
I am going to assume you actually think this, Matt, as wrong as it appears to me you are. You actually think that Sue wants “us”, the people of Davis, the taxpayers, the residents, the city staff and so on to “build a business park.”
I am quite amazed you actually believe what you are saying. It is so completely wrong-headed and off-base. What you think Sue wants is explicitly untrue.
As Don noted, the land is zoned for an R&D industrial park. Sue has said that use (by a private company, not by “us”) would bring the most benefit to the City in terms of taxes generated. For that reason she has said she wants the zoning to stay the same.”[/i]
Rich, you usually don’t try as hard to be obtuse as you are in this thread. “Us” is the community of Davis, which as I have [u]explicitly[/u] listed in my earlier posts is in ideal circumstances 1) the City of Davis government, 2) UCD, 3) the Davis business community . . . both consumers and businesses, and 4) the Yolo County government.
Further, 100% of nothing is nothing. Other than the underlying property value taxes that the ConAgra site is generating (which can’t be all that high given the likelihood that the assessed value is based on a very ancient purchase date and purchase price), Sue’s approach for the site produces absolutely zero “benefit to the City in terms of taxes generated.” If Sue wants that 100% to be of something rather than of nothing, then she is going to have to tap into her “Ambassador skills” and get out and find a way for nothing to become something. Otherwise she is standing on the upwind side of the ship.
In Texas, they describe the approach Sue has pursued vis-a-vis the Cannery as being “all hat and no cattle.”
So back to your purposely narrow definition of “us” . . . you, Rich Rifkin are part of us, and I, Matt Williams am part of “us” and Gary Sandy, who works at UCD and lives in Woodland is part of “us” and Babs Sandeen who works at UCD and lives in West Sacramento is part of “us.”
[b]Fade To Black[/b]
Rich Rifkin said . . .
[i]”My view is that if the City of Davis is explicit and starkly clear to the landowner that the zoning will not change, then the landowner (or a successor) will for the first time try to make it work for R&D industry. That does not mean that the City of Davis, the taxpayers, the residents of Davis, etc. have to put in money for the landowner. He has to try to succeed on his own, same as the Nishi Property landowner (who has told me in a few different emails that his preference for his land is condominium owner-occupied housing) needs to do with his land.”[/i]
Where is the collaboration in that approach?
How does that approach raise the reputation of the City of Davis as a place any company would want to be associated with?
How does that approach increase the taxes revenues of the City, and more importantly improve the bottom-line of the City?
Rich Rifkin said . . .
[i]”My view is that if the City of Davis is explicit and starkly clear to the landowner that the zoning will not change, then the landowner (or a successor) will for the first time try to make it work for R&D industry. That does not mean that the City of Davis, the taxpayers, the residents of Davis, etc. have to put in money for the landowner. He has to try to succeed on his own, same as the Nishi Property landowner (who has told me in a few different emails that his preference for his land is condominium owner-occupied housing) needs to do with his land.”[/i]
Where is the collaboration in that approach?
How does that approach raise the reputation of the City of Davis as a place any company would want to be associated with?
How does that approach increase the taxes revenues of the City, and more importantly improve the bottom-line of the City?
“certainly not PSD in his snarky and factually vacuous comments” Rifkin
Rifkin: You really ought to stick to topics you know something about. Reading your comments about economic development is like listening to a six-year-old talk about sex.
This is the part where you now attack me for posting under a pseudonym.
“certainly not PSD in his snarky and factually vacuous comments” Rifkin
Rifkin: You really ought to stick to topics you know something about. Reading your comments about economic development is like listening to a six-year-old talk about sex.
This is the part where you now attack me for posting under a pseudonym.
Matt: Thanks for the feedback. I’ll look into the RHNA issue. We can exchange factually vacuous comments when I’m more fully informed.
Matt: Thanks for the feedback. I’ll look into the RHNA issue. We can exchange factually vacuous comments when I’m more fully informed.
psd, one of these days lets excahnge factuall vacuous comments over a cup of coffee. My e-mail address is [url]mattwill@pacbell.net[/url]. Send me a message if you are interested. I’m sure that as reasonable people we can agree to disagree reasonably.
psd, one of these days lets excahnge factuall vacuous comments over a cup of coffee. My e-mail address is [url]mattwill@pacbell.net[/url]. Send me a message if you are interested. I’m sure that as reasonable people we can agree to disagree reasonably.
After pretty much striking out in an attempt to find answers on the web, I posed my business park development questions to Ken Hiatt. He explained that they’re currently evaluating all the variables in order to determine a long-term business park strategy, noting that the issues are many and few of them are simple. However, he was quickly able to answer some of my more significant questions:
1. Certain type of businesses have real-property assessments that are higher than those of residential property.
2. Cities do, in fact, get a share of the unsecured property tax revenue. For a high-tech facility (e.g. Mori Seki) this can be substantial.
3. Cost of city services to businesses is typically lower than for residential.
4. Sales and use taxes are complicated, with some types of businesses returning much higher volumes than others. The city if working with a consultant in an effort to maximize this revenue source as it refines its business park strategy.
5. The jobs matter comes into play in mostly in the form of age demographics, i.e. the predominant age range of high-value businesses is also the one that spends the most, thus returning more dollars to the local economy in both purchase amounts and sales taxes. This may be partially countered by the higher cost of servicing the new residential required to accommodate the new workers. However, the actual net depends a lot on the deal the city works out with the county when new residential comes on line.
6. New residential brings with it subsidized low-cost housing requirements. These units often get built on land owned by non-profits, which wholly or partially removes the land from the tax rolls. Business park developments aren’t subject to these requirements, so all the land remains fully taxable.
The overarching theme of his response was “it depends.” However, I now have a much better understanding of the factors involved, and greatly appreciate his taking the time to respond.
.
[quote]the predominant age range of high-value businesses[/quote]
Let’s make that “the predominant age range of employees of high-value businesses…”
Jim,
Very useful response. Save it, please; we’ll surely need it again in a future discussion.
psdavis: [i]Rifkin: You really ought to stick to topics you know something about. Reading your comments about economic development is like listening to a six-year-old talk about sex.
This is the part where you now attack me for posting under a pseudonym.[/i]
The reason it wouldn’t be unreasonable to address your use of a pseudonym has to do with the emphatic way you post your analyses, stating them as if you have special understanding and insight, but provide no evidence for them. So in order to assess the things you say, we’d kind of need to know your credentials.
If I tell you that Leylandi cypress always dies within 7 – 10 years in the Sacramento Valley, and just state it as a bald fact, you might want to know whether I actually know what I’m talking about. Since you know who I am, you can assess my statement in light of my expertise.
To Jim Frame: Thanks for taking the trouble to find out this information on development of business parks. It was very helpful…