In 2008, the Vanguard was ahead of the curve, warning of unsustainable spending practices by the city, particularly on pensions and retiree health care – the Vanguard’s warning actually preceded the collapse of financial markets in September 2008.
In 2009, the Vanguard warned the city that the first round of “cuts” in the MOUs were insufficient. The Vanguard also began warning that roads and critical infrastructure was badly underfunded at a time when the council was using primarily attrition and a cut back in service hours to balance the budget.
That led to another and deeper round of cuts, culminating in a series of reforms on the fire department.
However, now in 2016, as revenues slowly increase, the Vanguard is looking more at revenue enhancement than additional cuts. A number of readers have privately and publicly asked why.
This column seeks to address some of those questions. In general, we favor holding the line on growth of city services, salary and benefits. However, even by holding the line, with the decline of return in the CalPERS pension fund, it is likely the costs for both pensions and retiree health will continue to increase.
Last year’s council decision to provide employees with a small increase in pay is problematic at best, and was, in our view, a policy blunder. Until funding is in place, the city should be holding the line on discretionary increases to payroll.
However, while the city may be able to cut expenditures on the margins to reduce some costs, the overall strategy probably needs to focus on revenue.
As Steve Pinkerton said in 2014 as he was exiting the city, the city primarily has a revenue problem at this point, not a spending problem. That theory is bolstered by the fact that Davis ranks near the bottom in per capita retail sales and per capita sales tax. With the exception of firefighter salaries, the city is near the bottom in compensation for its employees.
The council has little stomach for further cuts – choosing instead, last fall, to give a small pay increase. That of course is not justification not to do further cuts, but such cuts would run into numerous problems. When the city revenues were lagging, every bargaining unit except for the firefighters and DCEA (Davis City Employees Association) were willing to accept decreases in compensation.
While certainly the city has an obligation to see that both the firefighters and DCEA take their concessions, the rest of the bargaining units are likely to resist taking concessions at a time when revenue is nominally increasing.
There are marked differences between fire and DCEA. Fire sits at the apex of compensation, not just in the city but among all comparable cities, with some employees receiving well over $200,000 in total compensation in a given year. On the other hand, DCEA, while they have refused both the 2009 and 2013 rounds of concession, are at the very bottom in terms of compensation.
Moreover, while the city needs to be re-examining its future compensation system, especially in light of the latest implosion of CalPERS, there is little that the city can do about the current employees who are already vested in the defined benefits system.
In short, it seems difficult to gain much leverage over current city costs. And even if we did, the unfunded needs are at nearly half the city’s general fund budget. Any solution therefore needs to rely on a heavy amount of revenue unless we are willing to do across the board service cuts again.
Not only would further concessions at a time of growing revenue be politically difficult to achieve, there is a limit as to how much we can actually cut before the city becomes non-competitive for staffing positions.
We already see this problem with police staffing. When the city advertises for firefighting positions, it has people line up around the block to get a chance to interview – even with the cuts and imposed concessions. It is a different story for police.
Past articles have noted the huge gap in compensation for the two public safety positions, and political factors have made it even more difficult – with the police department seeking the right type of recruits, and quality recruits often reluctant to come to a city like Davis with relatively low crime but the perception of a highly critical and engaged citizenry.
The leveling factor could be pay, but right now Davis’ compensation, particularly on the salary end, is not competitive with other communities and this has resulted in a shortage of quality recruits for police.
The broader question is whether, across the board, Davis can recruit and retain quality city staffers in a highly engaged and challenging professional environment if salaries and compensation are not competitive with neighboring communities.
Finally, there is one additional point – why are we going to war against city employees at a time when revenue is moving upward (albeit slowly) and when we clearly are underperforming on retail and other revenue measures?
We support a multifaceted approach to solving the city’s ongoing and future budget challenges. By holding the line on current contracts, we allow inflation to slowly reduce costs. Can we cut costs on the margins? Probably, and we should continue to look at better efficiency models.
But at the end of the day, the city has opportunities to grow its revenue that will not harm the great assets of this community, will not greatly encroach on agricultural land and will not blow out our borders.
As we noted in Sunday’s column, just these five things would have cut into the ongoing shortfall by at least $15 to $20 million:
- Davis Innovation Center – withdrawn by the developers in the spring of 2015
- Parcel Tax and other revenue generating measures – not placed on the ballot by council
- Mace Ranch Innovation Center – twice withdrawn by the developers this spring
- Nishi Gateway – defeated at the polls
- Embassy Suites Hotel Conference Center – passed by council but held up in litigation
That amount may not have completely fixed our burgeoning fiscal crisis, but it would have gone a long long way in doing so. Add in some cost cutting and compensation control measures, and we get very close to solving our challenges while building resiliency into the future.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Perception?
Yeah, it is a perception, unless you consider the “citizenry” to be the 5-10% outliers…
But that small %-age are very ‘vocal’, and many are truly obnoxious… the vast majority of the Davis folk are reasonable, except when they feel a need to mimic the outliers, because they think they need to, to get attention.
hpierce wrote:
> Yeah, it is a perception, unless you consider
> the “citizenry” to be the 5-10% outliers…
If you add up all the people that have been to more than three city council meetings, worked on three campaigns and posted to the Vanguard three times I’m betting that it will be closer to 1% than 10%…
P.S. I bet I could spend the rest of the day in a Davis neighborhood park without taking to a single person that can name the Davis mayor and entire city council…
And they won’t be able to tell you that there is a budget problem in the city either.
South of Davis… I was trying to be generous to the outliers… truth be told, I believe your number is closer to the reality…
That said, there are those who, when they need services in a specific case, posture themselves as part of the 1%… that is also reality.
Everyone should dust off the movie “Network” and view it in light of the current situation in Davis and the US in general… I think it was prophetic in many ways…
Looking back over the last 10 years I just found it rather amusing that one of the most outspoken and biggest critics of our police department would label it a “perception”.
That’s how the chief described it last week and disputed that description of the community
David, do you feel somewhat guilty in helping to create that “perception” which has added to our difficulty in finding good recruits?
No
Thank you . . .
David
I want to express my appreciation for the calm presentation of the issues based on fact without unnecessary embellishment or hyperbole. The situation we are facing is serious enough just as it is. And, I agree that we have likely already done nearly as much as we can on the economically prudent side of the ledger and it is indeed past time to focus on the revenue generation side.
David I am surprised you did not address the poster from a day or so ago who stated our employee compensation has risen rather dramatically, at least in his expression of the number of employees has dropped but the total compensation has risen. Sorry am rushing to the airport and cannot dig up the quote but would be interested in your assessment of that statement? Otherwise I do not disagree with your premise of need to increase revenue.
That’s been brought up several times, even though we have less employees our costs are higher than ever.
I looked it up. In 2007-08, we spent $44.7 million on our general fund (a net deficit btw of nearly $5 over expenditures). This year we are budgeted to $53.4 million. I’ve asked someone who has better access to the numbers to weigh in. Off the top of my head, you have $4 million in general fund money that we are now spending on roads. There has been increases in the amount of OPEB (retiree health) that we have picked up and increases in our pers contributions. Does that account for it all plus inflation or is there more.
On OPEB… two major drivers… one, and probably most important, was the change from “pay as you go” to “funding a mortgage”. Second, affecting medical (current or retirees), there is the rising costs of medical insurance, although I’m told that the Kaiser rates will actually very slightly decrease come Jan 1.
The question i was asking is number of employees and ant spent. Graph of this over time with breakdown of salary and benefits in a split bar graph. That should do it. Matt?
SODA, here is the 7-year Total Compensation trend graphic that Jeff Miller and I put together from the City’s Annual Budgets.
— The Total Compensation expenses in FY 2006-2007 were $45.8 million for 458 employees, which is just over $100,000 per employee.
— The Total Compensation expenses in FY 2013-2014 were $51.0 million for 361 employees, which is a bit over $142,000 per employee.
— That amounted to an aggregate 42.5% increase at the same time as DJUSD experienced an aggregate 4.0% increase and the Social Security COLA was an aggregate 15.7% increase.
— The Total Compensation expenses in FY 2004-2005 were only $38.2 million. The $7.5 million increase to $45.8 million in FY 2006-2007 was because of the (very wise) decision to substantially increase the annual funding of CalPERS and OPEB.
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/7-Year-Comparative-Compensation-and-Employee-Numbers.jpg
Thank you Matt for this data. David significant don’t you think?
You mentioned Steve Pinkerton in the article but you left off his 391 project that would have done so much to right the financial ship of Davis. The 391 project, on what was then city owned land, would have made the city landlord on a business/innovation park that was estimated to have up to a $1 billion valuation at build out. In addition to the usual development fees and taxes the city would have collected tens of millions annually in rent. The loss of those rents dwarfs the revenue all the failed or held up projects on your list would have provided.
In retrospect, I wonder how those who opposed building on the 391 parcel think we should find the money to fund our infrastructure and human resources? After all, they felt farmland preservation was a more important issue than balancing our budget, fixing our infrastructure and providing for our civil servants, so, shouldn’t they have some responsibility for figuring out how to deal with these other priorities that they deemed of lesser importance than farmland preservation?
We could certainly add 391 to the list. I was looking in just the last year or so at lost opportunities for revenue and I suspect that 391 would have gone down in flames on Measure R vote, but then again, that’s your point.
Mace 391 was less likely to pass a Measure R vote than Nishi, MRIC, or the northwest project.
Well then the Davis perception is not a perception, the city is full of fools.
Missanthrop wrote:
> the city would have collected tens of millions annually in rent.
The city would never be able to build an office park, and if they did build it it would probably sit vacant for long periods of time (like the city owned DACHA homes that sat empty for over a year and the city owned Pacifico Apartments that are still more than half empty after over TEN years)…
In a town with near-zero vacancy, there is a place half empty? How does THAT work? What is the missing piece of the puzzle?
In retrospect, I wonder how those who opposed building on the 391 parcel think we should find the money to fund our infrastructure and human resources?
In general, the no growth or almost no growth group needs to address the issue of how we become sustainable. That group works to ostensibly “preserve” Davis as we know it today, yet in fact, without revenue growth, Davis will not be preserved. Buildings, parks and streets deteriorate over time. If the revenue model can’t keep up with the employment, services and infrastructure costs associated with at least a preservation status, then our small city will not be preserved in any sense other than perhaps its physical boundaries.
I think the downfall of the no growth effort is close at hand, unless some significant revenue enhancing projects are approved soon. The appropriate description of the fiscal situation of the city will soon change from “we really need to do something soon” to Tia’s least favorite word “crisis”. When that happens, it’s likely that a number of projects will be approved quickly, and perhaps, with much less regard for what happens to the character of the city.
I believe the CC understands the gravity of our financial situation, and is trying to lead us out of it by approving projects like Nishi. I hope they work to contain/reduce employment related costs in the coming years.
David wrote:
> With the exception of fire fighter salaries, the city is near
> the bottom in compensation for its employees.
Over the years I have seen government employees hunt down the highest pay they can find so they are always “at the bottom of the list” they create. It is like me saying that my net worth “is near the bottom” when the list has just six people including Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Donald Trump.
The average TCOE for full time city of Davis employees is close to DOUBLE the median FAMILY income in the US and only a small number of full time employees have quit get “more money” (and just a tiny number have left to get “more money” in the private sector since about the only way to get more than working for Davis is to work for another city like SF that cares even less about going BK)…
Wow… comparing average to median, and Davis to a mix including Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Wyoming, etc. Obviously a valid metric…
it doesn’t matter if he’s comparing average to median, bc even making $80k it’s hard to afford davis
“the city is near the bottom in compensation for its employees”. I don’t see any justification for this statement. Is the comp making it hard to attract employees? Are people leaving? Other than teachers, which may in fact be underpaid, the figures I see on transparent California look like they would draw a lot of interest.
Job title
edited to remove excess links
[moderator] We have learned that including more than two links in a comment may move the comment into the spam or pending folders, and continue to do so each time the spam filter runs. So please don’t exceed two links in any comment. If necessary, put additional links in sequential replies. Thanks.
Can you not see the discrepancy in the data points you’ve used?
Transparent California has a value, but there should be a disclaimer as to their data source and their assumptions… ex. your data points show that in some cases a Supervisor makes less in total comp than a MWII…
Which is entirely possible with OT and cashing out sick days. Anyway if you have data you feel is more accurate please post it.
If you can’t see the problems in your data set, I feel no need to refute it.
Quielo,
You don’t pay $90 per hour per person to get your yard done? How do you get anyone to do it? How can you say that the City of Davis is overpaying for labor? Using a riding mower to mow a field in a park at least three times as hard than using a push mower at someone’s house. That is why the City has to pay at least three times as much to hire people.
I know numerous people with grad degrees who would like to have this income.
Sam wrote:
> You don’t pay $90 per hour per person to get your yard done?
It would be interesting if regular people in Davis decided to
“act like a city”
We would fire our gardener that “supervises” himself and maintains his own tools and truck all for $100/month.
We would first hire a Sustainability Programs Coordinator at a TCOE of $162K then an Urban Forrest Manager at $149K then a Environmental Resource Manager at $129K, because we would be buying trucks and tools for all these people (and pay someone else to maintain them) we will need a Fleet Manager at $124K, then we will need someone to “supervise” our gardener at $99K then finally we will pay the actual gardener $87K. The city of Davis could have all the parks in town maintained by a (licensed and legal) private sector firm for WAY less than half the current cost, but they don’t want to, so get ready for another parcel tax…
P.S. All the TCOE numbers are what Davis paid in 2015 and are on the link below:
http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2015/davis/?page=5
By my math his/her direct pay works out to $23.55/hour. When we had a landscape division, we billed out our workers at $40/hour.
The benefits are another issue.
“The benefits are another issue.” No, it’s all one issue
Quielo, I’m with you, if our city employees feel the grass is greener in other cities they can be easily replaced. These are good paying jobs and a lot of people are still out of work plus we have a steady stream of college graduates right at our doorstep.
the issue isn’t good paying jobs, it’s how to balance our books and pay for our unfunded needs
Actually that is part of the issue. David claimed that the city of Davis underpays and that makes it hard to find good employees. I’m just pointed out that these are indeed good paying jobs and filling positions would be easy if some of our employees were to leave. If we were to cut salaries and benies even more I don’t see it as that much of a problem.
Actually what I’m claiming is that if we decided to continue to trying to pay the bills through cuts, we end up with the problem that we are presently having in the police department.
Yes, at some point you will for all of the positions. If the police department is unable to fill positions then don’t lower that salary. You still need to keep lowering all of the other salaries until they are at market rates. You should not be giving them raises.
David, you seem to be saying the City should just stop and we can try and find revenue to fill the gaps. Go ask Rahm Emanuel how that is going to Chicago. A new 29.5% water tax and annual double digit property tax increases is still not enough for them to pay for their high labor costs.
David wrote:
> Actually what I’m claiming is that if we decided
> to continue to trying to pay the bills through cuts,
> we end up with the problem that we are presently
> having in the police department.
It has always been hard to hire cops since it is a hard job that is mentally draining (and people shoot at you).
If we cut the TCOE for the “Sustainability Programs Coordinator” in town from $162K to $120K and she leave we will have 100+ people waiting in line to take the job (it seems like every third person I meet under 30 has an environmental or sustainability related degree)…
SOD exactly, comparing police jobs to administrative jobs is apples to oranges. My son-in-law has a masters in city planning. Try finding a job in city planning, he now wishes he had chosen a different field. He has applied to Davis city planning jobs to no avail. If a job ever opened he would jump on it for I’m sure a lot less than they’re paying now. As SOD’s examples show, there are many jobs that can be filled for much less compensation than the current employees are now getting.
“As Steve Pinkerton said in 2014 as he was exiting the city, the city primarily has a revenue problem at this point, not a spending problem.”
Yes, that is because Calpers is like having a heroin addiction. It is very expensive and almost impossible to quit and in the end you will be penniless and dysfunctional.
“As Steve Pinkerton said in 2014 as he was exiting the city, the city primarily has a revenue problem at this point, not a spending problem.” That seems more than a little stupid. If you are standing outside the Squaw Valley Lodge in winter in shorts would you say that you are inappropriately dressed or that there is a weather problem? Spending is much easier to change than revenue so if there is a discrepancy it’s a spending problem.
I saw someone crash into a guardrail on the 80 the other day. I had thought they had a driving problem but maybe Mr. Pinkerton would say they just built the freeway in the wrong place?
bad analogy. you have spending that is about where other cities are, maybe even a tad low but revenue near the bottom, and you think it’s a spending issue? spending isn’t much easier to change when your shortfall is half the general fund budget. you seem to have no understanding of these issues.
You are correct here.
The way I look at it spending is the 10% problem and revenue is the 90% problem. NIMBYs focus on the 10% problem.
“you have spending that is about where other cities are, maybe even a tad low but revenue near the bottom, and you think it’s a spending issue?”
Clearly we inhabit different realities. In my reality you forecast what your income will be and allocate that across your priorities. Having been an officer of several public companies I know this reality is widespread.
Your reality seems to involve benchmarking yourself to some selected comparator group and spending like they do. “The people next door bought a BMW and we have the same size house so I should buy a BMW too”. This reality does not last long.
“spending isn’t much easier to change” spending is always easier to change than revenue in my reality but perhaps should take lessons in “magical thinking”.
“So take it from me, Thornton Melon, if you want to look thin, you hang out with fat people.” Rodney Dangerfield, Back to School
So if Davis spends 3 times the market rate for yard work it has a revenue problem not a spending problem as long as Sacramento spends 3.5 times market rate for their yard work. You are right I have no understanding of how that works.
Bring on the $3,000 per year parcel tax now before it becomes $5,000 per year.
mine is the reality of governance where you don’t have a lot of discretionary spending and have to provide certain services.
“mine is the reality of governance where you don’t have a lot of discretionary spending and have to provide certain services.”
No that is just enabling people in their fantasy. If revenue is X then spending 2X. or more likely spending X and incurring a debt of X, is just allowing people to believe that revenues and expenditures balance. Let people see what their taxes buy and either get along with less or pay more. Start with the fire department…
quielo wrote:
> In my reality you forecast what your income
> will be and allocate that across your priorities.
In the public sector the reality is that they almost never reserve for capital items and then when the HVAC systems need to be replaced at the schools or pot holes are cracking alloy wheels they have an “emergency” parcel tax since “who would have known” that an HVAC system or pavement that were advertised as having a “20 Year Life” would need to be replaced in 20 years…
Except that we don’t know if we’re staffing the right positions with the right people. Absent a comprehensive review of staff functions and assignments, we’re just hoping that the reduction in staffing costs achieved through attrition has left us with an efficient organization. The odds of that working out are pretty low, in my opinion.
We can’t afford to ignore cost just because we know the revenue side needs attention. We need to attend to both.
I agree, but unfortunately, so far we have done neither due to the community’s ‘no on everything’ mindset. Within our ‘actively engaged’ citizenry, there will always reasons not to act.
“Can We Cut Our Way to Prosperity?”
You’ve only just managed to cut your way to slightly slower decay and that may be a generous view.
This from a recent Boston Consulting Group study that surveyed 200,000 people around the world to rank these job satisfaction criteria:
1.Appreciation for your work
2.Good relationships with colleagues
3.Good work-life balance
4.Good relationships with superiors
5.Company’s financial stability
6.Learning and career development
7.Job security
8.Attractive fixed salary
9.Interesting job content
10.Company values
So liberal social justice activists and the Democrat Party machine are effing up #1.
We see the same in the banking industry… same people doing it too. Divide and conquer. Blame others instead of looking in the mirror. Work for a bank? icky! Be a cop? Icky! Better to be a hyper-sensitive stoner artist surfer and march with BLM and the Occupy movement!
But back to the points that need to be made.
We need to get rid of defined benefit retirement plans and replace them with defined contribution retirement plans.
WE NEED TO DO THIS NOW!
There are a number of reasons why we need to do this, but here is a partial list of beneficial reasons:
1. The cost reduction would help the city balance our budgets long-term. Besides the defined benefit pension is proven unsustainable… even as the union labor bosses and their political puppets try to prevent these truths from seeing any media attention.
2. Doing so would allow us to actually increase the salary for employees which helps attract new recruits because young people will care less about their retirement benefits and more about their take-home pay.
3. Any employee that finds he/she is not happy in their job can quit and go do something else (taking their retirement benefits with them) instead of becoming a grumpy, disgruntled butt-in-seat employee just waiting for their pension to kick in at age 57.
4. The previous supports a natural clearing of dead wood from the employee ranks and improves the over all work culture as a higher percentage of employees are happy in their jobs and a good fit.
5. Managers have to improve because with portable retirement benefits employees will just quit with crappy management. As it stands today, once someone has about 10 years on the job they shift from being an enthusiastic problem-solver to being a captive of the system unwilling to see their pension disappear and thus stay to suffer the abuse of crappy management.
Frankly (because I am) anyone continuing to support defined benefit retirement benefits is a fool or else has their hand in that cookie jar.
it’s weird how everyone gets so off track in these, the issue here is the need to generate revenue
“the issue here is the need to generate revenue”
When I looked the title was “Analysis: Can We Cut Our Way to Prosperity?”. How is a discussion of cuts OT? Some of our experienced to know that generating revenue is not helpful if your financial controls are weak. (insert old joke here) punchline, “we need to buy another truck”
You’re thinking is off here. You’re thinking of this in terms of products, the city of Davis provides services to the community. We have invested in these services. But what we haven’t done is maintained the infrastructure – so our roads, parks, buildings are suffering from deterioration. We’re not looking to buy something new, we’re looking to maintain what we have.
David,
Disagree, we have X people maintaining the parks and we need to buy Y supplies to give these people something to do. We could have half that. We could close several parks.
Not that I want to do so but it would be a wake up call. You continue to post articles about the unsustainable current spend yet the answer is obvious, show people what the current revenue really buys. If people are getting the services they want and paying what they want why should they worry about the gap? Until it affects them it’s just a myth.
Off track? Hell, they sometimes type more words than the original column. I wonder why they don’t just polish it up and submit it as an article for tomorrow’s Vanguard.
391 had several obstacles but my point was that by not moving forward with the project the city missed an opportunity to really start to address its fiscal problems. The second part is what have those who opposed 391 offered to address the problem of our structural budget shortfall? They felt that a higher priority was preservation of farmland and they got that land preserved so on to the next challenge, balancing the budget. What do the preservationists believe is answer to the problem they didn’t solve?
Sadly, I don’t think they have an answer.
Mace 391 could have been planned and packaged in a way that could have garnered enough support. Unfortunately it was a $100,000 million dollar give-away to the land and farm preservation zealots. It is amazing how much these people have cost us all. It is amazing how our CCs can turn down millions to the city over silly symbolism.
There is a profound lack of pragmatism in the Davis DNA. In fact, it appear that our DNA has mutated to trend toward eventual extinction.
Here’s the reality of Mace 391. The property was purchased for the purpose of conserving it. The city had gone through the standard procedures and commissions, and vetted that transaction. The city had made commitments and was moving forward in a transparent, public process.
Out of nowhere a guy came in and suggested a development scheme. Never properly vetted, the proposal changed and morphed, including land swaps, dubious mitigation. The organization behind it barely existed on paper. All the discussions and proposals were done in private. A few local business folks, including some on the Chamber of Commerce political action committee, were bedazzled by the promises and speculation and strongly urged that the land conservation process be aborted.
Not delayed, because there were timelines involved. Aborted. They would have blocked the process. Resuming that process would have meant starting over, after breaking commitments to our land trust partners.
The wild speculations about the value of the land just grew and grew, with the current story being that it was “conservatively” worth $100 million.
When? At build out? Was the city going to do that? No. That is a bogus figure.
Then we learned that the principal in the development scheme was looking for cash, seeking payments from The Cannery developers to help promote their project. That was secret, but it got out. Yet he was going to pay for the election? Mount the campaign that would have been necessary to get this past a skeptical voting public? It seems he was counting on financing coming in from other sources. Or something.
Developing Mace 391 would have almost certainly prompted development interest on Mace 200, possibly on parts of Howatt Ranch, and other peripheral sites to the north. The supposition that the voters would approve nearly 600 acres of peripheral development in East Davis is questionable at best. In fact, the conservation and slow-growth communities in Davis would certainly have balked at Mace 391, and we’d probably still be fighting about it. No Request for Proposals would have been put out for Mace 200 or the northwest quadrant. The community would be having another development battle at the magnitude of what erupted around Covell Village. And we’d be even further still from any peripheral business park actually happening.
The local proponents of Mace 391 development simply can’t admit that they were basically sold a bill of goods. There was nothing there. The proposal was a speculative scheme, not a properly vetted development plan. It was politically unachievable and would have been counterproductive to the goal of prudent economic development. Wild guesses about the potential value of unannexed farmland are pointless when we have Measure R and a variety of intentional constraints on that kind of land use, enacted by an electorate with little taste for big development projects. Blaming current fiscal policies on failure to sell and develop unannexed farmland is not just specious, it is disingenuous.
Do you realize you contradict yourself in the same paragraph about Mace 200.
Nice spin story.
It was the acquisition and the work with the Yolo Land Trust that was done behind the curtain and lacking transparency. The public was not informed. Neither was the business community.
And then the Yolo Land Trust and the USDA lied about the impact that would occur putting this back as a city asset to at least be discussed as what would be best for the city and not just best for the land and farm preservation zealots.
Nonsense.
Completely false.
You’re welcome to your opinions. It would have been a waste of time in any event.
Most of the discussion about the property occurred in executive session or hidden on the consent calendar. Mayor Krovoza and his henchmen did everything they could to keep the discussion out of the public eye. It may have been ‘public’ as Don claims (by the letter of the law), but not transparent.
It is true that the discussion of other options for the property came up late in the game, but that doesn’t mean they should not have been examined fully. There would have been no impact on the Yolo Land Trust had the decision been delayed and the claims to the contrary simply don’t hold water. If you go back and read the commentary on this site you will see that Don did not want that discussion to occur and is now simply spinning the story to justify his desired outcome.
The simple fact is the City threw away a valuable asset without thoroughly analyzing its options. It may be true that Mace 391 would never pass a Measure R vote, we will never know, but the one way to make sure that is true is to never hold that vote. That, in short, is what Don advocated at the time, to never hold the discussion or the vote. Any claims to the contrary he might make now are “completely false.”
I have answered that question many times, as have others who opposed the Mace 391 scheme. The process of selecting sites for possible business park development was done through a commission that identified four locations for possible development. Nishi, Mace 200, and the northwest site remain the best and most likely areas for business park development. Each was, and remains, more likely to ever pass a Measure R vote than Mace 391.
The other site for development or redevelopment mentioned in the commission report was Fifth Street.
You ignore my point that if we had swept all other priorities aside and gone with 391 to balance the budget we would be in much better shape. You also don’t respond to my question about what we should do to balance the budget. I don’t answer questions I choose not to answer too, so I get it, but, my point is that the preservationists got what they wanted but they have offered nothing to solve a second large issue facing the city. How do we address the structural deficit?
As for your premise that 391 was bought for preservation I’m not so sure. It was bought out of foreclosure in an opportunistic transaction and only a minor part of the money came from Measure O funds. The city could have developed the property and paid back the Measure O fund just as the city paid back the road fund when it sold the property. There were other possibilities for 391 and several CC members were interested in pursuing them so it isn’t as tidy as you claim.
I don’t “ignore your point.” We couldn’t have “gone with 391” without a vote, which it would surely have failed. I have discussed economic development and budget issues on this forum for years. There’s only three things that can be done: raise taxes, cut expenses, increase economic development. I support all three as needed, but prefer that they be done in balance. Since the voters chose to reject Nishi, which I supported, that means we will have to raise taxes more than we would otherwise. That isn’t my preference, but it is at least indirectly the voters’ preference.
“The city could have developed the property ”
Not…without….a….vote. Which would surely have failed. Do you think otherwise? Really?
Don wrote:
> I have answered that question many times, as
> have others who opposed the Mace 391 scheme.
I’m wondering if Don can let us know if he has some kind of personal involvement with Mace 391.
Over the years he has posted thousands and thousands of words on the topic and seems to get very emotional when it comes up.
No. Who are you?
SoD, if Don would resist the temptation to respond to Frankly each time Frankly invokes “Mace 391” he would have to write infinitely fewer words on the subject. He is the only one who vocalizes the perspective from his “side” of the issue. He knows that the “forces of evil” are aligned against his position, but like Lord Cardigan he soldiers on.
Mace 391 is a textbook example of breakdown of process everywhere you look. What that did was put innocent, concerned citizens like Jeff and Don in a horrendous no-win position. It didn’t matter what side of the issue you were on, you were in a no-win.
The discussion of this issue has run its course. Jeff and others are always going to point at the fiscal irresponsibility of the decision. Don would be well served if he simply kept his fingers from doing the walking. Otherwise, like Groundhog Day we will relive this discussion over, and over and over again.
Mace 391 was a big enough mistake by all those involved in the decision that it demands repeating whenever we are discussing the City’s failed economic development plans.
Don laments the failed economic development plans after having dug his heels so deep in the natural fertilizer of those farm fields to demand they be immediately sold for a loss to the city.
He know this and so he works extra hard in denial and defense.
Think about it… all these other development projects have failed because the NIMBYs set up their war campaign painting the landowers/developers as evil profit-seeking bad people. With Mace 391 the City would have owned the land and could have set the complete requirements for how it would be built and used.
It was class-A Davis foolishness on display.
And it would have been a colossal waste of staff time, because there’s no way Davis voters would have approved development of Mace 391. Pursuing the shell-game proposals put forth by David Morris and his shell organization would have been utterly foolish.
The *only* reason I and many others are willing to entertain development of MRIC is because it’s surrounded by protected land, i.e. Mace 391. Nishi struggled to gain even 50% of the vote; Mace 391 wouldn’t have come anywhere near that close.
Don wrote:
> No. Who are you?
Someone that does not care about Mace 391 (or a Hayatt on Covell) and I wonder what is going on when Don posts 100+ times about Mace 391 (or Grok posts 100+ times about the Hayatt on Covell)…
Right. How is that working out? Have you asked yourself why they have all failed and gone away?
“Wouldn’t”? Who said we would have voted on it by now? I could have been leased as farmland while the city retained ownership until and unless all the other developers failed to come to the table with a project that worked. At the very least it could have been used as leverage to get more from the other developers. Don’t you like more Jim?
It was a colossal mistake from those lacking sense… and apparently you like your membership in their group.
Not when “more” is more development east of Mace Boulevard. I like the fact that the eastward limit of the city — at least north of the railroad — has been firmly established. That’s what Mace 391 represents to me, and I firmly support the decision to protect it from development.
Well thanks. Now I truly understand your tribal membership in the farmland moat people. Sing and dance it with me… “It’s fun to lie with the U S D A, it’s fun to lie with the U S D A” (although I hurt my back making the “S” symbol).
And by the way… food prices are falling. Demand from China is falling. Farmers and Ranchers are feeling the pain. But hey, Farmland is being over-developed and we need to preserve it all… even though it only employees a couple of people per thousand acres and we have an over-supply of food.
I think that if you posted under your own name, you wouldn’t be so consistently insulting on the Vanguard.
It would not change a thing except that I would not post on the VG due to the threats to my place of business from people that can’t handle the direct truth.
I am more than irritated with everyone that has had a hand in deconstructing all the opportunities to improve the city’s economic vitality. It is justified to point out the folly of their ways and ideas. A farmland moat around the city is a really foolish idea. Maybe Dixon, but not Davis.
I truly believe that everyone holding these ideas are a danger to the future of the city. And they have enjoyed some weird freakin’ lofty perch of righteousness that needs to be taken down.
Of four potential sites for economic development, I have supported two in principle (Mace and the northwest site) and one actively and in public (Nishi). I opposed your position on Mace 391. I don’t support a “farmland moat.” I support sensible conservation of agricultural soils and open space, along with economic development.
Jim Frame, at whom you flung your most recent insults, voted for Nishi. My guess is there are projects he could support on Mace 200 and in the northwest quadrant. I have never heard him say we need a “farmland moat.”
So the insults you’ve been flinging tonight have nothing to do with what you just said.
Don:
Jim:
An urban growth boundary is not a farmland moat. It is a useful planning tool. Woodland has an urban growth boundary. Nobody would ever accuse Woodland of being a slow-growth community, nor would they characterize that growth boundary as a “farmland moat.”
There is a difference between an ‘urban growth boundary’ and an effort to secure anti-development easements on the lands surrounding a town. I agree that an urban growth boundary is a valuable planning tool and is not accurately described as a ‘farmland moat.’ Securing easements on the land surrounding the City limits is an attempt at creating a farmland moat. Woodland has an urban boundary. Davis has a nascent farmland moat.
Conservation agreements are very effective tools in creating an urban growth boundary. We aren’t even close to having “easements on the land surrounding the City limits” (emphasis added). Most of the easements are further out. Where development potential is highest, they are a simple way to direct the development in other directions. My personal preference would be for more ag easements east and south of town, with development north and west. But that is really a community decision that should be made in the context of the General Plan update.
At the time of the 391 application by the City, were cities and public agencies eligible to apply for this Federal program which had been explicitly established to aid and assist small private landowners interested in the continuation of their family farming traditions?
That, it would seem, is more the queston.
I’m not sure about this program. The farm wasn’t a small one, and I believe the landowner lost it in foreclosure. That is why the city was able to purchase it. It was done in the dark of night with all the land preservation vultures circling to keep out the business folk and anyone else that might have wanted to at least raise their hand with a question or two. If it wasn’t for one business-minded person spotting the opportunity the deal would have been signed, sealed and delivered like a Clinton Campaign Foundation “donation”.
Other than the millions that the City of Davis gifted, the money to the Yolo Land Trust came from USDA, NRCS, FRPP (United Stated Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, Farmland and Ranchland Preservation Program… how many tax dollars were spent just coming up with all those acronyms?)
The Yolo Land Trust brought in a low-level NRCS functionary to the Council meeting to lie that they would be damaged for future grants if the City rejected or stalled the bid to lock away the land in a permanent agriculture easement. It is what these people do for a living so you can understand why they wanted it done… but to lie about the impacts?
That was the cover needed to the CC members to make what was likely the biggest mistake of their symbolism-focused political careers (plastic bag bans and MRAP bans are good, using land to improve Davis’s economic vitality… well it looks bad in symbols).
The truth was that because of Davis Measure O money the Yolo Land Trust sits high on the hog in the view of NRCS, FRPP grants. They would not have been damaged one little percentage point.
I know how these Federal programs work… but baldfaced lying is not that common (because Federal-employed lawyers are always looking for something fun to do… and taking down their coworkers in other agencies is fun for them). I guess they expected that nobody in Davis would call them on their crap.
So what economic development should we pursue? I’ll likely be voting no on new city taxes. The last sales tax increase was supposed to be a bridge until economic development could get done but it has been stymied. I’m not supporting more taxes without the economic development.
Since you’ll be voting no on new city taxes, then perhaps you should answer the question.
I am for preserving Davis as it is, and allowing it to slowly crumble over the coming decades under the weight of its ever-increasing debt.
That’s a vision.
As a parent its not an appealing vision. I’d like to leave a healthy city to the kids.
Nishi, MRIC, Davis Innovation Center, 391 (now off the table) I’ve supported all of them.
Interesting that some of the people who were against 391 were also against these other proposals. And those are the people I think we need to hear from. The last sales tax increase was sold as a needed bridge to economic development but turned out to be a bridge to nowhere.
Frankly
“The way I look at it spending is the 10% problem and revenue is the 90% problem. NIMBYs focus on the 10% problem.”
You wrote one of the most honest posts that I have yet seen on this subject on another thread. You stated that you were an anti tax NIMBY. So I am thinking that that means that you are counting yourself in those who are not willing to address the 90% problem since you are unwilling to increase taxes to increase the revenue part of the ledger.
I prefer lifestyle as a whole over monetary wealth as a measure of both my individual and societal well being. I adhere to a philosophy of plenty just as you do. I just prefer plenty of health, well being, environmental preservation, recreational opportunities, open space, respect for the unique nature of our community over just accumulation of individual wealth. Whereas you seem to prefer the individual right to accumulate wealth as paramount.
We also seem to view individual responsibility differently. I believe that just as it is my responsibility to pay for the property I own and the luxuries that I want myself, I believe that those who have chosen these for the city in which we live have the responsibility to pay for our choices ourselves. You seem to me to always be looking for someone else to pay for our choices whether the “they” is a big box store, or a mall, or a hotel, or an “innovation park”…..
My thought is that we should pay our own way. Your thought is that we find someone else to “invite here” to pay our way for us. I don’t believe that you are correct that property NIMBY’s are the only one’s not focused on the 90% problem. Anyone opposed to an increase in taxes ( which you dubbed the tax NIMBY) is just as culpable of not addressing the 90%.
To Jim Frame. You seem pretty picky about development (and I use the term picky because I don’t remember your positions on every project) so how would you go about addressing the structural deficit of the city?