On May 23, the city of Davis’ chief innovation officer asked the provocative question, “Where will all the business go? The small business community doesn’t have access to the necessary space for growth. Some of these businesses came from good ideas at the university and they are now growing so fast that they cannot find places that will accommodate their growing space needs.”
At the time he noted, “There are several small technology companies (currently under 50 employees) that were founded in Davis and have grown so dramatically in the last 24 months that they are on track to double in size again in the next few years. That’s a potential of at least a few 100 new career-track and professional jobs that could be in Davis. These are companies that create products and require supply chains for their parts – and, some of these supply companies could (would) be in Davis. “
He continued, “These are companies that serve global markets, which leads to increased exports and the potential for more imported capital. And these are companies that will need to invest in new manufacturing equipment and facilities as they grow, which increases the land-based property taxes AND the unsecured property taxes on equipment AND the amount of workers in Davis requiring services like food, clothes, and entertainment.”
The problem is, as he laid out at that time, “there is a significant lack of space for growth. Our downtown doesn’t have a very large inventory of for-sale buildings and spaces for lease can require costly tenant improvements. There is an extreme shortage of commercial and light industrial spaces that are greater than 10,000 square feet and appropriate for technology companies. And we have very few options for companies that need to develop facilities greater than 100,000 square feet.”
The answer to who does have these options available was West Sacramento, Woodland, Dixon and North Natomas.
As though to punctuate this dilemma, this past week we learned that Bayer CropScience, which acquired the local startup company AgraQuest last year, was going to expand their research and development operations and move to West Sacramento.
According to a press release distributed Thursday by their parent company Bayer AG on PRWeb, the company would execute the move in the first quarter of 2014, occupying an existing approximately 160,000-square-foot building on a 10-acre site that was previously occupied by Affymetrics, Inc..
The city and Chamber of Commerce attempted to put their best face forward in the wake of this news.
“Davis is pleased Bayer CropSciences will continue to call Yolo County its home and tap our many assets,” said Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza in press release from the city on Friday. “Our region possesses a unique business development culture where research firms can begin in Davis close to our university talent, flourish adjacent to campus, and then move to larger quarters in Davis or nearby – thus staying close to benefit their employees and company research needs. The Bayer units consolidating in West Sacramento continues this pattern that leads to success for the Sacramento region.”
Davis Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Kemble Pope said, “The Davis community is proud to have hosted AgraQuest from tiny start-up in the 1990’s to a 250 employee, $425 million company purchased by Bayer CropScience in 2012. This local success story proves that UC Davis, the City of Davis and the Davis business community will continue to be the economic engine and fount of innovation in many knowledge-based business sectors for the greater Sacramento region. We’re glad that this Davis-incubated company will be able to expand its footprint five-fold (30k to 160k sq.ft.) in Yolo County.”
While they put the best face forward, embedded in each message was the clear notion that the city needs to address the issue of the shortage of available facilities with comparable research and development space.
“As the Davis community continues to expand the inventory of commercial, R&D and industrial space in alignment with smart-growth principles, it is a natural part of the business life cycle that some larger growing companies’ space needs will be more challenging to accommodate while others, like Mori Seiki and Marrone Bio Innovations, will find the perfect fit in Davis,” Mr. Pope stated. “The cities and unincorporated areas of our county and region all have their own unique strengths, weaknesses, benefits and disadvantages. Taken together, it is clear that the Sacramento metropolitan area has all of the necessary components for continued economic success on a global scale.”
“We have been working with several of our rapidly growing technology companies to identify opportunities for move-up facilities. These spaces are in high demand in our market,” stated Rob White, Davis’ chief innovation officer. “We have had several discussions with local developers about building additional commercial research space in Davis, but we do not have many locations that can accommodate facilities over 100,000 square feet.”
Rob White went on to say that “we consider retaining the Bayer CropScience investment in our region and in Yolo County to be a valuable asset as we work to strengthen our region, Yolo County and UC Davis as centers of Ag Innovation. With the continuing growth of other Davis technology companies and startups, the move by Bayer CropScience to West Sacramento creates more growth opportunities in the near term as the city pursues options to increase available research and development inventory through executing on the community’s vision of establishing innovation centers.”
But the city’s press release added, “This relocation and expansion is yet another example of the increased investments happening in the region. Investments by global firms like Bayer AG, plans for initial public offering (IPO) for companies like Marrone Bio Innovations, and local investment in companies like Gold Standard Diagnostics.”
“We see significant activity in Davis from small startups and mid-sized companies on the verge of accelerated growth,” said Davis city manager Steve Pinkerton. “We are working at all levels – inside city hall, with the local business organizations, and with state and federal agencies – to take advantage of this growth and the potential that it presents. We want to make sure that there are many more success stories for Davis, like that of Mori Seiki, and to increase the opportunities across the region.”
Kemble Pope would add, “The Davis Chamber of Commerce is proud that the Davis community plays an important role in our region’s increasingly diversified and growing economic ecosystem.”
Rob White’s special column in the Vanguard on Friday actually preceded the city’s press release. He noted that the mayor took “a very positive view on the announcement.”
“Using the Mayor’s comments as a catalyst, Davis officials will continue to work on addressing the shortage of available facilities with comparable research and development space,” he writes.
Mr. White was brought in to create opportunities for startups and other companies to invest and grow in the Davis community. Instead, he is now having to deal with the loss of a key company that had been one of the faces of the Davis innovation community.
But all is not lost, he notes, as “we have been working with several of our rapidly growing technology companies to identify opportunities for move up facilities.”
“These spaces are in high demand in our market. And excitingly, Davis staff have had several discussions with local developers about building additional commercial research space in Davis,” he said. “The bad news is that even with some success in this area, we do not have many locations that can accommodate facilities over 100,000 square feet.”
At the same time, all is not lost.
Mr. White quotes Johan Peleman, Bayer’s Head of Vegetable Seeds R&D, saying “The new location offers top-notch equipment and allows for a stimulating exchange across disciplines. At the same time, we can further strengthen our bonds with the University of California at Davis, one of the world’s top plant science institutes.”
He writes, “With a statement like that, we can consider that retaining the Bayer CropScience investment in our region and in Yolo County is a valuable asset as we work to strengthen our region, Yolo County and UC Davis as centers of Ag Innovation.”
Additionally he adds, “With the continuing growth of other Davis technology companies and startups, the move by Bayer CropScience to West Sacramento creates space for more growth opportunities in the near term as the city pursues options to increase available research and development inventory through executing on the community’s vision of creating innovation centers.”
The May article triggered a long discussion on the issue of economic development and land use. Last month, that debate was heightened with the proposal to potentially swap one land parcel east of Mace’s conservation easement for one on the Shriner’s property.
Officials remain concerned that unless the city finds land for a business park, opportunities for businesses to expand may be lost. On the other hand, perhaps Davis’ fate is to be a startup center for innovation and university spinoffs, that generates opportunities for new companies to develop and eventually to move to other locations when they have grown large enough that the community can no longer support their growth.
The community clearly needs to figure out where it wants to go in terms of economic development. Our concern has been for some time that business leaders and civic leaders have been well out in front of the general population in terms of thinking about these critical issues.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
They have the space on the Con Agra site. Use it for what it’s zoned for.
“They have the space on the Con Agra site. Use it for what it’s zoned for”
But if they did that where would the people live. We need to provide land for both business and housing. This is just your way of expressing your indifference.
“But all is not lost, he notes, we have been working with several of our rapidly growing technology companies to identify opportunities for move up facilities.”
Oh yeah just replace Agriquest with another $400 million dollar company. Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
Crop values of tomatoes, our most lucrative crop, as best as I can figure, run about $10,000/acre off the farm. Say that you get a 5x multiplier then its adding about $50,000/acre to the local economy. Of course you can’t grow tomatoes every year on that acre so figure it adds less than $50,000/year. Agriquest moving to a 100,000 square foot facility will be using less than 2.5 acres. Those 250 jobs, plus whatever growth will occur, probably generate a payroll in the $10 million to $20 million dollar range at least a hundred times what that ag land generates. Even in Davis, with its multi-billion dollar a year university, we should be accommodating companies of this size and business model. Agricultural biotech should be a perfect fit for this community bridging our farming history with the value added technology developed at our land grant university.
Toad
[quote]But if they did that where would the people live. We need to provide land for both business and housing. [/quote]
Provide the land for business and jobs and I guarantee you that it will create a need for housing that will then happen.
That’s a head scratcher Carlos. Where? No, wait, don’t show me.
[quote]On the other hand, perhaps Davis’ fate is to be a startup center for innovation and university spinoffs that generate opportunities for new companies to develop and eventually move to other locations[/quote]
Because Yolo County and the City of Davis have strong policies to preserve farmland and open space, this is exactly what Davis will do. We are an important part of a regional market, and it is perfectly fine for Bayer to move their facilities to West Sacramento. We can develop Nishi and other smaller sites, and focus on the true start-up and smaller move-up companies.
Many of the people who work at the Bayer facility in West Sac will choose to live in Davis because it is a more attractive community with better schools. We still gain the multiiplier effect of those jobs, as they live and shop and dine in Davis.
There goes Don again with his vision of Davis the bedroom community living off the milk of a continually aging and declining UCD mother.
Live in Davis with its inflated residential real estate prices, and shop at its too few and over-priced stores that don’t carry half the products desired, just so you can send your kids to its over-rated schools.
I don’t think so.
What is a “more attractive community”? I don’t think Don or others preventing significant economic development, and reasonable levels of population growth, know how to define that other than “keep Davis the same!”
It is likely that the state will begin another period of economic growth in the coming years. There are signs that this is beginning. Davis will miss that ride and we will begin to look like the sad aging hippy that can’t afford his own retirement.
The debate about economic growth needs to focus on economic sustainability and vibrancy. Davis is not economically sustainable at this point, and without robust economic development activities it will continue to decline. It is also declining in vibrancy from a lack of business growth combined with a lack of young professionals and families.
There will come a point where school funding initiatives fail. We are growing older and more fixed-income. Without injecting some more business development, we will not attract young professionals and families into our population… and Davis, like all other cities with similar circumstances, will decline.
Note that college enrollment has declined for this coming school year across the nation and will likely continue to decline. There are a lot of reasons for this, but most economists and analysts expect this to be a continuing trend. UCD might import enough foreign students to compensate for this for a few years, but eventually that too will prove a temporary solution to the permanent problem of declining education value.
Davis better get its collective head out of its rear and start working on complementary business growth to compensate for the inevitable reduction in UCD mother’s milk.
[quote]Don or others preventing significant economic development, and reasonable levels of population growth,[/quote]
Stop misrepresenting my positions. You know where I stand. When you intentionally state something about my views that you know is not true, that is called lying. Stop lying about my positions on growth.
[quote]Note that college enrollment has declined for this coming school year across the nation and will likely continue to decline[/quote]
UC Davis is expected to add 5000 students, and hundreds of faculty and staff, in this decade, and is on track to do so.
rather than attacking don, i think the more interesting question is whether a regional approach could work here with davis providing the key incubator for start ups, west sac, woodland and dixon providing the land and in need of monetary and intellectual input, and davis becoming more sufficient while still remaining davis. my concern is making davis a lot bigger detracts from what makes davis special.
[i]Stop lying about my positions on growth.[/i]
So now I am a liar?
Your positions on Davis growth and development are too nuanced and small-scale to be useful, and therefore are in the no-growth camp. Nishi is a problematic parcel. You have written as much. I think you know it is problematic and likely to not be developed any time soon, so it is a safe “out” for you. Certainly nothing you support would seem to have satisfied the growth needs of AgraQuest. Correct me if I am wrong there.
I am not attacking you Don. I am merely combatting this notion that we can be so limited in what projects we support while also claiming to be supportive of economic development. We need the type of economic development that would help bring in tax revenue, young professionals, families and needed tax revenue. Not just churn of the same small scale mom and pop stores.
Related to UCD growth. See the following:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/ucdcosts.jpg[/img]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/business/colleges-expect-lower-enrollment.html?_r=0[/url]
[quote]The survey, released by the credit ratings agency Moody’s Investors Service on Thursday, found that nearly half of colleges and universities that responded expected enrollment declines for full-time students, and a third of the schools expected tuition revenue to decline or to grow at less than the rate of inflation.
“The cumulative effects of years of depressed family income and net worth, as well as uncertain job prospects for many recent graduates, are combining to soften student market demand at current tuition prices,” Emily Schwarz, a Moody’s analyst and lead author of the report, said in a statement.
The growing financial challenges for colleges and universities come as students and graduates have amassed more than $1 trillion in student debt, and many are struggling to pay their bills. Nearly one in six people with an outstanding federal student loan balance is in default, the federal government says. [/quote]
but you have to do it within political realities.
“Because Yolo County and the City of Davis have strong policies to preserve farmland and open space, this is exactly what Davis will do. We are an important part of a regional market, and it is perfectly fine for Bayer to move their facilities to West Sacramento. We can develop Nishi and other smaller sites, and focus on the true start-up and smaller move-up companies.”
So correct me if I’m wrong but you are saying the historical and cultural land use policies are so important that you don’t mind losing a $10 million to $20 million dollar a year payroll from the community rather than lose a few acres of ag land.
i think any decision to grow needs to be carefully considered and we also need to remember that the community has invested in keeping davis from growing too fast or expanding its borders. you seem to think that the key consideration are the few acres of ag land rather than the growth itself.
[quote]Your positions on Davis growth and development are too nuanced and small-scale to be useful, and therefore are in the no-growth camp. [/quote]
I am not in the no-growth camp. I have made my positions on residential and commercial growth very clear.
[quote]So now I am a liar? [/quote]
You continue to misrepresent them. To do so knowingly is to lie.
[quote]I think you know it (Nishi) is problematic and likely to not be developed any time soon[/quote]
I know you are incorrect about that. Talk to city staff, or Rob, or the property owner if you don’t believe me.
[quote]Certainly nothing you support would seem to have satisfied the growth needs of AgraQuest.[/quote]
That’s correct. Once a business needs 150,000 sq. ft. or more, it will almost certainly move to Dixon or West Sac or Natomas. That’s fine. It doesn’t make me no-growth.
[quote]Not just churn of the same small scale mom and pop stores. [/quote]
Read Rob White’s article yesterday. None of this is about retail.
The New York Times may be right about colleges overall. That does not apply to UC Davis. Ask the chancellor how we’re doing on meeting enrollment projections.
Mr. Toad: [quote]So correct me if I’m wrong but you are saying the historical and cultural land use policies are so important that you don’t mind losing a $10 million to $20 million dollar a year payroll from the community rather than lose a few acres of ag land.[/quote]
We aren’t losing the payroll. AgraQuest will move out, another firm will move in. A lot of the employees will stay right here. And yes: if you’re going to preserve ag land, the way you do that is by not developing ag land.
I think we are losing the payroll I don’t see any other way to spin it. You move the jobs you lose the payroll. You may be able to replace it but you seem awfully sure. I’m not so certain. As for being happy with simply allowing them to go and finding some other company to come and grow to the $400 million range takes time and occurs only rarely. I think it makes you not only no growth but actually negative growth because you argue for the loss of the cash flow in your complacency that you can easily rebuild when in reality you are advocating for a short to intermediate term reduction although I think since it took Agriquest almost 20 years to grow to its present size this represents a long term loss to the community.
i agree with mr. toad in part here – this is at least a short-term net loss to the community. on the other hand, i think we’re working hard to change a lot of things.
i still think there is a way to bridge the gap from frankly/mr. toad to don shor.
as i stated previously…
i think the more interesting question is whether a regional approach could work here with davis providing the key incubator for start ups, west sac, woodland and dixon providing the land and in need of monetary and intellectual input, and davis becoming more sufficient while still remaining davis. my concern is making davis a lot bigger detracts from what makes davis special.
Only in Davis would people express such complacency over the loss of a $10 million dollar payroll. Look at the loss of the Campbell Soup factory in Sacramento, You can find story after story of what a loss that is to the community. But here the idea that its no big deal to lose a company because its too profitable and growing too big gets this panglossian acceptance as though this is the best we can do. Mind Boggling simply mind boggling.
Moving companies out of town when they grow to a scale where they become really profitable is so foolish and undermines the tax base of Davis. I’m sure nearby communities will be more than happy to take in our profitable and growing companies but doing so will also consume ag land so why is it okay for Dixon or West Sac or Woodland to build on their ag land but not Davis?
What makes Davis special is the University and the people. A bigger Davis allows room for more great people and losing a big payroll doesn’t make Davis more sufficient it makes us more dependent on the largess the University brings.
it’s not mind boggling, where do people work in davis? they don’t work at agraquest most of them. they work at either the university or sacramento. we didn’t lose the company either, it’s moving down the road, and people are not going to have to move or lose their jobs. so it’s not exactly the same thing. i wish you would think a little harder before posting these comments.
Quick, Mr. Toad: what taxes does the city of Davis gain from a business like Agra Quest? What revenues to the city does that create? If Marrone Bio Innovations expands and replaces Agra Quest, have we lost anything? If the space is filled, have we lost anything in city revenues?
[quote] You may be able to replace it but you seem awfully sure. I’m not so certain.[/quote]
That’s why we’re paying a guy $240,000 a year to help fill those spaces.
We are part of a regional economy. Every city here has its strengths and weaknesses. Our strengths are obvious: we have the university, the university community, it’s a nice place to live, the schools are great. Our weakness is that we don’t have available land for international corporations that need large amounts of space. Our neighbors do.
We have synergistic relationships with each nearby city: for shopping, for housing, for cheap land. Not every city has to provide everything. Not every city can, nor should it choose to. As I said before, I don’t recall all this bellyaching when Borders closed. I don’t think you and Frankly even expected the city to get involved in replacing the one tenant with another one. Yes, I’m pretty sure the AgraQuest site will fill reasonably quickly with another small startup or move-up firm. I think so, in part, because the city now has a staff person dedicated to that goal.
“Our weakness is that we don’t have available land for international corporations that need large amounts of space. Our neighbors do.”
I don’t understand this statement why do they have surplus land but we don’t? We have plenty of land we don’t have land use policies that make the land available but loss of ag land is loss of ag land whether its here or nearby is all the same to me.
Borders closed Agriquest moved. Could Davis have prevented the loss of Borders? I don’t think so. Could Davis have prevented the loss of Agriquest? Perhaps.
We will leak sales taxes to West Sac. We will lose property taxes to West sac. I’m not a tax guy but I bet there are other revenue losses.
[quote]We will leak sales taxes to West Sac.[/quote]
Because AgraQuest moved? Please explain.
[quote]We will lose property taxes to West sac.[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]loss of ag land is loss of ag land whether its here or nearby is all the same to me.[/quote]
As far as I know, West Sac is not annexing any farmland to make room for Bayer. But I don’t know exactly where they are going. I do know that West Sac, Dixon, and especially Natomas have millions of square feet of unoccupied commercial real estate. In the case of Natomais, it’s not just shovel ready. It’s fully built and standing empty.
We will lose much needed revenue to our schools as Agriquest grows many of the new employees will move to West Sac where housing is cheaper. Much of that payroll that otherwise would have been spent in Davis will be lost from other Davis businesses.
“That’s why we’re paying a guy $240,000 a year to help fill those spaces.”
i thought he was brought in to expand the economy not try to keep it from shrinking.
[quote]We will lose much needed revenue to our schools as Agriquest grows many of the new employees will move to West Sac where housing is cheaper.[/quote]
And the space AgraQuest was in will be filled by another business with new employees, who will have kids who will go to Davis schools. And a lot of AgraQuest employees will probably stay in Davis or move here because it is such a desirable place to live, West Sac is a short commute, and the schools here are better.
You’re really not getting this, apparently.
“I do know that West Sac, Dixon, and especially Natomas have millions of square feet of unoccupied commercial real estate. In the case of Natomas, it’s not just shovel ready. It’s fully built and standing empty.”
This is true but how did it get there and what is it built on? It got there because those communities built it while Davis did nothing. Now we are paying for our lack of forward thinking. What was it built on? Ag land and flood plain land. Land that now requires millions in levy construction.
Mr. Toad wrote:
> Moving companies out of town when they grow to
> a scale where they become really profitable is
> so foolish and undermines the tax base of Davis.
Very few commercial property and land owners in Dixon or West Sacramento will come out and say “I’m going to do what I can to block commercial development in Davis so commercial rents and land values in Dixon and West Sacramento go higher (but no one can argue that blocking commercial development in Davis will push prices and values higher in West Sacramento and Dixon).
Very few people in Davis will come out and say “I’m going to do what I can to block residential development so the value of my house in Davis stays high” (but no one can argue that blocking residential development is one of the reasons that Davis homes are more expensive than most other communities in Central California).
Very few people that are paid by Davis tax revenue will come out and say “I’m going to push for any and all development in town since the more tax revenue we have the easier it will be to get a raise” (but you can’t argue that towns that are growing and have increasing tax revenue give more raises)…
It is built on a floodplain, in the case of Natomas. Big mistake, but not our mistake. I agree: bad urban planning. But it’s there. And any big company that needs space is going to drive down 113 and see all the space available, drive to Natomas and see the empty buldings, or go to West Sac. Massively, massively overbuilt for commercial.
The point is that we did not capture AgraQuest’s expansion. Expanded property taxes. Expanded sales taxes. Expanded number of well-paid employees that also add to our tax revenue.
We also lose out while we search for a replacement company to fill the space vacated by AgraQuest (assuming some gap of vacancy).
I think Don is the one “not getting it”. He doesn’t get that we lose big time not retaining our own growing companies… especially when they are in the business of producing technologically-advanced and environmentally sound agriculture products and provide many high-paying jobs. Basically the EXACT type of company we would hope to attract. So why do we let them just leave when they are already here?
Apparently Don is happy that we don’t use up ag land around us for this ag-business. But then over in that next city over they use up ag land. So the net lost ag land in the region ends up exactly the same. But Davis loses again.
There are several parts to the story. While everyone is focusing on the lack of of new spots, one of the problems is that while there were several areas available, existing owners were unwilling to work with the city to put Agraquest on their spots.
That said, I think Davis Progressive has an idea worth at least exploring.
Don’t confuse disagreement with not getting it. You are okay with losing this company i am not. You think that Davis can afford to lose a $425 million growing company instead of providing infrastructure to keep it because you think its easy to replace, I do not. You think that we should be complacent with Davis as it is(a no growth position in my mind), I do not. You think that the cultural, historic and environmental preservation of ag land should be the highest priority. i think the value added by Agriquest is so great that it outweighs the value provided by preserving the ag land it would displace. I think that Agriquest, a company that reduces the need for dangerous farm chemicals, is exactly the kind of forward thinking companies we should want to retain here. You seem to be okay with its loss. You think the creative destruction of capitalism that killed Borders extends to Agriquest. I disagree. Agriquest isn’t dying its growing and thriving. It is developing cutting edge technology and will do so for many years. You are willing to give that away I am not. You are like those guys at Xerox who invented the computer mouse and just gave it away to Apple not knowing its value. I am not.
David: [quote]existing owners were unwilling to work with the city to put Agraquest on their spots. [/quote]
Imagine that. But somehow it’s the fault of the city’s residents and voters, apparently.
Frankly:
[quote]The point is that we did not capture AgraQuest’s expansion. Expanded property taxes. Expanded sales taxes. Expanded number of well-paid employees that also add to our tax revenue. [/quote]
How does Bayer AgroScience generate sales tax? We only gain property tax based on the increased value of the developed land, if there is any. The property AgraQuest was on will still have the same value and generate the same taxes. Unless it sells, in which case the assessed value will increase,.
Many of those well-paid employees will still live here because Davis is such a nice place to live and has such great schools. But I’m repeating myself.
[quote]We also lose out while we search for a replacement company to fill the space vacated by AgraQuest (assuming some gap of vacancy). I think Don is the one “not getting it”. [/quote]
No, the owner still pays property taxes. They won’t go down. There is possibly a slight loss of property taxes for unsecured property, until a new tenant arrives. Just as there was a gap in sales tax revenue when Borders left. So let’s hope Rob and his co-workers get going to help find a new tenant there.
[quote]He doesn’t get that we lose big time not retaining our own growing companies… especially when they are in the business of producing technologically-advanced and environmentally sound agriculture products and provide many high-paying jobs.[/quote]
They stay in the region. It’s a regional market.
[quote]So why do we let them just leave when they are already here? Apparently Don is happy that we don’t use up ag land around us for this ag-business. But then over in that next city over they use up ag land. So the net lost ag land in the region ends up exactly the same. [/quote]
I don’t think they’ve done that. But I could be wrong. We can’t control the bad urban policies of West Sacramento, if that happens to be the case. But there is very little I would emulate about West Sacramento’s growth policies.
[quote] Apparently Don is happy that we don’t use up ag land around us for this ag-business.[/quote]
Yes, I’m happy that we have a policy of not developing prime ag land in Davis and in Yolo County. And, for that matter, in Solano County. There are ag-related enterprises that can locate on ag-zoned land. Even some of the greenhouse operations of Bayer Agro-Science may be appropriate for that. I will note that greenhouse operations have some nuisance factors that make them inappropriate near residential areas, and are likely to end up on ag-zoned land in the county. Which would be beneficial to the county’s revenues.
Mr. Toad:
[quote]You think that we should be complacent with Davis as it is(a no growth position in my mind), I do not.[/quote]
Amazing. I repeatedly state my position on growth, yet somehow we get these constant distortions.
[quote]You think that the cultural, historic and environmental preservation of ag land should be the highest priority. i think the value added by Agriquest is so great that it outweighs the value provided by preserving the ag land it would displace.[/quote]
The only way to preserve ag land is to have a policy preventing its development, because every other possible use of the land is of higher financial value. Every one. Build houses, build storage units, make campgrounds, build skyscapers, build commercial land – every single one of those values pencils out to greater financial value than we get from agriculture. The same is true of open space and habitat preservation.
[quote] I think that Agriquest, a company that reduces the need for dangerous farm chemicals….[/quote]
AgraQuest, yes. Bayer, just the opposite. But that’s not really at issue here.
Ten to one a hundred to one how much value added is enough to overcome your fealty to ag preservation. it reminds me of the 2012 Republican primary where the wouldn’t accept ten dollars in spending cuts for one dollar in tax increases.
Besides isn’t that why we have the Williamson Act?
“Amazing. I repeatedly state my position on growth, yet somehow we get these constant distortions. “
i think when you argue we should let these companies leave without trying to accommodate them because we can replace them you are arguing a no growth position. If that isn’t what you were arguing please correct me. But the logical conclusion is that results in no net economic growth.
[i] i think the more interesting question is whether a regional approach could work here with davis providing the key incubator for start ups, west sac, woodland and dixon providing the land and in need of monetary and intellectual input, and davis becoming more sufficient while still remaining davis. my concern is making davis a lot bigger detracts from what makes davis special. [/i]
Davis is special in many good ways. Davis is also special in many bad ways. But Davis is not getting any better. It is growing less special. It is growing shabby. Its finances are a mess. The population is growing older. The number of families have been declining. Housing is too expensive. There are not enough good-paying jobs. There is not enough diversity in the resident population. There are not enough retail businesses to support the population. There are not enough hotel rooms and meeting facilities. There is a too small selection of commercial properties for almost every business NAICS code.
People working in a community create economic activity and also contribute to its vibrancy and diversity. I am beginning to suspect that the folks blocking significant economic development in this town must not like vibrancy and they must not like certain types of diversity.
Mr. Toad:
[quote] Ten to one a hundred to one how much value added is enough to overcome your fealty to ag preservation. it reminds me of the 2012 Republican primary where the wouldn’t accept ten dollars in spending cuts for one dollar in tax increases. Besides isn’t that why we have the Williamson Act?[/quote]
None. Because once it’s gone, it’s gone. You look for land that isn’t prime ag land, and develop that instead.
Williamson Act funding has been hanging by a thread. It’s not a reliable means of land preservation any more.
[quote]It is growing shabby. Its finances are a mess. The population is growing older. The number of families have been declining. Housing is too expensive. There are not enough good-paying jobs. There is not enough diversity in the resident population. There are not enough retail businesses to support the population. There are not enough hotel rooms and meeting facilities. There is a too small selection of commercial properties for almost every business NAICS code. [/quote]
Gosh, yes. It’s a horrible, depressing, ugly, terrible place to live and do business. If I were you, I’d get out as soon as possible. Check out Natomas! Lots of cool space available there.
[i]Gosh, yes. It’s a horrible, depressing, ugly, terrible place to live and do business. If I were you, I’d get out as soon as possible. Check out Natomas! Lots of cool space available there.[/i]
Childish response. Do you care to register an adult disagreement with any of my points?
“None.”
Q.E.D.
[quote]Do you care to register an adult disagreement with any of my points?[/quote]
I’ve done that before on many other threads. I don’t agree with your assessment of Davis.
You’re correct, Mr. Toad. If Disney Corporation wanted to build a theme park east of Davis, it would make that land worth billions of dollars. But I would oppose it. Just as I felt a racetrack east of Dixon was inappropriate. There is no point in your exercise. Preserving ag land, habitat, or open space is a value in itself that does not lend itself to useful fiscal comparison. As I said before: every other possible use of land has greater financial value than agriculture.
Here’s hoping Bayer AgroScience will only be using the site for their biologicals, given their record at other sites with other ag chemicals: [url]http://www.peri.umass.edu/toxicair2012/[/url]
So Don, you have stated that you support some peripheral development around the hospital. I think that would also require some annexation. Is your position to only protect ag land above a specific soil quality? What about irrigation water access?
In any case, if this is your position then you are basically setting a limit to Davis growth. Unless you are advocating densification. Which is odd because in that case, in the future we would be a congested little city with an agriculture buffer around us and the county and adjacent cities growing up to that boundary. But I doubt we would densify because the no-growthers would block it. We will never see a building downtown more than four stories high… and probably few at that.
So your hard line of ag land preservation is basically a no-growth position with the exception of the hospital area, the old cannery and Nishi.
Come to my neighborhood in West Davis and walk down the sidewalk and note the extreme crappy state of the city-maintained landscaping. While you are at it, drive around and note the crappy state of many of the city roads.
Then take a drive to Folsom and note the same. Hell, you can even drive to Winters and West Sacramento and check out the same. But the same in these other places is not crappy. It is great. Much has been redeveloped and it is maintained.
What you will see unless you are blind is evidence of the significant neglect and decline of Davis.
Listen, I like eclectic stuff. I recognize the charm in a city that isn’t all concrete and asphalt. But I think Davis is several orders of magnitude away from that ever occurring. We can be a stronger and more vibrant city without destroying that charm. We can be more charming. But what we are becoming is sad and tired.
One last point… one of the most important components of a great place to live is the people. The no-growthers and too-slow-growthers are basically closing the door behind them to keep out new people. The university does not cut it making up the deficit. We are all getting old and frankly I don’t like a city filled with a bunch old farts like me.
I think you need to give much more thought to your hard line ag preservation position. At the very least consider that farmers are on welfare in this country. Maybe THEY need a development plan for densification.
“None.”
So i guess you are valuing ag land at infinity.
[quote]So Don, you have stated that you support some peripheral development around the hospital.[/quote]
I could, depending on the project and the conditions. I believe soil quality should be a factor in where development occurs.
I’ll just post this again, for the third time. Most recently posted yesterday.
“Economic development can be encouraged by the city by allowing greater flexibility in zoning, annexing Nishi, and possibly retaining a portion of the Cannery site for business uses. Other sites that might be considered, but which would require a broader community discussion, include the land near the hospital and the Covell Village site. I expect the latter would require a very comprehensive public planning process.”
So this: [quote]So your hard line of ag land preservation is basically a no-growth position with the exception of the hospital area, the old cannery and Nishi. [/quote]
is not an accurate description of my position. And those are some pretty big exceptions to ‘no-growth’ since there aren’t very many other sites under consideration. Except Covell Village, which I believe can and will be developed in some way sometime in the next decade or so, depending on what the owners of that property are willing to do.
[quote]the significant neglect and decline of Davis. [/quote]
I am very familiar with the landscaping around Davis. I have observed a few greenbelt areas that have pretty serious problems, particularly the West Davis area near Emerson. Mostly it’s poor plant selection in terms of tolerance of low water. It could be improved. Maybe you should take the lead in trying to get that done. I’m happy to advise on things like that.
I consider the lack of affordable housing to be a much higher priority than adding commercial property. I would advocate the city council increase the density on ConAgra substantially and retain a larger portion for business use. Higher density would increase the diversity by providing less expensive housing, allowing lower-income people to live here. It would help our schools and help to lower the average age of the community.
June 27, 2013
“A team of researchers from the University of California, Davis, and Kansas State University has identified a gene that enables resistance to a new race, or strain, of stem rust, a disease that is producing large wheat yield losses throughout Africa and Asia and threatening global food security.”
http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10644
This one discovery will result in more food being produced than all the food produced in Yolo County in your lifetime. If we lose some local ag land along the way to feeding 7 billion people so be it.
Actual value of Yolo County crop land about $15,000.
$15,000 per acre
“There is no point in your exercise. Preserving ag land, habitat, or open space is a value in itself that does not lend itself to useful fiscal comparison.”
How about the value of world food security?
Apparently no economic argument is worthy of discussion in your mind because local ag land is priceless. This is an odd position to defend but go ahead if you want.
[quote]How about the value of world food security? [/quote]
Your argument has gone completely off the rails.
I’m simply trying to see the extent of your argument about the value of land preservation. When you argue none, an argument you contradict later by allowing for some development, you are essentially valuing land preservation above everything else. You are valuing land at infinity. World food security is less than infinity and the research that goes on in this area contributes to that security. Yes I am taking this argument to an extreme but only to counter your extremist argument that no ag land should be taken for other purposes.
“World food security” has nothing to do with this. Nothing. Nada. To put it simply: researchers at UC Davis and Kansas State don’t need 150,000 square feet of space to do what they’re doing, nor do the companies that are going to implement that into new hybrids for agribusiness.
As David noted:
[quote] while there were several areas available, existing owners were unwilling to work with the city to put Agraquest on their spots.
[/quote]Willingness of the owners is probably the main problem in most land development issues locally.
One of the arguments for ag land preservation is that we need it for food production but as I point out with the article on wheat research at UCD the value added to world food production by UCD dwarfs any amount of food you could produce locally for any time frame you choose. I am pointing out the fallacy of ag land preservation being valued above other uses. You argue that ag loses to other economic options so then other factors must outweigh economics. Food security must be one of those other factors but my article points out that research produces more food security than does preservation. So what do you have left? Traditional way of life or other values. What are you left with?
“None. Because once it’s gone, it’s gone.”
Actually its not gone just buried and if ag land ever becomes scarce enough it can be reclaimed. Oh but there I go again using economics to make my case. Silly me.
World food security nothing we should be concerned about. I’m sure it will work itself out. UC Davis is one of the world’s top ag research centers. Wheat production protection from plant pathology, cattle vaccines for Africa from the Vet school.The creative destruction of the tomato harvestor from mechanical engineering. Local spinoff Agriquest on its website claims its “current product portfolio includes fungicides for control of diseases such as Powdery Mildew, Sour Rot, Botrytis, Downy Mildew, Fire Blight and insecticides for control of lepidopterans such as loopers, leafrollers and armyworms, and sucking pests like mites, aphids, whiteflies and thrips.” Never mind its not important to food security.
I am quite familiar with AgraQuest’s product line and, in fact, my background is in Plant Science. Including plant pathology, among other areas of study. I don’t think you know anything about this topic. I don’t think you actually know anything at all about what you’re talking about right now.
I too majored in Botany and taught biology for over 20 years. How about responding to the arguments instead of personal attacks.
“Willingness of the owners is probably the main problem in most land development issues locally.”
No there are plenty of other owners just outside the City who would jump at the chance to gain the value added by development. How do i know? Because there is lots of land outside the city not protected by the Williamson Act. The problem is zoning not willing land owners.
Don, you appear to be looking at this issue as a zero sum game, in which all the decisions are couched in either/or terms. Has it occurred to you that it might be useful to look at a few of these decisions in both/and terms?
Why can’t Davis have [u]both[/u] the Bayer/Agraquest growing companies [u]and[/u] the start ups that you see as filling the void that Agraquest will leave when it departs?
Why do you look at the fiscal impact on Davis only in property tax terms. The last time I checked the customers of the Red Barn Nursery and Nugget Markets and the Mustard Seed Restaurant and the Mondavi Center did not pay their bills with property tax money. All those current Agraquest employees whose jobs will be moving to West Sacramento will be spending their money at West Sacramento businesses rather than Davis businesses. All those additional Agraquest employees whose new jobs will be located in West Sacramento will never get to spend their money at Davis businesses. Bottom-line, all those lost jobs are a terribly large amount of discretionary income that has evaporated from the local Davis economy.
[quote]I too majored in Botany and taught biology for over 20 years. How about responding to the arguments instead of personal attacks.[/quote]
Then surely you understand that plant breeders don’t need 150,000 square feet of commercial property to develop stem rust resistance in wheat, so your argument was pointless. Specious, actually. If you’re trying to persuade me that agricultural research is important — well, duh. But it can take place just fine on ag zoned land. And does, locally.
You continue to refer to the Williamson Act. It’s basically broke and declining as an effective protection for ag land.
Your vision for Davis would be a nightmare of horrific urban planning. You would be perfectly happy if Davis grew to 150,000, merged with Woodland to the north, built out to the Bypass to the east, and expanded indefinitely into the west. You place zero value on farmland. Like Frankly, you denigrate farming and farmers. So it’s pretty pointless to continue a conversation about preserving farmland with someone who believes it is of so little value. And it’s pretty pointless to continue a conversation about urban planning with someone who is so completely out of sync with this community’s values.
Another both/and point worth making Don is that companies like Bayer and Monsanto and Harris Moran and SeedCentral all do a significant amount of field trials and greenhouse trials and greenhouse production and seed production in fields. All of those economic activities are actually keeping prime farmland in production.
Both/And
Don
Both/And
[quote]All those current Agraquest employees whose jobs will be moving to West Sacramento will be spending their money at West Sacramento businesses rather than Davis businesses. All those additional Agraquest employees whose new jobs will be located in West Sacramento will never get to spend their money at Davis businesses. [/quote]
Really? Amazing. I get customers from West Sac all the time. And I seriously doubt all the AgraQuest employees are going to pack up and move to West Sac now.
[quote]Why can’t Davis have both the Bayer/Agraquest growing companies and the start ups that you see as filling the void that Agraquest will leave when it departs?
[/quote]
Because we don’t have the space for the bigger firms without annexing farmland. Yolo County and the city of Davis have policies that protect farmland. And apparently, property owners who have land that was of sufficient size for Bayer’s plans weren’t willing to cooperate.
[quote]Because we don’t have the space for the bigger firms without annexing farmland. Yolo County and the city of Davis have policies that protect farmland. And apparently, property owners who have land that was of sufficient size for Bayer’s plans weren’t willing to cooperate.[/quote]
See my answer above
Companies like Bayer and Monsanto and Harris Moran and SeedCentral all do a significant amount of field trials and greenhouse trials and greenhouse production and seed production in fields. All of those economic activities are actually keeping prime farmland in production.
Both/And
Don
Both/And
[quote]Don Shor
And I seriously doubt all the AgraQuest employees are going to pack up and move to West Sac now. [/quote]
If Davis retains 50% of them that will be a miracle.
Don wrote:
> And I seriously doubt all the AgraQuest
> employees are going to pack up and move
> to West Sac now.
I also doubt that many will drive in to Davis on their lunch hour to get a sandwich at Bistro 33 or Nugget or pick up a bag of mulch or a plant at ACE or Redwood Barn…
I have never denigrated farmers or farming. If farmers want to farm fine but I think most farmers wouldn’t like to be told what they can and can’t do with their land. I have denigrated low wage farm work when compared with better paid pursuits.I have denigrated those that seek to limit economic opportunities for others out of some zealous luddite vision that seeks to preserve every inch of land. As for Davis expanding out to Woodland and Dixon we both know there are properties held in conservation easements by willing landowners that prevent this. To the east we get space from the causeway and to the west from the university. Go south and you eventually hit the delta. In my view Davis could be bigger, better and different yet still be a nice, more welcoming, gracious place to live.
Probably the thing that has hurt the middle class in America more than anything has been the loss of manufacturing jobs. Isn’t that why Agriquest needs all that space, manufacturing? So when you turn your nose up at manufacturing to preserve lower wage farm work such as riding on a tomato harvester you may be in good standing with the farmers but not so much with the workers.
[quote]
Companies like Bayer and Monsanto and Harris Moran and SeedCentral all do a significant amount of field trials and greenhouse trials and greenhouse production and seed production in fields. All of those economic activities are actually keeping prime farmland in production. [/quote]
That’s all fine. It’s agriculture, and it occurs on ag-zoned land, in the county, so it’s not really an issue in this discussion. Looking at a map of West Sac, I suspect those activities will continue on our side of the Causeway, even for Bayer AgroScience (if they’re doing greenhouse and field trials).
Why don’t any of you post under your own names?
[quote]Don Shor
“Why don’t any of you post under your own names?”[/quote]
Whiplash
[quote]Whiplash[/quote]
LOL — yes, I understand that.
From Facebook today:
Mayor Krovoza: [quote]Not every city can keep every company and every stage of its development. This is still good for Davis, good for campus, good for research ties with campus, and good for the existing employees.[/quote]
Mayor Cabaldon: [quote]Sometimes land/facility availability doesn’t match up with every need every time, but Davis is a great place for innovative companies to launch, grow, and prosper.[/quote]
And what about all the start ups that don’t even bother with trying to do it here because we make it too difficult. They don’t move to West Sac because they are already out of here. Conservatives are always trying to kick California for being business unfriendly. I don’t put much stock in those arguments but if its true anywhere its true here. I know this guy who is a UCD grad and the CEO of a newly listed Nasdaq company that went public in March 2012. Its market cap is around $700 million. He lives in Davis and commutes to Napa and the East Bay but hasn’t brought any jobs here. I know that if the City had tried to accommodate his needs he might have been induced to relocate or grow some of the business here but it hasn’t happened. It all leaves me scratching my head. Only in Davis.
[quote]Don Shor
That’s all fine. It’s agriculture, and it occurs on ag-zoned land, in the county, so it’s not really an issue in this discussion. Looking at a map of West Sac, I suspect those activities will continue on our side of the Causeway, even for Bayer AgroScience (if they’re doing greenhouse and field trials). [/quote]
I doubt it Don. I suspect that we will be seeing Monsanto’s greenhouses and 5th Street offices heading up to Woodland in the near future. Why would any company want to continue in dispersed locations when there is good available ag land on the borders of both West Sacramento (for Bayer/Agraquest) and Woodland (for Monsanto)? All that travel time is time wasted.
[quote] He lives in Davis and commutes to Napa and the East Bay[/quote]
Gosh, given the earlier comments, you really have to wonder why. I mean, Davis is so [i]crappy.[/i]
Don, that is very clearly spin from both Joe and Christopher. Christopher would be very happy to see the Bayer/Agraquest model perpetuated over and over again.
[quote]I suspect that we will be seeing Monsanto’s greenhouses and 5th Street offices heading up to Woodland in the near future.[quote]
I’ll miss those bimonthly Occupy Monsanto protests down the street, then.
Again: the land they use would be in the county, ag zoned. If Monsanto moved their offices from Davis, there would be almost no fiscal effect, and there would be no impact on ag zoning or ag land.
What was Mayor Joe supposed to say? Yes its all those things and the loss of millions in payroll.
And Cabaldon? Yes all those things you wouldn’t expect him to say thanks for the business chumps.
[i] In my view Davis could be bigger, better and different yet still be a nice, more welcoming, gracious place to live.[/i]
Absolutely.
Preserving ag land is important, but not absolute. Before it was ag land it was wilderness.
Ag land uses a tremendous amount of water in an area that is classified as semi-arid (less that 20 inches of rain per year). It also puts pesticides and other chemicals into the environment. Lastly, farmers are hugely subsidized by government.
Considering Village Homes are built on ag land, but many of the residents have large gardens and chickens and produce their own food without as many pesticides and chemicals and they get zero government subsidies, it is clear to me that there is not any rational basis for this absolute demand that we preserve all ag land. Smart development can include enough open space and natural habitat to mitigate building impacts.
Those that demand we prevent any and all development on ag land seem to be using the argument as a no-growth proxy. It does not make rational sense. It would make more rational sense to demand we return non-developed land to wilderness.
[quote]Preserving ag land is important, but not absolute. Before it was ag land it was wilderness.
Ag land uses a tremendous amount of water in an area that is classified as semi-arid (less that 20 inches of rain per year). It also puts pesticides and other chemicals into the environment. Lastly, farmers are hugely subsidized by government. [/quote]
I give up.
“If Monsanto moved their offices from Davis, there would be almost no fiscal effect, and there would be no impact on ag zoning or ag land.”
I have a friend that works at Monsanto been there since it was Calgene. Got hired after she got her Ph.D from UCD. i’d hate to see her leave town like so many others i have known. i guess with so many brilliant people we take our human capital for granted. To me that is the most shameful thing about Davis that we don’t have a problem with driving great people out. This has long been my issue. I’ve written so many times about how we lose people that any other community would welcome. Family people with good jobs and great educations, taxpayers that we should strive to retain. Why do we do this? Selfishness.
[i]I give up.[/i]
Don, this is great. I assume it means you are now more supportive of converting some peripheral ag land to other business use?
“Your vision for Davis would be a nightmare of horrific urban planning. You would be perfectly happy if Davis grew to 150,000 …”
Let me deflate your hyperbole. If we simply increased our growth rate from 1% to 2% in 2050 we would be around the size of Visalia today at 125,000.
[quote]Don, this is great. I assume it means you are now more supportive of converting some peripheral ag land to other business use?[/quote]
No. I give up trying to reason with you.
[quote]in 2050 we would be around the size of Visalia today at 125,000.[/quote]
My guess is most Davis residents don’t want a city of 125,000. But go ahead and put a measure on the ballot. We’ll see how it goes.
You are getting ahead. Before we have elections we must educate ourselves about the unintended consequences of no growth policies and the dogmatic overreach of those opposed to growth. I think the loss of Agriquest will be a learning moment for many and I thank you for indulging in an argument that has allowed me to lay out a different perspective for the community to evaluate.
It isn’t a lack of education. It’s a difference in values.
They aren’t ‘no growth policies’. I would prioritize housing over large commercial, and advocate growing at a moderate rate.
I do know some true no-growth advocates in Davis. Someone once said to me ‘I don’t want a single new house in Davis. I don’t want any more traffic!” That is an untenable and unrealistic attitude. We’re a town defined by the university; if it grows, we grow. We have to work together with UCD to plan for their expansion.
My priority would be, as I’ve said many times, high-density housing to increase the amount of affordable housing in Davis. I consider large-scale business commercial development to be the lowest priority. There is the least need, the greatest regional availability, and it confers less fiscal benefit to the city.
Right now we have some infill available, Nishi, and ConAgra. We can probably annex and build on the land near the hospital. I honestly believe that someday fairly soon the Covell Village property could be dealt with, but it would really take two things: the owners would have to be open to a very different proposal than the one they spent all that time and money on, and the bruised feelings from that campaign would have to finally recede into the distance. I believe the coalition that opposed Covell Village is finally either fraying or mellowing, and that possibly some planning for that site could begin. But again: it’s up to the owners, really, as to how likely that is to succeed.
“But jobs are not as big a priority here as they are in surrounding communities. Jobs are not our greatest planning issue. “
Only in the minds of those that have a job are they not a priority.
Davis has historically had what the Federal Reserve considers to be the natural rate of unemployment. If the university meets its expansion goals, along with some smaller developments, Davis will very likely be, again, at the natural rate of unemployment reasonably soon. Compared to the surrounding communities, jobs have never been an issue in Davis because we have a strong, stable, and growing employer. If we add a large number of jobs, it will actually increase our housing problem: a shortage of affordable housing for non-student renters.
From a planning standpoint, jobs are not our greatest planning issue, and never have been.