Davis has attempted to put its best face forward on the loss of Bayer/AgraQuest. Last week, Kemble Pope, the Executive Director of the Davis Chamber of Commerce, joined with his counterparts in Sacramento and West Sacramento to talk about economic development on a regional scale.
“The recent news that Bayer CropScience will be expanding its presence in the Sacramento region is further proof that we have the right ingredients to start, grow, retain and attract innovative companies with high-paying jobs,” Mr. Pope and his colleagues write. “The cities of Davis and West Sacramento have much to crow about regarding the news, as does the region as a whole.”
“This most recent success story began in 1995 with the founding of the small startup company, AgraQuest, in Davis. The city was a nurturing home that provided several opportunities for growth and a high quality of life that attracted talented employees as the company grew to more than 200 workers,” they continue. “In 2012, the company’s global successes prompted Bayer CropScience, a diversified, international agricultural technology company, to acquire it for $425 million. With an impressive number of growing companies and the world’s No. 1 agricultural research university, UC Davis, that call it home, Davis continues to make its mark as an economic engine and fount of innovation and business prosperity.”
“The purpose of co-authoring an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee was to speak to the region about the collaboration that was happening within our region between the cities and communities,” Kemble Pope said on Thursday, “and to educate the region at large that this community of Davis really is a driver, a grower of jobs in general.”
We get it, the leaders in Davis have no need to get into the intricacies and challenges of the city’s land use policies on a regional level. The best strategy is to put the best foot forward and that foot is the unmatched potential, at least in this region, for Davis to be the engine of economic development not just locally, but on a regional basis.
But late this week, we learned that Bayer is not the only potential loss – another critical Davis company wants to expand, wants to stay in Davis, and has no place available to move. They need 40 acres – 500,000 square feet under a single roof, in a single story.
No place in Davis that exists right now accommodates those needs. Can Davis save this company or will they too move to West Sacramento?
The leaders in Davis want Davis to be more than just the home of startups – more than just the place where companies can launch and grow in their initial stages.
Kemble Pope, as the director of the Davis Chamber, wants there to be more opportunities for companies to stay in Davis throughout their life cycles.
Both he and the city’s Chief Innovation Officer, Rob White, point to the Innovation Park Task Force as the guide for how to proceed.
As Mr. White noted in his August 1 piece entitled, “Time Has Come to Move Forward Innovation Park Task Force Recommendations,” the report called for pursuing a “Dispersed Innovation Strategy” offering flexible space (scalability) “supporting needs of growing and new businesses.”
He wrote, “A combined approach of near term close-in hub with mid-term, larger less constrained edge sites offer the best mix of University proximity and expansion capability for the City.”
In the short term, we need to “maximize existing invesntory to increase development certainty and flexibility.”
We also need to “review existing land use, zoning and tax structure with objectives of supporting retention and growth of innovation businesses and maximizing revenue opportunities.”
In the near term, we need to focus on projects like the Gateway (Downtown research and University Innovation District) option that “offers the best close-in location due to the proximity to University and property owner and University interest, and should be pursued as the City’s top innovation center priority.”
In the mid-term, we need to look at east and west “edge” sites that “offer viable options for location and size of larger innovation centers meeting needs of growing mid-sized companies, and should be continued to be explored as part of a mid-term Dispersed Innovation Strategy.”
However, in Davis these figure to be difficult lifting, even looking for developing a few sites. The proposal to examine land east of Mace back in June turned into a fiasco, but part of that was the insufficient outreach time and the rushed approach taken by city staff, those community-based proposers and some council members.
Clearly, a more careful and concerted effort would be needed even to broach the possibility.
The other problem that the city faces is the specter of future housing. The Cannery Project seems inviting, at least to those who are reluctant to convert current agricultural land and open space to urban uses, but the consistent drumbeat is that ConAgra does not want to use its land for business park opportunities, and businesses would not want to move their operations there.
Is that an accurate picture? Are people simply taking the easy way out?
It is worth noting that Cannery is not nearly the done deal that some think. There was an entire Davis Enterprise article this morning on Cannery, with zero mention of the likely effort to put the matter to a vote.
Some in the community have been harming efforts to economically develop, by linking jobs to housing.
On Thursday, Kemble Pope and Rob White adeptly avoided that linkage.
For Kemble Pope, the Innovation Park Task Force laid out a roadmap that is “palatable to the community.” “I don’t believe anything in that report… assumes or precludes or points to the fact that we’re going to increase the number of households,” he added, stating he doesn’t see the relationship between square feet for business as being related to increasing the number of houses we build.
Concern has been expressed that, without building housing to accommodate jobs, by bringing in jobs to Davis, we are simply creating a new commuter class who trek from Woodland, Dixon, West Sacramento and further away to work in Davis.
However, both Kemble Pope and Rob White dispute that these are necessarily connected.
Kemble Pope told the Vanguard, “I think it is a false linkage, a false choice to say that we have to create housing with jobs. I don’t accept that as those being linked.”
They note the number of people who live in Davis but commute to either Sacramento or even the Bay Area, who may be able to find employment closer to home should the opportunities arise.
“There are a fair amount of people who commute out of Davis to go higher hanging jobs because they don’t exist locally,” Rob White stated. “We have a very intelligent and high quality workforce and they don’t have the ability to find many of the opportunities locally.”
“We don’t have enough of the jobs we need locally in order to supply the demand, so we have a lot of people out-commuting,” he said.
The other side of that are the people who are in-commuting, and those are people who are coming because of the university. Most of the service-oriented jobs are filled by students who become essentially local residents, at least during the school year and their tenure at the university.
Rob White said we need to look at data to determine what it is that we need to do to meet our workforce demands and “we need to figure out what are the matches to the resources we have locally.”
Rob White, responding to whether Davis needs to be 100,000 people said, “I don’t know what Davis needs to be. I’m not the policy maker.”
His job and the reason he was brought here was to try to answer the question as to how we ensure that we have high quality jobs locally. The question as to what the community looks like in the future is the job for the city council.
It is a politically wise approach.
The question at this point is whether the voters in Davis are willing to convert some peripheral areas to business park uses.
In addition, there are still some infill sites, or quasi-infill sites, that could work for housing. Cannery would be one of those, Nishi might be another. More inviting is the idea that the city might re-open conversations on PG&E and even their own land along Fifth Street.
“We need to sit down with PG&E and have a conversation, is this the right place for you to be,” Mr. White stated. And then he asked, “Is it the right place for us as a community to do something special?”
Even some of the most progressive councilmembers in the past have cited this as a place that is good for high density. Mr. White argued that, whether it is or is not, we need to have that conversation.
He also noted the city-held property on Fifth Street, and asked if that is the appropriate place for those assets or “is it a use of land that’s inappropriate for the environment it’s in now? It used to be a brilliant place, is it still?”
The bottom line coming out of these discussions is the idea that Davis does not need to grow on the periphery, to accommodate additional housing, for a while. If that is the case, the discussion should focus not on housing, but rather on business opportunities.
It will be a tough debate over land use issues. The city worries about revenue and job creation and fears losing the next Bayer, which is a decision that is going to come far sooner than we might have liked.
However, what is clear to me is that the business leaders’ discussion is far out in front of where the average citizen is in terms of land use and vision for the future. What we need is a community discussion on what we want to look like in the next five, ten, twenty and even fifty years.
Based on that, we can make our land use and other decisions.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Some in the community have been harming efforts to economically develop by linking jobs to housing.”
What is weird is why housing is considered the third rail of Davis politics. Its like oh my god he said the “h” word. Classic was one poster who felt that if business development means more housing its a deal killer in their mind. People need to live somewhere. If saying as much harms economic development don’t put that on me. Put that on those who are so locked into their anti-housing positions that they would sacrifice economic development upon the alter of their limits to growth dogma.
Can Davis Overcome Hurdles to Become a Major Player in Economic Development?
No, not given your historic intransigence on land use and reputation for reneging on agreement’s with other government and private agencies.
[quote]The leaders in Davis want Davis to be more than just the home of startups – more than just the place where companies can launch and grow in their initial stages.
Kemble Pope as the director of the Davis Chamber wants there to be more opportunities for companies to stay in Davis throughout their life cycles.
[/quote]
Ok, so you all know that I have no knowledge of city planning so I offer these questions and thoughts only as a devil’s advocate and to spur conversation.
Why do we need to be “more than just the home of start ups” ? Does this function not seem to be the natural role of a University town ? Does this not seem to be the area in which Davis can make the unique and best contribution to the well being of the region overall ? Why think only of the well being of Davis as opposed to the economic well being of the entire region ? If we serve as the incubator, will not all prosper if when companies exceed the size restrictions here, they move on to adjacent areas with larger sites available ? Will these start up sites not then be filled by other new innovators from the University which provides us with steady source of new innovators ?
As to the second point, do we truly benefit more from companies staying “throughout their life cycle”? Does this not necessarily include the possibility of its decline in the case of any individual company ?
Just a few thoughts to provoke more commentary, provide a chance for me to gain a better understanding, and maybe challenge what seems to be the accepted mantra of the business community just a little.
Agree medwoman; I have had the same thought ‘incubating’ for several weeks reading these econ development articles…..I envision small to medium office companies, not the large factories….Again, my questions regarding Mori Seiki….what net benefit to the city, e.g., taxes, jobs for Davisites, etc.
The danger of building large industrial parks for factories is if they close and are empty…..they are empty.
So these two ‘devils’ would appreciate expertise to react to these ideas!
SODA
[quote]The danger of building large industrial parks for factories is if they close and are empty…..they are empty.[/quote]
It would seem to me that we have the prime example of this in the Cannery site. Is this not basically what occurred there, albeit with the precipitating closure in this case being due to a personal tragedy. It would seem to me that this outcome could occur for any number of business related reasons.
not sure if you are agreeing, but my point was large industrial plants, factories, buildings when empty often remain empty and can be blight.
smaller office configurations for incubators would be easier to rerent/sell I would think…..
Yes, I am in agreement with you.
Valid points and good thoughts, medwoman and SODA, that reinforce my belief that comfortable Davisites have no interest in being “a Major Player in Economic Development.”, just like, despite the constant prodding from the developer/business interests, Sacramentans have no desire to be “A World-class city.” The problem is, if you don’t grow your economy, you can’t afford to maintain a continuously deteriorating infrastructure, you know, roads, water systems, etc. and the town’s desirability and, heaven forfend, property values go down.
Biddlin ;>)/
just asking for comparison in the net advantage to small to medium incubator office configuration compared to the large factory type development like Mori Seiki, Biddlin, not disagreeing with growing our offerings to the former type of tenants, buyers…..
Redevelopment hasn’t been a problem in davis especially with the limits to growth mentality that prevails. Just look at Cannery the fight is over what to do there housing or industrial redevelopment not finding someone who wants it. Same thing with Olive Drive, relocating the firehouse or moving the train depot. The only thing that holds redevelopment back in Davis is toxic soil.
“Just asking for comparison in the net advantage to small to medium incubator office configuration compared to the large factory type development like Mori Seiki,…”
Its simple. Being for smaller businesses allows anti-growth advocates an argument against something new and bigger so that they can claim that they are not anti-growth and development when in reality not providing infrastructure for scaling up forces out business and at best keeps us at a steady state, de-facto no growth economy.
Good questions medwoman and SODA. My knowledge of city planning is limited, but let me take a stab at your questions starting with medwoman’s Cannery question. My first question about the Cannery’s closing in the late 1990’s is how long was that tomato canning facility in operation? I don’t know the answer, but my suspicion is that the answer probably exceeds 20 years. My second question is about the overall condition of the tomato packing industry in the late 1990’s. The answer to that is much clearer. Lots of industry consolidation and mergers making older, smaller packing facilities like our Cannery rater obsolete by comparison. The thrust of those questions is to try and get to a point where one can determine whether our Cannery can be used as an example in a broader picture.
SODA’s question is incredibly important, and I hope Rob White will focus one of his future articles on that very question. Net benefit “throughout their life cycle” is always incredibly important.
[i]Why do we need to be “more than just the home of start ups”? Does this function not seem to be the natural role of a University town? Does this not seem to be the area in which Davis can make the unique and best contribution to the well being of the region overall?[/i]
I could be wrong (nod to Growth Izzue) but, my sense of the answer to these three inter-related questions is that the answer is available to us if we analyze the period from 1983 through 2013 and see how well we were doing that . . . because other than Pam Marrone and Roger Salquist what other entrepreneurs have incubated serious technology businesses that leveraged the “natural role of a University town”? Tyler Schilling is clearly an entrepreneur who has built an undersea robotics company up to the point where FMC wanted to add it to its portfolio of companies, but when you think of “Davis . . . a University town” when does “undersea robotics” come to the front of your mind? David Morse built Sagres Discovery to a certain point and then it left town (purchased by Chiron). What residual benefit to Davis is Sagres Discovery’s legacy? Is it a gift that keeps on giving? In the personal presence of David Morris enough of a gift that keeps on giving?
[i]Why think only of the well being of Davis as opposed to the economic well being of the entire region ? If we serve as the incubator, will not all prosper if when companies exceed the size restrictions here, they move on to adjacent areas with larger sites available ? Will these start up sites not then be filled by other new innovators from the University which provides us with steady source of new innovators ? [/i]
Again good questions, and I think you have to put yourself into the position of the entrepreneur who is ready to spin her/his work out of UCD and into the bright lights of the non-university world. What Davis will be saying to that entrepreneur is [i]We are only willing to look at you as a concubine, and when you get to a certain age you will have lost your looks and we will expel you from the household. We are simply not willing to consider a lifetime commitment. We far prefer serial polygamy as our marital choice.[/i] If you were that entrepreneur would you consider that a compelling message of support for “your baby”?
Where do you want those build-up companies to locate, Matt? Which peripheral property are you advocating for annexation?
[quote]Being for smaller businesses allows anti-growth advocates an argument against something new and bigger so that they can claim that they are not anti-growth and development when in reality not providing infrastructure for scaling up forces out business and at best keeps us at a steady state, de-facto no growth economy.[/quote]
That is such a false dichotomy that it is hardly worth replying to. But since it clearly exemplifies the big-growth viewpoint that you and Frankly espouse, I will just say this much: growth is growth. Opinions exist along a continuum of no-growth, moderate-growth, and fast-growth. Advocating fast-growth doesn’t make all who disagree with you no-growth. If the council and the city and the landowners move forward on items 1 – 3 of the Task Force recommendation, we will have growth. We will make room for smaller businesses. We will get jobs. Get those done, and maybe people will look more favorably on item 4.
All of them, why don’t you build all of them, can’t you see, I’m no good without you.
Seriously, there is lots of land with willing sellers that can be purchased in fee, something along or near 80 or 113 would be good.
Lots of land within the city limits?
Don, I answered that for you yesterday. You must have missed that post. Here it is again. Business development locations are addressed in the final paragraph.
[quote]Matt Williams
08/10/13 – 10:36 PM
…
Don, my thoughts on residential housing were laid out in my 03:42 PM post in which I said, “Regarding the locations for added multi-family housing, my first choice are a set of 10-story high rise units on the A Street Intramural Field south of Toomey Field. My second choice is significant densification of current housing locations (Orchard Park and Solano Park are two that come to mind). If the rail relocation does actually continue on its ever improving trajectory, over 50 acres of rail right of way will be freed up within the City Limits. Lots of multi-family housing opportunities there.”
You must have missed that post. I also support the concept that Jim Kidd has laid out for the senior housing complex on B Street near Central Park. Unfortunately the specific proposal he is currently circulating is demonstrably inferior to his original proposal. If he works with the neighbors, that concept may yet achieve a positive contribution to senior housing in Davis. The rebuild of the Phi Delta Theta fraternity house at the corner of 4th and C Streets was a horribly missed opportunity. A four story senior complex at that location with underground parking would have been a much higher and better use.
If the swap of the Shriners property for the lower 234 acres of the Mace 391 property had come to fruition and the lower portion of Shriners had become the new location of a highly accessible Davis Community Gardens, then I might be inclined to build a new City Hall, School District, County Administration Building on the location of the current Community Gardens just down 5th Street from your Redwood Barn location. Then I would transform the current City Hall and School District and County Administration Building sites along A and B Streets into infill housing oriented toward seniors. The Senior Center would be right across the baseball park from that senior oriented housing. It would make for a very supportive infill environment.
Regarding business development, I don’t think you and I are all that far apart. I strongly support a university-centric complex on Nishi. The soil quality north and west of Sutter Davis Hospital makes that location high on both your hit list and mine. Where you and I differ is that you appear to want to let the Bayer AgriQuests of the world go away from Davis once they get to a critical mass. I’m not willing to simply give up on the idea of keeping that economic vitality in Davis.[/quote]
City limit is a human construct it is not a true geographical limitation. Still you raise a good point measure R limits our economic as well as our demographic growth.
Yes, and Measure R reflects the will of the voters. Davis voters have expressed a strong preference for slow growth. In so doing, Davis voters have basically written businesses the size of Bayer out of the planning process.
Matt, I saw and replied to that answer. Which didn’t answer the question, so I’ll make it simpler.
Where do you think Bayer could or should have located in or near Davis?
Which peripheral property do you advocate annexing for companies of that size?
If you’re “not willing to simply give up on the idea of keeping that economic vitality in Davis” then which property do you want to put up for a Measure R vote? It’s really simple.
If you want companies the size of Bayer, you need to annex. That is what you are advocating. But you won’t say it. So please: say it, and be specific.
We need to stop framing this discussion in terms of Bayer and companies of that size. They aren’t going to happen here, for a lot of reasons. But if you and Frankly and Mr. Toad keep framing it that way, and David Greenwald keeps using Bayer in his headlines about economic development, our whole debate will be about item 4 on the Task Force list. It’s a bunch of false dichotomies,
Don, how much clearer can I be . . . I will say it again.
[i]”Regarding business development, I don’t think you and I are all that far apart. I strongly support a university-centric complex on Nishi. The soil quality north and west of Sutter Davis Hospital makes that location high on both your hit list and mine.”[/i]
Judas Priest!!!
Don: [i]”Growth is growth”[/i]
So that must mean that “No Growth” is the only other position. I continually have my suspicions validated by the words you write.
In 1998 or even 2003 very few of us accepted any description of a future state that looked like the after-math of the Great Recession. Well today is a similar time to look forward to an education bubble popping. Five to ten years from now UCD will be facing significant declining enrollment as a result of alternative technology-fueled degree programs that delivers higher-quality instruction at a much lower price-point. Davis will suffer in that decline unless it starts now to develop alternative business sources.
“Yes, and Measure R reflects the will of the voters. Davis voters have expressed a strong preference for slow growth. In so doing, Davis voters have basically written businesses the size of Bayer out of the planning process.”
Yes it does but R sunsets and its good to have the time to raise these issues before its renewal date so that people have a better idea of the unintended consequences of their votes. In the interim we are going to see more and more businesses grow up and out. Of course we won’t see the loss of the businesses that wanted to be here but were lost to the unfriendly zoning of Davis. Of course the Board of Supervisors could allow building outside the city limit but why would they. They will advocate for self determination while Woodland and West Sac erect huge neon signs on the highway that say “Open for business” while they laugh all the way to the bank.
[quote]Don: “Growth is growth”
So that must mean that “No Growth” is the only other position. [/quote]
You seem to have reading comprehension problems.
[quote]I continually have my suspicions validated by the words you write. [/quote]
I advocate growth that is slower than what you advocate. I do not advocate “no growth.” I have made that clear so many times, that your continued portrayal otherwise is now simply willful misrepresentation.
[quote]In 1998 or even 2003 very few of us accepted any description of a future state that looked like the after-math of the Great Recession. Well today is a similar time to look forward to an education bubble popping. Five to ten years from now UCD will be facing significant declining enrollment as a result of alternative technology-fueled degree programs that delivers higher-quality instruction at a much lower price-point. Davis will suffer in that decline unless it starts now to develop alternative business sources.[/quote]
UC Davis will be among the most competitive, attractive campuses even if enrollment declines at other campuses. There is no basis for your repeated statement that UCD will face “significant declining enrollment.”
[quote]I think you have to put yourself into the position of the entrepreneur who is ready to spin her/his work out of UCD and into the bright lights of the non-university world. What Davis will be saying to that entrepreneur is We are only willing to look at you as a concubine, and when you get to a certain age you will have lost your looks and we will expel you from the household. We are simply not willing to consider a lifetime commitment. We far prefer serial polygamy as our marital choice. If you were that entrepreneur would you consider that a compelling message of support for “your baby”?
[/quote]
Interesting to look at this from a personal relationship point of view. However, I think of it as an incompatible mixing of metaphors. If I am an entrepreneur who is seeking a compelling message of support for “my baby”,what I want is the best opportunity for “my baby”. If the best opportunity means staying “at home”, that is fine. If the best opportunity is in a surrounding community, I want “my baby” to have the flexibility to avail itself of whatever is in its best interest. I do not see this as a “love affair” but as a series of opportunities, some of which will be in the “home town” some of which may lie elsewhere. Your analogy implies that the town has a duty as “spouse” to the entrepreneur, but ignores the fact that there is no obligation of the entrepreneur to honor his side of the “marriage”.
Do we really believe that the business owner will not “dump” the city for a more attractive location. Do we really believe that we will be able to compete with larger cities, in the region, or other states, or other countries for that matter simply by growing bigger ? Even if we got to Mr. Toads desired population, we would not be able to complete with a number of other areas. If I am missing some critical point, please let me know.
Don Shor: “[i]If the council and the city and the landowners move forward on items 1 – 3 of the Task Force recommendation, we will have growth. We will make room for smaller businesses. We will get jobs. Get those done, and maybe people will look more favorably on item 4.[/i]”
Don, you have made this comment several times now in different discussions. Why is it that you believe we need to complete steps 1-3 before talking about step 4?
Economic development is a long-term process and needs to be planned that way. We need to be talking about step 4 now, and planning for implementation, so that when it comes time to implement we are ready.
Medwoman: “[i]Why do we need to be “more than just the home of start ups”? If we serve as the incubator, will not all prosper if when companies exceed the size restrictions here, they move on to adjacent areas with larger sites available?[/i]”
Start-up businesses are rarely profitable when they start. There is often a period of years when the business has little excess money to spend in the community. Salaries are limited, jobs are limited, and the money for local philanthropic activities doesn’t exist. Once the business becomes profitable and is experiencing healthy growth then the community benefits from the dramatic increase in monies flowing into the local economy.
If we are only able to provide space for the start-up phase of the company’s growth, then we never get to take advantage of the pay off when the company grows and becomes profitable. We take on the risk of the start-up failing (loss of jobs, empty space etc.) but never get the benefits (more jobs, higher salaries, increased taxes and the all important philanthropy). This is analogous to investing in a company during the start-up phase, then giving your stock to someone else once the company becomes profitable. All the risk and none of the reward. Not a smart investment strategy.
[quote]Don, you have made this comment several times now in different discussions. Why is it that you believe we need to complete steps 1-3 before talking about step 4? [/quote]
Let me be more specific. I think a Measure R vote on Nishi should go before the voters soon. I think a Measure R vote on the Parlin part of Northwest Quadrant is a few years away. I agree that staff could begin the process of planning it. Of course, we don’t know what the landowner wants to do.
A peripheral property being developed for business use would be somewhat in competition with the downtown project(s), so it would be better to develop them in an orderly progression as laid out by the Task Force.
Frankly: here is UC application and enrollment data. [url]http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2013/fall_2013_admissions_table2.pdf[/url]
[quote]then we never get to take advantage of the pay off when the company grows and becomes profitable. We take on the risk of the start-up failing[/quote]
Interesting fact: I don’t think CalGene ever showed a profit.
“You seem to have reading comprehension problems.”
We all do so maybe its an articulation problem.
No. I have been very clear about what I support in the way of economic development. And I have repeated myself. So you and Frankly are distorting my positions. Repeatedly, and I’m tired of it, so I’m calling you on it when you do it.
Mark West
Thanks for the direct response. I get that point.
However, I also know that Davis does not have the capacity to be a Silicon Valley, or any other area that one would consider a major economic power. So somewhere in between “sleepy little university town” and
“economic powerhouse”, I think there must be a “sweet spot” of economic prosperity without undesired ( per many votes) rapid growth. It would seem to me that what is happening is disagreement over the competing visions of where that “sweet spot” lies.
For those of us for whom economic expansion is not our highest value, it lies on the “smaller is better” side.
For those who value economic expansion as their major goal, ” more growth faster” will be a higher priority.
My aspiration would be for this conversation to occur in as civil a manner as possible with no name calling and without either side catastrophizing about the outcome should their side lose ground.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”Interesting to look at this from a personal relationship point of view. However, I think of it as an incompatible mixing of metaphors. If I am an entrepreneur who is seeking a compelling message of support for “my baby,” what I want is the best opportunity for “my baby”. If the best opportunity means staying “at home”, that is fine. If the best opportunity is in a surrounding community, I want “my baby” to have the flexibility to avail itself of whatever is in its best interest. I do not see this as a “love affair” but as a series of opportunities, some of which will be in the “home town” some of which may lie elsewhere.”[/i]
One of the “rules” of the entrepreneurial world is that entrepreneurs more often than not hit a point in the development/growth of “their child” where they are no longer a good match for that child’s growth. As a result the stories of the financing arms of entrepreneurial companies (the venture capitalists) forcing out the visionary founder are well documented and frequently discussed. here is a different between the “my baby” stage and the “my child” stage of a company’s growth. The “my baby” stage often happens before there actually is a company . . . when the entrepreneur hasn’t even become an entrepreneur yet, but is only an inventor/researcher.
As has been pointed out by many here, the “my child” stage frequently begins with a close tethering between the entrepreneur’s old environment (the university) and his/her new environment (the business). In many cases in Davis the old environment isn’t actually the University. In many cases it is a larger company like Monsanto or AgraQuest or Novartis, where the idea/invention of the entrepreneur doesn’t have enough critical mass as an intrapreneurial venture within the company, but does have enough gravitas to succeed as the sole focus of its own company. In both those cases the entrepreneur frequently wants close access to the environment that they evolved from. The support isn’t so much for the “child” itself, but often more for the “parent.” However, all entrepreneurs know in their hearts that a time will come when the forces that have financed the early stage growth of their child will want to get their Return On Investment, and it is at that time when the entrepreneur is faced with a whole lot of difficult challenges . . . and it is also the time where the incubating City actively stating its disloyalty to the child and entrepreneur carries the most weight. it’s a “Just when I need them most, where are they?” situation.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”Your analogy implies that the town has a duty as “spouse” to the entrepreneur, but ignores the fact that there is no obligation of the entrepreneur to honor his side of the “marriage”. [/i]
It isn’t the entrepreneur who is likely to be disloyal to the town. it is the venture capital financiers who are likely to be disloyal. I’m not sure that we can change that. Return On Investment is a key tenet of the capitalistic system.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”Do we really believe that the business owner will not “dump” the city for a more attractive location.”[/i]
No I don’t believe that, because at the time when this decision is faced, in most cases the entrepreneur is no longer the effective owner of the company. However, one definition of “luck” is “when preparation meets opportunity” and I believe that if we are prepared, then we will win more than our share.
medwoman said . . .
[i]Do we really believe that we will be able to compete with larger cities, in the region, or other states, or other countries for that matter simply by growing bigger? Even if we got to Mr. Toads desired population, we would not be able to complete with a number of other areas. If I am missing some critical point, please let me know.”[/i]
No, you aren’t missing a thing. You are just a bit more pessimistic than I am. 8>)
“However, I also know that Davis does not have the capacity to be a Silicon Valley, or any other area that one would consider a major economic power. “
I disagree we could be the equivalent of the Silicon Valley of biotech.
Frankly wrote:
> Five to ten years from now UCD will be facing
> significant declining enrollment as a result
> of alternative technology-fueled degree programs
> that delivers higher-quality instruction at a much
> lower price-point.
Someday (after most of us are dead) UCD might face “significant declining enrollment” (due to some alt-technology instruction model)…
With ~50,000 applicants for the ~5,000 spaces at UCD every year we have a long way to go before enrollment declines.
Let’s not forget that most kids that go to Sac State or Chico would love to go to UCD (just like most people at UCD would love to go to Stanford).
Most kids at Sac State and Chico don’t even bother to apply to UCD since they know they don’t have the grades and SAT score to get in.
It will not be until Sac State, Chico and every other C list school like University of Phoenix and Heald go under that UCD will even have to think about “declining enrollment”…
Matt
[quote]No, you aren’t missing a thing. You are just a bit more pessimistic than I am. 8>)[/quote]
I don’t see this as pessimism. I just believe that I am more wedded to the concept of Davis as a small town incubator for the University than you …..and certainly much more so than Mr. Toad. So on that note.
Mr.Toad
[quote]I disagree we could be the equivalent of the Silicon Valley of biotech.[/quote]
Perhaps that was wishful thinking on my part as I would surely hate to see Davis converted into Silicon Valley.
The last two of these discussions noted that the county recently purchased the majority of the cannery project land.
Assuming this is an accurate report, I’m interested in knowing why and for how much, and where to read a Vanguard, Enterprise, Bee, Democrat, anything that would describe the details.
This is the third such request. Can anyone help me with this information?
It seems that this transaction would have been of major interest to Davis leadership and others interested in the city’s future economic development.
“Some in the community have been harming efforts to economically develop by linking jobs to housing.”
Please identify the “some in the community” who are guilty? And, just how has their discussion harmed such efforts? What efforts have been harmed?
What an odd comment from someone who wants to encourage (and even demands) public dialogue. I guess we should censor their ideas and comments as being off-topic as well as harmful. Please explain.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”So somewhere in between “sleepy little university town” and “economic powerhouse”, I think there must be a “sweet spot” of economic prosperity without undesired ( per many votes) rapid growth. It would seem to me that what is happening is disagreement over the competing visions of where that “sweet spot” lies.
For those of us for whom economic expansion is not our highest value, it lies on the “smaller is better” side.”[/i]
Well said medwoman. For me it isn’t really an issue of economic expansion so much as an effort to keep the economic engines we already have. For me “expansion” denotes going into areas of the economy where we don’t already have a presence. I don’t think anyone posting in this thread is advocating that.
[quote]the county recently purchased the majority of the cannery project land. [/quote]
The closest thing I come up with is the county’s purchase of land near the landfill. I don’t think anyone said the county bought land near the ConAgra site.
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/county-government/supervisors-ok-purchase-of-property-near-landfill/[/url]
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”The last two of these discussions noted that the county recently purchased the majority of the cannery project land.
Assuming this is an accurate report, I’m interested in knowing why and for how much, and where to read a Vanguard, Enterprise, Bee, Democrat, anything that would describe the details.
This is the third such request. Can anyone help me with this information?
It seems that this transaction would have been of major interest to Davis leadership and others interested in the city’s future economic development.”[/i]
I can help you on that score JS. The 300 acres the County purchased is the old “spraying fields” property that just to the west of the Yolo Landfill. It is bounded on the south by County Road 28B and on the east by County Road 104. There is an underground pipe from the 100 acre Cannery site to the spraying fields site that used to carry the biproduct wastewater from the tomato canning process out to be distributed like irrigation water over the plant material that grew on that site.
If you go to [url]http://yolo.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=574&meta_id=137768[/url] you will find a detailed report prepared by Pattison and Associates with a transmittal letter dated April 25, 2013 that provides a 20 page report and an equal number of supporting addenda. You will find maps and supporting documents and comparables in that report.
Pattison Associates determined that the appraised value of the 320 acres was/is $1,440,000.
Hope all the above helps.
lies
JS I made a remark the other day that went something to the effect of first you need jobs, then houses, tax paying families with children. Someone responded that economic development was a back door way to build houses. David posted that my remarks were counter productive and has made several similar remarks in the last few days. That is what underlies the first post on this thread.
Thank you, DS and MW. I assume this former cannery land must benefit the county’s landfill somehow, then. I’ll read your references, though.
Thank you, Mr. T, confession is good for the soul. I hope you feel better now. But, I don’t see how talking about housing threatens or harms the economic development objectives. So, I guess I’ll have to wait for David’s definitive response. Maybe you’re not the destructive linker at all.
My understanding is that the County Landfill will mine the property for soil that it needs in its current operations.
The value of the property is quite low ($4,500 per acre) for a number of reasons. 1) its immediate proximity to the Landfill, 2) the cumulative effect on the soil of the years and years of wastewater spraying over the soil’s surface, and 3) the fact that it is above Road 29 and as such is covered by the Greenbelt MOU between Woodland and Davis.
Nevertheless, Matt, the County acquisition next to the landfill is the benchmark acquisition price that Mike Hart keeps referencing to support his Cannery vision. 🙂
-Michael Bisch
“(The value is quite low because)…2) the cumulative effect on the soil of the years and years of wastewater spraying over the soil’s surface….”
Apparently not. It seems reasonable that should have been considered, but:
“No soil analysis or survey has been made available to the appraisers. It is assumed that there are no abnormal surface or subsurface soil conditions existing on the properties that would have a material affect on their valuation.” (From the Pattison valuation report.)
However, your other two factors must have weighed heavily.