I honestly believe, and have believed for some time, that the biggest mistake that was made in the lead up to the June 11 vote on Mace 391/Leland Ranch was that we didn’t get to vet the proposal in advance on a public site like the Vanguard. Why? Because every day thousands of people read this site and we get sometimes hundreds of comments.
Had we gotten to run a story – let us say on May 11 – we would have foreseen the problems that occurred just a month later. We would have been able to discuss the ramifications of backing out of the grant process. We would have discussed some of the concerns about the land use implications of building east of Mace, and the need for a business park and for finding new sources of revenue.
At the end of the day, however, I’m not sure that discussion would have changed as much as we might have thought. At least for me, three factors have shifted my opinion slightly. First, the loss of Bayer-AgraQuest should be a wakeup call that we will not be able to hold onto our companies without available land.
Second, the budget discussion showed that Davis, instead of climbing out of its hole, is climbing deeper into it. The city has done a great job of reforming its compensation system, but at this point, it is not clear where else we can cut without impacting vital services.
Third, even achieving the modest concessions that we have has proven long and difficult. The city has fallen deeper into hole trying to play out the impasse process with two bargaining units, at least one of which has done everything it publicly could to undermine the city’s standing – but, at least at this point, to no avail.
That said, there are key questions that need to be addressed.
First, what are the impacts to the city and what are the impacts to the Yolo Land Trust if we back out of the grant process now? We have competing claims from people like Councilmember Rochelle Swanson and YLT’s Michele Clark about the consequences of backing out. Unfortunately, I was unable to connect with Ms. Clark prior to her leaving on a pre-planned vacation following Tuesday’s meeting.
Second, where is the best place to put a business park? We have had discussions here about the need for easy access to the freeway and the competing interest of protecting prime agricultural land and open space versus a business park. That leads to the question as to where else we might be able to put it. Some of that will depend on how large it needs to be.
Third, how much space do we actually need? There is the debate starting to swirl over whether we need 400 acres or whether a more modest 200 acres will do.
Fourth, how much of that space has to be contiguous? In other words, we know that some businesses are hoping to expand and would need a larger space, but how much of that space needs to be contiguous and how much can we mix and match throughout the area?
Fifth, can we get a win-win? There has been so much of this analogy thrown around in the last meeting, but from my perspective a win-win means that everyone achieves some of their goals. That means the business and tech community get their land for a business park. The city gets its revenue. The preservation of open space folks get prime agricultural land put into easements that forever protect it and prevent the door being opened to sprawl. The community needs its urban farms and ag-urban transition areas. So if we can protect critical ag land in exchange for this deal, that could be a win-win. But we need to all agree on that.
Sixth, can whatever is proposed get through a Measure R vote? We could all be spinning our wheels here. The city is putting a tremendous amount of effort into Nishi, a property that will be very difficult to get through a Measure R process, given the access issues on Richards Blvd.
The city is going through a Cannery Process that could end up with citizens putting that project to a vote.
And any business park that is proposed on the periphery will have the same problems
We have heard that residents may react differently to commercial projects as opposed to housing, but quite frankly those are just guesses.
In the end, we need to have a community discussion because, while some of the stakeholders have come around to the idea of the need for increased commercial and economic development, the community has not yet been engaged on this debate.
Already a couple of letters have appeared in the paper opposing such development.
One wrote, “Their votes to open for discussion ‘all the possible land use options’ for this open space to the east of the city subjects the entire process to lobbying by businesses and developers and is not in the best interest of residents. Economic development is possible without sprawl.”
But against that we have a clear process here that will protect at every step of the way.
First, the council did not vote to reconsider, they merely voted to have the ability to reconsider their vote.
Second, counting votes, right now, there may be only one or two votes to actually reconsider.
Third, even if they do vote to reconsider, they would then have to have a full process – fiscal analysis, perhaps an EIR, and more.
Fourth, even if they did decide to put a business park on that property, the voters would have to agree to it.
There are multiple levels of safeguards in place here. I am not advocating an outcome. I am advocating only a conversation – a conversation that hopefully identifies our needs, the benefits, the costs and possible alternative locations.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Had we gotten to run a story”
But you did run a story.
“I am not advocating an outcome. I am advocating only a conversation – a conversation that hopefully identifies our nee”
I believe you when you say that all you want is a conversation. I do not believe that when it is put forth as their reason by community business leaders since they are clearly seeking a specific outcome.
There is a site just south of Mace 391.
There is land further up on the Mace curve.
There is land near the hospital.
All told, Mayor Krovoza mentioned some 475 acres available for business development. Mace 391 is not necessary for that purpose.
Medwoman is absolutely right: the purpose of initiating the ‘conversation’ is a specific outcome — blocking the easement.
If the conversation was to be about creative uses of an ag-conserved site, I’d be all for it. We can keep adding to a list of interesting, at-related, profitable uses for Mace 391 that would be in keeping with the character and values of Davis. Paving over farmland doesn’t reflect those values.
[quote]There is land further up on the Mace curve. [/quote]
I don’t understand why this would be brought into the conversation?
Are you talking about the Shriner’s property?
I’m still unclear about why this conversation didn’t happen BEFORE we got this far in the grant process. If the business park on Mace is such a great idea, and has such great potential to bring in revenue for the city why is it be presented at the 11th hour? Krovoza touched on this in his comments but I don’t believe anyone responded.
GI: I was referring to what is shown on the map below as owned by Mariani Nut:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/Mace391map.jpg[/img]
Mr. Toad: Yeah we ran a story the day before the vote. Given a month, it might have been a different story.
Medwoman: If by specific outcome you mean a business park, then I agree. If by specific outcome you mean a business park at the Leland Ranch, I’m less certain.
Don: “Medwoman is absolutely right: the purpose of initiating the ‘conversation’ is a specific outcome — blocking the easement.’
Not for me. I think we need to decide if those locations you mention work or why they would not work.
B. Nice: I thought Matt hit on it last night in the other article – a huge factor here is that the process from 2010 until now has not been public. We never had a discussion on whether the easement was a good idea to begin – I’m not saying it’s not. There were clear errors made in that this wasn’t brought forward in the last six month before June – that’s a clear error. But in the end, the more critical question is whether there is harm in reconsidering the easement and I regret not getting more information on that in the past week.
Agreed David, however, I have to wonder as Don has implied, if there are other available sites, why reopen this particular issue unless that were your goal ?
Those questions that need to be scrutinized
B.Nice
[quote]I’m still unclear about why this conversation didn’t happen BEFORE we got this far in the grant process. [/quote]
I think the key to your question may lie in the pronouns. While “this” conversation has not occurred previously on the Vanguard or in the Enterprise, I believe the mayor when he says that these issues have been considered over the past three years. The second question is with regard to the “we”. Does the “we” refer to the city’s decision makers, to the business community, to the readers and commenters on the Vanguard, or to the community as a whole ? I suspect that the answer to your question might be very different depending on which group you are referencing.
As in previous issues in which individuals have felt that there were nefarious dealings or that something was being done “by stealth” what is really going on is that the individual simply has not been paying close attention to the issue at hand as it works its way through the process that is city government. I do not know that this process is taking place in this instance, but I am sure that most participants on the Vanguard can think of their own favorite example of this phenomena.
[quote] I thought Matt hit on it last night in the other article – a huge factor here is that the process from 2010 until now has not been public. We never had a discussion on whether the easement was a good idea to begin[/quote]
My question to this is why it has not been public, and why we’ve never had this discussion.
Also, did the people who are now pushing for a business park, or who are pushing for further discussion, not know about the plans the city had for the land until last spring. This does not seem possible to me.
Don – Why the obsession with one adjacent parcel over another? I am starting to suspect that you, or someone you care about, have some planned business or personal intent that would be interrupted if a business park is built on Mace 391.
You have made access a bit more difficult with this swap.
And by building outside your apparent designed urban fringe at Mace and then locking the Mace 391 property into a perpetual ag easement, you create a weird design with farmland between the business park and the rest of Davis. Don’t you care that people working at your proposed business park would be more likely to have to drive to town for lunch and shopping given your proposed separation?
And in the end it is just one parcel of farm land over another.
I am going to start an effort on my own to talk to commercial realtors, developers and potential business prospects to get a factual read on interest/demand for locations. With business development location is important. And us armchair quarterbacks don’t actually have a clue about the value proposition and constraints for different business park locations.
Our first priority is to assess the needs of existing business in Davis. Maybe I can help there funding a survey. We also need to get input from UCD. And related to that we need identify prospective industries and businesses outside of Davis that have interest in moving here and what their needs are.
We are all making a lot of assumptions about all of this, and it is making us talk in circles lacking complete understanding.
Lacking that understanding, I still have an overall vision for economic development in Davis…
[b]1. A business park at Mace 391and other adjacent parcels.[/b]
But that business park having the following design/amenities:
a. At least 1-1 open-space to developed space design… with ag tech dominating and part of the open space being seed production and other ag business r&d, and the rest of the open space being parks, community farms, natural habitat, bike paths, etc.
b. The remaining 1/3 open space mitigation would be other property purchased and dedicated to open space… or cash to the city to be used for future open space preservation. This gets to Matt William’s ideas for looking at all peripheral land use for open space opportunities.
c. Some limited convenience retail within the business park for employees.
d. Business park is well connected with bike and pedestrian crossings. I would expect an tunnel or overpass crossing Mace. This would provide Davis residents with easy and safe access to the useable land within the park.
Think of a larger and less dense business park with farmland and other useable open space. It could be designed in a way that absolutely mitigates and enhances views. We could even impose some design aspects to the buildings so that they better blend in to the surrounding landscape and provide visual appeal. There are plenty of models for this around the country.
We don’t have to accept a cold and boxy collection of tilt-up industrial buildings packed tightly together. We can demand a design of mixed use that is innovative, visually appealing and provides tremendous utility for the entire city. We can be the talk of the nation doing this right. We own the land. So we can do this with Mace 391.
[b]2. Peripheral retail[/b]
a. I think the area next to the hospital and across 113 is perfect for a small to medium-sized retail power center.
[b]3. Food and entertainment focus[/b]
With UCD’s announcement to focus on food technology and production, and the Sacramento region Farm-to-Fork initiative…. and given our relative affluence and draw, I think we need a city-wide effort to grow our retail food and entertainment economy. I think we can use a few larger food and entertainment properties on the periphery, but I would like to see us focus on the downtown for this. I think we need to put Davis Ace on the periphery, and that property can be used for building a nice downtown hotel, and a food and entertainment venue. I read somewhere that food and entertainment in Davis already accounts for 50% of our sales tax revenue. We have the opportunity to do so much more.
[quote]As in previous issues in which individuals have felt that there were nefarious dealings or that something was being done “by stealth” what is really going on is that the individual simply has not been paying close attention to the issue at hand as it works its way through the process that is city government[/quote]
Is this the case? I believe Krovoza expressed frustration with the fact that the process in deciding what to do with the land was open and transparent, and that many people in the room were part of the process, which took place over many years.
[quote]Don – Why the obsession with one adjacent parcel over another? I am starting to suspect that you, or someone you care about, have some planned business or personal intent that would be interrupted if a business park is built on Mace 391. [/quote]
No, I do not.
Really, my question is why you and the others are so obsessed with Mace 391 to the exclusion of every other possible site.
[quote]1. A business park at Mace 391and other adjacent parcels.
AND other adjacent parcels? How many acres of farmland do you want to pave over now?
[quote]2. Peripheral retail [/quote]
DOA.
[quote]3. Food and entertainment focus
I think we can use a few larger food and entertainment properties on the periphery, but I would like to see us focus on the downtown for this. I think we need to put Davis Ace on the periphery, and that property can be used for building a nice downtown hotel, and a food and entertainment venue. I[/quote]
“We need to” do what with Jennifer Anderson’s property? Have you spoken with her about your plans for having her move her downtown retail hub out to the sticks and developing her property into something else? I don’t think she’s going anywhere.
[quote]And by building outside your apparent designed urban fringe at Mace and then locking the Mace 391 property into a perpetual ag easement, you create a weird design with farmland between the business park and the rest of Davis. Don’t you care that people working at your proposed business park would be more likely to have to drive to town for lunch and shopping given your proposed separation? [/quote]
Even in the vast wasteland that is Natomas, lunch service businesses exist. The first site that would logically be developed for business purposes would be the freeway frontage land that is owned by Ramos and Bruner (two parcels, see map above). That’s about 200 acres. How much more do you need?
B.Nice
You may have this right. I was going only on what I saw expressed on these threads as I was not at council that evening nor have I watched it. My impression was that Brett Lee was expressing dissatisfaction and Joe was standing firm on the process. I might well be mistaken since I was going on second hand information.
[i]”I believe Krovoza expressed frustration with the fact that the process in deciding what to do with the land was open and transparent, and that many people in the room were part of the process, which took place over many years.[/i]
Welcome to democracy. A place where the majority electorate can ignore things that don’t cause immediate pain or impacts, and politicians can shoot for the short-term wins that appease the minority with motivation and an agenda.
But you better move quick because time changes and stuff happens and the majority might actually start caring because of new pain and impacts.
This is where we are today.
Joe is frustrated.
Well I am frustrated with Joe.
Until and unless he steps forward with a clear vision for getting the city budget balanced for the long term, his credibility for demanding we accept ancient agreed upon designs is lacking.
At some point between the time a few motivated people designated Mace 391 as a target for their farmland moat project and today, it became clear that Davis is over leveraged and completely lacking the financial wherewithal to even consider building a farmland moat when doing so would prevent obvious revenue-generating opportunities.
Open space is in the “play” category.
We have to pay before we play.
[quote]building a farmland moat when doing so would prevent obvious revenue-generating opportunities. [/quote]
Farmland generates revenue. You have 475 acres for your business development ideas. How many more do you need?
[quote]At some point between the time a few motivated people designated Mace 391 as a target for their farmland moat project and today, it became clear that Davis is over leveraged and completely lacking the financial wherewithal to even consider building a farmland moat when doing so would prevent obvious revenue-generating opportunities.[/quote]
There doesn’t seem to be that much time between the two. Again if the business park is such a great idea, for the city (and I’m not arguing it is or isn’t), and Mace Curve is such an ideal location, why wasn’t it presented as serious option 2 years ago? This is a sincere question, I feel like I’m missing something…..
Don: [i]AND other adjacent parcels? How many acres of farmland do you want to pave over now?[/i]
Did you even read what I wrote. Do you even read what you write?
2. Peripheral retail
[i]DOA.[/i]
Sure, because Don says so. A bit of an arrogant stance don’t you think? I think there is more attraction to this than you no-growthers and downtown anti-competition people think. Especially when the vote is taken to the growing UCD student population (which by the way is becoming a bigger demographic by comparison because of the no-growth stance of that hyper-active minority.) Also, there is that fact that we are in a post Great Recession jobless recovery… our financial view of the world has changed. There are compelling monetary arguments to be made that did not have the same traction pre 2008.
3. Food and entertainment focus
I think we can use a few larger food and entertainment properties on the periphery, but I would like to see us focus on the downtown for this. I think we need to put Davis Ace on the periphery, and that property can be used for building a nice downtown hotel, and a food and entertainment venue.
[i]”We need to” do what with Jennifer Anderson’s property? Have you spoken with her about your plans for having her move her downtown retail hub out to the sticks and developing her property into something else? I don’t think she’s going anywhere.[/i]
Maybe not, but the city can certainly do some things to help encourage her. Take revenue from the sale of Mace 391 and supplement the cost of her relocation. I have posted before the idea of replicating the downtown Napa Hilton and the Oxbow Market in that G street area. Too bad the teachers unions working with governor Brown raided the RDA money and killed redevelopment, because G street could be labeled as blighted and we could make it grand.
What we lack is any form of a bold vision for this city. Too many NIMBYS are calling the shots.
Again, what is Mitch Sears’ opinion on all this? I find it strange that he hasn’t expressed an opinion (or been asked)…..
[quote]Until and unless he steps forward with a clear vision for getting the city budget balanced for the long term, his credibility for demanding we accept ancient agreed upon designs is lacking. [/quote]
I’m going on memory here, but he is not opposed to business park, and that there are plans to develop one. He seemed frustrated that after many years of a transparent and open process, where public comment was encouraged, and often lacking, a monkey wrench is being thrown in at the last minute.
Is the past 2 years considered ancient?
[quote]2. Peripheral retail
[i]DOA. [/i]
Sure, because Don says so. A bit of an arrogant stance don’t you think? I think there is more attraction to this than you no-growthers and downtown anti-competition people think. Especially when the vote is taken to the growing UCD student population (which by the way is becoming a bigger demographic by comparison because of the no-growth stance of that hyper-active minority.) . [/quote]
Because the General Plan says so. And those students you are planning to mobilize either (1) don’t live in town, they live on campus, or (2) tend not to vote in local elections.
I’m not “no growth” so I’m not sure who you’re talking about. Obviously not me, given my many specific growth-related positions that I’ve detailed on the Vanguard over several years now. Maybe you’re arguing with someone else.
[quote]Until and unless he steps forward with a clear vision for getting the city budget balanced for the long term, his credibility for demanding we accept ancient agreed upon designs is lacking. [/quote]
Frankly the city’s Finance and Budget Committee is taking applications. Here’s the job description:
FINANCE AND BUDGET COMMISSION
Analyzes technical, financial and budgeting issues requested by City Council.
Fosters public understanding of local government finance.
Meets: 2nd Monday (monthly), 7:00pm, 23 Russell Boulevard.
Applications are due Nov 5: [url]http://city-managers-office.cityofdavis.org/city-clerk/apply-to-serve-on-a-city-commission[/url]
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”I’m still unclear about why this conversation didn’t happen BEFORE we got this far in the grant process. If the business park on Mace is such a great idea, and has such great potential to bring in revenue for the city why is it be presented at the 11th hour? Krovoza touched on this in his comments but I don’t believe anyone responded.”[/i]
Your question is really the very heart of the matter B. Nice and is so important that it bears repeating . . . Why didn’t this conversation happen BEFORE we got this far in the grant process.
Mayor Krovoza did indeed touch on this in his comments, but where I think he missed the mark is in his assessment of the robustness and sufficiency of the past communication that did actually happen. If my memory serves me well, on Tuesday Joe restricted his comments to the activities of one body, the Innovation Park Task Force, and I firmly believe that the conversation that was needed was much broader than that. Bottom-line, the communication during 2011 and 2012 should have reflected the breadth of the issue.
With that said I also firmly believe that no constructive purpose would be accomplished by going on a retrospective witch hunt to try and determine which members of Staff were responsible for the failures of “silo to silo” communication during the July 2011 through early 2013 period. For instance,
— Are we really going to accomplish anything by asking Mitch Sears and Sarah Worley (staff to OSHC and BEDC respectively) about why they didn’t reach out to one another as Staff counterparts and schedule a joint Business and Economic Development Commission (BEDC) and Open Space and Habitat Commission (OSHC) meeting to talk about the impact of the easement application on business and economic development?
— Are we really going to accomplish anything by asking Mitch and Sarah and Ken Hiatt and Katherine Hess why they didn’t reach out to one another and have the OSHC make a presentation about the easement and the community farm to the Innovation Park Task Force, as well as to mutually talk about the impact of the easement application on the city’s innovation park opportunities?
— Are we really going to accomplish anything by grilling Kelly Fletcher (the Staff liaison for the Finance and Budget Commission (F&BC) about why she didn’t reach out to Mitch to schedule a joint meeting of the OSHC and the F&BC to talk about what is the best way to dispose of or keep this multi-million dollar asset on the Coty’s books?
— Are we really going to accomplish anything by grilling Roxanne Namazi (the Staff liaison for the Safety and Parking Advisory Commission about why she didn’t reach out to Mitch to schedule a joint meeting of the OSHC and the S&PAC to discuss what (if any) the transportation and safety requirements would be associated with getting the community to the community farm? Roberta Millstein in a prior thread has indicated that OHSC’s vision for the community farm doesn’t include having any community coming to the community farm other than the farmer, and if that is correct there may not be any safety issues, but it also begs the question of how the community is actually involved in the community farm.
The fact is that the Mayor’s comments did not address any of those communication [u]input failures[/u] to the Innovation Park Task Force process. The Mayor’s comments only related to the Innovation Park Task Force’s [u]output[/u].
But one of the most important aspects of the question you pose, is that we have to accept the fact that no amount of wailing over the [u]past failures[/u] to communicate is going to change the [u]current fiscal reality[/u] we face. We don’t have the luxury of rewriting history. We can only go forward . . . ideally with all our arms locked together in pursuit of the best possible outcome for the greater good of the City and its residents.
Great post Matt!
[i]Frankly the city’s Finance and Budget Committee is taking applications.[/i]
It would cut into my blogging time.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”Also, did the people who are now pushing for a business park, or who are pushing for further discussion, not know about the plans the city had for the land until last spring. This does not seem possible to me.”[/i]
Another excellent question B. Nice. The truth is that none of us [u]know[/u] the answer to that question, but there are some pretty clear clues about what the answer might be. If you go to [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/media/default/documents/pdf/citycouncil/councilmeetings/agendas/20121113/packet/06-innovation-park-task-force-amended.pdf[/url] you will find the November 2012 Staff Report recommending that “City Council accept the Studio 30 Davis Innovation Center Final Report.” There is no mention of either the easement or the Mace 391 property anywhere in either the Staff Report or the Studio 30 Final Report. That November report was the culmination of a series of monthly Task Force meetings that began in February 2011. Unless someone has access to information that I haven’t as yet been able to uncover, during that entire year and a half process information about the easement and its potential impact was never provided to either the Task Force or to Studio 30.
As Yul Brynner said in The King and I, “It’s a puzzlement.”
But again, it is important to accept the fact that no amount of wailing over the past failures to communicate is going to change the current fiscal reality we face. We don’t have the luxury of rewriting history. We can only go forward . . . ideally with all our arms locked together in pursuit of the best possible outcome for the greater good of the City and its residents.
JMHO
Given the ponderous pace of the formal analysis required to rationally consider the business park questions (e.g., does building one make economic sense, how big should it be, where should it be), I don’t think there’s any realistic possibility of completing that process before the Mace 391 grant deadline. To me, reopening the Mace 391 discussion would serve only one purpose: to kill the implementation of a hard urban boundary. Once the NRCS grant money is declined, reclaiming Mace 391 for permanent ag/open space becomes an enormous uphill battle.
While I respect the good intentions of some who are clamoring for reconsideration of Mace 391, as a practical matter I think it would be a huge policy setback. I urge the Council to listen politely and then move forward with the conservation easement.
Don wrote:
> my question is why you and the others are
> so obsessed with Mace 391 to the exclusion
> of every other possible site.
I’m not a big booster of the Tech Park at Mace 391, but I can’t think of another site in town near an existing multi-million freeway overpass (that just got improved bike path access this year) and an Interstate Highway.
A tech park has a lot of people in and out every day and freeway signage is vary valuable for corporate identity (Just yesterday I noticed that the big “Mori Seiki” building in Davis owed by the former CBRE CEO was getting a new name).
A tomato farm does not need easy freeway access since they only have a lot of traffic a few times a year (my brother in law drove a tomato truck as a UCD undergrad), and unless you want to have “crop art” like they have had in Salinas for years (see below) you don’t need freeway visibility.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/arts/design/02bill.html?pagewanted=all&position=
medwoman said . . .
[i]”I was going only on what I saw expressed on these threads as I was not at council that evening nor have I watched it. My impression was that Brett Lee was expressing dissatisfaction and Joe was standing firm on the process. I might well be mistaken since I was going on second hand information.”[/i]
I think you have it right medwoman, and ironically your earlier answer to B. Nice addresses why Joe and Brett were expressing seemingly contradictory opinions. Specifically, Joe was talking only about the Innovation Park Task Force process, which indeed was an open and lengthy process, but a process that appears to have suffered due to an absence of some key input. Brett on the other hand was not restricting his assessment to just the Task Force process, but rather to a process that was larger than the Task Force. If that larger process has been more robust than the input failings for the Task Force probably wouldn’t have happened.
SouthofDavis: [quote]I’m not a big booster of the Tech Park at Mace 391, but I can’t think of another site in town near an existing multi-million freeway overpass (that just got improved bike path access this year) and an Interstate Highway. [/quote]
I can. The next parcels to the south.
Matt, if we’re not going to “accomplish anything” by asking all those staff members all those questions, then why did you just call them out by name on a public blog? That’s pretty low behavior on your part.
The bottom line is that the easement was progressing in a normal, public manner before the appropriate commissions, for a site that is especially desirable for many reasons for ag conservation. The business park came out of left field as a proposal to staff, wasn’t broached to the public until the easement process was well underway. The process by which the business park proposal came forward was the communication problem and reflects badly on the business leaders who are now promoting it. It had all the appearance of a backroom deal. It doesn’t reflect badly on the staff members that you just reprehensibly itemized in your post above. This whole episode is a black mark on the private sector locally, not on staff.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”Frankly the city’s Finance and Budget Committee is taking applications. Here’s the job description:
FINANCE AND BUDGET COMMISSION
Analyzes technical, financial and budgeting issues requested by City Council.
Fosters public understanding of local government finance.
Meets: 2nd Monday (monthly), 7:00pm, 23 Russell Boulevard.
Applications are due Nov 5: http://city-managers-office.ci…commission “[/i]
Sounds like a group that might have had some useful input about what the best course of action might be for Mace 391. I wonder why they never got the chance to look at it?
Oh, for god’s sake. I give up.
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”Given the ponderous pace of the formal analysis required to rationally consider the business park questions (e.g., does building one make economic sense, how big should it be, where should it be), I don’t think there’s any realistic possibility of completing that process before the Mace 391 grant deadline. To me, reopening the Mace 391 discussion would serve only one purpose: to kill the implementation of a hard urban boundary. Once the NRCS grant money is declined, reclaiming Mace 391 for permanent ag/open space becomes an enormous uphill battle.
While I respect the good intentions of some who are clamoring for reconsideration of Mace 391, as a practical matter I think it would be a huge policy setback. I urge the Council to listen politely and then move forward with the conservation easement.”[/i]
Well said Jim. While I don’t agree with everything you say, I respect your opinion and am glad you have weighed in with it.
Thank you.
Matt said we should move forward “ideally with all our arms locked together”. I’m in, if it includes skipping and singing also. Maybe your too idealist.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”The bottom line is that the easement was progressing in a normal, public manner [u]before the appropriate commissions[/u],”[/i]
What commissions Don?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Matt, if we’re not going to “accomplish anything” by asking all those staff members all those questions, then why did you just call them out by name on a public blog? That’s pretty low behavior on your part.”[/i]
Don, all people make mistakes. No individual was called out. As they say there is strength in numbers. I have no evidence that the absence of communication that B. Nice asked about not once, but multiple times, was the work of any individual. Rather it was a systemic failing.
Staff people probably need authorization from the city manager to participate on a public blog in their official capacities. That is certainly the impression I’ve received from comments by Rob. So all of those people you cited are probably unable to reply to your comments without such permission, and calling them out by name is inappropriate. I urge you to contact them directly if you have questions or concerns about their actions. It was an unnecessary rhetorical tactic on your part.
“Given the ponderous pace of the formal analysis required to rationally consider the business park questions (e.g., does building one make economic sense, how big should it be, where should it be), I don’t think there’s any realistic possibility of completing that process before the Mace 391 grant deadline.”
You’re right about that, Jim. Some are arguing that the potential profits to the City of leveraging all or part of Mace 391 are so great that it’s worth giving up $1.25 million to do the formal analysis. Should the analysis indicate a conservation easement is still the best path forward, it can still be done, but without the NCRS grant.
-Michael Bisch
“The process by which the business park proposal came forward was the communication problem and reflects badly on the business leaders who are now promoting it. It had all the appearance of a backroom deal. It doesn’t reflect badly on the staff members that you just reprehensibly itemized in your post above. This whole episode is a black mark on the private sector locally, not on staff.”
Don, there’s part of this statement that I agree with. And there are part’s that have me pretty concerned. According to Pinkerton’s Tuesday comments, staff and presumably Morris, were discussing some kind of land swap at least as far back as October ’12. Clearly staff was involved in this process yet you give them a pass. At any time, staff could have shared with the CC a preliminary analysis of the full spectrum of the Mace 391 opportunities. They chose not to. Instead, some staff focused on the easement and some staff focused on the Morris land swap. To the exclusion of all other opportunities. Why? Did they not recognize there were other opportunities? Opportunities that certainly generate far more revenue for the City than the Morris land swap.
On the other other hand, you paint the entire private sector with a pretty broad paintbrush stroke. It is not clear to me which business leaders you feel were part of the “backroom deal”. As you are aware, some of us in the private sector have made some pretty pointed comments about how we got to this juncture with so little open debate and analysis.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]you paint the entire private sector with a pretty broad paintbrush stroke. [/quote]
You’re right. Sorry. I was referring to those who proposed the land swap and those who may have been aware of it while the easement was going forward.
And while I’m spouting off on a Saturday afternoon, I’d like to take a crack at the 400 acre vs. 200 acre business park question. To date, no one, including staff, has made a coherent argument that 400 acres will result in a more vibrant, successful park than 200 acres. The only argument I have heard made to date, in multiple meetings, is “bigger is better”. I find the argument ridiculous. Maybe bigger is better. Who knows? But nobody has said why bigger is better. On the other hand, we do know that the bigger is better syndrome can lead to unsustainable practices. Bigger houses with bigger lawns, bigger cars, greater consumption of limited resources. Why not do more with less? Does recycle, reuse, reduce not apply to land use and facilities needs?
-Michael Bisch
[quote]You’re right about that, Jim. Some are arguing that the potential profits to the City of leveraging all or part of Mace 391 are so great that it’s worth giving up $1.25 million to do the formal analysis. Should the analysis indicate a conservation easement is still the best path forward, it can still be done, but without the NCRS grant.
[/quote]
I have a question that may sound snide, but which I am asking in all sincerity. If there are business promoters who feel that doing the formal analysis is worth the city giving up the $1.25 million, why do they not agree to make good this sum of money if the city does the analysis, misses out on the $1.25 million, and still decides against a business / tech park at this location ? If it is worth the gamble for the city, why would it not be worth the gamble for the involved businesses ?
The city can lease out the land as farm land, retain the asset and make some revenue. The land will appreciate in value. The $1.25 million is not a concern. It is chump change extortion money to tie the hands of our kids to never have the opportunity to use the land for fixing the budget mess caused by their so called wiser elders.
[quote]If it is worth the gamble for the city, why would it not be worth the gamble for the involved businesses ? [/quote]
I agree MW, and while these businesses are at it how about some solid contracts that they will indeed occupy the new park (if it happens) with solid revenue in place for the city.
Matt, its all about feelings. If someone feels someone else is calling people out- then its legitimate on their part and has that affect; of calling someone out. There are probably others who feel that way. If someone feels someone else is attacking the community farm viability at that site….. These are sincere human reactions to posts. Tissue please.
You lost me, medwoman. The city is the entity that potentially would benefit financially from leveraging the city-owned Mace 391. Therefore, why would any other party bear the cost of an analysis? You’ve also lost me on who these promoters are that you are referring to. As far as I know, the vast majority of individuals advocating for an analysis gain no more from such an analysis than any other Davis resident.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]With that said I also firmly believe that no constructive purpose would be accomplished by going on a retrospective witch hunt to try and determine which members of Staff were responsible for the failures of “silo to silo” communication during the July 2011 through early 2013 period. For instance,[/quote]
Let me clarify my question, the Mace property was bought with Measure O money, so I assume that this was public knowledge and well vetted process. Where was the push for the business park then? (before we purchased the land with money set aside to acquire open space)
I’m assuming the grant application was also public knowledge? Where were all the objections then?
I’m not accusing anyone of hiding information, I’m assuming, and maybe wrongly so, that a lot of this process was conducted in a public forum over a couple of years? Why all of the sudden has this idea of business park located on this property become an issue?
[quote]Sounds like a group that might have had some useful input about what the best course of action might be for Mace 391. I wonder why they never got the chance to look at it?[/quote]
I’m confused, was this issue and the course of actions being taken not public knowledge?
The other thing that really has me baffled, medwoman, is why wouldn’t you want an analysis? Why wouldn’t you want to know what the opportunities are? You have made it clear in numerous postings that you want to know these things when practicing your profession, but now you’re saying you don’t want to know these things when discussing land use? It’s hard to square your positions.
I want to make it clear here, that we may have already missed the opportunity to do the analysis. The cost may now be too great due to all the dithering and missteps. That’s why a number of business leaders had suggested a CC-hosted round table to do a preliminary exploration as a first step.
-Michael Bisch
[quote] The $1.25 million is not a concern. It is chump change[/quote]
It’s chump change when it stands in the way of something you want done. Any other time it’s yet another example of liberal Democratic spendthrifts wasting other people’s money as they drag Davis and the whole of western civilization into apocalyptic disintegration.
[quote]I want to make it clear here, that we may have already missed the opportunity to do the analysis.[/quote]
It’s not too late now to do that sort of analysis regarding the other possible business park sites. That would be useful for the Innovation Park Task Force to do.
Wait, Jim , is the end of the world before or after the deadline for the grant? Maybe we don’t have to trash staff.
Jim Frame:
[url]http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20130919/ARTICLE/130919855[/url]
[quote]SACRAMENTO — Farm real estate and rental values in California are setting records while continuing a nearly 20-year upward trend.
Overall the 2013 average farm real estate was valued at an all-time high of $7,300 an acre, $100 above the previous record established in 2012, according to surveys by the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. That includes irrigated and non-irrigated crop land, plus pasture.
Irrigated cropland, at $12,500 per acre, increased $500 per acre compared with last year’s estimated value, while the $3,600-per-acre value of non-irrigated cropland was a 14 percent increase from last year, the agency reported.
The rental rate for irrigated cropland this year averaged a record-high $365 per acre, up $25 from 2012 and $5 above the previous record high set in 2008, NASS found.[/quote]
Like I said, if we don’t know what to do with the land, go ahead and lease it as farm land while we analyze the situation. While we wait, that asset will appreciate. If we sell it or develop it as a business park, the city makes a giant windfall. If we continue to lease it as farmland, we make some revenue and it continues to appreciate. In either case we easily make up the $1.25 million RSCS grant.
That grant is only worthwhile if the land has no other use than farmland, and Davis is not in desperate need of revenue.
The false alarm of “losing” the $1.25 million is like you having $100,000 in debt that is growing $25,000 per year at your current income and someone offers you $50,000 to not take a new job offer that would allow you to eventually pay off your debt and balance your budget. And you fret over that $50,000 that you would lose by turning it down. It is silly.
If we could magically cause every city employee to immediately accept age 65 retirement (age 60 for safety) and require them to contribute 50% of their pension investment cost, and 50% of their healthcare costs up to retirement… while also taking pay cuts to put them at market rates for comparable labor… then maybe we have a balanced budget and sustainable finances and we can start throwing away a bunch of revenue opportunities to preserve sacred farmland and make sure those few Mace Ranch residents maintain their views of brown fields.
Until then revenue trumps open space.
A lot of tech parks are very innovative with their master plans. These plans use their geography and open space/ag land to create a plan that takes advantage of its location.
We should start talking about the assets on the east and north east of Davis in a holistic or balance sheet manner. UCD, multiple transportation means, private and public land, existing infrastructure, 6,000 acre-feet per year of drought-free, reliable recycled California Title 22-compliant water in 2016 with a market value of $200.00 to $350 per acre-foot, equals $1.2 to $2.1 million of value per year. These are some of the assets that exist in this part of our sphere of influence.
We can have a win, win, win. The Leland Ranch has brought us closer to a reality of an innovation park if we work together rather than against each other. This will create a community master plan that will pass a vote of the electorate.
Here are some photos of master plans: [url]http://www.flickr.com/x/t/0099009/photos/18667053@N02/sets/72157636984848966/[/url]
[quote]Until then revenue trumps open space. [/quote]
Politics — like it or not — trumps both revenue and open space. The grant money is important for defraying a portion of the acquisition cost, but the key is locking in a piece of the urban boundary. Politically, a decision not to move on the conservation easement throws away the opportunity to begin implementing the urban boundary without securing anything tangible in return. A council decision to renege on the conservation easement will energize opposition to any Measure R proposal to develop the site, so at this point the opportunity to consider Mace 391 for a business park is valued at right around $0.00.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”It was an unnecessary rhetorical tactic on your part.”[/i]
It was neither rhetorical nor a tactic Don. Nor was it a calling out of any individual.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”I’m not accusing anyone of hiding information, I’m assuming, and maybe wrongly so, that a lot of this process was conducted in a public forum over a couple of years? Why all of the sudden has this idea of business park located on this property become an issue?”[/i]
B. Nice, here is the timeline presented in the Staff Report. I think the Note: in between July 2011 and March 2013 answers your question
[quote]The summary timeline below draws from the June 11th Council Staff report and highlights key milestones in the decision making process:
— July 20, 2010 and Sept 1, 2010 – City Council closed sessions – Purchase option.
— Oct 5, 2010 – Open Space and Habitat Commission report/recommendation. Staff report attached.
— Nov 9, 2010 – City Council closed session – Purchase option.
— Nov 16, 2010 – City Council approves purchase option reso.
— Feb/March, 2011 – Yolo Land Trust and City partner to submit NRCS grant application.
— April 18, 2011 – NRCS Grant Award Letter – Grant awarded to Yolo Land Trust. Grant award includes deadline to close easement transaction by 3/31/2013.
— July 5, 2011 – City Council approves fee title purchase – presentation and resolution.
— July 29, 2011 – NRCS Cooperative Agreement signed (grant contract w/Yolo Land Trust).
Note: Activity associated with the resale of Mace Curve/Leland Ranch slows in second half of 2011 and first half of 2012 to focus staff resources on resale of the Staib 72 property and easement acquisitions on the Eoff Ranch.
— March 20, 2013 – NRCS and Yolo Land Trust grant City request for short extension of the March 31, 2013 easement closing deadline to explore its options regarding the property. Deadline extended to May 31, 2013. NRCS letter attached.
— May 28, 2013 – NRCS and Yolo Land Trust grant second City request for an extension to June 15, 2013. NRCS letter attached.
— June 3, 2013 – Open Space and Habitat Commission votes unanimously to re-affirm their October 2010 recommendation and that the City proceed with the NRCS Grant.
— June 11, 2013 – City Council approves resale of the property with a permanent conservation easement and creation of a parcel that facilitates the establishment of a future community farm on twenty-seven acres.
— June 14, 2013 – NRCS grants Yolo Land Trust extension to close the easement transaction to March 31, 2014 (one year from the original expiration date of March 31, 2013). NRCS letter attached.
— October 7, 2013 – Open Space and Habitat Commission votes unanimously to reaffirm its support of the Council’s June 11, 2013 decision to place a permanent conservation easement on the property and establishment of a community farm on twenty-seven acres, and that the Commission advises the Council first to use the Commission to evaluate any open space alternatives that may arise in connection with this property.[/quote]
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”I’m confused, was this issue and the course of actions being taken not public knowledge?”[/i]
As the timeline above shows, “No, the course of actions being taken were not public knowledge.” If they had been public knowledge then they would have been referenced in Studio 30’s Innovation Park Task Force Final Report.
[quote]Until then revenue trumps open space.[/quote]
Frankly, statements like these are why people are pushing the easement option.
Stephen Souza:
[quote]We can have a win, win, win. The Leland Ranch has brought us closer to a reality of an innovation park if we work together rather than against each other. This will create a community master plan that will pass a vote of the electorate.[/quote]
Exactly!
Why are we not talking about developing the most innovative and wonderful innovation park in the state?
I was just thinking about the Napa area and how it seems that these Davisites dug in so firmly against using the land for nothing other than farming would be only for growing grapes, but not wineries… because God forbid developing a winery would mean we have to pour some concrete on that sacred dirt.
But just think about the Napa area and consider a similar design. Businesses interspersed around and within open space that happens to have wine grapes growing in it. Just consider the same with other crops, parks, natural areas, etc. We don’t have to pack in the buildings. We can use more acres of land and put space in-between the structures and it will be very ascetically pleasing.
Think if they had done this is Orange and Ventura counties… how they could have had their cake and eaten it to with respect to economic development and open space.
That is what a win-win looks like in my picture book.
The city owns Mace 391. We can design it to be a jewel of an asset for the city.
[quote]B. Nice, here is the timeline presented in the Staff Report. I think the Note: in between July 2011 and March 2013 answers your question [/quote]
It doesn’t actually, my question dates back to Nov 16, 2010 when council approved the purchase using Measure O money. Where was the push for the business park then?
It also dates back to Feb/March, 2011 when Yolo Land Trust and City partner to submit NRCS grant application. Where was the push for the business park then?
To clarify I’m not trying to be snide, I’m assuming something changed between 2010 and June of this year. If a business park is such a great idea, and has so much revenue potential why wasn’t pushed BEFORE the city bought the land (with Measure O money) and before NRCS grant application was submitted.
[quote]As the timeline above shows, “No, the course of actions being taken were not public knowledge.” If they had been public knowledge then they would have been referenced in Studio 30’s Innovation Park Task Force Final Report.[/quote]
So it wasn’t public knowledge that the city was planning on buying the land with Measure O money and that the Yolo Land Trust and City were partnering to submit NRCS grant application?
Frankly: you have 200 acres south of Mace 391, and more up the road and near the hospital. How many acres do you need to develop?
Rochelle mentioned something about how if Shriner’s had been an option the Innovation Park Task Force Final Report would have been different?
[quote]But just think about the Napa area and consider a similar design. Businesses interspersed around and within open space that happens to have wine grapes growing in it. Just consider the same with other crops, parks, natural areas, etc. We don’t have to pack in the buildings. We can use more acres of land and put space in-between the structures and it will be very ascetically pleasing. [/quote]
Where were these idea’s 3 years ago before the land was purchased with Measure O money?
We can have wonderful ag-related projects on a site with an ag conservation easement. Vineyards, cereal grains, olives for oil, tree crops, organic and sustainable farms, cut flowers. All are possible and appropriate on an ag-conserved site. Even a few buildings. It can be quite beautiful. Or, if it’s simpler, it can just be leased for conventional farming.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”It doesn’t actually, my question dates back to Nov 16, 2010 when council approved the purchase using Measure O money. Where was the push for the business park then?
It also dates back to Feb/March, 2011 when Yolo Land Trust and City partner to submit NRCS grant application. Where was the push for the business park then?
To clarify I’m not trying to be snide, I’m assuming something changed between 2010 and June of this year. If a business park is such a great idea, and has so much revenue potential why wasn’t pushed BEFORE the city bought the land (with Measure O money) and before NRCS grant application was submitted.”[/i]
Any answer to those questions will include a fair amount of speculation, but here are a few pieces of information that are input to that speculation
1) The opportunity to purchase Leland Ranch was brought to the City by Tim Ruff in mid-2010 and quite quickly the July 20, 2010 and September 1, 2010 Closed Sessions of Council took place. (see timeline from Staff Report above)
2) Prior to September 2010 the Habitat and Open Space Commission created an Acquisition Sub-Committee to review the site.
3) On October 10, 2010 the Open Space and Habitat Commission met in the first public session. The minutes of that meeting are:[quote]Easement Acquisition – First State Bank of NW Arkansas Property
Staff presented background information. Acquisition Sub-committee members provided a recommendation to the Commission to proceed with the acquisition. Eileen Samitz, member of the public, provided input in opposition of the acquisition. One of the primary points of discussion was the location and the agricultural resource value of the property. As detailed in the Commission background report, the property ranks highly in two acquisition priority categories established by the City: (1) Urban Fringe and (2) Agricultural Resources.
Following discussion, the Commission took the following action:
On a motion by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Chung, the Commission recommended:
That the City Council approve the acquisition of the property in fee for the purpose of sale to another party in fee with retention of an agricultural conservation easement by the City.
The motion was approved 7-0[/quote]
4) Council held another closed session on November 9, 2010
5) The one and only public session of Council on the purchase took place on November 16, 2010. The minutes of that session are not available on the City website.
If you look at the above chain of events, it is not unreasonable to speculate that virtually no member of the business community even knew that the purchase was being contemplated or happened. The agenda for the November 16, 2010 is rather illuminating as well:[quote]Regular Calendar
Item 5: Public Hearing: Resolution Adopting a Parking Fine Schedule (Police Chief Landy Black) Recommendation: Approve
Item 6: Public Hearing: Resolution Establishing Fees for Recreation Activities and Programs for Fiscal Year 2011/12 Through the Community Services Department (Community Services Director Elvia Garcia-Ayala/Community Services Superintendent Christine Helweg) Recommendation:Approve
Item 7: Wastewater Project Options (Interim Public Works Director Robert Clarke/Utilities Engineer Keith Smith) Recommendation: 1. Identify the preferred alternative as upgrades to the existing Davis wastewater treatment plant, and proceed under the work plan 2. Direct the City Manager to continue to work with the City of Woodland to explore options that could reduce Davis’ cost for the Woodland/Regional alternative
Item 8: Appointment to Finance and Budget Commission (City Clerk Zoe Mirabile) Recommendation: Conduct vote to determine appointment of an alternate member (term ending September 30, 2012) to the commission[/quote]
Not much there that would have caused the business community to be aware of the acquisition and/or its impact on any thoughts of a business park. As noted by the Staff Report timeline above, the late 2010 and early 2011 staff efforts regarding the easement were never discussed in any public meeting.
(continued)
In addition to those events specific to the purchase the November 13, 2012 Staff Report to Council with the Innovation Park Task Force Recommendations (see [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/media/default/documents/pdf/citycouncil/councilmeetings/agendas/20121113/packet/06-innovation-park-task-force-amended.pdf[/url] gives a good sense of the timeline that the business community was on [quote]Innovation Park Task Force Process part of Multi-Action Strategy
The creation and conclusions of the Innovation Park Task Force represent one part of an integrated, multi-action strategy to achieve community goals to support growth of technology companies aligned with UC Davis research strengths. The process has built upon previous City studies and other community efforts underway. These included the 2010 Business Park Land Strategy, the Working Draft of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) approved in July of 2011, prepared under direction of the Business and Economic Development Commission, the Nishi/Gateway Mixed Use Innovation District; the ad hoc business initiative “Designing a Sustainable and Innovative Davis Economy (DSIDE), UC Davis Request for Ideas for creation of an Innovation Center and the more recent Community Visioning process for a sustainable Davis economy.
The City Council created the Innovation Park Task Force as an outcome of the “Business Park Land Use Strategy” completed in October of 2010. This Study looked at the future, long term (2035) land supply needed to accommodate projected employment/business growth in Davis under alternate development scenarios. It also addressed the economic value of employment/business growth in the community. The Business Park Land Strategy included two important conclusions:
[i]– Despite the economic downturn, the existing supply of undeveloped land in the City would be insufficient to meet City’s long term needs, particularly for businesses seeking larger sites for sale available for build-to-suit; and
— City would need to be proactive to ensure an adequate supply of space to support long term business growth.[/i]
Council actions on the Business Park Land Strategy prioritized steps to be taken to provide a sufficient inventory to meet needs of growing businesses, including immediate and longer term actions. One action was creation of the Innovation Park Task Force, as noted below. Attachment 2 includes a more detailed summary of the Study’s findings and additional strategic actions.[/quote]
Said another way, the Great Recession, and the rather sudden existence of the municipal budget deficits at the City caused everyone to come to the realization that “we better pay attention and work together”
(continued)
One additional factor that came into play was UCD’s October 2010 hiring of Harris Lewin to be the Vice Chancellor of Research. [quote]Chancellor Linda Katehi, who recommended Lewin to the regents following a national recruitment, said: “One of my top goals is to transform our research enterprise here at UC Davis and increase total research awards to $1 billion annually, and I am convinced that Harris Lewin is the person best-suited to take us to the next level.”
The Office of Research is the chief administrative unit and the catalyst for advancing research at UC Davis, and for translating those innovative discoveries into ways of improving the quality of life for people and animals everywhere.
In addition, the Office of Research is responsible for promoting and organizing research, intellectual property and technology transfer on the two campuses. UC Davis recently announced that it had received almost $680 million in research funds in the 2009-10 fiscal year that ended June 30, representing about 20 percent of the university’s $3 billion in total annual revenue.
“There is no greater honor than returning to my alma mater to lead a research enterprise that is recognized throughout the world for its excellence in both fundamental and translational research,” Lewin said. “Together with Chancellor Katehi, the faculty, staff and campus leadership, we will forge a strategy to elevate UC Davis from its current high ranking to be among the nation’s elite research universities.”
“He is not only an accomplished researcher but he is also a true entrepreneur,” Katehi said of Lewin. “I’m confident he will foster strong partnerships and collaborations with government, industry and other research enterprises.”[/quote]Here too we get into the realm of speculation, but it is fair to say that UCD became much more interested in and much more effective at transferring its technology to the private sector in period since the Harris Lewin hiring.
(concluded)
The final piece of input to the speculation is contained in the following press release:[quote]Dec 20, 2010, 2:22pm PST
Mori Seiki to open Davis factory, hire 150
Mori Seiki, the Japanese machine tool manufacturer, has reached a deal for bringing a factory to Davis.
The company has agreed to buy 14.5 acres in Davis on which it will invest $50 million to build and equip its first U.S. manufacturing plant.
Mori Seiki will employ about 150 people at the 185,000-square-foot factory, said representatives from Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organization, the city of Davis and the company that is helping with the project design.
The plant will be constructed next door to Digital Technology Labs on Faraday Avenue, which is Mori Seiki’s innovation center. The factory and DTL combined will employ 230 workers, putting Mori Seiki in Davis’ list of top 10-largest employers and one of its biggest private employers, said Katherine Hess, the city’s community development administrator.
At 185,000 square feet, the Mori Seiki factory will be Davis’ largest non-residential structure, she said. It also will be the city’s most expensive, with $30 million going toward the land and building, and $20 million for fixtures and equipment.
The Mori Seiki project stands out in yet another way. It is the largest industrial project that SACTO has helped attract to the region in two years, said Barbara Hayes, SACTO executive director.
Davis was competing with Chicago for the plant. SACTO and Davis have been working most of the year to attract Mori Seiki.
The city of Davis sweetened the pot last month by agreeing to reduce by half the estimated $550,0000 construction, and allowing the company to wait to pay water and sewer fees — estimated at $141,380 —when it occupies the building instead of when it pulls building permits.
Mori Seiki officials hope to start construction in 2011, said John Buckel, a partner with Capital Partners Development Co., which owns the DTL building and is helping Mori Seiki with due diligence and conceptual design on the factory.
Mori Seiki has not yet determined when the plant will be up and running, he said.
Mori Seiki’s executives in Davis did not immediately provide a comment.
“It’s a great thing for Davis. It’s a great thing for the region,” Buckel said.
The factory is expected to produce 100 machines a month, with gross sales of more than $115 million a year, according to SACTO.
It would also result in annual property tax revenue of $540,000, with the city’s share being $85,500 per year. The 150 direct jobs and an estimated 98 indirect and induced jobs resulting from the factory would have an annual payroll of $12.8 million, according to a city staff report.
Through its DTL center, Mori Seiki already is a “valued member” of the Davis business community, Hayes said. The company has given money to and developed ties to the engineering school at the University of California Davis. Three years ago, Mori Seiki agreed to give $4.25 million to the university over five years to support research on machine tools controlled by computers.
Half of the DTL workers are UC Davis graduates, and many live in Davis, the city staff report said.
DTL, which provides research and development services for its parent company, has operated from Davis since 2008, after originally opening in West Sacramento in 2000.
Mori Seiki also sees value in going green. The DTL building was the city’s first structure to become certified in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program. The company hopes to build its factory to LEED gold standards, Hess said.
Mori Seiki is buying the land for the factory from a partnership of the Ramos family and Buzz Oates.
[/quote]
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”We can have wonderful ag-related projects on a site with an ag conservation easement. Vineyards, cereal grains, olives for oil, tree crops, organic and sustainable farms, cut flowers. All are possible and appropriate on an ag-conserved site. Even a few buildings. It can be quite beautiful. Or, if it’s simpler, it can just be leased for conventional farming.”[/i]
Don, the much more logical place for all of those amenities is in the prime ag land soils that surround the West Innovation Park location to the west and north of Sutter Davis Hospital.
DT
[quote]You lost me, medwoman. The city is the entity that potentially would benefit financially from leveraging the city-owned Mace 391. Therefore, why would any other party bear the cost of an analysis? You’ve also lost me on who these promoters are that you are referring to. As far as I know, the vast majority of individuals advocating for an analysis gain no more from such an analysis than any other Davis resident.
[/quote]
I am asking questions precisely because I think it may be me who is lost in this discussion. I do not believe that anyone would be advocating so strongly for specific uses for specific parcels if as vague an entity as
” the city ” or “the community” were going to be the only financial beneficiary. It seems to me, from the business people I know, and from those who post here, they seem to be very money,profit oriented folks. I do not say that in a pejorative way, it is just how they think and what they tend to value, much as I tend to value prevention and conservation. So it seems to me that there is probably some perceived sense of gain here to individuals and or companies. I would favor anyone who is in that position just coming out and saying so and being willing to put themselves and their own finances, as well as those of the city, at risk if it is that key to them.
If there were not what I perceive to be a substantial potential loss ( $1.25 million is certainly not “chump change” to me) I would be all for a reopening this issue. Anyone who heard me speak before council or read my posts here regarding fluoridation can vouch for my consistent stand for full discussion of all concerns. But here there is potential for considerable loss, both financial, and as Don has pointed out, potential for permanent loss of an irreplaceable resource. One poster here had argued that conserving the land in perpetuity means “forever” and that we should not lock ourselves into this.
As Don has very eloquently pointed out, so does paving over land mean forever. Is anyone going to claim that if a business/tech park were built and did not provide as much revenue as hoped for, or that if future citizens wanted more open space, that we would simply unpave it and return it to fully functioning ag land ?
“I do not believe that anyone would be advocating so strongly for specific uses for specific parcels if as vague an entity as ” the city ” or “the community” were going to be the only financial beneficiary. It seems to me, from the business people I know, and from those who post here, they seem to be very money,profit oriented folks. I do not say that in a pejorative way, it is just how they think and what they tend to value, much as I tend to value prevention and conservation. So it seems to me that there is probably some perceived sense of gain here to individuals and or companies. I would favor anyone who is in that position just coming out and saying so and being willing to put themselves and their own finances, as well as those of the city, at risk if it is that key to them.”
Wow! No bigotry unveiled here. medwoman, not only is your comment extremely offensive, it is entirely inaccurate. For some odd reason, you appear to be purposefully filtering out many thousands of pro-social and environmental comments made by “business people” to suit your biases. “Business people” are “very money, profit oriented folks” about as much as women are very shopping, cooking oriented folks. So in your world, while the fat cat businessmen are sitting around smoking cigars and drinking whiskey in their 3-piece suits, all the house wives are catering to their every whim. You might try taking your colored glasses off.
Don, how did you become so enlightened and less profit-oriented? Perhaps you could organize an annual 12-step course to enlighten the rest of us money grubbers.
-Michael Bisch
“I do not believe that anyone would be advocating so strongly for specific uses for specific parcels if as vague an entity as ” the city ” or “the community” were going to be the only financial beneficiary.”
I’m really having trouble coming to grips with the magnitude of this mindset. I really hope it’s limited to medwoman, unfortunately, that’s likely not the case. I cannot fathom how anyone can think it’s helpful to immediately assume that the comments of someone are intended to further their own financial interests merely because they are a “businessman”. And conversely, the comments of a non-businessman are automatically assumed to be entirely altruistic. It is little wonder we find ourselves time after time in these absurd public debates characterized by over-the-top statements, misinformation, and silly reasoning.
-Michael Bisch
[i]“I do not believe that anyone would be advocating so strongly for specific uses for specific parcels if as vague an entity as ” the city ” or “the community” were going to be the only financial beneficiary.”[/i]
What a crack up. Meds, I think your existence is too far removed from financial risk at this point for you to truly comprehend what you are missing in understanding. I have heard your stories of personal family financial challenges and your thankfulness for the public safety net that allowed you to become a successful doctor… by the way, one of the most honored and highly-compensated professions in our culture. Frankly, you seem to live in a bubble covered in a soft blanket of absolute financial security and you don’t understand that those very people you denigrate for being driven to make money are a necessary component of that blanket.
With all your smarts, you do seem to be ignorant about general human motivation. What drives all people to pursue their own self-interests in primarily the same. You get great satisfaction helping people by healing their illness. I get the same giving someone a job or creating a job. In fact, I have experienced the psychology healing miracle of an advancing career over and over again. I’m sure I have “saved” many people by my efforts as a hard-working capitalist by recognizing and developing skills and talents in the people I have hired.
It is really all about personal ego, and the need for validation and acknowledgement from those we crave it from. The difference between many folks on the left and right of politics is that one side is honest about it and the other denies it and insists we all attribute their motivations to being purely completely unselfish and 100% altruistic.
But in the end we all really want the same things. Our conflict is that we each crave to satiate our own ego, and we prefer one approach over the other because of this craving.
And I see these competing approaches as having a gender-role characteristic… i.e. a “mother’s” or “father’s” approach.
The mother’s approach being the softer caring model… one of unconditional love and acceptance, and that warm embrace of caring that melts away the stress from anxiety for needing to perform without constant assistance.
The father’s approach as being the “tough love” model… one where there are performance expectations and consequences for behavior, and the recognition that life IS a struggle and the strongest succeed and that everyone is capable of pulling themselves forward to greater prosperity through self-determination and persistence.
There is conflict between these two roles/approaches. Politicians have learned how to exploit those differences to divide and conquer.
Here is the thing Meds, the best family outcomes result when the mother role and the father role are united in their two different approaches. When one or the other dominates, we get suboptimal results.
Personally, I see us as having migrated far too far to a mother-centric model of social governance. Those that crave to satiate their ego through a mothering approach have taken power. And they have beaten down those that crave the more difficult tough-love approach. And we are not working together. In fact, we are deep into a War of the Roses type divorce. Resentment is at an all time high.
And until we all understand that we have to work together and honor each approach as situationally-appropriate to achieve outcomes instead of using it as a political wedge, we will continue our social and economic decline.
You want your open space, limited business expansion and lower population and believe we should raise taxes on the successful so that we can take care of all those that cannot take care of themselves.
I am part of a group that wants more people to be able to take care of themselves, and for them and the city to be financially sustainable entities.
We better work together on this. I suspect that your group has gotten its way at the expense of too much decline in financial sustainability, and you are at risk of having your entire approach discarded and the other will dominate. That would not be good for any of us, because us craving a father’s approach will achieve suboptimal results.
“Not much there that would have caused the business community to be aware of the acquisition and/or its impact on any thoughts of a business park. As noted by the Staff Report timeline above, the late 2010 and early 2011 staff efforts regarding the easement were never discussed in any public meeting. “
Matt thanks for your detailed responses. I’m still not clear why it took the business community 2+ years (I know the exact timing in regards to when this idea was presented to city staff is unclear) to hone in on this site for a business park. I haven’t heard the argument from the business community that they were uninformed of the city’s plan to put an easement on the land. All I’m hearing from them is that the city should consider all of its options, making council look like the bad guys if they don’t, and putting council in the position of having to give up grant money. I’ve heard no one in the business community pushing for this idea acknowledge the unfortunate position they are putting council in by presenting their ideas so far into the process.
B. Nice – I will tell you why this member of the business community was not involved 2+ years ago:
1. I didn’t see the Great Recession and the subsequent economic policies as being so destructive to the lives of so many people. I thought we would get our collective heads our of collective butts and do the right things.
2. I didn’t recognize the extent of fiscal problems that the city of Davis was in.
3. I was struggling myself to keep the company I manage from going down… at least partially because of #1 above.
4. I thought the leaders of our most enlightened and educated little city in the world would do the right things.
5. I did not see the opportunity for the city to leverage the strength and expanded reputation of UCD.
6. Bayer had not announced they were leaving the city due to lack of sufficient land to develop on.
7. My company was not running out of space and struggling to find suitable real estate alternatives.
But, in general, I don’t think your “why” question is worth much time. Looking backwards gets us nowhere. We have a clear set of problems and a clear set of alternative approaches to solve them. We should just focus on that debate and not get caught up in looking backwards to point fingers.
Frankly while we may disagree on what the “right thing to do is” I appreciate that you answered the question I was asking. My “why” questions are not an attempt to point fingers or look backwards, they are an attempt for me to better understand the situation, even though the answers may not be relevant to how things move forward. (My tendency to do this drives many people in my life a little crazy).
I do think those pushing for a business park should acknowledge publically that they are putting council between a rock and hard place with the timing of their proposal, and that they bare some of the responsibility for this.
[quote]It is really all about personal ego, and the need for validation and acknowledgement from those we crave it from. The difference between many folks on the left and right of politics is that one side is honest about it and the other denies it and insists we all attribute their motivations to being purely completely unselfish and 100% altruistic. [/quote]
Frankly,
You and I have been down this road before. We simply disagree about your basic premise. You really do believe that it is all about individual personal ego and I do not. This is not about honesty or dishonesty as you claim repeatedly. It is that you see human nature as black and white and only about personal ego and competition.
I see it as being about all of those, but also about compassion, cooperation and collaboration. I do not believe in your male/female dichotomy in anything other than physical attributes. We are all a unique blend of the
competition/collaboration spectrum. You happen to emphasize one and value the first more than the second.
My priorities are the opposite.
Imagine this scenario. For three years the Mace Curve property was purchased with the intent of building a business park, people went through the effort to secure funding and at the last minute an environmental group came in and said, wait sorry we’ve been really busy working on other more urgent and pressing issues and we assumed the city council would “do the right thing”. We think this is the perfect site for agricultural preservation, so move your business park, sacrifice your funding (and potential threaten future funding availability) and put an easement on this land.
[i] It is that you see human nature as black and white and only about personal ego and competition. [/i]
Meds, our “marriage” will not survive if you keep using these absolutes in your arguments. It appears that you think everyone except those that think like you can only handle black and white distinctions, but you and your ilk are those blessed with so much intelligent nuance. That is a significantly flawed perspective that will forever get you in difficulty in debate with those others.
As I have pointed out collaboration is just another competitive means to an end. That end being winning. Just ask your Democrat politicians about that. It is a great laugher that liberals and Democrats fluff themselves up as being the collaborative ones. Your President and Democrats in Congress are the most divisive and polarizing ever. Obama has done less to reach across the aisle than any other President before him… even though he ran on that platform of cooperation.
True diversity and true collaboration requires working with the people that disagree with you, not just the people that validate your world views.
B Nice – it is not hard to imagine that scenario. It happens all the time. Lefty environmentalists work with and-wringing statists and change-averse to step in at the last minute to block development because of some endangered little-known dung flea that happens to visit the area on his migration south to Mexico.
“B Nice – it is not hard to imagine that scenario. It happens all the time. Lefty environmentalists work with and-wringing statists and change-averse to step in at the last minute to block development because of some endangered little-known dung flea that happens to visit the area on his migration south to Mexico.”
Yes Frankly, and how does this make you “feel” when this happens? Angry, frustrated, bitter and resentful towards the lefty environmentalists? I imagine that this is how the people who have been working toward protecting this land feel now, as well as blind sighted. (Is this a good enough reason to not move forward with a land swap, no, but I do empathize with this group).
I don’t see a newly discovered “endangered little-known dung flea”, in scenario, at least one that can’t be relocated from what all the sudden has become “prime” business park habitat into a little less superior region.
“For three years the Mace Curve property was purchased with the intent of building a business park, people went through the effort to secure funding and at the last minute an environmental group came in and said, wait sorry we’ve been really busy working on other more urgent and pressing issues and we assumed the city council would “do the right thing”. We think this is the perfect site for agricultural preservation, so move your business park, sacrifice your funding (and potential threaten future funding availability) and put an easement on this land.”
i’m not following you around this logical bend. explain.
D.P.: I’m uncomfortable with the way the land swap is being being framed. (More uncomfortable then actual land swap proposal.) People are pushing for council to “hear all the options” very late in the game, and seem ready to easily dismiss, all the work people have done thus far to preserve the land in an agriculturally easement, because basically they weren’t paying attention for the past couple years. I wondered how they would react if the situation was reversed, which lead to my “logical bend”.
B. Nice, you are overly simplifying what has transpired.
1)Staff, a commission and the CC have been pursuing the purchase of Mace 391 with the intent of putting a conservation easement on it.
2)Meanwhile, staff a City task force and the CC have been looking at the same area, albeit not the Mace 391 parcel, as a business park opportunity site.
3)Meanwhile, staff, a project proponent, and apparently one or more CC members have been contemplating a land swap involving Mace 391.
The fact that ALL of these things are overlapping in the same area has only recently been made public. Indeed, the details have been trickling out painfully slow. There are probably only 5, maybe 10 or so individuals in the entire community that new all this was going on. Is it any wonder that some members of the community as well as some CC members are requesting an opportunity to have a fuller discussion?
That said, it’s awfully hard to have a fuller discussion when there’s an awfully tight timeline on the NCRS grant. A fuller discussion might not come off. We shall see.
-Michael Bisch
I apologize, I failed to add to my analysis immediately above, that now that these 3 overlapping efforts have become widely known, numerous individuals across a broad spectrum of the community have recognized a number of additional alternatives/opportunities centered on the city-owned Mace 391.
-Michael Bisch
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”Frankly while we may disagree on what the “right thing to do is” I appreciate that you answered the question I was asking. My “why” questions are not an attempt to point fingers or look backwards, they are an attempt for me to better understand the situation, even though the answers may not be relevant to how things move forward. (My tendency to do this drives many people in my life a little crazy).”[/i]
Hey!!! I resemble that comment!
I can really relate B. Nice, both to the tendency to drive many of the people in my life crazy, and the willingness to dig in and attempt to understand a situation. Sometimes it is necessary to be a squeaky wheel.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”I do think those pushing for a business park should acknowledge publically that they are putting council between a rock and hard place with the timing of their proposal, and that they bare some of the responsibility for this.”[/i]
You make a good point. While I don’t see myself pushing for a business park, but rather for the consideration of a combined Ag Farmland Conservation / Riparian Corridor Rehabilitation / Salmon Spawning Habitat Restoration / Municipal Budget Balancing / Innovation Park initiative, I will definitely admit that I am putting the Council between a rock and hard place with the timing of this initiative. We definitely would be in a much better place (and Council would be too) if Peabody and Sherman could whisk us back to June 15, 2013 (the day after the deadline was extended to March 31, 2014) and the rock would be a bit less rocky and the hard place would be a bit less hard, but we pay the Council to make hard decisions, and we all hope that they make the best possible decision given the information that they have at hand.
FWIW, I’m not now, nor have I been, a member of the Davis business community, and at age 66 I don’t anticipate that the coming years will cause me to start a business. I’m just a citizen who believes we have a fiduciary duty to ourselves and our fellow citizens/taxpayers to make the best decision possible. I guess that gets me back to being a squeaky wheel.
[i]People are pushing for council to “hear all the options” very late in the game, and seem ready to easily dismiss, all the work people have done thus far[/i]
This reminds me of the Challenger disaster. Too bad all those people having done all that previous work did not listen to those engineers that came up at the last minute to ask for a pause and re-analysis.
There is a principle in project management called ETC “estimate to completion”. It is a powerful principle that basically says at each milestone the project should be re-evaluated for feasibility. Work already completed are sunk costs. The historical value of previous effort is never a justification for going forward with a project that due to changing circumstances has greater costs (including opportunity costs) than projected benefits.
Looking backwards this way is purely emotional… in that we feel bad for the people that put in the previous work.
But that work was flawed. It was flawed the same way that the botched Mace 391 land swap was botched in that the drivers did not identify all the critical stakeholders and bring them to the table to participate in the final decisions. And whenever a person or group champions a cause without including enough critical stakeholders, that effort is at greater risk of being blocked, changed or circumvented.
Having learned this lesson, those that put in that initial effort would be well-advised to protect their historical investment by brining in those stakeholders to develop a new collaborative proposal.
Maybe medwoman can lead this since she is such the advocate of a cooperative approach.
[i]Yes Frankly, and how does this make you “feel” when this happens?[/i]
I don’t. You should know that by now!
I makes me understand that I would have to work with those people if I wanted my development project to succeed.
Now, if their hidden agenda was just to block me, I would have to pursue a different strategy to win.
The key is to leverage shared goals.
Which is why it is a bit frustrating that we are not working together on economic development because liberals like to spend other people’s money and conservatives like to make money. Seems like a match made in heaven if we would only take medwoman’s advice and just cooperate.
A cooperative approach would identify the alternative sites for a business park and work to move those forward, so that conservation and development can both occur. The lack of cooperation has been on the part of those who are fixated on putting a business park on Mace 391, to the complete exclusion of any discussion of the merits or obstacles regarding the other sites.
[quote]I will definitely admit that I am putting the Council between a rock and hard place with the timing of this initiative.[/quote]
Yes, and unnecessarily as well. It is your choice to link Mace 391 to your larger greenbelt proposal that is the problem.
Don, there is some merit to your alternative opportunity sites argument. However, none of these other opportunity sites potentially lead to a $20 million – $65 million revenue windfall for the city/community. I realize medwoman is dismissive of such a revenue windfall, but others are not. What makes the Mace Curve opportunity site different than the other sites is we own Mace 391 outright. If 200 acres of Mace 391 are rezoned, they potentially increase from $9,000/acre to $200,000/acre or more. Perhaps the community has no need for such revenue, perhaps it does. I’m pretty sure a discussion will ensue.
-Michael Bisch
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”Imagine this scenario. For three years the Mace Curve property was purchased with the intent of building a business park, people went through the effort to secure funding and at the last minute an environmental group came in and said, wait sorry we’ve been really busy working on other more urgent and pressing issues and we assumed the city council would “do the right thing”. We think this is the perfect site for agricultural preservation, so move your business park, sacrifice your funding (and potential threaten future funding availability) and put an easement on this land.”[/i]
That scenario is incredibly easy to imagine B. Nice, and I’m really glad you brought it up. If such a proposal were in the works for three years the members of (any and all) environmental groups would be 100% confident that there would be a whole series of public notices and public hearings that would not only alert them to the existence of the business park application, but also a series of public reviews by a series of commissions and committees. Here is the list that The Cannery went through in April this year.
[i]The Cannery Project Completes 10 City of Davis Commission Reviews in April
ConAgra and The New Home Company complete an intensive three-month round of The Cannery project presentations this month before the city’s diverse commissions tasked with receiving public comments, reviewing the proposed application planning documents submitted to the City of Davis and making recommendations to the Davis Planning Commission and City Council. Final project approvals and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report are now anticipated to take place in late summer/early fall.
Community members appointed to these commissions by the Davis City Council represent the community’s diverse interests in serving on the [b]Senior Citizen Commission, Natural Resources Commission, Open Space and Habitat Commission, Bicycle Advisory Commission, Safety and Traffic Commission, Social Services Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, Business and Economic Development Commission, and Tree Commission. [/b]Their recommendations along with further staff reviews of the refined land use plans and fiscal impact studies for The Cannery project will be presented to the Planning Commission now anticipated to meet on Tuesday, July 24. City Council hearings, certification of the environmental impact report (EIR) and findings are now anticipated to begin in late summer.[/i]
In addition multiple public hearings have been conducted by both the Planning Commission and City Council, as well as public meetings held by two NGOs, Cool Davis Foundation (at Eleanor Roosevelt) and the Valley Climate Action Center (at Blue Oak Energy).
Compare that to the number of public hearings that the easement had . . . three. One on October 10, 2010 by the Open Space and Habitat Commission, the second by City Council on November 16, 2010, and the third by City Council on June 11, 2013.
[i]A cooperative approach would identify the alternative sites for a business park and work to move those forward, so that conservation and development can both occur.[/i]
We both have different candy bars. One is bigger and better than the other. The cooperative approach is to give Don the bigger and better candy bar and call it a day. That would not be too bad a solution except it is Don making the case for this design of “cooperation”.
So, are the open space people victims and able to claim the bigger and better candy bar because of their victim status?
You can see the wheels turning for how to inject this branding into the argument. There are good people and bad people and we are the good people!!!
The real cooperative approach would be to take a step back and identify the problems and opportunities and given some weighting to them, and then come up with a comprehensive city-wide plan that attempts to address as many as possible.
The way I see it, we are not at risk for sprawl nor do we lack open space. We are already a hyper-dense little city. We already have about 2500 acres of acquired land, we are blocked from connection with West Sacramento from the causeway, and we have several decades of farm and natural open land separating us from Woodland, Dixon and Winters. Those screaming about this need to lock up more land into ag easements are irrational and fanatical, IMO, considering our REAL economic problems.
Come to the table and help solve the economic problems and then you can continue on with your quest to build that farmland moat so those undesirable people from surrounding communities don’t start blending with our better versions of humanity.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”B Nice – it is not hard to imagine that scenario. It happens all the time. Lefty environmentalists work with and-wringing statists and change-averse to step in at the last minute to block development because of some endangered little-known dung flea that happens to visit the area on his migration south to Mexico.”[/i]
Frsankly, I agree with B. Nice we have enough challenges with this situation without adding fleas to the equation. I want to restrict my scratching to my head. Fleas would have me scratching everywhere.
The purchase of that property was not done for the purpose of development. As was noted in public comment the other evening, using Measure O funds (and/or borrowing from the roads fund) to buy land for speculative development purposes is of questionable legality. Seriously: if the City could to that with Mace 391, why doesn’t the city do it with every other peripheral property and subdivide them? Think of all the money Davis could make if they took taxpayer funds and bought up all the land to the Bypass, and a bunch of other land, and developed housing and businesses on those parcels as well? Probably a billion dollars or more.
But it would not the the use of tax funds that the voters intended when they passed Measure O. This is a flagrant misuse of public monies, even if it would be quite lucrative. I think the threat of a lawsuit would be very real and costly. Do you think the city could successfully defend the use of tax dollars that were intended for another purpose for this?
[i]This is a flagrant misuse of public monies, even if it would be quite lucrative[/i]
The money spent on Mace 391 from measure O funds and the road fund would be returned. That money could be used to purchase other property. I think too that any windfall from the sale of Mace 391 could also be used to help purchase other open space. Hell, they raided the road funds to buy Mace 391, so why not. No problem. win-win-win.
Don, have you ever learned something and changed your mind?
There is nothing “flagrant” about it except the tantrums being thrown by those that want to lock up the town into its declining little ball of sameness so they don’t have any anxiety about something changing.
[quote]We both have different candy bars. One is bigger and better than the other. The cooperative approach is to give Don the bigger and better candy bar and call it a day. That would not be too bad a solution except it is Don making the case for this design of “cooperation”. So, are the open space people victims and able to claim the bigger and better candy bar because of their victim status?[/quote]
You get 400 – 500 acres of business development, I get 391 acres of conserved farm land. How exactly am I getting the “bigger candy bar?”
[quote]We already have about 2500 acres of acquired land,[/quote]
Compared to how many acres of developed land? Please look again at the series of images posted on today’s thread about the growth of the city of Davis over the years.
[quote]
we are blocked from connection with West Sacramento from the causeway, [/quote]
So you want to grow all the way to the bypass?
[quote]and we have several decades of farm and natural open land separating us from Woodland, Dixon and Winters.[/quote]
Ignoring Dixon and Winters for the moment as irrelevant, please note that Woodland has just voted to add 10000 homes over the next twenty years.
[quote]Those screaming about this need to lock up more land into ag easements are irrational and fanatical, IMO, considering our REAL economic problems.[/quote]
Screaming. Irrational. Fanatical. Got it. Are you capable of talking about things without saying things like this?
[quote]Come to the table and help solve the economic problems[/quote]
I’ve presented my budget proposals repeatedly. Do I need to do it again?
[quote] and then you can continue on with your quest to build that farmland moat so those undesirable people from surrounding communities don’t start blending with our better versions of humanity.[/quote]
My, that was gratuitous nonsense. Again: why don’t you actually discuss stuff without disparaging the motives and values of those you disagree with?
[quote]There is nothing “flagrant” about it except the tantrums being thrown by those that want to lock up the town into its declining little ball of sameness so they don’t have any anxiety about something changing.[/quote]
Your childish insults just cause conversations to end.
Don, I’ve been weighing the same issue. Brett, raised the issue as well during Tuesday’s meeting by the way. The difference between you and I is you have already formed an opinion on the issue, whereas, I have not. My preliminary thinking on the matter is the issue is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Many jurisdictions have acquired land for a wide range of development projects (airports, harbors, convention centers, and yes, business parks). The City of Davis, for instance, acquired land in our downtown for surface parking. That doesn’t prevent the City from considering other uses for those properties from time to time. As for the use of Measure O funds, perhaps Greg House is correct, perhaps not. Do we simply take his word for it? He qualified his expertise did he not?
-Michael Bisch
[quote]B. Nice, you are overly simplifying what has transpired. [/quote]
D.T. and Matt, I appreciate your explanations of the events, especially the more nuanced aspects. I did not follow Davis politics very closely in 2010, I assumed, apparently wrongly, that the purchase of Mace 391 property with Measure O money, which I believed would eliminate it as an option for a business park site, was as well vetted and publicly discussed as some of the issues more recently addressed by CC (plastic bags, fluoride, the Cannery Project).
I am still unclear on why if this location is such a prime spot for a business park no one was paying attention to it before the City bought it. I would think the way it’s being touted today a developer would have jumped on it as soon as it went on the market and outbid the city, who apparently got it for under it’s appraised value, from a buyer who didn’t really care how the land was used.
[i]You get 400 – 500 acres of business development[/i]
Please explain your math. And please don’t include fantasy acres that the city does not own and does not have any control over developing.
I think you are comparing real candy bars to virtual ones, but I might be wrong.
[i]So you want to grow all the way to the bypass?[/I]
My you are a glass half empty type of guy on this topic. My point is that there is no risk of contiguous connection with West Sacramento. Have a drink and a cigar and rejoice that we do not have to worry about on that side of town connecting us with our apparently less desirable neighbor.
[I]Screaming. Irrational. Fanatical. Got it. Are you capable of talking about things without saying things like this?[/I]
Sorry, it is my style. Please don’t take it personal, I am really just shouting at the wall.
B. Nice, I think part of the dynamic is we have previously not had a political environment where the CC was willing to explore economic development opportunities in a meaningful way. It is no longer the case where the knee jerk reaction is “no”. That said, I urge we approach economic development with a great degree of balance. Yes, it is important that we be able to pay for our city services with sufficient city revenue, i.e. a balanced budget. But we also need to continue to pursue our aspirations as a community, which certainly includes social and environmental sustainability. Somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot. We’ve just not in it at the moment or in the foreseeable future.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]B. Nice, I think part of the dynamic is we have previously not had a political environment where the CC was willing to explore economic development opportunities in a meaningful way. It is no longer the case where the knee jerk reaction is “no”.[/quote]
This might be one of the best explanations I’ve heard so far as to why the business park idea was not floated 3 years ago. If council was likely to shoot it down, what was the point of a developer pursuing the idea.
I’ve been giving some more thought to B. Nice’s questions and comments about why this discussion is happening so late in the game. As I understand it, there has been an evolution in our creative thinking going on here. First, a group of community members started exploring the opportunity of a business park around Mace Blvd and other opportunity sites. Then, a group of community members started exploring the opportunity of acquiring Mace 391 for open space preservation. Then a private individual recognized an opportunity for private gain from the work of the 1st two groups. Then a group of community members recognized an opportunity for community gain from the work of the 1st two groups. Now there is tension among all these groups as well as between the groups and the individual. C’est la vie!
-Michael Bisch
Frankly
[quote]It is really all about personal ego, and the need for validation and acknowledgement from those we crave it from.[/quote]
Excuse me, but did you not post this sentence? My post about black and white thinking was made in the immediate aftermath of reading your post. When you say “it is really [u]all[/u] about personal ego, I took you at your word. That and your previous posts about how you see competition as [u]the human motivation[/u], not one human motivation are the basis for my comments. I didn’t make it up. I took you at your word since as you are fond of saying “you call it as you see it.”
Frankly
[quote]You want your open space, limited business expansion and lower population and believe we should raise taxes on the successful so that we can take care of all those that cannot take care of themselves.
[/quote]
You have my positions correct, and my motivation dead wrong. I am not advocating “taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves” in the long term. In the short term, “yes”. But in the long term, what I promote is building a stronger society basically one person at a time. If one encounters a hungry individual, the first step in improving their condition will be to feed them. Only when they are not hungry will they be able to learn and able to feed themselves in the future. You have consistently misrepresented my position
in this. I would very much promote a society in which no adult actually needed help from another. But for me, this entails those of us who are advantaged being willing to help those who are not in the short term. You have said many times that this does not work. I however am living proof that it does.
I believe so much in individual responsibility that I believe it is the responsibility of each of us to give back as much as we are able to the society as a whole. I respect your choice of business as your means of giving back.
I would appreciate it very much if you were to also respect my choices instead of labeling them as “feel good”.
Yes, it does “feel good” to feed and cloth those in need. It feels even better to help them get to the point where they are able to achieve those goals for themselves.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”I am still unclear on why if this location is such a prime spot for a business park no one was paying attention to it before the City bought it. I would think the way it’s being touted today a developer would have jumped on it as soon as it went on the market and outbid the city, who apparently got it for under it’s appraised value, from a buyer who didn’t really care how the land was used.”[/i]
I think we will all always be a bit unclear on that B. Nice. If you don’t mind a bit more speculation, here is my two cents. To the best of my knowledge (and I could be wrong) the land was in the hands of a farming family named Leland until early 2010. At that time, for reasons that I don’t have any knowledge of, the property was foreclosed on by creditors and the First State Bank of NW Arkansas acquired it and placed it on the market. With the help of Tim Ruff and Lyon Real Estate the property was quickly brought to the attention of the City and the deal was completed. My speculation is that it went from a disinterested farming ownership to City ownership so quickly and so quietly that it never hit the radar of the development community as a possibility.
But that is just speculation on my part.
Also, at that time the development community owned the Ramos property, the Brunner property, the Signature inside the curve property, the Signature outside the curve property, the Shriners property and a substantial number of plots along Second Street. The plots along Second Street are for the most part gone (Mori Seiki, Expression Systems, Davisville Storage, Carlton Senior Living, Chase, Second Street Crossing, Aduro Laser, et. al.). The community has discouraged the Shriners property owners with the resounding “no” vote on Measure P. Signature has sold the inside the curve and outside the curve properties to Mariani Nut Company of Winters. So the landscape has substantially changed since early 2010.
Again, all we can do is speculate.
DT
[quote]Wow! No bigotry unveiled here. medwoman, not only is your comment extremely offensive, it is entirely inaccurate. For some odd reason, you appear to be purposefully filtering out many thousands of pro-social and environmental comments made by “business people” to suit your biases. “Business people” are “very money, profit oriented folks” about as much as women are very shopping, cooking oriented folks. So in your world, while the fat cat businessmen are sitting around smoking cigars and drinking whiskey in their 3-piece suits, all the house wives are catering to their every whim. You might try taking your colored glasses off. [/quote]
And you might try not to see all comments I make as caricatures of business people. There was no “bigotry” at all in my comment. Do you believe that any business would survive in our system if the owner does not prioritize money ? What would a business owner and his/her family live off if they did not make money ? Are you really suggesting that business people do not care about making money ?
Because that is all I said. I was also very careful to say that I was not using this as a pejorative. It seems that you don’t believe me when I say that I respect different values, even if they are not my highest values.
[quote]My speculation is that it went from a disinterested farming ownership to City ownership so quickly and so quietly that it never hit the radar of the development community as a possibility. [/quote]
This seems a reasonable expansion.
[quote]So the landscape has substantially changed since early 2010. [/quote]
This seems to be the piece of the puzzle I was missing.
[i] That and your previous posts about how you see competition as the human motivation, not one human motivation are the basis for my comments.[/i]
So medwoman, what causes you to wake up in the morning, put on your scrubs and go to work every day?
Are you just giving back?
Or are you pursuing your own interest?
You do know about human hierarchy of needs, right? Have you evolved beyond that top need for self-actualization? Sounds like it. I guess you are a saint.
What don’t you sell all your belongings and go work in an inner city or another country where poor people cannot get adequate healthcare?
Why not work for another company other than Kaiser where they can use a bright and experienced doctor like yourself to help them retool to be a better provider?
Why live in Davis where there are fewer people that need all the care and help of your generosity… why not somewhere else where you can do more good?
Of course these are all rhetorical questions. I honor your right to live and work where you want… where you get the most value and enjoyment… where you can pursue your own individual interest.
I just wish you would stop expecting others to see it as more laudable than people with other careers or ideas.
I know for a fact that an ethical liberal doctor and an ethical conservative business executive are motivated to achieve from the same basis of self interest. Just think back to when the two attended school together. Did they recognize much difference in the basis of their motivation then? Even our public school systems expect that their motivations are pretty much a direct match. “If little Billy would just do the work…”
If little Sally was driven to save the world, it was because it made her feel accomplished and useful and validated and appreciated. If little Jimmy wanted to be a successful investment banker, it would be for the same. The difference in career is just a façade of identity that we use to categorize people… but in reality, Sally and Jimmy could very well have very similar personality types.
Getting back to open space versus business development… you have a significant problem maintaining an identity of someone so significantly altruistic that you can successfully deny your own pursuit of selfish interests. Your position on Davis growth makes housing too expensive for many, and hurts low income renters. Your position on economic development prevents people in the area from having a more robust set of opportunities to raise their income levels. In fact, you are quite clear that your position on Davis in general is that you would like Davis to be even smaller and more exclusive.
How can you reconcile your demand to be seen as largely cooperative and altruistic when you make such specific city lifestyle demands defined by elite exclusivity?
From my perspective, it looks like a hippy form of limousine liberalism… where we form our crappy retail, economically-gated elite community of lifestyle protection and then go about doing things to prove we really care about that less fortunate person.
I wish we would all just be honest about what we are doing, and the fact that we like keeping the subjects of our altruism separated from us.
Frankly
[quote]I just wish you would stop expecting others to see it as more laudable than people with other careers or ideas. [/quote]
And I wish that you would stop posting as though you know more about my expectations, desires, ideas and principles than I do myself. I do not see being a physician as more laudable a career than others. I have not encouraged either of my children to enter this profession unless it is their highest aspiration. You seem to think that it is legitimate for you to use examples from your experience to make your points, but feel that I am somehow being elitist when I use examples from mine.
[quote]you have a significant problem maintaining an identity of someone so significantly altruistic that you can successfully deny your own pursuit of selfish interests. [/quote]
I don’t feel that I have any problem “maintaining and identity of someone so significantly altruistic that you can
successfully deny your own pursuit of selfish interests”. I have never attempted to “maintain” an identity as someone other than who I am. I have more material possessions than some, and less than others. I have stated that I am comfortable. I have stated that providing for my family was and is important to me. Why do you feel that because my priorities are different from yours that I must necessarily be some kind of elitist ? I know that you have derogatory labels for what I believe. I simply disagree with you.
I guess in your eyes, that must make my dishonest since, if your way of seeing the world is the only correct one, then I must be dishonest if I see it differently.
meds… seems like we are both a bit defensive about derogatory labels. It started with your inference that those of use in business promoting Mace 391 as a business park are only in it for the money. My point is/was that those people are no more guilty of selfish pursuits than you are. You both are just pursuing different things.
I would be fine just debating those things on their merit without moving to any derogatory labels. I think both of us, in our interest to try and figure out the “why” for people with opposing views, may go too far in fomenting a defensive response.
But I remain perplexed that you and others with obvious big caring hearts don’t get attracted to more jobs and more housing. I can’t reconcile the conflict without seeing some hypocrisy. Here I am… that grumpy and mean conservative capitalist… and I am advocating for changes to the city that don’t benefit me in any way (except maybe allowing my company to stay here longer), and will possibly lower my property values. I would expect more of a set of shared goals. But there you are with other claimed and proud Davis liberals absolutely against the Mace 391 opportunity to bring in jobs, help the university, and get revenue flowing to a city budget in trouble.
[quote] absolutely against the Mace 391 opportunity to bring in jobs, help the university, and get revenue flowing to a city budget in trouble[/quote]
For the simple reason that there is no credible analysis indicating that Mace 391 is required for business park use in order to address the problems cited. None. Zero. All that’s been put forth so far are pie-in-the-sky “gee, it’s the perfect spot” conceptual plans of the sketchiest nature. No comprehensive analysis of need, not even back-of-the-napkin analysis of realistic return to the city, and nothing at all to indicate developer interest (techdavis doesn’t count due to total lack of experience in business park development). Last but not least, the whole shaky scheme is overlain by the very doubtful outcome of a Measure R vote.
And for this we’re being asked to forego $1M in grant money to set in place the first piece of urban boundary? No thanks.
I’m glad there is going to be an open transparent reevaluation with all the possibilities on the table because I think there has been a lot of questionable activity throughout this process on many sides. The move to do the land swap on the consent calendar that has been roundly criticized is but one example.
When the mayor went off about the easement process and how open it was he failed to recognize that for much of the community the entire measure O process has been hiding in plain site for years. I think this is what Matt has been trying to articulate. There have been real estate deals, some in Solano County and I’m told not near Davis at all, titles being changed, easements put in place and millions spent from measure O funds as well as other sources, some public funds loaned from other accounts, some not. All of this has gone on without receiving the type of public scrutiny you would expect in Davis. I hope the Grand Jury looks into this mess because if what somebody told me today is true there is much to question. Until now i have struggled to understand how the community ends up with so little access or use of these properties when we are spending so much taxpayer money and the need for open space for sports fields, dog parks and community gardens grows more pressing as we continue to densify the city. Today I had someone describe to me what sounded like an answer and it included a level of self dealing that I hope would shock the sensibilities of even the most strident supporters of measure O. I am not going to name names here because these were serious accusations and i didn’t know all the players and would probably get parts of the story wrong but i responded to the person who laid it out for me, and really seemed to be able to connect the dots, that they should should take it to the Grand Jury. If they don’t i hope David or Matt or Don or Frankly or somebody on the City Council or staff who is good at figuring this sort of thing out will take it upon themselves to get to the bottom of it and hand it to the GJ.
Finally, much has been made of the mayors strong dissent from the rest of the council but little of Rochelle’s response that what changed was Shriners being in play. That is key to why this easement might be derailed and the community needs to have a full, open, honest, transparent debate on which way to move forward.
In the midst of all this conversation , let’s pause for a moment of silence to commemorate the fact that as of today Lou Reed will be able to finally determine if there really is velvet underground.
“…not even back-of-the-napkin analysis of realistic return to the city…”
Not so, Jim. Back of the envelope analysis of 2 scenarios have been done. One of the scenarios results in the city receiving $65 million over 65 years or so on a master lease with the property reverting to the city unencumbered thereafter. The other scenario results in the city receiving $40 million plus in gross profit in a 3-5 year time frame. These revenues are in addition to the revenues the city would receive from the operation of the business park (i.e. property tax, capital equipment tax, sales tax, economic multiplier effect, etc.). Just saying.
-Michael Bisch
A lot of community needs can be met with $40-65 million. Even if it’s only $20 million, that is not chump change. That’s why many of us, even though we have no financial stake in the matter, think it’s worth investigating some of the issues Don and others have raised. Unfortunately, time may not permit such an investigation. Hence, the frustration.
-Michael Bisch
DT Businessman, why is the revenue you’ve laid out limited to a business park on the Mace 391 site. Couldn’t similar revenues be generated at a business park in a different location?
The City owns Mace 391. The city does not own the other opportunity sites. That said, the staff updates on the Nishi project indicate that the City will be given the 20 acre commercial component as an extraction. So the same math applies. $200,000 x 20 acres equals $4 million.
-Michael Bisch
B. Nice, Davis owns Mace 391. Not the other options.
Add my voice to DT’s and Frankly’s
Ownership is the key difference.
“The City owns Mace 391. The city does not own the other opportunity sites.”
Okay I’m cringing a little. I am not sure I like the precedent it would set to sell land paid for with Measure O money for profit. (Somehow I’ve been missing this point). It goes directly against the Measure’s intent. It reinforces the desire to put easements on land because that seems the only way to protect them from their future economic value.
Yes, apparently now the city of Davis should use tax funds to get into land speculation and development.
[quote]the staff updates on the Nishi project indicate that the City will be given the 20 acre commercial component as an extraction. So the same math applies. $200,000 x 20 acres equals $4 million. [/quote]
Huh? The city doesn’t own Nishi. Is the city now getting commercial value for any peripheral property that develops? That would completely undercut all of your arguments and those of all the proponents of Mace 391. So clearly I am not understanding you.
The city owns Mace 391 [b][u]because they bought it to conserve it. [/u][/b]
Would the profits all go back into Measure O funds?
B. Nice – I don’t see it that way. I would be different if we didn’t already have 2500 acres acquired from Measure O and there wasn’t many acres of additional land available to acquire for open space.
There should not be any concerns about precedent or legality. The argument is simply one of value to the city and the residents of the city. The way I see it, the city needs the revenue and jobs and UCD enhancement more than it needs another 391 acres of permanent farmland. And even if the best use of the land IS determined to be farmland, there is nothing in Measure O that requires it to be a permanent ag easement. It would make more sense to lease the land for farming in case it becomes beneficial in the future to re-evaluate it again for another use.
Again, the city owns it. It is OUR asset. Let’s pause and decide what the best use is. If there are other acres of land that are suitable for a business park, and they can be acquired for a reasonable cost, then maybe it makes sense to keep Mace 391 farmland.
The problem we have is that other land not owned by the city… once the owner gets wind that the intended use is a business park, the price goes up significantly. Contrast that to this land that the city acquired after a bank foreclosed on it for a deal even for lower priced farmland, assuming the demand is there for a business park, we have a potential revenue source that will fix all of our city budget issues going forward.
Think of it this way… if the business park opportunity exists, and there are no feasible alternatives, then the cost per acre making Mace 391 into a permanent ag easement will be the opportunity cost for declining the business park. Are we willing to allow a $20-$65 million opportunity cost just to ensure that that land is permanent farm land? I think that would be a bad move even if Davis had balanced budgets and sustainable finances. It would be an insane move in our REAL budget and fiscal situation.
[quote]Couldn’t similar revenues be generated at a business park in a different location? [/quote]
There are a variety of ways the city makes money on business park development. They get the benefit of increase property taxes, as some of the tax comes back to the city. Likewise from unsecured property added by businesses on the site. If there is a retail component, they get 1% of the sales tax; more if the voters increase the sales tax locally as other nearby cities have done. The city can add special assessments.
The city can also generate revenues from Mace 391 while owning it under an ag conservation easement, although that is not their current plan. Currently the plan is to sell the property to recoup the money used to purchase it. So the goal of the current process is simply to get the land under easement, then sell it to someone who is willing to buy it and farm it and never develop it. But the city could hold onto the land with the easement in place, and be more creative in getting ag-related revenues from the property. A community planning process could be undertaken and the site could be used for any number of agricultural uses, subject to the approval of the easement holder.
If the city scuttles the easement and sells off the land for development, it would mark a truly deceptive process for having acquired it, would make us unreliable for land trust partnerships, and would set a very bad precedent for the use of city tax funds. In the past RDA funds were used for such purposes, because RDA fund management had (IMO) more latitude. While it is true that the city council was the RDA, RDA funds have been used statewide for development purposes. That was their original intent, though it was supposed to be at least tangentially related to blight (which got defined very, very loosely).
I don’t think taxpayer funds collected for a specific purpose such as open space are that fungible that a city council can suddenly turn them into land speculation dollars. And Vanguard posters have been remarkably breezy and casual about this — oh, they can just pay back those Measure O dollars, and walk away from a million in grant funds. I suspect, and would certainly like clarified, that tax dollars have more restrictions on them — as in, they’re supposed to be used for the purpose to which the voters approved them.
[quote]There should not be any concerns about precedent or legality. [/quote]
Really?
[quote]If there are other acres of land that are suitable for a business park, and they can be acquired for a reasonable cost, then maybe it makes sense to keep Mace 391 farmland.
The problem we have is that other land not owned by the city… once the owner gets wind that the intended use is a business park, the price goes up significantly.[/quote]
This is remarkable coming from a conservative. Wouldn’t you think it better for private landowners to privately develop privately-owned business parks, than for public monies to be used to acquire and develop private land into publicly owned business parks? Why would we be buying land that someone already owns and wants to develop into a business park? Why do you want the City of Davis to become a land developer and business park owner?
” Contrast that to this land that the city acquired after a bank foreclosed on it for a deal even for lower priced farmland, assuming the demand is there for a business park, we have a potential revenue source that will fix all of our city budget issues going forward. “
Your argument defeats the entire purpose of Measure O, and makes a strong case for land easements. What’s to keep the city from doing this over and over again with Measure O money? Buying land with money designated for preserving open space and then selling it to a developer for a profit when it’s worth more? If Measure O cannot protect the land from development then I’d argue easements are absolutely necessary.
[quote]Your argument defeats the entire purpose of Measure O, and makes a strong case for land easements. What’s to keep the city from doing this over and over again with Measure O money? Buying land with money designated for preserving open space and then selling it to a developer for a profit when it’s worth more? If Measure O cannot protect the land from development then I’d argue easements are absolutely necessary.[/quote]Yes, every Vanguard thread on this topic makes me more convinced that ag easements are critically necessary, and the sooner the better.
The only ‘fix’ for having used Measure O funds for this purpose would be to replace those funds with General Fund dollars. So you would have the City of Davis purchasing land for conservation, then switching dollars to convert that land for development. Now let’s look at the map and see where else we can do that.
We need an urban limit line, reinforced by conservation easements. Then, once the land speculators know where they can and cannot develop, maybe we’ll see some forward progress on economic development on the appropriate sites.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”Okay I’m cringing a little. I am not sure I like the precedent it would set to sell land paid for with Measure O money for profit. (Somehow I’ve been missing this point). It goes directly against the Measure’s intent. It reinforces the desire to put easements on land because that seems the only way to protect them from their future economic value.
Your argument defeats the entire purpose of Measure O, and makes a strong case for land easements. What’s to keep the city from doing this over and over again with Measure O money? Buying land with money designated for preserving open space and then selling it to a developer for a profit when it’s worth more? If Measure O cannot protect the land from development then I’d argue easements are absolutely necessary.”[/i]
The questions you ask are at [u]the very heart[/u] of the determination of what the “best answer” is to the question we currently face.
In an e-mail conversation with Jim Provenza yesterday (with both of us dialoguing purely as citizens I said the following, [i]”On a separate subject, the City Council voted 4-1 on Tuesday to give further consideration to the ag farmland preservation concept I reviewed with you a couple weeks back. They will be looking at all the options, which is as it should be. [u]My personal view is that if any of the capital dollars realized from any portion of Mace 391 are not 100% plowed back into achieving the maximum possible Measure O protection of the prime ag farmland of Davis’ Urban Fringe, then I will 100% support moving forward with the easement in March 2014.[/u]”[/i]
Jim’s response was, “[i]Yes. At a minimum, this is what we would need. I would also want to have the Ag Commissioner opine on the comparable benefits to agriculture of the various approaches. [u]In my opinion, this is not worth doing unless there is a net gain for agriculture.[/u]”[/i]
In both those quotes I have added underlining here for emphasis. The point both Jim and I are making, as people who both are “interested in” the upside potential of a combined Innovation Park / Ag Farmland Conservation / Riparian Corridor Rehabilitation / Salmon Spawning Habitat Restoration initiative that leverages Measure O money to achieve much, much more conservation of prime ag land in Davis’ Urban Fringe [u]during calendar year 2014[/u] . . . quite possibly 8 times as many prime farmland acres. In my opinion that achieves “the net gain for agriculture” that Jim refers to. The farmers who currently farm those acres will unequivocally know that those acres will be productively farmed forever. In time, some of those acres will become focus on producing field trial results for the ag tech companies that fill the innovation park. HM Clause wants to expand their Davis-based Research and Development operations here, which already includes over 200 acres of seed producing fields on south Mace Boulevard below El Macero, and they have publicly identified in writing from their CFO that they want to locate that expansion to happen here in Davis.
As Rob White noted in one of his recent articles there are other ways that we can realize a net gain or agriculture, [i]”There are programs at the University like Seed Central which are attracting national and international corporations to Davis, including Nunhems and H.M. Clause. Or the AgTech Innovation Center partnership between UC Davis and SARTA, winner of the i6 Challenge Grant from the US Economic Development Administration. This program is focused on developing stronger ties between research and application and seeks to create deployment of the innovations created at the University.
And many of the aforementioned corporations are keenly interested in how they can partner with the local agricultural supply chain and engage with Yolo County’s strong belief in conservation of agricultural lands. This translates to investments in research fields and greenhouses, new innovations in planting, harvesting and processing, and local employment for technicians, farmers, researchers and professional services.”[/i]
(continued)
However, conservation efforts [u]always[/u] face the challenge of, [u]”How do we pay for the very desirable outcome of ag farmland conservation?[/u]” I personally always start by stepping back and first asking whether the outcomes are indeed desirable. For me this all starts with the outcome of upwards of 3,000 acres of prime ag land and bird species habitat conserved on Davis’ Urban Fringe . . . including significant acres of Swainson’s Hawk foraging grounds. If that happens — and I strongly believe that it can happen during calendar year 2014 — then both the Farmland Preservation portion of the Davis community and the birding portion would see the dream of a conserved agricultural/habitat border transformed into reality. Said another way, the hope Davis citizens had when they passed Measure O will become fully realized. That to me is a very desirable outcome that is totally consistent with the goals of Measure O.
How can we financially afford all that? By forging a public/private partnership where there are indeed some portions of the development community that are stepping forward, not only with the money to achieve the conservation, but also assuring that,
— The business community in Davis would see upwards of 950 acres of Innovation Park entitled, with well over 1,000 acres of adjacent ag land available for field research, and
— Thousands of individual Davis residents who would see their homes that are currently in the FEMA floodplains removed from the risk of flooding, saving them whatever annual FEMA flood insurance premiums they are paying.
As I said in my e-mail to Jim, my personal view is that if any of the capital dollars realized from any portion of Mace 391 are not 100% plowed back into achieving the maximum possible Measure O protection of Davis’ Urban Fringe, then I will 100% support moving forward with the easement in March 2014. If we do that — all in calendar year 2014 — we will actually be conserving Measure O dollars in the very purpose they were designed for.
Further, I strongly believe that once we get the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) reports this week (from Bruce Boyd at the City) on each of the parcels of the Urban Fringe that have the potential to be conserved in calendar year 2014, then the conservation value of Mace 3,000 will dwarf the conservation value of Mace 391. We will truly have our cake and get to eat it too.
[quote]Not so, Jim. Back of the envelope analysis of 2 scenarios have been done.[/quote]
I concede the point, but the fact remains that the revenue analysis is without context. How much is needed to bring the budget into balance? Can we achieve the same thing without developing Mace 391?
Jim, I agree some context is lacking, but not entirely. Off the top of my head, we’re running a $2 million p.a. deficit not counting the road maintenance backlog which is another $3-$4 million p.a. for the next 20 years or so (medwoman!!!). I too would like to see how developing Mace 391 would impact the budget. I’d also like to see what the plan is to address the budget deficit should Mace 391 not be developed. What are our alternatives?
Don, I’m pretty sure a number of staff reports indicated that the western 20 acres or so of the Nishi property were going to be transferred to the city as part of the development agreement. These 20 acres represent the tech park component. Presumably, the city would then partner with a developer and/or UC Davis to develop incubator, wet lab and other tech start-up type space.
-Michael Bisch
So approximately a $5M annual deficit. My own rough estimates, using Rob White’s numbers plus a few others I scavenged here and there, indicate that a 180-acre tech park (e.g. Ramos/Bruner) could net the city somewhere between $1.4M and $5.5M annually. Thus I remain unconvinced that Mace 391 is needed.
Matt, 3 rhetorical questions for you:
What do you think the purpose of agriculture is?
How should it be conducted in the 21st century?
Do Yolo County or City of Davis codes allow for 21st century farming?
Yolo County codes:
Sec. 8-2.2416. Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.
[ url] http://www.yolocounty.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=15780 [ /url]
c) Agricultural use. Those primary and accessory uses and structures defined in Sections 8-2.208, 8-2.208.3, 8-2.208.4, and those specific principal, accessory, and conditional uses listed in Sections 8-2.402, 82.403, 8-2.404, 8-2.404.5, 8- 2.502, 8-2.503, 82.504, 8-2.504.5, 8-2.602, 8-2.603, 8-2.604, and 8-2.604.5 of the Yolo County Code, including the restoration or conversion to habitat, so long as the restoration or conversion is incidental to or ancillary to the agricultural uses on the parcel.
f) Predominantly non-agricultural use. Any use not defined or listed as a principal, accessory, and conditional use allowed in the agricultural zones, as defined in the Yolo County Code sections listed in subsection (c), above. Predominantly non-agricultural use specifically does not include the restoration or conversion to habitat, so long as the restoration or conversion is incidental to or ancillary to the agricultural uses on the parcel.
Title 8 LAND DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING
[ url] http://www.yolocounty.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1897 [ /url]
Sec. 8-2.208. Agriculture.
“Agriculture” shall mean the use of land for the raising of crops, trees or animals, including farming, dairying, pasturage, agriculture, horticulture, floriculture, viticulture, apiaries, and animal and poultry husbandry, and the necessary accessory uses thereto; provided, however, the operation of any such accessory uses shall be secondary to that of the normal agricultural activities. For the purposes of this section, “accessory use” shall mean supply, service, storage, and processing areas and facilities for any other agricultural land. The uses set forth in this section shall not include stockyards, slaughterhouses, hog farms, fertilizer works, or plants for the reduction of animal matter. (§ 3.006, Ord. 488, as amended by § 2, Ord. 1244, eff. February 3, 2000)
Sec. 8-2.208.3. Agricultural Building.
“Agricultural Building” shall mean an uninhabited building used to shelter farm animals, farm implements, supplies, products and/or equipment; and that contains no residential use, is not open to the public, and is incidental and accessory to the principal use of the premise; and may contain processing activities as a direct result of the farming operation of the premises. (§ 2, Ord. 1244, eff. February 3, 2000)
Sec. 8-2.208.4. Agricultural Structure.
“Agricultural Structure” shall mean an uninhabited structure used to shelter farm animals, farm implements, supplies, products and/or equipment; and that contains no residential use, is not open to the public, and is incidental and accessory to the principal use of the premise. (§ 2, Ord. 1244, eff. February 3, 2000)
Sec. 8-2.208.5. Agricultural Research.
“Agricultural Research” shall mean industrial or scientific uses subordinate to, and in support of agriculture, and include product processing plants and agriculturally based laboratories or facilities for the production or research of food, fiber, animal husbandry or medicine, and may include administrative office space in support of the operation. (§ 2, Ord. 1244, eff. February 3, 2000)
Right-to-Farm Ordinances pages 11-14 for Yolo County
[ url] http://www.delta.ca.gov/res/docs/20 Appendix 6 – Right-to-Farm Ordinances.pdf [ /url]
continued:
City of Davis codes:
Chapter 40A RIGHT TO FARM AND FARMLAND PRESERVATION
[ url] http://qcode.us/codes/davis/view.php?topic=40a&showAll=1&frames=on [ /url]
40A.01.020 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
Agricultural land. Those land areas of Yolo County specifically zoned as agricultural preserve (A-P), agricultural exclusive (A-E), and agricultural general (A-l), as those zones are defined in the Yolo County zoning ordinances, those land areas of Solano County specifically zoned exclusive agricultural (A-40), as those zones are defined in the Solano County zoning ordinances, and those land areas of the City of Davis specifically zoned as agricultural (A), planned development or any other zoned land as defined by the Davis Municipal Code where the land use on the land within the city limits is agricultural.
Agricultural operations.
Any agricultural activity, operation, or facility including, but not limited to, the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, irrigation, frost protection, cultivation, growing, harvesting, and processing of any commercial agricultural commodity, including timber, viticulture, apiculture or horticulture, the raising of livestock, fur-bearing animals, fish or poultry, agricultural spoils areas, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as incidental to or in conjunction with such operations, including the legal application of pesticides and fertilizers, use of farm equipment, storage or preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market, or to carriers for transportation to market.
Agricultural processing facilities or operations.
Agricultural processing activity, operation, facility, or appurtenances thereof includes, but is not limited to, the canning or freezing of agricultural products, the processing of dairy products, the production and bottling of beer and wine, the processing of meat and egg products, the drying of fruits and grains, the packing and cooling of fruits and vegetables, and the storage or warehousing of any agricultural products, and includes processing for wholesale or retail markets of agricultural products.
I am still having problems with posting links. I’l try again with just links.
Yolo County codes:
Sec. 8-2.2416. Agricultural Conservation Easement Program.
[ url] http://www.yolocounty.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=15780 [ /url]
Title 8 LAND DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING
[ url] http://www.yolocounty.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1897 [ /url]
Right-to-Farm Ordinances pages 11-14 for Yolo County
[ url] http://www.delta.ca.gov/res/docs/20 Appendix 6 – Right-to-Farm Ordinances.pdf [ /url]
City of Davis codes:
Chapter 40A RIGHT TO FARM AND FARMLAND PRESERVATION
[ url] http://qcode.us/codes/davis/view.php?topic=40a&showAll=1&frames=on [ /url]
I give up. Just copy and paste if you want these docs.
http://www.yolocounty.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=15780
http://www.yolocounty.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1897
http://www.delta.ca.gov/res/docs/20 Appendix 6 – Right-to-Farm Ordinances.pdf
http://qcode.us/codes/davis/view.php?topic=40a&showAll=1&frames=on
stephen: if you imbed the link into the html code, it keeps it together
for example: [url]http://www.yolocounty.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=15780 ]here[/url]
okay that didn’t work.
here ([url]http://www.yolocounty.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=15780 [/url])
[quote]The point both Jim and I are making, as people who both are “interested in” the upside potential of a combined Innovation Park / Ag Farmland Conservation / Riparian Corridor Rehabilitation / Salmon Spawning Habitat Restoration initiative that leverages Measure O money to achieve much, much more conservation of prime ag land in Davis’ Urban Fringe during calendar year 2014 . . . quite possibly 8 times as many prime farmland acres.[/quote]
Again thanks for the info, I know you have put this out there before, but reading it in context of my last question gives to new meaning to me, so appreciate you putting it up again. If your idea’s are feasible, and the money spent from selling the Mace 391 was [u]put back into Measure O funds[/u] and [u]used to buy an equal to or greater amount of conservation and prime farmland acres, on which easements are placed[/u] (I think there is a debate going on regrading the feasibility of this?), then in theory I would support the selling of the property.
bnice: i believe measure o only accounts for a portion of the money for mace 391
[quote]bnice: i believe measure o only accounts for a portion of the money for mace 391[/quote]
As I understand it, money was borrowed from transportation funds, with the intention of paying it back when land was sold?
Jim Frame:
[quote]So approximately a $5M annual deficit. My own rough estimates, using Rob White’s numbers plus a few others I scavenged here and there, indicate that a 180-acre tech park (e.g. Ramos/Bruner) could net the city somewhere between $1.4M and $5.5M annually. Thus I remain unconvinced that Mace 391 is needed.[/quote]
Yes, and we currently have $9.4 million in sales tax revenue at our 1.5% rate on taxable sales. Increase that to 1.75% and you get another $1.8 million.
It is not necessary to develop Mace 391. Development funds are not needed for greenbelt easement purchases; Measure O and grant funds can be used for that.
A balanced budget program would include building on other sites, developing Nishi, a short-term increase in the sales tax, continued cost-cutting measures. We would have land conservation and economic development, and would have a firm urban limit line on the east.
Some 21st Century agriculture photos:
[url]http://www.flickr.com/x/t/0092009/photos/18667053@N02/sets/72157637060179524/[/url]
Jim and Don, I hear what you’re saying and agree with some of it, but I don’t think the analysis is as black and white as you portray it. There are many unmet community needs not reflected in the budget. If the needs were met, the budget deficit would be far, far larger. For example, Robb Davis spoke eloquently last Saturday about cutbacks in services to some of our most vulnerable residents. There is a proposed Downtown Integrated Parking Plan that requires funding if adopted by the CC. There are pedestrian and bike safety upgrades required to some of our existing infrastructure. There are cracked and upheaved sidewalks all over town. The Richards entryway to downtown has been treated like an afterthought, both aesthetically and functionally for decades. The money needed for the roads backlog is being borrowed with interest because we can’t pay for it out of pocket. The 3rd Street Corridor Improvement project is short of funding. The list goes on and on. We are really behind the eight ball on some of this stuff. This CC and future CCs have and will be making very difficult choices because we do not have the resources to meet all these needs.
-Michael Bisch
[i]A balanced budget program would include building on other sites,[/i]
Sites we don’t own and cannot control. That is not an alternative, that is just a wish.
[i]developing Nishi[/i]
Completely inadequate, extremely small and strangely-shaped parcel surrounded by freeway and railroad tracks and with copious access problems.
[i]a short-term increase in the sales tax[/i]
Never met a tax you didn’t like, huh? Our budget problems have not been causes by lack of tax rates, they have been caused by lack of revenue resulting from the slow-growth zealots and over-spending. They will not be fixed by tax increase… in fact they will probably be extended by tax increases. Time for the slow-growth zealots to take a back seat while the rest of us fix the economic mess they contributed to.
[i]continued cost-cutting measures.[/i]
You can’t just throw that out without specifics. Where do you think we can cut more? There will not be support for cutting any more.
[i]We would have land conservation and economic development[/i]
First, we already have 2500 acres of land conservation acquired with measure O funds. How much is enough? You seem greedy about open space… never enough… have to get that farmland moat in place and locked down, right? Without Mace 391, which we own, there is no guarantee that we have any other feasible business park location. But we have COPIOUS acres of additional open space we can acquire.
[i]and would have a firm urban limit line on the east.[/i]
We ALREADY HAVE A FIRM URBAN LIMIT LINE TO THE EAST UNLESS YOU ARE AFRAID OF BUILDING ON STILTS IN THE CAUSEWAY! Jeeze… calm down about the east already. Rejoice that we are separated by several miles from West Sacramento and will always be.
We don’t want any urban line limit to the east that is permanent. This ag easement idea is idiotic. There is absolutely no benefit to it except to prevent you and others from having anxiety about future development. It is clear that you don’t trust the future majority to agree with your sacred farmland view. But us old farts should not get to take away the discretion of future generations. If we don’t develop Mace 391 into a business park, then lease the land for farming and then continue to evaluate its value for a future business park. We OWN The damn thing. We can decide. There is no landowner/developer pushing it over our interests.
I am really disgusted with this ag easement push. It is really just more kicking of the can down the road by spoiled people from the baby boomer generation to add yet another nail into the fiscal coffin of a broken economy that our young people that will have to navigate through when we add age-related senility to our already existing narcissism.
And don’t forget the $50 million in road and park maintenance shortfall in our budget.
i think $50 million is a low number.
i don’t agree with you that ag easements are idiotic, they are limiting and the more i read on this issue, it might be unnecessary.
They are idiotic for Davis because we are filled with smart voters having measure’s O, J and R.
We don’t need to lock up the gate because we are perfectly capable of deciding when we need to keep in closed and when we need to open it. Ag easements are only for those too afraid to open it. They should not be allowed to lock the rest of us in.
In some communities with fewer engaged citizens, aggressive developers and land owners and bribe-able politicians, ag easements would probably make some sense.
It is interesting to me. I think the urgency coming from some folks to lock up this land is exactly because they know there are good reasons to develop it.
[quote]We don’t want any urban line limit to the east that is permanent. This ag easement idea is idiotic. There is absolutely no benefit to it except to prevent you and others from having anxiety about future development. It is clear that you don’t trust the future majority to agree with your sacred farmland view. But us old farts should not get to take away the discretion of future generations. If we don’t develop Mace 391 into a business park, then lease the land for farming and then continue to evaluate its value for a future business park. We OWN The damn thing. We can decide. There is no landowner/developer pushing it over our interests.
I am really disgusted with this ag easement push. It is really just more kicking of the can down the road by spoiled people from the baby boomer generation to add yet another nail into the fiscal coffin of a broken economy that our young people that will have to navigate through when we add age-related senility to our already existing narcissism.[/quote]
I don’t denigrate your views in this manner. I do not understand why you can’t discuss things without being insulting and without these kinds of patronizing and derogatory characterizations. I am not greedy, not a zealot, and am not idiotic. I am going to ask you again to refrain from this bombastic and hostile style of rhetoric.
To answer your points:
Nishi is not big, but it is revenue.
Sites that are not owned by the city but which are developed by private owners bring revenue to the city.
A short-term tax increase is a common tool for meeting revenue shortfalls. Many communities opt to make them permanent. Davis might or might not do that, but it should certainly have a renewal date.
I didn’t feel the need to get specific about cost-cutting measures because they are already being implemented, or related to well-known contract issues that have been discussed elsewhere.
I have called for a firm urban limit line on the east (Mace) and south (Montgomery). That leaves quite a bit of land available for development.
[quote]We don’t need to lock up the gate because we are perfectly capable of deciding when we need to keep in closed and when we need to open it.[/quote]
As the saying goes when it comes to farmland: pavement is the last crop.
The Francis, Dawson and Jones Davis Greenway Plan:
[url]http://lda.ucdavis.edu/people/websites/francis/designwork/greenway.html[/url]
[quote]
Sites we don’t own and cannot control. That is not an alternative, that is just a wish. ….
Without Mace 391, which we own, there is no guarantee that we have any other feasible business park location. [/quote]
This is one of the strange parts of this whole discussion. We have other sites. They have been identified, and the Innovation Park Task Force will be, I assume, reviewing them again. So it is the odd fixation on Mace 391 by the proponents of development that appears to be unrealistic.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there was no plan to acquire Mace 391 for open space. It came on the market as an opportunity. And then the open space farmland moat people got activated. Apparently the business development people are just slower (or maybe they are working so hard for a living they don’t have the same time availability as the open space farmland moat people).
But they didn’t move fast enough to lock up their prize before the rest of us woke up and recognized the infraction.
It is disingenuous to spin Mace 391 as part of some long-standing master plan for open space acquisition. It was acquired as the opportunity presented itself. Now we have an opportunity to use it for the greater good of the community to develop our economy, support the university, provide needed jobs for the community and region, and given us a medium and long-term injection of much-needed revenue.
[quote]It was acquired as the opportunity presented itself.[/quote]
Yes. For the purpose of conserving it.
It was acquired for the benefit of the community. The funds were not 100% Measure O, so nobody can make the case that it has be dedicated as Measure O indent.
This reminds me of my childhood playground debates… “no fair, I got there first, you can enter my space that I claimed for myself!”
I would prefer not to see some hyper-dense collection of industrial buildings on any surrounding land. I would prefer that it be mixed use… but focused on commercial with recreational. Some of that commercial use can and should be farming… just smaller parcels mixed among the structures and other open space.
Stephen Souza posted a great link of business park plot plans that include this type of approach. I would love the city to claim the land up to the causeway as something we can use and benefit by for more uses than the single use of farming. Farming is great. I support it. 15 years working for Farm Credit notwithstanding. But it is not the only land use.
I think you might look at this that it is unfortunate that the I-80 corridor runs through some prime farmland because it makes that farmland better suited for other business uses. Luckily it is only a little piece of available high quality farmland. There is mega acres away from major roads and away from development risk. We are not at risk of losing too much farmland in this area. We are a long, long, long, way always from justifying any level of that concern.
Just think of a business park Village Homes on Mace 391.
[s]indent[/s] intent
This reminds me of my childhood playground debates… “no fair, I got there first, you [s]can[/s] can’t enter my space that I claimed for myself!”
You can have your business park on 200 acres south of Mace 391. You can have your business park on land next to the hospital. There can be additional business uses inside the Mace Curve. Luckily, that 200 acres south of Mace 391 is “only a little piece of available high quality farmland.”
There are other sites for your business parks.
[quote] I would love the city to claim the land up to the causeway as something we can use and benefit by for more uses than the single use of farming.[/quote]
Once again, you make the case for ag conservation easements. Because there are always people who think like you do, who would ‘solve’ a short-term budget problem with pavement.
[i]solve’ a short-term budget problem with pavement[/i]
Hyperbole.
Is Village Homes “pavement”?
Are those wineries in Napa “pavement”?
You certainly know that we are not talking about covering 391 acres in pavement. First of all there is the 1-2 requirement. So if the entire Mace 391 property was the only subject property, only 130 acres would be business structures, roads and and parking and the remaining 261 acres would have to be open space of some type.
Don’t you think that a lot of people in Davis would prefer their measure O tax money be used for open space they can use while it also bring in revenue to the city?
What good is the 1-2 development policy if it still isn’t enough to allow some development. Why even have it?
[i]Vineyards[/i] are acceptable in an ag easement. As you know, the grapes don’t have to be crushed and fermented on site.
Your Measure O question doesn’t make any sense. Measure O was not intended to use tax dollars for real estate speculation and business park development. That would be an egregious misuse of the funds. In a recent case where a city used special tax funds inappropriately, they had to go in and exchange the funds for General Fund dollars to make it legal.
So we’re back where we were yesterday: you want the City of Davis to use tax dollars for land speculation and real estate development. More peculiarly, you want the City of Davis to use Measure O tax funds for that purpose.
[quote]What good is the 1-2 development policy if it still isn’t enough to allow some development. Why even have it?[/quote]
To discourage inappropriate development of farmland, by increasing the cost. Or to compensate for the unavoidable loss of farmland where development occurs due to proximity to the city line. So when you do get Ramos and Bruner to develop the 200 acres south of Mace 391, the city will benefit by having additional land conserved, probably one of Matt’s parcels further out from the the urban fringe.
But the city did not purchase the land with just measure O funds. They dipped their hand deeply into the road fund cookie jar. So, one way to look at this is that there is a joint ownership of this land… Measure O proponents and the rest of us.
When Measure O was approved we authorized the city to participate in land acquisition. And all land acquisition has speculative risks and opportunities. You can keep looking for ways to spin this attempting to label it as some unethical or illegal action, but that won’t work. It would not work even if the land was acquired with 100% Measure O funds because the city can simply sell the land and replenish the funds and use it to acquire the same or more acres somewhere else. That action would 100% meet the spirit and intent of Measure O. But since the land was purchased mixing other tax dollars, you don’t even have the luxury of spin.
Listen, I am perfectly fine if we pause and decide to put a business park or two on other land and lease Mace 391 as farmland. But this is a city asset that has much greater potential value. Maybe folks knew that, and maybe they didn’t know it. But we all know it now. And even if we just let it sit on our balance sheet as farmland, we should still keep it for when you and I are gone and those that follow us have a different need/vision for Davis.
Measure O is about open space. In fact, I would make the case that it is a misused of funds and breaks the public trust to use it in concert with other monies and in collaboration with another private entity – the Yolo Land Trust – to help a minority of no and slow growth zealots prevent any development into perpetuity using ag easements.
[quote]I would make the case that it is a misused of funds and breaks the public trust to use it in concert with other monies and in collaboration with another private entity – the Yolo Land Trust – to help a minority of no and slow growth zealots prevent any development into perpetuity using ag easements.[/quote]
You couldn’t make that case, because putting land into ag easements in perpetuity by means of a citizen commission is exactly what Measure O was intended to do, and exactly how it was intended to do it. Ag easements are one of several tools explicitly described in Measure O.
First sentence quoted from the Measure O report:
[quote] The funds in the Open Space Protection Special Tax Fund [b]may be used only for[/b]: “Acquisition in fee or easement of open space lands within the Davis planning area;[/quote]
and then continues:
“…for the improvement operation, maintenance and/or monitoring of open space lands…
acquisition, improvement, and operation of only those bicycle trails outside the city…
For the construction and maintenance of facilities necessary to preserve or enhance open space properties…
For the incidental expenses incurred in the administration of this tax.”
[quote]to help a minority of no and slow growth zealots prevent any development into perpetuity using ag easements.[/quote]
Very clearly slow growth is not a “minority” view in Davis. Measure O passed with 70% of the vote.
70% of the vote including a majority that value open space that they can use and/or they wanted to protect their home values… but not at the cost of everything else. And a business park would likely INCREASE their home values. I would be careful it I were you relying on Measure J/R as preventing any and all development. If there is a project with jobs, useable open space and the probability of increasing home values, I think the vote will be completely different than any for a housing development.
You still are not responding to the fact that Mace 391 was not acquired with only Measure O monies. You also fail to acknowledge the point that the city can return the money spent and acquire other land without breaking any covenant within the measure.
Geeze Don, have you ever made a decision and then later learned it wasn’t the right one and reversed course? Is that not allowed in your view?
The land was acquired because of activists bent on building that farmland moat. It took a while to realize that the land had much greater value as a business park. Know we know. So reverse course while extracting the value of that land, and go preserve other land. There is nothing in Measure O that designates one parcel of land over another. “within the Davis planning area” leave us many many thousands of acres to preserve. There is nothing that prevents the city from changing its mind and going another way. There was no malice here. There was only ignorance. Why would you demand that we honor a decision made in ignorance unless you are just demanding your agenda over reason?
[s]Know we know.[/s]
Now we know. Geesh…
What a ping pong match. Someone else want to play my side? I am out of breath.
“It is interesting to me. I think the urgency coming from some folks to lock up this land is exactly because they know there are good reasons to develop it.”
Of coarse that’s the reason. It seems to me it’s intention of the easements.
[quote]Why would you demand that we honor a decision made in ignorance unless you are just demanding your agenda over reason? [/quote]]
It wasn’t made in ignorance. There is always a higher development value for any land than what one obtains by conserving or preserving it. Always. As I’ve said many times before, nearly every other use you could put on the table would be of higher economic value than farming. The logic you and others are putting forward would apply to every possible Measure O transaction. There was no specific proposal on the table for Mace 391 before. But it is self-evident that developing a peripheral site — whether for housing or business park — will always yield more revenues than keeping it in agriculture, open space, or wildlife habitat. Always.
That’s at the core of ag conservation strategies. It is why you use ag easements: to remove that temptation.
[quote]Geeze Don, have you ever made a decision and then later learned it wasn’t the right one and reversed course?[/quote]
I unequivocally believe that an agricultural conservation easement on Mace 391 is the right decision, and that reversing course on the easement would be the wrong decision.
[quote] I would be careful it I were you relying on Measure J/R as preventing any and all development.[/quote]
1. I don’t want to prevent any and all development. I have repeatedly described where development would be suitable, where the balance of conservation and economic expansion would be appropriate.
2. You are correct that I don’t want to rely on Measure J/R. The city should use the other conservation strategies that are common: urban limit line, conservation easements, and zoning.
“But the city did not purchase the land with just measure O funds. They dipped their hand deeply into the road fund cookie jar. So, one way to look at this is that there is a joint ownership of this land… Measure O proponents and the rest of us.”
I’m under the impression this was a loan from the road cookie jar. This seems an important distinction.
“It would not work even if the land was acquired with 100% Measure O funds because the city can simply sell the land and replenish the funds and use it to acquire the same or more acres somewhere else.”
Are you sure about this?
“There was only ignorance. Why would you demand that we honor a decision made in ignorance unless you are just demanding your agenda over reason?”
Some people may not agree that the decision was made out of ignorance, or that their agenda isn’t full of reason.
Kids, I hope you reading this.
There are some adults in this community that are on the back-side of their living years and are either enjoying or eying retirement. And what they want has little to do with what you need. They frankly do not care too much what you need. They want to rock back and forth on the porch of their 1000-3000 sq ft single-family detached retirement home that costs more than you can ever think of affording, calmly and smugly staring out over the brown fields and farmland that they locked into perpetual non-development state… preventing you from options to grow jobs and the economy and build housing that could help you afford to stay here, and preventing the university that you attend from being able to enhance the value of your hyper-expensive education… that could otherwise be done by providing greater numbers of well-paying internships and post graduation employment in your area of study. They don’t care that you can’t buy clothing in town, and everything costs 15-20% more than other surrounding communities. They don’t care that you can’t find a place to park and are discouraged from owning a care… even though the only place for you to walk to get groceries charges an arm and a leg.
Of course they SAY they care, but then their actions don’t follow their words.
They say that they support high density housing to help reduce rents; but what they really want is to keep everyone packed together tightly so they, the blockers of development, ensure their porch views are not threatened and there is also no threat to their expensive home values.
They know that there is little hope rents will decrease with their measly allowance of new development… they are just counting on you to not get it and to get excited about those few scraps of new apartments.
Measure O sure sounded good about a decade ago, didn’t it? That was passed at a time when people your age thought their future would be bright and prosperous.
Oops… didn’t see that Great Recession and that Jobless Recovery coming did you?
Didn’t expect that young people would have real unemployment in the mid 20 percent, and that there would be more discouraged workers (people that want a job but give up) than any time since 40 years ago. you also did not know that we would go from in year 2000 – 4.8 workers age 18-64 providing the tax money to pay for the rest, to 2.8 of those workers today.
So, not only do you have crappiest job prospects in the last four decades coming out of your hyper-inflated, mega-expensive college education, you are going to be taxed at much higher rates to keep all us old geezers comfortable and happy with out unobstructed views of our farmland moat.
Think about all this next time you vote. And pay attention to the details to really understand which ideas and which candidates have your best interests. You have to look out for yourself, because the adults are certainly not doing a good enough job.
Oh yeah, and remember it was all those old geezers that screwed up the economy and spent us into the massive debt that you will have to pay for.
[i]I’m under the impression this was a loan from the road cookie jar. This seems an important distinction[/i]
Not at all.
If it was a loan, then us non measure O tax payers are note holders of that loan and are partially lien holders of the collateral until it is sold and the money returned.
In fact, I was not consulted on this loan.
My tax money that funded that road fund should not have been used for this other unintended purpose.
The roads are in bad shape. We need that money for the roads.
We do NOT need it for open space given that we have 2500 acres already acquired and have met all Measure O projections.
[i]Oh yeah, and remember it was all those old geezers [/i]
Correction…
Oh yeah, and remember it was all [b]us[/b] old geezers.
Count me in. I am just reformed now.
I want to show you all something…
This is a 20-hour per week, $12 per hour job I have posted on the Aggie Joblink board.
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/InternResumes.jpg[/img]
Almost 1/3 of these applicants are graduates.
80% of them are well qualified.
That is 49 resumes in less than a week.
I had a similar response in 1991 when I advertised for an office worker position. In fact, I got nearly 60 applicants, mostly very qualified, many very over-qualified.
Well that was another recession but it only lasted about 18 months and then employment started to recover. This is different. I have been hiring UCD students for interns since about 2005 and the last three years my postings have generated three-four times what I had seen before.
You do know that these kids are not finding enough work don’t you?
Maybe the federal government should start selling off land in Yosemite Valley to help pay down the national debt. Extremes I know, but if it was possible there would be people wiling to do it in the name of profit. If land is not permanently protected it will be exploited for profit. As I’ve stated if Matt’s plan could really come to fruition, and it’s as good as it sounds, I support it. But I’m not going to concede the need for easements, otherwise it leaves land vulnerable to the all mighty dollar.
Besides good jobs, I want my kids to have access to a good quality of life.
[quote]You do know that these kids are not finding enough work don’t you?[/quote]
With campus enrollment increased to 33,000, and going up by more than 600 per year, there will never be enough jobs or housing for all the new students in a town of 66,000. This is another consequence of the 2020 Initiative.
But if you’re really serious about getting businesses built to provide jobs, then quit spinning your wheels on a site that’s going into ag conservation and get your business owner friends organized to move forward on the 200 acres south of Mace 391 and the properties by the hospital.
[i]Maybe the federal government should start selling off land in Yosemite Valley to help pay down the national debt. [/i]
Oh come on now B. Nice. You can make better analogies than that. There is not a university and a 65,000 population in Yosemite with a bunch of young people needing work.
[i]Besides good jobs, I want my kids to have access to a good quality of life.[/i]
With a good job they can be self-reliant creating a good quality life, without a good job they will be reliant on others. Last time I checked, being reliant on others is not the definition of a good quality life. However, it does provide some meaning to the life of someone that craves validation and self-worth being the perpetual saver of others.
But if your point is that we need balance, I propose that you consider we have plenty investment in that thing you call good quality life here in Davis. What we have not been investing in is our city’s economic health. We are way out of balance. Time to get back to balance giving attention to the economic circumstances.
“Oh come on now B. Nice. You can make better analogies than that. There is not a university and a 65,000 population in Yosemite with a bunch of young people”
I’m being extreme to make a point. The concept for land preservation is larger then Issues currently facing Davis.
“With a good job they can be self-reliant creating a good quality life, without a good job they will be reliant on others.”
When we were first looking for houses 10 years ago we decided the quality of life in Davis was worth the relatively high cost of housing. We sacrificed and continue to sacrifice finically to live in Davis, where my husband can bike to work, where my daughter can ride her scooter on the greenbelt behind my house, where I can go for a 3 mile run and stay on greenbelts the entire time, where traffic on surface streets isn’t horrible, where large tree’s were protected when my subdivision was built. These are the quality of life issues I’m talking about, and they are worth the higher mortgage. I’m grateful that the people who planned this town did not make all their decisions based on how much money they can make or save.
I agree, but now all that good stuff is in decline and at risk of great decline because we don’t bring in enough revenue to the city.
And also, you are looking very far forward with your children. Do you expect them to live with you forever? Trust me, when they get to their late teens you will want them to go off to make a good life for themselves. And they won’t be able to without a reasonable job and a marginal tax rate they can handle.
Everyone needs to consider that all those good things we enjoy – and yes, they are the result of good planning – have all been funded by a basis of private sector economic activity. It is another type of farm that we should be tending and we have ignored it.
Sorry I missed so much of the conversation! I’ve been out doing the capitalist business owner thing. (Being an Engine of Growth can be so annoying at times.)
[quote]2 scenarios have been done. One of the scenarios results in the city receiving $65 million over 65 years or so on a master lease with the property reverting to the city unencumbered thereafter. The other scenario results in the city receiving $40 million plus in gross profit in a 3-5 year time frame. These revenues are in addition to the revenues the city would receive from the operation of the business park (i.e. property tax[/quote]
Oh, the statist thing, Socialism in Our Time, and all that. It might not go over with certain segments of the community, but I’d like to learn more about it. Where can I find details about the financial projections?
“And also, you are looking very far forward with your children”
Only as far ahead as your open letter to the kids:-).
“Everyone needs to consider that all those good things we enjoy – and yes, they are the result of good planning – have all been funded by a basis of private sector economic activity. It is another type of farm that we should be tending and we have ignored it.”
I’m glad there our people out there fighting for both, hopefully we can find a middle ground that protects and nurtures each.
P.S. Of coarse my kids will live in Davis when they grow up, my daughter has already told me she wants to go to UC Davis and that I’m going to be her dorm roommate.
Jim Frame – Read Virginia Postrel’s book “The Future and its Enemies” to learn more abut statists and dymanists. It is a fascinating book and you will recognize our local actors.
All this time you’ve been railing against statists, but you really meant stasists? For cryin’ out loud, why didn’t you say so?
LOL! I’m firing my editor! And getting a new spell checker.
Well, don’t hire my editor. He makes way too many mistakes.