By Marc Hoshovsky
The process of maintaining open-space around Davis, and the use of your parcel-tax dollars collected specifically for open space conservation, are more at-risk than I have seen since 2000 (or before).
On October 22, the Davis City Council voted 4-1 (Krovoza dissented, thankfully) to consider using the 391-acre Leland Ranch, purchased in July 2011 with open-space tax funding, as a business park. The Ranch is located on north and east of the Mace Curve in East Davis, where Mace Blvd turns into Covell Blvd.
Proponents of developing Leland Ranch are attempting to frame this as an environment vs business issue. But this isn’t so. The City’s own Innovation Park Task Force, charged with identifying potential sites for future innovation business growth, has factored Leland Ranch into their planning as agricultural conservation. The Task Force’s report , a product of 2 years of business development planning that involved a variety of people representing local businesses, economic development interests, and experienced local land-use planners, avoided Leland Ranch, focusing instead on the parcels to the south as one of their four potential development sites around Davis. Their report is fully complementary with retaining Leland Ranch as open space. In fact, converting Leland Ranch to a business park runs counter to the Task Force’s recommendations for new innovative business parks.
The Council will discuss options for Leland Ranch at their November 19 meeting. I encourage you to share your thoughts on this issue with Council members, either before or at the meeting. I plan to encourage the City to follow through on its prior planning and decisions. Despite how some Council members have been pressured to frame it, this is not an issue of the best use of Leland Ranch. The Council already voted on that this past June. It’s an issue of following through on wise planning that benefits both innovative business and open space.
BACKGROUND
To help you understand this issue better, I’ll provide more background.
Leland Ranch
Leland Ranch (previously known as Mace Curve 391 property) was purchased in July 2011, using $1.3M in Measure O (the City’s Open Space Protection Special Tax Fund and leveraged with $2.4M from the City’s Roadway Impact Fee program. The land purchase was a bargain for the City, purchasing it from a willing seller at below the appraised value.
As part of project planning, the City won approximately $1.1M in a nationwide USDA competitive grant program to help recover some of the City’s acquisition costs. This grant depended on the City formally accepting the federal grant and complying with the grant terms. These terms included the City placing a conservation easement on the property and selling the remaining land rights (fee-title) to a third party interested in continued farming of the land. The planning and actions related to Leland Ranch has been discussed at multiple publicly-noticed meetings of the City’s Open Space and Habitat Commission over the past 3 years, and the acquisition was the subject of several articles in the Davis Enterprise.
Since acquisition, the City has been partnering with the Yolo Land Trust, a valued partner in local land conservation for the city for many years, to complete the federal grant agreement process.
In June 2013, the City Council approved resale of the property with a permanent conservation easement. City staff worked with the Yolo Land Trust for fair market appraisal and the City is now (October 2013) in the process of accepting resale offers as planned.
For more details on this process, see the City staff report.
City’s Innovation Park Task Force
Parallel to these City actions to secure long-term conservation of Leland Ranch, the City’s Innovation Park Task Force (appointed by the City Council) spent 2 years developing a Dispersed Innovation Strategy to support the needs of growing and new businesses in Davis. The Task Force held publicly-noticed meetings involving business and land-use planning interests. Their November 2012 recommendations to the City Council called for a dispersed set of business sites around the city, rather than one massive site, and recognized that the most successful innovation parks have been approximately 200 acres in size. They recommended four sites around the city, with a 185 -acre site located south of Leland Ranch. Note: their East Davis site was specifically NOT Leland Ranch, which they recognized as city open space.
What’s really going on?
So, if both the City’s actions to conserve Leland Ranch and the City’s Innovation Park Task Force are fully compatible with each other, what’s the issue?
After all this effort by the City, a small set of development interests are now pulling an 11th hour move to undo all of this work. Despite the lack of any concrete proposals, it appears that this narrowly-focused group wants to see both the 185 acres recommended by the Task Force, and some or all of the 391-acre Leland Ranch as one massive business park. This runs completely counter to the Task Force’s dispersed strategy of sites at the 200-acre size or smaller.
Last Tuesday’s vote by the Council is a last-ditch effort to undo their June 2013 decision. It also discounts previous Council decisions and recommendations of the City’s Open Space and Habitat Commission and the City’s Innovation Park Task Force. These were the key points Mayor Krovoza made in his lone dissent to this decision.
What’s at risk here?
In the past decade, the City has used its open space funding to leverage $12 million from other fund sources, helping us achieve approximately 30-40% of the goals envisioned by the 2002 Open Space Acquisition and Management Plan. The City has been successful because it has an excellent track record, it has an open public process, it treats interested sellers respectfully and discreetly, and it has an excellent and effective partnership with the Yolo Land Trust.
Reversing the Council’s June 2013 decision will significantly damage trust between the City and many other interests. Davis taxpayers will see the Council take a bait-and-switch with land acquisitions, dishonoring their past decisions and the intended use of special tax funds (Measure O can only be used for acquisition, improvement, and maintenance of open space lands). It will significantly weaken the City’s credibility and chances of finding future matching funds for open space. Farmers and other local landowners will become reluctant to conduct land transactions with the City in the future if they can’t trust the Council to follow through on land conservation decisions.
Measure O and public support for open space
Local support for open-space had been and continues to be significant. Measure O passed in 2000 with 70% of the vote. Strong public support for natural area and open space protection still remains strong among Davis’ citizens since then. In 2007, a citywide survey about parks and community services showed that the most important “possible improvements to the Davis parks and recreation system” were expanding the greenbelt system and acquiring natural areas, and the most important possible future investments related to open space and natural areas.
With other members of the City’s Open Space and Habitat Commission, I have drafted a report on the history of Measure O, including the history of open space conservation in Davis, the City’s long-term vision for open space, the process of how the City acquires open space lands, and the City’s progress in spending Measure O funds. Let me know if you would like to review a copy of it and I will be glad to share it with you.
Web links to reports mentioned above
- October 2013 City Staff Report on Leland Ranch – http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20131022/06-Mace-Curve-Update-Staff-Presentation.pdf
- Innovation Park Task Force November 2012 recommendations – http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20121113/Packet/06-Innovation-Park-Task-Force-amended.pdf
- Measure O – City Municipal Code – http://qcode.us/codes/davis/view.php?topic=15-15_17
Marc Hoshovsky is Chair of the Open Space and Habitat Commission.
“It will significantly weaken the City’s credibility and chances of finding future matching funds for open space. Farmers and other local landowners will become reluctant to conduct land transactions with the City in the future if they can’t trust the Council to follow through on land conservation decisions.”
This is nonsense, real estate and other business transactions fall through all the time for all sorts of reasons. The same argument was used by the proponents of the water project, that Woodland wouldn’t wait for us, but guess what, Woodland waited. If the Feds tell us backing out will somehow hurt us in the future don’t believe it because if our representative in congress uses his influence to secure federal dollars for a project in the future the agencies will get in line. Any threats to our ability to do so have more to do with political considerations or budget considerations than our reputation that result from past decisions.
The land is currently owned by the City and we are now accepting bids. Changing course will only require we not accept any bid. Nobody is reneged upon because no bid has yet to be accepted. People lose bids all the time. So if the Council, as is within their authority, decides to go another way, nobody is hurt financially.
“In 2007, a citywide survey about parks and community services showed that the most important “possible improvements to the Davis parks and recreation system” were expanding the greenbelt system and acquiring natural areas, and the most important possible future investments related to open space and natural areas.”
This is the bait and switch part.
Of the 2000 acres protected to date with measure O funds not one acre has public access. That is correct, of the $4.5 million tax dollars spent through measure O no public access has been acquired to date. There are no park lands that have been acquired with measure O funds and this land is hardly different. The plan right now is to place all of this land, with the exception of less than 30 acres, into private ownership. For the remaining 30 acres there is no official plan only a vague concept of some sort of farm and I’m guessing the city will retain ownership.
Even if this land remains open space you could easily come up with a better plan to retain a much larger portion of this land for uses more amenable to the citizens of Davis than to sell off most of it and recycle the money into the next deal. After all as the author says “The land purchase was a bargain for the City, purchasing it from a willing seller at below the appraised value.” So why not sell off a much smaller portion of the land to recover the road funds and not recover the measure O funds and forego use of the federal dollars? This land is very close to the existing city. It is so close that building a business park wouldn’t even be considered leap frog development. Selling this land to provide funding to buy more land farther from the city limit makes little sense. Doing so is a continued betrayal of the spirit of Measure O which defines parks as a component of open space. A promise to the taxpayers that the Open Space Commission has so far failed to fulfill.
Marc’s article is like a Paul Harvey radio commentary that he has turned off at the first commercial break, and as a result doesn’t tell “the rest of the story.”
The proponents of developing Leland Ranch have never framed this as “an environment vs business issue” they have framed it as a [i]”limited environmental gain vs significantly greater environmental gain plus economic sustainability”[/i] issue.
Marc, and the other opponents of developing Leland Ranch don’t see the opportunity to accomplish much, much more for our community than just the conservation of 391 acres that is outside Davis Urban Fringe.
If this issue had been subjected to a multi-Commission process like Cannery has been, then the whole community would have been better served. Marc, and his fellow members of the Open Space and Habitat Commission have served Davis well in this process. They have done what was asked of them as a focused Commission. The failure does not lie with them, but rather the failure has come by the absence of sharing their good work with the other Commissions that focus on other needs of our city. We have multiple Commissions for a reason, but if the Commissions work only in silos, we will never achieve a “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” maximization of value.
For example, when the WAC was meeting to assess the best decision for Davis’ water future, there were several times where it stepped out of its “silo” and asked other davis bodies to join the discussion. The impact of the WAC decisions on the Water Conservation decisions being deliberated on by the NRC were recognized and outreach was initiated on more than one occasion. NRC reciprocated by coming to the WAC and sharing their perspective on the “mutuality” of issues. Similarly, the WAC regularly reached out to Council both in the form of formal “check ins” and also by the regular presence of the WAC Chair at Council meetings. A culture of collaboration was created. it is that culture of collaboration that is missing from the Leland Ranch story. If that collaboration had existed, the records of the Innovation Park Task Force (IPTF) would both acknowledge the impending easement on Leland Ranch, and would have included that easement as a parameter in the Studio 30 report that was the culmination of the IPTF work in late 2012.
Further, we formalize that collaboration for most of the City’s commissions by formally establishing liaisons between commissions and with the Council. That formalization of a liaison relationship between commissions helps us make better decisions. The NRC’s sharing of its 134 gallons per person per day Conservation goal was absolutely instrumental in both the WAC’s deliberations on the sizing of the surface water plant and in the structuring of the demand forecasting included in the rate design.
What we have here is a failure to communicate beyond the silo walls. Hopefully we will learn from that mistake.
We owe a great deal of thanks to the members of the Open Space and Habitat Commission who work very hard to accomplish great things for our community. We need to more actively share that very good work by OSHC with the other Commissions and Task Forces that have the opportunity to work with OSHC in a the whole is greater than the sum of its parts collaboration. The extended “silent period” from July 29, 2011 until early 2013, illuminated and documented by the recent Staff Report from Mitch Sears to Council is evidence that we can do a better job in collaborating.
so we bought it ‘at under appraised value’ and are now selling it? But the buyer must farm it and protect it in an easement?
And the grant in question will pay for almost all the money used to buy it?
Why is this so confusing?
Excellent summary, Marc, thank you.
[quote]Let me know if you would like to review a copy of it and I will be glad to share it with you.[/quote]
If you email it to me at donshor@gmail.com I’ll host it on a server and provide a link.
Its not that hard to get really. The bottom line is that the Open Space Committee gets money to pay back the road fund and replenish the Measure O fund. In fact, with the federal grant money the Measure O fund ends up with a profit that can be used for future purchases of land or easements. I do wonder if they plan to share any of the profit with the road fund that provided the majority of the purchase money?
Sadly, without all the wheeling and dealing, you could sell 250 acres at $10,000 an acre after protecting it with a conservation easement, pay back the road fund and keep 141 acres for use by the City under the definition of Open Space as defined by Measure O. This could include bike and walking paths, native grassland, vernal pool and oak forest restoration, Burrowing Owl or Swainson’s Hawk habitat construction, the construction of bird watching blinds, development of environmental and organic farming education resources in conjunction with the public schools and the university, community gardens and a source of local produce for programs like Farm to Fork or Meals on Wheels.
With additional Measure O funds that are continually being collected you could keep even more of the land if the City chooses to develop what it already has. To this date Measure O has done a good job of protecting farmland and perhaps some habitat resources but there is an unfulfilled part of the promise of Measure O to provide benefits to the community through the broader definition of open space as defined in Measure O. It is time to refocus the mission of the Open Space Commission from being only focused on acquisition to its broader mission and fiduciary responsibilities to the taxpayers and citizens of this community.
“I do wonder if they plan to share any of the profit with the road fund that provided the majority of the purchase money? “
Why would they? Upon selling a house that has increased in value would you share your profits with the bank that lent you the majority of the purchase money.
There are three main pieces of legislation signed into law by former Governor Schwarzenegger that are currently being used by unelected bodies in California to complete the transformation of communities (like Davis) and socially re-engineer the lives of the residents within and adjacent to these communities. These are: (1) the Global Warming Act of 2006 ( AB32); (2) the Sustainable Communities Strategy of 2008 ( SB375 ); and, (3) the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Act of 2010 (AB2785) AB32 calls for a reduction in GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020. SB375 links land use to transportation and specifies that the majority of future construction be in Primary Development Areas that consist of compact, high-density, low-income housing next to mass transit. Finally, AB2785 identifies (maps) an animal and vegetation corridor system to be developed in Primary Conservation Areas throughout California. These corridors will be constructed by connecting large blocks of government-regulated land with property that will be purchased from willing private owners or taken through conservation easements, eminent domain, zoning to open space, or other methods to ultimately complete the California Wildlands Corridors.
Funny, the Open Space advocates are all measure O funds are sacrosanct but other city funds are fair game to be tapped when needed. I don’t think its a good analogy. Our roads are in bad shape. The city is floating a huge loan to get caught up. You guys seem to want it all. The bank would charge you points, fees and interest if they funded 2/3 of the purchase price secured by future Measure O funds. I wonder what the road fund is getting?
[i]The process of maintaining open-space around Davis, and the use of your parcel-tax dollars collected specifically for open space conservation, are more at-risk than I have seen since 2000 (or before).[/i]
Bullshit.
Let’s talk about risk here.
There is no risk of any lack of open space preservation.
Again [b]5000 acres have been preserved[/b] in and around Davis. That is about the [b] same size as the city of Davis[/b]. 99% of that land is inaccessible. It is land that sits in the personal make-myself-feel-good-at-the-expense-of-others portfolio of greedy no-growth and open-space extremists.
The REAL risk is clear. The real risk is that we continue to allow these greedy folk to run the city’s land use agenda to our fiscal demise.
If we go forward with this Leland Ranch ag easement this will not be one of those city decision that has a short memory. It will come up over and over again to bite the ass of all those involved in pushing it forward. It will most certainly haunt any city council member that wishes to be elected. They will be branded as being direct contributors to our mounting fiscal problems.
If I were giving advice to the council at this point, I would suggest that they consider accepting short term pain for long-term gain. The land preservation people will always have another parcel to target. Yet, this Leland Ranch opportunity will not come along again anytime soon, and if it does, it will likely be too late for the city to prevent bankruptcy.
By the way, since you bring it up, I’m not sure the profit from the sale should be considered the same as the money collected from the taxpayers. An argument could be made that any profit should belong to the general fund and not Measure O.
[i]Why would they? Upon selling a house that has increased in value would you share your profits with the bank that lent you the majority of the purchase money.[/i]
I don’t think you work in banking, so let me explain it to you.
They raided the road fund to purchase this land… a fund that is already way short of what we need. Some call it a loan. If you lack enough money to purchase an asset, you must take out a loan. If you take out a loan, you owe interest. Or in some cases you might negotiate an equity share in the appreciation of that asset in lieu of interest. In any case, the use of that money comes at a cost.
What really deserves more ire at this point is the fact that there was so limited community discussion and input for the use of this land. The picture is a bunch of no-growthers and open-space extremists working in a back room doing the minimum public disclosure while dipping their hand in the other cookie jar to go secure their win before others found out about it. Now they are whining that since they got there first nobody has a right to call them on their shit and force the city to do the right thing… the thing that they should have considered as an equal alternative in the first place.
“The bank would charge you points, fees and interest if they funded 2/3 of the purchase price secured by future Measure O funds. I wonder what the road fund is getting?”
I assume some internal loan documentation was drawn up to address these issues?
“An argument could be made that any profit should belong to the general fund and not Measure O.”
I think some people have made this argument. I’ve asked many times on this blog if profits from the sale of property bought with Measure O funds need to stay Measure O funds, or could they be distributed to the general fund. I have not seen a clear answer. Does anyone know?
“The process of maintaining open-space around Davis, and the use of your parcel-tax dollars collected specifically for open space conservation, are more at-risk than I have seen since 2000 (or before). “
I don’t know what it would take to overturn Measure O and put the continued collection of Measure O funds at risk, but I will tell you this, the biggest risk is the continuation of the bait and switch that has not fulfilled the promise of Measure O to the taxpayers of Davis. If you are really concerned you will change course and start working to provide funds in support of the broader definition of open space as defined by Measure O.
The biggest risk to Measure O funding is the loss of credibility when people who should know better claim publicly to the movers and shakers of this community that Measure O isn’t about public access when the definition of open space in the definition section of Measure O clearly states otherwise.
[quote]They raided the road fund to purchase this land… a fund that is already way short of what we need. Some call it a loan. If you lack enough money to purchase an asset, you must take out a loan. If you take out a loan, you owe interest. Or in some cases you might negotiate an equity share in the appreciation of that asset in lieu of interest. In any case, the use of that money comes at a cost. [/quote]
I don’t work in banking but I do know that there is a distinction between “raiding money” and “loaning money”. You imply the are the same thing which makes me question your knowledge of banking.
I assume some legal loan agreement was set up between the 2 funds which addressed interest, but don’t know for sure. Do you have information regarding this transaction that I don’t? If so please share.
[quote]The picture is a bunch of no-growthers and open-space extremists working in a back room doing the minimum public disclosure while dipping their hand in the other cookie jar to go secure their win before others found out about it.[/quote]
The others didn’t want it:
[quote]They recommended four sites around the city, with a 185 -acre site located south of Leland Ranch. Note: their East Davis site was specifically NOT Leland Ranch, which they recognized as city open space.[/quote]
[quote] Measure O isn’t about public access when the definition of open space in the definition section of Measure O clearly states otherwise. [/quote]
From the Davis Municipal Code §15.17.030 (Measure O) definitions:
[quote]Open space means land in a predominantly natural state or altered for natural resources based uses (i.e., farming, parks), and may include, but is not limited to, riparian areas, agricultural lands, watersheds, forests, floodplains, and habitat areas. For the purpose of this article, the definition of parks shall be limited to those areas providing recreational opportunities where the use is consistent with the primary use of the property (e.g., protection of agricultural resources, wildlife habitat, natural resources, etc.).[/quote]
Where do you find mention of a public access requirement?
[i]I don’t work in banking but I do know that there is a distinction between “raiding money” and “loaning money”.[/i]
If it was not a loan with interest, then it was a raiding. And given the severe lack of funds in that account, it was extremely irresponsible. Basically, it is a poke in the eye of taxpaying citizens that expect their roads to be maintained, to butter the palms for the no-growthers and open space extremists.
It might have been a legal move, but it is highly condemnable given the fiscal situation.
Jim Frame: please read what you posted again, note the use of the work “parks”, and then maybe you can give us your definition of that word.
[quote]Now they are whining that since they got there first nobody has a right to call them on their s**t and force the city to do the right thing… the thing that they should have considered as an equal alternative in the first place.[/quote]
Regardless of the merits of either plan, attacking the Open Space and Habitat Commission for doing their job is not cool. It is not their fault no one was paying attention. Instead of the “I got here first” analogy, it’s more like we were too busy doing something else to paying attention when you grabbed that spot in the sandbox, so move that castle you have been working on for 2 years because we just realized that’s the perfect spot for us to play with our bulldozer.
[quote]If it was not a loan with interest, then it was a raiding.[/quote]
Raiding implies taking money without asking AND with no intention of giving it back. It’s an inaccurate and inflammatory way of depicting the situation.
I assumed it would be paid back with interest, but have no factual knowledge regarding the loan agreement. Do you?
[quote]Jim Frame: please read what you posted again, note the use of the work “parks”, and then maybe you can give us your definition of that word.[/quote]
[quote]Open space means land in a predominantly natural state or altered for natural resources based uses (i.e., farming, parks), [u]and may include, but is not limited to[/u], riparian areas, agricultural lands, watersheds, forests, floodplains, and habitat areas. For the purpose of this article, the definition of parks shall be limited to those areas providing recreational opportunities where the use is consistent with the primary use of the property (e.g., protection of agricultural resources, wildlife habitat, natural resources, etc.).
[/quote]
I think the key words here are “may include” which opens the door for funds to be spent on public parks with access I see nothing that implies that public access is a requirement or implies it’s the prime function of the funds.
I agree public access is not required but when you have preserved 2000 acres over multiple deals and none of it, not a single acre, has access for the public it does call into question your fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers. The question becomes are the taxpayers getting what they thought they were getting for their money? Yet this is not the worst part. The worst part is that the people entrusted to carry out the program have defended their actions by claiming Measure O isn’t about public access an argument that indicates either ignorance or willful deception.
So you’re specifically accusing the OSH and the city of fiduciary malpractice and willful deception? That’s pretty serious, Mr. Toad.
[quote]The worst part is that the people entrusted to carry out the program have defended their actions by claiming Measure O isn’t about public access an argument that indicates either ignorance or willful deception.[/quote]
All of these decision our made in a public forum. It’s not fair to cry foul, and start unjustly accusing people of deception because you weren’t paying attention.
No, what I’m saying is that when they claim that Measure O is not about public access they are either ignorant of the definition as defined in Measure O or they are being deceptive. Neither is a great alternative. As for fiduciary malpractice its not my claim that it is malpractice only that they have failed to fully carry out the will of the voters having focused on some parts of Measure O and excluded or ignored other parts that would provide benefits to the taxpayers.
As for fiduciary malpractice I have said before and stand by my remark that I would like the Grand Jury to take a look at this program.
[quote]As for fiduciary malpractice its not my claim that it is malpractice only that they have failed to fully carry out the will of the voters having focused on some parts of Measure O and excluded or ignored other parts that would provide benefits to the taxpayers. [/quote]
I won’t debate the merits this claim, because we have a fundamentally different interpretation of how Measure O was presented to the public.
If you think that some parts of Measure O have been ignored then you should blame yourself for not paying attention when decision were being made. If, as you suggest, public access is so important to so many people why have none of them stepped up to serve on the commission and promote their cause? Or showed up at meetings to let their concerns be known.
[i]Regardless of the merits of either plan, attacking the Open Space and Habitat Commission for doing their job is not cool.[/i]
Okay then, let’s use your logic and turn the argument around.
Say a business became attracted to a piece of land that came up for sale and worked with his buddies in government to help him secure it… even getting money from the city to help him pay for it. He plans to build a business park. Nobody from the environmental activist club notices as they are busy blocking land use in other place. But as that business and landowner gets his plans draw up, the environmental activists discover that the drainage alteration required for development will increase the silt to the local watershed thereby endangering local fish populations, and there are endangered plants and a breeding ground for endangered humming birds that will be destroyed if the development takes place.
But since those environmental activists were not paying enough attention early on, too bad, so sad.
Right.
So, what is the statute of limitations for not paying attention the first time? Especially as our city is not doing a very good job informing the public of our dire financial circumstances. In fact, I am guess that you don’t even know enough about those circumstances while you opine for more open space to be added to our already bulging portfolio of the same.
B.Nice wrote:
> Raiding implies taking money without asking
> AND with no intention of giving it back.
No, it is just taking without asking (the users of roads in Davis were not asked to OK this) kind of like if I “raid” my kids college fund to buy a new Corvette (we all know the city plans to pay the road fund back and I’m going to pay for my kids college, but a “raid” is just taking funds that were for something else with out asking for an OK)…
“If you think that some parts of Measure O have been ignored then you should blame yourself for not paying attention when decision were being made. If, as you suggest, public access is so important to so many people why have none of them stepped up to serve on the commission and promote their cause?”
Are you inviting me to serve?
B. Nice wrote:
> I think the key words here are “may include” which
> opens the door for funds to be spent on public parks
> with access I see nothing that implies that public
> access is a requirement or implies it’s the prime
> function of the funds.
I’m betting that 90%+ of the people that voted for Measure O did not think that the money would be used to buy farmland that the city would sell at a profit to a new owner who would prohibit public access…
When I cast my vote in favor of Measure O I did so with the explicit understanding that the funds would be used to acquire lands that would form an open-space buffer between Davis and neighboring communities, as well as an urban boundary for Davis itself. At the time I didn’t delve into the details and didn’t even know that parks were one of the options.
Not only do I not see anything resembling a bait-and-switch situation, I think the program ifs working well, given the parcel availability constraints.
[quote]Are you inviting me to serve?[/quote]
I’m not in a position to invite anyone to serve, but I would encourage you or anyone else who feels that their values are not being adequately represented to do so.
I believe that application deadline was Nov. 5, but maybe you could get an extension.
[quote]I’m betting that 90%+ of the people that voted for Measure O did not think that the money would be used to buy farmland that the city would sell at a profit to a new owner who would prohibit public access…[/quote]
Two things,
1. I disagree, I think people knew the intention was to preserve farmland, but since neither of us can find hard evidence to back up our assumptions we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
2. I am pretty confident that people did not assume Measure O funds would be used to buy land, then sell it to a developer for profit.
Frankly:[quote]But as that business and landowner gets his plans draw up, the environmental activists discover that the drainage alteration required for development will increase the silt to the local watershed thereby endangering local fish populations, and there are endangered plants and a breeding ground for endangered humming birds that will be destroyed if the development takes place. [/quote]
That’s why environmental impact reports are required for major projects, with very specific regulations as to their scope and content. It’s part of the public process of vetting projects that affect the whole community and have an impact on the environment. Another part of that is having commissions made up of public citizens who meet and go over topics that have been posted in advance, so that the public has an opportunity to review and comment.
We have procedures in place, and those procedures were followed, for the process of land conservation using public money. Those procedures have been followed, in full public view.
[quote]No, it is just taking without asking (the users of roads in Davis were not asked to OK this) kind of like if I “raid” my kids college fund to buy a new Corvette (we all know the city plans to pay the road fund back and I’m going to pay for my kids college, but a “raid” is just taking funds that were for something else with out asking for an OK)…[/quote]
Why do say they were not asked for an okay? Did this deal go down in private? Was the public not made aware of the plan? Could the “user’s of Davis roads” not come to a city council meeting and protested?
When I voted for Measure O… Oh wait I can’t recall that long ago the politics involved other than voting yes.
What I do know is I’m surprised to see the score is 2000 acres without public access and 0 acres with it. I think lots of others would be surprised by this and that is what they are telling me when I bring it up.
In the case of 391 I can think of two alternatives that I think are better than the one being promoted by the Open Space Commission; the business park and the one I put forward above keeping more land close in with access for the community. One way or another selling this land to a private owner without keeping it available to the residents of Davis to generate funds to acquire more land farther from town is in my opinion the worst alternative. Don’t forget Measure O is still generating $0.5 million a year. There will be plenty of opportunity to preserve other land over the remaining 20 year life of Measure O but most of it will be farther from town and less valuable for public access.
[quote]But since those environmental activists were not paying enough attention early on, too bad, so sad.
[/quote]
My point is that they should take responsibility for not paying attention instead of casting aspersions and blaming the developer, who lets say for the sake of this argument were not responsible for conducting a Environmental Impact Report.
How to move forward is a different conversation.
[quote]What I do know is I’m surprised to see the score is 2000 acres without public access and 0 acres with it. I think lots of others would be surprised by this and that is what they are telling me when I bring it up. [/quote]
There are procedures in place for these people to express their surprise, concerns, and desires to the city. I would encourage them to make use of them, instead of villainizing the people who already do.
So i guess we know the answer to the tree and the sound story. Yes, vigilance is always good prevention its too bad that without it you get a score of 2000 to 1 and people forget the definition of what it was they were supposed to be doing.
I mean 2000 to 0. Sorry for overstating their efforts on behalf of the densely populated taxpayers of Davis.
[quote]So i guess we know the answer to the tree and the sound story.[/quote]
Public access in this forest is encouraged and tree fallings are posted in advance. Don’t blame the tree because some people didn’t show up to hear it fall.
If public access were to be provided on these sites, it would have to be developed. It would need to be ADA compliant, with considerable regulation and a lot of infrastructure. That would be a lot of cost for the purpose of allowing people to drive to a farm and walk onto the land and look at the fact that it is being farmed.
These aren’t parks. They are being purchased because they conserve soil or habitat, or provide a buffer between urban areas, or avoid potential development. Public access would be a pointless and wasteful use of taxpayer dollars.
In some cases the sites became priorities, I would guess, because of the opportunity to partner with other agencies and other land trust organization. Funding for the sites near Kidwell, for example, is shared with Solano Land Trust, based on what I have read. Those opportunities come along and it is prudent and responsible for the organizations to move quickly to secure the ownership and the easements.
Since Park tax money is used to get publicly accessible park land, it would be wasteful and duplicative to use Measure O money for parks. The voters approved two separate taxes that are for two different purposes. Most who are complaining about lack of access have probably never had any interest in obtaining access to any of these sites. Were there an actual interest, they could probably contact the property and easement owners to enter the property. I doubt most of them are even fenced or posted.
Jim wrote:
> When I cast my vote in favor of Measure O I did so
> with the explicit understanding that the funds would
> be used to acquire lands that would form an open-space
> buffer between Davis and neighboring communities, as
> well as an urban boundary for Davis itself.
I appreciate that Jim posts to the Vanguard and I am impressed with his knowledge local politics and land use. I hope that Jim realizes that it not only seems to me that he knows more about local politics than most other posters to the Vanguard, but knows more about politics than 99%+ of the typical Davis residents. This may not be scientific, but I talked to four people (five if you want to count my wife) who have lived in Davis for years and are regular voters (two of them always have lawn signs) and none of them could even remember “what Davis measure O was about” (most popular guess was “one of the school parcel taxes”)…
[quote]This may not be scientific, but I talked to four people (five if you want to count my wife) who have lived in Davis for years and are regular voters (two of them always have lawn signs) and none of them could even remember “what Davis measure O was about” (most popular guess was “one of the school parcel taxes”)…[/quote]
I got similar responses to this question. This begs the question, whose responsibility is it to educate the public.
Do people care enough about how the city is relegating these funds to participate more actively in the decision making progress?
“If public access were to be provided on these sites, it would have to be developed. It would need to be ADA compliant, with considerable regulation and a lot of infrastructure. That would be a lot of cost for the purpose of allowing people to drive to a farm and walk onto the land and look at the fact that it is being farmed.’
i’m not suggesting that the public have access to every site but certainly 391 would be a good one especially since the city already owns the property in fee and could retain much more of it for the kinds of public uses I wrote about earlier that are compatible with the definition of open space as actually defined in Measure O. With the present score of 2000 acres without public access to ) acres with access it obviously is time to look at implementation of the other goals of Measure O besides preservation of farming for use of these funds.
“Do people care enough about how the city is relegating these funds to participate more actively in the decision making progress?”
I think the residents have not paid attention trusting their elected leaders to be the guardians of the public treasury. Obviously it is time for those elected officials to take tighter control of the program before all confidence in it is lost to the mistrust that can undermine a program like this should the public find out that they are unhappy with the way their tax dollars have been spent. Having all the money go to acquisitions without any public access and then denying that public access is a goal of the program in contravention of the very definition of open space under the taxing authority is the kind of duplicity that can easily serve to undermine the confidence of the taxpayers. Obviously the City Council needs to get control of the program before it is too late.
By the way B.Nice I’m not suggesting that we redo the deals that have already closed but on 391 we keep hearing that the decision has been made when nothing is farther from the truth. Until the deed is done nothing is final. The open space advocates and the Feds, probably as a result of lobbying from the open space advocates, are trying to pressure us into closing a bad deal for the citizens of Davis. I hope the City Council has the courage and foresight to stand up to them and do the right thing to make sure the interests of the citizens of Davis whom they represent come first.
[quote]i’m not suggesting that the public have access to every site but certainly 391 would be a good one especially since the city already owns the property in fee and could retain much more of it for the kinds of public uses I wrote about earlier that are compatible with the definition of open space as actually defined in Measure O.[/quote]
The community farm concept probably could include public access.
[quote]i’m not suggesting that the public have access to every site but certainly 391 would be a good one especially since the city already owns the property in fee and could retain much more of it for the kinds of public uses I wrote about earlier that are compatible with the definition of open space as actually defined in Measure O[/quote]
My understanding is that one of the reasons Mace 391 was purchased by the city was because of it’s agricultural value. If it’s not going to be used for that it seem it might as well be a business park, and a piece of less prime agricultural land was used for public access. But again I don’t believe public access was the main goal of Measure O, and think this should be a low priority when considering how to spend the funds.
[quote] Having all the money go to acquisitions without any public access and then denying that public access is a goal of the program in contravention of the very definition of open space under the taxing authority is the kind of duplicity that can easily serve to undermine the confidence of the taxpayers.[/quote]
Public access isn’t a primary goal of the ordinance. It doesn’t appear at all in the findings (§15.17.010):
[quote]The special tax levied in this article, if approved by two-thirds of the voters voting on the special tax will provide revenue for the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of lands and easements for open space, habitat and agricultural uses and preservation in the areas surrounding the city.[/quote]
At best, public access is a subsidiary goal implied by mention of the word “parks” in the definitions. Anyone who believes that public access should play a larger role in the distribution of Measure O funds is welcome to lobby for a change in the ordinance, but to accuse the council members, commissioners and staff of subverting the purpose of the law in this regard is out of line.
[quote]By the way B.Nice I’m not suggesting that we redo the deals that have already closed but on 391 we keep hearing that the decision has been made when nothing is farther from the truth.[/quote]
Clearly council does not feel a decision has been made.
[quote]The open space advocates and the Feds, probably as a result of lobbying from the open space advocates, are trying to pressure us into closing a bad deal for the citizens of Davis.[/quote]
Again you are painting the open space advocates as the bad guys in this scenario. They are advocating for what they feel is a good decision for Davis, and from everything I can tell they have followed protocol in doing so. People who think this is a bad deal for Davis should do the same.
[quote] I hope the City Council has the courage and foresight to stand up to them and do the right thing to make sure the interests of the citizens of Davis whom they represent come first.[/quote]
I hope council will vote for what they believe is right thing to do for Davis, and I hope they won’t be accused of being cowards if it happens to be inline with the recommendations of the Open Space Commission.
[quote]I think the residents have not paid attention trusting their elected leaders to be the guardians of the public treasury. [/quote]
My observation, when people care enough about something in this town, they pay attention.
[quote]At best, public access is a subsidiary goal implied by mention of the word “parks” in the definitions. Anyone who believes that public access should play a larger role in the distribution of Measure O funds is welcome to lobby for a change in the ordinance, but to accuse the council members, commissioners and staff of subverting the purpose of the law in this regard is out of line.[/quote]
Needless to say, I’m in 100% agreement with this statement.
I think if the guardians of the public treasury would do a better job disclosing to the public the true terrible state of our budget and finances, many more people would care.
I guess if definitions don’t have meaning then the inclusion of the word parks in the term “open space” isn’t important.
‘The community farm concept probably could include public access.’
What is the community farm concept? This has been tossed around and the plan to sell off most of 391 holds back a small portion of the land but i’ve not been able to find a description of what it is beyond as you say a concept. Under my idea a much larger area could be retained and i actually gave ideas about how it could be used.
“Anyone who believes that public access should play a larger role in the distribution of Measure O funds is welcome to lobby for a change in the ordinance, but to accuse the council members, commissioners and staff of subverting the purpose of the law in this regard is out of line.”
I didn’t accuse any council members of subverting anything. As for the commissioners and staff I gave them a choice of ignorance or willful deception and only those that perpetrate the myth that access isn’t one of its goals. If you want to believe its ignorance after 10 years of implementation I have no way of knowing that you are incorrect. We also don’t need to change Measure O we just need to honor its promise as it defined open space.
[quote]I think if the guardians of the public treasury would do a better job disclosing to the public the true terrible state of our budget and finances, many more people would care.[/quote]
Are they not disclosing something they should be?
“At best, public access is a subsidiary goal implied by mention of the word ‘parks’ in the definitions.”
Interesting the word parks is mentioned twice in the definition of “open space” indicating that it being there is not an accident. And yes, it is a subsidiary goal, but, you would expect implementation to accrue public access to more than 0 acres out of 2000 even in a subsidiary role. Unless, of course, the people who wrote and worked to pass Measure O never intended to fulfill their promises to the voters, something I don’t believe. So the question then becomes why the disconnect?
[quote]If you want to believe its ignorance after 10 years of implementation I have no way of knowing that you are incorrect. We also don’t need to change Measure O we just need to honor its promise as it defined open space.[/quote]
They might have a different interpretation of the Measure then you (as do I).
[quote]As for the commissioners and staff I gave them a choice of ignorance or willful deception and only those that perpetrate the myth that access isn’t one of its goals.[/quote]
Can you share an example of someone perpetrating the myth of access?
[quote]Interesting the word parks is mentioned twice in the definition of “open space” indicating that it being there is not an accident.[/quote]
It allows for money to spent this way, it does not mandate it. I imagine that if the opportunity came to put an easement on a preserve they would want the flexibility to do so.
I would even say it goes against the spirit of measure O to purchase farmland and convert to a public use area.
I tried to find the quote I have in my mind today but couldn’t find it. Maybe someone else can help come up with it. I can’t remember if it was here or in the Enterprise but I think it was in the Enterprise story last week on the innovation task force. So let me be a bit more general because without the direct quote I don’t want to use names and attribute words to someone that may not be exact. Recently when asked about public access in a public forum a staff member replied to the effect that Measure O isn’t about public access. The statement had an emphatic tone and is provably false. Additionally and of less importance numerous posters here, some by name and other by “nom de plume” have made similar statements. Of course any objective observer who reads the definition of open space would see that access has a role. Otherwise the term park would not have been used twice. By the way, read Jim Frame’s comment above, he seems to be trying to deny that the use of the term open space in the findings somehow means that public access doesn’t matter. Yet even he later has to recognize that the definition of open space includes access.
[quote]By the way, read Jim Frame’s comment above, he seems to be trying to deny that the use of the term open space in the findings somehow means that public access doesn’t matter.[/quote]
Not denying it, merely noting that it’s not the focus of the measure. Public access, particularly in the form of a park, is an available use of Measure O funds should a suitable opportunity materialize. But what we’ve heard repeatedly from staff and affiliated organizations is that open space acquisitions are opportunistic, driven by seller willingness rather by the city design. Given the location and nature of the acquisitions to date, public access hasn’t made sense; as Don indicated earlier, providing public access requires funding for development, maintenance and public safety, so the opportunity has to be worthy of the expense.
Yet 391 must be such a site otherwise why hold back any acreage at all. Under my plan the city ends up with much more land for such compatible uses and only gives up some leverage to buy other land less suited for public use.
Huston, we have a big problem here.
Reading through Measure O and the plans of the Open Space Commissions, it is very clear that the city and the Commission have completely ignored the clearly intended uses and goals for accessible open space.
Absolutely none of the acreage acquired with Measure O funds allow for any access.
Yet, in the most current Open Space Commission plan, we have the following:
[quote]The funds in the Open Space Protection Special Tax Fund may be used only for:
· “Acquisition in fee or easement of open space lands within the Davis planning area;
· For the improvement, operation, maintenance and/or monitoring of open space lands currently owned by the City in fee easement [or] acquired by the City in the future, including but not limited to the restoration, enhancement and preservation of habitat areas, maintenance of open space lands, and monitoring of habitat and agricultural conservation easements;
· For the acquisition, improvement, and operation of only those bicycle trails designed to connect Davis to open space areas outside the city and with other regional bicycle facilities;
· For the construction and maintenance of facilities necessary to preserve or enhance open space properties for open space purposes (i.e. the construction [or] maintenance of water wells and irrigation systems to serve the property and land uses, [b]the creation and/or maintenance of access facilities where appropriate to promote public education and enjoyment of the open space, etc);[/b] and
· For the incidental expenses incurred in the administration of this tax, including but not limited to the cost of elections, and the cost of collection. Revenues may be used to operate, maintain and monitor properties owned in fee or easement jointly by the City and other public agencies and/or land trusts whose mission includes the preservation of open space lands within the Davis planning area.” (City of Davis 2000).[/quote]
Here is a picture of the front of that report:
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/openspace.jpg[/img]
Further on in the report, we see this:
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/openspace2.jpg[/img]
And later still:
[img]http://www.thesocialmisfit.com/openspace3.jpg[/img]
And it is clear that to date, the acquisition of land using Measure O funds has completely ignored the Greenway Plan. That plan calls for the following:
[quote]· Green Ring: a buffer zone around the city, separating it over the long-term from other adjacent cities with a variety of open space types, including agricultural lands, biking and hiking trails, and wildlife habitat.
· Connector Greenways: an extension of the Greenstreets concept, these are more naturalized linkages located further from the core of the city. These Connectors provide recreation and wildlife linkages between the city, Natural Habitat Areas, and the Green Ring. Examples include undeveloped roadsides and drainage swales.[/quote]
This looks like gross negligence on the part of the city. We have failed to meet the spirit and intent of Measure O and other general plan instruments that citizens have contribute great numbers of hours into. This land that is locked into permanent agriculture easements can never be accessible. It can never be part of our Greenway Plan.
It is clear that the Open Space Commission and certain members of staff and council are pursuing an open space acquisition agenda that is different than what the citizens voted for and have been told. The images used on these reports are a clear indication that we are seeing a smokescreen or cover-up for this misuse of funds. Measure O is not exclusively a farmland preservation fund, but this is exactly what the money is being used for.
[quote]It is clear that the Open Space Commission and certain members of staff and council are pursuing an open space acquisition agenda that is different than what the citizens voted for and have been told.[/quote]
Clarity, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder.
Ouch. Davis is made to look like it is by Mark Anderson. And it is not a flattering image.
[url]http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/print-edition/2013/11/08/davis-leaders-look-grow-research-park.html[/url]