Davis Innovation Center Application Submitted

Davis Innovation Center View From Covell
Davis Innovation Center View From Covell

While a lot of focus has been placed on the Mace Ranch Innovation Center, much of that focusing on city hopes to keep Schilling Robotics in Davis, there are now two proposed innovation parks. One of the points made last week is the importance to evaluate each proposal on its own merits and shy away from viewing these as competing proposals.

In a letter from Sotiris Kolokotronis of SKK Developments to City of Davis Community Development and Sustainability Director Mike Webb he described the proposed project as a “208-acre high-technology innovation and research campus at Highway 113 and Covell Boulevard. “

Mr. Kolokotronis writes, “We have strived to address the City of Davis’ expressed goals for density, sustainability, agricultural land conservation, construction phasing, and design and uses that would provide community and fiscal benefits, as outlined in the Request for Expressions of Interest and the guiding principles communicated to our team by city staff, elected officials and neighborhood and community organizations.”

The project overview describes, “The Project is envisioned as a new technology hub for Davis, intended to serve an array of research and technology companies interested in locating and growing in Davis. The Project plans for a unique business environment, supporting research and development, technology, and science- and engineering-based companies, eager to expand their products and services. The Project will support an environment of innovation in flexible formats: incubation spaces for small start-up firms, facilities for established mid-size or large size companies; to large floor-plate, flexible building spaces for high-tech research and light manufacturing; and potentially corporate headquarters. Employee-support services and retail will create an active landscape for collaboration and innovation.

“The Project also provides numerous community benefits, including opportunities for industry partnerships and collaboration research being conducted on the University of California Davis (U.C. Davis) campus; job opportunities to retain young talent and entrepreneurs from U.C. Davis; and local job and economic growth benefits.”

The Project Applicant proposes the following objectives:

  1. Develop a state-of-the-art innovation center campus for high-technology offices, research and development, hotel, and employee-serving retail and recreational uses.
  2. To optimize the land utilization consistent with the City’s goal of a minimum 0.5 floor area ratio (F.A.R);
  3. Design development footprint to minimize impacts to on-site environmental resources;
  4. Create sustainable sources of revenue to support long-term City funding for public services, deferred maintenance, and infrastructure;
  5. Accommodate high-skilled technology-related jobs that allow a greater number of Davis residents to live and work in the community;
  6. Pursue energy-efficient building design, net-zero energy buildings, low-water use indoor and outdoor design, and high-quality construction by incorporating national and/or local sustainable design standards (for example, LEED, Energy Star, Build-it-Green or similar rating systems);
  7. Integrate multi-modal transportation choices within Project design to reduce use of single-occupant vehicles and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that increases the use of green modes of transportation, such as, public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access to, from and within the Project site;
  8. Facilitate bicycle use through a broad range of amenities such as bike-triggered signals, bike overpass, and extension of community bike trail to help the City meets its goal of 30% bicycle mode share of all trips taken by 2020 (per the Beyond Platinum Bicycle Action Plan);Promote flexibility in project design and implementation to respond to market demand, through phasing of construction, and offering a variety of building types;
  9. Collaborate with UC Davis and others to capture technology transfer to start-up businesses and growing mid-to-large size companies, reducing the loss of intellectual capital and revenue through out-migration;
  10. Improve existing site drainage conditions in the vicinity of the project site; and
  11. Develop an aesthetically pleasing campus environment that provides more than 25% open space with multiple functions and opportunities for recreation and other open space uses including pedestrian and bicycle pathways for the enjoyment of Davis residents, as well as campus employees.

The Project will include up to 4 million square foot of building space with a variety of lots sizes and building floor plates to:

  • Accommodate a variety of businesses and innovation activities, ranging from incubation spaces for small start-up firms to facilities for mid- and large-size companies and large floor plates for research and development (R&D);
  • Hospitality functions, including a hotel, convention center, restaurants, visitor center, and demonstration site;
  • Employee support services and public amenities such as, places to eat, places to gather, and places to rest; and
  • A looped roadway network along with an integrated pedestrian/bike trail network is proposed to facilitate multi-modal transportation options and ensure safe access for employees and patrons arriving by car, transit, bicycle, or foot.

“The Project assumes approximately 3,000,000 square feet of net usable building space for a variety of office and laboratory uses within typical building footprints ranging between 18,000 and 40,000 square feet,” the applicant explains.”

This will accommodate both small sites needed for start-up incubation spaces, and mid-to-larger sites needed for expanding businesses, and established companies.

Davis Innovation Center Interior View
Davis Innovation Center Interior View

They describe, “The Project assumes approximately 800,000 square feet of building area for large open floor-plate (minimum of 30,000 square feet) spaces with a possibility of housing equipment required for such research, assembling, and development facilities. Some of the uses allowed may include high-tech business (such as agricultural, seed technology, bio-technology, food-science, and robotics related) with ancillary light manufacturing, wholesale, and assembly uses, and related uses.”

Parking areas within the Innovation Center will be designed “in a manner to reduce urban heat island effects in comparison to barren surface parking lots. Parking areas will include a combination of integrated energy generation systems (such as photovoltaic carports), large canopy shaded trees, and permeable and high-albedo paving materials, to ensure that the parking areas have multiple functions, instead of just serving cars. Unique parking design concepts will be integrated to encourage use of rideshare modes (carpool, vanpool), compact and low-fuel using vehicles, and alternative-fuel vehicles. Parking areas will be located throughout the site to allow for shared facilities among various tenants. Both surface and structured parking will be allowed to meet the needs of the users.”

There will also be approximately 200,000 square feet of hotel uses to be located near the entrance of the site, from John Jones Road and along Highway 113. They write, “It is anticipated that the Project would include a 200-room hotel with convention and meeting spaces, food service facilities, and exhibition areas. This land use is intended to serve as a common facility for the businesses within the Project campus. The Hospitality site is primarily envisioned to include short-term-lodging for employees and visitors, and house modern conferencing facilities that can support symposia and other events related to the business needs of the various employers in the campus.”

Overall, the net FAR of the Innovation Center land use will be approximately 0.6, with a maximum building height of 140 feet.

There will also be Open Space components which include “natural open space and drainage areas along the edge of the property, will include community pedestrian and bicycle trails and facilities, landscaped open gathering spaces and corridors, and other landscaped spaces.”

“The overall green spaces in the Project will also include open space and landscaped areas allowed within the Innovation Center designed primarily as internal plazas, courtyards, and landscaped areas for employee use. The overall green space within the Project site, including both open spaces along the property edge, as well as, landscaped areas associated with the buildings, will be approximately 85 acres or a total of 40% of the Project site,” the applicant describes.

The total green space along the property edge will be 52 acres of open space, 25% of the site acreage with “open spaces will be designed as natural areas along the periphery of the site with community pedestrian and bike trails”

“Along the periphery of the Project, the open space would vary in width between 100 and150 feet, and would accommodate drainage, passive recreation areas (such as benches, picnic areas, viewing areas), and pedestrian and bike trails.

“An open space buffer adjacent to the agricultural land uses on the north and western boundary of the Project site, and Binning Farms community to the north, will be at least 150 feet wide. Open space adjacent to John Jones Road to the east and along Sutter Davis Hospital will be at least100 feet wide.”

The applicant proposes that project construction would be completed in four different phases. “Phase 1 (approximately 83 acres) will include development directly north of Covell Boulevard, along with portion of the open space and drainage system connection to the detention pond. Phase 1 will also include portion of the open space directly south of the Binning Farms community.”

Phase 2 (approximately 42 acres) “will include portions of development on both sides of the detention area, and create the central common employee gathering area. “

Phase 3 (approximately 56 acres) “will include development of the R&D/ Flex space land use parcels, and the open space areas directly adjoining these parcels. “

Phase 4 (approximately 27 acres) “will include the remaining portion of the site.”

Last week the Vanguard evaluated the Mace Ranch Innovation Center along with their internal polling.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

52 thoughts on “Davis Innovation Center Application Submitted”

  1. Frankly

    I need to study this in more detail and get a few more questions answered.   But without a direct entrance and exit connection with HW 113, I think think the neighbors are going to come out in full force to oppose this.   The way the traffic accommodation appears to be designed, we would see a rush hour nightmare on West Covell.   That entire intersection would need to be redesigned, and West Covell would need to be widened and split.

    Note that I am in support of this project.  But I live in that area and talk to my neighbors.  West Davis has had the distinction of being semi-rural and relatively quiet residential.  My neighbors seem almost militant in opposition.  I explain the economic benefits to the city and the other positive contributions to humanity and the needle moves.  But I think their support will fall if there are not very strong mitigatants for traffic impacts.

    Of course West Davis is only a percentage of the voting population.  But it is a pretty large percentage.

    Too bad these partners don’t own one of the I-80 connected properties.  They seem to understand Davis and have the most compelling proposal so far.   Their challenge is the fact that West Davis is and has been primarily residential, and traffic will flow through residential areas from the freeways.

    1. Anon

      I agree with your assessment there needs to be a direct connection to Highway 113.  However, this innovation park seemed to be a bit more complete – hotel/conference center, explicitly stated it will generate sustainable sources of revenue for the city, etc.

      1. Aggie

        Alan’s comment below is correct. Caltrans will not allow this project to connect directly to 113. The issues are the minimum required distances between interchanges and existing development of the east side of the highway. As a consequence, most traffic will have to be handled by the Covell interchange if the project is built.

        1. Frankly

          That is too bad.  It will make it a fight with the West Davis crowd.  And the last thing that got them all riled up was the potential traffic on Russel from the University Village development… and they won preventing a road connecting the village to Russel.

    2. Dave Hart

      Well, all of Davis is residential.  Your comments regarding traffic as the deal breaker apply to the Mace Ranch center as well.  At some point, more traffic for some people is part of the deal unless you want to go for leapfrog development and put it further out on the periphery.

        1. Frankly

          You are a hoot.   But what you write is accurate.  The density of West Davis is much less than is the core.

          But density has nothing to do with this.   We are talking about property adjacent to I-80.  All four corners and all adjacent property to both east park proposals is completely surrounded by business and ag land.  The setbacks to the nearest residential impacts are thousands of feet, if not miles.  The traffic flow and design for the Mace overpass, is already robust because of the need to support all the existing business in the area.

          Again, I am not making a case for rejecting the West Davis park.  I am making the point that lacking a 113 connector will cause the neighbors to come out strong in opposition.

          1. Don Shor

            I was just giving you a hard time. Yes, it seems to me an entrance closer to 113 makes sense. Jim Frame has commented earlier about the difficulty of actually modifying the 113 ramps. But why wouldn’t Shasta be used as the primary entrance rather than Denali?

        2. Frankly

          I think Shasta would be a better choice only because it eliminates more travel on West Covell, and north of Covell it already primarily only serves traffic for commercial purposes.  But those wealthy and connected University Retirement Village people are going to put up a big  fuss with all the trucks and commuter traffic.  That stuff should be directed to 113.

          I don’t know when we will see the proposal for the third park, but I was initially told that it would include a new freeway overpass with ramps.   Apparently, it is far enough away from the Mace overpass.  Add a nice protected bike and pedestrian lane, and I think it will be a pretty strong selling point.

      1. Frankly

        Uh.. no.  All Davis is NOT residential.  The other two business park proposals have zero adjacent residential. And they are both I-80.  And the Davis Ranch proposal will include a new freeway exit and entrance.   Related to this West Davis park, you should just look at a map and explain to me how all those employees, most of them living outside of Davis, are going to get to work if there is no direct entrance and exit from 113.   It appears that the entrance would be adjacent to Denali… just a couple blocks away from Patwin Elementary.  University Retirement Village includes people walking to and from the hospital.

        I will repeat that I support the West Davis park.  You can choose to debate and ignore the complication of it being far away from I-80 and causing traffic to flow through residential neighborhoods and the impact to West Covell, but then you do so at the project’s own peril.  I want it to pass… hence my suggestion that they add a 113 connection.

    3. Alan Miller

      Agree about the traffic at Covell, but Caltrans would never build a highway interchange that nearly abuts two existing interchanges (Covell and Road 29), not to mention the staggering cost.  More likely, improvements to the Road 29 interchange and Road 99-D (frontage road) would increase road capacity into the development.  Road 29 could also be improved several miles to the east in order to connect to 80 via Road 105 and Road 32-A, though again the Road 32-A is ripe for an overpass.  Start writing those grants, as this overpass is desirable for either business park.

      From talking with their transportation consultant (AECOM) and from the statements made here about bicycle connectivity, this developer seems serious about tying the  development into the bike infrastructure to the south and east, not just fluffy greenwashing statements (the proof is in the agreement).

      Another mitigation could be a dedicated shuttle from the Amtrak station for 2-3 hour windows in the morning and evening commutes.  The shuttle could use 80 and 113 and avoid in-town traffic.  Who pays?  Often large employers will pool their resources for employee shuttles to connect with ACE, Caltrain and the Capitol Corridor to Silicon Valley sites.

      1. Frankly

        Trucks, worker-commuters, shoppers, hotel guests… all coming and going on the Covell interchange… that is this project’s weak link.  I suspect the West Davis residents will explode.   Maybe I am wrong… I hope I am wrong.

        1. Alan Miller

          Traffic will of course increase, it is a matter of modeling the traffic impacts and mitigating it.

          Accepting no traffic impacts is not practical (“exploding”).  Having a serious increase in traffic, unmitigated, is unacceptable.

          Of the three peripheral developments, I am so far most impressed with the attitude expressed by this project, as far as being serious about mitigation of traffic impacts.

          1. Matt Williams

            Aggie, the flooding that you see in the Northwest Quadrant is referred to as sheet flooding. It covers broad areas in a flood event, but never with any significant depth. I could be wrong, but I don’t think it ever gets more than a foot deep. Further, it is a problem that has a very straightforward solution, putting a north-south diversion channel just to the west of Pedrick Road that takes the water down to the existing South Putah Creek Bypass in Solano County. One of the ancillary benefits of such a diversion project would be that the Covell Drain, which currently goes through the City and feeds Channel A on the North and East sides of the City would no longer be filled with sheet flooding water from the west side of the City, and as a result the sheet flooding that Wildhorse periodically experiences would go away because Channel A would have enough capacity to handle the northside and eastside runnoff.

      2. Aggie

        The weekday trip generation rate for this type of development is probably at least 8 trips per 1,000 sq feet. That’s >30,000 trips at build-out. Seems like too much to mitigate with bike paths, shuttles, rerouting traffic, etc.

        I’m not trying to pick on this specific project or the innovation park concept in general. All comments apply to the other sites as well.

        Just trying to keep it real.

  2. DT Businessman

    So again, I’ll be curious to see how this application fits within the parameters of the work product of the Innovation Park Task Force, i.e. the “Dispersed Innovation Center Strategy”.  As for the proposed hotel/conference facility and retail component, I’ll be curious to see how said components fit within the parameters of the General Plan, Core Area Specific Plan, and the Gateway/Nishi/Downtown planning efforts.  None of these proposed projects is happening within a vacuum after all.

    -Michael Bisch

      1. Mark West

        Some folks obviously are, but it appears that when a desired project doesn’t fit with the general plan, the CC just holds a public meeting and amends the plan.

        The problem with all the visioning documents and plans that Michael keeps talking about is that nobody has paid attention to any of them. We do lots of visioning and talking, but never get around to implementation.  Then, in the rare case when we do get around to doing something, we just go with what is popular at the moment while ignoring all the visions and preconceived notions.

  3. DT Businessman

    According to Robb White, the economic element of the General Plan was de facto updated when the CC formally adopted the Work Plan in April.  The Core Area Specific Plan is current, at least I haven’t heard anyone claim otherwise.  he Dispersed Innovation Center Strategy is also current as is the Gateway/Nishi/Downtown planning work product. Nothing outdated here.  In fact, most of this planning effort was conducted anticipating creating and executing a Dispersed Innovation Center Strategy. Given the foregoing, it would be pretty weird to ignore it all…particularly all the research pertaining to “best practices”.

    -Michael Bisch

    1. Frankly

      Fair enough.  I don’t know about it… hence my question.

      At the very least we should considering the impact of any all all new development to our guiding principles and plans.  But as a businessman I’m sure that you can appreciate that a plan should never be a justification for ignoring opportunities for benefits and improvements.  There is a visioning process and a resulting product… and then there is life in real time.  Nobody can predict the future 100%, and so I hope we don’t demand that we lock ourselves into a past vision of the future since doing so increases the risk that we will screw up.

  4. Frankly

    Dispersed Innovation Center Strategy

    I assume that this refers to the idea for including the core area into the comprehensive plan for growing our innovation economy.   I agree with that in principle, but I continue to be baffled for what this would entail in the core area, and how we can get anything done.   Are there specific ideas on the table?  Specific property owners and developers that have come to the table with commitments and ideas?  Even if I had many millions in my pocket and owned property in the core area, I still don’t see how I would move the needle in any significant way adding new business to the core area.   Are we talking about zoning changes to commercialize more of the core area residential?   Are we talking about expanding upward with eight story buildings?

    1. Anon

      “I assume that this refers to the idea for including the core area into the comprehensive plan for growing our innovation economy.   I agree with that in principle, but I continue to be baffled for what this would entail in the core area, and how we can get anything done.   Are there specific ideas on the table?”

      Good questions!

  5. Davis Progressive

    i’m very curious about the 140 foot maximum building height is that the hotel.  speaking of which i believe we have a proposal for one here, one at mace, and the one where the university park inn is located.  is that really feasible?

    then you have density issues, .6 far doesn’t seem that much more dense than mace

    finally, where are the people going to live?

    1. Anon

      “finally, where are the people going to live?”  

      I would assume they will live wherever they choose and can afford.  So some may live in Davis, some in Woodland, some in Dixon, some in Winters, some in West Sac, some in Sacramento, some in Fairfield/Vacaville.  It is not like there is a shortage of towns with housing.

      1. Aggie

        Using the Studio 30 number of 250 sq ft per employee, at build-out this project will generate 16,000 new employees (excluding the multiplier effect).  There are currently about 22,000 dwelling units in Davis.

    2. Frankly

      This would be the only major “nice” hotel in the city not next to the railroad tracks.  I hear from remote employees, partners and clients on a regular basis how, when visiting me locally, their sleep gets messed up with each train that thunders through town blowing a horn.

      1. Alan Miller

        I’m still searching the closet for my tiny violin.

        I’ll attempt to play it loud enough that your remote people can hear it over the train horns.

        1. Frankly

          Well violin or no violin… our current hotel and meeting facilities are very sucky.

          I suppose you would get used to a train over time.  But please note the quality of residences that are adjacent to the train tracks… they are significantly lower for a good reason.   And if you disagree, I have some land I will sell to you for a good price.

           

        2. Alan Miller

          “Well violin or no violin… our current hotel and meeting facilities are very sucky.”

          I’ll leave it to the hotel owners to respond . . .

          “I suppose you would get used to a train over time.”

          I appreciate someone not used to train horns may wake up at the Hallmark for the duration of their stay.

          “But please note the quality of residences that are adjacent to the train tracks…”

          I resent resemble that remark.

          “they are significantly lower for a good reason.”

          Lower in price?  Than comparable land in most of East Davis?  Not by much.  Check Zillo.  Maybe once the oil trains start running and people flee the blast zone.

             “And if you disagree, I have some land I will sell to you for a good price.”

          I don’t think  you do.  And if you do, let’s talk.  And for your sake, if you do, I’d sell it BEFORE the oil trains start running.  Way before.

           

        3. Frankly

          Ha!  Nice.

          My first “home” in Davis was in the late 1970s in Cranbrook Court and so I have some experience getting used to the train sounds along with the sound of the clicking 4″ heels of the very short Armenian woman that lived in the apartment above me and never seemed to take them off.

          But I do stand by my opinion that our hotel and meeting facility choices are on the sucky side for my needs.  Well maybe that is too harsh.  I would give the Hallmark and Hyatt Place rooms a B.  The meeting facilities are C+ at best.  But the location is a D- because of the trains… but offset against the A location to downtown… and give them both a B.

          I hear you on the oil trains.  They will seriously depress the value of my imaginary track-adjacent land holdings.

    3. Frankly

      That is a question that will be repeated over and over.

      Palo Alto has 3-times the number of jobs and the same population as Davis.  Boulder has a much higher ratio of jobs to residents.  There is no precedent for a city to provide housing for all the employees working in the city.

      Today 50% of Davis residents leave the city to work in a job in another city.   As these parks are built and populated, we will see that number start to decline and probably stabilize to something more like 25% with 20-25% of the workers in these parks eventually locating here.

      But we do need more housing for the student population.

      1. Alan Miller

        “As these parks are built and populated, we will see that number start to decline and probably stabilize to something more like 25% with 20-25% of the workers in these parks eventually locating here.”

        Frank Lee, I’m all for statistics, but seriously, I don’t know if you culled these from a study or made these up.

        1. Frankly

          There is no way to derive these from research and statistics because each community is different.   It is just my “calculated” opinion based on a sense for what would happen in our community.

          Boulder has a 1-1 ratio of population to jobs.

          Palo Alto has a 1-2 ratio of population to jobs.

          Davis has a 2-1 ratio of population to jobs.

          City-data.com says boulder has 71.4% of its residents working and living in the city.  Palo Alto is 32%.  Davis is 42.4%

          So my main point is that housing and jobs don’t have to be connected.   Housing is a net drain on city finances, so having a higher job-pop ratio is actually better for the budget.

          My other main point is that we would naturally gravitate to a higher percentage of people living and working in the community… but gradually… and that it would probably stabilize to something like 25% of the new innovation park employees living here.

          I know some Davisites might find this hard to accept, but not everyone wants to live in Davis.  Espcially given the cost of housing and all the left-leaning politics.  I am thinking of leaving just to have the option of plastic grocery bags.

          1. Don Shor

            Housing is a regional market. Jobs are a regional market. Transit is a regional supply. People seem to keep losing sight of this simple principle. This jobs/housing ratio is really sort of a pointless issue.
            When my son was looking for a job and living in Davis, his job search went from Fairfield to the west, to the far side of Sac, down to Elk Grove.
            Of the three, I have found that, at least for my employees, transit is the weakest part.

        2. Alan Miller

          “There is no way to derive these from research and statistics because each community is different.   It is just my “calculated” opinion based on a sense for what would happen in our community.”

          I appreciate your being straight on that.  I’m not saying you are right or wrong.  There are several factors that could go into those numbers going up or down, and I am not so sure these fully built-out business parks would have that much of an effect.  Maybe.  Boulder and Palo Alto are different from Davis in so many ways.

      2. Aggie

        Davis does not have the market power of Palo Alto. I tend to disagree with the idea that Davis can simply entitle land and it will fill up with end users.

        1. David Greenwald Post author

          Rob White has provided enough evidence for me to believe that is not the case. UC Davis is generating around $1 billion just in research money, that’s a fairly strong economic driver.

        2. Gunrocik

          We aren’t Palo Alto, don’t want to be Palo Alto, but we have a decade worth of pent up demand just waiting for a location.  I have a lot of colleagues with no desire to collaborate over the Causeway.  If you build it, they will most certainly come–you’ve already got Schilling as a guaranteed anchor and lots of others that will be ready to go once this comes out of the ground.

          And because there is all this demand, we can demand construction of a high quality project that will be superior to anything in the region.  While we have 10% of the community that will never be happy with any project and keep pointing at our out of date General Plan to support their opposition, I think it will get overwhelming support from the silent majority.

          1. Don Shor

            and keep pointing at our out of date General Plan to support their opposition

            Have you read our General Plan?

        3. Aggie

          DG: So present the evidence. Some rigorous analysis of current and projected adsorption rates is what we need. The ~$1B in annual UCD R&D funding is already baked into the economy.

           

           

  6. Barack Palin


    Frankly, just as Mace where I live the North Davis Innovation park traffic, where you live, will be   

    “Busy, but full of new city tax revenue producing drivers.”

     

    cheers

  7. Frankly

    Davis does not have the market power of Palo Alto. I tend to disagree with the idea that Davis can simply entitle land and it will fill up with end users.

    A few points related to this.

    One – part of this is a factor of commercial real estate supply and demand in a market.  The CRE market is northern CA including the Bay Area… and in the Bay Area commercial real estate supply is at an all time low.  Demand is also peaking.

    Two – location, location, location.  Just as science and tech companies wantto be next to Standford and Berkeley, those in ag-tech, medical-tech and food will want to located in Davis to be next to UCD.

    Three – Commercial real estate economic cycles are about every 6-8 years.   It generally takes developers some time into an economic boom to feel secure enough to risk their capital developing new supply.  Then they all join in, and soon there is an over-supply and then it takes them a year or two to throttle back.  We are in the very beginning of the next building boom.  It will likely run for another 5-6 years before there is a plentiful supply.

    The bottom line is that over a 15-20 year complete build out of the parks, we will go through several boom-bust cycles.

    But one thing that might have a more chilling impact on our ability to attract business here is our local and state tax policy.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for