Every Friday between now and the election, the candidates for Davis City Council will be asked to respond to one hard-hitting Vanguard question on the issues that matter to Davis, or at least to the Vanguard.
Last week the council candidates were given a question on Monday and asked to respond by midnight this morning. For next week, they were given the question this morning, by request of one of the candidates who preferred to have the weekend to work on the answer.
Answers are limited to 250 words, which is a logistical decision and completely unfair based on the complexity of the question.
QUESTION: Beyond general encouragement, what tangible steps can the city really take to promote economic viability and jobs in Davis?
Dan Wolk
Davis is certainly well-situated to be a thriving regional economic center, and in many ways we are. But we can be even better.
Our city revenues have been essentially flat and we are too dependent on a small handful of sources for our employment base and economic vitality, particularly compared with other university towns like Palo Alto and Boulder.
The time for talk is through – it’s time we rolled up our sleeves and got to work. Working with the Chamber, DDBA, DSIDE and others, I suggest we focus on four things to promote such economic development and diversification:
(1) Encourage technology transfer from UCD to the city so that ideas in a laboratory can become startups, and so that startups can become businesses that remain here (this is what Davis Roots and the University/Nishi innovation hub are all about);
(2) Reduce bureaucratic barriers and red tape at the city to setting up and expanding businesses. The city needs to be a helper, not a hurdle.
(3) Provide targeted incentives to get companies to relocate here, as was done with Mori Seki and Expression Systems;
(4) Strengthen the downtown, the economic and cultural hub of our community, by enacting the measures in my recent op-ed on the subject: http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/opinion-columns/dan-wolk-oped-a-downtown-action-plan/
Stephen Souza
In these difficult financial times, Council needs to make a concerted effort to focus exclusively on economic development, core city services, and a sustainable budget. Also, Council should adopt and abide by good governance rules to effectively meet the following economic development objectives.
1. Support BEDC’s CEDS document.
2. Support the community based DSIDE Steering Committee.
3. Continue to conduct due diligence on the cost/benefit of a local economic development corporation and form/support such an EDC if found viable.
4. Continue efforts with UCD and the business community to develop the Nishi/Gateway/Downtown innovation district and tech transfer to create well-paying Davis jobs.
5. Continue suitability assessments of parcels for business/research park development–actively encourage development of key parcels including support of Measure R votes if required.
6. Adopt and execute (including the allocation of necessary resources):
a. densification policies/strategies
b. business retention and attraction policies
c. policies/strategies to support homegrown retailers, attract specialty retailers to further develop and market the downtown as retail, dining, arts & entertainment, and business district
d. policies/strategies for a shop local program similar to “Buy Berkeley”
7. Parking: Increase the supply downtown through better management of the current supply and/or developing additional parking space.
8. Adopt and execute strategies to achieve the DDBA 5 Downtown Priority Action Items including publishing a mixed-use development RFP for the city-owned surface parking lot at 3/4/E/F.
9. Design and construct downtown directional signage, definitively identify historical properties in the core area to streamline and encourage redevelopment of non-historical properties.
Brett Lee
Adhere to the current zoning that is designed to attract businesses. While it may be easier for the developers if we re-zone land that is zoned for business to residential, in the long run it is probably a mistake. We need to be a balanced community of homes and jobs. Davis should not just be a bedroom community. There are active partnerships underway with the University that will likely generate additional business tenants for our community. We need spaces for those new tenants that do not require Measure J votes.
Develop an infill, senior friendly community. This would add additional service and health care jobs to our town.
Create a straightforward design and review process so that downtown property owners feel confident that their efforts to upgrade their properties to create mixed use buildings will be successful.
Increasing retail space and allowing more residents to live downtown will increase foot traffic and shopping.
Work with the Downtown Business Association and fulfill the promises that have been made to them. In addition, we need to work with the neighborhood shopping areas and make sure that they are not left out of the picture. We need to promote all areas.
Improve downtown parking. We need to have information billboards that let people know how many spots are available in each parking garage. We should consider having more metered parking. We can work with the banks and other businesses that are closed in the evenings to open up their lots for general parking.
Sue Greenwald
As a university town, our natural niche is and probably will remain arts, entertainment and high-tech industry and the support services they require. It would be nice to expand our retail base, but we have a fragmented market and have had trouble attracting retailers for items such as clothing. For example, we zoned some land at the Interland site by I-80 south of Richards site for retail hoping to attract some medium sized retailers such as TJ Max, but the developer never managed to attract the retail and gave up.
As we discussed last week, I think that the most constructive step that the city can take is to assure that enough high-tech zoned land is available. And as I said last week, I think the most viable site is a portion of the Hunt-Wesson, which is already zoned and part of the city, which has most of the infrastructure in place. And because of its location and urban land-use designation, we can offer to trade some residential entitlements in exchange for providing finished lots on the market for retail and non-profits. I provided a map of Cambridge, MA to show that interior sites work for high-tech http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cdd/ed/pubs/ed_company_map.pdf
The Nishi property would be an excellent site for business and for some residential on the Eastern portion if it pencils out, but the high infrastructure costs could preclude development. All potential peripheral high-tech sites will have higher infrastructure costs than Hunt-Wesson.
One of the key things we must do is keep our water/wastewater infrastructure costs under control.
Lucas Frerichs
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Now Sue wants to compare Davis to Cambridge MA. A google search will reveal high rises! Not as many as Vancouver, the last ridiculous comparison she made, but high rises just the same. Cambridge founded in 1630 is part of the greater Boston area. Davis is rural. Cambridge is less than 10 miles from Boston Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean.
Cambridge MA. has nine fire stations.
David, great question! Now if these 4 responses (Lucas?!) don’t spur a substantive discussion on economic development and which candidates get it, and which don’t, I don’t know what will. The candidate responses on the LWV forum thread regarding the city’s rental market provide additional valuable insight as to what we voters might expect from each of the candidates over the next 4 years concerning local economic development.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
There are some differences between the candidates.
I am interested in the response from Brett and Sue regarding Hunt Wesson. I don’t really understand what they propose that will be different in the future than has been true in the past. The property has been available for years, and during technology booms, for these types of companies to locate here. Why do you think they would locate here under what you are proposing?
From my perspective, it is clear that the way we have been doing things have to change, if we want a sustainable community with our current or higher level of services and amenities. Given the proximity of UCD and a highly educated population and good quality school systems, we should be an attractive location for various types of technology companies. But we, and Hunt Wesson, apparently are not.
“Develop an infill, senior friendly community. This would add additional service and health care jobs to our town.” Brett Lee
Are you kidding me?? Are you freaking kidding me?! A plank of Brett’s “economic development” platform is to build senior housing!!
Adam Smith: Given Brett’s political handlers and base of support I understand why he is parroting Sue’s position on the ConAgra property. Politically, it’s a pretty stupid tactic in that it completely negates his “business resume” by underscoring to fact that he doesn’t have a clue about economic development.
Hi psdavis,
You may actually want to compare the employment stats for a place like Covell Gardens / URC and the proposed Mori Seiki expansion. Everyone seems to agree that Mori Seiki is a great addition to our town in terms of providing jobs (the number in the Enterprise was something like 150).
Although less glamorous than high tech, senior facilities address our town’s need for care and provide substantial entry level jobs and also high paying jobs. URC has something in the neighborhood of 200 employees and Covell Gardens has something under the 100 mark.
So yes, I think adding 100 to 200 jobs and adding some housing options for our residents could be considered economic development.
“Although less glamorous than high tech, senior facilities address our town’s need for care and provide substantial entry level jobs and also high paying jobs.”
Brett: I’m speechless. Where exactly would these economic development/senior housing projects be? Ans what exactly do you mean by the word “facilities?”
Regarding the efforts of Brett and Sue to differentiate themselves, I’m now seeing two competing visions –
(1) Imaginary Mini-Boston
(2) Senior Cluster
[quote]I am interested in the response from Brett and Sue regarding Hunt Wesson. I don’t really understand what they propose that will be different in the future than has been true in the past. The property has been available for years, and during technology booms, for these types of companies to locate here. Why do you think they would locate here under what you are proposing? — [quote]Adam Smith[/quote][/quote]As I have explained before, ever since the industrial use zoning was replaced with neighborhood compatible high-tech zoning at the Hunt-Wesson, the council has been signalling that they will change the zoning to residential.
Land owners will always hold out for more profitable residential zoning if they think that they have a chance. What we need are councils who will stand firm. Con Agra is paying property tax, liability insurance on the property, and is tying up vast amount of equity in a new era when property has stopped appreciating or is even depreciating. Just stop signalling to them that they can get the higher profit residential zoning. Then provide the carrot of a significant portion of residential.
And what makes you think that the other sites peripheral sites such as the Ramos land across the Mace at I-80 or land in the Northwest quadrant by Sutter hospital that has been under consideration, with their far higher infrastructure costs, will actually proceed with a business park? More likely they will get their urban use designation and then do what Hunt-Wesson is doing, i.e., hold out for housing.
[quote]Now Sue wants to compare Davis to Cambridge MA. A google search will reveal high rises!–[b]Toad[/b][/quote]I don’t think you know Cambridge MA, Toad. I lived in Boston for eleven years. Cambridge is similar Berkeley and Davis. It has more fire stations because it has twice as many people and a very old housing stock. What exactly is the relevance of the number of fire stations?
[i]Where exactly would these economic development/senior housing projects be?[/i]
We’ve got a couple on Pole Line, and there could be more on Second Street if a developer was so inclined. Brett is correct that senior care facilities provide jobs. I’m not sure why you’re speechless.
Mori Seiki will bring high wage engineering and skilled machinist positions, whereas new senior housing will result in an increase in low wage service positions. Equating the two is nonsense.
Low wage service positions provide employment for young adults. I don’t see why anyone is speechless, nor why discussion of it is nonsense. Pretty dismissive, folks. The community I grew up in had lots of both types of businesses. There’s no reason to focus exclusively on tech industries.
[quote]“…[u]neighborhood compatible high-tech zoning [/u]at the Hunt-Wesson….[/quote]Sue, you’ve used this term before. Is there really such a zoning category? If not, what is the property currently zoned?
Don: I’m not sure why you’re not speechless.
[quote]“Just stop signalling to them that they can get the higher profit residential zoning. Then provide the carrot of a significant portion of residential.”[/quote]Have developers come forward with a business park proposal for that site or any location in Davis or on our borders?
[quote]Mori Seiki will bring high wage engineering and skilled machinist positions, whereas new senior housing will result in an increase in low wage service positions. Equating the two is nonsense. [b]Mark West[/b][/quote]This pretty much sums it up.
This issue speaks to each candidate’s vision for the future of Davis. Listen carefully.
As noted on a previous thread, I grew up in La Jolla. Senior care facilities for all stages of elder life are a big industry there. There is also a tech park near UCSD. Is there something wrong with low wage service positions? Or, as you asked me in another context, do you not want those types of people here?
[quote]Sue, you’ve used this term before. Is there really such a zoning category? If not, what is the property currently zoned?–[b]Just Saying[/b][/quote]Yes. We created a Planned Development for neighborhood compatible high tech with landscaping and design review requirements and a number of neighborhood compatible conditional uses such as non-profits.
Don: [i] “Low wage service positions provide employment for young adults.”
[/i]
So does working at Burger King, but that is no reason to make ‘more fast food’ the centerpiece of your economic development program.
High wage jobs bring with them an increased demand for service, more monies spent at our restaurants and retail establishments, and result in more employment opportunities for young adults. More importantly, companies that provide high wage jobs also provide career opportunities for our young adults.
[quote]Regarding the efforts of Brett and Sue to differentiate themselves, I’m now seeing two competing visions –
(1) Imaginary Mini-Boston [i](presumably Sue)[/i]
(2) Senior Cluster[i](presumably Brett)[/i]–[b] psdavis[/b][/quote]There appears to be a faction in this town who tend to habitually post anonymously and who demean my own long-standing advocacy and vision for high-tech industry in Davis, yet never bring forth a concrete plan of their own. What is your vision for high-tech industry in Davis, psdavis? Do you think that annexing a chunk of land east of on I-80 is realistic?
Do you think that a site such as this, with its massive infrastructure cost and its annexation and entitlement hurdles is actually more realistic than using a portion of the zoned and ready to go Hunt-Wesson with its infrastructure pretty much in place?
What is your plan psdavis? If you don’t have a plan, you might consider refraining from demeaning comments.
“Are you kidding me?? Are you freaking kidding me?! A plank of Brett’s “economic development” platform is to build senior housing!! “
I don’t understand the rudeness towards Brett particularly on this issue.
It’s an interesting out-of-the-box idea that actually fills two needs – senior housing and jobs. Seems like we should be encouraging rather than mocking that kind of thinking.
“Mori Seiki will bring high wage engineering and skilled machinist positions, whereas new senior housing will result in an increase in low wage service positions. Equating the two is nonsense.”
I don’t think that’s completely true either. Seems like a senior housing facility would bring in a variety of jobs.
Then again, didn’t we tout the jobs provided by Target?
“This issue speaks to each candidate’s vision for the future of Davis. Listen carefully.”
Haven’t we been told that senior housing is one of our near-future needs?
[i]Land owners will always hold out for more profitable residential zoning if they think that they have a chance. What we need are councils who will stand firm. Con Agra is paying property tax, liability insurance on the property, and is tying up vast amount of equity in a new era when property has stopped appreciating or is even depreciating. Just stop signalling to them that they can get the higher profit residential zoning. [/i]
Well, ok. My understanding from commercial RE brokers is that there is very little interest in the site by the type of firms for which you advocate. And you haven’t outlined anything new in attracting these firms – your plan appears to be to say no, loudly and often, to the landowner to any question about residential development. How long do you think it will take to convince ConAgra that high tech is the only thing available to them?
David: [i]”Seems like a senior housing facility would bring in a variety of jobs.”[/i]
The average payroll for a place like Mori Seiki will be significantly higher than at a place like URC. Yes, there will be both high and low wage jobs at both places, but the proportion of high and low will be quite different. Expanding our senior housing opportunities is a good idea, but it shouldn’t be the focus of our economic development.
Don: [i]”Senior care is a growing industry. Is there something wrong with low wage service positions? Or, as you asked me in another context, do you not want those types of people here?”[/i]
What percentage of the employees in those service jobs were able to afford to live in La Jolla?
[i]What percentage of the employees in those service jobs were able to afford to live in La Jolla? [/i]
They live in Kearny Mesa and University City. Better planning would be to provide rental housing in the community for them. Seems to me we’ve discussed this on another thread recently.
I didn’t raise Cambridge MA. I was only pointing out some differences. Since Davis can’t even get a third fire station built i thought it was an interesting difference. But the big difference for me in both Cambridge and Vancouver are the high rise buildings something so different from Davis that it calls into question Sue’s vision for Davis. Is she touting high rise development? I don’t think so. Then why make comparisons with communities that have solved their growth issues so differently.
As for the carrying costs on Conagra. Conagra like many other peripheral land owners in Davis can wait it out. Whitcomb and Yazcan come to mind here as well. The idea that if we say no they will eventually buckle is so unrealistic especially for a giant corporation like Conagra with its $10.71 billion market cap I really wonder where Sue gets these ideas.
Brett Lee has been playing for the senior vote all along so this should be no surprise. Still one wonders, as Don points out, where is the low wage workforce of Davis to live. Certainly we have made Davis unaffordable for anyone that doesn’t have a doctorate.
Our goal in economic development should be to expand the opportunity for people to live and work in Davis. Unfortunately, we are not going to entice an established high tech company to bring their headquarters to town for the simple reason that we lack the amenities that a wealthy business owner or CEO would expect. Davis does not sit in the shadow of a major cultural center as do both Berkeley and Cambridge, so it is illogical to equate Davis with either of those cities. Monsanto did not choose to move to Davis, they bought a company that started here.
What Davis can offer is the opportunity to ‘incubate’ new high tech businesses that spin off from UCD research, and allow those businesses to expand as they become successful. Our focus should be on creating the space for these new businesses, both their initial needs and their eventual expansion. At the same time though we also need to be building our cultural amenities including affordable housing for both entry level employees and high end homes for the executives. We need live music venues, fine dining opportunities and a retail environment that provides for all our daily needs, not just grocery, beer and Thai food.
That is what I expect from an economic development program, not simply more senior housing.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the map Sue has provided of Cambridge, but from my reading of it and from my memory from having lived in Boston, it does not appear to support her position.
When I look at the map, I see that the vast majority of sites are:
1) Within a 5-10 minute walk of either the MIT or the Harvard campus
2) Within a 5-10 minute walk of a red line T station
3) Within a couple hundred feet of an expressway entrance and exit
In addition, the biggest chunk of sites, those clustered within a few blocks of the MIT campus, are within walking distance of the business centers of the Back Bay and downtown Boston just on the other side of the Charles.
Specifically –
The largest cluster of sites on the Cambridge map, on the southeast end of town, encircles the MIT campus. Most of the sites are within a couple of blocks of campus – definitely within walking distance of campus, the Porter Square T station, and downtown Boston and the Back Bay just across the Charles. In addition, the sites on the western end of this cluster around MIT are within a couple of blocks of an entrance/exit to the Mass Turnpike on the other side of the Charles. The sites on the eastern edge of the MIT cluster are within a couple hundred feet of an entrance/exit to I-93.
A smaller cluster just to the west of MIT, between River Street and Western Ave is located within a hundred feet or so of another entrance/exit to the Mass Turnpike, just on the other side of the Charles. In addition, the Harvard campus and the Central Square T stations are both within a 5-10 minute walk.
The sites in the small cluster to the north-east of this, near where Mass Ave meets Prospect are within a couple block walk of the Central Square T Station, are still within a 5-10 minute walk of either the MIT campus or the Harvard campus, and are less than a mile from the Mass Turnpike.
The cluster in the far northwest of Cambridge, north of Fresh Pond, are in an area not near either the MIT campus or Harvard campus. They are also not near a T station, except for the couple in the far north near the Alewife T station. However, they are all much less than a mile from the entrance/exit to Route 2 – the Concord Turnpike.
There are a couple of sites in Harvard Square, within a few blocks of campus and the Harvard Square T station. To get to the Mass Turnpike from these sites would require going south a couple of blocks, crossing the Charles, and entering a connector freeway that runs between the Charles and the Harvard Business School campus.
The Hunt/Wesson site is over 2 miles from the UC Davis campus and over a mile from downtown Davis. It is over a mile and half from both 113 and I-80. It is not within 5-10 minute walking distance of anywhere except single-family home subdivisions and a single strip mall. Both Yolobus and Unitrans have bus routes that stop nearby, but the service frequency, speed, and reliability of these could never be compared to the Red Line T.
I think most regular readers know that I don’t want to see Sue re-elected. So if I challenge something she says or writes I’m sure people view it through the lens of there goes Mr. Toad again. Still I just have got to say the idea that Sue Greenwald is going to bend Conagra to her will through refusing to change the zoning at the Cannery has got to be one of the funniest things I have ever heard in Davis politics. This is a company that has been around since the end of WWI. They made over $800 million last year. If you were to buy up all their stock it would cost you over $10 billion dollars. The carrying costs of their land holdings are less than a rounding error on their balance sheet and probably offset some other tax they pay.
Corporations are not people, my friend, because they don’t have to die. They are actually more like estates. How many terms do you think Sue Greenwald will serve before she tires out Conagra and bends them to her will. My guessis more than 4 if she gets re-elected this time.
One other thing Conagra paid out roughly $400,000,000.00 in dividends last year. Get them Sue I think I hear them crying uncle already.
[quote]Perhaps I am misinterpreting the map Sue has provided of Cambridge, but from my reading of it and from my memory from having lived in Boston, it does not appear to support her position.–Downtown Resident[/quote]You are misinterpreting the map. The largest cluster is near MIT (like Nishi), but there are many other clusters comparable to Hunt-Wesson. Also not shown is the large high-tech armory reuse site in Watertown, which is contiguous with Cambridge and also similar to Hunt-Wesson site.
“The average payroll for a place like Mori Seiki will be significantly higher than at a place like URC.”
Why are they mutually exclusive? Particularly when we need both anyway?
Don: “They live in Kearny Mesa and University City.”
So you would have us expand the job opportunities for people who live in Dixon, Woodland and Winters, or has the housing market in Davis devalued so much that you can buy a home on a minimum wage salary?
[quote]One other thing Conagra paid out roughly $400,000,000.00 in dividends last year. Get them Sue I think I hear them crying uncle already.–[b]Toad[/b][/quote]Okay, naysayers. Every company has an asset management division, and they can be expected to act rationally. The city council needs to stand firm.
So, Toad, what site do you think is more likely to be successfully developed into high tech zoned land in a timely fashion?
None with measure R you have successfully locked up all the land around here for ten years. There is no shortage of land for a business park if we want one only a shortage of political will to grow.
David: “Why are they mutually exclusive? Particularly when we need both anyway?”
I didn’t say they were mutually exclusive, but the employees of Mori Seiki will be better able to buy a home and raise a family in Davis than those working at a place like URC. More senior housing is a good thing, but it is not an economic development plan.
Sorry for my tone folks. I must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. The weird proposal from Brett – especially after the extensive economic development dialog that has been going on over the last two years – was enough to instantly exhaust my entire reserve of patience.
Sue: you are exactly right as to holding our ground for maintaining current business zoning on the 100 acre Con Agra site.
The rest of you who fancy residential on that site: dont hold your breath. Any changes to zoning will be put to the voters, and after the drubbing we all got with home values plunging the past 5 years, I doubt any self-loving home owner is going to vote YES to add new homes. Look at the debacle of the small and reasonable project of the Wildhorse 25 acres that Parlin attempted. Nothing really has changed since that citywide vote.
Furthermore, like Covell Village would have done, jamming Con Agra with homes will fill the connected city streets with traffic, including F, J K and L. Those streets are heavily used by students and kids. Why would you vote to develope a project that will increase hazards for our children?
To the current CC majority and to the candidates who are supporting a ConAgra rezone: quit pandering to the real estate and development industry, and spend your time balancing the city’s budget for the next year or two.
“Any changes to zoning will be put to the voters, and after the drubbing we all got with home values plunging the past 5 years, I doubt any self-loving home owner is going to vote YES to add new homes.”
See you on election day Mike.
So Sue, the cornerstone of your economic development strategy is to (1) stare-down ConAgra until they bend to your will, then (2) convince some commercial developer to build a neighborhood-friendly business park despite all the studies and expert testimony that say this is economically unfeasible, and finally (3) wait for the site to fill up with tech companies that would rather locate in the center of town (adjacent to residential and a couple of miles from the freeway) rather than at superior locations elsewhere along the I80 corridor – presumably because Davis is special.
How long do you think it will take to accomplish this?
Where will we stand at the end of your fourth term (assuming you can get re-elected)?
Do you think the University and the rest of the region will sit idly by while your stand-off with ConAgra plays itself out?
What if you are wrong?
Do you even except the possibility that you could be wrong, could be misinformed, or don’t truly understand economic development at this level?
Oh, and about Steve Souza and his economic development focus: anyone see the photo on the front page of the Davis Enterprise today? Souza, on Second Street, holding his head and arms up to the sky. He meant to appear to be praying for more development, but the image I have is a desparate politician looking up high for a miracle to get re-elected. But after he has nearly bankrupted the city in the past 8 years, I doubt his prayers will be answered.
I am somewhat of a student of lawn sign locations, and I never saw one of his signs up until the Wednesday morning after the CC hearing for Jim Kid’s development on the B St project along the back fence of Maynard Skinner. That next morning I saw Souza signs suddenly sprout all over Jim Kidd’s rental properties, so I knew immediately that Souza must have gushed and pandered to Kidd’s project (later confirmed to be true). Of course, none of those tenants were asked if a Souza sign could be stuck in the yard that is included in the leasehold by contract and city law. I have looked, and other than in front of Souza’s home, and one neighbor, I dont see any Souza signs around other than on rentals.
In strak contrast to Souza’s votes that could bankrupt the city, Sue is by far the most pro-business and pro-good budget candidate running. All of you have a 12 year voting history of her commitment to the fiscal health and vitality of this city.
Hi Mr Toad,
As far as me “playing for the senior vote”, it is actually based upon my own personal experiences here in Davis. My grandparents have lived in this town for over 60 years. When it came time for them to move out of their house (when yard maintenance and home upkeep became too time consuming) they moved to an apartment complex here in town. When living on their own in apartment complex wasn’t quite what they needed, we looked around at senior friendly options. There were not many choices. Having lived in Davis for so many years, they didn’t want to leave their friends and family and move to some other city.
URC is a wonderful facility, but it was a little outside of our budget. That left Covell Gardens as a choice. CG is a nicely run facility and the people there are very helpful and kind. My grandparents are happy to live there. However my experience was that there are not many options for seniors in this town.
As far as the “mystery” as to where to find workers for entry level jobs, perhaps university students who already live here would like to earn money to help pay for their college expenses?
I don’t think I was the exception, I think many students work part time to help pay for college expenses.
Hi Mark,
I don’t think I ever claimed that senior housing is the only element needed for economic development in our town.
[b]@psdavis[/b]:Again, what is your plan for high-tech business zoned land? Obviously, we can’t guarantee that anyone will agree to develop land for a high-tech business area, because the market is iffy and the infrastructure costs high. That said, no place is MORE likely to put finished lots on the market than the Hunt-Wesson, because the infrastructure is there, the land is zoned and ready to go, and we can offer a significant amount of housing entitlements to entice them.
It has always been a puzzle to me that the so-called business friendly candidates have not put forward any concrete plans that give us a fighting chance to get some high-tech and non-profit zoned land on the market.
I ask: Where’s the Beef?
Okay Brett, fair enough. When my mother got Alzheimer’s we had to move her to Woodland so I’m with you on this. It just shows how after a generation of continual opposition to growth and demands that development meet some unattainable level of perfection the housing needs of Davis are so completely out of whack that old people have no where to go and young people have no where to buy.
“Any changes to zoning will be put to the voters, and after the drubbing we all got with home values plunging the past 5 years, I doubt any self-loving home owner is going to vote YES to add new homes.”
By the way Mike 2/3 of Davis residents are renters.
“What is your plan psdavis? If you don’t have a plan, you might consider refraining from demeaning comments.”
Sue: Let’s handle the second part first. Your economic development plan is terrible. There is broad consensus among a wide range of professionals with expertise in tech, economic development, commercial real estate, and/or public policy that your plan is terrible. If you find my tone demeaning, then I will try and be more patient with you. If you think it’s demeaning for people to point out that your plan is terrible, then you’ll just have to deal with it.
With regards to my plan, I share the vision that has been on the table for the last two years:
(1) Development of Nishi with a focus on startups out of UCD and other smaller tech companies that don’t need much space.
(2) Development of a business park at either the I80/Mace or 113/Covell interchange to serve mid-sized companies that are too big for the small Nishi innovation hub – including rapidly growing local companies that have outgrown their existing space in Davis, established companies that we successfully recruit to the city, and subsidiaries of large companies that want a presence in Davis.
(3) Redevelopment of downtown to support small office-based companies and the vast array of support services necessary for a tech hub (restaurants, attorneys, accountants, venture capitalists, financial support services, consultants, business-serving retail, etc.).
Regarding Sue’s talking point about infrastructure:
The Mace site has much better infrastructure than the ConAgra site. The Parlin site does have infrastructure issues.
[b]@psdavis:[/b] So now we finally have it. As I thought, the plan is for a business park jumping Mace at I-80 or the Northwest Quadrant by Sutter hospital.
psdavis, it would take years to realize this plan, if ever. The hurdles are massive, from passing a citizen vote to financing the infrastructure. And the the political hurdles plus the infrastructure costs are even higher for the Nishi.
I am all for the Nishi if that Western access can be achieved. But it will take years, if ever.
I don’t think that you can call yourself pro-high tech if you sign away the more likely scenario of realizing a 30 or so acres of high-tech at the Hunt-Wesson than the pie-in the sky ideas you have mentioned.
Sue Greenwald: “It has always been a puzzle to me that the so-called business friendly candidates have not put forward any concrete plans that give us a fighting chance to get some high-tech and non-profit zoned land on the market. “
First you get measure R passed then you want to blame others for not having a good answer. Get rid of measure R and there are lots of great sites to build whatever you want. How about planning Cannery and Covell together to meet all the development needs of Davis for a decade or more including housing, rentals, seniors and business.
“I don’t think that you can call yourself pro-high tech if you sign away the more likely scenario of realizing a 30 or so acres of high-tech at the Hunt-Wesson than the pie-in the sky ideas you have mentioned. “
I don’t think you can call yourself pro business development if you have served for 12 years and accomplished nothing. Of course since you have supported nothing Mission Accomplished!
Just posted Lucas Frerich’s response.
[i]Of course, none of those tenants were asked if a Souza sign could be stuck in the yard that is included in the leasehold by contract and city law. I have looked, and other than in front of Souza’s home, and one neighbor, I dont see any Souza signs around other than on rentals.
[/i]
I am one of the majority of the citizens of this town who rent rather than own. I also vote in every election. All political signs in my yard have been placed there because I either placed them there myself, or granted permission to another to place them there, including the sign in my yard right now supporting Steve Souza. My landlord has never attempted to place a sign in my yard.
The reason Steve Souza signs popped up around downtown all at the same time a couple of weeks ago was because Mr. Souza went door-to-door one day in our neighborhood and actually knocked on doors and talked to residents. If after the conversation you indicated you planned to vote for him, he asked if he could put a sign in your yard.
DOwntown Resident: appreciate your own experience, but I stick by my comments.
[i]You are misinterpreting the map. The largest cluster is near MIT (like Nishi), but there are many other clusters comparable to Hunt-Wesson. Also not shown is the large high-tech armory reuse site in Watertown, which is contiguous with Cambridge and also similar to Hunt-Wesson site. [/i]
I must be missing something Sue, or I just will have to respectfully disagree. I looked at the Cambridge map again, and I still do not see a cluster of sites that are as far from a freeway, a university campus, or public transit comparable to the T that would make the cluster comparable to the Hunt-Wesson site.
Possibly the Aura Biosciences site is kind of far away from activity, and the small cluster near Somerville with Cambridge Biomedical Careers Program and a few others, but these sites total 10 at the most out of over 150 sites.
The Arsenal over in Watertown might be more relatable, but it is still quite a bit closer to the Mass Turnpike than Hunt-Wesson is to I-80, and it is in an already-developed commercial area – not low-density residential and farmland.
I just do not see how Hunt-Wesson, located where it is located, could be a primary center for tech start-ups and tech development. What company wants to go there? I know if I wanted to open a research business in Davis, the intersection of J and Covell would be at the bottom of my list. It is just too far away from the campus and transportation infrastructure. I don’t see how the Cambridge map demonstrates otherwise.
Mark: [i]”What percentage of the employees in those service jobs were able to afford to live in La Jolla?”[/i]
Don: [i]”They live in Kearny Mesa and University City.”[/i]
Mark: [i]”So you would have us expand the job opportunities for people who live in Dixon, Woodland and Winters …”[/i]
FWIW, Mark, I can tell you as a former resident of La Jolla and University City–when I was a grad student at UCSD–all those communities are part of the City of San Diego. La Jolla is itself not a city–it’s a region withing San Diego. Same with the others. In fact, University City is very close to La Jolla. Both are next to the UCSD campus.
But I think this does get back to an issue for Davis where we may disagree: When low-paying jobs are created here, I suspect most of them (though not all) are filled by Davis residents*. Some by high school aged and college aged people; others by adults who are not necessarily the primary earner in their households.
When Target was debated, I recall some opponents making the argument you have made here: That the jobs at Target would pay so little that no one who lives in Davis would take them; but rather Woodlanders and West Sacramentans would commute to Davis to work at Target (and this commuting aspect greatly upset those who worry about gasoline consumption, CO2, etc.).
Where most Target employees live is now not theoretical: I don’t know anyone who works at Target, but if most of them come from Woodland or West Sac, then my theory was wrong. I doubt, though, that Target would publish data as to where most of its workers live.
*By contrast, I think when better paying jobs are created–though perhaps not $100,000 per year and up jobs–the people who take them in Davis are probably more likely to live out of town and commute back and forth than are those who take the low-wage, low-skill jobs. Why? Because at $75,000 per year, a worker can buy a good house in Dixon or West Sac or Woodland that may be too costly in Davis. So the job is good, but the housing is not. By contrast, a really low-paying job could be had in West Sac or Dixon or Woodland–so why would such a worker want to commute if he didn’t have to?
“@psdavis: So now we finally have it. As I thought, the plan is for a business park jumping Mace at I-80 or the Northwest Quadrant by Sutter hospital.”
Do you think you’ve cleverly maneuver me into some sort of “gotcha?” This proposal has been on the table for two years. It has wide-spread support.
“psdavis, it would take years to realize this plan, if ever. The hurdles are massive, from passing a citizen vote to financing the infrastructure.”
The infrastructure costs at Mace are lower than those for ConAgra. Although Mace requires a successful Measure R vote, ConAgra requires an eminent domain action.
“And the the political hurdles plus the infrastructure costs are even higher for the Nishi.”
Absolutely untrue. You are either uninformed or misrepresenting the facts. Nishi has the highest infrastructure costs. On the plus side, it also has the highest political support.
“I am all for the Nishi if that Western access can be achieved. But it will take years, if ever.
In my opinion, you are only supportive of Nishi because, like PG&E, you think it will never happen. This position allows you to talk as if you are in favor of economic development with little risk to your no growth base.
“I don’t think that you can call yourself pro-high tech if you sign away the more likely scenario of realizing a 30 or so acres of high-tech at the Hunt-Wesson than the pie-in the sky ideas you have mentioned.”
Hunt-Wesson is the most likely scenario only in your imagination.
Rich: “When Target was debated, I recall [b]some opponents making the argument you have made here[/b]: That the jobs at Target would pay so little that no one who lives in Davis would take them;”
No, Rich, that is not what I am arguing at all. There are plenty of people in Davis who will take entry level jobs if they are available, they just won’t be the ones buying homes and raising families here. You don’t increase home ownership in El Macero by hiring a new pool boy at the country club. Comparing Davis to La Jolla is just as silly as comparing Davis to Cambridge or Berkeley.
Economic development means improving the economy for the entire region. Bringing new high wage jobs to town results in more money in the local economy and an increased demand for services. Mori Seiki, and companies like it, will provide direct employment for some number of people, and indirect employment at restaurants, stores etc. for many more through increased demand for services. Senior housing will not have the same impact since most of the jobs added will be low wage service jobs. I am not arguing that we don’t need more senior housing, we do, it just shouldn’t be the central focus of an economic development plan.
[b]QUESTION:[/b] [i]Beyond general encouragement, what tangible steps can the city really take to promote economic viability and jobs in Davis?[/i]
I have given this question much less thought than the five folks running for the Council, and no one, of course, should care what my answer would be to this question, but here is my back-of-the-envelope answer:
1. Because the University and the state government serve as our primary job creators for residents of Davis, I don’t think the City really needs to “promote economic viability and jobs in Davis.” I think chances are that such efforts at promotion of jobs may do more harm than doing nothing at all;
2. I think the City Council’s focus in this regard should instead be on generating more revenues for the City of Davis without raising taxes for existing residents and without having those revenue-generating activities creating new expenses for the City which trump the new revenues.
A. Attracting high-tech industry could be beneficial to the City along these lines: They pay property taxes on their pricey equipment and they pay sales taxes (for sales to California companies or California users) and they tend to not demand a great amount in extra services from the City.
B. Another area we should focus on is the retail sectors we lack in Davis. We should be trying to reduce our sales tax leakage.
C. As much as the market will bear, we should try to attract more hotels, because they pay the transient occupancy tax to the City.
3. Although this is slightly off the topic of “economic viability,” I think we should try harder to make the public spaces in our core area more aesthetically pleasing, which, I suspect, helps attract visitors to Davis who will shop and dine here and hence generate revenues for Davis. We have done some nice things in this regard, such as the lights on trees, the Farmer’s Market, some nicer crosswalks and some historic signage and a few other things. However, downtown at times looks dirty, and the streets are in bad shape in places and the sidewalks in some areas are not attractive. Downtown could look a lot better than it does.
Also, there are a lot of 1950s to 1970s buildings which have no aesthetic appeal and harm the overall appeal of the core area. We should encourage the redevelopment of these private properties and set high standards for the architecture which replaces them. That would make the downtown economy more vital and make Davis a better place.
Ah Rich, you just co-opted a good chunk of the DDBA plan, which has been stymied to date by certain council members.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
[i]”Ah Rich, you just co-opted a good chunk of the DDBA plan …”[/i]
Not that you or the DDBA as a whole or I or anyone else who does not actually own one of those unappealing 1950s to ’70s era buildings can force a property owner what to do to make his building better (or to tear it down and replace it), but where the DDBA and I probably part company is this wo respect:
I don’t sense that the DDBA is focused on the ugly buildings with no architectural merit. My sense is that the DDBA (some of whose members own ugly buildings) wants renewal and renovation without regard to what is being torn down or covered over; and the DDBA is probably less concerned than I am about preserving Davis history and having replacement projects which mesh well with our historic structures.
I am not sure where the DDBA stands on design review, but I really think that can be important if new projects which are proposed are ugly or just too utilitarian. The USDA building, for example, is not ugly. It just lacks any architectural appeal. Yet at the same time, mostly* because they hired good architects, the Roe Building, the YF Credit Union building and the Chen Building are great additions to downtown in part because they are aesthetically pleasing. (Every thing Chuck Roe does tends to have very good architecture.) Yet many of the buildings around them look like they had no architects at all.
*The original design for the Yolo Federal Credit Union building had a much taller “cake” structure on its southeast corner. I thought it looked fine. However, when it came to the HRMC for a design guideline check, one of the architects on our commission suggested that the cake should be half as tall, and the YFCU said, “Okay” and made that change.
Rich, wrong, wrong, wrong. The DDBA has stated repeatedly that we wish to preserve those building which have truly historic or architecturally appealing qualities. It is the ’50, ’60, ’70s Soviet-style structures and older shacks that we’d like to see replaced with architecturally compelling structures. Where we stand on design review is the last body that should be judging architecture is the council. What are their qualifications?* My first exhibit is the USDA building.
*I absolutely agree with you on the YFCU Bldg. I was at the HRMC meeting for the review and I could not believe they were commenting on the “cake” component. Exactly how was that part of their purview?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/our-view/we-support-wolk-greenwald-and-lee-for-davis-city-council/[/url]
Wow!
Re: Wow!
No one at The Enterprise asked me whom to endorse in advance of that column. I was just thinking this afternoon, I should talk with Foy McNaughton and Debbie Davis before they make up their minds … well, it’s too late for that. I didn’t speak with them on time.
Don, I know. I wonder whether we’re going to spend the next 5 days in these goofy, non-substantive exchanges like we did following the Chamber endorsements. I sure hope not.
I’m really curious whether someone is going to question “While we have not always agreed with her on the issues…” What a bizarre endorsement! It’s reminescent of the comments regarding George W. about the courage of his committments even though his policies have clearly been proven wrong. The media sure have an odd take on things.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
By the way, I’d like to point out that not one blogger has acknowledged or commented on Dan’s, and particularly Steve’s very strong response to David’s question not one. There is real substance in those responses, but no one seems the least bit interested. What does that say about this forum?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
[quote]I’m really curious whether someone is going to question “While we have not always agreed with her on the issues…” What a bizarre endorsement!–DT Businessman AKA Michael Bisch, co-president of the DDBA [/quote]I can’t think of a better complement.
Ok, Michael, I’ll bite.
I read through Stephen’s list, and I think there is a lot of insider jargon. I read the minutes of BEDC, but most people probably don’t know what it BEDC is, much less what the CEDS is. I’ve read the CEDS. It is very broad, and to say “support” it is not very meaningful.
Support DSIDE? There is a blog that hasn’t been updated since it was created, and a website (which he links) which has barely been updated. If DSIDE is doing anything, it’s not being very public about it. So I don’t know what “support DSIDE” means.
Is someone in fact doing a cost/benefit analysis of an EDC? Is Stephen? Staff? Is that a serious proposal, and is it something that would typically be done in a community as small as Davis? Or is it a regional proposal?
He supports developing Nishi, which is good. It would be useful if either incumbent councilmember could give us an update on the status of that site and what council is doing to move it forward.
People may be interested to know that suitability assessments are being done for peripheral sites for a business park. They probably have no idea there is a special committee devoted to that, nor do most people realize one of the candidates (Lucas) is on that committee. I read the minutes. It seems a report is imminent. I expect there will be lots of public discussion when any actual action item goes forward to possibly develop the Mace Curve, the Parlin site, or other land that would require a Measure R vote. If Stephen supports annexing land for a business park, that would be useful info for the voters. But all he advocates here is studying the suitability of such a proposal. That’s actually rather vague.
Item 6: “Adopt and execute (including the allocation of necessary resources)”… Does that mean he advocates a budget item to increase staff time, or staff resources, for the listed proposals? A “shop local” program is a great idea, but it requires staff, funding, and lots of volunteer action. Much of Item 6, if actively implemented, would require budget increases.
7 – 8: he supports the parking structure. Again with the jargon: a RFP means putting it out for bid, I guess. I thought there was already a proposal, a developer ready to proceed. Does he support the project that was before the council already? Or are we starting anew?
9. Downtown signage is great. I assume he’ll submit a budget proposal for that. It would be nice to have signage in other parts of town, too, such as directional signage to the shopping centers in East and West Davis.
Finally, I really would like to know how anyone plans to encourage redevelopment of non-historical properties. Once again, you choose to denigrate the downtown: “Soviet-style structures and older shacks.” I guess you have grand plans for some downtown buildings, but I wonder how the owners and existing business tenants feel about your descriptions and what their opinions might be of your assessment and plans.
Dan has some interesting proposals at the Enterprise op-ed that he linked. I might go into them in more detail, but there is the same problem with several: they require funding.
There is little point in proposing an Arts and Entertainment District if it has no funding mechanism. Usually “District” means tax district. So if he is, in fact, proposing an assessment district to fund arts projects — I’d think that would be an added cost businesses and property owners would be averse to paying on top of the DDBA and parking assessments they already have. If he isn’t proposing an assessment district, then I’m not sure what he is suggesting.
He proposes streetscape improvements, and new bike facilities, etc. Again, with the current budget crisis, you’d have to go for only the no-cost options in the short run. That doesn’t mean you can’t develop a plan, with help from the bicycle commission and others. If it’s just parking and some re-striping, for example, probably it coul come out of existing funds. But there aren’t resources right now for major changes. You can talk about promenades, and widening Richards, and all those other changes, but there are no funds any more.
By the way: widening Richards has been before the voters more than once.
What all of this points out is that the top priority for the next council, and probably for the next four years, is the budget.
Sue Greenwald: “Okay, naysayers. Every company has an asset management division, and they can be expected to act rationally. The city council needs to stand firm.”
A long time ago a friend of mine was mayor of little Blue Lake CA. There was a dispute with Simpson timber about spraying herbicides on land where Blue Lake got its water. At a contentious meeting the mayor declared “The honeymoon between Blue Lake and Simpson is over.” Simpson proceeded to clear cut the entire watershed surrounding Blue Lake.
For those of you who want to see what Sue’s opposition to housing has brought us go drive over to West Village. When Sue and Wagstaff and Harrington made it clear that Davis would not be growing to support the infrastructure needed for the University to grow to meet its share of the educational needs of the state of California U.C. hired away John Meyer, who, was city manager of Davis at the time, to build West Village. So as you get ready to vote all you West Davisites and ex-dome residents take a drive down Russell and tip your hat to Sue and the politics of or lack there of obstinance.
It is fascinating that in an economic discussion about the future of Davis not one candidate recognized the 800 pound elephant in the room. My answer in 250 words or less would be:
Support the infrastructure needs of the biggest employer in the region, UC Davis. By supporting the growth of this world class University we would continue to bring here and train the highly skilled people who will have the greater earnings power needed to support a healthy local service economy. Those that work at the University have in addition to salary good benefits. Many trained or working there do research that can lead to high tech spin-offs. By working in collaboration, instead of opposing, this giant jobs machine, the City of Davis will continue to prosper. The multiplier effect of money brought to the university that is spent in the community will keep our community economically strong long into the future. our economic goal should be to figure out how to manage that growth to maintain the quality of life in Davis while providing the infrastructure needed for the University to grow. The best way to do this is through good planning with a cooperative vision not the piecemeal ham handed chess game that has occurred over the last decade of opposition to growth. It is time for a new vision of cooperation in economic development for Davis, one in which the University is once again seen as an asset to the community.
Spot on, Mr. Toad. And Don, what you have outlined above is precisely the point of the PAC effort. It all comes down to how staff/council allocate finite resources (dollars and staff/council time). If the council is allocating finite resources to adopt a plastic bag ban for instance, there are insufficient resources available for implementing a buy local campaign. Which effort do you think has the greater positive net impact on the social, environmental and economic sustainability of the community? If the council charges in a certain direction, spending finite resources, only to flip flop at a later date, the resources are squandered entirely (e.g. parking structure).
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)
I’m still waiting for Sue to explain how long we have to wait for ConAgra to decide to play ball the way Davis wants them to play.
While Sue ponders that timeline, maybe she or Brett can share some evidence that there are end users who find the Hunt WEsson property desirable as high tech or other industrial space. My understanding from local commercial RE brokers is that the site is uninteresting to high tech type users. So Sue, or Brett, can you reference any indication of real estate professionals that represent end users, or end users themselves, that Hunt Wesson is a location in which they have interest?
I’ve read each of the candidates statements a couple of times. Lots of platitudes and vagueness in some. But there are some take aways for me:
All of the candidates, except Sue advocate, for working together proactively with DDBA, the Chamber, UC Davis, DSIDE etc. I wish Souza had used few acronyms and been more specific.
Sue’s plan seems to be stay the course…(1) downtown looks great now, and we need to keep it that way (2) hold out for some undetermined period, waiting for ConAgra to fold their tent and 3) hope for Nishi to pan out (to Sue’s credit, this does represent movement for her – she has generally maintained that NISHI would be impossible to develop, despite the fact that the owners are trying hard to do just that, and almost everyone agrees that it would be a great site for some type of high tech or mixed used development.)
Adam Smith: “I’m still waiting for Sue to explain how long we have to wait for ConAgra to decide to play ball the way Davis wants them to play.”
She’s going to begin negotiations with Conagra right after she closes the deal with PG&E to build condos on 2nd street.
[quote]“psdavis, it would take years to realize this plan, if ever. The hurdles are massive, from passing a citizen vote to financing the infrastructure. And the the political hurdles plus the infrastructure costs are even higher for the Nishi. I am all for the Nishi if that Western access can be achieved. But it will take years, if ever.”[/quote]When the citizenry wants a big development (neighborhood-friendly business park or more housing) across the street from housing neighborhoods and Nugget, maybe someone will be interested in developing one or the other.
If the citizenry wants a business park, it’ll be okay regardless of the location. In fact, it might be more salable on the edge of town someplace where the adjacent housing neighborhoods won’t fight it (“neighborhood friendly” or not). It’s odd that the biggest justification for the Hunt-Wesson site seems to be that it wouldn’t require a public vote.
Where have the big business-park businesses been all these years that the city council has been pushing the concept? Why is it likely that they’d show up while we’re dragging ourselves out of a recession. “It’ll take years” to do anything anywhere, won’t it? It also seems that anything that depends on some UCD tie-in would work better near the university. Has anyone asked UCD where they’d prefer to have a business park?
This whole thing reminds me of the Sim City simulation game, all of us sitting around deciding what ought to be where in what order–we don’t have to put up any money or take any risk, and we can ignore the desires of the folks who have the vision, the money and the rest of the where-with-all to get anything developed. More fun than watching TV.