by Rob White
A less obvious portion of the Davis community has a need. The small business community doesn’t have access to the necessary space for growth. Some of these businesses came from good ideas at the university and they are now growing so fast that they cannot find places that will accommodate their growing space needs. Some are restaurateurs looking for places to put new dining concepts. Some are service businesses that will change the way we use our smartphones and the web. And some are collectives looking to host inventor communities that become centers for new business startups.
Let me give you some examples to illustrate.
There are several small technology companies (currently under 50 employees) that were founded in Davis and have grown so dramatically in the last 24 months that they are on track to double in size again in the next few years. That’s a potential at least a few 100 new career-track and professional jobs that could be in Davis. These are companies that create products and require supply chains for their parts – and, some of these supply companies could (would) be in Davis. These are companies that serve global markets, which leads to increased exports and the potential for more imported capital. And these are companies that will need to invest in new manufacturing equipment and facilities as they grow, which increases the land-based property taxes AND the unsecured property taxes on equipment AND the amount of workers in Davis requiring services like food, clothes, and entertainment.
I have also been approached by several restaurant entrepreneurs with some new concepts that are not currently found in Davis. Ideas that will serve residents and students alike. Dining experiences that will be a strong addition to the landscape of choices already in Davis. And they bring with them employment opportunities for our local young adults, students, and chefs at all scales. They will create new sales tax receipts, require produce from our local farms, and again encourage the supply chain to be in Davis.
And most surprisingly, we have several business concepts evolving in Davis that serve the business startup community. These are sometimes called maker-spaces, or tech shops or tinkerer labs. They are effective at building a very strong sense of community for those people that might sometimes be called the creative-class, the entrepreneurs and the innovators. These spaces fuel new ideas, teach kids hands-on manufacturing techniques, and inspire many to get involved in technology, science, engineering and the arts. And eventually, these same creators start businesses that hire employees, pay taxes, and require services and supplies.
So what is the issue?
The one constant theme I have heard since beginning in Davis 2 months ago is that there is a significant lack of space for growth. Our downtown doesn’t have a very large inventory of for-sale buildings and spaces for lease can require costly tenant improvements. There is an extreme shortage of commercial and light industrial spaces that are greater than 10,000 square feet and appropriate for technology companies. And we have very few options for companies that need to develop facilities greater than 100,000 square feet.
But I can tell you who does have these options available. West Sacramento, Woodland, Dixon and North Natomas. These cities are all within 15 miles of our community and almost every growing Davis business I have talked to has at least engaged one or more of these communities to determine their opportunities. The businesses will tell you that cost is a factor. Or that location is a factor. But the biggest factor appears to be that these other cities have empty spaces that are already built and require very little modification for move-in.
In talking to businesses I always highlight the fact that inexpensive student workforce and highly skilled labor are found most readily in Davis. And that Davis is the best home for companies that require interaction with researchers or want to be associated with a vibrant downtown and good transportation links. I also mention that Davis is one of the few places that provides a sense of community and quality of life that executives and decision-makers find attractive. These are just part of the equation and complexity in decision-making for company growth plans. And we have had some successes and kept several high profile companies in Davis.
But for every company that can’t find a home in Davis right now, whether a local startup or one trying to move in to town, there is an unintended message that gets sent to the business community – we are full. Though this is a challenge, I believe that the Davis community has proven time and again that we can meet these obstacles and turn them in to opportunities. I think there is a growing awareness of the need for more jobs, more revenue for community needs and more diversity in our business landscape. And if we can address this issue effectively, we will set ourselves on a pathway to economic vitality that will increase local employment and provide us with a robust business sector that can be heavily engaged in philanthropy and community-building activities.
If you want to be part of the dialogue on ways to address this issue, come to the next DSIDE meeting on June 13th at 8:30 am at the Davis Chamber of Commerce. Future meeting dates, times and location will be posted at www.dside.org. Or come to the net Business and Economic Development Commission meeting. Or share your thoughts with a Council member. You can also follow the efforts of business leaders and City staff and post your own successes on twitter (#DavisCA and #InnovateDavis), email Kemble Pope at the Davis Chamber of Commerce (director@davischamber.org), or email me directly (rwhite@cityofdavis.org). It is our time to shine and I am convinced that as we wrestle with the needs of business in Davis that our outcomes will continue to strengthen our standing as world leaders in innovative ideas and solutions.
Rob,
What you have just posted is pretty much the standard argument of the folks who initiated DSIDE, and the Chamber. My understanding is that your job is as follows:
[i]” The CIO will report directly to the City Manager and is tasked with working on technology-based economic development throughout the community, branding, advocacy, and partnership enhancement with the business, research, academic, and capital sectors.”[/i]
What does that have to do with restaurant opportunities? Do you really wish to get in the middle of the peripheral development debate as part of your job? I urge you to go back through the Vanguard and read some of the lengthy discussions that have been held here on that topic. Because peripheral development is the unspoken policy outcome of the argument you are making here. And I don’t think it’s a battle you really want to get drawn into. I think you may be spending your time speaking to a small circle of folks locally on one side of that issue, and I think you will quickly find that there is little appetite for peripheral development among the public at large.
Why is that photo illustrating this article? Subliminal advertising for a political issue?
Don: I had this conversation with Rob on Tuesday. The bottom line is that Davis residents have choices to make here. Rob’s position is that he’s not the decision maker but rather will facilitate whatever plan the public and the council come up with.
Just Saying: I was actually looking for the business park map but ran out of time, that’s an aerial of Cannery.
Peripheral development has to happen. We are a city of over 100,000 during most of the year. This “FEAR OF ANYTHING THAT IMPACTS THE DOWNTOWN” is beyond obsessive and borders on paranoia.
Rob White is absolutely correct here. There is a severe shortage of CRE properties and commercial zoned land, and Davis is missing out on quality jobs and services that would improve the community and enhance our lives. The property West of I-113, North of the hospital, and the property North of North Davis Farms should be developed. It is has perfect access from 113, and it is low grade farm land. The Cannery should be developed as a business park.
Davis earns a measly $7,752 in retail sales revenue compared to a state average $12,561. Even a city like Danville has a Costco and Home Depot. Danville’s downtown is vibrant and wonderful. Commercial properties are being developed on the periphery. We need to tune out the crazies and NIMBYs lacking rational contribution to this issue, and allow development. We will all be fine. We will all be better off.
Yeah, a few people used to promote that as a business park site. But, nobody with any businesses or development money was interested. Now, as Don noted, we’re looking at peripheral opportunities to improve small business opportunities for Davis’ future. Maybe if we’d been more creative with our RDA free money, we’d be better situated now to implement Bob White’s ideas.
“Peripheral development has to happen.”
says who? you’re going to have to convince the voters on this and from i’ve seen, that’s going to be difficult for you to do.
Don Shor: “[i]Do you really wish to get in the middle of the peripheral development debate as part of your job?”
“I think you may be spending your time speaking to a small circle of folks locally on one side of that issue, and I think you will quickly find that there is little appetite for peripheral development among the public at large.[/i]”
Don, what is so scary about this topic for you that you would try to dissuade Rob from getting involved in the conversation? You cannot lead the discussion on innovation and economic development unless you are willing to look at the infrastructure required for innovation to take place. Economic development may involve peripheral growth, but why try to stop the conversation in advance just because you fear one potential outcome?
Mark: it’s not his job to look for sites for restaurants. If in fact there is a demand for such a site, I believe there’s vacant space near Target.
[quote]I have also been approached by several restaurant entrepreneurs with some new concepts that are not currently found in Davis.[/quote]
Then he should refer them to the business development team at the city offices.
When I see movement on Nishi I will believe there is effective policy coming from these conversations. Until then, it’s just the drumbeat for development in far west Davis or on the Mace curve. Both of those are non-starters.
[quote]Rob White is absolutely correct here. There is a severe shortage of CRE properties and commercial zoned land[/quote]
Then, if that is the key issue, ConAgra should remain as a business site.
[quote]beyond obsessive and borders on paranoia.
We need to tune out the crazies and NIMBYs lacking rational contribution to this issue
what is so scary about this topic for you[/quote]
Some people value economic development above other things. I believe the majority of Davis voters and non-transient residents value the quality of life, the environment, and the town character as highly or more highly than they value increased economic development.
That is the framework for the debate that growth proposals will occur in. Calling people crazy, playing the ‘nimby’ card, and pretending we’re scared or paranoid? No, that isn’t a conversation. Though we’re used to it.
There are infill opportunities in various places. There is one site, Nishi, where there is little built-in opposition. ConAgra has business opportunities as well as housing opportunities. I doubt that most Davisites feel a shortage of restaurant options here.
So it is possible to question the premise that Davis lacks available land for small startups or expanding businesses to the point of needing to develop on its margins. There are adverse consequences to development, involving fiscal, infrastructure, transportation, and environmental issues to consider. And less tangible but probably more important: those quality of life and town character aspects.
The problem I have with Rob’s essay is it sounds exactly like what has been written before, mostly by people who want to annex land and build on it. We’ve had this conversation. There are options to pursue before you look to annex. There are things Rob and others could be doing [i]right now[/i] to promote economic development. So it sounds like a rerun of old arguments, pointing toward old proposals, and I’m still waiting for someone to start on the less contentious options [i]first.[/i]
We need more housing in the ConAgra part of town. Obviously, it the wrong place for a business park or it would have been one by now.
As I mentioned, the only people trying to advance that kind of development don’t have the where-with-all to do anything more than talk about it. And to fight every effort to use it for housing that we need for a healthy community.
The “Mace curve”? Now, there’s a perfect place for development. There’s some ag land out there, but we’d be limited by the causeway. Perfect. But, are there any developers interested in working with the city to provide business zoning in that area?
Mace curve is some of the best agricultural soil in the world. It should be completely off the table.
[i]you’re going to have to convince the voters on this and from i’ve seen, that’s going to be difficult for you to do.[/i]
I don’t think so. The voters want this just like they wanted Target. All we need to do is shout down the minority NIMBY statist activists that claim caring intent while working to keep Davis an affluent and elite bedroom community inhospitable to families, jobs, shopping and people of lower economic means.
Because there are plenty of examples of communities with fantastic downtowns, fantastic quality of life, and peripheral development and peripheral retail (including some standard big-box stores), we would be justified in shouting down the Davis NIMBY statist activists. These folks are generally not rational in their arguments. They hype the fear of change, so I say let’s hype the message of their irrational ways.
I know, Don. I guess we could’ve said the same thing about most of the land now covered by Davis concrete, etc. Same with lots of Central Valley cities, highways, other development.
The idea that our city is an island–constricted by “completely off the table” surrounding land–is the cause of many of the problems now troubling Davis. It’s time to take another look at identifying a sphere of influence agreement with the county.
Sometimes we need to encroach on limited amounts of large-scale, mono-agricultural land (that relies on massive amounts of irrigation water and chemicals for its productivity) in order to provide a greater good. (Maybe we can buy up development rights for like land around Woodland, Dixon, etc., to mitigate own needed development.)
” The voters want this just like they wanted Target. “
the only reason the voters wanted target is enough students cared about the issue to vote. had it been left to the permanent residents, target would have failed. you have not polled people, you have no idea.
So are you going to push to restrict students from voting the next time? Last time I checked they are residents of the city and have a vote. They also have needs they would like to have met. More shopping choices. More jobs… both part-time while they attend school, and career options when the graduate. Students like restaurants too. I asked several of them and they confirmed this.
And, related to the permanent residents. Times have changed. Economic considerations are more prevalent and attention-getting. Road and park maintenance needs revenue to fund it. We have crappy business tax revenue coming into the city coffers even as we have this world-class research university as our local partner. I think you are foolish to thing that there is this consistent voter power to block new development. There is a also lot more muscle behind economic development today… even without RDA.
“So are you going to push to restrict students from voting the next time? Last time I checked they are residents of the city and have a vote”
Of course, but they voted for a specific store that they would utilize not some amorphous parcel that will never be developed before they leave davis.
[i]Of course, but they voted for a specific store that they would utilize not some amorphous parcel that will never be developed before they leave davis.[/i]
We can get them to understand the value. Especially as it relates to job opportunities.
Don Shor: “[i]Mace curve is some of the best agricultural soil in the world. It should be completely off the table[/i].”
I will have to dig out my soils map and take a look, but I am willing to bet that Nishi has some high quality soil too. If soil quality is the determining factor, why is Nishi ok, but the mace curve and the area around the hospital are not?
It sounds to me Don that what you really want is a hard ‘no development’ border around the existing city limits. I would respect that position if you just came out and said it. Instead, you seem to prefer attacking any discussion about economic development as a discussion in favor of urban sprawl and lump all the people who disagree with your position as having the evil intent of ruining the quality of life in Davis.
We learn by discussing our problems and [b]all[/b] of the possible solutions. In my opinion, when you declare something is ‘off the table’ in advance, you just pronounce to everyone that you have no interest in learning.
“We can get them to understand the value. Especially as it relates to job opportunities. “
Most are not going to come out and vote. Target was a unique circumstance and it tilted the election. and btw, had target been on the other side of mace, forget it.
Rob
Can you comment on the Cannery site. Seems to fit the needs you describe.
Don Shor: “[i]I believe the majority of Davis voters and non-transient residents value the quality of life, the environment, and the town character as highly or more highly than they value increased economic development.[/i]”
I believe that quality of life and the town character have already deteriorated, and will continue to do so in an increasingly irreparable manner, as long as we fail to create and implement a plan for our long-term economic health and vitality.
Sitting still simply allows the decay to continue, and will ultimately result in the complete loss of the things you claim to value so highly.
Davis Progressive wrote:
> the only reason the voters wanted target is enough
> students cared about the issue to vote. had it been
> left to the permanent residents, target would have
> failed. you have not polled people, you have no idea.
I know quite a few “permanent residents” that voted for Target and I was also aware of a large number of students that not only voted against it but were going door to door with flyers trying to stop it. I did see some polling data at the time and the (low voter turnout) student vote was split, so I don’t think it is fair to say that students forced the Target on permanent residents that did not want it…
[quote]“So are you going to push to restrict students from voting the next time? Last time I checked they are residents of the city and have a vote”
“Of course, but they voted for a specific store that they would utilize not some amorphous parcel that will never be developed before they leave davis.”[/quote]Wonder how they’d have voted on a Measure R item if Target had been proposed for the Nishi property or some other peripheral site.
SoD, good points re. the attempt to blame students for Target.
SODA, SODA, SODA, there you go again. The cannery site is on a fast tract to mixed development. It would be interesting, however, to see whether Rob plans to fight the apparent direction of the council on this matter.
JS
What doesn’t match up with Cannery and Rob’s description of needs???
SODA, you’ve made a really good observation. It seems like Rob’s description is pretty much in line with Sue Greenwald’s arguments for the cannery potential. I’d like to hear what he thinks about it generally and in the face of decades of no success for that option and of the council’s present direction.
[quote]We learn by discussing our problems and all of the possible solutions. In my opinion, when you declare something is ‘off the table’ in advance, you just pronounce to everyone that you have no interest in learning.
[/quote]
Interesting, because in the past you have stated that we should not build on prime agricultural soil.
I have previously stated that the area around the hospital is suitable for development, though I have no idea whether it would meet with public support.
[quote]shout down the minority NIMBY statist activists that claim caring intent while working to keep Davis an affluent and elite bedroom community inhospitable to families, jobs, shopping and people of lower economic means. [/quote]
As long as this kind of crap is part of the discussion, there won’t be a discussion.
Here, again, is the interactive soil map:
[url]http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb_gmap/[/url]
Without fail, somebody points out that we have built on good soils in the past. I don’t know why that seems to anyone like a reasonable argument for continuing to do so, but I will just reply that it is the stated policy of Yolo County that agricultural soils will be preserved. Nearly everything east of town is very high quality ag soil. There are areas of clay soil north and northwest of town. I guess you’re all saying ag soil should not be a factor in deciding where to develop?
Don, why would you be inclined to defend the NIMBY statist activists? What other name(s) would you suggest to help classify those people that are against everything but for keeping things the same?
By the way, I don’t see you in that group. I see you as a downtown merchant protecting his self-interests.
[quote]What other name(s) would you suggest [/quote]
Why do you feel the need to call people names? I’ve stated the reasons I believe most people prefer slow growth. In most cases it isn’t NIMBY-ism, and I don’t know what “statism” has to do with any of it.
I’m not a downtown merchant, by definition. If I were, I’d be in DDBA. If I were in DDBA, I’d be on the board and they would probably not like that.
I’m not protecting my self-interests. From my own standpoint, I couldn’t care less if a DIY merchant opens locally. It wouldn’t affect me negatively.
Why are you incapable of having a conversation without calling people names? Can’t you discuss the issues rather than labeling those with whom you disagree?
Don wrote:
> I’ve stated the reasons I believe most people prefer
> slow growth. In most cases it isn’t NIMBY-ism,
I’ve got to take Don at his word as to why he wants slow growth, but I hope he understands that many people will assume he is like most business owners that don’t want a growth in the number of business in town because more choices for consumers and more competition for business owners usually means less revenue (and most business owners want more not less revenue)…
Actually, most business owners don’t state their opinions on political issues. For example, the Chamber initially supported Target, and the DDBA remained officially neutral.
Don Shor: “[i]Interesting, because in the past you have stated that we should not build on prime agricultural soil.[/i]”
I don’t think we should build on good agricultural land, but there are many concerns that need to be considered before we decide what is best for all of us, so saying that something is ‘off the table’ before the conversation even starts is counterproductive. Just as is telling someone that they shouldn’t join the conversation because it isn’t part of their job description, which is how you started this discussion.
Don, I agree we should protect prime farmland. I’m just saying that “rule” shouldn’t override all other considerations or be an “off the table” consideration. The only reason that I mentioned that Davis and other cities are plopped on prime ag land is to note that, obviously, the “off the table” standard is new, would have sent most cities to the hills, and the world did not come to an end because we used some prime ag land (in fact, lots of it).
Soil characteristics that make areas suitable for agriculture are pretty much the same ones that make areas suitable for development. Sometimes communities place priority on development in certain areas based on location to existing development. The less suitable soils west of town might not be the best locations from a city planning viewpoint for the future development that will arrive here someday.
There must be some kind of rating factors (including preservation of farmland) that Davis could use to plan the best locations for future development. Until then, I like the Mace Curve. But, maybe it’s just because it would be more handy for me than anyplace west of 113. That’s a reason I shop at Red Barn.
Well I see that Rob hasn’t commented …..and not sure he has to any of his articles.
I for one appreciate his views as expressed in the articles he writes here, both from his expertise perspective and from his newness to our community BUT I would hope he would stick around and respond to comments, not just mine but anyone’s.
to JS’ point about the Cannery site, perhaps the CC may be swayed by his assessment of what the businesses need and maybe how the Cannery fits (if indeed he agrees).
So David, has Rob agreed to monitor the blog of his articles to answer questions or make further comments?
That’s proven more tricky than either of us hope. The problem is that he’s often very busy going to meetings. So the answer is I think he intends to participate more, but he has not been able to. Give it a little time, we’re still tweaking how best to do this stuff.
Don: “Here, again, is the interactive soil map:
http://casoilresource.lawr.ucd…lweb_gmap/”
Thanks. That saved me from digging through a bunch of boxes looking for my hard copy. You may read the data differently then I do, but from my quick examination I would have to say that Nishi has the best soils of the three sites that have been mentioned for development in this discussion. How does that fit with the arguments you have made here?
Because I consider it a remnant parcel with no further growth-inducing tendencies. I wonder who owns the parcel east of Mace curve?
Here are the final recommendations of the Innovation Task Force, formerly the Peripheral something-or-other Task Force: [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/on-going-committees/innovation-park-task-force/revised-agenda—september-20-2012[/url]
Notable:
“a.Near Term – The Gateway (Downtown Research & University Innovation District) option offers the best close/in location due to the proximity to University and property owner and University interest, and should be pursued as the City’s top innovation center priority.”
Then we have the Mid Term:
“b.Mid-Term – The East and West “edge” sites offer viable options for location and size of larger innovation centers meeting needs of growing mid-sized companies, and should be continued to be explored as part of a mid-term Disbursed Innovation Strategy.”
How about if we get the Near Term underway before leaping to the Mid Term?
More to the point, how about if the small parcel (40 acres or so) that makes up Nishi gets annexed, approved by the voters, built out and occupied before we even consider annexing on the periphery?
Seriously, we are not going to compete with Dixon, West Sac, or Natomas in providing land for larger corporations. Davis would have to annex and build and then try to market the land in a saturated market, and will never compete for the Genentechs successfully. Davis can make room for the small innovators and startups and do so using existing land and Nishi.
More important, Nishi shouldn’t get caught up in the Gateway or some other bigger project proposal that gets talked to death and engenders controversy. Get going on this one. Anything else is years down the road and would require a sea change in voter attitudes here.
“Mace curve is some of the best agricultural soil in the world. [b]It should be completely off the table.[/b]” [emphasis mine]
Because I consider it a remnant parcel with [b]no further growth-inducing tendencies[/b]. [emphasis mine]
Finally a spark of truth. It isn’t the quality of the soils you are concerned about protecting at all, you simply hate the idea of growth. It is perfectly reasonable. You like Davis just the way it is and you are willing to bet that if we sit tight the quality of life will not decay enough in your lifetime to be of concern (to you).
Don, why are you so afraid of change?
That is ridiculous, but at this point I lump you in with Frankly as being incapable of having a reasonable conversation on the topic without resorting to insults.
I’d say Rob has a big job ahead of him, largely tilting at windmills.
Don, thank you for the link to the task force report. Very interesting. It discusses four sites: East, West, Gateway and Fifth Street Corridor. In a table indicating comparison criteria, it lists “adjacency to developable property” and notes “No: city owned agricultural land” for the East site along Mace.
Does the city own agricultural land outside the city limits? Is this an element of an old no-growth policy, like the pass-through donations to the county that successfully kept the county from approving development just outside our city limits? Maybe we had lots of surplus cash sitting around in he olden days?
Alright Don. So what is a reasonable conversation? You don’t support peripheral development. In fact, you don’t seem to support any development that could be considered growth? And, what insults?
Seems to be a reading comprehension problem here.
[quote]I have previously stated that the area around the hospital is suitable for development, though I have no idea whether it would meet with public support. [/quote]
[quote]Davis can make room for the small innovators and startups and do so using existing land and Nishi. [/quote]
[i]what insults?[/i]
You can’t be serious.
Mark West
“You like Davis just the way it is and you are willing to bet that if we sit tight the quality of life will not decay enough in your lifetime to be of concern (to you).
You seem to be implying that growth is necessary to prevent “decay”. Is there no point in your opinion at which a community has reached its optimal size. Is perpetual expansion in and of itself desirable ? If not, then what we have here is simply a disagreement over the ideal size of Davis. I would have preferred living in a community of less than 50,000. I don’t believe that having this preference of lifestyle makes me any more or less greedy, or statist ( whatever that means), than the individual who prefers a population of 2,000, or the individual who prefers over a million. I get it that you and Frankly prefer more growth, probably because you have some personal interest in it, just as I have a personal interest in maintaining a community and lifestyle that I prefer for my children should they choose to return. I really don’t see either position as worthy of disparagement as Don has said.
Don, if you support peripheral development around the hospital and Nishi, then you don’t fit into that group of Davis activists that block all growth and development change. It appears that medwoman might be one.
On the topic of growth, medwoman is already out of her comfort zone since the city of Davis has more than 100,000 residents during most of the year.
The issue with growth in Davis is indicative in medwoman’s post. She seems to be part of that group that is locked in some type of false nostalgia about what Davis is, and what this area is, and what California is. We cannot be a city of 50,000 when the university has almost that many students and employees.
Davis can maintain plenty of charm and attraction while growing. Cities do it all the time. Are you and medwoman saying there in nowhere else worth living with a larger population than Davis? That seems silly.
I agree completely with Mark West. The downtown is in decay. Davis has a reputation of being anti-business, anti-development. Rob White is correct; there is not enough CRE property. We are missing out on many opportunities to enhance the city with more jobs, more shopping, more restaurants, more business tax revenue. We are letting a few stubborn anti-change-anything people block change at the expense of everyone else.
[quote]the city of Davis has more than 100,000 residents during most of the year. [/quote]
Not that this is all that important, but I don’t think that’s true.
Per Wikipedia:
[i]”…the city had a total population of 65,622 in 2010[4] (60,308 in 2000),[5] neither of which includes the on-campus population of UC Davis, which was 5,786 people according to the 2010 United States Census [4] while the “total student enrollment” is listed as 32,290 by the UC Davis website.”[/i]
I’m pretty sure the off-campus portion of UCD enrollment that lives in Davis is included in the 65,622. Some UCD enrollees live in nearby cities, of course. But I think the seasonal population high of Davis would be
65,622 + 5,786 as of 2010.
Frankly
[quote]Are you and medwoman saying there in nowhere else worth living with a larger population than Davis? That seems silly.
[/quote]
Yes, it would be silly if that were what I was saying. However, as usual when you choose to “paraphrase” me,
it is not. I am wondering if perhaps you might consider a second career writing for The Onion. You spin is quite often that far off.
Perhaps I can put this is a different perspective for you. I believe that you have a second home or cabin in the mountains. Now imagine that someone has decided that they would like to “develop” and “improve” the community and they are going to start by building a major casino right adjacent to your property. They have also decided that they want housing for all of their employees, and since they don’t want them to have to drive too far, they are going to build them all “affordable housing” which they define as homes costing from
$400,000 to 600,000 all around your property. Now you may believe that if they are capable of doing this financially, they have the right to do so, but are you honestly going to be happy about it ? When I bought here
22 years ago, I did so in large part because I liked the small town/city atmosphere. I am not defensive about this. I would like to retire and continue to live here. I am not enthusiastic about those whose goal is to turn this community into another Woodland, Vacaville, Folsom or Roseville. I see nothing wrong with maintaining a smaller, unique community in this area if that is what the majority of the community prefers.
medwoman,
The Onion LOL! Note that I did only ask you a question.
The mountain community where my cabin is located is dying from the recession. The schools may close for lack of funding. The members of that community would celebrate new business to create some jobs and tax revenue. I would absolutely support it. In fact, I am right now trying to figure out a way to open a business there where it would be welcome, instead of Davis where it would be likely demonized.
The “major casino” comparison is just hype because nobody is recommending that or anything close to that.
But all I can say to that is don’t live next to Indian land if you don’t want a casino.
And move to the country if you don’t like the normal trappings of a small progressive city.
Or move to Europe if you want a to live in a European village.
But living along the busy I-80 corridor in a small and modern California city that contains a world-class research university, you better get used to what that requires and entails.
And, I will also say that many people fidget and fight to prevent change that would otherwise become an accepted new normal that often is as good or even better than the old normal. The world is full of professional critics, but few artists and visionaries. Remember the Borders’ fight?
Lastly, there is a moral issue. It is selfish and unfair to pull in the rug after landing here. I have lived here since 1974. I live and work in the same town. This enhances my lifestyle not having to commute. Shouldn’t many other people have that similar opportunity?
Medwoman: “You seem to be implying that growth is necessary to prevent “decay”. Is there no point in your opinion at which a community has reached its optimal size. Is perpetual expansion in and of itself desirable ?”
Medwoman: I am not an advocate of growth. I am an advocate of economic development. Unfortunately, every time I, or anyone else, talks about economic development Don screams ‘peripheral growth’ and ‘big box.’ It is really nonsensical but it is his response.
Our City is facing some serious financial problems. Some of those problems are due to poor decisions made by past City Councils, but most are due to our abject failure to create a vibrant business base for our City. Where are the jobs? Where is the tax base? Some may be happy just being a bedroom community, but I think we should be interested in creating good jobs for the citizens of Davis. Some are more interested in keeping what they have and don’t give a damn about anyone else.
I don’t care if we grow in population. I do care if we work to create jobs for the people who want to live here and improve the tax base to pay for all the things that make Davis a good place to live.
Don Shor: “but at this point I lump you in with Frankly as being incapable of having a reasonable conversation on the topic without resorting to insults.”
Come now Don…I know it sucks when the facts don’t fit with your preconceived notions, but comparing me with Frankly?…Really? If anyone needs lessons in reading comprehension it would be you. All I have done is question your assertions and pointed out where they are inconsistent with reality.
[quote]Unfortunately, every time I, or anyone else, talks about economic development Don screams ‘peripheral growth’ and ‘big box.’ It is really nonsensical but it is his response. [/quote]
Which, of course, I didn’t do at any time in this discussion. This whole column is about peripheral development. I never mentioned ‘big box’. Good to be called [i]nonsensical[/i] and [i]screaming[/i], too.
My assertions are not inconsistent with reality. I oppose poor urban planning.
You advocate growth. Why would you say otherwise? You want to call it something else? When you build stuff, whether it is Nishi or Mace Curve or far West Davis, that is growth. Why would you say you don’t advocate growth, when you advocate growth? Why do you attribute stuff to me that I didn’t say? Why do you use disparaging terms and then deny that you’re being insulting? In all of those aspects, you are exactly like Frankly.
[quote]Where are the jobs?[/quote]
On campus.
[quote] Where is the tax base?[/quote]
In the property values, and the auto dealerships. The latter occupy what would otherwise have been suitable space for other sales tax generators.
[quote]Some may be happy just being a bedroom community, but I think we should be interested in creating good jobs for the citizens of Davis. [/quote]
So urge the council to move forward on the economic development proposals we have all agreed on in the past.
[quote]Some are more interested in keeping what they have and don’t give a damn about anyone else. [/quote]
Yeah, that should get us moving toward consensus.
[quote]I don’t care if we grow in population. [/quote]
But growth does have consequences. So it should be done in an orderly manner. At one time Davis was the fastest-growing city in Yolo County. The school district had great difficulty projecting enrollment, and made some very unfortunate infrastructure decisions that are coming back to haunt them now. Housing growth in the rental sector has been inadequate for a number of years. We have a large amount of student/renter growth to accommodate in the next few years.
Growth on the edges of town would affect fire and police services. It needs to pencil out and be based on reasonable financial projections. Build-out and occupancy of any business park would have to be based on reality, and I doubt you’ll find any experts in that field who are very sanguine about the prospects for business parks right now.
[quote]I do care if we work to create jobs for the people who want to live here and improve the tax base to pay for all the things that make Davis a good place to live.[/quote]
Yet you advocate, assuming I understand correctly that you want to annex farmland and build a business park (or something), the sort of development that has the least impact on the tax base. You know what generates the most taxes per square foot? Small boutique stores. Let’s get our vacancies filled, work to get the downtown and the neighborhood centers humming, and tax revenues will go up.
Your economic vision is based on flawed assumptions, unrealistic projections, and outdated urban development models. And you call me nonsensical.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”This whole column is about peripheral development.”[/i]
I disagree Don. For me peripheral development is almost 100% about housing . . . even more specifically housing that makes our ratio of jobs to housing lower.
In my opinion this column is about jobs growth and economic sustainability.
Mark West and Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Where are the jobs?
On campus.” [/i]
Do you really want to put all your eggs in that one basket, especially a basket whose funding sources are controlled by the discretionary decisions of Sacramento?
I certainly don’t. The jobs that are the focus of Rob’s article clearly diversify Davis’ economic base, while at the same time leveraging and building on the core strengths of the campus.
Matt:
[quote]There is an extreme shortage of commercial and light industrial spaces that are greater than 10,000 square feet and appropriate for technology companies. And we have very few options for companies that need to develop facilities greater than 100,000 square feet.[/quote]
[quote]The businesses will tell you that cost is a factor. Or that location is a factor. But the biggest factor appears to be that these other cities have empty spaces that are already built and require very little modification for move-in.[/quote]
That’s what the column is about.
[i]Do you really want to put all your eggs in that one basket…?[/i]
No. I was answering Mark’s question.
The question is where to build and what for.
Frankly
[quote]And move to the country if you don’t like the normal trappings of a small progressive city.
Or move to Europe if you want a to live in a European village.
But living along the busy I-80 corridor in a small and modern California city that contains a world-class research university, you better get used to what that requires and entails. [/quote]
On this point, we may actually have more similar views than you imagine. My question to you is, if you prefer a larger community, or one in which your business might be more welcomed, why not relocate there yourself?
Rather than attempting to convert this community into something more favorable to you, but not to at least 50% of the residents, why not locate in one of the many communities that already favor your philosophy ? Would that not make more sense than name calling and perpetually fighting those of us who prefer to maintain the only small city atmosphere along the “busy I-80 corridor”?
When I attended medical school here from 1979-83 one of the biggest attractions for me was the small town atmosphere. That is ultimately why I chose to raise my children here. Don is right that lifestyle, environment,
ambience were much more important to me than economic gain. I realize that not everyone shares that point of view and that some value economic expansion above virtually all else. My point is that people can certainly hold different values and make different decisions based on them without vilifying those whose values differ. It seems to me that in your comments, you frequently resort to that tactic rather than promoting your own point of view. I find this highly ironic since it is an extremely emotion driven tactic, and you, or someone who previously wrote in a manner very similar to yours, also frequently touted decision making based on reason, not emotion.
Don Shor: “[i]This whole column is about peripheral development[/i].”
No, actually it was about one of the major challenges of economic development. You turned it into a discussion about peripheral growth with your comment:
“[i]Because peripheral development is the unspoken policy outcome of the argument you are making here.[/i]”
You hijacked a perfectly reasonable discussion about economic development so you could repeat one of your tired diatribes against growth, peripheral development and the Chamber of Commerce. What followed was predictable, but remember you where the one who started it.
Go back and reread your comments and mine, ignoring all the rest, then tell me again that I attacked or insulted you. I challenged your assertions and questioned your arguments to which you took offense. Tell me again who was being reasonable.
Mark: [quote]Don, [b]what is so scary[/b] about this topic for you…
[b]I would respect that position if[/b] you just came out and said it. Instead, you seem to prefer attacking any discussion about economic development as a discussion in favor of urban sprawl and[b] lump all the people who disagree with your position as having the evil intent[/b] of ruining the quality of life in Davis.
[b]Finally a spark of truth…
you simply hate the idea of growth.[/b]
you are willing to bet that if we sit tight the quality of life [b]will not decay enough in your lifetime to be of concern (to you). [/b]
Don, [b]why are you so afraid of change?[/b]
…every time I, or anyone else, talks about economic development [b]Don screams[/b] ‘peripheral growth’ and ‘big box.’ It is really [b]nonsensical[/b] but it is his response.
Some are more interested in [b]keeping what they have and don’t give a damn about anyone else.[/b]
[b]I know it sucks when the facts don’t fit with your preconceived notions,[/b] but comparing me with Frankly?…Really? If anyone needs lessons in reading comprehension it would be you. All I have done is question your assertions and pointed out where they are [b]inconsistent with reality.[/b] You [b]hijacked[/b] a perfectly reasonable discussion about economic development so you could repeat one of your [b]tired diatribes[/b] against growth, peripheral development and the Chamber of Commerce. What followed was predictable, but remember you where the one who started it.
[/quote]
An article about economic development predicated on the premise that we don’t currently have enough space is, by definition, about peripheral development — whether that periphery is Nishi, Mace Curve, west Davis, or the hospital. I have noted one of those I strongly support, one that is plausible, and two that I think are pointless discussions in the near or mid-range planning horizon.
So when you say [i]it was about one of the major challenges of economic development. You turned it into a discussion about peripheral growth with your comment… [/i] you are dissembling.
I have never in this discussion mentioned big box. I don’t scream, I’m not nonsensical, and I really don’t know why you are so fond of the “afraid/scary” tag that you’ve used twice. I don’t think anyone is evil. I’ve stated clearly what values may be in conflict as we discuss these issues. Medwoman has expressed a similar viewpoint.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”An article about economic development predicated on the premise that we don’t currently have enough space [b]is, by definition, about peripheral development[/b].”[/i]
Again, I wholeheartedly disagree. Why is it that you can’t talk about economic development as a topic that stands or falls on its own merit?
Rob, didn’t advocate the granting of speculative entitlements based on a “build it and they will come” mentality. His focus is on what kind of businesses would add sustainability and fiscal stability and innovation to the Davis economy. Peripheral development by definition is all about housing. Where in Rob’s article do you see any discussion of housing? Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. That is what he is talking about.
[quote]Peripheral development by definition is all about housing. [/quote]
Huh? Somebody should inform the Innovation Task Force that they were wasting their time, then.
By the way, the university is going to be providing a large number of new jobs in the next few years, according to the chancellor’s plans.
On a number of threads here on the Vanguard we have discussed economic development as a specific topic. There have been any number of areas of agreement, particularly about rezoning the downtown and nearby properties, taller buildings, possibly loosening restrictions on the types of businesses in neighborhood shopping centers, etc. But an article that discusses economic development with the central thesis that we don’t have enough space — for various forms of business that Rob itemized — is, by definition, about peripheral development. For business purposes. If you see some other practical proposals emanating from his article, by all means please share them.
Rob didn’t advocate anything. He simply laid out the problem: not enough space. And he made the argument for economic development. And he gave the context: DSIDE, BEDC. I read the minutes of BEDC, and I remember the framework for the original DSIDE meetings. So if you and Mark and others want to discuss some action items that might arise from this essay that aren’t peripheral in nature, I’m sure we all can find areas of agreement.
Don, lets use a hypothetical example to expose the on its head nature of your thinking. Lets assume that FMC, now one year removed from its acquisition of Schilling Robotics announces that it is going to expand its Davis operation to include two new 200,000+ square foot robot manufacturing facilities.
Is that peripheral development?
Are you under the impression that is the sort of thing Rob was discussing? Do you mean to expand on their current site? Is there some obstacle to that? I’m not understanding your point.
My point is that you were putting the cart before the horse. The difference as I see it between Rob’s approach and the past efforts from BEDC and the Innovation Task Force is that he isn’t driving his innovation efforts with speculative land use policy decisions, but rather with a grass roots understanding of the companies that can (and hopefully will) create new jobs in Davis. What he has shared in this article are some of the challenges that he has uncovered as a result of that grass roots effort.
None of that has anything to do with peripheral development. It is all about economic development.
Nowhere in the article is there any mention of presumed solutions to the problem he has illuminated.
So the second point I was making, was parallel to Rob’s . . . identifying an economic development opportunity and seeing if you were unable to simply see it for what it is . . . an economic development opportunity. By your answer, you clearly were not able to see it as such.
Matt
[quote]So the second point I was making, was parallel to Rob’s . . . identifying an economic development opportunity and seeing if you were unable to simply see it for what it is . . . an economic development opportunity. By your answer, you clearly were not able to see it as such. [/quote]
I am not sure that I am able to see it in isolation that way either. One can say that Rob was only talking about jobs. But I do not believe that complex systems, such as cities, work that way. To talk only about jobs, is to look past the fact that you must also consider where those employees will live, what transportation will they use getting to and from work, where will their children attend school, what city services and programs will they use, what medical services will they use…..? While one may not have to consider all of this if you are talking about a 5 employee mom and pop operation, these considerations can certainly not be set aside as though they are not relevant when talking about companies that we hope will have a major impact on the community. Unless I am missing your point, certainly a possibility, it looks to me as though these are issues that cannot be neatly separated.
[quote]What he has shared in this article are some of the challenges that he has uncovered as a result of that grass roots effort.
None of that has anything to do with peripheral development. It is all about economic development. [/quote]
And the challenge that is front and center in the article — really the whole message — was the lack of space. Like Mark West, when it comes to the topic here, you are dissembling.
[quote]The small business community doesn’t have access to the [b]necessary space[/b] for growth.
So what is the issue?
The one constant theme I have heard since beginning in Davis 2 months ago is that there is a significant [b]lack of space for growth[/b]. Our downtown doesn’t have a very large[b] inventory of for-sale buildings and spaces[/b] for lease can require costly tenant improvements. There is an extreme [b]shortage of commercial and light industrial spaces[/b] that are greater than 10,000 square feet and appropriate for technology companies. And we have very few options for companies that need to develop facilities greater than 100,000 square feet.
But I can tell you who does have these options available. West Sacramento, Woodland, Dixon and North Natomas. These cities are all within 15 miles of our community and almost every growing Davis business I have talked to has at least engaged one or more of these communities to determine their opportunities.
…[b]the biggest factor appears to be that these other cities have empty spaces[/b] that are already built and require very little modification for move-in.
But for every company that [b]can’t find a home in Davis[/b] right now, whether a local startup or one trying to move in to town, there is an unintended message that gets sent to the business community – [b]we are full.[/b] Though this is a challenge, I believe that the Davis community has proven time and again that we can meet these obstacles and turn them in to opportunities.
[/quote]
I think you and Mark missed the point of the article.
medwoman said . . .
“I am not sure that I am able to see it in isolation that way either. One can say that Rob was only talking about jobs. But I do not believe that complex systems, such as cities, work that way. To talk only about jobs, is to look past the fact that you must also consider where those employees will live, what transportation will they use getting to and from work, where will their children attend school, what city services and programs will they use, what medical services will they use…..? While one may not have to consider all of this if you are talking about a 5 employee mom and pop operation, these considerations can certainly not be set aside as though they are not relevant when talking about companies that we hope will have a major impact on the community. Unless I am missing your point, certainly a possibility, it looks to me as though these are issues that cannot be neatly separated.”
All good points medwoman, but what Don was doing, and Rob was very clearly not doing, was skipping over all the relevant issues associated with economic sustainability and redirecting the discussion onto the subject of Davis’ long history of being obsessed with even the vaguest hint of agland conversion. What Don was effectively saying was that the economic sustainability of Davis as a community was predestined to be based on 1) a rapidly growing retirement community, 2) a growing bedroom community commuting to jobs in Sacramento and the bay Area, and 3) the crumbs that fall from the UC Davis table.
When we look at your list of considerations, which of them present problems currently in Davis?
… Where the employees will live — Not a problem if one allows a 15 minute commuting time to get to work at the Davis-based job
… What transportation will they use getting to and from work — Not a problem for almost all potential Davis business locations. Potentially somewhat problematic for the Cannery site depending on the nature of the business that might locate there.
… Where will their children attend school — Absolutely not a problem.
… What city services and programs will they use — For the typical worker in the kind of businesses Rob was discussing, not a problem at all.
… What medical services will they use — Again absolutely not a problem
Because our quality of life infrastructure is as robust as it is, the fact that we as a community reduce almost all our discussions to ag land conversion is not a surprise. It also ends up being a de facto veto of any discussion of economic sustainability. That is unfortunate IMHO.
Don Shor
[i]”And the challenge that is front and center in the article — really the whole message — was the lack of space. Like Mark West, when it comes to the topic here, you are dissembling.”[/i]
Actually the challenge that is front and center in that article is that if we do not do something about economic sustainability we will soon be a city with two thirds of our population over the age of 55, one quarter of our population students at UCD and one sixth of child rearing age. Our downtown storefronts will be 75% a food mall, supplemented by retail businesses oriented toward the student population and a bunch of non-storefront located services for the over 55 residents.
Thanks Matt. Well done!
Frnk, the reality I’m arguing for is that we need to be thinking of these challenges as both/and rather than either/or. Both Don and medwoman know that I am very much oriented toward slow growth … very slow when it comes to housing (sorry Toad), but I truly believe we are on the precipice of a sea change in Davis unless we engage our economic realities.
[quote]but what Don was doing, and Rob was very clearly not doing, was skipping over all the relevant issues associated with economic sustainability and redirecting the discussion onto the subject of Davis’ long history of being obsessed with even the vaguest hint of agland conversion. What Don was effectively saying was that the economic sustainability of Davis as a community was predestined to be based on 1) a rapidly growing retirement community, 2) a growing bedroom community commuting to jobs in Sacramento and the bay Area, and 3) the crumbs that fall from the UC Davis table.
[/quote]
Everything you just said here is patently untrue with respect to “what Don was saying.” Complete, total, absolute nonsense. I didn’t skip over anything. I didn’t redirect the conversation. I didn’t imply or suggest the conclusions you’ve drawn.
This is utterly, totally ridiculous, worse than what Mark West did, and pretty much ends any further discussion because you, Mark, and others are misrepresenting my positions over and over again.
Don Shor said . . .
“Everything you just said here is patently untrue with respect to “what Don was saying.” Complete, total, absolute nonsense. I didn’t skip over anything. I didn’t redirect the conversation. I didn’t imply or suggest the conclusions you’ve drawn.”
What is untrue about my observation that you fast-forwarded Rob’s economic sustainability conversation to peripheral land use when you made the very first comment in the thread, [i]”Because peripheral development is the unspoken policy outcome of the argument you are making here. And I don’t think it’s a battle you really want to get drawn into. I think you may be spending your time speaking to a small circle of folks locally on one side of that issue, and I think you will quickly find that there is little appetite for peripheral development among the public at large.”[/i]
Does that comment have any other translation other than, [i]”History tells us that that topic is verboten in this town . . . and you are talking to people who have blinders on.”[/i]?
Don, you are sounding like Elaine Musser during the Water discussions where she flew into a tizzy whenever David or others let the anti surface water proponents get a word in edgewise. Or like Michael Bisch when he went ballistic because David quoted the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association recently. Your comment was effectively censorship pure and simple. Or if not censorship, suppression of certain aspects of the discussion.
Let’s see. Seven different references in Rob’s article to ‘lack of space’. Got it. But it’s not about development. Got it.
[quote]1) a rapidly growing retirement community, 2) a growing bedroom community commuting to jobs in Sacramento and the bay Area, and 3) the crumbs that fall from the UC Davis table. [/quote]
What makes you think the demographics of Davis are going to change substantially in the next 10 – 20 years, any more than the rest of the region?
Since when has Davis NOT been a bedroom community for Sacramento? Who was it that just described us that way — Mr. Niello, in talking to the local chamber? When has it ever been otherwise?
What is this about ‘crumbs’ with respect to the largest [i]and growing[/i] employer in our area? Thousands of new students and hundreds of new jobs at UCD in the next decade is ‘crumbs’? UCD is what Davis is all about.
[i]While city leaders have been ratcheting up their efforts to improve the tech business climate in Davis, especially with the recent hiring of Rob White as the city’s new chief innovation officer, when asked what Davis’ role could be in the plan, Niello spoke about it as an ideal place to live.
“Can you think of another region in California where you can live in a rural environment, an urban environment, a traditional suburban environment, an agricultural environment, a country environment, the mountains, any of those living opportunities and still be within 20 minutes’ drive to work?” Niello said. “Davis is one of the unique communities that provides that choice of quality of life.”[/i]
— Davis Enterprise, April 3 2013
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Let’s see. Seven different references in Rob’s article to ‘lack of space’. Got it. But it’s not about development. Got it.”[/i]
It is absolutely about development . . . economic development. Your words were, “I don’t think it’s a battle you really want to get drawn into.” No matter how you cut it those words say,[i] “Don’t you dare talk about anything associated with economic development that requires additional space.”[/i]
You are the one who cast the discussion in either/or terms. You are the one who steered the discussion away from a consideration of possible solutions. You, no one else. And you did it in the very first comment of the thread.
So how do you propose getting more space, Matt? Let’s discuss solving the lack of space without discussing peripheral development. Give it a try. Show me how you can talk about the lack of space for economic development without talking about peripheral development. It’s not an either/or situation. There is no solution to the problem Rob postulates without annexation and development. And I have, as noted, described two possible sites where that could occur.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”What makes you think the demographics of Davis are going to change substantially in the next 10 – 20 years, any more than the rest of the region?
Since when has Davis NOT been a bedroom community for Sacramento?”[/i]
The reason is simple. More and more Davis residents are reaching retirement age, and given the huge number of government/university workers with sufficient pensions to be able to remain in Davis. They will age in place, So all the current crop of 45-55 year olds (7,500 in the 2006 BAE analysis, 11% of all of Davis) will swing into the 55 and over category in the next 10 years. Some will move away, but the vast majority will stay to age in place. The 55 and over category rose from 7,250 in 2000 to 9,630 in the six years from 2000 to 2006, a 33% jump in just 6 years. The trend for Over 65 was 4,004 in 2000, 4,474 in 2006 and 5,597 in 2010.
At the same time the 17,850 residents in the 18-24 category in 2006 grew to 21,757 in 2010 and will swell by upwards of another 4,000 as a result of Mrs. Katehi’s UCD enrollment growth initiatives. With no new apartments planned any time in the near future other than the few at the Cannery, those 4,000 students will largely end up in SFR conversions from owner-occupied status to student rental status, further squeezing the 25-44 year-olds out of the Davis housing market.
Those are the reasons I expect Davis’ demographics to change significantly.
[quote]With no new apartments planned any time in the near future other than the few at the Cannery, those 4,000 students will largely end up in SFR conversions from owner-occupied status to student rental status, further squeezing the 25-44 year-olds out of the Davis housing market. [/quote]
Exactly. And this is the pressing need Davis faces. Economic development, encumbering land for business purposes, promoting non-UCD job growth, will not help solve the most pressing need. In fact, it would likely exacerbate the problem.
So, how do you propose getting more space for economic development, without further complicating the housing problem?
As I just said to you in an e-mail, what is the lower part of The Cannery if not “additional space”? What is the planned Solano Park Innovation Center if not “additional space”? And as you have pointed out, what is Nishi and the area to the west and north of the Hospital if not “additional space.” I do not see providing space for jobs at any of those four sites as “peripheral development.” West Village with its heavy emphasis on housing is what I call peripheral development.
I have agreed with you “more apartments” argument probably more than any other poster here in the Vanguard. I’ve gone to Council meetings and preached that mantra. I’ve preached that mantra from the NRC dais during the Cannery Draft EIR review. Apartments on the periphery make no sense whatsoever. Multiple high rise dorms on the A Street Intramural field is one location that makes sense for student housing. Razing the apartments on the north-east side of F Street below Covell and replacing them with 4-5 story apartment buildings makes sense. Pursuing the Yolo Rail Relocation frees up 50 acres of land in the City Limits that could provide lots of apartments. Some time down the road in the far distant future with a lot of prayer and a bit of intervention by Merlin the Magician, the PG&E site will provide opportunity for apartments.
Those are just a few of the possibilities as I see them.
Davis will not die anytime soon because of the university. However, the absence of young professionals should be of great concern. Frankly, the most vibrant and attractive places to live are those with a higher percentage of young professionals and young families. For them, Davis is becoming more a more of a drag, and less and less attractive as a place to live and put down roots.
Those that block change, reject peripheral development, block downtown parking structures, blocked Borders, blocked Target, block the waterworks project, block expanding the scope and scale of downtown, block utility poles for wifi broadband, etc., etc., are generally stick-in-the-mud older people growing more crotchety every day. They want their little retirement village to remain the same. Or in some cases they are selfishly and ignorantly pursuing short-term self-interest protecting their retail business or their property values. They are all wrong.
Davis needs to attract and retain more young professionals and young families. Us older people need them here to keep Davis a great place to live. We need to expand our vision of acceptable economic development. We need to see Davis as a small city, and not a rural town that just happens to have a world-class research university in its midst. Think Palo Alto.
[quote]what is the lower part of The Cannery if not “additional space”? [/quote]
How many square feet is that? And is it planned for startup businesses? I thought that was a little tiny retail shopping site planned for small stores for the residents nearby.
[url]http://thecannerydavis.com/wp-content/uploads/CanneryDavisIllustrativeLandUsePlan20121217.pdf[/url]
[quote]What is the planned Solano Park Innovation Center if not “additional space”? [/quote]
Beats me. I couldn’t find any information about it.
[quote]And as you have pointed out, what is Nishi and the area to the west and north of the Hospital if not “additional space.”[/quote]
Yes. As I’ve pointed out. So let’s get going and annex Nishi. And those are, by definition, peripheral development.
[quote]Davis needs to attract and retain more young professionals and young families.[/quote]
Keep the schools good and they’ll move here. It’s a great bedroom community for young professionals who work in Sacramento.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Yes. As I’ve pointed out. So let’s get going and annex Nishi. And those are, by definition, peripheral development.”[/i]
Nishi is anything but peripheral development. It is quintessentially University-centric infill. When planned in tandem with the west Olive Drive area, even moreso. Access out to I-80 on the south and over the UP main line in a combined overpass/parking structure on the north either across from Hyatt Place or a bit farther east serving both the Solano Park Innovation Center and Nishi and downtown employees via A Street. Quintessentially University-centric infill.
The one quarter mile square area north of Sutter Davis Hospital up to the City Limits at the West Water Storage Tank access road is again infill. The Class 4 highly alkalai soils (shown in the broad swath of yellow in the image below are by a strict definition, peripheral development, but as you yourself have pointed out in prior posts, that area has virtually no agricultural value because of its Willows Clay Alkalai and Pescadero Silty Clay, Saline-Alkali soils. Those Class 4 soils don’t even grow hay effectively. So functionally I don’t see putting jobs on those non productive, poor quality soils as peripheral development either.
[IMG]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/2012-10-01DavisAreaUSDALandCapabilityClassificationMap_zps85a051fa.jpg[/img]
All
Please excuse my absence in the dialogue as I have been celebrating with my family the graduation of my son from high school and acceptance in to Chico State. These are exciting times in the White family household, indeed.
Let me also thank each of you for 1) taking the time to read my article and 2) taking the time to wrestle with some very interesting issues. It is such an honor to be part of a community that can have rational dialogue and uncover our diversity, which I am sure is what makes this a celebrated and unparalleled community.
Though I am sure I won’t be able to address all of your input in one post, let me get this part out of the way. David (and others) are exactly correct in that my article is not any kind of policy statement nor was it meant to lead to any specific conclusions.
I am a staff member of the City of Davis. I answer to Steve Pinkerton, who answers to the City Council. The Council sets policy and direction, and it is my job to implement that policy under Steve’s direction. I take direction from him and no outside entities are driving my work product.
To answer a question often asked (though not in this forum)… Half of my salary is paid by businesses through the partnership with the non-profit techDAVIS, but they do not manage or control my work. And the businesses that have generously donated to techDAVIS for this effort are all at equal donation amounts and are comprised of local and regional banks, attorneys, specialty stores, land use reps and grocers. No one business segment dominates and the managing directors of techDAVIS are local residents that are mindful of the community’s concerns and needs. If you are interested in being part of the techDAVIS effort, please feel free to email them at info@techdavis.org
The article I wrote was intended to share the information I have heard directly from businesses over the last few months, not suggest outcomes. The community has a rich body of work on economic development from the past decade, and it is my job to help synthesize that in to a single unified (and measurable) effort which will be presented to Council during the upcoming budget year (hopefully in early 2014). This effort will be conducted in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, the City’s Business and Economic Development Commission (BEDC), the Downtown Business Association and other local and regional economic development orgs and groups.
And yes, I do cover innovation and attracting tech businesses as one of my many job duties, but I am also the City’s lead for economic development. That means all businesses – all types and all sizes.
Concerning where the businesses go… that is the question in which the community and City Council are struggling. As suggested, maybe Davis becomes a home to startups and mid-sized tech companies? Maybe when businesses grow to a certain size they must inevitably leave ‘the nest’ and move on. One factor to consider in this dialogue is that Council has set strong policy goals of trying to increase jobs and the number/diversity of businesses to increase revenues to the City, but there are a myriad of ways to accomplish this goal.
And as most of you know, the City does need revenue. We need it for better streets, open pools, replacement of aging infrastructure, delivery of police and fire services, parks, etc. And we are locked in to very few sources of that revenue do to State laws and practice. Typically these are made up of property taxes, sales taxes, grants and fees.
It seems apparent that increased property taxes is a significant opportunity for increased revenue, but not just from churn of existing housing stock. Companies like Mori Seiki install millions of dollars’ worth of equipment that is taxed as unsecured property. There are plenty of examples in California where a single plant full of high tech manufacturing equipment can generate as much tax annually as a neighborhood of a few hundred homes. And these are companies comparable in size (facility and number of people) to Mori Seiki.
Regarding where all of those new job holders will live… Bay Area Economics has opined that there is a 3,000 job deficit in Davis. That means that at least 3,000 people leave the City to go to work, in places like Sacramento and the Bay Area. By creating more job opportunities in Davis, some (and maybe even many) of these residents could work closer to home, which increases their quality of life dramatically and has a positive impact on sustainability goals of the City.
And regarding large corporations coming to town… the size of these corporations means that they have the resources to be significant philanthropist. Most of us can agree that we need more giving in and around Davis to help our struggling non-profit community. By bringing those with higher levels of disposable income and corporate giving mandates to Davis, we increase the potential that some of the good work these non-profits do each day will continue.
So these are just a few thoughts in answer to your input to date. I will try to read through the posts again and see if something else jumps out that I can answer specifically now.
But as I have said a few times to date, this is a dialogue and no one answer will complete the puzzle. I am convinced that a community full of highly-educated people working in collaboration to solve these issues will get us a best fit answer that the majority of the community can support. I certainly have a lot of experience and best practices to work from, but these will only help to inform us as we find our complete answer.
Of one thing we can be certain; we have realized that the economic base in Davis is not big enough or diverse enough to sustain our list of community desires and standard of quality of life. The City and community must utilize its best options for creating long-term revenue sources to continue our sustainability leadership and maintain the way of life that Davis residents have come to enjoy.
I welcome your thoughts and comments, and feel free to email me at rwhite@cityofdavis.org with suggestions.