Despite the number of issues facing the Davis community, the sheer volume of comments on recent articles indicates that land use issues still dominate the political scene – diminished only by the decreased number of true land use issues, as for a period, at least, the issue of peripheral growth was settled.
A few weeks ago it became clear that Davis’ goal for economic development was going to run smack into Davis’ goals for protection of agricultural land and open space. Still, I think most of us were caught off guard that the issue came up this week and was planted in a consent agenda item.
City staff, the city manager and everyone involved understand that this was a colossal error. They certainly recognized it when Greg House sounded the alarm last weekend. And while they can take issue with Mr. House’s description of things, in most ways he did the community a service and the council a favor.
Give the city manager credit – recognizing the error, he immediately decided to pull the item off consent, called a special meeting, and increased the information in the staff report, including the description of the land swap, among other things.
The damage was done. In fact, the damage should have been done. The damage needed to be done. The message needed to be sent that this was not acceptable.
The only way that could happen was for the land swap, and the staff recommendation to rescind the grant from NCRS, to fail. That turned out to be a very very very close vote.
There are 3-2 votes where we know from the start they are 3-2 votes and the outcome is not in doubt. In this case, 3-2 was a lot closer than the 3-2 might indicate.
While I still believe the errors here were not made from ill intentions, there are questions that still need to be asked. I can understand the mistake of putting this as a consent item, but others are less excusable.
First, why did the initial staff report contain no reference to the land swap? We only found out that this was not a straight vote down of the easement east of Mace late on Monday, when it was announced in a staff report that there was a proposal to swap that land for an easement on the Shriner’s property.
The Vanguard has learned that, while the land swap itself was the topic of discussion as early as a few months ago, Capitol Corridor Ventures did not secure rights to the Shriner’s property until late in the process. Given its lateness in the process, it would have been better if the discussion – pushed up against barriers and deadlines – would have died, but for reasons that sources could not articulate, the issue was forced forward and probably to the detriment of the process.
The debate over the easement location was worthy of discussion – the problem is that there could be no true discussion under these conditions. With all due respect to Matt Williams and two on the council, the issue of the location of the easement was made irrelevant by the way this process unfolded.
My second question is why was the Open Space Commission never informed that there would be a decision on whether to go ahead with the grant that the Yolo Land Trust had obtained? Mitch Sears was reportedly not at that meeting and the staff person who was there never mentioned anything about the land swap.
CORRECTION: Mitch Sears was at the June 3 Open Space and Habitat Commission meeting, but he did not do the staff report or the presentation concerning the issue. Ann Brunnete did the staff report.
This was on June 3. That again is answered by the lateness by which the land swap arrived.
The staff report that came out on late Monday said, a few months ago, that a new Davis-based benefit corporation called Capitol Corridor Ventures “approached the City with an offer to essentially conduct a ‘swap’ of properties that would allow the City to gain a more robust conservation buffer along the northeastern edge of the City while acquiring a parcel that had a higher percentage (over 85%) of Prime Agricultural farmland.”
We learned that this was a topic of conversation in closed session by the council, but no one bothered to bring it to the public until right before the deadline. Staff wants to defend itself that nothing could have been brought forward until there was a concrete offer on the table. Again, this suggests that the deal should have simply been killed.
There was no public outreach, no discussion of a major shift in council and city policy from the one set forward back in 2010.
Some have questioned the propriety of holding some of these talks in closed session. It would be interesting to see if justifications held up if pressed in a Brown Act complaint.
Former Councilmember Stephen Souza noted that he was part of the team that negotiated what he called “this highly leveraged best purchased open space in the city history.”
He said “I would not give up that bird in hand” and “that is something that isn’t going to come along, I don’t think again.”
Stephen Souza, who has made his share of missteps and errors in this realm, understood what too many on the council could not – swapping the easement on this parcel for one to the north is only one step in the process, and ultimately the voters were going to have to agree in a Measure R vote.
“If we are going to have a business park… we are not going to do it by beginning on this note, we need to do it in a concerted way with the community so that it will pass a Measure R vote, so that it doesn’t have a bad smell to it right from the beginning,” Stephen Souza argued. “You don’t want that. Believe me you don’t want that. It’s something that I’ve gone through.”
Bob Schneider should have been another canary in the coal mine. Yes, Mr. Schneider has tremendous environmental credentials, but he has also been a developer, as he acknowledged at the outset of his comments on Tuesday, and he has generally supported development.
Bob Schneider pressed the council to divulge who Capitol Corridor Ventures was. Eventually, we found out it was run by David Morris and, currently, only run by David Morris.
“I can’t give a comment if I don’t have the information. That’s secretive,” he said pointedly. “That’s the part of the process that I get concerned about because a core value of Davis, a very core value is an open public process. That’s the overriding consideration. And that’s not happening here.”
The truth is, this whole process has lacked transparency.
As I stated earlier, the damage was done. In fact, the damage should have been done. The damage needed to be done. The message needed to be sent that this was not acceptable.
Unfortunately, the Davis City Council is not blameless here. They had this information presumably several months ago, perhaps as early as the Cap to Cap. Yet we only found out about this just as the clock was about to strike midnight – and perhaps not at all without the emails of Greg House.
To those who believe that the process did not matter, I strongly disagree. Councilmember Lucas Frerichs, in my estimation, voted against this only on the process matter.
While Rochelle Swanson and Dan Wolk expressed their trepidations with the process, both stuck with their inclinations on the issue.
Councilmember Swanson said, as noted, “I would hate to see the bad process kill a good thing.”
She noted, “I really do feel that if this process would have come before us three weeks ago or two months ago, I think the community would have looked at more than just a bird in the hand.”
Ms Swanson added that she wanted conservation easements to the north and development along the freeway. But she described that sentiment as “51-49,” implying it being a close call and the “process being frustrating.”
“I don’t like locking us into this because the process was bad,” Mayor Pro Tem Wolk stated. “I just worry about the opportunities we might have should we go through with getting the easement. It’s frustrating the process is bad. I just feel like there’s an opportunity here for achieving both our goals of land preservation and economic development.”
Unfortunately, I think both Mr. Wolk and Ms. Swanson are mistaken here. The process issues are not minor inconveniences – they prevented meaningful public discussion on a matter that was likely to be highly controversial. That being the case and the fact that they had known about this for several months means that they had to – out of principle and principle alone – vote against this no matter how strong the merits.
Lucas Frerichs got it, but Dan Wolk and Rochelle Swanson, agonizing as they might have been, missed the mark on just how egregious the transparency issues were here. They would have been rewarding bad behavior had they prevailed.
To those who believe that the process issue did not matter, Lucas Frerichs almost certainly would have voted for this had the process been open and transparent. Brett Lee was intrigued by the deal as well, but could not vote for it with this kind of process.
City staffers now are in a quandary believing that this parcel was the key to a business park. I have faith that they will find another way to avoid the innovation park going to the SW part of the UC Davis campus – in Solano County.
However, yesterday, the Vanguard was told that there is a Plan B and that is being formulated as we speak.
In closing, I think it is important for some on the council to remember that residents of Davis have a long history of rather shady and contentious land use deals that occur behind closed doors and which have produced over the years a great deal of distrust in the community.
It is also important to recognize that there is a good portion of the community very reluctant to cross Mace Blvd – as both a hard and symbolic barrier.
The business community and the burgeoning innovation community need to be mindful of public sentiments and concerns and take care not to get too far ahead of the public.
Deals like this are complex. They involve major paradigmatic shifts in public policy, and, as such, care must be taken to have full and open conversations.
Finally, David Morris, who heads up both techDavis and Capital Corridor Ventures, needs to be more careful in the future, as it appears that he personally has his hands in too many parts of this equation. The city would be wise to reconsider options for funding the Chief Innovation Officer position held by Rob White, to avoid the appearance of a conflict here.
There are a lot of lessons that need to be learned here and hopefully staff and council can learn them and apply these lessons for the next time business and economic development run into long held, long used practices in the community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Editor’s Note: City Manager Steve Pinkerton and five councilmembers were presented with an early draft and invited to respond to this piece. While the Vanguard spoke to Mr. Pinkerton and three councilmembers prior to publication, the Vanguard received no formal comments. The piece does reflect a few changes in the understanding of the course of events that resulted from those conversations, but makes no formal use of them.
Update: The version corrects information that inaccurately reported that Mitch Sears was not at the Open Space Commission meeting.
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The debate over the easement location was worthy of discussion – the problem is that there could be no true discussion under these conditions. With all due respect to Matt Williams and two on the council, the issue of the location of the easement was made irrelevant by the way this process unfolded.”[/i]
I don’t disagree with this statement even for a millisecond. If staff had brought the concept of an easement location swap forward earlier, even if the specifics associated with the Shriners property weren’t available, then the community could have weighed in without a pistol pointed at its temple because of a time crunch. I would have loved to see the Open Space Commission discuss the merits of having the land in Davis’ control rise from 391 acres to 625 acres. I would have loved to hear the discussion of a community garden on the Shriners property across Covell Blvd from Harper Junior High School. I would have loved to hear the descriptions of the disgorging of community farmers by both Unitrans and YoloBus each day. I would have loved to hear the discussions about how organic farming methods mean that there aren’t any pesticide sprays wafting over into the neighborhoods to the west and south of the community garden.
You are absolutely right. The issue of the location of the easement was made irrelevant by the way this process unfolded. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t acknowledge the community dialogue benefits that would have come to pass if we had managed the process better.
In my opinion this wasn’t so much that mistakes were made but more of a case of getting caught with hand in the cookie jar.
explain growth izzue
If the city is interested in buying the Shriners property, that is still an option, yes?
Exactly davisite, instead of swapping one for the other the Measure O funds should be used to purchase both parcels for open space ag buffers.
Yes the City can indeed attempt to buy the Shriners property, but in order to do so they will have to come up with the incremental #3 million to $4 million to do so. Although we don’t know the details of what was proposed, it appears that In the swap scenario that incremental $3 million to $4 million wasn’t necessary.
In addition GI, the current owner of the Shriners property has to be willing to sell the property.
[quote]In addition GI, the current owner of the Shriners property has to be willing to sell the property.[/quote]
Are you saying that the current owner of the Shriners property is only willing to sell if there is an “innovation park” involved?
Perhaps the owner of the Shriners property, Steve Gidaro, as disclosed by LLC search Sec. of State, really wants to trade a property with no chance for development for land set up for development by CCV, who is obviously linked with the landowner is some fashion. That may explain the wierd price incentive.
I think a great local for an Innovation Park would be right up close to El Macero. What do you think Matt?
yeahmyam:
[quote]Perhaps the owner of the Shriners property, Steve Gidaro, as disclosed by LLC search Sec. of State, really wants to trade a property with no chance for development for land set up for development by CCV, who is obviously linked with the landowner is some fashion.[/quote]
Vewy vewy interesting………………….
problem with that theory is that the city owns the mace curve land and would not relinquish that ownership.
[quote]problem with that theory is that the city owns the mace curve land and would not relinquish that ownership. [/quote]
Wasn’t that the trade that was just proposed?
What am I missing here?
Hello world
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”I think a great local for an Innovation Park would be right up close to El Macero. What do you think Matt?”[/i]
Actually GI that is exactly what we have right now. Drive south down Mace from El Macero and you have the Sierra Sod property followed by the Harris Seed breeding innovation center and the Campbells Soups seed breeding innovation center (recently purchased by Harris). One of the possible locations being considered by Seed Central was adjacent to Harris and Campbells, and you didn’t hear a peep of protest from a single El Macero resident.
Good Matt, sounds like you have room for more buildout.
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”Wasn’t that the trade that was just proposed? What am I missing here?”[/i]
One of the deal terms being kicked around (but no deal terms had been agreed to, as was well discussed from the dias and in public comment), was that the City would have retained control of the 234 acres adjacent to I-80 where the Innovation Park might have gone. If, after a certain period of time, no employer with jobs came forward as an identified tenant of the prospective Innovation Park, then the ownership of the 234 acres would have reverted wholly to the City.
That has every appearance of a win-win situation. If a tenant with a critical mass of new jobs for Davis is identified, then the community wins. If no such jobs materialize the land reverts to City owned farming . . . and the community wins.
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”Good Matt, sounds like you have room for more buildout.”[/i]
If that buildout produces jobs and economic growth for Davis, absolutely. The creation of new innovation-centric jobs will improve the jobs/housing balance of the community, the sustainability of our economy and the fiscal health of our regional governments.
It will also make us less of a bedroom community for Sacramento.
For the record, Ann Brunette did mention the land-swap to the OSH Commission on June 3. However, she noted that she had just been briefed on it that morning, and had no details to offer the Commission, except that someone who had an “option” on (note: not ownership of) the Shriner piece was proposing the swap of Shriner for the south 234 acres of the 390-Mace Curve property. After her presentation, OSH voted unanimously to affirm its 2010 recommendation for the 390, to wit, put the conservation easement on it and resell it as permanent farmland.
Matt:
[quote]One of the deal terms being kicked around (but no deal terms had been agreed to, as was well discussed from the dias and in public comment), was that the City would have retained control of the 234 acres adjacent to I-80 where the Innovation Park might have gone. If, after a certain period of time, no employer with jobs came forward as an identified tenant of the prospective Innovation Park, then the ownership of the 234 acres would have reverted wholly to the City.
[/quote]
So, if a tenant stepped forward then the owner of the Shriner’s property would’ve prospered? Is that right Matt?
GI, we all would have prospered. That is what win-win is all about.
We would have had 391 acres of agriculturally conserved property immediately adjacent to the City (234 acres on Shriners and the 157 acres of the northern portion of Mace 391 closest to Mace Curve) . . . all of which are ideally suited to the kind of community gardens that Greg House (and all of us) desire AND we would have had lots of new jobs. As I said . . . win-win
I know it will make me sound like a broken record to some, but I’d like to renew my call for public disclosure of the initial board of directors of techDavis.
Why does this matter? Mr White (or someone claiming to be him) said in a Vanguard post that he “was asked by the City leadership to check on it while in Washington DC for Cap-to-Cap.” “It” being the land swap. I’m assuming that he means to check with David Morris, who was on the trip.
Consider the difference the legal composition of techDavis makes in interpreting that statement. If techDavis had — at that time — a diverse board of directors, this is no grave problem. But if that board was small (or non-existent), then Mr White was checking with someone responsible for raising half his salary about business before the city. It also means that the techDavis proposal was not as diligently investigated as it should have been.
As a taxpayer, I would prefer that my money goes to acquire the best open space possible. I don’t know much of the history of Measure O, but given that it was passed about the same time as Measure J, I would assume that its intent was to help create a meaningful urban limit line.
I was was shocked to hear the Yolo Land Trust state that they would prefer the City property over the Shriners property. The claim that members of their board were concerned about easements next to residential was counter intuitive and rings false.
Why was Davis taxpayer money spent in Solano county at Kidwell as well as out to the northwest of town on land that has zero chance of developing in the next 100 years?
I’m concerned that the people entrusted with this money have an agenda that is at odds with the general perception of why the public pays this tax ever year.
Forget the process for a moment. Making sausage is always ugly, whether you are aware of it or not.
I drive that corridor and have seen the two properties thousands of times. Can you honestly say with a straight face that you would prefer to buy (and that’s what you are doing with your tax dollars) a conservation easement on the land by the freeway or the land north of Harper JHS.
The ferocity with which this was rejected by the open space community gives me pause.
stevem: It is my understanding that the city understands now the conflict here and is moving to remove the techDavis funding from the CIO position.
Where will the other half come from.? Think UCD would be better.
Restructuring or grants presumably.
Yes this issue was not presented in the best manner. Yes this swap concept was a solid idea worthy of debate. The fact it was not presented in a timely manner to allow such debate is extremely unfortunate.
The witch hunt over conflicts of interests, etc.. needs to stop. It is the obligation of our city leaders, elected and employed, to present compelling ideas that will allow the city to take advantage of its position in the region. We should be thanking these folks for looking out into the future, wish we had more time to debate it. Encourage future discussions and support future debates. Why penalize our leaders for bringing forth ideas that cause debate like this?
“The witch hunt over conflicts of interests, etc.. needs to stop. “
It depends on what you are referring to a witch hunt. I mean, I have talked to four councilmembers in the last day, and at least felt that the shared paid was a conflict of interest. The city tried something innovative and unfortunately they realized that there were a few bugs. I don’t think that’s a witch hunt and don’t have a problem with them fixing the problem and moving on.
[i]The witch hunt over conflicts of interests, etc.. needs to stop. It is the obligation of our city leaders, elected and employed, to present compelling ideas that will allow the city to take advantage of its position in the region. We should be thanking these folks for looking out into the future, wish we had more time to debate it. Encourage future discussions and support future debates. Why penalize our leaders for bringing forth ideas that cause debate like this? [/i]
Excellent. Agree.
Speaking of hidden agendas… they are numerous in those that continue the witch hunt.
Name one significant economic development land use decision that, given a lot of public disclosure and discussion time, helped those promoting the project. You can’t. The complaint about staff mistakes is just a smoke screen for those wanting more time to accumulate weapons to more effectively reach the same conclusion… blocking any and all significant development.
If the city can find a way to quickly make decisions and get it done, then I suggest they do so. The cry-fest from the same cast of characters will be the same regardless.
Matt:
[quote]GI, we all would have prospered. That is what win-win is all about.
[/quote]
Matt, that’s maybe your definition of a win-win. I would say that many that voted for and are paying Measure O taxes would say a win-win is having both parcels designated for ag buffer farmland.
After reading the Staff report and seeing the Council meeting, the 391 land swap looked like a good opportunity preserving better ag land rather than what we would up with. It is unfortunate that the deadline for the Federal grant money had to be responded to so soon which necessitated a vote by Council to reconsider accepting the money.
It was a difficult situation but the Council should never be afraid to consider a better idea, even in the eleventh hour. Rochelle and Dan expressed their frustration with the time constraint, but they also showed their leadership and courage to consider a better idea. Frankly, I think this was a major opportunity loss for the City to deal with our economic problems.
Measure O isn’t all about just saving Ag lands. It’s also about saving wild habitat land and creating a green bufferaround our city. Here’s an explanation I found from Sue Geenwald on what Measure O was all about:
[quote]Measure O – a City of Davis ballot measure which will provide the funding necessary to enable our city to participate in an international attempt to save our Earth’s rapidly shrinking wildlife habitat and workable farmland. At the same time, we will be enhancing our own quality of life by creating wildlife habitat reserves, with areas set aside where Davis citizens will be able enjoy strolling, bicycling, bird watching and bringing their children. And we will be slowly creating a green buffer to help define our city limits.[/quote]
stevem said . . .
[i]”I know it will make me sound like a broken record to some, but I’d like to renew my call for public disclosure of the initial board of directors of techDavis.
Why does this matter? Mr White (or someone claiming to be him) said in a Vanguard post that he “was asked by the City leadership to check on it while in Washington DC for Cap-to-Cap.” “It” being the land swap. I’m assuming that he means to check with David Morris, who was on the trip.
Consider the difference the legal composition of techDavis makes in interpreting that statement. If techDavis had — at that time — a diverse board of directors, this is no grave problem. But if that board was small (or non-existent), then Mr White was checking with someone responsible for raising half his salary about business before the city. It also means that the techDavis proposal was not as diligently investigated as it should have been.”[/i]
steve, if you go to the video of Tuesday’s Council meeting (at [url]http://archive.cityofdavis.org/media/council-2013-06-11.ram[/url]) and navigate to 2:44:00 point you will see/hear David Morris answer the question of the CCV Boar composition on the record. His answer was that the Board currently consists of two people, himself as Chair and his lawyer as Secretary.
When you say[i] “I’m assuming that he means to check with David Morris, who was on the trip”[/i] I believe that is an incorrect statement. I believe the “checking on it” activities in Washington were with NRCS.
One of the things I learned a few years ago when 110 houses in El Macero were put into the revised flood plain by FEMA was that the first and most important step in dealing with any Federal agency like FEMA and/or NRCS is to understand their process. I believe Rob White’s meetings in Washington with NRCS were doing exactly that . . . understanding their proces, and how best to work within that process.
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”Matt, that’s maybe your definition of a win-win. I would say that many that voted for and are paying Measure O taxes would say a win-win is having both parcels designated for ag buffer farmland.”[/i]
I completely understand and agree GI, but also realize that the only way that conservation of the Shriners property is even an option is because of the land swap. Stand alone conservation of the Shriners parcel (to steal Mike Harrington’s words) is a non-starter.
The Measure O taxes would have resulted in 391 acres in conservation easement and 234 acres in City control. What is there about that that is lose?
RE:Growth Izzue: “Measure O isn’t all about just saving Ag lands. It’s also about saving wild habitat land and creating a green bufferaround our city. Here’s an explanation I found from Sue Geenwald on what Measure O was all about…”
I understand and support the intentions of Measure O. The new concept that was before the Council last Tuesday offered an even better situation to accomplish all of this that you talk about. In addition, it would have helped the City to address our economic problems.
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”Measure O isn’t all about just saving Ag lands. It’s also about saving wild habitat land and creating a green bufferaround our city. Here’s an explanation I found from Sue Geenwald on what Measure O was all about:
Measure O – a City of Davis ballot measure which will provide the funding necessary to enable our city to participate in an international attempt to save our Earth’s rapidly shrinking wildlife habitat and workable farmland. At the same time, we will be enhancing our own quality of life by creating wildlife habitat reserves, with areas set aside where Davis citizens will be able enjoy strolling, bicycling, bird watching and bringing their children. And we will be slowly creating a green buffer to help define our city limits.”[/i]
Thank you for sharing that GI. You make a very good argument for the potential value of the swap. If you were a member of the wildlife community, would you be inclined to live immediately adjacent to I-80?
[quote]If you were a member of the wildlife community, would you be inclined to live immediately adjacent to I-80?[/quote]
Many do, in the Vic Fazio Yolo Wildlife Area. One of the best examples of protection of wildlife habitat.
[quote] the only way that conservation of the Shriners property is even an option is because of the land swap. [/quote]
No. The owner can’t develop it without city and voter approval. It’s conserved, [i]de facto.[/i]
Don, where is the available water habitat on the Mace 391 lower 234 acres? How may species in the VFWA spend their time in areas of the WA that are as close to I-80 as the areas of the lower 234 of the Mace 391 are? You are using an apples comparison to evaluate an oranges alternative.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”No. The owner can’t develop it without city and voter approval. It’s conserved, de facto.”[/i]
No. The land west of Sutter Davis Hospital is undeveloped, but it de facto is not agriculturally conserved. Look at Wildhorse Ranch. It is zoned agricultural, but is it de facto agriculturally conserved? Absolutely not. That de facto can evaporate instantaneously at the whim of an owner.
No, Matt. You asked a question. I answered it.
Lots of wildlife, by the way, lives on the edges of farm operations. Lots of wildlife lives adjacent to highways. But in this particular instance, Measure O funds are being used, appropriately, to preserve farmland.
“No. The owner can’t develop it without city and voter approval. It’s conserved, de facto.”
So then why do we need to spend money on conservation easements? Isn’t it also true that the parcels outside of the Mace curve were conserved in the very same way? Why is the Shriner property conserved as it is, but these others required a conservation easement? Are you really saying that the easements were necessary because you don’t trust the future citizens of Davis and Yolo County to continue along your chosen path for their future?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”But in this particular instance, Measure O funds are being used, appropriately, to preserve farmland.”[/i]
And when all was said and done those Measure O funds would have conserved either 391 acres or 625 acres. Never in any of the alternatives discussed was there any discussion/contemplation of conserving any less than 391 acres. Can you point to a single example where a number less than 391 was even contemplated?
Mark: Ultimately I prefer [i]de jure[/i] to [i]de facto[/i].
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Mark: Ultimately I prefer de jure to de facto.”[/i]
As do I, which is exactly why locling up the Shriners property [i]de jure[/i] is so attractive.
Seems like this forum has some knowledgable folks about Measure J/R. In the context of preserving viable ag land and maintaining an urban edge boundary, why is the wildhorse ranch parcel subject to measure J/R? It is west of the Shriners parcel, has an ag buffer on its east property line and residential on west property line, is not viable ag land, and is in the city limits. I am very interested in hearing a god reason to protect this land from future development. Thanks in advance for your input.
Matt, do owners of El Macero parcels pay the Measure O tax?
Matt, thanks for the clarification. It was the techDavis board (not CCV) that I was principally concerned with, since they were partly paying for Mr White’s position. And, I’m not sure your clarification on the NRCS makes things any better. He was still involved very early on in city work involving the CCV proposal.
David wrote:
[quote]It is my understanding that the city understands now the conflict here and is moving to remove the techDavis funding from the CIO position.[/quote]
Yikes. Does [i]anyone[/i] think this is a good outcome? The failure of the city’s due diligence checks on this position seems breathtaking.
[quote]also realize that the only way that conservation of the Shriners property is even an option is because of the land swap. Stand alone conservation of the Shriners parcel (to steal Mike Harrington’s words) is a non-starter.[/quote]
Why do you say this?
davisite4 said . . .
[i]”Why do you say this?”[/i]
Funding/Economic realities.
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”Matt, do owners of El Macero parcels pay the Measure O tax?”[/i]
Measure O resulted in a City tax that is levied on City residents. El Macero is not part of the City.
stevem said . . .
[i]”Yikes. Does anyone think this is a good outcome? The failure of the city’s due diligence checks on this position seems breathtaking.”[/i]
What outcome would be better steve? Any problem with the techDavis/CIO situation seems to be one of perceptions/appearances at this point rather than actions; however, as they say perceptions/appearances are reality, so addressing those now before there are any actions to scrutinize seems to be a prudent course of action. Thus far the principal contribution of techDavis with respect to the arrival of CIO Rob White in Davis is one of providing the cash flow needed to translate desires into actions. If techDavis is eliminated from the funding of the CIO at this point then their role will have only been one of being a catalyst that caused his arrival to have occurred.
[quote]davisite4 said . . .
“Why do you say this?”
Funding/Economic realities.[/quote]
Can you be more specific?
So Matt, is it correct that you don’t pay the Measure O tax?
Matt: Perhaps I’m jumping to the wrong conclusion here. Is the city picking up the extra funding share? That’s the possibility that shocked me. That this would be yet another unanticipated budget hit.
If the funding is from another source, I just hope it’s better vetted this time. But no, nothing against the position. Just how poorly it was handled.
I think you cost the City $360,000 stevem. You were the one driving the conflict-of-interest witch hunt.
It’s not a witch hunt. It is a very clear conflict of interest when a city employee is paid by a party that has business before the city. It is a matter of perception and it’s important to resolve this sooner rather than later so Rob can be effective in his job. Blaming those of us who asked about it is perverse.
And you participate Don. Just own it friend.
I agree with Don, believe me it hurts me to say that. But he’s 100% right.
Own what? You don’t see a conflict of interest? Seriously?
Matt Williams wrote:
[quote]Any problem with the techDavis/CIO situation seems to be one of perceptions/appearances at this point rather than actions; however, as they say perceptions/appearances are reality, so addressing those now before there are any actions to scrutinize seems to be a prudent course of action.[/quote]
I’ve got to call you on this. The techDavis/CIO situation was a fiasco. The city did a hire with no public search on the basis of funds offered by a group that may have been legally very different in composition with what the staff report and press releases described. That is a very real failure of transparency. It’s entirely possible that there were council members who voted for this position who had no knowledge of real composition of techDavis.
The failure of transparency on this was also connected to the failure of a proposal about which you cared very much. That’s a serious consequence of a failure to ask — and then a resistance to answer — questions about the composition of techDavis. So let’s not pretend [i]no harm, no foul[/i] here.
Fine. The three of you cost the City $360,000.
Silent majority: All that need happened to have ended my questioning was for someone to answer some questions that should have been asked on day one.
The questions I’ve been asking: composition of board of directors and tax-exempt status are the kind of questions that tax-exempt organizations get asked all the time. They’re required to answer them. Most 501(c)3s post this information on their web sites.
I got curious. I asked a question. Nobody answered. I asked again more formally. Nobody answered. I asked publicly and was belittled by Mr. White for making trouble. At that point, I got curious about why the questions weren’t being answered.
Don’t you hope you’d do the same?
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”So Matt, is it correct that you don’t pay the Measure O tax?”[/i]
Asked and answered.
davisite4 said . . .
[i]”Can you be more specific?”[/i]
234 acres at between $14,000 and $40,000 an acre = between $3.5 million and $10 million of incremental funding needed to create the easements thereon. is that specific enough?
From the State of California Conflicts of Interest guide, published by the Attorney General:
“3. Source of income
A public official has an economic interest in any source of income that is either received by or promised to the official and totals $500 or more in the 12 months prior to the decision in question. A conflict of interest results whenever either the amount or the source of an official’s income is affected by a decision.”
There is much more here you can read:
[url]http://ag.ca.gov/publications/coi.pdf?[/url]
It is very, very clear that there is a conflict of interest having an employee of the city being paid by someone who has a financial interest — whether for a fee, ownership, commission, or other basis — in the outcome of that official’s actions. It is very clear that Rob has been acting in regard to the disposition of property that one of his sponsors has an interest in. It has also been pointed out that initial questions about this were not answered fully or clearly. So it is in everyone’s interest that it be resolved soon.
[quote] You were the one driving the conflict-of-interest witch hunt.[/quote]
The sad fact is that citizens have had to force the city to complete its due diligence in the matter. Regardless of who drove it, it’s much better to rectify any improprieties — inadvertent as they may be — now instead of after the city becomes liable for damages. Anyone who thinks that the folks who’ve called for transparency have anything to apologize for is mistaken.
stevem said . . .
[i]”Matt: Perhaps I’m jumping to the wrong conclusion here. Is the city picking up the extra funding share?”[/i]
I have no idea steve. I know about the possibility of the change the same way you do . . . as a result of David’s comment.
[i]”That’s the possibility that shocked me. That this would be yet another unanticipated budget hit.”[/i]
I agree with you. I would imagine they would go for grant/program funding rather than go there, but I’m 100% guessing when I say that.
[i]”If the funding is from another source, I just hope it’s better vetted this time. But no, nothing against the position. Just how poorly it was handled.”[/i]
Then you and I are on the same page.
RE: Growth Izzue: “Matt, do owners of El Macero parcels pay the Measure O tax?”
I live in Davis and so I assume that I am paying Measure O taxes. Anyone who thinks that what we taxpayers wound up with was a good deal on this issue did not read the report nor did they understand the facts about better deal that was offered to the City.
I have not heard any compelling reasons why the Staff recommendation was not supported, only what seem to be knee-jerk and emotional defense of a bad decision by the Council majority on this issue last Tuesday. It is pretty clear that the Council majority, sadly, voted to turn down a better offer for the City, agricultural land preservation, wildlife habitat preservation, and us taxpayers.
[quote] have not heard any compelling reasons why the Staff recommendation was not supported, only what seem to be knee-jerk and emotional defense of a bad decision by the Council majority on this issue last Tuesday. It is pretty clear that the Council majority, sadly, voted to turn down a better offer for the City, agricultural land preservation, wildlife habitat preservation, and us taxpayers.[/quote]
I have said this several times, but I will say it again. There was no deal, there was no offer, there was only the posssibility of a deal whose details had not been worked out and which could very well have fallen through, having lost over a million dollars (the NRCS grant) in the process.
Don. The contract is online. The partnership agreement is pretty simple. The City agreed to hire a Chief Innovation Officer and the nonprofit agreed to pay half the total comp ($360,000). End of story. Rob was hired. If he left tomorrow, as I read the contract the partnership agreement would still be in place. The CIO is not part of the non-profit, and reports to the City Manager. If you, and people like you, want to turn this into something nefarious, that’s your prerogative. But if the City decides to walk away from the contract, it will be because of the witch hunt.
For the record, I first asked about techDavis’ composition on March 16th. I had absolutely no notion that it would have any relation to peripheral growth issues. My interest, in fact, arose because I try to follow the Davis tech scene and wondered why I’d never heard of an organization that had existed long enough to be a 501(c)3. My original note to info@techdavis.org:
[quote]Hi,
I saw the press releases on your recent public-private partnership agreement with the City of Davis. I try to follow Davis technology news and was surprised I hadn’t heard of you.
Would you please send me a copy of your 501(c)3 approval letter from the IRS? I’d also appreciate a list of officers and directors and information on how long you’ve existed.
Thanks and best wishes,
Steve McMahon[/quote]
And the non-profit payments go to the City, not to Rob White.
[quote] End of story.[/quote]
It would have been the end of the story if he hadn’t gotten involved in a property transaction involving the principal (and apparently sole) officer of the nonprofit, who also is the principal (and apparently sole) officer of another entity that would benefit from that transaction.
You’d have to have blinders on not to see the conflict of interest here. It’s not nefarious. It should have been obvious to everyone that there is a problem here. It isn’t a witch hunt. It’s basic good government.
What bothers me about this ‘discussion’ is that there does not seem to be any sound urban planning behind the uses of the monies from Measure O.
Where is the document the describes the overall direction on how the money should be spent?
When did the community wide discussion occur that determined the priority properties that we believe should be protected?
When did we determine the specifics of the restrictions on our urban boundary? When did the citizens vote to place an identified hard border around the our City limits that could not be changed in perpetuity?
It seems to me that this entire process has been carried out outside of the view of the public with out any real plan in place to determine the direction or ultimate goal, or any discussion that matter on the ultimate consequences of the choices being made on our behalf.
Mark: here’s a recent report, draft form, that I saved to my server about Measure O:
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/DraftMeasureOReport20130524.pdf[/url]
stevem said . . .
[i]”The failure of transparency on this was also connected to the failure of [b]a proposal about which you cared very much[/b]. That’s a serious consequence of a failure to ask — and then a resistance to answer — questions about the composition of techDavis. So let’s not pretend no harm, no foul here.”[/i]
steve, I didn’t know anything about the swap proposal until David ran his story Tuesday morning, so to say I cared about the proposal is not accurate. My comments before Council on Tuesday night focused on the fact that there were so many moving parts in the decision facing Davis that making any truly informed decision was virtually impossible.
With that said, what I hear you saying is that you would rather not have Rob White here in Davis if it meant that anyone who was a strong advocate for innovative tech companies had anything to do with his hiring. Is that a fair assessment of your position?
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”Anyone who thinks that the folks who’ve called for transparency have anything to apologize for is mistaken.”[/i]
Jim, I agree with your statement 100%.
[quote]steve, I didn’t know anything about the swap proposal until David ran his story Tuesday morning, so to say I cared about the proposal is not accurate. My comments before Council on Tuesday night focused on the fact that there were so many moving parts in the decision facing Davis that making any truly informed decision was virtually impossible. [/quote]
I just rewatched the video — it seems to me as though, even though you acknowledge the unknowns, you advocated for turning down the NRCS grant, and the main focus on your comments is on the opportunity for the land swap.
Matt Williams wrote: [i]what I hear you saying is that you would rather not have Rob White here in Davis if it meant that anyone who was a strong advocate for innovative tech companies had anything to do with his hiring. Is that a fair assessment of your position?[/i]
Definitely [b]not[/b] what I’m saying. What I’d like to see is [i]a 501(c)(3) business association comprised of current and former senior technology executives with close ties to UC Davis and/or the Davis community, as well as ex officio members from the government, academic, and business services sectors. The association’s goal is to help grow the innovation economy in Davis and the surrounding region.[/i]
That’s the text from the City Manager’s announcement of the deal with techDavis. That’s not what techDavis seems to be.
Other than the fact that they were not a 501(c)3, though, I don’t know what techDavis really was when the agreement was signed. That’s because the questions on its officers have not been answered.
-who owns the Shriner property?
-what was the role of CCV proposed to be, broker?
-did Rob White bring the swap idea to the city from CCV (Dave Morris)?
stevem – I met with NRCS Assistant Chief James Gore to ask what (if any) parameters were available for a potential land swap. This was a question already being asked by the City to the local NRCS reps on several occasions and with several different ideas. The City had already been exploring concepts with the NRCS and YLT before I arrived.
As I understand it, one concept was to potentially swap the Bruner property to be next to I-80 instead of above the Ramos/Oates property. I am told third hand by community members that there have been others over the last two years. My only task was to ask if a swap was possible or was federal out of bounds due to the FRRP rules. As I am told, it was possible in the first 12 months of award, but was not possible anymore. It was an accept the grant or lose it scenario at that point.
Also, I do not think I was admonishing you in any way, but if it came across that way, I certainly apologize.
The City Attorney is already in the process of ruling on these items and has been addressing them for over 2 weeks now. That is why I was fire-walled from the concept that CCV was presenting. The City did not believe there were conflicts previously, but the community dialogue has made the City reconsider and review is in process.
About techDAVIS, it is not my company, so I feel I should not be answering all of their questions. I did answer some to help take away some of the cloud of mystery. Now that you know who Dave Morris is, I will direct you to him for follow-up. I don’t run his company.
Regarding funding, that is also being assessed and addressed. We will see what happens. You have brought up several times that I was hired without a search and commission oversight. I am to guess that you have a better candidate in mind? As a factoid, the City Manager is able to hire for executive level positions without a search. I am not the first, and one has been fired since me.
I would say it would be nice to sit down and discuss these items face to face. Maybe you will find I am not such a bad guy. But I guess I could always get the award for shortest lived Davis City employee if there are no funds. We shall see. Stay tuned.
stevem – Oh, I forgot to mention. It is me posting. David can verify that.
“There is absolutely no basis for this statement of yours. Certainly not with respect to Nishi. Your certitude is groundless.”
Don, he’s not the only one suffering from this kind of unsupportable delusion. Over and over, you’ve suggested that Measure O essentially ended and the debate about how Davis thinks about development along the Mace Curve and other places.
What 16,000 people thought in the year 2000 hardly puts the matter into concrete. Lots of issues generate changes of mind as the years move along, even issues that are more contentious than stopping growth around a town that likes things the way they are. Different circumstances in 50 years might call for a different direction. That’s why I oppose putting permanent conservation easements on public land.
While $1-million of NRCS cash was enough to buy city flexibility on this property forever, I’d guess that economic development again will become a city priority and using a couple hundred acres of the thousands around Davis might not seem so offensives.. I predict it won’t be long before we realize that putting all our eggs in the auto row basket won’t look like as smart a strategy as we thought it was at the time.
Your certitude may turn out to be warranted, but I think it’s more likely we should be saying, “Who knows?”
[quote]What 16,000 people thought in the year 2000 hardly puts the matter into concrete. Lots of issues generate changes of mind as the years move along, even issues that are more contentious than stopping growth around a town that likes things the way they are. [/quote]
Then, again, I urge you and Frankly to put Measure O and Measure R on the ballot and we’ll see how it goes. And, again, I’d be willing to wager on the outcome.
As much as I enjoy being labeled a statist liberal elitist no-growth witch-hunter for supporting the council majority’s decision on Tuesday, the real question for me now is, WHAT IS THIS ‘PLAN B’ DAVID IS REFERRING TO??
Or do we have to wait for another council / staff jam job to find out?
[quote] I have faith that they will find another way to avoid the innovation park going to the SW part of the UC Davis campus – in Solano County.[/quote]
Where exactly on the campus?
Wouldn’t it be helpful for the City and for these land use discussions to include the expertise that crafted Measure J & Measure O?
davisite4 said . . .
[i]”I just rewatched the video — it seems to me as though, even though you acknowledge the unknowns, [b]you advocated for turning down the NRCS grant[/b], and the main focus on your comments is on the opportunity for the land swap.”[/i]
I didn’t advocate for anything. I started by pointing out how the alternative proposal supported all the principles of land use and land preservation that had been advocated for in all the public comment. I followed that up by pointing out that [i]”there [u]may[/u] be a better decision that can be made”[/i] Then, I advocated for “not adopting an alternative” just as John Johnston did at the 2:08:30 point of the meeting, opting rather for a thoughtful continued examination of all the alternatives. If you object to this kind of “don’t rush to judgment” approach, then so be it. I personally think that nothing would have been lost. If the current Mace 391 configuration was good enough to win the NRCS award once, it would pretty clearly have been good enough to win it again. If the analysis of the Shriners parcel vs. the lower 234 acres of the Mace 391 parcels showed that the swap was a better alternative, then the reapplication to the NRCS process/competition would have been a better one than one that had already prevailed. These Federal grant processes are not “one and done” they have cycle after cycle after cycle. So why break into a sweat rushing to catch a moving commuter train when you can take your time and catch the next train?
[quote]If you object to this kind of “don’t rush to judgment” approach, then so be it. [/quote]
I object to your characterization of it as not making a judgment. Turning down the grant would have been a risk and it is, in fact, a decision and a position.
[quote]I personally think that nothing would have been lost. If the current Mace 391 configuration was good enough to win the NRCS award once, it would pretty clearly have been good enough to win it again.[/quote]
You can think that all you want, but you’re living in a fantasy land if you think that they’d award the same grant twice. And don’t quote that “no hard feelings” email, because that is utterly meaningless. What’s meaningful is that a criterion for awards is “closing efficiency” (I believe that was the phrase) on previous grants. Dithering for two years, asking for extensions, and then turning down a grant is hardly an efficient use of grant money.
d4, I realize that you and I won’t ever agree on what was the optimal decision on Tuesday. You appear to be focused on the land conservation process. My focus is more on the land conservation outcome. As a result I am willing to see the current status of Mace 391 and the post-NCRS status of Mace 391 as equivalent from a “number of acres of agricultural land conserved” basis. Based on the decision made by Council on Tuesday, In practical terms, the difference between the now status of Mace 391 and the future status of Mace 391 is a difference in name only.
Because I see it that way, the possibilities of both/and are much less daunting, and the likelihood of achieving both/and is ever so slightly increased. For me, that increase is well worth pursuing given the unsustainability our local Davis economy has exhibited over the past four years.
No, I am not focused on the process, though many others are, and I think they are right to do so. I do not see the difference in the outcome as a difference in name only, and I see the move that you endorse (to turn down the grant) as risking ending up with much less than what we have now, or even nothing (deals fall through, easements can’t be afforded or are not put in place).
davisite4 said . . .
[i]”No, I am not focused on the process, though many others are, and I think they are right to do so. I do not see the difference in the outcome as a difference in name only, and I see the move that you endorse (to turn down the grant) as [b]risking ending up with much less than what we have now[/b], or even nothing (deals fall through, easements can’t be afforded or are not put in place).”[/i]
Okay, lets engage that thought process a bit. Right now we have 391 acres of conserved farmland (conserved as a result of its ownership by the City). Can you foresee the City acting on any alternative in any scenario that reduces the number of conserved acres to a number below 391? I certainly can’t. In this community there is absolutely no risk of reducing the acre count below 391. No risk whatsoever.
With that said, I’m open to hearing how a scenario could play out that could possibly reduce 391 to a smaller number than 391. Let me know if you have any such scenario in mind.
BTW, I appreciate the well thought out discussion.
A few points.
1. You can tie up the land by refusing to rezone but unless you have title you can’t force a land owner to conserve in perpetuity.
2. You can only acquire land that is for sale from willing owners. This perhaps is why some less than prime parcels have been acquired by the city.
3. Frontier parcels are much more expensive.
4. All this focus on measure O funds but the bulk of the purchase was with road funds. I think the road fund issue is not getting enough play especially since deferred maintenance is such a big issue.
Matt wrote: [quote] You appear to be focused on the land conservation process. My focus is more on the land conservation outcome.[/quote]
For me, the focus was on the metaphor — trite though it may be — that arose repeatedly in public comments: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. $1+M in hand versus a whole bunch of maybe in the bush.
Mr.Toad wrote: [quote]. I think the road fund issue is not getting enough play especially since deferred maintenance is such a big issue. [/quote]
The monies from the Road Impact Fee account aren’t permitted for use in road maintenance, so the only question is the arrangement under which the internal load of those funds will be repaid.
[quote]the internal load [/quote]
Internal loan. 🙂
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”For me, the focus was on the metaphor — trite though it may be — that arose repeatedly in public comments: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. $1+M in hand versus a whole bunch of maybe in the bush.”[/i]
I hear you Jim, but the reality of the situation is that from a lands conserved perspective the bird in the hand had exactly 391 acres conserved and the whole bunch of maybe in the bush had no less than 391 acres conserved. The money was nice, but it didn’t add a single acre to the conserve acres inventory.
[quote]Okay, lets engage that thought process a bit. Right now we have 391 acres of conserved farmland (conserved as a result of its ownership by the City). Can you foresee the City acting on any alternative in any scenario that reduces the number of conserved acres to a number below 391? I certainly can’t. In this community there is absolutely no risk of reducing the acre count below 391. No risk whatsoever.
With that said, I’m open to hearing how a scenario could play out that could possibly reduce 391 to a smaller number than 391. Let me know if you have any such scenario in mind.[/quote]
When I said “we could end up with less than we have now”, I wasn’t referring just to acres that remain in the City’s hands. Here is what could have been lost: over a million dollars, a conservation easement, and a committment to farm the 391 acres rather than have it be for some other use. All three of those are significant losses. Less tangible losses would likely include an even greater distrust of City government and a renewed determination to fight any development in that area (even Steven Souza could see that).
[quote]2. You can only acquire land that is for sale from willing owners. This perhaps is why some less than prime parcels have been acquired by the city.
3. Frontier parcels are much more expensive. [/quote]
I think people complaining about Measure O purchases have overlooked these points, so thanks for bringing them out.
[quote]The money was nice[/quote]
$1+M, to me, is much more than just “nice.”
My thinking on the matter is also influenced by my belief that the Measure J/R vote on any project coming out of the staff recommendation had a snowball’s chance of passing given the process leading up to the Council vote. Since I judged the pile of maybes to have a net value of zero, taking the $1+M was a no-brainer to me.
mrobtwhite wrote: [i]You have brought up several times that I was hired without a search and commission oversight. I am to guess that you have a better candidate in mind?[/i]
Quite the opposite. You seem well-qualified. My point about the no-search hire was in relation of a process that seemed to fail basic transparency tests, and in which the city’s new partner was mischaracterized in the staff report, to the council, and in its announcement to the public. The no-search hire just made it all smell a little worse.
Here’s my suggestion to the City Manager: apologize for the lack of due diligence and transparency in the techDavis deal; admit that this was a mistake and contributed to later interest conflicts. Then ask if it’s possible to reconfigure techDavis or a successor organization to be what techDavis was originally portrayed to be: a widely based business association. One with officers it’s happy to disclose and that are diverse enough to minimize potential for conflict of interest. With bylaws that separate fund-raising from decision-making. I fear that, given the errors made to date, it would not be desirable to have Mr Morris in a management role.
davisite4 said . . .
[i]”When I said “we could end up with less than we have now”, I wasn’t referring just to acres that remain in the City’s hands. Here is what could have been lost: over a million dollars, a conservation easement, and a committment to farm the 391 acres rather than have it be for some other use. All three of those are significant losses. Less tangible losses would likely include an even greater distrust of City government and a renewed determination to fight any development in that area (even Steven Souza could see that).”[/i]
Lets deal with those in reverse order:
“an even greater distrust of City government” — Can it get any worse than it is now?
“a committment to farm the 391 acres rather than have it be for some other use” — That would only be a loss if the City make the incredibly insane decision to do anything other than farm those 391 acres that they own? So bottom-line, there is less than 0% chance that that loss would ever happen. The chances that Elvis Presley will come back from the dead has a greater chance of happening.
“a conservation easement” — In the short run that designation would indeed be lost, but as I’ve pointed out before the fact that the City owns the land makes the conservation easement effectively a moot point when determining if the acres are conserved for farming or not. The conservation easement is effectively a redundant protection when coupled with City ownership of the land. I’m not saying that such redundancy is bad, only that it is redundant.
“over a million dollars” — So, my question to you is, “Is this really about the money?”
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”$1+M, to me, is much more than just “nice.”
My thinking on the matter is also influenced by my belief that the Measure J/R vote on any project coming out of the staff recommendation had a snowball’s chance of passing given the process leading up to the Council vote. Since I judged the pile of maybes to have a net value of zero, taking the $1+M was a no-brainer to me.”[/i]
I hear you Jim, but if indeed your scenario played out, and Joe Krovoza got his way in the structuring of the Shriners deal, then the fee-simple ownership of the “lower 234 acres” would revert to the City after the efforts to create the Innovation Park failed. In that scenario the City would have a total of 625 acres rather than 391 acres. In my book 625 acres of farmland owned is definitely better than 391 acres of farmland owned. I
If the Innovation Park did succeed then we would still have the 391 acres in farmland plus we would have all the new jobs that the successful Innovation Park created.
The parties with ownership interests in the Shriners property would be putting themselves into a simple risk/reward situation, and their actions would either deliver the goods or they would pay the consequences. Capitalism at work . . . pure and simple. Bottom-line, if they succeed we all win, and if they fail then we win and they lose.
[quote]“an even greater distrust of City government” — Can it get any worse than it is now?
[/quote]
Yes, I think it can. This really gave off the appearance of pulling off a fast one: a plan that was years in the making is suddenly switched over to a new plan days before the grant is due to expire, when the city knows that Plan A is more consistent with the people’s desires than Plan B, when there is open space and developer money involved — yeah, this looked pretty stinky.
[quote]“a committment to farm the 391 acres rather than have it be for some other use” — That would only be a loss if the City make the incredibly insane decision to do anything other than farm those 391 acres that they own? So bottom-line, there is less than 0% chance that that loss would ever happen. The chances that Elvis Presley will come back from the dead has a greater chance of happening. [/quote]
I don’t know what you’re talking about. The “land swap” plan was to develop part of that 391 into an innovation park. So, why think that the City would abandon that plan entirely if they didn’t have to?
[quote]“a conservation easement” — In the short run that designation would indeed be lost, but as I’ve pointed out before the fact that the City owns the land makes the conservation easement effectively a moot point when determining if the acres are conserved for farming or not. The conservation easement is effectively a redundant protection when coupled with City ownership of the land. I’m not saying that such redundancy is bad, only that it is redundant. [/quote]
It is not at all redundant. The City could decide to do something else with that land.
[quote]“over a million dollars” — So, my question to you is, “Is this really about the money?” [/quote]
Not completely, but I never said that it was completely about the money. Still, that’s a lot of money that could be used for other purposes. If we want an easements — and that has been past policy and practice — we’re pissing that money away if we don’t take the grant.
[quote]I hear you Jim, but if indeed your scenario played out, and Joe Krovoza got his way in the structuring of the Shriners deal, then the fee-simple ownership of the “lower 234 acres” would revert to the City after the efforts to create the Innovation Park failed. In that scenario the City would have a total of 625 acres rather than 391 acres. In my book 625 acres of farmland owned is definitely better than 391 acres of farmland owned.[/quote]
This was a fantasy plan, an even greater fantasy than the “CCV Concept.” There would be little incentive for the landowner to agree to this.
D4:
[quote]Yes, I think it can. This really gave off the appearance of pulling off a fast one: a plan that was years in the making is suddenly switched over to a new plan days before the grant is due to expire, when the city knows that Plan A is more consistent with the people’s desires than Plan B, when there is open space and developer money involved — yeah, this looked pretty stinky.
[/quote]
Exactly my sentiments.
davisite4 said . . .
[i]”I don’t know what you’re talking about. The “land swap” plan was to develop part of that 391 into an innovation park. So, why think that the City would abandon that plan entirely if they didn’t have to? “[/i]
It is simple math. City controlled acres in current plan = 391 acres in farming (the 234 southernmost acres adjacent to I-80 plus the 157 northernmost acres to the east of the Mace Curve). City controlled acres in Swap plan = 391 acres in farming (the 234 Shriners acres plus the 157 northernmost acres to the east of the Mace Curve).
So the farming acres inventory is intact separate from the Innovation Park acres.
Once again, it’s not just about farming acres. It’s also about habitat acres and creating a green buffer around Davis. Those that actually pay the Measure O tax need to know this.
davisite4 said . . .
[i]”This was a fantasy plan, an even greater fantasy than the “CCV Concept.” There would be little incentive for the landowner to agree to this.”[/i]
Why was it a fantasy plan. It is very simple risk/reward capitalism. In the current scenario the chances of any return on investment from the 234 Shriners acres any time in the foreseeable future is zero. In the swap scenario the chance of return on investment from the 234 acres adjacent to I-80 is significant. The increase in return on investment doesn’t come for free. That is the risk/reward equation. They simply have to have confidence in their ability to deliver the jobs.
Otherwise they don’t take the risk.
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”Once again, it’s not just about farming acres. It’s also about habitat acres and creating a green buffer around Davis. Those that actually pay the Measure O tax need to know this.”[/i]
Okay, I’ll bite. How does either the current deal or the swap deal affect habitat acres?
davisite4 said . . .
[i]”It is not at all redundant. The City could decide to do something else with that land.”[/i]
Not in your lifetime if they want to retain their testicles and/or ovaries.
davisite4 said . . .
[i]”Not completely, but I never said that it was completely about the money. Still, that’s a lot of money that could be used for other purposes. If we want an easements — and that has been past policy and practice — [b]we’re pissing that money away if we don’t take the grant.[/b]”[/i]
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Given all the USEDA grants that are available for Innovation Park development, what makes you think that we aren’t pissing USEDA grant money away by taking the NRCS grant money?
Bottom-line, there are always tradeoffs. You are seeing the ones that you want to see and ignoring the ones you don’t want to see. The same thing can be said about me. I am seeing the ones that I want to see and formulating plans for mitigating the ones I don’t want to see. You see NRCS grant money as permanently alienated. I see NRCS grant money as only mildly impaired. You think that NRCS grants are awarded by the personal egos of the evaluators. I think that NRCS grants and USEDA grants and all sorts of other grants are awarded based on how well the proposed project accomplishes the goals of the granting organization. As I said earlier, we will have to agree to disagree.
[quote]Why was it a fantasy plan.[/quote]
Because it didn’t exist. One guy, who apparently heads two rather vague organizations, sold a non-existent plan to you, to the staff, and to two council members. And almost to another council member or two.
[quote]As I said earlier, we will have to agree to disagree. [/quote]
That’s where I am, too. Time to move on!
Don, that doesn’t make it a fantasy. All that makes it is a work in process. The key question was whether it was a work in process that merited further investigation.
Take away the element of timing and all this kerfuffel simply evaporates and a process of due diligence begins. You are letting a deadline drive your decision process. The challenge is to determine if your ejaculation is on time or premature. A huge part of the problem is that the foreplay was botched.
BTW, he didn’t sell anything to me. I haven’t spoken to David Morris for even a microsecond about this. The “speaking” is being done by the individual parcels. They are going through the litany of their attributes and flaws in the various scenarios. This is a text book case study the Harvard prints dozens of each year for consumption by the academic community. The academics that use them come from all sorts of different disciplines. Land Use, Economic Development, Business Analysis, Accounting, Entrepreneurial Risk Taking, etc.
Bottom-line, this is a brain-stretching opportunity to do some serious scenario analysis.
No, there was no plan. It wasn’t a work in progress. Sorry, Matt, you and several others got sold a bill of goods. It was an attempt to block the permanent conservation status of a site that someone wanted to sell for development. Ignoring commissions, hiding the process from the public, trying to use the consent calendar, non-disclosures of the names and interests of the principals?
There’s always going to be another tantalizing deal just out of reach.
Did you meet with Mr. Morris? Mr. Gidaro? Do you have inside knowledge about the deal that was being proposed? When did you learn the specifics of what was being proposed?
[i]Repeating my reply from the other post here…[/i]
[quote]You see NRCS grant money as permanently alienated.
[/quote]No, I see it as unlikely that we’d get a grant from them again if we rejected this one, and highly unlikely that we’d get a grant for the same parcel.
[quote]I see NRCS grant money as only mildly impaired.
[/quote]You can see it that way all you like, but you reveal an ignorance of how grants work.
[quote]You think that NRCS grants are awarded by the personal egos of the evaluators.
[/quote]No, I never said any such thing. I said that the applicants are evaluated at their success at productively using the grant money, and that we would fail miserably on that criterion if we turned down the grant. Recall that the YLT representative said as much at the meeting, pointing out that this was an explicit criterion used in evaluating grants. [quote]I think that NRCS grants and USEDA grants and all sorts of other grants are awarded based on how well the proposed project accomplishes the goals of the granting organization.[/quote]Again, you can think that all you like, but look at the granting criteria. [quote]As I said earlier, we will have to agree to disagree.[/quote]You know, I am OK with that. You said above that you enjoyed this thoughtful discussion, but I do not enjoy having a “discussion” with someone who exaggerates and misrepresents what I say, nor do I find such discussions thoughtful. I can accept that others have a different point of view on what should have been done; Rochelle, for example, made an impassioned (if long-winded and tone deaf) case for the other side. Often people’s values differ, and they come to different conclusions as a result. What irks me is that you continue to say things that are obviously false, like turning down the grant wouldn’t have affected our ability to get future grants or claiming that getting more land than we were trading was at all a realistic possibility.
So, yes, let’s agree to disagree, because I have no interest in having a conversation with someone under these circumstances.
“No, I see it as unlikely that we’d get a grant from them again if we rejected this one….”
You might thing this is true with all grant programs, davisite4, but you are wrong in the case of this program. You need to trust me on this. Plus, the Yolo Land Trust long ago broke the qualification barrier and has gone beyond to make itself highly competitive with respect to closing efficiency. This “fail miserably” fear simply got used as an argument point because it sort of sounds logical.
Then there’s the question about how much a $1-million “bird in the hand” will be worth in 50 years when Davis residents wish we hadn’t sold off the rights so cheaply.
[quote]You need to trust me on this.[/quote]
It would be easier to do that if you would state your qualifications for making the statement. Too many actors in this whole episode trying to hide things for me to trust much of anything at this point.
Fair enough Don.
I do not have any specific qualifications to make the statement JustSaying has made, but his analysis does an excellent job of summarizing one of the major reasons why I came to the conclusion that I did about future NRCS grant applications.
Being that it’s Father’s Day my wise old Daddy always told me a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
I was always told that two in the bush was bigamy.