Back during the June budget talks, City Manager Steve Pinkerton noted, “For a city of this size, with the amenities that we have, I don’t think we have as much a spending problem here as we do a revenue challenge in the future.”
It dove-tailed on the discussion he had had at the Avid Reader with Mayor Joe Krovoza the month before.
One cannot talk about costs without talking about revenues. We have fairly flat revenue right now. On the property tax side, with the advent of Proposition 13, it holds steady on property taxes unless there is an exchange of property, so without a lot of sales and without growth, we are only seeing about a 2 to 3 percent increase in property tax.
In addition, Mr. Pinkerton pointed out that Davis lacks the big box outlets that are more consistent in terms of revenue flow. The city is, instead, highly dependent on auto sales. And those vary greatly year to year. For instance, last year there was a peak sales year for auto sales, and $1 million more in revenue than expected. Mr. Pinkerton warned, however, that you cannot expect that increase to sustain itself and can’t be dependent on that level of sales for planning in the future.
One of the problems that the city faces is that its largest employer is UC Davis. While UC Davis does a lot of great things for the community, producing sales tax is not one of them.
The county also lacks a general sales tax on roads. So we lack the ability right now to put money into roads. In the past, we got by because we have fewer square miles in roads than other towns.
The city is focusing its strategy on continuing to hold down future costs, looking for new revenues such as a sales tax increase or potentially a parcel tax, and economic development.
One of the critical questions, as I laid out last week as we looked closer at the proposal for Mace 391, is how can Davis better generate revenue to avoid having to make further cuts to city services?
David Morris last week wrote, “The benefits of economic development focused on building a robust technology sector include more jobs, more tax revenue to the City’s general fund, and increased quality-of-life.”
“Critical to this effort is our ability to retain successful home-grown companies as well as attract outside companies that want a footprint in Davis,” he wrote. “It’s all part of building critical mass and establishing an ecosystem where technology company executives, investors, entrepreneurs, business services providers, and a highly-skilled workforce can all see that Davis has a vibrant innovation economy that they want to participate in – and is not a dead-end street where relatively small companies are forced to leave because we can’t accommodate their expansion.”
For him, “To build this innovation economy, a key part of the mix is a large technology park.”
But not everyone agrees this is the best approach and some have critical questions.
Yesterday Robb Davis asked some of these questions: “What information indicates that 493 acres is necessary for a park? What market research indicates that this size is critical?”
He also asked, “What kinds of firms have indicated an upfront interest in moving into such a park should it be developed?” And finally, “What are the 2:1 mitigation options that have been considered, and are they demonstrably in the interests of the City? Or does mitigation occur on land far away in a way that does not preserve farmland of equal value to that which is lost?”
This discussion inevitably leads us back to the current proposal for Cannery.
As reporter Tom Sakash of the Davis Enterprise wrote, “Stagnant sales tax revenues and rumors of more large businesses absconding from Davis, similar to Bayer CropScience, formerly AgraQuest, who left town earlier this year in search of larger – and cheaper – land and facilities in West Sacramento, put even more pressure on the local economy.”
He continues, “Some city leaders have viewed this site, a 100-acre vacant parcel and the last large piece of undeveloped land within city limits, as a chance to reverse that trend and bring the jobs and the industry here.”
However, Cannery has brought further debate. Councilmember Rochelle Swanson has been a huge advocate for economic development, but supports the current proposal that is largely residential with just seven of the 100 acres available for business park use.
“We have assets that can’t be replicated anywhere else,” Councilmember Swanson told the paper. “So while on one hand, yes, do we need to have business park space, an innovation park? I (think we) do, and I still hold to the fact that the market will bear out at a location other than The Cannery, something closer to Mace (Boulevard) as a better option. But we also have to have a place for people to live.”
The paper also spoke to Jon Quick who tried to market the property for commercial without much success.
“The site alone has challenges because of the access,” Mr. Quick told the paper. “It’s not exactly near any freeways, it’s kind of buried in town … so it’s difficult to find a bigger (company) to come in that would have employees, vendors, coming not from Davis but from all over. It would create traffic issues.
He added, “The access is just not conducive when you’ve got better located properties in Solano County or West Sac or other places where it’s a quicker on and off (the interstate).”
He also presented that there were concerns with Davis politics.
“The biggest concerns addressed by every candidate has been regarding uncertain zoning and the entitlement process,” the report said. “A ‘public vote’ perception was prevalent among these developers further adding to the skepticism of an efficient entitlement process (Target example).”
Not everyone agrees that Davis is business unfriendly.
Davis Chamber Executive Director Kemble Pope told the Vanguard a month ago in an interview that he believes that this reputation is undeserved, calling it a “misperception” from “days gone by.” He says, “I don’t believe that Davis is any more difficult to business than most other places in the region. I believe we are a good collaborator with other regional entities.”
Not everyone agrees on the best use for the Cannery site. Mike Hart, who has posted his views on the Vanguard numerous times, reiterated to the Enterprise that he believes the site’s best usage would be industrial. He told the paper that he believes the slow absorption rate would be outdated.
“I feel that turning this property into housing is a tragedy with very long-term effects for the city, job-creation and retaining new industry,” Mr. Hart would write in an email to the city council to urge them to reconsider approving this project.
The question that Davis residents need to answer is what is the best approach for city revenue?
When we talked to Mr. Pope and Rob White last month, it seemed large-scale retail is off the table.
Rob White said that we know right now that the city of Davis does not want a regional mall. That is a revenue source that many communities have gone to, but that Davis has opted not to do.
“We have to make the conscious decision of what of that spectrum of growth do we want to accommodate?” he added. For Rob White, Davis needs to figure out if it wants a piece of this action. He cited the city’s current revenue problem, the amenities and infrastructure that Davis has, and that it has limited abilities to pay for it right now.
Kemble Pope noted that Davis has done a good job of identifying what it does not want to do, the regional mall being just one good example, and he said “that’s fine. Davis continues to be the master of its own fate.” But within that framework, Davis does have to decide what it is going to say yes to.
Large corporations are one way to go. In his article on August 8, Rob White cited the example of Intel in Folsom. “Since 2000, Intel has invested over $4.3 billion in manufacturing capital investment, much of that being done at the Folsom campus,” he wrote.
“In just under 30 years, the Folsom campus has grown well beyond the two office buildings and couple of hundred employees that started the facility,” he said. “Sound familiar? Think that a decade or two of growth for a company like Bayer CropScience or FMC Schilling Robotics or Marrone Bio Innovations might make a significant difference to Davis?”
Back in August he said, “Folsom will tell you, if not for Intel, Folsom wouldn’t be what we are today.”
The more we circle around to these issues, the more it seems we need to put a community discussion on the board as to how to best generate revenue. We have as options, expanded retail, larger scale business, business parks, and of course a potential tax increase.
Short term, it seems that the city of Davis will look at a half cent sales tax increase in order to meet the challenges of rising costs for roads, water, and pensions. Those threaten to explode the current deficit.
In the longer term, Davis wants a more stable and diverse revenue supply. The question is what the community is willing to support.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Kemble Pope “I don’t believe that Davis is any more difficult to business than most other places in the region. I believe we are a good collaborator with other regional entities. “
Of course this is why Woodland has Costco, Walmart, Home Depot, Target, Best Buy, Orchard Supply, Burlington Coat Factory, Tractor Supply and Ross among others. Whatever you think of these stores compared to Davis where it takes several years and an election to put in a Target there is no comparing the business climate between the two cities.
A few questions:
1. If the city of Davis were to approve a “tec” park at 391 today, How many years would it take for it to begin to generate revenue for the city?
2. I realize it’s not an easy question to answer for individual case what kind of revenue would a medium-size business provide to the city of Davis? Of course this needs to be net of the investments made to create the park. Concretely What does a company the size of Mori semi generate in terms of revenue for the city of Davis? How is that revenue generated?
3. Why not use a tax based revenue source for a five to seven-year window and build in a sunset clause? In that period define other means of generating revenue for the longer-term? I realize the latter should’ve been done perhaps a long time ago but it seems it were still asking these questions based on this article.
Sorry using my phone and some of the spelling got screwed up hopefully people can understand my questions above. “Tech” and Mori Seki
“While UC Davis does a lot of great things for the community, producing sales tax is not one of them”
Can anyone estimate how much sales tax is generated by the annual influx of around 30,000 students every fall ? I find it difficult to believe that this does not impact our sales taxes at all.
[quote]Can anyone estimate how much sales tax is generated by the annual influx of around 30,000 students every fall ? I find it difficult to believe that this does not impact our sales taxes at all. [/quote]
I was thinking the same thing Medwoman. It has to have a very positive impact on our revenue.
If UC Davis has a two billion dollar budget then its fair to say that it puts a fair share of that back into the local economy but whatever amount it is that money is already baked into the City Budget.
” …
If UC Davis has a two billion dollar budget then its fair to say that it puts a fair share of that back into the local economy but whatever amount it is that money is already baked into the City Budget.”
But this is still a revenue source that our surrounding communities do not have, yes ?
No they currently have their share of the multiplier effect. Don’t forget because of our restrictive housing policies and unfriendly protectionist business policies many UC employees live and shop outside of Davis so much of the money UC brings in is not captured as revenue for the city. What is captured is already figured in except possibly for some marginal amount that growth of the university brings in. Also ant sales tax collected on campus goes to the county not the city because UCD is not annexed into the city. You might say its Davis’ no taxation without representation problem.
Yes, and we have many businesses that rely on that student income and generate substantial tax revenue. If we annexed West Village, we would gain the tax revenues from the businesses that will be located there as well. If student housing, as in apartments, are built in a well-planned manner, there would be a retail component for clusters of apartment buildings that would generate sales tax revenue.
Do new housing developments create positive revenue for the city. Yes I know the city gets some of the parcel taxes but is it a net positive when you consider the extra costs to the city of providing services for new residents? I seem to remember that some of the past projects didn’t add revenue with all things considered.
It was my impression that in the post prop 13 era in California, only retail really pays for itself in terms of direct revenue benefit to a municipality. Everything else is (in direct terms) a loser for municipal finances when all costs are figured in. The message of the analysis is to build housing if you need housing, attract general business if you need employment, but don’t do it for the sake of municipal finances. This is supposedly particularly true for a municipality that, like Davis, has high retail leakage.
I was told of these California municipal facts years ago, and I acknowledge that they may be incorrect or that circumstance may have changed. But, shouldn’t a call for attracting non-retail business be based in our employment needs, not our municipal finance needs?
Good questions GI…..I also have wondered (and posted on DV) how the city fares from Mori Seko. I hope someone answers Robb’s earlier post about that…thx.
[i]Can anyone estimate how much sales tax is generated by the annual influx of around 30,000 students every fall ? I find it difficult to believe that this does not impact our sales taxes at all[/i]
This from a recent letter to the editor in the Davis Enterprise:
[quote]From U.S. Census Bureau reports, in 2007 the average sales per capita in California were $12,700. In Folsom, a city about the same population as Davis, that figure was $26,474. Woodland’s sales per capita were $11,208. Dixon’s were $21,742. In Davis, the only city owning a large population of captive UCD customers, our sales per capita were — drum roll. please — $7,752.[/quote]
So, based on the previous, it appears that having a university is actually bad for Davis’s tax revenue numbers.
But then Santa Cruz gets $15,118 per capita.
Chico gets $19,626.
Palo Alto gets $26,751.
So apparently being a college town can help bring in tax revenue.
Here is the reason why it does not work in Davis:
Total Number of Firms in 2007…
Palo Alto – 10,175
Chico – 7,478
Santa Cruz – 7,116
Davis – 5,263
Folsom – without a university had 6,145 firms in 2007. For those of you having driving around Folsom and seen all the shopping options, this seems low doesn’t it. So how does Folsom generate five times the sales tax revenue per capita than Davis, only having about 17% more companies?
IT HAS INTEL AND OTHER MEDIUM-LARGE SIZED COMPANIES.
Those that wring their hands over the false bogyman of sprawl should consider that maybe it would be in their best interest to also stop opposing the false negative impacts caused by a business being large. A larger business would tend to generate more tax revenue per acre of land used.
If you’re seeking maximum sales per square foot, specialty retailers (especially apparel) and jewelers are your best bet. Substantially higher sales per square foot than other retailers. A collection of boutique retailers generates higher sales tax than the same square footage in larger-footprint retail. And boutique retail is what Davis does well.
Apple stores are unique. They generate 20 times the dollars per square foot than average retailers, and are the highest by far in retail. Figure out how to lure an Apple store to Davis.
an apple store might go well in one of the pods at target.
my preference is still figuring out a way to capture innovation from the university. i think we need to figure out what we have and what we’re willing to use.
stevem wrote:
> It was my impression that in the post prop 13 era
> in California, only retail really pays for itself
> in terms of direct revenue benefit to a municipality
A new $900K home in Davis pays about $11,000 a year in property tax and parcel taxes. Some friends recently paid close to $900K for a home in South Davis. I just went to Zillow and it looks like the ~10 homes on the street are worth ~$900K each. If we extended the city limit to pick up just three acres we could build 10 more $900K homes and get over $110K in taxes every year (plus a lot more sales tax since the prople that buy new $900K homes tend to be big consumers). I find it hard to believe the city will not “benifit” from 10 more homes.
[quote]If we extended the city limit to pick up just three acres we could build 10 more $900K homes and get over $110K in taxes every year [/quote]
Not true, Davis only gets a percentage of parcel taxes.
I think the City of Davis only gets something like 20% of the collected property tax. Someone maybe knows the exact percentage.
Businesses pay property tax on both the land/building where they are located (directly if owner, indirectly if a lessee)and on any property or equipment inside the building. In the case of my former business, the annual tax was not an insignificant expense (approximately equal to a month’s rent).
The University is exempt from property taxes, so when the University takes over some of our commercial space (as has been happening with abandon of late), we not only lose the economic value of having a business in the space (or having empty space available for a business to move into), but we also lose the property taxes. This is one aspect where being a University town is not an asset.
[quote]The University is exempt from property taxes, so when the University takes over some of our commercial space (as has been happening with abandon of late), we not only lose the economic value of having a business in the space (or having empty space available for a business to move into), but we also lose the property taxes. This is one aspect where being a University town is not an asset.
[/quote]
I know that Aggie Village residents are assessed a land use fee by Yolo County that was computed to be the equivalent of the property taxes that would be paid on the land. I don’t know if that applies to commercial spaces, but I would certainly check before assuming it isn’t.
Here are the ideas from those seemingly on the anti-business park side:
Robb Davis: [i]Why not use a tax based revenue source for a five to seven-year window and build in a sunset clause?[/i]
Would never pass. Is a temporary solution at best. No assurance that spending would not increase at a greater clip for politicians to buy votes using the added revenue. The fed and state have already raised taxes for the same reason. All of it gets added to the total tax liability and the end result is even GREATER business hostility.
Don Shor: [i]More boutique retail and an Apple store[/i]
Sure. Where?
Davis Progressive: [i]One Apple store in one of the pads at Target[/i]
Right, that will solve Davis’s fiscal problems.
Anyone else? No? Nothing? Crickets?
Those “factual” inconvenient truths can be problematic when there is a hidden agenda to materially stop growth.
[quote]Here are the ideas from those seemingly on the anti-business park side[/quote]
I’m not opposed to a business park. You know that.
Growth Izzue wrote:
> I think the City of Davis only gets something
> like 20% of the collected property tax. Someone
> maybe knows the exact percentage.
Don’t forget that the city only pays a percentage of the costs of each new resident (e.g. the city does not have a court system).
It looks like Davis is planning to spend ~$3,700/person next year (total budget/population of 66K) so maybe we could only let prople that prove they will pay over $3,700 in taxes every year move here…
P.S. Chicago spends ~$3,100/person, most cities on the San Francisco Peninsula spend ~$3,500/person and San Francisci (home of more $250K+ public employees than any city in America) spends more than $9,000/person!
Umm, that was kind of my point Frankly, a temporary solution. Have no way of knowing whether it would pass. Depends somewhat on how it is presented to voters.
My real point is that even if we could magically create a tech park today in the most prime (from a business perspective) area, there would still be a lag (3-5 years? Not sure) before it started generating revenue and some time after that when those revenues turn into a net gain for the city.
It seems we need more revenue today.
[i]I’m not opposed to a business park. You know that.[/i]
True in words, but your constraints on size make impractical. If there are not enough businesses clamoring to fill up your vision of a small-scale park, then that vision is really a mirage.
[quote]True in words, but your constraints on size make impractical.[/quote]
Nope. The task force identified other sites. You’re the one who’s excluding everything except east Davis.
[i]Umm, that was kind of my point Frankly, a temporary solution.[/i]
Ok Robb, but we have an ongoing problem of not enough revenue and too many expense commitments.
If you fill the coffers temporarily from tax increases, you reduce some negotiating leverage for dealing with city employee pay and benefits. And in the end, you have really done nothing to fix the structural fiscal problems.
Also, you might impact the next school funding tax that Davis is sure to come demanding as that structural budget issue is also not being dealt with.
You do know about that kicking of can down the road metaphor don’t you?
If you want revenue from developable land, then urge the council to reject the rezoning of the Cannery site and urge your councilmembers to form a task force to work with ConAgra to expedite commercial development on that site.
Otherwise, look to North Davis for a site for a business park. But that’s medium-term. For starters, there are other smaller sites to get moving, there is infill, and we have also discussed getting more flexible zoning in and near the downtown. Meanwhile, raising the local sales tax is a reasonable way to reduce the city’s deficit.
stevem wrote:
> I know that Aggie Village residents are assessed a
> land use fee by Yolo County that was computed to be
> the equivalent of the property taxes that would be
> paid on the land. I don’t know if that applies to
> commercial spaces, but I would certainly check before
> assuming it isn’t.
I don’t know about Aggie Village, but when a friend leased a commercial building his family owns in Yolo County to UC Davis they (and UC Davis that had a NNN lease) no longer had to pay property tax on the building.
I don’t know how this works for residential property, but as far as I know any commercial property owned or leased to the State of California or the University of California does not pay property tax in CA.
P.S. I just heard on the radio this morning that UC is paying $9,950/month to rent Janet Napolitano a home in CA (since her base pay is “only” $570,000 it is nice of UC to help her pay rent). I also heard that since the rental place is not up to the standards that a “public servant” deserves that UC is planning to spend $3.5 to $6.0 million to renovate the UC Presidents mansion that sits on a 10 acre estate.
P.P.S. Napolitano is also getting an “annual” car allowance that is double the value of my car…
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uc-rental-20130916,0,4554134.story
As I have written, I am fine with west Davis. However, there are no proposals on the table for west Davis. I understand there are pretty big water drainage problems on those parcels. I don’t know if they can be reasonably mitigated or not. However, if a proposal would be presented, I would likely support it.
But I would support it IN ADDITION to the east Davis business park.
I don’t see them as mutually exclusive.
By the way… I have a question… related to all of our benevolent farmland that surrounds us. Is that sour smell that accosts my senses every day and night at my home in west Davis over the last week the result of farmers using natural fertilizer? If so, I will add that to the list of negative farm business impacts that include:
– Dust
– Pesticides
– Noise
– Potholes
– Water use
Just being real here. You make farming-surrounded urban living into some lifestyle nirvana. It is not. It is just another business and another land use.
If you don’t like the smells and sounds of agriculture, you shouldn’t live in an agricultural area. We have a specific right to farm ordinance here, in both our city and county General Plans. Your continued denigration of farming as a land use is pointless.
Since you have agreed that there are other sites for a business park, then we don’t need to argue that East Davis is the only site that could generate revenue for Davis. Too bad that’s all you’re going to focus on. We have other, near-term ways to raise revenue for the city.
Well listen to you. I don’t like everything about living in a college town with massive amounts of students. I don’t like everything living with a bunch of liberals. There are a lot of things I don’t like about Davis, but there are also a lot of things I do like about Davis. And at this point the positives outweigh the negatives.
My point is that you are myopic on farmland… protecting it like it is another race or societal victim. Nothing is all good, or all bad. Having all this ag land around us provides certain benefits. It also is a liability. You demonize certain business, and make farming into some deity excused from any and all impacts.
And, you do this without ever having listed your tangible concerns about larger business… other than you want to protect farmland. That is it.
So, if that is it, I guess you have to accept your medicine about the ills of being surrounded by farmland.
Frankly – There are NO risk free choices here. You are not wrong, in my view, to point out the risks of raising revenue via taxes. I get it. But I do not see free lunches anywhere. This is one reason I would advocate for a short-term action that sunsets (fine, after 3 years–how’s that?). I would say that making it clear that this is a stop-gap to cover costs related to current needs is exactly the opposite of kicking the can down the road. Risk free? Absolutely not. Part of a solution? Yes.
A negative impact of farming is… water use? Huh? Damn those crops that we humans consume (or which we feed to beef cows so we can consume them) they use up water! I will say this again Frankly, water is not a constraining factor to ag in Yolo County. This is not a zero sum game.
But I am also with Don… the negative impacts you raise are part of living in one of the world’s PRIME (did you hear that? PRIME!) agricultural zones. Small price to pay to allow this land to provide us with products that have been shown to sustain life: that would be food.
[i]We have other, near-term ways to raise revenue for the city[/i]
You have nothing Don.
Are you putting together some investors and developers to propose certain business development that meets your criteria of acceptable?
If not, then you are only a critic. And critics are a dime a dozen.
Every heard the saying “lead, follow or just get the hell out of the way”?
medwoman said . . .
[i]”Can anyone estimate how much sales tax is generated by the annual influx of around 30,000 students every fall ? I find it difficult to believe that this does not impact our sales taxes at all.”[/i]
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”Medwoman. It has to have a very positive impact on our revenue.”[/i]
medwoman and GI, the point you are making is a very good one. The UCD students, faculty and staff do indeed have a very positive impact on both the sales that local Davis businesses and services generate, as well the sales tax revenue that those sales produce. However, I don’t think there is anyone questioning that already existing revenue stream. It is a substantial and important existing revenue stream for the City. The problem is that even with that existing UCD-derivative sales tax revenue stream in place, the City budget is running at a deficit.
If we could magically get each UCD student to spend 50% more money at Davis businesses, restaurants and services , the City would indeed see an incremental increase in sales tax revenues, but unless UCD starts accepting a substantially more affluent student body, that incremental increased spending per student simply isn’t going to happen.
Balancing the City’s budget is going to happen on the margins. We are going to have to decrease our current spending through initiatives like “3 on an engine” and outsourcing tree maintenance and reducing employee benefits and being more careful about employee retirement costs. But none of those potential expense savings come without concerns. Pam Nieberg and others have organized a [u]memorial funeral[/u] for the black walnut trees along Russell Boulevard. The Firefighters Union is reported to be organizing an Independent Expenditure Committee (IEC) in order to conduct a negative campaign against Rochelle Swanson in the June 2014 Council Election. Reducing employee benefits and retirement is understandably encountering substantial pushback.
As a result, increasing marginal revenues is an alternative that merits serious consideration. Robb Davis has illuminated another important question when he asks, [i]”How many years would it take for it to begin to generate revenue for the city?”[/i] The answer to that question is not clear. A whole lot depends on the decisions of a number of current Davis employers, as well as a number of prospective employers who would consider Davis as a location if space were available. The converse of that uncertainty is the very real certainty that a number of current Davis employers are currently facing the same decision that Bayer/AgraQuest recently faced. We can wait for those current jobs and current residents to follow Bayer/AgraQuest out of town, or we can wrestle with the difficult decisions about how to wisely increase marginal revenue. The choice is ours to make.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Yes, and we have many businesses that rely on that student income and generate substantial tax revenue. [b]If we annexed West Village, we would gain the tax revenues from the businesses that will be located there as well[/b]. If student housing, as in apartments, are built in a well-planned manner, there would be a retail component for clusters of apartment buildings that would generate sales tax revenue.”[/i]
Don, annexation is a zero-sum game. The current jurisdiction isn’t going to allow the annexation unless the net cash flows balance. So any increased revenue that the City would obtain from a West Village annexation will be offset by increased costs that the City will absorb from the current jurisdiction, UCD. If UCD is going to see ahit to their bottom-line as a result of the annexation, they will never go through with it.
The analogy is as follows.
UCD is a massive dairy with a bunch of happy, and healthy young cows, and a bunch of very wise and cynical older cows… all that produce high butterfat-content milk.
We Davisites are the farmer. We like sitting on our porch looking at our cows. We like living among them and we like containing them all in a much denser-than-average pasture. But we don’t want to milk them too much because our farming operation is a certain size and we are afraid of growing it. We worry about the next milking barn blocking our view of the dense pasture and the open fields beyond.
However, the cows are wandering off to the next open field to eat grasses not available in our smaller and denser pasture. While there, other farmers milk them for their sweet and high butterfat milk. We don’t mind since the cows need to be milked… and our pastures are over-grazed.
However, we are not selling enough milk to cover our farming expenses. We just keep running the farm at a deficit.
We consider charging more for our pasture land and for our milk products… but this causes negative consequences of more cows unhappy, less productive cows, and cows prone to going elsewhere for tasty grass and milk extraction.
What a pickle we are in… only if we remain irrational about our super-dense pasture and our lack of dairy farm infrastructure.
“We have other, near-term ways to raise revenue for the city”
“You have nothing Don.”
Exactly. Talk is cheap but without a real business plan its worthless.
[i]A negative impact of farming is… water use? Huh?[/i]
Well before there were settlers in CA, there were the native Indians, and some farmed, and some of those irrigated. But the massive farming industry in CA is not some natural occurrence. Most of the farmed ag land in CA is farmed by giant farm corporations that get their water at a far below market subsidized price. And farming uses A LOT of water.
One the one hand you say that we have all the water we need.
Are you also someone that demands water conservation? I think I remember you posting about that.
And believes in global warming and the impact of hotter temperatures and reduced rainfall in some areas?
Are you someone that wants to reduce the amount of chemicals in the runoff that goes into the rivers and delta and ocean?
Of course we need to support farming as an industry. Of course it is important. But it is not sacred. It is not some natural use. It is just one type of business providing certain economic value at some cost. There are other land uses that provide value and some cost… and many of them are better choices for Davis considering our needs and challenges.
Frankly, I would like to see us develop on the periphery taking advantage of all that good soil to require more natural open space and parks and community gardens where residents can grow their own food. Why not a “village homes” style business park?
Isn’t the fear of sprawl mitigated by the inclusion of more open space? Why does that open space have to be absolute and absolutely farming for some people? It seems a very weak, if not disingenuous, position.
Note that I cannot trespass on farmland. I cannot use it. I can only look at it and otherwise have my senses impacted by it. If we develop a smart business park, it could become a great multipurpose asset to the city. The Cannary is shaping up to be that, but lacking the amenities and infrastructure to be a viable business park.
Frankly you have posed a barrage of questions and before I take the time to provide an honest and hopefully well thought out response I want to know if they are rhetorical or not. If they are then allow them to stand as, perhaps what you view as, an indictment of my confused views. If they are real questions I will attempt to answer them and show how I think my views are internally consistent on these issues.
But a few quick points: Open space that creates habitat for various species is a complement to, not in competition with, farming. I spent parts of the past four summers helping establish micro-habitats on a local organic farm to provide harbor for beneficial insects and bees. Open space is ABSOLUTELY part of what I am for and my defense of farming demonstrates that because farming is enhanced by these spaces.
I have run from Davis to Winters, Davis to Woodland and Davis to West Sacramento without running on a road. How? by running on the edges of farmers’ fields, across sloughs and next to orchards. I run three times per week on the borders of nearby fields. No one has ever run me off their land. There are lots of great ways to use our farmland and if we are respectful of others no reason we cannot.
I am VERY open to hearing of and learning from your views on creating a smart business park that is a “multipurpose” asset to the city.
I was hoping this could be a conversation and actually get somewhere, but it’s already veered heavily into personal attacks and straw man arguments. So I’ll bow out now.
Good try, David.
Don – It’s really only two people who are engaging in the behavior you describe. I, personally, would like to hear your ideas on alternative ways to increase revenue in the short, middle and long term. I am very much in a learning mode here.
Personal attacks? Where? Don’t see it. Maybe Don can reconsider only to point out what looks like or feels like a personal attack.
Now, straw man arguments… I do see some of those.
Does the Vanguard have a rule to prevent hypothetical positions and analogies?
Robb: First, yes those are real questions that I would like to hear from you on.
On your question about multi-use business parks. I will do some research. I know they exist here in the US and in other parts of the world.
Here is one in Colorado Springs I read about last year while traveling in the area…
[url]http://www.springsgov.com/AirportSectionIndex.aspx?SectionID=45[/url][/url]
Frankly: [quote]One the one hand you say that we have all the water we need.
Are you also someone that demands water conservation? I think I remember you posting about that. [/quote]
Water is a constrained resource here but it is not limiting agricultural production. As I have noted previously, most of the water used for irrigation comes from Lake County via two reservoirs that use unlined irrigation ditches to move water via gravity to fields. I recall that the unlined ditches means that 25% of the water that flows from these reservoirs goes into groundwater. And that is the second source of irrigation for farming here: groundwater. Farmers here currently use technologies that limit the amount of water used for irrigation from ground sources using drip tape to deliver water most efficiently to roots of plants and reduce evaporation (for example). They do not overwater and they deliver water directly where it is needed to grow food. In other words, farmers are doing their part to reduce waste because they understand the value of water.
When I have called for water conservation (I don’t think I ever “demanded” it) it was because I believe we could do more in our homes and yards to more carefully utilize this resource. When I see irrigation water dumped on sidewalks running into drains I see that as a waste. I also see overwatering as a waste (it is not good for plants either). These are just two examples of where I see needless waste. Why waste a constrained resource? What is the downside of taking steps to conserve it so we can face years when it is not plentiful (droughts) but also allow our groundwater resources to be sustained?
That is the context of my call for conservation.
[quote]And believes in global warming and the impact of hotter temperatures and reduced rainfall in some areas? [/quote]
I accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change and try to live consistently with that understanding. Notice I said climate change. I am not sure I have read anyone who knows for sure what this change will mean for California (let alone Yolo County). One thing does seem certain: less snow and more rain appears to be probable in the future in the Sierras. The full effects on that on our lives here in the valley is not clear to me.
One thing I am certain of from my work around the world: climate change is likely to exacerbate conflict and so I am working every day to provide practical ways to deal with conflict non-violently.
[quote]Are you someone that wants to reduce the amount of chemicals in the runoff that goes into the rivers and delta and ocean? [/quote]
I do… I am concerned about some conventional farming processes but, like all of us, live with some tradeoffs. However, the price signals that I and my family send (the way we vote with our dollars) is to buy organic. We live simply so we can do that. Organic farming is growing rapidly in CA but from a VERY small base. It is not a full panacea either but at least reduces pesticide and other chemical use.
Not sure this gets at what you wanted but hopefully it helps. Thanks for the Colorado Springs example. Will check it out.
Hang on… everything I just wrote is off topic… Frankly, that’s your fault 😉 Don, feel free to remove this.
Robb – No it looks accurate to me. I will accept responsibility in any case!
The link you sent me from Colorado Springs has this at the bottom of the page describing the park:
[quote]ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES
Foreign-Trade Zone
Enterprise Zone
Personal Property Tax Credit Program
Sales Tax Exemption – Alternative Rate
Industrial Revenue and Private Activity Bonds
Expedited Development Review[/quote]
Back to the topic of this article: what are the likely implications of these “incentives” for City revenues coming from this site? I really don’t know the answer but if a city is competing with other cities who provide incentives what does that mean for its ability to attract businesses? What do such incentives do to decrease the benefit a city derives from attracting businesses to such a park?
I’m not sure Robb. My interest was to locate some innovative multi-use business parks where there is also public access to open space and recreational uses.
At least two of these economic development incentives are common state and federal policy goals.
Sales tax exemption would be a deal killer for us. But I think Colorado gets stronger property tax revenue from business.
The second to last is just some financing options, and the last is certainly something we could do… although Davis’s planning and development staff seems unable to keep up with their current workload. As I understand all those paid vacation, sick and holiday days make it tough for them to cover the desk and field well enough.
Just goes to show how hard other communities have to work to attract business while we work just as hard to keep them away.
Okay, helpful, but I must admit this is something that makes me nervous. Every community I go to these days wants to attract “high tech” (and this includes some pretty out of the way places). My concern is that this leads to a race to the bottom in which it is necessary to give away the store to get the tech businesses. I know it is not as simple as that but we can’t have projects that don’t add up. Otherwise we are just attracting businesses to… attract businesses.
If they are really to be revenue enhancers then we will lose if others are willing to narrow revenue margins.
I think you get my concern. I have much to learn about all of this.
Robb: That is competition. You should not sell out all the benefits because then the project makes no sense then. But yes, competition is not optimal for those wanting a more relaxed approach where no discounting takes place to lure prospective customers away. Frankly, that has a big downside too as the cost of doing business continues to escalate as nobody wants to experience the stress of competition. Let me introduce you to my 25-year old industry that has only been competitive for the last 9 of those years. Everyone was happy and at ease and got along in a collegiate and cooperative way. But service was terrible and the program was at risk. Then we went to competition. That is why I was hired… the original founder could not handle the stress. Now it is dog eat dog… and the service levels have skyrocketed. It used to take several months to close a loan. Now everyone in CA does it in 30-45 days because if they don’t they will lose market share and shrink and fail.
I think some of these communities are calculating the total full benefit, including a comparison of the cost of doing nothing.
This later accounting is common for most communities. Davis is unique because we have a successful university in our midst providing us the visual appearance of a thriving community… and it a lot of ways we are… but lurking in the books is a lot of red ink, and an unsolved trajectory of more red ink. We are not really thriving. Our roads and some of our park areas are in disrepair. Many city services are shoddy because we don’t have enough staff.
We need some more firms and jobs and tax revenue flowing to the city coffers. And there is no other way to do that other than to grow our business sector.
Note that we should not need to give away the store to attract business. There is a pent up demand. The location of the university is the added incentive that we don’t have to pay for… we already have it.
The only cost is for us to give up some of our fear of impacts from the development of a business park.
Since I posted about a development in Colorado, I have to make an editorial comment. The floods have been devastating to so many across a pretty wide swath of that state. Thankfully there have not been many deaths (eight I think). However, many homes and businesses and a lot of critical infrastructure are damaged or ruined. My thoughts and prayers are with those people.
This makes me conscience of flood concerns. Any development must be out of danger of flooding.
Poor thin skinned posters. Can’t stand the heat. Go ahead prove me wrong tell me how you would increase revenue?
Frankly, I haven’t reviewed the entire Colorado Springs business park website, but right off the bat, they say it’s managed and presumably developed by a public/private partnership. Appartently, Dave Morris wasn’t successful in talking Colorado Springs into a land swap.
-Michael Bisch
Matt Williams was going on and on about public/private partnerships and Tinker Bell and Disneyland analogies that I wasn’t able to follow. The folks in Colorado Springs apparently have a better understanding of Disney characters than I do.
-Michael Bisch
Whoops! Not so fast. 10 minutes from US Space Command. It looks like Tinkerbell is not only vying for flying space with civilian aircraft, she’s getting buzzed by missiles.
-Michael Bisch
[i]Frankly, I haven’t reviewed the entire Colorado Springs business park website, but right off the bat, they say it’s managed and presumably developed by a public/private partnership. Appartently, Dave Morris wasn’t successful in talking Colorado Springs into a land swap.[/i]
LOL!
Well I don’t if his reach goes THAT far. He does seem to be well-connected though.
Of course I am a big fan of public-private partnerships for economic development. The public side can help tee it up and add all their public policy goals, and then the private side actually gets something done.
“A plan without action is not a plan. It’s a speech.”
T. Boone Pickens
There are around 650,000 acres of farmland in Yolo County. The proposal for 391 is less than 0.1% of the land available for farming. It is land on the frontier of the City. It is perfectly situated along a transportation corridor. It will provide the infrastructure for the kind of high paying jobs our local knowledge economy can generate. It will provide the space for the best minds in a community of great minds to manifest its best ideas. It will grow the local economy and generate much needed revenue for our community. The land taken out of production would cause the preservation of more land some of it better suited to the actual needs of the community. The city passing on this opportunity is so sad. I guess it may be true that we will not become the biotech equivalent of Silicon Valley. If it comes to pass that we don’t it won’t be because we couldn’t have done so. It will be because we chose not to do so.
if the City Council isn’t willing to stand up to the Open Space Commission we should at least give Dave Morris his vote. People in this town want to vote on everything. We should be willing to let the people decide if they want their future to be the economic benefits generated by the innovations of best minds at the university or a ride on a tomato harvester.
Nice to open my email on this blustery morning to a post of common sense. Thanks Mr. Toad.
From today’s Wall Street Journal. It speaks to the true altruism of job creation. Something Davis liberals should embrace:
[quote]My research shows that scientists and software engineers are not the only ones who thrive as a result. Using data on nine million workers in 320 U.S. metropolitan areas, I found that for each new innovation-job in a city, five additional jobs are created—not only in professional occupations (lawyers, teachers, nurses) but also nonprofessional occupations (waiters, hairdressers, carpenters). For each new software designer hired at Twitter in San Francisco, there are five new job openings for baristas, personal trainers, therapists and taxi drivers. The most important effect of high-tech companies on the local economy is outside high-tech.
This matters for wages, too. In 1980, salaries for workers with a high-school diploma in Austin and Raleigh were significantly lower than the national average. Then those cities became important hubs for IT and life science, respectively. Salaries are 45% higher, and the gap keeps expanding. High-school graduates in Austin and Raleigh don’t work harder or have higher IQs. The ecosystem around them is different.
Most industries have a multiplier effect. But none has a bigger one than the innovation sector: about three times as large as that of extractive industries or traditional manufacturing. Clearly, the best way for a city or state to generate jobs for everyone is to attract innovative companies that hire highly educated workers.
Mr. Moretti is a professor of labor economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of “The New Geography of Jobs” (Houghton Mifflin, 2012). [/quote]