When the proposal for Mace 391 first emerged, the process under which it came forward was so bad, so convoluted, that council needed to send a strong message and summarily reject it. Essentially, a long and complicated process that had been worked on extensively behind closed doors was thrown at the public at the very last second.
Despite these problems, the proposal itself has merit. The city of Davis is badly in need of business park space so that it can become a location that taps into the research innovation and energy at the university. If the city fails to act and create business park space, not only will it lose the money and revenue from the Bayer/AgraQuests of the world, but many of the most innovative startups will go to West Sacramento, Sacramento, Natomas, or Solano County on the southwest side of the university.
On Tuesday night, we saw something extraordinary at the Davis Community Chambers – leaders in the tech field that live in Davis came forward and asked the Davis City Council to at least allow a full discussion of the Mace 391 project.
We are talking about people that we do not normally see at the Davis City Council.
Schilling Robotics, for example, is a Davis business that might be the next AgraQuest and be forced to leave. As Tyler Schilling told the council, “We’re going to approach 300 employees here shortly and we’re going to need a bigger facility probably within two years.”
He moved here at four-years-old in 1963 and said, “I really enjoy the quality of life here and it helps us attract and retain the kinds of employees that we really want in our business. I must say that customers that visit us mainly from oversees really always comment on what a wonderful community it is that we have here.”
He wants to see Davis have options so that his company can stay in Davis and build a new and larger facility.
Bob Medearis founded the $4 billion Silicon Valley Bank where he served as Chairman from 1983 to 1989, and is now Director Emeritus. He is a retired Consulting Professor for Stanford University’s School of Engineering and, at the University of California Davis, the School of Management.
He told council, “You all know what to do on this east side, you know that we badly need business parks to develop ideas that are generated with this fine university that we’ve had and allow incubators, but more than just incubators, business to develop over in those areas.”
Ken Ouimet, Founder of Engage3, told the council that he started a Venture Capital backed company in the 1990s, and they had trouble getting funding in Sacramento County. Ultimately, they went to Arizona and became successful with one of the fastest growing companies.
“We decided to come back and headquarter our company here in Davis – we see a lot of opportunity for growth. We have already acquired a company in Sacramento and moved it here. We’re going through explosive growth,” he said, but they are already crowded in their facilities.
To move forward, he said they need additional space. “That’s one of the concerns we have,” he said. “As I talk to Venture Capitalists, I’m seeing a lot of excitement about Davis being the Silicon Valley of Agriculture. Looking forward, we’re going to need a lot of room for that growth and the technology companies that come out of that.”
This is not a push to ram Mace 391 through council, this is instead asking for a community discussion. It is what we wanted in June and did not get. The council at that time was forced, by a narrow 3-2 vote, to kill the project.
At the same time, Matt Williams came forward to council with a proposal to re-examine the city’s land map and figure out how to move forward. In his two-part series Friday and Saturday, which drew tremendous response, he laid out a possible way forward.
He said, there were two key components to launching this initiative. He writes, “The first was the Bayer/AgraQuest announcement that they were going to move their company and its 250 jobs from Davis to West Sacramento. The second was a biproduct of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan discussions I was participating in about the Yolo Rail Relocation.”
He writes, “What became very clear to me was that there were four Davis companies that were facing the same business decision that Bayer/AgraQuest had just completed. They needed additional space to accommodate the successful growth of their businesses . . . and that like Bayer/AgraQuest they were finding it impossible to find space that would accommodate their needs. When I put that reality together with Davis’ current Municipal Budget deficit, I saw a future that was dominated by additional tax increases as the budget deficit got progressively worse because hundreds of jobs and hundreds of Davis residents were removed from the Davis economy when the companies (one-by-one) moved away from Davis.”
The Vanguard has had two major policy concerns over its first seven years. First has been to limit the growth of Davis to preserve not only agricultural land, but also the unique character of this city. With the university, the growth potential here is enormous and city residents have fought to preserve Davis as a small city, right now at about 65,000 in population.
At the same time, the Vanguard has been concerned about the long-term fiscal sustainability of Davis. City services have been cut, budgets have been slashed. The city has done much of what it needs to do on its expenditure side, but the revenue side remains a concern.
With the costs of parcel taxes and the new water project, we would prefer that the city not continue to attempt to balance its budget through revenue enhancements like taxation.
That leaves us with economic development. While we believe there are densification opportunities within the city such as at Interland, the fact remains that if we do not find an acceptable location for new businesses to land, grow and ultimately expand, we will be losing out on revenue and innovation.
We need to do this in a responsible way and we need to have community dialogue and conversation. It needs to be an open and transparent process.
Matt Williams puts forth an interesting concept for structuring this future dialogue. We would prefer that this conversation take place with the appropriate community-based stake holders. A few months ago we suggested that the city has the internal expertise to launch a general plan update.
Some have suggested that will be too slow and too cumbersome. But in order to pass a Measure R vote, any peripheral business park discussions will have to demonstrate both community benefit and reassure the slow-growth majority that this is not simply opening the door to sprawl.
A discussion that looks to develop on farmland has to have a mechanism to look at other farmland and preserve it as open space.
Both Dave Morris’ proposal from a few weeks ago and Matt Williams’ proposal suggest possibilities as to how a discussion could take place.
One alternative possibility that has been floated is that the city directs the effort to entitle Mace 391 as a business park. After all, currently this is city land and there can be an argument that the city and not a private middle person should direct the effort.
The Vanguard is not supporting any alternative at this time. Instead, it is supporting a process for discussing all alternatives. Ultimately, the Vanguard will not support any proposal that does not guarantee a considerable amount of agricultural land be protected from future development.
This will not be a way to open the floodgates, instead it is a way to look into small, incremental economic development as a means to alleviate future budget concerns within the framework of a smart and sustainable fiscal policy by the city.
In order for the city to be able to have this discussion, we need to pause the process for putting Mace 391 into a permanent agricultural easement.
The council on Tuesday agreed to have an update on the process, but that will be an informational item only, not an action item. Time is short and the community deserves to fully vet this alternative. We urge the council to take up this conversation and approach it with the diligence and dedication that this community deserves.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
1)“When the proposal for Mace 391 first emerged, the process under which it came forward was so bad, so convoluted, that council needed to send a strong message and summarily reject it. Essentially a long and complicated process that had been worked about extensively behind closed doors was thrown at the public at the very last second.”
2)“We need to do this in a responsible way and we need to have community dialogue and conversation. It needs to be an open and transparent process.”
3)“Time is short and the community deserves to fully vet this alternative.”
The reason why time is short and there hasn’t been an open and transparent process was the process was being driven by an undisclosed Morris land swap proposal that significantly undervalued strategically extremely important community assets. Indeed, it wasn’t clear just how inadequate the Morris proposal was until Morris made the terms public in September. So, for a number of months prior to June and then again all throughout the summer, the public was completely in the dark about what was really going on. I’m not even sure whether the full details of the Morris proposal are even now fully disclosed. For example, is it now clear to all that the 2 for 1 ag mitigation needed for the Morris proposal all along was the City-owned Howatt Ranch? Probably not.
A productive community dialogue was not even possible under these conditions. Why staff and the CC chose to approach this extremely far reaching decision in this fashion is not at all clear to me. The Vanguard reporting these past months has been left wanting as well, i.e. insufficient critical analysis. Fortunately, Rob White did the community a great service yesterday by posting some back-of-the-envelope calculations showing just how much profit and revenue could be generated by the community owned assets east of Mace Blvd (Mace 391, Howatt Ranch, etc). That said, staff still has a lot of analytical work to do in identifying all possible alternatives, the costs, and the benefits to have a fully informed community dialogue, one which I am looking forward to. I would add that there were a number of insightful comments and questions (from West, Shor, Frame, etc.) posted in the related thread yesterday that one would hope would be addressed in such an analysis.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]showing just how much profit and revenue could be generated by the community owned assets east of Mace Blvd (Mace 391, Howatt Ranch, etc).[/quote]
Now you want to develop Howatt Ranch, too? Michael has just demonstrated why city ownership does not provide the land protection that a conservation easement provides.
David: [quote]we need to pause the process for putting Mace 391 into a permanent agricultural easement.[/quote]
Perhaps someone else can explain how you pause the process. I think you’d have to start over if it doesn’t proceed as staff is doing now. I thought the grant had a deadline, and that was why the council had to act in June. But I could be wrong. I think that is one of the things Brett wanted clarification on as he asked for a report and update.
Business’ generate direct revenue to the city through property tax and sales tax of products, is this correct. There is no city tax on a company’s profit?
Don, I don’t think staff’s intent is to develop Howatt Ranch. I think the intent is that Howatt Ranch is the 2/1 mitigation. However, you rightly point out that there still is no clarity on what is being considered. It’s still all a convoluted mess and I really don’t see how David’s reporting has been making it any less convoluted. Fortunately, some posters over the past month have been adding some insightful comments and questions to make-up the shortfall, but it’s been rather random instead of systematic.
I fail to see where anyone has laid out all the alternatives. One alternative to the Morris proposal, for example, is to allow Ramos and Bruner to develop their 190 acre piece. Another alternative is for the city to develop its Howatt Ranch piece. There are any number of alternatives where the pros and cons should be weighed. And one alternative to be analyzed, I would imagine, is to keep it all in ag. The panel discussion during the Chamber luncheon last week did a great job of illustrating how valuable the ag land around Davis really is. It also highlighted how dramatically this value is expected to increase over the next 20 years or so due to a variety of current market forces.
-Michael Bisch
“A productive community dialogue was not even possible under these conditions.”
I agree. That’s why I said, the June proposal needed to be killed.
“Why staff and the CC chose to approach this extremely far reaching decision in this fashion is not at all clear to me.”
To me either.
“The Vanguard reporting these past months has been left wanting as well, i.e. insufficient critical analysis.”
That will come.
“Fortunately, Rob White did the community a great service yesterday by posting some back-of-the-envelope calculations showing just how much profit and revenue could be generated by the community owned assets east of Mace Blvd (Mace 391, Howatt Ranch, etc). That said, staff still has a lot of analytical work to do in identifying all possible alternatives, the costs, and the benefits to have a fully informed community dialogue, one which I am looking forward to. I would add that there were a number of insightful comments and questions (from West, Shor, Frame, etc.) posted in the related thread yesterday that one would hope would be addressed in such an analysis.”
I see all of this as part of the discussion. I’m not advocating we do the Mace 391 proposal, I’m only advocating that we keep it on the table for now as part of a broader discussion.
“Perhaps someone else can explain how you pause the process. I think you’d have to start over if it doesn’t proceed as staff is doing now. I thought the grant had a deadline, and that was why the council had to act in June. But I could be wrong. I think that is one of the things Brett wanted clarification on as he asked for a report and update.”
That’s part of the answer that we need in two weeks – what does it really mean if we end up not submitting the grant now. As people pointed out yesterday, Mace 391 is owned by the city, so the urgency to put it in an easement is far less than some other parcels.
“I fail to see where anyone has laid out all the alternatives. One alternative to the Morris proposal, for example, is to allow Ramos and Bruner to develop their 190 acre piece. Another alternative is for the city to develop its Howatt Ranch piece. There are any number of alternatives where the pros and cons should be weighed. And one alternative to be analyzed, I would imagine, is to keep it all in ag. The panel discussion during the Chamber luncheon last week did a great job of illustrating how valuable the ag land around Davis really is. It also highlighted how dramatically this value is expected to increase over the next 20 years or so due to a variety of current market forces.”
That’s certainly part of the process that I would support.
To be crystal clear, here is my position on the ideas I have laid out
Matt Williams (as an unaffiliated individual) is not supporting any individual specific alternative at this time. Instead, I am supporting a process for discussing all alternatives. I absolutely will not support any proposal that does not guarantee a considerable amount of agricultural land be protected from future development, nor will I support any proposal that prioritizes housing ahead of jobs creation and innovation retention.
That would be the Vanguard’s position as articulated in this article.
I, for one, think determining how to allocate whatever profits the community may realize from developing it’s assets east of Mace is setting the cart firmly in front of the horse. The first step is to analyze how these assets can best be deployed, i.e. a complete analysis of all possible alternatives. Only then should a careful discussion occur regarding how best to allocate profits may accrue to the community. There are all kinds of community needs requiring attention(paying down debt, social services, parks & recs, roads, etc.), open space preservation is only one of them. Don’t get me wrong, open space preservation should certainly be part of the discussion.
-Michael Bisch
-Michael Bisch
Michael Bisch said . . .
[i]”The reason why time is short and there hasn’t been an open and transparent process was the process was being driven by an undisclosed Morris land swap proposal that significantly undervalued strategically extremely important community assets.”[/i]
Michael, that is a short sighted analysis. The process regarding this easement failed the open and transparent test long before this summer. In February 2012 the Chamber hired Kemble Pope as its new Executive Director. As noted in the Chamber announcement, [i]”Pope has been a Davis resident for 10 years and has been active in the Davis Chamber since 2007. He has filled the executive director’s position on an interim basis for the past three months.[/i] From 2005 to 2010, Pope served as a member and chairman of the Davis Open Space and Habitat Commission. Coincidentally, the Mace 391 Easement process with NRCS and Yolo Land Trust started in 2010 during Kemble’s tenure on the Commission. He clearly knew that this freight train was coming down the tracks (A) throughout the time he has been active with the Chamber and (B) throughout the time he has been the Chamber’s Executive Director.
Further, as noted in the Enterprise article about Kemble’s appointment, “In 2010, past Chamber board chairman Bill Alger, chief operating officer of Woodland Healthcare, appointed Pope to chair the Chamber’s Government Relations Committee. During their tenure, Alger and Pope worked with several other community leaders to create the local business and economic development advocacy group Designing a Sustainable & Innovative Davis Economy (DSIDE).”
What we saw in June was a Davis business community that was totally blindsided by how the placement of this Easement would affect the Eastern Innovation Park. That tells me that Kemble either never told anyone at the Chamber or DSIDE about it, or he was totally ineffective in how he told them.
Further when you go to [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/on-going-committees/innovation-park-task-force/revised-agenda—september-20-2012[/url] and look at the report of the Innovation Park Task Force, and especially Section 4 where Davis sites are compared, there is no mention at all of the Easement application. Was that omission a failing on Studio 30’s part, or did the underlying data provided by the City to Studio 30 fail the “open and transparent” test?
I don’t know the answers to those questions, and in truth any such found answers will not change the situation we face as Davis citizens, but to load all the blame on the back of Dave Morris as you have done is way off base in my opinion. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Here’s the story on the evolution of the community farm concept that lays out some of Matt’s point. link ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7409:mace-curve-and-the-community-farm-as-a-sustainable-feature-of-the-ag-urban-transition&Itemid=86[/url])
Matt Williams: [i]I am supporting a process for discussing all alternatives. I absolutely will not support any proposal that does not guarantee a considerable amount of agricultural land be protected from future development, nor will I support any proposal that prioritizes housing ahead of jobs creation and innovation retention.[/i]
This Frank Ly’s position also.
I would suggest that this process also include some weighting of the competing objectives. And related to that, I think we need to introduce “economic ecology” principles. Like with any natural ecosystem, we are best-served when there is balance. Frankly, we have largely neglected our economic ecosystem while focusing almost exclusively on other environmental objectives like toad tunnels, plastic bags and building a farmland moat.
The personal health analogy for this is like focusing solely on diet without any exercise. We don’t want to destroy our diet, but it is time to give attention to new health principles of exercise so that we are significantly balanced and healthy.
Matt: Could you please report what happened at the GRC meeting? As reported, the vote was 6:1 with Michael Bisch strongly dissenting. Is it true the core of his argument was that any forward movement at Mace would interfere with efforts to get Nishi entitled?
When I read his comments in the light of this information, I find them profoundly cynical.
What?! I never had an opportunity to make a “core” argument or any other kind of an argument at the GRC. I was cutoff in mid-sentence and the question was called. My vote against was in protest of the hurried, one-sided debate, lack of disclosure/transparency, etc. A deciscion of such significant deserves a much fuller discussion. Any characterization of my GRC comments to the contrary is a distortion.
-Michael Bisch
And when&!where was this GRC matter ever reported? Can it be,SM, you were in attendance and damn know well the truth of the matter?
-Michael Biisch
Michael, given all the flurry of e-mails after the meeting there were lots of possible “leaks.”
Given the fact that you were a minority of one it is easy to understand how you felt cut off. As an observing guest at the meeting, I didn’t see it that way, but your feelings are understandable.
Several attendees of the meeting have been reporting what happened to their contacts in the community. It would be good to hear what Matt has to say.
Silent majority
[i]Matt: Could you please report what happened at the GRC meeting? As reported, the vote was 6:1 with Michael Bisch strongly dissenting. Is it true the core of his argument was that any forward movement at Mace would interfere with efforts to get Nishi entitled?
When I read his comments in the light of this information, I find them profoundly cynical.”[/i]
I found what Michael was arguing for at that meeting very hard to understand. Given my lack of comprehension, I have to say I can’t attribute any cynicism one way or the other to him. He had me profoundly confused.
Since the rest of us are kind of sitting here on the sidelines, wondering what you all are talking about:
— who is on the Chamber’s Government Relations Committee?
— what was the committee’s vote?
— how does it pertain to all of this?
They may never invite me as a guest ever again, bout here are the minutes of the meeting.
[i]”Request for Reconsideration of June 11th determination on Open Space Acquisition
Background
At the City Council meeting of June 11th, City Council voted (3-2) to move forward using proceeds of a Natural Resource Conversation Service (NRCS) grant, thereby permitting the Yolo Land Trust to secure a permanent agricultural conservation easements along the Mace Blvd curve in northeast Davis. As additional background, the Yolo Land Trust in concert with the City of Davis had been approved for the $1.1MM grant in April of 2011.
At issue with the June 11th vote, are the circumstances which resulted in the City Council being faced with an 11th hour up or down vote – and without the benefit of broad based community discussion or input – with just four (4) days left to formally accept , or otherwise forfeit the grant funding.
GRC Discussion
It its meeting Thursday, September 20th, the GRC met to discuss the vote and its future implications for the community.
From the outset, it should be emphasized that this is not a decision about approving a business park, it is a discussion about stopped a bad decision. Our concern relates to the importance and opportunity for the community to have a clear understanding of the long term planning and economic development issues resulting from any decision to impose a permanent agricultural easement at this or any other specific location.
To date, this issue has not received this level of community oversight and review. From a Chamber perspective, the business community has not been allowed an opportunity or forum for such a discussion and, accordingly, the City Council has not had the opportunity for exposure to such discussions in advance of its decision.
It was the general consensus of the group that the process leading to the vote was a fundamentally flawed process, while not allowing for adequate community discussion necessary to fully understand the long term consequences of this irrevocable decision, and which ultimately led to a bad decision by the Council.”[/i]
Continued
[i]”GRC Findings and Recommendations – June 19, 2013
Concerns voiced by members of the Government Relations Committee:
• Need for Prompt Response: Permanent placement of easement is moving forward and will take place if no action is taken by the City Council.
• At the time of the original, June 11th Council vote on this matter, the Yolo Land Trust had only four days remaining, until June 15th, to notify the NRCS of its intent to proceed or otherwise risked forfeiting the grant money it had received. The deadline resulted in an artificially abbreviated review and discussion process thereby depriving Davis citizens of the opportunity for a well thought out discussion, analysis and understanding of the long term consequences associated with the final location of these agricultural easements
• To date, the topic has not been vetted by the community
• The questions of locations of easements and technology park impact each other and should not be looked upon independently
• Citizens deserve a voice in the discussions of if and where a technology park might be located without compromising the ultimate decisions as the result of an Ad Hoc land use determination by the City Council
• Furthering the discussion may not change the use, but it is a topic that involves important consequences for the long term economic health and sustainability of the community
• To clarify, the committee does not seek to limit discussion of alternative sites for potential technology park location, but also recognizes that the general location of the Mace @I-80 Corridor has received favorable recommendations in the most recent land use and innovation park studies reviewed by the City Council
• Recognizing that the City Council intends to reconstitute the Innovation Park Task Force to move forward with its findings and recommendations, the GRC stresses the urgency in the need for the City Council to take immediate action on: A formal vote by the Council to change their our suspend their decision, thereby granting necessary time for a more thorough and expedited vetting by the community
• The committee continues to be in full support of proposed Nishi development, but it must be clearly understood that the Nishi site represents a niche development and is not a suitable or viable alternative location for a full scale technology park”[/i]
There is a lot to report back to Council on Oct 15th regarding process, timelines, etc.
But I want to remind our own dialogue here on the Vanguard that the staff report (both original and modified) for the June 11th was to pause and take a harder look at more than just the one option for an easement. Yes, it meant losing the NRCS grant funds of $1.25 million… And yes, there was at least one driver of a competing idea to be discussed. As we have come to realize, there are many competing ideas.
For your own personal review, the staff reports for the June 11th meeting are here:
ORIGINAL – http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20130611/04H-Mace-Curve-Urban-Agriculture-Transition-Area.pdf
MODIFIED (Special Meeting) – http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20130611/Special-Meeting-02-Mace-Curve-391-Options.pdf
The reason that we had a June 15th deadline was because the NRCS gave staff (in writing) a deadline for making a decision to continue down the easement pathway with Yolo Land Trust or stop the easement process. I believe that deadline was real and continues to present us problems if we negate the grant. The reason is because NRCS made it very clear to staff that by waiting on making decisions to execute the grant meant NRCS would have diminishing returns to be able to redeploy the funds. That is why the June 15th deadline was important… to let the agency have time to redeploy the funds.
I was tasked in April and May to work with NRCS to see if there was any flexibility in the lands the grant could be applied to. In fact, there originally was, but that was in the first 12 months of grant award, which meant the deadline for swapping lands passed back in 2012. The point was to see if there was flexibility in the city’s options.
I personally was not aware of the community farm concept until June 11th, but that has much to do with me being new to the system, I am sure. I was asked to work with NRCS because of my demonstrated ability to work with federal agencies and the congressionals. I was working from a partial slate of facts, but that is toothpaste out of the tube. The point is that city leadership was trying to quickly determine options for the Council so that we could provide them flexibility in decision-making. Sadly, none existed and it came down a decision between abandoning the grant and take your chances on a future opportunity (regardless of what it was) OR take the grant and move forward. I believe the council was asked to consider a no-win situation due to many culminating factors and they did the best they could.
Could we technically still vacate the grant? Yes, but honestly it will create collateral damage to long-standing partnerships and relationships. As put to me by the NRCS assistant state conservationist, they don’t consider an easement a done deal until it is signed in ink at the courthouse steps. She shared candidly that others have negated a deal at the last minute, but realistically, this is not without consequences when you are a public agency like the city. So, to be fair, the community needs to be very aware of what this discussion means.
Regarding the comments about Dave Morris… it is convenient (and not accurate) to lay the blame on an individual in this case.
Did Dave come forward with an option that had some potential for new options? Sure. Did he socialize it publically in an effective and timely way, we can now say no. But considering how the community has continually demonstrated the lack of tolerance for differing views, it is not surprising he played his cards close.
What is destructive in this continued dialogue is the continued villianization of members of our community. And usually with facts not in evidence.
As an example from my own situation… due to many questioning my purpose in Davis back in late May, I was internally removed from the discussion on the NRCS grant and any input I could have provided to make the conversation better was lost. If those that accused me of conflicts just slightly looked in to the facts, they would have seen that my contract was based on the same type of public-private partnership in San Leandro (but in San Leandro the cost share is paid by a single company, instead of 36 in the Davis case). And that this concept was fully vetted by our own legal advisors at the city.
Did we arrive at a better solution due to the input received? Sure. But do we need to recreate an environment similar to Salem’s in order to have honest dialogue? It didn’t end well there. If there are real concerns, air them. But let’s not assume guilt without obvious evidence.
I now know that Dave has been sharing his idea with the tech community for over 2 years. He has also selectively shared it with community leadership over that period. But he was afraid to socialize it because he didn’t have financial control over Shriner’s until May of this year.
I don’t need to defend Dave’s actions… he’s a grownup. But re-painting a situation with murkiness is not beneficial to the end result, which is a community wide dialogue about our path forward. I trust our city council and community leadership will do the best they can as we move this forward.
Matt, it’s little wonder you were confused by my GRC comments given I was cutoff by Jeanne Jones before I even got to my 1st point despite my having the floor. As a consequence, I registered a complaint with the chair. Furthermore, I did not raise Nishi. Doby and Dennis did. Frankly, I’m a bit uncomfortable even discussing this matter in public. DD meetings are public meetings. I don’t know whether that’s true of Chamber meetings, but since you and SM have let the cat out of the bag, we may as well get into it.
Fair enough Michael. I sensed a bit of a witch hunt tone in Silent majority’s post and took clear note of your forceful retort to Silent majority.
If I sinned by sharing the information, then it was a sin of commission rather than a sin of omission. I will take my lumps if they come. It appears to have cleared the air.
Rob:
I don’t blame David Morris for anything. It isn’t his responsibility to make his proposal clear and detailed for the council and the public.
I didn’t consider that you had a conflict of interest, I firmly believed you had the appearance of a conflict of interest and argued for separation from those who had interests before the city.
With respect to the comments here:
It is now clear from comments on this thread that important members of the business community have been aware of the Mace 391 easement proposal for quite some time.
It is clear that some community members were aware of the land swap proposal for a couple of years.
Yet the public, and seemingly the council, were completely blindsided by the land swap, while the easement proposal was fully vetted in public. You can see why it makes us suspicious of not just the process, but recent proposals as well. They are in conflict, yet they went forward with full awareness by some key individuals. You were not fully apprised. The council was not fully apprised. The whole thing made staff look bad, made some private citizens look bad, and made council look foolish.
Yet we’re being asked to take another look at this proposal? In spite of this:
[quote] honestly it will create collateral damage to long-standing partnerships and relationships. As put to me by the NRCS assistant state conservationist, they don’t consider an easement a done deal until it is signed in ink at the courthouse steps. She shared candidly that others have negated a deal at the last minute, but realistically, this is not without consequences when you are a public agency like the city. So, to be fair, the community needs to be very aware of what this discussion means.[/quote]
Why should we trust anybody at this point? Was the Chamber’s Government Relations Committee fully informed about everything when they voted? Were the different commissions given full information?
Insider deals are the way other cities do business, not Davis.
Michael – If anyone understands the need to balance private and public opinion, you can count on me to comply with discretion. Lets you and I and Matt get together and chat about the topic in private.
But, I don’t have any knowledge of the previous encounters. I cannot speak to any of it.
I will say this about Davis Morris and others like him… the odds are that the same personality type and wiring that cause them to be driving champions of economic development at this level make for a bad politician. The drive causes a bit of tunnel vision. Ideally a guy like Dave will partner with someone that helps will all the baby kissing and hand shaking and also makes sure proper protocol is followed.
But the good news is that these people generally never make the same mistakes twice.
I like the “trust but verify” approach. The only time I start moving to a level of distrust is when all the points being made do not form a consistent story. I can’t see any reason at this point to distrust Dave Morris. They guy took his lumps for the first Mace 391 blunders and seems to have learned his lessons. His current approach to reach out to others in community, I think, should be lauded as the right approach.
In the end any of us can agree to disagree. But what Matt and others are advocating is to take the time to adequately analyze and vet the proposal. Since ag easements are permanent (and we can assume a business park would also be permanent), we need to be absolutely sure make an informed decision.
B. Nice: [quote]Business’ generate direct revenue to the city through property tax and sales tax of products, is this correct. There is no city tax on a company’s profit?[/quote]
That is correct. It’s important to note that some of the property tax is on unsecured property.
In light of what Rob said about the likely blowback from rejecting the NRCS grant this late in the game, I think the last nail has pretty much been driven into the Mace 391 development coffin. That doesn’t mean that Matt’s plan is dead, just that it has to advance on the strength of other business park parcels, notably Ramos/Bruner and/or (possibly) the Northwest Quadrant.
[quote]I will say this about Davis Morris and others like him… the odds are that the same personality type and wiring that cause them to be [b][u]driving champions of economic development[/u][/b] at this level make for a bad politician[/quote]
Good thing this is not a “no spin zone.”
Don- I hear your points. It is exactly why the city manager has approved of my engagement with the Vanguard, the posters, and the community at large. On topics like these, staff need to help the community understand the dynamics at play and what is being considered inside city hall. It takes time, but we are making progress. And I am grateful for discussions like these that let us get the issues on the table.
Jim- the view on the NRCS is the one I am told, but a further checkin with the Feds is really the oly way to know for sure what exactly their view might be. At this point, staff are moving forward with Council direction, so that checkin will not be occurring unless directed by Council. And to be clear, they have not directed us to do such an action. As I indicated earlier about the statement to me by the NRCS back in May, grants have fallen out at the last minute. But unless a change is done in a collaborative environment, there will be winners and losers. In my view, there should only be winners by whatever is directed by Council and staff will proactively work to get to that point no matter what they direct. And that is true for all of their direction from Council… It is my job to find a win for all parties as much as I can.
[quote]She shared candidly that others have negated a deal at the last minute, but realistically, this is not without consequences when you are a public agency like the city. [/quote]
What kind of consequences? Is it like back out at the last minute and good luck ever getting a grant again kind of consequences?
B Nice- I am referring primarily to relationships and resultant collaboration.
I’m wondering if we did back out at the last minute would that impact the cities chances of receiving NRCS grants in the future.
B. Nice, when I look at situations like the one NRCS finds themselves in, I always look to the mission and vision of the organization. NRCS’ vision and mission is to get the maximum number of the highest quality, most productive farmland acres into Easement as they can.
When you apply that to a choice between 391 acres and upwards of 3,000 acres of comparable farmland, all of which is productively producing year-in, year-out, then I wonder if NRCS isn’t really in a [b][i]”Pardon our dust while we make permanent improvements.”[/i][/b] situation.
One of the key parts of the open, transparent communication that could take place between now and March 31, 2014 would be a three-way meeting between NRCS, Yolo Land Trust and the City of Davis. The agenda of the meeting would be to collectively share thoughts about whether the east-to-west Ag Land Conservation vision that has been discussed the past few days here in the Vanguard, lays out enough upside merit for both NRCS and YLT and the City.
My thought is that if either party comes out of that meeting with any doubts about whether the larger vision is a better end result than the current grant, then the message will be clear . . . proceed with the Mace 391 grant on March 31. If both parties agree that the upside of the broader vision is significantly greater than the current Mace 391 upside, then taking time to map out a series of next steps in order to translate that greagter upside from potential to reality would be the second part of the proposed meeting.
In the meantime at the staff level of the City, YLT and NRCS the steps needed to make the grant happen on March 31st would still proceed so that it can be finalized without any hitches should the larger vision prove to be inconsistent with the mission of any one of the three organizations. The only thing that the staffs wouldn’t do with respect to the grant would be to take the finalization step. That finalization step would be “paused” until the larger picture comes into focus through the open, transparent, collaborative process.
Matt, I appreciate your open-mindedness on this issue, and I wish more people could approach situations like these with such a frame of mind. (Note, I’m saying this in general, I’m new to this issue so really have no idea where people stand on it, or how the have or currently are approaching it).
What I’m wondering is does the NRCS have the kind flexibility with the grant money to consider other options, and are the willing too. Two important question to me are:
1. Can the NRCS money be spent on different properties
2. If no and we decline the money, would this effect our abilities to receive grant money in the future.
I’m going to post these on todays related article also, if posters would prefer to answer these there.
Matt Williams – I am very disappointed that you would so carelessly launch public accusations against my character, integrity and/or quality of work. You are now wasting my time and the resources of the Davis Chamber of Commerce. I don’t know if your motives are dishonorable or this is just an example of shoddy worksmanship to prove a point, but after all the time, trust and feedback that I’ve freely given you in the past, it’s a real shame that you couldn’t take the time to ask me directly.
I asked you to clean up your mess this morning, but since you haven’t, I guess that I’ll have to do it for you in order to protect my character.
05/20/2010 – I sent an email entitled “Serving the City of Davis, It’s Been Great!” to about 40 community leaders announcing that I would be winding down all of my volunteer work to focus on my career. I stated in that email (that I’m willing to forward with recipients) that my term on OS&H expired in September of 2010 and that I would not be reapplying.
09/13/2010 – My last meeting as a member of the OS&H. Unfortunately, I could not attend, but the agenda kindly has Item 7 “Adjourn in honor of retiring Commissioners Pope and Takei”.
10/05/2010 – I received an email from the City Clerk’s office asking me to complete my Form 700 as an outgoing appointed Commissioner.
10/11/2010 – OS&H (without me)considers, for the first time, a staff presentation that there is an opportunity to purchase Mace 391. I dug up that document… not a single mention of NRCS grant.
You could have easily done this work yourself to confirm your hunch. Or you could have asked me BEFORE you slandered me (saying maybe I just did a poor job is a throw-away cop out). Instead, you just threw mud.
I knew next to nothing about Mace 391 until I heard some allusions to an ill-timed grant in mid-April 2013. Then, nothing until the day after I returned from a 3 week vacation in June 2013.
How is it possible that I went from deep in the OS&H/conservation conversation to very little awareness? Easy. I focused every bit of attention and energy that I had on growing my business, then I met the love of my life, I got a great (demanding) local job, we bought our first home, we got married and … well, I’ve been living my life.
Please stop playing fast and loose with other people’s reputations and casting aspersions about their character, integrity and quality of work.
Regards,
Kemble K. Pope
Executive Director
Davis Chamber of Commerce
Kemble Pope said . . .
[i]”Matt Williams – I am very disappointed that you would so carelessly launch public accusations against my character, integrity and/or quality of work. You are now wasting my time and the resources of the Davis Chamber of Commerce. I don’t know if your motives are dishonorable or this is just an example of shoddy worksmanship to prove a point, but after all the time, trust and feedback that I’ve freely given you in the past, it’s a real shame that you couldn’t take the time to ask me directly.
I asked you to clean up your mess this morning, but since you haven’t, I guess that I’ll have to do it for you in order to protect my character.
05/20/2010 – I sent an email entitled “Serving the City of Davis, It’s Been Great!” to about 40 community leaders announcing that I would be winding down all of my volunteer work to focus on my career. I stated in that email (that I’m willing to forward with recipients) that my term on OS&H expired in September of 2010 and that I would not be reapplying.
09/13/2010 – My last meeting as a member of the OS&H. Unfortunately, I could not attend, but the agenda kindly has Item 7 “Adjourn in honor of retiring Commissioners Pope and Takei”.
10/05/2010 – I received an email from the City Clerk’s office asking me to complete my Form 700 as an outgoing appointed Commissioner. “[/i]
Kemble, I have been at a sequential series of meetings all day, so haven’t been able to address your concerns, which frankly surprise me in their magnitude. I will address those that I can here and now and am seeking additional documentation of some others that do not have existing electronic copies on the City’s website.
I appreciate the fact that the events of the three dates above indicates that you had decided to end your [u]formalized[/u] governmental interest in all things Open Space and Habitat related, but does that mean that on September 13, 2010 you flipped a switch inside your brain shut down all consideration of and interest in either the workings of the Open Space and Habitat Commission or Measure O or the continued interest of Davis citizens in open space and habitat? Did Steve Souza similarly flip a switch in his brain when he left the Council? Did Sue Greenwald? The list of people who stepped away from public office is infinitely long, but I suspect that the list of those who lost all interest is probably no longer than the total number of fingers and toes on your body.
Kemble Pope said . . .
[i]”10/11/2010 – OS&H (without me)considers, for the first time, a staff presentation that there is an opportunity to purchase Mace 391. I dug up that document… not a single mention of NRCS grant.”[/i]
Your comment above reads like the first half of a Paul Harvey news program. Here is “the rest of the story”
• First, Mace 391 came before OS&H before October 11, 2010.
• Second, the evidence of that is in black and white in the November 16, 2010 Staff Report to Council [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20101116/Packet/03C-Mace-Curve-Purchase-Option.pdf[/url], which says in Attachment 5 dated [u]October 5, 2010[/u], “The acquisition sub-committee (Commissioners Aptekar, Davis, and House) visited the site with staff in [u]late September[/u]. The Sub-committee will provide a verbal presentation to the full commission summarizing the site visit.”
• Third, in order to have an Acquisition Subcommittee the OS&H Commission would have had to create on at a noticed meeting.
• Fourth, in your e-mail to me earlier today you said, [i]”My last meeting was September 2010 (which I could not attend), but I had not attended since May due to the OS&H tradition (which I started) of using the summer for Working Groups (which I did not participate in that year).”[/i]
• Fifth, if your e-mail comment is correct, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, then the very latest that the OS&H Commission could have taken a noticed action to create The Acquisition Subcommittee would have been September 13, 2010. If your Working Group statement is accurate, then the May meeting is the more likely date when the Acquisition Subcommittee would have been formed. The minutes of the OS&H Commission will provide us with a clearer picture on that timeline.
Regardless, your statement [i]”10/11/2010 – OS&H (without me)considers, for the first time, a staff presentation that there is an opportunity to purchase Mace 391.”[/i] is inaccurate.
Now lets look at a bit more of “the rest of the story.” You state that [i]”I dug up that document… not a single mention of NRCS grant.”[/i] You should have dug a bit deeper because the Council Staff Report based on the OS&H recommendation based on the September site visit resulted in the following, “[b][i]If completed, the property acquisition price as specified in the purchase option agreement would be $3.8 million dollars. As detailed below, the City will be pursing Federal and State grant funds for agricultural conservation.
If the Council authorizes execution of the purchase option agreement, staff will prepare and submit grant applications in Spring 2011 to the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program and the California Department of Conservation for easement acquisition matching funds. These funding sources match up to 50% of the easement value of the transaction. The City and its partners (i.e. Yolo Land Trust), have been successful in past grant applications to these funders and staff believes this property will be competitive in the next round of funding.[/i][/b]
That Kemble . . . is the rest of the story.
Kemble Pope said . . .
[i]”I knew next to nothing about Mace 391 until I heard some allusions to an ill-timed grant in mid-April 2013. Then, nothing until the day after I returned from a 3 week vacation in June 2013.
How is it possible that I went from deep in the OS&H/conservation conversation to very little awareness? Easy. I focused every bit of attention and energy that I had on growing my business, then I met the love of my life, I got a great (demanding) local job, we bought our first home, we got married and … well, I’ve been living my life.”[/i]
Kemble I appreciate this explanation, but again it isn’t the whole story. When you were appointed as the Executive Director of the Chamber the Davis Enterprise ran a story that included the following quote in which I have underlined a key piece of information. [i]”[u]In 2010, past Chamber board chairman Bill Alger, chief operating officer of Woodland Healthcare, appointed Pope to chair the Chamber’s Government Relations Committee.[/u] During their tenure, Alger and Pope worked with several other community leaders to create the local business and economic development advocacy group Designing a Sustainable & Innovative Davis Economy (DSIDE).” [/i]
Was every bit of attention and energy so focused (on growing your business, and then building a relationship with the love of my life) that your role as the GRC Chair fell by the wayside? As the sitting Chair of the GRC of the Chamber, is the following quote from the November 16, 2010 Council Staff report not a noteworthy government relations topic that should have been on the Chamber’s radar?
[i]“If the Council authorizes execution of the purchase option agreement, staff will prepare and submit grant applications in Spring 2011 to the Federal Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program and the California Department of Conservation for easement acquisition matching funds. These funding sources match up to 50% of the easement value of the transaction. The City and its partners (i.e. Yolo Land Trust), have been successful in past grant applications to these funders and staff believes this property will be competitive in the next round of funding.”[/i]
Again, I appreciate your explanation, but is it really the whole story?
Matt – The “whole story” is that I nearly gave up on Davis in the Fall of 2010 because I couldn’t find paid work. I began commuting to SF (on the 5:45am or 6:45am train) most days of the week to work on consulting projects for a friend. So, yes, I did “flip a switch” when it came to OS&H.
As a past Chair of the GRC and current ED of the Chamber, I can tell you that there are MANY “noteworthy government relations topics” on the Commissions, City, County and State’s legislative dockets that should get attention from us but don’t due to a lack of time and resources. Should this item have received more attention back then? Perhaps. But a quick review of our agendas from those days show that we were focused on the water project, waste water project, the “fee pile”, Park & Recreation Facilities Master Plan, and the creation of DSIDE. On 06/17/10, we had an update on the Business Park Land Strategy, but as I’ve pointed out, Mace 391 was not on the radar at that point. We have TWO HOURS PER MONTH to discuss the highest priority business community items… that is the whole story.
You are being obtuse re: my wind down of community activities. You quoted from it, so I know that you read my 05/20/10 email which stated, “My work in service of the Chamber of Commerce’s Government Relations Committee and the City/Chamber 2×2 is not done. We are half-way through an exciting year of positive action and I will complete my appointment to these groups and pass on the torch in January 2011.”
THE WHOLE STORY, Matt, is that the Chamber is not a land developer. We can only research, comment on and possibly support those opportunities and issues that are presented to us or publicly available. Had Mr. Morris brought his matter to the GRC at anytime prior to the June 2013 City Council vote, then the Chamber could have pursued the matter further. He did not do that, neither did anyone else, and so we were caught flat footed in June. Should I have known more, connected more dots, remembered CC Agenda items from three years ago? I think I’m a capable guy, but that’s setting the bar rather high, don’t you think?
THE WHOLE STORY, Matt, is that there are many, many development schemes in some form of half-baked floating around out there.
[quote]“It’s whispered/I heard from (insert credible name) that (insert developer name) has an option on (insert parcel of land) and they’re going to submit a plan for (insert type of development) by (insert future date).” [/quote]
I hear something along those lines every other week. We simply don’t have the time nor the resources to proactively track every single one of these phantom developments, especially when so few of them actually come to fruition. Should we be? That’s a question for the Chamber’s Board of Directors, but my instinct tells me no.
THE WHOLE STORY, Matt, is that the Chamber is trying its honest best to promote the concept and need for economic vitality and a jobs/housing balance in our community. The Chamber’s work over the past 3 years has ignited more community discussion on these topics, and we believe real movement forward, than any time in recent memory.
THE WHOLE STORY, Matt, is that you’re trying to throw the Chamber under the bus at a time when it is most needed.
And lastly, on a personal note, why is it MY responsibility to “dig deeper”? Why would you accuse me without having dug deeper yourself?? In the future, may I suggest that before you throw former allies under the bus that you get your facts lined up?
And now, I’m going to log off and try to accomplish some items on my task list. We’re still accepting applications for Chamber Day on the Quad on Wednesday, October 16th. That event is one of the few affordable and turn-key opportunities for local businesses to get on campus and interact with students, faculty and staff. Call 756-5160 to register. Also, folks should mark their calendars for our next Lunch & Learn, “Quickbooks for Small Businesses” on November 5th.
For anyone who is interested, I have responded to Kemble with a personal e-mail addressing each of his points. No need to perpetuate this discussion here.