By David Morris
Donations target Davis Roots, Hacker Lab expansion, and Wet Lab Incubator: Capitol Corridor Ventures (CCV) announced today that it has pledged to donate 600,000 (USD) to support the Davis technology community in 2014. The pledge focuses on three specific areas of the tech ecosystem, and includes funds for Davis Roots, an expansion of Hacker Lab into Davis, and establishing the Davis Wet Lab Incubator Challenge Fund.
The CCV pledge highlights the increasing momentum of organizations that support Davis tech entrepreneurs. “We are very fortunate to have so many positive entrepreneurial activities happening in Davis right now, and it is important that we continue to build on this momentum,” said David Morris, CEO of CCV who also serves as Managing Director of the techDAVIS Business Association. “This pledge is intended to provide a boost to the Davis tech ecosystem that will have long term impact.”
Davis Roots runs a non‐profit startup accelerator in downtown Davis in partnership with the City of Davis and the UC Davis Child Family Institute for Innovation & Entrepreneurship. Currently hosting and actively mentoring Davis‐based startup ventures, Davis Roots is on its second round of companies since its inception in 2012. CCV has pledged to provide $250,000 for Davis Roots to ramp up its administrative capacities and begin offering some seed investment capital to startups accepted into the program. “Money is obviously one of the key ingredients to building a strong local ecosystem of startup companies” said Anthony Costello, co‐founder of Davis Roots and local entrepreneur. “We need money to run these programs and our startup companies need money to scale their operations. We’re fortunate that groups like CCV are willing to generously support that aspect of our program at Davis Roots.”
Hacker Lab has been working with the City of Davis and Davis Roots to establish a makerspace facility in Davis for about 6 months. One major challenge has been identifying a source of funding for leasing a facility and starting operations. The CCV pledge of $100,000 over two years will allow Hacker Lab to begin making significant plans towards a 2014 facility opening in Davis. “Hacker Lab is very excited to have reached our first major milestone with a generous offer of support from Capitol Corridor Ventures,” said Gina Lujan, co‐founder and director of Hacker Lab. “This is a great step forward in bringing our grassroots innovation hub to Davis to help with the City’s mission of building their entrepreneurial ecosystem.”
Morris noted that “Davis Roots and Hacker Lab are incredible local stories. Moving forward, one of the next big steps is a wet lab incubator in Davis. This has been a high priority in the local research community for many years.” Incubation of startups that require wet lab facilities (e.g. most agtech and biotech companies) is particularly challenging because of the high cost of lab space and equipment.
CCV believes that one of the best ways to incentivize investment by the private and academic sectors in solving this need for a wet lab incubator in Davis is to challenge donors to provide matching funds, and has pledged $250,000 of seed capital – with a minimum fundraising goal of $1 million. As part of this new initiative, CCV will work with the City of Davis, techDAVIS, Davis Roots, UC Davis, the technology sector, and other partners in the community and region to help identify an appropriate location and qualified operator, as well as to develop a definitive program for the incubator and identify the additional funding and resources that will be necessary to make a wet lab incubator a reality. As stated by Pam Marrone, CEO and Founder of Marrone Bio Innovations (NASDAQ: MBII), “Davis needs wet lab incubator space. It’s critical that we get this done. New startups spinning out of UCD routinely get stalled trying to find wet lab space in the city.”
The CCV pledge to support the Davis tech community is made possible by a generous donation of $2 million in financing to be made by The Cannery, a mixed‐use development project in Davis, pending approval of entitlements and transfer of the project site from ConAgra, the landowner, to The New Home Company, the homebuilder.
In addition to the commitments to Davis Roots, Hacker Lab, and the Davis Wet Lab Incubator Challenge Fund, CCV will launch a non‐profit venture capital fund to provide financing for very early‐stage technology startups in Davis. This investment fund will provide $50‐100K to a portfolio of 10 to 20 startups. It is anticipated that these companies will come primarily from UC Davis, Davis Roots, Hacker Lab, and the Davis Wet Lab Incubator. The venture fund will hold equity positions in these startups and all capital gains will be recycled back into the fund to provide capital for additional technology startups.
“The idea to make a focused effort to help organizations that increase the number and quality of financeable startups launching in Davis has been under consideration by CCV for many months. It is exciting to see this initiative move forward with these commitments to Davis Roots, Hacker Lab, and the wet lab incubator,” said Rob White, the City of Davis Chief Innovation Officer. “The city leadership has been encouraging CCV and others to build partnerships more rapidly, and this announcement is a positive step in moving forward with mutual goals and collaborative efforts across the tech landscape, both locally and regionally.”
Through these and future donations that build on its core values, CCV seeks to help foster a
diverse innovation ecosystem in Davis, with the specific goals of:
- Support existing organizations in the Davis tech community
- Encourage the emergence of new independent organizations
- Promote synergies, cooperation, and an ethos of win‐win outcomes “Healthy innovation ecosystems are characterized by great diversity,” said Morris. “We are committed to financing both tech startups and the broader tech ecosystem that helps make these startups possible.”
About Capitol Corridor Ventures
Capitol Corridor Ventures (CCV) is a Benefit Corporation registered in the State of California and focused on early‐stage venture capital financing of technology startup companies. CCV is developing and will manage a non‐profit venture capital fund named Capitol Corridor Fund I (CCF‐I) which, upon completion of legal work currently underway, will be incorporated in December 2013.
The primary mission of CCF‐I is to make venture capital investments in technology startup companies located within the City of Davis. Initial CCF‐I investments will target companies in the agricultural technology, biotechnology, and clean/green technology sectors.
CCF‐I will hold equity in the startups in its investment portfolio. All capital gains from CCF‐I equity investments will be recycled back into the non‐profit fund to provide capital to launch and grow additional Davis technology startups. As a non‐profit, CCF‐I will have no owners, shareholders, or limited partners. Should circumstances arise in which CCF‐I makes a decision to distribute excess capital or dissolve the fund, all proceeds will go to the City of Davis for uses allowed under the IRS code.
Capitol Corridor Ventures is seeking to grow Capitol Corridor Fund I into a stable, self‐sustaining engine to finance technology startups in the City of Davis. There is a large unmet need in the Davis region for startup capital to launch and grow new technology companies, particularly new ventures spinning out of UC Davis. Capitol Corridor Ventures represents a unique private sector effort to help provide this early‐stage capital, as well as engage in a wide range of other activities to support and grow the regional innovation economy.
Hopefully people will now start to understand how David Morris’ vision is going to help this community. Perhaps they will start to understand why Conagra agreed to donate to this NON-PROFITvehicle as a way to return capital to Davis to facilitate high tech, value added, economic growth that can benefit people both locally and globally. Further, its my hope that people will start to see Capital Corridors as complimentary to other initiatives instead of being in competition with them.
Both Conagra and Dave Morris have taken a publicity beating for something they should have been admired for doing. With a better understanding of what CCV brings to the community maybe people will start to look beyond the perpetual land use conflicts that dominate local politics to reach a new vision of Davis as the knowledge based engine of regional economic growth that will create valuable advances that sustain our economy into the future.
smart move by dave morris, especially giving a lot of it to davis roots which mutes a lot of krovoza’s criticism.
[quote]smart move by dave morris, especially giving a lot of it to davis roots which mutes a lot of krovoza’s criticism.[/quote]
I got the impression Krovoza wanted ConAgra to donate the entire $2M to Davis Roots instead of CCV. My guess, he is not going to be happy this deal.
you have to compromise otherwise you aren’t a councilmember, you’re a dictator.
I can’t figure out if the mayor was doing Kabuki or not. Did he really expect Conagra to stiff CCV and turn it all over to Davis Roots? Did he successfully pressure Conagra to funnel some of it to city sponsored programs and was that his political calculus? Was he setting up for a final no vote? Was he playing to some disgruntled constituency for popular support? Maybe he felt sandbagged by the revelation and was just angry?
I have no idea why he went off like he did on the dais. Personally I thought it unbecoming. Whatever his motivation I hope he at least privately apologizes to Conagra’s representative although I think a public apology would be better for him politically.
[quote]I can’t figure out if the mayor was doing Kabuki or not. Did he really expect Conagra to stiff CCV and turn it all over to Davis Roots? Did he successfully pressure Conagra to funnel some of it to city sponsored programs and was that his political calculus? Was he setting up for a final no vote? Was he playing to some disgruntled constituency for popular support? Maybe he felt sandbagged by the revelation and was just angry? [/quote]Did he just make an offhand comment that is being vastly over-analyzed? Yep, that seems most likely.
If that is all it was a simple apology would do.
The mayor brought up the donation and then panned it. Dismissing it as off hand therefore seems generous of you.
[i]The city leadership has been encouraging CCV and others to build partnerships more rapidly, and this announcement is a positive step in moving forward with mutual goals and collaborative efforts across the tech landscape, both locally and regionally.[/i]
[i]With a better understanding of what CCV brings to the community maybe people will start to look beyond the perpetual land use conflicts that dominate local politics to reach a new vision of Davis as the knowledge based engine of regional economic growth that will create valuable advances that sustain our economy into the future. [/i]
These are two contrasting points.
The previous no-growth politics of the city seem to have been sustained by a coalition of special interests that had been able to gin up negative perceptions of developers and business.
This coalition of special interests – otherwise known as the NIMBY, statist, no-growthers – have always been well-funded and blessed with the benefits of available human resources due to the preponderance of wealthy, retirees, unemployed, stay-at-home spouses and less demanding public-sector workers making up the membership.
The power and influence of the no-growth coalition has generally been a concession by a majority previously entertained by their antics and demands, while also appreciative of many of the outcomes they achieved. We snicker at toad tunnels, but somewhere in our dinosaur brains, we think it is harmless enough and sorta’ cute.
But that no-growth coalition power is unraveling. It is unraveling for three reasons:
1. [b]They have grown full of themselves.[/b] They have mistaken concessionary power for some false morally-superior entitlement. They have forgotten how to compromise and instead work a platform of manufactured emotive arguments and derived outrage. People don’t buy it.
2. [b]Our problems are much more serious and dire.[/b] A $20,000 toad tunnel could be conceded when more of us had confidence in our economic future. That fiscal landscape completely changed in 2008-2009. The hope and change of a new set of leaders has not panned out. Like a number of other cities in the state, Davis is on a clear trajectory toward fiscal insolvency. Young people cannot find work. Roads are not being maintained. Valued programs are being cut or at risk of being cut.
3. [b]Business leaders are fed up and starting to form their own coalition.[/b] This article is a solid example of what we are seeing more of… and will see more of still.
The risk I see is a growing divide that is largely caused by the no-growth coalition’s failure to accept our fiscal reality and concede the requirements for appropriately dealing with it. I think the city leaders are doing an okay job working behind the scenes to try and prevent growing conflict; but I think we need to do more as a form of shock treatment for those remaining voters that don’t get the extent and source of our problems, nor the opportunity we have working with the world-class research university in our midst.
I am 100% sure that Measure J/R would not pass today if presented to the voters. I don’t think even think Measure O would pass today knowing that none of the land acquired is accessible and the clear intent and use of those funds has been to serve the no-growth coalition in their quest to lock Davis up into a hyper-dense city lacking options for economic development to enable fiscal sustainability.
But I am not gleeful about those predictions.
I think the no-growth coalition are at risk of falling down that slippery slope of being branded as extremists. And once there, they will start to lose much of that concessionary power that sustained them previously. And, as a city, we will risk tipping far that other direction where we never build another toad tunnel.
We will know we are heading in the correct direction when we start hearing the standard leaders of the no-growth coalition shift to positive support for well-designed and beneficial development proposals. I hope to hear that soon.
[quote]I have no idea why he went off like he did on the dais. Personally I thought it unbecoming.[/quote]
I thought it was actually very becoming.
I don’t think he had any hidden agenda, but instead was expressing exactly what he thought, that ConAgra should not donate any money to CCV and instead should give it to Davis Roots.
Wether I agree with him or not, he gets points in my book for openly expressing his concerns and frustrations.
Davis Progressive said . . .
[i]”smart move by dave morris, especially giving a lot of it to davis roots which mutes a lot of Krovoza’s criticism.”[/i]
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”I got the impression Krovoza wanted ConAgra to donate the entire $2M to Davis Roots instead of CCV. My guess, he is not going to be happy this deal.”[/i]
If Joe isn’t happy with David Morris’ then he will have no one to blame but himself. It appears that both Davis Roots and Hacker Labs are happy.
[quote]“Money is obviously one of the key ingredients to building a strong local ecosystem of startup companies” said Anthony Costello, co‐founder of Davis Roots and local entrepreneur. “We need money to run these programs and our startup companies need money to scale their operations. We’re fortunate that groups like CCV are willing to generously support that aspect of our program at Davis Roots.”
Hacker Lab has been working with the City of Davis and Davis Roots to establish a makerspace facility in Davis for about 6 months. One major challenge has been identifying a source of funding for leasing a facility and starting operations. The CCV pledge of $100,000 over two years will allow Hacker Lab to begin making significant plans towards a 2014 facility opening in Davis. “Hacker Lab is very excited to have reached our first major milestone with a generous offer of support from Capitol Corridor Ventures,” said Gina Lujan, co‐founder and director of Hacker Lab. “This is a great step forward in bringing our grassroots innovation hub to Davis to help with the City’s mission of building their entrepreneurial ecosystem.”[/quote]
[quote]If Joe isn’t happy with David Morris’ then he will have no one to blame but himself. It appears that both Davis Roots and Hacker Labs are happy. [/quote]
I bet they would be a lot happier with the full 2 million:-).
It’s ConAgra’s money, they can spend it how they like. But who they choose to give it too and how they choose to do so has consequences. In this case it’s an unhappy mayor, and he has a right to express his opinions regarding their decisions. If it influences his vote then that is one of the consequence of ConAgra’s actions, they clearly thought this was a risk worth taking.
[quote]I am 100% sure that Measure J/R would not pass today if presented to the voters.[/quote]
You have zero basis for that. I am 99% sure you are wrong.
You have about as much basis for that prediction as Democrats have for taking over Congress next election.
To the contrary, Frankly, every vote regarding a growth issue in Davis has increased the margin against development. Measure R passed with a much, much higher percentage of the vote than the original Measure J. The most recent Measure R project failed by a much higher margin than did the previous one.
The only thing you keep saying is that the economy has changed, so from that you project that the voters will behave differently. But what you haven’t shown is that the Davis economy has changed adversely for the residents and voters of the community — not to a sufficiency that would lead to overturning Measure R, or O, or even lead to a significant margin of victory for any peripheral or residential development project.
Any project has a high hurdle to overcome in the innate slow-growth attitudes of Davis voters. So I have much more basis for my prediction than you: past history, economic conditions in Davis, and the demographics of the voters here.
So that all the participants in and readers of this ongoing dialogue have pertinent information at their disposal I am providing transcripts of the Council members’ comments from Tuesday night. Brett Lee’s and Steve Pinkerton’s comments are provided in this post and Joe Krovoza’s and George Phillips’ are provided in the next post.[quote][b]Brett Lee @ 5:27:10 on Video
[/b]
So, this is a question for the applicant and also Steve. Recently the applicant disclosed that they were planning on making a fairly generous offer to a local tech startup firm. I think that offer came as a surprise for many of us. I guess I’m just curious to know, before we move to the next stage where we plan on voting on this project, if Steve is aware of any other potential surprises like that that the Council has not been apprised of . . . or if the project applicant would like to give us a heads-up of anything along that same nature. This isn’t meant to be . . . it is just that sometimes surprises aren’t a good thing. So I just want to make sure we are operating from a clean slate.
Since I brought up this issue, I would like to point out that I think we have done a very good job about evaluating Cannery on the merits of the proposal, and I think that’s very, very important that we evaluate the Cannery on the merits of its proposal. Based on the discussion tonight, I think we are doing that, but I would just like to have a heads-up if there is anything out there that might pop up.
[b]Steve Pinkerton[/b]
Duly noted.
[b]Brett Lee[/b]
Does that mean that you are not aware of anything?
[b]Steve Pinkerton[/b]
I am not aware of anything. You have everything in front of you, and then some.
[b]Brett Lee[/b]
Okay, I appreciate that. Again, it wasn’t meant to be accusatory. I was just really feel that sometimes surprises aren’t good thing.
[/quote]
So that all the participants in and readers of this ongoing dialogue have pertinent information at their disposal I am providing transcripts of the Council members’ comments from Tuesday night. Brett Lee’s and Steve Pinkerton’s comments are provided in the previous post and Joe Krovoza’s and George Phillips’ are provided in this post.[quote][b]Joe Krovoza @ 5:29:17 on video[/b]
I do have a question for the applicant though on the question that Brett raised. So if George could come up. I would like to understand ConAgra’s commitment of $2 million to the Capitol Corridor Ventures fund that is obviously a gift that is being made in some way related to this project.
[b]George Phillips[/b]
There is a commitment from the project to the CCV nonprofit that would be made for the sole purpose of supporting start-ups in the City of Davis. That understanding predated things such as Davis Roots. So there was not an awareness of [Davis Roots] at the time.
That commitment does exist. Everyone involved understands that commitment, and is going to stand by it. We thought it was a good idea at the time, and we still think it is a good idea. This is a private initiative. Certainly people could come up with all sorts of ideas about how those monies could or should have been spent, but the commitment has been made and everyone is on our side of the equation knows we need to honor it.
[b]Joe Krovoza[/b]
The intent of that gift is to do what?
[b]George Phillips[/b]
To support start up companies that would locate in Davis.
[b]Joe Krovoza[/b]
Does CCV have any program currently operating in the City of Davis?
[b]George Phillips[/b]
They are a formed entity, but they do not have programs. This is really the seed money that will get that started.
[b]Joe Krovoza[/b]
Is there even a prospectus on what they are planning on doing? I went on the web and I couldn’t even find a webpage for this organization. I did find that early this year, probably three years after they made the agreement with you, they incorporated as an organization. So at the time that ConAgra made the commitment of $2 million to Capital Corridor Ventures, they had not formed as an organization, nor did they for three years following that commitment. So do we know when that organization is going to operate?
[b]George Phillips[/b]
I think it has really been contingent on a successful project, and the monies being contributed to really get it going, and have it operating and doing its mission.[/quote]
(continued)
[quote][b]Joe Krovoza[/b]
I’m going to state the obvious, but the City has a tremendous interest in innovation and helping start-ups. That’s why we have a Chief Innovation Officer. That’s why we partner with UC Davis. That’s why we support the Davis Roots nonprofit, which is active and alive and well. I think I’ll just state very clearly that I understand that ConAgra is going to honor its commitment, but I think ConAgra should have a conversation with Capital Corridor Ventures, and for the good of the community those funds should be directed toward existing programs that are up and operating viably and successfully in the community. I think it would be the right thing to do for business development in this town to support the existing organizations that are working well in collaboration with the City, as opposed to this money going to a group that has no program and no board and is only recently formed. I think the last thing we need this community is one more group doing something slightly different than everybody else. It is already an alphabet soup of people operating in this space. I would hope that ConAgra would look for ways to bring this community benefit into the fold of what this community is currently doing in the space.
[b]George Phillips[/b]
I appreciate your comments. There is no question that there have been conversations about how there can be greater dialogue with both the City and Davis Roots with CCV, and how that dialogue can create some synergy. Hopefully, that can still happen. Believe me, when the concept first came up, it really was thought of as a private initiative, forwarding and advancing private business in the City of Davis. That was the intent, and we can certainly improve on the concept and be collaborative in that process.
[b]Joe Krovoza[/b]
I think the discussion should be with Rob White, our Chief Innovation Officer. It is his job to figure out how we support young companies and high-tech companies in this community. That is the perfect synergy. If Davis Roots is one of beneficiaries that’s fine, but we are looking at $6.5 million of community enhancements in these agreements that we have here in front of us. The $2 million represents one-third of that total support for the community going into an organization that has no program whatsoever. So I think the right thing to do is for that money to be moved onto the community side of the ledger. I think working with Rob White is the way to do that. Otherwise I think it’s only going to be a problem that is going to expand over time. So I would love to nip it in the bud now.
[b]George Phillips[/b]
Well again, I certainly understand your comments. I think we are more than happy to advance dialogue between CCV and Rob White and others in the community, but we actually are more optimistic about some very positive things coming out of that organization. So we would like to pursue those conversations and be collaborative in doing that.[/quote]
Thanks for posting that and after reading the Mayor’s remarks it seems he was trying to squeeze them for a piece of the action and from today’s article it seems he succeeded in doing so. Still I thought he was too hard on the Conagra guy and wonder why he felt the need to do this from the dais instead of in private?
i also disagree that we should only be doing this sort of funding between private individuals through official channels instead of supporting initiative and innovation to flourish on its own.
By the way Frankly, I think a measure R or J like proposal would pass again today. That doesn’t mean it would be good for the community and i will continue to tilt against that windmill going forward. Still I think we are not there yet.
[quote]George Phillips
I think it has really been contingent on a successful project, and the monies being contributed to really get it going, and have it operating and doing its mission.[/quote]
Do I understand this correctly (I may be misunderstanding the context)? That CCV needs the Cannery project to go forward for CCV to have funding? CCV has no other source of funds?
PLEASE read this article C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y! It may have much to do with the frenetic activity going on within and around Davis recently.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/davis-leaders-join-cap-to-cap-lobbying-trip/
Davis leaders join Cap to Cap lobbying trip
By Enterprise staff
From page A2 | April 11, 2013 |
A Davis delegation has joined business and political leaders from around the region on the Sacramento Metro Chamber’s Capitol to Capitol trip to Washington, D.C.
Davis’ delegates — who include representatives from the city of Davis, Davis Chamber of Commerce, techDAVIS, UC Davis, Yolo County and the local business community — flew to the nation’s capital on Wednesday and will meet with federal decision-makers through next Wednesday.
The Davis/Yolo County team is meeting with the White House, federal agencies and elected officials to discuss opportunities specific to the local area.
“We have dubbed this effort ‘Research to Jobs’ and the discussions will include identifying potential sources for more research funding, highlighting the Davis innovation and entrepreneur ecosystem, and providing details about Davis’ ag/conservation and sustainability efforts,” said Rob White, the city’s newly hired chief innovation officer.
After checking in and getting settled, the team met for a strategy session and dinner Wednesday evening, White said, reviewing the talking points for today’s meetings. Those meetings are with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the National Export Initiative and the Economic Development Administration.
Those arriving Wednesday included Davis City Councilwoman Rochelle Swanson; Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor; Kemble Pope, executive director of the Davis Chamber of Commerce; David Morris of techDAVIS and the Capitol Corridor; Karen Bond of Cedaron; Marj Dickinson of UC Davis; Tim Gaffney of the grassroots group Designing a Sustainable and Innovative Davis Economy (DSIDE); Kari Fry of The Centaur Group; Laura McCollough and Catherine Hawe, recent UCD graduates; and White.
Davis City Councilman Lucas Frerichs was scheduled to arrive this morning.
The Davis delegation will keep local residents informed by posting a short email/blog post each evening that recaps details from the day and what is planned for the following day. Additionally, interested folks can follow the delegates on Twitter: White at @mrobtwhite, Swanson at @RochelleinDavis and Pope at @kemble.
Follow hashtag #DavisinDC to track a continuous feed of pictures and information throughout the day or hashtag #InnovateDavis for some of the specific meetings.
The annual Cap-to-Cap program continues to be the largest lobbying effort of its kind in the nation. Representatives from the six-county region are lobbying congressional representatives, the Obama administration and other federal officials about how the Sacramento region is redefining its economic structures and the federal policy changes needed to support that regional work.
[b][i]This year’s program includes 14 policy teams made up of nearly 300 delegates, including 43 elected officials and 55 first-time participants. Each team will be advocating their policy papers which, combined, equal a total of 95 policy requests. Team policy papers and a summary of the top priority issues are available online at http://www.metrochamber.org [/i][/b]
“I don’t think he had any hidden agenda, but instead was expressing exactly what he thought, that ConAgra should not donate any money to CCV and instead should give it to Davis Roots.”
Personally I don’t like to tell other people what they should do with their own money. Maybe that is why this rubs me the wrong way. Imagine somebody donates $2 million dollars to a non-profit and instead of a big thank you they get called on the carpet because it wasn’t given to some other non-profit. It just doesn’t seem right. I know the money is coming from the windfall they will receive from the rezoning and the city council has the power to decide on the rezoning. I get all that. It just doesn’t seem right to me.
The above article foreshadows how ICLEI will spring it’s version of the infamous but successful “One Bay Area” plan on the unsuspecting rsidents within our “Six County Area!”
[quote] the NIMBY, statist, no-growthers[/quote]
Repeat after me: “‘Stasist’ has only two Ts.”
Don Shor
[i]”Do I understand this correctly (I may be misunderstanding the context)? That CCV needs the Cannery project to go forward for CCV to have funding? CCV has no other source of funds?”[/i]
Don, if I have heard and understood the explanation correctly, the Cannery project monies are not going into CCV, but rather the Davis-centric CCF-1, the first not for profit sub-entity of CCV.
CCV is a Benefit Corporation (also referred to as a B-Corporation) Benefit Corporation, which is a new class of business entities that was enabled by California legislation that was was signed into law on October 9, 2011 and became effective on January 1, 2012. A Benefit Corporation is a hybrid of traditional for-profit corporations and non-profits. They allow companies that want to pursue socially positive or environmental causes to raise capital, but also allow directors to make decisions under the umbrella of the non-profits based on social and environmental goals beyond simply maximizing profit.
CCV as the parent entity can set up as many non-profits as it wants to, with the idea being that each non-profit so created has a target for the socially or environmentally positive goals. As has been clearly stated by David Morris numerous times, the goal of CCF-1 is “to provide financing for very early‐stage technology startups in Davis.”
To the best of my knowledge, CCV is not pursuing at this time any funding for CCF-1 beyond the Cannery agreement.
As I have noted in prior comments in prior threads, it is my understanding that David Morris has invested personal funds into CCV that were derived from the sale of Sagres Discovery, his successful biotechnology start-up, to Chiron Corporation in 2006.
Hopefully that answers your questions.
[quote]Maybe that is why this rubs me the wrong way. Imagine somebody donates $2 million dollars to a non-profit and instead of a big thank you they get called on the carpet because it wasn’t given to some other non-profit. It just doesn’t seem right.[/quote]
Except diverting this money directly effects the public. I think Korvoza has a valid point when he said:
[quote]I think it would be the right thing to do for business development in this town to support the existing organizations that are working well in collaboration with the City, as opposed to this money going to a group that has no program and no board and is only recently formed.[/quote]
Back room deals don’t sit well with me, so I feel his angst
So CCV has committed to:
–sharing the funding of the CIO position, indirectly, by direct payment to the city’s general fund.
— a down payment and other commitments involving Mace 391 in a land swap, but not involving any developers, so presumably CCV is committing to the whole funding at some stage of the process.
— direct grants of $600,000 to local nonprofits benefiting startups.
But CCV needed advance monies from ConAgra earlier, and the $2 million from ConAgra to CCV is contingent on approval of the Cannery project.
Has CCV been vetted with regard to their ability to fulfill the commitment they would take on if the land swap was to go forward? Why did they need cash advances if they have sufficient funds for these other commitments?
[quote]Has CCV been vetted with regard to their ability to fulfill the commitment they would take on if the land swap was to go forward? Why did they need cash advances if they have sufficient funds for these other commitments?[/quote]
That’s an interesting question.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”Thanks for posting that and after reading the Mayor’s remarks it seems he was trying to squeeze them for a piece of the action and from today’s article it seems he succeeded in doing so. Still I thought he was too hard on the Conagra guy and wonder why he felt the need to do this from the dais instead of in private?”[/i]
My pleasure Toad. Glad to make the posting.
I think it goes far beyond [i]”. . . it seems he was . . .”[/i] My take is that Joe was making a very transparent, overt effort to insert himself in the middle of a private transaction between private parties. Further, based on George Phillips’ comment, [i]”There is no question that there have been conversations about how there can be greater dialogue with both the City and Davis Roots with CCV,”[/i] what the Mayor was trying to get started as a three-way discussion between ConAgra, the City, and Davis Roots was already happening as a two-way private party conversation between CCV and ConAgra.
Rather than succeeding in getting the City a piece of the action, what Joe’s comments appear to have done is force the acceleration of the timeline of a prudent dialogue between private parties into a premature expansion of that private party dialogue at a time when the certainty of the funding is still less than 100%. What isn’t clear is whether the Mayor was acting unilaterally in speaking for and involving Davis Roots in this accelerated dialogue when he singled them out by name in his comments from the dais.
What also isn’t clear is what benefit there was in stepping forward as he did just seven days before the actual Cannery vote by Council. Why not wait until the actual vote results make the likelihood of CCF-1 being funded much less uncertain? It is possible that the answer to that question is contained in Joe’s final remark on the subject, “[i]So I think the right thing to do is for that money to be moved onto the community side of the ledger. I think working with Rob White is the way to do that. Otherwise I think it’s only going to be a problem that is going to expand over time. So I would love to nip it in the bud now.”
[/i] His final sentence is why my take is that he was making a very transparent, overt effort to insert himself in the middle of a private transaction between private parties.
[quote]What also isn’t clear is what benefit there was in stepping forward as he did just seven days before the actual Cannery vote by Council.[/quote]
Do you think he planned on brining it up, or was he just riding Brett’s coat tails.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”Except diverting this money directly effects the public. I think Korvoza has a valid point when he said:
“I think it would be the right thing to do for business development in this town to support the existing organizations that are working well in collaboration with the City, as opposed to this money going to a group that has no program and no board and is only recently formed.”
Back room deals don’t sit well with me, so I feel his angst.”[/i]
B. Nice, there is a fundamental (fatal?) flaw in Joe’s “. . . support the existing organizations . . . ” comment. That flaw was very clearly identified by George Phillips when he said [i]”there is a commitment from the project to the CCV nonprofit that would be made for the sole purpose of supporting start-ups in the City of Davis. [b]That understanding predated things such as Davis Roots. So there was not an awareness of [Davis Roots] at the time.[/b]”[/i]
In early 2010 when the ConAgra CCV agreement was consummated, and then publicly vetted, what “existing organization” alternatives were there?
What “back room deal” do you believe exists here?
Nip what in the bud? Business deals between private parties. Keeping one’s word in a handshake deal. I don’t know?
If ConAgra committed $2 million to an organization that barely existed, it is not clear what they were committing the money for or to.
It has never been clear what they felt they were getting from CCV or David Morris in exchange for that money.
It is not clear how an organization that was needing advances of funds (evidently about $100,000 if I recall from previous reports) could make the commitments about the land swap.
It is not clear how they could afford to fund a Measure R election or campaign.
So there are any number of things not clear about all of the possible and somewhat veiled transactions and promises that give all the appearance of a back room deal.
[quote]Nip what in the bud? Business deals between private parties. Keeping one’s word in a handshake deal. I don’t know?[/quote]
Business deals between private parties that appear to be contingent on public officials approving a land development.
[quote]In early 2010 when the ConAgra CCV agreement was consummated, and then publicly vetted, what “existing organization” alternatives were there? [/quote]
Here is what I don’t understand. If it was truly publicly vetted, why do so many people, including the mayor, seem surprised by it? Why is only becoming an issue now?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]So CCV has committed to:
–sharing the funding of the CIO position, indirectly, by direct payment to the city’s general fund.[/i]
Don, I believe you are confusing CCV with techDavis [url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7422:city-pulls-back-on-private-public-partnership-amid-concerns-of-conflict&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86[/url] Based on my reading of the Vanguard article, CCV is not sharing the funding of the CIO position.
As is described on their website [url]http://www.techdavis.org/about/[/url] [quote][b]Cooperative Agreement gives City more flexibility to engage techDAVIS as partner[/b]
Davis, CA – June 28, 2013: techDAVIS has proposed a new Cooperative Agreement to the City of Davis that will dedicate $360,000 in funding over the next three fiscal years for shared initiatives, including work on technology-related economic development, branding, advocacy, and partnership enhancement with the business, research, academic, and capital sectors. The proposed Cooperative Agreement will be considered by the Davis City Council at the July 2nd City Council meeting.
The proposed Cooperative Agreement would replace the previous contractual agreement that provides funding for the City’s Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) position. Under the current contract, techDAVIS agreed to provide the City with funds to offset 50% of the full-time CIO position. By removing the current contract and switching to the proposed Cooperative Agreement, techDAVIS hopes to address community concerns regarding conflicts between the work activities of the CIO position and the funding sources of techDAVIS, and create a renewed commitment to the same level of funding redirected to broad technology-related economic development activities.
“techDAVIS is proactively offering the City this proposed Cooperative Agreement as a means to maintain the funding commitment of $360,000 over three years,” said David Morris, Managing Director of the techDAVIS Business Association. “By redirecting the funding commitment from a specific staff position towards shared technology-sector economic development activities, techDAVIS and the City can continue to focus on meaningful outreach and support for the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Davis.”
As stated in the proposed Cooperative Agreement, the purpose of this partnership with the City is to increase economic development activities that benefit the citizens of the City, increase job opportunities, recruit businesses to locate within the City, retain existing businesses located within the City, provide opportunities to partner with UC Davis and others to foster innovation and startup companies located within the City, and enhance the Davis entrepreneurial ecosystem.
With over 40 technology-based businesses, a blossoming entrepreneurial sector, and an unparalleled research university in agriculture and medical technologies, Davis is poised to become a regional leader for municipal innovation and a national example of leveraging public/private partnerships to help grow a knowledge-based economy.
Background
techDAVIS originally partnered with the City of Davis to hire a CIO by committing to fund 50% of the fully-loaded salary and benefits on an annual basis for 3 years ($360,000). The contract was modeled after the public-private partnership created in late 2012 by the City of San Leandro and their tech business community. It was determined by the City of Davis that joining an elite group of cities in creating the municipal CIO position, Davis could work with jurisdictions such as San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York City and Chicago to share ideas and best practices in developing innovation ecosystems through this type of municipal engagement.
A concept first identified by cities, states, and then the federal government, the municipal CIO position was most recently highlighted in a January 2013 news article titled “Will the Chief Innovation Officer Transform Government?” by David Raths in Government Technology magazine. As described in the article, the CIO position is intended to challenge the fundamental ways that governments conduct business and to drive core innovations throughout their organizations and within their communities.
In May of 2013, community concern regarding the contractual relationship between techDAVIS and the City led City staff and techDAVIS to negotiate a new Cooperative Agreement. This Agreement continues the partnership and dedicates funding for tech-sector economic development and shared initiatives while removing any potential conflicts from the CIO position.[/quote]
(continued)
[quote]About techDAVIS
techDAVIS is a business association with the goal to help foster the innovation economy in Davis and the surrounding region. The growing organization currently has fifteen members comprised of current and former senior technology executives with close ties to UC Davis and the Davis community, as well as ex-officio members from the government, academia, and the business services sectors. In addition, techDAVIS has more than a dozen sponsors. The techDAVIS executive management team currently includes a biotech entrepreneur and venture fund manager, a serial entrepreneur and co-founder of Silicon Valley Bank, and a senior attorney from an international law firm. The organization continues to recruit tech entrepreneurs for the Board, with additional directors scheduled to be added this summer.
[/quote]
and from [url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/business/techdavis-names-new-board-members/[/url]
[quote]TechDAVIS has expanded its nonprofit board of directors to include four more technology sector leaders from the Davis area.
The additions are Pam Marrone, founder and CEO of Marrone Bio Innovations, which held a successful $61 million IPO in August; Ken Ouimet, co-founder and CEO of Engage3, a provider of on-demand, comparative retail intelligence and digital marketing services; Zachary Wochok, president and founder of the Wochok Group, LLC, an international management consulting firm; and Grayson Beck, co-founder of Aduro Laser, which develops precision laser cutting tools.
These new directors join the existing board, which includes Robert Medearis, co-founder of Silicon Valley Bank and local entrepreneur, and David Morris, founder of Capitol Corridor Ventures, tech entrepreneur and former member of the UC Davis medical faculty.
Rob White, the chief innovation officer for the city of Davis, is an ex-officio adviser to the board. Gilles Attia of DLA Piper is the board’s secretary and legal counsel.
The techDAVIS board now has representation from the industries of ag tech, mobile tech, executive leadership, advanced manufacturing, financial services and biomedicine. Additional board members will be added in the coming weeks, a news release said.
“There is a strong core of tech executives in Davis, and we are enthusiastic that such high-caliber leaders have decided to join us,” said Morris, managing director of techDAVIS.
TechDAVIS and its leaders have been proponents of building a tech business park in Davis that would provide room for local technology business to grow as well as space for new companies to locate here, close to UCD.
Although no sites have been formally selected by the community, tech sector advocates have identified several locations that would be ideal, including land northeast of the interchange at Mace Boulevard and Interstate 80 and land near Sutter Davis Hospital. In November 2012, these two areas were identified by the City Council and the Davis Innovation Park Task Force as appropriate areas for considering growth for technology sector businesses.
“TechDAVIS will continue to grow and convene opportunities for the tech sector to meet, network and collaborate, with a particular focus on developing a robust tech ecosystem in Davis and taking advantage of the significant regional asset presented by the university,” Morris said.
[/quote]
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”Do you think he planned on brining it up, or was he just riding Brett’s coat tails.”[/i]
That is a question that only Joe can answer. I wouldn’t want to hazard a guess.
Yep, I was confusing them. Partly, I guess, because the Managing Director of techDavis is the same person who is head of CCV. I also note that we have no idea what the funding is for either organization, and for quite some time techDavis and CCV both exclusively appeared to consist of David Morris. And it was during the time that both organizations appeared to exclusively consist of David Morris that the commitments were made about various funds for various things.
Matt wrote: [quote]he was making a very transparent, overt effort to insert himself in the middle of a private transaction between private parties. [/quote]
Finally! Some transparency about this deal 😉
But seriously Matt… What exactly is inappropriate about Joe Krovoza trying to do what he thinks is in the interest of the City? Are you suggesting that it is perfectly okay for private firms to negotiate mutually beneficial deals but City leadership should not engage in any negotiations for what is in the interest of the City? What exactly is wrong with publicly questioning an applicant that has come before the City about deals that concern the City to try to influence them? Are you afraid he is going to offend George Philips? New Homes? Dave Morris? Are you afraid that Mr Philips is going to retract the offer as a result of being questioned by the Mayor?
Joe is negotiating. Period. He has every right to do so. He is asking an applicant about money that the applicant is directing towards issues of concern to the City. Please help me understand what the problem is or simply leave Joe alone. I am glad Brett raised it and I am glad Joe picked up on it. Keep in mind that New Homes WAS crying poor in the middle of negotiations of the Development Agreement even though they were willing to put this money on the table. The deal is not yet sealed and for Joe to seek more money for the City before a final vote is taken is appropriate in my view.
Allow George Philips, New Homes, Dave Morris or anyone else with a stake in this negotiate in their interests. Allow our City leaders to negotiate in ours.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”If ConAgra committed $2 million to an organization that barely existed, it is not clear what they were committing the money for or to.
It has never been clear what they felt they were getting from CCV or David Morris in exchange for that money.
So there are any number of things not clear about all of the possible and somewhat veiled transactions and promises that give all the appearance of a back room deal. “[/i]
Don, your post above is worthy of Michael Harrington.
With that said, I agree that it is not clear what ConAgra felt they were getting. George Phillips has said on the record that they felt that the concept Dave Morris was putting together in organizing and aligning the Davis technology community was going to be good for the long term economic health of Davis, and that they altruistically wanted to support that concept.
In a prior comment in a prior thread I shared one intriguing hypothetical explanation that has neither been confirmed nor denied to date by ConAgra. Specifically, that the tech community organizing that David Morris was doing presented an opportunity to have a counter balancing voice to the Sue Greenwald led arguments that the highest and best use for the Cannery was as a 100% technology/business park. The study commissioned by and presented to Council as part of their deliberations about what level of EIR that Lewis Homes would need to complete, had determined that a 100% technology/business park could succeed on the Cannery site, but that there was no margin for error. The report clearly stated that if anything went wrong, the park would not succeed. The hypothetical explanation went on to say that having a united Davis technology community saying, “not only are things likely to go wrong, none of our many and varied technology companies will ever locate there . . . and that is a huge, very real “wrong” in and of itself. The hypothetical explanation concluded that ConAgra had nothing to lose and everything to gain if the Davis technology community was able to organize itself and carry that message.
Don wrote:
[quote]If ConAgra committed $2 million to an organization that barely existed, it is not clear what they were committing the money for or to. [/quote]
Rob White said in relation to the deal according to the Vanguard of 30 October
[quote]“Both let me know that approximately two to two-and-a-half years ago… that Dave Morris had approached the ConAgra land owner and had said in return for me [Dave Morris] helping to shepherd the project forward… would ConAgra be willing to support the entrepreneurial community by creating a donation that they would donate over to Capitol Corridor Ventures for use in funding small startups,” Mr. White explained.
[/quote]
He was paid to “shepherd the project forward…”
Yes. The notion that it was altruistic is nonsense.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”Here is what I don’t understand. If it was truly publicly vetted, why do so many people, including the mayor, seem surprised by it? Why is only becoming an issue now?”[/i]
B. Nice, I don’t KNOW the answer to that question, but here are a few data clues that might be pertinent.
Council then = Saylor, Souza, Asmundsen, Greenwald and Heystek
Council now = none of the above
City Manager then = Bill Emlen
City Manager now = not even Bill Emlen’s successor
The leadership of the Community Development Department has turned over at least twice between then and now.
I can’t say much about the private sector, but I believe the Executive Director of the Chamber has changed, as has the Executive Director of the Davis Downtown Business Association (DDBA), which has also changed its name since 2010.
I’m sure there are lots of other reasons as well. I personally am not sure what I was paying attention to in 2010.
“His final sentence is why my take is that he was making a very transparent, overt effort to insert himself in the middle of a private transaction between private parties.”
Matt, your spin is excessive. Your so called “private transaction” is 100% dependent upon a public sector action. If you want a “private transaction between private parties” you will need to hit the pause button on The Cannery project. Is that what you’re advocating for.
As for your weak attempt to create separation between Morris, CCV and techDavis, until a month ago they were essentially the same. Have you forgotten Morris stating before the CC in June that the boards consisted of Morris and his attorney? On this point, you have gone beyond spin and into false statement territory. If I have this wrong, please correct the record. Who besides Morris was on the boards of CCV and techDavis when the ConAgra commitment was made, in March when the CIO position was created, and again in June when Morris went before the CC to purchase Mace 391?
-Michael Bisch
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Business deals between private parties that appear to be contingent on public officials approving a land development.”[/i]
Don, I don’t follow that logic. Isn’t the business deal between the private parties ConAgra and New Home Company contingent on public officials approving a land development? Isn’t the business deal between the private parties New Home Company and the Davis Small Builders Association contingent on public officials approving a land development? Isn’t the business deal between the private parties New Home Company and Choices for Healthy Aging (CHA) contingent on public officials approving a land development?
What is it about the business deal between the private parties ConAgra and CCV contingent on public officials approving a land development that makes it different from all those others?
“Here is what I don’t understand. If it was truly publicly vetted, why do so many people, including the mayor, seem surprised by it? Why is only becoming an issue now?”
I knew about it before the story broke, first about the $2million and then where it came from. I got it from two different sources. One of my sources was worried it would hurt the Cannery’s chances of passing and told me others were keeping quiet for the same reason. Since someone anonymously broke the story and the pro-Cannery supporters were keeping quiet, i think its safe to assume that the anonymous source thought it would be damaging to getting the Cannery passed and wanted the project scuttled.
[quote]Don, I don’t follow that logic. Isn’t the business deal between the private parties ConAgra and New Home Company contingent on public officials approving a land development? Isn’t the business deal between the private parties New Home Company and the Davis Small Builders Association contingent on public officials approving a land development? Isn’t the business deal between the private parties New Home Company and Choices for Healthy Aging (CHA) contingent on public officials approving a land development?
What is it about the business deal between the private parties ConAgra and CCV contingent on public officials approving a land development that makes it different from all those others? [/quote]
Are you serious?
Yes Don, I am serious. What is the difference?
Wow. No, I won’t bother.
Robb Davis said . . .
[i]”He was making a very transparent, overt effort to insert himself in the middle of a private transaction between private parties.
Finally! Some transparency about this deal 😉
But seriously Matt… What exactly is inappropriate about Joe Krovoza trying to do what he thinks is in the interest of the City? Are you suggesting that it is perfectly okay for private firms to negotiate mutually beneficial deals but City leadership should not engage in any negotiations for what is in the interest of the City? What exactly is wrong with publicly questioning an applicant that has come before the City about deals that concern the City to try to influence them? Are you afraid he is going to offend George Philips? New Homes? Dave Morris? Are you afraid that Mr Philips is going to retract the offer as a result of being questioned by the Mayor? “[/i]
Robb, no suggestions Robb, only the sharing of facts and asking of questions that those facts cause me to ask myself. Where the information shared is not able to be confirmed with factual corroboration, I have labelled it as such (e.g. “hypothetical explanation”)
[img]http://healthyinfluence.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Joe-Friday.jpg[/img]
Don, not sure why you’re reluctant to answer Matt’s question. The answer is short and simple. There’s nothing different between all of the arrangements Matt lists. None of those transaction are purely private party transactions. Public sector participation/action is critical to all of them. Not only that, the public sector can wipe each of them out with the wave of a wand. It’s absurd to claim those transactions are independent of the public sector.
If the $2M donation to Dave Morris wasn’t contingent upon entitlement of The Cannery, then the transaction would be exclusively between two private parties. But that’s clearly not the case.
-Michael Bisch
Robb Davis said . . .
[i]”Please help me understand what the problem is or simply leave Joe alone. I am glad Brett raised it and I am glad Joe picked up on it.”[/i]
Interesting take on this conversation Robb. Brett actually raised a very different issue in his dialogue with Steve Pinkerton. He very clearly and understandably asked Steve to assure him and his fellow Council members that there were no additional “surprises” in the offing. Joe’s focus was indeed exactly as you have characterized it . . . negotiating. The problem that has been identified by Toad is that while Joe was indeed negotiating from the dais with ConAgra, he wasn’t asking for an [u]incremental addition[/u] in the two-way agreements between ConAgra and the City. He appeared to be advocating for a willful abrogation by ConAgra of its existing private business agreement with a third party. Is that what you saw him doing when you observed the interchange, or read the transcript?
[quote]I knew about it before the story broke, first about the $2million and then where it came from. I got it from two different sources. One of my sources was worried it would hurt the Cannery’s chances of passing and told me others were keeping quiet for the same reason. Since someone anonymously broke the story and the pro-Cannery supporters were keeping quiet, i think its safe to assume that the anonymous source thought it would be damaging to getting the Cannery passed and wanted the project scuttled. [/quote]
This does not sound like something that is being publicly vetted.
“What exactly is inappropriate about Joe Krovoza trying to do what he thinks is in the interest of the City?”
Imagine if the mayor told Microsoft if you want Davis to use Microsoft software we think Gate Foundation shouldn’t give money to Freedom From Hunger but give it instead to some other Davis based organization that helps people start their own small businesses like Davis Roots.
You might respond just as the Conagra guy did and point out that Davis Roots didn’t even exist when Gates promised money to Freedom From Hunger. You probably would have thought it rude if the Mayor did such a thing and interfered in such a donation between two private parties. You also probably would have cheered if the Gates representative stood his ground and promised to honor his boss’ commitment.
What I think would have been appropriate would have been for the mayor to say if Conagra, a multi-billion dollar market capitalized corporation, wants to give $2 million dollars to a Davis non-profit to invest in technology startups, and take a tax deduction while doing so I might add, they shouldn’t consider it as part of the money they will make as the profit on the Cannery project. They therefore should have another $2million to invest in whatever the mayor wanted, infrastructure, Davis Roots, Covell Corridor, bike paths or a new fire station. But the mayor didn’t squeeze them for more money, instead he sought control of a previously negotiated agreement between two private parties. It is that interference that I find distasteful.
[quote]If ConAgra committed $2 million to an organization that barely existed, it is not clear what they were committing the money for or to[/quote]
[quote]Yes. The notion that it was altruistic is nonsense.[/quote]
Don, I have a big problem with your line of thinking here. From my perspective it really does look like you are stuck in some good-cop bad-crook moral superiority playbook.
Private companies give to causes all the time. They give money to causes that have no direct payback other than maybe some good will. The company I work for has given money to many, many programs to help disadvantaged kids. We have also given money to help fund micro lending programs for business startups that are always a net loss for us. It is part of our company mission to do these things in addition our primary focus to win at competition and to make as much revenue as possible.
So what do you base your accusation that ConAgra has anything other than an altruistic interest for this donation?
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”His final sentence is why my take is that he was making a very transparent, overt effort to insert himself in the middle of a private transaction between private parties.”
Matt, your spin is excessive. Your so called “private transaction” is 100% dependent upon a public sector action. If you want a “private transaction between private parties” you will need to hit the pause button on The Cannery project. Is that what you’re advocating for. [/i]
Michael, as I said to Don, isn’t the business deal between the private parties ConAgra and New Home Company contingent on public officials approving a land development?
Isn’t the business deal between the private parties New Home Company and the Davis Small Builders Association contingent on public officials approving a land development?
Isn’t the business deal between the private parties New Home Company and Choices for Healthy Aging (CHA) contingent on public officials approving a land development?
What is it about the business deal between the private parties ConAgra and CCV contingent on public officials approving a land development that makes it different from all those others?
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”As for your weak attempt to create separation between Morris, CCV and techDavis, until a month ago they were essentially the same. Have you forgotten Morris stating before the CC in June that the boards consisted of Morris and his attorney? [b]On this point, you have gone beyond spin and into false statement territory.[/b] If I have this wrong, please correct the record. Who besides Morris was on the boards of CCV and techDavis when the ConAgra commitment was made, in March when the CIO position was created, and again in June when Morris went before the CC to purchase Mace 391? “[/i]
Michael, absolutely nothing false about it. CCV existed in 2010 when the agreement between ConAgra and CCV was agreed to. techDavis did not exist at that time. What existed in 2010 was a loose affiliation of technology industry participants, that according to the techDavis website evolved into an informal technology entrepreneur focus group in March 2011. It was then reorganized as a 501(c)(3) named techDAVIS in February 2013. You used to attend DSIDE meetings. You no doubt attended the DSIDE meeting at Sudwerk way back when when it was reported to all present that the ad hoc technology/entrepreneur group was organized at the request of Don Saylor to supplement the discussion that was going on within DSIDE. I believe that Don was very actively pursuing the possibility of an EDC for Yolo County at that time.
Matt if this deal had been sufficiently publicly vetted 3 years ago, I have a hard time believing, considering how much of his time is being spent on this project, that our current mayor would not know about it.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”Don, not sure why you’re reluctant to answer Matt’s question. The answer is short and simple. There’s nothing different between all of the arrangements Matt lists. None of those transaction are purely private party transactions. Public sector participation/action is critical to all of them. Not only that, the public sector can wipe each of them out with the wave of a wand. It’s absurd to claim those transactions are independent of the public sector.
If the $2M donation to Dave Morris wasn’t contingent upon entitlement of The Cannery, then the transaction would be exclusively between two private parties. But that’s clearly not the case.
-Michael Bisch”[/i]
Well said Michael. The City does not intrude into the private business agreements between ConAgra and New Home Company. The City is an external factor that can affect those business agreements, but the agreements are two-party, not three-party. What New Home Company is going to pay ConAgra if and when the entitlements are granted is between the two of them, just as what any financial transactions between ConAgra and New Home Company if and when entitlements are denied is between the two of them.
The City does not intrude into the private business agreements between New Home Company and the Davis Small Bulders. The City is an external factor that can affect those business agreements, but the agreements are two-party, not three-party. What an individual Small Builder Association company is going to pay New Home for a lot if and when the entitlements are granted is between the two of them, just as what any financial transactions between New Home Company and those same Small Builder Association companies if and when entitlements are denied is between the two of them.
The City does not intrude into the private business agreements between New Home Company and CHA. The City is an external factor that can affect those business agreements, but the agreements are two-party, not three-party. What an individual CHA member is going to pay New Home for a lot and single story home if and when the entitlements are granted is between the two of them, just as what any financial transactions between New Home Company and those same individual CHA members if and when entitlements are denied is between the two of them.
[quote]In early 2010 when the ConAgra CCV agreement was consummated[/quote]
As I recall from a long-ago class on contract law, the agreement isn’t consummated until the terms are met, i.e. until CCV gets the $2M. Based only upon what I’ve read here and in the Enterprise, I’m not even sure there’s an agreement in the legal (contract) sense. It sounded more like a casual offer revocable by the offeror without consequences should the ConAgra board of directors decide that Phillips acted beyond his authority to encumber corporate funds of that magnitude.
I certainly won’t be surprised if the deal goes through as popularly characterized, but the skeptic in me says “talk is cheap” (the more polite version of “money talks, bullshit walks”).
[quote]They give money to causes that have no direct payback other than maybe some good will.[/quote]
I don’t see that being the case in this scenario. This seems more like more of a bribe.
I’m surprised if he didn’t know either considering I knew and i know at least several others knew it too. It gets back to my original question about the kabuki and what drove him to do it from the dais.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”Matt if this deal had been sufficiently publicly vetted 3 years ago, I have a hard time believing, considering how much of his time is being spent on this project, that our current mayor would not know about it.”[/i]
If my memory serves me well, and I’m very sure it does, David Greenwald can confirm that the Mayor told him in an interview that he knew about the transaction, but that his recollection was of a number that was smaller than $2 million.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”This does not sound like something that is being publicly vetted.”[/i]
B. Nice, why do you use the present tense verb “is” when the agreement and the vetting took place in 2010. Wouldn’t the appropriate verb be “was” . . . in the past tense.
Jim Frame
[i]”As I recall from a long-ago class on contract law, the agreement isn’t consummated until the terms are met, i.e. until CCV gets the $2M. Based only upon what I’ve read here and in the Enterprise, I’m not even sure there’s an agreement in the legal (contract) sense. It sounded more like a casual offer revocable by the offeror without consequences should the ConAgra board of directors decide that Phillips acted beyond his authority to encumber corporate funds of that magnitude.
I certainly won’t be surprised if the deal goes through as popularly characterized, but the skeptic in me says “talk is cheap” (the more polite version of “money talks, bulls**t walks”).”[/i]
You are a tough audience Mr. Frame. 8>)
I stand corrected in my poor use of the verb consummated. I should have said agreed to.
“As I recall from a long-ago class on contract law, the agreement isn’t consummated until the terms are met, i.e. until CCV gets the $2M. “
Its hard to know without reading the contract but if advances have been paid, as has been reported, it does indicate that some sort of an agreement exists and is in effect. Isn’t the payment of some money what creates the binding of a contract? Even so since its a donation to a non-profit i’m not sure there would be adverse consequences for failure to follow through other than the damage to the reputations of those involved. Still, at the end of the day, this is all legal mumbo jumbo. Conagra could do it all on a handshake if they so choose.
Matt, I don’t have an issue with Morris getting $2M from ConAgra. More power to Morris. The fairy tales being told to justify it, however, are disturbing. As I stated previously, due to the corporate control, there is no difference between Morris, techDavis and CCV. In 2010, Morris was de facto CCV your spin notwithstanding. And you’re dodging the question about the board make-up of techDavis and CCV at those critical points in time.
Again, if I have it wrong, Matt, please set the record straight.
-Michael Bisch
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”I don’t see that being the case in this scenario. This seems more like more of a bribe.”[/i]
What was the bribe supposed to accomplish? Organizing the tech sector participants?
“If my memory serves me well, and I’m very sure it does, David Greenwald can confirm that the Mayor told him in an interview that he knew about the transaction, but that his recollection was of a number that was smaller than $2 million.”
Then why the Kabuki?
[quote]B. Nice, why do you use the present tense verb “is” when the agreement and the vetting took place in 2010. Wouldn’t the appropriate verb be “was” . . . in the past tense.[/quote]
No, “is” is the appropriate verb. It should have been publicly vetted throughout the entire process.
[quote]What was the bribe supposed to accomplish? Organizing the tech sector participants?[/quote]
I believe it was to “shepherd the project forward”.
DT Businessman
[i]”Matt, I don’t have an issue with Morris getting $2M from ConAgra. More power to Morris. The fairy tales being told to justify it, however, are disturbing. As I stated previously, due to the corporate control, there is no difference between Morris, techDavis and CCV. In 2010, Morris was de facto CCV your spin notwithstanding. And you’re dodging the question about the board make-up of techDavis and CCV at those critical points in time.
Again, if I have it wrong, Matt, please set the record straight.
-Michael Bisch”[/i]
Michael, I believe I answered your question. CCV had a Board in 2010 when the agreement was agreed to (is that okay wording Jim?). Based on all the information that has been publicly shared about CCV, the CCV Board then was the same as the CCV Board is now, David Morris as the Chair and Gilles Attia of DLA Piper as the Secretary.
When techDavis was created in February 2013 as a 501(c)(3) David Morris and Robert Medearis comprised the Board with (I believe based on the Enterprise article) Gilles Attia of DLA Piper is the board’s secretary and legal counsel. That Board was expanded in October 2013 to include Pam Marrone, founder and CEO of Marrone Bio Innovations, which held a successful $61 million IPO in August; Ken Ouimet, co-founder and CEO of Engage3, a provider of on-demand, comparative retail intelligence and digital marketing services; Zachary Wochok, president and founder of the Wochok Group, LLC, an international management consulting firm; and Grayson Beck, co-founder of Aduro Laser, which develops precision laser cutting tools.
I believe that sets the record straight.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]I believe it was to “shepherd the project forward”.[/i]
Agreed. What does that “shepherding” mean to you? There still is considerable traction for the 100% Technology Park alternative (see Mike Hart’s comments here in the Vanguard and at the Innovation Park Community Forum on 11/5/2013, as well as Sue Greenwald’s comments at Council on 11/12/2013). Does having the Davis technology sector broadly voicing (1) its opposition to the viability of a Technology Park at the Cannery site constitute “shepherding”? and (2) does creating an environment where citizens like Gary Albertson, a public commenter on 11/12 who identified himself as “a registered professional engineer who believes this is a truly superb project” publicly state “in my professional opinion the Cannery site is a lousy place for a business park” constitute shepherding?
Matt wrote of Joe Krovoza:
[quote]He appeared to be advocating for a willful abrogation by ConAgra of its existing private business agreement with a third party. Is that what you saw him doing when you observed the interchange, or read the transcript?[/quote]
Why would that be a problem Matt. I mean, it’s not as if he was asking them to break a contract. After all, according to the Vanguard article of 30 October:
[quote]George Phillips explained that while the agreement between ConAgra and David Morris “is acknowledged in the agreement with New Homes” – a company that has been brought in to design and build the housing development – “that the commitment exists, but beyond that, no,” there is no formal agreement between the parties.[/quote]
Why is it a problem for Joe to ask him to change his mind about an informal agreement? What is the problem with Joe doing what is in the interest of the City? Hey, he is merely driving a hard bargain–something presumably we elected him to do with developers and city employee groups. I am asking you to give him a break. We either want elected officials who work for what they believe to be in the best interests of the City or we don’t.
I wonder if the Mayor knew who is now on the board of CCV when he went off on the Conagra guy from the dais? It does seem odd that he would step on so many high powered toes in one fell swoop. Maybe he was just angry and venting in an offhand manner as Don suggests. Then again he did get results as we see in the original article posted today by Morris, so maybe it was contrived. i really have no idea.
Matt, thanks for confirming that CCV essentially has a 1-man board. The way you’ve been using the term “board” is very misleading. And thanks for confirming that when the City partnered with techDavis to fund the CIO position, it had essentially a 2-man board. Which brings me to the most disturbing aspect of Morris’ dealings. In March, when City staff recommended to the CC a partnership to fund the CIO position, both Morris and staff failed to disclose the $2M ConAgra/Morris agreement and also failed to disclose that Morris was in negotiations with the City to purchase Mace 391. Is there any doubt at all, that the CC would not have agreed to share the cost of the CIO position had they been informed of the other 2 concurrent Morris dealings? Is there any doubt at all that a significant public debate would have ensured had City staff and Morris provided proper disclosure? There has been a gross disclosure violation. That you remain unperturbed by the failure to properly disclose, Matt, is quite surprising.
-Michael Bisch
Matt if ConAgra’s intention were so pure why didn’t they wait until after the Cannery was approved to donate their 2 Million?
Instead they promised money to someone, who they thought could obstruct the approval process, in return for them shepherding the process through. This smacks of bribery.
[quote]I wonder if the Mayor knew who is now on the board of CCV when he went off on the Conagra guy from the dais?[/quote]
He said he did. Apparently he googled them.
[quote]Matt, thanks for confirming that CCV essentially has a 1-man board[/quote]
I’m not sure this is actually legal. It’s my understanding that non-profit boards need a President, Secretary, and Treasurer.
Robb Davis said . . .
[i]”Why would that be a problem Matt. I mean, it’s not as if he was asking them to break a contract. After all, according to the Vanguard article of 30 October:
George Phillips explained that while the agreement between ConAgra and David Morris “is acknowledged in the agreement with New Homes” – a company that has been brought in to design and build the housing development – “that the commitment exists, but beyond that, no,” there is no formal agreement between the parties.
Why is it a problem for Joe to ask him to change his mind about an informal agreement? “[/i]
Robb, I know you are a spiritual person, so let me draw a spiritual parallel. A number of the people who attended your announcement were “of the cloth.” I am going to assume athat amongst that group you have agreed to many agreements over the years. How many of those agreements were actually reduced to a written contract? Assuming that there might have been some, of the ones that were not so reduced to contractual status, how many of them would you willingly have broken? One of the many reasons I strongly support you as a City Council Candidate is that I believe your word is your bond. Are you saying to me in your comment above that you believe that George Phillips should act any differently than you do when it comes to acting on his freely given word?
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”Matt, thanks for confirming that CCV essentially has a 1-man board. The way you’ve been using the term “board” is very misleading.” [/i]
You asked me a question Michael, and I answered it with factual information. How is that misleading? You asked me “about the board make-up of techDavis and CCV at those critical points in time.” You asked and I answered. Make-up is make-up even for Gene Simmons.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”And thanks for confirming that when the City partnered with techDavis to fund the CIO position, it had essentially a 2-man board. Which brings me to the most disturbing aspect of Morris’ dealings. In March, when City staff recommended to the CC a partnership to fund the CIO position, both Morris and staff failed to disclose the $2M ConAgra/Morris agreement.” [/i]
Michael, how do you know that is true? Are you saying that you [u]know[/u] that the ConAgra/CCV agreement was unknown by Steve Pinkerton and/or Harriet Steiner and/or Ken Hiatt and/or any of the members of Council and/or lots of other people in the City hierarchy? Did you [u]know[/u] about the ConAgra/CCV agreement?
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]. . . and also failed to disclose that Morris was in negotiations with the City to purchase Mace 391.[/i]
Michael, as best as I know the facts, Morris had nothing to negotiate with until he secured the Shriners option in early June 2013. That was over three months after Rob White was hired.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”Is there any doubt at all, that the CC would not have agreed to share the cost of the CIO position had they been informed of the other 2 concurrent Morris dealings? Is there any doubt at all that a significant public debate would have ensured had City staff and Morris provided proper redisclosure? There has been a gross redisclosure violation. That you remain unperturbed by the failure to properly redisclose, Matt, is quite surprising.
-Michael Bisch”[/i]
Michael, I have fixed your post.
I am saying Matt that it is not inappropriate for Joe to ask. Period.
But if you want to put it in “spiritual” terms, no, I don’t assume that others act the way I would act or hold the same values I do; nor do I ask or demand them to. I expect them to act according to their interests (as do I–acknowledging that what motivates my interests may be different from what motivates theirs).
Joe is merely trying to change the equation, ask Mr Philips to consider why it might make sense for him to choose other options and that is not inappropriate. Ultimately Mr Philips will do what he is paid to do and what is in his interests to do given what his employer wants. That Joe might be suggesting he reconsider his calculus is not wrong, not immoral, not underhanded and very well may be in the best interests of the City.
I am asking you to give him a break.
BTW Matt – Glad you [i]strongly [/i]support me as a candidate! (emphasis added 😉
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”Matt if ConAgra’s intention were so pure why didn’t they wait until after the Cannery was approved to donate their 2 Million?
Instead they promised money to someone, who they thought could obstruct the approval process, in return for them shepherding the process through. This smacks of bribery.”[/i]
The fact that you ask that question B. Nice tells me that your earnings/wages have never been controlled by an ICP. But lets imagine for a moment that your employment is as a substitute teacher. Does the school district pay a substitute teacher a whole year’s projected earnings up front, or do they only pay the substitute teacher for actual days worked after those days are actually worked by the teacher?
The same is true for the ConAgra/CCV agreement. It is predicated on the completion of a “day actually worked” but in their case the “day” is replaced by “entitlements” and “worked” is replaced by “granted.”
Nobody said ConAgra was “pure” in their intentions. The hypothetical explanation of their actions was that they wanted to see the Davis tech community come forward and actively state, on the record time and time again, that a 100% technology/innovation park was a horrible business idea and that none of them would ever consider locating their company there. Getting that kind of vocal input would go a long way toward offsetting the Mike Harts and Sue Greenwalds who continued to argue for such a 100% technology/business park. The hypothetical explanation says that ConAgra knew that Council was continuing to listen and they wanted someone to be actively using a megaphone to make an argument that they felt was good for them.
When it comes to “pure” Ivory Snow had the corner on that market, and look where that got them.
[quote]The hypothetical explanation of their actions was that they wanted to see the Davis tech community come forward and actively state, on the record time and time again, that a 100% technology/innovation park was a horrible business idea and that none of them would ever consider locating their company there. [/quote]
And they promised them 2 million dollars for doing so, which smacks of bribery, and it also make their claims seem disingenuous and deceptive. Did they mean it? Or were they saying it for the money?
Robb Davis said . . .
[i]”I am saying Matt that it is not inappropriate for Joe to ask. Period.
But if you want to put it in “spiritual” terms, no, I don’t assume that others act the way I would act or hold the same values I do; nor do I ask or demand them to. I expect them to act according to their interests (as do I–acknowledging that what motivates my interests may be different from what motivates theirs).
Joe is merely trying to change the equation, ask Mr Philips to consider why it might make sense for him to choose other options and that is not inappropriate. Ultimately Mr Philips will do what he is paid to do and what is in his interests to do given what his employer wants. That Joe might be suggesting he reconsider his calculus is not wrong, not immoral, not underhanded and very well may be in the best interests of the City.
I am asking you to give him a break.”[/i]
Robb, when you say “give him a break” it appears to indicate that I have made value judgments of Joe that are unduly harsh. I posted the Joe Friday graphic for a reason. I have worked assiduously in this thread to stick to the facts and not be judgmental. Let’s drill down into that a bit.
My first post was a simple acknowledgement that B. Nice’s assessment “My guess, he is not going to be happy this deal.” did not give Joe enough credit for resiliency. Nothing harsh there.
My second, third and fourth posts were the transcripts. Again, nothing harsh there.
My fifth post described a Benefit Corporation. Nothing harsh there.
My sixth post acknowledged that Joe was being “very transparent and overt” (qualities that you lauded in a follow-up reply) in his effort to insert himself in the middle of a private transaction between private parties. Nothing harsh there, just a simple recitation of factual information.
My seventh post responded to B. Nice noting the factual error in Joe’s statement about davis Roots. Again, nothing harsh there.
My eighth and ninth posts provided Don Shor factual information. Again, nothing harsh there.
My tenth post deferred B.Nice’s question to Joe. Again, nothing harsh there.
My eleventh post shared the hypothetical explanation. Again, nothing harsh there.
My twelfth post answered B. Nice’s continuity question. Again, nothing harsh there.
My thirteenth and fourteenth and seventeenth and eighteenth posts had to do with external factors affecting private business transactions. Again, nothing harsh there.
My fifteenth post addressed your concern that “very transparent and overt” were pejorative terms and labeled Joe’s actions as inappropriate. As you have pointed out, the action of asking is not inappropriate, because the person you are asking can always say “no.” So here I was clarifying that the words used were simply factual. I’m not sure how that can be considered to be harsh.
My sixteenth post (to you) points out that Joe wasn’t negotiating for an incremental improvement in the City’s portion of the deal, but rather he was negotiation on behalf of a third party. Again, a recitation of the facts. I’m not sure how that can be considered to be harsh.
My nineteenth post provided B. Nice with factual information previously provided by David Greenwald. Again, nothing harsh there.
My twentieth post contained a humorous interlude with Jim Frame.
None of my posts after twenty even mentioned Joe, until this one. So, I’m still looking for some harshness that I need to back off from in order to give him a break.
Am I missing something?
[quote]The fact that you ask that question B. Nice tells me that your earnings/wages have never been controlled by an ICP[/quote]
Since I don’t know what an ICP is I suspect you are correct.
[quote]But lets imagine for a moment that your employment is as a substitute teacher. Does the school district pay a substitute teacher a whole year’s projected earnings up front, or do they only pay the substitute teacher for actual days worked after those days are actually worked by the teacher? [/quote]
There is a distinction between getting a paycheck and being bribed, although it doesn’t always feel that way.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”The hypothetical explanation of their actions was that they wanted to see the Davis tech community come forward and actively state, on the record time and time again, that a 100% technology/innovation park was a horrible business idea and that none of them would ever consider locating their company there.
And they promised them 2 million dollars for doing so, which smacks of bribery, and it also make their claims seem disingenuous and deceptive. Did they mean it? Or were they saying it for the money?”[/i]
B. Nice, I think you are making a linkage where there is none, Let’s drill into the comment made on Tuesday night at Council by Gary Albertson, who identified himself as “a registered professional engineer who believes this is a truly superb project” and that “in my professional opinion the Cannery site is a lousy place for a business park.”
What causes you to believe that Mr. Albertson was being disingenuous and/or deceptive in his comment about the potential of the Cannery site as a place for a business park? You seem to be implying, if not outright stating, that Mr. Albertson either was paid for his testimony, or is one of the principals of CCV. Since we know from prior posts that CCV is at this point only David Morris and the lawyer who acts as Secretary, then that means you are saying that Mr. Albertson was paid. Is that what you meant to say?
Hm, Matt, are you arguing that City staff did not know about the $2M or the Mace 391 purchase effort in March?
-Michael Bisch
Let the people vote.
B. Nice said . . .
[i]”Since I don’t know what an ICP is I suspect you are correct.
There is a distinction between getting a paycheck and being bribed, although it doesn’t always feel that way.”[/i]
ICP is short for “Incentive Compensation Plan.” Almost all sales people in non-retail settings receive their pay from an Incentive Compensation Plan in the form of commission payments for actual measurable achievements. Lawyers often take cases with their compensation tied 100% to the outcome of the case. If they lose the case they get no payment for all their effort. Real Estate agents only get paid if one of their clients buys a house, or if one of their listings is sold.
The reason for these kind of incentive compensation systems, which is that the only way that value is created is if a specified outcome is achieved. Absent any value creation, there isn’t any pot of money to make a payment from.
ConAgra defined the “specified outcome” as “entitlements granted.” The reason that they did that is that the value of their 100 acres is greater with entitlements in place than it is without entitlements in place.
Now lets do a little bit of comparative costing from the perspective of ConAgra. If the 100% Technology/Business Park alternative continued to be a viable option for Council, then they would continue to ask for the same dual-EIRs that had been required of Lewis Homes in 2009. The approximate cost of an EIR and all the supportive materials is approximately $3 million. Therefore committing to a $2 million payment at the time of entitlement would actually cost ConAgra $1 million less than if they had to complete the second EIR for the technology business park alternative.
So, Matt, how did paying Morris $2M lead to City staff and the CC foregoing the dual-EIRs thereby saving ConAgra $1M? That part of your argument is not clear to me.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]You seem to be implying, if not outright stating, that Mr. Albertson either was paid for his testimony, or is one of the principals of CCV. Since we know from prior posts that CCV is at this point only David Morris and the lawyer who acts as Secretary, then that means you are saying that Mr. Albertson was paid. Is that what you meant to say?[/quote]
I’m saying that your comment (below) implies this. I was asking you if this is what you meant to say?
[quote]The hypothetical explanation of their actions was that they wanted to see the Davis tech community come forward and actively state, on the record time and time again, that a 100% technology/innovation park was a horrible business idea and that none of them would ever consider locating their company there. [/quote]
I
From David’s October article:
[quote]What was ConAgra expecting to get in return for this contribution? According to Mr. Phillips, “I don’t think they were expecting to get anything.”[/quote]
So the “comparative costing” is irrelevant, since they weren’t expecting any services for their donation. Except that is not even remotely believable.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”Hm, Matt, are you arguing that City staff did not know about the $2M or the Mace 391 purchase effort in March?
-Michael Bisch”[/i]
No Michael, I am not arguing that. I specifically placed the onus right back on your shoulders for the first part of your question when I said, [i]”Michael, how do you [u]know[/u] that is true? Are you saying that you [u]know[/u] that the ConAgra/CCV agreement was unknown by Steve Pinkerton and/or Harriet Steiner and/or Ken Hiatt and/or any of the members of Council and/or lots of other people in the City hierarchy? Did you [u]know[/u] about the ConAgra/CCV agreement? [/i]
So, your answer to me is a clear ducking of my very direct questions. So that you and I are crystal clear, let me ask you again:
[b][i]”Are you saying that you [u]know[/u] that the ConAgra/CCV agreement was unknown by Steve Pinkerton and/or Harriet Steiner and/or Ken Hiatt and/or any of the members of Council and/or lots of other people in the City hierarchy?
and
Did you [u]know[/u] about the ConAgra/CCV agreement?”[/i][/b]
For the record, my own personal answers to those questions are that I had no knowledge (either first hand or otherwise) about the $2M in March, or April, or May, or June, or July, or August, or possibly even September. The first inkling I had about the $2M was in September or October in my role as a member of the Editorial Board of the Vanguard. David briefed all of us on the research he was in the midst of regarding the $2M. The briefing was confidential because each and every person David had talked to was clear that they were talking to him off the record. David is very careful about having at least two on the record sources for any story that he writes.
Regarding the second part of your question, the Staff Report for Item 6 of the 11/19 Council Meeting answers that question when it says:[quote]During the second half of 2012 and in early 2013, City staff also had several internal discussions about the potential for swapping privately-owned acreage identified in the evolving Innovation Park Task Force recommendations with some of the City-owned acreage on the Mace 391 property.
The concept being explored would have facilitated approximately 70 acres of the privately- owned 185 acres identified in the Innovation Park Task Force recommendations for an eastern edge innovation park to be relocated down along Interstate 80 where visibility and accessibility would make the land more desirable for a business park. Several meetings were also held with the Yolo Land Trust and the USDA NRCS about this swapping option. In October 2012 the NRCS responded that the swap of acreage was inconsistent with the grant award. [/quote]I look forward to your answer to my question to you.
Okay Matt “UNCLE”. Fine, you have no reason to “give Joe a break” because you were never attacking Joe to begin with. There, I said it. In print!
Still, I am a fairly perceptive guy and there is an obtuseness here that is bothering me.
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”Let the people vote.”[/i]
GI, given your comment above, I thought you might find a group conversation I had a couple of weeks ago interesting. The conversation was wide ranging, and at one point meandered to the topic of the need for a Cannery vote that Mike Hart and Mike Harrington and you have advocated for here on the Vanguard, with Mike Hart seriously threatening to fund a Referendum signature gathering campaign to put Cannery on a ballot.
One of the participants in the group conversation turned to the person who had broached the subject of voting on Cannery and said, [quote]You know we have actually already voted on Cannery . . . and we haven’t voted just once, but twice.[/quote] Everyone looked at him quizzically, and he continued, [quote]Yes. The first time was on March 7, 200 and Cannery got a 53.7% Yes vote. The second time was on June 8, 2010 and Cannery got a 76.7% Yes vote. So my question to you, my fellow Davisites is why should we vote on Cannery a third time, when we have given it our approval already twice?[/quote] None of us participants in the conversation had an answer for him . . . and some of us didn’t follow his argument either. Here’s how he explained it. [quote]Throughout 1999 a lot of time and effort and community consensus went into coming up with the provisions of Measure J, and in that open, transparent, thoughtful process conversions from agricultural zoning to housing (all forms of urbanization actually) were included under the mandatory provisions, and conversions from industrial zoning to housing (all forms of urbanization actually) were excluded from the mandatory provisions. The language of Measure J was finalized in late 1999 and formally submitted to the County Elections Office. Then on March 7, 2000 the voters cast their ballots, and the decision to exempt the Cannery from a Measure J vote passed by a 53.7% to 46.3% margin. Then in early 2010 the provisions of Measure R were crafted in the same kind of open, transparent, thoughtful process that resulted in the formal submission of the Measure R ballot to the County Elections Office and the voters weighed in on the decision to exempt Cannery from a Measure R vote, with a 76.7% to 23.3% margin of approval.[/quote] By the time he finished that explanation we all followed what he had said, but I’m inclined to believe that not all of us agreed with his logic . . . not so much the fact that we had voted on the question, but rather whether we had cast an informed vote on the question when we did vote each time.
Robb Davis said . . .
[i]”Okay Matt “UNCLE”. Fine, you have no reason to “give Joe a break” because you were never attacking Joe to begin with. There, I said it. In print!
Still, I am a fairly perceptive guy and there is an obtuseness here that is bothering me.”[/i]
Fair enough. One of the bi-products of a serious attempt to be dispassionate is often an appearance of obtuseness. I’ll plead guilty to that in this case. I’m even willing to live by a “guilty until proven innocent” label on that score.
I also can identify with your concern that Joe is being labeled guilty until proven innocent, because part of my tenaciousness in pursuing dispassion in this discussion is that I believe that Joe isn’t the only target of a “guilty until proven innocent” approach in this thread and many of its predecessors.
Matt, we haven’t voted as a community on the Cannery Project no matter how anyone tries to spin it.
We need a community vote, it’s only fair.
Don Shor said
[i]”So the “comparative costing” is irrelevant, since they weren’t expecting any services for their donation. Except that is not even remotely believable.”[/i]
As I said in a prior post to you Don, “With that said, I agree that it is not clear what ConAgra felt they were getting”
I stand by that assessment, as well as your assessment of the altruism argument.
[quote]By the time he finished that explanation we all followed what he had said,[/quote]
Explain for those more obtuse….
He’s saying that Measures J and R excluded the Cannery site from the requirement that a vote be taken before annexing land for development (not relevant in the case of the Cannery; already in city limits) or changing the zoning from ag for development (relevant, for example, with Wildhorse Ranch, but not for the type of zoning of the Cannery site).
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”Matt, we haven’t voted as a community on the Cannery Project no matter how anyone tries to spin it.
We need a community vote, it’s only fair.”[/i]
GI, that wasn’t my spin. That was the argument of the person in our group conversation. If given the opportunity I’m sure that s/he would ask you the following question, [b][i]”If Davis citizens wanted to reserve the right to vote on Cannery, then why doesn’t the language of Measure J specifically reserve that right?”[/i] [/b]
Fast forwarding 10 years, s/he would also ask you, [b][i]”If Davis citizens wanted to reserve the right to vote on Cannery, then why doesn’t the language of Measure R specifically reserve that right? It is not like the citizens didn’t have 10 years to become aware of that exclusion in Measure J.”[/i][/b]
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”He’s saying that Measures J and R excluded the Cannery site from the requirement that a vote be taken before annexing land for development (not relevant in the case of the Cannery; already in city limits) or changing the zoning from ag for development (relevant, for example, with Wildhorse Ranch, but not for the type of zoning of the Cannery site).”[/i]
For the sake of argument change the He to a S/he named Lola L-o-l-a Lola lo-lo-lo-lo Lola
Lola may be assuming more astuteness in Davis voters then we deserve.
I do think the project would get a green light from voters if it came to that.
[quote] Are you saying to me in your comment above that you believe that George Phillips should act any differently than you do when it comes to acting on his freely given word? [/quote]
What Mr. Phillips *should* do or *would like* to do are entirely separate from what he is *obligated* to do. In Cannery matters he represents a publicly-traded corporation, and in that capacity his duty is to maximize benefit to the shareholders. Generally “benefit” equals “profit,” though other considerations (e.g. reputation) may also play a role. But while he may have considerable latitude in bringing the Cannery to entitled status, methinks his focus is on maximizing profit. So any promises not memorialized in a competent contract carry very little weight with the likes of me.
George Phillips is variously described as a representative, a spokesman, and a consultant. It isn’t clear what latitude he has in making or enforcing contracts or agreements.
Jim Frame . . .
[i]”What Mr. Phillips *should* do or *would like* to do are entirely separate from what he is *obligated* to do. In Cannery matters he represents a publicly-traded corporation, and in that capacity his duty is to maximize benefit to the shareholders. Generally “benefit” equals “profit,” though other considerations (e.g. reputation) may also play a role. But while he may have considerable latitude in bringing the Cannery to entitled status, methinks his focus is on maximizing profit. [b]So any promises not memorialized in a competent contract carry very little weight with the likes of me. [/b]”[/i]
It would appear from your bolded words that in addition to believing that David Morris is inept at PR, you feel he is similarly inept at arriving at agreements. Is that fair to say?
FWIE, you and I agreed on your PR assessment when you posted it a while back.
[quote]It would appear from your bolded words that in addition to believing that David Morris is inept at PR, you feel he is similarly inept at arriving at agreements.[/quote]
I have no doubt that David is a reasonably good businessman. Perhaps not hard-core, coming from a medical and technical background, but savvy enough to know a legal obligation from a casual promise. But David’s quid for George’s quo was pretty cheap: rally enthusiasm for The Cannery among the local business and tech communities. That’s not much to give in exchange for the possibility of snaring $2M to fund his business venture, and I assume he considered the risk acceptable.
As I said earlier, realization of the $2M donation won’t come as a shock to me, but neither will its evaporation.