Addressing Audience Questions from the Innovation Parks Forum

Share:

Will-TiaBy Tia Will

At the time of the Vanguard forum on innovation parks, there were a number of questions from the audience that went unanswered due to time limitations. The Vanguard has made a commitment to initiate an open conversation addressing these questions. I have started with questions concerning the basic need for the innovation parks.

I speak from the perspective of a slow growth proponent without expertise in city planning or economic development, but with a love for our city and a desire to ensure that in our haste to raise money, we do not destroy that for which we are attempting to raise it. I welcome you all to consider these questions and express your points of view which will doubtless be quite different from mine.

The questions I will be addressing in this post are:

  1. Is there enough of a market for space to support development of all three proposed innovation parks plus Nishi Gateway over the next 15 to 20 years? Should we try to pick “winners,” or just say “the more the merrier”?
  2. In today’s electronic age, why do we need physical space to innovate?   Why can’t we innovate electronically?
  3. Is there an unemployment problem in Davis as mentioned earlier? Do we need jobs? Many jobs in Davis are filled by people who don’t live here. The majority of that workforce, once employed in Davis, may decide that they will not move to Davis. There is no evidence that housing cost will decrease in Davis.
  4. Isn’t “Innovation Park” just a rebranding of “Business Park”? How is an innovation park any different from a business park?

To me, assessing the need or demand for any change is the necessary precursor to any further discussion about benefits, impacts, sustainability, and mitigation. Before deciding upon any major change whether in our own families, our own homes, or in our community, the first question should be where does this item fall on the spectrum of need vs want.

What I believe that we all can agree upon is that the City of Davis is in need of a means to improve our financial stability. The question then becomes are these proposed developments the best means to achieve a better financial balance. I am yet to be convinced on this very basic first point.

The argument for their “need” to date has been based on a number of questionable assumptions, assertions and speculations.

  1. We need to build them to raise more money because we are in fiscal crisis.

These planned developments will not address the city’s current fiscal problems. I do not believe that this can be stressed highly enough since it has been used in conjunction with the current need so frequently in this conversation that I think the two have become linked in some people’s minds. Despite the fact that these developments will not generate money in time to help with our current needs. One poster made the illustrative comment paraphrased to “ If I did not believe that there was a crisis now, I would not favor this development”. This to me is a clear misunderstanding of what these developments will and will not do.

  1. We need to create more high paying jobs.

Now I think that the creation of more high paying jobs would be wonderful. However, I think that the idea that these developments being planned to be built out over a very long time frame ( 5-20 years) will be the best way to achieve that goal is a very big leap of faith. 22 years ago the Cannery was a real working cannery. Due to changing industry needs, it was “retired” and the land it was on was vacant for the next 20 years because the owners/developers chose not to utilize it per the city’s zoned use. We now see the space converted to housing.. Is this the kind of “best use for the land” scenario that we are setting ourselves up for ? We have one poster urging us not to try to “micromanage” the development. I wonder who should have a greater say, those who will make money off the project, or those who will live daily with the consequences of the decisions that are made ?

  1. Making more jobs locally will lead to less commuting by allowing more people to work near where they live.

I think there are three mistaken ideas that play into this assertion all based on outdated societal trends.

  • The idea that having a job near your home will provide long term stability. As Jim Frame pointed out in a post, most people will not work at the same job their entire career. Therefore providing a physical plant for their job does not ensure that they will be able to continue to work near their home.
  • Most families now have two people working outside the home rather than a single breadwinner. It is currently common for one spouse to work locally, say on the UCD campus, while the other commutes to Sacramento or communities to the west. I do not believe that these projects will alter that dynamic.
  • The idea that “brick and mortar” buildings will be in the future, the best way to bring innovators together. And yet, in my highly integrated and some would consider very advanced medical setting we have been steadily moving away from placing innovators in close physical proximity and towards virtual means of communication which have been exponentially expanding over the past ten years. I now hold in my hand the ability to access any article, any factoid, a video of any procedure complete with step by step instruction in how to perform it with a few key strokes. I can access any specialty by phone or email within minutes to get their opinion, usually with the patient still in my office. Likewise, many administrative meetings are now being conducted by phone or Webinar. This would have been unheard of even 5 years ago. I see the developments as described at the community outreaches as very likely to be outdated before they are built.
  1. These projects will provide needed space for projects generated by the university.

To my current knowledge there has been no representation from UCD in this discussion. We have yet to hear from those at the university exactly what would be most useful from their point of view. Now it may well be that there have been such communications between UCD and our city leaders, or business leaders, of which I am unaware since I was a last minute stand in at the forum with no preparation. If that is the case, now would be a very good time to hear about the need for these facilities from a university point of view.

I find it somewhat ironic that we are calling these projects “Innovation Parks” presumably referring to the innovative ideas and techniques that will be generated on these sites. And yet, I see no sense of “innovation” in the conception of and/or physical proposals for the projects themselves. If we are truly interested in “innovation” instead of just using it as an attractive buzz word, shouldn’t the “innovation” begin with the projects themselves ?

In closing, do we need a reliable ongoing means of revenue generation ? Absolutely. Are these developments as presented to date the best means of achieving our goal ? I remain skeptical to date.

Share:

About The Author

Tia is a graduate of UCDMC and long time resident of Davis who raised her two now adult children here. She is a local obstetrician gynecologist with special interests in preventive medicine and public health and safety. All articles and posts written by Tia are reflective only of her own opinions and are in no way a reflection of the opinions of her partners or her employer.

Related posts

22 thoughts on “Addressing Audience Questions from the Innovation Parks Forum”

  1. Edgar Wai

    I am sorry for this basic question:

    Who is paying whom to have the innovation parks built? Who is assuming the fiscal risk of it not being used?

    a) The city pays the developer to build the innovation park. The city retains the ownership of the land and the built facility. The city hopes that someone will rent or buy the structure, and do business from there to recover the investment of building the park and to collect some extra more to pay for existing expenses/debts. The primary risk is taken by the city in terms of monetary investment that the city pays the developer. The developer is not taking much risk, and has revenue gain the moment the city decides to build.

    b) The developer is paying the city to build the innovation park. The developer believes that they could make a profit from selling or renting the built structures, but they need approved land for their endeavor. They assume the risk of not being able to put their investment in use. The city sets the rules on what business may exist in the park, collects fees for the developer to start building, and collect related tax revenue when the business happens in the park. The primary risk is taken by the developer. The primary risk taken by the city is the opportunity usage of the land (that the land might be used for other better purpose). The city has revenue gain the moment they allow the developer to build, and more so afterward if the park is used.

    c) The prospective businesses are paying for the city and the developer to build the park. Those businesses wanted to exist in Davis, and expressed to the city their interest in coming or staying in Davis if the price is right. The city owns the land, and takes the role of approving whether that business may buy or use the land for the development. The business is free to collaborate or choose their developer, and the city will collect the fee to develop and the subsequent tax generated from the business. The primary risk taker is the business. The primary risk taken by the city is the opportunity usage of the land. The city revenue gain the moment they allow the business access to the land, and more so afterward if the land is used gainfully.

     

    In the case of DMG Mori campus, as far as I understand, the context was (c). Moriseiki brought the land and assumed the risk. Moriseiki built the structures on their own, according to their own needs while satisfying the environmental guidelines set by the city. Moriseiki assumed the fiscal risk of the endeavor.

    What is the context of the current discussion? Is it (a), (b), (c), or other?

  2. Frankly

    Is there enough of a market for space to support development of all three proposed innovation parks plus Nishi Gateway over the next 15 to 20 years? Should we try to pick “winners,” or just say “the more the merrier”?

    Previous work and posting have been done to demonstrate that Davis can utilize and fill up to 1000 acres of new business development.  We can approve all three innovation parks and Nishi and they will populate.  Note that Davis already has a shortage of commercial real estate.  The vacancy rate for commercial property is lower than any comparable city.

    In today’s electronic age, why do we need physical space to innovate?   Why can’t we innovate electronically?

    We need to do both.  You are a doctor, so why don’t you work from home?  Of course that is a rhetorical question to make the point that human-to-human interaction is a necessary requirement for optimum creativity and problem solving.  You are always pointing out your desire for more collaboration to replace competition.  You should know something about human psychology for relationship building that leads to greater positive partnerships and successful collaboration.  Have you ever heard the phrase “out of sight, out of mind”?

    Is there an unemployment problem in Davis as mentioned earlier? Do we need jobs? Many jobs in Davis are filled by people who don’t live here. The majority of that workforce, once employed in Davis, may decide that they will not move to Davis. There is no evidence that housing cost will decrease in Davis.

    I’m not exactly sure what you are after here.  Davis has too few jobs, and the resulting commuter traffic pollutes the air.  Davis has too few rental units to support the student population.   Other than that, Davis is not short on housing.  I worked at VSP for six years.   2400 employees on their campus in Rancho Cordova.   Maybe 15-20% of the employees lived in Rancho Cordova.   I would expect Davis to equalize over time where maybe 25% of the innovation parks employees would live in Davis.  Right now about 50% of the residents of Davis commute to jobs outside of Davis.  If we don’t build more housing (other than to support the students), that 25% will replace existing commuters and will help reduce the traffic on the freeways and all the carbon it creates.

    Isn’t “Innovation Park” just a rebranding of “Business Park”? How is an innovation park any different from a business park?

    There has been quite a bit written on this already.  I feel you are just repeating this to drum up fear of unwanted industry.  An innovation park is closer to a research park.

    1. Davis Progressive

      “There has been quite a bit written on this already.  I feel you are just repeating this to drum up fear of unwanted industry.  An innovation park is closer to a research park.”

      i believe she said she was pulling from the audience questions, did i misread?

      1. Tia Will Post author

        DP

        You are correct. I was writing with regard to my take on questions from the audience. So it is not me “repeating this to drum up fear”.

        However, Frankly is correct in one regard. I remain skeptical that “x” amount of spaces will be certain to fill. An example of how this has not exactly worked out as intended are the two empty pads associated with the Target. As of this evening they remain empty. I remember during the debate over the Target how assurances were made that all would fill promptly and provide all kinds of revenue for the city. I am not reassured by any of “what has been written so far” that we can count on these spaces filling.

         

         

  3. Davis Progressive

    “To my current knowledge there has been no representation from UCD in this discussion.”

    well the university has been involved in parts of the discussion.  the nishi project of course is incorporating ucd.  but in some of the discussions from earlier this year, ucd was a key factor.

    for instance here is dushant from ucd: https://www.davisvanguard.org/innovation-park-community-forum-speakers-video/

  4. Anon

    Tia Will: “I speak from the perspective of a slow growth proponent…”

    This is where I stopped reading.  When an author states their agenda from the start, it doesn’t appear the article will be balanced or the author’s view is going to be flexible.

    1. Tia Will Post author

      Anon

      I think that I have always been honest in my feelings and preferences. Of course, if someone is not interested in hearing other view points than their own, it is always their prerogative to stop reading. However, that means that one is going to confine oneself to the echo chamber of their own point of view, or to only choose to listen to those who will not be honest or upfront about the perspective with which they view the world. Because, after all, we all have one. It is just that some of us will admit our bias, while others pretend not to have one.

      1. Gunrocik

        Anon should have also included the rest of the sentence which stated: …without expertise in city planning or economic development.

        The rest of the sentence is just as telling.  While we would never want Rob White to perform surgery on us, somehow it is okay for Dr. Will to practice economic development.

        As I stated in the Innovation Park post today — Dr. Will and her brethren want Davis to transform into Winters.  The toothpaste is out of the tube on that one.  We have one of the pre-eminent universities in the world in our community.  The state and federal government annually pour over a billion dollars into this institution to help it meet its mission.  The future of the world’s food supply is partially dependent on the work being executed at this university.  UCD is going to continue to expand in both enrollment and building footprint.  Its students, faculty and research mission are going to continue to spill over the moat and into the greater community.

        It has been that way for 50 plus years and it that isn’t going to change anytime soon — even if they throw up a building or two over in Sacramento.

        Once Dr. Will and the rest of the CAVE people acknowledge that, I think there is a better opportunity for the community to change and evolve in a way that can continue to capture the essence of Davis, but remain contemporary and provide decent, safe sanitary living conditions for  its student and faculty and opportunities for innovation for its faculty.

        Reinforcing the moat and praying for commerce to move to West Sac and all those new people to move to Woodland isn’t realistic, isn’t sustainable, and isn’t fair to the next generation.

        There is a much easier and more realistic solution for the CAVE people.  Instead of putting up ballot measures and attempting to vote your way out of the future — which ain’t happening — vote with your feet and move to Winters, Paradise or some other community designed for those resistant to change.

         

        1. Don Shor

          Anon should have also included the rest of the sentence which stated

          She couldn’t. She stopped reading.
          Dr. Will, like many Davis residents, would like Davis to stay as small as reasonably possible. That is, in fact, the official position of the city since the voters enacted Measure L in 1986:

          Davis should grow as slowly as it legally could;
          Future growth should be concentrated on lands already within the city limits and additional annexations should be discouraged; and
          The county should not approve development on the periphery of Davis unless the city gives its stamp of approval by ruling it consistent with the Davis General Plan. Measure L included several findings, including the beliefs that “the prime agricultural land surrounding Davis is a resource of local, state and national importance” and “the growth of Davis is an issue best determined by Davis citizens without outside pressure or influence.”

          As with the many growth and land planning issues enshrined in the General Plan, it might be wise for the voters to revisit this issue. But until they do, Dr. Will seems to reflect the popular consensus, and I think subsequent elections give that more, not less, support, at least with respect to housing and population growth.

          ‘CAVE’ and ‘moat’ rhetoric is just a denigration of viewpoints you disagree with. Telling them to ‘vote with their feet’ is really counterproductive. You’re probably the one bucking the consensus, not Dr. Will. So if you want to persuade people of the benefits of business development, insulting them and telling them to leave is probably not a winning strategy.

        2. Tia Will Post author

          Gunrocik

          While we would never want Rob White to perform surgery on us, somehow it is okay for Dr. Will to practice economic development.

          You should only worry about this when my application for city planner is accepted. While I agree that neither Robb White nor I should be practicing each others specialty, I think that either of us would be complete fools to simply accept each others word about what was best without asking questions, seeking the underlying data and evidence, perhaps even seeking second opinions prior to agreeing to either surgery or major changes to our community.

          Your hyperbole regarding the CAVE people says much more about you and your tolerance for other points of view than it does about anyone who has an opposing opinion. There is not a unanimous block of people who wish to see Davis remain as small as possible under legal constraints. We are quite a varied group who are not all wedded to the same vision and certainly are not of like mind with regard to tactics. I fully agree with the idea that the proximity of the University which I see as a benefit ( not a monster about to eat my little hamlet) is a driver of change. However, I believe that the citizens of the town have a right and a responsibility to define what form we wish that change to take. If we do not speak openly about our concerns up front, we can anticipate a last minute charge by those who choose to use stealth and or last minute legal tactics of which I do not approve.  I also do not share your belief that making all the land use decisions for future generations with a rush to develop as rapidly as possible is any more or less virtuous than my preference for leaving them with some choices to make in their time.

  5. DavisBurns

    I would like to see an analysis like this done for Davis.  This is from Charlotteville NC, 2013 the link is to a 5 page summary.  For people who are skeptical that growth will pay for itself, the whole report is quite detailed.  I don’t know how city finances compare but, given Prop 13, I guess our city’s problems with revenue is worse than elsewhere.

    http://www.cvilletomorrow.org

    I tried to post a table of the net cost to the city different kinds of developments but the table format did not translate.

    For every $1 generated in revenue (based on 2008-2009 data), the services required by different land use categories in Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville incur the following costs:

    Land Use Categories

    Albemarle County

    Charlottesville

    Single Family Homes

    $1.28

    $1.24

    Multi-Family Homes

    $1.96

    $1.59

    Mobile Homes

    $2.16

    N/A

    All Residential Land Uses Combined

    $1.41

    $1.37

    Commercial

    $0.51

    $0.47

    Industrial

    $0.44

    $0.44

    Institutional (e.g., hospitals, libraries, churches)

    $1.53

    $1.24

    University of Virginia (UVA)

    $1.03

    $1.28

    Agriculture

    $0.20

    N/A

    Open Space/Recreation

    $1.28

    $1.64

    Vacant Lands

    not available

    $0.19

    All Land Uses Combined

    $1.24

    $1.17

    1. Gunrocik

      The General Plan you quote is hopelessly outdated, and as I noted at conflict with being a host community for one of the world’s foremost research  institutions.  There are 65,000 other acres of farmland you can preserve in Yolo County.  Developing a couple hundred acres to help feed the world and balance the city budget isn’t too much to ask.

      You and the rest of the ag preservationists need to get out of your ivory tower and realize that if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.  We can either acknowledge the world around us and cooperate or end up with something you really don’t want.  Maybe the Mace developers could do a land swap with UCD — we’ve got thousands of excess acres to trade with them.  Then UCD could use their sovereign authority to develop the land — and the City gets nothing and the community gets very little input.  Or maybe UCD just develops some of their land in Solano County bypassing both the City and County — and then they can just export their traffic into Yolo County.

      Bottom line is that if you continue to just say “no” you will likely regret what you get.  The power of the state and UCD are far superior. One way or another, Davis and its environs are going to grow–there is a state and national interest that precludes the desires of some folks attempting to preserve a nostalgia that never existed in Davis in the first place.    CAVE attitudes are destructive and they always fail at the end of the day.

      You ultimately can’t halt change and/or progress so why don’t you try and play part in helping shape a better future for all — I’m sure your kids will appreciate it.

      1. Don Shor

        The General Plan you quote is hopelessly outdated

        Nope. It’s the prevailing planning document. Until it’s updated and goes before the voters in one way or another, it stands in its current form. If you think it’s outdated, if you think the voters would approve planning precepts that override Measures J, R, L, and the votes on Covell Village and Wildhorse Ranch, I’d say you and anyone promoting that different growth viewpoint are the ones who have to prove that the public is with you. Every vote over the last two+ decades says otherwise.
        I disagree with almost every other sentence in your post, so I won’t bother taking them on one by one. Suffice to say, you’re the one who’s out of step with Davis voters. And your rhetoric is getting very counterproductive to the goal of reasonable economic development. I’m also tired of debating land use policies with people who post anonymously.

      2. Tia Will Post author

        You ultimately can’t halt change and/or progress so why don’t you try and play part in helping shape a better future for all — I’m sure your kids will appreciate it.

        I am not sure if you truly believe your own words, or like Anon you have simply stopped reading and considering. If you were thinking about what is actually being said, you would realize that I have not yet come out against any of the developments that are being proposed. I have posted articles on other creative solutions and at the very last minute participated as a stand in at a forum to express positions and concerns that I feel that need to be aired, not swept under the rug, prior to moving forward. My engagement has been up front and honest. And, I am willing to take the flack personally for my beliefs.

        What my kids will appreciate is my willingness to attempt to help shape a better future for all of us…..as I see it, not necessarily as you do. I admit to being an outlier in our society. I am a minimalist. I believe in attempting to live as lightly on the land as we can and will freely admit to not being perfect ( or even close to it ) in this regard. But I see life as a process of change in which living in harmony with our surroundings, not in domination over them is the preferred goal. I do not see an “ever increasing standard of living” defined as increased consumption as something we should aspire to.

        I also strongly believe that “shaping a better future” should include leaving some of that shaping to be done by our children and grandchildren. The more of the earth that we choose cover up for the sake of “technological advancement”  the less of the earth we have for actually growing food or just to appreciate as it was created. If our goal were really to “feed the world” we would be growing food on every available bit of land ,  paying farmers to grow food rather than not grow it, incentivizing those who growth death in the form of tobacco to grow food crops instead, changing to plant based diets, focusing on improving agricultural techniques in the communities where people would benefit from being able to grow enough themselves to make staying on the land preferable to moving into the slums of the “improvements” and “progress” represented by the huge cities.

        Now that would represent real change from our consumption based, “more is better” view of the world. And here you thought that I was the one opposed to change !

         

         

        1. Gunrocik

          With all due respect, you are definitely opposed to change.  Your hope for an alternate universe is about as realistic as my hope that good tasting brownies came become fat free and sugar free.

          In the real world we have to limit our dialogue to at least the remotely possible within our lifetimes.  You are smart enough to know that attempts at Utopia have been nothing but distractions for all of human time.

          I want the best possible environment to live in for both myself and my family and I’d like my community to have the resources to continue to provide the amenities that brought us here in the first place.

          All your minimalist approach assures is that there will be no new jobs, no new homes and no hope for my children to ever live here.  If I was more cynical, I would say that you’ve created this alternate universe to help rationalize your selfish interest in preserving a lifestyle for yourself that effectively sentences our children and those without great means to live elsewhere and guarantees that our City government will be cutting our services and letting our infrastructure rot.

          I am not proposing that we pave over our community for the sake of technological advancement.  I am proposing that we take a nominal amount of land which is intelligently planned with all due caution and with the least impact on the environment and the surrounding community, and allow it to provide a future for our children, our community and our world.

  6. Miwok

    Good questions, some of which I asked on the other thread. Tia.

    I can only speak to the “high paying” jobs that might let people afford a house in Davis. If you want people to have those, the City could hire more of its “highly paid City Workers” from its layoff lists. Problems solved, right?

    Mr Wai has the right analysis of the scenario, and communities and States always seems to try and leverage present income to be paid off on a promise of perpetual growth, which does not happen. A couple of startups were in Grad Classes at UCD when the students started a company while using the UC equipment and labs. After a time they moved to the Bay Area with their SBA loans and cushy contracts (one was on 60 Minutes). So this Park would not have helped that at all.

    I point out commuter traffic is not all about housing prices and jobs to afford them. It is about spouses and kids and schools. Even the poorest migrant can do the math. The Math to me says taking money meant to run the community and “investing” it (more like gambling it) is not wise, and it is not your money to “invest”.

  7. DavisBurns

    Davis has too few jobs, and the resulting commuter traffic pollutes the air.  Davis has too few rental units to support the student population.   Other than that, Davis is not short on housing.  I worked at VSP for six years.   2400 employees on their campus in Rancho Cordova.   Maybe 15-20% of the employees lived in Rancho Cordova.   I would expect Davis to equalize over time where maybe 25% of the innovation parks employees would live in Davis.  Right now about 50% of the residents of Davis commute to jobs outside of Davis.  If we don’t build more housing (other than to support the students), that 25% will replace existing commuters and will help reduce the traffic on the freeways and all the carbon it creates.

    Jobs are regional.  People buy a house based on many criteria.  Once they feel they belong to a community and they have kids in school, they tend to commute rather than move.  People from Davis commute to the bay area and the greater sacramento area.  We are a bedroom community to a large extent.  We will not solve the commuting problem as long as we think commuting involves cars on freeways.  The bay area would not function without BART.  I  lived in San Francisco in 1968-9 and remember when the tunnels being dug from both ends met in the middle.  The work begun then has created a transportation network that no freeways could ever match.  All over the bay area, people commute from where they live to where they work.  I don’t think cities fret about how to get the people who live in their cities to work in their cities.  It is an idea completely out of date. If we want to reduce greenhouse gases, we need to re-think our transportation system.  People, especially those who with high incomes, will use cars to commute as long as gas is cheap–and it is cheap because it is subsidized.  Let the FREE market determine the price of gas and it will cost us what it costs in Europe.  Then we would use public transportation.

    What data do you base your expectation that 25% of innovation park employees would live in Davis?

     

  8. Tia Will Post author

    My thanks to those of you who have responded by posting the Charlotteville study and sending it to me by email. This is exactly the kind of information that I have been requesting. I also would like to see a similar analysis for the city of Davis. 

  9. Tia Will Post author

    Frankly

    You are a doctor, so why don’t you work from home?”

    I frequently do. I will be working from home this evening. The only reason for a doctor to hold office hours at this point in time is when an actual physical exam is needed. I would say that the majority of the work that I do since I stopped delivering babies and doing surgery is  either on the phone, or by email. Some of my colleagues are now doing medicine by virtual home visits, essentially scheduling computer based visits with their patients. This is what I believe to be the future of medicine since it is much more efficient for patients who do no need to take time off work or get a babysitter or otherwise take time from their lives for what can be handled electronically or by phone. It also cuts down on auto emissions and the time spent in automobiles. Finally, it is cost effective from the point of view of the office since there is less need for expensive physician time and the time of ancillary personnel. This allows more time for the patients who actually are in need of a physical exam and/or procedure. This provides needed appointments in a more timely manner.

    As for patient satisfaction and the doctor patient relationship,  my patient satisfaction scores have increased significantly since I started offering secure emails as the preferred means of communicating with me.

    I am sincere in saying that I am not at all convinced that the projects as described to date are forward looking. I believe them to be based on a model that has been in existence for at least 20 years. I think that there is significant risk that these projects may be outdated by the time they are built. Our technology is developing so rapidly that I am highly skeptical about the need at the time that they would actually be coming on line.

     

    1. Aggie

      “Our technology is developing so rapidly that I am highly skeptical about the need at the time that they would actually be coming on line.” Tia Will

      Huh?!  You can’t be serious.

  10. Alan Miller

    Isn’t “Innovation Park” just a rebranding of “Business Park”? How is an innovation park any different from a business park?

    It is a business park.

    A better question for Davis might be:

    Isn’t “Chief Innovation Officer” just a rebranding of “Economic Development Director”? How is a Chief Innovation Officer different from an Economic Development Director?

    I would answer this question, but that could be considered by some as “written abuse”.

     

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for