Not a member? Register »

By David M. Greenwald Executive Editor

Davis, CA – I was asked by a couple of readers to publish the following which had been part of our “Opening Thoughts” in yesterday’s morning newsletter.  For those interested, you can sign up for the Morning Newsletter here.  I have made a few alterations.  While I flesh out a few thoughts, the basics are unchanged.

The basic problem is that there is a core of people in this town that appear to be opposed to any project. There appears to be another core in this town who have created an insurmountably high bar for any project—that even if they are sincere as to their desire for a project that meets their high standards, they have made such a project unreachable.

Words are cheap. Especially words by people who have no experience trying to design and build a complex development that requires funding and investors.

It is easy to say no, especially in a place like Davis where “no” more often than not carries the day.

At this point I will admit, I am skeptical about the prospects of finding projects that are actually possible that the naysayers would agree to.

Earlier this week, Matt Williams posted from an email he received.

They wrote: “They have been told ‘no’ twice. Will they listen?”

The message continued, “A complementary question is: Will the current City Council and upcoming Candidates for the three City Council positions ‘listen’? What’s needed is truly forward-thinking, innovative, imaginative and collaborative planning for housing and economic development.”

(Another reader has since shown me that the message was from Nancy Price, a long-time community member who has largely been in opposition to every recent proposed project).

I see two issues here that are in need of elaboration.

The first issue is relatively simple. In 2020, the voters narrowly voted against the DISC project.

There seems to be a notion that the voters voting “no on one project” somehow means you can’t re-work the project and try again. Nothing in Measure J remotely suggests that. In fact, it seems perfectly reasonable (at least to me) to assess what went wrong and attempt to fix the reasons why a majority of voters opposed the project.

In this case, the applicants, believing that many opposed the project because it was either too large or had unacceptable traffic impacts, came back with a smaller, scaled-down project that reduced the size in half and, with it, the traffic impacts.

Even with those changes, DiSC lost even more overwhelmingly than before.

Contrary to the suggestion above, I think everyone will LISTEN. I think it is difficult to conceive that the same developer will come back with a third project. Unless something drastically changes, I think the city is going to have to scramble to figure out what to do about commercial development—particularly outside of town.

But I’m not sure what it means to listen here. Does it mean trying to reconfigure the project so that the voters will approve it, or does it mean not trying a third time? (I think for Nancy Price, it means the latter; for me it could mean the former).

The second statement seems to suggest that the former is actually the answer, but the problem is that I don’t know what “a truly forward-thinking, innovative, imaginative and collaborative” project looks like.

It’s easy to use those words, it’s hard to put those words to paper in a project that can actually be passed by the voters and then built. There are a lot of dreamers in this town who have some good and interesting ideas; the problem is most of those are not practical.

The other problem is that words are cheap and in Davis it’s easy to say no—finding something enough people will say yes to is the trick. But I’m all ears for specifics—what will people vote for? What do they want?

I think the people who messaged me would like to see a broader visioning process. Maybe we are too soon after the most recent vote, but I largely see that at this point as a fruitless exercise.

I will address a few additional points.

First, there has been a suggestion that I have erred in describing the 2020 vote as “narrow.” It was a 52-48 spread, a bit over 1200 votes. Narrow is a subjective term, but I use it here because in 2020 it was more narrow than it was in 2022.

I think that is helpful because it helps us understand the dynamics here and understand better why a smaller, less impactful project would be much more soundly defeated than the first time around.

Second, Matt WIlliams pointed out in an email to me that “a look at the votes that were cast in Measure B, but not cast in Measure H gives a pretty clear picture that the 48% was a ‘soft’ number.”

That’s probably correct, but it gets to the point that Dan Ramos and others made, that voter turnout—or in 2022 the lack thereof—helped to drive the margin. Just as you see a midterm election in the US resulting in a different looking electorate than during the general of a presidential year, so too did it happen here. That suggests that the voters who are less frequent voters are more inclined to support projects than those who always vote.

Third, Matt Williams notes, “One possible answer to what listening means is to tell the developer ‘the voters have told us, and you, in both 2020 and 2022 that your application does not rise to the level of our (form-based?) standards. So we are not going to approve it for placement on a ballot.’”

That’s certainly one possible interpretation. Another remains to try to find a project that does rise to our standards. I still think there are multiple interpretations of how to proceed, but in either case, it is less driven by council and more driven by the applicant’s willingness to come forward with another iteration.

Finally, Matt Williams writes, “Dan Carson should not have to shoulder 100% of the burden for his actions during this election cycle. Those actions were simply the latest chapter in what has become a consistent long-running thread of unilateral autocratic Council decisions. The question is whether the residents/stakeholders of Davis will hold the Council accountable.”

I agree that Dan Carson is not the sole party responsible for the failure of this project—certainly he did not make the call on his own. People continue to point out that there is a disconnect between the council’s preference for projects and that of the voters. That’s perhaps true. But there is also the fact that recent polling has suggested generic support for housing projects, affordable housing, and even commercial projects—but when it gets to specifics and weighing the benefits against things like traffic, the voters end up opposing the projects, even as they continue to support the incumbents on council overwhelmingly.

Will the voters hold the members of council accountable for that disparity in the next election? That will be an interesting test.

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

I think the city is going to have to scramble to figure out what to do about commercial development—particularly outside of town.

I would say that we will be spending the next 2 – 3 years discussing housing projects on peripheral sites, not commercial projects.

Any commercial development will likely be small projects on existing sites in the city limits. Even those will probably lead to rancorous debates but they only need 3 votes to prevail.

I think the people who messaged me would like to see a broader visioning process. Maybe we are too soon after the most recent vote, but I largely see that at this point as a fruitless exercise.

They’re welcome to lead a visioning process, but any use of taxpayer funds for that purpose would be fiscally irresponsible.

“I would say that we will be spending the next 2 – 3 years discussing housing projects on peripheral sites, not commercial projects.”

then we are probably also going to be spending the next five years discussing various tax measures as well.

“I would say that we will be spending the next 2 – 3 years discussing housing projects on peripheral sites, not commercial projects.” then we are probably also going to be spending the next five years discussing various tax measures as well.

There would likely be a “discussion” regarding both of these things on here, regardless of whether or not DiSC was approved.

But it doesn’t mean that voters will approve either one.

If I was a peripheral housing developer, I wouldn’t be “liking” the result of the DiSC vote in regard to my own prospects. But hey, it’s their dime – if they want to give it the old college try! (Probably fought with a single “penny on the dime”.)

I’d suggest recruiting a council member, as well. Pick one of those who supported a ladder truck, perhaps. Or, the Mace Mess.

then we are probably also going to be spending the next five years discussing various tax measures as well.

Sure, but many of the tax options would require charter city status.

Sure, but many of the tax options would require charter city status.

Which is exactly why we need the visioning process that you also oppose. What solution are you proposing? Or do you think that Davis residents are so completely obstinate that they’ll cut their nose off to spite their face and just let the town turn back into Dixon?

then we are probably also going to be spending the next five years discussing various tax measures as well.

. That is an incredibly obtuse and/or disingenuous comment David.  The reason is simple, you know full well that even if economic development revenues were approved today, those revenues would not begin adding recurring revenues to the General Fund budget for at least three years.

That means the next five years would be (will be) spent discussing various tax measures regardless.

I would use the term, “flippant” to describe my comment

They wrote: “They have been told ‘no’ twice. Will they listen?” The message continued, “A complementary question is: Will the current City Council and upcoming Candidates for the three City Council positions ‘listen’? What’s needed is truly forward-thinking, innovative, imaginative and collaborative planning for housing and economic development.”

Hmmmm?  Almost word for word what was written on the Davisite in the comment section.

Matt never referenced in his comment where it came from, but apparently that’s where.

I said before; the problem with DISC’s failure isn’t the fault of a few hardline NO voters.   I think there are enough moderate voters that could go either way but simply didn’t care enough to vote this time around.   The problem is a complete lack of competence by the YES Campaign.  Most of the YES Campaign’s message was essentially: “We’re not as bad as the NO Campaign makes us out to be”….which is hardly inspiring to bring out voters.  The other part of the YES Campaign’s messaging was: “Tax revenue for the city”….uh yay?   I mean fiscal responsibility is great and all; but giving a potential stream of money to the city also doesn’t inspire and rally voters.   Little to no communication was made to the voters about WHAT THE VOTERS GET OUT OF THE POTENTIAL TAX REVENUE going to the city.  IMO that was the job that Carson should have done as the head of the YES Campaign and the head representative of the project for the City Council.   Tell people that the tax money will go towards better roads, go towards parks and rec services, better funding for protection and social services.  Map out ways to ensure how that potential tax revenue is spent for the people and communicate it to the people.

But going back to the “vision” for the city.  I think some have more economic expansive visions for Davis than others; the Sac region’s Palo Alto.   And some want Davis to remain a cute little (podunk, backwater?) college town (Chico?)…..and of course everything in between.  But I believe the starting point for an economic growth vision in the short term that most can agree on is keeping the status quo (yeah I know, a lofty progressive vision). Or in other words Davis needs X amount of growth (new tax revenue) to maintain the current level of amenities and services the people of Davis currently enjoy.  The City Council has pushed DISC on the voters twice now.  WHY?  Because they know the city needs the potential tax revenue to pay for things.  It’s up to the Council to communicate the not so happy news that in order for the city to be fiscally sound SERVICES WILL HAVE TO BE CUT and/or TAXES WILL HAVE TO BE RAISED.  So the message by the Council to the voters should be clear: grow a little bit or lose services and/or pay more taxes. 

Those actions were simply the latest chapter in what has become a consistent long-running thread of unilateral autocratic Council decisions. The question is whether the residents/stakeholders of Davis will hold the Council accountable.”

“autocratic”?  That’s how representative democracy works.  Your leaders do the work and the voters vote to keep them in or replace them.  That doesn’t mean demanding to have a say in every plan, idea and decision made.  I mean sure listen for voter input but that’s not the same as simply doing what the voters want at every step of the way.  The LEADERS need to present and push for solutions that voters don’t yet know or understand are the right solutions.  That’s what leading is.  Now the voters can vote down those leaders if they don’t like the solutions.   It just seems that in Davis there some overly entitled and arrogant feeling that the voters (or a certain vocal number of them….on both the growth and no growth sides of things)  need to be involved in every planning step and cry foul if there super special ideas aren’t met to their complete satisfaction.

DAVID: I STILL CAN’T UNBLOCK THE COMMENTERS I ACCIDENTLY BLOCKED.  HOW DO I FIX THIS?  Don, you’re one of the commenters I blocked (my pointer was hovering over the ignore commenter link when I turned my computer on and I clicked it by accident twice).  I can’t see your comments.

Keith E has hit the nail on the head. David, you should reread this and digest it very carefully, especially since two of us who have more experience in these processes outside of Davis agree 100% on this interpretation.

But I’m not sure what it means to listen here. Does it mean trying to reconfigure the project so that the voters will approve it, or does it mean not trying a third time? 

I think the people who messaged me would like to see a broader visioning process. Maybe we are too soon after the most recent vote, but I largely see that at this point as a fruitless exercise.

I don’t think we’re discussing either of those two options–it’s a third approach of looking more broadly across the City for the right opportunities. The Studio 30 study was only an abbreviated starting point. And that’s why this should be taken on by the City (contrary to Don S’s opposition–it’s fiscally irresponsible not to pursue this further) because we really don’t have an alternative. Doing nothing means that the City will fall into disrepair and effective segregation. (The proximity of UCD that drives the quality of our education system and of the Bay Area and I-80 that drives our housing demand means the “quiet college town” model of Chico isn’t an available option.)

I believe that some of the leaders on the “no” vote can be persuaded to accept conditions for new development. For example Alan Pryor was instrumental in opposing Nishi I but sat out the Nishi II campaign. Alan Hirsh came around to publicly supporting DISC II. I believe that others who have been key opponents are willing to discuss other options. (Yes, there are a couple of true diehards but their influence has been waning.) I regularly talk with many of these individuals and we share most of our common values. I find that they usually listen when we can talk in person or on Zoom rather than posting on blogs.

BTW, the margin was narrow in 2020 (contrary to Matt’s assertion, I’ve never seen in 55 years of following politics closely that a 52-48 margin was “comfortable.” Usually has to hit 55-45 to get that description) and a confluence events, somewhat highlighted by Matt’s analysis of precinct voting, led to the larger margin this time.

Matt and I are planning a longer article that lays out more of the principles and process that we envision. More soon. (Keith E, if you’re interested in this project, reach out to contact us.)

Respectfully while I think both you and Keith E have a point, you miss the inherent problem – the so-called moderate average voter isn’t actually that moderate except by comparison. No disagreement that Measure H ran a bad campaign, but that ignores just how narrow the margin is for a project to succeed in Davis.

I’m not sure how you’re defining “moderate” but I’m using the term as the undecided between the two groups. I don’t how we would measure “how moderate” this group is–I just see it as persuadable in the right way. Again, I wont’ go through the litany of “impossible” agreements that I’ve created in my career, but I don’t see this any more insurmountable as the others. They all took several years, even longer than a decade, to resolve, and I don’t expect that this one will be any different.

And that’s why this should be taken on by the City

Opponents of growth do not trust city staff. They routinely disparage staff and go on in some detail about it. So my assumption is that you would advocate for bringing in consultants for this. How much does the City of Davis spend on consultants each year? Please explain to us how, in the current viscerally polarized political environment, this process is going to work.

it’s a third approach of looking more broadly across the City for the right opportunities

The Studio 30 report identified 5th Street between L and Pole Line Road, and downtown, as the other sites for economic development. There has never been any progress on the 5th Street idea. The downtown plan is, of course, about to move forward for council approval and I expect we’ll see some modest proposals there (Anderson, Hibbert). None of those add up to what a peripheral site would provide, but obviously they should be encouraged to the greatest extent possible.

And Matt and I don’t trust City staff either (see our articles on the BrightNight debacle.) We see that citizens will run this process, but we may need some City help for logistics and spreading the word–but then again we may not them given the City’s record to date on reaching citizens to date.

We might need a consultant for some technical analysis. That decision likely would come out of the process. Many of us are capable of doing this analysis ourselves. (Along with Matt and myself, I can immediately name two other people who have been involved in City processes who have the skills we need to do this work pro bono and will be at least as good as any consultant in the state (or nation)).

Rather than just starting out as a cynical skeptic, perhaps waiting for a more fully described proposal is better. We don’t have another option. (Higher taxes alone aren’t feasible due to state constitutional constraints, ignoring political realities. More on that in the education process.)

As for the third way, David was focused solely on the DISC parcel. There could be other preferable locations, but that would come out of the visioning process. Both you and David keep thinking inside the box–it’s time to step outside.

And Matt and I don’t trust City staff either (see our articles on the BrightNight debacle.) We see that citizens will run this process, but we may need some City help for logistics and spreading the word–but then again we may not them given the City’s record to date on reaching citizens to date.

As if the “word” wasn’t spread which led to this point (several times), already.

“Citizens” are going to “run this process”?  What makes you think that developers will try again anytime soon?

Got to admire the “control”, “influence” and “trust” that you apparently think you have with voters. Most of whom would say “Richard WHO”?

We might need a consultant for some technical analysis.

You’re proposing that the city pay for this?  Really?

As for the third way, David was focused solely on the DISC parcel. There could be other preferable locations, but that would come out of the visioning process. Both you and David keep thinking inside the box–it’s time to step outside.

Yeah – it failed on its own in three other locations (Nishi, The Cannery, and the Davis Innovation Center).  The latter of which “moved” what was left of it 7 miles north, and added 1,600 housing units in the process.  (To a location that was also previously proposed for commercial-only.)

Honestly, the city will be fine without a peripheral innovation center.  (And again, the REAL question is what led up to this supposed “need”?  No one ever answers that.)

Personally, I suspect that a lot of the “interest” in this (on a personal level, for some) is the result of a failure to “right-size” the school system.  As a result, they’re always on the lookout for money for the school district.

They generally can’t raise taxes without voter approval.

Higher taxes alone aren’t feasible due to state constitutional constraints, ignoring political realities. More on that in the education process.)  

I’m curious as to the “constitutional constraints” as well.  Sounds promising!

Honestly, the city will be fine.  Fiscal challenges (especially from unfunded pensions and medical costs) are an issue throughout California.  Nothing “special” about Davis regarding that.  (Of course, the city keeps voluntarily making this problem worse.)

Until that’s resolved, who cares if there’s a couple of potholes? Otherwise known as ‘nature’s speed bumps”.

Second Street has an 8 acre site that remains unusable today for development because Frontier Fertilizer was careless in disposing of ag waste. If this Superfund site were to be cleaned up (rather than just monitor water and ground contamination) an opportunity for Oats/Ramos to develop a site that would not generate traffic problems since Second Street is not a Waze reroute. Second Street (from L East, 5th South to Mace ) and the area around was designated as a light industrial long ago (no housing here). The contaminated site on Second where Court Galvanizing was located got cleaned up (?) and a new commercial development was created.

Stop making statements that NO voters are anti development, that is an insult and does not lead to open communication (and is an opinion only). I am a long time Davis resident (50+years) and have voted for developments and against.  I will hold fast in allowing voters to decided what developments are approved because they are good for Davis, tax revenue is not a carrot on the stick that determines good.

I asked Ramos about that a month ago and he thinks there might be a chance that if they move where the test sites are, they can possibly use part of the site. But realistically, we would be talking about one relatively modest size company, it would be a replacement for 100 to 200 acres, 1 to 2 million sf of R&D space.

[edited] you really have no idea how the community works here. This process will not be centered around me, or Matt. There are a number of community institutions and organizations that are not part of City government that

You also have no real idea as whether the city will be fine without an innovation center. [edited: you have….] no particular expertise on the economic and fiscal situation here. For example, Davis has an exceptionally low receipt of sales taxes, especially given the higher income of the city’s residents. And that will decline significantly as electric vehicle sales increase and auto repair costs decrease–car dealers are going to be squeezed. You’re lack of understanding about school finances and the need for a critical mass of students to offer a wide array of programs is another illustration of your lack of knowledge and unwillingness to acknowledge those limitations. [edited]

If you’re unfamiliar with constitutional constraints on fiscal affairs in the state then apparently you haven’t heard of Prop 13, among others. (I cataloged several for the Delta Protection Commission when looking at funding sources for flood control measures.) This only highlights how little you have to contribute to this discussion about Davis’ future.

This process will not be centered around me, or Matt.

Matt does not live in Davis. And yet, you believe that he is qualified to provide input. (Same thing with Don Shor, Don Gibson, the DiSC developers, city staff . . .).

This leads me to believe that you aren’t actually concerned about where I live, and are simply attempting to undermine my comments without any relationship to the actual issues.

I am very familiar with Davis.  I choose not to discuss my personal information.  Apparently, you believe my personal information is relevant regarding the issues.

I’m aware of the city’s financial challenges, as well.  I would ask what led to that point, before trying to “fix” it.  Again, this is an issue throughout California. Much of it is the result of pensions and medical costs, which were not accounted for.

As far as the school district is concerned, their desire to resist right-sizing the size of their system should not be a factor regarding the size of the community.  (It’s difficult for me to believe that anyone would support doing so, with a straight face.  What an irresponsible position to take.)

As far as a “wide array of programs”, those programs are already costing the community more than it receives from the state for each student.  But even if one values those programs and wants to preserve them, no independent analysis has been performed regarding the “critical mass” needed to maintain each one.  For that matter, no analysis has been performed regarding options to maintain those programs, in the face of declining enrollment.

Adding more costs does not “reduce” costs.

By the way, you previously claimed that you were using the “ignore” feature regarding my comments. What happened – are you having technical difficulties which caused you to “un-ignore” them?

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The Vanguard provides the Davis Community with incisive in-depth coverage of local government on a wide variety of issues. Since 2006, The Vanguard has provided Davis and Yolo County with some of the best groundbreaking news coverage on local government and policy issues affecting our city, our schools, the county, and the Sacramento Region.

The People's Vanguard of Davis PO Box 4715 Davis , CA 95617 Phone: (916) 970-3131 info@davisvanguard.org