I noticed the recent controversy over ConAgra making a contingent donation to a developer/organization that is interested in developing land on the edge of Davis for a technology park.
Pam Marrone mentioned in the paper recently that biotech firms that might locate in that technology park need adjacent agricultural land for greenhouses with lights that bother nearby homeowners.
The controversy with development of land on the edge of Davis is that Davis planning already had moved forward with conservation easements for that property. I can’t help but remember how my City Council hero, Sue Greenwald, fought for years to keep the ConAgra Cannery site zoned as industrial land so that biotech or light industrial businesses could move into that site and utilize the adjacent train tracks.
I am mystified as to why the cannery site and adjacent agricultural land can’t be used for the purposes that Marrone mentions. The greenhouses could easily be located far from adjacent homes. People who might work there would be an easy bike ride from existing housing and UC Davis.
All I can figure is that the owners of The Cannery site and the adjacent agricultural lands want top-dollar development, i.e., houses, on that land. ConAgra’s contigent donation to encourage development on conserved farmland at the edge of town makes sense in light of Sue’s ideas for biotech on The Cannery site. Where is Sue when we need her?