The vote came amid suggests by several of the board members that they would not act on these recommendations until late March and moreover would be unlikely to make changes for the 2007-08 school year.
In recent weeks, Board Member Sheila Allen made strong statements that she was opposed to closing any school and vowed to keep all nine elementary schools open.
Allen said last week: “the board needs to be honest with the community that a major change (like closing a school) in the 2007-08 school year is not realistic.”
Moreover on February 13, 2007 she told Davis Democratic Club members that she was emphatically opposed to closing any school and she did not believe that we should pit neighborhood against neighborhood.
Other members have suggested they will wait to read the report before making any decisions however both Jim Provenza and Tim Taylor last week strongly indicated that closing a school next year would not be a good idea at this late date.
Baki Tezcan, one of the members of a group seeking to keep all nine schools open points out to us in a written statement that in 1999, using the projection of 4,450 kids for 2006-07, the board approved the construction of Montgomery and Korematsu Elementary schools. 4,450 kids were enough to justify nine elementary schools in 1999.
“If the School Board decides to close Valley Oak, the property owners in Davis may well question why they are paying for Measure K, which passed on May 23, 2000, and supported the construction of Montgomery and Korematsu. If the Board in 2007 decides that 4,378 K-6 students may be accommodated in 8 elementary schools, then everyone will wonder why the Board told them that we needed 9 schools seven years ago with projected enrollments for 4,450 K-6 students in 2006-07.”
He concluded:
“In short: a projection of 4,450 students was deemed good enough to run 9 schools, but an actual number of 4,378 students is now regarded as not good enough to keep them open. If anything is double standard, that is it!”
Task Force Chairman Kirk Trost is quoted in the Davis Enterprise:
“Unless there’s approval of some major new development, we’re not going to see a substantial number of (new) students,” said task force chairman Kirk Trost, noting city government has put the proposed 600-home Cannery Park development on hold.”
The Cannery Park development may be on hold, but the current growth plan by the city is still 1.25% per year. In order to accomplish that, they would have to have a project development the size of Cannery Park every two years, the size of Wild House every three years, or the size of Mace Ranch every seven years. That would suggest that within seven years, if the council majority is maintained, there would be the need for at least one additional school.
In the shorter term, I think there are many very good reasons to keep all nine schools open. I also think this is a good strategy to avoid pitting neighborhood against neighborhood. The March 1, 2007 School Board meeting should be an interesting one to follow.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Maintaining a sense of community is more important than redistributing children into the suburbs for economic reasons. Neighborhoods and a sense of belonging should have a higher priory. Transporting children away from the center is wrong. Nine smaller schools serving student needs creates a preferred educational atmosphere. Why is it that new development always seems to trump the old neighborhoods? The decision of the Task Force is not seriously considering the students and their families. Equality and social justice do not appear to be ingredients that are valued by the Task Force majority.
Maintaining a sense of community is more important than redistributing children into the suburbs for economic reasons. Neighborhoods and a sense of belonging should have a higher priory. Transporting children away from the center is wrong. Nine smaller schools serving student needs creates a preferred educational atmosphere. Why is it that new development always seems to trump the old neighborhoods? The decision of the Task Force is not seriously considering the students and their families. Equality and social justice do not appear to be ingredients that are valued by the Task Force majority.
Maintaining a sense of community is more important than redistributing children into the suburbs for economic reasons. Neighborhoods and a sense of belonging should have a higher priory. Transporting children away from the center is wrong. Nine smaller schools serving student needs creates a preferred educational atmosphere. Why is it that new development always seems to trump the old neighborhoods? The decision of the Task Force is not seriously considering the students and their families. Equality and social justice do not appear to be ingredients that are valued by the Task Force majority.
Maintaining a sense of community is more important than redistributing children into the suburbs for economic reasons. Neighborhoods and a sense of belonging should have a higher priory. Transporting children away from the center is wrong. Nine smaller schools serving student needs creates a preferred educational atmosphere. Why is it that new development always seems to trump the old neighborhoods? The decision of the Task Force is not seriously considering the students and their families. Equality and social justice do not appear to be ingredients that are valued by the Task Force majority.
Since the results of the task force resulted in the need to close a school and the two choices were between Korematsu and Valley Oak, it really is no surprise that Valley Oak was the one selected, for better or worse. When a new development comes in and the residents are paying 30 years of Mello-Roos fees to fund infrastructure improvements, including a new neighborhood school, they will be predictably vocal about the school’s construction and operation. If the school isn’t built or built but not operated, the residents will be rightfully upset about paying fees for services not provided. If that is the case, a proportional refund should be offered to the property owners.
Conversely, Valley Oak Elementary is not subject to that political consideration. The neighborhood from which Valley Oak draws students does not have as much directly at stake financially (i.e. no Mello Roos) and therefore is, in my opinion, considered the more expendable of the two.
But this is not an uncommon occurrence. Frequently, when older neighborhoods mature, student enrollment declines because families have grown up, which results in school closures. That model does not necessarily fit here because Valley Oak is located in a more affordable neighborhood in an expensive City, so it is likely to draw younger families with children. Also, we can always redraw attendance districts to ensure a school survives. But in this case it is primarily about funding.
This is not a good situation and it does not look like a win-win solution will be found.
Since the results of the task force resulted in the need to close a school and the two choices were between Korematsu and Valley Oak, it really is no surprise that Valley Oak was the one selected, for better or worse. When a new development comes in and the residents are paying 30 years of Mello-Roos fees to fund infrastructure improvements, including a new neighborhood school, they will be predictably vocal about the school’s construction and operation. If the school isn’t built or built but not operated, the residents will be rightfully upset about paying fees for services not provided. If that is the case, a proportional refund should be offered to the property owners.
Conversely, Valley Oak Elementary is not subject to that political consideration. The neighborhood from which Valley Oak draws students does not have as much directly at stake financially (i.e. no Mello Roos) and therefore is, in my opinion, considered the more expendable of the two.
But this is not an uncommon occurrence. Frequently, when older neighborhoods mature, student enrollment declines because families have grown up, which results in school closures. That model does not necessarily fit here because Valley Oak is located in a more affordable neighborhood in an expensive City, so it is likely to draw younger families with children. Also, we can always redraw attendance districts to ensure a school survives. But in this case it is primarily about funding.
This is not a good situation and it does not look like a win-win solution will be found.
Since the results of the task force resulted in the need to close a school and the two choices were between Korematsu and Valley Oak, it really is no surprise that Valley Oak was the one selected, for better or worse. When a new development comes in and the residents are paying 30 years of Mello-Roos fees to fund infrastructure improvements, including a new neighborhood school, they will be predictably vocal about the school’s construction and operation. If the school isn’t built or built but not operated, the residents will be rightfully upset about paying fees for services not provided. If that is the case, a proportional refund should be offered to the property owners.
Conversely, Valley Oak Elementary is not subject to that political consideration. The neighborhood from which Valley Oak draws students does not have as much directly at stake financially (i.e. no Mello Roos) and therefore is, in my opinion, considered the more expendable of the two.
But this is not an uncommon occurrence. Frequently, when older neighborhoods mature, student enrollment declines because families have grown up, which results in school closures. That model does not necessarily fit here because Valley Oak is located in a more affordable neighborhood in an expensive City, so it is likely to draw younger families with children. Also, we can always redraw attendance districts to ensure a school survives. But in this case it is primarily about funding.
This is not a good situation and it does not look like a win-win solution will be found.
Since the results of the task force resulted in the need to close a school and the two choices were between Korematsu and Valley Oak, it really is no surprise that Valley Oak was the one selected, for better or worse. When a new development comes in and the residents are paying 30 years of Mello-Roos fees to fund infrastructure improvements, including a new neighborhood school, they will be predictably vocal about the school’s construction and operation. If the school isn’t built or built but not operated, the residents will be rightfully upset about paying fees for services not provided. If that is the case, a proportional refund should be offered to the property owners.
Conversely, Valley Oak Elementary is not subject to that political consideration. The neighborhood from which Valley Oak draws students does not have as much directly at stake financially (i.e. no Mello Roos) and therefore is, in my opinion, considered the more expendable of the two.
But this is not an uncommon occurrence. Frequently, when older neighborhoods mature, student enrollment declines because families have grown up, which results in school closures. That model does not necessarily fit here because Valley Oak is located in a more affordable neighborhood in an expensive City, so it is likely to draw younger families with children. Also, we can always redraw attendance districts to ensure a school survives. But in this case it is primarily about funding.
This is not a good situation and it does not look like a win-win solution will be found.
Clarification, should read ” and therefore is, in my opinion, considered by some the more expendable of the two.”
Clarification, should read ” and therefore is, in my opinion, considered by some the more expendable of the two.”
Clarification, should read ” and therefore is, in my opinion, considered by some the more expendable of the two.”
Clarification, should read ” and therefore is, in my opinion, considered by some the more expendable of the two.”
Brian… your comment,”Why is it that new development always seems to trump the old neighborhoods” is not only restricted to the DUSD. My experience with trying to get a safety-connected road repair issue addressed by the city also clearly illustrated to me that pouring new concrete trumps maintaining the old.
The solution? Political grassroots organization and strength. Keep this in mind in 2008.
Brian… your comment,”Why is it that new development always seems to trump the old neighborhoods” is not only restricted to the DUSD. My experience with trying to get a safety-connected road repair issue addressed by the city also clearly illustrated to me that pouring new concrete trumps maintaining the old.
The solution? Political grassroots organization and strength. Keep this in mind in 2008.
Brian… your comment,”Why is it that new development always seems to trump the old neighborhoods” is not only restricted to the DUSD. My experience with trying to get a safety-connected road repair issue addressed by the city also clearly illustrated to me that pouring new concrete trumps maintaining the old.
The solution? Political grassroots organization and strength. Keep this in mind in 2008.
Brian… your comment,”Why is it that new development always seems to trump the old neighborhoods” is not only restricted to the DUSD. My experience with trying to get a safety-connected road repair issue addressed by the city also clearly illustrated to me that pouring new concrete trumps maintaining the old.
The solution? Political grassroots organization and strength. Keep this in mind in 2008.
That wasn’t my comment, it was the first poster’s.
Of course new concrete takes precedence, because it is almost always associated with new development and new development pays their own way for infrastructure. Generally, there are not enough funds to maintain older infrastructure. I can point to the damaged gutter in front of my house where water collects whenever it rains in the winter or a neighbor (or me) washes their car in the summer.
I really don’t see this specific example of maintaining infrastrucutre one of political bias towards development. They’re two different funding streams and there simply is not enough money to adequately maintain our existing roads, sidewalks, etc…and that has nothing to do with new development. Unless you’re implying that new development should not only pay their own way but also the rest of the City’s(?).
That wasn’t my comment, it was the first poster’s.
Of course new concrete takes precedence, because it is almost always associated with new development and new development pays their own way for infrastructure. Generally, there are not enough funds to maintain older infrastructure. I can point to the damaged gutter in front of my house where water collects whenever it rains in the winter or a neighbor (or me) washes their car in the summer.
I really don’t see this specific example of maintaining infrastrucutre one of political bias towards development. They’re two different funding streams and there simply is not enough money to adequately maintain our existing roads, sidewalks, etc…and that has nothing to do with new development. Unless you’re implying that new development should not only pay their own way but also the rest of the City’s(?).
That wasn’t my comment, it was the first poster’s.
Of course new concrete takes precedence, because it is almost always associated with new development and new development pays their own way for infrastructure. Generally, there are not enough funds to maintain older infrastructure. I can point to the damaged gutter in front of my house where water collects whenever it rains in the winter or a neighbor (or me) washes their car in the summer.
I really don’t see this specific example of maintaining infrastrucutre one of political bias towards development. They’re two different funding streams and there simply is not enough money to adequately maintain our existing roads, sidewalks, etc…and that has nothing to do with new development. Unless you’re implying that new development should not only pay their own way but also the rest of the City’s(?).
That wasn’t my comment, it was the first poster’s.
Of course new concrete takes precedence, because it is almost always associated with new development and new development pays their own way for infrastructure. Generally, there are not enough funds to maintain older infrastructure. I can point to the damaged gutter in front of my house where water collects whenever it rains in the winter or a neighbor (or me) washes their car in the summer.
I really don’t see this specific example of maintaining infrastrucutre one of political bias towards development. They’re two different funding streams and there simply is not enough money to adequately maintain our existing roads, sidewalks, etc…and that has nothing to do with new development. Unless you’re implying that new development should not only pay their own way but also the rest of the City’s(?).
The specific example of infrastructure being road maintenance, not schools, which contrasts with the point of my original comment.
The specific example of infrastructure being road maintenance, not schools, which contrasts with the point of my original comment.
The specific example of infrastructure being road maintenance, not schools, which contrasts with the point of my original comment.
The specific example of infrastructure being road maintenance, not schools, which contrasts with the point of my original comment.
Brian.. I am not convinced that the two separate funding streams are an adequate explanation. The city’s moneys are well-known to be moved from one line item to another with some “creative” accounting..and yes,
the money that comes into the city’s coffers from new development should be MAXIMIZED and go to the needs of the entire city.
Brian.. I am not convinced that the two separate funding streams are an adequate explanation. The city’s moneys are well-known to be moved from one line item to another with some “creative” accounting..and yes,
the money that comes into the city’s coffers from new development should be MAXIMIZED and go to the needs of the entire city.
Brian.. I am not convinced that the two separate funding streams are an adequate explanation. The city’s moneys are well-known to be moved from one line item to another with some “creative” accounting..and yes,
the money that comes into the city’s coffers from new development should be MAXIMIZED and go to the needs of the entire city.
Brian.. I am not convinced that the two separate funding streams are an adequate explanation. The city’s moneys are well-known to be moved from one line item to another with some “creative” accounting..and yes,
the money that comes into the city’s coffers from new development should be MAXIMIZED and go to the needs of the entire city.
I entirely disagree, and your conclusion is ill-advised with many undesirable consequences. Mello-Roos fees pay for bonds that were taken out for improvements WITHIN the fee district and are paid by those WITHIN the district. There is no “creative accounting”, by law, possible there.
Whether other line items are switched around is beyond my knowledge. But the issue here for me is whether new development should pay for maintenance of existing infrastructure such as roads and schools.
Blame Prop 13, not new development or development-biased politicians for the inability to adequately maintain our current infrastructure. But I personally benefit from Prop 13 because I can barely afford the mortgage and property taxes on my small home as it is. In fact, I intentionally avoided Mace Ranch and Wildhorse several years back because while the sales prices look competitive to other neighborhoods,the “hidden costs” are the Mello Roos fees which varied from $250-$500 a month in addition to property taxes.
It is not unreasonable to request new development to pay into a citywide impact fund to help pay for needed improvments. The question is how much should that be and what impact would it have on the kinds of development we want to see. The bottom line is that any kind of development fee will simply be passed on to the future residents of that development, pushing the purchase prices of the homes, for example, even higher when we’re trying to improve the affordability of housing in Davis. This is a consequence I DON’T want to see. It is likely that considering Davis does not see that much annual development, that any citywide fee assessed on that development would only be a drop in the bucket for the maintenance of the City’s overall infrastructure needs.
I entirely disagree, and your conclusion is ill-advised with many undesirable consequences. Mello-Roos fees pay for bonds that were taken out for improvements WITHIN the fee district and are paid by those WITHIN the district. There is no “creative accounting”, by law, possible there.
Whether other line items are switched around is beyond my knowledge. But the issue here for me is whether new development should pay for maintenance of existing infrastructure such as roads and schools.
Blame Prop 13, not new development or development-biased politicians for the inability to adequately maintain our current infrastructure. But I personally benefit from Prop 13 because I can barely afford the mortgage and property taxes on my small home as it is. In fact, I intentionally avoided Mace Ranch and Wildhorse several years back because while the sales prices look competitive to other neighborhoods,the “hidden costs” are the Mello Roos fees which varied from $250-$500 a month in addition to property taxes.
It is not unreasonable to request new development to pay into a citywide impact fund to help pay for needed improvments. The question is how much should that be and what impact would it have on the kinds of development we want to see. The bottom line is that any kind of development fee will simply be passed on to the future residents of that development, pushing the purchase prices of the homes, for example, even higher when we’re trying to improve the affordability of housing in Davis. This is a consequence I DON’T want to see. It is likely that considering Davis does not see that much annual development, that any citywide fee assessed on that development would only be a drop in the bucket for the maintenance of the City’s overall infrastructure needs.
I entirely disagree, and your conclusion is ill-advised with many undesirable consequences. Mello-Roos fees pay for bonds that were taken out for improvements WITHIN the fee district and are paid by those WITHIN the district. There is no “creative accounting”, by law, possible there.
Whether other line items are switched around is beyond my knowledge. But the issue here for me is whether new development should pay for maintenance of existing infrastructure such as roads and schools.
Blame Prop 13, not new development or development-biased politicians for the inability to adequately maintain our current infrastructure. But I personally benefit from Prop 13 because I can barely afford the mortgage and property taxes on my small home as it is. In fact, I intentionally avoided Mace Ranch and Wildhorse several years back because while the sales prices look competitive to other neighborhoods,the “hidden costs” are the Mello Roos fees which varied from $250-$500 a month in addition to property taxes.
It is not unreasonable to request new development to pay into a citywide impact fund to help pay for needed improvments. The question is how much should that be and what impact would it have on the kinds of development we want to see. The bottom line is that any kind of development fee will simply be passed on to the future residents of that development, pushing the purchase prices of the homes, for example, even higher when we’re trying to improve the affordability of housing in Davis. This is a consequence I DON’T want to see. It is likely that considering Davis does not see that much annual development, that any citywide fee assessed on that development would only be a drop in the bucket for the maintenance of the City’s overall infrastructure needs.
I entirely disagree, and your conclusion is ill-advised with many undesirable consequences. Mello-Roos fees pay for bonds that were taken out for improvements WITHIN the fee district and are paid by those WITHIN the district. There is no “creative accounting”, by law, possible there.
Whether other line items are switched around is beyond my knowledge. But the issue here for me is whether new development should pay for maintenance of existing infrastructure such as roads and schools.
Blame Prop 13, not new development or development-biased politicians for the inability to adequately maintain our current infrastructure. But I personally benefit from Prop 13 because I can barely afford the mortgage and property taxes on my small home as it is. In fact, I intentionally avoided Mace Ranch and Wildhorse several years back because while the sales prices look competitive to other neighborhoods,the “hidden costs” are the Mello Roos fees which varied from $250-$500 a month in addition to property taxes.
It is not unreasonable to request new development to pay into a citywide impact fund to help pay for needed improvments. The question is how much should that be and what impact would it have on the kinds of development we want to see. The bottom line is that any kind of development fee will simply be passed on to the future residents of that development, pushing the purchase prices of the homes, for example, even higher when we’re trying to improve the affordability of housing in Davis. This is a consequence I DON’T want to see. It is likely that considering Davis does not see that much annual development, that any citywide fee assessed on that development would only be a drop in the bucket for the maintenance of the City’s overall infrastructure needs.
Brian.. I don’t think that there will be a meeting of the minds here.
A well-seasoned and successful State politico recently shared with me that “….developer interests are interested in strategy, not policy.” In this vein,there appears to be a “full-court press” on all fronts to lock Davis into future massive peripheral development expansion.
Brian.. I don’t think that there will be a meeting of the minds here.
A well-seasoned and successful State politico recently shared with me that “….developer interests are interested in strategy, not policy.” In this vein,there appears to be a “full-court press” on all fronts to lock Davis into future massive peripheral development expansion.
Brian.. I don’t think that there will be a meeting of the minds here.
A well-seasoned and successful State politico recently shared with me that “….developer interests are interested in strategy, not policy.” In this vein,there appears to be a “full-court press” on all fronts to lock Davis into future massive peripheral development expansion.
Brian.. I don’t think that there will be a meeting of the minds here.
A well-seasoned and successful State politico recently shared with me that “….developer interests are interested in strategy, not policy.” In this vein,there appears to be a “full-court press” on all fronts to lock Davis into future massive peripheral development expansion.
Brian…Do not misconstrue my previous post. My comment about developer interests was not addressed to you. I sense that we are both presenting arguments that may have a shared underlying desire for Davis’ future.
Brian…Do not misconstrue my previous post. My comment about developer interests was not addressed to you. I sense that we are both presenting arguments that may have a shared underlying desire for Davis’ future.
Brian…Do not misconstrue my previous post. My comment about developer interests was not addressed to you. I sense that we are both presenting arguments that may have a shared underlying desire for Davis’ future.
Brian…Do not misconstrue my previous post. My comment about developer interests was not addressed to you. I sense that we are both presenting arguments that may have a shared underlying desire for Davis’ future.
A well-seasoned and successful State politico recently shared with me that “….developer interests are interested in strategy, not policy.” In this vein,there appears to be a “full-court press” on all fronts to lock Davis into future massive peripheral development expansion.
We are not in disagreement regarding that point and it is not a real revelation. I have stated my case against large-scale peripheral development in many posts on this blog.
What we disagree on are the assumptions, obligations, implications etc. regarding specific details of development.
Now back to your regularly programmed blog on Valley Oak…
A well-seasoned and successful State politico recently shared with me that “….developer interests are interested in strategy, not policy.” In this vein,there appears to be a “full-court press” on all fronts to lock Davis into future massive peripheral development expansion.
We are not in disagreement regarding that point and it is not a real revelation. I have stated my case against large-scale peripheral development in many posts on this blog.
What we disagree on are the assumptions, obligations, implications etc. regarding specific details of development.
Now back to your regularly programmed blog on Valley Oak…
A well-seasoned and successful State politico recently shared with me that “….developer interests are interested in strategy, not policy.” In this vein,there appears to be a “full-court press” on all fronts to lock Davis into future massive peripheral development expansion.
We are not in disagreement regarding that point and it is not a real revelation. I have stated my case against large-scale peripheral development in many posts on this blog.
What we disagree on are the assumptions, obligations, implications etc. regarding specific details of development.
Now back to your regularly programmed blog on Valley Oak…
A well-seasoned and successful State politico recently shared with me that “….developer interests are interested in strategy, not policy.” In this vein,there appears to be a “full-court press” on all fronts to lock Davis into future massive peripheral development expansion.
We are not in disagreement regarding that point and it is not a real revelation. I have stated my case against large-scale peripheral development in many posts on this blog.
What we disagree on are the assumptions, obligations, implications etc. regarding specific details of development.
Now back to your regularly programmed blog on Valley Oak…
ahh yes, davisite- we know your tune…no new growth, no new growth…i’ve got mine and no one else is allowed in…
why is it that you believe that davis should not experience any peripheral growth?
peripheral growth can occur,if it is managed well.
you also seem consistently bent on denying new potential residents of davis a chance to live here (potential new peripheral growth) in the future and even potentially raise a familiy here…then we may not have to close schools.
ahh yes, davisite- we know your tune…no new growth, no new growth…i’ve got mine and no one else is allowed in…
why is it that you believe that davis should not experience any peripheral growth?
peripheral growth can occur,if it is managed well.
you also seem consistently bent on denying new potential residents of davis a chance to live here (potential new peripheral growth) in the future and even potentially raise a familiy here…then we may not have to close schools.
ahh yes, davisite- we know your tune…no new growth, no new growth…i’ve got mine and no one else is allowed in…
why is it that you believe that davis should not experience any peripheral growth?
peripheral growth can occur,if it is managed well.
you also seem consistently bent on denying new potential residents of davis a chance to live here (potential new peripheral growth) in the future and even potentially raise a familiy here…then we may not have to close schools.
ahh yes, davisite- we know your tune…no new growth, no new growth…i’ve got mine and no one else is allowed in…
why is it that you believe that davis should not experience any peripheral growth?
peripheral growth can occur,if it is managed well.
you also seem consistently bent on denying new potential residents of davis a chance to live here (potential new peripheral growth) in the future and even potentially raise a familiy here…then we may not have to close schools.
It is clear your comments are more oriented toward/against very large-scale developments which are undesirable and mine are oriented toward/protective of smaller scale projects that we do (or maybe only I, I don’t want to speak for you) want to see. For example, Cannery Park.
So our thought paths are on slightly different planes.
It is clear your comments are more oriented toward/against very large-scale developments which are undesirable and mine are oriented toward/protective of smaller scale projects that we do (or maybe only I, I don’t want to speak for you) want to see. For example, Cannery Park.
So our thought paths are on slightly different planes.
It is clear your comments are more oriented toward/against very large-scale developments which are undesirable and mine are oriented toward/protective of smaller scale projects that we do (or maybe only I, I don’t want to speak for you) want to see. For example, Cannery Park.
So our thought paths are on slightly different planes.
It is clear your comments are more oriented toward/against very large-scale developments which are undesirable and mine are oriented toward/protective of smaller scale projects that we do (or maybe only I, I don’t want to speak for you) want to see. For example, Cannery Park.
So our thought paths are on slightly different planes.
I think that the threat of Valley Oak closure can be viewed as part of this “full-court press” strategy.
I think that the threat of Valley Oak closure can be viewed as part of this “full-court press” strategy.
I think that the threat of Valley Oak closure can be viewed as part of this “full-court press” strategy.
I think that the threat of Valley Oak closure can be viewed as part of this “full-court press” strategy.
A few points.
I would support some peripheral growth on a project by project basis. But that’s going to depend on the project itself and the infrastructure and resources.
I slightly differ from Davisite on one point, I don’t see the schools issue coming from the growth issue. I could be wrong on that and we’ll have to see where the board is coming from when they finally start weighing in.
A few points.
I would support some peripheral growth on a project by project basis. But that’s going to depend on the project itself and the infrastructure and resources.
I slightly differ from Davisite on one point, I don’t see the schools issue coming from the growth issue. I could be wrong on that and we’ll have to see where the board is coming from when they finally start weighing in.
A few points.
I would support some peripheral growth on a project by project basis. But that’s going to depend on the project itself and the infrastructure and resources.
I slightly differ from Davisite on one point, I don’t see the schools issue coming from the growth issue. I could be wrong on that and we’ll have to see where the board is coming from when they finally start weighing in.
A few points.
I would support some peripheral growth on a project by project basis. But that’s going to depend on the project itself and the infrastructure and resources.
I slightly differ from Davisite on one point, I don’t see the schools issue coming from the growth issue. I could be wrong on that and we’ll have to see where the board is coming from when they finally start weighing in.
Anonymous,
The assumption in your flawed argument is that growth MUST occur on the periphery for families to live in Davis. That is simply not the case. We have an abundance of single family homes in Davis and that product type is already overrepresented here. Considering the changing and aging demographics and rising cost of transportation and housing, there will be a greater need for smaller, more compact, mixed-use (either horizontal or vertical) development within walking distance of amenities. This will free up the current plentiful supply of single-family homes.
So like you said, it’s not *that* we should grow but *how*. We shouldn’t be afraid of it if it is done correctly. Also, *where* on the periphery matters.
Anonymous,
The assumption in your flawed argument is that growth MUST occur on the periphery for families to live in Davis. That is simply not the case. We have an abundance of single family homes in Davis and that product type is already overrepresented here. Considering the changing and aging demographics and rising cost of transportation and housing, there will be a greater need for smaller, more compact, mixed-use (either horizontal or vertical) development within walking distance of amenities. This will free up the current plentiful supply of single-family homes.
So like you said, it’s not *that* we should grow but *how*. We shouldn’t be afraid of it if it is done correctly. Also, *where* on the periphery matters.
Anonymous,
The assumption in your flawed argument is that growth MUST occur on the periphery for families to live in Davis. That is simply not the case. We have an abundance of single family homes in Davis and that product type is already overrepresented here. Considering the changing and aging demographics and rising cost of transportation and housing, there will be a greater need for smaller, more compact, mixed-use (either horizontal or vertical) development within walking distance of amenities. This will free up the current plentiful supply of single-family homes.
So like you said, it’s not *that* we should grow but *how*. We shouldn’t be afraid of it if it is done correctly. Also, *where* on the periphery matters.
Anonymous,
The assumption in your flawed argument is that growth MUST occur on the periphery for families to live in Davis. That is simply not the case. We have an abundance of single family homes in Davis and that product type is already overrepresented here. Considering the changing and aging demographics and rising cost of transportation and housing, there will be a greater need for smaller, more compact, mixed-use (either horizontal or vertical) development within walking distance of amenities. This will free up the current plentiful supply of single-family homes.
So like you said, it’s not *that* we should grow but *how*. We shouldn’t be afraid of it if it is done correctly. Also, *where* on the periphery matters.
Brian.. as I imagined, we are more on the same page than not. The Cannery Row development site was presented as the next residential development site idea by the No on X campaign. My guess is that the overwhelming No on X vote represented acceptance of this idea by the Davis voter. The issue of connecting it with the resurrection of the Covell Village project is clearly where we are politically heading and here the battle-lines will be drawn again
as to size and timing.
Brian.. as I imagined, we are more on the same page than not. The Cannery Row development site was presented as the next residential development site idea by the No on X campaign. My guess is that the overwhelming No on X vote represented acceptance of this idea by the Davis voter. The issue of connecting it with the resurrection of the Covell Village project is clearly where we are politically heading and here the battle-lines will be drawn again
as to size and timing.
Brian.. as I imagined, we are more on the same page than not. The Cannery Row development site was presented as the next residential development site idea by the No on X campaign. My guess is that the overwhelming No on X vote represented acceptance of this idea by the Davis voter. The issue of connecting it with the resurrection of the Covell Village project is clearly where we are politically heading and here the battle-lines will be drawn again
as to size and timing.
Brian.. as I imagined, we are more on the same page than not. The Cannery Row development site was presented as the next residential development site idea by the No on X campaign. My guess is that the overwhelming No on X vote represented acceptance of this idea by the Davis voter. The issue of connecting it with the resurrection of the Covell Village project is clearly where we are politically heading and here the battle-lines will be drawn again
as to size and timing.
Davisite,
Except we disagree in that I’m not drawing my battle line on Covell Village. I don’t consider it peripheral development. I think development on that site should play out this way:
1. Annex the Covell Village Property into the City limits
2. First, the site should be subjected to a Cit-initiated Specific Plan that outlines a very specific community vision for that land prior to allowing any development application.
3. Then allow development on that land in accordance with the Specific Plan
Any other approach will be futile as the community is inherently skeptical of anything introduced by developers.
It also requires the community to first come to consensus on a vision and eliminate the fragmented opposition to development on the site. It also requires it to be grounded in financial reality.
That is the only way we’ll get exactly what we want on that property.
But I do think it should ultimately be developed, in accordance with the highest urban design standards.
Davisite,
Except we disagree in that I’m not drawing my battle line on Covell Village. I don’t consider it peripheral development. I think development on that site should play out this way:
1. Annex the Covell Village Property into the City limits
2. First, the site should be subjected to a Cit-initiated Specific Plan that outlines a very specific community vision for that land prior to allowing any development application.
3. Then allow development on that land in accordance with the Specific Plan
Any other approach will be futile as the community is inherently skeptical of anything introduced by developers.
It also requires the community to first come to consensus on a vision and eliminate the fragmented opposition to development on the site. It also requires it to be grounded in financial reality.
That is the only way we’ll get exactly what we want on that property.
But I do think it should ultimately be developed, in accordance with the highest urban design standards.
Davisite,
Except we disagree in that I’m not drawing my battle line on Covell Village. I don’t consider it peripheral development. I think development on that site should play out this way:
1. Annex the Covell Village Property into the City limits
2. First, the site should be subjected to a Cit-initiated Specific Plan that outlines a very specific community vision for that land prior to allowing any development application.
3. Then allow development on that land in accordance with the Specific Plan
Any other approach will be futile as the community is inherently skeptical of anything introduced by developers.
It also requires the community to first come to consensus on a vision and eliminate the fragmented opposition to development on the site. It also requires it to be grounded in financial reality.
That is the only way we’ll get exactly what we want on that property.
But I do think it should ultimately be developed, in accordance with the highest urban design standards.
Davisite,
Except we disagree in that I’m not drawing my battle line on Covell Village. I don’t consider it peripheral development. I think development on that site should play out this way:
1. Annex the Covell Village Property into the City limits
2. First, the site should be subjected to a Cit-initiated Specific Plan that outlines a very specific community vision for that land prior to allowing any development application.
3. Then allow development on that land in accordance with the Specific Plan
Any other approach will be futile as the community is inherently skeptical of anything introduced by developers.
It also requires the community to first come to consensus on a vision and eliminate the fragmented opposition to development on the site. It also requires it to be grounded in financial reality.
That is the only way we’ll get exactly what we want on that property.
But I do think it should ultimately be developed, in accordance with the highest urban design standards.
Brian-we agree on almost all of your points.Notice.. my reference to “battle-lines” did not suggest no residential development on the Covell Village site forever. With regard to returning this site from agriculture to something like “urban reserve”, this does nothing to its availablity for future decisions by the Davis voters on its development other than raising its speculative land value.. something that I would guess raises the ultimate cost to the home purchaser.
Brian-we agree on almost all of your points.Notice.. my reference to “battle-lines” did not suggest no residential development on the Covell Village site forever. With regard to returning this site from agriculture to something like “urban reserve”, this does nothing to its availablity for future decisions by the Davis voters on its development other than raising its speculative land value.. something that I would guess raises the ultimate cost to the home purchaser.
Brian-we agree on almost all of your points.Notice.. my reference to “battle-lines” did not suggest no residential development on the Covell Village site forever. With regard to returning this site from agriculture to something like “urban reserve”, this does nothing to its availablity for future decisions by the Davis voters on its development other than raising its speculative land value.. something that I would guess raises the ultimate cost to the home purchaser.
Brian-we agree on almost all of your points.Notice.. my reference to “battle-lines” did not suggest no residential development on the Covell Village site forever. With regard to returning this site from agriculture to something like “urban reserve”, this does nothing to its availablity for future decisions by the Davis voters on its development other than raising its speculative land value.. something that I would guess raises the ultimate cost to the home purchaser.
Brian types: “When a new development comes in and the residents are paying 30 years of Mello-Roos fees to fund infrastructure improvements, including a new neighborhood school, they will be predictably vocal about the school’s construction and operation.”
Agreed. However, it is crucial to point out and understand that while many of the homeowners in Mace Ranch believe that they are paying the Mello-Roos fees, they are not. The market price of their homes was adjusted downward to account for this added expense. As such, Frank Ramos paid for the then Present Value of those M-R fees.
“The neighborhood from which Valley Oak draws students does not have as much directly at stake financially (i.e. no Mello Roos) and therefore is, in my opinion, considered the more expendable of the two.”
Economically, that’s nonsense. Think back to 1995. Say a homeowner had a choice between two identical brand new homes, one in Mace Ranch and one in East Davis. Everything else is held equal. However, the Mace Ranch house came with M-R fees, the East Davis house did not. Would they have sold for the same price? Of course not. The Mace Ranch house would have been cheaper, in order to account for the M-R fees.
Nevertheless, there still is a reasonable argument, if you are going to shutter one school and not the other, to close the older, more worn out, perhaps even obsolete building than the brand new one with better features and technology for the needs of today’s students. But the Mello-Roos argument is hogwash.
Brian types: “When a new development comes in and the residents are paying 30 years of Mello-Roos fees to fund infrastructure improvements, including a new neighborhood school, they will be predictably vocal about the school’s construction and operation.”
Agreed. However, it is crucial to point out and understand that while many of the homeowners in Mace Ranch believe that they are paying the Mello-Roos fees, they are not. The market price of their homes was adjusted downward to account for this added expense. As such, Frank Ramos paid for the then Present Value of those M-R fees.
“The neighborhood from which Valley Oak draws students does not have as much directly at stake financially (i.e. no Mello Roos) and therefore is, in my opinion, considered the more expendable of the two.”
Economically, that’s nonsense. Think back to 1995. Say a homeowner had a choice between two identical brand new homes, one in Mace Ranch and one in East Davis. Everything else is held equal. However, the Mace Ranch house came with M-R fees, the East Davis house did not. Would they have sold for the same price? Of course not. The Mace Ranch house would have been cheaper, in order to account for the M-R fees.
Nevertheless, there still is a reasonable argument, if you are going to shutter one school and not the other, to close the older, more worn out, perhaps even obsolete building than the brand new one with better features and technology for the needs of today’s students. But the Mello-Roos argument is hogwash.
Brian types: “When a new development comes in and the residents are paying 30 years of Mello-Roos fees to fund infrastructure improvements, including a new neighborhood school, they will be predictably vocal about the school’s construction and operation.”
Agreed. However, it is crucial to point out and understand that while many of the homeowners in Mace Ranch believe that they are paying the Mello-Roos fees, they are not. The market price of their homes was adjusted downward to account for this added expense. As such, Frank Ramos paid for the then Present Value of those M-R fees.
“The neighborhood from which Valley Oak draws students does not have as much directly at stake financially (i.e. no Mello Roos) and therefore is, in my opinion, considered the more expendable of the two.”
Economically, that’s nonsense. Think back to 1995. Say a homeowner had a choice between two identical brand new homes, one in Mace Ranch and one in East Davis. Everything else is held equal. However, the Mace Ranch house came with M-R fees, the East Davis house did not. Would they have sold for the same price? Of course not. The Mace Ranch house would have been cheaper, in order to account for the M-R fees.
Nevertheless, there still is a reasonable argument, if you are going to shutter one school and not the other, to close the older, more worn out, perhaps even obsolete building than the brand new one with better features and technology for the needs of today’s students. But the Mello-Roos argument is hogwash.
Brian types: “When a new development comes in and the residents are paying 30 years of Mello-Roos fees to fund infrastructure improvements, including a new neighborhood school, they will be predictably vocal about the school’s construction and operation.”
Agreed. However, it is crucial to point out and understand that while many of the homeowners in Mace Ranch believe that they are paying the Mello-Roos fees, they are not. The market price of their homes was adjusted downward to account for this added expense. As such, Frank Ramos paid for the then Present Value of those M-R fees.
“The neighborhood from which Valley Oak draws students does not have as much directly at stake financially (i.e. no Mello Roos) and therefore is, in my opinion, considered the more expendable of the two.”
Economically, that’s nonsense. Think back to 1995. Say a homeowner had a choice between two identical brand new homes, one in Mace Ranch and one in East Davis. Everything else is held equal. However, the Mace Ranch house came with M-R fees, the East Davis house did not. Would they have sold for the same price? Of course not. The Mace Ranch house would have been cheaper, in order to account for the M-R fees.
Nevertheless, there still is a reasonable argument, if you are going to shutter one school and not the other, to close the older, more worn out, perhaps even obsolete building than the brand new one with better features and technology for the needs of today’s students. But the Mello-Roos argument is hogwash.
Oliver writes: “Maintaining a sense of community is more important than redistributing children into the suburbs for economic reasons. Neighborhoods and a sense of belonging should have a higher priory.”
I strongly agree. It’s hard to put a dollar figure on how neighborhood elementary schools can bring a neighborhood together and forge a sense of community. They tie kid-to-kid and parents-to-parents.
“Transporting children away from the center is wrong. Nine smaller schools serving student needs creates a preferred educational atmosphere.”
I agree with this, too. However, it should be pointed out that only 8 of the public elementary schools are neighborhood schools. Yes, Valley Oak has some non-neighborhood GATE students. But it still serves the East Davis & Davis Manor neighborhood kids as their school. By contrast, Cesar Chavez is in no way a neighborhood school. Its students are coming from other areas all around town, even from South Davis. Children who live near Cesar Chavez go to Willett, which is only a block and a half away.
Oliver writes: “Maintaining a sense of community is more important than redistributing children into the suburbs for economic reasons. Neighborhoods and a sense of belonging should have a higher priory.”
I strongly agree. It’s hard to put a dollar figure on how neighborhood elementary schools can bring a neighborhood together and forge a sense of community. They tie kid-to-kid and parents-to-parents.
“Transporting children away from the center is wrong. Nine smaller schools serving student needs creates a preferred educational atmosphere.”
I agree with this, too. However, it should be pointed out that only 8 of the public elementary schools are neighborhood schools. Yes, Valley Oak has some non-neighborhood GATE students. But it still serves the East Davis & Davis Manor neighborhood kids as their school. By contrast, Cesar Chavez is in no way a neighborhood school. Its students are coming from other areas all around town, even from South Davis. Children who live near Cesar Chavez go to Willett, which is only a block and a half away.
Oliver writes: “Maintaining a sense of community is more important than redistributing children into the suburbs for economic reasons. Neighborhoods and a sense of belonging should have a higher priory.”
I strongly agree. It’s hard to put a dollar figure on how neighborhood elementary schools can bring a neighborhood together and forge a sense of community. They tie kid-to-kid and parents-to-parents.
“Transporting children away from the center is wrong. Nine smaller schools serving student needs creates a preferred educational atmosphere.”
I agree with this, too. However, it should be pointed out that only 8 of the public elementary schools are neighborhood schools. Yes, Valley Oak has some non-neighborhood GATE students. But it still serves the East Davis & Davis Manor neighborhood kids as their school. By contrast, Cesar Chavez is in no way a neighborhood school. Its students are coming from other areas all around town, even from South Davis. Children who live near Cesar Chavez go to Willett, which is only a block and a half away.
Oliver writes: “Maintaining a sense of community is more important than redistributing children into the suburbs for economic reasons. Neighborhoods and a sense of belonging should have a higher priory.”
I strongly agree. It’s hard to put a dollar figure on how neighborhood elementary schools can bring a neighborhood together and forge a sense of community. They tie kid-to-kid and parents-to-parents.
“Transporting children away from the center is wrong. Nine smaller schools serving student needs creates a preferred educational atmosphere.”
I agree with this, too. However, it should be pointed out that only 8 of the public elementary schools are neighborhood schools. Yes, Valley Oak has some non-neighborhood GATE students. But it still serves the East Davis & Davis Manor neighborhood kids as their school. By contrast, Cesar Chavez is in no way a neighborhood school. Its students are coming from other areas all around town, even from South Davis. Children who live near Cesar Chavez go to Willett, which is only a block and a half away.
Agreed. However, it is crucial to point out and understand that while many of the homeowners in Mace Ranch believe that they are paying the Mello-Roos fees, they are not. The market price of their homes was adjusted downward to account for this added expense. As such, Frank Ramos paid for the then Present Value of those M-R fees.
I don’t know there is evidence this occurred and your conclusion implies that developers do not pass along taxes to their consumers. It’s possible the Mello Roos drove down the purchase price of the homes but two things would need to occur:
1. There was a profit margin on each unit high enough to allow that to occur on such a large scale; and
2. The price per sq foot was substantially lower than other new homes.
Economically, that’s nonsense. Think back to 1995. Say a homeowner had a choice between two identical brand new homes, one in Mace Ranch and one in East Davis. Everything else is held equal. However, the Mace Ranch house came with M-R fees, the East Davis house did not. Would they have sold for the same price? Of course not. The Mace Ranch house would have been cheaper, in order to account for the M-R fees.
It is not nonsense. First of all, you’re using a hypothetical example that never occurred. But it doesn’t matter since sq footage is the predominant variable in Davis home prices. Coincidentally, I was in this exact position twice, in 1999 and then again 2002, but comparing used homes with the new ones in Mace Ranch/Wildhorse. The price per square foot was somewhat less in Mace Ranch but did not even remotely cover the 30-year Mello-Roos costs assumed by a purchaser of a house there. We’re talking orders of magnitude different. Using a *very* conservative M-R fee assumption of $150/month, over 30 years that equates to $54,000. The price gap between similarly sized homes in Mace Ranch/Wildhorse and anywhere else in Davis isn’t anywhere close to that. So yes, M-R fees are passed on substantially to the homeowners. It still applies today.
So this factor potentially affecting the school closure decision should not be categorically dismissed. Even if none of what I said is true, your comment about Mace Ranch resident’s *perception* of paying it probably means more anyway, for perception in politics is reality.
Other factors such as building age, adaptability, etc. play a part.
Agreed. However, it is crucial to point out and understand that while many of the homeowners in Mace Ranch believe that they are paying the Mello-Roos fees, they are not. The market price of their homes was adjusted downward to account for this added expense. As such, Frank Ramos paid for the then Present Value of those M-R fees.
I don’t know there is evidence this occurred and your conclusion implies that developers do not pass along taxes to their consumers. It’s possible the Mello Roos drove down the purchase price of the homes but two things would need to occur:
1. There was a profit margin on each unit high enough to allow that to occur on such a large scale; and
2. The price per sq foot was substantially lower than other new homes.
Economically, that’s nonsense. Think back to 1995. Say a homeowner had a choice between two identical brand new homes, one in Mace Ranch and one in East Davis. Everything else is held equal. However, the Mace Ranch house came with M-R fees, the East Davis house did not. Would they have sold for the same price? Of course not. The Mace Ranch house would have been cheaper, in order to account for the M-R fees.
It is not nonsense. First of all, you’re using a hypothetical example that never occurred. But it doesn’t matter since sq footage is the predominant variable in Davis home prices. Coincidentally, I was in this exact position twice, in 1999 and then again 2002, but comparing used homes with the new ones in Mace Ranch/Wildhorse. The price per square foot was somewhat less in Mace Ranch but did not even remotely cover the 30-year Mello-Roos costs assumed by a purchaser of a house there. We’re talking orders of magnitude different. Using a *very* conservative M-R fee assumption of $150/month, over 30 years that equates to $54,000. The price gap between similarly sized homes in Mace Ranch/Wildhorse and anywhere else in Davis isn’t anywhere close to that. So yes, M-R fees are passed on substantially to the homeowners. It still applies today.
So this factor potentially affecting the school closure decision should not be categorically dismissed. Even if none of what I said is true, your comment about Mace Ranch resident’s *perception* of paying it probably means more anyway, for perception in politics is reality.
Other factors such as building age, adaptability, etc. play a part.
Agreed. However, it is crucial to point out and understand that while many of the homeowners in Mace Ranch believe that they are paying the Mello-Roos fees, they are not. The market price of their homes was adjusted downward to account for this added expense. As such, Frank Ramos paid for the then Present Value of those M-R fees.
I don’t know there is evidence this occurred and your conclusion implies that developers do not pass along taxes to their consumers. It’s possible the Mello Roos drove down the purchase price of the homes but two things would need to occur:
1. There was a profit margin on each unit high enough to allow that to occur on such a large scale; and
2. The price per sq foot was substantially lower than other new homes.
Economically, that’s nonsense. Think back to 1995. Say a homeowner had a choice between two identical brand new homes, one in Mace Ranch and one in East Davis. Everything else is held equal. However, the Mace Ranch house came with M-R fees, the East Davis house did not. Would they have sold for the same price? Of course not. The Mace Ranch house would have been cheaper, in order to account for the M-R fees.
It is not nonsense. First of all, you’re using a hypothetical example that never occurred. But it doesn’t matter since sq footage is the predominant variable in Davis home prices. Coincidentally, I was in this exact position twice, in 1999 and then again 2002, but comparing used homes with the new ones in Mace Ranch/Wildhorse. The price per square foot was somewhat less in Mace Ranch but did not even remotely cover the 30-year Mello-Roos costs assumed by a purchaser of a house there. We’re talking orders of magnitude different. Using a *very* conservative M-R fee assumption of $150/month, over 30 years that equates to $54,000. The price gap between similarly sized homes in Mace Ranch/Wildhorse and anywhere else in Davis isn’t anywhere close to that. So yes, M-R fees are passed on substantially to the homeowners. It still applies today.
So this factor potentially affecting the school closure decision should not be categorically dismissed. Even if none of what I said is true, your comment about Mace Ranch resident’s *perception* of paying it probably means more anyway, for perception in politics is reality.
Other factors such as building age, adaptability, etc. play a part.
Agreed. However, it is crucial to point out and understand that while many of the homeowners in Mace Ranch believe that they are paying the Mello-Roos fees, they are not. The market price of their homes was adjusted downward to account for this added expense. As such, Frank Ramos paid for the then Present Value of those M-R fees.
I don’t know there is evidence this occurred and your conclusion implies that developers do not pass along taxes to their consumers. It’s possible the Mello Roos drove down the purchase price of the homes but two things would need to occur:
1. There was a profit margin on each unit high enough to allow that to occur on such a large scale; and
2. The price per sq foot was substantially lower than other new homes.
Economically, that’s nonsense. Think back to 1995. Say a homeowner had a choice between two identical brand new homes, one in Mace Ranch and one in East Davis. Everything else is held equal. However, the Mace Ranch house came with M-R fees, the East Davis house did not. Would they have sold for the same price? Of course not. The Mace Ranch house would have been cheaper, in order to account for the M-R fees.
It is not nonsense. First of all, you’re using a hypothetical example that never occurred. But it doesn’t matter since sq footage is the predominant variable in Davis home prices. Coincidentally, I was in this exact position twice, in 1999 and then again 2002, but comparing used homes with the new ones in Mace Ranch/Wildhorse. The price per square foot was somewhat less in Mace Ranch but did not even remotely cover the 30-year Mello-Roos costs assumed by a purchaser of a house there. We’re talking orders of magnitude different. Using a *very* conservative M-R fee assumption of $150/month, over 30 years that equates to $54,000. The price gap between similarly sized homes in Mace Ranch/Wildhorse and anywhere else in Davis isn’t anywhere close to that. So yes, M-R fees are passed on substantially to the homeowners. It still applies today.
So this factor potentially affecting the school closure decision should not be categorically dismissed. Even if none of what I said is true, your comment about Mace Ranch resident’s *perception* of paying it probably means more anyway, for perception in politics is reality.
Other factors such as building age, adaptability, etc. play a part.
I wonder if the recent growth in private elementary schools has had an impact on projected enrollments in the public schools in recent years?
I know that St. James expanded a few years ago. Merryhill, in South Davis, has been growing. Grace Valley, out west of town, operates an elementary school. Congregation Bet Haverim has a K-8 school. And Davis Waldorf takes a number of kids away from the public schools. Are there others?
Nothing could, or should, be done about the rise of private schools in Davis. But their growth must be having a marginal impact on the K-6 population at DJUSD schools.
I wonder if the recent growth in private elementary schools has had an impact on projected enrollments in the public schools in recent years?
I know that St. James expanded a few years ago. Merryhill, in South Davis, has been growing. Grace Valley, out west of town, operates an elementary school. Congregation Bet Haverim has a K-8 school. And Davis Waldorf takes a number of kids away from the public schools. Are there others?
Nothing could, or should, be done about the rise of private schools in Davis. But their growth must be having a marginal impact on the K-6 population at DJUSD schools.
I wonder if the recent growth in private elementary schools has had an impact on projected enrollments in the public schools in recent years?
I know that St. James expanded a few years ago. Merryhill, in South Davis, has been growing. Grace Valley, out west of town, operates an elementary school. Congregation Bet Haverim has a K-8 school. And Davis Waldorf takes a number of kids away from the public schools. Are there others?
Nothing could, or should, be done about the rise of private schools in Davis. But their growth must be having a marginal impact on the K-6 population at DJUSD schools.
I wonder if the recent growth in private elementary schools has had an impact on projected enrollments in the public schools in recent years?
I know that St. James expanded a few years ago. Merryhill, in South Davis, has been growing. Grace Valley, out west of town, operates an elementary school. Congregation Bet Haverim has a K-8 school. And Davis Waldorf takes a number of kids away from the public schools. Are there others?
Nothing could, or should, be done about the rise of private schools in Davis. But their growth must be having a marginal impact on the K-6 population at DJUSD schools.
“….grounded in financial reality.”
This opens up an interesting “can of worms”..What does society believe is the acceptable financial reality model with regard to developer profits? … but that’s for another day.
“….grounded in financial reality.”
This opens up an interesting “can of worms”..What does society believe is the acceptable financial reality model with regard to developer profits? … but that’s for another day.
“….grounded in financial reality.”
This opens up an interesting “can of worms”..What does society believe is the acceptable financial reality model with regard to developer profits? … but that’s for another day.
“….grounded in financial reality.”
This opens up an interesting “can of worms”..What does society believe is the acceptable financial reality model with regard to developer profits? … but that’s for another day.
“….grounded in financial reality.”
This opens up an interesting “can of worms”..What does society believe is the acceptable financial reality model with regard to developer profits? … but that’s for another day. “
For clarification, what I mean by that is that the community cannot demand so much from the developer in terms of dedications, impact mitigations, infrastructure improvements, that the plan itself cannot be implemented because the market cannot support it or because it conflicts with goals of affordability. It is, however, easier to make demands on greenfield development such as Covell Village than on infill.
“….grounded in financial reality.”
This opens up an interesting “can of worms”..What does society believe is the acceptable financial reality model with regard to developer profits? … but that’s for another day. “
For clarification, what I mean by that is that the community cannot demand so much from the developer in terms of dedications, impact mitigations, infrastructure improvements, that the plan itself cannot be implemented because the market cannot support it or because it conflicts with goals of affordability. It is, however, easier to make demands on greenfield development such as Covell Village than on infill.
“….grounded in financial reality.”
This opens up an interesting “can of worms”..What does society believe is the acceptable financial reality model with regard to developer profits? … but that’s for another day. “
For clarification, what I mean by that is that the community cannot demand so much from the developer in terms of dedications, impact mitigations, infrastructure improvements, that the plan itself cannot be implemented because the market cannot support it or because it conflicts with goals of affordability. It is, however, easier to make demands on greenfield development such as Covell Village than on infill.
“….grounded in financial reality.”
This opens up an interesting “can of worms”..What does society believe is the acceptable financial reality model with regard to developer profits? … but that’s for another day. “
For clarification, what I mean by that is that the community cannot demand so much from the developer in terms of dedications, impact mitigations, infrastructure improvements, that the plan itself cannot be implemented because the market cannot support it or because it conflicts with goals of affordability. It is, however, easier to make demands on greenfield development such as Covell Village than on infill.
Between Northstar and West Davis(which do not have Mello Roos fees) and Mace Ranch (which does) and all areas were coming on line at the same time – Mace Ranch was less expensive by around $25,000 – $30,000. The homes in North and West Davis were also assessed at their higher sales price so consequently should have higher property taxes. So is Mace Ranch more deserving of “public infrastructure” than North and West Davis because the developer choose not to pay the fees and add it into the sales price of the home? Are the development fees a “promise” that all the money paid would only be used within the neighborhood?
Between Northstar and West Davis(which do not have Mello Roos fees) and Mace Ranch (which does) and all areas were coming on line at the same time – Mace Ranch was less expensive by around $25,000 – $30,000. The homes in North and West Davis were also assessed at their higher sales price so consequently should have higher property taxes. So is Mace Ranch more deserving of “public infrastructure” than North and West Davis because the developer choose not to pay the fees and add it into the sales price of the home? Are the development fees a “promise” that all the money paid would only be used within the neighborhood?
Between Northstar and West Davis(which do not have Mello Roos fees) and Mace Ranch (which does) and all areas were coming on line at the same time – Mace Ranch was less expensive by around $25,000 – $30,000. The homes in North and West Davis were also assessed at their higher sales price so consequently should have higher property taxes. So is Mace Ranch more deserving of “public infrastructure” than North and West Davis because the developer choose not to pay the fees and add it into the sales price of the home? Are the development fees a “promise” that all the money paid would only be used within the neighborhood?
Between Northstar and West Davis(which do not have Mello Roos fees) and Mace Ranch (which does) and all areas were coming on line at the same time – Mace Ranch was less expensive by around $25,000 – $30,000. The homes in North and West Davis were also assessed at their higher sales price so consequently should have higher property taxes. So is Mace Ranch more deserving of “public infrastructure” than North and West Davis because the developer choose not to pay the fees and add it into the sales price of the home? Are the development fees a “promise” that all the money paid would only be used within the neighborhood?
Brian.. I still think it’s a VERY interesting “can of worms” if you subscribe to the premise that a concept like being able to be supported by the “market” is largely societal construct.
“Using a *very* conservative M-R fee assumption of $150/month, over 30 years that equates to $54,000.”
That’s wrong.
What you did is you took $150, multiplied that by 12 and then multiplied that by 30. That gives you $54,000. But that number is meaningless.
What you need to do is to caluculate the Present Value, of a stream of $150 monthly payments over 30 years. In other words, if you were to buy a 5% coupon bond that paid you $150 a month, every month for 30 years, how much would that bond cost? The answer is a little less than $28,000.
While I stated above that Frank Ramos, the developer of Mace Ranch, absorbed the $28,000 cost of the M-R fees up front, that is a bit of an overstatement. He likely absorbed most of them. But some probably were absorbed by the home buyers, too.
Go back to my 1995 example: 2 houses that were otherwise completely equal, but one is in the M-R district, another is not. If the one inside of the M-R district was selling for $472,000, one outside of it should have been going for about $498,000, assuming that everything else was entirely equal.
Now, as you point out, the specific example is stylized. No two houses are ever exactly the same. No two neighborhoods are the same. No two locations are the same.
Buyers may greatly prefer the features or location or neighbors or stores or parks, etc. in one set of houses over the features in another.
Back when Mace Ranch was new, many (maybe even most) of the new homeowners there wanted to live near the I-80/Mace Blvd interchange, so that they could quickly get to work in Sacramento. If they bought a house in West or Central Davis, it would take them 20 minutes longer, r/t, to go to work every day, which adds up to 80+ hours more in commute time each year. That may have been worth a significant amount of money to them.
Brian.. I still think it’s a VERY interesting “can of worms” if you subscribe to the premise that a concept like being able to be supported by the “market” is largely societal construct.
“Using a *very* conservative M-R fee assumption of $150/month, over 30 years that equates to $54,000.”
That’s wrong.
What you did is you took $150, multiplied that by 12 and then multiplied that by 30. That gives you $54,000. But that number is meaningless.
What you need to do is to caluculate the Present Value, of a stream of $150 monthly payments over 30 years. In other words, if you were to buy a 5% coupon bond that paid you $150 a month, every month for 30 years, how much would that bond cost? The answer is a little less than $28,000.
While I stated above that Frank Ramos, the developer of Mace Ranch, absorbed the $28,000 cost of the M-R fees up front, that is a bit of an overstatement. He likely absorbed most of them. But some probably were absorbed by the home buyers, too.
Go back to my 1995 example: 2 houses that were otherwise completely equal, but one is in the M-R district, another is not. If the one inside of the M-R district was selling for $472,000, one outside of it should have been going for about $498,000, assuming that everything else was entirely equal.
Now, as you point out, the specific example is stylized. No two houses are ever exactly the same. No two neighborhoods are the same. No two locations are the same.
Buyers may greatly prefer the features or location or neighbors or stores or parks, etc. in one set of houses over the features in another.
Back when Mace Ranch was new, many (maybe even most) of the new homeowners there wanted to live near the I-80/Mace Blvd interchange, so that they could quickly get to work in Sacramento. If they bought a house in West or Central Davis, it would take them 20 minutes longer, r/t, to go to work every day, which adds up to 80+ hours more in commute time each year. That may have been worth a significant amount of money to them.
Brian.. I still think it’s a VERY interesting “can of worms” if you subscribe to the premise that a concept like being able to be supported by the “market” is largely societal construct.
“Using a *very* conservative M-R fee assumption of $150/month, over 30 years that equates to $54,000.”
That’s wrong.
What you did is you took $150, multiplied that by 12 and then multiplied that by 30. That gives you $54,000. But that number is meaningless.
What you need to do is to caluculate the Present Value, of a stream of $150 monthly payments over 30 years. In other words, if you were to buy a 5% coupon bond that paid you $150 a month, every month for 30 years, how much would that bond cost? The answer is a little less than $28,000.
While I stated above that Frank Ramos, the developer of Mace Ranch, absorbed the $28,000 cost of the M-R fees up front, that is a bit of an overstatement. He likely absorbed most of them. But some probably were absorbed by the home buyers, too.
Go back to my 1995 example: 2 houses that were otherwise completely equal, but one is in the M-R district, another is not. If the one inside of the M-R district was selling for $472,000, one outside of it should have been going for about $498,000, assuming that everything else was entirely equal.
Now, as you point out, the specific example is stylized. No two houses are ever exactly the same. No two neighborhoods are the same. No two locations are the same.
Buyers may greatly prefer the features or location or neighbors or stores or parks, etc. in one set of houses over the features in another.
Back when Mace Ranch was new, many (maybe even most) of the new homeowners there wanted to live near the I-80/Mace Blvd interchange, so that they could quickly get to work in Sacramento. If they bought a house in West or Central Davis, it would take them 20 minutes longer, r/t, to go to work every day, which adds up to 80+ hours more in commute time each year. That may have been worth a significant amount of money to them.
Brian.. I still think it’s a VERY interesting “can of worms” if you subscribe to the premise that a concept like being able to be supported by the “market” is largely societal construct.
“Using a *very* conservative M-R fee assumption of $150/month, over 30 years that equates to $54,000.”
That’s wrong.
What you did is you took $150, multiplied that by 12 and then multiplied that by 30. That gives you $54,000. But that number is meaningless.
What you need to do is to caluculate the Present Value, of a stream of $150 monthly payments over 30 years. In other words, if you were to buy a 5% coupon bond that paid you $150 a month, every month for 30 years, how much would that bond cost? The answer is a little less than $28,000.
While I stated above that Frank Ramos, the developer of Mace Ranch, absorbed the $28,000 cost of the M-R fees up front, that is a bit of an overstatement. He likely absorbed most of them. But some probably were absorbed by the home buyers, too.
Go back to my 1995 example: 2 houses that were otherwise completely equal, but one is in the M-R district, another is not. If the one inside of the M-R district was selling for $472,000, one outside of it should have been going for about $498,000, assuming that everything else was entirely equal.
Now, as you point out, the specific example is stylized. No two houses are ever exactly the same. No two neighborhoods are the same. No two locations are the same.
Buyers may greatly prefer the features or location or neighbors or stores or parks, etc. in one set of houses over the features in another.
Back when Mace Ranch was new, many (maybe even most) of the new homeowners there wanted to live near the I-80/Mace Blvd interchange, so that they could quickly get to work in Sacramento. If they bought a house in West or Central Davis, it would take them 20 minutes longer, r/t, to go to work every day, which adds up to 80+ hours more in commute time each year. That may have been worth a significant amount of money to them.
“Between Northstar and West Davis(which do not have Mello Roos fees) and Mace Ranch (which does) and all areas were coming on line at the same time – Mace Ranch was less expensive by around $25,000 – $30,000.”
I didn’t know these exact numbers. But if they are in the ballpark, then they suggest that virtually all of the PV cost of the M-R fees was, in fact, paid for by Ramos, not the buyers.
Keep in mind: home buyers (and their lenders) are not stupid. No one is going to pay the same price for home A and for home B, if A comes with an additional $150 per month price tag. Ceteris paribus, A should cost the PV of the fee less than B. But, as you note Brian, all is not exactly equal. But still, anonymous’s numbers suggest that they are damn close.
“Between Northstar and West Davis(which do not have Mello Roos fees) and Mace Ranch (which does) and all areas were coming on line at the same time – Mace Ranch was less expensive by around $25,000 – $30,000.”
I didn’t know these exact numbers. But if they are in the ballpark, then they suggest that virtually all of the PV cost of the M-R fees was, in fact, paid for by Ramos, not the buyers.
Keep in mind: home buyers (and their lenders) are not stupid. No one is going to pay the same price for home A and for home B, if A comes with an additional $150 per month price tag. Ceteris paribus, A should cost the PV of the fee less than B. But, as you note Brian, all is not exactly equal. But still, anonymous’s numbers suggest that they are damn close.
“Between Northstar and West Davis(which do not have Mello Roos fees) and Mace Ranch (which does) and all areas were coming on line at the same time – Mace Ranch was less expensive by around $25,000 – $30,000.”
I didn’t know these exact numbers. But if they are in the ballpark, then they suggest that virtually all of the PV cost of the M-R fees was, in fact, paid for by Ramos, not the buyers.
Keep in mind: home buyers (and their lenders) are not stupid. No one is going to pay the same price for home A and for home B, if A comes with an additional $150 per month price tag. Ceteris paribus, A should cost the PV of the fee less than B. But, as you note Brian, all is not exactly equal. But still, anonymous’s numbers suggest that they are damn close.
“Between Northstar and West Davis(which do not have Mello Roos fees) and Mace Ranch (which does) and all areas were coming on line at the same time – Mace Ranch was less expensive by around $25,000 – $30,000.”
I didn’t know these exact numbers. But if they are in the ballpark, then they suggest that virtually all of the PV cost of the M-R fees was, in fact, paid for by Ramos, not the buyers.
Keep in mind: home buyers (and their lenders) are not stupid. No one is going to pay the same price for home A and for home B, if A comes with an additional $150 per month price tag. Ceteris paribus, A should cost the PV of the fee less than B. But, as you note Brian, all is not exactly equal. But still, anonymous’s numbers suggest that they are damn close.
“It’s possible the Mello Roos drove down the purchase price of the homes but two things would need to occur:
1. There was a profit margin on each unit high enough to allow that to occur on such a large scale;”
Even though your assumption is economically incorrect, you should understand that Frank Ramos bought the Mace Ranch land for peanuts, figuratively speaking. It was farmland, outside of the city of Davis, designated to remain as farmland in all of the city’s general plans. The city never approved of his development. It was the county, strongly against the wishes of the city of Davis, which approved of the rezoning of that land from agriculture to residential. And that decision was highly unexpected, and not built into the price he paid for his land. As such, Ramos’s profits for Mace Ranch, even absorbing the costs of the M-R bonds, were HUGE.
“It’s possible the Mello Roos drove down the purchase price of the homes but two things would need to occur:
1. There was a profit margin on each unit high enough to allow that to occur on such a large scale;”
Even though your assumption is economically incorrect, you should understand that Frank Ramos bought the Mace Ranch land for peanuts, figuratively speaking. It was farmland, outside of the city of Davis, designated to remain as farmland in all of the city’s general plans. The city never approved of his development. It was the county, strongly against the wishes of the city of Davis, which approved of the rezoning of that land from agriculture to residential. And that decision was highly unexpected, and not built into the price he paid for his land. As such, Ramos’s profits for Mace Ranch, even absorbing the costs of the M-R bonds, were HUGE.
“It’s possible the Mello Roos drove down the purchase price of the homes but two things would need to occur:
1. There was a profit margin on each unit high enough to allow that to occur on such a large scale;”
Even though your assumption is economically incorrect, you should understand that Frank Ramos bought the Mace Ranch land for peanuts, figuratively speaking. It was farmland, outside of the city of Davis, designated to remain as farmland in all of the city’s general plans. The city never approved of his development. It was the county, strongly against the wishes of the city of Davis, which approved of the rezoning of that land from agriculture to residential. And that decision was highly unexpected, and not built into the price he paid for his land. As such, Ramos’s profits for Mace Ranch, even absorbing the costs of the M-R bonds, were HUGE.
“It’s possible the Mello Roos drove down the purchase price of the homes but two things would need to occur:
1. There was a profit margin on each unit high enough to allow that to occur on such a large scale;”
Even though your assumption is economically incorrect, you should understand that Frank Ramos bought the Mace Ranch land for peanuts, figuratively speaking. It was farmland, outside of the city of Davis, designated to remain as farmland in all of the city’s general plans. The city never approved of his development. It was the county, strongly against the wishes of the city of Davis, which approved of the rezoning of that land from agriculture to residential. And that decision was highly unexpected, and not built into the price he paid for his land. As such, Ramos’s profits for Mace Ranch, even absorbing the costs of the M-R bonds, were HUGE.
Good discussion. It appears some economic assumptions I made appear flawed to some degree but I do stand by the principle that developers by and large pass on the taxes if:
1. Their profit margin does not drop below a prescribed percentage; and
2. The elasticity of demand for the housing product allows them to do that factoring in all the variables one makes in purchasing a house (location, proximity to freeways, neighborhood amenities, competing housing stock, etc.).
Considering Davis’ constrained housing market, my instinct that future developers will pass on the tax to homebuyers probably is correct.
I was aware of the history behind Mace Ranch and it sounds as though Point #1 above was not violated thus allowing Ramos to absorb some/much of the cost of the bond.
The fact that he was willing to absorb some of the cost of the bond but yet an M-R district was still necessary for just that development is a testament to the expenses involved with infrastructure and to expect developers to contribute substantially to *other* City infrastructure needs is not realistic.
Good discussion. It appears some economic assumptions I made appear flawed to some degree but I do stand by the principle that developers by and large pass on the taxes if:
1. Their profit margin does not drop below a prescribed percentage; and
2. The elasticity of demand for the housing product allows them to do that factoring in all the variables one makes in purchasing a house (location, proximity to freeways, neighborhood amenities, competing housing stock, etc.).
Considering Davis’ constrained housing market, my instinct that future developers will pass on the tax to homebuyers probably is correct.
I was aware of the history behind Mace Ranch and it sounds as though Point #1 above was not violated thus allowing Ramos to absorb some/much of the cost of the bond.
The fact that he was willing to absorb some of the cost of the bond but yet an M-R district was still necessary for just that development is a testament to the expenses involved with infrastructure and to expect developers to contribute substantially to *other* City infrastructure needs is not realistic.
Good discussion. It appears some economic assumptions I made appear flawed to some degree but I do stand by the principle that developers by and large pass on the taxes if:
1. Their profit margin does not drop below a prescribed percentage; and
2. The elasticity of demand for the housing product allows them to do that factoring in all the variables one makes in purchasing a house (location, proximity to freeways, neighborhood amenities, competing housing stock, etc.).
Considering Davis’ constrained housing market, my instinct that future developers will pass on the tax to homebuyers probably is correct.
I was aware of the history behind Mace Ranch and it sounds as though Point #1 above was not violated thus allowing Ramos to absorb some/much of the cost of the bond.
The fact that he was willing to absorb some of the cost of the bond but yet an M-R district was still necessary for just that development is a testament to the expenses involved with infrastructure and to expect developers to contribute substantially to *other* City infrastructure needs is not realistic.
Good discussion. It appears some economic assumptions I made appear flawed to some degree but I do stand by the principle that developers by and large pass on the taxes if:
1. Their profit margin does not drop below a prescribed percentage; and
2. The elasticity of demand for the housing product allows them to do that factoring in all the variables one makes in purchasing a house (location, proximity to freeways, neighborhood amenities, competing housing stock, etc.).
Considering Davis’ constrained housing market, my instinct that future developers will pass on the tax to homebuyers probably is correct.
I was aware of the history behind Mace Ranch and it sounds as though Point #1 above was not violated thus allowing Ramos to absorb some/much of the cost of the bond.
The fact that he was willing to absorb some of the cost of the bond but yet an M-R district was still necessary for just that development is a testament to the expenses involved with infrastructure and to expect developers to contribute substantially to *other* City infrastructure needs is not realistic.
But the more I think about it, the more irrelevant, politically, it is who paid most of the M-R fees with respect to the school closure.
Mace Ranch residents are making payments on those bonds with the expectation they’re going to get certain public amenities/services in return. A new elementary was one of those things. Target was not. It is entirely logical that these political factors would play into the school closure decision.
But the more I think about it, the more irrelevant, politically, it is who paid most of the M-R fees with respect to the school closure.
Mace Ranch residents are making payments on those bonds with the expectation they’re going to get certain public amenities/services in return. A new elementary was one of those things. Target was not. It is entirely logical that these political factors would play into the school closure decision.
But the more I think about it, the more irrelevant, politically, it is who paid most of the M-R fees with respect to the school closure.
Mace Ranch residents are making payments on those bonds with the expectation they’re going to get certain public amenities/services in return. A new elementary was one of those things. Target was not. It is entirely logical that these political factors would play into the school closure decision.
But the more I think about it, the more irrelevant, politically, it is who paid most of the M-R fees with respect to the school closure.
Mace Ranch residents are making payments on those bonds with the expectation they’re going to get certain public amenities/services in return. A new elementary was one of those things. Target was not. It is entirely logical that these political factors would play into the school closure decision.
But didn’t ALL of Davis’ residents pass a bond measure to build Harper and Korematsu? Also, the first bond measure to do this failed in Mace Ranch, where other older areas supported it. It was only the second bond measure a year or two later that passed. By then it was too late for my own child to enjoy any of the benefits of new construction and suffered at severely overcrowded schools from elementary school through High School. I don’t really have a strong opinion about whether Valley Oak should stay open or closed, but I don’t think that it should close because Mace Ranch deserves a school more than the Manor neighborhood.
But didn’t ALL of Davis’ residents pass a bond measure to build Harper and Korematsu? Also, the first bond measure to do this failed in Mace Ranch, where other older areas supported it. It was only the second bond measure a year or two later that passed. By then it was too late for my own child to enjoy any of the benefits of new construction and suffered at severely overcrowded schools from elementary school through High School. I don’t really have a strong opinion about whether Valley Oak should stay open or closed, but I don’t think that it should close because Mace Ranch deserves a school more than the Manor neighborhood.
But didn’t ALL of Davis’ residents pass a bond measure to build Harper and Korematsu? Also, the first bond measure to do this failed in Mace Ranch, where other older areas supported it. It was only the second bond measure a year or two later that passed. By then it was too late for my own child to enjoy any of the benefits of new construction and suffered at severely overcrowded schools from elementary school through High School. I don’t really have a strong opinion about whether Valley Oak should stay open or closed, but I don’t think that it should close because Mace Ranch deserves a school more than the Manor neighborhood.
But didn’t ALL of Davis’ residents pass a bond measure to build Harper and Korematsu? Also, the first bond measure to do this failed in Mace Ranch, where other older areas supported it. It was only the second bond measure a year or two later that passed. By then it was too late for my own child to enjoy any of the benefits of new construction and suffered at severely overcrowded schools from elementary school through High School. I don’t really have a strong opinion about whether Valley Oak should stay open or closed, but I don’t think that it should close because Mace Ranch deserves a school more than the Manor neighborhood.
“But didn’t ALL of Davis’ residents pass a bond measure to build Harper and Korematsu?”
Yes, this is right. It was Measure K, passed in 2000. K also helped pay for Montgomery in South Davis and I believe for some added infrastructure at other schools in Davis.
An irony of that 2000 election is that the other measure on that ballot, which also passed, was Measure J.
The voters approved K to build new schools because Davis’s population was growing so fast we needed more infrastructure. J was approved in order to allow the voters to stop all new peripheral growth, which is just what has happened.
The combined result of J and K has been to build more schools for the kids who now cannot live here.
“But didn’t ALL of Davis’ residents pass a bond measure to build Harper and Korematsu?”
Yes, this is right. It was Measure K, passed in 2000. K also helped pay for Montgomery in South Davis and I believe for some added infrastructure at other schools in Davis.
An irony of that 2000 election is that the other measure on that ballot, which also passed, was Measure J.
The voters approved K to build new schools because Davis’s population was growing so fast we needed more infrastructure. J was approved in order to allow the voters to stop all new peripheral growth, which is just what has happened.
The combined result of J and K has been to build more schools for the kids who now cannot live here.
“But didn’t ALL of Davis’ residents pass a bond measure to build Harper and Korematsu?”
Yes, this is right. It was Measure K, passed in 2000. K also helped pay for Montgomery in South Davis and I believe for some added infrastructure at other schools in Davis.
An irony of that 2000 election is that the other measure on that ballot, which also passed, was Measure J.
The voters approved K to build new schools because Davis’s population was growing so fast we needed more infrastructure. J was approved in order to allow the voters to stop all new peripheral growth, which is just what has happened.
The combined result of J and K has been to build more schools for the kids who now cannot live here.
“But didn’t ALL of Davis’ residents pass a bond measure to build Harper and Korematsu?”
Yes, this is right. It was Measure K, passed in 2000. K also helped pay for Montgomery in South Davis and I believe for some added infrastructure at other schools in Davis.
An irony of that 2000 election is that the other measure on that ballot, which also passed, was Measure J.
The voters approved K to build new schools because Davis’s population was growing so fast we needed more infrastructure. J was approved in order to allow the voters to stop all new peripheral growth, which is just what has happened.
The combined result of J and K has been to build more schools for the kids who now cannot live here.
Some of that was covered in the main article…
Some of that was covered in the main article…
Some of that was covered in the main article…
Some of that was covered in the main article…
Since K was promoted based upon a projected student population that was only 200 less than what we have today, it had little to do with Measure J which had its first “outing” just 18 months ago. I predict, as the above comment suggests, that it will become an increasing part of the anti-Measure J narrative. It is interesting to note that the chair of the Task Force argued that the council majority’s placing Cannery Park on hold, somehow should be immediately factored into the decision equation and is making the identical argument about the need for more kids to fill the schools that was one of the main arguments made by the Yes on X campaign.
Since K was promoted based upon a projected student population that was only 200 less than what we have today, it had little to do with Measure J which had its first “outing” just 18 months ago. I predict, as the above comment suggests, that it will become an increasing part of the anti-Measure J narrative. It is interesting to note that the chair of the Task Force argued that the council majority’s placing Cannery Park on hold, somehow should be immediately factored into the decision equation and is making the identical argument about the need for more kids to fill the schools that was one of the main arguments made by the Yes on X campaign.
Since K was promoted based upon a projected student population that was only 200 less than what we have today, it had little to do with Measure J which had its first “outing” just 18 months ago. I predict, as the above comment suggests, that it will become an increasing part of the anti-Measure J narrative. It is interesting to note that the chair of the Task Force argued that the council majority’s placing Cannery Park on hold, somehow should be immediately factored into the decision equation and is making the identical argument about the need for more kids to fill the schools that was one of the main arguments made by the Yes on X campaign.
Since K was promoted based upon a projected student population that was only 200 less than what we have today, it had little to do with Measure J which had its first “outing” just 18 months ago. I predict, as the above comment suggests, that it will become an increasing part of the anti-Measure J narrative. It is interesting to note that the chair of the Task Force argued that the council majority’s placing Cannery Park on hold, somehow should be immediately factored into the decision equation and is making the identical argument about the need for more kids to fill the schools that was one of the main arguments made by the Yes on X campaign.
Are you sure? It looks like Birch Lane and North Davis are closer than Valley Oak.
Are you sure? It looks like Birch Lane and North Davis are closer than Valley Oak.
Are you sure? It looks like Birch Lane and North Davis are closer than Valley Oak.
Are you sure? It looks like Birch Lane and North Davis are closer than Valley Oak.
The point I was making was that the Task Force Chair could just as correctly taken the position that Cannery Park would be built as the next development project(without needing a Measure J vote) and that Cannery Park kids would be easing the student shortfall. It appears that he CHOSE to take the position that this “hold”(by definition-temporary) would significantly negatively affect the possibility of increased student enrollment and the VO closing therefore more pressing.
The point I was making was that the Task Force Chair could just as correctly taken the position that Cannery Park would be built as the next development project(without needing a Measure J vote) and that Cannery Park kids would be easing the student shortfall. It appears that he CHOSE to take the position that this “hold”(by definition-temporary) would significantly negatively affect the possibility of increased student enrollment and the VO closing therefore more pressing.
The point I was making was that the Task Force Chair could just as correctly taken the position that Cannery Park would be built as the next development project(without needing a Measure J vote) and that Cannery Park kids would be easing the student shortfall. It appears that he CHOSE to take the position that this “hold”(by definition-temporary) would significantly negatively affect the possibility of increased student enrollment and the VO closing therefore more pressing.
The point I was making was that the Task Force Chair could just as correctly taken the position that Cannery Park would be built as the next development project(without needing a Measure J vote) and that Cannery Park kids would be easing the student shortfall. It appears that he CHOSE to take the position that this “hold”(by definition-temporary) would significantly negatively affect the possibility of increased student enrollment and the VO closing therefore more pressing.
They have probably thought about this, but why not import kids? There are plenty of parents working at UCD who can not afford to live in Davis. Why not allow some of those people to enroll their kids in Davis elementary schools? – and the school nearest to campus is Valley Oak. It would be a big benefit to the parents because it would cut down on after school day care costs – they could pick up the kids before leaving town.
They have probably thought about this, but why not import kids? There are plenty of parents working at UCD who can not afford to live in Davis. Why not allow some of those people to enroll their kids in Davis elementary schools? – and the school nearest to campus is Valley Oak. It would be a big benefit to the parents because it would cut down on after school day care costs – they could pick up the kids before leaving town.
They have probably thought about this, but why not import kids? There are plenty of parents working at UCD who can not afford to live in Davis. Why not allow some of those people to enroll their kids in Davis elementary schools? – and the school nearest to campus is Valley Oak. It would be a big benefit to the parents because it would cut down on after school day care costs – they could pick up the kids before leaving town.
They have probably thought about this, but why not import kids? There are plenty of parents working at UCD who can not afford to live in Davis. Why not allow some of those people to enroll their kids in Davis elementary schools? – and the school nearest to campus is Valley Oak. It would be a big benefit to the parents because it would cut down on after school day care costs – they could pick up the kids before leaving town.
“Are you sure? It looks like Birch Lane and North Davis are closer than Valley Oak.”
Yes. I heard this at the school board meeting in early January in which their consultant, Davis Demographics and Planning, was discussing the longer-term trend of fewer children going to Davis schools. It was at those meetings when it was first reported how the Valley Oak attendance area had far fewer kids than all of the other extant schools in town.
This was also published in The Davis Enterprise in a Jeff Hudson story after that meeting:
Mark Pollock asked about the proposed 610-unit Cannery Park housing development, planned for the former Hunt-Wesson cannery at J Street and Covell Boulevard. Although the Cannery Park acreage is assigned to Valley Oak, Pollock acknowledged this is “probably written in Jell-O, barely congealed Jell-O.”
And this was in a December opinion column in The Enterprise by Colleen Connolly and Baki Tezcan:
Opening Korematsu K-6 would cause some loss in enrollment for Valley Oak because the Korematsu attendance area is claiming a part of Valley Oak’s. But the proposed Cannery Park development in the Valley Oak area, with its 610 residences, will soon produce enough students to make up for those who are gradually being moved from Valley Oak to Korematsu.
“Are you sure? It looks like Birch Lane and North Davis are closer than Valley Oak.”
Yes. I heard this at the school board meeting in early January in which their consultant, Davis Demographics and Planning, was discussing the longer-term trend of fewer children going to Davis schools. It was at those meetings when it was first reported how the Valley Oak attendance area had far fewer kids than all of the other extant schools in town.
This was also published in The Davis Enterprise in a Jeff Hudson story after that meeting:
Mark Pollock asked about the proposed 610-unit Cannery Park housing development, planned for the former Hunt-Wesson cannery at J Street and Covell Boulevard. Although the Cannery Park acreage is assigned to Valley Oak, Pollock acknowledged this is “probably written in Jell-O, barely congealed Jell-O.”
And this was in a December opinion column in The Enterprise by Colleen Connolly and Baki Tezcan:
Opening Korematsu K-6 would cause some loss in enrollment for Valley Oak because the Korematsu attendance area is claiming a part of Valley Oak’s. But the proposed Cannery Park development in the Valley Oak area, with its 610 residences, will soon produce enough students to make up for those who are gradually being moved from Valley Oak to Korematsu.
“Are you sure? It looks like Birch Lane and North Davis are closer than Valley Oak.”
Yes. I heard this at the school board meeting in early January in which their consultant, Davis Demographics and Planning, was discussing the longer-term trend of fewer children going to Davis schools. It was at those meetings when it was first reported how the Valley Oak attendance area had far fewer kids than all of the other extant schools in town.
This was also published in The Davis Enterprise in a Jeff Hudson story after that meeting:
Mark Pollock asked about the proposed 610-unit Cannery Park housing development, planned for the former Hunt-Wesson cannery at J Street and Covell Boulevard. Although the Cannery Park acreage is assigned to Valley Oak, Pollock acknowledged this is “probably written in Jell-O, barely congealed Jell-O.”
And this was in a December opinion column in The Enterprise by Colleen Connolly and Baki Tezcan:
Opening Korematsu K-6 would cause some loss in enrollment for Valley Oak because the Korematsu attendance area is claiming a part of Valley Oak’s. But the proposed Cannery Park development in the Valley Oak area, with its 610 residences, will soon produce enough students to make up for those who are gradually being moved from Valley Oak to Korematsu.
“Are you sure? It looks like Birch Lane and North Davis are closer than Valley Oak.”
Yes. I heard this at the school board meeting in early January in which their consultant, Davis Demographics and Planning, was discussing the longer-term trend of fewer children going to Davis schools. It was at those meetings when it was first reported how the Valley Oak attendance area had far fewer kids than all of the other extant schools in town.
This was also published in The Davis Enterprise in a Jeff Hudson story after that meeting:
Mark Pollock asked about the proposed 610-unit Cannery Park housing development, planned for the former Hunt-Wesson cannery at J Street and Covell Boulevard. Although the Cannery Park acreage is assigned to Valley Oak, Pollock acknowledged this is “probably written in Jell-O, barely congealed Jell-O.”
And this was in a December opinion column in The Enterprise by Colleen Connolly and Baki Tezcan:
Opening Korematsu K-6 would cause some loss in enrollment for Valley Oak because the Korematsu attendance area is claiming a part of Valley Oak’s. But the proposed Cannery Park development in the Valley Oak area, with its 610 residences, will soon produce enough students to make up for those who are gradually being moved from Valley Oak to Korematsu.
Anonymous said…
They have probably thought about this, but why not import kids? There are plenty of parents working at UCD who can not afford to live in Davis. Why not allow some of those people to enroll their kids in Davis elementary schools? – and the school nearest to campus is Valley Oak. It would be a big benefit to the parents because it would cut down on after school day care costs – they could pick up the kids before leaving town.”
My kids were at Valley Oak as interdistrict transfer students in the 1990’s. Then the district tried to throw out all the interdistrict students — because the schools were overcrowded. We pointed out at the time that we were a net $$ benefit to the district.
Some of us were allowed to continue in the district after we appealed to the county board, but most simply left. Our case was headline news at the time when the county upheld our appeal. I recall that over a hundred interdistrict students were booted from the district.
One problem with this issue, which was never resolved at the time, is that students who are allowed in as interdistrict students for reason of daycare or parental employment in the district can NOT be thrown out later. The district disputed that interpretation of the state education code, although other school districts (such as Elk Grove) acknowledged it.
The point is, once they’re in it can be hard to remove them later (not to mention being pretty distressing to the kids).
Anonymous said…
They have probably thought about this, but why not import kids? There are plenty of parents working at UCD who can not afford to live in Davis. Why not allow some of those people to enroll their kids in Davis elementary schools? – and the school nearest to campus is Valley Oak. It would be a big benefit to the parents because it would cut down on after school day care costs – they could pick up the kids before leaving town.”
My kids were at Valley Oak as interdistrict transfer students in the 1990’s. Then the district tried to throw out all the interdistrict students — because the schools were overcrowded. We pointed out at the time that we were a net $$ benefit to the district.
Some of us were allowed to continue in the district after we appealed to the county board, but most simply left. Our case was headline news at the time when the county upheld our appeal. I recall that over a hundred interdistrict students were booted from the district.
One problem with this issue, which was never resolved at the time, is that students who are allowed in as interdistrict students for reason of daycare or parental employment in the district can NOT be thrown out later. The district disputed that interpretation of the state education code, although other school districts (such as Elk Grove) acknowledged it.
The point is, once they’re in it can be hard to remove them later (not to mention being pretty distressing to the kids).
Anonymous said…
They have probably thought about this, but why not import kids? There are plenty of parents working at UCD who can not afford to live in Davis. Why not allow some of those people to enroll their kids in Davis elementary schools? – and the school nearest to campus is Valley Oak. It would be a big benefit to the parents because it would cut down on after school day care costs – they could pick up the kids before leaving town.”
My kids were at Valley Oak as interdistrict transfer students in the 1990’s. Then the district tried to throw out all the interdistrict students — because the schools were overcrowded. We pointed out at the time that we were a net $$ benefit to the district.
Some of us were allowed to continue in the district after we appealed to the county board, but most simply left. Our case was headline news at the time when the county upheld our appeal. I recall that over a hundred interdistrict students were booted from the district.
One problem with this issue, which was never resolved at the time, is that students who are allowed in as interdistrict students for reason of daycare or parental employment in the district can NOT be thrown out later. The district disputed that interpretation of the state education code, although other school districts (such as Elk Grove) acknowledged it.
The point is, once they’re in it can be hard to remove them later (not to mention being pretty distressing to the kids).
Anonymous said…
They have probably thought about this, but why not import kids? There are plenty of parents working at UCD who can not afford to live in Davis. Why not allow some of those people to enroll their kids in Davis elementary schools? – and the school nearest to campus is Valley Oak. It would be a big benefit to the parents because it would cut down on after school day care costs – they could pick up the kids before leaving town.”
My kids were at Valley Oak as interdistrict transfer students in the 1990’s. Then the district tried to throw out all the interdistrict students — because the schools were overcrowded. We pointed out at the time that we were a net $$ benefit to the district.
Some of us were allowed to continue in the district after we appealed to the county board, but most simply left. Our case was headline news at the time when the county upheld our appeal. I recall that over a hundred interdistrict students were booted from the district.
One problem with this issue, which was never resolved at the time, is that students who are allowed in as interdistrict students for reason of daycare or parental employment in the district can NOT be thrown out later. The district disputed that interpretation of the state education code, although other school districts (such as Elk Grove) acknowledged it.
The point is, once they’re in it can be hard to remove them later (not to mention being pretty distressing to the kids).
They have probably thought about this, but why not import kids?
It also requires the approval of the district from which the kids are coming. The Woodland school district seems willing to let a dozen or so kids switch to Davis, but hundreds of kids would represent a big drop in funding for them.
They have probably thought about this, but why not import kids?
It also requires the approval of the district from which the kids are coming. The Woodland school district seems willing to let a dozen or so kids switch to Davis, but hundreds of kids would represent a big drop in funding for them.
They have probably thought about this, but why not import kids?
It also requires the approval of the district from which the kids are coming. The Woodland school district seems willing to let a dozen or so kids switch to Davis, but hundreds of kids would represent a big drop in funding for them.
They have probably thought about this, but why not import kids?
It also requires the approval of the district from which the kids are coming. The Woodland school district seems willing to let a dozen or so kids switch to Davis, but hundreds of kids would represent a big drop in funding for them.
The newest concrete theory from Brian – gets the priority. In other words the newest sin, the newest attack on nature, the newest governmental give away to developers. Brian doesn’t feel that there can be a win win situation. That is the attitude that we need, lets solve a problem by creating new ones for the lesser vocal. Typical United States reasoning/ Get rod pf the Nativie Americans they are only in the way.
The newest concrete theory from Brian – gets the priority. In other words the newest sin, the newest attack on nature, the newest governmental give away to developers. Brian doesn’t feel that there can be a win win situation. That is the attitude that we need, lets solve a problem by creating new ones for the lesser vocal. Typical United States reasoning/ Get rod pf the Nativie Americans they are only in the way.
The newest concrete theory from Brian – gets the priority. In other words the newest sin, the newest attack on nature, the newest governmental give away to developers. Brian doesn’t feel that there can be a win win situation. That is the attitude that we need, lets solve a problem by creating new ones for the lesser vocal. Typical United States reasoning/ Get rod pf the Nativie Americans they are only in the way.
The newest concrete theory from Brian – gets the priority. In other words the newest sin, the newest attack on nature, the newest governmental give away to developers. Brian doesn’t feel that there can be a win win situation. That is the attitude that we need, lets solve a problem by creating new ones for the lesser vocal. Typical United States reasoning/ Get rod pf the Nativie Americans they are only in the way.
Oliver, you’re mischaracterizing my points. My point was that from the Task Force’s conclusion, it does not appear a win win solution is possible. Not that I wouldn’t support one or even support an assessment to make it happen. I have very young children and while it doesn’t directly affect my family, I can relate to how it does affect other families throughout Davis.
Oliver, you’re mischaracterizing my points. My point was that from the Task Force’s conclusion, it does not appear a win win solution is possible. Not that I wouldn’t support one or even support an assessment to make it happen. I have very young children and while it doesn’t directly affect my family, I can relate to how it does affect other families throughout Davis.
Oliver, you’re mischaracterizing my points. My point was that from the Task Force’s conclusion, it does not appear a win win solution is possible. Not that I wouldn’t support one or even support an assessment to make it happen. I have very young children and while it doesn’t directly affect my family, I can relate to how it does affect other families throughout Davis.
Oliver, you’re mischaracterizing my points. My point was that from the Task Force’s conclusion, it does not appear a win win solution is possible. Not that I wouldn’t support one or even support an assessment to make it happen. I have very young children and while it doesn’t directly affect my family, I can relate to how it does affect other families throughout Davis.
If you read the minutes of the task force
http://www.djusd.k12.ca.us/District/district/best_uses.shtml
it seems they were working with incomplete information about enrollment and demographics.
It also seems that one of the 9-school options meets the recommended enrollment rates.
Here are a few notes from the meetings:
3/30 minutes West Village is expected to yield 282 new students to DJUSD.
6/13 A program with fewer than two strands (380 – 420) should be avoided.
9/18 The ongoing cost of operating nine schools instead of eight schools is projected to be an additional $600,000 per year.
Comment: if they keep all nine schools open, the average school enrollment would be 470. The projections about future enrollment don’t seem to have much documentation, at least within the cursory minutes posted.
Option 2 would merge enrollments at BL and VO, with 1 – 3 at BL and 4 – 6 at VO.
Note that initial demographic data wasn’t presented to the task force until 9/25, preliminary reports of the demographic studies weren’t presented until the 12/06 meeting, and the 9-school subcommittee had additional questions even then. I don’t know if those questions were answered, as noted in the next comment:
2/19 The demographic data for the two nine school options which will include a K-3 program is yet to be received.
I believe the school board is being presented with an option (8 school) based on incomplete information, that the additional cost of operating the ninth school was a given from the point at which they decided to construct it, and that the 9-school Option 2 causes the least disruption of existing programs.
I would urge school board members to do additional research about the demographic assumptions, as they really weren’t presented to this task force until very late in the process.
If you read the minutes of the task force
http://www.djusd.k12.ca.us/District/district/best_uses.shtml
it seems they were working with incomplete information about enrollment and demographics.
It also seems that one of the 9-school options meets the recommended enrollment rates.
Here are a few notes from the meetings:
3/30 minutes West Village is expected to yield 282 new students to DJUSD.
6/13 A program with fewer than two strands (380 – 420) should be avoided.
9/18 The ongoing cost of operating nine schools instead of eight schools is projected to be an additional $600,000 per year.
Comment: if they keep all nine schools open, the average school enrollment would be 470. The projections about future enrollment don’t seem to have much documentation, at least within the cursory minutes posted.
Option 2 would merge enrollments at BL and VO, with 1 – 3 at BL and 4 – 6 at VO.
Note that initial demographic data wasn’t presented to the task force until 9/25, preliminary reports of the demographic studies weren’t presented until the 12/06 meeting, and the 9-school subcommittee had additional questions even then. I don’t know if those questions were answered, as noted in the next comment:
2/19 The demographic data for the two nine school options which will include a K-3 program is yet to be received.
I believe the school board is being presented with an option (8 school) based on incomplete information, that the additional cost of operating the ninth school was a given from the point at which they decided to construct it, and that the 9-school Option 2 causes the least disruption of existing programs.
I would urge school board members to do additional research about the demographic assumptions, as they really weren’t presented to this task force until very late in the process.
If you read the minutes of the task force
http://www.djusd.k12.ca.us/District/district/best_uses.shtml
it seems they were working with incomplete information about enrollment and demographics.
It also seems that one of the 9-school options meets the recommended enrollment rates.
Here are a few notes from the meetings:
3/30 minutes West Village is expected to yield 282 new students to DJUSD.
6/13 A program with fewer than two strands (380 – 420) should be avoided.
9/18 The ongoing cost of operating nine schools instead of eight schools is projected to be an additional $600,000 per year.
Comment: if they keep all nine schools open, the average school enrollment would be 470. The projections about future enrollment don’t seem to have much documentation, at least within the cursory minutes posted.
Option 2 would merge enrollments at BL and VO, with 1 – 3 at BL and 4 – 6 at VO.
Note that initial demographic data wasn’t presented to the task force until 9/25, preliminary reports of the demographic studies weren’t presented until the 12/06 meeting, and the 9-school subcommittee had additional questions even then. I don’t know if those questions were answered, as noted in the next comment:
2/19 The demographic data for the two nine school options which will include a K-3 program is yet to be received.
I believe the school board is being presented with an option (8 school) based on incomplete information, that the additional cost of operating the ninth school was a given from the point at which they decided to construct it, and that the 9-school Option 2 causes the least disruption of existing programs.
I would urge school board members to do additional research about the demographic assumptions, as they really weren’t presented to this task force until very late in the process.
If you read the minutes of the task force
http://www.djusd.k12.ca.us/District/district/best_uses.shtml
it seems they were working with incomplete information about enrollment and demographics.
It also seems that one of the 9-school options meets the recommended enrollment rates.
Here are a few notes from the meetings:
3/30 minutes West Village is expected to yield 282 new students to DJUSD.
6/13 A program with fewer than two strands (380 – 420) should be avoided.
9/18 The ongoing cost of operating nine schools instead of eight schools is projected to be an additional $600,000 per year.
Comment: if they keep all nine schools open, the average school enrollment would be 470. The projections about future enrollment don’t seem to have much documentation, at least within the cursory minutes posted.
Option 2 would merge enrollments at BL and VO, with 1 – 3 at BL and 4 – 6 at VO.
Note that initial demographic data wasn’t presented to the task force until 9/25, preliminary reports of the demographic studies weren’t presented until the 12/06 meeting, and the 9-school subcommittee had additional questions even then. I don’t know if those questions were answered, as noted in the next comment:
2/19 The demographic data for the two nine school options which will include a K-3 program is yet to be received.
I believe the school board is being presented with an option (8 school) based on incomplete information, that the additional cost of operating the ninth school was a given from the point at which they decided to construct it, and that the 9-school Option 2 causes the least disruption of existing programs.
I would urge school board members to do additional research about the demographic assumptions, as they really weren’t presented to this task force until very late in the process.