A Bob Dunning column recently stated:
the Measure J concept has served Davis well … it doesn’t prevent growth, it simply allows everyone to have a say …
Furthermore he has in the past argued:
Measure J is neither anti-growth nor pro-growth, but simply a measure that allows people to vote on growth.
Dunning is wrong on this account–Measure J is the single-most important growth control device that Davis currently has. All one needs to do is make a comparative look at Davis history. Leading up to 2001, when Measure J took effect, there were any number of large subdivisions added on the Davis periphery that greatly increased the growth and size of the city residentially.
How many peripheral subdivisions have been approved since 2001?
Zero. That is in six years zero.
In fact, the very threat of a Measure J vote requirement has been a deterrent for growth proposals.
There has been one single development project that was proposed since Measure J was passed–Covell Village. Covell Village failed by a nearly 60-40 margin despite having 4-1 support in the city council. If it were not for Measure J, Covell Village would be under construction right now.
This is also why most of the talk in the Housing Element Update and in growth in Davis in general, seems to be focused on infill rather than peripheral growth.
So to suggest that Measure is neither anti-growth nor pro-growth is an empirically unfounded statement.
What I think is less obvious to many Davis residents is that there is another growth-control factor that is just as important–the pass-through agreement between the city and county. Basically this is an arrangement that enables the city of Davis to pass through over $2 million per year of redevelopment money to the county and in exchange the county has ceded land use authority to the city.
What that means is that the county cannot build large developments on the Davis periphery without city permission. The city cannot build those developments without a Measure J vote.
This process may be under assault right now however with proposals by the county to change three key areas that are inside the city’s agreed upon sphere of influence–Northwest Quadrant, Covell Property, and the antiquated subdivisions east of Mace Boulevard along I-80. If the county can succeed in changing the land-use designations for those properties they are well on their way toward development.
Members of the Davis city council may be working behind the scenes to attempt to force this growth on Davis. We are talking about a 2100 unit senior housing development north of Covell and west of Lake. We are talking about development in the Covell Property that the voters of Davis just a year and a half ago soundly rejected, and we are talking about commercial development along I-80 that even members of the council majority strongly oppose.
Fortunately for the residents of Davis we have a pass-through agreement and Measure J to help protect us, but we must remain vigilant in protecting those safeguards. And we must pay attention to what the City Council and the Board of Supervisors are proposing.
Some have interpreted this stance to mean that myself or others like me oppose all growth. Nothing could be further from the truth–I simply believe that the city should have land-use authority for the area around the city and that the county should not have the capacity to force growth on cities. I also believe that the voters should maintain control over what projects get built and what projects do not get built. Measure J needs to be renewed in the coming years to continue to provide that level of security.
I also think people are lulled into a false sense of security by some of the proposed projects and growth rates. The SACOG designated growth is 1 percent per year. That has been euphanized to mean “fair share.” That is the measure that the council majority has adopted.
But what does “fair share” actually mean? A one percent growth rate means a new development the size of Wildhorse every three years and the size of Mace Ranch every seven years. One percent means that by 2050, we are looking at nearly 100,000 people. That doesn’t sound like a lot but it will require nearly double our water supply (think that may be why they are developing that expensive water supply project that along with the sewer project will quadruple our water rates in real terms in the next 20 years?) If all cities in California grew at that rate, water a scarce commodity would become even more scarce and even more expensive. At a time of uncertainty about global climate, is a one percent growth rate, really a fair share for anyone?
Realistically, Davis will grow into the future as will California, but I think we need to be looking at smart growth rather than fair share growth. We want to maintain our character and the nature of our community. In the meantime, more communities will likely follow Davis’ model of protecting their growth rate and development.
All of which makes the next round of elections all the more important. We need to get people into the the County Board of Supervisors seat that will respect and support the pass-through agreement but more importantly acknowledge the city of Davis as the sole authority on land-use on its own periphery. Just as important, we need a council majority that will support a renewal of Measure J and work to limit new peripheral development rather than support it. That means helping to retake the city council from the current majority of Asmundson, Souza, and Saylor.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
The strategy for a Yes on X victory was arrogantly based upon the premise that, to paraphrase the “godfather” of that enterprise, the Davis voters do not have the political will to carry this off. The future battle lines are being drawn again and it is again a question of political will.
The Joint-Study strategy needs to be seen for what it is, empty “saber rattling” to erode the will of the Davis voter to retain control of their city’s future.
The strategy for a Yes on X victory was arrogantly based upon the premise that, to paraphrase the “godfather” of that enterprise, the Davis voters do not have the political will to carry this off. The future battle lines are being drawn again and it is again a question of political will.
The Joint-Study strategy needs to be seen for what it is, empty “saber rattling” to erode the will of the Davis voter to retain control of their city’s future.
The strategy for a Yes on X victory was arrogantly based upon the premise that, to paraphrase the “godfather” of that enterprise, the Davis voters do not have the political will to carry this off. The future battle lines are being drawn again and it is again a question of political will.
The Joint-Study strategy needs to be seen for what it is, empty “saber rattling” to erode the will of the Davis voter to retain control of their city’s future.
The strategy for a Yes on X victory was arrogantly based upon the premise that, to paraphrase the “godfather” of that enterprise, the Davis voters do not have the political will to carry this off. The future battle lines are being drawn again and it is again a question of political will.
The Joint-Study strategy needs to be seen for what it is, empty “saber rattling” to erode the will of the Davis voter to retain control of their city’s future.
No on X campaigner said..
“…it is again a question of political will.
This applies also to the Fair Share numbers which are political constructs rather than sacrosanct proclamations handed down from “the Mount”. Many California communities have acted upon their own determination as to whether these numbers do or do not fit in with their plans for the future of their city.
No on X campaigner said..
“…it is again a question of political will.
This applies also to the Fair Share numbers which are political constructs rather than sacrosanct proclamations handed down from “the Mount”. Many California communities have acted upon their own determination as to whether these numbers do or do not fit in with their plans for the future of their city.
No on X campaigner said..
“…it is again a question of political will.
This applies also to the Fair Share numbers which are political constructs rather than sacrosanct proclamations handed down from “the Mount”. Many California communities have acted upon their own determination as to whether these numbers do or do not fit in with their plans for the future of their city.
No on X campaigner said..
“…it is again a question of political will.
This applies also to the Fair Share numbers which are political constructs rather than sacrosanct proclamations handed down from “the Mount”. Many California communities have acted upon their own determination as to whether these numbers do or do not fit in with their plans for the future of their city.
and as those comunities decide to pull up the drawbridge, the next generation increasingly struggles to find affordable housing anywhere in the state.
i hope you all like the way your gated retirement community turns out. you can always get your service industry workers to commute in from out of town, after all, from sprawl somewhere else in the valley. development unseen doesn’t really exist, right?
and as those comunities decide to pull up the drawbridge, the next generation increasingly struggles to find affordable housing anywhere in the state.
i hope you all like the way your gated retirement community turns out. you can always get your service industry workers to commute in from out of town, after all, from sprawl somewhere else in the valley. development unseen doesn’t really exist, right?
and as those comunities decide to pull up the drawbridge, the next generation increasingly struggles to find affordable housing anywhere in the state.
i hope you all like the way your gated retirement community turns out. you can always get your service industry workers to commute in from out of town, after all, from sprawl somewhere else in the valley. development unseen doesn’t really exist, right?
and as those comunities decide to pull up the drawbridge, the next generation increasingly struggles to find affordable housing anywhere in the state.
i hope you all like the way your gated retirement community turns out. you can always get your service industry workers to commute in from out of town, after all, from sprawl somewhere else in the valley. development unseen doesn’t really exist, right?
Hang a second here… The most recent developments have not added affordable housing, they have added more expensive housing. The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable. I’d be willing to support more affordable housing developments, but neither the neighbors nor the developers will comply with that. So rather than add more expensive housing, I’d prefer to hold the line on growth. Covell Village, which you supported, would have added nearly 2000 homes costing 400K a piece–not exactly affordable.
Hang a second here… The most recent developments have not added affordable housing, they have added more expensive housing. The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable. I’d be willing to support more affordable housing developments, but neither the neighbors nor the developers will comply with that. So rather than add more expensive housing, I’d prefer to hold the line on growth. Covell Village, which you supported, would have added nearly 2000 homes costing 400K a piece–not exactly affordable.
Hang a second here… The most recent developments have not added affordable housing, they have added more expensive housing. The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable. I’d be willing to support more affordable housing developments, but neither the neighbors nor the developers will comply with that. So rather than add more expensive housing, I’d prefer to hold the line on growth. Covell Village, which you supported, would have added nearly 2000 homes costing 400K a piece–not exactly affordable.
Hang a second here… The most recent developments have not added affordable housing, they have added more expensive housing. The current ordinance only requires 15 percent of the units to be affordable. I’d be willing to support more affordable housing developments, but neither the neighbors nor the developers will comply with that. So rather than add more expensive housing, I’d prefer to hold the line on growth. Covell Village, which you supported, would have added nearly 2000 homes costing 400K a piece–not exactly affordable.
Vincnete said:
“…. Covell Village, which you supported, would have added nearly 2000 homes costing 400K a piece–not exactly affordable.”
Vincente…..It was worse than that. The bulk of the housing was to be very low/low income affordable housing as mandated by the State and our own Davis rules and homes at 750K to over 1 million by the time of build-out according to K. Hesse’s(city staff’s)projections. The middle affordable housing(an inflated designation created by the developers which was at odds with the city’s family income definition) was to be built out at about 10/yr. for a total of about 100 homes.