The council has eight goals and objective for 2007-08:
- Maintain and improve the infrastructure
- Achieve long-term financial stability
- Enhance the vitality of downtown
- Provide a mix of high-quality housing to meet community needs
- Conserve natural resources and protect the environment
- Ensure top quality fire, police and emergency services
- Ensure organizational strength
- Promote economic development
The big objectives under “Maintain and Improve the Infrastructure,” deal with the water supply and the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. In both cases, the city has moved along about at the rate that they wanted to. Both of these projects are massive and will end up greatly increasing Davis residents’ water rates. The key question right now is whether this is what the city should be doing.
Last year, the city council agreed to spend $50,000 to $75,000 upgrading the parks and facilities master plan. It took a reconsideration of an agenda item after the initial item was defeated, due to the absence of Councilmember Asmundson. Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek would have preferred to have spent that money on unfinished projects from the previous plan rather than updating the current plan with an expensive survey.
Missing from the list is any upgrade in the quality of the roads, the workability of some of the traffic intersections and traffic lights.
In terms of the next goal, “Achieving Long-term Financial Stability,” the council had a workshop where they look at various revenue enhancements, mainly in terms of new taxes.
The big thing that they did not do was seek to look at areas where spending has greatly increased that will end up costing the city. One such area has to do with upper level employees pensions and health benefits. These current practices for people in upper management may end up either bankrupting the city in future years, or at the very least leading to a large cutback in other sorts of spending as the city needs to get on top of a wave of retirements.
The third goal, is to “Enhance the Vitality of Downtown.” Here it does not seem that they have proceeded on a number of their goals. Moreover, the big one that they did proceed on was the 3rd and B Visioning Process. My concern with their direction on this and other projects is that they are looking for ways to revitalize the downtown that are threatening the character of the city and the downtown. Tearing down some of the more historic buildings in the 3rd and B district is going to do far more to destroy the character of the city than it is to help downtown. Moreover, they have enacted projects such as Target that threaten the vitality of downtown.
The fourth goal, is to “Provide a Mix of High Quality Housing to Meet Community Needs.” This is an area where I do not think the city has done enough. They have appointed a Housing Element Steering committee. We shall see what that process yields. What this city needs in my view, is a commitment to developing housing that families and younger and new home owners can afford. Not just an allotment of “affordable” housing for low income people that are really limited equity homes. We’re talking about moving away from the model that has produced $500,000 to $600,000 homes. That means producing smaller houses on smaller lots and greater density of that housing. However, this is nowhere to be found on the city’s goals.
The fifth goal, is to “Conserve Natural Resources and Protect the Environment.” They have a list of items, most of which I have not heard of and most of which I do not believe have been acted upon. They do talk about recycling and composting. But I think the city needs to go further here. They mention the Davis Greenway Concept that includes locally based sustainability farms at the city’s edge, but there needs to be, in light of county proposals, an all-out commitment to ag land preservation. Second, there needs to be a push for more electric vehicles for in-town use rather than internal combustion engines. Third, there needs to be a stronger commitment to solar power in new housing and perhaps even incentives for existing homeowners to purchase solar panels. Fourth, as they do in the north, they should convert all city road signs to solar energy.
The sixth goal, is to “Ensure Top Quality Fire, Police and Emergency Services.” Here they have achieved a good number of their goals. It took them much longer than anticipated but they got the cameras and computers fully operational and for the most part reliable. They hired a police chief. For my purposes the top needs of the city are that we need more police officers hired and on the streets. I would like the city to look into higher standards for training in exchange for higher salary. The city is looking into a fourth fire station, and while I understand some of the concerns of a fourth fire station, particularly with regards to money, the suggestion has been made that the taxpayers could vote on it. I think that’s a reasonable proposal from my observations. I can also see the need for a city-owned ladder truck, especially as the city continues to build taller and taller buildings.
The seventh goal, is to “Ensure Organizational Strength.” This deals primarily with city staff. As I have suggested previously, I just do not like the city manager driven model of city government. I think it leaves elected council members, especially those who are in the minority, without the resources they need to do a good job of representing their constituency. Reliance on city staff has proven problematic at times. So one of the things I would like to see are reforms and changes to the overall structure.
A goal that is listed on their list of goals is to have in place by 2008 a living wage ordinance for City contracts and contract workers. This was a suggestion made by Councilmember Lamar Heystek that I strongly support. Will the current council majority support this goal? We shall see.
Finally, and this all appears to be future oriented, “Promote Economic Development.” So far, I think this has not been an area of success. The first item listed there, is continue to work to ensure sustainability of Westlake Shopping Center. It has been over a year since Food Fair left this shopping center, and amazingly the existing businesses have primarily survived. But I do not think the city has acted aggressively enough to maintain this shopping center.
Second, they mention Trader Joe’s. Here I think the city has really squandered opportunities by allowing the situation at University Mall with RAS. I talked to councilmembers after the lawsuit was announced and they felt that people just wanted Trader Joe’s and did not care how it got here. Since that time, I have spoken to many people on the street and on the blog and I do not sense that type of attitude. Most do not understand why it has to be where RAS is currently located and most sympathize with RAS. The city lost a lot of their leverage by providing a zoning change prior to an agreement between University Mall and RAS.
Third, is the pursuit of the business and high tech research park. This is the issue that was postponed from last meeting’s agenda. It figures to be an interesting battle on the slow growth side as to whether it is better to develop that as a residential development or a high tech research park. The latter has gained more prominence since the Tsakaopoulos proposal has emerged, although that is mainly a proposal for housing developments in exchange for the Stem Cell Research facility, it is unlikely to be available without the housing development.
Finally, we can put the Davis Manor in the same position as Westlake Shopping Center. Both of these locations would make far more sense for Trader Joe’s and other additions than the University Mall. The council is seeming to allow two key neighborhood shopping areas lie underutilized for a substantial period of time.
A number of the goals on this list are laudable if overly ambitious. However, my sense over the last two months is that much of these are taking place at the expense of the existing character of the city. I do not oppose housing development, vitalization of downtown, or economic development, but I would like to see plans that integrate these projects into the existing character, rather than what I think is a rapid destruction of existing character. Make no mistake, Davis is under siege in a lot of ways. The question for Davis residents, is “Do you want a city that continues to look and feel like Davis? Or, “Do you want a city that looks more like Fairfield, Vacaville, or even worse some of the more rapid growing Central Valley Communities like Elk Grove and Natomas?” These are the key questions we must ask ourselves as we try to go forward with many of these laudable and necessary goals.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Are Fairfield, Vacaville, Natomas and Elk Grove the only choices? Are they even relevant? None of these places has a major university as does Davis. I was trying to think what college town Davis would be like with more development and Cotati, the home of Sonoma State, comes to mind. Lots of development but still a college town.
One thing that got missed, as it usually does in these debates, in both the council goals and the blog is that Davis is one of the great land grant universities. If we frame the debate around the mission of this community being to help provide the educational needs of California at reasonable costs then Davis would want to grow to provide that infrastructure.
So many people in this community who have either stayed on after graduating or earn a living from the university seem want to stand in the way of it accomplishing its highest potential. In doing so this community disrespects the hard working, diverse, talented kids of this state and denies the state the skilled, educated workforce that it needs to keep the engine of our state economy competitive in the global economy.
As a secondary level teacher who has dedicated my life to serve the educational needs of some of the most disadvantaged children in this state I find the near-sighted debate about the community goals apalling. When we close the gate on development in this community we are really closing it on kids and future of this state.
When viewed through this prism all this bickering about our growing pains seems so
petty and provencial.
Ron Glick
Are Fairfield, Vacaville, Natomas and Elk Grove the only choices? Are they even relevant? None of these places has a major university as does Davis. I was trying to think what college town Davis would be like with more development and Cotati, the home of Sonoma State, comes to mind. Lots of development but still a college town.
One thing that got missed, as it usually does in these debates, in both the council goals and the blog is that Davis is one of the great land grant universities. If we frame the debate around the mission of this community being to help provide the educational needs of California at reasonable costs then Davis would want to grow to provide that infrastructure.
So many people in this community who have either stayed on after graduating or earn a living from the university seem want to stand in the way of it accomplishing its highest potential. In doing so this community disrespects the hard working, diverse, talented kids of this state and denies the state the skilled, educated workforce that it needs to keep the engine of our state economy competitive in the global economy.
As a secondary level teacher who has dedicated my life to serve the educational needs of some of the most disadvantaged children in this state I find the near-sighted debate about the community goals apalling. When we close the gate on development in this community we are really closing it on kids and future of this state.
When viewed through this prism all this bickering about our growing pains seems so
petty and provencial.
Ron Glick
Are Fairfield, Vacaville, Natomas and Elk Grove the only choices? Are they even relevant? None of these places has a major university as does Davis. I was trying to think what college town Davis would be like with more development and Cotati, the home of Sonoma State, comes to mind. Lots of development but still a college town.
One thing that got missed, as it usually does in these debates, in both the council goals and the blog is that Davis is one of the great land grant universities. If we frame the debate around the mission of this community being to help provide the educational needs of California at reasonable costs then Davis would want to grow to provide that infrastructure.
So many people in this community who have either stayed on after graduating or earn a living from the university seem want to stand in the way of it accomplishing its highest potential. In doing so this community disrespects the hard working, diverse, talented kids of this state and denies the state the skilled, educated workforce that it needs to keep the engine of our state economy competitive in the global economy.
As a secondary level teacher who has dedicated my life to serve the educational needs of some of the most disadvantaged children in this state I find the near-sighted debate about the community goals apalling. When we close the gate on development in this community we are really closing it on kids and future of this state.
When viewed through this prism all this bickering about our growing pains seems so
petty and provencial.
Ron Glick
Are Fairfield, Vacaville, Natomas and Elk Grove the only choices? Are they even relevant? None of these places has a major university as does Davis. I was trying to think what college town Davis would be like with more development and Cotati, the home of Sonoma State, comes to mind. Lots of development but still a college town.
One thing that got missed, as it usually does in these debates, in both the council goals and the blog is that Davis is one of the great land grant universities. If we frame the debate around the mission of this community being to help provide the educational needs of California at reasonable costs then Davis would want to grow to provide that infrastructure.
So many people in this community who have either stayed on after graduating or earn a living from the university seem want to stand in the way of it accomplishing its highest potential. In doing so this community disrespects the hard working, diverse, talented kids of this state and denies the state the skilled, educated workforce that it needs to keep the engine of our state economy competitive in the global economy.
As a secondary level teacher who has dedicated my life to serve the educational needs of some of the most disadvantaged children in this state I find the near-sighted debate about the community goals apalling. When we close the gate on development in this community we are really closing it on kids and future of this state.
When viewed through this prism all this bickering about our growing pains seems so
petty and provencial.
Ron Glick
Sonoma State is actually in Rhonert Park and the last I was there there was not a lot of development in Rhonert Park.
Sonoma State is actually in Rhonert Park and the last I was there there was not a lot of development in Rhonert Park.
Sonoma State is actually in Rhonert Park and the last I was there there was not a lot of development in Rhonert Park.
Sonoma State is actually in Rhonert Park and the last I was there there was not a lot of development in Rhonert Park.
Are you saying that a city without sprawl and instead more beautuful open space and ag land is needed in order for kids to do well in school? I came here to get away from that after graduatung from UCD. If people want sprawl then they can go elsewhere. I’m glad that there is an effort to preserve ag land. It is what we are known for.
Are you saying that a city without sprawl and instead more beautuful open space and ag land is needed in order for kids to do well in school? I came here to get away from that after graduatung from UCD. If people want sprawl then they can go elsewhere. I’m glad that there is an effort to preserve ag land. It is what we are known for.
Are you saying that a city without sprawl and instead more beautuful open space and ag land is needed in order for kids to do well in school? I came here to get away from that after graduatung from UCD. If people want sprawl then they can go elsewhere. I’m glad that there is an effort to preserve ag land. It is what we are known for.
Are you saying that a city without sprawl and instead more beautuful open space and ag land is needed in order for kids to do well in school? I came here to get away from that after graduatung from UCD. If people want sprawl then they can go elsewhere. I’m glad that there is an effort to preserve ag land. It is what we are known for.
My last response was intended for Ron Glick.
Mary
My last response was intended for Ron Glick.
Mary
My last response was intended for Ron Glick.
Mary
My last response was intended for Ron Glick.
Mary
Ron’s problem is that he is an advocate for a position for which there is a no constituency, or, more accurately, no elite constituency.
After living in Davis since the late 1970s until after the turn of the century, I empathize with his view that Davis has gone wrong in a way that people do not want to confront. External pressure to gentrify (migration from the Bay Area and the allure of California generally) and internal opposition to development has created the worst of all possible worlds, a city that exists primarily for upper middle income and upper income people.
Of course, this is not unique. It happened to San Francisco, the East Bay and the Napa Valley, just to name some places nearby. But the social loss is profound.
I read Ron’s remark as evidencing a sincere and quite understandable nostalgia for Davis as a community, a place with economic, racial and cultural diversity. Once upon a time, there were quite a number of cities that possessed these characteristics.
But, to maintain such a community, it has to have affordable housing and businesses so that people from all economic classes can live there, at least to some extent. Davis no longer has this, and, as near as I can tell, there is no plausible political movement in existence that could push the city in this direction.
None of the current development proposals on the periphery reflect an intention to diversify the socioeconomic profile of the city, except possibly some of the senior housing associated with the Northwest Quadrant.
So, to the extent that Ron associates these projects with the issue of affordable housing, he is misguided. As DPD understands, the provision of affordable housing in Davis, the type of housing the teachers, firefighters, grocery clerks, clericals and others, can buy, would require unprecented densities in Davis. I can’t imagine it happening, I suspect that Davis is just going to get more gentrified, not less, with the passage of time.
–Richard Estes
Ron’s problem is that he is an advocate for a position for which there is a no constituency, or, more accurately, no elite constituency.
After living in Davis since the late 1970s until after the turn of the century, I empathize with his view that Davis has gone wrong in a way that people do not want to confront. External pressure to gentrify (migration from the Bay Area and the allure of California generally) and internal opposition to development has created the worst of all possible worlds, a city that exists primarily for upper middle income and upper income people.
Of course, this is not unique. It happened to San Francisco, the East Bay and the Napa Valley, just to name some places nearby. But the social loss is profound.
I read Ron’s remark as evidencing a sincere and quite understandable nostalgia for Davis as a community, a place with economic, racial and cultural diversity. Once upon a time, there were quite a number of cities that possessed these characteristics.
But, to maintain such a community, it has to have affordable housing and businesses so that people from all economic classes can live there, at least to some extent. Davis no longer has this, and, as near as I can tell, there is no plausible political movement in existence that could push the city in this direction.
None of the current development proposals on the periphery reflect an intention to diversify the socioeconomic profile of the city, except possibly some of the senior housing associated with the Northwest Quadrant.
So, to the extent that Ron associates these projects with the issue of affordable housing, he is misguided. As DPD understands, the provision of affordable housing in Davis, the type of housing the teachers, firefighters, grocery clerks, clericals and others, can buy, would require unprecented densities in Davis. I can’t imagine it happening, I suspect that Davis is just going to get more gentrified, not less, with the passage of time.
–Richard Estes
Ron’s problem is that he is an advocate for a position for which there is a no constituency, or, more accurately, no elite constituency.
After living in Davis since the late 1970s until after the turn of the century, I empathize with his view that Davis has gone wrong in a way that people do not want to confront. External pressure to gentrify (migration from the Bay Area and the allure of California generally) and internal opposition to development has created the worst of all possible worlds, a city that exists primarily for upper middle income and upper income people.
Of course, this is not unique. It happened to San Francisco, the East Bay and the Napa Valley, just to name some places nearby. But the social loss is profound.
I read Ron’s remark as evidencing a sincere and quite understandable nostalgia for Davis as a community, a place with economic, racial and cultural diversity. Once upon a time, there were quite a number of cities that possessed these characteristics.
But, to maintain such a community, it has to have affordable housing and businesses so that people from all economic classes can live there, at least to some extent. Davis no longer has this, and, as near as I can tell, there is no plausible political movement in existence that could push the city in this direction.
None of the current development proposals on the periphery reflect an intention to diversify the socioeconomic profile of the city, except possibly some of the senior housing associated with the Northwest Quadrant.
So, to the extent that Ron associates these projects with the issue of affordable housing, he is misguided. As DPD understands, the provision of affordable housing in Davis, the type of housing the teachers, firefighters, grocery clerks, clericals and others, can buy, would require unprecented densities in Davis. I can’t imagine it happening, I suspect that Davis is just going to get more gentrified, not less, with the passage of time.
–Richard Estes
Ron’s problem is that he is an advocate for a position for which there is a no constituency, or, more accurately, no elite constituency.
After living in Davis since the late 1970s until after the turn of the century, I empathize with his view that Davis has gone wrong in a way that people do not want to confront. External pressure to gentrify (migration from the Bay Area and the allure of California generally) and internal opposition to development has created the worst of all possible worlds, a city that exists primarily for upper middle income and upper income people.
Of course, this is not unique. It happened to San Francisco, the East Bay and the Napa Valley, just to name some places nearby. But the social loss is profound.
I read Ron’s remark as evidencing a sincere and quite understandable nostalgia for Davis as a community, a place with economic, racial and cultural diversity. Once upon a time, there were quite a number of cities that possessed these characteristics.
But, to maintain such a community, it has to have affordable housing and businesses so that people from all economic classes can live there, at least to some extent. Davis no longer has this, and, as near as I can tell, there is no plausible political movement in existence that could push the city in this direction.
None of the current development proposals on the periphery reflect an intention to diversify the socioeconomic profile of the city, except possibly some of the senior housing associated with the Northwest Quadrant.
So, to the extent that Ron associates these projects with the issue of affordable housing, he is misguided. As DPD understands, the provision of affordable housing in Davis, the type of housing the teachers, firefighters, grocery clerks, clericals and others, can buy, would require unprecented densities in Davis. I can’t imagine it happening, I suspect that Davis is just going to get more gentrified, not less, with the passage of time.
–Richard Estes
What I’m saying is that it seems that these goals and discussions deny the 800 pound gorilla. Comparing Davis to non-college towns denies the cultural benefits that having a university brings. Its as if some development gets pushed through its going to be the end of Davis.
You say you came here after graduating from UCD to get away from sprawl. So you got an education and now you want to preserve some romanticized vision of this town at the expense of those who would come here after you. Just yesterday on the news there was a story about California growing to 60 million by 2050. Where are these people to get their education? Should we keep this place a little bucolic community for the benefit of those already here or should we plan for the future needs of California?
Ron
What I’m saying is that it seems that these goals and discussions deny the 800 pound gorilla. Comparing Davis to non-college towns denies the cultural benefits that having a university brings. Its as if some development gets pushed through its going to be the end of Davis.
You say you came here after graduating from UCD to get away from sprawl. So you got an education and now you want to preserve some romanticized vision of this town at the expense of those who would come here after you. Just yesterday on the news there was a story about California growing to 60 million by 2050. Where are these people to get their education? Should we keep this place a little bucolic community for the benefit of those already here or should we plan for the future needs of California?
Ron
What I’m saying is that it seems that these goals and discussions deny the 800 pound gorilla. Comparing Davis to non-college towns denies the cultural benefits that having a university brings. Its as if some development gets pushed through its going to be the end of Davis.
You say you came here after graduating from UCD to get away from sprawl. So you got an education and now you want to preserve some romanticized vision of this town at the expense of those who would come here after you. Just yesterday on the news there was a story about California growing to 60 million by 2050. Where are these people to get their education? Should we keep this place a little bucolic community for the benefit of those already here or should we plan for the future needs of California?
Ron
What I’m saying is that it seems that these goals and discussions deny the 800 pound gorilla. Comparing Davis to non-college towns denies the cultural benefits that having a university brings. Its as if some development gets pushed through its going to be the end of Davis.
You say you came here after graduating from UCD to get away from sprawl. So you got an education and now you want to preserve some romanticized vision of this town at the expense of those who would come here after you. Just yesterday on the news there was a story about California growing to 60 million by 2050. Where are these people to get their education? Should we keep this place a little bucolic community for the benefit of those already here or should we plan for the future needs of California?
Ron
i’m with ron here, and would go so far as to say that if davis refuses to accept those levels of density necessary to actually accomodate housing pressures, that it is, as a community, actively making the decision to change the city to a de facto gentrified gated community. it’s the direction that the town has moved in since the 90s, and i fear that we will continue there for the forseeable future. but i do not agree that it need be that way.
the open community that i grew up in has been choked off by the equity bubble and the transformation of the community from a college town to a commuter suburb. UCD grads and the youth of davis cannot afford to do what their parents and students in the 60s, 70s and 80s did, the cost of housing is beyond reach. something important is being lost there that exceeds the threat of “looking like vacaville.”
no city can refuse to change. refusing to grow changes some things while leaving others intact, just as growing changes some things and leaves others in tact. all we can do is try to face the future as creatively and intelligently as possible, and grow in a way that improves the community and makes it a fairer place to be.
i’m with ron here, and would go so far as to say that if davis refuses to accept those levels of density necessary to actually accomodate housing pressures, that it is, as a community, actively making the decision to change the city to a de facto gentrified gated community. it’s the direction that the town has moved in since the 90s, and i fear that we will continue there for the forseeable future. but i do not agree that it need be that way.
the open community that i grew up in has been choked off by the equity bubble and the transformation of the community from a college town to a commuter suburb. UCD grads and the youth of davis cannot afford to do what their parents and students in the 60s, 70s and 80s did, the cost of housing is beyond reach. something important is being lost there that exceeds the threat of “looking like vacaville.”
no city can refuse to change. refusing to grow changes some things while leaving others intact, just as growing changes some things and leaves others in tact. all we can do is try to face the future as creatively and intelligently as possible, and grow in a way that improves the community and makes it a fairer place to be.
i’m with ron here, and would go so far as to say that if davis refuses to accept those levels of density necessary to actually accomodate housing pressures, that it is, as a community, actively making the decision to change the city to a de facto gentrified gated community. it’s the direction that the town has moved in since the 90s, and i fear that we will continue there for the forseeable future. but i do not agree that it need be that way.
the open community that i grew up in has been choked off by the equity bubble and the transformation of the community from a college town to a commuter suburb. UCD grads and the youth of davis cannot afford to do what their parents and students in the 60s, 70s and 80s did, the cost of housing is beyond reach. something important is being lost there that exceeds the threat of “looking like vacaville.”
no city can refuse to change. refusing to grow changes some things while leaving others intact, just as growing changes some things and leaves others in tact. all we can do is try to face the future as creatively and intelligently as possible, and grow in a way that improves the community and makes it a fairer place to be.
i’m with ron here, and would go so far as to say that if davis refuses to accept those levels of density necessary to actually accomodate housing pressures, that it is, as a community, actively making the decision to change the city to a de facto gentrified gated community. it’s the direction that the town has moved in since the 90s, and i fear that we will continue there for the forseeable future. but i do not agree that it need be that way.
the open community that i grew up in has been choked off by the equity bubble and the transformation of the community from a college town to a commuter suburb. UCD grads and the youth of davis cannot afford to do what their parents and students in the 60s, 70s and 80s did, the cost of housing is beyond reach. something important is being lost there that exceeds the threat of “looking like vacaville.”
no city can refuse to change. refusing to grow changes some things while leaving others intact, just as growing changes some things and leaves others in tact. all we can do is try to face the future as creatively and intelligently as possible, and grow in a way that improves the community and makes it a fairer place to be.
I read with interest the comments by Ron and then Richard with great interest. In many ways I agree with both comments. I am curious of Ron as to what differentiates in your mind a college town from a non-college town? At the same time, I fear what happened to Chico and in many ways Berkeley is the worst of both worlds, much as I like to visit. I always believe there are out of the box (pun intended) answers to density without boxy monstrocities and affordability withut sprawl.
I read with interest the comments by Ron and then Richard with great interest. In many ways I agree with both comments. I am curious of Ron as to what differentiates in your mind a college town from a non-college town? At the same time, I fear what happened to Chico and in many ways Berkeley is the worst of both worlds, much as I like to visit. I always believe there are out of the box (pun intended) answers to density without boxy monstrocities and affordability withut sprawl.
I read with interest the comments by Ron and then Richard with great interest. In many ways I agree with both comments. I am curious of Ron as to what differentiates in your mind a college town from a non-college town? At the same time, I fear what happened to Chico and in many ways Berkeley is the worst of both worlds, much as I like to visit. I always believe there are out of the box (pun intended) answers to density without boxy monstrocities and affordability withut sprawl.
I read with interest the comments by Ron and then Richard with great interest. In many ways I agree with both comments. I am curious of Ron as to what differentiates in your mind a college town from a non-college town? At the same time, I fear what happened to Chico and in many ways Berkeley is the worst of both worlds, much as I like to visit. I always believe there are out of the box (pun intended) answers to density without boxy monstrocities and affordability withut sprawl.
They could not even get enough senior applicants for Eleanor Roosevelt. We don’t need a big monstrosity for srs. or any other group. I have asked srs. and they don’t want it. Mariko and Tsakap. are simply using it as a reason to BUILD.
They could not even get enough senior applicants for Eleanor Roosevelt. We don’t need a big monstrosity for srs. or any other group. I have asked srs. and they don’t want it. Mariko and Tsakap. are simply using it as a reason to BUILD.
They could not even get enough senior applicants for Eleanor Roosevelt. We don’t need a big monstrosity for srs. or any other group. I have asked srs. and they don’t want it. Mariko and Tsakap. are simply using it as a reason to BUILD.
They could not even get enough senior applicants for Eleanor Roosevelt. We don’t need a big monstrosity for srs. or any other group. I have asked srs. and they don’t want it. Mariko and Tsakap. are simply using it as a reason to BUILD.
Allow me to offer an unthinkable, politically incorrect thought for consideration: Most population centers(cities) have areas where there are,for the most part, concentrations of people of a similar economic situation. Davis can be thought of in that vein, as one part of a larger, more economically diverse population (Woodland, Dixon, West Sac., all within 10 min. drive of Davis).
Allow me to offer an unthinkable, politically incorrect thought for consideration: Most population centers(cities) have areas where there are,for the most part, concentrations of people of a similar economic situation. Davis can be thought of in that vein, as one part of a larger, more economically diverse population (Woodland, Dixon, West Sac., all within 10 min. drive of Davis).
Allow me to offer an unthinkable, politically incorrect thought for consideration: Most population centers(cities) have areas where there are,for the most part, concentrations of people of a similar economic situation. Davis can be thought of in that vein, as one part of a larger, more economically diverse population (Woodland, Dixon, West Sac., all within 10 min. drive of Davis).
Allow me to offer an unthinkable, politically incorrect thought for consideration: Most population centers(cities) have areas where there are,for the most part, concentrations of people of a similar economic situation. Davis can be thought of in that vein, as one part of a larger, more economically diverse population (Woodland, Dixon, West Sac., all within 10 min. drive of Davis).
Ron and I had the opportunity to interview an ASUCD political figure about a month of so ago, unfortuantely, I forget his name
He said something that really made my hair stand on end: that the city, through either deliberate policy or neglect, is pricing UCD students out of town, causing UCD to look more and more like a commuter school. Davis residents should evaluate the 3rd and B proposal in this light, as well as the university project in West Davis.
Davis faces a stark choice. It either, to use a frightening term by Davis standards, urbanizes, or it becomes analoguous to some of the cities in Marin County, like, say, Mill Valley and Corte Madera, with an upper income population, and the importation of government workers, teachers, police, gardeners, waiters, salespeople, from other places on a daily basis, in other words, the entire regulatory and commercial framework of its society.
Sadly, I think Davis has already chosen the latter alternative. For me, the university actually has a negative pyschological impact in this regard, because people think, we have a UCD campus, we are so intellectually and culturally dynamic because of it, failing to recognize that there are many things that it cannot provide, leaving aside the elitist view that quality culture is generated by academia.
Berkeley still remains an amazing place because it has a university in a cutting edge urban area, the East Bay, racially and culturally exciting, with a history of civil rights, foreign policy and labor activism. A lot of the most enjoyable things about the East Bay are independent of UC Berkeley.
One need only compare what is emerging in downtown Sacramento with Davis. Despite the comparable movement towards gentrification, downtown and midtown are more diverse in every sense of the term.
Unfortunately, my impression is that all of the projects on the periphery, if built, will just reinforce the pernicious aspects of the gentrification of Davis. Engaging in the binary opposition of whether you are FOR or AGAINST them results in the burial of these important social questions.
–Richard Estes
Ron and I had the opportunity to interview an ASUCD political figure about a month of so ago, unfortuantely, I forget his name
He said something that really made my hair stand on end: that the city, through either deliberate policy or neglect, is pricing UCD students out of town, causing UCD to look more and more like a commuter school. Davis residents should evaluate the 3rd and B proposal in this light, as well as the university project in West Davis.
Davis faces a stark choice. It either, to use a frightening term by Davis standards, urbanizes, or it becomes analoguous to some of the cities in Marin County, like, say, Mill Valley and Corte Madera, with an upper income population, and the importation of government workers, teachers, police, gardeners, waiters, salespeople, from other places on a daily basis, in other words, the entire regulatory and commercial framework of its society.
Sadly, I think Davis has already chosen the latter alternative. For me, the university actually has a negative pyschological impact in this regard, because people think, we have a UCD campus, we are so intellectually and culturally dynamic because of it, failing to recognize that there are many things that it cannot provide, leaving aside the elitist view that quality culture is generated by academia.
Berkeley still remains an amazing place because it has a university in a cutting edge urban area, the East Bay, racially and culturally exciting, with a history of civil rights, foreign policy and labor activism. A lot of the most enjoyable things about the East Bay are independent of UC Berkeley.
One need only compare what is emerging in downtown Sacramento with Davis. Despite the comparable movement towards gentrification, downtown and midtown are more diverse in every sense of the term.
Unfortunately, my impression is that all of the projects on the periphery, if built, will just reinforce the pernicious aspects of the gentrification of Davis. Engaging in the binary opposition of whether you are FOR or AGAINST them results in the burial of these important social questions.
–Richard Estes
Ron and I had the opportunity to interview an ASUCD political figure about a month of so ago, unfortuantely, I forget his name
He said something that really made my hair stand on end: that the city, through either deliberate policy or neglect, is pricing UCD students out of town, causing UCD to look more and more like a commuter school. Davis residents should evaluate the 3rd and B proposal in this light, as well as the university project in West Davis.
Davis faces a stark choice. It either, to use a frightening term by Davis standards, urbanizes, or it becomes analoguous to some of the cities in Marin County, like, say, Mill Valley and Corte Madera, with an upper income population, and the importation of government workers, teachers, police, gardeners, waiters, salespeople, from other places on a daily basis, in other words, the entire regulatory and commercial framework of its society.
Sadly, I think Davis has already chosen the latter alternative. For me, the university actually has a negative pyschological impact in this regard, because people think, we have a UCD campus, we are so intellectually and culturally dynamic because of it, failing to recognize that there are many things that it cannot provide, leaving aside the elitist view that quality culture is generated by academia.
Berkeley still remains an amazing place because it has a university in a cutting edge urban area, the East Bay, racially and culturally exciting, with a history of civil rights, foreign policy and labor activism. A lot of the most enjoyable things about the East Bay are independent of UC Berkeley.
One need only compare what is emerging in downtown Sacramento with Davis. Despite the comparable movement towards gentrification, downtown and midtown are more diverse in every sense of the term.
Unfortunately, my impression is that all of the projects on the periphery, if built, will just reinforce the pernicious aspects of the gentrification of Davis. Engaging in the binary opposition of whether you are FOR or AGAINST them results in the burial of these important social questions.
–Richard Estes
Ron and I had the opportunity to interview an ASUCD political figure about a month of so ago, unfortuantely, I forget his name
He said something that really made my hair stand on end: that the city, through either deliberate policy or neglect, is pricing UCD students out of town, causing UCD to look more and more like a commuter school. Davis residents should evaluate the 3rd and B proposal in this light, as well as the university project in West Davis.
Davis faces a stark choice. It either, to use a frightening term by Davis standards, urbanizes, or it becomes analoguous to some of the cities in Marin County, like, say, Mill Valley and Corte Madera, with an upper income population, and the importation of government workers, teachers, police, gardeners, waiters, salespeople, from other places on a daily basis, in other words, the entire regulatory and commercial framework of its society.
Sadly, I think Davis has already chosen the latter alternative. For me, the university actually has a negative pyschological impact in this regard, because people think, we have a UCD campus, we are so intellectually and culturally dynamic because of it, failing to recognize that there are many things that it cannot provide, leaving aside the elitist view that quality culture is generated by academia.
Berkeley still remains an amazing place because it has a university in a cutting edge urban area, the East Bay, racially and culturally exciting, with a history of civil rights, foreign policy and labor activism. A lot of the most enjoyable things about the East Bay are independent of UC Berkeley.
One need only compare what is emerging in downtown Sacramento with Davis. Despite the comparable movement towards gentrification, downtown and midtown are more diverse in every sense of the term.
Unfortunately, my impression is that all of the projects on the periphery, if built, will just reinforce the pernicious aspects of the gentrification of Davis. Engaging in the binary opposition of whether you are FOR or AGAINST them results in the burial of these important social questions.
–Richard Estes
We CAN have good/planned growth with mixed hosing WITHOUT having sprawl on the borders of Davis. You are missing my pt. Ron – just because I got my education here does not mean I do not have a responsibility to preserve the ag land while lobbying for more reasonably priced housing. I think we’re on the same page just maybe expressing it differently.
Ann
We CAN have good/planned growth with mixed hosing WITHOUT having sprawl on the borders of Davis. You are missing my pt. Ron – just because I got my education here does not mean I do not have a responsibility to preserve the ag land while lobbying for more reasonably priced housing. I think we’re on the same page just maybe expressing it differently.
Ann
We CAN have good/planned growth with mixed hosing WITHOUT having sprawl on the borders of Davis. You are missing my pt. Ron – just because I got my education here does not mean I do not have a responsibility to preserve the ag land while lobbying for more reasonably priced housing. I think we’re on the same page just maybe expressing it differently.
Ann
We CAN have good/planned growth with mixed hosing WITHOUT having sprawl on the borders of Davis. You are missing my pt. Ron – just because I got my education here does not mean I do not have a responsibility to preserve the ag land while lobbying for more reasonably priced housing. I think we’re on the same page just maybe expressing it differently.
Ann
Doug, to me a college town has a 4 year university in it.
Ann, if you look at a map of Davis it is almost completely built out so we either go up or out. Preserving ag land is a worthy goal but not the only one. Building on some ag land when the town is approaching build out is not sprawl especially if that land is adjacent to the town. Local government has already set some land up for ag preservation between Woodland and Davis and Dixon and Davis. Those areas did not include frontier parcels for a reason, to let the communities have the space they need to grow.
The problem here is as DPD said how does Davis grow in a way that provides young families and the children who grew up here to way to afford a home? Covell village was too expensive and Tsakoupolos’ project is too large so it seems to me that what this town needs is something smaller than Tsakoupolos’ with houses cheaper than Covell Village. The question for the local government should be how do you achieve that in a way that makes economic sense for the developers.
This area is going to grow, it must. The people who had the foresight and capital to buy up the land on the frontier are going to make a fortune someday. The role of government should be to plan out how it should happen and limit the profits to something reasonable through zoning and planning that takes into account the goals of the community. What we have today is government that wants to allow the owners to maximize their profit instead of telling them that there are limits that will be set by the community.
Ron
Doug, to me a college town has a 4 year university in it.
Ann, if you look at a map of Davis it is almost completely built out so we either go up or out. Preserving ag land is a worthy goal but not the only one. Building on some ag land when the town is approaching build out is not sprawl especially if that land is adjacent to the town. Local government has already set some land up for ag preservation between Woodland and Davis and Dixon and Davis. Those areas did not include frontier parcels for a reason, to let the communities have the space they need to grow.
The problem here is as DPD said how does Davis grow in a way that provides young families and the children who grew up here to way to afford a home? Covell village was too expensive and Tsakoupolos’ project is too large so it seems to me that what this town needs is something smaller than Tsakoupolos’ with houses cheaper than Covell Village. The question for the local government should be how do you achieve that in a way that makes economic sense for the developers.
This area is going to grow, it must. The people who had the foresight and capital to buy up the land on the frontier are going to make a fortune someday. The role of government should be to plan out how it should happen and limit the profits to something reasonable through zoning and planning that takes into account the goals of the community. What we have today is government that wants to allow the owners to maximize their profit instead of telling them that there are limits that will be set by the community.
Ron
Doug, to me a college town has a 4 year university in it.
Ann, if you look at a map of Davis it is almost completely built out so we either go up or out. Preserving ag land is a worthy goal but not the only one. Building on some ag land when the town is approaching build out is not sprawl especially if that land is adjacent to the town. Local government has already set some land up for ag preservation between Woodland and Davis and Dixon and Davis. Those areas did not include frontier parcels for a reason, to let the communities have the space they need to grow.
The problem here is as DPD said how does Davis grow in a way that provides young families and the children who grew up here to way to afford a home? Covell village was too expensive and Tsakoupolos’ project is too large so it seems to me that what this town needs is something smaller than Tsakoupolos’ with houses cheaper than Covell Village. The question for the local government should be how do you achieve that in a way that makes economic sense for the developers.
This area is going to grow, it must. The people who had the foresight and capital to buy up the land on the frontier are going to make a fortune someday. The role of government should be to plan out how it should happen and limit the profits to something reasonable through zoning and planning that takes into account the goals of the community. What we have today is government that wants to allow the owners to maximize their profit instead of telling them that there are limits that will be set by the community.
Ron
Doug, to me a college town has a 4 year university in it.
Ann, if you look at a map of Davis it is almost completely built out so we either go up or out. Preserving ag land is a worthy goal but not the only one. Building on some ag land when the town is approaching build out is not sprawl especially if that land is adjacent to the town. Local government has already set some land up for ag preservation between Woodland and Davis and Dixon and Davis. Those areas did not include frontier parcels for a reason, to let the communities have the space they need to grow.
The problem here is as DPD said how does Davis grow in a way that provides young families and the children who grew up here to way to afford a home? Covell village was too expensive and Tsakoupolos’ project is too large so it seems to me that what this town needs is something smaller than Tsakoupolos’ with houses cheaper than Covell Village. The question for the local government should be how do you achieve that in a way that makes economic sense for the developers.
This area is going to grow, it must. The people who had the foresight and capital to buy up the land on the frontier are going to make a fortune someday. The role of government should be to plan out how it should happen and limit the profits to something reasonable through zoning and planning that takes into account the goals of the community. What we have today is government that wants to allow the owners to maximize their profit instead of telling them that there are limits that will be set by the community.
Ron
Building on some ag land when the town is approaching build out is not sprawl especially if that land is adjacent to the town.
Yes it is, if done at typical low-density development. What you’re referring to is “leapfrog” development where undeveloped parcels on the perimeter are passed over to develop another parcel in a patchwork fashion.
so it seems to me that what this town needs is something smaller than Tsakoupolos’ with houses cheaper than Covell Village. The question for the local government should be how do you achieve that in a way that makes economic sense for the developers.
So where do you do this if Covell Village was so soundly defeated, UC Davis’ West Village was so vehemently opposed? I disagree with the assumptions in this point.
I think our starting point should be:
1. How many people and/or housing units do we realistically need over the next 20 years? I posit that the SACOG Regional Housing Needs is a starting point for discussion.
2. The assumption that we need more single family homes (even if they are smaller homes on smaller lots)can be challenged. Knowing demographic trends and Davis’current housing stock, we should look at transitioning away from SFH’s and more toward row houses, town houses, and mixed uses via intensification of currently vacant or underutilized lots. If this yields us the number of units necessary within our current boundaries, then great.
3. If point #2 doesn’t result in meeting our housing and affordability needs, then we consider developing a site like Covell Village via a community driven (and that includes residents and potential developers as stakeholders) planning process where a plan is adopted with development policies and goals that are reality and market-based to ensure their feasibility. That is, one that both the community and developers will accept. This should be done in advance of any development proposal. Reacting to development proposals is what generates the knee-jerk emotional reactions from the community.
The role of government should be to plan out how it should happen and limit the profits to something reasonable through zoning and planning that takes into account the goals of the community.
This is why the approach I mentioned above is critical. But first, consensus is needed on where to grow. But based on the 6-/40 Measure X vote, it’s unlikely. Despite the infill potential in Davis, I don’t think it will meet our future housing needs nor do I think any infill project will be at a scale to allow a large number of affordable units, given the cost of land. I personally support development on Covell Village consistent with a smart growth, high quality, affordable, national award-type design in addition to infill development. Covell Village didn’t deliver. Planning in advance can leave the guesswork and much of the politics out of the equation. But then again, opening up CV to development opens the floodgate of criticism regarding developer favoritism and loss of ag land.
One question, who is supposed to build all this affordable housing we need?
Building on some ag land when the town is approaching build out is not sprawl especially if that land is adjacent to the town.
Yes it is, if done at typical low-density development. What you’re referring to is “leapfrog” development where undeveloped parcels on the perimeter are passed over to develop another parcel in a patchwork fashion.
so it seems to me that what this town needs is something smaller than Tsakoupolos’ with houses cheaper than Covell Village. The question for the local government should be how do you achieve that in a way that makes economic sense for the developers.
So where do you do this if Covell Village was so soundly defeated, UC Davis’ West Village was so vehemently opposed? I disagree with the assumptions in this point.
I think our starting point should be:
1. How many people and/or housing units do we realistically need over the next 20 years? I posit that the SACOG Regional Housing Needs is a starting point for discussion.
2. The assumption that we need more single family homes (even if they are smaller homes on smaller lots)can be challenged. Knowing demographic trends and Davis’current housing stock, we should look at transitioning away from SFH’s and more toward row houses, town houses, and mixed uses via intensification of currently vacant or underutilized lots. If this yields us the number of units necessary within our current boundaries, then great.
3. If point #2 doesn’t result in meeting our housing and affordability needs, then we consider developing a site like Covell Village via a community driven (and that includes residents and potential developers as stakeholders) planning process where a plan is adopted with development policies and goals that are reality and market-based to ensure their feasibility. That is, one that both the community and developers will accept. This should be done in advance of any development proposal. Reacting to development proposals is what generates the knee-jerk emotional reactions from the community.
The role of government should be to plan out how it should happen and limit the profits to something reasonable through zoning and planning that takes into account the goals of the community.
This is why the approach I mentioned above is critical. But first, consensus is needed on where to grow. But based on the 6-/40 Measure X vote, it’s unlikely. Despite the infill potential in Davis, I don’t think it will meet our future housing needs nor do I think any infill project will be at a scale to allow a large number of affordable units, given the cost of land. I personally support development on Covell Village consistent with a smart growth, high quality, affordable, national award-type design in addition to infill development. Covell Village didn’t deliver. Planning in advance can leave the guesswork and much of the politics out of the equation. But then again, opening up CV to development opens the floodgate of criticism regarding developer favoritism and loss of ag land.
One question, who is supposed to build all this affordable housing we need?
Building on some ag land when the town is approaching build out is not sprawl especially if that land is adjacent to the town.
Yes it is, if done at typical low-density development. What you’re referring to is “leapfrog” development where undeveloped parcels on the perimeter are passed over to develop another parcel in a patchwork fashion.
so it seems to me that what this town needs is something smaller than Tsakoupolos’ with houses cheaper than Covell Village. The question for the local government should be how do you achieve that in a way that makes economic sense for the developers.
So where do you do this if Covell Village was so soundly defeated, UC Davis’ West Village was so vehemently opposed? I disagree with the assumptions in this point.
I think our starting point should be:
1. How many people and/or housing units do we realistically need over the next 20 years? I posit that the SACOG Regional Housing Needs is a starting point for discussion.
2. The assumption that we need more single family homes (even if they are smaller homes on smaller lots)can be challenged. Knowing demographic trends and Davis’current housing stock, we should look at transitioning away from SFH’s and more toward row houses, town houses, and mixed uses via intensification of currently vacant or underutilized lots. If this yields us the number of units necessary within our current boundaries, then great.
3. If point #2 doesn’t result in meeting our housing and affordability needs, then we consider developing a site like Covell Village via a community driven (and that includes residents and potential developers as stakeholders) planning process where a plan is adopted with development policies and goals that are reality and market-based to ensure their feasibility. That is, one that both the community and developers will accept. This should be done in advance of any development proposal. Reacting to development proposals is what generates the knee-jerk emotional reactions from the community.
The role of government should be to plan out how it should happen and limit the profits to something reasonable through zoning and planning that takes into account the goals of the community.
This is why the approach I mentioned above is critical. But first, consensus is needed on where to grow. But based on the 6-/40 Measure X vote, it’s unlikely. Despite the infill potential in Davis, I don’t think it will meet our future housing needs nor do I think any infill project will be at a scale to allow a large number of affordable units, given the cost of land. I personally support development on Covell Village consistent with a smart growth, high quality, affordable, national award-type design in addition to infill development. Covell Village didn’t deliver. Planning in advance can leave the guesswork and much of the politics out of the equation. But then again, opening up CV to development opens the floodgate of criticism regarding developer favoritism and loss of ag land.
One question, who is supposed to build all this affordable housing we need?
Building on some ag land when the town is approaching build out is not sprawl especially if that land is adjacent to the town.
Yes it is, if done at typical low-density development. What you’re referring to is “leapfrog” development where undeveloped parcels on the perimeter are passed over to develop another parcel in a patchwork fashion.
so it seems to me that what this town needs is something smaller than Tsakoupolos’ with houses cheaper than Covell Village. The question for the local government should be how do you achieve that in a way that makes economic sense for the developers.
So where do you do this if Covell Village was so soundly defeated, UC Davis’ West Village was so vehemently opposed? I disagree with the assumptions in this point.
I think our starting point should be:
1. How many people and/or housing units do we realistically need over the next 20 years? I posit that the SACOG Regional Housing Needs is a starting point for discussion.
2. The assumption that we need more single family homes (even if they are smaller homes on smaller lots)can be challenged. Knowing demographic trends and Davis’current housing stock, we should look at transitioning away from SFH’s and more toward row houses, town houses, and mixed uses via intensification of currently vacant or underutilized lots. If this yields us the number of units necessary within our current boundaries, then great.
3. If point #2 doesn’t result in meeting our housing and affordability needs, then we consider developing a site like Covell Village via a community driven (and that includes residents and potential developers as stakeholders) planning process where a plan is adopted with development policies and goals that are reality and market-based to ensure their feasibility. That is, one that both the community and developers will accept. This should be done in advance of any development proposal. Reacting to development proposals is what generates the knee-jerk emotional reactions from the community.
The role of government should be to plan out how it should happen and limit the profits to something reasonable through zoning and planning that takes into account the goals of the community.
This is why the approach I mentioned above is critical. But first, consensus is needed on where to grow. But based on the 6-/40 Measure X vote, it’s unlikely. Despite the infill potential in Davis, I don’t think it will meet our future housing needs nor do I think any infill project will be at a scale to allow a large number of affordable units, given the cost of land. I personally support development on Covell Village consistent with a smart growth, high quality, affordable, national award-type design in addition to infill development. Covell Village didn’t deliver. Planning in advance can leave the guesswork and much of the politics out of the equation. But then again, opening up CV to development opens the floodgate of criticism regarding developer favoritism and loss of ag land.
One question, who is supposed to build all this affordable housing we need?
The university’s West Village project is intended to provide some relief by providing that housing for students, staff and faculty — precisely because UC Davis does not want to be a commuter school.
And look how much kicking and screaming there was from the good folks in West Davis about that…
Realities have to be faced.
Also, why assume that “cops, firefighters, grocery clerks” want to raise their families in a small house or apartment in a high density neighborhood — when for the same money they could buy a house twice the size in some anonymous development in Winters, West Sac or Woodland?
The university’s West Village project is intended to provide some relief by providing that housing for students, staff and faculty — precisely because UC Davis does not want to be a commuter school.
And look how much kicking and screaming there was from the good folks in West Davis about that…
Realities have to be faced.
Also, why assume that “cops, firefighters, grocery clerks” want to raise their families in a small house or apartment in a high density neighborhood — when for the same money they could buy a house twice the size in some anonymous development in Winters, West Sac or Woodland?
The university’s West Village project is intended to provide some relief by providing that housing for students, staff and faculty — precisely because UC Davis does not want to be a commuter school.
And look how much kicking and screaming there was from the good folks in West Davis about that…
Realities have to be faced.
Also, why assume that “cops, firefighters, grocery clerks” want to raise their families in a small house or apartment in a high density neighborhood — when for the same money they could buy a house twice the size in some anonymous development in Winters, West Sac or Woodland?
The university’s West Village project is intended to provide some relief by providing that housing for students, staff and faculty — precisely because UC Davis does not want to be a commuter school.
And look how much kicking and screaming there was from the good folks in West Davis about that…
Realities have to be faced.
Also, why assume that “cops, firefighters, grocery clerks” want to raise their families in a small house or apartment in a high density neighborhood — when for the same money they could buy a house twice the size in some anonymous development in Winters, West Sac or Woodland?
anonymous 12:57…
The reason “they” could not get enough applicants for eleanor roosevelt community was because they were the significantly limited income units….most seniors who desire housing in davis have too high an income to live there.
that, and many seniors would like to own their homes as opposed to renting them.
also- funny, but I have talked with many seniors too, (and soon to be seniors,) and they want such a development.
anonymous 12:57…
The reason “they” could not get enough applicants for eleanor roosevelt community was because they were the significantly limited income units….most seniors who desire housing in davis have too high an income to live there.
that, and many seniors would like to own their homes as opposed to renting them.
also- funny, but I have talked with many seniors too, (and soon to be seniors,) and they want such a development.
anonymous 12:57…
The reason “they” could not get enough applicants for eleanor roosevelt community was because they were the significantly limited income units….most seniors who desire housing in davis have too high an income to live there.
that, and many seniors would like to own their homes as opposed to renting them.
also- funny, but I have talked with many seniors too, (and soon to be seniors,) and they want such a development.
anonymous 12:57…
The reason “they” could not get enough applicants for eleanor roosevelt community was because they were the significantly limited income units….most seniors who desire housing in davis have too high an income to live there.
that, and many seniors would like to own their homes as opposed to renting them.
also- funny, but I have talked with many seniors too, (and soon to be seniors,) and they want such a development.
dpd- all this great conversation re: planning and the future of growth in Davis and CA is fascinating…all who truly care about these issues should hold some sort of community dialogue…more than just the davis vangaurd, or at council meetings, etc…suggestions?
dpd- all this great conversation re: planning and the future of growth in Davis and CA is fascinating…all who truly care about these issues should hold some sort of community dialogue…more than just the davis vangaurd, or at council meetings, etc…suggestions?
dpd- all this great conversation re: planning and the future of growth in Davis and CA is fascinating…all who truly care about these issues should hold some sort of community dialogue…more than just the davis vangaurd, or at council meetings, etc…suggestions?
dpd- all this great conversation re: planning and the future of growth in Davis and CA is fascinating…all who truly care about these issues should hold some sort of community dialogue…more than just the davis vangaurd, or at council meetings, etc…suggestions?
Also, why assume that “cops, firefighters, grocery clerks” want to raise their families in a small house or apartment in a high density neighborhood —
For the same reason many of us with families have purchased extremely expensive small homes in older Davis neighborhoods.
That said, we need to clarify what we mean by “high density”, because the context changes depending on one’s definition. What passes for “high density” in Davis is considered low-medium density in Sacramento. And “higher” density doesn’t mean “high” density. It’s context also changes within Davis. What would be “high density” in downtown would differ form “high density” outside of downtown. And high density may still only be 10 units but on a third of an acre.
As mentioned, with changing demographics and an aging local population, there may be many folks who want to downsize from their SFH and move into a more unique, mixed-use neighborhood, which would then open up some existing housing stock for families. Finally, many young professionals and couples want to purchase a home but are still some time away from starting a family. Don’t try to pigeon-hole certain people into certain housing types. If you build well-designed, compact housing developments, the market will sort out who will buy what.
Also, why assume that “cops, firefighters, grocery clerks” want to raise their families in a small house or apartment in a high density neighborhood —
For the same reason many of us with families have purchased extremely expensive small homes in older Davis neighborhoods.
That said, we need to clarify what we mean by “high density”, because the context changes depending on one’s definition. What passes for “high density” in Davis is considered low-medium density in Sacramento. And “higher” density doesn’t mean “high” density. It’s context also changes within Davis. What would be “high density” in downtown would differ form “high density” outside of downtown. And high density may still only be 10 units but on a third of an acre.
As mentioned, with changing demographics and an aging local population, there may be many folks who want to downsize from their SFH and move into a more unique, mixed-use neighborhood, which would then open up some existing housing stock for families. Finally, many young professionals and couples want to purchase a home but are still some time away from starting a family. Don’t try to pigeon-hole certain people into certain housing types. If you build well-designed, compact housing developments, the market will sort out who will buy what.
Also, why assume that “cops, firefighters, grocery clerks” want to raise their families in a small house or apartment in a high density neighborhood —
For the same reason many of us with families have purchased extremely expensive small homes in older Davis neighborhoods.
That said, we need to clarify what we mean by “high density”, because the context changes depending on one’s definition. What passes for “high density” in Davis is considered low-medium density in Sacramento. And “higher” density doesn’t mean “high” density. It’s context also changes within Davis. What would be “high density” in downtown would differ form “high density” outside of downtown. And high density may still only be 10 units but on a third of an acre.
As mentioned, with changing demographics and an aging local population, there may be many folks who want to downsize from their SFH and move into a more unique, mixed-use neighborhood, which would then open up some existing housing stock for families. Finally, many young professionals and couples want to purchase a home but are still some time away from starting a family. Don’t try to pigeon-hole certain people into certain housing types. If you build well-designed, compact housing developments, the market will sort out who will buy what.
Also, why assume that “cops, firefighters, grocery clerks” want to raise their families in a small house or apartment in a high density neighborhood —
For the same reason many of us with families have purchased extremely expensive small homes in older Davis neighborhoods.
That said, we need to clarify what we mean by “high density”, because the context changes depending on one’s definition. What passes for “high density” in Davis is considered low-medium density in Sacramento. And “higher” density doesn’t mean “high” density. It’s context also changes within Davis. What would be “high density” in downtown would differ form “high density” outside of downtown. And high density may still only be 10 units but on a third of an acre.
As mentioned, with changing demographics and an aging local population, there may be many folks who want to downsize from their SFH and move into a more unique, mixed-use neighborhood, which would then open up some existing housing stock for families. Finally, many young professionals and couples want to purchase a home but are still some time away from starting a family. Don’t try to pigeon-hole certain people into certain housing types. If you build well-designed, compact housing developments, the market will sort out who will buy what.
I would hope that:
Fully utilizing Davis’ considerable infill potential + Cannery Park + West Village + Covell Village + Wildhorse Ranch subdivision would prevent us from needing to develop any further on Davis’ periphery for a considerable amount of time while simultaneously achieving affordability goals.
I would hope that:
Fully utilizing Davis’ considerable infill potential + Cannery Park + West Village + Covell Village + Wildhorse Ranch subdivision would prevent us from needing to develop any further on Davis’ periphery for a considerable amount of time while simultaneously achieving affordability goals.
I would hope that:
Fully utilizing Davis’ considerable infill potential + Cannery Park + West Village + Covell Village + Wildhorse Ranch subdivision would prevent us from needing to develop any further on Davis’ periphery for a considerable amount of time while simultaneously achieving affordability goals.
I would hope that:
Fully utilizing Davis’ considerable infill potential + Cannery Park + West Village + Covell Village + Wildhorse Ranch subdivision would prevent us from needing to develop any further on Davis’ periphery for a considerable amount of time while simultaneously achieving affordability goals.
Worker Bee: I’m open for community dialogue and see where it goes on this blog and perhaps someone with the inclination could organize a town hall meeting.
Worker Bee: I’m open for community dialogue and see where it goes on this blog and perhaps someone with the inclination could organize a town hall meeting.
Worker Bee: I’m open for community dialogue and see where it goes on this blog and perhaps someone with the inclination could organize a town hall meeting.
Worker Bee: I’m open for community dialogue and see where it goes on this blog and perhaps someone with the inclination could organize a town hall meeting.
“… a sincere and quite understandable nostalgia for Davis as a community, a place with economic, racial and cultural diversity.”
Davis has far more economic diversity now than it had when I was a child here in the 1960s and ’70s. I think this change — far more wealthy people and far more lower income (non-student) people — has been a negative. I prefered that bygone aspect of Davis, where almost every family was in a small band of middle class incomes and values.
Davis also has far more cultural and racial and religious diversity, today. There are positives and negatives about this kind of change. If you look at a racially and culturally homogenous country like Japan, you can see advantages to a society in which just about everyone shares common ideas and understandings. There is much less friction and misunderstanding.
Davis was somewhat like that 30 and 40 years ago (though never to the extent of Japan). However, life is richer and more interesting when you have the opportunity to learn from and experience the ideas and cultures of various groups. I think this diversity is mostly a positive, though not entirely.
“… a sincere and quite understandable nostalgia for Davis as a community, a place with economic, racial and cultural diversity.”
Davis has far more economic diversity now than it had when I was a child here in the 1960s and ’70s. I think this change — far more wealthy people and far more lower income (non-student) people — has been a negative. I prefered that bygone aspect of Davis, where almost every family was in a small band of middle class incomes and values.
Davis also has far more cultural and racial and religious diversity, today. There are positives and negatives about this kind of change. If you look at a racially and culturally homogenous country like Japan, you can see advantages to a society in which just about everyone shares common ideas and understandings. There is much less friction and misunderstanding.
Davis was somewhat like that 30 and 40 years ago (though never to the extent of Japan). However, life is richer and more interesting when you have the opportunity to learn from and experience the ideas and cultures of various groups. I think this diversity is mostly a positive, though not entirely.
“… a sincere and quite understandable nostalgia for Davis as a community, a place with economic, racial and cultural diversity.”
Davis has far more economic diversity now than it had when I was a child here in the 1960s and ’70s. I think this change — far more wealthy people and far more lower income (non-student) people — has been a negative. I prefered that bygone aspect of Davis, where almost every family was in a small band of middle class incomes and values.
Davis also has far more cultural and racial and religious diversity, today. There are positives and negatives about this kind of change. If you look at a racially and culturally homogenous country like Japan, you can see advantages to a society in which just about everyone shares common ideas and understandings. There is much less friction and misunderstanding.
Davis was somewhat like that 30 and 40 years ago (though never to the extent of Japan). However, life is richer and more interesting when you have the opportunity to learn from and experience the ideas and cultures of various groups. I think this diversity is mostly a positive, though not entirely.
“… a sincere and quite understandable nostalgia for Davis as a community, a place with economic, racial and cultural diversity.”
Davis has far more economic diversity now than it had when I was a child here in the 1960s and ’70s. I think this change — far more wealthy people and far more lower income (non-student) people — has been a negative. I prefered that bygone aspect of Davis, where almost every family was in a small band of middle class incomes and values.
Davis also has far more cultural and racial and religious diversity, today. There are positives and negatives about this kind of change. If you look at a racially and culturally homogenous country like Japan, you can see advantages to a society in which just about everyone shares common ideas and understandings. There is much less friction and misunderstanding.
Davis was somewhat like that 30 and 40 years ago (though never to the extent of Japan). However, life is richer and more interesting when you have the opportunity to learn from and experience the ideas and cultures of various groups. I think this diversity is mostly a positive, though not entirely.
I agree with the idea of increasing the density of housing particularly in the downtown area. However, I have a question about “prime agricultural land” – is all of the ag land in Yolo County classified as prime? There are 1000 square miles of land in Yolo County and the population is less than 200 people per square mile. There must be some substandard land around that could be developed with very little impact on agriculture.SAH
I agree with the idea of increasing the density of housing particularly in the downtown area. However, I have a question about “prime agricultural land” – is all of the ag land in Yolo County classified as prime? There are 1000 square miles of land in Yolo County and the population is less than 200 people per square mile. There must be some substandard land around that could be developed with very little impact on agriculture.SAH
I agree with the idea of increasing the density of housing particularly in the downtown area. However, I have a question about “prime agricultural land” – is all of the ag land in Yolo County classified as prime? There are 1000 square miles of land in Yolo County and the population is less than 200 people per square mile. There must be some substandard land around that could be developed with very little impact on agriculture.SAH
I agree with the idea of increasing the density of housing particularly in the downtown area. However, I have a question about “prime agricultural land” – is all of the ag land in Yolo County classified as prime? There are 1000 square miles of land in Yolo County and the population is less than 200 people per square mile. There must be some substandard land around that could be developed with very little impact on agriculture.SAH
If you look at this city of Davis document regarding Covell Village, it has maps of all of the soils around Davis. It distinguishes between the best (Class 1) and the worst (Class 6) and everything in between. It also addresses some more specific aspects of the soil on the CV site.
FWIW, almost all of the soil that Davis was built on was Class 1. And most of the surrounding soils are likewise that good.
If you look at this city of Davis document regarding Covell Village, it has maps of all of the soils around Davis. It distinguishes between the best (Class 1) and the worst (Class 6) and everything in between. It also addresses some more specific aspects of the soil on the CV site.
FWIW, almost all of the soil that Davis was built on was Class 1. And most of the surrounding soils are likewise that good.
If you look at this city of Davis document regarding Covell Village, it has maps of all of the soils around Davis. It distinguishes between the best (Class 1) and the worst (Class 6) and everything in between. It also addresses some more specific aspects of the soil on the CV site.
FWIW, almost all of the soil that Davis was built on was Class 1. And most of the surrounding soils are likewise that good.
If you look at this city of Davis document regarding Covell Village, it has maps of all of the soils around Davis. It distinguishes between the best (Class 1) and the worst (Class 6) and everything in between. It also addresses some more specific aspects of the soil on the CV site.
FWIW, almost all of the soil that Davis was built on was Class 1. And most of the surrounding soils are likewise that good.
There is nothing more noble in my mind than preserving land for future use: farming or whatever future generations need it for. Who are we to presume we know what to do with land? Tread as light as possible, right?
The true cause of high rents, unaffordable housing, etc. is the amount of houses people own and USE AS INVESTMENTS. HOW ABOUT THIS NOVEL IDEA? One person can only own one house. Can such a policy be even talked about in our rabid capitalistic society? How about “one house- one person” only when mean home prices are at a certain thresh-hold?
If anybody preaches affordable housing while using homes as investments they are taking those homes off the market and are part of the problem.
There is nothing more noble in my mind than preserving land for future use: farming or whatever future generations need it for. Who are we to presume we know what to do with land? Tread as light as possible, right?
The true cause of high rents, unaffordable housing, etc. is the amount of houses people own and USE AS INVESTMENTS. HOW ABOUT THIS NOVEL IDEA? One person can only own one house. Can such a policy be even talked about in our rabid capitalistic society? How about “one house- one person” only when mean home prices are at a certain thresh-hold?
If anybody preaches affordable housing while using homes as investments they are taking those homes off the market and are part of the problem.
There is nothing more noble in my mind than preserving land for future use: farming or whatever future generations need it for. Who are we to presume we know what to do with land? Tread as light as possible, right?
The true cause of high rents, unaffordable housing, etc. is the amount of houses people own and USE AS INVESTMENTS. HOW ABOUT THIS NOVEL IDEA? One person can only own one house. Can such a policy be even talked about in our rabid capitalistic society? How about “one house- one person” only when mean home prices are at a certain thresh-hold?
If anybody preaches affordable housing while using homes as investments they are taking those homes off the market and are part of the problem.
There is nothing more noble in my mind than preserving land for future use: farming or whatever future generations need it for. Who are we to presume we know what to do with land? Tread as light as possible, right?
The true cause of high rents, unaffordable housing, etc. is the amount of houses people own and USE AS INVESTMENTS. HOW ABOUT THIS NOVEL IDEA? One person can only own one house. Can such a policy be even talked about in our rabid capitalistic society? How about “one house- one person” only when mean home prices are at a certain thresh-hold?
If anybody preaches affordable housing while using homes as investments they are taking those homes off the market and are part of the problem.
“The true cause of high rents, unaffordable housing, etc. is the amount of houses people own and USE AS INVESTMENTS.”
It’s just a function of supply and demand. California is growing, Davis is growing, people prefer Davis to Dixon, Woodland, Vacaville, etc., for a number of reasons.
I have a friend in Michigan who is looking for a house. She just qualified for a $49,000 mortgage, and is looking at listings in that price range. The average price of a house where she lives is about $100K. For some reason, people prefer California to Michigan.
Most people want bigger houses as their families grow or as they can afford them. People on this blog may wish to live in small cottages or apartments, but I’d be surprised if we see a major shift in upwardly mobile people preferentially buying smaller homes.
So you can try all the social engineering you want, but there will always be a strong market for homes in the 1800 – 2000 sq. ft range, with medium to large yards. The market for bigger homes goes up and down — but mostly up. Because that is what people want.
The worst soil near Davis is North Davis Meadows and Binning Tract, followed by Covell Park and Stonegate.
“The true cause of high rents, unaffordable housing, etc. is the amount of houses people own and USE AS INVESTMENTS.”
It’s just a function of supply and demand. California is growing, Davis is growing, people prefer Davis to Dixon, Woodland, Vacaville, etc., for a number of reasons.
I have a friend in Michigan who is looking for a house. She just qualified for a $49,000 mortgage, and is looking at listings in that price range. The average price of a house where she lives is about $100K. For some reason, people prefer California to Michigan.
Most people want bigger houses as their families grow or as they can afford them. People on this blog may wish to live in small cottages or apartments, but I’d be surprised if we see a major shift in upwardly mobile people preferentially buying smaller homes.
So you can try all the social engineering you want, but there will always be a strong market for homes in the 1800 – 2000 sq. ft range, with medium to large yards. The market for bigger homes goes up and down — but mostly up. Because that is what people want.
The worst soil near Davis is North Davis Meadows and Binning Tract, followed by Covell Park and Stonegate.
“The true cause of high rents, unaffordable housing, etc. is the amount of houses people own and USE AS INVESTMENTS.”
It’s just a function of supply and demand. California is growing, Davis is growing, people prefer Davis to Dixon, Woodland, Vacaville, etc., for a number of reasons.
I have a friend in Michigan who is looking for a house. She just qualified for a $49,000 mortgage, and is looking at listings in that price range. The average price of a house where she lives is about $100K. For some reason, people prefer California to Michigan.
Most people want bigger houses as their families grow or as they can afford them. People on this blog may wish to live in small cottages or apartments, but I’d be surprised if we see a major shift in upwardly mobile people preferentially buying smaller homes.
So you can try all the social engineering you want, but there will always be a strong market for homes in the 1800 – 2000 sq. ft range, with medium to large yards. The market for bigger homes goes up and down — but mostly up. Because that is what people want.
The worst soil near Davis is North Davis Meadows and Binning Tract, followed by Covell Park and Stonegate.
“The true cause of high rents, unaffordable housing, etc. is the amount of houses people own and USE AS INVESTMENTS.”
It’s just a function of supply and demand. California is growing, Davis is growing, people prefer Davis to Dixon, Woodland, Vacaville, etc., for a number of reasons.
I have a friend in Michigan who is looking for a house. She just qualified for a $49,000 mortgage, and is looking at listings in that price range. The average price of a house where she lives is about $100K. For some reason, people prefer California to Michigan.
Most people want bigger houses as their families grow or as they can afford them. People on this blog may wish to live in small cottages or apartments, but I’d be surprised if we see a major shift in upwardly mobile people preferentially buying smaller homes.
So you can try all the social engineering you want, but there will always be a strong market for homes in the 1800 – 2000 sq. ft range, with medium to large yards. The market for bigger homes goes up and down — but mostly up. Because that is what people want.
The worst soil near Davis is North Davis Meadows and Binning Tract, followed by Covell Park and Stonegate.
un California, large homes are gravitating out of the price range of all but the wealthiest people, unless it is built on the far periphery of most urban areas
with more and more grinding commutes, and escalating fuel costs, this model of development, which has been so lucrative, is now under a lot of stress
in Sacramento, homes in midtown, Land Park, Curtis Park and East Sacramento, despite being smaller than most new construction (a home larger than about 1500 to 1600 square feet is the exception), have held their value much better than larger homes in Natomas, Elk Grove, Lincoln, etc.
there will always be a market for large homes, but it is, I think, erroneous to assume that it will be as strong as it has been in the 1990s and early 2000s, which is a historical anomaly
–Richard Estes
un California, large homes are gravitating out of the price range of all but the wealthiest people, unless it is built on the far periphery of most urban areas
with more and more grinding commutes, and escalating fuel costs, this model of development, which has been so lucrative, is now under a lot of stress
in Sacramento, homes in midtown, Land Park, Curtis Park and East Sacramento, despite being smaller than most new construction (a home larger than about 1500 to 1600 square feet is the exception), have held their value much better than larger homes in Natomas, Elk Grove, Lincoln, etc.
there will always be a market for large homes, but it is, I think, erroneous to assume that it will be as strong as it has been in the 1990s and early 2000s, which is a historical anomaly
–Richard Estes
un California, large homes are gravitating out of the price range of all but the wealthiest people, unless it is built on the far periphery of most urban areas
with more and more grinding commutes, and escalating fuel costs, this model of development, which has been so lucrative, is now under a lot of stress
in Sacramento, homes in midtown, Land Park, Curtis Park and East Sacramento, despite being smaller than most new construction (a home larger than about 1500 to 1600 square feet is the exception), have held their value much better than larger homes in Natomas, Elk Grove, Lincoln, etc.
there will always be a market for large homes, but it is, I think, erroneous to assume that it will be as strong as it has been in the 1990s and early 2000s, which is a historical anomaly
–Richard Estes
un California, large homes are gravitating out of the price range of all but the wealthiest people, unless it is built on the far periphery of most urban areas
with more and more grinding commutes, and escalating fuel costs, this model of development, which has been so lucrative, is now under a lot of stress
in Sacramento, homes in midtown, Land Park, Curtis Park and East Sacramento, despite being smaller than most new construction (a home larger than about 1500 to 1600 square feet is the exception), have held their value much better than larger homes in Natomas, Elk Grove, Lincoln, etc.
there will always be a market for large homes, but it is, I think, erroneous to assume that it will be as strong as it has been in the 1990s and early 2000s, which is a historical anomaly
–Richard Estes
nostalgia for Davis as a community, a place with economic, racial and cultural diversity
Rich is right that Davis has become more diverse. Just comparing the 1990 and 2000 Census data for Davis (available online):
% White: 79.7% in 1990, 70.1% in 2000
% Hispanic: 7.4% in 1990, 9.6% in 2000
% Asian/Pacific Islander: 13.2% in 1990, 17.7% in 2000
% African American: 3.0% in 1990, 2.3% in 2000
The proportion African American declined (the number of African Americans stayed essentially the same but the city grew), but as a whole Davis generally became less white and more Asian and Hispanic.
nostalgia for Davis as a community, a place with economic, racial and cultural diversity
Rich is right that Davis has become more diverse. Just comparing the 1990 and 2000 Census data for Davis (available online):
% White: 79.7% in 1990, 70.1% in 2000
% Hispanic: 7.4% in 1990, 9.6% in 2000
% Asian/Pacific Islander: 13.2% in 1990, 17.7% in 2000
% African American: 3.0% in 1990, 2.3% in 2000
The proportion African American declined (the number of African Americans stayed essentially the same but the city grew), but as a whole Davis generally became less white and more Asian and Hispanic.
nostalgia for Davis as a community, a place with economic, racial and cultural diversity
Rich is right that Davis has become more diverse. Just comparing the 1990 and 2000 Census data for Davis (available online):
% White: 79.7% in 1990, 70.1% in 2000
% Hispanic: 7.4% in 1990, 9.6% in 2000
% Asian/Pacific Islander: 13.2% in 1990, 17.7% in 2000
% African American: 3.0% in 1990, 2.3% in 2000
The proportion African American declined (the number of African Americans stayed essentially the same but the city grew), but as a whole Davis generally became less white and more Asian and Hispanic.
nostalgia for Davis as a community, a place with economic, racial and cultural diversity
Rich is right that Davis has become more diverse. Just comparing the 1990 and 2000 Census data for Davis (available online):
% White: 79.7% in 1990, 70.1% in 2000
% Hispanic: 7.4% in 1990, 9.6% in 2000
% Asian/Pacific Islander: 13.2% in 1990, 17.7% in 2000
% African American: 3.0% in 1990, 2.3% in 2000
The proportion African American declined (the number of African Americans stayed essentially the same but the city grew), but as a whole Davis generally became less white and more Asian and Hispanic.
“Just comparing the 1990 and 2000 Census data for Davis.”
I don’t know what the actual ethnic/racial numbers were in the 1970 census for Davis — I imagine they are available in book form, if not online — but this is my guess:
% White: 70.1% in 2000; 93.6% in 1970
% Hispanic*: 9.6% in 2000; 2.8% in 1970
% Asian/Pacific Islander: 17.7% in 2000; 2.1% in 1970
% African American: 2.3% in 2000; 1.5% in 1970
In terms of household employment, far more Davis families back then were directly tied to the University, either as academics or staff, than is the case today. (Very few back then commuted to Sacramento for work, save the people in El Macero.)
* Hispanic is an interesting demographic question 37 years ago. Back then, just outside of Davis, there was a substantial itinerant labor population of Mexican farmworkers. I don’t know if or how they were counted in a census count. However, it was not uncommon to have some children of the farmworkers enroll in the Davis schools for part of the school year.
Of course, there continues to be a population of itinerant farmworkers in California. But due to the mechanization of farming, especially in our immediate area, the numbers of farmworkers today around Davis is much smaller than it used to be.
“Just comparing the 1990 and 2000 Census data for Davis.”
I don’t know what the actual ethnic/racial numbers were in the 1970 census for Davis — I imagine they are available in book form, if not online — but this is my guess:
% White: 70.1% in 2000; 93.6% in 1970
% Hispanic*: 9.6% in 2000; 2.8% in 1970
% Asian/Pacific Islander: 17.7% in 2000; 2.1% in 1970
% African American: 2.3% in 2000; 1.5% in 1970
In terms of household employment, far more Davis families back then were directly tied to the University, either as academics or staff, than is the case today. (Very few back then commuted to Sacramento for work, save the people in El Macero.)
* Hispanic is an interesting demographic question 37 years ago. Back then, just outside of Davis, there was a substantial itinerant labor population of Mexican farmworkers. I don’t know if or how they were counted in a census count. However, it was not uncommon to have some children of the farmworkers enroll in the Davis schools for part of the school year.
Of course, there continues to be a population of itinerant farmworkers in California. But due to the mechanization of farming, especially in our immediate area, the numbers of farmworkers today around Davis is much smaller than it used to be.
“Just comparing the 1990 and 2000 Census data for Davis.”
I don’t know what the actual ethnic/racial numbers were in the 1970 census for Davis — I imagine they are available in book form, if not online — but this is my guess:
% White: 70.1% in 2000; 93.6% in 1970
% Hispanic*: 9.6% in 2000; 2.8% in 1970
% Asian/Pacific Islander: 17.7% in 2000; 2.1% in 1970
% African American: 2.3% in 2000; 1.5% in 1970
In terms of household employment, far more Davis families back then were directly tied to the University, either as academics or staff, than is the case today. (Very few back then commuted to Sacramento for work, save the people in El Macero.)
* Hispanic is an interesting demographic question 37 years ago. Back then, just outside of Davis, there was a substantial itinerant labor population of Mexican farmworkers. I don’t know if or how they were counted in a census count. However, it was not uncommon to have some children of the farmworkers enroll in the Davis schools for part of the school year.
Of course, there continues to be a population of itinerant farmworkers in California. But due to the mechanization of farming, especially in our immediate area, the numbers of farmworkers today around Davis is much smaller than it used to be.
“Just comparing the 1990 and 2000 Census data for Davis.”
I don’t know what the actual ethnic/racial numbers were in the 1970 census for Davis — I imagine they are available in book form, if not online — but this is my guess:
% White: 70.1% in 2000; 93.6% in 1970
% Hispanic*: 9.6% in 2000; 2.8% in 1970
% Asian/Pacific Islander: 17.7% in 2000; 2.1% in 1970
% African American: 2.3% in 2000; 1.5% in 1970
In terms of household employment, far more Davis families back then were directly tied to the University, either as academics or staff, than is the case today. (Very few back then commuted to Sacramento for work, save the people in El Macero.)
* Hispanic is an interesting demographic question 37 years ago. Back then, just outside of Davis, there was a substantial itinerant labor population of Mexican farmworkers. I don’t know if or how they were counted in a census count. However, it was not uncommon to have some children of the farmworkers enroll in the Davis schools for part of the school year.
Of course, there continues to be a population of itinerant farmworkers in California. But due to the mechanization of farming, especially in our immediate area, the numbers of farmworkers today around Davis is much smaller than it used to be.
As the baby boomers age, many would love to have smaller homes and smaller yards (assuming adult kids move out). The obstacles are the lack of such “creative” housing and the impact of prop 13 property taxes.SAH
As the baby boomers age, many would love to have smaller homes and smaller yards (assuming adult kids move out). The obstacles are the lack of such “creative” housing and the impact of prop 13 property taxes.SAH
As the baby boomers age, many would love to have smaller homes and smaller yards (assuming adult kids move out). The obstacles are the lack of such “creative” housing and the impact of prop 13 property taxes.SAH
As the baby boomers age, many would love to have smaller homes and smaller yards (assuming adult kids move out). The obstacles are the lack of such “creative” housing and the impact of prop 13 property taxes.SAH
Brian 4.07:
I don’t wish to pigeonhole anyone — I just think it’s difficult to make assumptions about what people might want.
At the highest level of density — downtown apartment living — I think the market for this in Davis is limited basically to students. If I’m a single professional who likes the idea of a downtown apartment, I’d live somewhere with more of a downtown, like Berkeley — even if it mean commuting to Davis.
There is also the large undeveloped property between East 8th Street and Loyola Drive — recently vacated by death of the owner, I think. That seems like a slam-dunk for housing.
Brian 4.07:
I don’t wish to pigeonhole anyone — I just think it’s difficult to make assumptions about what people might want.
At the highest level of density — downtown apartment living — I think the market for this in Davis is limited basically to students. If I’m a single professional who likes the idea of a downtown apartment, I’d live somewhere with more of a downtown, like Berkeley — even if it mean commuting to Davis.
There is also the large undeveloped property between East 8th Street and Loyola Drive — recently vacated by death of the owner, I think. That seems like a slam-dunk for housing.
Brian 4.07:
I don’t wish to pigeonhole anyone — I just think it’s difficult to make assumptions about what people might want.
At the highest level of density — downtown apartment living — I think the market for this in Davis is limited basically to students. If I’m a single professional who likes the idea of a downtown apartment, I’d live somewhere with more of a downtown, like Berkeley — even if it mean commuting to Davis.
There is also the large undeveloped property between East 8th Street and Loyola Drive — recently vacated by death of the owner, I think. That seems like a slam-dunk for housing.
Brian 4.07:
I don’t wish to pigeonhole anyone — I just think it’s difficult to make assumptions about what people might want.
At the highest level of density — downtown apartment living — I think the market for this in Davis is limited basically to students. If I’m a single professional who likes the idea of a downtown apartment, I’d live somewhere with more of a downtown, like Berkeley — even if it mean commuting to Davis.
There is also the large undeveloped property between East 8th Street and Loyola Drive — recently vacated by death of the owner, I think. That seems like a slam-dunk for housing.
Now that elections are over, it will be difficult to convince the City Council majority that they are not the arbiters in this town of all things right and relevant. They will assume they now have a mandate to do whatever they want. All of us who disagree need to make sure we remain vocal, BIG TIME! If we do not, then the mess you see with our school district will spill over to the city.
1. Maintain & improve the infrastructure. THE CITY DID NOTHING WHILE LANDLORDS ALLOWED B STREET HOMES AND WESTLAKE SHOPPING CENTER TO DETERIORATE. HOWEVER, THE ROADS AND PARKS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED FAIRLY WELL, BUT THE FUTURE LOOKS GRIM, SINCE THESE COSTS HAVE NOT BEEN FACTORED INTO THE BUDGET EQUATION. THE CITY COUNCIL MAJORITY IS ALLOWING THE BUDGET TO BE GAMED TO SHOW IT IS BALANCED, WHEN CLEARLY IT IS NOT IF THERE ARE A SLEW OF CRITICAL UNMET NEEDS.
2. Achieve long-term financial stability. NOT HAPPENING – ESPECIALLY WITH THE CREATIVE BOOKKEEPING THAT IS BEING ALLOWED TO GO ON. I WOULD SUGGEST THE COUNCIL MAJORITY SHOULD THINK ABOUT THEIR LONG TERM POLITICAL GOALS AND HOW BAD IT WOULD LOOK IF THEY LEAVE THE CITY IN A FISCAL CRISIS. TIME TO GET UNMET NEEDS FACTORED BACK INTO THE BUDGET.
3. Enhance the vitality of the downtown. NOT SURE HERE. SEEMS AS IF THE BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN ARE THRIVING FAIRLY WELL. IF THERE IS SUCH A PARKING PROBLEM, THEN THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE AN INDICATION OF A BRISK BUSINESS? TARGET COULD ACTUALLY ENHANCE THE DOWNTOWN, IF A SHUTTLE RUNS BETWEEN THE TWO AND THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES DON’T DO WHAT AVID READER DID WHEN TRYING TO KEEP OUT BORDERS. TARGET AND THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES ARE TARGETED (PARDON THE PUN) TO A DIFFERENT MARKET. TARGET IS MORE A COMPETITION TO LOCAL DRUG STORES THAN ANYTHING ELSE, OR MAYBE BOOK STORES. BUT DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES TEND TO BE SPECIALTY STORES OR RESTAURANTS – WHICH SEEMS TO WORK.
4. Provide a mix of high-quality housing to meet community needs. YES AND NO. SOME HOUSING CERTAINLY HAS MET COMMUMITY NEEDS, BUT MUCH HAS MET THE NEEDS OF LOW INCOME FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY. THE ISSUE OF HOUSING IS A COMPLICATED ONE, AND THE HOUSING STEERING COMMITTEE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. ONLY TROUBLE IS THE COMMITTEE WAS HAND-PICKED BY CITY COUNCIL, WHICH LEFT MUCH OF THE COMMUNITY OUT OF THE PLANNING PICTURE. UNFORTUNATE, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE PEOPLE POWER THAT COMES WITH MEASURE J. IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE CITY COUNCIL TO THINK MORE ALONG THE LINES OF GETTING COMMUNITY INPUT BEFORE SUPPORTING DEVELOPER INTERESTS. DEVELOPERS WILL EVEN HAVE AN EASIER TIME THAT WAY!
5. Conserve natural resources and protect the environment. CITY HAS GONE OVERBOARD ON THIS. GLOBAL WARMING IS PC RIGHT NOW, TOMORROW SOME OTHER ISSUE WILL BE PC. A CITY BAN ON SELLING BOTTLED WATER HAS TO BE ONE OF THE SILLIEST ORDINANCES I HAVE EVER WITNESSED. ALL IT DID WAS FORCE CITY FACILITIES LIKE THE POOLS TO SELL WATER IN STYROFOAM CUPS. NOW HOW SENSIBLE IS THAT. OH, AND THINK ABOUT THE SILLY DECISION TO ADD A THIRD CONTAINER FOR YARD WASTE – THAT WAS SCRAPPED AS UNWORKABLE. AS THE CITY STRUGGLES TO THINK UP WAYS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS NOT GRAPPLING WITH REAL ISSUES. SOLAR PANELS? WHAT, THE CITY OF DAVIS IS GOING TO INSIST NEW HOUSING COME WITH IT? ALL THAT WILL DO IS DRIVE UP THE COST OF HOUSING. THE CITY OF DAVIS PAY FOR SOLAR PANELS AS BERKELEY IS DOING? HOW CAN DAVIS AFFORD THAT? IT WILL BANKRUPT US MUCH AS WHAT HAPPENED IN VALLEJO. THE CITY CAN DO SOME SMALL THINGS TO CONSERVE WATER AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT SHOULD ABANDON THIS CONCEPT. LET THE FEDS DECIDE GAS MILEAGE LIMITS FOR CARS, ETC.
6. Ensure top quality fire, police, and emergency services. WE HAVE THAT, JUST NOT ENOUGH. YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH. BUT CAN THE CITY AFFORD MORE? IT CANNOT AFFORD WHAT IT HAS.
7. Ensure organizational strength. OH BOY, AND HAS THE CITY COUNCIL DONE THAT IN SPADES. THE COUNCIL MAJORITY HAS BEEN VERY GOOD AT CONSOLIDATING THEIR POWER, AND IT IS GOING TO GET WORSE BECAUSE OF THE RECENT WIN OF THE INCUMBENTS. PROCESS IS CIRCUMVENTED CONSTANTLY, WITH UTTER ABANDON – AND WILL NOW HAPPEN MORE OFTEN. CITY STAFF WILL BE DRUNK WITH POWER NOW, AS INEPT AS THEY ARE. NOT GOOD.
8. Promote economic development. MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE. GETTING TARGET WAS A FIRST STEP. WE NEED MORE BUSINESS IN THIS TOWN TO GENERATE MUCH NEEDED TAX REVENUE TO PAY FOR ALL THE SERVICES DAVIS PROVIDES.
THE CITY IS HEADED FOR FISCAL TROUBLE. THE CURRENT COUNCIL MAJORITY BETTER WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE – OR A BUDGET CRISIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN ON THEIR WATCH. THE CITY NEEDS TO STOP SPENDING SO MUCH, BUDGET IN UNMET NEEDS, AND ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. MORE NEW HOUSING WILL ONLY EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM, BY CREATING THE NEED FOR MORE SERVICES WE CANNOT PAY FOR.
Now that elections are over, it will be difficult to convince the City Council majority that they are not the arbiters in this town of all things right and relevant. They will assume they now have a mandate to do whatever they want. All of us who disagree need to make sure we remain vocal, BIG TIME! If we do not, then the mess you see with our school district will spill over to the city.
1. Maintain & improve the infrastructure. THE CITY DID NOTHING WHILE LANDLORDS ALLOWED B STREET HOMES AND WESTLAKE SHOPPING CENTER TO DETERIORATE. HOWEVER, THE ROADS AND PARKS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED FAIRLY WELL, BUT THE FUTURE LOOKS GRIM, SINCE THESE COSTS HAVE NOT BEEN FACTORED INTO THE BUDGET EQUATION. THE CITY COUNCIL MAJORITY IS ALLOWING THE BUDGET TO BE GAMED TO SHOW IT IS BALANCED, WHEN CLEARLY IT IS NOT IF THERE ARE A SLEW OF CRITICAL UNMET NEEDS.
2. Achieve long-term financial stability. NOT HAPPENING – ESPECIALLY WITH THE CREATIVE BOOKKEEPING THAT IS BEING ALLOWED TO GO ON. I WOULD SUGGEST THE COUNCIL MAJORITY SHOULD THINK ABOUT THEIR LONG TERM POLITICAL GOALS AND HOW BAD IT WOULD LOOK IF THEY LEAVE THE CITY IN A FISCAL CRISIS. TIME TO GET UNMET NEEDS FACTORED BACK INTO THE BUDGET.
3. Enhance the vitality of the downtown. NOT SURE HERE. SEEMS AS IF THE BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN ARE THRIVING FAIRLY WELL. IF THERE IS SUCH A PARKING PROBLEM, THEN THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE AN INDICATION OF A BRISK BUSINESS? TARGET COULD ACTUALLY ENHANCE THE DOWNTOWN, IF A SHUTTLE RUNS BETWEEN THE TWO AND THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES DON’T DO WHAT AVID READER DID WHEN TRYING TO KEEP OUT BORDERS. TARGET AND THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES ARE TARGETED (PARDON THE PUN) TO A DIFFERENT MARKET. TARGET IS MORE A COMPETITION TO LOCAL DRUG STORES THAN ANYTHING ELSE, OR MAYBE BOOK STORES. BUT DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES TEND TO BE SPECIALTY STORES OR RESTAURANTS – WHICH SEEMS TO WORK.
4. Provide a mix of high-quality housing to meet community needs. YES AND NO. SOME HOUSING CERTAINLY HAS MET COMMUMITY NEEDS, BUT MUCH HAS MET THE NEEDS OF LOW INCOME FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY. THE ISSUE OF HOUSING IS A COMPLICATED ONE, AND THE HOUSING STEERING COMMITTEE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. ONLY TROUBLE IS THE COMMITTEE WAS HAND-PICKED BY CITY COUNCIL, WHICH LEFT MUCH OF THE COMMUNITY OUT OF THE PLANNING PICTURE. UNFORTUNATE, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE PEOPLE POWER THAT COMES WITH MEASURE J. IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE CITY COUNCIL TO THINK MORE ALONG THE LINES OF GETTING COMMUNITY INPUT BEFORE SUPPORTING DEVELOPER INTERESTS. DEVELOPERS WILL EVEN HAVE AN EASIER TIME THAT WAY!
5. Conserve natural resources and protect the environment. CITY HAS GONE OVERBOARD ON THIS. GLOBAL WARMING IS PC RIGHT NOW, TOMORROW SOME OTHER ISSUE WILL BE PC. A CITY BAN ON SELLING BOTTLED WATER HAS TO BE ONE OF THE SILLIEST ORDINANCES I HAVE EVER WITNESSED. ALL IT DID WAS FORCE CITY FACILITIES LIKE THE POOLS TO SELL WATER IN STYROFOAM CUPS. NOW HOW SENSIBLE IS THAT. OH, AND THINK ABOUT THE SILLY DECISION TO ADD A THIRD CONTAINER FOR YARD WASTE – THAT WAS SCRAPPED AS UNWORKABLE. AS THE CITY STRUGGLES TO THINK UP WAYS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS NOT GRAPPLING WITH REAL ISSUES. SOLAR PANELS? WHAT, THE CITY OF DAVIS IS GOING TO INSIST NEW HOUSING COME WITH IT? ALL THAT WILL DO IS DRIVE UP THE COST OF HOUSING. THE CITY OF DAVIS PAY FOR SOLAR PANELS AS BERKELEY IS DOING? HOW CAN DAVIS AFFORD THAT? IT WILL BANKRUPT US MUCH AS WHAT HAPPENED IN VALLEJO. THE CITY CAN DO SOME SMALL THINGS TO CONSERVE WATER AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT SHOULD ABANDON THIS CONCEPT. LET THE FEDS DECIDE GAS MILEAGE LIMITS FOR CARS, ETC.
6. Ensure top quality fire, police, and emergency services. WE HAVE THAT, JUST NOT ENOUGH. YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH. BUT CAN THE CITY AFFORD MORE? IT CANNOT AFFORD WHAT IT HAS.
7. Ensure organizational strength. OH BOY, AND HAS THE CITY COUNCIL DONE THAT IN SPADES. THE COUNCIL MAJORITY HAS BEEN VERY GOOD AT CONSOLIDATING THEIR POWER, AND IT IS GOING TO GET WORSE BECAUSE OF THE RECENT WIN OF THE INCUMBENTS. PROCESS IS CIRCUMVENTED CONSTANTLY, WITH UTTER ABANDON – AND WILL NOW HAPPEN MORE OFTEN. CITY STAFF WILL BE DRUNK WITH POWER NOW, AS INEPT AS THEY ARE. NOT GOOD.
8. Promote economic development. MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE. GETTING TARGET WAS A FIRST STEP. WE NEED MORE BUSINESS IN THIS TOWN TO GENERATE MUCH NEEDED TAX REVENUE TO PAY FOR ALL THE SERVICES DAVIS PROVIDES.
THE CITY IS HEADED FOR FISCAL TROUBLE. THE CURRENT COUNCIL MAJORITY BETTER WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE – OR A BUDGET CRISIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN ON THEIR WATCH. THE CITY NEEDS TO STOP SPENDING SO MUCH, BUDGET IN UNMET NEEDS, AND ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. MORE NEW HOUSING WILL ONLY EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM, BY CREATING THE NEED FOR MORE SERVICES WE CANNOT PAY FOR.
Now that elections are over, it will be difficult to convince the City Council majority that they are not the arbiters in this town of all things right and relevant. They will assume they now have a mandate to do whatever they want. All of us who disagree need to make sure we remain vocal, BIG TIME! If we do not, then the mess you see with our school district will spill over to the city.
1. Maintain & improve the infrastructure. THE CITY DID NOTHING WHILE LANDLORDS ALLOWED B STREET HOMES AND WESTLAKE SHOPPING CENTER TO DETERIORATE. HOWEVER, THE ROADS AND PARKS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED FAIRLY WELL, BUT THE FUTURE LOOKS GRIM, SINCE THESE COSTS HAVE NOT BEEN FACTORED INTO THE BUDGET EQUATION. THE CITY COUNCIL MAJORITY IS ALLOWING THE BUDGET TO BE GAMED TO SHOW IT IS BALANCED, WHEN CLEARLY IT IS NOT IF THERE ARE A SLEW OF CRITICAL UNMET NEEDS.
2. Achieve long-term financial stability. NOT HAPPENING – ESPECIALLY WITH THE CREATIVE BOOKKEEPING THAT IS BEING ALLOWED TO GO ON. I WOULD SUGGEST THE COUNCIL MAJORITY SHOULD THINK ABOUT THEIR LONG TERM POLITICAL GOALS AND HOW BAD IT WOULD LOOK IF THEY LEAVE THE CITY IN A FISCAL CRISIS. TIME TO GET UNMET NEEDS FACTORED BACK INTO THE BUDGET.
3. Enhance the vitality of the downtown. NOT SURE HERE. SEEMS AS IF THE BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN ARE THRIVING FAIRLY WELL. IF THERE IS SUCH A PARKING PROBLEM, THEN THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE AN INDICATION OF A BRISK BUSINESS? TARGET COULD ACTUALLY ENHANCE THE DOWNTOWN, IF A SHUTTLE RUNS BETWEEN THE TWO AND THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES DON’T DO WHAT AVID READER DID WHEN TRYING TO KEEP OUT BORDERS. TARGET AND THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES ARE TARGETED (PARDON THE PUN) TO A DIFFERENT MARKET. TARGET IS MORE A COMPETITION TO LOCAL DRUG STORES THAN ANYTHING ELSE, OR MAYBE BOOK STORES. BUT DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES TEND TO BE SPECIALTY STORES OR RESTAURANTS – WHICH SEEMS TO WORK.
4. Provide a mix of high-quality housing to meet community needs. YES AND NO. SOME HOUSING CERTAINLY HAS MET COMMUMITY NEEDS, BUT MUCH HAS MET THE NEEDS OF LOW INCOME FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY. THE ISSUE OF HOUSING IS A COMPLICATED ONE, AND THE HOUSING STEERING COMMITTEE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. ONLY TROUBLE IS THE COMMITTEE WAS HAND-PICKED BY CITY COUNCIL, WHICH LEFT MUCH OF THE COMMUNITY OUT OF THE PLANNING PICTURE. UNFORTUNATE, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE PEOPLE POWER THAT COMES WITH MEASURE J. IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE CITY COUNCIL TO THINK MORE ALONG THE LINES OF GETTING COMMUNITY INPUT BEFORE SUPPORTING DEVELOPER INTERESTS. DEVELOPERS WILL EVEN HAVE AN EASIER TIME THAT WAY!
5. Conserve natural resources and protect the environment. CITY HAS GONE OVERBOARD ON THIS. GLOBAL WARMING IS PC RIGHT NOW, TOMORROW SOME OTHER ISSUE WILL BE PC. A CITY BAN ON SELLING BOTTLED WATER HAS TO BE ONE OF THE SILLIEST ORDINANCES I HAVE EVER WITNESSED. ALL IT DID WAS FORCE CITY FACILITIES LIKE THE POOLS TO SELL WATER IN STYROFOAM CUPS. NOW HOW SENSIBLE IS THAT. OH, AND THINK ABOUT THE SILLY DECISION TO ADD A THIRD CONTAINER FOR YARD WASTE – THAT WAS SCRAPPED AS UNWORKABLE. AS THE CITY STRUGGLES TO THINK UP WAYS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS NOT GRAPPLING WITH REAL ISSUES. SOLAR PANELS? WHAT, THE CITY OF DAVIS IS GOING TO INSIST NEW HOUSING COME WITH IT? ALL THAT WILL DO IS DRIVE UP THE COST OF HOUSING. THE CITY OF DAVIS PAY FOR SOLAR PANELS AS BERKELEY IS DOING? HOW CAN DAVIS AFFORD THAT? IT WILL BANKRUPT US MUCH AS WHAT HAPPENED IN VALLEJO. THE CITY CAN DO SOME SMALL THINGS TO CONSERVE WATER AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT SHOULD ABANDON THIS CONCEPT. LET THE FEDS DECIDE GAS MILEAGE LIMITS FOR CARS, ETC.
6. Ensure top quality fire, police, and emergency services. WE HAVE THAT, JUST NOT ENOUGH. YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH. BUT CAN THE CITY AFFORD MORE? IT CANNOT AFFORD WHAT IT HAS.
7. Ensure organizational strength. OH BOY, AND HAS THE CITY COUNCIL DONE THAT IN SPADES. THE COUNCIL MAJORITY HAS BEEN VERY GOOD AT CONSOLIDATING THEIR POWER, AND IT IS GOING TO GET WORSE BECAUSE OF THE RECENT WIN OF THE INCUMBENTS. PROCESS IS CIRCUMVENTED CONSTANTLY, WITH UTTER ABANDON – AND WILL NOW HAPPEN MORE OFTEN. CITY STAFF WILL BE DRUNK WITH POWER NOW, AS INEPT AS THEY ARE. NOT GOOD.
8. Promote economic development. MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE. GETTING TARGET WAS A FIRST STEP. WE NEED MORE BUSINESS IN THIS TOWN TO GENERATE MUCH NEEDED TAX REVENUE TO PAY FOR ALL THE SERVICES DAVIS PROVIDES.
THE CITY IS HEADED FOR FISCAL TROUBLE. THE CURRENT COUNCIL MAJORITY BETTER WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE – OR A BUDGET CRISIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN ON THEIR WATCH. THE CITY NEEDS TO STOP SPENDING SO MUCH, BUDGET IN UNMET NEEDS, AND ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. MORE NEW HOUSING WILL ONLY EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM, BY CREATING THE NEED FOR MORE SERVICES WE CANNOT PAY FOR.
Now that elections are over, it will be difficult to convince the City Council majority that they are not the arbiters in this town of all things right and relevant. They will assume they now have a mandate to do whatever they want. All of us who disagree need to make sure we remain vocal, BIG TIME! If we do not, then the mess you see with our school district will spill over to the city.
1. Maintain & improve the infrastructure. THE CITY DID NOTHING WHILE LANDLORDS ALLOWED B STREET HOMES AND WESTLAKE SHOPPING CENTER TO DETERIORATE. HOWEVER, THE ROADS AND PARKS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED FAIRLY WELL, BUT THE FUTURE LOOKS GRIM, SINCE THESE COSTS HAVE NOT BEEN FACTORED INTO THE BUDGET EQUATION. THE CITY COUNCIL MAJORITY IS ALLOWING THE BUDGET TO BE GAMED TO SHOW IT IS BALANCED, WHEN CLEARLY IT IS NOT IF THERE ARE A SLEW OF CRITICAL UNMET NEEDS.
2. Achieve long-term financial stability. NOT HAPPENING – ESPECIALLY WITH THE CREATIVE BOOKKEEPING THAT IS BEING ALLOWED TO GO ON. I WOULD SUGGEST THE COUNCIL MAJORITY SHOULD THINK ABOUT THEIR LONG TERM POLITICAL GOALS AND HOW BAD IT WOULD LOOK IF THEY LEAVE THE CITY IN A FISCAL CRISIS. TIME TO GET UNMET NEEDS FACTORED BACK INTO THE BUDGET.
3. Enhance the vitality of the downtown. NOT SURE HERE. SEEMS AS IF THE BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN ARE THRIVING FAIRLY WELL. IF THERE IS SUCH A PARKING PROBLEM, THEN THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE AN INDICATION OF A BRISK BUSINESS? TARGET COULD ACTUALLY ENHANCE THE DOWNTOWN, IF A SHUTTLE RUNS BETWEEN THE TWO AND THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES DON’T DO WHAT AVID READER DID WHEN TRYING TO KEEP OUT BORDERS. TARGET AND THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES ARE TARGETED (PARDON THE PUN) TO A DIFFERENT MARKET. TARGET IS MORE A COMPETITION TO LOCAL DRUG STORES THAN ANYTHING ELSE, OR MAYBE BOOK STORES. BUT DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES TEND TO BE SPECIALTY STORES OR RESTAURANTS – WHICH SEEMS TO WORK.
4. Provide a mix of high-quality housing to meet community needs. YES AND NO. SOME HOUSING CERTAINLY HAS MET COMMUMITY NEEDS, BUT MUCH HAS MET THE NEEDS OF LOW INCOME FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY. THE ISSUE OF HOUSING IS A COMPLICATED ONE, AND THE HOUSING STEERING COMMITTEE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. ONLY TROUBLE IS THE COMMITTEE WAS HAND-PICKED BY CITY COUNCIL, WHICH LEFT MUCH OF THE COMMUNITY OUT OF THE PLANNING PICTURE. UNFORTUNATE, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE PEOPLE POWER THAT COMES WITH MEASURE J. IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE CITY COUNCIL TO THINK MORE ALONG THE LINES OF GETTING COMMUNITY INPUT BEFORE SUPPORTING DEVELOPER INTERESTS. DEVELOPERS WILL EVEN HAVE AN EASIER TIME THAT WAY!
5. Conserve natural resources and protect the environment. CITY HAS GONE OVERBOARD ON THIS. GLOBAL WARMING IS PC RIGHT NOW, TOMORROW SOME OTHER ISSUE WILL BE PC. A CITY BAN ON SELLING BOTTLED WATER HAS TO BE ONE OF THE SILLIEST ORDINANCES I HAVE EVER WITNESSED. ALL IT DID WAS FORCE CITY FACILITIES LIKE THE POOLS TO SELL WATER IN STYROFOAM CUPS. NOW HOW SENSIBLE IS THAT. OH, AND THINK ABOUT THE SILLY DECISION TO ADD A THIRD CONTAINER FOR YARD WASTE – THAT WAS SCRAPPED AS UNWORKABLE. AS THE CITY STRUGGLES TO THINK UP WAYS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS NOT GRAPPLING WITH REAL ISSUES. SOLAR PANELS? WHAT, THE CITY OF DAVIS IS GOING TO INSIST NEW HOUSING COME WITH IT? ALL THAT WILL DO IS DRIVE UP THE COST OF HOUSING. THE CITY OF DAVIS PAY FOR SOLAR PANELS AS BERKELEY IS DOING? HOW CAN DAVIS AFFORD THAT? IT WILL BANKRUPT US MUCH AS WHAT HAPPENED IN VALLEJO. THE CITY CAN DO SOME SMALL THINGS TO CONSERVE WATER AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT SHOULD ABANDON THIS CONCEPT. LET THE FEDS DECIDE GAS MILEAGE LIMITS FOR CARS, ETC.
6. Ensure top quality fire, police, and emergency services. WE HAVE THAT, JUST NOT ENOUGH. YOU CAN NEVER HAVE ENOUGH. BUT CAN THE CITY AFFORD MORE? IT CANNOT AFFORD WHAT IT HAS.
7. Ensure organizational strength. OH BOY, AND HAS THE CITY COUNCIL DONE THAT IN SPADES. THE COUNCIL MAJORITY HAS BEEN VERY GOOD AT CONSOLIDATING THEIR POWER, AND IT IS GOING TO GET WORSE BECAUSE OF THE RECENT WIN OF THE INCUMBENTS. PROCESS IS CIRCUMVENTED CONSTANTLY, WITH UTTER ABANDON – AND WILL NOW HAPPEN MORE OFTEN. CITY STAFF WILL BE DRUNK WITH POWER NOW, AS INEPT AS THEY ARE. NOT GOOD.
8. Promote economic development. MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE. GETTING TARGET WAS A FIRST STEP. WE NEED MORE BUSINESS IN THIS TOWN TO GENERATE MUCH NEEDED TAX REVENUE TO PAY FOR ALL THE SERVICES DAVIS PROVIDES.
THE CITY IS HEADED FOR FISCAL TROUBLE. THE CURRENT COUNCIL MAJORITY BETTER WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE – OR A BUDGET CRISIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN ON THEIR WATCH. THE CITY NEEDS TO STOP SPENDING SO MUCH, BUDGET IN UNMET NEEDS, AND ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. MORE NEW HOUSING WILL ONLY EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM, BY CREATING THE NEED FOR MORE SERVICES WE CANNOT PAY FOR.
Whoever posted the above (6/6 9:08), it is an older post of mine from a different column of DPD’s. I am flattered that someone thought enough of my opinion to copy it to this discussion. The main thrust is that before we talk extensively about more housing, we need to talk about fiscal stability above all else.
Whoever posted the above (6/6 9:08), it is an older post of mine from a different column of DPD’s. I am flattered that someone thought enough of my opinion to copy it to this discussion. The main thrust is that before we talk extensively about more housing, we need to talk about fiscal stability above all else.
Whoever posted the above (6/6 9:08), it is an older post of mine from a different column of DPD’s. I am flattered that someone thought enough of my opinion to copy it to this discussion. The main thrust is that before we talk extensively about more housing, we need to talk about fiscal stability above all else.
Whoever posted the above (6/6 9:08), it is an older post of mine from a different column of DPD’s. I am flattered that someone thought enough of my opinion to copy it to this discussion. The main thrust is that before we talk extensively about more housing, we need to talk about fiscal stability above all else.