As most people reading this undoubtedly know, Covell Village was the site of the first ever Measure J vote that would convert prime, class 1, agricultural land on the periphery of Davis at the intersection of Covell and Poleline into a housing development. The voters in November of 2005 overwhelmingly rejected the project by nearly a 60-40 margin. However, the Covell Partners, on this evening led by John Whitcombe, are bringing it back in a scaled down version.
The most alarming statement came from staff who suggested that according to City Attorney Harriet Steiner and City Manager Bill Emlen, if the Covell Property were combined with the adjacent Lewis Property (site of Hunt-Wesson), it would not need a Measure J vote. I have to greet that assertion with a good deal of skepticism.
According to John Whitcombe, instead of an 1800 unit project of single family homes designed to be affordable for families (if your family can afford 600,000 dollar homes), this will be an 800 unit site for senior housing complete with greenbelt access and oriented toward bikes, pedestrians, and electric vehicles. And, the seniors will have access to yet another golf course.
Mr. Whitcombe even stole a page from the Tsakapolous Stem Cell project, bringing in a geriatric medicine researcher to sell us on the need for a senior site that would provide housing and at-home medical facilities for seniors. Nevermind that the big need in housing is for new families. Nevermind that according to many on the Senior Citizens Commission we do not need Senior Housing, particularly on the periphery. Nevermind that these were many of the same reasons the proposal at Oeste Ranch was opposed by so many in this community.
The proponents of this offered several advantages to building on this property including that it is the peripheral property closest to the core of Davis, it would be contiguous with the city on three sides, it would free up other larger lots to go for families, and it would enable the completion of the greenbelt bikeway access across the northern part of town. Moreover, they argued it would create a permanent ag buffer along the northern line of the city to create an urban limit line.
One of the more interesting arguments came from Kevin Wolf, one of the chief proponents of the Measure X ballot measure in 2005 and chair of the committee. Mr. Wolf argued that by creating this development it would produce enough money to enable the city to fix the interection of Covell and Poleline that is going to be even more stressed with future traffic.
However, skeptics, and you can count me as one of them, argue that you are not going to fix that intersection by producing even more residences along the intersection. Furthermore you have at the Woodland end of Poleline the new massive Spring Lake Development, the new Costco, the Super-Target and other commercial developments that will greatly increase the traffic.
Furthermore, there is a question about how much revenue that this will produce because as county land, only a portion of the tax revenue goes to the city, even if annexed to the city.
Then, there are further problems of pollution that are exacerbated if they are planning to put seniors on that site. There is the wastewater treatment issue that sounds like a very big issue. Furthermore, other problems include a limited access to the site, previous agreements on housing mitigation along the Poleline corridor, and it’s proximity to a flood plain.
Most vexing to me, is that the previous proposal was defeated handily by the voters of Davis. It has been less than two years and the developers cannot wait to go at it again. This is, class one, prime agricultural land, the infrastructure and access is extremely problematic. I understand the contiguity issue and the lure of having the core of Davis relatively close, but given these other issues, this is not a good place to build new housing, and I particularly have a problem with it being a senior housing project, which does nothing to solve the larger housing problems. So, they would develop this spot and still be looking for tracts for affordable and family housing. That makes no sense to me.
Overwhelmingly given the nature of the committee, this was approved, but the fight for this will go on for quite some time.
Meanwhile the Nishi property holds many strong allures to those looking to build high density housing near the city core. Kevin Wolf spoke very strongly about building this into a very high density property with over 1000 units, five to six story buildings, but no access to the Richards Blvd. This was a way to show as an example how new urbanism with environmentally friendly densification at the core would reduce the need for traffic. Or so he proposed.
But it’s not clear that you can deny access to Richards Blvd, nor should you. The problem here is that they will be adding a large amount of traffic potentially to the Richards underpass as the only traffic outlet from this property to the core.
Proponents argued that it’s proximity to the university and to bike paths leading directly onto campus make this an ideal spot for student housing.
However, there were a number of unrealistic assumptions brought into this discussion and it seemed clear as people such as Mark Spencer suggested there would need to be university buy-in to make access from this property by vehicle onto campus.
The assumption is that by providing housing here, less people would drive from the highway to campus via Richards. On the other hand, it is not clear what it would do to existing traffic flows to add a large number of people making a left at the Olive Blvd. intersection.
The problems of traffic and access are prohibitive. Several said problems with parking could be mitigated by charging for parking spots. It is my experience that this will not get students to give up their cars, rather it might impact the ability to rent the units at market rate since parking would become a built-in cost. Students indeed like easy access to campus and may utilize bikes. But, students also like the ability to leave town via the car and the idea that we could reduce traffic flow by adding housing seems to be very optimistic.
Another problem is that without an extremely high density housing, the project is not viable. So they are talking about a minimum of 462 units and now a high point of 770 or higher. The talk was of sacrificing views in favor of land preservation. Density is a laudable goal, particularly near the core, but this is an area that is characterized by bungalows and now they are talking about 5 or six story buildings?
Given the present design this seems like an attractive location–it’s close to campus, close to the core, close to the highway, not building on prime agricultural land, but the problem of access and traffic could be fatal. Nevertheless, the committee overwhelmingly and enthusiastically endorsed the spot. I suspect the community will view this somewhat more circumspectly.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Covell Village should be commercial, if anything. The Hunt Wesson property should remain industrial. It is the only such property in Davis.
Covell Village should be commercial, if anything. The Hunt Wesson property should remain industrial. It is the only such property in Davis.
Covell Village should be commercial, if anything. The Hunt Wesson property should remain industrial. It is the only such property in Davis.
Covell Village should be commercial, if anything. The Hunt Wesson property should remain industrial. It is the only such property in Davis.
This is a slap in the face of the 60% that voted NO ON X. The Housing Element Committee reminds me of the Supreme Court that elected President Bush instead of ordering Florida to count its ballots to determine who really won the election. Please list the names of all of the HEC and how they voted on these developments. Talking about illogical, how can a high rise on the Nishi property that adds 1000 population right off I-80 next to the core be considered a good idea by any senseable person? Do we need to start now to deal with yet another sugar coated developer scheme?
Richard Livingston
NO ON X Campaign Manager
This is a slap in the face of the 60% that voted NO ON X. The Housing Element Committee reminds me of the Supreme Court that elected President Bush instead of ordering Florida to count its ballots to determine who really won the election. Please list the names of all of the HEC and how they voted on these developments. Talking about illogical, how can a high rise on the Nishi property that adds 1000 population right off I-80 next to the core be considered a good idea by any senseable person? Do we need to start now to deal with yet another sugar coated developer scheme?
Richard Livingston
NO ON X Campaign Manager
This is a slap in the face of the 60% that voted NO ON X. The Housing Element Committee reminds me of the Supreme Court that elected President Bush instead of ordering Florida to count its ballots to determine who really won the election. Please list the names of all of the HEC and how they voted on these developments. Talking about illogical, how can a high rise on the Nishi property that adds 1000 population right off I-80 next to the core be considered a good idea by any senseable person? Do we need to start now to deal with yet another sugar coated developer scheme?
Richard Livingston
NO ON X Campaign Manager
This is a slap in the face of the 60% that voted NO ON X. The Housing Element Committee reminds me of the Supreme Court that elected President Bush instead of ordering Florida to count its ballots to determine who really won the election. Please list the names of all of the HEC and how they voted on these developments. Talking about illogical, how can a high rise on the Nishi property that adds 1000 population right off I-80 next to the core be considered a good idea by any senseable person? Do we need to start now to deal with yet another sugar coated developer scheme?
Richard Livingston
NO ON X Campaign Manager
The problem with fixing the Poleline – Covell intersection is that there is no place for the traffic to go from there. The Poleline – Covell intersection needs to connect directly to a freeway, otherwise Poleline and L street will have to be converted to an innercity arterial. Covell can’t be used because it is used as the entrance to the Middle School.
Is there any way to get rid of Harriet Steiner’s role as the sixth city council person? She was never elected. She receives far more money than a City Attorney with a civil service position would receive. She is not objective; she is a private attorney hoping to get more business by forcing unwanted development on Davis residents.
The problem with fixing the Poleline – Covell intersection is that there is no place for the traffic to go from there. The Poleline – Covell intersection needs to connect directly to a freeway, otherwise Poleline and L street will have to be converted to an innercity arterial. Covell can’t be used because it is used as the entrance to the Middle School.
Is there any way to get rid of Harriet Steiner’s role as the sixth city council person? She was never elected. She receives far more money than a City Attorney with a civil service position would receive. She is not objective; she is a private attorney hoping to get more business by forcing unwanted development on Davis residents.
The problem with fixing the Poleline – Covell intersection is that there is no place for the traffic to go from there. The Poleline – Covell intersection needs to connect directly to a freeway, otherwise Poleline and L street will have to be converted to an innercity arterial. Covell can’t be used because it is used as the entrance to the Middle School.
Is there any way to get rid of Harriet Steiner’s role as the sixth city council person? She was never elected. She receives far more money than a City Attorney with a civil service position would receive. She is not objective; she is a private attorney hoping to get more business by forcing unwanted development on Davis residents.
The problem with fixing the Poleline – Covell intersection is that there is no place for the traffic to go from there. The Poleline – Covell intersection needs to connect directly to a freeway, otherwise Poleline and L street will have to be converted to an innercity arterial. Covell can’t be used because it is used as the entrance to the Middle School.
Is there any way to get rid of Harriet Steiner’s role as the sixth city council person? She was never elected. She receives far more money than a City Attorney with a civil service position would receive. She is not objective; she is a private attorney hoping to get more business by forcing unwanted development on Davis residents.
So… turn the development land shape 90 degrees from vertical to horizontal and the Davis voters will flock to it? No Measure J vote needed? We all knew it would finally come down to this. The voters of Davis will need to step up and make this decision directly with their 2008 Council vote. Saylor and Souza, both political “carpetbaggers” whose focus is on their own ambitions(political and otherwise) rather than those who elected them, need to go,otherwise, the future is clear.
So… turn the development land shape 90 degrees from vertical to horizontal and the Davis voters will flock to it? No Measure J vote needed? We all knew it would finally come down to this. The voters of Davis will need to step up and make this decision directly with their 2008 Council vote. Saylor and Souza, both political “carpetbaggers” whose focus is on their own ambitions(political and otherwise) rather than those who elected them, need to go,otherwise, the future is clear.
So… turn the development land shape 90 degrees from vertical to horizontal and the Davis voters will flock to it? No Measure J vote needed? We all knew it would finally come down to this. The voters of Davis will need to step up and make this decision directly with their 2008 Council vote. Saylor and Souza, both political “carpetbaggers” whose focus is on their own ambitions(political and otherwise) rather than those who elected them, need to go,otherwise, the future is clear.
So… turn the development land shape 90 degrees from vertical to horizontal and the Davis voters will flock to it? No Measure J vote needed? We all knew it would finally come down to this. The voters of Davis will need to step up and make this decision directly with their 2008 Council vote. Saylor and Souza, both political “carpetbaggers” whose focus is on their own ambitions(political and otherwise) rather than those who elected them, need to go,otherwise, the future is clear.
This is what I saw:
Steering Committee Roster
* Chair: Kevin Wolf–YES
* Vice-Chair: Mark Siegler–NO
* Lucas Frerichs–YES
* Jay Gerber–YES
* Pam Gunnell–YES
* Mike Harrington–NOT PRESENT
* Donna Lott–YES
* Eileen Samitz–NO
* Ellen Shields–YES
* Maynard Skinner–NOT PRESENT
* Mark Spencer–NO
* Kristin Stoneking–YES
* Bob Traverso–YES
* Norma Turner–NOT PRESENT
* Luke Watkins–YES
This is what I saw:
Steering Committee Roster
* Chair: Kevin Wolf–YES
* Vice-Chair: Mark Siegler–NO
* Lucas Frerichs–YES
* Jay Gerber–YES
* Pam Gunnell–YES
* Mike Harrington–NOT PRESENT
* Donna Lott–YES
* Eileen Samitz–NO
* Ellen Shields–YES
* Maynard Skinner–NOT PRESENT
* Mark Spencer–NO
* Kristin Stoneking–YES
* Bob Traverso–YES
* Norma Turner–NOT PRESENT
* Luke Watkins–YES
This is what I saw:
Steering Committee Roster
* Chair: Kevin Wolf–YES
* Vice-Chair: Mark Siegler–NO
* Lucas Frerichs–YES
* Jay Gerber–YES
* Pam Gunnell–YES
* Mike Harrington–NOT PRESENT
* Donna Lott–YES
* Eileen Samitz–NO
* Ellen Shields–YES
* Maynard Skinner–NOT PRESENT
* Mark Spencer–NO
* Kristin Stoneking–YES
* Bob Traverso–YES
* Norma Turner–NOT PRESENT
* Luke Watkins–YES
This is what I saw:
Steering Committee Roster
* Chair: Kevin Wolf–YES
* Vice-Chair: Mark Siegler–NO
* Lucas Frerichs–YES
* Jay Gerber–YES
* Pam Gunnell–YES
* Mike Harrington–NOT PRESENT
* Donna Lott–YES
* Eileen Samitz–NO
* Ellen Shields–YES
* Maynard Skinner–NOT PRESENT
* Mark Spencer–NO
* Kristin Stoneking–YES
* Bob Traverso–YES
* Norma Turner–NOT PRESENT
* Luke Watkins–YES
“Is there any way to get rid of Harriet Steiner’s role as the sixth city council person? “
We can elected a new city council with the guts to clean house. That’s it.
“Is there any way to get rid of Harriet Steiner’s role as the sixth city council person? “
We can elected a new city council with the guts to clean house. That’s it.
“Is there any way to get rid of Harriet Steiner’s role as the sixth city council person? “
We can elected a new city council with the guts to clean house. That’s it.
“Is there any way to get rid of Harriet Steiner’s role as the sixth city council person? “
We can elected a new city council with the guts to clean house. That’s it.
If Covell Village returns again, there may be a fair way to make the property owners pay for wasting the voter’s time. Prepare a resolution which permanently bars ANY development on the property and place it on the same ballot. If we have to got the ballot again so soon, lets make it worthwhile.
Hunt Wesson property is industrial and should always remain so.
If Covell Village returns again, there may be a fair way to make the property owners pay for wasting the voter’s time. Prepare a resolution which permanently bars ANY development on the property and place it on the same ballot. If we have to got the ballot again so soon, lets make it worthwhile.
Hunt Wesson property is industrial and should always remain so.
If Covell Village returns again, there may be a fair way to make the property owners pay for wasting the voter’s time. Prepare a resolution which permanently bars ANY development on the property and place it on the same ballot. If we have to got the ballot again so soon, lets make it worthwhile.
Hunt Wesson property is industrial and should always remain so.
If Covell Village returns again, there may be a fair way to make the property owners pay for wasting the voter’s time. Prepare a resolution which permanently bars ANY development on the property and place it on the same ballot. If we have to got the ballot again so soon, lets make it worthwhile.
Hunt Wesson property is industrial and should always remain so.
“… according to City Attorney Harriet Steiner and City Manager Bill Emlen, if the Covell Property were combined with the adjacent Lewis Property (site of Hunt-Wesson), it would not need a Measure J vote.”
This outrageous insult to the intelligence of the Davis voters warrants looking closely at the future of Davis’ long-time former Development Planning Department head as manager of our city. Harriet Steiner’s legal “opinions” will undoubtedly shift with the desires of the new 2008 Council majority that we will put in place.
“… according to City Attorney Harriet Steiner and City Manager Bill Emlen, if the Covell Property were combined with the adjacent Lewis Property (site of Hunt-Wesson), it would not need a Measure J vote.”
This outrageous insult to the intelligence of the Davis voters warrants looking closely at the future of Davis’ long-time former Development Planning Department head as manager of our city. Harriet Steiner’s legal “opinions” will undoubtedly shift with the desires of the new 2008 Council majority that we will put in place.
“… according to City Attorney Harriet Steiner and City Manager Bill Emlen, if the Covell Property were combined with the adjacent Lewis Property (site of Hunt-Wesson), it would not need a Measure J vote.”
This outrageous insult to the intelligence of the Davis voters warrants looking closely at the future of Davis’ long-time former Development Planning Department head as manager of our city. Harriet Steiner’s legal “opinions” will undoubtedly shift with the desires of the new 2008 Council majority that we will put in place.
“… according to City Attorney Harriet Steiner and City Manager Bill Emlen, if the Covell Property were combined with the adjacent Lewis Property (site of Hunt-Wesson), it would not need a Measure J vote.”
This outrageous insult to the intelligence of the Davis voters warrants looking closely at the future of Davis’ long-time former Development Planning Department head as manager of our city. Harriet Steiner’s legal “opinions” will undoubtedly shift with the desires of the new 2008 Council majority that we will put in place.
Great idea Mike!
Great idea Mike!
Great idea Mike!
Great idea Mike!
That is pretty audacious that the city believes it wouldn’t need a Measure J vote. It’s also humorous that the developers now want to develop senior housing.
I think Mike’s ballot idea is great.
What exactly is the problem with the Poleline-Covell intersection? How would they want to fix it and why can’t they fix it within the existing budget? Isn’t the city soon going to get a lot of state transportationbond funds?
That is pretty audacious that the city believes it wouldn’t need a Measure J vote. It’s also humorous that the developers now want to develop senior housing.
I think Mike’s ballot idea is great.
What exactly is the problem with the Poleline-Covell intersection? How would they want to fix it and why can’t they fix it within the existing budget? Isn’t the city soon going to get a lot of state transportationbond funds?
That is pretty audacious that the city believes it wouldn’t need a Measure J vote. It’s also humorous that the developers now want to develop senior housing.
I think Mike’s ballot idea is great.
What exactly is the problem with the Poleline-Covell intersection? How would they want to fix it and why can’t they fix it within the existing budget? Isn’t the city soon going to get a lot of state transportationbond funds?
That is pretty audacious that the city believes it wouldn’t need a Measure J vote. It’s also humorous that the developers now want to develop senior housing.
I think Mike’s ballot idea is great.
What exactly is the problem with the Poleline-Covell intersection? How would they want to fix it and why can’t they fix it within the existing budget? Isn’t the city soon going to get a lot of state transportationbond funds?
Mortgage foreclosures at historic levels.Housing prices are falling. Experts describe ample future surplus existng housing inventory.Recession fears on the horizon. Let’s continue to grow food on Whitcombe’s property for the next 5-10 years and then look again at its future.
Mortgage foreclosures at historic levels.Housing prices are falling. Experts describe ample future surplus existng housing inventory.Recession fears on the horizon. Let’s continue to grow food on Whitcombe’s property for the next 5-10 years and then look again at its future.
Mortgage foreclosures at historic levels.Housing prices are falling. Experts describe ample future surplus existng housing inventory.Recession fears on the horizon. Let’s continue to grow food on Whitcombe’s property for the next 5-10 years and then look again at its future.
Mortgage foreclosures at historic levels.Housing prices are falling. Experts describe ample future surplus existng housing inventory.Recession fears on the horizon. Let’s continue to grow food on Whitcombe’s property for the next 5-10 years and then look again at its future.
Speaking of Harriet Steiner, Coouncilman Heystek needs to ask her to give a public up-date on the Emeryville living-wage court case that her firm was arguing on Emeryville’s behalf concerning a living-wage ordinance directed towards large corporate national chain Hotels in that city.
Speaking of Harriet Steiner, Coouncilman Heystek needs to ask her to give a public up-date on the Emeryville living-wage court case that her firm was arguing on Emeryville’s behalf concerning a living-wage ordinance directed towards large corporate national chain Hotels in that city.
Speaking of Harriet Steiner, Coouncilman Heystek needs to ask her to give a public up-date on the Emeryville living-wage court case that her firm was arguing on Emeryville’s behalf concerning a living-wage ordinance directed towards large corporate national chain Hotels in that city.
Speaking of Harriet Steiner, Coouncilman Heystek needs to ask her to give a public up-date on the Emeryville living-wage court case that her firm was arguing on Emeryville’s behalf concerning a living-wage ordinance directed towards large corporate national chain Hotels in that city.
“The problem with fixing the Poleline – Covell intersection is that there is no place for the traffic to go from there…”
We’ve “tried this case” already! Remember when their expert traffic consultant offered Davis residents the solution of leaving for work an hour earlier and coming home an hour later than the usual daily rush-hour traffic.. Yea, that’s something that I would definitely vote for.
“The problem with fixing the Poleline – Covell intersection is that there is no place for the traffic to go from there…”
We’ve “tried this case” already! Remember when their expert traffic consultant offered Davis residents the solution of leaving for work an hour earlier and coming home an hour later than the usual daily rush-hour traffic.. Yea, that’s something that I would definitely vote for.
“The problem with fixing the Poleline – Covell intersection is that there is no place for the traffic to go from there…”
We’ve “tried this case” already! Remember when their expert traffic consultant offered Davis residents the solution of leaving for work an hour earlier and coming home an hour later than the usual daily rush-hour traffic.. Yea, that’s something that I would definitely vote for.
“The problem with fixing the Poleline – Covell intersection is that there is no place for the traffic to go from there…”
We’ve “tried this case” already! Remember when their expert traffic consultant offered Davis residents the solution of leaving for work an hour earlier and coming home an hour later than the usual daily rush-hour traffic.. Yea, that’s something that I would definitely vote for.
its too bad that richard livingston was unable to attend the meeting, or any of them thus far.
maybe if he were to attend these meetings, he might actually know what has happened, rather than rely on the often times biased/one-sided reporting of the vanguard.
oh yeah, it was also the first time the vanguard was present too…hmmm…
its too bad that richard livingston was unable to attend the meeting, or any of them thus far.
maybe if he were to attend these meetings, he might actually know what has happened, rather than rely on the often times biased/one-sided reporting of the vanguard.
oh yeah, it was also the first time the vanguard was present too…hmmm…
its too bad that richard livingston was unable to attend the meeting, or any of them thus far.
maybe if he were to attend these meetings, he might actually know what has happened, rather than rely on the often times biased/one-sided reporting of the vanguard.
oh yeah, it was also the first time the vanguard was present too…hmmm…
its too bad that richard livingston was unable to attend the meeting, or any of them thus far.
maybe if he were to attend these meetings, he might actually know what has happened, rather than rely on the often times biased/one-sided reporting of the vanguard.
oh yeah, it was also the first time the vanguard was present too…hmmm…
It’s very amazing that I read about the Vanguard’s bias from people at the meeting but no effort from them to clarify what it is that the Vanguard got wrong. Put up or shut up please. Also interesting that you attack two people that have identified themselves by name, and yet you post anonymously.
It’s very amazing that I read about the Vanguard’s bias from people at the meeting but no effort from them to clarify what it is that the Vanguard got wrong. Put up or shut up please. Also interesting that you attack two people that have identified themselves by name, and yet you post anonymously.
It’s very amazing that I read about the Vanguard’s bias from people at the meeting but no effort from them to clarify what it is that the Vanguard got wrong. Put up or shut up please. Also interesting that you attack two people that have identified themselves by name, and yet you post anonymously.
It’s very amazing that I read about the Vanguard’s bias from people at the meeting but no effort from them to clarify what it is that the Vanguard got wrong. Put up or shut up please. Also interesting that you attack two people that have identified themselves by name, and yet you post anonymously.
with regards to “another no on xer” who posted at 8:10…
your list was incorrect.
Bob Traverso was not even at the meeting last night,
so much for accuracy in reporting!
with regards to “another no on xer” who posted at 8:10…
your list was incorrect.
Bob Traverso was not even at the meeting last night,
so much for accuracy in reporting!
with regards to “another no on xer” who posted at 8:10…
your list was incorrect.
Bob Traverso was not even at the meeting last night,
so much for accuracy in reporting!
with regards to “another no on xer” who posted at 8:10…
your list was incorrect.
Bob Traverso was not even at the meeting last night,
so much for accuracy in reporting!
Oh, come on. No need for the jab, when a polite correction would have sufficed.
Oh, come on. No need for the jab, when a polite correction would have sufficed.
Oh, come on. No need for the jab, when a polite correction would have sufficed.
Oh, come on. No need for the jab, when a polite correction would have sufficed.
My bad, I thought he was standing behind the table.
Who was the 12th vote?
My bad, I thought he was standing behind the table.
Who was the 12th vote?
My bad, I thought he was standing behind the table.
Who was the 12th vote?
My bad, I thought he was standing behind the table.
Who was the 12th vote?
there were only 11 members present.
there were only 11 members present.
there were only 11 members present.
there were only 11 members present.
Greenwald writes: “As most people reading this undoubtedly know, Covell Village was the site of the first ever Measure J vote that would convert prime, class 1, agricultural land … into a housing development.”
Greenwald later adds: “This is, class one, prime agricultural land, the infrastructure and access is extremely problematic.”
Of course, Greenwald wouldn’t know “class one” ag land if he had a clump of soil in his hands. This is what the soil scientists said about the Covell Village property two years ago:
“The project site slopes gently to the northeast and is characterized by open, productive, and non-productive agricultural land consisting of grasses and ruderal vegetation. Existing development within the City limits borders the site on three sides. On-site soils are of widely varying quality, with approximately one-third of the soils classified as Class IV or lower. The lower quality soils intrude irregularly into the on-site areas that contain better quality soils.”
If you look at this photo illustration of the Covell Village site, you can see for yourself how misleading Greenwald’s claim is.
It’s perfectly fair for everyone to decide how they stand on any issue based on the facts. It’s quite unfortunate that Mr. Greenwald feels the need to make up facts to support his argument.
Greenwald writes: “As most people reading this undoubtedly know, Covell Village was the site of the first ever Measure J vote that would convert prime, class 1, agricultural land … into a housing development.”
Greenwald later adds: “This is, class one, prime agricultural land, the infrastructure and access is extremely problematic.”
Of course, Greenwald wouldn’t know “class one” ag land if he had a clump of soil in his hands. This is what the soil scientists said about the Covell Village property two years ago:
“The project site slopes gently to the northeast and is characterized by open, productive, and non-productive agricultural land consisting of grasses and ruderal vegetation. Existing development within the City limits borders the site on three sides. On-site soils are of widely varying quality, with approximately one-third of the soils classified as Class IV or lower. The lower quality soils intrude irregularly into the on-site areas that contain better quality soils.”
If you look at this photo illustration of the Covell Village site, you can see for yourself how misleading Greenwald’s claim is.
It’s perfectly fair for everyone to decide how they stand on any issue based on the facts. It’s quite unfortunate that Mr. Greenwald feels the need to make up facts to support his argument.
Greenwald writes: “As most people reading this undoubtedly know, Covell Village was the site of the first ever Measure J vote that would convert prime, class 1, agricultural land … into a housing development.”
Greenwald later adds: “This is, class one, prime agricultural land, the infrastructure and access is extremely problematic.”
Of course, Greenwald wouldn’t know “class one” ag land if he had a clump of soil in his hands. This is what the soil scientists said about the Covell Village property two years ago:
“The project site slopes gently to the northeast and is characterized by open, productive, and non-productive agricultural land consisting of grasses and ruderal vegetation. Existing development within the City limits borders the site on three sides. On-site soils are of widely varying quality, with approximately one-third of the soils classified as Class IV or lower. The lower quality soils intrude irregularly into the on-site areas that contain better quality soils.”
If you look at this photo illustration of the Covell Village site, you can see for yourself how misleading Greenwald’s claim is.
It’s perfectly fair for everyone to decide how they stand on any issue based on the facts. It’s quite unfortunate that Mr. Greenwald feels the need to make up facts to support his argument.
Greenwald writes: “As most people reading this undoubtedly know, Covell Village was the site of the first ever Measure J vote that would convert prime, class 1, agricultural land … into a housing development.”
Greenwald later adds: “This is, class one, prime agricultural land, the infrastructure and access is extremely problematic.”
Of course, Greenwald wouldn’t know “class one” ag land if he had a clump of soil in his hands. This is what the soil scientists said about the Covell Village property two years ago:
“The project site slopes gently to the northeast and is characterized by open, productive, and non-productive agricultural land consisting of grasses and ruderal vegetation. Existing development within the City limits borders the site on three sides. On-site soils are of widely varying quality, with approximately one-third of the soils classified as Class IV or lower. The lower quality soils intrude irregularly into the on-site areas that contain better quality soils.”
If you look at this photo illustration of the Covell Village site, you can see for yourself how misleading Greenwald’s claim is.
It’s perfectly fair for everyone to decide how they stand on any issue based on the facts. It’s quite unfortunate that Mr. Greenwald feels the need to make up facts to support his argument.
Too bad you were not there last night Mr. Rifkin, because you could have set the city staff and in fact the entire committee straight since this was specifically mentioned at the meeting and not one person disputed it.
Too bad you were not there last night Mr. Rifkin, because you could have set the city staff and in fact the entire committee straight since this was specifically mentioned at the meeting and not one person disputed it.
Too bad you were not there last night Mr. Rifkin, because you could have set the city staff and in fact the entire committee straight since this was specifically mentioned at the meeting and not one person disputed it.
Too bad you were not there last night Mr. Rifkin, because you could have set the city staff and in fact the entire committee straight since this was specifically mentioned at the meeting and not one person disputed it.
I find a few things interesting from this thread…
First an anonymous attacks DPD:
“rather than rely on the often times biased/one-sided reporting of the vanguard… oh yeah, it was also the first time the vanguard was present too…hmmm…”
That statement indicates that he was at the meeting which means he’s either on the committee or a developer sitting in the audience. Either way, that statement does not reflect well.
Moreover, he makes an assertion rather than explaining to us in what way DPD’s bias, which I believe he admits to, has gotten the facts wrong.
Then I may or may not have made a mistake with regard to the vote, but instead of a polite correction, I get a rude rebuke. I’m not a reporter, I’m a citizen who was at the meeting.
I’m not sure if that’s the same person or not, but again, they are at the meeting and again that means they are a developer or a member of the committee.
I’m appalled at the rudeness by someone who was there last night. And of course they hide behind anonymity. Who are you? Come forth is you have such bold assertions to make. But of course you won’t because you know there would be consequences for your behavior.
I hope DPD can track your IP address, that ought to be interesting.
Yes, it’s too bad I wasn’t there. But it’s also too bad no one who was there looked at the ag maps first to see what they were talking about. Nevertheless, a lie repeated over and over doesn’t make it true. There is some class 1 soil on the Covell Village site — as the photo illustration shows. But as you can see, it is a bit here and a bit there, certainly not uniform and not a majority of the property.
FWIW, I tend to agree with the idea that we need housing for young families (and students, though not for students this far from campus). Yet another senior development would not be my priority.
I find a few things interesting from this thread…
First an anonymous attacks DPD:
“rather than rely on the often times biased/one-sided reporting of the vanguard… oh yeah, it was also the first time the vanguard was present too…hmmm…”
That statement indicates that he was at the meeting which means he’s either on the committee or a developer sitting in the audience. Either way, that statement does not reflect well.
Moreover, he makes an assertion rather than explaining to us in what way DPD’s bias, which I believe he admits to, has gotten the facts wrong.
Then I may or may not have made a mistake with regard to the vote, but instead of a polite correction, I get a rude rebuke. I’m not a reporter, I’m a citizen who was at the meeting.
I’m not sure if that’s the same person or not, but again, they are at the meeting and again that means they are a developer or a member of the committee.
I’m appalled at the rudeness by someone who was there last night. And of course they hide behind anonymity. Who are you? Come forth is you have such bold assertions to make. But of course you won’t because you know there would be consequences for your behavior.
I hope DPD can track your IP address, that ought to be interesting.
Yes, it’s too bad I wasn’t there. But it’s also too bad no one who was there looked at the ag maps first to see what they were talking about. Nevertheless, a lie repeated over and over doesn’t make it true. There is some class 1 soil on the Covell Village site — as the photo illustration shows. But as you can see, it is a bit here and a bit there, certainly not uniform and not a majority of the property.
FWIW, I tend to agree with the idea that we need housing for young families (and students, though not for students this far from campus). Yet another senior development would not be my priority.
I find a few things interesting from this thread…
First an anonymous attacks DPD:
“rather than rely on the often times biased/one-sided reporting of the vanguard… oh yeah, it was also the first time the vanguard was present too…hmmm…”
That statement indicates that he was at the meeting which means he’s either on the committee or a developer sitting in the audience. Either way, that statement does not reflect well.
Moreover, he makes an assertion rather than explaining to us in what way DPD’s bias, which I believe he admits to, has gotten the facts wrong.
Then I may or may not have made a mistake with regard to the vote, but instead of a polite correction, I get a rude rebuke. I’m not a reporter, I’m a citizen who was at the meeting.
I’m not sure if that’s the same person or not, but again, they are at the meeting and again that means they are a developer or a member of the committee.
I’m appalled at the rudeness by someone who was there last night. And of course they hide behind anonymity. Who are you? Come forth is you have such bold assertions to make. But of course you won’t because you know there would be consequences for your behavior.
I hope DPD can track your IP address, that ought to be interesting.
Yes, it’s too bad I wasn’t there. But it’s also too bad no one who was there looked at the ag maps first to see what they were talking about. Nevertheless, a lie repeated over and over doesn’t make it true. There is some class 1 soil on the Covell Village site — as the photo illustration shows. But as you can see, it is a bit here and a bit there, certainly not uniform and not a majority of the property.
FWIW, I tend to agree with the idea that we need housing for young families (and students, though not for students this far from campus). Yet another senior development would not be my priority.
I find a few things interesting from this thread…
First an anonymous attacks DPD:
“rather than rely on the often times biased/one-sided reporting of the vanguard… oh yeah, it was also the first time the vanguard was present too…hmmm…”
That statement indicates that he was at the meeting which means he’s either on the committee or a developer sitting in the audience. Either way, that statement does not reflect well.
Moreover, he makes an assertion rather than explaining to us in what way DPD’s bias, which I believe he admits to, has gotten the facts wrong.
Then I may or may not have made a mistake with regard to the vote, but instead of a polite correction, I get a rude rebuke. I’m not a reporter, I’m a citizen who was at the meeting.
I’m not sure if that’s the same person or not, but again, they are at the meeting and again that means they are a developer or a member of the committee.
I’m appalled at the rudeness by someone who was there last night. And of course they hide behind anonymity. Who are you? Come forth is you have such bold assertions to make. But of course you won’t because you know there would be consequences for your behavior.
I hope DPD can track your IP address, that ought to be interesting.
Yes, it’s too bad I wasn’t there. But it’s also too bad no one who was there looked at the ag maps first to see what they were talking about. Nevertheless, a lie repeated over and over doesn’t make it true. There is some class 1 soil on the Covell Village site — as the photo illustration shows. But as you can see, it is a bit here and a bit there, certainly not uniform and not a majority of the property.
FWIW, I tend to agree with the idea that we need housing for young families (and students, though not for students this far from campus). Yet another senior development would not be my priority.
Mr. Rifkin,
A lie implies intentional deception, do you have any evidence that the intention of the statement to which you were not a party to was a lie?
Mr. Rifkin,
A lie implies intentional deception, do you have any evidence that the intention of the statement to which you were not a party to was a lie?
Mr. Rifkin,
A lie implies intentional deception, do you have any evidence that the intention of the statement to which you were not a party to was a lie?
Mr. Rifkin,
A lie implies intentional deception, do you have any evidence that the intention of the statement to which you were not a party to was a lie?
Thanks, Rich for clarifying that not all of Covell Village is class 1 soil. However, it would be difficult to build only on the lower class soil and still farm the class 1 soil. So, do we go with the lowest or the highest denominator when considering the “farmability” of farm land?
I really don’t like the idea of a senior development in this area. Again, it should be commercial if anything and Hunt Wesson should remain industrial.
Thanks, Rich for clarifying that not all of Covell Village is class 1 soil. However, it would be difficult to build only on the lower class soil and still farm the class 1 soil. So, do we go with the lowest or the highest denominator when considering the “farmability” of farm land?
I really don’t like the idea of a senior development in this area. Again, it should be commercial if anything and Hunt Wesson should remain industrial.
Thanks, Rich for clarifying that not all of Covell Village is class 1 soil. However, it would be difficult to build only on the lower class soil and still farm the class 1 soil. So, do we go with the lowest or the highest denominator when considering the “farmability” of farm land?
I really don’t like the idea of a senior development in this area. Again, it should be commercial if anything and Hunt Wesson should remain industrial.
Thanks, Rich for clarifying that not all of Covell Village is class 1 soil. However, it would be difficult to build only on the lower class soil and still farm the class 1 soil. So, do we go with the lowest or the highest denominator when considering the “farmability” of farm land?
I really don’t like the idea of a senior development in this area. Again, it should be commercial if anything and Hunt Wesson should remain industrial.
mike said:
If Covell Village returns again, there may be a fair way to make the property owners pay for wasting the voter’s time. Prepare a resolution which permanently bars ANY development on the property and place it on the same ballot. If we have to got the ballot again so soon, lets make it worthwhile.
Fortunately for the private property owners in Davis and Yolo county, you can’t permanently encumber a property with a vote like you suggest. Lets remember that the citizens of Davis decided that they wanted to vote on these matters, which makes it very, very expensive for developers now, and for the city. you can’t also say that you only want to vote once. The developer in this case has changed the development size and purpose, so Davis citizens will have to bear the cost of another election. These votes are very inefficient, and often do not make for the best results, but the very wise citizens of Davis decided that they wanted it.
mike said:
If Covell Village returns again, there may be a fair way to make the property owners pay for wasting the voter’s time. Prepare a resolution which permanently bars ANY development on the property and place it on the same ballot. If we have to got the ballot again so soon, lets make it worthwhile.
Fortunately for the private property owners in Davis and Yolo county, you can’t permanently encumber a property with a vote like you suggest. Lets remember that the citizens of Davis decided that they wanted to vote on these matters, which makes it very, very expensive for developers now, and for the city. you can’t also say that you only want to vote once. The developer in this case has changed the development size and purpose, so Davis citizens will have to bear the cost of another election. These votes are very inefficient, and often do not make for the best results, but the very wise citizens of Davis decided that they wanted it.
mike said:
If Covell Village returns again, there may be a fair way to make the property owners pay for wasting the voter’s time. Prepare a resolution which permanently bars ANY development on the property and place it on the same ballot. If we have to got the ballot again so soon, lets make it worthwhile.
Fortunately for the private property owners in Davis and Yolo county, you can’t permanently encumber a property with a vote like you suggest. Lets remember that the citizens of Davis decided that they wanted to vote on these matters, which makes it very, very expensive for developers now, and for the city. you can’t also say that you only want to vote once. The developer in this case has changed the development size and purpose, so Davis citizens will have to bear the cost of another election. These votes are very inefficient, and often do not make for the best results, but the very wise citizens of Davis decided that they wanted it.
mike said:
If Covell Village returns again, there may be a fair way to make the property owners pay for wasting the voter’s time. Prepare a resolution which permanently bars ANY development on the property and place it on the same ballot. If we have to got the ballot again so soon, lets make it worthwhile.
Fortunately for the private property owners in Davis and Yolo county, you can’t permanently encumber a property with a vote like you suggest. Lets remember that the citizens of Davis decided that they wanted to vote on these matters, which makes it very, very expensive for developers now, and for the city. you can’t also say that you only want to vote once. The developer in this case has changed the development size and purpose, so Davis citizens will have to bear the cost of another election. These votes are very inefficient, and often do not make for the best results, but the very wise citizens of Davis decided that they wanted it.
Well the process also makes it very expensive for those trying to fight these developments. I say go for it, and let them have to fight the vote in courts.
Well the process also makes it very expensive for those trying to fight these developments. I say go for it, and let them have to fight the vote in courts.
Well the process also makes it very expensive for those trying to fight these developments. I say go for it, and let them have to fight the vote in courts.
Well the process also makes it very expensive for those trying to fight these developments. I say go for it, and let them have to fight the vote in courts.
“Do you have any evidence that the intention of the statement to which you were not a party to was a lie?”
Greenwald knows the basic facts about Covell Village. I believe that his characterization of the property — “This is, class one, prime agricultural land” — was intentionally misleading.
“So, do we go with the lowest or the highest denominator when considering the “farmability” of farm land?”
I think we should be honest: some of it is prime ag land, much of it is not. Quite a bit is too bad to be farmed at all.
If you look at page 3 of this City of Davis document, you can see a classification of all of the soils in and around Davis. It is more generalized of that photo illustration of Covell Village, linked above.
“Do you have any evidence that the intention of the statement to which you were not a party to was a lie?”
Greenwald knows the basic facts about Covell Village. I believe that his characterization of the property — “This is, class one, prime agricultural land” — was intentionally misleading.
“So, do we go with the lowest or the highest denominator when considering the “farmability” of farm land?”
I think we should be honest: some of it is prime ag land, much of it is not. Quite a bit is too bad to be farmed at all.
If you look at page 3 of this City of Davis document, you can see a classification of all of the soils in and around Davis. It is more generalized of that photo illustration of Covell Village, linked above.
“Do you have any evidence that the intention of the statement to which you were not a party to was a lie?”
Greenwald knows the basic facts about Covell Village. I believe that his characterization of the property — “This is, class one, prime agricultural land” — was intentionally misleading.
“So, do we go with the lowest or the highest denominator when considering the “farmability” of farm land?”
I think we should be honest: some of it is prime ag land, much of it is not. Quite a bit is too bad to be farmed at all.
If you look at page 3 of this City of Davis document, you can see a classification of all of the soils in and around Davis. It is more generalized of that photo illustration of Covell Village, linked above.
“Do you have any evidence that the intention of the statement to which you were not a party to was a lie?”
Greenwald knows the basic facts about Covell Village. I believe that his characterization of the property — “This is, class one, prime agricultural land” — was intentionally misleading.
“So, do we go with the lowest or the highest denominator when considering the “farmability” of farm land?”
I think we should be honest: some of it is prime ag land, much of it is not. Quite a bit is too bad to be farmed at all.
If you look at page 3 of this City of Davis document, you can see a classification of all of the soils in and around Davis. It is more generalized of that photo illustration of Covell Village, linked above.
Pam, look at the linked maps of Covell Village and of the City of Davis. You will reverse your conclusion.
This is a very strange statement: “Most of the soils on the property are classified either Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide importance.”
Why is it so odd? Because “farmland of statewide importance” is NOT prime farmland. So combining those categories is ridiculous.
The entire question regards whether the Covell Village property is “prime farmland,” not whether it is “any kind of farmland.” So by combining prime land with lower quality soils which are farmable — that is, class 1 plus class 2 and class 3 — into essentially one category, you reach a bogus conclusion.
Pam, look at the linked maps of Covell Village and of the City of Davis. You will reverse your conclusion.
This is a very strange statement: “Most of the soils on the property are classified either Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide importance.”
Why is it so odd? Because “farmland of statewide importance” is NOT prime farmland. So combining those categories is ridiculous.
The entire question regards whether the Covell Village property is “prime farmland,” not whether it is “any kind of farmland.” So by combining prime land with lower quality soils which are farmable — that is, class 1 plus class 2 and class 3 — into essentially one category, you reach a bogus conclusion.
Pam, look at the linked maps of Covell Village and of the City of Davis. You will reverse your conclusion.
This is a very strange statement: “Most of the soils on the property are classified either Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide importance.”
Why is it so odd? Because “farmland of statewide importance” is NOT prime farmland. So combining those categories is ridiculous.
The entire question regards whether the Covell Village property is “prime farmland,” not whether it is “any kind of farmland.” So by combining prime land with lower quality soils which are farmable — that is, class 1 plus class 2 and class 3 — into essentially one category, you reach a bogus conclusion.
Pam, look at the linked maps of Covell Village and of the City of Davis. You will reverse your conclusion.
This is a very strange statement: “Most of the soils on the property are classified either Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide importance.”
Why is it so odd? Because “farmland of statewide importance” is NOT prime farmland. So combining those categories is ridiculous.
The entire question regards whether the Covell Village property is “prime farmland,” not whether it is “any kind of farmland.” So by combining prime land with lower quality soils which are farmable — that is, class 1 plus class 2 and class 3 — into essentially one category, you reach a bogus conclusion.
Pam Nieberg says furthermore, I was at the meeting last night, and these are some of my thoughts.
We voted on the Covell Village project a little under two years ago and defeated it soundly with a 60-40 vote. That should have sent a very strong message that Davis did not want that massive development. That should have been that. But, now the developers are bringing it back again, and it is not necessarily scaled down. There are several different options in the plan submitted for consideration by the committee. One calls for developing only the lower 1/3 with the rest on-site mitigation for the 2:1 ag. But there are other scenarios also, some with as many as 1700 units, and mitigation off-site to the north, just like the CV proposal. The proposal for the senior housing is in three phases. The first is for the bottom about 1/3 with 800 units. The rest of the property is put into urban reserve to be developed later in phases 2 and 3. None of the 2:1 mitigation is on-site, and John was asked about that specifically last night. That tells you that he plans to develop the entire parcel eventually. If it develops as the first phase does, then we could be talking about a development as big as Covell Village and just as damaging to the community.
Back before the CV proposal came forward, a few years ago, many of us participated in the Blue Print process meetings where we were asked to design a CV project that we might be able to accept. (We were not given an option for “no development”.) Virtually every break-out table in the room, and there were about 200 people there, produced a “project” that would have developed only the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of the site, with truly affordable housing for people who work here and cannot afford to live here. The 2:1 ag mitigation was on site to the extent possible. But, despite this and other public input, the developers figured that if they threw enough money at it, they could convince the voters to accept their massive proposal for more than 1800 units of mostly big, expensive homes well out the “affordable” range. Well, they lost that bet, but they put us through a grueling, devisive campaign, and now they are proposing to do it again. If this site comes back for development now, it is going to open up a lot of old wounds and is really going to tick off a lot of those 60% who voted Covell Village down and thought that would be that.
The idea of developing this site needs to just go away for now, and maybe come back sometime in the future, if at all. We have plenty of land already in the city suitable for infill that will get us to the numbers that SACOG has recommended and will even get us to the 1% that the previous council came up with,and this number is not a mandate, is not required by any law, and has no enforcement. We can forget about it. We do not need any big peripheral projects at this time.
The vote on CV and recent citizen response to the county’s attempts to force growth on our borders also sends a message on how Davis feels about large, peripheral sprawl proposals. We don’t want them.
There is another consideration here too. If we are going to be talking about development on any large scale at all, we should first be having community discussions about how we want our community to look in the future. In light of climate change and declining resources and the possibility that we may have to sustain ourselves in the future, we need to begin looking at the big picture and stop the largely developer-driven piecemeal planning and development.
Pam Nieberg says furthermore, I was at the meeting last night, and these are some of my thoughts.
We voted on the Covell Village project a little under two years ago and defeated it soundly with a 60-40 vote. That should have sent a very strong message that Davis did not want that massive development. That should have been that. But, now the developers are bringing it back again, and it is not necessarily scaled down. There are several different options in the plan submitted for consideration by the committee. One calls for developing only the lower 1/3 with the rest on-site mitigation for the 2:1 ag. But there are other scenarios also, some with as many as 1700 units, and mitigation off-site to the north, just like the CV proposal. The proposal for the senior housing is in three phases. The first is for the bottom about 1/3 with 800 units. The rest of the property is put into urban reserve to be developed later in phases 2 and 3. None of the 2:1 mitigation is on-site, and John was asked about that specifically last night. That tells you that he plans to develop the entire parcel eventually. If it develops as the first phase does, then we could be talking about a development as big as Covell Village and just as damaging to the community.
Back before the CV proposal came forward, a few years ago, many of us participated in the Blue Print process meetings where we were asked to design a CV project that we might be able to accept. (We were not given an option for “no development”.) Virtually every break-out table in the room, and there were about 200 people there, produced a “project” that would have developed only the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of the site, with truly affordable housing for people who work here and cannot afford to live here. The 2:1 ag mitigation was on site to the extent possible. But, despite this and other public input, the developers figured that if they threw enough money at it, they could convince the voters to accept their massive proposal for more than 1800 units of mostly big, expensive homes well out the “affordable” range. Well, they lost that bet, but they put us through a grueling, devisive campaign, and now they are proposing to do it again. If this site comes back for development now, it is going to open up a lot of old wounds and is really going to tick off a lot of those 60% who voted Covell Village down and thought that would be that.
The idea of developing this site needs to just go away for now, and maybe come back sometime in the future, if at all. We have plenty of land already in the city suitable for infill that will get us to the numbers that SACOG has recommended and will even get us to the 1% that the previous council came up with,and this number is not a mandate, is not required by any law, and has no enforcement. We can forget about it. We do not need any big peripheral projects at this time.
The vote on CV and recent citizen response to the county’s attempts to force growth on our borders also sends a message on how Davis feels about large, peripheral sprawl proposals. We don’t want them.
There is another consideration here too. If we are going to be talking about development on any large scale at all, we should first be having community discussions about how we want our community to look in the future. In light of climate change and declining resources and the possibility that we may have to sustain ourselves in the future, we need to begin looking at the big picture and stop the largely developer-driven piecemeal planning and development.
Pam Nieberg says furthermore, I was at the meeting last night, and these are some of my thoughts.
We voted on the Covell Village project a little under two years ago and defeated it soundly with a 60-40 vote. That should have sent a very strong message that Davis did not want that massive development. That should have been that. But, now the developers are bringing it back again, and it is not necessarily scaled down. There are several different options in the plan submitted for consideration by the committee. One calls for developing only the lower 1/3 with the rest on-site mitigation for the 2:1 ag. But there are other scenarios also, some with as many as 1700 units, and mitigation off-site to the north, just like the CV proposal. The proposal for the senior housing is in three phases. The first is for the bottom about 1/3 with 800 units. The rest of the property is put into urban reserve to be developed later in phases 2 and 3. None of the 2:1 mitigation is on-site, and John was asked about that specifically last night. That tells you that he plans to develop the entire parcel eventually. If it develops as the first phase does, then we could be talking about a development as big as Covell Village and just as damaging to the community.
Back before the CV proposal came forward, a few years ago, many of us participated in the Blue Print process meetings where we were asked to design a CV project that we might be able to accept. (We were not given an option for “no development”.) Virtually every break-out table in the room, and there were about 200 people there, produced a “project” that would have developed only the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of the site, with truly affordable housing for people who work here and cannot afford to live here. The 2:1 ag mitigation was on site to the extent possible. But, despite this and other public input, the developers figured that if they threw enough money at it, they could convince the voters to accept their massive proposal for more than 1800 units of mostly big, expensive homes well out the “affordable” range. Well, they lost that bet, but they put us through a grueling, devisive campaign, and now they are proposing to do it again. If this site comes back for development now, it is going to open up a lot of old wounds and is really going to tick off a lot of those 60% who voted Covell Village down and thought that would be that.
The idea of developing this site needs to just go away for now, and maybe come back sometime in the future, if at all. We have plenty of land already in the city suitable for infill that will get us to the numbers that SACOG has recommended and will even get us to the 1% that the previous council came up with,and this number is not a mandate, is not required by any law, and has no enforcement. We can forget about it. We do not need any big peripheral projects at this time.
The vote on CV and recent citizen response to the county’s attempts to force growth on our borders also sends a message on how Davis feels about large, peripheral sprawl proposals. We don’t want them.
There is another consideration here too. If we are going to be talking about development on any large scale at all, we should first be having community discussions about how we want our community to look in the future. In light of climate change and declining resources and the possibility that we may have to sustain ourselves in the future, we need to begin looking at the big picture and stop the largely developer-driven piecemeal planning and development.
Pam Nieberg says furthermore, I was at the meeting last night, and these are some of my thoughts.
We voted on the Covell Village project a little under two years ago and defeated it soundly with a 60-40 vote. That should have sent a very strong message that Davis did not want that massive development. That should have been that. But, now the developers are bringing it back again, and it is not necessarily scaled down. There are several different options in the plan submitted for consideration by the committee. One calls for developing only the lower 1/3 with the rest on-site mitigation for the 2:1 ag. But there are other scenarios also, some with as many as 1700 units, and mitigation off-site to the north, just like the CV proposal. The proposal for the senior housing is in three phases. The first is for the bottom about 1/3 with 800 units. The rest of the property is put into urban reserve to be developed later in phases 2 and 3. None of the 2:1 mitigation is on-site, and John was asked about that specifically last night. That tells you that he plans to develop the entire parcel eventually. If it develops as the first phase does, then we could be talking about a development as big as Covell Village and just as damaging to the community.
Back before the CV proposal came forward, a few years ago, many of us participated in the Blue Print process meetings where we were asked to design a CV project that we might be able to accept. (We were not given an option for “no development”.) Virtually every break-out table in the room, and there were about 200 people there, produced a “project” that would have developed only the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of the site, with truly affordable housing for people who work here and cannot afford to live here. The 2:1 ag mitigation was on site to the extent possible. But, despite this and other public input, the developers figured that if they threw enough money at it, they could convince the voters to accept their massive proposal for more than 1800 units of mostly big, expensive homes well out the “affordable” range. Well, they lost that bet, but they put us through a grueling, devisive campaign, and now they are proposing to do it again. If this site comes back for development now, it is going to open up a lot of old wounds and is really going to tick off a lot of those 60% who voted Covell Village down and thought that would be that.
The idea of developing this site needs to just go away for now, and maybe come back sometime in the future, if at all. We have plenty of land already in the city suitable for infill that will get us to the numbers that SACOG has recommended and will even get us to the 1% that the previous council came up with,and this number is not a mandate, is not required by any law, and has no enforcement. We can forget about it. We do not need any big peripheral projects at this time.
The vote on CV and recent citizen response to the county’s attempts to force growth on our borders also sends a message on how Davis feels about large, peripheral sprawl proposals. We don’t want them.
There is another consideration here too. If we are going to be talking about development on any large scale at all, we should first be having community discussions about how we want our community to look in the future. In light of climate change and declining resources and the possibility that we may have to sustain ourselves in the future, we need to begin looking at the big picture and stop the largely developer-driven piecemeal planning and development.
Rich, Does Pam Nieberg’s comment regarding the information from the EIR clarify the value of the soil for you?
Rich, Does Pam Nieberg’s comment regarding the information from the EIR clarify the value of the soil for you?
Rich, Does Pam Nieberg’s comment regarding the information from the EIR clarify the value of the soil for you?
Rich, Does Pam Nieberg’s comment regarding the information from the EIR clarify the value of the soil for you?
“I think we should be honest: some of it is prime ag land, much of it is not. Quite a bit is too bad to be farmed at all.”
Most of it is farmable. Some of it is prime ag land. It would be very difficult to farm on the farmable part if the unfarmable part was built on.
I don’t think that sentence scans, but you get the idea.
“I think we should be honest: some of it is prime ag land, much of it is not. Quite a bit is too bad to be farmed at all.”
Most of it is farmable. Some of it is prime ag land. It would be very difficult to farm on the farmable part if the unfarmable part was built on.
I don’t think that sentence scans, but you get the idea.
“I think we should be honest: some of it is prime ag land, much of it is not. Quite a bit is too bad to be farmed at all.”
Most of it is farmable. Some of it is prime ag land. It would be very difficult to farm on the farmable part if the unfarmable part was built on.
I don’t think that sentence scans, but you get the idea.
“I think we should be honest: some of it is prime ag land, much of it is not. Quite a bit is too bad to be farmed at all.”
Most of it is farmable. Some of it is prime ag land. It would be very difficult to farm on the farmable part if the unfarmable part was built on.
I don’t think that sentence scans, but you get the idea.
“Greenwald knows the basic facts about Covell Village. I believe that his characterization of the property — “This is, class one, prime agricultural land” — was intentionally misleading.”
It seems to be a matter of contention here to me. So I think you owe Greenwald an apology for accusing him of intentionally misleading the public.
“Greenwald knows the basic facts about Covell Village. I believe that his characterization of the property — “This is, class one, prime agricultural land” — was intentionally misleading.”
It seems to be a matter of contention here to me. So I think you owe Greenwald an apology for accusing him of intentionally misleading the public.
“Greenwald knows the basic facts about Covell Village. I believe that his characterization of the property — “This is, class one, prime agricultural land” — was intentionally misleading.”
It seems to be a matter of contention here to me. So I think you owe Greenwald an apology for accusing him of intentionally misleading the public.
“Greenwald knows the basic facts about Covell Village. I believe that his characterization of the property — “This is, class one, prime agricultural land” — was intentionally misleading.”
It seems to be a matter of contention here to me. So I think you owe Greenwald an apology for accusing him of intentionally misleading the public.
Mr Rifkin should be careful with his references to Doug Paul Davis, aka David Greenwald. Quoting him simply as “Greenwald” invites confusion with our mayor. Clarity in this regard is particularly important with an election looming. Any public figure should, in an educated community, stand or fall on their own words and actions, not name confusion. Anyone who questions the importance of name recognition in politics can refer such queries to the offices of our Governor or President.
Mr Rifkin should be careful with his references to Doug Paul Davis, aka David Greenwald. Quoting him simply as “Greenwald” invites confusion with our mayor. Clarity in this regard is particularly important with an election looming. Any public figure should, in an educated community, stand or fall on their own words and actions, not name confusion. Anyone who questions the importance of name recognition in politics can refer such queries to the offices of our Governor or President.
Mr Rifkin should be careful with his references to Doug Paul Davis, aka David Greenwald. Quoting him simply as “Greenwald” invites confusion with our mayor. Clarity in this regard is particularly important with an election looming. Any public figure should, in an educated community, stand or fall on their own words and actions, not name confusion. Anyone who questions the importance of name recognition in politics can refer such queries to the offices of our Governor or President.
Mr Rifkin should be careful with his references to Doug Paul Davis, aka David Greenwald. Quoting him simply as “Greenwald” invites confusion with our mayor. Clarity in this regard is particularly important with an election looming. Any public figure should, in an educated community, stand or fall on their own words and actions, not name confusion. Anyone who questions the importance of name recognition in politics can refer such queries to the offices of our Governor or President.
Don Shor said:
“Most of it is farmable. Some of it is prime ag land. It would be very difficult to farm on the farmable part if the unfarmable part was built on.”
What about a high-density version of Village Homes? In this type of scenario, couldn’t you build on the unfarmable parts and “farm” (i.e. through gardening, and planting fruit and nut trees, etc.) on the farmable parts?
I’m not pro-development, but I do recognize a need in this community for affordable housing. I also recognize a country-wide need to preserve farmable land, or else we’ll soon be getting all of our produce from China, Chile, Ecuador and New Zealand. No thanks. I want local insofar as I can get it.
It seems to me that certain parcels could be developed along the model of Village Homes and kill two birds with one stone.
Don Shor said:
“Most of it is farmable. Some of it is prime ag land. It would be very difficult to farm on the farmable part if the unfarmable part was built on.”
What about a high-density version of Village Homes? In this type of scenario, couldn’t you build on the unfarmable parts and “farm” (i.e. through gardening, and planting fruit and nut trees, etc.) on the farmable parts?
I’m not pro-development, but I do recognize a need in this community for affordable housing. I also recognize a country-wide need to preserve farmable land, or else we’ll soon be getting all of our produce from China, Chile, Ecuador and New Zealand. No thanks. I want local insofar as I can get it.
It seems to me that certain parcels could be developed along the model of Village Homes and kill two birds with one stone.
Don Shor said:
“Most of it is farmable. Some of it is prime ag land. It would be very difficult to farm on the farmable part if the unfarmable part was built on.”
What about a high-density version of Village Homes? In this type of scenario, couldn’t you build on the unfarmable parts and “farm” (i.e. through gardening, and planting fruit and nut trees, etc.) on the farmable parts?
I’m not pro-development, but I do recognize a need in this community for affordable housing. I also recognize a country-wide need to preserve farmable land, or else we’ll soon be getting all of our produce from China, Chile, Ecuador and New Zealand. No thanks. I want local insofar as I can get it.
It seems to me that certain parcels could be developed along the model of Village Homes and kill two birds with one stone.
Don Shor said:
“Most of it is farmable. Some of it is prime ag land. It would be very difficult to farm on the farmable part if the unfarmable part was built on.”
What about a high-density version of Village Homes? In this type of scenario, couldn’t you build on the unfarmable parts and “farm” (i.e. through gardening, and planting fruit and nut trees, etc.) on the farmable parts?
I’m not pro-development, but I do recognize a need in this community for affordable housing. I also recognize a country-wide need to preserve farmable land, or else we’ll soon be getting all of our produce from China, Chile, Ecuador and New Zealand. No thanks. I want local insofar as I can get it.
It seems to me that certain parcels could be developed along the model of Village Homes and kill two birds with one stone.
Lets build a community farm on the land!
Lets build a community farm on the land!
Lets build a community farm on the land!
Lets build a community farm on the land!
Would be cheaper for the city to redevelop the land as housing to keep it industrial? I would assume industrial.
Why not make Covell the high-tech corridor! 😉
Would be cheaper for the city to redevelop the land as housing to keep it industrial? I would assume industrial.
Why not make Covell the high-tech corridor! 😉
Would be cheaper for the city to redevelop the land as housing to keep it industrial? I would assume industrial.
Why not make Covell the high-tech corridor! 😉
Would be cheaper for the city to redevelop the land as housing to keep it industrial? I would assume industrial.
Why not make Covell the high-tech corridor! 😉
“Rich, Does Pam Nieberg’s comment regarding the information from the EIR clarify the value of the soil for you?”
No, as I explained in my 12:47 post, Pam is mistaken. She strangely conflated prime with subprime farm land and then concluded that it confirmed that the land in question was prime farm land.
I must say, however, that is this a big distraction, and I apologize for leading the discussion astray. Almost any urbanization in or around Davis is going to involve the ruination of some farm land (or former farm land). The questions I believe which are more important are these:
1. Do we want and or need a large development of senior housing in this part of town? I don’t think we do.
2. Does the proposal require a Measure J type vote of the people? I think it does and should. Even though I came out on the losing end of both major votes on housing developments in Davis — I opposed Wild Horse and voted yes on CV — I think these kind of projects impact too many of us to not let us have a direct say in them in an election.
3. (Less important) Does any proposal for housing on the CV property violate the intention expressed by the 60% majority in the Measure X vote? I don’t know. It is a substantially different project. However, it has only been two years; and I think the primary message in the Measure X vote was that most people in Davis are opposed to any substantial peripheral growth. I don’t think that conclusion has changed in two years.
“Rich, Does Pam Nieberg’s comment regarding the information from the EIR clarify the value of the soil for you?”
No, as I explained in my 12:47 post, Pam is mistaken. She strangely conflated prime with subprime farm land and then concluded that it confirmed that the land in question was prime farm land.
I must say, however, that is this a big distraction, and I apologize for leading the discussion astray. Almost any urbanization in or around Davis is going to involve the ruination of some farm land (or former farm land). The questions I believe which are more important are these:
1. Do we want and or need a large development of senior housing in this part of town? I don’t think we do.
2. Does the proposal require a Measure J type vote of the people? I think it does and should. Even though I came out on the losing end of both major votes on housing developments in Davis — I opposed Wild Horse and voted yes on CV — I think these kind of projects impact too many of us to not let us have a direct say in them in an election.
3. (Less important) Does any proposal for housing on the CV property violate the intention expressed by the 60% majority in the Measure X vote? I don’t know. It is a substantially different project. However, it has only been two years; and I think the primary message in the Measure X vote was that most people in Davis are opposed to any substantial peripheral growth. I don’t think that conclusion has changed in two years.
“Rich, Does Pam Nieberg’s comment regarding the information from the EIR clarify the value of the soil for you?”
No, as I explained in my 12:47 post, Pam is mistaken. She strangely conflated prime with subprime farm land and then concluded that it confirmed that the land in question was prime farm land.
I must say, however, that is this a big distraction, and I apologize for leading the discussion astray. Almost any urbanization in or around Davis is going to involve the ruination of some farm land (or former farm land). The questions I believe which are more important are these:
1. Do we want and or need a large development of senior housing in this part of town? I don’t think we do.
2. Does the proposal require a Measure J type vote of the people? I think it does and should. Even though I came out on the losing end of both major votes on housing developments in Davis — I opposed Wild Horse and voted yes on CV — I think these kind of projects impact too many of us to not let us have a direct say in them in an election.
3. (Less important) Does any proposal for housing on the CV property violate the intention expressed by the 60% majority in the Measure X vote? I don’t know. It is a substantially different project. However, it has only been two years; and I think the primary message in the Measure X vote was that most people in Davis are opposed to any substantial peripheral growth. I don’t think that conclusion has changed in two years.
“Rich, Does Pam Nieberg’s comment regarding the information from the EIR clarify the value of the soil for you?”
No, as I explained in my 12:47 post, Pam is mistaken. She strangely conflated prime with subprime farm land and then concluded that it confirmed that the land in question was prime farm land.
I must say, however, that is this a big distraction, and I apologize for leading the discussion astray. Almost any urbanization in or around Davis is going to involve the ruination of some farm land (or former farm land). The questions I believe which are more important are these:
1. Do we want and or need a large development of senior housing in this part of town? I don’t think we do.
2. Does the proposal require a Measure J type vote of the people? I think it does and should. Even though I came out on the losing end of both major votes on housing developments in Davis — I opposed Wild Horse and voted yes on CV — I think these kind of projects impact too many of us to not let us have a direct say in them in an election.
3. (Less important) Does any proposal for housing on the CV property violate the intention expressed by the 60% majority in the Measure X vote? I don’t know. It is a substantially different project. However, it has only been two years; and I think the primary message in the Measure X vote was that most people in Davis are opposed to any substantial peripheral growth. I don’t think that conclusion has changed in two years.
“Mr Rifkin should be careful with his references to Doug Paul Davis, aka David Greenwald. Quoting him simply as “Greenwald” invites confusion with our mayor.”
In order to avoid confusion with noted author Jeremy Rifkin and my distant cousin Malcolm Rifkind and the mortgage broker Rich Rifkin, I prefer you refer to me only as “Rich Rifkin, Lexicon Artist” from now on.
“Mr Rifkin should be careful with his references to Doug Paul Davis, aka David Greenwald. Quoting him simply as “Greenwald” invites confusion with our mayor.”
In order to avoid confusion with noted author Jeremy Rifkin and my distant cousin Malcolm Rifkind and the mortgage broker Rich Rifkin, I prefer you refer to me only as “Rich Rifkin, Lexicon Artist” from now on.
“Mr Rifkin should be careful with his references to Doug Paul Davis, aka David Greenwald. Quoting him simply as “Greenwald” invites confusion with our mayor.”
In order to avoid confusion with noted author Jeremy Rifkin and my distant cousin Malcolm Rifkind and the mortgage broker Rich Rifkin, I prefer you refer to me only as “Rich Rifkin, Lexicon Artist” from now on.
“Mr Rifkin should be careful with his references to Doug Paul Davis, aka David Greenwald. Quoting him simply as “Greenwald” invites confusion with our mayor.”
In order to avoid confusion with noted author Jeremy Rifkin and my distant cousin Malcolm Rifkind and the mortgage broker Rich Rifkin, I prefer you refer to me only as “Rich Rifkin, Lexicon Artist” from now on.
Anonymous 2:33 We are smart enough to know that DPD “David Greenwlad” is being discussed here and not SUE.
He is the blogeditor…reporter…male…30+ years of age.
She is the mayor at this time. Female. 60 or so years of age.
It’s about as absurd as her other arguments over her name.
Great reporting David GREENWALD.
Davis Voter
Anonymous 2:33 We are smart enough to know that DPD “David Greenwlad” is being discussed here and not SUE.
He is the blogeditor…reporter…male…30+ years of age.
She is the mayor at this time. Female. 60 or so years of age.
It’s about as absurd as her other arguments over her name.
Great reporting David GREENWALD.
Davis Voter
Anonymous 2:33 We are smart enough to know that DPD “David Greenwlad” is being discussed here and not SUE.
He is the blogeditor…reporter…male…30+ years of age.
She is the mayor at this time. Female. 60 or so years of age.
It’s about as absurd as her other arguments over her name.
Great reporting David GREENWALD.
Davis Voter
Anonymous 2:33 We are smart enough to know that DPD “David Greenwlad” is being discussed here and not SUE.
He is the blogeditor…reporter…male…30+ years of age.
She is the mayor at this time. Female. 60 or so years of age.
It’s about as absurd as her other arguments over her name.
Great reporting David GREENWALD.
Davis Voter
“Rich Rifkin, Lexicon Artist.”
If Rifkin’s an “artist,” then I’m an elite developer making big bucks turning Davis into a parking lot studded here and there amid the asphalt with ugly, soul-killing pre-fabs.
“Rich Rifkin, Lexicon Artist.”
If Rifkin’s an “artist,” then I’m an elite developer making big bucks turning Davis into a parking lot studded here and there amid the asphalt with ugly, soul-killing pre-fabs.
“Rich Rifkin, Lexicon Artist.”
If Rifkin’s an “artist,” then I’m an elite developer making big bucks turning Davis into a parking lot studded here and there amid the asphalt with ugly, soul-killing pre-fabs.
“Rich Rifkin, Lexicon Artist.”
If Rifkin’s an “artist,” then I’m an elite developer making big bucks turning Davis into a parking lot studded here and there amid the asphalt with ugly, soul-killing pre-fabs.
Rich:
I did not conflate prime with unprime farm land and then conclude it was all prime. What I quoted was a comment on the DEIR. All the information in that quote came from the DEIR. The conclusion of the analyis in the DEIR was that most of CV is important and productive farmland whether or not prime.
Pam
Rich:
I did not conflate prime with unprime farm land and then conclude it was all prime. What I quoted was a comment on the DEIR. All the information in that quote came from the DEIR. The conclusion of the analyis in the DEIR was that most of CV is important and productive farmland whether or not prime.
Pam
Rich:
I did not conflate prime with unprime farm land and then conclude it was all prime. What I quoted was a comment on the DEIR. All the information in that quote came from the DEIR. The conclusion of the analyis in the DEIR was that most of CV is important and productive farmland whether or not prime.
Pam
Rich:
I did not conflate prime with unprime farm land and then conclude it was all prime. What I quoted was a comment on the DEIR. All the information in that quote came from the DEIR. The conclusion of the analyis in the DEIR was that most of CV is important and productive farmland whether or not prime.
Pam
As a committee member I did not hear staff say that a combining of parcels would remove the need for a Measure J vote.
The trouble as I see it is as follows: The entire committee, except me, supported housing at Lewis Cannery. If we ignore Covell Village what I think we will end up with is housing at Lewis and housing at Covell both. If we force the 2 parcels to be planned jointly we can get a huge on site ag mitigation to the north and a resulting permanent urban limit line. But to think we will get housing at Lewis and no housing at Covell in the end is dreaming with a developer as successful as John Whitcomb. Combine the parcels, force any housing (or high tech) to the very south, and get permanent ag to the north. We have to play smart.
As a committee member I did not hear staff say that a combining of parcels would remove the need for a Measure J vote.
The trouble as I see it is as follows: The entire committee, except me, supported housing at Lewis Cannery. If we ignore Covell Village what I think we will end up with is housing at Lewis and housing at Covell both. If we force the 2 parcels to be planned jointly we can get a huge on site ag mitigation to the north and a resulting permanent urban limit line. But to think we will get housing at Lewis and no housing at Covell in the end is dreaming with a developer as successful as John Whitcomb. Combine the parcels, force any housing (or high tech) to the very south, and get permanent ag to the north. We have to play smart.
As a committee member I did not hear staff say that a combining of parcels would remove the need for a Measure J vote.
The trouble as I see it is as follows: The entire committee, except me, supported housing at Lewis Cannery. If we ignore Covell Village what I think we will end up with is housing at Lewis and housing at Covell both. If we force the 2 parcels to be planned jointly we can get a huge on site ag mitigation to the north and a resulting permanent urban limit line. But to think we will get housing at Lewis and no housing at Covell in the end is dreaming with a developer as successful as John Whitcomb. Combine the parcels, force any housing (or high tech) to the very south, and get permanent ag to the north. We have to play smart.
As a committee member I did not hear staff say that a combining of parcels would remove the need for a Measure J vote.
The trouble as I see it is as follows: The entire committee, except me, supported housing at Lewis Cannery. If we ignore Covell Village what I think we will end up with is housing at Lewis and housing at Covell both. If we force the 2 parcels to be planned jointly we can get a huge on site ag mitigation to the north and a resulting permanent urban limit line. But to think we will get housing at Lewis and no housing at Covell in the end is dreaming with a developer as successful as John Whitcomb. Combine the parcels, force any housing (or high tech) to the very south, and get permanent ag to the north. We have to play smart.
Pam G: We all heard in the audience, I even asked the guy sitting next to me if I heard it correctly.
Pam G: We all heard in the audience, I even asked the guy sitting next to me if I heard it correctly.
Pam G: We all heard in the audience, I even asked the guy sitting next to me if I heard it correctly.
Pam G: We all heard in the audience, I even asked the guy sitting next to me if I heard it correctly.
Pam Gunnel wrote:
But to think we will get housing at Lewis and no housing at Covell in the end is dreaming with a developer as successful as John Whitcomb.
Covell Village was defeated by a 60-40 vote less than two years ago. The people of Davis don’t want Covell Village. Who elected Whitcombe to any office, that he gets to dictate against such clearly expressed wishes?
Pam Gunnel wrote:
But to think we will get housing at Lewis and no housing at Covell in the end is dreaming with a developer as successful as John Whitcomb.
Covell Village was defeated by a 60-40 vote less than two years ago. The people of Davis don’t want Covell Village. Who elected Whitcombe to any office, that he gets to dictate against such clearly expressed wishes?
Pam Gunnel wrote:
But to think we will get housing at Lewis and no housing at Covell in the end is dreaming with a developer as successful as John Whitcomb.
Covell Village was defeated by a 60-40 vote less than two years ago. The people of Davis don’t want Covell Village. Who elected Whitcombe to any office, that he gets to dictate against such clearly expressed wishes?
Pam Gunnel wrote:
But to think we will get housing at Lewis and no housing at Covell in the end is dreaming with a developer as successful as John Whitcomb.
Covell Village was defeated by a 60-40 vote less than two years ago. The people of Davis don’t want Covell Village. Who elected Whitcombe to any office, that he gets to dictate against such clearly expressed wishes?
Reuters 0/21 headline
HOUSING PRICES TO DROP MUCH LOWER:GREENSPAN
Reuters 0/21 headline
HOUSING PRICES TO DROP MUCH LOWER:GREENSPAN
Reuters 0/21 headline
HOUSING PRICES TO DROP MUCH LOWER:GREENSPAN
Reuters 0/21 headline
HOUSING PRICES TO DROP MUCH LOWER:GREENSPAN
Pam Gunnell said:
We have to play smart.
Unless there is a credible political threat that Whitcomb will not be able to build any residential on his property in the near future, we will see the absolute minimum concessions as to size,on-site permanent ag mitigation and “benefits” to the city-at-large.
Pam Gunnell said:
We have to play smart.
Unless there is a credible political threat that Whitcomb will not be able to build any residential on his property in the near future, we will see the absolute minimum concessions as to size,on-site permanent ag mitigation and “benefits” to the city-at-large.
Pam Gunnell said:
We have to play smart.
Unless there is a credible political threat that Whitcomb will not be able to build any residential on his property in the near future, we will see the absolute minimum concessions as to size,on-site permanent ag mitigation and “benefits” to the city-at-large.
Pam Gunnell said:
We have to play smart.
Unless there is a credible political threat that Whitcomb will not be able to build any residential on his property in the near future, we will see the absolute minimum concessions as to size,on-site permanent ag mitigation and “benefits” to the city-at-large.
DPD: Have you contacted our city manager concerning his reported comment? It should be easy to clarify and I would think that Emlen would be anxious to “set the record straight”.
DPD: Have you contacted our city manager concerning his reported comment? It should be easy to clarify and I would think that Emlen would be anxious to “set the record straight”.
DPD: Have you contacted our city manager concerning his reported comment? It should be easy to clarify and I would think that Emlen would be anxious to “set the record straight”.
DPD: Have you contacted our city manager concerning his reported comment? It should be easy to clarify and I would think that Emlen would be anxious to “set the record straight”.
I repeat it was a 60-40 vote. NO ON X won. The situation seems clear and simple. The Current City Council Majority created a committee stacked to reopen a development issue that this same council majority supported actively. Now sugar coated, scaled down and aimed at seniors they hope their developer allies will get another chance. Arguing about how much land is good for agriculture is pointless. Since when have developers really worried about farmland, come on be honest? What is the bottom line here, protecting the environment or profits?
I repeat it was a 60-40 vote. NO ON X won. The situation seems clear and simple. The Current City Council Majority created a committee stacked to reopen a development issue that this same council majority supported actively. Now sugar coated, scaled down and aimed at seniors they hope their developer allies will get another chance. Arguing about how much land is good for agriculture is pointless. Since when have developers really worried about farmland, come on be honest? What is the bottom line here, protecting the environment or profits?
I repeat it was a 60-40 vote. NO ON X won. The situation seems clear and simple. The Current City Council Majority created a committee stacked to reopen a development issue that this same council majority supported actively. Now sugar coated, scaled down and aimed at seniors they hope their developer allies will get another chance. Arguing about how much land is good for agriculture is pointless. Since when have developers really worried about farmland, come on be honest? What is the bottom line here, protecting the environment or profits?
I repeat it was a 60-40 vote. NO ON X won. The situation seems clear and simple. The Current City Council Majority created a committee stacked to reopen a development issue that this same council majority supported actively. Now sugar coated, scaled down and aimed at seniors they hope their developer allies will get another chance. Arguing about how much land is good for agriculture is pointless. Since when have developers really worried about farmland, come on be honest? What is the bottom line here, protecting the environment or profits?
Richard Livingston hit the nail squarely on the head. This is NOT an ag land issue. I don’t care if the land is productive or fallow. There simply are too many people sharing the same infrastructure and adding more developments is a mistake.
Richard Livingston hit the nail squarely on the head. This is NOT an ag land issue. I don’t care if the land is productive or fallow. There simply are too many people sharing the same infrastructure and adding more developments is a mistake.
Richard Livingston hit the nail squarely on the head. This is NOT an ag land issue. I don’t care if the land is productive or fallow. There simply are too many people sharing the same infrastructure and adding more developments is a mistake.
Richard Livingston hit the nail squarely on the head. This is NOT an ag land issue. I don’t care if the land is productive or fallow. There simply are too many people sharing the same infrastructure and adding more developments is a mistake.
Our current Council Majority argued that when it comes to protecting open space, we all should think REGIONALLY
and not fret about ignoring the voter’s clear intent of Measure O to protect Davis’ peripheral open space. When the issue is peripheral development sprawl,however, they dutifully don their developer-supplied REGIONAL “horse blinders”.
Our current Council Majority argued that when it comes to protecting open space, we all should think REGIONALLY
and not fret about ignoring the voter’s clear intent of Measure O to protect Davis’ peripheral open space. When the issue is peripheral development sprawl,however, they dutifully don their developer-supplied REGIONAL “horse blinders”.
Our current Council Majority argued that when it comes to protecting open space, we all should think REGIONALLY
and not fret about ignoring the voter’s clear intent of Measure O to protect Davis’ peripheral open space. When the issue is peripheral development sprawl,however, they dutifully don their developer-supplied REGIONAL “horse blinders”.
Our current Council Majority argued that when it comes to protecting open space, we all should think REGIONALLY
and not fret about ignoring the voter’s clear intent of Measure O to protect Davis’ peripheral open space. When the issue is peripheral development sprawl,however, they dutifully don their developer-supplied REGIONAL “horse blinders”.
Richard – I think housing on Nishi near the Core Area would be good, even if its more urban style. Why would any sensible person think that’s a bad idea?
Richard – I think housing on Nishi near the Core Area would be good, even if its more urban style. Why would any sensible person think that’s a bad idea?
Richard – I think housing on Nishi near the Core Area would be good, even if its more urban style. Why would any sensible person think that’s a bad idea?
Richard – I think housing on Nishi near the Core Area would be good, even if its more urban style. Why would any sensible person think that’s a bad idea?
Lack of outlets out and into the area, located between the freeway and the railroad, Richards blvd already congested, those are concerns just to start.
Lack of outlets out and into the area, located between the freeway and the railroad, Richards blvd already congested, those are concerns just to start.
Lack of outlets out and into the area, located between the freeway and the railroad, Richards blvd already congested, those are concerns just to start.
Lack of outlets out and into the area, located between the freeway and the railroad, Richards blvd already congested, those are concerns just to start.
Richard,
Well, isn’t the traffic caused by suburban developments, as opposed to ones where you can walk? Isn’t that sort or cutting off your nose to spite your face? I’m not saying we need ANY development, but if we do because the state makes us or whatever, why not something like this as opposed to something else? What’s the better alternative? Wouldn’t traffic make people WALK. We need to start thinking about growing up instead of out.
Richard,
Well, isn’t the traffic caused by suburban developments, as opposed to ones where you can walk? Isn’t that sort or cutting off your nose to spite your face? I’m not saying we need ANY development, but if we do because the state makes us or whatever, why not something like this as opposed to something else? What’s the better alternative? Wouldn’t traffic make people WALK. We need to start thinking about growing up instead of out.
Richard,
Well, isn’t the traffic caused by suburban developments, as opposed to ones where you can walk? Isn’t that sort or cutting off your nose to spite your face? I’m not saying we need ANY development, but if we do because the state makes us or whatever, why not something like this as opposed to something else? What’s the better alternative? Wouldn’t traffic make people WALK. We need to start thinking about growing up instead of out.
Richard,
Well, isn’t the traffic caused by suburban developments, as opposed to ones where you can walk? Isn’t that sort or cutting off your nose to spite your face? I’m not saying we need ANY development, but if we do because the state makes us or whatever, why not something like this as opposed to something else? What’s the better alternative? Wouldn’t traffic make people WALK. We need to start thinking about growing up instead of out.