Dear Chair Kevin Wolf and Members of the Housing Element Steering Committee:
At your recent meeting the issue of whether or not the Covell Village site should be considered for future development came up. By a large margin, the committee agreed that it was an appropriate location for future housing development.
The voters of the city of Davis disagree with that assessment. In 2005 there was a heated Measure J vote, this vote divided the city. Several of the members of the subcommittee worked to pass Measure X. However, the measure was defeated. It was not defeated by a narrow margin. It was not a close vote. It was defeated by a massive margin of nearly 60-40. It was not merely defeated by the citizens who lived next to the project. It was defeated in every precinct in Davis but one. It was a complete and resounding defeat.
It is my opinion that the steering committee did not give this vote by the citizens of this city enough credence when they discussed the issue a few weeks back.
Perhaps the committee will argue that in fact this is a different proposal. That people rejected Measure X because it had some flaws that will be fixed. Or perhaps they will suggest as then Mayor Ruth Asmundson did that we really did not understand the issues involved–a notion that is an utter slap in the face of the second most educated city in Davis.
No, we understood the issues just fine–building on prime agricultural land, building on a location that does not have the infrastructure to handle the increased traffic flow, now building on a road that will have more traffic due to development up the way in Woodland, the prospect of increased noise and air pollution from the traffic, no we understand the issues just fine.
The idea as put forth by the Chair that evening–building, developing that parcel of land in hopes that it will give the city of Davis the incentive to upgrade the Poleline and Covell intersection–is irresponsible and lies in the realm of wishful thinking, particularly in a city with a very limited budget that is slow to react to problems of infrastructure.
Moreover, as many have suggested the new idea put forward by John Whitcombe, the developer for the property, to have senior housing there is the worst of all possible outcomes. It does not solve the need for low income housing for families. It is not a great location for senior housing. And as many involved with the issue of senior housing have already suggested, Davis has enough senior housing already to meet its needs in the foreseeable future. In fact, at Eleanor Roosevelt Circle for example, a great and innovative project, the developers had to look outside of Davis in order to fill its spots. The idea that this would open other spots for affordable family housing is a non-starter.
Nevertheless, the case can be made that the voters rejected the previous development proposal rather than development at this location. Personally, I think the Housing Element Steering Committee should not make that assumption, but should rather prove that there is some kind of community support for development at this location prior to considering the spot for future development. Elections of the Measure X sort are too expensive and too divisive to repeat unless there is good evidence–rather than simple conjecture–that there is community-wide support for such future development.
Last week, the People’s Vanguard of Davis conducted a straw poll on this site and among those who frequent the blog, the measure failed by well over a 2:1 margin. Some will suggest that this blog caters to the more progressive elements of the city, but anyone who reads the comments, will realize quickly that there is a fairly good cross-range of views. Indeed a number of people I have spoken too who favored the original Covell Village, were surprised that the committee was considering a Senior Housing proposal there.
In summary, it is our opinion that the voters of Davis spoke in November of 2005 about their views on Covell Village. This vote should at least be respected to a far greater extent than it has been by the Council Majority and the steering committee that is comprised in its majority of members selected by the Council Majority. Finally that we should not have a repeat of this vote unless absolutely necessary.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Right on DPD!
But, on the affordable housing issue…does anyone know whether students are able to rent the affordable housing apartments? It seems to me that most students would qualify, but it seems a bit crazy that tax payers would subsidize college students (many of the affordable housing projects are subsidized with state/federal dollars). Regardless, I actually think that affordable housing should be included in the growth calculations…otherwise Davis is going to begin to have two classes – the poor and the wealthy. The middle class will disappear – too rich for assistance and too poor to buy anything in Davis. It’s amazing what $400,000 would buy you in West Sacramento vs. Davis…but, of course, who wants to live West Sac? But, that’s the point. Davis real estate is expensive because there is great demand to live in Davis. It doesn’t seem very just that the middle class should subsidize housing for the lower middle class so that the lower middle class can live in a community that the middle class can’t afford. Let the market work, and let those who can afford to live in Davis live in Davis.
If people really cared about helping out lower income families in Davis, they would build more housing, and housing prices would fall.
The question to the community is, “What is more important, helping the lower middle class or keeping Davis a small community?” Personally, I think Davis should remain small, and we should include affordable housing in our growth figures. And if that means that people have to pay an arm and a leg for 1200 sq. ft, then so be it…those who find it worth it to live here will shell out the extra money…those who don’t will live in West Sac.
Right on DPD!
But, on the affordable housing issue…does anyone know whether students are able to rent the affordable housing apartments? It seems to me that most students would qualify, but it seems a bit crazy that tax payers would subsidize college students (many of the affordable housing projects are subsidized with state/federal dollars). Regardless, I actually think that affordable housing should be included in the growth calculations…otherwise Davis is going to begin to have two classes – the poor and the wealthy. The middle class will disappear – too rich for assistance and too poor to buy anything in Davis. It’s amazing what $400,000 would buy you in West Sacramento vs. Davis…but, of course, who wants to live West Sac? But, that’s the point. Davis real estate is expensive because there is great demand to live in Davis. It doesn’t seem very just that the middle class should subsidize housing for the lower middle class so that the lower middle class can live in a community that the middle class can’t afford. Let the market work, and let those who can afford to live in Davis live in Davis.
If people really cared about helping out lower income families in Davis, they would build more housing, and housing prices would fall.
The question to the community is, “What is more important, helping the lower middle class or keeping Davis a small community?” Personally, I think Davis should remain small, and we should include affordable housing in our growth figures. And if that means that people have to pay an arm and a leg for 1200 sq. ft, then so be it…those who find it worth it to live here will shell out the extra money…those who don’t will live in West Sac.
Right on DPD!
But, on the affordable housing issue…does anyone know whether students are able to rent the affordable housing apartments? It seems to me that most students would qualify, but it seems a bit crazy that tax payers would subsidize college students (many of the affordable housing projects are subsidized with state/federal dollars). Regardless, I actually think that affordable housing should be included in the growth calculations…otherwise Davis is going to begin to have two classes – the poor and the wealthy. The middle class will disappear – too rich for assistance and too poor to buy anything in Davis. It’s amazing what $400,000 would buy you in West Sacramento vs. Davis…but, of course, who wants to live West Sac? But, that’s the point. Davis real estate is expensive because there is great demand to live in Davis. It doesn’t seem very just that the middle class should subsidize housing for the lower middle class so that the lower middle class can live in a community that the middle class can’t afford. Let the market work, and let those who can afford to live in Davis live in Davis.
If people really cared about helping out lower income families in Davis, they would build more housing, and housing prices would fall.
The question to the community is, “What is more important, helping the lower middle class or keeping Davis a small community?” Personally, I think Davis should remain small, and we should include affordable housing in our growth figures. And if that means that people have to pay an arm and a leg for 1200 sq. ft, then so be it…those who find it worth it to live here will shell out the extra money…those who don’t will live in West Sac.
Right on DPD!
But, on the affordable housing issue…does anyone know whether students are able to rent the affordable housing apartments? It seems to me that most students would qualify, but it seems a bit crazy that tax payers would subsidize college students (many of the affordable housing projects are subsidized with state/federal dollars). Regardless, I actually think that affordable housing should be included in the growth calculations…otherwise Davis is going to begin to have two classes – the poor and the wealthy. The middle class will disappear – too rich for assistance and too poor to buy anything in Davis. It’s amazing what $400,000 would buy you in West Sacramento vs. Davis…but, of course, who wants to live West Sac? But, that’s the point. Davis real estate is expensive because there is great demand to live in Davis. It doesn’t seem very just that the middle class should subsidize housing for the lower middle class so that the lower middle class can live in a community that the middle class can’t afford. Let the market work, and let those who can afford to live in Davis live in Davis.
If people really cared about helping out lower income families in Davis, they would build more housing, and housing prices would fall.
The question to the community is, “What is more important, helping the lower middle class or keeping Davis a small community?” Personally, I think Davis should remain small, and we should include affordable housing in our growth figures. And if that means that people have to pay an arm and a leg for 1200 sq. ft, then so be it…those who find it worth it to live here will shell out the extra money…those who don’t will live in West Sac.
The HESC are simply the people who want to see growth, otherwise they have nothing to “Steer”. Look at the list of developers, political insiders and hangers-on…
I would far rather trust the first 12 names in the Davis phone book than any self-selected group of “leaders” who want to steer growth!
The HESC are simply the people who want to see growth, otherwise they have nothing to “Steer”. Look at the list of developers, political insiders and hangers-on…
I would far rather trust the first 12 names in the Davis phone book than any self-selected group of “leaders” who want to steer growth!
The HESC are simply the people who want to see growth, otherwise they have nothing to “Steer”. Look at the list of developers, political insiders and hangers-on…
I would far rather trust the first 12 names in the Davis phone book than any self-selected group of “leaders” who want to steer growth!
The HESC are simply the people who want to see growth, otherwise they have nothing to “Steer”. Look at the list of developers, political insiders and hangers-on…
I would far rather trust the first 12 names in the Davis phone book than any self-selected group of “leaders” who want to steer growth!
Kevin Wolf, as chair and spokesperson for the Steering Committee, says it all about the “legitimacy” of this venture. Mr. Wolf was a reckless advocate of Whitcombe’s Covell Village,openly slandering No on X proponents in his Aggie hit piece and misrepresenting himself as spokesperson for Friends of the River in Yes on X literature. He and his wife’s close social ties with the Corbetts are well-known in this small town.
Kevin Wolf, as chair and spokesperson for the Steering Committee, says it all about the “legitimacy” of this venture. Mr. Wolf was a reckless advocate of Whitcombe’s Covell Village,openly slandering No on X proponents in his Aggie hit piece and misrepresenting himself as spokesperson for Friends of the River in Yes on X literature. He and his wife’s close social ties with the Corbetts are well-known in this small town.
Kevin Wolf, as chair and spokesperson for the Steering Committee, says it all about the “legitimacy” of this venture. Mr. Wolf was a reckless advocate of Whitcombe’s Covell Village,openly slandering No on X proponents in his Aggie hit piece and misrepresenting himself as spokesperson for Friends of the River in Yes on X literature. He and his wife’s close social ties with the Corbetts are well-known in this small town.
Kevin Wolf, as chair and spokesperson for the Steering Committee, says it all about the “legitimacy” of this venture. Mr. Wolf was a reckless advocate of Whitcombe’s Covell Village,openly slandering No on X proponents in his Aggie hit piece and misrepresenting himself as spokesperson for Friends of the River in Yes on X literature. He and his wife’s close social ties with the Corbetts are well-known in this small town.
Mr Wolf –
There are plenty of people in Davis who do support the idea of another look at Covell Village. Most people in Davis understand that the city must grow, or the county will grow at the city’s borders,perhaps indiscriminately. Please continue seeking smart growth alternatives for the voters to consider.
Mr Wolf –
There are plenty of people in Davis who do support the idea of another look at Covell Village. Most people in Davis understand that the city must grow, or the county will grow at the city’s borders,perhaps indiscriminately. Please continue seeking smart growth alternatives for the voters to consider.
Mr Wolf –
There are plenty of people in Davis who do support the idea of another look at Covell Village. Most people in Davis understand that the city must grow, or the county will grow at the city’s borders,perhaps indiscriminately. Please continue seeking smart growth alternatives for the voters to consider.
Mr Wolf –
There are plenty of people in Davis who do support the idea of another look at Covell Village. Most people in Davis understand that the city must grow, or the county will grow at the city’s borders,perhaps indiscriminately. Please continue seeking smart growth alternatives for the voters to consider.
Of course there are plenty of people, but they still amount to 30 to 40 percent.
Of course there are plenty of people, but they still amount to 30 to 40 percent.
Of course there are plenty of people, but they still amount to 30 to 40 percent.
Of course there are plenty of people, but they still amount to 30 to 40 percent.
Sales of Existing Homes Declined 4.3% in August
…significant price adjustments in the housing sector. ”Individuals are going…company another victim of the HIGH INVENTORY LEVELS and credit market turmoil…conditions stabilize. More grim housing news came from the S.&P./Case…
September 26, 2007 – By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM-NY TIMES ARCHIVES
Infill and annexing the University’s West Village project will be quite enough for a while. Let’s leave Whitecombe’s property as agricultural for now and look at again in the future.
Sales of Existing Homes Declined 4.3% in August
…significant price adjustments in the housing sector. ”Individuals are going…company another victim of the HIGH INVENTORY LEVELS and credit market turmoil…conditions stabilize. More grim housing news came from the S.&P./Case…
September 26, 2007 – By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM-NY TIMES ARCHIVES
Infill and annexing the University’s West Village project will be quite enough for a while. Let’s leave Whitecombe’s property as agricultural for now and look at again in the future.
Sales of Existing Homes Declined 4.3% in August
…significant price adjustments in the housing sector. ”Individuals are going…company another victim of the HIGH INVENTORY LEVELS and credit market turmoil…conditions stabilize. More grim housing news came from the S.&P./Case…
September 26, 2007 – By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM-NY TIMES ARCHIVES
Infill and annexing the University’s West Village project will be quite enough for a while. Let’s leave Whitecombe’s property as agricultural for now and look at again in the future.
Sales of Existing Homes Declined 4.3% in August
…significant price adjustments in the housing sector. ”Individuals are going…company another victim of the HIGH INVENTORY LEVELS and credit market turmoil…conditions stabilize. More grim housing news came from the S.&P./Case…
September 26, 2007 – By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM-NY TIMES ARCHIVES
Infill and annexing the University’s West Village project will be quite enough for a while. Let’s leave Whitecombe’s property as agricultural for now and look at again in the future.
Very few people have attended the Housing Element Steering Committee meetings, let alone attended them with any regularity. Pam Nieburg, my wife and I are usually the only “non-developer” attendees. Perhaps it would be a good idea to attend the meetings and get an understanding of the Committee’s process before taking them to task for their decision about this one parcel.
Their process has at least three layers, and the decision last Thursday was just the first of those three decisions regarding the H-1 parcel. The second and third layer decisions are yet to come.
With that said, the criteria applied to the level 1 decision about each parcel has the Committee only answering the following question, “Is this site a good site for possible future housing?”
When Committee held its first public workshop many weeks ago, there were many criteria that the public had told the Committee should be applied to each possible housing site. Interestingly enough, the Davis residents who chose to attend that workshop and provide their feedback, almost completely ignored the Measure X vote. They placed much more weight on other specific criteria.
In its PUBLIC meetings (which take place every two weeks), the Committee incorporated the public workshop comments into their site evaluation criteria sheets, and have used those criteria to evaluate each possible housing site. When you apply the criteria we Davis residents said were important to the H-1 site, there are significantly more yesses than noes, and as a result parcel H-1 qualifies to move to the second layer of the Committee’s process.
Again, having attended the meetings helps put the H-1 decision in perspective. The Committee has said “yes” to significantly more potential dwelling units in level 1 than Davis needs to meet the SACOG 2013 growth target. Therefore, many of the parcels which received a “yes” vote in level 1 of the process will not end up in the final list the Committee send to the City Coundcil. The Committee understands this, and will continue doing the excellent public service they have done to date.I fully expect the final list will be very reflective of how Davis feels.
I for one applaud the Committee for their dedication, their thoroughness, their even-handedness, and their love for the city we live in. I encourage more Davis residents to carve out the time to come to their meetings and observe them first-hand.
attended the first workshop
Very few people have attended the Housing Element Steering Committee meetings, let alone attended them with any regularity. Pam Nieburg, my wife and I are usually the only “non-developer” attendees. Perhaps it would be a good idea to attend the meetings and get an understanding of the Committee’s process before taking them to task for their decision about this one parcel.
Their process has at least three layers, and the decision last Thursday was just the first of those three decisions regarding the H-1 parcel. The second and third layer decisions are yet to come.
With that said, the criteria applied to the level 1 decision about each parcel has the Committee only answering the following question, “Is this site a good site for possible future housing?”
When Committee held its first public workshop many weeks ago, there were many criteria that the public had told the Committee should be applied to each possible housing site. Interestingly enough, the Davis residents who chose to attend that workshop and provide their feedback, almost completely ignored the Measure X vote. They placed much more weight on other specific criteria.
In its PUBLIC meetings (which take place every two weeks), the Committee incorporated the public workshop comments into their site evaluation criteria sheets, and have used those criteria to evaluate each possible housing site. When you apply the criteria we Davis residents said were important to the H-1 site, there are significantly more yesses than noes, and as a result parcel H-1 qualifies to move to the second layer of the Committee’s process.
Again, having attended the meetings helps put the H-1 decision in perspective. The Committee has said “yes” to significantly more potential dwelling units in level 1 than Davis needs to meet the SACOG 2013 growth target. Therefore, many of the parcels which received a “yes” vote in level 1 of the process will not end up in the final list the Committee send to the City Coundcil. The Committee understands this, and will continue doing the excellent public service they have done to date.I fully expect the final list will be very reflective of how Davis feels.
I for one applaud the Committee for their dedication, their thoroughness, their even-handedness, and their love for the city we live in. I encourage more Davis residents to carve out the time to come to their meetings and observe them first-hand.
attended the first workshop
Very few people have attended the Housing Element Steering Committee meetings, let alone attended them with any regularity. Pam Nieburg, my wife and I are usually the only “non-developer” attendees. Perhaps it would be a good idea to attend the meetings and get an understanding of the Committee’s process before taking them to task for their decision about this one parcel.
Their process has at least three layers, and the decision last Thursday was just the first of those three decisions regarding the H-1 parcel. The second and third layer decisions are yet to come.
With that said, the criteria applied to the level 1 decision about each parcel has the Committee only answering the following question, “Is this site a good site for possible future housing?”
When Committee held its first public workshop many weeks ago, there were many criteria that the public had told the Committee should be applied to each possible housing site. Interestingly enough, the Davis residents who chose to attend that workshop and provide their feedback, almost completely ignored the Measure X vote. They placed much more weight on other specific criteria.
In its PUBLIC meetings (which take place every two weeks), the Committee incorporated the public workshop comments into their site evaluation criteria sheets, and have used those criteria to evaluate each possible housing site. When you apply the criteria we Davis residents said were important to the H-1 site, there are significantly more yesses than noes, and as a result parcel H-1 qualifies to move to the second layer of the Committee’s process.
Again, having attended the meetings helps put the H-1 decision in perspective. The Committee has said “yes” to significantly more potential dwelling units in level 1 than Davis needs to meet the SACOG 2013 growth target. Therefore, many of the parcels which received a “yes” vote in level 1 of the process will not end up in the final list the Committee send to the City Coundcil. The Committee understands this, and will continue doing the excellent public service they have done to date.I fully expect the final list will be very reflective of how Davis feels.
I for one applaud the Committee for their dedication, their thoroughness, their even-handedness, and their love for the city we live in. I encourage more Davis residents to carve out the time to come to their meetings and observe them first-hand.
attended the first workshop
Very few people have attended the Housing Element Steering Committee meetings, let alone attended them with any regularity. Pam Nieburg, my wife and I are usually the only “non-developer” attendees. Perhaps it would be a good idea to attend the meetings and get an understanding of the Committee’s process before taking them to task for their decision about this one parcel.
Their process has at least three layers, and the decision last Thursday was just the first of those three decisions regarding the H-1 parcel. The second and third layer decisions are yet to come.
With that said, the criteria applied to the level 1 decision about each parcel has the Committee only answering the following question, “Is this site a good site for possible future housing?”
When Committee held its first public workshop many weeks ago, there were many criteria that the public had told the Committee should be applied to each possible housing site. Interestingly enough, the Davis residents who chose to attend that workshop and provide their feedback, almost completely ignored the Measure X vote. They placed much more weight on other specific criteria.
In its PUBLIC meetings (which take place every two weeks), the Committee incorporated the public workshop comments into their site evaluation criteria sheets, and have used those criteria to evaluate each possible housing site. When you apply the criteria we Davis residents said were important to the H-1 site, there are significantly more yesses than noes, and as a result parcel H-1 qualifies to move to the second layer of the Committee’s process.
Again, having attended the meetings helps put the H-1 decision in perspective. The Committee has said “yes” to significantly more potential dwelling units in level 1 than Davis needs to meet the SACOG 2013 growth target. Therefore, many of the parcels which received a “yes” vote in level 1 of the process will not end up in the final list the Committee send to the City Coundcil. The Committee understands this, and will continue doing the excellent public service they have done to date.I fully expect the final list will be very reflective of how Davis feels.
I for one applaud the Committee for their dedication, their thoroughness, their even-handedness, and their love for the city we live in. I encourage more Davis residents to carve out the time to come to their meetings and observe them first-hand.
attended the first workshop
I disagree with DPD’s assertion that your straw poll is worth the 1 and 0’s its stored on. It is not a scientific poll with a margin of error but more importantly it contradicts an important discussion I had with one of the main opponents of measure x. There was a UC economics professor who did a highly touted analysis of the project that showed that the housing would not match the need for housing by working class people in Davis. In a discussion with this professor at the farmers market he told me that people should vote no and wait for the developers to come forward with a better proposal. As he put it,”In a negotiation you never accept the first offer.”
This is one of the problems with requiring a vote for annexation. It leaves little room for negotiation as the process progresses once its placed on the ballot.
Of course without a vote for annexation the developers would have their way with the existing council and dissent would be restricted to 3 minute intervals.
Still my point is that I was told that a vote against measure x was a vote against that proposal not a vote against all development at the Covell Village location. This directly contradicts your open letter.
Ron Glick
I disagree with DPD’s assertion that your straw poll is worth the 1 and 0’s its stored on. It is not a scientific poll with a margin of error but more importantly it contradicts an important discussion I had with one of the main opponents of measure x. There was a UC economics professor who did a highly touted analysis of the project that showed that the housing would not match the need for housing by working class people in Davis. In a discussion with this professor at the farmers market he told me that people should vote no and wait for the developers to come forward with a better proposal. As he put it,”In a negotiation you never accept the first offer.”
This is one of the problems with requiring a vote for annexation. It leaves little room for negotiation as the process progresses once its placed on the ballot.
Of course without a vote for annexation the developers would have their way with the existing council and dissent would be restricted to 3 minute intervals.
Still my point is that I was told that a vote against measure x was a vote against that proposal not a vote against all development at the Covell Village location. This directly contradicts your open letter.
Ron Glick
I disagree with DPD’s assertion that your straw poll is worth the 1 and 0’s its stored on. It is not a scientific poll with a margin of error but more importantly it contradicts an important discussion I had with one of the main opponents of measure x. There was a UC economics professor who did a highly touted analysis of the project that showed that the housing would not match the need for housing by working class people in Davis. In a discussion with this professor at the farmers market he told me that people should vote no and wait for the developers to come forward with a better proposal. As he put it,”In a negotiation you never accept the first offer.”
This is one of the problems with requiring a vote for annexation. It leaves little room for negotiation as the process progresses once its placed on the ballot.
Of course without a vote for annexation the developers would have their way with the existing council and dissent would be restricted to 3 minute intervals.
Still my point is that I was told that a vote against measure x was a vote against that proposal not a vote against all development at the Covell Village location. This directly contradicts your open letter.
Ron Glick
I disagree with DPD’s assertion that your straw poll is worth the 1 and 0’s its stored on. It is not a scientific poll with a margin of error but more importantly it contradicts an important discussion I had with one of the main opponents of measure x. There was a UC economics professor who did a highly touted analysis of the project that showed that the housing would not match the need for housing by working class people in Davis. In a discussion with this professor at the farmers market he told me that people should vote no and wait for the developers to come forward with a better proposal. As he put it,”In a negotiation you never accept the first offer.”
This is one of the problems with requiring a vote for annexation. It leaves little room for negotiation as the process progresses once its placed on the ballot.
Of course without a vote for annexation the developers would have their way with the existing council and dissent would be restricted to 3 minute intervals.
Still my point is that I was told that a vote against measure x was a vote against that proposal not a vote against all development at the Covell Village location. This directly contradicts your open letter.
Ron Glick
Matt:
While I respect your opinion, I also respectfully disagree with you opinion on this one.
The question:
“Is this site a good site for possible future housing?”
is also my understanding of the standard. However, I agree with DPD here, in the next general plan it is not a good site for possible future housing due to the fact that the voters rejected a development by a very large margin less than two years ago.
More to the point, reading through the lines here, I think he is also urging them in the subsequent rounds to exclude this property from the final housing element subcommittee recommended growth areas.
Just my thoughts.
Matt:
While I respect your opinion, I also respectfully disagree with you opinion on this one.
The question:
“Is this site a good site for possible future housing?”
is also my understanding of the standard. However, I agree with DPD here, in the next general plan it is not a good site for possible future housing due to the fact that the voters rejected a development by a very large margin less than two years ago.
More to the point, reading through the lines here, I think he is also urging them in the subsequent rounds to exclude this property from the final housing element subcommittee recommended growth areas.
Just my thoughts.
Matt:
While I respect your opinion, I also respectfully disagree with you opinion on this one.
The question:
“Is this site a good site for possible future housing?”
is also my understanding of the standard. However, I agree with DPD here, in the next general plan it is not a good site for possible future housing due to the fact that the voters rejected a development by a very large margin less than two years ago.
More to the point, reading through the lines here, I think he is also urging them in the subsequent rounds to exclude this property from the final housing element subcommittee recommended growth areas.
Just my thoughts.
Matt:
While I respect your opinion, I also respectfully disagree with you opinion on this one.
The question:
“Is this site a good site for possible future housing?”
is also my understanding of the standard. However, I agree with DPD here, in the next general plan it is not a good site for possible future housing due to the fact that the voters rejected a development by a very large margin less than two years ago.
More to the point, reading through the lines here, I think he is also urging them in the subsequent rounds to exclude this property from the final housing element subcommittee recommended growth areas.
Just my thoughts.
Ron:
I think you have contradicted yourself here.
First of all, Measure J didn’t preclude the city from going with another offer that was more acceptable. The city accepted the first offer and the voters rejected it. The city could have said this is not a good project, instead they cheerleaded on it.
Second, and more fundamentally, it doesn’t seem that the second proposal is any better. I know that this is at not at the proposal phase, but this was part of the discussion that was reported on here.
I think you have to start by respecting the voters and find other places to grow next cycle, there are plenty of them with more than enough growth, why do we need to reignite the polarizing issue of Measure X and Covell Village less than two years after the election?
I’ll tell you the answer because there is bitterness on the part of the council majority and Kevin Wolf who got his behind kicked last time out.
Ron:
I think you have contradicted yourself here.
First of all, Measure J didn’t preclude the city from going with another offer that was more acceptable. The city accepted the first offer and the voters rejected it. The city could have said this is not a good project, instead they cheerleaded on it.
Second, and more fundamentally, it doesn’t seem that the second proposal is any better. I know that this is at not at the proposal phase, but this was part of the discussion that was reported on here.
I think you have to start by respecting the voters and find other places to grow next cycle, there are plenty of them with more than enough growth, why do we need to reignite the polarizing issue of Measure X and Covell Village less than two years after the election?
I’ll tell you the answer because there is bitterness on the part of the council majority and Kevin Wolf who got his behind kicked last time out.
Ron:
I think you have contradicted yourself here.
First of all, Measure J didn’t preclude the city from going with another offer that was more acceptable. The city accepted the first offer and the voters rejected it. The city could have said this is not a good project, instead they cheerleaded on it.
Second, and more fundamentally, it doesn’t seem that the second proposal is any better. I know that this is at not at the proposal phase, but this was part of the discussion that was reported on here.
I think you have to start by respecting the voters and find other places to grow next cycle, there are plenty of them with more than enough growth, why do we need to reignite the polarizing issue of Measure X and Covell Village less than two years after the election?
I’ll tell you the answer because there is bitterness on the part of the council majority and Kevin Wolf who got his behind kicked last time out.
Ron:
I think you have contradicted yourself here.
First of all, Measure J didn’t preclude the city from going with another offer that was more acceptable. The city accepted the first offer and the voters rejected it. The city could have said this is not a good project, instead they cheerleaded on it.
Second, and more fundamentally, it doesn’t seem that the second proposal is any better. I know that this is at not at the proposal phase, but this was part of the discussion that was reported on here.
I think you have to start by respecting the voters and find other places to grow next cycle, there are plenty of them with more than enough growth, why do we need to reignite the polarizing issue of Measure X and Covell Village less than two years after the election?
I’ll tell you the answer because there is bitterness on the part of the council majority and Kevin Wolf who got his behind kicked last time out.
Vicente,
I’m not saying that the next proposal would be any better or that there aren’t better sites for development. I’m just saying that no on measure x was sold to me as as only a vote on that proposal not on any proposal for that site.
Ron
Vicente,
I’m not saying that the next proposal would be any better or that there aren’t better sites for development. I’m just saying that no on measure x was sold to me as as only a vote on that proposal not on any proposal for that site.
Ron
Vicente,
I’m not saying that the next proposal would be any better or that there aren’t better sites for development. I’m just saying that no on measure x was sold to me as as only a vote on that proposal not on any proposal for that site.
Ron
Vicente,
I’m not saying that the next proposal would be any better or that there aren’t better sites for development. I’m just saying that no on measure x was sold to me as as only a vote on that proposal not on any proposal for that site.
Ron
using eleanor roosevelt circle AFFORDABLE housing project is not a valid use of saying that there already exists an overabundance of senior housing in davis.
that project had trouble finding occupants because it was severely income restricted to seniors with extremely low incomes, (and not many of these folks exist in davis), and also each of the apartments at eleanor roosevelt are one bedroom apartments, and while most seniors are willing to downsize from a larger home into a smaller one, a one bedroom apartment is not ideal for most, especially if they want a visitor to stay over.
so, to say that an overabundance of senior housing exists is simply not true.
using eleanor roosevelt circle AFFORDABLE housing project is not a valid use of saying that there already exists an overabundance of senior housing in davis.
that project had trouble finding occupants because it was severely income restricted to seniors with extremely low incomes, (and not many of these folks exist in davis), and also each of the apartments at eleanor roosevelt are one bedroom apartments, and while most seniors are willing to downsize from a larger home into a smaller one, a one bedroom apartment is not ideal for most, especially if they want a visitor to stay over.
so, to say that an overabundance of senior housing exists is simply not true.
using eleanor roosevelt circle AFFORDABLE housing project is not a valid use of saying that there already exists an overabundance of senior housing in davis.
that project had trouble finding occupants because it was severely income restricted to seniors with extremely low incomes, (and not many of these folks exist in davis), and also each of the apartments at eleanor roosevelt are one bedroom apartments, and while most seniors are willing to downsize from a larger home into a smaller one, a one bedroom apartment is not ideal for most, especially if they want a visitor to stay over.
so, to say that an overabundance of senior housing exists is simply not true.
using eleanor roosevelt circle AFFORDABLE housing project is not a valid use of saying that there already exists an overabundance of senior housing in davis.
that project had trouble finding occupants because it was severely income restricted to seniors with extremely low incomes, (and not many of these folks exist in davis), and also each of the apartments at eleanor roosevelt are one bedroom apartments, and while most seniors are willing to downsize from a larger home into a smaller one, a one bedroom apartment is not ideal for most, especially if they want a visitor to stay over.
so, to say that an overabundance of senior housing exists is simply not true.
Anon 11:23:
That’s simply untrue. In fact the units they had trouble selling at ERC were the non-affordable units.
Furthermore, ask people on the Senior Citizens Commission, Social Services, or even city staff, they’ll tell you right now we are not in a shortage of senior housing.
Ron: So you are fine with them coming up with proposal after proposal and needing expensive, costly and draining votes if we think they are a bad project?
Anon 11:23:
That’s simply untrue. In fact the units they had trouble selling at ERC were the non-affordable units.
Furthermore, ask people on the Senior Citizens Commission, Social Services, or even city staff, they’ll tell you right now we are not in a shortage of senior housing.
Ron: So you are fine with them coming up with proposal after proposal and needing expensive, costly and draining votes if we think they are a bad project?
Anon 11:23:
That’s simply untrue. In fact the units they had trouble selling at ERC were the non-affordable units.
Furthermore, ask people on the Senior Citizens Commission, Social Services, or even city staff, they’ll tell you right now we are not in a shortage of senior housing.
Ron: So you are fine with them coming up with proposal after proposal and needing expensive, costly and draining votes if we think they are a bad project?
Anon 11:23:
That’s simply untrue. In fact the units they had trouble selling at ERC were the non-affordable units.
Furthermore, ask people on the Senior Citizens Commission, Social Services, or even city staff, they’ll tell you right now we are not in a shortage of senior housing.
Ron: So you are fine with them coming up with proposal after proposal and needing expensive, costly and draining votes if we think they are a bad project?
I agree with Ron on this.
The wise citizens of Davis decided that they should have a vote on every development proposal. I understand it is expensive for the city, but the voters decided representative government was not appropriate for this item, so you have to vote on each proposal. By the way, it is also very expensive for the developers, and forces the proposed project and housing to be more expensive than it otherwise would be.
If Covell is reformulated as a new project, then let the citizens of Davis see it, hear about it and vote on it.
I agree with Ron on this.
The wise citizens of Davis decided that they should have a vote on every development proposal. I understand it is expensive for the city, but the voters decided representative government was not appropriate for this item, so you have to vote on each proposal. By the way, it is also very expensive for the developers, and forces the proposed project and housing to be more expensive than it otherwise would be.
If Covell is reformulated as a new project, then let the citizens of Davis see it, hear about it and vote on it.
I agree with Ron on this.
The wise citizens of Davis decided that they should have a vote on every development proposal. I understand it is expensive for the city, but the voters decided representative government was not appropriate for this item, so you have to vote on each proposal. By the way, it is also very expensive for the developers, and forces the proposed project and housing to be more expensive than it otherwise would be.
If Covell is reformulated as a new project, then let the citizens of Davis see it, hear about it and vote on it.
I agree with Ron on this.
The wise citizens of Davis decided that they should have a vote on every development proposal. I understand it is expensive for the city, but the voters decided representative government was not appropriate for this item, so you have to vote on each proposal. By the way, it is also very expensive for the developers, and forces the proposed project and housing to be more expensive than it otherwise would be.
If Covell is reformulated as a new project, then let the citizens of Davis see it, hear about it and vote on it.
In response to 11:23 post re abundance of senior housing: Maybe using a senior affordable complex was not a good comparison, but a prominent member of the senior commission and others who should know have stated repeatedly that Davis does not need more senior housing right now, and we certainly do not need a Del Webb type community here.
What Davis does need is more housing affordable to the working families who cannot afford to live in Davis. None of the proposals for building on our periphery, including Whitcombe’s, provides that. We can provide it with well-planned in-fill and redevelopment that will ful-fill our needs for this cycle at least.
In response to 11:23 post re abundance of senior housing: Maybe using a senior affordable complex was not a good comparison, but a prominent member of the senior commission and others who should know have stated repeatedly that Davis does not need more senior housing right now, and we certainly do not need a Del Webb type community here.
What Davis does need is more housing affordable to the working families who cannot afford to live in Davis. None of the proposals for building on our periphery, including Whitcombe’s, provides that. We can provide it with well-planned in-fill and redevelopment that will ful-fill our needs for this cycle at least.
In response to 11:23 post re abundance of senior housing: Maybe using a senior affordable complex was not a good comparison, but a prominent member of the senior commission and others who should know have stated repeatedly that Davis does not need more senior housing right now, and we certainly do not need a Del Webb type community here.
What Davis does need is more housing affordable to the working families who cannot afford to live in Davis. None of the proposals for building on our periphery, including Whitcombe’s, provides that. We can provide it with well-planned in-fill and redevelopment that will ful-fill our needs for this cycle at least.
In response to 11:23 post re abundance of senior housing: Maybe using a senior affordable complex was not a good comparison, but a prominent member of the senior commission and others who should know have stated repeatedly that Davis does not need more senior housing right now, and we certainly do not need a Del Webb type community here.
What Davis does need is more housing affordable to the working families who cannot afford to live in Davis. None of the proposals for building on our periphery, including Whitcombe’s, provides that. We can provide it with well-planned in-fill and redevelopment that will ful-fill our needs for this cycle at least.
Vincente said…
… in the next general plan it is not a good site for possible future housing due to the fact that the voters rejected a development by a very large margin less than two years ago.
I understand your thinking, but what you are advocating is a double standard … one standard for parcel H-1 and another standard for all the other parcels. From my highly biased perspective, that is playing into the hands of the developers. They understand more about the land entitlement process than any of us will ever know. By establishing, and sticking to, one process for all parcels the developers have to “drive down Main Street” in full view. The minute you fracture the process selectively, the developers will identify and use back-alleys to get their projects approved.
If the residents of Davis wanted to have the Measure X vote result as one of the criteria, then they would have said that loud and clear at the public workshop. The reality is that they didn’t do that.
Bottom-line, a little bit of patience regarding parcel H-1 is well worth it to me for the benfit of knowing what the developers are up to.
JMHO
Vincente said…
… in the next general plan it is not a good site for possible future housing due to the fact that the voters rejected a development by a very large margin less than two years ago.
I understand your thinking, but what you are advocating is a double standard … one standard for parcel H-1 and another standard for all the other parcels. From my highly biased perspective, that is playing into the hands of the developers. They understand more about the land entitlement process than any of us will ever know. By establishing, and sticking to, one process for all parcels the developers have to “drive down Main Street” in full view. The minute you fracture the process selectively, the developers will identify and use back-alleys to get their projects approved.
If the residents of Davis wanted to have the Measure X vote result as one of the criteria, then they would have said that loud and clear at the public workshop. The reality is that they didn’t do that.
Bottom-line, a little bit of patience regarding parcel H-1 is well worth it to me for the benfit of knowing what the developers are up to.
JMHO
Vincente said…
… in the next general plan it is not a good site for possible future housing due to the fact that the voters rejected a development by a very large margin less than two years ago.
I understand your thinking, but what you are advocating is a double standard … one standard for parcel H-1 and another standard for all the other parcels. From my highly biased perspective, that is playing into the hands of the developers. They understand more about the land entitlement process than any of us will ever know. By establishing, and sticking to, one process for all parcels the developers have to “drive down Main Street” in full view. The minute you fracture the process selectively, the developers will identify and use back-alleys to get their projects approved.
If the residents of Davis wanted to have the Measure X vote result as one of the criteria, then they would have said that loud and clear at the public workshop. The reality is that they didn’t do that.
Bottom-line, a little bit of patience regarding parcel H-1 is well worth it to me for the benfit of knowing what the developers are up to.
JMHO
Vincente said…
… in the next general plan it is not a good site for possible future housing due to the fact that the voters rejected a development by a very large margin less than two years ago.
I understand your thinking, but what you are advocating is a double standard … one standard for parcel H-1 and another standard for all the other parcels. From my highly biased perspective, that is playing into the hands of the developers. They understand more about the land entitlement process than any of us will ever know. By establishing, and sticking to, one process for all parcels the developers have to “drive down Main Street” in full view. The minute you fracture the process selectively, the developers will identify and use back-alleys to get their projects approved.
If the residents of Davis wanted to have the Measure X vote result as one of the criteria, then they would have said that loud and clear at the public workshop. The reality is that they didn’t do that.
Bottom-line, a little bit of patience regarding parcel H-1 is well worth it to me for the benfit of knowing what the developers are up to.
JMHO
One thing I have been thinking about is a proviso in the next Measure J that a loss of a Measure J vote will mean the property cannot be developed in the next General Plan.
One thing I have been thinking about is a proviso in the next Measure J that a loss of a Measure J vote will mean the property cannot be developed in the next General Plan.
One thing I have been thinking about is a proviso in the next Measure J that a loss of a Measure J vote will mean the property cannot be developed in the next General Plan.
One thing I have been thinking about is a proviso in the next Measure J that a loss of a Measure J vote will mean the property cannot be developed in the next General Plan.
Vicente,
The owners of the property have the right to come back with proposal after proposal. I remember back when I did forestry stuff that if you beat back a logging plan the landowner could modify it and make a new proposal.So it often felt as if you never really won anything. This is the nature of ownership under our system. As long as the value added by development is astronomical you can expect people who own property on the frontiers of Davis to continue to pursue their own economic interests.
The problem is that the City Council didn’t negotiate well enough with the developers before they put Covell Village to the voters. Based on the Wildhorse experience they figured they could win it through heavy spending. They were wrong. Hopefully they learned that you need a bottom up community process. This could be what the Wolf Committee is doing trying to figure out what the community will accept.Sadly the well has been so poisoned that it is very difficult to try to do anything to provide additional housing in this city.
Ron
Vicente,
The owners of the property have the right to come back with proposal after proposal. I remember back when I did forestry stuff that if you beat back a logging plan the landowner could modify it and make a new proposal.So it often felt as if you never really won anything. This is the nature of ownership under our system. As long as the value added by development is astronomical you can expect people who own property on the frontiers of Davis to continue to pursue their own economic interests.
The problem is that the City Council didn’t negotiate well enough with the developers before they put Covell Village to the voters. Based on the Wildhorse experience they figured they could win it through heavy spending. They were wrong. Hopefully they learned that you need a bottom up community process. This could be what the Wolf Committee is doing trying to figure out what the community will accept.Sadly the well has been so poisoned that it is very difficult to try to do anything to provide additional housing in this city.
Ron
Vicente,
The owners of the property have the right to come back with proposal after proposal. I remember back when I did forestry stuff that if you beat back a logging plan the landowner could modify it and make a new proposal.So it often felt as if you never really won anything. This is the nature of ownership under our system. As long as the value added by development is astronomical you can expect people who own property on the frontiers of Davis to continue to pursue their own economic interests.
The problem is that the City Council didn’t negotiate well enough with the developers before they put Covell Village to the voters. Based on the Wildhorse experience they figured they could win it through heavy spending. They were wrong. Hopefully they learned that you need a bottom up community process. This could be what the Wolf Committee is doing trying to figure out what the community will accept.Sadly the well has been so poisoned that it is very difficult to try to do anything to provide additional housing in this city.
Ron
Vicente,
The owners of the property have the right to come back with proposal after proposal. I remember back when I did forestry stuff that if you beat back a logging plan the landowner could modify it and make a new proposal.So it often felt as if you never really won anything. This is the nature of ownership under our system. As long as the value added by development is astronomical you can expect people who own property on the frontiers of Davis to continue to pursue their own economic interests.
The problem is that the City Council didn’t negotiate well enough with the developers before they put Covell Village to the voters. Based on the Wildhorse experience they figured they could win it through heavy spending. They were wrong. Hopefully they learned that you need a bottom up community process. This could be what the Wolf Committee is doing trying to figure out what the community will accept.Sadly the well has been so poisoned that it is very difficult to try to do anything to provide additional housing in this city.
Ron
Re Ron’s statement:
“This is one of the problems with requiring a vote for annexation. It leaves little room for negotiation as the process progresses once its placed on the ballot.”
Actually, the Measure J vote is an automatic referendum. The council majority voted to approve the development agreement and associated actions involving entitlement, subject to approval by the voters.
Once the council majority approved the development, negotiating opportunities were over.
Again, absent Measure J, the project would have been fully entitled at the time that the council majority approved it.
Re Ron’s statement:
“This is one of the problems with requiring a vote for annexation. It leaves little room for negotiation as the process progresses once its placed on the ballot.”
Actually, the Measure J vote is an automatic referendum. The council majority voted to approve the development agreement and associated actions involving entitlement, subject to approval by the voters.
Once the council majority approved the development, negotiating opportunities were over.
Again, absent Measure J, the project would have been fully entitled at the time that the council majority approved it.
Re Ron’s statement:
“This is one of the problems with requiring a vote for annexation. It leaves little room for negotiation as the process progresses once its placed on the ballot.”
Actually, the Measure J vote is an automatic referendum. The council majority voted to approve the development agreement and associated actions involving entitlement, subject to approval by the voters.
Once the council majority approved the development, negotiating opportunities were over.
Again, absent Measure J, the project would have been fully entitled at the time that the council majority approved it.
Re Ron’s statement:
“This is one of the problems with requiring a vote for annexation. It leaves little room for negotiation as the process progresses once its placed on the ballot.”
Actually, the Measure J vote is an automatic referendum. The council majority voted to approve the development agreement and associated actions involving entitlement, subject to approval by the voters.
Once the council majority approved the development, negotiating opportunities were over.
Again, absent Measure J, the project would have been fully entitled at the time that the council majority approved it.
Ron:
I’d suggest that they have the right to bring up any number of proposals that they want, the question is more that we are not under any obligation to consider those proposals, to have the housing element push the proposals through the process, and to ultimately have yet another Measure J vote. There are plenty of other worthy projects, why this one that was previously overwhelmingly rejected by the voters and strongly opposed by the readership of this blog.
Ron:
I’d suggest that they have the right to bring up any number of proposals that they want, the question is more that we are not under any obligation to consider those proposals, to have the housing element push the proposals through the process, and to ultimately have yet another Measure J vote. There are plenty of other worthy projects, why this one that was previously overwhelmingly rejected by the voters and strongly opposed by the readership of this blog.
Ron:
I’d suggest that they have the right to bring up any number of proposals that they want, the question is more that we are not under any obligation to consider those proposals, to have the housing element push the proposals through the process, and to ultimately have yet another Measure J vote. There are plenty of other worthy projects, why this one that was previously overwhelmingly rejected by the voters and strongly opposed by the readership of this blog.
Ron:
I’d suggest that they have the right to bring up any number of proposals that they want, the question is more that we are not under any obligation to consider those proposals, to have the housing element push the proposals through the process, and to ultimately have yet another Measure J vote. There are plenty of other worthy projects, why this one that was previously overwhelmingly rejected by the voters and strongly opposed by the readership of this blog.
“The wise citizens of Davis decided that they should have a vote on every development proposal. “
This is not true. The wise citizens of Davis decided that they should have a vote on every development proposal APPROVED by the current city council. The city council is the gatekeeper here.
“The wise citizens of Davis decided that they should have a vote on every development proposal. “
This is not true. The wise citizens of Davis decided that they should have a vote on every development proposal APPROVED by the current city council. The city council is the gatekeeper here.
“The wise citizens of Davis decided that they should have a vote on every development proposal. “
This is not true. The wise citizens of Davis decided that they should have a vote on every development proposal APPROVED by the current city council. The city council is the gatekeeper here.
“The wise citizens of Davis decided that they should have a vote on every development proposal. “
This is not true. The wise citizens of Davis decided that they should have a vote on every development proposal APPROVED by the current city council. The city council is the gatekeeper here.
Sue, you are correct, once a project is approved by the council and placed on the ballot it cannot be changed. What this means is that all negotiations and changes must be done before the council passes the proposal and forwards it to the voters. The problem with Covell Village was that the council passed a proposal that the voters rejected possibly because the developers thought they could win it like they did with Wildhorse and the council didn’t negotiate well enough for the city and its exiting residents. At any rate the owners do have the right to try again to come up with something that the voters of Davis will sign off on. The only alternative to completely preserve that site from development would be to buy it from its current owners.
Hopefully, whatever happens with housing in the future, the city council will do a better job of negotiating for the benefit of the city and not just sign off on projects that maximize profits for the developers. The experience with measure x just might cause the council to be less reckless and the developers to be less profligate going forward.
Ron
Sue, you are correct, once a project is approved by the council and placed on the ballot it cannot be changed. What this means is that all negotiations and changes must be done before the council passes the proposal and forwards it to the voters. The problem with Covell Village was that the council passed a proposal that the voters rejected possibly because the developers thought they could win it like they did with Wildhorse and the council didn’t negotiate well enough for the city and its exiting residents. At any rate the owners do have the right to try again to come up with something that the voters of Davis will sign off on. The only alternative to completely preserve that site from development would be to buy it from its current owners.
Hopefully, whatever happens with housing in the future, the city council will do a better job of negotiating for the benefit of the city and not just sign off on projects that maximize profits for the developers. The experience with measure x just might cause the council to be less reckless and the developers to be less profligate going forward.
Ron
Sue, you are correct, once a project is approved by the council and placed on the ballot it cannot be changed. What this means is that all negotiations and changes must be done before the council passes the proposal and forwards it to the voters. The problem with Covell Village was that the council passed a proposal that the voters rejected possibly because the developers thought they could win it like they did with Wildhorse and the council didn’t negotiate well enough for the city and its exiting residents. At any rate the owners do have the right to try again to come up with something that the voters of Davis will sign off on. The only alternative to completely preserve that site from development would be to buy it from its current owners.
Hopefully, whatever happens with housing in the future, the city council will do a better job of negotiating for the benefit of the city and not just sign off on projects that maximize profits for the developers. The experience with measure x just might cause the council to be less reckless and the developers to be less profligate going forward.
Ron
Sue, you are correct, once a project is approved by the council and placed on the ballot it cannot be changed. What this means is that all negotiations and changes must be done before the council passes the proposal and forwards it to the voters. The problem with Covell Village was that the council passed a proposal that the voters rejected possibly because the developers thought they could win it like they did with Wildhorse and the council didn’t negotiate well enough for the city and its exiting residents. At any rate the owners do have the right to try again to come up with something that the voters of Davis will sign off on. The only alternative to completely preserve that site from development would be to buy it from its current owners.
Hopefully, whatever happens with housing in the future, the city council will do a better job of negotiating for the benefit of the city and not just sign off on projects that maximize profits for the developers. The experience with measure x just might cause the council to be less reckless and the developers to be less profligate going forward.
Ron
Ron wrote:
“…the developers thought they could win it like they did with Wildhorse and the council didn’t negotiate well enough for the city and its exiting residents….”
“exiting residents?” If I may creatively untangle the unintentionally ironic logic:
If more Wildhorses and Covell Villages and other such cookie-cutter glorified tract home developments get built and fill Davis with SUV-driving, upwardly mobile suburbanites, the original residents, who like living in a livable city, may well “exit.”
Ron wrote:
“…the developers thought they could win it like they did with Wildhorse and the council didn’t negotiate well enough for the city and its exiting residents….”
“exiting residents?” If I may creatively untangle the unintentionally ironic logic:
If more Wildhorses and Covell Villages and other such cookie-cutter glorified tract home developments get built and fill Davis with SUV-driving, upwardly mobile suburbanites, the original residents, who like living in a livable city, may well “exit.”
Ron wrote:
“…the developers thought they could win it like they did with Wildhorse and the council didn’t negotiate well enough for the city and its exiting residents….”
“exiting residents?” If I may creatively untangle the unintentionally ironic logic:
If more Wildhorses and Covell Villages and other such cookie-cutter glorified tract home developments get built and fill Davis with SUV-driving, upwardly mobile suburbanites, the original residents, who like living in a livable city, may well “exit.”
Ron wrote:
“…the developers thought they could win it like they did with Wildhorse and the council didn’t negotiate well enough for the city and its exiting residents….”
“exiting residents?” If I may creatively untangle the unintentionally ironic logic:
If more Wildhorses and Covell Villages and other such cookie-cutter glorified tract home developments get built and fill Davis with SUV-driving, upwardly mobile suburbanites, the original residents, who like living in a livable city, may well “exit.”
original residents have been exiting for some time, as people retire, cash out, or find that after graduation there is no way they can afford to live in their hometown. east davis used to be the working class side of town, once upon a time, but its income levels in the 2000 census were pretty clsoe to everywhere else. anyone talking about IF the town might change hasn’t been looking very hard. it’s become far, far more affluent in the past decade or two.
as for the whitcombe property, i think a lot depends, as with measure x, on the exact plan being offered and the context of the election. i know people here like to think of davis as being a manichaean struggle between ideologically coherent forces, but the reality of votes like that or target is that they are a mishmash of coalitions, predicated on widely varying reasons and gut feelings and personal networks and loyalties. neither that 60% nor that 40% are anywhere near as internally coherent as people assume.
local politics is far murkier than our rhetoric suggests. the focus on senior housing make me, a measure x supporter, tend to line up with DPD, where before we were on opposite sides of the fence. i actually think the property is worth revisiting with a better plan than either x or this emerging proposal, but the devil would be in the details.
at any rate, 60% of davis might have voted no in ’05, but what that 60% meant by that vote is a lot more complicated, and i don’t think anyone can count on a stable supermajority on the matter in the future. a lot of people i knew swung back and forth on the issue in the month before the vote, much as was true with the target vote.
original residents have been exiting for some time, as people retire, cash out, or find that after graduation there is no way they can afford to live in their hometown. east davis used to be the working class side of town, once upon a time, but its income levels in the 2000 census were pretty clsoe to everywhere else. anyone talking about IF the town might change hasn’t been looking very hard. it’s become far, far more affluent in the past decade or two.
as for the whitcombe property, i think a lot depends, as with measure x, on the exact plan being offered and the context of the election. i know people here like to think of davis as being a manichaean struggle between ideologically coherent forces, but the reality of votes like that or target is that they are a mishmash of coalitions, predicated on widely varying reasons and gut feelings and personal networks and loyalties. neither that 60% nor that 40% are anywhere near as internally coherent as people assume.
local politics is far murkier than our rhetoric suggests. the focus on senior housing make me, a measure x supporter, tend to line up with DPD, where before we were on opposite sides of the fence. i actually think the property is worth revisiting with a better plan than either x or this emerging proposal, but the devil would be in the details.
at any rate, 60% of davis might have voted no in ’05, but what that 60% meant by that vote is a lot more complicated, and i don’t think anyone can count on a stable supermajority on the matter in the future. a lot of people i knew swung back and forth on the issue in the month before the vote, much as was true with the target vote.
original residents have been exiting for some time, as people retire, cash out, or find that after graduation there is no way they can afford to live in their hometown. east davis used to be the working class side of town, once upon a time, but its income levels in the 2000 census were pretty clsoe to everywhere else. anyone talking about IF the town might change hasn’t been looking very hard. it’s become far, far more affluent in the past decade or two.
as for the whitcombe property, i think a lot depends, as with measure x, on the exact plan being offered and the context of the election. i know people here like to think of davis as being a manichaean struggle between ideologically coherent forces, but the reality of votes like that or target is that they are a mishmash of coalitions, predicated on widely varying reasons and gut feelings and personal networks and loyalties. neither that 60% nor that 40% are anywhere near as internally coherent as people assume.
local politics is far murkier than our rhetoric suggests. the focus on senior housing make me, a measure x supporter, tend to line up with DPD, where before we were on opposite sides of the fence. i actually think the property is worth revisiting with a better plan than either x or this emerging proposal, but the devil would be in the details.
at any rate, 60% of davis might have voted no in ’05, but what that 60% meant by that vote is a lot more complicated, and i don’t think anyone can count on a stable supermajority on the matter in the future. a lot of people i knew swung back and forth on the issue in the month before the vote, much as was true with the target vote.
original residents have been exiting for some time, as people retire, cash out, or find that after graduation there is no way they can afford to live in their hometown. east davis used to be the working class side of town, once upon a time, but its income levels in the 2000 census were pretty clsoe to everywhere else. anyone talking about IF the town might change hasn’t been looking very hard. it’s become far, far more affluent in the past decade or two.
as for the whitcombe property, i think a lot depends, as with measure x, on the exact plan being offered and the context of the election. i know people here like to think of davis as being a manichaean struggle between ideologically coherent forces, but the reality of votes like that or target is that they are a mishmash of coalitions, predicated on widely varying reasons and gut feelings and personal networks and loyalties. neither that 60% nor that 40% are anywhere near as internally coherent as people assume.
local politics is far murkier than our rhetoric suggests. the focus on senior housing make me, a measure x supporter, tend to line up with DPD, where before we were on opposite sides of the fence. i actually think the property is worth revisiting with a better plan than either x or this emerging proposal, but the devil would be in the details.
at any rate, 60% of davis might have voted no in ’05, but what that 60% meant by that vote is a lot more complicated, and i don’t think anyone can count on a stable supermajority on the matter in the future. a lot of people i knew swung back and forth on the issue in the month before the vote, much as was true with the target vote.
postscript:
if 10% of the no vote changes their mind (or the turnout pattern ends up different somehow), it’s a 50-50 tie.
postscript:
if 10% of the no vote changes their mind (or the turnout pattern ends up different somehow), it’s a 50-50 tie.
postscript:
if 10% of the no vote changes their mind (or the turnout pattern ends up different somehow), it’s a 50-50 tie.
postscript:
if 10% of the no vote changes their mind (or the turnout pattern ends up different somehow), it’s a 50-50 tie.
post-postscript:
densification and infill downtown would do more good than any of the peripheral developments for davis’ service class, students, and people beyond hope of affording the real estate market. might even lively up the downtown a bit to boot.
post-postscript:
densification and infill downtown would do more good than any of the peripheral developments for davis’ service class, students, and people beyond hope of affording the real estate market. might even lively up the downtown a bit to boot.
post-postscript:
densification and infill downtown would do more good than any of the peripheral developments for davis’ service class, students, and people beyond hope of affording the real estate market. might even lively up the downtown a bit to boot.
post-postscript:
densification and infill downtown would do more good than any of the peripheral developments for davis’ service class, students, and people beyond hope of affording the real estate market. might even lively up the downtown a bit to boot.
wu-ming,
Regarding densification and infill downtown, one thing that the Housing Element Committee deliberations have shown me is that the number of available downtown lots for infill are few and far between.
Of the lots near downtown that may be available, many are owned by the School District or the City and provide desireable green space for existing neighborhoods.
By densification, I’m assuming you mean redevelopment of lots with existing structures. The challenge the Housing Element Committee faces when considering densification is “respect for existing neighborhoods.” The vast majority of existing dwellings in the downtown area are either one or two stories. It is not surprising that the idea of a four-story or taller building being plunked down in the midst of an existing neighborhood is not warmly received.
So, was said earlier, the devil is in the details.
wu-ming,
Regarding densification and infill downtown, one thing that the Housing Element Committee deliberations have shown me is that the number of available downtown lots for infill are few and far between.
Of the lots near downtown that may be available, many are owned by the School District or the City and provide desireable green space for existing neighborhoods.
By densification, I’m assuming you mean redevelopment of lots with existing structures. The challenge the Housing Element Committee faces when considering densification is “respect for existing neighborhoods.” The vast majority of existing dwellings in the downtown area are either one or two stories. It is not surprising that the idea of a four-story or taller building being plunked down in the midst of an existing neighborhood is not warmly received.
So, was said earlier, the devil is in the details.
wu-ming,
Regarding densification and infill downtown, one thing that the Housing Element Committee deliberations have shown me is that the number of available downtown lots for infill are few and far between.
Of the lots near downtown that may be available, many are owned by the School District or the City and provide desireable green space for existing neighborhoods.
By densification, I’m assuming you mean redevelopment of lots with existing structures. The challenge the Housing Element Committee faces when considering densification is “respect for existing neighborhoods.” The vast majority of existing dwellings in the downtown area are either one or two stories. It is not surprising that the idea of a four-story or taller building being plunked down in the midst of an existing neighborhood is not warmly received.
So, was said earlier, the devil is in the details.
wu-ming,
Regarding densification and infill downtown, one thing that the Housing Element Committee deliberations have shown me is that the number of available downtown lots for infill are few and far between.
Of the lots near downtown that may be available, many are owned by the School District or the City and provide desireable green space for existing neighborhoods.
By densification, I’m assuming you mean redevelopment of lots with existing structures. The challenge the Housing Element Committee faces when considering densification is “respect for existing neighborhoods.” The vast majority of existing dwellings in the downtown area are either one or two stories. It is not surprising that the idea of a four-story or taller building being plunked down in the midst of an existing neighborhood is not warmly received.
So, was said earlier, the devil is in the details.
Size, location and timing defeated Measure X(Covell Village). While the size may be reduced in a new proposal, the location(infrastructure) and most importantly timing(collapsing housing market and excessive home sales inventory for the foreseeable future) make it more likely that the vote would be even more skewed than the 60/40 vote. Voters who were frightened by Supervisor Thomson’s letter about the demon developer Gidaro into voting Yes on X certainly must feel duped .
Size, location and timing defeated Measure X(Covell Village). While the size may be reduced in a new proposal, the location(infrastructure) and most importantly timing(collapsing housing market and excessive home sales inventory for the foreseeable future) make it more likely that the vote would be even more skewed than the 60/40 vote. Voters who were frightened by Supervisor Thomson’s letter about the demon developer Gidaro into voting Yes on X certainly must feel duped .
Size, location and timing defeated Measure X(Covell Village). While the size may be reduced in a new proposal, the location(infrastructure) and most importantly timing(collapsing housing market and excessive home sales inventory for the foreseeable future) make it more likely that the vote would be even more skewed than the 60/40 vote. Voters who were frightened by Supervisor Thomson’s letter about the demon developer Gidaro into voting Yes on X certainly must feel duped .
Size, location and timing defeated Measure X(Covell Village). While the size may be reduced in a new proposal, the location(infrastructure) and most importantly timing(collapsing housing market and excessive home sales inventory for the foreseeable future) make it more likely that the vote would be even more skewed than the 60/40 vote. Voters who were frightened by Supervisor Thomson’s letter about the demon developer Gidaro into voting Yes on X certainly must feel duped .
What is the point of the postings regarding the situation with respect to collapsing housing prices and excessive home inventory? Is that these progressive Davis voters are concerned primarily about maintaining very high values for their homes? No? Is the concern for developers and will they make money developing housing? If so, no need to worry, they will not develop if they can’t earn a reasonable profit. So, those of you who continually post some factoid regarding housing supply or prices, please help me understand why that should play into whether or not a particular development is approved.
What is the point of the postings regarding the situation with respect to collapsing housing prices and excessive home inventory? Is that these progressive Davis voters are concerned primarily about maintaining very high values for their homes? No? Is the concern for developers and will they make money developing housing? If so, no need to worry, they will not develop if they can’t earn a reasonable profit. So, those of you who continually post some factoid regarding housing supply or prices, please help me understand why that should play into whether or not a particular development is approved.
What is the point of the postings regarding the situation with respect to collapsing housing prices and excessive home inventory? Is that these progressive Davis voters are concerned primarily about maintaining very high values for their homes? No? Is the concern for developers and will they make money developing housing? If so, no need to worry, they will not develop if they can’t earn a reasonable profit. So, those of you who continually post some factoid regarding housing supply or prices, please help me understand why that should play into whether or not a particular development is approved.
What is the point of the postings regarding the situation with respect to collapsing housing prices and excessive home inventory? Is that these progressive Davis voters are concerned primarily about maintaining very high values for their homes? No? Is the concern for developers and will they make money developing housing? If so, no need to worry, they will not develop if they can’t earn a reasonable profit. So, those of you who continually post some factoid regarding housing supply or prices, please help me understand why that should play into whether or not a particular development is approved.
i was speaking mostly about densification, matt, and i agree that people will scream bloody murder should anyone propose to build anything higher than one or two stories. but if people want to make housing actually affordable, and not chew up farmland with low-density sprawl, that is the only option i see that actually accomplishes that.
were i king of davis, i’d take the commercial buildings downtown (most of the ranging from nondescript to painfully ugly) and zone them for up to 4 or 5 story buildings with retail on the ground floor and housing (both condo and rental units) above. all in a walkshed that included the university, all downtown places of employment, and the train station. would it change things? yes, but even inaction on housing availability changes things.
but yeah, most people aren’t serious when they talk about infill, and i suspect that such a plan won’t have a chance of even being considered aloud in this town. low-density suburban commuter town is pretty much the only vision around anymore.
i was speaking mostly about densification, matt, and i agree that people will scream bloody murder should anyone propose to build anything higher than one or two stories. but if people want to make housing actually affordable, and not chew up farmland with low-density sprawl, that is the only option i see that actually accomplishes that.
were i king of davis, i’d take the commercial buildings downtown (most of the ranging from nondescript to painfully ugly) and zone them for up to 4 or 5 story buildings with retail on the ground floor and housing (both condo and rental units) above. all in a walkshed that included the university, all downtown places of employment, and the train station. would it change things? yes, but even inaction on housing availability changes things.
but yeah, most people aren’t serious when they talk about infill, and i suspect that such a plan won’t have a chance of even being considered aloud in this town. low-density suburban commuter town is pretty much the only vision around anymore.
i was speaking mostly about densification, matt, and i agree that people will scream bloody murder should anyone propose to build anything higher than one or two stories. but if people want to make housing actually affordable, and not chew up farmland with low-density sprawl, that is the only option i see that actually accomplishes that.
were i king of davis, i’d take the commercial buildings downtown (most of the ranging from nondescript to painfully ugly) and zone them for up to 4 or 5 story buildings with retail on the ground floor and housing (both condo and rental units) above. all in a walkshed that included the university, all downtown places of employment, and the train station. would it change things? yes, but even inaction on housing availability changes things.
but yeah, most people aren’t serious when they talk about infill, and i suspect that such a plan won’t have a chance of even being considered aloud in this town. low-density suburban commuter town is pretty much the only vision around anymore.
i was speaking mostly about densification, matt, and i agree that people will scream bloody murder should anyone propose to build anything higher than one or two stories. but if people want to make housing actually affordable, and not chew up farmland with low-density sprawl, that is the only option i see that actually accomplishes that.
were i king of davis, i’d take the commercial buildings downtown (most of the ranging from nondescript to painfully ugly) and zone them for up to 4 or 5 story buildings with retail on the ground floor and housing (both condo and rental units) above. all in a walkshed that included the university, all downtown places of employment, and the train station. would it change things? yes, but even inaction on housing availability changes things.
but yeah, most people aren’t serious when they talk about infill, and i suspect that such a plan won’t have a chance of even being considered aloud in this town. low-density suburban commuter town is pretty much the only vision around anymore.
Thoughtful response wu ming. One thing that might move your idea forward would be to commission a study that looks at all the downtown buildings to identify those that are ideal candidates for the type of evolution you propose.
If history in Davis is a reasonable guide, absent a tangible vision, many Davisites would not take the time to transform your idea into a picture in their mind, and therefore would not give it the serious consideration it would appear to merit.
Instead of a Master Plan for the Davis Downtown, we deal with its challenges piecemeal, one-by-one as individual property owners bring forward specific plans for their parcels. One byproduct of a Master Plan for Downtown could be a permanent solution for the pervasive parking problem Downtown faces. A serious look at underground parking strategies is long overdue in Davis. The parking lot at the Borders Commons could easily hold twice as many cars if it had an underground component.
Needless to say if your densification approach were pursued, parking for the owners of the condominiums on the upper floors of the new buildings would bed needed.
Thoughtful response wu ming. One thing that might move your idea forward would be to commission a study that looks at all the downtown buildings to identify those that are ideal candidates for the type of evolution you propose.
If history in Davis is a reasonable guide, absent a tangible vision, many Davisites would not take the time to transform your idea into a picture in their mind, and therefore would not give it the serious consideration it would appear to merit.
Instead of a Master Plan for the Davis Downtown, we deal with its challenges piecemeal, one-by-one as individual property owners bring forward specific plans for their parcels. One byproduct of a Master Plan for Downtown could be a permanent solution for the pervasive parking problem Downtown faces. A serious look at underground parking strategies is long overdue in Davis. The parking lot at the Borders Commons could easily hold twice as many cars if it had an underground component.
Needless to say if your densification approach were pursued, parking for the owners of the condominiums on the upper floors of the new buildings would bed needed.
Thoughtful response wu ming. One thing that might move your idea forward would be to commission a study that looks at all the downtown buildings to identify those that are ideal candidates for the type of evolution you propose.
If history in Davis is a reasonable guide, absent a tangible vision, many Davisites would not take the time to transform your idea into a picture in their mind, and therefore would not give it the serious consideration it would appear to merit.
Instead of a Master Plan for the Davis Downtown, we deal with its challenges piecemeal, one-by-one as individual property owners bring forward specific plans for their parcels. One byproduct of a Master Plan for Downtown could be a permanent solution for the pervasive parking problem Downtown faces. A serious look at underground parking strategies is long overdue in Davis. The parking lot at the Borders Commons could easily hold twice as many cars if it had an underground component.
Needless to say if your densification approach were pursued, parking for the owners of the condominiums on the upper floors of the new buildings would bed needed.
Thoughtful response wu ming. One thing that might move your idea forward would be to commission a study that looks at all the downtown buildings to identify those that are ideal candidates for the type of evolution you propose.
If history in Davis is a reasonable guide, absent a tangible vision, many Davisites would not take the time to transform your idea into a picture in their mind, and therefore would not give it the serious consideration it would appear to merit.
Instead of a Master Plan for the Davis Downtown, we deal with its challenges piecemeal, one-by-one as individual property owners bring forward specific plans for their parcels. One byproduct of a Master Plan for Downtown could be a permanent solution for the pervasive parking problem Downtown faces. A serious look at underground parking strategies is long overdue in Davis. The parking lot at the Borders Commons could easily hold twice as many cars if it had an underground component.
Needless to say if your densification approach were pursued, parking for the owners of the condominiums on the upper floors of the new buildings would bed needed.
practical person said:
What is the point of the postings regarding the situation with respect to collapsing housing prices and excessive home inventory?
Saylor, Souza and Asmundson argued, in support of Yes on X, that scarce housing inventory and sky-high prices were the driving forces behind their advocacy of the
Covell Village development.Well.., we are awash in housing inventory and prices are falling.
Conclusion-the Housing Element plan should MEET Davis’ SACOG numbers and no more. Infill and annexation of UCD’s West Village may very well be sufficient to meet SACOG’s number.
practical person said:
What is the point of the postings regarding the situation with respect to collapsing housing prices and excessive home inventory?
Saylor, Souza and Asmundson argued, in support of Yes on X, that scarce housing inventory and sky-high prices were the driving forces behind their advocacy of the
Covell Village development.Well.., we are awash in housing inventory and prices are falling.
Conclusion-the Housing Element plan should MEET Davis’ SACOG numbers and no more. Infill and annexation of UCD’s West Village may very well be sufficient to meet SACOG’s number.
practical person said:
What is the point of the postings regarding the situation with respect to collapsing housing prices and excessive home inventory?
Saylor, Souza and Asmundson argued, in support of Yes on X, that scarce housing inventory and sky-high prices were the driving forces behind their advocacy of the
Covell Village development.Well.., we are awash in housing inventory and prices are falling.
Conclusion-the Housing Element plan should MEET Davis’ SACOG numbers and no more. Infill and annexation of UCD’s West Village may very well be sufficient to meet SACOG’s number.
practical person said:
What is the point of the postings regarding the situation with respect to collapsing housing prices and excessive home inventory?
Saylor, Souza and Asmundson argued, in support of Yes on X, that scarce housing inventory and sky-high prices were the driving forces behind their advocacy of the
Covell Village development.Well.., we are awash in housing inventory and prices are falling.
Conclusion-the Housing Element plan should MEET Davis’ SACOG numbers and no more. Infill and annexation of UCD’s West Village may very well be sufficient to meet SACOG’s number.
but if people want to make housing actually affordable, . . . .
few people in Davis do (certainly not most progessives), and references to it by estabishment figures usually serve the purpose of promoting more projects for upper middle income people
–Richard Estes
but if people want to make housing actually affordable, . . . .
few people in Davis do (certainly not most progessives), and references to it by estabishment figures usually serve the purpose of promoting more projects for upper middle income people
–Richard Estes
but if people want to make housing actually affordable, . . . .
few people in Davis do (certainly not most progessives), and references to it by estabishment figures usually serve the purpose of promoting more projects for upper middle income people
–Richard Estes
but if people want to make housing actually affordable, . . . .
few people in Davis do (certainly not most progessives), and references to it by estabishment figures usually serve the purpose of promoting more projects for upper middle income people
–Richard Estes
The Davis school district has an ongoing problem of declining school enrollment, but no one ever seems to link this issue to development. If development were to occur, why would we want it to be for senior housing rather than attracting younger folks who might contribute to the school population?
The Davis school district has an ongoing problem of declining school enrollment, but no one ever seems to link this issue to development. If development were to occur, why would we want it to be for senior housing rather than attracting younger folks who might contribute to the school population?
The Davis school district has an ongoing problem of declining school enrollment, but no one ever seems to link this issue to development. If development were to occur, why would we want it to be for senior housing rather than attracting younger folks who might contribute to the school population?
The Davis school district has an ongoing problem of declining school enrollment, but no one ever seems to link this issue to development. If development were to occur, why would we want it to be for senior housing rather than attracting younger folks who might contribute to the school population?
Along the same lines, 600K homes are not going to house families with young children.
Along the same lines, 600K homes are not going to house families with young children.
Along the same lines, 600K homes are not going to house families with young children.
Along the same lines, 600K homes are not going to house families with young children.
Lack of homes for the working class and declining enrollment are two pieces of the same puzzle. The article in the Enterprise Friday about the financial problems of DJUSD and its employees are linked to homes being too expensive for young families to afford. Of course you would have more people wanting to raise their kids in the Davis schools if they could afford it. This of course was one of the main problems with Covell Village, the homes were too expensive for the people who work in the Davis area like your cops ,teachers, firefighters,city workers etc.
One of the hidden fears that people in Davis don’t want to admit is that if you build enough housing to bring the prices down people who bought at the top of the market will lose money. Yes it really is about property values for so many progressive regressive nimby’s
Lack of homes for the working class and declining enrollment are two pieces of the same puzzle. The article in the Enterprise Friday about the financial problems of DJUSD and its employees are linked to homes being too expensive for young families to afford. Of course you would have more people wanting to raise their kids in the Davis schools if they could afford it. This of course was one of the main problems with Covell Village, the homes were too expensive for the people who work in the Davis area like your cops ,teachers, firefighters,city workers etc.
One of the hidden fears that people in Davis don’t want to admit is that if you build enough housing to bring the prices down people who bought at the top of the market will lose money. Yes it really is about property values for so many progressive regressive nimby’s
Lack of homes for the working class and declining enrollment are two pieces of the same puzzle. The article in the Enterprise Friday about the financial problems of DJUSD and its employees are linked to homes being too expensive for young families to afford. Of course you would have more people wanting to raise their kids in the Davis schools if they could afford it. This of course was one of the main problems with Covell Village, the homes were too expensive for the people who work in the Davis area like your cops ,teachers, firefighters,city workers etc.
One of the hidden fears that people in Davis don’t want to admit is that if you build enough housing to bring the prices down people who bought at the top of the market will lose money. Yes it really is about property values for so many progressive regressive nimby’s
Lack of homes for the working class and declining enrollment are two pieces of the same puzzle. The article in the Enterprise Friday about the financial problems of DJUSD and its employees are linked to homes being too expensive for young families to afford. Of course you would have more people wanting to raise their kids in the Davis schools if they could afford it. This of course was one of the main problems with Covell Village, the homes were too expensive for the people who work in the Davis area like your cops ,teachers, firefighters,city workers etc.
One of the hidden fears that people in Davis don’t want to admit is that if you build enough housing to bring the prices down people who bought at the top of the market will lose money. Yes it really is about property values for so many progressive regressive nimby’s
Let’s make this simple, we can all name 20-50 or more prominent progressives, so which of these progressives do you believe are primarily concerned about their property values? Come on, put your money where your mouth is. Because I have a hard time believing that a lot of these people who have lived here 30, 40, 50 years are concerned about their house prices. People like DPD and Lamar Heystek do not even own homes, so why are they concerned about protecting their home prices. So let’s see some names and then we can discuss it…
Let’s make this simple, we can all name 20-50 or more prominent progressives, so which of these progressives do you believe are primarily concerned about their property values? Come on, put your money where your mouth is. Because I have a hard time believing that a lot of these people who have lived here 30, 40, 50 years are concerned about their house prices. People like DPD and Lamar Heystek do not even own homes, so why are they concerned about protecting their home prices. So let’s see some names and then we can discuss it…
Let’s make this simple, we can all name 20-50 or more prominent progressives, so which of these progressives do you believe are primarily concerned about their property values? Come on, put your money where your mouth is. Because I have a hard time believing that a lot of these people who have lived here 30, 40, 50 years are concerned about their house prices. People like DPD and Lamar Heystek do not even own homes, so why are they concerned about protecting their home prices. So let’s see some names and then we can discuss it…
Let’s make this simple, we can all name 20-50 or more prominent progressives, so which of these progressives do you believe are primarily concerned about their property values? Come on, put your money where your mouth is. Because I have a hard time believing that a lot of these people who have lived here 30, 40, 50 years are concerned about their house prices. People like DPD and Lamar Heystek do not even own homes, so why are they concerned about protecting their home prices. So let’s see some names and then we can discuss it…
I don’t believe you could “build enough housing to bring the prices down.”
The current housing slump is nothing new. We went through one a few years ago, and in the early 1990’s. The net result was that houses took longer to sell, and there were some price reductions. I don’t know anybody who has bought a house in Davis and then sold it for less then they paid for it, ever. Certainly we shouldn’t use a temporary blip in the market determine growth policies.
There are lots of people with kids in those 600K homes, by the way.
I don’t believe you could “build enough housing to bring the prices down.”
The current housing slump is nothing new. We went through one a few years ago, and in the early 1990’s. The net result was that houses took longer to sell, and there were some price reductions. I don’t know anybody who has bought a house in Davis and then sold it for less then they paid for it, ever. Certainly we shouldn’t use a temporary blip in the market determine growth policies.
There are lots of people with kids in those 600K homes, by the way.
I don’t believe you could “build enough housing to bring the prices down.”
The current housing slump is nothing new. We went through one a few years ago, and in the early 1990’s. The net result was that houses took longer to sell, and there were some price reductions. I don’t know anybody who has bought a house in Davis and then sold it for less then they paid for it, ever. Certainly we shouldn’t use a temporary blip in the market determine growth policies.
There are lots of people with kids in those 600K homes, by the way.
I don’t believe you could “build enough housing to bring the prices down.”
The current housing slump is nothing new. We went through one a few years ago, and in the early 1990’s. The net result was that houses took longer to sell, and there were some price reductions. I don’t know anybody who has bought a house in Davis and then sold it for less then they paid for it, ever. Certainly we shouldn’t use a temporary blip in the market determine growth policies.
There are lots of people with kids in those 600K homes, by the way.
When land prices are so high, is it even possible to build a group of homes that is appealing to young families and also affordable? You can get so much more for your money in Dixon, West Sac, or Woodland if you are looking at new houses. A pretty small new house is for sale right now at 5th & J for close to $600k and it’s something like 1300 square feet (3 br, 2.5 ba, almost no yard). It would have to be smaller to be cheaper, and it’s hard to imagine something much smaller being appealing to a young family.
When land prices are so high, is it even possible to build a group of homes that is appealing to young families and also affordable? You can get so much more for your money in Dixon, West Sac, or Woodland if you are looking at new houses. A pretty small new house is for sale right now at 5th & J for close to $600k and it’s something like 1300 square feet (3 br, 2.5 ba, almost no yard). It would have to be smaller to be cheaper, and it’s hard to imagine something much smaller being appealing to a young family.
When land prices are so high, is it even possible to build a group of homes that is appealing to young families and also affordable? You can get so much more for your money in Dixon, West Sac, or Woodland if you are looking at new houses. A pretty small new house is for sale right now at 5th & J for close to $600k and it’s something like 1300 square feet (3 br, 2.5 ba, almost no yard). It would have to be smaller to be cheaper, and it’s hard to imagine something much smaller being appealing to a young family.
When land prices are so high, is it even possible to build a group of homes that is appealing to young families and also affordable? You can get so much more for your money in Dixon, West Sac, or Woodland if you are looking at new houses. A pretty small new house is for sale right now at 5th & J for close to $600k and it’s something like 1300 square feet (3 br, 2.5 ba, almost no yard). It would have to be smaller to be cheaper, and it’s hard to imagine something much smaller being appealing to a young family.
Don Shor said:
I don’t know anybody who has bought a house in Davis and then sold it for less then they paid for it,……
I bought my house from someone who lost $20-30,000 on their purchase price in addition to their investment in improvements . This occured after 2 years of their ownership after buying just prior to the early 1990s downturn.
Don Shor said:
I don’t know anybody who has bought a house in Davis and then sold it for less then they paid for it,……
I bought my house from someone who lost $20-30,000 on their purchase price in addition to their investment in improvements . This occured after 2 years of their ownership after buying just prior to the early 1990s downturn.
Don Shor said:
I don’t know anybody who has bought a house in Davis and then sold it for less then they paid for it,……
I bought my house from someone who lost $20-30,000 on their purchase price in addition to their investment in improvements . This occured after 2 years of their ownership after buying just prior to the early 1990s downturn.
Don Shor said:
I don’t know anybody who has bought a house in Davis and then sold it for less then they paid for it,……
I bought my house from someone who lost $20-30,000 on their purchase price in addition to their investment in improvements . This occured after 2 years of their ownership after buying just prior to the early 1990s downturn.
In reality if the housing marketplace of Davis were to be substantially expanded, there is no guarantee that the buyers of those added houses would change the fundamental composition of the Davis community. The magnet that brings people to Davis is the fact that it is a college town with a professional, more upscale population.
As has been dicussed several times in this blog, the price of homes and property anywhere in the Davis school district has always been at least 20% higher than the surrounding communities. This long-term premium for Davis home prices rests on five factors:
1. The university;
2. The relative quality of Davis public schools;
3. The low crime rate and relatively high rate of social harmony;
4. The physical infrastructure of Davis, including the parks, trees, bike paths, green belts, etc. and
5. The amenities of Davis, including the economically viable downtown, farmers market, numerous restaurants and coffeehouses, programs for kids and senior programs, Mondavi Center, etc..
There are lots of people who either don’t want or don’t want to pay for the value Davis consistently delivers its residents. Those home buyers end up making their housing offers in the other communities within a stone’s throw of Davis that have a different character and economic/social mix.
In supply/demand curve terms Davis will always benefit from the fact that there is a low supply of towns like it, coupled with a very high demand for its core characteristics.
In reality if the housing marketplace of Davis were to be substantially expanded, there is no guarantee that the buyers of those added houses would change the fundamental composition of the Davis community. The magnet that brings people to Davis is the fact that it is a college town with a professional, more upscale population.
As has been dicussed several times in this blog, the price of homes and property anywhere in the Davis school district has always been at least 20% higher than the surrounding communities. This long-term premium for Davis home prices rests on five factors:
1. The university;
2. The relative quality of Davis public schools;
3. The low crime rate and relatively high rate of social harmony;
4. The physical infrastructure of Davis, including the parks, trees, bike paths, green belts, etc. and
5. The amenities of Davis, including the economically viable downtown, farmers market, numerous restaurants and coffeehouses, programs for kids and senior programs, Mondavi Center, etc..
There are lots of people who either don’t want or don’t want to pay for the value Davis consistently delivers its residents. Those home buyers end up making their housing offers in the other communities within a stone’s throw of Davis that have a different character and economic/social mix.
In supply/demand curve terms Davis will always benefit from the fact that there is a low supply of towns like it, coupled with a very high demand for its core characteristics.
In reality if the housing marketplace of Davis were to be substantially expanded, there is no guarantee that the buyers of those added houses would change the fundamental composition of the Davis community. The magnet that brings people to Davis is the fact that it is a college town with a professional, more upscale population.
As has been dicussed several times in this blog, the price of homes and property anywhere in the Davis school district has always been at least 20% higher than the surrounding communities. This long-term premium for Davis home prices rests on five factors:
1. The university;
2. The relative quality of Davis public schools;
3. The low crime rate and relatively high rate of social harmony;
4. The physical infrastructure of Davis, including the parks, trees, bike paths, green belts, etc. and
5. The amenities of Davis, including the economically viable downtown, farmers market, numerous restaurants and coffeehouses, programs for kids and senior programs, Mondavi Center, etc..
There are lots of people who either don’t want or don’t want to pay for the value Davis consistently delivers its residents. Those home buyers end up making their housing offers in the other communities within a stone’s throw of Davis that have a different character and economic/social mix.
In supply/demand curve terms Davis will always benefit from the fact that there is a low supply of towns like it, coupled with a very high demand for its core characteristics.
In reality if the housing marketplace of Davis were to be substantially expanded, there is no guarantee that the buyers of those added houses would change the fundamental composition of the Davis community. The magnet that brings people to Davis is the fact that it is a college town with a professional, more upscale population.
As has been dicussed several times in this blog, the price of homes and property anywhere in the Davis school district has always been at least 20% higher than the surrounding communities. This long-term premium for Davis home prices rests on five factors:
1. The university;
2. The relative quality of Davis public schools;
3. The low crime rate and relatively high rate of social harmony;
4. The physical infrastructure of Davis, including the parks, trees, bike paths, green belts, etc. and
5. The amenities of Davis, including the economically viable downtown, farmers market, numerous restaurants and coffeehouses, programs for kids and senior programs, Mondavi Center, etc..
There are lots of people who either don’t want or don’t want to pay for the value Davis consistently delivers its residents. Those home buyers end up making their housing offers in the other communities within a stone’s throw of Davis that have a different character and economic/social mix.
In supply/demand curve terms Davis will always benefit from the fact that there is a low supply of towns like it, coupled with a very high demand for its core characteristics.
Davis home owner said…
I bought my house from someone who lost $20-30,000 on their purchase price in addition to their investment in improvements . This occured after 2 years of their ownership after buying just prior to the early 1990s downturn.
Dho, do you think the transaction you described was representative? … or for that matter even statistically meaningful?
Methinks you were being purposefully obtuse.
Davis home owner said…
I bought my house from someone who lost $20-30,000 on their purchase price in addition to their investment in improvements . This occured after 2 years of their ownership after buying just prior to the early 1990s downturn.
Dho, do you think the transaction you described was representative? … or for that matter even statistically meaningful?
Methinks you were being purposefully obtuse.
Davis home owner said…
I bought my house from someone who lost $20-30,000 on their purchase price in addition to their investment in improvements . This occured after 2 years of their ownership after buying just prior to the early 1990s downturn.
Dho, do you think the transaction you described was representative? … or for that matter even statistically meaningful?
Methinks you were being purposefully obtuse.
Davis home owner said…
I bought my house from someone who lost $20-30,000 on their purchase price in addition to their investment in improvements . This occured after 2 years of their ownership after buying just prior to the early 1990s downturn.
Dho, do you think the transaction you described was representative? … or for that matter even statistically meaningful?
Methinks you were being purposefully obtuse.
Lots of people are concerned with the value of their homes. The real question should be who isn’t concerned with the value of their home?
By the way Vicente what else are your so called progressives concerned about?
Lots of people are concerned with the value of their homes. The real question should be who isn’t concerned with the value of their home?
By the way Vicente what else are your so called progressives concerned about?
Lots of people are concerned with the value of their homes. The real question should be who isn’t concerned with the value of their home?
By the way Vicente what else are your so called progressives concerned about?
Lots of people are concerned with the value of their homes. The real question should be who isn’t concerned with the value of their home?
By the way Vicente what else are your so called progressives concerned about?