This is going to be one of the most important meetings and discussions that will occur that will help determine future direction of housing in Davis. Over the course of the next few weeks, the Vanguard will have a number of articles and guest commentaries that will advocate various points of view on this issue, including from the members of the committee itself.
One of the biggest questions facing this community is how fast should we grow. The city of Davis ostensibly has a one percent grow requirement.
Although one of the things debated with the council on Tuesday was the meaning of this requirement. Bill Emlen stating it was a parameter and the reality was that we were growing about half a percent per year.
Councilmember Stephen Souza:
“So the key word what you just said, it’s a parameter, it’s not a requirement. We don’t have to grow.”
However, those familiar with the Measure X/ Covell Village debate will recall that the council majority at that time repeatedly argued that we were REQUIRED by law to grow at one percent, therefore we needed to pass Measure X and develop Covell Village.
The language of the ordinance reads:
“The City Council finds that an annual average growth parameter for the City is appropriate for future growth management and planning…”
Mayor Sue Greenwald argued that this has been treated as a target rather than a cap. And that she voted against it believing it was a target rather than a cap.
The Mayor then argued that if it was intended to be a cap that they should put it into a motion that it be a cap.
“If Steve is correct that he means it as a cap, I certainly didn’t. I voted against the word parameter because it sounded like a target to me. So if Steve means it as a cap, maybe we have three votes to change the resolution to make it a cap. So actually I’d like to make the motion to that effect. That we bring back an ordinance changing the word parameter in our growth resolution to cap at one percent.”
Councilmember Souza then brought up a substitute motion:
“The motion would be that we direct staff to bring back the one percent resolution on one percent growth guidelines for further discussion and resolution.”
As Matt Williams pointed out yesterday:
“One of the significant areas of disagreement within the HESC members has centered around the charge it was given by the City Council regarding Growth Rate. On the one hand, the RHNA allocation is only 498 additional residential units between January 2006 and December 2013. On the other hand, the Planning Department Staff’s interpretation of the 1% Growth Guideline as a target rather than as a cap means over 2,300 additional residential units over the same period.”
The debate is basically twofold. First how much we should grow, whether it should be 498 additional units or at a higher rate of 2,300 additional units.
The current debate over whether this is a cap or target is not merely semantics. But it also misses a key point. Even if it is set at a cap, something that the Mayor clearly wants, by setting the cap at the higher number, it leaves a considerable amount of leeway with future councils but also with the HESC itself.
Nevertheless the ambiguity of the wording of the original resolution has clearly hindered the HESC in its attempts to determine where we should grow. Where we should grow is to a good extent determined by how much we should grow.
Those of us who believe we need to grow more slowly, can perhaps take some solace in the council’s accepting the 1% guideline as a cap rather than a target, it still leaves much to be determined in this process. 1% is roughly 300 units per year, which does not sound like a lot until you realize that every three years that means a development the size of Wildhorse.
Neither the housing market nor the public seems likely to be approving of that level of growth in the near future.
In the next few weeks, these points will be debated repeatedly. The public needs to become engaged in this debate as though it were the next council election, because in many very real ways, this debate is far more important than who gets elected to serve on the next council.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Thank you for clarifying what the debate was about on Tuesday.
It may have started out as a debate about growth, but it was hard to tell by watching the meeting with the bickering about who made the motion to bring it back and the Mayor going on and on about her power to declare that Souza’s motion was not a true substitute motion, the motion was hers, and her belief that Souza was only changing her motion slightly so politically he would get credit for it, and she insisted that his motion be deemed an amendment. (I wanted to reach into the TV and shake some sense into the Mayor. )
However, your analysis makes it seem like Souza and Greenwald made two separate motions, when in fact Sue seemed to think that his motion was so close to hers that there was difference.
Thank you for clarifying what the debate was about on Tuesday.
It may have started out as a debate about growth, but it was hard to tell by watching the meeting with the bickering about who made the motion to bring it back and the Mayor going on and on about her power to declare that Souza’s motion was not a true substitute motion, the motion was hers, and her belief that Souza was only changing her motion slightly so politically he would get credit for it, and she insisted that his motion be deemed an amendment. (I wanted to reach into the TV and shake some sense into the Mayor. )
However, your analysis makes it seem like Souza and Greenwald made two separate motions, when in fact Sue seemed to think that his motion was so close to hers that there was difference.
Thank you for clarifying what the debate was about on Tuesday.
It may have started out as a debate about growth, but it was hard to tell by watching the meeting with the bickering about who made the motion to bring it back and the Mayor going on and on about her power to declare that Souza’s motion was not a true substitute motion, the motion was hers, and her belief that Souza was only changing her motion slightly so politically he would get credit for it, and she insisted that his motion be deemed an amendment. (I wanted to reach into the TV and shake some sense into the Mayor. )
However, your analysis makes it seem like Souza and Greenwald made two separate motions, when in fact Sue seemed to think that his motion was so close to hers that there was difference.
Thank you for clarifying what the debate was about on Tuesday.
It may have started out as a debate about growth, but it was hard to tell by watching the meeting with the bickering about who made the motion to bring it back and the Mayor going on and on about her power to declare that Souza’s motion was not a true substitute motion, the motion was hers, and her belief that Souza was only changing her motion slightly so politically he would get credit for it, and she insisted that his motion be deemed an amendment. (I wanted to reach into the TV and shake some sense into the Mayor. )
However, your analysis makes it seem like Souza and Greenwald made two separate motions, when in fact Sue seemed to think that his motion was so close to hers that there was difference.
…him motion was so close to hers that there was NO difference.
…him motion was so close to hers that there was NO difference.
…him motion was so close to hers that there was NO difference.
…him motion was so close to hers that there was NO difference.
Councilmember Stephen Souza:
“So the key word what you just said, it’s a parameter, it’s not a requirement. We don’t have to grow.”
Claire St. John’s excellent 3-part Enterprise article(Debbie Davis has kept her on a “short leash” ever since this real piece of journalism) on the Covell Village/Measure X campaign in the Davis Enterprise archives tells the tale. Souza and Saylor breached the public trust as CV salesmen who knowingly distorted the facts.
Councilmember Stephen Souza:
“So the key word what you just said, it’s a parameter, it’s not a requirement. We don’t have to grow.”
Claire St. John’s excellent 3-part Enterprise article(Debbie Davis has kept her on a “short leash” ever since this real piece of journalism) on the Covell Village/Measure X campaign in the Davis Enterprise archives tells the tale. Souza and Saylor breached the public trust as CV salesmen who knowingly distorted the facts.
Councilmember Stephen Souza:
“So the key word what you just said, it’s a parameter, it’s not a requirement. We don’t have to grow.”
Claire St. John’s excellent 3-part Enterprise article(Debbie Davis has kept her on a “short leash” ever since this real piece of journalism) on the Covell Village/Measure X campaign in the Davis Enterprise archives tells the tale. Souza and Saylor breached the public trust as CV salesmen who knowingly distorted the facts.
Councilmember Stephen Souza:
“So the key word what you just said, it’s a parameter, it’s not a requirement. We don’t have to grow.”
Claire St. John’s excellent 3-part Enterprise article(Debbie Davis has kept her on a “short leash” ever since this real piece of journalism) on the Covell Village/Measure X campaign in the Davis Enterprise archives tells the tale. Souza and Saylor breached the public trust as CV salesmen who knowingly distorted the facts.
My dictionary defines “parameter” as a fixed limit or boundary. Isn’t that a cap?
There is no “law” that we have to grow by 1%. The only “requirement”, if you want to call it that, is the SACOG RHNA numbers, and those units do not have to be built–all we have to do is show they we have sufficient land zoned to accommodate those numbers. The 1% is a number our previous council pulled out of the hat to justify Covell Village. There is no requirement to grow at 1%–there are no teeth to that resolution. What happens if we don’t grow by 1%? Some of the council members and developers have fits? So what?
Please don’t be fooled by Saylor and Souza and Asmundson. There is NO requirement to consider the 1% either as a cap or a target. I hope the Committee has the courage to acknowledge that.
My dictionary defines “parameter” as a fixed limit or boundary. Isn’t that a cap?
There is no “law” that we have to grow by 1%. The only “requirement”, if you want to call it that, is the SACOG RHNA numbers, and those units do not have to be built–all we have to do is show they we have sufficient land zoned to accommodate those numbers. The 1% is a number our previous council pulled out of the hat to justify Covell Village. There is no requirement to grow at 1%–there are no teeth to that resolution. What happens if we don’t grow by 1%? Some of the council members and developers have fits? So what?
Please don’t be fooled by Saylor and Souza and Asmundson. There is NO requirement to consider the 1% either as a cap or a target. I hope the Committee has the courage to acknowledge that.
My dictionary defines “parameter” as a fixed limit or boundary. Isn’t that a cap?
There is no “law” that we have to grow by 1%. The only “requirement”, if you want to call it that, is the SACOG RHNA numbers, and those units do not have to be built–all we have to do is show they we have sufficient land zoned to accommodate those numbers. The 1% is a number our previous council pulled out of the hat to justify Covell Village. There is no requirement to grow at 1%–there are no teeth to that resolution. What happens if we don’t grow by 1%? Some of the council members and developers have fits? So what?
Please don’t be fooled by Saylor and Souza and Asmundson. There is NO requirement to consider the 1% either as a cap or a target. I hope the Committee has the courage to acknowledge that.
My dictionary defines “parameter” as a fixed limit or boundary. Isn’t that a cap?
There is no “law” that we have to grow by 1%. The only “requirement”, if you want to call it that, is the SACOG RHNA numbers, and those units do not have to be built–all we have to do is show they we have sufficient land zoned to accommodate those numbers. The 1% is a number our previous council pulled out of the hat to justify Covell Village. There is no requirement to grow at 1%–there are no teeth to that resolution. What happens if we don’t grow by 1%? Some of the council members and developers have fits? So what?
Please don’t be fooled by Saylor and Souza and Asmundson. There is NO requirement to consider the 1% either as a cap or a target. I hope the Committee has the courage to acknowledge that.
“Bill Emlen stating it was a parameter and the reality was that we were growing about half a percent per year.”
I’m surprised to read we are growing at a ‘half a percent per year,’ now. I don’t see that growth anywhere. Does anyone know of any significant housing developments in Davis now under construction? (They must be in places in Davis I never go.)
“Those of us who believe we need to grow more slowly, can perhaps take some solace in the council’s accepting the 1% guideline as a cap rather than a target, it still leaves much to be determined in this process.”
Notwithstanding Bill Emlen’s assertion that we are growing at 0.5% per year, it remains the case that our residential population has not increased at all for 7 years. That’s probably the longest stretch with zero population growth in Davis since the Depression years of the 1930s.
“Neither the housing market nor the public seems likely to be approving of that level of growth in the near future.”
I think both of these assertions are true. Unless prices in Davis decline by 20-25%, there is too little demand for the current housing stock, let alone a growing one. I know someone who is trying to sell his condo in South Davis for what he paid for it in 2000, and he cannot find a buyer. To make matters worse, a large apartment complex, Oakshade Commons (at Lillard and Cowell), is now trying to sell all of its units as condos. The market is flooded with a lot of this type of “affordable” housing, but no one is buying.
“Bill Emlen stating it was a parameter and the reality was that we were growing about half a percent per year.”
I’m surprised to read we are growing at a ‘half a percent per year,’ now. I don’t see that growth anywhere. Does anyone know of any significant housing developments in Davis now under construction? (They must be in places in Davis I never go.)
“Those of us who believe we need to grow more slowly, can perhaps take some solace in the council’s accepting the 1% guideline as a cap rather than a target, it still leaves much to be determined in this process.”
Notwithstanding Bill Emlen’s assertion that we are growing at 0.5% per year, it remains the case that our residential population has not increased at all for 7 years. That’s probably the longest stretch with zero population growth in Davis since the Depression years of the 1930s.
“Neither the housing market nor the public seems likely to be approving of that level of growth in the near future.”
I think both of these assertions are true. Unless prices in Davis decline by 20-25%, there is too little demand for the current housing stock, let alone a growing one. I know someone who is trying to sell his condo in South Davis for what he paid for it in 2000, and he cannot find a buyer. To make matters worse, a large apartment complex, Oakshade Commons (at Lillard and Cowell), is now trying to sell all of its units as condos. The market is flooded with a lot of this type of “affordable” housing, but no one is buying.
“Bill Emlen stating it was a parameter and the reality was that we were growing about half a percent per year.”
I’m surprised to read we are growing at a ‘half a percent per year,’ now. I don’t see that growth anywhere. Does anyone know of any significant housing developments in Davis now under construction? (They must be in places in Davis I never go.)
“Those of us who believe we need to grow more slowly, can perhaps take some solace in the council’s accepting the 1% guideline as a cap rather than a target, it still leaves much to be determined in this process.”
Notwithstanding Bill Emlen’s assertion that we are growing at 0.5% per year, it remains the case that our residential population has not increased at all for 7 years. That’s probably the longest stretch with zero population growth in Davis since the Depression years of the 1930s.
“Neither the housing market nor the public seems likely to be approving of that level of growth in the near future.”
I think both of these assertions are true. Unless prices in Davis decline by 20-25%, there is too little demand for the current housing stock, let alone a growing one. I know someone who is trying to sell his condo in South Davis for what he paid for it in 2000, and he cannot find a buyer. To make matters worse, a large apartment complex, Oakshade Commons (at Lillard and Cowell), is now trying to sell all of its units as condos. The market is flooded with a lot of this type of “affordable” housing, but no one is buying.
“Bill Emlen stating it was a parameter and the reality was that we were growing about half a percent per year.”
I’m surprised to read we are growing at a ‘half a percent per year,’ now. I don’t see that growth anywhere. Does anyone know of any significant housing developments in Davis now under construction? (They must be in places in Davis I never go.)
“Those of us who believe we need to grow more slowly, can perhaps take some solace in the council’s accepting the 1% guideline as a cap rather than a target, it still leaves much to be determined in this process.”
Notwithstanding Bill Emlen’s assertion that we are growing at 0.5% per year, it remains the case that our residential population has not increased at all for 7 years. That’s probably the longest stretch with zero population growth in Davis since the Depression years of the 1930s.
“Neither the housing market nor the public seems likely to be approving of that level of growth in the near future.”
I think both of these assertions are true. Unless prices in Davis decline by 20-25%, there is too little demand for the current housing stock, let alone a growing one. I know someone who is trying to sell his condo in South Davis for what he paid for it in 2000, and he cannot find a buyer. To make matters worse, a large apartment complex, Oakshade Commons (at Lillard and Cowell), is now trying to sell all of its units as condos. The market is flooded with a lot of this type of “affordable” housing, but no one is buying.
Anonymous said…
My dictionary defines “parameter” as a fixed limit or boundary. Isn’t that a cap?
If you look up Parameter in Wikipedia you get the following:
“In mathematics, statistics, and the mathematical sciences, parameters are quantities that define certain characteristics of systems or functions. The function or system may then be reevaluated or reprocessed with different parameters, to give a function or system with different behavior.
Parameters, in the plural form, has recently become popular with non-technical users to mean limits, but this should not be confused with the word’s technical meaning.
Your dictionary appears to be a “non-technical” dictionary. That is not to say it is wrong, only that there is plenty of room for confusion. The Council is wise to bring the resolution back so its intended meaning can be clarified.
The 1% is a number our previous council pulled out of the hat to justify Covell Village.
Is that statement just anecdotal, or do you have information that can support your claim?
There is no requirement to grow at 1%–there are no teeth to that resolution. What happens if we don’t grow by 1%? Some of the council members and developers have fits? So what?
No matter whether the 1% Guideline is a Cap or a Target, your point is extremely important! I sincerely hope that when the Council discusses the resolution’s language, they deal with the consequences as well.
Please don’t be fooled by Saylor and Souza and Asmundson. There is NO requirement to consider the 1% either as a cap or a target. I hope the Committee has the courage to acknowledge that.
IMHO, the Committee (HESC) has done a superb job of dealing with the 1% Guideline thus far. Their approach has thus far been to rank all the possible sites as if there were no thresholds at all. In a very real sense they have asked themselves, “What do we (Davis) want to be when we grow up?” . . . and the ranked order list they have produced provides a road for making that journey. In the end, the decision about how quickly Davis will travel down that road will rest on the shoulders of the City Council.
Anonymous said…
My dictionary defines “parameter” as a fixed limit or boundary. Isn’t that a cap?
If you look up Parameter in Wikipedia you get the following:
“In mathematics, statistics, and the mathematical sciences, parameters are quantities that define certain characteristics of systems or functions. The function or system may then be reevaluated or reprocessed with different parameters, to give a function or system with different behavior.
Parameters, in the plural form, has recently become popular with non-technical users to mean limits, but this should not be confused with the word’s technical meaning.
Your dictionary appears to be a “non-technical” dictionary. That is not to say it is wrong, only that there is plenty of room for confusion. The Council is wise to bring the resolution back so its intended meaning can be clarified.
The 1% is a number our previous council pulled out of the hat to justify Covell Village.
Is that statement just anecdotal, or do you have information that can support your claim?
There is no requirement to grow at 1%–there are no teeth to that resolution. What happens if we don’t grow by 1%? Some of the council members and developers have fits? So what?
No matter whether the 1% Guideline is a Cap or a Target, your point is extremely important! I sincerely hope that when the Council discusses the resolution’s language, they deal with the consequences as well.
Please don’t be fooled by Saylor and Souza and Asmundson. There is NO requirement to consider the 1% either as a cap or a target. I hope the Committee has the courage to acknowledge that.
IMHO, the Committee (HESC) has done a superb job of dealing with the 1% Guideline thus far. Their approach has thus far been to rank all the possible sites as if there were no thresholds at all. In a very real sense they have asked themselves, “What do we (Davis) want to be when we grow up?” . . . and the ranked order list they have produced provides a road for making that journey. In the end, the decision about how quickly Davis will travel down that road will rest on the shoulders of the City Council.
Anonymous said…
My dictionary defines “parameter” as a fixed limit or boundary. Isn’t that a cap?
If you look up Parameter in Wikipedia you get the following:
“In mathematics, statistics, and the mathematical sciences, parameters are quantities that define certain characteristics of systems or functions. The function or system may then be reevaluated or reprocessed with different parameters, to give a function or system with different behavior.
Parameters, in the plural form, has recently become popular with non-technical users to mean limits, but this should not be confused with the word’s technical meaning.
Your dictionary appears to be a “non-technical” dictionary. That is not to say it is wrong, only that there is plenty of room for confusion. The Council is wise to bring the resolution back so its intended meaning can be clarified.
The 1% is a number our previous council pulled out of the hat to justify Covell Village.
Is that statement just anecdotal, or do you have information that can support your claim?
There is no requirement to grow at 1%–there are no teeth to that resolution. What happens if we don’t grow by 1%? Some of the council members and developers have fits? So what?
No matter whether the 1% Guideline is a Cap or a Target, your point is extremely important! I sincerely hope that when the Council discusses the resolution’s language, they deal with the consequences as well.
Please don’t be fooled by Saylor and Souza and Asmundson. There is NO requirement to consider the 1% either as a cap or a target. I hope the Committee has the courage to acknowledge that.
IMHO, the Committee (HESC) has done a superb job of dealing with the 1% Guideline thus far. Their approach has thus far been to rank all the possible sites as if there were no thresholds at all. In a very real sense they have asked themselves, “What do we (Davis) want to be when we grow up?” . . . and the ranked order list they have produced provides a road for making that journey. In the end, the decision about how quickly Davis will travel down that road will rest on the shoulders of the City Council.
Anonymous said…
My dictionary defines “parameter” as a fixed limit or boundary. Isn’t that a cap?
If you look up Parameter in Wikipedia you get the following:
“In mathematics, statistics, and the mathematical sciences, parameters are quantities that define certain characteristics of systems or functions. The function or system may then be reevaluated or reprocessed with different parameters, to give a function or system with different behavior.
Parameters, in the plural form, has recently become popular with non-technical users to mean limits, but this should not be confused with the word’s technical meaning.
Your dictionary appears to be a “non-technical” dictionary. That is not to say it is wrong, only that there is plenty of room for confusion. The Council is wise to bring the resolution back so its intended meaning can be clarified.
The 1% is a number our previous council pulled out of the hat to justify Covell Village.
Is that statement just anecdotal, or do you have information that can support your claim?
There is no requirement to grow at 1%–there are no teeth to that resolution. What happens if we don’t grow by 1%? Some of the council members and developers have fits? So what?
No matter whether the 1% Guideline is a Cap or a Target, your point is extremely important! I sincerely hope that when the Council discusses the resolution’s language, they deal with the consequences as well.
Please don’t be fooled by Saylor and Souza and Asmundson. There is NO requirement to consider the 1% either as a cap or a target. I hope the Committee has the courage to acknowledge that.
IMHO, the Committee (HESC) has done a superb job of dealing with the 1% Guideline thus far. Their approach has thus far been to rank all the possible sites as if there were no thresholds at all. In a very real sense they have asked themselves, “What do we (Davis) want to be when we grow up?” . . . and the ranked order list they have produced provides a road for making that journey. In the end, the decision about how quickly Davis will travel down that road will rest on the shoulders of the City Council.
“The 1% is a number our previous council pulled out of the hat to justify Covell Village.
Is that statement just anecdotal, or do you have information that can support your claim?”
A review of the Council Meeting streaming video archives(if they go back that far) will clearly demonstrate that Mayor Ruth Asmundson created the 1% number from the dais without ANY corroborating data being presented.. as I remember it, she pulled out her calculator and punched in some numbers ( getting an erroneous result ,as it turned out, because of the exempted housing categories)
Whether this exercise was taken to push CV is open to speculation but the timing of this 1% Council Majority ordinance in preparation for their Measure X campaign was pretty obvious to everyone.
“The 1% is a number our previous council pulled out of the hat to justify Covell Village.
Is that statement just anecdotal, or do you have information that can support your claim?”
A review of the Council Meeting streaming video archives(if they go back that far) will clearly demonstrate that Mayor Ruth Asmundson created the 1% number from the dais without ANY corroborating data being presented.. as I remember it, she pulled out her calculator and punched in some numbers ( getting an erroneous result ,as it turned out, because of the exempted housing categories)
Whether this exercise was taken to push CV is open to speculation but the timing of this 1% Council Majority ordinance in preparation for their Measure X campaign was pretty obvious to everyone.
“The 1% is a number our previous council pulled out of the hat to justify Covell Village.
Is that statement just anecdotal, or do you have information that can support your claim?”
A review of the Council Meeting streaming video archives(if they go back that far) will clearly demonstrate that Mayor Ruth Asmundson created the 1% number from the dais without ANY corroborating data being presented.. as I remember it, she pulled out her calculator and punched in some numbers ( getting an erroneous result ,as it turned out, because of the exempted housing categories)
Whether this exercise was taken to push CV is open to speculation but the timing of this 1% Council Majority ordinance in preparation for their Measure X campaign was pretty obvious to everyone.
“The 1% is a number our previous council pulled out of the hat to justify Covell Village.
Is that statement just anecdotal, or do you have information that can support your claim?”
A review of the Council Meeting streaming video archives(if they go back that far) will clearly demonstrate that Mayor Ruth Asmundson created the 1% number from the dais without ANY corroborating data being presented.. as I remember it, she pulled out her calculator and punched in some numbers ( getting an erroneous result ,as it turned out, because of the exempted housing categories)
Whether this exercise was taken to push CV is open to speculation but the timing of this 1% Council Majority ordinance in preparation for their Measure X campaign was pretty obvious to everyone.
davisite said…
A review of the Council Meeting streaming video archives(if they go back that far) will clearly demonstrate that Mayor Ruth Asmundson created the 1% number from the dais without ANY corroborating data being presented.
davisite, was there discussion in any other Council meetings other than the one where it passed? I’m going to review the streaming videos tonight. That will be very useful input for when the Council discusses the resolution language in the coming weeks.
davisite said…
A review of the Council Meeting streaming video archives(if they go back that far) will clearly demonstrate that Mayor Ruth Asmundson created the 1% number from the dais without ANY corroborating data being presented.
davisite, was there discussion in any other Council meetings other than the one where it passed? I’m going to review the streaming videos tonight. That will be very useful input for when the Council discusses the resolution language in the coming weeks.
davisite said…
A review of the Council Meeting streaming video archives(if they go back that far) will clearly demonstrate that Mayor Ruth Asmundson created the 1% number from the dais without ANY corroborating data being presented.
davisite, was there discussion in any other Council meetings other than the one where it passed? I’m going to review the streaming videos tonight. That will be very useful input for when the Council discusses the resolution language in the coming weeks.
davisite said…
A review of the Council Meeting streaming video archives(if they go back that far) will clearly demonstrate that Mayor Ruth Asmundson created the 1% number from the dais without ANY corroborating data being presented.
davisite, was there discussion in any other Council meetings other than the one where it passed? I’m going to review the streaming videos tonight. That will be very useful input for when the Council discusses the resolution language in the coming weeks.
“What do we (Davis) want to be when we grow up?”
That assumes that we want to “grow up?” or “grow out” for that matter.
Maybe we’re simply happy the way we are without all of the congestion, pollution, crime, etc. that larger cities have.
“What do we (Davis) want to be when we grow up?”
That assumes that we want to “grow up?” or “grow out” for that matter.
Maybe we’re simply happy the way we are without all of the congestion, pollution, crime, etc. that larger cities have.
“What do we (Davis) want to be when we grow up?”
That assumes that we want to “grow up?” or “grow out” for that matter.
Maybe we’re simply happy the way we are without all of the congestion, pollution, crime, etc. that larger cities have.
“What do we (Davis) want to be when we grow up?”
That assumes that we want to “grow up?” or “grow out” for that matter.
Maybe we’re simply happy the way we are without all of the congestion, pollution, crime, etc. that larger cities have.
Anonymous said…
“What do we (Davis) want to be when we grow up?”
That assumes that we want to “grow up?” or “grow out” for that matter.
Maybe we’re simply happy the way we are without all of the congestion, pollution, crime, etc. that larger cities have.
You are confusing the term “Grow Up” with the word/term “Grow.” “Gow Up simply means “Age” or “Mature” The problem we have now is that many (most) of the growth (no growth) decisions made in and around Davis are narrow in focus, and often knee-jerk reactions. I, for one, would like to see Davis have a long term Master Plan that puts the individual decisions into a broader context.
Some people will say that the General Plan is that kind of Master Plan, but from my (admittedly limited) observations regarding housing decisions in and around Davis, the current General Plan is a very passive document.
Anonymous said…
“What do we (Davis) want to be when we grow up?”
That assumes that we want to “grow up?” or “grow out” for that matter.
Maybe we’re simply happy the way we are without all of the congestion, pollution, crime, etc. that larger cities have.
You are confusing the term “Grow Up” with the word/term “Grow.” “Gow Up simply means “Age” or “Mature” The problem we have now is that many (most) of the growth (no growth) decisions made in and around Davis are narrow in focus, and often knee-jerk reactions. I, for one, would like to see Davis have a long term Master Plan that puts the individual decisions into a broader context.
Some people will say that the General Plan is that kind of Master Plan, but from my (admittedly limited) observations regarding housing decisions in and around Davis, the current General Plan is a very passive document.
Anonymous said…
“What do we (Davis) want to be when we grow up?”
That assumes that we want to “grow up?” or “grow out” for that matter.
Maybe we’re simply happy the way we are without all of the congestion, pollution, crime, etc. that larger cities have.
You are confusing the term “Grow Up” with the word/term “Grow.” “Gow Up simply means “Age” or “Mature” The problem we have now is that many (most) of the growth (no growth) decisions made in and around Davis are narrow in focus, and often knee-jerk reactions. I, for one, would like to see Davis have a long term Master Plan that puts the individual decisions into a broader context.
Some people will say that the General Plan is that kind of Master Plan, but from my (admittedly limited) observations regarding housing decisions in and around Davis, the current General Plan is a very passive document.
Anonymous said…
“What do we (Davis) want to be when we grow up?”
That assumes that we want to “grow up?” or “grow out” for that matter.
Maybe we’re simply happy the way we are without all of the congestion, pollution, crime, etc. that larger cities have.
You are confusing the term “Grow Up” with the word/term “Grow.” “Gow Up simply means “Age” or “Mature” The problem we have now is that many (most) of the growth (no growth) decisions made in and around Davis are narrow in focus, and often knee-jerk reactions. I, for one, would like to see Davis have a long term Master Plan that puts the individual decisions into a broader context.
Some people will say that the General Plan is that kind of Master Plan, but from my (admittedly limited) observations regarding housing decisions in and around Davis, the current General Plan is a very passive document.
DPD (David Greenwald)—I have never “wanted” a cap of 1% plus the affordable.
I believe this approach was picked by the council majority because 1% sounds small, but is really a huge amount of growth. One percent plus affordable comes to about 325 units a year, roughly equal to the number of units in Wildhorse every three years.
The council majority rammed through the resolution, insisted on the 1% (325 units a year), and they treat it as a target, but then, when confronted about how much growth this actually is, they say it is only a cap.
I have always found this routine to be disingenuous. Last Tuesday, I decided to call the question. If they say it is a cap, then lets substitute the word cap for the ambiguous word parameter.
Personally, I have always argued and made substitute motions that we proceed by considering specific projects that we might really want, rather than to force growth by specifying numbers, whether they be targets, caps, or growth “parameters”, whatever that means.
Obviously, David, the council will not rescind their a cap is better than a target if you don’t want to grow at a rate of 325 units a year.
Anyone who has paid any attention to the meetings would know that this has always been my position, and you, David, have attended every meeting.
DPD (David Greenwald)—I have never “wanted” a cap of 1% plus the affordable.
I believe this approach was picked by the council majority because 1% sounds small, but is really a huge amount of growth. One percent plus affordable comes to about 325 units a year, roughly equal to the number of units in Wildhorse every three years.
The council majority rammed through the resolution, insisted on the 1% (325 units a year), and they treat it as a target, but then, when confronted about how much growth this actually is, they say it is only a cap.
I have always found this routine to be disingenuous. Last Tuesday, I decided to call the question. If they say it is a cap, then lets substitute the word cap for the ambiguous word parameter.
Personally, I have always argued and made substitute motions that we proceed by considering specific projects that we might really want, rather than to force growth by specifying numbers, whether they be targets, caps, or growth “parameters”, whatever that means.
Obviously, David, the council will not rescind their a cap is better than a target if you don’t want to grow at a rate of 325 units a year.
Anyone who has paid any attention to the meetings would know that this has always been my position, and you, David, have attended every meeting.
DPD (David Greenwald)—I have never “wanted” a cap of 1% plus the affordable.
I believe this approach was picked by the council majority because 1% sounds small, but is really a huge amount of growth. One percent plus affordable comes to about 325 units a year, roughly equal to the number of units in Wildhorse every three years.
The council majority rammed through the resolution, insisted on the 1% (325 units a year), and they treat it as a target, but then, when confronted about how much growth this actually is, they say it is only a cap.
I have always found this routine to be disingenuous. Last Tuesday, I decided to call the question. If they say it is a cap, then lets substitute the word cap for the ambiguous word parameter.
Personally, I have always argued and made substitute motions that we proceed by considering specific projects that we might really want, rather than to force growth by specifying numbers, whether they be targets, caps, or growth “parameters”, whatever that means.
Obviously, David, the council will not rescind their a cap is better than a target if you don’t want to grow at a rate of 325 units a year.
Anyone who has paid any attention to the meetings would know that this has always been my position, and you, David, have attended every meeting.
DPD (David Greenwald)—I have never “wanted” a cap of 1% plus the affordable.
I believe this approach was picked by the council majority because 1% sounds small, but is really a huge amount of growth. One percent plus affordable comes to about 325 units a year, roughly equal to the number of units in Wildhorse every three years.
The council majority rammed through the resolution, insisted on the 1% (325 units a year), and they treat it as a target, but then, when confronted about how much growth this actually is, they say it is only a cap.
I have always found this routine to be disingenuous. Last Tuesday, I decided to call the question. If they say it is a cap, then lets substitute the word cap for the ambiguous word parameter.
Personally, I have always argued and made substitute motions that we proceed by considering specific projects that we might really want, rather than to force growth by specifying numbers, whether they be targets, caps, or growth “parameters”, whatever that means.
Obviously, David, the council will not rescind their a cap is better than a target if you don’t want to grow at a rate of 325 units a year.
Anyone who has paid any attention to the meetings would know that this has always been my position, and you, David, have attended every meeting.
Correction to penultimate paragraph:
Obviously, David, the council will not rescind their entire resolution. A cap is better than a target if you don’t want to grow at a rate of 325 units a year.
Correction to penultimate paragraph:
Obviously, David, the council will not rescind their entire resolution. A cap is better than a target if you don’t want to grow at a rate of 325 units a year.
Correction to penultimate paragraph:
Obviously, David, the council will not rescind their entire resolution. A cap is better than a target if you don’t want to grow at a rate of 325 units a year.
Correction to penultimate paragraph:
Obviously, David, the council will not rescind their entire resolution. A cap is better than a target if you don’t want to grow at a rate of 325 units a year.
Mayor:
Didn’t mean to imply otherwise. As a midway step, we need to cap the growth. My intent was to suggest that this was not optimal not to criticize you for voting to do it.
Mayor:
Didn’t mean to imply otherwise. As a midway step, we need to cap the growth. My intent was to suggest that this was not optimal not to criticize you for voting to do it.
Mayor:
Didn’t mean to imply otherwise. As a midway step, we need to cap the growth. My intent was to suggest that this was not optimal not to criticize you for voting to do it.
Mayor:
Didn’t mean to imply otherwise. As a midway step, we need to cap the growth. My intent was to suggest that this was not optimal not to criticize you for voting to do it.
David,
I do think your comment was a bit misleading, giving the full context and history.
Your comment was:
“The current debate over whether this is a cap or target is not merely semantics. But it also misses a key point. Even if it is set at a cap, something that the Mayor clearly wants, by setting the cap at the higher number, it leaves a considerable amount of leeway with future councils but also with the HESC itself.”
David,
I do think your comment was a bit misleading, giving the full context and history.
Your comment was:
“The current debate over whether this is a cap or target is not merely semantics. But it also misses a key point. Even if it is set at a cap, something that the Mayor clearly wants, by setting the cap at the higher number, it leaves a considerable amount of leeway with future councils but also with the HESC itself.”
David,
I do think your comment was a bit misleading, giving the full context and history.
Your comment was:
“The current debate over whether this is a cap or target is not merely semantics. But it also misses a key point. Even if it is set at a cap, something that the Mayor clearly wants, by setting the cap at the higher number, it leaves a considerable amount of leeway with future councils but also with the HESC itself.”
David,
I do think your comment was a bit misleading, giving the full context and history.
Your comment was:
“The current debate over whether this is a cap or target is not merely semantics. But it also misses a key point. Even if it is set at a cap, something that the Mayor clearly wants, by setting the cap at the higher number, it leaves a considerable amount of leeway with future councils but also with the HESC itself.”
I can see that, I was trying to point out the pitfalls of the cap at the level with regards to future council actions.
I can see that, I was trying to point out the pitfalls of the cap at the level with regards to future council actions.
I can see that, I was trying to point out the pitfalls of the cap at the level with regards to future council actions.
I can see that, I was trying to point out the pitfalls of the cap at the level with regards to future council actions.
Sue, there appear to be three issues here. 1) is clarification of the word parameter to make it explicitly clear that it is not a target, 2) is a better sense of what number (or combination of numbers) is most appropriate, and 3) is giving the resolution some clear teeth.
The reality is that accomplishing 1) is really meaningless if 3) is not addressed.
So, I sincerely hope the upcoming discussion of the Resolution actively addresses all three issues.
BTW, which member(s) of the City’s Staff has this been assigned to?
Sue, there appear to be three issues here. 1) is clarification of the word parameter to make it explicitly clear that it is not a target, 2) is a better sense of what number (or combination of numbers) is most appropriate, and 3) is giving the resolution some clear teeth.
The reality is that accomplishing 1) is really meaningless if 3) is not addressed.
So, I sincerely hope the upcoming discussion of the Resolution actively addresses all three issues.
BTW, which member(s) of the City’s Staff has this been assigned to?
Sue, there appear to be three issues here. 1) is clarification of the word parameter to make it explicitly clear that it is not a target, 2) is a better sense of what number (or combination of numbers) is most appropriate, and 3) is giving the resolution some clear teeth.
The reality is that accomplishing 1) is really meaningless if 3) is not addressed.
So, I sincerely hope the upcoming discussion of the Resolution actively addresses all three issues.
BTW, which member(s) of the City’s Staff has this been assigned to?
Sue, there appear to be three issues here. 1) is clarification of the word parameter to make it explicitly clear that it is not a target, 2) is a better sense of what number (or combination of numbers) is most appropriate, and 3) is giving the resolution some clear teeth.
The reality is that accomplishing 1) is really meaningless if 3) is not addressed.
So, I sincerely hope the upcoming discussion of the Resolution actively addresses all three issues.
BTW, which member(s) of the City’s Staff has this been assigned to?
Sue,
David’s comment was not misleading. As a Vanguard reader I read it to mean what he said he intended it to mean. I think you’re reading into things.
Good job on the piece David.
Sue,
David’s comment was not misleading. As a Vanguard reader I read it to mean what he said he intended it to mean. I think you’re reading into things.
Good job on the piece David.
Sue,
David’s comment was not misleading. As a Vanguard reader I read it to mean what he said he intended it to mean. I think you’re reading into things.
Good job on the piece David.
Sue,
David’s comment was not misleading. As a Vanguard reader I read it to mean what he said he intended it to mean. I think you’re reading into things.
Good job on the piece David.
Rich Rifkin said…
I’m surprised to read we are growing at a ‘half a percent per year,’ now. I don’t see that growth anywhere. Does anyone know of any significant housing developments in Davis now under construction? (They must be in places in Davis I never go.)
Notwithstanding Bill Emlen’s assertion that we are growing at 0.5% per year, it remains the case that our residential population has not increased at all for 7 years. That’s probably the longest stretch with zero population growth in Davis since the Depression years of the 1930s.
Rich, at the last HESC meeting, Bay Area Economics (BAE) summarized the findings from the 75-page report they had just completed for the City. Here are some key points in that report:
1) the population of Davis rose from 60,308 in 2000 to 64,606 in 2006, which is a 7.1% increase.
2) the number of Households in Davis was 22,948 in 2000 and 24,458 in 2006, which is compound annual growth rate of 1.068%.
When you compare BAE’s growth numbers to the annual City of Davis building permits issued numbers, the Household growth from 22,948 to 24,498 is validated.
Rich Rifkin said…
I’m surprised to read we are growing at a ‘half a percent per year,’ now. I don’t see that growth anywhere. Does anyone know of any significant housing developments in Davis now under construction? (They must be in places in Davis I never go.)
Notwithstanding Bill Emlen’s assertion that we are growing at 0.5% per year, it remains the case that our residential population has not increased at all for 7 years. That’s probably the longest stretch with zero population growth in Davis since the Depression years of the 1930s.
Rich, at the last HESC meeting, Bay Area Economics (BAE) summarized the findings from the 75-page report they had just completed for the City. Here are some key points in that report:
1) the population of Davis rose from 60,308 in 2000 to 64,606 in 2006, which is a 7.1% increase.
2) the number of Households in Davis was 22,948 in 2000 and 24,458 in 2006, which is compound annual growth rate of 1.068%.
When you compare BAE’s growth numbers to the annual City of Davis building permits issued numbers, the Household growth from 22,948 to 24,498 is validated.
Rich Rifkin said…
I’m surprised to read we are growing at a ‘half a percent per year,’ now. I don’t see that growth anywhere. Does anyone know of any significant housing developments in Davis now under construction? (They must be in places in Davis I never go.)
Notwithstanding Bill Emlen’s assertion that we are growing at 0.5% per year, it remains the case that our residential population has not increased at all for 7 years. That’s probably the longest stretch with zero population growth in Davis since the Depression years of the 1930s.
Rich, at the last HESC meeting, Bay Area Economics (BAE) summarized the findings from the 75-page report they had just completed for the City. Here are some key points in that report:
1) the population of Davis rose from 60,308 in 2000 to 64,606 in 2006, which is a 7.1% increase.
2) the number of Households in Davis was 22,948 in 2000 and 24,458 in 2006, which is compound annual growth rate of 1.068%.
When you compare BAE’s growth numbers to the annual City of Davis building permits issued numbers, the Household growth from 22,948 to 24,498 is validated.
Rich Rifkin said…
I’m surprised to read we are growing at a ‘half a percent per year,’ now. I don’t see that growth anywhere. Does anyone know of any significant housing developments in Davis now under construction? (They must be in places in Davis I never go.)
Notwithstanding Bill Emlen’s assertion that we are growing at 0.5% per year, it remains the case that our residential population has not increased at all for 7 years. That’s probably the longest stretch with zero population growth in Davis since the Depression years of the 1930s.
Rich, at the last HESC meeting, Bay Area Economics (BAE) summarized the findings from the 75-page report they had just completed for the City. Here are some key points in that report:
1) the population of Davis rose from 60,308 in 2000 to 64,606 in 2006, which is a 7.1% increase.
2) the number of Households in Davis was 22,948 in 2000 and 24,458 in 2006, which is compound annual growth rate of 1.068%.
When you compare BAE’s growth numbers to the annual City of Davis building permits issued numbers, the Household growth from 22,948 to 24,498 is validated.
“the population of Davis rose from 60,308 in 2000 to 64,606 in 2006, which is a 7.1% increase.”
ALL of that growth happened in 2000, 2001 and 2002. We have had essentially no growth since then.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the popution estimate for Davis in 2003 was 64,438. It is now 2008 and our population estimate is the same.
Over the 8 year period, our growth averaged 0.86% per year. But, as we have had no growth for 5 years, the average number is misleading. The first 3 years averaged 2.32% annual growth, as some of the projects begun in the 1990s were completed. Nothing substantial has been approved since 2000, and so our growth has entirely dried up.
If Wild Horse Ranch and Cannery Park are built, that will change. But the fact remains, we are not growing, now. And WHR and CP are (I would guess) at least a couple of years from selling any houses. So that will make 7 years of zero population growth.
“the population of Davis rose from 60,308 in 2000 to 64,606 in 2006, which is a 7.1% increase.”
ALL of that growth happened in 2000, 2001 and 2002. We have had essentially no growth since then.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the popution estimate for Davis in 2003 was 64,438. It is now 2008 and our population estimate is the same.
Over the 8 year period, our growth averaged 0.86% per year. But, as we have had no growth for 5 years, the average number is misleading. The first 3 years averaged 2.32% annual growth, as some of the projects begun in the 1990s were completed. Nothing substantial has been approved since 2000, and so our growth has entirely dried up.
If Wild Horse Ranch and Cannery Park are built, that will change. But the fact remains, we are not growing, now. And WHR and CP are (I would guess) at least a couple of years from selling any houses. So that will make 7 years of zero population growth.
“the population of Davis rose from 60,308 in 2000 to 64,606 in 2006, which is a 7.1% increase.”
ALL of that growth happened in 2000, 2001 and 2002. We have had essentially no growth since then.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the popution estimate for Davis in 2003 was 64,438. It is now 2008 and our population estimate is the same.
Over the 8 year period, our growth averaged 0.86% per year. But, as we have had no growth for 5 years, the average number is misleading. The first 3 years averaged 2.32% annual growth, as some of the projects begun in the 1990s were completed. Nothing substantial has been approved since 2000, and so our growth has entirely dried up.
If Wild Horse Ranch and Cannery Park are built, that will change. But the fact remains, we are not growing, now. And WHR and CP are (I would guess) at least a couple of years from selling any houses. So that will make 7 years of zero population growth.
“the population of Davis rose from 60,308 in 2000 to 64,606 in 2006, which is a 7.1% increase.”
ALL of that growth happened in 2000, 2001 and 2002. We have had essentially no growth since then.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the popution estimate for Davis in 2003 was 64,438. It is now 2008 and our population estimate is the same.
Over the 8 year period, our growth averaged 0.86% per year. But, as we have had no growth for 5 years, the average number is misleading. The first 3 years averaged 2.32% annual growth, as some of the projects begun in the 1990s were completed. Nothing substantial has been approved since 2000, and so our growth has entirely dried up.
If Wild Horse Ranch and Cannery Park are built, that will change. But the fact remains, we are not growing, now. And WHR and CP are (I would guess) at least a couple of years from selling any houses. So that will make 7 years of zero population growth.
Matt,
I don’t know what you mean by teeth. For a minimum or maximum? If we merely to make sure we don’t grow faster than a certain number of houses a year, I would prefer a completely different resolution which emphasizes that we have no minimum, but a have a clear maximum, and put teeth in the maximum.
Otherwise, I fear the resolution will still be used as a target.
Matt,
I don’t know what you mean by teeth. For a minimum or maximum? If we merely to make sure we don’t grow faster than a certain number of houses a year, I would prefer a completely different resolution which emphasizes that we have no minimum, but a have a clear maximum, and put teeth in the maximum.
Otherwise, I fear the resolution will still be used as a target.
Matt,
I don’t know what you mean by teeth. For a minimum or maximum? If we merely to make sure we don’t grow faster than a certain number of houses a year, I would prefer a completely different resolution which emphasizes that we have no minimum, but a have a clear maximum, and put teeth in the maximum.
Otherwise, I fear the resolution will still be used as a target.
Matt,
I don’t know what you mean by teeth. For a minimum or maximum? If we merely to make sure we don’t grow faster than a certain number of houses a year, I would prefer a completely different resolution which emphasizes that we have no minimum, but a have a clear maximum, and put teeth in the maximum.
Otherwise, I fear the resolution will still be used as a target.
Rich, isn’t that the problem? – the planning of growth and then frontloading it at the beginning of the time period, then complaining when not much happens over the last years of the planning period and try to push through another major building wave.
Rich, isn’t that the problem? – the planning of growth and then frontloading it at the beginning of the time period, then complaining when not much happens over the last years of the planning period and try to push through another major building wave.
Rich, isn’t that the problem? – the planning of growth and then frontloading it at the beginning of the time period, then complaining when not much happens over the last years of the planning period and try to push through another major building wave.
Rich, isn’t that the problem? – the planning of growth and then frontloading it at the beginning of the time period, then complaining when not much happens over the last years of the planning period and try to push through another major building wave.
IIRC, Rich, that is how Davis has grown over the last three decades. When the general plan was updated in the 1980’s, they made a target of X number of new housing units. Then they proceeded to approve some large developments which caused Davis to grow at a rate much higher than 1%. Probably those were the homes in west Davis and south Davis. At one time “slow-growth” Davis was the fastest growing city in Yolo County because the housing units were allotted at the front end of the general plan period.
Housing development happens in spurts, depending on the market and the land available. I doubt (I could be wrong) that there has been any consistent growth rate here. So looking at the ten-year average is not unreasonable.
IIRC, Rich, that is how Davis has grown over the last three decades. When the general plan was updated in the 1980’s, they made a target of X number of new housing units. Then they proceeded to approve some large developments which caused Davis to grow at a rate much higher than 1%. Probably those were the homes in west Davis and south Davis. At one time “slow-growth” Davis was the fastest growing city in Yolo County because the housing units were allotted at the front end of the general plan period.
Housing development happens in spurts, depending on the market and the land available. I doubt (I could be wrong) that there has been any consistent growth rate here. So looking at the ten-year average is not unreasonable.
IIRC, Rich, that is how Davis has grown over the last three decades. When the general plan was updated in the 1980’s, they made a target of X number of new housing units. Then they proceeded to approve some large developments which caused Davis to grow at a rate much higher than 1%. Probably those were the homes in west Davis and south Davis. At one time “slow-growth” Davis was the fastest growing city in Yolo County because the housing units were allotted at the front end of the general plan period.
Housing development happens in spurts, depending on the market and the land available. I doubt (I could be wrong) that there has been any consistent growth rate here. So looking at the ten-year average is not unreasonable.
IIRC, Rich, that is how Davis has grown over the last three decades. When the general plan was updated in the 1980’s, they made a target of X number of new housing units. Then they proceeded to approve some large developments which caused Davis to grow at a rate much higher than 1%. Probably those were the homes in west Davis and south Davis. At one time “slow-growth” Davis was the fastest growing city in Yolo County because the housing units were allotted at the front end of the general plan period.
Housing development happens in spurts, depending on the market and the land available. I doubt (I could be wrong) that there has been any consistent growth rate here. So looking at the ten-year average is not unreasonable.
Rich Rifkin said…
“the population of Davis rose from 60,308 in 2000 to 64,606 in 2006, which is a 7.1% increase.”
ALL of that growth happened in 2000, 2001 and 2002. We have had essentially no growth since then.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the popution estimate for Davis in 2003 was 64,438. It is now 2008 and our population estimate is the same.
Rich, looking at population growth is misleading. The statistic that you should look at is Households growth. The fact that the residents of a Household goes down due to a death, or up due to a birth, or either way because the new owners have a different number of residents than the prior owners significantly distorts the population stat.
Households in 2000 were 22,948. They went up 1.5% in 2001 to 23,295, then up 0.9% in 2002 to 23,501, then up 1.3% in 2003 to 23,808, then up 1.1% in 2004 to 24,073, then up 0.6% in 2005 to 24,208, then up 1.0% in 2006 to 24,458, then up 0.4% in 2006 to 24,562.
Over the 8 year period, our growth averaged 0.86% per year. But, as we have had no growth for 5 years, the average number is misleading. The first 3 years averaged 2.32% annual growth, as some of the projects begun in the 1990s were completed. Nothing substantial has been approved since 2000, and so our growth has entirely dried up.
The households growth numbers above don’t support your argument. With that said, your statement “Nothing substantial has been approved since 2000” is fundamentally correct, but misleading. The growth in Davis over the past 5 years has been infill, which no matter how you look at it, is still growth.
If Wild Horse Ranch and Cannery Park are built, that will change.
Based on the HESC information, Cannery would be approximately 650 units and Wild Horse would be approximately 230. What kind of build-out timeline would you be looking for from those projects once they got going? Would 100 units per year from Cannery and 50 units per year from Wild Horse be reasonable?
Rich Rifkin said…
“the population of Davis rose from 60,308 in 2000 to 64,606 in 2006, which is a 7.1% increase.”
ALL of that growth happened in 2000, 2001 and 2002. We have had essentially no growth since then.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the popution estimate for Davis in 2003 was 64,438. It is now 2008 and our population estimate is the same.
Rich, looking at population growth is misleading. The statistic that you should look at is Households growth. The fact that the residents of a Household goes down due to a death, or up due to a birth, or either way because the new owners have a different number of residents than the prior owners significantly distorts the population stat.
Households in 2000 were 22,948. They went up 1.5% in 2001 to 23,295, then up 0.9% in 2002 to 23,501, then up 1.3% in 2003 to 23,808, then up 1.1% in 2004 to 24,073, then up 0.6% in 2005 to 24,208, then up 1.0% in 2006 to 24,458, then up 0.4% in 2006 to 24,562.
Over the 8 year period, our growth averaged 0.86% per year. But, as we have had no growth for 5 years, the average number is misleading. The first 3 years averaged 2.32% annual growth, as some of the projects begun in the 1990s were completed. Nothing substantial has been approved since 2000, and so our growth has entirely dried up.
The households growth numbers above don’t support your argument. With that said, your statement “Nothing substantial has been approved since 2000” is fundamentally correct, but misleading. The growth in Davis over the past 5 years has been infill, which no matter how you look at it, is still growth.
If Wild Horse Ranch and Cannery Park are built, that will change.
Based on the HESC information, Cannery would be approximately 650 units and Wild Horse would be approximately 230. What kind of build-out timeline would you be looking for from those projects once they got going? Would 100 units per year from Cannery and 50 units per year from Wild Horse be reasonable?
Rich Rifkin said…
“the population of Davis rose from 60,308 in 2000 to 64,606 in 2006, which is a 7.1% increase.”
ALL of that growth happened in 2000, 2001 and 2002. We have had essentially no growth since then.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the popution estimate for Davis in 2003 was 64,438. It is now 2008 and our population estimate is the same.
Rich, looking at population growth is misleading. The statistic that you should look at is Households growth. The fact that the residents of a Household goes down due to a death, or up due to a birth, or either way because the new owners have a different number of residents than the prior owners significantly distorts the population stat.
Households in 2000 were 22,948. They went up 1.5% in 2001 to 23,295, then up 0.9% in 2002 to 23,501, then up 1.3% in 2003 to 23,808, then up 1.1% in 2004 to 24,073, then up 0.6% in 2005 to 24,208, then up 1.0% in 2006 to 24,458, then up 0.4% in 2006 to 24,562.
Over the 8 year period, our growth averaged 0.86% per year. But, as we have had no growth for 5 years, the average number is misleading. The first 3 years averaged 2.32% annual growth, as some of the projects begun in the 1990s were completed. Nothing substantial has been approved since 2000, and so our growth has entirely dried up.
The households growth numbers above don’t support your argument. With that said, your statement “Nothing substantial has been approved since 2000” is fundamentally correct, but misleading. The growth in Davis over the past 5 years has been infill, which no matter how you look at it, is still growth.
If Wild Horse Ranch and Cannery Park are built, that will change.
Based on the HESC information, Cannery would be approximately 650 units and Wild Horse would be approximately 230. What kind of build-out timeline would you be looking for from those projects once they got going? Would 100 units per year from Cannery and 50 units per year from Wild Horse be reasonable?
Rich Rifkin said…
“the population of Davis rose from 60,308 in 2000 to 64,606 in 2006, which is a 7.1% increase.”
ALL of that growth happened in 2000, 2001 and 2002. We have had essentially no growth since then.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the popution estimate for Davis in 2003 was 64,438. It is now 2008 and our population estimate is the same.
Rich, looking at population growth is misleading. The statistic that you should look at is Households growth. The fact that the residents of a Household goes down due to a death, or up due to a birth, or either way because the new owners have a different number of residents than the prior owners significantly distorts the population stat.
Households in 2000 were 22,948. They went up 1.5% in 2001 to 23,295, then up 0.9% in 2002 to 23,501, then up 1.3% in 2003 to 23,808, then up 1.1% in 2004 to 24,073, then up 0.6% in 2005 to 24,208, then up 1.0% in 2006 to 24,458, then up 0.4% in 2006 to 24,562.
Over the 8 year period, our growth averaged 0.86% per year. But, as we have had no growth for 5 years, the average number is misleading. The first 3 years averaged 2.32% annual growth, as some of the projects begun in the 1990s were completed. Nothing substantial has been approved since 2000, and so our growth has entirely dried up.
The households growth numbers above don’t support your argument. With that said, your statement “Nothing substantial has been approved since 2000” is fundamentally correct, but misleading. The growth in Davis over the past 5 years has been infill, which no matter how you look at it, is still growth.
If Wild Horse Ranch and Cannery Park are built, that will change.
Based on the HESC information, Cannery would be approximately 650 units and Wild Horse would be approximately 230. What kind of build-out timeline would you be looking for from those projects once they got going? Would 100 units per year from Cannery and 50 units per year from Wild Horse be reasonable?
“At one time “slow-growth” Davis was the fastest growing city in Yolo County because the housing units were allotted at the front end of the general plan period.”
I don’t know if front-end growth was what happened with each general plan prior to 1987. (It certainly happened since.) But I don’t think there has ever been a 7 year period with as little growth in housing or population in Davis since the Great Depression (when Davis didn’t grow).
My personal preference would be for Davis to have no more growth. However, I suspect that natural economic pressures will be such that, when the housing market firms up, we will grow again.
Not only will Cannery Park and Wild Horse Ranch eventually be built, but West Village is coming on line, soon enough. After those, my expectation is there will be another proposal for (at least some of the) Covell Village property.
“At one time “slow-growth” Davis was the fastest growing city in Yolo County because the housing units were allotted at the front end of the general plan period.”
I don’t know if front-end growth was what happened with each general plan prior to 1987. (It certainly happened since.) But I don’t think there has ever been a 7 year period with as little growth in housing or population in Davis since the Great Depression (when Davis didn’t grow).
My personal preference would be for Davis to have no more growth. However, I suspect that natural economic pressures will be such that, when the housing market firms up, we will grow again.
Not only will Cannery Park and Wild Horse Ranch eventually be built, but West Village is coming on line, soon enough. After those, my expectation is there will be another proposal for (at least some of the) Covell Village property.
“At one time “slow-growth” Davis was the fastest growing city in Yolo County because the housing units were allotted at the front end of the general plan period.”
I don’t know if front-end growth was what happened with each general plan prior to 1987. (It certainly happened since.) But I don’t think there has ever been a 7 year period with as little growth in housing or population in Davis since the Great Depression (when Davis didn’t grow).
My personal preference would be for Davis to have no more growth. However, I suspect that natural economic pressures will be such that, when the housing market firms up, we will grow again.
Not only will Cannery Park and Wild Horse Ranch eventually be built, but West Village is coming on line, soon enough. After those, my expectation is there will be another proposal for (at least some of the) Covell Village property.
“At one time “slow-growth” Davis was the fastest growing city in Yolo County because the housing units were allotted at the front end of the general plan period.”
I don’t know if front-end growth was what happened with each general plan prior to 1987. (It certainly happened since.) But I don’t think there has ever been a 7 year period with as little growth in housing or population in Davis since the Great Depression (when Davis didn’t grow).
My personal preference would be for Davis to have no more growth. However, I suspect that natural economic pressures will be such that, when the housing market firms up, we will grow again.
Not only will Cannery Park and Wild Horse Ranch eventually be built, but West Village is coming on line, soon enough. After those, my expectation is there will be another proposal for (at least some of the) Covell Village property.
Sue Greenwald said…
I don’t know what you mean by teeth. For a minimum or maximum? If we merely to make sure we don’t grow faster than a certain number of houses a year, I would prefer a completely different resolution which emphasizes that we have no minimum, but a have a clear maximum, and put teeth in the maximum.
Otherwise, I fear the resolution will still be used as a target.
What I mean by “teeth” is a mechanism by which once the Cap is reached no additional approvals can be granted until, and unless, the City Council approves the addition over the Cap.
You could even have a “warning” period when 75% of the Cap is reached in any one year. Such a “warning” would put everyone on notice that the remaining portion of the year would be a period of closer scrutiny by all parties involved in the process … Staff, Planning Commission, Council, etc. It would also be important to ensure that processes like the one that approved the replacement of the Cabo Cantina between F and G would not slip through the cracks.
Sue Greenwald said…
I don’t know what you mean by teeth. For a minimum or maximum? If we merely to make sure we don’t grow faster than a certain number of houses a year, I would prefer a completely different resolution which emphasizes that we have no minimum, but a have a clear maximum, and put teeth in the maximum.
Otherwise, I fear the resolution will still be used as a target.
What I mean by “teeth” is a mechanism by which once the Cap is reached no additional approvals can be granted until, and unless, the City Council approves the addition over the Cap.
You could even have a “warning” period when 75% of the Cap is reached in any one year. Such a “warning” would put everyone on notice that the remaining portion of the year would be a period of closer scrutiny by all parties involved in the process … Staff, Planning Commission, Council, etc. It would also be important to ensure that processes like the one that approved the replacement of the Cabo Cantina between F and G would not slip through the cracks.
Sue Greenwald said…
I don’t know what you mean by teeth. For a minimum or maximum? If we merely to make sure we don’t grow faster than a certain number of houses a year, I would prefer a completely different resolution which emphasizes that we have no minimum, but a have a clear maximum, and put teeth in the maximum.
Otherwise, I fear the resolution will still be used as a target.
What I mean by “teeth” is a mechanism by which once the Cap is reached no additional approvals can be granted until, and unless, the City Council approves the addition over the Cap.
You could even have a “warning” period when 75% of the Cap is reached in any one year. Such a “warning” would put everyone on notice that the remaining portion of the year would be a period of closer scrutiny by all parties involved in the process … Staff, Planning Commission, Council, etc. It would also be important to ensure that processes like the one that approved the replacement of the Cabo Cantina between F and G would not slip through the cracks.
Sue Greenwald said…
I don’t know what you mean by teeth. For a minimum or maximum? If we merely to make sure we don’t grow faster than a certain number of houses a year, I would prefer a completely different resolution which emphasizes that we have no minimum, but a have a clear maximum, and put teeth in the maximum.
Otherwise, I fear the resolution will still be used as a target.
What I mean by “teeth” is a mechanism by which once the Cap is reached no additional approvals can be granted until, and unless, the City Council approves the addition over the Cap.
You could even have a “warning” period when 75% of the Cap is reached in any one year. Such a “warning” would put everyone on notice that the remaining portion of the year would be a period of closer scrutiny by all parties involved in the process … Staff, Planning Commission, Council, etc. It would also be important to ensure that processes like the one that approved the replacement of the Cabo Cantina between F and G would not slip through the cracks.
From Mike Fitch’s history on the Davis web site, regarding the controversy around Mace Ranch in 1986:
In “…a marathon council meeting that lasted until 2 a.m. on Dec. 23, 1987, … the council adopted the East Davis Specific Plan and a General Plan that envisioned the community’s population growing to 75,000 by the year 2010. …. Said Rosenberg of the new General Plan, “It’s a good vision for the future. The city can be proud of it.” Almost immediately, however, critics appeared, complaining that the city’s new blueprint for the future was forced on the city by Ramos and was drafted without adequate public input. Among the most controversial features was a decision to include several major housing projects other than Mace Ranch in the General Plan for possible development by 2010, including Aspen and Evergreen in West Davis and Northstar, Crossroads and Wildhorse in North Davis. Still, the plan provided for an annual growth rate of only about 2 percent.”
From Mike Fitch’s history on the Davis web site, regarding the controversy around Mace Ranch in 1986:
In “…a marathon council meeting that lasted until 2 a.m. on Dec. 23, 1987, … the council adopted the East Davis Specific Plan and a General Plan that envisioned the community’s population growing to 75,000 by the year 2010. …. Said Rosenberg of the new General Plan, “It’s a good vision for the future. The city can be proud of it.” Almost immediately, however, critics appeared, complaining that the city’s new blueprint for the future was forced on the city by Ramos and was drafted without adequate public input. Among the most controversial features was a decision to include several major housing projects other than Mace Ranch in the General Plan for possible development by 2010, including Aspen and Evergreen in West Davis and Northstar, Crossroads and Wildhorse in North Davis. Still, the plan provided for an annual growth rate of only about 2 percent.”
From Mike Fitch’s history on the Davis web site, regarding the controversy around Mace Ranch in 1986:
In “…a marathon council meeting that lasted until 2 a.m. on Dec. 23, 1987, … the council adopted the East Davis Specific Plan and a General Plan that envisioned the community’s population growing to 75,000 by the year 2010. …. Said Rosenberg of the new General Plan, “It’s a good vision for the future. The city can be proud of it.” Almost immediately, however, critics appeared, complaining that the city’s new blueprint for the future was forced on the city by Ramos and was drafted without adequate public input. Among the most controversial features was a decision to include several major housing projects other than Mace Ranch in the General Plan for possible development by 2010, including Aspen and Evergreen in West Davis and Northstar, Crossroads and Wildhorse in North Davis. Still, the plan provided for an annual growth rate of only about 2 percent.”
From Mike Fitch’s history on the Davis web site, regarding the controversy around Mace Ranch in 1986:
In “…a marathon council meeting that lasted until 2 a.m. on Dec. 23, 1987, … the council adopted the East Davis Specific Plan and a General Plan that envisioned the community’s population growing to 75,000 by the year 2010. …. Said Rosenberg of the new General Plan, “It’s a good vision for the future. The city can be proud of it.” Almost immediately, however, critics appeared, complaining that the city’s new blueprint for the future was forced on the city by Ramos and was drafted without adequate public input. Among the most controversial features was a decision to include several major housing projects other than Mace Ranch in the General Plan for possible development by 2010, including Aspen and Evergreen in West Davis and Northstar, Crossroads and Wildhorse in North Davis. Still, the plan provided for an annual growth rate of only about 2 percent.”
Rich Rifkin said…
Not only will Cannery Park and Wild Horse Ranch eventually be built, but West Village is coming on line, soon enough. After those, my expectation is there will be another proposal for (at least some of the) Covell Village property.
The Bay Area Economics study presented to the HESC shows West Village households growth figures based on a 2015-2016 buildout estimate, with Phase I completion estimated in 2010 and Phase II in 2015. That translates to 1,086 additional households by 2010 and another 562 households by 2015. That translates to 1.5% annual households growth for 2008, 2009 and 2010, and then 0.4% annual households growth for the next five years after that. Needless to say, that puts the growth rate of Davis well over the 1% Cap (if it is a Cap). Which of course begs the question, “How patient do we want the developers of Cannery, Wildhorse and Covell Village to be?”
Rich Rifkin said…
Not only will Cannery Park and Wild Horse Ranch eventually be built, but West Village is coming on line, soon enough. After those, my expectation is there will be another proposal for (at least some of the) Covell Village property.
The Bay Area Economics study presented to the HESC shows West Village households growth figures based on a 2015-2016 buildout estimate, with Phase I completion estimated in 2010 and Phase II in 2015. That translates to 1,086 additional households by 2010 and another 562 households by 2015. That translates to 1.5% annual households growth for 2008, 2009 and 2010, and then 0.4% annual households growth for the next five years after that. Needless to say, that puts the growth rate of Davis well over the 1% Cap (if it is a Cap). Which of course begs the question, “How patient do we want the developers of Cannery, Wildhorse and Covell Village to be?”
Rich Rifkin said…
Not only will Cannery Park and Wild Horse Ranch eventually be built, but West Village is coming on line, soon enough. After those, my expectation is there will be another proposal for (at least some of the) Covell Village property.
The Bay Area Economics study presented to the HESC shows West Village households growth figures based on a 2015-2016 buildout estimate, with Phase I completion estimated in 2010 and Phase II in 2015. That translates to 1,086 additional households by 2010 and another 562 households by 2015. That translates to 1.5% annual households growth for 2008, 2009 and 2010, and then 0.4% annual households growth for the next five years after that. Needless to say, that puts the growth rate of Davis well over the 1% Cap (if it is a Cap). Which of course begs the question, “How patient do we want the developers of Cannery, Wildhorse and Covell Village to be?”
Rich Rifkin said…
Not only will Cannery Park and Wild Horse Ranch eventually be built, but West Village is coming on line, soon enough. After those, my expectation is there will be another proposal for (at least some of the) Covell Village property.
The Bay Area Economics study presented to the HESC shows West Village households growth figures based on a 2015-2016 buildout estimate, with Phase I completion estimated in 2010 and Phase II in 2015. That translates to 1,086 additional households by 2010 and another 562 households by 2015. That translates to 1.5% annual households growth for 2008, 2009 and 2010, and then 0.4% annual households growth for the next five years after that. Needless to say, that puts the growth rate of Davis well over the 1% Cap (if it is a Cap). Which of course begs the question, “How patient do we want the developers of Cannery, Wildhorse and Covell Village to be?”
That’s interesting. If you included West Village in the growth figures, and established a cap of 1%, the city would have to allow NO housing development. West Village is being built exclusively for UCD staff and faculty, plus student housing. So the city of Davis would allow NO growth for anyone moving here who wasn’t affiliated with the university.
It seems to me that would conflict with various other housing goals.
That’s interesting. If you included West Village in the growth figures, and established a cap of 1%, the city would have to allow NO housing development. West Village is being built exclusively for UCD staff and faculty, plus student housing. So the city of Davis would allow NO growth for anyone moving here who wasn’t affiliated with the university.
It seems to me that would conflict with various other housing goals.
That’s interesting. If you included West Village in the growth figures, and established a cap of 1%, the city would have to allow NO housing development. West Village is being built exclusively for UCD staff and faculty, plus student housing. So the city of Davis would allow NO growth for anyone moving here who wasn’t affiliated with the university.
It seems to me that would conflict with various other housing goals.
That’s interesting. If you included West Village in the growth figures, and established a cap of 1%, the city would have to allow NO housing development. West Village is being built exclusively for UCD staff and faculty, plus student housing. So the city of Davis would allow NO growth for anyone moving here who wasn’t affiliated with the university.
It seems to me that would conflict with various other housing goals.
Mayor Greenwald said:
“I believe this approach was picked by the council majority because 1% sounds small……”
Matt… this is my recollection of that Council meeting as well. 1% was just plucked out of the air because it sounded so small and the Council Majority believed that it would generate little opposition.
Mayor Greenwald said:
“I believe this approach was picked by the council majority because 1% sounds small……”
Matt… this is my recollection of that Council meeting as well. 1% was just plucked out of the air because it sounded so small and the Council Majority believed that it would generate little opposition.
Mayor Greenwald said:
“I believe this approach was picked by the council majority because 1% sounds small……”
Matt… this is my recollection of that Council meeting as well. 1% was just plucked out of the air because it sounded so small and the Council Majority believed that it would generate little opposition.
Mayor Greenwald said:
“I believe this approach was picked by the council majority because 1% sounds small……”
Matt… this is my recollection of that Council meeting as well. 1% was just plucked out of the air because it sounded so small and the Council Majority believed that it would generate little opposition.
“It seems to me that would conflict with various other housing goals.”
The housing made available by the
West Village development will free up existing Davis homes for sale and apartments that would otherwise be sought after by faculty and students. This needs to be factored into the housing goals.
“It seems to me that would conflict with various other housing goals.”
The housing made available by the
West Village development will free up existing Davis homes for sale and apartments that would otherwise be sought after by faculty and students. This needs to be factored into the housing goals.
“It seems to me that would conflict with various other housing goals.”
The housing made available by the
West Village development will free up existing Davis homes for sale and apartments that would otherwise be sought after by faculty and students. This needs to be factored into the housing goals.
“It seems to me that would conflict with various other housing goals.”
The housing made available by the
West Village development will free up existing Davis homes for sale and apartments that would otherwise be sought after by faculty and students. This needs to be factored into the housing goals.
That’s not clear and it is by no means clear how much it will free up. More likely is the scenario where people who now live in Woodland and Sacramento will live in West Village.
That’s not clear and it is by no means clear how much it will free up. More likely is the scenario where people who now live in Woodland and Sacramento will live in West Village.
That’s not clear and it is by no means clear how much it will free up. More likely is the scenario where people who now live in Woodland and Sacramento will live in West Village.
That’s not clear and it is by no means clear how much it will free up. More likely is the scenario where people who now live in Woodland and Sacramento will live in West Village.
Here again the Bay Area Economics report provides useful insight. In its Introduction the report says, “With an estimated 11,000 student and faculty and staff households residing in Davis, the UC Davis campus population greatly impacts the Davis housing market. While the University projects the
student population will grow during the Housing Element planning period, the University expects to house most of the increase on campus and in the planned West Village neighborhood. However, just under 1,000 new faculty and staff households are expected to seek residences in the City through 2015.
Later in the report, BAE breaks down the 1,648 West Village households into 1,173 student households and 475 faculty/staff households, which would appear to indicate that UCD Administration expects half of their new faculty/staff households to end up living in plases other than West Village.
BAE projects the 1,173 student households will have a population of 3,000 students, based on the UC Davis Long Range Development Plan Final EIR. In 2007 the total number of students living in the City is reported as 16,285 (in 6,514 households). Therefore it looks like UCD expects about 15 to 20 percent of the current students not housed on campus to move to West Village. Some of that will end up raising the rental vacancy rate in Davis. Right now it is an incredibly low 0.7%.
Here again the Bay Area Economics report provides useful insight. In its Introduction the report says, “With an estimated 11,000 student and faculty and staff households residing in Davis, the UC Davis campus population greatly impacts the Davis housing market. While the University projects the
student population will grow during the Housing Element planning period, the University expects to house most of the increase on campus and in the planned West Village neighborhood. However, just under 1,000 new faculty and staff households are expected to seek residences in the City through 2015.
Later in the report, BAE breaks down the 1,648 West Village households into 1,173 student households and 475 faculty/staff households, which would appear to indicate that UCD Administration expects half of their new faculty/staff households to end up living in plases other than West Village.
BAE projects the 1,173 student households will have a population of 3,000 students, based on the UC Davis Long Range Development Plan Final EIR. In 2007 the total number of students living in the City is reported as 16,285 (in 6,514 households). Therefore it looks like UCD expects about 15 to 20 percent of the current students not housed on campus to move to West Village. Some of that will end up raising the rental vacancy rate in Davis. Right now it is an incredibly low 0.7%.
Here again the Bay Area Economics report provides useful insight. In its Introduction the report says, “With an estimated 11,000 student and faculty and staff households residing in Davis, the UC Davis campus population greatly impacts the Davis housing market. While the University projects the
student population will grow during the Housing Element planning period, the University expects to house most of the increase on campus and in the planned West Village neighborhood. However, just under 1,000 new faculty and staff households are expected to seek residences in the City through 2015.
Later in the report, BAE breaks down the 1,648 West Village households into 1,173 student households and 475 faculty/staff households, which would appear to indicate that UCD Administration expects half of their new faculty/staff households to end up living in plases other than West Village.
BAE projects the 1,173 student households will have a population of 3,000 students, based on the UC Davis Long Range Development Plan Final EIR. In 2007 the total number of students living in the City is reported as 16,285 (in 6,514 households). Therefore it looks like UCD expects about 15 to 20 percent of the current students not housed on campus to move to West Village. Some of that will end up raising the rental vacancy rate in Davis. Right now it is an incredibly low 0.7%.
Here again the Bay Area Economics report provides useful insight. In its Introduction the report says, “With an estimated 11,000 student and faculty and staff households residing in Davis, the UC Davis campus population greatly impacts the Davis housing market. While the University projects the
student population will grow during the Housing Element planning period, the University expects to house most of the increase on campus and in the planned West Village neighborhood. However, just under 1,000 new faculty and staff households are expected to seek residences in the City through 2015.
Later in the report, BAE breaks down the 1,648 West Village households into 1,173 student households and 475 faculty/staff households, which would appear to indicate that UCD Administration expects half of their new faculty/staff households to end up living in plases other than West Village.
BAE projects the 1,173 student households will have a population of 3,000 students, based on the UC Davis Long Range Development Plan Final EIR. In 2007 the total number of students living in the City is reported as 16,285 (in 6,514 households). Therefore it looks like UCD expects about 15 to 20 percent of the current students not housed on campus to move to West Village. Some of that will end up raising the rental vacancy rate in Davis. Right now it is an incredibly low 0.7%.
Just to add to the confusion, my understanding is that the housing in West Village does not allow for equity building. This has come to be a big turnoff for a lot of potential buyers. I have no idea how this will factor into the mix.
However, UCD is creating West Village to answer the criticism of Davisites that up until now the burden of housing has fallen to the City. Many argued the University needs to provide for its students and faculty – and so they did. Not sure that they are meeting their fair share of peripheral costs – roads, etc.
Right now the city cannot afford to build any more housing – because housing requires more police, fire, parks maintenance, etc. Davis needs more business that will generate some sales tax revenue. Our sales tax revenue is leaking out to cities like Woodland, Vacaville, and the like. I for one am looking forward to Target in Davis. It will be interesting to see if it truly generates the tax revenue predicted. If it does, that is your answer, like it or not – more big business. On the other hand, if Target turns out to be revenue neutral, then I would say we need to go to Plan B – which is what? Any suggestions?
Just to add to the confusion, my understanding is that the housing in West Village does not allow for equity building. This has come to be a big turnoff for a lot of potential buyers. I have no idea how this will factor into the mix.
However, UCD is creating West Village to answer the criticism of Davisites that up until now the burden of housing has fallen to the City. Many argued the University needs to provide for its students and faculty – and so they did. Not sure that they are meeting their fair share of peripheral costs – roads, etc.
Right now the city cannot afford to build any more housing – because housing requires more police, fire, parks maintenance, etc. Davis needs more business that will generate some sales tax revenue. Our sales tax revenue is leaking out to cities like Woodland, Vacaville, and the like. I for one am looking forward to Target in Davis. It will be interesting to see if it truly generates the tax revenue predicted. If it does, that is your answer, like it or not – more big business. On the other hand, if Target turns out to be revenue neutral, then I would say we need to go to Plan B – which is what? Any suggestions?
Just to add to the confusion, my understanding is that the housing in West Village does not allow for equity building. This has come to be a big turnoff for a lot of potential buyers. I have no idea how this will factor into the mix.
However, UCD is creating West Village to answer the criticism of Davisites that up until now the burden of housing has fallen to the City. Many argued the University needs to provide for its students and faculty – and so they did. Not sure that they are meeting their fair share of peripheral costs – roads, etc.
Right now the city cannot afford to build any more housing – because housing requires more police, fire, parks maintenance, etc. Davis needs more business that will generate some sales tax revenue. Our sales tax revenue is leaking out to cities like Woodland, Vacaville, and the like. I for one am looking forward to Target in Davis. It will be interesting to see if it truly generates the tax revenue predicted. If it does, that is your answer, like it or not – more big business. On the other hand, if Target turns out to be revenue neutral, then I would say we need to go to Plan B – which is what? Any suggestions?
Just to add to the confusion, my understanding is that the housing in West Village does not allow for equity building. This has come to be a big turnoff for a lot of potential buyers. I have no idea how this will factor into the mix.
However, UCD is creating West Village to answer the criticism of Davisites that up until now the burden of housing has fallen to the City. Many argued the University needs to provide for its students and faculty – and so they did. Not sure that they are meeting their fair share of peripheral costs – roads, etc.
Right now the city cannot afford to build any more housing – because housing requires more police, fire, parks maintenance, etc. Davis needs more business that will generate some sales tax revenue. Our sales tax revenue is leaking out to cities like Woodland, Vacaville, and the like. I for one am looking forward to Target in Davis. It will be interesting to see if it truly generates the tax revenue predicted. If it does, that is your answer, like it or not – more big business. On the other hand, if Target turns out to be revenue neutral, then I would say we need to go to Plan B – which is what? Any suggestions?
Smart growth,
Sue Greenwald has argued that, for city revenue purposes, we need to be attracting R&D companies (as opposed to retailers), because hi-tech businesses have expensive fixed assets which are subject to property tax. In a building with a given footprint, the R&D company would, she says, pay a much higher tax bill than any other usage.
Smart growth,
Sue Greenwald has argued that, for city revenue purposes, we need to be attracting R&D companies (as opposed to retailers), because hi-tech businesses have expensive fixed assets which are subject to property tax. In a building with a given footprint, the R&D company would, she says, pay a much higher tax bill than any other usage.
Smart growth,
Sue Greenwald has argued that, for city revenue purposes, we need to be attracting R&D companies (as opposed to retailers), because hi-tech businesses have expensive fixed assets which are subject to property tax. In a building with a given footprint, the R&D company would, she says, pay a much higher tax bill than any other usage.
Smart growth,
Sue Greenwald has argued that, for city revenue purposes, we need to be attracting R&D companies (as opposed to retailers), because hi-tech businesses have expensive fixed assets which are subject to property tax. In a building with a given footprint, the R&D company would, she says, pay a much higher tax bill than any other usage.
But didn’t Davis lose Genentech to Vacaville because of a lack of support? Wouldn’t adequate housing be part of that infrastructure?
I think Sue’s statement about no lower limit reveals that she really doesn’t want any new housing. She is the representative of the selfish nimby faction that has a large constituency in Davis.
But didn’t Davis lose Genentech to Vacaville because of a lack of support? Wouldn’t adequate housing be part of that infrastructure?
I think Sue’s statement about no lower limit reveals that she really doesn’t want any new housing. She is the representative of the selfish nimby faction that has a large constituency in Davis.
But didn’t Davis lose Genentech to Vacaville because of a lack of support? Wouldn’t adequate housing be part of that infrastructure?
I think Sue’s statement about no lower limit reveals that she really doesn’t want any new housing. She is the representative of the selfish nimby faction that has a large constituency in Davis.
But didn’t Davis lose Genentech to Vacaville because of a lack of support? Wouldn’t adequate housing be part of that infrastructure?
I think Sue’s statement about no lower limit reveals that she really doesn’t want any new housing. She is the representative of the selfish nimby faction that has a large constituency in Davis.
I think that “smart growth” and “I for one am looking forward to Target in Davis” are inherently contradictory. Building a giant store on the edge of town isn’t “smart growth” in any sense of the term.
I think that “smart growth” and “I for one am looking forward to Target in Davis” are inherently contradictory. Building a giant store on the edge of town isn’t “smart growth” in any sense of the term.
I think that “smart growth” and “I for one am looking forward to Target in Davis” are inherently contradictory. Building a giant store on the edge of town isn’t “smart growth” in any sense of the term.
I think that “smart growth” and “I for one am looking forward to Target in Davis” are inherently contradictory. Building a giant store on the edge of town isn’t “smart growth” in any sense of the term.