Under the header “cap, guideline or goal?” the Davis Enterprise’s Claire St. John cited then City Planning Director Bill Emlen (now City Manager) arguing the 1 percent growth “cap.”
“the 1 percent growth cap actually gives the city more stability and predictability in terms of how fast it will grow and where.
A big project like Covell Village would make the planning process even more stable, Emlen said.
“If you’re looking at a planned-growth scenario, it gives some certainty about where the city is going for the next 10 years, if it were approved,” he said. “I would say it provides more order in terms of growth than if we were dealing with other projects that were coming in on the periphery that may not be part of what we think of as a compact city.”
However, then Mayor Pro Tem Sue Greenwald had a different view of the 1 percent growth guideline and how much it actually amount to.
“The council majority has been very unclear about whether it’s a target or a requirement or what,” Greenwald said. “In fact, what they passed is 1 percent not counting affordable housing, or something they called ‘exceptional infill opportunities,’ which is a loophole you can drive a truck through.
“If it really is a cap, then let’s stop treating it as a target and let’s stop using it to justify approving projects,” she said.”
With affordable housing and certain infill projects, housing units per year can rise to about 325, Greenwald was told by Senior Planner Bob Wolcott.
Mike Harrington, by then a former City Councilmember:
“Harrington also voted against the 250-home parameter, saying it was tailor-made for Covell Village.
“By adopting the 1 percent growth requirement, then they built in this bureaucratic need for this project,” Harrington said of the council majority. “The way they wrote it, it’s like it specifically required Covell .”
The most telling piece of information actually comes from an Op-Ed published on October 23, 2005 and penned by Councilmembers Stephen Souza and Don Saylor.
In this op-ed they use the 1% growth guideline as an argument to approve Covell Village instilling fear of worse projects such as a Gidaro project forced upon Davis by the county as a fear mechanism.
They begin arguing that the 1% growth guideline is a goal:
“Measure X will decide how Davis will meet its 1 percent housing goals for the next decade, and which plan best meets those goals.”
That argument is at least somewhat consistent with the argument that they are using right now. However, watch what they do here:
“Can’t we just use Measure J to vote down proposals like Gidaro’s?
Not necessarily. We are required by law to meet our regional housing requirements. That’s one reason we passed a 1 percent growth policy. If we don’t accept our fair share of growth , we can lose major transportation funding, and it invites developers like Gidaro to do an end run around the City Council — and the voters — to force development right on the edge of town.”
What they have done here is very cleaver, they have used RHNA guidelines to argue that if we do not grow, we will have growth forced on us by the boogeyman, apparently Steve Gidaro–which is ironic since Stephen Souza likely would not have been elected without Gidaro’s intervention into the 2004 election.
In this small argument, the 1% growth guideline becomes exactly what they told us it was not on Tuesday night–growth pressure and a requirement.
Even as they argued on Tuesday that the 1% growth guideline was not producing growth pressure, two years ago they explicitly used it to pressure the community into voting for Covell Village. If we did not pass Covell Village we would lose certain funding AND we would “be forced” to grow with other projects that would presumably be worse.
This was a poor argument on a number of fronts, most specifically because there was nothing to preclude them from offering a more preferred alternative to Covell Village from the outset. There was never a no need to approve and promote a project the voters do not like.
But they were also arguing that the law required us to grow–a marked change from Tuesday night when they suggested the 1 percent guideline was a cap not a mandate for growth.
This is a tricky argument on a number of fronts from their perspective. If we do not grow at that rate, it is not a “violation” of the law. It would simply mean that we would become ineligible for certain funding from the state. The voters then would have to weigh the costs of Covell compared to the costs of non-compliance–should SACOG decide to enforce those requirements.
Second, this argument no longer even applies to Davis since the RHNA numbers have shrunk at present to .25% growth or half what Covell alone would have imposed on us for the next decade. So why have we maintained the 1 percent growth level when we are not required to do so–if the RHNA numbers were the reason to set the growth at that level in the first place?
Missing from Tuesday’s conversation is that the argument about mandated growth requirements should no longer be present if RHNA is not imposing it.
The councilmembers then pressed the argument back in 2005 that by passing Covell Village, we allow Davis to remain Davis. But that’s the open question now guiding our thinking now. If we add 2300 units every seven years, how long before Davis is no longer Davis?
That is the point that was dodged on Tuesday night.
Don Saylor tried to finesse this point with the following argument:
“We live in Davis for a high quality of life and a sense of community. And when we think about what causes that, how many of us actually think it has to do with how many of us there are.”
But if Davis is 120,000 people is it still Davis? What makes Davis, Davis? What separates Davis from Woodland, Vacaville, and Fairfield? Mr. Saylor did not answer the question on Tuesday. Now did Mr. Saylor attempt to reconcile his beliefs about Covell Village versus those of the voters.
In 2005, Councilmembers Souza and Saylor argued that Covell village was “smart planning. With targeted housing, open space, bike paths, public safety enhancements and the rest.”
But the voters saw it differently. They saw it as sprawl. They saw a huge number of units added into a location with existing traffic concerns and limited access.
Finally, Mr. Saylor on Tuesday night highlighted a litany of existing housing needs but he never defined or even described how those housing needs will fit into the city.
It bears repeating, 2300 every seven years equals 1.5 Mace Ranch sized developments. Think about where you are putting the next Mace Ranch. Now think about where you would put three of them over the next 14 years.
Their only defense was that four the last four years we have grown at .55 percent. That is true. But guess what, had we passed Covell Village, that would have doubled to 1% pretty quickly. And when he starts talking about student housing, senior housing, and single family housing, you know the plan for the next seven years is not .55 percent growth. Because .55 percent growth is not accommodating his vision.
Look we all want more affordable housing, we want the students to be able to reside in this community, we want seniors to be able to retire near their families. The question is how accommodate those goals. And one way we do not accomplish them is to remove a huge swath of student occupied units along 3rd and B and replace them with owner-occupied bungalows. One way we do not accomplish any of these is by producing housing units that average between $400,000 and $600,000 along the periphery.
There is a disconnect between the rhetoric of the council majority and the reality of the proposals that have been brought forward.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
“Not necessarily. We are required by law to meet our regional housing requirements. That’s one reason we passed a 1 percent growth policy. If we don’t accept our fair share of growth , we can lose major transportation funding, and it invites developers like Gidaro to do an end run around the City Council — and the voters — to force development right on the edge of town.”
The paragraph above misdirects, obfuscates and runs together together disparate “facts” as if they are indeed causal and connected(Saylor’s handiwork, no doubt). The Bush/Cheney misinformation mill would have been impressed.
“Not necessarily. We are required by law to meet our regional housing requirements. That’s one reason we passed a 1 percent growth policy. If we don’t accept our fair share of growth , we can lose major transportation funding, and it invites developers like Gidaro to do an end run around the City Council — and the voters — to force development right on the edge of town.”
The paragraph above misdirects, obfuscates and runs together together disparate “facts” as if they are indeed causal and connected(Saylor’s handiwork, no doubt). The Bush/Cheney misinformation mill would have been impressed.
“Not necessarily. We are required by law to meet our regional housing requirements. That’s one reason we passed a 1 percent growth policy. If we don’t accept our fair share of growth , we can lose major transportation funding, and it invites developers like Gidaro to do an end run around the City Council — and the voters — to force development right on the edge of town.”
The paragraph above misdirects, obfuscates and runs together together disparate “facts” as if they are indeed causal and connected(Saylor’s handiwork, no doubt). The Bush/Cheney misinformation mill would have been impressed.
“Not necessarily. We are required by law to meet our regional housing requirements. That’s one reason we passed a 1 percent growth policy. If we don’t accept our fair share of growth , we can lose major transportation funding, and it invites developers like Gidaro to do an end run around the City Council — and the voters — to force development right on the edge of town.”
The paragraph above misdirects, obfuscates and runs together together disparate “facts” as if they are indeed causal and connected(Saylor’s handiwork, no doubt). The Bush/Cheney misinformation mill would have been impressed.
Look we all want more affordable housing, we want the students to be able to reside in this community, we want seniors to be able to retire near their families. The question is how accommodate those goals.
Really? I didn’t get that impression from the piece that Eileen Samitz posted here a couple of weeks ago. It was completely silent on these subjects, and I doubt that she is the only person in Davis with this sort of disinterest, if not silent hostility.
Samitz and others go on diatribes about the evils of densification, knowing full well that it is economically imposssible to construct affordable housing in Davis unless the tract home, Wildhorse, model is abandoned.
Densification is progressive code in Davis for opposition to any kind of project that would seek to reverse three decades of gentrification by providing housing to people across the socioeconomic spectrum. Progressives shouldn’t be allowed to have their cake and eat it, too, by saying that they want some form of idealized affordable housing that is impractical in the real world.
Look at what the university built next to Borders, that is the sort of thing that is required if prices are to be sufficiently contained to permit homes to be sold to middle and lower middle income people. Based upon what I have heard, my understanding is that the project of west of 113 may incorporate similar approaches, although I haven’t seen the plans for it.
It looks increasingly like the university is the only institution in the city with plans to construct for students and university employees other than older upper middle income residents.
Meanwhile, progressives and developer friendly councilmembers engage in yet another tiresome argument about the 1% cap and whether Davis will no longer be Davis if it grows too much.
Will Davis be the same if 120,000 live there, provocatively asks the Vanguard. The horror. After all, isn’t the whole purpose of Davis to imbue its residents with a sense of social superiority based upon the economic exclusion of people considered undesirable and implicitly inferior?
I have a dirty secret to share, which some here may find shocking. Davis today isn’t the same as it was in 1995, which wasn’t the same as it was in 1986, which wasn’t the same as it was when I arrived here to go to school in 1979. Lots of other people will tell you that as well.
Instead of basing city planning policy on nostalgic, romanticized notions of a city that never existed, it might be better to start emphasizing practical, real world concerns like, how are students and service workers going to live in Davis in the next 10 years?
It might also be better if long time residents didn’t respond with such fear and apprehension towards development that will socially and economically diversify the city. There is an arrogance here that is annoying, an implication that their way of life is superior to the people who might be attracted to live in the city by a combined economic and housing development policy that integrated jobs with affordable housing.
–Richard Estes
Look we all want more affordable housing, we want the students to be able to reside in this community, we want seniors to be able to retire near their families. The question is how accommodate those goals.
Really? I didn’t get that impression from the piece that Eileen Samitz posted here a couple of weeks ago. It was completely silent on these subjects, and I doubt that she is the only person in Davis with this sort of disinterest, if not silent hostility.
Samitz and others go on diatribes about the evils of densification, knowing full well that it is economically imposssible to construct affordable housing in Davis unless the tract home, Wildhorse, model is abandoned.
Densification is progressive code in Davis for opposition to any kind of project that would seek to reverse three decades of gentrification by providing housing to people across the socioeconomic spectrum. Progressives shouldn’t be allowed to have their cake and eat it, too, by saying that they want some form of idealized affordable housing that is impractical in the real world.
Look at what the university built next to Borders, that is the sort of thing that is required if prices are to be sufficiently contained to permit homes to be sold to middle and lower middle income people. Based upon what I have heard, my understanding is that the project of west of 113 may incorporate similar approaches, although I haven’t seen the plans for it.
It looks increasingly like the university is the only institution in the city with plans to construct for students and university employees other than older upper middle income residents.
Meanwhile, progressives and developer friendly councilmembers engage in yet another tiresome argument about the 1% cap and whether Davis will no longer be Davis if it grows too much.
Will Davis be the same if 120,000 live there, provocatively asks the Vanguard. The horror. After all, isn’t the whole purpose of Davis to imbue its residents with a sense of social superiority based upon the economic exclusion of people considered undesirable and implicitly inferior?
I have a dirty secret to share, which some here may find shocking. Davis today isn’t the same as it was in 1995, which wasn’t the same as it was in 1986, which wasn’t the same as it was when I arrived here to go to school in 1979. Lots of other people will tell you that as well.
Instead of basing city planning policy on nostalgic, romanticized notions of a city that never existed, it might be better to start emphasizing practical, real world concerns like, how are students and service workers going to live in Davis in the next 10 years?
It might also be better if long time residents didn’t respond with such fear and apprehension towards development that will socially and economically diversify the city. There is an arrogance here that is annoying, an implication that their way of life is superior to the people who might be attracted to live in the city by a combined economic and housing development policy that integrated jobs with affordable housing.
–Richard Estes
Look we all want more affordable housing, we want the students to be able to reside in this community, we want seniors to be able to retire near their families. The question is how accommodate those goals.
Really? I didn’t get that impression from the piece that Eileen Samitz posted here a couple of weeks ago. It was completely silent on these subjects, and I doubt that she is the only person in Davis with this sort of disinterest, if not silent hostility.
Samitz and others go on diatribes about the evils of densification, knowing full well that it is economically imposssible to construct affordable housing in Davis unless the tract home, Wildhorse, model is abandoned.
Densification is progressive code in Davis for opposition to any kind of project that would seek to reverse three decades of gentrification by providing housing to people across the socioeconomic spectrum. Progressives shouldn’t be allowed to have their cake and eat it, too, by saying that they want some form of idealized affordable housing that is impractical in the real world.
Look at what the university built next to Borders, that is the sort of thing that is required if prices are to be sufficiently contained to permit homes to be sold to middle and lower middle income people. Based upon what I have heard, my understanding is that the project of west of 113 may incorporate similar approaches, although I haven’t seen the plans for it.
It looks increasingly like the university is the only institution in the city with plans to construct for students and university employees other than older upper middle income residents.
Meanwhile, progressives and developer friendly councilmembers engage in yet another tiresome argument about the 1% cap and whether Davis will no longer be Davis if it grows too much.
Will Davis be the same if 120,000 live there, provocatively asks the Vanguard. The horror. After all, isn’t the whole purpose of Davis to imbue its residents with a sense of social superiority based upon the economic exclusion of people considered undesirable and implicitly inferior?
I have a dirty secret to share, which some here may find shocking. Davis today isn’t the same as it was in 1995, which wasn’t the same as it was in 1986, which wasn’t the same as it was when I arrived here to go to school in 1979. Lots of other people will tell you that as well.
Instead of basing city planning policy on nostalgic, romanticized notions of a city that never existed, it might be better to start emphasizing practical, real world concerns like, how are students and service workers going to live in Davis in the next 10 years?
It might also be better if long time residents didn’t respond with such fear and apprehension towards development that will socially and economically diversify the city. There is an arrogance here that is annoying, an implication that their way of life is superior to the people who might be attracted to live in the city by a combined economic and housing development policy that integrated jobs with affordable housing.
–Richard Estes
Look we all want more affordable housing, we want the students to be able to reside in this community, we want seniors to be able to retire near their families. The question is how accommodate those goals.
Really? I didn’t get that impression from the piece that Eileen Samitz posted here a couple of weeks ago. It was completely silent on these subjects, and I doubt that she is the only person in Davis with this sort of disinterest, if not silent hostility.
Samitz and others go on diatribes about the evils of densification, knowing full well that it is economically imposssible to construct affordable housing in Davis unless the tract home, Wildhorse, model is abandoned.
Densification is progressive code in Davis for opposition to any kind of project that would seek to reverse three decades of gentrification by providing housing to people across the socioeconomic spectrum. Progressives shouldn’t be allowed to have their cake and eat it, too, by saying that they want some form of idealized affordable housing that is impractical in the real world.
Look at what the university built next to Borders, that is the sort of thing that is required if prices are to be sufficiently contained to permit homes to be sold to middle and lower middle income people. Based upon what I have heard, my understanding is that the project of west of 113 may incorporate similar approaches, although I haven’t seen the plans for it.
It looks increasingly like the university is the only institution in the city with plans to construct for students and university employees other than older upper middle income residents.
Meanwhile, progressives and developer friendly councilmembers engage in yet another tiresome argument about the 1% cap and whether Davis will no longer be Davis if it grows too much.
Will Davis be the same if 120,000 live there, provocatively asks the Vanguard. The horror. After all, isn’t the whole purpose of Davis to imbue its residents with a sense of social superiority based upon the economic exclusion of people considered undesirable and implicitly inferior?
I have a dirty secret to share, which some here may find shocking. Davis today isn’t the same as it was in 1995, which wasn’t the same as it was in 1986, which wasn’t the same as it was when I arrived here to go to school in 1979. Lots of other people will tell you that as well.
Instead of basing city planning policy on nostalgic, romanticized notions of a city that never existed, it might be better to start emphasizing practical, real world concerns like, how are students and service workers going to live in Davis in the next 10 years?
It might also be better if long time residents didn’t respond with such fear and apprehension towards development that will socially and economically diversify the city. There is an arrogance here that is annoying, an implication that their way of life is superior to the people who might be attracted to live in the city by a combined economic and housing development policy that integrated jobs with affordable housing.
–Richard Estes
I liked this in the Enterprise yesterday:
“Souza likened the ordinance to a car, and said it is functioning just as it should.
‘Just because I have a Prius that goes 100 miles per hour doesn’t mean I have to drive 100 miles per hour,’ he said. “
Yeah, that’s because the speed limit is 65. In town it’s more like 35.
That’s a poor analogy.
I liked this in the Enterprise yesterday:
“Souza likened the ordinance to a car, and said it is functioning just as it should.
‘Just because I have a Prius that goes 100 miles per hour doesn’t mean I have to drive 100 miles per hour,’ he said. “
Yeah, that’s because the speed limit is 65. In town it’s more like 35.
That’s a poor analogy.
I liked this in the Enterprise yesterday:
“Souza likened the ordinance to a car, and said it is functioning just as it should.
‘Just because I have a Prius that goes 100 miles per hour doesn’t mean I have to drive 100 miles per hour,’ he said. “
Yeah, that’s because the speed limit is 65. In town it’s more like 35.
That’s a poor analogy.
I liked this in the Enterprise yesterday:
“Souza likened the ordinance to a car, and said it is functioning just as it should.
‘Just because I have a Prius that goes 100 miles per hour doesn’t mean I have to drive 100 miles per hour,’ he said. “
Yeah, that’s because the speed limit is 65. In town it’s more like 35.
That’s a poor analogy.
“It might also be better if long time residents didn’t respond with such fear and apprehension towards development that will socially and economically diversify the city.”
I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people. Have you?
“It might also be better if long time residents didn’t respond with such fear and apprehension towards development that will socially and economically diversify the city.”
I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people. Have you?
“It might also be better if long time residents didn’t respond with such fear and apprehension towards development that will socially and economically diversify the city.”
I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people. Have you?
“It might also be better if long time residents didn’t respond with such fear and apprehension towards development that will socially and economically diversify the city.”
I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people. Have you?
well, Richard Estes beat me to it.
Couldn’t have said it better.
The sad truth is that many of Davis’ so-called “progressives” want to finish building the moat around our fair Republic, and raise the drawbridge on future residents and growth, whether peripheral or in-fill.
The real irony is that many of these “progrssives” originally came here to go to UCD, loved the quality of life,and the amenities that Davis has to offer, and stayed permanently.
Now, they want to deny others the same things that Davis has given to them.
Its selfish, and a damn shame.
well, Richard Estes beat me to it.
Couldn’t have said it better.
The sad truth is that many of Davis’ so-called “progressives” want to finish building the moat around our fair Republic, and raise the drawbridge on future residents and growth, whether peripheral or in-fill.
The real irony is that many of these “progrssives” originally came here to go to UCD, loved the quality of life,and the amenities that Davis has to offer, and stayed permanently.
Now, they want to deny others the same things that Davis has given to them.
Its selfish, and a damn shame.
well, Richard Estes beat me to it.
Couldn’t have said it better.
The sad truth is that many of Davis’ so-called “progressives” want to finish building the moat around our fair Republic, and raise the drawbridge on future residents and growth, whether peripheral or in-fill.
The real irony is that many of these “progrssives” originally came here to go to UCD, loved the quality of life,and the amenities that Davis has to offer, and stayed permanently.
Now, they want to deny others the same things that Davis has given to them.
Its selfish, and a damn shame.
well, Richard Estes beat me to it.
Couldn’t have said it better.
The sad truth is that many of Davis’ so-called “progressives” want to finish building the moat around our fair Republic, and raise the drawbridge on future residents and growth, whether peripheral or in-fill.
The real irony is that many of these “progrssives” originally came here to go to UCD, loved the quality of life,and the amenities that Davis has to offer, and stayed permanently.
Now, they want to deny others the same things that Davis has given to them.
Its selfish, and a damn shame.
I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people. Have you?
2/14/08 10:55 AM
Indeed, as I have mentioned here many times, for example, just yesterday. But if you are suggesting that progressives do support such projects while developer friendly councilmembers don’t, is not, in my view, accurate, especially when progressives engage in demagoguery over the evils of densification. The rhetoric and policy stance of progressives precludes any significant construction of affordable housing in Davis, and they know it.
For example, look at Covell Center. Progressives are against developing it under any circumstances, they didn’t challenge the proposal on the ground that it didn’t provide sufficient affordable housing, or that the project’s footprint could have been reduced through the construction of smaller, more affordable units and lot sizes, no, they were just against it.
The idea that progressives in Davis support affordable housing is about as credible as saying that George Bush believes in socialized medicine.
–Richard Estes
Although I hate to admit it I was listening to NPR this morning and there was a story about how not a single county in California has a median income that qualifies people to purchase the median priced home. Davis is of course worse than most places on this issue. It seems that people who have homes but want to restrict housing so that only rich people can own houses are being selfish. The NPR stories conclusion was that we need more affordable housing. Davis is clearly part of the problem. The irony is that college towns are supposed to be leaders in modeling solutions to societies problems.
I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people. Have you?
2/14/08 10:55 AM
Indeed, as I have mentioned here many times, for example, just yesterday. But if you are suggesting that progressives do support such projects while developer friendly councilmembers don’t, is not, in my view, accurate, especially when progressives engage in demagoguery over the evils of densification. The rhetoric and policy stance of progressives precludes any significant construction of affordable housing in Davis, and they know it.
For example, look at Covell Center. Progressives are against developing it under any circumstances, they didn’t challenge the proposal on the ground that it didn’t provide sufficient affordable housing, or that the project’s footprint could have been reduced through the construction of smaller, more affordable units and lot sizes, no, they were just against it.
The idea that progressives in Davis support affordable housing is about as credible as saying that George Bush believes in socialized medicine.
–Richard Estes
Although I hate to admit it I was listening to NPR this morning and there was a story about how not a single county in California has a median income that qualifies people to purchase the median priced home. Davis is of course worse than most places on this issue. It seems that people who have homes but want to restrict housing so that only rich people can own houses are being selfish. The NPR stories conclusion was that we need more affordable housing. Davis is clearly part of the problem. The irony is that college towns are supposed to be leaders in modeling solutions to societies problems.
I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people. Have you?
2/14/08 10:55 AM
Indeed, as I have mentioned here many times, for example, just yesterday. But if you are suggesting that progressives do support such projects while developer friendly councilmembers don’t, is not, in my view, accurate, especially when progressives engage in demagoguery over the evils of densification. The rhetoric and policy stance of progressives precludes any significant construction of affordable housing in Davis, and they know it.
For example, look at Covell Center. Progressives are against developing it under any circumstances, they didn’t challenge the proposal on the ground that it didn’t provide sufficient affordable housing, or that the project’s footprint could have been reduced through the construction of smaller, more affordable units and lot sizes, no, they were just against it.
The idea that progressives in Davis support affordable housing is about as credible as saying that George Bush believes in socialized medicine.
–Richard Estes
Although I hate to admit it I was listening to NPR this morning and there was a story about how not a single county in California has a median income that qualifies people to purchase the median priced home. Davis is of course worse than most places on this issue. It seems that people who have homes but want to restrict housing so that only rich people can own houses are being selfish. The NPR stories conclusion was that we need more affordable housing. Davis is clearly part of the problem. The irony is that college towns are supposed to be leaders in modeling solutions to societies problems.
I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people. Have you?
2/14/08 10:55 AM
Indeed, as I have mentioned here many times, for example, just yesterday. But if you are suggesting that progressives do support such projects while developer friendly councilmembers don’t, is not, in my view, accurate, especially when progressives engage in demagoguery over the evils of densification. The rhetoric and policy stance of progressives precludes any significant construction of affordable housing in Davis, and they know it.
For example, look at Covell Center. Progressives are against developing it under any circumstances, they didn’t challenge the proposal on the ground that it didn’t provide sufficient affordable housing, or that the project’s footprint could have been reduced through the construction of smaller, more affordable units and lot sizes, no, they were just against it.
The idea that progressives in Davis support affordable housing is about as credible as saying that George Bush believes in socialized medicine.
–Richard Estes
Although I hate to admit it I was listening to NPR this morning and there was a story about how not a single county in California has a median income that qualifies people to purchase the median priced home. Davis is of course worse than most places on this issue. It seems that people who have homes but want to restrict housing so that only rich people can own houses are being selfish. The NPR stories conclusion was that we need more affordable housing. Davis is clearly part of the problem. The irony is that college towns are supposed to be leaders in modeling solutions to societies problems.
anonymous 10:55am said…
I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people. Have you?
Yes,we have.
There have been numerous affordable housing projects approved and constructed during the tenure of this Council majority (and Mayor Sue too- Lamar wasn’t yet on the Council) that (while not ownership housing) have been aimed at folks with low incomes, and that are extremely affordable.
Next gripe or complaint to be addressed?
anonymous 10:55am said…
I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people. Have you?
Yes,we have.
There have been numerous affordable housing projects approved and constructed during the tenure of this Council majority (and Mayor Sue too- Lamar wasn’t yet on the Council) that (while not ownership housing) have been aimed at folks with low incomes, and that are extremely affordable.
Next gripe or complaint to be addressed?
anonymous 10:55am said…
I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people. Have you?
Yes,we have.
There have been numerous affordable housing projects approved and constructed during the tenure of this Council majority (and Mayor Sue too- Lamar wasn’t yet on the Council) that (while not ownership housing) have been aimed at folks with low incomes, and that are extremely affordable.
Next gripe or complaint to be addressed?
anonymous 10:55am said…
I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people. Have you?
Yes,we have.
There have been numerous affordable housing projects approved and constructed during the tenure of this Council majority (and Mayor Sue too- Lamar wasn’t yet on the Council) that (while not ownership housing) have been aimed at folks with low incomes, and that are extremely affordable.
Next gripe or complaint to be addressed?
“Based upon what I have heard, my understanding is that the project of west of 113 may incorporate similar approaches, although I haven’t seen the plans for it.”
To get a taste for the planned housing at West Village, check out this link. As Richard Estes said, it has a lot of the qualities of Aggie Villa, which I agree is very nice.
If you looked closely at Corbett’s plans for Covell Village, the vast majority of the housing was similar in scope to this. Of course, that was terrible, because the builders may have made profits on the development and it was sprawl, because it was on farmable land. Never mind that 25% of the housing at Covell Village was for very low income and another 25% was capped for middle income.
“I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people.”
I hate racist comments like this one. No wonder the author was afraid to put his name to it. He presumes that there are no non-white people with money. Never mind that Davis today is more racially, ethnically and economically diverse now than it has ever been.
“Based upon what I have heard, my understanding is that the project of west of 113 may incorporate similar approaches, although I haven’t seen the plans for it.”
To get a taste for the planned housing at West Village, check out this link. As Richard Estes said, it has a lot of the qualities of Aggie Villa, which I agree is very nice.
If you looked closely at Corbett’s plans for Covell Village, the vast majority of the housing was similar in scope to this. Of course, that was terrible, because the builders may have made profits on the development and it was sprawl, because it was on farmable land. Never mind that 25% of the housing at Covell Village was for very low income and another 25% was capped for middle income.
“I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people.”
I hate racist comments like this one. No wonder the author was afraid to put his name to it. He presumes that there are no non-white people with money. Never mind that Davis today is more racially, ethnically and economically diverse now than it has ever been.
“Based upon what I have heard, my understanding is that the project of west of 113 may incorporate similar approaches, although I haven’t seen the plans for it.”
To get a taste for the planned housing at West Village, check out this link. As Richard Estes said, it has a lot of the qualities of Aggie Villa, which I agree is very nice.
If you looked closely at Corbett’s plans for Covell Village, the vast majority of the housing was similar in scope to this. Of course, that was terrible, because the builders may have made profits on the development and it was sprawl, because it was on farmable land. Never mind that 25% of the housing at Covell Village was for very low income and another 25% was capped for middle income.
“I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people.”
I hate racist comments like this one. No wonder the author was afraid to put his name to it. He presumes that there are no non-white people with money. Never mind that Davis today is more racially, ethnically and economically diverse now than it has ever been.
“Based upon what I have heard, my understanding is that the project of west of 113 may incorporate similar approaches, although I haven’t seen the plans for it.”
To get a taste for the planned housing at West Village, check out this link. As Richard Estes said, it has a lot of the qualities of Aggie Villa, which I agree is very nice.
If you looked closely at Corbett’s plans for Covell Village, the vast majority of the housing was similar in scope to this. Of course, that was terrible, because the builders may have made profits on the development and it was sprawl, because it was on farmable land. Never mind that 25% of the housing at Covell Village was for very low income and another 25% was capped for middle income.
“I have seen not one development proposal from this council that will provide anything but housing for more rich white people.”
I hate racist comments like this one. No wonder the author was afraid to put his name to it. He presumes that there are no non-white people with money. Never mind that Davis today is more racially, ethnically and economically diverse now than it has ever been.
One thing I am always curious about with regard to smaller, more affordable development projects is how it is possible to ensure that they are bought by the people for whom they are intended – i.e. middle to lower income families, rather than by investors who will turn around and rent them to students.
Of course this is a college town, and of course students deserve to have places to live just like everyone else. But how do you get to a place where other people can buy as well?
I believe one street in Wildhorse had a 2-year owner-occupier requirement at initial sale. Since it’s now been longer than that, I am curious how many of those houses turned over to investors.
One thing I am always curious about with regard to smaller, more affordable development projects is how it is possible to ensure that they are bought by the people for whom they are intended – i.e. middle to lower income families, rather than by investors who will turn around and rent them to students.
Of course this is a college town, and of course students deserve to have places to live just like everyone else. But how do you get to a place where other people can buy as well?
I believe one street in Wildhorse had a 2-year owner-occupier requirement at initial sale. Since it’s now been longer than that, I am curious how many of those houses turned over to investors.
One thing I am always curious about with regard to smaller, more affordable development projects is how it is possible to ensure that they are bought by the people for whom they are intended – i.e. middle to lower income families, rather than by investors who will turn around and rent them to students.
Of course this is a college town, and of course students deserve to have places to live just like everyone else. But how do you get to a place where other people can buy as well?
I believe one street in Wildhorse had a 2-year owner-occupier requirement at initial sale. Since it’s now been longer than that, I am curious how many of those houses turned over to investors.
One thing I am always curious about with regard to smaller, more affordable development projects is how it is possible to ensure that they are bought by the people for whom they are intended – i.e. middle to lower income families, rather than by investors who will turn around and rent them to students.
Of course this is a college town, and of course students deserve to have places to live just like everyone else. But how do you get to a place where other people can buy as well?
I believe one street in Wildhorse had a 2-year owner-occupier requirement at initial sale. Since it’s now been longer than that, I am curious how many of those houses turned over to investors.
“There have been numerous affordable housing projects approved and constructed during the tenure of this Council majority (and Mayor Sue too- Lamar wasn’t yet on the Council) that (while not ownership housing) have been aimed at folks with low incomes, and that are extremely affordable.”
Really next gripe? You did not name one.
“There have been numerous affordable housing projects approved and constructed during the tenure of this Council majority (and Mayor Sue too- Lamar wasn’t yet on the Council) that (while not ownership housing) have been aimed at folks with low incomes, and that are extremely affordable.”
Really next gripe? You did not name one.
“There have been numerous affordable housing projects approved and constructed during the tenure of this Council majority (and Mayor Sue too- Lamar wasn’t yet on the Council) that (while not ownership housing) have been aimed at folks with low incomes, and that are extremely affordable.”
Really next gripe? You did not name one.
“There have been numerous affordable housing projects approved and constructed during the tenure of this Council majority (and Mayor Sue too- Lamar wasn’t yet on the Council) that (while not ownership housing) have been aimed at folks with low incomes, and that are extremely affordable.”
Really next gripe? You did not name one.
Richard… Righteous indignation over lack of ideological purity can certainly give one a “rush” but is rarely politically useful. Eileen Samitz,while a dedicated and hard-working advocate for Davis slow-growth for some years now, is NOT the designated representative or spokesperson of the diverse Davis slow-growth electorate. It continues to be a challenge to accomodate all the positions(and EGOS) under the same unified slow-growth political tent. We were able to pull together successfully in the NO on X campaign. We will see if we have “the stuff” to come together for this critical upcoming Council election.
Richard… Righteous indignation over lack of ideological purity can certainly give one a “rush” but is rarely politically useful. Eileen Samitz,while a dedicated and hard-working advocate for Davis slow-growth for some years now, is NOT the designated representative or spokesperson of the diverse Davis slow-growth electorate. It continues to be a challenge to accomodate all the positions(and EGOS) under the same unified slow-growth political tent. We were able to pull together successfully in the NO on X campaign. We will see if we have “the stuff” to come together for this critical upcoming Council election.
Richard… Righteous indignation over lack of ideological purity can certainly give one a “rush” but is rarely politically useful. Eileen Samitz,while a dedicated and hard-working advocate for Davis slow-growth for some years now, is NOT the designated representative or spokesperson of the diverse Davis slow-growth electorate. It continues to be a challenge to accomodate all the positions(and EGOS) under the same unified slow-growth political tent. We were able to pull together successfully in the NO on X campaign. We will see if we have “the stuff” to come together for this critical upcoming Council election.
Richard… Righteous indignation over lack of ideological purity can certainly give one a “rush” but is rarely politically useful. Eileen Samitz,while a dedicated and hard-working advocate for Davis slow-growth for some years now, is NOT the designated representative or spokesperson of the diverse Davis slow-growth electorate. It continues to be a challenge to accomodate all the positions(and EGOS) under the same unified slow-growth political tent. We were able to pull together successfully in the NO on X campaign. We will see if we have “the stuff” to come together for this critical upcoming Council election.
some examples of affordable housing projects approved (and built) by the Council Majority (and Mayor Sue)in the past few years…
Cesar Chavez Plaza (53 units-Olive Drive)
Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (59 units-East Davis)
Moore Village (59 units)(Wildhorse)
Tremont Green (36 units)(South Davis)
all completed within the past 4 years.
for more facts,(and less rhetoric) please see:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/housing/affordable/list.cfm
some examples of affordable housing projects approved (and built) by the Council Majority (and Mayor Sue)in the past few years…
Cesar Chavez Plaza (53 units-Olive Drive)
Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (59 units-East Davis)
Moore Village (59 units)(Wildhorse)
Tremont Green (36 units)(South Davis)
all completed within the past 4 years.
for more facts,(and less rhetoric) please see:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/housing/affordable/list.cfm
some examples of affordable housing projects approved (and built) by the Council Majority (and Mayor Sue)in the past few years…
Cesar Chavez Plaza (53 units-Olive Drive)
Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (59 units-East Davis)
Moore Village (59 units)(Wildhorse)
Tremont Green (36 units)(South Davis)
all completed within the past 4 years.
for more facts,(and less rhetoric) please see:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/housing/affordable/list.cfm
some examples of affordable housing projects approved (and built) by the Council Majority (and Mayor Sue)in the past few years…
Cesar Chavez Plaza (53 units-Olive Drive)
Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (59 units-East Davis)
Moore Village (59 units)(Wildhorse)
Tremont Green (36 units)(South Davis)
all completed within the past 4 years.
for more facts,(and less rhetoric) please see:
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/housing/affordable/list.cfm
Cesar Chavez and ERC are the exact examples I was looking for. ERC was supposed to be a middle income senior housing unit. But what it is now is really a bit of mess. They have units that are for low income. Then they have units that are for middle income and units that are market rate. These are tiny units and the market rate price is a lot of money for a 600 sq. foot unit.
I have no problem with these type of developments in concept, but we’re talking less than 200 units over four years going to lower income people.
I’m all for low and middle income housing that is infill. Give me more and I’ll approve more. Covell was not. Covell was sprawl. Covell was 600K homes. That’s not what I want to see in terms of future development.
Cesar Chavez and ERC are the exact examples I was looking for. ERC was supposed to be a middle income senior housing unit. But what it is now is really a bit of mess. They have units that are for low income. Then they have units that are for middle income and units that are market rate. These are tiny units and the market rate price is a lot of money for a 600 sq. foot unit.
I have no problem with these type of developments in concept, but we’re talking less than 200 units over four years going to lower income people.
I’m all for low and middle income housing that is infill. Give me more and I’ll approve more. Covell was not. Covell was sprawl. Covell was 600K homes. That’s not what I want to see in terms of future development.
Cesar Chavez and ERC are the exact examples I was looking for. ERC was supposed to be a middle income senior housing unit. But what it is now is really a bit of mess. They have units that are for low income. Then they have units that are for middle income and units that are market rate. These are tiny units and the market rate price is a lot of money for a 600 sq. foot unit.
I have no problem with these type of developments in concept, but we’re talking less than 200 units over four years going to lower income people.
I’m all for low and middle income housing that is infill. Give me more and I’ll approve more. Covell was not. Covell was sprawl. Covell was 600K homes. That’s not what I want to see in terms of future development.
Cesar Chavez and ERC are the exact examples I was looking for. ERC was supposed to be a middle income senior housing unit. But what it is now is really a bit of mess. They have units that are for low income. Then they have units that are for middle income and units that are market rate. These are tiny units and the market rate price is a lot of money for a 600 sq. foot unit.
I have no problem with these type of developments in concept, but we’re talking less than 200 units over four years going to lower income people.
I’m all for low and middle income housing that is infill. Give me more and I’ll approve more. Covell was not. Covell was sprawl. Covell was 600K homes. That’s not what I want to see in terms of future development.
Cesar Chavez Plaza (53 units-Olive Drive)
Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (59 units-East Davis)
Moore Village (59 units)(Wildhorse)
Tremont Green (36 units)(South Davis)
Sue can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe she opposed Cesar Chavez Plaza and had serious doubts about the Eleanor Roosevelt project. (I don’t know her views on the other two.)
Also, your unit numbers on “affordable” are misleading. Not all of those units were priced sub-market. In fact, the so-called middle-income units at ERC were originally priced higher than the market would bear. Rather than attracting a waiting list, the prices had to be lowered to come down to market rents. And when that didn’t work, the ERC became a Section 8 complex.
I’m not sure what the prescribed mix is at Cesar Chavez. However, I know quite a few of the units are designed to serve the homeless and mentally ill population. Because of that, it is very unlikely that workers in the downtown — the group which was supposed to benefit by CCP — will want to live there.
Cesar Chavez Plaza (53 units-Olive Drive)
Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (59 units-East Davis)
Moore Village (59 units)(Wildhorse)
Tremont Green (36 units)(South Davis)
Sue can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe she opposed Cesar Chavez Plaza and had serious doubts about the Eleanor Roosevelt project. (I don’t know her views on the other two.)
Also, your unit numbers on “affordable” are misleading. Not all of those units were priced sub-market. In fact, the so-called middle-income units at ERC were originally priced higher than the market would bear. Rather than attracting a waiting list, the prices had to be lowered to come down to market rents. And when that didn’t work, the ERC became a Section 8 complex.
I’m not sure what the prescribed mix is at Cesar Chavez. However, I know quite a few of the units are designed to serve the homeless and mentally ill population. Because of that, it is very unlikely that workers in the downtown — the group which was supposed to benefit by CCP — will want to live there.
Cesar Chavez Plaza (53 units-Olive Drive)
Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (59 units-East Davis)
Moore Village (59 units)(Wildhorse)
Tremont Green (36 units)(South Davis)
Sue can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe she opposed Cesar Chavez Plaza and had serious doubts about the Eleanor Roosevelt project. (I don’t know her views on the other two.)
Also, your unit numbers on “affordable” are misleading. Not all of those units were priced sub-market. In fact, the so-called middle-income units at ERC were originally priced higher than the market would bear. Rather than attracting a waiting list, the prices had to be lowered to come down to market rents. And when that didn’t work, the ERC became a Section 8 complex.
I’m not sure what the prescribed mix is at Cesar Chavez. However, I know quite a few of the units are designed to serve the homeless and mentally ill population. Because of that, it is very unlikely that workers in the downtown — the group which was supposed to benefit by CCP — will want to live there.
Cesar Chavez Plaza (53 units-Olive Drive)
Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (59 units-East Davis)
Moore Village (59 units)(Wildhorse)
Tremont Green (36 units)(South Davis)
Sue can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe she opposed Cesar Chavez Plaza and had serious doubts about the Eleanor Roosevelt project. (I don’t know her views on the other two.)
Also, your unit numbers on “affordable” are misleading. Not all of those units were priced sub-market. In fact, the so-called middle-income units at ERC were originally priced higher than the market would bear. Rather than attracting a waiting list, the prices had to be lowered to come down to market rents. And when that didn’t work, the ERC became a Section 8 complex.
I’m not sure what the prescribed mix is at Cesar Chavez. However, I know quite a few of the units are designed to serve the homeless and mentally ill population. Because of that, it is very unlikely that workers in the downtown — the group which was supposed to benefit by CCP — will want to live there.
“Give me more and I’ll approve more. Covell was not. Covell was sprawl. Covell was 600K homes.”
You are wrong. Covell was 25% very low income and another 25% middle income capped. Also, the lots for market rate single family homes were quite small — much smaller than the lots in my Sycamore Lane neighborhood, for example. It’s possible they would have commanded a high price — if they were nice homes — but these were not anything like the large lots in Lake Alhambra or near Montgomery in South Davis.
“Give me more and I’ll approve more. Covell was not. Covell was sprawl. Covell was 600K homes.”
You are wrong. Covell was 25% very low income and another 25% middle income capped. Also, the lots for market rate single family homes were quite small — much smaller than the lots in my Sycamore Lane neighborhood, for example. It’s possible they would have commanded a high price — if they were nice homes — but these were not anything like the large lots in Lake Alhambra or near Montgomery in South Davis.
“Give me more and I’ll approve more. Covell was not. Covell was sprawl. Covell was 600K homes.”
You are wrong. Covell was 25% very low income and another 25% middle income capped. Also, the lots for market rate single family homes were quite small — much smaller than the lots in my Sycamore Lane neighborhood, for example. It’s possible they would have commanded a high price — if they were nice homes — but these were not anything like the large lots in Lake Alhambra or near Montgomery in South Davis.
“Give me more and I’ll approve more. Covell was not. Covell was sprawl. Covell was 600K homes.”
You are wrong. Covell was 25% very low income and another 25% middle income capped. Also, the lots for market rate single family homes were quite small — much smaller than the lots in my Sycamore Lane neighborhood, for example. It’s possible they would have commanded a high price — if they were nice homes — but these were not anything like the large lots in Lake Alhambra or near Montgomery in South Davis.
What about homes that people with the median income can buy? If you need $130,000 a year to buy in Davis maybe we need to build more homes to bring prices in line with incomes. That is what all this foreclosure activity is about regionally repricing home prices so that they are within the ability of people to buy. In Davis where supply has been restricted there is less repricing due to foreclosure because as the housing bubble reached its peak there was no major development going on. Still if you look at West Sac, Woodland or Dixon where they built into the bubble the foreclosures are everywhere. Now that the bubble has burst development in Davis can be adjusted to be more reasonably priced. If you think that people who only make $100,000 a year shouldn’t gripe about not being able to afford to live in Davis I would think you are being selfish.
What about homes that people with the median income can buy? If you need $130,000 a year to buy in Davis maybe we need to build more homes to bring prices in line with incomes. That is what all this foreclosure activity is about regionally repricing home prices so that they are within the ability of people to buy. In Davis where supply has been restricted there is less repricing due to foreclosure because as the housing bubble reached its peak there was no major development going on. Still if you look at West Sac, Woodland or Dixon where they built into the bubble the foreclosures are everywhere. Now that the bubble has burst development in Davis can be adjusted to be more reasonably priced. If you think that people who only make $100,000 a year shouldn’t gripe about not being able to afford to live in Davis I would think you are being selfish.
What about homes that people with the median income can buy? If you need $130,000 a year to buy in Davis maybe we need to build more homes to bring prices in line with incomes. That is what all this foreclosure activity is about regionally repricing home prices so that they are within the ability of people to buy. In Davis where supply has been restricted there is less repricing due to foreclosure because as the housing bubble reached its peak there was no major development going on. Still if you look at West Sac, Woodland or Dixon where they built into the bubble the foreclosures are everywhere. Now that the bubble has burst development in Davis can be adjusted to be more reasonably priced. If you think that people who only make $100,000 a year shouldn’t gripe about not being able to afford to live in Davis I would think you are being selfish.
What about homes that people with the median income can buy? If you need $130,000 a year to buy in Davis maybe we need to build more homes to bring prices in line with incomes. That is what all this foreclosure activity is about regionally repricing home prices so that they are within the ability of people to buy. In Davis where supply has been restricted there is less repricing due to foreclosure because as the housing bubble reached its peak there was no major development going on. Still if you look at West Sac, Woodland or Dixon where they built into the bubble the foreclosures are everywhere. Now that the bubble has burst development in Davis can be adjusted to be more reasonably priced. If you think that people who only make $100,000 a year shouldn’t gripe about not being able to afford to live in Davis I would think you are being selfish.
Righteous indignation over lack of ideological purity can certainly give one a “rush” but is rarely politically useful. Eileen Samitz,while a dedicated and hard-working advocate for Davis slow-growth for some years now, is NOT the designated representative or spokesperson of the diverse Davis slow-growth electorate. It continues to be a challenge to accomodate all the positions(and EGOS) under the same unified slow-growth political tent.
And this shows that progressives support affordable housing . . how?
Progressives oppose development in West Davis and Covell Center, instead of demanding that housing be constructed for lower and middle incomes groups that need it. From what I have heard, West Davis would include housing for students, students who increasingly find themselves communting from Dixon, Woodland and West Sacramento to go to UCD.
It’s nice that the city has constructed 200 affordable rental units in the last 4 years, but, as noted here elsewhere that’s not very significant. Furthermore, there is a need for homes and condos for people who actually want to own their residences, yet earn middle to lower middle income wages. It can be done, but it can’t if densification continues to be demonized.
As for the person who supports infill, it is worth noting that Covell Center is bounded by commerical and residential developments on three of its four sides. Good thing that fourth side is open, or we’d have to hear about the “Covell Center” infill exception.
–Richard Estes
Righteous indignation over lack of ideological purity can certainly give one a “rush” but is rarely politically useful. Eileen Samitz,while a dedicated and hard-working advocate for Davis slow-growth for some years now, is NOT the designated representative or spokesperson of the diverse Davis slow-growth electorate. It continues to be a challenge to accomodate all the positions(and EGOS) under the same unified slow-growth political tent.
And this shows that progressives support affordable housing . . how?
Progressives oppose development in West Davis and Covell Center, instead of demanding that housing be constructed for lower and middle incomes groups that need it. From what I have heard, West Davis would include housing for students, students who increasingly find themselves communting from Dixon, Woodland and West Sacramento to go to UCD.
It’s nice that the city has constructed 200 affordable rental units in the last 4 years, but, as noted here elsewhere that’s not very significant. Furthermore, there is a need for homes and condos for people who actually want to own their residences, yet earn middle to lower middle income wages. It can be done, but it can’t if densification continues to be demonized.
As for the person who supports infill, it is worth noting that Covell Center is bounded by commerical and residential developments on three of its four sides. Good thing that fourth side is open, or we’d have to hear about the “Covell Center” infill exception.
–Richard Estes
Righteous indignation over lack of ideological purity can certainly give one a “rush” but is rarely politically useful. Eileen Samitz,while a dedicated and hard-working advocate for Davis slow-growth for some years now, is NOT the designated representative or spokesperson of the diverse Davis slow-growth electorate. It continues to be a challenge to accomodate all the positions(and EGOS) under the same unified slow-growth political tent.
And this shows that progressives support affordable housing . . how?
Progressives oppose development in West Davis and Covell Center, instead of demanding that housing be constructed for lower and middle incomes groups that need it. From what I have heard, West Davis would include housing for students, students who increasingly find themselves communting from Dixon, Woodland and West Sacramento to go to UCD.
It’s nice that the city has constructed 200 affordable rental units in the last 4 years, but, as noted here elsewhere that’s not very significant. Furthermore, there is a need for homes and condos for people who actually want to own their residences, yet earn middle to lower middle income wages. It can be done, but it can’t if densification continues to be demonized.
As for the person who supports infill, it is worth noting that Covell Center is bounded by commerical and residential developments on three of its four sides. Good thing that fourth side is open, or we’d have to hear about the “Covell Center” infill exception.
–Richard Estes
Righteous indignation over lack of ideological purity can certainly give one a “rush” but is rarely politically useful. Eileen Samitz,while a dedicated and hard-working advocate for Davis slow-growth for some years now, is NOT the designated representative or spokesperson of the diverse Davis slow-growth electorate. It continues to be a challenge to accomodate all the positions(and EGOS) under the same unified slow-growth political tent.
And this shows that progressives support affordable housing . . how?
Progressives oppose development in West Davis and Covell Center, instead of demanding that housing be constructed for lower and middle incomes groups that need it. From what I have heard, West Davis would include housing for students, students who increasingly find themselves communting from Dixon, Woodland and West Sacramento to go to UCD.
It’s nice that the city has constructed 200 affordable rental units in the last 4 years, but, as noted here elsewhere that’s not very significant. Furthermore, there is a need for homes and condos for people who actually want to own their residences, yet earn middle to lower middle income wages. It can be done, but it can’t if densification continues to be demonized.
As for the person who supports infill, it is worth noting that Covell Center is bounded by commerical and residential developments on three of its four sides. Good thing that fourth side is open, or we’d have to hear about the “Covell Center” infill exception.
–Richard Estes
Rich Rifkin said: “You are wrong.”
Half-truths and parcing words does not make it so. CV was planning to build 10 “middle income affordable” houses/yr. The “affordable” plan that was to create a fund was never consumated,as I remember, because the city was exceedingly wary of assuming the risk or maintaining the cash fund that this plan would require. The “middle-income” scale was created by the CV developers and was significantly “richer” than the city’s own income designation levels. As for the low and very low income housing(25%), this was standard mandatory % for a residential development by city ordinance.
Rich Rifkin said: “You are wrong.”
Half-truths and parcing words does not make it so. CV was planning to build 10 “middle income affordable” houses/yr. The “affordable” plan that was to create a fund was never consumated,as I remember, because the city was exceedingly wary of assuming the risk or maintaining the cash fund that this plan would require. The “middle-income” scale was created by the CV developers and was significantly “richer” than the city’s own income designation levels. As for the low and very low income housing(25%), this was standard mandatory % for a residential development by city ordinance.
Rich Rifkin said: “You are wrong.”
Half-truths and parcing words does not make it so. CV was planning to build 10 “middle income affordable” houses/yr. The “affordable” plan that was to create a fund was never consumated,as I remember, because the city was exceedingly wary of assuming the risk or maintaining the cash fund that this plan would require. The “middle-income” scale was created by the CV developers and was significantly “richer” than the city’s own income designation levels. As for the low and very low income housing(25%), this was standard mandatory % for a residential development by city ordinance.
Rich Rifkin said: “You are wrong.”
Half-truths and parcing words does not make it so. CV was planning to build 10 “middle income affordable” houses/yr. The “affordable” plan that was to create a fund was never consumated,as I remember, because the city was exceedingly wary of assuming the risk or maintaining the cash fund that this plan would require. The “middle-income” scale was created by the CV developers and was significantly “richer” than the city’s own income designation levels. As for the low and very low income housing(25%), this was standard mandatory % for a residential development by city ordinance.
to my knowledge, no affordable housing projects have been rejected in the past four years.
and sue (relying on memory) did not oppose Cesar Chavez, or Eleanor Roosevelt projects.
Richard and anonymous are right, 200 units is not much affordable housing, but it is greater than other cities in the region. Many cities buy their way out of producing affordable housing.
also, one has to wonder, if someone proposed 15-1800 units of aggie village type housing (ie. small lots, small house footprints, and truly affordable) people would still reject that.
The “progessive” label in Davis is a sham.
“No Growther/Regressive or Luddite” fits much better.
to my knowledge, no affordable housing projects have been rejected in the past four years.
and sue (relying on memory) did not oppose Cesar Chavez, or Eleanor Roosevelt projects.
Richard and anonymous are right, 200 units is not much affordable housing, but it is greater than other cities in the region. Many cities buy their way out of producing affordable housing.
also, one has to wonder, if someone proposed 15-1800 units of aggie village type housing (ie. small lots, small house footprints, and truly affordable) people would still reject that.
The “progessive” label in Davis is a sham.
“No Growther/Regressive or Luddite” fits much better.
to my knowledge, no affordable housing projects have been rejected in the past four years.
and sue (relying on memory) did not oppose Cesar Chavez, or Eleanor Roosevelt projects.
Richard and anonymous are right, 200 units is not much affordable housing, but it is greater than other cities in the region. Many cities buy their way out of producing affordable housing.
also, one has to wonder, if someone proposed 15-1800 units of aggie village type housing (ie. small lots, small house footprints, and truly affordable) people would still reject that.
The “progessive” label in Davis is a sham.
“No Growther/Regressive or Luddite” fits much better.
to my knowledge, no affordable housing projects have been rejected in the past four years.
and sue (relying on memory) did not oppose Cesar Chavez, or Eleanor Roosevelt projects.
Richard and anonymous are right, 200 units is not much affordable housing, but it is greater than other cities in the region. Many cities buy their way out of producing affordable housing.
also, one has to wonder, if someone proposed 15-1800 units of aggie village type housing (ie. small lots, small house footprints, and truly affordable) people would still reject that.
The “progessive” label in Davis is a sham.
“No Growther/Regressive or Luddite” fits much better.
No on X-er: If you are going to accuse me of being a liar, at least have the decency to use your real name when you do so.
“CV was planning to build 10 “middle income affordable” houses/yr.”
Not only is that a complete fabrication, but it would have been illegal. Covell Village would have added roughly 180 units per year (including apartment units, townhouses and single family homes) for 10 years.
Of those 180, 45 would have been for low income by law. Another 45, also by law, would have been capped for middle income. And 90 would have been market rate.
“The ‘affordable’ plan that was to create a fund was never consumated,as I remember, because the city was exceedingly wary of assuming the risk or maintaining the cash fund that this plan would require.”
Where are you getting these “facts”? It sounds like you graduated from the Roger Clemens school of misremembering. No wonder you lack the guts to sign your name.
“The ‘middle-income’ scale was created by the CV developers and was significantly ‘richer’ than the city’s own income designation levels.”
The “middle income” standard is city law, same as the low income standard. It was not created by Covell Village. Specifically, it says that 25% of the new units must be “affordable to a family of four making no more than $96,320 per year and no less than $72,241.” In other words, middle income would be a couple making starting teacher wages.
No on X-er: If you are going to accuse me of being a liar, at least have the decency to use your real name when you do so.
“CV was planning to build 10 “middle income affordable” houses/yr.”
Not only is that a complete fabrication, but it would have been illegal. Covell Village would have added roughly 180 units per year (including apartment units, townhouses and single family homes) for 10 years.
Of those 180, 45 would have been for low income by law. Another 45, also by law, would have been capped for middle income. And 90 would have been market rate.
“The ‘affordable’ plan that was to create a fund was never consumated,as I remember, because the city was exceedingly wary of assuming the risk or maintaining the cash fund that this plan would require.”
Where are you getting these “facts”? It sounds like you graduated from the Roger Clemens school of misremembering. No wonder you lack the guts to sign your name.
“The ‘middle-income’ scale was created by the CV developers and was significantly ‘richer’ than the city’s own income designation levels.”
The “middle income” standard is city law, same as the low income standard. It was not created by Covell Village. Specifically, it says that 25% of the new units must be “affordable to a family of four making no more than $96,320 per year and no less than $72,241.” In other words, middle income would be a couple making starting teacher wages.
No on X-er: If you are going to accuse me of being a liar, at least have the decency to use your real name when you do so.
“CV was planning to build 10 “middle income affordable” houses/yr.”
Not only is that a complete fabrication, but it would have been illegal. Covell Village would have added roughly 180 units per year (including apartment units, townhouses and single family homes) for 10 years.
Of those 180, 45 would have been for low income by law. Another 45, also by law, would have been capped for middle income. And 90 would have been market rate.
“The ‘affordable’ plan that was to create a fund was never consumated,as I remember, because the city was exceedingly wary of assuming the risk or maintaining the cash fund that this plan would require.”
Where are you getting these “facts”? It sounds like you graduated from the Roger Clemens school of misremembering. No wonder you lack the guts to sign your name.
“The ‘middle-income’ scale was created by the CV developers and was significantly ‘richer’ than the city’s own income designation levels.”
The “middle income” standard is city law, same as the low income standard. It was not created by Covell Village. Specifically, it says that 25% of the new units must be “affordable to a family of four making no more than $96,320 per year and no less than $72,241.” In other words, middle income would be a couple making starting teacher wages.
No on X-er: If you are going to accuse me of being a liar, at least have the decency to use your real name when you do so.
“CV was planning to build 10 “middle income affordable” houses/yr.”
Not only is that a complete fabrication, but it would have been illegal. Covell Village would have added roughly 180 units per year (including apartment units, townhouses and single family homes) for 10 years.
Of those 180, 45 would have been for low income by law. Another 45, also by law, would have been capped for middle income. And 90 would have been market rate.
“The ‘affordable’ plan that was to create a fund was never consumated,as I remember, because the city was exceedingly wary of assuming the risk or maintaining the cash fund that this plan would require.”
Where are you getting these “facts”? It sounds like you graduated from the Roger Clemens school of misremembering. No wonder you lack the guts to sign your name.
“The ‘middle-income’ scale was created by the CV developers and was significantly ‘richer’ than the city’s own income designation levels.”
The “middle income” standard is city law, same as the low income standard. It was not created by Covell Village. Specifically, it says that 25% of the new units must be “affordable to a family of four making no more than $96,320 per year and no less than $72,241.” In other words, middle income would be a couple making starting teacher wages.
Sue Greenwald complained to me about Chavez housing at the farmers market. She thought the developers were scaming the city under the guise of affordable housing.
Sue Greenwald complained to me about Chavez housing at the farmers market. She thought the developers were scaming the city under the guise of affordable housing.
Sue Greenwald complained to me about Chavez housing at the farmers market. She thought the developers were scaming the city under the guise of affordable housing.
Sue Greenwald complained to me about Chavez housing at the farmers market. She thought the developers were scaming the city under the guise of affordable housing.
“Aggie Village offers UC Davis faculty and staff the opportunity to purchase affordable, quality homes created specifically to suit the needs of the growing university community. Homes are kept affordable for future buyers by capping the appreciation of homes at the faculty salary index or the Consumer Price Index, whichever is greater.”
In other words, homes in Aggie Village are sold in a discriminatory manner and the price is fixed. I don’t think they would be inexpensive (“affordable”) homes if their value was set by the open market. Small lots and small square footage don’t translate to “affordable” in Davis. If they did, the cottages on the letter streets in downtown Davis would be affordable.
I’m not sure what the folks on this blog who advocate affordable housing are actually proposing. Apartments and duplexes are the affordable housing in Davis. Perhaps it should be mandated that more of those be built in exchange for the larger homes and larger lot sizes that buyers seem to want.
The Davis housing market is really a part of the regional Davis/Dixon/Woodland/West Sac housing market. It would probably be easier and more cost effective to develop transit options than to try to tinker with the housing market.
“Aggie Village offers UC Davis faculty and staff the opportunity to purchase affordable, quality homes created specifically to suit the needs of the growing university community. Homes are kept affordable for future buyers by capping the appreciation of homes at the faculty salary index or the Consumer Price Index, whichever is greater.”
In other words, homes in Aggie Village are sold in a discriminatory manner and the price is fixed. I don’t think they would be inexpensive (“affordable”) homes if their value was set by the open market. Small lots and small square footage don’t translate to “affordable” in Davis. If they did, the cottages on the letter streets in downtown Davis would be affordable.
I’m not sure what the folks on this blog who advocate affordable housing are actually proposing. Apartments and duplexes are the affordable housing in Davis. Perhaps it should be mandated that more of those be built in exchange for the larger homes and larger lot sizes that buyers seem to want.
The Davis housing market is really a part of the regional Davis/Dixon/Woodland/West Sac housing market. It would probably be easier and more cost effective to develop transit options than to try to tinker with the housing market.
“Aggie Village offers UC Davis faculty and staff the opportunity to purchase affordable, quality homes created specifically to suit the needs of the growing university community. Homes are kept affordable for future buyers by capping the appreciation of homes at the faculty salary index or the Consumer Price Index, whichever is greater.”
In other words, homes in Aggie Village are sold in a discriminatory manner and the price is fixed. I don’t think they would be inexpensive (“affordable”) homes if their value was set by the open market. Small lots and small square footage don’t translate to “affordable” in Davis. If they did, the cottages on the letter streets in downtown Davis would be affordable.
I’m not sure what the folks on this blog who advocate affordable housing are actually proposing. Apartments and duplexes are the affordable housing in Davis. Perhaps it should be mandated that more of those be built in exchange for the larger homes and larger lot sizes that buyers seem to want.
The Davis housing market is really a part of the regional Davis/Dixon/Woodland/West Sac housing market. It would probably be easier and more cost effective to develop transit options than to try to tinker with the housing market.
“Aggie Village offers UC Davis faculty and staff the opportunity to purchase affordable, quality homes created specifically to suit the needs of the growing university community. Homes are kept affordable for future buyers by capping the appreciation of homes at the faculty salary index or the Consumer Price Index, whichever is greater.”
In other words, homes in Aggie Village are sold in a discriminatory manner and the price is fixed. I don’t think they would be inexpensive (“affordable”) homes if their value was set by the open market. Small lots and small square footage don’t translate to “affordable” in Davis. If they did, the cottages on the letter streets in downtown Davis would be affordable.
I’m not sure what the folks on this blog who advocate affordable housing are actually proposing. Apartments and duplexes are the affordable housing in Davis. Perhaps it should be mandated that more of those be built in exchange for the larger homes and larger lot sizes that buyers seem to want.
The Davis housing market is really a part of the regional Davis/Dixon/Woodland/West Sac housing market. It would probably be easier and more cost effective to develop transit options than to try to tinker with the housing market.
Rich Rifkin… I remember distinctly Katherine Hess discussing this issue at open Council Meeting, i.e. that the city’s standard for middle income was lower than that designated for CV by the developers.
I guess one of us would have to plow through the Council meeting archives to see who is “misremembering”.
Rich Rifkin… I remember distinctly Katherine Hess discussing this issue at open Council Meeting, i.e. that the city’s standard for middle income was lower than that designated for CV by the developers.
I guess one of us would have to plow through the Council meeting archives to see who is “misremembering”.
Rich Rifkin… I remember distinctly Katherine Hess discussing this issue at open Council Meeting, i.e. that the city’s standard for middle income was lower than that designated for CV by the developers.
I guess one of us would have to plow through the Council meeting archives to see who is “misremembering”.
Rich Rifkin… I remember distinctly Katherine Hess discussing this issue at open Council Meeting, i.e. that the city’s standard for middle income was lower than that designated for CV by the developers.
I guess one of us would have to plow through the Council meeting archives to see who is “misremembering”.
The thing that bugs me about Rifkin’s arguments, is that they focus on who signed their name or not.
Not a good debate technique.
The thing that bugs me about Rifkin’s arguments, is that they focus on who signed their name or not.
Not a good debate technique.
The thing that bugs me about Rifkin’s arguments, is that they focus on who signed their name or not.
Not a good debate technique.
The thing that bugs me about Rifkin’s arguments, is that they focus on who signed their name or not.
Not a good debate technique.
Yeah the debate was what to use as the median income value. It was something like 95000 or 110,000annually. The higher the value the more the developer could charge. They of course chose the higher value.
As for what to do about making housing affordable is annex a bunch of land and build a bunch of houses. That would add supply and reduce prices. Its pretty simple but this ridiculous densification nonsense restricts supply and drives housing prices up. It also claims to preserve a lifestyle that never really existed as Richard pointed out. This would of course also save the school district from its impending layoffs had it been done earlier.
One thing that has been totally left out of the 1% debate is the growth rate of the University and the state. Davis needs to grow at the same rate as the University which needs to grow at the same rate as the state to provide California with the skilled labor force it needs to grow the sixth largest economy in the world. 1% just doesn’t do it. Of course for those who are selfish and don’t care about the role UC Davis plays in the educational needs of California reality need not be a part of the discussion.
Yeah the debate was what to use as the median income value. It was something like 95000 or 110,000annually. The higher the value the more the developer could charge. They of course chose the higher value.
As for what to do about making housing affordable is annex a bunch of land and build a bunch of houses. That would add supply and reduce prices. Its pretty simple but this ridiculous densification nonsense restricts supply and drives housing prices up. It also claims to preserve a lifestyle that never really existed as Richard pointed out. This would of course also save the school district from its impending layoffs had it been done earlier.
One thing that has been totally left out of the 1% debate is the growth rate of the University and the state. Davis needs to grow at the same rate as the University which needs to grow at the same rate as the state to provide California with the skilled labor force it needs to grow the sixth largest economy in the world. 1% just doesn’t do it. Of course for those who are selfish and don’t care about the role UC Davis plays in the educational needs of California reality need not be a part of the discussion.
Yeah the debate was what to use as the median income value. It was something like 95000 or 110,000annually. The higher the value the more the developer could charge. They of course chose the higher value.
As for what to do about making housing affordable is annex a bunch of land and build a bunch of houses. That would add supply and reduce prices. Its pretty simple but this ridiculous densification nonsense restricts supply and drives housing prices up. It also claims to preserve a lifestyle that never really existed as Richard pointed out. This would of course also save the school district from its impending layoffs had it been done earlier.
One thing that has been totally left out of the 1% debate is the growth rate of the University and the state. Davis needs to grow at the same rate as the University which needs to grow at the same rate as the state to provide California with the skilled labor force it needs to grow the sixth largest economy in the world. 1% just doesn’t do it. Of course for those who are selfish and don’t care about the role UC Davis plays in the educational needs of California reality need not be a part of the discussion.
Yeah the debate was what to use as the median income value. It was something like 95000 or 110,000annually. The higher the value the more the developer could charge. They of course chose the higher value.
As for what to do about making housing affordable is annex a bunch of land and build a bunch of houses. That would add supply and reduce prices. Its pretty simple but this ridiculous densification nonsense restricts supply and drives housing prices up. It also claims to preserve a lifestyle that never really existed as Richard pointed out. This would of course also save the school district from its impending layoffs had it been done earlier.
One thing that has been totally left out of the 1% debate is the growth rate of the University and the state. Davis needs to grow at the same rate as the University which needs to grow at the same rate as the state to provide California with the skilled labor force it needs to grow the sixth largest economy in the world. 1% just doesn’t do it. Of course for those who are selfish and don’t care about the role UC Davis plays in the educational needs of California reality need not be a part of the discussion.
“the city’s standard for middle income was lower than that designated for CV by the developers.”
No on Xer: You really should do a little homework before you call me a liar, and then say, one of us ‘misremembers.’ You simply don’t understand what you are talking about. The city doesn’t have a “standard.” It has a law.
This quote comes from the October 13, 2004 Davis Enterprise story by Beth Curda:
Breaking new ground in requirements for affordable housing, the Davis City Council on Tuesday voted to increase the percentage of affordable units developers must include in projects, by adding a portion for middle-income residents, particularly local employees. When developers propose housing projects, they will have to ensure that 25 percent of the proposal’s for-sale units (not rentals) are sold to “middle-income” households: those who earn between $ 72 , 241 and $96,320, if a family of four.
Those households earn 120 to 160 percent of the Yolo County median, which is $60,200 for a family of four.
The city used the Yolo County median because that is the basis of its other affordable housing programs and it is the figure most readily available through U.S. Census data and federal funding programs, sources said.
Matt Kowta of Bay Area Economics, who helped work the math on the issue and study the city’s housing need, said the county figure was compared with data for salaries paid by Davis employers. He said he believes the median figure and middle income range used are reasonable.
The 25 percent requirement is in addition to what developers already must include: 25 percent of for-sale housing targeted to households in designated “low” and “moderate” income categories. Rental projects today must include 35 percent of units for renters in “low” and “very low” categories.
“the city’s standard for middle income was lower than that designated for CV by the developers.”
No on Xer: You really should do a little homework before you call me a liar, and then say, one of us ‘misremembers.’ You simply don’t understand what you are talking about. The city doesn’t have a “standard.” It has a law.
This quote comes from the October 13, 2004 Davis Enterprise story by Beth Curda:
Breaking new ground in requirements for affordable housing, the Davis City Council on Tuesday voted to increase the percentage of affordable units developers must include in projects, by adding a portion for middle-income residents, particularly local employees. When developers propose housing projects, they will have to ensure that 25 percent of the proposal’s for-sale units (not rentals) are sold to “middle-income” households: those who earn between $ 72 , 241 and $96,320, if a family of four.
Those households earn 120 to 160 percent of the Yolo County median, which is $60,200 for a family of four.
The city used the Yolo County median because that is the basis of its other affordable housing programs and it is the figure most readily available through U.S. Census data and federal funding programs, sources said.
Matt Kowta of Bay Area Economics, who helped work the math on the issue and study the city’s housing need, said the county figure was compared with data for salaries paid by Davis employers. He said he believes the median figure and middle income range used are reasonable.
The 25 percent requirement is in addition to what developers already must include: 25 percent of for-sale housing targeted to households in designated “low” and “moderate” income categories. Rental projects today must include 35 percent of units for renters in “low” and “very low” categories.
“the city’s standard for middle income was lower than that designated for CV by the developers.”
No on Xer: You really should do a little homework before you call me a liar, and then say, one of us ‘misremembers.’ You simply don’t understand what you are talking about. The city doesn’t have a “standard.” It has a law.
This quote comes from the October 13, 2004 Davis Enterprise story by Beth Curda:
Breaking new ground in requirements for affordable housing, the Davis City Council on Tuesday voted to increase the percentage of affordable units developers must include in projects, by adding a portion for middle-income residents, particularly local employees. When developers propose housing projects, they will have to ensure that 25 percent of the proposal’s for-sale units (not rentals) are sold to “middle-income” households: those who earn between $ 72 , 241 and $96,320, if a family of four.
Those households earn 120 to 160 percent of the Yolo County median, which is $60,200 for a family of four.
The city used the Yolo County median because that is the basis of its other affordable housing programs and it is the figure most readily available through U.S. Census data and federal funding programs, sources said.
Matt Kowta of Bay Area Economics, who helped work the math on the issue and study the city’s housing need, said the county figure was compared with data for salaries paid by Davis employers. He said he believes the median figure and middle income range used are reasonable.
The 25 percent requirement is in addition to what developers already must include: 25 percent of for-sale housing targeted to households in designated “low” and “moderate” income categories. Rental projects today must include 35 percent of units for renters in “low” and “very low” categories.
“the city’s standard for middle income was lower than that designated for CV by the developers.”
No on Xer: You really should do a little homework before you call me a liar, and then say, one of us ‘misremembers.’ You simply don’t understand what you are talking about. The city doesn’t have a “standard.” It has a law.
This quote comes from the October 13, 2004 Davis Enterprise story by Beth Curda:
Breaking new ground in requirements for affordable housing, the Davis City Council on Tuesday voted to increase the percentage of affordable units developers must include in projects, by adding a portion for middle-income residents, particularly local employees. When developers propose housing projects, they will have to ensure that 25 percent of the proposal’s for-sale units (not rentals) are sold to “middle-income” households: those who earn between $ 72 , 241 and $96,320, if a family of four.
Those households earn 120 to 160 percent of the Yolo County median, which is $60,200 for a family of four.
The city used the Yolo County median because that is the basis of its other affordable housing programs and it is the figure most readily available through U.S. Census data and federal funding programs, sources said.
Matt Kowta of Bay Area Economics, who helped work the math on the issue and study the city’s housing need, said the county figure was compared with data for salaries paid by Davis employers. He said he believes the median figure and middle income range used are reasonable.
The 25 percent requirement is in addition to what developers already must include: 25 percent of for-sale housing targeted to households in designated “low” and “moderate” income categories. Rental projects today must include 35 percent of units for renters in “low” and “very low” categories.
“The thing that bugs me about Rifkin’s arguments, is that they focus on who signed their name or not.”
People who attack others by name and refuse to say who they are are cowards. Pure and simple.
If someone calls me a liar, as No on Xer did (“half-truths” and “parcing” sic), when he was wrong, I take offense. You would too if she did it to you, madam.
“Not a good debate technique.”
I’d be happy to debate you anytime, madam.
“The thing that bugs me about Rifkin’s arguments, is that they focus on who signed their name or not.”
People who attack others by name and refuse to say who they are are cowards. Pure and simple.
If someone calls me a liar, as No on Xer did (“half-truths” and “parcing” sic), when he was wrong, I take offense. You would too if she did it to you, madam.
“Not a good debate technique.”
I’d be happy to debate you anytime, madam.
“The thing that bugs me about Rifkin’s arguments, is that they focus on who signed their name or not.”
People who attack others by name and refuse to say who they are are cowards. Pure and simple.
If someone calls me a liar, as No on Xer did (“half-truths” and “parcing” sic), when he was wrong, I take offense. You would too if she did it to you, madam.
“Not a good debate technique.”
I’d be happy to debate you anytime, madam.
“The thing that bugs me about Rifkin’s arguments, is that they focus on who signed their name or not.”
People who attack others by name and refuse to say who they are are cowards. Pure and simple.
If someone calls me a liar, as No on Xer did (“half-truths” and “parcing” sic), when he was wrong, I take offense. You would too if she did it to you, madam.
“Not a good debate technique.”
I’d be happy to debate you anytime, madam.
“Davis needs to grow at the same rate as the University …”
That would be an interesting challenge. Over the last decade UCD enrollment has increased an average of about 2.2%. But that includes years in the late 1990’s when UCD enrollment increased 4 – 6% a year, and then a couple of years when it actually declined.
Total UC enrollment is projected to increase about 1.7% per year from 2005 – 2015, according to the state Department of Finance. That would be about 5000 new students at UC Davis. The West Davis development will house about 3000 students.
“Davis needs to grow at the same rate as the University …”
That would be an interesting challenge. Over the last decade UCD enrollment has increased an average of about 2.2%. But that includes years in the late 1990’s when UCD enrollment increased 4 – 6% a year, and then a couple of years when it actually declined.
Total UC enrollment is projected to increase about 1.7% per year from 2005 – 2015, according to the state Department of Finance. That would be about 5000 new students at UC Davis. The West Davis development will house about 3000 students.
“Davis needs to grow at the same rate as the University …”
That would be an interesting challenge. Over the last decade UCD enrollment has increased an average of about 2.2%. But that includes years in the late 1990’s when UCD enrollment increased 4 – 6% a year, and then a couple of years when it actually declined.
Total UC enrollment is projected to increase about 1.7% per year from 2005 – 2015, according to the state Department of Finance. That would be about 5000 new students at UC Davis. The West Davis development will house about 3000 students.
“Davis needs to grow at the same rate as the University …”
That would be an interesting challenge. Over the last decade UCD enrollment has increased an average of about 2.2%. But that includes years in the late 1990’s when UCD enrollment increased 4 – 6% a year, and then a couple of years when it actually declined.
Total UC enrollment is projected to increase about 1.7% per year from 2005 – 2015, according to the state Department of Finance. That would be about 5000 new students at UC Davis. The West Davis development will house about 3000 students.
Don you make my point as long as the university grows above one percent Davis should grow to keep up. The rest of this nonsense will always restrict supply and drive up prices locking middle class people out.
Don you make my point as long as the university grows above one percent Davis should grow to keep up. The rest of this nonsense will always restrict supply and drive up prices locking middle class people out.
Don you make my point as long as the university grows above one percent Davis should grow to keep up. The rest of this nonsense will always restrict supply and drive up prices locking middle class people out.
Don you make my point as long as the university grows above one percent Davis should grow to keep up. The rest of this nonsense will always restrict supply and drive up prices locking middle class people out.
“Don you make my point: as long as the university grows above one percent Davis should grow to keep up.”
Anon,
Your point is valid. As a town hosting a university, we should try to accommodate the housing needs of students, staff and faculty. However, part of the problem with growth in Davis, at whatever pace, is that it doesn’t necessarily serve the needs of either of those groups. It is simply a part of the regional housing supply.
A great percentage of the people who’ve moved to Davis in the last 25-30 years have no affiliation with UC Davis, the City of Davis or the businesses which serve the needs of the town’s residents. Rather, they are Sacramento people — often lawyers and lobbyists associated with the state government — who choose to live here for the quality of life, the schools and so on. That is certainly their right. But we should not be obliged to serve their needs.
Personally, I am not against growth. I think Davis at 64,000 is in many ways a better place than it was at 12,000, when I moved here. If a developments is thoughtful and attractive and the developer pays for the costs his project imposes on the rest of us, then I can support it (as I did with Covell Village).
Yet I think it’s important to recognize that even with 1,800 new housing units — as CV had planned — a great number of them would be filled by people who don’t work in Davis.
If our goal is to provide a supply of student housing which keeps up with demand, then we should be approving more dormitory-style apartments near the campus. (One way to do this would be to approve of much taller structures as replacements for existing low-rise complexes.)
If our goal is to prove housing exclusively for UC Davis faculty and staff, then the university is going to have to buid it — such as with Aggie Villa and West Village — because I don’t believe the city can legally exclude other buyers.
“Don you make my point: as long as the university grows above one percent Davis should grow to keep up.”
Anon,
Your point is valid. As a town hosting a university, we should try to accommodate the housing needs of students, staff and faculty. However, part of the problem with growth in Davis, at whatever pace, is that it doesn’t necessarily serve the needs of either of those groups. It is simply a part of the regional housing supply.
A great percentage of the people who’ve moved to Davis in the last 25-30 years have no affiliation with UC Davis, the City of Davis or the businesses which serve the needs of the town’s residents. Rather, they are Sacramento people — often lawyers and lobbyists associated with the state government — who choose to live here for the quality of life, the schools and so on. That is certainly their right. But we should not be obliged to serve their needs.
Personally, I am not against growth. I think Davis at 64,000 is in many ways a better place than it was at 12,000, when I moved here. If a developments is thoughtful and attractive and the developer pays for the costs his project imposes on the rest of us, then I can support it (as I did with Covell Village).
Yet I think it’s important to recognize that even with 1,800 new housing units — as CV had planned — a great number of them would be filled by people who don’t work in Davis.
If our goal is to provide a supply of student housing which keeps up with demand, then we should be approving more dormitory-style apartments near the campus. (One way to do this would be to approve of much taller structures as replacements for existing low-rise complexes.)
If our goal is to prove housing exclusively for UC Davis faculty and staff, then the university is going to have to buid it — such as with Aggie Villa and West Village — because I don’t believe the city can legally exclude other buyers.
“Don you make my point: as long as the university grows above one percent Davis should grow to keep up.”
Anon,
Your point is valid. As a town hosting a university, we should try to accommodate the housing needs of students, staff and faculty. However, part of the problem with growth in Davis, at whatever pace, is that it doesn’t necessarily serve the needs of either of those groups. It is simply a part of the regional housing supply.
A great percentage of the people who’ve moved to Davis in the last 25-30 years have no affiliation with UC Davis, the City of Davis or the businesses which serve the needs of the town’s residents. Rather, they are Sacramento people — often lawyers and lobbyists associated with the state government — who choose to live here for the quality of life, the schools and so on. That is certainly their right. But we should not be obliged to serve their needs.
Personally, I am not against growth. I think Davis at 64,000 is in many ways a better place than it was at 12,000, when I moved here. If a developments is thoughtful and attractive and the developer pays for the costs his project imposes on the rest of us, then I can support it (as I did with Covell Village).
Yet I think it’s important to recognize that even with 1,800 new housing units — as CV had planned — a great number of them would be filled by people who don’t work in Davis.
If our goal is to provide a supply of student housing which keeps up with demand, then we should be approving more dormitory-style apartments near the campus. (One way to do this would be to approve of much taller structures as replacements for existing low-rise complexes.)
If our goal is to prove housing exclusively for UC Davis faculty and staff, then the university is going to have to buid it — such as with Aggie Villa and West Village — because I don’t believe the city can legally exclude other buyers.
“Don you make my point: as long as the university grows above one percent Davis should grow to keep up.”
Anon,
Your point is valid. As a town hosting a university, we should try to accommodate the housing needs of students, staff and faculty. However, part of the problem with growth in Davis, at whatever pace, is that it doesn’t necessarily serve the needs of either of those groups. It is simply a part of the regional housing supply.
A great percentage of the people who’ve moved to Davis in the last 25-30 years have no affiliation with UC Davis, the City of Davis or the businesses which serve the needs of the town’s residents. Rather, they are Sacramento people — often lawyers and lobbyists associated with the state government — who choose to live here for the quality of life, the schools and so on. That is certainly their right. But we should not be obliged to serve their needs.
Personally, I am not against growth. I think Davis at 64,000 is in many ways a better place than it was at 12,000, when I moved here. If a developments is thoughtful and attractive and the developer pays for the costs his project imposes on the rest of us, then I can support it (as I did with Covell Village).
Yet I think it’s important to recognize that even with 1,800 new housing units — as CV had planned — a great number of them would be filled by people who don’t work in Davis.
If our goal is to provide a supply of student housing which keeps up with demand, then we should be approving more dormitory-style apartments near the campus. (One way to do this would be to approve of much taller structures as replacements for existing low-rise complexes.)
If our goal is to prove housing exclusively for UC Davis faculty and staff, then the university is going to have to buid it — such as with Aggie Villa and West Village — because I don’t believe the city can legally exclude other buyers.
I find myself remarkably close to your view on this.
One of the chief reasons I am opposed to a lot of the proposed developments is precisely because we are supplying more to commuters from Sacramento and even the bay area than people who go to UC Davis and work at UC Davis.
Stanford is an interesting model for faculty housing–they have a program that they put into place to allow and help finance professors owning homes–not with a limited equity model but with a subsidized ownership model. In other words, they have full ownership and equity but university helps subsidize and secure loans. Part of the problem I have now with our affordable housing is that it is a limited equity investment. That helps people get a home but it also locks them into the homes.
I find myself remarkably close to your view on this.
One of the chief reasons I am opposed to a lot of the proposed developments is precisely because we are supplying more to commuters from Sacramento and even the bay area than people who go to UC Davis and work at UC Davis.
Stanford is an interesting model for faculty housing–they have a program that they put into place to allow and help finance professors owning homes–not with a limited equity model but with a subsidized ownership model. In other words, they have full ownership and equity but university helps subsidize and secure loans. Part of the problem I have now with our affordable housing is that it is a limited equity investment. That helps people get a home but it also locks them into the homes.
I find myself remarkably close to your view on this.
One of the chief reasons I am opposed to a lot of the proposed developments is precisely because we are supplying more to commuters from Sacramento and even the bay area than people who go to UC Davis and work at UC Davis.
Stanford is an interesting model for faculty housing–they have a program that they put into place to allow and help finance professors owning homes–not with a limited equity model but with a subsidized ownership model. In other words, they have full ownership and equity but university helps subsidize and secure loans. Part of the problem I have now with our affordable housing is that it is a limited equity investment. That helps people get a home but it also locks them into the homes.
I find myself remarkably close to your view on this.
One of the chief reasons I am opposed to a lot of the proposed developments is precisely because we are supplying more to commuters from Sacramento and even the bay area than people who go to UC Davis and work at UC Davis.
Stanford is an interesting model for faculty housing–they have a program that they put into place to allow and help finance professors owning homes–not with a limited equity model but with a subsidized ownership model. In other words, they have full ownership and equity but university helps subsidize and secure loans. Part of the problem I have now with our affordable housing is that it is a limited equity investment. That helps people get a home but it also locks them into the homes.
I guess I’ll have to contact Katherine and see if she remembers the discussion she presented to the Council. Anonymous 10:04 PM’s posted recollection on this “debate” does refresh(and confirm) my memory of Katherine’s presentation.
I guess I’ll have to contact Katherine and see if she remembers the discussion she presented to the Council. Anonymous 10:04 PM’s posted recollection on this “debate” does refresh(and confirm) my memory of Katherine’s presentation.
I guess I’ll have to contact Katherine and see if she remembers the discussion she presented to the Council. Anonymous 10:04 PM’s posted recollection on this “debate” does refresh(and confirm) my memory of Katherine’s presentation.
I guess I’ll have to contact Katherine and see if she remembers the discussion she presented to the Council. Anonymous 10:04 PM’s posted recollection on this “debate” does refresh(and confirm) my memory of Katherine’s presentation.
“If our goal is to provide a supply of student housing which keeps up with demand, then we should be approving more dormitory-style apartments near the campus.”
The fastest way to provide affordable housing in Davis would be to build more apartments. They don’t need to be near the campus. Bike lanes and transit have been sufficient to get students to campus.
With the current vacancy rate and the likelihood of 2000+ more students (that UCD isn’t providing housing for) over the next few years, this is a much more urgent housing situation than the lack of homes. The student rental market in Davis always has an impact on the market of smaller and older homes as students group together to rent houses that would otherwise be available to lower-income home buyers.
Apartments are very beneficial to neighborhood shopping centers as well. Apartment housing should be distributed around the city to enhance the current (or at least, pre-Target) planning model of a strong downtown core and strong neighborhood shopping centers. I would urge the council members to focus on increasing the availability of rental housing as the most effective way of providing affordable housing.
Financing home ownership by professors is yet another discriminatory housing market ploy. We should stop focusing on who is buying the homes, and simply stick to a healthy growth model with all housing available to any potential buyer or renter.
“If our goal is to provide a supply of student housing which keeps up with demand, then we should be approving more dormitory-style apartments near the campus.”
The fastest way to provide affordable housing in Davis would be to build more apartments. They don’t need to be near the campus. Bike lanes and transit have been sufficient to get students to campus.
With the current vacancy rate and the likelihood of 2000+ more students (that UCD isn’t providing housing for) over the next few years, this is a much more urgent housing situation than the lack of homes. The student rental market in Davis always has an impact on the market of smaller and older homes as students group together to rent houses that would otherwise be available to lower-income home buyers.
Apartments are very beneficial to neighborhood shopping centers as well. Apartment housing should be distributed around the city to enhance the current (or at least, pre-Target) planning model of a strong downtown core and strong neighborhood shopping centers. I would urge the council members to focus on increasing the availability of rental housing as the most effective way of providing affordable housing.
Financing home ownership by professors is yet another discriminatory housing market ploy. We should stop focusing on who is buying the homes, and simply stick to a healthy growth model with all housing available to any potential buyer or renter.
“If our goal is to provide a supply of student housing which keeps up with demand, then we should be approving more dormitory-style apartments near the campus.”
The fastest way to provide affordable housing in Davis would be to build more apartments. They don’t need to be near the campus. Bike lanes and transit have been sufficient to get students to campus.
With the current vacancy rate and the likelihood of 2000+ more students (that UCD isn’t providing housing for) over the next few years, this is a much more urgent housing situation than the lack of homes. The student rental market in Davis always has an impact on the market of smaller and older homes as students group together to rent houses that would otherwise be available to lower-income home buyers.
Apartments are very beneficial to neighborhood shopping centers as well. Apartment housing should be distributed around the city to enhance the current (or at least, pre-Target) planning model of a strong downtown core and strong neighborhood shopping centers. I would urge the council members to focus on increasing the availability of rental housing as the most effective way of providing affordable housing.
Financing home ownership by professors is yet another discriminatory housing market ploy. We should stop focusing on who is buying the homes, and simply stick to a healthy growth model with all housing available to any potential buyer or renter.
“If our goal is to provide a supply of student housing which keeps up with demand, then we should be approving more dormitory-style apartments near the campus.”
The fastest way to provide affordable housing in Davis would be to build more apartments. They don’t need to be near the campus. Bike lanes and transit have been sufficient to get students to campus.
With the current vacancy rate and the likelihood of 2000+ more students (that UCD isn’t providing housing for) over the next few years, this is a much more urgent housing situation than the lack of homes. The student rental market in Davis always has an impact on the market of smaller and older homes as students group together to rent houses that would otherwise be available to lower-income home buyers.
Apartments are very beneficial to neighborhood shopping centers as well. Apartment housing should be distributed around the city to enhance the current (or at least, pre-Target) planning model of a strong downtown core and strong neighborhood shopping centers. I would urge the council members to focus on increasing the availability of rental housing as the most effective way of providing affordable housing.
Financing home ownership by professors is yet another discriminatory housing market ploy. We should stop focusing on who is buying the homes, and simply stick to a healthy growth model with all housing available to any potential buyer or renter.
“Financing home ownership by professors is yet another discriminatory housing market ploy.”
When universities in some areas have problems getting and retaining quality faculty because of prohibitive housing costs, it stops being a “discriminatory housing market ploy,” and starts being pragmatic.
My home department at UCD two years ago did a search for faculty, and at least one high-quality candidate turned us down in favor of another university in California, which offered subsidized housing for faculty.
As far as I know, this is becoming more prevalent in high-priced markets, and until another solution comes along, this sounds just fine to me.
“Financing home ownership by professors is yet another discriminatory housing market ploy.”
When universities in some areas have problems getting and retaining quality faculty because of prohibitive housing costs, it stops being a “discriminatory housing market ploy,” and starts being pragmatic.
My home department at UCD two years ago did a search for faculty, and at least one high-quality candidate turned us down in favor of another university in California, which offered subsidized housing for faculty.
As far as I know, this is becoming more prevalent in high-priced markets, and until another solution comes along, this sounds just fine to me.
“Financing home ownership by professors is yet another discriminatory housing market ploy.”
When universities in some areas have problems getting and retaining quality faculty because of prohibitive housing costs, it stops being a “discriminatory housing market ploy,” and starts being pragmatic.
My home department at UCD two years ago did a search for faculty, and at least one high-quality candidate turned us down in favor of another university in California, which offered subsidized housing for faculty.
As far as I know, this is becoming more prevalent in high-priced markets, and until another solution comes along, this sounds just fine to me.
“Financing home ownership by professors is yet another discriminatory housing market ploy.”
When universities in some areas have problems getting and retaining quality faculty because of prohibitive housing costs, it stops being a “discriminatory housing market ploy,” and starts being pragmatic.
My home department at UCD two years ago did a search for faculty, and at least one high-quality candidate turned us down in favor of another university in California, which offered subsidized housing for faculty.
As far as I know, this is becoming more prevalent in high-priced markets, and until another solution comes along, this sounds just fine to me.
7:54,
Your departments loss is another casualty of the zealous nimby mentality that is so rabid in Davis. None of this needs to be the case if people would get over their Malthusian elitism and build homes until prices got reasonable. It is sad to see UC Davis lose people like this but compared to the casualties about to hit the public schools in Davis its small potatoes. Of course many of the Nimbys in Davis don’t have kids so they don’t really care what happens to the schools.
7:54,
Your departments loss is another casualty of the zealous nimby mentality that is so rabid in Davis. None of this needs to be the case if people would get over their Malthusian elitism and build homes until prices got reasonable. It is sad to see UC Davis lose people like this but compared to the casualties about to hit the public schools in Davis its small potatoes. Of course many of the Nimbys in Davis don’t have kids so they don’t really care what happens to the schools.
7:54,
Your departments loss is another casualty of the zealous nimby mentality that is so rabid in Davis. None of this needs to be the case if people would get over their Malthusian elitism and build homes until prices got reasonable. It is sad to see UC Davis lose people like this but compared to the casualties about to hit the public schools in Davis its small potatoes. Of course many of the Nimbys in Davis don’t have kids so they don’t really care what happens to the schools.
7:54,
Your departments loss is another casualty of the zealous nimby mentality that is so rabid in Davis. None of this needs to be the case if people would get over their Malthusian elitism and build homes until prices got reasonable. It is sad to see UC Davis lose people like this but compared to the casualties about to hit the public schools in Davis its small potatoes. Of course many of the Nimbys in Davis don’t have kids so they don’t really care what happens to the schools.
“if people would get over their Malthusian elitism and build homes until prices got reasonable.”
Given prices across the northern part of the state, that doesn’t seem reasonable or likely.
“if people would get over their Malthusian elitism and build homes until prices got reasonable.”
Given prices across the northern part of the state, that doesn’t seem reasonable or likely.
“if people would get over their Malthusian elitism and build homes until prices got reasonable.”
Given prices across the northern part of the state, that doesn’t seem reasonable or likely.
“if people would get over their Malthusian elitism and build homes until prices got reasonable.”
Given prices across the northern part of the state, that doesn’t seem reasonable or likely.
Add to that, about 10 years of data showed by Mayor Greenwald demonstrated that housing prices in Davis was not very responsive to new houses built. If Davis resembled Vacaville or Fairfield would people be happy?
Add to that, about 10 years of data showed by Mayor Greenwald demonstrated that housing prices in Davis was not very responsive to new houses built. If Davis resembled Vacaville or Fairfield would people be happy?
Add to that, about 10 years of data showed by Mayor Greenwald demonstrated that housing prices in Davis was not very responsive to new houses built. If Davis resembled Vacaville or Fairfield would people be happy?
Add to that, about 10 years of data showed by Mayor Greenwald demonstrated that housing prices in Davis was not very responsive to new houses built. If Davis resembled Vacaville or Fairfield would people be happy?
“…and until another solution comes along, this sounds just fine to me.”
They could pay the professors more, so they could afford to buy houses.
“…and until another solution comes along, this sounds just fine to me.”
They could pay the professors more, so they could afford to buy houses.
“…and until another solution comes along, this sounds just fine to me.”
They could pay the professors more, so they could afford to buy houses.
“…and until another solution comes along, this sounds just fine to me.”
They could pay the professors more, so they could afford to buy houses.
“….but compared to the casualties about to hit the public schools in Davis its small potatoes.
The State education budget is more complicated and political than the simplistic sky-is-falling narratives that are being “sold” by the DJUSD in order to justify their ILLEGAL denial of the VO Charter. At least 80% of the current education budget cuts proposed by the Governator(if approved by the Legislature) will be BACKFILLED with current UNSPENT State education monies. The real political battle will begin in the next budget cycle to restore California education funding levels.
“….but compared to the casualties about to hit the public schools in Davis its small potatoes.
The State education budget is more complicated and political than the simplistic sky-is-falling narratives that are being “sold” by the DJUSD in order to justify their ILLEGAL denial of the VO Charter. At least 80% of the current education budget cuts proposed by the Governator(if approved by the Legislature) will be BACKFILLED with current UNSPENT State education monies. The real political battle will begin in the next budget cycle to restore California education funding levels.
“….but compared to the casualties about to hit the public schools in Davis its small potatoes.
The State education budget is more complicated and political than the simplistic sky-is-falling narratives that are being “sold” by the DJUSD in order to justify their ILLEGAL denial of the VO Charter. At least 80% of the current education budget cuts proposed by the Governator(if approved by the Legislature) will be BACKFILLED with current UNSPENT State education monies. The real political battle will begin in the next budget cycle to restore California education funding levels.
“….but compared to the casualties about to hit the public schools in Davis its small potatoes.
The State education budget is more complicated and political than the simplistic sky-is-falling narratives that are being “sold” by the DJUSD in order to justify their ILLEGAL denial of the VO Charter. At least 80% of the current education budget cuts proposed by the Governator(if approved by the Legislature) will be BACKFILLED with current UNSPENT State education monies. The real political battle will begin in the next budget cycle to restore California education funding levels.
In my remarks about cuts coming to the schools I didn’t say anything about the state budget. My comments were in regard to declining enrollment due to housing being too expensive for young families to afford. When you have a high achieving district and declining enrollment it means that you have housing that is too expensive because if people with kids could afford to buy they would. So why are home prices too high because of restriction on supply.
In my remarks about cuts coming to the schools I didn’t say anything about the state budget. My comments were in regard to declining enrollment due to housing being too expensive for young families to afford. When you have a high achieving district and declining enrollment it means that you have housing that is too expensive because if people with kids could afford to buy they would. So why are home prices too high because of restriction on supply.
In my remarks about cuts coming to the schools I didn’t say anything about the state budget. My comments were in regard to declining enrollment due to housing being too expensive for young families to afford. When you have a high achieving district and declining enrollment it means that you have housing that is too expensive because if people with kids could afford to buy they would. So why are home prices too high because of restriction on supply.
In my remarks about cuts coming to the schools I didn’t say anything about the state budget. My comments were in regard to declining enrollment due to housing being too expensive for young families to afford. When you have a high achieving district and declining enrollment it means that you have housing that is too expensive because if people with kids could afford to buy they would. So why are home prices too high because of restriction on supply.
“…So why are home prices too high because of restriction on supply.”
PLEASE !! We’ve been here before.
Davis housing prices do not come down significantly when supply is increased.. as long as developers build the most profitable and expensive homes for regional demand.
“…So why are home prices too high because of restriction on supply.”
PLEASE !! We’ve been here before.
Davis housing prices do not come down significantly when supply is increased.. as long as developers build the most profitable and expensive homes for regional demand.
“…So why are home prices too high because of restriction on supply.”
PLEASE !! We’ve been here before.
Davis housing prices do not come down significantly when supply is increased.. as long as developers build the most profitable and expensive homes for regional demand.
“…So why are home prices too high because of restriction on supply.”
PLEASE !! We’ve been here before.
Davis housing prices do not come down significantly when supply is increased.. as long as developers build the most profitable and expensive homes for regional demand.
Yes this has been a failure of local government to demand that developers bring proposals that do more than maximize profits for themselves. Still I think that now with the bubble deflating and high end real estate dead in the water we can get projects that better serve the needs of the community. The problem is that the nimbys are against everything so it complicates the process.
Yes this has been a failure of local government to demand that developers bring proposals that do more than maximize profits for themselves. Still I think that now with the bubble deflating and high end real estate dead in the water we can get projects that better serve the needs of the community. The problem is that the nimbys are against everything so it complicates the process.
Yes this has been a failure of local government to demand that developers bring proposals that do more than maximize profits for themselves. Still I think that now with the bubble deflating and high end real estate dead in the water we can get projects that better serve the needs of the community. The problem is that the nimbys are against everything so it complicates the process.
Yes this has been a failure of local government to demand that developers bring proposals that do more than maximize profits for themselves. Still I think that now with the bubble deflating and high end real estate dead in the water we can get projects that better serve the needs of the community. The problem is that the nimbys are against everything so it complicates the process.