The Sacramento Bee had a pretty interesting spread on Monday laying out various positions by the Davis City Council candidates on growth.
Given that the Sacramento Bee had limited space and that this will be their only article on the race, they did a good job of getting to the core of the issues and the differences between the candidates in a campaign where many of the candidates sound the same even though they have pretty divergent policy goals.
To start, the happenstance of alphabetical order served to dramatize this point. The first three candidates in the alphabet opposed Covell Village. The last three supported it. That happenstance creates an appearance of stark differences between the candidates.
Measure J and the one percent growth guideline have been covered here. You can see more clearly here that Stephen Souza diverges from his colleagues on his side of the matrix on Measure J, but you can also see that that is the only place that he really diverges from them on.
The point also needs to be made again that Measure J is indeed a lengthy document, but it is really straight-forward and not complex. A non-lawyer or even a non-planner can easily pick it up and understand it. On the other hand, one of the reasons that it is so lengthy is that the drafters of the Measure J went to great lengths to define their terms and define explicit exemptions to avoid loopholes. Any attempt to streamline it will re-open some of those loopholes and thereby weaken the measure.
Question 2 is one that really has not been asked or addressed in forums to do that. So I am going to go through those answers, since they are brief.
The question is would they support a renewed effort to develop the Covell site?
The first three candidates Cecilia (my wife), Sue Greenwald, and Rob Roy give various versions of “no.”
Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald:
“I do not support developing beyond the borders of the city. We have enough land available within the city’s boundaries.”
Sue Greenwald:
“I just think it’s way too soon to consider that.”
Rob Roy:
“We have to focus on infill development. Building out is the wrong direction. Davis will sprawl and lose its character.”
The next two candidates Don Saylor and Stephen Souza do a nice job of dancing on the issue.
Don Saylor:
“I haven’t seen a revised Covell Village plan. I’m not going to say never, and I’m not going to say I’m all for it.”
Is the first part of that answer honest? John Whitcombe’s group has been meeting through out the city. I know quite a few people that they have met with to outline their plan for Covell Village. They even met with Cecilia. Are you telling me that they have not met with one of their biggest allies on the council but they met with Cecilia? I kind of seriously doubt that. The honest answer here would be “yeah, I’d consider it.” Instead he tries to dance on it.
Stephen Souza:
“If a proposal at Covell Village came forward, I would be interested in looking at it and discussing it.”
That’s at least a better answer than Saylor’s.
Sydney Vergis:
“If the neighboring Hunt-Wesson property is developed, we might want to look at mater-planning that whole area and do it right.”
Either Vergis is more pro-growth than Souza and Saylor or she’s less shrewd politically, but I think she puts on the table the view that the pro-development side of the ledger sees–a way to develop Covell alongside the Lewis Properties.
For a table that has four very brief answers, in many ways this tells people all they need to know about growth. And then it depends on which side you come down on the issue.
LAFCO Draws Out Differences On Growth–Souza and Saylor Abstain
I take this time to draw on Tuesday’s vote yet again, because it seemed to get lost in the complexity once again.
There are two elements to the City Council’s Sphere of Influence vote.
First, the need to revisit it was fundamentally due to City Planning Director Katherine Hess’ misinformation to council about the meaning of the sphere of influence.
LAFCO lays it out very clearly that the sphere of influence intends to define all the lands to be developed for urban uses. Katherine Hess tried to argue that the city simply would control the land in the SOI whether it was developed or not. That clearly was not true last year when the county tried to study development of land inside the SOI on the edge of Davis. Stephen Souza at the LAFCO meeting tried to argue that there are multiple types of urban uses for land, but he quickly recognized after discussions at LAFCO that this was not the conventional view and that having an overly large SOI might open the process down the line to inclusion in the General Plan and thereby do the opposite of what was intended.
The second intrigue in the meeting is Lamar Heystek’s motion removed all of the large peripheral parcels from the Sphere of Influence. Mayor Sue Greenwald seconded this motion.
The argument here is that there is no compelling reason to add more land that could become targeted for growth when there is no protection afforded to the land by being placed in the SOI. It simply signals LAFCO that there is an intent to develop these lands for Urban uses.
Ruth Asmundson opposed the removal of the peripheral parcels, as we would expect.
What no one expected is that Councilmembers Don Saylor and Stephen Souza abstained from the vote. This demonstrates their fear of on the one-hand offending their developer friends, some of whom were in the audience asking to be included in the SOI. Obviously they felt that there was some benefit to being in the SOI.
On the other hand, they did not outright vote against the measure to belie their pro-development colors. They have tried to walk this fence for a long time. They supported Covell but argue that it’s good smart growth planning. They support the 1% growth guideline, arguing that this represents a low growth rate and that we are not growing at one percent anyway.
Because of the two abstentions, for the first time ever, Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek’s two votes carried the day by a 2-1 margin. In order to not expose their true intentions on growth prior to the election, Souza and Saylor were completely silent on one of the most important growth issues for the LAFCO SOI for Davis.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
The criticism of silence on LAFCO SOA inclusion or not is a bit odd, given that you yourself expressed uncertainty about which path to take.
The criticism of silence on LAFCO SOA inclusion or not is a bit odd, given that you yourself expressed uncertainty about which path to take.
The criticism of silence on LAFCO SOA inclusion or not is a bit odd, given that you yourself expressed uncertainty about which path to take.
The criticism of silence on LAFCO SOA inclusion or not is a bit odd, given that you yourself expressed uncertainty about which path to take.
I was uncertain about which path to take until about halfway through the discussion at the LAFCO meeting and it became clear to me listening to Matt Rexroad and Robert Ramming which way to go.
I was uncertain about which path to take until about halfway through the discussion at the LAFCO meeting and it became clear to me listening to Matt Rexroad and Robert Ramming which way to go.
I was uncertain about which path to take until about halfway through the discussion at the LAFCO meeting and it became clear to me listening to Matt Rexroad and Robert Ramming which way to go.
I was uncertain about which path to take until about halfway through the discussion at the LAFCO meeting and it became clear to me listening to Matt Rexroad and Robert Ramming which way to go.
You may consider it “pro-development” but Vergis view on planning the Hunt Cannery property in conjunction with the surrounding area is the only responsible position. You, to your shame, then extrapolate this to mean that she is a stalking horse for the Covell property. This is, I guess, the deplorable state of Davis politics. Regardless, it is irresponsible to plan a piece of land as small and as physically constrained as the cannery property without planning the land around it. Such planning allows for better and less costly placement of infrastructure and enables everyone to get a sense of scale and of timing of development far in advance of its actual placement. You call this “pro-growth”. I call it pro-sensible planning, pro-fiscal responsibility, and pro-schools since it anticipates needs and infrastructure in a holistic and systematic manner rather than in the piecemeal, sloppy, and politically expeditious manner you advocate where politics comes first and planning a distant (if that) second.
You may consider it “pro-development” but Vergis view on planning the Hunt Cannery property in conjunction with the surrounding area is the only responsible position. You, to your shame, then extrapolate this to mean that she is a stalking horse for the Covell property. This is, I guess, the deplorable state of Davis politics. Regardless, it is irresponsible to plan a piece of land as small and as physically constrained as the cannery property without planning the land around it. Such planning allows for better and less costly placement of infrastructure and enables everyone to get a sense of scale and of timing of development far in advance of its actual placement. You call this “pro-growth”. I call it pro-sensible planning, pro-fiscal responsibility, and pro-schools since it anticipates needs and infrastructure in a holistic and systematic manner rather than in the piecemeal, sloppy, and politically expeditious manner you advocate where politics comes first and planning a distant (if that) second.
You may consider it “pro-development” but Vergis view on planning the Hunt Cannery property in conjunction with the surrounding area is the only responsible position. You, to your shame, then extrapolate this to mean that she is a stalking horse for the Covell property. This is, I guess, the deplorable state of Davis politics. Regardless, it is irresponsible to plan a piece of land as small and as physically constrained as the cannery property without planning the land around it. Such planning allows for better and less costly placement of infrastructure and enables everyone to get a sense of scale and of timing of development far in advance of its actual placement. You call this “pro-growth”. I call it pro-sensible planning, pro-fiscal responsibility, and pro-schools since it anticipates needs and infrastructure in a holistic and systematic manner rather than in the piecemeal, sloppy, and politically expeditious manner you advocate where politics comes first and planning a distant (if that) second.
You may consider it “pro-development” but Vergis view on planning the Hunt Cannery property in conjunction with the surrounding area is the only responsible position. You, to your shame, then extrapolate this to mean that she is a stalking horse for the Covell property. This is, I guess, the deplorable state of Davis politics. Regardless, it is irresponsible to plan a piece of land as small and as physically constrained as the cannery property without planning the land around it. Such planning allows for better and less costly placement of infrastructure and enables everyone to get a sense of scale and of timing of development far in advance of its actual placement. You call this “pro-growth”. I call it pro-sensible planning, pro-fiscal responsibility, and pro-schools since it anticipates needs and infrastructure in a holistic and systematic manner rather than in the piecemeal, sloppy, and politically expeditious manner you advocate where politics comes first and planning a distant (if that) second.
In a lot of ways the Hunt-Cannery project must be planned separately from the adjacent Covell Village.
First, the voters of Davis by a 60-40 margin voted against the proposal on Covell just over two years ago. That has not been given nearly enough respect by the pro-development forces some of whom have suggested the voters simply did not understand the development (an utter insult to the intelligence of the voters of this community).
Second, the Covell property is outside of the city limits and requires a Measure J vote–Cannery is inside and does not.
Third, Cannery is paved over, Covell is prime ag land.
“it is irresponsible to plan a piece of land as small and as physically constrained as the cannery property without planning the land around it.”
If the plan is not to develop the land around it does that mean you do not develop Cannery? If that is the case then we can stop this conversation right now.
“Such planning allows for better and less costly placement of infrastructure and enables everyone to get a sense of scale and of timing of development far in advance of its actual placement.”
The problem again being the voters decide on one and not the other. You may be planning a whole lot unnecessarily if the voters remain unconvinced. It is also interesting that when Covell was being proposed–there was no concurrent planning for Cannery.
I love how suddenly this becomes pro-schools. How is that exactly?
In a lot of ways the Hunt-Cannery project must be planned separately from the adjacent Covell Village.
First, the voters of Davis by a 60-40 margin voted against the proposal on Covell just over two years ago. That has not been given nearly enough respect by the pro-development forces some of whom have suggested the voters simply did not understand the development (an utter insult to the intelligence of the voters of this community).
Second, the Covell property is outside of the city limits and requires a Measure J vote–Cannery is inside and does not.
Third, Cannery is paved over, Covell is prime ag land.
“it is irresponsible to plan a piece of land as small and as physically constrained as the cannery property without planning the land around it.”
If the plan is not to develop the land around it does that mean you do not develop Cannery? If that is the case then we can stop this conversation right now.
“Such planning allows for better and less costly placement of infrastructure and enables everyone to get a sense of scale and of timing of development far in advance of its actual placement.”
The problem again being the voters decide on one and not the other. You may be planning a whole lot unnecessarily if the voters remain unconvinced. It is also interesting that when Covell was being proposed–there was no concurrent planning for Cannery.
I love how suddenly this becomes pro-schools. How is that exactly?
In a lot of ways the Hunt-Cannery project must be planned separately from the adjacent Covell Village.
First, the voters of Davis by a 60-40 margin voted against the proposal on Covell just over two years ago. That has not been given nearly enough respect by the pro-development forces some of whom have suggested the voters simply did not understand the development (an utter insult to the intelligence of the voters of this community).
Second, the Covell property is outside of the city limits and requires a Measure J vote–Cannery is inside and does not.
Third, Cannery is paved over, Covell is prime ag land.
“it is irresponsible to plan a piece of land as small and as physically constrained as the cannery property without planning the land around it.”
If the plan is not to develop the land around it does that mean you do not develop Cannery? If that is the case then we can stop this conversation right now.
“Such planning allows for better and less costly placement of infrastructure and enables everyone to get a sense of scale and of timing of development far in advance of its actual placement.”
The problem again being the voters decide on one and not the other. You may be planning a whole lot unnecessarily if the voters remain unconvinced. It is also interesting that when Covell was being proposed–there was no concurrent planning for Cannery.
I love how suddenly this becomes pro-schools. How is that exactly?
In a lot of ways the Hunt-Cannery project must be planned separately from the adjacent Covell Village.
First, the voters of Davis by a 60-40 margin voted against the proposal on Covell just over two years ago. That has not been given nearly enough respect by the pro-development forces some of whom have suggested the voters simply did not understand the development (an utter insult to the intelligence of the voters of this community).
Second, the Covell property is outside of the city limits and requires a Measure J vote–Cannery is inside and does not.
Third, Cannery is paved over, Covell is prime ag land.
“it is irresponsible to plan a piece of land as small and as physically constrained as the cannery property without planning the land around it.”
If the plan is not to develop the land around it does that mean you do not develop Cannery? If that is the case then we can stop this conversation right now.
“Such planning allows for better and less costly placement of infrastructure and enables everyone to get a sense of scale and of timing of development far in advance of its actual placement.”
The problem again being the voters decide on one and not the other. You may be planning a whole lot unnecessarily if the voters remain unconvinced. It is also interesting that when Covell was being proposed–there was no concurrent planning for Cannery.
I love how suddenly this becomes pro-schools. How is that exactly?
When the Hunt-Wessen property is developed(either high-tech commercial or a combination of high-tech and residential), part of the deal needs to be development of an access/exit corridor to the north of the property that joins to a widened county road there. The “CV” property is an ideal location for a world-class , showcase organic agriculture operation,benefiting from its proximity to UCD expertise, A limited southern portion can be developed as a shopping center with a pedestrian underpass joining it to the Nugget/Longs center(already considered in the original CV proposal)
When the Hunt-Wessen property is developed(either high-tech commercial or a combination of high-tech and residential), part of the deal needs to be development of an access/exit corridor to the north of the property that joins to a widened county road there. The “CV” property is an ideal location for a world-class , showcase organic agriculture operation,benefiting from its proximity to UCD expertise, A limited southern portion can be developed as a shopping center with a pedestrian underpass joining it to the Nugget/Longs center(already considered in the original CV proposal)
When the Hunt-Wessen property is developed(either high-tech commercial or a combination of high-tech and residential), part of the deal needs to be development of an access/exit corridor to the north of the property that joins to a widened county road there. The “CV” property is an ideal location for a world-class , showcase organic agriculture operation,benefiting from its proximity to UCD expertise, A limited southern portion can be developed as a shopping center with a pedestrian underpass joining it to the Nugget/Longs center(already considered in the original CV proposal)
When the Hunt-Wessen property is developed(either high-tech commercial or a combination of high-tech and residential), part of the deal needs to be development of an access/exit corridor to the north of the property that joins to a widened county road there. The “CV” property is an ideal location for a world-class , showcase organic agriculture operation,benefiting from its proximity to UCD expertise, A limited southern portion can be developed as a shopping center with a pedestrian underpass joining it to the Nugget/Longs center(already considered in the original CV proposal)
It appears that they (Covell Village Partners)
are trying to repackage it as a place for senior homes, and a place that will help our schools…etc. Nevermind that schools all over California are feeling the crunch and seniors don’t want to be housed in senior only housing.
It appears that they (Covell Village Partners)
are trying to repackage it as a place for senior homes, and a place that will help our schools…etc. Nevermind that schools all over California are feeling the crunch and seniors don’t want to be housed in senior only housing.
It appears that they (Covell Village Partners)
are trying to repackage it as a place for senior homes, and a place that will help our schools…etc. Nevermind that schools all over California are feeling the crunch and seniors don’t want to be housed in senior only housing.
It appears that they (Covell Village Partners)
are trying to repackage it as a place for senior homes, and a place that will help our schools…etc. Nevermind that schools all over California are feeling the crunch and seniors don’t want to be housed in senior only housing.
I wonder how many people on this site live in a house built (or a website funded) by one of the ‘evil developers’ they decry in the articles. Pretty soon Davis is going to be filled with nothing but aging former hippies who forgot that they cared about socio-economic diversity in their town. Good planning requires comprehensive planning otherwise you end up with Mace ranch or (worse) leapfrog into southeast Winters. The board LAFCO SOI decision is a disaster from a planning perspective and will put more pressure on poorly planned peripheral development, not less. Do your homework please.
I wonder how many people on this site live in a house built (or a website funded) by one of the ‘evil developers’ they decry in the articles. Pretty soon Davis is going to be filled with nothing but aging former hippies who forgot that they cared about socio-economic diversity in their town. Good planning requires comprehensive planning otherwise you end up with Mace ranch or (worse) leapfrog into southeast Winters. The board LAFCO SOI decision is a disaster from a planning perspective and will put more pressure on poorly planned peripheral development, not less. Do your homework please.
I wonder how many people on this site live in a house built (or a website funded) by one of the ‘evil developers’ they decry in the articles. Pretty soon Davis is going to be filled with nothing but aging former hippies who forgot that they cared about socio-economic diversity in their town. Good planning requires comprehensive planning otherwise you end up with Mace ranch or (worse) leapfrog into southeast Winters. The board LAFCO SOI decision is a disaster from a planning perspective and will put more pressure on poorly planned peripheral development, not less. Do your homework please.
I wonder how many people on this site live in a house built (or a website funded) by one of the ‘evil developers’ they decry in the articles. Pretty soon Davis is going to be filled with nothing but aging former hippies who forgot that they cared about socio-economic diversity in their town. Good planning requires comprehensive planning otherwise you end up with Mace ranch or (worse) leapfrog into southeast Winters. The board LAFCO SOI decision is a disaster from a planning perspective and will put more pressure on poorly planned peripheral development, not less. Do your homework please.
“The board LAFCO SOI decision is a disaster from a planning perspective and will put more pressure on poorly planned peripheral development, not less”
Do tell.
“The board LAFCO SOI decision is a disaster from a planning perspective and will put more pressure on poorly planned peripheral development, not less”
Do tell.
“The board LAFCO SOI decision is a disaster from a planning perspective and will put more pressure on poorly planned peripheral development, not less”
Do tell.
“The board LAFCO SOI decision is a disaster from a planning perspective and will put more pressure on poorly planned peripheral development, not less”
Do tell.
Anon 8:56: Good planning requires comprehensive planning . .
Correct. In Davis’ case that means attempting to rectify the serious jobs-housing imbalance we ‘aging hippies’ have suffered under for at least 30 years. Recommended changes as far back as the ’87 general plan have never been adopted, primarily due to the twin peaks of developer promises and public ignorance.
The Cannery property was – and still is – well-suited to light commercial/industrial uses, despite the owners tearing out the rail access, and razing the plant. Whatever the final land use decisions on that property, it makes no sense at all to “coordinate” planning with a poorly-designed vaporware subdivision of 1800 little boxes.
Anon 8:56: Good planning requires comprehensive planning . .
Correct. In Davis’ case that means attempting to rectify the serious jobs-housing imbalance we ‘aging hippies’ have suffered under for at least 30 years. Recommended changes as far back as the ’87 general plan have never been adopted, primarily due to the twin peaks of developer promises and public ignorance.
The Cannery property was – and still is – well-suited to light commercial/industrial uses, despite the owners tearing out the rail access, and razing the plant. Whatever the final land use decisions on that property, it makes no sense at all to “coordinate” planning with a poorly-designed vaporware subdivision of 1800 little boxes.
Anon 8:56: Good planning requires comprehensive planning . .
Correct. In Davis’ case that means attempting to rectify the serious jobs-housing imbalance we ‘aging hippies’ have suffered under for at least 30 years. Recommended changes as far back as the ’87 general plan have never been adopted, primarily due to the twin peaks of developer promises and public ignorance.
The Cannery property was – and still is – well-suited to light commercial/industrial uses, despite the owners tearing out the rail access, and razing the plant. Whatever the final land use decisions on that property, it makes no sense at all to “coordinate” planning with a poorly-designed vaporware subdivision of 1800 little boxes.
Anon 8:56: Good planning requires comprehensive planning . .
Correct. In Davis’ case that means attempting to rectify the serious jobs-housing imbalance we ‘aging hippies’ have suffered under for at least 30 years. Recommended changes as far back as the ’87 general plan have never been adopted, primarily due to the twin peaks of developer promises and public ignorance.
The Cannery property was – and still is – well-suited to light commercial/industrial uses, despite the owners tearing out the rail access, and razing the plant. Whatever the final land use decisions on that property, it makes no sense at all to “coordinate” planning with a poorly-designed vaporware subdivision of 1800 little boxes.
How can Don Saylor look us in the eye and say he hasn’t seen the new Covell village plan? One of the plans masterminds held a fundraiser for him a few days ago.
How can Don Saylor look us in the eye at a candidate forum and say,that he voted for the reconfiguration of 5th Street between A Street and G street when he voted against it?
This is getting downright extreme.
How can Don Saylor look us in the eye and say he hasn’t seen the new Covell village plan? One of the plans masterminds held a fundraiser for him a few days ago.
How can Don Saylor look us in the eye at a candidate forum and say,that he voted for the reconfiguration of 5th Street between A Street and G street when he voted against it?
This is getting downright extreme.
How can Don Saylor look us in the eye and say he hasn’t seen the new Covell village plan? One of the plans masterminds held a fundraiser for him a few days ago.
How can Don Saylor look us in the eye at a candidate forum and say,that he voted for the reconfiguration of 5th Street between A Street and G street when he voted against it?
This is getting downright extreme.
How can Don Saylor look us in the eye and say he hasn’t seen the new Covell village plan? One of the plans masterminds held a fundraiser for him a few days ago.
How can Don Saylor look us in the eye at a candidate forum and say,that he voted for the reconfiguration of 5th Street between A Street and G street when he voted against it?
This is getting downright extreme.
“Third, Cannery is paved over, Covell is prime ag land.”
Only about half of the Covell Village land is “prime ag land.” And that prime land is mixed throughout the property, not all to one side or the other.
Also, not all of the 100 acres of the cannery land is “paved over.” Much of it is just dirt. I would guess that if the whole property were cleaned up, the soil remaining would be low grade for farming, given its long-time proximity to the railroad tracks and due to the impact of the 40 or so years of the cannery.
I wonder — any soil scientists out there? — if enough organics were mixed in with the existing soils at the Hunt Wesson site, that land couldn’t become Grade A farmland once again?
“Third, Cannery is paved over, Covell is prime ag land.”
Only about half of the Covell Village land is “prime ag land.” And that prime land is mixed throughout the property, not all to one side or the other.
Also, not all of the 100 acres of the cannery land is “paved over.” Much of it is just dirt. I would guess that if the whole property were cleaned up, the soil remaining would be low grade for farming, given its long-time proximity to the railroad tracks and due to the impact of the 40 or so years of the cannery.
I wonder — any soil scientists out there? — if enough organics were mixed in with the existing soils at the Hunt Wesson site, that land couldn’t become Grade A farmland once again?
“Third, Cannery is paved over, Covell is prime ag land.”
Only about half of the Covell Village land is “prime ag land.” And that prime land is mixed throughout the property, not all to one side or the other.
Also, not all of the 100 acres of the cannery land is “paved over.” Much of it is just dirt. I would guess that if the whole property were cleaned up, the soil remaining would be low grade for farming, given its long-time proximity to the railroad tracks and due to the impact of the 40 or so years of the cannery.
I wonder — any soil scientists out there? — if enough organics were mixed in with the existing soils at the Hunt Wesson site, that land couldn’t become Grade A farmland once again?
“Third, Cannery is paved over, Covell is prime ag land.”
Only about half of the Covell Village land is “prime ag land.” And that prime land is mixed throughout the property, not all to one side or the other.
Also, not all of the 100 acres of the cannery land is “paved over.” Much of it is just dirt. I would guess that if the whole property were cleaned up, the soil remaining would be low grade for farming, given its long-time proximity to the railroad tracks and due to the impact of the 40 or so years of the cannery.
I wonder — any soil scientists out there? — if enough organics were mixed in with the existing soils at the Hunt Wesson site, that land couldn’t become Grade A farmland once again?
“it makes no sense at all to “coordinate” planning with a poorly-designed vaporware subdivision of 1800 little boxes.”
This is a total mischaracterization of the Covell Village Project, Measure X. Nevertheless, if you know of another subdivision in Davis which is better designed, let us know?
You can fairly argue that CV was too big; that it would harm the rest of the town due to its traffic and other congestion impacts; that it would not in the end pay for its costs to the city; and other like externalities. However, to say it was “poorly-designed” is a vacuous attack. That would have easily been the best designed subdivision in Davis, had it been approved. Among many things Mike Corbett does well, he can design a very nice subdivision.
“it makes no sense at all to “coordinate” planning with a poorly-designed vaporware subdivision of 1800 little boxes.”
This is a total mischaracterization of the Covell Village Project, Measure X. Nevertheless, if you know of another subdivision in Davis which is better designed, let us know?
You can fairly argue that CV was too big; that it would harm the rest of the town due to its traffic and other congestion impacts; that it would not in the end pay for its costs to the city; and other like externalities. However, to say it was “poorly-designed” is a vacuous attack. That would have easily been the best designed subdivision in Davis, had it been approved. Among many things Mike Corbett does well, he can design a very nice subdivision.
“it makes no sense at all to “coordinate” planning with a poorly-designed vaporware subdivision of 1800 little boxes.”
This is a total mischaracterization of the Covell Village Project, Measure X. Nevertheless, if you know of another subdivision in Davis which is better designed, let us know?
You can fairly argue that CV was too big; that it would harm the rest of the town due to its traffic and other congestion impacts; that it would not in the end pay for its costs to the city; and other like externalities. However, to say it was “poorly-designed” is a vacuous attack. That would have easily been the best designed subdivision in Davis, had it been approved. Among many things Mike Corbett does well, he can design a very nice subdivision.
“it makes no sense at all to “coordinate” planning with a poorly-designed vaporware subdivision of 1800 little boxes.”
This is a total mischaracterization of the Covell Village Project, Measure X. Nevertheless, if you know of another subdivision in Davis which is better designed, let us know?
You can fairly argue that CV was too big; that it would harm the rest of the town due to its traffic and other congestion impacts; that it would not in the end pay for its costs to the city; and other like externalities. However, to say it was “poorly-designed” is a vacuous attack. That would have easily been the best designed subdivision in Davis, had it been approved. Among many things Mike Corbett does well, he can design a very nice subdivision.
Village Homes is nice. Why couldn’t Corbett have just designed an environmentally appropriate subdivision like Village Homes on the Whitcombe land? Sized appropriately too, instead of being composed of huge, unaffordable to most McMansion style houses?
Village Homes is nice. Why couldn’t Corbett have just designed an environmentally appropriate subdivision like Village Homes on the Whitcombe land? Sized appropriately too, instead of being composed of huge, unaffordable to most McMansion style houses?
Village Homes is nice. Why couldn’t Corbett have just designed an environmentally appropriate subdivision like Village Homes on the Whitcombe land? Sized appropriately too, instead of being composed of huge, unaffordable to most McMansion style houses?
Village Homes is nice. Why couldn’t Corbett have just designed an environmentally appropriate subdivision like Village Homes on the Whitcombe land? Sized appropriately too, instead of being composed of huge, unaffordable to most McMansion style houses?
i think it’s a mistake to read all 60 percent that voted against covell village as having done so because of an ideological commitment to not building anything there ever, and generally treating the city limits as an urban growth limit.
my hunch from talking to neighbors and friends during that election (and from my own personal ambivalence in deciding my vote on CV) is that a significant % of the swing that decided that election would be open to something there, but didn’t like the configuration that CV laid out.
as such, the “pro-development” candidates may be speaking to that specific part of the electorate here, who didn’t fall into for or against quite as neatly as some like to divide things.
of all the areas to develop on the periphery (assuming that is something we ought to do at all), covell village and hunt wesson strike me as the best of the lot, especially the part closest to covell.
as always, i prefer densification of the downtown, adjacent to campus and near shopping/transportation hubs to peripheral growth, and think that the matter of growth in every given plan is perhaps more significant than the growth-no growth binary.
but if we’re going to do low density growth, my request is that mike corbett be given the franchise for planning it. it’s a pity the city didn’t follow the village homes model of neighborhood planning in the 80s and 90s.
i think it’s a mistake to read all 60 percent that voted against covell village as having done so because of an ideological commitment to not building anything there ever, and generally treating the city limits as an urban growth limit.
my hunch from talking to neighbors and friends during that election (and from my own personal ambivalence in deciding my vote on CV) is that a significant % of the swing that decided that election would be open to something there, but didn’t like the configuration that CV laid out.
as such, the “pro-development” candidates may be speaking to that specific part of the electorate here, who didn’t fall into for or against quite as neatly as some like to divide things.
of all the areas to develop on the periphery (assuming that is something we ought to do at all), covell village and hunt wesson strike me as the best of the lot, especially the part closest to covell.
as always, i prefer densification of the downtown, adjacent to campus and near shopping/transportation hubs to peripheral growth, and think that the matter of growth in every given plan is perhaps more significant than the growth-no growth binary.
but if we’re going to do low density growth, my request is that mike corbett be given the franchise for planning it. it’s a pity the city didn’t follow the village homes model of neighborhood planning in the 80s and 90s.
i think it’s a mistake to read all 60 percent that voted against covell village as having done so because of an ideological commitment to not building anything there ever, and generally treating the city limits as an urban growth limit.
my hunch from talking to neighbors and friends during that election (and from my own personal ambivalence in deciding my vote on CV) is that a significant % of the swing that decided that election would be open to something there, but didn’t like the configuration that CV laid out.
as such, the “pro-development” candidates may be speaking to that specific part of the electorate here, who didn’t fall into for or against quite as neatly as some like to divide things.
of all the areas to develop on the periphery (assuming that is something we ought to do at all), covell village and hunt wesson strike me as the best of the lot, especially the part closest to covell.
as always, i prefer densification of the downtown, adjacent to campus and near shopping/transportation hubs to peripheral growth, and think that the matter of growth in every given plan is perhaps more significant than the growth-no growth binary.
but if we’re going to do low density growth, my request is that mike corbett be given the franchise for planning it. it’s a pity the city didn’t follow the village homes model of neighborhood planning in the 80s and 90s.
i think it’s a mistake to read all 60 percent that voted against covell village as having done so because of an ideological commitment to not building anything there ever, and generally treating the city limits as an urban growth limit.
my hunch from talking to neighbors and friends during that election (and from my own personal ambivalence in deciding my vote on CV) is that a significant % of the swing that decided that election would be open to something there, but didn’t like the configuration that CV laid out.
as such, the “pro-development” candidates may be speaking to that specific part of the electorate here, who didn’t fall into for or against quite as neatly as some like to divide things.
of all the areas to develop on the periphery (assuming that is something we ought to do at all), covell village and hunt wesson strike me as the best of the lot, especially the part closest to covell.
as always, i prefer densification of the downtown, adjacent to campus and near shopping/transportation hubs to peripheral growth, and think that the matter of growth in every given plan is perhaps more significant than the growth-no growth binary.
but if we’re going to do low density growth, my request is that mike corbett be given the franchise for planning it. it’s a pity the city didn’t follow the village homes model of neighborhood planning in the 80s and 90s.
the main point of all of this is who is independent and who is not? being influenced by those that stand to make immense amounts of profits is not independent- I don’t care how altruistic such developments are. I’m tired of the argument that we should go with the lesser of two evils and choose development by a local davisite. Covell Village was not a compromise effort- not progressive and not totally suburban wasteland. why compromise our values for profit? and why is PLANNING always seen as GODLIKE. more and more designers, including land based planners, are seeing the benefits of piecemeal small planning, rather than large-scale mega-planning. There is a benefit to doing things smaller and not planning as large a system / development as possible. if developing the cannery means planning covell village property- why stop there? why not plan the land for miles around for as many years out as possible? smaller is better when it comes to land-use planning, but not when it comes to profit. having sympathy for the risks involved by developing large properties only serves to benefit those that profit from such work. smarter smaller planning and projects may mean less risk and therefore less profit, but this is the modern businessman- less about risk / profit and more about careful projects / smaller profit margin.
the main point of all of this is who is independent and who is not? being influenced by those that stand to make immense amounts of profits is not independent- I don’t care how altruistic such developments are. I’m tired of the argument that we should go with the lesser of two evils and choose development by a local davisite. Covell Village was not a compromise effort- not progressive and not totally suburban wasteland. why compromise our values for profit? and why is PLANNING always seen as GODLIKE. more and more designers, including land based planners, are seeing the benefits of piecemeal small planning, rather than large-scale mega-planning. There is a benefit to doing things smaller and not planning as large a system / development as possible. if developing the cannery means planning covell village property- why stop there? why not plan the land for miles around for as many years out as possible? smaller is better when it comes to land-use planning, but not when it comes to profit. having sympathy for the risks involved by developing large properties only serves to benefit those that profit from such work. smarter smaller planning and projects may mean less risk and therefore less profit, but this is the modern businessman- less about risk / profit and more about careful projects / smaller profit margin.
the main point of all of this is who is independent and who is not? being influenced by those that stand to make immense amounts of profits is not independent- I don’t care how altruistic such developments are. I’m tired of the argument that we should go with the lesser of two evils and choose development by a local davisite. Covell Village was not a compromise effort- not progressive and not totally suburban wasteland. why compromise our values for profit? and why is PLANNING always seen as GODLIKE. more and more designers, including land based planners, are seeing the benefits of piecemeal small planning, rather than large-scale mega-planning. There is a benefit to doing things smaller and not planning as large a system / development as possible. if developing the cannery means planning covell village property- why stop there? why not plan the land for miles around for as many years out as possible? smaller is better when it comes to land-use planning, but not when it comes to profit. having sympathy for the risks involved by developing large properties only serves to benefit those that profit from such work. smarter smaller planning and projects may mean less risk and therefore less profit, but this is the modern businessman- less about risk / profit and more about careful projects / smaller profit margin.
the main point of all of this is who is independent and who is not? being influenced by those that stand to make immense amounts of profits is not independent- I don’t care how altruistic such developments are. I’m tired of the argument that we should go with the lesser of two evils and choose development by a local davisite. Covell Village was not a compromise effort- not progressive and not totally suburban wasteland. why compromise our values for profit? and why is PLANNING always seen as GODLIKE. more and more designers, including land based planners, are seeing the benefits of piecemeal small planning, rather than large-scale mega-planning. There is a benefit to doing things smaller and not planning as large a system / development as possible. if developing the cannery means planning covell village property- why stop there? why not plan the land for miles around for as many years out as possible? smaller is better when it comes to land-use planning, but not when it comes to profit. having sympathy for the risks involved by developing large properties only serves to benefit those that profit from such work. smarter smaller planning and projects may mean less risk and therefore less profit, but this is the modern businessman- less about risk / profit and more about careful projects / smaller profit margin.
Rifkin: You can fairly argue that CV was too big; that it would harm the rest of the town due to its traffic and other congestion impacts; that it would not in the end pay for its costs to the city; and other like externalities.
Adding in the impacts to both water and wastewater systems citywide, and you’ve made my point rather well. Design includes all elements of a project. Whether one aspect or another is well-designed is irrelevant if there are fatal errors elsewhere.
Rifkin: You can fairly argue that CV was too big; that it would harm the rest of the town due to its traffic and other congestion impacts; that it would not in the end pay for its costs to the city; and other like externalities.
Adding in the impacts to both water and wastewater systems citywide, and you’ve made my point rather well. Design includes all elements of a project. Whether one aspect or another is well-designed is irrelevant if there are fatal errors elsewhere.
Rifkin: You can fairly argue that CV was too big; that it would harm the rest of the town due to its traffic and other congestion impacts; that it would not in the end pay for its costs to the city; and other like externalities.
Adding in the impacts to both water and wastewater systems citywide, and you’ve made my point rather well. Design includes all elements of a project. Whether one aspect or another is well-designed is irrelevant if there are fatal errors elsewhere.
Rifkin: You can fairly argue that CV was too big; that it would harm the rest of the town due to its traffic and other congestion impacts; that it would not in the end pay for its costs to the city; and other like externalities.
Adding in the impacts to both water and wastewater systems citywide, and you’ve made my point rather well. Design includes all elements of a project. Whether one aspect or another is well-designed is irrelevant if there are fatal errors elsewhere.
Nice piece in the Bee though the Jim Wasserman column he did on how Davis is White, Conversative, and elitest is my favorite. It just solidified my vote for S, S, and V.
Now I did vote no on X years ago but it wasn’t that I didn’t want development. It was because they were pushing 330k homes affordable starter houses. Now I wish I’d said yes.
Nice piece in the Bee though the Jim Wasserman column he did on how Davis is White, Conversative, and elitest is my favorite. It just solidified my vote for S, S, and V.
Now I did vote no on X years ago but it wasn’t that I didn’t want development. It was because they were pushing 330k homes affordable starter houses. Now I wish I’d said yes.
Nice piece in the Bee though the Jim Wasserman column he did on how Davis is White, Conversative, and elitest is my favorite. It just solidified my vote for S, S, and V.
Now I did vote no on X years ago but it wasn’t that I didn’t want development. It was because they were pushing 330k homes affordable starter houses. Now I wish I’d said yes.
Nice piece in the Bee though the Jim Wasserman column he did on how Davis is White, Conversative, and elitest is my favorite. It just solidified my vote for S, S, and V.
Now I did vote no on X years ago but it wasn’t that I didn’t want development. It was because they were pushing 330k homes affordable starter houses. Now I wish I’d said yes.
I agree with anonymous 6:51. 330k starter homes in that market would mean 200k starter homes in this market.
Every single person in this town has benefitted from development. Every single person in this town lives on developed land including former farmland, even those downtown, because a developer is anybody who owns a property and subdivides it for development purposes. I guess it was okay yesteryear but not today.
You can make fun of “cookie cutter” houses, but all Davis neighborhoods would match that description if you remove the mature landscaping. Eventually, landscaping from new development matures, too.
Too many folks here focus on numbers. I care much less about the number of people here than the design and affordability of development. Impacts, particularly traffic are largely overblown.
Can we meet our short term housing needs via infill? Of course we can, because the short term needs are small. But if I had any faith that S, S, and R would approve infill development, I’d consider casting a vote for them. But I know they won’t because they don’t want to change the “character” of Davis, whatever that means. Despite our attempts to convince ourselves otherwise, outside of downtown, Davis has no character. It’s virtually all single family tract ranch-style or poor attempts at modern artchitectureal homes. Nothing wrong with that, but it certainly does not meet any objective definition of “character”.
I agree with anonymous 6:51. 330k starter homes in that market would mean 200k starter homes in this market.
Every single person in this town has benefitted from development. Every single person in this town lives on developed land including former farmland, even those downtown, because a developer is anybody who owns a property and subdivides it for development purposes. I guess it was okay yesteryear but not today.
You can make fun of “cookie cutter” houses, but all Davis neighborhoods would match that description if you remove the mature landscaping. Eventually, landscaping from new development matures, too.
Too many folks here focus on numbers. I care much less about the number of people here than the design and affordability of development. Impacts, particularly traffic are largely overblown.
Can we meet our short term housing needs via infill? Of course we can, because the short term needs are small. But if I had any faith that S, S, and R would approve infill development, I’d consider casting a vote for them. But I know they won’t because they don’t want to change the “character” of Davis, whatever that means. Despite our attempts to convince ourselves otherwise, outside of downtown, Davis has no character. It’s virtually all single family tract ranch-style or poor attempts at modern artchitectureal homes. Nothing wrong with that, but it certainly does not meet any objective definition of “character”.
I agree with anonymous 6:51. 330k starter homes in that market would mean 200k starter homes in this market.
Every single person in this town has benefitted from development. Every single person in this town lives on developed land including former farmland, even those downtown, because a developer is anybody who owns a property and subdivides it for development purposes. I guess it was okay yesteryear but not today.
You can make fun of “cookie cutter” houses, but all Davis neighborhoods would match that description if you remove the mature landscaping. Eventually, landscaping from new development matures, too.
Too many folks here focus on numbers. I care much less about the number of people here than the design and affordability of development. Impacts, particularly traffic are largely overblown.
Can we meet our short term housing needs via infill? Of course we can, because the short term needs are small. But if I had any faith that S, S, and R would approve infill development, I’d consider casting a vote for them. But I know they won’t because they don’t want to change the “character” of Davis, whatever that means. Despite our attempts to convince ourselves otherwise, outside of downtown, Davis has no character. It’s virtually all single family tract ranch-style or poor attempts at modern artchitectureal homes. Nothing wrong with that, but it certainly does not meet any objective definition of “character”.
I agree with anonymous 6:51. 330k starter homes in that market would mean 200k starter homes in this market.
Every single person in this town has benefitted from development. Every single person in this town lives on developed land including former farmland, even those downtown, because a developer is anybody who owns a property and subdivides it for development purposes. I guess it was okay yesteryear but not today.
You can make fun of “cookie cutter” houses, but all Davis neighborhoods would match that description if you remove the mature landscaping. Eventually, landscaping from new development matures, too.
Too many folks here focus on numbers. I care much less about the number of people here than the design and affordability of development. Impacts, particularly traffic are largely overblown.
Can we meet our short term housing needs via infill? Of course we can, because the short term needs are small. But if I had any faith that S, S, and R would approve infill development, I’d consider casting a vote for them. But I know they won’t because they don’t want to change the “character” of Davis, whatever that means. Despite our attempts to convince ourselves otherwise, outside of downtown, Davis has no character. It’s virtually all single family tract ranch-style or poor attempts at modern artchitectureal homes. Nothing wrong with that, but it certainly does not meet any objective definition of “character”.
oops, correction, G, G, and R.
oops, correction, G, G, and R.
oops, correction, G, G, and R.
oops, correction, G, G, and R.
The reason many people focus on numbers here is that math matters. The more people you put into town, the more it is going to change, sometimes in detrimental ways. There has to be a cost involving if you turn Davis from a city of 60 some odd thousan to a city of 90 thousand, 120 thousand, more. Vacaville and Fairfield and Elk Grove are very different types of towns than Davis. Rob Roy is right, we are in danger of becoming any town USA.
I guess I just do not agree with you if I walk in the neighborhood next to the university that that has the same feel as being in Mace Ranch or Wildhorse. Old North Davis. Old East Davis. Village Homes. It is not just mature vegetation. It is not just about housing architecture or design. There is a tangible feel in the core of town that makes Davis unique. And many of us who have lived here for a long time want to keep that.
If you think Davis has no character, then I guess you will find yourself in a minority on that position.
I do support the Greenwalds. Less so Rob. What I would like to see would be a series of small developments that can produce housing, some density without feeling dense, and that are cutting edge environmentally. I do not see that impetus coming from the pro-development clan. All I see are sprawl subdivisions passed off as innovative and affordable. That has actually led to the problem. It does not solve the problem.
The reason many people focus on numbers here is that math matters. The more people you put into town, the more it is going to change, sometimes in detrimental ways. There has to be a cost involving if you turn Davis from a city of 60 some odd thousan to a city of 90 thousand, 120 thousand, more. Vacaville and Fairfield and Elk Grove are very different types of towns than Davis. Rob Roy is right, we are in danger of becoming any town USA.
I guess I just do not agree with you if I walk in the neighborhood next to the university that that has the same feel as being in Mace Ranch or Wildhorse. Old North Davis. Old East Davis. Village Homes. It is not just mature vegetation. It is not just about housing architecture or design. There is a tangible feel in the core of town that makes Davis unique. And many of us who have lived here for a long time want to keep that.
If you think Davis has no character, then I guess you will find yourself in a minority on that position.
I do support the Greenwalds. Less so Rob. What I would like to see would be a series of small developments that can produce housing, some density without feeling dense, and that are cutting edge environmentally. I do not see that impetus coming from the pro-development clan. All I see are sprawl subdivisions passed off as innovative and affordable. That has actually led to the problem. It does not solve the problem.
The reason many people focus on numbers here is that math matters. The more people you put into town, the more it is going to change, sometimes in detrimental ways. There has to be a cost involving if you turn Davis from a city of 60 some odd thousan to a city of 90 thousand, 120 thousand, more. Vacaville and Fairfield and Elk Grove are very different types of towns than Davis. Rob Roy is right, we are in danger of becoming any town USA.
I guess I just do not agree with you if I walk in the neighborhood next to the university that that has the same feel as being in Mace Ranch or Wildhorse. Old North Davis. Old East Davis. Village Homes. It is not just mature vegetation. It is not just about housing architecture or design. There is a tangible feel in the core of town that makes Davis unique. And many of us who have lived here for a long time want to keep that.
If you think Davis has no character, then I guess you will find yourself in a minority on that position.
I do support the Greenwalds. Less so Rob. What I would like to see would be a series of small developments that can produce housing, some density without feeling dense, and that are cutting edge environmentally. I do not see that impetus coming from the pro-development clan. All I see are sprawl subdivisions passed off as innovative and affordable. That has actually led to the problem. It does not solve the problem.
The reason many people focus on numbers here is that math matters. The more people you put into town, the more it is going to change, sometimes in detrimental ways. There has to be a cost involving if you turn Davis from a city of 60 some odd thousan to a city of 90 thousand, 120 thousand, more. Vacaville and Fairfield and Elk Grove are very different types of towns than Davis. Rob Roy is right, we are in danger of becoming any town USA.
I guess I just do not agree with you if I walk in the neighborhood next to the university that that has the same feel as being in Mace Ranch or Wildhorse. Old North Davis. Old East Davis. Village Homes. It is not just mature vegetation. It is not just about housing architecture or design. There is a tangible feel in the core of town that makes Davis unique. And many of us who have lived here for a long time want to keep that.
If you think Davis has no character, then I guess you will find yourself in a minority on that position.
I do support the Greenwalds. Less so Rob. What I would like to see would be a series of small developments that can produce housing, some density without feeling dense, and that are cutting edge environmentally. I do not see that impetus coming from the pro-development clan. All I see are sprawl subdivisions passed off as innovative and affordable. That has actually led to the problem. It does not solve the problem.
“White, Conversative, and elitest is my favorite,” and you’re voting for S,S,S?
So you are supporting his assertion?
With rapid development comes congestion, increased crime, congestion, pollution, congestion. No thank you.
I am voting for Sue and Cecilia.
“White, Conversative, and elitest is my favorite,” and you’re voting for S,S,S?
So you are supporting his assertion?
With rapid development comes congestion, increased crime, congestion, pollution, congestion. No thank you.
I am voting for Sue and Cecilia.
“White, Conversative, and elitest is my favorite,” and you’re voting for S,S,S?
So you are supporting his assertion?
With rapid development comes congestion, increased crime, congestion, pollution, congestion. No thank you.
I am voting for Sue and Cecilia.
“White, Conversative, and elitest is my favorite,” and you’re voting for S,S,S?
So you are supporting his assertion?
With rapid development comes congestion, increased crime, congestion, pollution, congestion. No thank you.
I am voting for Sue and Cecilia.
ANON 1:17 “Sized appropriately too, instead of being composed of huge, unaffordable to most McMansion style houses?”
Not that facts ever mattered when the debate itself mattered, but your assertion that most of CV’s housing units were to be unaffordable McMansions is incorrect. Fully half of the for-sale housing was, by city law, to be for low and moderate income home-buyers. And another large percentage of the housing units would have been condominiums and rental apartments.
ANON 1:17 “Sized appropriately too, instead of being composed of huge, unaffordable to most McMansion style houses?”
Not that facts ever mattered when the debate itself mattered, but your assertion that most of CV’s housing units were to be unaffordable McMansions is incorrect. Fully half of the for-sale housing was, by city law, to be for low and moderate income home-buyers. And another large percentage of the housing units would have been condominiums and rental apartments.
ANON 1:17 “Sized appropriately too, instead of being composed of huge, unaffordable to most McMansion style houses?”
Not that facts ever mattered when the debate itself mattered, but your assertion that most of CV’s housing units were to be unaffordable McMansions is incorrect. Fully half of the for-sale housing was, by city law, to be for low and moderate income home-buyers. And another large percentage of the housing units would have been condominiums and rental apartments.
ANON 1:17 “Sized appropriately too, instead of being composed of huge, unaffordable to most McMansion style houses?”
Not that facts ever mattered when the debate itself mattered, but your assertion that most of CV’s housing units were to be unaffordable McMansions is incorrect. Fully half of the for-sale housing was, by city law, to be for low and moderate income home-buyers. And another large percentage of the housing units would have been condominiums and rental apartments.
Rich Rifkin,…..SO TIRED of this pro-CV “Gottcha” moment. Yes!… CV was mandated by law(and Davis ordinance) to provide low and very low income housing(near 30%?). THIS was never the issue. CV was “pitched” to the Davis electorate as addressing the lack of middle-income AFFORDABLE housing.
Rich Rifkin,…..SO TIRED of this pro-CV “Gottcha” moment. Yes!… CV was mandated by law(and Davis ordinance) to provide low and very low income housing(near 30%?). THIS was never the issue. CV was “pitched” to the Davis electorate as addressing the lack of middle-income AFFORDABLE housing.
Rich Rifkin,…..SO TIRED of this pro-CV “Gottcha” moment. Yes!… CV was mandated by law(and Davis ordinance) to provide low and very low income housing(near 30%?). THIS was never the issue. CV was “pitched” to the Davis electorate as addressing the lack of middle-income AFFORDABLE housing.
Rich Rifkin,…..SO TIRED of this pro-CV “Gottcha” moment. Yes!… CV was mandated by law(and Davis ordinance) to provide low and very low income housing(near 30%?). THIS was never the issue. CV was “pitched” to the Davis electorate as addressing the lack of middle-income AFFORDABLE housing.
“CV was mandated by law(and Davis ordinance) to provide low and very low income housing(near 30%?).”
By city law, 25% for low-very low income for-sale housing plus another 25% for moderate income for-sale housing. Together, that’s 50% of the total units at CV. In addition, another large percentage of housing units would have been rental apartments.
Even more, what you call “a McMansion” is what most folks call a house. It’s not the case that the lots at CV were especially large. I have a 1,600 sf tract house built in 1965 in west Davis. My lot is LARGER than any single family lot planned for at CV.
Now, if the lots at CV had been large (such as the lots at North Davis Farms, for example), you might have rightly been correct to assume mansions would have been built on them. But that was not the case in Mike Corbett’s design.
“CV was mandated by law(and Davis ordinance) to provide low and very low income housing(near 30%?).”
By city law, 25% for low-very low income for-sale housing plus another 25% for moderate income for-sale housing. Together, that’s 50% of the total units at CV. In addition, another large percentage of housing units would have been rental apartments.
Even more, what you call “a McMansion” is what most folks call a house. It’s not the case that the lots at CV were especially large. I have a 1,600 sf tract house built in 1965 in west Davis. My lot is LARGER than any single family lot planned for at CV.
Now, if the lots at CV had been large (such as the lots at North Davis Farms, for example), you might have rightly been correct to assume mansions would have been built on them. But that was not the case in Mike Corbett’s design.
“CV was mandated by law(and Davis ordinance) to provide low and very low income housing(near 30%?).”
By city law, 25% for low-very low income for-sale housing plus another 25% for moderate income for-sale housing. Together, that’s 50% of the total units at CV. In addition, another large percentage of housing units would have been rental apartments.
Even more, what you call “a McMansion” is what most folks call a house. It’s not the case that the lots at CV were especially large. I have a 1,600 sf tract house built in 1965 in west Davis. My lot is LARGER than any single family lot planned for at CV.
Now, if the lots at CV had been large (such as the lots at North Davis Farms, for example), you might have rightly been correct to assume mansions would have been built on them. But that was not the case in Mike Corbett’s design.
“CV was mandated by law(and Davis ordinance) to provide low and very low income housing(near 30%?).”
By city law, 25% for low-very low income for-sale housing plus another 25% for moderate income for-sale housing. Together, that’s 50% of the total units at CV. In addition, another large percentage of housing units would have been rental apartments.
Even more, what you call “a McMansion” is what most folks call a house. It’s not the case that the lots at CV were especially large. I have a 1,600 sf tract house built in 1965 in west Davis. My lot is LARGER than any single family lot planned for at CV.
Now, if the lots at CV had been large (such as the lots at North Davis Farms, for example), you might have rightly been correct to assume mansions would have been built on them. But that was not the case in Mike Corbett’s design.
The reason many people focus on numbers here is that math matters. The more people you put into town, the more it is going to change, sometimes in detrimental ways. There has to be a cost involving if you turn Davis from a city of 60 some odd thousan to a city of 90 thousand, 120 thousand, more. Vacaville and Fairfield and Elk Grove are very different types of towns than Davis. Rob Roy is right, we are in danger of becoming any town USA.
I guess I just do not agree with you if I walk in the neighborhood next to the university that that has the same feel as being in Mace Ranch or Wildhorse. Old North Davis. Old East Davis. Village Homes. It is not just mature vegetation. It is not just about housing architecture or design. There is a tangible feel in the core of town that makes Davis unique. And many of us who have lived here for a long time want to keep that.
The nostalgic sentiment here is understandable, and correct in some aspects, but ultimately naive.
Davis will change whether it grows or not.
If the city grows, there will be profound socioeconomic changes, but those changes that can regulated in such a way as to enable the city to blend its past heritage with the positive aspects of the future. It can evolve into a city that is more diverse in racial, class and cultural terms, enriching the experience of all who live in it.
Of course, that would require the city to approve developments fundamentally different in character than the ones we have seen in the last 20 years.
But if the city does not grow, it will be gentrified beyond recognition. Old Davis neigborhoods know for the presence of families with children, and a variety of middle and upper middle class residents (and, yes, even quite a few lower middle class ones) will become overwhelmingly upper middle class ones, with an older population and fewer children.
The neighborhoods may look the same, but they definitely will not feel the same. I lived in Davis from the late 1970s to around 2005I can tell you that walking around Old North Davis, Downtown, Old East Davis and Village Homes in the 1980s and early 1990s was not the same as it is today. As for the late 1970s, the city was far different than it is now.
The notion that purportedly unique characteristics of Davis can be preserved by sharply limiting or prohibiting growth has the practical effect of turning the city into a museum, a place increasingly separated from the vibrance of the world outside of it.
But then, maybe that’s what Davis residents want, and, maybe even one of the reasons why Davis homes are priced higher than ones in Sacramento. As Hollywood has long known, nostalgia definitely sells.
–Richard Estes
The reason many people focus on numbers here is that math matters. The more people you put into town, the more it is going to change, sometimes in detrimental ways. There has to be a cost involving if you turn Davis from a city of 60 some odd thousan to a city of 90 thousand, 120 thousand, more. Vacaville and Fairfield and Elk Grove are very different types of towns than Davis. Rob Roy is right, we are in danger of becoming any town USA.
I guess I just do not agree with you if I walk in the neighborhood next to the university that that has the same feel as being in Mace Ranch or Wildhorse. Old North Davis. Old East Davis. Village Homes. It is not just mature vegetation. It is not just about housing architecture or design. There is a tangible feel in the core of town that makes Davis unique. And many of us who have lived here for a long time want to keep that.
The nostalgic sentiment here is understandable, and correct in some aspects, but ultimately naive.
Davis will change whether it grows or not.
If the city grows, there will be profound socioeconomic changes, but those changes that can regulated in such a way as to enable the city to blend its past heritage with the positive aspects of the future. It can evolve into a city that is more diverse in racial, class and cultural terms, enriching the experience of all who live in it.
Of course, that would require the city to approve developments fundamentally different in character than the ones we have seen in the last 20 years.
But if the city does not grow, it will be gentrified beyond recognition. Old Davis neigborhoods know for the presence of families with children, and a variety of middle and upper middle class residents (and, yes, even quite a few lower middle class ones) will become overwhelmingly upper middle class ones, with an older population and fewer children.
The neighborhoods may look the same, but they definitely will not feel the same. I lived in Davis from the late 1970s to around 2005I can tell you that walking around Old North Davis, Downtown, Old East Davis and Village Homes in the 1980s and early 1990s was not the same as it is today. As for the late 1970s, the city was far different than it is now.
The notion that purportedly unique characteristics of Davis can be preserved by sharply limiting or prohibiting growth has the practical effect of turning the city into a museum, a place increasingly separated from the vibrance of the world outside of it.
But then, maybe that’s what Davis residents want, and, maybe even one of the reasons why Davis homes are priced higher than ones in Sacramento. As Hollywood has long known, nostalgia definitely sells.
–Richard Estes
The reason many people focus on numbers here is that math matters. The more people you put into town, the more it is going to change, sometimes in detrimental ways. There has to be a cost involving if you turn Davis from a city of 60 some odd thousan to a city of 90 thousand, 120 thousand, more. Vacaville and Fairfield and Elk Grove are very different types of towns than Davis. Rob Roy is right, we are in danger of becoming any town USA.
I guess I just do not agree with you if I walk in the neighborhood next to the university that that has the same feel as being in Mace Ranch or Wildhorse. Old North Davis. Old East Davis. Village Homes. It is not just mature vegetation. It is not just about housing architecture or design. There is a tangible feel in the core of town that makes Davis unique. And many of us who have lived here for a long time want to keep that.
The nostalgic sentiment here is understandable, and correct in some aspects, but ultimately naive.
Davis will change whether it grows or not.
If the city grows, there will be profound socioeconomic changes, but those changes that can regulated in such a way as to enable the city to blend its past heritage with the positive aspects of the future. It can evolve into a city that is more diverse in racial, class and cultural terms, enriching the experience of all who live in it.
Of course, that would require the city to approve developments fundamentally different in character than the ones we have seen in the last 20 years.
But if the city does not grow, it will be gentrified beyond recognition. Old Davis neigborhoods know for the presence of families with children, and a variety of middle and upper middle class residents (and, yes, even quite a few lower middle class ones) will become overwhelmingly upper middle class ones, with an older population and fewer children.
The neighborhoods may look the same, but they definitely will not feel the same. I lived in Davis from the late 1970s to around 2005I can tell you that walking around Old North Davis, Downtown, Old East Davis and Village Homes in the 1980s and early 1990s was not the same as it is today. As for the late 1970s, the city was far different than it is now.
The notion that purportedly unique characteristics of Davis can be preserved by sharply limiting or prohibiting growth has the practical effect of turning the city into a museum, a place increasingly separated from the vibrance of the world outside of it.
But then, maybe that’s what Davis residents want, and, maybe even one of the reasons why Davis homes are priced higher than ones in Sacramento. As Hollywood has long known, nostalgia definitely sells.
–Richard Estes
The reason many people focus on numbers here is that math matters. The more people you put into town, the more it is going to change, sometimes in detrimental ways. There has to be a cost involving if you turn Davis from a city of 60 some odd thousan to a city of 90 thousand, 120 thousand, more. Vacaville and Fairfield and Elk Grove are very different types of towns than Davis. Rob Roy is right, we are in danger of becoming any town USA.
I guess I just do not agree with you if I walk in the neighborhood next to the university that that has the same feel as being in Mace Ranch or Wildhorse. Old North Davis. Old East Davis. Village Homes. It is not just mature vegetation. It is not just about housing architecture or design. There is a tangible feel in the core of town that makes Davis unique. And many of us who have lived here for a long time want to keep that.
The nostalgic sentiment here is understandable, and correct in some aspects, but ultimately naive.
Davis will change whether it grows or not.
If the city grows, there will be profound socioeconomic changes, but those changes that can regulated in such a way as to enable the city to blend its past heritage with the positive aspects of the future. It can evolve into a city that is more diverse in racial, class and cultural terms, enriching the experience of all who live in it.
Of course, that would require the city to approve developments fundamentally different in character than the ones we have seen in the last 20 years.
But if the city does not grow, it will be gentrified beyond recognition. Old Davis neigborhoods know for the presence of families with children, and a variety of middle and upper middle class residents (and, yes, even quite a few lower middle class ones) will become overwhelmingly upper middle class ones, with an older population and fewer children.
The neighborhoods may look the same, but they definitely will not feel the same. I lived in Davis from the late 1970s to around 2005I can tell you that walking around Old North Davis, Downtown, Old East Davis and Village Homes in the 1980s and early 1990s was not the same as it is today. As for the late 1970s, the city was far different than it is now.
The notion that purportedly unique characteristics of Davis can be preserved by sharply limiting or prohibiting growth has the practical effect of turning the city into a museum, a place increasingly separated from the vibrance of the world outside of it.
But then, maybe that’s what Davis residents want, and, maybe even one of the reasons why Davis homes are priced higher than ones in Sacramento. As Hollywood has long known, nostalgia definitely sells.
–Richard Estes
Richard,
This is what was become known as The Davis Grey Hole amongst my circle of friends.
Richard,
This is what was become known as The Davis Grey Hole amongst my circle of friends.
Richard,
This is what was become known as The Davis Grey Hole amongst my circle of friends.
Richard,
This is what was become known as The Davis Grey Hole amongst my circle of friends.
Um, there IS no new Covell Master Plan for Don Saylor to look at.
I know. There’s not even a planning firm involved.
You guys are seriously ridiculous in the lengths you will go to secure political advantage.
DPD says he knows people who have seen it?
It doesn’t exist.
He is thus a liar (or the people he knows, or all of them). But we all knew that, right?
Um, there IS no new Covell Master Plan for Don Saylor to look at.
I know. There’s not even a planning firm involved.
You guys are seriously ridiculous in the lengths you will go to secure political advantage.
DPD says he knows people who have seen it?
It doesn’t exist.
He is thus a liar (or the people he knows, or all of them). But we all knew that, right?
Um, there IS no new Covell Master Plan for Don Saylor to look at.
I know. There’s not even a planning firm involved.
You guys are seriously ridiculous in the lengths you will go to secure political advantage.
DPD says he knows people who have seen it?
It doesn’t exist.
He is thus a liar (or the people he knows, or all of them). But we all knew that, right?
Um, there IS no new Covell Master Plan for Don Saylor to look at.
I know. There’s not even a planning firm involved.
You guys are seriously ridiculous in the lengths you will go to secure political advantage.
DPD says he knows people who have seen it?
It doesn’t exist.
He is thus a liar (or the people he knows, or all of them). But we all knew that, right?
I don’t believe I ever mentioned anything about a master plan. There is a plan for Covell. I saw it presented at the HESC last year. A number of community members were invited by Lydia Dellis-Schlosser to see a presentation on the new proposal. That is what I referred to. If you want to call me a liar that’s fine, but don’t hide behind an anonymous label. And get your facts straight please.
I don’t believe I ever mentioned anything about a master plan. There is a plan for Covell. I saw it presented at the HESC last year. A number of community members were invited by Lydia Dellis-Schlosser to see a presentation on the new proposal. That is what I referred to. If you want to call me a liar that’s fine, but don’t hide behind an anonymous label. And get your facts straight please.
I don’t believe I ever mentioned anything about a master plan. There is a plan for Covell. I saw it presented at the HESC last year. A number of community members were invited by Lydia Dellis-Schlosser to see a presentation on the new proposal. That is what I referred to. If you want to call me a liar that’s fine, but don’t hide behind an anonymous label. And get your facts straight please.
I don’t believe I ever mentioned anything about a master plan. There is a plan for Covell. I saw it presented at the HESC last year. A number of community members were invited by Lydia Dellis-Schlosser to see a presentation on the new proposal. That is what I referred to. If you want to call me a liar that’s fine, but don’t hide behind an anonymous label. And get your facts straight please.
‘Now, if the lots at CV had been large (such as the lots at North Davis Farms, for example), you might have rightly been correct to assume mansions…”
AGAIN…SO tiresome to rehash these same FACTS that brought down the CV proposal.. Yes, the lots were smaller but the Saylor, Souza, Asmundson, Puntillo development agreement allowed the MINIMUM possible setbacks and largest home possible on the lots. Catherine Hess, in public testimony, suggested that there was no reason NOT to assume that the largest possible, most profitable homes would be built…and Mike Corbett’s design DID NOT control the size(or design) of the houses to be built other than on the lots that were to be his payment for being the “front_man” for the Yes on Measure X campaign.
‘Now, if the lots at CV had been large (such as the lots at North Davis Farms, for example), you might have rightly been correct to assume mansions…”
AGAIN…SO tiresome to rehash these same FACTS that brought down the CV proposal.. Yes, the lots were smaller but the Saylor, Souza, Asmundson, Puntillo development agreement allowed the MINIMUM possible setbacks and largest home possible on the lots. Catherine Hess, in public testimony, suggested that there was no reason NOT to assume that the largest possible, most profitable homes would be built…and Mike Corbett’s design DID NOT control the size(or design) of the houses to be built other than on the lots that were to be his payment for being the “front_man” for the Yes on Measure X campaign.
‘Now, if the lots at CV had been large (such as the lots at North Davis Farms, for example), you might have rightly been correct to assume mansions…”
AGAIN…SO tiresome to rehash these same FACTS that brought down the CV proposal.. Yes, the lots were smaller but the Saylor, Souza, Asmundson, Puntillo development agreement allowed the MINIMUM possible setbacks and largest home possible on the lots. Catherine Hess, in public testimony, suggested that there was no reason NOT to assume that the largest possible, most profitable homes would be built…and Mike Corbett’s design DID NOT control the size(or design) of the houses to be built other than on the lots that were to be his payment for being the “front_man” for the Yes on Measure X campaign.
‘Now, if the lots at CV had been large (such as the lots at North Davis Farms, for example), you might have rightly been correct to assume mansions…”
AGAIN…SO tiresome to rehash these same FACTS that brought down the CV proposal.. Yes, the lots were smaller but the Saylor, Souza, Asmundson, Puntillo development agreement allowed the MINIMUM possible setbacks and largest home possible on the lots. Catherine Hess, in public testimony, suggested that there was no reason NOT to assume that the largest possible, most profitable homes would be built…and Mike Corbett’s design DID NOT control the size(or design) of the houses to be built other than on the lots that were to be his payment for being the “front_man” for the Yes on Measure X campaign.