How is Davis going to grow, where, and how fast? To answer that let us look at the key questions from this council and before the next council.
Measure J Renewal and Measure X
The first answer toward that is the question of Measure J’s renewal.
Two former Mayors and a Former Davis Councilmember, Ken Wagstaff, Julie Partansky, and Stan Forbes, each who sat on the council that would put Measure J on the ballot weighed in on that yesterday in the Davis Enterprise.
They write:
“No on X proved we need to keep Measure J: The obvious demonstration of Measure J’s merits was the Covell Village/Measure X election in 2005. Having approved a subdivision of more than 1,800 homes, the council was required by the Measure J law to have the project ratified by the voters.
Most of the homes to be sold by the project would have been unaffordable to the average Davis worker. Traffic on Covell Boulevard would have been ‘intolerable,’ according to the environmental impact report. Despite the developer outspending the citizen opposition by more than 10 to 1, the voters rejected the project by a 60 percent no vote.
Had there been no Measure J, a massive project the public did not want would have gone forward. The only way the community could have stopped it would have been to create an organization to gather thousands of signatures and force a referendum vote.
Some say the public should not have the right to vote on growth issues. We disagree. Growth fundamentally affects our quality of life. It affects the taxes we pay. It is vital that citizens have the insurance that Measure J provides.
Moreover, it is evident that City Councils do not always act consistent with the public will. Even after their approval of Covell Village was soundly rejected by the voters, at least two members of the council, one of whom is seeking re-election, tried to justify what they did by saying the public just didn’t understand the project. After countless public hearings, and after the Covell Village developers spent more than $500,000 trying to ‘educate’ the public about their plans, this attitude is condescending and insulting to the voters.
The next council will determine whether Measure J is left intact or gutted. We believe the reasons Measure J was necessary when enacted remain unchanged. Indeed, given the experience of Covell Village/Measure X, the necessity of Measure J is even more manifest.”
The differences on Measure X/ Covell Village among these candidates is clear. Sue Greenwald, Rob Roy, and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald opposed Measure X in 2005 and will oppose a new iteration of it if it comes forward. Don Saylor and Stephen Souza led the charge for Measure X and would likely support a new version of it. Sydney Vergis claims she also supported Measure X and would support a new version of it.
1% Growth Guideline
There are really two issues here–one is how fast we grow and one is where we grow.
The council recently renewed the 1% growth guideline. During the Measure X debate, we were told repeatedly that if we did not meet the mandated growth demands, Steve Gidaro would come in and impose growth on us whether we liked it or not.
Now the message coming from Souza and Saylor is that the 1% is a cap and a target, not a mandate. They cite our relatively growth rate the last four years. Sydney Vergis has been advocating a broad range of new housing to meet our housing needs including development on the Nishi property.
Sue Greenwald, Rob Roy, and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald have suggested that 1% is too fast to grow. We should look to approve housing based on the projects not based on some artificial growth cap. Moreover, the RHNA mandate is for considerably lower than 1% to meet our internal housing needs.
What is clear is based on Housing Element Steering Committee’s report, most of the growth in the next decade or more can be met with infill development. Both sides somewhat agree on that while disagreeing on what infill is. Both Wildhorse Ranch and Nishi would require Measure J votes, but some have suggested given their locations that they are really infill. Then again, they have called Covell infill as well. None of them meet the true definition of infill.
There are basically two key components of infill. First, it must take place within existing communities or established areas of the city. It could be a vacant lot or a piece of land with dilapidated buildings. Second, they must have existing city services and infrastructure. Neither Nishi, Covell, nor the Horse Ranch fit those definitions. They all currently have agricultural uses, none of them are within the city, and none of them have existing city services already within them.
Regardless, of the definition of infill, we have heard constant rhetoric about as Saylor puts it, “canaries in the coal mine,” the danger signs of lack of growth. Souza laments the number of students who have to commute into Davis. Sydney Vergis talks about the need for a range of housing so that generations can live together in Davis.
All of them suggest that while they do not support sprawl (Covell is not sprawl to them apparently), they are concerned that people who live and work at UC Davis have to commute to Davis.
Frankly I think everyone is concerned about this issue, there are a range of solution to it being offered.
However, when they start talking about only 44 new housing permits, it begins me wondering about something. There is an argument that the cost of housing in Davis is so high because of our slow growth policies. They are argue that these policies are making Davis an elitist exclusive town. And that the answer to affordability is of course to build more houses.
A few weeks ago, we showed a data analysis that suggested that there no relationship between the number of residential permits and the cost of housing. The cost of housing in Davis trended almost exactly with the cost of housing in Sacramento.
One of the reasons Measure J passed is that in 1998 there 1013 new housing permits followed by 954 in 1999. That’s roughly a 3% growth rate based on current figures.
What Souza and Saylor do not tell you is that they have overseen a period with among the slowest growth in Davis for the past several decades. In 2002, we had 307 new housing permits followed by 277 in 2003. In 2004, the year they took office we had 135, then 250 in 2005, 104 in 2006, and just 44 last year.
What happened? Some will say this is a manifestation of our slow growth policies. But what really happened is that they pushed for Measure X/ Covell Village in 2005. When that was rejected by the voters, they had no back up plan. They put all of their eggs in the Measure X basket.
When Souza and Saylor complain about the lack of growth in Davis, they are as much to blame as anyone. They backed a Measure J project that was too large and the public did not buy and then had nothing else to offer for two years. So despite a 4-1 pro-growth majority from 2004-2006 and a 3-2 pro-growth majority (which is really all you need to pass things in Davis anyway) from 2006-2008, the Souza-Saylor led council has resided over one of the slowest growth periods in Davis history.
It is therefore somewhat ironic when you hear people like Sue Greenwald or others pushing some of the infill development plans and people are skeptical that they will ever get built.
The best opportunities for growth that actually meets our internal needs rather than feeding more commuters as Covell Village would have, rest in projects around the core of Davis and also with the university. The university houses among the fewest students on campus of any university. They have the most available land to expand student housing and that would alleviate the 1% apartment vacancy rate in the city of Davis.
I have heard Souza and Saylor complain about that rate at almost every council campaign forum, yet no one ever asked them what they have done during their four years on the council to address that. Covell Village certainly was not going to address that.
My own preference for growth would be to look toward some of the infill sites and put in smaller units–duplexes, condos, and town houses. Put them near the core of town so that people do not have to drive to downtown. Work with the university to help provide housing for students and new faculty members. If you are concerned about families with children moving into Davis, the best thing we can do is provide housing for young university employees who are most likely to have families. I do not see a need to build outside the current boundaries of Davis for at least the next general plan period. Smaller, more affordable units, can accomodate much of our so-called internal housing demand and if we do it right, we can meet those needs within the current boundaries of our town.
Getting Back To Measure J
The three strongest candidates on preserving and maintaining Measure J are Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Rob Roy. Both Don Saylor and Sydney Vergis have suggested looking at possible changes to Measure J. Ms. Vergis in particular has suggested it is long, cumbersome, and complicated and wishes to make non-substantive changes to streamline it.
The problem with that approach, as we showed a few weeks back is that Measure J is long but it is very straight forward in terms of its language.
The framer’s of Measure J were very thorough in their work to insure that there were no loopholes to the ordinance. However, the language itself is simple, direct, and to the point. Any attempt to streamline the ordinance would actually weaken it greatly.
For that reason, for those who view Measure J and a key component of our land use policy and a key feature of the democratic nature of this city, ought to support those candidates who would continue the measure in its current form and seek to make it permanent.
Preserving the Character of Davis
Everyone talks about the character of Davis. For me it is about the charm and atmosphere of this city. You walk through the core of town and there is a unique feel. Of all the things that have happened under the current city council, one of the moves that I disliked the most was the B-Street Visioning Project.
That old neighborhood directly east of campus between A Street and Russell is one of my favorite places in all of Davis. As you walk down third, you really feel that you are in a college town. You have the shops, the students, the old cottages, and you just have a feel for it. It is the part of town when I first visited in 1993 prior to becoming a graduate student, that I fell in love with and one of the reasons I applied to come to school here and eventually made it my home.
I understand the need for more density if we are not going to grow beyond our current borders. But you also have to do it while maintaining the character of Davis. At times in this city, we have done a great job with the concept of adaptive re-use. Taking an existing structure and adapting it to a new use. I have been less of fan when we tear down an old structure and build a new one. There are a lot of ways we could have revamped B-Street while maintaining the character of that neighborhood. This was not one of them.
Some have questioned the feasibility of the PG&E site. But there is so much that it has to offer while maintaining the rest of downtown as the walkable, bikeable, small town feel.
Regardless of what happens tomorrow, there are many issues with which this city has to wrestle with and the Vanguard will continue to be on the front lines of those issues.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I think the whole discussion about growth rates is really pointless without factoring-in the profound growth going on across Russell Blvd. The University has added thousands of units during this “slow growth” period in the city of Davis. The University’s West Village project will have an enormous impact on the city and it will be many years until that expansion is absorbed and its impacts measured.
Arguing about growth while ignoring the University is like a bunch of fleas arguing which direction they think the dog should go.
Once that growth is factored in, we really don’t need the city council to even talk about growth again for many years. Measure J needs to remain in its current form to protect us from candidates who ignore this fact.
I think the whole discussion about growth rates is really pointless without factoring-in the profound growth going on across Russell Blvd. The University has added thousands of units during this “slow growth” period in the city of Davis. The University’s West Village project will have an enormous impact on the city and it will be many years until that expansion is absorbed and its impacts measured.
Arguing about growth while ignoring the University is like a bunch of fleas arguing which direction they think the dog should go.
Once that growth is factored in, we really don’t need the city council to even talk about growth again for many years. Measure J needs to remain in its current form to protect us from candidates who ignore this fact.
I think the whole discussion about growth rates is really pointless without factoring-in the profound growth going on across Russell Blvd. The University has added thousands of units during this “slow growth” period in the city of Davis. The University’s West Village project will have an enormous impact on the city and it will be many years until that expansion is absorbed and its impacts measured.
Arguing about growth while ignoring the University is like a bunch of fleas arguing which direction they think the dog should go.
Once that growth is factored in, we really don’t need the city council to even talk about growth again for many years. Measure J needs to remain in its current form to protect us from candidates who ignore this fact.
I think the whole discussion about growth rates is really pointless without factoring-in the profound growth going on across Russell Blvd. The University has added thousands of units during this “slow growth” period in the city of Davis. The University’s West Village project will have an enormous impact on the city and it will be many years until that expansion is absorbed and its impacts measured.
Arguing about growth while ignoring the University is like a bunch of fleas arguing which direction they think the dog should go.
Once that growth is factored in, we really don’t need the city council to even talk about growth again for many years. Measure J needs to remain in its current form to protect us from candidates who ignore this fact.
I am voting for Rob, Cecilia and Sue based on their support for slow growth.
Souza, Saylor and Syd would have Davis looking like Elk Grove. I don’t want that kind of sprawl in our city.
I am voting for Rob, Cecilia and Sue based on their support for slow growth.
Souza, Saylor and Syd would have Davis looking like Elk Grove. I don’t want that kind of sprawl in our city.
I am voting for Rob, Cecilia and Sue based on their support for slow growth.
Souza, Saylor and Syd would have Davis looking like Elk Grove. I don’t want that kind of sprawl in our city.
I am voting for Rob, Cecilia and Sue based on their support for slow growth.
Souza, Saylor and Syd would have Davis looking like Elk Grove. I don’t want that kind of sprawl in our city.
One of the main reasons why Saylor and Souza have not pushed for alternative growth to Covell Village is that their PATRON is John Whitcombe’s Tandem Partners. John Whitcombe lost millions when his Covell Village project was rejected. This is the FIRST TIME(because of our MEASURE J!) that Davis developer John Whitcombe’s will has been challenged and rejected by the Davis voters. Such heretical behavior must be neutralized and cannot be sidetracked by alternative growth plans.
One of the main reasons why Saylor and Souza have not pushed for alternative growth to Covell Village is that their PATRON is John Whitcombe’s Tandem Partners. John Whitcombe lost millions when his Covell Village project was rejected. This is the FIRST TIME(because of our MEASURE J!) that Davis developer John Whitcombe’s will has been challenged and rejected by the Davis voters. Such heretical behavior must be neutralized and cannot be sidetracked by alternative growth plans.
One of the main reasons why Saylor and Souza have not pushed for alternative growth to Covell Village is that their PATRON is John Whitcombe’s Tandem Partners. John Whitcombe lost millions when his Covell Village project was rejected. This is the FIRST TIME(because of our MEASURE J!) that Davis developer John Whitcombe’s will has been challenged and rejected by the Davis voters. Such heretical behavior must be neutralized and cannot be sidetracked by alternative growth plans.
One of the main reasons why Saylor and Souza have not pushed for alternative growth to Covell Village is that their PATRON is John Whitcombe’s Tandem Partners. John Whitcombe lost millions when his Covell Village project was rejected. This is the FIRST TIME(because of our MEASURE J!) that Davis developer John Whitcombe’s will has been challenged and rejected by the Davis voters. Such heretical behavior must be neutralized and cannot be sidetracked by alternative growth plans.
PROTECT OUR ORIGINAL MEASURE J!!!!
Go to the polls tomorrow and vote!
Email your Davis email list today about the threat to Measure J by Saylor, Vergis and Souza(I don’t trust that his current Measure J postion will not “evolve”. He also has not rejected an alternative version to measure J in addition to the original on the 2010 ballot).
This looks like it will be a low-turn out election and EVERY VOTE will count!!
PROTECT OUR ORIGINAL MEASURE J!!!!
Go to the polls tomorrow and vote!
Email your Davis email list today about the threat to Measure J by Saylor, Vergis and Souza(I don’t trust that his current Measure J postion will not “evolve”. He also has not rejected an alternative version to measure J in addition to the original on the 2010 ballot).
This looks like it will be a low-turn out election and EVERY VOTE will count!!
PROTECT OUR ORIGINAL MEASURE J!!!!
Go to the polls tomorrow and vote!
Email your Davis email list today about the threat to Measure J by Saylor, Vergis and Souza(I don’t trust that his current Measure J postion will not “evolve”. He also has not rejected an alternative version to measure J in addition to the original on the 2010 ballot).
This looks like it will be a low-turn out election and EVERY VOTE will count!!
PROTECT OUR ORIGINAL MEASURE J!!!!
Go to the polls tomorrow and vote!
Email your Davis email list today about the threat to Measure J by Saylor, Vergis and Souza(I don’t trust that his current Measure J postion will not “evolve”. He also has not rejected an alternative version to measure J in addition to the original on the 2010 ballot).
This looks like it will be a low-turn out election and EVERY VOTE will count!!
There is a reason why the totally unknown candidate Vergis is “rolling” in campaign money as we are bombarded with her expensive cable TV ads. Developer interests understand that this next council majority will determine the fate of our Measure J and their future profits.
There is a reason why the totally unknown candidate Vergis is “rolling” in campaign money as we are bombarded with her expensive cable TV ads. Developer interests understand that this next council majority will determine the fate of our Measure J and their future profits.
There is a reason why the totally unknown candidate Vergis is “rolling” in campaign money as we are bombarded with her expensive cable TV ads. Developer interests understand that this next council majority will determine the fate of our Measure J and their future profits.
There is a reason why the totally unknown candidate Vergis is “rolling” in campaign money as we are bombarded with her expensive cable TV ads. Developer interests understand that this next council majority will determine the fate of our Measure J and their future profits.
Once again, Davis wants UCD employees as consumers, but not as residents.
The analysis you posted showed nothing DPD, althought you may continue with your wishful thinking.
Honestly, UCD employees locked out of local housing should boycott all Davis businesses. That’s what I’m doing.
Once again, Davis wants UCD employees as consumers, but not as residents.
The analysis you posted showed nothing DPD, althought you may continue with your wishful thinking.
Honestly, UCD employees locked out of local housing should boycott all Davis businesses. That’s what I’m doing.
Once again, Davis wants UCD employees as consumers, but not as residents.
The analysis you posted showed nothing DPD, althought you may continue with your wishful thinking.
Honestly, UCD employees locked out of local housing should boycott all Davis businesses. That’s what I’m doing.
Once again, Davis wants UCD employees as consumers, but not as residents.
The analysis you posted showed nothing DPD, althought you may continue with your wishful thinking.
Honestly, UCD employees locked out of local housing should boycott all Davis businesses. That’s what I’m doing.
Dear anonymous 9:01- your sad lack of financial planning should not compel the city to grow beyond its wishes. We are all saddened that you will not be buying your pop-tarts and ammo at Davis stores, but I think we will manage without you.
Dear anonymous 9:01- your sad lack of financial planning should not compel the city to grow beyond its wishes. We are all saddened that you will not be buying your pop-tarts and ammo at Davis stores, but I think we will manage without you.
Dear anonymous 9:01- your sad lack of financial planning should not compel the city to grow beyond its wishes. We are all saddened that you will not be buying your pop-tarts and ammo at Davis stores, but I think we will manage without you.
Dear anonymous 9:01- your sad lack of financial planning should not compel the city to grow beyond its wishes. We are all saddened that you will not be buying your pop-tarts and ammo at Davis stores, but I think we will manage without you.
Look at her contributers in the paper. The latest filings are nearly all from developers.
At a forum I attended Vergis advocated for Nishi.
Need we say more?
Look at her contributers in the paper. The latest filings are nearly all from developers.
At a forum I attended Vergis advocated for Nishi.
Need we say more?
Look at her contributers in the paper. The latest filings are nearly all from developers.
At a forum I attended Vergis advocated for Nishi.
Need we say more?
Look at her contributers in the paper. The latest filings are nearly all from developers.
At a forum I attended Vergis advocated for Nishi.
Need we say more?
9:06 AM,
You make assumptions of our wage, class, and education that are unfounded but they certainly illustrate how Davis has earned it’s reputation. And to think the people of Davis wonder why non-residents view them the way they do.
9:06 AM,
You make assumptions of our wage, class, and education that are unfounded but they certainly illustrate how Davis has earned it’s reputation. And to think the people of Davis wonder why non-residents view them the way they do.
9:06 AM,
You make assumptions of our wage, class, and education that are unfounded but they certainly illustrate how Davis has earned it’s reputation. And to think the people of Davis wonder why non-residents view them the way they do.
9:06 AM,
You make assumptions of our wage, class, and education that are unfounded but they certainly illustrate how Davis has earned it’s reputation. And to think the people of Davis wonder why non-residents view them the way they do.
“That old neighborhood directly east of campus between A Street and Russell (I think you mean between A and B) is one of my favorite places in all of Davis. As you walk down Third, you really feel that you are in a college town. You have the shops, the students, the old cottages, and you just have a feel for it.”
In case anyone is interested, the first two redevelopment projects following the passage of the Third & B Visioning Process come before the Historical Resources Mgt. Commission tonight (meeting starts at 7 pm at the Hattie Webber Museum, 5th & C). The first is the Aiken project at 311-315 B Street. The second is the Ogrydziak project at 233 B Street.
Both projects will remove small, low density homes (and large, old trees) and replace them with high density, multi-story condominiums.
One sticking point is that 311 B is a merit resource-eligible property. The Aikens and the HRMC have tried for some time to find a new location for that house in a traditional neighborhood. That effort will be part of the discussion, tonight.
“That old neighborhood directly east of campus between A Street and Russell (I think you mean between A and B) is one of my favorite places in all of Davis. As you walk down Third, you really feel that you are in a college town. You have the shops, the students, the old cottages, and you just have a feel for it.”
In case anyone is interested, the first two redevelopment projects following the passage of the Third & B Visioning Process come before the Historical Resources Mgt. Commission tonight (meeting starts at 7 pm at the Hattie Webber Museum, 5th & C). The first is the Aiken project at 311-315 B Street. The second is the Ogrydziak project at 233 B Street.
Both projects will remove small, low density homes (and large, old trees) and replace them with high density, multi-story condominiums.
One sticking point is that 311 B is a merit resource-eligible property. The Aikens and the HRMC have tried for some time to find a new location for that house in a traditional neighborhood. That effort will be part of the discussion, tonight.
“That old neighborhood directly east of campus between A Street and Russell (I think you mean between A and B) is one of my favorite places in all of Davis. As you walk down Third, you really feel that you are in a college town. You have the shops, the students, the old cottages, and you just have a feel for it.”
In case anyone is interested, the first two redevelopment projects following the passage of the Third & B Visioning Process come before the Historical Resources Mgt. Commission tonight (meeting starts at 7 pm at the Hattie Webber Museum, 5th & C). The first is the Aiken project at 311-315 B Street. The second is the Ogrydziak project at 233 B Street.
Both projects will remove small, low density homes (and large, old trees) and replace them with high density, multi-story condominiums.
One sticking point is that 311 B is a merit resource-eligible property. The Aikens and the HRMC have tried for some time to find a new location for that house in a traditional neighborhood. That effort will be part of the discussion, tonight.
“That old neighborhood directly east of campus between A Street and Russell (I think you mean between A and B) is one of my favorite places in all of Davis. As you walk down Third, you really feel that you are in a college town. You have the shops, the students, the old cottages, and you just have a feel for it.”
In case anyone is interested, the first two redevelopment projects following the passage of the Third & B Visioning Process come before the Historical Resources Mgt. Commission tonight (meeting starts at 7 pm at the Hattie Webber Museum, 5th & C). The first is the Aiken project at 311-315 B Street. The second is the Ogrydziak project at 233 B Street.
Both projects will remove small, low density homes (and large, old trees) and replace them with high density, multi-story condominiums.
One sticking point is that 311 B is a merit resource-eligible property. The Aikens and the HRMC have tried for some time to find a new location for that house in a traditional neighborhood. That effort will be part of the discussion, tonight.
“Arguing about growth while ignoring the University is like a bunch of fleas arguing which direction they think the dog should go.”
I love this analogy! It is spot on! Once West Village is built, there is no question it will have a tremendous impact on the city which will have to be dealt with. One of its major problems is that it does not allow for the building of equity for homeowners, which is troublesome. It is not clear whether this will cause a high vacancy rate among the homes to be built in West Village or not. However, it should help Davis with student rental requirements.
“Once again, Davis wants UCD employees as consumers, but not as residents. The analysis you posted showed nothing DPD, althought you may continue with your wishful thinking. Honestly, UCD employees locked out of local housing should boycott all Davis businesses. That’s what I’m doing.”
How do you figure this, with West Village coming in? It should provide affordable housing options for UCD employees. The only problem I see is the prohibition against building and keeping equity. Am I missing something here?
“Arguing about growth while ignoring the University is like a bunch of fleas arguing which direction they think the dog should go.”
I love this analogy! It is spot on! Once West Village is built, there is no question it will have a tremendous impact on the city which will have to be dealt with. One of its major problems is that it does not allow for the building of equity for homeowners, which is troublesome. It is not clear whether this will cause a high vacancy rate among the homes to be built in West Village or not. However, it should help Davis with student rental requirements.
“Once again, Davis wants UCD employees as consumers, but not as residents. The analysis you posted showed nothing DPD, althought you may continue with your wishful thinking. Honestly, UCD employees locked out of local housing should boycott all Davis businesses. That’s what I’m doing.”
How do you figure this, with West Village coming in? It should provide affordable housing options for UCD employees. The only problem I see is the prohibition against building and keeping equity. Am I missing something here?
“Arguing about growth while ignoring the University is like a bunch of fleas arguing which direction they think the dog should go.”
I love this analogy! It is spot on! Once West Village is built, there is no question it will have a tremendous impact on the city which will have to be dealt with. One of its major problems is that it does not allow for the building of equity for homeowners, which is troublesome. It is not clear whether this will cause a high vacancy rate among the homes to be built in West Village or not. However, it should help Davis with student rental requirements.
“Once again, Davis wants UCD employees as consumers, but not as residents. The analysis you posted showed nothing DPD, althought you may continue with your wishful thinking. Honestly, UCD employees locked out of local housing should boycott all Davis businesses. That’s what I’m doing.”
How do you figure this, with West Village coming in? It should provide affordable housing options for UCD employees. The only problem I see is the prohibition against building and keeping equity. Am I missing something here?
“Arguing about growth while ignoring the University is like a bunch of fleas arguing which direction they think the dog should go.”
I love this analogy! It is spot on! Once West Village is built, there is no question it will have a tremendous impact on the city which will have to be dealt with. One of its major problems is that it does not allow for the building of equity for homeowners, which is troublesome. It is not clear whether this will cause a high vacancy rate among the homes to be built in West Village or not. However, it should help Davis with student rental requirements.
“Once again, Davis wants UCD employees as consumers, but not as residents. The analysis you posted showed nothing DPD, althought you may continue with your wishful thinking. Honestly, UCD employees locked out of local housing should boycott all Davis businesses. That’s what I’m doing.”
How do you figure this, with West Village coming in? It should provide affordable housing options for UCD employees. The only problem I see is the prohibition against building and keeping equity. Am I missing something here?
“In case anyone is interested, the first two redevelopment projects following the passage of the Third & B Visioning Process come before the Historical Resources Mgt. Commission tonight (meeting starts at 7 pm at the Hattie Webber Museum, 5th & C). The first is the Aiken project at 311-315 B Street. The second is the Ogrydziak project at 233 B Street.”
Rich, is there any way that the city can make sure that landlords do not allow their places to become run down, as they did with the student bungalows on B Street? It is what led, IMHO, to the destruction of the existing homes. Personally I don’t mind putting up new structures, if they are architecturally compatable – but the new orange and gray building on Russell is a monstrosity that looks out of place. (It is art deco style mixed in with blue beach shack next door, and Spanish modern across the street.) The high rise across the street that is beige with a green roof and landscaping setbacks is beautiful.
What I have noticed is that Woodland has done a much better job keeping the architecture more cohesive and consistent. Most shopping centers are even kept within certain architectural bounds, which is making the entire city of Woodland look really spiffy.
Whereas Davis paints buildings odd colors, mixes architectural styles with utter abandon, so that now we have a mish-mash of ugly buildings that are of all colors and no character. I just laugh when people talk about the “character” of this town.
Good grief, we have a shopping mall painted fluorescent green, purple and orange for gosh sakes. We have an elementary school that is purple, orange and aqua. The Art Center is purple and maroon. These sorts of clashing color schemes are ghastly. Mixing Spanish, modern, beach shack, art deco is just awful. Perhaps my problem is I am a transplanted Northeasterner, who is used to Early American or Williamsburg style. I love the Spanish architecture here, but some of the buildgings, including those on the UCD campus are horrendous. The students even call one of the buildings “The Pennitentiary”.
“In case anyone is interested, the first two redevelopment projects following the passage of the Third & B Visioning Process come before the Historical Resources Mgt. Commission tonight (meeting starts at 7 pm at the Hattie Webber Museum, 5th & C). The first is the Aiken project at 311-315 B Street. The second is the Ogrydziak project at 233 B Street.”
Rich, is there any way that the city can make sure that landlords do not allow their places to become run down, as they did with the student bungalows on B Street? It is what led, IMHO, to the destruction of the existing homes. Personally I don’t mind putting up new structures, if they are architecturally compatable – but the new orange and gray building on Russell is a monstrosity that looks out of place. (It is art deco style mixed in with blue beach shack next door, and Spanish modern across the street.) The high rise across the street that is beige with a green roof and landscaping setbacks is beautiful.
What I have noticed is that Woodland has done a much better job keeping the architecture more cohesive and consistent. Most shopping centers are even kept within certain architectural bounds, which is making the entire city of Woodland look really spiffy.
Whereas Davis paints buildings odd colors, mixes architectural styles with utter abandon, so that now we have a mish-mash of ugly buildings that are of all colors and no character. I just laugh when people talk about the “character” of this town.
Good grief, we have a shopping mall painted fluorescent green, purple and orange for gosh sakes. We have an elementary school that is purple, orange and aqua. The Art Center is purple and maroon. These sorts of clashing color schemes are ghastly. Mixing Spanish, modern, beach shack, art deco is just awful. Perhaps my problem is I am a transplanted Northeasterner, who is used to Early American or Williamsburg style. I love the Spanish architecture here, but some of the buildgings, including those on the UCD campus are horrendous. The students even call one of the buildings “The Pennitentiary”.
“In case anyone is interested, the first two redevelopment projects following the passage of the Third & B Visioning Process come before the Historical Resources Mgt. Commission tonight (meeting starts at 7 pm at the Hattie Webber Museum, 5th & C). The first is the Aiken project at 311-315 B Street. The second is the Ogrydziak project at 233 B Street.”
Rich, is there any way that the city can make sure that landlords do not allow their places to become run down, as they did with the student bungalows on B Street? It is what led, IMHO, to the destruction of the existing homes. Personally I don’t mind putting up new structures, if they are architecturally compatable – but the new orange and gray building on Russell is a monstrosity that looks out of place. (It is art deco style mixed in with blue beach shack next door, and Spanish modern across the street.) The high rise across the street that is beige with a green roof and landscaping setbacks is beautiful.
What I have noticed is that Woodland has done a much better job keeping the architecture more cohesive and consistent. Most shopping centers are even kept within certain architectural bounds, which is making the entire city of Woodland look really spiffy.
Whereas Davis paints buildings odd colors, mixes architectural styles with utter abandon, so that now we have a mish-mash of ugly buildings that are of all colors and no character. I just laugh when people talk about the “character” of this town.
Good grief, we have a shopping mall painted fluorescent green, purple and orange for gosh sakes. We have an elementary school that is purple, orange and aqua. The Art Center is purple and maroon. These sorts of clashing color schemes are ghastly. Mixing Spanish, modern, beach shack, art deco is just awful. Perhaps my problem is I am a transplanted Northeasterner, who is used to Early American or Williamsburg style. I love the Spanish architecture here, but some of the buildgings, including those on the UCD campus are horrendous. The students even call one of the buildings “The Pennitentiary”.
“In case anyone is interested, the first two redevelopment projects following the passage of the Third & B Visioning Process come before the Historical Resources Mgt. Commission tonight (meeting starts at 7 pm at the Hattie Webber Museum, 5th & C). The first is the Aiken project at 311-315 B Street. The second is the Ogrydziak project at 233 B Street.”
Rich, is there any way that the city can make sure that landlords do not allow their places to become run down, as they did with the student bungalows on B Street? It is what led, IMHO, to the destruction of the existing homes. Personally I don’t mind putting up new structures, if they are architecturally compatable – but the new orange and gray building on Russell is a monstrosity that looks out of place. (It is art deco style mixed in with blue beach shack next door, and Spanish modern across the street.) The high rise across the street that is beige with a green roof and landscaping setbacks is beautiful.
What I have noticed is that Woodland has done a much better job keeping the architecture more cohesive and consistent. Most shopping centers are even kept within certain architectural bounds, which is making the entire city of Woodland look really spiffy.
Whereas Davis paints buildings odd colors, mixes architectural styles with utter abandon, so that now we have a mish-mash of ugly buildings that are of all colors and no character. I just laugh when people talk about the “character” of this town.
Good grief, we have a shopping mall painted fluorescent green, purple and orange for gosh sakes. We have an elementary school that is purple, orange and aqua. The Art Center is purple and maroon. These sorts of clashing color schemes are ghastly. Mixing Spanish, modern, beach shack, art deco is just awful. Perhaps my problem is I am a transplanted Northeasterner, who is used to Early American or Williamsburg style. I love the Spanish architecture here, but some of the buildgings, including those on the UCD campus are horrendous. The students even call one of the buildings “The Pennitentiary”.
Missing Something? said…
“Once West Village is built, there is no question it will have a tremendous impact on the city which will have to be dealt with. One of its major problems is that it does not allow for the building of equity for homeowners, which is troublesome.”
Not allowing the building of equity for homeowners is the only way to maintain a stock of affordable housing for homeowners in Davis. I was on the Affordable Housing Task Force and as I have said before there was no legal way to bar such homeowners from selling out to investors who hold them as rentals, in fact we could not force first time owners to live there or bar them from renting them out. These were the problems the city had with previous buyers of affordable housing causing such housing to go market rate in one to two years. There were many developers or their reps on the Affordable Housing Task Force and they know this but some keep playing the victim card!
Missing Something? said…
“Once West Village is built, there is no question it will have a tremendous impact on the city which will have to be dealt with. One of its major problems is that it does not allow for the building of equity for homeowners, which is troublesome.”
Not allowing the building of equity for homeowners is the only way to maintain a stock of affordable housing for homeowners in Davis. I was on the Affordable Housing Task Force and as I have said before there was no legal way to bar such homeowners from selling out to investors who hold them as rentals, in fact we could not force first time owners to live there or bar them from renting them out. These were the problems the city had with previous buyers of affordable housing causing such housing to go market rate in one to two years. There were many developers or their reps on the Affordable Housing Task Force and they know this but some keep playing the victim card!
Missing Something? said…
“Once West Village is built, there is no question it will have a tremendous impact on the city which will have to be dealt with. One of its major problems is that it does not allow for the building of equity for homeowners, which is troublesome.”
Not allowing the building of equity for homeowners is the only way to maintain a stock of affordable housing for homeowners in Davis. I was on the Affordable Housing Task Force and as I have said before there was no legal way to bar such homeowners from selling out to investors who hold them as rentals, in fact we could not force first time owners to live there or bar them from renting them out. These were the problems the city had with previous buyers of affordable housing causing such housing to go market rate in one to two years. There were many developers or their reps on the Affordable Housing Task Force and they know this but some keep playing the victim card!
Missing Something? said…
“Once West Village is built, there is no question it will have a tremendous impact on the city which will have to be dealt with. One of its major problems is that it does not allow for the building of equity for homeowners, which is troublesome.”
Not allowing the building of equity for homeowners is the only way to maintain a stock of affordable housing for homeowners in Davis. I was on the Affordable Housing Task Force and as I have said before there was no legal way to bar such homeowners from selling out to investors who hold them as rentals, in fact we could not force first time owners to live there or bar them from renting them out. These were the problems the city had with previous buyers of affordable housing causing such housing to go market rate in one to two years. There were many developers or their reps on the Affordable Housing Task Force and they know this but some keep playing the victim card!
“Not allowing the building of equity for homeowners is the only way to maintain a stock of affordable housing for homeowners in Davis.”
It’s a good point. However, many will opt not to buy into West Village if they feel they cannot build equity. Maybe there is some middle ground, such as allowing for a certain percentage of equity, or some such thing. The reason I posit this issue is because I talked with a UCD professor with young children who was considering buying into West Village when it is built. His hesitation was the inability to build equity. It is a very real drawback. To what extent remains to be seen.
“Not allowing the building of equity for homeowners is the only way to maintain a stock of affordable housing for homeowners in Davis.”
It’s a good point. However, many will opt not to buy into West Village if they feel they cannot build equity. Maybe there is some middle ground, such as allowing for a certain percentage of equity, or some such thing. The reason I posit this issue is because I talked with a UCD professor with young children who was considering buying into West Village when it is built. His hesitation was the inability to build equity. It is a very real drawback. To what extent remains to be seen.
“Not allowing the building of equity for homeowners is the only way to maintain a stock of affordable housing for homeowners in Davis.”
It’s a good point. However, many will opt not to buy into West Village if they feel they cannot build equity. Maybe there is some middle ground, such as allowing for a certain percentage of equity, or some such thing. The reason I posit this issue is because I talked with a UCD professor with young children who was considering buying into West Village when it is built. His hesitation was the inability to build equity. It is a very real drawback. To what extent remains to be seen.
“Not allowing the building of equity for homeowners is the only way to maintain a stock of affordable housing for homeowners in Davis.”
It’s a good point. However, many will opt not to buy into West Village if they feel they cannot build equity. Maybe there is some middle ground, such as allowing for a certain percentage of equity, or some such thing. The reason I posit this issue is because I talked with a UCD professor with young children who was considering buying into West Village when it is built. His hesitation was the inability to build equity. It is a very real drawback. To what extent remains to be seen.
“However, many will opt not to buy into West Village if they feel they cannot build equity.”
The era of Davis housing value growing at a stratospheric pace is OVER. If the initial price is right and monthly mortgage payments are kept down by University policy and financial support, other investment opportunities for these West Village home owners may appoximate growing equity in their homes
as a way of increasing their net worth.
“However, many will opt not to buy into West Village if they feel they cannot build equity.”
The era of Davis housing value growing at a stratospheric pace is OVER. If the initial price is right and monthly mortgage payments are kept down by University policy and financial support, other investment opportunities for these West Village home owners may appoximate growing equity in their homes
as a way of increasing their net worth.
“However, many will opt not to buy into West Village if they feel they cannot build equity.”
The era of Davis housing value growing at a stratospheric pace is OVER. If the initial price is right and monthly mortgage payments are kept down by University policy and financial support, other investment opportunities for these West Village home owners may appoximate growing equity in their homes
as a way of increasing their net worth.
“However, many will opt not to buy into West Village if they feel they cannot build equity.”
The era of Davis housing value growing at a stratospheric pace is OVER. If the initial price is right and monthly mortgage payments are kept down by University policy and financial support, other investment opportunities for these West Village home owners may appoximate growing equity in their homes
as a way of increasing their net worth.
West Village, like Aggie Village, has large restrictions on who is allowed to purchase there. The majority of it is reserved for faculty and senior admin only. Employees below Manager/MSO rank (the staff researcher, analyst, and clerical series) are allowed only a small part of the lottery. So the people who need the help the most are given the least.
I also remember seeing a survey on interest a while back at the entry level homes were priced at 350k and required 40% down. While that may have changed, who has that kind of money if you are living on UCD wages and are renting in this inflated market? Faculty can get seed funds to help but there is zero help for the average UCD employee.
West Village, like Aggie Village, has large restrictions on who is allowed to purchase there. The majority of it is reserved for faculty and senior admin only. Employees below Manager/MSO rank (the staff researcher, analyst, and clerical series) are allowed only a small part of the lottery. So the people who need the help the most are given the least.
I also remember seeing a survey on interest a while back at the entry level homes were priced at 350k and required 40% down. While that may have changed, who has that kind of money if you are living on UCD wages and are renting in this inflated market? Faculty can get seed funds to help but there is zero help for the average UCD employee.
West Village, like Aggie Village, has large restrictions on who is allowed to purchase there. The majority of it is reserved for faculty and senior admin only. Employees below Manager/MSO rank (the staff researcher, analyst, and clerical series) are allowed only a small part of the lottery. So the people who need the help the most are given the least.
I also remember seeing a survey on interest a while back at the entry level homes were priced at 350k and required 40% down. While that may have changed, who has that kind of money if you are living on UCD wages and are renting in this inflated market? Faculty can get seed funds to help but there is zero help for the average UCD employee.
West Village, like Aggie Village, has large restrictions on who is allowed to purchase there. The majority of it is reserved for faculty and senior admin only. Employees below Manager/MSO rank (the staff researcher, analyst, and clerical series) are allowed only a small part of the lottery. So the people who need the help the most are given the least.
I also remember seeing a survey on interest a while back at the entry level homes were priced at 350k and required 40% down. While that may have changed, who has that kind of money if you are living on UCD wages and are renting in this inflated market? Faculty can get seed funds to help but there is zero help for the average UCD employee.
“I also remember seeing a survey on interest a while back at the entry level homes were priced at 350k and required 40% down. While that may have changed, who has that kind of money if you are living on UCD wages and are renting in this inflated market? Faculty can get seed funds to help but there is zero help for the average UCD employee.”
Let’s even assume you had the money to plunk 40% down. If it were me, I would go elsewhere, where I could build equity, rather than tie up all my assets in a house that will not build equity.
“The era of Davis housing value growing at a stratospheric pace is OVER. If the initial price is right and monthly mortgage payments are kept down by University policy and financial support, other investment opportunities for these West Village home owners may appoximate growing equity in their homes
as a way of increasing their net worth.”
What, like the stock market? People have gotten hosed in the stock market. What investments are you referring to, that will give a better rate of return than real estate?
“I also remember seeing a survey on interest a while back at the entry level homes were priced at 350k and required 40% down. While that may have changed, who has that kind of money if you are living on UCD wages and are renting in this inflated market? Faculty can get seed funds to help but there is zero help for the average UCD employee.”
Let’s even assume you had the money to plunk 40% down. If it were me, I would go elsewhere, where I could build equity, rather than tie up all my assets in a house that will not build equity.
“The era of Davis housing value growing at a stratospheric pace is OVER. If the initial price is right and monthly mortgage payments are kept down by University policy and financial support, other investment opportunities for these West Village home owners may appoximate growing equity in their homes
as a way of increasing their net worth.”
What, like the stock market? People have gotten hosed in the stock market. What investments are you referring to, that will give a better rate of return than real estate?
“I also remember seeing a survey on interest a while back at the entry level homes were priced at 350k and required 40% down. While that may have changed, who has that kind of money if you are living on UCD wages and are renting in this inflated market? Faculty can get seed funds to help but there is zero help for the average UCD employee.”
Let’s even assume you had the money to plunk 40% down. If it were me, I would go elsewhere, where I could build equity, rather than tie up all my assets in a house that will not build equity.
“The era of Davis housing value growing at a stratospheric pace is OVER. If the initial price is right and monthly mortgage payments are kept down by University policy and financial support, other investment opportunities for these West Village home owners may appoximate growing equity in their homes
as a way of increasing their net worth.”
What, like the stock market? People have gotten hosed in the stock market. What investments are you referring to, that will give a better rate of return than real estate?
“I also remember seeing a survey on interest a while back at the entry level homes were priced at 350k and required 40% down. While that may have changed, who has that kind of money if you are living on UCD wages and are renting in this inflated market? Faculty can get seed funds to help but there is zero help for the average UCD employee.”
Let’s even assume you had the money to plunk 40% down. If it were me, I would go elsewhere, where I could build equity, rather than tie up all my assets in a house that will not build equity.
“The era of Davis housing value growing at a stratospheric pace is OVER. If the initial price is right and monthly mortgage payments are kept down by University policy and financial support, other investment opportunities for these West Village home owners may appoximate growing equity in their homes
as a way of increasing their net worth.”
What, like the stock market? People have gotten hosed in the stock market. What investments are you referring to, that will give a better rate of return than real estate?
“Rich, is there any way that the city can make sure that landlords do not allow their places to become run down, as they did with the student bungalows on B Street?”
The proposed redevelopment projects will be owner-occupied: townhouses in one case (Ogrydziak); condominiums in the other (Aiken). (Due to the cost of construction and the relatively low rents, I doubt these will be rental units for many years, though that is possible down the road.) They are specifically designed for moderately high-income buyers, not students or frail seniors (though I could see healthy people over 60 living in them). As such, I doubt they will be run down, at least not for a long time.
“It is what led, IMHO, to the destruction of the existing homes.”
I am not sure of the interior condition of any of the homes now there. However, 311 and 315 B Street appear to be in good shape. 233 B Street, less so.
I think the larger reason for their demolition is the desire for money (which I don’t have a problem with): these properties have small, low density houses which cannot attract high rents. But by converting them to high density, 3-story for sale condos or townhouses, the property owners expect to make a good profit on their redevelopment.
“Personally I don’t mind putting up new structures, if they are architecturally compatable – but the new orange and gray building on Russell is a monstrosity that looks out of place.”
There is a big difference in the Aiken and Ogrydziak proposals, in terms of “compatible architecture.” Aiken looks residential (which it is) and rather traditional in form, not unlike the Crepeville Bldg at 3rd & C. Ogrydziak looks like a modern, urban boxy building you might see in an Emeryville loft project. It is not “traditional” in any sense; and will noticeably contrast with most architecture in the Rice Lane/University Ave. neighborhood.
“Rich, is there any way that the city can make sure that landlords do not allow their places to become run down, as they did with the student bungalows on B Street?”
The proposed redevelopment projects will be owner-occupied: townhouses in one case (Ogrydziak); condominiums in the other (Aiken). (Due to the cost of construction and the relatively low rents, I doubt these will be rental units for many years, though that is possible down the road.) They are specifically designed for moderately high-income buyers, not students or frail seniors (though I could see healthy people over 60 living in them). As such, I doubt they will be run down, at least not for a long time.
“It is what led, IMHO, to the destruction of the existing homes.”
I am not sure of the interior condition of any of the homes now there. However, 311 and 315 B Street appear to be in good shape. 233 B Street, less so.
I think the larger reason for their demolition is the desire for money (which I don’t have a problem with): these properties have small, low density houses which cannot attract high rents. But by converting them to high density, 3-story for sale condos or townhouses, the property owners expect to make a good profit on their redevelopment.
“Personally I don’t mind putting up new structures, if they are architecturally compatable – but the new orange and gray building on Russell is a monstrosity that looks out of place.”
There is a big difference in the Aiken and Ogrydziak proposals, in terms of “compatible architecture.” Aiken looks residential (which it is) and rather traditional in form, not unlike the Crepeville Bldg at 3rd & C. Ogrydziak looks like a modern, urban boxy building you might see in an Emeryville loft project. It is not “traditional” in any sense; and will noticeably contrast with most architecture in the Rice Lane/University Ave. neighborhood.
“Rich, is there any way that the city can make sure that landlords do not allow their places to become run down, as they did with the student bungalows on B Street?”
The proposed redevelopment projects will be owner-occupied: townhouses in one case (Ogrydziak); condominiums in the other (Aiken). (Due to the cost of construction and the relatively low rents, I doubt these will be rental units for many years, though that is possible down the road.) They are specifically designed for moderately high-income buyers, not students or frail seniors (though I could see healthy people over 60 living in them). As such, I doubt they will be run down, at least not for a long time.
“It is what led, IMHO, to the destruction of the existing homes.”
I am not sure of the interior condition of any of the homes now there. However, 311 and 315 B Street appear to be in good shape. 233 B Street, less so.
I think the larger reason for their demolition is the desire for money (which I don’t have a problem with): these properties have small, low density houses which cannot attract high rents. But by converting them to high density, 3-story for sale condos or townhouses, the property owners expect to make a good profit on their redevelopment.
“Personally I don’t mind putting up new structures, if they are architecturally compatable – but the new orange and gray building on Russell is a monstrosity that looks out of place.”
There is a big difference in the Aiken and Ogrydziak proposals, in terms of “compatible architecture.” Aiken looks residential (which it is) and rather traditional in form, not unlike the Crepeville Bldg at 3rd & C. Ogrydziak looks like a modern, urban boxy building you might see in an Emeryville loft project. It is not “traditional” in any sense; and will noticeably contrast with most architecture in the Rice Lane/University Ave. neighborhood.
“Rich, is there any way that the city can make sure that landlords do not allow their places to become run down, as they did with the student bungalows on B Street?”
The proposed redevelopment projects will be owner-occupied: townhouses in one case (Ogrydziak); condominiums in the other (Aiken). (Due to the cost of construction and the relatively low rents, I doubt these will be rental units for many years, though that is possible down the road.) They are specifically designed for moderately high-income buyers, not students or frail seniors (though I could see healthy people over 60 living in them). As such, I doubt they will be run down, at least not for a long time.
“It is what led, IMHO, to the destruction of the existing homes.”
I am not sure of the interior condition of any of the homes now there. However, 311 and 315 B Street appear to be in good shape. 233 B Street, less so.
I think the larger reason for their demolition is the desire for money (which I don’t have a problem with): these properties have small, low density houses which cannot attract high rents. But by converting them to high density, 3-story for sale condos or townhouses, the property owners expect to make a good profit on their redevelopment.
“Personally I don’t mind putting up new structures, if they are architecturally compatable – but the new orange and gray building on Russell is a monstrosity that looks out of place.”
There is a big difference in the Aiken and Ogrydziak proposals, in terms of “compatible architecture.” Aiken looks residential (which it is) and rather traditional in form, not unlike the Crepeville Bldg at 3rd & C. Ogrydziak looks like a modern, urban boxy building you might see in an Emeryville loft project. It is not “traditional” in any sense; and will noticeably contrast with most architecture in the Rice Lane/University Ave. neighborhood.
Re: non-equity appreciation in housing, such as at West Village.
The buyers of these properties will know the story before they move in. If that is not a condition they like, they can choose to live elsewhere.
I don’t have a problem with the University fixing its prices in this manner, if it meets the needs of the University.
However, you ought not think of housing with this kind of restriction as ordinary, single family, owner-occupied housing. It is much more like a rental, despite the down payment and the mortgage. If you don’t oppose apartments, you ought not oppose this kind of ownership scheme.
Re: non-equity appreciation in housing, such as at West Village.
The buyers of these properties will know the story before they move in. If that is not a condition they like, they can choose to live elsewhere.
I don’t have a problem with the University fixing its prices in this manner, if it meets the needs of the University.
However, you ought not think of housing with this kind of restriction as ordinary, single family, owner-occupied housing. It is much more like a rental, despite the down payment and the mortgage. If you don’t oppose apartments, you ought not oppose this kind of ownership scheme.
Re: non-equity appreciation in housing, such as at West Village.
The buyers of these properties will know the story before they move in. If that is not a condition they like, they can choose to live elsewhere.
I don’t have a problem with the University fixing its prices in this manner, if it meets the needs of the University.
However, you ought not think of housing with this kind of restriction as ordinary, single family, owner-occupied housing. It is much more like a rental, despite the down payment and the mortgage. If you don’t oppose apartments, you ought not oppose this kind of ownership scheme.
Re: non-equity appreciation in housing, such as at West Village.
The buyers of these properties will know the story before they move in. If that is not a condition they like, they can choose to live elsewhere.
I don’t have a problem with the University fixing its prices in this manner, if it meets the needs of the University.
However, you ought not think of housing with this kind of restriction as ordinary, single family, owner-occupied housing. It is much more like a rental, despite the down payment and the mortgage. If you don’t oppose apartments, you ought not oppose this kind of ownership scheme.
The Aikens “sold” their project to the City as housing that they want to move into for their remaining years. However, a friend who is a good friend of theirs says that they do not intend to leave their comfortable long term house to move to the new development. It’s the usual story.
The Aikens “sold” their project to the City as housing that they want to move into for their remaining years. However, a friend who is a good friend of theirs says that they do not intend to leave their comfortable long term house to move to the new development. It’s the usual story.
The Aikens “sold” their project to the City as housing that they want to move into for their remaining years. However, a friend who is a good friend of theirs says that they do not intend to leave their comfortable long term house to move to the new development. It’s the usual story.
The Aikens “sold” their project to the City as housing that they want to move into for their remaining years. However, a friend who is a good friend of theirs says that they do not intend to leave their comfortable long term house to move to the new development. It’s the usual story.
Good luck Cecilia and Rob tomorrow!
Good luck Cecilia and Rob tomorrow!
Good luck Cecilia and Rob tomorrow!
Good luck Cecilia and Rob tomorrow!
We are voting for Rob, Cecilia and Sue tomorrow for their support for slow growth in Davis. Thank you for all your hard work.
We need to make Downtown something special, along with not paving over the city’s beautiful country side.
Being “Green” means not having sprawl and keeping the community centralized.
Keep Measure J as it is!
We are voting for Rob, Cecilia and Sue tomorrow for their support for slow growth in Davis. Thank you for all your hard work.
We need to make Downtown something special, along with not paving over the city’s beautiful country side.
Being “Green” means not having sprawl and keeping the community centralized.
Keep Measure J as it is!
We are voting for Rob, Cecilia and Sue tomorrow for their support for slow growth in Davis. Thank you for all your hard work.
We need to make Downtown something special, along with not paving over the city’s beautiful country side.
Being “Green” means not having sprawl and keeping the community centralized.
Keep Measure J as it is!
We are voting for Rob, Cecilia and Sue tomorrow for their support for slow growth in Davis. Thank you for all your hard work.
We need to make Downtown something special, along with not paving over the city’s beautiful country side.
Being “Green” means not having sprawl and keeping the community centralized.
Keep Measure J as it is!
“However, you ought not think of housing with this kind of restriction as ordinary, single family, owner-occupied housing. It is much more like a rental, despite the down payment and the mortgage. If you don’t oppose apartments, you ought not oppose this kind of ownership scheme.”
There is a huge difference between the two. You tie up a big chunk of money, that does not get much in the way of appreciation. Why would anyone want to do that? It has obviously caused some consternation among prospective buyers. Only time will tell if these things will “sell”. If the housing market remains tight enough, they might sell, but it would not surprise me if prospective UCD employees opt to live in Woodland or other surrounding areas where they can purchase a house and build equity. I’m sorry, I see not big advantage in purchasing a home that I cannot build equity in.
“However, you ought not think of housing with this kind of restriction as ordinary, single family, owner-occupied housing. It is much more like a rental, despite the down payment and the mortgage. If you don’t oppose apartments, you ought not oppose this kind of ownership scheme.”
There is a huge difference between the two. You tie up a big chunk of money, that does not get much in the way of appreciation. Why would anyone want to do that? It has obviously caused some consternation among prospective buyers. Only time will tell if these things will “sell”. If the housing market remains tight enough, they might sell, but it would not surprise me if prospective UCD employees opt to live in Woodland or other surrounding areas where they can purchase a house and build equity. I’m sorry, I see not big advantage in purchasing a home that I cannot build equity in.
“However, you ought not think of housing with this kind of restriction as ordinary, single family, owner-occupied housing. It is much more like a rental, despite the down payment and the mortgage. If you don’t oppose apartments, you ought not oppose this kind of ownership scheme.”
There is a huge difference between the two. You tie up a big chunk of money, that does not get much in the way of appreciation. Why would anyone want to do that? It has obviously caused some consternation among prospective buyers. Only time will tell if these things will “sell”. If the housing market remains tight enough, they might sell, but it would not surprise me if prospective UCD employees opt to live in Woodland or other surrounding areas where they can purchase a house and build equity. I’m sorry, I see not big advantage in purchasing a home that I cannot build equity in.
“However, you ought not think of housing with this kind of restriction as ordinary, single family, owner-occupied housing. It is much more like a rental, despite the down payment and the mortgage. If you don’t oppose apartments, you ought not oppose this kind of ownership scheme.”
There is a huge difference between the two. You tie up a big chunk of money, that does not get much in the way of appreciation. Why would anyone want to do that? It has obviously caused some consternation among prospective buyers. Only time will tell if these things will “sell”. If the housing market remains tight enough, they might sell, but it would not surprise me if prospective UCD employees opt to live in Woodland or other surrounding areas where they can purchase a house and build equity. I’m sorry, I see not big advantage in purchasing a home that I cannot build equity in.
Tansey Thomas,
Stalin would have been proud of your thinking. Good Luck to Cecilia, she’s gonna need it along with a miracle.
Tansey Thomas,
Stalin would have been proud of your thinking. Good Luck to Cecilia, she’s gonna need it along with a miracle.
Tansey Thomas,
Stalin would have been proud of your thinking. Good Luck to Cecilia, she’s gonna need it along with a miracle.
Tansey Thomas,
Stalin would have been proud of your thinking. Good Luck to Cecilia, she’s gonna need it along with a miracle.
Something that was never mentioned during the last few weeks was a reference to an article in the Enterprise that showed that housing prices in Davis had declined only 3% while they had declined nearly 25% in the surrounding areas. So much for your regional market hypothesis.
As for measure J what is so sacred and democratic about it when there are thousands of people who are not allowed to vote in city elections because they live on campus? Why not say that only landowners can vote on measure J. Ths notion of local control is absurd. I know this guy who bought a home in Davis and doesn’t want any growth, he will give you all sorts of reasons growth is bad, but, I think the real reason is that he is worried about the value of his own home. While I respect his self interest I don’t think he should have veto power over the growth of Davis. Then there is this other guy who wants Davis to grow as slow as possible but then solicits donations for Habitat for Humanity. Now isn’t that what building homes is all about?
As for thinking green, you have no idea what you are talking about. The no growth policies of Davis have made people drive farther and pollute more.
Davis is so full of hypocrites. The funny part is that they don’t even understand it.
Something that was never mentioned during the last few weeks was a reference to an article in the Enterprise that showed that housing prices in Davis had declined only 3% while they had declined nearly 25% in the surrounding areas. So much for your regional market hypothesis.
As for measure J what is so sacred and democratic about it when there are thousands of people who are not allowed to vote in city elections because they live on campus? Why not say that only landowners can vote on measure J. Ths notion of local control is absurd. I know this guy who bought a home in Davis and doesn’t want any growth, he will give you all sorts of reasons growth is bad, but, I think the real reason is that he is worried about the value of his own home. While I respect his self interest I don’t think he should have veto power over the growth of Davis. Then there is this other guy who wants Davis to grow as slow as possible but then solicits donations for Habitat for Humanity. Now isn’t that what building homes is all about?
As for thinking green, you have no idea what you are talking about. The no growth policies of Davis have made people drive farther and pollute more.
Davis is so full of hypocrites. The funny part is that they don’t even understand it.
Something that was never mentioned during the last few weeks was a reference to an article in the Enterprise that showed that housing prices in Davis had declined only 3% while they had declined nearly 25% in the surrounding areas. So much for your regional market hypothesis.
As for measure J what is so sacred and democratic about it when there are thousands of people who are not allowed to vote in city elections because they live on campus? Why not say that only landowners can vote on measure J. Ths notion of local control is absurd. I know this guy who bought a home in Davis and doesn’t want any growth, he will give you all sorts of reasons growth is bad, but, I think the real reason is that he is worried about the value of his own home. While I respect his self interest I don’t think he should have veto power over the growth of Davis. Then there is this other guy who wants Davis to grow as slow as possible but then solicits donations for Habitat for Humanity. Now isn’t that what building homes is all about?
As for thinking green, you have no idea what you are talking about. The no growth policies of Davis have made people drive farther and pollute more.
Davis is so full of hypocrites. The funny part is that they don’t even understand it.
Something that was never mentioned during the last few weeks was a reference to an article in the Enterprise that showed that housing prices in Davis had declined only 3% while they had declined nearly 25% in the surrounding areas. So much for your regional market hypothesis.
As for measure J what is so sacred and democratic about it when there are thousands of people who are not allowed to vote in city elections because they live on campus? Why not say that only landowners can vote on measure J. Ths notion of local control is absurd. I know this guy who bought a home in Davis and doesn’t want any growth, he will give you all sorts of reasons growth is bad, but, I think the real reason is that he is worried about the value of his own home. While I respect his self interest I don’t think he should have veto power over the growth of Davis. Then there is this other guy who wants Davis to grow as slow as possible but then solicits donations for Habitat for Humanity. Now isn’t that what building homes is all about?
As for thinking green, you have no idea what you are talking about. The no growth policies of Davis have made people drive farther and pollute more.
Davis is so full of hypocrites. The funny part is that they don’t even understand it.
Lets all vote for SOUZA , SAYLOR , VERGIS !!!!!!!!!
Lets all vote for SOUZA , SAYLOR , VERGIS !!!!!!!!!
Lets all vote for SOUZA , SAYLOR , VERGIS !!!!!!!!!
Lets all vote for SOUZA , SAYLOR , VERGIS !!!!!!!!!
“The proposed redevelopment projects will be owner-occupied: townhouses in one case (Ogrydziak); condominiums in the other (Aiken).”
I wrote the above and learned last night it is technically wrong. None of the proposed housing for the two B Street redevelopment projects will be “condominiums.” For legal and expense reasons, that’s not a route developers want to go. These units “will be owned individually, but will be a part of a homeowners association” (in order to deal with common areas). How that is really different from a “condominium” ownership is not clear to me, other than using the technical term “condominium.”
“The first is the Aikin project at 311-315 B Street. The second is the Ogrydziak project at 233 B Street.”
The HRMC unanimously agreed at our meeting last night that the Aikin project meets the (new) design guidelines…. We later voted unanimously that the Ogrydziak project does not meet the design guidelines. Both projects next go to the Planning Commission. If the PC approves a project, that’s the final decision. If the PC rejects one or both, the developer can appeal to the city council.
“I think the larger reason for their demolition is the desire for money: these properties have small, low density houses which cannot attract high rents.”
After listening to Maria O. present her project last night, when she specifically said she is not doing this for the money, I believe her. I don’t think she wants to lose money, but profit is not motivating her. My sense is that she has an artistic/architectural vision of what she would like downtown Davis to be — much more urban and contemporary, even industrial, far less bungalow and traditional and conservative — and this project is an expression of her vision. Unfortunately, that vision does not meet the design guidelines, as laid out in the 3rd & B process; and in my subjective opinion, does not fit in that neighborhood.
Because this is the very first time the new guidelines will be put to the test, it will be interesting to me to see what happens with Maria’s project. If it is approved in its current form, that will demonstrate the guidelines adopted by the city council last year don’t mean anything.
“The proposed redevelopment projects will be owner-occupied: townhouses in one case (Ogrydziak); condominiums in the other (Aiken).”
I wrote the above and learned last night it is technically wrong. None of the proposed housing for the two B Street redevelopment projects will be “condominiums.” For legal and expense reasons, that’s not a route developers want to go. These units “will be owned individually, but will be a part of a homeowners association” (in order to deal with common areas). How that is really different from a “condominium” ownership is not clear to me, other than using the technical term “condominium.”
“The first is the Aikin project at 311-315 B Street. The second is the Ogrydziak project at 233 B Street.”
The HRMC unanimously agreed at our meeting last night that the Aikin project meets the (new) design guidelines…. We later voted unanimously that the Ogrydziak project does not meet the design guidelines. Both projects next go to the Planning Commission. If the PC approves a project, that’s the final decision. If the PC rejects one or both, the developer can appeal to the city council.
“I think the larger reason for their demolition is the desire for money: these properties have small, low density houses which cannot attract high rents.”
After listening to Maria O. present her project last night, when she specifically said she is not doing this for the money, I believe her. I don’t think she wants to lose money, but profit is not motivating her. My sense is that she has an artistic/architectural vision of what she would like downtown Davis to be — much more urban and contemporary, even industrial, far less bungalow and traditional and conservative — and this project is an expression of her vision. Unfortunately, that vision does not meet the design guidelines, as laid out in the 3rd & B process; and in my subjective opinion, does not fit in that neighborhood.
Because this is the very first time the new guidelines will be put to the test, it will be interesting to me to see what happens with Maria’s project. If it is approved in its current form, that will demonstrate the guidelines adopted by the city council last year don’t mean anything.
“The proposed redevelopment projects will be owner-occupied: townhouses in one case (Ogrydziak); condominiums in the other (Aiken).”
I wrote the above and learned last night it is technically wrong. None of the proposed housing for the two B Street redevelopment projects will be “condominiums.” For legal and expense reasons, that’s not a route developers want to go. These units “will be owned individually, but will be a part of a homeowners association” (in order to deal with common areas). How that is really different from a “condominium” ownership is not clear to me, other than using the technical term “condominium.”
“The first is the Aikin project at 311-315 B Street. The second is the Ogrydziak project at 233 B Street.”
The HRMC unanimously agreed at our meeting last night that the Aikin project meets the (new) design guidelines…. We later voted unanimously that the Ogrydziak project does not meet the design guidelines. Both projects next go to the Planning Commission. If the PC approves a project, that’s the final decision. If the PC rejects one or both, the developer can appeal to the city council.
“I think the larger reason for their demolition is the desire for money: these properties have small, low density houses which cannot attract high rents.”
After listening to Maria O. present her project last night, when she specifically said she is not doing this for the money, I believe her. I don’t think she wants to lose money, but profit is not motivating her. My sense is that she has an artistic/architectural vision of what she would like downtown Davis to be — much more urban and contemporary, even industrial, far less bungalow and traditional and conservative — and this project is an expression of her vision. Unfortunately, that vision does not meet the design guidelines, as laid out in the 3rd & B process; and in my subjective opinion, does not fit in that neighborhood.
Because this is the very first time the new guidelines will be put to the test, it will be interesting to me to see what happens with Maria’s project. If it is approved in its current form, that will demonstrate the guidelines adopted by the city council last year don’t mean anything.
“The proposed redevelopment projects will be owner-occupied: townhouses in one case (Ogrydziak); condominiums in the other (Aiken).”
I wrote the above and learned last night it is technically wrong. None of the proposed housing for the two B Street redevelopment projects will be “condominiums.” For legal and expense reasons, that’s not a route developers want to go. These units “will be owned individually, but will be a part of a homeowners association” (in order to deal with common areas). How that is really different from a “condominium” ownership is not clear to me, other than using the technical term “condominium.”
“The first is the Aikin project at 311-315 B Street. The second is the Ogrydziak project at 233 B Street.”
The HRMC unanimously agreed at our meeting last night that the Aikin project meets the (new) design guidelines…. We later voted unanimously that the Ogrydziak project does not meet the design guidelines. Both projects next go to the Planning Commission. If the PC approves a project, that’s the final decision. If the PC rejects one or both, the developer can appeal to the city council.
“I think the larger reason for their demolition is the desire for money: these properties have small, low density houses which cannot attract high rents.”
After listening to Maria O. present her project last night, when she specifically said she is not doing this for the money, I believe her. I don’t think she wants to lose money, but profit is not motivating her. My sense is that she has an artistic/architectural vision of what she would like downtown Davis to be — much more urban and contemporary, even industrial, far less bungalow and traditional and conservative — and this project is an expression of her vision. Unfortunately, that vision does not meet the design guidelines, as laid out in the 3rd & B process; and in my subjective opinion, does not fit in that neighborhood.
Because this is the very first time the new guidelines will be put to the test, it will be interesting to me to see what happens with Maria’s project. If it is approved in its current form, that will demonstrate the guidelines adopted by the city council last year don’t mean anything.
‘As for thinking green, you have no idea what you are talking about. The no growth policies of Davis have made people drive farther and pollute more.
Davis is so full of hypocrites. The funny part is that they don’t even understand it.’
That is a great summarization of the whole issue. Boomers worried about their property values and retirement while they contribute to ever widening pollution and global warming. I think they do know what they are doing but don’t care.
It’s also interesting that all this slow growth will further contribute to the decline of the conditions of the streets when Davis can’t afford to maintain what it already has.
Perhaps if you allow some new development on the outer ring, the city could bring in additional money from fees and property tax revenue, and more sale tax money yet there would be less wear and tear on the streets since the people moving into the units could bike to work and shopping.
The other 800 gorilla is the condition of the existing house stock in the city which through zero maintenance and rough use have next to no energy efficency. Most often these are rentals where Landlords care about nothing but their bottom line. As long as they can shove global warming concerns onto the next generation while posturing and mouthing all the right words, so much the better.
‘As for thinking green, you have no idea what you are talking about. The no growth policies of Davis have made people drive farther and pollute more.
Davis is so full of hypocrites. The funny part is that they don’t even understand it.’
That is a great summarization of the whole issue. Boomers worried about their property values and retirement while they contribute to ever widening pollution and global warming. I think they do know what they are doing but don’t care.
It’s also interesting that all this slow growth will further contribute to the decline of the conditions of the streets when Davis can’t afford to maintain what it already has.
Perhaps if you allow some new development on the outer ring, the city could bring in additional money from fees and property tax revenue, and more sale tax money yet there would be less wear and tear on the streets since the people moving into the units could bike to work and shopping.
The other 800 gorilla is the condition of the existing house stock in the city which through zero maintenance and rough use have next to no energy efficency. Most often these are rentals where Landlords care about nothing but their bottom line. As long as they can shove global warming concerns onto the next generation while posturing and mouthing all the right words, so much the better.
‘As for thinking green, you have no idea what you are talking about. The no growth policies of Davis have made people drive farther and pollute more.
Davis is so full of hypocrites. The funny part is that they don’t even understand it.’
That is a great summarization of the whole issue. Boomers worried about their property values and retirement while they contribute to ever widening pollution and global warming. I think they do know what they are doing but don’t care.
It’s also interesting that all this slow growth will further contribute to the decline of the conditions of the streets when Davis can’t afford to maintain what it already has.
Perhaps if you allow some new development on the outer ring, the city could bring in additional money from fees and property tax revenue, and more sale tax money yet there would be less wear and tear on the streets since the people moving into the units could bike to work and shopping.
The other 800 gorilla is the condition of the existing house stock in the city which through zero maintenance and rough use have next to no energy efficency. Most often these are rentals where Landlords care about nothing but their bottom line. As long as they can shove global warming concerns onto the next generation while posturing and mouthing all the right words, so much the better.
‘As for thinking green, you have no idea what you are talking about. The no growth policies of Davis have made people drive farther and pollute more.
Davis is so full of hypocrites. The funny part is that they don’t even understand it.’
That is a great summarization of the whole issue. Boomers worried about their property values and retirement while they contribute to ever widening pollution and global warming. I think they do know what they are doing but don’t care.
It’s also interesting that all this slow growth will further contribute to the decline of the conditions of the streets when Davis can’t afford to maintain what it already has.
Perhaps if you allow some new development on the outer ring, the city could bring in additional money from fees and property tax revenue, and more sale tax money yet there would be less wear and tear on the streets since the people moving into the units could bike to work and shopping.
The other 800 gorilla is the condition of the existing house stock in the city which through zero maintenance and rough use have next to no energy efficency. Most often these are rentals where Landlords care about nothing but their bottom line. As long as they can shove global warming concerns onto the next generation while posturing and mouthing all the right words, so much the better.
“As long as they can shove global warming concerns onto the next generation while posturing and mouthing all the right words, so much the better.”
I find it singularly interesting that Al Gore did not seem to think global warming was that important an issue while VP, but when relegated to the sidelines because of a failed presidential bid, suddenly made global warming front and center as the Democratic issue. Ever since then, we have had nothing but gloom and doom talk as above.
The fact of the matter is, new technology is being developed, that should go a long way to make us oil independent, which should have been done years ago. We have solar panel technology in which the panels are the thickness of a sheet of paper; nuclear energy technology is considerably safer; hybrid cars are on the market; and fuel cell cars are in the making. All of it is an exciting development and long overdue. I have absolute faith in this country, that when push comes to shove, we will come through with flying colors. We did on the issue of 9-11, and we will eventually on the energy issue.
“Ths notion of local control is absurd.”
Not it isn’t – it prevented a fiasco like Covell Village, which the city cannot afford. When a large housing development is built, more city services are required that we cannot afford to provide. To pay for it would have required a huge increase in taxes. We are already going to be faced with a new school parcel tax, a public safety tax, huge increases in water and sewer rates. A loss/mitigation specialist indicated foreclosures in Davis are on the rise, and increasing at an alarming rate. The city needs to get its budget house in order before it starts building developments that require more city services.
“After listening to Maria O. present her project last night, when she specifically said she is not doing this for the money, I believe her. I don’t think she wants to lose money, but profit is not motivating her. My sense is that she has an artistic/architectural vision of what she would like downtown Davis to be — much more urban and contemporary, even industrial, far less bungalow and traditional and conservative — and this project is an expression of her vision. Unfortunately, that vision does not meet the design guidelines, as laid out in the 3rd & B process; and in my subjective opinion, does not fit in that neighborhood.”
We do not need any more “industrial building” styles in Davis. The orange and gray building on Russell is awful and looks out of place. The entire downtown looks like a mish-mish – some of it nice, some of it junky looking. We need a more cohesive architectural style and color scheme that complements rather than competes in a jarring way.
“As long as they can shove global warming concerns onto the next generation while posturing and mouthing all the right words, so much the better.”
I find it singularly interesting that Al Gore did not seem to think global warming was that important an issue while VP, but when relegated to the sidelines because of a failed presidential bid, suddenly made global warming front and center as the Democratic issue. Ever since then, we have had nothing but gloom and doom talk as above.
The fact of the matter is, new technology is being developed, that should go a long way to make us oil independent, which should have been done years ago. We have solar panel technology in which the panels are the thickness of a sheet of paper; nuclear energy technology is considerably safer; hybrid cars are on the market; and fuel cell cars are in the making. All of it is an exciting development and long overdue. I have absolute faith in this country, that when push comes to shove, we will come through with flying colors. We did on the issue of 9-11, and we will eventually on the energy issue.
“Ths notion of local control is absurd.”
Not it isn’t – it prevented a fiasco like Covell Village, which the city cannot afford. When a large housing development is built, more city services are required that we cannot afford to provide. To pay for it would have required a huge increase in taxes. We are already going to be faced with a new school parcel tax, a public safety tax, huge increases in water and sewer rates. A loss/mitigation specialist indicated foreclosures in Davis are on the rise, and increasing at an alarming rate. The city needs to get its budget house in order before it starts building developments that require more city services.
“After listening to Maria O. present her project last night, when she specifically said she is not doing this for the money, I believe her. I don’t think she wants to lose money, but profit is not motivating her. My sense is that she has an artistic/architectural vision of what she would like downtown Davis to be — much more urban and contemporary, even industrial, far less bungalow and traditional and conservative — and this project is an expression of her vision. Unfortunately, that vision does not meet the design guidelines, as laid out in the 3rd & B process; and in my subjective opinion, does not fit in that neighborhood.”
We do not need any more “industrial building” styles in Davis. The orange and gray building on Russell is awful and looks out of place. The entire downtown looks like a mish-mish – some of it nice, some of it junky looking. We need a more cohesive architectural style and color scheme that complements rather than competes in a jarring way.
“As long as they can shove global warming concerns onto the next generation while posturing and mouthing all the right words, so much the better.”
I find it singularly interesting that Al Gore did not seem to think global warming was that important an issue while VP, but when relegated to the sidelines because of a failed presidential bid, suddenly made global warming front and center as the Democratic issue. Ever since then, we have had nothing but gloom and doom talk as above.
The fact of the matter is, new technology is being developed, that should go a long way to make us oil independent, which should have been done years ago. We have solar panel technology in which the panels are the thickness of a sheet of paper; nuclear energy technology is considerably safer; hybrid cars are on the market; and fuel cell cars are in the making. All of it is an exciting development and long overdue. I have absolute faith in this country, that when push comes to shove, we will come through with flying colors. We did on the issue of 9-11, and we will eventually on the energy issue.
“Ths notion of local control is absurd.”
Not it isn’t – it prevented a fiasco like Covell Village, which the city cannot afford. When a large housing development is built, more city services are required that we cannot afford to provide. To pay for it would have required a huge increase in taxes. We are already going to be faced with a new school parcel tax, a public safety tax, huge increases in water and sewer rates. A loss/mitigation specialist indicated foreclosures in Davis are on the rise, and increasing at an alarming rate. The city needs to get its budget house in order before it starts building developments that require more city services.
“After listening to Maria O. present her project last night, when she specifically said she is not doing this for the money, I believe her. I don’t think she wants to lose money, but profit is not motivating her. My sense is that she has an artistic/architectural vision of what she would like downtown Davis to be — much more urban and contemporary, even industrial, far less bungalow and traditional and conservative — and this project is an expression of her vision. Unfortunately, that vision does not meet the design guidelines, as laid out in the 3rd & B process; and in my subjective opinion, does not fit in that neighborhood.”
We do not need any more “industrial building” styles in Davis. The orange and gray building on Russell is awful and looks out of place. The entire downtown looks like a mish-mish – some of it nice, some of it junky looking. We need a more cohesive architectural style and color scheme that complements rather than competes in a jarring way.
“As long as they can shove global warming concerns onto the next generation while posturing and mouthing all the right words, so much the better.”
I find it singularly interesting that Al Gore did not seem to think global warming was that important an issue while VP, but when relegated to the sidelines because of a failed presidential bid, suddenly made global warming front and center as the Democratic issue. Ever since then, we have had nothing but gloom and doom talk as above.
The fact of the matter is, new technology is being developed, that should go a long way to make us oil independent, which should have been done years ago. We have solar panel technology in which the panels are the thickness of a sheet of paper; nuclear energy technology is considerably safer; hybrid cars are on the market; and fuel cell cars are in the making. All of it is an exciting development and long overdue. I have absolute faith in this country, that when push comes to shove, we will come through with flying colors. We did on the issue of 9-11, and we will eventually on the energy issue.
“Ths notion of local control is absurd.”
Not it isn’t – it prevented a fiasco like Covell Village, which the city cannot afford. When a large housing development is built, more city services are required that we cannot afford to provide. To pay for it would have required a huge increase in taxes. We are already going to be faced with a new school parcel tax, a public safety tax, huge increases in water and sewer rates. A loss/mitigation specialist indicated foreclosures in Davis are on the rise, and increasing at an alarming rate. The city needs to get its budget house in order before it starts building developments that require more city services.
“After listening to Maria O. present her project last night, when she specifically said she is not doing this for the money, I believe her. I don’t think she wants to lose money, but profit is not motivating her. My sense is that she has an artistic/architectural vision of what she would like downtown Davis to be — much more urban and contemporary, even industrial, far less bungalow and traditional and conservative — and this project is an expression of her vision. Unfortunately, that vision does not meet the design guidelines, as laid out in the 3rd & B process; and in my subjective opinion, does not fit in that neighborhood.”
We do not need any more “industrial building” styles in Davis. The orange and gray building on Russell is awful and looks out of place. The entire downtown looks like a mish-mish – some of it nice, some of it junky looking. We need a more cohesive architectural style and color scheme that complements rather than competes in a jarring way.