But it is even more sweeping than that. As the California Progress Report cites broad negotiations between a variety of stakeholders.
“The triumph of this bill reflects months of intense negotiations between major environmental groups, the building industry, affordable housing advocates, and state and local governments. Senator Steinberg has been lauded for bringing these groups, often at war with each other in the past, together for this bill. SB 375 marks the first time major environmental organizations, local governments, major homebuilders and affordable housing advocates have agreed on a plan to account for California’s population growth and achieve AB 32 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals at the same time. In return for a quicker process to approve housing under California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), new development will have to consider transportation in planning.”
Senator Steinberg said:
“If California is to fully implement AB 32, we must address how our communities grow. SB 375 will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks and improve Californians’ quality of life through smart, coordinated regional planning. I urge the Governor to sign SB 375.”
The Governor now has to sign the bill, he has not taken a position on it, but has championed some of its goals.
According to one analysis the bill would work like this:
“Under the measure, the state Air Resources Board would establish targets for 17 regions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of a broader campaign to curb global warming. It then would be up to local planning agencies, such as [SACOG] – to help cities and counties implement land-use policies that would meet those goals.
Regional agencies are expected to encourage more compact development, linking residents to transit, jobs and shopping.”
The key to this bill though was Steinberg able to forge broad coalitions together.
“The legislation offers builders density concessions, relief from time-consuming and costly environmental reviews, stronger safeguards against litigation aimed at stopping projects, and assurances that proposals complying with general plans will not be arbitrarily derailed.”
The California Progress Report quotes the heads of California League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council–both of whom sponsored the bill–along with the Chair of the California Building Industry Association with strong words of support.
One of the key provisions of the bill is taking RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) and adjusting it to become aligned with the land use plan in that region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy which will account for greenhouse gas reduction targets.
The California Progress Report quotes Tom Adams, who is President of the CLVC. He put the bill into historical perspective. The key to this bill is that it puts housing into areas that will decrease drive times. It will create more compact and denser development rather than the continuation of sprawl.
“In my view, SB 375 is the most important land use bill in California since enactment of the Coast Act. It has taken 32 years since that bill was enacted to bring a coalition together who could make major land use change in California. Senator Steinberg has accomplished that in this bill and it is an amazing achievement on his part and we are tremendously grateful for his leadership.
“This is the equation for solving the problems that we face in terms of housing, getting shorter commute times for people. When you have shorter commutes, you reduce vehicle miles traveled. It’s also important to recognize that you reduce traffic congestion.
“What this bill will do is say that regional housing needs assessment and the strategies that will be adopted under the regional transportation planning process will be aligned. The housing distribution throughout the region will be put in locations that will help California achieve its strategic environmental goals of climate policy, air quality, and energy conservation.
“Finally, the bill amends the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental quality act that is California’s premiere statute for protecting the environment….So that the procedures for environmental review of projects rewards projects that are consistent with strategies that achieve our climate goals, air quality and energy conservation and helps us promote the kinds of transit priority projects that are needed for the future of California.
“Each of these issue areas—land use, the regional housing needs allocation program, and the California Environmental Quality Act are regarded by many people as sacred cows. They certainly are, at a minimum, a minefield for anyone who want to amend them.
“I think to say that we would have just done land use would have been incredible. Or just to have done the housing program or just to have done CEQA. This bill is a trifecta of the impossible. Senator Steinberg has managed to pull together a bill that brings some of the most important and most difficult statutes in the state of California into alignment so that we can achieve housing that is needed, environmental quality, climate policy, air quality, reduced congestion, increased housing choices, and have a better transportation policy for California.”
What does this all mean?
It is difficult to assess what it means for communities like Davis. But I think overall it has several worthwhile goals.
First, we have to start looking toward the development of public and alternative transportation. One of the key hurdles to a good and unified public transportation system in California is our land-use policies that has continued to build out rather than up or create more density. The result is that public transportation is inefficient, it takes too long in many cases to take public transit from the suburbs into the cities. As that changes, we can begin to develop infrastructure that takes us out of our cars.
Second, by building more compactly, by placing precedence on locations that are closer to jobs, we begin to reduce drive times. Frankly, I think most of us would like to eliminate the need for commuting, and this is a good first step.
Third, some may raise eyebrows here, but I think it makes sense, in order to get the other side on board, they attempted to streamline the process of getting approval for projects through CEQA and the environmental review of projects. What this does is say that if projects are consistent with the goals of his project, approval is streamlined and hastened. The goals of the environmental review process are now aligned with achieving reduction of carbon emissions and energy conservations.
This is such a sweeping bill however, that the full consequences of its enactment may not be known for some time. Again, it is unclear how it will impact a place such as Davis. However, even in Davis, the move has been away from sprawl and towards higher density and more infill projects as a means not only to preserve farmland but also to reduce drive times.
One thing that is certainly true, we could not continue with our prior land-use polices of unmitigated sprawl development in the broader sense in California. Encroachment onto farmland not only puts farming at risk, but endangers the environment and increases our dependency on oil. This is a broad step that shows the political skill of Senator Steinberg.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
With average commute times about 30minutes in California this will do nothing to stop peripheral growth in Davis and will probably facilitate projects on the edge of Davis by providing financial incentives.
With average commute times about 30minutes in California this will do nothing to stop peripheral growth in Davis and will probably facilitate projects on the edge of Davis by providing financial incentives.
With average commute times about 30minutes in California this will do nothing to stop peripheral growth in Davis and will probably facilitate projects on the edge of Davis by providing financial incentives.
With average commute times about 30minutes in California this will do nothing to stop peripheral growth in Davis and will probably facilitate projects on the edge of Davis by providing financial incentives.
I’m guessing it is not going to affect Davis that much. But this needed to happen at a state level, sprawl development is killing us.
I’m guessing it is not going to affect Davis that much. But this needed to happen at a state level, sprawl development is killing us.
I’m guessing it is not going to affect Davis that much. But this needed to happen at a state level, sprawl development is killing us.
I’m guessing it is not going to affect Davis that much. But this needed to happen at a state level, sprawl development is killing us.
“…..stronger safeguards against litigation aimed at stopping projects, and assurances that proposals complying with general plans will not be arbitrarily derailed.”
This needs to be explored in more detail. This bill could very well threaten the legitimacy of Davis voters’ Measure J decisions. We need good legal advice as to whether Davis as a charter-city gives us some protection from legal challenges, under this bill, of Measure J decisions.
“…..stronger safeguards against litigation aimed at stopping projects, and assurances that proposals complying with general plans will not be arbitrarily derailed.”
This needs to be explored in more detail. This bill could very well threaten the legitimacy of Davis voters’ Measure J decisions. We need good legal advice as to whether Davis as a charter-city gives us some protection from legal challenges, under this bill, of Measure J decisions.
“…..stronger safeguards against litigation aimed at stopping projects, and assurances that proposals complying with general plans will not be arbitrarily derailed.”
This needs to be explored in more detail. This bill could very well threaten the legitimacy of Davis voters’ Measure J decisions. We need good legal advice as to whether Davis as a charter-city gives us some protection from legal challenges, under this bill, of Measure J decisions.
“…..stronger safeguards against litigation aimed at stopping projects, and assurances that proposals complying with general plans will not be arbitrarily derailed.”
This needs to be explored in more detail. This bill could very well threaten the legitimacy of Davis voters’ Measure J decisions. We need good legal advice as to whether Davis as a charter-city gives us some protection from legal challenges, under this bill, of Measure J decisions.
I don’t think this will impact Measure J.
I don’t think this will impact Measure J.
I don’t think this will impact Measure J.
I don’t think this will impact Measure J.
DPD: If and when this bill is signed by the governor, I hope that you try and obtain bone fide legal opinion to share with your readers concerning any Measure J protections that may accrue if Davis becomes a charter-city rather than a State general-law city.
The folks at Covell Village still have not come out of the Jurasic Age. The current proposal focuses on “senior” housing, when in fact OUR community does not need that much specialized housing. The CV proposal will be a nationwide draw, and will create a “ghetto” for seniors far from the center of town. What a lonely place to be … older, maybe no longer driving, dependent on others for the car or senior van ride downtown?
Hey, City Council: STOP it. Just tell CV NO. You guys know it’s that project is a bad idea.
And the idea of voting to approve the middle to upper sections of CV’s 440+ acres as some type of undefined “urban reserve” is madness, and bad planning.
Leave CV farm land alone unless the owners have a complete, comprehensive plan that meets Davis’ planning goals and current environmental analysis. So far, the owners are not even close.
Where’s the at least 2/1 onsite, outboard, open space/farmland/habitat reserve??
Where’s your affordable housing?
Where’s your “fast, frequent, and free” electric shopping shuttle to the downtown so people are not driving so much?
CV’s partners bought the land for …. less than $4 million, if memory serves me correctly. They can afford to meet the Davis planning, and current day political, requirements.
DPD: If and when this bill is signed by the governor, I hope that you try and obtain bone fide legal opinion to share with your readers concerning any Measure J protections that may accrue if Davis becomes a charter-city rather than a State general-law city.
The folks at Covell Village still have not come out of the Jurasic Age. The current proposal focuses on “senior” housing, when in fact OUR community does not need that much specialized housing. The CV proposal will be a nationwide draw, and will create a “ghetto” for seniors far from the center of town. What a lonely place to be … older, maybe no longer driving, dependent on others for the car or senior van ride downtown?
Hey, City Council: STOP it. Just tell CV NO. You guys know it’s that project is a bad idea.
And the idea of voting to approve the middle to upper sections of CV’s 440+ acres as some type of undefined “urban reserve” is madness, and bad planning.
Leave CV farm land alone unless the owners have a complete, comprehensive plan that meets Davis’ planning goals and current environmental analysis. So far, the owners are not even close.
Where’s the at least 2/1 onsite, outboard, open space/farmland/habitat reserve??
Where’s your affordable housing?
Where’s your “fast, frequent, and free” electric shopping shuttle to the downtown so people are not driving so much?
CV’s partners bought the land for …. less than $4 million, if memory serves me correctly. They can afford to meet the Davis planning, and current day political, requirements.
DPD: If and when this bill is signed by the governor, I hope that you try and obtain bone fide legal opinion to share with your readers concerning any Measure J protections that may accrue if Davis becomes a charter-city rather than a State general-law city.
The folks at Covell Village still have not come out of the Jurasic Age. The current proposal focuses on “senior” housing, when in fact OUR community does not need that much specialized housing. The CV proposal will be a nationwide draw, and will create a “ghetto” for seniors far from the center of town. What a lonely place to be … older, maybe no longer driving, dependent on others for the car or senior van ride downtown?
Hey, City Council: STOP it. Just tell CV NO. You guys know it’s that project is a bad idea.
And the idea of voting to approve the middle to upper sections of CV’s 440+ acres as some type of undefined “urban reserve” is madness, and bad planning.
Leave CV farm land alone unless the owners have a complete, comprehensive plan that meets Davis’ planning goals and current environmental analysis. So far, the owners are not even close.
Where’s the at least 2/1 onsite, outboard, open space/farmland/habitat reserve??
Where’s your affordable housing?
Where’s your “fast, frequent, and free” electric shopping shuttle to the downtown so people are not driving so much?
CV’s partners bought the land for …. less than $4 million, if memory serves me correctly. They can afford to meet the Davis planning, and current day political, requirements.
DPD: If and when this bill is signed by the governor, I hope that you try and obtain bone fide legal opinion to share with your readers concerning any Measure J protections that may accrue if Davis becomes a charter-city rather than a State general-law city.
The folks at Covell Village still have not come out of the Jurasic Age. The current proposal focuses on “senior” housing, when in fact OUR community does not need that much specialized housing. The CV proposal will be a nationwide draw, and will create a “ghetto” for seniors far from the center of town. What a lonely place to be … older, maybe no longer driving, dependent on others for the car or senior van ride downtown?
Hey, City Council: STOP it. Just tell CV NO. You guys know it’s that project is a bad idea.
And the idea of voting to approve the middle to upper sections of CV’s 440+ acres as some type of undefined “urban reserve” is madness, and bad planning.
Leave CV farm land alone unless the owners have a complete, comprehensive plan that meets Davis’ planning goals and current environmental analysis. So far, the owners are not even close.
Where’s the at least 2/1 onsite, outboard, open space/farmland/habitat reserve??
Where’s your affordable housing?
Where’s your “fast, frequent, and free” electric shopping shuttle to the downtown so people are not driving so much?
CV’s partners bought the land for …. less than $4 million, if memory serves me correctly. They can afford to meet the Davis planning, and current day political, requirements.
DPD-whoa, hold up, time out!
What, no perennial 2008 “Labor Day Thoughts”?? I’ve been Jonesing for you to provide another inspiring John Edwards quote for this year’s bloviated message.
Please, please, don’t deny me!!
DPD-whoa, hold up, time out!
What, no perennial 2008 “Labor Day Thoughts”?? I’ve been Jonesing for you to provide another inspiring John Edwards quote for this year’s bloviated message.
Please, please, don’t deny me!!
DPD-whoa, hold up, time out!
What, no perennial 2008 “Labor Day Thoughts”?? I’ve been Jonesing for you to provide another inspiring John Edwards quote for this year’s bloviated message.
Please, please, don’t deny me!!
DPD-whoa, hold up, time out!
What, no perennial 2008 “Labor Day Thoughts”?? I’ve been Jonesing for you to provide another inspiring John Edwards quote for this year’s bloviated message.
Please, please, don’t deny me!!
“Finally, the bill amends the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental quality act that is California’s premiere statute for protecting the environment….So that the procedures for environmental review of projects rewards projects that are consistent with strategies that achieve our climate goals, air quality and energy conservation and helps us promote the kinds of transit priority projects that are needed for the future of California.”
No, no, no! Any bill that amends CEQA to make it easier for projects to be approved cannot be supported. I wonder if the Sierra Club supported this? Development already has to consider transportation needs and requirements. We don’t need this bill to gain that. We just need enforcement of existing laws. We absolutely cannot weaken CEQA in order to permit more housing. What we need to do is to seriously take a step back and consider what continued building, not just sprawl, really means in terms of saving farmland and open space and containing GHGs. Its the population, stupid!
I am appalled at Steinberg for this bill. How can he support amending the most important environmental protection this state has?!
Charter city status will not only NOT protect Measure J, charter city status would make it easier for our council to amend or eliminate J. Please, all of you, go on line and read about Charter Cities and the powers that status gives the electeds.
“Finally, the bill amends the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental quality act that is California’s premiere statute for protecting the environment….So that the procedures for environmental review of projects rewards projects that are consistent with strategies that achieve our climate goals, air quality and energy conservation and helps us promote the kinds of transit priority projects that are needed for the future of California.”
No, no, no! Any bill that amends CEQA to make it easier for projects to be approved cannot be supported. I wonder if the Sierra Club supported this? Development already has to consider transportation needs and requirements. We don’t need this bill to gain that. We just need enforcement of existing laws. We absolutely cannot weaken CEQA in order to permit more housing. What we need to do is to seriously take a step back and consider what continued building, not just sprawl, really means in terms of saving farmland and open space and containing GHGs. Its the population, stupid!
I am appalled at Steinberg for this bill. How can he support amending the most important environmental protection this state has?!
Charter city status will not only NOT protect Measure J, charter city status would make it easier for our council to amend or eliminate J. Please, all of you, go on line and read about Charter Cities and the powers that status gives the electeds.
“Finally, the bill amends the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental quality act that is California’s premiere statute for protecting the environment….So that the procedures for environmental review of projects rewards projects that are consistent with strategies that achieve our climate goals, air quality and energy conservation and helps us promote the kinds of transit priority projects that are needed for the future of California.”
No, no, no! Any bill that amends CEQA to make it easier for projects to be approved cannot be supported. I wonder if the Sierra Club supported this? Development already has to consider transportation needs and requirements. We don’t need this bill to gain that. We just need enforcement of existing laws. We absolutely cannot weaken CEQA in order to permit more housing. What we need to do is to seriously take a step back and consider what continued building, not just sprawl, really means in terms of saving farmland and open space and containing GHGs. Its the population, stupid!
I am appalled at Steinberg for this bill. How can he support amending the most important environmental protection this state has?!
Charter city status will not only NOT protect Measure J, charter city status would make it easier for our council to amend or eliminate J. Please, all of you, go on line and read about Charter Cities and the powers that status gives the electeds.
“Finally, the bill amends the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental quality act that is California’s premiere statute for protecting the environment….So that the procedures for environmental review of projects rewards projects that are consistent with strategies that achieve our climate goals, air quality and energy conservation and helps us promote the kinds of transit priority projects that are needed for the future of California.”
No, no, no! Any bill that amends CEQA to make it easier for projects to be approved cannot be supported. I wonder if the Sierra Club supported this? Development already has to consider transportation needs and requirements. We don’t need this bill to gain that. We just need enforcement of existing laws. We absolutely cannot weaken CEQA in order to permit more housing. What we need to do is to seriously take a step back and consider what continued building, not just sprawl, really means in terms of saving farmland and open space and containing GHGs. Its the population, stupid!
I am appalled at Steinberg for this bill. How can he support amending the most important environmental protection this state has?!
Charter city status will not only NOT protect Measure J, charter city status would make it easier for our council to amend or eliminate J. Please, all of you, go on line and read about Charter Cities and the powers that status gives the electeds.
This bill will definitely affect Davis. The whole idea is to concentrate growth in and around existing cities. So, we will be required, not only to densify and infill, but also to build on land that abuts the city–that includes the CV property and the NW quadrant and several other parcels. And amending CEQA and gutting the ability of groups to litigate to stop development will just accommodate the developers!
This bill will definitely affect Davis. The whole idea is to concentrate growth in and around existing cities. So, we will be required, not only to densify and infill, but also to build on land that abuts the city–that includes the CV property and the NW quadrant and several other parcels. And amending CEQA and gutting the ability of groups to litigate to stop development will just accommodate the developers!
This bill will definitely affect Davis. The whole idea is to concentrate growth in and around existing cities. So, we will be required, not only to densify and infill, but also to build on land that abuts the city–that includes the CV property and the NW quadrant and several other parcels. And amending CEQA and gutting the ability of groups to litigate to stop development will just accommodate the developers!
This bill will definitely affect Davis. The whole idea is to concentrate growth in and around existing cities. So, we will be required, not only to densify and infill, but also to build on land that abuts the city–that includes the CV property and the NW quadrant and several other parcels. And amending CEQA and gutting the ability of groups to litigate to stop development will just accommodate the developers!
Amend does not equal weaken necessarily. It looks to me like they want to prioritize projects that meet certain goals. I see nothing wrong with that.
Amend does not equal weaken necessarily. It looks to me like they want to prioritize projects that meet certain goals. I see nothing wrong with that.
Amend does not equal weaken necessarily. It looks to me like they want to prioritize projects that meet certain goals. I see nothing wrong with that.
Amend does not equal weaken necessarily. It looks to me like they want to prioritize projects that meet certain goals. I see nothing wrong with that.
“The whole idea is to concentrate growth in and around existing cities.”
That’s pretty much been the case already. That’s what SACOG and LAFCO are all about.
“So, we will be required, not only to densify and infill, but also to build on land that abuts the city”
That’s not clear. In fact, under this it appears that land inside the cities would be given higher status that other land.
Also it is far from clear that this requires more growth. If anything it should require better growth but should not change the numbers.
“The whole idea is to concentrate growth in and around existing cities.”
That’s pretty much been the case already. That’s what SACOG and LAFCO are all about.
“So, we will be required, not only to densify and infill, but also to build on land that abuts the city”
That’s not clear. In fact, under this it appears that land inside the cities would be given higher status that other land.
Also it is far from clear that this requires more growth. If anything it should require better growth but should not change the numbers.
“The whole idea is to concentrate growth in and around existing cities.”
That’s pretty much been the case already. That’s what SACOG and LAFCO are all about.
“So, we will be required, not only to densify and infill, but also to build on land that abuts the city”
That’s not clear. In fact, under this it appears that land inside the cities would be given higher status that other land.
Also it is far from clear that this requires more growth. If anything it should require better growth but should not change the numbers.
“The whole idea is to concentrate growth in and around existing cities.”
That’s pretty much been the case already. That’s what SACOG and LAFCO are all about.
“So, we will be required, not only to densify and infill, but also to build on land that abuts the city”
That’s not clear. In fact, under this it appears that land inside the cities would be given higher status that other land.
Also it is far from clear that this requires more growth. If anything it should require better growth but should not change the numbers.
The question is … does this bill give the State additional coercive powers and the courts the ability to declare that Davis growth decisions are in violation of this new State law? If so(we’ll need REAL legal analysis and opinion on this), it will diminish Davis’ ability to chart its own growth future. If charter city status gives Davis greater ability to resist State and Court coercive powers, the decision will need to be balanced against the “dangers” of giving our local elected reps greater decision-making latitude. My populist instincts make me lean towards protecting the political power of the Davis voter.
The question is … does this bill give the State additional coercive powers and the courts the ability to declare that Davis growth decisions are in violation of this new State law? If so(we’ll need REAL legal analysis and opinion on this), it will diminish Davis’ ability to chart its own growth future. If charter city status gives Davis greater ability to resist State and Court coercive powers, the decision will need to be balanced against the “dangers” of giving our local elected reps greater decision-making latitude. My populist instincts make me lean towards protecting the political power of the Davis voter.
The question is … does this bill give the State additional coercive powers and the courts the ability to declare that Davis growth decisions are in violation of this new State law? If so(we’ll need REAL legal analysis and opinion on this), it will diminish Davis’ ability to chart its own growth future. If charter city status gives Davis greater ability to resist State and Court coercive powers, the decision will need to be balanced against the “dangers” of giving our local elected reps greater decision-making latitude. My populist instincts make me lean towards protecting the political power of the Davis voter.
The question is … does this bill give the State additional coercive powers and the courts the ability to declare that Davis growth decisions are in violation of this new State law? If so(we’ll need REAL legal analysis and opinion on this), it will diminish Davis’ ability to chart its own growth future. If charter city status gives Davis greater ability to resist State and Court coercive powers, the decision will need to be balanced against the “dangers” of giving our local elected reps greater decision-making latitude. My populist instincts make me lean towards protecting the political power of the Davis voter.
“But this needed to happen at a state level, sprawl development is killing us.”
Doug,
What does that mean, killing us? I feel very much alive. How is sprawl killing you or me? I don’t understand what you are saying.
“But this needed to happen at a state level, sprawl development is killing us.”
Doug,
What does that mean, killing us? I feel very much alive. How is sprawl killing you or me? I don’t understand what you are saying.
“But this needed to happen at a state level, sprawl development is killing us.”
Doug,
What does that mean, killing us? I feel very much alive. How is sprawl killing you or me? I don’t understand what you are saying.
“But this needed to happen at a state level, sprawl development is killing us.”
Doug,
What does that mean, killing us? I feel very much alive. How is sprawl killing you or me? I don’t understand what you are saying.
Dear disagree:
How can you have better “growth” and not change the numbers? Of course this means more growth. Do you think the building industry got on board with this just to do redevelopment? This means more growth, granted, more dense, but it still means growing out to some extent onto farmland and openspace, and by amending CEQA to facilitate development and limiting litigation to challenge development, it makes it easier for developers to get their projects through. Do you really think that future development under this bill will be that much better? Face it: most electeds get to office and to higher office by accommodating special interests. How tightly do you think they will hold the developers to the requirements of this bill, if the developers give them the ususal song and dance that “it just won’t pencil out” as they do now? As I stated before, new development is already required to consider transportation, but those laws are not enforced. Do you honestly believe this one will? And to make it worse, this one weakens CEQA and limits litigation to challenge developments. This bill is a very bad idea.
Dear disagree:
How can you have better “growth” and not change the numbers? Of course this means more growth. Do you think the building industry got on board with this just to do redevelopment? This means more growth, granted, more dense, but it still means growing out to some extent onto farmland and openspace, and by amending CEQA to facilitate development and limiting litigation to challenge development, it makes it easier for developers to get their projects through. Do you really think that future development under this bill will be that much better? Face it: most electeds get to office and to higher office by accommodating special interests. How tightly do you think they will hold the developers to the requirements of this bill, if the developers give them the ususal song and dance that “it just won’t pencil out” as they do now? As I stated before, new development is already required to consider transportation, but those laws are not enforced. Do you honestly believe this one will? And to make it worse, this one weakens CEQA and limits litigation to challenge developments. This bill is a very bad idea.
Dear disagree:
How can you have better “growth” and not change the numbers? Of course this means more growth. Do you think the building industry got on board with this just to do redevelopment? This means more growth, granted, more dense, but it still means growing out to some extent onto farmland and openspace, and by amending CEQA to facilitate development and limiting litigation to challenge development, it makes it easier for developers to get their projects through. Do you really think that future development under this bill will be that much better? Face it: most electeds get to office and to higher office by accommodating special interests. How tightly do you think they will hold the developers to the requirements of this bill, if the developers give them the ususal song and dance that “it just won’t pencil out” as they do now? As I stated before, new development is already required to consider transportation, but those laws are not enforced. Do you honestly believe this one will? And to make it worse, this one weakens CEQA and limits litigation to challenge developments. This bill is a very bad idea.
Dear disagree:
How can you have better “growth” and not change the numbers? Of course this means more growth. Do you think the building industry got on board with this just to do redevelopment? This means more growth, granted, more dense, but it still means growing out to some extent onto farmland and openspace, and by amending CEQA to facilitate development and limiting litigation to challenge development, it makes it easier for developers to get their projects through. Do you really think that future development under this bill will be that much better? Face it: most electeds get to office and to higher office by accommodating special interests. How tightly do you think they will hold the developers to the requirements of this bill, if the developers give them the ususal song and dance that “it just won’t pencil out” as they do now? As I stated before, new development is already required to consider transportation, but those laws are not enforced. Do you honestly believe this one will? And to make it worse, this one weakens CEQA and limits litigation to challenge developments. This bill is a very bad idea.
Davisite:
Charter City status does NOT give more power to the Davis voter. How could it possibly. The voter does not have any direct method of actually establishing policy or making laws. They have to depend on their electeds for that or resort to referenda or initiatives. Charter City status does not change that. What it does is give more power to the electeds. The Davis voter will have no more power than now. We will still have to do referenda, or initiatives, or try, try, try to get good people elected to our council who will not constantly pander to special interests and work against the people they were elected to serve.
Davisite:
Charter City status does NOT give more power to the Davis voter. How could it possibly. The voter does not have any direct method of actually establishing policy or making laws. They have to depend on their electeds for that or resort to referenda or initiatives. Charter City status does not change that. What it does is give more power to the electeds. The Davis voter will have no more power than now. We will still have to do referenda, or initiatives, or try, try, try to get good people elected to our council who will not constantly pander to special interests and work against the people they were elected to serve.
Davisite:
Charter City status does NOT give more power to the Davis voter. How could it possibly. The voter does not have any direct method of actually establishing policy or making laws. They have to depend on their electeds for that or resort to referenda or initiatives. Charter City status does not change that. What it does is give more power to the electeds. The Davis voter will have no more power than now. We will still have to do referenda, or initiatives, or try, try, try to get good people elected to our council who will not constantly pander to special interests and work against the people they were elected to serve.
Davisite:
Charter City status does NOT give more power to the Davis voter. How could it possibly. The voter does not have any direct method of actually establishing policy or making laws. They have to depend on their electeds for that or resort to referenda or initiatives. Charter City status does not change that. What it does is give more power to the electeds. The Davis voter will have no more power than now. We will still have to do referenda, or initiatives, or try, try, try to get good people elected to our council who will not constantly pander to special interests and work against the people they were elected to serve.
Some of the people ‘sprawl’ should be killing are still very much alive! All of you praising Steinberg now WILL not be too happy when all this “shakes out” in the courts and you realize choice and freedom are in the wind-forever. They don’t give choice and freedom back. AB32 is all about more government control, taxes and still more control over your daily life. Oh, I almost forgot it really is about saving the world from GH gases-stupid me!
Some of the people ‘sprawl’ should be killing are still very much alive! All of you praising Steinberg now WILL not be too happy when all this “shakes out” in the courts and you realize choice and freedom are in the wind-forever. They don’t give choice and freedom back. AB32 is all about more government control, taxes and still more control over your daily life. Oh, I almost forgot it really is about saving the world from GH gases-stupid me!
Some of the people ‘sprawl’ should be killing are still very much alive! All of you praising Steinberg now WILL not be too happy when all this “shakes out” in the courts and you realize choice and freedom are in the wind-forever. They don’t give choice and freedom back. AB32 is all about more government control, taxes and still more control over your daily life. Oh, I almost forgot it really is about saving the world from GH gases-stupid me!
Some of the people ‘sprawl’ should be killing are still very much alive! All of you praising Steinberg now WILL not be too happy when all this “shakes out” in the courts and you realize choice and freedom are in the wind-forever. They don’t give choice and freedom back. AB32 is all about more government control, taxes and still more control over your daily life. Oh, I almost forgot it really is about saving the world from GH gases-stupid me!
Micah: I suppose you don’t consider the threat from global warming a threat?
Anon: The charter enables the voters to place charter changes directly on the ballot.
Micah: I suppose you don’t consider the threat from global warming a threat?
Anon: The charter enables the voters to place charter changes directly on the ballot.
Micah: I suppose you don’t consider the threat from global warming a threat?
Anon: The charter enables the voters to place charter changes directly on the ballot.
Micah: I suppose you don’t consider the threat from global warming a threat?
Anon: The charter enables the voters to place charter changes directly on the ballot.
Doug,
I live in Dixon and work in Davis. Am I causing global warming riding my bike to work and back? If I am, please let me know.
I don’t think people living 10 miles from their jobs is the problem. (If I didn’t commute, my wife would have to.) The problem is people don’t always have good non-polluting ways to travel.
Doug,
I live in Dixon and work in Davis. Am I causing global warming riding my bike to work and back? If I am, please let me know.
I don’t think people living 10 miles from their jobs is the problem. (If I didn’t commute, my wife would have to.) The problem is people don’t always have good non-polluting ways to travel.
Doug,
I live in Dixon and work in Davis. Am I causing global warming riding my bike to work and back? If I am, please let me know.
I don’t think people living 10 miles from their jobs is the problem. (If I didn’t commute, my wife would have to.) The problem is people don’t always have good non-polluting ways to travel.
Doug,
I live in Dixon and work in Davis. Am I causing global warming riding my bike to work and back? If I am, please let me know.
I don’t think people living 10 miles from their jobs is the problem. (If I didn’t commute, my wife would have to.) The problem is people don’t always have good non-polluting ways to travel.
As I read this bill, it would have no impact on your sitution.
As I read this bill, it would have no impact on your sitution.
As I read this bill, it would have no impact on your sitution.
As I read this bill, it would have no impact on your sitution.
I’m impressed by anyone who is biking from Dixon to Davis on a daily basis. It would be nice to have public transit available between the two communities.
But, micah, we who live in/near Dixon and work in Davis are an anomalous situation with respect to land-use planning and the impact of this bill. We are in two counties, separate air resource districts, and separate local-government agency districts (Dixon is in ABAG, Davis in SACOG). And development in Solano County is already limited to the existing urban areas. So while this legislation might help develop regional transit between Vacaville and Dixon, it is unlikely to do anything about transit between Davis and Dixon — even though you and I are about equidistant between Vacaville and Davis.
Darrell Steinberg is an interesting legislator. An early “smart growth” advocate, he was the one, a few years ago, who advocated pooling sales tax revenues to reduce the local government tendency to compete for regional malls and big box retailers. He is consensus-oriented, which means that he will forge compromises of this sort in order to make progress. I’m impressed that he pulled this together.
I’m impressed by anyone who is biking from Dixon to Davis on a daily basis. It would be nice to have public transit available between the two communities.
But, micah, we who live in/near Dixon and work in Davis are an anomalous situation with respect to land-use planning and the impact of this bill. We are in two counties, separate air resource districts, and separate local-government agency districts (Dixon is in ABAG, Davis in SACOG). And development in Solano County is already limited to the existing urban areas. So while this legislation might help develop regional transit between Vacaville and Dixon, it is unlikely to do anything about transit between Davis and Dixon — even though you and I are about equidistant between Vacaville and Davis.
Darrell Steinberg is an interesting legislator. An early “smart growth” advocate, he was the one, a few years ago, who advocated pooling sales tax revenues to reduce the local government tendency to compete for regional malls and big box retailers. He is consensus-oriented, which means that he will forge compromises of this sort in order to make progress. I’m impressed that he pulled this together.
I’m impressed by anyone who is biking from Dixon to Davis on a daily basis. It would be nice to have public transit available between the two communities.
But, micah, we who live in/near Dixon and work in Davis are an anomalous situation with respect to land-use planning and the impact of this bill. We are in two counties, separate air resource districts, and separate local-government agency districts (Dixon is in ABAG, Davis in SACOG). And development in Solano County is already limited to the existing urban areas. So while this legislation might help develop regional transit between Vacaville and Dixon, it is unlikely to do anything about transit between Davis and Dixon — even though you and I are about equidistant between Vacaville and Davis.
Darrell Steinberg is an interesting legislator. An early “smart growth” advocate, he was the one, a few years ago, who advocated pooling sales tax revenues to reduce the local government tendency to compete for regional malls and big box retailers. He is consensus-oriented, which means that he will forge compromises of this sort in order to make progress. I’m impressed that he pulled this together.
I’m impressed by anyone who is biking from Dixon to Davis on a daily basis. It would be nice to have public transit available between the two communities.
But, micah, we who live in/near Dixon and work in Davis are an anomalous situation with respect to land-use planning and the impact of this bill. We are in two counties, separate air resource districts, and separate local-government agency districts (Dixon is in ABAG, Davis in SACOG). And development in Solano County is already limited to the existing urban areas. So while this legislation might help develop regional transit between Vacaville and Dixon, it is unlikely to do anything about transit between Davis and Dixon — even though you and I are about equidistant between Vacaville and Davis.
Darrell Steinberg is an interesting legislator. An early “smart growth” advocate, he was the one, a few years ago, who advocated pooling sales tax revenues to reduce the local government tendency to compete for regional malls and big box retailers. He is consensus-oriented, which means that he will forge compromises of this sort in order to make progress. I’m impressed that he pulled this together.
DPD:
How does the Charter permit voters to put charter changes directly on the ballot? There is no language in this charter that states that. Do you mean that citizens can ask the council to put charter changes on the ballot? What if the council doesn’t want that particular change? In that case, we have to do what we have to do now, and that is go out and draft an ordinance, gather signatures to get it on the ballot and then run a campaign that will likely be opposed by the council and special interests. That is no different than now. I think that those of you who are supporting the charter are grasping at straws. The charter will not help the citizens, only the electeds.
DPD:
How does the Charter permit voters to put charter changes directly on the ballot? There is no language in this charter that states that. Do you mean that citizens can ask the council to put charter changes on the ballot? What if the council doesn’t want that particular change? In that case, we have to do what we have to do now, and that is go out and draft an ordinance, gather signatures to get it on the ballot and then run a campaign that will likely be opposed by the council and special interests. That is no different than now. I think that those of you who are supporting the charter are grasping at straws. The charter will not help the citizens, only the electeds.
DPD:
How does the Charter permit voters to put charter changes directly on the ballot? There is no language in this charter that states that. Do you mean that citizens can ask the council to put charter changes on the ballot? What if the council doesn’t want that particular change? In that case, we have to do what we have to do now, and that is go out and draft an ordinance, gather signatures to get it on the ballot and then run a campaign that will likely be opposed by the council and special interests. That is no different than now. I think that those of you who are supporting the charter are grasping at straws. The charter will not help the citizens, only the electeds.
DPD:
How does the Charter permit voters to put charter changes directly on the ballot? There is no language in this charter that states that. Do you mean that citizens can ask the council to put charter changes on the ballot? What if the council doesn’t want that particular change? In that case, we have to do what we have to do now, and that is go out and draft an ordinance, gather signatures to get it on the ballot and then run a campaign that will likely be opposed by the council and special interests. That is no different than now. I think that those of you who are supporting the charter are grasping at straws. The charter will not help the citizens, only the electeds.
We have an initiative process now, people can put measures on the ballot and change an ordinance. They collect signatures and place it on the ballot. You do not need a provision in the charter to do that.
The council has no power to stop it from occurring.
We have an initiative process now, people can put measures on the ballot and change an ordinance. They collect signatures and place it on the ballot. You do not need a provision in the charter to do that.
The council has no power to stop it from occurring.
We have an initiative process now, people can put measures on the ballot and change an ordinance. They collect signatures and place it on the ballot. You do not need a provision in the charter to do that.
The council has no power to stop it from occurring.
We have an initiative process now, people can put measures on the ballot and change an ordinance. They collect signatures and place it on the ballot. You do not need a provision in the charter to do that.
The council has no power to stop it from occurring.
Anon 11:37
IF(and I say if) a charter-city status offers Davis significant protection from being held accountable to this State legislation as well as diminish the courts ability,based upon this bill, to negate decisions that Davis voters make through Measure J, then, by my reckoning, a charter-status offers potentially more local voter control(which includes choosing our local council reps) than the current general-law city status.
Anon 11:37
IF(and I say if) a charter-city status offers Davis significant protection from being held accountable to this State legislation as well as diminish the courts ability,based upon this bill, to negate decisions that Davis voters make through Measure J, then, by my reckoning, a charter-status offers potentially more local voter control(which includes choosing our local council reps) than the current general-law city status.
Anon 11:37
IF(and I say if) a charter-city status offers Davis significant protection from being held accountable to this State legislation as well as diminish the courts ability,based upon this bill, to negate decisions that Davis voters make through Measure J, then, by my reckoning, a charter-status offers potentially more local voter control(which includes choosing our local council reps) than the current general-law city status.
Anon 11:37
IF(and I say if) a charter-city status offers Davis significant protection from being held accountable to this State legislation as well as diminish the courts ability,based upon this bill, to negate decisions that Davis voters make through Measure J, then, by my reckoning, a charter-status offers potentially more local voter control(which includes choosing our local council reps) than the current general-law city status.
Important issue to watch out for:
There is a wrinkle here that folks should be aware of. SACOG will be allocating growth targets based on transportation planning.
Just before the council majority removed me from the Yolo Transportation District board of directors, the executive director of the Yolo County Transportation District e-mailed me, concerned that a light rail extension to Davis was now shown being show on the RT map.
He did not know if this was an old plan, or something new. He was concerned because light rail to Davis would be extremely cost inefficient.
He is right, of course ––right unless truly massive urbanization of our region is planned.
A number of our establishment politicians support light rail extension to Davis. They are the same elected officials who support more rapid growth. Helen Thompson is now president of SACOG, and Don Saylor is our representative.
Currently, SACOG has given Davis lower growth requirements because we DON’T have a light rail extension planned.
If light rail is officially planned for Davis, we will be getting MUCH higher growth allocations.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the council majority removed me from the YTD board.
This is a key position when it comes to growth control in Davis.
Light rail is cost inefficient for Davis. More buses and more AMTRAK cars are the rational way to proceed.
Again, our SACOG growth requirements are determined by the type of transportation infrastructure we have in place. Light rail and large freeway interchanges will result in higher growth allocations.
Keep a very, very close eye on the light rail issue, and on which YTDC projects are planned for Davis; this will determine whether our region of Yolo County remains a primarily an agricultural region.
Important issue to watch out for:
There is a wrinkle here that folks should be aware of. SACOG will be allocating growth targets based on transportation planning.
Just before the council majority removed me from the Yolo Transportation District board of directors, the executive director of the Yolo County Transportation District e-mailed me, concerned that a light rail extension to Davis was now shown being show on the RT map.
He did not know if this was an old plan, or something new. He was concerned because light rail to Davis would be extremely cost inefficient.
He is right, of course ––right unless truly massive urbanization of our region is planned.
A number of our establishment politicians support light rail extension to Davis. They are the same elected officials who support more rapid growth. Helen Thompson is now president of SACOG, and Don Saylor is our representative.
Currently, SACOG has given Davis lower growth requirements because we DON’T have a light rail extension planned.
If light rail is officially planned for Davis, we will be getting MUCH higher growth allocations.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the council majority removed me from the YTD board.
This is a key position when it comes to growth control in Davis.
Light rail is cost inefficient for Davis. More buses and more AMTRAK cars are the rational way to proceed.
Again, our SACOG growth requirements are determined by the type of transportation infrastructure we have in place. Light rail and large freeway interchanges will result in higher growth allocations.
Keep a very, very close eye on the light rail issue, and on which YTDC projects are planned for Davis; this will determine whether our region of Yolo County remains a primarily an agricultural region.
Important issue to watch out for:
There is a wrinkle here that folks should be aware of. SACOG will be allocating growth targets based on transportation planning.
Just before the council majority removed me from the Yolo Transportation District board of directors, the executive director of the Yolo County Transportation District e-mailed me, concerned that a light rail extension to Davis was now shown being show on the RT map.
He did not know if this was an old plan, or something new. He was concerned because light rail to Davis would be extremely cost inefficient.
He is right, of course ––right unless truly massive urbanization of our region is planned.
A number of our establishment politicians support light rail extension to Davis. They are the same elected officials who support more rapid growth. Helen Thompson is now president of SACOG, and Don Saylor is our representative.
Currently, SACOG has given Davis lower growth requirements because we DON’T have a light rail extension planned.
If light rail is officially planned for Davis, we will be getting MUCH higher growth allocations.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the council majority removed me from the YTD board.
This is a key position when it comes to growth control in Davis.
Light rail is cost inefficient for Davis. More buses and more AMTRAK cars are the rational way to proceed.
Again, our SACOG growth requirements are determined by the type of transportation infrastructure we have in place. Light rail and large freeway interchanges will result in higher growth allocations.
Keep a very, very close eye on the light rail issue, and on which YTDC projects are planned for Davis; this will determine whether our region of Yolo County remains a primarily an agricultural region.
Important issue to watch out for:
There is a wrinkle here that folks should be aware of. SACOG will be allocating growth targets based on transportation planning.
Just before the council majority removed me from the Yolo Transportation District board of directors, the executive director of the Yolo County Transportation District e-mailed me, concerned that a light rail extension to Davis was now shown being show on the RT map.
He did not know if this was an old plan, or something new. He was concerned because light rail to Davis would be extremely cost inefficient.
He is right, of course ––right unless truly massive urbanization of our region is planned.
A number of our establishment politicians support light rail extension to Davis. They are the same elected officials who support more rapid growth. Helen Thompson is now president of SACOG, and Don Saylor is our representative.
Currently, SACOG has given Davis lower growth requirements because we DON’T have a light rail extension planned.
If light rail is officially planned for Davis, we will be getting MUCH higher growth allocations.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the council majority removed me from the YTD board.
This is a key position when it comes to growth control in Davis.
Light rail is cost inefficient for Davis. More buses and more AMTRAK cars are the rational way to proceed.
Again, our SACOG growth requirements are determined by the type of transportation infrastructure we have in place. Light rail and large freeway interchanges will result in higher growth allocations.
Keep a very, very close eye on the light rail issue, and on which YTDC projects are planned for Davis; this will determine whether our region of Yolo County remains a primarily an agricultural region.
DPD:
You did not answer my question. I am very aware that we have an initiative process now; I have used it. And the council has no power to stop it now! Please outline for me exactly how a charter status will give more power to the people.
Davisite:
How would the charter give us any more say in how our electeds are chosen? Does it allow us to change the electoral process? We are going to draw straws?
I keep asking for concrete answers to these questions of people who support the charter, but I get no reasonable answer.
Please show me how the charter gives the people more power.
DPD:
You did not answer my question. I am very aware that we have an initiative process now; I have used it. And the council has no power to stop it now! Please outline for me exactly how a charter status will give more power to the people.
Davisite:
How would the charter give us any more say in how our electeds are chosen? Does it allow us to change the electoral process? We are going to draw straws?
I keep asking for concrete answers to these questions of people who support the charter, but I get no reasonable answer.
Please show me how the charter gives the people more power.
DPD:
You did not answer my question. I am very aware that we have an initiative process now; I have used it. And the council has no power to stop it now! Please outline for me exactly how a charter status will give more power to the people.
Davisite:
How would the charter give us any more say in how our electeds are chosen? Does it allow us to change the electoral process? We are going to draw straws?
I keep asking for concrete answers to these questions of people who support the charter, but I get no reasonable answer.
Please show me how the charter gives the people more power.
DPD:
You did not answer my question. I am very aware that we have an initiative process now; I have used it. And the council has no power to stop it now! Please outline for me exactly how a charter status will give more power to the people.
Davisite:
How would the charter give us any more say in how our electeds are chosen? Does it allow us to change the electoral process? We are going to draw straws?
I keep asking for concrete answers to these questions of people who support the charter, but I get no reasonable answer.
Please show me how the charter gives the people more power.
Anonymous:
The charter will retain the initiative process as before, however because of the charter in place, the voters have a greater opportunity to pass laws that would not be allowed in general law cities. For instance, the people could enact a choice voting system, they could enact a civilian police review board, there are a whole host of things the voters can enact without any action by the council that they could not under general law status.
Anonymous:
The charter will retain the initiative process as before, however because of the charter in place, the voters have a greater opportunity to pass laws that would not be allowed in general law cities. For instance, the people could enact a choice voting system, they could enact a civilian police review board, there are a whole host of things the voters can enact without any action by the council that they could not under general law status.
Anonymous:
The charter will retain the initiative process as before, however because of the charter in place, the voters have a greater opportunity to pass laws that would not be allowed in general law cities. For instance, the people could enact a choice voting system, they could enact a civilian police review board, there are a whole host of things the voters can enact without any action by the council that they could not under general law status.
Anonymous:
The charter will retain the initiative process as before, however because of the charter in place, the voters have a greater opportunity to pass laws that would not be allowed in general law cities. For instance, the people could enact a choice voting system, they could enact a civilian police review board, there are a whole host of things the voters can enact without any action by the council that they could not under general law status.
DPd:
Well, I don’t support choice voting, so that argument does not work with me. But, as a general law city, we can go to the legislature and request the right to enact choice voting. And we could do ANYTHING else we wanted to do, simply by doing an initiative, just as we can now. The Charter does not give us any more power to do anything! But it does give the electeds more power for sure.
I have read the differences in the two, and the limited things we can NOT do as a general law city, are in general GOOD things not to be able to do. For example, under a charter, the city can use public funds, our tax dollars to fight or support a ballot measure or candidate.
DPd:
Well, I don’t support choice voting, so that argument does not work with me. But, as a general law city, we can go to the legislature and request the right to enact choice voting. And we could do ANYTHING else we wanted to do, simply by doing an initiative, just as we can now. The Charter does not give us any more power to do anything! But it does give the electeds more power for sure.
I have read the differences in the two, and the limited things we can NOT do as a general law city, are in general GOOD things not to be able to do. For example, under a charter, the city can use public funds, our tax dollars to fight or support a ballot measure or candidate.
DPd:
Well, I don’t support choice voting, so that argument does not work with me. But, as a general law city, we can go to the legislature and request the right to enact choice voting. And we could do ANYTHING else we wanted to do, simply by doing an initiative, just as we can now. The Charter does not give us any more power to do anything! But it does give the electeds more power for sure.
I have read the differences in the two, and the limited things we can NOT do as a general law city, are in general GOOD things not to be able to do. For example, under a charter, the city can use public funds, our tax dollars to fight or support a ballot measure or candidate.
DPd:
Well, I don’t support choice voting, so that argument does not work with me. But, as a general law city, we can go to the legislature and request the right to enact choice voting. And we could do ANYTHING else we wanted to do, simply by doing an initiative, just as we can now. The Charter does not give us any more power to do anything! But it does give the electeds more power for sure.
I have read the differences in the two, and the limited things we can NOT do as a general law city, are in general GOOD things not to be able to do. For example, under a charter, the city can use public funds, our tax dollars to fight or support a ballot measure or candidate.
I used choice voting as an example of how the voters have more direct power under a charter. I didn’t say you had to agree with those examples, there are a whole ton, Lamar laid out a bunch of them in the article last week.
It’s also a judgment call on whether you want any of the things.
I have not taken a position either way on the charter yet, but it is a fact that having a charter would give the voters more power–that in itself is not sufficient for me to want to support a charter, but that doesn’t change the point that was made here.
I used choice voting as an example of how the voters have more direct power under a charter. I didn’t say you had to agree with those examples, there are a whole ton, Lamar laid out a bunch of them in the article last week.
It’s also a judgment call on whether you want any of the things.
I have not taken a position either way on the charter yet, but it is a fact that having a charter would give the voters more power–that in itself is not sufficient for me to want to support a charter, but that doesn’t change the point that was made here.
I used choice voting as an example of how the voters have more direct power under a charter. I didn’t say you had to agree with those examples, there are a whole ton, Lamar laid out a bunch of them in the article last week.
It’s also a judgment call on whether you want any of the things.
I have not taken a position either way on the charter yet, but it is a fact that having a charter would give the voters more power–that in itself is not sufficient for me to want to support a charter, but that doesn’t change the point that was made here.
I used choice voting as an example of how the voters have more direct power under a charter. I didn’t say you had to agree with those examples, there are a whole ton, Lamar laid out a bunch of them in the article last week.
It’s also a judgment call on whether you want any of the things.
I have not taken a position either way on the charter yet, but it is a fact that having a charter would give the voters more power–that in itself is not sufficient for me to want to support a charter, but that doesn’t change the point that was made here.
Lamar, for you to read and comment, I hope.
Mike Harrington
“Anonymous said…
DPd:
Well, I don’t support choice voting, so that argument does not work with me. But, as a general law city, we can go to the legislature and request the right to enact choice voting. And we could do ANYTHING else we wanted to do, simply by doing an initiative, just as we can now. The Charter does not give us any more power to do anything! But it does give the electeds more power for sure.
I have read the differences in the two, and the limited things we can NOT do as a general law city, are in general GOOD things not to be able to do. For example, under a charter, the city can use public funds, our tax dollars to fight or support a ballot measure or candidate.
9/1/08 6:34 PM”
Lamar, your name is on the ballot statement, but I think you should seriously look at the criticims of the current charter city proposal, and consider taking the opposition position in light of the analysis that you and others should be seeing on this Blog.
Admitting you were wrong is vastly superior to the charter city proposal winning, as written.
Lamar, for you to read and comment, I hope.
Mike Harrington
“Anonymous said…
DPd:
Well, I don’t support choice voting, so that argument does not work with me. But, as a general law city, we can go to the legislature and request the right to enact choice voting. And we could do ANYTHING else we wanted to do, simply by doing an initiative, just as we can now. The Charter does not give us any more power to do anything! But it does give the electeds more power for sure.
I have read the differences in the two, and the limited things we can NOT do as a general law city, are in general GOOD things not to be able to do. For example, under a charter, the city can use public funds, our tax dollars to fight or support a ballot measure or candidate.
9/1/08 6:34 PM”
Lamar, your name is on the ballot statement, but I think you should seriously look at the criticims of the current charter city proposal, and consider taking the opposition position in light of the analysis that you and others should be seeing on this Blog.
Admitting you were wrong is vastly superior to the charter city proposal winning, as written.
Lamar, for you to read and comment, I hope.
Mike Harrington
“Anonymous said…
DPd:
Well, I don’t support choice voting, so that argument does not work with me. But, as a general law city, we can go to the legislature and request the right to enact choice voting. And we could do ANYTHING else we wanted to do, simply by doing an initiative, just as we can now. The Charter does not give us any more power to do anything! But it does give the electeds more power for sure.
I have read the differences in the two, and the limited things we can NOT do as a general law city, are in general GOOD things not to be able to do. For example, under a charter, the city can use public funds, our tax dollars to fight or support a ballot measure or candidate.
9/1/08 6:34 PM”
Lamar, your name is on the ballot statement, but I think you should seriously look at the criticims of the current charter city proposal, and consider taking the opposition position in light of the analysis that you and others should be seeing on this Blog.
Admitting you were wrong is vastly superior to the charter city proposal winning, as written.
Lamar, for you to read and comment, I hope.
Mike Harrington
“Anonymous said…
DPd:
Well, I don’t support choice voting, so that argument does not work with me. But, as a general law city, we can go to the legislature and request the right to enact choice voting. And we could do ANYTHING else we wanted to do, simply by doing an initiative, just as we can now. The Charter does not give us any more power to do anything! But it does give the electeds more power for sure.
I have read the differences in the two, and the limited things we can NOT do as a general law city, are in general GOOD things not to be able to do. For example, under a charter, the city can use public funds, our tax dollars to fight or support a ballot measure or candidate.
9/1/08 6:34 PM”
Lamar, your name is on the ballot statement, but I think you should seriously look at the criticims of the current charter city proposal, and consider taking the opposition position in light of the analysis that you and others should be seeing on this Blog.
Admitting you were wrong is vastly superior to the charter city proposal winning, as written.
Sue Greenwald against light rail, against water development for 25 years, against building homes except next to the noisy train track on probably polluted PGE land. The beat goes on….
Sue Greenwald against light rail, against water development for 25 years, against building homes except next to the noisy train track on probably polluted PGE land. The beat goes on….
Sue Greenwald against light rail, against water development for 25 years, against building homes except next to the noisy train track on probably polluted PGE land. The beat goes on….
Sue Greenwald against light rail, against water development for 25 years, against building homes except next to the noisy train track on probably polluted PGE land. The beat goes on….
And Sue is correct–light rail expansion would significantly increase the growth allocation. Some people are so biased against Sue that they just make dumb comments. And of course they NEVER post under their own name. Coward.
And Sue is correct–light rail expansion would significantly increase the growth allocation. Some people are so biased against Sue that they just make dumb comments. And of course they NEVER post under their own name. Coward.
And Sue is correct–light rail expansion would significantly increase the growth allocation. Some people are so biased against Sue that they just make dumb comments. And of course they NEVER post under their own name. Coward.
And Sue is correct–light rail expansion would significantly increase the growth allocation. Some people are so biased against Sue that they just make dumb comments. And of course they NEVER post under their own name. Coward.
Sounds to me like Steinberg’s bill is an aim to streamline the process of more growth. Not good, bc it takes away local control. Sure Steinberg got consensus – he sold out to developers.
As for urban sprawl, I’m going to interject a different perspective. I come from the East Coast, where lots are a quarter or half acre. Furthermore, I came from a large metro area, with huge numbers of suburbs. If I had a choice, I would move back in a heartbeat.
The living here is too close, the construction of houses is overly expensive and horribly unprofessional. Give me sprawl anyday. I do not like densification. Who wants to live on top of each other, w no privacy. Then all we end up with is tenement living. Yuck!
Forget the charter city idea. All it does is make life more difficult for voters, by giving the Council majority more power, and increases the need for more referenda and initiatives. Choice voting is a bad idea, and just confuses things. But it doesn’t matter, bc Ruth took it off the table – which negates any need for charter city status.
The problem Davis ought to be worrying about is how to stop developers from ruining taxpayers collective finances, by building housing Davisites don’t need, increasing the need for more city services. What we need is more commercial development, to generate more tax revenue. We just lost the RV sales store on Chiles Road. Not good.
Sounds to me like Steinberg’s bill is an aim to streamline the process of more growth. Not good, bc it takes away local control. Sure Steinberg got consensus – he sold out to developers.
As for urban sprawl, I’m going to interject a different perspective. I come from the East Coast, where lots are a quarter or half acre. Furthermore, I came from a large metro area, with huge numbers of suburbs. If I had a choice, I would move back in a heartbeat.
The living here is too close, the construction of houses is overly expensive and horribly unprofessional. Give me sprawl anyday. I do not like densification. Who wants to live on top of each other, w no privacy. Then all we end up with is tenement living. Yuck!
Forget the charter city idea. All it does is make life more difficult for voters, by giving the Council majority more power, and increases the need for more referenda and initiatives. Choice voting is a bad idea, and just confuses things. But it doesn’t matter, bc Ruth took it off the table – which negates any need for charter city status.
The problem Davis ought to be worrying about is how to stop developers from ruining taxpayers collective finances, by building housing Davisites don’t need, increasing the need for more city services. What we need is more commercial development, to generate more tax revenue. We just lost the RV sales store on Chiles Road. Not good.
Sounds to me like Steinberg’s bill is an aim to streamline the process of more growth. Not good, bc it takes away local control. Sure Steinberg got consensus – he sold out to developers.
As for urban sprawl, I’m going to interject a different perspective. I come from the East Coast, where lots are a quarter or half acre. Furthermore, I came from a large metro area, with huge numbers of suburbs. If I had a choice, I would move back in a heartbeat.
The living here is too close, the construction of houses is overly expensive and horribly unprofessional. Give me sprawl anyday. I do not like densification. Who wants to live on top of each other, w no privacy. Then all we end up with is tenement living. Yuck!
Forget the charter city idea. All it does is make life more difficult for voters, by giving the Council majority more power, and increases the need for more referenda and initiatives. Choice voting is a bad idea, and just confuses things. But it doesn’t matter, bc Ruth took it off the table – which negates any need for charter city status.
The problem Davis ought to be worrying about is how to stop developers from ruining taxpayers collective finances, by building housing Davisites don’t need, increasing the need for more city services. What we need is more commercial development, to generate more tax revenue. We just lost the RV sales store on Chiles Road. Not good.
Sounds to me like Steinberg’s bill is an aim to streamline the process of more growth. Not good, bc it takes away local control. Sure Steinberg got consensus – he sold out to developers.
As for urban sprawl, I’m going to interject a different perspective. I come from the East Coast, where lots are a quarter or half acre. Furthermore, I came from a large metro area, with huge numbers of suburbs. If I had a choice, I would move back in a heartbeat.
The living here is too close, the construction of houses is overly expensive and horribly unprofessional. Give me sprawl anyday. I do not like densification. Who wants to live on top of each other, w no privacy. Then all we end up with is tenement living. Yuck!
Forget the charter city idea. All it does is make life more difficult for voters, by giving the Council majority more power, and increases the need for more referenda and initiatives. Choice voting is a bad idea, and just confuses things. But it doesn’t matter, bc Ruth took it off the table – which negates any need for charter city status.
The problem Davis ought to be worrying about is how to stop developers from ruining taxpayers collective finances, by building housing Davisites don’t need, increasing the need for more city services. What we need is more commercial development, to generate more tax revenue. We just lost the RV sales store on Chiles Road. Not good.
given the imminent crises of both global warming and peak oil
given sacramento’s potential role as a high speed rail terminus in the next couple decades (within RT’s “20 year vision” time frame)
given the large and growing number of davis residents who commute into sac, especially to the capitol and places close to the RT lines
given the increasing number of students commuting to UC davis from sac
given the degree of congestion on the I-80 corridor between davis and sac
given the fact that the capitol corridor trains are already overloaded, and will be accommodating an ever larger number of riders as gas prices rise
and given the fact that davisites regularly drive into sac for shopping (and occasionally rivercats or kings games)
given that the RT network is planning an extension to sac metro, as well
why on earth would anyone try to shoot a proposed extension to davis a second time? had it not been shut down when it was first proposed in the early 90s, we’d be able to hop on the light rail and into the RT network by now
good grief, people. talk about short sightedness.
given the imminent crises of both global warming and peak oil
given sacramento’s potential role as a high speed rail terminus in the next couple decades (within RT’s “20 year vision” time frame)
given the large and growing number of davis residents who commute into sac, especially to the capitol and places close to the RT lines
given the increasing number of students commuting to UC davis from sac
given the degree of congestion on the I-80 corridor between davis and sac
given the fact that the capitol corridor trains are already overloaded, and will be accommodating an ever larger number of riders as gas prices rise
and given the fact that davisites regularly drive into sac for shopping (and occasionally rivercats or kings games)
given that the RT network is planning an extension to sac metro, as well
why on earth would anyone try to shoot a proposed extension to davis a second time? had it not been shut down when it was first proposed in the early 90s, we’d be able to hop on the light rail and into the RT network by now
good grief, people. talk about short sightedness.
given the imminent crises of both global warming and peak oil
given sacramento’s potential role as a high speed rail terminus in the next couple decades (within RT’s “20 year vision” time frame)
given the large and growing number of davis residents who commute into sac, especially to the capitol and places close to the RT lines
given the increasing number of students commuting to UC davis from sac
given the degree of congestion on the I-80 corridor between davis and sac
given the fact that the capitol corridor trains are already overloaded, and will be accommodating an ever larger number of riders as gas prices rise
and given the fact that davisites regularly drive into sac for shopping (and occasionally rivercats or kings games)
given that the RT network is planning an extension to sac metro, as well
why on earth would anyone try to shoot a proposed extension to davis a second time? had it not been shut down when it was first proposed in the early 90s, we’d be able to hop on the light rail and into the RT network by now
good grief, people. talk about short sightedness.
given the imminent crises of both global warming and peak oil
given sacramento’s potential role as a high speed rail terminus in the next couple decades (within RT’s “20 year vision” time frame)
given the large and growing number of davis residents who commute into sac, especially to the capitol and places close to the RT lines
given the increasing number of students commuting to UC davis from sac
given the degree of congestion on the I-80 corridor between davis and sac
given the fact that the capitol corridor trains are already overloaded, and will be accommodating an ever larger number of riders as gas prices rise
and given the fact that davisites regularly drive into sac for shopping (and occasionally rivercats or kings games)
given that the RT network is planning an extension to sac metro, as well
why on earth would anyone try to shoot a proposed extension to davis a second time? had it not been shut down when it was first proposed in the early 90s, we’d be able to hop on the light rail and into the RT network by now
good grief, people. talk about short sightedness.