Yesterday the Vanguard reported on the continuing efforts of the Covell Village developers to drive discussion on senior housing. Today we have received a post card that was sent out to much of the Davis Senior Community.
It calls on seniors to:
“Please join Choice for Healthy Aging (CHA) to advocate for the timely City approval of an innovative, sustainable neighborhood for Davis Seniors.
If you are unable to attend please send your thoughts and ideas to the Davis City Council and Planning Staff.”
The message of the bottom reads:
“… for you, your parents, and your friends.”
Who is Choice for Healthy Aging? Are they an advocacy group for seniors as they imply in the post card?
There was no listing for them when we Googled the name, although we did discover that UC Davis has a “Center for Healthy Aging” – a remarkably similar name.
The best clue as to who they arre is the phone number at the bottom of the post card–the same number listed by Lydia Dellis-Schlosser at the bottom of her email that we posted yesterday. When we called it we got a message identifying themselves as Davis Neighbors and CHA. We know that Ms. Dellis-Schlosser works for the Davis Neighbors. As soon as we heard that, there could be no doubt that we had reached the Covell Village Partners office.
The Covell Partners have invented the group Choice for Healthy Aging as a means to suggest they are senior advocates rather than land developers.
The postcard of course is completely misleading as it never once mentions that the project that seniors would be advocating for is on the Covell Village site and is simply the second version of the failed Measure X campaign. We do not know how many post cards were sent out or how much money was spent as this type of expenditure is largely unregulated.
However what is clear is that the Covell Village partners are working overtime to bring out seniors to the meeting tonight to push for Covell Village Redux–and many of them probably have no idea that what they would be pushing for is Covell Village or that the message they have received in fact came from the Covell Village partners.
This is a completely dishonest campaign from the people who brought us Covell Village and Measure X.
In fact, the entire campaign they have waged presents very few mentions of the fact that this is in fact on the Covell Village site. The entire email that we reported yesterday, there is only one passing reference to Covell Village.
They write:
In order to meet the needs of Davis seniors quickly, we hope you will echo our call to our council members to direct staff to:
“Accept an application in January 2010 for a ‘yellow-light site’* that envisions a neighborhood with a comprehensive approach to senior housing opportunities, services, and lifestyle choices that will meet the needs of Davis’ growing senior population.” (*Covell site is a ‘yellow-light site’)
Only at the end of that they mention Covell in passing, as though it were one example of a yellow-light site. The main campaign they are waging is to get as many senior out to push for Senior Housing and then the Covell Partners will of course offer up their project as the solution.
As I mentioned before this is a completely disingenuous effort to drum up senior support for senior housing and a completely developer driven effort at that.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If you enjoy this kind of sleuthing, in this case phonenumber.com can tell you who owns the phone number (530)231-5270. You can also Google the phone number in this case.
I have to agree that large senior housing projects are a problematic type of development for Davis. Eventually the seniors would be a voting bloc that is not much interested in public schools, nor much interested in bicycles, to give two examples. Seniors with ties to the community might be very interested in these things, but if seniors retire here from elsewhere in the region, not so much.
Remember that the senior housing site is in the southern portion of the 44 acres. What the developers are doing is using the senior portion as a camel’s nose under the tent, to get approval for all of the rest of it at the same time, same Measure J vote. What they want is the massive approval, with the much smaller senior housing site as bait for the voters.
Sorry … 440 acres.
I have to agree with Greg. I live in a senior complex and it has little to recommend it. I have tried to discuss citywide issues with my neighbors and they are totally uninterested. It is a very narrow world here.
When the developer/owners of the Covell Village site finally come to the city with a smart growth idea, one that is energy efficient and reduces residents energy bills, promotes water conservation, and gets residents out of their cars then I will support it but so far I haven’t seen any proposals from them I could support.
It get’s worse. The reality is that the developers talk about 800 units but that is only Phase One. The additional acreage that they are not talking about would yield 1,400 – 1,800 units. This is just as big and bad as the last version of Covell Village with all of the same impacts. These guys have some nerve not even attempting to reduce the size of this monstrosity after getting a clear message of a 60:40 NO vote just a few years ago. They clearly want to accomodate well beyond any “internal” senior needs.
[quote]Eventually the seniors would be a voting bloc that is not much interested in public schools, nor much interested in bicycles, to give two examples.[/quote]I’m not sure where Greg came up with that idea. Seniors in Davis, regardless of income, are exempt from paying the added school taxes. Moreover, insofar as the quality of K-12 schools in Davis are an asset to the community, all property owners benefit to some extent by having good schools here. As far as bicycles go, I’m not sure there is that much of a difference in “interest” in them between homeowners who are 50 and those who are 70. Most people in Davis, I think, regardless of how much they ride bikes, think our bicycle infrastructure is a great asset to our community. Does Greg think that Maynard Skinner, because he is now a senior, no longer values bicycles in Davis?
All that said, I’m not sure this “senior village” idea is a good idea for Davis. (I think as a part of a much larger urban area, like Sacramento, it is a good idea. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but with economies of scale it can provide a lot of things that smaller senior complexes cannot offer.) I don’t buy the notion that this will really serve the needs of Davis. Sure, a few of its residents will transfer from their current residences to “senior village.” But as with all new development, its principal occupants will be folks moving here from elsewhere.
For the time being, we really don’t “need” any new housing developments*. The university is our engine of growth. To a lesser extent, state government in Sacramento is our secondary engine. The university and the state government are not only not growing at the moment, they are both shrinking. Further, when West Village is built, there will probably be too much faculty housing. Additionally, the city has approved quite a few infill housing developments, which should be able to absorb a lot of the demand which does arise, if any arises, over the next 3-5 years.
As one of the 40% who voted in favor of Measure X, I still think that it is the sort of project** which belongs on that property*** in the long run. I would be more inclined in five years to revisit Covell Village, which has apartments, townhouses, single family homes and some retail for people of all ages, than I would to use up that land with “senior village” today.
* The only housing I think we now need, but maybe not if we lose a lot of students at UCD, is large-scale apartments/dorms. West Village ([url]http://www.westvillage.ucdavis.edu/plan.html#housingtypes[/url]) will include 1,015 new apartments, designed to house 1,980 students.
** Undoubtedly, Covell Village II (in 5 years) could be improved in a green sense. It could include more solar or other innovations which reduce its carbon footprint.
*** Unless Davis just stops growing altogether and the university never gets larger than it is now and state workers in Sacramento stop wanting to live here, we will at some point build homes which are not infill projects. Insofar as that is true, the CV property makes a lot of sense to me, as it is surrounded by urban development (in the city limits) on three sides. There is no other peripheral site like that.
I too appreciate the sleuthing, and I don’t agree with the plan. Personally, I feel that unending growth is not good for the city of Davis or the planet of earth. As I said earlier, if/when that land is developed, I hope it brings clean jobs to Davis rather than more residents–when was the last time you tried to park within walking distance of farmer’s market on Saturday? Having said that though, I don’t understand why this blog is so strongly opposed to Covel Village, but so supportive of the Wildhorse Development; isn’t it pretty much the same thing? Just curious.
[quote]I don’t understand why this blog is so strongly opposed to Covel Village, but so supportive of the Wildhorse Development; isn’t it pretty much the same thing?[/quote]
First, what gives you the impression this blog is supportive of Wildhorse? Has Mr. Greenwald ever said he supported the project?
Second, they are the same thing? One is a 191 unit project the other is likely to end up being at least 1400 units maybe up to 2000. They are not even remotely the same thing.
So where do you get that?
[i]Does Greg think that Maynard Skinner, because he is now a senior, no longer values bicycles in Davis?[/i]
I was careful to explain that it’s different for seniors who are from the community. There are many people who have lived in Davis for many years and who still bicycle at age 70. More power to them! But not many people are going to move to Davis from Hayward and start bicycling.
I’m not anti-senior. I hope to be one some day — better that than the alternative. I just don’t think that Davis should be a Florida boomer magnet for Northern California.
In my opinion is what kind of housing we want to provide our seniors. And I see no reason for an 800 house development in Covell for Seniors. None. And as someone else said, this is just the step in the door. It’s only on the lower half of the site. They are trying to piecemail their 2000 unit housing project that we rejected and they are using seniors to do it.
The proposed senior project runs the entire vertical length of the property from Covell to the 100 acre open space element on the north end (which narrows significantly at the point where the senior project intersects). The design of the project creates two in-fill sites, one to the east and one to the west. If the developer’s intent was to only do the senior project, then it would be concentrated on the southern end of the parcel … which it is not.
stop calling it infill. It’s not.
Clarification. The senior project is obviously a peripheral development proposal. If the land use plan that’s currently on the table is ultimately approved, two new in-fill sites (totalling approximately 100 acres) will also be created in the process.
… both of which would presumably be subject to the Measure J approval process.
You have said it well and I have nothing to add until we vote on it. Then it will be a strong NO. I am very much a senior. I don’t want to live with other seniors. I love the sound of the young people and their families who have replaced neighbors no longer around. I am also as strong supporter of bikes and schools. MC Skinner is also last I heard! And did I not just get a call from these Healthy Seniors folks? Or was that some other for profit group?
Greg said “I just don’t think that Davis should be a Florida boomer magnet for Northern California.”
Too late for that . . .
“… for you, your parents, and your friends.”
This says it all. Whitcombe and company are aiming to build senior housing not for the citizens of Davis, but for citizens, their parents, their friends, and any other outsiders willing to buy. A massive influx of seniors from outside will financially bury seniors who live here now. Is this what seniors in Davis really want? I very much doubt it.
“A massive influx of seniors from outside will financially bury seniors who live here now.”
Why would anyone presume hoards of seniors would really want to move to Davis? There are plenty of places that offer lakes, golf courses etc. Beside most “outside” seniors require sustantially better shopping than exists in Davis. The real issue is that Davis seniors wanting the senior resort lifestyle must leave Davis to find it.
[quote]The postcard of course is completely misleading as it never once mentions that the project that seniors would be advocating for is on the Covell Village site and is simply the second version of the failed Measure X campaign.[/quote]
Sounds to me like this postcard is trying to start a more robust conversation about senior housing choices in Davis… if the end result is that the Covell site looks a little bit better, then so be it. This community has long needed to have a better conversation about the growing needs of our seniors.
If these people don’t advocate for it, then who will? Until just recently, I’d never heard anyone talk seriously about senior housing choices as an important and timely issue. No matter the outcome, I’m happy that this is happening… we can’t bury our heads in the ground and hope that the needs of Davis seniors simply go away. We can’t avoid change by doing nothing!
“Sounds to me like this postcard is trying to start a more robust conversation about senior housing choices in Davis… if the end result is that the Covell site looks a little bit better, then so be it.”
First of all this is utter nonsense. The Covell developers do not care about starting a conversation.
Second, their prime objective is to push forth the housing project.
Third, why not be honest about who they are rather than create a phony group that pretends it is a senior’s advocacy group when it’s really a front for the developers.
The entire thing is so dishonest.
@ Seriously…
right, anyone who doesn’t agree with you that we should dig a moat around Davis and pull up the bridge is OBVIOUSLY a land developer.
Have you ever had a conversation about the future of senior housing in Davis before this? Probably not.
[quote]Who is Choice for Healthy Aging? Are they an advocacy group for seniors as they imply in the post card?[/quote]
This group had a booth at the Chamber of Commerce event, Celebrate Davis, several weeks ago.
I spoke with several of the people there, learned about their ideas, asked some questions, and signed up to receive more info.
Apparently, Choices for Healthy Aging (CHA) is a group of Davis seniors who have been inspired by the senior concept that has been discussed by John Whitcombe and Bill Streng. Their motivation for creating this group? They want a different housing type for seniors in Davis: non-institutional with a range of sizes, styles etc to own.
From an email I recently received, here is the steering committee of CHA: Robert E. Chason, Mary Jo Bryan, Pam Gill-Fisher, Janet C. Hamilton, Dyann Houston, Starr Walton Hurley, Rita MtJoy, Chris Snow, Charlotte Sobeck, Larry Swanson, Janice Graham-Welsh, Gil Wheeler and Steve Wilkinson.
I’ve lived in Davis all of my life… I know most of those people personally or by reputation. They are all very respected individuals and what we old school people call, “pillars of the community”. I would hesitate to disparage them, their message or their motivation.
“right, anyone who doesn’t agree with you that we should dig a moat around Davis and pull up the bridge is OBVIOUSLY a land developer.”
I don’t think we should dig a moat around Davis, I vote for Covell Village the first time. I just want an honest discussion and these people are not being honest.
[quote]When the developer/owners of the Covell Village site finally come to the city with a smart growth idea, one that is energy efficient and reduces residents energy bills, promotes water conservation, and gets residents out of their cars then I will support it but so far I haven’t seen any proposals from them I could support.[/quote]
Isn’t that the whole point of this meeting? Don’t the Covell owners just want to be able to show us, the citizens of Davis, a proposal?
I’m a little confused why everyone is getting so hot and bothered. My understanding of the “yellow-light sites” were that applications could be accepted between 2010-2013 if there was a need for them… these guys are trying to address a need that most everyone agrees exists.
More importantly, if they do get to move forward… let’s not forget that ANYTHING built on this site (now, 2013, 2016 or 2050) will have to go to a vote of the people… Measure J still stands. We, the people of Davis, decided that we wanted to vote on new development proposals… so, if they follow the process, why not let them come back and show us their latest and greatest attempt to build houses in Davis? If it is not good enough, won’t we just vote them down again?
as a follow up, Jeff March’s Letter in today’s Enterprise explains the pro-senior housing POV pretty well… how about people discuss the merits of this, instead of creating possibly false motives. keep your eye on the ball.
[quote]The housing resolution that the City Council adopted last Nov. 5 was intended to guide the council’s consideration of development applications. That resolution, based on recommendations issued by the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee, said the council should ‘as part of the mix of housing types, encourage a variety of opportunities for seniors in appropriate locations,’ and added that ‘additional outreach and data collection would help further define and confirm senior housing preferences.’
Davis citizens will have a key opportunity at 6:30 p.m. today to declare their opinions about housing. At tonight’s City Council meeting, the council will discuss a residential development status report, a document intended to guide the council on when to accept development applications for proposed new housing on designated sites, the relative priorities of which have been color-coded green (20 sites), yellow (12 sites) or red (four sites).
The December resolution declared that ‘based on demographic trends, seniors comprise an increasing percentage of the population of the city of Davis. This will lead to an increased internal demand by seniors looking to transition into housing that meets their needs. A proportionate number of new units designed to meet the needs of Davis seniors should be planned as a part of the overall mix of housing types through 2013 and beyond.’
The resolution said the yellow-coded sites should be ‘considered only if needed prior to 2013.’ That’s fine, but the council has not yet conducted its assessment of housing needs of senior citizens. In the absence of comprehensive data, those yellow-coded sites should not be excluded from consideration.
Therefore, Davis seniors, and people who care about them, should ask council members to direct the staff to accept applications beginning in January 2010 for ‘yellow-light’ (as well as ‘green-light’) sites that would constitute planned senior-oriented neighborhoods encompassing comprehensive on-site amenities and services to meet the needs of the growing contingent of older Davis residents.
If you are unable to attend the City Council meeting, please write or call council members and express your opinion.
Jeff March [/quote]
[quote]Apparently, Choices for Healthy Aging (CHA) is a group of Davis seniors who have been inspired by the senior concept that has been discussed by John Whitcombe and Bill Streng. Their motivation for creating this group? They want a different housing type for seniors in Davis: non-institutional with a range of sizes, styles etc to own.
From an email I recently received, here is the steering committee of CHA: Robert E. Chason, Mary Jo Bryan, Pam Gill-Fisher, Janet C. Hamilton, Dyann Houston, Starr Walton Hurley, Rita MtJoy, Chris Snow, Charlotte Sobeck, Larry Swanson, Janice Graham-Welsh, Gil Wheeler and Steve Wilkinson.[/quote]
While that’s interesting, I noted in this article that the number at the bottom of the postcard was identical to the number that at the bottom of email from Dellis-Schlosser who works for Covell. AND, when I called it, it was Dellis-Schlosser. So for you to pretend that this is some group independent of Covell is disingenuous.
[quote]Apparently, Choices for Healthy Aging (CHA) is a group of Davis seniors who have been inspired by the senior concept that has been discussed by John Whitcombe and Bill Streng. Their motivation for creating this group? They want a different housing type for seniors in Davis: non-institutional with a range of sizes, styles etc to own.[/quote]
I just called the number too. The message clearly states at the beginning that you’ve reached both Davis Neighbors AND Choices for Healthy Aging. It then goes on to say that you can leave a message for the CHA group.
So, how about this… these people were inspired by the Covell guys’ new concept, started a group, and asked if they could use the office phone number for the concept they support on printed materials. I don’t really see how that’s scandalous.
Imagine, every person who calls for the Davis Neighbors aka Covell developer also gets a message about Choices for Healthy Aging. That is not so secretive is it? Don’t scandals usually arise from secrets?
One more thing, the speaker never identifies herself as Delis-Sclosser. Do you know her that well to identify her voice?
I just think that it is silly to emphasize organization efforts, when you could be talking about the merits of the site. That’s all.
[i]So for you to pretend that this is some group independent of Covell is disingenuous.[/i]
Whoever “you” is. It’s ironic that a main point of your post is that you traced a postcard to Lydia Delis-Schlosser, and yet you have no idea who is participating in this discussion. For all you know, three of the commenters are Lydia Delis-Schlosser. (Which is not to accuse her; I really don’t know her from Eve. There is only one l in “Delis”, by the way.)
Since the theme of this post is misrepresentation, someone could on some topic be truly devious by taking both sides with anonymous comments. For instance, someone could pose as an unreasonable, unpleasant opponent of Covell Village. That same person could also pose as two or three friendly, reasonable supporters of Covell Village.
It would help matters if anonymous comments were more the exception than the norm. Requiring registration helps with that.
Also when you said that not as many people read the comments, I don’t see how you can know that. Clearly not as many people [b]write[/b] comments as read the posting. However, a lot of people may well read the comments too.
[i]One more thing, the speaker never identifies herself as Delis-Sclosser. Do you know her that well to identify her voice?[/i]
Whether or not it’s her voice, one would also want to explain this public listing of the same phone number with her name ([url]http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_vr9gw[/url]).
obviously closely integrated with the developers and they are not trying to hide that fact. At the Chamber of Commerce event, the CHA booth was manned by Delis-Sclosser, Whitcombe, and Streng. If you call the number on the CHA flyer, you are invited to an outreach meeting in the conference room at Tandem Properties for a presentation, discussion, and catered lunch.
This CHA “issue” is a red herring.
“Why would anyone presume hoards of seniors would really want to move to Davis? There are plenty of places that offer lakes, golf courses etc. Beside most “outside” seniors require sustantially better shopping than exists in Davis. The real issue is that Davis seniors wanting the senior resort lifestyle must leave Davis to find it.”
It has already happened at URC. URC was marketed to seniors outside Davis, and many who came were not from Davis. Why is that a problem? It means we are building housing to meet the needs of nonDavis residents, but it is Davis residents who incur the cost of such development. Once new development happens, especially if we are talking about 800 units in the first phase only, then the city will need to provide more water, more fire protection, more police, more parks maintenance. Who do you think is going to pay for that? Davis taxpayers, that’s who. Do you think Davis taxpayers can afford a huge new building project, with massive water/sewer rate increases in the offing? I think not!
[quote]Once new development happens, especially if we are talking about 800 units in the first phase only, then the city will need to provide more water, more fire protection, more police, more parks maintenance. Who do you think is going to pay for that? Davis taxpayers, that’s who. [/quote]Market rate housing in Davis brings in more in property tax per year than it costs in services. As such, the new residents will pay these costs.
However, the URC is a different story, one which we should try to avoid. It is owned and operated as a non-profit, and as such pays no property tax. If we avoid “low-income” housing which is not priced at the market rate and avoid these so-called non-profit corporate facilities, the costs to the city should not be a concern. [quote]Do you think Davis taxpayers can afford a huge new building project, with massive water/sewer rate increases in the offing?[/quote] Actually, the projects you speak of have fixed costs (for construction). If Davis increases in population (and development), those fixed costs will be [i]less[/i] per homeowner than they will be if we don’t grow.
Market rate housing in Davis brings in more in property tax per year than it costs in services. As such, the new residents will pay these costs.
Rich – I have heard just the opposite. Can you verify this claim?
“Market rate housing in Davis brings in more in property tax per year than it costs in services. As such, the new residents will pay these costs.”
You’ve got to be kidding? Prove it! Everything I have read shows that when development occurs, new city services are required that end up costing citizens dearly, such as a fourth fire station, more police, parks maintenance, MORE WATER. The housing market right now is abysmal. No one can sell their home, let alone buy a new one.
“Actually, the projects you speak of have fixed costs (for construction). If Davis increases in population (and development), those fixed costs will be less per homeowner than they will be if we don’t grow.”
Obviously you have not been paying attention to the water wars in Davis. The more water we use, the bigger the wastewater treatment plant upgrade required. We are talking in the hundreds of millions of dollars in cost. The citizens of Davis cannot afford such costs. Get real!
[i]”Rich – I have heard just the opposite. Can you verify this claim?”[/i]
Take a look at the second paragraph on page 14 of this city document ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20080212/07_Long_Range_Planning.pdf[/url]): [quote]… higher-valued residential properties can be shown to generate positive fiscal benefits – depending on service costs and supplementary taxes – based on the higher property taxes generated by higher-priced housing. For example, when the City undertook a fiscal analysis of the proposed Covell Village project (based on 2004/05 service costs and housing prices) staff identified a “break-even” point of approximately $350,000 – $400,000/unit. Therefore, most apartment and low income housing fall below this break-even point, while larger, expensive homes fall above this break-even point. [/quote]
[quote]You’ve got to be kidding? Prove it![/quote]Please see my answer to Ms. Hinshaw.
[quote]Everything I have read shows that when development occurs, new city services are required that end up costing citizens dearly, such as a fourth fire station, more police, parks maintenance, MORE WATER.[/quote]What you have read is true, but does not contradict my assertion. Where housing development becomes a big money loser for the city government is with the forced lower income projects (and I would imagine with the non-profit projects). They don’t pay enough in property taxes to off-set the city’s costs. However, with true market-rate single family housing, this is generally not the case.
With regard to a fourth fire station, keep in mind that it is not needed for fighting fires. It is being pushed by the firefighters union and the union’s elected advocates. If we do grow more, we might need a third full-time ambulance in Davis, in order to insure speedier response times in far north Davis. But the added property tax revenues would cover that. (Note that our ambulance arrangements are made by Yolo County in cooperation with all the other counties in the Sacramento regio, save Sacramento County.)
[quote]Obviously you have not been paying attention to the water wars in Davis. The more water we use, the bigger the wastewater treatment plant upgrade required.[/quote]Even if Covell Village had been fully built out — adding 5,000 people to our population — our current wastewater treatment plant would have had sufficient capacity. So on this score you are misinformed.
The reason we need to upgrade our wastewater treatment plant has nothing to do with capacity. It has to do with the federal and state cleanwater acts, dating back to the Federal Cleanwater Act of 1991. Because of the salination of most residential water in Davis, our water discharge is much more “polluted” than it would be if we used surface water*. Back in the 1980s, when the current plant was built, our city council failed to foresee the more stringent requirements which were built in after 1991. (Woodland, by contrast, was much better prepared for this change.) As such, the upgrade in Davis is going to be very, very expensive. Yet that expense won’t be higher if we have a few thousand more residents in Davis. It will be the same, and divided by a few thousand more, it will be a little cheaper per household.
*Some now argue that we should transition from well water to surface water (Sacramento River) [i]before[/i] we upgrade our water treatment plant, because the discharge from treated surface water, which is not so hard and therefore does not need salination, will require a much less expensive wastewater treatment upgrade.
“Yet that expense won’t be higher if we have a few thousand more residents in Davis. It will be the same, and divided by a few thousand more, it will be a little cheaper per household.”
If you listened to the water experts, they specifically said that the less water used, the less the cost will be for the sewer plant upgrade. We are talking a projected $200 million dollars in cost for a complete sewer plant upgrade. So let’s do the math.
Let us suppose we can do some cost savings, such as Conaway Ranch. So the projected cost for sewer plant upgrade will be in the neighborhood of $150 million. (Conaway is projected to save $40 million, and there may be some other costs savings we can explore.) Let us also assume there are approximately 75K people in Davis. That means each person in Davis will have to pay $2,000 ($2000 x 75,000 = $150,000,000). Obviously this is very simplified, bc it does not take into account interest on the loan and other fees over an extended period of time.
If new development increased the number of citizens in Davis by 2000, the wastewater treatment plant upgrade will have to be more extensive. If it is even $50 million more extensive, which is probably a conservative estimate, then each person in Davis will have to pay $2,600 ($2,600 x 77,000 = $200,000,000). I believe the break even point for adding 2,000 more people means we cannot incur any more costs than an additional $4 million dollars for a sewer plant upgrade (75K/77K = $150 million/$154 million) – a virtual impossibility. Once you add enough people, a whole other level of treatment will be required, costing far more than $4 million dollars.
How much development will “cost” depends on the assumptions. And remember, at the time of Covell Village, staff was working hand in hand w the City Council majority to push this project forward. Also remember, Davis has an affordable housing ordinance, that requires a certain percentage of affordable housing that is a money loser in terms of tax revenue.
The water experts made clear the less water used, the less extensive a wastewater plant upgrade will be required. It is also interesting to note that Public Works will tell you Davis does not really have enough water right now to meet needs if certain things happen all at the same time. Add to the mix more people, who need more water, and you have a recipe for disaster.
[quote]If you listened to the water experts, they specifically said that the less water used, the less the cost will be for the sewer plant upgrade.[/quote]I heard this. However, they did not say by how much, as far as I recall. They did not say how much more per capita the upgrade would cost nor how much less for every person reduced. [quote]We are talking a projected $200 million dollars in cost for a complete sewer plant upgrade. So let’s do the math. Let us suppose we can do some cost savings, such as Conaway Ranch. So the projected cost for sewer plant upgrade will be in the neighborhood of $150 million. (Conaway is projected to save $40 million, and there may be some other costs savings we can explore.)[/quote]Fair enough. [quote] Let us also assume there are approximately 75K people in Davis.[/quote]Why should we assume that? There are 65,000 people in Davis ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/aboutdavis/cityprofile/?topic=population[/url]), not 75,000. Are you counting people outisde of the city? [quote]That means each person in Davis will have to pay $2,000 ($2000 x 75,000 = $150,000,000). Obviously this is very simplified, bc it does not take into account interest on the loan and other fees over an extended period of time.[/quote] Fair enough. [quote]If new development increased the number of citizens in Davis by 2000, the wastewater treatment plant upgrade will have to be more extensive.[/quote]But the question is how much more expensive per person, right? [quote] If it is even $50 million more expensive, which is probably a conservative estimate, then each person in Davis will have to pay $2,600 ($2,600 x 77,000 = $200,000,000).[/quote] Whoa! Where do you come up with $50 million for an additional 2,000 residents? Do you have any basis in fact for that number? [quote] I believe the break even point for adding 2,000 more people means we cannot incur any more costs than an additional $4 million dollars for a sewer plant upgrade (75K/77K = $150 million/$154 million) – a virtual impossibility.[/quote]What is your source for that? I have read all of the staff documents which were presented at the various meetings and listened to the meetins on TV and don’t recall seeing anything or hearing an expert testify to your point about 2,000 more people. If you have a source for that allegation, please let me know. [quote]Once you add enough people, a whole other level of treatment will be required, costing far more than $4 million dollars.[/quote] You claimed adding 2,000 to 75,000 would add at least $50 million. We happen to have 65,000 people ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/aboutdavis/cityprofile/?topic=population[/url]). Yet I still don’t know where you are coming up with this conclusion about the impacts of 2,000 new people in Davis. [quote] How much development will “cost” depends on the assumptions.[/quote]Well, of course. But we can make fairly accurate assumptions about property tax revenues — given the sales prices of homes — and assumptions about development fees. What is more difficult to measure is how much staff costs for services will increase, as all labor agreements are currently up in the air. [quote] And remember, at the time of Covell Village, staff was working hand in hand w the City Council majority to push this project forward.[/quote]That’s an irrelevant point, unless you think the staff lied. Much more plausible is that they simply ran the numbers and came up with a break-even number. I concede that the number from 2005 no longer applies. But the idea still holds. [quote] Also remember, Davis has an affordable housing ordinance, that requires a certain percentage of affordable housing that is a money loser in terms of tax revenue. [/quote]Absolutely. I specifically said that market-rate single family housing is not a money loser. Where the city budget is taxed is with low-income sub-market housing. Apartments for rent are also a small money lower, but not nearly so much as the now 25% of sub-market for-sale housing units are. [quote]The water experts made clear the less water used, the less extensive a wastewater plant upgrade will be required.[/quote]Even if that is so, the question remains how much. [quote] It is also interesting to note that Public Works will tell you Davis does not really have enough water right now to meet needs if certain things happen all at the same time. Add to the mix more people, who need more water, and you have a recipe for disaster. [/quote]Again, show me where PW says “2,000 people” or some other specific number puts us over the edge. Just saying “add to the mix more people” is so general as to be irrefutable and not helpful.
If Covell Village Redux Phase I, II, III is built, it will mean about 1800 new homes. It is very conservative to suppose 2000 more people in Davis, when in fact the number if Covell Village Redux is fully built will be more like 4000 minimum, and probably more like 6000 to 8000. And you don’t think an additional 6000 people will cause the need for a significant sewer plant upgrade at great cost?