On Tuesday the County Board of Supervisors approved a change to the land use designation of Covell Village for County purposes to an agricultural use/ project specific definition. While this stopped somewhat short of the outright agricultural use designation that County Supervisor Jim Provenza sought on Monday, he told the Vanguard that he believes it accomplishes nearly the same thing.
The main thing it accomplishes is that it would prevent the site from being sold to a new owner from immediately being able to place an industrial use on the site. It would also require basically a new general plan discussion in order for there to be a change of the land use.
Supervisors Helen Thomson and Mike McGowan originally fought against this change. Supervisor Thomson argued on Monday that the change would lower the property value and thus decrease the taxes destined for the county. However, at most that number would be around $3000, which is not a drop in the bucket compared with a deficit running well into eight figures.
Supervisor Thomson argued that she did not want to put the land to industrial use but did want to preserve the ability to negotiate. She also argued any change was unnecessary between Measure J and the pass-through agreement. She pointed out that the community was not going to allow anything to happen on the property that they did not want as it has been demonstrate already in 2005 when the voters defeated Measure J by a 60-40 vote.
Supervisor Mike McGowan was more pointed suggesting that he “intend[s] for that property to developed in some fashion at some point.”
He continued:
“That’s not just, in perpetuity, a blind spot on the map.”
Lydia Delis-Schlosser representing the Covell Village partners once again made the argument that the residents didn’t vote against development.
While this discussion took place on Monday, by Tuesday the County Board of Supervisors voted on a 4-1 to change the land use designation. Supervisor Chamberlain was the lone “no” vote and only because the measure was not strong enough. Supervisors Thomson and McGowan despite their criticism and clear support for development at some point ended up voting yes for the land use designation.
Commentary
But it appears from comments that Supervisor McGowan made that he intends for the county to do exactly that if the city does not act to develop the site. This is not the first time that McGowan has made these sorts of pointed comments toward lands in the Davis sphere of influence resting right on the city limits.
Back in 2007, McGowan made these comments in reference to possible development on Davis’ periphery:
“I don’t care where (Davis) puts their additional units, but from any standpoint they have to absorb their fair share. I’m not telling them where to grow.”
He added:
“One of the reasons we are embarking on the General Plan update is that we can’t maintain the old way of doing business; we aren’t generating the revenues we need.”
In fact, Supervisor McGowan needs to get over himself. He is not on the Davis City Council nor is he for that matter our representative on the Board of Supervisors. The citizens of Davis clearly voted their intentions back in 2005 and Mr. McGowan if he does not respect that vote ought to respect the agreement that he agreed to with the city of Davis that says that the county will not initiate growth in Davis’ planning area as outlined by the pass-through agreement.
What has now changed with the election of Jim Provenza to the Board of Supervisors is that there is under most conditions a majority that is not interested in county imposed growth on Davis’ border. Mr. Provenza deserves great credit for achieving this victory.
This leads me to my final point, again raised by Lydia Delis-Schlosser who was echoing comments made by Councilmembers Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson at a recent Davis City Council meeting–i.e. the meaning of the Covell Village vote.
I am tired of people who voted for the project telling me what my vote did or did not mean. As far as I know we have taken one vote on development of that site, a project that they all supported, and they were voted down 60-40. As far as I know no one else has polled the public on their feelings about developing that site. Clearly those individuals who were in the minority on Covell Village are not particularly astute when it comes to the public’s feelings on this topic, they were part of the minority view, and it seems arrogant presumption on their part that they would presume to tell me and others like me what my vote did or did not mean.
In the strictest sense the vote against Measure X was indeed a vote against that particular project. However from my perspective and many others, we have no desire to see that land developed for the foreseeable future. That might fall short of perpetuity which is indeed be a long time, but I would prefer the city focus on small projects within the current boundaries of Davis before the community and not the developers have a discussion of where and how to grow. In short, my vote was against growth for the foreseeable future. I will not presume as they have to speak for others who voted against the project, but I would suggest they find out where others lie before making such assertions in the future.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good work by Supervisors Jim Provenza, Matt Rexroad and Duane Chamberlain.
Again, thank you Jim!
Every time you call it “Covell Village” you cement in people’s minds the idea that Covell Village *exists*. Which it doesn’t. The more reality you give it, the more likely some less-informed folks will vote for it eventually.
How about “the parcel formerly known as Covell Village”? Ok, too long. “Covell Suburb”? That’s what Eileen S was calling it, and I liked the clarification. It was certainly never planned as a village.
Or maybe it *has* a name in and of itself?
That’s an interesting point of view Varzil; I view the opposite. I think the owners want to run from the name–they are calling their company something else now, they are calling the project something else, I want to remind the voters that this is covell village and that no amount of supping it up and changing the name is going to change that fact. That’s my thought.
While I disagree on what Provenza accomplished he did what his base wanted and both the supervisor and his nimby base should be congratulated. While Supervisor is a nonpartisan position it should be noted that Provenza teamed with the two Republicans on the board to roll back the owners leverage of using the county as a wedge against the city to ram through another bad project that would make them rich without addressing the housing needs of many of the residents of Davis.
This does follow with my assertion that the progressive movement is both historically, and, in Davis, currently a Republican ideology and that the progressives in Davis would be Rockefeller Republicans, against taxes and against development for the unwashed masses. If it were not that the Republican party has gone South both literally and figuritively many of these anti-development people would be across the aisle with Rexroad and Chamberlain in their party registration.
There is a legal term called “a difference in name only.” This final disposition is really no different that what raised such a furor about a year ago. What was proposed then was a Special Study Area, and what has been agreed to now is a Special Study Area. Before the communication vehicle was a combination of maps with red lines and the vocal styling of Supervisors Yamada and Thomson. Noew the communication vehicle is words on paper and the vocal styling of all 5 Supervisors. What exactly is the difference? To my eyes the answer to that question is, “absolutely nothing.”
I have always felt that the County wanted to dialogue with the City. By their actions over the past two days (and many past months) they have memorialized on paper that desire to dialogue.
FYI, I voted against Covell Village bc it would have cost citizens too much in the way of having to provide more city services/water, when we cannot provide proper services to citizens now.
Like Matt Williams, I am not sure that much of anything happened at the county level, except some smoke and mirrors. So now the parcel has been zoned agricultural use/project specific designation. How does that stop the development of Covell Village IV? Doesn’t “project specific designation” allow for another Covell Villagelike proposal?
Is take the County of out the equation. There are no longer three votes in the county to try to impose growth on Davis’ periphery.
Does it stop the city of Davis from building there? No. It’s not supposed to. The city of Davis is the one supposed to make the determination of where and when we grow, not the county. The county has done their job, now we have to do ours.
Matt, I was looking at the crime statistics on MLS at the Sac Bee (the index gives many more stats than just crime) and found something that confirmed something you have been saying, that the largest share of residents in Davis are renters. According to the MLS statistics about 2/3 of the residents of Davis are renters while, as I recall, none of the members of the housing task force rented. As far as I can tell all of the members of the vocal opposition to development in Davis are homeowners. This presents a perception that is quite different than the reality. I understand that many renters are students and are not interested in buying but many others, who are not as vocal as myself, have not really had a voice in the discussion. This may account for who is winning council elections despite the vociferous opposition to their view on housing development. It may also explain the defeat of measure X that did not address the needs of the renter constituency. Anyway, the reason I want to point this out is that any discussion of housing should focus on the needs of current renters in Davis where home ownership is significantly lower than the national average.
serious black, I think you will find that Don Shor is on your side as well. Housing is all about the whole picture . . . not just selected snippets.
That is why UCD must seriously change its approach to the community on this issue. They have been abdicating their responsibility to be a good neighbor for years, and in the process placed a significant fiscal and quality of life burden on people like you.
UC is not totally to blame, when they tried to address some of the issue with West Village they caught hell from West Davis Nimby’s. I just am hopeful that a recognition that the majority of the people in Davis are renters will change the dialog.
You are absolutely right. There is plenty of blame to go around. I share your hope that the dialogue will change. It won’t be easy.
If I am understanding “serious black’s” argument, he is all for unrestricted development, such as in Covell Village, bc it would provide more rental housing?
[quote]While Supervisor is a nonpartisan position it should be noted that Provenza teamed with [b]the two Republicans[/b] on the board to roll back the owners leverage of using the county as a wedge against the city to ram through another bad project that would make them rich without addressing the housing needs of many of the residents of Davis. [/quote] I’m not sure political party affiliation is what motivated or even really informed the decisions of Chamberlain or Rexroad (or the three Democrats on the BoS).
With Duane Chamberlain, my sense is that he has a philosophical (or maybe just sentimental) belief in keeping as much farm land as farm land in Yolo County as possible. My understanding is that many of the farmers rent the land they farm (as is the case with the farmers who currently have a tomato crop planted on the would-be Covell Village property). Chamberlain feels like he represents those farmers, who lose out when farm land is urbanized. The landowners (many of whom are farmers, too) don’t lose by developing their land — as they reap the gains in the development. But the people whose living is made principally by leasing land and farming it gain nothing by having less land in cultivation in Yolo County.
Matt Rexroad may share Chamberlain’s sentiment. However, I think he is more motivated by the idea that our incorporated cities ought to have control over changes in land use on their peripheries, whatever that may be. If Davis wants to convert a farm on its border to housing or industry, I don’t think Rexroad would object (while Chamberlain might). Rexroad, with a background in city government, seems to believe that the cities should have a say in project which affect the cities, while land farther from them should fall under the county’s planning purview.
I don’t think ideology or sentimentality motivates Thomson or McGowan. They simply want Yolo County to have more money, so the county can provide more and better services (which to me is a perfectly understandable POV).
With regard to Provenza (whose views are less familiar to me), I think his stance on this one issue grows out of Measure X — the people who elected him Supervisor don’t want urbanization (especially urbanization which will have secondary costs born by north and east Davis) on that land, so he is representing them with his vote. [quote]This does follow with my assertion that the progressive movement is both historically, and, in Davis, currently a Republican ideology and that the progressives in Davis would be Rockefeller Republicans, against taxes and against development for the unwashed masses.[/quote] Regardless of what a Rockefeller Republican is or is not, Nelson Rockefeller’s longest lasting legacy was his belief in long prison sentences ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_drug_laws[/url]) for minor drug offenses. My guess is that most self-titled Davis Progressives don’t share Gov. Rockefeller’s views on that salient point of law. (I am by no means a progessive*, but I share their generally held view that the war on drugs launched by Rockefeller and his ilk has been a disaster.)
————
*Considering the miserable results of government by referendum in California, I would think that anyone in this state who knew that the “progressives” gave us that institution would be too embarrassed to wear that label, today.
I have to agree with Rich Rifkin’s analysis of the motivations of why each County Supervisor made the decision they did.
“Is take the County of out the equation. There are no longer three votes in the county to try to impose growth on Davis’ periphery.”
After the last failed attempt, I don’t think the county would have ever tried that again, McGowan’s statements notwithstanding. And I don’t see that having the zoning label “project specific designation” takes the County out of the equation. Am I missing something here? Please explain.
As Provenza explained it to me last night it would require the county to do what amounts to a project specific general plan to change the zoning designation.
“As Provenza explained it to me last night it would require the county to do what amounts to a project specific general plan to change the zoning designation.”
Now what does requiring a “project specific general plan to change the zoning designation” mean?
1) Is he saying the project would have to apply for a zoning change, which they already would have to do anyway (or is that not correct?)?
2) Or is he saying a whole new general plan would have to be instituted by the county, which would include this new proposed project as part of the consideration?
3) Or is he saying the developer of the proposed project would have to justify the zoning change for the new project in light of the current county general plan?
It is not clear to me what Jim Provenza is saying here, which would help clarify what did or did not happen at the last County Council meeting.
Hmmmmmm? It definitely would not be 2) It would be a combination of 1) and 3).
No, not Covell Village as rental housing per se although the problem with CV then and the senior housing proposal now is that niether proposal addressed the biggest housing cohort of the City, the renters. In fact, it seems that renters needs are not being addressed, that restrictive development policies favor owners by driving up the cost of housing to both renters and those looking to move up and buy. The failure of the housing task force to have any renters represents a failure of the process but is understandable since all members of the city council own homes and most of the outspoken people on this issue are homeowners as well. The prejudices of owners is that renters aren’t really committed to the community so we shouldn’t really be that concerned about what they want is misguided and results in exclusionary polices of the haves over the have nots.
As I understood what Provenza told me there are a series of things that have to take place during a General Plan that would have to occur on the site to change the zoning–it would be tantamount if I understood correctly to doing a new general plan but only for that one site.
That is my understanding as well David.
In my mind, a Rockefeller Republican is the old type of New England Republican that lost the party to the Goldwater Conservatives and the anti-intellectualism of Nixon’s Southern Strategy. They were for low taxes, environmental protection and family planning as a means of population control especially for poor and less educated people. They are mostly gone from government now, with the exception of John Paul Stevens who was appointed by Ford to the Supreme Court. Ford, by the way, also appointed Nelson Rockefeller as Vice-President. They were driven from the party in increasing numbers over time culminating in loss of the last Republican House of Representative seat in New England in 2008 when Chris Shays lost. This is not to say that their politics is dead it has just morphed into the kind of environmental anti-development nimby, anti tax, pro choice positions you see taken by the landed gentry of Davis through Sue Greenwald on the council, Rich Rifkin in the Enterprise and the Vanguard of Davis.
Typhoid Mary, that is actualy a pretty good description. I grew up in the East and was at Cornell in Rockefeller’s hey-day. The values that drove his environmental intiatives, which protected vast tracts of Upstate New York wilderness into permanent protection map well to the values that drive Davisites to protect farmland. I’m not sure that the low taxes portion of your equation translates. Davis has had absolutely no problem with raising its taxes if it saw a “greater good” such as education and libraries. And who isn’t for family planning as a means of population control?
So bottomline, you are saying that Rockefeller was a steward of the land, as are the progressives in Davis.
“This is not to say that their politics is dead it has just morphed into the kind of environmental anti-development nimby, anti tax, pro choice positions you see taken by the landed gentry of Davis through Sue Greenwald on the council, Rich Rifkin in the Enterprise and the Vanguard of Davis. “
That’s interesting. I would not characterize myself as anti-tax. The next tax measure I oppose will be my first. I think of myself more along the lines of Ron Dellums when he was in Congress. Dellums figured out that in order to free up money for social programs he had to cut money from the military. So he became the foremost expert on military spending to the point where even people who disagreed with him fundamentally on the issues had to respect his knowledge.
I have a number of priorities starting with education, I strongly supported the parcel taxes and the schools. Where I think I differ with Typhoid and his various monikers he used on the blog is that I think there is but one pot of money available and I would prefer we limit spending and taxes that go to pay for higher municipal salaries rather than schools and county social programs.
I also happen to believe that preserving nature and quality of life and the environment are important, but I see that as separate from my main goal.
I am also a strong advocate for civil liberties which is one of the reasons I got involved in politics following police complaints. Along the same lines I value open government and despise government corruption, cronyism, and other misuse of public trust.
I’m not really a proponent of population control and am a proponent of more open immigration to this country.
So I think you have me pegged pretty wrong. My politics are really not much in line with Rifkin’s other than on the issue of salaries and pension for public employees and with me, I’m really looking at public employees making over $100K, I think the vast majority of people who work for the government do not get nearly enough.
Of course comparing the Adirondacks and the Berkshires to those ol tomato fields back home is a stretch. The point about family planning is that it had a Calvinistic self rightous type of mentality attached to it. You can see it in Sue Greenwald when she talks about world population growth as it applies to the growth of Davis and you can see it in Rich Rifkin when he writes about offering young women the opportunity to be sterilized for cash. You can see it in the romanticization of a dense Davis that never existed other than through the maintanance of its existing borders as if the borders are somehow immutable. You can see it through the refusal to extend voting rights to those who live on campus as if those who live here longer than others should have more of a say in civic affairs than those whose life here is more ephemeral. You can see it on the housing task force where no renters are included. You can see it work on the University staff, who, because of the tax advantages of owning, but the high cost of housing due to anti-growth policies are forced to live in surrounding communities and are therefore excluded from civic life here. You can see it in the minority view often expressed here that we are over taxed, although this view, as Matt points out, rarely wins at the local ballot box. You can see it through the support of the 2/3 rule that has a choke hold on the state budget. You can see it in anti-immigrant sentiment that is grouded in ignorance and prejudice.There are many places you can see it in Davis.
I see it in your writing as you put down Davis? Or are you somehow above it all?
I thought this site was all about exposing the dark underbelly of Davis as it used to claim on its masthead. Not my fault if you can’t handle the truth.
You lack introspection here. You have looked down your nose at others who you deem looking down their nose at others. You have missed the irony of your own actions.
Huh?
Honestly, I’ll give you introspection if you want it. If I had a job that paid a little more and was able to own a home in Davis I would be carrying the battle axe for the no growth nimby’s. It is only through the window of my own personal circumstances that I have been able to step out of the prevailing dogma and see the light that no growth policies are exclusionary.
Mary, why do you choose to live here when it makes you so unhappy?
With that said, let me address your points one by one.
Of course comparing the Adirondacks and the Berkshires to those ol tomato fields back home is a stretch.
_____ How is it a stretch. Mother Nature has chosen to deliver unto us a whole myriad of climatic variants. If anything, one could argue that the “ol tomato fields back home” contribute more to the “Greater Good” of Mankind than the woods of the Adirondacks do. Rockefeller didn’t see it that way though. He understood that once an acre of the Adirondacks is paved over it is lost forever.
The point about family planning is that it had a Calvinistic self rightous type of mentality attached to it. You can see it in Sue Greenwald when she talks about world population growth as it applies to the growth of Davis and you can see it in Rich Rifkin when he writes about offering young women the opportunity to be sterilized for cash.
______ China doesn’t have a Calvinist to its name. Do you find its family planning initiatives self-righteous? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you isn’t Calvinist. It isn’t even Christian. Family planning is simply practicing the Golden Rule.
You can see it in the romanticization of a dense Davis that never existed other than through the maintanance of its existing borders as if the borders are somehow immutable.
_____ Up until recently, the fact that Davisites have chosen to live more densely than other cities in the Region has been driven by simple transportation facts. The myriads of students who rent their housing in Davis desire to live in close proximity to the place they go to classes every day. You will find that nationwide University towns like Davis almost invariably are denser than their neighboring municipalities. If a higher proportion of students were actually housed on the UCD campus then Davis would no doubt not be anywhere near as dense as it is. However, on its face value you statement “a dense Davis that never existed other than through the maintanance of its existing borders as if the borders are somehow immutable,” is wrong on two different key levels, and not consistent with historical fact on any level.
You can see it through the refusal to extend voting rights to those who live on campus as if those who live here longer than others should have more of a say in civic affairs than those whose life here is more ephemeral.
____ The typical person who lives on campus only does so for one year. After Freshman year students more often than not live in a rental in the City of Davis and have all the voting rights that such residency provides. Are you really complaining that Freshmen who know absolutely nothing about Davis are being horribly disenfranchised? If so, why is that important? Shouldn’t those students be concentrating on their studies. That is what they are here for isn’t it?
You can see it on the housing task force where no renters are included.
_____ That is a legitimate criticism. Given the heterogeneous makeup of the City Council, that was probably an accidental mistake that will be rectified in the future. I could complain that no one from my demographic was on the HESC also, but instead I simply attended the meetings and learned a whole lot, and contributed where I could during public comment. How many renters attended even one HESC meeting? How many cared?
You can see it work on the University staff, who, because of the tax advantages of owning, but the high cost of housing due to anti-growth policies are forced to live in surrounding communities and are therefore excluded from civic life here.
____ You state this point as if it is a universality. It isn’t. However, it is a point that has merit, and many people are working hard to provide more work force housing in Davis. BTW, exactly what are the tax advantages you see associated with owning. That is a myth. The only real advantage associated with owning is the capital appreciation when the home value goes up.
You can see it in the minority view often expressed here that we are over taxed, although this view, as Matt points out, rarely wins at the local ballot box.
_____ This point confuses me. Can you help me understand how you believe we over taxed?
You can see it through the support of the 2/3 rule that has a choke hold on the state budget.
_____ Are you saying that Davis residents are the cause of the 2/3 rule? Do you have any evidence that Davis residents even support the 2/3 rule? This sounds like a rant.
You can see it in anti-immigrant sentiment that is grouded in ignorance and prejudice.
______ Help me understand how Davis is anti-immigrant. I realize there is plenty of anti-imigrant sentiment in California, but I would say Yolo County and Davis are very low water points when it comes to such sentiments.
There are many places you can see it in Davis.
_____ There are may places in the world you can see lots of things. The question is is that representative or extraneous?
[quote]Typhoid Mary said . . .
Honestly, I’ll give you introspection if you want it. If I had a job that paid a little more and was able to own a home in Davis I would be carrying the battle axe for the no growth nimby’s. It is only through the window of my own personal circumstances that I have been able to step out of the prevailing dogma and see the light that no growth policies are exclusionary. [/quote]
Nelson Rockefeller would tell you to show some initiative. Pogo would tell you that you have met the enemy, and it is yourself.
[quote]I’m not anti-tax. [/quote] My thought is that if we collectively want X-amount of government services, we ought to include tax rates which raise X-amount of dollars. If the willingness to pass those taxes is not there, then we shouldn’t pass the programs (or raise the salaries, etc.). Also, I tend to dislike the idea of raising taxes on a minority group (such as smokers or “the rich”) to pay for services we as a society benefit from. I’m fine with exempting the poor. I just feel it is unfair for a majority of middle and upper-middle income people to increase a needed government service and think they should pay nothing for it.
In the state of California, it bothers me that we have passed a whole lot of bond measures, some really, really expensive, and we have not included a tax to pay for them. While it is not the major problem in the state budget, it is a problem. [quote]Dellums figured out that in order to free up money for social programs he had to cut money from the military.[/quote] My take on military spending is twofold: [b]1.[/b] We have some responsibility as a major country to police rogue states and rogue actors. However, I think we have for a long time, taken on too ambitious a role and that role is increasingly unaffordable. I think our government should strategically pare back our military’s mission statement; and [b]2.[/b] A whole lot of military procurement is theft by pork. Military contractors pay off Congressmen who then order new planes, tanks, submarines, etc., which we don’t need. [quote]I think there is but one pot of money available and I would prefer we limit spending and taxes that go to pay for higher municipal salaries rather than schools and county social programs. [/quote] My feeling is that we should try to put as much money as possible into the classrooms. I am all for higher teacher salaries for those teachers who are doing a good job. (One great strength of the Davis schools is that the very active parents in Davis tend to help root out the least effective teachers; so we generally have fewer bad teachers, here.) [quote]I also happen to believe that preserving nature and quality of life and the environment are important, but I see that as separate from my main goal.[/quote] My take on the environment is mostly (though not exclusively) an economic one: If somebody is polluting the air or water or some other public asset, the polluter ought to have to internalize that cost. Insofar as we are all damaging the environment with our carbon emissions, I favor a carbon tax (using the revenues collected to subsidize the development and purchase of cleaner technologies). [quote] I am also a strong advocate for civil liberties which is one of the reasons I got involved in politics following police complaints. [/quote] I’m more of a pragmatist than a civil libertarian. To me it depends on which rights are bumping up against one another and the nature of the violation of those rights. [quote]I’m not really a proponent of population control and am a proponent of more open immigration to this country.[/quote] The best population control method is a highly educated population of working women in their child-bearing years. I’m not in favor of anything along the lines Indira Gandhi imposed on India or the one-child policy in China. But I see nothing wrong with giving people who are not in a position to responsibly raise children a positive incentive to not have kids. … As far as immigration goes, I’m the grandchild of immigrants, so it would be rather hypocritical of me to oppose immigration. I do think, though, that we should try to get a handle on illegal immigration by allowing businesses (including farmers) who need employees to bring in new workers legally and severely sanction those which break the law. I also find it odd that we put strict limits on the numbers of highly educated immigrants who want to come here. I was just reading about a guy who got his PhD in electrical engineering from Stanford who wanted to stay but was sent home because the quota for work visas in his field was filled.
[quote]… it has just morphed into the kind of environmental anti-development nimby, anti tax, pro choice positions you see taken by the landed gentry of Davis through Sue Greenwald on the council, Rich Rifkin in the Enterprise and the Vanguard of Davis.[/quote] I’m not anti-development. I do think, though, that when we have development, the external costs ought to be borne (as much as is reasonably possible) by the developers through mitigation fees.
[quote]I guess you don’t get it aid . . .
You have looked down your nose at others who you deem looking down their nose at others. You have missed the irony of your own actions. [/quote]
That was a very good guess. 8>)
In watching the video of the meeting, I’d like to clarify a few things.
The Board of Supervisors voted to change the Land Use designation from “Industrial” to “Specific Plan”. They further clarified this vote by stating that this change would NOT create an agricultural zoning on the property. As noted below, the Specific Plan designation allows the continuance of current practices on the property, which happens to be agriculture.
See the following definition of the Specific Plan.
Specific Plan (SP) allows uses in the AG designation to continue temporarily until such time as the Specific Plan has been adopted, or the land use designation is otherwise amended. Ultimate land uses must be consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. Capital intensive agricultural uses are discouraged in lands designated Specific Plan so as not to preclude later planned uses.
To see the full discussion by the supervisors I suggest you go to:
[url]http://www.yolocounty.org/Index.aspx?page=1309[/url] and watch the video for July 21, 2009.
All of the Supervisors agreed that this change in Land Use designation would actually give more flexibility to all involved: the developers, the people of Davis, the City of Davis and the County.
Jim Provenza said, “The Specific Plan designation doesn’t preclude anything. It [Covell Site] could become residential or commercial.”
Helen Thomson said that she didn’t want to preclude any opportunity from happening in the future. She also noted, “This change is an actual advantage to the land owner.”
Regarding the Specific Plan Process, it is simply the County version of the process that would happen in the City of Davis.
To close, it is important to note that County staff confirmed Supervisor Thomson’s assertion that the County term “Specific Plan” designation is equivalent to the city term “Urban Reserve”… a site designated for potential urban development.
Those poor dinos just don’t get it.
The CV partners just keep coming up with the same old schlok housing plans. No wonder that they have lost three times now. And there was absolutely nothing pro-environment in their plans. Same for the senior housing plan. The partners bought the land out of bankrupcty for only a few million dollars, so their refusal to offer much public benefits in mitigation and environmental sustainability translates into mere greed. Any other developer in this area would have had a successful project years ago, but the CV partners hale from the Jurrasic Age.
This is sort of like watching a dinosaur continue to eat its tail out of habit. Disturbing, and sad, with the outcome certain.
No the best way to control population is by making contraceptives available to women. In the 90’s it was shown that when women have more income they have fewer children because they can afford birth control. It has nothing to do with education and everything to do with income and access. Funny thing about it Rich, they can sell their eggs for more than you would pay them to be sterilized. Just look at the ads in the Aggie for helping couples have children.
Nelson Rockefeller is the last person who should talk about others working harder or smarter or showing initiative. His grandfather was the first Billionaire and his father had to spend his entire life disposing of his grandfather’s fortune.The man was given everything. He is the only person ever appointed Vice President of the United States. I didn’t even get to vote against him. Still I can see how his view of others needing to work harder without recognizing his own privelege would seem attractive to a town where restiction of housing supply has pushed prices to where 2/3 of the city rent and many of the other 1/3 inherited their wealth.
People who rent do not have a God-given right to own here or anywhere. You rent or buy in this town, you are getting access to the city infrastructure that the voters have paid for with extra taxes year after year, since early last century. If you make lifestyle choices to earn the $$ to buy here, God bless you. If not, then rent. If you can afford a $250,000 home, buy small here, or move to Spring-Back-the-Century in Woodland. It’s a free choice. But I can tell you this: no city can build their way out of high housing prices. If you want lower prices in Davis, destroy the city infrastructure and good schools that create the wealth here. No one is going to let CV and its friends use the renters card to destroy the environment of our town. No one.
Mary, You forgot to add the horrible fact that LifeSavers are no longer a nickel. It must be hard living in the 21st Century.
“Use the renters card”…? What are you talking about?
I don’t know of any connection between Covell Village, in any of its incarnations, and rental housing.
” No city can build its way out of high housing prices.”
How about Las Vegas?
Matt, Honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say in your last post.
How would building houses destroy the schools here?
Matt are you suggesting that housing prices in Davis have gone up simply due to inflation? Certainly you know we are coming out of the biggest real estate bubble in history and that Davis caught the upside because it didn’t build as much as the surrounding communities and that this has also softened the blow to date on the downside. Matt please don’t demean yourself with flippant remarks that you know oversimplify the complex economics of housing. While we disagree I do respect your depth of understanding of the issues.
Mary, my comment was anything but flippant. Your comment about Nelson Rockefeller showed a complete lack of connection to reality. Your sweeping indictment of him for the accident of his birth was of the same order of disconnect as the rant of a person who rants about the historical price of LifeSavers. What did Nelson Rockefeller do other than try and do his level best to so the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people?
Were all Rockefeller’s decisions good ones? No. But when he made a mistake it was never the result of self-serving motives or ego. He was always trying to do the best thing for the people he chose to serve as a public servant. Can you name for us a single rich person who was more committed to doing good with the wealth he inherited? I can’t. If you are going to attack rich people with famous names for profligate ways, at least choose one that might deserve it.
Let me restrict my housing prices remarks to the last eleven years, since 1) that is how long I’ve lived in California and 2) it coincides with data from the BAE study provided to the Housing Element Steering Committee.
During that period did housing prices in Davis go up any faster than they did for California as a whole? I don’t have ready data at my fingertips, but my suspicion is that they didn’t. Don Shor may be able to provide us with a link that will either validate that or prove me wrong. But, my basic answer to your question is, “Yes, housing prices in Davis have gone up in parallel with the inflation of housing prices throughout California during that same period.” Further, Davis had a rapidly increasing supply of housing in Davis during that same period. Table 12 of the BAE study shows a housing increase of over 17% (more than 3,500 new units).
The reason your comment “softened the blow to date on the downside” applies to Davis is pretty straightforward. 1) Davis residents tend to come to Davis and stay a long time. 2) Employment in Davis up until the current UC fiscal crisis has been much more stable than in other communities throughout California and the Nation. As a result, the proportion of Davis homeowners who have found themselves “upside down” is very small. I have recently heard the number 60 being kicked around, but 60 out of over 25,000 is still a miniscule number when compared to other communities. So, the Davis housing market has not been disrupted by a flood of foreclosure properties. Couple those realities with the quality of life fundamentals we have in Davis, and I think you can take the “to date” out of your statement.
So bottom-line, I repeat my anything but flippant remark, “Mary, you forgot to add the horrible fact that LifeSavers are no longer a nickel. It must be hard living in the 21st Century.” Hopefully you understand it this time.
[quote]Typhoid Mary said . . .
. . . a town where restiction of housing supply has pushed prices to where 2/3 of the city rent and many of the other 1/3 inherited their wealth.[/quote]
Regarding your above comment, perhaps you should again look before you leap. Go to the US Cansus and take a sampling of the ratio of owner-occuped vs. renter-occupied housing units in University cities and towns like Davis. To cite just one example, the City of Ithaca, New York has only 26.0% of its housing units owner-occupied. That makes the proportion there 3/4 vs. 1/4. The phenomenon you are railing about is student-driven. It is not a vast housing supply control conspiracy. As I pointed out in my last post, housing supply has actually grown over 17% in the last 10 years.
Sixty presently in foreclosure many more upside down or alredy out of their homes in Davis listed on Foreclosureradar.com but compare ths to Woodland where they overbuilt and around 500 homes are in some stage of default. As Davis’ job market has been strong up until now so has Woodland’s. The difference is how much building has gone on as the bubble grew. Matt you say 17% growth but its much lower since the build out of Wildhorse and Mace Ranch and they were completed just as the bubble really got out of control, this drove prices up going up and has so far cushioned the downside as does the ability to rent your house to students if push comes to shove.
Thanks for validating my point about Rockefeller Republicans.
Mary, there may be more upside down in Davis beyond the 60, but because of factor 1) that isn’t as much of an issue in Davis. Long term residency, much like holding any investment asset over the long term, allows the owner to simply ride out the short-term peaks and valleys of the housing market. Therefore being upside down, or close to upside down, is like currently holding a share of stock that you bought before the current Stock market downturn.
Of course the new homes buildout is lower since the housing market crash began to loom on the horizon. Just look at Willowbank 9. The put in the roads and all the infrastructure for their 30 (or so) lots and thus far only one house has been built. That isn’t unique to Davis. It is happening everywhere. You don’t need to defer relativity to Einstein, feel free to use some of it yourself.
Speaking of relativity, the Economic Evaluation presented to the Yolo County Supervisors as part of the Draft General Plan on Tuesday provides some very interesting Historic Regional Housing Trends numbers. I encourage you to read the report. It is Attachment D on [url]http://www.yolocounty.org/index.aspx?page=1709[/url] Bottom-line, Davis had 2.79% of the Sacramento Metropolitan Region housing units in 1990 and 2.85% of the region’s housing units in 2007. Davis has actually absorbed [u]more than its fair share of the Region’s housing growth[/u] over the past 17 years. Specific communities like Elk Grove and West Sacramento may have grown at an even faster rate, but Davis has handled more than its fair share of the Region’s housing growth.
That my friend is relativity.
Yes time and space are relative, 17 years ago is an arbitrary starting point. By comparing regional and local growth in housing stock you assume that growth is everywhere equal, but how much has the university grown in that same arbitrary 17 years? My guess is that UC has driven the need for more housing regionally because it has grown faster than Davis has provided housing. So Davis housing would then be below the trend line for increased housing compared to its growth as a land grant university town. That gravity people feel as they pay thier rent or mortgage, that is the university warping space.
BTW, you asked if students,who come here as freshmen and no nothing about the town should be allowed to vote in city elections. I think they should. They are the best and brightest young people in the state and they would be able to learn about the issues, if they did so choose, in short order. They can participate in county elections so why not redraw the lines and let them participate.
[quote]BTW, you asked if students,who come here as freshmen and no nothing about the town should be allowed to vote in city elections. I think they should. They are the best and brightest young people in the state and they would be able to learn about the issues, if they did so choose, in short order. They can participate in county elections so why not redraw the lines and let them participate. [/quote]
The answer to that question is straightforward. A freshman arrives on campus in September. Election Day is essentially 60 days away. No matter how bright the student may be, asking them to climb the learning curve in a 60 day time is unrealistic. The next Election Day is the following June, and by that time virtually all freshmen have left the campus for their home town place of residence. When they return in September it is typically to a residence that qualifys them to vote in the City elections. If the June Election Day were in April or early May I would agree with you, but since the only functional Election Day they have to participate in is November I say let sleeping Aggies lie.
When asked why students should vote? Freddy Oakley our esteemed County Clerk once said” Stop letting your parents make your decisions for you.”
Speaking of Pogo, Matt, aren’t you from that never trust anyone over 30 generation.
Just as Admiral Yamimoto did, I want to wake a sleeping giant and let democracy bloom. It is funny how people in town want direct democracy with measure J but don’t want to extend it to the majority of the people by keeping students who live on campus excluded from the process.
“They can participate in county elections so why not redraw the lines and let them participate.”
Because they don’t live in the city. They live in the county, as do lots of other people who can’t vote in Davis city elections. Why should students who choose to live in on-campus housing be treated any differently? I’m reasonably sure UCD is not interested in annexing the student housing land to the city of Davis.
“Yes time and space are relative, 17 years ago is an arbitrary starting point. By comparing regional and local growth in housing stock you assume that growth is everywhere equal…”
You are right. In the 1980’s Davis was the fastest-growing city in Yolo County. Cities here tend to grow in fits and spurts. I’d guess West Sacramento has been fastest recently, though Woodland certainly added a lot of housing as well.
” … but how much has the university grown in that same arbitrary 17 years? My guess is that UC has driven the need for more housing regionally because it has grown faster than Davis has provided housing.”
That is correct. And as you note, it is a regional market.
[quote]When asked why students should vote? Freddy Oakley our esteemed County Clerk once said” Stop letting your parents make your decisions for you.”
Speaking of Pogo, Matt, aren’t you from that never trust anyone over 30 generation.
Just as Admiral Yamimoto did, I want to wake a sleeping giant and let democracy bloom. It is funny how people in town want direct democracy with measure J but don’t want to extend it to the majority of the people by keeping students who live on campus excluded from the process.[/quote]
Mary, guilty as charged. I even went to all three days of Woodstock.
“Don’t want to extend” is probably too strong a word. “Don’t see any significant issue” is probably closer to my thinking.
Lets reduce it down to practical terms. In a November election with no National Offices being contested and no State Offices being contested, what percentage of the UCD incoming Freshmen living on campus do you think would 1) even take the time to vote? 2) take the time to register to vote prior to the deadline? or 3) even be interested in the issues that are being decided?
Given the fact that I myself am denied the opportunity to vote in Davis elections, you certainly would think I would be attuned to the disenfranchisement issue that you are raising. But for all the practical reasons mentioned this issue is a ho-hum for me.
Yamamoto would look at the incoming Freshmen vis-a-vis a November election and find them to be awake but oblivious. The bloom you would be unleashing would take a microscope to see.
JMHO
[quote]Don Shor said . . .
Why should students who choose to live in on-campus housing be treated any differently? I’m reasonably sure UCD is not interested in annexing the student housing land to the city of Davis.[/quote]
Don, in fairness to Mary’s point, UCD requires its incoming freshmen to live on the UCD campus their freshman year. There are exceptions, but they are not numerous. So “choose to live in on-campus housing” is for the most part not an accurate statement.
You are absolutely right, UCD has even less desire to be annexed to the City than El Macero does.
UCD would like to annex West Village for economic reasons but it is hung up in the City Council I believe by how it would effect the 1% growth rate of the city although Don Saylor and Matt actually agree on keeping the college kids from voting. ElMacero chose not to be part of the city. UC Davis students have never been given the chioce.
I don’t agree on keeping the college kids from voting. I don’t think it would change the number of actual voters in a non-National election by 0.1% so it doesn’t even hit my radar. I do however think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Feel free to continue if it gives you jollies.
The issue re: annexation of West Village has absolutely nothing to do with the 1% growth rate. It has to do with revenues and expenses, both of which would be different for both UCD and the City if an annexation took place. So far they haven’t been able to agree on the right level of changes.
Matt it turns out that there was a vigorous debate between Sue and Don as to whether to include West Village in the growth numbers for Davis with Don favoring that it not be included and Sue favoring that it be included. Gary Sandy agreed with me in private that people at the university thought that this too was a sticking point. The cost of services could be addressed by a MOU between the city and the university so while cost savings drives the university it is not a honest concern for the city.
Mary, what was the difference of opinion between Don and Sue? The reality is that SACOG has dealt with West Village as an external to the RHNA numbers. Right now it is held separate from the City’s “quota.” If annexation took place both West Village’s planned capacity and its RHNA target would move from UCD to the City. The net result would be no change. I can’t imagine that the City’s 1% Growth Cap would handle it any differently.
No Growthers like Sue would like to see the West Village buildout go against an un changed Cap, which in effect would make it a 0% Growth Cap while West Village was in the buildout phase, but I personally think that that is swinging the pendulum too far. I prefer to let the current market achieve a de-facto 0% attainment against the Cap.
Two other things are worth mentioning 1) without unnecessarily converting productive farmland, we absolutely do not want to discourage UCD from accepting its fair share of meeting the housing housing need in Davis, and 2)UCD has been recently experiencing an uptick in “lost” faculty recruitments due to in part housing issues. West Village will give the University a tool for addressing that academic market dynamic. I see that as being “external” to the 1% Growth Cap dialogues . . . both past and future.
exactly right about Sue.
Hippie then:
never trust anyone over 30
Hippie now:
never trust anyone under 30
Hippie now:
Trying desperately to keep the pounds off 8>)
Hippie now:
“Honey, does our health insurance cover joint replacements?”
Annexation of West Village will never occur until the revenue of property tax $’s can be worked out with the County. They hold the key to service/revenue neutrality for the City.
Where there is a will there is a way. Its the lack of will that is so disappointing.
I have to laugh about “affordable housing” and how important it is to provide ownership opportunities. $250k buys an old 800 ft2 condo. One City Council member thinks that a $75k annual salary is “low income for Davis””. Davis is an expensive place to live. Yes, I own a house but bought it years ago. Sure Davis is nice in many ways but a simple unimproved 3/2 in East Davis still costs $425k. Typhoid, I”m not sure where your stats come from but Davis housing prices haven’t dropped much in the huge market crash. Some foreclosures are finally appearing here but it’s taken a long time. Over and over, I hear about the need to provide more housing opportunities. It’s a cute justification but check out the proposed sales prices in the new developments. For instance, in one recently approved project, median sales price is $472k. Having more new houses simply does not mean lower prices. It means units sold at current market value offerings.
Building is the answer. If you build enough prices will come down just as they have done in the rest of the region where there was much more building than in Davis.
Matt in response to your question earlier about taxes,
There are always people on this board whining about taxes but when the votes come down the voters almost always have passed them. My point is that the vocal minority on this board who think they are progressive are really anti-tax.
Most of the anti-tax people on this board are actually conservatives not progressives.
The tax code has been controlled by the real estate industry for so long that when the bubble was going up it was like throwing gasoline on the fire.
Let me give examples:
Under prop 13 housing taxes go up 2% a year although housing prices grew much faster since the passage of 13 until the recent collapse.
Since Reagan was president mortgage interest is deductible while other interest is not so the tax code favors owners over others and also favors the withdrawal of equity from a home. I have heard so many stories about people taking equity out and now are underwater, its sad.
Since the renters credit was abolished owners can deduct property taxes while renters cannot.
By deducting mortgage interest owners can more easily reach the threshold for filing itemized deductions on many other expenses.
If you live in your house for 2 years you can sell it without paying capital gains on the sale on profit up to $500,000 for a couple. You are correct Matt that this only works if the price goes up.
Still you can see there are many advantages to owning in the tax code and by the way if you have a home office there are even more advantages.
Jim, if that is what happens, then you won’t find me supporting more new houses. That would not improve the lot of Davis’ workforce.
Mary, the tax advantage of a mortgage is a myth. Simple mathematics proves that.
For every $1.00 of interest paid you multiply that $1.00 by 20-30% (depending on your tax bracket) and deduct the result from your taxes. In the end you are shelling out 70-80 cents for each $1.00 of interest. If you don’t choose to have a mortgage, you are shelling out zero cents and keeping every penny of each $1.00.
That would be true if you lived in a vacuum but if you rent you pay the tax as part of your rent and get nothing back by way of deduction so there is a tax advantage to owning. The only way your argument works is if you are homeless or living rent free. Its relativity that creates the advantage.
Oh its so early. If you rent the costs of ownership including taxes and mortgage interest are passed through but the tax advantages accrue to the owner.
True, but that is a zero-sum situation. If you pass through the tax advantage to the renter, then the total net costs used to compute the monthly rent will be higher and the rent will as a result be higher by the amount of the tax. If the you don’t pass through the tax advantage to the renter, then the total net costs used to compute the monthly rent will be lower and the rent will as a result be lower by the amount of the tax.
A = A + tax pass through lost by owner – tax pass through obtained by tenant.
Further, since the tax rate for the owner is almost surely higher than for the tenant the amount paid to the IRS will be lower if it is in the owner’s taxes.