Yesterday’s article discussed the issue of housing affordability in Davis. At that time, we chose to separate the overall issue of housing affordability from the hot button issue of Wildhorse Ranch that voters will vote on come November. One of the crucial questions voters will have to determine is to what extent, Wildhorse Ranch provides housing that meets our needs in Davis.
As we discussed yesterday, the problem of affordability of housing in Davis has no simple solution. Indeed each of the three solutions that we threw out as possible answers had serious shortcommings.
Each of these have problems that were discussed yesterday. There was certainly no consensus that emerged in the discussion.
The question that I think we need to address here is whether Wildhorse Ranch moves us forward in terms of providing Davis will houses for its workforce. Critics have argued that Wildhorse Ranch is unnecessary as we already have 2000 units approved. But that number is tenuous at best. 1500 comes from West Village of which approximately 1000 are basically an extension of the on-campus student housing system. That leaves around 475 actual homes which are exclusively provided for university employees (faculty get priority but staff are included).
Of the housing that is technically approved in Davis, only the 109 units at Chiles Ranch may be coming on line soon. The voters can of course, decide whether we have enough housing at this time and they decide that the other factors involved with Wildhorse outweigh those consideration.
The question for today is to determine what housing needs Wildhorse Ranch meets. At the onset here, it is probably important to remember that a 191 unit housing development is not going to solve all of our problems and not going to meet everyone’s housing needs.
Along that score, the question is how well Wildhorse Ranch actually holds up pretty well in terms of providing for internal housing needs in Davis. First, the 191 units include around 40 that are reserved for low income people. These are rental units, but they would likely serve the people who work at UC Davis as service employees very well.
Of the remaining units, it seems likely that these will draw people who either live in Davis or work in Davis rather than people who live outside of Davis and work elsewhere.
Let’s break that down a bit. First, the most obvious point is that people who work in Sacramento and live elsewhere seem unlikely to move to Davis to live in Wildhorse. They can generally buy a larger house for a comparable price or cheaper in other communities such as Woodland and Dixon (not to mention Elk Grove and Natomas). So there would appear to be no great draw to entice people from out of town, save one.
That would be people who move to Davis because of Davis’ schools. Given the concerns about declining enrollment, drawing families with children into Davis may be considered by some to be a net positive. Therefore if people choose to move into Davis because of the schools, while that does not technically fill an internal demand, it may be considered a net positive.
The most likely people to wish to move to and buy a home at Wildhorse Ranch are threefold.
First, those who live in Davis, rent, want to live in Davis in the future, and wish to build up their equity to move to a larger house at a later period in time.
Second, those who wish to live in an innovative and environmentally cutting edge home.
Third, those who work in the university but wish to live in Davis either for the school, the community, the quality of life, or the chance to live in an environmentally innovative home.
With all of these people who would be most inclined to purchase the home, affordability will be one concern, but perhaps not the only concern.
This gets back to the issue and discussion of the qualities of Davis that draw people to live here. Those strictly concerned about getting the most house for their buck are not going to live in Davis at all most likely, there is going to need to be another draw.
So the people who are likely to live in Davis, have to want to live here for the other factors–either a closer commute, the schools, the community, the safety, the quality of life, or the environmental innovation. Will Wildhorse Ranch provide those people with housing options that they can afford?
This project by and large will most those specific needs. The people who will be most able to afford to live in Davis may be two-income families with a wage earner at the university. Also, a two income family of school teachers at DJUSD would also be able to purchase a town home.
Many of these people are going to be first time home buyers who work in Davis, like the lifestyle of Davis, and can afford to live in a smaller house for a period of time while they build equity to eventually be able to afford a larger house. The advantage of this project over West Village is that it is full equity.
This project obviously is not going to solve the problem of workforce housing for Davis. It is also not going to provide housing in the 200,000 to 350,000 dollar range. It is not reasonable to expect a single development that is on the small side at 191 units to solve all of those problems. The question is whether at a reasonable level it will provide housing to those who either live currently in Davis and rent or those who work in Davis and would like to live here–that is the question for the voters to decide.
It is unfortunate right now that these improtant issues will become clouded in politics on all sides of the fence. For too long we have built housing to build housing without a lot of regard for who is going to live there, what needs the housing development with address, what kind of community this housing will to produce. The result is that we have spent the better part of two decades approving housing that has detracted rather than added character to the community.
Measure J from this perspective forces the city to plan better–they have to find projects that the voters will support. In previous decades we approved huge sprawl development projects like Mace Ranch and Wildhorse. However in 2005, a similar sprawl development, Covell Village was turned down. Now the voters will have to decide on this 191 unit project, and hopefully they will decide the project on the merits of the project and what this project can provide for the city.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
In order to buy in Wildhorse Ranch, a family will need an income of about $100,000 a year. This is not an income group with any shortage of options in Davis right now.
David, why don’t you just come out and endorse the project? You have done so de facto, why not make it official?
I think you can get down to $80,000 and still afford it.
I like the 90% GHG reduction. It de facto sets the new Davis standard.
“Critics have argued that Wildhorse Ranch is unnecessary as we already have 2000 units approved. But that number is tenuous at best. 1500 comes from West Village of which approximately 1000 are basically an extension of the on-campus student housing system. That leaves around 475 actual homes which are exclusively provided for university employees (faculty get priority but staff are included)”
Since when do students not count as residents? They have always been included as part of the housing population, according to the City and are taken into account for SACOG housing assessments for the city’s housing needs; suddenly , now since the Vanguard is shilling for Parlin, students are not part of the housing picture??? Shame on you, David, and as Don Schor has already pointed out, why don’t you just post a story in which you state “VANGUARD SUPPORTS WILDHORSE RANCH” and enough of these “news” stories in which you bend the facts towards Parlin’s favor!
[i]Does Wildhorse Ranch Meet Our Housing Needs?[/i]
The short answer is no. It’s a token bit of growth that does help. But it could also serve as a fig leaf for Measure J.
[i]I like the 90% GHG reduction.[/i]
Frankly photovoltaic panels are not a practical solution to global warming. They are just too expensive. In effect, they are a ransom to allow growth in Davis, and they work against affordability.
“Since when do students not count as residents?”
Everytime there is an election in the city.
According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary online, defintion of a shill:” to act as a spokesperson or promoter” insert David Greenwald’s picture here next to Parlin Development Inc.
“I like the 90% GHG reduction. It de facto sets the new Davis standard.”
Hasn’t West Village already set the standard with its ground breaking???
“First, the 191 units include around 40 that are reserved for low income people. These are rental units, but they would likely serve the people who work at UC Davis as service employees very well.”
So please clarify, when are talking serving the needs of “low income people”, are we referring to more apartments or homes to own? I believe that proponents of this project, including yourself, your wife, and other FOBs (Friends of Bill Ritter) are trying to confuse the voters by implying they are synonymous???
“This project obviously is not going to solve the problem of workforce housing for Davis.”
“Frankly photovoltaic panels are not a practical solution to global warming. They are just too expensive. In effect, they are a ransom to allow growth in Davis, and they work against affordability.”
“In order to buy in Wildhorse Ranch, a family will need an income of about $100,000 a year. This is not an income group with any shortage of options in Davis right now.”
If this project does not address the problem of a lack of “affordable workforce housing” in Davis, then why build a very dense development of overly expensive townhomes, when we already have an existing inventory/planned inventory of bigger and better housing at the same or a better price? I just don’t get the reasoning behind a desire to build this project, other than the 90% GHG bit – and all that has done is make the homes LESS AFFORDABLE. So far, I vote a resounding “NO” on this project.
“So please clarify, when are talking serving the needs of “low income people”, are we referring to more apartments or homes to own?”
Where did you use the phrase serving the needs of low income people. In fact, in the article there were only two reference to low income both of which specifically refer to city’s requirement and the 40 units they provide that meet that requirement. So it seems you are actually inserting words into his mouth and bring up something he never mentions.
“Frankly photovoltaic panels are not a practical solution to global warming. They are just too expensive. In effect, they are a ransom to allow growth in Davis, and they work against affordability.”
Generally as technology comes into common use, the cost goes down. Frankly, I like the Berkeley financing model and think that the city of Davis could work to create a similar one. I know the state was considering it as well.
Yesterday was a nice discussion on housing. Today, one of the anti-WHR/ anti-David people has come on again and thrown out personal attacks. No one else here has personalized the issue, no one personalized it yesterday, we don’t need to personalize it today. Make your argument, have the discussion.
Are you saying that students and UC Davis faculty/staff are not part of the Davis community? If UC Davis builds homes/units for its faculty, staff and students then that takes pressure off the Davis housing market since folks who live in UC Davis’ buildings will free up more homes in the rest of Davis. So to say that UC Davis’ housing and beds don’t count seems disingenuous–this is a college town and UC Davis is an integral part of our community.
On affordable housing: 1) there is absolutely no guarantee that people who live there will work at UC Davis or indeed anywhere in Davis. The law specifically forbides any type of discrimination based on where someone works (or if they work). 2) Most UC Davis families will have incomes far too high to qualify for low income affordable hosuing, so it is not “worker” housing. The income limits are here: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rep/state/incNote.html A family of three or four cannot make more than $53-$58k (approximately). If both spouses work (and most do these days, especially in “working families) that would exclude virtually all staff. A few families with one income earner from UC Davis or public schools or other local workers might qualify, but this is not a solution for the high cost of Davis housing. It would make more sense for UC Davis to offer affordable housing for its staff, but according to the Vanguard this would not count as Davis housing. Can we have a little bit of objectivity here? Why is the Vanguard so pro this development?
“Are you saying that students and UC Davis faculty/staff are not part of the Davis community? “
I don’t think anyone has said that. The only point I have seen to that effect is that on-campus student housing should not be counted the same as housing.
This essay specifically did not deal with “affordable housing.” There are only 40 units of “affordable housing” in this project. I’m not sure the need to bring up the rest of this stuff.
Smurf: “I think you can get down to $80,000 and still afford it.”
Not using any mortgage calculator that I’ve seen, but I’m not an expert. How do you figure?
WHR does not provide affordable housing, except in the form of apartments. That is how it met (barely) the city’s affordable housing requirement of 20% of the units. So the question is: how much are those apartments going to rent for?
It only provides “workforce housing” in the sense that any housing development in Davis does.
The proponents of this development chose to focus on affordability in their ballot argument, to the extent of listing it as the very first argument ‘pro’:
“Measure P and the Wildhorse Ranch neighborhood:
• Ensures the majority ofthe homes are affordable for working families.”
That is just plain not true, and it bothers me that people I respect, and who I know read this blog, signed their names to that statement and have failed to respond to the many discussions about affordability and WHR that have taken place here.
Again: can any of you explain how you came to agree with that ballot argument?
If you support WHR because of the environmentally sound measures, or simply because you like and respect the developers — fine. Just say so. Those are perfectly valid reasons to support a project that is pretty small, and which will probably look nice and be reasonably popular with buyers. But to try to sell this as affordable or workforce housing is really, really a stretch.
“Since when do students not count as residents?”
How about when they don’t live in the city? If you live on campus, you are not a city resident, you cannot vote in a city election. Suddenly we have 2000 housing units and dorms account for half of them? That’s ludicrous unless you are looking for an excuse to oppose a housing project (that is less than a tenth of the size of the total number of number).
It looks like faculty are offered 3.9% home loan rates [url]http://homeloans.ucdavis.edu/[/url].
For some reason I don’t really understand, former progressives appear to be lining up with this development. My family makes under the $100,000 that someone calculated is needed for one of these horse stalls ($500k houses). By my simple-headed calculations, I would have to double my salary so that my income and my wife’s income would allow us to pay the mortgage, after a 10% deposit. I am a researcher at UC Davis (though my comments do not reflect the ag-land developers I work for) and our family is probably middle-class. However, if one of these miniature dude ranchettes was my only option, I would have to move to Woodland. These houses may be green on the surface (ignoring the carbon footprint of building the damn things), but they sure take a lot of green to move into.
[quote] Of the housing that is technically approved in Davis, only the 109 units at Chiles Ranch may be coming on line soon. — David Greenwald [/quote]
The same can be said of Wildhorse Ranch. In fact, the developer himself said that he doesn’t expect building to start for two or three years.
“For some reason I don’t really understand, former progressives appear to be lining up with this development.”
I don’t understand. Are you calling Bill Ritter, Ken Wagstaff, Dick Livingston, Pam Nieberg, Mike Harrington, Carolyn Hinshaw, Stan Forbes, Eric Nelson, Allan Prior, former progressives? I understand that you may not agree with this project, but these are people that have been your allies over the years–why disparage them and call them former progressives?
The project is for people that wish to live in Davis and don’t already own a home. Thus, by definition, it’s not targeted for you.
Ignoring the carbon footprint of building the damn things? What about the energy reduction on site? What about the energy savings by allowing people who currently commute to work in Davis to live in town?
I don’t really understand your point here and I’m hurt that you’ve called people that have been your friends, former progressives.
“The same can be said of Wildhorse Ranch. In fact, the developer himself said that he doesn’t expect building to start for two or three years.”
So why the concern about the 2000 units?
According to staff, the most affordable houses in this project are attached townhouses which will cost an average of $451,000 when they come on line in three years (the townhouses are quite similar, so the price variation can’t be too great. And if some cost a little less, others will cost a little more. Is anyone even going to be willing to pay over $451,000 for a townhouse at the far edge of town?).
That’s right $451,000 for an attached townhouse.
That is the affordable workforce housing.
The range is $350,000 to $450,000 for the townhomes.
Of course student housing counts as housing. Senior housing counts, student housing counts, all housing counts.
The 1,000 units of non-student housing are more than enough for now.
Sue: can you please break down where those 1000 units are and the time line by which they will be built. Thanks.
[quote]can you please break down where those 1000 units are and the time line by which they will be built.[/quote]
Staff sent me the numbers. They will be posted on the web when the web page goes up.
No one knows when any approved house will be built. It all depends on the housing market. Right now, developers are just piling up entitlements. Unlike the other developers, at least Parlin admitted that he is going to sit on them, and I respect him for that.
So you don’t even know the numbers–you are just relying on staff?
Aren’t some of the entitled units unlikely to ever be built? If so how many of them? These are crucial questions if you are going to continue to use the number, you need to be upfront and honest with us about what we are talking about. I think it’s incredibly DISHONEST of you to throw that number around if you are not prepared to break it down so we can evaluate it.
Hi again. Sorry, progressive is as progressive does. The 1000 apt/condo units for students in the West Village is still housing for residents of Davis. Dorm rooms are probably the only thing that can be excepted from a calculation of bulk housing availability. Although UCD developers told me several years ago that they are planning for a 50,000 student campus, I doubt in the current state budget climate that so many will be able to afford the fees etc., so there is not currently a big housing crunch. It seems like a lot of the quibbling here is over details. Some basic facts are — the land is mostly bare dirt (not concrete or asphalt), it is a peripheral development, it is too expensive for people like me (I’m not moving, so I was not referring to me as an example), its green cover is insulting when painted on expensive houses, and just because a prospective Democratic candidate for local office supports it, doesn’t make it good. Only a few years ago, a good development was one that was internal to town, provided jobs near existing housing, and avoided farmland dirt. And could you please sign your names, its a bit creepy to just read “concerned” then some Quisling drivel without a name attached.
I’m very disappointed to hear that. As for my name, I don’t post it on here. I’m afraid that people like Sue will stop talking to me and people like you will call me a former progressive. Too small a town.
To “To Frasier”:
I’m happy that you would want to talk with me. Rest assured that I don’t hold peoples’ position on growth against them. I just don’t agree that peripheral growth will solve the housing issue in any lasting manner.
I agree that flooding a weak market with housing might temporarily bring down housing prices (although it didn’t during the housing boom between 1988 and 2005, when we grew over 50%. During this period, the spread between our housing prices and that of surrounding towns remained constant).
Any lowering of prices by flooding a weak market with houses, if it occurs at all, would be temporary. There would be winners and losers. The winners would be those in the market to buy a first house now, and the losers would be those young people who bought recently, and have to move due to lay-offs, furloughs, not getting tenure, etc.
Such a potential temporary price reduction would have no significant effect on long-term owners. Most of us don’t even follow the vicissitudes of our net worth or lack thereof.
I understand the pull of the hope that peripheral subdivision growth will bring down prices. I just don’t agree that it will, and I think the effect of sprawl will ultimately hurt retention and recruitment of faculty if the quality of life decreases.
Dedicated University housing, if well planned, is a good solution for university faculty, staff and students. I hope that the University will build some higher-density condos and townhouses on the open space around Toomey field on A Street (I understand the University plans to move Toomey field). This type of dedicated downtown housing could be attractive to single and childless new faculty and staff, and could help our downtown businesses tremendously. We have a lot of rental options in the core area, but very little in the way of owner-occupied options.
TO: Council Member Sue Greenwald:
With all respect , I beleive you have manipulated my words several times . This time for the sake of citizens awareness , I would like to ask you to be fair and quote what I said. Here is what I said:
” If project is approved by voters, it takes a couple years to go through the Tentative Map process/architectural home designs and prepare Improvement Plans with the city . Breaking ground would not be sooner than 2012 to build the first house ”
I also said:
” final build out may takes many years “
I would appreciate your fairness in qouting me next time.
Thank you
Masud Monfared
I appreciate and respect that. I was mainly responding to my friend Frasier Shilling, a man I know and respect, referring to other friends as “former progressives.” I respect the fact that we disagree on this issue, I think we all want the same thing in general for our city, we may see differently on this issue, but in the end, we all need to respect our diversity as it can be a strength in addition to a weakness. I don’t think calling people “former progressives” is conducive to that.
Fraser Shilling,
Student dorms most definitely count as housing. The city has always counted living groups as housing. Why wouldn’t we? There is an official city way of counting living groups. It is called a “dwelling-unit equivalent”. We count three beds as a dwelling unit.
3,000 student beds equals 1,000 dwelling units. This is standard policy. It is a conservative number because it was set back in the days when we averaged 3 people per dwelling unit. If we were to use today’s average of 2.6 people per dwelling unit, 3,000 beds would be well over 1,000 units, but I like to stick with established definitions.
Masud,
I was trying to be polite and respectful. Okay, I will post your words verbatim, if it makes you feel better.
We don’t know when any of the 2,000 approved units will actually will be built. Even the Wildhorse Horseranch developer said:
[quote]Breaking ground would not be sooner than 2012 to build the first house ” [/quote] and he also said:[quote]” final build out may takes many years “[/quote]
So, Fraser.
First, no development here in Davis has ever avoided farmland dirt. This is/was all farmland.
So, according to you, progressives oppose all development, unless it is basically redevelopment, regardless of the quality and impacts of the proposal. In this case then, true progressives must oppose this 26 acre infill development on on the remnant of the Wild Horse development itself, on dirt that has not been farmed in decades and never will be farmed. On dirt that is basically a riding stable for those wealthy enough to own and board a horse. This isn’t even a horse ranch. They are not breeding horses there. If this were operated as a horse ranch or even as a riding stable at full capacity, the neighbors would be screaming, as they were before the current owner cleaned up the mess the previous owner left.
I am sure you have thoroughly studied this project and all the sustainability features that will be a part of it, since you are a scientist, so I will not bore you with that. But after thorough study and listening to both sides, you have decided that, since we don’t need any more housing now with those 1000 on-campus student units and 475 expensive on-campus housing for faculty and high-level staff coming on line, not to mention the 500(?) units already approved(?) in Davis (though no one seems able to tell us exactly what they are), that we should disregard the
positive impacts this little 191 unit development might have on future development here.
Well, I actually did look at both sides and came to a different conclusion. Unfortunately, that apparently srips me of my progressive stripes. For me, this project significantly raises the bar for future development in Davis. That is why I support it.
Hey Fraiser,
I don’t think I was ever a so called progressive so at least I’m not included as a former progressive. Anyway I find the greenwashing offensive as well but what really bugs me is the human ecology of densification and the 3 story buildings.
I guess I am guilty of quibbling. My definition of a progressive is someone who is raising the bar, changing the game (for the better), innovating. Judy Corbett did this with her vision of Village Homes over 30 years ago (passive and active solar), others have re-developed land to fit new needs and constraints. Flint Michigan is condensing the town and bulldozing old abandoned neighborhoods they can’t serve anymore; thats fiscally conservative and progressive at the same time. I’m not sure how much dirt-lot housing we “need”, those projections often grow from roots laid down by business interests. I am pretty sure about what we don’t need — using up bare soil land, whether it is by the Neanderthals in UCD planning, Target, or a green developer. As politely as I can, may I meekly suggest that we save ourselves and the Earth by imagining developing in ways that are restorative of land, that reduce our footprint, not enlarge it, that don’t kill/displace a single ground squirrel or burrowing owl, and that don’t require any greenwashing at all to make palatable.
If already developed land is available closer to town isn’t this greener? All of the green features of this project could easily be incorporated into a project closer to town–less driving–true infill–more support for downtown Davis. Putting a project on the outskirts of Davis is not “infill” and the extra driving make it much more difficult to claim that it is green.
Sue:
According to the staff report from the city, the average price of the 78 (not 73) townhomes is $425,000. The range is $350,000 to $450,000. So I ask you to show us which city staffer told you the price would be $451,000 and share with us the documentation that they sent to substantiate that. There is no public record to date verifying your numbers. Thanks.
Fraser:
“My definition of a progressive is someone who is raising the bar, changing the game (for the better), innovating.”
Wow! This defines the Wildhorse Ranch project AND the former progressives who support it! That is WHY we support it!
By the way, wasn’t Village Homes, the innovative project you mention, once a peripheral sprawl project built on a former productive almond orchard? I wonder what happened to the wild life that lived there? And just exactly what is the price range for those innovative homes?
Speaking of innovating, Wildhorse Ranch is passive and active solar too! Talk about coincidences! It is 100% solar, including the affordable apartments. It is passively designed to make the most of the path of the sun and prevailing breezes. It uses green materials in construction, roofs, walls, insulation, etc. It reduces GHG gas emissions by 90% and it–but you already know all this, since you have already studied it, so why am I spending time telling you about all the positive features of the project?
Fraser: I recommend that you actually study this project before throwing stones, or dirt clods, at it.
[i]Generally as technology comes into common use, the cost goes down.[/i]
Yes, except that photovoltaic cells are in common use, and they’re still expensive. They are significantly more expensive than the other non-greenhouse alternatives. They are backed by a massive public subsidy that leaves the door open a little bit, but as usage goes up the subsidy becomes too expensive for the government and gets scaled back.
If we really want to reduce greenhouse gases, we will have to have a lot of nuclear power plants. Wind farms can certainly help, conservation can certainly help, and solar thermal might help. Maybe some new kind of PV film that hasn’t yet been invented would help, but that is not a reason to demand the type of PV that is made now.
What photovoltaic panels do accomplish is to play into a tempting distortion of the environmental cause. Namely, to stand up to the big bad utility company with self-sufficiency, and to showcase an expensive solution on a small scale. If PV panels were the solution to global warming, they would be set up in large farms, not on roofs of homes. People falsely equate “we care about the environment” with “we don’t believe in economy of scale.”
But in Davis, a small, expensive showcase of greenhouse gas reduction happens to be compatible with a small, expensive showcase of city growth.
[quote]wemetinfortuna said . . .
Anyway I find the greenwashing offensive as well but what really bugs me is the human ecology of densification and the 3 story buildings.[/quote]
I guess you feel that all of Manhattan and most of San Francisco are blights on human ecology. Is that a correct reading of your words?
[quote]concerned said . . .
If already developed land is available closer to town isn’t this greener? All of the green features of this project could easily be incorporated into a project closer to town–less driving–true infill–more support for downtown Davis. Putting a project on the outskirts of Davis is not “infill” and the extra driving make it much more difficult to claim that it is green.[/quote]
In a perfect world your position would be 100% on target. However, the three most recent ownership developments, Verona, Grande and Chiles Ranch all chose to abdicate their responsibilities. I would very much like to see the City Council pass an ordinance that imposes citywide the 90% GHG reduction achievement WHR has committed to. If that were to be done then the developers of all three of those un-green projects closer to the city core would become as green as WHR. Perhaps Sue can weigh in on
Exactly “Former Progressive”, it is so thirty years ago — solar development on farmland. We’ve been there, done that, we are still circling around the drain, How about we move the bar up a notch?
From the City Staffing Report (July 28, 2009-page 296
link: http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20090728/04 Wildhorse Development Project.pdf
Table 4: Assessed Valuation (2009 $)
Estimated Valuation
Phased Ownership Market Rate Units Units
Market Rate Units $425,000 425,000 73 $31,025,000
Medium Small Market Rate Units $550,000 550,000 78 $42,900,000
Taxable Assessed Value $73,925,000
I don’t see any “range” listed there or “average”; these prices are based on 2009 rates; most conservative estimates have that value at 450,000 in 2012 (earliest the units could be built according to the developers);
Show us where we can find this number of 350,000? If it is true, how many of the 73 units would be priced at this range?
Also, I want to apologize for saying “former progressives”, I shouldn’t have said that and I am sorry for hurting peoples’ feelings.
I realize we don’t live in a perfect world, but the real issue here is that the City of Davis should be determining housing needs, not developers. Why can’t we require all projects be green and debate what that means. If other projects are less green they should be opposed. However, this project contributes to sprawl and is not “pedestrian friendly” as they claim in their ballot statement. Its at least three miles from downtown and even father from campus, 20 minutes to the nearest grocery store (Nugget–unless you go to Ikedas and there is no sidewalk to walk there). The City of Davis can do better than this.
“If this were operated as a horse ranch or even as a riding stable at full capacity, the neighbors would be screaming, as they were before the current owner cleaned up the mess the previous owner left.”
I overheard this same rhetoric and lies being told to some people last Saturday at the Farmer’s Market booth (by the developer’s son?); is this your posting Bill Ritter? How did we devolve from a blog about whether this project is necessary for Davis’ housing needs into yet another slam on the surrounding neighbors! The current neighbors have never made this issue, whether we like the horses or not, what people are certainly more against than horse flies and dust is three story apartment towers and 400+ cars replacing open ag land!
Numbers: The range is 350 to 450, average is 425 over 78 townhomes. You may be able to calculate the number of units based on those figures, maybe Greg can come up with it.
Manure: Just a point of information, Bill Ritter has never posted on Wildhorse on this blog.
Well then the only other person manning the booth and using the same lines at the Market (in addition to the developers’ kids) was Pam Nieberg; beware what you tell people, word gets spread quicker than manure in this town
In fairness, I’ve heard similar lines over the past six months from a variety of people, so I’m not sure you can draw conclusions from that about authorship.
Also it is not clear that was intended as a slam against the neighbors.
To Michael Barrett:
In the City fiscal analysis report, which is Attachment 11 of the Wildhorse Development Project(available in the July 28 Council Packet at http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20090728/04 Wildhorse Development Project.pdf). Table 4 (p. 04-296) shows that the average price of townhouses is $425,000 if built in 2009. On p. 04-295, these units are assumed to appreciate 2 percent per year in years 1-5, and increasing in appreciation to 5 percent per year by year 11 and beyond. All costs and revenues are based on 2009 data. Therefore, in three years(2012)the average price will be:
$425,000*((1=0.02)^3)=$451,013.40
On this blog today, the developer says that 2012 will be the first year (at the earliest) in which units will be built.
This figure ($451,000) was confirmed by City staff this week and I have written verification of this.
[quote]concerned said . . .
I realize we don’t live in a perfect world, but the real issue here is that the City of Davis should be determining housing needs, not developers. Why can’t we require all projects be green and debate what that means. If other projects are less green they should be opposed.
However, this project contributes to sprawl and is not “pedestrian friendly” as they claim in their ballot statement. Its at least three miles from downtown and even father from campus, 20 minutes to the nearest grocery store (Nugget–unless you go to Ikedas and there is no sidewalk to walk there).
The City of Davis can do better than this.[/quote]
20 minutes to Nugget? I assume you mean walking time. What is the walking time from Verona to the nearest grocery store? What is the walking time from Chiles Ranch?
I agree with your first three sentences, but lets dig into your final sentence “The City of Davis can do better than this” a bit. The most logical way to start that digging process is to ask “Where?” To answer that question you may want to take a look at the HESC pioritized list of sites
1 DJUSD Headquarters, B Street
2 Kennedy Place
3 Grande School Site
4 Sweet Briar Drive
5 Second Units- Increases With Program Changes Re: Discretionary Units
6 Verona, Mace Ranch
7 Downtown – Increases With Plan / Zoning Changes Core Area Specific Plan, needs additional research
8 PG&E Service Center, Fifth and L St
9 Transit Corridor – Anderson Road
10 Simmons, E. Eighth Street
11 City / DJUSD Corp Yards, E. Fifth Street
12 RHD Zone, Oxford Circle (net increase)
13 Fifth Ave Place (net increase)
14 Willowbank Church, Mace Blvd.
15 Civic Center Fields, B Street
16 Willow Creek, Neighborhood Commercial
17 Nishi Property – Option With Access Via UCD Only
18 Willowbank Church, NW Corner Mace Boulevard and Montgomery Avenue
19 Neighborhood Shopping Center – Increases With Plan / Zoning Changes research
20 2726 Fifth St., East of “Konditorei” Bakery
21 Lewis Cannery
22 Ott, Cowell Boulevard (includes SE parcel and part of NW parcel)
23 Signature Properties Site Residential Medium 202 – 472 350 – 472
24 NE Corner of Mace and Cowell Boulevards
25 Nishi Property Option With Access Via Olive Dr. Only
26 Oakshade Affordable Housing, Cowell Boulevard
27 Wildhorse Horse Ranch
28 Nugget Fields, Wildhorse
29 Little League Fields, F Street
30 Willow Creek Light Industrial, Chiles Road (south half of site only)
31 Covell Village Site – Option To Top Of Lewis Cannery Site
32 Seiber, Cowell Boulevard (south half of site only)
33 Parlin (Northwest Quadrant) – With On-Site Ag Mitigation
34 Lin Boschken (Northwest Quadrant)- With On-site Ag Mitigation
35 West of Stonegate – With On-site Ag Mitigation
36 Oeste Ranch – With On-site Ag Mitigation
[quote]Mark Siegler said . . .
In the City fiscal analysis report, which is Attachment 11 of the Wildhorse Development Project(available in the July 28 Council Packet at http://cityofdavis.org/meeting…0090728/04 Wildhorse Development Project.pdf). Table 4 (p. 04-296) shows that the average price of townhouses is $425,000 if built in 2009. On p. 04-295, these units are assumed to appreciate 2 percent per year in years 1-5, and increasing in appreciation to 5 percent per year by year 11 and beyond. All costs and revenues are based on 2009 data. Therefore, in three years(2012)the average price will be:
$425,000*((1=0.02)^3)=$451,013.40
On this blog today, the developer says that 2012 will be the first year (at the earliest) in which units will be built.
This figure ($451,000) was confirmed by City staff this week and I have written verification of this.[/quote]
Mark, that calculation makes sense mathematically, and I thank you for posting it. However, does it make practical sense given the current dynamics of the real estate market? I realize we are all gazing into a crystal ball when forecasting housing prices in 2012, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Davis housing prices decline slightly between now and 2012. We have been largely untouched by foreclosures; however, as the market strengthens the bargain prices available in high foreclosure rate communities will produce plenty of competition for regional buyers. IMHO, that is good news, because it gives Davis a window of opportunity to address the needs of local buyers at somewhat reasonable prices.
Thoughts?
Matt,
Usually, these figures are established in consultation with the developer. If the sales prices are lower, then the annual fiscal cost of this project to the city will be far greater.
Everyone knew how bad the market was when the fiscal analysis was done, and when the price assumptions were made. If the prices that are used in the assumptions are not correct, then a skeptic would assume that the prices were plugged in to make it look as if the project were closer to fiscal neutrality than it is.
If that is the case, the item should be withdrawn from the ballot due to gross misrepresentation.
This is an example of the corruption of process, whereby, in order to rush this measure onto a low turn-out election that can be bought by an expensive developer get out the vote campaign, issues like this were not discussed.
Had we had a reasonable series of hearings on this item, at a reasonable hour of the night over the course of a few weeks, we could have discussed the implications of both the fiscal and affordability assumptions.
I think Mark’s point (and he is a very good economist) is that the City’s own analysis confirms our estimates. If housing prices are lower, then the fiscal losses to the City of Davis will be even larger.
One can always speculate about the future, but it is extremely unlikely that houses in this project will sell for anywhere near $350,000, as some proponents claim. None of the owner-occupied housing will be affordable for folks who make less than a six-figure income and even at these prices the project will cost the City of Davis money. That is the reality.
“This is an example of the corruption of process, whereby, in order to rush this measure onto a low turn-out election that can be bought by an expensive developer get out the vote campaign, issues like this were not discussed.”
Sue: You were doing okay until here, but as I understand it from asking the developer last weekend, the developer wanted the item before council in June, city staff dragged their feet.
The reason for November was not low turnout but rather the desire not to compete with a possible Covell Village vote in June, Measure J vote in June, a tax vote in June, and a council vote in June.
If you think about it, people will be able to focus on this issue in November, whereas it would have gotten lost in June. And Measure J and the council elections are far more important than a little housing project in my opinion.
I’m against this project, but let’s defeat it on the merits.
[quote]Sue: You were doing okay until here, but as I understand it from asking the developer last weekend, the developer wanted the item before council in June, city staff dragged their feet.[/quote]
Nonsense. I was there. It was about 1:30 in the morning. The council was on the brink of postponing the decision and putting it on the June ballot. A member of the development team was standing at the dias. Ruth Asmundson asked him what he wanted council to do. He consulted with Masud, and came back and said that he wanted to move forward.
Matt,
Sue and Phil beat me to it, but they’ve said it well. Thanks for posting the Housing Steering Committee list above. As the Vice Chair of this Committee, I spend over a year (25+ meetings and public workshops) examining every potential site for housing within and adjacent to the City. The 15 members of this Committee ranked Wildhorse Ranch 27 of 36. Why has the Council majority rushed the 27th ranked site to the ballot without adequate Council discussion or analysis, and without any input from the Finance and Budget Commission?
Sue: Your response doesn’t even address my point.
“The 15 members of this Committee ranked Wildhorse Ranch 27 of 36. Why has the Council majority rushed the 27th ranked site to the ballot without adequate Council discussion or analysis, and without any input from the Finance and Budget Commission?”
Great question Mark, perhaps being asked too late of the Council after its “rush” to vote; but nonetheless, the fundamental questions voters will be asked to decide on November 3rd, is not whether this is a “green” or an “affordable” project, but is this development necessary for Davis’ housing needs and is it the best site to develop? Weren’t these the same issues voters were asked in Measure X, and did it not lose 60 to 40% in much better economic times??
According to the Housing and Steering Committee, with Wildhorse Ranch being ranked 27th out of 36 sites, the answer to the second part would be a “NO”; so let’s look at the first question, what is the current “need” for more housing? Look at MLS and look up homes between 350 and 550K, how many remain unsold on the market? West Village is being built (not being proposed, but ground has been broken to build) to serve BOTH UCD faculty/staff and student needs; that frees up other rental properties in the city that can be used for “low income” rental purposes; when I ask people in town, what they think about Wildhorse Ranch, most don’t talk about how “green” this project may be, rather, they ask the common question, “Do we really need more development in Davis right now?” I wonder if others have heard the same question?
“To: Sue”,
If you point was[quote]The reason for November was not low turnout but rather the desire not to compete with a possible Covell Village vote in June, Measure J vote in June, a tax vote in June, and a council vote in June.[/quote] then I would have to repeat that democracy is best served when items are placed on high turn-out election. During low turn-out elections, big money plays a much larger role.
I see no argument against putting this item on the ballot alongside Covell Village, Measure J, a tax measure, or dozens of other development proposals for that matter.
Have I addressed your point now?
You addressed in as much as you asserted an opposite position. I’m very concerned about the mixing of those issues, especially measure j and the council election, especially if your goal is to get Measure J renewed and lamar heystek made mayor.
I’m not a big fan of border development. Everyone knows that, and knows my voting record, my support for Measures J, O, No on X, etc etc.
What I am interested in here is a small project for a J vote. It bookends the Covell Village project (Nov 05). I want to see J renewed in June 2010. I respect people who dont think this project is enough to get their vote, on the merits, but I want all of you to seriously consider the political ramifications of your killing this small project just before J goes to renewal.
I am also interested in the 90% GHG reduction. Frankly, I would have liked a 100% reduction, and Talbot says it’s possible, but in today’s uncertain times, a 90% reduction got my interest and support.
Cheers to all of you posters, and your interest in making Davis a better place.
“..but I want all of you to seriously consider the political ramifications of your killing this small project just before J goes to renewal”
I keep hearing this argument over and over again (David Greenwald made similar arguments last week); please explain how does the failure of this project by a majority of voters jeopardize Measure J’s renewal? In fact, quite the opposite, the majority of people whom I have spoken to who oppose this project will also vote to renew Measure J next year! Measure J will ensure that voters will approve the “right project” at the “right time”….
By the way Mike, I’m curious; I was at the Council meeting on 7/28 and stayed until the end; I was sitting behind you and noticed you were whispering into Masud’s (developer) ear right before John Tallman (other developer) went back up to the podium and stated, “Madam Mayor, continue with your vote”, and Council voted 3-2 to approve to Nov election; What did you “advise” Masud, that a low-turnout election in November would serve them better than a spring or June election? where is the “integrity of Measure J” in this???
It’s a simple argument. Developers in this community have made no secret of the fact they want to take it out. Right now, they have Measure X which is a bad precedent for them because it was so huge, few people wanted it. But if a 191 unit project gets voted down, Measure J could be in very serious jeopardy as the developers will make the case if Measure P couldn’t pass with a 191 unit project and a huge sustainability component, no proposition can pass the Measure J scrutiny. I don’t think that’s a reason to vote for this, but that’s the argument and I think there is that danger.
“…Sue: You were doing okay until here, but as I understand it from asking the developer last weekend, the developer wanted the item before council in June, city staff dragged their feet.”
This is another of the talking points that the Ritter team is having difficulty selling, i.e. arguing that it was staff that was pushing for a November vote. What?? I thought that the staff worked for the Council( and us)! If a Council majority said the vote was to be in June, that’s when it would be.
No say what, you got it wrong. They did not argue that staff was pushing for November. They wanted the issue to come before council in June. Staff pushed it off until July. As I said before they had reasons for wanting it in November and not running up against the stuff on the June ballot. That makes sense to me.
I agree with Sue however, we don’t need the project right now given the housing market, but I would like to see an honest debate over it.
Hi Matt:
Thanks for posting the Steering Committee list; where did you find it? Is it a public document available on-line? When other citizens see that WHR was the 27th ranked development site, that has to not sit well with some folks; makes one wonder, what was it with the 26 other properties ahead of it that didn’t catch the Council or Planning Commission’s eyes; the whole “green” thing with WHR was a late re-design of the project; what else is “behind the scenes” here; one possible scenario: Parlin, through its hiring of Bill Ritter, influenced key civic leaders (City Council, Katherine Hess, City Planner) to push this project along ahead of higher ranked ones??? I would like your educated guess Matt, why the 27th ranked property is now ahead of us for a vote???
“To Sue” 4:47p.m.:
[quote]I’m very concerned about the mixing of those issues, especially measure j and the council election, especially if your goal is to get Measure J renewed and lamar heystek made mayor.[/quote]”Concerned?” Why? Please help me. If you believe that Wildhorse Ranch is such a great project, how could placing it on the June ballot hurt the passage of Measure J or Lamar’s election? Seems like a stretch. I know that I’ll be supporting Lamar regardless of what else is on the ballot.
That’s just it Sue, I’m not in favor of the project (as I stated multiple times), but I am in favor of Measure J and Lamar.
I’d support you for Mayor again over Lamar anyday!
As our truly only “slow growth” council member, what is your opinion on this idea that Mike Harrington and David Greenwald are trying to argue that defeat of WHR would be a catalyst for defeat of Measure J???
Your choice isn’t between Lamar and Sue. Your choice is between Lamar, Ruth Asmundson and some challengers. Do you know how the mayor works in Davis?
Matt,So NYNY and SF are the models for development in Yolo. Is that what people want Davis to become?
Not me Urban limit lines suck
Give me land lots of land underneath the starry sky
Don’t fence me in.
All people are trying to do is preserve their own life style and to hell with anyone who moved her after you did.
Sue, Mark and Phil, thank you for your responses; however, in the process of providing your answers you have changed the subject from Sue’s original point “Is anyone even going to be willing to pay over $451,000 for a townhouse at the far edge of town?). That’s right $451,000 for an attached townhouse.
That is the affordable workforce housing.” to the fiscal impact of the project on the City.
So what I would like to engage you on is the fiscal impact issue that you have brought up. I look forward to your responses. Using the information from the Fiscal Analysis in the Staff Report plus the $300 per year Mello-Roos fees added by Council, I get the following:
First, like all developments, WHR pays the standard one-time development fees and one-time construction tax revenues of $5.5 million and $791,476 respectively.
Second, beyond those standard one-time revenue flows the project generates the following annual revenues, expenditures and bottom-line.
[u]Year One[/u] – 11 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $26,533
Mello-Roos Fees ($300×11) = $3,300
Supplemental Fees ($5,000x 11) = [u]$55,000[/u]
Total Revenues = $84,833
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $39,862
Year One Surplus/(Deficit) = $44,971
[u]Year Two[/u] – 66 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $126,759
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 66) = $ 19,800
Supplemental Fees ($5,000 x 55)= [u]$275,000[/u]
Total Revenues = $421,559
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $151,517
Year Two Surplus/(Deficit) = $270,042
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $315,013
[u]Year Three[/u] – 119 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $216,174
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 119) = $ 35,700
Supplemental Fees ($5,000 x 53)= [u]$265,000[/u]
Total Revenues = $516,874
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $248,166
Year Three Surplus/(Deficit) = $268,708
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $583,721
[u]Year Four[/u] – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $271,186
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = $ 45,300
Supplemental Fees ($5,000 x 32)= [u]$160,000[/u]
Total Revenues = $476,486
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $309,444
Year Four Surplus/(Deficit) = $167,042
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $750,763
[u]Year Five[/u] – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $267,493
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = [u]$ 45,300[/u]
Total Revenues = $312,793
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $321,452
Year Five Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 8,659)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $742,104
[u]Year Six[/u] – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $273,721
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = [u]$ 45,300[/u]
Total Revenues = $319,021
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $330,806
Year Six Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 11,785)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $730,319
[u]Year Seven[/u] – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $280,817
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = [u]$ 45,300[/u]
Total Revenues = $326,117
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $339,740
Year Seven Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 13,623)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $716,696
[u]Year Eight[/u] – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $291,342
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = [u]$ 45,300[/u]
Total Revenues = $336,642
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $359,004
Year Eight Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 22,362)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $694,334
[u]Year Nine[/u] – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $302,657
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = [u]$ 45,300[/u]
Total Revenues = $347,957
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $374,528
Year Nine Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 26,571)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $667,783
[u]Year Ten[/u] – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $313,524
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = [u]$ 45,300[/u]
Total Revenues = $358,824
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $388,427
Year Ten Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 29,603)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $638,160
[u]Year Eleven[/u] – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $320,843
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = [u]$ 45,300[/u]
Total Revenues = $366,143
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $399,554
Year Eleven Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 33,411)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $604,749
[u]Year Twelve[/u] – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $328,022
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = [u]$ 45,300[/u]
Total Revenues = $373,322
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $420,543
Year Twelve Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 47,221)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $557,528
[u]Year Thirteen[/u] – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $336,008
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = [u]$ 45,300[/u]
Total Revenues = $381,308
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $448,911
Year Thirteen Surplus/(Deficit)=($ 67,603)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $489,925
[u]Year Fourteen[/u] – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $347,544
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = [u]$ 45,300[/u]
Total Revenues = $392,844
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $468,067
Year Fourteen Surplus/(Deficit)=($ 75,223)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $414,702
[u]Year Fifteen[/u] – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $369,157
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = [u]$ 45,300[/u]
Total Revenues = $414,457
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $484,268
Year Fourteen Surplus/(Deficit)=($ 69,811)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $344,891
If the City earns 2% on its annual Surplus/(Deficit) balance then the Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) rises to $525,104
If the average unit sale price for the townhomes stays at $425,000 then that $180,000 earnings gain is wiped out.
Regardless the project runs a net Surplus of over $300,000 for the 15-year analysis period.
Further, because in other developments the City has had to pay the land dedication fees of $80,000 to $90,000 per unit for the 40 Affordable units, but in WHR Parlin is absorbing those costs, the City gets an additional $4,180,000 positive cash flow bump. So bottom-line we are talking about a project with a contribution to the City’s coffers of close to $4.5 million.
[quote]Mark Siegler said . . .
Thanks for posting the Housing Steering Committee list above. As the Vice Chair of this Committee, I spend over a year (25+ meetings and public workshops) examining every potential site for housing within and adjacent to the City. The 15 members of this Committee ranked Wildhorse Ranch 27 of 36. Why has the Council majority rushed the 27th ranked site to the ballot without adequate Council discussion or analysis, and without any input from the Finance and Budget Commission? [/quote]
Mark, as you know I attended virtually all the HESC meetings and workshops and strongly support the work of the HESC. I asked the same question of Masud Monfarad back in January 2008 when the Council held one of its WHR hearings. His answer was both simple and compelling. Well before the creation of the HESC, Parlin filed an application for WHR with the City. That was significantly before the Measure X election. At that time Parlin was told that they “had to wait in line behind Covell Village” and thet “the City would process the application after the Measure X election was completed.” I personally have a real problem with what the City did. It has all the trappings of a “developer-driven” process . . . in this case driven by the Covell partners. But Masud did the gentlemanly thing and cooled his heels.
When Measure X was defeated, Parlin contacted the City and the WHR application began working its way through the process. It wasn’t until January 2007 (a full year later) that Council formed the HESC. In those early HESC meetings there was quite a bit of discussion about the applications that were already in process. Despite those discussions, Council didn’t do anything to suspend the applications in process. So, while I empathize with your point, the fault doesn’t rest with Parlin, but rather with the Council. Bottom-line, Masud has done what the City has asked him to do.
[quote]wemetinfortuna said . . .
Matt, So NYNY and SF are the models for development in Yolo. Is that what people want Davis to become? Not me Urban limit lines suck. Give me land lots of land underneath the starry sky. Don’t fence me in.
All people are trying to do is preserve their own life style and to hell with anyone who moved here after you did.[/quote]
No NY,NY and SF are not the models. In fact there probably is no “model.” Ther are a whole lot of tradeoffs in the attempt to reach a solution that yields the greatest good for the greatest number of people. There are lots of people who couldn’t care less about, “Give me land lots of land underneath the starry sky. Don’t fence me in.” They define quality of life through other metrics. As a result your “absolute” pronouncements are simply one person’s opinion . . . in large part “to preserve their own life style and to hell with anyone who [disagrees].”
I don’t have any problem with that. Just feel it needs to be recognized for what it is.
[quote]
Sue Greenwald said . . .
Have I addressed your point now?[/quote]
No you haven’t. His point was, “Sue: You were doing okay until here, but as I understand it from asking the developer last weekend, the developer wanted the item before council in June, city staff dragged their feet.’
Your 1:30 comment addresses an event more than a month after June. Why did Staff drag their feet in getting this to Council in a timely fashion that would have afforded Council with plenty of time to discuss the issues thoroughly?
[quote]Neither Mike nor David said . . .
It’s a simple argument. Developers in this community have made no secret of the fact they want to take it out. Right now, they have Measure X which is a bad precedent for them because it was so huge, few people wanted it. But if a 191 unit project gets voted down, Measure J could be in very serious jeopardy as the developers will make the case if Measure P couldn’t pass with a 191 unit project and a huge sustainability component, no proposition can pass the Measure J scrutiny. I don’t think that’s a reason to vote for this, but that’s the argument and I think there is that danger.[/quote]
I disagree with Mike on this point. I [u]strongly[/u] believe that if WHR never got to a Measure J vote at all, then the anti-Measure J forces would have been able to make a “see Measure J doesn’t work” argument that would resonate. However, if the voters have the opportunity to weigh in on WHR, and in the process vote it down because of a combination of legitimate factors in the housing market as a whole and the project specifics, then I don’t see how the anti-Measure J forces can effectively make a “see Measure J doesn’t work” argument that will resonate with the voters.
[quote]To: Matt Williams said . . .
I would like your educated guess Matt, why the 27th ranked property is now ahead of us for a vote???[/quote]
Hopefully my response to Mark Siegler provides you with that answer, but if it doesn’t please let me know.
Looks like WHR is “toast”
Matt,
I don’t fault the developer. That’s what developers do — they try to develop. I do, however, fault the three Council members who made a mockery of the process in my opinion. I also don’t understand all of those who cried foul regarding process during Covell Village, but are proponents of Wildhorse Ranch — even though the process is far worse this time around.
Regarding your fiscal analysis above. From what Paul Navazio told me, the one-time $5,000 payment per unit you cite above is not currently part of the Development Agreement (and it’s not part of the City fiscal model). In addition, development agreements can be changed by Council after the election without another Measure J vote. While $5,000 was once on the table, it’s unknown as to whether it will be in the Development Agreement. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Your modest fiscal surplus rides on this fact.
In a fiscal sense, this is a terrible place to build. The City only gets 11.8 percent of the property taxes versus a citywide average of 17.5 percent. Most other potential sites would be far better in terms of property tax revenue (the main source of revenue). That’s one reason, although certainly not the only reason, that the Housing Steering Committee ranked this site 27th of 36.
I would also argue that there are many other overly optimistic assumptions in the model. For example, the model assumes that 14.3 percent of houses are sold each year (houses turn over every seven years). This was almost true during the peak of the housing bubble, but this isn’t happening now and likely won’t in the foreseeable future. To understand how much turnover this is, consider the following. There are roughly 25,000 units in Davis. 14.3 percent of 25,000 is 3,575 or almost 70 per week. That’s a lot of sales, many times more than what we are currently experiencing.
Why is this assumption important? Because every house in Wildhorse Ranch is assumed to be sold at least once and likely twice in 15 years. That means that the property is assessed at true market value at sale instead of the 2 percent maximum appreciation that Prop 13 stipulates. Since appreciation is assumed to be 2 percent per year in years 1-5, 4 percent per year in years 6-10, and 5 percent per year in years 11-15, for a cumulative increase of over 70 percent, this assumption is important. If houses appreciate less than 70 percent over the next 15 years or if housing turns over at a rate lower than 14.3 percent per year, then your numbers above worsen substantially.
Let me mention a couple of other assumptions. City personnel costs (wages, health, retirement) are assumed to increase at 5 percent per year (historically it’s been far higher and with the problems with CALPERS, retirement costs will skyrocket in the future, although the model ignores this). It also assumes that the sales tax override will continue forever and not sunset in 2010 and many others.
These are the type of things that should have been discussed and debated at the Finance and Budget Commission, and which should have been part of extensive public hearings at Council. Instead, only the bare bones of a fiscal analysis appear as Attachment 11 of a staff report, and the project is rammed through in one meeting at 1:30 a.m.
That’s not good government. The citizens of Davis deserve better.
Matt,
Finally, I don’t see how you can conclude the following:
“Further, because in other developments the City has had to pay the land dedication fees of $80,000 to $90,000 per unit for the 40 Affordable units, but in WHR Parlin is absorbing those costs, the City gets an additional $4,180,000 positive cash flow bump.”
If WHR is not built, then there are no land dedication fees that the City has to pay. With WHR, they build 40 affordable apartment units, and there are no land dedication fees that the City has to pay.
The City is no better or worse off fiscally in either case, so I don’t see how this is a net fiscal benefit. There will certainly not be an additional $4,180,000 which the City will collect in revenues.
It looks like there is a runaway “em” tag starting from Matt Williams 8:23pm. Let’s see if this closes it.
Someone mentioned a “Greg” up there regarding what fraction, not sure if that was meant to be me. My remark is that it’s tendentious to use future inflation to make something look less affordable. Yes, $425k times three years of real estate inflation is $451k. However, that is in 2012 dollars. The same document assumes 3% overall inflation and 5% wage inflation. So in 2009 dollars, it’s actually $413k. And relative to comparable wages, it’s $390k.
It is also an incomplete account of home affordability. By the law of supply and demand, building new houses in Davis makes all Davis houses slightly more affordable than otherwise.
Which, on the other hand, is exactly what a lot of voters in Davis don’t want. They may want other people’s houses to be affordable, but not their own houses. They may also not really want other people’s houses to be affordable either, because the more affordable they are, the less tax revenue they provide.
Ultimately, affordable housing in Davis is a political self-contradiction. If you find enough ways to blow hot and cold with affordability, then the end result is that the housing doesn’t get built.
Matt said: “…Why did Staff drag their feet in getting this to Council in a timely fashion that would have afforded Council with plenty of time to discuss the issues thoroughly? “
…really irrelvant and, unless you have some solid inside info about staff “foot dragging”, do we really know what the supposed staff delay was all about?
We have seen ample evidence of city staff SNAFUS since Emlen took over as City Manager but, even if this was another example, is that a reason to deny the voters a legitimate Measure J process ? The fact remains that Parlin chose to go with a November vote and three council members caved to his wishes,two of the three votes cast by Council members whom we all know do not support the populist underpinnings of Measure J.
Guess I shouldn’t have gone out for a drink and a little entertainment on a Friday night; I missed all the real action.
Greg says:[quote]Yes, $425k times three years of real estate inflation is $451k. However, that is in 2012 dollars. The same document assumes 3% overall inflation and 5% wage inflation. So in 2009 dollars, it’s actually $413k. And relative to comparable wages, it’s $390k.
[/quote]The problem, Greg, is that wages are declining, not inflating. The model assumes a real estate inflation rate of 2% per year, while wages are decreasing. The other figures you mention are irrelevant in terms of housng affordability. So, in real dollars, the housing is getting less affordable in the out years that it appears from our figures, unless their is a significant increase in wages over 2009 levels, which seems a stretch, unfortunately.
Guess I shouldn’t have gone out for a drink and a little entertainment on a Friday night; I missed all the real action.
Greg says:[quote]Yes, $425k times three years of real estate inflation is $451k. However, that is in 2012 dollars. The same document assumes 3% overall inflation and 5% wage inflation. So in 2009 dollars, it’s actually $413k. And relative to comparable wages, it’s $390k.
[/quote]The problem, Greg, is that wages are declining, not inflating. The model assumes a real estate inflation rate of 2% per year, while wages are decreasing. The other figures you mention are irrelevant in terms of housng affordability. So, in real dollars, the housing is getting less affordable in the out years that it appears from our figures, unless their is a significant increase in wages over 2009 levels, which seems a stretch, unfortunately.
To add excruciatingly detailed but important background to Mark Siegler’s comments on Matt’s figures:
Staff told me (very firmly) that the only one-time fee that this project pays over and above fees that merely offset costs (and are hence revenue neutral) is the standard construction tax.
Regarding the $5,000 per unit contribution: It ain’t there. After the council vote, I asked for the final copy of the baseline project features. I specifically looked for the $5,000 fee, and it wasn’t there. I asked staff what happened to it, and they said “Oh, we had given the project a $5,000 reduction on the Qwimby fees, but then we decided to charge them full freight for the Quimby fees instead of the $5,000 per unit contribution.
So (please bear with with me — there is not pithy way to describe these shenanigans) I asked “did we give a similar break on the Qwimby fees to any other recent project?”, and the staff member answered “no”.
I asked, “did other projects pay an additional per unit contribution?”, and staff said “yes”. I asked for an example, and staff said that the recently approved Verona project in Mace Ranch paid a $12,000 per unit contribution for market rate units, and a $6,000 per unit contribution for the affordable units.
I repeated the crucial question: “and did they get a break on the Qwimby fees?”, and staff again answered “no”. So I asked the next obvious question:
“Why is this project contributing so much less to the city than the other projects?”, and staff answered “Because it so expensive to build energy efficient houses”.
Summary: This project runs an annual deficit which will increase over time (and which will be far worse if the least expensive units — attached townhouses– sell for less than $451,000 per information supplied by the developer), and the project contributes no net fiscal benefit to the city in terms of one-time payments beyond the standard construction tax.
Fiscally, this project is a far worse deal for the city than other recently approved projects.
[i]The problem, Greg, is that wages are declining, not inflating. The model assumes a real estate inflation rate of 2% per year, while wages are decreasing.[/i]
But if wages are declining, then the model is wrong, because for whatever purpose it assumes increasing wages. It says, “Inflation for Personnel Costs: 5.0% per year”.
Maybe it’s useful to distinguish between university wages, which concern many of the customers, and construction wages, which are a big component of the total construction prices. Yes, university wages fell into the drink this year. But it’s not credible that the furloughs will be even worse after three years.
[i]”Why is this project contributing so much less to the city than the other projects?”, and staff answered “Because it so expensive to build energy efficient houses”.[/i]
This is completely true, but it is a great example of blowing hot and cold. One group demands photovoltaic panels to save the environment, another group decries them as unaffordable. It is a way to create deadlock and build nothing.
But I grant that on this narrow point, the second group is correct. Even compared to other ways to fight global warming, photovoltaic panels aren’t affordable. They are an expensive showcase.
In the end, it’s about adopting and continuing great public policies.
The Nov 3 election is almost upon us.
Wouldnt it be better, much better, to show the public in June 2010 that J should be renewed? The evidence is: Measure X, a disaster, voted down; Measure P, Parlin, a nice little pretty green project, approved?
The 900 pound gorilla in the room is not Measure P; it’s renewal of J.
Why in the world would I take a chance killing that evidentiary contrast between X and P, and work to vote P down? What the heck am I going to present to the voters in June about J: that it is used by the progressives in town to kill all border development, no matter how nice, how small?
P is not the perfect project; nothing is. But it is very good, and it really deserves approval on its own merits, even at this crummy time. The J renewal makes it imperative that it win.
Sue: it seems like your main concern, and the one stated at the 7/28 meeting, was that this project is too soon for the Davis housing market and local needs. You are going to be voting on the Development Agreement in early September. You have a lot of authority to negotiate something, and I think you should do it with Steve, and present your proposal. Then all five of you can vote for it, and spend your fall working to solve the City’s budget crisis, rather than duking it out over this little project in a completely unnecessary political power struggle.
To Sue and Steve: ooooppppsss. I forgot. Steve and Don are “Brown Act Buddies,” and cannot discuss the project outside of a public CC meeting.
Mike: Do you really believe that a process needs to be outcome-based in order to work? I don’t think Measure J is supposed to produce a set outcome. It is supposed to set up a process by which housing developments get weighed by the public. The process works if the public gets to weigh in on it, not if they blindly approve a project. I’m uncomfortable with that line of thinking.
As you said, it deserves approval on its merits–I think it deserves people to weigh in on the merits and determine whether it deserves approval. That’s the problem I have with a lot of this discussion that is focusing the debate away from the merits and towards peripheral issues.
[i]What the heck am I going to present to the voters in June about J: that it is used by the progressives in town to kill all border development, no matter how nice, how small?[/i]
You should explain that it is used to kill all border development, except for one small showcase to make it look good.
Mike Harrington says:
“….duking it out over THIS LITTLE PROJECT unnecessary political power struggle.”
“…no matter how nice, HOW SMALL? “
The final argument offered when all others have come up short, namely, it’s such a SMALL project. Why all the fuss and careful and thoughtful scrutiny by the voters? Measure J renewal is not threatened by a NO on P vote but will be seriously threatened by a Yes vote on P in November which dismisses the legitimate Measure J process(adequate time for open Council debate and Commission examination to fully inform the electorate)as something that can be discarded when a Council majority chooses to.
Measure J is not going to be imperiled by the process. That’s why we have measure J. We will have open debate now in the public, if the process that placed Measure P on the ballot was inadequate in terms of people believing the project not worthy of their vote, then they vote it down. if it’s a good project that people can vote to support it. It’s that simple.
[quote]Mark Siegler said . . .
Matt,
Finally, I don’t see how you can conclude the following:
“Further, because in other developments the City has had to pay the land dedication fees of $80,000 to $90,000 per unit for the 40 Affordable units, but in WHR Parlin is absorbing those costs, the City gets an additional $4,180,000 positive cash flow bump.”
If WHR is not built, then there are no land dedication fees that the City has to pay. With WHR, they build 40 affordable apartment units, and there are no land dedication fees that the City has to pay.
The City is no better or worse off fiscally in either case, so I don’t see how this is a net fiscal benefit. There will certainly not be an additional $4,180,000 which the City will collect in revenues.[/quote]
Mark, thank you for the thoughtful responses. Let me start with your last one first, because it is a very easy one.
Your Scenario = no incremental addition of Affordable Units in Davis [u]and[/u] no land dedication fee costs for the City
The WHR Scenario = 40 added Affordable Units in Davis [u]and[/u] no land dedication fee costs for the City
The third Scenario = 40 added Affordable Units somewhere in Davis [u]and[/u] a City expenditure of $80,000 to $90,000 per unit for land dedication fees.
Thinking in terms of the “Greatest Good for the Greatest Number,” how do you rank those three scenarios?
If you believe that Davis does not need more Affordable Rental housing then I can see ranking your scenario and the WHR scenario as tied for 1st on a fiscal basis, but if you agree that Davis has a shortage of Affordable Rental housing, then your scenario provides less “Greater Good” than the WHR scenario.
Do you agree?
“What the heck am I going to present to the voters in June about J: that it is used by the progressives in town to kill all border development, no matter how nice, how small?”
Measure J is used by the voters, not by the progressives. It is triggered automatically, so whether or not a project comes to a vote has nothing to do with the various voting blocs in this town. If you support voter oversight of peripheral development and zoning changes, you’ll support Measure J. If you prefer to have development projects reviewed and approved only by the city council, you won’t support Measure J. I seriously doubt that the voters of Davis will vote to overturn or dilute Measure J, and certainly not because it was used as intended: to give voter approval or rejection of projects such as WHR.
“What the heck am I going to present to the voters in June about J: that it is used by the progressives in town to kill all border development, no matter how nice, how small?”
Measure J is used by the voters, not by the progressives. It is triggered automatically, so whether or not a project comes to a vote has nothing to do with the various voting blocs in this town. If you support voter oversight of peripheral development and zoning changes, you’ll support Measure J. If you prefer to have development projects reviewed and approved only by the city council, you won’t support Measure J. I seriously doubt that the voters of Davis will vote to overturn or dilute Measure J, and certainly not because it was used as intended: to give voter approval or rejection of projects such as WHR.
“What the heck am I going to present to the voters in June about J: that it is used by the progressives in town to kill all border development, no matter how nice, how small?”
Measure J is used by the voters, not by the progressives. It is triggered automatically, so whether or not a project comes to a vote has nothing to do with the various voting blocs in this town. If you support voter oversight of peripheral development and zoning changes, you’ll support Measure J. If you prefer to have development projects reviewed and approved only by the city council, you won’t support Measure J. I seriously doubt that the voters of Davis will vote to overturn or dilute Measure J, and certainly not because it was used as intended: to give voter approval or rejection of projects such as WHR.
Matt,
You’re mixing up two issues. The issue we started with was whether there is a net fiscal benefit (if tax revenues exceed City costs) or a fiscal deficit (if tax revenues are less than City costs). If this is the issue, then there is a fiscal deficit, and it is not simply not true for the Yes on P folks to say in the ballot rebuttal statement that “this project results in net fiscal benefits of approximately $4 million. . .”
The City has met it’s state issued targets for total number of units and total affordable units through 2013, so the City is not obligated to provide any more affordable housing. From what I know, Davis has done far more than virtually any other community in California in terms of officially designated affordable housing.
Whether we need or want more affordable housing is certainly open to debate, but it is not part of the fiscal analysis. In fact, as the fiscal analysis shows, this project will cost the city money. If voters are willing to pay these costs, it’s up to them. But voters should have accurate information and your analysis does not provide this.
OK OK. Everyone has a point. I will say, however, that I am one of the few in this town who have stuck their necks out and gone to the voters. We won the 2000 election in about 9 weeks from when I accepted the invitation from Julie to run so she could have a break after 8 years. Also, my litigation work places me in heated disagreements, and in an advocacy prosition, for a living. I regularly risk my time and large sums of money on cases and clients that I believe in.
Sooooo, from my perspective, looking at the big, long term picture, I am going along with the Parlin project, and will work to renew J. The latter will be easier if the former wins. It’s my opinion, but it is based on the fairly intense political and legal experiences I have had over the years. I know what I want the J campaign to say, and I want the bookend evidence for that campaign. It’s simple.
However, this town is great because so many diverse people have opinions and put their money and volunteer time into projects and issues, and thanks to all of you for caring enough to get involved, whatever positions you take.
I think we need a long talk.
After reading the ballot rebuttal to the argument against Measure P, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the dishonesty of Yes On P campaign on affordability and fiscal issues.
I would love to have Phil King, Mark Siegler and I sit down with Pam Nieberg, Eric Nelson, Caroline Hinshaw and Matt, and go over the facts.
People can disagree on the merits of the project, but certain facts are indisputable, and I am afraid that we be running into major credibility issues.
Let’s keep this above-board.
Hey Mike:
You still haven’t answered the question: “What did you whisper into Masud Monfared’s ear, right before John Tallman went back to podium and told Ruth to continue with motion for a Nov election?” Did you tell them that a low-turnout, single-item ballot was the easiest way to win a Measure J election? Don’t talk about “nice, little projects” and counsel Sue on “unnecessary power struggles”; what a relief she remains on Council and you weren’t re-elected!!!! where is your integrity, you are so in bed with Parlin, it’s disgusting, and then you have the audacity to lecture us about Measure J, and “nice, little projects”
Sue, you really should not be calling Bill Ritter and other supporters of Yes on P “dishonest.” Everyone has a different opinion, and level and depth of analysis of the data.
Everyone should have the same data; it’s all in the city reports. The question is, who takes the time to read it all and get to the basics.
My interest in the project is the 90% GHG reduction. I have studied the Talbot Reports and the specific language in the Measure J description, etc., and am satisfied that the 90% reduction is the real deal.
I have not studied the gory detail on housing prices, taxes, cash flow analysis, revenue neutral or not, etc. These things are important, and I accept what the Yes on P people are saying; the city staff and CC majority did, too.
Dear “To: Mike Harrington”: The last day has been a good discussion, we’ve disagreed on the issues but for the most part been civil about it. It’s been interesting and informative. That has happened precisely because people have not made these posts. If you have questions for Mike, you are welcome to call him at his office on Monday, otherwise keep it off this board. Thank you.
[quote]Mark Siegler said . . .
Regarding your fiscal analysis above. From what Paul Navazio told me, the one-time $5,000 payment per unit you cite above is not currently part of the Development Agreement (and it’s not part of the City fiscal model). In addition, development agreements can be changed by Council after the election without another Measure J vote. While $5,000 was once on the table, it’s unknown as to whether it will be in the Development Agreement. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Your modest fiscal surplus rides on this fact.[/quote]
Mark, if it isn’t real than why did Staff talk about it so prominently in the Staff Report? If in fact it isn’t real, then I am 100% of the same mind as you are; however, I haven’t seen any evidence to say that the $5,000 per unit isn’t 100% committed by the developer. If what you have said is true, then why in the world did Staff not include it in the Measure J Baseline features? By failing to do so they have added unnecessary confusion to an already complex situation.
[quote]In a fiscal sense, this is a terrible place to build. The City only gets 11.8 percent of the property taxes versus a citywide average of 17.5 percent. Most other potential sites would be far better in terms of property tax revenue (the main source of revenue). That’s one reason, although certainly not the only reason, that the Housing Steering Committee ranked this site 27th of 36.[/quote]
I completely agree with you, and I am pretty sure that Parlin 100% agrees as well. That is exactly the reason they volunteered the Additional $5,000 per unit . . . to restore the City’s effective revenue stream to the citywide average.
[quote]That’s not good government. The citizens of Davis deserve better.[/quote]
I couldn’t agree with you more, but as you said in the first sentence of your post, “I don’t fault the developer.”
[quote]ol” timer said . . .
…really irrelvant and, unless you have some solid inside info about staff “foot dragging”, do we really know what the supposed staff delay was all about?[/quote]
Reasonable point ol’ timer. I would imagine that there is an e-mail and paper trail. However, no matter what the history is/was, blaming the developer for the horrendous timing/scheduling is IMHO pointing the finger in the wrong direction
[quote]We have seen ample evidence of city staff SNAFUS since Emlen took over as City Manager but, even if this was another example, is that a reason to deny the voters a legitimate Measure J process ? The fact remains that Parlin chose to go with a November vote and three council members caved to his wishes,two of the three votes cast by Council members whom we all know do not support the populist underpinnings of Measure J.[/quote]
As I have said before, a solid viable alternative would be to move the election date to April. That would allow for the full vetting of the populist sentiments without any rush to judgment.
I prefer April to June because (and I know Sue disagrees with this) of the Toer of Babel effect that would IMHO occur if it were part of the already crowded June ballot.
Further, I think having the results of the WHR election in the books (regardless of whether it is voted up or down) strengthens the chances of Measure J’s renewal in June . . . and to me that renewal is of paramount importance.
My previous comments were censured; so I will re-ask in a shorter version:
“What did you whisper into Masud’s ear on the night of the 7/28 Council (around 1:30am) meeting before John Tallman went back to podium and instructed Mayor to continue with motion for November election?”
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . .
Regarding the $5,000 per unit contribution: It ain’t there. After the council vote, I asked for the final copy of the baseline project features. I specifically looked for the $5,000 fee, and it wasn’t there. I asked staff what happened to it, and they said “Oh, we had given the project a $5,000 reduction on the Qwimby fees, but then we decided to charge them full freight for the Quimby fees instead of the $5,000 per unit contribution.[/quote]
Sue, I’m reasonably knowledgeable person on these issues, but I find what Staff has told you extremely confusing. Why the bleep would Staff include something in their Staff Report to Council that didn’t exist? This is just plain bizarre . . . and needs some drill-down investigation.
[quote]I asked, “did other projects pay an additional per unit contribution?”, and staff said “yes”. I asked for an example, and staff said that the recently approved Verona project in Mace Ranch paid a $12,000 per unit contribution for market rate units, and a $6,000 per unit contribution for the affordable units.[/quote]
Unfortunately the Council and Planning Commission Staff Reports on Verona don’t contain an equivalent to Attachment 11 of the WHR Staff Report. Can you provide a link to the Verona Financial Analysis?
Also, did the City have to pay the $80,000 to $90,000 per unit Land Entitlement Fees for the Verona affordable units? If so, the $6,000 per unit that Verona paid is a small fraction of the $80-90,000 per unit that WHR has ponied up.
[quote]”Why is this project contributing so much less to the city than the other projects?”, and staff answered “Because it so expensive to build energy efficient houses”. [/quote]
Once all the numbers are laid out on the table it will be interesting to see what the final picture is.
[quote]ol” timer said . . .
Measure J renewal is not threatened by a NO on P vote but will be seriously threatened by a Yes vote on P in November, which dismisses the legitimate Measure J process (adequate time for open Council debate and Commission examination to fully inform the electorate) as something that can be discarded when a Council majority chooses to.[/quote]
ol’ timer, while I don’t see a Yes on P vote as being as threatening to Measure J as you do, I do think moving the election date to April would defuse any possible issues that might undermine the Measure J process.
[i]My interest in the project is the 90% GHG reduction.[/i]
You and David have both emphasized this point as the big reason to support this project. But why do I think that it’s a showcase that doesn’t prove much, to the extent that it isn’t smoke and mirrors?
For instance our Energy Secretary seems to know what he’s talking about. After all, he’s a Nobel Laureate. (And he didn’t turn weird like Brian Josephson.) He says that it would be great if we invented new kinds of photovoltaic materials, but that for now we should focus on other global warming solutions.
I would suggest that from the stand point of global policy, that makes sense. However, from the stand point of local policy it makes a lot of sense to explore photovoltaics and other passive devices.
“My previous comments were censured”
Your comments were not altered in any way, you were requested however to take the matter up with Mike personally off this site as a means to preserve the good discussion that has occurred due to the lack of namecalling and the respectful tone. I don’t believe that is an unreasonable request. Given that, why do you persist?
[i]However, from the stand point of local policy it makes a lot of sense to explore photovoltaics and other passive devices.[/i]
If it were on your own dollar, or even funded by a grant, I wouldn’t object. But if it’s a ransom fee for permission to move to Davis, then it smacks of going overboard.
I mean, why not do this for immigration too? Say that in order to get a green card, you have to buy photovoltaic panels.
[quote]
Mark Siegler said . . .
Matt,
You’re mixing up two issues. The issue we started with was whether there is a net fiscal benefit (if tax revenues exceed City costs) or a fiscal deficit (if tax revenues are less than City costs). If this is the issue, then there is a fiscal deficit.[quote]
Mark, I respectfully disagree. As my year by year numbers show, the project produces a 15-year Cummulative Surplus of $344,891. The developer has stepped up and closed the 11.8% vs. 17.5% tax retention gap with the $5,000 per unit additional payments and the $300 per unit per year Mello-Roos tax converted any residual deficit into a surplus.
Now if Sue’s contention proves correct and the $5,000 per unit has mysteriously evaporated, then I agree the project runs at a deficit.
[quote]The City has met it’s state issued targets for total number of units and total affordable units through 2013, so the City is not obligated to provide any more affordable housing. From what I know, Davis has done far more than virtually any other community in California in terms of officially designated affordable housing.
Whether we need or want more affordable housing is certainly open to debate, but it is not part of the fiscal analysis. In fact, as the fiscal analysis shows, this project will cost the city money. If voters are willing to pay these costs, it’s up to them. But voters should have accurate information and your analysis does not provide this.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with you about the numerical realities of RHNA, but answer this question for me, “Is there a rental housing problem/shortage in Davis?” The bottom-line for me (and Don Shor and lots of other people) is that a number from RHNA does not universally define “Greater Good” in Davis. IMHO we have a moral obligation to do better for the people who as Davis workers don’t earn enough to afford to own a house, but nonethe less contribute to Davis’ economic vitality and sustainability.
So, bottom-line, I strongly believe we need to go beyond RHNA in the renatal housing segment.
“If it were on your own dollar, or even funded by a grant, I wouldn’t object. But if it’s a ransom fee for permission to move to Davis, then it smacks of going overboard.”
I think that’s hyperbole. Most estimates right now are that photovoltaics pay for themselves in savings in 20 years. For the average person, they have to pay those costs upfront and that makes it problematic. What I’d like to see is the Berkeley model implemented whereby the city finances the photovoltaics and then recoups the cost savings over 20 years. I also believe as these come into greater and greater usage their costs will decline and the premium on them–the cost savings will increase as the cost of electricity continues to rise.
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . . .
I think we need a long talk.
After reading the ballot rebuttal to the argument against Measure P, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the dishonesty of Yes On P campaign on affordability and fiscal issues.
I would love to have Phil King, Mark Siegler and I sit down with Pam Nieberg, Eric Nelson, Caroline Hinshaw and Matt, and go over the facts.
People can disagree on the merits of the project, but certain facts are indisputable, and I am afraid that we be running into major credibility issues.
Let’s keep this above-board. [/quote]
I completely agree. The meeting should be in Council Chambers and be broadcast live throughout the City. Lets do it and lets do it sooner rather than later.
One word in your post troubles me though. “dishonesty” What makes you say the rebuttal statement is in any way dishonest?
I haven’t seen the rebuttal statements, and they don’t seem to be online yet. Can somebody post them?
Sue:
I have a question.
Let’s suppose that UC Davis does what Cal Poly did and builds a 5000 student facility on campus. Does that mean that we do not have to grow at all in Davis for the next two decades? Does that mean that there are not other housing needs? Under those conditions, what would you propose we do growth wise in Davis? I’m just trying to understand the logic of the 1000 on-campus student housing units being equivalent to homes.
Brian,
We build student apartments in the city and we count them as housing. We need them, and they are part of the mix. Over 525 non-student units have been approved in the city, and 475 in the West Village neighborhood. So we have 1000 non-student units approved and unbuilt. 1000 non-student units is large number of non-student units.
That’s great Sue, but that doesn’t answer any of my questions.
[i]Most estimates right now are that photovoltaics pay for themselves in savings in 20 years.[/i]
I don’t know what you mean by “most estimates”, but it can’t really be true. It isn’t more economical to mount them on home roofs than to build farms of them. If you do build farms, the electricity that they make is quite a bit more expensive even with subsidies. (And the subsidies are engineered that way; as installations escalate the subsidies become too expensive in taxes.)
Maybe “most estimates”, certainly many estimates, come to conclusions with wishful accounting. By doing things like transporting money between now and the future without rescaling it.
I really don’t see what this project says about photovoltaics other than: “See! We made them do it!”
David – It’s your board and you can run it as you please, but “To Mike Harrington” said you “censured” his comments. He/she did not say you “censored” or altered his comments. I agree with your advice for him/her to seek an alternate approach for the detailed information he/she is seeking.
Greg: “I don’t know what you mean by “most estimates”, but it can’t really be true.”
Just out of curiosity, I recently priced out solar panels for my house, and found that the materials would cost roughly what I would pay in PG&E electric bills over a 20 year period.
Everyone’s situation is different (I barely have A/C, but do a lot of irrigating via a pump), so you would have to assess your own energy use. But I was surprised it was so close to a 20-year payoff. Unfortunately, the up-front costs are a real obstacle, and that didn’t include any installation costs.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act section 1603 gives a 30% tax grant on the complete costs of your solar installation. The program just started in August 2009. That is in addition to the California Solar Initiative program that gives a tax credit for your costs. So you should try the calculations for your payoff period with both the grant and credits.
Brian S: “Let’s suppose that UC Davis does what Cal Poly did and builds a 5000 student facility on campus. Does that mean that we do not have to grow at all in Davis for the next two decades? Does that mean that there are not other housing needs? Under those conditions, what would you propose we do growth wise in Davis?”
That would certainly solve a lot of housing problems in Davis, particularly the crucial lack of rental housing for non-students. It would greatly reduce the demand for housing in the entry-level market, as many homes in parts of Davis (east, especially) are now occupied as rentals by groups of young adults. So it would indirectly create a lot of workforce housing and a lot of affordable housing.
Matt Williams said in response to Sue Greenwld: “One word in your post troubles me though. ‘dishonesty’ What makes you say the rebuttal statement is in any way dishonest?”
Let me provide one example, although I prefer to call it an inaccuracy. The ballot Rebuttal to the Argument Against Measure P (written by Yes on P) says:
“The project pays for itself. According to an independent fiscal analysis and confirmed by staff, the project results in net fiscal benefits of approximately $4 million over the 15-year analysis period, providing a reliable annual source of funding for city services – something no other Davis project has done.”
Matt, I presume you are the author of the “independent fiscal analysis.” Above, you conceded that the $4,180,000 is not a fiscal benefit to the City. So, this statement is inaccurate. The rebuttal also says “confirmed by staff.” Really? Paul Navazio didn’t say he or anyone in Finance agreed with your numbers. In fact, they disagreed. They have never concluded that the project “pays for itself.” The official City report shows a fiscal deficit each and every year. Who in the City confirmed this? To me, “independent fiscal analysis” means an analysis by a consulting firm or other expert who has experience in such issues, and whose current or future employment does not depend on delivering a certain answer. This report should be available to the public to scrutinize and discussed fully and openly in Council chambers by our elected representatives.
Skip: Fair enough, I misread “censure” as “censor.” Nevertheless, I think we agree on the rest. What’s happened the last three days is what I want to see on here and what I believe is a value to the community, not the attacks and innuendos, but an honest discussion of the issues of the day and I think for the most part that’s what we’ve gotten this time around and I wanted to be assertive and avoid devolving into what we’ve seen in the past where people are making accusations and innuendos rather than discussing the facts and the opinions.
I saw the proponents’ rebuttal for the first time this morning, and I am steamed. What has been bothering me the most about this project is the deplorable process by which it was placed on the ballot, and now the dishonesty of the arguments.
I will start with the most outrageous bullet point in the rebuttal statement:
[quote]The project pays for itself. According to an independent fiscal analysis and confirmed by staff, the project results in net fiscal benefits of approximately $4 million over the 15-year analysis period, providing a reliable annual source of funding for city services – something no other Davis project has done.[/quote]My mind boogles. This contains so many untruths that it is hard to know where to begin. I count five outright whoppers in less than 50 words.
First, the project, analyzed by staff with pricing assumptions provided by the developer, DOES NOT PAY FOR ITSELF. Period. That was the result of the staff analysis, even after taking into account the CFD that was added at the eleventh hour. The staff analysis errs very strongly toward the side of the developer, because it assumes that both the temporary parks tax and the sales tax overrides exist in perpetuity. If either fails to be reinstated when it sunsets, the project runs a very large annual operations and maintenance deficit.
Second, the “independent analysis” is apparently Matt Williams’ “analysis”. He has not distributed a comprehensible copy of his analysis, if it exits. I personally guarantee you that staff did NOT confirmed this “analysis”. Mark spoke with staff about it yesterday.
Third, where does this figure of a net fiscal benefit of $4 million come from? Rumor has it that Matt is assigning his own personal value to the fact that the developer chose the option of building, owning and operating the affordable housing rather than dedicating land to build it, and is calling that a net fiscal benefit. This makes no sense at all and must be discounted. I also heard a rumor that Matt is counting the $5,000 per unit developer contribution that no longer exists.
Fourth, the proponents claim that somehow these non-existent net fiscal benefits will provide a “reliable annual source of funding for city services”.
Finally, the claim is made that no other Davis project has provided such fiscal benefits. In fact, in fiscal terms, this project is far worse than other recent Davis projects. The other projects were revenue neutral or positive, according to staff analysis, and, with the exception of Grande (which we helped out in order to allow the school district to make more money selling the land), the other projects paid one- time contributions that this project did not. For example, Verona paid $12,000 per market rate unit and $6,000 per affordable unit, whereas Wildhorse Ranch contributes zilch.
In summary, the truth is that this project runs an annual operations and maintenance deficit, and provides no one-time net fiscal benefit other than the standard construction tax. In fiscal terms from a city perspective, it is clearly the worst project of the projects we have recently passed.
[i]The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act section 1603 gives a 30% tax grant on the complete costs of your solar installation.[/i]
From time to time one government or another notices that photovoltaic panels are just too expensive to install on home roofs, and throws out yet another 5-10 cents per kilowatt hour on top of existing subsidies. This makes the panels sort-of worth it for a lot more people — but not really. The month that the subsidies really tip the balance, they become too expensive and the government shrinks them back. Right now there is a relative glut of panels, partly because Spain decided that its subsidies were too rich.
Conceivably if Wild Horse Ranch built solar panels in this coming year and only in this coming year, it would grab enough stimulus money that it wouldn’t be a zoning ransom. I doubt it, but it’s conceivable.
Meanwhile the production tax credit for wind power is only 2.1 cents per kilowatt hour. It would be enough incentive to build a vast array of wind turbines, if Congress could bring itself to make the credit permanent. That subsidy, unlike the fortune dangled for solar panels, is fully justified by the externalities of coal.
So again, the solar panels in WHR are a showcase that won’t prove anything. The world has many of these showcases; it doesn’t even work as an experiment. The other mitigations, such as cool roofs or whatever, could be great. But this 90% on-site reduction claim takes us into control freak territory.
I would second Mark’s last statement. As someone who has completed a number of fiscal impact reports for the State and for several cities in California it really bothers me when Parlin claims to have done an independent fiscal analysis when clearly that has not been done here. A fiscal analysis requires that certain steps be taken; revenues are estimated and the cost of the project (which includes city services and infrastructure costs). Unfortunately Matt’s analysis does not do that from what I have seen, though it would be nice, as Mark said, to see a full report, not just some numbers thrown up on a blog.
The City of Davis did do a full fiscal impact report which Mark and I have seen. It concludes that the City will lose money on this project. That is a fact and to imply otherwise is inaccurate and potentially dishonest.
Frankly, Mark and I are concerned that the City’s revenue projections may be too optimistic. Specifically, the 2% increase in prices that Sue mentioned earlier may be too high. The leading expert on housing economics in the world, Robert Shiller of Yale, who actually predicted this houisng bubble and created the Case-Shiller houisng index, argues that over the very long term the real increase in housing prices(holding the size of the house and amenities constant) is approximately zero. So the leading expert in this area would come up with an even bigger loss.
Anyone who has studied this issue throughly and dispassionately knows that in California, because of Proposition 13, housing is generally a fiscal loser–except for McMansions. Does that mean we don’t build more houses? No. But we should be honest here. Most housing projects will lose money for a City over time even with substantial fees up front. There are exceptions in areas where hosuing costs are evenhigher than Davis or with McMansions, but even at Davis prices hosuing is a fiscal drag generally. WE are required to grow at SACOG mandated rates, but growing beyond these rates will cost the City of Davis money, unless we only develop McMansions which we are NOT advocating.
So please lets have some honesty here. I think a lot of te discussion on this blog has been intelligent and well-intentioned over the last couple of days and I hope we can all agree on basic facts even if we ultimately vote differently.
We have relied on City staff for most of our analysis. Thanks all for listening and caring about our City.
Sue:
Once again, please describe in detail what are the 525 units approved in the city and please tell us when they were approved, whose projects they belong to, and whether or not there is ANY interest at all on the part of the project applicant in each case to move forward with development at this time or any time in the near future.
As I recall from the Housing Update Committee meetings, there were a number of areas in Davis where the committee thought housing could go, but for most of these either there was no interest at all on the part of the property owner to do anything with the property now or they were properties that are not currently available for development, such as the school administration building on 5th and the PG&E property on L.
I have looked over the rankings the committee ended up with and see only a few viable sites, including Verona, Chiles, Grande, but few if any others that are available now for development. That is why some of the yellow sites, including the Wildhorse Ranch site, were considered for moving up.
As far as any of us can determine, Chiles Ranch at 108 or 109 units, is the ONLY project moving forward at this time. Grande is not moving forward, Verona has been pulled for now. So please tell us what just exactly what are the 525 units of housing that will be moving forward and that therefore preclude any “need” for the 191 unit Wildhorse Ranch project.
Also, the non-student housing to be provided on campus (475 units) is restricted soley to faculty and higher-level staff, most of them new recruits. I believe that an argument can be made that there is a need for other types of housing for those not affiliated with the U.
Finally, just why are you so opposed to this small, infill project, especially considering the considerable benefits it brings to our town and to future development standards?
[quote]Mark Siegler said . . .
Let me provide one example, although I prefer to call it an inaccuracy. The ballot Rebuttal to the Argument Against Measure P (written by Yes on P) says:
“The project pays for itself. According to an independent fiscal analysis and confirmed by staff, the project results in net fiscal benefits of approximately $4 million over the 15-year analysis period, providing a reliable annual source of funding for city services – something no other Davis project has done.”
Matt, I presume you are the author of the “independent fiscal analysis.” Above, you conceded that the $4,180,000 is not a fiscal benefit to the City. So, this statement is inaccurate. The rebuttal also says “confirmed by staff.” Really? Paul Navazio didn’t say he or anyone in Finance agreed with your numbers. In fact, they disagreed. They have never concluded that the project “pays for itself.” The official City report shows a fiscal deficit each and every year. Who in the City confirmed this? To me, “independent fiscal analysis” means an analysis by a consulting firm or other expert who has experience in such issues, and whose current or future employment does not depend on delivering a certain answer. This report should be available to the public to scrutinize and discussed fully and openly in Council chambers by our elected representatives. [/quote]
Mark, not only did I prepare the fiscal analysis, but I provided it to Council and read it into the public record on 7/28. So it is indeed available to the publc and has been for over four weeks. Further, when I provided the analysis parameters to City Staff via e-mail prior to the 7/28 Council meeting, I asked the following questions:
after reading through the WHR Staff Report Fiscal Analysis, I have a couple of questions. If it is appropriate, could you help me with them?
* When I read the Fiscal Analysis language and looked at the spreadsheet numbers this evening, I found two inconsistencies between the language on pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report and the numbers included in the Attachment 11 spreadsheet . They are not insignificant , and if they are included in the spreadsheet the project appears to go from accumulating the $1,012,692 deficit for the General Fund shown in Attachment 11, to a $4,095,852 gain.
* The first of the two items contains the 151 $5,000 payments that Parlin is going to make. If I understand the reason behind those payments correctly, they are being made in order to bring the WHR parcel’s 11.8% tax retention rate up to the 17.5% citywide average.
* The second of the two items is the $3 million expenditure savings the City will realize by not having to pay the Land Dedication Site Subsidy associated with the 38 Affordable Units.
You are probably swamped getting ready for tonight, but the dollar difference is so huge that I felt it was important to get your insight. Thanks for all you do.
In response to those questions Staff responded, “”Your read of the numbers is not incorrect”
Is there any confusion or ambiguity in that exchange?
Further, Paul and I reviewed the spreadsheet I submitted to Council in the back of Council Chambers that night. Since that night there has been no effort by anyone from the City to clarify and/or refute the numbers I presented to Council, Staff and Paul. If the City had a problem with the numbers, wouldn’t it make logical sense for them to step forward and correct them. After all, they were read into the public record that night, with hard copies provided.
So, I definitely don’t think there is any dishonesty, and even your word inaccuracy would appear to be a major stretch.
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . . .
Finally, the claim is made that no other Davis project has provided such fiscal benefits. In fact, in fiscal terms, this project is far worse than other recent Davis projects. The other projects were revenue neutral or positive, according to staff analysis, and, with the exception of Grande (which we helped out in order to allow the school district to make more money selling the land), the other projects paid one-time contributions that this project did not. For example, Verona paid $12,000 per market rate unit and $6,000 per affordable unit, whereas Wildhorse Ranch contributes zilch. [/quote]
Sue, lets deal with your points in reverse order. I asked you the following question in an earlier post, “For the 21 affordable low-income units and the 17 restricted equity appreciation middle-income units, who is paying the “typical subsidy associated with a land dedication site.” If it is the City, then the inflows from Verona may be (as you point out) higher, but the offsetting City expenditures of $80,000 to $90,000 per unit noted by Staff completely wipe out thos increased revenues many times over. So, what is the answer to that question?
[i]What has been bothering me the most about this project is the deplorable process by which it was placed on the ballot, and now the dishonesty of the arguments.[/i]
Sue, for all I know, you could be right about the untruths that you claim are there in the argument for WHR. I can also see that the city’s tax balance is a central issue for all of these proposals. All of that makes sense.
But just being steamed that one side is “dishonest” is itself tendentious. The arguments on both sides bend the truth. I can immediately spot a falsehood in the against column: “Most greenhouse gases come from auto emissions”
As this beautiful chart ([url]http://www.sankey-diagrams.com/wp-content/myfotos/o_sankey_058/wri_ghg_sankey_usa.jpg[/url]) shows, it is not true. All transportation is 27%, while all electricity and heat is 32%. It doesn’t break out residential cars, but that is almost certainly less than residential buildings.
It would be interesting to know who wrote that statement for the ballot; it seems entirely off the cuff.
Also the statement “Counting West Village and City-approved housing, Davis will have grown almost 70% since 1988 — hardly slow growth!” is tendentious in various ways and I think that everyone knows it. The Census estimates that population growth from 2000 to 2007 was 7.7%.
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . . .
Third, where does this figure of a net fiscal benefit of $4 million come from? Rumor has it that Matt is assigning his own personal value to the fact that the developer chose the option of building, owning and operating the affordable housing rather than dedicating land to build it, and is calling that a net fiscal benefit. This makes no sense at all and must be discounted. I also heard a rumor that Matt is counting the $5,000 per unit developer contribution that no longer exists.[/quote]
Sue, your statement that “the $5,000 per unit developer contribution no longer exists” is a confusion of Balance Sheet accounting and Income Statement Accounting. I spoke to Parlin this morning in an attempt to verify your evaporation theory, and confirmed that they are still committed to writing the City a $5,000 check for each of the 151 ownership units. That is the simple Income Statement reality. The City has chosen to change the Balance Sheet account where it puts that $755,000. Because the City has chosen to create the CFD, the money is now going into that portion of the City’s organizational and accounting structure. This is simply an accounting change, there is absolutely no “evaporation” of the $5,000 per unit.
Matt,
You agreed last night that:
If WHR is built, then the City does not have to pay $80,000 to $90,000 per affordable unit.
If WHR is not built, then the City does not have to pay $80,000 to $90,000 per affordable unit.
The City fiscal position is the same in either case, so it is wrong to count the $4 million “in savings” as a fiscal benefit since we don’t have to build this project. There is no additional money flowing to the City in either case.
You then appealed to “greater good” and “moral obligation.” Fair enough, that’s your opinion. But the citizens of Davis should know how much this is going to cost and that the vast majority of for-sale units are not affordable.
You’re saying that if a developer provides 40 affordable apartments, then the City gets $4 million in fiscal benefits. Why not build 4,000 affordable apartments and get $400 million in fiscal benefits!!!!
This reasoning is absurd.
I didn’t stay up until the wee hours of the morning to see you speak before Council on July 28, but whoever agreed with you is incorrect too.
I’m gone for the rest of the day, so I won’t be able to respond to anything else.
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . . .
Second, the “independent analysis” is apparently Matt Williams’ “analysis”. He has not distributed a comprehensible copy of his analysis, if it exits. I personally guarantee you that staff did NOT confirmed this “analysis”. Mark spoke with staff about it yesterday. [/quote]
Sue,
1) I formally read it into the public record on July 28th, providing Zoe Mirabile approximately 15 copies. lamar Heystek came down off the dias and got copies from Zoe and handed you one of those copies.
2) I purposely formatted the analysis in the same layout as Attachment 11 of the Staff Report. If my analysis was not comprehnsible, I guess you are saying that Staff’s analysius was not comprehensible also.
3) In a prior thread here on the Vanguard, I offered to meet with you and Mark Siegler to review the analysis. You blew me off. My offer still stands.
I think we might be moving towards resolving the problem here.
Matt Williams says:[quote]Now if Sue’s contention proves correct and the $5,000 per unit has mysteriously evaporated, then I agree the project runs at a deficit.
[/quote] The $5,000 has in fact mysteriously evaporated. When I couldn’t find the $5,000 in the baseline project features, I “drilled-down”, as Matt suggested, and this is what I found:
Unbeknownst to just about everyone, staff had given this project a $5,000 dollar reduction in the Qwimby fees. This was favored treatment; other projects did not get this reduction.
Apparently, on that dreadful night when Wildhorse Ranch was rammed on the ballot, an “addendum” to the resolution had been placed on the dias in front of us. In this addendum, the $5,000 contribution had been removed, and the mysterious, unconscionable $5,000 discount on the Qwimby fee had been removed.
Obviously, we do not have time to read new documents when we are sitting up there after midnight ramming through a project. This is what happens when the process becomes corrupted. So the removal of the $5,000 just slipped through, and I caught it when I asked for a copy of the just-completed baseline project features a few days later.
So, question resolved. I wish we had had time to meet with Matt before the arguments were written; the fact that we didn’t is the fault of those who rushed the process and gave us insufficient time to do the work that needed to be done by ballot argument deadline.
Now what do we do about it? This fiscal paragraph in the rebuttal should be removed. Maybe we can resolve this amicably. There are some less egregious errors that I will bring up later, but this one way too large to let pass.
[quote]Phil King said . . .
A fiscal analysis requires that certain steps be taken; revenues are estimated and the cost of the project (which includes city services and infrastructure costs). Unfortunately Matt’s analysis does not do that from what I have seen, though it would be nice, as Mark said, to see a full report, not just some numbers thrown up on a blog.
The City of Davis did do a full fiscal impact report which Mark and I have seen. It concludes that the City will lose money on this project. That is a fact and to imply otherwise is inaccurate and potentially dishonest.
So please lets have some honesty here. I think a lot of te discussion on this blog has been intelligent and well-intentioned over the last couple of days and I hope we can all agree on basic facts even if we ultimately vote differently.
We have relied on City staff for most of our analysis. Thanks all for listening and caring about our City.[/quote]
Phil, I will be glad to sit down and review the analysis with you. The reality is that what you have stated you are looking for is in the analysis. The City’s work to produce the numbers in Attachment 11 was not changed in any way. The key to this whole situation can be summed up by the following analogy. You receive $1 in the form of 100 pennies. As a first step you segregate a certain portion of those 100 pennies into a pile and call it “one-time development impact fees” and you tell the person who gave you the $1 that “those pennies don’t count” But that is okay because that is standard practice. Now comes the rub. The remaining pennies are to be used to pay for expenditures. That is also good because that too is standard practice, but at the last minute more pennies are removed from the pile to be put into a special accounting bucket called a CFD. That is agred to, because some of the expenses are going to go into that bucket as well. However, before removing the expenses there goes up a wailing and knashing of teeth because there aren’t enough pennies left to cover the expenses that remain. But, the operative expression of the day is “patience grasshopper” because after the CFD expenses are moved over to the CFD the pennies will once agian exceed the expenses.
In your response to Sue, you ask “Finally, just why are you so opposed to this small, infill project, especially considering the considerable benefits it brings to our town and to future development standards?”
Can you please define for us the following:
“infill project”- this project is NOT infill, it is on the peripheral border of the NE border of town
what “considerable benefits”-financial? the city staffing report has already identified this project as being “fiscally negative”-which means it drains not adds dollars to the city’s budget
“future development standards”-hasn’t West Village, with its environmental standards, already set that?
Its really simple ask P to publish the entire economic analysis.
Just read your previous statement. The $5,000 is not in the baseline project features. Hence, by your own admission, it is incorrect. The fiscal statement has to go, Matt. It’s flat-out wrong.
There are other egregious problems with the statement which I already outlined. But, since you have acknowledged that the $5,000 was sufficient to invalidate your statement, let’s just agree to have the offending statement removed.
[quote]
Mark Siegler
08/29/09 – 01:49 PM
…
Matt,
You agreed last night that:
If WHR is built, then the City does not have to pay $80,000 to $90,000 per affordable unit.
If WHR is not built, then the City does not have to pay $80,000 to $90,000 per affordable unit.
The City fiscal position is the same in either case, so it is wrong to count the $4 million “in savings” as a fiscal benefit since we don’t have to build this project. There is no additional money flowing to the City in either case.
You then appealed to “greater good” and “moral obligation.” Fair enough, that’s your opinion. But the citizens of Davis should know how much this is going to cost and that the vast majority of for-sale units are not affordable.
You’re saying that if a developer provides 40 affordable apartments, then the City gets $4 million in fiscal benefits. Why not build 4,000 affordable apartments and get $400 million in fiscal benefits!!!!
This reasoning is absurd.[/quote]
Not absurd at all. You are conveniently ignoring the third scenario. The City clearly needs affordable appartments. Your economic training provides you with abundant evidence that a vacancy rate of less than 1% (much less a vacancy rate that [u]consistently[/u] is under 1% is an unhealthy economic (and social) condition. But lets set that reality aside for a moment and simply look at the three scenarios from a Balance Sheet perspective.
In your scenario there is no change in Assets … no increase or reduction of the Cash account.
In the WHR scenario there is an increase in Assets … because the city’s affordable appartments inventory has increased by 40 and there has been no increase or reduction of the Cash account.
In the third scenario some Assets accounts go up and others go down … because the city’s affordable appartments inventory has increased by 40 and there has been an over $3 million decrease of the Cash account.
So net we have Your Scenario with no net change in Assets, Scenario Two with a net increase in desireable Assets and Scenario Three with a net increase in desireable Assets, but with at a hefty $3 million cost. Which scenario is best?
Monty, I will take Door #2
The apartments are what enable this project to meet the city’s requirement for affordable housing, providing 20% of the units as ‘affordable’. But they do so only by dint of being apartments. How much are they going to rent for? No other housing unit in this project will meet any official definition of affordable housing.
Moreover, they won’t meet a reasonable definition, IMO, of workforce housing (that usually includes housing affordable at up to 120% of median income, but even going up to 150% WHR doesn’t do it).
Again, the statement made in the ballot argument is incorrect: “Ensures the majority of the homes are affordable for working families.”
Do you agree with that statement, Matt? If so, on what basis do you support it? Apparently none of the signatories of the ballot argument are going to discuss how that sentence came to be included, and we don’t know who actually wrote it. So I elect you by proxy.
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . . .
The $5,000 has in fact mysteriously evaporated. When I couldn’t find the $5,000 in the baseline project features, I “drilled-down”, as Matt suggested, and this is what I found:
Unbeknownst to just about everyone, staff had given this project a $5,000 dollar reduction in the Qwimby fees. This was favored treatment; other projects did not get this reduction.
Apparently, on that dreadful night when Wildhorse Ranch was rammed on the ballot, an “addendum” to the resolution had been placed on the dias in front of us. In this addendum, the $5,000 contribution had been removed, and the mysterious, unconscionable $5,000 discount on the Qwimby fee had been removed.
Obviously, we do not have time to read new documents when we are sitting up there after midnight ramming through a project. This is what happens when the process becomes corrupted. So the removal of the $5,000 just slipped through, and I caught it when I asked for a copy of the just-completed baseline project features a few days later.
So, question resolved. I wish we had had time to meet with Matt before the arguments were written; the fact that we didn’t is the fault of those who rushed the process and gave us insufficient time to do the work that needed to be done by ballot argument deadline.
Now what do we do about it? This fiscal paragraph in the rebuttal should be removed. Maybe we can resolve this amicably. There are some less egregious errors that I will bring up later, but this one way too large to let pass.
[/quote]
Sue, you need to dig a little deeper. The $5,000 per unit contribution has not evaporated. City Staff has moved it into the CFD accounting bucket. It has nothing to do with Quimby fees at all.
The CFD proposed by City Staff generates just slightly more than the one time $5,000 per unit fee. The CFD provides at a minimum $765,000 over 15 years, but it is in the form of annual payments and not a $5,000 lump sum payment at the time of the issuance of the 151 individual building permits.
City Staff approached Parlin 48 hours prior to the July 28th Council meeting asking Parlin to do the Community Funding District instead of the $5,000 contributions per home. Parlin agreed. It would appear that 1) Staff felt they were going to get more money out of CFD mechanism than the straight $5,000 contribution per market rate unit, or 2) Staff did not trust that they or a future Council would not spend the money on something else.
Bottom-line, the net fiscal impact of the one time fee that Staff has “evaporated” vs the CFD is virtually identical over the 15-year analysis period, and does not materially affect the analysis I prepared (though a one time fee would allow the City to draw interest that would increase the value of the fee).
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . . .
Just read your previous statement. The $5,000 is not in the baseline project features. Hence, by your own admission, it is incorrect. The fiscal statement has to go, Matt. It’s flat-out wrong.
There are other egregious problems with the statement which I already outlined. But, since you have acknowledged that the $5,000 was sufficient to invalidate your statement, let’s just agree to have the offending statement removed.[/quote]
Sue, unless Staff has for some bizarre reason not included the CFD in the baseline features, the developer’s contribution of $755,000 (or more) is in there. The statement is correct.
[quote]
Don Shor
08/29/09 – 03:00 PM
…
The apartments are what enable this project to meet the city’s requirement for affordable housing, providing 20% of the units as ‘affordable’. But they do so only by dint of being apartments. How much are they going to rent for? No other housing unit in this project will meet any official definition of affordable housing.
Moreover, they won’t meet a reasonable definition, IMO, of workforce housing (that usually includes housing affordable at up to 120% of median income, but even going up to 150% WHR doesn’t do it).
Again, the statement made in the ballot argument is incorrect: “Ensures the majority of the homes are affordable for working families.”
Do you agree with that statement, Matt? If so, on what basis do you support it? Apparently none of the signatories of the ballot argument are going to discuss how that sentence came to be included, and we don’t know who actually wrote it. So I elect you by proxy.[/quote]
Don, I will give a detailed answer this evening. As you know this is the one area that I have the most reservations about. Enough reservations that, as I have said before, at this time, I neither support nor oppose the project. For me, this is the area where Parlin has the most work to do.
Now I want to clarify some numbers on the price of the for sale housing.
The rebuttal says that there will be 78 townhouses between $350,000 and $450,000. But according to the fiscal analysis, the 78 townhouses prices will average $425,000 in 2009 dollars. Remember, staff uses figures provided by the developer. A 2% a year real estate inflation rate is assumed.
The developer says he won’t break ground until 2012, so, after the real estate inflation adjustment, first townhouses are assumed to have an average price of $451,000.
Take home pay, on the other hand, is going down. The base year of 2009 doesn’t even start to reflect the current salary reductions. During the next three years, we are not just talking about the current 10% or 15% take home reductions due to furloughs. Many changes are underway which will result in permanent downward adjustment of home pay. The University for example, is going to start deducting pension contributions from salaries.
The chances that take home pay in 2012 will be higher than it is in 2009 is just about nill. In fact, I think we are overestimating the affordability level when we say that the first townhouses will sell for an average price of $451,000.
[quote]Sue, you need to dig a little deeper. The $5,000 per unit contribution has not evaporated. City Staff has moved it into the CFD accounting bucket. It has nothing to do with Quimby fees at all.[/quote]Come on Matt. Enough already. You have given us 3 different explanations to try to explain away your admission that you were in error. This is just not true.
You know darned well that you counted both the CFD and the $5,000 when you did your “analysis”.
But the deeper problem with your analysis, as we tried to tell you all along, is that you are mixing up one-time payments with annual operations and maintenance payments. And you threw into the mix a non-existent one-time $5,000 per unit payment and millions of dollars from your own bizarre calculations of the difference between the value of land-dedication vs. owner-built affordable housing — when neither of these is ever been counted as a net FISCAL benefit to begin with.
So please, talk with the campaign about the need to remove this section from your rebuttal statement.
[i]The base year of 2009 doesn’t even start to reflect the current salary reductions.[/i]
Well no, the $451k is for our consumption and it is based on our intuition of “the base year”. I don’t think that we are preprogrammed to ignore our salary reductions until next year.
[i]The chances that take home pay in 2012 will be higher than it is in 2009 is just about nil.[/i]
Take home pay from the university will be lower in 2012 than now, even in nominal dollars in the face of 3% annual inflation? If that’s true, it’s disastrous. Would Linda Katehi agree with this?
So let me see if I understand this.
Normally a developer pays $5000 per housing unit, at the time the unit is built, based on the Quimby Act. That money is used for costs the city incurs that are related to the development.
Instead, shortly before the meeting the city staff asked Parlin to make a comparable payment to the Community Funding District revenues.
Matt is saying that the amount is roughly the same, so there is still a (modest) positive cash flow from the whole project over 15 years. From what Sue is saying, it seems that this change in how the fees are paid and booked has not been done before.
Why would staff request this change in procedure, and why was it done so abruptly? Is there any relationship between revenues that go into the CFD budget line category and the costs incurred by the city? The relationship of Quimby Act funds is statutorily clear. It seems to me, though I could be wrong, that staff has basically asked for the money to go into general fund revenues instead.
Matt:
I would be happy to look at your report–could you post it online? Could you let everyone know what your background in economics is? If you claim to be an expert on fiscal impact analysis and contradict a report issued by the City, please publish your report online and please let us know your qualifications to make such a statement. I am not trying to be rude or presumptuous here, but people have a right to know so that they can decide for themselves.
Many thanks,
Phil
Greg,
All we are talking about is the affordability of the units. Staff ASSUMED a 2% a year increase in the unit prices. I am merely saying that don’t think that take home salary will be 6% higher in 2012 than it is in 2009.
Phil, I have an MBA from Wharton. I have worked for the past 25+ years in healtcare finance. Send me your email address and I will forward you the Excel spreadsheet. It is very simple. The simple summary of the report is as follows:
First, like all developments, WHR pays the standard one-time development fees and one-time construction tax revenues of $5.5 million and $791,476 respectively.
Second, beyond those standard one-time revenue flows the project generates the following annual revenues, expenditures and bottom-line.
Year One – 11 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $26,533
Mello-Roos Fees ($300×11) = $3,300
Supplemental Fees ($5,000x 11) = $55,000
Total Revenues = $84,833
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $39,862
Year One Surplus/(Deficit) = $44,971
Year Two – 66 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $126,759
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 66) = $ 19,800
Supplemental Fees ($5,000 x 55)= $275,000
Total Revenues = $421,559
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $151,517
Year Two Surplus/(Deficit) = $270,042
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $315,013
Year Three – 119 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $216,174
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 119) = $ 35,700
Supplemental Fees ($5,000 x 53)= $265,000
Total Revenues = $516,874
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $248,166
Year Three Surplus/(Deficit) = $268,708
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $583,721
Year Four – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $271,186
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = $ 45,300
Supplemental Fees ($5,000 x 32)= $160,000
Total Revenues = $476,486
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $309,444
Year Four Surplus/(Deficit) = $167,042
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $750,763
Year Five – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $267,493
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = $ 45,300
Total Revenues = $312,793
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $321,452
Year Five Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 8,659)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $742,104
Year Six – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $273,721
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = $ 45,300
Total Revenues = $319,021
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $330,806
Year Six Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 11,785)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $730,319
Year Seven – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $280,817
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = $ 45,300
Total Revenues = $326,117
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $339,740
Year Seven Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 13,623)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $716,696
Year Eight – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $291,342
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = $ 45,300
Total Revenues = $336,642
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $359,004
Year Eight Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 22,362)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $694,334
Year Nine – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $302,657
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = $ 45,300
Total Revenues = $347,957
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $374,528
Year Nine Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 26,571)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $667,783
Year Ten – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $313,524
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = $ 45,300
Total Revenues = $358,824
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $388,427
Year Ten Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 29,603)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $638,160
But what we seem to be arriving at is that the Supplemental Fees, as in Year One “Supplemental Fees ($5,000x 11) = $55,000” are not being paid as shown, but are instead being paid into some other budget category. So city staff has created a situation where $755,000 will be paid instead into the Community Funding District revenues. This project will show a net deficit, but more money will go elsewhere in the city?
Who proposed this? Why? How will that money be used? Is there any difference in the oversight on such spending if it is in a different budget category? Were city council members aware of this change prior to their vote?
Don Shore:
Don,
According to my separate conversations with the City Manager and with the Planning Director, it worked quite differently than Matt describes.
To start out with, the strange thing is that this project had a $5,000 reduction in its Qwimby fees initially. The other projects all paid full Qwimby fees, and all but Grande also paid a per unit fee above that. In case of this project, that additional per unit contribution was swapped for the elimination of its discount in the Qwimby fee. I other words, it is now paying full Quimby fees like all other projects, but is not paying additional per unit fees as most other projects have (Verona is paying $12,000 per market rate unit and $6,000 per affordable).
The CFD, on the other hand, was added at the last minute to boost the bottom line of the Operations and Maintenance budget,which was even worse than average because of the worse property tax split with the county on this parcel.
But while we are at it, let’s discuss that mysterious $4 million figure.
If Matt sends Mark and Phil his entire analysis, (which, Matt, usually requires some explanation of what is going on in your spread sheet), perhaps we can clarify this tomorrow.
Year Eleven – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $320,843
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = $ 45,300
Total Revenues = $366,143
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $399,554
Year Eleven Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 33,411)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $604,749
Year Twelve – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $328,022
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = $ 45,300
Total Revenues = $373,322
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $420,543
Year Twelve Surplus/(Deficit) =($ 47,221)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $557,528
Year Thirteen – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $336,008
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = $ 45,300
Total Revenues = $381,308
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $448,911
Year Thirteen Surplus/(Deficit)=($ 67,603)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $489,925
Year Fourteen – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $347,544
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = $ 45,300
Total Revenues = $392,844
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $468,067
Year Fourteen Surplus/(Deficit)=($ 75,223)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $414,702
Year Fifteen – 151 ownership units are built
Attachment 11 Revenues = $369,157
Mello-Roos Fees ($300 x 151) = $ 45,300
Total Revenues = $414,457
Attachment 11 Expenditures = $484,268
Year Fifteen Surplus/(Deficit)=($ 69,811)
Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) = $344,891
If the City earns 2% on its annual Surplus/(Deficit) balance then the Cummulative Surplus/(Deficit) rises to $525,104
I’m ignoring the $4 million because it is based on a hypothetical, and I prefer just to look at the actual revenues and expenses that the project will generate.
It seems that I am mixing up some of the fees. But to clarify: the staff originated a situation where money from this project is going directly into the city’s operations budget, rather than into specific budget areas that are caused by the development itself? And that is a new fee structure, unique to this project? Were council members aware of that change when they voted?
[i]All we are talking about is the affordability of the units. Staff ASSUMED a 2% a year increase in the unit prices. I am merely saying that don’t think that take home salary will be 6% higher in 2012 than it is in 2009.[/i]
Well right, but in describing it as $451k, you’re assuming that take home salary will be 0% higher in 2012, in nominal dollars, than it is this year. That is excessively pessimistic, in light of 9% expected inflation.
My advice is not to confuse the issue with inflation adjustments. Just call it $425k in 2009 dollars. It hardly makes a difference for the basic question of whether it is affordable. In fact I agree that it isn’t all that affordable.
My take on this is that making free-standing houses in Davis affordable is the last thing that the voters want — who wants to eliminate $1 billion in city real estate value? (In other words, $100k per house times 10,000 houses.) My wife and I wouldn’t be all that upset, but we’re not typical. The only kind of housing in Davis that could credibly be affordable in the forseeable future is apartments, and possibly condominiums.
If I were the dictator of SACOG, I might well demand that area cities build more apartments and condos and not that as many houses. I certainly wouldn’t demand this 90% greenhouse reduction nonsense.
[quote]DonShor said . . .
It seems that I am mixing up some of the fees. But to clarify: the staff originated a situation where money from this project is going directly into the city’s operations budget, rather than into specific budget areas that are caused by the development itself? And that is a new fee structure, unique to this project? Were council members aware of that change when they voted?
[/quote]
The answer to your question isn’t simple. However, my suspicion is that the answer is “yes” because the same change in accounting created the incremental $300 per year per ownership unit Mello-Roos fees.
Matt,
Have you e-mailed all your material, in professional, comprehensible form, to Mark and Phil, so that the two economics professors can give it a proper review?
If the campaign is basing its arguments on your analysis, the analysis should be transparent and available to all.
I agree with Sue and for clarification purposes
Can you please disclose a.) if you are employed or paid as a consultant to Parlin b.) have you performed other “fiscal analyses” for housing developments, with specific regards to city finances, and if so, what cities and are those reports avaiable for review
I think since your “independent” fiscal analysis is listed in the rebuttal statement for Yes on P as a key argument and makes the claims that the project will bring $4 million to the city in revenues (something which to date has not been established or verified by any one in the City Finance Department), the citizenry should be aware of your prior fiscal experiences and your current paid affiliations to better judge the veracity of your stated claims
Phil and Mark: Since you guys are both economists, and if you are still reading this, I have a general question about the affordability effects of any proposed development project in Davis.
Can you estimate, or could Davis estimate, the short-term price elasticity of new free-standing houses in Davis? There is surely a price elasticity slope, so that for each average house that is built in Davis, the average sale price of houses in Davis goes down by some N dollars in the next year or so.
Arguably it is a loaded question, but surely still an important one. If the price were highly elastic, then you could say that new homes indirectly make all homes in Davis more affordable. But in this case, voters would understandably be concerned about losing their equity.
I need their e-mail addresses. Please send them to me. I have thge spreadsheet ready to go.
Sue, please note that I have posted my analysis here twice already. How much more transparent do you want me to be?
To make this easy for you here it is one more time.
1) I made no changes to the revenue or expenditure numbers provided by Staff in Attachment 11 of the Staff Report. Staff’s Economics appear to be reasonably solid. It is their Accounting that is incomplete.
2) So to use Attachment 11’s Year One as a starting point, Attachment 11’s Revenue numbers indicate that 11 ownership units are built, with Attachment 11 Revenues equal to $26,533
3) Add to the $26,533 Mello-Roos Fees of $3,300 based on 11 units times $300 per unit.
4) Add to the $26,533 either one of two flavors of the Supplemental Fee. Either A) $55,000 based on 11 units receiving Building Permits times $5,000 per unit, or B) the CFD annual fee of $51,000.
5) Subtract the Attachment 11 Expenditures equal to $39,862
6) That produces a Year One Above the Line Surplus of either A) $44,971 or B) $40,971
7) Proceeding to Year Two where the Staff Report reflects numbers in Attacment 11 indicating that another 55 units are built
8) Attachment 11’s Year Two Revenues are $126,759
9) Add to the $126,759 Mello-Roos Fees of $19,800 based on 66 units times $300 per unit.
10) Add to the $126,759 either one of two flavors of the Supplemental Fee. Either A) $275,000 based on 55 units receiving Building Permits times $5,000 per unit, or B) the CFD annual fee of $51,000.
11) Subtract the Attachment 11 Year Two Expenditures equal to $151,517
12) That produces a Year Two Above the Line Surplus of either A) $270,042 or B) $46,042
13) Which produces a two year cummulative surplus of either A) $315,013 or B) $87,013 depending on whether the City opts for the CFD.
14) Proceeding to Year Three where the Staff Report reflects numbers in Attacment 11 indicating that another 53 units are built
15) Attachment 11’s Year Three Revenues are $216,174
16) Add to the $216,174 Mello-Roos Fees of $35,700 based on 119 units times $300 per unit.
17) Add to the $216,174 either one of two flavors of the Supplemental Fee. Either A) $265,000 based on 53 units receiving Building Permits times $5,000 per unit, or B) the CFD annual fee of $51,000.
18) Subtract the Attachment 11 Year Three Expenditures equal to $248,166
19) That produces a Year Three Above the Line Surplus of either A) $268,708 or B) $54,708
20) Which produces a three year cummulative surplus of either A) $583,721 or B) $141,721 depending on whether the City opts for the CFD.
21) Proceeding to Year Four where the Staff Report reflects numbers in Attacment 11 indicating that the final 32 units are built
22) Attachment 11’s Year Four Revenues are $271,186
23) Add to the $271,186 Mello-Roos Fees of $45,300 based on 151 units times $300 per unit.
24) Add to the $271,186 either one of two flavors of the Supplemental Fee. Either A) $160,000 based on 32 units receiving Building Permits times $5,000 per unit, or B) the CFD annual fee of $51,000.
25) Subtract the Attachment 11 Year Four Expenditures equal to $309,444
26) That produces a Year Four Above the Line Surplus of either A) $167,042 or B) $58,042
27) Which produces a four year cummulative surplus of either A) $750,763 or B) $199,763 depending on whether the City opts for the CFD.
I think the methodology is very clear. When I get e-mail addresses for Phil and Mark I will forward them the spreadsheet with all 15 years. I look forward to discussing it with them.
I have just sent you Mark and Phil’s e-mail addresses. I look forward to resolving this issue.
[quote]To: Matt Williams said . . .
Can you please disclose a.) if you are employed or paid as a consultant to Parlin b.) have you performed other “fiscal analyses” for housing developments, with specific regards to city finances, and if so, what cities and are those reports avaiable for review
I think since your “independent” fiscal analysis is listed in the rebuttal statement for Yes on P as a key argument and makes the claims that the project will bring $4 million to the city in revenues (something which to date has not been established or verified by any one in the City Finance Department), the citizenry should be aware of your prior fiscal experiences and your current paid affiliations to better judge the veracity of your stated claims[/quote]
Very reasonable questions. Here are the answers.
a) I have absolutely no ties (financial or otherwise) to Parlin, to Ritter and Associates, or to any of Parlin’s or Ritter’s contractors or consultants. I have never had any ties (financial or otherwise) to Parlin, to Ritter and Associates, or to any of Parlin’s or Ritter’s contractors or consultants. Further, I neither support nor oppose Measure P and will not support Measure P unless Parlin can tangibly demonstrate that there is actionable internal demand for the ownership units in WHR. If the units end up being the homes of households where the residents commute to jobs outside Davis, then the on-site GHG achievements will be substantially offset by commuting GHG additions.
b) I have performed literally thousands of fiscal analyses in my 25+ year career in healthcare finance. None of them have been for housing developments. Well over half of them have been for governmental entities. None have been for cities. None are available for review.
c) The question you haven’t asked is, “Why do you care enough to have performed this analysis?” That is simple. I care about land-use issues and when I read pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report on July 28th, and reconciled the sentences on those pages with the spreadsheet numbers in Attachment 11, I saw a serious disconnect. The accounting reflected in Attachment 11 was missing several of the Revenue flows described by Staff on pages 4 and 5. In an attempt to understand the omissions I sent Staff the following e-mail on the morning of July 28th.
After reading through the WHR Staff Report Fiscal Analysis, I have a couple of questions. If it is appropriate, could you help me with them?
* When I read the Fiscal Analysis language and looked at the spreadsheet numbers this evening, I found two inconsistencies between the language on pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report and the numbers included in the Attachment 11 spreadsheet . They are not insignificant, and if they are included in the spreadsheet the project appears to go from accumulating the $1,012,692 deficit for the General Fund shown in Attachment 11, to a $4,095,852 gain.
* The first of the two items contains the 151 $5,000 payments that Parlin is going to make. If I understand the reason behind those payments correctly, they are being made in order to bring the WHR parcel’s 11.8% tax retention rate up to the 17.5% citywide average.
* The second of the two items is the $3 million expenditure savings the City will realize by not having to pay the Land Dedication Site Subsidy associated with the 38 Affordable Units.
You are probably swamped getting ready for tonight, but the dollar difference is so huge that I felt it was important to get your insight.
Thanks for all you do.
Matt Williams
Later that day I received an e-mail response from Staff saying:
Dear Matt,
Your read of the numbers is not incorrect. The key issue, and reason for the difference in numbers, is that items such as the supplemental fee, construction tax, and land dedication subsidies (or lack thereof) are one time payments. The fiscal analysis deals only with recurring and ongoing revenues and expenditures and does not take these one time fees into account.
Best Regards,
To which I replied,
Thanks. I guess I look at the $5,000 per Market Rate Unit as an equivalent to Property Tax, and therefore it is a Revenue stream that should be included. I can understand why you might segregate the land dedication subsidy, but I think Attachment 11 should show it in one form or another. If I read the language on pages 4 and 5 correctly, that savings of $80,000 to $90,000 per unit for the 38 affordables is a “windfall” for the City. Am I reading that right?
FWIW, I’m attaching a cash flow spreadsheet I put together last night. I tend to think better when I can see the relationship of the numbers to one another. If you have any questions or comments about the spreadsheet please feel free to let me know.
Matt
PRIOR POST CONTINUED
On that spreadsheet, which did not include the $300 per unit per year Mello-Roos fees that Staff introduced for the first time at the Council meeting, the 15-year cummulative deficit of the project without the land dedication subsidy (which I show as a below the line entry) was $157,707. With the Mello-Roos fees included that deficit becomes a $344,891 surplus for the 15-year period. The total above the line and below the line surplus shown on the spreadsheet was $4,095,852.
I provided the same spreadsheet to Council the night of July 28th, reading it into the public record. To date I have received no communication from either the City or Staff that indicates any of the numbers in that spreadsheet are incorrect, or that they wish to retract their e-mail statement, “Your read of the numbers is not incorrect.” My sole motivation in pursuing this is to see that the voters of Davis get an accurate look at the true cash inflows and outflows associated with this project. Accounting decisions made by the City should not be used to obscure the accurate numbers.
Does that answer your questions?
The issue is finally resolved!! Everybody, please look carefully at the e-mail exchange between Matt Williams and city staff towards the bottom of Matt’s 11:19 P.M. post.
All along, Matt has been saying that staff has confirmed his numbers. All along, we have been saying that Matt is confusing one-time contributions with annual operations and maintenance costs. We have also pointed out that even when it comes to one-time expenditures, Matt has made two egregious errors. First, he is assuming that Parlin Wildhorse LLC is contributing a one-time payment of $5,000 per unit, when in fact, that payment is not being made. Secondly, he has, in an extraordinarily odd sleight of hand, attributed a value (a very, very large value) to the fact that the developer chose to build the affordable housing units himself, rather than to provide a land dedication. There is no precedent for attributing a net fiscal benefit deriving from such a choice, and there is no reasonable rationale for doing so.
When we have asked for Matt’s analysis, we have lists and lists of numbers rather than clear explanations.
Well, tonight Matt posted his communication with staff on the Davis Vanguard Blog. This e-mail appears to be the e-mail upon which Matt bases his claim that staff has confirmed his fiscal analysis. However, the e-mail confirms our assumptions that the difference between Matt’s rosy analysis and staff’s less sanguine analysis relies entirely on the non-existent $5,000 per unit one-time payment and on the bizarre attribution of value to the developers’ choice in the method of fulfilling the affordable housing requirement.
But most amazing of all, Matt shares with us staff’s letter “confirming” his analysis. Now hold on to your seats folks; here it is:[quote]“Dear Matt,
Your read of the numbers is not incorrect. The key issue, and reason for the difference in numbers, is that items such as the supplemental fee, construction tax, and land dedication subsidies (or lack thereof) are one time payments. The fiscal analysis deals only with recurring and ongoing revenues and expenditures and does not take these one time fees into account.”
[/quote]
Now, I know Matt meant well, and I know he sincerely believes that this letter confirms his analysis. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have shown it to us. But Matt misreads a staff member who trying to be polite as confirmation of his analysis. In fact, staff is telling him that his analysis is wrong.
This would all be a harmless error, except for the fact that preposterous claims concerning the project’s net fiscal benefit have now been published as a fact in the ballot argument.
I wish we had had time to meet with Matt earlier, but the drastically truncated process barely left us time to do our own research and organize and write the ballot statements. I like Matt terribly, and I hate to be in this situation.
But the Yes on P campaign has submitted false information, and the false statements that derived from this analysis must be retracted.
I don’t see anything that would anyone to believe that Matt’s analysis must be retracted. This is either spin or wishful thinking on your part. The issue of one-time payment is irrelevant in this case, they’ve simply added the total that would be accrued over a 15 year period of ongoing payments and pushed it into a single-payment. Staff is not telling him that the analysis is wrong, it’s simply a different way of calculating. Again, this is your interpretation and not borne out by the facts that Matt has presented. Again, quit trying to spin this, you are not correct.
But Sue would you support the project if it were fiscally sound for the city? Is your claim that it is a net drain on city resources your only objection or are there others?
Let’s focus on just one line of the staff e-mail to Matt Williams:
“. . . land dedication subsidies (or lack thereof) are one time payments.”
There are no land dedication fees in this case, so the $4 million that Matt counted as “net fiscal benefits” don’t exist, period.
Matt correctly realized his error earlier on this blog, and the fact that if the $5,000 per unit payment has vanished, then the project runs a deficit just like the City staff report concludes. Matt Williams wrote:
“Now if Sue’s contention proves correct and the $5,000 per unit has mysteriously evaporated, then I agree the project runs at a deficit.”
Unfortunately, this is not what the ballot rebuttal statement from Yes on P says:
“The project pays for itself. According to an independent fiscal analysis and confirmed by staff, the project results in net fiscal benefits of approximately $4 million over the 15-year analysis period. . .”
Later, however, Matt changed his mind again:
“In the WHR scenario there is an increase in Assets … because the city’s affordable appartments inventory has increased by 40 and there has been no increase or reduction of the Cash account.”
40 affordable apartments do not appear on the City’s balance sheet. One could argue that this is a community benefit (or a community cost), but it is independent of the City fiscal analysis, and the question of whether the project “pays for itself” or not.
Matt clearly believes that we need more affordable apartments now, so he views this as a positive asset. Others could view the open space of the horse ranch as a positive asset too. Just like the City isn’t subtracting the loss of the horse ranch from it’s fiscal analysis, it shouldn’t add in the 40 affordable apartments as an “asset.”
Using Matt’s reasoning, I could say that Davis currently on has one horse ranch adjacent to it’s borders. If this horse ranch vanishes, there are “clearly not enough horse ranches in town” (I replaced “affordable apartments” with “horse ranches” to match one of Matt’s earlier quotes). If the City decided to replace this horse ranch, it would cost the City (say) $4 million, therefore, the “net fiscal cost” of losing the horse ranch is $4 million. This, of course, makes no logical sense. The City would be under no legal obligation to build the horse ranch, just like it’s under no legal obligation to build affordable apartments.
There are a myriad of costs and benefits to the citizens (and future citizens) of this City from any development, which could include increased housing options on the plus side as well as increased traffic, crime, and congestion on the minus side, and many others. Every citizen has to determine whether the benefits exceed the costs, but many of these benefits and costs are not monetary and almost all are NOT FISCAL. They do not impact the City’s balance sheet. A fiscal analysis only looks at the tax revenues which flow to the City versus the costs that the City will incur as a result of this development. One-time fees are usually not counted because they are offset by one-time costs. Development impact fees, for example, are the City’s best guess of how much the infrastructure costs will be as a result of the project.
Matt is mixing up apples and oranges, and the result is a gross misrepresentation at best. Matt has agreed above that rushing this project onto the ballot without sufficient time for review and discussion is bad . Inaccurate ballot statements, whether intentional or not, are even worse, in my opinion. In this case, however, the Yes on P folks can decide to take the high ground by removing this inaccurate statement from the ballot.
Mark:
I don’t really want to get involved in this argument and I’m certain Matt can respond better than I. But I don’t think you are being fair here, Matt’s statement was more of a hypothetical than a statement:
“Now if Sue’s contention proves correct and the $5,000 per unit has mysteriously evaporated, then I agree the project runs at a deficit.”
Pulling it out of context it looks like a stand alone.
In fact he later stated clearly:
“Sue, your statement that “the $5,000 per unit developer contribution no longer exists” is a confusion of Balance Sheet accounting and Income Statement Accounting. I spoke to Parlin this morning in an attempt to verify your evaporation theory, and confirmed that they are still committed to writing the City a $5,000 check for each of the 151 ownership units. That is the simple Income Statement reality. The City has chosen to change the Balance Sheet account where it puts that $755,000. Because the City has chosen to create the CFD, the money is now going into that portion of the City’s organizational and accounting structure. This is simply an accounting change, there is absolutely no “evaporation” of the $5,000 per unit.”
He then states in response to Sue:
“Sue, you need to dig a little deeper. The $5,000 per unit contribution has not evaporated. City Staff has moved it into the CFD accounting bucket. It has nothing to do with Quimby fees at all.
The CFD proposed by City Staff generates just slightly more than the one time $5,000 per unit fee. The CFD provides at a minimum $765,000 over 15 years, but it is in the form of annual payments and not a $5,000 lump sum payment at the time of the issuance of the 151 individual building permits.
City Staff approached Parlin 48 hours prior to the July 28th Council meeting asking Parlin to do the Community Funding District instead of the $5,000 contributions per home. Parlin agreed. It would appear that 1) Staff felt they were going to get more money out of CFD mechanism than the straight $5,000 contribution per market rate unit, or 2) Staff did not trust that they or a future Council would not spend the money on something else.
Bottom-line, the net fiscal impact of the one time fee that Staff has “evaporated” vs the CFD is virtually identical over the 15-year analysis period, and does not materially affect the analysis I prepared (though a one time fee would allow the City to draw interest that would increase the value of the fee).”
and then:
“Sue, unless Staff has for some bizarre reason not included the CFD in the baseline features, the developer’s contribution of $755,000 (or more) is in there. The statement is correct.”
So let’s not distort what Matt has said by pulling one statement out of context of what he has actually said.
I’m not going to get involved in this back and forth but I think the argument that you just presented was very misleading.
The rebuttal statement that the project “pays for itself” is clearly a stretch of the truth. The one-time payments,most agree, will go into general fund needs and NOT be used to cover the city’s costs of maintaining this project on a yearly basis into the future. I am also concerning with the ballot rebuttal “independent analysis” statement without elaboration implying, by omission, that the analysis of a single El Macero resident has more “weight” than necessarily should be attributed to it. As for the land dedication “windfall” money to the city, Matt here steps outside of crunching the numbers to add his own value-judgments concerning future low income affordable housing for Davis as a critical part of his fiscal analysis. Matt’s “independent analysis” is not a substitute for the Davis-citizen Finance and Budget Commission which was NOT given the opportunity to review and report on this project. These rebuttal statement should raise questions about what else in the project description is spin and half-truths rather than fact.
“The rebuttal statement that the project “pays for itself” is clearly a stretch of the truth.”
That depends on who you believe. I look forward to seeing your fiscal breakdown. Right now I trust Matt Williams because he has less of an axe to grind.
“The one-time payments,most agree, will go into general fund needs and NOT be used to cover the city’s costs of maintaining this project on a yearly basis into the future.”
Most agree? Who is most? What basis in fact do you have to support that? Or are you simply taking Sue and Mark’s word over Matt’s? Wouldn’t your statement be more accurate to say, I agree with with Sue and Mark that?
“I am also concerning with the ballot rebuttal “independent analysis” statement without elaboration implying, by omission, that the analysis of a single El Macero resident has more “weight” than necessarily should be attributed to it.”
Really were you involved in the process? Do you know who has evaluated it? Or again are you simply taking Sue and Mark’s word on the issue.
As far as I can see three people on this thread have done any sort of analysis, and Sue is simply parroting what Mark told her.
“Matt’s “independent analysis” is not a substitute for the Davis-citizen Finance and Budget Commission which was NOT given the opportunity to review and report on this project.”
How about the fact that the city’s finance director has not evaluated the fiscal impact of the project despite insisting two days before the meeting that they include a CFD? How about the fact that the developer asked the city to tell them what to do to make the project revenue neutral, they came up with the CFD but refuse to call the project revenue neutral because why? Oh they haven’t done the analysis.
DOES THAT BOTHER YOU? Or do you really know what’s going on here???
Greg,
One could certainly estimate the price elasticity of Davis for housing in Davis, but it’s not something that could be done in a day or two. I agree with you that it would be important to know this in making development decisions.
“If the units end up being the homes of households where the residents commute to jobs outside Davis, then the on-site GHG achievements will be substantially offset by commuting GHG additions.”
Matt, putting the fiscal analysis arguments aside, you have identifed a key “non-green” argument that the No on P have presented in their rebuttal statement; if this project serves to house residents who will be driving to jobs outside of the City and contributing to increased carbon emissions, the whole concept of 90% GHG reductions becomes very debatable; as discussed by Steve Souza at the 7/28 Council, there is NO commitment from Unitrans to build a new bus stop right at Monarch Lane; you can’t control ownership to residents who work only in Davis (that is discrimination); so what the project essentially becomes is a “peripheral sprawl” project, not this “in-fill” project, close to downtown, UC Davis that the proponents are selling it as! I would support a similar project like this if it was proposed closer to the downtown area, perhaps using one of the OTHER 26 sites which were ranked higher by the Housing and Steering Committee; it would be nice to hear some arguments along these lines, and let’s put the financial analysis “on hold” until there is further review, including by City Finance personnel!
David and Matt,
Let’s put aside the $5,000 per unit payment for the time being. We will find out whether this is there or not, hopefully prior to the election.
I don’t think Matt is biased or has an axe to grind, but that doesn’t make his claims correct.
Let’s make this simple. Matt, do you agree with the Yes on P ballot rebuttal statement that:
” . . .the project results in net fiscal benefits of approximately $4 million over the 15-year analysis period.”
If so, are there really more than $4 million in dollars that the City will receive over and above the costs the City will incur over the 15-year analysis period?
Matt, why don’t you visit the next Finance and Budget Commission meeting and present your results. If they agree, they can pass a motion and forward their recommendation to Council. If the City made a $5 million mistake like you contend, then this certainly needs to be corrected.
Nobody has addressed my point that there are not $4,180,000 in fees flowing to the City from 40 affordable apartments as Matt’s fiscal analysis contends.
Nobody has also addressed my earlier point that if 40 affordable units result in $4 million, then 4,000 affordable units result in $400 million. If this were true, we could blanket the Covell Village site and Hunt-Wesson with affordable apartments, and we would have $400 million left over, enough for every person in Davis to receive a check for over $6,000. I can hardly wait for the $25,000 check for my family of four!
To ol timer said:
“‘The one-time payments,most agree, will go into general fund needs and NOT be used to cover the city’s costs of maintaining this project on a yearly basis into the future.’
Most agree? Who is most? What basis in fact do you have to support that?”
That is what I have concluded based on the description of what staff told Sue, as described on this thread yesterday. They took the fees, which are normally for dedicated purposes related to the city’s costs from the development, and instead told the developer to pay a similar amount into the CFD fund. Only staff could tell us why they chose to do that.
“How about the fact that the city’s finance director has not evaluated the fiscal impact of the project….?”
If that is true, then it is a valid reason for the city council to move this to a later election date. If the council won’t do that, the lack of fiscal analysis alone is sufficient reason for the voters to reject the project. Sound fiscal analysis of any development project should be done before it is presented to the voters. The Finance and Budget Commission should review this project.
Statements by the proponents about affordability/workforce housing and about the fiscal balance are not just arguable. They appear to be untrue. Much of this isn’t a he said/she said argument. It is provable or falsifiable, so long as we all work with the same definitions of things like affordable, and so long as the fiscal analysis shows where the real money comes from and goes to.
The people who signed those arguments should be on here making their case, in their own names. Otherwise, it all just seems like electioneering — say anything on the ballot to get the project passed, even if you know it is dubious or untrue.
I have to say, I have never seen such weaseling in my life. Staff says [quote]Dear Matt,
Your read of the numbers is not incorrect. The key issue, and reason for the difference in numbers, is that items such as the supplemental fee, construction tax, and land dedication subsidies (or lack thereof) are one time payments. The fiscal analysis deals only with recurring and ongoing revenues and expenditures and does not take these one time fees into account.”[/quote]
If you have any reading comprehension skills at all, you HAVEto see that staff is politely telling Matt he is wrong.
The Yes on Covell Village campaign never went to these extremes. I am disappointed beyond words.
The “financial analysis” issue is very confusing, muddled, and very unclear. When I think of a fiscal analysis, I want someone to tell me if the project will require ongoing costs that will not be paid for by the developers, costs that the city/citizens will have to bear. I assume one time impact fees offset costs of infrastructure and such. That is the whole point of impact fees. As you can see, my understanding of the fiscal analysis in land use planning is very rudimentary – and I suspect I represent the majority of citizens in that respect. For me, it seems as if there will be a slight fiscal negative to this project, but not hugely so. So for me, the fiscal impact of this project is not the defining issue.
What I have a problem with in this project is the high density, of overpriced townhomes, that do not constitute “affordable workforce housing”. It seems pretty clear from all the above discussion that WHR is not going to provide “affordable workforce housing”. So why vote to build a housing development that does not provide the kind of housing we really need? I just don’t get the reasoning for doing that. And I am not convinced by the very weak arguments that voting for WHR is a vote for Measure J; or for a GHG emission standard that will somehow stop the building of Covell Village II.
I think the stronger argument is that Parlin needs to go back to the drawing board, and figure out how to build more “affordable workforce housing”. Only then will I vote for this dense (pun intended) troubled project. Especially in the view of there being other housing ready to be built in West Village, Chiles, Grande, etc. in a very weak housing market and grim economic future. SEND A MESSAGE TO DEVELOPERS THAT THEY NEED TO CONSULT W CITIZENS, FIND OUT WHAT CITIZENS WANT, AND BUILD WHAT CITIZENS WANT. OTHERWISE, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE TO MAKE MONEY.
Don Shore,
[quote]That is what I have concluded based on the description of what staff told Sue, as described on this thread yesterday. They took the fees, which are normally for dedicated purposes related to the city’s costs from the development, and instead told the developer to pay a similar amount into a CFD fund. Only staff could tell us why they chose to do that.[/quote]
Don, since you are referring to what staff told me, I should reexplain what staff told me. I think you are missing the main point. Staff told me that they had given this development a Qwimby fee reduction because “it costs so much money to build the energy-efficient houses”. In other words, they buckled to a haggling developer, as they often do. Now, recent developments have paid a supplementary fee in addition to he full Qwimby fee. Staff decided to switch the $5,000 supplementary fee with the $5,000 Qwimby fee — not with the CFD.
So, this, the project is still contributing less to the city than other projects.
The CFD is a different story. That was to help close the shortfall that exists primarily because this development has a worse tax-split with the county. It has nothing to do with the $5,000 supplementary fee/Qwimby fee reduction.
Don Shore,
I made an error in my post. I meant to say: Staff decided to switch the $5,000 supplementary fee with the $5,000 Qwimby fee REDUCTION— not with the CFD.
[quote]That is what I have concluded based on the description of what staff told Sue, as described on this thread yesterday. They took the fees, which are normally for dedicated purposes related to the city’s costs from the development, and instead told the developer to pay a similar amount into a CFD fund. Only staff could tell us why they chose to do that.[/quote]Don, since you are referring to what staff told me, I should re-explain what staff told me. I think you are missing the main point. Staff told me that they had given this development a Qwimby fee reduction because “it costs so much money to build the energy-efficient houses”. In other words, they buckled to a haggling developer, as they often do. Now, recent developments have paid a supplementary fee in addition to the full Qwimby fee. Staff decided to switch the $5,000 supplementary fee with the $5,000 Qwimby fee reduction— not with the CFD.
So, this, the project is contributing less to the city than other projects. First, it was contributing less because it got a Qwimby fee reduction, now it is contributing less because it is not paying a supplementary fee. Again, the reason for the fact that the developer is paying less to the city for this project than other projects pay is because, in staffs’ words “it costs more to build energy efficient houses.”
The CFD is a different story. That was to help close the shortfall that exists primarily because this development has a worse tax-split with the county. It has nothing to do with the $5,000 supplementary fee/Qwimby fee reduction
[i]The people who signed those arguments should be on here making their case, in their own names. Otherwise, it all just seems like electioneering — say anything on the ballot to get the project passed, even if you know it is dubious or untrue.[/i]
Maybe David should invite those who signed the arguments to make extended arguments in two guest posts on the blog. And to make the rules fair, they should submit their arguments in parallel and have them posted on the same day. (You wouldn’t want things like the “cone of silence” garbage in the Saddleback Forum in last year’s presidential race.)
After the experience of these hundreds of comments, I would think that both sides would have a lot to say.
A lot said since last night. Let me try and address the various points
1) Sue, your reliance on the one-time fees argument is simply spin. When an income stream is received does not change its purpose. For example, if you submitted a payment to the bank for your mortgage that was a lump-sum payment of the next 15 years, would you be upset if the bank told you, “We can’t credit this payment to your mortgage because it is a one-time payment of an amount other than the monthly amount”?
Staff clearly recognized that the 151 $5,000 payments were offered by Parlin to close the 11.8% vs 17.5% tax retention gap. In fact their recognition wasn’t enough, Staff asked Parlin to convert the one-time payments into a stream of monthly CFD payments to offset General Fund expenditures. If Staff can see these payments for what they are, why can’t you?
2) Mark, since it is crystal clear that the limited stream of $5,000 payments haven’t vanished, but rather been converted at Staff’s request into an annual stream of $51,000 CFD payments, do you agree that your first point is moot?
3a) Mark, I think your one horse ranch in town analogy is an apt one. Different people do value different things at different levels. With that said, let me ask you (as a professional economist) is a persistent rental housing vacancy rate of under 1% a sign of a healthy rental housing market or an unhealthy rental housing market?
3b) Taking your horse ranch analogy a step further, a quick check mof the Yellow Pages shows that there are nine Davis horse facilities listed, one of which Willow Creek Horse Park is prominently visible on the north edge of Davis adjacent to 113. If someone wants a place to board or ride their horses in Davis there are a myriad of possibilities. If you are a family coming to Davis and want to rent a home, you are SOL. WHR hasn’t been a viable horse ranch since the original owners folded up their tents almost 10 years ago.
4a) If you do not believe that having 40 additional affordable apartments for low-income families in Davis is a net positive for the sustainability, vibrance and humanity of the Davis economy, then I really misread you in the HESC meetings. Do you really think Davis will be a better place without those additional low-income units?
4b) If your answer to the question at the end of 4A) is “yes” then the City has two alternatives for adding the units. As Staff clearly pointed out it is customary practice for the City to pay the land use dedication fees. Quoting the Staff Report verbatim, “Developer intends to construct the affordable apartment units. This would free the city of the typical subsidy associated with a land dedication site. These subsidy amounts typically are in the $80,000 to $90,000 range per rental unit or approximately $3 million.” What is there about that statement from the Staff Report that does not translate to a Fiscal Benefit for the citizens of Davis? Now if your answer to the question at the end of 4A) is “no” then we will have to agree to disagree.
5a) Lets be crystal clear, with the stream of $300 per unit per year Mello-Roos payments and the stream of $51,000 per year CFD payments added to the Revenues and Expenditures provided by Staff in Attachment 11 of the Staff Report, the project comes in with a 15-yeqr cummulative Surplus of $344,891. Mark, do you dispute that? Phil, do you dispute that? Sue, do you dispute that? Does anyone dispute that? If you do dispute that, which numbers do you dispute . . . the Attachment 11 numbers provided by Staff . . . the $300 per unit per year Mello-Roos fees . . . the $51,000 per year CFD payments by Parlin?
5b) If the answer to the questions at the end are that there is no disputing that $344,891 bottom-line, then the project pays for itself.
5c) . . . and freeing the city of the typical subsidy associated with a land dedication site is simply gravy . . . a multi-million dollar helping of gravy, but gravy nonetheless.
6) Ol’ timer, since Staff has eliminated the one-time nature of the CFD fees, do you agree that the project pays for itself?
7) Ol’ Timer, I agree with you that “Matt’s “independent analysis” is not a substitute for the Davis-citizen Finance and Budget Commission,” However, in the absence of a Commission opinion I felt that the clear inconsistencies in the numbers had to be addressed, and felt that even more as the spinning of the numbers began to take place.
8) Mark, I would absolutely love to have a discussion of my analysis on the next F&B Commission meeting. I think that would be good for the citizens of Davis. When is the next meeting scheduled? I would even suggest that the Commission convene an extraordinary meeting, so that the voters get the result sooner rather than later.
Hopefully that addresses the key issues that have been raised.
[quote]Mark Siegler said . . .
Let’s put aside the $5,000 per unit payment for the time being. We will find out whether this is there or not, hopefully prior to the election.
I don’t think Matt is biased or has an axe to grind, but that doesn’t make his claims correct.
Let’s make this simple. Matt, do you agree with the Yes on P ballot rebuttal statement that:
” . . .the project results in net fiscal benefits of approximately $4 million over the 15-year analysis period.”[/quote]
Mark, the simple answer to that question is “yes I do.” An organization’s Balance Sheet is made up of a myriad of various Asset and Liability accounts. Movement up or down of any of those accounts is a Fiscal impact. If Assets go up that is a Fiscal Benefit. If Liabilities go down that is a Fiscal Benefit. I see an “Above the Line” Fiscal Benefit of $344,891 from the Attachnebt 11, Mello-Roos and CFD transactions. I also see a “Below the Line” Fiscal Benefit of over $3.7 million from the Affordable Rental Housing transaction.
[quote]If so, are there really more than $4 million in dollars that the City will receive over and above the costs the City will incur over the 15-year analysis period?[/quote]
Receipt of dollars is an increase in an Asset account. The Project will result in a cummulative 15-year cash inflow of over $5.4 million. Do you really want me to stop there? Of course you don’t. So lets look at the expenditures. The project will have a cummulative 15-year outflow of General Funds expenditures of just under $5.1 million. In addition it will avoid an additional expenditure outflow of between $3.0 and $3.4 million.
[quote]Nobody has addressed my point that there are not $4,180,000 in fees flowing to the City from 40 affordable apartments as Matt’s fiscal analysis contends.[/quote]
See above.
[quote]Nobody has also addressed my earlier point that if 40 affordable units result in $4 million, then 4,000 affordable units result in $400 million. If this were true, we could blanket the Covell Village site and Hunt-Wesson with affordable apartments, and we would have $400 million left over, enough for every person in Davis to receive a check for over $6,000. I can hardly wait for the $25,000 check for my family of four![/quote]
Mark, you are an economist. As I have asked you before, “Is a persistent vacancy rate of under 1% the sign of a healthy or unhealthy rental housing market?” To address your question above, again as an economist, “What is the vacancy threshhold above which a rental housing market can be labeled as healthy?”
When we have the answers to those two questions we will be able to come up with a number other than 4,000 that will give us a sense of how many rental units the Davis market needs to add to attain healthy status.
David Greenwald,
Since you are calling straightforward arguments “misleading”, I am going to be blunt. My arguments are the same arguments that two economics professors from the different Universities, one a chair of his department and another a former chair, are making, so you are calling their arguments misleading. You are repeating the smoke and mirrors arguments made by the project proponents which we have already addressed, and exposed as absurd.
Yet you say you are “impartial”. It seems like you and your friends will do ANYTHING to ram through this development. I am disappointed.
Matt,
Jeez . . . I give up. The City has “confirmed” your analysis when the City Finance Director says, “Matt, we were wrong. Your way of adding up costs and benefits, which nobody in the history of fiscal analysis has ever done, is correct. Instead of a one-million dollar fiscal deficit, the project now has a four-million fiscal surplus.” I talked with him on Friday, and this is not what he told me. The e-mail from City staff you cite says, the “reason for the DIFFERENCE in numbers . . .” This is not agreement.
I am personally very disheartened by the entire process. This is what happens when projects are rushed through at the last minute, where the Finance and Budget Commission didn’t have a chance to weigh in, where the City Finance Director is not on the same page as other city staff who are doing the negotiations, and where a dubious fiscal analysis by a private citizen without endorsement of City staff is being used as fact by the Yes on P campaign.
[quote]
Sue Greenwald said . . .
Don, since you are referring to what staff told me, I should reexplain what staff told me. I think you are missing the main point. Staff told me that they had given this development a Qwimby fee reduction because “it costs so much money to build the energy-efficient houses”. In other words, they buckled to a haggling developer, as they often do. Now, recent developments have paid a supplementary fee in addition to he full Qwimby fee. Staff decided to switch the $5,000 supplementary fee with the $5,000 Qwimby fee — not with the CFD.
So, this, the project is still contributing less to the city than other projects.
The CFD is a different story. That was to help close the shortfall that exists primarily because this development has a worse tax-split with the county. It has nothing to do with the $5,000 supplementary fee/Qwimby fee reduction.[/quote]
Sue, you need to go back to Staff and recheck what you heard. If my information is correct, Parlin is getting no Quimby Fee reduction.
If you check with Staff you should find that when the $5,000 per ownership unit supplemental fee was in place prior to July 28th, Parlin was also granted a credit against the Quimby park land dedication fee for the additional land area (that portion beyond the 150 foot city policy — Parlin has 200 feet) that Parlin is dedicating for the ag buffer (with a Conservation Easement) on the east side of the project. 200 feet exceeds the normal city land dedication requirements, and has not been required of any other development project in the city (see the recent furor at Chiles Ranch). Staff therefore chose to give Parlin a Quimby credit for the additional dedication. Bottom-line, that Quimby Fee credit had nothing to do with the additional fee Parlin offered to make up for the 11.8% vs. 17.5% tax retention differential.
Interestingly enough, when Staff approached Parlin about changing the stream of one-time $5,000 per unit payments to the annual CFD fee, Staff also withdrew the offer of the Quimby fee park land dedication credit. So in the July 28th agreement approved by Council there is 1) no longer a Quimby Fee credit, and 2) a stream of annual $51,000 CFD payments. Bottom-line the deal got even better for the City than we even thought.
So, please check in with Staff and you will have a Paul Harvey moment.
[quote]
Mark Siegler
08/30/09 – 12:20 PM
…
Matt,
Jeez . . . I give up. The City has “confirmed” your analysis when the City Finance Director says, “Matt, we were wrong. Your way of adding up costs and benefits, which nobody in the history of fiscal analysis has ever done, is correct. Instead of a one-million dollar fiscal deficit, the project now has a four-million fiscal surplus.” I talked with him on Friday, and this is not what he told me. The e-mail from City staff you cite says, the “reason for the DIFFERENCE in numbers . . .” This is not agreement.
I am personally very disheartened by the entire process. This is what happens when projects are rushed through at the last minute, where the Finance and Budget Commission didn’t have a chance to weigh in, where the City Finance Director is not on the same page as other city staff who are doing the negotiations, and where a dubious fiscal analysis by a private citizen without endorsement of City staff is being used as fact by the Yes on P campaign. [/quote]
Mark, that is all well and good, And I respect your right to disagree with me, but your response doesn’t answer the basic question, Does the stream of $300 per unit per year Mello-Roos payments and the stream of $51,000 per year CFD payments added to the Revenues and Expenditures provided by Staff in Attachment 11 of the Staff Report result in a 15-year cummulative Surplus of $344,891?”
There has been some discussion about the timing of the election for Parlin Wildhorse.
From my perspective, if the project was not on the Nov 09 ballot, it was going to get stuck behind Halloween Four; Nightmare on Lewis Street II; CC meltdown race; Measure J renewal; County Board of Supervisor race to succeed Helen Thompson; sales tax renewal; etc etc. In other words, I seriously doubt it would be back on a local ballot until about 2012.
It was crystal clear to me, in CC chambers on 7/28, from the shear glee on the faces of Sue, Steve, and Eileen when they thought that the project applicant was going to halt the CC voting, that they knew the project had to be Nov 09, or it was dead for years.
All of you should know that Parlin was asked by planning staff to wait until after the Nov 05 Halloween III vote, then til after Lewis Homes. Enough is enough. We have a public process to evaluate planning development applications, and Parlin had waited long enough.
It’s too bad that Nov 09 ballot is a single item ballot, but that is the way the chips fell.
I hope that the campaigns keep it clean and stop the “dishonesty” talk. It cheapens the public discourse, and, frankly, makes the stone thrower look shrill and desperate. Sort of like: “oh, I dont have any valid arguments to make on the merits of the facts and law, so I will call the other attorney dishonest.” Courts hate it. First grade teachers hate it. And I can assure you that the voters here in our great little city dont like the name calling, either. So clean it up, and discuss the merits.
Matt: “What is the vacancy threshhold above which a rental housing market can be labeled as healthy?”
5%. 40 units, which may or may not be affordable as rental units (we don’t know what they’re going to rent for) is a drop in the bucket. Hardly a selling point for this project.
“…result in a 15-year cumulative Surplus of $344,891?”
That’s a far cry from “we are talking about a project with a contribution to the City’s coffers of close to $4.5 million.”
Matt, you are going in circles on this. The $4.18 million that you are showing as an asset is not money that the city will ever see. It is not money that the city would have spent. It really doesn’t figure into these discussions at all. It is entirely hypothetical.
I too am finding this whole process very disheartening. I believe the city council has been disrespectful of the purposes of our citizen commissions, that the staff has been possibly opaque about the fees, and that rushing this to the ballot means that the voters may be making uninformed choices.
[quote]Mike Harrington said . . .
From my perspective, if the project was not on the Nov 09 ballot, it was going to get stuck behind Halloween Four; Nightmare on Lewis Street II; CC meltdown race; Measure J renewal; County Board of Supervisor race to succeed Helen Thompson; sales tax renewal; etc etc. In other words, I seriously doubt it would be back on a local ballot until about 2012.[/quote]
Mike, you appear to be overlooking the April 2010 election. November 2009 was not the only option other than June 2010. I happen to agree with you that June 2010 is going to be a “Tower of Babel” election, but April 2010 would have been a very plausible alternative to Novemeber 2009 IMHO.
It sounds like from your arguments that the Nov ’09 was the most convenient for Parlin and (as Don Schor has so aptly emphasized) not necessarily the one that made the most sense from the City’s perspective (becasue the actual financial numbers thoroughly and accurately assessed by City Finance; who cares if Parlin’s next chance was not until 2012 as you claim, why are they (or any developer) “entitled” to an election date; let’s put the interest of the people of Davis over developers!!!
It was crystal clear to me, in CC chambers on 7/28, from the shear glee on the faces of Sue, Steve, and Eileen when they thought that the project applicant was going to halt the CC voting, that they knew the project had to be Nov 09, or it was dead for years.
I was also there that night and saw the sheer “terror” on the faces of Cecilia Greenwald and Pam Nieberg in the back of the room, when they saw that this project may have been delayed until a 2010 vote!
[quote]Don Shor said . . .
Matt: “What is the vacancy threshhold above which a rental housing market can be labeled as healthy?”
5%. [/quote]
Don, 4% (the difference between 5% and 1%) would mean the addition of 508 units to the 12,703 rental units that the BAE report for the HESC says Davis had in 2000. 40 units represents 8% of 508. That leaves 92% left to go, but it is a start.
[quote]Matt, you are going in circles on this. The $4.18 million that you are showing as an asset is not money that the city will ever see. It is not money that the city would have spent. It really doesn’t figure into these discussions at all. It is entirely hypothetical.[/quote]
Don, if it is entirely hypothetical, why did Staff choose to put it on page 5 of the Staff Report?
Further, would you prefer it if Parlin and the City agreed to take that particulat portion of the agreement off the table? If they did agree to that, would the City be fiscally stronger or weaker?
Would the picture be clearer if the City did business in their customary manner and paid the $80,000 to $90,000 fees, and at the same time Parlin increased their annual CFD contributions from $51,000 to $251,000? That would be a fiscal wash for both Parlin and the City.
I too am finding this whole process very disheartening. I believe the city council has been disrespectful of the purposes of our citizen commissions, that the staff has been possibly opaque about the fees, and that rushing this to the ballot means that the voters may be making uninformed choices. [/quote]
Note the last paragraph of the above post was from Don’s prior post. I should have deleted it prior to posting.
“Yet you say you are “impartial”.”
I fail to see where David says he’s impartial. Can you show me the quote?
I am going to descend into this Kafkaesque discussion one more time:
Matt, you have acknowledged that your sanguine analysis rests on including two specific onetime revenues. First, we don’t include onetime revenues in a fiscal analysis. If the developer were to set up a dedicated trust fund that was over and above standard fees and contributions, I could see counting the permanent revenue stream from the intrest and earnings of that trust fund. But this is not the case with the two onetime revenues that you have specified.
But that is not even the biggest part of the problem with Matt’s analysis. The most ridiculous aspect of the analysis is that two onetime revenues that Matt is claiming SIMPLY ARE NOT THERE.
Let’s take Matt’s largest onetime revenue claim. Matt claims about $4 million dollars of onetime revenue because the developer chose to build the affordable units himself (note: as an aside, affordable units are profitable to own; they pay no tax, the rents are subsidized, and there are no vacancies) rather than provide a land dedication. Matt’s reasoning is that if the developer chose to contribute the land himself, the city’s dedicated affordable housing trust fund would probably contribute to building the unit.
This cannot be called a net fiscal revenue. By this logic, any developer who doesn’t build on East Olive Drive is providing a net fiscal benefit to the city because he does not contribute to the need for the city to build an overpass over the railroad tracks. Any developer who builds a huge senior-only sun-city style development could claim a net fiscal benefit to the school district for every non-child household.
By this logic, every time I don’t spend the weekend shopping at Macy’s, I reap a windfall.
While it is true that cost avoidance is something to take into account, we can’t include it as a net fiscal benefit. If we did, we would have to start monetizing the net fiscal negatives of such things as the fact the Wildhorse Ranch project has many units outside the 5-minute response time compared to other potential locations, and hence contributes disproportionately to the need for a fourth fire station.
In sum, we have a major, major credibility crisis on our hands. Any hope of rational discussion has vanished.
Just remember, when Covell Village II comes around, you won’t be able to complain when the proponents fabricate numbers.
I have looked at Matt’s analysis in detail now. (Thank you Matt for sending it.) There are two fundamental flaws:
1. Including developers fees that are meant to offset infrastructure costs. Essentially Matt is allowing Parlin to take a free ride off of infrastructure that taxpayers have already paid for. This would never ever be done in any proper fiscal analysis. Further, if infrastructure costs are higher in the future (even accounting for inflation) which is virtually certain since cosntruction costs have risen much higher thah inflation (see the Engineering News Record data)then the developers fees may very well be too low.
2. As Mark keeps pointing out again and again, you cannot count affordable houisng entitelments as an asset. Indeed, affordable houisng will lose the City money–so how can it be an asset? If folks want to subsidize affordable hosuing that is a legitimate position–but don’t pretend that it isn’t a cost.
The City’s analysis is reasonable. I am concerned that the fiscal cost of this project is even greater than indicated in that report.
But Sue would you support the project if it were fiscally sound for the city? Is your claim that it is a net drain on city resources your only objection or are there others?
“I fail to see where David says he’s impartial.”
David has repeatedly stated in the blogs and in op-ed letter to the Enterprise (in regards to Dunning) that the Vanguard (David) has not yet officially endorsed Wildhorse Ranch; which is so disingenious given the factg that he has yet to blog one article critical (or even questioning) of Parlin or the project; that is what Sue refers to when she says David is “impartial”
There are issues in the world besides rate of residential development. Honesty is one of them.
This entire exchange reads like a perfect ‘s/he said – s/he said’. It would be *most helpful* for City staff to respond in writing to the question: will this development be a fiscal net benefit, net loss, or revenue neutral to the City over the next fifteen years?
Well, folks (either self-proclaimed or “former” progressives), this “debate” has shown EXACTLY why we will not have a “progressive” City council majority next year or in the foreseeable future.
Can you imagine Sue Greenwald & Fraser Shilling essentially calling Pam Nieberg a liar & “former” progressive? But that is exactly the type of hatred being spewed by opponents of the WHR development proposal.
I don’t know how citizens will vote on WHR (and I don’t really care), but I can tell you one thing: Sue Greenwald has crossed the line of no return by attacking “true” progressives and, if the small WHR project is rejected by voters, Measure J will be difficult to renew in 2010.
Incredibly, the people sniping @ one another are all “progressives.” Can you imagine the glee that other developers must feel when they see so many so-called “progressives” slinging mud @ one another?
But let’s cut to the chase. I have lived here 34 years and have fought for every “progressive” effort imagineable. And, I ask you, has anyone on the city council, in the history of the “progressive” movement, ever been more divisive or destructive than Sue Greenwald? I don’t think so.
As I prefaced, I don’t care one way or another about WHR, but I see this entire “debate” as a prelude to splitting the “progressive” vote next year and defeating the Measure J renewal. And who is leading that charge?
“David has repeatedly stated in the blogs and in op-ed letter to the Enterprise (in regards to Dunning) that the Vanguard (David) has not yet officially endorsed Wildhorse Ranch; which is so disingenious given the factg that he has yet to blog one article critical (or even questioning) of Parlin or the project; that is what Sue refers to when she says David is “impartial””
I’d rather hear it from Sue rather than your typical speculation about some conspiracy.
Rick Entrikin: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Entrikin has spewed against progressives for years.
To The Kettles to the ot re: Rick Entrikin
Rick and I have had some famous go-arounds, especially on his views as to parcel taxes. But I have never called him “dishonest” or a “former progressive” or any of the other comments being posted here by some who have little substance to discuss, so they call others names. Rick and I know that we agree on most things, some we do not, but there is respect there. Even when I was on the CC and he was mad at me for one thing or the other.
Rick’s opinions on the political strategy as to J are right on the money, based on my professional and personal experiences.
I’m SO tired of hearing that voting against WHR will lead to the defeat of Measure J’s renewal (it’s not a common theme that David Greenwald, Mike Harrington, and now you are spreading); it’s a scare tactic (no different than what Karl Rove and the right wing did with “terror” vote) that is being promulgated by Bill Ritter,et al to vote for this project, and it’s DEAD WRONG! You can oppose this project, as many true “progressives” do, based on the same concerns we had with Covell Village, no need for more housing, NOT AFFORDABLE, so stop it with the No on P = No on Measure J; the real divider among “progressives” in this whole campaign is Bill Ritter, and NOT Sue Greenwald, and that’s the truth!
“the real divider among “progressives” in this whole campaign is Bill Ritter, and NOT Sue Greenwald, and that’s the truth!”
What has Bill Ritter done to “divide” progressives in this campaign?
For those of us who have been around for a while, Mike Harrington’s record of being “right on the money” when it comes to predicting the desires of the Davis electorate should give readers pause when evaluating his pronouncements concerning the fate of Measure J.
What has Bill Ritter done to “divide” progressives in this campaign?
Ask the question of former NO on X (Covell Village) people who now have seen “the light” with WHR and are YES on P? Ritter (as a paid consultant for Parlin) is telling former NO on X people that if WHR passes, then Covell Village II will have less of chance to pass when it tries it again for a Measure J vote; NOTHING could be farther from the truth; Covell Village II is already up and running, with its whole “senior housing” pitch and bringing in UC Davis doctors and nurses to talk about how well-planned senior communitites lead to longer life spans, etc. Covell Village’s “message” is on board already (irregardless of what happens with WHR, Measure P); to try and “scare” former No on X’ers with this message is dishonest, and frankly divide former political allies, but when you’re being by developers, anything is fair game…
Can you tell me next time in plain English… or not? That’s just a litany of random thoughts (at best).
Anna Prior of the Wall Street Journal reprinted in the Sunday print edition of the Bee writing on the question is it “Better to buy or rent?”
She explains that an annual rent to purchase price of 15 times annual rent is a good buy at 20 times it is better to rent. On a $450,000 home you would need to be paying $30,000 a year or more in rent to be at 15x or less and make the deal worth it. AT $22500 or below it would be better to rent. I guess in between its a judgement call. I don’t know what the comps would be for renting but it makes for an interesting analysis. How big are those houses going to be? What can you rent something that size for in Davis?
At $350000 15x rent is 23000 a year or more to be worth it. Anyone know what the comps go for in rent?
I’m going to say it again. As long as the so-called “progressives” keep attacking one another, there is NO CHANCE of electing a progressive city council majority.
And, I ask again, which so-called “progressive” has posted the most divisive and frequent missives on this site that are adding fuel to the fire of dividing “progressives?”
This entire debate over a relatively small project has devolved into a p—-ing contest among a handful of people who are seeking to gain control as “leaders” of progressive voters.
But, at what cost? Will the wounds heal by the next election? Maybe by the next election after that one? Wake up folks; you’re being played!
To “To: Mike Harrington”:
Sorry. You didn’t see me there. I left right after I spoke to come home and take care of my sick cats. I was watching from home when all the exchanges between Sue, Steve and Eileen and all the rest took place.
Folks:
The proponents of CV II are already talking about how great it is that the progressives are being split by (as usual) two factors I will not get into now for fear of name-calling. They are loving it.
They, and others, who opposed the original Measure J will also be very happy to see this little project go down, and they are going to help fight it, because they see that if it fails a Measure J vote, then they can all say, “See: Nothing can get throught a Measure J vote, not even a little 191 unit dense development with major sustainability features. Measure J stops all growth. We have to defeat Measure J.” That is what they are already saying. So, you can bet that if this fails, we will have a hard time overcoming that argument and passing Measure J next year.
Measure J Supporter who are they? And how stupid do you think the voters are?
I don’t think this is an issue of stupidity. I think it’s an issue that we have to recognize–developers do not like Measure J, they think it’s overly burdensome, they believe they won’t be able to get a project approved and this will feed into that irrational fear.
On other hand, I’m against this particular project. But I think there is a realistic fear that Measure J will go down.
Measure J Supporter says:
“So, you can bet that if this fails, we will have a hard time overcoming that argument and passing Measure J next year.”
What hogwash! Davis progressives can disagree vigorously about how to vote on P and will ALL come together to support renewal of Measure J. As for the rest of the Davis voters who will make up the majority renewal vote, None, with the exception of developer and business interests, want Measure J repealed so that we return to runaway development controlled by Council majorities that,all to often in the past, have shown themselves to be captives of developer interests.
“The proponents of CV II are already talking about how great it is that the progressives are being split by (as usual) two factors I will not get into now for fear of name-calling. They are loving it.
They, and others, who opposed the original Measure J will also be very happy to see this little project go down, and they are going to help fight it, because they see that if it fails a Measure J vote, then they can all say, “See: Nothing can get throught a Measure J vote, not even a little 191 unit dense development with major sustainability features. Measure J stops all growth. We have to defeat Measure J.” That is what they are already saying. So, you can bet that if this fails, we will have a hard time overcoming that argument and passing Measure J next year.”
Just bc Covell Village II developers have YOU convinced that a vote against WHR is a vote against Measure J doesn’t make it so. In fact, I would argue anything Covell Village II developers want or argue is probably NOT TRUE or NOT SOMETHING WE WANT. A vote against Measure P sends a clear message that unless developers come up with “affordable workforce housing”, their development is going to go down in flames on a citizen vote. If Measure P is approved, Covell Village II developers could argue, if yes to WHR, why not yes on Covell Village II – it is obvious we need more housing, the citizens just said so!
“Davis progressives can disagree vigorously about how to vote on P and will ALL come together to support renewal of Measure J. “
Davis Progressives are a small percentage of the Davis population, they are not the ones that we’re worried about.
Bill Ritter has not told any of us who support P that if it passes, it will help us defeat CV II. Others in the campaign have said that on numerous occasions, and I am one who supports that argument. No, it is not going to stop John Whitcombe from bringing CV II forward. No one ever said that. John is bringing his big senior community hoax sprawl development forward in January 2010, no matter what. But, if we approve small, infill developments, like this one and others throughout the city, we have good arguments against “needing” any kind of big peripheral sprawl development like CV II.
Also, if we approve this development with all its major sustainability features, we set the bar much higher for future development, like CV II. Up to now, developers have refused to do any significant green building and solar on homes, arguing that it is just too expensive. This developer is showing that it can be done.
rick says: “But let’s cut to the chase. I have lived here 34 years and have fought for every “progressive” effort imagineable.”
Rick…. a history of publicly taking a rabid anti-tax position on such items of social policy as support for education cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a “progressive effort”
I just returned from a house-hunting trip, and am happy to report I’m going to be leaving this heck-hole of a town that is overly impressed with itself to relocate to a beautiful waterfront town with NO fast food joints, NO Applebees, NO housing shortage, NO heat, NO freeway and train tracks running through it, but with low property taxes, wonderful restaurants running and biking trails galore, and will be buying a 1900 sq. ft. custom built home with native trees and vegetations around it for $325K. Can’t wait to leave this snooty, stuck-up town and its ridiculous politics. I’ll never understand why people who live in Davis think it’s the only place in the world that has parks and bike trails.
… the door hit you on the way out. Give us a call when the Moscow Symphony comes to town,