A few weeks ago the Vanguard printed the ballot statements for and against Measure P.
Signing the ballot statement for Measure P were Jay Gerber, Business Owner/ former President Davis Chamber of Commerce; Tansey Thomas, former City Council Candidate and Community Activist; Stan Forbes Business Owner and former Davis City Councilmember; Pam Nieberg, Environmental Activist; and Ken Wagstaff, Former Mayor of Davis.
Yes on Measure P Rebuttal
Yes on P Rebuttal signed by: Mark Braly (chair of the planning commission); Carolyn Hinshaw (neighborhood & environmental activist); Eric Nelson (neighborhood activist); Alan Pryor (environmental activist/Director, Yolo Clean Air); Maynard Skinner (former mayor).
Wildhorse Ranch: Green and Affordable.
Davis needs affordable housing so that people who work in Davis can live in Davis. Wildhorse Ranch is designed to yield maximum benefits to Davis workers who want environmentally-friendly housing.
There are 191 homes at Wildhorse Ranch.
- 40 apartment homes, affordable to low-income families.
- 78 townhomes from $350,000 to $450,000.
- 73 single-family homes from $450,000 to $550,000.
- The more expensive homes are similar to housing offered only to University employees at West Village.
The claim that 2000 units are entitled and unbuilt in Davis is misleading. 1,025 of those “units” are University on-campus student housing proposed for West Village. The 475 homes the University plans on campus are restricted solely to University employees. Of the alleged 500 units approved in the city, the only project currently moving forward is Chiles Ranch at 108 units.
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.
Wildhorse Ranch is the only project with 90% GHG reductions and energy savings that are a guaranteed part of the baseline features contained in Measure P that cannot be changed without voter approval.
Please join leading environmentalists, community activists, your friends and neighbors in voting for Yes on Measure P.
Visit: yesonpdavis.com
No on Measure P Rebuttal
No on P Rebuttal signed by: Nora Oldwin (attorney/Spanish tutor); Dennis Dingemans (retired UCD faculty); Fraser Shilling (environmental science researcher); Fred Buderi (city planner-Vacaville); Michelle Rasmussen (Registered Nurse).
We stand behind the statements that we made in the Argument against Measure P. We’ve provided verification, documentation, and explanation at www.2000HomesAreEnough.org.
• Wildhorse Ranch prices are NOT affordable.
o According to City staff, the least expensive units are 73 townhouses which will sell for $45 1,000 on average if built in three years.
o Is $451,000 for an attached townhouse really “affordable” housing?
• The project that you are voting on does not pay for Itself.
o City costs exceed tax revenues each and every year.
• “Green” and “sustainable” claims are overstated.
o Sustainable developments are generally close to jobs, transportation hubs, neighborhood shopping and/or downtown.
o This project is located on the periphery, far from Davis jobs, shopping, and transportation hubs.
• A deeply flawed process.
o This project was rushed onto the ballot in the wee hours of the morning, without a completed development agreement, without adequate Council discussion, and without review by key citizen-based Commissions.
• We should not approve more housing now.
o Davis has already satisfied our current State growth target and the more housing we approve now, the more pressure we will have to grow faster in the future since future targets are based on past growth.
• The development agreement can be changed after election day by future City Council votes.
o But passage of Measure P ensures that the land designation from agricultural to residential will remain.
PLEASE HELP US SLOW PERIPHERAL SPRAWL. 2000 UNITS ARE ENOUGH FOR NOW.
VOTE NO ON MEASURE P
www.2000HomesAreEnough.org
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I like what I’ve read about this development and I’m voting Yes on Measure P.
A pox on both your houses. If nothing else, ballot statements in general show that in order to overcome bias, it is not enough to present alternatives to the audience. The way to overcome bias is with a system that lets everyone speak their minds, but that rewards more attention to consensus than to contention. To give two examples, Wikipedia and the scientific literature. Unfortunately, ballot statements and political blogs are largely anti-examples.
Anyway, to address the specific points:
[i]Wildhorse Ranch: Green and Affordable.[/i]
It is clearly an unaffordable path to green, according to most energy experts. Some city planners have said so too.
[i]The claim that 2000 units are entitled and unbuilt in Davis is misleading. 1,025 of those “units” are University on-campus student housing proposed for West Village. The 475 homes the University plans on campus are restricted solely to University employees.[/i]
UC Davis needs West Village and I am more pro-growth than most in Davis. But I admit that it’s not all that misleading. Real estate in Davis is fluid enough that it will have a significant effect.
[i]Is $451,000 for an attached townhouse really “affordable” housing?[/i]
If the no side had reported an honest price of $425,000 in 2009 dollars, it would hardly have read differently. This price tag is expected to rise less (6%) than prices in general (9%). If these houses cost $451,000, then gas was cheap in 1979, only a dollar a gallon.
[i]This project is located on the periphery, far from Davis jobs, shopping, and transportation hubs.[/i]
A bizarre argument in the face of UC Davis van pools from Elk Grove. I bicycle from as far away as WHR and my ride is easy.
I think there should be at least two debates on different subjects: 1) the financial analysis; and 2) sustainability/green project issues.
The sooner the better.
WHR is not “affordable workforce housing”, but rather dense overpriced townhomes. That is the key issue here, and why I will probably vote “NO” on Measure P.
“overpriced townhomes”
Actually they’ll be market rates. So if you want to fix that you are left with three imperfect options–tiny town homes that will be even more highly dense, off-market homes, or enough growth to reduce housing prices. Which would you prefer?
[i]Which would you prefer?[/i]
How about cutting off supply in the name of affordability?
It IS interesting that the Davis progressive political” big hitters” who,when solicited, perhaps signed on to this project too quickly have been so silent in actually participating in this extremely valuable and vigorous in-depth dialogue that has been taking place in the Vanguard. This has been a remarkable and quite spontaneous effort to fill in the information gaps that this truncated Measure J process has created.
Whether you agree or disagree with the views expressed by Greenwald as chief author of this blog, there is little doubt that the Vanguard is the best place to come for information on local Davis politics. It is clear that part of that is the author, the other part of that are the very knowledgeable posters. I know people like to bash Greenwald whether they disagree with him, but who hasn’t learned a ton from the ongoing discussion?
Affordable, affordable, affordable….. [hint: often means rentals]
Provides a purchase opportunity for first time buyers……
Comes w/ a year’s supply of 100% biodegradable trash bags and gender neutral laundry service…..
A 650k San Francisco condo is affordable if he/she/they make 150-200k annually.
First time buyers is a totally open description that can include anyone.
Green theme/non mainstream sales pitches play soooooo well in this town.
Here’s a survey question: how many of the people posting in here can afford to buy a 450k place to live? How many currently own a house and would move?
“Vanguardian”: I agree that Vanguard has provided a great service — independent reporting, assuming that is the service intended. For me, the Emptyprize became less and less readable as the editorializing for development crept into the reporting. This is also something for the Vanguard to watch out for, unless blogging for its own sake is the intent here.
If I still lived here I’d vote yes just to piss off the zero growth segment. I know a couple of people who are going to do that.
Fraser: The bloggers sit at their computers, firing back and forth, days on end, never meeting each other.
Wouldn’t it be great to have a couple of televised debates with the best of the best from both sides? You know I hugely value your opinions, and I hope you will be on the environmental panel if there are some debates.
The LWV always hosts very helpful debates, but they typically dont have them until the end of the campaign season. Maybe they would move them up?
I hope there are some debates on the front end, by late September. That would be after UCD returns, and a few weeks before the absentee voting starts.
Cheers!
Mike: “Wouldn’t it be great to have a couple of televised debates with the best of the best from both sides?”
That would be very useful.
Frasier: I don’t think you have to worry. The Vanguard I’m sure will be leading the charge against the true threat to Davis, Covell Village, and will be a staunch defender of Measure J.
From the No on P Rebuttal: [b]• “Green” and “sustainable” claims are overstated.[/b]
There was an interesting story ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/science/earth/31leed.html?hp[/url]) in the New York Times yesterday, pointing out that many LEED certified buildings don’t ultimately achieve the energy savings that were projected by their architects.
[b]o Sustainable developments are generally close to jobs, transportation hubs, neighborhood shopping and/or downtown.
o This project is located on the periphery, far from Davis jobs, shopping, and transportation hubs.[/b]
That may be true, though WHR is no more peripheral than Wildhorse itself or Northstar. It’s closer to downtown Davis than Alhambra Estates, El Macero and El Macero Vista, Stonegate and most of Westwood.
Ultimately, individuals who live anywhere in town, health permitting, choose how much gas or diesel they consume for shopping or going to work. A lot of Davis people commute to Sacramento every day by bicycle. Others live a block from campus and drive to a parking lot near their offices. If a family that cares so much about the environment is willing to pay the prices it will cost to live at WHR, they might also drive a PHEV or an electric vehicle.
Given that WHR is within the current city limits, I don’t think its peripheral location is a great argument against it. If its residents are into bicycling, living on the edge of town is a health benefit: a slightly longer ride to their jobs at UC Davis.
Wow, when I see all the former planning commissioners and economics professors signing the ballot statment for No on P, it should make one seriously consider their sound arguments!
Also, why aren’t the signers of the rebuttal statements posted?
Why are bringing up “LEED”; no where in the ballot statement or rebuttal, has LEED certification been brought up as an argument against the “green” argument of this project!
“Also, why aren’t the signers of the rebuttal statements posted?”
Huh? They are all posted from what I have seen.
“Wow, when I see all the former planning commissioners and economics professors signing the ballot statment for No on P, it should make one seriously consider their sound arguments!”
As opposed to the former councilmembers and planning commissioners signing the Yes on P statement?
I’m not on the ballot statements, but I have signed an endorsement card for Yes on P.
To the Yes and the No on P camps: I really hope you all get some debates set up, and soon. Make them early, and meaningful.
Yes but were you on the planning commission Mike, otherwise you don’t count?
Is rebuttal signer Maynard Skinner a paid agent for Parlin Develpment or Parlin Wildhorse LLC? He appears to work for the developer. Who has an ownership stake in Parlin Wildhorse LLC? Where are the corporation papers filed? Not in Yolo County.
Did you ask him?
[quote]Why are bringing up “LEED”; no where in the ballot statement or rebuttal, has LEED certification been brought up as an argument against the “green” argument of this project![/quote] Is this a serious question, Madam?
Assuming that you’re not joking, I mentioned the NY Times story about many LEED buildings having overstated claims about their environmental beneficence becasue it is similar to the No on P rebuttal argument which says, the “green and sustainable claims are overstated” by the WHR developers.
In other words, Madam, I think this is a valid argument made by the No on P folks: It is one thing to claim a project will achieve (in this case) 90% GHG reduction; but environmental claims* on paper don’t always live up to reality, as the Times story points out, using data from the USGBC.
*Be they LEED or otherwise designed. I am fully aware that a LEED certification was not in play at WHR, but the point still holds just the same.
[i]Given that WHR is within the current city limits, I don’t think its peripheral location is a great argument against it.[/i]
To anyone who works in Davis but doesn’t live here, it’s blatantly hypocritical.
[i]It is one thing to claim a project will achieve 90% GHG reduction[/i]
Besides that if it really is even close to 90%, it is an expensive showcase on someone else’s dime.
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?
Parlin’s ballot statement went out of its way to say that the project is green, so I think its legitimate to point out that given its location, most people will drive to most places. I live in Wildhorse and, unfortunatley, most people (including me now that I have a bad back which prevents me from biking) drive everywhere. Some folks do bicycle and Davis is a great town for bicyclists, but most people will drive and the farther away from downtown/campus/shopping/work one is the farther one has to drive. I think this is a legitimate point to rasie when the other side is stressing how green and pedestrian friendly their project is. We never said anything about LEED but I think one should ask how one measures and enforces the 90% greenhouse gas reduction.
MATT’S SPECIFIC SPREAD SHEET ERROR
On Saturday night at 10:29, Matt Williams finally posted his analysis in a form that could be reviewed.
I reviewed it with Paul Navazio, the finance director, this morning, and this is the mistake that Matt made:
Matt included a Mello-Roos payment as well as the CFD payment. (I should add that Matt also switched the amounts of the potential Mello-Roos and the CFD).
Any such Mello-Roos payments, like developer fees, would be payments made to offset capital improvement costs of capital improvements used by the new residents. They are not part of the operations and maintenance budget, and do not count in a fiscal analysis.
So Matt’s spread sheet analysis is wrong.
But that is not the biggest error in the rebuttal. The biggest error is the following statement:
“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”
There simply is no $4 million that will provide “a reliable annual source of finding for city servies.
If there were, I would be out campaigning for the project. But it is a false statement.
Right now you are basically making an assertion. Do you have documentation from Paul so that it can be evaluated? Or are we supposed to accept you at your word?
[b]guess again:[/b] [quote]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.[/quote] I have no doubt about Ms. Prior’s analysis. It is correct in general. However, different localized housing markets traditionally have (over the long term) different price:rent multiples. In Sacramento County, I know it is around 15:1, which is the stable ratio. In Davis, however, our long term multiple has been (I believe) around 25:1.
If you wonder whether you are in a buyer’s or a seller’s market, look at the current ratio and compare it to the long-term ratio for that localized market. If home prices in Davis exceed 25x rents, it is a seller’s market; and it is likely that home prices will fall or rents will rise.
When I wrote (in late 2004) that Davis was in a housing bubble — I never looked at the nation as a whole — I compared the price:rent ratio to draw my conclusion. From 2000-2006, SFH rents were fairly stable in Davis, going up about 2-3% per year. (Davis SFH rents were, of course, very high compared with rents in Woodland.) However, during that same period, SFH prices were going up at 10x that pace. That’s bubble-ish-ous.
Stock investors look at these same sorts of ratios to know if stocks are fairly priced. For most established, blue chip companies (and industries), the P:E ratio should be around 14:1. When it costs 20:1 to buy a stock like GE or BofA, you know stocks are overpriced. However, for “growth stocks,” it’s normal to have a higher P:E ratio, closer to 25:1. Thus, you cannot generalize too much about these ratios. As with local R/E markets, you have to know what the “normal” ratios are.
I assure you, documentation will be becoming. The only question now is whether the ballot arguments which will be sent to every household will contain a major lie that is likely to influence the election.
Can you clarify?
Do you believe this project is as “green” and “sustainable” as the developers promise it to be OR do you think it will become more like one of these LEED -certified projects mentioned in the NY Times article, that never live up to their original hype???
A lie implies intentional deception. At best I see in the discussion over the weekend, accounting differences that probably aren’t that substantial.
Two economic professors gave you ample explanation of why the statement is egregiously wrong. So it has crossed over from being a mistake.
Appeal to authority is not a logical argument. I read the entire argument and it’s not clear to me who is right or even that it matters. It seems that the monies add up, the question is how they are counted. To me that becomes the purview not of an economic professor and rather that of an accountant.
[quote]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] This is no small accounting error. This is a massive misrepresentation. It most definitely matters. When you respond to neither logic nor authority and when your arguments and the premises keep shifting, then it has crossed over.
Sue:
I don’t get it. There are capital improvement costs in the development–any development. Those are costs. On the other side, there are the Mello Roos and developer fees that are paid to offset the capital improvement costs. Those are revenues. Are you saying that in calculating the cost/benefits you don’t include the revenues to off-set costs? If you don’t include them, of course the analysis looks as though the project does not pay for itself. Why on earth would you not include in the analysis payments from the applicant that go to off-set the capital improvement costs?
And yes, economic professors are not necessarily the answer when it comes to actual accounting. I used to have a very good friend who was an econ professor. He was great at theory, but he could barely balance his check book. If I wanted an economic analysis done, I would turn to an accountant.
To Sue said:
“Right now you are basically making an assertion. Do you have documentation from Paul so that it can be evaluated? Or are we supposed to accept you at your word?”
…an outrageous reply! Next, can we expect the schoolyard retort,”I know you are, but what am I?” ??. I don’t think there are many reasonable people in Davis who would accuse Sue Greenwald of making up this account of her consultation with Davis Finance Director Navazio.
You would “get it” if you wanted to. You would “get it” if it weren’t so convenient to not “get it”.
If you had Sue, you can show us. We don’t get it because we all watched the exchange and aren’t buying your explanation without documentation. I’m sorry Ol’ Timer, but I don’t take anyone’s word for it. And yes, it’s still accounting, not economics.
The errors have been explained to you over and over and over again, articulately and in great detail. You always-anonymous Yes On P’ers have had the opportunity to acknowledge a huge mistake–a mistake that strongly biases the interpretation in you direction, and you just don’t care. Not a single person from the Yes on P campaign has come forward and acknowledged that you have made a mistake. And you are going forth and publishing the falsehood.
You have lost all credibility.
You can explain the errors all you want, the problem is that you are not a neutral bystander here and I’m not buying your explanation. It would be nice if you could provide us with Paul’s analysis, particularly since you rely on it for your conclusion.
Like I said, let’s get to some debate panels, fast. Each side to exchange their best analysis and supporting documentation for all to read. Submit the analysis and supporting data say, 10 days, before the debates?? The Blog is great, but let’s get the information out to the wider set of voters.
I strongly believe in the integrity of the political process, and the arguments submitted to the voters must be reasonably correct, in the ballpark.
In terms of the 90% GHG reduction, I am very confident of that figure, and the project’s ability to meet the goal.
I know that Parlin responded to Eileen’s quite valid arguments about the verifiability of the 90% reduction. On July 28th, John Tallman directed staff to include language making the 90% reduction program subject to review of the Natural Resources Commission and APPROVAl of the Planning Commission, during the TENTATIVE MAP process. It originally was only in the final map approval (meaning, there was no recourse if there was a program error) and subject to approval of the Planning Director.
And of course, Don Saylor took the lead at about 1 am on 7/29 and inserted Measure J language requiring that the mitigation be ON SITE, another valid criticism of Eileen’s.
Sooooo …. speaking about something near and dear to my heart (I have two kids born on small islands near sea level, subject to global warming flooding of the rice fields before the kids are my age), I think that the 90% GHG reduction policy is very sound, and will be quite attainable.
As to the economic numbers, I will leave that to others, and to what I hear at the panel debates. God bless all of you for sharpening your pencils and putting new batteries in your calculators!!
Even if the numbers are not as favorable as reported by city staff and Parlin Wildhorse, I am still a strong supporter due to the 90% GHG reduction, and the favorable impact of a win on Measure P on the June 2010 Measure J vote.
[quote]Do you believe this project is as “green” and “sustainable” as the developers promise it to be OR do you think it will become more like one of these LEED -certified projects mentioned in the NY Times article, that never live up to their original hype???[/quote]My belief is that WHR [i]will live up to its hype.[/i] However, I am not an expert on that question and don’t present myself as such. I merely noted (via the Times story) that there is reason to be skeptical of some projections for great environmental efficiencies.
That does not mean to me, though, that setting high standards — like a 90% GHG reduction — is a bad idea. But if a proponent (in Davis at least) promises he will deliver a certain standard, it might make sense to either hold him to that or hold him to something close (if for a cost or technical reason the number promised is too problematic). Because there is a history (not necessarily in Davis) of builders promising certain efficiencies or environmental benefits as a product of their design or technology, yet delivering far short of what was promised, it seems wise for the City to have a plan of action in place if it turns out a promise* is not being upheld.
*There is a not all that different parallel in Davis already — parking lot shade. We have an ordinance which requires parking lots (at least large ones) to provide (I think this is the right number) 50% of the spaces to be shaded by trees in the height of summer. Every new shopping center signs on to this program, draws a landscape blueprint filled with large shady trees, and promises they will comply. And I think without exception, every commercial parking lot required to meet this standard has failed miserably. Yet the City of Davis has no punishment whatsoever for non-compliance. So these lot owners flout our ordinance. What I have advocated is to throw out the phony blueprints. Ideally (though perhaps impossible on a cost basis), I would like to see shopping centers construct multi-story parking garages on 2 acres, rather than hot-zone tarmacs spread out over 12 acres (as is being done with Target). Alternatively, a new shopping center could at least have artificial shading, so that every parking space is under some kind of cover, and the asphalt does not cook in the sun all day.
The trend among some corporations is to use solar panels for artificial shading. Here is a picture of the new parking lot in Chico at the Sierra Nevada brewery:
[img]http://onlibations.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/dscn1649.jpg[/img]
And here is a picture of the Google parking lot for its employees, where each shade structure is covered with photovoltaic panels:
[img]http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/assets/images/story/2007/6/19/google_parking.jpg[/img]
It would be cool if all large shopping centers in Davis had this kind of shade structure cum solar power plant.
Debates are irrelevant. Few people watch them, or even read the Enterprise. The ballot statement reaches every household. Mike Harrington is trying to divert the discussion from the egregiously dishonest ballot statement submitted by the project proponents. It won’t work. I am not going to let this drop.
I have no idea what Sue is talking about–does anyone else?
If Rich Rifkin is correct and the rent vs own break point ratio in Davis is 25 times rent which I have no reason to disbelieve it does support what Don Shor has been saying about the need for additional rental housing to adjust the ratio to a more normal relationship. The other thing that needs analysis is that at $450,000 you would need to be spending $18,000 a year in rent to make it worthwhile to buy one of these if you used the 25 times ratio. I don’t know how you take taxes and other costs into account in this calculation.
Anyway does anybody know what similar sized rentals go for in Davis. I think the rent vs own ratio could be an intersting analysis for the debate.
Sam asked – “I have no idea what Sue is talking about–does anyone else?” Yes, I do for the first time in many years and I hope she keeps up the fight. If she is proven wrong down the line, so be it, at least she has had the guts to ask the questions and to take the flak from anonymous posters.
I thought this was a discussion about the ballot rebuttals. Let’s talk about Sue’s contention that the following statment:[quote]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]is not true.
“…A lot of Davis people commute to Sacramento every day by bicycle. Others live a block from campus and drive to a parking lot near their offices. If a family that cares so much about the environment is willing to pay the prices it will cost to live at WHR, they might also drive a PHEV or an electric vehicle…”
I love the picture of all the all Priuses at the Google parking lot; do you really think that all the owners at Wildhorse Ranch will be hybrid-owning, ride to downtown and Sacramento on bike people? I mean come on please, how can any say that? To me, it sounds like a lot of “greenwashing” on your part
Good, can you explain it to me, because I’m not following this at all.
Sam: what Sue is saying is very clear. The city Finance Director has agreed that there is a substantial error in Matt’s analysis. If you doubt Sue’s credibility on this, it should be a simple matter to verify it. Call Paul Navazio and ask him yourself. He is a public employee and is quite approachable. Quit casting aspersions on Sue Greenwald and just do a little legwork yourself.
I would like to point out that it is a little odd for anonymous posters to question the credibility of someone who is posting under her own name, but that is another issue.
I will be interested in Matt’s reply on this issue. But if in fact city staff no longer agrees with the independent analysis, then the following statement by the proponents is no longer supported:
“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….”
Get that again: “The project pays for itself.” The Finance Director appears to support Sue’s position that the project does not pay for itself. If it doesn’t, then saying it does is a factual error.
If a factually unsupported statement goes on the ballot, and the supporters know that it is unsupported, that is misleading.
I appreciate Mike Harrington’s position on this. Mike has consistently stated that he supports WHR because of the environmentally positive features. I assume also that he knows the developer and contractors and respects their work. He is not claiming that it is affordable, and is not claiming that it pays for itself.
I really think this project should be on a later ballot, so the appropriate commissions can weigh in on these issues. I also hope that erroneous statements will be removed from the ballot arguments.
And just for the record, folks, I have no dog in this fight.
I have always voted for you in my 10 years as a Davis resident, and will continue to do so; I wish you would run for County Supervisor, so you could help block some of the hideous developments that are sprouting up all over our Yolo County farm lands; never mind what these so called “progressives” are saying, you are the only truly SLOW GROWTH council member we have, and keep up the fight for us!
So let me get this straight… we are being asked to move the WHR project from #27 to #1 on the Citizen Housing Steering Committee list, build more housing in this depressed housing market than SACOG requires, accept less than the standard monies that development projects ordinarily pay into city coffers,accept a negative fiscal impact on the city, accept expensive townhouses in lieu of affordable workforce housing, all so that we can experience that feel-good rush about combating GHG emissions, even though the project photovoltaics cannot possibly be a model for reducing GHG emissions in a scale that would make a difference.
Sue said “There simply is no $4 million that will provide “a reliable annual source of finding for city servies.
“If there were, I would be out campaigning for the project. But it is a false statement.”
Really Sue, can you give us any examples of any large development projects you have supported in all your years on the council?
That is exactly what is being asked of voters in this election (only the SECOND Measure J election that the Davis electorate has ever seen, and what makes the argument that if this project fails, so will renewal of Measure J in June ’10 sound even more disingenious!!!)
Don said “I appreciate Mike Harrington’s position on this. Mike has consistently stated that he supports WHR because of the environmentally positive features. I assume also that he knows the developer and contractors and respects their work. He is not claiming that it is affordable, and is not claiming that it pays for itself.”
Most people support a project that is 90% reduction in GHG’s, I do, but that can’t be the only thing for this project. It has to be housing that is required because on that land right now there are 0% GHG’s except for some horse farts. This could be like the Ogrydziak project, right design, wrong place.
Zorro: “Really Sue, can you give us any examples of any large development projects you have supported in all your years on the council?”
That’s kind of a loaded question. Sue was elected in 2000. How many “large development projects” have been proposed since 2000?
Covell Village, Cannery, West Village, Chiles Ranch, Covell retirement community or whatever they call it and let us not forget that Sue got involved in Davis politics by opposing Wildhorse. I’m sure there are others I don’t remember them all by name but my point was to call Sue on her rhetoric. Maybe she would support something if the money for the city was right. Maybe she could explain that in more detail. Still I think it is a legitimate response to her statement to ask her to be more specific as a test of how she views development.
Still I think it is a legitimate response to her statement to ask her to be more specific as a test of how she views development since she opened the door to it with her statement.
Not a Sue fan, but most of those were crap projects, not a good test.
“It has to be housing that is required because on that land right now there are 0% GHG’s except for some horse farts.”
That has to be one of the funniest, but must “right on” lines I have a read in a blog yet about WHR!!!!
I don’t like Sue Greenwald’s politics nor her attitude to the public.
I will never vote for her.
But she has made a convincing case here that the proponents of
Measure P are being dishonest and misleading. Numbers don’t lie.
This project is a loser.
It is my experience Sue will use whatever she can to oppose growth. When the real estate market is hot we can’t build enough, when it is cold we shouldn’t add to a weak market. This deal doesn’t pencil out for the city, that deal is too close to the highway. There is always a reason but the most honest answer you can get from her is that we need to keep Davis livable, whatever that means. In fact, I would be interested to know what that means when she says it and of course it would be interesting to hear the answer to the question livable for whom?
Finally if you think all of those deals were “Crap projects” I would argue that she has not ever used her council seat to try to improve projects, she has only used it to try to kill them.
Ok, so you oppose Sue Greenwald. That doesn’t particularly speak to the merits, or otherwise, of Wildhorse Ranch.
Test again
Don,
The project doesn’t break even at this point in time. But by far the most serious misstatement in the ballot measure is:
“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”
There simply is no $4 million, let alone one will provide “a reliable annual source of finding for city services”.
Anonymous poster Zorro: I have worked very hard to improve every project that has come before the council, because any project might pass and if it does, I want it to be as good as it can be.
Counting the housing in the pipeline, Davis will have grown close to 70% during this general plan period. That is an enormous amount of growth by any standard. Since just about everyone who owns land surrounding Davis has expressed an intent to submit development applications, I expect that I will be voting against many more projects.
[i]That is an enormous amount of growth by any standard.[/i]
Many standards, yes, but no, not quite any standard. It isn’t enormous by the standard of Placer County, which has already more than doubled in population since 1988.
Let me ask a general question about this. I reiterate that I am not part of any “Yes on P” campaign; I really don’t care much about Wildhorse Ranch. I also don’t mean to put you on the spot too much. I see that you’ve been really busy on this blog lately with the Measure P discussion and growth generally.
Using the state’s growth numbers, Measure J and your tenure on the city council could be interpreted as a great corrective to historical city growth. It took a few years to complete the last subdivisions and fill them, but after that total growth from 2002 to 2009 was only 4%.
Also, as you said, much of the demand for homes in Davis comes from Sacramento. Moreover, many Davis workers who don’t live here, live east of the Causeway.
Would I be able to explain, to someone looking at Placer County on the east and Yolo County on the west, that slow growth in Davis is good for the environment?
Don From what I can tell I am currently opposed to Wildhorse Ranch because it is too tall and too dense.
Sue, could you please be a little more specific, how did you try to improve Covell Village, West Village, the Cannery, Wildhorse Ranch or Chiles Ranch? To what do you attribute your successes or failures in improving any of these projects? Its easy to say you have worked to improve things but to me it just looks like you have opposed everything and used your council seat to be obstructionist so please convince me.
Two more questions Sue, what have you supported? Finally, haven’t you now found the ultimate antieveryproject slogan “it doesn’t pay for itself” because if that is the standard nothing more would ever get built except large houses for rich people on the periphery of town?
Zorro,
I couldn’t don’t have time to list all the suggestions that I have made to improve projects. One of the reasons I wanted to serve on the city council is that I love city planning and feel that the design of our neighborhoods is very important to me.
I’ll give you a couple of examples. Take Covell Village. When Mike Corbett first showed me the project design, the streets were cul-de-sacs; the streets off the main drag were dead ends. I believe that many of the principles of “the new urbanism” represent better city planning, so I suggested to Mike that he connect the streets in a grid pattern. He ultimately did. I also suggested to two of the Covell Village developers that they accept design review and floor area ratios for the houses. I felt that large houses crammed together on very small lots without any design coherence would make for an unattractive neighborhood. In this instance, the developers said no, they just wanted to subdivide and sell the lots with as few restrictions as possible.
During the very short discussion that was allowed for the Wildhorse Ranch project, I tried to suggest that the street be a connected into a real grid, rather than the cul-de-sac design that the developer presented (staff had strangely called the cul-de-sac design a grid design in the staff report). I tried to suggest that the buffer at its narrowest be widened, and that the third story be removed from the houses closest to the existing neighbors. I suggested that we schedule a few more meetings to discuss design issues, which would have included such obvious things as allowing more pocket park type spaces throughout the neighborhood and more green space within the affordable housing complex. I did not succeed in extending the time available to implement these changes. (They can be discussed during the development agreement in a few weeks, but the guarantee that any such changes will be implemented will be diminished.)
I had a long list of such suggestions for Chiles Ranch, etc.
Zorro,
I couldn’t don’t have time to list all the suggestions that I have made to improve projects. One of the reasons I wanted to serve on the city council is that I love city planning and feel that the design of our neighborhoods is very important to me.
I’ll give you a couple of examples. Take Covell Village. When Mike Corbett first showed me the project design, the streets were cul-de-sacs; the streets off the main drag were dead ends. I believe that many of the principles of “the new urbanism” represent better city planning, so I suggested to Mike that he connect the streets in a grid pattern. He ultimately did. I also suggested to two of the Covell Village developers that they accept design review and floor area ratios for the houses. I felt that large houses crammed together on very small lots without any design coherence would make for an unattractive neighborhood. In this instance, the developers said no, they just wanted to subdivide and sell the lots with as few restrictions as possible.
During the very short discussion that was allowed for the Wildhorse Ranch project, I tried to suggest that the street be a connected into a real grid, rather than the cul-de-sac design that the developer presented (staff had strangely called the cul-de-sac design a grid design in the staff report). I tried to suggest that the buffer at its narrowest be widened, and that the third story be removed from the houses closest to the existing neighbors. I suggested that we schedule a few more meetings to discuss design issues, which would have included such obvious things as allowing more pocket park type spaces throughout the neighborhood and more green space within the affordable housing complex. I did not succeed in extending the time available to implement these changes. (They can be discussed during the development agreement in a few weeks, but the guarantee that any such changes will be implemented will be diminished.)
I had a long list of such suggestions for Chiles Ranch, etc.
Greg,
Since you asked:
I think you are looking at regional growth as a zero-sum sort of thing, i.e., our region of California is going to grow x amount, and it will be either here in Davis or Yolo County or in the foothills.
You have brought up interesting and fundamental philosophical questions about growth in the California and the U.S. California has grown explosively over the last 50 years. It is now among the top quartile in density per acre in the U.S.
Demographers expect the population of the the U.S. to level off within the next 30 to 50 years. If I recall (I need to look this up again), the U.S. is expected to grow at a rate of about .8% per year before leveling off in 30 t 50 years. (there are, of course a range of scenarios; I believe this number is within that range).
The need to accommodate more people is probably not infinite. I think it makes a lot of sense to think in terms of a national growth policy. I think we should be looking at directing growth away from areas prone to national disasters such as the gulf coast and California.
California, with its earthquakes, floods, water shortages, forest fires, subsidence problems, etc. is way beyond its carrying capacity. This wasn’t as apparent to me when I moved here in 1965, but it is apparent to me today. And I think it will be very costly for the nation when California has to be bailed out from the likely disasters caused by a massive earthquake, flood, fire or water shortage.
There are two major ways to redirect growth to more sustainable parts of the country. One is through job creation in sustainable areas, and another is — dare I say it — controlling housing growth.
Take for example the new proposed Covell Village II massive senior retirement community. Does it really make sense to lure retirees from the entire nation to live in California? Is this the most sustainable way to shift populations in the U.S.?
Obviously, one of the biggest problems that we face when we look at national growth policy and sustainable populations in general is that humans beings have not been able to figure out how to sustain prosperous economies without relying on the ponzi scheme of perpetual population growth. I think that this is the biggest challenge faced by mankind today, and I hope the economists start to think outside the box and address this issue.
Greg,
Since you asked:
I think you are looking at regional growth as a zero-sum sort of thing, i.e., our region of California is going to grow x amount, and it will be either here in Davis or Yolo County or in the foothills.
You have brought up interesting and fundamental philosophical questions about growth in the California and the U.S. California has grown explosively over the last 50 years. It is now among the top quartile in density per acre in the U.S.
Demographers expect the population of the the U.S. to level off within the next 30 to 50 years. If I recall (I need to look this up again), the U.S. is expected to grow at a rate of about .8% per year before leveling off in 30 t 50 years. (there are, of course a range of scenarios; I believe this number is within that range).
The need to accommodate more people is probably not infinite. I think it makes a lot of sense to think in terms of a national growth policy. I think we should be looking at directing growth away from areas prone to national disasters such as the gulf coast and California.
California, with its earthquakes, floods, water shortages, forest fires, subsidence problems, etc. is way beyond its carrying capacity. This wasn’t as apparent to me when I moved here in 1965, but it is apparent to me today. And I think it will be very costly for the nation when California has to be bailed out from the likely disasters caused by a massive earthquake, flood, fire or water shortage.
There are two major ways to redirect growth to more sustainable parts of the country. One is through job creation in sustainable areas, and another is — dare I say it — controlling housing growth.
Take for example the new proposed Covell Village II massive senior retirement community. Does it really make sense to lure retirees from the entire nation to live in California? Is this the most sustainable way to shift populations in the U.S.?
Obviously, one of the biggest problems that we face when we look at national growth policy and sustainable populations in general is that humans beings have not been able to figure out how to sustain prosperous economies without relying on the ponzi scheme of perpetual population growth. I think that this is the biggest challenge faced by mankind today, and I hope the economists start to think outside the box and address this issue.
To amplify Sue Greenwald’s comment within her 09/01/09 – 08:31 AM posting which follows:
“…large houses crammed together on very small lots without any design coherence make for an unattractive neighborhood….”,
just add ..as shown by aerial photos of the built out Wildhorse development adjacent to the Parlin Project site!
[i]California, with its earthquakes, floods, water shortages, forest fires, subsidence problems, etc. is way beyond its carrying capacity.[/i]
I can accept this as a sincere answer. At some broad scale, it has some truth to it too. The problem is that it doesn’t apply to Davis. Davis doesn’t have forest fires, it doesn’t have earthquakes, and it has no subsidence problems. It has some flood risk, but not nearly as much as Sacramento itself.
As for water shortages, the real culprit is the agriculture that some in Davis equate with the environment. It would be one thing if that were wine, almonds, tomatoes, and avocados. But actually, almost half of the water supply of California goes to feed cows.
Davis is one of the most sustainable places that I have ever lived in the United States. I have lived in seven states. My parents in Alabama need more heating than we do, and more air conditioning too, and they have to drive a lot more, and they see hurricanes.
It is true that housing in the Sacramento region is not quite a zero sum game. It’s true that if housing prices spiral high enough, workers and their employers will leave California. But surely an anti-growth wall in the west fuels growth in Placer County — they are the ones with the forests and the forest fires. Sacramento is an enormous employer and the workers are going to live somewhere.
[i]Take for example the new proposed Covell Village II massive senior retirement community. Does it really make sense to lure retirees from the entire nation to live in California? Is this the most sustainable way to shift populations in the U.S.?[/i]
It isn’t in my interest as a homeowner and it isn’t in the university’s interest. It isn’t in the interest of children or UC Davis students. But in all honesty, yes it is relatively sustainable for Americans to retire to Davis. For sure, better here than staying put in
Pennsylvania or Oklahoma.
[quote]But in all honesty, yes it is relatively sustainable for Americans to retire to Davis. For sure, better here than staying put in
Pennsylvania or Oklahoma. [/quote] This is a question that clearly needs more research, and is the kind of research that should go into a national growth policy.
It seems to me that that the Sacramento Valley is not a very sustainable place to put more people, but I hope that there will be research done to help us determine answers to this question scientifically. Intuitively, it seems that places that rain year round are more sustainable than places that rely on a rapidly diminishing snow pack to supply water. And intuitively, it seems easier to provide heat with passive and active solar energy than it is to air-condition (Sacramento is predicted to be far, far hotter in the near future). Flooding and subsidence are huge Sacramento Valley problems, and being a basin between mountains, our air quality is going to be a challenge.
When we start paying the water/sewer bills for the $400,000 million water/sewer capitol improvement and then, on top of that, have to start buying increasingly scarce summer water at market rates, I think we will have a graphic example of the sustainability issues in the valley. (I agree with you about hurricanes, which is why I mentioned slowing growth along the gulf coast.)
How much we should grow in Davis was not the issue I was addressing in the above post. You had asked what I felt about the possible effect of Davis’ slow growth policies on other parts of the region, and I was just trying to explain why I felt that our regional growth is not necessarily a zero-sum situation.
Davis has worked hard to be as sustainable as we can be. One way we have managed to this is by staying relatively small and compact, so that people don’t have to drive as much. Groups like Judy Corbett’s local government agency is working to educate elected leaders in other towns in the region about how to create similarly sustainable communities.
I forgot to mention, Davis actually does have subsidence problems.
[quote]I forgot to mention, Davis actually does have subsidence problems.[/quote]Does this mean we have sink holes?
[img]http://www.dvhardware.net/news/guatemala_sink_hole_2.jpg[/img]
[quote]I love the picture of all the all Priuses at the Google parking lot; [/quote] Thanks for sharing your love. Normally, your posts are mean and nasty and malicious. Thus, it’s a relief when you share your love this one time. [quote]do you really think that all the owners at Wildhorse Ranch will be hybrid-owning, ride to downtown and Sacramento on bike people?[/quote]Absolutely, yes, and of course.
It seems to me that that the Sacramento Valley is not a very sustainable place to put more people, but I hope that there will be research done to help us determine answers to this question scientifically. Intuitively, it seems that places that rain year round are more sustainable than places that rely on a rapidly diminishing snow pack to supply water. And intuitively, it seems easier to provide heat with passive and active solar energy than it is to air-condition (Sacramento is predicted to be far, far hotter in the near future). Flooding and subsidence are huge Sacramento Valley problems, and being a basin between mountains, our air quality is going to be a challenge.
On the one hand, Sue argues at times that Davis is a wonderful place to live, but now, when faced with growth prospects, she argues that the end of the world is near. We should be exporting people from Davis if Sue’s intuition is correct. Wonder what that would do for housing values?
“Thanks for sharing your love. Normally, your posts are mean and nasty and malicious. Thus, it’s a relief when you share your love this one time.”
Jeez, Rich, why so touchy? Is all that “greenwashing” making you moody???
The Yes on P campaign has a few days in which to rectify the big lie in the ballot statement:
[quote]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]There is no mitigation possible short of removing it. Staff has told the campaign in no uncertain terms that it is wrong. The campaign knows full well that this lie will reach every door.
If this goes forward, the campaign will be about lack of integrity, rather than the merits or demerits of the project.
I hate adding to this pile of ever-growing horse-Poopy, but is it a crime according to electoral law to knowingly include factually incorrect statements in ballot information that goes to voters? What constitutes “knowingly”? How about knowingly including something that might be wrong?
I do look forward to duking it out in public, if nothing else all the flying negativity will make it harder to say Yes on Poop (sorry to those with diminuitive senses of humor)
I just read on the Yes on P website (under the FAQ section) the following claims:
“Won’t this project cost the city?
Affordable apartment housing does not generate any property taxes to cover the cost of services. However, the developer is providing sufficient funding to the city through various mechanisms and a Community Funding District (CFD) will be established so that it will bring this project close to breaking even for the city.”
and: “…cost-neutral to the city. [in comparison to Covell Village]”
And then we have the rebuttal statement with its “indepedent fiscal analysis confirmed by staff” that the project will result in $4 million, which implies that is neither “close to breaking even” or “cost neutral”, but rather revenue-generating??? Can somebody from the Yes on P campaign (not anonymous bloggers or Matt Williams, who has already declared he is not working with the Yes on P campaign) please explain these discrepancies in facts? Let’s be honest with the voters, please!
It is abundantly clear that City Staff, using the same methodology they have used to analyze the fisacl impacts of other City projects, has declared the WHR will cost the City money. I have prepared many fiscal impact reports for the State and for other cities and it is clear to me that Parlin’s claim that it has completed another analysis has no merit. The analysis it quotes counts non-existent revenues–that is not what a fiscal impact report is supposed to do. It need to count actual revenues the City will receive. THis is not an issue where there are two sides that can be debated. The analysis Parlin quotes is incorrect, period. Further it has not been endorsed by City staff. Parlin has a huge credibility problem here. I have spent 5 years as an expert witness testifying against Wal-Marts throughout the State. This is exactly the type of campaign I would expect Wal-Mart to run–hide the real facts and confuse the voters. How can Parlin claim to be a better developer when it is using Wal-Mart’s tactics? How can its supporters claim that this is good for Davis? It is poisoning the political debate in this town.
The other claim (non-fiscal, but political) made in the FAQ section is the following:
“Approving small infill projects like this will take the pressure off for more housing on larger, peripheral properties that are productive farmland.”
I assume this is meant to state that if we support this project, future projects like Covell Village II (aka a “larger peripheral property that is farmland”) will not move forward? Hmmm….
Let’s go back to Vanguard article dated June 29, 2009: “City Continues to Move Forward with Senior Housing Strategy Committee”, in which it is reported that “CHA (Choices for Healthy Aging) which has been formed to lobby for and promote development at Covell Village.” Covell Village II is moving forward, irregardless of what happens to Measure P vote! They have a new agenda (senior housing; the building of some type of Leisure World complex in Davis!); since WHR has no senior housing planned, how does the argument that Wildhorse Ranch’s failure set us up for Covell Village’s passage.
I’m only one voter (but I have talked to many others who share the following view):
I voted NO on X;
I will vote NO on P;
I will vote NO on Covell Village II, and
I will vote NO on any attempt not to renew J.
At least, I’m consistent, how about you?
“How can Parlin claim to be a better developer when it is using Wal-Mart’s tactics?”
Great point Phil! I have heard supporters of P (including Cecilia Greenwald) state that “big box” development like WalMart is what contributes to communities becoming like Elk Grove and Tracy, not more development like WHR; yet, here we have similar tactics by the developers like a “big-box”; ironic, no???
I think you’re stretching an already tenuous analogy.
The worst offense in the rebuttal is not that the project pays for itself. The worst offense is the statement that the project generates huge amounts of excess revenue that will help pay for city services.
To say [quote]he 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]is far more dishonest to say the project is revenue neutral. It is as if one were a misdemeanor and the other a felony.
At least the project could be made to be revenue neutral during the development agreement phase, at least according to staffs’ developer-friendly fiscal model which assumes that the property tax and sales tax override keep getting renewed, which assumes that which punts on the PERS growing unfunded liability, which overstates the revenues gains from resale, etc.
But the project could never generate be made to generate a $4 million net fiscal benefit which could be used to provide a revenue stream that will help pay for city services.
Corrected version:
The worst offense in the rebuttal is not that the project pays for itself. The worst offense is the statement that the project generates huge amounts of excess revenue that will help pay for city services.
To say that:[quote]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[/quote]is far more dishonest than to say the project is revenue neutral. It is as if one were a misdemeanor and the other a felony.
At least the project could be made to be revenue neutral during the development agreement phase (at least according to staffs’ developer-friendly fiscal model which assumes that the property tax and sales tax override keep getting renewed, which assumes that which punts on the PERS growing unfunded liability, which overstates the revenues gains from resale, etc.).
But the project could never be made to “generate a $4 million net fiscal benefit which could be used to provide a revenue stream that will help pay for city services”.
[quote]Jeez, Rich, why so touchy? Is all that “greenwashing” making you moody???[/quote]I’m glad to see that you are back to being your old, crotchety self. I guess it was all those times in your childhood you had to walk, uphill, coming and going, in the snow, without shoes, et cetera.
[img]http://www.masstransitmag.com/images/article/1162817414276_elk1.jpg[/img] [quote]… WalMart is what contributes to communities becoming [u]like Elk Grove[/u] and Tracy, not more development like WHR[/quote]Does anyone know why Elk Grove Etran buses are regularly in Davis? I keep seeing them on East Second Street. AFAIK, there is no bus route from EG to Davis.
Hey Rich:
What’s up with all the photos posted? Did you get a new digital camera or are you now also a “photo journalist”?
Sue Greenwald wrote
“Greg,
Since you asked:
I think you are looking at regional growth as a zero-sum sort of thing, i.e., our region of California is going to grow x amount, and it will be either here in Davis or Yolo County or in the foothills.
You have brought up interesting and fundamental philosophical questions about growth in the California and the U.S. California has grown explosively over the last 50 years. It is now among the top quartile in density per acre in the U.S.
Demographers expect the population of the the U.S. to level off within the next 30 to 50 years. If I recall (I need to look this up again), the U.S. is expected to grow at a rate of about .8% per year before leveling off in 30 t 50 years. (there are, of course a range of scenarios; I believe this number is within that range).
The need to accommodate more people is probably not infinite. I think it makes a lot of sense to think in terms of a national growth policy. I think we should be looking at directing growth away from areas prone to national disasters such as the gulf coast and California.
California, with its earthquakes, floods, water shortages, forest fires, subsidence problems, etc. is way beyond its carrying capacity. This wasn’t as apparent to me when I moved here in 1965, but it is apparent to me today. And I think it will be very costly for the nation when California has to be bailed out from the likely disasters caused by a massive earthquake, flood, fire or water shortage.
There are two major ways to redirect growth to more sustainable parts of the country. One is through job creation in sustainable areas, and another is — dare I say it — controlling housing growth.
Take for example the new proposed Covell Village II massive senior retirement community. Does it really make sense to lure retirees from the entire nation to live in California? Is this the most sustainable way to shift populations in the U.S.?
Obviously, one of the biggest problems that we face when we look at national growth policy and sustainable populations in general is that humans beings have not been able to figure out how to sustain prosperous economies without relying on the ponzi scheme of perpetual population growth. I think that this is the biggest challenge faced by mankind today, and I hope the economists start to think outside the box and address this issue.”
Shocking! Completely irresponsible! Especially from a popularly elected official. I would hope some of you economist types would see this for what it is, an assault on the entire purpose of the University of California at Davis to provide research and education as part of the economic engine of California, and speak up. In an economy that must produce thousands of jobs each month just to absorb those entering the workforce the consequences of this philosophical statement coming to fruition would be catastrophic. At a time when California has an 11% unemployment rate to come out against economic growth as unsustainable… I just can’t imagine. Do people really agree with this sort of nonsense. Its like Paul Ehrlich on steroids. In all honesty, my god!
At a time when California has an 11% unemployment rate to come out against economic growth as unsustainable… I just can’t imagine.
Since when is unnecessary housing development considered “economic growth”???
The fact is that the housing will not pay for itself and WILL cost the city money. I pointed this out on August 7th in one of the previous exchanges about this project.
The Parlin rebuttal needs to be factual or the process will dissolve already more than it has.
Sue’s statement is a much more fundamental expression of her philosophy and provides insight into her world view. Why support a business park or anything if you really believe that economic growth is bad.
Still specifically why do you say “unnecessary housing” Davis clearly needs more housing for students, workers, children needing good schools, retired intellectuals and people who grew up here and want to return to the community of their birth to be near friends and family. Unless, of course, you subscribe to Sue’s world view that we should use whatever we can to make people not live here because its not sustainable.
Even beyond that organic growth of housing that is demand driven is a great economic engine that is a traditional leading industry for economic recovery. Davis being a place that underbuilt during the boom and still commands relatively high prices is a natural place to have growth that is stimulative to the economy. Please all you economists out there am I missing something?
Looking at the paper today for Duplex rentals that seem to be comparable it looks like Wildhorse Ranch will be more than 25 times the equivalent rent, the number Rich Rifkin used, and, certainly more than the 20 times number from the Wall Street Journal. So it appears the people of Davis would be better off with 191 new rental units than with the current project as it is conceived. I know that most of the economic argument has been around this ballot statement but the rent vs own ratio is a valid approach as well and it tells us to vote no.
guess who: “So it appears the people of Davis would be better off with 191 new rental units than with the current project as it is conceived.”
That is true. In general, building rental units will solve a lot more problems in Davis than building expensive townhouses. And it should be noted that this development would probably not have any rental units at all were it not for the affordability requirement mandated by city ordinance. When the proponents cite the provision of affordable housing by this project, they don’t mention that it provides the bare minimum required by the city.
WHR is no better than any other development would have to be with regard to affordable housing. In the ballot arguments posted on the first thread, the term affordable was used four times as a selling point for WHR. The city mandates 25% affordable units. They allow that to be reduced to 20% in higher-density projects. WHR has 20% affordable units: all apartments.
Sue, I’m afraid you’ve been baited here, and this is now becoming a discussion about your general philosophy about urban planning. I’d urge you to stick to the merits and drawbacks of WHR, and not get drawn into any wider-ranging discussions.
Let Them Eat Cake: “Davis clearly needs more housing for students, workers, children needing good schools, retired intellectuals and people who grew up here and want to return to the community of their birth to be near friends and family.”
So long as they make at least $100,000/year. That’s what it will take to buy a townhouse in WHR.
Just curious: how does one retire as an intellectual?
That is a good point by “guess who”. At the prices that the Wildhorse Ranch affordable townhouses will go for, people would be far better off renting and investing the money saved.
Don,
I don’t think Greg was baiting me. I think he and I both really enjoy discussing these philosophical issues. I’m well aware that participating in real discussions is not best way to optimize votes or win debates and I really do appreciate your kind concern, but there has to be more to life than politicking!
Oh dear, I am not too good at being anonymous. I guess I’ll go back to being Sue.
My cousin is a retired Professor of History from Long Beach State who still writes books and needs access to a good library. He told me he looked at moving to a retirement community that used proximity to UC Davis as a selling point. I think they told him Davis was something like 20-25minutes away. When I asked where he was looking when he was told this he said “Sun City in Elk Grove. Honestly, I’m not hot for senior housing at Covell Village because I think our other housing needs are more pressing, but it would be nice if my cousin moved nearby. He is quite an erudite intellectual with a strong mind and would be a great person to have in the community if we had the infrastructure that could support the needs of his old body. Of course old people with good pensions do provide resources that can underpin other economic activity. In the end he moved near Duke University, a community that gave him access to their library. Our loss.
Don, Sue is correct this is a fundamental philosophical debate that undelies much of how people feel about housing in Davis. I don’t think Sue is speaking just for herself when she argues
“There are two major ways to redirect growth to more sustainable parts of the country. One is through job creation in sustainable areas, and another is — dare I say it — controlling housing growth.”
I think Sue represents many who feel the same way. Of course they don’t want to live by example and move away themselves they just want everyone who is newer in town or poorer to move away by exercising their political power to close the gate once they are in.
Sue said “California, with its earthquakes, floods, water shortages, forest fires, subsidence problems, etc. is way beyond its carrying capacity.”
Really Sue, how did you determine what the carrying capacity of the human population of California is? Isn’t this more Social Darwinism than Ricketts Ecology? In fact there are few places with the productive capacity of Yolo County. If anything we are far below carrying capacity for food.
From Wikipedia >”In the words of one researcher: “Over the past three decades, many scholars have offered detailed critiques of carrying capacity—particularly its formal application—by pointing out that the term does not successfully capture the multi-layered processes of the human-environment link, and that it often has a blame-the-victim framework. These scholars most often cite the fluidity and non-equilibrium nature of this relationship, and the role of external forces in influencing environmental change, as key problems with the term.”[4]
In other words, the relationship of humans to their environment may be more complex than is the relationship of other species to theirs. Humans can alter the type and degree of their impact on their environment by, for instance, increasing the productivity of land through more intensive farming techniques, leaving a defined local area, or scaling back their consumption; of course, humans may also irreversibly decrease the productivity of the environment or increase consumption (see Overconsumption).”
Don said:
“Sue, I’m afraid you’ve been baited here, and this is now becoming a discussion about your general philosophy about urban planning. I’d urge you to stick to the merits and drawbacks of WHR, and not get drawn into any wider-ranging discussions.”
I strongly support Don’s suggestion, Sue. I suggest that you deal with this baiting by following Don’s advice. What I have learned is best when the “heat” approaches the boiling point(in blogging and email exchanges) is to turn off the computer and return to it the next morning.
Dear Yes and No on P People:
Please please please, just get your data and analysis together, and set some early debates so all can see what you really have going for you.
I just read the night’s postings, and it just seems like a lot of people sit at home or the office, banging away at each other in relative obscurity; no one sees the face of the other as they slam each other back and forth.
I see nothing substantive was added to this string since early yesterday.
Sue, dont you have some coffee with voters or something you can occupy yourself with until the CC comes back?
Fraser said it right: “I do look forward to duking it out in public, if nothing else all the flying negativity will make it harder to say Yes on Poop (sorry to those with diminuitive senses of humor)”
Just get the debates scheduled, and everyone can let it fly in public, eyeball to eyeball!
Mike,
The purpose of these discussions was to inform the Yes on P folks of the flagrant untruths in their ballot arguments in time for them to remove them.
They were informed and they had time to remove them. They cannot now claim ignorance or mistake.
Let me just calmly suggest we wait and see what happens in the coming days before drawing conclusions. I have a feeling things will resolve themselves at least on this matter.
[img]http://www.king-james-version-bible.com/fac_KJ_open.gif[/img][quote]What’s up with all the photos posted?[/quote]I quote from Proverbs 9:17 — “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant; a picture is worth a thousand words.” [quote] Did you get a new digital camera or are you now also a “photo journalist”?[/quote] Neither. I have been accused, however, of having a photographic memory.
[b]Guess Who[/b] writes: [i]”Looking at the paper today for Duplex rentals that seem to be comparable it looks like Wildhorse Ranch will be more than 25 times the equivalent rent, the number Rich Rifkin used, and, certainly more than the 20 times number from the Wall Street Journal.”[/i]
A Davis real estate expert (whose name I’m familiar with but have only spoken with once before) called me last night (after reading what I said about Davis having a 25:1 price:rent ratio in normal times, and he said he “doubts that.” (I should note that I was informed of the 25:1 ratio by a major real estate developer in Davis about 10 years ago.) The caller said (paraphrasing) “It depends in Davis on the rental vacancy situation. When vacancies are low, rents go up and the ratio compresses. When vacancies are high, the reverse happens. Because we have regular fluctuations in rental vacancies, it’s hard to say some set ratio like 25:1 is our stable multiple.” He added, however, that the premium for housing is higher in Davis than in other nearby communities; and because of that the ratio will be higher. Yet he did not think it was as high as I had said above, 25:1.
My apologies if what I wrote before was incorrect. I thought it was right when I wrote it.
David,
Thanks for the ray of hope. I pray that you are right.
Sue:
If the No on P have caught the Yes people in a blatant lie, good for them. The No people can file a legal case, waive the error around, rub the Yes faces in it, etc etc. There are lots and lots of legal and political remedies for blatant errors. Lots of reasons to make errors, most of them don’t involve making people into liars, cheats, thieves.
In fact, if I were on the other side of a blatant error that mattered on a ballot statement, I would provide written notice to the signers that it needed to be corrected within 2-3 days, or they would face legal action. Then I would sue in Superior Court. Never, ever threaten someone unless you are willing and able to take the corrective action.
I would not sit here on this Blog, day after day, calling numerous long-time respected community activists liars …. make your point, give them 2-3 days to fix, then sue if you are so confident of your position and this little project matters that much to you. You know lots of progressive lawyers in town. Whatever. It’s a free country.
All that said, the only really important aspect of this project that matters in the long run is the environmental sustainability.
Everyone knows that there are carbon releases associated with urban development when you: build it; operate it; and use carbon fueled transportation to come and go from the building.
This project’s 90% GHG reduction is ONLY associated with the second item: building operation. In future, larger projects, I would expect all three items to be reduced. But given the specific circumstances of this project, including its small size and temporal proximity to the J renewal, I have settled with the 90% GHG building operation reduction as being enough to get my signature on the endorsement card.
(You know that figure exceeds the city’s “progressive but informal standard” by more than 100%, dont you??)
Cheers to all!
Except for one little detail, Mike Harrington. Real citizens’ groups do not have the money to file the lawsuit.
The “Yes on P” “progressives” have perfected the technique for circumventing Measure J. Rush the project through with no public process, lie flagrantly on the ballot statements and literature because the citizens have no money to correct the lies, and above all else ram it through to a low turn-out election (preferably sole issue) so that you can win with an expensive targeted get out the vote campaign.
Maybe you can patent the technique and sell it to developers. Walmart would also be interested, I am sure.
Sue: You do. Or you could handle it in pro per. And I think that there are attorneys fees available to your attorney if you hired one and won. Winning means forcing a change to the Yes on P ballot statement.
The Court would grant an immediate hearing.
So if Yes on P people are liars and defrauders, Sue, then go for it. Show us how confident you are, instead of sitting there banging long time citizen activists with your computer.
This is the last I am going to post on this issue.
Sue:
Please, at least lay the blame for the problems with public process where it rightfully belongs: with staff and the council. Staff failed to put this on a much earlier agenda, as had been requested, and council decided at the last minute to put this very important and time-sensitive item on AFTER a non-time sensitive Redevelopment Agenda co-op housing item. The “Yes on P” people have NOTHING to do with this and you know it.
You were asked before on this issue whether you knew ahead of time that the mayor planned to move this item to the end of the agenda on July 28th and if you did, if you protested. You never answered. Can you answer, please?
You also know very well that a low turn out election is good for the passionate who will get out to vote–in this case, those opposing this project who either don’t want it in their back yards or oppose it for other reasons.
All that said, the only really important aspect of this project that matters in the long run is the environmental sustainability.
Hey Mike, before you go on and on about slamming Sue (who by way, gets re-elected and you don’t!); look at this preceding statement you posted:
“Only really important” aspect is enviornmental sustainability??? Really, so I guess financial burden on City doesn’t really matter? or the fact that those homes will never be affordable to working families in the “long run” doesn’t matter either; my, how you lost your focus!!!
This is the last I am going to post on this issue.
Is this a promise?
Interesting information you can find if you Google “Masud Monfared”, the principal developer of thisproject; seems he has donated quite substantially to Republican candidates in past; how does this sit with all of you “progressives” supporting him and his project, or Bill Ritter, cause celebre for local Democratic candidates???
MONFARED MASUD: Political Donations
Name City State Zip Occupation Date Amount Committee
Monfared, Masud Sacramento CA 95864 Parlin Development/Urban Planner 2004-06-04 2,000 GOLI AMERI FOR CONGRESS 2004
Monfared, Masud Sacramento CA 95864 Parlin Development/Urban Planner 2003-09-26 1,250 GOLI AMERI FOR CONGRESS 2004
Monfared, Masud Sacramento CA 95864 Parlin Development/Urban Planner 2003-09-22 500 GOLI AMERI FOR CONGRESS 2004
MONFARED, MASUD S SACRAMENTO CA 95864 2003-05-15 3,000 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE
MONFARED, M MASUD S SACRAMENTO CA 95864 PARLIN DEVELOPMENT 2002-12-30 250 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE
MONFARED, M MASUD S SACRAMENTO CA 95864 2001-12-03 3,000 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE
MONFARED, M MASUD S SACRAMENTO CA 95864 2001-09-04 250 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE
In December 2007, Mike Harrington, as a member of the Housing Element Steering Committee, ranked Wildhorse Ranch 29th (of 36 possible housing sites in and adjacent to Davis). See [url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/GPUpdate/pdfs/20071210/All_Sites_Compilation_of_SC_rankings-Draft.pdf[/url].
Now, it has dramatically risen to #1! I’m sure this meteoric rise is only about “environmental sustainability” and it has nothing to do with his financial connections with Parlin.
It’s risen to No.1 you say? Have you somehow forgotten that 3, 6, 10 are already passed?
Instead of creating a phony argument when you seem to not know the facts (and don’t try to fudge now by saying it’s No.4). I would like to see you evaluate the other sites ahead and see if we can determine which ones are feasible and more desirable than the current one. Because I’ll tell you, a lot of those sites simply are not feasible even if they are desirable and some of the ones that are, are not desirable. I’m thinking specifically of Nishi which would in my mind be a disaster.
Yes, #1 from 29 – I’m sorry that wasn’t clear to you, but I was making a rhetorical point about the inconsistency of Mike Harrington’s preferences over time.
No you are not understanding mine apparently. Several of those as I mentioned have already been approved, so by no measure is it No.1. Second, you are inferring individual consistency from a group arrived at compromise measure? Third, you are implying that there is no possibility of project specific revision? For instance, I stated above Nishi is problematic, but what if they come up with a super project that addresses my concerns, am I inconsistent over time if I revise my view of the site based on a proposal? That’s the problem with the whole process, they discussed sites independent of proposals, in the real world there are proposals. Finally, as I requested, it does not seem you are steeped very well on the specifics of many of the sites which will probably never be built–should that factor be weighed in?
In short you have a very simple analysis based on what seems to be very limited understanding of the process, the sites, and individual preferences, I think once you weigh all factors there is far more room for movement than you imply.
Mike:
I thought you said you were no longer blogging, or did you mean blogging under your name?
I AM NOT MIKE
To “Really”: “Really” Mike Harrington isn’t going to post again? Really, “Really”?
Now respond please
Isn’t true that Mike Parlington also has business ties with Talbot Solar, the company hired by Parlin to install the solar panels for the project (if approved), so it seems that Mike Parlington has a lot of potential financial gain if this project passes, care to comment on that “Really”?
So no response to my post on the comments from Mike Parlington?
Grammatically, it was an awful post. You mix your statements with questions marks. It would read easier if you would write: Second, are you inferring…. and Third, are you implying… It would make it easier to follow the flow of your argument.
“Posts whose primary purpose is to correct spelling and/ or grammar are also subject to deletion.”
“I think once you weigh all factors there is far more room for movement than you imply.”
Here’s the “factor” that really counted! The citizen Housing Steering Committee was an Asmundson, Saylor and Souza sham whose findings were never going to carry any weight with this Council majority(with Heystek now sadly joining this trio) aided by City Manager and former Development Planning Director Emlen unless,of course, the findings agreed with their dictates..
The evidence?.. Parlin’s development proposal was not put on hold but rather was permitted to proceed while the Housing Steering Committee labored diligently for a year to come to a consensus with their recommendations.
I’ll reiterate my original point: which of the 26 projects listed ahead, excluding Grande, Verona, Simmons, and Chiles that have already been approved, which reduces the number to 22, should be developed first–and more importantly which of these are even plausible. Give you an example, DJUSD site, they are not moving in the next five years and probably not the next ten years, so if they are out for the period covered, don’t we remove them from the list? The HESC did a good job, but they dealt only with sites, not projects and in most ways their work was theoretical at best. So let’s evaluate the list and then we can decide which properties are viable–I’m going to guess, there are less than five ahead of WHR that are viable that are not already approved.
“I’m going to guess, there are less than five ahead of WHR that are viable that are not already approved.”
I’ll take a guess also and suggest that a number of your non-viable properties would become viable if offered a deal like Parlin is getting from the city.
Nice job dodging here. Second, what deal is Parlin getting from the city?
[quote]So no response to my post on the comments from Mike Parlington?[/quote]Really, I’ll be happy to respond. You really made a great case that we have approved an awful lot of housing that remains unbuilt.
What is wrong with Masud of Parlin being a Republican? I am tired of hearing how “progressive” Davis is. If he wants to make some money and sell some houses what is wrong with that? I am all for free markets and Parlin–lets let Davis grow as fast as possible.
Nothing’s wrong with Masud being a Republican; I just think it’s quite ironic (or wacky is the better word) that all these “progressives”, including the left-wing Vanguard, and the local Sierra Club president are lining up to support a Republican developer! Perhaps Armageddon is closer than we think!
The “endorsement card” that Mike Harrington posted earlier about (before he went off the air for good, we can only hope) will be signed by Mariko Yamida (Yolo County Supervisor); I guarantee it! Because, if one Googles “Parlin Wildhorse LLC”, you will see a link to an election website, in which Parlin Wildhorse LLC donated $1,000 to Yamida’s campaign in 2007; I will keep following the money trails of these guys and keep you all posted!
http://www.davisdemocraticclub.org/Home/membership
Well it appears from this link, that “Masud & Tata Monfared” attended and donated $200 to the Davis Democratic Club event; so, it begs the question, do you become Democratic when it is politcally expedient for you (i.e. upcoming election where you are trying to court the “progressive” vote); this smacks of Arlen Specter “carpet-bagging” style politics to me; what do others think…I’ll keep digging….
“Isn’t true that Mike Parlington also has business ties with Talbot Solar, the company hired by Parlin to install the solar panels for the project (if approved), so it seems that Mike Parlington has a lot of potential financial gain if this project passes, care to comment on that “Really”?”
I remember reading in an earlier blog somewhere that Mike Parlington is the landlord for both Talbott Solar and Bill Ritter; can someone confirm this?
The progressive movement was always a republican movement going all the way back to Teddy Rosevelt.
If the Yes on P campaign does not correct their rebuttal statement I say have the City sue them to make it so!
The Yes on P campaign is still haggling, I assume trying to move small parts of the offending statement while leaving the dishonest implications.
You can read the developer’s comments on the matter in today’s Enterprise. Very disappointing. Whatever happened to the option of saying “we’re sorry, we were wrong”.
I’m afraid that honesty and lack thereof is going to have to be the theme of the campaign, rather than whether the merits of the project warrant approving more housing over and above that which has already been approved but remains unbuilt, which is what the campaign should be about.
Sue: You really do not know what is going on, and that statement is pure speculation on your part. We will see what happens and you will have plenty of time to weigh in on your judgments about honesty or lack thereof.
The statement, “independent analysis” referred to the probably well-intentioned but unsolicited analysis by an El Macero resident who readily admits to having no real experience in housing development fiscal analysis. His analysis has been rejected as incorrect by Davis Finance Director Navazio. Saylor and Souza, in their Enterprise OP-ED piece in support of a Yes Measure J vote on Covell Village, either knowingly or in dismal ignorance, made factual arguments that could not withstand the light of day .It is tragically no small irony to see these same No on X supporters , who so vigorously took Saylor and Souza publicly to task for their deception ,now attempting a similar tactic to get THEIR project approved.
We have two projects already in the pipeline so a third (WHR) isn’t needed and will only hurt current homeowners with over supply leading to further erosion of their home values at a time when alot of Davis residents are already hurting. This project is ill advised at this time. I say send a message to City Hall and vote this down until housing prices and the economy improves.