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?