While it took the Council far longer than anticipated, going past midnight, four of them were able to agree on a modified development agreement that accounted for some of the concerns the neighbors sought to address. They were able to modify the work hours, the construction of a play structure and covered meeting area within the greenbelt, other issues such as the modification of buffer were left untouched at this point.
These issues of course were mostly cosmetic and little to do with support or opposition to project. As one person put it, they might make life a bit more bearable for the neighbors immediately adjacent to the project. There were limits as to how far the council was willing to go, but there was some give and take.
Much time and wrangling were spent on the issue of fiscal neutrality. The council with the exception of Councilmember Sue Greenwald seemed in agreement on this point. The bottom line can be captured by something that Paul Navazio, the city’s finance director told me earlier in the day, they reached the point on the fiscal model that it is such that the finances of this project should not factor into anyone’s support or opposition to the project.
He told the council last night that the basic model that they used to calculate fiscal neutrality with all of the assumptions it builds in is what it has used to calculate all projects.
Councilmember Greenwald attempted first to pass a motion similar to the Finance and Budget Commission and postpone discussion until that commission can examine the fiscal numbers and then attempted to pass a motion that would charge the developer up to $6000 per unit to break even in perpetuity–each failed. One of the issues that she has argued is that the tax rate for this property is considerably lower than the rest of the city.
The tax rate is such that the developers would have to average around $623,000 for the average cost of a home for it to pencil out with the supplemental fees. As Mr. Navazio told me, one of the problems is that Davis even in the higher tax sections gets a far smaller share of property taxes than some other cities, and so a city like Berkeley could build $250,000 units and have it pencil out fiscally, but Davis cannot. This brings up of course a broader issue that the city is going to have to address if it wants to build in affordability in future projects.
The Council needs to determine what it means when it calls a project fiscally neutral, it was clear that different councilmembers had very different ideas as to what that constitutes. As was pointed out last night, the applicant in this case has sought to create a fiscally neutral project–a project that breaks even in terms of its impacts. They asked city staff to tell them what they need to pay in order to do that.
I agree that these issues of neutrality need to be looked into, as does the role of commissions, and it needs to be done outside of this issue which is necessarily a hot-buttoned issue that spawns strong emotions. The fiscal impact of this fairly small project of 191 units is minimal.
There are other factors of course that need to be taken into account. There’s the lack of revenue that goes with affordable housing units, which total 40 of the 191 units. There is the cost that the developer is incurring by making these units fully sustainable. There is the cost that the developer is incurring by making many of the units fully assessable.
I am sympathetic to the process concerns. We learned Monday night that the applicant had wanted this before a number of commissions nine months ago, that’s in part a policy issue that the commissions subcommittee will take up. But that’s a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed so that it is normalized. There seems to be a good amount of disagreement on the part of council and staff as to whether the process needs to have more input or be more streamlined. After watching what happened here, more input seems to be the safer course.
One of the points that I am going to spend a bit of time on is the sensitivity of the fiscal model to major assumptions.
One of the points that is made on page 180 of the staff report is that,
“The fiscal analysis is highly sensitive to assumed growth in municipal service costs –and specifically long-term personnel cost inflation. A 1% reduction in the long-term assumed growth rate in personnel costs would result in a fiscally neutral project, assuming the base model and the proposed CFD.”
Right now, the model assumes a 5% per year growth in personnel costs. One of the points that the finance director made is that if the council is able to get the kind of agreements on employee compensation that it has sought, that 5% assumption may be way too high. Indeed, the model that is shown below shows just what happens with a 4% per year increase. A 3% per year increase along the lines of inflation would produce a very large surplus rather than a yearly deficit.
The finance director said that this assumption alone dwarfs the impact of the 14% turnover assumption and also the impact after the fifteen year time horizon.
One of the things you learn in the social sciences is that all models have to make assumptions. These models are extremely sensitive to the assumptions. One of the things you attempt to do with a fiscal impact model is to make realistic assumptions, but to me given the focus on employee compensation and cost-cutting efforts, 5% annual growth in personnel costs, which is the bulk of expenses, is probably a good deal too high.
I come back to this issue because a good deal of time was spent on the fiscal analysis. In an ideal world, we would have had more time and the Finance and Budget Commission could have played with all of these numbers. The city had given the project a fiscal negative score at the end of July, they went back and refined the numbers and seem satisfied that on the whole this will balance out on paper enough to say that people should neither vote for or against based on these numbers.
I think the debate now circles back to where it should be: the merits of the project. The voters should properly weigh in whether we need additional housing, whether this is the type of housing project they want, whether they are willing to trade in sustainability if it achieves that in their mind for town houses that will be in the $350,000 to $425,000 range and single family homes a bit more than that, etc.
As most who have read this site for the past few years know, I am very critical of the city’s policies with regard to finances and development. We certainly need to address many of the issues raised on Monday night at the Finance and Budget Meeting. I think those will be better addressed in the generic. This project has met the criteria set forth by the city in terms of financing and we now put it to the voters to determine whether they believe we need the project. That is where we should be at the end of last night’s meeting–whether we are there or not remains to be seen.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I am skeptical as to whether they will be able to sell the townhouses (and possibly the houses) for the prices they are estimating. If the developer has to lower the prices on the townhouses (and maybe the houses) in order to sell them, I assume that would reduce the property tax revenue the City would receive, thus creating a negative fiscal impact for the City. Can someone tell me whether that conclusion is correct?
Too bad sue missed the opportunity to vote for the most environmentally sustainable residential project since village homes.
[i]As Mr. Navazio told me, one of the problems is that Davis even in the higher tax sections gets a far smaller share of property taxes than some other cities.[/i]
Why is it different for Davis?
David:
You are right that the assumptions in any fiscal impact report are critical. However I think it would be useful to clarify something. The model assumes a 3% inflation rate overall, so that the increase in personnel costs is only 2% higher than inflation. That may seem high but health care costs have risen much faster than inflation and pension costs will have to rise since most public employee pension systenms are grossly underfunded. In economics there is also a famous rule, called the Baumol effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease) which essentially says that labor costs tend to rise in certain industries like education (look at tuition increases), health, and city services. So a 2% increase is not at all out of line. A sensitivity analysis needs to go both ways, not just in the direction that favors WHR, which you seem to strongly support. As pointed out above, property prices may remain stagnant for quite some time, lowering property tax revenues. The City’s model is based on sales tax data collected at a time when people were spending beyond their measn–consumption as a function of income is now falling implying lower sales tax revenues. So one needs too look at many factors.
The model also only looks out 15 years as well. One thing that is certain. Unless Prop 13 is repealed (which I support but which is unlikely)the property tax revenues from this project, or indeed any housing project, will fall over time which costs the city money. Any new hosuing approved by the City is likely to be a long term loser especially if infrastructure (sewage, water) costs rise and we all have to pay.
So please do not imply that a sensitivity analysis can only go one way. Over the long run, after 15 years, this project will cost the City money–that has not been factored in. THanks Phil
I disagree with David that it’s time to look at the merits of the project, and dispense with process without someone first addressing, for example, the question about ranking the site so low on a scale taking into account all possible sites for development. That determination about ranking should matter,or have mattered, to someone, or else what’s the worth of the work to determine ranking? Am I the only one wondering this?
Nora, I was on the General Plan Housing Committee. If you want to talk sometime as to how this project came to the front, let me know. Your question is a very good one.
“In an ideal world, we would have had more time and the Finance and Budget Commission could have played with all of these numbers.”
Yes, and the voters can return the project to be properly reviewed by that commission, and perhaps have the development agreement redone to be more favorable to the city, simply by voting it down.
It seems that city staff gave the developer favorable terms in order to allow the project to contain environmentally friendly features — features which are making the units more expensive, and thus making the project unaffordable. So city policy is encouraging less affordable housing.
If a builder wishes to build “green” houses, that is a selling point and certainly laudable. But it shouldn’t be given any special consideration in calculating the fees for the development agreement.
Back to the drawing board for this whole thing.
Tues eve….just caught the exchange on TV between Sue and Parlin at the Council meeting tonight. Parlin stated that he would absorb the subsidy necessary to build the affordable housing if no outside subsidy could be found. Sue then asked him, based upon his statement, if he would agree to strike the clause in the development agreement that gives him the option of NOT building the affordable housing but rather going with a land dedication. Parlin refused to answer Sue’s request for a simple yes or no. Asmundson characteristically attempted to interrupt Sue’s questioning of Parlin. When Sue persisted, Parlin would only angrily repeat his non-response by saying that the agreement had been negotiated by staff at their request. Sue responded by stating that staff did not support Parlin’s assertion that the land dedication option was at their request. Councilman Heystek looked decidedly uncomfortable as Parlin repeated his evasive non-response to Sue’s question.
Above is an account of the Council exchange last evening. It was Sue Greenwald who pressed this issue. The Davis voters are again indebted to Councilperson Greenwald as this would never have been brought to light without her. Parlin’s initial non- response to Sue’s question assumed that he had the Council majority behind him and he could “stone-wall” With Don Saylor suggesting that this could be a problem and with the Council history of Asmundson’s vote rarely deviating from Don’s thinking(especially when the Council meetings run well into the night), Parlin appesrs to have relented although we are not told whether his option to do a land dedication has indeed been removed from the agreement. Again… kudos to you Councilperson Greenwald!
Don: Part of it is that process matters if the outcome is not a good one. In other words, if you think this is a good project, then you ought to vote for it. If you think it’s not a good enough project, then vote against it and the process will kick in if the applicant is interested in pursuing it again.
Nora: At this point the project is going forward, we need to determine whether it’s good enough. It may be that those issues mean that it’s not good enough, in which case the voters should vote against it. If you believe that the site is not a high priority to develop, then that’s a reason to vote against it–on the merits, one of the merits being location and location versus other potential locations.
I’m very concerned with the way this transpired and agree we need to re-think how we do developments in the future.
David:
A good friend of mine who was Academic Senate Chair always used to say “If you can’t trust the process, don’t trust the result.” Unfortunately here we have a huge issue with process. Parlin has made repeated claims to the neighbors (of which I am one)that it would not only build but manage the affordable hosuing. Now we find that they are not willing to back up all of these statements. Parlin has tried to sell themslevs as a different type of developer yet they use the same tactics all developers use. Bait and switch is one of the oldest developer tactics. (Wal-Mart has mastered this tactic and Parlin seems to have schooled in Bentonville.) The other tactic that I see is “someone will develop this propety eventually and it will be even worse that what I am offering so you better take this while you can.” These strong arm tactics have no place in Davis. Davelopers should not be running the show. If we want green affordable hosuing lets plan for it ourselves and put it in a place where people can actually walk to work, school shopping. I am sorry but beware developers bearing gifts and remember that development agreements can be torn up and redone. THanks Phil
“Remember that development agreements can be torn up and redone. THanks Phil”
The citizen-initiative challenging the failure to execute the original Wildhorse development agreement is a good historical example which occurred before Measure J was enacted. Then mayor Wolk’s public scare tactic(which you list in the basic developer “playbook”) was that if the initiative voided the Wildhorse development agreement which opponents claimed had been severely compromised, the developer would be released from all constraints and could build whatever he pleased. This “misinformation” was placed before the voters right before the election with no time for a public rebuttal by the initiative proponents.
[quote]Nora Oldwin said . . .
I disagree with David that it’s time to look at the merits of the project, and dispense with process without someone first addressing, for example, the question about ranking the site so low on a scale taking into account all possible sites for development. That determination about ranking should matter,or have mattered, to someone, or else what’s the worth of the work to determine ranking? Am I the only one wondering this? [/quote]
Nora, as a member of the public I attended virtually all of the HESC meetings and workshops. I strongly supported the HESC then, and I continue to support its findings now. I first faced your question in January 2008 when the Council conducted one of its discussions of WHR. Council told Parlin that night that 1) they rejected the presented design, and 2) Parlin should continue its ongoing dialogue with the neighbors to address their concerns. One thing Council did not do that night was to tell Parlin to stop and defer to the HESC process.
I personally did not understand why WHR (and Chiles Ranch and Cannery) were being “parallel processed” at the same time the HESC was doing its work. Council was clearly sending a mixed message . . . at best.
At the end of that January meeting I stopped Masud Monfarad in the entranceway to the Council Chambers and asked him why he was proceeding with this oparallel process. I had seen Masud in the public gallery of all the HESC meetings and felt I could approach him not as a complete stranger. What he told me was illuminating, and it ties back to how totally out of whack the City’s planning process is. He told me Parlin first submitted their WHR proposal in late 2004 or early 2005, and Staff told him, “Covell Village is ahead of you in line. As a result, we won’t accept your application now. Cool your jets until after the Measure X election results are tallied, then come and talk to us. After Measure X was defeated, Masud resubmitted Parlin’s application and Staff did accept it and begin processing it. As Staff kept Council aprised of its activities (including but not limited to the HESC, Cannery, Chiles and WHR), nowhere did Council or Staff stop and say “These parallel processes don’t make sense. We are sending mixed messages.” Therefore, Masud continued on with the Parlin WHR application and public outreach meetings, as well as attending virtually all the HESC meetings. I really don’t know what he could have done to handle the situation better.
Does all of the above make WHR a good project? No it doesn’t. The project’s merits are in much more tangible areas. But to answer your question, it has gotten to positives like 90% GHG reduction in spite of the City’s process, not because of it.
The City’s process has been messed up for years. It will continue to be messed up unless the citizens step up and demand better. I was at the Finance and Budget Commission meeting. To that group’s credit, they were demanding better from City Staff and from the Council. Some of the Commission members actually apologized to the Parlin team for the fact that they were caught in the crossfire of a problem that should have been resolved years ago. I personally agree with them.
I spoke vehemently at the City Council meeting last night about process, or lack thereof. It was infuriating to me to listen to Paul Navazio admit he did not choose to place a city staff report about the divisive fiscal analysis issue inre the WHR project before the Business and Finance Commission until 24 hours before the City Council was to make a decision. And Mr. Navazio indicated he didn’t see any overwhelming need to do so. It was a judgment call in his mind, and he didn’t view anything he had done as a problem.
What that tells me is that city staff is trying to control the development process so tightly, that it cuts off commission input/public comment. Needless to say, I voiced my disgust at this lack of trust in commissions/public at last night’s City Council meeting. In fact, I requested the City Council to direct city staff to make sure if any potential senior housing development was in the offing, to please make sure our commission (I am Chair of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission, but I was speaking as an individual) received information far enough in advance to be able to advise the City Council on the project. After all, how can commissions advise the City Council, if they are never given information or not given any until it is too late!
The Budget and Finance Commission actually requested to be given another two weeks to weigh in on the WHR fiscal neutrality issue – but the City Council essentially ignored that request. Yet lip service was paid to the the big elephant in the room – proper process had been circumvented. Just about every City Council member expressed concern about the lack of process, but went ahead anyway. It was laughable to watch City Council members try and micromanage the development agreement, not really knowing whether any of what they were doing was even feasible. They were literally trying to make architectural changes at close to 1 in the morning!
To add another bit of information to this discussion, some time ago at the Davis Senior Citizens Commission, we were told emphatically by city staff that no developer was to come to commission meetings to make presentations. I was troubled then by that position, and am even more troubled now. First, a developer has every right to come before a commission during public comment, and make whatever pitch he/she wants to make within the time allotted. Secondly, when you cut off developer discourse, how is a developer going to be sensitive to what the citizens want if not allowed to describe their idea? Thirdly, how are commissions going to get any opportunity to weigh in on development projects at all, and the opportunity to direct questions at developers to dissect the issues properly, if no presentations are allowed?
When city staff is allowed to completely control the process, to the extent no commission input is allowed and public commment is kept to a minimum thereby, what you get is what has happened to Parlin. Parlin was put in the unenviable position last night of renegotiating its contract on the fly, not really having had an opportunity to check the ramifications of any last minute changes. WORSE, THE PUBLIC WILL NOT REALLY BE INFORMED ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THEY ARE VOTING FOR.
What a collosal mess – all because city staff at the direction of the City Manager is trying to tightly control process to such an extreme degree it cuts out commission/public input. Infuriating.
Matt: “I personally did not understand why WHR (and Chiles Ranch and Cannery) were being ‘parallel processed’ at the same time the HESC was doing its work. Council was clearly sending a mixed message . . . at best.
….
after the Measure X election results are tallied, then come and talk to us. After Measure X was defeated, Masud resubmitted Parlin’s application and Staff did accept it and begin processing it.
… nowhere did Council or Staff stop and say ‘These parallel processes don’t make sense. We are sending mixed messages.'”
Actually, the message is very clear: the HESC process and results are irrelevant to city staff and the city council. I’m just guessing that the next project that will come before the staff (who will accept it) and the city council (which will act on it) is likely to be even further down on the HESC list.
David Greenwald, who usually questions staffs’ interpretation of just about everything, is oh-so-eager to accept staffs’ disturbing conclusion that this project pencils out. In all honesty, I have to say that David Greenwald appears biased toward the developer when it comes to this project.
The problem is that by being thus biased, David is contributing to lowering the bar when it comes to honesty in fiscal analysis, and hence contributing to the accelerating fiscal train wreck that the city is facing.
The kinds of faulty reasoning that went into Paul Navazio’s analysis are typical of the ploys that are used to justify so many of our fiscally unsustainable policies. They are similar to staffs’ avoidance of dealing realistically with the monumental challenges facing our water/sewer projects cost by saying, as they did again last night, that the $150 million surface water project (read $200+ million) will save us money by reducing our need to buy bottled water.
To reiterate just one example concerning staffs’ current claim of fiscal neutrality for this project: I explained in very clear terms last night, with David Greenwald present, that for the first time ever, staff has accepted a one-time revenue source that temporarily plugs the operations and maintenance shortfall, in lieu of a sustained source of funding to cover that shortfall. This is a dramatic change in the definition of fiscal neutrality by the city that sets a very bad precedent for the future.
As I explained clearly last night, with David present, a shortfall remained in the annual operations and maintenance budget even after the developer shifted a large chunk of the shortfall to the future owners in the form of a $300 a year CFD.
Customarily, staff would take a professional approach by requiring a permanent stream of revenue to fill this shortfall. But for Parlin Wildhorse LLC, staff accepted, for the first time ever, a onetime payment that would be spent down in about 15 years. The lame excuse for saying the project pencils out due to this small onetime payment which will only exist to help fund services for about 15 years was that the fiscal forecast is only a 15 year forcast.
The Wildhorse Ranch project has lowered the bar for our standards of fiscal analysis, bodes ill for the future. I don’t care who the developer is whose friends are employed by the developer — our standards for fiscal analysis have been savaged by this project.
I have to say, like the words in the poem, how do you separate the dancer from the dance? How can I separate features of a project from the dismal lack of process here? Mike, I would love to talk to you about your insights, but I’m sure I’m not the only one, can you bring your information to this blog? Someone told me “process” isn’t sexy, that to get people pumped up, you have to talk “merits or demerits” of a project. I don’t see it that way: To me, the process is everything; it speaks to the real participation citizens have- – -or are precluded from having in self-government, in making decisions for our growing city. And if we’re responsible, we need to be involved, and we need to be informed. Again, I ask: Shouldn’t our votes have some value? If we’re not informed, the voting process is degraded, as well.
I should add some quantitative perspective to my comment above.
We had a significant annual operations and maintenance shortfall in the Wildhorse Ranch project (according the very optimistic, developer-friendly fiscal model) even after the $300 CFD was added. Last night, an additional onetime $1,500 fee was added to each market rate unit, which was enough to fund the (already underestimated) annual operations gap for only 15 years.
It would have taken a onetime $5,900 fee per unit create a fund large enough to provide a steady stream of revenue to fund that gap.
That is a difference of almost $1 million, which is equal to a large percentage of our general fund reserve.
Yet the recently approved Verona project, which is also small, dense houses but which runs a slight fiscal positive operations and maintenance balance (according to the same very rosy, developer-friendly fiscal model) contributed a onetime payment of $12,000 per market unit and $6,000 per affordable unit.
Hence, asking, (as I did unsuccessfully last night) for a $5.900 per unit onetime fee from Wildhorse Ranch would have been completely within reason.
What about David’s point regarding employee compensation?
Also, $1 million over how many years? One million shortfall over one year would be enormous, over 15 years much less so.
Phil King:
Under normal conditions I’d agree that 5% is reasonable projection. However, this year we are cutting employee salaries by about 4% according to the budget that was passed. The deficit may be larger next year and the projections to the outyears show a continuing deficit running for possibly five years. That’s one thing of the period with either negative or zero growth. Implementation of that process likely means therefore a reasonable chance to hold employee growth considerably lower than 5% over a 15 year time period.
Could someone explain how it happens that Berkeley can profitably tax a new house valued at $250K, but Davis needs more than $600K to break even?
All I know is that the rate in Berkeley is higher, I’m not sure why.
[quote]Could someone explain how it happens that Berkeley can profitably tax a new house valued at $250K, but Davis needs more than $600K to break even?[/quote]Very easy answer, Greg. Berkeley gets to retain one of the highest percentages of their property tax of any city in California. These rates were arbitrarily set.
David: It is total compensation, not salary, that effects the city budget. It is going to be very hard to keep total compensation from rising, even if salary is cut.
[i]These rates were arbitrarily set.[/i]
By who? Did the state comptroller toss a stack of city audits down the steps to decide the rates?
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . . .
David Greenwald, who usually questions staffs’ interpretation of just about everything, is oh-so-eager to accept staffs’ disturbing conclusion that this project pencils out. In all honesty, I have to say that David Greenwald appears biased toward the developer when it comes to this project. [/quote]
Sue, you may want to check your self-righteousness at the door. The display you put on at the Finance and Budget Commission meeting was a total disgrace worthy of Mike Tysion biting the ear of his opponent. You showed no respect for proper process or boundaries.
You bounced from your seat at the Commission table to the public comment podium and then back to your seat, then out to the audience to strategize with one of the audience members, then returned to the table and had the audacity to critique your own public comment and berate the Commission for their independent thought.
You may want to check the Procedures Manual for Davis City Council Members issued February 2008 to get a better handle on how you should have behaved.
ROLE OF COMMISSION LIAISON
Section 5.4
Each member of the Council is assigned to serve in a liaison capacity with one or more city commissions. The purpose of the liaison assignment is to facilitate communication between the City Council and the advisory body. The liaison also helps to increase the Council.s familiarity with the membership, programs and issues of the advisory body. In fulfilling their liaison assignment, members may elect to attend commission meetings periodically to observe the activities of the advisory body or simply maintain communication with the commission chair or staff liaison on a regular basis.
[u]Members should be sensitive to the fact that they are not participating members of the commission but are there rather to create linkage between the City Council and commission. In interacting with the commissions, Council members are to reflect the views of the Council as a body. [/u]
Typically, assignments to commission liaison positions are made at the beginning of the term following certification of the election. The Mayor will request liaison assignments which are desired by each member and will submit recommendations to the full Council which City Council members will represent each commission, committee, or board as a liaison. In the rare instance of disagreements, a vote of the Council will be taken to confirm appointments.
I have always admired your passion for your positions, but your behavior Monday night went far beyond passion. It was undignified and rude to the Commision members. You are capable of much better than that.
That David Greenwald will be getting one of these houses for a greatly reduced price , for all of his support .
Matt….. most of us are interested in the substance of the commission’s deliberations rather than a critique of Councilperson Greenwald’s well-known style of representing the interests of the Davis voters as she perceives them. We all recognize the uneven playing field in terms of power and resources that the opponents of Measure P are up against as it has become abundantly clear that this process is being manipulated and is fundamentally flawed. While many have counseled being resigned to this flawed process(may I respectfully include yourself here?),this is obviously not Councilperson’s Greenwald’s style and/or view of her responsibilities to the Davis voter as a member of the Council.
David:
I myself received a 9.3% cut due to furloughs but over a 15 year period I still hope that my real (inflation adjusted) salary will increase a little bit. I expect much of the 2% increase will be gobbled up by benefits. Public Pensions are in bad shape and something will have to be done and health care costs keep rising. Phil
It’s okay to violate proper process if you agree with the outcome.
ol’ timer, when all the dust has settled and a proper, robust, fully inclusive model is put together . . . with appropriate vetting by independent people like you and me . . . I am 100% confident that WHR will “pencil out” as one of the most fiscally positive developments in recent Davis history. With that said, my goal is not specific to WHR, but rather to creating a transparent model that can get all this subjectivity and spin out of the process. I fully understand that Sue is doing her level best to kill this project. She truly believes this project is bad for the City. She even had a Marie Antoinette “let them eat cake” moment when she out of hand dismissed any “social benefit” that the Affordable Rental Units will provide to individual Low Income families. With that cavalier “who cares about the poor” statement, Sue was guilty of abuse of the process and abuse of individual Commissions.
I accept the fact that the process is flawed and probably being manipulated, but all the specific evidence I have seen tells me that Parlin is a victim of that manipulation rather than a perpetrator of it.
I do not agree that the ends justifies the means–this is an ugly process and Parlin has lied to the neighbors.
Matt:
I hear you live in El Macero? I am glad you think this works for Davis since you don’t live here.
I fully expect Bill Ritter, Mike Harrington, (and now perhaps Matt Williams) and friends to attack me personally throughout this developer campaign. That is, unfortunately, their style.
I feel that I was elected to stand up for the public interest. I do my best, and you can rest assured that I will not be intimidated. If I see staff sidestepping important technical points, I will continue to point it out. I have always been very careful to point out when I am representing only my own, minority views, and when I am representing the council views.
If Bill Ritter and Mike Harrington want to become full-fledged members of the tyranny of the Davis majority, and if they want to use personal attacks to try to silence a thoughtful minority voice, that is their right.
[quote]”These rates were arbitrarily set.” By who? Did the state comptroller toss a stack of city audits down the steps to decide the rates? [/quote]
Just about, Greg. Welcome to California’s dysfunctional tax system.
No Sue, I don’t attack you, I criticize your actions. You chose to abuse process on Monday night. Everyone else who makes Public Comment doesn’t get to critique their own comments. You chose to do so. That was an abuse of process. There is a time limit on speakers so that everyone gets an equal voice. You chose to abuse that process as well.
More important than those procedural issues, you chose to say that the Davis workers who would qualify for the Affordable Rental Housing “are not important.” They are more than important. They deserve better from you. You have shown in the past that you are capable of better.
I didn’t ask my brain to flash on Mike Tyson biting his opponent’s ear when I watched you abuse the rules on Monday, but that was the image that my brain chose to present me with. You were so focused on the ends that you couldn’t rein yourself in and stay within the boundaries of the liaison’s role. It is a shame that there wasn’t a video recording for you to see yourself in action. So in the meantime you will have to rely on your bathroom mirror.
As I said, I don’t attack you, I hold your actions up to scrutiny.
The City Fiscal analysis that I looked at said that the City of Davis will lose about a million dollars over 15 years. I’ve cut and pasted the numbers from the city’s fiscal analysis–all negative.
-$13,325-$24,758-$31,994-$38,548-$53,958-$57,084-$58,922-$67,661-$71,871-$74,903-$78,710-$92,223-$112,903-$120,522-$115,31
-$1,012,692
$(67,513)
To me that is a fiscal loss and saying otherwise seems odd. I think $1 million is a loss. Perhaps others disagree. Perhaps some City staff members want to keep their six figure jobs (with or without a 5% pay raise) but I think a one million dollar loss is not “fiscally neutral.”
Sue simply asked Parlin to try and make the project work for the City and was called out. What does Parlin have to hide? Is it worth destroying democracy in our city for 191 units? How many City Council people are beholden to Parlin? Will everyone be willing to disclose their conversations and campaign contributions> This stinks. I have lived in Davis for 13 years but now I feel ashamed.
Matt, we all know the playbook. You guys can keep trying to divert the discussion from the fiscal and policy issues with personal attacks, but it isn’t going to work.
Campaign School 101 lesson #1: When people get disgusted with ugly campaigns, they tend to say “a pox and both your houses” and vote “no”.
[i]Just about, Greg.[/i]
Sue, I won’t treat you as not bound to the beck and call of each of us voters. I can also believe that your answer is true. But it just doesn’t work as the whole truth. You and David both say that the state robs Davis of its property taxes on new homes, even compared to Berkeley. There must be some way that this happened, some person to point to who decided it or some event that caused it. Or at the very least, some revelatory difference between Davis and Berkeley.
And frankly, if the city were satisfied with such a conclusion with no explanation, it would seem false. It would seem either incompetent or greedy.
The amount of property tax that we receive is crucial–if we cannot afford to support government services we need to increase these rates. Simply allowing more developers to come in and have their way with our City doesn’t help.
Phil, your numbers are from the July 28th Staff Report. Since there are updated numbers in the September 15 Staff Report, I’m curious why you chose to use old numbers?
Sue, you use the term “you guys.” That is a curious term to use to describe me. I didn’t know I had reached pleurality. Care to elaborate?
[i]Is it worth destroying democracy in our city for 191 units?[/i]
Phil, I don’t think that you should get too sanctimonious about democracy in Davis. Because in this context, all that democracy really means is, “We got here first.”
So Sue:
It appears that you are doing your level best to turn this into one of the uglies campaigns I have seen in all my years in Davis. Campaign ploy? Funny that you accuse others of being attack dogs. You have done nothing but create divisiveness on this blog, and it sounds like Monday night you were at your best.
To Davis Resident:
Come on. El Macero is part of our community. Why do you continue to treat it like a step child? Matt is part of our community as well–an important part. He has done a great job with the numbers on this issue. And as a member of our community, he has every right to weigh in on what goes on here.
[quote]Come on. El Macero is part of our community.[/quote]Some trivia on the name “El Macero.” It was invented by Bruce Mace — namesake of Mace Ranch and Mace Blvd. — who was the principal developer of the El Macero Country Club. I grew up hearing that “Macero” didn’t mean anything. It was just the Spanishization of the name Mace. However, at a party recently at a home in El Macero the homeowner, who is a native of Spain, told me I was wrong, that “macero” is an old-fashioned Spanish word used for a knight who carried a mace as a weapon of war. She added that even in contemporary Spain, a mace (“maza”) can be used as a symbol of authority.
[i]I didn’t know I had reached pleurality.[/i]
Matt, I’m afraid that we have reached pleurality ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleural_cavity[/url]). At this point, we are all wind bags and our chests hurt.
[i]I won’t treat you as not bound to the beck and call of each of us voters.[/i]
Sorry, an extra “not” slipped in there. We shouldn’t treat city council members as bound to the beck and call of individual voters.
Are there ANY OTHER NAMED BLOGGERS (except the triumvirate of Williams, Rikin, and Kuperberg; sounds like some law firm, doesn’t it?) who are willing to say that this project brings any benefits to Davis OR even is NEEDED?
Curious: Certainly I think that the great growth slowdown in Davis as a whole has become unfair. However, I’m not part of any triumvirate, I don’t know Parlin from Palin (Michael ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Palin[/url]) or Sarah ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin[/url])), and I take no position on Wildhorse Ranch specifically.
Sue said”David Greenwald, who usually questions staffs’ interpretation of just about everything, is oh-so-eager to accept staffs’ disturbing conclusion that this project pencils out. In all honesty, I have to say that David Greenwald appears biased toward the developer when it comes to this project. “
But Sue you would be against this project no matter what so whether or not it pencils out is irrelevent to you. Admit it, Sue, you are just using the economics as a red herring because you don’t like building housing and you don’t want people to come to Davis. You said it yourself if we don’t build housing people can’t come and will move to other places.
If we demand every project to pencil out what would we ever build, only people with million dollar homes could build but then you were against Covell Village too. So what should we do Sue build nothing? I’m sure that would make you happy.
Greg, you got me. 8>)
This is an arcane topic. I have asked the question over the years, and I have not found anyone who can give a complete answer. I believe that cities were allowed to retain varying percentage of their property tax when Prop 101 was established, based on various aspects of their tax situation at the base year. Also, negotiations on tax split between cities and counties occur. Different areas of Davis have different tax rate splits with the county.
Yolo county, for example, gets a very low tax share from the State. Over the years, our State representatives have tried to raised, and have failed.
It might be hard to believe, but this is essentially the whole story. I can get you the details about Berkeley’s case from Paul Navazio, who was finance director there.
My above post addresses Greg’s question about the difference between the Berkeley and Davis property tax shares.
FWIW, I have let Paul Navasio know that I will be glad to donate time toward the effort to come up with a model that fully captures all the fiscal impacts of a Davis development project. Once the comprehensive model has been created I anticipate that going backward in time the numbers for all the recent projects should be entered into the model. Doing so would serve two purposes, 1) it would make sure the model hasn’t missed any of the many and varied in’s and out’s, and 2) it will reduce the subjective, spin-laden comparsons of various projects down to an apples-to-apples basis.
It might make land-use discussions pretty boring, but I think I could survive with a bit less hyperbole in my life.
Sue: In the interest of objectivity, Navazio or Emlen or other city staff should be able to fully explain the situation themselves. We are talking about a lot of tax revenue, or at worst we are talking about smoke and mirrors. It sounds very wrong to shrug and say that these things just happen.
[quote]Sue: In the interest of objectivity, Navazio or Emlen or other city staff should be able to fully explain the situation themselves. We are talking about a lot of tax revenue, or at worst we are talking about smoke and mirrors. It sounds very wrong to shrug and say that these things just happen.[/quote]This is the way it works, Greg. I don’t understand the source of your skepticism. If you don’t believe me, you can call or e-mail Paul or Bill.
But Sue you would be against this project no matter what so whether or not it pencils out is irrelevent to you. Admit it, Sue, you are just using the economics as a red herring because you don’t like building housing and you don’t want people to come to Davis. You said it yourself if we don’t build housing people can’t come and will move to other places.
If we demand every project to pencil out what would we ever build, only people with million dollar homes could build but then you were against Covell Village too. So what should we do Sue build nothing? I’m sure that would make you happy.
“If we demand every project to pencil out what would we ever build, only people with million dollar homes could build but then you were against Covell Village too. So what should we do Sue build nothing? I’m sure that would make you happy.”
No, what Sue is advocating for is transparency in the process and the city striking the best deal it can with developers. I see nothing wrong with that.
Disgusted:
Why shouldn’t citizen’s of Davis advocate that projects pay for themselves? Are you advocating that current residents of Davis subsidize new projects while developers rake in millions of dollars? That does not seem like a defensible position.
At a minimum voters should be told that if they approve a project it will cost them more in tax revenues since the project does not pay for itself–if it were not for Sue no one would know that this project originally lost money according to the City’s own analysis! The City’s present analysis only goes out 15 years and after that (even by their numbers) this project loses money.
I am for fiscal responsibility which means that a new project pays for itself. I am also fpor transparency which means voters know what is going on. Perhaps you “disgusted” disagree with those values.
Fine Phil, you are for fiscal prudence and transparency. You are also an economist so you are well studied in things like economies of scale and elasticity of demand so I would pose the question to you, is it possible to build housing that is self supporting? What is the cost per square foot for this housing and how many square feet will this housing contain? Finally, how many would you need to build to make it cost effective? My point is that if the requirement is that housing pays for itself we will never build anything but million dollar homes for people making $200,000 a year who can qualify for the loans. Please show me the numbers that support a different model.
Phil, what goes around comes around. I fully support the fiscal prudence and transparency you argue for, and the advocates for and detractors of a particular project should be equally transparent in their fiscal arguments. The only reason you can say “if it were not for Sue no one would know that this project originally lost money according to the City’s own analysis!” with a straight face is because of the City’s arcane and byzantine accounting practices which slice and dice the fiscal “ins and outs” of any and all projects and place the money in a myriad of different places.
The “City’s analysis” you refer to only looks at a selected portion of those myriad different places. It is incomplete at best. It is certainly far from “transparent” and that fact is nither the fault of the project supporters, nor the project detractors. It is the fault of the City.
With that said, Sue and you and others have used the City’s analysis of one specific portion of the fiscal picture and extrapolated that partial analysis to lambaste the entire project. Your actions in doing so are not “transparent” they are “spin.” You compounded the lack of transparency earlier in this thread (9/16/2009 3:32 pm) when you chose to use the City’s 7/28 Staff Report numbers rather than the updated numbers in the September 15 Staff Report. I asked you then and I re-ask you now, “I’m curious why you chose to use old numbers?” As Yul Brynner once said, it’s a puzzlement.
Phil King: “Disgusted: Why shouldn’t citizen’s of Davis advocate that projects pay for themselves? Are you advocating that current residents of Davis subsidize new projects while developers rake in millions of dollars? That does not seem like a defensible position.
At a minimum voters should be told that if they approve a project it will cost them more in tax revenues since the project does not pay for itself–if it were not for Sue no one would know that this project originally lost money according to the City’s own analysis! The City’s present analysis only goes out 15 years and after that (even by their numbers) this project loses money.
I am for fiscal responsibility which means that a new project pays for itself. I am also fpor transparency which means voters know what is going on. Perhaps you “disgusted” disagree with those values.”
Phil, we are talking at cross purposes here. I agree with you! I too am for fiscal responsibility which means that a new project pays for itself. I am also for transparency so that voters know what is going on. I believe that is what Sue Greenwald is asking for too. Had the developer of WHR agreed to the payments of $6,000 a year as Sue suggested, the project might have actually pencilled out as fiscally neutral to the city. Currently it looks to be a net negative, Matt Williams “financial analysis” notwithstanding.
“FWIW, I have let Paul Navasio know that I will be glad to donate time toward the effort to come up with a model that fully captures all the fiscal impacts of a Davis development project.”
This statement does have the sound of an ego going beyond bounds in its own defense. Paul Navasio is a 6 figure salaried Davis Finance Director. Mentoring and approving the work of someone who acknowledges no training or experience in this area and who would have no official responsibility for the product is in all liklihood not something that he would ever entertain. That leaves us with the above as essentially public ego-posturing.
FWIW, the issue is not a question of available Navasio intellect . . . it is a question of available time.