by Matt Williams –
by Matt Williams – Perhaps the most notable aspect of the audience was the fact that very few of them were not wearing a button declaring their position on the Measure. It is a good bet that neither side swayed any of the members of the audience toward one side or the other, so any real electoral impact of the evening will come from the people who watch the telecast of the debate from the comfort of their homes.
Sue Greenwald rebutted that point, detailing her conversations with individual members of the police and fire fighters, who indicated they didn’t want to move from their large homes outside Davis into much smaller homes in Davis. Phil Woods also noted in his rebuttal a couple making $90,000 who said they couldn’t afford to purchase a WHR unit.
It is clear that Sue and Phil are correct when they say that not every Davis worker family will be able to afford a WHR unit, but what isn’t clear as yet is what proportion of the Davis worker families will be able to do so. It would have been good to hear more about the Parlin outreach efforts, but moderator Walt Bunter was firmly committed to a 9:00 meeting end time, so more detailed discussion of Parlin’s outreach will have to come at a future date.
One subtle shift in the No on P argument was the absence of any referral to the much discussed City/Parlin option to turn over the Affordable Unit land to the City through a land dedication. Now that that option has been removed from the Development Agreement, the No on P arguments against the reliability of the $3.2 million amount described in the July 28 Staff Report have changed. Sue Greenwald spent time describing the restricted nature of the City’s Affordable Housing funds, while John Tallman tried to make the value of the $3.2 million more apparent by describing a night out with friends for dinner that ends in one couple choosing to pay for the whole meal. He said the money the other couple had expected to pay for dinner, that was now still in their pockets thanks to the largess of their dining partners is clearly a fiscal benefit.
Merging Sue’s and John’s arguments on this issue I think both are right. John is correct that the money is still in the City’s accounting system, and Sue is correct that that $3.2 million can only be spent in a limited way because of the nature of the funds.
So for all the people out there in TV Land, the real impact of last night’s debate is in your hands. You will have approximately two hours of civil, respectful, quiet and informative viewing . . . a significant departure from past discussions. The two panels and the partisan audience deserve a round of applause for their good work.
Matt William appears to have focused only on questions which the Parlin troops have an answer to. Did anyone ask how is it that we are being asked to approve WHR now when Davis has already met its SACOG legal housing number and we have a General Plan citizen-initiative, Measure L, that directs the Council to proceed with residential growth as slowly as legally permissible?
Ol’timer: you have referred to Measure L several times. It would be helpful if you posted a pdf of the Measure that was on the ballot, and a piece of the pro and the con literature, and a summary of events from that political era.
I certainly understand the general thrust, which is slow growth.
The only two issues with the Parlin Wildhorse that have gotten my endorsement are the 90% GHG reduction in the operation of the buildings/homes, and the political bookend idea that some of us have: Measure J works: see big bad Covell Village, voted down; see small, reasonable, sustainable Parlin project, approved.
Parlin has been a long time tenant here, and it was not until July 1, 2009 that it got over the line with me, when Talbot Solar, Parlin and Masud (personally) signed the 90% GHG reduction analysis and commitment that was filed with the City on that date. I truly believe that this will set a new City standard, one that is 100% stricter than even the City’s fairly strict voluntary standard. This is the first California residential subdivision that will have this level of GHG reduction. it will demonstrate to other jurisdictions to not be so timid with requiring strict GHG reduction standards that far exceed the fairly milktoast statewide and local standards.
A third reason was added later by Lamar: 100% mobility accessible policy. I understand that this will be a first in our city, maybe region, and it added a third strong reason to vote for this project.
Other than those two (now three) issues, I see absolutely no reason to vote for a new project on our borders. If any of the readers of this Blog disagree with me and dont want any new project up there, I understand that concept. Until July 1, I probably would have been with you.
Right now it appears that SACOG’s requirement is the floor while the council has repeatedly passed a 1% growth cap. This development places us between those two numbers, so I’m not exactly sure the point of your post.
ol’timer, no one asked a question in that vein. Mark Siegler touched on that point very briefly in the 20 minute prepared statements. He didn’t have much time to cover it though as Sue was the primary spokesperson, using the first 17 minutes of the 20 minute time slot. Mark covered a number of issues in 2 and 1/2 minutes and Phil used the last 30 seconds to wrap up.
Matt:
Great job filling in for the inimitable David Greenwald. The Vanguard seems to be in safe hands with folks like you filling in, and so many dedicated citizens continuing to take time to express an opinion.
No matter how we stand on specific issues, the Vanguard gives all of us an opportunity to express our opinions. We might be outraged by someone else’s opinion, but we always have the opportunity to respond, thanks to the Vanguard – democracy at its best.
Thanks for the comment rick. One of the things that was very clear last night was that there were lots and lots more questions that could have been asked if there were more time. That clearly tells me that there is plenty of room for having more of these kinds of forums. Since this one was recorded, much like was done in the HESC Open Houses there could be a transcript of the questions that were asked and the responses given. That way people like ol’timer could ask the questions that are uppermost in their minds that up to that point haven’t been asked and answered.
I personally wrote out two questions, but since I am not a Slide Hill resident I held my questions in reserve and would have asked them only if there weren’t any more available questions from the audience. As it turns out a variation on one of my questions was asked by someone else. The other one wasn’t.
Hopefully another neighborhood association will follow in Slide Hill’s footsteps and host another debate soon.
When can we view this televised debate?
For me, the issue is a lack of “affordable workforce housing” in an overly dense project, at a time when the housing market is stagnant. Also, this project was ranked low on the HESC list of sites for consideration. So far, my inclination is to vote “NO” on Measure P.
I thought one of the more interesting comments made by Yes on P side last night was that “affordability was in the eye of the beholder” and that “two teachers who started working for the DUSD could afford a townhome in the project (median price of $450,000+ at time of build); then later in the evening, a Slide Hill neighbor who works as a professor, along with her husband, at CSUS stated they could never afford a home at such prices! (Do DUSD teachers make more than CSUS professors???)
The slick “Yes on P” flyers all say “REALLY AFFORDABLE” on them, and now you will see a nice color ad popping up on the Davis Enterprise webiste (wonder how much that one costs?)
But is the claim of “REALLY AFFORDABLE” truthful,
Well, let’s look at recent history (for the 60% of you who voted no on Covell Village in the last Measure J election before the voters):
From No on X campaign material (found on Davis Wiki):
“The City’s analysis indicates that “middle-income” families (those making less than $96,000 a year) cannot afford housing costing more than $387,000.”
Have these numbers changed so much in three years, so what we are now calling “affordable” for work force families is $450,000???
I guess it as the developers say: “Affordability is in the eye of the beholders”
Too bad that David Greenwald has been sick for two out of the three major Wildhorse Ranch discussions. I hope you get well, David.
Matt Williams, who is “standing in” is a clear project proponent, despite his demurrals. Why is it that the developer side always play the “civility” card? The reason is clear to me; it is because they so frequently employ arguments that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Matt Williams writes:[quote]One subtle shift in the No on P argument was the absence of any referral to the much discussed City/Parlin option to turn over the Affordable Unit land to the City through a land dedication. Now that that option has been removed from the Development Agreement, the No on P arguments against the reliability of the $3.2 million amount described in the July 28 Staff Report have changed.[/quote] Matt,this was never “much discussed”. While it was absolutely outrageous that Parlin claimed he was not going to use a land dedication option, yet fought tooth and nail to keep the land dedication option in the development agreement during last week’s council meeting, this issue was tangential to the democracy-undermining untruth in the ballot argument — the untruth that the project creates a $4 million dollar fiscal net benefit to the city that can be used to fund city services.
The affordable housing trust fund, by law, cannot be used to fund city services; yet this is the statement made in the ballot argument. In fact, while the dedicated low and very low income housing is a social benefit to the city, it is not a fiscal benefit. In fact, this housing pays no property tax, it is a fiscal drain.
And finally, there is not even a $3.2 million benefit to the affordable housing fund. The proponents here are referring to the fact that staff reported that the city’s dedicated affordable housing fund has, historically, provided large subsidies when the developer provides a land dedication, because when the developer builds the low and very low income rental housing, he usually relies on federal and state subsidies instead (still taxpayer money). But we don’t have to use the dedicated city fund. According to staff, we could find another developer to deed over the land to who would apply for the state and federal funds.
A completely separate issue that I brought up at the debate is the fact that the project only breaks even for the first 15 years, due to the fact that the deficit is plugged by a onetime payment that only lasts 15 years.
And this is true even using the developer-friendly model which assumes that the temporary parks tax and sales tax override lasts into perpetuity.
We have never used such a onetime payment as part of a long term forecast. It is bad accounting practice and is a very bad precedent that future developers well no doubt demand as well.
Another key quote from last night from the Yes on P side:
“Fiscal benefits mean different things to different people”
I guess for Parlin it means you get a sweet deal compared to other recently approved projects (i.e. Verona) and still turn around and say that you are providing the City with “net fiscal benefits”
When will it be televised?
Did anyone address why this site when so low on the Hoysing Element list?
Thanks
Mark Siegler (as a member of that same Housing and Steering Element committee) listed the reasons; and if he is reading this, can chime in, but he mentioned it’s peripheral location away from downtown business and UC Davis as one reason, the fact that it was already existing ag land (horse ranch) site as another…
Requiring two incomes to be affordable isn’t really affordable.
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . . .
Matt,this was never “much discussed”. While it was absolutely outrageous that Parlin claimed he was not going to use a land dedication option, yet fought tooth and nail to keep the land dedication option in the development agreement during last week’s council meeting, this issue was tangential to the democracy-undermining untruth in the ballot argument — the untruth that the project creates a $4 million dollar fiscal net benefit to the city that can be used to fund city services. [/quote]
Sue, a couple of observations. 1) Masud never fought tooth and nail to keep the option in on Tuesday night. He simply refused to answer your question. Feel free to take that personally if you want, but the reality is that in the absence of your involvement, it is my understanding that the option was quickly eliminated in discussions with City Staff. On Saturday at the Farmer’s Market Katherine Hess told me personally that the option was gone. 2) You add the words “that can be used to fund city services.” to the end of your final sentence above. First, those are your words, neither Staff, nor Parlin have said that. You have merged two unique, distinct and true concepts into a single untrue statement. It is that kind of “spin” that has characterized your arguments throughout the campaign.
With that said, are you saying that providing 40 rental housing units that comply with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance is not a “city service”? If it isn’t, then why did the City pass its Affordable Housing Ordinance? You appear to be having another Marie Antoinette moment.
[quote]To: SODA’ite said . . .
Mark Siegler (as a member of that same Housing and Steering Element committee) listed the reasons; and if he is reading this, can chime in, but he mentioned it’s peripheral location away from downtown business and UC Davis as one reason, the fact that it was already existing ag land (horse ranch) site as another…
[/quote]
Mark did indeed read the information about the WHR site from the Housing Element Steering Committee report as part of the prepared comments. No one asked any questions about those comments, and rightly or wrongly I focused my article on the questions asked by the people in the audience, especially when they covered information that was relatively new.
With that said, I have a question for everyone that is germane to your final point. How many horse facilities are listed in the Yellow Pages with a Davis address?
As one of the organizers of last night’s forum, and as the keeper of the sign-in sheet, I would like to correct Matt’s estimate of the number of attendees. Forty-three people actually signed in; I estimate I saw and talked to another ten people who preferred not to put their names on our sheet. That puts the number of attendees at between forty and fifty. Today people are telling me they would have been at this forum but for other plans. I think the public has a lot of questions that remain unanswered, and I agree we should have more such forums. I’ll put it out there right now that I will agree to help with any future forum, if help is needed/wanted.
Nora, thank you for that correction. I should have gotten a number from you before I left, but 36 vs. 43 isn’t too bad for a thumb-licking exercise.
Regarding your volunteering, may I suggest you contact Holly Bishop. She has extensive contact infomation regarding contacts at each of the Neighborhood Associations.
I would certainly think WENA would want to host one. Perhaps one of the WENA members can chime in about any interest they might have.
There should be a PRO and CON panel debate down at City Hall, on Cable. The LWV often does these.
“Ol’timer: you have referred to Measure L several times. It would be helpful if you posted a pdf of the Measure that was on the ballot, and a piece of the pro and the con literature, and a summary of events from that political era.”
My recollection is that Measure L was passed about 20 years ago. When we have had a progressive Council majority, they have recognized this citizen directive in the General Plan. In recent years, however, this General Plan citizen directive has been blithly ignored(much like the city statute that demands that our City Manager be a Davis resident). Both Measure L and the City Manager resident requirement should be either officially overturned or adhered to. It is obvious why the current Council majority chooses to ignore rather than publicly go on record overturning the slow growth Measure L initiative.
Measure L, from Mike Fitch’s city history on the city website; discussing Measure L in the context of the Mace Ranch agreement:
The most significant occurred on June 3, when approximately 56 percent of the city’s voters cast ballots in favor of Measure L, an initiative sponsored by Citizens for the General Plan. The measure was advisory, and thus would not bind the hands of council members or county supervisors in the dispute over Mace Ranch. Still, the council could hardly ignore the underlying message: voters wanted Davis to stay on a slow-growth course. “Should the following advisory statement of growth policy be adopted?” Measure L asked, advising city and county representatives to heed three principles:
* Davis should grow as slowly as it legally could;
* Future growth should be concentrated on lands already within the city limits and additional annexations should be discouraged; and
* The county should not approve development on the periphery of Davis unless the city gives its stamp of approval by ruling it consistent with the Davis General Plan.
Measure L included several findings, including the beliefs that “the prime agricultural land surrounding Davis is a resource of local, state and national importance” and “the growth of Davis is an issue best determined by Davis citizens without outside pressure or influence.”
[quote]Masud never fought tooth and nail to keep the option in on Tuesday night–Matt Williams[/quote]This statement is factually incorrect. Masud and his representative fought tooth and nail to keep the land dedication option in the development agreement. It is on streaming video on the City of Davis website for all to see.
That was 1986.
[quote]You add the words “that can be used to fund city services.” to the end of your final sentence above. First, those are your words, neither Staff, nor Parlin have said that–Matt Williams[/quote]Matt,read my quote. I said “this issue was tangential to the democracy-undermining untruth in the ballot argument”. As I clearly stated, those are the words on the Yes on P ballot statement. Parlin declined to correct the ballot statement, and has publicly stood behind it.
Correction: Masud failed to correct the ballot statement, and has publicly stood behind it.
“Sue, a couple of observations. 1) Masud never fought tooth and nail to keep the option in on Tuesday night. He simply refused to answer your question. Feel free to take that personally if you want, but the reality is that in the absence of your involvement, it is my understanding that the option was quickly eliminated in discussions with City Staff.
Any unbiased viewer of this exchange would recognize that Parlin’s refusal to publicly answer Sue’s question concerning his option to go with a land dedication was “stonewalling” We can only guess why but must assume that it was a rational decision that he hoped would allow him to retain the land dedication option. It was only when Don Saylor publicly suggested that he was moving to be “on the same page” with Sue’s point of argument that Parlin recognized that he did not have a Council majority on this issue and rather quickly relented.
Matt.. your repeated protestations of non-bias increasingly rings hollow.
One has to wonder whether the public and official rejection of the validity of your personal alternative fiscal analysis for the WHR project is playing a part in what might be described as a personal ego investment in the outcome of Measure P.
[quote]Sue Greenwald said . . .
Matt,read my quote. I said “this issue was tangential to the democracy-undermining untruth in the ballot argument”. As I clearly stated, those are the words on the Yes on P ballot statement. Parlin declined to correct the ballot statement, and has publicly stood behind it.[/quote]
Sue, read the words from the rebuttal 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”. The project does provide a reliable annual source of funding for city services. The updated Staff Report clearly states that. You may not like the fact that the Developer has created an Escrow account to make up the difference between the Tax retention percentage, but that doesn’t change the fact that they have done so, and Staff has clearly and unambiguously stated that the General Fund revenues now exceed the General Fund expenses. Do you dispute the Staff Report findings?
Further the sum total of the Fiscal Benefits exceeds $4 million. Your argument that there was an escape clause made a lot of sense, and now thanks to your efforts that escape clause no longer exists. Bottom-line, one of the City accounts will be in much better shape thanks to the fiscal package with which Parlin has stepped forward.
ol’ timer: Masud did not “quickly relent”. His representative came back and argued vigorously against removing the land use dedication option.
As a participant I thought it was a civil debate and gave folks an idea of each side. However, on the fiscal issues Parlin’s ballot statement is just flat out wrong and they essentially confirmed as much last night. As for affordability, when you make it a hallmark of your campaign, saying “affordability is in the eye of the beholder” is weak, but let folks judge. Unfortunately, as Sue pointed out, we will be outspent. My guess is at least 100 to 1, which makes it harder to get our message out, but we will try. Please look at http://www.2000homesareenough.org/ for more info and stop by the farmers market.
Thanks for your suggestion, Matt. Actually, Holly and I go back a long, long way- our kids were in nursery school together.
If you check our neighborhood website (Slidehill.org) you’ll see that we link to other active neighborhood sites. So the communication is in place for other possible forums on this and any other issue.
Matt, you are talking in circles. [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—Yes on P ballot Rebuttal”.[/quote]We have all acknowledged now that the project barely breaks even, and only for 15 years at that. It runs a large deficit if the temporary sales and parks tax overrides are not renewed indefinitely.
that itHow can you sit there with a straight face and reassert is truthful to say that “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”?
“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”
There is no way to read this sentence other than as an assertion that the $4 million is what provides funding for city services. Yet the $4 million is actually a theoretical benefit, akin (we learn) to having someone else pay for your dinner.
There is no influx of $4 million in cash to city accounts.
There is no ability to transfer that $4 million from one account to any account which actually sustains city services.
There is no actual $4 million anywhere.
So Sue is right: the statement creates a linkage which is simply, directly, irrefutably untrue. The proponents of WHR knew that, but refused to remove it from the ballot argument.
Now we learn that “affordable” has no real meaning. Except that “affordable” has very specific meanings. If it didn’t, there wouldn’t have been any way to determine if this project met the city affordability requirement. It barely meets that requirement, but not by means of any of the townhouses.
Sue, you are simply looking at a portion of the accounting. Why do you choose to do so. Any reasonable person looksa at all the ins and outs. If someone says to you, “You have a certain amount of money in your Savings account that you are planning to spend on Item X. I am stepping up so that you don’t have to spend that certain amount of money . . . and you will get Item X as well. Do you say to that person, “That is a bad deal for me because you haven’t put the money in my checking account.”
Mark Siegler has been direct and honest in recognizing that the money is real. He has argued that Item X is not needed at this time, and therefore the offer isn’t worth taking at this time. He has acknowledged the social benefit of the item. he has simply said that the benefit of the added Affordable Housing isn’t enough to make the whole project desireable. You on the other hand try and play slight of hand with the City’s accounting structure. That is disingenuous at best.
[quote]ol’ timer said . . .
Matt.. your repeated protestations of non-bias increasingly rings hollow.
One has to wonder whether the public and official rejection of the validity of your personal alternative fiscal analysis for the WHR project is playing a part in what might be described as a personal ego investment in the outcome of Measure P. [/quote]
ol’timer, you have every right to feel that way. My motivations have little to do with the outcome of Measure P. They do have to do with Sue’s continuing effort to “spin” a portion of the accounting picture rather than tranparently focusing on the whole accounting picture.
Don, your checking account balance is affected by [u]both[/u] influxes of cash [u]and[/u] outflows of payments. The balance at the end is the result of both. In simple terms the City will be getting a benefit it has passed Ordinances saying it values. It has normally paid out the equivalent of over $3 million to get that benefit in the past. In this case it will get the benefit and have no outflow. The balance of the checkbook will be affected by that absence of an over $3 million outflow. It is very simple.
Hey Matt:
Why don’t you lay off Sue for a bit, would you…and respond to Don Schor’s great points:
There is no influx of $4 million in cash to city accounts.
There is no ability to transfer that $4 million from one account to any account which actually sustains city services.
There is no actual $4 million anywhere.
So Sue is right: the statement creates a linkage which is simply, directly, irrefutably untrue. The proponents of WHR knew that, but refused to remove it from the ballot argument
I was at the debate last night and wanted to ask a question (but we ran out of time); if anyone from the Yes on P campaign, perhaps Bill Ritter or Shahin Monfared are reading this, perhaps they can answer (non-anonymously):
According to the “Yes on P” website (the FAQ sections), the following is claimed:
“Approving small infill projects like this will take the pressure off for more housing on larger, peripheral properties that are productive farmland.”
So let’s take Covell Village II as an example of a “larger, peripheral property that is on productive farmland”; Covell Village II developers have already begun their march to get their project approved; look up the “Council for Healthy Aging” (CHA) and the whole argument for a “healthy” senior citizen mega-development (ie. Sun City) in Davis….
WHR has NO senior housing planned..so, whether or not Measure P is passed or rejected, Covell Village II moves forward, so then please tell us what other “large peripheral properties on productive farmland” will be delayed by the passage of Measure P (Binning Ranch? which is also currently owned by Parlin)
Matt: “It has normally paid out the equivalent of over $3 million to get that benefit in the past.”
But it would not be paying out $3 million if WHR fails to pass. This is not real money.
“your checking account balance is affected by both influxes of cash and outflows of payments.”
Again, there is no account from which this theoretical money flows, nor any account to which it flows. It is not real money. In no sense whatsoever is it a “source of funding for city services. Yet there is is, linked to that concept right in the ballot argument.
What do you call that kind of argument?
[quote]Mark Siegler has been direct and honest in recognizing that the money is real.[/quote]Matt, Mark and I are in complete agreement concerning the fiscal benefits and/or lack thereof in this project.
[quote]
DonShor said . . .
Matt: “It has normally paid out the equivalent of over $3 million to get that benefit in the past.”
But it would not be paying out $3 million if WHR fails to pass. This is not real money.[/quote]
Absolutely correct . . . and the City of Davis would not have the added asset of 40 additional appartment units that comply with the mandates of its Affordable Housing Ordinance. Don, if those Affordable Rental Units weren’t considered to be a valuable asset for Davis, why was the Ordinance passed? . . . and why has it been enforced since it passed? You of all people should see the value of added rental units in the Davis market.
[quote]”your checking account balance is affected by both influxes of cash and outflows of payments.”
Again, there is no account from which this theoretical money flows, nor any account to which it flows. It is not real money. In no sense whatsoever is it a “source of funding for city services. Yet there is is, linked to that concept right in the ballot argument.[/quote]
When City Council passed the Affordable Housing Ordinance it moved unrestricted funds from one or more of its unrestricted accounts into a restricted account that is used to fund the kind of transactions described in the July 28th Staff Report.
Have you ever transferred funds from one or more of your unrestricted accounts (checking, savings, stock portfolio, etc.) into an IRA? Once the money is in the IRA any changes in its disposition have to abide by certain rules. Lets imagine you want to purchase an asset with your IRA funds and incorporate that asset into your IRA Fund balance. You get assurance from the IRS that you can make that transaction without violating IRS rules. However, you find out that a third party is willing to pay for the asset you have stated you value, and transfer the title to that asset into your IRA. Now you have the asset [u]and[/u] the funds in your IRa instead of just the asset and no more funds. I ask you are you better off?
[quote]What do you call that kind of argument?[/quote]
I call it sound investment practices. I call it balancing your portfolio. However, I also recognize that if (like Mark Siegler does) you don’t truly value the asset, then you may not consider your portfolio as balanced as someone would if they did value that asset.
[quote]To: Matt Williams said . . .
Hey Matt:
Why don’t you lay off Sue for a bit, would you…and respond to Don Schor’s great points:
There is no influx of $4 million in cash to city accounts.
There is no ability to transfer that $4 million from one account to any account which actually sustains city services.
There is no actual $4 million anywhere.
So Sue is right: the statement creates a linkage which is simply, directly, irrefutably untrue. The proponents of WHR knew that, but refused to remove it from the ballot argument.[/quote]
I just got back from dog training class at Central Park. The very first post I responded to was Don’s.
You are absolutely right there is no influx of $4 million in cash to the City accounts. As I pointed out, account balances are determined by the aggregate effect of cash influxes and cash withdrawals. You are disregarding the cash withdrawal side of the equation. To draw a simple parallel, in this tight economy, where jobs are scarce, most people see “tightening their belts as a personal budgeting strategy that is more likely to bring them peace of mind rather than trying to increase their income.
Your point about restrictions on transfering has significant merit; however, does that make the aggregate cash in all the city accounts any less. If you have two 1’s in a single room they add up to 2. If you move one of those 1’s out onto the porch, they still add up to 2.
Regarding the linkage, let me ask you a simple question, “According to the information in the revised Staff Report, does the project produce a reliable stream of revenue that exceeds the stream of expenses during the Staff analysis period?”
[quote]When City Council passed the Affordable Housing Ordinance it moved unrestricted funds from one or more of its unrestricted accounts into a restricted account that is used to fund the kind of transactions described in the July 28th Staff Report.
[/quote]Not true, Matt. The affordable housing trust fund comes from sources such as in-lieu fees that developers pay specifically for affordable housing and the percentage of our redevelopment agency funds that, by law, must be set aside for affordable housing. None of the money came from general funds, and none of the money could ever have been used for any other purpose.
From where do you get these ideas that you state with such certainty?
Matt Williams: I see you are busy blowing smokescreens again.
Matt Williams: I see you are busy blowing smokescreens again.
[quote]There is no actual $4 million anywhere. [/quote] There actually may be a $4 million somewhere. Well, not $4 million, but $3.2 million. That’s the figure Sue has questioned, not the other $800,000 or so.
I thought about this for awhile. I thought about it from the perspective of a businessman, a developer. When you are in business, primarily, your interest is to make as much money as you can. (I have no problem with that. The kind of people in business who don’t try to maximize their profits are generally* the kind of people who don’t last in business.) Parlin is trying to make as much money as it can from WHR.
According to Parlin, it will have to expend out of pocket $3.2 million to build the so-called “low-income*” housing portion of WHR. However, according to the development agreement, Parlin does not have to spend this money at all. Instead, Parlin can simply give the city a land dedication.
So now, which one would you do, if you were running a for-profit enterprise? Would you spend $3.2 million, all of which comes off of your bottom line, if you did not have to? Or would you simply declare — a few years down the road — that “conditions have changed” and instead you will make a land dedication, which costs you nothing out of pocket?
The answer is fairly obvious. Parlin will never build the low-income units. Parlin will make a land dedication. Any business would do the same thing.
The problem with such a decision is that the City Council knows that is what Parlin will do, of course, and yet allowed Parlin to pretend in the development agreement that it is going to build the so-call low-income units.
That gets back to the $3.2 million. A poster above said “it does not exist.” But if Matt Williams and Parlin are right that it will take a subsidy of roughly $85,000 per unit — Sue Greenwald told me she believes the subsidy would be far less — then when Parlin declares, as it surely will, “let’s go with the land dedication option,” the City of Davis will be on the hook for the amount of that subsidy, what Matt has said is $3.2 million.
In other words, the $3.2 million could very well be real. Some amount greater than Zero is real. And it won’t be a profit for the City. It will be a loss for the City, in that all the other numbers over a 15 year period even out to roughly neutral.
P.S. I have been told directly by staff (not by Paul himself) that Sue was wrong in her understanding of what Paul Navazio told her. She said at the council meeting that in order to make this project pencil out to neutrality for the long-term, not just the 15-year period, the actual contribution amount from Parlin would have to be $7,500/unit, not $1,500 as Sue had argued in the Council meeting.
P.P.S. While I continue to believe that WHR has a lot of great things to be said about it, while I don’t think the neighbors will be terribly harmed by it, and while it is ultimately going to be a small cash drain for taxpayers down the road, I think the dishonest approach of the developers in this debate is not winning people to their side.
*There are exceptions, of course. Some “businesses” make their profits from the public sector handing them cash, either directly or regulatorily. And some are profit-seeking in the main, but not so in marginal areas. And a very few have a natural monopoly, allowing them to be less careful about saving money. But in general, maximizing profits over the long run is what successful businesses which last for the long run do.
** Why do I say so-called low-income housing? Because, if I heard this right at the council meeting — please correct me if I have this wrong — 23 of the 38 fairly small “low-income” units will rent for (in today’s dollars) about $1,000 per month. That is not “low-income.” On a per square foot basis, that is a market-rate rent in most of Davis. A rental agent in Davis told me last week that it is probably “over market” rent, even though we have a very low vacancy rate.
[quote]Mark Siegler has been direct and honest in recognizing that the money is real.[/quote]
Matt, for the 100th time, the $4 million in net fiscal benefits is not real! Frankly, I’m stunned by your inaccurate characterization of my views.
If Wildhorse Ranch is not built, the City will pay no affordable housing subsidies. If Wildhorse Ranch is built, the City will pay no affordable housing subsidies. Fiscally, the City is receives no money in either case, except that affordable housing means lower tax revenues (since affordable housing is exempt from property taxes and residents who earn less than the median income will pay less in sales and other taxes). It is well-known that most housing, and particularly affordable housing exempt from property taxes is a net fiscal drain.
The model used by the City is overly generous to the developers, and the project will almost certainly result in a net fiscal loss over a 15-year time horizon, and much bigger losses beyond 15 years.
Some of the deficit is made up by a $300 per year fee on the future residents of Wildhorse Ranch, and this fee will increase 3% each and every year. In essence, future residents of Wildhorse Ranch will be penalized because the City and it’s citizens voted to build houses where the City only retains 11.8 percent of the property taxes instead of the Citywide average of 17.5 percent.
One more thought on WHR before I call it a night … Perhaps the best thing to come out of this process is the emergence of Phil Wyles as a public figure. I’ve never met Mr. Wyles, but I’ve been hugely impressed by his style, demeanor and ability to articulate the thoughts and concerns of the Wildhorse neighborhood. Unless he is otherwise too busy, I would hope Wyles would some day consider running for City Council. He seems like he would be a good candidate.
[quote]
Mark Siegler
09/22/09 – 11:02 PM
…
Mark Siegler has been direct and honest in recognizing that the money is real.
Matt, for the 100th time, the $4 million in net fiscal benefits is not real! Frankly, I’m stunned by your inaccurate characterization of my views.
If Wildhorse Ranch is not built, the City will pay no affordable housing subsidies. If Wildhorse Ranch is built, the City will pay no affordable housing subsidies. Fiscally, the City is receives no money in either case, except that affordable housing means lower tax revenues (since affordable housing is exempt from property taxes and residents who earn less than the median income will pay less in sales and other taxes). It is well-known that most housing, and particularly affordable housing exempt from property taxes is a net fiscal drain.[/quote]
Mark, with the current agreement between the City and Parlin your statement is absolutely correct. However, stopping at that point is only looking at part of the story. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Staff Report explicitly states that if Parlin chose to not build the Affordable Rental Units, but rather placed that burden on the City, as previous developments have, then the City would find itself in the unenviable position of having to pay an $80,000 to $90,000 per unit subsidy to whichever organization it contracted with to build the units. Parlin’s voluntary decision to take on the responsibility of seeing that the units are built means the City avoids having to pay that subisdy. So bottom-line there are three scenarios. 1) WHR isn’t approved, 2) WHR is approved and the City is responsible for building the Affordable Units and 3) WHR is approved and the City is not responsible for building the Affordable Units. Your comments about the “social benefit” of the Affordable Rental Units, and the fact that you personally don’t see enough weight in that social benefit should be easy to hear on the tape.
[quote]Sue Greenwald
Not true, Matt. The affordable housing trust fund comes from sources such as in-lieu fees that developers pay specifically for affordable housing and the percentage of our redevelopment agency funds that, by law, must be set aside for affordable housing. None of the money came from general funds, and none of the money could ever have been used for any other purpose. [/quote]
Sue, three questions. 1) Do in-lieu fees go into restricted or unrestricted accounts within the City’s accounting structure? 2) If the Affordable Ordianance were not on the books, where would those in-lieu fees go? 3) Is WHR in the redevelopment district and eligible for redevelopment agency funds?
[quote]She said at the council meeting that in order to make this project pencil out to neutrality for the long-term, not just the 15-year period, the actual contribution amount from Parlin would have to be $7,500/unit, not $1,500 as Sue had argued in the Council meeting.[/quote]Rich Rifkin, I said that it would take $5,900 per year, not $7,500 per year.
And yes, Paul did calculate this figure and yes, he did give it to me. Paul might be getting a lot of grief for this, and he might be sorry that he told it to me, but he did.
In fact, city hall has become so overly politicized lately that the city manager told me that I had no right to divulge what Paul said to me in private, presumably in response to pressure over this issue.
But there is no reason to put poor Paul under oath on this matter. The figure can be very easily derived by taking the predicted deficit in year 16 from the fiscal model before the $1,500 per market rate unit fee was added, and then calculating the size of the fund that would be needed to provide enough interest at 4% a year (the figure the city uses for its low-risk investments)to equal that deficit, and then divide that number by 191 (the number of units).
Mark Siegler has the model; he can calculate this figure for you directly from the model.
I had no intention of putting Paul Navazio in a difficult political position. I had viewed it as a simple, technical question that needed a simple, technical answer.
Silly me.
[quote]Rich Rifkin said . . .
I thought about this for awhile. I thought about it from the perspective of a businessman, a developer. When you are in business, primarily, your interest is to make as much money as you can. (I have no problem with that. The kind of people in business who don’t try to maximize their profits are generally* the kind of people who don’t last in business.) Parlin is trying to make as much money as it can from WHR.
According to Parlin, it will have to expend out of pocket $3.2 million to build the so-called “low-income*” housing portion of WHR. However, according to the development agreement, Parlin does not have to spend this money at all. Instead, Parlin can simply give the city a land dedication.
So now, which one would you do, if you were running a for-profit enterprise? Would you spend $3.2 million, all of which comes off of your bottom line, if you did not have to? Or would you simply declare — a few years down the road — that “conditions have changed” and instead you will make a land dedication, which costs you nothing out of pocket?
The answer is fairly obvious. Parlin will never build the low-income units. Parlin will make a land dedication. Any business would do the same thing.[/quote]
Rich you logic is easy to follow, but it omits a couple of key points 1) as of Tuesday night, if what I have seen on the streaming video is correct, as well as what Katherine Hess told me personally at the Farmers Market on Saturday, the option to make the land dedication no longer exists for Parlin. 2) The way Parlin has designed the WHR project, the structure containing the Affordable Units is the “gateway” to the 151 for sale units. If Parlin turns over the design abd building of that structure to the City it will jeopardize its sales and marketing message for each of the 151 for-sale units. Building that structure with the same architectural design as the rest of the project, and thereby removing virtually all uncertainty that prospective buyers of the for-sale units may have about what the impact the Affordables may have on their neighborhood represents an economic benefit to Parlin that exceeds any amount of money they might save by avoiding the costs of building the units themselves.
Rich Rifkin says: [quote]According to Parlin, it will have to expend out of pocket $3.2 million to build the so-called “low-income*” housing portion of WHR.[/quote]Sure Parlin says this, but it isn’t true. In fact, Parlin will get state and federal subsidies. Even the staff report acknowledged this. The biggest downside risk –and it is a small one — is that it might take a little longer for the state and federal subsidies to come through. And I have an inkling that Parlin will succeed in getting a council majority to change the development agreement to give him more time in the off chance that the state and federal subsidies are slow in coming.
Matt: “However, you find out that a third party is willing to pay for the asset you have stated you value, and transfer the title to that asset into your IRA. Now you have the asset and the funds in your IRa instead of just the asset and no more funds. I ask you are you better off?”
No. Presumably the third party has encumbered the asset, or they would have no reason to do what you describe.
Proponents keep trying to describe this asset metaphorically. Dinners we didn’t pay for, IRA transfers. It isn’t real money, so it doesn’t belong in the fiscal analysis in the sense of providing any direct benefit to the city’s finances. It certainly doesn’t belong in the same sentence.
“You are absolutely right there is no influx of $4 million in cash to the City accounts.”
And yet the ballot argument links that income to city operating expenses.
“What do you call that kind of argument?” I call it sound investment practices.
No, how would you characterize the sort of argument that makes a claim that is not substantiated? That describes a nebulous sort of “asset” as an actual stream of revenue usable for city services? How would you characterize that argument?
“According to the information in the revised Staff Report, does the project produce a reliable stream of revenue that exceeds the stream of expenses during the Staff analysis period?”
Apparently they were able to change their assumptions to make that part of it approximately revenue-neutral — which has nothing to do with the “$4 million fiscal benefit” in the ballot argument. I would prefer to have the Budget and Finance Commission review staff’s revised analysis before anyone is able to write final ballot arguments. Which is why I recommend that the voters reject this particular development agreement by voting against Measure P.
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.
Rich, in a declining real estate market maybe he doesn’t want to commit to something he would not be able to afford if things don’t work out financially so my guess is he is protecting himself if he loses money but will keep his word if things work out as planned.
Typhoid Mary: Your comments are right on. Sue telegraphed far and wide before 7/28 she was against it, and the only reason mentioned was there were too many home approvals but not yet built. She went into that meeting with almost no knowledge of the staff report. Her tanting at the CC meeting was about too many approvals. The financial issues are an afterthought, one she views useful for displaying her political authority around town, assuming she can get the voters to disavow the votes of 4 CC members. It’s basically a power struggle she has set up in her own mind.
Along the lines of Mike, I think have no problem that Sue is opposed to more houses. That is perfectly consistent with her views. I do have a big problem with her refusing to meet with the developers before hand, all of this fiscal stuff might have been fixed if she had done so. Her crying about it after the fact is disingenuous to me.
“ol’ timer: Masud did not “quickly relent”. His representative came back and argued vigorously against removing the land use dedication option.”
The “quickly relenting” comment was a description that was not based upon what I personally viewed of your exchange,from the dais, with Parlin. It was derived from what others described as the goings-on between staff and Parlin after you publicly exposed his “stonewalling”. I appreciate you catching me on this one. In court, it would have been disqualified as “hearsay”.
And yet the ballot argument links that income to city operating expenses.”
“Deja-vu all over again”, as Yogi said. Sadly, the Yes on P proponents blithely are following the campaign playbook that Whitcomb followed in his attempt to get his Covell Village project approved in our Measure J’s first outing . Remember when they attempted to “sell” us the idea that 50 million would be coming to the city to support the DJUSD?? While never explicitly stating that it was coming from the developer’s pocket, the CV backers, including supposedly well-informed Davis intellectual community “leaders” continued to press this “misrepresentation” until it was revealed that, in reality, the 50 million was what the city would be receiving from the State for the additional students that the development would bring in. How many other issues have been not been given enough due diligence by staff and Council, been glossed over or “misrepresented” to the Davis voter as this Measure J vote is rushed to us on a single-item ballot in 6 WEEKS! NO on P will allow Parlin to bring this project forward again in the future,if he wishes, and this time follow an adequate Measure J process time line.
“in reality, the 50 million was what the city would be receiving from the State for the additional students that the development would bring in.”
It should say…. to the DJUSD, not the city and the bottom line was that the 50 million would pay for the cost of the additional students and would not add additional money to the DJUSD coffers… sound somewhat familiar??
Vicente: “I do have a big problem with her refusing to meet with the developers before hand, all of this fiscal stuff might have been fixed if she had done so.”
There are four council members who support this project. It seems to me they should have held staff to a harder bargain with the developer.
Matt: [i]”… the option to make the land dedication no longer exists for Parlin.” [/i]
It’s possible I am mistaken. I would hope what you say is correct. However, what you heard on a video or heard from Ms. Hess could be wrong. This is an exact quote from the Development Agreement ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20090915/05 Wildhorse Ranch.pdf[/url]) between Parlin and the City of Davis (see page 51): [quote]”Developer shall comply with the City’s Affordable Housing requirements as contained in Section 18.05 of the Municipal Code, as conditioned in the project’s Affordable Housing Plan. The project shall meet its requirements through construction of affordable rental housing under a Project Individualized Plan, [u]or land dedication to the City[/u]. Requirements in the Affordable Housing Plan will transfer to any property owner in the case of sale of the project by Parlin.”[/quote] Matt: [i]”If Parlin turns over the design and building of that structure to the City it will jeopardize its sales and marketing message for each of the 151 for-sale units.”[/i]
I don’t think that is true. Why not? Because whoever builds the affordable units will have to build them according to the agreed upon plans. Those plans include all of the green features and other design elements Parlin has submitted.
Some have noted that Parlin, once it wins the Measure P vote, could pull out of this project entirely. They bought that land relatively cheap. They added a lot of value by getting the zoning changed and getting approval for (what is in my opinion) a very nice housing development. And they could turn a nice profit by simpling selling the land in 2010 or 2011 or 2012, before a single home is constructed.
I don’t view that option as a negative at all*. That is just what happened with Wildhorse, when the Duffels sold out after winning their vote. The new builder — I am not sure who it was — bought the higher priced land and made some money constructing houses and so on. Although I voted against Wildhorse (because I thought back then that it made a lot more sense to build on the property between Wildhorse and Northstar first), it is a nice neighborhood and it wouldn’t have been any nicer had the Duffels built it.
Thus, to argue that Parlin will build the affordable housing largely because Parlin has said it will is (in my opinion) a bit naive. Parlin will do what is in its interest. If it can get sufficient state and federal funds and not lose money building the affordables, then it probably will build them. If getting the subsidies is too much of a hassle or if the moneys are not there, then it will let the City build them (perhaps at a loss). Or maybe Parlin won’t build any of the housing at WHR, if that ends up being in its best interest. Whatever Parlin does, it will be (as it should be) done in an effort to make money.
*I think the folks pointing out the fact that Parlin might sell off the land prior to any construction think it is somehow a bad thing. Many of them, I sense, have a prejudice against developers making profits. I have no prejudice against profits or against capitalism.
Rich Rifkin wrote:
“I think the dishonest approach of the developers in this debate is not winning people to their side.”
Don Schor wrote:
“I would prefer to have the Budget and Finance Commission review staff’s revised analysis before anyone is able to write final ballot arguments. Which is why I recommend that the voters reject this particular development agreement by voting against Measure P.”
Two consistent bloggers, who up until now have been on opposite sides of the issue, but now are both in agreement that the political process that has occurred with this project will likelu ultimatley sink it with Davis voters… Sorry, Mike Parlington and your hopes for your small “political bookend” project
Sue Greenwald’s decision to not negotiate with Parlin could very well be grounded in the position that adhering to SACOG housing number guidelines which have been already exceeded by this Council majority is not, on its face, negotiable. Sue has been consistent over the years in attempting to uphold the Davis voter’s will as expressed in their slow growth Measure L
advisory initiative.
Don: There are three that support the project. Sue is the one who has raised the issue, she was in a position to have stopped it but her irresponsibility and intractability prevented her form doing so.
Ol Timer: Now you are making excuses for her. If this issue (fiscal neutrality) was so important for her, she could have done it regardless her position on the project. As it stands now, it looks like she is merely looking for reasons to vote against the project.
A truncated, neutered Measure J process that eliminates Commission oversight will be given legitimacy with a Yes on P victory. This is the real goal of the Council members and former Planning Department Director and now City Manager Emlen who reject the underlying premise of Measure J which curtails their power.
Most of the low income “affordable” units will be, gasp, MARKET RATE. How this was allowed to happen I don’t know. But it certainly shoots a huge hole in the highly questionable argument WHR will be a net fiscal benefit to the city a la Matt Williams!
What a load of hogwash is being put forth by Yes on P proponents. Most of the low income “affordable” units are not “affordable”; there is essentially no “affordable” workforce housing, yet the project is dense, dense, dense. A voter would have to be dense to vote for this. And the fiscal cost to the city is going to be a big, fat negative to boot!
** Why do I say so-called low-income housing? Because, if I heard this right at the council meeting — please correct me if I have this wrong — 23 of the 38 fairly small “low-income” units will rent for (in today’s dollars) about $1,000 per month. That is not “low-income.” On a per square foot basis, that is a market-rate rent in most of Davis. A rental agent in Davis told me last week that it is probably “over market” rent, even though we have a very low vacancy rate.”
I was also at the City Council meeting and heard the same discussion, and then e-mailed Danielle Foster (from the City’s Housing Department) to verify these numbers, which she did; 23 of the apartment units are designated as “low income” and would rent 1,000 per month for a one bedroom, and 1,200 per month for two bedroom; 15 apartments are designated as “very low income” and would rent 600-700 per month;
Are 15 “very low income” apartments in a proposed development of 191 total units enough to justify the “REALLY AFFORDABLE” label that is all over the Yes on P campaign flyers, buttons, stickers??? That will be up to the reasoned voters of Davis to decide….
Don Shor: [i]”I would prefer to have the Budget and Finance Commission review staff’s revised analysis before anyone is able to write final ballot arguments.”[/i]
One of the most interesting questions about process which has arisen from Wildhorse Ranch has been the role of a whole number of commissions either never having a chance to deliberate on this proposal or not having sufficient time to learn about the project, ask questions, get answers and then give advice to the counsel. I think the complaints of commissions which were ignored or rushed are legitimate.
Yet, when you consider the cost of staff time and the time of the developers, it might just be too expensive to have 8-10 commission meetings (including second meetings for some commissions) on this kind of a project.
My suggestion, therefore, is (when the City is considering a major* development proposal) two joint-commission meetings should be scheduled [i]prior to any council action[/i]. At the first, all of the affected commissions would be invited. This would be the lone agenda item. The various commissions would hear the proposal from staff, hear from the proponent, hear from the public, ask questions, give comments and so on. (Members of the council could attend, but should not weigh in.) At the second joint meeting, a month later with again this one lone agenda item, any questions that could not be answered at the first meeting would be addressed, any further follow up points could be made by the proponent, staff, the public or the commissioners, and any advice (through formal votes of the individual commissions) could be addressed to the City Council.
I don’t know how much precedent there is for joint meetings of more than two commissions. In my experience on the HRMC, we had one joint meeting with the Planning Commission regarding the 3rd & B Visioning Process. It was done as a joint meeting for the very reason that I suggested above: Instead of staff and others having to come to multiple meetings to give the same presentations, time was saved having a joint meeting. Also, it helps the commissioners to hear the views of members of other commissions.
*Major might be say anything over 5 acres?
“A truncated, neutered Measure J process that eliminates Commission oversight will be given legitimacy with a Yes on P victory. This is the real goal of the Council members…”
This is where I think you get into trouble.
Souza is actually an opponent of P but apparently a proponent of truncating the Commission oversight process.
Heystek is a proponent of P but an opponent of truncating the Commission oversight process.
So there is no monolyth here. I do think that Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson would like to find a way to make Measure J less imposing, but I don’t think they are unified in how to do that.
Vincente… this does not make any sense to me. Are you defining “excuse” as adhering to what one believes is a non-negotiable principle? What possible reason would she have for negotiating fiscal issues if she had come to the conclusion that she could not support the project at this time based upon the fact that it would, based upon the already approved Council majority future new housing numbers,further exceed SACOG’s current mandate for DAvis and, under SACOG’s formula, further inflate SACOG’s future Davis housing mandate.
“My suggestion, therefore, is (when the City is considering a major* development proposal) two joint-commission meetings should be scheduled prior to any council action.”
I have no problem with a joint commission process, especially when it comes to allowing the developer to make a presentation, so long as each commission is allowed to give its own opinion on the project to the City Council from their individual commission’s perspective. Different commissions come at an issue from a different perspective.
Anon: agreed. Any votes or declarations of the commissions should be done on a commission-by-commission basis. But those could be done at the joint meeting, probably at the end of the second meeting.
It’s simple, if she wanted fiscal neutrality, she should have worked with them prior to the July 28 meeting to get it. Afterwards was too late. She could still oppose the project but get a more favorable outcome from her perspective. I’m not suggesting that she support the project, I’m suggesting that by failing to meet with the developers in advance, she harmed her peripheral goals that would have made this project better from her perspective even if the SACOG number ultimately precluded her from voting for or supporting the project. And in fact, at times she has suggested that she wouldn’t care about this project at all if the fiscal issue weren’t such a negative, if that is more than just rhetoric, that gets to the heart of my criticism of her.
I’d also point out that long ago the council made it clear that commissions were not oversight bodies but rather advisory. People allowed the commissions to be watered down in the face of the political heat that came from the HRC and I think we will all regret allowing the commissions to be denuded in that way. The council basically used the issue of the HRC as an excuse to diminish the independence and power of all commissions.
Vincente…. “politics makes strange bedfellows. Saylor, Asmundson and Souza as well as Elmen are anti-populist and have and will always be enemies of Measure J. That said, Souza’s apparent contradiction is bedded in his new political persona of moving back and forth from one side of the political street to the other. His alliance with Whitcomb remains unchanged. As for Councilman Heystek, I believe he finds himself in the awkward position of supporting the very elements of this Measure P process which he so vigorously attacked when he was part of the NO on Measure X campaign(earning him a seat on our Council). How he sadly finds himself in this situation,I lay at the feet of his relative political inexperience and the counsel of more experienced local political players.
One thing that I became convinced of at the F&B commission meeting last week is that I need to go every week. And in fact, what really needs to happen is that there needs to be citizens reporting on what is going on at every commission meeting. I’m not sure how that can work just yet, but the light needs to be shined in, because as much as we try to cover with the Vanguard, stuff is clearly going on that is going unnoticed in the community.
I may be in a different place on P than you are ol Timer, but I sense we have similar overall goals.
[quote]I’d also point out that long ago the council made it clear that commissions were not oversight bodies but rather advisory.[/quote] Of course. Commissioners are not elected. They are there and always have been there to serve the needs of the City Council. [quote] People allowed the commissions to be watered down in the face of the political heat that came from the HRC … [/quote] I don’t understand what this means. The commissions were mostly advisory* before the HRC went on its witchhunt and the commissions remain mostly advisory since. [quote] I think we will all regret allowing the commissions to be denuded in that way. [/quote] I don’t agree with your premise. The commissions as a rule have not been stripped of anything since the HRC fiasco. [quote] The council basically used the issue of the HRC as an excuse to diminish the independence and power of all commissions.[/quote] I don’t know what you mean by “independence.” The Council is democratically elected and it selects commissioners to serve its needs. Commissions should never lose sight of that fact.
*I say mostly advisory, because various commissions have other technical duties. The HRMC, for example, is charged with promoting Davis history. The Tree Commission is charged with, for example, deciding if a street tree can or cannot be felled. Many of the projects heard by the Planning Commission never get to the Council, because the PC approves them first. In the various technical areas, it is usually only when a proponent is appealing the commission’s decision that the Council gets involved.
“It’s simple, if she wanted fiscal neutrality, she should have worked with them prior to the July 28 meeting to get it. Afterwards was too late. She could still oppose the project but get a more favorable outcome from her perspective.”
….so you are suggesting that she follow the lead of the Republican Senators in Congress on Health Reform, negotiate on what she considers peripheral issues but all the time plan to vote no for the bill, no matter what the outcome of the negotiations. This is most often a self-defeating political position that strongly suggests that you do not really believe that your primary non-negotiable argument can and should carry the day.
Vincente says: [quote]It’s simple, if she wanted fiscal neutrality, she should have worked with them prior to the July 28 meeting to get it.[/quote]Vincente, I had met with the developer at length earlier in the process. I told him that I put great value on protecting the existing neighborhood. A reasonable fiscal break for the city was a given.
I had nothing against meeting with the developer again, but, as I told them at the time, they contacted me right before I was taking a trip out of the country, and the item was scheduled a week after my return. I was swamped.
That said, meeting with them would not have helped. I had an open mind about the project. After I received the staff report (a few days before the meeting), I called staff and asked for a tally of the number of approved unbuilt units. I talked with the neighbors about their concerns. I read the staff report.
The process was so rushed that I had no way of knowing what the fiscal implications were. The fiscal analysis was not even included in the staff report. The finance director said he didn’t have it in distributable form; it took him some time after the council vote to even get it together.
It took me a few weeks after the vote to be able to fully work through and understand the fiscal analysis.
I don’t have time to go into the detail concerning the mess we were presented with. One example: The staff report said that the developer would contribute $5,000 per unit. Yet on the dias, during the meeting when we had no possibility of reading it, was a late breaking correction that took out the $5,000 per unit contribution.
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
One item that needs clarification is exactly what this “90% GHG reduction” actually brings about. Certainly, Talbot Solar can give us the tonnage(or poundage of carbon that a home with 90% GHG reduction generates as compared to a home that is in compliance with Davis’ “voluntary” strict standards that we have already in place? Obviously,these standards are not strictly speaking “voluntary” since the Council has to agree to the GHG emission plan when they approve the development agreement.
My guess is that the 90% GHG emission reduction in CO2 is not significant when compared to Davis’ current GHG emission “voluntary” standard. Isn’t natural gas for home heating, hot water and cooking what we are talking about here? Many homes use electricity for hot water and cooking and I believe that natural gas is also here the energy source for electrical generation in CA. My understanding is that burning natural gas is not considered a very significant contributor to the increasing CO2 problem in the atmosphere.
I wish there was a full panel debate on the sustainability of this project. The carbon reduction stuff is fascinating. I am around it a little, as I have Parlin and Talbot as tenants and they sometimes show me interesting environmental information. The world needs to change the way it handles emissions, and the Parlin Wildhorse 90% GHG reduction is a good local start. It will set the standards for ALL projects here on out. I think the city should go to at least a 90% reduction standard for every single new home.
I would have requested that Parlin provide a transportation solution to the tailpipe emissions, but the project is too small to require the funding of a “fast frequent and free electric shopping shuttle” that will be necessary for any of the larger projects, assuming other developers apply. (I know that Halloween IV is coming back in January, but that project is so far below the bar that a transportation solution is not even close to a tipping point argument.)
Mike Harrington: You obviously can ask Talbot Solar what the actual real amount of CO2 reduction/home that they are TALKING about building( I say “talking” since Parlin can make a $ 7 million profit just by selling the property with its changed zoning from agricultural to residential) compared to the CO2 emission standards that Davis already has in place. With these real numbers, a reference to the amount of driving/day that this would equal would also help understand the numbers. I would guess that the conclusion that we will reach, when we have this information, is that the Davis voter is being asked to add to the ALREADY EXCEEDED SACOG HOUSING NUMBERS mandated for Davis, accept NON-AFFORDABLE HOUSING, accept A POOR FISCAL DEAL FOR THE CITY ,give legitimacy to the Council majority’s decision to TOTALLY IGNORE THE RESULTS OF THEIR OWN-APPOINTED CITIZEN HOUSING ELEMENT COMMITTEE’S year of work, and ratify, by the voter’s approval of Measure P,setting the precedent that the future MEASURE J PROCESS will be significantly truncated and controlled by Council and staff with citizen Commissions no longer being an essential part of the process, ALL THIS….. FOR THE DUBIOUS VALUE OF DAVIS BRAGGING RIGHTS ABOUT OUR EXCEPTIONALISM.
Ol timer:
Measure L was, unfortunately, advisory only. It had no teeth. So, being advisory only, it can be and has been ignored by every council since its passage. It stated that we should grow as slowly as legally possible.
To those who keep siting the Housing Update Committee list. The vast majority of the 26 sites ranked above this one are sites that the committee thought would be good sites for infill development, but most of them are not now and may never be “on the market” for development. Owners of others have shown no interest in developing them. As part of the process, the city contacted the owners of the privately-owned sites to ask whether they were interested indeveloping them in the near future. Most were not.
Some examples of sites that were ranked highly: DJUSD headquarters on B; PG&E Service Center, Transit corridor, Anderson; City/DJUSD Corporation Yarda, Fifth Street, Civic Center Fields, Nishi (Nishi actually occupied two positions, #s 17 and 25 since two scenarios were considered), Neighborhood shopping center. Others were fill-in lots or apartments such as, second units; downtown; RHD zone, Oxford Circle; Fifth Avenue Place. So, you can see that development of most of the sites above this one were /are not going to come forward for some time if ever.
I am not at all suggesting that these sites should all be developed, but to continue to argue that this site was ranked low so should not be considered is not telling the whole story.
We are confusing affordable housing with work force housing here. The 38 affordable apartments (23 low income and 15 very low income) are city requirements. And, the city, not the developer, sets the rental rates for these units based on income levels of potential tenants, by law.
The work force housing is contained in the rest of the project.
Ol timer:
The 90% GHG emission reduction is 90% below what a standard home now emits. If a standard home emits 5 tons per year, then a similar home in the WHR development will emit 90% less than that. The energy conservation exceeds California’s Title 24 standars by 50% and it far exceeds the City of Davis “voluntary” program. Look at the documents where this project is ranked against the city’s standards.
MH: [i]I would have requested that Parlin provide a transportation solution to the tailpipe emissions …” [/i]
OT: [i]”With these real numbers, a reference to the amount of driving/day that this would equal would also help understand the numbers.”[/i]
Greg Kuperberg had, I thought, a very good comeback to this (bogus) idea that because WHR is on the periphery of Davis, its direct and passive household solar features will be mooted by extra driving. Greg said (paraphrasing) that if you don’t build new homes on the periphery of Davis, then instead of having a 2.3 mile drive to downtown Davis — the distance from WHR — you will have a 10-15 mile drive from Woodland or from West Sacramento.
OT: [i]”… the future MEASURE J PROCESS will be significantly truncated and controlled by Council and staff with citizen Commissions no longer being an essential part of the process …”[/i]
The people will still vote on the proposal. As such, Measure J remains the same and intact. And keep in mind, the council which you abhor is made up of democratically elected citizens, while the “citizen” commissions you adore are only appointed.
“….has been ignored by every council since its passage. It stated that we should grow as slowly as legally possible.”
My recollection is that the above is not accurate. Progressive Council majorites under the mayorship of Wagstaff (and perhaps Partasky) discussed, from the dais, Measure L as a reason why they were not moving forward at that time on development proposals that were being offered by developers.
“If a standard home emits 5 tons per year….”
Are we including “standard homes” that use fuel oil as an energy source? Is the 5 ton number soley for a standard home in Davis’ climate using natural gas as the energy source?
Why can’t I get a simple answer to the question, how much actual real number reduction/home/day would occur IN Davis,which uses natural gas and electricity, when comparing the strict standards already in place, and how does this number translate into the GHG emissions from automobile driving time/car/day?
Rich Rifkin says: [quote]Greg Kuperberg had, I thought, a very good comeback to this (bogus) idea that because WHR is on the periphery of Davis, its direct and passive household solar features will be mooted by extra driving. Greg said (paraphrasing) that if you don’t build new homes on the periphery of Davis, then instead of having a 2.3 mile drive to downtown Davis — the distance from WHR — you will have a 10-15 mile drive from Woodland or from West Sacramento.[/quote]Rich, I would agree with you if the housing were dedicated to the local workforce, such as University housing, but on the periphery, many of our residents tell me that most of their neighbors commute to Sacramento or other towns and have moved here because of our schools or quality of life, so it is not clear whether we are increasing or decreasing commuting when we build this type of housing.
“To those who keep siting the Housing Update Committee list…”
The inescapable fact remains that Emlen(we can assume with Council majority direction) DID NOT tell Parlin that they would put his proposal on-hold, while the citizen Housing Element Committee worked for a year on their priority list, but rather continued to process and negotiate on his proposal. The obvious conclusion must be that the Council majority and Emlen never intended to give the Housing Element recommendations any real weight.
“The obvious conclusion must be that the Council majority and Emlen never intended to give the Housing Element recommendations any real weight. “
There is a middle course here, and that is that the city never intended the HESC recommendations to be the sole basis for development and order of development. It’s also likely that they had little real sense how that was going to play out. They certainly did not intend to put all potential projects on hold while the committee met. And there is also a disingenuous element here, there are certainly projects ranked highly that I flat out would not support and I would not want to be bound to the whims of the committee for all land use decisions.
Vincente…. The Council majority was mistakenly fairly confident that their appointees would hold the majority and that their recommendations would comport with the Council majority’s future plans. I do not think that that they expected that the Committee would be able to come together, work diligently and reach consensus recommendations. The Council has used the citizen committee ploy as a sop to neuter citizen-initiated political directions that they are opposed to, diverting voters attention to the committee process and then sometime later ignoring and “let die on the vine” results that they do not like. The commmittee and advisory initiative concerning multiple choice voting is another good example.
Ol timer:
Standard home in Davis. Based on what Davis has determined via the CAT actions is an average GHG emission.
“I’d also point out that long ago the council made it clear that commissions were not oversight bodies but rather advisory.”
Commissions have always been advisory. But how can they advise the City Council, if they never get the information necessary to advise the City Council? Let’s face it, city staff does not want its reports criticized in any way, or dissected, or questioned.
“I would guess that the conclusion that we will reach, when we have this information, is that the Davis voter is being asked to add to the ALREADY EXCEEDED SACOG HOUSING NUMBERS mandated for Davis, accept NON-AFFORDABLE HOUSING, accept A POOR FISCAL DEAL FOR THE CITY ,give legitimacy to the Council majority’s decision to TOTALLY IGNORE THE RESULTS OF THEIR OWN-APPOINTED CITIZEN HOUSING ELEMENT COMMITTEE’S year of work, and ratify, by the voter’s approval of Measure P,setting the precedent that the future MEASURE J PROCESS will be significantly truncated and controlled by Council and staff with citizen Commissions no longer being an essential part of the process, ALL THIS….. FOR THE DUBIOUS VALUE OF DAVIS BRAGGING RIGHTS ABOUT OUR EXCEPTIONALISM.”
That sums up the situation surrounding Measure P nicely!
“To those who keep siting the Housing Update Committee list. The vast majority of the 26 sites ranked above this one are sites that the committee thought would be good sites for infill development, but most of them are not now and may never be “on the market” for development. Owners of others have shown no interest in developing them.”
They may not want to develop right now, but that doesn’t mean they won’t want to in the future if the price is right!
Ol timer:
Parlin and Lewis Homes came forward with their proposals in 2004-2005 but were put on hold for Covell Village. When CV lost, the proposals were reactivated. Both were moving forward, more or less, during the Housing Committee work.
Sue said”Rich, I would agree with you if the housing were dedicated to the local workforce, such as University housing, but on the periphery, many of our residents tell me that most of their neighbors commute to Sacramento or other towns and have moved here because of our schools or quality of life, so it is not clear whether we are increasing or decreasing commuting when we build this type of housing.”
So why are we alsays trying to control where people live if we can’t control where they live?
SG: [i]”I would agree with you if the housing were dedicated to the local workforce, such as University housing, but on the periphery, many of our residents tell me that most of their neighbors commute to Sacramento or other towns and have moved here because of our schools or quality of life, so it is not clear whether we are increasing or decreasing commuting when we build this type of housing.”[/i]
That’s a valid point. However, it is not just people who live on the periphery who are Sacramento commuters. I live in (what used to be West Davis, but is now) the heart of Davis and I have neighbors who work in Sacramento. What I notice, though, is that many of these commuters have a spouse who works in Davis. As such, they have a choice of living outside of Davis and one commuting in or living in Davis and having one commuting out.
On the other hand, I know a couple (both of whom work at UCD) who bought a house in Sacramento County two years ago — yes, very bad timing — because for the same lot size and house, it was much cheaper outside of Davis. Families like that, even if they don’t move into WHR, will be better able to afford living here if there is more product on the market, here. Likewise, I am sure — though I don’t personally know anyone who fits this bill — there are former Davis residents now living in Spring Lake, for example, who would have bought a house at Covell Village had that subdivision been approved. Instead, they are commuting 20 miles a day r/t to Davis.
I would not contend that this is a good argument for why any and all housing projects should be approved in Davis. As Sue has said, there is a loss for Davis as a community by just getting too big, getting to the point where we lose what Davis as a town is all about. But, if one is going to argue that peripheral Davis developments are [i]a cause[/i] of marginal GHG emissions, I think the Kuperberg comment is a correct answer to that charge.
“Ol timer:
Standard home in Davis. Based on what Davis has determined via the CAT actions is an average GHG emission.”
The average real GHG reduction numbers/home for the square footage home proposed when you subtract Davis’ current strict standards(which are not really voluntary since the Council can make them part of a development agreement if it so chooses) from the proposed WHR GHG emissions should not be hard to calculate for the WHR consultants. Translating it into GHG emissions for hours of automobile driving time and giving numbers/day as opposed to a year is , in this context, only to make the numbers have a meaning that the layman can get a handle on. My request for this information is genuine and I can only assume that these cryptic replies somehow are in the interest of the WHR proponents.
“when you subtract Davis’ current strict standards(which are not really voluntary since the Council can make them part of a development agreement if it so chooses) from the proposed WHR GHG emissions should not be hard to calculate.”
Sorry, I should have said subtract GHG emission NUMBERS from the proposed WHR project from the in- place Davis standard NUMBERS to define the real benefit of the “90% GHG reduction”.
Rich Rifkin aren’t you the man I spoke to walking your dog down Loyola one morning while I was driving to work? If so it sounds like you are about to come down off the fence. So, you can go ahead and make your check out to
2000 Homes are Enough
P.O. Box 389
Davis, Ca 95617
You can make it out for as much as you would like to. And I will be glad to deliver your lawn sign to your house. Thanks
2000 homes are enough is a cheap rip off from the anti world bank slogan of 50 years is enough. While it is true that 50 years is enough of the world bank its not clear at all why its true for Davis except for the fact that many Davis people fear more people and more diversity. As such, they seek to preserve some romantic notion of what Davis should be like as a city. Of course those who lived here before you probably felt the same about you moving here in the past although they were probably nicer about it than you are now.
Of course they were more crude in their prejudice back in the days when they had restrictive covenents against blacks and asians in their deeds. Now you just have measure J.
Mich: [i]”Rich Rifkin aren’t you the man I spoke to walking your dog down Loyola one morning while I was driving to work?”[/i]
Yes.
Mich: [i]”If so it sounds like you are about to come down off the fence.”[/i]
I’m not a partisan on this question. I understand that some take the approach that all is good or all is bad about it. My view is that there are quite a lot of good things to be said for it. But, I’m not going to ignore the bad or eschew pointing them out. Insofar as the developer’s camp has been less than forthright, that does bother me.
I realize that you think this development will harm your neighborhood around Monarch Lane. I don’t think it will, but I respect your point of view.
Typh: [i]”Of course they were more crude in their prejudice back in the days when they had restrictive covenents against blacks and asians in their deeds.”[/i]
The only such covenants I’ve seen in Davis were for the College Park neighborhood and the Bower’s Addition (Old North Davis). However, to my recollection*, they did not single out Asians (or “Orientals”). They singled out blacks and Jews (“Negroes and Hebrews”) for exclusion.
The strongest expression of anti-Asian discrimination in Davis history — as far as I know — came about during World War II, when we were at war with Japan. Also, as is well known, Calvin Covell unsuccessfully tried to persuade Davis to ban the return of Japanese and Japanese-Americans to our area.
There is no excuse for Covell’s prejudice. However, it was probably widely held at that time in our community.
It’s worth noting that when the U.S. entered World War I, there was a great amount of anti-German hostility in Davis (and elsewhere in the U.S.**). The irony in that is (I would guess) about half of the residents and the farmers on the outskirts of town were of German heritage. They were forced by the members of the Liberty League to prove their patriotism “or else.”
*I concede I could be recalling them wrong. It’s been a while since I read about the covenants. My guess, though, is that they might have listed only “Negroes” but would have essentially included anyone else who was not “white.”
**A city in Stanislaus County — I don’t recall which one; maybe Oakdale? — changed its name during the war, because it was settled by German farmers and had a German name, something like Eidelheim.
And so Davis, in our time, continues its dark history of exclusion led by its populist ex-mayor.
The No on P argument is that the horse ranch was supposed to be open space in perpetuity. Well, then why was it specifically pointed out in the Measure J language to be the subject of a Measure J vote if rezoned? It’s because people did not consider it to be a viable horse ranch for the long term, and wanted to be sure that the rezone would need a positive J vote. The Wildhorse urban development project gets its legal open space from all of the parks, greenbelts, golf course. The horse ranch was not counted towards the legal requirements, because no one thought it would sit there generating horrible flies for years and years.
Right, Typhoid Mary, we need to build more expensive townhouses in order to improve the diversity of Davis. Got it.
Sue Greenwald wrote “Rich, I would agree with you if the housing were dedicated to the local workforce, such as University housing, but on the periphery, many of our residents tell me that most of their neighbors commute to Sacramento or other towns and have moved here because of our schools or quality of life, so it is not clear whether we are increasing or decreasing commuting when we build this type of housing.”
Don it was this statement that I was responding to in order to point out the absurdity of trying to control who lives where. This desire to control the ability of people who work in nearby communities who would like to live here because of our good schools reminds me of pre-Rumford California where restrictive covenents were common. This attempt to control where people live is exclusionary and a disgraceful level of social engineering that would make its shameful proponents aghast if they were not so blinded by their own self interest. Her notion that there are certain classes of people who are preferable, such as those who would buy workforce housing,smacks of this modern equivelent to exclusionary covenents. Rather than embrace people who would like to live here for the excellent education our schools provide by making sure people had access to excellent public transport Sue Greenwald seeks to keep them out by restricting the construction of housing because she has the misguided belief that California is over carrying capacity and we should dissuade people from coming here by not providing them housing. Sadly, she is representative of so many in town who feel the same way. Of course if she really wanted to lead by example she would tear down her own rental housing keeping even more people out of Davis and California thus living her committment to bringing us down closer to her imagined level of sustainable carrying capacity.
Well, Rich I do believe this project will have a negetive impact on my neighborhood. Also, I believe the land will be developed but this is not the time, the right City Counsel or the right plan for this piece of land. This is shared with many of my neighbors. I understand your position of looking at both sides of this issue. But some how I just know your check will be in the mail for one of our great signs to be placed in your front yard!! Then we all smile while people drive by and honk in support for No on P!!!
To TM–I have lived here for 40+ years—my mother still lives in our family home–we were welcomed by the Davis Welcome Wagon Woman–I still remember her –she scared me because she had such high heels and big hair. And that wonderful welcome wagon kit of things that my mother would only let me look at but not touch…I think we were welcomed….
In the statement you quote, TM, my interpretation is that Sue is refuting the notion that WHR or any other peripheral development provides primarily “workforce housing.” If the people who buy those houses work elsewhere, WHR has not provided workforce housing.
There is usually no way to enforce who buys housing, for the rather obvious reason that it requires that the seller discriminate. To me, that is one of the problems with West Village: the university is setting up a below-market housing project where they, as the seller, will discriminate in selecting buyers. Personally, I think that should be illegal. Just as I think it should be illegal to sell houses to seniors only — and that will probably be the next project put before the voters.
It bothers me that in a city with a limited number of housing units available to be built within the next few years, that a significant percentage of those will be limited to certain types of buyers (and barely any to renters). I consider the rental component of WHR to be so trivial as to be hardly worth voting for.
Anyway, IMO the point Sue is making, which I consider valid, is that it is yet another misrepresentation to call WHR “workforce housing.” I think your linkage to the past racial covenants is quite a stretch.
Unfortunately, there isn’t really any commonly accepted definition of “workforce housing.” If you look around the internet, you find the term usually refers to affordable housing but without the low-income component that is often included in the latter term. It seems to be a euphemism used to sugar-coat “affordable” in areas where that connotes low-income.
Workforce housing usually seems to mean housing that is within some range of the local median income. The Davis ordinance for affordable housing requires 25% of the housing to be priced affordable for buyers with income at 80 – 120% of the Yolo County median. The city updates that figure annually. If the project has high density, the developer is allowed to provide only 20% at those affordable prices, and that minimal level is exactly what WHR is providing.
Michelle, you may be referring to Minnie Brenner, the City Hostess lady. She is a treasure.
Good lord, I just noticed the Yes on P ad here on the Vanguard. “Really Green. Really Affordable.” Green: plausible. Affordable: ridiculous. You folks should be ashamed of yourselves.
But Sue’s disdain for people moving here who do not fit her idea of the right kind of people, those that work here in Davis and are associated with the university, instead of commuters, most of whom come here because they value the educational opportunities available here for their children, does represent a repugnant exclusionary dynamic. It is a misguided and jaded class based prejudice that projects itself as a desire to keep “Davis livable” in the same sense that slavery kept the Antebellum South livable.
OK, maybe slavery is too harsh so I guess to be more reflective of the intended sentiment lets say the way segragation kept the south livable, the way Kearnyism kept San Francisco livable, the way Soweto kept Capetown livable, the way Gaza keeps Tel Aviv livable, and finally, the way the ghetto kept Warsaw livable.
Yes Don the ad is ridcuious, I just saw it myself on this blog site last night. The No on P side is made up of neighbors from many parts of town (not just Wildhorse) and we are very green at getting a campaign off the ground but we are doing it. Along with our full time jobs, and getting our kids to school and ball practice. The City Council gave us VERY little time to prepare oppostion and find money for ads and signs. However, we are doing it and we are growing in numbers each day with each person that we speak with. We are determined to get the message out even if it is one person at a time. And when we win it just goes to show that our Measure J does work…we as residents stood up and had a voice agaist a Developer who has the big bucks to get their message out.
TM you convinced me I too will vote no on P! I now think the results will be No 56% Yes 44%. With the yes side having friends like Mary and Mike the Yes on P numbers will decrease.
Michelle…
My check to 2000 Are Enough will be in the mail.
Keep up the good work
TS excellent choice!
Mike Harrington says:” The No on P argument is that the horse ranch was supposed to be open space in perpetuity.”
Such patently false comments certainly undermines the little credibility that Mike Harrington still has managed to retain.
Measure J works for the old against the young, the strong against the weak, the rich against the poor and the possessed against the dispossessed.
BS, Measure J allows the people to get the say about a project rather than the developers and council. Your statement is far too simplistic to be accurate.
“With the yes side having friends like Mary and Mike the Yes on P numbers will decrease.”
Mary is not Yes on P. Mary is yes on every project and No on J. Don’t confuse him with something else.
Nope I’m no on P because its too dense and too tall.
and too expensive
So there you have it Truth Seeker, Mary isn’t even Pro P! Care to revise your statement? And Mike Harrington is nothing more than a buffoon, a caricature of himself.
But Vince the great weakness of democracy is for the majority to be wrong.
That’s a bunch of crap Mary, you were pro covell village and covell village was way more expensive than this project.
Thank you for your check and we will look forward to placing a sign in your yard if you would like just note that when you send in your check.
No on P——–donations are greatly needed for signs
2000 Homes are Enough
P. O. Box 389
Davis, CA 95617
We will prevail we will win—————–
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Statement made reference to Measure J supporting the strong over the weak. No Measure J favors absolutely the strong over the weak, at least J gives the weak a fighting chance.
….came across some information yesterday. There are now between one and two million more homes that are being held in limbo by banks that have not yet declared them “foreclosed” and available for resale. This is because the federal mortgage modification legislation in place calls for homeowners to have several months to try and work out some mortgage modification. The quite low % of these home-owners who have sought to use this plan coupled with the increasing number of mortgage interest rates that are coming up to be “reset” at unpayable rates tells us that the real existing unsold housing inventory will get a lot bigger before it begins to shrink.
We have already proven that Measure J works by defeating Covell Village. Now that was a bad project. We don’t have to take down this little project to show J works. I support this project because of its sustainability features. It will indeed set the bar for future development in Davis. I will be very unhappy if it is defeated because of the distortions perpetrated by the No side. And I predict that if it does fail the J vote, J will go down next year. Then, anything at all can be built there, as long as the council majority permits it.
I have lived in Davis for more than 40 years. I live in the Slide Hill Park neighborhood. Wild Horse itself DID harm our neighborhood, and I remember how many of my neighbors and I and many others throughout Davis fought it. This project will have little or no impacts on us, and will actually improve the intersection of Monarch and Covell with the added four way signal.
Ol timer: I’m not sure what you are saying about Mike Harrington. Are you implying that he is not stating the truth when he says that the No argument is that the horse ranch was to remain open space in perpetuity? If so, you are wrong. That is one of their arguments and continues to come up in virtually every public conversation about the project. Mike is correct. That statement is patently untrue. The horse ranch was never meant to remain open space in perpetuity. That is why the developers of Wild Horse itself refused to put an easement on the land. The proponents of Wild Horse wanted it kept as open space to partly make up for paving over the 100’s of acres of farm land for Wild Horse, but that is not what happened.
Covell didn’t have 3 stories and the houses would be going for a lot less now just as they are in Woodland.
That’s fine but your comment was: “and too expensive” and I was responding to that.
A stop light at the corner of Monarch and Covell….who is paying for that one?? The developer???
Vince: [i]”And Mike Harrington is nothing more than a buffoon, a caricature of himself.”[/i]
Even if you used your full name, this is a personal attack more than anything else. However, since no one knows who you are, it’s my opinion that you shouldn’t call people who live in our community and participate in these kinds of forums “buffoons.” (That remains the case, even though Mike Harrington has made a number of personal attacks without justification against Eileen Samitz, Sue Greenwald and against a few others.)
While many might not see the distinction, I think it is a far lesser offense to make such “personal” attacks against a pseudonym.
Calling Mike Harrington “nothing more than a buffoon, a caricature of himself” is borderline don’t you think, Vincente? You also called Typhoid Mary a man. You know something we don’t?
Rich: Sorry but Harrington is a former council member and therefore somewhat fair game. I probably went over the edge but I think Mike has done quite a bit of harm here in the way he has conducted himself.
Skip: Probably over the borderline, so I back off it. I know exactly who Typhoid Mary is, he has posted on here for years under various names, always the same verbiage and opinions.
To P Supporter: Mike Harrington stated that the horse ranch in perpetuity was THE argument against Measure P. I could just as well say that THE argument in favor or Measure P is that developers should have the right to build when, how and anything that they desire. Both are arguments that are at the margins of reasonable discussion. I stand by my observation that when Mike Harrington writes that it is The argument for NO on P, he is straining his already floundering credibility.
“I will be very unhappy if it is defeated because of the distortions perpetrated by the No side.”
And what are those distortions, pray tell??? Nothing compared to the distortions of the Yes on P proponents, who claim this housing is somehow “affordable”, and will be a net $4 million dollar gain to the city which will defray costs of city services! Talk about distortions!
Mike Harrington,a lawyer by training, is resorting to the classic lawyer tactic, when defending a weak case,i.e., “..like a plate of spaghetti, throw any argument that comes to mind against the wall and hope that something will stick”
Speaking of throwing any argument that comes to mind I’ve posted the following remark numerous times and am yet to get a response.
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
P Supporter says “I support this project because of its sustainability features. It will indeed set the bar for future development in Davis.”
P Supporter: I am disturbed by how your arguments in favor of Measure P are exactly the wording of the talking points being disseminated by the Yes on P campaign. What exactly does “set the bar for future development” mean!! How does it do this!! The housing in this project barely “pencils out” with the special arrangements that result in a bad fiscal deal for the city. The townhouses are too expensive to be considered “workforce housing” and we still are not told what actual reduction in real numbers of GHG emissions will be produced by this project when compared to the strict GHG emission numbers of our already-in-place Davis standard.
Who is paying for the stop light gang????
[quote]Who is paying for the stop light gang????[/quote]The Hole in the Wall Gang will pay for it: [img]http://www.cactusrosemotel.com/images/CRM3OL.jpg[/img]
:-> You my friend have toooooo much time on your hands…silly
RIFKIN: [i]”… to my recollection, they did not single out Asians (or “Orientals”). They singled out blacks and Jews (“Negroes and Hebrews”) for exclusion. [/i]
In an email sent to me, I was informed that I was wrong about this. Typhoid was right. The building restrictions in 1913 in Old North Davis excluded “anyone of African or Mongolian extraction.” The Davis Enterprise reported, “No lots will be sold to negroes, Chinese, Hindus or Japanese.”
College Park was laid out about 20 years later. My memory is that its deeds had a clause which kept out, as well, anyone of the Hebrew faith. It’s probably not a good idea for me to joke about them keeping Jesus out of the neighborhood, so I won’t.
Are we not excluding people still with Really Affordable starting at $450,000……for our workforce….especially Jesus
Rich,
I am so glad you can point out when you are wrong and correct it with the proper infomation. So, with that said we will gladly accept you into our campaign knowing fully that you were wrong when you started but you became enlightened and did the right thing. Check can be made to the above name and mailed!
“if it does fail the J vote, J will go down next year. Then, anything at all can be built there, as long as the council majority permits it.”
….Another “canned” talking point and one of the continuing list of “tragic” ironies that Measure P has generated. The Yes on P proponents are using exactly the same scare tactics that we decried when the Covell Village campaign tried to sell us the bill-of-goods that if we voted down Covell Village, a big, bad Sacramento developer(Gidaro, if I remember correctly) would be swooping in to build something really horrible in Davis in place of Covell Village.
An equally good(I think more likely)argument can be made that a Yes on P victory,under the present circumstances with the Measure J process being under attack, would so fracture and demoralize Measure J supporters that its renewal defeat would be much more likely.
By the way, Michelle, did you ever see that weird medical story I told you about on Loyola, the one about the tooth in the eye? If not, and if it interests you, this is a link ([url]http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009882053_restoredsight17.html[/url]) to it. And this, to me, is the weirdest part:
[i]”The multistage procedure began when Dr. Yoh Sawatari, a dental surgeon at the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Medical Center, extracted Thornton’s eyetooth, shaved it flat horizontally, drilled a hole in it and inserted an acrylic lens. He implanted the tooth/lens prosthesis under the skin beneath the clavicle at the top of her shoulder for three months so the combination could heal together.”[/i]
I have not had time to read this but I followed the link. This is so interesting how did they ever think of doing this and it has been around since 1960’s!!! Mr Haussler would have still been farming WHR ground with winter wheat and tomatoes. Now look where we are…..
Hi folks, Davis Media Access was at the Measure P debate at Birch Lane. You can watch the meeting online at http://www.davismedia.org or you can view it on DCTV cable channel 15 at the following times (note they are in reverse order):
+ Wed10/07/0904:30 PMChannel 15
+ Tue10/06/0905:00 PMChannel 15
+ Mon10/05/0901:00 PMChannel 15
+ Sun10/04/0904:00 PMChannel 15
+ Thu10/01/0907:00 PMChannel 15
+ Wed09/30/0905:00 PMChannel 15
+ Tue09/29/0905:00 PMChannel 15
Enjoy.
Sorry, the formatting on those airtimes is bad. Here they are again:
+ Wed, 10/07/09, 04:30 PM, Channel 15
+ Tue, 10/06/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Mon, 10/05/09, 01:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Sun, 10/04/09, 04:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Thu, 10/01/09, 07:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Wed, 09/30/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15
+ Tue, 09/29/09, 05:00 PM, Channel 15