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.