Two weeks ago, the Sierra Club announced that they had endorsed Measure P. Like everything in this campaign, that endorsement has trigger a bit of controversy in part because of their reputation as one of the preeminent environmental groups in the nation and indeed globally.
Critics immediately complained about the process by which the endorsement was obtained. Some have suggested this was largely a political decision made at the local level by people beholden to certain developer interests. Others have pointed to the lack of ability of opponents to present their reasons for opposition. Along those lines, supporters contend that the meeting was noticed in the newspaper twice.
Bob Dunning’s column on October 13, generated a wave of responses. He attempted to track down the endorsement by calling first the national headquarters and then the state office.
He eventually concluded that this was simply a local endorsement rubberstamped by the higher-ups.
He wrote:
“I couldn’t get anyone at national headquarters to comment one way or the other, despite one exasperating e-mail exchange where I asked incredulously: ‘Is there absolutely no comment anyone at the Sierra Club wants to make about this endorsement?’ – turns out, nobody did want to comment, at least at the national level – I was beginning to think maybe it was the Serra Club that had endorsed Measure P, even though I wasn’t sure why a Catholic organization would have a dog in this fight –
With considerable effort, I did manage to talk to a Sierra Club official from the statewide office, who, when informed of the endorsement, offered ‘Well, that’s very interesting. I haven’t heard about it.’ – not a confirmation and not a denial, just an honest sense of surprise – I finally talked to a kind chap named Terry who informed me the endorsement came from the local Yolano Group, not the national brass in San Francisco, but since they all trust each other, an endorsement by one is an endorsement by all – case closed -“
Part of the problem however appears to be that Bob Dunning did not proceed in gathering information in a way that would yield him good results. I have done this kind of tracking numerous times, and generally you have to start with the people that you know and move up the chain, rather than pick a random person at the national level and attempt to move down the chain. As a member of the Catholic Church, he ought to know you do not start with the Pope to understand a decision made by the local Church in Davis. Therefore, he should have tracked the process up the chain of command, not down it. He then might have been able to actually speak with those involved in the decision, rather than trying to talk to people who probably played little to no role in the process and thus were unfamiliar with it.
We get our first inkling of this problem when Terry Davis, the Conservation Program coordinator of the Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club wrote a letter to the Davis Enterprise on Thursday.
He writes:
“I am the ‘kind chap’ in the Sierra Club’s Sacramento office to whom Bob Dunning referred in his column Tuesday, ‘On the Trail of Sierra Club’s Endorsement.’
To eliminate any confusion resulting from the column, the Sierra Club has endorsed Measure P.
While I noted in our interview that the Davis-based Yolano Group of the Sierra Club initiated the request, I also explained that our organization has an exhaustive approval process that had to be followed – first the endorsement of Measure P had to be approved by the Mother Lode Chapter, which is composed of 24 counties, and secondly it had to be approved by the Sierra Club’s statewide committee that has the ultimate authority over endorsements.
That committee made the final determination that Wildhorse Ranch complies with our state and national policies that establish standards for smart growth, based on the project’s location, density and the integration of green technology into its design.
Those who oppose any new growth in Davis are bound to disagree with us, but we think it is important not only to oppose sprawl, but also to support and encourage responsible development.”
If he indeed explained all of this to Mr. Dunning, I am unclear as to what Mr. Dunning’s confusion might be.
For good measure, Pam Nieberg and Carolyn Hinshaw from the local chapter, the Yolano Group, try to clarify what happened as well.
“The Sierra Club Yolano Group would like to clear up the misunderstandings exhibited by Bob Dunning in his column Tuesday regarding the Sierra Club endorsement of the Wildhorse Ranch project. Mr. Dunning’s column implies that the Wildhorse Ranch endorsement came solely from the Yolano Group. It did not. The endorsement of Measure P has been made by the Sierra Club and gathered full approval at the chapter and national levels of the Sierra Club. It is one club.
The local group went through the club’s established process for approval of a local ballot measure/project. The group held two meetings, publicly announced on its Web site and in The Enterprise, at which the Wildhorse Ranch project was discussed. The fact that it would be discussed was stated clearly in The Enterprise announcements.
At the second meeting, the Yolano Group Management Committee, which is elected by local club members, voted to approve the project. However, the Yolano Group cannot endorse a ballot measure by itself. The group then proceeded according to the established process to get the Sierra Club endorsement: It filled out the necessary documents to start the endorsement process and sent them on to the Motherlode Chapter, where the endorsement was approved by the Political Committee and the Executive Committee, and then on to the State Local Ballot Measure Review Committee, which also approved the endorsement. This then became a Sierra Club endorsement.
The Sierra Club has a list of criteria for smart growth. This project met virtually all of the criteria, and warranted the Sierra Club endorsement. The club is a democratic organization that has well defined processes to come up with political endorsements. This is not a local, or regional or state endorsement, but a Sierra Club endorsement, period.”
The Davis Enterprise responds:
“Bob Dunning’s commentary on this issue concluded with the statement: ‘An endorsement by one is an endorsement by all.’ Dunning stands by that statement.”
While that is an interesting point, that is not all that Mr. Dunning said in his column and one might wonder if he stands by the rest of his statements.
For good measure, the Vanguard also spoke with consultant Bill Ritter on Vanguard radio on Wednsday night who in great detail laid out of the process by which an endorsement was achieved from his perspective.
You can listen to the full interview here… (The portion on the Sierra Club endorsement begins just after the ten minute mark in the interview.)
Bill Ritter told Vanguard radio on Wednesday:
“This was a 90 to 100 day process. It began with the local group, known as the Yolano Group which is a group of Sierra Club folk in Solano and Yolo County. We went before their board right before their committee, we made our presentation about the project with regards to all aspects of the project. There is what is known as the Sierra Club urban sprawl checklist–because they are very very interested in stopping urban sprawl. Any project that is either commercial or residential development that even comes close to being sprawl they will automatically check that.
We went through that process of answering their checklist, that allowed us to come before the local group and make our presentation. They unanimously endorsed this project based on their sustainability. When I say endorsed it, it was really a recommend because the local Sierra Club group known as Yolano cannot endorse a project without the Motherlode Chapter, which is the regional group, and then the state and national organization actually signing off on the project.”
He continued:
“[The scientific community of the Sierra Club] came in at the state and national level after the Yolano Group recommended an endorsement by the Sierra Club. It went to the Motherlode Chapter, their executive board of fifteen members, weighed in the project. They reviewed it, they eventually endorsed it on a 13-1-1 vote. That was 13 yes, 1 abstention, and 1 no vote. It then went to the state and national committees–those committees are a sustainable committee, an environmental committee, the legal committee, the political committee, as well as the local ballot measure committee. These are the state and national committees of the Sierra Club–without their approval, the Sierra Club does not endorse.
This was a 90-day process, we found out two weeks ago that the national Sierra Club had approved the recommendation of the Yolano Group and the Motherlode recommendation and had endorsed this project. It is a national full board Sierra Club endorsement. It is the only way it can be.”
When asked about the rationale for endorsement used by the Sierra Club, Mr. Ritter detailed a few of the key points which included infill status, an affordable housing component, and of course reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
“There’s a checklist that is published. We had to go through an almost two dozen questions–everything from infill-does it qualify as infill? For the Sierra Club infill is only granted when a project is abutted on three sides by current urban use. We qualified there.
Did we provide affordable housing both for lower and very low income? The Sierra Club has a standard of 15 percent, we exceeded that. We’re at 21% of the project is affordable by very low and low income standards.
We went right down this checklist of requirements that the Sierra Club looked at, not the least of which is whether this is a greenhouse gas reducing project. Does it get people out of their automobiles? The Sierra Club is aware that over 50% of greenhouse gas emissions come out of automobiles.
They are interested in seeing developments that get people out of their cars or reducing their use of cars. There’s a big difference between driving five minutes across Davis to your job versus fifty minutes out on the open freeway.”
Reasonable people of course can and do disagree on some of these facts, some of which are at the heart of the ballot dispute.
Along those lines, people such as Casey Kaneko among others have been outraged by the endorsement. In a letter to the Enterprise, Ms. Kaneko writes:
“John Muir must be spinning in his grave. I am sure that the venerable founder of the Sierra Club would be shocked to learn that his organization, founded on the principle of appreciating and preserving our open spaces, is now being used to promote the transformation of a working horse farm into a residential development.
I was stunned to see ‘Endorsed by the Sierra Club’ printed in bold letters on the fancy brochure that the developer had delivered to my mailbox last weekend and in the huge newspaper ad that appeared in The Enterprise. I am saddened and amazed that this is what is becoming of the Sierra Club and will be ending my decades-long membership because of it.”
From the amount of attention the Sierra Club endorsement has received, it is clearly a notable deal. The purpose here was to better explain the process through several of the participants. Obviously there is a good deal of legitimate complaints that can be made of the process and contention about the outcome. This information is unlikely to change people’s perception either of the project or the Sierra Club endorsement, but it at least it will give us new information with which to discuss the issue.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David,
Thanks for putting this up for folks to see. I think it’s very important that the misinformation get cleared up. I used to work with Terry Davis and he is a nice chap, but he’s also a smart chap and would not have suggested that this was a group endorsement as it does not work that way in the Sierra Club.
BTW…theoretically one could say that the Pope is endorsing P…Carl Pope, that is (Dr. of the Sierra Club).
“whether it even matters whether the Sierra Club endorsed this project or not.”
it matters because the endorsement is plastered all over the brochures. If it takes 100 days to get the endorsement and the brochures have been saying it for a few wks, when did the 100 days start in relation to the noticed meeting of the local chapter. Can you provide a specific timeline? That would be more factual than ripping Dunning again. Thanks.
[i]Reasonable people of course can and do disagree on some of these facts[/i]
Actually, reasonable people generally don’t disagree on facts. They may disagree on interpretations or goals, but not facts. I marvel at the weird relativism in politics in which one side or another often wants to lay claim to a separate truth. No, it is not reasonable.
When the Sierra Club says, “There’s a big difference between driving five minutes across Davis to your job versus fifty minutes out on the open freeway,” the Sierra Club is simply correct. I’ll suppose that people in Davis don’t really believe that they can rewrite the truth for their own convenience. So more charitably, the opposing position is that you might not care all that much how far people have to drive, as long as they don’t do it in Davis.
David:
You forgot to reference Dr. Fraser Shilling’s Op-Ed piece yesterday in the Enterprise which has another conflicting view of the Sierra Club’s endorsement of Measure P. I can’t post in its entirety for readers (as it is too long), perhaps you may?.
A few points about Dr. Shilling, who is a UC Davis professor of environmental studies and a well known local environmental activist (in fact, didn’t he do a guest column on your site a few weeks back on the West Village construction and ground squirrels?):
Dr. Shilling was sought after and signed the rebuttal ballot statement to Yes on P’s original ballot statement, as he was a well respected local name who expressed his opposition to the project. Dr. Shilling has NOT worked for the No on P campaign, either by tabling for us at the Farmer’s Market or canvasssing campaign literature to neighborhoods, nor has he attended any meetings with NO on P planners.
I really hope that Dr. Shilling’s criticism of this project and the Sierra Club’s support for of it is not assailed as him being a “NIMBY”; he lives nowhere near the project.
Here are some key excerpts from Dr. Shilling’s Op-Ed pieces yesterday:
I must admit to having been a bit on the fence on Measure P because of the bright and shiny promises that developer Parlin LLC was making – promises that were backed up by people who had worked on environmental issues before. But what made me take that bright and shiny hook out of my mouth and really crystallized my thinking was seeing that the Sierra Club chapter is supporting it.
They claim that a big chunk of the land is already developed (by a house and barn), that an unenforceable 90 percent greenhouse gas reduction will take place (not counting all those cars driving to Sacramento), that it is bike- and pedestrian-accessible to shopping (really, how many people on the edge of town ride their bikes to the middle?), and that it is ‘urban infill’ (wow, I’m not even sure what to say).
I won’t go into the all the lobbying that Parlin and some local politicos must have done to get this backing from the Sierra Club, but it made me glad I dropped that particular membership a while back.
The bottom line is that Measure P will allow a developer with no track record here in town to make big, green promises that attempt to make up for the fact that we are being asked to support another sprawling subdivision of unaffordable houses on the edge of town.
With the continuing build-out of existing permitted development, we have no legal or moral obligation to add more houses, especially on the agricultural edge. And with the monster West Village development, all we will end up with is current taxpayers subsidizing even more sprawl and losing more property value.
But as I started this story, the thing that really gets me is that these houses are not affordable and don’t meet Davis’ main needs. I have a pretty good job at UC Davis and with my spouse, our dual income puts us in the vaguely defined middle class. But I could not afford the $450,000 to $500,000 average house in this new development. I doubt that I could afford (or fit my family into) the smaller end of the range either.
This development and the measure that would allow it to happen are not the right fit for Davis any more than Covell Village was (remember Measure X?). Please come out to the polls in November and help vote it down. Hopefully, that will send the message that new housing has to be green and affordable to be sustainable.
Another issue is that a number of “facts” determined by the local chapter of the Sierra clubb turn out not be be true or to be grossly exaggerated. For example:
The local chapter states that the homes are within a mile of Nugget but that is only true for homes close to Covell; many homes are farther away.
The local chapter states that it is infill but 38% of the site is exposed to Ag land and its on the edge of town–many other true infill sites in Davis remain vacant.
The development is very close to sensitive habitat.
As mentioned in the post above, the claim that the land is already developed is quite exagerrated–
Why did the Sierra Club support a developer? Aren’t there better ways to support green hosuing?
I already voted “no” on P, for the reasons stated above. I am sick to death of this issue, and can’t wait to move on.
[quote]Part of the problem however appears to be that Bob Dunning did not proceed in gathering information in a way that would yield him good results.[/quote]No, all of the problem here is that you have a blind spot when it comes to reading Bob’s column. His intent wasn’t simply to “gather information in a way that would yield him good results.” His intent was to have fun with the Sierra Club, and that’s what he did. I really think, because you are completely blind to Bob’s humor — it was, typically, a great column by Bob — you would embarrass yourself less by just never commenting on anything Bob writes. I don’t mean to sound disrespectful, but you clearly never get it.
Measure P is a good project and I’m glad to see that it got the endorsement of the Sierra Club. “The Sky is Falling” scare tactics are nonsense and people should look at the project for all of the good things that it provides that we have been requesting for some time. I mailed in my ballot marked “yes” yesterday.
Good points made by the Sierra Club endorsement:
The local chapter states that the homes are within a mile of Nugget Market. People can easily walk, bike, or stop by the store if they are coming home from work as many people do already who live in Wild Horse.
The local chapter states that it is infill. It’s a good infill project and hopefully other infill sites will follow suit downtown or in other areas. This is the beginning of having higher standards for developers.
Wild Horse is (the land) is already developed
I appreciate the fact that the Sierra Club is supporting GREEN developers. To complain and complain and never support good projects that are GREEN does not make any sense.
I voted YES on Measure P.
At about 1:00 am on July 29, 2009 the first nail in the defeat of Measure P was pounded with the words that MH spoke into the ear of MM. My prediction 18 days out from doomsday: Yes–42.2% and No–57.8%
While one can certainly raise questions concerning the well-known long-standing personal and political relationship between the handful of Yolo Chapter Sierra Club Board members and Bill Ritter, paid consultant for Yes on P, its grassroots “bone-fides” is without question. THIS cannot be said for the Sierra Club at the State and National level. It has long been recognized that the Sierra Club has been co-opted by Establishment political and corporate interests; it has not been at the “cutting edge” of the environmental movement for quite some time. As someone who attending the Mother Lode chapter meeting that considered the Yolo Chapter’s non-endoresement of Measure X, it was clear to me that the Mother Lode Chapter was under considrable pressure to not approve Yolo Chapter’s No on Measure X position. The Mother Lode Chapter finessed their problem by arguing(accurately) that the failure of the Measure J process was THE reason for a NO on X approval rather than the project itself which Mike Corbett(cheerleader for Covell Village who “carried a lot of water” in Sierra Club political circles)was there to defend. The Sierra Club is no longer the grassroots movement of the past. It’s grassroots membership funding is now insignificant compared to its corporate funding and corporate board membership
While out doing walk and drop literature for No on P,Wednesday, in North Davis,I stopped to chat with 2 women soaking up some sun that we had not seen for a few days. They both said,”don’t waste your flyers here, we’re NO on P”. My informal,limited polling over the past week or two in this manner has been about 80% NO on P, 20% undecided and O%(no kidding!!) Yes on P. One of the two said that she was NEVER sending any more of her money to the Sierra Club!
Well, let’s see:
1. How green is the SC club? Last year or so, “the club” was torn apart, and actions are still pending, because Carl Pope and the board he controls decided that for $2 million a year, SC would allow their name and logo to be used by the multinational Clorox chemical corporation to greenwash their products. Clorox spends millions to lobby for free trade and deregulation of environmental laws that protect people and nature.
2. About driving times to work ..phoney/baloney….The argument is always made that housing is being built to satisfy the demand/need for those who work in Davis. We’ve been there before. The cost excludes many who work in Davis – the dispute over so-called “workforce” housing..that never gets built. And, has there ever been a survey to really know how many residents that buy in a new development actually work in Davis? Parlin, as all others, will market far and wide. Wild Horse Ranch is a cute name, but there’s no horse/no ranch. First come first served, so Parlin builds equity and income for their next projects in the Davis/Woodland area. It would be discriminatory that condition of sale is based on whether the buyer will work in Davis.
Bill Ritter: “Did we provide affordable housing both for lower and very low income? The Sierra Club has a standard of 15 percent, we exceeded that. We’re at 21% of the project is affordable by very low and low income standards.”
Nope. Not by “very low” or “low income standards.”
This is an inaccurate use of the term “affordable.” Affordable housing has a specific meaning. It is not “low income” housing. WHR provides the city mandated amount (20%) of “affordable housing” and very few units of “low income housing.”
“One of the two said that she was NEVER sending any more of her money to the Sierra Club!
…….just to be perfectly clear, this comment was made totally spontaneously in reference to the Yes on P flyer and not anything that I was saying.
Bill Ritter: “….We’re at 21% of the project is affordable by very low and low income standards.”
THIS WAS EXACTLY THE ARGUMENT(MIXING TOGETHER LOW AND VERY LOW AND TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING) THAT THE YES ON MEASURE X CAMPAIGN TRIED TO SELL US… UNSUCCESSFULLY.
Why didn’t the Sierra Club call or email No on Measure P and ask them to make a presentation?
A notice in a newspaper? How weak is that? If they really wanted to be balanced, they would have not been so passive about seeking out the other side.
“It is your fault No On Measure P for not seeking us out. We put a notice in the newspaper.” The Sierra Club is effectively saying. This is about the lamest excuse for not hearing the No on Measure P side I can think of. Lets be grown ups here and actually contact each other directly instead of through the newspaper.
Don Shor’s consistent comments about affordability have finally swayed my view. A project that sells itself as affordable yet will be selling at 450,000 or even slightly below is misleading at best.
Don Shor:
Bill Ritter was referring to the city’s ordinance whereby 15 of the units are affordable under the city’s affordable housing problem to people at 50% of median income (very low) and 23 of the units are affordable to people at 80% of media income (low income). Thus 38 of the 191 units are affordable to low or very income. Although my calculator has that at just under 20% not the 21% that Mr. Ritter reported, it does exceed the 15% required by the Sierra Club. The project meets city requires and therefore based on what Mr. Ritter said, meets the Sierra Clubs requirements.
The Sierra Club was completely misinformed by the local chapter. I guarantee you that headquarters was not informed that 2,000 homes had already been approved. In fact, in e-mails that have been fowarded around, it was clear that headquarters were told that the opposition wanted absolutely no growth.
The local chapter is heavily weighted towards cronies of Bill Ritter, the highly paid consultant of Parlin development, and of Dick Livingston. This sort of thing creates ill will towards the Sierra Club, and will create a scramble among the other developer factions to take control of the Sierra Club Board.
Greg:
I’ve invited Fraser to publish his article in the Vanguard. Any time the No on P (or anyone else) wants space in the Vanguard, the offer is open.
Has anyone picked up on the fact that several of the local Sierra Club chapter’s “good points” touted here, namely closeness to Nugget, infill site, and previously developed also apply to the Covell property by the same standards. Of course, to claim the it was previously developed you might have to combine it with the cannery and equate fallow and crop land with horse pasture. Just thought I’d point out to the staunch pro-Wildhorse/anti-Covell folks (many of you on this site) that this article could arguably be used to define at least a few “good” reasons why an upcoming project should also be considered for an endorsement by the local chapter of the Sierra Club. I don’t necessarily disagree with these “good points” and take no stand on any project as I have no vote, but the apparent hypocrisy by many on this site continues to bother me.
The Sierra Club was politicized on this issue by R&A and the Vanguard via Pam Nieberg (AKA Yolo Watcher, etc.).
Developer money and the ongoing effort to co-opt the no-growth coalition has corrupted Measure J and now the local chapter of the Sierra Club. Had Sue Greenwald and/or the No on P activists been honestly alerted to the process that was unfolding, I seriously doubt that “endorsement” would have been the outcome.
This speaks not to the merits of the project, but to the political skills of Pam and her allies in shepherding this through the system.
Anyone noticing: I suspect that this argument comes down to number–191 versus 800 units. Some are arguing that 2000 is too many, few will argue that 3000 isn’t.
“I suspect that this argument comes down to number–191 versus 800 units. Some are arguing that 2000 is too many, few will argue that 3000 isn’t.”
Talk about self-serving analysis!
2000 vs 2200 vs 3000 vs 2800? None of these numbers justifies a new peripheral subdivision on land zoned for ag. Sorry.
Be fair, that statement was aimed at Covell Village, not P. I was merely arguing that we may disagree on the issue of P, but we all agree that Covell is a problem. Or do you disagree?
Once you voluntarily step onto the slippery slope of relativism … I guess it all depends.
You’re really taking needless shots at what should have been seen as an innocuous comment, unless of course you work for Whitcombe or Lewis.
Covell Village is right across from Nugget–so most folks would actually walk from Covell Village to Nugget, CVS, etc. In contrast few folks would actually walk or bike to Nugget from WHR. It is indeed a slippery slope here…
In a town the size of Davis quibbling over 191 or 800 units seems silly.
Do we need more housing now?
Is WHR a good deal fiscally for the City?
Is this the kind of political process we want in Davis?
Is it sprawl or really green?
Those are the issues folks need to decide on.
Anyone noticing: I suspect that this argument comes down to number–191 versus 800 units. Some are arguing that 2000 is too many, few will argue that 3000 isn’t.
Why is the Sierra Club’s endorsement of Measure P (which from the blogs and letters to Enterprise Editor, including in today’s edition, seems to be quite a controversial endorsement to say the least!) of ANY relevance to Covell Village(i.e “800 units”) ??
The voters are being asked in less than three weeks to vote on the merits or faults of approving the designated ag land/horse ranch into residential housing; Covell Village is being used as a “side issue” here by proponents of Measure P.
Let’s focus on Measure P, and not Covell Village; if and when Covell Village comes to an election, I am sure many of the same arguments that have come up in this election will re-surface: necessity for more development; affordability claims, etc.
Nope. I’m clean. How about you?
And shame on you for asking.
unless of course you work for Whitcombe or Lewis.
or Parlin, for that matter?
To The Sierra Club: “If you’re explaing, you’re losing!”
Another NO ON P guy here ! Excellent points on Sierra’s tight relationship with Bill “Yes on P hired gun” Ritter. I hope the people of the Republic aren’t fooled again (like Target) by the slick advertising put forth by Parlin, Whitcomb, Lewis and Co. And can someone tell me why there is a Yes on P ad at the bottom of this Vanguard page ? For real ? David, are you not supposed to bring a high level of objectivity to the Vanguard ? WOW. I’m disappointed and would be as well if this was a No ON P ad.
@ Lorne
“…a high level of objectivity”??? Since when? This has been an opinionated, advocacy-laden, agenda-driven blog from day one. This isn’t “journalism”, it is “blogging”. Huge difference and rightly so. Take it for what it is… another voice in the public conversation. Useful and informative or missing-the-mark by a mile, it’s always additive.
@ Alvin_Public
“This isn’t “journalism”, it is “blogging”. Huge difference and rightly so.”
I absolutely agree with you in principle. However, it should be noted that The Vanguard represents itself as “alternative media.” Look no further than the “—David M. Greenwald reporting” line at the bottom of every piece, and the controversial flyer aimed at The Enterprise.
@ …manufacture…
Blogging is, by definition, “alternative media” and one form of alternative media is … “you-guessed-it”, neither of which, we agree, is journalism as we’ve come to know and appreciate it over the past century or so.
[quote]Anyone noticing: I suspect that this argument comes down to number–191 versus 800 units. Some are arguing that 2000 is too many, few will argue that 3000 isn’t. [/quote]It’s worth pointing out here that if Measure X had been passed by the voters in Davis, West Village would not have been advanced by UCD; and (because the demand for housing does not exist now and because CV would still have had many empty home sites) Parlin never would have come forward with Wildhorse Ranch. CV (at 1800 units) would have been a bit smaller in total than the projects approved since, if you include WV. So knowing that, the slow-growthers would have been better off just approving Covell Village. By turning it down, we will have more growth than we would have had X passed.
Hello Davis Vanguard Readers,
Davis Media Access’ In The Studio sessions with both Measure P camps are now online and available for viewing at davismedia.org
In addition, they can be viewed on DCTV Channel 15 on your local cable system at the following times:
Yes on Measure P
Sun., Oct. 18, 7 p.m.
Mon., Oct. 19, 6 p.m.
Tues., Oct. 20, 7:30 p.m.
Wed., Oct. 21, 9:30 p.m.
Sun., Oct. 25, 7 p.m.
Mon., Oct. 26, 6:30 p.m.
Sun., Nov. 1, 5:30 & 7:30 p.m.
Mon., Nov. 2, 1 & 5:30 p.m.
No on Measure P
Sun., Oct. 18, 7:30 p.m.
Mon., Oct. 19, 6:30 p.m.
Tues., Oct. 20, 7 p.m.
Wed., Oct. 21, 9 p.m.
Sun., Oct. 25, 7:30 p.m.
Mon., Oct. 26, 6 p.m.
Sun., Nov. 1, 5 & 7:30 p.m.
Mon., Nov. 2, 1:30 & 5 p.m.
In addition, the only debate between the two sides is also available at davismedia.org for viewing and will be airing on DCTV Ch. 15 at the following:
Mon., Oct. 19, 1 p.m.
Tues., Oct. 20, 5 p.m.
Mon., Oct. 26, 1 p.m.
Tues., Oct. 27, 5 p.m.
Wed., Oct. 28, 2 p.m.
Friday, Oct. 30, 8 p.m.
Mon., Nov. 2, 2 p.m.
The Measure P debate, for those interested, has 97 online views as of 10/16.
thank you
Jeff Shaw
production manager
davis media access
Rifkin: That seems pretty speculative to me on West Village particularly in light of the fact that two-thirds of it is student housing, something that would have been needed regardless. The other third is subsidized faculty housing. Perhaps someone in West Davis can remind me, but didn’t West Village come up before Covell Village was voted down?
“Why is the Sierra Club’s endorsement of Measure P (which from the blogs and letters to Enterprise Editor, including in today’s edition, seems to be quite a controversial endorsement to say the least!) of ANY relevance to Covell Village(i.e “800 units”) ??”
In part because Covell is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that everyone is looking toward to see what will happen.
Rich: Looking at the press clippings, the project has been around since the 1990s but delays were caused by a court challenge by the neighbors. So that lends itself against your point.
DPD says:” Thus 38 of the 191 units are affordable to low or very income..”
DPD…. you are well aware that the term “affordable” refered to the internal demand that has not been met for Davis workforce housing. In the parlance of the Measure X campaign, it was always seen as distinct and separate from low and very low affordable housing that is mandated by the State. You are attempting, without much success, to defend this attempt by the Yes on P campaign to again hoodwink the Davis voter, this time about the WHR development proposal being “Really affordable!!”
I was responding to Don Shor’s specific point that this was an inappropriate use of the term affordable, in fact, it is the definition of the city’s affordable housing policy. That was the point I was addressing.
Vincente, I think it was the failure of Measure X which prodded the university to move forward with that project. Its motivation was more housing in Davis. The university was very critical of the city in the years leading up to the X vote for not building enough housing for faculty and not enough apartments for the students. I don’t remember what percentage of the CV mix was apartments for rent. However, even if no students had lived in CV apartments, increasing the apartment supply in Davis would have created openings for students elsewhere — and at lower rates. It is for that reason that I believe we can do far more for low income people by building a lot more market-rate apartments than we can by forcing homebuilders to set aside a handful of units for qualified renters or buyers.
[quote]Perhaps someone in West Davis can remind me, but didn’t West Village come up before Covell Village was voted down? [/quote]West Village was approved by the Regents of UC in 2003. Measure X was not voted on until 2005, but was in the works for years prior. My take was that UC Davis pushed for West Village out of frustration, under the belief that the City of Davis was not building enough housing on city land. As such, had we approved Covell Village, that frustration would have been relieved.
[i]My take was that UC Davis pushed for West Village out of frustration, under the belief that the City of Davis was not building enough housing on city land.[/i]
West Village was an immediate and direct response to Measure J. The university interpreted Measure J as a long-term chokehold on growth in the city of Davis. Obviously, so far they have been correct about that.
So you’re right that West Village was proposed out of frustration. You could even speculate that Measure X would have relieved their frustration. However, the administration’s candid position on proposals such as Measure X might might well be that optimism is a waste of time.
So… there is something wrong with “encouraging” UCD to meet its obligations to provide housing for its students and faculty rather than placing this burden on the Davis taxpayer??
[i]there is something wrong with “encouraging” UCD to meet its obligations to provide housing for its students and faculty rather than placing this burden on the Davis taxpayer??[/i]
First, universities aren’t normally expected to house their employees. There are rich universities such as Chicago and Columbia that take it upon themselves to do that because they are trapped in big cities. But UC Davis is not a rich university; it is to these private universities as Target is to Nieman Marcus. UC Davis is also not trapped in a big city.
Second, whether you’re talking students or faculty, the current situation amounts to a zoning war between city voters and the university. The voters who would have hated West Village as a Measure J proposal, hate it just as much as a university project. It also doesn’t save the city any money; the city is thinking of annexing it. This combative relationship isn’t good for either side. In my opinion, it’s also a betrayal of progressive ideals. Higher education is a progressive ideal. The state’s budget cuts have pulled the rug out from students. Meanwhile, the political trend with city apartments is to kick students while they’re down.
The third problem with the notion of [i]”placing this burden on the Davis taxpayer”[/i] is that it is based entirely on a misunderstanding of the reality in the City of Davis. It is not true that building new homes places a burden on the existing taxpayers. The so-called burden is a byproduct of the City Council promising [u]extraordinary increases in wages and benefits[/u] to its employees.
To all the CV wudda cudda shudda fans: Vanderhoffenville (aka Larry’s Ghetto) was going to be built regardless of the Davis housing situation . . . these egomaniacs always build monuments to themselves . . . what was the last thing Larry did before he slipped out of town . . . make sure the earthmovers were rolling. And how many dollars is this environmental disaster contributing to the city coffers? I say annex them and tax them . . . or charge them an entry fee when they enter city property (Pebble Beach does it)!
“It also doesn’t save the city any money; the city is thinking of annexing it.”
Sue can probably explain this better than I will, but they did a study on the cost of providing services and they looked at different options, the option that lost the least amount of money was the city to provide the services. It still loses money, so the city would have to cut a deal with the university to make it worth their while. So if the city annexes it, the fact that the university built it will have saved them money–a lot.
The County has the say about property and sales tax. It is those revenue sources that make WV break even. The County will not want to give that up so I do not think annexed WV will happen, only service burdens without representation and no taxation.
As I understand it, the biggest variable is future personnel cost. According to the discussion on Monday, that accounts for 71 percent of the costs. So if we agreed to labor contracts that kept wages and benefits to inflation, the project would be a huge net positive. This has been my point all around and its bolstered by the fact that the city’s model assumes a 5 percent growth rate in personnel costs and if we continue on that trajectory, the city will be fiscally insolvent with or without any additional projects.
[i]Sue can probably explain this better than I will, but they did a study on the cost of providing services and they looked at different options, the option that lost the least amount of money was the city to provide the services. It still loses money, so the city would have to cut a deal with the university to make it worth their while. So if the city annexes it, the fact that the university built it will have saved them money–a lot.[/i]
Maybe. But if it were that simple, the city would look to the university for all new construction. What is missing is where any fundamental savings would come from, that is, why the university is different from any other developer.
The city has no obligation to house students. That should be UCD’s purview. WV had nothing to do with CV period. To speculate that if CV had been built, there would have been no need for WV is just that – pure speculation. What hogwash –
[quote]The city has no obligation to house students. [/quote]Of course the city itself has no obligation to build houses for students. No one ever said the city did. However, the engine for the economy of Davis is largely the university. The economic health of the City of Davis depends on the health of UCD. And therefore it makes little sense for residents of the City of Davis to fight every private development which would increase the housing supply for students and staff in the City of Davis. If the City would get out of the way and permit private developers to build a greater supply of apartments on the periphery or make specific zoning provisions which would encourage* private builders to construct more housing suitable to students, the constant problem of a zero-vacancy rate would be solved, and lower income people in Davis would benefit by it.
*One oddity of the Third & B Visioning Process was to encourage the removal of what is now student rental housing near campus and replace it with very expensive townhouses for DINKs. My feeling is that, if we are going to tear down our history in our few traditional neighborhoods, at least the replacements ought to include dormitory housing that undergraduates can live in.
Rich: “If the City would get out of the way and permit private developers to build a greater supply of apartments on the periphery or make specific zoning provisions which would encourage private builders to construct more housing suitable to students, the constant problem of a zero-vacancy rate would be solved, and lower income people in Davis would benefit by it.”
I agree, and this should be done before any other housing units are approved.
No on P lawn signs are sprouting like mushrooms. So far, I havn’t seen any Yes on P lawn signs in North Davis.
[i]I agree, and this should be done before any other housing units are approved.[/i]
I agree too, Don, and I’d like to say that we’re on the same page. The one thing that bothers me is that it is too easy to endorse things that are never going to happen anyway. This is something that the Libertarian Party has down pat. They often offer germane support for conservative policies, then pretend to balance it with unrealistic and back-handed liberal positions.
So the question is whether it is at all politically realistic to expect the city to approve more apartment complexes. If so, then I agree you with that that’s what it should do.
1. My husband and other members of the Sierra Club Board I’ve spoken to were persuaded by Bill Ritter’s arguments and facts, not by an imaginary political connection to or blind friendship with Bill Ritter or the developer. My husband and I only know Bill Ritter casually, seeing him at the occasional political event. (I’ve served on the Davis Democratic Club Board, which Bill serves on, and includes people of all views regarding local development.)
2. Don’t go imagining people who volunteer loads of time to serve on the local Sierra Club Board and try to protect the local wildlife, keep landfills in check, avoid excess dairy pollution, and oppose huge sprawling developments make any of their decisions because they owe someone thanks for getting them elected to volunteer so much time. It’s always hard to find enough people to run for the Board. (Take that as an invitation to run if you’re willing to work.)
3. More generally, folks should stop making personal attacks at or assume terrible motives for every volunteer who they disagree with. This includes City Council members, who work hard for next to nothing. There are plenty I don’t vote for but who are good people giving their time and energy to try to make their part of the world a better place.
4. I opposed Covell Village because it was huge but would support a small high density development across from Nugget. Say 2 or 3 blocks wide, along Covell, and full of apartment buildings, with the true sustainability features of Wildhorse Ranch (fully solar, ultra-insulated, etc.) This has been my stated position for a long time and if I decide to vote for Measure P there will be no contradiction with my volunteering against Measure X. Size and scope really do matter.
I have been emailing the SC for answers since the first endorsement ad was run. Here is the two responses that I received from them:
Thank you for your email. We are always glad to get input from our members. We are especially grateful for input during the approval process at the local level. The Sierra Club does not take this endorsement process lightly, especially when considering developments. The Yolano group had two pubic meetings, advertised in the Davis paper, where this issue was discussed. They then voted on it and it was passed by an overwhelming majority. It then came under the purview of the Mother Lode Chapter Executive Committee, and after more study and debate, it passed there also by a overwhelming majority.
The Sierra Club cannot be against everything…..if a project meets our criteria, then we would lose all credibility if we did not come out in favor of it. This project is one of the most sustainable and innovative projects ever proposed for Davis. WIth your sterling record, that is saying something. It will set new standards for Green Development in Davis.
Some of the highlights are:
1. The project guarantees a 90% green house gas reduction on site.
2. More than 10 acres is developed and has been for 35 years. This was a horse ranch and contained homes as well as barns and stables. The buildings still exist and are leased. The mitigation acreage was based on the undeveloped land area within the property. The excluded acreage is otherwise covered with buildings or pavement and not grass land or pasture.” If more than 10 acres is already developed, then the area that provides Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat is about 15 acres, so the 15 acres mitigation is consistent with the current practice in Yolo County of 1:1 mitigation.
3. It is within biking distance of (1 mile or less) of local-serving retail uses.
4. It is served by Yolo Bus and Unitrans It will connect with existing local bike and pedestrian trails in the area.
5. More than 37% of the property will be set aside as open space.
6. The project is not in a flood plain.
7. Open space will be irrigated by existing well.
8. According to city documents, the site will pay for itself.
As I stated before, due Sierra Club process was followed in approving this endorsement of Measure P. It would be a wonderful world indeed if we could all agree on every issue. Please consider becoming active in your local group and take a valuable part in the work we all, as volunteers, spend so much of our time on……..
Thank you again for your comments,
Barbara WilliamsMother Lode Chapter Chair
In response to Ms. Williams email let me state:
1.If we leave this property as Ag land then we are up to 100% GHG reduction. How do you top that?
2. The first house foundation for the existing homes was poured around 1982 this would make it 27 years old not 35 years old. In regards to “10 acres covered with pavement and/or homes or barn,” how did you come up with this figure???
3. It is over one mile away from services (I just drove it myself and it is over 1 mile). Add biking distance than it is longer because driving is a straight shot and bikes have to stay on the path that is longer. So well over one mile from services biking and driving.
4. Yolo Bus and Unitrans will not be serving this development. There will NOT be a stop placed for this development for a bus line this came from City Council If this goes through the people will have to walk across Covell Blvd and down Monarch Lane to the existing bus stop and or under the underpass to use ANY bus line.
5. The original agreement for the development of Wildhorse Ranch stated that this farm and the land around it would be placed into Open Space. This farm was to be left as open space in the ORIGINAL agreement for the huge development of Wildhorse Ranch. Now you are endorsing it to be taken OUT of OPEN SPACE and paved over.
6. Not in flood plain it is Ag land that is being used as Ag land (animals are livestock).
7. Existing well is already irrigation the Ag land.
8. Our City Council reviewed this at the last minuet and found that it does not pencil out. Please see Davis Enterprise Newspaper Article Sunday 10/4/2009, Sue Greenwald’s article.
No response at this time has been received from Ms. Williams.
Michelle Rasmussen
So the Sierra Club endorses a developement so close to an owl habitat? My how things have changed.
Things change quickly when money is involved…