I have covered the Measure P election considerably over the last several weeks, but it is notable that while the articles tend to generate a lot of comments, the readership for the articles is not quite what one would expect.
Indeed, it is very notable that two consecutive days I ran other articles along side Measure P articles, for instance, along side the story about the lack of League debate, was an article on the shootings. The shooting article drew 28 comments compared to 51 for the Measure P article but in terms of readership, the shooting article drew a lot more. The same is true for the Sierra Club versus target, the Sierra club drew many more comments but the readership was the same.
While I find this an interesting project, in the scheme of things, it is but a blip on the radar. What the measure has though is a large segment of activist Davis distracted and to some extent fighting each other.
In the meantime, the council placed Measure J on the ballot. They did so with little fanfare this time and unlike previous discussions there were not a large number of members of the public showing up to express their support. Fortunately, council this time was not inclined to try anything, but if they had, we would have been caught completely flat-footed.
At the same meeting, groundwork was laid for Covell Village Redux. 191 units is contentious, but the next project is going to be 800 units. Covell Partners have masterfully created an astroturf group to create the appearance of a popular movement to ask for senior housing and then in January Covell Village will offer their 800 unit senior housing project as the answer and CHA will magically fall into line supporting this proposal.
Now we learn that some of our worst fears have come true in terms of Cannery and Covell being masterplanned. Covell’s owner is apparently poised to purchase the property.
We can debate the finances of WHR until we are blue in the face. I walked through those numbers, the thing is, there is a point to the fact that the project may not pencil out after 15 years. That is by the way, the city’s fault as the developers asked the city what they needed to do in order to make this project fiscally neutral.
We can argue this point over and over again as we have, but the real scary thing is what happens when you look beyond the numbers because the truth is that if the project does not pan out fiscally, that is only because the city of Davis does not pan out fiscally.
I will show you the numbers next time, but the basic premise starts at this. The fiscal model assumes a 5% annual increase in employee compensation costs. Turns out that the single biggest assumption in the model is that growth rate, and if we assume instead a 4% annual increase in employee compensation costs, the model changes drastically.
In fact, as we reported a couple of weeks ago, this is far from speculation as the graphic shows the difference between the current model and the 4% personnel cost assumption.
There is more though. This project really is small potatoes in this regard. The city’s fiscal assumptions are built on the same basic model and it turns out if we grow at 5%, we are fiscally insolvent in 15 years. Basically, then the argument goes like this. If we grow at less than 5% per year, Wildhorse Ranch will basically pan out even after 15 years. If we grow at 5% or more per year, not only will Wildhorse Ranch not pan out, but neither will the rest of the city, and the $50,000 or so that Wildhorse Ranch is in the hole will be dwarfed by what the city’s overall debt will be.
Bottom line, we need to fix the city’s finances and if we do, Wildhorse Ranch is not a problem. The fact of the matter is, the city is in substantially more fiscal trouble than the city leadership other than Councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek have acknowledged.
Ordinarily I would say all of this can wait until we are done with this election, only problem is that the Council is not waiting. They have already put steps into place and they will continue to do so. Next meeting, we decide on the batallion chief model possibly. According to the Citygate and Associates report, if we go to a batallion chief model, it will cost us roughly $160,000 per year. That’s far more than Wildhorse Ranch will cost the city in a given year.
Now it is possible that the city will shift around fire staffing to counteract that. But there are two problems with that approach. First, the Finance and Budget Commission would like to get their arms around the overtime issue. They have not had a chance to evaluate any of this. Second, we need to find ways to cut spending and so if we can shift staffing around to do that, why use that staffing shift to merely offset increases to finance a batallion chief model. In fact, what advantage does that model give us at all? From the standpoint of the fire department, they want it because it gives them three additional high paid positions that the fire chief can appoint to.
All of this is the tip of iceberg. I have seen the comment made from the No on P side that they’ll defeat P and then pass Measure J and defeat Covell. I am not using this as an argument for people not to follow their conscience on P. But I think the idea that there is enough resources and energy to keep defeating Measure J project–if there is even a future Measure J–is misplaced. At some point, these projects are going to pass because the developers have more resources than the activists. I think therefore it is naive to believe that we can simply fight this all day or all year.
My concern is threefold. First, end the divide in the community. Second, wake up and pay attention to what is happening now because the pieces are being put into place during this current fight to lay the ground rules for the next fight. And third, we need to look at the bigger picture here. The city is being run horribly at the moment and unless we find a way to work together, we have no hope at regaining a council majority.
So by all means fight the good fight on this issue, there are three weeks or so left. But when this is done, we need to move on and address many more critical issues than a small 191 unit project on 25 acres of land.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I gather that CFD = Community Facilities District = Mello-Roos tax zone. If so, then shouldn’t “w/ CFD” be “w/o CFD”?
It also looks like the cumulative chart is calculated in nominal dollars, and not in constant dollars or in terms of the present value of money.
Greg: As I understand it, the CFD means with the CFD, and I’m not sure that the 4% is on top of the CFD or without it. That’s a good question. If it is without the CFD, then the impact is even more powerful. I’ll try to get an answer.
The City of Davis appears to be working to develop new projects with no concern for the current residents. The developments you are discussing do nothing for the quality of life of current residents. There are no plans for transportation for the people who will be living in the new developments.
The downtown area development appears to have been abandoned. The City of Davis doesn’t seem to be applying for any of the federal grants for helping current City residents. Public Works is paving streets and replacing curbs using out-of-town companies with no regard for the City’s unemployed. The homeless people downtown patrol the streets while curbs are being replaced on 8th street.
The wastewater treatment plant is having solar photovoltaic resources added, but no City residents appear to be employed in that effort either! Why aren’t City businesses hired to put PV panels on City property? There are several City businesses that engineer and install solar projects, but the City has contracted with SunEdison to do the work for the wastewater treatment plant.
When I telephone the City to find out why there is no attempt to include City residents, there is no answer. My calls are referred to supervisors who take weeks to give an answer. Why do we have to employ people who aren’t working for City residents? Why are we paying their pension plans when we could contract out the work for far less?
Kudos to Martin! The best that can be said for WHR is that, if EVERYTHING the developers predict goes EXACTLY as planned, the project will have no negative impact; how about a little positive impact? Maybe a downtown parking structure? A significant contribution to bringing surface water to Davis? Fixing the fountain at farmer’s market? No, the project MAY do no harm, and on that basis, we should vote for it. I think not.
DPD: great article! Agree with you: keep the eyes on the big picture. As much fun as it is to post, I am fairly confident that not a single post by any of us swayed an undecided voter who happened to come upon the Blog. But the Blog does a lot to help keep the activists engaged, and that is a good thing.
Sadly, DPD, based upon your past “commentaries” and “reporting” on this subject, your closing-campaign articles really have no credibility so I would suggest YOU move on to other topics. In Davis, credibility lost is almost never regained(Forbes and Harrington being good examples), at least, with those whom you called your political allies in the past. True democratic/populist/progressives DO NOT tolerate political betrayal, expediency and attempts to manipulate the truth; we stand for values and defending principles, not expediency. It is Ritter and those whom he has corralled around his Yes on P campaign that has fractured Davis’ fragile progressive coalition. NOT those who continue to fight for Measure J, Davis’ citizen-initiative Measure L, following SACOG’s mandate as to Davis Housing start requirements and getting Davis the best “deal” for granting approval to a developer to do his project and make big profits. All of these critical issues, appear to be abandoned for this “tiny” project, as the YES people keep repeating. WHY?
“The City of Davis appears to be working to develop new projects with no concern for the current residents. The developments you are discussing do nothing for the quality of life of current residents. There are no plans for transportation for the people who will be living in the new developments.”
What do you have in mind for improving the quality of life for current residents? What do you mean by transportation plans? I suppose Unitrans would work in stops at WHR, if it were approved.
“The downtown area development appears to have been abandoned. The City of Davis doesn’t seem to be applying for any of the federal grants for helping current City residents. Public Works is paving streets and replacing curbs using out-of-town companies with no regard for the City’s unemployed.”
What do you have in mind for downtown development? There’s that new building at the corner of 5th and G. And the Chen building at 2nd & 5th that was build a few years ago.
Two articles from the Enterprise last month on Sept. 3 & 9 mentioned that the repaving of Russell by the university was paid for with federal stimulus money. An article on Sept. 29 also mentioned federal stimulus money to fund disability support services in the city.
Does Davis have a construction company that could have done the Russell project? Teichert is mentioned as doing the Russell St. project. Do they not employ anyone from Davis?
I also noticed that some streets in the North Star neighborhood were repaved recently. I don’t know who was contracted to do that work.
“When I telephone the City to find out why there is no attempt to include City residents, there is no answer. My calls are referred to supervisors who take weeks to give an answer.”
I find that Don Saylor is usually quick to respond if you have questions; he has built a reputation for response and constituent services. I have never contacted Helen Thompson’s office, but I found Jim Provenza’s office very quick to respond when I once raised an issue with them.
Sorry ol’ timer, it appears you still are not getting it. This article was not about Measure P, it was about what happens after Measure P and those things are in place now while you are looking the other way.
“In the meantime, the council placed Measure J on the ballot. They did so with little fanfare this time and unlike previous discussions there were not a large number of members of the public showing up to express their support. Fortunately, council this time was not inclined to try anything, but if they had, we would have been caught completely flat-footed.”
I was the only member of the public there, but I did speak up vehemently in favor of Measure J, as is, no exceptions – which is exactly what happened. In this instance, commissions had had their say beforehand, and said “no” to any business exception. It was important for commissions to weigh in on the issue, just as it was important for commissions to weigh in on the issue of WHR. Yet the Budget and Finance Commission only received critical info on WHR from Paul Navazio 24 hours prior to the City Council making a decision on this project.
Because the WHR process had been so flawed, I jumped up during Public Comment when WHR was being discussed, and pointed out how wrong it was to put information before commissions at such a late date commissiones could not effectively weigh in on pertinent issues. In fact, I made a formal request to the City Council that if there is a senior housing project on the horizon, the Davis Senior Citizens Commission would like to be given the information in plenty of time to do the appropriate analysis so we could advise the City Council as a fully informed advisory body. As I pointed out, how can commissions advise if they do not have the information in front of them in a timely fashion to do an analysis?
“We can debate the finances of WHR until we are blue in the face. I walked through those numbers, the thing is, there is a point to the fact that the project may not pencil out after 15 years. That is by the way, the city’s fault as the developers asked the city what they needed to do in order to make this project fiscally neutral.
We can argue this point over and over again as we have, but the real scary thing is what happens when you look beyond the numbers because the truth is that if the project does not pan out fiscally, that is only because the city of Davis does not pan out fiscally.”
If you are admitting this project is going to result in a net fiscal negative to the city in 15 years, they how do you justify making the city’s fiscal situation worse by approving it? Sue Greenwald pointed out how the developer could make this project fiscally neutral, by paying $6000 or so per unit. Guess what? The developer did not want to do it! No suprise. But the CC majority should have insisted on it. Instead they put the city in even more jeapordy. We should vote “no” on P, get the developer to cough up the right amount of money per unit, then perhaps it would be approved. WE ARE NOT DEMANDING ENOUGH OF DEVELOPERS, ALLOWING THEM TO WALK AWAY WITH BIG PROFITS, WHILE THE TAXPAYERS ARE LEFT PAYING THE MITIGATION COSTS OF THESE PROJECTS. THIS IS JUST PLAIN WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
“Ordinarily I would say all of this can wait until we are done with this election, only problem is that the Council is not waiting. They have already put steps into place and they will continue to do so. Next meeting, we decide on the batallion chief model possibly. According to the Citygate and Associates report, if we go to a batallion chief model, it will cost us roughly $160,000 per year. That’s far more than Wildhorse Ranch will cost the city in a given year.”
So it is OK to add to our fiscal woes by adding a project that will be a fiscal negative in 15 years? How does that logic work?
My concern is threefold. First, end the divide in the community. Second, wake up and pay attention to what is happening now because the pieces are being put into place during this current fight to lay the ground rules for the next fight. And third, we need to look at the bigger picture here. The city is being run horribly at the moment and unless we find a way to work together, we have no hope at regaining a council majority.
DPD: I’m trying to remember where I’ve heard your pitch that it’s now time to just look forward and not continue to speak about principle and accountability Oh yes…. it was about TORTURE.
“My concern is threefold. First, end the divide in the community. Second, wake up and pay attention to what is happening now because the pieces are being put into place during this current fight to lay the ground rules for the next fight. And third, we need to look at the bigger picture here. The city is being run horribly at the moment and unless we find a way to work together, we have no hope at regaining a council majority.”
1) The Yes on P folks have caused the divide in the community, by using less than savory tactics to promote their project. Bill Ritter made sure Sue Greenwald got kicked off the Budget and Finance Commission, bc she was pointing out the truth that this project does not pencil out fiscally and Paul Navazio was not being truthful about it, and Bill Ritter didn’t like the truth coming out. The Yes on P folks have villified anyone who disagrees with them, e.g the nasty attacks by Mike Harrington.
2) The Yes on P folks have laid the ground rule that to lie on a ballot statement is the right way to go if you want your project approved. Just call the housing “affordable” even if it isn’t. Mislead the public into believing there will be $4 million surplus for city services when there will be no such thing. Mislead the public so they will not understand this project will be a net fiscal negative after 15 years.
3) The bigger picture starts with the smaller pictures, then adds up. A little deception here, a little misleading there adds up to big bucks all over town. Measure P proponents have now given Whitcomb and company the blueprint on how to get Covell Village IV passed. Just lie on the ballot statements and greenwash the project – and it will be a done deal!
DPD: you raised some excellent points, and no good deed goes unpunished: 2-3 of your anonymous posters just keep repeating the same nasty comments that do nothing for the debate or to move the progressive ball forward. I think you should require real names. Seriously.
All of this is the tip of iceberg. I have seen the comment made from the No on P side that they’ll defeat P and then pass Measure J and defeat Covell. I am not using this as an argument for people not to follow their conscience on P. But I think the idea that there is enough resources and energy to keep defeating Measure J project–if there is even a future Measure J–is misplaced. At some point, these projects are going to pass because the developers have more resources than the activists.
David, you are referring to my comments yesterday, to which ANONYMOUS blogger penned me “Greg Nokolov” (how clever!) However, the point is was trying to make is that as long as we have the Measure J right to fight developments, we should enact that right as citizens (just like we all had in Measure X campaign); the core point of our NO on P campaign message, from day one, has been “Do you need more housing approved? We have 2000+ units approved (according to City staffing reports, including the West Village megaplex). So it is not whether WHR is a “nice little green project”; it is yet another housing project, and Davis voters should ask question: “Is more housing necessary”?
As an additional point, I would like to point all of your readers and Yes on P supporters to a blog posted by DPD on July 15, 2007 which states the following (and then I ask the fair question: What has changed two years later?):
“…there is the notion that Davis has somehow not taken on its fair share of growth. In fact, Davis is in some ways “compelled” to grow at 1% per year by LAFCO. Davis is in fact in compliance with that growth rate. So to suggest that Davis has shirked its growth responsibilities is false.”
Lastly, in response to David’s comment today: “these projects are going to pass because the developers have more resources than the activists.” The day that happens is the day Davis unfortunately will become more like Natomas, Vacaville, Elk Grove….
I encourage those who read this blog, and are undecided on Measure P, to strongly ask themselves the question, “Do we need more housing in Davis?” before they cast their votes.
I welcome all responses, and I am a big boy, I can handle the insults by unnamed bloggers, so bring on the “classic NIMBY”, “Greg Nokolov”, “No on P meltdowns”, all that I’m used to by now, but how about some NAMED bloggers that can answer the points I make above (and respond to DPD’s blog from 2007).
Measure P coverage in the Davis Voice blog:
[url]http://www.davisvoice.com/2009/10/measure-p-vote-in-26-days.html[/url]
Wild Horse Ranch = Stalking Horse Ranch = Trojan Horse Village! I believe the WHR project and the “Yes on P” initiative have been unknowingly/unwittingly co-opted by Whitcombe & Co. This whole “No on P” – “Yes on P” battle is the perfect diversion that is allowing Whitcombe & Co. (and his trusty pool boy) to maneuver into position while all the dust and confusion are in the air . . . WHR has been used as their stalking horse. I think this was their plan all along . . .
A “stalking horse” is defined as “a candidate put forward to divide the opposition or to mask the true candidate”. Only in this case the “horse” doesn’t yet realize it is being used, meanwhile the progressive opposition has been divided , the real culprits are moving their senior/green “Trojan Horse” within the walls of the city for all citizens to admire . . . and they will ultimately win the war . . . if we let them.
Yes on P, Yes on J, and NO on Trojan Horse Village!
There is absolutely no urgency associated with Measure P’s passage. The numbers do not support the argument and so it should go back into the hopper. The fact that some Young Democrats are paid to pass out leaflets does not make it a good project. The fact that they strap solar panels to the roof does not make it green. The fact that the Sierra Club likes the project is irrelevant. The city simply does not need the extra housing right now. Lets absorb West Village, get our city finances in order and then we can evaluate the various proposals from developers and determine which create the most benefits for the city. But that is well into the future.
No on P
Yes on J
David Greenwald:
You have conveniently ignored the fact that Wildhorse Ranch is in a tax district that allows the city to retain only two thirds property tax than average, yet, at the same time, this project pays contributes a substantially lower one-time per unit fee than other recently approved projects, which had a better fiscal bottom line because the city tax share was higher.
This is important, because it means that if Wildhorse Ranch passes, it lowers the fiscal bar concerning what future developers will be willing to contribute.
The city needs to reduce expenditures, increase revenue, and — yes — insist that the developers share some of the massive profit with the public to offset the huge deficit the city is accruing.
You can’t just sweep this issue under the rug.
To View from the Bottom: You sound like Helen Thompson in her Gidero the Boogeyman letter, 10/05. Your retread is tiresome and boring.
I should add the Wildhorse Ranch was a far less expensive piece of land than were the parcels on which other recently approved projects lie, and hence, there is no reason the developer could not have contributed more.
I calculate the Wildhorse Ranch land cost the developer about $15,000 per market-rate parcel. Houses sell for much more in Davis than in Dixon or West Sacramento. If the land in West Sacramento cost $5,000 per parcel, the land cost difference is insignificant. The pubic representatives sign a piece of paper that confers massive added value to this inexpensive land.
The public deserves far greater contributions towards offsetting our future deficits.
[i]”The public deserves far greater contributions towards offsetting our future deficits”[/i] … [b]unless the deficits are the fault of our city council’s fiscal indiscipline.[/b]
It is one thing to require a business to internalize the peculiar costs it imposes on its neighbors, on our infrastructure and on the corporation of the city. It is quite another thing, though, to charge a private party for the costs of the police and fire departments’ gold-plated pensions and platinum-plated retiree health plans.
The entirety of the argument that we need to charge Parlin a lot more for this project is built on the accepted wisdom that our city council will not act responsibly with regard to its own labor costs moving forward. If you put in place sustainable labor contracts, then those presumed deficits created by WHR disappear.
It seems to me, therefore, that the onus ought to go where the responsibility lies: not with WHR, but with a city council which has the power, if not the willingness, to solve the problem.
Mike – I don’t think you read my comment in full or didn’t understand it . . . somebody is confused, which side are you on?
To View: I read it, and the fear mongering. You posted similar items yesterday, or someone with your ideas and style did. I am against sprawl and bad deals to the city.
Last fall and spring, I urged the City Council to discuss and put on the ballot a City Charter that had “real” provisions and protections for our community, residents and the environment that would be “visionary” and promote an open, broadly democratic decision-making process, support local business and jobs, and realization of a sustainable community.
I referred the Council to the work of the group, Envision Spokane, a two-year community-wide process that has now put a remarkable Measure on the ballot for approval in November. You might take a look at http://www.envisionspokane.org/
Most of all, take a look at this provision that recognizes the sovereign rights of neighborhood councils and residents.
§74.5 (New). Rights of Neighborhoods and Neighborhood Councils
A. The City of Spokane shall notify neighborhood councils of any proposals for commercial, industrial, or multi-unit residential land developments to be located within neighborhoods represented by those councils. That notice shall be given not more than five business days from the submission of a project permit application to the City by the developers of those proposals, and shall include notice to neighborhood councils representing neighborhoods adjacent to the neighborhood in which the land development is proposed to occur.
B. A neighborhood council may veto a land development project if requested to veto that project by a number of neighborhood registered voters equal to or greater than fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of votes cast at the last preceding general municipal election within that neighborhood. After being petitioned, if the neighborhood council determines that the land development project may adversely affect the neighborhood, and that the project is incompatible with either the neighborhood’s planning, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, or the City Charter, the council may veto the project. Such action by the neighborhood council shall stop all site development associated with the project, such action shall be binding upon the City of Spokane, and the City of Spokane shall defend such action against any legal challenges.
C. A neighborhood council shall veto a land development project if requested to veto that project by a number of neighborhood registered voters greater than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of votes cast at the last preceding general municipal election within that neighborhood. Petitioners must find that the land development project may adversely affect the neighborhood, and that the project is incompatible with either the neighborhood’s planning, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, or the City Charter. Such action by the neighborhood council shall stop all site development associated with the project, such action shall be binding upon the City of Spokane, and the City of Spokane shall defend such action against any legal challenges.
Nancy Price
Rich, I think we have to do both. As I said, it is the public that confers the added value on the cheap ag land. There are windfall profits to be made. Part of the reason that the profits are so massive in Davis is that the prices are high because this is such a nice place to live.
So, the developers have financially benefited from the city’s expenditures, and the public deserves substantial help out of the windfall profits to mitigate the deficit incurred.
Mike – you still don’t get it . . . or this isn’t the Mike Harrington I know. Whitcombe has used WHR as his “stalking horse”. I’m not intending to imply that Parlin is party to the deception, just that they are being used to divide the progressive/slow growth contingent. If you are against sprawl you should fear the Trojan Horse that Whitcombe is rolling in.
“It is Ritter and those whom he has corralled around his Yes on P campaign that has fractured Davis’ fragile progressive coalition. NOT those who continue to fight for Measure J, Davis’ citizen-initiative Measure L, following SACOG’s mandate as to Davis Housing start requirements and getting Davis the best “deal” for granting approval to a developer to do his project and make big profits. All of these critical issues, appear to be abandoned for this “tiny” project, as the YES people keep repeating. WHY?”
Ol Timer:
Your constant villification of people you have worked with in the past and with whom you will have to work in the future (if they are still able to tolerate you) is really beginning to rankle. You are coming across as a blow-hard and a disgruntled old man. Those of us who have been in the progressive camp since we were in short pants have not lost our way, our principles or our resolve to continue to fight for Davis. We will all be out there fighting for J (just as many of us did when we actually introduced the concept of J to our city and worked tirelessly for its passage)and will still be fighting for L (just as we did when we worked tirelessly for its passage as well). Just for your information, SACOG does not have any “mandate” for housing in Davis. SACOG requires only that we show we have land that is available for housing, not that we build it. So, no, we won’t be fighting to follow any SACOG “mandate.” None of these critical issues have been abandoned by us for this project. We just happen to believe that the best project to come along since Village Homes and that far surpasses that project in its green features, and that can set a new standard for green, sustainable development in Davis deserves our support.
And, no, we are not the ones who have fractured Davis’s “fragile progressive coalition. There has not been a progressive coalition in Davis in decades.
[quote]Your constant villification of people you have worked with in the past and with whom you will have to work in the future (if they are still able to tolerate you) is really beginning to rankle. You are coming across as a blow-hard and a disgruntled old man.[/quote]And you are coming across as an ass.
Please keep posting ol’ timer.
I enjoy hearing all points of view.
To View: I guess we just have a different opinion on the long term consequences if the voters approve Measure P. I dont think it helps or hurts CV at all. Totally different apples and oranges.
My office phone is in the book, and you can call me if you want to talk about it more.
I’m a relative political novice in town (only about 9 years, since late Dec 1999), but I have been in the middle of some pretty good fights and have a little knowledge of the city and voters. Maybe you have more than I.
From everything I know, this project is a net + for the city. I dont want to argue about it with you. It’s just my view. You can vote no; you can actively campaign; you can vote yes. All up to you.
Please no more talk about the progressives splitting. Don’t people have a right to self expression? Isn’t that progressive?
Sorry to “rankle” No Friend of Covell Village. Well, you if you “caught” me on this SACOG mandate, then the arguments that have been put forth in the Measure X campaign and else ware for years without challenge were evidently wrong from the get-go.. in any event, I stand corrected, if you are accurate, for using the wrong wording. You claim that while expediently ignoring issues in support of Measure P that I have raised, you then state,with palpable sincerity, that you still will fight hard for them in other contexts. This is an expediency and ,dare I say, hypocrisy that Davis progressive grass-roots politics cannot afford as it dangerously erodes its political strength; grass-roots depend upon adherence to principle and passion in place of $$$.
As for there never being a Davis progressive coalition, I disagree but recognize that it has been fragile for many years having to do mainly with personal feuds. I too am “rankled”.. .. by the cavalier way that the Yes on P progressive supporters have been unmoved by the potential for this schism that their tiny, insignificant project(as they have pitched it in a vain attempt to say in effect, it’s really too small to be held to our previous arguments and principles that we have espoused)would create in our fragile progressive coalition.
Please look at http://www.2000homesareenough.org for more information. The yes on P folks say we need WHR but look at the data–we have 2000 units coming. Yes some are at UC Davis but these are actually for “Davis workers” and students. It is interesting that the Yes on P folks keep claiming they want to build housing for folks who work in Davis–but then argue that the West Village project coming attached to the university does not count. You cannot have it both ways.
Even folks who want more housing should seriously consider whether the city is getting a good deal here–this project loses money for the City after 15 years, is on a bad parcel in terms of property taxes–why would anyone vote for this project? There are plenty of other developers who are salivating–if folks want new homes the City needs to get a better deal.
Its been a while. Is Parlin still saying that $450,000 houses are affordable?
Hi Ol’ Timer:
I am sorry you’re being called names by “No Friend of Covell Village”, who wrote: “You are coming across as a blow-hard and a disgruntled old man.” It is only just yesterday when the No on P side was accused of being “meltdowns”;
In fact, Ol’ Timer, you are not a disgruntled old man, but a wise old sage, when you point out that the same folks who commented in the No on X campaign, that Davis’s housing meets were met, are now saying that more housing is necessary! I find it interesting that no one, including David Greenwald, has commented yet on my earlier post, where I mentioned his July 2007 post in which he stated: “…So to suggest that Davis has shirked its growth responsibilities is false.”
Keep blogging Ol’ Timer, because, unlike some of these Yes on P sellouts, your slow-growth values have remained consistent!
This is found on the old No on X website (still available for viewing) under the sub-section “Fast Growth”:
“Davis has had accelerated growth for more than a decade. The City of Davis has approved enough housing to meet and exceed regional fair share growth requirements. Yet, the City Council majority wants to add 250 more housing units per year. Furthermore, this decision was made without any fiscal analysis! This growth policy is in direct conflict with the citizens General Plan adopted in 2001”
Look at the list of “Endorsements”
To include: Bill Ritter, Pam Nieberg, Mike Harrington, etc
Suddenly those “fast growth” and “no fiscal analysis” issues in 2006 no longer apply to you all???
I just don’t get it, does anyone else out there?
I voted No on X, I helped get neighbors out in my street to vote, and now because I oppose Measure P on the SAME principles as you all endorsed No on X, I’m now a “NIMBY” and a “meltdown”???
“I dont think it helps or hurts CV at all. Totally different apples and oranges.”
One can argue about the degree but it is not as you state above. Here’s how I see it. Saylor has already publicly stated that this project will have no influence on him as to any future projects that come up for consideration( Whitcombe’s proposal). Ruth Asmundson will, in all liklihood, follow Saylor’s lead. Souza is Whitecombe’s boy.
So… it will come down to the measure J process. The measure J vote on Whitcombe’s property WILL happen and our best chance to challenge it requires the same full, in-depth Measure J process that we were able to extract from a then recalcitrant Council majority of 4-1(Sue Greenwald again being the lone champion of Davis voter interests)for the Covell Village Measure X campaign. A yes on P vote will be argued as voter ratification of the validity of this new flawed Measure J(P) process and we will have no strong response.
[quote]I just don’t get it, does anyone else out there?[/quote]Isn’t it obvious?
It’s all about developer payola and/or the opportunity to be part of what is perceived to be an important new power block. For many people, money and power trump ethics, integrity, etc.
RE: 2000 homes are enough and houses for those who live in Davis: The fact is Parlin will market WHR widely and houses will be sold to any one whether from this community or not. It’s the same for any and all housing developments, and the fancier, cuter, or environmentally suggestive the name the better. I am tired of hearing about this housing or any other meeting the needs of Davis residents, their sons and daughters or of UCD grads that want to stay in Davis.
wdf: “Measure P coverage in the Davis Voice blog:
http://www.davisvoice.com/2009…-days.html”
From the Davis Voice on Measure P: “Souza is going to point everyone in the right direction…”!!! LOL
Nancy:
Where do you get the information that Parlin will market the homes widely? Parlin plans to build the project in phases, and to try as much as possible to market the homes locally.
I really wish you had taken the time to talk to BOTH sides on this issue before taking an uninformed position against it.
To all those who continue to chant “2000 homes are enough”. More than 1500 of those units are on-campus student dorms and apartments, not available to working families in Davis. The other 457 or so, are for university faculty and staff, most for incoming faculty as an incentive, and are not available for anyone else. The 500 claimed to have been approved in the city are in Verona (no builder so no houses and Ramos has withdrawn on construction), Grande (not going ahead any time soon) and Chiles Ranch. Chiles Ranch is the only one that appears to be moving ahead with 107 units, though there is no action at this point. So, we do not have 2000 units approved in Davis that will be available to people who work here but do not live here. That is a gross exaggeration.
I don’t understand how people can call this project “environmentally suggestive”. This is further evidence that the people who do have not bothered to learn about the project at all, but have just bought into the misinformation being bandied around by the No on P people. The project is 100% solar on all units and on parking structures, etc. to generate most if not all of the energy needed to run all the homes and maybe even produce extra energy that could be utilized by the city or school district. All the units will be built using the latest technology for energy conservation. There are numerous water conservation features as well. Why would the Sierra Club endorse this project if it were not a really unique, innovative and highly sustainable development? It is not easy to get a SC endorsement for any project, but this one was approved all the way to the top level.
David Said:
“Sorry ol’ timer, it appears you still are not getting it. This article was not about Measure P, it was about what happens after Measure P and those things are in place now while you are looking the other way.”
Excuse me, seems to me that the whole premise of your commentary is to focus people’s attention on the future threat to J, the next Covell, and the unsustainable nature of the city’s compensation structure, all valid. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any of your points, but to say this article wasn’t about P is disingenuous at best.