by Pam Nieberg and Carolyn Hinshaw –
by Pam Nieberg and Carolyn Hinshaw – The Sierra Club is not known for its support of housing developments, but we are urging you to vote yes on Measure P, the Wildhorse Ranch project, on November 3.
Wildhorse Ranch is a small-footprint housing project with 191 units on 25.8 acres located within the Davis city limits. It will be compact, with 78 townhomes; 73 single-family homes; and a 40-unit apartment complex, 38 of which will be affordable to low and very-low income families. The affordable apartments will be 100% handicap accessible.
The developer of Wildhorse Ranch has worked with local solar and energy-efficiency professionals to design a project that will greatly limit onsite greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Wildhorse Ranch housing units will produce just 10 percent of the GHG emissions of a typical Davis home—0.5 metric tons per year instead of 5.5. This will be accomplished through a combination of passive solar design to reduce energy demand and extensive use of photovoltaics on every home, on parking covers, and on similar structures, to reach an average of 2.4 kWs per household for a total of 458 kWs of clean solar power.
The homes will incorporate the latest technology in green construction and design including insulation, wall and roofing materials, and recycled construction products. The project will utilize high-efficiency heating and air conditioning, highly reflective roof and wall colors to reduce solar gain, high efficiency lighting, solar or high efficiency water heaters, and Energy Star appliances. To further reduce air conditioning demand, the project will utilize a system that introduces cool, filtered outside air into the homes at night. Residents of Wildhorse Ranch will be able to monitor and adjust their energy usage 24/7 through smart metering. Wildhorse Ranch will exceed California’s Energy Efficiency Standards by 50%.
We also applaud features of the project that will reduce water consumption: water-efficient irrigation, water-saving fixtures, and the use of California native and drought-tolerant species throughout the landscaping. This will include the planting of native trees to help reduce temperatures and capture and sequester carbon. An existing agricultural well that does not draw from the city drinking water aquifer will be used for watering the public greenbelts and open spaces. Project streets will be narrower to limit pavement, and storm water run-off will be slowed and infiltration increased by the use of bioswales —landscape elements designed to remove silt and pollution.
In 2006, the city of Davis joined the U. S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which called for local and national action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to combat climate change. And in 2007 the City Council voted unanimously to adopt a strategy to reduce citywide GHG emissions. Davis has since established GHG emission thresholds, standards, and mitigation guidelines for new residential development. The Wildhorse Ranch project is planned to exceed Davis standards for new residential projects by 100 percent.
For years developers have been claiming that building truly energy-conscious homes is uneconomical and simply unrealistic. But with the global climate crisis upon us, it is this business-as-usual attitude that is unrealistic. We need a clear statement that the times have changed. The Sierra Club believes we must support and encourage developers who demonstrate that building energy efficient residences can be accomplished while still keeping home prices realistic.
The energy-efficiency and water-conserving features built into the Wildhorse Ranch project will raise the standard for future development and make daily living more affordable for the homeowners for many years to come. As such it will provide a model for other communities to examine as they grapple with the difficult issue of how we can reduce greenhouse gases without a significant lifestyle sacrifice.
The opportunity to go forward with a project that clearly and effectively addresses today’s primary environmental threat is here. This is a big-picture vote and we urge you to vote yes on Measure P.
Pam Nieberg and Carolyn Hinshaw are members of the Yolano Group of the Motherlode Chapter of the Sierra Club
Can someone verify that indeed the local Sierra Club CAN endorse and if so this was a bonafide endorsement, e.g., after presentation and discussion of both sides.
From the posts yesterday both seem in question. And if not using the ‘endorsement’ in mailers is misleading at best.
The endorsement was approved by the Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club and by the Local Ballot Measure Review Committee at the state level.
A few questions/thoughts regarding the Sierra Club endorsement:
1. What happens if we DON’T build at WHR; how much greenhouse gas emission is currently happening at the horse ranch (compared to 191 units with 400+ cars)?
2. Shouldn’t voters first ask the question: “Is more housing necessary for Davis” before they ask, “Is it green”? For those of you who blog how necessary more housing is for Davis, please cite reasons/fact to support (i.e. counter arguments include: why haven’t any of the 500+ approved units in town started building yet? Has Davis NOT met it’s SACOG housing targets?)
“What happens if we DON’T build at WHR; how much greenhouse gas emission is currently happening at the horse ranch (compared to 191 units with 400+ cars)?”
The real question is where those inhabitants currently live and whether they work in Davis. Because if they live outside of town and commute to town, there is a lot of savings.
Which goes toward your next question–does WHR supply housing that fills internal needs in Davis.
Why didn’t you print the opposing op-ed by Sue Greenwald as well?
Tomorrow
Aren’t there development forces entrenched in the local Sierra Club?
“Aren’t there development forces entrenched in the local Sierra Club?”
David, can we get a list of the local Sierra Club members or executive officers posted? For instance, we all know that Pam Nieberg is the President, but who are the other “key” players in this organization?
I think it would be important for people to know this…
To: The Druid:
Not at the local level. We successfully fought Covell Village, a very bad project. And we fought Target, also a very bad project and precedent. We are all opposed to sprawl development. This project is an infill project on the remainder of the Wild Horse development itself that was left undeveloped when the original 400 acres or so of farmland was developed for typical sprawl development.
To: Soda’ite: The local Group held two publically announced (in the Enterprise) meetings stating that the Wildhorse Ranch project would be discussed. One person showed up at the first meeting on this project. He supported it. No one showed up on this issue at the second meeting.
Good one, Sierra Club! Glad that it was thoroughly reviewed all the way up the chain of organization, to at least the top of California statewide.
The outside review eliminates the No on P argument that a local few snuck it through the meetings … I remember seeing the board meeting ads in the paper, and I am sure that since No on P personnel seem to care very much for the environment, they must have been members and been on the newsletter lists?
I am sure that since No on P personnel seem to care very much for the environment
Mike,
We do care about the environment and that is why we are saying that if we don’t build unnecessary homes at the WHR site, that will contribute to LESS greenhouse emissions than if we did build!
“Wildhorse Ranch is a small-footprint housing project with 191 units on 25.8 acres located within the Davis city limits. It will be compact, with 78 townhomes; 73 single-family homes; and a 40-unit apartment complex, 38 of which will be affordable to low and very-low income families. The affordable apartments will be 100% handicap accessible.”
Where do you get off calling these townhomes/apts “affordable”. Your idea of “affordable” and mind are worlds apart. These dense townhomes, that have virtually no yards for kids to play in (developer admits this) are averaging $450,000. The rents for most of the “affordable” apts are $1000 – $1200. The prices speak for themselves, at a time when we don’t need more housing. To call these homes “affordable” is highly misleading.
If you look at the Mother Lode SC site–then under Challenge Sprawl- Their biggest concern is Affordability—what is so affordable about a condo that is almost half a million dollars???? This project will not provide Affordable housing unless you are Bill Ritter who was paid well over $15,000 in one month by the developers of this project to ram it through. Or John Tallman who stated at the debate that affordability is relative…..relative to your jobs income I took him to mean. And in the next breath that this will be affordable for teachers, police and firefighters who live in town?? Really think about it.
Also, if these residents of Davis who are on the Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club feel so strongly about being green why don’t they start at home with their own home. Bring their home up to a higher standard. Think Globally –Act Locally
Greg, the 90% standard will become the legal standard in Davis if this project passes. I am pretty sure that this project is the first subdivision in California that requires the 90% GHG reduction in the operation of the buildings.
There was an exchange at the 7/28 CC meeting that was fascinating to me. Steve asked David Galbraith (Talbot Solar) to explain, in effect, why this project was able to produce the 90% reductions, when other developers were always complaining that reductions approaching that level would bankrupt them (the old “it does not pencil out” mantra that the CC hears every week). David testified that the 90% was very possible due to improvements in building and energy efficiency technologies.
I built my office building in 2003, and it won some sustainable building awards (also a national award). David tells me that even though the glazing on the windows and doors was state of the art only 6 years ago, the new doors and windows have much much better films that increase the R-values far above what I could get in 2003.
Dean says that 100% GHG reduction is very possible at a reasonable cost, but 90% is enough for this project. (The City’s informal recommended standard is only a 45% reduction, and that is far better than the legal statewide standard.)
The 90% GHG reduction, coupled with the political issues that I have discussed here, are enough to have me endorse the project.
I will say that the public process has caused this project to be much better; Measure J is doing its job.
Yolano Chapter may like the green aspects (some of which do appeal) but it’s still supporting a project that is being promoted as “affordable for local workforce buyers” and “affordable for 1st time buyers”. Neither of these statements seem appropriate when talking about $425k townhouses. A down payment is $45k.
Why no LEED certification?? The chapter is supporting a developer that first intended to buy carbon credits off site. Green analysis does NOT include auto emissions generated on the 3 mi trip downtown. Slight omission?
“Approved by the Sierra Club” and “Approved by the Sierra Club (State of CA)” look VERY different to me.
YOP brochure does NOT specify that this is a local/state level Sierra Club endorsement. It looks like a FULL organization (ie national) approval. This is misleading.
I am a NOP. I do care about the environment. I am not automatically opposed to development but green, to me, means sensible growth. Do we really need another development when there are so many already approved?
To: John Muir would cringe:
The SC smart growth criteria reference to affordability is to low and very low income–the legal definition. They do not refer to market rate housing.
If you look at the city’s criteria for market rate housing affordable to middle income families in Davis, you will see that most of the homes in WHR are affordable to the middle income.
People in this town are politically active. If WHR is so great, why isn’t anyone volunteering their support (other than a few members of the local Sierra Club)? The folks standing in front of the YOP display make $15/hour. The kid that knocks on my door is paid. Bill Ritter is paid.
Jim:
This is full approval by the Sierra Club. It is one club. The local group went through the established procedure for approval of a local ballot measure/project with the Club. This is the procedure, and this is a Sierra Club endorsement, not a local or regional or state approval, but Sierra Club, period. That is how it works. There was no subterfuge on the part of the local group. If you would like to see changes in how the Club policy on endorsements works, I suggest you become active at the local level and work toward a change.
The development has been accepted into the LEED certification program. LEED certification cannot occur until final designs have been submitted to give the certification committee something to evalutate.
To Huh:
“Wildhorse Ranch is a small-footprint housing project with 191 units on 25.8 acres located within the Davis city limits. It will be compact, with 78 townhomes; 73 single-family homes; and a 40-unit apartment complex, 38 of which will be affordable to low and very-low income families. The affordable apartments will be 100% handicap accessible.”
The reference to “affordable” in this statement is to the affordable apartment units. These are the legally affordable units that fall under the purview of the City of Davis’s affordable housing ordinance. The city sets the rent for these units to be affordable to low and very low income families. The statement you reference does not refer to the town homes or single family detached.
Did you vote for Obama? Most of his community organizers who made it possible for him to win the primary were paid. Obama spent record amounts of money, a lot of it was on paid organizers.
Mr. Watson:
I support Yes on P and I appove of pay for our local college students and local residents including Bill Ritter.
BTW, as I understand it that $15K payment to Ritter was for three months, not one month.
To Pam Neiberg… thanks for clearing up the Sierra Club endorsement process. Since the local Yolo chapter was not authorized to endorse and had to go to the Mother Lode Chapter, were the opponents of Measure P notified of a meeting that they could attend, as we did for Covell Village? The subsequent Sierra state-level decision is most likely automatic unless there was a formal challenge to the Mother Lode chapter decision.
Some questions that you could clarify.. Why is it necessary to approve this project NOW when we already have 2000 housing units approved and unbuilt? You have always argued strongly that Davis should wait to approve more housing, after it has fulfilled its SACOG obligations, until the Davis voters can take it up in our next General Plan update, due in 2013, I believe.
How do you justify giving the WHR project a “pass” for its much more egregious savaging of our Measure J process when you so vigorously argued that the Council Majority supporting the CV project was attempting to do EXACTLY the same thing?
Doesn’t the fiscal analysis for this project really come down to the voters of Davis being asked to subsidize Parlin’s WHR project because of the “bragging rights” that we will earn for the global warming issue? It is acknowledged that the WHR technology cannot have any real impact on this global warming problem. Natural gas for electricity generation, heat and hot water are one of the cleanest burning fossil fuels and the global warming problem is caused overwhelmingly by coal-fired energy plants and automobile emissions(which will increase in direct proportion to our peripheral residential housing that serves predominantly commuters to Sacramento)?
“Doesn’t the fiscal analysis for this project really come down to the voters of Davis being asked to subsidize Parlin’s WHR project because of the “bragging rights” that we will earn for the global warming issue?”
As Paul explained to me the fiscal analysis of this project comes down to how much we expect employee compensation to rise over the next 15 years. If we accomplish what people like Councilmember Heystek, Greenwald, myself, Rich Rifkin and others have been pushing, the project will at least break even. If we bow to the firefighters, then this project will be in the negative.
We can have green development in Davis without WHR. And if you took this project and put it closer to shops and workplaces it would be inherently much greener since transportation represents 40% of greenhouse gases in California while homes represent a much smaller percentage. It would also be greener if it didn’t pave over Ag land–and please don’t tell me that its not “real” Ag land.
Unfortunately, while the Sierra Club has its heart in the right place, it has not always been right. One example–in 1971 the Sierra Club backed measures that would support the eastern coal company interests when negotiating the Clean Air Act (See “Clean Coal: Dirty Air: http://books.google.com/books?id=5WK1Xrvv7LcC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=sierra+club+clean+coal+dirty+air&source=bl&ots=InJbgSkpyt&sig=OqjTZ96j00mPiGs9its60_1WY_A&hl=en&ei=zjDKSsSLLIn-sgOurLyiBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=sierra club clean coal dirty air&f=false )
The result here set back reductions in sulfur dioxide emission at least 10 years. I believe this support for WHR is similarlyu missplaced.
The Sierra Club does not always get it right–support green requirements in Davis, but not this project which paves pover Ag land and ignores the largest contributor to GHG (transportation).
To the No on P Campaign: Sue did it to you, again.
With all of her free time, she completely failed to inform you guys that Sierra Club was considering to endorse or not? That there were multiple public announcements? That the political pros in town (of which she claims to be one) always think about the Sierra Club when it comes to these environmental matters? I wish one of you would post anonymously and tell all of us how she is blaming all of YOU for her failure to be on top of the Sierra Club endorsement process? Most of you are political novices in terms of citywide campaigns; how does it feel to be the victim and blamed for the process and outcome? I’ve seen it for about 10 years. It’s why I won’t sit on a committee with her.
This is consistent with her failure to inform Open Space and F & B Commissions that this project had been filed with Planning in AUGUST 2008.
And her failure to tell the CC that she wanted to see review by these commissions?
Or that she thought the BAE financial model that was prepared for CV should be re-examined?
Or that her conduct before the F & B Commission was so awful that the CC felt compelled to remove her? All of you know that there is an audio tape of that meeting, right? And that Sue “resigned” before staff could play that tape at the CC meeting? I was at part of the F & B Commission meeting, and I was so appalled at what I saw and heard that I wished my cell phone had a video recording function so I could bring it to public comment and play it? What a waste of my personal life, but I would have done it, to protect public process.
Or that the LWV always required balanced panels, and her trying to force herself onto the No on P panel would likely result in the LWV cancelling the debate?? Did she tell No on P that the LWV cancellation will probably result in severe public damage to the credibility of the No on P campaign, since it was rightfully publically blamed for the community’s loss of the only debate that most of the public actually watches?
I can hardly wait for November 3 to be over.
Ol timer:
As far as I know no one from No on P was given any chance to present a rebuttal to the local Sierra Club chapter’s argument to the national club, which is in San Francisco. If the Yolano chapter was confident in their arguments, surely they would have invited us to at least present our case. For the life of me I cannot see how this serves the long term interest of environmentalists–at least have a spirited discussion.
I am also bothered by the fact that Parlin has no real environmental ttrack record. Folks will say it makes no difference–but to me it matters if a builder has experience and dedication.
I again would like someone to present the actual tonnage(or pounds)/day SAVINGS generated for a 90% GHG reduction for a townhouse in WHR when compared to the same house if built in WHR under the 45% GHG emission current Davis standard. Then take this number and express it as hours/day automobile driving. This would give us a true picture of what the Davis voter is being asked to subsidize.
I can hardly wait for November 3 to be over.
So can I; so we don’t have to read Mike Parlington’s pathetic and hateful blogs regarding this project anymore!
The most hateful posts on this blog have definitely NOT come from Mike Harrington. He has just become a lightening rod because of his consistent support of a good project.
By the way, how many of you opposed to this energy conserving project are going to drive your cars to and shop at our new big box store, Target?
Mike:
When you make these type of insinuating remarks towards the “No on P campaign”, you are directly talking to me and Phil King; so let me clarify some of the mistruths you are posting:
1. “…tell all of us how she is blaming all of YOU for her failure to be on top of the Sierra Club endorsement process…” Sue never blamed us for not getting the Sierra Club; we knew as far back as July (when Pam Nieberg was testifying to her support of the project to the City Council and Planning Commission hearings)that the Sierra Club endorsement was a done deal; we have been focusing our campaign from day one on “Is this project really necessary (or really affordable)” vs how “green” it is…
2. “…Did she tell No on P that the LWV cancellation will probably result in severe public damage to the credibility of the No on P campaign…” This is just one dog you won’t lie; I thought we had fully addressed our history/points on the cancelled LWV debate in our letter to the Editor and yesterday’s blog; but Mike, for the last time, Sue did NOT insist on being at the LWV debate; Phil and I did, because we wanted the same panel from the Birch Lane debate (just as Yes on P was being allowed to)…
3. Most of you are political novices in terms of citywide campaigns”; yes Mike, you are right on that on, and I can’t tell you how many people have come to our booth at the Farmer’s Market and told us how “refreshing” it is to see some new political faces in this campaign, unlike the old political retreads, like you and Bill Ritter are!
Please stop blogging facts about “No on P” campaign that are untrue! And also, can you please disclose to the general blogging public what, if any, financial associations you have with Parlin Development?
No Friend: Thanks for the clarification.
LEED Certification can’t occur until final designs are submitted? We’re voting on a preliminary design? I can believe all the “green” promises and then find out it can’t be done?? Now I understand why the developer was going to buy carbon credits off site if necessary and was unwilling to make a contractual commitment to that 90& GHG reduction.
One big question I have – if the developer gets approval and sells land/rights to someone else, can this project change? w/o the LEED certification, we don’t even know if project will currently be done as promised. I think (not sure) that at one point, the developer was talking about donating the land to the City and having someone else build the low income rentals. Would someone else be legally obligated to do $20k PV installs on low income housing? “Full install on all units” sounds lovely. How do I know it will actually happen?
There are 2 key selling points for this project. One is “affordable for 1st time buyers/the local workforce”. These claims are hard to understand. Like Chiles Ranch, no one will answer the $45k (10%) down payment question. Even a VHA loan (3%) is approx $12k. When I asked at the YOP booth, I got a non answer. Well I was told that $425k was affordable because houses in Davis usually cost $600k.
The second selling point is “green”. I admit that my first impression of this project was “wow” and “cool”. Then I starting reading more closely. As several have pointed out, we are paving over ag land to build housing that doesn’t seem necessary at this time. If this kind of development is so important to Davis, why haven’t the many other currently approved developments been subjected to this kind of scrutiny? The recently approved Chiles “Ranch” simply promised to have the connections for PV but not do the actual installs
Truly MIXED use high density development within walking or biking distance of a downtown really is environmentally efficient. It is something I would support. However, WHR is a single RESIDENTIAL use, high density (done w/ 3 stories) on the outskirts of town. It is based on car use. HD is another currently popular buzzword but w/o details, it doesn’t really mean very much.
Lots of “smoke and mirrors” here. A promotional campaign that promises “affordable” but which never has any numbers (not even a range of ft2). A campaign that uses “green” for a non LEED Certified project that isn’t necessarily going to be as promised. There don’t seem to be any volunteers campaigning (maybe this has changed). However “affordable” and “green” WHR is, we don’t need more development at this time.
By the way, how many of you opposed to this energy conserving project are going to drive your cars to and shop at our new big box store, Target?
To Whoa!
I voted against Target and donated money to the “No on Big Box” campaign, because just like WHR, I thought a Target in Davis was UNNECESSARY since they were building a Super Target a couple of miles up the road in Woodland;
So Whoa (can you blog with your real name next name) tell us how Target was not an acceptable project to you, but WHR is necessary growth? As much as I hated seeing Target come to Davis, one fact is sure, that store will bring in true revenue benefits to the City, whereas WHR will not!
DPD says “As Paul explained to me the fiscal analysis of this project comes down to how much we expect employee compensation to rise over the next 15 years.”
Yes, this is AN explanation although , as Rich Rifkin explained, it depends for its argument on what MAY happen( highly unlikely given Council history) in the future… very much like the Covell Village fiscal argument relied on a PERMANENT annual average 6%/year increase in residential property values into the indefinite future… we know how that turned out!
No… I was talking about WHR bringing into city coffers one of the lowest % property tax, the lack of additional monies that could match that of other projects recently approved, the questionable long-term effectiveness of WHR home-owner fees to maintain the development with the probability that the city will have to take up the slack. This appears increasingly probable as these add-on home-owner costs have been increased in an attempt to bring the project to fiscal neutrality.
Jim:
The sustainability features re the solar, etc, all that would lead to LEED certification, are all part of the base line features included in the Measure P vote. They must be done, or go to another vote of the people.
On the fiscal impact issues–there are a number of assumptions involved. It is not just about employee compensation. The City model also makes quite generous assumptions about sales tax, the future price of houses, housing turnover, etc which tend to yield higher revenues that the City may actually get.
On the other hand what is not controversial is that after 15 years the City will lose money on this project if one simply follows the City’s model. WHR supporters choose to ignore this fact. I hope to live in Davis longer than 15 years–it matters to me and it should matter to others. Parlin could have fixed this by paying a larger up-front fee but chose not to.
Phil: The model assumes a 5% annual growth rate in employee compensation, if the city holds that growth to 4% as I showed two weeks ago, there is a drastic change in the modeling assumptions.
Here’s the thing, if we grow at 5%, we are in trouble and WHR is not going to make a difference calculation. The single most important issue facing this city is not growth, it’s not WHR, it’s our city finances. This is a ticking bomb.
To put it another way, we are not going to be able sustain a 5% growth without finding another revenue source over and above sales tax assumptions anyway–that’s for the city to function. Somehow this is all going to have to be resolved. The bottom line and why the city is projecting this as revenue neutral is that WHR is not the only problem fiscally that they have to address.
I am skeptical of the Sierra Club’s endorsement – green washing a lackluster infill project. I received the pamphlet from the developer today – with the picture of a ‘tree hugger’ on it.
I will vote for infill projects that are brighter examples of sustainable design – not a slightly greener version of existing Wildhorse. Davis is truly a green beacon for other communities – let’s not dilute it’s achievements with THIS plan.
Greg, you admit that No on P deliberately let the Sierra Club endorsement go through? I just blamed it on negligence of your citywide campaign experts, but come to find out the campaign itself did it? So, here you are, knowing that this item was on the agenda for several months, you do nothing, then when the Sierra Club issues its endorsement, you poo-poo it and dump on the rigged process? Huh?
2) You knowingly let the LWV cancel the debate and lay the blame at No on P’s feet, and all along you knew that insisting on Sue’s presence would result in cancellation and yet more negative process? Are you working for the No on P or Yes on P side? Do the experienced citywide supporters of No on P have a clue what you guys are doing to the campaign?
I am sorry to hear that the No on P campaign deliberately screwed up a healthy debate within the context of the Sierra Club endorsement process, and wrecked the LWV’s non-partisan public debate process.
Your attacks on Bill Ritter are completely mis-informed. Yes, he has a paying client in Parlin Wildhorse. He also believes in the project, as many of us progressives do.
I know for a fact what Bill has done for so many progressive causes in Davis. When the No on X Campaign fired Eileen and Sue in August 2005 for misbehaving, Bill stepped in at the request of Dick Livingston and volunteered his time for a little over two months to try and salvage the wreckage that was left. You know the result, dont you?
Do you think that Davis is an exceptional place to live because it just happens? We all benefit from the many years of service by the progressive leadership in this town, year in and year out. Bill happens to be the one on duty at the moment, and there will be others after him.
I am amazed that you think it was appropriate to belittle the Sierra Club’s important evaluation process and deliberately wreck the LWV debate forum. I am sorry to hear that the No on P Campaign thinks so little of those two important community groups.
Green:
Here are the criteria for LEED:
Sustainable Sites 26 Possible Points
Water Efficiency 10 Possible Points
Energy and Atmosphere 35 Possible Points
Materials and Resources 14 Possible Points
Indoor Environmental Quality 15 Possible Points
Innovation in Design 6 Possible Points (ID Credit 1.1-1.4 has 4 points, and ID Credit 2 has 1 point)
Regional Priority 4 Possible Points
Most of these ARE NOT ADDRESSED in the baseline so to say they are is simply not true. In particular this site is on Ag land which does not earn many LEED points, if any. Many of the other criteria are not addressed.
Only the GHG from housing (and not transportation) is addressed, which is only a small part of LEED. Maybe this is why Parlin did not use LEED. I can understand why Parlin did not want LEED, but why did the Sierra club endorse this project without at least an inventory of these issues?
No Friend: “If you look at the city’s criteria for market rate housing affordable to middle income families in Davis, you will see that most of the homes in WHR are affordable to the middle income.”
That isn’t even remotely true. Minimum income to buy the lowest priced units in this development will be $96,000/year. Check out any online mortgage calculator, or any of the prior threads on the affordability issue, and you’ll find that the only “affordable” units in WHR are the apartments.
David:
We hashed out the issue of the salaries a couple of weeks ago and I don’t want to go there again. My main point was that with rising benefit costs it will be hard to justify much lower salary gains. The important thing is that this project does nothing to help the fiscal situation and could easily exacerbate it. I also pointed out that other factors in the model are overly optimistic.
The fact that this project is on a terrible parcel of land in terms of the property tax that the City receives speaks for itself. If the City has fiscal issues is this (ficsally) sustainable development?
There is no affordable housing in Davis – its off the charts. So any mention of affordable needs a big fat asterisk * next to it – meaning below the median house value within the City, but still out of reach for ppl with combined income of less than $120k. Its really a useless term here. And that is the way it will be from now on – unless we relocate the landfill to downtown – then homeprices may become affordable by normal standards.
Or we build more to saturate the market.
Phil: Understood, though I have additional information on that now, which is basically the city’s structural problems impact the analysis of WHR. If WHR is going to end up being fiscally negative either due to insufficient tax revenues or increasing employee costs, so will the city. They are not isolated. So if WHR ends up not panning fiscally, neither will the rest of the city.
Don:
The statement made re the fact all of the housing units in WHR are affordable to middle income is based on the city’s own documents.
Middle Income is defined as from 120% to 180% of the Yolo County Area Median Income. This is based on the median income of the County which is $71,000. So the middle income is from $85,200 to $127,800. At these income levels, most if not all of the housing in WHR is affordable to the middle class family of 4.
David:
Lets talk about the long term health of the City then. To me this project doesn’t help.
Thanks Mike for your commentary on the No on P campaign, as for the effectiveness of our political moves, let’s let the voters decide on Nov 3rd, but you failed to answer my last question:
“And also, can you please disclose to the general blogging public what, if any, financial associations you have with Parlin Development?”
Or you can simply reply “Decline to state”
“I know for a fact what Bill has done for so many progressive causes in Davis. When the No on X Campaign fired Eileen and Sue in August 2005 for misbehaving, Bill stepped in at the request of Dick Livingston and volunteered his time for a little over two months to try and salvage the wreckage that was left. You know the result, dont you?”
Mike Harrington.. your attempt to rehabilitate your political reputation and insinuate yourself back into Davis’ progressive leadership circle is, if nothing else, uncomfortably sad to watch. Bill Ritter offered his services in creating the NO on Measure X literature towards the end of the campaign. As far as I could tell, in attending all of the “inner-circle” No on Measure X strategy meetings(in which you were not present),
this was his contribution although I could well imagine that his ability to generate funding,in short supply towards the end of the campaign, also was significant. Hiring on to the flawed Parlin campaign to “corral” past and present Davis progressive political players has significantly,and hopefully not irreparably, damaged the reputations of these Davis progressive political players and the strength of future progressive coalitions. As a professional political operative, he certainly must have considered this and the political cynicism and expediency is difficult to “swallow”.
Hi Chris:
Thanks for your comments:
“I am skeptical of the Sierra Club’s endorsement – green washing a lackluster infill project. I received the pamphlet from the developer today – with the picture of a ‘tree hugger’ on it.”
My wife laughed when we got that brochure in the mail this weekend and saw the picture of the “tree-hugger”; she thought it was a joke and asked if the No on P people had printed it as a mockery of this whole “green” campaign; I assured her it was not!
Hey Chris, I like your opinions, stop by our booth at the Market on Saturday and we’ll give you a lawn sign.
Cheers,
Greg
Phil:
I’ve been talking about that for a long time and to my knowledge, you’ve never participated in those discussions. That said, don’t take that as a criticism of you, my point here is that if we solve the city’s fiscal problems, we solve WHR’s. If we do not, WHR is insignificant to the enormity of the problem.
Paul walked me through the numbers and the biggest variable is employee compensation. The other factor as you mention is assumptions about sales tax. Turns out that those are the two biggest factors in the long term stability of the city.
To me, the fiscal issue is not a reason to vote for this project and it’s not a reason to vote against the project. That was Paul’s opinion as well which is why they gave the project fiscal neutrality.
The other point is that people here better wake up to what these numbers show because this town isn’t going to be affordable to anyone if we don’t solve our structural problems.
The current local Yolano Sierra Club board is heavily weighted with members who have a close and long-standing political relationship with Bill Ritter, the very well paid political consultant for Parlin.
In that context, it is easier to see why the board would support this peripheral site, and promote it to the national Sierra Club, without allowing the opposition to present their views on why this project does not represent smart growth.
Ol Timer:
After the change of leadership in the Measure X campaign, there were several “inner circle” meetings at which Mike and Bill were most definitely present, but I don’t recall seeing you there. Both Mike and Bill made significant contributions to the campaign and helped to bring it home to a big win. Prior to this change in leadership, polls showed that the campaign was in serious trouble.
Dear Chapter:
Again: The process for a SC endorsement was explained previously. The “debates” regarding a local projec, ballot measure or candidate take place at the local level. The process at the local level included two publically announced (in the Enterprise) meetings at which the WHR project was discussed. The fact that it would be discussed was clearly stated in the Enterprise announcements. Only one person showed up on this issue at the first meeting and he supported the project. No one showed up at the second meeting. It has become clear today on this blog that the No side anticipated an attempt at a SC endorsement, but they apparently decided to focus their energies elsewhere. Now some of them are crying foul. If the No side wanted an opportunity to debate the issue, the opportunity was there, but they did not take advantage of it.
Actually Mike, Ol’ timer has it right Mike. Bill Ritter was basically an opportunist looking to work his way into the progressives. We all saw him worm his way into the campaign and patronize everyone to try to get some credibility. He was supposed to help with advertizing and the word got out later that he had a spending spree that pretty much bankrupted the campaign towards the end. He has a long history of overspending with so many other campaigns he has worked on. It is also common knowledge Ritter has been fired from, or has quit, most campaigns that he has worked on over the years. Ritter even sued Mariko Yamada for firing him and, Mike, you were his lawyer. You two guys are quite a pair!
Meanwhile, word also has traveled Mike, that you evicted the entire No on Measure X campaign out of your office building when you took a tantrum because you were not selected to the sign the No on Measure X ballot argument.
Mike, you are pathetic. Please stop embarrassing yourself. Ritter and you are not progressives and everyone knows it. The Parlin project is really just an income stream for you and Ritter.
To NO Friend of Covell Village:
I can only respond by saying that we must have been in parallel alternative universes during the NO on Measure X campaign.
To Mike Parlington:
I don’t know who you are, but you obviously do not know much about what happened back then or about Bill. Or maybe you prefer to spin it to suit yourself. Bill was asked to join the campaign by the new leadership. He managed to wrangle enough funding to produce some very credible advertising for X, and much of the money toward the end of the campaign was a result of Mike’s hard work.
Mike threw the original campaign leadership out of his conference room when he learned the “leadership” at that point lied to him.
Both Mike and Bill are true progressives. You may not agree with them all the time, but there is not only a single progressive ideology in Davis.
Bill is indeed the campaign manager for Parlin. So what? Do you get paid for your job? Mike gets nothing out of the Parlin project. He gets rent just as he gets from all his other tenants.
Your attacks on Bill and Mike do you no credit. You are clearly a disgruntled and very unhappy person.
I do agree with Greg on one thing: the project’s points (pro and con) will decide the election. All of us can go back and forth on this Blog, but in the end, read the pro and con arguments, read the Measure J features, and read the City Attorney’s impartial analysis, and go vote.
In terms of Measure X, I was around. Many others did more than I did. I really don’t take much credit for things. I can say for sure, since I saw it, that Dick Livingston took over a dead organization in September 2005 and with a huge amount of help from others managed to defeat a billion dollar juggernaut. I won’t name names, but Bill Ritter pretty much tabled the rest of his life for over 2 months to work as a volunteer on the No on X campaign. Others did it too, but I was around Bill and saw what he did. Very, very impressive.
Whatever happened with Measure X, I can assure the Yes on Halloween IV crowd that they will face a unified front if they try the “senior only” ghetto style project that basically harkens from the Jurassic Age of urban planning. It’s like … “hmmmm … we dont know what else to do, so let’s try to sucker some local seniors into voting for a senior development, while simultaneously getting Measure J approval for the rest of the 440 acres.” Bring it on, JW.
“Bill is indeed the campaign manager for Parlin. So what? Do you get paid for your job? Mike gets nothing out of the Parlin project. He gets rent just as he gets from all his other tenants.”
The problem here is the Bill Ritter did hold a fistful of political IOU’s from these Davis progressive political players who almost immediately endorsed the project when it was approved by Council to go to a Measure J vote in 3 months(actually two since August was a dead time) , we can assume at Ritter’s urging. They put their reputations on the line before the false ballot statement bru-ha-ha, Parlin holding the option to not build the low and very low affordable housing(pardon,apartments)while campaigning that this was what he was committed to do, the 90% GHG emission on-site that had to be extracted from him like a bad tooth, very dubious claims of affordable workforce,housing…. need I go on?? Voter perception is everything, here. As for Mike Harrington, who knows what his motivations are except that he is obviously still suffering the effects of a very bruised ego with the voter’s rejection of his reelection to the Council and being held at political arm’s length by the No on Measure X progressive leadership.
The next chapter on the Davis Chapter of the Sierra Club:
Close your eyes and imagine for a minute that the Wildhorse Ranch project wins. The next Sierra Club election will be quite lively. All the other peripheral developers will put up candidates too, vying for control of the endorsement.
And the winner will clearly be: The Covell Village Developers!!! They have a substantial coalition promoting the Sun City Covell project, they have their own highly paid political operatives who have built up a lot of their own political IOU’s, and they know how to get out the local vote. The Pro-Parlin Sierra Club Board will have blazed the trail — they will have illustrated that the secret of getting peripheral development past the voters of Davis is: to TAKE CONTROL OF THE SIERRA CLUB BOARD.
Do you really think that Wildhorse Ranch would have been endorsed by this Sierra Club Board if John Whitcombe were developing it, and if one of their friends wasn’t on the payroll?
I don’t.
The Yolano and Mother Lode Sierra Club should be ashamed of themselves. The Sierra Club’s job is protect open space not promote development on it. Especially this Wildhorse Ranch “greenwashed” development. The horse farm is agricultural land but it also has huge habitat value as it is. It goes to show that even the Sierra Club can be bought. In fact has anyone checked to see if Parlin has made any big donations to the Yolano and Mother Lode Sierra Club recently?
This is enough for there to be a massive protest and massive resignations of members. The Yolano Group and the Mother Lode Sierra Club will never recover from this. What an abuse of power by the Board members of both chapters. I heard that one Yolano Board member resigned because of this vote. What real environmentalist would want to be associated with this pro-developer vote? We should call it the Sierra Development Company now I guess. Who can trust the Sierra Club after this?
To the Next Chapter: you say that if Parlin Wildhorse wins: “Close your eyes and imagine for a minute that the Wildhorse Ranch project wins. The next Sierra Club election will be quite lively. All the other peripheral developers will put up candidates too, vying for control of the endorsement. And the winner will clearly be: The Covell Village Developers!!!”
Now I know who you are. I thought the tone, tempo, grammar, off-subject hate-spewing remarks were from Sue or the Lewis Homes local paid consultant, but instead, I think you are Helen Thompson!!
Your comment reads just like Helen’s October 2005 “the sky is falling and Boogey Man Gidero will git you if you don’t vote for Covell Village”!
DPD: please do us a favor and post that Helen letter so we can all compare for ourselves as to the possible ID of the anonymous postings here.
To the Sierra Club Board: I am sorry you have to put up these few No on P leaders who, by Greg’s own admission, deliberately blew you off, then whined about the process and defamed all of your fairness and objectivity.
To the LWV Board: same for you all. Thanks for doing such a great job in sticking to your long standing rules as to holding fair and balanced debates. I am sorry you have to be maligned and slammed by these 2-3 leaders of the No on P campaign. Keep up the excellent work for our community.
To the No on P supporters: I know that many of you are trusting the 2-3 primary leaders of the No on P for your information and analysis. I suggest that you look at what these leaders are doing to the Boards of the local Sierra Club and the LWV, and whether the defamatory polemics that the No on P leadership are spewing out about two respected local community groups is what you folks want to vote for, and be associated with.
Please read the City Attorney’s impartial analysis. I think it’s the best piece to read as to what Measure P does, and the type of development it will create.
Also, read Pam and Carolyn’s piece above very carefully, as it is the best focus on the sustainability features.
Thanks,
Mike Harrington
Green: “Don:
The statement made re the fact all of the housing units in WHR are affordable to middle income is based on the city’s own documents.
Middle Income is defined as from 120% to 180% of the Yolo County Area Median Income. This is based on the median income of the County which is $71,000. So the middle income is from $85,200 to $127,800. At these income levels, most if not all of the housing in WHR is affordable to the middle class family of 4.”
Wrong. It is 80 – 120% of Yolo County median income.
“The prices for these units can range from a price set based on a household income of 80% of Yolo County Area Median Income to a price set based on a household income of 120% of Yolo County Area Median Income, but the average price must be affordable to a household with an income at 100% of Yolo County Area Median Income.”
http://cityofdavis.org/housing/affordable/info.cfm
WRH is not affordable by any reasonable definition of the term. These are expensive townhouses with some nice environmental features. They achieved the bare minimum affordability requirement of the city by building apartments, the majority of which will rent for $1000/month for a one-bedroom.
[i]”Wrong. It is 80 – 120% of Yolo County median income.”[/i]
This document ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20040802/03K_Middle_Income_Housing.pdf[/url]) suggests both of you have it wrong: [quote]A key objective of this study is to determine the need to increase the supply of housing affordable to “middle-income” households. Based on a review of preliminary data and analysis prepared for this study, City staff directed that we consider the income band between 120 and 160 percent of median income as representing “middle income”. [/quote]
Why is the Sierra Club supporting development of any sort? Let alone on the outskirts of town on a horse ranch. Who’s this deep-pockets developer Palin anyway? I bet s/he doesn’t even live in Davis. And who’s Harrington trying to act like a linguistic psychic reading words in posts like tea leaves as if he can tell who anonymous writers are? Get a life, Harrington. PS, I bet Harrington’s a lawyer. Only a lawyer would come up with a kooky linguistrick like that time-waster.
Don and Rich:
See the following from the city’s Municiple Code re Middle Income Housing.
18.06.050 Standard Middle Income Housing Requirement.
“Middle income units shall be affordable to middle income households with incomes equal to or less than 180% of Yolo County area median income (AMI), adjusted for household size. The middle target income shall be households with incomes at 140% of AMI, adjusted for household size.
“Middle income units shall be provided with a range of prices that are affordable to households with incomes between 120% and 180% of AMI. Prices shall be distributed in affordability among the following income brackets: (1) up to 140% of AMI; (2) over 140% and up to 160% of AMI; and (3) over 160% and up to 180% of AMI. A range of prices is required but the average price shall be affordable to a household with an income at 140% of AMI.”
This is from the City’s requirement for middle income housing in all developments which has been suspended, but the range is the most recent definition of middle income housing.
There is NO question that Bill Ritter has placed the integrity of many of Davis’ long-time, hard working progressive activists under a cloud of suspicion.
The personal and political connections between them along with the “debt” that many have to Bill Ritter for his support in the past made it ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that he insist that Parlin’s Measure J campaign not IN ANY WAY be challengable as hypocritically compromising the Measure J process that ALL of the above long-time, hard-working progressive activists worked so hard to defend during the Measure X campaign. Bill Ritter’s angry public statement, made at the September 21 Slide Hill debate that the Parlin campaign did exactly what the city asked it to do just doesn’t “cut it”. A full Measure J process with citizen commission involvement and sufficient time for full Council debate was what he should have counseled the Parlin campaign to insist upon from the city, under the threat of his resignation as campaign manager if this did not occur. Instead, we got a 1:30 AM Council vote to go to a measure J vote in about 60 days(August as Council dead time doesn’t count).
Well Mike, I know a number of people who worked on the No On Measure X campaign and the reason you don’t take much credit is because you didn’t do anything. And like an earlier posting said, I also remember you kicking the No on Measure X campaign out of your offices. So one thing you can take credit for is crippling the campaign.
The good news is that, the No on Measure X survived in spite of you and in spite of Ritter. You can try to inflate what Ritter did but he rarely came to a meeting and the guy basically alot of talk and glad-handing. He didn’t write the literature, the steering committee did. Ritter played a very small part in the campaign but I heard the complaints about the spending problems he caused too.
Mike, you can try to reinvent the No on Measure X campaign all you want. The truth is the campaign was never dead and the many of us who worked are butts off, unlike you, don’t appreciate your invented memories. You need a reality check Mike. Time to take your meds and go to bed.
Using traditional lending standards of 20% down and 36% of income to debt ratio you would need to make $129,000 a year to qualify for a $450,000 dollar property. This is above the 180% of median assuming that $71,000/year is the median income. With pay cuts at the University, if anything, this number will probably be going down.
[/i]Regardless of what Parlin wants to sell those townhouses for, I very much doubt a small townhouse on a small lot in a dense development will fetch $450,000 or more. It’s not just that it will continue to be difficult to finance home loans for a number of years moving forward, but these homes will have to compete with (as the WHR opponents stress) hundreds of other new homes which have been already approved by the City of Davis and by UC Davis and they will face competition from a backlog of older homes which are not on the market, but likely waiting for a rebound.
It would not surprise me that the WHR developers, even though they are building a superior “green” product, get much less from buyers than $450,000 for a starter home.
To “The Druid”
The median income for a family of 4 in Yolo County is $72,600. 180% of that is $130,680.
[quote]See the [i]following[/i] from the city’s Municiple Code re Middle Income Housing. 18.06.050 Standard Middle Income Housing Requirement. [/quote]Thanks, Green. Ironically, even though the code section you point to ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/detail.cfm?p=18&q=2586[/url]) proves your point, which I appreciate, this section of the City Code was penciled out by the city council earlier this year and should have been removed from the city’s website.
Green (and Rich):
I am citing the city code for affordable housing: Chapter 18.05.05
It defines affordable housing as I have quoted above: at 80 – 120% of median.
You are citing the city code for middle income housing requirements: Chapter 18.06.050. It defines middle income housing at 120 – 180% of median.
Then you are calling “middle income housing” affordable.
That is inaccurate.
maybe I can close the italics tag, at least from here forward
“It would not surprise me that the WHR developers, even though they are building a superior “green” product, get much less from buyers than $450,000 for a starter home.”
… which means that there is every liklihood that Parlin will come to the conclusion that building this project does not pencil out for him either and he will sell the property, now with a residential zoning, taking a potential 7 million dollar profit. Yes, the next developer may be told that he/she has to adhere to the baseline agreement to avoid another Measure J election. I would be surprised if this did not require the city to take the new owner to court to enforce the baseline agreement. If future Council majorities are anything like what we have had to live with in the recent past, I am doubtful that they would go that route but rather just try to find a way to renegotiate a new development agreement for the now residential-zoned property.
I would imagine that there are several avenues for a legal challenge to the requirement that requires the new owner of the property to abide by the baseline agreement of the previous owner or face another Measure J vote. Any lawyers out there? Could this fall under challenging the validity/enforcing of a contract?
[quote]there is every liklihood that Parlin will come to the conclusion that building this project does not pencil out for him either and he will sell the property, now with a residential zoning, taking a potential 7 million dollar profit.[/quote]So what? Why does it matter to anyone other than a principal in this project who builds the houses? [quote]the next developer may be told that he/she has to adhere to the baseline agreement to avoid another Measure J election.[/quote]Are you serious? This would have nothing to do with a new Measure J election. If Parlin wins this November, then the zoning will be changed from Ag to Housing. End of story. Anyone who would buy the land from Parlin would of course have to abide by all the strictures which came along with it. [quote] I would be surprised if this did not require the city to take the new owner to court to enforce the baseline agreement.[/quote]That is such total nonsense. Any new owner would follow all of the strictures of the agreement. The idea that a new owner would shirk the law is frankly stupid. [quote] If future Council majorities are anything like what we have had to live with in the recent past, I am doubtful that they would go that route but rather just try to find a way to renegotiate a new development agreement for the now residential-zoned property. [/quote] Again, your entire argument here is total madness. If someone buys the WHR land from Parlin, he will build it the same as Parlin would have built it. This is just what happened with Wild Horse a decade ago, when the Duffels sold the property after they won the vote of the citizens.
To Rich and Don:
Rich: I am aware that the city dropped the whole requirement for middle income housing. I think I stated that earlier, but maybe not. However, the range for middle class housing remains the same, as you point out.
To Don:
This is where affordable housing gets confused with middle income or work force housing. The legal definition of “affordable” housing for developments is for the extremely low, very low, low and moderate income ranges. Very low income is 50% of the AMI. Low is 80%. I think that the 80% to 120% range you site is for moderate income. The range for middle income is 120% to 180% of the AMI. Workforce housing is middle income housing according to the city. This we learned on the X campaign. That is what I referred to when I said that most of the housing in WHR is affordable to middle incomes.
Parlin is advertising his townhomes for from $350,000 to $450,000 at the time of sale, not now. This is the price Parlin hopes to get in two to three years when the houses go on sale. The No side has distorted this by extrapolating and increasing the cost based on an assumed percentage increase between now and then. That is invalid. The prices are for when the homes go on sale. So it is not correct to say the cheapest townhomes are going to be $450,000 to begin with.
This developer does not intend to walk away from this project in the first place, and in the second place, the sustainability features are part of the baseline features of the vote, and cannot be changed without another vote of the people. So, if in the extreme unliklihood that the property were sold to another developer, the baseline features would remain intact as a requirement, and it would require another vote of the people of Davis to alter that requirement.
Jim Watson at 10:33 Monday:
LEED certification depends on the final design submittals so that the LEED committee has something to evaluate. The developer is committed to obtaining LEED certification. It is definitely to his advantage. He has submitted preliminary data on the project and has been accepted into the LEED program.
The energy sustainability features, including the photovoltaics on all units, including the affordable units, active and passive solar, green technology in building materials and construction, etc. are part of the base line features of the project, and are in the language for the Measure P vote. That is entirely separate from the LEED certification. With or without a LEED certification, the energy sustainability features are guaranteed by the vote and cannot be changed or eliminated by any developer of the project without another vote of the people.
So, no smoke and mirrors on this side. Only the facts.
green: “To Don:
This is where affordable housing gets confused with middle income or work force housing. The legal definition of “affordable” housing for developments is for the extremely low, very low, low and moderate income ranges. Very low income is 50% of the AMI. Low is 80%. I think that the 80% to 120% range you site is for moderate income.”
I am not confusing affordable housing with any of those other terms.
The 80 – 120% of median income that I cite is the exact city definition of affordable housing required in a new development according to the city code. I cited the code before: Chapter 18.05.05.
It defines affordable housing as 80 – 120% of median.
It is not their definition of low-income housing, workforce housing, moderate-income housing, median-income housing, or any of the other terms that are being used here. It is the City of Davis’ legal, exact, code definition of affordable housing: 80 – 120% of Yolo County median income.
There is no need to try to obscure the meaning of these terms. I don’t know why the Yes on P folks are even trying to sell this as an affordable project. They would have done better to just focus on the “green” features, because anybody with access to an online mortgage calculator can quickly disprove the “Really Affordable” claim.
[quote]”this section of the City Code was penciled out by the city council earlier this year and should have been removed from the city’s website.”[/quote]I need to correct this. I was told after I posted that comment that the middle income housing requirement was “suspended,” not cancelled. Sorry for my error.
Don:
Then we are looking at different documents. Mine says:
City of Davis Affordable Home Ownership Definition
The lowest price shall be based on a household income of 120$ of Yolo County Area Median Income
The highest price shall be set based on a household income of 180% of the Area Median Income.
Household Income to set unit price:
140% of AMI $347,847 for 3 bedroom
180% of AMI $571,000 for 3 bedroom
This 120% to 180% of AMI range is used elsewhere to refer to “middle income” for a family of four in Yolo County
“Again, your entire argument here is total madness.”
The fact remains that the baseline agreement, as described in our Measure J, is binding to a new owner and cannot be altered by a Council majority vote has not yet been tested in court.
“This is just what happened with Wild Horse a decade ago,”
First, it was well over a decade ago…as I remember,and I admit that I cannot speak to the details, the Wildhorse development citizen initiative ballot measure WAS brought forth, in large part, with regard to the removal of items in the original development agreement which were approved by the the Council majority.
how much will the rents be for these units? are they really affordable or is this just another scam. my friend got kicked out of her “low income” apartment because she didnt’ have the money to pay her rent. just tell me how is a 3 bedroom for 1050 low income. people on minimum wage cant afford to live in low income housing. just another scam, and a crock of “shi….”
To
“What exactly is low income”
The city of Davis sets the rate for low income units, not the developer. You should check with the city to determine how they arrive at the different rates. There is some kind of formula based on HUD figures.
To “curious”
The Wild Horse citizens’ ballot measure was a referendum against the development of Wild Horse. There was no Measure J then, so if citizens did not like a development that the council approved, they resorted to a referendum to try to stop it. A development agreement is different than what is in the base line features for a Measure J vote (In this case, Measure P.). A development agreement can be changed by a council. Baseline features voted on in a J vote cannot. That is part of the ordinance itself and has never been challanged legally. So, when we vote on the project with the baseline features included in the vote, those features cannot be changed by a council, but only by another vote of the electorate.
Don Shor—your postings are quite informative and in depth. Will you run for City Council??
My guess is he won’t since he lives in Dixon.
removing italics