City staff could not immediately confirm the purchase, however, they did acknowledge that they had heard rumors to that effect. The Cannery Property has been vacant since the Hunt_Wesson plan shutdown in October of 1999. The property was purchased in 2004 by Lewis Planned Communities. Last December at the City Council Meeting, the Council had proposed a duel weight EIR looking at the developer’s mixed-use proposal for 600 homes and 11 acres of office space along with a separate proposal for a high tech business park for which the property which lies in the city and does not require a Measure J vote, is currently zoned.
“After five long years of extraordinary and indisputable commitment and faith by Lewis, we see no opportunity to bring about any type of project entitlements that would allow for an economically feasible development of the property in a reasonable time-frame.
Effective immediately Lewis will no longer be responsible for any costs incurred by the city of Davis or consultants under your control and we hereby withdraw our application for entitlements effective immediately.
…
We appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. We are all disappointed that we were not able to be successful in our efforts to develop Cannery Park.”
Of particular note back in December of 2008 was the fact that Bill Emlen expressed his preference to see the cannery property masterplanned along with the Covell Village property.
Emlen in a memo to the city wrote at the time:
“While not in the city, it is designated industrial in the county and clearly has future development potential. It seems a lost planning opportunity to not address both properties in a master plan concept.”
When the Vanguard spoke to Community Development Director Katherine Hess on Monday she also expressed support for masterplanning the two properties together and expressed the belief that Whitcombe owning both properties would facilitate that.
It is becoming very clear at this point that it is the clear desire of the city to develop both properties concurrently. The major obstacle to that is twofold. First, the Covell Property requires a Measure J vote. Second, the Cannery Property is currently zoned for light industrial and there is considerable support in the community to keep it zoned in that manner.
With the council’s rejection last week of a senior survey and an expected application by the Covell Partners for a new project on the Covell Village site in January, this area figures to remain a major source of concern. How a purchase of the adjacent property changes this equation is a matter of conjecture at this point.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It will be interesting to see what happens. As they say, the bigger it is, the easier it is to knock it down. If I owned CV, there is not a bat’s chance in heck that I would try to add more land headache to existing problems.
Let’s renew J, eliminate the sunset, and add Con Agra 100 acres to require J vote if someone wants to change the zoning. if the CC wont agree to these things by end of December, we should form a citizens group and put our version on the ballot.
I like Con Agra’s light industrial and R & D zoning. Years ago Sue pushed through that zoning, to her credit, and I agree with her that the right business/industrial park will add to the Davis jobs base as a complement to the UCD economic engine.
DPD, thanks for a verrrry interesting article.
When measure P goes down in 26 days it will go back to the drawing board for a full process and with Whitcombe buying Cannery the whole combined area can be planned together.
Great . . . here comes SUPER Village to the rescue of the senior citizens! I guess some people can never have enough, huh Bill? I’m approaching “senior” status, but if this project doesn’t meet WHR environmental standards, doesn’t provide “affordable” senior housing, and doesn’t build the affordable units first . . . I’ll fight to keep it the way it is!
Mike you should take off your tin foil hat. You have no ability of forcasting the future and you have done more harm than good to the effort of passage of Measure P.
A project under consideration for a Measure J vote and the zoning change to residential should be firmly linked, without any possibility that the zoning change stands(removing the need for a citizen approval vote) while new property owners negotiates with the city for their new development proposal. This needs to be added to our Measure J, most probably by a citizen initiative. Was there a unanimous Council vote to put Measure J on the ballot with only technical changes? If so, wouldn’t this preclude anyone on the Council from bring this change up for consideration(which would be a reconsideration).In any event, much like the argument against a CA constitutional convention, one shold be wary of opening up Measure J to changes by this current Council majority.
Emlen’s plan to develop the Hunt-Wessen site and Whitcombe’s property is not surprisingly part of his “masterplanning”. The fundamental question as to whether we want cookie cutter masterplanning or individual smaller development over time that is responding to the needs and desires generated from the PEOPLE is still an open question. To my mind, masterplanning produces efficient but not a living environment that is vital and “human”. The ONLY way(and it will be difficult) to challenge Emlen’s dream is let him know that the Davis voter DEMANDS to have a full, transparent opportunity to learn as much about a measure J project as we want OR we vote NO, period!. This is why it is so important to send this message with a NO on Measure P vote.
First the good news: Lewis is getting out of town. I sincerely hope that Mr. Whitcombe, or whoever ends up buying the property, gets a fire-sale price after the irreversible damage to the property that Lewis and his cronies committed. They ignored the zoning, best use, offers to utilize the existing structures etc. all in a blind rush to unwanted build houses. When confronted with an offer to utilize the buildings, tanks and facilities for a Green Energy Park- they bulldozed them to eliminate the option. Having these clowns out of town will be most welcome!
A warning to any buyer – the property is correctly zoned and should remain as it is. Housing is the wrong choice for the property. If you are hoping for a rezone and a quick buck- there are a lot of people in Davis who will opposed you.
Covell MegaVillage- dead
Cannery Village- dead
Wildhorse Greenwash Village- soon to be dead
Do you sense a trend? Quick trying to foist houses on a community that has had enough!
good buy smart move
Let the planning begin:
The WHR project site is nowhere near the cannery or CV site. It is a small piece on the eastern side of Wild Horse. I am not sure where this mis-information is coming from, but a lot of people seem to think that the WHR project is CV. NOT.
Ol Timer:
Since you are so concerned about the full disclosure issue and giving the public adequate time to learn about a J project, I want to ask if you took advantage of the J process by attending any of the Planning Commission or Council meetings where this project was discussed at great length. And did you also read the DEIR for the project or any other documents related to it?
I attended all of the meetings, and learned a great deal about the project. I also read the DEIR and other documents. I took advantage of the J process opportunities offered to all of us here in Davis by the city, and became very well-informed about the WHR proposal.
I am voting “Yes”.
DPD: “Crystal Ball Cloudy”‘s comment is yet another reason that I think you should go to posting by name only. My opening comment was positive, professional, and here comes CBC’s negativity.
One of the reasons that Davisvoice.com blog is getting some interest (not mine) is the negativity on this Blog.
From what I can tell, the nasty anonymous blogging on Davis Vanguard is 95% from 2-3 people. If you cut them off, or out them, it should really help with your Blog’s community wide presence.
“From what I can tell, the nasty anonymous blogging on Davis Vanguard is 95% from 2-3 people. If you cut them off, or out them, it should really help with your Blog’s community wide presence.”
Why, so you can proceed to trash your opponents by name, as you have done to Sue Greenwald? You are one of the few who has consistently put forth nasty vitriole, so I hardly think your self-righteous pronouncement about “outing” anonymous bloggers is anything but self-serving. When critical of trolling – look in the mirror!
If Whitcomb purchases the Cannery, I feel a huge juggernaut being set in motion, that is going to be difficult to fight. Especially because Whitcomb owns the City Council majority of Asmundon, Souza and Saylor. We need good people to step forward and run for City Council to defeat these three in upcoming elections – or we are going to get more huge housing developments that will drive low and middle income folks right out of town. Whitcomb wants nothing more than to make money at citizens’ expense, to develop a wealthy onclave for himself and his friends. And he will destroy this town and its character in the process.
“I like Con Agra’s light industrial and R & D zoning. Years ago Sue pushed through that zoning, to her credit, and I agree with her that the right business/industrial park will add to the Davis jobs base as a complement to the UCD economic engine.”
Gee, Mike, how big of you to give Sue some credit, instead of maligning her as you usually do.
To Why? : 98% of the time I use my name. Trash Sue? Nope. I dont think of it as “trashing” to point out the process issues that she has involved herself as an elected official. She wants the job, good for her, but she should handle it professionally and pursuant to the rules.
For example, all CC members know not to manipulate and abuse commissions. I saw it with my own eyes. Bill Ritter is the one who filed the complaint with the CC, and I agreed with it. Sue did it to herself.
Yet she sits there, playing the victim. Everyone is out to get her.
Another example: the Parlin Wildhorse application was filed in August 2008, yet for 11 months Sue never once, not once, mentioned on the dais or at commission meetings that she wanted to see specific commissions look at the project. Maybe they should have, maybe not, but the point is she had a job to do, and did not do it. I would never have said anything about it, even still, except she melted down at 1 am on 7/29, threw a fit about lack of process, and then proceeded to call some of my friends, and my tenants LIARS, and accused them of hiding the project from the commissions. All she was doing was pointing out her own negligence. I called her on it, as I know what her job requires and believe that public officials should follow the rules.
How I wish Tansey had won in 2000 … with the emergency assistance at the last minute from Bill Ritter, Tansey nearly caught and passed Sue.
During the past several months, what has been so interesting to me was how oblivious Sue has been to how the public viewed her complaints: she was basically covering herself in process mud, and she did not even see it.
Yes, Sue, WHY didnt F & B get a look at that finance model from Nov 05 til now? Because no one raised the issue. If you are so concerned about it, why wait until 1 am on July 29, the last day that the Parlin owners could get a CC vote to place their project on the Nov 3 ballot?
Hey, negligence is negligence. Happens all the time. Own up to it. You should, you really should.
However, what really showed the true colors of certain Yes on P leaders was for them, including Sue, to publically acknowledge refusal to participate in the well known and accepted public process for Sierra Club endorsements and for the LWV debates, and to call them BIASED and God knows what else … way, way, way over the line.
Sue and the entire Yes on P leadership owes those hard working volunteers public, written apologies. This election will come and go in a few weeks, but the damage those yes on P leaders did to themselves will linger, unless they clean it up and apologize.
I am looking forward to getting past the shrillness and negativity. I just wish the Yes on P would stick to the substantive issues and quit defaming the scores of volunteers who work so hard to ensure that the Sierra Club endorsement process is balanced and fair, and that the LWV debates are the same.
Mike:
I am trying to stay out of this food fight, but on the LWV debate do you think its fair that LWV siad its ok to have three paid Parlin reps, two of whom do not live in Davis, while excluding a City Councilmember (whether you like her or not)?
Also recall that we countered that we would put up three unpaid non-politicians from Davis if they would do the same. LWV ignored our counter-offer. Those are the facts–I leave it to folks to draw their own conclusions. I never said they were biased. I just stated what happened.
Phil, the LWV has their rules. If there is an elected official on one panel, must be on both.
If Yes on P wanted to use two paid reps, including using out of towners, then why would you object? Obviously I am not involved in their campaign, or you never would have seen the use of paid, out of towners on my debate panels. It would have been a beautiful, and effective, line of attack in front of your “jury,” the voters. Instead, you guys attacked the poor LWV ladies/gents and their long-standing rules, made yourselves look harsh, and made your opponents into victims.
But you know, hey, it’s a free world. Just glad it’s not me on the front line on this one. I will be on renewal of J, Re-Elect Lamar, No on Halloween IV, etc. I have my kids to protect from that nightmare north of Covell, and will get to that in due time.
Right now just trying to stay in the office and work on legal cases.
Wish all of you well in the coming weeks, and try to follow the Golden Rule!
“I am looking forward to getting past the shrillness and negativity.”
You’d never know it, since you keep trashing Sue Greenwald over and over again. At what point do you let go? Is this an obsession with you? If you truly want to get past the “shrillness and negativity” as you say, then stick to the issues instead of trying to defeat the opponents of Measure P with negative attacks you are so supposedly so critical of.
To Huh: I am not trying to defeat No on P. I just really despise the unwarranted attacks on my friends and tenants, on the Sierra Club, and on the LWVs.
If you like the project vote YES. If not, NO. Simple. Just leave the personal drama and attacks out of it. All so tiresome, isn’t it?
I dont know of a single instance where the Yes on P people have attacked the morals, good intentions, etc of No on P members. (The comments about process where warranted, and mostly the issues were made relevant by the conduct of No on P’s opwn leadership.)
Yet, over and over, the Yes on P are being called “sellouts” or worse. For what? For liking a small little reasonable project that is the greenest new neighborhood since Village Homes more than 30 yrs ago? For having other reasons why we like it, or want it approved for political benefits down the line?
There is really nothing wrong with pointing out incompetence, and that is what was shown by a certain council member, who is now crying foul, for not getting issues of concern out to the public when this proposal was filed over a year ago, if there were concerns.
I agree with Mike. No on P and their wholly owned council member, had plenty of opportunity to get the issues out early AND to participate in the League forum as a means to facilitate that, but they failed to do that.
For once I agree with you Mike on two sentences in your long winded 10:49 AM posting.
Per Mike Harrington:
“This election will come and go in a few weeks, but the damage those yes on P leaders did to themselves will linger, unless they clean it up and apologize. I am looking forward to getting past the shrillness and negativity.”
Mike, you have never been SO correct to demand an apology by the Yes on P group to everyone else. How about the first apology coming from you since you have posted so many relentless attacks on the NO on P folks on this blog?
And Wow Mike, NO ONE has been more shrill or negative than you. Your credibility is gone and you basically continue “stalk” and harass some of your opponents on this blog. Your behavior is abnormal and quite twisted. You should get some help with this. It is creepy and grossing out many readers of this blog.
And also Mike, who were the “scores of volunteers” that you refer to that “ensured” a fair and balanced Sierra Club vote. I am sure interested on who “ensured” anything about this appalling action by the Sierra Club. The membership didn’t even know about the impending vote on this important issue to have a fair debate or discussion. There should have been a pro-active invitation for both sides from the Sierra Club to present their views before an endorsement vote was done. The “process” they used was not balanced. The endorsement was pushed through just like the midnight vote by Council to put Parlin’s Wildhorse Ranch development on the ballot at a midnight Council vote. Everyone I know is disgusted with the Sierra Club endorsement that you, Ritter, and Parlin arranged.
Mike Harrington does make it very difficult to support this project.
I am trying, with great difficulty, to look at facts and not the personalities that have attached themselves to each side.
At least Sue does not try to reinvent history to inflate her own importance and influence. Actually, I do believe that Sue is speaking from an true personal opinion about what is good for this community. Mike, on the other hand seems to shift around – denigrating people, then berating others for being negative; spewing hateful, bitter comments about people in this community, then state he’s being positive and professional. It doesn’t make sense to argue for requiring a “Measure J vote” on property already inside city limits with an industrial zoning, yet support a housing development on land zoned for ag use a mile away. Mike clearly is influenced by his like or dislike of the people involved in the projects or, probably more accurate, bases his support on who likes Mike.
Regardless, I believe the cannery site should remain light industry as it is zoned. And I am still leaning toward supporting Measure P. Does that make me a Mike supporter? Not really.
Concerned Davis Voter:
“I agree with Mike. No on P and their wholly owned council member, had plenty of opportunity to get the issues out early AND to participate in the League forum as a means to facilitate that, but they failed to do that.”
We were not allowed the same panel from our previous debate at Birch Lane (as the Yes on P side); we wanted to debate, but not with these pre-determined requirements, period.
If you would like to view a well-run, balanced, well-moderated debate on the Measure P issues, please watch it online at davismedia.org.
” Mike Harrington wrote: “Sue and the entire Yes on P leadership owes those hard working volunteers public, written apologies. This election will come and go in a few weeks, but the damage those yes on P leaders did to themselves will linger, unless they clean it up and apologize.”
I assume he meant the “No on P leadership”; and we will NOT apologize to anyone, we are a grass-roots group of Davis citizens (unlike the Parlin Development team) who are not funded by anyone, and have run our campaign solely based on volutnary contributions; we have the right, under Measure J, to oppose development on land which was originally zoned not for housing; just like the NO on X campaign had against Covell Village. Jsut because a developer buys an open parcel of ag land, DOES NOT mean automically that land becomes more housing!
The more insinuating remarks you make against the “NO on P people”, the more those remarks are directed towards Davis citizens; it’s no wonder you were not re-elected after only one term!
Greg: Of course anyone can campaign for whatever. Of course someone goes not get to change their zoning without public approval. What I am talking about is the horrible process that No on P has followed, attacking the Sierra Club and the LWVs. In fact, you are the one who laid it out the other day as to how it was your STRATEGY to do it. Amazing. Whatever. Your stuff is getting boring. I am really, really looking forward to November 4, and maybe getting some energy going as to the upcoming challenges, rather than having to deal with you and other No on P meltdowns.
Regarding the Sierra Club process in supporting this project. We followed established Sierra Club process. We publically announced in the Davis Enterprise that we would be discussing the Wildhorse Ranch project at two of our meetings. We fully expected to get a roomful of people on both sides, especially the No side, at both meetings. One person showed up on this topic at the first meeting. He supported the project. No one showed up at the second meeting on this issue.
We have also seen on another blog posted a couple of days ago on this issue that the NO side anticipated an attempt to get a Sierra Club endorsement for this very green project, but blew it off and decided to focus their energies elsewhere. If they anticipated a SC endorsement, why did they not come to the meeting?
This is the SC process. We publically announced the meetings, we discussed the pro and the con sides, we voted to endorse the project. We then sent it up to the Chapter and State levels with accompanying documentation.
As I mentioned in another blog a couple of days ago, if you have a problem with anything the SC does, including its endorsement process, get involved at the local level and work for change.
Now let’s see. How did this go? First, the “gang” of Ritter et al., Harrington, Heystek, and the Vanguard broadsided the Hunt Wesson mixed use project in order to push the Wildhorse Ranch project ahead. They also sabotaged the Hunt Wesson project also to try to recruit Sue by rooting for a 100 acre business high tech park that she wants there. Recall that The No on Measure X campaign supported housing at the Hunt Wesson site (and that position was in all of their literature) rather than green sites like Wildhorse, Covell Village, and Chiles. Meanwhile, 1) the community supported the mixed use at the Hunt Wesson site, 2) it is obvious that a 100 acre high tech park does not belong in the middle of neighborhoods and 3) the neighbors oppose the high tech park concept. But it doesn’t matter, because City staff like the idea of sabotaging the project too (as they did for five years) because maybe they can get this mixed use project to go away and bring on Covell Village.
The “gang” then recruited some key progressives based upon the convincing them that Wildhorse Ranch will stop Covell Village’s “master plan” concept. Hard to believe, but that stunt worked on these key progressives. The “gang” then quietly sneaked through a Sierra Club endorsement without a forum or any kind of a fair discussion or debate of both sides. The “gang” now introduces the Covell Village “master plan” plot, coincidently, just when the absentee ballots are being received by the voters (that would be now). Even if the rumor is true, it is happening because Yes on P “gang” manipulated things all the way, to get their Wildhorse Ranch development approved no matter what the consequences.
The No on Measure X campaigner’s had it right. The housing should have gone on the Hunt Wesson site rather then Wildhorse, Covell Village or Chiles Ranch ag and open space green sites (as it still should). We have the No on P “gang” to thank for this situation and they engineered the whole sequence of events. All the more reason to vote NO on this Wildhorse Ranch development. The real “master plan” to worry about is the one by the Yes on Measure P “gang” bringing on all of this development. They should now known as the Counter-Progressives.
If John Whitcombe is buying this property, it is fine by me, as long as he agrees to develop a classy high-tech business park there.
It should be designed to be safe, clean, beautiful and compatible with the residential neighborhoods nearby. Such a high-tech park, if done right, would add value to surrounding neighborhoods, as it be attractive to future residents who want to walk or bike to work, and would provide a market which would vastly improve the neighborhood retail, as there would be customers during the day.
It should have access and performance standards which keep the traffic on Covell manageable.
Sue: I completely agree with you. However, I think that we should also require on-site mitigation that seals off the new development with publically owned habitat, open space, organic farming, etc. It will immediately devalue the outboard private land and end the political fight in that quadrant. So even with the commercial, seal it off. Any purchaser of that land right now is going to be getting a screaming deal, and can afford to donate the mitigation land.
*************
To “The real “master plan”, by Yes on P”: the attacks from you, Greg, and one or two other leaders of No on P are really tiresome. I wish you guys would post positive, forward-looking comments, like what Sue just posted.
I wish you guys would post positive, forward-looking comments, like what Sue just posted.
How about this Mike:
Once Measure P is defeated, we will all work together to defeat Covell Village II, Cannery Park, Binning Ranch, and all other unneccesaary housing development projects for Davis, and ensure that Measure J is not allowed to sunset.
@ Greg Nokolov & Mike Harlington & other Closet No-Growthers – How can you oppose projects that don’t even exist? Look at what our community needs and wants (if, in fact, it needs or wants anything), then build that. Don’t make decisions based on your personal vendettas or political calculations, that does our community absolutely no good.
If you want to Davis be a no-growth community and put a moratorium on growth, fine, let’s have that conversation… Just admit that NOTHING is good enough to build ((unless maybe you control what it is)) rather than treating developers as your private big game hunting.
Concerned Davis Voter says: “I attended all of the meetings, and learned a great deal about the project. I also read the DEIR and other documents.”
Well… good for you!….but that is not how Davis voters inform themselves about projects that require their Measure J vote. Ample time has to be allowed for back and forth letters to the editor, talking with neighbors at the Farmers Market,following the discussions on this blog, reading articles in the Enterprise that discuss important issues, all require agendizing adequate Council time to publicly discuss the issues in-depth….definitely NOT 2.5 hours(11pm-1:30 AM)
How about diverting some of this outrage energy from tit-for-tatting with Harrington and direct it towards volunteering for some walk and drop No on P flyers in West Davis this Saturday.Go to http://www.2000housesareenough.org, follow the links to get involved.
To It’s Great Exercise: the weather is beautiful! Have fun! I’ve always enjoyed knocking and tabling the most.
Just filled my ballot. I voted No. Good luck to all!
Wow! Sounds like stock market “trading” or “Let’s make a deal” for land use trading on the Vanguard of Davis! Sorry folks but it is sad to see land use “deal making” with the developers happening on this blog. Congratulations Vanguard for becoming “Craig’s list” for the developers. I agree with the “It’s good exercise” posting. Please help with getting literature out for “No on P” and stop the “trading” going on here on the Vanguard of Parlin.
Just a note. It is SO TACKY for the Vanguard to post the Yes on Measure P advertisement and link to their propaganda AT THE END OF EVERY DAILY VANGUARD FEATURE ARTICLE. I’ll bet the Yes on Measure P campaign got a great deal on the cost of this advertising that the Vanguard is providing for trying to get the Wildhorse Ranch development approved.
In one corner we have the No on P meltdowns. In the other corner, we have the Yes on P sellouts.
And the entire community has an opportunity to watch an orgy of progressive-on-progressive vitriol courtesy of the Vanguard.
Wow.
….out doing walk and drop NO on P literature today. I have not come across ONE lawn sign for YES on P. The NO on P campaign has had to be extremely frugal with its funds with regard to lawn signs but this is certainly NOT the case with the Parlin development company. Why is this??? One possibility is that they started to put out lawn signs but got so few takers that they stopped…but then we would see at least those few. NO… there must be another explanation. They don’t want Davis voters to even know that there is a Measure P election on Nov. 4!!(other than the stealth polling that they are doing to identify their supporters and get them to the polls). This is a corruption of the democratic/populist nature of the Measure J process. Those tainted with this corruption will find that it does not easily wash off.
[quote]The Vanguard has learned from multiple reliable sources that John Whitcombe is in the process of purchasing the Cannery Property[/quote]Can you be more specific?
Has he made a bid? Is the property in escrow? Could this just be speculation from activists?
I’m having a hard time believing that he would assume significant additional risk given the economy and the outcome of the last proposal.
excellent question, Clarification please… It certainly looks like another item out of the developer Yes on Measure X playbook,i.e., trot out a “boogyman” at the end of a campaign to strike fear in the oppsition voters .. with Whitcombe now substituting for Guidaro, that devil-developer from Sac. who was going to turn Davis into Natomas if NO on X was victorious.
….needless to say, IT didn’t happen.
Let’s see start small, then go for the big one. How about 202 acres in the northwest of town. All by a Sacramento developer. Boo!
anyone remember that image in the enterprise: the covell village team holding hands and singing “we shall overcome” at the end of the campaign
totally odd and surreal
Sorry folks but the 3:54 posting above meant to say that it is the YES on Measure P group to thank for this situation so the posting should read as follows:
The No on Measure X campaigner’s had it right. The housing should have gone on the Hunt Wesson site rather then Wildhorse, Covell Village or Chiles Ranch ag and open space green sites (as it still should). We have the YES on P “gang” to thank for this situation and they engineered the whole sequence of events. All the more reason to vote NO on this Wildhorse Ranch development. The real “master plan” to worry about is the one by the Yes on Measure P “gang” bringing on all of this development. They should now known as the Counter-Progressives.
“The housing should have gone on the Hunt Wesson site rather then Wildhorse”
So much for 2000 is enough, the new mantra would be 2600 houses is enough.
“Can you be more specific?
Has he made a bid? Is the property in escrow? Could this just be speculation from activists? “
To your last question, that is a definitive “no.” The other two questions we don’t know at this point, according to Hess the city is meeting with Whitcombe in two weeks and we should know a lot more at that point. But based on my conversation, I believe this is real. This is not about Measure P, at least not for me.
“The No on Measure X campaigner’s had it right. The housing should have gone on the Hunt Wesson site rather then Wildhorse, Covell Village or Chiles Ranch ag and open space green sites (as it still should). We have the YES on P “gang” to thank for this situation and they engineered the whole sequence of events. All the more reason to vote NO on this Wildhorse Ranch development. The real “master plan” to worry about is the one by the Yes on Measure P “gang” bringing on all of this development. They should now known as the Counter-Progressives.”
I don’t know why you blame this on the Yes on P people. Maybe you can explain how they engineered all these events? It seems more realistic that Sue fought against the Lewis proposal any way she could and still is fighting for a industrial park instead of housing even though the demand for housing makes Davis one of the last places its still profitable to build housing. So it seems the No on P Sue Greenwald faction is really the political force that motivated Lewis to want out and make the land available to the neighbor with the money and interest in buying the Cannery.
Its shocking how arrogant Sue is in her post about how its okay as long as the new owners build what she wants. Its just not going to play out that way if this deal goes through. She seems to forget that she is a minority on the council and that its doubtful that the new owners would pay any attention to what she wants although you would expect that the city and the county would pay a great deal of attention to what the land owner wants. Someday Sue will be off the council but the land will still be owned by someone and if that person has the cash flow to wait or to push something through or plan a master plan but only build on the part in the city there really isn’t much Sue can do about it.
David,
A scheduled meeting and speculation from Hess is a little thin.
What about your other reliable sources? Do you have anything specific?
Speculations, assumptions, and conjecture are the baby’s milk of this blog. The Vanguard: a place where negative nabobs of negativism thrive.
My source is sound and most of the facts were independently verified, that’s all I can give you.
Whitcombe may be trying to get Hesse/Elmen to give him a guarantee that he will be able to add part of the Hunt-Wessen property to his Senior development Measure J proposal and use the rest as some Davis voter “candy”. Whitcombe is well-known for this tactic of attempting to buy off those opposing his development schemes by giving them some “dirt” that he owns. His plan is to make the meausure J vote a city annexation of his entire 400+ acre property rather than just the 1/3 portion of his senior housing proposal. Emlen’s reputation(and job security) is rapidly diminishing in Davis and any attempt to get Whitcombe’s 400+ acres annexed into the city while attached to some voter “candy” and the senior project may very well doom his future in Davis.
“Especially because Whitcomb owns the City Council majority of Asmundon, Souza and Saylor. We need good people to step forward and run for City Council to defeat these three in upcoming elections.”
I think you’re relieved of trying to defeat Saylor for city council. As I understand, he’s running for county supervisor.
Are we looking at Covell Village, CA? Or Whitcombe,CA?
Druid says: “….doubtful that the new owners would pay any attention to what she wants although you would expect that the city and the county would pay a great deal of attention to what the land owner wants.”
You’re on-target here! Sue is only one vote and her political power comes solely from her use of the “bully pulpit” that she has from the dais, So Sue, use it as often and as LOUD as possible. As to the fall of the Lewis Homes plan for residential/mixed use development, Sue’s opposition was not the factor. Emlen and the Council Majority in favor of developing Whitcombe’s CV property shot that one down. Allowing Lewis to go ahead with their project without including Whitcombe’s property in some sort of “masterplan” was not something that Emlen was going to permit.
David,
“Multiple reliable sources” has now become “source” with “independently verified” facts.
What are the facts? I’m not asking you to burn your source, just disclose in general terms the evidence that backs up your assertion.
I’ve heard through the grapevine that Parlin is making a bid on the property. Do I believe it? Not necessarily. But as things currently stand, this rumor has as much weight as the Whitcombe rumor.
Ol Timer:
I am a Davis voter, and that is how I informed myself.
In case you did not recognize it, this IS the Measure J process. Measure J is the process AFTER the council approves a project. Read the ordinance. We are in the middle of the J process, and we ARE talking to our neighbors at Farmers Market, writing letters to the editor, reading the Enterprise and the Vanguard, and doing all those other things it takes to educate ourselves about a project on the ballot on November 3.
Yes on P gang bringing on all this development:
Oh! Now I see it. You are one of those supporting the Lewis Homes development! That great development of 610 homes with no obvious sustainability features, 3 story units, classic and boring typical sprawl housing. That project that was not going to have any impacts on the environment, traffic on Covell, quality of life for current residents, and repleted with unaffordable housing. I see. That 100 acre project with 610 brown homes vs a small, 25 acre project with 191 totally green units. Now which should I support?
At the risk of being flamed by the Parlin trolls stalking this blog, it is worth noting that (using the numbers in the previous post) the density of Cannery Park was 6.1 units per acre vs 7.4 units per acre for Wildhorse Ranch. Given the total housing stock in Davis, the long build-out cycles, and history of a low supply/demand ratio; the difference between 191 and 610 is irrelevant IMO. Regarding green vs brown, according to the defunct Cannery Park web site …[quote]By qualifying as one of a select few projects accepted into the U.S. Green Building Council’s Pilot Program for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND), Cannery Park would again place Davis in a cutting-edge role for smart, controlled, “green and sustainable” growth.
“Just as other LEED® systems have improved building efficiency and energy performance, LEED-ND will reward efficient use of land and the building of complete and walkable communities,” said John Norquist, President and CEO of the Congress for the New Urbanism. “It is helping to reinforce a more complete understanding of sustainability that extends all the way from the individual building to the neighborhood and community.”
[/quote]If Wildhorse Ranch is so “green,” why isn’t LEED certification a prominent part of the pitch?
I am not an expert on either project, but much of what I’m reading here just doesn’t add up.
“In case you did not recognize it, this IS the Measure J process. Measure J”
Concerned Davis Voter. Of course, you have outlined some of the correct Measure J process but you have left out the CRUCIAL elements that are lacking.. namely:
(1) time for the Council to consider in-depth, from the dais in transparent fashion,to discuss the issues before voting to approve a Measure J vote(11pm to 1:30 am is clearly not enough)
(2) allowing the appropriate citizen commissions to evaluate and make their recommendations
(3) more than 60 days(August being political dead time) from the time that Measure P came onto the Voter’s “radar” until the Measure P vote in November.
(4) While not part of the Measure J process, it’s fundamental populist intent would demand that it not be presented to the voters as a single-issue election ballot that pretty much guarantees the lowest possible voter participation. The Council majority, from the dais, allowed Parlin to make this decision and, not surprisingly, the WHR developer chose to have it as a single-issue ballot in November.
David,
Where’s your response?
Is that how this blog works?
You post some provocative and/or salacious rumor, unsubstantiated by little more than your claim of “special” insider knowledge, and then step aside while the “sellouts” and “meltdowns” duke it out?
I often don’t read comments during the day so I may not respond immediately.
The facts that I was told is that Whitcombe is in the process of purchasing the property and we will have more details in two weeks or so after the city meets with him.
I’m sorry, but you still haven’t given any evidence that you are not confusing “facts” with speculation.
Do you have a mole in Whitcombe’s organization? Has someone at ConAgra breached their confidentiality clause? Did Katherine Hess disclose privileged information?
Are you equating “making an offer” with “purchasing the property?”
Claiming special insider knowledge that you can’t back up with details on the grounds that it would “compromise” a source is a classical technique to spread disinformation for the purposes of manipulation.
You really ought to try and set a higher standard ,,, or, alternatively, keep the “story” to yourself until it is ready for prime time.
I’m a bit at a loss here, you told me that you don’t expect me to burn my source and yet your questions to answer them would require exactly that.
Then your story, if in fact it is a legitimate story, was posted prematurely.
I have no doubt that, as the adjacent property owner, Whitcombe has submitted a bid for the Cannery property. What your story implies (alleges is probably too strong a word) is that ConAgra was receptive to this bid and that the two parties are either in exclusive negotiations or have finalized a deal.
Was that your intent?
I think his intent was to report what he knows at this time and to inform the community of the possibility that Whitcombe will purchase the land adjacent to Covell Village. That seems like a rather important story to this observer. I will also note that his title has a question mark that denotes a lack of certainty. We’ll all know soon enough, so relax and enjoy the ride.
Thoughts: I’ll come back to a point I made previously. I heard that Parlin is also interested in the property. Would it be appropriate to push this rumor?
I’m just trying to decide if Greenwald’s assertion is fact-based or simply rumor-mongering. My reliable source disputes the story.
“I heard that Parlin is also interested in the property.”
Now would that change anyone’s mind about Measure P, knowing Parlin was in the process of buying the Cannery to build houses?
Just to be clear, I don’t necessarily believe the rumor. I’m only using it to illustrate a point. Like the Cannery rumor, it came from a reliable source – and there are facts to support the rumor (which I also can’t reveal without compromising my source).
What I didn’t say was … chill out and I’ll get back to you in a couple of weeks when I can tell you more (translation – after the election). I also didn’t say … I’m pointing this out now rather than later because it is potentially an important data point for people trying to make up their minds about how to vote on Measure P. And I certainly didn’t remind folks that … Parlin already owns 233 acres of development property on the periphery of Davis and appears to have sufficient resources to acquire the Cannery property as well.
That might be construed as rumor-mongering in the absence of any substantiating facts.
Thoughts said:
“I think his intent was to report what he knows at this time and to inform the community of the possibility that Whitcombe will purchase the land adjacent to Covell Village. That seems like a rather important story to this observer. I will also note that his title has a question mark that denotes a lack of certainty. We’ll all know soon enough, so relax and enjoy the ride.”
Greenwald wrote:
“The Vanguard has learned from multiple reliable sources that John Whitcombe is in the process of purchasing the Cannery Property adjacent to his current property that is the site of the failed Covell Village project, defeated by the voters of Davis in 2005 by a 60-40 vote.”
“…John Whitcombe is in the process of purchasing…” is pretty specific! Even if there is a actual offer on the table, to report “in the process” is a mischaracterization. I’m sorry, David’s statement and premise for this entire article is clearly about more than informing “…the community of the possibility that Whitcombe will purchase the land…”! Anybody paying any attention already knows that Whitcombe would explore options to purchase the cannery property when it became available. As I am sure numerous groups are currently also doing.