Closing Argument: P Sets the Wrong Standard

According to University documents, West Village will house 4,350 students, faculty, and staff.  Using the City figure of 2.62 persons per dwelling unit, this yields 1,660 dwelling units at West Village (4,350/2.62).  By providing housing for over 4,000 faculty, staff, and students, it will take pressure off of the Davis housing market, increase apartment vacancy rates throughout the City, and open up houses for those not associated with the University.

The City has recently approved housing at Verona, Grande, and Chiles Ranch, for a total of 242 additional units.  There are also 378 available zoned sites throughout Davis.  All together, this adds up to 2,280 units (1,660 + 242 + 378).  Yes on P claims that “300 lots have been on the books for decades” so they shouldn’t count.  SACOG counts them, but even if we subtract 300 lots, you still get 1,980 units.

In the past, when the City had surplus funds in the affordable housing fund, it sometimes provided $80,000 to $90,000 per unit subsidies for affordable housing.  We agree that if the City had to pay $85,000 per low-income rental apartment in Wildhorse Ranch, then the project would have an additional deficit of $3.2 million (38 low-income units * $85,000 per unit).  Since the City doesn’t have to pay this subsidy, there is no $3.2 million deficit, but to include this “savings” on the positive side of the ledger is double-counting at the very least.  The City doesn’t have to pay any subsidies whether the project is built or not.  As importantly, no affordable housing trust fund money can ever be used to fund other city services as Parlin contends.  The rest of the $4 million comes from construction taxes paid by every development.

While most readers of this blog understand that this claim is utterly false, this statement was sent to every registered voter in town.  Yes on P was made aware of this error immediately and they had the opportunity to change the ballot rebuttal statement, but they chose not to.  On October 29, Parlin was still touting “fiscal benefits” in the Enterprise.

What is the real net fiscal benefit from new housing developments?  Consider the following quote:

“Housing developments in particular are net losses for localities. . . .  Housing developments are not economic boons – they are costly in terms of services provided by the governmental bodies which far off-set any tax revenue generated.”

This is the widely-accepted view of the true fiscal impact of new housing development.  What is the source of this quote?  David Greenwald wrote this on the People’s Vanguard on July 17, 2007.  Since the City retains only 11.8 percent of the property tax at the Wildhorse Ranch site, compared to 17.5 percent citywide, the long-term net fiscal losses of this project are worse than usual, even including the paltry $1,550 mitigation fee per unit (Verona, for comparison, paid $12,000 in extra mitigation per unit).

The fact is that Wildhorse Ranch will offer for-sale housing that is less affordable on average than what is currently on the market.

Much of the confusion over affordability is that Parlin has provided the City with one set of prices to increase fiscal benefits (to neutrality, but only over a 15-year period), but is using a different, lower set of prices in campaign literature.  For example, Parlin has widely claimed that the single-family houses will “range from $450,000 to $550,000.”  In the City fiscal analysis, however, the average price of the single-family houses is $550,000.  It’s mathematically impossible for the range to be between $450,000 and $550,000, with an average of $550,000, unless each and every house sells for $550,000.

There is a trade-off between affordability and fiscal neutrality that is not being honestly presented to voters.  You can’t have it both ways, unless you use different numbers for different purposes, as Yes on P has done.

It makes no sense to achieve green building codes by encouraging developers of poorly situated, fiscally challenged, and inexpensive parcels of agricultural land on the periphery to use what should be fundamental building code requirements as a campaign gimmick.  It makes more sense to enact citywide green building codes for all development.  True long-term sustainability must also be based on deliberate consideration of transportation issues and proximity to schools, downtown retail, and campus jobs.

It’s hard to take the Sierra Club endorsement seriously when we were never given the opportunity to present our case to the Sierra Club membership.  In contrast, prior to the Davis Enterprise recommending a no vote on Measure P, they invited both sides to present their cases to the editorial board at the same time.  For over two hours, the Enterprise exhaustively grilled both sides.  This is what any responsible organization should do before making an endorsement.

When we frequently hear from angry Sierra Club members about this endorsement, we naturally question whether the broad membership of the Sierra Club was included in the deliberations.  We live in a strange world when the local Sierra Club is advocating more housing for Davis than what is required by the pro-growth Sacramento Area Council of Governments and the State of California.

This project is also located in the wrong place.  Far from downtown and UC Davis, on a peripheral parcel of agriculturally-zoned land where the City only receives 2/3 as much property tax as the rest of Davis, it is no wonder that the Housing Element Steering Committee ranked this site 27th of 36.  There are far better places to put “really green” houses when the time comes.

When a developer can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for a special (low turnout?) election and distort the process with high-priced consultants, paid “volunteers,” and false claims, we worry about the future of Davis.

Once you look at the facts, we hope you’ll join us in voting No on P on November 3.