While some people have been discussing Measure P for several weeks, others are just starting to pay attention to the issue because the election is this Tuesday. It seems some people in town have rushed to judgment, admittedly and regretfully taking a No position on Measure P without even knowing that it includes 40 affordable, 100% accessible rental units that come fully equipped with solar panels and the top-of-the-line energy efficiency features as well as provides Davis with the first 21st Century sustainable and affordable neighorhood, since Village Homes was built over 35 years ago.
Green Building Homes Available to All Not Just the University Community
The Measure P project is designed to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions by 90%. What this means is that the average Davis home produces 5.5 metric tons of annual emissions and a Wildhorse Ranch Home (WHR) will average 0.5 metric tons of emissions. The developers worked with local energy efficiency experts to make this an achievable goal of the project. There will be photovoltaic (solar) panels on each and every structure as well as passive solar design. 40% forested open space and drought tolerant native species will reduce temperatures and capture and sequester carbon. Bioswales will reduce storm water runoff, remove pollution and silt and retain ground moisture. Greenery needing watering will utilize an existing well on the property. An innovative cooling system will filter cool outside air and bring it indoors. Smart meters will be in every home so residents will be able to monitor their own energy usage 24/7. There will be solar hot water heaters and highly reflective roof and wall colors to reduce solar gain. Every garage will have plug-in rechargers for electric and hybrid vehicles. Overall the project is designed to minimize pavement and maximize accessibility to bike-able green belts and public transportation. The project has been accepted into LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). To read even more detail about the project features go to www.yesonpdavis.com
The developer really wants to incorporate eco-friendly and communitarian principles. Because of a suggestion made recently at the Farmers Market, the project is now looking to create a community room for community members to be able to gather.
The opposition has tried to paint a picture of overbuilding in Davis. However, the 2000 houses that they keep referencing include the University’s plans to build over 1000 units of on-campus student housing and nearly 500 homes aimed at recently recruited faculty and staff who have been recruited through national searches. This excludes most of the local workforce. In addition, there are about 300 approved lots that have been on the books for years with no prospect of being built in the near future.
Affordability
The Measure P project consists of 191 homes, 40 or 21% consisting of rentals serving low-income families. These homes will be priced and their occupancy determined by the rules of the City’s affordable housing program. Often, developers fulfill their fair share/affordable housing requirement by giving land to the city rather than actually building the affordable housing. The Measure P project not only will include the building of the actual affordable housing units, but it will integrate them into this mixed income development. The affordable housing will be at the front of the development, so you know the developer is not going to skimp on attractiveness. More compelling is that all of the affordable units will include the same green features that are the hallmark of the project. This includes solar panels which will greatly reduce if not eliminate electricity bills for the residents. We have never heard of an affordable housing project that includes all of these features which not only help the environment but save residents money.
As far as the townhouses and single-family homes go, they are moderately priced by current Davis standards. Would we like to see $200,000 homes for sale in Davis again? Of course. If any of you are able to put together a project like that right now, I assure you we would be thrilled. But no one has been able to pull that off yet in Davis. This project does a great job of creating a small footprint, green community consisting of mixed income, reasonably priced homes in an open-spaced design with a price tag that includes tens of thousands of dollars worth of energy efficient, environmentally green features.
Accountability
It is essential that Davisites don’t fall prey to unfounded fear mongers who falsely suggest that the developer can renege on his promises: ALL OF THESE PROMISES RUN WITH THE LAND AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE MEASURE P VOTE. THEY CANNOT BE IGNORED. According to the City of Davis Affordable Housing Ordinance 18.05.040: (e)Development Agreement. The City shall use the development agreement of the project to ensure that the project developer adheres to the requirements and intent of this article by detailing within the agreement the sanctions involved if the developer does not comply with the requirements of this article during the construction process.
Accessibility
In terms of wheel-chair accessibility, all of the affordable housing program units will be fully accessible and many of the other homes will be built to provide maximum accessibility and visitability whenever possible within the overall design.
Fiscally Neutral
The City Staff Report states: “The proposed Community Facilities District (CFD) would generate $300 per year per market rate unit (i.e., approximately $40,000 to $45,000 per year) with a 3% adjustment per year. The onetime General Fund mitigation fee of $1550 per market rate unit is designed to generate approximately $237,000 at build-out, and provide a mechanism to fully-offset General Fund impacts over the 15-year period of the projection, and accounting for interest earnings, yield a mitigation fund surplus of $112,000.” City of Davis Staff Report to City Council, Wildhorse Ranch, Sept. 15, 2009, page 3
While some people are complaining that the project is too dense, these are many of the same people who are the naysayers who say we must preserve and protect the land at all cost. Complex problems like how to balance the need to create affordable housing that is not too dense with the need to have enough density to protect the land from sprawl require a balancing of equities. The Measure P project thoughtfully does that.
Accusations that this project has been rushed through apparently ignore the five years and 86 meetings worth of give and take that have preceded this vote.
The great Persian poet Hafiz once wrote Fear is the cheapest room in the house. I would like to see you living in better conditions. Davis voters ought to look at the actual project being proposed and vote Yes for what they want for our town and not be swayed by unfounded fears.
Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.
Look, the vote is not a vote on the campaign—it’s a vote on the project. Even if you are critical of aspects of the campaign, please do no throw out the baby with the bathwater. This project is good for Davis. The 191 units will not be added “right now” and 40 of those units are restricted low-income people. There is a huge waiting list “right now” in Davis for affordable housing. Whether you love or hate the brochures, vote yes on P for the project.
“It is essential that Davisites don’t fall prey to unfounded fear mongers who falsely suggest that the developer can renege on his promises:….”
Please read the city attorney’s statement in the mailed ballot information. She states that the PROJECT must meet its base-line agreements SUBSTANTIALLY by the time of FULL BUILDOUT or it will be subject to ANOTHER CITIZEN VOTE.
So….the project does not have to fully meet its base-line agreement but only “substantially” and only at “full build-out”. If it fails at that time, the citizens have a another vote. If they vote NO at that time, is the WHR development then torn down and the land returned to its original condition?? NOT LIKELY! She also speaks only to this project and does not make any determination on what would be legal if Parlin sold the now much more valuable land with its new residential zoning that no longer requires a Measure J approval by the Davis voter.
Crilly makes very good points. Yet despite the horrible dishonesty and terrible [i]let’s buy everyone’s vote possible[/i] campaign tactics, I voted yes, because, as Crilly said, “Wildhorse ranch is a decent development.” [quote]The Measure P project consists of 191 homes, 40 or 21% consisting of rentals serving low-income families.[/quote] Even this, while technically true, includes a waft of dishonesty in its effluvia. When you hear “One bedroom apartment for ‘low income,'” do you realize that such an apartment rents for about $1,000 a month?*
Almost nobody understands that. Thus, the developer makes it sound like he is giving alms to the poor, when in fact his low-income units are pretty much market rate (if not higher). It’s time the people of Davis wake-up and get rid of this low-income housing nonsense once and for all. Give the money to the poor, not to the developers.
I’ve said this too many times, but it bears repeating: low-income housing set-asides DO NOT HELP LOW INCOME PEOPLE as a class. They might help some individuals, but even that is not clear when rents are $1,000/mo. However, they always are undersupplied, and therefore give zero benefit to most of the people who need financial help to have adequate rental housing.
*On the City of Davis website, here ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/housing/affordable/pdfs/Req_Summary_and_2007-08_Rents.pdf[/url]), they list the rents for these so-called low income units for 2007-08. The amounts listed are $967 for 1-bedroom, $1,080 for 2-bedrooms, and $1,184 for 3-bedrooms. I don’t know if an inflator is built in, but I would guess each of those amounts has gone up (given out zero apartment vacancy rate in Davis). And by the time WHR opens, the low income 1-bedroom will be closer to $1,100/month.
I am a long time community activist, a retired state worker, a senior and a member of the Senior Citizens Commission. Most importantly, I reside in one of Davis’ affordable housing complexes.. My neighbors are a diverse group of ethnicities, religions, races and other retired folks. Some are graduate students with families and low wage employees of Davis businesses and UC Davis.
Affordable low income rental units are required in housing developments by the City’s affordable housing policy. The Wildhorse Ranch rental costs are set by the City not by the developer. The apartments are 100 percent accessible by way of an elevator, while not limited to age or disability restrictions. Thus, these apartments are a desirable option for those with mobility issues. The units have the same green features as the rest of the housing in Wild Horse Ranch resulting in very low utility bills. They are accessible to public bus transportation. The option of living in Davis means a lot to many low income and minimum wage workers who really cannot afford to commute.
In conclusion, the 191 homes at Wildhorse Ranch are not expected solve all the housing and commuting problems of Davis. What it does accomplish is to increase the “living options” which means that more housing will be available to those who work in Davis but currently cannot afford to live in Davis. Most of the rentals will go to low income part-time and minimum wage workers in service businesses such as restaurants, childcare,etc, Still, it is a needed option.
It is what this small development does that warrants the endorsement of the Sierra Club and the Sacramento Bee and should result in a resounding vote to approve Yes on P.
I must add that there is a certain amount of absurdity surrounding the current discussion by a citizenry which prides itself in being advanced in setting the standard on housing policy and on environmental issues. Yet, we currently have a brand new Target, approved by the voters, opening next to our very own Superfund Cleanup Site. Shoppers are glowing with excitement. Our Target is a huge success. Time will tell again just how advanced the voters of Davis are. Will they seize the opportunity to vote Yes and resume their leadership on smart growth and the environment?
I do think that Wildhorse ranch is a decent development. I’m going to vote against it, partly because I don’t think it’s necessary to add another 191 units right now. But what bothers me the most is the dishonesty of the Yes On P campaign. If they had been straightforward from the beginning about the true fiscal impacts and the “affordability” issues, I’d probably vote yes. Why is it that developers continue to believe that trying to dupe Davis votes is the only way to get a development approved? It backfired with Covell Village and it’s going to backfire again this time. We want green development, but we also want developers we can trust. Parlin isn’t one of them.
“…does not make any determination on what would be legal if Parlin sold the now much more valuable land with its new residential zoning”
The Parlin Development Corp. website, which WAS linked to the Yes on P website but has now been removed, speaks of its corporate mission as prominently including “flipping” real estate properties.
Crilly – Phrases like “affordable” and “opportunities for first buyers” really are misleading. One justification used for this statement is that “the median price of a house in Davis is 505k so the 421k townhouses are affordable by comparison”. The VERY ambitious green promises sound attractive. However, there are no legal or economic consequences if the 90% GHG reduction claims aren’t reached. There’s never been any attempt to have this proposed project reviewed by an independent authority to confirm that the 90% GHG is achievable. Not even a preliminary application for certification by Parlin Development The 90% GHG promise has never been made or accomplished by any other developer in California. There’s never been any mention of the emissions (and potential parking problems) generated by the approx 400 -600 additional cars making the 3 mile trip downtown.
Davis2 – agree completely. I visited the website and and thought the same thing. One key phrase used was “advocacy for local projects”. Why is the Parlin Development site no longer accessible? The YOP campaign really is clever. Identify the talking points likely to resonate w/ Davis voters. Use the words “affordable” and “green” over and over as a way to get votes.
If this WHR is the cutting edge stellar environmental development it claims to be, why aren’t there more volunteers supporting it? Why is most of the support coming from folks paid to do or who benefit financially? Suggest we all look carefully at the facts and claims before voting on WHR this coming Tuesday
The “Yes on Measure P” ad in the November 1 edition of The Davis Enterprise lists me as an endorser of Measure P. I did not endorse P, and I did not authorize my name to be used in an ad in favor of P. About three or four weeks ago I told Masud Monfared, the owner of Parlin Development Company that I was not going to take a position on Measure P.
[i]There’s never been any mention of the emissions (and potential parking problems) generated by the approx 400 -600 additional cars making the 3 mile trip downtown.[/i]
But they don’t have to go downtown — there’s plenty of parking at Target.
“NOT A SINGLE PERSON WORKING FOR NO ON P HAS BEEN PAID!”
Did you vote for Obama for President? He had paid workers. I’ve worked for pay for campaigns, if I weren’t paid, I probably couldn’t have had the time to work on them. I fail to see a problem with that. Now if she were paid $20K or more, then you might have a point, but $2000 is not an obscene amount of money.
[quote]$ 2,060.00 – Denise Hoffner, Davis, CA 95616 [/quote]To me, $2,000 is a lot of money. You could pay the rent for two months of a so-called low-income resident of WHR for that much money.
WHY IS THAT NOT DISCLOSED AT THE TOP OF THIS ARTICLE?
If David Greenwald knew she was a paid employee of the Measure P campaign and did not disclose it, that was a big error in judgment on his part. And if Denise Hoffner did not disclose it to him, which I suspect is the case, she acted unethically in my opinion.
Maybe most people don’t care about conflicts of interest, but I do. I would NEVER write a Davis Enterprise column about a person or organization or business which either has given me money or I have some financial connection to and not disclose that*. Readers can make up their own minds if the financial tie affects the writer’s judgment. However, hiding that connection suggests to me that the writer doesn’t really believe what she is saying. She is just in it for the money. (I feel the same way about members of the City Council who shill for their campaign donors and don’t announce that they took money from them when they are voting on issues which affect those donors.)
*I never have written about any such people or organizations. I endoresed P in my column and have no ties to Parlin or its web of payments.
Rich: It didn’t occur to me, she’s representing the Yes on P Campaign, that should be sufficient disclosure. She’s also acknowledged being a paid worker in a letter to the editor in the Enterprise, and in a post on the Vanguard. So I don’t think it was her intent or my mine to hide the fact that she has been paid. Therefore, while I think you have a legitimate point that it probably should have been mentioned by her or by me, you have taken the point too far, imo.
Yes, I voted for Obama; Obama is a political candidate and political candidates hire individuals to run their campaigns and write material; didn’t your wife hire and pay Bill Ritter (the campaign manager for Yes on P) to run her failed bid for Council, or did he do it for free?
The point I am raising is their should be disclosure! If you are writing an article as a private citizen (as Mark Siegler and Phil King did for the No on P arguments)that’s fine; but if you are paid (irregardless of how “little” it seems in your opinion)for your opinion, should she not disclose that?
(Rifkin appears to agree with me, and he has already voted Yes on P.)
Apparently Rich Rifkin does not read the newspaper that pays him! I very clearly wrote a letter to the editor a few weeks back saying that I am a paid writer. I have nothing to hide and anyone who knows anything about me knows I don’t do any work I don’t believe in. It’s quite presumptuous to make comments about my ethics when you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.
[quote]Apparently Rich Rifkin does not read the newspaper that pays him! I very clearly wrote a letter to the editor a few weeks back saying that I am a paid writer. [/quote] Apparently Miss Hoffner, you use the moniker “independent thinker” with full irony intended, then.
And for what it’s worth, there are a lot of names which run through The Davis Enterprise. I am sure that I am not the only one who did not recall that you were the paid shill who disclosed the fact that you were paid to write a pro-P letter by Parlin.
My complaint (with you and David) is that this connection was not made here. It is a very important fact which must ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be disclosed when you give your opinions on this topic over which you have a financial interest. Telling me, “oh, I disclosed that in some other place,” is entirely unsatisfactory. You wrote an article for the Vanguard. Disclose your ties to the developer on Vanguard. Not doing so up front, I believe, hurts your credibility and thus your effectiveness as a propagandist.
On the issue of folks being paid, if this were an isolated event that might be different, but the Yes on P campaign has been mostly run and staffed by paid folks. Even at the farmers market, not a place one normally expects to see paid folks, the majority of folks week in and week out at the Yes on P booth are either paid students or member of Masud’s family with an occassional cameo appearance from a volunteer, and some of these folks may have investment interests in the project that have not been disclosed.
It is acceptable to be paid for your work. I am paid when I oppose Wal-Mart, but its always known that I am acting as a paid consultant. One does not normally expect folks writing on blogs, letters to the editor, Op-Ed pieces etc. to be piad and when it happens it is reasonable to disclose that fact. Will it change how people perceive what is said? Some will not care; some will.
On the issue that this is a vote on the project not the campaign–who do you think is running the campaign? If Parlin runs a dishonest or incompetent campaign do you trust them to build a really green project when they have no track record at all? The City is taking a leap of faith on the greeness of this project and we are being asked to trust the developer. I think a dose of healthy skepticism is in order.
I agree with all that has been said ‘against’ Denise Hoffner authorship being tramdparent. To me it just increases the distaste for the developers’ MO. But perhaps more importantly, David, I suggest that you consider adding a subtitle for all types of articles authored by other than you with a sentence about them or how they are linked to the subject. That us how newspapers list authors of op ed pieces.
“On the issue that this is a vote on the project not the campaign–who do you think is running the campaign?”
Couldn’t agree with you more Phil. The campaign is paid for by Parlin Development, and now we have a former mayor of this town (Bill Kopper) blogging that his name was used by the Yes on P campaign as an endorser, even though he told Masud he was not endorsing it. Who made the decision to put his name in the ad as endorser, Ritter or Masud?
Also, thanks Phil (and Mark Siegler), for all your work in writing pieces for No on P for the Vanguard, Enterprise, and ballot statements for FREE! (this despite the fact you both are full-time professors and fathers!)
This is the last bit of energy I’m wasting on this nonsense today: For the record, I frankly wasn’t event aware that my name or anyone’s name was going to be listed as the “author” of the closing statement. I figured that each campaign was submitting a closing statement. Period. I think calling me a “shill” is rude and name-calling. I’ve now disclosed that I was paid. Why don’t you disclose what makes you so nasty?
Ok…I changed my mind–one more post because I take all of this more seriously than I probably should but it must be nice to be a full-time professor and be able to do all of your activism for free. In case you wanted some more disclosure I am a single mom whose annual income qualifies me for low-income housing. You all should really think more about the actual human beings you’re mouthing off about.
Independent thinker are you Denise Hoffner? If not I am confused! If you are what did you mean by not knowing your writing was to be use as a ‘closing piece’. With all due respect, did you write it but didn’t know how it would be used? And were you paid for writing it?
SODA: Allow me to unconfuse you (somewhat hopefully). I contacted Bill Ritter from the Yes on P campaign as well as principles of the No on P campaign. He referred me to Denise Hoffner to do a closing piece for the Vanguard. Apparently they had not intended there to be an author on the piece (had I known, I would have insisted), but there was some miscommunication there. As for not declaring her a “paid worker” – I’ll plead guilty on that, it slipped my mind late last night when I posted the two articles. I also think it was common knowledge to some extent, but nevertheless, it should have been put there. I normally do put a subtitle at the bottom of the pieces, but today I thought it was clear this was coming from the campaigns, that was the intent of having the two pieces, allow each side to make their “closing argument.”
Can we get some clarification here Ms. Hoffner please.
You were called a “shill” by Rich Rifkin, who has not worked (or written anything) for the No on P campaign, and has even gone on record as saying he has already voted Yes on P.
[i]It must be nice to be a full-time professor and be able to do all of your activism for free.[/i]
They are at Cal State, so they have furloughs on teaching days. (To be fair, Cal State teaching loads are higher than UC.) So it may be true that they have extra time for something like Measure P, but the implicit cost of that time is very high, it’s basically partial unemployment.
Who cares who is and is not being paid by either campaign. Campaigns pay people all of the time. What is disturbing and does not reflect well for people supporting No on P is the bullying tactics used by some of the people who have posted here attacking people who are working on the campaign paid or not. It’s very unprofessional and quite disturbing.
I happened to look at the literature that was distributed by the No on P campaign and it is very misleading. The literature mentions the 2000 units approved to be built in Davis, but nowhere does it mention that 1500 + units are on UC Davis owned land. That is very, very dishonest and VERY misleading.
I also know people who are being bullied into taking their Yes on P signs down. I won’t mention the name of the bully because they know who they are but the whole thing is disturbing. I have already spoken with 3 people who were bullied.
Why can’t people simply be for or against an issue?
I think people need to check themselves and ask if there is something lacking in their lives that they have to appear as bullies and hate mongers. Get some class.
There is a full moon tonight, but that’s no excuse for spewing venomous words at people back off and stick to the issues.
Denise –
The reasons you mention are very good reasons to support this project. I have already voted and I voted Yes. This is a good project that will set a new standard for Davis.
“On the issue that this is a vote on the project not the campaign…”
Since there are no penalties for non-compliance in the baseline development agreement being presented to us for our Measure P vote, the credibility and trustworthiness of Parlin’s “promises” are a critical part of the voter’s decision. I’m afraid that Parlin has dismally failed this test of credibility and trustworthiness based upon the Measure P campaign that he has run.
“Affordability The Measure P project consists of 191 homes, 40 or 21% consisting of rentals serving low-income families.”
“40 of those units are restricted low-income people.”
Denise’s statement, in the body of the post and repeated in the first comment (posted under her pseudonym) is incorrect. Again, the proponents of WHR have misused the term “affordable.”
There is no requirement that the 40 units be for low-income families. They need only be priced to be affordable to people making 80 – 120% of the median income of Yolo County. “Low-income” is something entirely different. Throughout this campaign the proponents have misused the terms affordable,workforce housing, and low-income housing.
WHR provides no more “affordable” housing than any other development in Davis is required to provide. In fact, due to the density of the development they are allowed to provide less (20%) than other less-dense developments which are required to provide 25%. For the non-rental part of WHR, you will need an annual income of nearly $100,000 to purchase the lowest-priced townhouses.
[quote]I think calling me a “shill” is rude and name-calling.[/quote] I apologize for your misunderstanding. Let me quote the dictionary ([url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill[/url]):
[b]shill, n.[/b] [i]a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.[/i] [quote] I’ve now disclosed that I was paid. Why don’t you disclose what makes you so [u]nasty[/u]? [/quote] Do you know what nasty ([url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nasty[/url]) means, Denise? Nothing I’ve said here even remotely qualifies as impertinent, let alone nasty. It seems as if you are upset by my statement, [i]”And [u]if[/u] Denise Hoffner did not disclose it to him, which I suspect is the case, she acted unethically in my opinion.”[/i] That is not uncivil or insolently rude. Nondisclosure of a conflict of interest is a very serious ethical violation. It seems to have been revealed that your publisher, David Greenwald, knew you were a shill and he mistakenly did not put that atop this page. Hence, it seems it was more his mistake than yours. But if you re-read my post, you will note I said I did not know which of you failed to disclose this important fact. If my presumption that David would not make such an error upsets you, I apologize.
[quote]Since there are no penalties for non-compliance in the baseline development agreement being presented to us for our Measure P vote, the credibility and trustworthiness of Parlin’s “promises” are a critical part of the voter’s decision. [/quote] I don’t believe this is correct. As with any permitting process, the builder must meet the requirements of his agreement to get a permit for construction and a CoA for occupancy. All of the penalties in the Municipal Code of Davis ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/[/url]) will apply to Parlin or whoever is involved in construction of WHR. There is no provision of the agreement which alters that condition.
Take a long look at the final development agreement ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/CDD/projects/wildhorse/pdfs/Final City Council on Wildhorse Ranch.pdf[/url]), which you can read in full here. It says this on page 11 of 171:
[i]”The Wildhorse Ranch project is required to develop in a manner consistent with these Base Line Features. As provided for in Measure J, the Base Line Features may not be changed without approval by the voters of the City.”[/i]
The Base Line Features are laid out in that document on pages 7-10 of 171.
Rich, I’m not sure why you suspected that D. Hoffner did not disclose to David that she gets paid? (“which I suspect is the case”). What grounds do you have for making this statement? It’s like it came out of nowhere. I’m guessing it’s for dramatic effect. I think David’s explanation of what happened is sound, and I do appreciate your final comment on this topic, that it was more David’s error. Now I’d like to know why you voted Yes on P? (Which I plan to do). What were your main reasons for doing so? (You may have answered this question in a recent column. If so, forgive me, I’ve been out of town and need to catch up on some reading). Thanks.
To all those against Measure P…looks like you have gotten yours already. You own your own home with a huge yard. You want your real estate value to stay high. You are falling for real estate pro’s and other developers who have an incentive to keep this project down. You don’t care about the environment, if you did you would endorse this project whole heartedly. THIS is an imperative project, both for the earth, and our children. I want to be able to have the luxury of living an environmentally responsible lifestyle. I as well as regular people should be able to live in a place like this. Eco-friendliness needs to be mainstreamed and not just a lifestyle that only some fringe hippies and uber rich people can afford. I don’t know if you’ve been looking at recent sales in Davis, but a house on a street recently sold for 750,000 dollars. So in comparison to the rest of Davis, Wild horse is affordable. This house by the way didn’t have solar and is not in the least eco friendly. People have to live somewhere, there needs to be development…responsible development. It’s only 191 units…they will plant trees on 40% of the land. Parlin is going for PLATINUM LEED CERTIFICATION… Look environmentalism is not just a luxurious gucci bag you own and prevent the rest of the world of having the same thing. I wrote a letter to the DAVIS enterprise and I AM NOT BEING PAID BY anyone for my support. I’ve been putting up signs and campaigning for this project. THe low income units will not cost the city of Davis anything because parlin development will be incurring the costs associated with building them so don’t believe the hype and vote yes on measure P. WE NEED IT…we really do. Put aside the pettiness and think of the big picture…this does set a huge precedent and serves as a good example for the rest of the world to follow. People are going to build, they might as well build green and THIS IS THE POINT!!! ps…if the enterprise endorsed target.. and if we voted in target then we sure as hell can vote in this project. WHERE was all the opposition to the TARGET????????? Let me guess,,,, you didnt’ want to drive to woodland to buy your cheap mass produced crap, yet you’re opposing this project??? hypocrits
TO Rich, So what if Denise is paid for the campaign. She believes in the project and can’t sell something she doesn’t believe in. I have been volunteering for the campaign because I believe in in. PS. have you looked on who’s on the no campaign? What’s in it for the city planner of vacaville to defeat this project??? THink about it.
do you own a home in davis? how much did you pay for it? is it sustainable? how big is your yard? did you know that at one point in time, your house was built on farmland? if you live in an apartment, that too was built on farmland.
what’s your solution on where people can live? where do you think we should live? in shacks? small expensive overcrowded cubicles we call apartments? so everyone else must live small cramped loud smoky apartments, but you get your nice big unsustainable house? these are questions i pose to all those opposed to measure p. i’ve meant many students, most who live in nice big houses, and will be moving on to buy their own home in the future who have fallen for the ridiculous no on p campaign. people are so dumb
The first question to ask is do we need more housing? The central thesis of the 2000 homes are enough campaign is that we have enough housing in the pipeline, including the UC Davis housing. We have always disclosed that is part of our figure. SACOG counts UC Davis; the UC Davis development is true “workforce hosuing” where all residents work in the City, unlike WHR. It also takes the pressure off of wxisting hosuing for non-UC Davis folks so it really does help even folks who are not affiliated with the University. It is also closer to downtown in campus.
At some point Davis will need more housing and we support green development. Part of green development is lowering the reliance on cars which menas locating closer to work and shopping (or putting in shopping/work as part of the project)–there is nothing in WHR about that.
“The Wildhorse Ranch project is required to develop in a manner consistent with these Base Line Features. As provided for in Measure J, the Base Line Features may not be changed without approval by the voters of the City.”
Rich…As I indicated in my previous post, Harriet Steiner’s analysis states that the Davis voter will have another vote on the WHR project if it fails to SUBSTANTIALLY meet the baseline agreements at the time of FULL BUILD- OUT. “Substantially” is clearly open to interpretation(I assume by the Council majority) and allowing Davis voters to vote on accepting the project at “full build-out”(will a NO vote then tear down the project, return the land to its original condition with an agricultural zoniong?) is obviously unenforceable as are most of the campaign “promises” that the Yes on P campaign has been pitching.
Melanie: The vast majority of No on P folks opposed Target and many of the key organizsers for No on Target are now No on P. I voted against Target and have not been to the new store.
The Target campaign focused a lot of its voter outreach to UC Davis students, including directly passing out campaign flyers on campus, and sending mailers to students, many of whom who voted Yes to Target have left town since its passage, does this sound at all familiar to you with the current Yes on P campaign???
[quote]Rich, I’m not sure why you suspected that D. Hoffner did not disclose to David that she gets paid? (“which I suspect is the case”). What grounds do you have for making this statement?[/quote] I answered that above. I suspected that because I thought David had better judgment than he used in not disclosing it atop the piece.
[quote]So what if Denise is paid for the campaign. She believes in the project and can’t sell something she doesn’t believe in. I have been volunteering for the campaign because I believe in in. [/quote] If someone has a financial interest in a project and is shilling for it, there is nothing illegal or immoral or wrong with that. I am all for the profit motive in free enterprise. But it is crucial that people who are being paid to express their views let their audience know what is going on up front. Otherwise, the opinions expressed appear to be disingenuous. Imagine if, in my newspaper column, I recommended a great cafe in Davis to have a cup of coffee in, but I never mentioned that I was being paid by the cafe owner to give him a positive review. Or imagine if Enterprise film critic Derrick Bang took money from film producers to give positive reviews of their films. Would you not, as a reader, feel like a fast one was being pulled on you?
I don’t think your analogy is a good one. In this case the question is whether there is a difference between volunteering for a campaign versus being a paid worker for the campaign. I’ve known a lot of paid campaign workers in my day, I have never met a mercenary who did it strictly for the money. They generally believed in the candidate or cause.
“I thought David had better judgment than he used in not disclosing it atop the piece.”
Why can it just be that I did something at midnight on Halloween evening and was tired and made a mistake?
davisite2: For what it’s worth, I am skeptical (as you seem to be) of the 90% GHG reduction promise. I don’t doubt this figure because of Parlin or Talbott or any of the others involved in this project, or because of the nature of the baseline agreement. My skepticism arises because I am aware that there is a long history with so-called green building technologies which have made fantastic promises with regard to energy efficiencies, and then as time has played out, these so-called green buildings — in the cases I am thinking of, they are all LEED certified — don’t live up to the hype. But that said, they are better than a standard building; and I am very certain the WHR homes will be more energy efficient than the homes planned for other parts of town. I think WHR will set a new standard for building in Davis. That’s one of the reasons I support it.
As far as there being a problem with “substantially” meeting the terms of the agreement, I don’t think there is too much to worry about, because the city has had dozens of developments with pretty much that exact same language and it has never created a problem, including in the case of Wild Horse, where the designer of the project sold the development prior to build out.
“As far as there being a problem with “substantially” meeting the terms of the agreement, I don’t think there is too much to worry about…”
You have overlooked the critical point,i.e, that the original Wildhorse agreement was before Measure J was in place. It is certain that the city staff and Council majority will be going to any lengths to NOT have to make the determination that the WHR project is not in “substantial” compliance with the baseline agreeement at the time of full build-out. Parlin is counting on this “flexibility” of the city staff and Council majority and is the most plausible explanation why he has been so willing to agree to the non-enforceable caveats that the Council has added to the baseline agreement.
Greg K – the Target parking joke was pretty sad (but I did laugh).
Melanie – I don’t understand your comments. Right now, there are plenty of nice places for people to live. If you think 450k for a townhouse is affordable, you can buy a nice 3/2 house w/ a backyard where you can grow veggies. Put some solar panels on it. More insulation in the attic. Use CFL’s. Actually ride a bike because it’s closer to downtown than WHR. No new development on the edge of town.
Rich – the heavily advertised “affordability” and “green” claims are red flags for me on WHR. If a developer isn’t honest up front, why should I believe that he’ll follow thru on the promises? It’s one of the reasons I intend to vote no.
[quote]It is certain that the city staff and Council majority will be going to any lengths to NOT have to make the determination that the WHR project is not in “substantial” compliance with the baseline agreeement at the time of full build-out. [/quote] I have far more faith in the professionalism of the city staff, high and low.
Keep in mind that on all of the small issues which arise, the yes-no decisions will be made by lower-level staffers. They are well trained (and generally very well paid) to apply the rules to all projects. It’s an everyday thing for inspectors. (I had the experience of dealing with City of Davis inspectors a few years back when I changed my sewage line. To my angst, the inspector followed the rules to a tee.)
I can’t imagine any problem with any big issues. The baseline calls for:[quote]• Up to 73 Single Family Homes. • Up to 78 Town Homes. • Up to 40 Apartment Homes of which 38 will be affordable to very low and low income households. • Notwithstanding the forgoing the total market rate units for the project shall not be less than 136.[/quote] No one will violate those provisions. The next “big” provision of the baseline says: [quote] • The project shall reduce its Green House Gas emissions by 90% below the base line established by the City of Davis in its Resolution #09-043 regarding Green House Gas reductions. The entire 90% reduction shall be accomplished on site. [/quote] No doubt the architectural plans that are built out will follow this intention. The question I raised above is that five years after build-out, I would not be surprised to learn that the GHG reduction is less than 90%. But you cannot blame the city staff for that. That’s just the nature of human plans not always living up to expectations.
None of the other provisions is hard to understand or enforce: [quote] • An approximately 1.61 acres of greenbelt providing connection from the existing neighborhood to the west through the property to the agricultural buffer on the east side of the property. This property is to be dedicated to the City for ownership and maintenance. • An approximately 2.26 acre addition to the existing Urban Agricultural Transition Area bringing the total width of this area to 200’ thus creating a definable edge to the City. This area is to be dedicated to the City for ownership and maintenance. • An approximately 4.4 acre open space area to be planted with trees and ground cover to provide a location for passive enjoyment of open space. Walking paths and bike paths will provide access to the internal pathway system as well at to the citywide bike trail system. This property will be deeded to the future Home Owners Association for ownership and maintenance. • Dedicate to the City the approximately 1.61 acre parcel for continuation of the City greenbelt • Dedicate to the City permanent conservation easements on approximately 50 acres of active agricultural land. • Provide approximately 15.5 acres of Swainson Hawk foraging habitat through the purchase of a Conservation Easement, or payment of mitigation fees to the Yolo County Habitat Joint Powers Agency. • Dedicate to the City a 1.92 acre site for the production of up to 40 apartment style homes. 38 of the apartment homes shall be affordable in perpetuity to very low and low income households, income households pursuant to an approved Project Individualized Plan. The 38 units shall be fully ADA accessible. • Agree to the formation of a community facilities district or other public financing mechanism prior to the recordation of the first final map for the Project to provide for an annual fee or tax on each market rate unit of $300 per year (in 2009 dollars) plus 3% per year thereafter to be used by the City for police services and fire prevention, suppression and emergency medical services. • Pay to the City of Davis an in-lieu Parkland Dedication fee. • The project shall also pay fees to the City, the Davis Joint Unified School District or Yolo County as part of the development fees for the project.[/quote]
I am still undecided on this. I would like to see more projects in Davis like what WHR proposes. I find the arguments over who’s getting paid or not to be irrelevant to the merits of the proposal.
But one of the more persuasive arguments for me to vote against this, however, is its location, and this is mentioned in a letter to the editor in the Enterprise today (Monday), online:
Why couldn’t this project be proposed for the cannery site instead of the horse ranch? The cannery is an eyesore and only has use for the Emerson carnival. I would appreciate comments on this idea. Thanks.
There is a need for the carnival to run year round to help the school budget. secondly, Parlin does not own the Cannery site. I understand that Whitcome does and he has far greater plans for that site and the rest of the Covell Village site than the small WHR proposal. You will hear alot about it after the vote tomorrow.
wdf1: For what it is worth here is my opinion. Although yes on P has called WHR infill, its on the periphery of town with about 38% of the project exposed directly to Ag land. If you go out there and walk around, you really do feel like you are in the country.
I think we need to focus on real infill and brownfields first. Having the city require that future development be green makes sense and we should all push for that. Part of being green is not paving over Ag land if possible and also placing housing closer to work and shopping.
Phil, how many of the folks in Wildhorse are living close to where they work and shop? The real issue is giving people options but their decisions are personal otherwise the people who commute should live where they work. I do not believe that No on P is giving the real reasons for their opposition or at least they are not being logical.
From the time this project has been endorsed by Sierra Club, Sierra Club has been attacked by some, so called intelligent citizen of Davis.
The Sierra Club’s endorsement relates to solely on the project being environmentally friendly as compared to the major majority of projects developed in the past. I have seen some opponent of the project including Davis Enterprise agreeing with sierra Club on the project being environmentally friendly.
If you go to a heart specialist and ask him to check your heart and he/she says your heart is ok, then you tell everyone the heart specialist is stupid because he did not fix my broken legs, wouldn’t you think you are being unfair to the doctor?!
Rich… You seem to cut this project a remarkable amount of slack, i.e. you acknowledge the hyping of its GHG reduction scheme, the type of campaign that it has run which SHOULD seriously erode the credibility of the “promises” that have been offered to the Davis voter for their Yes vote, the affordability con-job. You then dismiss the very issue that is the center piece of their hyped campaign narrative, namely 90% GHG emission reduction on-site, as a “small” issue of no real importance in your decision. As to your argument that the assessment of this project’s “substantial” compliance with the baseline agreement will be made by mid-level city staff, you are dreaming here. It will be made by the Council majority and Bill Emlen, the boss of the city staff. We only have to remember how Paul Navazio was humiliatingly “sent back to his desk” to recalculate his fiscal assessment of this project(the same thing happened with his Covell Village fiscal analysis) when the Council majority was unhappy with it.
At this point, there are about 54 comments made on the Yes on P article and 8 on No on P article. All written by about 20 of us? Any ideas about how many minds were made up or changed by us?
[i]”You seem to cut this project a remarkable amount of slack” [/i]
Thank you.
[i]”you acknowledge the hyping of its GHG reduction scheme”[/i]
I do.
[i]”the type of campaign that it has run”[/i]
I do.
[i]”which SHOULD seriously erode the credibility of the promises that have been offered to the Davis voter for their Yes vote”[/i]
That’s not true. It SHOULD not, because the developer is entering into a legal agreement. This is not about a handshake promise.
[i]”the affordability con-job.”[/i]
I don’t blame the developer, really, for the low-income set aside b.s. It’s not his fault that the city requires developers to include this nonsense. (And really, does anyone think $1,000 a month for rent for a 1-bedroom apartment in Davis is submarket? The City sets the caps on these things, not the developer/owner.)
I do agree that the “REALLY AFFORDABLE” advertising slogan for these homes is misleading. A nice, brand new place with all the green features is not going to be affordable to a lot of people, and certainly not to people who are making minimal wages in one of David Greenwald’s favorite locally-owned non-union downtown retailers. However, I don’t think it’s my business to worry about that.
The people who ultimately purchase the homes in WHR will be people who can (in their judgment and in the judgment of their bankers) afford the homes. We have a market-rate system and that determines what affordable housing is. The commenters who have been crying about $425,000 townhouses make no sense to me. If that price is too high, the units won’t sell and the price will come down.
[i]”You then dismiss the very issue that is the center piece of their hyped campaign narrative, namely 90% GHG emission reduction on-site, as a ‘small’ issue of no real importance in your decision.”[/i]
I have never dismissed anything about the on-site aspects of the baseline agreement. The legal document requires them on-site and I have no doubt they will be. I also don’t doubt the intentions of Parlin or Talbott. I am sure the construction plans they submit will show 90% GHG reductions. What I know (from reading about the topic), however, is that [i]”the best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men, Gang aft agley; An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain, For promis’d joy!”[/i]
Nothing is ever good enough for you hard lined liberals. I’m a liberal but not ridiculous in my thought process.
Have you seen how much land the homes that have No on P signs take up? It’s ridiculous that these people call themselves “green” but really all they really care about is keeping their big homes to themselves and letting every one else live in small apartments.
I had a long conversation with James Schwab and he rents a HOUSE in Sac. His parents were lucky enough to buy their house for 16,000. It’s a huge house that takes up lots of land that could have been used otherwise for agriculture.
James’s solution was to build apartments in the city limits. Gee thanks so everyone else except you has to live in cramped apartments..he didn’t even call for the infil projects to be green. The only argument they have is taking so called agricultural space out of commission.
Look people i don’t know what the big ideal is… it’s only 191 homes. the land it’s being built on is tiny.. they offer a real solution to putting our money where our mouth in, with regards to green housing. None of the no on p folks have solar panels. they are just a bunch of greedy republican hypocrits who want to own environmentalism for themselves, but not make it a reality for others.
look people, being green should be allowed for everyone, this is a guccy bag you hold on for yourself. This truly is an intentional community. it makes it mainstream which is what HAS TO HAPPEN> WE NEED TO MAINSTREAM ENVIRONMENTALISM OTHER WISE IT WILL NEVER BECOME A REALITY FOR THE AMERICAN CONSUMER You ppl need to stop being so greedy and selfish and vote yes on P so others can live up to your green standars… and who knows, maybe you can start practicing what you preach
To Jim Watson, there will be 40 units set aside for affordability. 719 + utilities for a 2 bedroom. Utilities will be next to nothing. so that’s even cheaper than other affordable apartments in davis. i don’t have 350 thousand or 450 thousand or 650 thousand(this was the price of the so called green infill houses near the school district offices.) I saw a house on A street sell for 750k. with no solar panels. I’m voting yes on this because I support promoting green projects like this not just for Davis but for all the country and world. This type of project will become the norm and not the exception. if ppl are going to build and grow we should build it green. I also want the chance to live in these apartments so that I too can realize the dream of green living.
i don’t want to live at the n street coop… i want my own space and i’m sure you have your own space, so you can’t tell everyone else how to live without practicing what you preach. and if you do live in a coop or intentional community good for you, but ppl like me should be able to have choices as should others. VOTE YES ON P!!yayyyy
[quote]there will be 40 units set aside for affordability. $719 + utilities for a 2 bedroom[/quote] I don’t know your source for that rental price for the low-income units. It is about 66% of what the City lists on its website: 1,080 for 2-bedrooms for the 2007-08 fiscal year. If you inflate that by 3% per annum*, in 2012 when perhaps these apartments will be available, $1,080 goes up to $1,216/month.
*I don’t know what annual inflator the City uses for restricted income rentals.
I was skeptical at first about the Wildhorse Project. I couldn’t see how in the world it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% with all those extra cars. (After reading this blog, I realize others are skeptical too). And affordability means different things to different people. But then I started talking to the No on P folks, and I noticed they were responding in a kind of reactionary manner, almost paranoia, using the word “developer” as if it was a scourge, a plague, something to be gotten rid of. And many volunteers could not discuss the details of the 2000 units already approved (474 faculty units, and over 1000 student units. Only 541 City units were approved). Furthermore, I found out to my dismay that the university destroyed habitat to start their project. Wildhorse relocated burrowing owls, they didn’t kill them.
Also, in yesterday’s Enterprise, I found an interesting quote: “In the end, city staff concluded that the project would neither hurt the city financially, nor would it create a profit–but it does offer non-monetary benefits for the community.” In my mind, some of those benefits include “40% of site reserved as forested open space, passive solar design, smart meters, solar hot water heaters, plug-ins in every garage for electric and hybrid vehicles, and preservation of Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat.” Finally, Wildhorse is a small project, but it can be a model for eco-friendly housing in this state and across the country. I am voting tomorrow, and I’m voting Yes on P. I hope others do too.
“And affordability means different things to different people.” “Affordable housing” has a specific meaning which is in the city code. The townhouses at WHR are not affordable by any definition. The claims of affordability for WHR are among the most egregious distortions in this campaign, with the latest example just three posts up on this thread.
“I found out to my dismay that the university destroyed habitat to start their project.” What do you mean by this — the destruction of the ground squirrel burrows? I’m a farmer. I can assure you, we have no shortage of ground squirrels. Everything is habitat. Do you think WHR won’t destroy habitat? This is a total non-issue.
Melanie – The rent will be much higher than $719/month. The “tiny piece of land” is 23 acres. This project will add approx 400-600 new cars. There are many “No on P” signs in smaller yards. What’s a Gucci bag anyway? I do have a $10 saddlebag for my $45 garage sale bike.
Watson: Will it really add new cars? I guess that depends on where the people lived before, if they lived out of town and worked in Davis, it will actually subtract traffic.
Desparado: Unfortunately, I see more daily car miles. If the out of towners now live at WHR, they may commute to work locally (and Sacto of course). They may drive to the Nugget to shop (1-2 miles each way) and do errands/socialize in the downtown area (3 miles each way). There’s lots of empty talk about bike use in Davis. Truth is that it’s declining steadily.
191 units x 2 cars/unit = 382 potential vehicles. 191 units x 3 cars (probably more realistic) = 573 vehicles. These may be driven to the Nugget, to dinner, to the hardware and to the movies. It does have an environmental impact.
Not including the potential additional car emissions in the WHR green promises doesn’t provide a complete picture. There’s also the impact on downtown parking which is already an issue.
by Denise Hoffner –
by Denise Hoffner –
Look, the vote is not a vote on the campaign—it’s a vote on the project. Even if you are critical of aspects of the campaign, please do no throw out the baby with the bathwater. This project is good for Davis. The 191 units will not be added “right now” and 40 of those units are restricted low-income people. There is a huge waiting list “right now” in Davis for affordable housing. Whether you love or hate the brochures, vote yes on P for the project.
“It is essential that Davisites don’t fall prey to unfounded fear mongers who falsely suggest that the developer can renege on his promises:….”
Please read the city attorney’s statement in the mailed ballot information. She states that the PROJECT must meet its base-line agreements SUBSTANTIALLY by the time of FULL BUILDOUT or it will be subject to ANOTHER
CITIZEN VOTE.
So….the project does not have to fully meet its base-line agreement but only “substantially” and only at “full build-out”. If it fails at that time, the citizens have a another vote. If they vote NO at that time, is the WHR development then torn down and the land returned to its original condition?? NOT LIKELY!
She also speaks only to this project and does not make any determination on what would be legal if Parlin sold the now much more valuable land with its new residential zoning that no longer requires a Measure J approval by the Davis voter.
Crilly makes very good points. Yet despite the horrible dishonesty and terrible [i]let’s buy everyone’s vote possible[/i] campaign tactics, I voted yes, because, as Crilly said, “Wildhorse ranch is a decent development.” [quote]The Measure P project consists of 191 homes, 40 or 21% consisting of rentals serving low-income families.[/quote] Even this, while technically true, includes a waft of dishonesty in its effluvia. When you hear “One bedroom apartment for ‘low income,'” do you realize that such an apartment rents for about $1,000 a month?*
Almost nobody understands that. Thus, the developer makes it sound like he is giving alms to the poor, when in fact his low-income units are pretty much market rate (if not higher). It’s time the people of Davis wake-up and get rid of this low-income housing nonsense once and for all. Give the money to the poor, not to the developers.
I’ve said this too many times, but it bears repeating: low-income housing set-asides DO NOT HELP LOW INCOME PEOPLE as a class. They might help some individuals, but even that is not clear when rents are $1,000/mo. However, they always are undersupplied, and therefore give zero benefit to most of the people who need financial help to have adequate rental housing.
*On the City of Davis website, here ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/housing/affordable/pdfs/Req_Summary_and_2007-08_Rents.pdf[/url]), they list the rents for these so-called low income units for 2007-08. The amounts listed are $967 for 1-bedroom, $1,080 for 2-bedrooms, and $1,184 for 3-bedrooms. I don’t know if an inflator is built in, but I would guess each of those amounts has gone up (given out zero apartment vacancy rate in Davis). And by the time WHR opens, the low income 1-bedroom will be closer to $1,100/month.
Crilly’s comment (now listed at 8:47 AM) was up before my comment (8:21 AM), but now it is posted after. Is that just on my computer?
I am a long time community activist, a retired state worker, a senior
and a member of the Senior Citizens Commission. Most importantly, I
reside in one of Davis’ affordable housing complexes.. My neighbors are
a diverse group of ethnicities, religions, races and other retired
folks. Some are graduate students with families and low wage employees
of Davis businesses and UC Davis.
Affordable low income rental units are required in housing developments
by the City’s affordable housing policy. The Wildhorse Ranch rental
costs are set by the City not by the developer. The apartments are 100
percent accessible by way of an elevator, while not limited to age or
disability restrictions. Thus, these apartments are a desirable option
for those with mobility issues. The units have the same green features
as the rest of the housing in Wild Horse Ranch resulting in very low
utility bills. They are accessible to public bus transportation. The
option of living in Davis means a lot to many low income and minimum
wage workers who really cannot afford to commute.
In conclusion, the 191 homes at Wildhorse Ranch are not expected solve
all the housing and commuting problems of Davis. What it does
accomplish is to increase the “living options” which means that more
housing will be available to those who work in Davis but currently
cannot afford to live in Davis. Most of the rentals will go to low
income part-time and minimum wage workers in service businesses such as
restaurants, childcare,etc, Still, it is a needed option.
It is what this small development does that warrants the endorsement of
the Sierra Club and the Sacramento Bee and should result in a resounding
vote to approve Yes on P.
I must add that there is a certain amount of absurdity surrounding the
current discussion by a citizenry which prides itself in being advanced
in setting the standard on housing policy and on environmental issues.
Yet, we currently have a brand new Target, approved by the voters,
opening next to our very own Superfund Cleanup Site. Shoppers are
glowing with excitement. Our Target is a huge success. Time will tell
again just how advanced the voters of Davis are. Will they seize the
opportunity to vote Yes and resume their leadership on smart growth and
the environment?
The time appears messed up because according to my records Crilly’s comment came in 14 minutes before Rich’s.
I do think that Wildhorse ranch is a decent development. I’m going to vote against it, partly because I don’t think it’s necessary to add another 191 units right now. But what bothers me the most is the dishonesty of the Yes On P campaign. If they had been straightforward from the beginning about the true fiscal impacts and the “affordability” issues, I’d probably vote yes. Why is it that developers continue to believe that trying to dupe Davis votes is the only way to get a development approved? It backfired with Covell Village and it’s going to backfire again this time. We want green development, but we also want developers we can trust. Parlin isn’t one of them.
“…does not make any determination on what would be legal if Parlin sold the now much more valuable land with its new residential zoning”
The Parlin Development Corp. website, which WAS linked to the Yes on P website but has now been removed, speaks of its corporate mission as prominently including “flipping” real estate properties.
Crilly – Phrases like “affordable” and “opportunities for first buyers” really are misleading. One justification used for this statement is that “the median price of a house in Davis is 505k so the 421k townhouses are affordable by comparison”. The VERY ambitious green promises sound attractive. However, there are no legal or economic consequences if the 90% GHG reduction claims aren’t reached. There’s never been any attempt to have this proposed project reviewed by an independent authority to confirm that the 90% GHG is achievable. Not even a preliminary application for certification by Parlin Development The 90% GHG promise has never been made or accomplished by any other developer in California. There’s never been any mention of the emissions (and potential parking problems) generated by the approx 400 -600 additional cars making the 3 mile trip downtown.
Davis2 – agree completely. I visited the website and and thought the same thing. One key phrase used was “advocacy for local projects”. Why is the Parlin Development site no longer accessible? The YOP campaign really is clever. Identify the talking points likely to resonate w/ Davis voters. Use the words “affordable” and “green” over and over as a way to get votes.
If this WHR is the cutting edge stellar environmental development it claims to be, why aren’t there more volunteers supporting it? Why is most of the support coming from folks paid to do or who benefit financially?
Suggest we all look carefully at the facts and claims before voting on WHR this coming Tuesday
The “Yes on Measure P” ad in the November 1 edition of The Davis Enterprise lists me as an endorser of Measure P. I did not endorse P, and I did not authorize my name to be used in an ad in favor of P. About three or four weeks ago I told Masud Monfared, the owner of Parlin Development Company that I was not going to take a position on Measure P.
Bill Kopper
[i]There’s never been any mention of the emissions (and potential parking problems) generated by the approx 400 -600 additional cars making the 3 mile trip downtown.[/i]
But they don’t have to go downtown — there’s plenty of parking at Target.
(sour joke, sorry)
According to the Yes on P campaign finance records (for the period from 10/18-10/28/09) they made the following payment:
$ 2,060.00 – Denise Hoffner, Davis, CA 95616
For matter of disclosure, can we ask Ms. Hoffner if she was paid to write this piece also for the Vanguard or did she write for “free”?
NOT A SINGLE PERSON WORKING FOR NO ON P HAS BEEN PAID!
Greg:
“NOT A SINGLE PERSON WORKING FOR NO ON P HAS BEEN PAID!”
Did you vote for Obama for President? He had paid workers. I’ve worked for pay for campaigns, if I weren’t paid, I probably couldn’t have had the time to work on them. I fail to see a problem with that. Now if she were paid $20K or more, then you might have a point, but $2000 is not an obscene amount of money.
[quote]$ 2,060.00 – Denise Hoffner, Davis, CA 95616 [/quote]To me, $2,000 is a lot of money. You could pay the rent for two months of a so-called low-income resident of WHR for that much money.
WHY IS THAT NOT DISCLOSED AT THE TOP OF THIS ARTICLE?
If David Greenwald knew she was a paid employee of the Measure P campaign and did not disclose it, that was a big error in judgment on his part. And if Denise Hoffner did not disclose it to him, which I suspect is the case, she acted unethically in my opinion.
Maybe most people don’t care about conflicts of interest, but I do. I would NEVER write a Davis Enterprise column about a person or organization or business which either has given me money or I have some financial connection to and not disclose that*. Readers can make up their own minds if the financial tie affects the writer’s judgment. However, hiding that connection suggests to me that the writer doesn’t really believe what she is saying. She is just in it for the money. (I feel the same way about members of the City Council who shill for their campaign donors and don’t announce that they took money from them when they are voting on issues which affect those donors.)
*I never have written about any such people or organizations. I endoresed P in my column and have no ties to Parlin or its web of payments.
Rich: It didn’t occur to me, she’s representing the Yes on P Campaign, that should be sufficient disclosure. She’s also acknowledged being a paid worker in a letter to the editor in the Enterprise, and in a post on the Vanguard. So I don’t think it was her intent or my mine to hide the fact that she has been paid. Therefore, while I think you have a legitimate point that it probably should have been mentioned by her or by me, you have taken the point too far, imo.
David:
Yes, I voted for Obama; Obama is a political candidate and political candidates hire individuals to run their campaigns and write material; didn’t your wife hire and pay Bill Ritter (the campaign manager for Yes on P) to run her failed bid for Council, or did he do it for free?
The point I am raising is their should be disclosure! If you are writing an article as a private citizen (as Mark Siegler and Phil King did for the No on P arguments)that’s fine; but if you are paid (irregardless of how “little” it seems in your opinion)for your opinion, should she not disclose that?
(Rifkin appears to agree with me, and he has already voted Yes on P.)
I am simply pointing out to your re
Apparently Rich Rifkin does not read the newspaper that pays him! I very clearly wrote a letter to the editor a few weeks back saying that I am a paid writer. I have nothing to hide and anyone who knows anything about me knows I don’t do any work I don’t believe in. It’s quite presumptuous to make comments about my ethics when you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.
[quote]Apparently Rich Rifkin does not read the newspaper that pays him! I very clearly wrote a letter to the editor a few weeks back saying that I am a paid writer. [/quote] Apparently Miss Hoffner, you use the moniker “independent thinker” with full irony intended, then.
And for what it’s worth, there are a lot of names which run through The Davis Enterprise. I am sure that I am not the only one who did not recall that you were the paid shill who disclosed the fact that you were paid to write a pro-P letter by Parlin.
My complaint (with you and David) is that this connection was not made here. It is a very important fact which must ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be disclosed when you give your opinions on this topic over which you have a financial interest. Telling me, “oh, I disclosed that in some other place,” is entirely unsatisfactory. You wrote an article for the Vanguard. Disclose your ties to the developer on Vanguard. Not doing so up front, I believe, hurts your credibility and thus your effectiveness as a propagandist.
On the issue of folks being paid, if this were an isolated event that might be different, but the Yes on P campaign has been mostly run and staffed by paid folks. Even at the farmers market, not a place one normally expects to see paid folks, the majority of folks week in and week out at the Yes on P booth are either paid students or member of Masud’s family with an occassional cameo appearance from a volunteer, and some of these folks may have investment interests in the project that have not been disclosed.
It is acceptable to be paid for your work. I am paid when I oppose Wal-Mart, but its always known that I am acting as a paid consultant. One does not normally expect folks writing on blogs, letters to the editor, Op-Ed pieces etc. to be piad and when it happens it is reasonable to disclose that fact. Will it change how people perceive what is said? Some will not care; some will.
On the issue that this is a vote on the project not the campaign–who do you think is running the campaign? If Parlin runs a dishonest or incompetent campaign do you trust them to build a really green project when they have no track record at all? The City is taking a leap of faith on the greeness of this project and we are being asked to trust the developer. I think a dose of healthy skepticism is in order.
Phil King
I agree with all that has been said ‘against’ Denise Hoffner authorship being tramdparent. To me it just increases the distaste for the developers’ MO.
But perhaps more importantly, David, I suggest that you consider adding a subtitle for all types of articles authored by other than you with a sentence about them or how they are linked to the subject. That us how newspapers list authors of op ed pieces.
“On the issue that this is a vote on the project not the campaign–who do you think is running the campaign?”
Couldn’t agree with you more Phil. The campaign is paid for by Parlin Development, and now we have a former mayor of this town (Bill Kopper) blogging that his name was used by the Yes on P campaign as an endorser, even though he told Masud he was not endorsing it. Who made the decision to put his name in the ad as endorser, Ritter or Masud?
Also, thanks Phil (and Mark Siegler), for all your work in writing pieces for No on P for the Vanguard, Enterprise, and ballot statements for FREE! (this despite the fact you both are full-time professors and fathers!)
This is the last bit of energy I’m wasting on this nonsense today: For the record, I frankly wasn’t event aware that my name or anyone’s name was going to be listed as the “author” of the closing statement. I figured that each campaign was submitting a closing statement. Period. I think calling me a “shill” is rude and name-calling. I’ve now disclosed that I was paid. Why don’t you disclose what makes you so nasty?
Ok…I changed my mind–one more post because I take all of this more seriously than I probably should but it must be nice to be a full-time professor and be able to do all of your activism for free. In case you wanted some more disclosure I am a single mom whose annual income qualifies me for low-income housing. You all should really think more about the actual human beings you’re mouthing off about.
Independent thinker are you Denise Hoffner? If not I am confused!
If you are what did you mean by not knowing your writing was to be use as a ‘closing piece’. With all due respect, did you write it but didn’t know how it would be used? And were you paid for writing it?
SODA: Allow me to unconfuse you (somewhat hopefully). I contacted Bill Ritter from the Yes on P campaign as well as principles of the No on P campaign. He referred me to Denise Hoffner to do a closing piece for the Vanguard. Apparently they had not intended there to be an author on the piece (had I known, I would have insisted), but there was some miscommunication there. As for not declaring her a “paid worker” – I’ll plead guilty on that, it slipped my mind late last night when I posted the two articles. I also think it was common knowledge to some extent, but nevertheless, it should have been put there. I normally do put a subtitle at the bottom of the pieces, but today I thought it was clear this was coming from the campaigns, that was the intent of having the two pieces, allow each side to make their “closing argument.”
Can we get some clarification here Ms. Hoffner please.
You were called a “shill” by Rich Rifkin, who has not worked (or written anything) for the No on P campaign, and has even gone on record as saying he has already voted Yes on P.
[i]It must be nice to be a full-time professor and be able to do all of your activism for free.[/i]
They are at Cal State, so they have furloughs on teaching days. (To be fair, Cal State teaching loads are higher than UC.) So it may be true that they have extra time for something like Measure P, but the implicit cost of that time is very high, it’s basically partial unemployment.
Who cares who is and is not being paid by either campaign. Campaigns pay people all of the time. What is disturbing and does not reflect well for people supporting No on P is the bullying tactics used by some of the people who have posted here attacking people who are working on the campaign paid or not. It’s very unprofessional and quite disturbing.
I happened to look at the literature that was distributed by the No on P campaign and it is very misleading. The literature mentions the 2000 units approved to be built in Davis, but nowhere does it mention that 1500 + units are on UC Davis owned land. That is very, very dishonest and VERY misleading.
I also know people who are being bullied into taking their Yes on P signs down. I won’t mention the name of the bully because they know who they are but the whole thing is disturbing. I have already spoken with 3 people who were bullied.
Why can’t people simply be for or against an issue?
I think people need to check themselves and ask if there is something lacking in their lives that they have to appear as bullies and hate mongers. Get some class.
There is a full moon tonight, but that’s no excuse for spewing venomous words at people back off and stick to the issues.
Denise –
The reasons you mention are very good reasons to support this project. I have already voted and I voted Yes. This is a good project that will set a new standard for Davis.
“On the issue that this is a vote on the project not the campaign…”
Since there are no penalties for non-compliance in the baseline development agreement being presented to us for our Measure P vote, the credibility and trustworthiness of Parlin’s “promises” are a critical part of the voter’s decision. I’m afraid that Parlin has dismally failed this test of credibility and trustworthiness based upon the Measure P campaign that he has run.
“Affordability
The Measure P project consists of 191 homes, 40 or 21% consisting of rentals serving low-income families.”
“40 of those units are restricted low-income people.”
Denise’s statement, in the body of the post and repeated in the first comment (posted under her pseudonym) is incorrect. Again, the proponents of WHR have misused the term “affordable.”
There is no requirement that the 40 units be for low-income families. They need only be priced to be affordable to people making 80 – 120% of the median income of Yolo County. “Low-income” is something entirely different.
Throughout this campaign the proponents have misused the terms affordable, workforce housing, and low-income housing.
WHR provides no more “affordable” housing than any other development in Davis is required to provide. In fact, due to the density of the development they are allowed to provide less (20%) than other less-dense developments which are required to provide 25%.
For the non-rental part of WHR, you will need an annual income of nearly $100,000 to purchase the lowest-priced townhouses.
[quote]I think calling me a “shill” is rude and name-calling.[/quote] I apologize for your misunderstanding. Let me quote the dictionary ([url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill[/url]):
[b]shill, n.[/b] [i]a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.[/i] [quote] I’ve now disclosed that I was paid. Why don’t you disclose what makes you so [u]nasty[/u]? [/quote] Do you know what nasty ([url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nasty[/url]) means, Denise? Nothing I’ve said here even remotely qualifies as impertinent, let alone nasty. It seems as if you are upset by my statement, [i]”And [u]if[/u] Denise Hoffner did not disclose it to him, which I suspect is the case, she acted unethically in my opinion.”[/i] That is not uncivil or insolently rude. Nondisclosure of a conflict of interest is a very serious ethical violation. It seems to have been revealed that your publisher, David Greenwald, knew you were a shill and he mistakenly did not put that atop this page. Hence, it seems it was more his mistake than yours. But if you re-read my post, you will note I said I did not know which of you failed to disclose this important fact. If my presumption that David would not make such an error upsets you, I apologize.
[quote]Since there are no penalties for non-compliance in the baseline development agreement being presented to us for our Measure P vote, the credibility and trustworthiness of Parlin’s “promises” are a critical part of the voter’s decision. [/quote] I don’t believe this is correct. As with any permitting process, the builder must meet the requirements of his agreement to get a permit for construction and a CoA for occupancy. All of the penalties in the Municipal Code of Davis ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/[/url]) will apply to Parlin or whoever is involved in construction of WHR. There is no provision of the agreement which alters that condition.
Take a long look at the final development agreement ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/CDD/projects/wildhorse/pdfs/Final City Council on Wildhorse Ranch.pdf[/url]), which you can read in full here. It says this on page 11 of 171:
[i]”The Wildhorse Ranch project is required to develop in a manner consistent with these Base Line Features. As provided for in Measure J, the Base Line Features may not be changed without approval by the voters of the City.”[/i]
The Base Line Features are laid out in that document on pages 7-10 of 171.
Rich, I’m not sure why you suspected that D. Hoffner did not disclose to
David that she gets paid? (“which I suspect is the case”). What grounds do you have for making this statement? It’s like it came out of nowhere.
I’m guessing it’s for dramatic effect. I think David’s explanation of what happened is sound, and I do appreciate your final comment on this topic, that it was more David’s error. Now I’d like to know why you voted Yes on P? (Which I plan to do). What were your main reasons for doing so? (You may have answered this question in a recent column. If so, forgive me, I’ve been out of town and need to catch up on some reading). Thanks.
To all those against Measure P…looks like you have gotten yours already. You own your own home with a huge yard. You want your real estate value to stay high. You are falling for real estate pro’s and other developers who have an incentive to keep this project down. You don’t care about the environment, if you did you would endorse this project whole heartedly. THIS is an imperative project, both for the earth, and our children. I want to be able to have the luxury of living an environmentally responsible lifestyle. I as well as regular people should be able to live in a place like this.
Eco-friendliness needs to be mainstreamed and not just a lifestyle that only some fringe hippies and uber rich people can afford. I don’t know if you’ve been looking at recent sales in Davis, but a house on a street recently sold for 750,000 dollars. So in comparison to the rest of Davis, Wild horse is affordable. This house by the way didn’t have solar and is not in the least eco friendly.
People have to live somewhere, there needs to be development…responsible development. It’s only 191 units…they will plant trees on 40% of the land. Parlin is going for PLATINUM LEED CERTIFICATION…
Look environmentalism is not just a luxurious gucci bag you own and prevent the rest of the world of having the same thing.
I wrote a letter to the DAVIS enterprise and I AM NOT BEING PAID BY anyone for my support. I’ve been putting up signs and campaigning for this project.
THe low income units will not cost the city of Davis anything because parlin development will be incurring the costs associated with building them so don’t believe the hype and vote yes on measure P.
WE NEED IT…we really do. Put aside the pettiness and think of the big picture…this does set a huge precedent and serves as a good example for the rest of the world to follow.
People are going to build, they might as well build green and THIS IS THE POINT!!!
ps…if the enterprise endorsed target.. and if we voted in target then we sure as hell can vote in this project.
WHERE was all the opposition to the TARGET????????? Let me guess,,,, you didnt’ want to drive to woodland to buy your cheap mass produced crap, yet you’re opposing this project???
hypocrits
TO Rich,
So what if Denise is paid for the campaign. She believes in the project and can’t sell something she doesn’t believe in. I have been volunteering for the campaign because I believe in in.
PS. have you looked on who’s on the no campaign? What’s in it for the city planner of vacaville to defeat this project??? THink about it.
do you own a home in davis? how much did you pay for it? is it sustainable? how big is your yard? did you know that at one point in time, your house was built on farmland? if you live in an apartment, that too was built on farmland.
what’s your solution on where people can live? where do you think we should live? in shacks? small expensive overcrowded cubicles we call apartments? so everyone else must live small cramped loud smoky apartments, but you get your nice big unsustainable house?
these are questions i pose to all those opposed to measure p. i’ve meant many students, most who live in nice big houses, and will be moving on to buy their own home in the future who have fallen for the ridiculous no on p campaign.
people are so dumb
The first question to ask is do we need more housing? The central thesis of the 2000 homes are enough campaign is that we have enough housing in the pipeline, including the UC Davis housing. We have always disclosed that is part of our figure. SACOG counts UC Davis; the UC Davis development is true “workforce hosuing” where all residents work in the City, unlike WHR. It also takes the pressure off of wxisting hosuing for non-UC Davis folks so it really does help even folks who are not affiliated with the University. It is also closer to downtown in campus.
At some point Davis will need more housing and we support green development. Part of green development is lowering the reliance on cars which menas locating closer to work and shopping (or putting in shopping/work as part of the project)–there is nothing in WHR about that.
“The Wildhorse Ranch project is required to develop in a manner consistent with these Base Line Features. As provided for in Measure J, the Base Line Features may not be changed without approval by the voters of the City.”
Rich…As I indicated in my previous post, Harriet Steiner’s analysis states that the Davis voter will have another vote on the WHR project if it fails to SUBSTANTIALLY meet the baseline agreements at the time of FULL BUILD- OUT. “Substantially” is clearly open to interpretation(I assume by the Council majority) and allowing Davis voters to vote on accepting the project at “full build-out”(will a NO vote then tear down the project, return the land to its original condition with an agricultural zoniong?) is obviously unenforceable as are most of the campaign “promises” that the Yes on P campaign has been pitching.
Melanie: The vast majority of No on P folks opposed Target and many of the key organizsers for No on Target are now No on P. I voted against Target and have not been to the new store.
Melanie:
The Target campaign focused a lot of its voter outreach to UC Davis students, including directly passing out campaign flyers on campus, and sending mailers to students, many of whom who voted Yes to Target have left town since its passage, does this sound at all familiar to you with the current Yes on P campaign???
Wow, what a hit on students. Who are all those happy shoppers at Target? Where do they come from?
[quote]Rich, I’m not sure why you suspected that D. Hoffner did not disclose to David that she gets paid? (“which I suspect is the case”). What grounds do you have for making this statement?[/quote] I answered that above. I suspected that because I thought David had better judgment than he used in not disclosing it atop the piece.
[quote]So what if Denise is paid for the campaign. She believes in the project and can’t sell something she doesn’t believe in. I have been volunteering for the campaign because I believe in in. [/quote] If someone has a financial interest in a project and is shilling for it, there is nothing illegal or immoral or wrong with that. I am all for the profit motive in free enterprise. But it is crucial that people who are being paid to express their views let their audience know what is going on up front. Otherwise, the opinions expressed appear to be disingenuous. Imagine if, in my newspaper column, I recommended a great cafe in Davis to have a cup of coffee in, but I never mentioned that I was being paid by the cafe owner to give him a positive review. Or imagine if Enterprise film critic Derrick Bang took money from film producers to give positive reviews of their films. Would you not, as a reader, feel like a fast one was being pulled on you?
I don’t think your analogy is a good one. In this case the question is whether there is a difference between volunteering for a campaign versus being a paid worker for the campaign. I’ve known a lot of paid campaign workers in my day, I have never met a mercenary who did it strictly for the money. They generally believed in the candidate or cause.
“I thought David had better judgment than he used in not disclosing it atop the piece.”
Why can it just be that I did something at midnight on Halloween evening and was tired and made a mistake?
davisite2: For what it’s worth, I am skeptical (as you seem to be) of the 90% GHG reduction promise. I don’t doubt this figure because of Parlin or Talbott or any of the others involved in this project, or because of the nature of the baseline agreement. My skepticism arises because I am aware that there is a long history with so-called green building technologies which have made fantastic promises with regard to energy efficiencies, and then as time has played out, these so-called green buildings — in the cases I am thinking of, they are all LEED certified — don’t live up to the hype. But that said, they are better than a standard building; and I am very certain the WHR homes will be more energy efficient than the homes planned for other parts of town. I think WHR will set a new standard for building in Davis. That’s one of the reasons I support it.
As far as there being a problem with “substantially” meeting the terms of the agreement, I don’t think there is too much to worry about, because the city has had dozens of developments with pretty much that exact same language and it has never created a problem, including in the case of Wild Horse, where the designer of the project sold the development prior to build out.
“As far as there being a problem with “substantially” meeting the terms of the agreement, I don’t think there is too much to worry about…”
You have overlooked the critical point,i.e, that the original Wildhorse agreement was before Measure J was in place. It is certain that the city staff and Council majority will be going to any lengths to NOT have to make the determination that the WHR project is not in “substantial” compliance with the baseline agreeement at the time of full build-out. Parlin is counting on this “flexibility” of the city staff and Council majority and is the most plausible explanation why he has been so willing to agree to the non-enforceable caveats that the Council has added to the baseline agreement.
Greg K – the Target parking joke was pretty sad (but I did laugh).
Melanie – I don’t understand your comments. Right now, there are plenty of nice places for people to live. If you think 450k for a townhouse is affordable, you can buy a nice 3/2 house w/ a backyard where you can grow veggies. Put some solar panels on it. More insulation in the attic. Use CFL’s. Actually ride a bike because it’s closer to downtown than WHR. No new development on the edge of town.
Rich – the heavily advertised “affordability” and “green” claims are red flags for me on WHR. If a developer isn’t honest up front, why should I believe that he’ll follow thru on the promises? It’s one of the reasons I intend to vote no.
[quote]It is certain that the city staff and Council majority will be going to any lengths to NOT have to make the determination that the WHR project is not in “substantial” compliance with the baseline agreeement at the time of full build-out. [/quote] I have far more faith in the professionalism of the city staff, high and low.
Keep in mind that on all of the small issues which arise, the yes-no decisions will be made by lower-level staffers. They are well trained (and generally very well paid) to apply the rules to all projects. It’s an everyday thing for inspectors. (I had the experience of dealing with City of Davis inspectors a few years back when I changed my sewage line. To my angst, the inspector followed the rules to a tee.)
I can’t imagine any problem with any big issues. The baseline calls for:[quote]• Up to 73 Single Family Homes.
• Up to 78 Town Homes.
• Up to 40 Apartment Homes of which 38 will be affordable to very low and low income households.
• Notwithstanding the forgoing the total market rate units for the project shall not be less than 136.[/quote] No one will violate those provisions. The next “big” provision of the baseline says: [quote] • The project shall reduce its Green House Gas emissions by 90% below the base line established by the City of Davis in its Resolution #09-043 regarding Green House Gas reductions. The entire 90% reduction shall be accomplished on site. [/quote] No doubt the architectural plans that are built out will follow this intention. The question I raised above is that five years after build-out, I would not be surprised to learn that the GHG reduction is less than 90%. But you cannot blame the city staff for that. That’s just the nature of human plans not always living up to expectations.
None of the other provisions is hard to understand or enforce: [quote] • An approximately 1.61 acres of greenbelt providing connection from the existing neighborhood to the west through the property to the agricultural buffer on the east side of the property. This property is to be dedicated to the City for ownership and maintenance.
• An approximately 2.26 acre addition to the existing Urban Agricultural Transition Area bringing the total width of this area to 200’ thus creating a definable edge to the City. This area is to be dedicated to the City for ownership and maintenance.
• An approximately 4.4 acre open space area to be planted with trees and ground cover to provide a location for passive enjoyment of open space. Walking paths and bike paths will provide access to the internal pathway system as well at to the citywide bike trail system. This property will be deeded to the future Home Owners Association for ownership and maintenance.
• Dedicate to the City the approximately 1.61 acre parcel for continuation of the City greenbelt
• Dedicate to the City permanent conservation easements on approximately 50 acres of active agricultural land.
• Provide approximately 15.5 acres of Swainson Hawk foraging habitat through the purchase of a Conservation Easement, or payment of mitigation fees to the Yolo County Habitat Joint Powers Agency.
• Dedicate to the City a 1.92 acre site for the production of up to 40 apartment style homes. 38 of the apartment homes shall be affordable in perpetuity to very low and low income households, income households pursuant to an approved Project Individualized Plan. The 38 units shall be fully ADA accessible.
• Agree to the formation of a community facilities district or other public financing mechanism prior to the recordation of the first final map for the Project to provide for an annual fee or tax on each market rate unit of $300 per year (in 2009 dollars) plus 3% per year thereafter to be used by the City for police services and fire prevention, suppression and emergency medical services.
• Pay to the City of Davis an in-lieu Parkland Dedication fee.
• The project shall also pay fees to the City, the Davis Joint Unified School District or Yolo County as part of the development fees for the project.[/quote]
I am still undecided on this. I would like to see more projects in Davis like what WHR proposes. I find the arguments over who’s getting paid or not to be irrelevant to the merits of the proposal.
But one of the more persuasive arguments for me to vote against this, however, is its location, and this is mentioned in a letter to the editor in the Enterprise today (Monday), online:
Why couldn’t this project be proposed for the cannery site instead of the horse ranch? The cannery is an eyesore and only has use for the Emerson carnival. I would appreciate comments on this idea. Thanks.
There is a need for the carnival to run year round to help the school budget. secondly, Parlin does not own the Cannery site. I understand that Whitcome does and he has far greater plans for that site and the rest of the Covell Village site than the small WHR proposal. You will hear alot about it after the vote tomorrow.
wdf1: For what it is worth here is my opinion. Although yes on P has called WHR infill, its on the periphery of town with about 38% of the project exposed directly to Ag land. If you go out there and walk around, you really do feel like you are in the country.
I think we need to focus on real infill and brownfields first. Having the city require that future development be green makes sense and we should all push for that. Part of being green is not paving over Ag land if possible and also placing housing closer to work and shopping.
Phil, how many of the folks in Wildhorse are living close to where they work and shop? The real issue is giving people options but their decisions are personal otherwise the people who commute should live where they work. I do not believe that No on P is giving the real reasons for their opposition or at least they are not being logical.
WDF: For one thing Cannery was a 600 unit project without the green and sustainability features.
Please help me understand?!
From the time this project has been endorsed by Sierra Club, Sierra Club has been attacked by some, so called intelligent citizen of Davis.
The Sierra Club’s endorsement relates to solely on the project being environmentally friendly as compared to the major majority of projects developed in the past. I have seen some opponent of the project including Davis Enterprise agreeing with sierra Club on the project being environmentally friendly.
If you go to a heart specialist and ask him to check your heart and he/she says your heart is ok, then you tell everyone the heart specialist is stupid because he did not fix my broken legs, wouldn’t you think you are being unfair to the doctor?!
Rich… You seem to cut this project a remarkable amount of slack, i.e. you acknowledge the hyping of its GHG reduction scheme, the type of campaign that it has run which SHOULD seriously erode the credibility of the “promises” that have been offered to the Davis voter for their Yes vote, the affordability con-job. You then dismiss the very issue that is the center piece of their hyped campaign narrative, namely 90% GHG emission reduction on-site, as a “small” issue of no real importance in your decision. As to your argument that the assessment of this project’s “substantial” compliance with the baseline agreement will be made by mid-level city staff, you are dreaming here. It will be made by the Council majority and Bill Emlen, the boss of the city staff. We only have to remember how Paul Navazio was humiliatingly “sent back to his desk” to recalculate his fiscal assessment of this project(the same thing happened with his Covell Village fiscal analysis) when the Council majority was unhappy with it.
At this point, there are about 54 comments made on the Yes on P article and 8 on No on P article. All written by about 20 of us? Any ideas about how many minds were made up or changed by us?
[i]”You seem to cut this project a remarkable amount of slack” [/i]
Thank you.
[i]”you acknowledge the hyping of its GHG reduction scheme”[/i]
I do.
[i]”the type of campaign that it has run”[/i]
I do.
[i]”which SHOULD seriously erode the credibility of the promises that have been offered to the Davis voter for their Yes vote”[/i]
That’s not true. It SHOULD not, because the developer is entering into a legal agreement. This is not about a handshake promise.
[i]”the affordability con-job.”[/i]
I don’t blame the developer, really, for the low-income set aside b.s. It’s not his fault that the city requires developers to include this nonsense. (And really, does anyone think $1,000 a month for rent for a 1-bedroom apartment in Davis is submarket? The City sets the caps on these things, not the developer/owner.)
I do agree that the “REALLY AFFORDABLE” advertising slogan for these homes is misleading. A nice, brand new place with all the green features is not going to be affordable to a lot of people, and certainly not to people who are making minimal wages in one of David Greenwald’s favorite locally-owned non-union downtown retailers. However, I don’t think it’s my business to worry about that.
The people who ultimately purchase the homes in WHR will be people who can (in their judgment and in the judgment of their bankers) afford the homes. We have a market-rate system and that determines what affordable housing is. The commenters who have been crying about $425,000 townhouses make no sense to me. If that price is too high, the units won’t sell and the price will come down.
[i]”You then dismiss the very issue that is the center piece of their hyped campaign narrative, namely 90% GHG emission reduction on-site, as a ‘small’ issue of no real importance in your decision.”[/i]
I have never dismissed anything about the on-site aspects of the baseline agreement. The legal document requires them on-site and I have no doubt they will be. I also don’t doubt the intentions of Parlin or Talbott. I am sure the construction plans they submit will show 90% GHG reductions. What I know (from reading about the topic), however, is that [i]”the best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men, Gang aft agley; An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain, For promis’d joy!”[/i]
Nothing is ever good enough for you hard lined liberals. I’m a liberal but not ridiculous in my thought process.
Have you seen how much land the homes that have No on P signs take up? It’s ridiculous that these people call themselves “green” but really all they really care about is keeping their big homes to themselves and letting every one else live in small apartments.
I had a long conversation with James Schwab and he rents a HOUSE in Sac. His parents were lucky enough to buy their house for 16,000. It’s a huge house that takes up lots of land that could have been used otherwise for agriculture.
James’s solution was to build apartments in the city limits. Gee thanks so everyone else except you has to live in cramped apartments..he didn’t even call for the infil projects to be green. The only argument they have is taking so called agricultural space out of commission.
Look people i don’t know what the big ideal is… it’s only 191 homes. the land it’s being built on is tiny.. they offer a real solution to putting our money where our mouth in, with regards to green housing. None of the no on p folks have solar panels. they are just a bunch of greedy republican hypocrits who want to own environmentalism for themselves, but not make it a reality for others.
look people, being green should be allowed for everyone, this is a guccy bag you hold on for yourself.
This truly is an intentional community. it makes it mainstream which is what HAS TO HAPPEN> WE NEED TO MAINSTREAM ENVIRONMENTALISM OTHER WISE IT WILL NEVER BECOME A REALITY FOR THE AMERICAN CONSUMER
You ppl need to stop being so greedy and selfish and vote yes on P so others can live up to your green standars… and who knows, maybe you can start practicing what you preach
To Jim Watson,
there will be 40 units set aside for affordability. 719 + utilities for a 2 bedroom. Utilities will be next to nothing. so that’s even cheaper than other affordable apartments in davis. i don’t have 350 thousand or 450 thousand or 650 thousand(this was the price of the so called green infill houses near the school district offices.)
I saw a house on A street sell for 750k. with no solar panels.
I’m voting yes on this because I support promoting green projects like this not just for Davis but for all the country and world. This type of project will become the norm and not the exception. if ppl are going to build and grow we should build it green.
I also want the chance to live in these apartments so that I too can realize the dream of green living.
i don’t want to live at the n street coop… i want my own space and i’m sure you have your own space, so you can’t tell everyone else how to live without practicing what you preach.
and if you do live in a coop or intentional community good for you, but ppl like me should be able to have choices as should others.
VOTE YES ON P!!yayyyy
[quote]there will be 40 units set aside for affordability. $719 + utilities for a 2 bedroom[/quote] I don’t know your source for that rental price for the low-income units. It is about 66% of what the City lists on its website: 1,080 for 2-bedrooms for the 2007-08 fiscal year. If you inflate that by 3% per annum*, in 2012 when perhaps these apartments will be available, $1,080 goes up to $1,216/month.
*I don’t know what annual inflator the City uses for restricted income rentals.
I was skeptical at first about the Wildhorse Project. I couldn’t see how in the world it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% with all those extra cars. (After reading this blog, I realize others are skeptical too). And affordability means different things to different people. But then I started talking to the No on P folks, and I noticed they were responding in a kind of reactionary manner, almost paranoia, using the word “developer” as if it was a scourge, a plague, something to be gotten rid of. And many volunteers could not discuss the details of the 2000 units already approved (474 faculty units, and over 1000 student units. Only 541 City units were approved). Furthermore, I found out to my dismay that the university destroyed habitat to start their project. Wildhorse relocated burrowing owls, they didn’t kill them.
Also, in yesterday’s Enterprise, I found an interesting quote: “In the end, city staff concluded that the project would neither hurt the city financially, nor would it create a profit–but it does offer non-monetary benefits for the community.” In my mind, some of those benefits include “40% of site reserved as forested open space, passive solar design, smart meters, solar hot water heaters, plug-ins in every garage for electric and hybrid vehicles, and preservation of Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat.” Finally, Wildhorse is a small project, but it can be a model for eco-friendly housing in this state and across the country. I am voting tomorrow, and I’m voting Yes on P. I hope others do too.
“And affordability means different things to different people.”
“Affordable housing” has a specific meaning which is in the city code. The townhouses at WHR are not affordable by any definition. The claims of affordability for WHR are among the most egregious distortions in this campaign, with the latest example just three posts up on this thread.
“I found out to my dismay that the university destroyed habitat to start their project.”
What do you mean by this — the destruction of the ground squirrel burrows? I’m a farmer. I can assure you, we have no shortage of ground squirrels. Everything is habitat. Do you think WHR won’t destroy habitat? This is a total non-issue.
Melanie – The rent will be much higher than $719/month. The “tiny piece of land” is 23 acres. This project will add approx 400-600 new cars. There are many “No on P” signs in smaller yards. What’s a Gucci bag anyway? I do have a $10 saddlebag for my $45 garage sale bike.
Vote early, vote often.
Watson: Will it really add new cars? I guess that depends on where the people lived before, if they lived out of town and worked in Davis, it will actually subtract traffic.
Desparado: Unfortunately, I see more daily car miles. If the out of towners now live at WHR, they may commute to work locally (and Sacto of course). They may drive to the Nugget to shop (1-2 miles each way) and do errands/socialize in the downtown area (3 miles each way). There’s lots of empty talk about bike use in Davis. Truth is that it’s declining steadily.
191 units x 2 cars/unit = 382 potential vehicles. 191 units x 3 cars (probably more realistic) = 573 vehicles. These may be driven to the Nugget, to dinner, to the hardware and to the movies. It does have an environmental impact.
Not including the potential additional car emissions in the WHR green promises doesn’t provide a complete picture. There’s also the impact on downtown parking which is already an issue.