Regardless of the actual intentions, this represents a serious effort to muck up the waters on what would have been clear sailing for a pure renewal of the measure that enjoys around 75% support, a similar level of support as the last project was voted down.
“I hope that the city council will see the merit in placing two measures before the public on the June ballot with the directions that whichever got the most votes became law. I think that most of the voters will want a modification of Measure J so that the vote occurs earlier in the process and not so much of our time and money is wasted on projects that have little chance of passing a Measure J vote.”
In fact, both the council, the framers, and the public have expressed the very strong desire to renew Measure J as is.
The questions about his motivation are rather simple. Kevin Wolf was a very strong proponent and worked hard on the original Covell Village project. That project known as Measure X was defeated handily by a 60-40 vote. The most recent Measure J project, Wildhorse Ranch (Measure P) was defeated even more widely by a 75-25 vote. The prevailing wisdom is that the public is strong ly opposed at this time to further development, particularly on the Davis periphery. Moreover the expectation is that the next application for a senior housing development at Covell Village is expected to be submitted in January. It may be that the Covell Village developers are fearful that a new project will not pass another Measure J vote.
Mr. Wolf tips his hand in the op-ed. He writes:
“Measure J did succeed in convincing developers to present better projects to the city council. The Covell Village (Measure X) and Wildhorse Ranch (Measure P) developments were both more innovative and better for the city and residents than we had seen in the past. It helped that the projects now had to include features required by new ordinances such as the new general plan requirements for habitat and agricultural land preservation, green building codes, affordable housing percentages and more.”
Ironically enough, despite that statement he was a strong opponent of Measure P. He continues:
“But Measure J has not done what we had hoped it would in terms of creating strong council and public support for projects that have gone through the City process in preparation for a Measure J vote. The city council has been split in its decisions and a lot of division has been created in the campaigns for and against the ballot measures.”
In other words, he is hoping this new process creates public support for projects that have gone through the city process.
Moreover,
“Measure J also did not envision the successful work of the city’s Housing Element committee, which I chaired in 2007/08.”
And:
“City staff spent so much time on the low rated Cannery and Wildhorse Ranch projects that they haven’t made progress on nearly any of the highest ranked projects…”
It will be interesting to see where he comes down on the next Covell Village since that was rated lower than both Cannery and Wildhorse Ranch.
He then concludes that Measure J should be used early in the process as the first test of the project.
“While Measure J still has an important role in our planning process, we have learned a lot since its inception, most recently with Measure P, which is what prompted me to act at this critical juncture before Measure J is renewed “as is”.
Measure J should be used early in the process as the project’s first test. Applicants should submit a pre-application created in part on the guidelines outlined by the Housing Committee. These guidelines and the other desired information can be refined by the City Council and then the proposed development can be placed on the ballot if the City Council feels the project has merit. The vote should be about the location, the type of housing, the timing of build out, and key issues that would be important to set (above and beyond what is already in city code) as requirements for the project. Why should we waste our time and resources planning these projects if they do not have broad public support in the beginning?”
The danger with this process is that the devil is always in the details. The public and neighbors would no longer have the say in the final guidelines. They would lose their leverage in the process.
“If a project passes a Measure J vote, we can work together as a community to make it the best development possible and recapture our reputation as innovators rather than the dysfunctional City we have become; a city that spends huge amounts of staff and volunteer time, wastes millions of dollars and has to live through nasty campaigns to vote on projects that voters clearly don’t want.”
This is a very dangerous suggestion. We have seen how it plays out with a project that does not have a Measure J vote–Chiles Ranch. There, the neighbors had no leverage at all and struck a deal on the development parameters only to have the city and the city council renege on that agreement between neighbors and developers. Is Mr. Wolf aware of that?
This week, we see the same problem. The neighbors of Willowbank have a long list of problems. They were able to get council to reconsider the issue of a buffer, but their problems go far beyond that. They lack the power of a Measure J vote however to force the developers to give them a better project and that is the same problem that will present itself with Kevin Wolf’s proposal.
So I see two potential problems here. First, I think, having competing measures harms Measure J and brings to a boil the type of conflict that Mr. Wolf claims to want to avoid. The public has been very consistent that they want Measure J as is, no changes, not watered down. Measure J from the public’s perspective has worked. It has enabled the public to defeat projects that the council majority has supported.
Second, I think this is a particularly bad proposal. It allows for what would be an approval in concept before the details are hammered out. It is interesting that Mr. Wolf claims he worked this up from what happened during P, because one of the big contentious issues during P was the extent to which the developers had to produce what they said they were going to produce. Now Mr. Wolf is basically saying, the developers can promise anything during a campaign and not be held to it because the council will determine the final project design. That is a huge mistake.
The third possibility is even worse. Reading the proposal, it might at times require two Measure J votes.
He writes:
“If a project gets the support of the voters based on the set of guidelines, we would then proceed through the multi-year planning process to craft project details and conduct the CEQA environmental impact analysis. This would empower the volunteers on the commissions and encourage public debate. The final project entitlements and development agreement would then come before the council for their approval or denial. If the council changes anything that was required in the Measure J vote, the whole project would have to go back for another public vote.”
Obviously that would be a severe disadvantage for the citizens who lack the money and resources to challenge a measure. And if he wants to avoid the kind of turmoil, this would seem the wrong day to do it.
The bigger problem is that if he is not doing a final design, then the Measure J vote is not going to have the kinds of fine details that it has now. He is going to rely on the council to hammer out those details, something that the spirit of Measure J avoids. Measure J puts these details into the hands of the public, not the council.
If Mr. Wolf wants a discussion–well he can have one, but I do not think it is going to go how he wants it to go. To me, this is an exceptionally bad idea. It is clear that his idea attempts to make project passage easier in future Measure J votes. I see no reason to do that. This is going to be the first attempt among many to water down or defeat Measure J. We all know why that is the case–Covell Village II is coming and the developers are scared by what happened with both Measure X and Measure P.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David:
I largely agree with your comments here. This appears to be a ploy to water down Measure J. How can people vote on a project without an EIR, without a baseline and without having many aspects of the project vetted? If we want to save money developers and the CC could stop putting forth projects that are soundly defeated by Davis voters.
Further, even with all of these details developers still exagerate or outright lie. One can only imagine the claims that would be made by developers only to have a City Council majority that loves developers put something together which is completely against the interests of the people who live in Davis (even those who want growth).
This City Council cannot be trusted. My real concern here is that this is also a ploy to divert attention away from the key issue–changing the City Council majority.
Agree w/ Phil. Three members of the current City Council continue to arrogantly ignore our concerns. Kevin Wolf’s proposal gives CC to determine the final design of a proposed project. That is a big mistake.
Kevin Wolfe is a courtier in the royal court of king Whitcombe. His Aggie article at the tail-end of the Measure X campaign, publicly making the accusation that Stan Forbes was being paid(by whom?) to oppose his benefactor’s Covell Village project, was unique in the level of vitriol launched at the No on X campaign. This idea of his about a second Measure J ballot measure is going NOWHERE on the Council dais. It is unquestionably political suicide for any current council member or potential candidate to support such a proposal. I suppose he could try to get enough signatures for an initiative to alter Measure J but I seriously doubt that he would be successful.
I like Sue Greenwald’s idea she put forth re: Willowbank project and it may work here. That is, get the property owner, planning commission, neighbors, public, and City Council together at the beginning of the process so there is a better understanding first and save us all the hassle when a project does not have support in the end. I am not sure about the details in Mr. Wolf’s proposal but if we can vote down these housing sprawls early so much the better. Do you really think the outcome would be any different? I am sick of hearing all the “details” from developers for these projects that have no support in first place. I also noticed that The Cannery project is included in Wolf’s proposal- maybe his only good idea.
Years ago, Kevin Wolff worked for a while with a Community coalition of Woodland and Davis residents to resolve the impact of gravel mining corporations on Cache Creek. Then, he switched sides to support the County Supervisors Measure D, Deep Pits, that eventually won the vote to allow the gravel corporations to excavate a number of huge pits to the side of the Creek with a whole other set of harms.
[quote]Kevin Wolf’s proposal gives CC (the authority) to determine the final design of a proposed project. [/quote] How is that a change? In the Wildhorse Ranch proposal, for example, was it not the CC which approved “the final design of a propoed project”?
I really don’t understand this proposal. It seems to me (somebody correct me if I’m wrong) that the city council presently can vote to annex or change the zoning of a parcel, thereby indicating that it would potentially be developed. Such a vote would trigger a Measure J vote, so the public could weigh in at that time on the general idea of peripheral development of a parcel without knowing the details of any proposal.
More commonly the council is responding to a specific proposal that would require annexation of zoning.
Perhaps Kevin can post here with more information about what he is proposing, and what advantages (if any) it would have over a straight-up renewal of J.
The Cannery project is included in Wolf’s proposal
I suspect Wolf’s push here is precisely because the rumors of a CV Partners purchase might be true. The CC poisoned the development by 1) their failure to insist on conformance to zoning; and 2) insisting a non-Measure J project be tied to one unlikely to be developed for years.
I really believe the Measure J renewal (in its current form) vs. some new modified version (whcih favors developments) or outright rejection of renewal will be a major “litmus test” for all CC candidates next year, including Joe Krovoza and potentially Sidney Vergis, and who else we’ll see.
Voters should be asking the candidates what form of Measure J renewal (if at all) do they support…with 75% rejection of Measure P and 60% rejection of Measure X, it will be interesting to see what candidate is in support of a) altering Measure J or b) rejecting its renewal.
Measure J has strong majority support in Davis. Measure X went down in flames. Measure P went down in even more flames. Politically and legally, the anti-growth movement in Davis is a winner that will probably still win for a long time. It has its ducks in a row.
Yet for all that, the movement is oddly defensive and fractious at the top. Why? Keeping people out of one of the best-planned and environmentally enlightened cities in the entire United States ultimately fails as a progressive cause. Not to mention, closing ranks against students at an important public university. However popular it may be, this movement is a meager source of pride. No one wants to admit it, but it’s obvious.
Greg K:
Suppose we agree with your premise that slow growthers are keeping university folks out, even though the West Village project will serve UC Davis for some time.
Measure J only stops peripheral growth. All of the urban planning articles and texts I have read talk about the importance of reducing sprawl and placing housing near downtown and workplaces. Measure J makes it more difficult (OK extremely difficult) for developers to buy cheap Ag land and turn it into housing. That sounds like very good planning to me.
Perhaps you have a different reading list–what urban planning school endorses building on Ag land on the periphery (both CV and WHR) when infill is available?
Greg, so true. We cry for project details as an excuse, but in all honesty the mere mention of a project is enough for a “NO” vote. What more information do we need, if its housing its DOA. It becomes obvious when we criticize green projects as not as green as no project. Easy for us to say, comfortably in our homes.
Traditionally, when people put a second, watered-down version of a measure on a ballot, the result (and usually the purpose) is to confuse voters, to split the vote between the proposals hoping that both will go down, or at least that the watered-down version will pass.
I see no logical reason to have citizens vote on a project before they know what the project will be. What I do know is that it will remove any leverage the citizens have in negotiating the project and will allow developers to put project after project on the ballot.
Citizens are always at a disadvantage in campaigns against big money interests. Grass-roots politics is very difficult. Citizens are outspent a hundred to one, and the moneyed interests can present any arguments in favor of a project that they can dream up, no matter how blatantly untrue.
If developers can put projects on the ballot with no investment in time, money and planning, then fast growth councils will be able to put so many projects on the ballot that citizens will be worn down, and will not have the energy to engage in the difficult task of reaching voters with truthful information.
Kevin Wolf refers to the City as currently “dysfunctional”. Yet this “dysfunctional” city was recently featured in Sunset Magazine as an idyllic “20 minute city”, i.e., a city where one can walk, bike, and reach any destination in only 20 minutes.
The reason that Davis is an idyllic “20 minute city” is that the citizen activists have been able to control growth. If it weren’t for the citizen activists and now, for Measure J, this city would not have the quality reputation that we enjoy today.
The proposal that Kevin Wolf is proposing is not for the benefit of Davis citizens but clearly for the benefit of the developers with land that is designated ag land (or open space) who wish to develop.
Mark Spencer, Pam Nieberg, and I initiated the drafting of Measure J years ago and we worked with a number of other concerned Davis citizens. The group was known as the “Davis Visioning Group”. I do not remember Kevin playing any major role in the drafting of Measure J. In fact, what I do remember was that on that election night when Measure J was on the ballot when we were being interviewed on DCTV that Kevin was rather enthusiastically predicting that Measure J would fail. Fortunately, he was wrong. Mark, Pam, and I ran the Yes on Measure J campaign and we had quite a battle on our hands since we were up against big money thrown into the “No on Measure J” campaign by local developers like Whitcombe.
I was also a member of the Housing Element Steering Committee, like Kevin, and our job was simply to rank sites that could potentially be developed. Kevin’s bold but rather transparent recommendation to change Measure J seems to be because some of his favorite sites for development, like Covell Village and Nishi are not moving ahead for development. So now he wants change the rules (i.e. Measure J) to get these developments to happen.
Kevin’s proposed version of Measure J is only “new and improved” for the developers, not the citizens of Davis. To try to get a pre-mature approval before even knowing the impacts and the specifics of the development is illogical and would certainly not be in the best interests of the citizens of Davis.
This “alternative” Measure J proposal is actually removes the purpose of our citizen-based Measure J now in effect. The purpose of Measure J is for the citizens to see what the project is and understand all of its impacts, environmentally AND financially, BEFORE placing it on the ballot for them to vote up or down.
[b]El Lobo:[/b] [i]”Ten years ago, city councilmember Sheryl Freeman and I put a lot of time and effort into drafting and then passing Measure J. “[/i]
[b]El Emparedado:[/b] [i]”The group was known as the ‘Davis Visioning Group’. I do not remember Kevin playing any major role in the drafting of Measure J. In fact, what I do remember was that on that election night when Measure J was on the ballot when we were being interviewed on DCTV that Kevin was rather enthusiastically predicting that Measure J would fail.”[/i]
So you are saying Kevin is a Wolf in wolf’s clothing?
I don’t know if Kevin’s proposal is good or not, better than the current Measure J or not. Some folks, however, are very quick to attack him as corrupt when it’s possible that his motives are pure and civic-minded. (I don’t claim to know one way or the other.) Before you make outrageous claims like “Kevin Wolf[s]e[/s] is a courtier in the royal court of king Whitcombe,” I would think you would have better evidence than “Kevin supported Measure X.”
Further, I think it’s reasonable to think it would be beneficial if we developed a process which avoided “spending millions of dollars, and thousands of hours on community outreach, public hearings and campaigns,” only to end up with projects which were “voted down overwhelmingly after nasty and divisive elections.”
Whether Kevin’s suggestion would do that or not I don’t know.
El Verde Bosque: [i]”Traditionally, when people put a second, watered-down version of a measure on a ballot, the result (and usually the purpose) is to confuse voters, to split the vote between the proposals hoping that both will go down, or at least that the watered-down version will pass.”[/i]
That presumes his proposal is “watered down.” Is it not possible that he simply thinks his idea is an improvement?
I personally have a different idea for making the role of commissions stronger in the process; and thereby making it more likely that any proposal passed by the city council will have more widespread support. My idea does not change Measure J. You can read it here ([url]http://www.davisvoice.com/2009/11/creating-a-more-perfect-measure-j/[/url]).
Again our priority should be encouraging candidates to run in the next CC election. Phil you seem so reasonable. Have you considered running.?
And Mark Spencer. I would think his input on the CC would be not only interesting but transformative. Comments?
Suggest we identify and encourage.
And is Don running unopposed? What is the likelihood of that?
I am not following Kevin’s logic. In reference to the Housing Commission, he writes “But the Measure J process that led to Measure P ignored our work.”
There was nothing wrong with the process. The city council ignored their work. Had the council majority followed the commission rankings, WHR would not have gone forward at this time.
Measure J in its current form acts as a check on the decisions by the council. Were a vote to be taken on a more nebulous development proposal, one with only guidelines, it would either give more latitude to staff in allowing the developer to implement changes, or require yet another vote of the public on the same project. Those seem to me to be the only likely outcomes of Kevin’s proposal.
Rich’s suggestions about commission hearings being earlier in the process, and combined hearings, seem perfectly reasonable and could be implemented without any vote of the public. The council just has to say “do it.”
[i]Measure J in its current form acts as a check on the decisions by the council.[/i]
In one direction only.
In response to Rick:
Rick, my posting is intended to set the record straight, so please, let’s not get accusatory. At the Housing Element Steering Committee meetings Kevin made it very clear about his strong preference for the Covell Village site and the Nishi site to be developed. Readers can interpret the information as they wish but it is pretty evident that the changes that Kevin is suggesting would benefit the Covell Village and Nishi owners (note: coincidently, Whitcombe is a major investor in both of these properties).
My response was intended for Rich Rifkin’s posting. (Pardon the typo Rich.)
“In one direction only.”
Of course. It was never intended as a mechanism to open peripheral land for development. So I’m not sure what your point is.
I really am floored that Kevin Wolf is proposing this new measure. To be honest I was thoroughly disgusted that measure P didn’t pass and swore i was going to vote measure J down, next time it came around, but this would only open up for more debilitating projects. I can’t believe Kevin voted no on measure J but yes on covell village.
Seems like an entirely contradicting set of behaviors. But it’s now obvious he did it for monetary reasons, and does not care one iota about the environment.
target passed… but measure p lost by 75%..covell village lost by 60%.
it shows that people really hate the environment here. too bad, but i will still be voting to reenact measure J.
ps. isn’t anyone talking about the new development at chiles ranch?
no solar panels, not green in any way shape or form. it has 129 units.
so where’s all the citizen outrage with this project? why aren’t you all screaming and shouting at the cc to deny this project? so what it’s infill, it’s not green at all.
“That presumes his proposal is “watered down.” Is it not possible that he simply thinks his idea is an improvement?”
Are you kidding Rich? Kevin was a proponent of Covell village. How on earth could it be an improvement. Even if it is, there’s no reason to put in a different resolution unless you really want to split the support and approval of the people
Keep measure J just the way it is.
We lost the uniqute chance of having an eco village in this town and we lost it. oh well move on, but keep intact the laws that will protect us from another mass urban sprawling carbon spewing village like Covell Village.
Shame on you kevin wolf.
Phil, you’re an economics professor. I think that you know better than the ideology that you’re putting forward. Infill in Davis is a very popular idea — as long as it doesn’t happen. If Davis built infill at 1%, it would provoke as much resistance as outfill.
As for ag land, it isn’t hard to know that the US far overproduces food. Most of it is fed to animals. Davis voters don’t much care what the surrounding farms grow, as long as they don’t grow houses.
Any basic review of student housing makes it clear that UC Davis doesn’t meet needs, even with West Village.
Finally, zoning isn’t birth control. If it’s so disastrous for the environment for people to live in Davis, where should they live?
Again, none of this is complicated or controversial for most students of economics. Getting caught up in politics bends peoples’ thinking.
I am in complete agreement with Eileen on this. I don’t know what Kevin refers to when he talks about “we” in relation to what we intended J to accomplish. He had virtually nothing to do with proposing, lobbying for or drafting Measure J. A small group of us from the community drafted the language with the assistance (mainly for legal issues) of our city attorney and an attorney from Shute Mahaly and Weinberger, a SF firm that specializes in land use and environmental law. We also had assistance of some of our progressive council members at the time, but not Sheryl Freeman. Don’t know where that claim comes from either. It is also not clear to me that Kevin ever really supported J, and his performance on election night when he gleefully predicted it would fail, tends to support his not supporting J.
Measure J was to give the people a voice in determing how their community would grow. We had been subjected to sprawl development after sprawl development for years. We referended some of them and failed. We were tired of it all, and when we in the Visioning Group heard of Ventura County’s recent adoption (this was in the late 1990s) of a growth initiative that would require a vote of the people before ag land could be converted to urban uses, we jumped on the idea. Measure J was also meant to force councils to really thoroughly review proposals and send only he best forward, since there would be a vote of the people on any proposal on peripheral farm land.
Kevin’s proposal would be a complete gutting of the intentions of Measure J. He proposes that we vote on some vague concept with no specific details, no EIR, no base line features, no development agreement, nothing. It is not possible for the people to vote on something they know nothing about. This proposal is to benefit Kevin’s favorite developer, and we all know who that is, not the people. He is not concerned with our time or money, but that of the owner of the CV property. This is a complete sham.
[quote]I can’t believe [u]Kevin voted no on measure J[/u] but yes on covell village. [/quote] I don’t know how Kevin voted on Measure J. However, he said he was a supporter of it. To the best of my knowledge he never said he voted no on J.
Kevin’s idea includes baseline project features with sepcific details. I think it should also include the major components of a development agreement. I am curious to know if West Village was spawned my Measure J, it is built away from town, without control be the City process. Maybe its good, West Village, but then why are we trying to annex it?
Greg: “As for ag land, it isn’t hard to know that the US far overproduces food. Most of it is fed to animals. Davis voters don’t much care what the surrounding farms grow, as long as they don’t grow houses.”
That is true. During growth battles in San Diego, the concern was open space; i.e., the opponents of sprawl didn’t want every canyon and mesa filled in with new housing.
“Any basic review of student housing makes it clear that UC Davis doesn’t meet needs, even with West Village.”
And no developer has come forward with a project that includes a significant amount of student housing.
Growth is developer-driven: they buy land, propose projects, and see how the city and voters react. The general plan, various commissions, and voter-enacted measures such as Measure J in Davis and the Orderly Growth Initiative in Solano County act as primarily defensive mechanisms against large development proposals. Efforts to exert proactive planning by community consensus, such as general plan updates and the HERC, get derailed or ignored — mostly by pro-development interests. So it isn’t surprising that the whole growth debate seems negative.
Greg K: For the life of me I cannot understand what you are saying. How does being an economics professor and being in favor of infill not equate?
I think most of the posts here make it quite clear that this new proposal is inferior to the existing Measure J. Is it a coincidence that this is coming up after a very recent vote sent a Measure J project down 75/25? I don’t think so.
I think most of us, regardless of of views on housing in Davis should agree that peripheral development in Davis is a non-starter for a while. That was the SacBee’s conclusion. Given that, one does indeed need to ask–why Mr Wolf’s proposal now? The argument that Mr. Wolf’s proposal is designed to save us all time and effort is spurious–developers could save a lot of time and effort by not proposing projects that Davis citizen’s do not want.
We can debate the merits of housing on the periphery over and over. (I think I’ve made my views clear.) However, its abundantly clear that this proposal is a ruse to get around the the voter’s wishes as expressed in two Measure J votes. Perhaps most of us can agree on that.
[quote]…isn’t anyone talking about the new development at chiles ranch?
no solar panels, not green in any way shape or form. it has 129 units.
so where’s all the citizen outrage with this project?[/quote]Melanie, Lamar Heystek and I made a number of motions to require that the infill subdivisions have solar panels, accessibility, that a certain percentage by suitable for seniors, etc. These motions were invariably voted down 3-2.
[i]”At the Housing Element Steering Committee meetings Kevin made it very clear about his strong preference for the Covell Village site and the Nishi site to be developed.”[/i]
Both of those sites are bordered by urban development. CV has housing or commercial on 3 of its four sides. As for the triangular Nishi property, it has Olive Drive on one side, the railroad tracks on a second and I-80 on a third. It would be infill, if you can figure out something which really makes sense there.
Thus, if you are looking for infill, Nishi* might make sense. If you are looking for very large infill, CV could make sense.
[i]”Readers can interpret the information as they wish but it is pretty evident that the changes that Kevin is suggesting would benefit the Covell Village and Nishi owners (note: coincidently, Whitcombe is a major investor in both of these properties).”[/i]
Just because it would benefit John Whitcombe doesn’t mean Kevin is motivated to that end. I recall Mike Harrington saying over and over that Eileen Samitz was in favor of the Cannery Park proposal by Lewis Homes because Harrington suggested Eileen was on the take. I told Harrington at the time his comments were not fair and that it was ridiculous to make such accusations or even implications unless you have strong evidence. So for you or anyone else to do the same to Kevin is equally wrong in my opinion.
* I actually don’t think Nishi makes sense as a site for anything in the City of Davis, due to its access issues. Maybe a road could enter from W. Olive Drive, but I doubt it. Rather, I think the better approach — if anything is ever built there — would be to make it a part of UC Davis. Limited automotive access could be by way of Arboretum Terrace (which goes over the tracks, now); and foot and bikes could use the current path which goes under the tracks and leads to Aggie Village. However, I can’t imagine what the University would want in that location. If they could mitigate the noise and air pollution, maybe dorms or an extension of the Solano Apartments? Another possible usage, given its proximity to the new Mondavi Institute for Wine and Food Science would be to plant the western two-thirds of it in grape vines, just as they did with the land between I-80 and Old Davis Road west of the Mondavi Inistitute. But if you can’t get over the railroad tracks, it’s not actually so proximate to the other vineyard.
[i]How does being an economics professor and being in favor of infill not equate?[/i]
Phantom infill. Lip service for infill. If it were real infill, then you’d be right.
And I’ll also throw in, token infill.
Ok, Greg, since you clearly oppose Measure J and believe infill projects are insufficient, how about if you tell us what you support in the way of growth for Davis?
Rich,
Again, your posting seems quite defensive when I am simply stating facts. It is a fact that Nishi and Covell Village have Whitcombe as their major investor. The other fact is that Kevin has been advocating for these two projects for years, especially during the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee meetings.
On the Hunt-Wesson site, yes I have been in support of that site being mixed use because the No on Measure X Steering Committee was in support of putting housing on that site. Our position on this was in all of our literature. The idea is to use a site which is within the city which is already urbanized to spare green sites such as the Wildhorse Ranch site. I think that the Chiles Ranch site (Simmons property)is another site which should have been spared. It is tragic that the majority of the 100+ vintage oaks will be cut down for development. It is a beautiful urban forest site to say the least, and a historical site.
You may be in support of Covell Village and Nishi being developed Rich, but I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
Don: That’s a good question. 🙂
As I said, my calculation is that Davis is one of the best planned and environmentally sound cities in the entire United States. Strictly from the point of social utility, it should grow a lot, as long as it can maintain high density and bicycle paths. But of course, the more it grows, the less fair it is to people who already live here. I would argue for a fair share of growth. I don’t define fair share as, let’s do the bare minimum to placate SACOG. Rather, fair could mean growing at the same rate as the region.
Also I’ll quibble with part of the premise of your question. Actual infill is a great idea. I think that there are places around Davis where we could have fine infill projects. My impression is that a lot of the extra space is between 5th and 2nd, in a somewhat under-utilized commercial zone. There could also be mixed-use buildings that combine commercial with residential.
Lip service for infill of course isn’t adequate.
And actually I agree with you that the most-needed housing is apartments. I agree that it doesn’t look great to grasp for high-tax-yield housing.
[quote]You may be in support of Covell Village and Nishi being developed Rich, but I think we will just have to agree to disagree. [/quote] I’m actually not in favor of Nishi, unless access can be solved; and as I articulated, I don’t think it can, unless UCD wants to figure that out.
As for Covell Village, I did vote Yes on Measure X. I do believe it will eventually be developed, because as you suggested to me a long, long time ago when you were with WHOA, [i]the development of Wildhorse to its east makes CV a natural infill site.[/i] That is, Wildhorse* and Northstar together caused Davis to surround the CV land.
However, given the state of our housing market and generally bad economy and the creation of West Village, I don’t think it makes any sense to consider any new large new housing projects in Davis at this point. I would not favor CV now, if it meant adding 1,800 more housing units in this economy. I would favor more market-rate apartments.
Further, I do agree that there are very legitimate concerns with traffic impacts on Covell Blvd which inevitably will come with any development at the Cannery site or with the CV site, unless access to F Street is enabled. I’ve recently wondered (but not inquired with anyone) if it might some day be possible to lower the rail tracks along F Street, so a grade level bridge could permit Anderson Road to cross over the train tracks at grade level**?
* Your argument persuaded me to vote no on Wildhorse. (For those who were not in Davis then, WHOA pushed that onto the ballot after the CC approved it.)
**My guess is that lowering the tracks is not economically feasible, because I don’t know of anyone doing this elsewhere. In other words, if that were a feasible option, more communities would be doing it.
[b]No Friend:[/b] [i]A small group of us from the community drafted the language with the assistance (mainly for legal issues) of our city attorney and an attorney from Shute Mahaly and Weinberger, a SF firm that specializes in land use and environmental law. We also had assistance of some of our progressive council members at the time, but not Sheryl Freeman. [/i]
I don’t know that anything you say here is wrong. However, when you claim that you were a drafter of Measure J, but you don’t give your name, it’s hard to put much credence in your claim.
Also, it was my recollection that Freeman was on the City Council which put Measure J on the ballot. I’m fairly certain she was part of the group which voted yes. I think only Susie Boyd voted no.
Further, I remember a debate in which Sheryl Freeman and Mark Spencer were the main proponents for Measure J. I could be wrong. Maybe it was not Freeman, but that was my recollection.
As to Kevin Wolf’s role, I don’t know. (I certainly was not involved.) I think Wolf was one of the people involved in the suit against Rodney Robinson and Gerald Glazer over WHOA. So maybe your antipathy against him stems from that?
yeahmyam – getting everyone together at the beginning of a project sounds good. It most definitely did work in the Chiles Ranch development which has now been approved. It’s the “invisible” 129 unit development that no one knows about.
The neighbors (yes I am one) spent 2 years talking w/ the developers. This past summer, a formal MOU was signed. After this, both the City of Davis and the developers ignored the agreement and made many changes.
Chiles Ranch is a 129 unit development on 13 acres of land next to the Poleline Cemetery. Minimal buffers between existing neighborhoods (now reduced). Developers will cut down MANY large old growth trees. Sales pitch included wiring for PV panels. No actual panel install however. City reduced agreed on greenscape because “it was too expensive to maintain”. No bike lanes.
It’s underfunded neighbors against developers w/ money, the 3 pro-growth members of the CC and the Community Development Director. If this had gone to a public vote, there’s no way it would have passed.
Oops. Long night. it did NOT work.
Sorry, Dave, your efforts to improve the tone of comments has resulted in little change–nasty charges re. folks’ pasts and hidden, evil motives still seem to dominate the discussion.
In any case, developers eventually will get the message that NO development will pass a Measure J vote here EVER (and the Council will end up with a switch in majority that will reduce the prospects for CC approval in the first place). And then there’s the infill concept that never moves forward in any meaningful way. Our great little town will stay just the way it is.
Rich,in response to your posting. I think you are a bit confused on the information you have posted. I did not work with the WHOA group, so your information is incorrect. In the mid 1990’s I was a neighborhood representative of one of the three neighborhoods adjacent to the original Wildhorse Horse Farm at that time. We as neighbors were weary after years of long and hard discussions with the developers, and ultimately we supported what we knew was, at least, a better designed Wildhorse neighborhood development proposal. Understand that this was BEFORE our City had Measure J. At that time we were put in a position of “negotiate for a better project….or take what the developers were proposing” (which originally was a terrible design). I was also told by one City Council member at that time that there WAS three City Council votes for the original Wildhorse development, and that that project WAS moving forward.
So, after four years of discussion and debate between the neighbors and the developers the project design resulted in being improved, and more benefits was given to the City, in exchange for the development. Therefore, ultimately the adjacent neighborhoods supported the project design plan and the city benefits that we fought for that came with it. In addition to the final better design, the project had less impacts and provided more habitat protection, including the protection of the golf course with a conservation easement (it was an Audubon design), and habitat preservation areas were provided (like for the burrowing owls) all of which I personally, fought hard for.
The predicament that my neighbors and I were put in over this development in the 1990’s (before Measure J) was one of the reasons I fought so hard FOR Measure J. It was so that we, the citizens of Davis, would be allowed to weigh in on the potential development of any ag land or open space, which would affect ALL of us, rather than to count on a City Council majority to make the right decision for us.
So let’s back up a bit Rich and let me clarify. The bordering neighbors of the original Wildhorse development in the 1990’s (including me as one of the neighborhood reps) had little choice but to negotiate (i.e. much like the Chiles Ranch neighbors were faced with recently because Chiles Ranch was not subject to Measure J). However, what I learned from that experience was that at the very least, Davis citizens should be allowed to decide if any land that is ag or open space should be developed, RATHER than count on a City Council majority to make that decision for them. Our current citizen-based Measure J ordinance provides that ability however, Kevin Wolf’s Measure J revision proposal greatly undermines that citizens right. Simply put Kevin’s version is the developer’s version, and the current Measure J version is the citizen’s version.
JustSayin: “Sorry, Dave, your efforts to improve the tone of comments has resulted in little change–nasty charges re. folks’ pasts and hidden, evil motives still seem to dominate the discussion.”
I think that rehashing of past growth wars is inevitable, as there have been shifting alliances over the years. It would be handy if there was a neutral reference on these issues that people could refer to and save time. Perhaps a summary could be posted at Davis Wiki of who was active on which campaigns, etc. Since it is open editing there, some sort of consensus about the history might emerge.
Since Kevin worked on behalf of Covell Village, it is not unreasonable to draw a linkage between this proposal and his past activities. But I would really prefer that people avoid characterizations such as the “courtier in the royal court” comment. Please, folks, focus on the issues and not on the personalities.
Don… Your snipping of my statement describing Kevin Wolfe as a “courtier in the royal court of king Whitcombe” was,IMO, overzealous. I could have written a lengthy paragraph describing the strong social as well as “economic” connections between Kevin Wolfe and the Whitcombe entourage. I thought that “a courtier in a royal court..” was an apt, rather colorful, shorthand descriptive phrase. Your blogging style on this thread is factual and characteristically “dry”; I do not believe that it was David’s intention for you to reduce this thread to YOUR style.
“Please, folks, focus on the issues and not on the personalities.”
Don… This is small town politics in which personalities and social connections play a very large part. For example, one cannot fully understand the story of Bill Ritter’s involvement with Measure P without recognizing the local personal history and the personalities involved.
[b]Rich:[/b] [i]”… as (Eileen) suggested to me a long, long time ago when (she was) with WHOA, the development of Wildhorse to its east makes CV a natural infill site.”[/i]
[b]Eileen:[/b] [i]”Rich,in response to your posting. I think you are a bit confused on the information you have posted. I did not work with the WHOA group, so your information is incorrect.”[/i]
I apologize for getting that wrong. It’s been about 15 years since that happened, and I (wrongly) thought the person who had convinced me by way of that argument was you. It must have been someone else.
Davisite: I support Don’s efforts here. I think you can make your point in such a way that it shows criticism of Kevin’s view points but without coming across as mocking him personally. It’s fine line. However, too many people have told me they like the blog but do not read the comments or participate in them because it is meanspirited and argumentative. I’m trying and hoping to tone that down a bit. I think there’s room to get your point across without crossing that line.
Rich:
Eileen was not with WHOA. WHOA was the opposition to Wild Horse.
David…. I agree that it is a fine line but I believe that Don(with your concurrence) were the ones who stepped over THAT line. The phrase here, “courtier in a royal court…” is a descriptive phrase that is only subjectively demeaning. It could be an enviable, praiseworthy description in some quarters. This overreaching censorship potentially removes the “juice” from this thread that is quite valuable, in lieu of $$$, to sustaining local grassroots Davis political activity; I assume that this remains a significant part of the Vanguard’s mission.
Davisite: As you saw during Measure P, I have no intention of censoring people’s opinions, I would like them to state those opinions without getting personal, that’s all I ask.
I feel like my article got the point across without personal attacks on Mr. Wolf, I think you are capable of doing the same.
It is getting nasty. I am also sensing several NO votes on projects already, prior to the CEQA analysis. I still think we should kill these projects earlier rather than later – much more efficient.
“I feel like my article got the point across without personal attacks on Mr. Wolf, I think you are capable of doing the same.”
David.. Your write your articles your way. Your posters on the thread write their way. You are the “owner” of the Vanguard and have the power to CONTROL the content/style of the Vanguard thread postings. In the past, you have been quite reluctant to use this power to stifle free expression here except when there was overt,seriously inflammatory(deliberate?) postings. Censoring potentially “mocking” descriptive comments(and yes, it is censorship) smacks of the excesses that are handed out by an overly controlling Elementary School teacher(upps.. there I go again!). I think that in the end this path will diminish rather than enhance the Vanguard’s readership.
Just a reminder that concerns about moderation decisions should be addressed to the Vanguard via email, not debated on the blog. One of the purposes of having a moderator is to try to keep threads on topic. Discussions about moderation are off topic. The email link is above under Contact.
You might want to reconsider your decision to disallow discussion of moderating decisions on the blog. If folks feel too censored, and if even discussion of the censorship is disallowed, I fear that some of your best writers might cease to participate.
Personally, I think that the phrase “courtier in the royal court” of someone or other is strong and a bit abrasive, but it is not excessively crude or vulgar, especially if it is not embedded in a string of other negative metaphors. I think it is the type of metaphor that is frequently employed by mainstream media columnists as well as blogs web-wide. At the very least, censorship policies should be open to public discussion.
[quote]I think that the phrase “courtier in the royal court” of someone or other is strong and a bit abrasive, but it is not excessively crude or vulgar[/quote]The problem in my opinion is not the phrase. The problem is attacking the character of a member of our community with that phrase by suggesting that he is motivated by a desire to benefit a private interest over the public interest without presenting any substantive evidence to support that claim. It is one thing to say his idea is a bad one for this, that or another reason. It is something else to say his motivation is corrupt.*
[b]Eileen:[/b] [i]”Kevin’s proposed version of Measure J is only “new and improved” for the developers, not the citizens of Davis.” [/i]
Even if that is true, it still may be the case that [i]it would be beneficial if we developed a process which avoided “spending millions of dollars, and thousands of hours on community outreach, public hearings and campaigns,” only to end up with projects which were “voted down overwhelmingly after nasty and divisive elections.” [/i]
I don’t question the motives of those who want Measure J renewed as is. However, I wonder why anyone would think it is impossible to make improvements which would avoid such costly, yet losing elections. (Again, I don’t know if Kevin’s idea is the best way to do that. I think we could renew J as is but institute a more comprehensive joint-commission approach to avoid the problem Kevin has pointed to.)
*If Kevin works for Whitcombe or Tandem or is otherwise benefitting himself, then it would be fair to say he is shilling for his employer. To my knowledge that is not the case. I have no problem calling someone a shill if that is actually what the person is.
“…that phrase by suggesting that he is motivated by a desire to benefit a private interest over the public interest..”
Webster’s dictionary defines courtier as “one who attends a royal court”. Its secondary definition is “one who offers flattery”. There is no mention of private or public interest. The phrase,” royal court of king Whitcombe” does take some literary license but is not too far-fetched a metaphor for the powerful old Davis Establishment cliques and the social relationships that revolve around them.
Davisite2 — your obvious implication was that Kevin is working on behalf of Whitcombe, not that he is offering flattery to Whitcombe. And you also seem to believe that what is good for Whitcombe is not good for Davis. You may be right in both respects. The latter is ultimately just a matter of opinion. The former is a veiled character assassination.
Trying to look beyond any given accusation or implication, isn’t the raising of potential special interest influence one of the critical functions of a free press? Apparently, Maureen Dowd would not be allowed to comment on the Davis Vanguard.
So, personalities aside, let’s look at the nuts & bolts of placing “competing” versions of Measure J on the June, 2010 ballot. If our elected officials fulfill their campaign promises and public statements, the “original” (existing) Measure J will be placed on the June, 2010 ballot for renewal, unchanged (except for a new sunset date).
If someone else wants to place a modified “J” on that same ballot, they have two possible routes: (1) convince a Council majority to include the alternative measure alongside the original, or (2) undertake an intiative process to gather signatures of thousands of registered Davis voters in order to place their “version” on the ballot.
So, the primary objective of Measure J supporters should be to ensure that a Council majority will vote to put ONLY the “original” Measure J on the ballot. (And if Kevin W., or anyone else wants a “modified” version of J on the ballot bad enough, then let them follow the same process as the originators of J: go out in wind, rain, cold & blistering heat, day & night, to get thousands of citizens’ signatures.)
In terms of Council votes, I trust Sue & Lamar to be steadfast in support of ONLY the original J being on the ballot. Steve Souza stated repeatedly during his last campaign that he would vote for renewal of J, “as is,” so we’ll find out soon if he is trustworthy. And, although he is anathema to many slow-growthers, I believe Don Saylor understands the will of Davis citizens & is honorable enough to place ONLY the existing J on the ballot.
As for a way to save time, money, community divisions, etc., and to gain “early,” citizen-based input on proposed developments, here’s one suggestion. When a developer proposes a development over X number of units or X number of acres, subject to a Measure J vote, said developer must agree to the following terms: (1) If the project is approved by the Planning Commission, (2) The City Council will authorize a mail-only poll of all registered Davis voters on the proposed development,including all major, “set-in-stone” dimensions and baseline features; (3) The poll will be conducted by the City, and the developer will pay the City in advance for the total costs of printing, mailing & processing the poll, plus an administrative fee of X dollars (based on number of units or total acreage); (4)If a majority of poll respondents approve the “early” proposal, then (and only then)can the Council place it on a future ballot for a Measure J vote.
Think some fine-tuning of this proposal might solve all our “development” problems and obviate the alleged “need” to change Measure J. Think about it: the developer tells us up front what he wants to do; we “vote” by mail; the City makes money; and we don’t have to have expensive, divisive Measure J elections. That is TRULY “nipping (bad proposals) in the bud,” without weakening Measure J.
For some time now, Davis has had a Council majority that has deceptively campaigned as “slow growth” candidates. A clear majority of Davis voters has repeatedly voiced their desires at the polls with their Council majority arrogantly and dismissively attempting to ignore them. Coupled with this almost total lack of trust in the Council majority, one can add the serious potential conflict-of-interest of city staff whose salaries, career resumes and very jobs are tied to the level of Davis growth. Until this CREDIBILITY GAP is addressed by a Council majority that the Davis voters trust to be representing their interests and who maintain an in-depth diligent critical oversight of city staff’s work, the Measure J process must remain very populist in character,leaning towards more not than less time for public Council open debate, inviolate project proposal details, citizen commission oversight, neighborhood input, time and opportunities for citizens to review city staff work and organize themselves if deemed necessary.
Yes, it is part of the democratic process that any group may go out and hire workers or just use volunteers to get signatures and qualify an initiative for the ballot as Entrikin suggests. And, I bet, that if the Covell Village partners wish to do so they will. Let’s not confuse the rights of real persons and the fictitious corporate person in the exercise of First Amendment free speech rights. I for one have a problem that corporate money spent this way is considered speech and protected.
In response to Rich,
Again Rich, it seems to be you that is personalizing all of this discussion. My main point in my comments is that the wording of “new and improved” version of the Measure J ordinance, no matter who is recommending it, would benefit the developers, NOT the citizens. On the personalizing issue, if you are so sensitive on this subject it might seem a bit less than sensitive that you used the term “El Emparedado” referring to me. Technically it could be considered name calling.
Those who believe Measure J is working are apparently in favor of a no-growth strategy for the City’s future. As “JUSTSAYIN” says they think: “our great little town will stay just as it is”. NOT TRUE! The Bay Area Economics group recently completed a study showing that the under 55 population of Davis will go from a current 83% to 76% over the next 20 years. There are those who feel the BAE data seriously underestimates the aging of Davis. Using Census data they say one can assume a much more rapid rate of aging.
At the same time primary school enrollments in Davis are down. Young families are not moving here. The University has gone out on its own building the entertainment, housing and even a hotel and visitors center without the City. While, the city is reducing its operating budget, cutting jobs and deferring capital improvements. The City is on a course of eroding economics, not one leading to a sustainable quality of life in the community. One can easily see Fleet Feet becoming the Scooter Store. It’s easy to see a future for Davis in which the group who believes their great little town will stay just as it is being completely priced out. We must come up with a development plan that maintains the scale of the city as well as the character and culture of Davis while building the tax base. Studies of voting behavior reveal that people come out to vote in much larger numbers to oppose than they do to support. Ergo, Measure J will almost always be a negative vote. Much like a lot of legislation its use has demonstrated that the method of implementation is flawed and must revised
SUE: [i]” isn’t the raising of potential special interest influence one of the critical functions of a free press?” [/i]
Yes, but dragging someone’s name through the mud without real evidence is something different.
RICK: [i]”anyone else wants a “modified” version of J on the ballot bad enough, then let them follow the same process as the originators of J: go out in wind, rain, cold & blistering heat, day & night, to get thousands of citizens’ signatures.)”[/i]
The original Measure J was put on the ballot by a 4-1 vote (Boyd dissenting) of the City Council. That’s not to say it could not have gone the signature route. But it was the Council, not signatures, which put it on the ballot.
RICK: [i]”(4)If a majority of poll respondents approve the “early” proposal, then (and only then)can the Council place it on a future ballot for a Measure J vote.”[/i]
Your proposal is very similar to Wolf’s. Insofar as you both are trying to avoid costly elections over developments which have little public support, your aim appears to be the same. Hopefully, no one will drag your name through the mud saying he is just “raising (the question) of potential special interest influence*.”
EILEEN: [i]”Again Rich, it seems to be you that is personalizing all of this discussion.”[/i]
I am. I’m defending a person who seems to be the target of unfair attacks. I defended you EXACTLY the same when these sorts of charges were leveled at you regarding the Cannery Park project.
[i]”it might seem a bit less than sensitive that you used the term “El Emparedado” referring to me. Technically it could be considered name calling.”[/i]
I’m sorry if you took offense. It was bilingual humor. I did not mean to hurt your feelings.
*No one in Davis abhors special interest influence more than I do. However, I don’t think it’s fair to accuse one person of it unless you really know he is acting on behalf of that special interest or have good reason to believe he will benefit himself from the position he has taken. It seems to me a much fairer approach would be to just state the facts that you actually know and state them fairly and in context.
davisite2: “I could have written a lengthy paragraph describing the strong social as well as “economic” connections between Kevin Wolfe and the Whitcombe entourage.”
That would have been a better plan, as it would be provable or falsifiable. The same goes for use of terms like “shill.” In general, it would be better to describe the behavior than to characterize the individual.
davisite: “A clear majority of Davis voters has repeatedly voiced their desires at the polls with their Council majority arrogantly and dismissively attempting to ignore them.”
Of course, the voters have also returned those council members to office with substantial pluralities. There must be at least some voters who opposed Measure X but voted for top vote-getter Don Saylor. So I think it is reasonable to assume that growth policy is not the only measure voters use in assessing their candidates.
“So I think it is reasonable to assume that growth policy is not the only measure voters use in assessing their candidates.”
The other possibility is that people are primarily voting for personalities not policies either in error or because they know they have the final say on a Measure J vote.
[quote]The other possibility is that people are primarily voting for personalities not policies either in error or because they know they have the final say on a Measure J vote. [/quote] Agreed on personalities. You can’t discount pure name recognition as well. I don’t know anyone who ever met Rob Roy and didn’t like him. However, because he didn’t have the money to get his name so well known, voters were perhaps reticent to vote for Rob. By contrast, Don Saylor is as well known a name as anyone in Davis, today.
“Of course, the voters have also returned those council members to office with substantial pluralities…”
Not really accurate, Don. Lamar Heystek almost became our mayor on his second try at a Council seat, just a few votes short of Ruth Asmundson . Sue Greenwald became mayor by getting more votes than Don Saylor in spite of the huge campaign war chest that he accumulated. The number of candidates running which divides the votes among many candidates also plays a role in who wins. In the past,”progressive” candidates who have no chance of winning but who can “siphon off votes from potentially victorious slow growth candidates have been supported and encouraged to run for Council by those who are against Davis’ slow growth policies.
Sue Boyd became our mayor because she was the only candidate up for reelection who voted against putting measure J on the ballot. She garnered ALL the anti-measure J votes while the rest of the candidate field divided up the rest.
[quote]She garnered ALL the anti-measure J votes while the rest of the candidate field divided up the rest. [/quote] FWIW, Measure J passed by just 7%. Compare that with Measure P, this year, which failed by just under 50%.
This is how that 2000 Council election came down. Each candidate’s alliance (PP-Progressive Populist; DD-Developer Democrat; I-Independent) is noted:
DD-Susie Boyd 9,015 18.6%
PP-Mike Harrington 6,953 14.4%
PP-Sue Greenwald 6,527 13.5%
PP-Tansey Thomas 6,157 12.7%
DD-Jerry Kaneko 6,082 12.5%
I-Stan Forbes* 5,902 12.2%
DD-Joe Boyd 5,590 11.5%
I-Peter Carroll 2,055 4.2%
Total vote by party in the March 7, 2000 election, same vote which had Measure J on the ballot:
DD = 20,687
PP = 19,637
I = 7,957
*Stan Forbes is admittedly hard to classify. For a while he was aligned with the PP. However, it was a very awkward, unnatural alliance and the issue of Nugget lost him most of his support in that camp. His natural allies were in the Chamber of Commerce. I think it’s fairest to call him an Independent in the 2000 campaign. However, you might give 2/3rd of Stan’s votes to the PP and 1/3rd to the DD. Doing that, you get this tally:
DD = 22,654
PP = 23,572
I = 2,055
So regardless of how you consider the Forbes’ vote of 2000, it was not the case that the PP candidates were overwhelmingly adored on the night Measure J won by 7 percent.
“Compare that with Measure P, this year, which failed by just under 50%.”
..more wishful thinking than factual, Rich. My recollection is that the final vote tally was 75% NO, 25% Yes on Measure P.
I think Rich was rounding. The exact vote was 74.7% No, 25.3% Yes. That is close enough to a 50% margin, I think.
Elections in Davis tend to go back and forth between slight DD majorities (using Rich’s terms) and PP majorities. I don’t think this is because voters are fooled, or because of sham candidates.
I think people vote for complex reasons. A lot of it is personal contact, connections, and constituent service. A lot is simple affection for an individual based on his or her record of public service; look at how many council members first spent years on the school board. Growth politics is a factor — an intense factor for some, especially on this blog. But not for everyone.
I assume that in the next election, fiscal issues will be more important than they’ve been in recent years. People may have to choose between candidates who seem fiscally prudent but with whom they disagree about development issues.
Rich,
I am sorry Rich but is not a personal attack to anyone to make the point that no matter who is recommending this “new and improved ” version of Measure J that it would benefit the developers, NOT the citizens. Not describing the project and not doing an EIR for the public to have the facts of the impacts before they voted on it is not logical and does not give the public the information they need to make an informed decision. It would be putting “the cart before the horse”.
The election results have a lot to do with the distribution of candidates, who has the most money and factors such as ballot order and whether you have same-sex people with identical rare last names running.
When Susie Boyd got the most votes, she was the only candidate out of a large field who came out against Measure J. She won by a plurality which equaled the percentage of people who voted against Measure J.
At the moment, I don’t see how the proposed changes would benefit anyone, really. Any plan approved in an early Measure J vote would likely have to go through a second one after staff got done with it. Commissions would have to review proposals without adequate information, and would probably say so; thus, they’d have to review the final development agreement again. Neighbors would have expectations based on the approved guidelines, which staff might change (if Chiles Ranch is any indication), so they’d demand a reconsideration by the council.
If I were a developer, I wouldn’t see this as an improvement. And it all strikes me as moot, since I don’t see any developers likely to come forward with proposals soon — except the obvious one.
That is not to say that issues are everything. I am surprised at how uninformed voters are as to positions that various council members have taken. For example, I have run into many, many friends who do not know, and seem surprise to learn that Don Saylor voted for Covell village.
Really Don!! 25% can be rounded up to “just under the 50% mark”??
Please.. I trust that a Davisite2 authorship does not now AUTOMATICALLY cause it to be challenged.
No, davisite, the margin of defeat of Measure P was just under 50%. I’m assuming that is what Rich meant as well.
[quote]Really Don!! 25% can be rounded up to “just under the 50% mark”??
Please.. I trust that a Davisite2 authorship does not now AUTOMATICALLY cause it to be challenged. [/quote] DAVISITE2: You must have misunderstood what I wrote. I apologize if English is not your first language.
I looked up the actual numbers on Yolo County’s website, which apparently Don Shor did as well: 74.7% No, 25.3% Yes.
I then wrote: [i]”Compare that with Measure P, this year, which failed by just under 50%.”[/i]
Do the math: 74.7 minus 25.3 equals 49.4. Thus, Measure P failed by just under 50 percent.
I did not say that Measure P got just under 50% of the Yes vote. I said it failed by just under 50 percent. Do you understand?
By contrast, the vote for Measure J in 2000 was YES 53.6% to NO 46.3%. If you subtract 46.3 from 53.6, you get 7.3%, which I rounded to 7%. Do you understand?
Don….. profoundly sorry. Why one would do this kind of calculation, rather than presenting the actual 75% vs. 25% is still a mystery unless the object is to confuse( as it obviously did ME!) Am I mistaken in thinking that most people would interpret this statement, “measure P failed by just under 50%”, to mean that the final tally was something like 52% to 48%??
Rich wrote “FWIW, Measure J passed by just 7%. Compare that with Measure P, this year, which failed by just under 50%.”
In this context, I didn’t find it confusing. Standing alone, I probably would have.
[quote]Don….. profoundly sorry. Why one would do this kind of calculation, rather than presenting the actual 75% vs. 25% is still a mystery unless the object is to confuse[/quote] Even in your apology you are casting blame on others. Nice.