While much will be made about the amount spent by the two sides in this race, criticism leveled toward the project applicant for pushing forward with this vote in a year where the housing market was the worst we have seen, the bottom line is that this result is not simply about a campaign, it is too wide a result to be about errors and mistakes and we can certainly go down the list of them again, this is a wholesale rejection once again by the voters of peripheral development and growth.
So yes, it would appear to have been a mistake to push so hard for a vote this year. They would have been much better off waiting a year. There were a lot of reasons that they did not want to do this, but that decision was clearly the nail in their coffin.
Given the economy and the public’s general apprehension for new development, the Yes on P side would have had to have run a brilliant and flawless campaign and convince the public that the project itself was worth voting for despite the housing market and the apparent large amount of housing units already improved. While I take issue still with the 2000 housing total given the large number of on-campus student housing that entails, I think the case could have just as easily have been made with the 500 that are in Davis, or the 1000 that are in Davis and the faculty houses of West Village. There was no overwhelming need given the market and the already approved housing for more housing.
I still believe that the project had considerable merit and that it was the best project that I have seen in my time in Davis. The sustainability features alone will hopefully even in defeat push the ball forward in terms of the type of development we need in the future. We are going to need more dense development that keeps growth near existing development and closer to lines of transportation to save open space, farmland, and energy. The accessibility features were underrated and would have been implemented at great expense. These were not huge sprawling 600,000 dollar homes. There was tremendous open space and urban forest features on the project. Hopefully none of these features are lost to future applicants and developers.
The bigger questions are far more interesting to me as this to the end remained a small development on a 25 acre parcel of land. This is the second time that a Measure J project has gone down to massive defeat. The Measure X campaign in fact, spent at least $300,000 (in 2005 dollars) more than Measure P and perhaps nearly three times more. Does the Measure J process mean that there will be no approved peripheral housing developments in the foreseeable future?
We know that in the past, Measure J style votes have yielded approval such as the one for Wildhorse itself. Also while not a housing development, Target was able to narrowly win a citywide vote.
The next project coming down the pike is likely to be Covell Village again, recast on one-third of the land, around 800 units, as a senior housing project. The developers, much to our criticism, are attempting to manufacture grassroots support in the senior community for the housing. That of course is one of the big failures of the Measure P campaign, there was never any mass support for the project. Much of that was an artifact of the process and the fact that it was rushed at the end onto the ballot without bringing the community on board with the concepts.
Nevertheless, I think that Covell is going to have a very difficult time convincing the public that we need more housing, particularly for only a specialized group of citizens. We may have reached a point in our development as a city, that we are no longer going to be able to get public approval to expand beyond our borders.
Polling done in advance of this campaign shows that Measure J is safe and very strongly supported by three-quarters of the population. There was some concern mentioned in the beginning of the campaign that a defeat of Measure P will doom Measure J. That was shouted down as fear-mongering and certainly from the standpoint of the ballot box that is true. The question is whether at some point there might be a legal challenge to Measure J arguing that the process makes it impossible to pass any project no matter how small or how innovative and efficient. That will not happen now. But that it could happen after another defeat of Covell Village is a distinct possibility.
Much as been made about the division of the so-called progressive camp in Davis on this issue. Less has been made about the division of the more pro-development camp with the divide between Councilmember Saylor a strong supporter of the project and Councilmember Souza who was a strong opponent of the process. Much of that was driven by Mr. Whitcombe himself, as he behind the scenes, opposed the project in part as a measure of revenge for his own defeat and in part because he saw it in his best interest for this project to not be approved.
There is also the question of what will happen at the council level. The point has been made that Measure J gives the public a sense of security that they have the final say on any new peripheral development. As a result, since Measure J was enacted, the so-called progressive camp has only elected two councilmembers–Sue Greenwald twice and Lamar Heystek in 2006. And yet in both 2005 and 2009, Measure J votes have been very handily defeated.
With Mr. Heystek leaving the council, there is a very real chance that the pro-development side will once again have a 4-1 majority on council. There would appear to be a disconnect between the way the public has voted on development projects and the way they have cast their vote in council elections. Measure J has appeared to free people up to vote for the personalities they prefer rather than the policies they like.
For me, though I would have preferred this project to have passed, this is but one small piece of a much larger puzzle. I have often joked in public that I cover land use issues so that I have enough readers who will get to read about other issues of import. The issue of growth is polarizing and interesting to Davis, but it has been surpassed in my mind by the issue of the fiscal health of the city. Along those lines, Davis in my mind is in very deep trouble unless they can fix the employee compensation system including pensions and retiree health care.
Along similar lines, the public seems content living in this town that on the surface functions quite nicely. Our streets, even when they have occasional problems, are fairly well-maintained, we have nice parks, and array of services. All of that is jeopardy. Below the surface is a city staff and council that do not operate very well. They have gotten away with it because of the affluence of the city and the availability of money and the generosity of the citizenry in the form of parks taxes, sales taxes, parcel taxes, etc.
All of that is in a bit of danger if we do not fix our employee compensation system. In the next six months, the city faces a number of challenges starting with the collective bargaining process that has gone on for months and still has not yielded an agreement. We face the renewal of our sales tax. We face a renewal of Measure J. And we face new council elections. Bottom line is that we need to remain engaged, because the issues facing our city did not stop last night with the vote against Measure P.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, No to new growth?, no way is it that simple!
Nothing ever is.
When 75% of the voters reject a proposition that is more than a landslide and the City Council should take notice. How could this project be approved 3-2 (with one of the two only voting no because he wanted to support another developer!) when the voters rejected this by at least a 2 to 1 margin in every precinct except one.
Is everyone in Davis a NIMBY?
We need a new City Council that reflects the will of the people. One of the key decisions that any City council makes is whether to develop property and rezone land. Our City council has shown itself a miserable failure on this account. Not only was this project unwanted, but the City council did not do its due diligence on this one. In the end this probably helped the No on P side, but everyone who voted No on P (the vast majority of us) as well as many who voted yes should demand a better City council.
City Council–you are on notice now. You are next. We are tired of fighting ballot measures. We want to use our energy constructively. To do so we need a City council who understands what Davis needs and wants. Lets have green slow growth which does not make the City’s fiscal situation worse. Lets have honest campaigns where people debate actual issues.
75% of 29% of registered voters makes 21%. 8,499 voters out of 40,000ish. the number of no voters last night is, ironically, nearly the same amount who voted for measure X in 2005.
it is a mistake with such a low turnout election to too forcefully assert a bellweather for some underlying shift in city politics.71% of the electorate in this politically active town obsessed with its local politics – and during the school year when UCD students are in town, unlike some previous summer school board or city council races – chose to sit this one out. not vote against it, and certainly not vote for it, but not to bother with it at all.
i would be willing to bet that most of those who feel strongly about no growth came out and voted. i am not so sure that their margin today represents an expansion in their overall numbers in the electorate. from my conversations with friends and family (statistically meaningless anecdotes, i know), i get the impression that a lot of the good government types who tend to be neutral on the progs v mods feuds were quite offended by the process of this election, and felt the developer was trying to buy the illusion of support.
hard to say. at any rate, i certainly hope the next proposal is for a dense mixed-use infill project actually within walking distance of downtown or campus.
Wu Ming:
Despite a low turnout (though one should remember that in most elections in this country turnout is low) the message is clear here.
I agree that many voters voted No due to the process–that is precisely the point (and one the No on P campaign hammered away on). The City council bears a great deal of responsibility for this process. They have been running and hiding from their vote to approve WHR for months. It is up to us to remind folks that the City council has foisted these projects on an electorate that doesn’t want them and done so in a way which has not represented the interest of the City but seems to be more concerned with making developers happy.
The voters clearly saw serious flaws here–why didn’t our Council see the same flaws? Are we going to continue to reelect these people? I hope not.
David mentioned the clear disconnect between the will of the voters and the positions of the city council. Don’t forget who on the city council consistently represents the voters. Sue Greenwald. He also mentioned the apparent divide among our town’s “progressives”. Though the pre-election nastiness ofen castigated her, again, she represents the progressives who also represent the will of the voters.
Though Wu Ming described her hesitation at making too much out of such a low-turnout election. I believe that, regardless of the turnout, voters matter, not registered voters!
If, as “Slow Growther” suggests, we need to elect people to the city council who truly represent the interests of the voters, keep in mind which “progressives” fall into that camp!
Sue deserves an enormous amount of credit here. She has been completely trashed on this blog. Not only did she represent the will of the vast majority of the people, she tracked down a lot of the problems in the WHR project and made them public. Her reward–she was thrown off a City commission and denigrated by her colleagues. We all owe Sue an enormous debt of gratitude on this one.
Please show me an example of Sue being “completely trashed” on this blog.
Agree with what you say, slowgrowther. Our CC didn’t see it as you say, because it was 1am and Ruth was asking Parlin when they wanted the election. I saw that and it was my first questionmark. As I live in South Davis (why the SODA), I didn’t know much at that point but the reasons began to mount: the Housing Steering Committee low ranking and the CC apparent lack of concern about that, and then the campaign where I was completely turned off by the excess and ridiculous ads.
Bottom line is we need more choice in CC.
The paid part was minor but seemed to reinforce the manipulation perception. Perhaps the extreme was the Yes’s using fear tactics that a No vote could jeopardize Measure J. I was a believer in the 2000 unit theory especially when it was fully vetted as it seemed to be by the No’s.
I thank the Vanguard for being a forum for facts, views and counterviews. I was disappointed in some of your coverage David as the race went on, but realize you have views too and want to express them. Thanks.
@crilly –
my point was simply to caution against assuming that those who didn’t vote yesterday but regularly do in higher-turnout elections will necessarily follow the same voting proportions (and for the same reasons) as those 30% who showed up in this election. many progressives assumed that measure x’s 60% no vote would grant them a council majority; it didn’t.
my argument is basically that the davis electorate is a bit more complex than for-against growth, and that majorities in high-turnout races tend to be built from coalitions more complicated than just the ideological bases. if one is to get that majority, one needs to be careful not to talk to all voters as if they were motivated by the same things. this was a major failing of the no on K campaign IMO.
There is no more genuine local advocacy(or interest) for Whitecombe’s senior citizen project,which goes against the grain of most Davis voter’s vision of the type of community that they would want to live in, than Parlin’s now-defunct WHR project. The message is crystal clear. No more housing development approval while we continue to experience this glut of regional housing inventory. Now is the time for our city development staff to focus on commercial development to augment our tax base.
Wu Ming: “many progressives assumed that measure x’s 60% no vote would grant them a council majority; it didn’t. “
In fact, I’d argue that Measure J in part makes that possible. People seem more anti-growth in terms of voting for projects than they are when they vote for candidates.
Wu Ming:
This election was also about process and a CC that cow-towed to a developer rather than looking out for our City. We should all expect more from our CC regardless of whether we are slow growth, no growth or fast growth. This issue cuts beyond ideological lines and is ultimately about good government.
I agree that a narrow ideological approach is self-defeating, but regardless of one’s views we should all agree that this CC (except for Sue) did not do its homework here. They should be held accountable.
Having all these ballot propositions is not a good use of our time and energy. If we elect responsible, diligent and honest folks in the first place that could solve many problems.
“Much of that was driven by Mr. Whitcombe himself, as he behind the scenes, opposed the project in part as a measure of revenge for his own defeat and in part because he saw it in his best interest for this project to be be approved.”
David: Are you saying that Whitcombe both opposed and backed approval of the WHR project simultaneously?
No I just wrote it poorly–should read “to [b]not[/b] be approved.”
WOOOOO HOOOOO
I have so much faith in the Davis voters.
I have so little faith in 4 of the 5 city council members.
Sue Greenwald rocks!
Bob Dunning rocks!
I was intrigued by the early comment that the measure failed by more than 2 to 1 in every district except one. WHICH one? Turns out it’s district 4, sort of downtown/UCDavis-edge. They had 16 for, 30 against – not quite 2 to 1.
Given that many other districts have 10 to 20 times that number of votes registered this one district was just a statistical fluke.
Well, I looked it up, figured I ought to share.
Every precinct overwhelmingly voted “P” down. So it wasn’t just the Wildhorse so-called NIMBYS who were against this. GET A CLUE!
. . to focus on commercial development . .
Good luck with that. No CC has followed the recommendations of the various economic development committees going back to *at least* the 1987 General Plan. It’s called a ‘jobs/housing balance’, and it completely out of whack for this town. We grow *houses* here, not businesses, and it shows.
Neutral, I totally agree. The Cannery should be for business only, bring in some high tech corp. and create good jobs then housing will follow because a “NEED WILL BE CREATED”.
“But that it could happen after another defeat of Covell Village is a distinct possibility.”
As I recall, Don Shor responded to this issue on this blog with CONCRETE examples( Petaluma and somewhere in NE US) where Measure J-like controls on growth have withstood legal challenge.
We need Measure J.
Can you imagine how this current city council would run amok with new developements if we didn’t have “J” as a check and balance?
I have a novel idea, I think Parlin should now sell Wildhorse Ranch to someone who intends to run it as a “horse ranch”.
another novel idea… use our Measure O money(which was “sold” to us as a citizen-approved self-tax that would be used for land/easements immediately adjacent to the city rather than way out in Yolo County) to purchase the WHR property for the city. Parlin may be willing to part with it now for about 2 mil. The city could lease it out for a showcase organic farming commercial operation or some other concept that would be benefical to the entire city.
Ok folks now that WHR is over, there’s the question of CHILES RANCH. Our esteemed City Council has quietly approved a 129 unit development on the eastern side of the Davis Cemetery. The units are on 13 acres of land. Large old oaks will be cut down. Our City Council ignored a legal agreement between developers and residents. City Developer Director Katherine Hess completely ignored citizen input. This development has NO cute green features of any kind. Time to protest! CHILES RANCH!
Davisite: I don’t think we have enough Measure O money to do that, and if we did, shouldn’t we use it to buy Covell rather than WHR?
Jim: Just remember who was on your side.
Measure “O” turned out to be a joke.
If people haven’t learned it yet the election last night proves it once again. Special elections don’t sell in California. From the recall of Gray Davis through Arnold’s two attempts to pass initiatives through special elections, to Measure P in Davis, special elections energize those who are opposed to what is going on while the complacent sleep through it all. This election was lost the moment it went on as a special elecion.
The conventional wisdom would tell you that since Wildhorse passed this way it is the way to go, but remember, Wildhorse was a referendum. The people opposing Wildhorse called the election so the developer was able to turn out voters by front loading the election with absentee ballots. Today many of us, myself included, are registered with the county clerk as permanent absentee voters so that strategy doesn’t hold.
Still the overwhelming opposition cannot be denied. Even in the face low turnout the no votes would represent a formidable block to overcome in a much larger turnout election. The question now is can any proposal pass a measure J vote when anyone can nit pik a proposal and say no as I did because I didn’t like the third story? I don’t think it can. The need for measure J developers to cater to every whim of the electorate big and small will preclude anything ever getting passed on a measure J vote. As one no on P advocagte admitted to me in a moment of candid honesty at the Farmers market he doesn’t want any peripheral housing built. So really that is what renewal of Measure J is really about, a yes vote is a vote to stop any growth on the periphery.
The big losers last night were Parlin of course,who spent money for nothing, and Bill Ritter’s friends, many of whom wrote letters or made other public statements in support of their friend’s campaign. Ritter himself was well paid so it remains to be seen if the heavy defeat hurts his business or not.