A comment that struck me this week was in reference to the growth discussion on Tuesday night. In a lot of ways, the city council and staff pushed forward a lot of growth in their actions that evening. The Council changed a staff recommendation to allow yellow sites to go forward, that would allow Covell Village to come forward in the next three years.
As Matt Williams pointed out, only four people actually stayed for the item on the agenda on growth.
“I missed the early Public Comment that is supposed to be on topics not on the Agenda. I find it interesting that the CHA speakers weren’t committed enough to stay until its scheduled time on the Agenda. As they say, “the cupboard was bare.” Only four audience members (other than me) were present, Bill Streng, Eileen Samitz, Rochelle Swanson, and a gentleman seated with Rochelle. “
In addition to green lighting the yellow light sites, the council also took steps to encourage Nishi to come forward. Nishi is like a huge temptress standing over the city, nestled into UC Davis and walking distance from the downtown. It looks like the perfect site. But looks are deceiving as Councilmember Sue Greenwald pointed out in her comment last week:
“Back about 15 years ago when the Nishi came forward, the housing option was eliminated early on due to the obvious noise and safety issues involved with placing housing on a property crammed between the freeway and the railroad tracks. A freeway mall was then proposed. Ultimately, consensus developed around the idea that the land, if it were to be developed, would best be developed as a business park.
The site is still too noisy and dangerous to be developed as housing. We have already created a safety nightmare in East Olive Drive. Why on earth repeat the mistake?”
And yet, once again, council by a 3-2 vote approved it. Public response? Yawn.
I am a little disappointed overall in the low key nature of the campaign. Given the gravity of the fiscal situation looming over the city, the coverage of the candidates in the mainstream news has been non-existent. People have focused strongly on the looming Don Saylor exit more than determining who will be the best two people to lead the city in the decision that is less than two months away.
We know the public, or rather, a segment of the public can still be turned on by growth issues. Wildhorse Ranch certainly generated enough attention for a low voter turnout event. But in terms of taking interim steps, there is little interest right now in Measure R except very briefly when Whitcombe challenged it in court. And no interest it would seem in council growth policies or the campaign.
Part of that at least has to do with the fact that the growth issue, except a few infill spots is largely decided. Oh Covell Village can come forward with a project but as long as Measure J exists, there is little likelihood of passage. Perhaps that’s why they challenged the renewal, but even that has gained little traction.
The housing market is down, the people are fairly comfortable with the current size of the city, and it does not seem likely that will change in the future.
It seems odd, but the public seems quite content with electing pro-growth councils who are neutered and cannot actually foster growth beyond the current boundaries.
Is this the death of growth as an issue? Fatigue on the part of voters? A sign of aging in the activist progressive community? Hard to say.
From my standpoint however, growth remains important, but to me the burning question in this race is who will the firefighters endorse and whether we can achieve a council majority of a different – a fiscally responsible majority not beholden to a powerful public employee group.
If we look at the recent MOU process, the new budget, and the previous budget, we can see how powerfully they have been shaped by just 45 individuals, most of whom do not even reside in the city of Davis. The firefighters have been licking their chops since Councilmember Lamar Heystek decided not to run, but they may be in for a grave disappointment.
More on that in the coming week, in the meantime, I wish the public would focus a bit more on the choice at hand, becuase in terms of quality of life in the system and future impact, this election might be far more important than the average person can imagine.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I think the public realizes that no matter what they say, the current CC majority is going to promote Covell Village Part Deux. The public has probably figured Covell Village Part Deux will have to be defeated in another Measure J vote. The current CC majority has left the public no other choice…
Growth* does not matter too much–right now. In all likelihood, it won’t matter too much for the next five years. The approved supply is greater than the demand and demand in Davis is shrinking, not growing.
The supply-demand situation might change in 4-5 years, after the statewide economy rebounds, if the university funding is restored and after West Village, Verona, Chiles Ranch, Grande and a few small projects are built out. But before that happens, we will have had this council election and another election in 2012.
If any new projects of any size are approved between now and 2015, they won’t be built until the demand exists for them. As such, we won’t have a lot of new urbanization in Davis between now and the next council election in 2012.
I don’t think it is a bad thing that we have already approved a few hundred units in Davis which are not being built. I don’t think it’s a big problem to have some more units approved [i]before[/i] the market turns around.
However, I think there is one reasonable argument for not continuing to approve any more new projects in the next few years. (And this argument, I think, makes “growth” as a policy question right now, a little bit important.) Each approved project comes with terms and conditions which are designed to reflect community values, to meet the costs the development imposes on the rest of the community, and to incorporate construction and landscaping standards and other technologies which the city believes are in the best interest of future homeowners, the envornoment, the neighborhood in which the development will be built and the city at large. Yet, if we approve projects with the terms and conditions we think are best right now, and we don’t think the projects will be built out for at least another five years, we face the risk that those terms and conditions will not meet our needs when the projects are actually ready for construction.
I had not thought of this before today. (It’s probably not an original thought.) But it does make me think that even though growth currently is a moot question, the terms under which new projects are approved might not be.
——
*By growth I mean the approval of parcels for new housing or the conversion of undeveloped land into urban uses.
[i]The approved supply is greater than the demand and demand in Davis is shrinking, not growing.[/i]
Or rather, there is no demand for the type of supply that has been approved. The enormous price difference between Davis and the rest of Yolo County, and the extremely low vacancy rate, both show quite clearly that there is also unmet demand.
Anyway, growth doesn’t matter very much right now because there isn’t going to be any. A clear majority of people who already live in Davis have nothing to gain from it. A little bit of token affordable housing is the political maximum, so that people can assure themselves that they are still liberals.
I don’t have the housing commission report handy. Where was Nishi on the rankings of potential development sites?
[i]”The enormous price difference between Davis and the rest of Yolo County, and the extremely low vacancy rate, both show quite clearly that there is also unmet demand.”[/i]
Just because there is a price difference between Davis and Woodland does not prove (or “show quite clearly”) there is unmet demand in Davis.
What seems more likely to me is that either there is a greater oversupply problem* in West Sacramento and Woodland or a greater underdemand problem** in those towns. Insofar as the price differential has increased between Davis and our neighbors, its increase is much more clearly explained by their conditions than it is by “unmet demand in Davis.”
For what it’s worth, there were 347 new foreclosures between Davis, Woodland and West Sacramento in March. Of those, 37 were in Davis, 145 were in Woodland and 165 were in West Sacramento.
*Oversupply defined here as homes built but unsold. According to Zip Realty, there are an equal number of homes on the market right now in Davis and Woodland.
**Underdemand being a byproduct of falling incomes and rising unemployment.
I found the housing task force online at the city web site. Nishi is a recommended “green light” site. All of the concerns mentioned here are listed as design considerations for that site.
I am sure that some disagree with the housing commission’s recommendation for that site. But it is a consensus view that Nishi is a suitable site for development, with appropriate consideration given to the site constraints. I think we should not be too selective in accepting or rejecting the community consensus reflected in the housing task force report. If it is a “green light” site, then planning should commence.
“If it is a “green light” site, then planning should commence.”
Don: Since Nishi is subject to Measure J/R, why bother?
Jack: neither of the previous Measure J votes were about Green Light sites. In my opinion, planning should proceed for Green Light sites, and not at all for Yellow Light sites. The process should be respected. In that regard, for planning to proceed for the Nishi site it should only be for a plan with UCD access, as reflected in the housing committee’s report. It is the city’s responsibility to set forth the criteria for each site; hence the need for planning. Obviously it is the developer’s decision as to whether to pay the cost to try to persuade the voters. But there is no built-in opposition to Nishi as there was to Covell Village and Wildhorse Ranch.
[i]it should only be for a plan with UCD access[/i]
Yeah, maybe it would be okay with a moat. It’s quality of life, you know.
Actually, Greg, my comment is based on the assumption that the citizens who participated in the housing element committee reviewed the options and had solid reasons for green-lighting the UCD access plan for Nishi, but yellow-lighting the version that had access via Olive Drive. I didn’t attend the meetings, so perhaps someone who did can explain their rationale in more detail, but it seems to me that the UCD access would be safer and more practical.
There was considerable citizen input in the housing element process, and a number of sites were identified and agreed on by consensus. My preference would be that council members and council candidates respect the commissions and the general plan. Thus I think the vote to proceed with planning on yellow-light sites is unfortunate, and that the vote to proceed with planning for green-light sites makes sense.
I really don’t know why you constantly denigrate the planning process in Davis. What would you prefer? That developers just get approval for every project they want? That citizen commissions be disregarded? That voters not have the right to vote on housing projects? There are plenty of examples of communities that use developer-driven planning and have grown faster than they can manage the infrastructure and associated costs.
Don Shor: ” There are plenty of examples of communities that use developer-driven planning and have grown faster than they can manage the infrastructure and associated costs.”
This is key – the infrastructure and associated costs to current citizens of Davis. As Sue Greenwald has pointed out so many times before, we as a city are not striking favorable deals for the city with developers. The developers are not paying their fair share of costs of their proposed developement projects.
Rich Rifkin: “I don’t think it is a bad thing that we have already approved a few hundred units in Davis which are not being built. I don’t think it’s a big problem to have some more units approved before the market turns around.”
How about the costs of planning a project that has little chance of being approved?
“… neither of the previous Measure J votes were about Green Light sites. In my opinion, planning should proceed for Green Light sites …”
My point is not about process. It is about Measure J/R. In the absence of any credible chance of success, why bother?
“… there is no built-in opposition to Nishi as there was to Covell Village and Wildhorse Ranch.”
I disagree. IMO there is a substantial amount of built-in opposition. For example, we all know that the point person of the No on Measure R effort has a financial interest in the property. Do you think this won’t directly translate into opposition if a project comes forward? Same thing with Whitcombe senior. Political grudges run deep in Davis. And what about Sue Greenwald’s quote above? It certainly sounds like she’s on record opposing housing on the site. Although university-only access helps, I don’t think it makes the old Gateway-related issues disappear.
“How about the costs of planning a project that has little chance of being approved?”
My understanding is that the costs are billed to the developer. If my memory is correct, the rate is something north of $150 per hour of staff time. Can anyone out there confirm this?
I am the owner of the Nishi property and sat through the HESC process. Their primary focus was locating housing where there would be fewer vehicle miles travelled. Most or all of the green sites are therefore located near jobs (UCD) and food/entertainment/services (core area) and transit (bus and train depots). The green sites thus form a “bullseye” on the core of Davis and UCD. The green sites are not the easiest sites to develop, that wasn’t the criteria. I visited Sue at the site awhile back under the large Oak Tree where residential development would be far away from the RR and I-80. It was peaceful. However, this type of dense urban walking transit oriented development might not be your cup-of-tea but it could offer an alternative style of housing not available elsewhere. Regarding RR safety: redevelopment of the site would eliminate the current at-grade crossing. Also, located on Nishi currently unlike East Olive Dr., is a major bike/pedestrian connection under the RR near Borders and Arboretum and travelling under I-80 into South Davis. Davis, the bike capital of the USA. I think the staff report was simply trying to encourage “green” development that was the recommendation of the HESC. None of the sites, DJUSD, PGE, or Nishi are going to be easy to develop but once again the HESC focus was on the best located sites not the easiest ones.
Tim:
Could you please tell us where the university access point would be under the green light scenario? I recognize that this may still be under negotiation, but you must have some idea or we wouldn’t be discussing the possibility.
Also, could you please tell us if Joe and/or John Whitcombe have a financial interest in the property?
Jack, if you look at the map below, it shows the path (in purple) that the developer is planning. He would build an overpass over the railroad for cars, bicycles and pedestrians there and block off all other access points for safety.
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/S8uwSNzZ0AI/AAAAAAAAAag/ycHGyrWEgA8/s1600/nishi.bmp[/img]
[i]solid reasons for green-lighting the UCD access plan for Nishi, but yellow-lighting the version that had access via Olive Drive.[/i]
Don, I’m sure that they did have solid reasons. Probably based on the interests of current residents of Davis, and not anyone who would ever live in the Nishi property.
[i]What would you prefer?[/i]
I would prefer that Davis have a proportionate share of growth of the county.
But you’ve convinced me that there is no solution within the existing democratic structure in Davis. The haves, who can vote in Davis, have no self-interest to offer housing to the have-nots, who can’t. A traditional solution in America is for new residents, as represented by developers, to buy their way in, but in Davis as in some other places in California it’s not enough.
I wouldn’t want to strip Davis residents of their right to vote, even though it obviously isn’t a level playing field. I also wouldn’t want to trick Davis residents with a slick political campaign, both because honesty is a virtue and also because it hasn’t worked in the past. I could live with a straight appeal to fairness, but I concede that it is unlikely to work either.
The most likely solution would involve one of two reforms. First, I think that Davis has been “meeting” SACOG’s growth targets in bad faith. In principle, a stronger SACOG could make the growth targets credible. Second, it is well known among civic planners that California’s tax system deters residential zoning. I think that this is an indirect effect of Prop 13. So a shift in the state tax structure to let cities keep more of their property taxes would allow growth in Davis for more selfish reasons.
But in the meantime, the pretense that it is all virtuous democracy and urban planning is irritating.
All such discussions re: access and UCD are preliminary and there is no agreement in place at this time. The map presented by Rich shows an alternative but it should be noted that the purple street could continue and hook up with the street by the UCD Hotel and GSM past Mondavi Center to I-80. Presumably there would also be emergency and/or controlled access to Olive Drive. Once again, this site will require a concerted planning effort between the City, UCD, and voters to become a reality. The starting point in this effort is the set of guidelines established by the HESC for the site. But I tend to agree with Greg re: Measure J- it has a strong no-growth sentiment and I doubt voters will support a project no matter how innovative.
Rich: Thanks for the map. It look’s like this plan funnels all the traffic straight at Sue’s house. So much for no built-in opposition.
Tim: With all due respect, could you please respond to my request for clarification of Joe Whitcombe’s financial ties to your property?
“But I tend to agree with Greg re: Measure J- it has a strong no-growth sentiment and I doubt voters will support a project no matter how innovative.”
My position as well … and the basis of my “why bother” question to Don. Does this mean you will not be submitting a pre-application per the city’s request? Or are you just posturing to help make a case against Measure R?
Vote no on J/R! As you have pointed out Greg, Davis grew rapidly decades ago sparking a no growth era that has restricted the supply of housing. This no growth ideology has outlived its usefulness and morphed from a Malthusian, Ehrlich, Progressive zero population growth model to a territorial us versus them behavioral model of exclusion based on class where you must be either rich or an heir to afford to buy here. Too many people are working themselves to death trying to keep up with their overpriced mortgages so they can send their kids to Davis schools and now we have those who doubted that supply and demand mattered complaining that lowering prices by increasing supply will hurt the home values of those who overpaid during the bubble years. Its a conundrum created by measure J and no growth advocates who claimed that you couldn’t build your way to lower prices thus driving prices so high in Davis that the premium for living here on a per square foot basis is at an all time high of over 2:1 even though prices have come down. Those that still support that failed notion of growth restriction, and there are many, are so entrenched that even reasonable people such as Greg K. and Bob Dunning are afraid to stand up to a system that is rigged by only letting the haves decide the future through so called direct democracy. Don’t forget that there are thousands on campus who can’t vote on measure R and don’t own a home so measure R is no more democratic then was the republic when only white male landowners got to vote during the days of the founding fathers. The real story here is that people don’t care about housing unless it is in their own backyard i.e. their own territory, and that is why pro-growth people keep getting elected to council while measure J votes continue to fail. Vote no on the renewal of measure J!
Mr. Toad, number one it’s not really a zero population growth model. I actually have nothing against zero population growth as a philosophy. Living here in the United States we don’t really see it; by contrast in China and India it really becomes clear that the sheer number of people leads to enormous problems. But the thing is, preventing growth in Davis is not a method of birth control, it only keeps people away from Davis.
Second, I’m not “afraid” to stand up against any system. I’m perfectly happy to do that, it’s sort of what I’ve been doing, but at the end of the day it doesn’t really work.
I certainly am going to vote against Measure R. It is indeed a selective kind of democracy and it just doesn’t feel right to support it, even though it is in my selfish interest. One irony of the discussion is that our host David Greenwald, actually does have a selfish interest in seeing Measure R fail if he ever wants to buy a house in Davis. But he can see as well as anyone else that it is expected to pass. So instead, his real stake in the question is that he wants to get ahead in local politics.
“… the pretense that it is all virtuous democracy and urban planning is irritating.”
Greg: The cynical framing of Measure J/R as a class warfare issue in order to promote development of the Covell and Nishi properties is also irritating.
That’s obviously not what you are doing, but the Whitcombe clan and the No on Measure R campaign certainly are. To the extent that you give an educated and cogent voice to their wedge issue, you become their tool. Not an intellectually satisfying position to argue from in my opinion.
“One irony of the discussion is that our host David Greenwald, actually does have a selfish interest in seeing Measure R fail if he ever wants to buy a house in Davis. But he can see as well as anyone else that it is expected to pass. So instead, his real stake in the question is that he wants to get ahead in local politics.”
Or maybe, to paraphrase Marx, he wouldn’t want to be a homeowner in any community that he could afford.
The argument that Davis can grow its way to affordability without fundamentally degrading the desirability of the community defies credibility.
Wow, I miss a lot when I take a weekend off. First of all, I don’t have any interest in getting ahead in local politics. Second, I don’t believe that we can grow our way to affordable prices without huge detrimental impacts on the quality of living. We’d either have to grow to 150,000, see crime go way up, or quality of schools go way down for there to be anything that resembles lower real estate prices. And even then, I wonder. Areas of the bay area have had rapid growth and yet the real estate market remains quite high in most places.
David,
extremely interesting comment “areas of the bay area have had rapid growth and yet realestate market remains quite high in most places…”
You do realize that there is a difference between Woodland, Davis, dixon and West Sacramento area and marin county, palo alto and the rest of bay area. The Bay area real estate market reflects the job opportunites (technology) and no matter how hard Yolo county (farming) we will never be the bay area and reflect that real estate market.
New home construction and large developments will lead to reduced real estate values in Davis. This is just common sense economics of supply demand. Thank god Davis residents had the foresight to vote down Covell village……….can you imagine the foreclosure rate today if this huge supply of homes hit the Davis market in the current recession.
Why would any homeowner in Davis vote No on Measure R?
Residents of Davis do not want to become Vacaville or woodland.
Why destroy the good thing we have in Davis.
Jack, my involvment with Nishi goes back over 24 years. With that perspective I am interested in providing input on the blog since Nishi is a topic of discussion. However, I do not want to participate in a grudge match against me or my partners and think we should move beyond that. Obviously Measure J will be opposed by property owners who are subject to its provisions-this can not be shocking. Is it any different than property owners in the City who support it for obvious reasons? I agree you can not build your way to affordable housing but it is very clear that if you restrict supply when there is a high demand prices will increase. Measure J guarantees higher costs for housing. While Measure J has proven to be an effective tool to temper growth it is not as clear that it is an effective planning tool as shown by the difference of opinions on this blog.
According to Zillow’s Real Estate Market Reports for February 2010, Davis home values were down 1% compared to January 2010 and down 5.2% compared to February 2009.
where would the Davis housing market be today if covell village or Nishi property passed and all of the homes from this new development flooded the Davis market. I would guess housing price declines of 10% or more
Think of the floreclosure rates in today’s economy if this model existed in Davis.
Sounds like a boom for real estate agents and developers and bad times for existing homeonwers in Davis. I do not inlcude new homebuyers benfitting from buying in Davis as if the model changes and we become an Elk Grove housing values will continue to decline ruining the financial incentive to buy a home in Davis.
Why would existing homeowners vote No on Measure R.
Vote Yes on measure R to renew measure J
Tim,
I have no grudge against you or Nishi. In addition, I have not formed any opinion on development of the property … except my personal belief that processing a proposal would be a waste of time given that it is a controversial site subject to Measure J/R.
Do you think it’s immaterial that the leader of the No on Measure R campaign has been linked to your property? Why not disclose or deny so we can move on?
[i]where would the Davis housing market be today if covell village or Nishi property passed and all of the homes from this new development flooded the Davis market. I would guess housing price declines of 10% or more[/i]
The truth comes out. To hear David tell it, Covell Village or Nishi Property is futile because not only would it crowd Davis, it wouldn’t make housing more affordable at all. But the reality is that affordability is the last thing that homeowners in Davis want. Many of them (or rather, many of us) cashed in just like homeowners elsewhere, and now want Davis to be the bubble that doesn’t pop.
For the forseeable future, they’ll probably get it too.
“…it wouldn’t make housing more affordable at all…”
That depends on what kind of housing is built. If developers keep proposing subdivisions of expensive homes, that doesn’t make housing more affordable locally.
As Rich Rifkin and I have said repeatedly, Davis needs more rental housing. Adding more rental units until there is a healthy vacancy rate would make housing more affordable. Building big homes, or fancy townhouses, won’t.
Tim: While I have questions/ problems with the suitability of the site, not to mention, from a practical standpoint, I don’t think the voters are going to approve a measure j/r project in the near future, nevertheless, I welcome your perspective and you input into this discussion. And I would hope that people will treat you cordially regardless of their views on the particular project.
Greg:
“To hear David tell it, Covell Village or Nishi Property is futile because not only would it crowd Davis, it wouldn’t make housing more affordable at all.”
I don’t agree that it would make housing prices decline by 10%. I don’t think it would have much impact on home prices, you’re talking a very small percentage of the overall housing demand.
David said”I don’t believe that we can grow our way to affordable prices without huge detrimental impacts on the quality of living. We’d either have to grow to 150,000, see crime go way up, or quality of schools go way down for there to be anything that resembles lower real estate prices.”
Oh where to start?
1. What detrimental impacts for whose quality of life? I was just talking to my neighbor who is strapped by his mortgage, doesn’t the high cost of housing already have a detrimental impact on quality of life?
2. You claim we can’t grow ourselves to affordable housing? Sure we can just look at Woodland where oversupply has caused the market to collapse down to around $100/square foot. I’m not saying we should build enough to do that but it does show that you are wrong, if you increase supply enough prices will fall.
3. You say the town would need to grow to 150,000 to increase the housing supply and make prices fall but prices are already falling and you just make that number up. It is simply a testament to your anti growth bias and your unfounded fears.
4. You claim crime would go up and the quality of schools would go down but again you offer no specifics other than your paranoid derangement. Why would building houses have these impacts? This is really elitist. Increasing ownership should make crime go down and the quality of schools go up. Davis is currently about 2/3 renters. Why would increasing ownership make things worse? Why would allowing more kids in the schools make them worse? Actually it would make them better with fewer layoffs of teachers and other staff and possibly a more diverse population of students.