Council Gets Chance to Hear Progress of Project and Provide Feedback on Key Issues –
However, the second presentation at the end of February still simply tweaked the first proposal, as though the problem were not the core project but rather on the margins. From our view, on a number of levels, this was simply a non-starter.
The second issue dovetails the first issue and that is that the design is insufficient. We have hammered home the points of the lack of specificity in the sustainability portion, the lack of adhering to senior housing guidelines, the lack of innovative design and structure and the poor integration to transportation services.
But someone made a good point to me this weekend, that there is a link between the economy and innovative design, as building in a weak economy reduces what might be feasible in the project.
The way the project was going, the staff was likely to spend a year of their time on it and it might be that the council did not even deem the project necessary. Moreover, it seemed that they needed the council to tell them what design features they wanted to see in the project.
The council that voted 3-2 to move the application forward is gone and replaced with a very different council. Will the new council support this project?
Two weeks in a row at council I stepped forward at council to suggest that the council look at the project now, rather than invest more staff time – even reimbursed staff time – on this project.
The council should lay out what they see as their vision for development in terms of sustainability, transportation, senior housing and other features.
Well, now they will get a chance to do just that.
On the agenda Tuesday is a workshop that will give council the consideration that “building in a weak economy reduces what might be feasible in the project.”
While the staff report goes into a lot of detail on existing city policies, the key question will be what direction this council wants to take. Having this hearing early, rather than after expending staff time and energy, makes a lot of sense.
This is the exact right approach. My preference at this point would be to kill the project for now. Why? As I have previously mentioned, we already have over 500 units that have been approved in the city but not built yet. So what is the need to have 610 additional housing units if the economy does not even support building the first 500?
Second, we have UC Davis constructing West Village. What will be the impact of West Village and its housing units on the Davis housing market?
Moreover, we are still in an economic slowdown. Real estate is still slumping. And as we pointed out, in a weaker economy, the margins may not exist to get the kind of innovation that we need, should we decide to move forward.
But even if we decide not to kill it, the project is not there yet. There are at least four councilmembers seeing serious problems with the current design.
I would like to see the council lay down clearer policy objectives codifying the senior housing guidelines, transportation and circulation goals, fiscal neutrality of development projects and sustainability goals, putting them into hard ordinances rather than simply guidelines with no teeth.
Given the weak economy we should hold out for something better than we have received so far.
There is, to be blunt, no “wow” factor, but there are a lot of “ugh” factors in this project.
Our goal with every project needs to be Village Homes II that can also produce workforce and affordable housing to a broader range of citizens.
We have a Climate Action Plan, but really we need to aim at 90% carbon reduction. And really higher than that, given the amount of open space. ConAgra did not put a number on their carbon reduction plan. Wildhorse Ranch and West Village should be the baseline sustainability components of new developments.
There was no discussion in February about passive design features utilizing the sun, gaining passive exposure in the winter and avoiding it in the summer, or orienting the homes to take advantage of the Delta Breeze with cross-ventilation. There was no talk about energy-efficient homes.
Frankly, the sustainability portion seemed more like lip-service rather than a core portion of the project. They seemed to add it to appease demands, rather than out of some belief in the actual creation of a sustainable community.
This is a huge step back from either Wildhorse Ranch or West Village.
I am concerned that senior housing and the newly-passed senior housing guidelines are largely ignored. We need to aim for universal design, and provide units that are visitable if not sustainable.
Furthermore, I am concerned with the lack of availability to transportation. They trumpet their access to buslines, but fail to note that the bus connection would be at Covell, which is half a mile from the northern boundary of the project – a long walk for a senior or a disabled individual.
If the project does not get a non-grade bike and pedestrian crossing both in the southwest and southeast corners, then it is another neighborhood that would be bisected by an arterial with safety concerns for bikes and pedestrians and limited access. This will mean once again everyone will just get into a car.
Finally, this needs to be addressed as well. When this project was presented in October it came out at the same time as the business park discussion. This area is 100 acres that could be used for a business park.
There are problems with putting a business park here – it is in the middle of town, has limited free access and there are traffic impacts to Covell, Mace and Poleline (although you could argue the same problem for residential).
However, take out 100 acres of potential business park land or diminish that land to 18 acres or whatever the latest proposal calls for, and you are now pushing business parks to the Northwest Quadrant and east of Mace, which is not where many people think there ought to be development. That needs to be a strong discussion and consideration.
To me, the project is so far from being acceptable and, given the economy, it is not clear that ConAgra is willing to put in the resources for it to be acceptable. If the council has the ability to kill the project in actuality or by implication, it should do so.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You indicate it will be a workshop. Why does it deserve all that time? Why not a presentation and vote?
What are they going to vote on?
It needs to be killed.
dmg: “I am concerned that senior housing and the newly passed senior housing guidelines are largely ignored. We need to aim for universal design, and provide units that are visitable if not sustainable.”
I don’t think the senior housing guidelines are being “ignored” precisely. The senior housing guidelines are fairly recent, so they really have not had a chance to be tested as of yet. It is up to the current City Council to follow those guidelines, and make it clear to developers it will be adhering to them. That is the key message that needs to be sent to potential developers – if you want your development approved, you must make a good faith effort to adhere to the senior housing guidelines (which are principles that should hold true for any type of housing to be built in Davis).
dmg: “However, take out 100 acres of potential business park land or diminish that land to 18 acres or whatever the latest proposal calls for and you are now pushing business parks to the Northwest Quadrant and east of Mace, which is not where many people think there ought to be development. That needs to be a strong discussion and consideration.”
This for me is the main issue. Should we really be taking the only large parcel zoned industrial out of commission, by rezoning it for residential? This will only push economic development to the Northwest Quadrant and east of Mace (I-80 corridor), onto county land, where the city will reap no tax revenue benefit? It does not make any sense to me to remove a parcel zoned industrial from consideration for economic development that the city does need, to be replaced by residential housing the city does not need.
Also noticeably absent from the city staff report was a discussion of fiscal impact. This is the big 610 ton elephant in the room – will this proposed development have a net negative fiscal impact on the city, which already cannot provide city services to its citizens.
Vote on going forward or killing it. Akin to the last CC vote. No?
A change of zoning would be a HUGE mistake. ConAgra is just throwing this out there to see if the city bites, there is zero chance they would do anything with it even if the city said yes. They would simply increase its price and seek a developer for the project.
End the nonsense and remind ConAgra that this is a key part of the city’s economic future, not just another place for lame houses on under-sized lots.
David,
Your sour grapes are showing. You shamelessly promoted Wild Horse Ranch and it was rejected by the voters. Get over it.
We need the housing. If you haven’t noticed, the city is slowly dying. Children and young/middle age wage earners are disappearing, with all the downstream economic and quality of life consequences.
[quote]We need the housing. [/quote]
Housing is available. Check the real estate section of the Enterprise. There is an abundance of inventory, and it’s on sale.
“We need the housing.”
Frank, let’s be frank. Read again what David wrote:
“we already have over 500 units that have been approved in the city but not built yet. So what is the need to have 610 additional housing units if the economy does not even support building the first 500?
Second, we have UC Davis constructing West Village. What will be the impact of West Village and its housing units on the Davis housing market?”
In an already bloated market in down economic times how much more housing do you think Davis can absorb? Get real!
David Suder,
That dog doesn’t hunt. This is about pipeline not current inventory.
We’re in the bottom of a recession and our housing market is still comparatively healthy. We’re going to desperately need everything we can get from ConAgra and the other infill sites during the next economic cycle. Consequently, we need to start the process now because the homes will not begin to come on-line for at least three years.
The Verona developers are not starting to build now because they have miscalculated the demand. They are betting real dollars and understand our market better than anyone on this blog.
Rusty,
Yes. Let’s be frank. Let’s start by acknowledging my entire statement.[quote]We need the housing. If you haven’t noticed, the city is slowly dying. Children and young/middle age wage earners are disappearing, with all the downstream economic and quality of life consequences.[/quote]The demographic data speaks for itself.
The two age groups we’re losing are 0-18 and 25-55. And we’re losing them at a rate faster than the state or the rest of Yolo County.
Why? Not enough places to live. Not enough jobs. Real simple.
“Why? Not enough places to live. Not enough jobs. Real simple.”
Frank, once again there are plenty of houses on the market with plenty more in the pipeline. Who knows when we’re going to come out of the housing recession? Things still are getting worse and who knows where the bottom is. You can guess but you really don’t know. I’ll agree with you that we could use more jobs, that’s why I still say the Cannery site should stay industrial. If we can bring in more jobs then housing will take care of itself.
I like the idea of sustainability but it will add to price tag. I don’t want to see bogus claims about greenhouse gas reduction though. I’d prefer LEED certification of something akin to that. LEED isn’t perfect but its very easy to hire a consultant who will tell you anything you want to hear–LEED standards are straightforward and reasonable. The fact that ConAgra is on a brownfield gives the ConAgra project (should it go forward) a leg up on LEED.
As far as going forward now–why? I see no benefits to the City in giving up current zoning–we are essentially giving away a bargaining chip as gunrock notes above.
There is plenty of very very cheap housing in the area–we have higher prices in Davis because we did not cave in to developers and because we have a better quality of life.
[i]”Why? Not enough places to live. Not enough jobs. Real simple.”[/i]
Your logic does not appear to be internally consistent.
I agree that we lack jobs and dynamic income growth in Davis and the Sacramento region in general. But it is that lack (as well as some issues within the home-finance market) which has afforded us, alas, too many places to live, not too few.
Were our job market and our general economy healthy and vibrant, the demand for housing in Davis would be strong. But neither is the case.
We generally have two primary engines of job growth in Davis: UCD and the state. In the last 25 years, the state employment sector has never been in worse shape. A good number of Davis residents work directly for the state in Sacramento or work for a satellite industry which depends on state government spending money. That segment of our workforce is hurting, many having lost all of their income; and others having lost some of it.
UC Davis is, as a state-funded college, in even worse shape. Its state funding did not keep up with inflation for the 20 years ending with the collapse of the real estate bubble in 2008. And since then, UCD has lost something like 20-22% of the nominal dollars it gets from Sacramento.
I am not quite sure how many Davis residents who work for UCD have lost their jobs. Surely some have. Most others (through furloughs and the like) now make less. And because of the serious problems with the UC pension system, a larger share of UCD employees will have less in take-home pay than they now have when they are required to put more into funding their retirements.
So it seems like for the time being–and probably another 5-6 years into the future–our economy won’t be in a position to demand a surge in new single-family housing. I am certainly not opposed to allowing builders to develop their properties (as long as they don’t impose too great a burden on the rest of us). But I really doubt any land owners on our periphery really thinks there is much of a market now or even some years from now for new product.
Re. senior concerns–Just read an interesting study that includes a section on seniors’ plans for housing. Write-up and link to full study findings at [u]Senior Housing News[/u]:
http://seniorhousingnews.com/2011/03/23/study-shows-long-term-care-is-a-major-concern-for-retirement-planning/
Why do we keep speculating and agonizing about whether there’s any market for new housing in Davis? Out of concern for the fortunes of potential developers? It’s used as a major argument against approving development, but it seems pointless.
If developers are smart about their business, they’ll build at the optimum rate and time to sell. If they’re as dumb as we seem to be suggesting that they are, they’ll build before Davis “needs” more housing and we’ll end up with with a bunch of affordable housing thanks to the natural law of supply and demand. Either way, Davis is revitalized.
[i]”Why do we keep speculating and agonizing about whether there’s any market for new housing in Davis? Out of concern for the fortunes of potential developers?”[/i]
Just: I have a question for you. I don’t know the answer. It’s just a matter of opinion:
How much should a land owner pay to have his land’s zoning changed?
Take the cannery land. It is zoned (more-less) industrial right now. Its owners, ConAgra, bought it as an industrial site and paid a price which reflected that zoning.
I don’t know how much the land itself was worth at the time ConAgra bought it, but let’s say as industrial land it is now worth $50 million (for argument’s sake).
Then let’s say it is rezoned by the City Council to allow housing and some commercial or office uses; and say changing the zoning in that manner makes the land worth twice as much, or $100 million.
That leads to my question: That simple change in zoning policy would amount to an immediate gain to the landowner of $50 million. How much, if any, should our City Council charge for that gain?
As you likely know, if you or I or anyone else buys a parcel of land which is zoned for a high value use, and then the City Council comes along and rezones it for a use which brings less value (or makes the property worth less money), that is considered a taking–meaning the City would have to fully compensate the landowner for his loss ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_v._South_Carolina_Coastal_Council[/url]).
But what ConAgra, here, is asking for is just the opposite: they want a gain by dint of a zoning change.
I have never really given this much thought. My primary focus has been on developers simply paying for the external costs of their development, so that any additional expenses to the City are covered by development impact fees. But it does seem perfectly reasonable that if a land use change costs a landowner money and the City has to compensate him for that, the reverse would be true as well, no?
————-
In case anyone is interested, I blogged today about a fascinating proposal which would, in effect, get rid of the electoral college ([url]http://lexicondaily.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-to-amend-constitution-without.html[/url]) without amending the U.S. Constitution.
Just Saying: “If developers are smart about their business, they’ll build at the optimum rate and time to sell. If they’re as dumb as we seem to be suggesting that they are, they’ll build before Davis “needs” more housing and we’ll end up with with a bunch of affordable housing thanks to the natural law of supply and demand. Either way, Davis is revitalized.”
This is more than just about needs. What happens if a lot of “outsiders” purchase homes in Davis. And if the developer fails to pay for all the costs of the services that need to be provided, which is highly likely. Then the current citizens of Davis will have their taxes/fees upped to pay for all those new services that will be needed. And some will be driven right out of their homes bc they cannot afford the new taxes/fees. In short, fiscal impact is also a consideration here…
And I would further add we need economic development right now – we don’t need residential housing right now…
[quote]”What happens if a lot of “outsiders” purchase homes in Davis. And if the developer fails to pay for all the costs of the services that need to be provided, which is highly likely. Then the current citizens of Davis will have their taxes/fees upped to pay for all those new services that will be needed. And some will be driven right out of their homes bc they cannot afford the new taxes/fees. In short, fiscal impact is also a consideration here…”[/quote]Apparently a very important issue in Davis; it comes up all the time as an argument against development of any kind.
I agree developers should pay the full costs of city services and infrastructure associated with their developments. Which ones are they not paying now? If there are any, charge them. This is such an easy fix, it’s difficult to see why it hasn’t already been done if you’re correct. Then outsider “fiscal impact” wouldn’t be an issue.
In addition, we’ve been paying Mello-Roos taxes on top of regular property taxes since we moved to a new Davis development 15 years ago. Mello-Roos is aimed at charging “outsiders” for the very costs we’re discussing, as well as impacts on other parts of town.[quote]”And I would further add we need economic development right now – we don’t need residential housing right now…”[/quote] You feel these somehow are mutually exclusive goals? We’ve got a city staff that geared up for both a few years ago; let’s put them back to work.
“Outsiders” usually are considered an asset to an aging community. Other than our artificially high housing prices, Davis has everything that families look for in a place to live.
Elaine,
New projects in Davis are revenue neutral. The “we’re going to have to subsidize the “outsiders”” canard you keep repeating is a little crass.
Most current residents of Davis are “outsiders.”
[quote]”How much should a land owner pay to have his land’s zoning changed? “[/quote]Now, this IS a great question. I’m not sure that a giving is a mirror image of a taking, but the property owner usually does get a pretty good deal on the first one.
The first way to get even with the rezoning windfall winner is to reappraise the property the following day to the new highest and best rate, assuming the all of the city rezoning costs already have been paid leading up to the change. That way, we’re hauling in the extra cash whether or not they develop in the next 10 or 20 years.
When they’re ready to develop, make sure they pay the full freight for the city costs (see Elaine’s concern above) as well as get serious about the amenities we want to have them contribute to make Davis a better place for the old-timers and the outsiders. There’s probably some outside limit on what we could demand, but let’s press it and, then, not give it back a few years down the road. Let’s also work with the schools, libraries, etc., choosing our demands.
If they don’t want to develop and, instead, sell it off in order to take their bonanza and run, we get another shot at raising the ante with the eventual developer. When we finally get our new houses, make sure our city services (and the future capital needs to continue them) are fully supported by all residents. That would include the seniors who’ve spent decades in their “Prop 13 protected,” no-mortgage, $400,000 homes.
We could just levy a 10% rezoning advantage fee up front instead of all this. But, I’d kinda’ like a well-managed, traditional method instead.
[quote]The Verona developers are not starting to build now because they have miscalculated the demand. They are betting real dollars and understand our market better than anyone on this blog.[/quote]
The last time I went past the Verona site it looked pretty clear to me that they were well on their way to completing the first half dozen homes.
[quote]I agree developers should pay the full costs of city services and infrastructure associated with their developments. Which ones are they not paying now? If there are any, charge them. This is such an easy fix…..JustSaying[/quote]The state does not allow us to charge “full freight”. The state only allows us to charge for that fraction of required new infrastructure that the project uses.
For example, if a new project adds enough incremental units to trigger the need to enlarge a wastwater treatment plant, widen an off-site road, build, operate and maintain a fourth fire station or do another major off-site improvement, we can only charge the developer that fraction of the new facility that the triggering project uses (usually tiny), rather than the full cost of the improvement which would have been unnecessary without the project.
[quote]New projects in Davis are revenue neutral. The “we’re going to have to subsidize the “outsiders”” canard you keep repeating is a little crass. — Frank[/quote]New projects are usually not in fact revenue neutral if one employs under reasonable methodology, as I have tried to explain when we have discussed previous projects.
Sue,
I have complete faith in Paul Navazio. Are you now trying to explain that he doesn’t employ reasonable methodology? If you disagree with the conclusion, does that automatically mean that the methodology was flawed?
Frank:
For example, I described in depth what I considered to be the flaws in the Wildhorse Ranch fiscal analysis at the time that that project was under consideration.
The major flaw was that a one-time contribution was divided over 15 years in order to make the project “break even” for the first fifteen years. After that, the project bottom fell out of the project’s bottom line.
The fiscal analysis was designed to break even only over the period covered by the long-range fiscal analysis, which was fifteen years.
[quote]After that, the project bottom fell out of the project’s bottom line. [/quote]Yet another type. I meant to say “the bottom of fell out of the project’s bottom line.”
As you’ve all noticed, I have a proofreading disability. I see things the way I thought them, not the way I wrote them unless I put the item down and wait for about half an hour, which is infeasible when posting blog comments.
Sue,
Since David Greenwald and many others that post(ed) here were such strong proponents of the Wild Horse Ranch project, one can only conclude that (1) some projects that fail to meet the fiscal neutrality benchmark are acceptable to all these people, or (2) your claim about the fiscal analysis flaw has no merit.
Frank,
A very small number of those who post here supported WHR. I would venture it was about the same ratio by which the project failed. Perhaps instead of using an association fallacy to dismiss Sue’s argument, you could cite the flaws in the general thesis that these developments fail to pay for themselves. Better yet, perhaps you could provide some basis for your assertion that “new projects in Davis are revenue neutral.”
“once again there are plenty of houses on the market “
Much of the housing in Davis that is available is old, run down and over priced.
Davis is not a housing market unto itself. Right now there are 900 houses listed in West Sacramento (611 foreclosures), over 600 in Woodland (439 foreclosures), 250 in Dixon (196 foreclosures).
Median sales prices:
West Sac — $200,000
Woodland — $215,000
Dixon — $215,000
Are the homes that developers are going to build on the ConAgra site going to sell for $200K?
Are rental units planned for the ConAgra site to help with the low vacancy rate in Davis? Duplexes? Apartment buildings?
Prior to the breakdown of budget negotiations, UC Davis announced layoffs of 450 – 500 employees. Better up that number if it is an all-cuts budget. Where is the local job growth going to come from that will lead to housing demand, enough to offset the loss of public-sector jobs here?
Don: I used the subjective term “many.” Your point about ratios is irrelevant and, at any rate, unquantifiable. We could start listing names, but I don’t see the point in that.
That being said, let me narrow and restate the point …
Sue: Since David Greenwald was such a strong proponent of the Wild Horse Ranch project, one can only conclude that (1) some projects that fail to meet the fiscal neutrality benchmark are acceptable to him, or (2) your claim about the fiscal analysis flaw has no merit. And for the record, I’m not taking sides.
[quote]Much of the housing in Davis that is available is old, run down and over priced.[/quote]Which is a very real annoyance to many Davis residents that might have a perfectly reasonable desire to buy their first home, up-size as their families grow, or down-size when the nest is empty or times are hard.
Is there some problem with these?
[url]http://www.trulia.com/CA/Davis/[/url]
I urge the council to tell ConAgra that
–there is little need for new housing at this time, with sufficient units approved to meet current demand.
–it seems unlikely that housing construction would begin on this site within the next two to three years, at the earliest.
–rezoning the site as requested would lead to a huge windfall for the owners, but yield little benefit to the city, and would remove a potential business site from the city zoning. If ConAgra, as they have stated, will never build a business park there, they can sell the land to someone who is willing to consider working within the current zoning.
–If they want to build houses on the site, they can resubmit their plans in the future.
In any case, there is no compelling reason to rezone the site at this time, or any time within the next 2 – 3 years. Thus the current plan doesn’t even need to be considered, since it doesn’t meet current zoning, and council and staff should spend no more time on it.
[quote]”The state only allows us to charge for that fraction of required new infrastructure that the project uses….we can only charge the developer that fraction of the new facility that the triggering project uses (usually tiny), rather than the full cost of the improvement (expanded wastewater treatment, wider off-site road, etc.) which would have been unnecessary without the project.”[/quote]Sue, I hesitate to question you on something with which you’ve had such a long and intimate connection. But, I wonder why the state would intentionally limit cities from imposing more than a “tiny fraction” of a development’s actual costs to the cities…and what mechanism the state uses carry out this mandate?
Can’t the city set its own fee schedule to at least recover all planning, code enforcement and similar costs involved in evaluating, approving and inspecting a development?
Didn’t the state come up with Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) Districts in order to have “the outsiders” pay for just the type of off-site and incremental costs you say are keeping us from getting “full freight” for new developments? (If not, the city needs to refund my Mello-Roos taxes for all the projects outside my neighborhood!)
Finally, isn’t the city able to budget properly to cover all on-going costs of services once “the outsiders” move into new developments? In fact, it seems as though new developments even could help provide economies of scale for some of our city services.
With all these tools at hand, why aren’t we be able to recover more than a “tiny fraction” of city costs for new developments? It seems that prohibiting development is a short-sighted way of dealing with the problem you describe. Do you see any other way to fix it?
Don: I’ve been told that you live in the Dixon area. Is this correct? If so, why do you care so much about an infill site within the city limits?
[quote]”Davis is not a housing market unto itself. Right now there are 900 houses listed in West Sacramento (611 foreclosures)…”[/quote]But, Davis IS a school district unto itself. Who wants to live in West Sac? If $200,000 housing is the most important thing to people, let them buy there. We’re talking about Davis.
[i]”But, Davis IS a school district unto itself.”[/i]
“The Davis district had 143 interdistrict transfer students in 2007-08. Today, the Davis district has 452 interdistrict transfer students…”
[url]http://www.djusd.net/news/enrolebb[/url]
If school enrollment is your concern, it can be resolved without building a single house. My children attended DJUSD K – 12 by interdistrict transfer.
I know many people who live in Natomas and send their kids to school in Davis (public and private) so Davis is not an island unto itself.
Sue is correct that the fiscal analysis prepared for WHR had many flaws.
In addition to the 15 year period problem (which is absurd–the City has to support property in perpetuity) the sales prices assumed for houses at the time were quite high (and housing prices have fallen further–where they go next is anyone’s guess). And the model used by the City has numerous optimistic assumptions built into it that favors developers, e.g., the turnover rate of homes (which is important since Prop 13 limits property tax increases until resale) is quite high.
[quote]”If school enrollment is your concern, it can be resolved without building a single house. My children attended DJUSD K – 12 by interdistrict transfer.”[/quote]School enrollment is not my concern. There’s nothing to resolve except the overly large class sizes that hamper effective teaching.
Apparently I’m wrong about the district’s inward-looking emphasis–I was thinking back several years to the time a colleague sold his home in Woodland in order to buy one in Davis so the two children could continue to attend Davis High School when “interdistrict transfers” were losing their slots.
I guess times have changed quite a bit since then, when it took a really good story to get one’s non-Davis children into our schools and they got to remain here only as long the district had the limited extra space to allow it.
Do “interdistrict transfers” pay anything in lieu of the parcel taxes Davis homeowners contribute to our schools?
So, we’re losing ground trying to educate our kids on the inadequate funds the state provides for each student–but that’s okay, we’ll make it up on volume.
Glad your children were able to get a quality Davis education.
Don Shor: “I urge the council to tell ConAgra that
–there is little need for new housing at this time, with sufficient units approved to meet current demand.
–it seems unlikely that housing construction would begin on this site within the next two to three years, at the earliest.
–rezoning the site as requested would lead to a huge windfall for the owners, but yield little benefit to the city, and would remove a potential business site from the city zoning. If ConAgra, as they have stated, will never build a business park there, they can sell the land to someone who is willing to consider working within the current zoning.
–If they want to build houses on the site, they can resubmit their plans in the future.
In any case, there is no compelling reason to rezone the site at this time, or any time within the next 2 – 3 years. Thus the current plan doesn’t even need to be considered, since it doesn’t meet current zoning, and council and staff should spend no more time on it.”
Nicely said…
Dr. Wu: “Sue is correct that the fiscal analysis prepared for WHR had many flaws. In addition to the 15 year period problem (which is absurd–the City has to support property in perpetuity) the sales prices assumed for houses at the time were quite high (and housing prices have fallen further–where they go next is anyone’s guess). And the model used by the City has numerous optimistic assumptions built into it that favors developers, e.g., the turnover rate of homes (which is important since Prop 13 limits property tax increases until resale) is quite high.”
And this is the crux of the matter. In the past, City Councils have ended up not demanding the developers pay the full costs of development – covering this truth over with shaded data that favors development.
So my question to Just Saying and Frank is this: If the proposed project is not net fiscally neutral in reality, but a big fat net fiscal negative, are you in still support of it then? If not, then it is important to DEMAND that the CC make sure the project pencils out so the city is not paying anything in the way of costs of the development. The city cannot afford it right now – it cannot even pay for the current city services it is supposed to provide.
Doctor: [i]”the (assumed) turnover rate of homes (which is important since Prop 13 limits property tax increases until resale) is quite high.”[/i]
The assumed rate is once every 7 years. I don’t know factually whether that number is high, low or spot on. I treid to determine it by requesting sales numbers through the county records, but our county keeps terrible records and thus they would or could not help me.
Thus I ask: do you know the 7-year assumption is too high? Or are you just guessing that?
JustSaying: Yes, times have changed. We went through the process when DJUSD tried to throw out all the interdistrict transfer students. There were grounds for appeal, and we won on appeal. It seems unlikely that the district will be throwing anyone out due to overcrowding any time soon.
Interdistrict families cannot be charged any “in lieu” fee. They are paying taxes in their district of residence. Of course, the district receives the ADA funding for each interdistrict student.
[i]Glad your children were able to get a quality Davis education.[/i]
I pay Davis property taxes.
Elaine, One the fiscal neutrality question, the answer is an emphatic yes. But in return, I ask that you withhold judgement until we see the fully specified project. As I understand the process, this will be when it comes before the Planning Commission upon completion of an EIR. You are too important to the senior community to be carrying water for the Vanguard.
Rich:
I was involved in a project a few years ago and looked at national data. The most comprehensive study was done in 1996 and concluded that the average turnover rate in the US for houses was 11.9 years. Here is a link:
http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/6-27-97/265895&EDATE=
Of course that study is old and turnover varies by location (though Davis is likely to be significantly more stable than most communities for a variety of reasons) and turnover rates vary over time as well but not by as large a factor as 11.9/7.
7 years is much lower than 11.9 years and when you crunch the numbers it makes a big difference, especially if housing prices are rising (not now obviously but for most periods housing prices do rise due to inflation–and more than the 2% Prop 13 allows). My comment above was meant as one example of an assumption which upon close inspection seems far off from the data I have seen.
[quote]So my question to Just Saying and Frank is this: [/quote]
Or do you mean Just Saying/Frank?
[quote]”Interdistrict families cannot be charged any ‘in lieu’ fee. They are paying taxes in their district of residence.”[/quote] But aren’t they getting the advantage of our superior Davis education without paying the parcel taxes that help make it better? Not that it’s that much of an issue, but we keep voting our opinion that ADA funds are inadequate for Davis school needs. [quote]”Glad your children were able to get a quality Davis education.
“I pay Davis property taxes.”[/quote] I know, and I hope you didn’t infer anything other than what I tried to say, that I’m glad for you and your kids.
Thanks for the link on enrollment projections. In less than 10 years, we’ve gone from about 8,800 Davis students (assuming very few interdistrict transfers existed then) to only 8,000 locals (plus 450 from outside who are credited with bringing in $2-million of ADA funds that have allowed the district to keep one school from being closed).
This downward trend is expected to continue even if developments like Vernona and the UCD’s West Village are built out as presently anticipated. Also, a fascinating tidbit: Up to half of Davis students attend someplace other than the neighborhood school to which they ordinarily would be assigned, thanks to the many alternative programs available here.
[quote]The most comprehensive study was done in 1996 and concluded that the average turnover rate in the US for houses was 11.9 years.[/quote]Thanks.
[quote]”So my question to Just Saying and Frank is this: If the proposed project is not net fiscally neutral in reality, but a big fat net fiscal negative, are you in still support of it then? If not, then it is important to DEMAND that the CC make sure the project pencils out so the city is not paying anything in the way of costs of the development.”[/quote]Frankly, my dear Elaine, I don’t give a dang whether this project is a go or not at this point. Of course, I want developers to cover the city’s costs for any developments. I have to wait to hear back re. Sue’s contention that it’s impossible, however.
I just get troubled when the same tired arguments get trotted out every time a potential development comes up for discussion:
[u]First[/u], developments don’t pay their own costs and there’s no way to for the city to fix that.
[u]Second[/u], not “green” enough to display Davis’ leadership–not enough Wow Factor–and there’s no way for the city to fix that.
[u]Third[/u], we have a bunch of approved building sites already and don’t need any more because the economy’s weak or the houses will be too expensive or _____(fill in the blank), and there’s no way for the city to fix that.
[u]Fourth[/u], the location just isn’t quite right because of ______(fill in the blank).
[u]Fifth[/u], we don’t want or need an influx of outsider families to help maintain a vital community or school system or business base.
In the cannery case, we’ve added a new rationale–we want to force the landowner to hold the property fallow until we somehow come up with a bunch of sales-tax generous, neighborhood-compatible businesses that don’t mind paying full-freight development costs, that won’t care about the location, that aren’t more interested in the many acres of approved (but undeveloped) business sites, and that want to spend big bucks on Wow Factor environmental sustainability in a lousy economy.
The supposed conventional wisdom never seems to get reexamined or tested. What these exercises really tell me is that Davis is doomed to years with no development, but with recurring arguments about it, until the developers eventually get the message.