On the surface there would appear to be much to validate that view. After all, the community should be involved in making decisions about their future. The community should determine to some extent what the priorities are.
About a dozen members of the public came to oppose the closure of the swimming pool. The council apparently got a lot of written communications on the matter. But in terms of proposed layoffs, salary cuts, etc., the only people to show up at the council meetings were employees.
Does that mean anything? Well it should. Understand that about 40 people showed up the previous week for and against the Cannery Park proposal from Con Agra.
Even now, when it comes to policies in this town, land use issues predominate. When comes to the budget, there are a handful of people that are engaged on the issue, and most either could not care less or trust the council to be able to handle the issue.
The public has spoken, I think loudly and clearly, voting with their feet. They voted to elected Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson, both of whom put the budget and fiscal stability on the forefront of their agendas. In turn, the council named Dan Wolk to replace Don Saylor on the council, and Mr. Wolk put unfunded liability as the most important issue facing the city.
The public will probably come out in large numbers if a park is closed, a pool is closed or a program is cut.
But even then, it is a small segment of the community. The rest of the community is not engaged.
So if Stephen Souza truly wants public input into what to cut, he ought to put the matter on the agenda and authorize the city to poll the citizens. I suspect it was more of a delaying tactic than anything else.
Back in 2009, the Vanguard hosted a town hall meeting on the budget. We had Paul Navazio from the City, we had Johannes Troost, the chair of the Budget and Finance Commission, and Mark Siegler, a past chair of the Budget and Finance Commission.
The result was a good discussion on the budget and about 50 attendees from the public, not bad. But had we been discussing development, that room would be packed.
Even on the water issue, is the public truly engaged? How many people are showing up at the neighborhood meetings on the water rate hikes? And this is an issue that directly impacts the pocketbook of voters.
The one issue that the public is energized about and where you are guaranteed to get a large turnout at a council meeting is, in fact, development.
It was interesting to see Councilmember Sue Greenwald make a similar statement earlier this week when council was discussing the city’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.
Ms. Greenwald had some legitimate concerns about the fact that the business community was driving this process. I do as well.
I have some concerns about what the “create a business-friendly” atmosphere will look like as they talk about the need to “streamline and simplify the permit process for projects that meet the city’s vision and goals.” They want to “reduce the average time for performing city responsibilities concerning planning and re-zoning requests.”
I understand the purpose for that, but the city’s process is in place in part because of the community wanting to have a say in how it develops. Things that streamline that process could begin to circumvent these protections.
Put that alongside the city’s business park land strategy, and you have a potential problem.
The problem that we face is that unlike the budget situation, where it is difficult to gauge the public because the public has been disengaged, on land use issues, the public has repeatedly spoken clearly that they are for limited growth on the periphery.
The last two peripheral projects went down overwhelmingly. Measure R overwhelmingly renewed the Measure J requirements of votes before converting farmland into urban uses.
And yet, the Business Park Land Strategy in conjunction with Cannery Park completely ignores this strongly-expressed public sentiment.
I have made this point before, repeatedly, and the council, at least three of the council members, have ignored it. You cannot have a comprehensive land strategy without figuring out what to do with Cannery Park. And you cannot figure out what to do with Cannery Park without figuring out if the voters will approve projects at Nishi, East of Mace, and in the Northwest Quadrant.
While I could nitpick the Comprehensive Economic Development plan, and in fact, I could flag them for excessive use of platitudes and jargonistic lingo, the fact remains that it is a solid document and has some very good ideas in it.
But the centerpiece to economic development in Davis is that we need to “develop and maintain a citywide land and space inventory for new businesses,” and “maintain a steady supply of developable business park land/industrial.”
Some of that could come in the form of redevelopment in Downtown and I think here you really need to look at community values. Does the public want the city to do that or would they prefer to leave Downtown largely as it is? Hard to know.
There is obviously some land that can be used for business, but if the ultimate goal is to develop Davis as a place for high tech and research-oriented business that emanates from UC Davis, there has to be land, and that necessarily requires larger parcels of land.
The only place in the city where that exists is at Cannery Park. If you go out of the city limits to Nishi, Northwest Quadrant or East of Mace, then you face a Measure J vote.
That is when things begin to bog down. You can talk about streamlining the process, but with a Measure J vote, you have insured a lengthy process, at least at the outset.
Nishi looks like a great area to develop. It is nestled against the university, has close access to I-80, and is right next to the downtown. But it has limited access through the already-congested Richards Blvd., it is slammed against the train tracks, and would require a below-grade crossing to produce access to UC Davis.
East of Mace is a different sort of minefield – a political one, as that is one of the key focus areas for slow growthers and environmentalists who fear sprawl will take development right down I-80, bumping into the delicate area that surrounds the spillway.
Then you have the Northwest Quadrant, which was one of the flashpoints for opposition to county proposals back in 2007.
Everyone says they want economic development, but the public has been very clear on the fact that Davis is not going to grow beyond its current boundaries anytime soon.
The flaw in the report is the extent to which it ignores this reality of Davis politics. In this case the community has already spoken, and very loudly.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I totally agree David, the Cannery site should be utilized for mostly business. If good jobs can be brought in it will create a demand for housing and then that will happen too.
I disagree that the public has weighed in on economic development. The document for an economic development strategy that was presented the other night at the City Council meeting had not even been seen before the meeting to any great extent by City Council members (according to Council member Sue Greenwald), let alone the public.
I was only able to scan this document briefly right before the CC meeting. There was a lot I believe that is not in there; and a lot that runs contrary to public desires (as has been noted in the Vanguard article above). During public comment I noted that while the proposed economic development strategy was a good starting point for discussion, it was very necessary to obtain community input. I’m sure the community will have much more to say about how economic development should proceed. Certainly Mayor Joe Krovoza and other CC members made some excellent points that were not in the economic development plan.
Here is a list of ideas that were suggested at the CC meeting:
Sue Greenwald:
1) Does the economic development really bring new net revenue to the city? Assess costs vs. benefits of any new economic development.
2) What are the unintended consequences of any new economic development.
3) What are the ramifications of developing the Nishi Property.
Rochelle Swanson:
4) More community outreach in the form of workshops.
5) Incorporate public concerns within the economic development strategy.
Steve Souza
6) Find ways to remove the idea that Davis is not business friendly.
Dan Wolk
7) There must be community buy-in for the economic development strategy.
8) The economic development strategy should contain actions with enough detail so goals are specific and achievable.
9) Champions of various elements of the economic development strategy is essential to the strategy’s success.
Joe Krovoza
10) The economic development strategy should synchronize with our high schools, especially any Vocational/Technical programs.
11) There must be a connection with UC Davis as a very vital element of the economic development strategy.
12) Students who are business majors or oriented towards business at both the high school and college level represent an invaluable resource and should be included as part of the economic development strategy.
I added my own points:
13) There must be more community input to this economic development strategy.
14) The permitting process must be easier, but also the fairness aspect of the permitting process needs to be addressed.
15) The issue of peripheral development versus infill must be looked at, especially because of the Cannery project and its potential for rezoning.
I look forward to a community wide discussion on the economic development strategy, and commend the Business and Economic Development Commission for getting the ball rolling on this very, very important issue.
Souza attempts to roll the clock back, i.e. to the world of his “old gang of four” who also spoke of involvement of the entire community with a plan to have real-time citizen input at Council meetings from their homes by computer. This of course, much like his current political whining, has everything to do with his being in a minority opinion, much like his “gang of four” compatriots were with regard to their development agenda. In a democracy, policy is made by those who “show up”.
I feel for local politicians in this town. It reminds me of the song by Sting with the lyrics “every move you make, I’ll be watching you”. We elect representatives and at that point they have decisions power. Community involvement to help create the plan vision and to weigh in on priorities is fine. Beyond that I see it as decision risk-avoidance. The inmates should not run the asylum.
There are two primary needs: 1 – We need to diversify and grow our tax base. 2 – We need to weed out the obscene pay and benefits paid to city employees to fix our structural budget problems. Everything else is secondary. If we are going to cut services in lieu of these two things, then getting consensus for what to cut is always going to motivate a vocal minority that value specific services. You are not going to get equal participation from those that want the services cut or that do not value the services (don’t care). Likewise, you are always going to get more community involvement from NIMBYs when the issue is new development.
At some point politicians need to accept their leadership responsibility and make decisions. As with most decisions that involve a large group of constituent-stakeholders, 1/3 with dislike it, 1/3 will support it and 1/3 will not care. You can meet and meet and meet, and that distribution will remain materially the same.
I also expressed concerns with the language regarding redeveloping older buildings downtown and eliminating height restrictions in parts of the core area, and was gratified by councils’ acceptance of my suggestion that we incorporate language about preserving the character of downtown.
I pointed out that redeveloping older buildings downtown could have a number of unintended secondary consequences. First, it tends to drive up commercial rents, making it harder to retain and attract independent locally-owned businesses. It could also destroy the character of downtown. It is the character of downtown that attracts customers.
The downtown is delightful because we have some reused cottages housing restaurants and offices, some yard space and many older funky buildings which allow us to see the sky and feel the cooling Delta breeze in the evening after baking hot summer days.
If stand at the corner of 5th and G street today and look around and then close your eyes and imagine what downtown would look like if we allowed similar widespread redevelopment and densification in the core, you can get a sense of what such policies could do to the character of downtown.
Whether you look at Berkeley, where successful retail has spun out from the densified Shattuck area downtown to the funky, one story areas of Rockridge, 4th Street, Solano Avenue and Walnut Square, or Vancouver British Columbia which has also retained the funky, older one-story buildings in its successful retail area downtown, you can see the value of refraining from overdeveloping and overdensifying downtown.
Hopefully we can convince PG&E to allow the development of their underused 25 acre corporate yard between 2nd and 5th and L Streets. That would be an ideal location for serious high-density housing development walking distance to downtown and Amtrak.
[quote]I also expressed concerns with the language regarding redeveloping older buildings downtown and eliminating height restrictions in parts of the core area, and was gratified by councils’ acceptance of my suggestion that we incorporate language about preserving the character of downtown. [/quote]
Forgive me Sue – you did mention this issue and I neglected to write it down in my notes (I was jotting things down in the margins of the agenda, so had limited room!)
Sue ,
Do you, or the City of Davis have 450 million dollars to build PG&E a new facility ?
[i]6) Find ways to remove the idea that Davis is not business friendly.[/i]
The perception that Davis is not business friendly comes from the citizen input. Thus the perception will not change.
You’re on to something there, Don .
Good Job, Sue! Thanks for sticking up for the charming character of downtown. If those totally out-of-scale pre-fab uglies going up at the corner of 5th and G and along B Street are any indication of the plans to redevelop the downtown, I heartily encourage you to stick to your guns. Otherwise, downtown will cease to be the attraction the Chamber of Commerce, DDBA, et. al. are promoting. You go girl!
DG: [i]”But (Nishi) has limited access through the already-congested Richards Blvd., it is slammed against the train tracks, and would require [u]a below-grade crossing[/u] to produce access to UC Davis.”[/i]
Minor point: the owner of Nishi told me maybe two years ago that his hope is to build an overpass, not an underpass, which would connect with A Street as you can see here:
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/S8uwSNzZ0AI/AAAAAAAAAag/ycHGyrWEgA8/s1600/nishi.bmp[/img]
I should add that the owner’s reason for that particular route is he sees the best use of the Nishi Property as condominium or townhouse residential housing, which lets people to easily drive from the Nishi land to downtown Davis.
My thinking is that the best development project for Nishi would be as an industrial park with companies sited there that have a tie to university research. If this is what the property is used for, then a more sensible road (probably an underpass) out of Nishi would be down by where the Mondavi Center and the Hyatt Place hotel are located, so that traffic could access the UCD connection to I-80 and Hwy 113 easily.
[i]”If those totally out-of-scale pre-fab uglies going up at the corner of 5th and G and along B Street are any indication of the plans to redevelop the downtown, I heartily encourage you to stick to your guns.”[/i]
The new Yolo Federal Credit Union building under construction at 5th and B is not “pre-fab” in any sense. The architecture is excellent and original and will be a nice addition to that corner. The building you should be complaining about there is the ugly and pre-fab USDA building.
I think fear that the scale of buildings like the YFCU and the Roe Bldg across 5th is unwarranted. The main street of our downtown commercial zone is G Street from 2nd to 5th–it has been since 1968–and it’s a mistake to try to make that zone look like a cottage neighborhood. I agree that where we have a lot of old cottages fronting the streets in the core, we should be sure to restrict the heights, especially near the street. But G Street, F Street and much of E Street don’t merit that qualm. In fact, what we need far more of are retail commercial spaces, like the Chen Bldg., which engage the street on the front floor and provide other opportunities going up.
Also, the Aiken project on B Street is not pre-fab. It’s sui generis. In fact, its architect, Betty Woo, is a Davis woman who is very talented. Every project I have seen her do is very high quality. She has real artistic and architectural ability. If I were building in the core, I would not hesitate to hire her.
I don’t think you are wrong to state that the Aiken project’s size and age make it feel out of character for that block of B Street at this point. However, it is in line with what the B Street Visioning Process had in mind. Time will tell if others “catch up” with that or if it sticks out like a sore thumb.
Rich,
This type of plan for Nishi would not work. Any overpass or underpass would have to be built at the Westernmost end of the property and exit out the underused UC Davis/I-80 exhange. First, Richard is already overburdened and the pattern that you describe would also end up congesting Richards almost as much as dumping the traffic right onto Richards.
Secondly, with a tall Union Pacific fence on one side and the freeway on the other, any fire or hazardous waste derailment could create a death trap for anyone west of the westernmost exit.
Unlike East Olive Drive, which would allow emergency exit to the East between the tracks and the Freeway, the Nishi is a long triangle with the railroad crossing under the freeway at the Westernmost end. That leaves no escape route whatsoever, unless the overpass/underpass is built at the far Western end of the property.
I’ve always assumed that the only way Nishi could be developed would be for the property to have autos exit toward the west, rather than toward the downtown.
Correction: [i]”The main street of our downtown commercial zone is G Street from 2nd to 5th–it has been [u]since 1968[/u] …”[/i]
That should be, “it has been since 1868.” For those unfamiliar with Davis hisotry, what we call G Street was known originally as Olive Street. Sometime before incorporation in 1917, all of the core area streets were renamed.
[i]”This type of plan for Nishi would not work.”[/i]
I’ll take your word on it. The overpass idea is what the property owner told me was what he preferred.
Note this demurral from the Finance and Budget Commission included in the minutes of their April 11 meeting reviewing the CED report:
“It was moved by Commissioner Siegler and seconded by Commissioner Beavers that the FBC
not recommend the adoption of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) as
an initial action framework for pursuing economic development priorities in the City of Davis.
It is not comprehensive and there is insufficient evidence, and many unanswered questions,
behind many of the recommended strategies and their fiscal implications. [i]We also question
whether the vision statements are consistent with broad-based community values[/i].” [Emphasis added].
I think this accurately reflects the divisions within this community about development and economic growth strategies. I also think those who are pushing for active economic development, and consideration of peripheral sites for business park development, are in a minority in this community.
The letter from BEDC focuses on this action step (see their letter attached to the report):
“People Element Action step 6. 1.1 (page 18): Expand community awareness of how economic development relates to our quality of life…..
[i]Once the community understands the basic facts surrounding economic development, the initial planning process can be completed and we can move forward with the real work of actually doing what needs to be done.[/i]” [Emphasis added].
This suggests to me that the BEDC (and DSIDE; there is considerable overlap of key participants) members think that the problem is that the public doesn’t understand the benefits of economic development. I suggest that the public instead puts development and quality of life in a different context, and that the way Davis voters have responded to growth initiatives is not a reflection of ignorance [i]but of different values[/i].
Rich Rifkin,
While I think that the type of high-density architecture at 5th and G Street is fine for 5th and G Street, I think it would be terrible for the rest of downtown. I don’t think I would enjoy taking a stroll down a street lined with such buildings. We don’t have anywhere near the sidewalk width and setbacks that such buildings would need in order to retain a pleasant, friendly feeling — and I am not sure that even that would help.
My input is that we have TOO MUCH public input at too many stages of Davis decision-making. Why not let our elected representatives do something? Think it through, decide and do it!
Uninformed, deviously informed publics have voted to overrule any decisions our representatives make, crippling our schools and making Davis inhospitable for housing development or business development.
Jeff has outlined a portion of our dilemma perfectly. David, usually in fear of nothing, finds a Measure J/R vote terrifying even for something that “everyone says they want (economic development).”
Do we really want anything new built here if “the public has repeatedly spoken clearly that they are for limited growth on the periphery”? We’ve turned our representative democracy into a operation that avoids ANY decision because we’ve let them know we don’t value their leadership or trust them to decide anything on our behalf.
Sure, let’s schedule a bunch of meeting to find out (again) that there are pluses and minuses to every concept, allowing us to do some more nothing
P.S.–What happened to DT Businessman? Moved to DT Sacramento? He should be weighing in on these things.
“allowing us to do some more nothing”
I realize that this is totally subjective, but I would not call a population increase from 36,640 in 1980 to 65,622 in 2010 “doing nothing”.
[b]medwoman[/b], your point is a good one–over 30 or 40 years, Davis has been a vital little city. My disappointment was focused on the last decade, since we used Measure J to forcefully send the message to our elected leaders that we don’t trust them or their judgement on land use decisions (much as Prop. 13 did for tax decisions).
Is our municipality better off now than it was in 2000 when we took from the city council the power to decide such issues? Is there any prospect for any kind of development now that a minority of residents won the Measure J vote?
I meant to finish with “…the Measure R vote.”
[quote]6) Find ways to remove the idea that Davis is not business friendly.
The perception that Davis is not business friendly comes from the citizen input. Thus the perception will not change. [/quote]
I would argue that the businesses themselves have contributed to the perception that Davis is not business friendly, as well as the city’s permitting process itself. It is not just citizens who have created the perception that Davis is not business friendly.
[quote]This suggests to me that the BEDC (and DSIDE; there is considerable overlap of key participants) members think that the problem is that the public doesn’t understand the benefits of economic development. I suggest that the public instead puts development and quality of life in a different context, and that the way Davis voters have responded to growth initiatives is not a reflection of ignorance but of different values. [/quote]
I think this is a very astute observation…
[quote]My input is that we have TOO MUCH public input at too many stages of Davis decision-making. Why not let our elected representatives do something? Think it through, decide and do it! [/quote]
Because in the past, City Council members have done things that are not in the best interest of the city/citizens, but to the city’s/citizens’ detriment. Why do you think we have Measure J/R? Because we could not trust City Council members to make decisions based on what was in the best interests of the city, but we could count on CC members to do what was in their own political best interest. It is very important that the public weigh in on any economic development strategy… after all, it is citizens who have to live with the results…
Elaine asks: [i]”Why do you think we have Measure J/R?”[/i]
Elaine answers: [i]”Because we could not trust City Council members to make decisions based on what was in the best interests of the city.”[/i]
My answer is different. I think the reason we ended up with the Measure J process is because at first a small majority and increasingly an overwhelming majority of voters in Davis are selfish about growth. That is, they ask the question [i]what is in it for me?[/i] to have all this open space developed, to have more and more car traffic on the streets I drive on, to make Davis into a city so large that I no longer recognize it?
When they answer those self-centered questions, they decide none of the benefits of growth redound on themselves, but many of the costs do. So they oppose growth at every turn.
Some tell themselves that their own opposition to growth is more altruistic: that they are fine with new housing, but only if it is all affordable to people making a minimum wage; that they are fine with new housing, but only if the developers make no profits; that they are fine with new housing, but only if the fees charges to the developer and the taxes paid by the new residents cover all possible increase in the city’s labor costs; that they are fine with hew housing, but only if it is 100% green and located in the core area so that the new residents will not have to drive anywhere; that they are fine with new housing, but only if it is built on land which is not agricultural; that they are fine with new housing, but only if it is buiilt exclusively for existing residents; or they are fine with new housing, but only if it is extremely dense and has no impact on its neighbors.
I am certain many people who say these things believe them. But what I really hear is that a large percentage of existing residents just don’t see what’s in it for them about letting in new residents.
The question remains, why, if the voters so overwhelmingly oppose new housing, does the city council approve these projects? It’s not a simple answer, but I think these are the components of it: 1) some are influenced by developer donations; 2) some are philosophically pro-growth and view growth as a good for the city at large; 3) some are sympathetic to those who would buy a house in the new developments; 4) some are just passing the buck, voting yes but really leaving the decision up to the voters down the road; and 5) some think that unless there is a great negative reason to oppose a specific project, they will vote yes as a matter of fairness to the developer who followed the process, based on city guidelines and the like.
That said, given the votes on Covell Village and Wildhorse Ranch (and the bad housing market), I expect it will be harder and harder to get a majority on the city council for some time in favor of a new major housing project. The members of the council will see a no vote as less costly to them than a yes vote would be.
“David, usually in fear of nothing, finds a Measure J/R vote terrifying even for something that “everyone says they want (economic development).” “
That’s not my position. My position is to oppose further development of land that is not currently in Davis’ boundaries and therefore I “fear” that re-zoning Cannery would leave Davis without viable land suitable for economic development. Fear in this case meaning concern.
“My answer is different. I think the reason we ended up with the Measure J process is because at first a small majority and increasingly an overwhelming majority of voters in Davis are selfish about growth.”
I guess you could argue that in the same sense that you could argue that people are selfish in general and act in their own self-interest.
Most people value the small town feel, the open space, the lack of congestion, traffic, pollution, crime, good schools, etc. You can pose the issue as a negative or a positive depending on your perspective of course.
[i]”I guess you could argue that in the same sense that you could argue that people are selfish in general and act in their own self-interest.”[/i]
Yes, it is rational self-interest. But it is still a form of selfishness. It usually ignores the interests of those who would want to live in the new neighborhood. As to the “small town feel,” you are certainly right that is said over and over. I remind people that when I moved here (at age 1.5) there were 12,000 people and if we had insisted on the same small town feel, you would not have housing here.
A funny anecdote about those against growth … I recall, maybe a year or two after Wildhorse was approved and the lawsuits were settled and the new houses were popping up, I ran into a guy in Davis who I remembered meeting during the Wildhorse campaign. He was outspoken against it. I was undecided at the time and wanted to tell him I ended up voting no.*
He then said, “I guess I am glad it passed. My wife and I bought a house in Wildhorse on Audubon.” I thought the fact that he worked to defeat Wildhorse but then moved into it was quite funny.
[img]http://www.journalofantiques.com/images49/f-BlueJay.JPG[/img]
I also recall that he didn’t know that John James Audubon was famous as a wildlife painter (principally of birds). Although the Audubon Society is named for him, I once heard a Paul Harvey radio program in which Harvey (who I have no idea if he was accurate) said Audubon was a cruel and vicious person who derived pleasure in killing the birds he painted. Now you know the rest of the story …
—————————
*My no vote was ultimately decided based on what Eileen Samitz had said–that Wildhorse was leapfrog development and it would necessitate more development on the large farm between Pole Line and F Street. But for Measure J, Eileen was probably right.
“I remind people that when I moved here (at age 1.5) there were 12,000 people and if we had insisted on the same small town feel, you would not have housing here. “
That is undoubtedly true, but there is no god-given right for people to be able to have housing to move to a given community. In the end, the decisions made in the past are just that – those of the past, they do not bind future decisions. People at that time were obviously not of the same view of growth as they are now.
On the other hand, who is to tell the people of Morro Bay, a city about 10K in population that they have to grow just because Davis did.
I chose to live in Davis over a larger city like Sacramento because of smaller town feel and the open space, I prefer that to the urban area like Sacramento. In the end that is my choice and I fail to see how that choice is any more selfish than the people who chooses more growth either to have a place to live or out of economic self-interest.
Rich: [i] I expect it will be harder and harder to get a majority on the city council for some time in favor of a new major housing project. [/i]
I think there is a 3:2 majority on the council right now in favor of one particular new major housing project.
Rifkin
Like David, I am a little perplexed. Presumably developers choose to develop properties because they perceive it as in their best economic interest to do so. And people who want to move to Davis see it as in their best interest to live here for work, the schools, presence of family and friends, or just because theynlike the town. And there are some of us who want to live here specifically because we want to live in a small city that does not have limitless growth as a majority priority. I am unclear why you seem to feel that some groups goals are somehow more worthy or noble than others.
[quote]My answer is different. I think the reason we ended up with the Measure J process is because at first a small majority and increasingly an overwhelming majority of voters in Davis are selfish about growth. That is, they ask the question what is in it for me? to have all this open space developed, to have more and more car traffic on the streets I drive on, to make Davis into a city so large that I no longer recognize it? [/quote]
With all due respect, and I do mean that sincerely, you are certainly entitled to your opinion that YOU THINK my support for Measure J was for purely selfish reasons – but you don’t know me, know my reasons, and you don’t speak for me.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”When they answer those self-centered questions, they decide none of the benefits of growth redound on themselves, but many of the costs do. So they oppose growth at every turn.
Some tell themselves that their own opposition to growth is more altruistic: that they are fine with new housing, but only if it is all affordable to people making a minimum wage; that they are fine with new housing, but only if the developers make no profits; that they are fine with new housing, but only if the fees charges to the developer and the taxes paid by the new residents cover all possible increase in the city’s labor costs; that they are fine with hew housing, but only if it is 100% green and located in the core area so that the new residents will not have to drive anywhere; that they are fine with new housing, but only if it is built on land which is not agricultural; that they are fine with new housing, but only if it is buiilt exclusively for existing residents; or they are fine with new housing, but only if it is extremely dense and has no impact on its neighbors.
I am certain many people who say these things believe them. But what I really hear is that a large percentage of existing residents just don’t see what’s in it for them about letting in new residents.”[/i]
Rich has done an excellent job in describing many of the component characteristics that define [b][i]”quality of life”[/i][/b] in his comment above. Davis worked very hard over many years to build up the quality of life here. Like any “proud parent” it is only understandable that Davis residents want to preserve “their child’s” quality of life. That is only human nature.
Don Shor said . . .
“This suggests to me that the BEDC (and DSIDE; there is considerable overlap of key participants) members think that the problem is that the public doesn’t understand the benefits of economic development. I suggest that the public instead puts development and quality of life in a different context, and that the way Davis voters have responded to growth initiatives is not a reflection of ignorance [i]but of different values[/i].”
I agree with Don’s comment, and would add one key element. It appears to me that BEDC and DSIDE both rely on a considerable amount of [i]”wishful thinking”[/i] which manifests itself in an “If we build it, they will come” approach in much of their work to-date. There is a lot of attention being paid to the supply-side aspects of business development (where the businesses will go [b][i]IF[/i][/b] they actually did come to Davis. Unfortunately, there isn’t anywhere near as much attention being paid to the demand-side . . . identifying and recruiting companies that would benefit from locating facilities in Davis.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”Yes, it is rational self-interest. But it is still a form of selfishness. It usually ignores the interests of those who would want to live in the new neighborhood. As to the “small town feel,” you are certainly right that is said over and over. I remind people that when I moved here (at age 1.5) there were 12,000 people and if we had insisted on the same small town feel, you would not have housing here.”[/i]
Rich, your point is accurate as far as it goes. In growing from 12,000 to its current 65,000 Davis has long since left the realm of “small town” and become a “small city.” That is not an insignificant change.
Given the growth during that same period of Davis’ principal economic driver, UCD, the growth from 12,000 to 65,000 makes very logical sense. As UCD continues to grow its jobs base, housing in Davis will continue to feel pressure to expand. When non-UCD jobs come to Davis the way Mori-Seiki has come to Davis, or UCD spin-off jobs come to Davis in places like the proposed Innovation Center, then added pressure for housing will come as well. However, those jobs will bring economic benefits with them and the total quality of life picture for the community will benefit.