In a letter dated July 26, 2013, to Mayor Joe Krovoza and city councilmembers, the Yolo County Board of Realtors has recommended approval of the development application for the Cannery site. Their letter asks that the letter of endorsement and support be submitted for the upcoming meetings of the Planning Commission and Davis City Council.
In the letter, the Board of Realtors writes that they “support The Cannery Project because we believe it will have a positive impact on the housing inventory in Davis. Currently, Davis only has about 80 homes on the market for sale.”
“With a population of Davis this is far too few homes to offer the residents and prospective residents. The project will provide current homeowners with the opportunity to buy up or buy down, thereby creating additional home inventory for the very limited Davis housing market,” the board states.
They argue that the project “will also provide additional choices for home buyers wanting to live in Davis for the first time.” Here they argue, “We need younger homeowners with school age children as our community is turning into a “silver haired” town. We want to encourage all walks of life as well as multi generational home owners that want to raise their families as well as live and retire here. Without additional options and home development we cannot keep pace with the needs of our current citizens as well as newcomers to our community.”
By way of example, they note some “real life citizen stories,” including one in which “there are about 20 homes on one of our past board president’s street in West Davis. There are six large 2-story homes of ’empty nesters.’ This neighborhood once was full of children but not any more. Many of the current homeowners would like to ‘buy down’ but current home inventory and choices for nice single story detached homes are very limited.”
“The current Davis home stock has created a very unfortunate trend,” they continue. “These large homes would be perfect for young families upgrading and/or moving to Davis. However, due to the lack of options for these ’empty nester,’ most will continue to remain in their large homes and remodel instead.”
“Moving to a retirement community is not an appealing option for these homeowners,” the Board of Realtors continues.
In another example, the board shares that they recently “represented two different sets of sellers who became ’empty nesters’ and decided to sell their homes and move to the Central Coast.”
They argue, “These long term residents were forced to make this decision in part because they could not find newer single story homes that fit their needs as a Davis retiree. Both parties were able to purchase newly constructed one story single family detached homes located along the Central Coast.”
The Board of Realtors believes that, over the long term, “this continual departure of our long term residents will have a negative impact on the local flavor and culture of Davis.”
“On the flip side, consider the type of positive fiscal impact this could have on the tax basis with the resale of a large 2 story home with a tremendous amount of equity,” they write.
In their letter, they conclude by urging the Planning Commission and the City Council “to move forward, with their customary due diligence, to approve The Cannery Project so that we can continue to offer the current and future residents of Davis the opportunity to have new and different housing options that continue to build upon.”
Putting Cannery on the Ballot
Yesterday, the Vanguard discussed the possibility of opponents of the current Cannery Proposal putting the measure on the ballot. According to the information that the Vanguard received on Tuesday, the only way to do that is by referendum. The referendum would be an up or down vote on the ordinance that is passed by the city council.
According to Election Code section 9237, “If a petition protesting the adoption of an ordinance, and circulated by a person who is a registered voter or who is qualified to be a registered voter of the city, is submitted to the elections official of the legislative body of the city in his or her office during normal office hours, as posted, within 30 days of the date the adopted ordinance is attested by the city clerk or secretary to the legislative body, and is signed by not less than 10 percent of the voters of the city according to the county elections official’s last official report of registration to the Secretary of State…”
That would require that the opponents would have 30 days to gather signatures. They would need 10 percent of the registered voters – which currently is calculated at 37,643 registered voters, meaning they would need 3765 valid signatures.
If they achieve that, “the effective date of the ordinance shall be suspended and the legislative body shall reconsider the ordinance.”
Effectively, that would require more than 5000 signatures in a 30-day period. In November 2011, the water referendum group turned in 5124 signatures and 3866 of those were valid. At that time, they needed 3705 signatures, which meant that they achieved that result by just 161 signatures.
Michael Harrington spent about $10,000 to get those signatures through a paid canvassing process. Given the time constraints, that is probably about what it would take this time, as well. Edit: A member of the group that worked on the referendum said that the majority of the valid signatures were from volunteers not paid workers. The paid workers did provide the decisive signatures however, a large number of their signatures were invalid.
If the signature-gathering effort is successful, the council would have the option of calling a special election or putting it on the ballot at the next municipal election.
Looking at the timeline, if the project were approved by November 1, the opponents would have 30 days to gather signatures, which would put them around December 1, 2013 for completing the petition.
Most likely the council would put the measure on the ballot for the next municipal election, which would be in June 2013. That would save the city about $100,000 or more from trying to put it on the ballot as a special mail-in ballot.
Those the Vanguard spoke with indicated that other efforts would not be successful, as the ordinance would be effective by December 1, 30 days after approval by the city council.
The expressed interest of several who might be putting the project to a vote would be to make the property subject to a Measure J-style vote if any future council wishes to change the zoning to housing. However, at least according to our sources, that would take a separate ballot initiative.
The council could opt to put the matter to a vote themselves with three votes, as a showing of good faith. The Vanguard has not spoken to any councilmembers regarding this possibility.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The council could opt to put the matter to a vote themselves with three votes, as a showing of good faith.’
What about good faith to the people they asked to come forward with a proposal? If this was going to be put to a vote by the council it should have happened at least two years ago. Demanding it now isn’t good faith its obstruction.
Mr. Toad
[quote] If this was going to be put to a vote by the council it should have happened at least two years ago. Demanding it now isn’t good faith its obstruction.[/quote]
Your comments read as though opposition to the Cannery project is new and that those who oppose it are
“not acting in good faith”. This is clearly not the case as opposition to the project has been present and outspoken at multiple meetings and on this site. I think the difference is that previously, at least some of us believed that the 3-2 split might favor the opposition. This is not the case and so a different approach is warranted.
This is no different than any other closely divided proposal that we have seen in recent years. We have seen the
Target nearly evenly divided by vote and likewise the water project. Does anyone doubt that the Cannery proposal will have at least as much if not far greater impact on the community than the Target ?
Whether you want to call it “obstruction” or whether you want to call it advocacy for what one perceives as the best interest of the city is nothing more than a reflection of one’s own vision. There is no “good faith” or lack there of here. There is merely a difference of vision and preference for the city we all care about.
[quote]What about good faith to the people they asked to come forward with a proposal?[/quote]
I think showing good faith to the citizens of Davis is much more important than some corporation.
[quote]Yolo County Board of Realtors has recommended approval of the development application for the Cannery site. [/quote]
Is this really a surprise? How often are they ever against any new developments?
“The expressed interest of several who might be putting the project to a vote, would be to make the property subject to a Measure J style vote if any future council wishes to change the zoning to housing. However, at least according to our sources, that would take a separate ballot initiative.”
Who are these mysterious people who either agree with the Vanguard about ginning up a vote in an attempt to stop this project or who are opining on the applicable law?
Obviously if I felt I could name people, I would have.
Where were the calls for a popular vote when the council solicited the proposal. Why wait until so much time, money and effort has been expended to ask for a vote. If you had demanded the council put forward a popular vote at the beginning of the planning process it would have been one thing but I don’t recall that happening. i wouldn’t have liked it but at least you wouldn’t be coming in late after a whole lot of effort demanding direct democracy. In fact the reason the council asked for a proposal was exactly because Cannery being inside the city limit means that a popular vote is not required. In the courts they have this thing called standing. It prevents people from coming in at the last minute making unreasonable demands. The council shouldn’t put it on the ballot for exactly this reason.
“Where were the calls for a popular vote when the council solicited the proposal. “
First of all there were some who have stated that it should be put to a vote for some time.
Second, I think a lot of people were interested to see what the proposal was and where the council was leaning before calling for a vote.
But several have been calling for a vote on this all along.
Who, how many, where? Show me letters to the editor, posts on the vanguard or public comments at the council or commissions. There has been no public outcry for a vote. There was some discussion before the last council election but the biggest opponent lost.
Frog, many have been saying for years that the zoning shouldn’t be changed and that the Cannery should be developed for light industry.
So what, you’d say that about any growth issue. In fact your handle hints at your obsession. The point in question is when did you start demanding a popular vote on Cannery? Was it more than last week? Show me the record. Show me the outcry and the groundswell for a vote. Otherwise you get 30 days to get out there and solicit.
Mr. Toad
Since I do not know your identity, I cannot be sure. However, from your comments over time, I believe that you were present at a citizens information meeting at which a number of us strongly challenged the developer and expressed our strong opposition to this project with city staff in the room and comments being collected.
I would find it very surprising if you were not aware of the existence of these sentiments in the community for years.
By the way, you keep saying how easy it will be so go ahead and get to work. Gathering that many signatures will demonstrate that there is enough opposition to warrant a popular vote on the matter. Otherwise it looks like you are asking the council to do your heavy lifting for you.
Frog
[quote]In fact your handle hints at your obsession.[/quote]
LOL, if you ask me you seem to be the one who has an obsession with this project.
“Who, how many, where? Show me letters to the editor, posts on the vanguard or public comments at the council or commissions. “
I’m sorry, you seem to have enough time to search for yourself. Start by looking up articles on Cannary. I have to get to Woodland.
Thanks to those who identified what you call “bad subdivisions” in Davis yesterday.
i was disappointed that our small abode in a nice neighborhood within walking distance of stores, several eateries, two great parks, nearby bike paths and lanes, bus lines–pretty much a place I thought most folks would enjoy–was on your “bad” list.
When we moved back to Davis, we found our old West Davis (now “Central Davis”) neighborhood no longer affordable for us. Although our old neighborhood shared many of the amenities of our new Mace Ranch place, we were pleased that our new “affordable” house is safer from fire and packed with energy and water-efficient features than our old one.
I’m thinking that almost every Davis housing subdivision would be a “bad” one in your minds, including any of those where Streng built (like our old place). Like anything in South Davis. Or anything in North, East or West Davis. Or, Old North Davis. Or, any other subdivision that includes single-family dwellings and duplexes in the mix. Or, any housing development of any kind.
Maybe I posed the wrong question. (But, it was someone else who suggested that we we should vote to stop the proposed development because we’ve experienced “bad” ones.)
Instead, let me ask, “what kind of housing development would you term ‘good’ in Davis?
“Like anything in South Davis. Or anything in North, East or West Davis. Or, Old North Davis.’
Reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld talking about those weapons of mass destruction. We finally found them, they were right under our noses all the time in the housing stock of Davis.
Medwoman at any time during that process did you personally and publicly call for an election?
Growth izzue at any time during that process up until now did you personally and publicly call for an election?
“The council could opt to put the matter to a vote themselves with three votes, as a showing of good faith.’
Or, the council could do its job–make the decision and, if it approves, work to assure that the development fully pays for infrastructure, meets Davis’ needs, adds quality to the community, etc.
“I’m sorry, you seem to have enough time to search for yourself.”
If i was in a position to decide whether to have a vote or make you petition for it I would ask you to provide similar information to gauge the veracity of your claim.
Frog
[quote]Growth izzue at any time during that process up until now did you personally and publicly call for an election? [/quote]
No, I was hoping/still hope that the council will do the right thing and keep it zoned industrial. Now that it’s statrting to look like they’re going to cave to the wishes of this corporation it’s time to take other steps.
Medwoman : “I think the difference is that previously, at least some of us believed that the 3-2 split might favor the opposition.”
So if the council went the other way would you demand a vote? Anyway, when did the council vote to proceed? How long ago? At least a year or two. Why didn’t you demand a vote then?
DG: “The expressed interest of several who might be putting the project to a vote, would be to make the property subject to a Measure J style vote if any future council wishes to change the zoning to housing. However, at least according to our sources, that would take a separate ballot initiative.”
JS: “Who are these mysterious people who either agree with the Vanguard about ginning up a vote in an attempt to stop this project or who are opining on the applicable law?”
DG: “Obviously if I felt I could name people, I would have.”
Not obvious at all. And, why can’t you name them?
Assuming that they exist and that you can correctly spell their names, there seems no reason not to name them. Attribution would allow readers to evaluate the quality and credibility of the comments. If the source(s) request anonymity, you could indicate that as well as their reason and some description of their qualifications to give legal opinions, for example.
“Now that it’s statrting to look like they’re going to cave to the wishes of this corporation it’s time to take other steps.”
Honestly, when was that vote to proceed with a plan for housing? How long ago? That would have been the time to demand the council put it on the ballot. Before much time and money was invested. If you want to have an election now you should earn it by collecting the signatures.
So who’s the 3 and who’s the 2? And do future election(s) portend the votes for each??
I think the vote was 4-1 to proceed with a plan for development at Cannery. I’m not sure though.
[quote]Medwoman at any time during that process did you personally and publicly call for an election?[/quote]
I was hoping for a favorable CC vote.
Fair enough, so in my opinion, if you want a vote you should go get the signatures.
Mr.Toad, whether medwoman or Growth Izzue or anyone else here can personally point to specifics of their opposition really doesn’t matter much. There’s enough general, perpetual, free-floating hostility about development in and around Davis to provide grist when any potential project that comes up. That’s how we got the reputation as an anti-growth, anti-business community. And, there is no room for compromise.
Mr. Toad
[quote]So if the council went the other way would you demand a vote? Anyway, when did the council vote to proceed? How long ago? At least a year or two. Why didn’t you demand a vote then?[/quote]
Because, unlike how you choose to portray those of us who prefer slow growth, I do not oppose any growth.
I was willing to maintain an open mind with the thought that perhaps the conversation would include enough
environmental innovation, enough truly affordable housing rather than just another high priced suburban development, enough changes in transportation flexibility, enough promotions of a healthier lifestyle to make this a viable project. Instead, what I am seeing is more the the same bedroom community with some window dressing tossed in to made it “worth being in on the conversation” for those who are just trying to make as good a project as possible. For me, that effort is not succeeding.
JustSaying
[quote]That’s how we got the reputation as an anti-growth, anti-business community. And, there is no room for compromise.[/quote]
I was with you in your comment until you got to this sentence. I do not agree. Per my last post, I think that there is room for compromise, and that many of us, as stated repeatedly by Don Shor, who would accept a development specifically targeted to the groups for which we see real need, namely the students and very low income. I personally do not favor more housing targeted at the $400,000 and up group. I don’t see us ( yes, that is my demographic) and up group as needing any help from developers, or frankly anyone else.
I respect that there is probably a full range of sentiment in Davis all the way from those who would not see us grow at all, ever, to those who would turn us into a Folsom, or more likely Vacaville tomorrow. Most of us probably fall within a bell shaped curve in the middle, granted with a tilt toward slow growth. So if that is what the majority prefers, why brand it as evil ? Is this not well within the precepts of our community and our economic model, that as Frankly frequently states that we all have the right to pursue our own perceived best interest. I certainly do not see that this precludes compromise or collaboration.
“I’m sorry, you seem to have enough time to search for yourself.”
“If i was in a position to decide whether to have a vote or make you petition for it I would ask you to provide similar information to gauge the veracity of your claim.”
It takes much less time and money–and a much, much smaller group of people–to proclaim that the council “as a showing of good faith” should abdicate its role to make such decisions. Feel the pressure, you “bad faith” councilors?
But, it’s a new economic world and, one of these days, voters will express a different feeling about keeping the doors closed behind us and the negative impacts this is bring to our town.
Its going to have parks, gardens, bike paths and it already has a bus stop at Covell. It is going to have photovoltaics and a range of housing options. What more do you want. It is closer to shopping, downtown and the university than is Mace Ranch or Wildhorse. When will enough be enough?
medwoman and David, upon further reflection, surely you will recognize that the CC will be acting in extreme bad faith by punting on a decision and instead putting the project on the ballot. The CC has established a process, the applicant has followed it. At no time did the CC inform the applicant that part of the process included the CC voluntarily putting the matter to a vote. You are advocating for the CC to make-up the process as they go along depending on which way the political winds blow. Where is the process certainty in your advocacy? I don’t think Brett Lee even supports your position given his strong statements in support of process certainty.
The established process has the council making a decision. If a sufficient number of voters disagree with the decision, they can gather signatures. That is the agreed upon process and one which I wholeheartedly support.
-Michael Bisch
” I personally do not favor more housing targeted at the $400,000 and up group.”
$400,000 is below the median price in Davis. Again this raises all sorts of questions about leading by example. Anyway the best cure for high housing prices is guess what, building more houses.
Since when is being for slow growth a swear word? I like my community the way it is, I lived in places like Elk Grove and Natomas. That’s why I live here. Does that make me a bad person to try and keep my town the quaint nice place it is to live?
medwoman, notwithstanding the present disagreement about what UCD sees as the needs the city should provide for student housing, why limit new access to Davis to the itinerant and the poor? How about the weary (as the Realtors suggest).
Who will pay to build a development for students and people who cannot afford Davis housing, a “development specifically targeted to the groups for which we see real need, namely the students and very low income”?
I worry that you might have some unresolved guilt issues about becoming such a successful person, able to afford a nice life and home in Davis, while so many other, less fortunate folks never can join us here. It’s not a bad thing to have a town with lots of people with the ability to buy $400,000 houses. Get enough of these citizens within the city limits, and they can subsidize programs to bring in more of the less fortunate.
Prohibiting developments with $400,000 houses essentially means existing housing prices will keep rising, keeping the already well to do Bell Curvers happy and keeeping the poorer people in Woodland and West Sac.
“Since when is being for slow growth a swear word? I like my community the way it is, I lived in places like Elk Grove and Natomas. That’s why I live here. Does that make me a bad person to try and keep my town the quaint nice place it is to live?”
Of course not. I love you the way you are.
Based on data from UCD housing and their own surveys:
Enrollment 1997: 24,299
Enrollment 2012: 32,354
Increase in enrollment: 8,055
Total Apartments 1997: 7,591 Vacancy rate: 1.4%
Total Apartments 2012: 8,032 Vacancy rate: 1.7%
Increase number of apartments: 441
So with all the new buildings added, and all the units torn down, UCD and the city of Davis have added less than 500 units in 15 years. The vacancy rate has varied, but only once has it exceeded 4%. During 11 of the 15 years it has been less than 2%.
Please put these numbers in front of John Meyer. 8,000 new students, 441 net increase in apartments. Do you see why I say West Village barely covers the past insufficiency in housing for previous enrollment increases? In fact, it doesn’t even do that. And it certainly won’t cover the need for 5,000 more beds.
What does West Village provide?
“A home for 3,000 students, faculty and staff. At build-out, the project will include 662 apartments, 343 single-family homes, 42,500 square feet of commercial space, a recreation center and study facilities. The development also includes a site for a preschool/day care center.”
So UCD is adding 5000 students by 2020, 300+ faculty, probably at least 300+ staff, large numbers of graduate students.
We have a deficit of 7500 beds already.
They are adding a need for 5000 beds just for the student enrollment increase.
Total need: 12,500 beds.
They’re adding 3000 beds.
That’s why we need apartments.
In the absence of apartments, where do the students go when they leave the on-campus housing in their second year and up? Out into the lower-cost housing in town, where the homes that young families would purchase are occupied by groups of students. Building high-end housing to allow affordability to trickle down to young families has not worked in the past, because UC Davis has not provided their share of housing. West Village won’t cover the deficit from the past fifteen years. So all the housing proposed for the cannery site will barely put a dent in the demand created by the absence of housing needed for young adults.
Squeezed in all of this are the young adults who live here and work for our businesses and on campus. They pay a premium due to the low vacancy rate. Or they move out of Davis and commute in. With the very poor transit options coming into Davis from surrounding communities, they almost invariably drive.
“Prohibiting developments with $400,000 houses essentially means existing housing prices will keep rising, keeping the already well to do Bell Curvers happy and keeeping the poorer people in Woodland and West Sac.”
I have a different take on this. A significant part of the price support for Davis SFRs comes from investors who then rent to students even though said SFRs are designed for families. The students generally outbid families on a per bedroom rental basis. This has created a significant supply/demand imbalance, which in my mind is not healthy for our community. Constructing significantly more housing for students, as well as younger professionals, will likely address some of the imbalance, as Don rightly points out.
-Michael Bisch
Medwoman said “I was willing to maintain an open mind with the thought that perhaps the conversation would include enough environmental innovation, enough truly affordable housing rather than just another high priced suburban development, enough changes in transportation flexibility, enough promotions of a healthier lifestyle to make this a viable project. Instead, what I am seeing is more the the same…”
In response my friend the Quiensabe wrote me “How can she call Cannery more of the same. It is the most land use diverse housing development ever proposed in this community. Only 20 percent of the houses are traditional single family. There are detached small lot homes with guest houses, attached single family, row houses, stacked flats and an affordable housing component…and a commercial area on the front of the site. 24 different home plans with 70 elevations to meet every income type in town. A beautiful park with alley loaded homes fronting the park, greenbelts, an urban farm, bike paths that do go under the bridge, and a reconfigured far more pedestrian friendly J Street, not to mention the greenest most sustainable, partially solar energy efficient homes that this town has ever seen.”
David wrote:
> Yolo County Board of Realtors has recommended approval
> of the development application for the Cannery site.
Then Growth Izzue wrote:
> Is this really a surprise? How often are they ever
> against any new developments?
Realtors are ALWAYS for new development and will ALWAYS tell you it is a good time to sell OR buy (and never seem to understand that it can’t ever be a good time to sell and buy since it is either one or the other).
P.S. In other housing related news I read in the Chronicle this morning that Napolitano will be getting her housing paid for (UC is paying $150K a year in just rent for Yudoff’s place) since the “UC President’s Mansion” needs $3-6 MILLION in work to make it livable and UC is paying $25K a year to maintain it. It is sad that we can’t expect someone getting paid a half million a year to rent )or buy) their own home and sad that UC is paying more than most American’s spend for their combined home mortgage “and” home maintenance to maintain a home that they let sit empty…
[quote]Who will pay to build a development for students and people who cannot afford Davis housing, a “development specifically targeted to the groups for which we see real need, namely the students and very low income”? [/quote]
In the late 1980s a large number of apartments were built in north and south Davis. Evidently some local builders found it profitable. Tandem comes to mind.
CORRECTION: A member of the group that worked on the referendum said that the majority of the valid signatures were from volunteers not paid workers. The paid workers did provide the decisive signatures however, a large number of their signatures were invalid.
Don wrote:
> Do you see why I say West Village barely covers
> the past insufficiency in housing for previous
> enrollment increases? In fact, it doesn’t even do
> that. And it certainly won’t cover the need for
> 5,000 more beds.
Then writes:
> What does West Village provide?
> A home for 3,000 students, faculty and staff
Is seems like Don is forgetting all the newer Tandem owned and managed stuff on campus with a lot of “beds” (3 and 4 bedroom units are now very popular) and that more than 25 acres on campus (a site about the size of 1/4 of the Cannery) where close to 1,000 people currently live in the Orchard and Solano Park apartments will be torn down in phases and replaced with higher density housing over the next few years.
P.S. Is it just me or does anyone else get the feeling that Don’s employees renting in Davis are asking for raises and he is hoping we can do something to get apartment rents down to Dixon and West Sac levels?
I’m not “forgetting” anything. Here’s some historical and projected info:
[url]http://housing.ucdavis.edu/about/history.asp[/url]
The net result of the teardowns and re-openings is not a drop in the bucket of the 12,500 bed deficit.
[quote]P.S. Is it just me or does anyone else get the feeling that Don’s employees renting in Davis are asking for raises and he is hoping we can do something to get apartment rents down to Dixon and West Sac levels?[/quote]
Since you post under a pseudonym, will you please quit personalizing your responses about me?
No, I don’t get that sense from Don’s postings, but Mike Hart has been demanding that Davis real estate should be priced at Dixon and West Sac levels. I’m looking forward to purchasing my dream downtown loft at a West Sac price.
-Michael Bisch
From the current vacancy rate survey:
[quote]Changes in housing stock
In fall 2012, UC Davis made available about 500 beds for incoming freshman in Primero Grove (third party owned and operated apartments on campus). This was done to compensate for lost beds at Pierce and Thille halls, which closed in June 2011 (800 beds). Castilian Hall was also closed with a loss of 495 beds. Construction began in 2012 for a 1,200-bed housing project to open in the fall of 2014. The Castilian buildings have been demolished and Real Estate Services is negotiating a ground lease to repurpose the location for single graduate student housing.[/quote]
UCD has barely added to its housing stock. To repeat: West Village doesn’t even cover the deficit from 15 years of minimal net increase. The city has barely added apartments in that same time period, but fortunately quite a few were added in the previous decade. If they build out West Village, and no new apartments are added citywide, the vacancy rate will likely be below 2% for a decade or more. The only remaining large site that could house a large number of students and young adults is the cannery site. Or it could have a business park. Both of those uses would fulfill provable needs. The current plan does not.
Michael wrote:
> I have a different take on this. A significant part of
> the price support for Davis SFRs comes from investors
> who then rent to students even though said SFRs are
> designed for families.
We all know that “some” homes in Davis are rentals, but I would be interested to see if someone has a title company friend that could get the percentage of Davis homes where the tax bill is sent to another address (years ago I had a title rep with access to his database do this for another town with a few clicks in 30 seconds).
I was a member of neighborhood watch in our old neighborhood and we 3 out of just under 100 homes that were rentals. Now at out new home south of 80 we have just one home out of over 100 homes that is a rental.
P.S. Many owner occupants (like myself) send their tax bill directly to a business address (or CPA) while almost no landlords send their tax bills to the renters, so while the tax bill address search is not perfect it does give a basic idea of the percentage of rentals in a town (or zip code)
People can have strong opinions on things without ulterior motives.
Did you eat a fortune cookie moments ago, David?
-Michael Bisch
Don: I’ll grant you neither I nor anyone else was really factoring the past shortfalls of rental housing into the forward equation, but I do believe there are several projects that you are omitting in your forward projects. As I’ve stated before, I would prefer future student housing to be provided on campus and that will give us a sense of future housing needs off-campus.
“Did you eat a fortune cookie moments ago, David?”
No but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last weekend
“In the late 1980s a large number of apartments were built in north and south Davis. Evidently some local builders found it profitable….”
Sounds good to me. Will we.need votes to build a bunch of apartment developments on the Nishi property that’s closest to the university? We’ll still need to find a devoper?
From city-data: 12713 renter-occupied housing units
From UCD housing: 8032 apartments
= 4681 renter-occupied non-apartment housing units.
JS: UCD doesn’t need votes to put student housing on Nishi, just saying. (LOL)
Don wrote:
> Since you post under a pseudonym, will you please
> quit personalizing your responses about me?
I’m not the one making Don use his own name. Every day Don “personalizes” his own posts. Others have stopped posting under their own name and Don is free to do so at any time (and not post about his childhood days playing in the canyons east of La Jolla)
We are all free to “personalize” as much as we want. Medwoman has mentioned that she works in the medical field and Mr. Toad has mentioned that he works in the education field.
If someone posting as “Davis Roofing Contractor” thinks building 1,000 new single story homes in town is a great idea I’ll ask “does he really think it is a great idea, or does he just want more business?”
[quote]Don: I’ll grant you neither I nor anyone else was really factoring the past shortfalls of rental housing into the forward equation, but I do believe there are several projects that you are omitting in your forward projects. As I’ve stated before, I would prefer future student housing to be provided on campus and that will give us a sense of future housing needs off-campus.[/quote]
Most of what they’ve been doing is replacement of old housing stock with new housing at slightly higher density, plus West Village. Our starting deficit is 12,500 beds. We would need hard numbers about how many beds they plan to add (not replace) net by 2020 as they bring in 5000 new students. The city needs to provide the rest.
Don, the 12,713 units are all SFRs? What’s the total number of SFRs so that we can calculate the percentage?
-Michael Bisch
David, why would you want all the student housing to be on campus instead of in the community? The costs associated would be similar, but the community would forego much of the revenue (property and sales tax for example).
-Michael Bisch
In some places I hear the density is going to be doubled or tripled, not slightly higher. The other thing is that my starting place was the status quo was zero not a negative 12,713. The next question is whether we can accommodate the current planned increases. The third question is where and how much additional capacity do you want.
No, those are “housing units,” which includes apartments. Those are from census data:
Housing Tenure
Occupied housing units22948 100.00%
Owner-occupied housing units.10235 44.6%
Renter-occupied housing units.12713 55.4%
Now I notice that was 2000 data. But the number of apartments between 2000 and 2012 barely changed in the UCD housing vacancy survey.
“David, why would you want all the student housing to be on campus instead of in the community? “
Fair question. I don’t want all, I want more. Why?
1. Frees up available space for families and university employees
2. Environmentally better to put students where they can walk and bike rather than drive.
3. I don’t agree we lose the benefits – stores, restaurants, entertainment will still be in town.
Don wrote:
> From city-data: 12713 renter-occupied housing units
> From UCD housing: 8032 apartments
> = 4681 renter-occupied non-apartment housing units.
Keep in mind that in Davis most of the “renter-occupied non-apartment housing” is duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes (not single family homes)…
[quote]Keep in mind that in Davis most of the “renter-occupied non-apartment housing” is duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes (not single family homes)…
[/quote]
Bottom line: student renters [u]are[/u] a significant factor in the shortage of affordable single family homes. And duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes are often the housing of choice for young families. Your quibbling seems kind of irrelevant.
1. Building student housing anywhere will free-up space for families and university employees.
2. The majority, or a near majority, of students walk, bike and bus to campus regardless of where they live in the community.
3. That’s why I posted “much”, not “all”. Given the clarification, do you now agree the community loses much of the revenue?
-Michael Bisch
I wonder if (2) is true and if so how would we verify it
[quote]2. The majority, or a near majority, of students walk, bike and bus to campus regardless of where they live in the community. [quote]
[/quote]I wonder if (2) is true and if so how would we verify it[/quote]
[url]http://sustainability.ucdavis.edu/progress/transportation/[/url]
“Nearly 75 percent of all commutes to the UC Davis campus in 2009-2010 were via walking, bicycling, carpooling, riding a bus or taking a train.”
I really believe the housing shortage caused by UCD’s failure to provide in the past, coupled with the enrollment increases of the Chancellor’s 2020 initiative, create the most pressing planning problem facing the city of Davis. The burden of that housing shortage falls most heavily on the lowest end of the income spectrum. The needs of the business community for more room for expansion is, in my view, a lower priority than our unmet housing needs for the lower-income demographics.
We need to be realistic about the impact of UCD’s growth. We need thousands of beds. Divide # of beds by 2.5 – 3 to get # of housing units needed. I made this point during the water campaign as our supply needs were debated. I’ve made it during economic development debates as people tout jobs as a higher priority.
Mark West has made the point that we need to plan more effectively and make some community decisions about what we really need and want here. We have tradeoffs between land for businesses and land for housing, with Measure R hanging over all decisions. I’ve given the numbers; you can see the housing shortfall. The city needs to partner with UCD in providing this housing, and both entities need to get going on it soon.
So as I look at a development proposal, my question is whether it meets the community’s needs in anything like the priority of urgency. First: lower-cost housing that will be effective in bringing down the rental vacancy rate. Second: economic development. Last on my list would be more homes at the high end of the price range. I fully understand those are most profitable. But that isn’t the community’s issue.
Don, so why isn’t there such an ongoing Mark-West-type community discussion?
-Michael Bisch
“In some places I hear the density is going to be doubled or tripled, not slightly higher.”
Another nimby advocate for density in someone else’s backyard.
Don’t forget students on campus don’t get to vote in City elections. We should all be against housing more students on campus until that undemocratic reality is fixed.
Don wrote:
> So as I look at a development proposal, my question is
> whether it meets the community’s needs in anything like
> the priority of urgency. First: lower-cost housing that
> will be effective in bringing down the rental vacancy rate
Don may want more apartments, but may forget that new apartments are not “lower-cost housing”…
I just called the Ramble in West Village at 866-721-8930 (the pricing was not yet available for the brand new more expensive Solstice Apartments). A 2 bedroom unit at the Ramble rents for $1,926 and a 3 bedroom unit rents for $2,475 (they quote the prices by the “room” so they don’t scare you).
FYI I’m renting my 3 bedroom 2 bath “home” with 2 car garage (that has had $100K+ of renovations in the past 5 years) in Central Davis for less than they get for a 2 bedroom at the Ramble and I know a Davis grad student living in a nice 4 bedroom “home” in Mace Ranch (the neighborhood east of Lake Alhambra) paying less for rent than a 3 bedroom at the Ramble…
Don Shor: “[i]So as I look at a development proposal, my question is whether it meets the community’s needs in anything like the priority of urgency. First: lower-cost housing that will be effective in bringing down the rental vacancy rate. Second: economic development.[/i]”
I completely agree with this part of Don’s statement.
[i]Last on my list would be more homes at the high end of the price range.[/i]
I differ slightly with Don on this statement. We have a shortage of sites for premium quality custom homes that would attract the ultra wealthy, something we need if we want to be an attractive place for high tech business owners and CEOs.
Last on my list are the expensive single family tract home that have been the staple of housing growth in Davis for the past 10-20 years.
Just put the ConAgra project on the ballot.
[quote]So as I look at a development proposal, my question is whether it meets the community’s needs in anything like the priority of urgency. First: lower-cost housing that will be effective in bringing down the rental vacancy rate. Second: economic development. Last on my list would be more homes at the high end of the price range. I fully understand those are most profitable. But that isn’t the community’s issue.[/quote]
I think that Don has summed up my prioritization of our communities developmental needs nicely.
Besides this emphasis ( I am at least math proficient enough to recognize that 20 % equals 1/5th ) on this less needed form of housing, I also have concerns about the walkability and thus environmental and safety impact of the Cannery as proposed. Urban farm and green belts are conceptually nice, I agree, but in case anyone hasn’t noticed we already have these amenities in our community, thus I fail to see this as exceptionally innovative.
So Harrington answers my question for me. There isn’t a productive, ongoing community conversation because there are too many individuals who have no interest in such a discussion. Their narrow agendas are more achievable by undermining open, honest debate, rather than promoting a productive discussion.
-Michael Bisch
DT
[quote]surely you will recognize that the CC will be acting in extreme bad faith by punting on a decision and instead putting the project on the ballot.[/quote]
I think that “surely you will recognize….” is far too strongly stated. I of course favor my city leaders acting in good faith. However, I also truly respect the ability to recognize when one has possibly overstepped, or made a mistake, or chosen a certain path when an alternative would have been the superior choice and to alter course accordingly. There have been a number of times in my career when a patient and I have committed to a course of action only to have me think of a different alternative, or have a colleague or recent article point me in what I then belatedly perceived as a better course of action. My commitment is valuable, but so is my ability to admit that another option was actually better.
medwoman, then it’s incumbent upon you to make a persuasive argument before the PC and the CC. Failing that, you make the case while gathering signatures. But I still don’t hear you making a persuasive argument that having the CC abdicate their duty, and thereby circumventing the proscribed process, isn’t acting in bad faith.
-Michael Bisch
“Just put the ConAgra project on the ballot.”
Mike why don’t you go down to public comment and tell them that?
JustSaying
[quote]I worry that you might have some unresolved guilt issues about becoming such a successful person, able to afford a nice life and home in Davis, while so many other, less fortunate folks never can join us here. It’s not a bad thing to have a town with lots of people with the ability to buy $400,000 houses. Get enough of these citizens within the city limits, and they can subsidize programs to bring in more of the less fortunate. [/quote]
Please don’t worry so much about my psyche. My conscience is doing just fine thank you. And you are beginning to sound like Frankly who frequently indirectly informs me that I have been “brain washed” thus displaying his doubtless superior to mine insight into my mental processes.
It is a wonderful thing to have a town with lots of people with the ability to buy $ 400,000 dollar houses. However, your seeming preferred way to do this is by providing a greater supply of these and even more expensive houses. If you truly believe that there is some magic number of these folks ( your have stated “enough”) to subsidize those less fortunate, please tell me what that number would be. Obviously, you do not feel there are enough of us yet, so please tell me what you would see as the “tipping point” beyond which these economically advantaged folks would feel so grateful and so benevolent that they would then support the less fortunate in a way that we as a community have never chosen to do before.
Also, when doing this mental exercise, please bear in mind that there are some people, namely those who have made their already purchased home a corner stone of their retirement strategy, who will be harmed by “driving down” home prices in this particular range. I think this is a much more complicated situation than you and
Mr. Toad would like to make it seem with your persistent posts implying that you can discern the motivations of others that you may never have met or conversed with.
” please bear in mind that there are some people, namely those who have made their already purchased home a corner stone of their retirement strategy, who will be harmed by “driving down” home prices in this particular range.”
Why should people who can’t afford to buy a home care about the equity of those that have one. It amazes me that you think we should protect the equity position of those that have by instituting policies that hurt the have nots. Should we also protect the interests of those that have more than one home? As Ginger pointed out are you saying we should not allow developers to make money so that other home owners can make money?
What ever happened to we couldn’t build enough to bring prices down? At least it seems we all agree that argument is dead. Now the question should be is 500 homes enough to tank the market. Sadly its doubtful.
It is interesting how often the equity positions of existing homeowners gets raised by those opposed to more housing. The other day Mike Hart raised this issue and today Medwoman. This selective protection for existing homeowners is pretty offensive to those of us who have suffered being told that its not the responsibility of this community to provide housing to people who cannot afford to live here. So when adding supply effects the market we need to protect existing homeowners but when supply is tight and prices are rising its not the responsibility of the community to fix the problem for those who can’t afford to buy. Hey let’s play beat the devil. Here are the rules. I have a house so my interests must be protected but you don’t have a house, too bad, not my problem.
[i]Although our old neighborhood shared many of the amenities of our new Mace Ranch place, we were pleased that our new “affordable” house is safer from fire and packed with energy and water-efficient features than our old one. [/i]
This comment got me thinking about a particular point. Today, building technology is so much more advanced with respect to energy use and other environmental benefits, that there is a social and community benefit to consider for replacing older homes with newer homes.
One idea is to start expanding our business zoning downtown so that a larger percentage of old homes get replaced or renovated with new modern materials and environmental systems. This also allows us to expand the commercial real estate options downtown. Then we can build new homes using modern materials and systems in the surrounding areas – starting with the cannery parcels, to replace the lost downtown housing inventory.
I would like to see the cannery developed with a mix of single-family and high-density housing, light industrial/office and green space.
But since it is inadequate for meeting our economic development needs, it does not make sense to develop it 100% industrial.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”I think that “surely you will recognize….” is far too strongly stated. I of course favor my city leaders acting in good faith. However, I also truly respect the ability to recognize when one has possibly overstepped, or made a mistake, or chosen a certain path when an alternative would have been the superior choice and to alter course accordingly. There have been a number of times in my career when a patient and I have committed to a course of action only to have me think of a different alternative, or have a colleague or recent article point me in what I then belatedly perceived as a better course of action. My commitment is valuable, but so is my ability to admit that another option was actually better.”[/i]
In this representative democracy of ours doesn’t everything net down to a simple count of numbers?
What you and Mike Hart and Mike Harrington and others are advocating is for the City Council to hear the voice of the people and put this item on a ballot. What DowntownBusinessman and Mr. Toad and others are advocating is for the City Council to hear the voice of the people and not put this item on a ballot. The real question for the Council is, “What currently is the voice of the people?”
Lets take a moment to try and come up with an answer to that question. Yesterday I noted that in 2013 there have been public hearings about The Cannery before the following City of Davis governmental bodies:
Senior Citizen Commission,
Natural Resources Commission,
Open Space and Habitat Commission,
Bicycle Advisory Commission,
Safety and Traffic Commission,
Social Services Commission,
Park and Recreation Commission,
Business and Economic Development Commission,
Tree Commission,
Planning Commission, and
City Council
In addition there have been non-governmental workshops conducted by
Valley Climate Action Center, and
The Cool Davis Foundation
If you add up all the citizen attendees for all those 13 different venues, not worrying about duplications ( I attended the NRC, Planning Commission, City Council, and Valley Climate Action Center meetings which would collectively count as 4 “attendees” ), would the total number of attendees even exceed 200?
What does participation by 200 out of a population of 65,000 tell us? One could argue from those numbers that the clear voice of the people is “I don’t care!!!!”
But the reality is that of those 65,000 Davis residents, 23,000 take their level on not caring to the point where they don’t even bother to register to vote, and another 10,000 of the 42,000 registered voters didn;t care enough about the US Presidential election to bother going to the polls. So, we have a hard core of approximately 32,000 “caring individuals” that we can loosely define as “the people” when we assess the “voice of the people” question. 200 is substantially less than 1% of 32,000. Even if we inflate the attendees number to 1,000 that is only 3% of 32,000.
Does 1% to 3% interested parties constitute a “voice of the people”?
Further, my experience with the attendees at the meetings I attended was that like the opinions expressed here in the Vanguard, there were both pro- and con- opinions voiced in the public process meetings that were held.
So . . . my sense is that the best way to proceed is to let the signature gathering process give us a much better sense of whether the 97% or more of the Davis voters who appear to be in the “don’t care” column is indeed the true voice of the people.
Michael Bisch: “[i]surely you will recognize that the CC will be acting in extreme bad faith by punting on a decision and instead putting the project on the ballot.[/i]”
Medwoman: “[i]I think that “surely you will recognize….” is far too strongly stated. I of course favor my city leaders acting in good faith. However, I also truly respect the ability to recognize when one has possibly overstepped, or made a mistake, or chosen a certain path when an alternative would have been the superior choice and to alter course accordingly.[/i]”
The purpose of the City Council is to make these difficult decisions on our behalf. I would seriously question the competence of any Council member who would vote to put this question on the ballot rather than make the decision themselves. To do so would be to abdicate their responsibility.
To my reading, what Medwoman is arguing is for the ability of the Council to ‘change their mind’ which to me is a completely different issue. I value a Council member who, upon hearing all the available information, is able and willing to change their initial position on a controversial subject. The ability to listen, learn and reconsider is something that we should cherish in our political leaders. In the end though, they have to be willing to make the decision, or they are not good leaders and do not deserve their position of public trust.
Regarding Nishi – the current developer has a plan for about 600 housing units and about 300,000 sq feet of research/industrial/commercial space for small and medium sized companies (estimated to be about 10,000 to 15,000 per user). Nishi is not in the City and would require a Measure R vote under the current proposal. The City, UCD, County, and developer are meeting regularly to determine if the current development proposal can be synced up with the UCD master plan for the Gateway area (around the Mondovi Center and Solano Park student housing).
Regarding jobs – I think the discussion of housing is an important one and I enjoy hearing all of the opinions, but I do want to also make sure our community is focused on the close to 3,000 job deficit (jobs/housing balance) that Matt Williams highlighted in posts from a previous article taken from a recent Bay Area Economics (BAE) report. Also, as mentioned somewhat in earlier posts here, we need to encourage our high tech community to continue to stay and invest here because it creates high paying jobs, disposable incomes, philanthropy, and community leaders. But maybe most importantly, as global firms look to invest in research locally with UCD, they need to know that the community is committed to that effort. They can place funding in many places, but those that get the best grants and investments are those telling a welcoming story. If we accept that UCD is (and continues to be) our biggest employer, then we need to support them as an institution and provide (as best we can) the infrastructure for their success.
Why do I think these things? Very simply, it’s a revenue versus expenditure problem here at the City side of the equation. We have more demands on revenue than the ability to raise funds. And more taxes and bond measures do help, but they are not sustainable over the long haul. The City’s recent budget presentation for City Council highlighted this compounding deficit that grows to about $15 million in the next 5 years. Conversely, companies like Mori Seiki can add percentages (literally) to our direct sales tax, property tax, disposable incomes spent at restaurants, hotel rooms and taxes for visitors, and again, corporate philanthropy. We can significantly chip away at this deficit now by helping these growing companies stay local. But we have to listen to what they want and determine if we can (or are willing to) provide these opportunity spaces. The alternative to cut expenditure seems to be to continue to offload services and defer infrastructure maintenance, which is the counter thesis from what I hear most people want for Davis.
I don’t know what people want put on the ballot. Just the rezoning? An up or down vote on a specific development plan, as reviewed by the commissions and amended by the city council?
[quote]I do want to also make sure our community is focused on the close to 3,000 job deficit (jobs/housing balance) [/quote]
My 12,500 bed deficit trumps your 3,000 job deficit. 😉
[i]Does 1% to 3% interested parties constitute a “voice of the people”? [/i]
Great post Matt.
This is the same as me advocating a more grass-roots approach to grow awareness and support for an over-aching development vision. Updated General Plan, or something else.
Housing and jobs deserve equal billing. We cannot have one without the other without becoming a community out of balance. I think that is what we are becoming.
Frankly: “[i]Housing and jobs deserve equal billing. We cannot have one without the other without becoming a community out of balance. I think that is what we are becoming.[/i]”
We are already a community that is out of balance, and have been for years. We are out of balance on the jobs front, and we are out of balance on the ‘type of available housing’ front. Both problems need to be addressed immediately, and unfortunately, neither one is addressed with the current plan for the Cannery parcel.
Frankly raises a point that hasn’t gotten much attention. We have over the years lost housing stock in the downtown to businesses. The Village Bakery Pizzaria and the Davis Food Co=op house at 6th an G st. come to mind as examples. Yet we have resisted building on the periphery. So we are hollowing out housing from downtown but I have never heard a peep of resistance to this process by those who want to preserve a culture that isn’t car dependent and keep Davis “livable.” I wonder what is livable if you convert all the living spaces to businesses without adding new living space.
“Both problems need to be addressed immediately, and unfortunately, neither one is addressed with the current plan for the Cannery parcel.”
Cannery will be part of the solution to housing needs offering many options for buyers. Does the Cannery need to answer all our needs to be acceptable? No project that doesn’t entail a section of land or more is going to do that.
[i]Very simply, it’s a revenue versus expenditure problem here at the City side of the equation. [/i]
Bingo!
Although certainly we have a long list of other considerations, the goal of city financial stability and sustainability should be at the top and shared by all. And as Democrats in control of both the state government and the federal government have often repeated “we cannot just cut our way to a balanced budget.”
From my perspective, we Davistes have been living beyond our means. Like the Greeks, we are not bringing in the revenue required to cover our lifestyle nut. We don’t want more business in town that brings in more people and more pressure for housing because it causes more traffic, changes the demographic from our comfortable liberal-academic myopic, causes longer lines at the bank… etc., etc., etc.,… But, the bottom line is that business is the only development that results in net revenue to the city. We should be leading with an economic development vision that then requires a subordinate vision for housing needs.
Mr. Toad: “[i]Cannery will be part of the solution to housing needs offering many options for buyers.[/i]”
I agree with the priorities that Don has laid out for bringing our housing options into balance. Yes, we need more housing in general as you state, but to come into balance we have a greater need for apartments than for more single family homes. How many apartments are being proposed in the Cannery plan? The current plan will only exacerbate the out-of-balance problem.
[i]Does the Cannery need to answer all our needs to be acceptable[/i]?
No, but it shouldn’t make the situation worse. I don’t see this plan as addressing any of our priority needs. It is for that reason I think it is a bad plan.
“However, I also truly respect the ability to recognize when one has possibly overstepped, or made a mistake, or chosen a certain path when an alternative would have been the superior choice and to alter course accordingly.”
medwoman, you started the morning off advocating for the CC to not even bother voting on the project when all along the CC has been telling the applicant that they will vote up OR down if the applicant follows the proscribed process. To which I objected because the CC by acceding to your wishes will be breaking faith with the applicant, staff, etc., and wasting everyone’s time and money including the community’s. But now you’re saying the CC should go ahead and vote on the project, but vote it down. Which is it?
-Michael Bisch
The true voice of the people is an election that happened not too long ago where 75% of the voters said no to new development. All that’s going on now is the minority trying an end around the majority by rezoning and building a new housing development that the people of Davis don’t want. So you out there can try your fancy math and try and convince us that we want this project but the reality is we don’t.
[quote]Frankly raises a point that hasn’t gotten much attention. We have over the years lost housing stock in the downtown to businesses. [/quote]
And some, notably Chuck Roe, have added to the housing stock downtown. Overall I don’t think downtown is a big factor in our housing situation either way.
You may be right GI. It may be hopeless the mass selfishness may prevail in the end so go get your petitions ready. You seem to think its going to be a cakewalk. I hope you are wrong.
Frog
[quote]It may be hopeless the mass selfishness may prevail in the end [/quote]
Are you talking about the mass selfishness of the coporation and the minority that are trying to push this project over the wishes of the majority?
First, the CC shouldn’t even fulfill their responsibility to the community; rather, they should call a referendum. Now we shouldn’t even bother with the referendum since GI is making the call. The debate is becoming increasingly absurd.
-Michael Bisch
First we don’t know if your views represent a majority. Second, no, I’m talking about people who have houses here that don’t want others to be able to have houses here.
Don – yes it does! Throwdown challenge accepted. 🙂
“The true voice of the people is an election that happened not too long ago where 75% of the voters said no to new development. “
Growth Izzue: You left a key word out of your sentence: “a new development.” The vote was again a specific development, not any development at all. Times and circumstances have changed. Therefore we cannot use the past to assume the future will have the same outcome.
If people push to put this up to a public vote, then I suggest that we look at the land next to it too. If the Covell Village site were also available or a portion of it, then more of a mixed use could be planned. The greenbelt could be continued West to East and connected to the bike route through Wildhorse, instead of forcing bikes and pedestrians onto or across Covell. Industrial uses could be given space – something that we need.
If we are forced to pay for a vote, then broaden it to include a more innovative plan and don’t just keep it narrowly focused on the ConAgra site and proposal.
David, do you really think the political winds have changed that much in a few short years where another development that isn’t that much more innovative than Wildhorse Ranch is going to sway that many voters to change their minds from the 75% no camp?
My view is that I would still predict a vote to go the no way, but nowhere near at the 75% level for the current proposal.
It may not even come to a vote. The first challenge would be to gather the necessary signatures. For that matter, the CC may even vote the project down. At this juncture, all we have is a very small minority (20-30 individuals? 50? I have no idea.) attempting to circumvent the process by forcing a referendum. Why the CC would even consider caving to these demands would be difficult to understand.
-Michael Bisch
Growth Izzue said (in this thread) . . .
“The true voice of the people is an election that happened not too long ago where 75% of the voters said no to new development. All that’s going on now is the minority trying an end around the majority by rezoning and building a new housing development that the people of Davis don’t want. So you out there can try your fancy math and try and convince us that we want this project but the reality is we don’t.”
“Are you talking about the mass selfishness of the coporation and the minority that are trying to push this project over the wishes of the majority?”
Growth Izzue said (in a prior thread) . . .
[i]”And you missed DE’s point, he doesn’t want you mandating to him what he must do, he wants the option to choose. It’s imposing a mandate.”[/i]
GI, your statements above appear to be directly contradictory of one another. On the one hand you want one property owner ( yourself ) to be free to do with your personal property as you see fit. On the other hand you want to deny a different property owner ( ConAgra ) the freedom to do with their personal property as they see fit. How do you reconcile those contradictory positions you are taking?
DT
[quote]medwoman, you started the morning off advocating for the CC to not even bother voting on the project when all along the CC has been telling the applicant that they will vote up OR down if the applicant follows the proscribed process. To which I objected because the CC by acceding to your wishes will be breaking faith with the applicant, staff, etc., and wasting everyone’s time and money including the community’s. But now you’re saying the CC should go ahead and vote on the project, but vote it down. Which is it? [/quote]
Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I do not see this as an either / or situation. For many, many reasons I do not see the Cannery as currently proposed as even close to a good proposal for our city. So I remain opposed to it as I have been since I first became aware of the project in any meaningful sense about two or so years ago.
For me, my preference in order of priority would have been:
1) The council not move ahead with what I see as an fatally flawed project in the first place.
2) Since that did not occur, I would prefer that the council just plain vote the project down.
3) Since that does not appear likely to occur, my next preference would be for them to put it on the ballot where I believe it is likely to fail.
4) If they choose not to do that, I feel that a citizens generated vote would be appropriate.
I am sorry if I posted anything that led to a genuine confusion about my position.
Ryan Kelley
[quote]If people push to put this up to a public vote, then I suggest that we look at the land next to it too. If the Covell Village site were also available or a portion of it, then more of a mixed use could be planned. The greenbelt could be continued West to East and connected to the bike route through Wildhorse, instead of forcing bikes and pedestrians onto or across Covell. Industrial uses could be given space – something that we need.
[/quote]
I agree, and would take this a step further. I believe that we are approaching changes to our city in a very haphazard and piece meal fashion. I believe it was Frankly who pointed out recently that we lack a coherent vision for the kind of city that we want Davis to become. Until we have arrived at some kind of agreed upon vision, I do not see it as anything but a free for all in terms of who can bring the most political, social or financial pressure to bear in order to enact whatever they see as most favorable to themselves or their favored group by that the “ever so noble” developers looking our for the economically disadvantaged if you are in the
Mr. Toad camp, or the “greedy money grubbing” developers if you happen to be in the no growth, no way, no how camp. Neither of these stereotypical characterizations is likely to get us very much closer to being able to formulate a comprehensive plan for our city that will best meet the needs of as many as possible.
It was quite recently that Mr. Toad informed me that he didn’t have any concept of what would be the ideal population of Davis, but he was sure we could absorb “many more”. Well I am not convinced that we do not need to have some vision of what range of population, number of jobs, type of housing, transportation, costs
…… and I am sure many, many other parameters that should be addressed before we start construction of yet another costly bedroom community.
Matt:
[quote]Growth Izzue said (in a prior thread) . . .
“And you missed DE’s point, he doesn’t want you mandating to him what he must do, he wants the option to choose. It’s imposing a mandate.”
[/quote]
Matt, that was about another subject, nothing to do with today’s topic. That said, I’m starting to get a little worried about you, you seem to be infatuated by me searching other threads and all for my former posts.
No need to worry about me GI. Your double standard is what you really should be worrying about.
DT: [quote]A significant part of the price support for Davis SFRs comes from investors who then rent to students even though said SFRs are designed for families. The students generally outbid families on a per bedroom rental basis. This has created a significant supply/demand imbalance, which in my mind is not healthy for our community. Constructing significantly more housing for students, as well as younger professionals, will likely address some of the imbalance, as Don rightly points out.
YES.
[/quote]
medwoman:
[quote]Also, when doing this mental exercise, please bear in mind that there are some people, namely those who have made their already purchased home a corner stone of their retirement strategy, who will be harmed by “driving down” home prices in this particular range.[/quote] Please bear in mind that of us who can’t afford houses but still live in Davis (and pay rental rates “driven up” by the student population as detailed by DT) still contribute to this community by fundraising for the schools and driving on field trips and volunteering for organizations such as DSF, DSOMA, and Explorit. We help organize community building events like Celebrate Davis or the Davis Music Fest. Included in our rent is most certainly the property taxes the landlord pays.
So while we feel the pain of future retirees who might “lose” money temporarily until their home prices rebound…keep in mind that renters pay thousands more per year for the privilege of living in Davis and not West Sacramento or Woodland or Dixon or Winters. My family could move to one of those locations and EASILY pay $500 less per month on a home that isn’t a wee little box. This money adds up over the years and we won’t recoup it by waiting a few years for home prices to rebound.
GI
[quote]Since when is being for slow growth a swear word? I like my community the way it is, I lived in places like Elk Grove and Natomas. That’s why I live here. Does that make me a bad person to try and keep my town the quaint nice place it is to live?[/quote] No, absolutely not. I agree with you. I don’t want to live there, either…that’s why I pay higher rent here. But for many (and I do not mean you) “slow growth” really means NO GROWTH. Which is fine if that’s what they want to advocate for, but when people say they want smart or slow growth but then raise the bar impossibly high for any growth by placing vague and/or unreasonable demands on any potential development, it’s frustrating.
medwoman
[quote]Per my last post, I think that there is room for compromise, and that many of us, as stated repeatedly by Don Shor, who would accept a development specifically targeted to the groups for which we see real need, namely the students and very low income. I personally do not favor more housing targeted at the $400,000 and up group.[/quote]In most parts of the country a $350k isn’t directed at “very low income.” We have such an odd idea here in Davis as to what “low income housing” is.
medwoman
[quote]I was willing to maintain an open mind with the thought that perhaps the conversation would include enough environmental innovation, enough truly affordable housing rather than just another high priced suburban development, enough changes in transportation flexibility, enough promotions of a healthier lifestyle to make this a viable project.[/quote] I hear this often…there is a list of (expensive) demands placed upon the developer…course all of these demands cost money to research and execute and yet there is the caveat that the homes are “truly affordable.”
JustSayin’
[quote]i was disappointed that our small abode in a nice neighborhood within walking distance of stores, several eateries, two great parks, nearby bike paths and lanes, bus lines–pretty much a place I thought most folks would enjoy–was on your “bad” list. [/quote] Yes, me too. I rarely drive…yet it seems I live in a community that per medwoman is a “totally car dependent bedroom communities with a low walkability index.” My kids and I ride and walk pretty much everywhere. Go figure!
Sorry…the “YES” above in my first comment was mine, not DT’s. I was just emphatically agreeing with his comment.