Commentary: Is Measure J Working As Intended?

covell_village-600This past week, I have driven discussions intended to ferret out where the public stands on Cannery and a vision for Davis.  In the past several weeks, people from all walks of life have actually been questioning Measure J – its intended purpose and its effectiveness.

While I was going to UC Davis as a graduate student when Measure J passed, I was not actually living in the city of Davis at that time, but I likely would have voted for Measure J.  Measure R was an easy call for me, as I saw it as a way for the people to be able to choose the developments in their community.

I wished to avoid the situation where a city council was out of step on development issues from the rest of the community.  On the other hand, a few councilmembers over the years said that Measure J was a security blanket that allowed the public to vote for certain nice guys, knowing that they couldn’t get Covell Village-type developments through without a fight.

I asked everyone else where they stand on development, as, for me, I like the size of Davis.  I have lived in more urban areas – Sacramento, Washington DC, St. Louis, among others, and prefer the pace and lifestyle of Davis.  Between that lifestyle and the schools, I have made sacrifices to stay here.  I’m fine with that, frankly.

However, I do have concerns that Davis is pricing young families with children out of our community and I do believe that Davis has an opportunity to take advantage of the high-tech revolution and the growth of UC Davis into a top-notch university, and would hate to see the rest of the region benefit more than Davis from the world-class university.

I believe we can do a lot of this without changing the fundamental nature of Davis.  I think we need to look at key infill sites that have been suggested and existing land first, but I’m also not completely opposed to going onto the periphery with the right project for the right purposes.  But the citizens still need to maintain a measure of control because I do not want to see Davis at 100,000 in the near future.

Measure R is important because it prevents a city council from simply rolling out the carpet and allowing just any development on the periphery.  When I look at some of the projects that have passed, I think we could have done better.

I am concerned with the multitude of interests that push and pull both councilmembers and city staff.  The old guard in this community are protective of their turf and use their resources to fight those who dare to challenge them.

Davis was an innovative community perhaps 30 years ago, but it has since been passed up by a number of more innovative and ambitious communities, and that is too bad.

So with all of that laid on the table, here are a few concerns.

I have heard from more than a few people that Measure J/Measure R will prevent any new development on Davis’ periphery.  I do not agree with that at all.  The basis for that assertion is two data points.

First, Covell Village which failed 60-40 in 2005.  While the economy was in decent shape at that time, the voters balked for a number of reasons at that particular development.  First, it was huge, at 2000 units – give or take. Second, the traffic impacts on Covell Blvd. would have been crippling and the plan did not adequately address them.

The bottom line is that there were fatal flaws to Covell Village that ultimately led to its demise.  Ironically, had Covell Village passed, it might have led to the bankruptcy of the developers as the real estate market was collapsing just as the first wave of houses would have come on line.

Four years later, the real estate market was at its low point when Measure P, Wildhorse Ranch came before the voters.  The atmosphere with the neighbors had been poisoned with a previous design and the developers failed to get the neighbors on board with a revised design.  The bottom line is that the active opposition, concerns about the project and the general community belief that this was the wrong time for housing led to the massive failure of Measure P.

So, based on those two data points, are all Measure R projects that propose housing doomed to failure?

I don’t believe so.  I think a smart, well-designed, innovative project could very well pass.

Now if Cannery Park goes on the ballot, do I think it will go down?  The size of the project is one problem.  The awkward design due to the rail tracks and surrounding parcels presents other problems.  Assuming that Cannery Park can address some of the connectivity, senior housing, affordable housing and sustainability concerns, I think it has a shot, but it is by no means a shoe-in.

And that is actually a problem.  I have heard various estimates about how much the developers stand to make on a project of this size and scope, but it’s clearly in the tens of millions of dollars, if not over $100 million.

At that payoff, a company the size of ConAgra can afford to expend the money needed on the process – EIR, mitigation, even ballot costs and campaign expenses if it comes to that.

But now picture the type of project that people are more likely to approve – smaller, very innovative, more expensive design, but far less profit.  So can an individual developer, one who has financial backing but can’t exactly be throwing millions around, afford to risk spending perhaps half a million on those costs – EIR, mitigation, ballot costs, and campaign expenses – in the wake of the uncertainty that they face of getting their project through council, on the ballot, and to the voters?

That may be the interesting irony of Measure R – it is designed to preclude the massive Covell Villages of the world, but those are the only types of developments that are likely to go forward, given the expense and uncertainty of the process.

I’m not going to pretend I have an answer to this paradox as I’m not in favor of doing away with Measure J.  While I believe we have a number of opportunities to make for a better community, I also believe that policies that prevented runaway growth largely saved this city and helped preserve a higher quality of life.

I do think we need to come up with a plan that most of us can live with, to move forward and prevent this great community from stagnating or missing opportunities before us for improvement.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Land Use/Open Space

119 comments

  1. Yes it is. It was put on the ballot by the most anti-growth majority in Davis history including Wagstaff, Greenwald and Harrington. Its intention was to block peripheral development and it has mostly succeeded. its unintended consequences have been making Davis unaffordable due to lack of housing supply, peripheral development at West Village and poor planning at Cannery and Covell Village that should be planned together but won’t be because one is in the city and the other isn’t.

  2. You mean the popularly elected representatives of the people of Davis. Ballot box decision making leads to terrible planning. Measure R is working as intended the consequences are not so hot.

  3. Yes.

    It has announced to one and all that any development proposal is in for a massive political fight. It has labeled people with the vision, motivation and money to develop as greedy vultures before any discussion begins. It has put potential elected leaders on notice that stopping growth is the top single-issue politics of the community. It has dramatically increased the value of land and existing houses owned by those who advanced Measures J and R.

    On the other hand, it has stopped the influx of families we need to keep Davis a vibrant family community. It requires that the school system that drew so many residents in the past now “recruit” students from other districts–about 500 at this point–just to keep open the neighborhood schools we still have.

    On the other hand, it has helped put the city on an unsustainable path for financing basic services and improvements and it has distorted the shaping of the town’s character. Recreation opportunities and quality streets that have helped make Davis more livable are fading. Our “quaint” downtown transforms into an accumulation of bars and eateries to fulfill the needs and desires of our transient student population.

    On the other hand, the scheme to allow “expansion” through infill to meet the city’s housing and business needs has failed. The biggest property owners downtown and close-in show no interest in offering up their space for development (Ace, Enterprise, utility company, city). Other than allowing areas already slated for housing construction to proceed, “infill” has come to mean putting up a 50-foot-tall condo in the middle of town and adding a story so one’s house towers over the rest of the neighborhood.

    On the other hand, it is transforming more and more neighborhoods into student housing enclaves because neither the university nor the city is planning or developing new housing that will accommodate the growing UCD population. If you think we’re a company town now, just wait 15 or 20 years.

    On the other hand, it is forcing our aging population to age in place–even the ones who would rather move to another place and free up single family homes. And, it has made our well-intentioned affordable housing program a bigger joke that it would have been. And, it has made spec development efforts for economic development parks at city city’s edge an impossibility.

    Other than these few unintended consequences, the measures are working exactly as intended. Davis has developed the reputation of a town ready to fight any development that would expand the city limits. We’ve drawn the red line.

  4. Of course not. Such an admission would expose the unreasonableness of their position. Daring the “right project at the right time” to come along suggests an open mind, yet keeps the no-growth goal intact.

  5. growth: so you think it’s okay that only large projects will come forward because smaller projects won’t pay out enough for the developer to roll the dice?

  6. [quote]growth: so you think it’s okay that only large projects will come forward because smaller projects won’t pay out enough for the developer to roll the dice? [/quote]

    Not true, currently there’s a small project in its initial stages for Wildhorse Ranch.

  7. By developing a strong city planning and zoning document with full citizen participation for an expanded city-limit area that anticipates needs and desires for 50 years or more. Then, direct/allow our elected city council and staff to implement it and regularly update it with our participation. Eliminate long, agonizing, expensive proposal period that have Measure J votes hanging over them.

  8. They had to know what they were getting into when they got into the project, so I have to believe they already know whatever costs were going to be associated with it. They must think that even with those costs that the project will still pencil out. Their problem is more of a case of getting the community on board and in order to do that it’s going to have to be a good development for the people of the community. I have no problem with that, do you?

  9. while a thoughtful and intriguing response, i remain concerned about the potential for the process to be corrupted by developers with influence and deep pockets.

  10. growth: you’re speculating, i’m not. i’ve talked to people in the last few days who have spoken to the developer and this concern was brought up.

  11. [quote]growth: you’re speculating, i’m not. i’ve talked to people in the last few days who have spoken to the developer and this concern was brought up. [/quote]

    I went to a Wildhorse Ranch developer’s community meeting and one of the presenters said they already had $100,000 into the project. I would personally find it hard to believe that they would sink that much money into a project without already knowing what Measure R costs might be involved but that’s speculation on my part and I could be wrong.

  12. I am prepared to go through the public vote process, I am a firm believer a quality project will win a vote. I may be the only person in this town that believes this, thats ok its my checkbook. What I am not happy about is spending an enormous amount of cash on a new EIR for a project that is 25% the size of of the one studied 4 years ago. By the time I get through this process, I will not make the next round of elections and will have to have a special election at an enormous cost. Are we stopping, no, but we are taking a hard look at the total costs to get to a vote. There is no question, the economics are getting fuzzy and I am sure many folks are not to sad about that. I am a local guy trying to create a great project, my corporate headquarters are in Davis not Nebraska.

    I appreciate the forum and your input, here are some items that are confusing to me with Measure R.
    1. Most everyone in town thinks measure R is only for parcels in the City, this parcel is in the city.
    2. The ag buffer that is supposed to define the urban edge/ag boundary is in place, this parcel is inside of it.
    3. Do we have to look at either Urban or Ag? Why not integrate the 2.

    Thanks,

    Jim Donovan

  13. Jim, here’s how I understand it:

    1. Measure R is only for parcels outside the city. However, those against development of the cannery property (inside our city limits) are trying to sway the city council voting by threatening to generate a referendum if the council votes the “wrong” way, assuming that everyone thinks a public vote will doom the project.
    2. Correct, but no nevermind. We don’t like housing developments anywhere, past or presently offered. They’re “urban sprawl.”
    3. Correct. See answer #2, however.

    Good luck living and prospering in a town where the perfect is the enemy of the good.