For the last several months, one of my frustrations was attempting to figure out why it seemed like, every step of the way, the Covell Village folks seemed to trying to stop the Cannery. It was all below the surface – no one could put a finger on it and no one would go on the record.
The most tangible thing I heard was that Tandem Properties would not allow an easement on their Cranbrook Property. There were some suggestions that they were trying to leverage joint planning while, in public at least, they denied interest in developing Covell Village for another 20 to 30 years.
It is not that I would necessary favor one over the other, but I generally prefer to allow debates to take place in public. It is a reason I had a problem with the $2 million donation.
Bottom line, the editorial by Eileen Samitz, the response by Lydia Delis-Schlosser, and now the op-ed by Dan Carson have all served a critical public purpose – they have taken a debate that was going on behind the scenes and put it out in the open.
The only issue I really have here is about dragging the bicycling community into the fray.
Mr. Carson’s piece argues that “local bicycle enthusiasts took the bait – hook, line, and sinker.” He continues, “They started circulating petitions demanding the bicycle route through Cranbrook that The Cannery team wanted in the first place, but added a demand right out of the Covell Village playbook for a second bike undercrossing of Covell between J and L streets.”
The implication here is that the bicycling community are somehow pawns or dupes for a developer. I think that is neither fair nor accurate.
I have a lot of respect for people such as Mont Hubbard, Robb Davis, and John Berg. I think they had sincere and legitimate safety concerns about the accessibility of the project to the rest of the city.
John Berg on Friday laid out, at least, the Bicycle Advisory Commission’s position on the project. He wrote, “From the beginning of our involvement, our primary concerns were safety and access. We asked the developers from the earliest presentation of the ‘new’ Cannery project for safe routes to the south and the west, with preference for a west crossing at the northwest corner of the development.”
In April they passed a resolution: “In order to achieve the City objective related to connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods the following are necessary if this project is to go forward. Without them the project should not be approved…”
The resolution included the mitigation of the impact of increased bike and pedestrian traffic through the H Street Tunnel with an upgrade to increase its width and sight lines. Bicycle advocates will tell you this tunnel has long been a problem and here is a chance for the ConAgra folks to really benefit the community as a whole.
The commission also voted 9-2 to request the applicant work “with the City to develop a plan for a grade separated crossing on the east side of the project — preferably a tunnel under Covell similar to the tunnel under Covell to the east of Wildhorse (just east of Monarch drive). A potential location for this tunnel (assuming feasibility with utilities) would be at Covell and L Streets.”
Contrary to those who believe that this was an effort to kill the project, they passed by a 10-1 vote: “If the above actions are taken, the project meets the objective of connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods and City core.”
It did not happen overnight, but the work of bicycle advocates led to the kind of change they were looking for.
Staff reported last week, “The funds from the Development Agreement, combined with the project-specific obligations and the transportation impact fees, will generate approximately $11 million for transportation and circulation improvements on and around the Covell Boulevard corridor as well as a minimum of $2,475,000 in other non-transportation related community enhancements.”
Staff adds, “This will provide the resources to implement key transportation improvements that will serve The Cannery and enhance the existing network, such as improvements to the H Street tunnel and funds to implement a second grade separated crossing of Covell Boulevard.”
Sometimes people have legitimate differences in opinion. That is not only fine, but it is good and healthy. Sometimes people need to see things a different way in order to produce a better outcome.
In this case, the $2 million donation was probably the straw that broke the camel’s proverbial back. Now ConAgra had a harder time claiming poverty and limited funds.
In this sense, both ConAgra and the bicycling community got a win-win by compromising.
As Dan Carson notes, “Based on these and other generous offers by The Cannery, the City Council should approve the project now while ensuring that a safe bike route for kids is built. Going southward through Cranbrook makes the most sense – if the Covell Village property owners stop their blockade of this route.”
He adds, “Meanwhile, it is time for the Covell Village developers to cease their attempts to undermine The Cannery. They can start by cooperating with efforts to provide safe bicycle routes for kids to school.”
We do not have a problem with Mr. Carson calling out the Covell Village developers – they can defend themselves against inaccurate information as Ms. Delis-Schlosser did earlier this week.
What we have a more difficult time accepting is the attack on the bicycling community, who had legitimate concerns – concerns that were addressed, but unfortunately got caught in the middle of a power struggle.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The Cycling Community” is not an readily definable entity. Yes, there advocacy groups, including the Davis Bike Club, Davis Bicycles!, and The Bicycle Advisory Commission, to name the major players. All have varying degrees of advocacy, claims to represent the entire Davis biking community without complete authenticity, and agree and disagree on specific bike-related measures and proposals.
The leadership of these groups is notably and consistently good and well-intentioned. And they are not naive, they recognize efforts to being “used.” Past and current bicycle are accustomed to attempts to manipulate them by developers, city politicians and departments, and community leaders. “Bike friendly” is a much coveted phrase and sought endorsement. If past history is any indicator, the biking community will limit their involvement in this current controversy to only those matters that are specific to cycling safety and participation.
Getting a second crossing was a huge win for cycling advocates and a large concession from Conagra. It should also bring the cyclists in the community on board in support of the Cannery.
The big question that hasn’t been answered about Cannery versus Covell is if the owners of Covell are going to fund a petition drive against Cannery?
That is indeed the big unanswered question.
[quote]What we have a more difficult time accepting is the attack on the bicycling community, who had legitimate concerns – concerns that were addressed, but unfortunately got caught in the middle of a power struggle.[/quote]
Agree.
[quote]For the last several months, one of my frustrations was attempting to figure out why it seemed like, every step of the way, the Covell Village folks seemed to trying to stop the Cannery. [/quote]
I didn’t realize this was going on, so I’m still trying to put the pieces together. What I don’t understand is why Covell Village would want to stop the Cannery from being developed. From where I’m looking logic dictates that until the last incorporated site in Davis is developed an unincorporated site has no chance.
For the record, I did not, as David claims, mount an “attack on the bicycling community.” Rather, I accurately pointed out the sequence of events in which (1) Covell Village property owners stepped forward with an elaborate and expensive scheme for bikepath and road projects around and across their land in a gambit clearly intended to help sink The Cannery, and (2) bicycle advocates suddenly decided afterward to circulate a petition declaring that the project “should not be built” if it did not include a proposal right out of the Covell Village playbook for a second undercrossing of Covell Boulevard.
Even more oddly, the petition criticized The Cannery proponents for not including a bike path southward from The Cannery through Cranbrook Apartments without ever mentioning that this route was the one that the project proponents wanted in the first place. The Cannery’s backers relented and went to the alternative connection on the south side of Covell Boulevard only after Covell Village property owners promised to fight an easement through the land they control that is needed for such a connection.
Even as The Cannery developers were stepping up with an offer of $13 million in bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and other public projects, and repeated their oft-stated offer to agree to the bikepath through Cranbrook, one bicycle advocate continued his attack on The Cannery. He circulated the aforementioned petition on a West Davis community blog with a bogus claim that the only bike route out of the project was “across” the railroad tracks. (To his credit, he later apologized.)
Aside from one commissioner’s passing comment in a Bicycle Advisory Commission meeting in October voicing concern with this Covell Village obstructionism, where are their public petitions demanding that the Covell Villagers stop using kids’ bicycle safety as a bargaining chip for their development agenda? Where is their public testimony and where are their letters to the City Council expressing these concerns? If you really want the safest bike route for kids through Cranbrook, you should be publicly demanding (as I have repeatedly) that Covell Village shareholders cooperate in such allowing a safer route for kids to school.
Where is your outrage over this? I see mostly silence so far. The good news is that there is still time to correct this situation before the Council acts on the project next Tuesday.
my take is that david feels that most of what you said was necessary but didn’t see the need to lump in the bike community with covell folks.
“Where is your outrage over this? I see mostly silence so far. “
i think this was just below the surface and you have helped bring it to light.
“For the record, I did not, as David claims, mount an “attack on the bicycling community.””
i think many if not most of us saw this as an attack: “local bicycle enthusiasts took the bait – hook, line, and sinker.”
A clarification: The resolution passed in April was acted upon by a joint meeting of two City Commissions – the BAC and the SPAC. Each of those Commissions has seven voting members. A 10-1 vote could not occur without the joint meeting.
Naive question: With ConAgra agreeing to the second crossing, will they be funding the 9 million to Covell Partners?
Mr. Carson, some advice. Forget the “outrage” plea. Your urgings are characterized by more heat than light. Tone down the rhetoric. These are tactics of ineffective advocates who have no substance.
Instead, strike a path of persuasive logic and allow the reader to form an independent judgment.
[quote]”For the record, I did not, as David claims, mount an “attack on the bicycling community.”[/quote]
Dan your comments implied as David said that the bicycling community were “pawns” or “dupes” for the developer.
These quotes from Eileen’s editorial imply a similar sentiment:
[quote]Additional opposition by the Covell Village developers has been stirred up by their hired representative Lydia Delis-Schlosser, who is an active member of the local bike organizations
[/quote]
[quote]The Covell Village developer’s representative has persisted in trying to motivate the local bike groups and others to support all of the Covell Village developers’ unreasonable demands for excessive bike paths through the Covell Village site. So far the local bike groups have expressed their preference for a bike path along the edge of Cranbrook Court Apartments to the H Street tunnel.[/quote]
[quote]But, apparently influenced by Delis-Schlosser, the Bike Advisory Commission made a late request for yet a second multimillion dollar grade-separated crossing “to the east” of the Cannery.[/quote]
[quote]Aside from one commissioner’s passing comment in a Bicycle Advisory Commission meeting in October voicing concern with this Covell Village obstructionism, where are their public petitions demanding that the Covell Villagers stop using kids’ bicycle safety as a bargaining chip for their development agenda?[/quote]
My guess, now that this option is officially back on the table, and people realize that what going on the voices of concern will follow. My advice, work with the biking community on this, not against them.
If i owned the Covell Village site I’d be angry too. The most logical thing would have been to master plan both properties together but Measures J and R foreclosed that possibility. With Cannery inside the limit line and Covell outside of it, resulting in Cannery doing everything it can to prevent a vote due to the 0-2 record of such elections, a master plan was not going to happen.
It does seem that the second crossing issue is mostly settled so this story is yesterday’s news. The big question is what happens on a referendum petition on Cannery?
If Davis was the United Nations the Covell owners would be the United States with many economic interests throughout the city. My fear is that helping to force a vote on Cannery will end up causing all such ballot box efforts to fail, as one property owner undermines the next, in the foolish hope that one projects failure improves the prospect for the next projects success.
The no growth forces in this town will do everything they can to stop everything. Those that have a more generous, welcoming and prosperous view of the future need to stop fighting against one another or else they will end up divided and conquered.
[quote]It does seem that the second crossing issue is mostly settled so this story is yesterday’s news.[/quote]
Is it? I though they still need to obtain the easements from Cranbrook and one other apartment complex?
How about the senoirs- can we leave them out of the “hidden agenda” too?
master planning implies that at some point covell will be developed – simply put, i oppose that
cha is the hidden agenda, so no.
David, I appreciate that you acknowledge that my article and Dan Carson’s article have shed some light on the Covell Village developers efforts to stop the Cannery project. In regard to your “dragging the bicycle community”, the issue is that they want the H St. bike path, but the Covell Village developer who owns Cranbrook Court continues to deny the easement needed to allow that to happen. I am not blaming the bike community for this situation, but they started a petition demanding the second-grade crossing and the H St. bike path (which needs the easement) or deny the project. The Cannery developers are willing to do both of these things but, again, the easement is needed from the Covell Village developer.
The bicycle community has been very active in voicing what they want, so what are they doing to help make the easement happen to get the H St. bike path they want? For instance, why not a petition from the bicycle community asking the Covell Village developer to co-operate on the Cranbrook Court Apts. easement, or better yet, donate it to the community if he really wants to help our community? Also, I have not heard anything positive from the bike community publicly about the Cannery even though the second-grade crossing has been granted by the Cannery developers.
Also, I have never used the inflammatory language of “pawns” or “dupes” and I have never seen this language used by Dan Carson either, yet some on this blog today choose to use inflammatory language against both of us. If the Vanguard wants a civil dialogue on these issues than I think we all need to use civil language or it really discourages people like me, or him undoubtedly, to want to participate in a dialogue here.
[quote]I am not blaming the bike community for this situation, but they started a petition demanding the second-grade crossing and the H St. bike path (which needs the easement) or deny the project.[/quote]
They did this for their own purposes, establishing the safest possibly bike route. You implied they did so because they were being influenced by the Covell Village supporters. These types of allegations do not promote civil dialogue, they promote anger and distrust. I think you owe the biking community an apology.
[quote]For instance, why not a petition from the bicycle community asking the Covell Village developer to co-operate on the Cranbrook Court Apts. easement, or better yet, donate it to the community if he really wants to help our community? [/quote]
It’s my understanding that until last week this wasn’t an option the Cannery was willing to fund. Now that it is my guess is that public pressure will mount.
[quote]Also, I have never used the inflammatory language of “pawns” or “dupes” and I have never seen this language used by Dan Carson either, yet some on this blog today choose to use inflammatory language against both of us.[/quote]
What were you trying to imply with your accusations then?
B. Nice,
No one, including me, have said that the bike community’s intentions are anything but good. No “allegations” or “accusations” against the bike community have been made in my article, nor in Dan Carson’s, so please do not misunderstand or misconstrue the information. I am simply saying that the bike community should help and be part of the solution of getting the easement on the Cranbrook Court Apts. for the H St. bike path, if that’s what they want.
[quote]No “allegations” or “accusations” against the bike community have been made in my article, nor in Dan Carson’s, so please do not misunderstand or misconstrue the information. [/quote]
This a post made the other day:
My concern is that the Covell Village developer’s representative, Lydia Delis-Schlosser has influenced the Bike Advisory Commission since the second grade crossing at L St. is also part of what the Covell Village developers have been demanding on the Coivell Village site. I guess it begs the question, has Lydia Delis-Schlosser has any conversations with the Bike Advisory Commission or any of the Bike Commissioners regarding this second grade crossing at L St. or any of the bike paths that the Covell Village developers were demanding through the Covell Village site? The issue is not is the Bike Advisory Commission “doing dirty work” (that term was not posted by me), but are they being used?
(Sorry hit post to soon).
Your comments do imply that Bike Advisory Commission was being influenced by Covell Village supporters. I think this is an unjust allegation.
[quote]I am simply saying that the bike community should help and be part of the solution of getting the easement on the Cranbrook Court Apts. for the H St. bike path, if that’s what they want.[/quote]
First: You are moving your target with this statement. The debate is not wether the biking community is doing enough to obtain an easement, it’s about the allegations that they are being influenced by Covell Village.
Second: I got they impression that they are doing this, here is a past post from Matt Williams on this topic:
[quote]Regarding that second question if you think [the bicycle community] is “carrying the water for Covell Village” the evidence to the contrary is plain to hear half way through the recording of the October 7, 2013 Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting. [Robb Davis] very clearly says, “We need to stare these guys down and take the land if we need it…” The “these guys” he is referring to are the owners of Cranbrook Apartments. He calls their actions reprehensible. [/quote]
“master planning implies that at some point covell will be developed – simply put, i oppose that”
I wonder if you support any new housing? After all, you have the handle Davis Progressive, so, that implies you are against progress of any sort.
Anyway, the tone of your post is indicative of why Cannery had to go it alone. It is also why it is unfair for the same people who object to a master plan to demand access points that could only be added if you did such master planning.
B. Nice,
Quite the contrary. I am disappointed that you are disregarding the point of my response which is, this is not about any allegations about the bicycle community. I am asking what actions the bicycle community is taking to help with addressing the fact that the Covell Village developer is denying the easement through Cranbrook Court Apts.?
There has been the one statement you quote indicating concern, but what action(s) is the bicycle community taking to help the H St. bike path happen? For instance, why not a petition by the bicycle community demanding the easement from the Covell Village developer to allow the H St. bike path that the bicycle community wants?
[quote]I am disappointed that you are disregarding the point of my response which is, this is not about any allegations about the bicycle community. I am asking what actions the bicycle community is taking to help with addressing the fact that the Covell Village developer is denying the easement through Cranbrook Court Apts.? [/quote]
This piece is about the allegations being made against the bicycle community. How are their actions regarding the easement through Cranbrook relevant to this conversation? Again it feels like you are moving the target.
[quote] After all, you have the handle Davis Progressive, so, that implies you are against progress of any sort.[/quote]
I believe that would be an inference, and a weird one at that.
B.Nice,
There is no better forum than here to discuss whether the concerns we raised in our two pieces about Covell Village obstruction of a safe bikepath for Cannery kids to school are valid. Eileen has patiently and fully responded to your questions. How about advancing civil discourse in this forum by responding to her questions to you?
Do you NOT think the Covell Village property owners should relent and allow an easement through Cranbrook? If so, please just say so. If you have a better solution for getting bicycling kids from the new neighborhood to school, the Davis community would be better off knowing what that is, and we welcome your contribution. This is an important issue to the safety of children in our town.
If one watches the City Council hearing from last Tuesday evening one will see Steve Tracy–a bicycle advocate–requesting that the City do what is necessary to obtain the easement. I called for the same as a BAC member. As the agreement is negotiated the advocacy related to it shifts from focusing on the developer to the City. If the City Council approves the Development Agreement (and approves the zoning change and the EIR), I can assure you that the attention of the advocates will shift to City staff and the City Council to assure that the easement is obtained.
The fundamental position of those advocating for 2 grade-separated crossings has not changed: the applicant’s current preferred option (connecting to the Covell bridge) is not acceptable and, while far less than ideal, the connection along the rail line to the H Street tunnel (which must be improved) is the best solution. To achieve that an easement is necessary.
Advocacy related to this project will not stop until that option is achieved (or until that door is definitively closed–something that the advocates want to assure will not happen).
For those calling for the advocates to “do something” to assure the easement happens I can happily respond: they already are.
[quote]Do you NOT think the Covell Village property owners should relent and allow an easement through Cranbrook?[/quote]
I absolutely do. (Was this question asked of me already? If it was I missed it). I agree that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. But it’s also a SEPARATE issue from the one I’ve been addressing which is the allegation that the biking community is being influence by Covell Village. Again I see these as separate conversations, do you not?
[quote]How about advancing civil discourse in this forum by responding to her questions to you? [/quote]
To be clear, I’m not at all affiliated with any biking club in Davis, or the Bike Advisory Committee, nor do I personally know anyone on the commission. The only knowledge I have of their workings are what I read here and in the Enterprise, and what I pick up from watching city council meetings. So I’m ill equipped to answer Eileen’s questions regarding the biking community “doing something”.
Eileen and Dan-As I think about this conversation things are not adding up in my head. It seems you were opposed to the biking community’s hard line stance with ConAgra in regards to bike connectivity. Now that ConAgra has agreed to bike committee’s request you are accusing them of not taking a hard enough stance against Covell Village.
As Robb confirmed, the bike communities interesest and priorities have remained consistent throughout this process while yours seem not to have been. I don’t understand why you are asking them to defend their behavior.
Robb,
I appreciate your reiteration of your position that the H Street connection is needed to have a safe route for Cannery kids to get to school, and that the bike easement is needed through Cranbrook so that can happen. I think your commitment to this issue is sincere.
However, I believe the upcoming City Council meeting to decide the fate of The Cannery is an important opportunity for the bike community to object, clearly and publicly, to the written pledge by Covell Village property owners to oppose the granting of such an easement. By spotlighting this matter Tuesday before council, I’m hopeful that this city’s bicycle advocates could pressure the Covell Village landowner group to reverse course and let this critical bike path project go forward more expeditiously than would otherwise occur.
I hope you and others in the bicycle advocacy community will consider such an approach.
AT this point the developer is only offering a flat amount for the needed bike connections and fixes on Covell—an amount which has not increase once the developer agreed two bike connections are needed including one to the H street bike tunnel. THE RESULT: All other taxpayers in Davis are exposed to the risk of the unknown cost of these connections….and their will be little money left over to pay for road fixes for the flood of new traffic coming down G, J and L and Pole Line from this development.
And NOTE: The developer is giving NOTHING to the schools — they just agreed to put all future home owner on the hook for $1K/year additional taxes). So much for affordable housing argument for the development.
This is a nice neighborhood but the developer is offering little to the other residents of Davis for his Windfall entitlement–i.e. to exploit the ability to charge 50% more a sq ft for the same homes in Davis vs Woodland ($182 vs 285/sq ft). Residents who build Davis and this value are being sold-out by city council as the development agreement now stands-the developers is not even on the hook to guarantee to pay for bike and road improvements who’s cost right now are just a guestimate.
[quote] Do you NOT think the Covell Village property owners should relent and allow an easement through Cranbrook?
I absolutely do.[/quote]
B. Nice,
I am glad we agree on this. And just to reiterate, Dan Carson and I have been very consistent on this.
[quote]I am glad we agree on this.[/quote]
I think we agree on other things as well, I did not support Covell Viilage, but I do support the Cannery Project.
I appreciate the time and effort individuals and groups have invested in helping shaping the project to best meet the community’s needs, and the developers willingness to work with the community. I don’t like seeing these organizations getting caught in the crossfire of a debate, which quite honestly I still don’t understand.
FYI from the Staff report for next week’s City Council Meeting:
[quote]The Development Agreement now reflects the southern route to the H Street tunnel as the preferred option for connection, as a new Section 8 under Developer Obligations. Developer is required to pursue easements or right-of-way as required for the path. If easements cannot be secured by April 30, 2014, the City Council shall determine whether to obtain the easements and/or right-of-way through condemnation. Should the City Council not proceed with condemnation, the applicant shall be required to construct the “Option 1” Southwest Connection to the Covell Boulevard Multi-Use Path as studied in the EIR (the connection that loops up to the existing pathway on the south side of Covell Boulevard).[/quote]
So the developer has to try to obtain the easement first. If it fails then the City Council will have to decide whether or not to condemn. Failure to obtain the easement either by the developer’s efforts or by condemnation will mean that the applicant will have to construct the path for which the BAC passed a resolution saying it was not acceptable.
I think it is fair to say that bike advocates will focus energy on pushing all participants to make an easement happen. I do not know what further action the BAC might take.
[quote]I think it is fair to say that bike advocates will focus energy on pushing all participants to make an easement happen.[/quote]
I hope they are successful in this endeavor. They will have my support. Thanks for your work on this issue Robb.
Phil Coleman
[quote]”The Cycling Community” is not an readily definable entity. Yes, there advocacy groups, including the Davis Bike Club, Davis Bicycles!, and The Bicycle Advisory Commission, to name the major players. All have varying degrees of advocacy, claims to represent the entire Davis biking community without complete authenticity, and agree and disagree on specific bike-related measures and proposals. [/quote]
Actually only one of these (Davis Bicycles!) is really and essentially an advocacy organization. Davis Bike Club is composed of folks who love to ride bikes (and do a lot in Spandex) but in fact advocate very little. The purpose of the Bicycle Advisory Commission (according to Council RESOLUTION NO. 07-040, SERIES 2007, is “to develop options to achieve the goals of the city’s Comprehensive Bicycle Plan, and to recommend changes to the plan, as necessary, to achieve its purposes. …. The Davis Bicycle Advisory Commission shall … make recommendations on any matter of bicycle safety to the Council.” In some sense the BAC “advises” ways for the accomplishment of the goals of the bicycle plan. This is very close to advocacy, but not exactly. Certainly they (BAC) advocate the adoption of their recommendations.
On the other hand the mission of Davis Bicycles! (http://www.davisbicycles.org/Mission) contains the words “to encourage and promote bicycling, increase safety, improve infrastructure, influence policy, and advocate for a vibrant bicycle culture in Davis”. We do this unreservedly and unashamedly. It is who we are and it’s even on our t-shirt!
Mont thanks for the clarification regarding the roles of these different organizations, and thanks for your unreserved and unabashed advocacy..
Dan Carson
[quote]“Rather, I accurately pointed out the sequence of events in which (1) Covell Village property owners stepped forward with an elaborate and expensive scheme for bikepath and road projects around and across their land in a gambit clearly intended to help sink The Cannery, and (2) bicycle advocates suddenly decided afterward to circulate a petition declaring that the project “should not be built” if it did not include a proposal right out of the Covell Village playbook for a second undercrossing of Covell Boulevard.”[/quote]
Dan, you certainly imputed a connection between these two events. But there was none. Eileen Samitz made this same mistake when she incorrectly linked us (DB!) with the Covell Village developers in her public comment at the Council meeting on Oct 22 devoted to the Cannery workshop. After she had spoken, in the last public comment of the night I explained that she was mistaken. Frankly, it would have been preferable for both of you to simply ask us whether we were shilling for Covell Village and we would have told you that we are not. I did tell Eileen this at the workshop.
It wasn’t so sudden and it had nothing to do with the fact that the Covell Village “playbook” also proposes grade separated bike crossings. Almost as soon as the Cannery project became active more than two and a half years ago, Davis Bicycles! (DB!) Board members met with the Cannery developers to give them our views on their plans for the bike aspects of the project. We found them wanting in some respects. We told them at that time that a grade separated crossing was needed to the SE and expressed our view that the SW H St tunnel connection was the safest. The fact that the Covell Village “playbook” also contained bike crossings of Covell in the L St vicinity is a coincidence. For a long while, the Cannery developers seemed to be ignoring our expressed concerns, especially for the SE crossing. Thankfully this no longer seems to be the case.
We believed then (and still believe) that it would have been (and still is) better not to build the Cannery than to build it with shoddy, inadequate and unsafe bike connectivity.
Dan Carson
[quote]…where are their public petitions demanding that the Covell Villagers stop using kids’ bicycle safety as a bargaining chip for their development agenda?[/quote]
[quote]Where is your outrage over this? [/quote]
In addition, DB! Board members have met with the Covell Village property owners. We have expressed our outrage to them. But we do not see it as our role to vilify them. Rather we see it as appropriate for the Council and the City and the Cannery developers to hammer out the easement, even through eminent domain if it comes to that. We do bike safety and advocacy, not legal easements.
We (DB!) would love to have you join us in our advocacy efforts and would far prefer to work with other advocates than to have them claim we are not outraged enough. And this way you can help us, and we you, to write all the more petitions. Our Board meetings are on fourth Mondays and I genuinely invite you to join us.
Mont, I now see your 2 am posting. When do you sleep? I would be happy to meet with you and DB! to discuss how to ensure the bikeway to H Street gets built. In turn, I hope you and Robb will join me at Tuesday’s City Council meeting in publicly urging the Covell Village property owners to relent on their objections to an easement that will make the project happen, a goal I know you both share. This is not about vilifying anyone. As my Enterprise article states, everyone knows that principals in that organization have made valuable contributions to this community in the past that deserve the gratitude of the Davis public. But on this issue, about their using kids’ bicycle safety as leverage for their development goals for Covell Village, they are just plain wrong, and that should be stated publicly as well as privately.
No time to post a lot right now, but I want to ditto Dan’s comment and I look forward to meeting with the Davis Bicycles! group at their next meeting.
Dan
Bike advocates never sleep!
[quote]I hope you and Robb will join me at Tuesday’s City Council meeting in publicly urging …[/quote]
We wouldn’t miss it. We hope to have numerous advocates speak on numerous topics and facets of the problem. But there are lots of points to make, including the important one you emphasize that “Covell Village property owners [should] relent on their objections to an easement that will make the project happen.”
Among others is that the Developer’s Agreement (See Robb’s post above) may not be not strong enough and may put ConAgra in somewhat a conflict of interest position in the following way. It states that the developer shall seek an easement but if unsuccessful and the four votes for condemnation can’t be rounded up, the developer gets to build the up and over SW option. The Covell up and over SW option is cheaper than the H St tunnel connection. In other words, it is to the Developer’s advantage to fail to secure the easement because it will save them money. Where is the incentive in this contract for the developer to seek an easement for an option that will ultimately cost them more money? Even though the Developer corporation ConAgra is “people” according to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, they still act pretty much like a corporation, maximizing their profits in the scheme of things.