2013 might go down as the year that the Davis City Council put a number of longstanding issues to bed. If it seems like we have been dealing with Cannery, water, and the firefighters for a long time, it is true. If there is one point that the Enterprise editorial raised that I agree with, it is that it has been a long road for Cannery.
However, it is also a road that may not end with a council vote – just as water did not end with a council vote and may not end even with a citizen’s vote.
Give ConAgra some credit – they recognized they would have to give some and they have – on the issue of connectivity where they absolutely had to give to get to three council votes. More perplexing to some – and frustrating to others – was giving in to Choices for Healthy Aging on housing.
The line between giving into to legitimate community interests and pandering to extortion is a very thin line.
The biggest question tonight is not what the council vote will be – we would expect to see three, four, perhaps even five votes for Cannery. The question will be whether a community group or rival developer will put the matter to a vote.
The Vanguard will not be taking a position up or down on Cannery today. There have been improvements in the site, notably with connectivity, a little with sustainability, and we like the Urban Farm concept for the ag-urban boundary, but still have some concerns.
First, I think Tia Will raised an excellent point with respect to Olive Drive. Like Ms. Will, I remember walking from J St. down the tracks and ultimately across the tracks to Olive Drive when Union Pacific was threatening to build a fence – which they have now done.
That neighborhood is now largely cut off from the city. If you live near the I-80 off-ramp, you are going to have to walk, bike, or drive half a mile down to Richards Blvd to get into town. Before the fence, you could walk or bike a few hundred feet to get into the core. Now people are cut off from the rest of town.
That’s a lot like how Cannery will be. To the north are farmlands, to the east a big field, and to the west are the train tracks. Residents who live toward the north face about a half mile trek just to get to Covell. The only exits are about a block and a half apart, on the same street.
It may have been a less than desirable location for a business park, but it is a bad site for housing. The advantage that Cannery has over Olive is that there will be two beneath-grade access points for bikes and pedestrians, but it does not have the advantage of proximity to town.
Second is the concern about traffic impacts on Covell. The problem we have right now is that there are limited access points to Cannery. Traffic is going to dump onto Covell Blvd., and there are not quick access points to the freeway, meaning people trying to commute out of town will have to follow Covell to Mace, cut southward on J Street to get to downtown and exit through the Richards underpass, or drive a long stretch on Covell to the West to get to Highway 113.
While there will be some business added to the site, there is no guarantee that the people living at Cannery will work on site. While I understand that having residential there will be less impactful on traffic than a full blown business park, the city right now lacks critical infrastructure to sustain growth of any kind along the Covell Blvd Corridor.
It was this reality more than any that derailed the much larger Covell Village development proposal from eight years ago.
Third, I am still a bit unsettled by the declaration from the Davis Enterprise on Sunday that “The truth is that Davis needs this project.”
They add, “Its 547 units would go a long way toward satisfying Davis’ fair-share housing requirements (we need to build 1,000 units by 2021). Our growth-challenged school district could definitely use the extra kids who will be growing up there, and those folks who work in Davis but find it too expensive to live here will have more options.”
I am still in the place that we need a roadmap here to determine what we need, what kind of housing, and where. I am at least sympathetic to Don Shor’s argument that what we really need is more student rental housing, notably apartments, and to me the place to put that is near campus, perhaps high density, university-only access at Nishi.
Right now we are making big decisions on housing needs and business park needs with an aging general plan.
With all of that said, we have processes in place to address these. Tonight the council presumably will vote on whether or not to approve the project. If enough citizens are troubled by the proposal and the approval by council, putting the matter to a vote will suffice. If the citizens are satisfied with the process and the outcome – then the project will likely go forward.
There are those who believe that representative government is sufficient. However, in 2005, four members of the council not only voted to approve Covell Village’s developer agreement, thereby triggering a vote, but several actively supported the project in the election and even campaigned for it.
However, the council’s vote did not represent the will of the voters. Most voters do not vote for councilmembers based on a single issue. Some may not have even anticipated their concerns for Covell Village.
I am a believer that Measure J and Measure R not only are necessary but work as intended. That doesn’t mean we get no new peripheral development. After all, the voters once approved Wildhorse in what very well could have been a Measure J type vote.
Instead, the voters will demand a good project and strong justification for it.
I worry very much that we are creating a cut-off development, even with improved connectivity. Some would argue that is why we need to plan jointly with Covell. The problem I see there is the lack of infrastructure to support 2500 additional units of housing.
In short, I don’t see development for another 20 to 30 years at least, on that site.
Overall, my sense is that Cannery has some concerns as laid out above. But the bottom line to me is it is not a home run type development – it neither wows nor excites. That said, it may end up being good enough for the council and the voters (who may either choose not to put it on the ballot or may approve it if goes on the ballot).
We will find out soon whether the council approves it and then wait to see if there is a movement to put it on the ballot.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
any chance RR will erect a fence along the border?
I appreciate Tia Will continuing this discussion (no dead horse here) until she/we get answers, but the fact that the two exits are yards apart illustrates to me, not only the exit emergency issues, but also the traffic issues…..how do you spell bottleneck?
“More perplexing to some – and frustrating to others – was giving in to CHA on housing.”
“The line between giving into to legitimate community interests and pandering to extortion is a very thin line.”
I’m missing something. Are the being accused of extortion?
“university-only access at Nishi.”
Yes, and then only let students into Davis if they have the correct papers. We could call the towers the Soweto Housing Complex.
Doubtful. They don’t run trains there, they lease the line and there are only about 4-6 trains a day. There will no doubt be a fence of some sort built by the development, but it will certainly not be the impenetrable steel wall built along Olive. Remember, Union Pacific only proposed that fence when they got PUBLIC money to do so, not any time in the previous 100+ years. This was why I found their position untenable. Despite what some have accused, I have always believed there should be a fence along Olive for safety, what I opposed to was a fence without access.
The problem is that we have dug ourselves a hole with so little housing developed over the last couple of decades in comparison to what has been needed to sustain our own organic growth and in consideration of what is our fair share requirement for the region.
We, in fact, have a housing deficit that we must pay. And that deficit is not just our too low supply of student housing. It also includes a too low supply of single-family housing and senior housing.
But there is great irony in this connectivity argument, because all of the people complaining about it are also the very same that would block a Covell Village development… including blocking the idea of building road infrastructure through it because, aghast!, that would make it more likely that it would be developed.
So, you folks demand that we only build on these funky properties surrounded by railroads, freeways, untouchable farm land or natural open space, and then complain that they don’t connect well with transportation routes.
Of course.
And you also want to be considered reasonable in your demands.
Of course.
Why not a grade separated crossing above the tracks coming down near L St.?
Its interesting that there is all this hand wringing about access out of Olive Dr. during an emergency, but little outcry about the periodic, yet all too frequent, high fatality rate on the tracks in Davis, something the fence was trying to limit.
“The problem is that we have dug ourselves a hole with so little housing developed over the last couple of decades in comparison to what has been needed to sustain our own organic growth and in consideration of what is our fair share requirement for the region.”
that’s your assertion – and you’re of course entitled to your opinion but, where is the analysis backing it?
“but little outcry about the periodic, yet all too frequent, high fatality rate on the tracks in Davis, something the fence was trying to limit. “
and the fatalities have continued even after the fence was erected. so UP has put up a band-aid but done little to actually solve the problem.
“So, you folks demand that we only build on these funky properties surrounded by railroads, freeways, untouchable farm land or natural open space, and then complain that they don’t connect well with transportation routes.”
Its actually worse, then they argue we shouldn’t build on these sites because of their limitations. Of course this fits perfectly into their no growth narrative.
Still there is more. Then, when they have larded a project with everything from solar panels to two grade separated crossings, they complain that the houses aren’t affordable but don’t want to undermine the value of their own homes, that too many are two story after demanding high density and complain not enough will be for students but want students out of their own neighborhoods. Then after making all sorts of conflicting demands for icing on the cake they demand a popular vote instead of trusting their elected leaders to work out a deal for the community.
Don’t bet on a final decision coming tonight either.
“Then after making all sorts of conflicting demands for icing on the cake they demand a popular vote instead of trusting their elected leaders to work out a deal for the community.”
why should we? in 2005, 80% of the elected leaders supported covell village but only 40% of the public did. that’s not what i would call trust-inspiring
“and the fatalities have continued even after the fence was erected. so UP has put up a band-aid but done little to actually solve the problem.”
Agreed, so let’s add a grade separated crossing and maybe lower the speed limits on trains in Davis. Instead of making up public safety issues to derail Cannery, why don’t we try to do something about the real quantifiable hazards that exist along the transcontinental route, one of the busiest lines in the nation.
[i]that’s your assertion – and you’re of course entitled to your opinion but, where is the analysis backing it?[/i]
This from Dave Rosenberg’s blog site…
[quote]Over the first nine years of the 1987 General Plan, the number of housing units in the city has increased by a compounded average of 1.90% per year; city population has increased by a 2.38% average, compounded annually.[/quote]
This from the city’s website…
[quote]According to the 2010 U. S. Census, the population of Davis grew 8.8% from 2000 to 2010.[/quote]
[quote]Davis did not see significant new home development during the 2000s. No new land for development was annexed to the city between 2005 and 2010. There were 619 new in-fill housing units added to Davis between 2005 and 2010. The limited potential for new development will continue to affect the Davis housing market and its affordability. Further adding pressure to the housing market will be the projected increase in the UCD student population through 2010, of an additional 5,000 to 6,000 students and about 500 new faculty members, plus additional staff. Affordable housing is a major priority for City Council[/quote]
The city council has voted on a 1% annual population growth target. At current population that translates into about 260 new housing units per year (about 325 if you exclude the affordable housing goals).
We did some front loading with Evergreen and Mace Ranch and Oak Park, etc.. but we have fallen far behind at this point.
” Instead of making up public safety issues to derail Cannery”
you’re assuming my purpose is to derail rather than protect.
“all of the people complaining about it are also the very same that would block a Covell Village development…”
Wrong Mr. F. I voted against J and R, and I voted for Covell Village. I also spoke recently before both the Planning Commission and the City Council about the need for vastly better alternative transportation connectivity south and east, and at least prepare for a NW connector over the tracks when Covell Village is built (probably not economically viable for this project but the land should be set aside on both sides of the tracks for this important connector).
Take each issue on its own merit. “black/white/all/none” — reality is not so easy, not so simple. One-sided ideology on either side is not a basis for good city planning.
so frankly, explain to me (a) how we grew at that population rate without new housing? people living in shacks and hovels? and (b) how that proves your assertion.
[quote]The city council has voted on a 1% annual population growth target.[/quote]
It was not a target. It was a cap.
“so frankly, explain to me (a) how we grew at that population rate without new housing? people living in shacks and hovels? and (b) how that proves your assertion.”
Increasing rents causing people to double up, additions in garages (one two houses down from me) and people renting out spare rooms to students to take pressure off of the high mortgages induced by increased home values due to lack of supply. I’m sure there are more examples than these.
[i]Wrong Mr. F. I voted against J and R, and I voted for Covell Village. I also spoke recently before both the Planning Commission and the City Council about the need for vastly better alternative transportation connectivity[/i]
Far enough Alan Miller. However, I think you are a statistical abnormality in the debate.
[quote]so frankly, explain to me (a) how we grew at that population rate without new housing? people living in shacks and hovels? and (b) how that proves your assertion.[/quote]
The majority of the population growth was student enrollment increase. The university has failed to provide housing for that increase, so the students live in rental housing in the community at a higher proportion than average for a university town. And the university is adding more than 600 students a year, through 2020.
“The university has failed to provide housing for that increase, so the students live in rental housing in the community at a higher proportion than average for a university town.”
Of course whose fault is that? Certainly not UCD.
[i]The city council has voted on a 1% annual population growth target.
It was not a target. It was a cap.[/i]
Don, that point has been debated. I think most city leaders have viewed the 1% growth limit as a target. The fact that we cannot control what UCD does in terms of growth, it does not make sense to talk about a cap.
DP – [i]so frankly, explain to me (a) how we grew at that population rate without new housing? people living in shacks and hovels? and (b) how that proves your assertion[/i]
[quote]Approximately 57% of the 25,869 housing units in Davis are rental properties and 55% of Davis residents live in rental housing. More than 43% of the housing units in Davis are multi-unit structures (apartment complexes). Home ownership in Davis is 43.8% compared to the national average of 66.9%.[/quote]
Basically, we have added beds to existing housing to make up the difference. And we have a very low vacancy rate. The low supply and low vacancy rate drives up rents.
“Of course whose fault is that? Certainly not UCD.”
it’s not ucd’s fault that they failed to provide for student housing? that’s a weird answer.
if that’s your basis for your comment, it seems don rather than you has the better answer.
[quote]Of course whose fault is that? Certainly not UCD.[/quote]
It is a shared responsibility. That’s why I keep advocating for more apartments, why I believe the city and the university need to work together to provide student housing, and why I believe UCD needs to increase their amount of on-campus housing. It’s also why I believe the Cannery project, as proposed, is a missed opportunity to provide more of the housing most needed in Davis. So Nishi, if it has as much student housing as I think it does, should have first priority on housing permits within the 1% growth cap.
Frankly said. . .
[i]”Don, that point has been debated. I think most city leaders have viewed the 1% growth limit as a target. The fact that we cannot control what UCD does in terms of growth, it does not make sense to talk about a cap. “[/i]
Frankly, I can unequivocally state to 100% certainty that while some of the initial thoughts were in the realm of a target, the Council clarified officially that it is a goal . . . with no forgiveness(catch up) provisions for low annual attainment in any individual year. There was no confusion or ambiguity when Council finished that night. None. Zero.
“So Nishi, if it has as much student housing as I think it does, should have first priority on housing permits within the 1% growth cap.”
This is an argument for not annexing Nishi and the continued disenfranchisement of students in city politics. Perhaps an unintended consequence but a real unintended consequence. Don’t open up your golden gates Soweto here I come.
There is such incongruity in this argument about UCD versus Davis being responsible for housing growth. My head is spinning from the obvious disconnect from objective reasoning.
UCD adds housing.
Davis adds housing.
What the hell is the difference?
Why is one better or worse than the other?
Don’t the people living in UCD student and faculty housing still drive on the streets of Davis and take up space in our city?
Isn’t UCD-owned farmland as precious as other farmland.
It seems just a silly deflection point to argue that UCD has failed to build enough housing. Please explain to me the nuance of impact you are protecting demanding that UCD fills more of its own student and employee housing demands instead of the city of Davis stepping to the plate to do the same.
I, Frankly, frankly don’t get it.
“that’s a weird answer.”
But an accurate one.
How do you keep a turkey in suspense?
[quote]This is an argument for not annexing Nishi and the continued disenfranchisement of students in city politics.[/quote]
To the contrary. Nishi should be annexed, the housing permits for Nishi should have first priority, and the students who live there should vote in city elections.
[quote]It seems just a silly deflection point to argue that UCD has failed to build enough housing. Please explain to me the nuance of impact you are protecting demanding that UCD fills more of its own student and employee housing demands instead of the city of Davis stepping to the plate to do the same. [/quote]
It’s a shared responsibility, as I said before. Hence my strong preference for building rental housing in Davis before other types of housing are built.
[quote]but little outcry about the periodic, yet all too frequent, high fatality rate on the tracks in Davis, something the fence was trying to limit.[/quote]
It was after my youngest left for college that I started engaging actively in public discourse in our community.
This is the sole reason that I have not weighed in on any of these issues previously. The railroad fence was the first issue that truly engaged me following the election of Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson.
While I agree with Alan that the fence is a protective measure against a train vs pedestrian crossing the tracks , I cannot help but feel that it has significant and potentially socially irresponsible limitations and implications. If the goal was only to prevent deaths, why does the fence not include those areas where most of the deaths actually occurred ? Why does it not block both sides of the tracks ? Are those on the tracks having approached from the north side of the tracks not worth protecting, or is there an unfounded assumption here that only those approaching from the south could possibly be drunk, or depressed, or otherwise impaired which was the condition of most of those involved in these tragedies, not people simply too slow or careless while crossing the tracks ? What of the indigent who periodically occupy areas on the north side of the tracks ?
No protection needed for them ?
Did the company do a statistical analysis to determine which side of the tracks each person who died had entered from or did they simply assume that because the Olive Drive community is a few feet closer or because of the demographics they were truly at greater risk ?
These are questions to which I do not have answers. So please, before attacking, note the question marks. I am not “making up facts”. I am questioning how the decision was made just as I questioned it to members of the city council before the decision was made and the fence built. I was not then, and am not now arguing against the fence. I simply do not believe that it adequately addresses safety while limiting community connectivity. I do not believe that this is a good combination. But I am not a city planner, engineer or expert, so I can raise questions, but not provide coherent, well reasoned solutions due to lack of expertise.
[quote]but little outcry about the periodic, yet all too frequent, high fatality rate on the tracks in Davis, something the fence was trying to limit. [/quote]
#groan# I researched, documented and mapped every death along the tracks for the last 20+ years. Most were suicides, murders, and intoxicated persons. Only one to three of those could possibly have been stopped from the fence UP built. These events occur along miles of railroad, months apart, in different circumstances and done with intention or intoxication and there is no one preventative. What good would an “outcry” do? There is no one solution that is practical or economically viable. You can’t guard miles of railroad 24/7 for random events that occur once every 12-18 months on average.
A fence about where it was put has long been needed for safety, as people were crossing all over with no safe crossing point. My opposition to THIS fence was to a fence paid for with public funds that did not also meet the public need of a safe access point and overall safety. This was the use of public funds to reduce railroad liability, not to increase safety. Most not able to cross now use Richards/Olive and tunnel, all quite unsafe and inconvenient; some cross the tracks through access points UP failed to close, near and along the fence line.
SODA
[quote]I appreciate Tia Will continuing this discussion (no dead horse here) until she/we get answers[/quote]
For any who missed my follow up post yesterday, Councilman Brett Lee informed me yesterday that he had consulted with an agreed upon expert ( with whom I have not met and so who has not personally given me permission to state his identity) but who clearly has expertise in the area of community safety. This individual has weighed in with his opinion that the community design meets accepted safety standards.
I am therefore publicly dropping my stated provisional opposition to the Cannery project as proposed as I stated I would during public comment at last weeks City Council meeting.
I would like to say that I am entirely baffled why anyone in our community would resist so much as the proposal of questions with regard to safety. Expressing one’s disagreement, fine. Stating that I have other frequently and publicly stated reasons for opposition, fine. But how can anyone justify not even being willing to consider public safety as an issue worthy of addressing ?
“Agreed, so let’s add a grade separated crossing and maybe lower the speed limits on trains in Davis.”
Grade separated crossings should be added. The problem is they are astronomically expensive relative to a city budget. Grants may be sought, and grade seps are slowly built through a modest state program. In Davis, it could be decades before the stars align for even one.
Speeds are set by the railroads and they are federally regulated and it is private land. Davis does not have jurisdiction to lower train speed limits.
This is a bad idea anyhow. Many of those hit by trains in Davis were hit by slow moving trains. Slow moving trains kill more people than fast moving trains. Statistically, crossing safety increases with increased speed.
[quote]Far enough Alan Miller. However, I think you are a statistical abnormality in the debate.[/quote]
Thanks for acknowledging, Mr. F. I believe there are actually more “greys” out there than it appears. I believe that for some reason, comment boards attract more black/whites than greys, and thus devalues the boards for real discussion. Too often it is like watching one of those TV panels where Republicans scream at Democrats and vice versa, and you can’t hear what anyone is saying, and I don’t agree with either “side”.
Toning down the “us vs. them” on the comment board may improve true debate.
I hope.
The Vanguard really needs to add a “like” button(and an “edit” button,hmm?), so I can indicate agreement, without comment.
“But there is great irony in this connectivity argument, because all of the people complaining about it are also the very same that would block a Covell Village development… including blocking the idea of building road infrastructure through it because, aghast!, that would make it more likely that it would be developed. “[img]http://www.city-data.com/forum/pictures/t/61/59b86743ff6b62a108cb0d41fdbaff03_61295.gif?dl=1283109305[/img]
“Its actually worse, then they argue we shouldn’t build on these sites because of their limitations. Of course this fits perfectly into their no growth narrative. “[img]http://www.city-data.com/forum/pictures/t/61/59b86743ff6b62a108cb0d41fdbaff03_61295.gif?dl=1283109305[/img]
“I, Frankly, frankly don’t get it. “[img]http://www.city-data.com/forum/pictures/t/61/59b86743ff6b62a108cb0d41fdbaff03_61295.gif?dl=1283109305[/img]
[img]http://www.strat-talk.com/forum/picture.php?pictureid=17621&albumid=2503&thumb=1[/img]
Biddlin ;>)/
Alan
[quote]Toning down the “us vs. them” on the comment board may improve true debate. [/quote]
I would agree with this, just as I would agree with toning down and not demeaning others at CC presentations.
One has to look no further than the variety of suggestions for better approaches to the Cannery, to realize that people have a number of different concerns. In Davis, there may be schools of thought, or “tribes” as one friend put it. But what there is not is a certifiable group of “good guys” vs “bad guys”. There are individuals who have nuanced views with different degrees of adherence to their points of view. To ignore this, or to falsely portray the positions of others does nothing to enrich the conversation although occasionally it may provide some dramatic flair.
For most of the time that UCD underwent rapid development they let the community profit from housing students. When Sue Greenwald, Mike Harrington and Ken Wagstaff were elected that changed and so the University hired away the city manager at the time, John Meyer, to change course and provide housing for the new students coming here as a result of population growth statewide. What happened next was UCD got sued over West Village, This slowed down UCD from being able to provide housing to its students. Still as the university was needed to absorb more students it admitted them and the lack of housing infrastructure caused students to adapt and find housing where they could, helping to pushing up local prices as Davis continued to refuse to build and opposition from the community caused university construction to lag.
When West Village was being built the University wanted it annexed into the city but Sue Greenwald demanded West Village, if annexed, be considered as part of the 1% growth cap something that would have exacerbated the already existing shortage of housing in the city imposed by the artificial and absurd 1% growth limit. The result is West Village is excluded from the city not only by lack of access to the city but also from the civic life of Davis. Now people want to make the same mistake again with Nishi. Its as if the public hearing on Cannery never happened where so many fine people seemed to beg for housing options or it seems their words fell on so many deaf ears.
Biddlin – I need to “like” your sunburst Les Paul!
[i]I believe there are actually more “greys” out there than it appears. [/i]
Allan Miller, I agree with this to some degree.
I was talking to someone this morning about this very point. I think there are two coalitions of opposing tribes that are active in the growth-related debate. Some of these tribal members would like everyone to believe they are open-minded, but you only have to spend time reading the accumulation of their posts to see that they swing largely to a single narrow focus of concern, or to one side of the argument.
This is a key point. To be recognized as someone worthy of the badge of objectivity, one has to actually demonstrate the ability to concede valid points in opposition to their initial arguments, and also be willing to and open to changing their mind.
Nothing is ever perfect, and nobody gets everything they want. And there are generally tradeoffs for every decision. Only those that acknowledge the tradeoff impacts and work to mitigate them have my pledge to work together. Otherwise I would just as soon debate the black and white extremes and not waste my time.
medwoman wrote:
> Why does it not block both sides of the tracks ?
> Are those on the tracks having approached from
> the north side of the tracks not worth protecting
You only need to build one fence (and spend half as much money) to stop people from crossing the tracks.
Alan wrote:
> Thanks for acknowledging, Mr. F. I believe there
> are actually more “greys” out there than it appears.
Until we get a lot more “greys” (or “grays for those of us that spell color without the “u”) we will never be able to solve any big problems.
It still seems like most are either on the “blue” team that says we can never Build ANything Anywhere Anytime (aka BANANAs that even worse than NIMBYs) who will swear that Obama did lie about keeping your health plan..
Or on the “red” team that says you can build anything anytime anywhere anytime (including the most fertile farmland and old growth forests) who will swear that Bush did not lie about the no new taxes…
“When West Village was being built the University wanted it annexed into the city but Sue Greenwald demanded West Village, if annexed, be considered as part of the 1% growth cap something that would have exacerbated the already existing shortage of housing in the city imposed by the artificial and absurd 1% growth limit.”
This isn’t accurate. The university as far as I know has taken a neutral position on annexation. It has been the county that has opposed. The 1 percent growth issue isn’t part of the equation. What Sue and others wanted was for the growth from West Village to count towards the 1000 unit RHNA numbers and that’s true regardless of whether the land is annexed into the city.
[quote]If the goal was only to prevent deaths, why does the fence not include those areas where most of the deaths actually occurred ? [/quote]
The deaths are geographically spread out and unpredictable and each unique. There are a few places where an economically feasible project could likely prevent some future incidents. For most cases, the deaths were intentional. As I have pointed out before, even in Japan where the high speed tracks are fenced, people commit suicide by jumping off platforms in front of oncoming trains.
This fence is in the right place to prevent a great deal of crossings; the issue is no safe crossing point without an inconvenient and unsafe detour.
[quote]Why does it not block both sides of the tracks ? [/quote]
There is not enough room for a railroad maintenance road along the tracks, so the railroad uses city streets for necessary vehicle access. For the most part they cannot fence the north side, nor, obviously, can they fence the tracks within the station. The idea of the fence was not to prevent access, but to discourage access by not making it attractive or easy to cross. I have not problem with this as such. The issue is the lack of an access point which creates even more dangerous situations.
[quote]Are those on the tracks having approached from the north side of the tracks not worth protecting, or is there an unfounded assumption here that only those approaching from the south could possibly be drunk, or depressed, or otherwise impaired which was the condition of most of those involved in these tragedies, not people simply too slow or careless while crossing the tracks ?
[/quote]
Those intent on finding a way to kill themselves will, and fencing the tracks to the point of no access is all but impossible. I don’t believe there was any “right side of the tracks” bias, that was simply the side that it made sense to fence from a logistical point of view.
What of the indigent who periodically occupy areas on the north side of the tracks ? No protection needed for them ?
There are homeless people who have set up domicile all along the tracks. When they are ousted, they tend to find another place, often also along the tracks. They are not crossing to the other side, they live in or near the right of way. More fencing would just change where they stay, not prevent that they are there or “protect” them from the trains. Several of those hit were homeless.
[quote]Did the company do a statistical analysis to determine which side of the tracks each person who died had entered from or did they simply assume that because the Olive Drive community is a few feet closer or because of the demographics they were truly at greater risk ? [/quote]
Obviously, UP did not do a statistical analysis of the deaths at all, and ignored my research. Their goal was primarily to limit liability and make use of available public funds.
Having said that, some of the deaths did not have a known direction of travel. They died on the tracks, that is all that is known. The location of the fence on the south is due to the location of need for access, buildability, and the station location. Discouraging of crossing works both ways, and people on Olive can still get to the tracks with a minimum of effort (I won’t encourage people getting on the tracks by explaining how.)
[i]who will swear that Obama did lie about keeping your health plan.. [/i]
SOD, you mean “who will swear that Obama did [b]NOT[/b] lie about keeping your health plan… which would in affect be another lie.
Yes, that would be a blue… and probably one that demands he is seen as being wholly independent and completely objective. Right.
Interestingly enough for me, I see our political and worldview polar opposites as being largely in agreement with our outcome goals, but tied up in knots in wanting to control how we get there.
I use Ducks Unlimited for example. That organization has done more for wetlands preservation than has almost all environmental groups combined. However, they have a history of being accosted by environmental groups wanting to control HOW wetlands are preserved.
I see a similar thing with the open-space demanders and those that say we need more economic development. The open-space cadets are served by the private donations and public programs that are funded by tax revenue that is derived entirely from economic activity. So, in that respect, economic development has done more for open space preservation than all the environmental groups wanting to control HOW open space is preserved.
[quote]The open-space cadets are served by the private donations and public programs that are funded by tax revenue that is derived entirely from economic activity.[/quote]
Measure O is funded by property taxes.
Measure O is funded by property taxes, which are paid for by property owners, that acquired their money to purchase their property from economic activity.
The Yolo Land Trust gets its money from private donations and public sources that are also derived from economic activity.
Without economic activity, you have no land ownership and no land preservation unless you are a collectivist state where government just seizes property and forces its human subjects into slave labor.
Thanks, Frankly. It’s a ’59 custom shop re-issue. The bursts weren’t really that vivid in ’59, but the guitars cost a lot less, too!
The value of Davis property being higher than that of surrounding cities is largely due to the presence of the university. Without the university, Davis would be Dixon.
I know, in your world view everything results from economic activity. But at some point it gets pretty far removed. Not sure what your Marxism screed was all about. You seem to have these odd brain hiccups now and then where pre-programmed stuff comes out.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[quote]”When West Village was being built the University wanted it annexed into the city but Sue Greenwald demanded West Village, if annexed, be considered as part of the 1% growth cap something that would have exacerbated the already existing shortage of housing in the city imposed by the artificial and absurd 1% growth limit.”
This isn’t accurate. The university as far as I know has taken a neutral position on annexation. It has been the county that has opposed. The 1 percent growth issue isn’t part of the equation. What Sue and others wanted was for the growth from West Village to count towards the 1000 unit RHNA numbers and that’s true regardless of whether the land is annexed into the city.[/quote]
David is 100% correct.
[quote]including blocking the idea of building road infrastructure through it because, aghast!, that would make it more likely that it would be developed. [/quote]
Yes this is sad. It’s ridiculous that the Cannery’s awful connectivity is the result of a strategic move on the part of Covell Village opponents, and those that cater to fear of them. They have done a disservice to people who will live in the development and the communities surrounding it. For the record I opposed Covell Village, but I’m not willing to throw the good connectivity under the bus to lessen the chances of it’s resurrection.
[quote]you only have to spend time reading the accumulation of their posts to see that they swing largely to a single narrow focus of concern[/quote]
The reason that I, for one, have a “narrow focus” when it comes to housing is that no other housing goal will be met until we address the overwhelming rental housing imbalance. You can build 500 houses on the Cannery. Then add 600+ students each year in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 as the chancellor intends to do.
The university is currently dealing with a small percentage of the housing backlog they created over the last decades by adding thousands of new students and no new housing. They aren’t even beginning to cover that shortfall.
So let’s add 5,000 new students to make a stable enrollment 5,000 higher than it is currently. Build your little houses on the Cannery site. 500 or so of them. After second year, all those students move out into the community, or to nearby towns.
You do the math. Cannery as designed is a pointless addition of a small number of houses in a sea of rentals. And being the only remaining large parcel within the city limits, the Cannery site — along with Nishi — is the only practical remaining site that could have been used to make housing available for young families, make more affordable housing available, and reduce the rental market squeeze. All via market forces, simply by increasing the supply of apartments and other high-density rental housing.
So we won’t easily get a better vacancy rate. Young families will not be more able to buy houses here. Your young professionals will be no more readily able to buy in Davis.
Frankly wrote:
> SOD, you mean “who will swear that Obama did
> NOT lie about keeping your health plan…
Thanks for catching my typo… A “true blue” team member will NOT ever admit to a lie by a member of their team (just like the AM radio “red team” cheerleaders will never admit to a lie by a member of their “team”)…
> I use Ducks Unlimited for example. That organization
> has done more for wetlands preservation than has
> almost all environmental groups combined.
The blue team hates Ducks Unlimited because they kill ducks.
For a wetland loving blue team member having Ducks Unlimited preserve open space is like a historic church loving red team member finding out that Planned Parenthood is buying an old church and restoring the historic architecture…
Ducks Unlimited is a Land Trust, works with other Land Trusts, and has considerable respect from conservation organizations. You guys are just setting up straw men again.
Don wrote:
> You can build 500 houses on the Cannery. Then add
> 600+ students each year in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015,
> 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 as the chancellor
> intends to do.
Most rental houses have at least four students living in them. Many of the people that move to the Cannery will be moving from Davis. Many of the people that move from Davis will sell to investors/mini-dorm converters who convert 3 bedroom family homes in to 6 bedroom student homes.
I bet close to 1 in 5 garages in Central and East Davis have someone living in them. Like Don I agree that we need more student apartments, but for some reason most people would like to live next to homes (even if they are packed with students living in the garage) than apartments.
I was just talking to a Davis old timer and he mentioned that the local family that owns the Lexington Apartments (and Hallmark Inn) spent more than THIRTY (30) YEARS trying to build an apartment on the site (so it is not like Davis is making it easy to build new apartments) Can anyone name a market rent Davis apartment built in the last decade?
[quote]I bet close to 1 in 5 garages in Central and East Davis have someone living in them. Like Don I agree that we need more student apartments, but for some reason most people would like to live next to homes (even if they are packed with students living in the garage) than apartments. [/quote]
Are you saying students would rather live in a cramped home then an apartment? Is it possible that they do not prefer this but are doing so because there aren’t enough apartments available and they have not other choice?
[quote]Many of the people that move from Davis will sell to investors/mini-dorm converters who convert 3 bedroom family homes in to 6 bedroom student homes. [/quote]
Are these investors renting rooms out individually? (so everyone has their own lease?)
[i]The value of Davis property being higher than that of surrounding cities is largely due to the presence of the university. Without the university, Davis would be Dixon.
I know, in your world view everything results from economic activity. But at some point it gets pretty far removed. Not sure what your Marxism screed was all about. You seem to have these odd brain hiccups now and then where pre-programmed stuff comes out.[/i]
Come on now Don, you know that people cannot purchase a house and pay property tax without a job, and that job is either created by private-sector business (producer economic activity) or public-sector business (which is funded by producers paying taxes).
If the lefty-leaning moocher-looter state of California somehow overturns prop-13 (need to find a way to blame Republicans for all the fixed-income and lower income people that get kicked out of their homes), and more money flows to government coffers, then it will STILL be funded by economic activity.
I guess your point is that those people can go work in Sacramento or Vacaville and live in Davis. It still does not matter… their money to pay their taxes that Davis needs ALWAYS derives from private-sector economic activity. Too little economic activity, too little tax revenue.
You do know that proximity to a good job is one of the things that raises property values? So, there is another way that increased economic activity helps bring in more revenue to a city. More jobs, more competition for workers, higher pay, more discretionary money to spend, more demand for housing, higher housing costs, more churn in the housing market, higher property tax.
[quote]Increasing rents causing people to double up, additions in garages (one two houses down from me) and people renting out spare rooms to students to take pressure off of the high mortgages induced by increased home values due to lack of supply.[/quote]
Are people legally allowed to convert their garage to a living space?
Renting out a [u]spare[/u] room to a student doesn’t seem a bad thing. It’s an efficient use of space, energy, and resources.
[i]Are these investors renting rooms out individually? (so everyone has their own lease?)[/i]
Yes, and a single security deposit. They are usually one-year leases.
Rooms are cheaper than a one-bedroom apartment. And many students prefer renting a house over a multi-bedroom apartment.
By the way, I don’t think you will change that practice unless you build a LOT of new apartments with amenities and do something with zoning to and permitting to make home rental conversion more restrictive.
[i]Renting out a spare room to a student doesn’t seem a bad thing. It’s an efficient use of space, energy, and resources[/i]
Too bad there are not more homes with basements in Davis. A lot of communities with housing shortages get basement conversions done and rent them out.
I don’t know what we don’t have more homes with basements. Maybe not enough tornadoes.
[quote]Yes, and a single security deposit. They are usually one-year leases. [/quote]
Is this individual lease per room a new thing in Davis.
We have a lot of student rentals on our street and it’s never been a problem as far as I know. (except a lot of cars on the street). I don’t think there are any garage conversions. Has this caused significant problems in other neighborhoods?
[quote]I don’t know what we don’t have more homes with basements. Maybe not enough tornadoes.[/quote]
The old house on B ST that I rented in college has a funky basement, probably better described as a cellar. I wonder when they stopped building them into homes.
We have a pretty good size crawl space above the garage with some natural lighting, a few small upgrades, maybe I could get a couple hundred a month for it….
[quote]I don’t know what we don’t have more homes with basements.[/quote]
Cost. In a cold climate you have to put your footings below frostline anyway, so you may as well build a basement while you’re digging. We don’t have that requirement here. It’s a lot cheaper to pour a slab and frame up a second story than it is to dig a basement, form up the walls and make them waterproof.
Another reason: prior to the introduction of forced-air heating, most central units required that the furnace be below the living space so that gravity would move the hot air upward for distribution.
[quote]Cost. In a cold climate you have to put your footings below frostline anyway, so you may as well build a basement while you’re digging.[/quote]
Interesting, I’ve always wondered about that, thanks.
Jim Frame – That makes sense except that the price of land in Davis would seem to tip the justification toward more square footage digging a basement. Is a second story that much less expensive?
Maybe it has something to do with the expansive soils we have here?
Yes, students live in garages, I’m sure they aren’t legal but they are cheap. It is just a place to sleep. They share the house bathroom and kitchen. You can run a space heater in the winter but it can be brutal when it gets hot. They are usually kind of dirty/dusty.
I’ve been told they don’t dig basements here because of the soil but some houses have basements so it obviously can be done. I agree it is because of the cost. Slab on grade is cheaper and the appraisal on the basement portion of a house is not the same per square foot as it is for above ground space.
Frankly: [i]The problem is that we have dug ourselves a hole with so little housing developed over the [u]last couple of decades[/u] in comparison to what has been needed to sustain our own organic growth and in consideration of what is our fair share requirement for the region.[/i]
Your timing is off. There was substantial housing development between 1990 and 2000.
3 to 2 vote does not bode well for this project in a referendum.
My thought as well Don, I really thought this would end up 4-1 or 5-0 after concessions. I think for sure this ends up in a referendum after that vote.
I wonder if anything could have got two more votes? I knew since the Bean Feed when Brett and Livingston sat next to us that Brett would vote no. I was surprised by the Mayor, who after squeezing Conagra every which way, still voted no.
And i don’t think they will get the signatures.
[quote]And i don’t think they will get the signatures. [/quote]
I think that will depend on how much (if any) money the Covell Village folks decide to throw into the effort. With enough petitions on the street, you can get enough signatures for almost anything.
I don’t see CV partners paying for signatures because they need to have a measure J vote on Nishi. Unless they are willing to risk a what comes around goes around battle on Nishi they won’t let the dogs out.
I don’t understand the nexus between Nishi and Cannery. CV partners have a fairly direct interest in stopping The Cannery as a standalone project, but aside from fair-share housing numbers, Nishi doesn’t compete with CV.
P.S. How late did the Cannery item go last night? I turned in around 11:00 or so, and it was just getting cranked up.
I think about 12:30
Frankly wrote:
> Is a second story that much less expensive?
Yes, take a look at any new development with crappy new homes like Elk Grove about 99% have second stories and less than 1% have anything below ground. In Atherton on the SF Peninsula almost all the new $5million + homes have something (like a gym or media room) below ground.
“Nishi doesn’t compete with CV.”
My understanding is some of the same people have interests in both properties.
I’m still not seeing any bar to CV partners funding a Cannery referendum. CV and Nishi both have to go through Measure J/R votes regardless of what happens with The Cannery. A business case can be made to help referend The Cannery so it can be rolled into CV — at least for planning purposes — so why not funnel money into the signature gathering effort? (Sub rosa, of course, to the extent permitted by law.)
Because these things have a way of getting out so undermining another project might not play well with Cannery supporters. If the pro-growth forces are split there is little chance Nishi will pass.
In addition to it being cheaper to go up than to go down for a house from a construction standpoint, aboveground space has greater value in the market. You have windows and views. Additionally, a point not mentioned, but one which I know is a factor in many locations in the local region, is that water tables are fairly close to the ground surface elevation. This makes construction even more expensive because of dewatering, requires a sump pump system the capture and pump out water so that the basement can stay dry, and if that sump pump goes out….. I’ve been in a number of basements in older homes in the Sacramento area, and nearly all have flooded at some point in time. Also, many people historically used basements for cold storage, a place to keep canned fruits and vegetables that would naturally stay cool. Not so much need for that with modern refrigeration. I hadn’t thought about furnaces previously, but that makes a lot of sense and is the reason why lots of older houses have 1/4 or 1/8 basements.
One more factor: If the house is in a flood zone — quite a few in the area are — a basement is a distinct liability. Flood insurance rates are rising rapidly, and a the presence of a basement can turn an otherwise-exempt house into an expensive annual payment.