For the second time in ten days, wiser heads have prevailed in terms of the process by which the voters will vet the innovations parks. Last week, Dan Ramos pulled back from requesting an expedited Measure R process to requesting an advisory vote that would help to guide their decision as to whether and how to proceed with a full-blown Measure R vote.
While we understand why they might want to do that – particularly to avoid having to spend millions on a vote that may go sideways on them and send a clear message to Tyler Schilling of Schilling Robotics that the community was behind the project – the fact is, no one really thought was a good idea.
Four councilmembers all but opposed it but for the need to keep Schilling Robotics. Two councilmembers likened it to being backed into a corner and newly-elected Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis pointedly warned the developers that this would not get them what they were hoping for.
In addition, the other two project applicants both came out against the idea of an early vote and an advisory vote – but they too felt backed into a corner to go forward if the Mace Ranch Innovation Center led by Dan Ramos had moved forward.
However, cooler heads prevailed once again with city staff doing some of the heavy lifting behind the scenes to convince Dan Ramos and company that there is a better way forward.
Dan Ramos told the Vanguard in a phone conversation that, while Tyler Schilling “participated in this decision and concurs with it,” he remains on a very tight schedule. They have to move forward with this project quickly and show that the community is behind them.
As they made it clear in their letter, “Our intent is to move forward as expeditiously as reasonable with that application, with the anticipation that we will be ready, pending Council approval, for a Measure R vote in November 2015.”
Mr. Ramos added, “Although not his preferred course, Tyler Schilling supports this course of action since he believes that the our expeditiously moving forward on an application presents his best opportunity for securing the expansion space which he needs – in Davis – on a timely basis.”
We agree with Mr. Ramos’ assessment here. An advisory vote would have unnecessarily complicated matters and may have made it more rather than less difficult for a project to pass.
By avoiding either a circumvention of Measure R or an advisory vote, Dan Ramos keeps a critical constituency in play for his project. There is a group of people in this community that will support just about any project. We would estimate that at the 30 to 40 percent range.
There is another probably 30 to 40 percent that is likely to oppose any project. The key to success in Davis is that middle group of voters who want to see a business park but for them it needs to be a good project that adheres to Davis values and follows the laid out process.
This is not a small point – there was a group of people, some of whom would fall into the progressive camp, that would be willing to support these projects, but not at the expense of Measure R.
As one such person wrote me, “I was not happy about his attempt at a Measure J/R exemption nor the advisory vote. All the options should have an equal chance to be described and offer to the public for a vote.”
That is the group that the Mace Ranch folks, the Northwest Quadrant folks, and even the Davis Ranch folks need in order to win.
This entire discussion has unfortunately re-opened the debate on Measure R. In 2000, Measure J relatively narrowly was approved by the voters. That vote was an outgrowth of a battle that emerged in the 1990s after a period of rapid growth of major subdivisions.
But critics, who argue that Measure J and now Measure R is stifling Davis, also need to recognize that the last decade may not be the best test case for it. The massive Covell Village project went down overwhelmingly – 60-40. Given the history of Davis, even without Measure R, Covell Village would likely have ended up on the ballot like Wildhorse before it and Target after it.
The only other project, a small Wildhorse Ranch project, was proposed in 2009, during the heart of the collapse of the housing market.
The question is whether the public is willing to support business park opportunities in key locations: East of Mace, West of Sutter Davis, Nishi, and possibly Davis Ranch?
I actually believe that Measure R and what I will call the Davis Way is a strength and not a weakness. It forces developers and the city to come up with nice, innovative projects.
I believe that the city, the developers and the community supporting these projects need to make the case to the voters.
First, Davis needs new revenue and, without new sources of revenue, we are looking at cuts to services and/or incremental increases in taxes.
Second, we need an innovative project that reflects the community’s values. In other spaces I have suggested business park campus concepts that can replicate the college environment for start-ups and university spinoffs. They are neat, they will fit in well with the community, and they can be innovative and environmentally stable.
Third, we need proper mitigation. Davis is co-located with a world-class university but it is also located near world-class farmland. Those do not have to be competing values. The number one agricultural school can utilize the world-class soils to develop a world-class World Food Center and spinoff agricultural technology companies that can utilize our natural resources. In other words, we can develop economically while we preserve farmland.
I firmly believe that the Davis way can work. I believe that Measure R does not have to be a hindrance to economic development or fiscal sustainability. But democracy is by its nature and its design difficult. And so it will take work to convince the community to go along with these projects.
What we need from the applicants is innovative and strong projects that we can back with pride, excitement and without hesitation. If you do that, this community will back you.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David fiddles while Davis burns.
Just wait Mr. Toad. Just wait.
Just wait? Do you know something? Do you have an inside info?
Hopefully we’ll have a couple of announcements in the coming days that will undermine Mr. Toad’s snarky comment.
A little birdie tells me you have insider info. How could that be?
I don’t have any insider information other than knowledge of what the Vanguard is working on at the moment.
(Jorma Kaukonen, Jack Casady)
Well, nickel is a nickel, I said, dime is a dime
I need a new gal, she won’t mind
Tell me how long do I have to wait?
Can I get you now, I said, must I hesitate?
The eagle on the dollar says “in God we trust”
You say you want a man
You wanna see that dollar first
Tell me how long do I have to wait?
Can I get you now, I said, must I hesitate?
Well, If the river was whiskey, said, I was a duck
You know I’d swim to the bottom
Lord, and never come up
Tell me how long
Well, rocks in the ocean, said, fish in the sea
Knows you mean the world to me
Tell me how long do I have to wait?
Can I get you now, Lord, must I hesitate?
Well, the hesitation stalker’s got them hesitation shoes
You know, Lord, I got them hesitation blues
Tell me how long do I have to wait?
Can I get you now, Lord, must I hesitate?
Said, can I get you now, how long must I hesitate?
David fiddles while Davis burns.
Just wait Mr. Toad. Just wait.
Just wait? Do you know something? Do you have an inside info?
Hopefully we’ll have a couple of announcements in the coming days that will undermine Mr. Toad’s snarky comment.
A little birdie tells me you have insider info. How could that be?
I don’t have any insider information other than knowledge of what the Vanguard is working on at the moment.
(Jorma Kaukonen, Jack Casady)
Well, nickel is a nickel, I said, dime is a dime
I need a new gal, she won’t mind
Tell me how long do I have to wait?
Can I get you now, I said, must I hesitate?
The eagle on the dollar says “in God we trust”
You say you want a man
You wanna see that dollar first
Tell me how long do I have to wait?
Can I get you now, I said, must I hesitate?
Well, If the river was whiskey, said, I was a duck
You know I’d swim to the bottom
Lord, and never come up
Tell me how long
Well, rocks in the ocean, said, fish in the sea
Knows you mean the world to me
Tell me how long do I have to wait?
Can I get you now, Lord, must I hesitate?
Well, the hesitation stalker’s got them hesitation shoes
You know, Lord, I got them hesitation blues
Tell me how long do I have to wait?
Can I get you now, Lord, must I hesitate?
Said, can I get you now, how long must I hesitate?
And they threw away the Cannery site more residential sprawl ….
Agreed Michael, it was already zoned light industrial but the developer won out.
What does everyone think of the 10,000 truckloads of dirt that are going to be moved from Woodland to the Cannery using Route 102?
Yes I went by the site yesterday and you get the immense sense of the project and looks the many trees have been taken out……
Yes Soda, I was also surprised by how many trees were removed.
SODA
I also have been past the site several times. This makes me very sad.
One of the council members stated to me ” I think that people will enjoy living there”. I suspect this is true, however there is little “enjoyment” in this project for those of us who would have preferred preservation of the trees, retention of the zoning for business income, and/or a truly innovative project whether business or housing.
i agree with you. it’s not a question of whether people will enjoy living in the project, but whether it is a good project for the community. it wasn’t. it wasn’t innovative. it wasn’t cutting edge.
i’m in agreement that the council should have held out for a much better project there if they were going to re-zone.
You need to “Move on.”
you’re one to talk
And they threw away the Cannery site more residential sprawl ….
Agreed Michael, it was already zoned light industrial but the developer won out.
What does everyone think of the 10,000 truckloads of dirt that are going to be moved from Woodland to the Cannery using Route 102?
Yes I went by the site yesterday and you get the immense sense of the project and looks the many trees have been taken out……
Yes Soda, I was also surprised by how many trees were removed.
SODA
I also have been past the site several times. This makes me very sad.
One of the council members stated to me ” I think that people will enjoy living there”. I suspect this is true, however there is little “enjoyment” in this project for those of us who would have preferred preservation of the trees, retention of the zoning for business income, and/or a truly innovative project whether business or housing.
i agree with you. it’s not a question of whether people will enjoy living in the project, but whether it is a good project for the community. it wasn’t. it wasn’t innovative. it wasn’t cutting edge.
i’m in agreement that the council should have held out for a much better project there if they were going to re-zone.
You need to “Move on.”
you’re one to talk
MH and BP
A rare, rare moment of agreement . Let’s celebrate.
For me the Cannery was a terrible disappointment. It was zoned as Michael stated and yet there was no huge push from the business community to take advantage of what the city was offering through its zoning policy.
Now, I would not have had a problem with the change in zoning if what had been gained was truly an innovative project that met existing community stated values or provided a truly unique, innovative and cutting edge development as was touted. Instead, what we settled for was another automobile dependent community with a few additional bells and whistles that would have been considered cutting edge around the time that Village Homes was developed but are really nothing but pleasant amenities today.
I favor an innovation/business park. But I do not want a repeat of the Cannery which I see as the mediocre as the enemy of the excellent.
The most innovative housing project ever built using state of the art technology and you lament it as mediocre. Well its good to know that you are well represented by the city council where your sentiments were reflected by Brett Lee who shamelessly voted no while voicing similar rhetoric to appease people like yourself. One does need to wonder what they could have ever done to make you happy.
i call bs. cannery is far from an innovative housing project. you have drunk the kool-aid my reptilian friend.
Amphibian. I can tell your kids (if any) are not in preschool!
i offer no excuse for that one.
I think SACOG described it as the most innovative. Now maybe you disagree but they look at an awful lot of housing projects.
I tried to do a search to find that, can you point me in the right direction?
Mr. Toad
they look at an awful lot of housing projects.”
I am not familiar with the methodology of SACOG. It depends on what housing projects that they are using for comparison. If they are comparing most projects with their cookie cutter houses and cup de sac road plans, then the Cannery would probably look innovative to them.
If they were to compare the degree of innovation that Village Homes provided in its time compared to the surrounding communities and used that degree of innovation as their bench mark, I suspect it would not come out looking so innovative.
As everyone knows, I have no direct expertise in this area and am basing my comments on conversations that I had with a number of people who are knowledgeable in areas of conservation, urban farms, and transportation and on what can be read by Googling the various subjects.
If you have evidence that the Cannery is actually cutting edge, I would love to see it.
MH and BP
A rare, rare moment of agreement . Let’s celebrate.
For me the Cannery was a terrible disappointment. It was zoned as Michael stated and yet there was no huge push from the business community to take advantage of what the city was offering through its zoning policy.
Now, I would not have had a problem with the change in zoning if what had been gained was truly an innovative project that met existing community stated values or provided a truly unique, innovative and cutting edge development as was touted. Instead, what we settled for was another automobile dependent community with a few additional bells and whistles that would have been considered cutting edge around the time that Village Homes was developed but are really nothing but pleasant amenities today.
I favor an innovation/business park. But I do not want a repeat of the Cannery which I see as the mediocre as the enemy of the excellent.
The most innovative housing project ever built using state of the art technology and you lament it as mediocre. Well its good to know that you are well represented by the city council where your sentiments were reflected by Brett Lee who shamelessly voted no while voicing similar rhetoric to appease people like yourself. One does need to wonder what they could have ever done to make you happy.
i call bs. cannery is far from an innovative housing project. you have drunk the kool-aid my reptilian friend.
Amphibian. I can tell your kids (if any) are not in preschool!
i offer no excuse for that one.
I think SACOG described it as the most innovative. Now maybe you disagree but they look at an awful lot of housing projects.
I tried to do a search to find that, can you point me in the right direction?
Mr. Toad
they look at an awful lot of housing projects.”
I am not familiar with the methodology of SACOG. It depends on what housing projects that they are using for comparison. If they are comparing most projects with their cookie cutter houses and cup de sac road plans, then the Cannery would probably look innovative to them.
If they were to compare the degree of innovation that Village Homes provided in its time compared to the surrounding communities and used that degree of innovation as their bench mark, I suspect it would not come out looking so innovative.
As everyone knows, I have no direct expertise in this area and am basing my comments on conversations that I had with a number of people who are knowledgeable in areas of conservation, urban farms, and transportation and on what can be read by Googling the various subjects.
If you have evidence that the Cannery is actually cutting edge, I would love to see it.
Not gotten off to good start as far adhering to Davis values. Things like trying to circumvent the process and complaining at council meetings about how ridiculous the process is is probably not the best way to win over moderate votes on this issue.
they pulled back, so now we have a chance. if we could only get the frankly’s and mr. toads to pull back a little so that they don’t scare the hell out of the middle, we might have a chance here.
You far overestimate our scare capability, and also fail to incorporate our influence. There are actually voters out there that don’t shrink up and get defensive with a dose of forced introspection.
it’s all about the discourse and the discussion
You know that Davis liberals are not used to hearing criticism about their behaviors and demands. The lack of criticism because of their dominance has led them to believe that only the sound of their own thoughts is required. And you also know that people don’t let go of their views with softballs thrown at them. And those that cling more tightly to their views in defiance of facts and valid arguments demonstrating the wrongness of those views need to be called out for that behavior too.
Someone once made a good analogy that people are like an orange. And that people with right-leaning tendencies tend to have a thin emotional rind and a thick logical center, and people with left-leaning tendencies have a thin logical rind and a thick emotional center. Someone with an emotional rind will dig deep into the logic of a problem and then process it through an emotional filter. Conversely, someone with an emotional center will feel more deeply about a topic, and then come back through a rational filter to attempt to defend why they are feeling a certain way.
In my view, both need more balance. But when we are trying to solve difficult problems it is the feelings of people that get in the way. And to resolve the roadblocks caused by the tendency for people that feel strongly enough to resist or demand certain change, there has to be some effort for looking at the cause of the feelings. Because in many cases the response to feelings are irrational and they will cause decisions to be sub-optimized. Decisions made from an emotional basis are generally sub-optimized and even hazardous.
It makes some people uncomfortable to be challenged when they are not used to it. But then there is no way we can move forward unless they become used to it.
Frankly
“You know that Davis liberals are not used to hearing criticism about their behaviors and demands”
Oh, for heaven’s sake Frankly, we hear criticisms including stereotypes and name calling from you , Mr. Toad, BP and South of Davis on a daily basis.
I dare say that we are “used to it”
Oh, for heaven’s sake Frankly, we hear criticisms including stereotypes and name calling from you , Mr. Toad, BP and South of Davis on a daily basis.
I dare say that we are “used to it”
My point exactly.
You are welcome.
And thank the Vanguard too!
Sorry not going to happen, wouldn’t be prudent. The notion that I shouldn’t call out a flawed process because it might result in a flawed outcome is absurd. This community needs to do what is right because its right.
but you’re not the arbiter or right and wrong for the entire community.
my point is that we need to get this right, not squawk about side issue.
Measure r is not a simple side issue. It is a process that stifles or delays growth.
i disagree. i think the last decade had unique factors that allowed it to play out that way. the previous decade saw a number of projects voted on that were passed by the voters.
Mr. Toad
“This community needs to do what is right because its right.”
I could not agree more. The difficulty is that we don’t define “right” the same way.
Yes, they pulled back, but it makes me wonder what they were thinking in the first place, and it makes me question their ability to understand and interact with this community in a way that will ultimately get them what they want. Talking about how much easier is to get things done in Houston, and how we seem ridiculous to them, may be a true statement, but from a PR prospective its a disastrous approach. I put it right up there with school board members telling people to “calm down” or “move on”
You have it backwards we have more to lose than they do.
That is what I’m worried about. I want them to succeed. I’m concerned that if they don’t get a better of understanding of this community and the ways to address the public successfully on this issue that they will end up marginalizing people and ultimately lose public support. I don’t want to see this happen.
michelle is right, imo.
Not gotten off to good start as far adhering to Davis values. Things like trying to circumvent the process and complaining at council meetings about how ridiculous the process is is probably not the best way to win over moderate votes on this issue.
they pulled back, so now we have a chance. if we could only get the frankly’s and mr. toads to pull back a little so that they don’t scare the hell out of the middle, we might have a chance here.
You far overestimate our scare capability, and also fail to incorporate our influence. There are actually voters out there that don’t shrink up and get defensive with a dose of forced introspection.
it’s all about the discourse and the discussion
You know that Davis liberals are not used to hearing criticism about their behaviors and demands. The lack of criticism because of their dominance has led them to believe that only the sound of their own thoughts is required. And you also know that people don’t let go of their views with softballs thrown at them. And those that cling more tightly to their views in defiance of facts and valid arguments demonstrating the wrongness of those views need to be called out for that behavior too.
Someone once made a good analogy that people are like an orange. And that people with right-leaning tendencies tend to have a thin emotional rind and a thick logical center, and people with left-leaning tendencies have a thin logical rind and a thick emotional center. Someone with an emotional rind will dig deep into the logic of a problem and then process it through an emotional filter. Conversely, someone with an emotional center will feel more deeply about a topic, and then come back through a rational filter to attempt to defend why they are feeling a certain way.
In my view, both need more balance. But when we are trying to solve difficult problems it is the feelings of people that get in the way. And to resolve the roadblocks caused by the tendency for people that feel strongly enough to resist or demand certain change, there has to be some effort for looking at the cause of the feelings. Because in many cases the response to feelings are irrational and they will cause decisions to be sub-optimized. Decisions made from an emotional basis are generally sub-optimized and even hazardous.
It makes some people uncomfortable to be challenged when they are not used to it. But then there is no way we can move forward unless they become used to it.
Frankly
“You know that Davis liberals are not used to hearing criticism about their behaviors and demands”
Oh, for heaven’s sake Frankly, we hear criticisms including stereotypes and name calling from you , Mr. Toad, BP and South of Davis on a daily basis.
I dare say that we are “used to it”
Oh, for heaven’s sake Frankly, we hear criticisms including stereotypes and name calling from you , Mr. Toad, BP and South of Davis on a daily basis.
I dare say that we are “used to it”
My point exactly.
You are welcome.
And thank the Vanguard too!
Sorry not going to happen, wouldn’t be prudent. The notion that I shouldn’t call out a flawed process because it might result in a flawed outcome is absurd. This community needs to do what is right because its right.
but you’re not the arbiter or right and wrong for the entire community.
my point is that we need to get this right, not squawk about side issue.
Measure r is not a simple side issue. It is a process that stifles or delays growth.
i disagree. i think the last decade had unique factors that allowed it to play out that way. the previous decade saw a number of projects voted on that were passed by the voters.
Mr. Toad
“This community needs to do what is right because its right.”
I could not agree more. The difficulty is that we don’t define “right” the same way.
Yes, they pulled back, but it makes me wonder what they were thinking in the first place, and it makes me question their ability to understand and interact with this community in a way that will ultimately get them what they want. Talking about how much easier is to get things done in Houston, and how we seem ridiculous to them, may be a true statement, but from a PR prospective its a disastrous approach. I put it right up there with school board members telling people to “calm down” or “move on”
You have it backwards we have more to lose than they do.
That is what I’m worried about. I want them to succeed. I’m concerned that if they don’t get a better of understanding of this community and the ways to address the public successfully on this issue that they will end up marginalizing people and ultimately lose public support. I don’t want to see this happen.
michelle is right, imo.
10,000 big truck trips full of dirt being transported down Rt. 102 from Woodland to the Cannery. I wonder how many plastic bags that equates to? Billions? Trillions? Why are our lefty environmentalists so quiet about this?
so no new development, anywhere on the planet?
No, just pointing out the hypocrisy our local liberal bagophobes.
i fail to see your point. if you’re not arguing no new development, then waste needs to be reduced some way.
BP
“10,000 big truck trips full of dirt being transported down Rt. 102 from Woodland to the Cannery”
Two points about this. I doubt that any one will be arguing my “liberal credentials”. I already opposed the Cannery
to the best of my ability. And, I was not aware of the number of trucks involved in transport until you posted it.
By the way, what was your resource for this information ?
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/construction-will-delay-traffic-on-county-road-102/
That will be made up in no time by the huge number of car trips from Woodland to Davis that will be avoided by people who work in Davis being able to live in Davis instead of living in Woodland and working in Davis.
10,000 big truck trips full of dirt being transported down Rt. 102 from Woodland to the Cannery. I wonder how many plastic bags that equates to? Billions? Trillions? Why are our lefty environmentalists so quiet about this?
so no new development, anywhere on the planet?
No, just pointing out the hypocrisy our local liberal bagophobes.
i fail to see your point. if you’re not arguing no new development, then waste needs to be reduced some way.
BP
“10,000 big truck trips full of dirt being transported down Rt. 102 from Woodland to the Cannery”
Two points about this. I doubt that any one will be arguing my “liberal credentials”. I already opposed the Cannery
to the best of my ability. And, I was not aware of the number of trucks involved in transport until you posted it.
By the way, what was your resource for this information ?
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/construction-will-delay-traffic-on-county-road-102/
That will be made up in no time by the huge number of car trips from Woodland to Davis that will be avoided by people who work in Davis being able to live in Davis instead of living in Woodland and working in Davis.
There is a root cause, and an optimal solution for every problem.
Here is one very big problem.
The cost of housing is out of control… again. Why is the cost of housing out of control? The root cause if government. Government meddling in the free market.
Up until the end of the Clinton era tech stock boom and the recession he handed to Bush, wages and housing kept up with each other. Then the fed monetary policy and the “ownership” society BS kicked in that regulators started hammering banks to lend to low credit quality minority borrowers based on the Carter era CRA… and real estate prices started to skyrocket.
And rents skyrocketed.
And rents leveled for a bit after the Great Recession, but they are skyrocketing again.
Here is another reason rents are skyrocketing.
Fewer new rentals being built because of NIMBY, change-averse, developer-hating, environmental-extreme liberals than dominate the politics of most of the urban areas where rents are the highest.
Real estate development is bad. Densification is the new good.
Everyone can be crammed in tighter and tighter so that we save the planet.
But that mindset does not create space for enough new housing. And it is in fact a big lie that these lefty-save-the-planet people even support the level of densification required to provide enough housing… they use that convenient argument, but really just want to keep the riff raff out of their exclusive and elite villages. They are joined by conservatives with a similar interest… it is just that conservatives honestly admit that they want to preserve their real estate values and keep the riff raff out.
Farm land, natural habitat and open-space preservation are the new crusades. The US government and many states give away billions to put land away in permanent never-to-be-developed status.
Then a flood of immigrants that have to rent.
It is simply supply and demand… build more apartments to raise the vacancy rates and rents will decline.
And we might need some rent control if we cannot get to a 5%+ vacancy rate.
Ignore the development blocking arguments about open-space, habitat preservation, farmland preservation, save the environment. These are only left brand management facades covering a true agenda to push the social problems caused by higher populations of low-income people to somewhere else. Measure J/R is simply a manifestation of greed.
Davis needs economic growth to provide enough taxable economic activity to adequately fund our city services and our demanded amenities. And Davis, like most liberal-dominated communities in the state, needs to allow more housing to support a percentage of the new people that will work here, and to help lower the rental costs that are strangling lower income people.
And when we hear that Davis needs to raise the minimum wage to absurd levels, please recognize this for what it really is. More manifestation of greedy behavior to keep those riff raff out.
You want rent control???
Not really, but something has to give. The trajectory for rents and for wages is completely the opposite direction.
Here is the situation as I see it.
Capital flows to where it can get the greatest return, and then capital follows capital in what becomes a bubble.
We need more of that capital to flow toward business creation, not so much housing and stock market.
Skyrocketing rents are putting pressure on politicians to legislate wages.
I would rather that we legislate rents, than wages.
I would rather we do not legislate either. I would rather we build more housing. But if rents continue their trends, we are going to have bigger problems… like more homeless. We have to do something.
Housing is a necessity. I am okay with regulation
Frankly
“Government meddling in the free market.”
By this standard, the government shouldn’t interfere with the free market of human job seekers and we should just open the border.
Frankly
“Davis needs economic growth to provide enough taxable economic activity to adequately fund our city services and our demanded amenities.”
Davis does not need economic growth to provide enough taxable economic activity to adequately fund our city serves and our demanded amenities. Davis needs a balance between economic growth and personal responsibility.
If we want city services and “demanded amenities, we are adults and should be willing to pay for our own needs and desires. And that means more taxes for those things that we agree we want instead of pawning this off on someone else whether it is new business or our children to pay for.
“we are adults and should be willing to pay for our own needs and desires. And that means more taxes…”
Yes, let’s make Davis even more expensive and exclusive than it already is. What a great way to block new families from coming to town and spoiling the place for people like Tia.
Mark West
I hav often said, and you have often read it when I have said that I am more than willing to be taxed ( differentially if need be ) to help those who are in need of help to come here or remain here. What I am not willing to do is to turn this town into another characterless expanse of development such as can be found all over California. So many of these communities exist, that if this is truly what one loves, there are many to b found. But I have found only one Davis. So why this relentless drive to make it the same ?
The problem is there are many residents who can’t afford to be taxed much more.
so there are choices. we’ll see what pick choose.
There is a root cause, and an optimal solution for every problem.
Here is one very big problem.
The cost of housing is out of control… again. Why is the cost of housing out of control? The root cause if government. Government meddling in the free market.
Up until the end of the Clinton era tech stock boom and the recession he handed to Bush, wages and housing kept up with each other. Then the fed monetary policy and the “ownership” society BS kicked in that regulators started hammering banks to lend to low credit quality minority borrowers based on the Carter era CRA… and real estate prices started to skyrocket.
And rents skyrocketed.
And rents leveled for a bit after the Great Recession, but they are skyrocketing again.
Here is another reason rents are skyrocketing.
Fewer new rentals being built because of NIMBY, change-averse, developer-hating, environmental-extreme liberals than dominate the politics of most of the urban areas where rents are the highest.
Real estate development is bad. Densification is the new good.
Everyone can be crammed in tighter and tighter so that we save the planet.
But that mindset does not create space for enough new housing. And it is in fact a big lie that these lefty-save-the-planet people even support the level of densification required to provide enough housing… they use that convenient argument, but really just want to keep the riff raff out of their exclusive and elite villages. They are joined by conservatives with a similar interest… it is just that conservatives honestly admit that they want to preserve their real estate values and keep the riff raff out.
Farm land, natural habitat and open-space preservation are the new crusades. The US government and many states give away billions to put land away in permanent never-to-be-developed status.
Then a flood of immigrants that have to rent.
It is simply supply and demand… build more apartments to raise the vacancy rates and rents will decline.
And we might need some rent control if we cannot get to a 5%+ vacancy rate.
Ignore the development blocking arguments about open-space, habitat preservation, farmland preservation, save the environment. These are only left brand management facades covering a true agenda to push the social problems caused by higher populations of low-income people to somewhere else. Measure J/R is simply a manifestation of greed.
Davis needs economic growth to provide enough taxable economic activity to adequately fund our city services and our demanded amenities. And Davis, like most liberal-dominated communities in the state, needs to allow more housing to support a percentage of the new people that will work here, and to help lower the rental costs that are strangling lower income people.
And when we hear that Davis needs to raise the minimum wage to absurd levels, please recognize this for what it really is. More manifestation of greedy behavior to keep those riff raff out.
You want rent control???
Not really, but something has to give. The trajectory for rents and for wages is completely the opposite direction.
Here is the situation as I see it.
Capital flows to where it can get the greatest return, and then capital follows capital in what becomes a bubble.
We need more of that capital to flow toward business creation, not so much housing and stock market.
Skyrocketing rents are putting pressure on politicians to legislate wages.
I would rather that we legislate rents, than wages.
I would rather we do not legislate either. I would rather we build more housing. But if rents continue their trends, we are going to have bigger problems… like more homeless. We have to do something.
Housing is a necessity. I am okay with regulation
Frankly
“Government meddling in the free market.”
By this standard, the government shouldn’t interfere with the free market of human job seekers and we should just open the border.
Frankly
“Davis needs economic growth to provide enough taxable economic activity to adequately fund our city services and our demanded amenities.”
Davis does not need economic growth to provide enough taxable economic activity to adequately fund our city serves and our demanded amenities. Davis needs a balance between economic growth and personal responsibility.
If we want city services and “demanded amenities, we are adults and should be willing to pay for our own needs and desires. And that means more taxes for those things that we agree we want instead of pawning this off on someone else whether it is new business or our children to pay for.
“we are adults and should be willing to pay for our own needs and desires. And that means more taxes…”
Yes, let’s make Davis even more expensive and exclusive than it already is. What a great way to block new families from coming to town and spoiling the place for people like Tia.
Mark West
I hav often said, and you have often read it when I have said that I am more than willing to be taxed ( differentially if need be ) to help those who are in need of help to come here or remain here. What I am not willing to do is to turn this town into another characterless expanse of development such as can be found all over California. So many of these communities exist, that if this is truly what one loves, there are many to b found. But I have found only one Davis. So why this relentless drive to make it the same ?
The problem is there are many residents who can’t afford to be taxed much more.
so there are choices. we’ll see what pick choose.
“But that mindset does not create space for enough new housing. And it is in fact a big lie that these lefty-save-the-planet people even support the level of densification required to provide enough housing… they use that convenient argument, but really just want to keep the riff raff out of their exclusive and elite villages. They are joined by conservatives with a similar interest… it is just that conservatives honestly admit that they want to preserve their real estate values and keep the riff raff out.”
Mostly correct but its not the liberals their contribution is on the government spending side where they joined traditionally with the progressives to pay for the largesse with taxes. Instead its the anti-growth progressives who would never identify as liberals and now are refusing to pay in an alliance with the anti-tax conservatives. Together they have given us negative growth and not enough tax dollars to cover things. Think Sue Greenwald and Ernie head or Jim Leonard and John Munn.
Also measures J/R could have provided space for growth but didn’t setting the limit line at the existing city limit so now we are stuck. Codifying bad policy at the polls leads to bad outcomes
“Instead its the anti-growth progressives who would never identify as liberals”
you like to play this linguistic game. sue greenwald is a liberal. ernie head is not a liberal or a progressive. jim leonard is a liberal. john munn is not a liberal or a progressive.
Sue referred to herself as a progressive. I never heard her use liberal.
a difference without a distinction.
“Also measures J/R could have provided space for growth but didn’t setting the limit line at the existing city limit so now we are stuck. Codifying bad policy at the polls leads to bad outcomes”
there is an easy to answer to that. you could put on the ballot – as i suggested yesterday – a certain acreage and location that the voters could cede authority on to the council. the voters would have to approve it, but it would accomplish your aim.
We already have that process its called measure R. Its been around in one form or another for 14 years. It has resulted in zero land being annexed into the city.
as i said above, the last decade has been unusual, i’m not sure that ends up being the rule.
Ok – I will give you that some of the opposition to and support of growth does not fit into my nice and neat ideological rant box. But there is a general connection with slow growth and liberals… not just in Davis, but throughout the country. And yes there are conservatives that join in for various reasons. In some cases they own businesses and don’t want competition. Or they like their home values high. Or they don’t want more lower income people living here because they tend to bring with them social ills that can make a place less desirable to live in. Or they like their big lot at the edge of town with lots of privacy and views of the brown fields.
I just do not respect people that claim to be so concerned about the human condition and social justice, but then demand the city they live in does not grow.
The conservatives are just being conservatives. They are not being hypocritical in this respect.
where i guess i have a difference in opinion is that some people like to live in the country, some like small towns, larger towns, college towns, big cities. so why are required to grow rather than create communities where people want to live of all shapes and sizes?
All those choices exist. You can move to them.
What is the definition of greed?
When you “wants” come at the expense of others’ needs.
Frankly
“All those choices exist. You can move to them.
What is the definition of greed?
When you “wants” come at the expense of others’ needs.”
That would seem to cut both ways. For me, it is not the people who favor change who should consider leaving. It is those who desire change who should consider whether or not Davis is the best fit for them.
Maybe there is an avid reader out there who can help me either with the name or author of a short story or novella that I read about 50 years ago. Various towns in a society had been constructed to conform with geometric shapes ( circles, ovals, squares, rectangles) and individuals chose where to live based on where they found the “best fit” for their personality type and preferences. What they did not usually do was to try to disrupt the existing community to make if conform to their preferences. If they weren’t comfortable, they moved on. As I recall from my pre teen days, the story’s central conflict arose when some decided that they would try to reorganize by changing the configuration to suit their personal preferences. End of recollection, can anyone cite the reference ?
My point. You have frequently suggested that if I do not want rapid growth then I should leave. My question for you is whether you have found Davis with its admitted liberalism and preponderance of slow
growthers, a good fit for you ? If so, why are you so adamant about changing it as rapidly as possible ?
Good stuff Tia.
There is change when something is dormant, and there is change as a result of natural inertia.
There are a lot of rural and Midwest towns that are dormant and some are dying because there is not enough going on to retain the next generation or to attract new comers. It would take a profound effort to stop the stasis state and to grow. It would take little effort to keep it the same.
Then there is a city like Davis with natural inertia to change. It would take a profound effort to keep it the same, and little effort to let it grow.
Inertia and actions are the factors you are not considering.
And in addition, you are discounting the needs of others.
I think we have a moral obligation to give of ourselves to improve the human condition. The most genuinely charitable giving is that when we give away something we value to help others. It is still cool to give away our excess, but that isn’t really so hard… and it isn’t really celebratory. For example, I buy a lot of things that end up at the SPCA Thrift Store… a lot of good things that they sell for a reasonable price. It makes me feel good to do that, but it isn’t really charity because I am getting rid of excess things.
You value a small Davis, but to keep it small you have to fight against natural inertia and you have to make the case why something you value so much is worth retaining when doing so harms so many other that would otherwise benefit from the acceptance of that inertia.
In Davis, the blocking of growth is the action… because without that action, Davis would naturally grow.
I think we have a moral obligation to accept a level of growth because of the existence of that opportunity to improve the human condition of many less fortunate than you are I. I am willing to give up some of my small town values so that these people are helped. Davis will still be wonderful… I think probably better in a lot of ways.
Instead of blocking the Inertia, you could move to Dixon or Winters if you like a smaller town lacking the same inertia to grow.
Tia wrote:
> It is those who desire change who should consider whether
> or not Davis is the best fit for them.
If Frankly does not like living in a town with rich educated white people who own multiple homes that hate growth he can always move to one of the many growing towns in CA full of poor uneducated brown people from south of the border that many people in this town want to keep letting in to the US (but don’t want to build housing for in Davis)…
LOL.
I moved to Dixon and attended high school there in the mid 70s. I have been called a “stuck up Davis yuppie” by my old schoolmates. Many of them Hispanic.
There are times walking around Davis that I feel a bit icky… like we have some wall with razor wire and guards to keep those undesirable people from Dixon from moving here.
Hi Tia,
You write, “As I recall from my pre teen days, the story’s central conflict arose when some decided that they would try to reorganize by changing the configuration to suit their personal preferences.”
You say that Davis is a fit for you, but the U.S. (with its borders) is not. If Davis gets bigger, little will be affected in the grand scheme of things. If the U.S. has no borders (the southern border is porous already), that will affect the whole world, since the stability of the U.S. affects the whole world.
Why is it that you want Davis to stay the same but the U.S. to be different? How can Davis stay the same if the U.S. is different?
Dorte – that is a great contrasting question.
Seems like Tia supports a wall around Davis, but the country should be wide open with no borders.
And this is an example of some pretty fantastic incongruity in her positions… and she is not alone in this town.
Frankly
“You value a small Davis, but to keep it small you have to fight against natural inertia and you have to make the case why something you value so much is worth retaining when doing so harms so many other that would otherwise benefit from the acceptance of that inertia.”
To keep Davis small does not entail fighting the natural inertia. It involves fighting artificial expansion “needed” to cover the cost of items we decided we wanted.
“I am willing to give up some of my small town values so that these people are helped. ”
You have consistently said that you personally feel that Davis would be a better place if it were larger. Given this statement, I find it hard to believe that you “are giving up anything” You simply prefer a bigger town.
As for the well being of others, if I were the only one that wanted Davis to remain small, you would have a point.
But that is not the case. My son and his friends just moved back from the Bay area specifically because they wanted a small town lifestyle. I know for a fact that he will be deeply disappointed if we manage to turn Davis into Berkley or Palo Alto, or even worse Folsom or Vacaville.
Again, it is not me that wants to see Davis change. So again, why should I move when I like what we have ?
It is you that appears to be discontent. So I should move because you prefer growth ? Help me understand this.
To keep Davis small does not entail fighting the natural inertia. It involves fighting artificial expansion “needed” to cover the cost of items we decided we wanted.
Okay, so finally we get to a point of wrong-vs.-right.
And it is the basis for our disagreement here.
Is Davis faced with growth inertia? I say yes, you say no. You say that that the need for expansion is “artificial”.
So, UCD is growing by 600 students per year. And there are about 10 UCD students for every employee, so add another 60. 660 per year, or 6,600 in ten years. And some of these students and UCD employs will have spouses and families. So, let’s just say we are talking about 10,000 new people over the next 10 years. So, if I understand you are calling that artificial growth pressure. You need to explain yourself there.
Then there is the UCD mission expansion due to its success becoming the top ag and food science school in the nation. That mission requires the school to help develop and to partner with private business in this areas of academic and research excellence. The World Food Center may be located in Sacramento because of people like you demanding we surround our city with a farmland moat, but it will not stop the inertia of UCD needing to grow in this direction. And that growth in mission and direction will mean more people visiting the campus, and more employees needed on campus to work with the businesses that will probably not be located in Davis because of people like you demanding that farmland moat. And you would call this artificial growth pressure. You need to explain yourself here also.
Then there is our budget shortfall. It was people like you that supported the political party that colluded with the public employee unions and associations and committed to them obscene and unsustainable pay and benefits. And it is people like you demanding that farmland moat that have led to Davis taking in less than half of the average business tax revenue as does the average comparable city. And you say the demand for economic growth is artificial. Please explain that too.
Then there the amenities. The parks, the bike paths, the services for children and for seniors, the pools… est. Are not those things contributing to your assessment of Davis being such a wonderful place to live? Other cities have fewer of these things. Are you in favor of cutting them? If not then how is the pressure to grow our economy to pay for them “artificial”.
Lastly, there is our deferred infrastructure maintenance. I fully expect when the city is done calculating the full extent of our neglected infrastructure maintenance is presented, it will take $400-$500 per parcel in additional property taxes to make up the shortfall. But again, you say that the pressure to grow our economy to cover this shortfall is artificial.
Aside from the point about UCD causing growth inertia, I assume that you would make the point that tax increases are an alternative… and hence we would not need to grow if we would just agree to pay higher taxes.
But then you just ignore the point about the impacts to people less fortunate than you. You through out some nebulous point that those with more should pay more, but then never really acknowledge that there are no taxing mechanisms that are means tested that way. You cannot simply take your argument to this point without crossing the finishing line of explanation for HOW you would do this. Otherwise your credibility in the debate suffers.
I am 100% interested in how you would adequately fund our budget shortfall, and how you would support the university with your anti-growth plan.
My reason for suggesting you should consider moving away is that I sense you are going to be very disappointed in the coming months and years that you are on the losing end of this inertia. I don’t want you to leave. I like you in Davis. And I think you are mistaken about how the growth will negatively impact your life and you will settle into the new normal of a larger Davis just fine. But if you are going to be so distressed with growth and lacking any real alternative, because I care about you I would suggest that you consider living somewhere else where you will not be so distressed.
“But that mindset does not create space for enough new housing. And it is in fact a big lie that these lefty-save-the-planet people even support the level of densification required to provide enough housing… they use that convenient argument, but really just want to keep the riff raff out of their exclusive and elite villages. They are joined by conservatives with a similar interest… it is just that conservatives honestly admit that they want to preserve their real estate values and keep the riff raff out.”
Mostly correct but its not the liberals their contribution is on the government spending side where they joined traditionally with the progressives to pay for the largesse with taxes. Instead its the anti-growth progressives who would never identify as liberals and now are refusing to pay in an alliance with the anti-tax conservatives. Together they have given us negative growth and not enough tax dollars to cover things. Think Sue Greenwald and Ernie head or Jim Leonard and John Munn.
Also measures J/R could have provided space for growth but didn’t setting the limit line at the existing city limit so now we are stuck. Codifying bad policy at the polls leads to bad outcomes
“Instead its the anti-growth progressives who would never identify as liberals”
you like to play this linguistic game. sue greenwald is a liberal. ernie head is not a liberal or a progressive. jim leonard is a liberal. john munn is not a liberal or a progressive.
Sue referred to herself as a progressive. I never heard her use liberal.
a difference without a distinction.
“Also measures J/R could have provided space for growth but didn’t setting the limit line at the existing city limit so now we are stuck. Codifying bad policy at the polls leads to bad outcomes”
there is an easy to answer to that. you could put on the ballot – as i suggested yesterday – a certain acreage and location that the voters could cede authority on to the council. the voters would have to approve it, but it would accomplish your aim.
We already have that process its called measure R. Its been around in one form or another for 14 years. It has resulted in zero land being annexed into the city.
as i said above, the last decade has been unusual, i’m not sure that ends up being the rule.
Ok – I will give you that some of the opposition to and support of growth does not fit into my nice and neat ideological rant box. But there is a general connection with slow growth and liberals… not just in Davis, but throughout the country. And yes there are conservatives that join in for various reasons. In some cases they own businesses and don’t want competition. Or they like their home values high. Or they don’t want more lower income people living here because they tend to bring with them social ills that can make a place less desirable to live in. Or they like their big lot at the edge of town with lots of privacy and views of the brown fields.
I just do not respect people that claim to be so concerned about the human condition and social justice, but then demand the city they live in does not grow.
The conservatives are just being conservatives. They are not being hypocritical in this respect.
where i guess i have a difference in opinion is that some people like to live in the country, some like small towns, larger towns, college towns, big cities. so why are required to grow rather than create communities where people want to live of all shapes and sizes?
All those choices exist. You can move to them.
What is the definition of greed?
When you “wants” come at the expense of others’ needs.
Frankly
“All those choices exist. You can move to them.
What is the definition of greed?
When you “wants” come at the expense of others’ needs.”
That would seem to cut both ways. For me, it is not the people who favor change who should consider leaving. It is those who desire change who should consider whether or not Davis is the best fit for them.
Maybe there is an avid reader out there who can help me either with the name or author of a short story or novella that I read about 50 years ago. Various towns in a society had been constructed to conform with geometric shapes ( circles, ovals, squares, rectangles) and individuals chose where to live based on where they found the “best fit” for their personality type and preferences. What they did not usually do was to try to disrupt the existing community to make if conform to their preferences. If they weren’t comfortable, they moved on. As I recall from my pre teen days, the story’s central conflict arose when some decided that they would try to reorganize by changing the configuration to suit their personal preferences. End of recollection, can anyone cite the reference ?
My point. You have frequently suggested that if I do not want rapid growth then I should leave. My question for you is whether you have found Davis with its admitted liberalism and preponderance of slow
growthers, a good fit for you ? If so, why are you so adamant about changing it as rapidly as possible ?
Good stuff Tia.
There is change when something is dormant, and there is change as a result of natural inertia.
There are a lot of rural and Midwest towns that are dormant and some are dying because there is not enough going on to retain the next generation or to attract new comers. It would take a profound effort to stop the stasis state and to grow. It would take little effort to keep it the same.
Then there is a city like Davis with natural inertia to change. It would take a profound effort to keep it the same, and little effort to let it grow.
Inertia and actions are the factors you are not considering.
And in addition, you are discounting the needs of others.
I think we have a moral obligation to give of ourselves to improve the human condition. The most genuinely charitable giving is that when we give away something we value to help others. It is still cool to give away our excess, but that isn’t really so hard… and it isn’t really celebratory. For example, I buy a lot of things that end up at the SPCA Thrift Store… a lot of good things that they sell for a reasonable price. It makes me feel good to do that, but it isn’t really charity because I am getting rid of excess things.
You value a small Davis, but to keep it small you have to fight against natural inertia and you have to make the case why something you value so much is worth retaining when doing so harms so many other that would otherwise benefit from the acceptance of that inertia.
In Davis, the blocking of growth is the action… because without that action, Davis would naturally grow.
I think we have a moral obligation to accept a level of growth because of the existence of that opportunity to improve the human condition of many less fortunate than you are I. I am willing to give up some of my small town values so that these people are helped. Davis will still be wonderful… I think probably better in a lot of ways.
Instead of blocking the Inertia, you could move to Dixon or Winters if you like a smaller town lacking the same inertia to grow.
Tia wrote:
> It is those who desire change who should consider whether
> or not Davis is the best fit for them.
If Frankly does not like living in a town with rich educated white people who own multiple homes that hate growth he can always move to one of the many growing towns in CA full of poor uneducated brown people from south of the border that many people in this town want to keep letting in to the US (but don’t want to build housing for in Davis)…
LOL.
I moved to Dixon and attended high school there in the mid 70s. I have been called a “stuck up Davis yuppie” by my old schoolmates. Many of them Hispanic.
There are times walking around Davis that I feel a bit icky… like we have some wall with razor wire and guards to keep those undesirable people from Dixon from moving here.
Hi Tia,
You write, “As I recall from my pre teen days, the story’s central conflict arose when some decided that they would try to reorganize by changing the configuration to suit their personal preferences.”
You say that Davis is a fit for you, but the U.S. (with its borders) is not. If Davis gets bigger, little will be affected in the grand scheme of things. If the U.S. has no borders (the southern border is porous already), that will affect the whole world, since the stability of the U.S. affects the whole world.
Why is it that you want Davis to stay the same but the U.S. to be different? How can Davis stay the same if the U.S. is different?
Dorte – that is a great contrasting question.
Seems like Tia supports a wall around Davis, but the country should be wide open with no borders.
And this is an example of some pretty fantastic incongruity in her positions… and she is not alone in this town.
Frankly
“You value a small Davis, but to keep it small you have to fight against natural inertia and you have to make the case why something you value so much is worth retaining when doing so harms so many other that would otherwise benefit from the acceptance of that inertia.”
To keep Davis small does not entail fighting the natural inertia. It involves fighting artificial expansion “needed” to cover the cost of items we decided we wanted.
“I am willing to give up some of my small town values so that these people are helped. ”
You have consistently said that you personally feel that Davis would be a better place if it were larger. Given this statement, I find it hard to believe that you “are giving up anything” You simply prefer a bigger town.
As for the well being of others, if I were the only one that wanted Davis to remain small, you would have a point.
But that is not the case. My son and his friends just moved back from the Bay area specifically because they wanted a small town lifestyle. I know for a fact that he will be deeply disappointed if we manage to turn Davis into Berkley or Palo Alto, or even worse Folsom or Vacaville.
Again, it is not me that wants to see Davis change. So again, why should I move when I like what we have ?
It is you that appears to be discontent. So I should move because you prefer growth ? Help me understand this.
To keep Davis small does not entail fighting the natural inertia. It involves fighting artificial expansion “needed” to cover the cost of items we decided we wanted.
Okay, so finally we get to a point of wrong-vs.-right.
And it is the basis for our disagreement here.
Is Davis faced with growth inertia? I say yes, you say no. You say that that the need for expansion is “artificial”.
So, UCD is growing by 600 students per year. And there are about 10 UCD students for every employee, so add another 60. 660 per year, or 6,600 in ten years. And some of these students and UCD employs will have spouses and families. So, let’s just say we are talking about 10,000 new people over the next 10 years. So, if I understand you are calling that artificial growth pressure. You need to explain yourself there.
Then there is the UCD mission expansion due to its success becoming the top ag and food science school in the nation. That mission requires the school to help develop and to partner with private business in this areas of academic and research excellence. The World Food Center may be located in Sacramento because of people like you demanding we surround our city with a farmland moat, but it will not stop the inertia of UCD needing to grow in this direction. And that growth in mission and direction will mean more people visiting the campus, and more employees needed on campus to work with the businesses that will probably not be located in Davis because of people like you demanding that farmland moat. And you would call this artificial growth pressure. You need to explain yourself here also.
Then there is our budget shortfall. It was people like you that supported the political party that colluded with the public employee unions and associations and committed to them obscene and unsustainable pay and benefits. And it is people like you demanding that farmland moat that have led to Davis taking in less than half of the average business tax revenue as does the average comparable city. And you say the demand for economic growth is artificial. Please explain that too.
Then there the amenities. The parks, the bike paths, the services for children and for seniors, the pools… est. Are not those things contributing to your assessment of Davis being such a wonderful place to live? Other cities have fewer of these things. Are you in favor of cutting them? If not then how is the pressure to grow our economy to pay for them “artificial”.
Lastly, there is our deferred infrastructure maintenance. I fully expect when the city is done calculating the full extent of our neglected infrastructure maintenance is presented, it will take $400-$500 per parcel in additional property taxes to make up the shortfall. But again, you say that the pressure to grow our economy to cover this shortfall is artificial.
Aside from the point about UCD causing growth inertia, I assume that you would make the point that tax increases are an alternative… and hence we would not need to grow if we would just agree to pay higher taxes.
But then you just ignore the point about the impacts to people less fortunate than you. You through out some nebulous point that those with more should pay more, but then never really acknowledge that there are no taxing mechanisms that are means tested that way. You cannot simply take your argument to this point without crossing the finishing line of explanation for HOW you would do this. Otherwise your credibility in the debate suffers.
I am 100% interested in how you would adequately fund our budget shortfall, and how you would support the university with your anti-growth plan.
My reason for suggesting you should consider moving away is that I sense you are going to be very disappointed in the coming months and years that you are on the losing end of this inertia. I don’t want you to leave. I like you in Davis. And I think you are mistaken about how the growth will negatively impact your life and you will settle into the new normal of a larger Davis just fine. But if you are going to be so distressed with growth and lacking any real alternative, because I care about you I would suggest that you consider living somewhere else where you will not be so distressed.
Do West Sac, Dixon, and Woodland have our budget problems?
Davis is high only compared to the Valley, not compared to the Bay Area. I see both sides … does Davis want to become Elk Grove? I don’t think so.
“Do West Sac, Dixon, and Woodland have our budget problems?”
yes, if not worse.
Not worse.
I’m not sure how you can say that. Woodland, for one, didn’t even publish a budget for a couple of years.
Well we will see when the final report comes out including the full extent of Davis’s deferred maintenance. I expect it to be epic!
Yes, but we have no idea how the surrounding communities stand with regard to those things, either. There’s no Vanguard in Dixon, Woodland, or West Sac. My guess is that Davis is not unique in regard to the budget issues or deferred maintenance.
Do West Sac, Dixon, and Woodland have our budget problems?
Davis is high only compared to the Valley, not compared to the Bay Area. I see both sides … does Davis want to become Elk Grove? I don’t think so.
“Do West Sac, Dixon, and Woodland have our budget problems?”
yes, if not worse.
Not worse.
I’m not sure how you can say that. Woodland, for one, didn’t even publish a budget for a couple of years.
Well we will see when the final report comes out including the full extent of Davis’s deferred maintenance. I expect it to be epic!
Yes, but we have no idea how the surrounding communities stand with regard to those things, either. There’s no Vanguard in Dixon, Woodland, or West Sac. My guess is that Davis is not unique in regard to the budget issues or deferred maintenance.
“Major oops !”
Obviously in my post above I meant “it is not those who oppose change who should leave….”
“Major oops !”
Obviously in my post above I meant “it is not those who oppose change who should leave….”
i think we shouldn’t be telling others to leave. I never do. It reminds me of the old John Birch Society bumper stickers “America love it or leave it.” I think there is room for all ideas. In fact I think there is room for many more ideas especially since we host a university that educates our best thinkers. In the end Davis will be saved in spite of ourselves because our talented human capital will outpace the malthusian apocolypse as it has since the advent of modern science.
i think we shouldn’t be telling others to leave. I never do. It reminds me of the old John Birch Society bumper stickers “America love it or leave it.” I think there is room for all ideas. In fact I think there is room for many more ideas especially since we host a university that educates our best thinkers. In the end Davis will be saved in spite of ourselves because our talented human capital will outpace the malthusian apocolypse as it has since the advent of modern science.
Mr. Toad
I completely agree that no one should be told to leave. I suspect that Frankly would agree with this when he is not on a Vanguard “rant” ( his word).
However, there is a real consideration of how good a “fit” an individual is for a given community. This is seen very clearly ini small bands or tribes of people. When an individual, usually a young male, truly does not “fit in” with the nature of his birth tribe, he will at some point, usually of his own volition ( sometimes spurred by societal disapproval) move on to “find his own way”. Sometimes this results in a “loner”. More often it results in him finding another group either more accepting of his nature or will have learned that if he wishes human companionship, he will need to compromise more.
My point, and that of the story that I cited, was not that anyone should “have to more” or be told by others to leave, but that sometimes one’s ideas are so different from the majority of the community that they will be more comfortable elsewhere.
I think that in some ways this might apply equally to both Frankly and myself.
I would like a completely different social structure where all people are treated equally in all regards. Everyone is provided enough food, clothing, shelter, health care. No one attempts to take advantage of anyone else and no one profits from another’s discomfort. In short, I would prefer a society based on collaboration.
Frankly has often stated that he prefers a society based on competition. He likes the idea that everyone should receive only what they have earned according to some nebulous concept of a “free market” which he has often agreed does not actually exist, just as I have stated that my utopia does not actually exist.
Now given our different preferences, in this country where competition is referred and collaboration most often only paid lip service to, which of us do you believe is more likely to find our “best fit” if we choose to leave Davis ?
I believe that Frankly is much more likely than I to find many places that conform much more closely to his ideal than I will. Of course, this does not mean that either of us should be packing our bags. What it does mean to me is that maybe each of us should be willing to be a little more respectful of the other. Consider carefully what is actually being said instead of jumping on our mentally comfortable stereotypes about what the other “must be thinking” when in reality it is not even close to how the other sees the world. Only when we drop the stereotypes can we really consider the point of view of the other and maybe live together a little more harmoniously.
Mr. Toad
I completely agree that no one should be told to leave. I suspect that Frankly would agree with this when he is not on a Vanguard “rant” ( his word).
However, there is a real consideration of how good a “fit” an individual is for a given community. This is seen very clearly ini small bands or tribes of people. When an individual, usually a young male, truly does not “fit in” with the nature of his birth tribe, he will at some point, usually of his own volition ( sometimes spurred by societal disapproval) move on to “find his own way”. Sometimes this results in a “loner”. More often it results in him finding another group either more accepting of his nature or will have learned that if he wishes human companionship, he will need to compromise more.
My point, and that of the story that I cited, was not that anyone should “have to more” or be told by others to leave, but that sometimes one’s ideas are so different from the majority of the community that they will be more comfortable elsewhere.
I think that in some ways this might apply equally to both Frankly and myself.
I would like a completely different social structure where all people are treated equally in all regards. Everyone is provided enough food, clothing, shelter, health care. No one attempts to take advantage of anyone else and no one profits from another’s discomfort. In short, I would prefer a society based on collaboration.
Frankly has often stated that he prefers a society based on competition. He likes the idea that everyone should receive only what they have earned according to some nebulous concept of a “free market” which he has often agreed does not actually exist, just as I have stated that my utopia does not actually exist.
Now given our different preferences, in this country where competition is referred and collaboration most often only paid lip service to, which of us do you believe is more likely to find our “best fit” if we choose to leave Davis ?
I believe that Frankly is much more likely than I to find many places that conform much more closely to his ideal than I will. Of course, this does not mean that either of us should be packing our bags. What it does mean to me is that maybe each of us should be willing to be a little more respectful of the other. Consider carefully what is actually being said instead of jumping on our mentally comfortable stereotypes about what the other “must be thinking” when in reality it is not even close to how the other sees the world. Only when we drop the stereotypes can we really consider the point of view of the other and maybe live together a little more harmoniously.
BP
“The problem is there are many residents who can’t afford to be taxed much more.”
And that is why I would very happily help to pay their share !
Dorte
“Why is it that you want Davis to stay the same but the U.S. to be different? How can Davis stay the same if the U.S. is different?”
I actually don’t want Davis to “stay the same”. I have very frequently written that I feel that we do not provide enough low cost housing. I have often stated that those of us who are more economically blessed should be on a societal basis providing for those who have less. What I do not feel will help the situation at all is for Davis to increase its supply of mini mansions or houses that cost between 400,000 and 600,000 which can only be afforded by those who are already not in need of any help. I have also frequently stated my support for a truly innovative
business park that maximizes the competencies of the university. Somehow these statements always get overlooked when considering just how “hypocritical” I really am.
I would favor completely opening the borders just as the “borders” of Davis are not closed. However, one may have to compromise one’s ideal lifestyle a bit to live here. I lived here when I didn’t have any regular income by sharing small apartments. If Frankly is right, and the “free market” really does work optimally then there should be no problem, right Frankly. Everyone who wants to work will be working because of course they will be able to go right out and find work. At least that is what you have said repeatedly.
If I am right and overall societal help is needed to house and clothe, then we would need to agree to major redistribution of wealth ( oh, no not the dreaded redistribution ). Please notice that I said need to agree to…..not be forced to. I believe that we have the ability, but maybe not currently the will to become much more collaborative as a society. But I agree that would mean that we would have to completely re envision our country as one based on caring and collaboration as opposed to competition.
“And that is why I would very happily help to pay their share !”
And how would you do that? If a large parcel tax was imposed it would put a stress on many homeowners and retirees who are just hanging on. How would you alleviate that Tia Will?
BP
“The problem is there are many residents who can’t afford to be taxed much more.”
And that is why I would very happily help to pay their share !
Dorte
“Why is it that you want Davis to stay the same but the U.S. to be different? How can Davis stay the same if the U.S. is different?”
I actually don’t want Davis to “stay the same”. I have very frequently written that I feel that we do not provide enough low cost housing. I have often stated that those of us who are more economically blessed should be on a societal basis providing for those who have less. What I do not feel will help the situation at all is for Davis to increase its supply of mini mansions or houses that cost between 400,000 and 600,000 which can only be afforded by those who are already not in need of any help. I have also frequently stated my support for a truly innovative
business park that maximizes the competencies of the university. Somehow these statements always get overlooked when considering just how “hypocritical” I really am.
I would favor completely opening the borders just as the “borders” of Davis are not closed. However, one may have to compromise one’s ideal lifestyle a bit to live here. I lived here when I didn’t have any regular income by sharing small apartments. If Frankly is right, and the “free market” really does work optimally then there should be no problem, right Frankly. Everyone who wants to work will be working because of course they will be able to go right out and find work. At least that is what you have said repeatedly.
If I am right and overall societal help is needed to house and clothe, then we would need to agree to major redistribution of wealth ( oh, no not the dreaded redistribution ). Please notice that I said need to agree to…..not be forced to. I believe that we have the ability, but maybe not currently the will to become much more collaborative as a society. But I agree that would mean that we would have to completely re envision our country as one based on caring and collaboration as opposed to competition.
“And that is why I would very happily help to pay their share !”
And how would you do that? If a large parcel tax was imposed it would put a stress on many homeowners and retirees who are just hanging on. How would you alleviate that Tia Will?