Will Davis Join Mayors for Freedom to Marry?
According to the staff report, Mayor Wolk received a request from the co-chairs of Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, a group of mayors across the country who are supportive of same-sex marriage. The mayor was asked if the city of Davis would support an amicus brief (a brief filed with the court by someone who is not a party to the case) concerning the freedom to marry, in advance of the US Supreme Court considering the issue this term – which may well legalize same-sex marriages across the nation.
The Mayors for the Freedom to Marry are “hopeful that the Court will affirm the freedom to marry nationwide and bring the country to the national resolution for which the group has advocated.”
“The Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office is drafting a friend-of-the-court brief and plans to submit it to the US Supreme Court. This brief should be available by February 20 for review, with a deadline to sign of March 2,” staff writes.
The brief will explain to the Court the harm to families and communities resulting from marriage discrimination, including:
- Harm to citizens’ health and welfare
- Impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of local governments as employers
- Costs to businesses, including loss of tourism revenue
“The amicus, as described, meets with current city policy; the City of Davis has long supported same-sex marriage, most recently with Resolution 13-115: Resolution Reaffirming Support for Same Sex Marriage,” staff writes.
Staff also notes that there would be a “minimal cost” for the city attorney to submit the necessary forms in order to sign the brief, and the cost would be contained within existing budget.
What Impact Will a CFD Have on a Parcel Tax?
Assuming that the city can avoid the problems that ultimately doomed the Mace Ranch Mello-Roos issue, where the neighborhood was perceived to be paying for amenities that were community assets, most believe that a CFD would less transfer the costs onto the residents than create an upfront cash flow that would enable community assets and infrastructure to be placed into the agreement in advance.
However, there are pitfalls.
Mark Northcross, the city’s financial adviser, back in October said about the Cannery, “My guess is, it’s going to be a minimum $1500 per house, that’s twice as high as any other tax in Davis. By any standards of other cities in California that’s very reasonable, BUT, it’s going to be a lot more than any other house in Davis that’s paying a CFD.”
“If we’re going to cross that bridge, we need to be conscious that we’re doing it,” he stated.
In Mace Ranch, the fairness question “came down to why are we who bought homes in the newer parts of Davis going to be paying for $44 million in public improvements and not the rest of the community. Why is it landing on us?”
Assuming that the council can avoid these issues this time around, the $1500 per house per year Mello-Roos might be a cause for concern. Part of the problem is that there is a trade off at the beginning where the residents pay less for their homes but more in the form of taxes later.
Even though the resident will likely have a lower mortgage payment, the higher tax payment comes with a cost to the community. The perception to the voter will be that they are already paying higher taxes than the rest of the community and so when it comes time to vote for parcel taxes and bond measures they are more likely to vote against them.
The danger that the council should at least weigh, as it makes its decision on Tuesday on Cannery, is the possible impact on the parcel taxes. Obviously, Cannery will not be built in time to make a difference when the current school parcel taxes are renewed in 2016, or if the city ends up putting a tax measure on the ballot.
But locally, the school district does rely heavily on parcel taxes.
In fact, the past results on tax measures is notable. Measure O passed citywide at 58.9 percent but it failed in several of the precincts that make up Mace Ranch. On the school parcel taxes, Measure E (November 2012) failed in several of the precincts. Measure C (March 2012) passed in Mace Ranch, but Measure A, which narrowly passed citywide, failed.
The impact of Mace Ranch was not enough to cause any of the elections to fail district-wide, and Cannery will be considerably smaller than Mace Ranch, but in a close election, adding residents that may be less likely to pass tax measures could be decisive.
Innovative Communities
Back in January we had extensive discussions about some innovative design features of Nishi that we suggested that the city, university and developers look at, including high-density designs with limited automobile access – or even a carless development.
Along similar lines, we see an article on the future of Helsinki in 2050. Helsinki expected to add around 250,000 new residents by 2050, but, while the “city and its suburbs are growing, but so is its vision for dense, walkable neighborhoods and car-free transit. It’s a model for the future of urban smart growth.”
Forgot about the differences between Davis and Helsinki – they are notable and obvious. What I would like you to focus on is two things: the vision, and the fact that Helsinki is seen as the model for future urban smart growth.
The article notes, “Helsinki already ranks as one of the world’s most livable cities, but by 2050, it may top the list, especially as other cities struggle to figure out how to accommodate swelling populations in limited space.”
“Over the next few decades, Helsinki expects to add around 250,000 new residents. But the more the population grows, the fewer cars will be on city streets as Helsinki transforms itself into a network of dense, walkable neighborhoods that are virtually car-free,” the article continues. “Right now, like many cities, Helsinki has a compact urban core linked to far-flung suburbs by expressways. As the city grows, each suburb will change into a mini-urban center surrounding tram or rail stations.”
“Even though the city population grows, the use of the private car should not rise,” says Rikhard Manninen, director of the Strategic Urban Planning Division for the city. “Key to achieving this goal is improving public transport, densifying existing areas, and expanding the inner city.”
What do they envision? “Helsinki envisions its busy expressways becoming boulevards lined with new housing, sidewalk cafes, bike lanes, and trams and buses. Residents will run everyday errands on foot or by bike; the city hopes that homes, businesses, schools, and stores will all be close enough together that many people might not even have to commute anymore.”
They are looking to an expanded network of tram and metro station to connect the entire city. They are looking at new services, “like a “mobility on demand” app that the city is already beginning to test, will make it simple to call up a bus, taxi, or shared car or bike, exactly when someone needs it.”
On a smaller scale we argued that people could like a relatively car-free existence in Nishi, close to the university, the downtown and key amenities. When the need arises, a shared car or bike could be used.
“Helsinki is described as a green network city,” says Mr. Manninen. “We, for instance, have five ‘green fingers’ running through the city from sea to surrounding forest network. Most of the new development will be located on brownfield areas, residential areas, and on transforming motorway corridors.”
As we have noted many times, Davis has gone from the innovative city of bike lanes and Village Homes to a community that has rested on its laurels of 30 to 40 years ago. Creating a new and innovative future does not mean we emulate other communities, but rather that we forge our path, break out of our box, and create a future that we can all be excited about.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I find the invitation to join the amicus brief regarding the right to marry very timely. We have been having an ongoing conversation regarding inclusivity and non discrimination on the Vanguard recently. I think that this would be a wonderful way to reaffirm to the members of our LGBT community that we are all equals in our community.
Tia wrote:
> I find the invitation to join the amicus brief regarding the right to marry very timely.
As most people know I am for equal rights for EVERYONE, but it seems like every time a small town mayor “takes a stand” on something they have no control over (say getting US companies out of South Africa or banning Nuclear Weapons) they end up spending a lot of time talking about the issues they have no control over and less time working on the issues they do have control over (say fixing roads, improving parks). I’m also for free speech so I’m not going to tell the mayor what to do I just hope someone reminds him that if he “takes a stand” on the marriage issue (or Israel bulldozing homes) he will end up spending a lot of time talking about those issues and less time working on city issues…
i guess it depends on how you view amicus briefs. it’s not like this is a resolution, there is actually a role for amicus briefs, granted they start quickly amounting to “me too.”
South of Davis
I agree with you on issues on which the Mayor’s opinion has absolutely no impact. I see equality in our community, our state, and our nation as something that is very relevant to a mayor’s position within our community. Marriage equality is a home front, not a remote issue.
The Federal courts have already spoken as to California, despite a vote of the people. I see no reason to have Davis speak out on a matter that has already been decided for all its residents. Unless of course the purpose is to rub noses into the ground for those who did not support the decisions handed down by the Courts. It will however, be interesting to see if it comes off consent calendar, for those of those who 100% supported it to rub folk’s noses into it. I’m betting it will be (excusing the expression) a “love fest”.
hpierce
I do not see this as nose rubbing. I see it as an affirmation of the belief that California got this right. Just because an action has been taken by a higher governmental power does not mean that there is universal agreement with that decision.
Using a more dramatic example, the decision was made by a much greater power than myself, namely President Bush, to invade Iraq. That did not stop me from frequently, loudly, and in many different venues expressing my disagreement with this action. Likewise, I do not see it as “nose rubbing” to express agreement with current policy, especially with regard to an issue that remains controversial.
Ok… so you wouldn’t mind a CC resolution citing Davis support for our past involvement in Iraq. Which by the way I was opposed to.
Every time I hit a pot hole in the road it reminds me that our city council has yet to find the money for the needed repairs. Any expenditure, to include the filing fee and time to discuss the request, is a drain on existing resources better spent on current needs. The same goes for the MRAP. When I hear a city council member talking about purchasing a $350,000 Bearcat for the police department when the $6,000 MRAP would have met the needs at a much lower cost I wonder do they get it? At some point they will need to ask for a parcel tax to pay for the roads. When they waste resources or display an attitude that we have the money for these things like the fee for the amicus brief when the money can be better spent elsewhere I become less inclined to trust them on the parcel tax.
David wrote:
> the higher tax payment comes with a cost to the community.
> The perception to the voter will be that they are already paying
> higher taxes than the rest of the community and so when it
> comes time to vote for parcel taxes and bond measures they
> are more likely to vote against them.
Using this logic why not make all the small business in Davis pay the sales tax and charge higher prices so people don’t have the “perception” of paying higher taxes and are more likely to vote to raise the sales tax yet again?
Because a sales tax isn’t a $1500 fee.
David wrote:
> Because a sales tax isn’t a $1500 fee.
Many people pay MORE than $1,500/year in sales tax (just about everyone with a long commute who buys a lot of gas and just about anyone who buys a new car)…
there is a difference between adding 7 or 8 percent to your purchase and plopping down a $1500 lump sum at the end of the year and wondering if you might not want to pay more.
DP wrote:
> there is a difference between adding 7 or 8 percent to your purchase
We now add 8.5% for every purchase in Davis (the sales tax is OVER 10% in some Southern California cities).
> plopping down a $1500 lump sum at the end of the year
From what I have heard the CFD will be paid in two installments per year along with the property taxes. Have you heard the Cannery developer asking for payment of “a $1500 lump sum at the end of the year”?
because that changes the essential facts of this discussion? even two $750 installments are likely to be a disincentive to paying more taxes, no?
A car free core, or car free neighborhood and mobility on demand are innovations that I would readily support. This represents a healthier lifestyle, promotes longevity, promises a cleaner environment, and ultimately more free time if commuting is reduced. This is anything but regressive and could be a start in moving us towards less dependence on a fuel based transportation system. I suggest that anyone who promotes innovation give this concept a serious look.
i agree. i’m surprised that we have not had more discussion of true innovative future planning along these lines. if dan wolk really wants to “renew davis,” he should look at these type of things. that would renew the progressive davis.
This is a non-nonsensical utopian view unless you can figure out a way to get everyone living close to where they work, and most of the retail and other services required are also close to where they work.
And from studies, people living in urban areas where they cannot afford a car and have to use public transportation, report greater levels of life stress.
Sometimes I think you are not able to step outside of your own privileged existence and calculate the realities for how other people live and must live. I’m fine with progressive utopian ideas but they need include practicality of implementation. Just throwing up ideas and preferences lacking practical implementation is not helpful.
non-nonsensical–that means it makes sense.
I remain opposed to a CFD. Let the cost of the houses reflect developer costs right up front, and don’t try to hide them in a tack-on tax.
I think that is pretty much where I fall on this issue.
I agree. A new subdivision has to pay for its new infrastructure but the additional residents increase the use of the roads, parks and every community service. At some point the additional numbers means we can’t just accommodate them with longer lines and less access. We have to build new facilities like the library which is at capacity and add additional employees. They will be hard pressed to understand that they have to pay for the additional services and the question of fairness will surface again.
As far as CFD, again what are the options for the CC?
If they vote it down, then what?
Again, it seems like the cart before the horse and that horse is waaaay out of the barn. A developer can ‘sell’ fancy amenities to a CC to get the project approved and then expect the city not them to pay. What is the net revenue for the city if these fees are taken into account? I know I am being simplistic and hope hpierce is kind this morning.
I do’t remember any discussion of the CC about how the amenities would be paid when the project was discussed.
Also, I saw that New Homes has selected a builder to build a large number of the houses; is that selection only made by them? Is there any oversight as to quality ?
SODA wrote:
> I saw that New Homes has selected a builder to build a large number of the houses
Who is the builder?
I rode by the Cannery yesterday and was surprised to see that they already have a building on the site framed up…
From the web site and Enterprise:
“The Cannery developers announced recently they had selected Shea Homes, the largest privately held home builder in the nation, as a builder for 120 houses in two neighborhoods at the 547-unit mixed-use development.”
I don’t mean to be critical, but how innovative is Shea Homes? Someone feel free to make me eat crow (ugh!)
none of cannery is innovative. we were sold out by council on that.
DP, four questions …
(1) When it comes to housing, what is “innovative”?
(2) Is 100% of the residential units having 1.5 kw of solar each “not innnovative”?
(3) Is New Home’s approach to universal design “not innnovative”?
(2) Is inclusion of the Center for Land-based Learning’s urban farm “not innnovative”?
DP: “none of cannery is innovative”
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am certainly free to disagree with it! The Cannery won an award for its innovative style of Universal Design; urban farms.
No worries… just like rattle-snake meat, if prepared correctly, tastes like chicken (may need a touch of boullion, tho’).
The Cannery houses should last 50 to 100 years. It should be built for the future we anticipate. Where are the roof top water collection systems and the buried cisterns to hold the water? Just one example. In fact, we may be facing a ten year drought. That isn’t even building for the future, it’s building for current conditions.
Rooftop collection and underground cisterns. That is an innovation that hadn’t crossed my mind. Good idea DB. Not expensive either.
I read they are prewired for solar but do not come with the panels/system, the buyer has to install that. Can anyone confirm this?
Matt wrote:
> Rooftop collection and underground cisterns.
> That is an innovation that hadn’t crossed my mind.
> Good idea DB. Not expensive either.
If you do the math just 500 gallons of water weighs about as much as a SUV (construction cost would go WAY up if you wanted to store water on the roof).
I don’t know many people that want to drink water from an underground tank fed by their rain gutters. If you are going to only use it for irrigation you will need a separate water system making the plumbing cost go WAY up
The Department of Health would not let anyone drink that water.
if council doesn’t vote for it, then the developer has to front the costs themselves and hope to recoup them in houses.
DP
“if council doesn’t vote for it, then the developer has to front the costs themselves and hope to recoup them in houses.”
Isn’t this precisely the way the “free market” is supposed to work ? I also am very confused about why this is not simply the risk that the developer takes in this venture. Perhaps Frankly, who is always championing the concept that entrepreneurs, in this case the developer, deserves high rewards because of the risks they are taking. What risk are they taking if the city mitigates the risk for them ? What rewards will the city obtain from effectively subsidizing the developers risk ?
hpierce, Frankly, anyone want to take on financing 101 for me ?
I thinks the “risks” have been taken. What we see now is trying to either mitigate the risks, or cash in at a high profit. I don’t believe that the builders will sell product for much, if any less one way or the other. Might be different if there was a similarly sized project currently in play. I’m not a “finance” person (just ask my spouse). I kinda get the big picture, but can’t drill down to details well.
As I understand it, the city will get more money up front if they approve the CFD. If the price of the houses is higher, the buyer finances a larger mortgage which may price some people out of the market (but the cost to live in the house is the same). The builder promised amenities to get the project passed. They have to pay for it one way or another. Either they charge more for the houses and re-coup the costs that way or they do a CFD, get a chunk of change upfront which makes their lender happy and maybe makes the city happy. The fallout is the homeowners pay a bigger tax bill every year which makes them much less inclined to vote to increase their taxes which can prevent the whole community from benefiting from increased taxes.
I don’t think the builder is taking any risk either way. Because the builders are asking for the CDF, I assume they benefit from it because they have to leverage less money. IMO the community suffers from the CDF in the long run. The city benefits in the short run and I don’t see this city council as taking the long view.
The bottom line is the builders will not lose any money either way. The home buyers will pay for all those costs either way. The city will get the same amount of money but risk the ability to raise money in the future. The monkey is the net present value of the money.
Davis Burns 1:34 post: “As I understand it, the city will get more money up front if they approve the CFD.” If true, even another reason not to approve a CFD. If the purchase price is 15-20% less than it would be without a CFD, that purchase price is locked in under Prop 13, for the buyer. The City would be behind the curve even faster, looking at revenue/costs. That would be perpetual, given a lower market value knowing that the CFD payments needed to be made. Folks in Mace Ranch, I’m told,paid ~ $100/SF, while similar homes went for ~$125/SF (1995+/- reference point).
If the CC votes it down, then the developer passes the cost on in higher home prices. The question is, what are the incentives for the CC to vote for the CDF? David should interview CC and ask that question.
I would love to hear the answer to this question because I can’t figure how allowing a CFD to be put into place benefits the city, or the home owners in any way.
Vanguard:
I think the issue is that any new community has to cover the cost of accommodating added capacity to the school district, whether it be building a new school or adding on to existing schools. Mace Ranch got Korematsu Elementary and Harper JH.
Semi true… folks in Mace Ranch payed twice… once for upgrading existing facilities (inc both Jr Highs) to accommodate them, and again, for Montgomery (outside their attendance area) and Korematsu. Many families who had infants when they moved to Mace Ranch ~ 1994 (or subsequently), never had use of either of the “new” elementary schools nor Harper, even though their kids attended Davis schools thru HS. The district actually tended to favor “old areas” with attending the “new schools”, while the new folk were sent to the oldest schools. Mace Ranch folk had to send their kids to Valley Oak (unless they had a sib @ Birch Lane). The District was very “crafty” in that, and also “acquired” the Wildhorse site, at an indirect cost to the Wildhorse folk, with no intention of developing it as a school, but as a free asset for “later”. This is beginning to play out.
Your comment is simplistic, misleading, and for most of the original residents of Mace Ranch, flat-out wrong.
The CFD pays for more than schools. It is all infrastructure. I lived here when all the Mace Ranch stuff was going on but was neck deep in other stuff so all I remember was that it was a problem. I don’t see how we would NOT have this problem again with the Cannery.
Regarding schools, I was told the district had the option with the cannery of accepting a one time payment from the builders or opting to collect from the taxpayers on an ongoing basis. They chose the later so everyone is on the hook for paying for increased school costs.
You didn’t hear me. The DJUSD has CFD’s for their infrastructure. City CFD’s do not contribute to DJUSD facilities.
“The CDF pays for more than schools. It is all infrastructure.” see above. Mace Ranch pays into 2 City CFD’s AND 2 DJUSD CFD’s.
“They chose the latter so everyone is on the hook for paying for increased school costs.” I’m hoping you mean ‘everyone within the Cannery project’. If not, I have even a bigger bone to pick with DJUSD, and if they passed up a chance to get one time and/or additional funds from the Cannery project, there is NWIH I’ll ever vote for, and will most likely vigorously campaign against any and all DJUSD assessments whether they be new or continuing.
I’m confused, as I understand it the the developer agreed to pay for certain infrastructure/amenities in the developer agreement , and now they are asking to pass theses costs off to people who purchase the houses? How does this benefit anyone but the developer?
The possibility of setting up a CFD was in the development agreement. It could benefit a homeowner that prefers to pay a monthly fee rather than purchase a more expensive home that includes the cost of infrastructure. That said, I prefer the price of the house to be upfront, so the buyer is fully aware of the “full price” of the house. Just my gut feeling at the moment.
A homeowner paying a monthly fee to cover costs that the developer agreed to pay benefits the developer. A homeowner paying a corresponding amount for the price of the home benefits the community, as the owner will pay more in property taxes.
Add to that the fact the Mello-Roos fees are not tax deductible. This negatively impacts the homeowner paying them.
Seems like the only party to benefit from setting up a CFD is the developer.
The way it works is whatever the builder builds the homeowner pays for. The builder wants to provide as many goodies as he can to get the city to like the project. Those same amenities are used as selling points for the project. But the home buyer is not just paying for her house. She is paying for a portion of the streets, lights, urban farms and parks. It is all part of the cost of the house. The builder wants to price the house low enough to sell but won’t sell it at a loss. Every amenity is a part of the builder’s cost and gets passed on to the buyer.
You can make this more complicated but basically this is the way it works. I personally don’t think anyone building a project in Davis is taking a risk. They will recoup their money and make a nice profit.