On Tuesday, Davis city staff informed the city council that they were continuing to operate under a schedule that would allow the city council to put the proposed Nishi Gateway project on the June 2016 ballot. The Davis City Council unanimously moved to continue the process, while directing city staff to provide answers to questions the council had regarding accessibility to the Nishi Gateway from the UC Davis campus, the developers said in a press release.
The council meeting also included an extensive discussion on the merits of the Nishi Gateway, that included input from many Davis residents.
“We are committed to building a project that will bring the most benefits to our community through this collaborative planning process,” said Tim Ruff, who is a managing partner of the Nishi Gateway project, “In addition to the fiscal benefits to the City, Nishi will provide a 30-year revenue stream for Davis Joint Unified School District. This ongoing multi-million dollar revenue stream to the city and our public schools will help pay for the quality of life we all enjoy in this great community.”
Some have expressed concern with fiscal analysis that showed the project ending up at a $78,000 net deficit. However, the developer believes that, with a hotel, they can get into the positive.
According to the city’s consultant, the Nishi project alternative that includes a hotel will generate a general fund surplus of $416,000 per year, money that can be redirected to vital city services.
According to city projections, the Nishi project proposal with an onsite hotel is estimated to create between 1,500 to 1,800 jobs, $315 million to $385 million in economic output, and $89 million to $107 million in labor income (wages).
“Nishi is the result of years of close collaboration between the City, County, University, and community leaders. Placement on the June 2016 ballot will help ensure that the project’s community benefits are maximized by accelerating economic development and improvements throughout the site,” the release stated.
However, the council also expressed concerns about the project if it doesn’t have UC Davis access under the railroad tracks.
As Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis put in no uncertain terms, “I will not vote to put this on the ballot in June without conditions related to access. The cleanest way is to say no undercrossing at the railroad – no project. No improvements to Richards – no project.”
However, like his colleagues, he said, “I’m willing to see what we can come up with in terms of this other way that may allow certain things to go forward in phased way, but no further. With the idea that the actual, that’s on the table in front of us cannot be developed without the second crossing.”
Mayor Pro Tem Davis put a motion on the table, seconded by Mayor Dan Wolk, to affirm a June ballot deadline for working to define the conditions to make it clear for the voters.
Councilmember Brett Lee said, “I’m a little bit uncomfortable with this notion that we’re supportive of the June ballot and asking staff to come back and address some concerns.” He said that staff could come back with the proposal that he is either supportive or not supportive of, depending on the specifics.
He said that, while he was in generally in favor of a June ballot for this project, he wants to see specific things before he will support that project. “The actual specifics make a lot of difference,” he said. “Even with the second crossing,” he said, “there are many shapes and sizes of this project that would not be acceptable to me.”
Councilmember Lee offered different language, “supportive of a June election for this project but leave it relatively vague.” Among his concerns were what the county-city tax sharing agreement would look like.
The motion eventually became to “direct staff to move forward with the applicant as if they were preparing for a June ballot with the understanding that questions need to be answered before council will take formal action to place it on the ballot.”
The Vanguard this week pushed again for the city and developers to look at a reduction in parking and vehicles for the project. The Vanguard believes that merely having the second access point is not enough. Through that process we are simply building infrastructure to accommodate bad habits.
There are a variety of ways that the project could achieve that, both through a reduction of parking spots and incentives for people without cars to move into the residential units.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What are these bad habits? Owning and driving a car?
Yes, didn’t you know that driving a car is a bad habit?
I wouldn’t say its exclusively a bad habit, but there are plenty of situations where you just don’t need a car. And if you are a student moving into Nishi, right next to the university with an easy walk or bike downtown, you could probably get away with not having a car all the time. When I lived in DC, I would maybe rent a car once or two a month when I needed it and the rest of the time there was the Metro and taxis. We didn’t even have ZipCars back then, but some of the proposals could involve their use for the times when a car is needed, in the meantime we can save money and the environment and our health by not having a car 24-7.
Couching driving as a “bad habit” is very judgmental, and IMO WRONG. I have no problem with encouraging the use of bikes and walking, but I don’t want to be pigeonholed has having a “bad habit” just because I drive a car (I bike and walk by the way). And frankly (no relation to the commenter Frankly), calling driving a “bad habit” is a knock against the disabled/seniors who have limited options in getting around.
There are clearly people who need vehicles and wouldn’t it be better if we reduced the number of vehicles on the road to make their driving easier? I think all of us need to drive less if we can and I believe housing in this location should help promote less driving, that’s my only point. I think “bad habit” would have been fine with added explanation for what I meant.
Hmm… are you preaching to others about habit that you yourself are unwilling to change? Seems to me you are in your car much of the time you could be biking instead.
Frankly: “Hmm… are you preaching to others about habit that you yourself are unwilling to change? Seems to me you are in your car much of the time you could be biking instead.”
Spot on Frankly! Reminds me of Al Gore telling everyone not to drive SUVs – as he had a fleet of them and constantly jetted around his private fuel hogging airplanes, emitting all sorts of GHGs.
Agree 100%. Those who demonize autos do no good in the effort to revolutionize (what shouldn’t be know as) alternative modes of transit. That self-righteous attitude only serves to alienate many who could be allies.
The claimed revenue stream is bogus. Adding a hotel to try and push the fiscal impact into the black is just more lipstick on the pig. The project, as currently proposed, is a taxpayer subsidized student-focused apartment complex that will attempt to get voter approval under the false flag of “innovation center” and a deceptive sense of urgency.
From the Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis report:
In this context, “may” means “will” in analyst speak.
There is a more interesting point to be made. We have one hotel conference center that has been approved, there is another that is being proposed for along I-80, now Nishi is suggesting another Hotel Conference Center on their property right in between the Hyatt on Campus and the one on Richards. And Mace may proposed one as well on their site. It seems to me this should all be examined together.
Are you saying that the approved hotel/conference center be put into abeyance/delayed/unapproved until all these things are studied? Or do you just mean the ‘prospective’ ones? The latter I get. The former leads me to regret not being a land-use attorney.
The latter. We’ve already approved one, but putting four new ones in town seems to at the very little dilute the expected impact. I’m not saying we don’t need more than one, especially for larger conferences.
I completely agree with “the latter”.
David Greenwald said … “It seems to me this should all be examined together.”
That makes a lot of sense David; however, as Anon and others have pointed out, our current planning method is “planning by General Plan Amendment” which could also be described as “planning each application in its own self-contained silo.”
Another way of looking at planning within individual self-contained silos is that it really isn’t planning at all, but really nothing more than project application processing. One of the key reasons for this kind of siloed approach is that under State of California Law (§65358) with some limited exceptions, “local governments may not amend any one of the mandatory elements of the general plan more than four times in one calendar year.” The practical reality of that constraint is that all the various land use applications submitted to the City are competing with one another for one of those four annual general plan amendments. In that environment, individual applicants do not want to see their siloed application held captive to the activities that are happening in another different silo … and they want to get their silo to the finish line ahead of all the other silos competing for one of the four annual amendments.
If we updated the Davis General Plan, then our Department of Community Development & Sustainability could actually do some planning with the whole community in mind, rather than simply processing individual applications.
Amen!
To CalAg: I think you make an excellent point. Nishi was supposed to be an R&D innovation park, and now it has morphed into mostly student housing and a hotel. Worse, I’m not sure the city can truly support all the new hotels being proposed. My guess is most of them will remain largely unoccupied most of the year unless there is some big conference in town; and could hurt the already existing hotels.
I don’t think “morphed” is accurate, I’ve never seen Nishi as anything other than mixed use. If you find a plan to the contrary, please share it.
Mixed use, but what percentage is R&D and what percentage is student housing? There should be enough R&D to make it net fiscally positive without adding a hotel IMO. Also, is not part of the DEIR include just R&D without student housing?
I’m not in disagreement with you. Alternative 2 is an R&D only alternative which would be 1.2 million square feet of uses, there is no fiscal analysis on the DEIR however.
Anon, here is a link to a May 29, 2014 Vanguard article Nishi Workshop Draws Questions and Discussion of Proposed Development. The third paragraph of that article reads as follows:
Here is a link to the video of that May 29 presentation/workshop.
On February 11, 2014 the Downtown University Gateway District was presented to Council, and page 40 of the Perkins + Will presentation of the concepts shows the same 1,200 residential units. (see graphic below). So if there has been any “morphing” it has been to a less residential plan rather than a more residential plan.
I thought one of the biggest reasons we’re being asked to approve Nishi was for a business park revenue stream for the city. Now we’re hearing that it might be revenue negative unless a hotel is added and who really knows if that will put it over the hump.
I think we have to separate Nishi from the innovation parks. The biggest reason to push for the innovation parks was revenue. Nishi was always far smaller and a mixed use project. You can argue for reasons for Nishi to be passed, but I don’t think city revenue should be the primary consideration.
Now why would we separate Nishi from the innovation parks? Nishi was supposed to be an innovation park. Perhaps revenue from Nishi is not YOUR CONCERN, but I guarantee it will be a huge concern to others, including myself.
I don’t think that’s true, Nishi was always going to be a mixed use housing project with 250,000 or so square feet of innovation space. If revenue is your concern, then you should push for the project to be all innovation, but that’s never been the plan.
Well, if Nishi is even revenue-neutral, I still could support the student/faculty housing component, IF the MV traffic doesn’t end up on Richards, IF housing becomes more available/affordable. If those two criteria (actually, 3, counting the revenue neutral or favorable test) are not met, will vote no. And may encourage others to see things the same.
Nishi does not have to be all R&D, but it should have enough R&D to make it a net fiscal positive without the hotel.
Anon, I respectfully disagree that Nishi was supposed to be an Innovation Park. It has consistently been discussed as an innovation incubation site. The overall site size of 45 acres gross (which then had to be netted down to approximately 30 net acres after the easements and setbacks were taken into consideration), was always too small to be an Innovation Park. Then, as the original concept graphic from 2014 shows above, almost half of the site has always been planned for housing, so you have approximately 10 net acres left for the R&D incubation portion of the site. To put 10 acres into context, the DMG Mori Seiki site on 2nd Street is 20 acres.
To Matt Williams: See excellent response by CalAg below. Nishi was always part of the innovation park strategy.
As part of the Innovation Ecosystem, yes. As a free-standing innovation park, not so much.
Correct Anon, “… part of …”
The Innovation Park Strategy came out of the community meetings prior to the issuance of the RFEIs. Those meetings were not constrained by the legal barriers that our out of date General Plan imposes on actual project applications.
Frankly (no relation to commenter Frankly), I don’t think Nishi is ready for prime time. Even with the hotel, it is not a particularly attractive project from the revenue side. I would like to see more work done to get it to be more fiscally positive than a mere hotel.
If you live in Davis, Anon, you do realize that where you live was NOT “an attractive project from the revenue side”, right? [At least after Prop 13, and what we know today] That said, neither should it be a “drain”. It should be approved or denied on its merits, and being a “cash cow” should not be the primary litmus test. In my opinion.
That is only YOUR opinion – but Nishi has to get past a Measure R vote. And I guarantee you there will be a lot of folks out there measuring Nishi by the revenue yardstick, including me. I think more work needs to be done on the revenue side for my comfort level, especially in light of access issues for Nishi and possible conflict with existing hotels. Now perhaps the developer and the city/City Council can get there in time for a June ballot, but I have some skepticism about the time frame. I am in favor of Nishi, but only if it has a sufficient revenue stream and access issues can be resolved.
And yes, I do realize that residential housing has generally been a net fiscal negative to the city previously. And yes, I think that needs to change, as it did with the Cannery. But what does that have to do with Nishi? Nishi was supposed to be a mixed use R&D development project w student housing – a whole different beast than residential housing.
So, are you saying that if it revenue neutral, and meets a housing need that is not being met, it will fail a Measure R vote?
hpierce: “So, are you saying that if it revenue neutral, and meets a housing need that is not being met, it will fail a Measure R vote?”
To put it bluntly, yes. But that is strictly speculation on my part, based on conversations I have heard around town.
My recollection is that the Cannery goes net negative in year 18 or so.
Anon said … “And yes, I do realize that residential housing has generally been a net fiscal negative to the city previously. And yes, I think that needs to change, as it did with the Cannery.”
Jim Frame said … “My recollection is that the Cannery goes net negative in year 18 or so.
Anon, Cannery may have been a net fiscal positive at the time of the signing of the Development Agreement in November 2014, but when the $10 million give away in the CFD was added to the fiscal analysis in November 2015 with no net addition of value for the City, Cannery became substantially net negative from Day One and gets worse as the project progresses toward year 18.
With that said Anon, at the most recent Senior Services Commission meeting, numerous members of the Commission and Councilmember Brett Lee and members of the public all lamented how “unaffordable” Cannery became. The comments all had a common theme … houses that cost over $900,000 (many well over $1 million) may pencil out from a City Budget perspective, but they don’t address key community needs in Davis where the population over the age of 55 grew over 50% in ten years, from 7,256 in 2000 to 11,475 in 2010.
http://nishigateway.org/news-and-updates/frequently-asked-questions/
In September, I argued that in effect Nishi was trying to do too many different things on a small parcel – https://davisvanguard.org/2015/09/monday-morning-thoughts-why-nishi-doesnt-go-far-enough/
Then Nishi isn’t really ready for prime time, is it?
“Revenue generation to support city services throughout the community.”
Good catch Barack Palin! That was exactly my interpretation of what Nishi was supposed to do/be…
“I think we have to separate Nishi from the innovation parks. The biggest reason to push for the innovation parks was revenue. Nishi was always far smaller and a mixed use project. You can argue for reasons for Nishi to be passed, but I don’t think city revenue should be the primary consideration.” @ David Greenwald
(1) The “Dispersed Innovation Strategy” – of which Nishi is a key part – has always been billed as an integrated strategy to generate revenue for the General Fund.
(2) City Hall and the applicant are marketing this annexation to the voters as the “Nishi Gateway Innovation District.”
(3) Its public-facing information nexus is on the City’s Innovation Center web portal.
(4) The fiscal analysis of Nishi was jointly analyzed with the fiscal analysis of the revenue positive MRIC in the “Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis of Proposed Innovation Centers in Davis.”
Accordingly, this entire process to get high density student housing entitled is fundamentally dishonest.
In addition, there are a thousand questions about both the feasibility and specific plan of the residual tech component that are not being addressed in the the rush to get this half-baked mess on the ballot.
It the absence of any credible plan for the tech component, I am very skeptical that the tech/office space will ever get built. The more likely outcome is that there will be a future effort to upzone the land to retail and/or more high density residential.
Thank you CalAg, well put. I feel like Nishi has been more of a bait and switch scheme to supplant R&D with student housing. I’m okay with some student housing, but this INNOVATION PARK should be primarily about providing incubator space close to the university, that generates sufficient tax revenue to make it worthwhile for the city to approve.
I agree. I want Nishi to get built but it has to generate fairly substantial tax revenue for the city especially now that one of the innovation park developers has backed out.
CalAg said … “(1) The “Dispersed Innovation Strategy” – of which Nishi is a key part – has always been billed as an integrated strategy to generate revenue for the General Fund.”
Absolutely correct CalAg, and all of those early community discussions were external to the Davis General Plan, and as a result could holistically look at all four of the RFEI submitted sites. However, once actual applications were received by the Department of Community Development, by law, they had to place each one within its own self-contained silo and process it as a free-standing potential General Plan Amendment.
CalAg said … “(2) City Hall and the applicant are marketing this annexation to the voters as the “Nishi Gateway Innovation District.””
What would you call it? The Nishi Gateway Student Dormitory District? The January 2014 graphic in the presentation to City Council shows a pretty straightforward pie chart that clearly shows that Nishi Gateway is a multi-use District, with Innovation Incubation R&D, for-sale and rental housing for the employees of the Innovation Incubation businesses, rental student housing, and for-sale housing for all ages.
CalAg said … “(4) The fiscal analysis of Nishi was jointly analyzed with the fiscal analysis of the revenue positive MRIC in the “Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis of Proposed Innovation Centers in Davis.””
When the first draft of the fiscal analysis was presented to the Finance and Budget Commission, staff and the consultants were explicit in their explanation that not only did the fiscal analysis include Nishi and MRIC, but also the Davis Innovation Center impacts as well. If I remember correctly, they explained that as being a requirement under the provisions of CEQA. CEQA isn’t constrained by the silo issues that govern the General Plan.
Based on the above, your evidence does not support your use of the word “dishonest” in your accusation
I don’t find CalAg’s claims dishonest, but rather representative of a lay person’s understanding of the public discussion. It matters little how the professionals parse the words; when it comes to a Measure R vote, those terms of art are discarded in favor of the electorate’s perception of what it thought the project was supposed to be.
If the voters think they’ve been promised an innovation center with a durable revenue stream but they’re asked to approve a tax- draining apartment complex instead, the vote might not turn out so well for the proponents.
Ditto ^^^^^^
Jim and Barack, the only person who referred to anything as dishonest was CalAg when she/he said, “Accordingly, this entire process to get high density student housing entitled is fundamentally dishonest.” The facts and evidence do not support that assertion by CalAg, which is why my response to her/him was “The evidence does not support your “dishonest” accusation” with dishonest in quotes because it was her/his accusation word. Perhaps it would have been clearer if my sentence had said, “Based on the above, your evidence does not support your use of the word “dishonest” in your accusation.” I have changed the original post to reflect that clearer wording. For the record, I don’t think CalAg is being dishonest. I believe she/he is simply being political rather than factual.
With that said/clarified, as you know a core principle that I stand by is “More evidence-based decision making, less political calculation.” One of the hallmarks of my public service has been to bring facts and evidence to all people, lay people and professionals alike … and then let them make an informed decision based on that evidence. Illumination of what the project was supposed/represented to be is amply supported by the public record. However, that doesn’t mean that political calculation won’t try and represent it to be something different. In the end the voters will have to weigh the evidence against the political calculation.
For me personally, there is a lot of researching of facts and evidence yet to do before I come to my own individual conclusion about this project … and lots of citizens still to listen to.
Gotta disagree with you here, Jim… until there is a concrete proposal on the table for a vote, the voters have been promised… exactly nothing.
I think the voters have been promised many things with regard to Nishi. But promises are cheap.
Jim, you are a very informed voter. What do you think you have been promised with regard to Nishi?
Jim Frame: “I don’t find CalAg’s claims dishonest, but rather representative of a lay person’s understanding of the public discussion. It matters little how the professionals parse the words; when it comes to a Measure R vote, those terms of art are discarded in favor of the electorate’s perception of what it thought the project was supposed to be.
If the voters think they’ve been promised an innovation center with a durable revenue stream but they’re asked to approve a tax- draining apartment complex instead, the vote might not turn out so well for the proponents.”
SPOT ON!
hpierce: “Gotta disagree with you here, Jim… until there is a concrete proposal on the table for a vote, the voters have been promised… exactly nothing.”
The voters may not have been promised anything yet, but they were PROPOSED something, couched in the language of INNOVATION PARK that has now morphed into essentially a STUDENT HOUSING project. As Jim Frame noted, you can parse the language all you want, the reality is for a Measure R vote you have to look at it from a layperson’s perspective and from political calculation.
Do you think Nishi is even “on the radar” (as regards the actual land uses proposal) for even 15 % of the likely voters? I’d be shocked, and will offer 5 to one odds for a Dos Coyotes lunch if it can be demonstrated that I’m wrong (first confirmation of wager, only) in the next seven days. Matt knows I’ll be good for my end, if it can be reasonably demonstrated that I’m incorrect.
Anon, the graphic below provided to City Council by the Nishi Gateway team in conjunction with City staff in January 2014 … almost 2 years ago … very clearly showed 1,200 units of housing. How could the Nishi Gateway team have been any clearer?
That presentation predated (by six months) the RFEI solicitation by the City.
The City website () provides an Innovation Centers Milestone Schedule that is very interesting to look at and includes (the key words are bolded) …
The 11/13/2012 presentation to Council of the Innovation Park Task Force – Recommendations (see http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20121113/Packet/06-Innovation-Park-Task-Force-amended.pdf), which on page 06-3 of the staff report said …
… Mixed-Use …
Then on 11/27/2012 the Council approved the Nishi Pre-Development Cost Funding And Negotiation Agreement (see http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20121127/Packet/08-Nishi-Land-Use-Cost-Sharing.pdf), which on page 08-1 of the staff report said …
… Mixed-Use … high density urban housing …
Then on October 1, 2013 the Council approved the Nishi Gateway Planning Goals in an item entitled “City-University Mixed-Use Innovation District” (see http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20131001/05-Mixed-Use-Innovation-District.pdf). Page 05-1 of the staff report for that item said …
BOTTOM-LINE, the City and the applicant have been consistently and transparently and frequently clear that Nishi was being planned as a mixed-use university-related research park development complemented by high density urban housing. How could they have been any more clear?
Holistic Planning looks at the big picture. The focus given to Nishi has been primarily on location and proforma . The proximity to the University and Downtown is seen as being optimal. Well, this may have some truth yet there are other significant aspects about this location and this is an overview of a holistic study.
Ask Yourself if you would like to live there, and be honest.
Health: Is it optimal to be between a major freeway that is frequently in gridlock that has many trucks traveling on it? Truck pollution is known to be cancer forming. Cars and trucks in gridlock pollute more. What about high power lines that run along the train track? The health impact jury on this is still out on this. What is the proforma for potential health issues?
Safety: How will the train tracks be made safe, with a chainlink fence such as used on Olive Drive? Is this going to make it a “gated community”. Might not the residents be concerned about 100 railcars a day filled with volitile crude passing frequently? How can residents exit with only one entrance/exit in an emergency? How can people get out quickly, if need be?
Resiliency: Being a low area, once a part of watershed, now only a patch of green, isn’t it a likely flood mitigation area for the lay of the land in that region?
Impressions: What will residents see, what are the views? It is not so bad looking North yet looking at a freeway, a large hotel, a parking lot?
Fresh Air: Will the housing units be subject to air filtration systems? Does this mean the windows will need to remain closed? Doesn’t the filter change-out cause significant ongoing maintenance that will need to be kept current to make it a healthy building?
Is the project going to be Zero Net Energy? Being forced to have conditioned air, doesn’t that make it harder to be Zero Net Energy? What about the urban heat effect produced by air conditioning?
Acoustics: What about the roar of the freeway and the train whistle at all hours. Is this really optimal for high end university housing?
Water: What are the water draws for a development like this? Is it sustainable with the rest of Davis in mind?
Views, Sun, Breezes and Shade for others: Has this been fully studied for those behind the project?
Risks: Some already mentioned. Not going further at this time.
Isn’t this prime farmland? The Davis General Plan discourages this. A Living Community would not build on this, it would look for infill possibilities until fully exhausted, so does the Davis General Plan.
Frankly, knowing what we do about climate change and the atmosphere it would be best to build an urban forest on the Nishi land. It would be beautiful, help reduce carbon from the freeway for the rest of the city, quiet the freeway noise for the City north of it and create natural habitats.
The effort the Nishi project has done to create a sustainability plan is nice, yet we are in a planetary crisis where simply doing less harm is not enough. We must show what good looks like: Regenerative, restorative and respectful of a healthy living earth for all beings. The time has come for Living Communities that use thoughtful master planning based on integrated holistic ecological principles.
To fit the most excellent action to the demand of the moment as one’s high obligation to one’s self.
Ecotect, you have provided a thoughtful, thorough and passionate post. Thank you for the extra effort that went into expressing your beliefs. Not everyone is going to agree with all your points,but they are not going to be under misconceptions about why you believe/feel what you do. Thank you.
“I believe she/he is simply being political rather than factual. With that said/clarified, as you know a core principle that I stand by is “More evidence-based decision making, less political calculation.” One of the hallmarks of my public service has been to bring facts and evidence to all people, lay people and professionals alike … and then let them make an informed decision based on that evidence [… can you believe this sanctimonious BS? …]. Illumination of what the project was supposed/represented to be is amply supported by the public record. However, that doesn’t mean that political calculation won’t try and represent it to be something different. In the end the voters will have to weigh the evidence against the political calculation.” @ Matt Williams
MW: This is maybe the third time you’ve tried to dismiss my position on Nishi as “political.” Ironic since you’re the one running for City Council while hiding behind a thin veneer of “more evidence-based decision making, less political calculation” to mask your political positions.
It’s pretty clear that you’re using the Vanguard as a political tool to try and advance your candidacy. I can’t wait to scrutinize your campaign contribution disclosures to see who is rewarding you for your “objectivity.”
I stand behind every word I wrote. The bullet points are facts. My conclusion about the dishonesty of the process is an opinion.
CalAg said … “It’s pretty clear that you’re using the Vanguard as a political tool to try and advance your candidacy. I can’t wait to scrutinize your campaign contribution disclosures to see who is rewarding you for your “objectivity.””
The Vanguard is a dialogue space … the only such electronic dialogue space in Davis. I have concentrated on sharing verifiable facts from the public record. I have not taken a position either for or against Nishi … simply shared verifiable evidence. I completely agree with what Brett Lee said about the innovation parks when he announced his candidacy for reelection, “The details will really matter.” We don’t have all the details. So my personal decision is still being held in abeyance. I know that automobile access from Nishi through West Olive Drive to Richards will make my personal position opposed to the project. So I continue to listen and do research. That is what I hope all Davis voters are doing.