In retrospect, the Davis Planning Commission seemed to simply not want to act in any sort of gatekeeping capacity. They voted 5-2 to forward the Nishi application to the Davis City Council, despite expressing serious questions about issues such as traffic, congestion, air impacts and the fiscal analysis. They also passed, by a 7-0 vote, a motion to approve the EIR.
The majority of the public commenters and even the commissioner comments fell along the lines that there was large support for the project in principle but there are too many unanswered questions to go forward at this time – except that when the vote came, the commission voted to move the project forward, at least to the city council.
The tough decision is now going to have to be made by the Davis City Council in the next month or so, as to whether to put the project on the ballot.
On Tuesday Mayor Dan Wolk perhaps tipped his hand, stating he believes that Nishi will go on the ballot in June.
“I think it’s an excellent project,” he said. “They’ve committed now to being at a minimum fiscally neutral.” He cited the EPS report and argued that Nishi along with Mace, using conservative estimates, “will bring in millions of dollars to the city in terms of revenue.”
He added, “[Nishi] has also committed to a second crossing into UC Davis.” He said, “We understand that there’s an issue with Richards in terms of traffic and they’ve committed a second crossing into UC Davis as part of the process.”
It is these contingencies that make the project and its time all the more curious. One contingency is that development would not be able to go forward without a UC Davis commitment to the grade-separated crossing to the UC Davis campus.
That decision is now wrapped into the LRDP (Long Range Development Plan) process that the university is undergoing. That approval might merely be a formality and it likely would occur long before construction would commence on the Nishi site.
However, the more curious stipulation is the one saying, “No buildings would be allowed to be occupied until Richards Interchange improvements are completed.” As we have reported in the past, the Richards Blvd. corridor improvements are not likely to be implemented for another five years, with the improvements completed perhaps in 2021 or 2022. Does the developer really want to wait five or six years before allowing the buildings to be occupied – and if so, why not wait until November when some of the other details of the project might be addressed?
The fiscal analysis is also an important consideration. The EPS report shows that the project is a negative $78,000. One of the project alternatives calls for a hotel, which presumably pushes the project into a positive. However, the analysis of the hotel situation that the Vanguard published this week at the very least calls into question those findings and the city will be waiting for the HVS report which might be completed late this month.
The council obviously would not have a lot of time to determine the hotel issue before making a decision on Nishi.
The mayor this week cited Dan Carson, a member of the Finance and Budget commission, who presented council “with a paper that showed that [the EPS report] really underestimated Nishi… He thinks that right now that the report had Nishi at a negative $78,000 per year, but he estimates that that’s a really low figure, that it’s probably much more positive into the millions.”
For his part, Mayor Wolk called the EPS report a very “conservative” assessment of the fiscal situation. He cited Dan Carson’s more optimistic view, which Mr. Carson trumpeted again before the Planning Commission.
It is the contingencies, however, that perhaps make the project more risky at this point.
On Tuesday, the mayor said, “I’m very interested to hear my colleagues’ take on Nishi because that second crossing is really critical to the council.” He noted that UC Davis is critical to this equation because the UC Regents have to approve the second crossing.
“Will the council and will the community ultimately be comfortable adopting a proposal that has contingencies? And key conditions to it, or do they want to see something more solid?” he asked. He said they’ll have the dialogue but his hope is that the council and community will still lend its approval.
The mayor here really nailed the question – will the public be willing to support a project where two of the most serious considerations are contingencies? Without a second crossing, most people do not see the project as viable. There needs to be a direct access point from Nishi to campus, otherwise the project itself cannot really work.
You cannot have rental housing that will be primarily students next to campus without having a direct access point to campus. It makes no sense.
The second contingency, as we noted, is the Richards Blvd. corridor plan that needs to be implemented.
When the council put Measure P on the ballot in 2009 for Wild Horse Ranch, they did so before completing the developer agreement with baseline features, and that became part of the ongoing controversy that ultimately helped to undo the project.
The public wants assurances and specifics, and so it will be really interesting to see if the public is willing to support the project without all of the details immediately locked down, but rather reserved as commitments from the developer.
The question will undoubtedly arise as to how enforceable those commitments are and how they would be enforced. None of this is necessarily insurmountable, but it might be an aggravating factor in a Measure R vote.
It will now be left to the council to tease out these details and ultimately decide if this project is ready to go on the ballot for June.
In the meantime, the Vanguard will be hosting a discussion and information session on Nishi. The free event will be Saturday, January 30, from 1 to 3 at the Conference Room of the University Park Inn at 1111 Richards Blvd. In addition to a presentation and discussion period, there will be a field trip immediately following the session.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Seems like there’s a lot of uncertainties/risk.
Here’s a quick list of the “certainties”:
No significant financial benefit for the city (and possibly an ongoing financial loss).
No benefit whatsoever for current homeowners.
An increase in future “SACOG growth requirements” that will be forced upon the city as a result.
Increased traffic and congestion (beyond the development site), and loss of open space.
Oh – and let’s not forget the permanent, increased demand on our limited water supply. Be sure to continue your conservation efforts indefinitely, to provide for these new developments.
Why should there be a “benefit” for current homeowners? Was there a benefit to current homeowners when your home was built? When you moved here? When you were born?
I get where new development should be as ‘neutral’ as possible, but a benefit? Who died and left you a god?
HPierce:
I suspect that most people (myself included) look at proposed developments to see if there’s any benefit to them or to the community. I don’t see anything wrong with that, really. Beyond that, I question the wisdom of endless growth/development, everywhere. 40 million people in California alone, more than doubling in my lifetime (and continuing, with absolutely no end in sight). All environmental problems can ultimately be attributed to unquestioned, endless growth. (Not to mention traffic, congestion, shortages of water and other resources, and overall decline in the quality of life.)
I have held these views my entire life, regardless of my living situation (e.g., renter, homeowner, etc.).
No – I’m not claiming to be a “god”. (Far from it.) I’m just presenting my thoughts regarding what’s best for our community.
Ron:
How do you propose stopping population growth in the region?
The LRDP contingency is deceiving. It is crafted to trick the public into thinking that the UCD access point is guaranteed. It is not.
The two primary problems:
(1) The LRDP is just a UCD planning document that has to be approved by the Regents. Accordingly, the Regents have control – and what’s in the LRDP guaranteed the City of Davis exactly nothing. There is a tech park on Old Davis Road south of I-80 in the current LRDP. It obviously never got built despite diligent efforts with a large commercial developer out of the Bay area about 10 years ago. The LRDP is just the first step in a long process with multiple downstream failure points.
(2) There is no link between the UCD access point and construction and/or occupancy of the Nishi project. This sets up a scenario where the project is built, the developer is compliant with the baseline project features, but the UCD access point is never built. The only way – let me stress the word only – to insure that the UCD access point is actually built is to require initiation, at a minimum, of construction before the issuance of building and/or occupancy permits.
Your comments ring true… UCD cannot be trusted until dirt is moving, and even then, it’s trust but verify [damn, quoting Reagan].
Your second point is critical… there must not only be a strong “link”, but in my opinion, the ONLY access off W Olive should be bike/ped/EVA. That should be “baseline”…
and would we have to sue if the conditions are violated?
Correction – Conditioning anything on occupancy permits is not a guarantee. It is better than nothing, but it is not a guarantee. If (1) a significant amount of construction has occurred, (2) buildings are ready to be occupied, and (3) the UCD access point and/or Richards interchange improvements fail to materialize – there is no scenario where we will have a ghost development sitting empty waiting on infrastructure. There will be deals, litigation, excuses, apologies, finder-pointing, etc., but the occupancy permits will ultimately be issued whether the infrastructure is ever built or not.
Bottom line – building permits have to be tied to the initiation of construction of the infrastructure projects. Once construction is underway, the public has more than reasonable assurances that the infrastructure will be completed.
Actually, you can tie ISSUANCE of BP’s to completion of improvements… not standard, but possible… standard subdivision agreements call for no CO’s until improvements are ‘satisfactorally’ complete, but not uncommon to link certain improvements to a ‘threshold’ of how many CO’s are OK…
CalAg is basically correct, but legally, CO’s can be withheld, if provided for in the project documents [usually, the subdivision improvement agreement], and if the building official and CM have the [pick your term] to stand by the City’s legal rights…
hpierce: Are you aware of any cases in CA where a large development was not granted occupancy permits for a significant length of time because of a dispute over major infrastructure improvements?
yes… but many years ago, so cannot provide cite (or site)[I’m not a land use attorney]… will note that “large development” does not fit Nishi (based on the case law I’ve seen, but didn’t bother to memorize)… Sea Ranch had a moratorium… Cambria had (has?) a moratorium… there has to be a “nexus”… a reasonable (that might be adjudicated) link to development and improvements… there is also “contract law”… development and/or subdivision improvement agreements… it’s partly dependent on whether local entities have “the balls” (there, I’ve said it) to stand up for the statutory/contract rights they have.
In the government code, a local entity can condemn property to serve a development. With the applicant paying the costs, if they can’t separately negotiate for those rights.
That gets real “squishy” when another government entity [i.e. UC] is involved.
Nishi, in my opinion, should neither be annexed, nor approved, until there are VERY firm commitments from UC (and UPRR) that there will be cooperation to make a UCD grade-separated crossing which is the primary access.
Hell, Nishi was in Solano County as late as the mid-late 90’s. Nishi is not in Davis! Get a clue! I do not support Nishi, per se, but to get my vote, the primary access will have to be a grade-separated crossing to UCD… I reiterate, in my opinion, Nishi should have no MV access to W Olive. [except EVA]
hpierce said . . . “I reiterate, in my opinion, Nishi should have no MV access to W Olive. [except EVA]”
No Public Transportation vehicle access to W Olive? It is my understanding that UNITRANS is looking forward to being able to significantly upgrade its service to East Olive Drive and South Davis once the new tunnel is completed, because it will be tall enough to allow use by the UNITRANS buses, which the current Richards Subway does not allow.
The comments last night by the individual Planning Commissioners were very interesting … most notably those of George Hague, who was assistant general manager of surface division (all buses and trolleys) of The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), a regional public transportation authority[4] that operates various forms of public transit services—bus, subway and elevated rail, commuter rail, light rail and electric trolleybus—that serve 3.9 million people in five counties in and around Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
George strongly made the point that the planned grade separated crossing between Nishi and UCD appears to be insufficient to handle two-way traffic during a fire in one of the Nishi high rises. Specifically George highlighted a situation where the UCD Fire Department Hook and Ladder is coming southbound through the tunnel and automobiles looking to exit the Nishi site are coming northbound. George did not proposes specific remedies to the tunnel, but it is very clear that the tunnel’s carrying capacity needs to be able to handle that specific emergency situation.
My personal take on George’s observation is that the tunnel needs to be able to simultaneously and safely handle a northbound UNITRANS bus and a southbound UCD Hook and Ladder.
After hearing George’s comments, I expected his vote would be “No,” but when the roll was called, he did vote “Yes.”
I watched and listened to most if not all the PC members say ‘not now’ for various reasons then went upstairs and came down after the votes. Surprised me as it seemed not destined for passage. Any ideas why this happened this way? Perhaps if they had not taken the individual votes but voted all in one motion it would have gone differently? Have a feeling it won’t affect CC vote do you?
they just didn’t want to be the people who killed the project, let the council do it if that’s their inclination.
SODA asked . . . “Any ideas why this happened this way?”
I concur with DP’s assessment. In addition, the majority of the reasons that were expressed for “not now” were outside the realm of the actual plan. They fall into the Development Agreement and its various conditions, as well as in the specifics of how Measure R baseline features will be described. Some of the comments last night centered on whether the Planning Commission mission tasks them with the responsibility of weighing in on those “outside the realm of the plan” items.
Clearly the Staff Report asked for recommendations from the Planning Commission on those “outside the realm of the plan” items, but just because they were asked to expand their customary purview, does not mean that they had agree to that expansion.
Measure R/J projects don’t come along that often, and it would be interesting to see if any of the current 8 Planning Commissioners have been on the Commission during one. Annexations come along even less often, and I am sure that none of the 8 have experience deliberating a Davis annexation.
It is worth noting that the “No” votes from Chair Rob Hofmann and member Marq Truscott were based on what they felt were planning issues, specifically with respect to air quality. Hofmann was very explicit in his comments that he had voted against Lexington Apartments (and others) for the same proximity to I-80 air quality reasons, and would be voting against any housing at Nishi for the same reasons he had voted against Lexington.
can someone explain why this needs to be on the june ballot when it looks like it has issues that might cause it to lose?
There will always be ‘issues’ that may cause it to lose, no matter how long we wait. The eternal search for the perfect. I am mostly indifferent to the current proposal and see no urgency to move forward with it, but apparently the developer has a different opinion.
I would have much preferred that our focus and staff time had been devoted to improving one of the peripheral business park projects instead as those will create more jobs and wealth for the community.
Maybe but these are legitimate issues as opposed to manufactured ones.
(a) They are racing MRIC to the ballot
(b) They are trying to get to the ballot before too much opposition builds and organizes
(c) They are trying to overwhelm the City’s planning capacity to limit project scrutiny and constraints
(d) All the above
CalAg, you lost me. How does (a) relate to whether a vote for Nishi needs to be on the June ballot or the November ballot?
With respect to (b), is “before much opposition builds and organizes” realistic given (1) all the public scrutiny that Nishi has received to date, and (2) the fact that the June ballot also has the City Council race on it, and (3) the fact that the June ballot could also have a tax measure on it?
With respect to (c), given all the public hearings about the EIR and the EPS Financial Study, what is there left to overwhelm and/or constrain?
MW:
(a) MRIC was scheduled to be on the Nov ballot last time I checked (although at the last hearing the developers threatened to delay this if they don’t get their housing). If Nishi slips to Nov, they are potentially on the ballot with MRIC. I think they want to go first.
(b) It’s hard to scrutinize a moving target. The baseline project features were just made public yesterday. And I assume the DA is nowhere close to being complete – I can’t find copies of either online. In my opinion the general public is still largely in the dark on many key issues. As the fog clears there will be a lot of concerned voters with little or no time to express their concerns except at the ballot box.
(c) Look at the Staff Report. It was embarrassingly incomplete. Staff can’t keep up with the timeline. The Planning Commission had to approve stuff they hadn’t seen, without proper time to scrutinize the details and attach conditions to their approvals. In my opinion, the Staff Report and the attached documents would have benefited tremendously from three more solid months of work and the Commissioners would have benefited from a couple of weeks to review.
Thank you for the answer. I agree with the points you have made in (a). I also agree with the uncertainty you acknowledge.
Regarding your (b), I can’t count the number of times I have been told that the quickest way to a “no” vote is uncertainty. I heard that loud and often just prior to the Measure P vote. I strongly believe that having uncertainty actually builds and organizes opposition rather than thwarting it.
Your (c) is far and away your most powerful point. In addition to the points you have made in your (c), others have told me that Staff made their job significantly harder by asking the Planning Commission to make recommendations on issues that are outside their scope, which means you are saying that there wasn’t enough in the staff report, and others are saying that there was to much in the staff report. Regardless the Planning Commission made the decision to move the process along to the Council.
Have you watched the video? Did you see/hear my public comment?
Mark:
The online system won’t allow me to respond directly under your question to me.
My thoughts regarding endless development and growth were submitted so that others might understand the reason that I’m concerned. It is a problem that goes well beyond Davis or the region. I think the first step is to promote awareness, and to avoid taking steps which exacerbate the problem.
Ron, when you get to that online system limitation, you can do what you did here using the Leave a Reply feature, or alternatively you can scroll up above the comment you want to reply to until you get to the Reply>> link for the comment that prompted the reply you wanted to respond to.
In this specific case, the Reply >> link above Mark West’s 12:11 pm comment is your 10:52 am comment.
I’ll try that Matt. Thanks!
My pleasure Ron.
Ron:
I see value in talking about how we want to grow and develop, but any discussion that focuses on stopping growth is one that is not based in reality. Your comments decrying population growth in your lifetime suggests that you think population growth should stop. My question for how you are going to do that is a reasonable one. If it is not your intention to try to stop growth and development, however, then you really should be presenting your vision for how you think we can best move forward.
The population of the region will continue to grow regardless of what we do, so we need to create a plan for managing that growth, not trying to stop it. We will reduce our overall environmental footprint by creating jobs closer to where people live, accommodating population growth with higher-density housing, and designing to maximize non-automobile transportation. The only one of these three things that Davis currently does well is the last (and there we have a great deal of room to improve).
That is my broad vision, what is yours?
Mark:
I cannot stop endless population growth and development by myself. My impact as an individual is quite insignificant, even in a (supposedly) “slow-growth” small city. However, it’s also a reality that endless growth and development cannot continue indefinitely on a finite planet that’s shared with other life. (Nor is it desirable.) If we don’t acknowledge this, I suspect that the environment itself may ultimately “solve” this problem for us, in a most unpleasant manner. Maybe not in our lifetimes.
If we aren’t ready to acknowledge the problem, any plans to address it would likely fail. For example, anyone who proposes some reasonable steps (such as eliminating additional child tax breaks, for those who have more than two children) would likely be labeled as “anti-family”, or worse. (However, I think this idea provides a glimpse of my “vision”.)
In the meantime, all I can do is to express my thoughts, and advocate against developments that (I believe) contribute to the problem. Despite Davis’ reputation as a “slow-growth” city, there’s significant growth occurring (or in the pipeline) right now, including the Cannery, the old farm (near the cemetery), etc. And, more to come, regardless of our vote on specific developments. Again, if we grow beyond the limits that are imposed upon us by SACOG, it will have a compounding effect. (SACOG will then impose an even higher “growth requirement” on Davis based on that new growth, during the next cycle.) Not sure why anyone would want to vote for a development (such as NISHI, or housing at MRIC) that would cause this to occur.
And no, I don’t think that “upward sprawl” is (ultimately) the answer, either. I think that doing so greatly reduces the quality of life for all residents, and simply delays the inevitable. Of course, it is better than sprawling outward, for the reasons you mentioned.
Question to Eileen Samitz . . .
In Eileen’s public comment there has been a regular and recurring reference to SACOG’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and specifically how building more housing can/will result in SACOG assigning a higher RHNA allocation to Davis in the future.
I have to admit, that every time Eileen makes that comment, it perplexes me.
The reason for my confusion is that the descriptions of the RHNA process that SACOG and the State of California provide do not appear to support the conclusion Eileen has come to about future RHNA allocations for Davis, because past building history is not included as one of the RHNA assignment criteria.
The following is information taken from SACOG’s Regional Housing Needs web page http://www.sacog.org/rhnp/rhna.cfm
Matt:
I am sorry that you are perplexed Matt, but you conveniently left out the last SACOG bullet point:
“-And any other relevant factors, as determined by SACOG.”
Historically, we had seen the trend and heard the rational for why our fair share growth numbers were assigned, and City’s appearing to be receptive to growth, got higher fair share numbers assigned. I know about the criteria and I understand that it is used, but SACOG can use anything they consider relevant, like past building history.
Also, you answer your own question if you look at the last section that you did post including:
“— Housing needs generated by the presence of a private university or a campus of the California State University or the University of California.”
Thank you for your answer Eileen. What other relevant factors, other than Measure J/R and the 1% Growth Cap, has SACOG used in its recent RHNA allocations?
Regarding the final sentence you have quoted, the UCD campus with all its attendant housing needs has not historically been included by SACOG in the City’s RHNA allocation. It has always been included in the RHNA allocation for the unincorporated portion of Yolo County. Testimony to that effect was presented to the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) when Sue Greenwald, numerous HESC members, and members of the public raised questions about West Village. Santa Cruz, where the University is inside the City Limits, would be subject to the provisions of your final sentence. That is not the case in Davis.
I attended and testified at the Planning Commission meeting and after hearing all the concerns raised by other citizens and the Planning Commissioners about the Nishi Gateway proposal. The Planning Commissioner’s concerns were serious, such as the traffic and access issues, and particularly the health issues due to the air quality problems that have been documented in detail by Dr. Cahill, a UCD faculty atmospheric scientist who specializes in this subject. These air quality issues are significant because the Nishi Gateway project is sandwiched in between I-80 and the railroad tracks. Yet the Planning Commission forwarded the project on anyway. It is hard to understand, why?
This was on top of the inexcusable last minute release by Staff of the abysmal Nishi Gateway baseline project features language, at 5pm for the 7pm Planning Commission meeting, which did not really give the Commission, nor the public adequate time to read, no less comprehend, and comment on. The Nishi Gateway project is one of the biggest and most complex land use decisions Davis has ever made. Better project baseline features, as well as comments to address the problems of this project needed to be nailed down at this Planning Commission meeting, or else delayed to allow time for the Commission and the public to review these critical last minute documents. Yet, the project was pushed forward.
The Planning Commission’s job is to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of Davis, but sadly, the outcome of last night’s meeting really did not reflect that. It seemed to be more about getting expeditious decisions made last night, rather then allowing the time to deliberate to get to the point of having well informed decisions made and getting the best conditions of this project for the citizens of Davis. A majority of citizens speakers urged the Planning Commission to not rush these important decisions last night, but the decision making was apparently being railroaded by Staff. However, the Planning Commission could have asked for more time to make these incredibly important decisions, and instead they pushed the project forward together with all of its significant problems and the terrible baseline project features language.
For instance the baseline project features language allows the developer add 20% more housing units (which means around 130 additional units) for a total of 780 housing units jammed into a small land parcel (only 47 gross acres), as well as 345,000 square feet of commercial! Also, the UCD connection just needs to be “approved” by UCD, not constructed (and to their credit, the Planning Commission did make that language change recommendation).
I can only hope that the mess of a project that is being forward to City Council does not get railroaded through the City Council as well.
Eileen, do you think the views expressed by most of the commissioners to vote no or let’s wait would have been cast as such if the vote had been one vote and not bifurcated into several votes. I did not understand the reasoning of separating the motions/votes.
Do you really think the CC will stop it moving forward?
SODA: My impression was that “let’s wait’ was not even an option that the Commission were considering and I do not understand why. I don’t think bifurcating the votes was the issue, because it would have all had to start with at least one Commissioner asking to “let’s wait”, but that did not happen. I could tell that Staff wanted decisions that night, and they could have helped the Commission understand the issues a lot more when comments like “this process is fluid for the baseline features” was mentioned by one Commissioner, and that is not the case. The Commission was being asked to nail down the baseline features, and that was their opportunity to do that, or ask for a delay, and a delay was really what should have happened.
This project with so many problems, and then with critical documents like the baseline features being released, literally, last minute, should have be delayed for adequate time to thoroughly review and comment on to improve this critical list of specifics and conditions. The baseline features are what go on the Measure J/R ballot. So a really bad project loaded with uncertainties and problems, and abysmal baseline features has gone forward to City Council, and that’s where this mess needs to be addressed at this point.
(Note: I had a great deal of trouble getting logging back in to the Vanguard so this is likely to be my last post tonight.)
Is measure R driving the train? A system that was supposed to guarantee good planning may be undermining it in order to meet election timelines. As projects stack up for election space it seems that the filing deadlines for the June election are driving the process because politics make having two projects on the same ballot too risky. Then if a project gets bumped it takes two more years to get on the ballot. The unintended consequences of ballot box planning keep getting curiouser and curiouser.
Misanthrop said … “Then if a project gets bumped it takes two more years to get on the ballot.”
Why two years Misanthrop? Why not the next election?
In recent years we have had elections in:
February (Presidential Primary and Propositions 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 and 97)
March (Measure I, Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project),
May (Davis JUSD Measure A),
June (many, many)
July (MEASURE B: supporting student transportation, athletics, and core and elective academic programs)
October (Recall of Gray Davis; State of California),
November (many, many)
I think Ron has hit on something important that few have the honesty to admit. Certainly there are some that post on the VG with this opinion about Davis… even as they attempt to mask it dancing on the head of a growth vs. no-growth pin.
And I think it is a legitimate point of view. I applaud Ron’s honesty and frankness (I love frankness!).
I do note all these wonderful small-medium-sized European cities that I’m sure are models that some Davisites want to replicate… they want it… but I think they are confused not really not knowing what “it” is. But they feel Davis is close… close enough that they are risk-averse about something changing and taking Davis the wrong way.
I noted something traveling this holiday season. My spouse had the same thought at almost the same time. We were staying in Austin on South Congress which is a real popular and vibrant neighborhood. During the typical day it was overwleming with crowds. Christmas Eve and Christmas Day it was dead as one would expect with few of the businesses open. We commented that there was an opinimum density of humanity that gives a place a good vibe… too much or too little is a downer.
Put I also think it depends on the person. Because I have friends that love to visit super dense big cities overseas. And I have friends that want to live in the country with nobody around them and really dislike crowds. Call it population tolerance.
And this then get’s me back to Mark West’s points. I have written this before and I think it is the fact that many people that want Davis to stay the same are just unluckly. They are unlucky that UCD has been so successful. They are unlucky that the region has grown and is growing. They are unlucky that California and Davis are still such desireable places to live. They are unlucky that so many imigrants flood here and stay here. They are unluckly that Davis has such a deficit of so many things that need to be balanced.
They can keep throwing a bit of a tantrum over growth; but ultimately they really have no choice but to learn to accept it and a different Davis, or start looking for another place to live that better suits their population tolerance.
Actually, I think they’re frustrated because this growth is being dictated by the university without coordination or cooperation with the city, and without any acknowledgment or mitigation of its impacts. When something is imposed without redress, that breeds resentment. I would think, as a conservative, that you would appreciate that. So to keep denigrating people you disagree with (“throwing a bit of a tantrum”) is disrespectful of that core frustration they feel.
I hear it all the time when discussing growth issues: the university should build it. And I understand that viewpoint. We need the peripheral developments at Nishi and Mace Ranch as a pragmatic answer to current problems. But that doesn’t mean we have to like it, like the consequences those developments will bring in the way of traffic and housing demand. I consider these developments part of a realistic economic strategy that will also, I hope, include cost-cutting and possible revenue increases. But they do have adverse impacts that we can’t ignore. They’re a compromise.
I urge you to stop belittling people you disagree with. It’s tiresome and doesn’t serve the discussion. And if anyone needs to “start looking for another place to live that better suits their population tolerance” it’s probably someone who keep using Austin Texas as a model for what they might like to see Davis become.
Since at least the mid ’70s, the City has had a reputation for ignoring the needs of the University, especially those of the students. If the University has started to act in a unilateral fashion it is likely because the City clearly demonstrated that it wasn’t interested in being a good partner. The disconnect is the City’s fault, not the University’s.
I think this same attitude on the part of City residents shows up with the demand that student housing should be built on campus rather than in the City. There is nothing worse than the prospect of those pesky students mucking up our local politics after all.
From the mid-1970’s to the early 1990’s Davis added significant housing and rental stock. For a time, Davis was the fastest-growing city in Yolo County. Then that came to a screeching halt.
If the general goal is to have UC provide 40% of housing, and the city provide 60%, then for a time there the city was exceeding the goal. The university has never come close. So I agree with Eileen Samitz and others that the university obviously needs to step up on providing student housing. Where we disagree is that she and others seem to feel that no rental housing should be privately built until UCD steps up.
I think the city has fallen behind on doing its share of the bargain. UCD hasn’t fallen behind — it’s never been there. When the chancellor announced the 2020 Initiative, city leaders should have had one clear, unambiguous question for her and they should have repeated it over and over: where are they going to live?
That’s nice Don, but it really doesn’t address my point. The overwhelming approach that the City has taken with the University over time can best be described as ‘this is what we demand that you do.’ Eileen is just the latest example. We have always addressed issues in terms of what the University is going to do for us, not how can we work together. If I recall correctly, that ‘master of collaboration’ Sue Greenwald was our primary contact between the University and the City for much of the time she was on the CC. Do you really think that helped the relationship?
The University has responded in a rational manner to how the City has approached the relationship. Those calling on us to make new demands of the University are exacerbating the problem (and ignoring history).
“I think it is the fact that many people that want Davis to stay the same are just unlucky.”
It depends on what you mean by “stay the same”
The reality is that Davis isn’t the same as it was when I moved here now 20 year ago in 1996. It won’t be the same in ten years or twenty years from now.
That said, Davis is a similar community to what it was twenty years ago. It is a modest sized community, it has a small town feel, it has a solid downtown, and it’s a college town with good schools. Those are all qualities I would like to preserve. Within those confines, I’m fine with changes occurring. But I’m reluctant to see the town grow to 100,000 people. I think that would diminish the qualities that have led me to stay here even as someone who doesn’t own a home.
I’ve heard this from people over the years. It seems that 100,000 people is some sort of arbitrary psychological benchmark that people fear will adversely effect the quality of life here in Davis. I’ve always wondered why this centi-millenial number sends people into a flight or fright response but for some reason it does. Compared to other places in the world with mega cities measured in the tens of millions the resistance to 100,000 in Davis is simply too weird. Perhaps a little counseling for anthropophobia might help those of you that suffer from this fear.
Matt I think the huge loss of Wildhorse Ranch served as a deterrent to doing a Measure R vote in a special election.
I don’t know why it’s weird, we have plenty of large cities in this state and country. I have lived in Sacramento, Washington DC, and St. Louis. I don’t like the urban lifestyle and wanted to live in a smaller college town. It’s a matter of personal preference.
Being that 75% voted against Wildhorse Ranch are you saying the city should do whatever trickery they can come up with in order to try and push through development?
Misanthrop said . . . “Matt I think the huge loss of Wildhorse Ranch served as a deterrent to doing a Measure R vote in a special election.”
Fair enough. That still leaves both June and November, so moving it back from June would logically be 5 months to November rather than 12 months to the next June. Both those elections have the high voter turnout that a special election (other than Measure I) typically doesn’t have.
BP said . . . “Being that 75% voted against Wildhorse Ranch are you saying the city should do whatever trickery they can come up with in order to try and push through development?”
Choosing a general election date (June and November) vs. a special election date isn’t trickery. It is simply acknowledging that typically lower voter turnout means that the voice of the passionate voters is more dominant than in a higher voter turnout.
Many voters in the high turnout general elections are informed on the State and National issues/candidates, but often don’t take the time to be as informed about the other items on the ballot. They aren’t voting their passions as much as they are voting with their personal connections within the community.
Thanks, Frankly. I do attempt to be honest. I also think that endless development/growth will ultimately affect/reduce quality of life everywhere (not just in Davis). We’re already seeing some effects (e.g., global warming). I don’t think there’s anywhere I can move, to completely avoid some of the global consequences. I do think that all environmental problems are exacerbated by endless growth/development.
But again, I’m just one person. Seems like there’s lots of viewpoints on this forum. Even some of those who are generally slow-growth do not necessarily see things the same way I do. And, their point of view is also valid.