(From Press Releases)
In a recent editorial, the Sacramento Bee endorsed Yes on Measure A and the Nishi Gateway. The Bee’s editorial board urged voters to “approve Measure A, clearing way for desperately needed R&D space and housing.”
The Bee noted that the Nishi Gateway Innovation Park “will add research and development space for businesses and 650 units of desperately needed housing” and would “generate crucial revenue.”
You can read the full endorsement here.
The Sacramento Bee recognizes that Davis’s lack of sufficient and appropriate research and development space and scarcity of housing has prevented our city from reaching its full potential. In October 2015, UC Davis published an article reporting that the University had “enabled 13 startup companies in the last fiscal year.” However, only 4 of those companies reported by the University are currently based out of Davis.
With 325,000 square feet of research and development space, Nishi is specifically designed to convert the ideas hatched by creative minds at UC Davis into businesses that can thrive in the City of Davis.
With a vacancy rate of 0.3%, Davis has one of the most constricted rental housing markets in the nation, driving up rents for everyone. Nishi will provide 650 efficient multi-family units within walking distance of campus and downtown to address the city’s alarmingly low rental-vacancy rate.
Business Community Rallies in Support of Measure A
The campaign for Measure A is in high gear, and we’ve been overwhelmed by the support we’re receiving from the Davis business community. We’re proud to be endorsed by Davis’s two leading business organizations: the Davis Chamber of Commerce and Davis Downtown Business Association. They join more than 200 public endorsers in the business community who understand our community’s need for a new innovation park at the nexus of downtown and the campus..
Business leaders in Davis support Measure A, because it will create business opportunities and support the quality of life that defines Davis. Through the Nishi Gateway, Measure A would provide our city with 325,000 square feet of desperately needed research and development space to attract new small businesses, particularly businesses that spring out of the world-class research being conducted at UC Davis.
If the benefits behind Measure A sound like something you want to see in Davis, we ask that you let us know and like us on Facebook.
Last year, 13 new businesses were founded based on technology discovered at UC Davis, but nine had to leave our city because of insufficient R&D space. This shortage of lab space is robbing our community of jobs and revenue and leaving the next generation of entrepreneurs no choice but to look elsewhere.
By passing Measure A, Davis can create 1,500 jobs and bring almost $2 million to support city services and our schools. Between the residents and workers at Nishi, the downtown businesses a short walk away will see a surge in new customers and new opportunities to grow. The $385 million in annual economic activity that Measure A brings to Davis is dispersed throughout our city.
Again, if retaining small businesses and helping our economy grow is something you support, please let your friends know by liking us on Facebook.
Sometimes I think that the Vanguard excels in hyperbole yet this morning I am proven wrong.
“Desperately” x 2 in the brief excerpt from the Sac Bee
“Alarmingly ”
“Desperately”
When this kind of promotion is done, what seems desperate to me are the promoters and endorsers . I have not yet decided my vote on Nishi. But this kind of hyperbole is certainly not likely to sway me in the direction intended.
Tia wrote:
> When this kind of promotion is done, what seems desperate
> to me are the promoters and endorsers
When you own over a million dollars worth of real estate in town and your kids don’t actually need to look for a place to live it is easy to think we have “plenty” of places for everyone to live.
You should talk to someone looking for housing in Davis (or Don) and they will probably tell you that saying that more housing is “desparatly” needed in Davis is not a stretch.
Wow! Did you really go there? Calling someone out, speculating their being a millionaire (do you know people’s debts?) and landlord and speculating on their family situation. Again, why the anonymous should not be allowed to attack on a personal level those with the courage to state their names. That is vile! Absolutely vile!
[moderator]: It is a constant theme of South of Davis. I am going to ask the editorial board for guidance on this.
Alan:
I’m not “Calling someone out, speculating their being a millionaire” I am just pointing out that since Tia has posted to this blog dozens of times (both before and after she used her real name) that she owns two homes in Davis that “she owns more than a million dollars worth of real estate” (that is a fact that has nothing to do with anyone debt or net worth) . I didn’t hire a PI to “speculate” on anyone’s “family situation” I just repeating details that Tia continues to post about her family. Would it be “vile” if I posted that you are not a big fan of oil trains?
P.S. To Don, you are correct that “calling out hypocrisy” is a “constant theme of South of Davis” but since I’m on your side that we need more apartments (and even suggested that Tia talk with you) I surprised you deleted my post…
[moderator] I didn’t delete anything on this thread. Please refrain from posting personal information about other Vanguard commenters.
I don’t see anything wrong here. SoD is paying Tia a complement referring to her as a millionaire. She should be proud of her earnings and wealth assuming she has earned it.
It is certainly not “vile”.
[moderator] “Please refrain from posting personal information about other Vanguard commenters.”
While I agree that posting otherwise private information about a poster is off limits, repeating or citing information that a poster has voluntarily made public should be fair game, especially when that information is being used to demonstrate an inconsistency in one’s stated position.
This is rich given your hyperbolic tendencies for many other things.
For example, still looking for those poor Davis children with tooth decay that need fluoride.
This next school year I think Davis will actually get to a zero percent vacancy rate.
I know downtown retailers that have closed their business, or are thinking of closing their business because rents are going up and there are no alternative locations in town.
I think all these people certainly see the real estate problems in this town as being alarming and desperate. But then maybe in your world, the welfare of those people don’t matter.
Frankly said . . . “I know downtown retailers that have closed their business, or are thinking of closing their business because rents are going up and there are no alternative locations in town.”
Frankly, I suspect that increased rents is not the principal reason retail businesses are thinking of closing, or have already closed. I also suspect that the evaporation of retail demand in Davis is the real culprit.
There are two major reasons why retail demand is evaporating. The first is the internet. The second is the evolution of the demographics in Davis. Retail demand primarily comes from the 25-54 year-old census cohort, and that cohort is experiencing significant shrinkage. In 2000 25-54 year-olds made up 38.42% of the Davis population. In 2010 that proportion had shrunk to 32.96%. It is reasonable to believe that proportion is less than 30% in 2016.
“You should talk to someone looking for housing in Davis “
Interestingly enough, I have and there does not seem to be as much “desperation” out there as people claim. My son currently has a room empty in his house and despite the fact that it is in NorthStar and is offered for under market, 5 of 6 applicants just turned him down. It seems that they did not choose to live with 4 others in a 4 bedroom 3 bath house. Hmmm…… so much for “desperation”.
I would also state that you know nothing about the rental needs of my children both of whom had to find housing in Berkeley and now one in Sacramento. I am sure that Don will get around to the moderator function of asking you to not speculate about my family’s needs, but I think I will just make the request myself.
And once again, I am going to state that my current ownership has nothing to do with the way I view the growth issues of Davis. I felt exactly the same way when I myself was unable to rent an apartment or buy a house in Davis 30 years ago. I was a proponent of slow growth then, just as I am now. This is a life long preference, not something I just dreamed up after “I got mine” as you frequently imply.
Tia wrote:
> My son currently has a room empty in his house and despite
> the fact that it is in NorthStar and is offered for under market
What to let us know what you consider “under market” for a room in a North Davis Mini Dorm?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_dorm
P.S. I know Tia always tells us she does not care about money, but just about every Davis “Mini Dorm” with 5 unrelated people paying rent brings in FAR more rent per month than similar homes on the street rented to a couple with kids…
Tia wrote:
> my children both of whom had to find housing in Berkeley
Just last week you said “my qualified son was not accepted” to UC and was at Sac State. Was he commuting to Sacramento from Berkeley before moving to Davis?
> I myself was unable to rent an apartment or buy a house
> in Davis 30 years ago.
My sister was living in Davis 30 years ago and paying $150/month for her own room in an apartment (rooms in Davis mini dorms were even less per month back then).
Were you really “unable” to rent a place in Davis back then, when unlike today rents in Woodland, Dixon and West Sacramento was just slightly less expensive?
To Tia: I think this is a press release from the developer, not something written by David Greenwald or the Vanguard staff. If I am correct, then it is perfectly understandable that hyperbole might be used in an editorial like this. The article is intended to be persuasive. For some it will be persuasive, others like you, not so much. But if one tends towards slow or no growth, it isn’t apt to be persuasive…
South of Davis
“ I just repeating details that Tia continues to post about her family. “
This is not accurate. It is true that I have posted that I own two homes in Davis. I never commented on the value of these homes. You made up an amount that you thought that they must be worth, and when I stated that this was in error, you felt the need to prove to me how much they “must” be worth. Also, I had said nothing at all about my daughter’s living situation, but you implied that she lived in Davis.
You are not simple repeating what I have said. You are extrapolating from what I have said to build an argument which has nothing at all to do with my actual opinion, which I have clarified for you on numbers occasions and which you choose to ignore since it contradicts your own fabricated narrative which you clearly prefer.
As for moderator action, my vote is to let it be. Everyone can clearly see what SOD is choosing to do and I will respond, ignore or call it out, probably depending upon my mood. These comments say much more about SOD than they do about me.
Tia wrote:
> This is not accurate. It is true that I have posted that I own two homes
> in Davis. I never commented on the value of these homes.
You have posted (many times as both Tia and Medwoman) that you own a 4×3 home in Northstar and a smaller home in Old East Davis (as well as another home out of state). Even if you own the worst most run down 4×3 home in Northstar and the worst most run down small home in Old East Davis the combined value would be worth OVER $1 million if you sold them today.
> you felt the need to prove to me how much they “must” be worth
It is a FACT that a 4×3 home in Northstar and a smaller home in Old East Davis have a combined value over a million dollars. If you feel I am wrong you can post links to recent sales (According to Zillow there has not been a sale of a 4×3 home in Northstar under $789K in two years). I’m sure person posting as UCD STEM Faculty (and so many others who I know who can’t find a Davis home they can afford) would be happy if I was wrong.
> Also, I had said nothing at all about my daughter’s living situation, but
> you implied that she lived in Davis.
Where did I “imply” that your daughter lives in Davis (you have posted multiple times that she does not live in Davis)?
You don’t need to answer my questions, but it is hard to believe that something that is really “below market” in Davis has not rented and that you were “unable” to rent a place in Davis 30 years ago when the vacancy rate was higher and rents were much much lower…
OK… wasn’t 30 years ago, but I returned to Davis in Fall 1979 (36 years ago) and was looking for ANY rental (just wanted a roof over our heads, spouse was pregnant, and was not looking for a “room” [wasn’t thinking of the ‘no room at the inn’ thing])… the vacancy rate was 0.25%… found only 3, and two were restricted to “seniors”… the one we found had just become listed.
Within a year, found a fixer-upper to buy, and there weren’t many that we could afford, but it was a HUGE stretch for us. Due to the then-market conditions, renting was only slightly less than owning…
Main point… yes we were ‘desperate’ (accepting a job in Davis, coming from the Bay Area, not wanting to ‘camp’ along Putah Creek, or do the Motel Six thing), but the supply of units was ‘disparate’ to the demand. Both rental and ownership.
hpierce wrote:
> OK… wasn’t 30 years ago, but I returned to Davis in Fall 1979
> (36 years ago) and was looking for ANY rental
Do you remember the rents (or average home prices) in Davis back in ’79. I really do remember that my sister was paying $150/month for her room in a Davis back in ’84 since I was not only paying $125/month to rent a room but paying less for tuition than she was (I forget the exact tuition numbers from 32 years ago but I recall that three quarters at UCD was just over $1,000/year while two semesters at a CSU school was still under $1K/yr.).
This is what the Bee actually said in the endorsement:
Not exactly the ringing endorsement by the Bee that is implied in the article. I actually got an email advertisement over the weekend from the developers that used much of the exact same language. You should really make it clear to the readers,David, that this “press release” is really an advertorial written and submitted sent by the developer and and NOT at all the language used in the Sac Bee endorsement. This is otherwise misleading as to the source.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article70635242.html#storylink=cpy
You mean like the first words in the article: “(From Press Releases)” – that would seem to distance the Vanguard from any endorsement of the press release.
Look there’s a reason why the Vanguard on Saturday ripped apart the Bee editorial – it sucked, it had no depth to it, no insight, no nothing. The developer wants to push the positive agenda, if you disagree, it would seem a response is in order.
David:
There should have been a prominent disclaimer at the top of this article …. as to the ID of the poster/author.
It looks like it was posted by the DV, and the DV cannot take a political position like this.
I think the vast majority of readers understand that this is a news article and not an endorsement.
Three points.
1. The Vanguard is not precluded from taking a position on a ballot measure – we won’t, but we’re not precluded.
2. The lead paragraph: “(From Press Releases)”
3. “Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.”
So other than having a blinking light at the top, I’m not sure what else you would reasonably expect us to do. It’s not our fault that some people see the title and skip to the comment section.
I think you just pantsed 6 to 7 of the ‘Vanguard 10’.
What a lovely sight that would be.
Given the City’s gifting + $11.5 million of money earmarked for affordable housing to the Nishi developers, why should any of us vote to give them another dime? I’m not decided on the two tax measures, but I’m starting to lean NO to both.
Mike, There is no gifting of money to the developers. This is a falsehood, a lie that you are trying to perpetuate. There is no money being given to the developers by the City. It is a complete lie.
We are voting on whether we will rezone the Nishi property from ag to development. You oppose this because you oppose all development of any kind. I understand that.
Mike wrote:
> Given the City’s gifting + $11.5 million of money earmarked for affordable housing
Since “mixed-use” housing is not required to build (or pay for) “affordable housing” units why not go all out and say the city is “gifting $50 MILLION” since they are also not making the developers build a Day Care Center, Fire House, Grammar School and New City Hall on the site?
We’ve been over this at length, already. The developer has not submitted plans that would meet the definition of “vertical mixed use”. In fact, the developer has apparently indicated that he is planning to include residential uses within the commercial space, on the ground floor (e.g., laundry rooms, etc.), in direct violation of the ordinance. And, it appears that the city may not have adhered to legal processes, when they eliminated housing affordability requirements for this proposed development. These requirements are real, and amount to millions of dollars.
I’m not an attorney, but I’d say that this is a multi-million dollar “gift” to the developer.
Ron wrote:
> The developer has not submitted plans that would
> meet the definition of “vertical mixed use”.
You mean it does not meet YOUR definition of “mixed-use”
> the developer has apparently indicated that he is planning
> to include residential uses within the commercial space,
> on the ground floor
Just like the developer of EVERY mixed-use building ever built.
> I’m not an attorney
No one is surprised about this…
Nope. It has nothing to do with me (or one’s views regarding the desirability of the requirements):
18.05.020 Definitions.
Vertical mixed use development means mixed-use structures that vertically integrate residential dwelling units above the ground floor with UNRELATED non-residential uses on the ground floor, including office, restaurant, retail, and other nonresidential uses. For purposes of this article, vertical mixed use DOES NOT INCLUDE structures that vertically integrate uses ancillary to residential units, such as resident parking, laundry rooms, community rooms, or common space on the ground floor with the residential units above.”
(http://qcode.us/codes/davis/)
Here’s a link to the earlier communications, regarding this:
https://davisvanguard.org/2016/04/monday-morning-thoughts-nishi-vertical-mixed-use-project/
Ron posted the Davis definition of Vertical mixed use development:
> Vertical mixed use development means mixed-use structures that
> vertically integrate residential dwelling units above the ground floor
> with UNRELATED non-residential uses on the ground floor
This means you must have SOME use UNRELATED to the residential on the ground floor (note that despite what many have said the “definition” does not say “how much” UNRELATED space you need to have).
> For purposes of this article, vertical mixed use DOES NOT INCLUDE
> structures that vertically integrate uses ancillary to residential units,
> such as resident parking, laundry rooms…
This just makes it clear that just because a “resident” is not actually “residing” in a parking area or laundry room these “related” uses will not make a property mixed-use since they are not UNRELATED. A mixed-use property must have UNRELATED uses and DOES NOT INCLUDE properties that “just” have RELATED uses.
It is important to remember that there is not a single “mixed-use” building anywhere that has 100% UNRELATED space on the ground floor and it is silly that some people keep trying to say that the definition above requires 100% UNRELATED space (and that the residents, mail carrier and UPS guy need to use a helicopter and/or rope ladders to get to the apartments above the 100% UNRELATED office and retail on the ground floor)…
P.S. Don’t forget that the city likes “mixed-use” retail and office because in addition to the property tax and parcel taxes, they get extra income going forward from sales tax, gross receipts tax, and business license fees…
South of Davis:
Huh? Again, the ordinance discusses ground floor space in the structure, not the entire site. Not sure how staircases are handled. (I’ve seen apartments that have outside staircases.)
The developer apparently said that he would “obviously” include a laundry room, etc., on the ground floor (within the structure, in space that’s intended for commercial use). Such use is specifically prohibited by the ordinance. (The same ordinance that the developer is supposed to follow, to be relieved of affordability requirements.)
If you want to argue this further, go for it. The conversation is (once again) degenerating into nonsense. Not sure why you’re so invested in it. But, for those who care about affordable housing (or the unfairness/legality of eliminating it for this development), it is a big deal.
Also, having residential usage encroach on space intended for commercial development may affect the viability of the commercial enterprises that are intended to occupy the space.
Guess your read precludes live-work, as the office/commercial use is related to the ability of the resident to make a living…
No – I don’t see that, in the ordinance myself. The ordinance addresses designated use of the space. So, a person can live upstairs, and work downstairs.
Ron, Mike Harrington, and now you, have implied that the City is giving the developers money to build the project. This is a falsehood. It is a lie. There is no exchange of money. No check is being written.
What you are saying is that the City, in your estimation, should be giving the developer a bill to pay and, in not doing so, have twisted this around to say that this is a gift of real money.
The vote is on if we agree to change the zoning from ag to development.
Harrington has filed a lawsuit and the legality of the City’s agreement with the developer will now be decided by a judge in Woodland. That should not affect the vote on the rezoning.
I understand that there would indeed be an exchange of money (“in lieu of”), if the developers choose that route (instead of providing affordable units, directly).
The money (or units) are intended to provide affordable housing, not as a general source of funds for the city. In this case, the developers have been totally excused from these requirements, under questionable circumstances (to say the least). This is (both) a legal, and political issue. Concerns regarding Nishi involve more than “rezoning”.
Since you appear to be interested in this topic, I suggest that you read through all of the applicable codes regarding developer requirements for affordable housing. (http://qcode.us/codes/davis/).
Frankly
“SoD is paying Tia a complement referring to her as a millionaire. She should be proud of her earnings and wealth assuming she has earned it.”
Although I am no mind reader, so could be wrong, I highly doubt that SOD intended this as a compliment. I believe that it is far more likely that it was used to frame an idea of how I must think because of my monetary holdings. You will note that I did not say “worth” since I do not believe that the amount of money that a person has managed to accumulate in their lifetime bears any correspondence to their “worth” as a person regardless of the manner of that accumulation.
I am in no way “proud of my earnings”. I am proud of the knowledge, skills,& human understanding that I managed to acquire through hard work and am very proud of the way I have used these to help my patients, colleagues, residents and students through the years. I am proud of the programs I have started and my contribution to the development of a more fully integrated, collaborative, and patient centered practice. But proud of my money…..no.
Didn’t you just do the same thing with that statement? Positing how someone else ‘thinks’? Their motivations?
Touche’
hpierce
“Didn’t you just do the same thing with that statement?”
That is why I prefaced my comment with “I am no mind reader.” I fully acknowledge that I do not know what is in any other poster’s head. Thus the need to identify speculation for what it is rather than make declarative statements about what someone else is think or what they value.
Acknowledged… will claim a “senior moment”, for missing your caveat… had I seen it, ‘processed’ it, would not have commented… a wonderful week is wished for you and yours…
Frankly
“I think all these people certainly see the real estate problems in this town as being alarming and desperate. But then maybe in your world, the welfare of those people don’t matter.”
Or maybe I simply have a higher threshold for what is “alarming and desperate”. Alarming to me is when a fetal heart rate has been in the 50’s for two minutes and my Cesarean room is not yet set up.
Desparate is what a mother is when the baby has delivered and has not cried within its first minutes of life.
I see the real estate problems in town as just that. Problems that we need to be working on by considering the merits of each proposal rationally, not by being stampeded by the emotionally laden terms “alarming and desperate”. I actually think that it is interesting that you, who often claim to be “objective to a fault” are defending the use of hyperbole to affect people’s vote.
Ryan: it was real money that was given away. It’s for the RR tunnel crossing into the campus. That deal was pretty secret. It has been effectively acknowledged here on the DV by a senior politico on the CC.
I think the giveaway was actually far larger in value because the AHO requires land to the city for affordable housing. If you include the faux for sale units with the rental units (our case is doing that) the land calculation comes in around 20 acres. (I am roughing this right now.)
What you describe is all paper and part of an agreement. No real money is being spent out of general funds by the City. There is no gift of funds to the developer by the City. This is a falsehood.
A better example of a gift of City funds is the settlement that the City was forced to pay to get you to drop your lawsuit and the cost of legal fees to defend your repeated lawsuits. That is real money.