While there was vigorous discussion in yesterday’s article on the Hyatt House application, no one seemed to pick up the troublesome comment that emerged on the Change.org petition.
The first listing under the three main concerns was: “Significant increase in ‘strangers’ in and around our neighborhood (just because it’s a Hyatt doesn’t mean only good/well intentioned people stay there).”
While the petitioners never specified who those strangers were, there are racist, classist and potentially xenophobic implications within that sentence.
What is also interesting is that last night the petition was modified to have three other concerns listed: significant increase in foot and car traffic; it just doesn’t make sense to have a hotel here – that’s why it’s NOT zoned for a hotel; and a business running 24 hours 7 days per week in our back yard (literally in the back yards of many ALBANY homes).
There are legitimate reasons not to want a hotel in that location. The neighbors could certainly cite noise, property values, and fit in the area. But the appeal to base fears of “strangers” seems to take this to another place.
Unfortunately, the Change.org petition is not an isolated incident here.
On April 19, Jim Danzer, neighbor of the project, made a public comment at the Davis City Council meeting that struck a similar tone. He stated, “The city and past councils have already turned our community and that end of the town into our own Potterville with high density housing/low-income.”
He then described that he has had people shoot lasers into his property. He also talked about the possibility that there would be a bar in the hotel. “You will bring a transient population in to an already transient population, increasing traffic, noise pollution, sound pollution, light pollution,” he said. “It’s not conducive to our neighborhood. You’re putting a hotel which is an extended stay, which is not a high end at that, and you’re going to put it next to a gymnastics center which does not seem to behoove the sense of community that we all seek.”
“I don’t see where that community ties well to a children-oriented operation,” he added.
These are troubling remarks, particularly the reference to turning “our community and that end of the town into our own Potterville.” Pottersville is a term from the film It’s a Wonderful Life, and today it is used as slang to describe an area with a large number of drug addicts and people living on government assistance.
That likely references the presence of New Harmony, the low-income housing on the other side of Davis Diamonds. Mr. Danzer seems to be suggesting that the affordable housing project has debased the community and his neighborhood.
The stranger reference in the previous version of the Change.org petition would appear to be in a similar light.
Yesterday there were questions about the suitability of a hotel next to Davis Diamonds. As one person put it, “Let’s also not forget that this hotel is being built next to the Davis Diamonds gym, one of the premier kids facilities in Davis. I have questions as to the appropriateness of that placement and would like to hear what the owners and families from Davis Diamonds think of this.”
As someone whose daughter utilizes the facility quite a bit, I am not sure what the problem is. What is interesting is that Davis Diamonds supports putting the hotel there. Moreover, Davis Diamonds chose to move their facility next door to New Harmony.
These comments are troublesome. They seem to feed on our fear of people from outside the community, and some of it contains racial and classist overtones.
Where are these fears coming from? Again, I can understand concerns about traffic and noise, but “strangers”?
Dan Carson shared with the Vanguard his analysis of the fiscal impact of the Hyatt House, which he projects to generate around $700,000 per year in annual TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) for the city.
He notes, “I am advised by the applicants that the overall Davis hotel market is currently achieving 71% occupancy and an Average Daily Rate of $123 per room. If this average result occurred at the newly constructed Hyatt House, city TOT revenues would be about $460,000 annually, by my estimate.”
However, he writes, “However, the brand name, location, and amenities of the new hotel would give it an advantage within the Davis hotel marketplace over other hotel properties.”
He continues that “the existing Hyatt Place hotel on the UC Davis campus, which is generally comparable in size and proximity to downtown Davis to the proposed new Hyatt House hotel, is reportedly operating at 86% occupancy with a much higher Average Daily Rate of $162 per room. If this result occurred at a newly constructed Hyatt House, I estimate that city TOT revenues from that project could reach $730,000 annually.”
He cites PKF Consulting, the hotel industry experts retained by the Hyatt House project applicant, who projected last year that “the new hotel would eventually achieve 78% occupancy and an Average Daily Rate of $186 per room because of its high-quality construction, location near I-80, and brand affiliation. If that were the result, I estimate that city TOT revenues would be about $767,000 annually.”
The bottom line here is that not only will this project provide important benefits for the community in terms of tax revenue, but an average daily rate of $186 per night suggests this will be a high end hotel.
But, these facts aside, the rhetoric here and implication that a hotel would draw “strangers” or contribute to “Pottersville” is very troubling. This kind of classist appeal and denigration of the low-income residents at New Harmony is not befitting the progressive nature of our community.
From our perspective, we should have a rigorous debate over whether this is the appropriate location for a hotel. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to challenge our city council on that issue – but fear of strangers and the clientele of the hotel, and its proximity to Davis Diamonds, is not one of them.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David,
People do not like “the other”. I am curious about the reference to “a bar”. Typically, extended stay hotels do not have bars, so is there some specific reference to one in the application?
quielo wrote:
> Typically, extended stay hotels do not have bars
The truth does not matter for most people when they want to stop something so I predict it will be a “topless biker bar” by the end of the week (and we will hear that the building will deflect diesel smoke form I80 and the railroad tracks forcing it in the front door of Davis Diamonds harming the young girls that are lucky enough not to be kidnapped by one of the “drifters” staying in the hotel)…
The accusations in this comment and in the article in general are pretty far from the petition it self. I would encourage everyone to read and sign the petition.
https://www.change.org/p/davis-city-council-petition-to-deny-hyatt-house-s-re-zoning-request/share?after_sign_exp=default&just_signed=true
This is about a neighborhood adjacent to a property were a developer has asked for a significant zoning change that will allow for a long term extended stay hotel that will have a view to their back yards and windows.
And you are ignoring the fact that the petition has changed to remove some of the objectionable language.
Let’s be clear, the word you found to be so objectionable was stranger.
You keep trying to pin it down to one thing – it was the totality of the circumstances.
Here’s from an email we acquired from earlier in the year from another one of the leaders in this: “You, as mayor pro tem, Mayor Dan Wolk, as well as the entire City Council, owes it to the tax paying neighborhoods and voting citizens to protect our interests. The city has allowed two infill projects to pollute our neighborhood in recent years.”
Clearly that is a reference to New Harmony and he used the term – pollute.
From another email: “Our house is on Benbow Court, and I am deeply concerned for those on Albany, Braddock Court, Donovan, and the surrounding neighborhoods. I cannot speak for my neighbors, but their (your) voices should be heard. Weren’t the infill projects enough of an assault on our respective neighborhoods?”
You here he uses the term “assault” again in clear reference to New Harmony.
David wrote:
> Clearly that is a reference to New Harmony and
> he used the term – pollute.
Maybe he was talking about the new paint store that opened in South Davis that sells paint and other toxic fluids that can (actually) “pollute” the environment.
Unlike the paint store New Harmony is a good looking apartment(that at $500K+ per unit cost more for each UNIT than most people paid for their HOMES in the area).
David’s life will get a lot better if stops trying to pretend that everyone in town is a racist (and is using racist “code words”)…
The implication is pretty clear.
Thank you
I have no idea if there is or is not a bar. Is there a standard formula for extended stay hotels? Does it cross companies? Are there differences in quality of those hotels?
There are tremendous differences. At the low end you have SROs then you move up through no-brand hotels which generally cater to people who pay themselves. In the mid-range are the Extended Stay America places, which get a mixture of self pay and corporate pay. The high end (at $150+) is generally geared towards corporate pay. Bars are unusual in these places as people have their own supplies in their rooms and don’t need to be fed and watered every day. Rule of thumb is that as Length Of Stay (LOS) goes up amenities go down.
I am told there will be a wine bar with craft beers and appetizers on the north side of the building, away from the neighborhood.
Those types of bars are never a problem. They’re small and not a destination for partiers that aren’t staying at the hotel. But I’m sure to nimby’s will use it as another reason to deny the hotel.
Quielo is making an important point here. The new zoning will allow for a wide range of possible types of hotels on the property from the worst of SROs through the highest end of hotels. Given the mediocre location, the past history of a failed hotel on the same street, and the likely development and expansion of other Davis hotels in the near term, there is no reason to assume that this hotel will always be a Hyatt house with a wine bar. Not that how much money the patrons have alone make it more or less desirable.
Again, it is very reasonable for the adjacent neighborhood to question the zoning change that would allow for a SRO extended stay hotel.
“Given the mediocre location”
Grok: Are you an expert on hotels?
I ask that not to be flippant, but here is the PKF analysis of the site:
Also you mentioned the failed hotel, wasn’t that on a completely different part of the street, down much closer to the auto section?
The failed hotel is less than a mile away on the same street. If anything it had better proximity to freeway off ramps.
You site a very thin site survey done by the developers consultants. That is hardly compelling evidence that it is a good site. It is absolutely non-compelling from the neighborhood or City’s perspective.
We just stayed at an upscale $300/night hotel in Ventura County which caters mostly to business people. Each room had microwave and a good sized refridge/freezer.
Bar: Indeed there was a bar, lots of activity there and on the patio outside for smokers. The later it got, the heavier the smoke fumes wafting thru the surrounding area.
Strangers: We were especially warned to lock cars! I asked about cracking the windows open just a bit to cool the car in the summer heat. Staff said it was NOT advisable, too many strangers wander around the parking lot. And this was not a residential area.
Hotel guests came and went at all hours, as quietly as possible, but even with all this activity, strangers tampering with vehicles was considered a significant problem. If cars aren’t safe with guests and staff coming and going, and the lot well lit and visible night and day, how safe would children in the neighborhood be?
It’s not necessarily guests who are problematic, hotels draw undesirable locals.
“no one seemed to pick up the troublesome comment…”
Hi David, I did notice those words but some days there’s just not enough time to comment on every unusual / negative thing that people write. Some days it’s just necessary to focus really hard on the positive stuff out there and try very hard to block out the negative noise.
and, you do that so well, Delia, a true breath of fresh air…..
David wrote:
> While the petitioners never specified who those strangers
> were, there are racist, classist and potentially xenophobic
> implications within that sentence.
I wonder if David called his parents “racist” when they told him not to “talk to strangers” as a child…
Not exactly the same consideration.
David, It’s the same. Look at the “social justice activists” in East LA trying to shut down art galleries as they draw the dreaded White People, and worse, people who are educated! Can you imagine having educated people around? What a disaster for the community.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
“I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.”
Nobody likes “The Other”. Davis residents are considered undesirable by some communities.
That doesn’t really advance the conversation here. Your point is a given, but doesn’t address the comments by neighbors in Davis.
Interesting that David did not answer the question if he thought his parents were “racist” when talking about strangers (I’m trying to figure out if a typical SJW thought all people racist as kids or if it started later in life)…
SOD
Not David, but I do have a perspective on your question. I grew up in a town in which there were, at that time, no non whites amongst the 2000 inhabitants. I also grew up in a racist family. We were warned about not talking to strangers in my hometown, however, greeting anyone on the street was not forbidden as long as we were a distance away and my parents frequently stopped to speak to white “strangers”.
When we travelled and encountered people of other races, my mother would draw me in close, look straight ahead and keep moving. When spoken to by someone of another race, she was invariably polite, but said the minimum amount required and ended the conversation as quickly as possible. At home, the explanations provided were “they are not like us” although the difference was never specified. It was clear that she feared or disliked “the other”. Racism can certainly exist even when it is not overt, or shouted, or burned into one’s lawn.
Not helped by Game of Thrones referring the Grim Reaper as “The Stranger”
and many do…especially the upscale ones…and Hyatt is an upscale one…do the plans include a bar? who knows…even if they don’t include it now…they will….later when no-one is paying attention..
how do I know? look at every development ever in Davis.
Look at what developers do…
Look at the Safeway on Covell…and what those developers did to get their way and the Safeway on Cowell.
Look, research, don’t pay attention to any shills…do your own damn research…pay attention…jeez..
As has been amply demonstrated over the course of months, you don’t.
“Look at the Safeway on Covell…and what those developers did to get their way and the Safeway on Cowell.”
Ok, I’ll bite. What did the developers do to “get their way” regarding the Safeway on Covell ? Or if you are too busy to share your ideas of what happened could you at least point me to the documents that you believe demonstrate your point so that I can “do my own research” ?
Probably referring to the store-size limitation on grocery stores, and how the developer got around that in the Marketplace shopping center. They built the deli, Chinese food buffet, etc., down at the south end as separate stores with a separate entrance, then applied to have the wall removed and expand it so they were all part of the main store. It was basically the impetus for how the size of grocery stores in Davis was allowed to be bigger than the previous limit, and affected the plans for the Nugget on Covell. All part of the great ‘grocery wars’.
you are learning now Don….and yet, many didn’t even see that coming…I did ..and even wrote about it in the local rag at the time..
and remember, the liquor was to be restricted and so on.
first one had to check out separately as the “stores” were separate…hah..
Better not to bite. We are all just “supposed to know”.
Tia, your description of racism that’s not overt was very well written.
WTF cares about so much of this spin….71% occupancy rate….so what…just use airbnb so much cheaper…and won’t destroy that neighborhood…
PS> neighborhood refers to children, famiies and houses and those who live in them…not “hotels” >>.hotels do not make neighborhoods… they do not belong in neighborhoods – that is why they were not zoned for that location….and why and why and so much else….
Marina wrote:
> so what…just use airbnb so much cheaper…
It is cheaper because unlike hotels most AirBnB “hosts” don’t pay TOT tax (or income tax) on the money they make.
Does anyone know if even a single person has come down to city hall to pay TOT tax on the rooms they rent?
https://www.airbnb.com/s/Davis–CA?s_tag=v0GTehDh
actually, in many “smarter” towns they do….by smarter, I mean with smarter CC members, and city planning/building…not necessarily the IQs of those who run things..
but sometimes there is a correlation….
but, lately not in Davis…for some reason…
“71% occupancy rate….so what…just use airbnb so much cheaper…and won’t destroy that neighborhood…”
What do you suppose the availability of airbnb spots are in this neighborhood. What do you suppose the availability of airbnb spots are in all of Davis ? Are you really suggesting that this approach will meet the hotel needs of Davis ?
The 71% occupancy rate is what they project can generate about $700,000 in TOT revenue for the city.
Actually air bnb concepts and other disruptions in business are becoming more and more the norm, my friend.
Tia, can I add a friendly amendment to your questions? Specifically, I’d like to add the question “What do you suppose the reaction of the neighbors is when a neighborhood homeowner decides to make their residence part of airbnb?”
The other consideration for Airbnb is that to this point in time they are not building specifically for their use. Therefore every unit is one less for people to rent/own. I was surprised that there were 300 airbnb units listed in Davis. Now some may be seasonal but for a board that seems to be concerned about affordable housing the removal of even 150 units from the pool would seem concerning.
“just use airbnb …won’t destroy that neighborhood” That is just crazy! Truly Clueless.
Renting rooms inside the neighborhood will cause significantly more disruption than having an extended stay property adjacent to it assuming comparative scale. People in hundreds of communities are trying to get Airbnb out. that is like saying to people in the south “why not plant Kudzu, it’s very attractive”
My daughter recently stayed in an AirBnB on the coast where the neighbors had 3 big AirBnB protest signs on their front yard with arrows pointing next door. My daughter and her friends posed in front of the signs as a joke.
Here’s a photo of an AirBnB protest:
http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/h_51748392.jpg
love it BP….and the apple didn’t fall from that tree…hah hah….
People like it when someone knocks on the door at 11:30 and says “Is this 441 Palin Street? I’m looking for my room but the houses look the same and the street lights don’t seem to working very well”
PS> A “stranger” is a friend one has not met yet ……
and yet, that still doesn’t mean that I will ever support a “project” which is not in the general plan…and which doesn’t belong in a neighborhood…
why do we have a general plan… see my other responses on this and other threads…
Nothing is in the general plan at this point, so you are basically stating that you will support nothing until there is a new general plan.
Hold on a minute here, your loosing track of what is causing the problem here. The developer is requesting a zoning change that allows for a SRO extended stay hotel. There are other commercial uses of the property that are allowed without a zoning change. The neighborhood is protesting a significant zoning change. That is not at all an unreasonable thing to do.
It is not unreasonable to complain about the zoning change, the language is troubling to say the least.
The problem for the neighborhood is that many of the approved zoning uses will result in equivalent or worse impacts on the neighborhood. Office buildings, manufacturing facilities, light industrial uses will all bring “strangers” into the area, along with increases in road and foot traffic. The Hyatt hotel will come will come with a fence on the back property line which will severely limit the range of wandering hotel guests. Under the zoning code, the approved conditional uses are even worse – hazardous waste facility, fast good, gas station, even “sex-oriented businesses”.
So yes, the developer is asking for a zoning change, but in my view, a change that is actually better for the neighbors than what the property is zoned for. While this is fight is being waged over the zoning change, my guess is that if a 3 story office/manufacturing building, which conforms with code was being built, we’d see the neighbors out in force trying to stop the developer.
David, I think your reading a lot into the word stranger. Please suggest better language to describe large numbers of unknown out of town guests coming to the Rosecreek neighborhood.
Hi Adam Smith,
In speaking with the neighbors we posed the question about how they would feel about a 3 story office building which would fit w/in current zoning and the preference was that over a hotel.
The reasoning here is the an office building would not be a 24/7 operating business so it diminishes a lot of the concerns with the hotel, it’s also what we understood the zoning to be for when we bought our home.
The other point here is that an office or local business would be held accountable as a neighbor or community member as the occupants would pretty much the same day in and day out. As well as the owners of the respective companies being an entity that we would hope would be more invested in their community that just the bottom line.
As it pertains to the comment about “Sex oriented business” that is a false statement. I am not sure how the developer or others received that information, but in speaking with the city and the planning commision, as well as reading the current zoning, there is no indication that this is correct. I’m not placing fault here, I just want to mention that we looked into this for confirmation.
Rosecreek Resident the answer regarding where they got that information is pretty straightforward . . . they got it from the Municipal Code of the City of Davis where Article 40.19.020, the Permitted Uses of the INDUSTRIAL ADMINISTRATION AND RESEARCH (I-R) DISTRICT are listed (see http://qcode.us/codes/davis/view.php?topic=40-40_19-40_19_020&frames=on)
Someone, at some time in the past, made the determination that “Sex-oriented entertainment businesses, subject to the requirements of Section 40.26.410. (Ord. 296 § 19.2; Ord. 756 § 1; Ord. 1377 § 3; Ord. 1735 § 2)” are an allowed and legal use under the standard I-R zoning that governs 2750 Cowell Boulevard.
Marina, So you opposed Davis Diamonds?
really David…do you even understand wtf you are talking about? look at the zoning and tell me that there is nothing in the general plan..
Matt, will you please try to explain it to David…he doesn’t seem to get it yet….
or doesn’t want to get it …or something???.
Oh come on Marina I hope you are kinder than that. David knows wtf he’s talking about.
is the current plan “expired” and if so, when did it “expire” and if not, then it is still in effect.
PS. it still holds no matter what, unless the laws have changed….have they? when I wasn’t watching????
I have been kinda busy in recent years…..
Expire is different from out of date. Right now all planing is by general plan exception.
“Expire is different from out of date. Right now all planing is by general plan exception.”
I think that this is an excuse, not an explanation. I strongly believe that this “planning by exception” is a major part of the problem. I believe strongly that the existing general plan should be the rule until new rules are adopted with the acceptance of a new general plan. What we currently have is the supremacy of whomever can influence 3 members of the city council sufficiently to get their way. This is not a good process regardless of whether the developers or the oppositional parties prevail.
If no project outside the current general plan were to be approved, there would be a huge impetus to get a new general plan approved and we would at least have the chance to see if we could forge a consensus on what we want the future of our city to look like.
jeesh…even Dr. Will is now agreeing on something…huh????
That is quite a statement. No critical analysis of need, no consideration of impacts, no weighing of costs and benefits… Just a sort of Nietzschian “will to power” with the most powerful getting their way. Council, in this scenario, is merely a pliable entity shaped by the prevailing pressures of “influence” with little to no concern for the community and little or no capacity to think critically about the merits and costs of a project. There is no need for staff or the technical expertise of consultants analyzing various impacts. There is only influence.
Decision by exception is a problem but it will not be solved completely by a GP update. The exceptions merely point to the challenges of providing housing and revenue opportunities in a modern CA city where peripheral growth is constrained and infill is needed. If the exceptions are reasonable (and I would encourage anyone to point to a recent one that is a net negative to the city), then I don’t see a problem. However, exceptions do indicate a need for an update. With that I agree.
Robb,
All that exceptions indicate is a willingness for the City Council to make exceptions. The reasoning behind those exceptions could indicate the need for a general plan update, but the exceptions themselves do not.
Good zoning regulations are written in a way to allow for flexibility in the final usage of the site, with more emphasis on the outside form and style of the building than on the inside functions. What the exceptions indicate are poorly written or poorly designed zoning regulations.
“These comments are troublesome. They seem to feed on our fear of people from outside the community and some of it contains racial and classist overtones.
Where are these fears coming from? Again, I can understand concerns about traffic and noise, but “strangers”?
Here we have an example of what happens when communication is neither specific nor clear. When there is a void, it is inevitable that folks will fill it in with their own speculation about what it means. It may very well be that the authors of the petition had no racist, or classist, or xenophobic intent. But if that is the case, I would urge them to get ahead of this line of argument quickly with what their specific concerns are. I had asked for clarification of this point about “strangers” and the assumption that they might be dangerous as opposed to perfectly nice folks just needing a temporary place to stay. Perhaps none of these authors read the Vanguard, but if they do, the question still stands. What are your specific concerns ? If this,( strangers, inappropriate, Porterville) was just an unfortunate choice of words, just say so. If you have specific concerns ( such as concerns about a repeat of the episode at Ket Mo Ree or noise concerns from an entertainment spot) being specific might allow for mitigation. Remaining silent on this point only encourages speculation about the unreasonableness of your concerns.
And the Potterville reference?
From Wikipedia: “Bedford Falls is now named Pottersville and is filled with cocktail bars, casinos, and gentlemen’s clubs;”. So maybe a solution to our revenue problem?
David wrote:
> And the Potterville reference?
After reading the Vanguard for years it is clear that David thinks everyone is racist (even his liberal friends that are “subconsciously racist” and can’t stop “microagressions” around people of color) but I would be interested in hearing why a reference to “Pottersville” a town that I remember as being 100% white in the movie (and where I could not find even a single person of color using Google image search) is racist.
http://s222.photobucket.com/user/sarakryak/media/its_a_wonderful_life_1.jpg.html
But even more head scratching is the term David is attributing to the movie and the slang definition isn’t even Pottersville.
BP you keep ignoring the rest of the sentence: “The city and past councils have already turned our community and that end of the town into our own Potterville with high density housing/low-income.” Why do you ignore the context of the statement?
It is important to note that the Pottersville reference is not in the petition, nor any mention of New Harmony. You are painting the 150+ people who have signed the petition with a broad brush based on one persons comments at a city council meeting. You have zero evidence that that is a widely held opinion. that is a highly unfair tactic to take. It would be similar to claiming you are responsible for all of Frankly’s hateful talk about expelling people from Davis because it was stated on your blog.
And we always know how the Vanguard “will fill it in” when given a void, don’t we?
Potterville: “A town whose inhabitants are mainly comprised of druggies and people on disability.”
Not much void to fill here.
Here’s a different take on Pottersville –
All Hail Pottersville
Your point being? You’re arguing it’s not a pejorative based on a 15 year old article in Salon? Or am I missing your point?
David, actually the town’s name in the movie was Pottersville, not Potterville. So I’m not so sure that your slang definition comes from the movie.
Regardless, the term and definition are listed in the Urban Dictionary
Well you’re attributing the Potterville slang definition to Jim Danzer’s quote when he might have said Potter’s’ville which might have a whole different meaning.
Not if you look at the context of use of the word.
David –
I agree that the speaker was trying to use the term as a pejorative, but in my opinion, he failed, and only ended up sounding silly. Then again, I think anyone who whines to the City Council about a project that may one day be proposed sometime in the future, ends up sounding silly.
I don’t see it as a racist comment per se, but rather one directed at any sort of ‘outsider’ who might come to the neighborhood and force ‘change’ upon the residents. That is an attitude that is widely prevalent in the City, and quite common among some of your most avid posters here. We don’t want ‘those kind’ (whatever kind they may be) from coming here and impacting our ‘quality of life.’ It is a comment that is anti-change and anti-people (in general), not racist.
How so David, from the movie to me Pottersville means an area where there’s low income housing and people might be struggling to make ends meat. It doesn’t mean it’s about race, druggies or people with disabilities. Did you reach out to Jim Danzer for clarification of what he meant by his comment?
You are all spending a lot of time talking about the word Potterville – a word one commenter used at a city council meeting last April. That word, or even that idea does not appear in the petition.
https://www.change.org/p/davis-city-council-petition-to-deny-hyatt-house-s-re-zoning-request/
This is a side show and distracts from the actual issue. Developers are asking for a significant zoning change in the land adjacent to the Rosecreek neighborhood that will allow for SRO extended stay hotels – something very different than what is allowed under current zoning.
Good morning my friend,
Random order of concerns that drove me out:
High cost of housing
Personal legal woes
Fear of cops, and realization only time will heal that
Children both moved away
Hi Tia,
I’ll bite here as I’ve just been told of the Vanguard and live in Rosecreek as well as being close to the project.
First I want to counter the notion that any of the community responsible for the petition is racist, classist, or xenophobic. That is a 100% an incorrect notion as the majority of those spearheading this movement and educating our neighbors are from mixed racial and socio economic classes. So that point needs to be put to bed.
In regards to the use of the word strangers I can understand where it can be misleading, but perhaps I can shed some light as to why this is one of our primary concerns, but I will start by acknowledging the other comments re: new harmony.
One of the things we have been doing as we educate our neighbors is presenting unbiased information about the project to our neighbors to inform them of the planned hotel. What we are finding is that a majority of them did not even know the project existed, let alone was this far along.
In our discussion of the project I would say a great majority, while unhappy with the structural design of new harmony, have no issues with the tenants or the fact that it is low income. A lot of us have been more concerned that the new harmony development did not take a smart approach to incorporating our new neighbors into the adjacent community, but put them into a building that clearly sets them apart as different than the rest. Social studies will point out that this is not a good strategy for low incoming housing development.
To acknowledge the issues of the concept of “strangers” I think one has to look at the mix of our neighborhood. Recently we have seen a large influx of new or very young families with a high density of children under the age of 10, in conjunction with the older kids starting to age into and our of high school. So as a community of young families our top concerns lie with the proximity and privacy issues that the hotel creates. If everyone on this forum took a moment of time in the next few days to drive down Albany and look at the proposed hotel from our side vs. the Cowell side of the project they will see two breezeway entrances that allow traffic to enter and exit the greenbelt which immediately connect to the hotel. The hotel would be merely feet away as well as 100 yard away from a nearby park. Not to mention calling this portion of greenbelt anything more than a 10-20ft bike path is a stretch. The location and height of the hotel being set back far on the property line also allow immediate views into the 2 story homes across the street from the back of the hotel. Add to this the recent Tree health study that says a majority of the trees behind the project either need to be removed or greatly trimmed it decreases any privacy we would have had.
When it comes to “strangers” this is more aligned with the transient nature of a hotel. While this hotel has had claims that it will cater to the longer stay professors and business types, that is only a small majority of the rooms. That said, there is no guarantee of this “type” of clientele staying in these rooms or others. I would argue that the proponents of the hotel are using the same argument that our author is using here in regards to classism to explain what “type” of people are more likely to stay here. Either way it’s a moot point because the nature of a hotel is having guests that don’t have an investment in the adjacent community. Hotels don’t do background checks, don’t require occupants to register with Megan’s law, or have any understanding of guests background. Whereas housing, low income or not, office park and local business do. So having a business that runs 24/7 this close to a neighborhood increases the likelihood that an individual of any race, color, class, or profession, or wealth, can commit something of ill will.
So this ties back to the overall concern of proximity of this project and access to the neighborhood. If one is to look at other hotels outside of our city I believe there is a strong reason they are put with a larger buffer between single family homes.
I will leave with this note, I want to reiterate that as we have been educating our neighbors on this project we have been showing both side of concerns from financial impacts to neighbor concerns, to traffic, environmental studies, etc.. This isnt simply a case us the neighbors being nimbys as we understand the need for a hotel, we simply need to do a better job of planning where it is located.
Apologies for the long response, just a lot to cover here
Thanks for posting. It’s good to get a clear presentation of the neighbors’ concerns about this project.
This is clear and helpful. Here’s the quote that caught me though
A sincere question:
How could the neighbors not know about the project? From the previous post, it looks like the developers held 3 neighborhood meetings with “Invitations taped to neighbors’ front doors” for at least two of those meetings. I don’t mean this to sound combative, but how does one miss an invitation that is literally taped to your front door?
For the third meeting, it says that they mailed invitations to neighbors and posted about it on nextdoor.com. Let me add here that I don’t think they even needed to do that. I believe development projects are only required to notice neighbors within 500 feet of the project site. I can’t confirm if that is true or not, but I’m sure someone can on here. If it is true, to notice all of Rosecreek doesn’t seem to suggest that they were trying to get by with the minimum or keep the project a secret. They also put up a website with studies and project plans for anyone to look at.
The neighborhood might need to take some responsibility here. It doesn’t seem productive to ignore invitations and instead wait until the last minute to try and stop a project with mostly ridiculous arguments (though you have some interesting and insightful points above).
Maybe you have suggestions on what the developers could have done differently in terms of outreach. Maybe I’m missing something?
Davis Resident,
While the hotel did the minimum required outreach, and even did increase their radius to I believe 150 of the hotel, the message did not reach a majority of those that would be impacted. It was simply a slow process in regards to those that knew of the development and project reaching out to their neighbors. It simply took time.
I don’t think the issues are with simply ignoring the invite, I just don’t think enough people had enough lead time, knowledge of the 3rd meeting with extended reach to the neighbors, or usage of nextdoor.
That said, I think the concerns coming from a lot of the homes are valid concerns and need to be digested by city council.
While my response above limits the conversation to the proximity and privacy issues, i want to mention that there are many added concerns that cover traffic, lights, noise, height of the hotel, long term ownership and responsibility of the property, and a few others.
Hoping this helps shed some more light.
There actually is no required ‘minimum outreach’ for projects such as this. The developers went beyond what was required of them when they held their first meeting with the neighbors. As indicated by ‘Mr. Bill’ yesterday, they responded to the feedback they received and altered the project design. There is some personal responsibility involved here on the part of the neighbors. If you ignore the notices that you receive then the fault lies with you. Some here act as if the developer should have sent out engraved invitations, hired a limo service for residents, and served a multi-course meal to entice people to come. If you were genuinely concerned about neighborhood outreach, you would have attended one of the meetings or contacted the developers through the various means they put in place. Show some integrity.
Mark, the fact that only 1 and 2 people attended the first 2 meetings is enough to know the outreach was not effective. It would have been in the developers interest to do better outreach and get more input from the neighborhood earlier. Now they have a ticked of neighbor group that is openly opposing their project.
No, it is an indication that most of the neighbors really didn’t care about the issue until someone came along and ginned up opposition using untrue statements, fear mongering and distortions.
I expect that the developers have received considerable input from neighbors who were interested, and as Bill indicated yesterday, they changed the project in response to that input. If you fail to respond to the outreach, it is your own damn fault. If you are unfamiliar, it is a concept known as ‘personal responsibility.’
Mark, that may be a convenient explanation to support your point of view, but you offer no evidence to prove it.
Your accusation that opposition to this project is ginned up is down right insulting to the residents of Rosecreek. They have clearly put a lot of thought and effort into their well reasoned opposition and there are clearly several people involved.
Bill provided the evidence yesterday. Apparently, you have a short memory.
If I have insulted the residents of Rosecreek, they are welcome to call me and tell me so. My number is published. My insult was directed at ‘two’ anonymous posters, Rosecreek Resident and you. The two of you have repeatedly posted the same disengenuous BS, that is in fact so similar in nature that it would not surprise me to learn that you were one and the same.
So far I have heard two legitimate concerns about the project, which are most likely the same concerns that the developers heard through their outreach. Those are the issues of sightlines into the yards and windows of the immediate neighbors to the south, and the potential increase in traffic. The first only impacts 8-12 homes and will be easily mitigated. The second is unlikely to be significantly different than the expected traffic from a similar sized commercial operation that fits with the current zoning. The difference derived from the proposed zoning change is unlikely to be significant.
You mean like the 7-11 near my house? Neither the store nor its clientele, have negatively impacted my safety or that of my kids in the five-plus decades that I have lived near it. You really believe that a $150+ per night hotel will create more problems?
Uh huh. In other words, the hotel is a great idea, just not in your backyard.
The 7-11 is a business that doesn’t have the ability to look into your home or backyard by its customers. So I do feel it is a tough comparison. We also are revisiting the notion that the price per room is reflective of the clientele. That’s like saying rich people don’t do bad things.
The other point is that when you purchased your home the location of the 7-11 was either already zoned for it, or you knew it was there. Thats not the case with this location. The developer is asking for a rezoning of this parcel of land to allow a special use.
The hotel is a good idea, but there are locations in town that better serve a hotel with out immediate neighborhood impacts. The only reason this site is being considered is because the parcel of land was cheap enough be bought and developed in a short time.
I do want to point out that there are ways to fix some of your concerns without denying the project.
For example, “doesn’t have the ability to look into your home or backyard by its customers.” That’s what setbacks, trees, greenbelts and other mitigation measures are for.
I also want to address this point which again, I consider concerning: “That’s like saying rich people don’t do bad things.” If that is your position than anything that brings people into the area is a problem. What are you going to do – build a moat around your home? I don’t see why the hotel is a risky proposition in this respect.
That is a uncharacteristically disingenuous argument. it completely fails to keep in perspective that the neighborhood is objecting to a zoning change that will likely bring 100s more people into their neighborhood for extended periods of time, 24 hours a day 7 days a week. That is very different than objecting to just having more people in the neighborhood in a use of the property as it is currently zoned.
I’m addressing a specific point not the totality of their argument
Nope, it opened after I moved in. The original hours were from 7am – 11pm and changed to 24/7 years later. The quiet little church on the same block changed ownership a few years back, with a significant increase in the size of the congregation, creating new and unexpected parking and traffic problems. So what? The world changes in unpredictable ways.
Your entire argument comes down to a fear that outsiders and unpredictable changes in the future might combine to create problems for your neighborhood and potential danger for your kids. Welcome to the real world. You are just as likely to have a neighbor create those issues as someone spending the night in a hotel nearby.
The site is zoned for commercial operations, many of which would likely be more deleterious to your neighborhood as was pointed out by others. There are limited options for available commercial properties in town, due to our refusal to expand, so there are likely many reasons beyond price involved in why this site was selected.
Rosecreek Resident
Thank you for taking the time of such a thoughtful post. If everyone laid out their concerns in such a thoughtful and non judgmental manner, I think many of our conversations would be much less contentious.
airbnb is here to stay….. a way better model than hotels with bars and brothels…
extended stay brings in brothels…those men need to get some relief when they are away from home for some nights in a row…
or so I hear…about too many men…
This is off topic.
David, you brought up Pottersville and it seems that bars and brothels are relevant to that discussion. I would note that I understand a brothel to be a facility dedicated to or primarily in the business of, prostitution. Therefore a hotel is not a brothel unless it’s primary business is prostitution.
quielo wrote:
> Therefore a hotel is not a brothel unless it’s
> primary business is prostitution.
Since Safeway made changes after it opened maybe people are worried that the “wine bar” for visiting professors may turn in to something like this:
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1605290.1391751270!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/tsdsopr-ho009.jpg
the whores are not so likely to hang around an airbnb family home where there are children in the homes, and the parents are there to watch and make sure of that….
Reference http://nypost.com/2014/04/14/hookers-using-airbnb-to-use-apartments-for-sex-sessions/
Just stop.
As far as Airbnb goes you might be surprised how many are in Davis, over 300 when I searched. I am an Airbnb host for our Mendocino vacation rental and we have a business license and pay 11% TOT to the county monthly but I would imagine there are many hosts who don’t, most likely those who rent single rooms rather than entire residence.
Interestingly, I received a call from Airbnb a couple wks ago inviting me to a ‘host get together’ in Davis the end of Aug. probably because my residence is here. I believe they are organizing Davis hosts because there has been talk of trying to limit Airbnb here or at least ensure TOT.
It is an interesting concept like Uber, providing a very intuitive platform for individuals to bypass normal commerce. But a busy room rental Airbnb in a residential neighborhood could be negative for the neighbors.
I believe all BnB’s should have to pay the TOT.
Agree and with over 300 airbnbs in Davis I would imagine there is a way to determine if they are, but in our case it is on the honor system. Am sure if Mendocino county audited us (because we have a business license) I would need to show how I calculated the TOT and they could go back to Airbnb and VRBO records but for hosts who rent privately outside the internet sites not sure other than honesty and fairness!
I agree. Its unfair to every hotel who pays the ToT. That seems like a pretty straightforward revenue source.
PS> I love air bnb and had the idea when we finally move to our country property, that some of the bedrooms could be used in that way also… of course, would only do that if a family member continues to live in one of the rooms, and makes sure there are no issues…wouldn’t want my neighbors to be adversely affected….
that is the traditional bnb concept….and providing a nice breakfast for nice guests… hospitality and service…not to mention that one can recoup way more in that manner, than renting to some perhaps destructive frat guys….or other stereotypes..
no hassles with “moving in or out”…
of course, you are renting out your mendocino place on airbnb…what about those neighbors? or is that different?
PS. and I still voted to increase the TOT and if we do rent on airbnb have full intention of getting the TOT and forwarding to the city….because the city coffers need help and it is the correct thing to do…
Marina why are you criticizing me? It is rural and no FT neighbors.
Think “Aesop’s” [except, attributed to the 1950’s] ‘fable’ of the frog and the scorpion…
Hello Marina, Is your fear really about male and or female prostitution or something else? Just trying to wrap my mind around your words no sarcasm here, honest.
At your own risk . . .
As a south Davis resident (SODA) who takes Cowell routinely, I would think the lack of nearby eating and walking and traffic are issues more germane. The addition of Davis Diamonds and New Harmony have not proven as negative traffic-wise as I thought they would but left turns exiting these two are problematic and in the case of NH illegal. Cowell is 40 mph and curvy.
and, yes, and yes, and that is one of the other reasons I posted the same on this topic earlier…
unless there are real kitchenettes where one can make a meal (not a microwave) easy walking to food places will be important…
I don’t fear any of that…I don’t like neighborhoods being affected by stupid developer run decisions.
also, I don’t have anything about the victimless crimes of prostitution either.
of course, the only place in Davis that I am aware has had such “problems” is the Motel 6…see the other posts.
typically that is also where the drug dealers and pimps also hang out…some are also gang members….lotsa rage when a guy is sleeping around also…..
wives may come around with their guns…or the husbands …you know…..that kinda thing..
it doesn’t belong next door to a real neighborhood…of course, if it is already there, and someone moves in that is different…
also, I wasn’t even aware of the reconfiguration of the A line to accommodate better the new harmony and the overloading of the original line P/Q lines and so on…
I had to stop taking the bus when I had some health issues arise….
So, Marina… you have had problems with the house you’ve lived in for years, created by a ‘greedy developer’? In an area that wasn’t even annexed to the city until about the time when it was built? Interesting… perhaps it should be plowed over/under… no compensation… would just be the right thing to do…
But of course, your ‘stuff’ smells not… your house was built on “prime ag”…
First of all, I have no respect for persons who try to make “change” with an on-line petition. Lame, and it shows.
Second, the whole “stranger” thing was just weird. They are sinking their own ship with rhetoric like that.
Third, the wink, wink implications of “extended stay” and “gym used by children” was so freaking weird and stretched. I had to re-read it several times to garner that what they were implying was that child molesters would of course sign up to be in rooms for extended periods to watch children come and go from a nearby gym and possibly snatch them up. What kind of mind even puts those dots together?
I see this opposition as a self-defeating sinking ship that will result in a hotel from isolating themselves from any community sympathy or potential support, due to weird thinking.
Allan wrote:
> What kind of mind even puts those dots together?
The same kind of mind that tries to stop development by saying that student apartments that won’t have any kids are in an area with “toxic” air that is dangerous for kids…
I was thinking the same thing.
I learned something about Davis in the Measure A failure. It is a bigger city of fools than I thought. They actually bought that crap from Roberta edited
And they also bought the crap about the poor Redrum Burger being victimized.
I think Rosecreek understands how the opposition to development wins this game. Just put out hyperbole and disingenuous “facts” that cause some emotional reaction in the population of voting fools.
By the way, did you know that any hotel over 2 stories high causes cancer AND global warming?
[moderator] edited. No personal attacks.
Hyperbolic arguments are hardly exclusive to Davis. For example, last week I was in a meeting with Assembly member Ken Cooley, where he told me that he couldnt support overtime for farm workers, because it would contribute more to climate change.
As far as the Nishi project goes, I feel there was a coalition of voters built by the no campaign. Social justice types, students, anti developers and environmentalists. There’s a lot of overlap there, but it just shows how it went. With that said, I think a good chunk of that coalition would support a Hyatt hotel, myself included.
Alan, this is why there is no hope for any meaningful economic or housing development in Davis. When there is no argument to offer, other than we shouldn’t have to be inconvenienced by anyone elses’ needs, the fear mongering begins.
“The truth does not matter for most people when they want to stop something so I predict it will be a ‘topless biker bar’ by the end of the week (and we will hear that the building will deflect diesel smoke form I80 and the railroad tracks forcing it in the front door of Davis Diamonds harming the young girls that are lucky enough not to be kidnapped by one of the “drifters” staying in the hotel)…'”
Roflmao. So true.
Biddin,
I encourage you to take a look at the parcel of property that is being considered for this project more so than simply passing by it in your car if you havent had the opportunity. I think you will get a sense of the privacy and proximity concerns of having a 4 story, 120 room hotel this close to single family, single story homes. Its not simply issue of fear, it’s an issue of what type of structure would best integrate with the neighboring community, as well as what type of business can impact in either a positive or negative way its neighbors. There are more concerns here including traffic, lights, noise, specifically a pool located on the back side of the hotel, 24/7 parking noise, etc…
David’s response below covers me pretty well.
” I have a lot of problems with the language regarding strangers, Potterville and the implication that the New Harmony residents are unwanted intruders and the hotel would be more of the same.”
I stand by my previous remarks.
Rosecreek Resident said . . . “a sense of the privacy and proximity concerns of having a 4 story, 120 room hotel this close to single family, single story homes.”
Are you saying that the existing I-R zoning, which specifically allows a 50-foot building height is inappropriate for the site?
Hi Alan,
While we have an online petition we have also been going door to door getting physical signatures. While I understand your objection to an online petition, it’s also the easiest way to get the word out about a project or concerns. Given that a majority of the residents are working parents, leveraging technology to help do some heavy lifting one would think is beneficial to help make a community’s voices heard.
Do you have some advice on what we could do better than to use the working or strangers or transient occupancy?
To answer your questions about what kind of minds put dots together in regards to safety I would say that parents with young children have a duty to look at all aspects of an issues if it could potentially effect the safety of our children.
As a parent of three young kids, several of whom go to Davis Diamonds, I’m really quite appalled by some of the language choices used in the petition. I have no problem with objections to a hotel there, I have a lot of problems with the language regarding strangers, Potterville and the implication that the New Harmony residents are unwanted intruders and the hotel would be more of the same.
David, this post reads as though you posted it before reading Rosecreek Resident’s longer post explaining the neighborhood perspective and putting to bed your accusations. You are reading a lot into the word stranger that is clearly not intended. Perhaps you would like to suggest better language?
I read it fully. It didn’t put to bed my concerns, but I suggested an alternative approach which focuses on neighborhood impacts and incompatible uses.
Can you provide some recommendations on how you would consider wording it? It would be helpful to hear others thoughts so we can refine the message.
Sure:
I would say, we are concerned that changing the zoning will create additional noise and traffic issues and is incompatible with a residential neighborhood. You could also add that there are in your opinion better locations for the hotel that would be closer to campus and other locations. Something like that. The council is going to listen to your concerns – that doesn’t mean they will ultimately agree, but they’ll listen.
Rosecreeker,
I don’t have the same objections that DG has. I am not so much appalled as amused. You asked for adivce. What I don’t think your collective neighborhood sees is how hyperbole is hurting your cause. Stick to the simple and real issues and reign in your outliers who are making the more hyperbolic statements. You will not win by throwing mud at the wall. You need the support of the community as a whole, and you won’t get it with these arguments many will laugh at. Step back and look at this objectively.
No where in the change.org petition is there or has there been any mention of new harnomney. I know for a fact the petitioners have put signs up there as well to alert them of the proposed zoning change.
I don’t understand where you got the idea that the petitioners have anything to do with the man who spoke at the city council meeting in April. No one involved the the change.org has ever said anything about any low income property or people.
I believe that continuing to build non residential structures around low income housing is very dementral to their inclusion in our neighborhood. This hotel will not bring new harnomney closer with the neighborhood. It will continue to wall them off.
A business that all neighbors could use would be the best to bring us all together more often.
I do appreciate the suggestions and have taken those suggestions and have changed the petition. We did not intend to express anything other than our concern with the rezoning.
Sincerely
rosecreek
The reference to New Harmony is implicit in the public comments of Mr. Danzer back in April. I don’t know who the petitioners are, but Mr. Danzer is resident of that neighborhood.
In short you admit that the accusations you are making about Potterville and New Harmony are based on one persons public comments at a city council meeting and have nothing to do with the neighborhood petition it self.
https://www.change.org/p/davis-city-council-petition-to-deny-hyatt-house-s-re-zoning-request?recruiter=585902393&utm_source=petitions_show_components_action_panel_wrapper&utm_medium=copylink&recuruit_context=copylink_long
And the stranger quote that has since been removed.
So your accusations hinge on a single statement last April by a single person who is unaffiliated with the petition and the previous ambiguous use of the word stranger, a word that does not currently appear in the petition.
The line in the Change.org petition as it appeared yesterday caught my attention and made me recall the comments from April. While it is clear that they have toned down the rhetoric (and rightly so), even today, they are concerned that a high scale hotel is likely to draw stranger, crime, and disreputable behavior. Nothing that has been said here today has alleviated the concern I have about what is driving this opposition.
It is your prerogative David to base your opinion on however little information you want, but it is irresponsible for you to continue to smear the good people of the Rosecreek neighborhood.
Rosecreek Resident, when you say, “That parents with young children have a duty to look at all aspects of an issues if it could potentially effect the safety of our children” how does that duty intersect with the existing zoning of the parcel described in the City’s Municipal Code as:
With the following Permitted Uses:
Alan… as much as I dislike to disagree with you when you are 90%+ right, the thinking is not “weird”… it is “seriously twisted”… hope that comment doesn’t alienate us…
The occupancy rates projected in the article are extremely optimistic. It is comparing the proposed frontage road hotel to hotels in the downtown and on campus. there are clear differences that would suggest the proposed hotel will be less desirable. Further, in an economic downturn, this proposed hotel will likely be among the worst hit in town. With that consideration, it is easy to see how this hotel could easily become a less desirable brand or non brand and the zoning would even allow for a bottom of the market SRO.
Grok wrote:
> it is easy to see how this hotel could easily become a less
> desirable brand or non brand and the zoning would even
> allow for a bottom of the market SRO.
How long do you think it will be before they lose the Hyatt flag and start renting rooms by the hour to the homeless and other “strangers”?
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/2d4b06ecb12748a2885b32e9b32aee65/run-down-hotel-facade-fjm6tx.jpg
Looks like my favorite chain to stay in, when touring. “Rooms.”
I’m sure that’s exactly the style the Hyatt is promoting, too.
roflmao.
You raise valid points, many of which I share… particularly the occupancy rate [which I actually feel the applicant is in a better position to judge than I]… this will not be an attraction for Picnic Day/Graduation Day parents (unless they are ‘well-heeled’), nor out-of town “partiers”.
Your last sentence, I have not investigated… given what happened to the Tennis Court Motel (sw corner, Chiles @Ensenada) in the 80’s, it is a valid concern… last I heard (late 90’s), the site was being considered for affordable/transitional housing, but do not know its current status. In ’78 actually stayed there, with my ‘entourage’, the night before my wedding… at that time, it was “nice”, but relatively inexpensive.
I would expect it to be one of the first places to fill up during those events. People coming to graduation, in particular, often stay multiple days and the kitchen facilities provide an opportunity to reduce the total cost of the visit (fewer meals out). It will also be attractive for parents of youth sports players coming to town for tournaments such as those hosted at the Legacy Soccer facility or at Playfields (just down the street) or competitions hosted at the Davis Diamonds facility next door.
Yes, but they would be “well-heeled”… my point stands…
For most extended stay hotels visibility is not important. They have contracts with institutions like UCD and UCD arranges for visitors to stay there. Presumably they have some reason to believe they can get sufficient long term business and fill out the vacancies with individuals travelers. On the other hand, given some of the allegations on this thread, it may all be a front for sex trafficking.
Let’s see:
“24/7 parking noise”… yeah… that happens a lot
Bordellos, prostitution, drug dealing, violence… yeah… that happens a lot… Hallmark Inn, Holiday in Express, etc. throughout town, it’s rampant!
Threats to the safety, particularly sexual predators, where a gymnastics facility is in proximity… ABSOLUTELY! Why can’t everyone see that clear and present danger?
Wild parties, polluting the quiet of the adjacent neighborhoods… EXACTLY! Better to have a Frat house next door than an extended stay hotel @ over $150/day!
Traffic… additional cars on a minor arterial with a left turn lane, with ADT’s existing (pretty light, even @ peak commute hours), and the fact that peak hour traffic for the proposed use is unlikely to coincide with regular peak hours… obvious Armeggedon!
“Strangers”? Can’t think of anything “stranger” than some of the arguments in these posts.
The one thing I question, is how viable the use would be at that location… the thing that favors its viability is the target market… extended stay, vs. “we need to get off the road and find a place to sleep”. The distance to DT, campus, etc. is a tad marginal, but with a bike/ped path immediately adjacent, bike lanes on the frontage, Unitrans directly serving on its W line (not A-line, as a known error-prone poster has said) P-Q line within a quarter-mile or less, I see no fatal flaws with the proposal.
Just waiting for someone to bring up the “how many children must die (or be molested)” ‘argument’.
I think that has already happened.
These homeowners bought their homes knowing that the land directly behind was zoned commercial. I don’t think their fears are warranted. I don’t think that a manufacturing business or research lab that is busy 24 hours is any safer than a hotel with onsite staff. The nightly rate should keep any criminal element at bay. There might be benefits. A wine/craft beer location in walking distance. If the hotel has a pool, neighbors could work with the hotel to have access – a swim pass. A nice nearby place for family to stay. I’m sure there are more positives.
Your loosing site of the fact the developer is requesting a zoning change to allow for a hotel.
LOL. Talk about lacking site (you mean sight?)
Let’s try this then… considering what the current zoning is, what types of commercial use for the property would you support.
(key the music to Jeopardy while we wait for your answer)
yes sight.
It is really not up to me to make a list of appropriate uses. I neither live in the neighborhood nor own the land. I am merely supporting the point of view of the people who live there. If you read the posts on this blog you can see that someone who lives in the Rosecreek neighborhood is suggesting they would support an office building. I am sure there are other uses consistent with current zoning that they would welcome too.
Hi Frankly,
Thanks for posing this question as I feel it is a valid one. Some of the things that the neighbors see as alternatives, that I have spoken to, are tech centers, well designed office buildings, duplexes or single dwelling senior living facilitates, additional homes, local business including restaurants which south davis is short on. It’s more inline with owners that have investment in the local community
You do realize I hope that the primary developers of this proposed project are members of the local community, at least one of whom lives in your neighborhood.
Rosecreek… “cry me a river”… South Davis short of restaurants? Try East Davis/East Davis-Mace, east of Pole Line from north city limits to UPRR, and east to Mace. Or, Davis west of 113… or Davis east of Sycamore, north of East Eighth to City limits…
South Davis had a Denny’s, an Abes, and didn’t support them. Caffe Italia decided not to proceed @ the Denny’s/Abes site…
Not buying your angst….
Rosecreek:
Thanks for this.
I was thinking back to the time when developer Elmer McNice pulled a fast one and get a design change approved for the lots adjacent to where we had just moved to in a new housing development. We had just put in a backyard pool only to discover that we would have 3 story apartments and a 3 story senior center 15′ from the property line with balconies perfectly situated for entertainment looking into out backyard. The approved plans had 30 ft set backs and 2-story buildings. All the neighbors went to the city to fight it and it ended up 25′ and two stories in the back, and three stories beginning the next layer… with large specimen-sized trees planted for view mitgants.
The point I am making here is that it was/is reasonable to work with the city and the developer to negotiate impact mitigation, but nobody in our neighborhood group would have considered telling the landowner what type of use we would accept (assuming use within a reasonable connection to the zoning that existed when we purchased). But even then understanding that buying next to any empty lot includes the risk that it will be developed in the future and also the risk that it will be rezoned.
From my perspective, some of the things you mention that you consider acceptable are non-starters due to their lack of economic viability (the project would not pencil out). Others are not materially different in impacts that the use proposed. I think you and anyone else having a problem with this would earn credibility talking about how you would like to see the impacts mitigated rather than trying to dictate what use you would accept.
Frankly
“considering what the current zoning is, what types of commercial use for the property would you support.”
Please bear in mind that I am only answering your question, not taking sides and only presenting one possibility. I would see a work out location such as a gym or yoga studio very appropriate given the proximity to Davis Diamonds. The parents and kids could all be working out at the same time.
You are losing sight of the fact that many of the land uses shown in the GP (focus on the word “general”), and the South Davis Specific Plan [which no-one seems to cite or even be aware of], were drawn up by City staff, the public, and CC without consent (necessarily) of the then-owners.
Do folk understand the concept of a “taking”? See interpretations of the Fifth amendment in zoning/development law… requires due process and rights of appeal… a request for a zoning change is protected. The granting of such a request is NOT a protected right… BUT, if a property owner can demonstrate, judicially, that there are unreasonable restrictions placed on their property, impeding reasonable economic use, they may claim a “taking”, and seek compensation for that. Don’t think that applies, yet, in this circumstance…
Yet there are those of folk currently very actively posting, who seem convinced that “the people” can tell property owners what they can do with their property. Or, “can’t do”… they should be prepared, to match their convictions with having the public acquire the land, at then then current market value. And, they should be honest about that, and be willing to convince the community that is a reasonable burden to finance.
Again, if a property owner has “accepted” a land use, they are not ‘entitled’ to enhance the approved use. They ARE entitled to seek to change to such use. If such request is unreasonably withheld, they are entitled to pursue administrative remedies, and perhaps judicial, IF there is cause to find that the zoning, etc. precludes reasonable use of the property. A somewhat high bar, as it should be, but one that if cleared, will require the agency to acquiesce, or compensate the landowner. That, as I understand it, is the LAW!
Thanks HP. I think that is a well focused and informative comment.
I would argue that the Rosecreek neighbors are showing reasonable reasons to withhold the zoning change.
Well done.
It is interesting how Davis residents seem to think that all private owned land in and around their fair city, especially that private-owned land that is close to where they choose (note the choice) to live is subject to their use approval.
Grok, I agree with you that Rosecreek neighbors are showing reasonable reasons to deny the zoning change. The Davis citizens who have reasonable reasons to approve the zoning change will need to provide those reasons to the decision process.
As I said to Ron yesterday:
Grok… some of their arguments have merit… so far, much of what has shown up here are specious, or flat out lies/mistruths…
Hope they focus on the “merit” ones if they hope to prevail and avoid the necessity for the City to avoid/defend a lawsuit.
As Rhett might have said, “Frankly, Rosecreek, I don’t give a damn…”
Mark West,
We do understand that the developers live in the community, but what happens after the 10 year ownership terms that we understand to be the case? Also, how much money are those developers going to generate from getting this project approved? Can the community call them directly when there are issues with the property after the hotel is built?
If you would be free to share how much each of them will pocket for getting this parcel re-zoned I’d be happy to continue discussions on this, but if I was going to generate close to a million dollars or more for pushing to approve the project I’d help advocate for it to. Then move to another location in town w/o a hotel. Might just offset any loss in property value.
Rosecreek Resident:
You seem happy to attack the integrity of local business people who are trying to create a new asset for the community, yet you do so while hiding behind your anonymity. Why don’t you sign your name to your comments?
It doesn’t matter how much the developers expect to earn because that is their business, not ours. Should I expect to know how much money you earn from your job and investments before you are allowed to move into the neighborhood? Should you have to send out a public notice when you lose your job because you may no longer be able to keep your house looking as nice as your neighbors expect? The world changes, life happens, sometimes people make more money than you do, sometimes not. Get over it.
The traffic and sightline issues are legit concerns, and should be mitigated as needed. Most of the rest of your complaints are nothing more than NIMBY nonsense, fear of change, and of course, hatred of those evil developers who expect to make a return on their investment.
Mark, that is hardly a fair attack on Rosecreek Resident. There are many here that post under aliases, some (including the blog owner) seem to post under multiple handles.
You claim their complaints are a bunch of NIMBY nonsense. Well I don’t live in their neighborhood and I think it is fair for people to be concerned about developer requested zoning changes that will have a direct impact on their neighborhood. Rosecreek Resident has made it very clear on here that they see a wide range of uses that fall within the current zoning as appropriate, and that it is the rezoning that is the problem.
As to the question regarding the developers, one certainly has to wonder why Bill Habicht a associate pastor at Davis Community Church is a developer on this project. forgive me if I am unfamiliar with his hotel developer qualifications, but his linkedin page lists nothing even remotely similar.
Habicht’s linkedin page does claim he is a “Community Engagement Specialist.” it is troubling that if that is indeed the specialty he brings to the project that he was unable to get more than 1 or 2 people to attend the community outreach meetings for his hotel development. He never answered my question yesterday about it.
One doesn’t have to wonder at all. It’s an investment. Investors don’t have to be qualified in the particular developments they are investing in. They usually leave that to the actual project developers.
What one really “has to wonder” is why you are pursuing this irrelevant tangent.
I don’t understand why profit dollar amounts cannot be discussed. Rosecreek resident’s question seems valid.
Because we’ve been told that profits resulting from rezoning are “none of our business”. 🙂
How are the returns on investment relevant? What would you do with that information in terms of making any kind of decision about this project?
I think there are few better demonstrations of a lack of character and personal integrity than to attack someone by name while hiding behind the cloak of anonymity.
Oh, right, that was you who did that. Don’t worry, I never thought you had any character or integrity anyway.
Rosecreek Resident wrote:
> what happens after the 10 year ownership terms
> that we understand to be the case?
What is a “10 year ownership terms” and how did you “understand it to be the case”?
> Can the community call them directly when there
> are issues with the property after the hotel is built?
Sure if you Google the names of the developers their phone numbers will pop up ans so will their work addresses in case you ever want to have a face to face conversation.
Grok wrote:
> There are many here that post under aliases, some
> (including the blog owner) seem to post under
> multiple handles.
I know Davis has posted as his wife a couple times by accident, other than that what are the “multiple handles” he is using?
Mark,
What I posted is hardly a hard hitting attack on the good Rev. Bill. Bill has put himself into the public scrutiny by being part of the development group. Yesterday he called himself a “community leader.” I cited what Bill has posted publicly on Linkedin. These are all choices Bill’s has made to make himself a public figure beyond his pastoral position.
Someone who proposes a significant development, and self declares them selves a community leader can expect to have public scrutiny.
Bill sticks out for his seeming lack of experience in developing hotels. I didn’t even point out that bill’s closest related experience is “Single Room Occupancy (SRO) program oversight” when he was a homelessness intern in Virginia for a year even though the requested zoning change would allow for an SRO to be built. Perhaps you know more about his professional hotel development experience and can fill us in as to why the community should place trust in him to develop this project.
In general, if a developer is making a profit as a result of rezoning (at the “expense” of the neighborhood in some manner), it is relevant. (Especially if the city is getting a relative “pittance”, the neighborhood suffers as a result, and the developer walks away with large profits.) I realize that these terms are subjective.
It’s not like asking someone how much they make at a job (which doesn’t impact the neighborhood).
Again, not commenting on this particular proposal.
Of course they are making a profit. Why else would they be doing this? Why is the amount relevant to any decision as to whether to proceed with the project?
“What I posted is hardly a hard hitting attack on the good Rev. Bill. Bill has put himself into the public scrutiny by being part of the development group. ”
basically what you’re saying here is that anyone who gets involved in something opens themself up to questions, scrutiny, and insinuation. that doesn’t seem very conducive to encouraging more public involvement and i think it has a clear chilling effect.
Grok –
You hide in anonymity and attack people by name. You have no personal integrity. Deal with it.
Someone who proposes a new development is making themselves a public figure. Someone who goes onto a blog and declares themselves a community leader opens themselves to public evaluation on that blog at the very least.
I would not accuse Rosecreek Resident of any insinuation. He was pretty direct in the questions he has about the developers.
Likewise, I have been very direct in stating I would like to know what Rev. Bills hotel development qualifications are beyond overseeing a SRO when he was a homeless intern in virginia. I would also like to know if it was his years of experience as an “outreach Coordinator” that lead to the not so effective outreach that never turned out more than 2 people for the first community meetings on the project.
Why else would they be doing it, you ask? Why, to “benefit the community and the financial challenges that the city faces, of course”! 🙂
Regarding the relevancy of the amount of (projected) profit, that’s a more difficult question. In general, developers have not contributed “enough” to communities, to offset the impacts and costs of previous developments. (As one example of “evidence”, I might point to the financial challenges that the city is currently facing, as a result of previously-approved developments that can’t even support our current challenges.)
In contrast, I understand that some local developers are quite wealthy. (But again, I understand that that’s “none of our business”, and is relatively unknown.)
You’re off topic Mark, the question at hand is the qualifications of the developer proposing a zoning change that will have a huge impact on a neighborhood.
Since you seem to have no ability to offer evidence to support the development, instead you are attacking my integrity. Everything I have have stated about the Rev. Bill is true and can be publicly verified, nothing I have seen publicly states that he has any experience developing hotels beyond the fact that he managed an SRO for a year, and that seems pretty thin to me.
If you are a man of integrity, then post some actual information to bolster the Rev. Bills credentials.
Wow. You are seriously abusing the anonymity that the Vanguard allows.
Don (to Grok):
What are you basing this statement on?
As a side note, I think that it’s time for everyone to take a breather. Not much getting accomplished, at this point.
I would think it would be obvious by now.
I urge Grok to re-register and post under his or her own name.
Well, it isn’t to me. Lots of people post anonymously. However, they haven’t been “singled out”, as you’ve just done with Grok. (I also suspect that some regular posters have more than one user name.) (By the way, whatever happened to “The Pugilist”?)
I hope that Grok continues to post in the future, regardless of his/her user name. Seems like a pretty smart commenter, who obviously “gets under the skin” of some pro-development types.
But again, I think this particular thread has runs its course, for the most part.
Since the answer to his repeated question is obvious, it calls into question his or her motive in repeatedly posting it. It can be assumed that it is to denigrate the investor, and he further bolsters that assumption by his criticism of the community outreach.
The answer is that professional expertise in development is not necessary to be an investor.
“Chilling effect” is accurate. It seems that is the goal.
In case I really need to spell it out for you, let me mention another local investment group. Remember Trackside? How many of the original investors in that project had actually built anything? How many were actual developers? How many had any background in real estate development?
You or I or anyone could invest in this hotel, or in Trackside, or in any other commercial real estate development project. It isn’t necessary to have any expertise in order to be an investor. That is obvious. So asking repeatedly for the qualifications of the investor(s) is clearly intended to, in some way, diminish or tarnish their credibility and, by extension, the project itself.
It isn’t idle curiosity on Grok’s part. It wouldn’t make any difference if the particular investor had actually built anything, anywhere, ever. So there’s another reason for the questions. If there’s some other motive in asking, Grok is welcome to explain.
Ron wrote:
> I might point to the financial challenges that the
> city is currently facing, as a result of previously-
> approved developments
The city does not have “financial challenges” due to “developments” it has financial challenges because even after HUGE layoff it is still paying MORE in TCOE than before the layoffs (and it lets public safety personnel retire at 50 with pensions of OVER $10K a MONTH) when the rest of us will be working (and paying taxes) every day until we are 70 hoping to get maybe $2K a month from Social Security…
http://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/search/?q=conroy%2C+rose
Grok –
It is not my place to try to bolster Bill’s credentials, nor really is it yours to attack them. What I know of Bill, he is a good guy whom I have every reason to respect. The difference between you and I, is that if there is anything that I say that Bill (or anyone else) doesn’t appreciate, they are free to tell me about it directly. You? Not so much. Hard to talk to someone who is hiding like a coward behind a smoke screen of anonymity.
You tried to justify your situation by pointing to David as someone who also posted anonymously. While that is true, he once outed himself by signing his name to an anonymous post, I have never experienced him attacking someone by name while posting anonymously. Your situations, in my experience, are quite distinct.
If you are a property owner you are pursuing your own financial well-being by blocking development.
In general, this “developers are making a profit” whine is some of the stuff of our legendary selfish Davis fools.
Profit is bad.
Profit is evil.
But looting and mooching the government treasury for a fat pension… and blocking development to keep property values high… well those are righteous thing.
Frankly: “If you are a property owner you are pursuing your own financial well-being by blocking development.”
I would re-word this to say, “If you are a property owner, you (may) be protecting your own interests by objecting to proposed zoning changes that would cause detriment to your property value and the livability of your neighborhood (while simultaneously ensuring large profits for developers).”
I have done nothing to “denigrate” the Rev. Bill I am only asking about someone who has their picture posted on the Hyatt House website as a member of the team, and citing information on their linkedin page.
http://hyattdavis.wpengine.com/team/
http://hyattdavis.wpengine.com/team/bill-habicht/
Why are you asking?
Well then, I think it should be a requirement for everyone claiming the new development would be a detriment to their property values to prove it. If the developer has to prove his rate of return, then so should those that claim they will be harmed. Otherwise we might think you are just making crap up.
Good point, perhaps. (Except – you’re the one who brought up protecting financial interests. I just re-worded it.)
I actually think that residents are (generally) more concerned about “livability” (e.g., traffic, noise, privacy, safety, etc.) resulting from zoning changes.
i used to think that ron, now not so sure
SouthofDavis:
I realize that the reason that cities (including Davis) are facing financial challenges is because costs are generally rising faster than taxes collected. However, there still is no mechanism in place to permanently fix this problem. New (residential) development will continue to make this problem worse, over time.
ron, you’re being stubborn. residential development is only one form. you have a hotel that can generate perhaps three quarters of a million. you have a report on the vanguard showing how little the city of davis takes in sales tax compared to others, but you want to say there’s no formula for closing the gap? are you serious?
It is reasonable to consider a development teams credentials when considering a proposal. Surely that is why the the Hyatt House team posted their credentials.
I wasn’t commenting on the hotel proposal. I was responding to SouthofDavis. (The conversation got off-track.)
Grok, it’s not that you are asking questions about the project team that seems to be “attacking.” It’s the tone and tenor of how you’re writing. It does read as a personal attack.
A few thoughts:
Bill never referenced his role as a pastor. He is a resident in Rosecreek from what I’ve read, as well as a member of the development team. He, like everyone else here, has a right to be engaged in the community as a resident and work on/advocate for projects he believes in. I’d respectfully ask that you treat him in the role that he’s presented himself.
I have read up on Bill, both on his linkedin profile and elsewhere. It doesn’t seem that he has hotel development experience, but as Mark pointed out, that doesn’t have bearing on his involvement. Again, he is a resident of Rosecreek. What if he felt it was a good project for the area? It is, after all, in his neighborhood. Can’t we respect his perspective?
In terms of his experience and work history, he does seem to have extensive experience in community-based projects and endeavors, with many of them being successful. To do many of these (listed below) requires at least some skill in community outreach/engagement.
From his linkedin page and elsewhere, it looks like he helped start:
Davis’ first big-time shelter. Digging into this, he seems to have created a program that engages some 2,000+ residents. I’d consider that effective community outreach and engagement.
An artist collective in the downtown
A coworking space
A monthly get together for techies and innovators. I think it’s called Jump Start.
And it looks like he’s working on a community-based cafe that helps disabled people. Lots of community organizations and community members seem to be involved with that one too.
He’s also given a TED presentation on the silo’s that prevent the community from working with one another. Quite interesting in fact.
All of these projects are successful because of skills in community outreach/engagement. They don’t just “happen.”
Add to that that he’s won various awards for serving the community, including the City of Davis “Excellence in Community Involvement Award,” the Jay T Gerber Award, the Yolo County Leadership Award and a certificate of recognition from the California State Senate.
There might be more. So, I don’t doubt his credentials, even if it’s not in the hotel industry.
My suggestion, as it isn’t reflecting well on you, let it go.
The first site that turns up when one seeks to find out more about Bill Habicht who lives in Davis is his ministerial posting.
http://dccpres.org/team/bill-habicht/
When I sought to learn about the mysterious developer and found that he was a pastor and not a developer it raised more questions than answers. What is Pastor Habicht doing working as a developer I wondered? What are his qualifications? Are they building something other than a hotel? So I looked further and found his Linkedin page and that offered no insight into his hotel development experience. If anything the homeless shelter and SRO experience clouded the subject further, because that does not seem to be the goal of this project. So I am left puzzled by his involvement in the project.
Davis resident, You can claim that it is OK with you for Davis to approve developments without checking the qualifications of the developers, but I would argue that it is imprudent. Unlike the many insults hurled at me here today, I have passed no judgement on the Pastor, and I welcome further information on his experience to help illuminate his role in this development project.
As to the Pastors community outreach qualifications, I did ask him directly on this blog yesterday about the Hyatt House Community meetings having such poor attendance and he has yet to respond.
Grok, why would he respond with the way you’re talking about him?
Regarding the development, I imagine they each have different focus areas, skills and backgrounds. Community outreach/engagement might have been a skill they needed, a skill that is transferable across different disciplines. I can’t imagine that Bill’s part of the design team or in charge of technical aspects. But who knows. Maybe he’s taken online training in design. Regardless, I don’t see the relevance of this continued line of thought. That’s why we have a Planning Commission, to assess the viability and fit of a project.
I’m suggesting that personal attacks (which in my personal estimation is what you’re doing) cease and instead focus on the substantive issues such a traffic, lighting, etc. The assessment or qualifications of the project team is not in our purview. That will be in the hands of the Planning Commission.
Davisresident – this whole question of who the developers are was actually raised by Mark West at the beginning of this thread.
Everything I have written was actually been a quest to learn more about who Mark is talking about.
Your speculation regarding the Pastors potential online courses is not particularly helpful or informative.
It is of course up to the pastor if he wants to post on here further. If his specialty is community outreach, one might expect that he would want to reach out to the community, but I am not going to pass judgement on someone who doesn’t want to participate on this blog.
Hey Ryan,
So we’ve discussed these concerns and while light commercial is office, its not hotel, thats what we are opposing.
As for the hotel pool, it’s been brought up, but not something the hotel can provide to neighbors. Their responses have been vague and non commital. I’d be hard pressed to believe it is something Hyatt would approve given legal issues with allowing non guests to use the pool.
While I haven’t seen any renderings of the wine bar, having seen other extended stay hotels it’s more of a lobby where you can buy drinks vs. a sit down hang out spot.
Your point about the nightly rate of $150 is also something that I continue to discuss as you are equating wealth and money to criminals.
Among the concerns that have been listed by the neighborhood – traffic, noise, lights – all would be issues with office. In fact, the traffic would be worse for a 3 story office building, given the number of employees for a building of the size for this parcel. In addition, it would bring people into the neighborhood from other parts of Davis, West Sacramento, Sacramento and perhaps Woodland & Dixon. I think only the 24/7 hr nature of hotels would be different.
I know you were answering a question regarding what you would accept, but you don’t have a choice if its office, various types of manufacturing or laboratory space. All of those would create traffic, noise, lights and potentially smells.
We stayed in a Hyatt House in Virginia a few months ago. The bar was a sit down spot for hotel guests and locals who were visiting the hotel guest. It wasn’t a place for locals to hang out. It was not a place to stop in, buy a beer and leave to drink somewhere else.
Rosecreek resident – I’m not sure what the legalities preventing people from using the hotel pool are. Hotels in the Bay Area – Marin, EAst Bay – do this all the time. They sell a certain number of passes to members of the community to help with the cost and control attendance. It also solved the problem of people renting a room for the night in order to bring their children and 10 friends to swim.
The City needs revenue. This means manufacturing, Big ticket sales, hotels. Not restaurants, not an office building with people offering services.
I would like to see the statistics on incidents at other extended stay hotels to see if the neighbors fears are warranted. Likely the hotel will be filled with short-term researchers and soccer teams.
You know, the development could always be walled off from the neighborhood and given no access to the bike path at all, just like West Davis neighbors did to West Village.
“Just waiting for someone to bring up the “how many children must die (or be molested)” ‘argument’.”
After RCs response, I realized I have bought and sold guitars in that neighborhood a couple times over the last few years. If I had any concerns it would be for the unwary guests of the Hyatt. Those neighborhood kids do play with laser pointers . I saw a couple playing tag with them and their beagle pup on one of the courts not too long ago.. And last Thursday, a 18-22 year old young lady in a black/red trim VW nearly T-boned my Town Car, as she came flying off a court onto Albany without pausing or looking. Hopefully, the management and guests would be tolerant of local customs and prejudices.
“You do realize I hope that the primary developers of this proposed project are members of the local community, at least one of whom lives in your neighborhood.”
Maybe why he’s flying low.
“Most of the rest of your complaints are nothing more than NIMBY nonsense, fear of change, and of course, hatred of those evil developers who expect to make a return on their investment.”
The popular view of if not in Davis and the stuff dreams are snuffed by.
“Your point about the nightly rate of $150 is also something that I continue to discuss as you are equating wealth and money to criminals.”
The 4 star criminals come to Sacramento. We’ve razed our entire Downtown Plaza, instituted exorbitantly priced on and off street parking and built a great cathedral to accommodate them, their households and oxen.(We’re even naming a street after David Stern, “Stern Lane.” I think. I just know that my recommendation of “Goniff Alley” was rejected.) Surely you locals have noticed that Davis isn’t really “Nightlife Central,” right?
Any place with 10’s of thousands of college students has nightlife. Davis has a scene comparable to Santa Monica in my experience though more compact and with significantly less shopping.
“Davis has a scene comparable to Santa Monica in my experience”
Must have been a very slow night in Santa Monica.
Santa Monica has a lot of shopping on the Promenade and elsewhere. Not that many places to have a drink. Some are colorful like the King’s Head and the other Brit places but they are significantly less walkable. Santa Monica generally has much better food. Woodstocks is horrible and my family flat refuses to go back. Sophia’s Kitchen is also horrible though likely they get a lot of the same people who like Olive Garden. There are some good new restaurants, particularly Chinese. The Hunan place is under new management and has improved hugely, the Tasty Kitchen on 3rd and F is good Hong Style and while I have not tried the new hot pot place by the Coop I am optimistic from talking to them. Thai Nakorn is also good and I like the Mustard Seed. For a town of 65K people “the scene” is outstanding.
quielo, in my opinion Thai Recipes (lower floor of the Mansion complex) is the go-to Thai restaurant in Davis. Outstanding summer rolls (also called fresh rolls), pot stickers, tilpia salad and other Thai dishes. Yakitori Yuchuan has truly outstanding Japanese fare. It is between 1st and 2nd on E Street, between Sophias and Natsoulas Gallery.
I have not tried it yet, but I have been told that Shanghai Town in the Westlake Plaza, on Lake Blvd is very goodregional Chinese fare.
Off the top of my head
SM fun bars: Davis fun bars:
The Chestnut club. The Grad
Chez Jay Are Froggy’s and Devere’s still open?
Basement Tavern
The Brick and Mortar
The Penthouse at the Huntley
The Copa d’oro
The Daily Pint
Brilliant Shine
The Misfit
Pottersville was the alternative reality offered up in Bedford Falls should George Bailey’s Building and Loan fail. It was the early manifestation of the predatory nature of unbridled capitalism. This was presented even more starkly later in the movie Wall Street with its famous “Greed is good” monologue from Gordon Gekko played by Michael Douglas that showed how capitalism couldn’t work without regulation.
I’ve often used references to “Its A Wonderful Life.” Its such a classic. Of course the real worry here in Davis isn’t Pottersville its Porterville. When people start comparing Davis to Porterville we really need to start worrying.
As for David calling out the class and race bigotry that is cast here on a daily basis I can only say its about time. The neighbors should stick to the issues that are relevant instead of the usual fear mongering that passes for acceptable speech here on the Vanguard.
One way we are like Pottersville is in the predatory manner renters are exploited by landlords here in Davis. This could be addressed by building an adequate supply of housing. It should be no surprise that some of the worst landlords in Davis/Pottersville opposed Measure A.
Just wanted to say that the very next comment (after this one) will be the “200th” for this article. I will leave this honor for someone else. Hope it’s a memorable one, which will generate the “respect” that such an occassion deserves.
Conflict is difficult, but if we pay attention and if we’re self-reflective, we can grow from it.
Not bad!
Robb
“That is quite a statement. No critical analysis of need, no consideration of impacts, no weighing of costs and benefits… Just a sort of Nietzschian “will to power” with the most powerful getting their way.”
Not at all Robb, and I am sorry that you interpreted my comment that way. Please note that I said nothing at all about the motives of the voting members, and nothing about whether or not their decisions do in fact turn out to benefit the entire community or only the developers and investors. I also said nothing at all about how much work and/or time or consideration went into the decision making. I believe that what I said is factual as stated and I can provide examples.
The Cannery is the most recent. The vote was 3-2 on both the changes needed to make the project viable, and on the eventual CFD. All that was needed in the end was for the developer to obtain 3 votes. This is an objective statement about what I see as a serious flaw in our current approach to city planning and development. It was in no way meant as an indictment or personal derogatory comment about anyone on the city council.
It does seem rather odd that a local pastor (who presumably is dedicated to the community) is a member of the development team for a proposed hotel development that is generating significant concerns from nearby neighborhoods. I also understand that the same pastor is an investor in the proposed Trackside development (which has also generated concerns from neighbors).
One can be dedicated to the ‘community’ without agreeing with your view… get a clue… are you dedicated to the ‘community’, or just Ron’s piece/view of it?
What have you constructively done to build ‘community’?
Wow. This has nothing to do with “my view”. (In fact, I didn’t take a position, regarding the hotel.) I stand by my comment, regarding the “oddness” of a local pastor being part of two development proposals that have generated significant concerns/controversy in the community that a pastor is dedicated to serving. (If I were one of the impacted/concerned neighbors, I’d probably have concerns about him being my pastor, if I were a member of that congregation. I stand by that comment, as well.)
Well, for one thing I comment on the Vanguard (as you do), advocate for slow growth, contribute to environmental organizations at times, encourage the University to house its own students. (And – I’m not even a pastor.) Also, I try to avoid making ill-advised comments on the Vanguard (that I often have to apologize for, later). 🙂
Constructively…
I and my family dedicated funds and hours of work to the original ‘Rainbow city” project… I have dedicated hours of volunteer time to the local Suicide Prevention program (as did my spouse); AYSO (even years that we had no kids active in the program) covering over 20 years; my spouse has volunteered 1,000’s of hours of volunteer time to STEAC, and we have contributed over $15,000 to their efforts; both of our careers included, basically, public service… teaching and as public ‘servants’. 65 + years, total.
What have you done for the ‘community’ other than ‘sharing your thoughts/opinions’ on this blog?
Unlike you, I do not advocate for nor against growth… your contributions show (by your own account) that you may have a very shallow commitment to community…
Looks like there is going to be a nice off!
Who does the most for their community?
The nice thing about a nice off is everybody wins.
I salute/respect the contributions you mentioned (and thank you for doing so). (Actually, I didn’t ask, but it’s good to know. It was your question, to me.)
I have a different view regarding the importance and impact of rampant development in Davis (and beyond).
I stand by my comments regarding the “oddness” of a pastor’s involvement in developments that generate significant controversy/concern in the community that they serve.
Ron, the reality of Davis is that there isn’t anything that doesn’t generate controversy/concern of one sort or another. As of right now change.org reports that 195 people have signed the petition. That is actually a smaller percentage response rate than the first round outreach to the community received. 195 divided by the 36,196 registered voters is just over 0.5%. In yesterday’s thread Bill Habicht stated, “Invitations Sent To: Neighbors living directly on the Davis greenbelt on Albany Avenue. The highest possible number of invitations is 27 (from 2601 Albany to 2817 Albany, plus 631 Benbow Court and 637 Benbow Court). 1 divided by 27 is equal to 3.7%, which is a response rate that is seven times higher than the petition response rate.
In today’s thread Grok said, “the fact that only 1 and 2 people attended the first 2 meetings is enough to know the outreach was not effective. It would have been in the developers interest to do better outreach.” With that as a benchmark, how is it that a petition participation rate that is seven times less qualifies as generating “significant controversy/concern in the community”?
Ron wrote:
> I stand by my comments regarding the “oddness” of a
> pastor’s involvement in developments
Have you posted about anything else people do that is “odd” (there is a lot of it in this town)?
Below is a link to another pastor that developed a $150 million community of single-family homes and a charter school (I’m sure you will want to e-mail the guy to tell him you think he is “odd”).
http://www.blackenterprise.com/business/td-jakes-sowing-seeds-of-prosperity/
As the old saying goes he came to do good and did very well. Bill is a good guy and a dedicated minister. He has a young family he needs to support. Developing property for profit is not a sin despite the anti-growth paradigm of many Davis residents. Being a minister does not require taking a vow of poverty. In fact an argument can be made that providing shelter for people is a noble pursuit worthy of a man of the cloth.
Amen. I affirm.
[except Catholic priests do take a vow of poverty, but not applicable here]
hpierce wrote:
> Catholic priests do take a vow of poverty, but not applicable here
Only “some” (but not all) Catholic priests take a vow of poverty:
http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/11/20/the-priesthood-and-the-vow-of-poverty/
Some (almost none) Catholic priests even invest in real estate developments…
Like hpierce I grew up being told that all Catholic priests took a vow of poverty (and all Rabbis were circumcised) but I learned in the late 70’s (when I called out a friend’s priest Uncle for driving a brand new Volvo coupe) that only “some” Catholic priests take the vow of poverty…
You are correct… I should have used the word “some”… depends on the Order (if any) in which they are ordained… good clarification… thanks.
Can’t a pastor have two jobs? There are lots of pastors of small congregations that have second jobs. I find it fascinating what the stereotypes of “pastor” brings up for folks.
R. Canning – oh, you mean like chancellors. I suppose they just have to check with a higher authority to make sure there is no conflict of interest.
good one, HouseFlipper….now that is a really good one….
Ron
“It does seem rather odd that a local pastor (who presumably is dedicated to the community) is a member of the development team for a proposed hotel development that is generating significant concerns from nearby neighborhoods.”
This is not at all odd if you genuinely see the proposed development as being good for the overall community as I am convinced that Bill does. You may not agree with that assessment, but that should not be used as an attack on the motives of the developer. I believe that in the case of Trackside, the investors genuinely believed that the project is good for the community. I happened to disagree when you include immediate neighbors as members of the community, but that certainly does not mean that the developers/investors have ill intent.
Immediate neighbors are obviously members of the community, they just are not the ‘only’ members of the community who’s concerns need to be considered. The community is much larger than the immediate neighbors, whether we are discussing Trackside, Hyatt House, or any other proposed project.
“Immediate neighbors are obviously members of the community, they just are not the ‘only’ members of the community who’s concerns need to be considered. The community is much larger than the immediate neighbors, whether we are discussing Trackside, Hyatt House, or any other proposed project.”
Well, we have one point of agreement. That is a start.
I understand that such an argument can be made. However, if you happen to be a member of the community who is objecting to a given development, it would be a strange/uncomfortable situation if the developer was also your pastor.
If I was a pastor, I’d probably avoid it (even if it means bypassing proposed hotel projects that conflict with existing zoning that I nevertheless “believe in”). (I know that sounds more “damning” than I intend.)
I wonder if this was a factor in his decision to withdraw from Trackside.
“If I was a pastor,” you’d feel entitled to full citizenship. This is and has been a disgusting line of deflection that a decent person, who wasn’t just shilling or trolling, would have dropped by now.
Biddlin:
Regarding “disgusting”, that’s a pretty strong word. I can imagine that some parishioners might be “disappointed”, under the scenario described above.
Not questioning the pastor’s intent or character, but I think it’s somewhat questionable judgement. Not sure if this was a factor in his decision to withdraw from Trackside.
Actually, I’d probably be disappointed in anyone that I had a personal relationship with (such as a pastor, who is providing spiritual guidance), if they chose to invest in developments that I might be strongly opposed to and believe are harmful to the community. (Still not taking a position on the hotel, however.)
“Not questioning the pastor’s intent or character,”
BS. No purpose to be served other than character assassination, because the intent is supposed to be to denigrate the project by association.
“Not sure if this was a factor in his decision to withdraw from Trackside”
But throw that out there, too, because it implies so consciousness of guilt.
” (Still not taking a position on the hotel, however.)”
Right,
Biddlin: “BS. No purpose to be served other than character assassination, because the intent is supposed to be to denigrate the project by association.”
Well, thanks for letting me know what my intention was.
What was my intention? Mostly casual observation (regarding the unusualness of a pastor functioning as a developer for controversial proposals in the community that they serve). (I admit that I’d also remind him that there may be unintended consequences by participating in such proposals – e.g., “uncomfortable” interactions with some affected parishioners.) However, I also realize that no one so far has stepped forward, under the scenario I presented (e.g., an affected neighbor, who is also a parishioner).
“Guilt” is too strong of a word. However, I’m wondering if the pastor has already begun to understand the point I was making. Perhaps he thought that the hotel proposal would not run into the same type of objections from neighbors.
That’s correct. (Although I’m starting to think that the other site for a proposed extended-stay hotel might not generate as much opposition – even though it’s closer to my house, at least.) I know that Mark thinks there’s sufficient demand for both, in addition to the Embassy Suites proposal.
I don’t really have a good understanding, regarding the level of opposition. I’m guessing that most immediate neighbors (who oppose the project) are not commenting on the Vanguard.
Ron, maybe my Episcopalian upbringing is different from your religious upbringing, but there was absolutely nothing in the scriptures or teachings of the church that would make a minister (we didn’t use the term pastor) have to recuse himself (now himself/herself in the Episcopalian Church) from any of the normal human activities of our capitalistic American society.
So, I am having a very hard time understanding how a minister/pastor is any more subject to the fact that there may be unintended consequences by participating in such proposals than a banker, or clothier, or hairdresser. real estate agent, or waitress/waiter, or bartender. You appear to be saying that a minister/pastor is “different” in some way. How is he/she different? And how/why does that difference warrant the taking away of his/her rights when compared to others?
Upon further reflection – you’re right. I suppose I do expect a “spiritual leader” to avoid pursuing profits by participating in contentious development projects (e.g., requiring zoning changes and pissing off neighbors) in the community that they serve. (Even if they personally “believe” in the project.)
Not advocating “taking away his rights”, however. It’s a choice that only he can make. (Assuming his own church has no concerns, either.)
Another motivation for my “comments” regarding this particular issue is the blistering, personal attacks that others launched upon “Grok”, when he questioned the pastor’s “credentials” as a developer. (However, Don Shor pretty much put that particular issue to rest, for me at least.)
In any case, if others want to now attack me as “disgusting”, “despicable”, (or – what was the other “d”?) they are free to do so. (I can’t “take away” their right to do so either – although I assume the Vanguard can enforce their guidelines, as needed.)
Ron
“However, if you happen to be a member of the community who is objecting to a given development, it would be a strange/uncomfortable situation if the developer was also your pastor.”
I am truly puzzled about why this should be the case. I am quite sure that there are, in most congregations, parishioners who do not agree on every issue with the pastor. I see a pastor as a spiritual leader and source of comfort and advice, not as an authority on political matters or planning matters.
As a doctor, many of my patient’s come to me not only for strictly physical advice, but also on life style and family issues ( especially in my role as a gynecologist which frequently involves counseling on intimate and/or private issues). However, I do not see any awkwardness or uncomfortableness if we happen to disagree on matters of local, regional, state or national politics.
Can you elaborate on your concern about this uncomfortableness.
A general disagreement regarding political views is very different than actively participating (e.g., as a member of the development team) in a proposed development next to your home that you may be vehemently opposed to.
In the example we discussed, some may (potentially) view their own “spiritual leader” as causing harm to their own homes, in pursuit of personal profit. (Regardless of intent. However, I presume that this is at least part of the motivation.)
A very extreme (medical) comparison?: Somone finding out that their own doctor invests in (or has a relationship with) pharmaceutical companies which push drugs that actually harm patients.
Ron, I second Tia’s questions to you above, and would add the following:
Ron said . . . “I suppose I do expect a “spiritual leader” to avoid pursuing profits . . .”
I realize that I am taking your quote out of its context, but what you apper to be saying is that profits and not spiritual. Is that what you believe?
Ron continued . . . “by participating in contentious development projects (e.g., requiring zoning changes and pissing off neighbors) in the community that they serve. (Even if they personally “believe” in the project.)”
As I said late last night (you may have missed it), the reality of Davis is that there isn’t anything that doesn’t generate contentious controversy/concern of one sort or another There is always someone in Davis (often many someones) who is pissed off. Trying to avoid/sidestep controversy/concern/pissiness is a daunting task.
In this case the volume of community contentiousness appears to be quite low, although the rhetoric here on the Vanguard appears to be high. As of right now, change.org reports that 199 people have signed the Rosecreek petition. 199 divided by the 36,196 registered voters in the City of Davis is just over 0.5%.
To put 0.5% into context, in yesterday’s thread Bill Habicht stated, “Invitations Sent To: Neighbors living directly on the Davis greenbelt on Albany Avenue.” The highest possible number of those July 16, 2015 meeting invitations is 27 (encompassing the residences from 2601 Albany to 2817 Albany, plus 631 Benbow Court and 637 Benbow Court). 1 divided by 27 is equal to 3.7%, which is a response rate that is seven times higher than the petition response rate.
In yesterday’s thread Grok said, “the fact that only 1 and 2 people attended the first 2 meetings is enough to know the outreach was not effective. It would have been in the developers interest to do better outreach.” With that as a benchmark, how is it that a petition participation rate that is seven times less qualifies as generating “significant contentiousness/controversy/concern in the community”?
Matt,
Your petition participation rate is completely bogus because you have no idea how many people have been approached for all you know 200 people have been approached and 200 hundred have signed.
What we know for sure is almost no one turned out for the first 2 community outreach meetings despite his claim of extensive community outreach. Rev. Bill neglected to post how many people showed up to the third despite requests to do so we really can’t consider that.
Funny, I’m able to avoid it (investing in controversial local developments). (As are most others in Davis, I presume.) Of course, I don’t have a relationship with developers, either.
I’d say that pursuit of profit that causes harm (or is perceived as such in the community that you serve, in this case) is not a good goal, especially for a spiritual leader. (And yes, I probably do hold them to a higher standard, based upon their role in the community.)
Not sure that I can explain it any clearer than I already have.
Regarding your statistics, I don’t think that a comparison between the number of registered voters vs. the 200 signers of the petition means anything (unless all registered voters were aware of the petition). Not sure of your point, but I’m sure that you’ll be happy to expand upon it. (Regardless it’s the immediate neighbors who would most likely be concerned.)
I feel like I’m being “forced” into defending a position that I haven’t even taken.
that is what Matt does.
Grok and Ron, what you have both argued is that the petitioners speak for the community. Grok, is the community really only 200 people?
Rosecreek Resident was very clear about why they chose to use an online petition. They wanted to reach the widest possible audience . . . far beyond the physical limitations of the streets of their neighborhood.
Grok, I happen to agree with you that the meeting participation rate on July 16, 2015 was very low. That is why it is a very germane comparison for the petition participation rate.
Suggest that you go back and read the statement (above) in which I said that I don’t have a good understanding regarding the level of opposition. I also noted that most concerned residents probably aren’t posting on the Vanguard.
I have made no such argument. I am not involved with the petition so I really have no idea what level of outreach the petitioners have done.
Ron you have consistently referred to the project as generating significant controversy/concern in the community, and when asked about that here are two of your responses.
— “stand by my comments regarding the “oddness” of a pastor’s involvement in developments that generate significant controversy/concern in the community that they serve.”
— “I stand by my comment, regarding the “oddness” of a local pastor being part of two development proposals that have generated significant concerns/controversy in the community that a pastor is dedicated to serving.”
The Davis Community Church, of which Bill is Associate Pastor, describes itself as follows:
I suspect that you and I define “community” and “all people” differently.
Matt:
You are mixing two different responses.
1) “Significant opposition”. Again, I don’t really know the level of opposition. But, based on the survey and some responses on the Vanguard, there does seem to be something significant there. Do you disagree? In any case, I’m sure the council will ultimately hear more about it, directly. (By the way, I haven’t signed the petition.)
2) “Pastor (Developer) Bill”. I’m not sure why I allowed myself to get sucked into this, but yes – I stand by all of the comments I ultimately made regarding his involvement in two controversial development projects (including being on the development team for the proposed hotel). And yes, his position as an active pastor is what made his involvement “stand out”, for me at least.
Seems like you’re interested in challenging me on something, but I have no idea what it is.
Ron, you have drawn a direct equivalency between Trackside and Hyatt. I agree with you wholeheartedly that there was significant opposition to the Trackside proposal. We saw that opposition play out across the community, from far West Davis to far East Davis. From Wildhorse in the north, where Barack Palin took up the cry, to Oakshade in the south. We quickly saw lawn signs sprout up in neighborhoods around Downtown. Very creative theatrics hammered home the significance of the opposition message. Further, the deviations from the existing zoning were “significant” with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) almost 100% greater than the zoning code limit for the M-U zoning, and the height at 6 stories being “significantly” above the zoning limit of 3-4 stories. It is also worth noting that Trackside hit the community’s radar on June 1, 2015, only 30 days prior to the Hyatt hitting the community’s radar just prior to the July 16, 2015 first community outreach meeting. The comparative community engagement in the Trackside and Hyatt proposals displays a stark contrast. One is indeed “significant” the other is not. So my point for you is that you are attempting to paint Trackside and Hyatt with the same brush, and they simply aren’t even close to equivalent. I believe you should acknowledge that; however, I also acknowledge that it is your prerogative if you choose not to.
With that said, I have been very clear that the residents of Rosecreek have every right to bring forward their concerns in the process. They need to make the case for how and why this proposal is bad for the Davis community. The rest of the community needs to weigh in as well with their thoughts about the project’s pros and cons for the community at large. My personal thoughts are that (1) the proposal is for a 48 foot tall building within a 50 foot height limitation, (2) the building will have four rows of windows rather than three rows of windows because it has four floors rater than zoning code’s mandated three floors, (3) the proposed extended stay use is not specifically listed in the zoning code, but is (in my opinion) not inconsistent with the Purpose listed in the parcel’s zoning code, which reads as follows: “The purpose of the industrial administrative and research (I-R) district is to provide an environment for and conducive to the development and protection of modern, large-scale administrative facilities, research institutions, specialized manufacturing organizations, and commercial recreation, all of a non-nuisance type.”
In the end, as I have said to you in prior posts, the Planning Commission and the Council will hear and weigh all the voices of the community. If the proposal has impacts on the City as a whole, then I would expect that the members of the community who are “impacted” would/should step up and share their thoughts about those impacts. If the only people who speak up are the neighbors (in your scenario saying “not in our neighborhood”) then the decision by the Commission and the Council (if appealed) would in my opinion be a pretty straightforward rejection of the zoning variance request.
Bottom-line, what I believe both Tia and I have both argued for is a very active public engagement process with the Planning Commission and Council getting both high quantity and high quality input. Our government is a representative democracy, and we make our representatives’ jobs easy (in representing us) if we give them clear signals.
Sure – there are different concerns. A common denominator was the pastor (until I found out that he withdrew from Trackside). (That’s the only connection I noticed and pointed out.) Not sure if there’s other common denominators.
Unless you’re privy to some information that I’m not aware of, I don’t think you can judge the significance (or level) of concern regarding the Hyatt proposal at this point.
You’re making an unusually large number of misstatements this evening regarding what I (and apparently Grok) said, the misleading (meaningless?) comparison between the number of registered voters in Davis vs. survey respondents, etc.
Not sure how much longer I want to participate in this thread. You might need to find someone else to dispute this evening. 🙂
Matt:
Just to play the “devil’s advocate”:
There is at least one other difference between Trackside and the hotel proposal.
A hotel is a 24-hour business, while Trackside was/is planned for residential units. I realize that there are other considerations when making a comparison between the two proposals. However, if I (generally) had to make a choice between the two types of proposals, I’d probably rather live next to homes, vs. a hotel. (I realize that there are no homes being proposed for the potential hotel site.)
Have fun with that. (I’m sure that you will.) Couldn’t resist playing one last round with you. Maybe you’ll get the last word?
Ron said . . . “Unless you’re privy to some information that I’m not aware of, I don’t think you can judge the significance (or level) of concern regarding the Hyatt proposal at this point.”
Actually Ron, you can. Both of the processes (Trackside and Hyatt) started 14 months ago. Their respective clocks have been ticking the same amount of time. In that time the difference in the amount of and effect of public engagement is information that we are all privy to. Trackside has had significant community engagement in those 14 months. Hyatt has had a “sleeping” community in those same 14 months.
Ron also said . . . “However, if I (generally) had to make a choice between the two types of proposals, I’d probably rather live next to homes, vs. a hotel. (I realize that there are no homes being proposed for the potential hotel site.)”
That is a very good point Ron, and it prompts a bit of drill down into each proposal. Trackside was proposed as 48 units on 0.53 acres, for a density of 91 dwelling units per acre. Hyatt is proposed as 120 units on 2.013 acres, for a density of 60 dwelling units per acre. Which is preferable, 91 or 60?
Ron said . . . “You’re making an unusually large number of misstatements this evening regarding what I (and apparently Grok) said, the misleading (meaningless?) comparison between the number of registered voters in Davis vs. survey respondents, etc.”
Given our very different concepts of community, in your framing, your point makes a lot of logical sense.
“Four investors — Davis City Councilman Lucas Frerichs and his wife Stacie, and the Rev. Bill Habicht and his wife Amy — have departed from Trackside Center, LLC, following the purchase of their shares by other investors.” from http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/trackside-center-project-goes-back-to-the-drawing-board/
there was a time, that the CC recused themselves on any development issues, regardless of whether they were investors or not.
Thank you Davis resident….I knew there was a reason I was not into Lucas on the CC…
I believe it is now time for some recall elections….
if someone has more time than I do… today…it would be good to start an analysis of who voted how on which project
and then look for what they were hiding…
anyone???
I am up against a very hard IRS deadline…only so many hours in a day 🙂
“only so many hours in a day ”
Know what you mean, yet you still manage to find the time time to research and post. Well, post, anyway.
well, the DV is much more fun than dealing with bickering beneficiarie while I scramble to get fed estate taxes done….while I still monitor my UCD emails as I am “on vacation” until my official retirement date..
way better than the sit coms my hubby likes to watch… way better….in fact, one cannot make this stuff up, right?????
way better than the sit coms my hubby likes to watch… way better….in fact, one cannot make this stuff up, right?????
You’re commenting on some of the posters and posting on this blog?….couldn’t agree more.
not only that, I am obviously in the wrong line of work.
Although I am an ordained minister back from 1974, I chose to work in education instead….
and, for that I get to work 24/7 for “peanuts” since I do not qualify for overtime etc…
and wow, I don’t have the funds (nor the ins) with the developers in town either.
and now, this pastor is a developer/investor in two very contentious development projects in town..
as is a Council Member who many on here supported for re-election because he was doing such a good jub….reallly?????????
“Although I am an ordained minister back from 1974, I chose to work in education instead….
and, for that I get to work 24/7 for “peanuts” since I do not qualify for overtime etc…”
Come on Marina, $125,805.00 in salary and other compensation is hardly peanuts. (As a public employee your salary and benefits are on the record)
So I’m assuming you couldn’t cut it at Sea Org?
Tough for “OT VIIs” to accept their limitations, I imagine.
By the way, this a just a little of your own medicine.
[moderator] It’s also called doxxing, and we suggest you not do it.
Feel free to delete what you will.
actually, I just got a “raise”…. just barely over $100K in annual salary…I only attained that milestone after decades of work…in fact, since 1979…. my take home is around $4K per month…and that is not because I put much into my 403B…In fact, I wasn’t able to fund it at all…for the last couple of years… and I have the cheapest insurance plan…
with that I support 2 sons…each either “unemployed” or underemployed…..I also subsidize my husband in a manner in which he has gotten accustomed to..
one of my sons is a cancer survivor…and after Obamacare his monthly premium went up to nearly $400 per month….I pay that out of my take home..
He works for Geek Squad….they keep his hours just under the “benefits” threshold…
He made $5200 last year, and that was just over the $4900 so that I couldn’t take him as a deduction…Of course, the medical I paid on his behalf last year, was over $8K…
Of course, our total expenses ere not quite enough to get any medical deduction…
fortunately, I was never in the Sea Org – were you? but I don’t usually “out” people either….I could make an exception in your case….
enjoy your day 🙂 I am- now – that I am almost finished with my uncle’s Fed Estate Taxes and will finally get to go on a vacation in a couple of days….just a few more loose ends 🙂
PS> I often share with anyone interested that the salaries are posted on the state sites…however, I didn’t realize they were now adding the medical benefits and such to it…that is a change since I last looked at it…..
wow…if only I could get that in cash….the UC pays around $2K per month for many employees for their medical alone…not including dental and vision.
my family has certainly not gotten our “monies” worth…perhaps I should ask someone for a refund.. likley, huh?
Don wrote:
> It’s also called doxxing, and we suggest you not do it.
Can you “doxx” yourself? From her frequent posts I now know more about Marina and job her Dad and kids than I know about my wife, my wife’s job, my Dad and my kids…
jeez South of Davis.. really, you didn’t know that much about your own family???? and now I know that you are a guy…somehow I had pictured otherwise…not that it mattered…
good thing I haven’t posted about what is really going on these days… some would truly s–t their pants….
and, if my family complains I have overstepped then I will ask the moderators to remove anything about anyone who is living…the others may be rolling over wherever they are.. but I doubt they would mind..
mostly they try not to go on the sites I go on any more… 🙂
Yeah, Marina…. many of us remember the Universal Life Church, their mail order (now, on-line) “ordinations”… aimed at tax evasion and military draft exemptions in the early ’70’s… still oriented towards tax evasion.
http://www.ulc.org/
um, that is not where I got ordained….but many of my friends did get ordained there….one of my friends, who got his “papers” from the ULC, who btw is also a National Academy member at my department, still performs weddings to this day for many of his former students and postdocs and other friends around the world. At the young age of 75+, he is still working 24/7 as a faculty member and, despite the horrific “age discrimination” at the NIH, still has a well funded research program for his lab
And, what was the point of your posting hpierce? to throw mud at me and others – for what reason???????
PS> keep slinging, the more you do that, the more your motives for many things become obvious to many others…
Seems as though there’s a couple of shills in the crowd.
I think it is only one posting under multiple names.
Mark:
I guess it depends on who one thinks is a “shill” (a very loaded term).
There’s only one me, in any case.
Honestly, I don’t know why you’re so wrapped up in this. (For that matter, why am I still commenting?) (Just an attempt at humor.)
Because I want the City to start paying its bills, and I am tired of watching good economic development projects being shot down through false statements, distortions, and NIMBY nonsense. I have no issue with the neighbor’s legitimate concerns and want to see those concerns addressed. The personal attacks, innuendo, and outright lies are not legitimate concerns.
“Because I want the City to start paying its bills”
And I also want this. I just see it a little differently. The citizens are the component parts of the city. “The City” does not exist without its residents. I want us, as individuals to “start paying our bills”. This will mean an increase in taxes as well as further development. There is obviously a tradeoff here. In previous posts you have stressed “wealth creation” as your primary emphasis. I would stress “wellness creation” including a non crowded, non polluted, safe, physical activity promoting environment as my primary emphasis. The key for me is not denigrating each others priorities, but rather in seeing how we can work together to promote both.
Tia – My primary emphasis has always been on implementing a comprehensive approach to addressing our fiscal problems. Cost containment, expanding our economy and taxation. All three approaches are necessary, and if we fail in any one part, then we are just pushing the problem down the road. My comments about ‘wealth creation’ were made to differentiate this approach from your narrow view of increasing taxes on existing residents. It is not a ‘primary emphasis,’ it is an expression of why your ‘wealth destruction’ approach is harmful to the community.
If we want to talk about ‘wellness creation,’ then it is important to point out that one critical impediment to people achieving ‘wellness’ is having the disposable income to afford more than subsistence living. If all of your income is going to pay rent, food and taxes, there isn’t enough left over to pay for ‘health.’ When we make Davis a more expensive place to live, we destroy ‘wellness,’ we don’t create it. You consistently favor policies that make Davis a more expensive place to live so your actions defy your proclaimed goal. Building ‘wealth’ in the community is the pathway to ‘wellness creation’ for everyone in the community. Your approach only helps the wealthy maintain their non-crowded environment by keeping ‘those other kind’ from being able to afford to live here.
if nothing else, I agree with that statement also,……you tend to always see this different Ms. Will…is that because you like to 1) be contrary 2) play devil’s advocate 3) show others how truly “impartial” and both sides of any fence you can be….or 4)????? please.. inquiring minds want to know…
a “typical ” developer tactic is to locate someone of “good standing” to help them do their “dirty work”….someone others know and like and so on.
that person then becomes the “good person” doing a “good deed” for the benefit of all
that person is the one “getting the word” out for which no one came…(or likely even knew about, as it was of course, too little too late)
it is similar to this development in Baja, which I am all too “familiar” with – there is a nice local man, who was “included into the ranks of principals” -and who “helps the owners” with many of the “problems”… of course, he is the one with the family connections to the judges/planning department officials/ et al in Ensenada and the town of Puertocitos.
when I had my “documents” which prove the legality of my parcel vetted by a real attorney, I found out that the documents looked legit…yet they were not signed by anyone in the real planning department..
Somehow the Mayor of Puertocitos had signed off …and other such minor things…
This kind of “fraud” is rampant throughout CA as well as Baja…and this is what I mean by “developer fraud”…
if they are doing this, then you can be sure this is the tip of this iceberg also…
Perhaps this is off topic but here is an online guide to the use of quotation marks. Presented as a public service. http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/quotation-marks.html
I often use them as when someone else told me that nonsense…in “sarcasm”….I was told to stop capitalizing for emphasis…. oh well….
Matt
I hope that you and any one else who reads this post will see it with the good humor with which I saw the situation.
I clicked on what I thought would take me to a full wording of the anti project petition. Immediately upon clicking what I saw as an “informational” post, I was thanked for signing the petition. I hope that I have not, completely inadvertently, skewed the numbers ! You would know best.
Tia, I am not sure why you directed your comment to me, but last night as I was researching my post on response percentages, I had the same experience that you did. I clicked on the link Grok provided and got the same message of thanks for adding my name to the petition.
ha ha…..another Developer tactic
first perfected by some unions at UCD>>>won’t mention the names, or Sean may get his knickers in a twist.
ha ha…..and I believe my work on this topic is done for a while…. 🙂
enough others are “carrying on” now 🙂
Grok – Someone mentioned to me that you have only lived in Davis a year or two. That being the case, I wonder why you think you have any credibility advocating for what is in the best interest of Davis in terms of economic development. Any newbie to Davis jumping on the NIMBY bandwagon should be quickly dismissed as someone lacking a valid perspective and that can only be motivated by selfish and not community benefits.
Putting myself in your shoes as a newbie to Davis, I would confer responsibility for these things to others that have lived here a long time.
Hi frankly, how long do you think someone should live in Davis before they are allowed to participate in public dialog about the city? How long before they are allowed to vote?
Anyway, you must be mistaken as to my identity because I have lived in Davis for many years.
You can vote. I respect your vote. Just not your NIMBY activism if you are a newbie.
Many is subjective. How many? I would like to understand your credibility on the topic of development in Davis.
OK, Frankly, Not sure what NIMBY thing your talking about since I don’t live in Rosecreek. Tell me how long you have lived here and I will let you know how it compares.
Since 1974
Don
“You or I or anyone could invest in this hotel, or in Trackside, or in any other commercial real estate development project. “
There is a flaw in this statement as written. One can only invest if one is aware that investment is occurring or that a project is being developed. One could not invest in Trackside unless one was invited to do so. Unfortunately, it seems that all too often the list of “invitees” to invest does not include those who will be most impacted by the proposed changes.
You asked another question about why the amount that the developer/investor intends to make is relevant. I think that when zoning change is involved there are two sums that are highly relevant. 1) How much is the developer/investor likely to make ? 2) How much is the pre existing homeowner likely to lose in property value ? Too often, those who favor growth will site the value that the project adds to the community while glossing over the potential for loss to those who will not financially benefit ( and were not invited to financially benefit ) from the project. And this is all before we even start to think about other inconveniences and life style detriments that may be faced by those in close proximity to the project.
My point was simply that one does not need to be a developer by trade in order to invest in a development project. As to property values, if the homeowners in Rosecreek bought their homes within the last several years, they’ve gained significant equity simply as the housing market in Davis has increased in value.
http://www.zillow.com/davis-ca/home-values/
I doubt you could successfully make the case that a hotel development on this site will actually have any adverse impact on the home values of the neighbors. A hotel is not a nuisance land use.
I can’t think why it’s relevant “how much … the developer/investor [is] likely to make” — and judging by recent history on this blog, I can see how that information (if it were even available) would be abused.
Development investment is not my expertise, but I do know it’s highly speculative.
Tia, your post above poses some interesting questions.
Regarding your first paragraph, “invited to do so” is an unusual choice of words. For me it conveyed the concept of a “franchise” and my observations about real estate deals (I’ve never been involved in one, but my father was a real estate broker in suburban Philadelphia), is that they are much more collaborations of individuals and groups who have established a mutual level of confidence by working together on other projects. Bill Habicht and Michael Bisch have worked together for a number of years on the Jumpstart Davis monthly meetup, and no doubt experienced both collaboration and confidence in that meetup experience.
Regarding your second paragraph, my experience with appraised values and market values of residential properties is that the existing zoning of the adjacent parcels is fully factored into the value. The 2750 Cowell Blvd. property has been zoned/entitled for a 50 foot tall building for at least a decade, probably longer, so the values of the Albany Circle residences across the 65 foot greenbelt from that 2750 Cowell parcel already assume that 50 foot tall structure is a reality. Bottom-line, there will be no loss of property value for the pre-existing homeowners..
It’s entirely possible this project is being driven by request of UCD. If the people who run temp housing there reached out to the Hyatt people on campus and said they need an extended stay place the group would be formed to service them.
wrong again, q, doxx please on your conjecture. I don’t personally know a single developer on this project…and although I don’t know every developer in town, having kinda gotten out of that loop in recent years, these names are not familiar and these folks are not the “typical” big buck names in the region who have been building on campus….anyone know differently? please chime in….
to the horror of many, including my family, higher ups and others sometimes, my life is an open book.. I will have already admitted or posted about anything anyone could ever possibly dig up….and that is why I can do what I do and others are afraid of me…I have nothing to hide 🙂
wow …this just in from the UCD Police
UC Davis WarnMe Alert <UCDavis-WarnMe@getrave.com>
Today at 5:18 PM
To
Message body
WarnMe: Robbery and assault with fist and knife occurred in the area behind Hyatt hotel on UC Davis campus at 4:20 p.m. Suspect described as a white male approximately 25-30 yrs old, light facial hair, 5’6, medium build,tan brimmed hat, white shirt with logo, tan cargo style pants. Officers have been and remain in the area since the time of occurence. Use caution and report suspicious activity and persons to the UC Davis Police at 530 752-1230
Please continue to check ucdavis.edu, the Emergency Status Line (530) 752-4000, and local media for more information and updates.
*******************
the timing couldn’t be better or more appropo, could it? jee…on a greenbelt behind the Hyatt on campus…wow….imagine that…
wow….and now this just out…
________________________________________
From: UC Davis WarnMe Alert [warnme@ucdavis.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 6:25 PM
To: UC Davis WarnMe Alert
Subject: CANCEL WarnMe-False Report
WarnMe:The previous report of an armed robbery at the Hyatt hotel was a false report.
Please continue to check ucdavis.edu, the Emergency Status Line (530) 752-4000, and local media for more information and updates.
**************************
a false report? that was quick UCD Police…I am impressed…..
I think the NYMBYs have graduated to be NIMBY-bullies. I wonder if our CC has the stones to stand up to the NIMBY-bullies and do the right thing for the community. Or will they cave again thinking that they can make everyone happy while just pissing everyone off?
Snotty-ness hour ended at 9:00 p…. or did you not get the memo?
Ron… the conversation has got too nested… so this may appear as a non-sequitur to the conversation you and Matt were engaged in…
Unit per unit, a hotel is less invasive than SF, less than MF, and much less than student oriented MF.
You cite 24/7… you seem to ignore vacancy rates, and the 365/6 part. Particularly for an extended stay facility, which will tend to have fewer teenagers/young adults [statistically more prone to late night activities, use of alcohol in excess, etc.] Trackside would be more likely to be the same as to resident behaviors, but would be closer to 100% occupied 365/6, than the proposed hotel. The hotel “partiers” would probably prefer one of the downtown hotel venues for their stay.
One could not invest in Trackside unless one was invited to do so. Unfortunately, it seems that all too often the list of “invitees” to invest does not include those who will be most impacted by the proposed changes.
Tia – This isn’t like investing in the stock market. You don’t just buy shares. If you are interested in investing in real estate transactions, spend some time getting to know developers and investors. Let them know of your interest in real estate ownership. Most developers need and want capital partners. Of course, they want partners who actually want to build something….
Pottersville? more like Lake Woebegone…and what was that movie, the Stepford Wives…not that I saw more than a few minutes, but isn’t that the one about the women who are doped up and used up?
Davis is much like that…but it is not just the women, the men and the children who have little clue…and are totally doped up…
thank goodness some of us managed to stop the toxic substance fluoride from being dumped into this new, expensive and unneeded “water project”…. you know,that developer driven garbage for which we are all paying a fortune?
you know which one I mean….right? those who actually pay any bills and watch a budget….