The council chose to defer actions on the Hyatt House for at least two weeks. From their comments, it appears there are four votes for two hotels, and at least three votes for a four-story hotel at the Hyatt House location.
The council faced opposition from the neighbors – strong and united, while at the same time measured and almost subdued. The overwhelming sentiment seemed to be a great project, but the wrong place and time. To that, Councilmember Lucas Frerichs responded, “If not now, when? If not here, where?”
Mayor Pro Tem Brett Lee opposed a four-story building, arguing, “If it were me, and I were making a proposal, I wouldn’t try to maximize size and shape.” He said, “I’m very interested in three stories – four stories for me is not acceptable for me tonight.”
But his colleagues did not seem to be there. Councilmember Will Arnold all along seemed like he would be a swing vote in the absence of Rochelle Swanson, who would have been conflicted out as a resident of that neighborhood anyway.
In his extensive comments, Will Arnold mentioned the good and the bad. After applauding things like commitment to the environment and card-check neutrality, he came to the big “but.” At this point, it seemed like he was headed toward a similar position as his colleague Brett Lee.
He said, “We’re being asked a lot here at this meeting.” He continued, “Very important to me, we’re being asked to reject the ruling of our planning commission.”
For him, this was a tougher location than the next project that was before the council. It is a smaller site by 24 percent. It is right next to neighbors and “it’s farther away from things we traditionally associate with convenience of hotels. It is closer as the crow flies to UC Davis and downtown, but proximity and access are two very different things.”
He read from a report where it said “the negative impacts were fully mitigated by the Hyatt House.” He responded, “I want to quote my good friend Jeffrey Lebowski, ‘that’s just, like, your opinion, man.’”
Will Arnold went down the list of permitted uses and noted that, of the ten uses that are permitted under current zoning, again in his opinion, eight are less desirable while two are more desirable.
He pointed out that, while the neighbors have argued that when they bought their houses, they looked at possible uses and a hotel “was nowhere in the ballpark,” he stated, “The General Plan would argue otherwise.” He said, “If the General Plan said it was a possible use, that goes to the menu,” even if the current zoning does not permit it.
Will Arnold was concerned that, if the council approved the zoning changes, the owners could flip the property and he wanted to make sure that the conditions approved would be enforceable. City Attorney Harriet Steiner suggested that they could do that through specificity in the conditions.
He concluded, “I’m not there yet and I think there’s work that we can do over the next couple of weeks.” He told his colleagues that he wants to see one last good faith effort to meet with the neighbors, he wants to see a solidification about promises to community groups, and see what they can do to make sure the trees are cared for.
Both Councilmember Lucas Frerichs and Mayor Robb Davis were more solid in their beliefs.
For Councilmember Frerichs, he said there were two issues that resonate for him – privacy concerns, which he believes the mitigation measures will help with, and the future use of the property.
He noted that some of the previous concerns that did not come up – decreased property values, strangers, and additional parking “are not as much of an issue for me.”
“Many neighbors have said, even this evening, this is a great project, but not here, not in my backyard,” he said. “Some of my questions that come up are if not now, when? If not here, where?”
He said, “Davis does have the ability to take on two hotels.” He added, “Just last Friday, (the) Interland/University Research Park announcement in South Davis, I think that’s likely to be a major development as that unfolds.”
“The site is certainly challenging,” he allowed. “But I think the project is approvable with some minor modifications.”
Mayor Robb Davis expressed a degree of frustration that they would not be making a decision tonight.
“I’m frustrated,” he said. “We set as a number one goal as a city council not a month ago, fiscal resilience.”
“People have said to me what you’re engaged in around the fiscal issue, especially in relation to this project, is fear mongering,” he stated. He said that fear mongering is raising fear that isn’t merited. “The reality is our fiscal situation is dire and it’s not getting any better.”
He noted that the city is not going to have to be looking for a couple hundred thousand every year, “we’re going to have to be looking for millions of additional dollars every year.”
“In that context, is it too much for me to ask a neighborhood, many neighborhoods in our entire city, to make sacrifices? I don’t think so,” he stated. “We’re in a situation where we have to try to find more revenue for the city. I am unapologetic in trying to find ways to find revenue. And I’m unapologetic in trying to find ways to cut costs.”
He said that he believes we should move forward on the two projects. He said that he was not worried about viability, as at some point we need to allow the people making the investments to make the decisions about viability.
“Will this harm you?” he asked the neighbors. “You feel it will. I feel it could inconvenience you, I feel it could change your life.”
Mayor Davis was also pointed in his criticism of the neighbors. He said he asked the neighbors if he could help facilitate with a professional facilitator at city expense to work between the developers and the neighbors to engage in dialogue. “I went around the table that day,” he said. “The answer I received was no.”
Mayor Pro Tem Brett Lee noted that the fact there were fewer parking spaces than rooms concerned him. “Why would we approve a hotel that has not enough parking spaces for the number of rooms?” he asked. This was before counting the number of employees who would have to park as well.
Community Development Administrator Katherine Hess explained that, while some people would drive to the hotel, others would arrive by airport shuttle and some would carpool. Thus, she said, the number of spaces is sufficient.
Will Arnold was also critical of the neighbors, in that “there is a lack of options being given from the neighborhood as to what might satisfy you. The two that were mentioned specifically were going down to the three stories and underground parking.”
“My understanding is that underground parking is a no go and that going down to three stories would result in sacrificing a lot of the things that we find very beneficial about this project, including many of its environmental attributes,” he explained.
He noted he read this as package deal that, if the developers did both of those things, “it might be acceptable.” Mr. Arnold said, “I think those things are a poison pill for this project.”
The council decided to keep the November 15 date, either for a status update or action on possible modifications to the conditions of this project. There seem to be three votes for four stories and four votes for two hotels.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
So far so good, let’s hope the CC sticks with its guns.
Parking discussion interesting. Would be instructive to review criteria for Davis Diamonds parking requirements as staff and parents commonly park all along Chiles in front of hotel site now. If hotel plans for too few spaces it will be more problematic.
Ahhh… showing your ‘tenure’ in Davis… the proposed Hyatt is on “Cowell”, but like you, I know the same street right of way as “Chiles”, and even “frontage road”… no one should take this post as taking even the tiniest iota away from SODA’s comment… it is very valid… no matter what you call the street…
Hpierce….
thx for correcting. I don’t deserve the moniker SoDa!
Being new in Davis I find it confusing there is a Covell and a Cowell. I was here a few weeks before I realized they were different streets.
Chiles or Frontage Road is much better IMHO.
Yes it can be confusing when explaining directions to friends.
Maybe we can get someone to bring a lawsuit?
More interesting, Covell is properly pronounced with a “soft” not “hard” ‘o’, and in between… there is a Covell Place… many blocks down from Covell Blvd, off L Street.
Many police reports (the old, handwritten ones) added to confusion when read by others… you think doctors are the only ones with bad printing/handwriting? Some had entries that were interpreted (for traffic collisions) like Cowell at Lake [no such thing]; or Covell @ Ensenada [ditto].
Problem will soon be solved. Cowell Boulevard will be renamed Brett Lee Boulevard when it really sinks in to the Davis population that Mayor Cowell pushed through a resolution to prevent interned Japanese from returning to Davis after World War II.
SODA wrote:
> Would be instructive to review criteria for
> Davis Diamonds parking requirements
The Davis Diamonds caps the number of kids they allow on weekend open gym days but even with the cap cars will not only fill the DD lot but take every space in front of the future Hyatt House.
When Davis Diamonds and Playfieds park have events at the same time (and you get there late) you won’t find a single space within a quarter mile of either location.
Despite the long walks few (even in flat bike friendly Davis) ever ride to kids events and almost everyone drives minivans and SUVs…
Hotels have most cars at night and DD and the fields have cars during the day. Might be an opportunity to cooperate.
quielo wrote:
> Hotels have most cars at night and DD and the fields have
> cars during the day. Might be an opportunity to cooperate.
Sounds like a great idea, an office building and movie theater in Marin share a parking lot since few people go to the movies at noon on a Wednesday and few people are at the office working on Friday and Saturday nights…
The cooperation is already in the works, as has been mentioned by both the applicant and the owners of Davis Diamonds.
“The cooperation is already in the works, as has been mentioned by both the applicant and the owners of Davis Diamonds.” Thanks Mark, I must have missed it.
From article:
Why, indeed. (Also – not seeing any evidence to backup Ms. Hess’ subsequent response.)
I’m sure that it’s a “no go”, based on the wishes of the developers. Again, there doesn’t seem to be evidence presented that it’s unfeasible. Also, since developers have an interest in scuttling this idea, how would anyone trust “evidence” that they subsequently present?
“underground parking is a no go”
It’s a no-go as we don’t want to hurt the ground dwelling rodents and invertebrates. Just because they live sub-soil they are still Davis community members.
I can just imagine the complaints about possible toxic dust if the dig was put into the plans.
BP, Good catch, there is also the issue of the houses falling into the hole like the Millennium Towers in SF.
If you really want to know the answer, why don’t you engage with the developer and ask, instead of just repeatedly posting here? I know, you prefer to question their integrity with your repeated comments and innuendo…
Even easier, though, is to try a google search? how much does underground parking cost to build
It is amazing what you can learn if you are actually interested in knowing answers.
Developers have an inherent interest in providing information that supports their goals (which are sometimes quite different than the goals of a community). Although developers can provide some useful information, it would be foolish to entirely depend on such information, when making decisions.
Don’t you also have an interest to provide information that supports your goals (position) and so wouldn’t it be fair to say that it would be foolish to entirely depend on such information, when making decisions?
Which is why I posted the google search link for you, Ron. Have fun.
And as an opponent of (most) development, you have an inherent interest in ignoring information that does not support your goals. The problem here, Ron, is that information is just that, information. What you choose to do with that information is your own decision. You apparently are not interested in learning, just in continuing to ask the same questions and then ignore the answers. You must be taking lessons from Colin.
Suggest that you go back and review my original statements and question. I did not ask how much underground parking costs.
You quoted and responded to Will’s comment about underground parking.
So, yes, you did question the cost of underground parking and the developer’s assessment that it was unfeasible. I provided you with the information to answer your own question if you had any interest in learning.
So, please explain to us all how adding $3-4 million to the cost of the project does not impact its feasibility?
Mark wrote:
> And as an opponent of (most) development, you have an inherent
> interest in ignoring information that does not support your goals.
Grok and Ron basically just post that all development (and developers) are bad and no amount of information will get them to change their mind when they are wrong so I have given up ever responding to either of them (remember when Ron kept trying to tell me that mixed use developments can’t have ANY residential uses on the ground floor). The Vanguard threads will get a lot shorter (and easier to read) if people learn to just skip posts from Grok and Ron who unlike the rest of us (including SODA today) want to be corrected when we are wrong about something.
I have not asked about the cost, nor am I analyzing/commenting your statement above regarding cost.
There may, or may not be an impact regarding feasibility (which is partially dependent upon cost). However, in general, it would be foolish to depend entirely upon information/statements provided by developers who have a direct and substantial financial stake in the outcome of decisions regarding a particular development.
It is not the responsibility of an average citizen (who might be opposed to a given change in zoning) to engage in (or put forth) detailed financial analyses, regarding the feasibility of a proposed development.
Ron, after reading your comment above it occurred to me that your statement takes on a whole new meaning simply by changing one word . . . “Advocates have an inherent interest in providing information that supports their goals (which are sometimes quite different than the goals of a community). Although advocates can provide some useful information, it would be foolish to entirely depend on such information, when making decisions.”
Another single word replacement looks like this . . . “Idealogues have an inherent interest in providing information that supports their goals (which are sometimes quite different than the goals of a community). Although idealogues can provide some useful information, it would be foolish to entirely depend on such information, when making decisions.”
Matt:
The type of statement you’re making has been brought up by others.
Note that I haven’t made any definitive statements regarding feasibility. Also, note that I’ve repeatedly stated that I have mixed thoughts, regarding this proposal. However, it seems that there’s a significant group of neighbors who have much more singular thoughts than I do, and apparently believe that their concerns are being disregarded. At least that’s what I’m gathering, e.g., as evidenced by the (threat of) legal action discussed in another Vanguard article today. Seems like a lot of them don’t comment much on the Vanguard (which probably demonstrates some wisdom). (Intended as self-deprecating.)
I’d also suggest that it’s not a good strategy for anyone to “demonize” those with concerns. Not a winning formula.
Ron said . . . “it seems that there’s a significant group of neighbors […] who believe that their concerns are being disregarded. At least that’s what I’m gathering, e.g., as evidenced by the (threat of) legal action discussed in another Vanguard article today. I’d also suggest that it’s not a good strategy for anyone to “demonize” those with concerns. Not a winning formula.”
Ron, your comment above is at odds with the reality of last night’s events. The concerns Alissa Burnett had Don Mooney formally raise in yesterdays letter are very consistent with concerns that I have been raising both to staff and to members of the Council. I reinforced those concerns in my public comment at the meeting last night (viewable at the 1:30:00 point on the video on the City website). The text of my comment was as follows:
Recommendation A [of the Staff Report] says that staff has determined that the EIR adequately assesses the potential impacts of the project. I think that is a fair statement, and I think that you have every reason to act on that recommendation. [However,] it does not support Recommendations B or C. There was no assessment in the EIR for the General Plan Amendment [which is] beyond the scope of the project. There is no assessment of the South Davis Specific Plan Amendment [which is also] beyond the scope of the project. Why volunteer for another EIR/CEQA lawsuit by having an EIR that does not support the recommendations? I think you need to remove Recommendations B and C for the interests of the community. They are extraneous to this project. They are not fair to the applicant. It is a misuse of this particular [EIR/CEQA] process. Thank you.
That comment is the antithesis of demonizing the neighbors’ concerns. Their concerns have been heard loud and clear. Not always agreed with, but definitely heard.
Mark West said . . . “Even easier, though, is to try a google search? how much does underground parking cost to build”
Thanks for that link Mark. Really good information. I’ve permanently added it to my Davis Issues folder of bookmarks.
Matt:
I’m sure that you realize the revenue received by a hotel would also be part of the equation (if you’re planning to independently examine “feasibility” of underground parking).
That’s an interesting comment Ron. Could you elaborate what you are getting at? Are you saying that the underground parking is going to change the revenues of the hotel?
Matt:
Let’s not play lengthy games with ridiculous questions, tonight.
There’s nothing to “get at”. Revenues are part of the equation, when examining feasibility. (Unless you think that there’s only costs involved regarding a hotel development.)
I do question your financial objectivity, when you make these types of statements. It leads me to question your analyses.
Ron, your suggestion is the addition of underground parking (with its associated incremental costs) to an existing project proposal with projected revenues and projected costs.
My question to you is what changes to the projected revenues of the existing project proposal do you expect as a result of the addition of underground parking to the project?
The question is not ridiculous. It is very basic. The simple reason for the question is to be able to compare the incremental costs to the incremental revenues. That is a simple, basic, accounting profit and loss calculation done by governments, organizations, associations and businesses every single day.
Matt:
Here we go again, I guess.
I’ll respond with my own question.
Where did I state that revenues would change as a result of underground parking? But, now that I think about it, it’s theoretically possible, if the hotel charges for underground parking (but would not have done so, with surface parking).
Ron said . . . “Where did I state that revenues would change as a result of underground parking? But, now that I think about it, it’s theoretically possible, if the hotel charges for underground parking (but would not have done so, with surface parking).”
Ron, the answer to that question is as plain as the nose on your face. At 8:18 pm you said:
“I’m sure that you realize the revenue received by a hotel would also be part of the equation.”
That statement was sufficiently unclear that I asked you at 8:37 pm to clarify what you meant
With that said, and with the benefit of the additional posts in this dialogue, I will re-ask the same question.
That’s an interesting comment Ron. Could you elaborate what you are getting at? Are you saying that the underground parking is going to change the revenues of the hotel?
Matt:
Here’s an additional statement that I made, above:
Revenues are part of the equation, when examining feasibility.
I’m not “getting at” anything, other than what I’ve stated. Are you trying to “get at” something (make a point)? If so, can you elaborate?
Here’s another statement I made, above:
“There may, or may not be an impact regarding feasibility (which is partially dependent upon cost). However, in general, it would be foolish to depend entirely upon information/statements provided by developers who have a direct and substantial financial stake in the outcome of decisions regarding a particular development.”
Ron, you are obfuscating.
Let me ask the question in as simple a manner as possible. You are proposing that the project add incremental costs in the form of the construction of underground parking. In your proposal are there going to be any incremental revenues that that underground parking will add to the project? If your answer is “No” then no further explanation is necessary. If your answer is “Yes” could you please elaborate on what you believe those revenues will be.
Thank you in advance for your answer.
Matt:
Again, I haven’t said anything about a change in revenue (other than the possibility of charging for underground parking, assuming that it would not have been charged for surface parking).
To clarify, I’ve read (as you probably have) that some neighbors are suggesting this as a mitigation for the zoning change, to allow a hotel to be built. I recall that some neighbors were concerned because surface parking would be located near their homes, with car doors opening and closing at all hours. (I didn’t see this mentioned, but I suspect that some hotel guests may talk loudly in the parking lot at all hours, as well.) Again, this isn’t something that I brought up, nor is it something that I’ve necessarily concluded should be required of the developer. However, some seem to be suggesting that it is not feasible, based upon statements by the developer.
I did suggest that the city should not entirely rely upon a developer who has a significant financial interest in a proposed development to provide objective analyses. (That’s how this thread started.)
Thank you Ron for finally answering my 8:37 pm question. That wasn’t really that hard was it?
Next time you see me say “That’s an interesting comment Ron. Could you elaborate what you are getting at?” treat it as a straightforward request for information. That’s all it is.
Matt: “Thank you Ron for finally answering my 8:37 pm question. That wasn’t really that hard was it?”
Well, it started to become difficult, since it seemed that you were attributing statements to me that I didn’t actually state.
Also, a request for elaboration (for statements that I didn’t make) is confusing, to me. I’d suggest that you explain this better (and provide the reason that you’re asking), in the future.
The request for elaboration is pretty straightforward. It’s a simple “Tell me more” especially when it is preceded by “That’s an interesting comment.” What is confusing about such a request, especially when what you said was the single 8:16 pm sentence?
Ron: do you know how much it costs to put in underground parking for 120-plus spaces?
Suspect he does not care… “their problem”, his “reasonable concession”
(Quote from you, from further down on this page.)
it is a no go on the height limit and underground parking, only because the CC doesn’t insist and the developers don’t want to spend the bucks right?
it is a “no go” says the youngest newbie on the council, because of his environment growing up and because under this current majority the developers have run circles around the council….
and with the new guy, the son of one of the biggest developer families in town, and intermarried with one of the wealthiest ‘investors” in this town, wtf is he even allowed to participate, much less vote??
the much more honest and more highly educated on the old councils would have recused themselves….from the get go…
Marina wrote:
> son of one of the biggest developer families in town
The real estate firm Will’s Dad ran before he died was the biggest real estate “sales” firm in town, but was not a big real estate “developer” (I’m wondering if Marina can list even one “big” development in town that was the work of the Arnold family).
> and intermarried with one of the wealthiest ‘investors” in this town
I’ve met Will’s wife many times and I was not aware that she is “one of the wealthiest ‘investors” in this town”.
Forgive Marina… she has “issues” that she feels a need to comment on, even if they are not really there…
Your assessment of the Arnold family, in my experience, is correct.
Actually, following development in Davis for many years, don’t think doug Arnold was a developer at all, unless he supported, or had a very minor stake in some small projects. As a minor investor.
Some folk see “apparitions” that really don’t exist… some would call them “seers”… others might suggest therapies… perhaps even ‘interventions’…
BTW… gave Marina credit for possibly being a ‘seer’… my guess is she saw that as an attack… apologize for that “bad”, as well…
I have posted this information before when there have been discussions around parking.
High cost of free parking
Traditionally, our planning efforts have focused on parking ‘minimums,’ or the fewest number of off-street parking spaces required for a development. This was the focus last night, the minimum number of required spots for the Hotel. More current research, however, has started to change the focus towards parking ‘maximums,’ or the greatest number of off-street parking spaces that are allowed at a development. We need to look no further than the parking space limits that were proposed at Nishi and again at Lincoln 40 and Sterling. All of these parking space restrictions were proposed in an effort to encourage a more car-free lifestyle.
The Hyatt House folks have their own business experience to draw on to understand how many parking spots they require for their patrons and employees, and it is almost certainly fewer than are being required for the project. We simply haven’t updated our zoning regulations to reflect the current best practices.
Mark wrote:
> We simply haven’t updated our zoning regulations
> to reflect the current best practices.
Just like cell phones reduced the need for hotel phones (does anyone remember paying $2 for a local call and $10 to call home from your hotel room), Lyft and Uber are reducing the need for hotel parking ( I have not rented a car in over two years since using Uber and Lyft when I travel is not just more convenient it is MUCH cheaper)…
All this talking about parking, it’s interesting to note that when they did the Chen Building there was a push for underground parking, but it ended up costing too much.
and were there neighbors who bought into a nice single family home with trees and sunlight being adversely affected? no ….money is nothing really….the USA prints tons of the worthless garbage….
But, if the developers would open up their accounts, you would see that they could afford it….I would bet, right?
It is really a crackup if you think about it… the neighbors are opposing a new neighbor that sells sleeping services. A hotel has a vested interest to keep things quiet at night… and the customers of the business are generally not there during the day. Sounds idea to me.
some want to sleep and some wanna party at the bar…and when the bar closes, those who are not staying there will continue the party on the greenbelt between the hotel and the neighbors…..
would YOU have purchased your house if it was next to a hotel? where people come and go all night long, Mr. F…
It would not have been my choice….and I would bet that even the developers who are running amuk on this thread wouldn’t either….they can all afford better due to the wonderful lifestyle this city has helped them attain…
On my lunch break so I thought I’d chime in here. I’m on the Hyatt development team. I live in the city’s Affordable Housing development on Greene Ter (https://localwiki.org/davis/SouthField_Park_Condos). Our family’s income is <$80,000/yr… which is sufficient, but I certainly wouldn’t say that I “can afford better due to the wonderful lifestyle this city has helped them attain.”
And to answer the other part of your question, I would absolutely consider purchasing a house near an upscale hotel. I’m not moving, so I guess I already fit that bill.
Your post is a ridiculous and false statement that only serves as a baseless attack. I do not appreciate it nor do I think it promotes effective dialogue.
Alan Miller
August 27, 2016 at 6:56 pm
You have enough money to invest in Trackside, and you are a member of a team of developers proposing a hotel, and you live in “affordable” housing. How does THAT work?
ReplyReport comment
Ron
August 27, 2016 at 7:03 pm
Alan: I’m looking forward to a response to that question, as well.
People seem to really misunderstand the Davis Affordable Housing programs.
http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/city-manager-s-office/housing-and-grants-management/affordable-housing-program/ownership
So, here is idealistic Carmel… another city filled with no-growth people that strive to preserve their village lifestyle. There are several hotels next to and in the middle of residential neighborhoods. My favorite is the La Playa.
http://thesocialmisfit.com/images/CarmelHotels.jpg
Also, in Pasadena there is the The Langham… another favorite. It is in the middle of a residential neighborhood with some of the most pricey and upscale homes in the nation.
All these residents like having a hotel as a neighbor. But here in Davis the neighbors are in rabid opposition.
Maybe it really is rabies.
Frankly reminded me of the Hotel Drisco (aka El Drisco Hotel)
http://hoteldrisco.com/
in my old neighborhood in SF. Zillow says the home across the street is worth $11mm. I never heard of “strangers” at the hotel kidnapping any neighborhood kids…
Never stayed there but looks nice.
There are certain creatures that should not be fed after midnight… and that happens once each day… [think iconic movies]… am starting to fully understand that…
why are the interrelationships and business dealings between the Arnolds and Taorminos supposed to remain a secret?
Is it like “Eyes Wide Shut”?
does anyone want to answer those questions?
[moderator: it’s irrelevant gossip. It has no bearing on the hotel proposal. So it’s off topic, and I pull it.
years ago, one with conflict of interest would recuse themselves….now the conflicts are even supposed to be kept hidden?
Do you mean like this statement?
Perhaps it goes against the “spirit” of what he pointed out to me, recently. (But, I really don’t want to engage further with him, regarding that.) In the end, we’re responsible for our own decisions, regarding what to post (as long as it adheres to Vanguard policy). (I believe that he mentioned something similar to that, as well.)
Not sure that it’s supposed to remain a secret.
my bad…
Nor, is it worthy of public scrutiny/criticism…
“Marina: “Why are the interrelationships and business dealings between the Arnolds and Taorminos supposed to remain a secret?”
“Not sure that it’s supposed to remain a secret.”
Scrutiny – perhaps too strong of a word? (At least awareness of.)
Look up definitions of words, and help me out on the difference between ‘scrutiny’ and ‘awareness’… I see only minor nuances, most relating to actually ‘thinking’…
Nothing against Will Arnold, although somewhat disappointed in his statements regarding this issue.
It doesn’t take much imagination to envision the types of comments that would spew forth on the Vanguard, if a council member came from a family of “slow-growthers”.
And again, I personally have mixed thoughts regarding this particular proposal. (Had some of the “pro-development” types supported “slow-growth” Sue Greenwald years ago, perhaps some of the financial challenges faced by the city wouldn’t exist.)
Ron… if Sue Greenwald is an icon to you, we truly have nothing in common…
I recall Sue Greenwald bringing up the outrageous cost regarding firefighters, and “paying” for it by being targeted by that group in a subsequent campaign. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) And yet, I don’t recall much support from the “pro-development” types, who have now suddenly “found religion”, regarding financial challenges faced by the city.
Never much cared for the endless arguing on the council, though. (But, it takes “two to tango”.)
In fact, I’d argue that “pro-development” types caused the financial challenges faced by the city. (Endless residential construction, essentially resulting in a pyramid scheme in which the city becomes dependent upon one-time development fees). Never mind what happens later, when costs to service those same developments continue to rise. And, still no method in place to keep such costs in check.
Ron said . . . “In fact, I’d argue that “pro-development” types caused the financial challenges faced by the city. (Endless residential construction, essentially resulting in a pyramid scheme in which the city becomes dependent upon one-time development fees).”
Ron, your statement is a cross between hyperbole and puffery. There is not a single Davis “pro-development type” who had the responsibility for the contracts that the City negotiated with its employees. In fact it was an “anti-development type” City Council that awarded the unsustainable, ridiculously-generous, retirement benefits to the City employees that are a responsible for a major proportion of our current fiscal woes. No “pro-development type” made the decision to defer the maintenance of the City streets against the advice of the City Staff in Public Works.
Bottom-line, you have absolutely no evidentiary basis for your statement.
Matt:
Developments require city services. You’ve previously acknowledged that below a certain threshold (estimated by you to be around $600K, I recall), the cost for city services (for developments) eventually exceeds the amount of taxes received.
As the amount of development increases, the discrepancy increases, as well. And, those pushing for even more residential development contribute to the problem.
Unlike taxes, which are permanently limited by Proposition 13 (unless the property is re-sold), there still is no permanent method in place to ensure that the problem won’t continue (even if it’s temporarily addressed). It’s a problem facing many communities in California, and one that you previously acknowledged, from what I recall. (Seems like you’re “changing your tune”, lately.)
And again, if some of the “pro-development” types were concerned about the problem (when Sue Greenwald brought it up), and were not simultaneously pushing for even more residential development (making the problem worse), perhaps the city would not be facing some of the challenges it’s facing today.
Cause and Effect Ron. Simple cause and effect.
Housing does not start out with costs exceeding revenues. Revenues exceed costs for almost all housing developments in their first five years . . . often their first 15 years. However, most of Davis housing is well over 15 years old, and the inflation of costs due to poor City management has caused those costs to exceed revenues.
Are the “pro-development types” the cause of the fiscal reality you describe (where revenues start out exceeding costs, but over time drop to a level below costs)? No. Not even one “pro-development type” is the cause of that current reality.
The cause of that problem lies elsewhere . . . in City Hall.
Matt:
Underlying cause: Costs to service developments keep rising, with no permanent solution in place. (Despite promises and intentions that “this time will be different”.)
Effect: Cities seek one-time development fees and revenues from new housing (before costs eventually exceed revenues, causing cities to seek even more development).
And, pressure to continue the pyramid scheme continues.
Cause: Government officials grant employees 36% raises and unsustainable pension benefits.
Effect: Costs to service citizens rise, with no permanent solution in place.
When have you ever heard government officials either promise or intend that “this time will be different”.
because in the way better olden days when the likes of Dave Rosenberg, Julie Partansky et al, and before that Joan Poulos and Bob Black, and in more recent decades the likes of that guy who was on the council and still practices in Davis…..
when there was ANY possibility of conflict of interest, the council member or planning commission members would recuse themselves..
I do not believe that is happening now…
Even the newly re-elected Frerichs bailed fast on his investment into a development under public scrutiny… when someone happened to “notice it”..
Now we have someone else whose bloodline includes both Arnolds and Taorminos….the “silent” investor partner…
The UCD conflict of interest policies got expanded every year to now almost anyone who works on campus – any job whether paid or volunteer- if they are related by blood, or marriage, or even live in a frat house together, the “near relative” policies apply…
That is the extreme level of conflict of interest per current policy..
As a result, most every student or staff member may fall into the “conflict of interest” realm if any family work on campus, or it they have any roommates whatsoever..
Of course, I have brought this up since before the election, and hp@@@@@ made sure it was scrubbed every single time. He/She/It would report it within seconds and it would be scrubbed immediately…
Why I kept asking? why is it not supposed to be public?
Why ? it was claimed to be “off topic”…now we were discussing Will’s comments…..
And, me being the pesky creepy person who cannot let sleeping dogs lie am here again…. right???//
[moderator] “and hp@@@@@ made sure it was scrubbed every single time. He/She/It would report it within seconds and it would be scrubbed immediately…”
This statement is completely false. I made the decision each time. Nobody specific has reported it, although many people report many of your posts to me. Stop posting on this topic. I will continue to remove it where it is off topic.
Do you refer to Bill Kopper?
edited… conflict of interest is truly a hot topic…
edited
Why shouldn’t near relative policies also apply here?
I mean really, wtf is our town being run by vested interests?
Marina wrote:
> The UCD conflict of interest policies got expanded every year to now almost
> anyone who works on campus – any job whether paid or volunteer- if they
> are related by blood, or marriage, or even live in a frat house together, the
> “near relative” policies apply…
I’m pretty sure that even UCD’s expanded “near relative” policy would not call a Indian American hotel developer a “near relative” just because your father was partners of an Italian American home developer in a non development business (when he was still alive years ago)…
Why are two people on the council who are known to be
1) either related to realtors, developers, investors and who grew up hearing how the NIMBYs were ruining this town….while amassing millions in the bank…
2) And/or actually investing in a project which was brought to scrutiny?
making decisions on new projects which benefit their families and cronies
Why shouldn’t near relative policies also apply here?
I mean really, wtf is our town being run by vested interests?
None wear vests…
I have no problem with removing all my comments… yet Marina, on the topic of comments, you believe that the following must stand:
I don’t know what venom was deleted from your posts,,, but much your venom was allowed to stand…
It is laughable to read Marina’s complaints about being edited, when any other respectable forum of which I’m a member would have banned her for life. She gets away with baseless character assassination day after day, her verbosity is exceeded only by her discourtesy and yet she seems immune to the report button. Her continuing promise to leave is just another prevarication.
venom? only after it was removed many a time.
and the stuff that is really important is not standing…doesn’t matter.
and that was after you went after me again…as you tend to do….
The Arnolds and Taorminos are very old friends… nothing wrong with that…and rascist? gimme a break.
The Arnold who marred a Taormino are not interracial…
I am tired of trying to make a point which is being pushed back on ….and misconstrued way too many times…
the important stuff is still being held back….really who cares, right
no…I had no expectation it would stand….it was the 4th attempt to share some truth and instead I was getting bashed around again..
all of my stuff can be removed, yet the truth is still the truth….
A continuing pattern of misbehavior and abuse that should be your shame, instead of your glory.
and finally the real issue is that on the city council we have people who are not in conflict of interest…
and they are making decisions for the rest of us…
and ps….a major and silent investor of many Arnold projects was/perhaps is Dave Taormino…
There is no conflict of interest – none. Will Arnold has no stake in Taormino’s company, he was bought out.
Marina wrote:
> the real issue is that on the city council we have people
> who are not in conflict of interest…
I’m often the first to call out a “conflict of interest” but I don’t see how someone who’s late father once was a business partner with a home developer or a guy who was once an investor in an apartment project that never was built is any kind of “conflict of interest” when they vote on a hotel project in town.
> a major and silent investor of many Arnold projects
> was/perhaps is Dave Taormino…
I asked before and you didn’t answer so not that you are saying that the Arnolds developed “many” projects in town with Dave Taormino as a silent partner please tell us the names of a few of these “many” projects or people will start to believe the people that say you are just spouting lies…
edited… the conflict of interest policies need serious review in this town… and the CC would be very wise to model after the UC system, before there are more lawsuits …and this will be one of the main reasons why…..
edited
Huh? Typo?
yes, typo wordo….wth has time to go back and fix them…not when I am multitasking and there is only 5 minutes to correct….and beside.it only gets scrubbed anyway..
the other person who I also mentioned, is Lucas Frierichs, ….after the hidden investor incident with him, I could no longer support him for re-election….too bad Matt was not voted in instead…..oh well…maybe next time?
Unless there is a current monied relationship there is no legal conflict.
see my response below if it is still there when you log back in
Robb Davis is right
I hope the project decisions will be based on laws, logic… not $’s… also, not on bombastic comments, irrational fears…
Maria has a point. All of the council members live in Davis, this hotel is going to be in Davis. All of the council members have seen a Doug Arnold “For Sale” sign in someone’s yard before, the hotel might have a for sale sign at some point. Your blind not to see the connection.
***Why won’t my picture of the crazy wall from A Beautiful Mind show up?***
+ 5
those who didn’t grok that movie either are now not groking the real issues here either…. oh well
I hope that the project opponents, including those who were posting here so vigorously, understand that this project is almost certain to go forward now. They aren’t going to block it at the city council. So I hope they will take Will Arnold’s position constructively, meet with the developers and work to make the mitigation effective. Based on comments by Robb Davis above, I share Brett’s skepticism about the likelihood of that bearing fruit. But this is their chance.
PS> There is a wonderful sacramento based attorney named Steve ..last name escapes me….who I hope still lives on the outskirts of Mace….if the neighbors who are fighting this need additional counsel, would highly recommend him also…
Steve Boutin. He still lives there. His Sacramento firm is Boutin Jones.