If Davis residents, who have more in common with each other than not, cannot come together on a common community vision, does that leave much hope for the bigger and deeper issues that divide this nation?
I pondered that thought as I read through the multitude of differing viewpoints on something that would seem to be very simple and very solvable – the Russell Boulevard fields. I have to say, I’m a bit baffled that UC Davis is continuing to persist on this one.
As I noted in yesterday’s column, Acting Chancellor Ralph Hexter told the regents that residents pushed back at the development of housing on the athletic fields along Russell Boulevard. When they did so, the plan was revised, reducing the housing.
But it wasn’t eliminated. In fact, the comment that Mr. Hexter made is rather ominous: “Over time, they’re going to have to recognize, ‘Well if you don’t want that (housing on Russell Field), you need to help us find more places for students to live in the city.’ So again, it’s dialogue.”
I’m not really seeing dialogue here. I am seeing stubbornness on the part of the university. At this point we are talking about 400 units. With all of the proposed increases in housing that UC Davis is proposing, if they just split the difference, they could spread those 400 units around to the various sites extremely easily without breaking a sweat and be done.
Instead, they continue to hold out for developing Russell Field. It would seem that the path of least resistance would dictate that they build where there isn’t community pushback.
What troubles me is that, instead of dealing with the issue at hand – the suitability of Russell Field for accommodating development – the entire issue became a proxy war for development overall, with one side arguing that the city needs to take on more housing and the other arguing that the university should take on more housing.
Then again Mark West may have it right here, if he is correct that the “the administration believes that the fields will eventually be developed.” But again, why would they come to that conclusion? It is fairly obvious that UC Davis, while it probably doesn’t have 5300 acres of developable land, has sufficient land around West Village to accommodate the next wave of student increases through 2027 and probably the next wave as well.
While I understand the divide in the community on the issue of growth – which is now manifesting itself in a battle over UC Davis growth – it might be better to approach each battle, one battle at a time, rather than trying to fight the war anew.
The other big front right now seems to be Richards Boulevard – which is likely a proxy war for Nishi and, to a lesser extent, the Hotel Conference Center and Lincoln40 on Olive Drive.
As I read a letter to the editor, it occurred to me that perhaps opponents of growth do not actually want to solve the traffic problems on Richards – believing, perhaps with justification, that fixing Richards will re-open the door to development along the corridor, and that they can shut down new development if Richards remains a problem.
One resident argues that “the traffic congestion situation at Richards Blvd, Olive Drive and the tunnel is unsolvable, period.”
I don’t agree. They don’t offer evidence that it’s unfixable. They simply assert it. There are actually several fixes – one would be to widen the tunnel and expand First Street into a four-lane road. I don’t support that solution, it would be expensive and would damage the character of this community – but it would solve the traffic congestion.
But there are other solutions that fall short of the nuclear option I just suggested.
First, as I have noted time and again, most of the traffic during peak hours is using the tunnel as the access point to UC Davis. We can fix that problem.
Second, the freeway interchange makes no sense and CalTrans has a fix for that.
To me those changes alone will solve a lot of the problem.
However, while the Richards/I-80 interchange will improve the LOS (Level of Service), most of the other studied fixes will have minimal to no change on LOS.
To me then, the focus should be on figuring out ways to dissuade people from using Richards as the university access point.
Davis could implement relatively inexpensive fixes that would make it more inconvenient for traffic to go through Richards. They could prevent left turns onto First Street during peak hours. They could limit access to the campus at A Street.
My bolder proposal, which raised the ire of those opponents of Nishi, would be to construct an additional roadway to campus through West Olive Drive, just as was proposed during Nishi.
How could this work? During the Nishi project proposal, part of their traffic flow plan called for a road from West Olive that would enter campus through an underpass. UC Davis has actually removed the potential grade-separated crossing from their LRDP (Long Range Development Plan).
Nishi itself should consider throwing some funding toward this project. If they wish to build a project on the site, having the infrastructure already in place would be a huge plus. Yes, it would be a bit of a gamble, but their future project is far more likely to pass if campus access was already built and the whole system alleviated congestion along Richards Blvd.
But, of course, that is exactly what the opponents of new growth do not want. But then again, the two should be viewed as separate issues. Just as opponents of growth want people to focus on Russell Field as an unacceptable option – so too, we should view the issue of traffic congestion at Richards as an unacceptable situation, and we can fight the growth battles along that corridor later.
We need to fix the problems that we have right now, not use those problems as excuses to prevent new projects from going forward. Fight those battles separately.
One thing that seems weird to me is that we have spent all of this time pushing the university to build more housing on campus, arguing that the university is generating growth demands that it is responsible for fixing – and yet, the university is causing traffic impacts and getting off without even a murmur of protest.
Put simply – the university is causing the congestion at Richards because it is allowing access to UCD through the tunnel. Why isn’t the community pressuring the university to fix this situation?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Let’s all save some time, just cut and paste all of yesterday’s comments and insert them below.
Focus on the Richards part of the commentary
That horse has been beat to death too.
yes…..make it a pedestrian and bike and emergency and bus and vendor trucks only are certain times of day only undercrossing..
keep the interchange for local, olive and south traffic
make a REAL interchange near the bike overcrossing…between pole line and mace
build more park and rides near the interchanges…
that is where the new parking structures should go
the city, campus, citizens and chamber should go in on some new trams and lock down streets ala Palo Alto….only neighbors will drive though neighborhoods..
Make it easier for folks to live in Davis without cars….it was easier in the 60s/70s..
Make it harder for people to drive…..
Won’t need idiot taxes if people walk more…I mean idiot taxes like on sodas? anyone here drink that crap anymore or allow their children to?
Make it easier to get around when you are ill, or in a rush…and that means a ton of changes….to the actual layout of the traffic flow..
The issues will only get worse unless real out of the box solutions are brought together.
So much time is waste by the same ole same ole on these repetitive and useless threads.
If one cannot trust the City to follow a general plan, these same folks are now trying to get the campus to work with the residents? what a bunch of waste of time nonsense.
Make and keep a general plan.. and THEN make and keep a campus/city plan…
That must be the order and it will only happen when the current council majority is no longer, and we have more highly qualified folks back on the council.
For years now the developers and such have run amuk and I was no longer hardly able to drive between my office on campus and South Davis…during any normal work hours…for me anywhere between 5 am – midnight….
Two sentences struck me with regard to UCD intent.
“I have to say I’m a bit baffled that UC Davis is continuing to persist on this one.” David
““Over time, they’re going to have to recognize, ‘Well if you don’t want that (housing on Russell Field), you need to help us find more places for students to live in the city.’ So again, it’s dialogue.” Vice Chancellor Hexter
I see these statements not as baffling, but likely to represent the current university strategy. First, provision of inadequate information. Granting that I may be missing information, since I am only following this issue on the Vanguard, I have not seen any clear explanation by Acting Chancellor Hexter as to why it is his belief that these fields must be part of the housing solution when as both Eileen and David have pointed out, it would appear that the University controls enough alternative space for the projected housing demand. This leaves me to wonder what it is that the Acting Chancellor knows that he is not choosing to share. Three broad possibilities come to mind for me. 1) The university has other plans for those other spaces and is not sharing that information. 2) The university has plans for the admission of more students than it is choosing to announce at this point ( less likely and bordering on the conspiracy theory but it did come to mind). 3) The university wishes to maintain the threat of placing housing on the fields as a bargaining chip with the city.
Although I do not know the long term goal, because the Acting Chancellor is not saying, the latter would seem most likely. We have seen this strategy used by developers here in town. I see this as a thinly veiled threat. Either you accept what we want to do, or you will be getting something that you will like even less. This was actually said during one neighborhood / developer meeting which I attended in person. If a private developer would choose to use this kind of strategy, is it really so much of a leap to think that in promoting the growth and development of the university, that university officials might not use the same techniques ?
UCD is not bargaining with the City and therefore does not require any bargaining chips. UCD is engaging with the City (and community) and adjusting to the responses received. There is no bargain to be made.
Anybody who believes we have seen the end of the expansion of UCD is a fool. The campus will continue to grow as long as there is demand. It is one of the few UC campuses that does not have its growth constrained by the surrounding geography.
This one you can guarantee, and as those spaces are in the middle of campus with no nexus to the noisy neighbors, there is absolutely no reason to share that information with you or anyone else.
I’m sure you do.
No, we don’t. “There is no bargain to be made.”
Ron
“No we don’t. There is no bargain to be made.”
Thanks for the very clear illustration of the other side of the “zero sum game” card.
Tia:
I was repeating Mark’s words, from the “other side” of the equation. But, in reality, neither the University nor the City has jurisdiction to “dictate” over the other.
In this case, the University is creating additional impacts for the city, regarding its enrollment plans. (It’s pretty easy to imagine a much stronger reaction from the city and its residents, if the University was a private organization.)
Who is harmed if we refuse to build more housing in Davis? The University? No.
The campus will continue to function and expand regardless of what the City decides on housing. The only harm that will accrue from your stance is on those residents of Davis who are unable to find appropriate housing and everyone else in town who has to live with the consequences of that lack of housing (continuing crowding of too many people into mini-dorms and the loss of young families, etc.).
Your advocacy, and that of Eileen, Collin, Tia and everyone else attempting to tell the University what to do with its own land instead of addressing our own shortage, is functionally an advocacy of harm directed towards your own neighbors. And to think, Tia believes that it is the University that is acting unneighborly.
Mark:
I was simply repeating your own words, and pointing out that neither the University nor the City has direct jurisdiction over what the other does. I’m not sure what might happen if a “third party” authority (such as the court system, and/or CEQA/EIR requirements) determines that the University’s plans are not in compliance, in some manner.
You seem to think that the University should do “whatever it wants”, regardless of the impact on its own students, faculty and staff. (Not to mention the impact on the city and its residents.)
We’re talking about a publicly-owned system, which presumably should not be harming the public (including its own students). This includes non-resident students, who seem to be recruited these days primarily for the financial benefit of the University.
And, let’s not forget the impact of master leases/purchases, which ensures that the city pays all costs and receives no offsetting tax revenue.
Your apparent stance that the city should expand its borders makes no sense (on several levels), and is likely not a viable alternative. Same thing with “out-of-scale” infill development.
I’d suggest that your “noisy neighbor” opinions (as you like to refer to others) are more of a minority view, in Davis.
Mark wrote:
> everyone else in town who has to live with the consequences
> of that lack of housing (continuing crowding of too many
> people into mini-dorms and the loss of young families, etc.).
You forgot to mention that the higher home prices and higher rents that will come if not much housing is built in town.
Many (but not all) of the people fighting housing in town have rental property or want the option of renting a room to a college student for top dollar. Many (but not all) are planning to retire and move and want to sell their home for big bucks (or have a high home value to enable them to borrow money at low cost with a HELOC or get a big reverse mortgage to live out there retirement years in Davis with a big reverse mortgage check that supplements their SS and/or pension)…
Ron…
At the serious risk of you calling me a “troll” again… CEQA is a disclosure process… not a regulatory one… you can make any decision you want, as long as its ENVIRONMENTAL impacts are disclosed… sorry, but also, the CEQA statutes do not cover rents, property values, availability of affordable housing, “feeling good” things…
Please learn. Meant to teach, not criticise… strongly doubt you will interpret this post that way… the bursting of bubble thing…
hpierce:
No – definitely not a “trolling” comment, although I did not mention what you describe as “feel good” things. (Not sure why you brought those things up.) No “bubble to burst”, on my end.
I put this out there to learn more, and to point out that there might be consequences that arise, as result of the University’s plans.
I see that an EIR is apparently required, as part of CEQA. Can you explain more about the relationship between potential lawsuits, CEQA, and EIRs?
Thank you. That is exactly the point I have been making and that you and others have consistently denied. We have no direct jurisdiction over what the University does.
We do, however, have direct jurisdiction over what the City does, so if there is a shortage of housing in Davis it is because we have failed to supply appropriate housing in Davis. The demand drivers for that housing need is really immaterial. The demand is there and we are failing to meet it, with obvious harm to the residents of the City as a direct result. Our fault, no one else’s.
Ron… will try to be gentle here…
If UCD does nothing, there is no new CEQA process.
If UCD plays out what they have already approved, no CEQA, except if they violate any action already disclosed, without conforming to any previous ‘required’/(adopted, actually) no harm, no foul.
If UCD expands enrollment, it might be a “ministerial act”… exempt from CEQA…
Much more, but am not inclined to “teach” too much today….
Primary lesson… CEQA is a disclosure process… not regulatory…
O.K., Mark. Stick to your “script”. According to you, it’s entirely the “city’s responsibility” to provide student housing in response to the university’s unilateral plans. (And, it apparently doesn’t matter where, or what impacts that it might have for students or the city and its existing residents.)
If you were actually concerned about a “shortage of housing”, you would join/encourage the effort to encourage the University to build more housing (even while sticking to your basic position). Instead, you criticize and downplay those efforts (despite direct/acknowledged evidence that it has yielded some results). You have focused solely on blowing up the borders of the city, and/or encouraging outsized/massive infill development.
And again, I’d suggest that you are (at least) as “noisy” as anyone to whom you’re attributing that characteristic, and that you happen to disagree with.
Mark
“UCD is engaging with the City (and community) and adjusting to the responses received. There is no bargain to be made.”
Please explain to me what you see is the difference.
“It is one of the few UC campuses that does not have its growth constrained by the surrounding geography.”
Or perhaps unbridled ambition for geographic and numeric expansion as well ?
“there is absolutely no reason to share that information with you or anyone else.”
Unless you happen to value collaboration, “neighborliness”, and good will as independent values, which I do and you apparently do not.
“I’m sure you do.”
The history of domestic violence, both in my own life and that of countless patients has given me a very keen sense of the power of the threat. I do not expect understanding in the absence of common experience.
A bargain comes when two (or more) people (entities) each with something of value to the other(s), make an arrangement concerning their shared use of those items of value. The issue at hand is how the University of California chooses to best utilize the land that it owns on the Davis campus. There is no ‘exchange’ of things of value here because the community has nothing to exchange. What the University is doing is listening to your concerns and making adjustments to their plans in response. That is not a negotiated bargain with a defined outcome, that is one side reconsidering their plans in light of another’s concerns. They are free to change their mind later.
If anything, the Davis campus is negotiating with the Board of Regents on the best use of the limited resources available.
Perhaps they take their responsibility to educate the best and brightest seriously and understand the need to expand enrollment as the population of California grows.
Or said another way, perhaps you value nosiness more than I do.
It would require an extremely high opinion of oneself to believe that the University of California would feel the desire (need, benefit) to ‘collaborate’ with an individual resident on their development plans. Simply amazing.
I am sorry for your experience, but it has nothing to do with the current discussion.
There was no threat, implied or otherwise, in the Chancellor’s comments. That you see one says more about you than anything else.
David wrote:
> If Davis residents who have more in common with each
> other than not, cannot come together on a common community
> vision, does that leave much hope for the bigger and deeper
> issues that divide this nation?
Davis is in better shape than most places is that almost everyone is on the same page.
About 70% of the people in town wanted a parcel tax, about 90% of the people in town are not happy that Trump is the president and about 99% of the people in town don’t care what UCD builds in the Russel field area…
Nail to head…..
We seem to have the same usual vocal minority crowd against this and for some reason we give them too much consideration.
It’s time for UC Davis to give these people the finger and build.
SOD
“About 70% of the people in town wanted a parcel tax, about 90% of the people in town are not happy that Trump is the president and about 99% of the people in town don’t care what UCD builds in the Russel field area…”
First two assertions are likely correct as voting numbers would suggest with the single correction that the “president elect” is not yet “the president”. I am curious about your source for the third assertion that “99% of the people in town don’t care what UCD builds in the Russel field area” since this has not to the best of my knowledge been put to either a vote or a city wide poll.
Does building a road from West Olive drive to the border of campus require a vote?
Sort of… the property owners on both ends, and the middle need to consent/vote to do that… and someone needs to pay for it all… a vote of $, if you will…
“Put simply – the university is causing the congestion at Richards because it is allowing access to UCD through the tunnel.”
Without the university there wouldn’t be any congestion there or anywhere in Davis.
Fixing the tunnel would fix the problem. Of course it would but many of the same people who oppose growth opposed fixing the tunnel when it was on the ballot. Yet you oppose this obvious solution.
Why not take Hexter at his word? If Davis wants to save the fields it could work with UC to create a comprehensive plan to address the shortage of housing where both jurisdictions start building homes. Of course the dogged opposition will call that a non-starter.
Roberta makes and excellent point. I have asked many students about if they would live on-campus and the answer was always the same. They would be happy to live on campus if there was available on-campus housing thatUCD would make affordable for them. So it is a manufactured effort by UCD so that students would not to live on campus because it works for UCD in that it gives UCD an excuse to not build adequate on-campus housing. This is clearly the case because more available on-campus housing (unlike at UCD) is working very well for other universities like UC Irvine, CSU Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and UC Santa Cruz.
Needing to go out for a while so I will check back in later on this discussion. And I completely agree with David’s comments about UCD’s “dialogue” comment. So much for UCD’s interpretation of dialogue.
One point hasn’t really been brought out much in the recent discussion. From the Enterprise’s article on Friday, it became clear that the administration is convinced that students do not want to live on campus and want to live “in the community.” This may be one reason that they are favoring Russell fields. I’d like to know what that belief is based on, and if it is accurate, how much it has to do with the pricing of on-campus housing and the “amenities” offered to students as compared to housing on other campuses.
I think that Roberta is making a good point. I also wonder how much of the students “desire to live off campus” is actually because the UCD policies have not been welcoming to their demographic. I have previously stated that as a medical student I would have loved the convenience of on campus housing, but there was none available for those of us in graduate programs at the time. I do not believe that I was alone. So much for the “desire” to live off campus !
Roberta and Tia… I don’t just think its the will/desire to live alone for the first time and not be under the thumb of an RA. It’s also price. And eventually students will need your help in advocating for affordable options on campus.
Count me in.
Count me in, too.
I’m wondering if there’s some type of “tie-in”, between on-campus housing and financial aid for those in need. (I understand that some types of financial aid pay for housing costs.) Seems like the managers of on-campus housing (and/or, the University itself) might be quite familiar with it.
The design of on-campus structures might also help with this. (I recall the “Save the Domes” effort, a few years ago.) It seems that such structures are allowed on campus (but probably not in the city).
BP
“Nail to head…..”
Nail to own head would seem to be a more accurate depiction until either you or SOD provide some evidence to back this assertion.
And I am not surprised by your aggressive stance.
“It’s time for UC Davis to give these people the finger and build.”
You seem to be joining the, “I am right because I say so group” who are so eager to downplay the concerns of others and support that by totally made up numbers.
Unless of course either you or SOD have evidence to back up the claim. I eagerly await either your evidence, or more likely, the chorus of crickets.
Tia, it doesn’t matter what the numbers are, tough I think that 99% don’t care is in the ballpark. It could be 100% of Davis being against building on the fields and UCD still should just give the middle finger and build anyway if they so desire.
BP: I see the Russell Fields controversy as more of a “request”, than a “demand”. And, as Mark noted above, UC Davis is encouraging dialogue and is starting to consider residents’ concerns regarding the impacts on the city, resulting from their enrollment plans.
One thing that I believe you’re overlooking is that many students (and perhaps faculty/management) also support the preservation of Russell Fields. (I believe that this is reflected on the petition.)
However, I agree with your other comment, in that this subject has been somewhat “beat to death”, already.
BP
I don’t deny that UDC will do what it will do. I do find it disturbing that without knowing where the majority of our citizenry is on this issue, you would applaud them “giving the finger” to your fellow residents. Not very “neighborly” from my point of view.
I guess it’s understandable, in such a smart city, so many polymaths, that everyone thinks they know more than anyone else on all subjects. The fact is you can’t figure out how to house people who work and go to school there, you can’t agree on how to pay for desperately needed repairs and projects. You are predictably contrary in dealings with adjacent municipalities and local agencies.
Based on past performance. I don’t like your chances of bridging any divides. Harrington would tie you up with nuisance suits before the plank is laid.
This idea that the Chancellor has somehow listened to residents and adjusted completely overlooks the fact that AFTER they scaled back the project, the Friends of Russell fields gathered and turned in over 450 individual written comments opposing the construction on the fields and a petition with over 1,800 signatures.
PS> if I were a betting lady, and I am not, I would bet in this case the deep pockets of some of my very, very old friends and neighbors, and the skills of some of my newer but still many decades old friends will win out…
at least in most of our lifetimes 🙂
and, I will not be on the side of UCD on this one…they lost me with some the other things they have done to others in recent years….
cya
hpierce is correct. CEQA is a public information disclosure process, intended to allow the decision makers in the “lead agency” to make an informed decision. This why a lead agency, such as a City Council or the Regents in the case of UCD, do not “approve” a CEQA document. The governing body first finds that the CEQA document is “adequate and complete,” and then “approves” the project. If the CEQA document identifies mitigation measures, those items are combined into a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and the lead agency needs to provide documentation that the measures have been completed. In some cases, it can take years before those measures are completed. (In a past job, I was not able to finalize an MMRP report until 8 years after an EIR had been certified and the project approved.)
Misanthrop suggested that perhaps UCD and the city could develop a comprehensive plan whereby both jurisdictions would build housing to meet student needs. In a perfect world, this would be a great suggestion. It could in fact be one that could be pursued, but there are some potential obstacles. First, the university has thus far proposed nothing more than low-rise, low density housing that would accommodate far fewer students per acre than some of the most recent projects proposed in the city (those being Lincoln40 and Sterling 5th Street Apartments). If the city were to be expected to accommodate projects of scale and density far greater than anything that has been built in the past (and which would require zoning exemptions), then UCD should in a similar fashion start practicing the sustainably it so vigorously proclaims by vastly increasing the density of the housing proposed in the draft LRDP.
Second, UCD should pledge that it will stop reserving apartment units in Davis with “master leases.” This practice makes apartments available solely to students, making them unavailable to working families. On top of that, execution of master leases on apartment buildings removes those properties from the property tax rolls, depriving both the City of Davis and County of Yolo of badly needed tax revenue. Some sort of legally binding mechanism (not an MOU that the university can ignore) would be needed to ensure that UCD does not renege on this obligation.
Third, UCD should be required to cease buying or offering to buy privately owned, taxable properties in Davis, as it recently did with a bid on the University Research Park. If UCD’s bid had been received, all of the properties at the site would have become exempt from property taxes. UCD cannot claim to be interested in fostering a collaborative “town and gown” atmosphere when it engages in such practices.
On the original theme of David’s commentary today: I’ve not studied all of the options well enough to have an opinion on how to solve the traffic mess at the Richards/Olive Drive/I-80 intersection. I’m sure that given enough time, however, a solution can be found.
Wow. Do you know how much UCD bid for that property? Seems like they’re acting more and more like a private organization (at the expense of the city).
Edison, and who do you suppose will do the requiring, right? you , the council…who?
And, Ron…see some of my other posts for a bit more info, though…some may have been snuffed..
it is CHEAPER for UCD to have off site land….cheaper to lease as can use off campus F&A rates for research grants… and then next best is to buy built up projects which are already completed and so on….there are many many reasons for each of the UCD actions…. to fully understand, one will need to have more education in the areas of engineering, construction laws, CA rules and regulations for ADA for public versus private buildings, title 24 which just took effect in Jany and way too much to ever fully explain it all.
Back to David’s original question: bridging a divide? I want to see Davis remain a small city; others want it to be about 150,000 population, a figure they estimate will provide a good partner to a “world class university” and support major events, attractions, and amenities. So it’s simply a difference of vision and opinion. One doesn’t make the other bad. Just different.
I personally think the voters in Davis don’t want large new developments. So when we go to the polls, the slow, reasonable growth side wins. The junkie stuff that the City gives us loses.
I think if you put Sterling Apts, or Lincoln 40, on the ballot, I have a strong suspicious that they would lose. Too big, too disrupting of existing neighborhoods, too much like country club resorts for rich children, just flat out too much of a reach. And the NO campaign would highlight that UCD is not building on campus housing, not even close to their fair share. So a NO vote is to tell the CC to be aggressive with UCD as to providing more campus housing.
If the CC had any respect for Davis residents, it would take both Sterling and Lincoln 40 and put them on the ballot together. I mean, if they are so great, why not trust the voters?
So yes, David, there is a divide, but it’s mostly driven by those rich local developers who over and over get CC members elected with cash and favors, and then push junk on us as a “take it or leave it” on the way to that magical 150,000 population total that Suzie Boyd and crew crowed about so often, but only in private or they never would get themselves elected ….
Mike: If some people want to see Davis at 150,000, they are few and far between.
David wrote:
> If some people want to see Davis at 150,000, they are few and far between.
I have never met (or heard of anyone) that wants Davis to get to even 100K in the next 30 years.
Since the town has gone from Jerome Davis and his farm to ~66,000 in ~150 years I think doubling to 132,000 in the next 100-150 years (when we are all dead) is not out of line.
Would it be possible for UCD and the City to have a land-swap of sorts? If UCD takes older housing off of the Citys tax roles via Master Leases, they would provide housing back onto the City’s tax roles? I am particularly thinking of the staff and faculty housing near Whole Foods and the like.
Would it be possible for UCD and the City to have a land-swap of sorts? If UCD takes older housing off of the Citys tax roles via Master Leases, they would provide housing back onto the City’s tax roles? I am particularly thinking of the staff and faculty housing near Whole Foods and the like.
Seems like making something like that possible, through legislation, would be a legitimate ask of our State representatives.