On Wednesday, the Planning Commission will review the Sterling project and recommend certification of the EIR and approvals of planning applications. Staff notes, as the Vanguard reported last week, that the project applicant has modified the project based on neighborhood concerns.
The changes have resulted “in an approximately 25% reduction in the project scale and density, relative to the number of units, bedrooms, and parking, compared to the original proposal.”
The previous proposal for redeveloping the former EMQ FamiliesFirst site at 2100 5th Street in Davis into Sterling Apartments generated a tremendous amount of opposition from neighbors at the nearby Rancho Yolo site. After working through a conflict resolution process, the developers have come back with a scaled down proposal.
The existing facilities and trees would be removed and redeveloped with a roughly 160-unit market-rate, student-oriented apartment building, with a separate affordable apartment component.
The original proposal called for 244 total units (203 market-rate student units with 727 bedrooms, and 41 affordable units with 74 bedrooms) and four- and five-story buildings.
The applicant has now reduced the size, height, and density of the project from the original proposal to three and four stories with 198 total units and 611 bedrooms, and also reduced the parking structure.
The revised 160-unit market-rate site now will have a three- and four-story apartment building, a parking structure, a two-story leasing office/clubhouse building, and site improvements. The apartments will contain a mix of one to five bedroom units, with a total of 540 single-occupancy bedrooms.
The four-story (five-level) parking structure provides 343 parking spaces. Five additional surface parking spaces are provided. The affordable site will have 38 surface parking spaces.
The neighbors have agreed to these changes, however, not everyone appears to be in agreement.
Some are calling this a “mega-dorm” project and are concerned that, while the size has been reduced from four and five stories down to three and four stories, the mass and scale is still too large. There are concerns about traffic impacts on the intersection of Fifth Street and Pole Line Road, streets which are already heavily traveled.
There are two cited concerns here. The first has to do with what is known as the “bed lease” where each bed or bedroom is associated with a separate lease agreement. There are advantages to this in that it maximizes occupancy.
But it produces a situation where the apartments become de facto dormitories where each bedroom has an individual bathroom and is basically a single-occupancy room, targeting students by only renting by the bed. This will address the student population but will obviously not be rented to average non-students and families in need of rental housing.
On the other hand, with students as the single-largest group needing rental housing, perhaps the city can eventually overcome this problem by creating more apartments to service students, and leaving single-family homes to families needing homes.
A second problem – one that has been raised before – is the complaint that they are not planning enough parking with 540 single-occupancy bedrooms served by 348 parking spaces. There is a fear that extra parking needs would spill over to the surrounding areas.
In our view, based on our analysis from last fall, there are actually far too many parking spaces. In our analysis last September, we found that, based on data from the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, only 30 percent of 36,000 students traveled to campus by car.
Breaking down the data further, less than half the students and just 42.7 percent of undergraduates have “access to a car.” And that number shrinks as we move into town.
Those who live outside of Davis are nearly all driving into town, with 91.5 percent having access to a car. Of those who live in Davis, less than half have access to a car.
Calvin Thigpen, a PhD candidate in Transportation Technology and Policy (TTP) at UC Davis, told the Vanguard that having access to a car is not a perfect measure of car-ownership as “some students could be referring to the same shared car.” He estimates that about 14,939 students have “access to a car.” That breaks down to 10,862 undergraduate students and 4077 graduate students. Based on that question, he would guess that the number of actual student-owned cars is an overestimate.
The parking lot would allow for 64.4 percent of the residents to have a vehicle. That is well above the 42.7 percent of undergraduates who have access to a car, according to the latest surveys.
At that rate, the parking lot would only need 230 spaces. That gives the parking lot over 100 spaces of fudge factor, which seems more than enough for the lot.
Overall, this leads to a few interesting questions that readers and the community should consider. The neighbors appear to be agreeable to the scaled down project – does it make sense to continue this “battle,” for lack of a better term?
As we noted last week in our analysis, with the university only going to 90/40 in terms of new students and total student housing on campus, and with a 0.2 percent vacancy level, the strategy for slow growth advocates seems odd.
The battle lines have constantly been to reduce the size of the projects on site, reducing the number of units. On one level, that makes sense as it reduces potential noise, sight, and traffic impacts at the site.
But on another level it means that there will likely have to be more of these infill apartment projects which will actually increase the impact overall in the city.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The original proposal was the very definition of a “straw man” proposal. I spoke with the developer’s representative after a meeting at the site, and he already acknowledged (months ago) that the proposal would likely be scaled back somewhat.
I have yet to see the supposed “support” for the “revised” proposal from Rancho Yolo, etc.
Unfortunately, the Vanguard is still focusing its efforts on encouraging dormitory-like structures far from campus, rather than on campus. (Even though the LRDP is not finalized.) It’s also unfortunate that the city’s LRDP subcommittee has encouraged this type of development (e.g., up to “2 miles away from campus”, essentially including the entire city). Another fine example of our representatives at work, on our “behalf”.
Also, a “lack of parking” does not translate into a lack of motor vehicle usage, one way or another.
False. Five seconds with Google:
Hexter’s Letter to City Proposes Inadequate UCD Campus Housing …
Feb 7, 2017 –
Guest Commentary: UCD Needs to Provide More … – Davis Vanguard
Dec 18, 2016 –
Guest Commentary: Housing is Our City and … – Davis Vanguard
Dec 19, 2016 –
Commentary: On UCD Housing Obligations | Davis Vanguard
Sep 30, 2016 –
Analysis: Additional Campus Housing Will Help but … – Davis Vanguard
Sep 22, 2016 –
Commentary: UCD Can and Must Do Better with On-Campus Housing …
Aug 19, 2016 –
My View: The University Has a Real Problem with Housing | Davis …
Jan 16, 2016
Commentary: Housing and UC Davis | Davis Vanguard
Oct 27, 2015
Letter: Imperative and Urgent Need for More On … – Davis Vanguard
Dec 20, 2016 -…
It’s not a binary choice, despite the efforts of yourself and others to frame it that way. UCD needs to provide more housing on campus. We need more housing in town. The one does not preclude the other.
“Unfortunately, the Vanguard is still focusing its efforts on encouraging dormitory-like structures far from campus, rather than on campus.”
No, we’re not.
David:
It seems that you have a very “short memory”:
https://davisvanguard.org/2017/03/commentary-scaled-sterling-good-deal-davis/
If you’re going to advocate for something, at least admit it.
You should be a lawyer, the way you have completely misrepresented my comment.
Here is your statement: “Unfortunately, the Vanguard is still focusing its efforts on encouraging dormitory-like structures far from campus, rather than on campus.”
Notice the component parts of you statement: “encouraging dormitory-like structures” “far from campus” “rather than on campus.”
What I wrote last week was “if the council approves the reduced project – as they really should at this point…”
Nowhere in there does it mention that we are encouraging dormitory like structures, all we basically said was given the agreement with the neighbors, the council should approve a given project. Nowhere did we weigh on anything you stated – dormitory like structures, far from campus, not on campus.
Don flat out contradicted your statement with a show of all the articles where we pushed for more housing on campus and supported 100/50.
So you’ve taken one small comment and completed misrepresented what it meant and then said, “If you’re going to advocate for something, at least admit it.” I would question whether my comment was even tantamount to advocacy, all I said is “they really should at this point” even though the thrust of the article was that it was probably a bad deal for Davis.
I would be fair to say, I don’t have an automatic and inherent problem with building dormitory like structures, but I’m not out there advocating for them at the exclusion of other projects or on-campus housing.
I don’t think you have any legs to stand on here and certainly not to arrogantly proclaim: “If you’re going to advocate for something, at least admit it. (Failing to do so reminds me of another “frequent commenter”, on the Vanguard.)”
And yet, your other quote (pasted above) clearly states advocates that the council should approve it. No – it doesn’t take a lawyer to read English.
By the way, I find it interesting that you’re taking it upon yourself to provide the “neighbors’ opinions”. So far, it seems that the only ones who are supporting this proposed development are the usual “pro-development suspects”.
(P.S. – I believe that the Vanguard is experiencing some technical problems today, regarding comments that disappear when logging in.)
Also – “built into” your comment is an underlying assumption that it’s the city’s responsibility to house “200 students” that would theoretically be displaced by not pursuing the original Sterling “straw man” proposal (despite the fact that it was apparently “modified” by the developer). (No mention of UCD’s unilateral decision and corresponding lack of responsibility to increase international student enrollment – which might be undermined by Trump’s actions, regardless.)
In other articles, I recall you mentioning the “need” to create several large-scale apartment complexes within the city, as a result of UCD’s plans to increase enrollment.
When advocating something, it’s best to simply acknowledge it, rather than “couch it” in other terms.
You are correct – built into my comment is something called math. The math is simple. We have a housing shortage now, we have a university promising only to build for 90 percent of new students, and even if they get to 100 (which they have not committed to), we will have a need for additional apartments in Davis.
“In other articles, I recall you mentioning the “need” to create several large-scale apartment complexes within the city, as a result of UCD’s plans to increase enrollment.”
Your comment went beyond my basic argument which is the city doesn’t have enough units and the university isn’t committing to build enough to suggest something that I’m not advocating for.
“When advocating something, it’s best to simply acknowledge it, rather than “couch it” in other terms.”
Didn’t advocate location, method or form. Hence, you are misrepresenting me. I ask you politely, to stop.
Some commenters are in the habit of performing simple calculations, as “proof” of a broader argument (which has significantly more variables). I’ve seen this many times, on the Vanguard.
In this case, the LRDP is not even finalized – including UCD’s housing plans, as well as its tentative plans to increase international student enrollment (which might not even come to fruition, given Trump’s recent actions).
Also, adding “X” numbers of units does not necessarily equate to housing “X” numbers of increased enrollment. Given other options that students have, the relationship is not linear.
(P.S. – There’s still a technical problem, in that I need to log out to see your comments today.)
Yes, Ron… and some commenters feel no need to use math, nor facts, to make, and/or “prove” their assertions. As I suspect you well know.
BTW, do you realize your “non-linear”/other choices argument(s) can be used by UCD to justify little/no new housing on campus?
Ron said . . . “Some commenters are in the habit of performing simple calculations, as “proof” of a broader argument (which has significantly more variables). I’ve seen this many times, on the Vanguard.”
And some Vanguard readers follow imaginary lines of logic to see “proofs” where there are no such proofs intended . . . only data and the correlation/amagamation of data as evidence to be considered.
Some Vanguard readers also believe there are “right answers” to questions for which there is so much subjectivity and/or uncertainty that “right answers” are an impossibility. There is a reason that the expression “you can’t please all the people all the time” exists (and resonates).
Yes, Howard. I agree. Of course, it’s probably worse to “pretend” that one doesn’t have an opinion, except for one supported by whatever “selective information” that they might choose to present.
I understand that UCD is already using “non-linear/other options” argument, regarding the 10% referenced by David. However, unlike the city, the university is initiating the proposed increase in enrollment, and can also reserve housing exclusively for students.
I can’t help Ron if you put me on ignore.
“can also reserve housing exclusively for students.”
I find it that one of your points of complaint has been that this development is basically designed for students, and that it’s a selling point for the university to have the ability to do so. You can’t have it both ways.
To state my position clearly for everyone else reading:
1. If the neighbors and developers have reached an agreement, I support the city going forward on this project
2. I am agnostic on the issue of student oriented apartments
3. I support the university expanding to 100/ 50 from 90/40
Anything else I need to clarify?
David:
I didn’t hit “ignore”, so I’m not sure what happened.
Yes – it’s better for everyone (including students) for student-oriented housing to be located on campus. (For example, students won’t have to negotiate a daily “commute” through a congested city, if such developments are located on campus. Depending upon class schedule, some students may need to travel back-and-forth between campus and the development several times per day.)
Again, I’m not seeing anyone who has changed their mind regarding this development, let alone the concerns of entire neighborhoods (and beyond). A slight reduction in the massive size of the development (which appears to have been planned for some time) does not constitute a “concession” to the neighborhood, or the city.
“Again, I’m not seeing anyone who has changed their mind regarding this development, let alone the concerns of entire neighborhoods (and beyond).”
Wasn’t there a conflict resolution process with the neighbors and didn’t they reach an agreement? If I’m wrong, I’m sure one of my friends from Rancho Yolo will correct me.
David Greenwald said . . . “Wasn’t there a conflict resolution process with the neighbors and didn’t they reach an agreement? If I’m wrong, I’m sure one of my friends from Rancho Yolo will correct me.”
David, I walk three days a week with 3-4 members of the Rancho Yolo Community, including their Board President. Rancho Yolo selected three negotiators from the community to negotiate with the developer under the watchful supervision of the City. The process was very similar to the one followed by the Rose Creek neighborhood with Hyatt House. The end result was indeed an agreement.
Ron’s propaganda is either underinformed or maliciously misleading. Only he can answer which of those two options is the case.
Ron said . . . Again, I’m not seeing anyone who has changed their mind regarding this development, let alone the concerns of entire neighborhoods (and beyond).
The only reason you are not seeing it Ron is that you are not looking.
Matt:
Let’s see the “agreement”, then. (Including documented evidence of the entire process that you’re referring to.)
And again, Rancho Yolo doesn’t speak for the entire community, nor are they the only neighbors. (Also, I have yet to see any statement from anyone in that community that the process you’re referring to has changed their position.)
In the case of Rose Creek, the neighborhood actually received something tangible, in return. (And, the primary reason that there was an “agreement” is that the city council essentially told that neighborhood that the hotel would be approved, regardless. Is that also what happened, with Sterling?)
Again, Sterling’s developer representative had personally told me (months ago) that a reduction in the size of the proposal was likely (words to that effect). (Apparently, well-before any supposed agreement.) What, exactly, did Rancho Yolo supposedly receive as part of the “agreement”?
Ron: Why are you being such a pain?
David:
That’s a loaded question, isn’t it? (Maybe you should ask that question of those who participate in various protests, whom you might support.)
Perhaps it’s because I see the city making mistakes, with the apparent support of some. Perhaps even some undue pressure to come to an “agreement”, as experienced by the Rose Creek neighbors. (Watch out, Trackside neighbors – and others.)
Really, I’d think that you’d welcome such challenges.
I don’t care about what your motivation is in general, I mean instead of taking at face value representations from two people who have knowledge about the conflict resolution policy, you’re response is “let’s see the agreement.” You’re being a pain in that respect, for no apparent reason. If you’re view is that they don’t speak for the whole neighborhood, fine, that’s a valid point. But to question that there was a conflict resolution process and an agreement is frankly insulting.
David:
Again, the only people who have mentioned an “agreement” are Matt, and you. (And, you didn’t seem to know much about it.) You’re suggesting Matt’s brief statement should be relied upon as complete and factual, regarding this (apparently new) process of engaging in (and perhaps coercing) private “agreements” with some neighbors, to facilitate various developments? (Again, look at the Rose Creek process.)
Now, that’s a story that might be worth exploring in the Vanguard.
If there is such an agreement, this is not something to be kept confidential. Such decisions impact others, including those who are not part of any agreement.
Also, the manner in which the city “handled” Rose Creek should not be a “model” for other potential agreements. (Essentially telling that neighborhood that the hotel would be approved, even if there was no agreement.)
In any case – yes – let’s see the agreement, including the documented process which led to it. Informally mentioning it (without providing documentation and details) is a disservice to the entire city, and may ultimately represent a threat to all neighborhoods which are subjected to unwanted developments.
So in the course of one day, you started with a false assertion, you’ve insinuated that David and Matt are lying, you’ve cast aspersions on the city’s resolution policy, implied that they use coercion, and demanded proof and documentation of the agreement.
All under the privilege of anonymity on the Vanguard.
You’re on a roll.
David… (your 6:43 post)… the word ‘pain’ reminded me of a medical experience an acquaintance had… suffered from chronic hemorrhoids… very painful… finally saw a proctologist who performed a hemorrhoidectomy… then, he was a perfect *******…
Don:
That’s b.s., and you know it. Irresponsible to make such a statement. Incorrect, on many levels (not worth responding to, individually).
If you think I’ve violated Vanguard policy, then censor it. (Actually, your comment would probably qualify for that.)
Correct on every level.
— false assertion
— implying they are lying.
— implying coercion.
It’s not “irresponsible” for me to point out your standard operating procedure on the Vanguard.
Ron, there is an easy way for you to get a simple direct answer to all your questions. Contact the planner in the Community Development and Sustainability Department who is responsible for the Sterling project (see http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/test-development-projects), make an appointment, and conduct an interview. You attended the September 29, 2016 Community Meeting at the Families First site, so you know exactly who the planner is (Eric Lee). Show some initiative and do some due diligence.
Further, if you took the time to review the comments submitted during the EIR process (see http://cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=6062) you would find that 33 of the 43 comments submitted were from Rancho Yolo residents, and the 10 not from Rancho Yolo were heterogeneous (two from NAMI-Yolo, one from the Yolo-Solano AQMD, one from Eileen Samitz, one from Alan Hirsch, two from Jack and Jane Schafer-Kramer, one from myself, and one from one other person).
Rancho Yolo clearly had (A) the critical mass of comments and (B) along with the Schafer-Kramers, the closest neighborhood proximity. They had also taken the time to get legal representation from Legal Services of California. They didn’t just talk the talk, they walked the walk. The fact that the City and the developer reached out to them comes as no surprise.
Matt:
Thanks for the suggestions, but you’re the one who stated that Rancho Yolo had come to some type of agreement, and specifically mentioned your personal knowledge and involvement with Rancho Yolo. And yet, there are no details. For example:
Was leadership selected to represent all of Rancho Yolo residents, specifically to engage in negotiations regarding this particular development? (Or, did the leadership already exist, for a variety of purposes?)
Is leadership supporting the proposed development, or just agreeing to not take a position regarding the development?
What are the terms of the agreement? (In other words, what is each party getting out of it, and what are they giving?)
Does the agreement preclude individual residents of Rancho Yolo from expressing their opinions, or engaging in legal action on their own (or with their peers)?
You’ll probably recall that some of these types details were discussed on the Vanguard, regarding the agreement surrounding Hyatt. And yet, there are absolutely no such details, regarding Rancho Yolo and Sterling.
Not sure why you’re mentioning the EIR process, in response to questions regarding the “agreement” that you brought up.
And finally, I’m wondering why you’re (once again) involved in (and meeting with) neighbors and others who are concerned about various developments. And in this case, apparently stating that there’s “agreement” among members of a particular community, regarding a proposed development.
Don:
Again, your conclusions regarding my statements is incorrect. If anyone is interested, they can read the entire thread and arrive at their own conclusions.
Never said anyone was lying, for example.
From what was reported on the Vanguard, it did appear that coercion was a factor in the Hyatt agreement. (By the time that the final “negotiations” were suggested, the city had already made it clear that they intended to approve a hotel on the site.) Still, in the case of Hyatt, the terms of the agreement were at least more clear and tangible.
All we have here is Matt stating that the leadership of Rancho Yolo has “agreed”, or something to that effect. (Actually, I’m not sure what he is stating, at all.)
I must say that I’m sometimes disappointed in the Vanguard’s editorial efforts. Quite often, there doesn’t appear to be an openness to encourage full and honest discussion. (In fact, there appears to be outright hostility to that concept.) Seems ironic for a publication such as the Vanguard to take that approach. Unfortunately, I don’t have much faith that you’ll see or understand that point. (Even David doesn’t, at times.)
You’re just digging your hole deeper here, Ron.
You made a false assertion.
You’ve repeatedly questioned the veracity of what David reported about Rancho Yolo and Sterling. If you imply repeatedly that you don’t think they’re telling the truth, you are accusing them of lying.
You have now clearly accused the city of coercion in the Hyatt process.
If you had more self-awareness, you’d realize that you pissed David off tonight, and now you are critiquing his “editorial efforts.”
I hope you will reconsider your approach.
Don:
You’re completely clueless, regarding your comments tonight. Sorry to see that.
I have realized that some associated with the Vanguard don’t like to be challenged, regardless of facts (or lack thereof). And, that’s unfortunate.
If such hostility continues, the Vanguard will probably continue its march toward homogeneity.
I strongly urge you to reconsider your approach on the Vanguard.
Ron said . . .
Actually Ron, you were the first to reference the Rancho Yolo agreement in your 9:34 am comment.
I answered that question in my 6:24 pm comment “Rancho Yolo selected three negotiators from the community to negotiate with the developer under the watchful supervision of the City.”
To get an answer that will satisfy you, that is a question you will have to ask either Eric Lee or the Rancho Yolo Community Association.
To get an answer that will satisfy you, that is a question you will have to ask either Eric Lee or the Rancho Yolo Community Association.
To the best of my knowledge the agreement does not preclude individual residents from expressing their individual opinions. Regarding legal action, to get an answer that will satisfy you, that is a question you will have to ask either Eric Lee or the Rancho Yolo Community Association.
Again, to get an answer that will satisfy you, that is a question you will have to ask either Eric Lee or the Rancho Yolo Community Association, or Sterling.
I answered that question in my 6:24 pm comment “David, I walk three days a week with 3-4 members of the Rancho Yolo Community, including their Board President.” It is a group of 25 to 35 walkers know as the Brisssk Morning Walkers, that regularly reaches out to the community in the Enterprise The daily discussions while walking cover a wide range of topics from Open Space Preservation, to City Finance, to the Arts, to the Environment, to Oil Trains, to Energy, to Water, to Senior issues, to Healthcare, to politics, etc. It is no surprise that with 10% or more of the walkers being residents of Rancho Yolo, we often talk about the latest goings on in that wonderful Davis neighborhood. We meet every Tuesday and Thursday at 7:00 am at Peets in the Marketplace, as well as Saturday at 8:00 am at Common Grounds in South Davis. We walk 4 miles in just over an hour. Good times. Good exercise. Good people from most all walks of life, but to-date, not a single developer. It is participative democracy in action. Citizens talking to citizens.
Matt:
I did not mention an agreement in my 9:34 a.m. comment. However, there was some allusion to an agreement (without details/evidence), in the article (to which I was responding).
Again, basic information, such as terms of agreement (that you brought up) were not included in your lengthy response.
There’s a saying in auditing: “If it’s not in writing, it doesn’t exist.” (Verbal/informal statements can be used to support other documented evidence.) I don’t doubt that something occurred, but we have no idea what it is, or the depth of its support or opposition, even within Rancho Yolo.
Ron said . . . “Not sure why you’re mentioning the EIR process, in response to questions regarding the “agreement” that you brought up.”
Actually Ron, when 33 out of the 43 formally submitted comments are from a single neighborhood democracy is in action, and those 33 comments are staking a claim to being an important voice in the community on this issue.
Further, when you look at the other 1o formally submitted comments, what do they have in common?
edited
The simple answer is that the detail issues those 10 comments raise have very little in common, unlike the 33 Rancho Yolo comments that have everything in common.
So, the EIR is like the sacrament … the outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace. The EIR is tangible black-and-white evidence on an official legal document that clearly shows Rancho Yolo’s commitment to being heard.
For what it is worth, it is also tangible evidence of the following comments I submitted
[moderator] edited
Don: “I strongly urge you to reconsider your approach on the Vanguard.”
Sorry, but I don’t like being threatened. Not a good journalistic practice to do so, either.
Ron said . . . There’s a saying in auditing: “If it’s not in writing, it doesn’t exist.” (Verbal/informal statements can be used to support other documented evidence.)
The same saying applies to audit industry standards for the definition of conflict of interest. Feel free to provide a link to such standards that you have cited many, many times over. The Institute of Internal Auditors or the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners may be able to help you with that linked standard.
[moderator] Let’s stop discussing this issue until or unless there is an actual thread on the topic. Noting this on both comments.
Matt:
We’ve had communications regarding conflict of interest, previously. (Most of which was deleted.) Again, you fail to understand the difference between auditing standards, vs. criteria. It seems that you don’t like to honestly and openly discuss this subject, perhaps due to your personal relationships with those who might be affected. (And yet, you’re the one who keeps bringing this subject up, at this point.)
[moderator] Let’s stop discussing this issue until or unless there is an actual thread on the topic. Noting this on both comments.
Ron
To demand proof of conversations and documentation on the comments section of a website article is completely unreasonable. You will have to accept the assertions made here, and then to the City Council meeting for the hearing on the issue and make your demands there. That is the only forum in which you will have the legal standing to make such a demand. It is pointless and a waste of everyone’s time to try to make such a demand here. You will have to live with the fact that you can only get so far in a discussion forum. Right now all of the evidence presented in this comment section are lined up against you. You will need to develop your own evidence other than your unhappiness to address these.
Richard:
This has nothing to do with my level of “happiness”.
Again, I’m not the one who is stating that there is an “agreement”, in which absolutely no details are provided (including basic terms of the agreement). If this is going to be brought up by someone (as a reason that a particular development should be approved), they ought to be able to provide at least some basic information (as was the case with Rose Creek).
In terms of “evidence lined up against me”, there is no evidence. However, there are plenty of commenters (including some associated with the Vanguard) who apparently don’t like to be questioned. (And yes – those folks are “lined up against me”)
[moderator] comment edited.
Ron: I’m pretty much done dealing with this.
But I’ll note that the main point that Richard made was this: “To demand proof of conversations and documentation on the comments section of a website article is completely unreasonable.”
It was a similar point I made yesterday.
You didn’t focus on his main point, you focused on the last line: “You will need to develop your own evidence other than your unhappiness to address these.”
There is a basic courtesy here that you are lacking. The courtesy goes something like this – you are free to disagree with people’s conclusions, but unless you have evidence that a representation is false, you generally grant people the benefit of the doubt.
You’re not doing that and so you are in effect calling me a liar without evidence.
The sad part is that I know this message will not be understood by you. You don’t get it and you don’t want to get it.