While the election is two weeks from tomorrow, as of right now, I believe that Measure L is likely to pass. It should be noted that there are no polls that I am aware of at this time and therefore all of the conclusions are an informed speculation. So if you do not like conjecture and speculation – consider this your trigger warning.
My prediction at this time is a fairly comfortable margin of victory for Measure L. With two weeks left and a still dynamic election environment, that is subject to change.
Bear in mind, predicting an election is tricky business. The national prognosticators armed with a whole battery of polling across the nation got the result of the 2016 presidential election wrong. Indeed, while I have been doing this for a long time and most of the time have gotten the predictions correct, that is not universally true.
For instance, I thought Nishi 1 would pass narrowly and it didn’t. We were surprised by the volume of the Bernie vote in the 2016 election and the effect that it had on the outcome was actually the opposite of what we might have expected. It is one reason why I believe that the decision not to have on-site affordable housing was fatal to Nishi 1 – it caused an otherwise supportive student vote to turn against the project.
In addition, we did not expect Brett Lee to finish a commanding first in the council race in 2016 and were also surprised to see Gloria Partida finish first in 2018 – although our prediction was 
that it would be Dan Carson and one of the women, we were expecting Mr. Carson to finish first rather than second.
With those preliminaries and disclaimers out of the way, here is the thinking behind the Measure L decision.
First, while I have been leaning toward this prediction for some time, the first time it really solidified was during last Sunday’s forum. Forums are important because they tend to bring people interested in the issue out to see it. Things I look for at forums: how many people show up, who are they, and what way are they leaning.
The first thing to note is that the room was not jam packed. At the council forum for instance, the room at Davis Community Church was completely filled. This time there were less than 100 people there, perhaps closer to 60. That suggests that this isn’t an issue that is strongly resonating with the public. In my view, that plays to the advantage of the Yes side. The more people that come, the more engaged the public is, and the more it plays to the No side, which tends to be more angry and energized than the Yes side.
Second, the room was not a room full of “usual suspects.” I know people don’t like that term as it can be dismissive, but here it plays a crucial role as it distinguishes the people who are normally engaged and attentive from the people who do not normally show up to these events. This was a room with more people than usual who would not be considered normally engaged and attending public events.
The third point is who those people are and, from my observation, they were seniors who were likely supportive of the project rather than progressives who were likely to oppose the project.
Put it all together and that was a good sign for the Yes side as it indicated that the people active and engaged are their core supporters rather than the No side’s core supporters.
Beyond the forum, other indicators seem pointing toward a Yes victory as well. In late September, the No side or someone potentially affiliated with them filed a lawsuit against the project, alleging disparate impacts and racial discrimination.
The question for us: From a political perspective, was that a successful strategy that served to disrupt the momentum of the Yes side and change the dynamics of the election?
Answer: It does not appear so.
What I am assessing is whether the argument has gained traction. The immediate response to the lawsuit was interest, but it wasn’t overwhelming interest. There were comments, but they were the usual commenters. Our inquiry to councilmembers and the developer did not show that there was a sudden rush of emails to them. There was not a rush of letters to the editor.
In short, if the goal was to make this accusation go viral, there is no indication of it.
The first council meeting was supposed to feature Mark Merin and some of the No supporters. However, Mr. Merin did not show and the supporters, members of the No on L team, were small in number and actually outnumbered by people who spontaneously came to complain about Pacifico. That was telling.
Some suggested that the day after the lawsuit was announced was too soon. Okay, so we had a second meeting last week. Three people came to talk about Measure L, all members of the No campaign – Rik Keller, Alan Pryor and Nancy Price.
The Vanguard is not getting letters or emails from people in the community. We have not heard from members of the public concerned about the race issue. We do have some evidence that the letter written by Mayor Pro Tem Gloria Partida reassured some people on the issue but, overall, the issue has not seemed to resonate with the public.
Finally on the broader issue – we are seeing some interest in the election among our core commenters, but we are not seeing evidence of issue expansion. In the 2009 Measure P/Wildhorse Ranch election, we saw huge engagement and a number of new commenters who were activated. In 2016, we saw some of that with Nishi.
What we are seeing this time is much more along the lines of Nishi 2018 – there just isn’t a lot of engagement or issue expansion. We are not seeing people get active to oppose the project, beyond those already involved.
While we believe there is a core 35-40 percent no vote in this community, we are not seeing any indication of the opposition moving much beyond that. In short, my prediction is a fairly comfortable margin of victory for Measure L.
There is one big wild card here – the general election audience. In 2005, they ran a special election and saw a 60-40 defeat for Covell Village/Measure X. In 2009, they ran a special election and saw a 75-25 defeat for Wildhorse Ranch/Measure P. In 2016, they ran it during the normal council election and the result was narrow defeat of Nishi/Measure A. And this year, they ran it during the normal council election and the result was a solid victory for Nishi/Measure E.
They have not run a Measure R election during a November general election. We’ll see what a broader electorate means for a senior housing project. My guess is that occasional voters are more likely to support a senior housing project, but we’ll see.
Put it all together and I predict a victory for Measure L. Stay tuned.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
I think you’re wrong David. Measure L will be defeated. Nishi II passed only because voters didn’t see it as a peripheral project. They saw it as infill close to the campus and filled a need for student housing. WDAAC is a whole different story. It’s totally peripheral and I feel doesn’t fill the biggest needs. Do you really believe there are that many seniors looking to move in this town? I don’t and feel like any enthusiasm has been somewhat drummed up. Then you have the no-growthers, the slow-growthers and those who are looking at preserving the equity in their homes who are going to vote no. Residents are complaining about how crowded downtown is getting and how hard it is to park. So do you believe they are then going to vote to add more people and more cars?
This is not the development that Davis needed and voters will see it that way.
I agree with you that the whole drummed up racial issue was just stupid and misguided and never gained any traction. The no side had so much ammo if they had just stuck to the facts that this project isn’t the development that fills Davis needs.
I disagree Keith. I believe that they have astutely leveraged the selfishness of old people. We see this with the school parcel taxes as well.
Ok Jim, what makes you think that “old people” are any more “selfish” than anyone else? Your evidence would be? I think what you are citing is human behavior. Students advocate for….guess what…student housing. Families with children want…guess what…housing for families. Developers want…guess what…profits from housing? Seniors want…housing for seniors. See a pattern?
I concede that I could be wrong. However, one I didn’t make because I was running long. There are no direct impacts of this development. Covell Village an nihi had direct traffic impacts. Nishi – near neighbor. But nothing for this or Nishi 2.
Maybe not much direct local to the development impacts, but adding thousands of new residents will have impacts on traffic all over Davis and especially downtown where we are already squeezed now. I don’t know why people who are complaining about downtown traffic would now want to vote to add to the problem.
The traffic analysis should at most ten second delays on Covell. It’s not likely that a cumulative effect is going to be high. Also you’re overstating the traffic from this. You’re looking at no more than 500 additional vehicles and probably not even that. Dispersed throughout the city is going to be minimal
Where did you come up with 500 additional vehicles? I know all of my neighbors have at least two vehicles whether a retired couple or a family. Some have 3 and 4 vehicles. I’ll bet on average that most people make 5 to 10 downtown trips a week. So that’s closer to 1000 vehicles times 5-10 trips a week which would equal somewhere closer to 5,000 -10,000 extra trips downtown a week, all in my estimation and opinion.
I’ll have to see what the traffic analysis comes up with for a vehicle figure. But keep in mind that the affordable sites are likely to have low car ownership rates. That’s 27 percent of the spots.
David, I’ve been known to go to downtown Davis 3 and 4 times in a single day. A run to Ace Hardware in the morning, return to see a movie at noon and then go back that night for a pizza. I really think 5-10 trips a week downtown is well within reason.
“Residents are complaining about how crowded downtown is getting and how hard it is to park.”
Yes, but not so long ago we had downtown businesses complaining because the downtown was not “vibrant enough”. It was Jason Taormino who when asked at a forum how he defined “vibrant” stated a downtown that generates enough money for “the things we want”. Unfortunately, due to lack of time he never specified who the “we” of his reference was and what it was that his particular we wanted.
I conducted a highly unscientific “trips to downtown per week” survey of two senior households and got the following answers:
Household One — My wife goes to Trader Joes a couple of times a week, not sure if you would count that as downtown. I met someone for a downtown lunch a week or so ago. I guess I would have to say 3 or 4 trips to downtown a month, so maybe once a week. My wife would be the same or even less.
Household Two — If civic pool counts, then around 10.
My own Household — If the Senior Center/City Hall complex counts, then between 3-4 a week. If not, then 1-2 per week.
David Greenwald said “but keep in mind that the affordable sites are… 27 percent of the spots”
You keep falling for the project propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The proposed 150 affordable “units” are in fact all studio and 1-bedroom, as opposed to the 2-, 3-, and “3+” bedroom units on the rest of the site. Occupancy rates (persons per household) of the market rate units will be much higher than the affordable units and generate much higher trip rates and impacts.
If the developer really plans for “150 affordable units” how is telling people about the “150 affordable units” propaganda (biased or misleading)? They are not telling anyone they plan to build 150 4,000sf 5 br homes homes when they are really planning studio and one bedroom units (why would low income seniors even want to a 4,000sf 5 br home)…
Didn’ Thompson tell you that HUD regulations only permit one bedrooms for senior affordable housing? Did you look it up to verify? If not – why not?
Crickets
53% yes, 47% no. No near-neighbor opposition.
I suspect that the vote will be close.
One of the problems with this type of piecemeal proposal process is that as each of the potential sites for an innovation center is “used up” exclusively for housing (e.g. the Cannery, Nishi, and WDAAC), it will put pressure on the remaining site (MRIC) for such a development. And frankly, some on the council have a very “optimistic” view of the fiscal impacts of an innovation center. No doubt, we’ll be hearing a lot more of those optimistic projections. (And, it will include even more housing.)
Combine that with the low property taxes from seniors at WDAAC (exacerbated by the expected approval of Proposition 5), and you essentially have a recipe for such an effort.
Here’s a link to the (withdrawn) Davis Innovation Center, which appears to include a substantial portion of the site that’s now proposed for WDAAC:
http://davisinnovationcenter.org/the-project/project-location/
I know you believe there is overlap but I don’t believe there is. If there is ids very small and a non-factor. Not that I believe the previous spot of an innovation center is likely in the future given that the developers moved on.
I believe it’s exactly the same site (the lower portion of the “T”).
There are more than one “innovation center developers”.
The former Davis Innovation Center site itself is ideal – close to UCD, as well as non-impacted freeway access points.
In contrast, MRIC is on the other side of town, away from UCD. Traffic from it will pass directly through town. On prime farmland, next to a constantly-gridlocked freeway (which is getting worse with each new development approved in the region).
Actually no on both counts. Believe it or not Ron, without enough housing built in town, the employees working at the innovation center will still need to take the freeway and use the exits and entrances. The difference here as compared to the Mace innovation center is that these employees will use many more of the surface streets and also so will the trucks.
And Woodland will already have an innovation park just north on 113.
That ship has sailed and will never come back.
Jeff: If I recall correctly, you previously advocated (quite strongly) for an innovation center at this site. You also noted that there’s a commercial/residential “imbalance” in Davis, compared to other cities. (That is, too much residential, compared to the amount of commercial development.)
I believe you’ve also complained about the already-skewed population in Davis, regarding the “excess” of seniors (and the lack of younger, working folks who aren’t students).
MRIC is a good site, if the “goal” is to approve a development that will attract workers from the Sacramento area. (And, provide housing for those who won’t necessarily work at the site, or in Davis at all.) Any interaction/traffic between MRIC and UCD will go right through town.
Regarding the “ship sailing”, that (unfortunately) never seems to occur, regarding peripheral development proposals. (Except when it comes to commercial development.)
I don’t know if WDAAC will pass, but it’s clearly sprawl, legally reserved for those who least need it (and will pay the least, in property and school taxes).
I was/am in favor of all innovation sites that have come before us, but I just disagreed with your points. The Woodland innovation center makes this site more unlikely as the same. But I would likely support one there if proposed.
There will not be that much traffic between UCD and MRIC. The majority of people working at MRIC would come from their home and leave back to their home at the end of the day. I am thinking you might not understand what an innovation center is.
Regarding the definition of an “innovation center”, it’s the latest fad-word for those proposing commercial business developments (supposedly with connections to, or facilitated by UCD). As if a specified place is needed, to “innovate”. (I wonder how those early pioneers in Silicone Valley managed to “innovate” without a specified center?)
It’s also the same place where the imaginary start-ups (who have no money to pay rent for a new facility), will be housed.
At least, those are the “official” definitions. The “real” definition is that they’re primarily housing developments with a commercial component as a “sales feature” to gain approval.
Woops – Silicon Valley – not “Silicone”.
I believe that “Silicone Valley” might be somewhere near Hollywood. 🙂
Like Ron I suspect the vote will be close (like the last two Nishi votes). I have yet to meet a person who voted yes on Nishi who plans to vote no on L (I don’t think Rik’s Measure L is racist message is getting out).
P.S. I was out on my bike with the kids yesterday (Todd will be happy to hear that the bike parking area next to Target was almost full) and we saw a red “JUMP” bike where someone added red and white tape to make it a “TRUMP” bike (I was wondering if Jeff or Keith did this or if we have a third Republican living in town)…
Ken
“ I have yet to meet a person who voted yes on Nishi who plans to vote no on L”
Well now you have. I voted yes on both Nishi projects but will be voting no on Measure L. Reasons: 1. No clear evidence of senior only need 2. Type of project underutilizes space available 3. Basic objection to segregation of population by age. 4. Objection to specification by number of spaces for “our own”. Regardless of dubious ethical standing, doubt this will fly legally thus taking away the central purported reason for this type of project.
I also voted yes for Nishi I but am against WDAAC.
I voted yes on Nishi2 and no on L. What really pushed me over the edge was the arrogant jerk from NP.
I predict 57% “NO” and 43% yes. As I outlined before, no-growthers, slow-growthers and homeowners who want to preserve their equity will come out in force to vote against. College students will not be on board either as it does little for the student room shortage. Nishi only passed because voters saw it as infill and it filled a need for student housing. Just like Covell and Wildhorse Ranch in my opinion voters will give this project the big thumbs down too.
That really doesn’t track with what I’m seeing in terms of public communications. Both in Covell and WHR there were heavy and vocal opposition. In this case, I don’t see much outside of the core campaign. Again I could be wrong, but history is pretty suggestive of this. This is tracking much more like Nishi did than WHR.
Yes it’s not tracking as badly as WHR which lost 75 to 25 so therefor my prediction of 57 to 43.
Most people in greater Central Davis I talked to before the WHR vote seemed to think that they were asking for the OK for another development north of Covell about the same size as the first Wildhorse development…
WHR had some people endorsing it that one would’ve never expected to do so. Strange bedfellows one might say.
I don’t get your point Ken, WDAAC is much bigger than WHR.
Notably Mike Harrington.
Ask David about some of the people who endorsed WHR.
A lot of the same people who supporting the current proposal
David: Not the Sierra Club. From what I recall, they supported the small Wildhorse Ranch proposal (which might be considered “infill”), but they do not support WDAAC.
Don Shor, it wasn’t just Harrington. There were many endorsers who were against Covell that jumped on the WHR bandwagon. For a project that was on the periphery, not very dense at all and I don’t believe included much affordable housing the list of endorsers was quite surprising. It really didn’t make any sense to me or the community for that matter as the project went down in a landslide 3 to 1.
https://yesonpdavis.wordpress.com/endorsements/
Dear All:
We are grateful for the different signs of support there are for Measure L.
Yolo County Democrats voted to endorse WDAAC and YES on Measure L.
Resistance News endorsed YES on Measure L
A Next Door poll shows YES on Measure L leading
Many seniors in Davis are voting Yes on Measure L
Many of the YES on L letters to the Enterprise are from seniors
Each election, Kevin Wolf sends out a well reasoned set of recommendations. I received mine today and Kevin wrote;
Yes on Measure L: Approve the development of West Davis Active Adult Community next to Sutter Hospital. This is a good use for that poor-quality farm land. Its development will help free up homes throughout Davis as seniors living here would now have a choice to stay in a senior-oriented community in Davis and sell their existing, mostly larger homes where many raised their kids. Thanks to the efforts of the City’s Open Space and Habitat Commission and for existing City of Davis policy, the project will become a solid net positive for wildlife by enhancing the habitat of the Covell Ditch on the north side of Covell and by creating new and valuable habitat on the north and west sides of the property. Building this project will also create 140 units of much-needed affordable housing that won’t be built without developing this project.
(140 should actually be 150, my words DT)
WDAAC is a valuable project for a number of reasons.
The need for senior housing of all types is very evident in Davis. The need for the 150 low income senior apartments is immediate.
Please vote YES on Measure L.
David J. Thompson
Neighborhood Partners, LLC.
The structure of funding for Affordable housing ensures that Affordable housing developers will function as agents of sprawl.
Every time a peripheral development is proposed, the primary developers will trot out the Affordable developers to do their bidding.
Perhaps something to remember, when there’s statewide propositions on the ballot which would facilitate this problem.
Developers are some of the richest people on the planet. One of them is our president. Let them subsidize Affordable housing, and perhaps this unnatural alliance will be tested. Actually, I’m not sure there’s much difference between the two types of developers.
Also – we know that funding for Affordable housing is limited. (For example see article below.) We also know that the Creekside development was the only one to receive funding in the six-county area, during that round. (See other article, below.) We do not know if that development was on some kind of “priority” list, due to the decades-long delay, prior to receiving funding.
If the WDAAC Affordable housing developers actually are able to obtain funding, what other Affordable needs in California will (then) not be funded? (Or, does it not matter, because they’re not “one of our own?)
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/why-los-angeles-county-could-lose-3-billion-in-affordable-housing
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/construction-set-to-begin-on-latest-affordable-housing-site-in-davis/
What makes you think that it is a zero sum game – some housing doesn’t get funded because some housing does?
Craig: Did you even read the two articles I posted, including the one regarding the $3 billion loss of Affordable housing in Los Angeles? And, the fact that Creekside was the “only award in that round to any housing developer in the six-county Sacramento region”.
Do you not see that this is a competitive process, competing for limited dollars in a post-RDA world? And, in a competitive process, there are winners and losers.
Are you actually suggesting that there’s unlimited dollars, and that all one has to do is apply for such funds? Despite the overwhelming evidence that shows otherwise?
Why do you even ask such questions?
As a side note, no one ever actually answered, regarding the 15-year delay at Creekside. David could only provide information beyond that point. Were funds just “waiting”, that entire time?
Howard answered this a long time ago.
Neither of which prove that some housing doesn’t get funded because some housing does. So again, what makes you think it is a zero sum game? Also of what relevance is this to the question of affordable housing in this project?
According to your logic, there were no other proposals in the six-county area, when Creekside received funding. Do you believe that to be the case? If so, why did David proudly announce that his proposal was the only one to win funding, in that round?
Honestly, what do you think the relevance is, when proposals exceed the amount of funding available? And, when there’s a statewide competition, for such funding (in a post-RDA world)?
And, do you think that Creekside was just sitting there for 15 years, because someone (e.g., in the city) was too lazy to put in an application for funding?
I think you’re smart enough to figure that out. And, if not, I’m pretty sure you can search the Internet, and will quickly realize that proposals exceed the amount of funding available.
But you’re not smart enough (don’t whine, it was your phrase) to figure out that there are several different possibilities. One is the zero sum game which you have failed to demonstrate. A second possibility is that there is a pot of money but a minimum floor for projects. Those that exceed the floor get funded, those that don’t, don’t. there is a third possibility – that the fact that this was the only project in six counties was not that meaningful, they simply selected projects from other counties. In fact, you don’t enough know or haven’t demonstrated that these selections are regional rather than statewide. Why you keep raising the point and have done so little research on it I don’t know. What I do know if you are a master of distraction. None of this has anything to do with the project at hand. You simply for whatever reason believe you know more than people like David Thompson. Why I don’t know. But it’s the only explanation for your continued harping on this.
Craig: You’re simply putting forth guesses, without doing any research of your own.
It is true that neither you nor I know what was proposed, during the period in which Creekside was funded. (I suspect that David Thompson might know the answer to this, as he noted that his proposal was the only one to win funding in the 6-county area, in that round.
But really, the agency to ask would be the one which grants such funding.
In any case, here’s another article, in case you didn’t find the $3 billion loss of Affordable housing in Los Angeles compelling:
“The new funding comes at a critical time for developers, who lost a major source of funding with the elimination of local redevelopment agencies (RDAs) in 2012. The RDAs generated roughly $1 billion each year for affordable housing.
The cap-and-trade program doesn’t fill the hole, but it helps.”
https://www.housingfinance.com/finance/california-awards-cap-and-trade-funds_o
Howard was factually incorrect, regarding ownership of that land. You were involved in that conversation, and witnessed the evidence which showed this.
It gets tiring when folks make purposefully incorrect, repetitive statements. Why are you doing so? Is it not sufficient to have to show this once?
Or, are you going down the same path as Craig, and putting forth ridiculous arguments such as funds are unlimited for Affordable housing? (While simultaneously putting forth nonsensical theories?)
Why even bother pointing anything out on here, if there’s no effort at honest discussion?
Is this some kind of game, to you and Craig? Is that really what you see the Vanguard’s role as?
Now that Craig has “filled me in” regarding the unlimited availability of funds for Affordable housing, I’m wondering how I might become an Affordable housing developer, myself! Hell, we can all do it, and become rich in the process.
And, even though we’ll all be rich from those unlimited Affordable housing funds, no one will have to pay a lot for their own housing, because it will all be Affordable.
It will be a virtual “Shangra-La”.
I’m not sure why we didn’t think of this, before!
Also, in reference to the article below, it’s truly unfortunate that no public officials in Los Angeles understand that Affordable housing funds are apparently “unlimited” – according to Craig. As a result of their “ignorance”, they’ve turned to public/private partnerships to fund Affordable housing – which ensures that the housing does not remain Affordable, in the long run. Thereby ultimately creating a $3 billion hole and forcing people to live in cars, according to the article.
If only they had Craig’s level of knowledge and expertise, this could have easily been averted.
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/why-los-angeles-county-could-lose-3-billion-in-affordable-housing
Perhaps you can cite where I stated there were unlimited funds.
Perhaps you can clarify what you believe to be true. (Without doing any actual research, of course.)
I listed three possibilities. Without doing research I have no way to know which one is accurate, but my guess is that they have a certain amount of money and approve those projects that qualify for funding. I don’t know if they didn’t get enough projects in the region or if they only funded one because only one qualified. Without having done that research, there is no way to know and we are blindly guessing.
Again, I’m not sure how important any of this is. The bottom line is that it appears that once Creekside is built, all affordable housing sites approved in Davis will have been built.
Dear Ron:
Creekside was not on any “priority” list due to the decades long delay…”
Creekside went into the competition in 2016 and was scored high and funded in the next round.
Creekside won because it had a strong application bolstered by having a 2 acre parcel valued at $1.9 million.
Winning affordable housing funds for Davis brings the housing costs down for our low income residents.
Vote Yes on Measure L and house 170 of our Davis seniors.
David J. Thompson
Neighborhood Partners, LLC.
Thanks, David.
Not sure why it sat around undeveloped (but already earmarked for Affordable housing) for at least 15 years before your organization got it. Also not sure why it was the only one funded (in the entire 6-county area), during that period. Or, which projects in the region (or beyond) were not funded, as a result of Creekside “winning” that competition.
But, I do know that I’m pretty uncomfortable in having Affordable developers act as “front men” for sprawling developments like WDAAC. Seems to me that this wasn’t necessarily what those granting Affordable funds had in mind. (It definitely concerns me, regarding the statewide propositions on the ballot. Seems like we can look forward to more of this, if those funds are approved by voters.)
Wondering if Affordable developers are dependent upon sprawl, to survive.
“Not sure why it sat around undeveloped (but already earmarked for Affordable housing) for at least 15 years before your organization got it.”
After raising this point for weeks, it’s gotten you nowhere. Has it occurred to you that the point just might not be that relevant?
Craig: You’re assuming that I’m trying to “get somewhere”, by finding out the answer to this.
David responded, although I’m not sure that he’s actually privy to the entire approval process. I assume that’s handled by the organization that makes such decisions. Left out is a comparison of the other proposals in the 6-county area, and why they didn’t “win” during that round of funding.
The fact that the same piece of land sat undeveloped for at least 15 years (after it was identified as an Affordable housing site) certainly seems like a relevant question. In any case, David responded, so I’m not planning to ask him again.
I actually think that the more important questions include – what wasn’t funded, as a result of Creekside winning that competition? (Unless all one cares about is “taking care of our own”.) And, do we want Affordable housing developers to act as proxy salesmen (in the hope of gaining taxpayer dollars), on behalf of primary developers pushing sprawling developments?
It’s certainly not how I’d like to see tax dollars used.
Craig, historically I have disagreed with Ron far more than I have agreed with him, and some of our disagreements have been very heated, but with regard to his “it sat around for at least 15 years” observation … that observation is simple, direct, and impossible not to understand. Why is it that you are having such a hard time digesting it?
I’m not disputing the 15 years as a fact, I’m questioning why he keeps raising it as an important issue in the current project.
One reason I asked about it is because I had wondered if the approving agency “prioritized” funding for it, as a result of the decades-long wait. (Which was actually more than 15 years, I believe.)
David T. has now stated that this was not a factor. Of course, the approving agency would actually be the ones to confirm this.
Another reason I brought it up is because I wondered why it hadn’t been funded prior to the time that it was transferred to David’s group. (Which led me to the first question I asked.)
Actually, no one has been able to provide an answer, regarding the reasons for the decades-long delay, prior to the time that it was transferred to David’s group. Was there no “need” for it, during that period? Or, did someone drop the ball?
Is David’s group so much more effective that it can get things done, where no others can?
And again, what happens to the funds, if a given proposal is not approved? Are the funds then used for a different proposal (somewhere in the region, or beyond)? Are other proposals less of a legitimate need?
But why is it important to know if the delay was important? How do you account for them getting funding in three phases for the Dixon version of ERC?
“But, I do know that I’m pretty uncomfortable in having Affordable developers act as “front men” for sprawling developments like WDAAC.”
Yes, the affordable component on 5% of the site ends up being a Trojan Horse to try to sneak a luxury sprawl development on the vast majority of the site past the voters. And unscrupulous developers try to label opponents of the project as “against seniors”.
Related to this: I am pretty uncomfortable in having City Council members (such as Dan Carson) act as “front men” for sprawling developments like WDAAC.
Rik: I’ve also been uncomfortable regarding some of what Dan Carson advocates (and have been ever since I observed his actions/decisions on the finance and budget committee). It is not personal, though.