In 2016, when the developers of Nishi put forward their project to the voters, there were two fatal flaws that led to a narrow defeat, despite the clear need for student housing at the time. One of those was concerns about traffic along Richards Blvd., with the other being the lack of affordable housing.
The applicants fixed those problems in 2018 – effectively taking both issues off the table – and the project passed easily by a 60-40 margin. The key was making Nishi university only, which removed the impact of traffic on the already-congested Richards Blvd.
A similar problem exists for the Aggie Research Campus (ARC). There is a recognized need in the community for economic development. People are concerned about the lack of revenue for the city, which has led to an ongoing shortfall of funds needed to maintain basic infrastructure.
But, at the same time, people are concerned about congestion at Mace Blvd. A recent meeting of the city council has attempted to alleviate congestion on the southern part of the route by increasing capacity while better regulating flow. But the consultants acknowledge while “some of the congestion can be mitigated with the solutions that we have, but all of it will not be mitigated.” The key is there will be “freeway congestion that causes queuing onto the corridor.”
Moreover, the solutions put forward by the city will only impact the southern portion of Mace – nothing they have done will impact traffic congestion on the northern portion, which is nearly as bad, as Mayor Pro Tem Gloria Partida pointed out with her comments.
Traffic concerns along Mace figure to pose problems when the ARC project goes before the city voters some time in 2020.
The number that symbolizes this problem is 4340 – that is the number of parking spots on the site. With that number it is easy to envision traffic pouring onto an already-congested corridor – making it worse.
It is helpful to break down where that number is coming from. You have 850 parking spaces associated with housing. Another 100 with the hotel. That leaves 3390 that are associated with the 
R&D portion of the project and will be distributed throughout the site.
That breakdown is likely important, because we would figure that 3390 would be incoming in the morning and outgoing in the afternoon, while the 850, if they do not work on site, would be the opposite. It is also important to remember that a portion of those 3390 are likely to be visitors to the site, not necessarily just employees of the site, and therefore a lot of the traffic will be coming and going throughout the day rather than necessarily clustered at the peak hours.
While some estimates have put buildout at as long as 50 years, the project description notes: “It is anticipated that ARC will build-out gradually over the course of approximately twenty to twenty-five years.”
This is important because, while people might be envisioning the full hit of the parking spaces to take place immediately, the reality is rather going to be incremental over a very long period of time. There are four distinct phases planned, with the first phase including 540,000 square feet of nonresidential buildings and up to 270 residential units.
The description notes: “The goal, if possible, is to time the availability of the homes to be concurrent with the creation of the jobs so that it maximizes the likelihood that employees at the Campus will occupy the units thereby maximizing the environmental benefits of including housing at ARC.”
We are probably looking at at least 10 years, perhaps a bit longer before phase one is complete.
The city is looking at doing a Supplemental EIR and a big part of that will be revised traffic counts on Mace Blvd. The previous EIR found that the mixed-use alternative would result in an increase of 14,880 vehicle trips per day.
The alternative then “would involve lower volumes of traffic and less of a delay than the proposed project.”
The problems on I-80 leading to the congestion are probably about ten years away from any long-term solution – and I think people can debate over whether the proposed plans with increased flow capacity are going to make much of a difference.
On the other hand, is the additional traffic coming from ARC going to change the fundamentals of the traffic problems on Mace? The previous study projected additional delays at some intersections, but if those delays are already there, are we going to notice an extra few minutes as we are standing in traffic?
Bottom line: I think we have to operate on the assumption that while Caltrans is going to do corridor improvements, there is no guarantee that their improvements will improve the flow on I-80 and no guarantee that they will improve traffic conditions on Mace on Thursdays and Fridays during peak hours.
Second, we can wait for the new traffic study in a month or so, but, for now, I think it is safe to conclude that adding traffic to Mace in similar numbers to what was projected from a few years ago will add delays.
Third, based on that, the community is going to have to weigh the costs and benefits to going forward with a project here.
This gets back to a fundamental question – will an innovation center create the revenue this community needs to be able to better maintain its infrastructure and provide city services in the future?
The trade off of that is likely to add to traffic frustrations, particularly during a few hour block in the afternoon and early evening on Thursdays and Fridays.
The bigger picture is that the community is concerned about the cost of housing and concerned about the sustainability of its budget – the trade off for addressing either of those issues is likely to make traffic concerns worse.
So I guess my question to the community would be: are you going to foreclose on new development in Davis that you think we need because it may make traffic problems worse?
What we have not discussed so far are mitigation measures. What would happen if the ARC agreed to fund a widening of Mace to provide a dedicated freeway access lane on the overpass? That may not help the traffic get on the freeway better but it could allow the local traffic to bypass the congestion – which I think is what local residents wanted with the southern part of Mace.
The developers are going to look at trains and shuttles to reduce traffic coming to the park itself.
But we also know from our experience in 2016 with Nishi that the voters do not necessarily buy into mitigation measures. After all, the developers of Nishi committed $10 million to create a bypass for Richards Tunnel that would take traffic directly onto Olive Drive and through Nishi onto campus, rather than having to go through the tunnel.
That could have alleviated congestion and I think is something we are missing to this day from the loss of Nishi-1.
But the voters did not buy into the mitigation measures and it took the applicants bypassing Richards altogether to win approval.
The dynamics of Nishi are not the same, of course. Bypassing Mace altogether is probably not feasible. But what happens if ARC reduces the parking spaces from a total of 4340 to half that?
We have seen from discussions of Olive Drive that some people are skeptical of parking reductions as a means to reduce traffic impacts – but how else do we reduce auto traffic other than by making it inconvenient and structurally discouraging it? I think reducing the number of parking spaces on the proposed site from 4340 to 2000 would not necessarily take away the issue, but it would reduce its impact.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The article states that the “Applicants Need to Take the Issue Away.”
How exactly are you proposing that they take the traffic issue away? It is a retrograde, peripheral, highway-oriented, car-dependent development.
The article also asks “But what happens if Nishi reduces the parking spaces from a total of 4430 to half that?“ First of all, this confuses both the name of the project as well as the number of proposed parking spaces. Secondly, this does not take into account the fast that while the ARC project is proposing 4,340 parking spaces—a huge number—it does not reflect reality already.
Rather that parking figure is already a highly-reduced figure far below City requirements for the types of development that it proposes and far below competing developments in the region (even those that are located next to light rail) The project does not include any type of high-density transit service or other alternative transportation that could possibly justify this reduced number. But, apparently, the Vanguard thinks they can just wave a magic wand to make the issue go away.
The article does not specify what sort of project changes would be necessary to magically cut the number of parking spaces in half from the already magically-reduced number. And given that the environmental review update has already started, when would these magical project changes be proposed?
For the past several years they’ve not done this?
“Dear Potential Applicant,
Thank you for your inquiry.
Previous to this time we would welcome all interesting proposals. However, despite our lack of an updated general plan we have developed emergency legislation.
Unfortunately our new law finds that your concept is a retrograde, peripheral, highway-oriented, car-dependent development and is therefore utterly devoid of merit. Note that this is not a rejection of your financial projections; rather it is a punishment for your malignant lack of vision.
Please feel to contact us again when you have become fully human.
Sincerely, Ombudsman for Common Sense, City of Davis”
“For the past several years they’ve not done this?”
I have no idea.
Just like where you live and where I live, Rik… just like Mori Seki, Target, Kaiser, Sutter hospital, etc., etc., etc…
So?
Anyone thinking “no new development” in Davis will solve the underlying issues, will substantially change future conditions… well, wait for the traffic analysis, and compare the “future, with project” and, “future, no project” analysis… increment will likely be de minimus… it’s going to be worse, traffic wise, in either event… but ‘no project’ means no new sources of short and long term revenues to the City…
Land use decisions should be based fact-based projections, reasoned analysis, rather than “philosophy” or rhetoric… seems the latter dominate for some folk…
Right after the holiday I am going to write the Planning Commission in advance of their discussion about the University Commons project — the Alternatives in its DEIR show a lack of vision and even the Low Parking variant has a very narrow focus. I mentioned this recently as I tried to address the issue when U-Commons came to the BTSSC.
How does the City’s development staff determine which alternatives are studied in an EIR? Can they ask for a wide range of ideas in order to get the best deal for the City… can they ask for an alternative that e.g. proposes extremely low parking for all users – the City Council can, after all, make an exception to the City’s parking requirements – and extremely robust transit? Can they ask for an alternative that exclusively uses infill that’s a significant distance from the periphery?
Wow!
As to alternatives… there are some basically mandated by State Law, some that are intuitive, and some that are political/personal… I note you would favor the latter… alternatives according to Todd.
For others, here are the basics:
Existing condition, no project
Future condition, no project
Existing conditions, plus project
Future condition, plus project
Environmentally preferred analysis, w/or w/o project
[All of those should consider existing and future, given projects already approved, but not built, and those reasonably anticipated](doesn’t include covering I-80 or SR 113 with a structural cover, for ex.)
Analyzing any and all scenarios, at any individual’s whim, is NOT REQUIRED… nor useful…
Future design doesn’t have to mimic past design. That’s SO, I mean why.
It is said “guns don’t kill people… people kill people” (actually, bullets kill people, control ammunition)
Parking spaces don’t create traffic… nor do land uses… nor do cars… people do… yes, there are inter-relationships … but, people, jobs, land uses do also create revenue…
But there are two points you are overlooking here. First is that the parking space issue seems to be a campaign rallying call. Second is that by reducing the number of parking spaces, the applicants will have to find a way to also reduce traffic – because they can’t store the cars otherwise.
That’s sort of like saying that you will be eating the same amount and pooping less – through the magic of ‘mitigation’.
Actually if you’re going to use that absurd analogy it’s closer to using a gastric band to reduce food consumption – it does so on the back end for sure, but it succeeds.
Tell me more . . .
Any thought given as to how reducing the number of parking spaces would “appeal” to new commercial tenants – given the other existing and planned options that they have in the region?
Especially given limited commercial demand (that other communities are simultaneously attempting to attract – with some demonstrated success already).
It’s not like it’s retail based
According to your article, 3490 of the parking spaces are for the commercial component. (Including the 100 for the hotel.)
My question still applies.
Correct – that’s according to the project description
My question still applies. Since threads often become “muddy/unclear” when irrelevant comments are made, I’ll go ahead and ask my question again:
Transportation, parking, commuting is an issue pretty much anywhere. These are primarily not direct customer based businesses like you would have in the downtown. It is a matter of transporting employees and finding alternatives to commuting via car.
Note the number of spaces reserved for commercial use: 3,490.
You (and apparently the developer, and some of his allies) have already claimed that lack of housing was an issue, regarding the “appeal” of the site for commercial tenants. Despite an abundance of available, relatively low-priced housing, within easy commuting distance.
Now, it seems that you’re attempting to claim that drastically reducing the number of parking spaces for commercial use “won’t matter” to commercial tenants.
Note the following comment from the article below, as an example of a site that “competes” with ARC:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/sacramento-tipping-point/article236246708.html
Apparently nothing has been settled, but one of the options for this site includes a “tech center”, as noted in the article. (And, this is only one site in Natomas, alone! Let alone plans/hopes for the entire region.)
Would you like me to post other examples?
All I can say is that you know a proposal is in trouble, when even you are making suggestions to drastically change it.
It will be interesting to see if the developer is able to “put lipstick on a pig” – assuming that they’re even listening to you in the first place.
“ All I can say is that you know a proposal is in trouble, when even you are making suggestions to drastically change it.”
You are reading too much into my two days before Thanksgiving commentary.
I don’t agree with most of your points, but I will address this one: (A) this was my thought not anyone else’s and (B) I don’t consider this a drastic change, it simply is a matter of how to deal with an obvious impact that will be a matter of concern to the electorate. We have still not seen their proposed transportation mitigation’s, and we likely won’t until the EIR is updated and the new traffic study completed.
Greenwald stated “These are primarily not direct customer based businesses like you would have in the downtown. It is a matter of transporting employees and finding alternatives to commuting via car”.
Are you familiar with standard parking ratios that are applied to these types of developments because of the massive need for employee parking? Even those developments in the region that are adjacent to high-density transit since as light rail have a huge amount of parking as a necessity to compete against other developments—in fact, they even advertise their parking availability in their marketing materials. It is pure fantasy to think that this ARC development in a transit-impoverished and highway-adjacent location could compete in that environment without doing the same.
Greenwald stated “We have still not seen their proposed transportation mitigation’s, and we likely won’t until the EIR is updated and the new traffic study completed.”
Ever since the developers withdrew their previous application when the economic feasibility study came out showing their project wasn’t viable, the project have now had years to figure out a viable alternative transportation plan, and they have come up with… nothing. It’s the development equivalent of the “TrumpCare” we were promised— there was never anything there.
It is just a highway-adjacent, car-dependent development that has no plan other than hoping that if they don’t provide adequate parking, then their problem “goes away.” It is pure fantasy.
“ Are you familiar with standard parking ratios that are applied to these types of developments because of the massive need for employee parking? ”
Yeah – they can waive them, just as they are doing with Olive Drive. I find it ironic that people complain about these projects being massive freeway projects and then complain at efforts to reduce car usage. You seem to want to hang the project by opposing innovative changes.
Let me know when you find some new ones.
EGG-Zacktly
It’s not like it’s ‘reality’ based either.
>> The problems on I-80 leading to the congestion are probably about ten years away from any long-term solution – and I think people can debate over whether the proposed plans with increased flow capacity are going to make much of a difference. <<
We should refrain from calling anything that’s proposed on I-80 as a “solution” for freeway congestion. Even the rosiest Caltrans prediction shows that congestion will be much worse after project completion than what we experience today. Of course those predictions are stated as being slightly less worse than the much, much worse that we’d see without the project. But there isn’t even the slightest hint that the I-80 project will solve today’s congestion. So please don’t pin any hopes on that.
I wonder what would happen if we had real, efficient, prioritized transit options for travel between the Sacramento area, the Davis area and the Bay Area? Since that is too difficult and expensive to think about, I guess we’ll just pave more acres of parking and travel lanes and see if that finally succeeds in “reducing congestion” after decades of it failing to do so. The roads and parking spaces provided to the operators of private motor vehicles will of course continue to be cost-free to the actual users, while mass transit would need to assess a fee for each trip.
False. There will be numerous projects built along the corridor — for example look at the explosion in housing in Vacaville and Fairfield. These together will destroy I-80 long before there is any fix, that will only kick the can (traffic) down the road a few miles.
The only solution is a European-style investment in intercity and commuter rail, to the tune of tens-of-billions of dollars.
Just sayin’
Let’s say I agree with you – does that then preclude any development in Davis in your estimation?
Sure – why not join the “party”! 😉 It’s not like we’re concerned about purposefully increasing traffic and global warming via freeway-oriented developments.
Alan left out quite a few other examples in the region, as well (e.g., Natomas, Elk Grove, Folsom, Roseville, etc.)
As only one example, here’s an article regarding the “growing pains” in Natomas – where they’re also attempting to attract commercial development.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/sacramento-tipping-point/article236246708.html
Let me know if you’d like me to post more links, regarding what’s planned for the region. I’ve got quite a few.
I was asking Alan Miller
Um . . . no. Was that a trick question?
<>
Caltrans could perhaps legitimately go forward with an extremely robust version of Alternative 5 in the I-80 plan – the transit-only option – if it includes flyovers so that buses could avoid merging, complemented by tough restrictions on existing parking in east Davis that’s not pennyfarthinged into new housing or mixed-use, Sacramento Area-wide measures to reduce all types of parking and predictably fast bus services for Davis and the region, or least for I-80 in Solano County and points east… in tandem with a new Davis General Plan that eliminates parking minimums and includes virtually no new parking and establishes – with teeth – how a very, very high percentage of travel to and from new developments can be done without cars.
In the meantime an angel explained me how scoping may affect EIR planning, and so Alternative XXX in the ARC DEIR would include the totally-infill option mentioned in my earlier comment and would respect the General Plan suggestions I made above.
The bus systems and services would be created to eventually fulfill a complementary role for Bay-Delta High Speed Rail service.
Say WHAT?
Ron O.
How short sighted. Instead of having much more control over making a new development sustainably oriented with less reliance on individualized transportation, let’s encourage development where its much more likely to degrade the global environment and increase congestion on I-80 more than if it is in Davis. It’s not that this development will completely disappear–it will just move and make things worse for the region.
Actually, it may disappear. It’s not clear that there’s demand for it (beyond what the region is already planning), regardless. It’s also the height of “Davis presumptiveness” to assume that this same proposal would be built in a “better way”, if it’s outside of Davis.
Regardless, the owners of the site are the ones who are interested in development. Unless they own every location throughout the region, there’s no reason to believe that it will “move elsewhere”.
In any case, perhaps you remember that old saying: “Think globally, act locally”.
Ultimately, “locally” is the only place that one has much chance of any influence. Otherwise, Trump wouldn’t be president.
Unfortunately, even localized influence is challenging, when local “community watchdog” blogs continue to function as an advocate for freeway-oriented development.
Correction: ” . . . the height of “Davis presumptiveness” to assume that this same development would be built in a “worse way”, if it’s outside of Davis.”
(But again, unless they own every site throughout the region, it’s much more likely that it will simply “disappear”.)
The proposal is driven by market-demand for housing, in Davis. Too bad that it won’t even address the new demand that it would create.
McCann stated: “not that this development will completely disappear–it will just move and make things worse for the region.”
That is a ridiculous statement. There is a reason that the SACOG MTP calls for Davis to reduce its existing jobs/housing ratio. Davis already a net importer of commuters and had some of the longest commute times in the region for these commuters. There are plenty of far superior options in the region for this type of development.
Japanese-Swiss style with Chinese construction speed and top-of-class ethics!
As in “move out now, the train is coming — The Government”. Most construction delays are obtaining land.
“The only solution is a European-style investment in intercity and commuter rail, to the tune of tens-of-billions of dollars.”
In concept, I like the idea, but there are three very important distinctions between the U.S. versus Europe and Japan that has made it much more cost effective for those regions. First most of their urban environment and even rural regions were established and networked for pedestrians, pre automobile. Second, at the moment when the auto emerged as an affordable travel mode, their infrastructure was destroyed by World War II. This made it possible to both rebuild with transit networks, and depressed income through the 1950s sufficiently to delay car purchasing. And finally, the resulting land use pattern divergence has made transit service convenient in Europe and Japan while its highly inconvenient in most of the the U.S. Having more commuter rail probably won’t significantly increase usage enough to do more than just delay congestion.
We are going to have come up with a different set of technological and economic solutions. I can see EV “trains”, dedicated busways, and toll roads (with lump sum rebates for low income commuters) as possibilities.
Los Angeles used to have the most extensive urban rail network in the world, pre- and early- automobile.
Destruction of infrastructure is the way Europe built transit? No, they made a decision to build rail, and the US made a decision to destroy it, and build freeways.
The land use pattern is the bane of the automobile for suburbs. But the way to reverse this is not to force stupid ideas like reducing parking requirements or building ‘transit-friendly’ buildings with less parking because they are within 1/4 or 1/2 mile of a sh*tty bus service. The way to change land use patterns is to have fantastic rail transit service that makes people want to live near the rail station, and a web of buses feeding regular trains from every end of town.
Imagine if you went down to the station and had 1/2 hourly commute service, hourly regular service, every 4 hours to Reno, every 2 hours to Chico and Redding, every hour to Fresno and Bakersfield and LA/San-Diego/Vegas, twice a day to Portland-Seattle-Salt Lake-Denver, four times a day to Phoenix/Tucson, every hour to Petaluma/San-Rafael/Santa Rosa, every hour to San Jose and Santa Cruz, direct service under the Bay for a one-seat ride to San Francisco?
All of this is possible, and only several decades and a few tens of billions of dollars in the future. But is has to happen, because as Triple-D says, you can’t pave your way out of congestion. If you want the Capitol Corridor to look like Los Angeles, by all means, carry on paving trucks!
Yup! I have no idea how “solution” keeps being part of the conversation. I keep hearing about the Caltrans “fix” to I-80 to add capacity for…. private motor vehicles. There are certainly some improvements that can and should be made to the freeway. But $600 million to add a lane here and there… isn’t one of them.
A few extra minutes? In terms of traffic delay, that’s a pretty major impact.
Not if it goes from 26 to 29 minutes
So say you.
If only it were that easy. First, a lane on an overpass means widening the overpass, a VERY costly option. Second, it’s a system, and you aren’t feeding into a necessarily open traffic flow, so to what end and at what cost?
And ‘look’ is all they are going to do as far as trains. They aren’t building any, light rail isn’t coming over the Causeway, and the Capitol Corridor is an intercity rail service, and their guidelines preclude building a station that close to another station — ain’t gonna happen!
A shuttle direct down 2nd Street to the Amtrak Station, then up 1st Street to a campus Stop by Shields makes loads of sense.
Why not do like they are doing on Olive Drive, and give each commercial site four spaces?
Funny thing is, if the number was already 1/2, 2170, that number 2170, would seem like a massive amount of parking spaces, and we’d be talking about cutting it in half to 1085, because we have no idea what the f*ck we are talking about.
And I think that if I had a pony, I would happy.
The developers will likely come forward with a very different proposal than what has been publicly discussed so far, based on discussions I’ve had.
McCann stated “The developers will likely come forward with a very different proposal than what has been publicly discussed so far, based on discussions I’ve had.”
If that’s the case, then they should halt the EIR work until they know what they are actually proposing. As it stands right now, the Final Project Description for he EIR update was supposed to be completed yesterday. It would be foolish to proceed further if the project is actually going to significantly change beyond what is currently proposed.
As noted on another blog, there’s also an EIR “scoping meeting” (open house) scheduled for next Monday, 12/2. With “proposed exhibits”. I wonder what those will consist of, since the proposal is (once again) in a state of flux.
Maybe the city should just go ahead and put the whole thing on the “consent calendar”. 😉
Ron — Projects are always in flux.
My guess is several easels with a big sheet of cardboard on each, with stuff on it.
So is my digestive system.
I want to hear more about McCann’s heretofore secret meetings with the developers that he just outed. Why isn’t the developer engaging with the public instead? What are they hiding? And why did they wait years to submit a project application, and all of a sudden within a matter of weeks they apparently want to submit a “very different proposal”.
I don’t think they are that secret, if he was willing to out the meeting in the DV.
Let’s not forget that when Mace traffic concerns started to become a hot button issue earlier this year, Greenwald argued in April that we shouldn’t “allow our concerns about additional traffic impacts to drive our public policy…” regarding the MRIC/ARC research/office park (that hadn’t yet released its development proposal that point).
He also said then that “Clearly this project needs to be heavily transit-oriented to work…” Now that the project application has been submitted, it is clear that that It is not.
And he said then that “any proposal is going to require a very good transportation plan and regional buy-in from SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) and other agencies to make it work.” The project does not not have that.
Now in regards to traffic/parking, in this article he states that the developers needs “to take the issue away” But the developer already submitted the application and kicked off the EIR update process without addressing the issue. Oops.
. . . or, we could just wait for Murder Burger to go out of business.
. . . #doh!#
. . . or, we could just wait for
Murder BurgerIkeda’s fruit/vegetable stand to go out of business.You mean, Sadeki?
I’m going to wait for a response from Nala Rellim – the “evil alter-ego” from a parallel universe.
The evil one is already here. 999
I love twisted, reversed, and/or upside down senses of humor!
As Jimmy Buffet opined, in song, if we weren’t a little bit crazy, we’d all go insane…
Let the Border Wars Begin
Bravo!
Am a ‘survivor’ of the Borders war years ago (enhancing Matt’s allusion to the border ‘war’ between US and Canada, I presume)… it (Borders) got approved, did well for a time, has since folded… then Whole Foods came in… now gone… one poster had it right… developments are always in “a state of flux”… near term or long term… just like Alan’s digestive tract, or most of our lives…
(see ironic, mischievous grin emoticon)
The evil one is already here. 999
Actually, they don’t NEED to do anything… many here (VG) and in the community already have their minds made up… without study, without analysis… old saw, “Don’t bother me with facts, my mind is already made up”… part of the problem with Measure R.
If the developers reduced parking to 500 spaces, probably wouldn’t change many folk’s votes… if they made it a negative 500 spaces, same-same… let’s get real… it’s not about parking, it’s not about habitat, it’s not about conversion of ‘prime Ag’… it’s about “development”… for a lot of folk… the rest is rhetoric..
I’m going to wait until I see studies and analyses, before I decide on a ‘stupid Measure R’ vote… but am thinking I’m an “outlier”…
Seems to me that there’s quite a few on here who support all development proposals, regardless of studies, analysis, parking – or lack thereof. Even if it conflicts with their other claimed concerns (e.g., discrimination, local contributions to global warming, etc.).
And in most cities, these are the same people who occupy positions of power/authority. (The problem with “not” having a Measure R choice.)
But, you’re wrong.
There’s evidence of these types of people on this very page. To which the Vanguard seems increasingly aligned.
Ron, when it comes to a Measure R vote, feel free to vote any way you wish… but my opinion is Measure R, as written, is “stupid”… and I am entitled to that opinion…
Understood, and was primarily responding to your comment which seemed to focus on “one side” of the spectrum, but not the other.
Ron (your 9:34 post)… you are entitled to your opinion… but, ‘facts not in evidence’…
Have a good evening and great Thanksgiving…
Thanks.
Regarding my 9:34 p.m. comment, I’ve presented some facts regarding the conflicting statements that some of these folks put forth (e.g., an intense focus on discrimination and global warming – except when it comes to development proposals).
That’s a direct observation, based upon repeated comments made over time.
There certainly are those who support all proposals that come forth, just as there are some who have opposed all proposals. Most folks are probably somewhere in-between.