Measure R is working. We can get projects that are voted down by the public. We can get projects that are approved by the public. That’s what we learned in 2018. That was the message delivered by council and a number of citizens speaking during public comment on Tuesday night.
That was until Gloria Partida flipped the script.
The council made it clear—they are not interested in messing with a “citizens’ initiative.” The vast majority of people who spoke on Tuesday said to keep it, as written, only technical changes.
As Will Arnold put it, “Had we still never seen a successful project go through the Measure J process to be approved, my concerns about the value and efficacy of Measure J would be significant.”
From his point of view, Measure J was a community-driven proposal. It was designed and passed by the voters, reaffirmed overwhelmingly.
So, “it’s my opinion that any changes to Measure J of any substance needs to be that same community-
driven process.”
But should it?
Twenty years is a long time. It was written at a different time, in almost a different place, for almost a different community.
The problem with simply leaving it to the voters to decide misses a key problem—who are the voters? The people who live here are structurally determined. They benefit from the current structure. Or they came in before the impacts of that structure might have precluded their living here at a later time.
The council position is to defer to the will of the people—the will of the privileged, the housed, those who came here before housing shortages and real estate booms took the cost of housing out of the reach of the very people who still inhabit this town.
We have yet to see the full impacts of that shift because the people who worked on Measure J in 2000 are for the most part, with a few exceptions, still around and speaking out today.
Gloria Partida like her colleagues was not willing to rock the boat. Not yet. The two measures passing in 2018 over the ironic bitter objections of many of the same people, who spoke out for Measure R on Tuesday, convinced the council that Measure J is workable.
It is actually quite ironic in and of itself. Had those 2018 measures failed, this would be a war. Now it’s fait accompli—Measure R will be renewed. It will look as it did before.
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to the points that Gloria Partida made on Tuesday.
Mayor Pro Tem Partida stated, “I also think we need to acknowledge some pretty negative impacts that we have created” with the city’s overall policy on development.
“Our cost of housing has increased so much that it’s impossible for people who grew up here to stay here,” she said. “It’s also made it impossible for graduates of UC Davis to stay here as I did 30 years ago.
“These types of initiatives cause a lack of diversity in communities,” she said regarding racial and socio-economic issues. “It’s a sad irony that most of the progressive cities in America are also the most segregated.”
Gloria Partida also pushed back on the notion that this community has preserved agricultural land.
“We have driven our people onto other ag land and caused them to commute into Davis,” she said, noting her difficulty turning left from Picasso onto Pole Line because everyone is commuting from North North Davis. “When we say we’re trying to preserve our life and the environment through this measure, we must acknowledge that mostly (what) we’re preserving is the footprint of the city. Unless we are working to provide some infill housing and really work on mitigating the effects of the increase of the population here, I think we need to do a better job there.”
We keep hearing that Measure R is working. By that it means we can pass projects. But beyond that we really do not know.
What is Measure R doing to housing prices in Davis?
What is Measure R doing in terms of the demographics in Davis?
What is the impact of Measure R on the number of people in that prime 30 to 55 aged group? The group that has children. The group that is in the prime of their working lives. What impact is the disappearance of that middle group having on this community?
What will this community look like in 10 years of continued policies? Will there be a middle? Or will the entire community be people under 25 and over 60?
The council cannot tell you the answers to those questions because they have not asked them.
And the problem with leaving this to the voters is that we have structurally omitted the very people who might have objections to the status quo. The working people who are priced out of Davis will not be speaking at council and they will not be voting in November.
We did hear from UC Davis student Adam Hatefi, who put forward some language changes to Measure R. But none of that was discussed on Tuesday.
Regardless of what happens with Measure J/Measure R in the fall, we ought to look at the impact of our policies and understand better what they are doing. After all, we are about to approve a downtown plan and then transition to a General Plan update. It would behoove the council and this community to at least understand what the impact is of current policies as we move forward shaping our future.
In the end, I likely come down close to where Lucas Frerichs was—believing that our best way forward is through infill and densification.
But this is about making evidence-based decisions, and knowing the impact rather than guessing the impact.
On Tuesday I kept wondering how we could be so sure that this works when we have never even seen a project go from conceptual model to community approval to the sale of actual homes.
What we know is that if the community sees a need for housing and the project is reasonable, the community will support it. But that is only one question. There are many we have never even bothered to ask.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“In the end, I likely come down close to where Lucas Frerichs was – believing that our best way forward is through infill and densification.”
That is the default position as a result of the consequences of J/R. Problem is there is little space left for such projects and the neighbors almost universally oppose these proposals as they occur. Infill is a classic university town philosophy, great in theory, miserable in practice. In fact both Spring Lake and West Village demonstrate the failure of densification.
“On Tuesday I kept wondering how we could be so sure that this works when we have never even seen a project go from conceptual model to community approval to the sale of actual homes.”
Actually in the case of Nishi, we go from proposal, to the City Council, to argument, to CEQA, to the ballot, to the courts, to the election, back to the courts, back to the CC, more arguing, CEQA again, back to the ballot, the courts again, another election, waiting for the courts, then to the appeals court. All this with the realities of the business cycle operating independently now likely keeping ground breaking at Nishi in abeyance until more clarity on the future of education delivery can be sorted out.
Is it any wonder that after 20 years no project is occupied? Measure J/R has worked exactly as planned for those who originally proposed it. They have had 20 years with nothing built.
Well said.
Thanks,
I think I have the no campaign slogan. “Twenty years of nothing.”
Of course that could also be the yes campaign slogan.
It’s certainly “convenient” for the development activists to disregard the impacts of the housing crash and extended recession, starting around 2007. (Which might be occurring again, now.)
It’s also “convenient” to describe “never-ending sprawl” as some kind of measure of “success”.
You’d think that these people would be satisfied with the two peripheral developments that have been approved. Nope – they want “more”.
RO,
No one likes sprawl. The problem is that sprawl is the result of regional growth. If we aren’t part of it, then we are/become an elitist rich white/asian community with artificially high rents that dumps its problems onto neighboring communities.
The only solution I see is to reduce demand/population, such as via a mass die-off caused by a respiratory virus that is allowed to go wild because of failed leadership and a stupid human population. Would you like to volunteer to be part of that solution?
Then, don’t support it.
Davis’ (internal) housing needs are not driven by “regional growth”, unless one wants to accommodate commuters to Sacramento and elsewhere.
In any case, Davis is meeting (and exceeding) its RHNA requirements. Those numbers have already been established.
Davis’ (internal) housing demand is driven by UCD, as well as efforts to increase the number of off-campus jobs (e.g., ARC). A lot of the demand has been, and will continue to be met by developments 7 miles north of Davis (and other nearby communities). The price difference alone will ensure a continuation of that, regardless of what Davis does.
Now, if you could control what other communities do, that (might) be a different situation. Same goes for UCD, although it appears that educational “demand” is dying-off, nationwide. (Maybe more so, regarding non-resident students.)
You’re attributing worldwide population growth to a local situation. It doesn’t work that way. The “local need” is entirely an artificial creation. (Ask Alpine county, if you doubt that.)
As a side note, we’ll all be “part of the solution”, eventually. I’m not going to support degrading the local environment, while I’m here.
No one likes sprawl
THen don’t support it
The obvious question: what is sprawl? Who defines it? Is Nishi sprawl? Is WDAAC sprawl? Is ARC sprawl?
No.
Yes. It’s also discriminatory.
Yes. And, would create even more.
So I think one of the interesting factors here is that while most people dislike sprawl, there may not be a shared understanding of what constitutes sprawl.
Well said.
Measure J/R is only one factor in a much larger set of factors that has produced the issues that Gloria raises. Even if a person who grew up here wants to stay here, what jobs are available for that person that match their newly acquired academic/research skills other than jobs on the UCD campus? Is Measure J/R responsible for that?
The “existing conditions” of the Davis community are that there are very limited jobs available for recent graduates of UC Davis. Is Measure J/R responsible for that?
Arguably the lack of jobs contributes much more to the lack of diversity in Davis than Measure J/R does. If we want to understand the lack of diversity better, then one of the places we could look at is the diversity of the recent history of faculty and research position hiring on the UCD campus, and then compare that diversity to the diversity of the undergraduate and post-graduate population that “completed” their studies and entered the workforce.
What I believe such a comparison will show is that the recently “completed” student population is much more diverse than the population of students who stay. Is Measure J/R responsible for that?
Bottom-line, our problem is much larger than Measure J/R. It is much larger than housing. It is that we don’t have a coherent regional plan for leveraging the intellectual capital that UCD produces each year.
Seems like a full assessment of this should be done prior to the General Plan update – would you agree?
Yes. And the DPAC process should have included that kind of “existing conditions” assessment, but the DPAC discussion of existing conditions stopped short of asking “Why do these existing conditions exist?”
Said another way, Davis really does not have a Vision statement for what it wants to be in the future … with a clear sense of what the consequences of the various Vision alternatives are.
No one really wants to discuss this stuff. I think Doby is absolutely right about the shortcomings of that (not necessarily on this issue). A lot of the council are just at the point – let the community decide. I just wanted to point out as I think Ron Glick would, that by taking that view, you are excluding the people most impacted by these policies.
“No one really wants to discuss this stuff.”
The CC knew the job was dangerous when they took it but they punted for reasons of self preservation anyway. They waited until the last possible time to address renewal and didn’t request any changes even though in private conversations a majority have expressed awareness of the problems and recognized solutions. They did this hoping the issue would some how disappear like the Corona virus. As a result they foreclosed the possibility of improving an ordinance that hasn’t been seriously scrutinized in 20 years despite being keenly aware of its many unintended consequences. That alone on its face demonstrates a failure of leadership.
A perfect example.
One of the biggest problems with J/R is it drew the limit line at the city limit of a nearly built out city. Solutions could have been some sort of an exemption for frontier properties not already under conservation easement or setting a new limit farther out. Another could have been to exempt the Davis planning area.
These solutions would have provided solutions to two problems. First they would give Davis some breathing space for growth. Second, they would have defined that space, thereby diffusing the sure to come campaign argument of sprawling to infinity.
Now we are faced with the worst of all scenarios another decade of pitched battles and getting little done to address Davis’ growth needs.
The same can be said about the community’s and UCD’s conscious, overt decision (both individually and collectively) to discourage creation of jobs in Davis for the intellectual capital and research expertise being created by UCD each year. By perpetuating that exclusionary decision the community and UCD are excluding the people most impacted by the decision.
“No one really wants to discuss this stuff.”
David and Ron, who do each of you mean by “no one”? Ron appears to think that “no one” refers to members of City Council. I would argue that Ron isn’t digging deep enough. My personal view of the universe of “no one” is it is (1) the owners of residential units in Davis … the “I’ve got mine” group, which constitutes a substantial portion of the voters in Davis, (2) the people who have a reliable full-time job (either in Davis, or within commuting distance of Davis), or (3) have retired from and have a pension from a reliable full-time job (either in Davis, or within commuting distance of Davis).
I think I made the comment. But that was kind of my reaction to the council meeting on Tuesday – comments from most of the public, most of the council. I don’t know how deep I would go, but your list of people is emblematic of why there isn’t going to be a deep dive.
David,
Seems like a full assessment of this should be done prior to the Housing Element update – would you agree?
Yes
I absolutely agree that in part because of the unforeseen and as yet unknowable effects of the pandemic, and in part because of the unasked and thus unanswered questions put forward by Mayor Pro Tem Partida it is essential to have a full discussion prior to enacting a General Plan Update.
What will also need to be considered is the as yet unknown effects of the move away from brick and mortar to online purchasing which was already underway but accelerated by the pandemic. Will some of the people who previously could not both live and work in Davis, now be able to work from home, in Davis?Will the desire to live in a densified area change on the basis of the coronavirus…and in which direction?
David – Your subsequent comments seem to indicate that you mostly agree with her.
And yet the Mayor Pro Tem and you were both strong supporters of the West Davis Active Adult Community. The real “sad irony” here is that WDAAC was/is arguably 1) ageist because of the senior residency restrictions, 2) elitist because of expected high single-family home construction and sales costs, and 3) racist because of the Davis Based Buyers Club excluding non-Davis residents.
This project was designed to lure rich old white people and approved at the polls by rich old white people – all the things you are now ranting about in this article.
I’m looking for a word here to describe this seemingly polar difference beteween what you say and what you do
….thinking….still thinking….it’s right on the tip of my tongue….I know it starts with “hy” and ends with “crisy”…c’mon, help me out here David…you know what I am talking about.
“ And yet the Mayor Pro Tem and you were both strong supporters of the West Davis Active Adult Community.”
I would not consider myself a strong supporter of the WDAAC. I didn’t have a huge problem with the DBBC in part because I question whether it can be implemented and in part because the poor was sufficiently broad that it seemed unlikely to have a meaningful impact over who would move there.
The far bigger problem is as I said this morning – the middle group are largely now priced out of home ownership in Davis and we face a shrinking group of parents and people in that category.
Here’s a question for this discussion and the upcoming League of Women’s Voters The Housing Element: What is It and How Does it Affect Us? meeting.
The current American Community Survey Fact Finder – for the City of Davis – reports a count of 24,817 (+/- 851) enrolled college and graduate student residents. That’s a very high percent of our adult, 18 and over, population living in the City of Davis. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?d=ACS%205-Year%20Estimates%20Data%20Profiles&table=DP02&tid=ACSDP5Y2018.DP02&y=2018&g=1600000US0618100&hidePreview=true
While some number of those identified will no doubt be living at home, the vast majority will be living in apartments or shared housing in residential neighborhoods – operating on very modest budgets – which also accounts for our high percentage of residents living in poverty (according to these same surveys).
How does this fact enter into calculations involving Davis fair share obligation to provide affordable housing for the region? In theory, apartment housing is already the most affordable and efficient form of housing. Davis already ranks near the top nationally for urban density, around 6,200 residents per square mile. Just compare that density number with the region and the delta is obvious.
How much more density does SACOG expect? How much, affordable by design housing is enough? When has Davis done its fair share for the region?
Maybe SACOG should consider greater focus on the issue of density goals and affordable by design initiatives for the entire region. If so, how would Davis stack up?
Just curious.
Measure R will be renewed as proposed by a 70 percent vote. Shouldn’t the community have a full discussion before it does so?
You’ve been trying to undermine it, for some time. I’m not interested in “helping” with that effort.
Here’s a suggestion (and not just related to this article): Broaden the type of issues you cover, rather than engage in repetitive advocacy – based upon the previous day’s articles/comments.
Measure R will be in place in current form until at least December 31, 2030. How does anything we discuss today or even this year, undermine it?
My perspective is that we run most days 6 to 9 articles, usually 2 to 3 on local stuff. I have largely focused for the last two months on COVID locally. But the Measure R discussion on Tuesday and Gloria’s comments were interesting and I wanted to opine on them today. Clearly ARC is headed for votes and discussions as well. A big focus will probably be the economy with the governor coming out with a 54 billion deficit and 18 percent unemployment. You’re free to discuss the stuff that interests you.
Also, we’re really not a local blog anymore. We have a growing regional, state and even national audience on our criminal justice reporting.
David – Maybe you should stick with that instead of hawking local developer wares
I have not figured out a good way to provide housing on a large scale without the use of developers to finance and build it. Unfortunately we need good housing for people. It is interesting to read several articles on housing in the Appeal – a national criminal justice reform publication. It was interesting in February at a Justice Collaborative event in San Francisco, one of the panelists was the woman who started Moms 4 Housing. Social justice includes housing these days.
It includes rent control, Affordable housing, concerns regarding gentrification (and the resulting impact on people of color) and the “stop paying rent” movement.
You primarily “parrot” and provide a forum for the developers’ messages, instead.
Matt said “The “existing conditions” of the Davis community are that there are very limited jobs available for recent graduates of UC Davis. Is Measure J/R responsible for that?”
In short, yes it is, and, it is demonstrably so.
My friends met in grad school. After graduating and passing the rigorous professional exams required for their field they married. They took on full time work but she went part time with the birth of their first child. Coming out of the recession they bought a run down starter home out of distress with the help of their family and started fixing it up. He got a good paying professional job with the state. Another baby came and they sold that house and levered up into another distressed home.
Still, when a third baby arrived the home wasn’t big enough and the carrying costs were too great. Even though they were committed to being in the Davis community they gave up. They sold the home, bought a brand new larger home in Spring Lake that fit their needs and reduced their mortgage payments.
A classic anecdotal or case study of how refusal to build what was needed in Davis drove out a highly educated, employed, tax paying, civically engaged, community conscious, church going family and reduced the number of children in the school district.
As the Cheeto would say, “Sad.”
Huh? I thought this thread started about building more affordable, more dense housing for less affluent, more diverse working families. But now you’re complaining because Davis did not build more Mace Ranch/Wildhorse-like big single-family homes such as they’re building at Spring Lake. I don’t get it.
Affordable is exempt from Measure J/R. Interestingly not one Affordable J/R exempted project has been proposed in 20 years through both economic booms and busts. Obviously there is something wrong with the affordable exempt component if we don’t have an adequate supply of Affordable housing yet no one has bit at that apple. Yet here we are without any attempt to reconsider that section.
Yes, I’m for giving people what they want. The demand for suburban single family homes by newly formed families has been consistent over four generations, dating back to the end of WWII to Levittown N.Y. where, by the way, my neighbor and distinguished retired UCD professor grew up.
I am talking about “little a” affordable here – meaning small (1,000 sq ft or less) townhomes with concrete or laminate vs quartz/granite countertops and laminate flooring instead of hardwood, low end appliances instead of SS with computer controls. Make those houses to sell for $300/sq ft and your have homes that working class folks can afford. And I am told that $300/sq ft is doable even in Davis if you have high density (without yards) and 2-3 floors. If you want housing for a lower income, diverse population, that’s what we have to build but that’s not what the developers are proposing.
Talk about whatever you want. I’ll do the same.
I’ll bite anyway. Why do you think over 20 years such a project that you describe above hasn’t been proposed even with a J/R exemption?
I bet Jeff Boone knows.
Ron, you seem to have overlooked New Harmony, which was clearly an Affordable J/R exempted project. The Willowcreek Affordable project built along Cowell between Koso and Drummond was also built well within the last 20 years.
I’ll admit I don’t know much about these projects. Were either New Harmony or Willow Creek built on land that was annexed into the city under Measures J or R? As for the cost per unit of construction I think New Harmony was over Alan Pryors dream budget. In fact, a problem with Affordable housing is that it is expensive to build requiring subsidy from market rate housing.
Ron G., you are moving the goalposts. Both were built during the Measure J/R era. I believe (and Bill Marshall may correct me) that the land for both was dedicated for Affordable Housing as part of the Willowcreek development. The land was annexed to the City in the 1970’s along with a boatload of other South Davis land as a reaction to the Mace Brothers’ building of El Macero.
Don’t believe I moved the goal post. I said not one J/R exempted Affordable project has been built. By that I meant no land has been annexed without a J/R vote because it was an Affordable project exempted under the ordinance rendering the Affordable exemption ineffective and at least worthy of reconsideration to determine if there is a better way to achieve the goal of incentivizing Affordable housing. An Affordable project on land annexed before J/R was put in place wouldn’t meet the test. My point was about the lack of any attempt to improve the ordinance as it comes up for renewal even a section that obviously hasn’t achieved its goal. Maybe the Affordable section was put in as a shibboleth, an election ploy, without any intention of actually getting any Affordable housing built. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough or you misunderstood.
NO! Say it ain’t so!
Well, that’s “different”, then!
Its one of many things that help describe why this family is an asset to whatever community they live in. Yet you choose to denigrate that component belittling it through sarcasm.
Okay, despite the rudeness, in your mind forget about that they are involved in a religious community. By the way, yes, family and raising children in a stable loving home environment has a long tradition of being considered a noble attribute.
As long as Davis is seen by well-heeled folks — notably Bay Area refugees, but also families and retirees from elsewhere in the region — as a desirable place to live, there will never be a balanced supply of housing types in town. The big money is in high-end housing, so if we get rid of Measure J/R those are the kinds of projects that will come forward. We could force developers to nibble around the edges of affordability, but only at the cost of sprawl.
Community control of annexation is an imperfect solution, but it’s better than the alternative.
I keep asking myself what do people that hold your views actually want? What is you end game that you envision with continued support of this “imperfect solution”. Because from my perspective the imperfection of the solution is so unambiguously flawed and ultimately fatal to the well-being of the community, the region and all the people that currently reside here, that I can only see it as a clutching of some cultist belief system where faith trumps reason.
Please convince me I am wrong. What exactly are do you see as evidence that it is better than the alternative of the standard process of planning commissions, general plans, form-based code and a city council elected to represent the greater good of the community?
1. Mace Ranch, classic sprawl development that wasn’t wanted by the community, but the CC was afraid the county would approve it if Davis didn’t annex it.
2. Wildhorse. Another big upscale development in a town that needed workforce housing and had repeatedly expressed a desire to grow slowly. CC approved the development agreement anyway. Houses were marketed to Bay Area buyers.
3. Covell Village. The community didn’t want it, it was too big and offered no (or token) workforce housing, but the developers bought the endorsement of every non-profit feel-good outfit in town and the majority of the CC backed it.
Mace Ranch was enough evidence for me, but the hits just kept on coming. Thus Measure J, and subsequently Measure R.
“Mace Ranch, classic sprawl development that wasn’t wanted by the community, but the CC was afraid the county would approve it if Davis didn’t annex it.”
“We have met the enemy and it is us.”
Pogo
My favorite was the person who called in to the CC the other night to argue for a straight ten year renewal yet lives in Mace Ranch in a home she bought when the subdivision was new and the community was much more affordable because we added supply as needed. Its a classic I got mine argument at best and a my caca don’t stink argument at worst.
Thank you for the response, but that did not answer my question… except for me to infer that you are against any and all peripheral development and so the answer is that you support Measure J/R to block any and all peripheral development.
Given that, what is your vision for Davis going forward?
This is an interesting type of comment, that development activists “latch onto”. However, I don’t see it as a “conflict”, in the way that they apparently do.
Truth be told, I probably wouldn’t support quite a few developments that I might theoretically “end up” in. (Chances are I’d just end up somewhere else, maybe better.)
Just as I wouldn’t support Marin county destroying itself, out of the possibility that I might have ended up there if they chose that path.
Ultimately, I view the “place” as more important than me, personally. Some people apparently think otherwise.
As far as developments like Wildhorse, Mace Ranch, Covell Village, The Cannery are concerned, I have less concern regarding the “type”, vs. the “amount” of sprawl. But, it is a fact that these types of developments are not necessarily going to be priced to accommodate “local workers” (whoever “they” are).
And in regard to a place like Davis, surrounding communities will remain significantly cheaper. Even if 10 developments (such as The Cannery) are built.
Quite a few people in Davis were originally “priced out” of the Bay Area, by those with deeper pockets moving in. To some degree, that’s simply the way it goes – especially if existing residents cannot take advantage of new economic development, for example.
Wrong inference, inasmuch as I supported both Nishi I and Nishi II, as well as the early concepts for MRIC (until they made it a housing project).
Seems to also apply to a 10-year extension of J/R.
An extension of J/R pretty much constrains any GP update… or, so it appears…
Would you agree?
[BTW, the shot clock has gone to zero… at least for some…]
Ron
I largely supported your comments until you reached the last two lines. I believe like many, David has mixed feelings about the impacts of Measure R/J. As do I, a fairly ardent supporter & as do many in the community.
As for support for the Vanguard, I would advise anyone not open to considering perspectives different from their own to not support it.
I think you capture the essence of a key point missed – mixed feelings about the impacts of Measure R. I think in 2000 it was absolutely necessary to slow down growth and expansion. I think that has a downside as well. Going forward, I plan to vote for Measure J or whatever letter it is in November, but I would like us to better understand the costs of those decisions.
B.S. – you’re trying to undermine it, plain and simple. You want developer-friendly changes, and are encouraging it.
This effort will fail, as have your previous efforts regarding this topic.
I think you seem this issue too black and white and don’t recognize that other people see shades of gray
My guess is most of those people who spoke during comments where old, white Davis property owners. I’m also guessing, by the similarity of talking points, that there was an organized campaign by some of the long-time, multi-apartment-complex corporate property owners who benefit massively by anything that ticks-up rents by a few more percentage points, such as a strangled vacancy rate due to lack of supply. There isn’t a f*cking chance on earth that string of commenters represented anything resembling the 55% of Davis that is renters, and mostly students, many of whom don’t/can’t vote. Yay elitism!
Aren’t you in that same “category”?
I’m not aware of any campaign by corporate property owners, whatsoever. What evidence is there, for that?
There’s something along the lines of 15,000 new student beds, approved. Even David acknowledges that student housing has largely been addressed. (Now, if you want to talk about “cost”, that’s a different subject. But, “good luck” with that.)
Nope.
Well, if you’re not in that “category”, than you’re probably adding to “diversity”.
I find it astonishing, though, that some attempt to use the “diversity card” to support sprawl. It’s the type of argument that just doesn’t “wash”.
It’s in the category of throwing “spaghetti”, to see if it “sticks”.
And, I hope that no one (who actually cares about diversity) is stupid enough to believe it.
By the way, I have yet to see any “long-time, multi-apartment-complex, corporate property owners” who support Measure R. Aren’t those the same folks who own peripheral properties that they want to develop?
“My guess is most of those people who spoke during comments where old, white Davis property owners.”
There were a few exceptions that boggle the mind. The first was from the most ardent Bernie, medicare for all, supporter. I don’t know if he owns or rents but I was surprised that he would support an ordinance that perpetuates the greatest disparity of wealth in the area.
Another was the woman who lives in Rancho Yolo where the biggest threat is repurposing of the mobile home park. Of course the greatest force that might someday lead to that is the spectacular disparity in land prices inside the limit line driven by, wait for it, J/R.
“By the way, I have yet to see any “long-time, multi-apartment-complex, corporate property owners” who support Measure R.”
How about the landlords that opposed Nishi. My guess is some were voting their own economic interests.
Who owns the Nishi site? Isn’t one of the owners the same guy who owns other apartment complexes, and the previously-proposed Covell Village site?
If there are any local landlords who opposed student housing (due to their own “interests”), they’ve already “lost” that battle.
Probably one way to judge the “purity” of such arguments is whether or not they pushed UCD to add student housing. And, whether or not they supported housing that would have supported a broader population, within the city (vs. the megadorms).
That might go for anyone, who attributes “self-interest” to arguments.
Much in the same way that those who claim to be concerned about “housing shortages” shouldn’t support ARC.
One thing I’ve come to realize, however, is that there are “built-in” incentives for those associated with the school district to support sprawl. Now, whether or not that has any influence over an individual is a different question. I tend to think (and hope) that few would be personally influenced by that.
The same might be said of those with city pensions, if they believe that they’re threatened by not supporting the Ponzi scheme.
Note that this doesn’t even address the more direct influence of development interests.
But, I digress, as there’s really no way to confirm what motivates people to comment on here. Ultimately, I suspect that most commenters “believe in” what they say.
That’s what I was referring to.
“You’re attributing worldwide population growth to a local situation. It doesn’t work that way. The “local need” is entirely an artificial creation.”
Only artificial if you consider the desire for people to improve their personal human capital through education at a UC Campus as artificial. Still I guess you are correct enough. No UC campus no housing demand.
Or if you consider the need for people to live somewhere along the I-80 corridor in a two income household.
There wouldn’t be “none”, as some commute to Sacramento, for example.
But, I would think that when a choice is to be made (e.g., regarding whether or not to add even more jobs than the community needs, for example), then it will become more obvious regarding “who” is actually concerned about “housing shortages”.
What happens if you have competing or overlapping concerns? The world is not black and white in terms of decision making.
That’s what Measure R is for. That’s why two peripheral developments were recently approved.
I’d also point out that places such as the Bay Area aren’t even able to approve peripheral developments, anymore. That’s because they built right-up to the next town, or ran into some other natural or “created” barrier. And yet, they’re doing pretty well, economically.
Now, if you want to start covering rent control efforts, Affordable housing, the “no rent” movement, “living wage”, those are the types of housing issues that dominate, there. (Most of the people involved in those efforts can “see” right-through the interests that dominate the YIMBY movement.) That’s why Weiner failed.
As a side note, I’m not going to be able to continue this day-after-day, largely on my own. If you want to engage in these types of repetitive “debates”, maybe you shouldn’t have “burned your bridges” with a large portion of the community, who no longer comment on here. My earlier suggestions that you expand your fields of interest have been deleted.
Peterson does a great job explaining the human psychological pursuit of rank in a hierarchy. It is a natural thing and I see it reflected in so much human social, and even political, behavior, including Davis development policies and Measure J/R.
What if your son or daughter developed top-level talents for music but was blocked from access and participation in the school music program because other parents in the community owned the privilege and power to veto that access and participation?
What if you were a business upstart but the existing businesses had power connections in the political process to block your access and ascent into the market?
What if existing citizens of the country had the power to build a wall – policy, structural, technological or virtual – around the country to completely block access from people not citizens of the country?
Here is the challenge… is any of this fair? Is it virtuous? Is it moral?
Does arriving to a place first give one a right to finesse obstruction policy for those that would come later? Is there a ranking level of authority based on years of residency, or does one only need to get their feet in the doorway and then jump into the campaign of blocking?
From my perspective it is exactly the opposite of what this country was founded on… to ensure access to opportunity for all those that deserve it… and to prevent a tyranny of the majority OR a tyranny of the minority from blocking that access.
I see it as unfair, unethical and immoral… and also destructive to the whole as the blocking has a whole bunch of negative unintended consequences.
There should be! And, with tongue fully in cheek, that should be 40+ years (unless born while parents were residents here in that time frame)… [and definitely not letting non-residents from asserting “authority”… not so tongue in cheek]
Am agreeing with the abhorrence of the “I’ve got mine, let the rest eat cake, but no bread” mentality, and the “I’m here, now let’s burn the drawbridge” mentality.
That is not moral, fair, ethical, nor, arguably, constitutional… as you alluded to..
Alan (re: your 11:16 post, asking about volunteers to leave this orb)
Are you familiar with “the Mikado”?
Well, I have a little list, I have a little list… you didn’t make the ‘short list’, Alan, and I’m not volunteering…
That out of the way, and to the topic, we do need an open, community, discussion about the GP, particularly the housing element, and Measure J/R and how they are inter-related… the key would be how to get the involved discussion that doesn’t only consist of the 1.5+ Std deviants on either extreme… not my area of experience or ken on how to do that…
I do know what it should not look like… the extremists/zealots on either end of the spectrum (unrestrained growth or zero/negative growth) dominating the discussion… and, it would have to be an honest discussion… cards on the table… [and yes Alan, I still have lingering hopes that there just might be a Santa Claus, Easter bunny, etc. But as Lennon once wrote, I can ‘imagine’…]
The GP review/revision, particularly the housing element, is joined to the (pick your body part, perhaps ‘hip’, perhaps an essential organ) with Measure J/R renewal… that’s why I’d agree with another poster, that if J/R is to be re-validated, it should have a horizon of far less than 10 years… a common term is used in legal agreements/approvals: a “time certain”, or the occurrence of an event, whichever occurs first… I’ll propose language in the J/R renewal to limit its duration until a new GP/Housing Element is approved, unless concurrently renewed… for folks’ consideration…
My bad… should have written, “housing element and land use element”… apologies…