By David M. Greenwald
This is not going to be a deep dive yet into the data, but I do find the results interesting. Overall the project lost relatively narrowly by about 1300 votes, or 4.5 percent. This was not a nailbiter but also not a landslide like the first two Measure J votes.
The map of the city really paints the picture—this was really about location. Those who were going to be most personally impacted by traffic voted against the project—in some cases overwhelmingly, even in areas of town where folks tend to be more conservative and support development. Whereas on the west side of town, away from the project, the voters were supportive of it.
The location of where the no votes dominated tells us a good deal about what this came down to. It seemed like the no side was throwing the kitchen sink at this race and, at the time, I kept thinking, if I were in the opposition, I would be pounding on traffic. That’s your winning issue, even more than the COVID-uncertainty, which I also thought was legit. Instead, a lot of what we saw in the closing weeks was not only faulty arguments, but ones that took the conversation away from where the core of the voters were—traffic.
There are two ways to view this result. One is that under a lot of adverse conditions, the proponents ended up within 4.5 points and a 1300 or so vote margin. Just as Nishi 1.0 broke close, this one broke close.
But there is another view of this that presents more of a problem for those who believe we need to be able to figure out ways to get projects like this approved. The history of Measure J now goes six projects deep. Two passed, four failed. And there are some common denominators.
Covell Village turned on traffic impacts. Wildhorse Ranch turned on near-neighbor complaints and occurred during the heart of the Great Recession and real estate collapse. Nishi 1.0 turned largely on traffic impacts. DISC turned on traffic impacts.
Leaving Wildhorse Ranch out, which was largely in its own category and never competitive, the three projects put forward that failed all failed because of traffic impacts.
Whereas WDAAC really did not have a lot of traffic concerns and no real near-neighbor impacts. Nishi 2.0 was confined to campus access, taking Richards Blvd. off the table and was utterly without near-neighbor concerns.
This suggests that the notion that Measure J projects can pass if they are good projects and well-designed may be foolhardy. Instead, it may hinge on whether the project is near neighbors who believe they will be impacted by the development and the community’s perception about the traffic problems.
This is a pretty important consideration, because the council unanimously voted to put Measure J back on the ballot—in part because they believed they could get projects passed by the voters at least some of the time.
But viewing this measure through the scope of traffic/near neighbor impacts, that limits future options greatly.
There is one exception to this analysis, however, and worth exploring briefly. The 2006 Target vote. Target did have strong near-neighbor opposition. It is hard to know how much traffic was a factor in that, however. As someone who drives by Target itself on a daily basis, I’m not sure it is driving a lot of the traffic increases on Mace.
But Target was a commercial property, it was placed on the ballot, though not by Measure J, and it was ultimately narrowly supported by the voters, mostly with the help of students.
Nevertheless, if traffic and near neighbor effects drive this equation, we should consider the following:
- Projects in the future have a greater chance of passing if they are smaller—DISC like Covell Village was perceived to be too large. I wouldn’t say however that WDAAC or Nishi 2 are particularly small however.
- Projects in the future will have a greater chance if they are perceived to have fewer traffic impacts. Looking at the map, I think we are looking more towards the NW Quadrant, away from commuting traffic and away from areas that have been impacted by traffic. Possibly a stripped down Covell Village site. Probably not on the east of Mace until I-80 traffic is addressed.
There were other factors that played against the project. First, COVID and the uncertainty of the world in general. But also, the potential that commercial business will change, that people will work more from home and outside of the office. In two years, we will probably have a much better idea of what this looks like.
Second, students were largely gone. When this was planned for November, the thought was that this would be a year when students vote in huge numbers—and if you look at the map, you can see that some student areas that would normally support a project like this, didn’t. I assume in part that is because students are gone.
The city has now lost two critical revenue measures—the parcel tax in 2018 and now DISC. That is a huge problem for the city going forward and they will have to figure that piece out.
Should DISC come back in two years? I don’t know. I don’t know if the traffic situation is addressed. They looked at a reduced size previously. But the finances didn’t work. I would recommend against trying to put it on without housing, because that’s just bad planning, but they might be tempted to try it.
A blow out would have probably be a death knell for this concept, while a close loss in a weird year probably gives them some hope.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
“That suggests that the notion that Measure J projects can pass if they are good projects and well-designed may be foolhardy. Instead it may hinge on whether the project is near neighbors who believe they will be impacted by the development and the community’s perception about the traffic problems.”
In other words NIMBY.
Pray tell that people would care about the quality of the usage of the land around them. Such an odd, not even human, behavior :-\
“This is a pretty important consideration, because the council unanimously voted to put Measure J back on the ballot – in part because they believed they could get projects passed by the voters at least some of the time.”
The fools.
“If you listen to fools, the mob rules” – Ronnie James Dio
“The people have spoken, the bastards.” — Dick Tuck’s concession speech following his loss in the 1966 California State Senate election.
To paraphrase Richard Nixon, I’m hoping that the developers say that you “won’t have us to kick around, anymore”.
But like Nixon, they keep coming back.
They left long ago.
No project requiring a vote has been brought forward by people that didn’t already have a connection to the community. If they aren’t local don’t bet on them rolling the Measure J dice.
Not anymore. 😉
Sounds familiar.
Also sounds familiar.
Woodland council supportive of Research and Tech Park – Daily Democrat
(That also sounds familiar.)
To paraphrase the Wizard of Oz, “Pay no attention to the 1,600 housing units behind the curtain.”
Big surprise! You put land use decisions in the hands of voters with minimal knowledge of city planning and they vote their narrow self-interests. Thank you Measure J.
I don’t think so.
In fact, I think the opposite is true (e.g., regarding more pressure on the housing market, local contributions to climate change, loss of farmland/habitat, etc.).
I don’t know why some people think as you do, regarding this.
The pattern is pretty clear and it actually diverges a good deal from the pattern we saw in Nishi from 2016.
You can’t compare the two proposals in this manner (e.g., DISC vs. Nishi). For many reasons.
As a side note, didn’t you repeatedly downplay traffic concerns, but are now stating that more focus should have been put on them in today’s article as a “tactic”?
Actually you can. It shows us patterns of who is supporting projects. And proximity to the project rather than ideology seems to predominate in both cases.
Nishi was a very different proposal (and served a different purpose) that DISC.
It was also adjacent to UCD, and was not what most would consider to be “sprawl”.
But yeah, creating even more gridlock on the worst intersection in town (which is also the primary “gateway” to downtown) was probably not the best design (regarding Nishi 1.0).
The arguments against DISC, while also including traffic, focused on environmental impacts (and loss of farmland), as well.
Ron: We know that Nishi was a very different project. That doesn’t mean we can’t look at which areas voted for each and look at patterns and see who supported the project and draw conclusions from it. In this case in particular, the patterns are not subtle – see my post below.
How did Gloria’s district vote on DISC? 😉
That’s a pretty easy answer. You can see it on the map fairly easily.
Another commenter already pointed out the discrepancy between Gloria’s views, vs. those in her own district.
https://www.davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Measure-B-Map.png
The image above is the map of DISC – purple is no, green is yes.
But if you look at District 2 –
both precincts voted against DISC. However, the candidate that opposed DISC, finished third. So there was no real carryover between DISC and council.
https://www.davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Screen-Shot-2020-11-21-at-9.50.59-AM.png
There never is. Maybe folks don’t understand the positions of those representing them, and the reason that these divisive battles keep getting foisted upon the city.
It appears to me that more than half of the geographic area of the city voted (majority) against DISC. Not just those “right next to it”. Of course, most residents use Mace (and Highway 80) at some point, as well.
But certainly, those who can feel and see impacts are more likely to be concerned. Just as I don’t follow what’s happening in Texas, for example.
In any case, this is probably the reason that those in The Cannery, for example, would be receptive to future campaigns against development at the site of the former Covell Village.
It seems pretty clear to me that if we ran a probit model looking at distance from the site and vote choice, distance would be highly significant and probably the largest explanatory variable.
Because of the voting patterns. Your theory of the factors individuals based their votes on doesn’t explain the strong geographical differences in how people voted.
The block above shows about half the city (geography) voted (majority) against DISC.
But in reality, there are likely many folks who voted for/against it, throughout the city.
You are simplifying/misunderstanding the reasons for opposition (at least by some).
In any case, should traffic *not* be a concern? On a primary access point for the city? (Not to mention Highway 80?)
You’re being silly. There are individual level variations. But when you look at the overall results they have pattern. Just like the national election data shows us a pattern – cities, suburbs, rural areas. Even in Detroit, there were a few votes for Trump. That doesn’t mean we can’t infer strongly from the patterns of voting. That’s what we are doing here.
I don’t dispute that those who feel and see impacts are the ones most likely to be concerned. But again, more than half the geographic city voted (majority) against DISC.
Of course, this also doesn’t account for density/number of voters, in different locations.
In any case, do you think Gloria learned anything, from this? Other than (perhaps) suggesting that the makeup of her constituents should be changed? 😉
Yes. And if you examine the map, the opposition was concentrated primarily along the Covell/Mace corridor—i.e., along routes most likely to be impacted by DISC traffic.
And, interestingly, the candidates who opposed DISC lost by significant margins and the incumbents who voted to put it on the ballot — including those who represent parts of town where DISC lost — won by what we would usually call landslide margins.
I’m not a mathematician, but it’s probably not a good idea to launch a proposal opposed by more than half the city (geographically, or numerically).
Perhaps they need ‘reprogramming’
Eric, the map over simplifies the picture. Here is a table that provides a bit more discernment into the binary picture of the map.
The big red blob in the middle shows that the biggest opposition to Nishi was right where the impacts would be felt the most. And it’s a very very different pattern from Measure B which was completely segments west side versus east side.
Ms Partida doesn’t have “a district”, yet… she was elected ‘at-large’, and that won’t change for ~ 2 years… dumb question… her current “district” is the City of Davis…
What district would she run in, assuming she seeks re-election?
A difference without a difference
The “Yes” campaign was a mess, starting with the ever-changing proposal, ever-changing names, and ever-changing arguments. (Some of which contradicted themselves.) I think I sensed it was over, when some of the downtown businesses became concerned. Not to mention the commercial vacancies which dominate town (and beyond).
The bottom line is that this type of proposal is a thing of the past. It was embarrassing that it even got this far, for a city like Davis.
Regarding localized concerns, a wise person once told me that “no neighborhood gets thrown under the bus”. Sound words to live by, and advocate for.
Maybe developers, the city, and the Vanguard can give it a rest for awhile. But if not, there’s always Measure D, and those willing to take up the cause. 😉
Something like 83% approval, for Measure D.
Don’t bet on it. They will just sharpen their propaganda knives and all future proposals will be “for the puppies”, “for the elderly”, “for the vulnerable”, and of course “for the children”. Davis citizens will cave.
Maybe.
They just tried the “free money” (one of the strongest of all arguments for the gullible), and it failed.
There was also a record number of voters, I believe. Or, at least a very large turnout. Thanks to that guy whose name we won’t mention, at the top.
and then Developers will claim they need to change the terms of the original agreement…..because they can’t make it pencil “for the puppies, the elderly or the children”….and so the dance between the fickle electorate and Developers will continue….at least until the number of Developer dance partners thins out even more than it has.
Pardon, but when do those two things go together? Are you “conservative” ? Is the City Council “conservative” ? Are the Campus Democrats “conservative” ? PU-LEEEEEZ !!!
I also found this part amusing. People that support development support change. Change is the opposite of being conservative. Change is progressive.
I don’t even think it’s that simple, KE – but the DV statement sure as F ain’t remotely sensical.
The development agreement is whatever the Developers need to say to get it passed the people. DISC made the mistake of not including wind powered Star Trek transporters as part of their development agreement.
I think that what I enjoyed most of all about this loss is the “switcheroo”, with the “housing shortage people” advocating for more housing shortage, as a result of DISC.
Which really took the wind out of their sails, regarding their usual claims regarding those concerned about sprawl.
(Again, assuming it was actually commercially viable in the first place.)
Or, maybe it was those who claim that communities need to do their part regarding climate change, while supporting a 5,600-parking spot freeway development.
I’ll leave it to the readers, to pick their “favorite”. Both are good options.
For me (personally), it’s not necessarily/primarily about traffic. Though I tend to view that as “punishment” for those who continually support development, and then wonder why they’re stuck in endless traffic jams.
For me, it’s about logical boundaries to the city’s growth. Or any city’s growth.
That’s why I like the new Nugget headquarters (although it was essentially “poached” from other locations, which I assume may now be vacant). In any case, it’s inside the Mace curve.
It’s also a reason that I wouldn’t mind seeing a reasonable-sized Trackside re-emerge, as an example. How much money could they have saved/gained, had they just worked with neighbors from the get-go? Including complete and honest disclosures regarding what may or may not “pencil-out”?
In any case, I can’t imagine normal people looking out over the horizon, thinking to themselves how much better the city would be if only there was a business park / housing development, replacing farmland. That type of thinking is foreign, to me.
“Normal people” understand that business parks generate revenue for the city which in turn provides funding for city services like parks and roads.
I just don’t understand anti-development dogma. I can understand some reasons behind anti-development. But not simple belief on a moratorium on development. Define “logical boundary”.
Three of the city’s finance and budget commissioners didn’t agree that DISC would create a “fiscal profit” at all.
The city has survived this long without a business park (other than those that they keep converting to housing). I’m sure that there are other cities that survive without them, as well.
Logical boundary is inside the Mace curve, in this case.
But bottom line is that there doesn’t even appear to be sufficient commercial demand in the first place.
The one that failed (at the site of WDAAC) and subsequently “moved” about 7 miles up Highway 113 to Woodland will include 1,600 housing units, as well. And unlike Davis, voters in Woodland have no say in the matter (though I suspect they’d approve it, if given that opportunity). A difference in mentality.
It wouldn’t make sense in the short term. But it would eventually generate tax revenue.
Simply putting your head in the sand and hoping things stay as the are is irrational. Things change. The city needs to change with them. It can’t continue to fund things as they are. Parks are nice…I like parks. I’d like more parks…more tennis courts…more public pools. Or just to keep up and repair the ones we have.
Davis did fine without a Target too…but here it is…
There are businesses looking for space. Give them the right space at the right price and they’ll move there. All the idiotic posting of the scrubby commercial space about town is stupid comparison. It’s like saying….hey we have all these Ford Pintos that won’t sell….but we don’t think we should try to sell Toyota Hybrids because….well…they…they’re probably the same buyers.
Why is Mace Curve a boundary? That seems rather arbitrary.
Three commissioners didn’t agree that it would generate fiscal profit in the long-term, either. Partly because long-term capital costs are not included in the analysis. And, partly because it didn’t “pencil out” for the developer, beyond the stages which include housing.
Of course, the analysis also didn’t include the long-term costs of additional housing that would be clamored for, if it ever did pencil-out.
Nor does it include the real/actual costs of those stuck in traffic (circling back to that).
As far as the boundary is concerned, it already is (in fact) beyond the limit of the city, separated by the Mace curve. With open space/farmland surrounding it.
And any further development there will impact the overpass, roads, freeway access points, etc. With no actual plan to “improve” them. (That is, if you consider endless expansion of roads and freeways to be an improvement in the first place.)
Regarding the ultimate size of the city (population/geographic size), that is something that development advocates always seem to avoid addressing. To them, there never is a boundary, and there’s always a “reason” to expand outward onto farmland/open space. (That’s why so many places continue to sprawl outward.)
It’s also a reason for the decline of existing commercial spaces in cities.
Long term capital costs can be delayed, eliminated or overestimated (like maybe the housing doesn’t get built). So what if it doesn’t pencil for the developer? Is it ideal? No. The project becomes a waste land for a couple years while a dispensary opens up there. But eventually sellers gotta sell leased space at some point.
Yes, that’s like saying the sky is blue because…well..it’s blue.
I get it…to you developing farm land = bad. I can live without some sunflowers and what not…it’s not like it’s hugely significant producing ag space.
Further development always impacts stuff to varying degrees. That’s no reason to not do it. It’s not like if you build a business park…all of a sudden the Mace overpass will completely collapse and need to be replaced.
Unless there’s a real geographic boundary to consider, designating one is irrational. Growth is to better the existing population. In other words…MONEY to fund community stuff. Expansion is part of the cost if it’s necessary or desirable. If growth doesn’t benefit the community…then you don’t grow….that’s a rational approach to growth.
The housing is the only reason that it would get built.
Long term capital costs are not included in the analysis. This is ultimately the same reason that the cities are in a deficit.
Not necessarily. Some (including some on the finance and budget commission noted that it might not actually be built-out, beyond the stages which include housing.)
Unfortunately, it hasn’t worked out that way. (See the reason that cities are in a deficit. Development does not pay its own costs. One of the finance and budget commissioners essentially noted this, as well.)
And yet, cities keep trying this same thing, over-and-over. It may appear to work for awhile, due to the short-term/one time funds. It’s a Ponzi scheme.
And, there’s lots of fingers in that pie (including school districts, city employees, etc.) who have every reason to continue supporting that scheme, for their own interests. And it’s NEVER enough.
And since the money (fiscal benefit) is questionable, there doesn’t seem to be any legitimate reason to support something like this.
And truth be told, I don’t think that very many people are obsessed with fiscal matters in the first place. At least until it becomes an excuse for them to support development for their own reasons or beliefs.
It’s actually not just long-term capital costs.
It’s also unsupportable pensions (which may, or may not be related to capital costs).
Some of us abnormal people who voted in favor of DISC based our voting decision on factors other than the visual aesthetics of farmland vs. a business park/housing development.
True.
Some like to evict owls, as well.
But, I suppose that’s “better” than what apparently occurred in the past.
Ridiculing and misrepresenting those with opinions other than your own. Always a classy move.
Learned from one of the masters on here (at least some of the time). Look in the mirror.
Also, reducing the concerns to “aesthetics” might count as “ridiculing and misinterpreting”. And one of the more mild ones, at that.
Truth is that most of the slow-growthers (and/or those with environmental concerns) don’t even bother commenting on here, anymore.
But, I’m going to enjoy this “win”.
Reading this blog, you’d never know the margin by which Measure D passed. (Something like 84%.)
Correction – 83%.
https://www.yoloelections.org/election-returns/returns/#davis
Maybe the developers and their allies will ask for a recount.
The problem with Measure J is that it gives to much direct power to the whims of the masses. The system is supposed to work with the people electing leaders they think they like. Those leaders have lots of smart policy wonk people working for them. The leaders pick out what policies work best for them and the city. The leader then sells it to the people. Measure J takes the the filter that the leaders are supposed to provide and leave it to the unwashed masses to decide. But most people know this already.
Another consequence of Measure J is preventing Community Building Graft from creating an avenue of progress for the community.
It used to be so efficient. In a not so politically volatile and conservative place (compared to Davis) like San Francisco there has been a long tradition of paying off the official and non-official leaders to get a project approved. The city leader then sells it to the rest of the leaders and to the voters. This created working relationships between the developer and the city officials. The relationship between city leaders and developers built on graft established a stabilizing community trust helps get future projects proposed and likely approved.
But because of Measure J, Developers now have to try to pay off the whimsical voting masses…the plebeians. So the developer has to throw in some work force housing because there are some that (irrationally) believe Davis must have more housing. So…what the hey let’s build some homes next to a business park…cause that seems like a desirable addition to the community. Then to satisfy the environmental crowd the developer has to promise kale powered mass transit and organically grown asphalt parking lots. So what do we end up with? A mostly lose lose scenario. If the project is approved you have a stupidly planned and designed project that is just going to have to be changed anyway once it gets started. Or you have no project at all…so no ability to capture future tax revenue for the benefit of the city.
Trying to buy off the unwashed electorate is just inefficient. It impedes progress at the community level. Restore the system to how our forefathers intended. Allow our leaders to be payed off so that they can sell their (paid off) vision to the masses…which in turn will unite the ever more divisive people together. Imagine a community where we can all gather at some new gentrified farm to keg to table brewery drinking locally brewed Budweiser and eating avocado toast with crispy pork belly and a fried egg on top of it……”Imagine….You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not the only one. I hope some day you’ll join us. And the world will be as one.”
Have you ever heard of The Onion? (I’ve never actually seen or read it.)
The Onion – Wikipedia
Urban Planner Stuck in Traffic of His Own Design
My favorite.
So to what degree do you think my post about the community healing power of graft is just humor?
This vote was close enough that they could do some polling, tweak it a bit, and come back with a proposal that would pass.
Maybe. Of course, they’d probably need to do another EIR, fiscal analysis, etc.
I don’t think a “tweaking” will work. Unlike Nishi, where they abandoned the most divisive element.
Bottom line is that it doesn’t appear to be viable, unless it further morphs into a housing development. Don’t forget that this process started more than a decade ago, and all have fallen (one way or another). And that was prior to the commercial devastation wrought by Covid (and PERMANENT telecommuting).
It was also prior to the failed proposal “moving” to Woodland. (I guess we’ll see how that works out.)
Maybe they should continue to farm it. And look for ways to use it as mitigation land.
In any case, I’m sure that a “team” can come together pretty quickly, again. Thanks Measure D! (Though I’m sure that David will try again to weaken that, over the next 10 years as well.) Should be a good source for lots of repetitive articles (that no one will participate in, once again).
At the very least, you know that we’re out there waiting for them to try again. 😉
And with any “luck”, traffic will soon return full-force (even more so, due to developments beyond this one). 😉
I am enjoying myself today, in case you haven’t noticed. It’s kind of unfortunate that others have abandoned this blog, with the exception of (for the most part) development supporters.
Too bad that the council never gets the message, and keeps foisting these battles upon the city. And then sometimes “blames” those who object.
Don is correct if in fact good planning of a project is essentially policical (public relations). However, my personal opinion about the failings with this project were almost 100% in a “failure to plan” rather than a “failure to communicate.”
If they want the next incarnation of this project to succeed, they are going to have to dispense with the smoke and mirrors and actually get some clothes for the Emperor.
By the way, I realize that the commercial site at The Cannery is “too small”, “too soft”, or “too hard” (woops – going into Goldilocks and the Three Bears), but I still enjoy this:
Council OKs apartment construction at Cannery ahead of commercial (davisenterprise.com)
I guess the city doesn’t have enough $100K loans available for “incubator” companies at places like this (or throughout the city).
I gotta tell ya, I’m either becoming over-confident, or it’s just getting too easy. Or both.
You’d better hope not… have a clue for you… treatments/vaccines are NOT going to be developed or produced by telecommuting… lab space @ DISC (which is gone) will be where treatments/vaccines COULD be developed, and perfected…
Congratulations, again, on your ‘victory’… no matter how pyrrhic… enjoy the Covid while you can… so glad you voted on Measure B, and D, to ensure your views…
A little late to the party here, but for what it’s worth, I took the Elections Office map for Measure B and mixed the two colors (green and purple) according to their Yes/No percentages. It still shows that the precincts immediately adjacent to DISC had a stronger No tilt, but the rest of the city is pretty well split.
http://members.dcn.org/jhframe/Measure%20B%20Election%20Map.jpg