What is fueling the push to radically rewrite Davis’s laws on development?
by Colin Walsh
“Pro-development activists try to trick you into thinking it helps the poor to destroy neighborhoods to make way for luxury condos.”
“An agenda for building up the power base of the neoliberal right is not going to get too far in liberal beachheads like San Francisco or New York using the traditional Republican platform. It needs a new story that appeals to young millennials, and it has found it in the “pro-housing” language of the YIMBYs. But in the end, it’s pushing the same underlying principles: the way to a more efficient future is to destroy belief in regulation, public investment, and democratic participation, whether the arena is charter schools or health care or housing affordability.”
Nathan J. Robinson made these statements in a recent Current Affairs article. Let’s look at what is behind the YIMBY push in Davis.
The Davis Housing Element Update Committee (HEC) had its final meeting on May 26th where they voted to pass 10 motions that, if ultimately adopted, would radically change the development landscape in Davis. The recommendations include abolishing the 1% annual growth cap, doing away with single-family (R-1) housing zoning, removing checks, balances and public input from the approval process, and several other radical developer-friendly proposals. Neither staff nor the public were informed ahead of time of this discussion by the Committee. These radical proposals have since taken up most of the discussion at 2 planning commission meetings, and at the Davis City Council meeting on 6/15. To understand where these recommendations came from, one needs to understand the committee members and the web of developer and real estate interests surrounding the Committee. This chart helps paint that picture.
Three Housing Element Committee (HEC) Members With Developer Ties
1. Doug Buzbee
Buzbee is the Owner of DBRE Consulting – commercial property management and real estate consulting. There is no website for the company and no information readily available online as to who his clients are. His offices are at the Tandem Property buildings where Whitcombe’s offices are too. Buzbee’s Form 700 (conflict of interest self-reporting required by the State of CA for many government positions) filed with the City related to his service on the Finance and Budget Commission reveals that Buzbee has millions of dollars of investment in the Covell Village Property, the Nishi project, and in several Tandem apartment complexes throughout Davis, and on the UCD campus.
2. Don Gibson
Gibson was a genetics PhD candidate at UCD, but has spent considerable time in the last few years as sometimes paid and sometimes unpaid political lobbyist and organizer. He worked for the Nishi campaign, for the ARC/DISC (Measure B) campaign, and the University Commons (University Mall) campaign. According to his personal website http://www.dongibson.org/resume Gibson held a position with Spafford and Lincoln PR Firm that represents developers. Councilmember Dan Carson nominated Gibson for the HEC, though Gibson’s application did not disclose his employment organizing developer campaigns. Gibson is chairman of the recently-formed Sustainable Growth Yolo group (Yolo Growth).
Yolo Growth seems to only have recently emerged (see this Davisite article that includes a discussion of Yolo Growth’s proposals), but the website has posted two 2020 advocacy pieces written by DCD members on behalf of the Brixmor University Commons project. There is no indication where the current funding is coming from for the current Yolo Growth Work, but their work is very similar to other Spafford and Lincoln projects, and the website is done in the same style. This group is very similar to other so-called “YIMBY” groups in CA, many of which act as fronts for developers and urge rapid construction growth.
Gibson was the only signer of Yolo Growth’s letter to the HEC advocating for radical market deregulation favorable to developers. This letter was sent by Gibson to the rest of the HEC Committee and was not released to the public until after the HEC adopted all of GIbson/Yolo Growth proposals.
3. Don Fouts
Fouts is the principal for Fouts Homes. He has development rights for land inside the Mace Curve. At the last HEC meeting, the Committee voted to fast track development inside the Mace Curve including land Fouts has development rights for. Fouts recently developed the Grande Village site, The Villas at El Macero and has yet to break ground on his approved project at Chiles Ranch on 8th Street.
The Connections
1. Doug Buzbee’s mailing address is at the Tandem Properties offices at 3500 Anderson Road. He is married to the daughter of one of Whitcombe’s former business partners. Buzbee has significant shared investments with the Whitcombe family as disclosed in his form 700.
2. Doug Buzbee’s LinkedIn page indicates he previously worked for Reynolds and Brown, a partner with Dan Ramos on the Mace Ranch and ARC/DISC projects.
3. Don Gibson’s resume includes work for Spafford & Lincoln as a political organizer for the DISC project.
4. Don Gibson campaigned for the Nishi projects.
5. Don Gibson’s resume includes that he was an organizer for the DISC project. This campaign was characterized by repetitive scripted callers to public meetings.
6. Don Gibson serves both as the chair of Yolo Growth and is a member of the Housing Element Committee. It was Gibson who sent Yolo Growth’s controversial recommendations to the HEC. This is a very unusual situation to have a City committee member also serve as chair of a pressure group without even making public disclosure until after the last HEC meeting. These radical Yolo Growth market deregulation proposals were adopted as-is by the HEC.
7. Don Gibson was previously the president of the Davis College Democrats, and DCD members continue to assist with his lobbying projects.
8. Don Gibson’s resume indicates he worked for Brixmor, coordinating their campaign to convert University Mall to a 7-story mixed use apartment complex. This campaign was characterized by repetitive script-reading public commenters.
9. Don Fouts, the principal of Fouts homes, serves on the City of Davis Housing Element Committee. Fouts developed the Grande Village, has an approved project for Chiles Ranch, and has development rights for land inside the Mace curve. Fouts was appointed by Brett Lee.
10. Sustainable Growth Yolo has many similarities to other Spafford & Lincoln projects, but the Yolo Growth website has no indication of who is behind the organization.
11. Spafford and Lincoln regularly employ DCD students as paid campaigners for its political campaigns. Spafford is a PR firm that works for developers to lobby to get projects approved.
12. The Davis Vanguard is the only publication to publish the 10 radical Yolo Growth proposals, and they did so without revealing that the signer, Don Gibson, was both the chair of Yolo Growth and a member of the HEC. The Vanguard has since published several columns written by David Greenwald advocating for the radical Yolo Growth proposals.
13. Tim Keller is a member of Sustainable Growth Yolo and has advocated for the market deregulation and pro-growth policies.
14. Yolo Growth’s lobbying efforts are supported by DCD, and DCD students are advocating for Yolo Growth’s proposal in the same way they have advocated for other Spafford & Lincoln projects. Student callers appear to be reading from scripts.
15. DCD members occasionally publish on the Vanguard.
16. Spafford and Lincoln PR firm was paid about $500,000 to run the two Nishi campaigns. All the Principals of Spafford & Lincoln also work for Gateway Equity Partners, a real estate solution company. Tim Ruff, one of the Nishi partners, serves on the board for Gateway Equity.
17. Spafford & Lincoln was the PR firm running the campaign for the DISC project.
18. DCD was paid $1,000 directly by the Nishi campaign. Several DCD members were also paid directly as individuals during both Nishi campaigns (public campaign filings).
19. The Nishi campaign paid for extensive advertising on the Davis Vanguard website over a period of many years. The Vanguard frequently wrote favorable articles supporting the project.
20. Tim Keller’s Area 52 project was to be included in the first Nishi proposal.
21. The Mace Ranch Innovation Project (MRIC), then the Aggie Research Center (ARC), then the Davis Innovation Sustainability Campus (DISC) project all paid for advertising on the Davis Vanguard website. This amounted to many years of advertising. The Vanguard repeatedly wrote favorable articles supporting the projects.
22. Many DCD students advocated for the DISC project. Some were paid advocates for the project.
23. Tim Keller’s Inventopia project was to be located in the DISC development. Keller advocated for DISC.
24. Tim Keller often writes pro-development articles published only in the Davis Vanguard.
25. Many DCD students identified themselves while advocating for Brixmor’s University Commons project and frequently appeared to be reading directly from scripts, much like the tactics being used for the Housing Element. A DCD member wrote articles supporting University Mall that first appeared in the Vanguard and now also appear on the Yolo Growth website.
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
It’s about time someone wrote an article like this. It is the type of article one might expect from the Vanguard (rather than a guest author), if it was actually interested in doing investigative reporting on behalf of the community.
Of course, the problems with Don Gibson’s appointment to the HEC (by Dan Carson) have been noted in other articles, in another blog.
But perhaps the more enlightening part is the connection to development interests by Doug Buzbee, given that he’s (also) on the finance and budget committee (which analyzes the “fiscal profitability” of such proposals).
And then there’s the College Democrats, their connections to Spafford and Lincoln, etc. Perhaps some people are fooled by their party affiliation, and therefore incorrectly assume that they’re not developer shills.
What kind of town is Davis, where these types of connections (e.g., from those on advisory commissions) is “o.k.”?
I remember the good old days . . . we’d walk a mile in the snow to get to school, up L Street, uphill both directions. And the Democrats at the college were . . . #gasp# . . . environmentalists! . . . who opposed developing on farmland . . . . . . #sniff#
Let’s call it what it is, what they are: YIYBYs. It’s not their own back yards that will be impacted . . . it never hits the reeeeech with their big back yards . . . [“Eat the Rich” – Aerosmith] those backyards never end up in ‘opportunity districts’ nor be associated with buildings labeled as ‘blight’ for ‘redevelopment’. Nope, like always, we take from the areas of town that those of lower income already live in (with modest backyards), use the college schill-o-crats who believe they are increasing housing, because of the sham of ‘A-ffordable’ (SUB-sidized) housing – and they end up creating GENT-rification — see it know? GENT? — it’s the male dominance of the ruling class! So it’s not in their back yard, it’s MEN (probably white men), in YOUR backyard 😐
Not THAT’s logic!
But seriously folks . . .
Always keep in mind that ‘A-ffordable housing’ doesn’t create more housing – what it does is allow a small lucky number of ‘lottery winners’ or patient list-waiters of very low income persons to live in units rather than low income working class people who are then displaced and shut out of Davis. Middle and upper distribution relatively unaffected. Laws of economics are as solid as the laws of physics (and just as misunderstood and misinterpreted). A-ffordable housing is a government-subsidized sham that allows developers to pull the wool over the eyes of the left-leaning by ‘checking the box’ of a left cause-goal, allowing developers to slip by and build, baby, build!
I much appreciate that the DG and the DV are following through on the promise to publish anything submitted (I’m sure there are some limits), even one with LINES drawn from this publication to OTHER BOXES. I much appreciate the allowance of the publication of criticism; not myself passing judgement on the validity of the lines.
A jolly good game of ‘connect the dots’.
All I can say is this article reminds me of the phrase:
“Things that make you go hmmm”
I went ‘hmmmm’ 😐
That these UCD students see that their interests in gaining more affordable housing options aligns with the interests of real estate developers isn’t a surprise. We live in a market economy where most goods and services are provided by private companies that have shareholders who are trying to gain profits. This is the reality of our economy–people are not delivering housing out of the goodness of their hearts (and I suspect none of you worked entirely for free).
Are you referring to “affordable housing” such as Sterling? More than $1,200 per bedroom?
(Note that the “traditional” studios and 1 bedrooms sold out a long time ago, despite their price tag of more than $2,200/month). Turns out that some students DO have some money, and DON’T like student housing.
https://www.sterlinghousing.com/davis-ca/sterling-5th-street/floor-plans
When you literally work for a PR firm (on behalf of development interests), it is true that you’re no longer participating in campaigns (organized by development interests) of the goodness of one’s heart.
Now, if these same folks advocated against DISC (based upon the thousands of cars/greenhouse gasses, as well as increased demand for the same housing that they claim is already in short supply), perhaps they’d have some credibility.
Or, if they were participating in organized campaigns for more student housing on campus.
As it is, they have no credibility.
Richard, Your point is a good one as far as it goes, but in my opinion it is only a portion of the story.
The other part is that these UCD students ought to be seeing that their interests in gaining more affordable housing options aligns with State and University interests.
The amount of financial resources available to address affordable student housing from the local community is extremely limited … and those limited financial resources are much more appropriately targeted for the non-student part of the community that needs financial help with the costs of housing.
The UCD students should be in constant dialogue with the Governor’s Office, the UC Office of the President, Senator Dodd, Assembly member Aguiar-Curry, and for those students whose hometown is not local, the Senator and Assembly member of their “home district.” Those folks have deep pockets, and the affordability of a college/university education is an important issue in their portfolio. In addition, the affordability of a college/university education is not an issue in a Davis City Council member’s portfolio.
However, that does not appear to be part of the DCD game plan. It has been reported that Don Gibson actually voted “nay” on the proposal to have the City push the University harder on its housing commitments.
All this hubub about an advisory committee…..I swear it seems like people around here feel like the cool kids aren’t inviting them to be part of their clique.
So a whopping 3 members of this ADIVISORY committee have real estate development interests? Wow…shocking! How dare there be representatives of people/organizations on a Housing Element Committee who actually build stuff in the city of Davis! I mean I know it’s shocking that people who’s day jobs are real estate developers, builders and lobbyists actually advocate development and growth! Again SHOCKING I say! Shocking! I know Don Fouts is trying to hide his interests at being pro-development…though someone should tell him to take his name off of his development/construction company if he wants to be stealthy and slip by these vigilant investigative bloggers.
Keep in mind I oppose residential development in almost every way (unless someone can give me a tangible reason why it’s good for the existing community)…so my political leanings actually run counter to much of these pro-development representatives. I just think it’s absurd the amount of pearl clutching indignation that goes on over this stuff.
The relative importance of it would depend upon whether those who appointed them (e.g., Dan Carson) enact their “recommendations”, as if it came from a non-biased source (and represents something other than that).
And actually, what is the purpose of having a commission that is stacked with development interests, if their “answer” is “more development” – including on properties in which some already have connections? We already know that they’ll come up with that answer.
Something about if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
But what might be more concerning is the infiltration on more permanent appointments, such as Buzbee’s appointment to the committee which analyzes “fiscal profitability” of development proposals. Especially since development interests will then “latch onto” the results of such commissions as part of a subsequent campaign.
And if those results aren’t already “optimistic enough”, Dan Carson has been known for putting out even more “optimistic” numbers. He’s clearly a glass-overflowing type of guy, even when the glass has a hole in it.
As far as Fouts’ connection to the property inside of Mace Curve (proposed to bypass Measure D), that has not been disclosed on this blog. In fact, it seems to have been purposefully hidden on this blog, by one commenter in particular. “Oh, it’s only owned by a nut company.”
What is this mythical concept you speak of? We do not have this on planet earth.
Again, 3 out of 8 members is stacked? It’s a housing element committee. These guys represent who builds houses in Davis.
Of course they’re biased. You can’t get a non-biased committee. All you can do is get multiple sources of various bias (it sounds cynical but it’s not…it’s just reality).
Part of understanding profitability is understanding what sells (the “market”). So doesn’t it make sense to have someone on the committee that sells stuff on the market in question to better understand “the market”?
I’d assume there are development options on most of the infill and even some of the adjacent to the city properties. And there are few builders that will come to Davis to build so it makes perfect sense that Fouts would have development options on some of those properties.
Like I said, I pretty much oppose residential development. But this whole advisory committee thing just seems beyond silliness.
Wow, this is some shocking detective work! It looks like the people who are first to sign up for a pro-growth organization are those who are consistently advocating for growth, or those whom have been harmed by the city’s inability to process growth! AMAZING!
I mean, speaking for myself as someone who runs an economic development non-profit and has been doing so largely WITHOUT PAY for YEARS… the fact that i have supported the development of projects which would have provided much needed R&D space that would have helped the same startups I try to help…. I mean, that is SCANDALOUS right?
Honestly I dont know how I should react to being included on this conspiracy theory map…. Is it funny? Is it sad? Should this have been a life goal of mine from the start?
If the implication is that I’m only doing this because I’m somehow paid to do it, then I’d appreciate some further research into exactly HOW I get to be paid for this. Cause…. It WOULD be really nice…
i guess that drawing dots between ppl in a small town and insinuating that some conspiracy is at foot is just more enticing of a concept than the boring truth: That a lot of us who are harmed by the City’s consistent failure to grow to at the rate it should, are just fed up with the Nimbys and are finally getting organized to do something about it.
I take it that you would be “paid” via fully-equipped lab space, as you previously noted regarding DISC. Or, that was the claim. The type that is in “short supply”, since lab space is generally not just sitting around unused, as it would be too expensive (for any owner, anywhere) to do so.
Sprawl is not a NIMBY issue. In fact, some NIMBYs support sprawl, due to the mistaken belief that it will prevent densification around their neighborhood.
Your argument seems to be with the city (at large).
Why is it that the growth monkeys constantly try to change towns, rather than relocate to where they’d be much more welcome? Why the endless war?
Why not a little peace, for a change?
And by the way, haven’t these guys given up (or so you claim)?
In any case, these types should not be dominating city committees.
No. Not even close.
Inventopia is a TENNANT in properties like what DISC would have been. I would have been paying THEM for the space. Thats not exactly “payment” is it?
Every small town (most big cities) have some sort of network of professional and social connections that interconnect various interests. There are of course various committees, shared law firms, accounting firms….then there are the social events: golf tournaments and softball tournaments are popular…in more sophisticated cites there are art galas/shows…charitable events.
I remember a project my development company had in a small central valley town; one of my partners used to get his hair cut at the town barbershop that was owned and run by the city manager. They got a lot of business done that way. Another time we paid to play in charitable Texas Hold Em’ tournament hosted by the mayor of another city. Were we paying for some sort of elicit favor? No. We just wanted some friendly face time with an important decision maker where he’d look on us as those guys he had fun with playing Texas Hold em.
Relationships are how things get done. I eluded to this in a previous post related to this subject (and halfway joked about graft getting things done). Many businesses move to where their leaders feel the most politically comfortable (locally). I don’t know how it’s possible to talk about a Housing Element without having the developers there. It’s not a sin for the city and business (and development) to work together as long as the city makes sure it has the interests of the people first. Developers want to develop and businesses want tax cuts…it’s what they’re expected to want when they come to the table. It isn’t some behind the scenes conspiracy of biased influence. As I said previously, I don’t think anyone is surprised that Buzzbee, Gibson and Fouts are pro-development.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that developer input is inappropriate, if a city is considering more development.
However, one might want to question analyses coming out of those committees, especially if they end-up being non-representative of the city at large. Even more so, for important “city direction” issues, or if fiscal analyses are involved. This ain’t the “bicycle committee”, and it also involves dealing with RHNA requirements.
You do realize that you’ve been “thrown under the bus” – by the types associated with the group that Tim Keller and Don Gibson are part of, right? And again, Don Gibson didn’t even support the proposal regarding the effort related to student housing on campus. Since that was a “split vote”, it failed.
I don’t see your specific “controversial” comment (from a few months ago) in here, but then again I didn’t listen to the video, either.
https://www.sustainablegrowthyolo.org/news
I believe this is my fifth and last comment.
Of course you should question the analysis! Ron, you keep looking at these committees as if they’re supposed to be some purely neutral paragon of unbiased analysis. Such a thing doesn’t exist. Developers have to be part of the discussion of growth and the Housing Element. Obviously they’re going to promote growth. Just like the tree hugging granola hippies and the NIMBYs are going to promote restricting it….either in this committee or some other committee, open forum or out among the voters.
I get that those guys supported growth. It makes sense that they’d support whatever promotes more student housing in town…..because they’d get to build it. I’m not sure what the issue is.
Tim Keller: There are evil developers. I used to know some of them. They just weren’t evil because they were developers.
Tim Keller: There are evil developers. I used to know some of them. They just weren’t evil because they were developers.
Totally agree.
In EVERY single business sector there are those who are willing to make a quick buck by cutting corners, or who are willing to maximize their profits by preying on others.
This is why we have processes and why we don’t just let the developers just run wild. Just in the same way we don’t let banks, or lumber companies, or car manufacturers run wild.
Also, there is one point that really needs to be made so that we can just get it over with: This post (along with many others) make the same insinuation – which is that “developers” are evil, or are an inherrent force for harm to the community that must be resisted.
Specific to this thread is a sub-set of that same bias which seems to say that if someone has ever worked FOR one of these “evil” developers, then their opinion is somehow inauthentic or illegitimate
Not only are these biases a poor substitute for actual critical thought, they are hypocritical.
Every one of us will rest our heads tonight in a structure built by one of these “evil developers”. Every building in town, even the ones you like; were built by these same people.
”Developer” is just an occupation. They are people who are trying to earn a living by providing value – just like every last one of us.
Do you know what developers DONT do? Build stuff where there isn’t demand for it.
So if you want to demonize developers, and those who have worked for them, PLEASE have the intellectual integrity to not live in, work in, or patronize establishments that operate out of, a “building”. Building stuff is evil apparently, and I wouldn’t want you getting mixed up with, or mistakenly supporting such despicable people.
Well, almost every one. That barn on Fifth Street? The one with a nursery in it? We built that ourselves.
Correct, Don, to an extent… but it was an ‘evil developer’ who created the lot, and built the utility services that allowed you to buy the lot and put the building and other improvements on it… another “Don” as I recall…
LOL technically that makes YOU a developer too Don!
Here is where ppl get to demonize you for “Destroying prime farmland”. And “creating traffic”…
Well, I mean, when we built it Fifth Street ended at the post office, and look at it now. So I apologize for causing Mace Ranch.
Don Miller. A great guy who had the foresight to buy property on the then-edges of town in the 1950’s and 60’s for future development; the whole section from the city corp yard entrance down to the gas station, not to mention some very prime real estate just east of Willowbank. Also, I have been told by more than one long-timer that he was the first landlord to break the color barrier in Davis.
Good developers wait for local community acceptance. They build because the locals want them to. Bad developers wedge themselves in a decision process. They build despite local protests.
In general, people end up calling the good developers “contractors”, who get to say this: “I never promoted to build this and I was never part of the decision to build this. I am here only because you guys wanted something built.”
The term developer seems to have a connotation that they are opportunists that ignore local opinions. They make money by building “the same recipe” destroying local charm and characteristics.
Architects, consultants, civil engineers don’t have seem to have that bad reputation of being pushy as “developers”.
True story… Don Miller was someone I “butted heads with” frequently over the years… he taught me a lot, that made me ‘better’… including, that you can get into a ‘knock down, drag out’, but you could consider having a brew together, and laugh about it a few hours later… he, Sam Harrison, some others were folk you could get into serious disagreements with, find common ground, and once you did, there was a handshake and acknowledgement… more binding than any written contract vetted by attorneys… [sorry for the off-topic part]
True story… also applies to a few public sector folk… all levels… ego and/or ‘power’, more than $$$…
Have known those types, as you and I have described, in both sectors… I’ll leave it at that…
This article makes me wonder why anyone would be willing to serve this city in any capacity that requires filing a form 700. I get the need for disclosure but the accusations that there are conflicts of interest for people like Buzbee simply because he has real estate interests and connections to the Whitcombe family in Davis is over the top.
If you think about it, since restricting supply increases prices, every homeowner has a real estate interest that benefits from voting no on a Measure D project. Is that a conflict of interest?
How serve? Committee, Commission, Board, employees? Just curious… I was a ‘mandatory filer’ for ~35 years… no biggie…
Not in the legal sense… others ‘believe’ otherwise… legally, not that complex, although some would like to believe, have others believe, that COI exists whenever somebody does anything that they don’t like… it is what it is…
I suspect some would dis-enfranchise voters based on a spurious COI basis, as you suggest… either pro or con on a JeRkeD measure…
Exactly Bill. Whether I own one house or 100 it isn’t a conflict of interest to simply own property.
“And the Democrats at the college were . . . #gasp# . . . environmentalists! . . . who opposed developing on farmland . . . . . . #sniff#”
That was a generation ago but now the current generation of College Dems suffers from the lack of housing that would have been built had not the current senior citizens not bought into the idea that building on farmland would destroy the earth when they were College Dems back in the day.
As for Don Gibson organizing people to call into City Council meetings and read from a script it really isn’t much different than when the NIMBY’s activate the phone tree like they did the other night to accuse Buzbee, Fouts and Gibson of all sorts of bad things.
The sad part in this is the level of hostility and mistrust that has been revealed through this process. Instead of arguing the merits of a position we have people digging into the financial records of volunteers, accusations of both conflict of interest and failure to comply with open meeting laws.
Instead of all of that the opponents simply had to speak at the City Council in opposition to the recommendations. The CC, whose members are more sensitive to the opinions of the voters, were never going to sign off on all those proposals.
Amen.
“we have people digging into the financial records of volunteers, accusations of both conflict of interest and failure to comply with open meeting laws.”
Yeah, isn’t that “doxing”, against the VG protocols? Guess the rules are different, for different people who submit articles, or posts…
“What is fueling the push to radically rewrite Davis’s laws on development?”
I would argue that there are numerous public policies pushing for more Density in Davis. One is climate change, where the climate change scientistic indicate that “urban infill” (more homes that are generally smaller than sprawling single-family ranch homes) is Davis’s second most effective local policy tool for reducing emissions.
See, https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/ca-scenarios/index.html, which says that if Davis embraced urban infill fully it would have the potential to reduce emissions by over 37,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent. The only other policy with more potential is increasing the efficiency of commercial buildings, with over 38,000 metric tons of CO2E reduction potential.
Then we could look at issues of affordability and equity. Most research shows that when you have multiple units on a single lot, the price per unit is lower.
What is it assuming about urban infill?
Are buildings razed and rebuilt?
Are people driving and commuting?
There is no way that the effect is just proportional to a single slider. (????)
Yeah cuz they-er smaller, less-desirable, and have teeny bayuck yerds.
Yeyuz, I theenk I’ll embrayuce an Berkelee intellektual climut chayunge fanatic with publishin rites to tell us noomburrs and whatizinin bestest foreza plop plop fizz fizz Davizzz