By Alan Pryor
The Bretton Woods project violates the project’s supposedly unchangeable Baseline Features. These Baseline Features were contained in ballot language presented to voters and upon which the voters relied when the project was approved at the polls in November 2018. The approved entitlements also completely change key provisions of Development Agreement between the Developer and the City that was also very prominently presented to the public prior to the vote.
The development of the Bretton Woods project (formerly known as and presented to voters as the West Davis Active Adult Community) has a checkered history of post-election actions taken by the Developer to alter the scope of the project to his direct financial benefit. Indeed, the cumulative impact of all of the changes in project features agreed to by our City Council will probably result in tens of millions of dollars in additional profits accruing to the Developer.
But the changes are also very detrimental to the prospects of local Davis seniors when trying to purchase down-sized homes at the Bretton Woods project. The changes also substantially decrease the likelihood that Davis residents will ever be able to obtain adequate local cognitive care for their loved ones because a planned memory care facility on the project site will likely never materialize.
In particular, one such change means that University Retirement Community will not be able to construct an enhanced memory care facility on a portion of the project’s property or that a specialized care facility will ever be constructed on the site as otherwise represented to voters in the project’s 
supposedly iron-clad Baseline Features in the ballot statement.
On this Tuesday’s City Council Consent Calendar, the Council is posed to approve purported routine new entitlements to the Bretton Woods senior housing project previously approved by Davis voters in a Measure J/R vote in November, 2018. The accompanying Staff Report for the Consent Calendar item in question reads as follows:
“Item 4 (6:55)
Consent Calendar
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and non-controversial, require no discussion and are expected to have unanimous Council support and may be enacted by the Council in one motion in the form listed below.”
For the most part, the proposed routine entitlements for the Bretton Woods projects have to do with ministerial approvals of final plot maps for about half of the project and the assignment of portions of the Development Agreement between the City and the Developer to a new builder of the project recruited by the Developer.
Closer reading of the Staff Report, however, reveals other material changes in the project that are anything but “routine and non-controversial”. In fact, certain changes in the project appear to be direct violations of the Baseline Features of the project approved by voters in November of 2018.
Baseline Features Compared to Development Agreements
Baseline Features of a project are elements of the project that actually appear on the ballot measure itself and, which if changed, require subsequent voter approval. They cannot be changed at the sole discretion of the then current City Council. Indeed, the ballot measure for the Bretton Woods project specifically stated
“Compliance with Baseline: West Davis Active Adult Community is required to develop in accordance with the Baseline Features stated above, subject to mandatory compliance with state and federal laws. “
In other words, the Baseline Features of the voter-approved Bretton Woods project are sacrosanct elements of the project and they are not allowed to be changed by the Council at all. Any changes to the Baseline Features is a right reserved exclusively for the voters under the provisions of Measure J/R.
In contrast, the majority of project requirements are instead put into a Development Agreement signed between the City and the Developer. This agreement specifies all other project requirements imposed on the Developer that are not in the Baseline Features. Development Agreements can be changed at any time for any reason by any City Council which is why Developers always try to put as many project requirements into the Development Agreement instead of in Baseline Features.
In the case of Bretton Woods, one change made by in the Development Agreement approved by the Council as demanded by the Developer was the functional elimination of key provisions that otherwise required that 90% of homes sold in the project be reserved for buyers with a “Davis connection” (i.e. the “Davis-Based Buyers Program” – see David Taormino and Bretton Woods Are Attempting a ‘Bait-and-Switch’ with the Davis-Based Buyers Program).
There are also two Baseline Features of the project (thus far) that the Developer has proposed changing that violates the provisions of measure J/R, as follows:
1) The requirement for use of the 3.2-acre parcel on the southeast corner of the project to be used for “either the expansion of University Retirement Community (“URC”) for the benefit of its residents or for use by another specialized senior care facility“, and
2) The requirement to “Establish a foundation and seed funds for the initial planting and ongoing maintenance of the oak forested area in association with the HOA and appropriate local organizations“.
The failure of the Developer to provide for an endowed “Foundation” to plant and maintain the oak-forested area as mentioned above will be discussed in a later article along with the functional elimination of the Davis-Based Buyers program in the Development Agreement and what it means for the Developer’s increased profits.
URC Will now NOT be Able to Use a 3.2 Acre Parcel at Bretton Woods for Expansion or a “Specialized Medical Care Facility”
Unfortunately, it now appears that an enhanced memory care facility will not be developed on the 3.2 acre by URC “for the benefit of its residents or for use by another specialized medical care facility” site as required by the Baseline Features and approved by voters. Instead, according to the Staff Report prepared for the Council’s Consent Calendar tonight, the project is now slated to instead include “An approximately three-acre continuing care retirement community site, which would likely contain 30 assisted living, age-restricted detached units.”
So the project has morphed from a promised specialized enhanced memory care facility on the 3-acre parcel into 30 detached senior home sites. As shown later, this will probably provide millions of dollars in additional profits to the Developer compared to what he would have otherwise received by selling the property to URC as he was previously contractually obligated to do and which he represented to the voters in November 2018.
The causes of this seemingly incongruous change in project specification are rather seamy and are the end result of a lawsuit filed by the Developer to abrogate an executed land purchase option agreement granted to URC by the Developer prior to the election.
During the election campaign, the Bretton Woods Developer constantly ballyhooed the fact that he had signed this option agreement to sell the 3.2 acre parcel of land in question to University Retirement Community (URC), a much beloved Davis senior care facility located Covell Blvd. from the Bretton Woods project.
Much was also made of URC’s tentative plans to establish an enhanced memory care facility on the site which could be used by existing URC clients to seamlessly transition to a more appropriate specialized care environment .
This arrangement solidified enough internal support for the project by URC to the extent that URC declined a request by opponents of the project before the election to hold an informational event on the premises in advance of the forthcoming election. URC had previously agreed to such events prior to earlier Measure J/R votes ostensibly to allow their members to become fully informed before any such votes.
As readers are aware, the Measure J/R vote on the Bretton Woods project passed by a comfortable margin and all appeared to be well for the implementation of the plans for the enhanced medical care facility by URC. But the Developer had other nefarious plans designed to enhance his own profits rather than allowing the future specialized memory care facility to be developed by URC that the Developer himself repeatedly touted during the campaign as one of his primary benefits to seniors..
The Spurious Lawsuit Filed by the Developer
Instead, on October 2, 2019, a lawsuit was filed by the Developer (Binning Ranch Company LLC as signed by its Developer agent, Davis Taormino, as plaintiff) against URC (as defendant) in Yolo County Superior Court (Case CV19-2085). (The full lawsuit can be accessed here). The Developer was represented by Boutin Jones of Sacramento. Amazingly the complaint essentially alleged that URC violated the Option Agreement because they did not do enough to help him win the election that he in fact won!
As stated in the complaint, “...June 2, 2017, Binning Ranch and URC entered into an Option Agreement and Agreement of Purchase and Sale…The Option Agreement granted URC the exclusive option, on certain terms and conditions, to purchase approximately 3.2 acres of the Property:
- If URC were to elect to exercise the option, the Option Agreement set a purchase price of $16 per square foot of usable land. (Exhibit A, Section 5.1.)
- In consideration of the option, URC agreed to make a First Option Payment of $10,000, and an Option Continuation Payment of $150,000…” to be paid upon the successful completion of the affirmative vote of the pending measure J/R ballot measure and other project entitlements.
The lawsuit further stated that, “In the event of URC’s breach of any term or provision thereof, the Option Agreement provided that Binning Ranch’s sole remedy would be to terminate the
Option Agreement by giving written notice. (Exhibit A, Section 6.2.) Additionally, the Agreement entitled Binning Ranch to retain all payments made by URC upon URC’s breach. (Exhibit A, Section 6.2.)”
All of these provisions of the Option Agreement are fairly standard for such types of agreements. Typically the termination of such agreements is caused by the failure of the optionee (URC in this case) to complete the sale of the transaction by not delivering the remainder of the payment due on the sale of the property and thus foregoing the right to purchase the property.
However, there was one other provision in the Option Agreement under which the Developer claims that URC breached their agreement. That is, the Option Agreement specified that, “As an additional material consideration for Owner’s Grant of the Option to Optionee, commencing immediately after the Effective Date and continuing throughout the Term, Optionee shall publicly and actively support Owner’s campaign relating to the affirmative support of the Measure R Vote.”
In his lawsuit, the Developer alleged that URC failed to fulfill this provision in their contract (despite the Developer having won the election by a comfortable margin) and demanded the cancellation of the Option Agreement and forfeiture of all option payments made thus far.
Specifically, the Developer alleges that “URC Did Not Continuously, “Publicly and Actively” Support the WDAAC Campaign”. As evidence for this supposed gross misdeed on URC’s part the lawsuit only cites the following one specific example of URC’s purported transgressions,
“At times, URC even affirmatively refused to lend support for the campaign. For instance, on October 12, 2018, Taormino requested that the URC “Board submit a letter to the Editor [of the Davis Enterprise] in support of Measure L.” Thirteen (13) days later, and just two (2) weeks before the election, URC’s Executive Director relayed the URC Board’s declination, stating “I have spoken to my board members these past few days and they are not comfortable putting their name on a letter with verbiage supporting Measure L.” The Board did not submit a letter to the Editor, nor did URC publicly, actively, or otherwise, support the passage of Measure L in the days just before the election. In short, in the thick of the election season, when Binning Ranch needed URC’s promised support the most, URC outright refused to provide it.
Can you possibly imagine a more distasteful lawsuit being filed to deny URC the opportunity to develop their enhanced memory care facility based on such flimsy allegations and with there being absolutely no apparent damages to the Developer since he, in fact, won the election?
As it turns out, URC was faced with the prospect of probably spending well in excess of $500,000 over several years to defend the lawsuit brought by the Developer to void the Option Agreement. Some local observers said the true price tag for their defense might have risen to well over $1,000,000 to see it all the way through trials and possible appeals. It’s no wonder that URC instead probably chose to settle the matter and just walk away
In fact, a settlement conference in the matter was scheduled for February 16. By all outward appearances it seems that URC did indeed settle to avoid the prospect of such expensive litigation entering into the most expensive phase.
I believe this is because the Developer has already had Staff insert new language in their Staff Report to Council for this evening’s Consent Calendar stating that the project will instead have 30 single family homes on the 3.2 acre sit instead of URC’s enhanced memory care facility or other specialized care facility.
Millions of Dollars in Additional Profits are Probably Garnered by the Developer as a Result of this Lawsuit
One might speculate that the motivation for the Developer to use such heavy-handed legal means to force URC to settle the lawsuit and agree to the rescission of the Option Agreement is MONEY. Instead of selling the entire parcel to URC for $2,230,272 (at $16/sq. ft. x 3.2 acres x 43,560 sq. ft./acre ), the Developer could instead make far more by selling the land at a much higher valuation. As currently proposed in the Staff Report submitted to Council, the new proposal for this site envisions 30 sites with slightly in excess of 1/10th acre per lot. According to one local appraiser, such lots could sell for in excess of $250,000. It was stated that similar sized lot recently sold at the Cannery for $300,000.
If the 30 lots to be placed on the 3.2 acre site sold for $250,000 each, the Developer would realize gross income of $7,500,000 compared to approximately $2,230,272 if the sale to URC otherwise went ahead as planned. So the Developer was willing to sue URC and, if successful, potentially realize additional profits in excess of $5,000,000. The only casualty is that URC then must forego any possibility of building an enhanced memory care facility on the 3.2 acre parcel.
Indeed, this apparent disdain for his supposed local senior constituency was also apparent when the Developer functionally neutered the Davis Based Buyers Program by throwing open home sales to all comers to the clear dis-benefit of Davis seniors for whom 90% of the sales were to be reserved.
Additionally, it has been reported by every prospective buyer that I have talked with that the Developer has canceled some, if not all of the home purchase contracts he signed with Davis seniors before the election. Some of the contracts reportedly specified a purchase price of $550,000 for which each prospective buyer gave him a $5,000 deposit to the Developer.
These pre-built home sales was also widely touted by the Developer as evidence of overwhelming local senior demand and support for the project. By the Developer’s own admission, well over 100 local seniors executed contracts of sale with him for home purchases.
The reason the Developer gave to the prospective Buyers when recently canceling their contracts and returning their deposits was that he could not get a builder to build the homes and did not expect to be able to do so in the near future. Yet here we are only months later and the Developer has miraculously come up with a builder for about half the units to be built.
One might otherwise speculate that the ability to substantially raise the price for the homes for which the earlier contract were cancelled might play a factor in the Developer’s decision to cancel those contracts
These Developer Misdeeds Would Not Be Possible if our City Council were not so Malleable and Willing to Give the Developer Anything He Wanted
In return for moving construction ahead and filling the City coffers with millions of dollars in fees and construction taxes, our City Council has functionally thrown the Davis senior community under the bus by agreeing to these project changes despite the promises made and subsequently broken by the Developer.
We have all heard our Councilmembers say on numerous occasions that Baseline Features could not be changed except by a new vote of the people. Well, apparently this not a true statement as demonstrated here with the loss of the “specialized senior care facility” that was promised to voters but now being potentially denied by actions by the Developer and approved by our Council.
The seemingly never-ending appeasements by the City to Developer demands even if they constitute violations of the supposedly iron-clad provisions of the Baseline Feature commitments presented to voters is a stark warning that the future promises and representations of Developers and our own City Council are not always to be believed.
https://em-ui.constantcontact.com/em-ui/em/page/em-ui/email#
So what you are saying is that Measure J doesn’t work.
This is an important point. The proponents want everything locked down by baseline features- but what if that is too inflexible to actually build the project? This is one of the points I made a few weeks ago.
Didn’t the builder agree to the baseline features in order to put the project to a vote?
Lesson: Don’t put stupid baseline features in your project. This whole thing was clearly a house of cards that would collapse, but the average Davis voter is stupider than me, so they voted for the stupid baseline features in the stupid project. Have we not yet learned not to vote for anything this team proposes? But also, unless someone sues and wins, no one is going to stop them from violating their promises, and as we’ve seen numerous times on numerous government levels, government does not have to abide by promises made in state initiatives no local planning documents — so why not Measure J baseline features as well?
Ron, you are a comedian.
The failure of City Council and members of City staff (not all City staff are complicit) to enforce the provisions of a project’s baseline features is no different than the failure of City Council and members of City staff (not all City staff are complicit)to enforce the provisions of the Cannery Development Agreement. There is very little accountability practiced in City Hall.
The provisions of Measure J give the voters of Davis the power to hold developers and City Hall accountable … but only until the point where a project is approved by the voters. Once a Measure J project gets a positive vote (like Nishi 2018 and WDAAC/Bretton Woods did), the voters no longer can hold that accountability in their hands. They are at the mercy of the actions of City Hall and the developers.
A good example of how that lack of accountability works for the residents of Davis is the fact that the residents of Cannery are paying $21 million in additional taxes that (1) were not in the original Development Agreement signed by the developer and the City Council, and (2) they never got to vote “yes” or “no” on that tax.
So what you are saying is that Measure J doesn’t work.
As you very clearly know Ron, I am absolutely NOT saying “that Measure J doesn’t work.”
There is a tried and true saying “that train has left the station” that applies very directly to Measure J … which is a set of conditions that governs whether (and how) a project gets to “leave the station.” In that metaphorical context, Measure J works remarkably well. It forces developers to not take shortcuts in the planning of their projects … or pay the consequences at the ballot box. Nishi 2016 didn’t adequately plan for either traffic or affordable housing, and the result was a negative vote at the polls. Nishi 2018 spent considerably more time planning its approach to both traffic impacts and affordable housing … removing those two negative factors … and it was approved by the voters.
Torturing the train metaphor, Measure J also provides significant guidance to the project once it has left the station (been approved by the voters); however, that guidance is only as good as the willingness of City Council and City staff to abide by and enforce the guidelines.
Matt – given that nothing has been built how can you categorically make that claim?
Categorically make what claim?
— the claim that the failure of City Council and members of City staff (not all City staff are complicit) to enforce the provisions of a project’s baseline features is no different than the failure of City Council and members of City staff (not all City staff are complicit) to enforce the provisions of the Cannery Development Agreement?
— the claim that there is very little accountability practiced in City Hall?
— the claim that the provisions of Measure J give the voters of Davis the power to hold developers and City Hall accountable … but only until the point where a project is approved by the voters?
— the claim that once a Measure J project gets a positive vote (like Nishi 2018 and WDAAC/Bretton Woods did), the voters no longer can hold that accountability in their hands?
— the claim that the residents/voters are at the mercy of the actions of City Hall and the developers?
— the claim that the residents of Cannery are paying $21 million in additional taxes that (1) were not in the original Development Agreement signed by the developer and the City Council, and (2) they never got to vote “yes” or “no” on that tax?
Which of those six claims should I not be making because they are inaccurate?
In theory the developers are held accountable by the city council who is then held accountable by the voters. That’s how representative government is supposed to work. The question is whether the voters agree with the changes made to the development agreement by the council (and their reasoning behind it…maybe fiscal?) or if the even care enough to effect their vote for city council members.
You are correct in theory Keith. However, there is a big difference between theory and practice in this case. The first, and biggest difference is that because the voters know that they largely have control of their destiny on land use issues because of Measure J … and they are not at the mercy of the whims of City Council, they don’t look to City Council candidates with land use as a litmus test issue.
The second difference is the relative “invisibility” of changes to development agreements by City Council. Most of those changes are more technical than the average voter is trained to understand, and most of them come to the light of day like Athena springing fully armed from the head of Zeus. The staff report customarily gets published on Friday for a Tuesday Council meeting, and with little or no advance notice/warning.
Yes, I suppose the transparency isn’t the greatest.
But the average voter usually doesn’t care about the details. It’s only those on the fringes; the activists and policy wonks (of which many of us fall into those categories). They care about what they see in front of them. Roads, traffic, buildings, green space, people, services…etc.. The system is set to let the leaders do their thing without hinderance from the uniformed people. The people then look around at their community (not policy) and vote on if they like what they see and live in or not. If the leaders have made egregious errors (professional or personal) then they get voted out. Otherwise the leaders go on doing their thing. Now it’s up to the activists on all sides to keep leaders inline with the people. IMO the problem are the activist (on all sides) ramble self riotously about their policies and issues against each other and spend little time out in the community informing the average voter who has little time to care about the details.….as I always say when presenting things to me….give it to me in 3-5 bullet points because more than that and I’m probably going to start thinking about football or baseball.
Truer words were never spoken, MW, truer words . . . 😐
Can you explain the legally binding part of the “baseline features” and Measure J? It sounds to me that these are simply agreed upon terms that are to be put into the development agreement. But Measure J is simply a yes or no kind of vote; yes to annex and rezone or no. So is there an actual legal mechanism in the baseline features?
As for the URC option agreement; did/does the University Retirement Community refute the claim? Maybe they wanted to pull out (I dunno….for financial reasons?). I don’t understand the outrage at a for profit developer doing things to maximize profit. If the option agreement was not upheld to the letter of the law, then the developer was within it’s legal right to take measures to maximize profit. Getting mad at a for profit developer for maximizing profit is like getting mad at a dog because it barks and doesn’t talk.
The deposits and cancellations is extremely shady. The Council should have raked them over the developer over the coals for this…as should have the local community, press…etc… to signal to the developer that this kind of thing would not be acceptable. But I’m guessing a short term infusion of cash to stabilize the city’s finances trumped holding the developer accountable and the general welfare of the city.
And let me twist this up for you a bit. If the city had better sources of revenue….like from a business park then it would be less financially vulnerable and at the mercy of shady developers like the Bretton Woods developer.
Keith, the difference between Baseline Features and a Development Agreement is that provisions of Baseline Features can only be changed by a vote of the people, while provisions of a Development Agreement can be changed by a vote of City Council.
Another difference may (I emphasize may) exist in practice … specifically, how open City staff and City Council are about any revisions that are being contemplated. With Baseline Features, there may be a tendency to take a “fly under the radar” approach as the default, since the consequences of being open in the disclosure of the consideration of the revision(s) could be triggering another Measure J vote. Since there is no additional vote consideration for revisions to a Development Agreement the need for stealth on the part of the developer or staff or Council is effectively eliminated.
So it’s an actual legally binding document? That’s my question.
In a word … “yes”
I’m curious as to what the structure and format of the baseline features document is. Is some sort of document attached to the measure put up for vote? How is it worded? How is it reviewed? How is it enforced?
I don’t care if the dog talks or not, I just want the dog to stop barking.
I think you meant to say “the opponents want everything locked down…”.
But the main point of this article is to expose the shenaingans employed by the Developer to thwart the representations made to the public before the vote – and that just coincidentally will result in millions of additional Developer profits.
And do you honestly think the Davis community is better off by having Taormino file such a frivolous lawsuit against URC with the end result that a enhanced memory care facility will never be built by URC and instead the Developer is proposing 30 additional dettached homes?
I didn’t weigh in on the issue of the lawsuit. I made a comment and have a concern about the workability of measure j
Okay David, in the past when you’ve brought up setting up preapproved conditions for getting things past Measure J, I’ve replied that you want a cheat day for your diet…..because…well you continue to support the idea behind idiotic voter direct management of land annexation and use in Davis. You acknowledge all of the problems without say….yup, this idea of voters being directly involved in such complicated things is a bad idea. I mean the best idea would be to get rid of the stupid thing all together. But once you give the unwashed masses some power it’s likely impossible to get it back.
So okay…let’s move on….as to your conditional pre-approval idea. Yes, why not put specific plans over the the properties that are within the sphere of influence and then continuously put them on the ballot for preapproval of annexation. That way most of the political wrangling and uncertainty is done before a developer gets involved. You’ll get better proposed projects if the developer isn’t jumping through the “Davis Spanking Machine” quite so much. Developers will still have to get a development agreement approved by the city.
I dunno, maybe some actual PLANNING would help future growth; forward thinking. Instead of being reactionary,….scrambling to pound square pegs into round holes (that will still happen with pre-aproved planning but hopefully to a lesser degree) to whatever developer decides to dip their toe into the Davis market and then dance around with the city and voters in the hopes of a successful project. Growth with the understanding that certain infrastructure needs to be expanded first either through local, state, federal or private means.
Unlike the well-washed “land-use experts” on the council, I guess. Someone like Gloria, for example. 🙂
Of course, what’s also built-into comments like yours (and David’s) is that Davis SHOULD be pursuing peripheral developments. Seems rather presumptive.
Well said Keith … very well said.
The one addition that I would make to your comment is that the current system is broken in many, many ways. The formulation of, and passage of, Measure J was a reaction to the (perceived) inability of the residents of Davis to trust either developers or City staff or City Council to set personal gain aside and act in the best interest of the greater good of the community.
That distrust existed in 2000 because neither the developer of Mace Ranch nor the City gavde any consideration to the terms of the Mace Ranch Development Agreement, which clearly committed both parties to a measured orderly build-out of the housing units over a multiple year timeframe. The building of the units was jammed into a much more compressed timeframe, which was very attractive fiscally for the developer, but highly disruptive to the community. Then, the developer and the City doubled down on the creation of mistrust through the imposition of the Mace Ranch CFD (Mello-Roos tax) on the residents because the developer said they couldn’t “afford” to build amenities like parks. They signed the Development Agreement and all the attendant planning and entitlements documents, but then said “Oops! We need you to pay more.”
Fast forward to the Cannery Development Agreement and the distrust is again fed by the request by the developer one year after signing the Development Agreement for the Cannery CFD, which added over $21 million of tax payment obligations to the Cannery residents.
Give aways like that fuel distrust. So, yes, Measure J has flaws, but those flaws are arguably much less than the flaws that fueled (and continue to fuel) the distrust of the citizens/residents/voters.
It is a conundrum. Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.
In the 20+ years since the original ordinance was passed, no project subject to a vote has broken ground. In a city with as severe a housing shortage as we have in Davis, I don’t think you can reasonably argue the existence of a bigger ‘flaw.’
As to the complaint about ‘trust,’ the problem that no one seems to want to address is that it is not the City Council, but instead, the City Staff who are responsible. With our current City Manager/weak Mayor system, the voters really don’t have a direct say in the implementation of policy. As a consequence, the CM only needs to know how to count to 3, and for the most part, is therefore not obligated to be concerned about how the unwashed masses respond. This gives a great deal of power to the CM, without any real recourse other than to be fired, which rarely is a serious impediment as they simply move to another city and take a job with a greater salary. With a ‘Strong Mayor’ system, the voters get to decide the fate of policy decisions, which negates the entire premise of the ‘need’ for Measure J. It is well past time to make Davis a Charter City with a Strong Mayor.
What are the reasons that neither of the two projects approved by the voters have broken ground? To the best of my knowledge, the reason is that the Nishi development team has been unsuccessful in its efforts to negotiate with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) to obtain the right to construct an underpass of the UPRR right of way connecting the Nishi site with the UC Davis campus.
If that is indeed the reason, then the reason Nishi has not broken ground has nothing to do with Measure J. Neither Measure J nor the Davis voters are involved in, or even parties to, the negotiations between UPRR and Nishi, and therefore have not affected either the success or failure of those negotiations.
The reasons for WDAAC/Bretton Woods not breaking ground are less clear. Two reasons have been discussed. The first reason that has been reported is that the WDAAC development team plan for surface water flood control was determined to be insufficient, and an additional surface water retention basin had to be added to the plan in order to have a compliant surface water flood control plan. If that is indeed the case, that delay has nothing to do with Measure J. The second reason that has been reported is the challenge the Bretton Woods team has had in finding a builder willing to sign a contract with the development team to do the building. If that is indeed the case, that delay also has nothing to do with Measure J.
There is a problem with both the “nothing has been built” assertions that Mark and David and others have made and the reasons for delay I have provided above. None of them are based on any hard evidence provided directly by either of the development teams as to what the cause of their respective delay(s) are. Perhaps it would be good journalism for the Vanguard to conduct and publish an interview with each of the respective development teams. If that were done, we could stop this continuing cycle of speculation.
I see other possibilities regarding the delay for WDAAC (in particular).
It could be that the developer (initially) attempted to find a builder that could deliver the homes at the agreed-upon price with those who submitted deposits. But in this escalating-cost environment, it might not have been feasible.
As well as labor and material shortages, caused by the pandemic. (Which also contributed to rising prices.)
There’s also the self-inflicted wound regarding the Davis Buyer’s program that the developer had to contend with, in regard to feasibility and possible legal exposures.
Or, you might simply stop speculating.
Sounds like “speculation”, to me.
One might also view the taking of deposits (before the proposal was even approved) as part of the political campaign.
I suspect that none of the fiasco surrounding the developer’s campaign will be forgotten anytime soon. Whether it’s the cancellation of the deposits, the ongoing lawsuit against URC, the “Davis buyer’s program” . . .
Sounds like the baseline feature requirements are not holding the development back, since the council changed them.
But there is a more straightforward solution to all of this, if developers and the council want to retain trust: Don’t include baseline features that you can’t deliver.
Or, pursue another vote which includes the features you want to change.
And if you believe that your proposal can’t win without fake commitments, that’s evidence that the voters didn’t want what you’re (actually) proposing in the first place.
Exactly Ron, so the voters don’t end up with a project they didn’t vote for.
I can’t believe this is even possible to change what the voters actually approved under Measure J.
I’m finding out on every level government can pˆss on your shoes and tell you it’s raining. I’m done. Anarchy now!
Right arm!
One (or many) “might”, indeed. 🙂
I believe this type of thing has been occurring throughout the country, but has nothing to do with Measure J. I would assume that either party can cancel those type of contracts up to a point.
If someone puts down a deposit for a home at a development like Bretton Woods, their own (current) home would also be rising in value in this environment. (Assuming they currently own a home.)
As such, rising prices at Bretton Woods should not hurt those folks at least.
If some based their support for the proposal primarily on this, I’d have to describe them as “suckers”. In that sense, I’d blame them more than I would the developer.
It will be interesting to see what the final prices are, and whether or not it’s primarily occupied by “Davis-based seniors”. (Suckers for believing that, as well.)