By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – This weekend the Davis Enterprise announced that it is once again endorsing a Measure J project—this time DiSC 2022. While detractors will correctly point out that the Enterprise has just about always supported new development, it is also true that if they endorsed the No on DiSC position, the group would be passing out copies of the editorial at Farmer’s Market.
The editorial points out that Davis politics is “starting to feel like ‘Groundhog Day,’” but they also point out that that is by design, in 2000 the voters granted themselves the power to “decide on the fate of any new construction on the city’s borders” and “they also took on the responsibility to help plan the city’s long-term future. We are all urban planners now.”
It will be left to another day to debate again the wisdom of that arrangement, but the arrangement is here.
The editorial continues: “THE DANCE has been worked out; in exchange for being allowed to go forward with the project, the developer offers a package of financial incentives, infrastructure improvements and environmental innovations to incentivize Davis voters to approve the deal. In that sense, Measure J and its successors (Measure R in 2010, Measure D in 2020) performed as expected; every proposal since then has been chock-full of innovative, forward-thinking ideas.
“The developers backing DiSC and Measure H aim to provide much-needed research and innovation space to businesses emerging from UC Davis, thousands of local jobs to graduates and other Davis residents, and increase the city’s housing supply,” they write. “The project would bring 1.34 million square feet of business and innovation space — 550,000 of research, office and R&D; 550,000 for manufacturing; 160,000 of hotel and conference space and 80,000 of ancillary retail — as well as 460 residential units. Those numbers represent a 60-49% reduction from the numbers proposed two years ago, when the DISC proposal failed on the ballot.”
Strong points raised by the editorial.
First, “That we’ve been dealing with a brain drain for years is self-evident.” Solid point here noting that biotech companies have been going to Vacaville where there is space to “leverage their proximity to UC Davis in order to attract high-paying companies.”
The editorial perhaps should have added a note about the companies that Davis has lost in recent years (AgraQuest), companies that are relocating their headquarters (Marrone Bio Innovations) and companies we could lose (Schilling Robotics), among others. Not to mention companies that should have moved here but didn’t (Genentech).
Second, they note the city’s “funding gap” and say “don’t call it a deficit” – an underreported story by the Enterprise, but well stated here as they note, it “won’t be solved without a new infusion of revenue.” They write, “We complain about crumbling roads, weed abatement and traffic, and the only real hope of addressing things like this is the extra funding that a new business park would provide.”
They also make a strong point on traffic, noting, “While poor urban planning brought the issue to a head, it is driven by cars passing through Davis, not cars in Davis. Waze and other traffic apps push freeway traffic through our streets, and our infrastructure, and we have been reactive rather than proactive in dealing with the problem. It’s true that DiSC will bring more cars, but more cars are coming anyway — Waze will see to that.”
They double down on the point by adding, “Our only way to deal with it is through the revenue and mitigation measures that DiSC offers — including a ‘transit plaza’ along Mace, land to create an express bus lane and other future needs, and a Transportation Demand Management Plan — there is no other source of help on the horizon.”
Solid response there. You could argue that the freeway expansion project might alleviate some of the problems. But ultimately Davis is going to have to accept that there are places that will have heavy traffic during commute times and adjust accordingly, and that projects like DiSC probably aren’t going to make things much worse if at all.
Finally they address the environmental issue. They write, “DiSC offers a chance to look beyond the carbon-neutrality paradigm and toward embracing vehicle miles traveled as a goal for reducing emissions. By becoming less of a commuter town, and giving in-town work opportunities to Davis residents, we reduce the amount of time and distance Davis residents spend on the road.”
Solid point. They might have added the safeguards to carbon footprint locked into the baseline features.
They do add, “Even though it’s substantially smaller than the previous DiSC proposal, this is still a large enough project to have a real, positive impact on Davis’ financial situation.”
They finally hit the housing issue: “It has a good mix of housing, with options for first-time buyers, affordable housing and community features like a pool (and even a fencing facility).”
Housing figures to be a major concern again. Might have fleshed out that point a little more.
Bottom line: “It’s still innovative. It’s still an economic shot in the arm. It’s still an environmentally forward-thinking project.”
Our assessment of the editorial: it hits most of the key points. Won’t move the needle overall because of the Enterprise’s constant support for development, but that is what it is.
This line shows exactly how much credibility the Enterprise commentary and the Vanguard rehash should be given. there is no fencing facility or pool in the Disc project. That’s the Palomino place proposal just around the Mace curve and advertised at the top of every page of the Vanguard right now.
If the enterprise can’t even get basic facts about the project right, clearly they have not given thorough consideration to the project.
if the Vanguard similarly doesn’t realize these features are not in the project, then the Vanguard clearly has not given thorough consideration to the project. If the Vanguard had realized this gaffe on the part of the enterprise they surely would have tried to expose the dark underbelly? right?
Have you given thorough consideration to your post, Mr Walsh, or was it a “gaffe”?
I’m not following your point here. Colin didn’t say anything inaccurate in the part you quoted here.
Guess I’m blind… I don’t see the ads for Palomino on top of every page of the Vanguard right now.
I have seen ads for Palomino on the top of nearly all front pages of the Enterprise, but not on every page… I’ll call my optometrist for a checkup… guess it was my mistake, not Mr Walsh’s…
Telling, regarding the things you choose to see.
Do you see the following at the DiSC proposal? If so, I wouldn’t call you “blind”; I’d call you unqualified to vote – even if you meet the “requirements” to do so:
LMAO
Probably just has a pop blocker.
Seems like a petty over reaction for a would be council person.
IMO, the NO campaign should focus on the traffic issue. I rode my bike through Central Davis yesterday and saw some YES on H signs on front yards but also some NO signs. I also walked through East Davis yesterday and (as expected) saw many NO signs in front yards. Negative response tends to draw out voters so that bodes well for the NO campaign. IMO, I do not believe the YES campaign has done enough to convince even those voters that are on the fence to even bother to vote and vote for DISC. The message is mostly just some vague: The City Needs More Money For Stuff. Which it does but it’s not a popular message to rally around.
Yeah but you’re not seeing the real Yes campaign which is a ground campaign. I heard from a friend that they’ve already hit 10,000 residences in Davis, something they weren’t able to do last time due to the pandemic.
As predictable as death and taxes. I can’t remember the Davis Enterprise not supporting a development project.
I can’t find it, but I seem to remember Wild Horse Ranch they didn’t endorse. In 2009. That doesn’t change your point and it was a point I acknowledged as well. In a way, it only really mattered if they didn’t endorse it.
Endorsements are tw0-edged swords… depending how folk view the endorser…
Sometimes, it is better to say nothing…
“Waze will see to that.”
What can/would Waze do? Where does Waze say that they would do something about it?
https://slate.com/business/2017/06/suburbs-finally-figured-out-a-way-to-get-rid-of-pesky-drivers-on-waze-shortcuts.html
First, Los Altos Hills asked Waze to remove three roads from its map. Waze does not entertain such requests. So Los Alto Hills came up with a Plan B: Close the streets to people who don’t live there. In May, the city erected “No Thru Traffic” signs on three roads where they crossed the city limit. Waze complied, according to a report from the Los Altos Hills manager, which means it will no longer direct users to drive on those streets.
Vote NO on Carson.
Either you don’t qualify as to “let those who have eyes, see”, or, you’re ‘fishing’ with a 1 HP motor… am thinking the right word for that begins with a “T”…
I did not opine on what was is in the Emptyprize opinion as to ‘facts’. I questioned the purported ‘facts’ of another… have you even read/see an ad for Palomino on “every page of the Vanguard”?
As to my qualifications to vote on the issue, you are flat-out wrong — all levels… oh, my bad, you might be like conservative Republicans, uber-liberal Democrats, or other ‘folk’ who believe that anyone who doesn’t agree with your opinions/views/spiel is not qualified to vote… I meant no offense to your ‘religious’ beliefs’… my bad…
But I’ve ‘seen the light’… I’ve vote on H, unless and until the County of Yolo decides I’m unqualified… hope you won’t take offense for me not adhering to your views/opinions…
And because of your rants, and those of several others, I’m “coming off the fence” I was on, and will vote YES ON H, in spite of some reservations I had… just for ‘spite’… and will encourage others to do the same, based on your and other pryor posters spiels… as long as I’m doing one “bad”, might as well do another… it is said “if you’re going to do the time, might as well do the crime”…
Feel absolutely free to challenge me as a voter, on Measure H, or anything else… to simplify things, I’ll point you to where to do it:
Precinct Operations — Yolo County Elections Office (yoloelections.org)
“Make my day”…
Consider that a “personal attack”, as I considered yours of 9:14… a pretty clumsy, stupid one (yours), at that…
Sounds like you’re “adding” to your qualifications to vote.
Hey Bill, Please click on the banner add in the Vanguard (https://davisvanguard.org/) title bar that says Community Centered Housing (CHC) and look at the page it takes you too:
AS bad developers would say in Yinglish: “Language-Schmanguage!”: Palomino is TRUMPeted by Taormino as “Infill”! and they’re consciously using “centered”, too! Another automobile-dependent project that tries to get support through childwashing, i.e. adding a bit of stuff to make it easier for kids to get across the street to a single elementary school (like what the Planning Commission fell for with DISC 2.0).
DISC 2.0 will create MORE traffic in Davis besides what’s on Mace, because nearly everyone in Davis who works here will drive here for the simple reason that Davis is already so very driving-dominated. Even from Mace Ranch where cycling for transportation is already really low, who is going to cycle to DISC if their child goes to Pioneer Elementary, which cannot be cycled to safely (AM trips) or to South Davis Nugget (PM trips after work or a quick journey at lunchtime)? Who from West Davis is going to take public transport all the way to DISC and back again every day? The proposed shuttle will go from campus to the train station to DISC…. how will these compete with driving personal car when the catchment area for a bus is relatively short, requiring multiple stops on the campus side. What happens if the train’s arrival is delayed? It’s a 30 minute bike ride from the agricultural study areas on campus west of 113 — who is going to do that? The tolerance for cycling to campus in Davis drops off after 15 min of riding… who from East Davis is going to ride their bike to DISC and then meet someone after lunch in Downtown and then ride home? It’s not possible to ride directly and safely from any part of the east side of South Davis to DISC… how are we even allowing this project to be considered to be built here with no commitment to a bike/ped undercrossing of 80 next to Mace? How will some additional space for transit south of the ‘Curve facilitate use of express buses anywhere west on Covell (where there are already two traffic lanes, no street parking, and two under-built Class I paths (under-built means not optimized for e-bikes)?
About that “horizon” mentioned by ‘Enterprise, there are HUGE things that can be done to move people differently to and from Davis and other places that could be solved starting now, but there’s no certainly – for example – that the Managed Lanes Project for I-80 will create anything beside a “Lexus Lane” – like on I-680 – and Caltrans has already reneged on its earlier promise – that went on for several years – that a new standalone bike/ped facility would be built before any modifications to 80 itself (as then the existing path could be closed). No one from the City Council objected to this, at one point the YCTD said that they didn’t ask for funding for it and later that it wasn’t funded, and the City of Davis staffer who very nearly hid the cancellation from the BTSSC now works for YCTD.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROMISES FOR DISC ARE A LIE. IT’S A CAR-FOCUSED PROJECT. Abuse of language is an equity issue.
“and the City of Davis staffer who very nearly hid the cancellation from the BTSSC now works for YCTD.”
Like he hid from the public that variable parking meter rates would top out at $2/hour until it was revealed in the staff report when it went before the council.