By Rachael Fulp-Cooke
I am a parent of a child in the Davis public school system, a City of Davis Social Services Commissioner, and former president and CEO of a local startup, and I want to explain why my previous No is now a strong Yes on Measure H. My support for Measure H is centered on addressing the shortages in incubator space, housing, and affordable housing in Davis.
As a resident of South Davis, I originally voted No because of potential congestion. However, the applicant returned with a revised proposal and I wholeheartedly believe that they will address potential traffic impacts; they want as smooth and streamlined a development and construction process as we do.
I love this community and believe in our potential – as a community – to make a meaningful impact 
locally and nationally. There is groundbreaking research occurring at UC Davis; the breadth and depth of innovation and entrepreneurship is staggering. What is missing? The bridge, incubator space. Incubators specialize in growing new and early-stage businesses. I have previously engaged in a lengthy search for incubator space in Davis.
Local companies who innovate at and through UC Davis should not have to travel to other communities outside of Davis and our region to develop their products and businesses.
Yes on Measure H will create a local campus environment where companies can build on the innovations coming out of UC Davis. It will provide jobs for scientists and engineers, and for skilled workers necessary to manufacture products and deliver them to market.
Yes on Measure H is a chance to supply jobs for many sectors of our community, and to provide more opportunities for people to advance themselves and their families without having to leave Davis.
Yes on Measure H will also provide more housing for those employed locally. We are facing two issues related to housing in Davis: 1) an unprecedented housing shortage, and 2) too many individuals and families who work in Davis have been priced out of the Davis rental and housing market. Simply stated – we need more housing and affordable housing in Davis. The housing supplied by the DiSC project will create opportunities for many more deserving members of our community to raise their families and realize their dreams in Davis.
My support for Measure H is grounded in the belief that DiSC will provide more opportunities for individuals and families to live and work locally, to rent or buy a home, and create a better future for themselves and their families. As a community, I believe that it is our duty to provide opportunity and support the overall well-being of all Davis individuals and families.
Please join me in supporting Yes on Measure H.
Rachael Fulp-Cook was a candidate for appointment to the school board in 2020. She is Vice-Chair of the Social Services Commission.
It’s difficult to believe that anyone would put forth an argument like this, given that DiSC itself would create a housing shortage.
That’s what happens when you add 2,800 new workers (assuming that the commercial component is successful), but only 460 housing units. (Some of which would not even be occupied by those new workers.)
This author is arguing for the opposite of what she claims to be concerned about.
Where?
2,800 new employees competing for 460 housing units, some of which would not even be occupied by those new workers?
So I still straddle this issue (though I’m leaning towards a Yes vote).
Your article reads like a pure feel good Pro Growth agenda. I’m not anti-growth but I am in favor of smart growth.
So why is this good for the existing residents in Davis? In general the more residents in a community the more services and infrastructure the community has to provide them.
I personally do not like to hear about people and families that can not find homes in Davis. But objectively I know that the more people in Davis is not necessarily a good thing. Not only does that mean more car traffic (mitigated or otherwise) but it means more crowds downtown (looking for parking already sucks), it means more people contending for city services (like summer camps, swim lessons…etc…). My point is that there is a cost to the existing community when it grows. I do not completely oppose growth…but there has to be a good reason for growth beyond simply providing a place to live for people that want to live here.
There is going to be a housing shortage with or without DISC. A few 100 homes isn’t going to make much of a difference. Building new homes will likely lead to an INCREASE the cost of homes in Davis. New homes typically have a more expensive cost per square foot which generally raises the prices of all other homes in an area; “a rising tide lifts all boats”. From a city fiscal standpoint, people driving to Davis to work and leaving isn’t necessarily a bad thing. You get the positive tax revenue benefit of the businesses without the burden of paying for infrastructure and support services for those new residents.
So the real argument for DISC is how does it benefit the existing residents in Davis? That answer is the estimated (eventual) $3.5M in tax revenue for the city. Hopefully the city is able to put that additional tax revenue to good use for the residents in the city. Also, hopefully DISC will spur more businesses to consider coming and staying in Davis which may push for more of the infill sites to become more viable sites bio/ag/med businesses.
It’s more likely that the city will just grow (partly as a result of the increased demand for housing created by DiSC). Both residential growth, and failure to reign-in continued growth in costs (e.g., salaries, pensions, staffing for fire ladder trucks, etc.). In other words, just continuing down the same path.
There’s already plans for additional peripheral housing proposals in that same area (e.g., Palomino Place and the massive Shriner’s proposal). Eventually, the “other half” of DiSC, the property inside of the Mace curve, etc.
As such, I have no doubt that any “fiscal profit” won’t benefit existing residents. One might ask why previous developments haven’t “fixed” that issue.
Something about doing the same thing over-and-over again, but expecting results to somehow be “different” this time. It’s almost amusing to see folks falling for this same argument, again-and-again.
The part that isn’t amusing is the increased traffic, continued loss of farmland/open space, etc.
In other words, exactly what the author of this article is advocating for. “Business as usual”. (Which, as a “bonus”, hasn’t led to lower housing prices, either.)
But some folks may have other reasons for supporting the Ponzi scheme.
You can apparently see the breakdown of the 2,088 housing units (currently planned or approved) under the “Pending or Under Construction” header on the city’s website (below). As previously already noted, it includes the 700 unit Nishi student housing development, as well as the 475 unit Bretton Woods senior housing. Neither of which is intended to accommodate workers at DiSC.
https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects
In fact, none of these approved housing developments were intended to accommodate the additional demand created by adding 2,800 DiSC workers to the city of Davis.
Those approvals occurred before DiSC even appeared on the upcoming ballot.
Whether Davis decides to add housing to accommodating growth is a discussion that is the sole bailiwick of the stakeholders in Davis–the resident citizens, that could extend beyond registered voters, and those who may live in Davis such as future UCD students and DISC employees. People who live in Woodland and for some unknown reason want to throw up a moat around Davis even though they have not real stake in the discussion do not have a legitimate voice in this discussion. How they feel, especially with no analytic substantiation, is irrelevant to the rest of us who are truly affected by this. (Or maybe us Davis residents should go to Woodland and start lobbying for our local preferences to be imposed on that city?)
[edited]
A large development in Davis affects communities around it and infrastructure in between. To what extent, varies.
In terms of the transportation ecosystem itself, there’s really a single entity with arbitrary – and continuously disastrous – consequences. All this despite the City, UC, and County supposedly being in a “community”: People die one minute cycling distance from the City (less than a week ago, on campus…. two years ago just north of the City border) and the City says and does nothing. Four or five ag workers die in a crash in the northwest part of the County – also less week – and it’s highly possible it’s related to where their housing is located or their lack of a professional driver).
As I recall, when in San Francisco a huge expansion of office space – eventually referred to as “Manhattanization” – was planned, people from Berkeley came over to try to stop it. Their right as there’s be huge impacts on Berkeley housing, etc. Imagine if when Silicon Valley started its massive office campus development if the voters in other areas and a robust mechanism to respond, instead of indirectly through their representatives who were also on the board of MTC?
Right now many communities in the SACOG “bailiwick” are creating nothing but sprawling climate garbage, but we can’t say anything because the cities are different, even though the region is the same?
That’s all pretty obvious, so perhaps I am missing something?
is always a good thing, but as I recall it’s not a pre-requisite for a well-reasoned argument.
Seems to likely not be the case, as a lot of people seem to voting or planning to vote No on H. That most of the regular in this forum don’t agree is obvious, but there are only a few . It’s not really clear how many people read these articles.
Do the developers involved live in Davis or Yolo County?
I agree with a lot of Ron O says, and I disagree with a small minority of No on H arguments — and the latter – e.g. mostly suggestions for alternatives – would have to go through their own process if H loses.
Please note that the formatting in the above was fouled up as for some reason I was not able to edit it. I was only quoting “sole bailiwick” and “analytic substantiation” — all the other text is mine, not Richard McCann’s.
Fixed it, I think.
Thanks for fixing that.
I guess that leaves Don Shor, Don Gibson, some of the city’s staff, and the DiSC developers themselves “out”, for starters.
There are a few Davis people working in Woodland, including those who work for the Yolo Food Bank. Perhaps they should move to Woodland, and free-up some residential space in Davis. (If they did so, that would also cut-down on their motor-vehicle commute.)
Actually, the same is true regarding those living in Davis and working anywhere else, for that matter.
As far as the “moat” is concerned, it’s those advocating for DiSC who are attempting to create a housing shortage. Assuming that the commercial is actually successful.
For sure, Woodland is going to be housing a substantial portion of DiSC employees, if it’s approved. My guess is that it would house the majority of them, given all of the recent development on the “Davis side” (south side) of Woodland. It’s a much easier and more-reliable commute, at this point. (No need to access to I-80.)