One of the biggest issues facing the development of the Village Farms project is going to be perceived traffic impacts.
By way of example, there was a comment on the Vanguard last week, that flagged traffic impacts from the proposed Village Farms project.
Eileen Samitz wrote that “traffic impacts which would be incredibly worse than it is now from adding 1,800 more housing units at Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Road which is already incredibly impacted. No one is going to believe that shoe-horning in 1,800 units on this Village Farms site is going to be ‘environmentally superior’ because it makes no sense. It is illogical in particular since the City has no plan to significantly improve its currently minimal, inadequate and inconvenient public transit system which is designed primarily to serve UCD’s needs. Creating higher densities without the infrastructure of a robust transit system would only impact the environment far more due to more traffic.”
That’s part of the point that the Davis Citizens Planning Group was making with their piece: “Planning Starts with Transit.”
They argue that “it would be irresponsible for us to perpetuate this unsustainable pattern of low-density sprawl by approving any more car-centric developments on our periphery;”
At the same time, they acknowledge, “Doing ‘nothing’ and just letting the housing growth occur in adjacent cities doesn’t mean there are no traffic impacts; it just makes the commutes longer for those who work in town but can’t afford to live here. And that also increases greenhouse gasses that we all are affected by.”
They push for a more sustainable option “for developing better housing on our periphery. All that is required is getting back to the ‘streetcar suburb’ model that existed before the advent of the automobile.”
If you haven’t read the piece, I highly recommend you do so:
Let me state at the outset that I completely agree with the need to move away from being an “almost entirely car-dependent” city. I also completely agree with both Samitz and the Citizens Group that our current transit system is completely inadequate.
But I want to make a separate but related point—one of the reasons our transit system is inadequate is that we have failed in an even more basic planning concept, in that we do not have a housing-jobs match in Davis.
The result is we have a huge number of people who live in Davis, and then drive to Sacramento and the Bay Area to go work. And while it is true that some of those folks hop on the Capital Corridor train, most hop into their single-occupancy cars and get on the highway.
Moreover, a lot of the folks that work at UC Davis—many of them not faculty, but staff who can’t afford to live in Davis—get into their cars and drive to work.
We see this play out morning and night. In the morning, we see all those folks lined up along Richards Blvd. to cram through the tunnel, and then in the evening we see the traffic often backed up to Russell Blvd., down B St., backed up to go back through the tunnel to get back onto I-80.
That traffic is commuter traffic and a direct result of the fact that we have failed to provide housing that people who work in town and especially at UC Davis can afford.
Would a better transit system lower that number? Perhaps. But that’s a much larger project than just Davis can endeavor to undertake.
But the other point that I have noticed is that, while everyone is pointing out the traffic impacts at Pole Line and Covell where Village Farms would go, I have driven that corridor morning and night and what I have noticed is that most of the traffic isn’t local traffic.
For example, you are not seeing a steady string of traffic coming out of Cannery or Wildhorse and getting on Pole Line and Covell.
The other day, when I dropped my daughter off at the high school to play her soccer game and then drove to my South Davis home, most of the traffic along that congested corridor drove to I-80 and then headed east toward Sacramento. Most of that traffic did not come out or go into the major housing developments along the way—it wasn’t local traffic.
The point I have made is that the simple fact that we could put more housing in Davis might not actually increase traffic along that corridor. It might do the opposite—it might allow people who are otherwise commuting into Davis to take other forms of transportation to go work at UC Davis. That could help alleviate traffic problems for people who live in Woodland and work at UC Davis or people who work in Sacramento and work at UC Davis.
As the Citizens article noted, “Doing ‘nothing’ and just letting the housing growth occur in adjacent cities doesn’t mean there are no traffic impacts.” We need to stop thinking of traffic analysis as being such a static thing—more houses here might actually reduce traffic, ESPECIALLY if we couple it with a real investment to get people out of their cars.
But the basic principle here is that putting people closer to jobs reduces commutes, travel and congestion. The closer we can get them to jobs, the better off it will be.
I’ve not experienced the intersection of Pole Line and Covell as incredibly impacted. It’s busy but managed by stoplights. I think Eileen is often given to inflammatory rhetoric but we shouldn’t let that rhetoric drive the discussion.
Dismissive, much?
Ron,
You won’t find many people to agree with you on this. I guess you never drive though the Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Road intersection in the early mornings or early evening. You need to give it a try. The traffic is huge.
And the point is that most of that traffic is going from and to Woodland. Adding the right housing on the Covell corridor along with transit will relieve that congestion.
Eileen: “You need to give it a try. The traffic is huge.”
This is silly. I frequent the intersection of Covell and Pole Line several time each week, ranging from early morning to evening and including ‘rush hour.’ At no time has the intersection been impacted beyond what is expected at a traffic signal. In the past 10 years I have never once had to sit through more than one signal while waiting for traffic. The road flows as it should, and will continue to do so, regardless of the inflammatory rhetoric on display.
Mark,
No, there is nothing silly about the significantly backed up traffic at Covell Blvd.and Pole Line Road, particularly in the early morning and early evenings. It is likely that you are not driving in this vicinity when the traffic is completely backed up in every direction.
As I said, Eileen, I frequent the intersection several times a week, and I have never experienced what you are describing. Consequently, I have no other recourse than to think you are making sh*t up to fit your agenda. I am willing to change my opinion with appropriate evidence, but not by you simply repeating what I see as false assertions.
“The result is we have a huge number of people who live in Davis, and then drive to Sacramento and the Bay Area to go work. And while it is true that some of those folks hop on the Capital Corridor train, most hop into their single-occupancy cars and get on the highway. The result is we have a huge number of people who live in Davis, and then drive to Sacramento and the Bay Area to go work. And while it is true that some of those folks hop on the Capital Corridor train, most hop into their single-occupancy cars and get on the highway.”
And yet, some folks want to add another 1,800 housing units to that situation – in a spot that’s highly-likely to appeal to commuters.
By the way, Road 102 is often backed up for a couple of miles on the “other end” in Woodland – especially on Thursday/Friday evenings, near Costco. I believe that most of them are waiting to get on I-5. I don’t know where they’re coming “from”, but it doesn’t seem likely to me that adding 1,800 housing units on that same road is going to “reduce traffic”.
You are correct that adding housing at Village Farms could appeal mainly to commuters, and we make that point in our article: “adding to the local inventory of detached single-family houses will DEFINITELY make traffic worse in Davis. That’s because any detached house here will sell for at least $700,000, and our city is not growing enough jobs that pay the salaries necessary to afford such prices; so those new residents will likely be working out of town and adding to the existing rush hour commute traffic.” On the other hand, building more rental apartments that aren’t aimed solely at students and building for sale units that are priced at what our general workforce (including school teachers and most University employees) can afford CAN take people off the commute slog. The only non-subsidized product types that meet that latter criteria are attached units like half-plexes and townhouses, which can be had for under $600,000 in Davis. People who work in Woodland, Sacramento or West Sacramento can afford a house closer to their jobs for that amount so are unlikely to buy here and work there (yes, some will make that choice for our superior schools). At present, Village Farms is heavily weighted toward detached houses, however, and in subsequent articles we will present alternatives that better serve the needs of our community.
Alex says: “On the other hand, building more rental apartments that aren’t aimed solely at students and building for sale units that are priced at what our general workforce (including school teachers and most University employees) can afford CAN take people off the commute slog.”
I don’t know how apartments can be “aimed” to discourage UCD student occupancy, but the school district itself is oversized (and should be reduced to match the needs of the city). I don’t know of very many school teachers and University employees who want to live in an apartment the rest of their lives, and I suspect that most of them have partners/spouses who also bring in a salary. And most of them probably want a substantial house, with a 2-3 car garage, a yard, etc. Which means that (if they want a new house), they’ll settle outside of the city.
But again, this is not a population that’s not necessarily increasing in the first place, unless they’re specifically pursued (for some reason that escapes me).
Also, wasn’t UCD planning to build housing on campus for its employees, as well?
Alex says: “People who work in Woodland, Sacramento or West Sacramento can afford a house closer to their jobs for that amount so are unlikely to buy here and work there (yes, some will make that choice for our superior schools).”
Of those three locations, one provides a substantial number of “middle-class” jobs (Sacramento). As far as Davis’ “superior schools” are concerned, one doesn’t have to live in Davis to attend them (and can avoid paying DJUSD parcel taxes if they live outside of Davis).
Ron O
I didn’t realize you had become such a housing market maven! But of course, you haven’t explained why the housing prices in those places that offer substantial amount of attached and multihousehold housing in the East Bay, San Francisco and New York command such high housing price premiums, especially for those younger people you claim won’t buy that housing in Davis.
As for UCD, it might build housing for a few hundred employees in West Campus. That hardly makes a dent in the thousands commuting in to campus each day. Davis has to solve that problem.
And having worked with many students in an after school program who commute from Woodland and other cities, almost all would prefer to live in Davis if the housing was available.
I don’t understand your question. You state that housing in the “East Bay, San Francisco, and New York” command high prices, despite the fact that they offer a lot of single-family and multi-family housing? What exactly is your question?
If housing prices were the same everywhere (e.g., between Davis vs. Woodland) for the exact same type of house or apartment – I would agree that most people would probably select Davis. But they’re not the same, are they. Isn’t that the reason that few would move from those locales into an expensive shoebox in Davis? Isn’t that why they selected Woodland, for example, in the first place? Even more so since DJUSD accommodates those students (and without any contribution toward DJUSD parcel taxes)? Who, exactly, would be stupid enough to move into a Davis shoebox, in light of this?
Also, it’s not that housing “isn’t available” in Davis. I can tell you with certainty that it’s available RIGHT NOW – visible to anyone with an Internet connection. And by “right now”, I mean 24 hours/day, 365 days each year. There is ALWAYS something “available”.
You can get a decent (e.g., Stanley Davis) house for around $700K – large lots, hardwood floors, good location (closer than much of East Davis to downtown, etc.).
Personally, I think those type of pre-owned houses are a better deal than a new one in Davis OR Woodland.
RO say: “You can get a decent (e.g., Stanley Davis) house for around $700K – large lots, hardwood floors, good location (closer than much of East Davis to downtown, etc.). ”
But if the City of Davis funded each such unit for $100k off for 50 people at a cost of $5 million so this unit was $600k instead then it would be affordable and there wouldn’t be drug addicts along the drainage canals, outside the respite center at night, along the railroad and PG&E, threatening people downtown, etc. RIGHT?
Cuz that’s how it works, RIGHT? No? Anyone? Crickets? Hippos? Anyone? Carl? Gavin? Fred? No more homeless? Drug addction and mental illness cured? Hey guys? People? City? Anyone?
Alan: That entire “program” seems to be a complicated marketing gimmick, with the intended victims being the voters of Davis (as well as those who think they’ll be one of the “50” as you put it).
But seriously, a pre-owned Stanley Davis house would STILL be a better deal, better building materials, better location, and larger lot – and buyers would “own” 100% of the equity.
Here’s the thing: Get yourself $700K (or access to it), or don’t plan to buy a detached house in Davis until you can do so. That’s still well-below the state median price. I’ve seen detached houses for less than that as well (in prime locations), but they usually require some sweat equity.
Thought I’d take a quick look at what’s available. Here’s one for $650K – not sure why it’s been on the market for a long time, but the “Zestimate” is slightly lower than that.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1208-L-St-Davis-CA-95616/16543995_zpid/
Also (no joke): A house like this would probably go for less than $75K, in Cleveland. I’ve been watching a YouTube channel – “This is John Williams” – a young real estate investor. He moved his entire family to that town to take advantage of those prices (by turning them into rentals). (I believe that prices are rising faster there than most places.)
Personally, I admire people who try to adapt their strategies, rather than expecting a market to adapt to them. Seems like the former is a lot easier (and leads to more success) than the latter.
Oh – and did I mention no Mello Roos tax, for older houses like the one above?
And no need for a bicycle overpass that will never be built in the first place? (The reason being that it’s IN THE CITY already.)
Seriously, new houses are for suckers.
From article: At the same time, they acknowledge, “Doing ‘nothing’ and just letting the housing growth occur in adjacent cities doesn’t mean there are no traffic impacts; it just makes the commutes longer for those who work in town but can’t afford to live here. And that also increases greenhouse gasses that we all are affected by.”
I find the phrase “letting the housing growth occur in adjacent cities” to be particularly amusing and Davis-centric. Is the claim that adjacent cities “won’t” pursue housing growth if Davis does? Seems highly questionable, given that other cities actively PURSUE development (and have already created plans for it). These plans are available for anyone who wants to look them up.
But perhaps even more to the point: As long as there’s a price differential between cities, the less-expensive cities will ALWAYS attract relatively lower-income residents who work elsewhere. That’s why, for example, Pacific Heights (in San Francisco) has more-wealthy people (and was developed sooner) than Daly City. And that occurred well-before the fake NIMBYism claims.
Regional housing is based on supply and demand. And demand is created by job locations. If a community doesn’t provide enough housing of the right type for its local employment, neighboring towns will provide housing (often less attractive due to supply/demand conditions.) But if the community with excess jobs supplies more housing of the right type, the demand for housing in those neighboring communities will go down. So for example housing prices in Spring Lake will decrease on a relative basis and Woodland development will slow.
There are no new jobs in Davis or at UCD (as you previously acknowledged). The availability of housing in places like Spring Lake ALREADY decreases demand (and prices) for housing in both Davis AND Woodland – neither of which cause me concern.
But for sure, neither Davis nor UCD are not the only employers in the region. (For that matter, I’m not seeing where ANY employment in the region is increasing.)
What we have here is developer-driven “demand” to build houses, as long as it makes a profit.
You are repeating the same idea from another recent article, after I (partially) refuted it
DG say: “But the basic principle here is that putting people closer to jobs reduces commutes, travel and congestion. The closer we can get them to jobs, the better off it will be.”
It’s not that you’re “wrong”, but unless you can control who buys the houses by where they work, the basic patterns and percentages can be predicted via modeling. The degree to which what you say will be true, within a margin of error, can be modeled. I’ll repeat my comment below.
————————-
DG say: “—because it might be that providing housing closer to the university will actually reduce VMT overall by putting people closer to work.”
That’s not ‘evidence based’, that’s speculation. And you do it frequently, while criticizing others for their speculation, then using ‘evidence base’ while ignoring ‘other’ ‘evidence’ that doesn’t fit the narrative.
I work with models in transportation, some outputs used as inputs for VMT impact and then air impact studies. While not using VMT models, I know how they work. They look at demographics, similar towns, surveys of transportation movement and mode choice in Davis itself, distance for many trip pair types, aggregated, price of gas, availability of parking. It’s not important to understand the mechanism.
What IS important to understand is that you can model all this, and even push various parameters to their limits to see the outer limits of how people will behave and what the effect is on movement, choice, VMTs and air pollutants. While not precise, the overall trends, if done well, can show pretty good global predictions. And the disturbing thing is that as long as people are given *choice*, the auto still is king unless you make radical design changes in design and transportation, and even then auto is still king, just a smaller king.
But my main point is that statements like, “—because it might be that providing housing closer to the university will actually reduce VMT overall by putting people closer to work.” can all be modeled and tested. It is never ‘people will do this’ and then other political side says, ‘and people will do that’ — No, all the patterns are known and the overall trends can be tested and balanced. It’s not mysterious; it’s always in between what the ideological pundits say people will do. Of course, beware consultants that entities can hire who will give the results the entity wants instead of the ‘real’ results, by tweaking the model or its inputs — because that will become ‘evidence’ that can be ‘based’.
But in all these cases — while I’m not a no growther — I do believe California has limits, will always be expensive as hell, and there will always be people willing to sleep in the bushes in a relatively nice climate and do drugs and not pay the rent if we let them, and growth, built wrong especially, has serious consequences on the environment. And building in fire zones and flood planes and on top of earthquake faults is all f*cking stupid. And we are all going to pay for this mass stupidity in unbelievably higher insurance rates which are going to be reflected in rents. Housing in California never will be affordable. Find that “dream” is a less dynamic, less dramatic, place.
Alan
I’m less sanguine about modeling tools, especially as a long time practioner. And transportation models have especially captured my attention in their underperformance and somewhat out-of-alignment assumptions. Analyses that came up with high speed rail being viable in it current configuration is but one example, and I’ve seen other questionable results in climate action plans.
That said, they models are useful, but we mostly have to move forward without on initial premises and assumptions without the benefit of models, and this is one such case, for now. We have evidence that increased density and transit service reduces VMT. We have a good nearby comparison between Oakland and San Jose. We probably should be focusing on empirical analogs more so.
Long term predictions about systems that do not exist yet are based on assumptions, so your point is valid there. Short-term models are calibrated and therefore on a level of trends and effects of certain input parameters are fairly well predictive of people’s behavior in mode choice and destination division.
The important topic is how do we build more housing now, not, how many spurious reasons can we come up with to justify not building more housing.
I strongly support having better transit, but not at the expense of addressing our two decades and counting failure to build appropriate housing in town. Any change to the process you propose now will result in a 5-10 year delay in getting projects built. That is simply unacceptable. We should consider these past failures of proper planning as ‘sunk costs’ and focus instead on planning for future projects (5-10 years out). Projects already in process should move forward without the interference of this fruitless ‘search for perfection.’
Transportation planning is not spurious. The current balance — or lack thereof — is the #1 contributor to air pollution. The N and NE build-outs are going to be built over the next few decades. So we wait, what, 50-100 years before the first build-outs are built correctly for transit corridors, while meanwhile the currently-planned developments become obstacles to future transit forever? I think not. I would probably agree with you regarding several of the obstacles to developments that should be removed. However, transportation should always be the first consideration in City planning, and never ignored.
Mark
First no one is searching for “perfection.” However it’s naive and foolish to move forward on something that will have adverse consequences that will last decades, even centuries. Our adversity to adding housing is the result of doing exactly what you suggest in letting the Mace Ranch/Alhambra development go forward with little oversight, and the community backlash has killed almost every large development since. Why do we want to kill it again? We can afford to wait one or two years to get the answer right if that’s what it takes to avoid years and years of regret.
Richard: “have adverse consequences that will last decades”
You mean like what we see from not building sufficient housing?
“even centuries.”
Wow, exaggerate much?
“We can afford to wait one or two years to get the answer right”
Good luck with that. How long has it been since the added demands were brought forward to change Nishi? How many people are living there now? Even without trying to make last minute changes it will take 5-10 years from approval to move in. You are not looking at a 1-2 year delay with your latest quest for perfection (Yes, Richard, that is exactly what you have been doing), history suggests it will be closer to 1-2 decades of delay.
While I am certain we will still need housing in ten – twenty years, I think the critical need for housing is present today. We have expanded the City for more than 50 years without a transportation plan, a few more years of expansion without one while not ideal, will not make a material difference to how the City functions. Untwist your knickers and take a deep breath. It is time to build more housing, even if the projects are not perfect.
Yeah, I’m not sure where this notion that we can afford to wait is coming from. We’ve been waiting for 25 years now. The state is unlikely to wait much longer before pulling the trigger on the nuclear option.
You can make up whatever you want, David. But even you previously noted that in the unlikely event that the state attempts some kind of takedown of Measure J, it’s not as if the floodgates would suddenly open without a response.
Seems like you’re stating that Measure J can only remain in place if voters say “yes”. What good is it, if that’s the case?
Also, what’s to prevent the state from overriding a specific development approved via a Measure J vote? In other words, once it’s incorporated into the city – the state might then allow “builder’s remedy” throughout it – especially if the proposal itself doesn’t meet ALL of the state’s next round of targets. In other words, THAT part of Measure J seems more vulnerable than declining to annex land into the city.
If the state suddenly started REQUIRING sprawl (despite the fact that NONE of the language in the state’s laws even mention it, and many cannot even physically do so), it would certainly lay bare any underlying dishonesty behind the state’s efforts.
And if this occurred, it would be far more than Davis which would be in the state’s crosshairs. Urban limit lines, agricultural zoning and easements, the state’s own Williamson act . . . (all of these things “restrict growth” outside of cities).
The other part of this is how the state is going to “count” unbuilt sites from previous rounds going forward.
I don’t know where the idea is coming from that we can “afford” to keep building around an auto-centric (essentially ‘no transportation planning’ or ‘let the developer draw with crayons’) design. We’re not talking about anything but creating a corridor that links the projects, and to the rest of town, and to design density along the corridor. It’s not that hard, but even those that want to reduce dependence on cars are so over-focused on Build-Baby-Build that they can’t take this simple step back. Nishi isn’t so interconnected to other projects, and the first version was superior transportation-wise. The perimeter is where we need to start building with a plan, not more single entrance mouth-anus amoeba street plans that are hostile to alternate transportation and will attract people who are only interest in driving cars. Thus, a higher percentage likely to be bedroom commuters to Sacramento and the Bay Area. Boo.
I guess I need to reiterate the issue here. The concept that shoe-horning in 1,800 units at the corner of Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Rd., which is already enormously impacted with traffic, is absurd. It is especially absurd because Davis has a paltry, inconvenient, and inadequate public transportation system which is focused primarily on UCD needs. So, let’s start with that, and the fact that the City has no plans to make significant changes to expand or improve its current inadequate public transit system. This whole VMT concept, relies on having a robust transit system which Davis does not have currently, nor does the City plan to have. So, this whole idea that cramming 1,800 units of housing at Covell and Pole Line Rd. to “reduce” traffic impacts is a fantasy.
I agree with many of the comments made by Ron O. and Alan Miller here also, regarding the fact that that the City cannot control who buys these homes. Also, the misconception that building more housing will lessen the price. In 1999 Davis built roughly 1,000 homes and the prices of Davis homes still continued to rise. Why? It is because Davis is a desirable place to live and has great schools. Also, because the City has allowed UCD to continue pushing over 60% of its student housing needs onto Davis primarily and other nearby cities who have also complained about this, using a disproportional amount of our City housing and pushing out our workers and families.
Rather than trying to fruitlessly build our way into affordability, the City needs to address the primary cause of the problem which is UCD’s negligence to build enough on-campus student housing for its needs. UCD also needs to build the long-promised faculty and staff housing in UCD’s West Village where a ton of acreage of land is sitting there dormant. This dormant UCD West Village land is where additional higher-density housing for students and for UCD employees can, and needs to be built. There needs to be more pressure from the City for UCD to build much higher-density housing on-campus because UCD has over 5,300 acres and a 900-acre core campus, which is the largest UC campus in the system. There needs to be more complaining about UCD being the ONLY UC in the system not committed to building at least 50% on campus housing. UCD having the largest campus can easily accommodate far more housing for its students and employees, particularly if they would building higher density rather than the paltry low-density housing that they are building. The other campuses like UC Irvine and UC San Diego are building high-density student housing there, and so there is no reason why UCD can’t.
Also, David, apparently you have taken email information from our citizens group email list somehow, and you were not invited to do so. Further, the name of our citizens group has been Citizens for Responsible Planning for many years, and it would be best if you not simply refer to the “Citizens” group since it will obviously cause confusion. Please spell out the name of each group to make clear which you are referring to. This distinction between two groups is important since the focus of each group is very different. To be clear, our Citizens for Responsible Planning group opposed the previous project, Covell Village in 2005 for many reasons. And so, for these same reasons and more we are opposing the Village Farms Project. These significant issues include massive traffic, the 200-acre flood plain, the toxics including PFAS’s leaking from the adjacent unlined Old City Landfill, habitat impacts, serious access issues, and enormously expensive infrastructures costs.
Eileen, well stated, you make too much sense.
“ Also, David, apparently you have taken email information from our citizens group email list somehow, and you were not invited to do so.”
I believe you are mistaken, the article references your comment on the Vanguard from last week as well as an article by Tim Keller’s group from Sunday.
David,
My apologies, I had forgotten that I had posted that. But since this has been an issue in the past, I just did not want to have a re-occurrence.
But thanks if you can clarify the names of the different citizens groups when you are referring to them to avoid confusion.
Eileen
First, UCD houses more of its students at 48% than any other major public research university of its size. Almost house less than 40%. What UCD is doing is expected and normal. Students need to learn how to live in a community which makes them better citizens for all of us. They should not be coddled on campus for their entire career.
As we’ve said elsewhere, by properly targeting this housing at the missing middle, we can house vast majority of our workforce that currently commutes into Davis each day, driving down Poleline and onto Covell. It’s that traffic that we need to reduce and we can’t reduce it unless we put housing here near Davis jobs.
You continue to ignore the fact that most of the UCD campus is devoted to world leading ag research, and all of those acres are worth multiples of any acre anywhere else in Yolo County (or California for that matter). We must preserve that land for global benefits. So if we are truly “thinking globally, acting locally” we are considering how to put our housing on the smallest possible acreage somewhere off campus.
So you still haven’t proposed a viable alternative that meets City and State needs. Right now, VF is among the best alternatives.
It is not the city’s “job” to provide life-lessons for UCD students. But if you’re stating that they should be exposed to the city’s rental market, how is that not a “life-lesson” for them in the first place? Why should they be treated differently than anyone else, struggling with rent? Many of whom aren’t privileged UCD students in the first place?
Regarding your claim that building Covell Village/Village Farms would cause vast numbers of residents from other communities to move there, that’s a complete and total myth. No evidence whatsoever that this would occur. And yet, it’s the entire “justification” for this proposal in the first place!
Regarding UCD’s “oh-so-valuable” agricultural research, that sounds like an argument to jettison (get rid of) all of the OTHER departments, sports stadium, Mondavi theater, etc. – so that UCD can go about saving the world on the “only” land that can do so. Are you on board with THAT?
Regarding the state’s RHNA targets, those are absolutely (without question) going to fail in most localities across the state. Including in places that aren’t (or can’t) expand outward, such as San Francisco and most of the Bay Area. That’s the STATE’s problem, not the “communities'” problem. And it’s a result of vested business interests infiltrating state politics.
“The concept that shoe-horning in 1,800 units at the corner of Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Rd., which is already enormously impacted with traffic, is absurd.”
I believe that the theory behind this is that if you squeeze them hard-enough, you can squeeze the cars right out of them.
Might sort of work in San Francisco, but I doubt it in a valley town like Davis. You’ll probably end up squeezing them right out of Davis (to Woodland), instead. Of course, in San Francisco, they also make sure that you “pay” for your immoral decision to have a car in other ways, as well. (Unless, perhaps, you’re not wealthy-enough to pay for the parking tickets, etc.)