(The following was submitted by a member of the public).
From Yolo County Supervisor District 4 – Jim Provenza – 9/18/2020
“While I support the generation of jobs and taxes, I have not supported this project generally or otherwise. In fact, I have publicly stated that I have concerns about the project and have also expressed these concerns to both the public and the developer. There is a reason I have not taken a position on this project yet. The county’s role is to approve or reject the annexation of the land into the city. Even if the project is approved by the voters, the county can stop the project by saying NO to annexation. I have been advised that taking a public position on the ballot 
measure could create a conflict for me on the annexation vote.
The county has raised the issue of traffic and road impact, loss of AG land, possible negative impact on county revenue and other issues in discussions regarding annexation. Rest assured that, regardless of the outcome of the election, annexation will not go forward if the concerns raised by the county are not resolved.”
From Candidate for Yolo County Supervisor District 4 – Linda Deos – 9/18/2020
“As you know, Measure B is currently a city of Davis issue, and not under the purview of the County at the moment. Measure B gives Davis voters the chance to decide whether they want this project to move forward, and your voices will very much be at the forefront of any decisions I am asked to make. I do know that, as I have walked my entire district and spoken with residents, housing affordability is a major priority. With the median home price nearing $800,000, this is quite understandable.
That said, unlike my opponent, I have not accepted any donations from the developer of this particular project. I do have some specific concerns about this developer based on past projects done within the developers family that over-promised and under delivered on items of community import. These included critical things like the amount of affordable housing that was promised compared to what ended up being built, a lack of traffic mitigation, and green spaces/parks that never materialized.”
“I have not accepted any donations from the developer of this particular project.”
Were any offered, rejected or returned?
On a related note, I have not accepted any Stone Tablets from God.
(Unlike my opponent.)
Jim answered appropriately as a Yolo County supervisor representing the interests of his constituents and the County.
Both answered appropriately given their relative positions.
Linda makes accusation related to the developer’s family as a reason to oppose the project. This is a vague accusation. She uses the time to attack her opponent, but does not specify any particular instance of malfeasance. Is she saying that the project needs more housing? It is not clear that, as a Supervisor, she has the authority to require more than what is approved by the Davis voters. Is it her position that she opposes the project because the project doesn’t have enough housing?
She uses the time to attack her opponent, but does not specify any particular instance of malfeasance.
Sharla, my reading of her statement is that her accusation vis-a-vis Jim is explicit when she says, “unlike my opponent, I have not accepted any donations from the developer of this particular project.”
Do you disagree?
I don’t know what she is implying. Does she have evidence of malfeasance as a result of any campaign donations? Linda accepted large donations from the Marijuana industry in Yolo County, an industry that she oversees in her role on a County commission and potentially her role as a Supervisor. Is she saying that this will result in her acting favorably for marijuana stakeholders, over other community concerns, as a result of these contributions?
Yeah I disagree Matt. Its a cheap shot. It also is vague as to whether she didn’t accept or reject a contribution or simply wasn’t offered one. Let’s go even further. Has Deos refused or returned any contributions to her campaign?
Sharla, you are right, you don’t know what she is implying. You also don’t know if she is implying anything. However, you appear to believe she is implying something … or is that simply an inference on your part?
I personally read the statement as it is written. If I were to infer more than that, I believe I would be skating on very subjective thin ice.
With that said, back in November I learned a very clear lesson on the inference/implication subject when I chose to sign the OpEd questioning whether and endorsement from Jeff Reisig was a good message to the Yolo County constituents. Lots of people inferred a whole lot more than was ever intended by me. However, when I stepped back and looked at that event through the lens of political partisanship, if I squinted really, really hard, I was able to see the point that people were making. So, it is a fair statement to say that I am not surprised to see implication/inference rearing its ____ head again in this situation.
For the record, I personally think Jim’s record as a Supervisor stands for itself. There is very little doubt in my mind whether he will do a good job as Supervisor in the next four years if elected. For me the defining issue in this election is whether having a woman on the Board of Supervisors is a positive step toward the goal of greater diversity.
She should respond more clearly and not give responses that are vague or subject to misinterpretation.
That’s for sure. Not the first time, either (e.g., in regard to Measure J/R).
It’s not rocket science. But, it appears to be “political” science.
Ultimately, it’s going to harm her chances (if it hasn’t, already).
.
Sharla, I agree with that comment wholeheartedly, although I would replace the word “misinterpretation” with the word “interpretation.” In fact I would go further and restate it as:
I agree with Tia. Both candidates answered appropriately given their relative positions.
With that said, it would be good to get a clear understanding of what the role of the Supervisors actually is. I know I am unclear about that.
My understanding (which could be wrong) is that the annexation decision is not actually made by the Board of Supervisors, but rather by the Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). The County can submit comment(s) to LAFCO, as can anyone, but the decision is made by LAFCo.
LAFCo decides whether to grant annexation into the city, and to assure that other governing agencies are made whole or are not harmed by the annexation, and that the newly annexed area will receive appropriate public services (water, sewer, schools, roads, etc).
I believe that prior to the LAFCo decision the Supervisors have the opportunity to weigh in on impacts to the county, etc. if the land is annexed to the city. There could be losses to the county that the county needs to weigh in on. It is currently county land. However, I believe the end result of that Supervisors discussion/decision will only be on what the content/language is of the comment they submit to LAFCo.
The city and county have to agree on a property tax exchange before LAFCo even reviews the application.
Don, if I heard the presentation by staff and EPS to the Finance and Budget Commission correctly, the percentage split of taxes is already decided. Now it is possible that EPS and staff were incorrect in what they said at that meeting, but they were quite definitive. If I remember correctly they said that the split was finalized during the process of (as a bi-product of) the Nishi and WDAAC annexations.
Per Zillow: The median price of homes currently listed in Davis is $654,300 while the median price of homes that sold is $671,600.
I am curious how housing affordability factors into her position on DISC.
Me too, especially since it’s acknowledged to create a “shortage”.
Or more likely, more “commuters” (to the tune of 24,000 daily car trips) and calls for another peripheral housing development.
Ultimately having no discernible impact on housing prices, but simply increasing the size of the city (and number of inbound commuters).
And, round-and-round she goes. (The city, not Linda.)
Don, a few weeks ago I downloaded the historical Davis Housing Prices from the Zillow Research database. They have monthly values going back to January 1, 1996. The graphic below shows Zillow’s values from February 2019 through July 2020. None of the values are as low as the $654,300 figure you cited.
https://www.zillow.com/davis-ca/home-values/
Don: Shouldn’t someone with your concerns and beliefs be advocating for a new (peripheral) housing development before presenting DISC to voters?
If no other peripheral development comes forth (or is approved) anytime soon, would that cause you to be concerned about DISC, given your concerns?
And perhaps more importantly, why is Linda bringing this up, in regard to DISC?
As a side note, here’s a listing of (new) homes in Spring Lake, showing prices from the “mid” $500K to “mid” $600K.
https://www.lennar.com/new-homes/california/sacramento/promo/lsclen_new_homes_woodland?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=lsclen_sem_google_west-sacramento-brand_core_sgt&campaign_id=1056601351&adgroup_id=104955790070&extension_id=&target_id=kwd-387108757324&creative_id=445556408127&matchtype=b&keyword=%2Blennar%20%2Bwoodland&placement=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIy9vp7oH56wIVzh-tBh1omwQ0EAAYASAAEgL-xvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Not sure what any of this “proves”. But, I’m sure that there’s cheaper ones, as well.
I don’t really care what order things are done in. It would be worse overall for the environment in the short term if DISC commercial development occurred before housing is built. The housing on site somewhat mitigates that.
My position on this remains what it was months ago. I support a business park on the site, as the culmination of the long economic development planning process we went through. I would prefer that housing not be part of it. All space that is not in office or commercial is of less benefit to the city’s fiscal condition. I believe Davis needs to begin planning for a new subdivision. But to your question, I don’t think those two things need to be connected. If they are, literally nothing will get done. If we wait for the General Plan update, add three years or so to the whole process.
I have no idea why she brought it up. I don’t actually know now what the context of these comments is. I do think that’s a problem.
The point being that you cannot count on 1) another peripheral housing development proposal arising anytime soon, and 2) approval of such a proposal.
Those are facts, not opinions. (As a side note, the price of lumber has nearly doubled recently, due to Covid.)
And by the time that another housing proposal (might) be approved, everyone working at DISC would have already found a home (somewhere nearby). In other words, there’s a “timing” problem – even with the housing proposed on-site.
Given that, do you still support DISC? Seems to me that you should be advocating for another peripheral housing proposal FIRST.
And, what if Davis doesn’t plan for another subdivision? Would you still support DISC? That’s the only proposal on the table.
You’ve connected them, yourself. And frankly, the EIR for DISC notes the increased demand, as well. 1,200 more units in Davis, and 1,700 in surrounding communities.
The process of approving a business park for which there’s no viable commercial demand?
Yeah, the context should have been provided as part of the article. Ron G. noted that, as well.
Sounds like your plan is to “hope” that Davis approves another peripheral housing development to help support DISC.
Regardless, thanks for the response.
I have been neutral on this proposal from the start, as I’ve told you before.
Well, we have WDAAC/Bretton-Woods, which is Davis not planning for a new subdivision.
It’s a start, and it’s in the right place.
???
Even if you like the project – the process to get there s@cks. Having something drop via non-planning is no victory.
Right place?
Do you really mean neutral, or do you mean ambivalent?
Thank you for that Don. The link to the historical housing values at Zillow Research Data is https://www.zillow.com/research/data/
Interestingly enough that historical it provided an answer to the point that Ron Glick raised a while back about the price premium of Davis over Woodland and the other cities surrounding Davis.
Both the graph and the table below show the interesting comparative housing price picture that exists since 1/1/2001 … with all the non-Davis communities showing a dip during the period of the Housing Bubble collapse and a slow steady recovery, so that now we are back to the same price premium level that existed in 2001. That is consistent with what my gut feel was when Ron and I had our original discussion.
It looks like a distinction between “value” and “price”. The houses that are sold may not be fully representative of the population of houses so the two diverge.
This is pretty funny. She said,
So I looked up the median home price. My statement was completely accurate. I’m not sure why it’s being debated.
There is, of course, a difference between median home value and median home price.
Looks like the figures that Matt put forth (comparing the price premium in 2001, vs. 2020) should put to rest the lie that Measure J/R is causing Davis prices to rise faster than surrounding areas.
Matt is not the first one to point this out, on this blog.
But, I suspect that the believers will continue to disregard facts. The nature of Internet blogs.
Any . . . particular . . . member . . . of the public?
I guess you could say it has no author as it’s just quotes, but quotes can be taken out of context – like a video that doesn’t show what led up to the video, so that excuse wears a bit thin.
Anonymousness lives on at the V.
Why does it matter who emailed it? The statements were in fact made by the candidates
I’m not sure it matters if its accurate but it does raise the issue of where they said it because it isn’t stated. A cursory glance of the pictures without a caption makes it look like it was in a public forum but on closer examination it looks like these are file photos of both candidates speaking before the Davis City Council without stating on what issue they were speaking.
Was this private correspondence or a candidate forum? Was it written or spoken? I do think the article as presented is somewhat deficient about where these remarks were made. If you use a file photo I think you should at least identify it as such.
Those are good points.
“Sharla, my reading of her statement is that her accusation vis-a-vis Jim is explicit when she says, ‘unlike my opponent, I have not accepted any donations from the developer of this particular project.’”
It makes it sound like Provenza is somehow bought off by the developers. I looked at the contribution disclosures for both candidates and I only saw one $250 contribution from the developer. Hardly the kind of money Provenza would sell his soul for. Maybe there are more but that is all I noticed. Its a cheap shot by Deos based on a cheap donation to Provenza on a topic that both candidates agree isn’t an issue the Board of Supervisors has much to do with.
The big money in the campaign seems to be coming from Cannabis growers for Deos and an animal rights activist for Provenza. I guess Jim’s work to improve the dog pound in Woodland garnered the support of a lover of man’s best friend.
Both candidates have received substantial sums from local development interests. Deos has received more than Provenza has according to recent disclosures. In neither case is there any direct bearing on the job of being county supervisor.
To my knowledge, the supervisors have no direct say in the details of a development project that is going to occur in city limits. They have some say in the process of annexation. As Matt has indicated, that may already have occurred (property tax agreement). Presumably at some point they vote to move it forward, but not in any manner that allows them to negotiate changes — at least not that I am aware of. Anyone who knows otherwise, please feel free to enlighten us.
So her comment is odd, at best.
So is the entire premise for this ‘article’.
I agree with that assessment.
I agree with both assessments… the final lines in both Don and Alan’s posts.
Can someone please tell me why the project is claiming that UC Davis is supporting them when it is clear that UC Davis are going alone with their new campus in Sacramento. How is it that the project couldn’t even get support from the local university? This project is a failure before it has even begun.