There are indeed good reasons to change the zoning of this property. As we look for locations with which to accommodate new housing needs from within the city, this is an area that is already within the boundaries of Davis and more importantly already paved over. with infrastructure and many city services already in place The ideal of preserving farmland and agriculture is a strong priority for me as well as others in this community.
Additionally, some have argued that development on the 100-acre Cannery property would relieve pressure to build on the larger adjacent Covell Village site. Unfortunately, two recent developments belie that belief. First, the circulation of the map of the property which contains two rather telling arrows, one of which points north from the Cannery site towards Covell Village and the other points east from the Cannery site again towards Covell Village. The consultants for Lewis-Cannery argue that they are designing the site independently of Covell Village. Covell Village rests outside of the current city boundaries and would require a Measure J vote. Therefore different issues underlie the two properties including a 60-40 vote from just three years ago against the development of Covell Village. The goal of Lewis-Cannery is to enable a decision to made independent of their site.
However, by accommodating potential future growth at Covell, Cannery unwittingly perhaps is facilitating future development. A more sinister development occurred with the city’s staff report on the site for tonight’s city council meeting which includes a memo from City Manager Bill Emlen. The Davis Enterprise yesterday excerpted from the memo, but buried the lead on the key portion. The last two paragraphs of the big-headlined front page article: “City manager: Cannery site needs more study.”
Emlen also would like the City Council to consider the cannery’s neighboring property, an 800-acre parcel that is technically outside of city limits. The parcel was proposed as a large housing development, Covell Village, but Davis voters rejected it in 2005.
‘While not in the city, it is designated industrial in the county and clearly has future development potential,’ Emlen wrote. ‘It seems a lost planning opportunity to not address both properties in a master plan concept.’
City Manager Bill Emlen spells it out quite clearly–the city is looking to plan for the two projects concurrently and there is no way to escape the conclusion that Lewis-Cannery is in fact the gateway to Covell Village. For this reason I can no longer remain neutral with regards to Lewis-Cannery.
Today for the first time, I publicly oppose the mixed-use option, the current proposal, and any change to the high-tech zoning of the site.
In fact, there are a number of other key issues that have led me to this conclusion including my recent visit to San Luis Obispo over the Thanksgiving Holiday. As many know, I grew up in San Luis Obispo. There are many similarities between San Luis Obispo and Davis including a strong commitment to the preservation of open space, agricultural land, natural habitat, and toward the implementation of public policy designed to produce slow and controlled growth. However, there is a big difference between the two besides the obvious climatic and geographic differences. San Luis Obispo while having almost the same population of 44,000 that it had when I moved in 1996, has a much more strongly developed commercial base.
People have expressed concern about housing in Davis, but given the development of West Village by the university, and the smaller developments such as Grande and Simmons within town, and the other available infill options over the next ten years. I am not that concerned about housing. We will meet many of our internal housing needs as well as our state mandated growth targets over the next decade.
However, the housing market makes any new housing development precarious at best. The credit market is in dire straights, and the ability to finance such projects remains in serious doubt for the foreseeable future.
From a commercial perspective, the city of Davis is in dire need of additional sources of revenue. We are staring down a deficit, unmet needs, the collapse of the revenue from automobile sales, the possibility of new taxes to pay for basic city services, and the certainty of rate hikes for utilities. We know from past discussions, that housing is not a good source for on-going revenue. In fact, given the costs of provisions of city services, new development is as likely to lose revenue for the city as gain it.
Even without the housing situation, the Lewis-Cannery property falls short of what City Councilmember Stephen Souza called the “wow-factor.” This project could quite simply be dropped into any city, any town, any neighborhood. There is no great innovation. There is nothing to lend itself to suggest, wow, this is a great project that we need in this city. At best, it fills a need for housing that could be better addressed in other parts of the city in more innovative and eco-friendly ways. In terms of green innovations, there are vague mentions but nothing specific in terms of carbon-neutrality, design-efficiency, alternative power, energy neutrality. By way of comparison, the proposed-Wild Horse Ranch project is well ahead of Lewis in these areas despite the fact that Lewis-Cannery is further along in the process at this point in time.
If we are going to development new housing, we need it to be cutting edge housing that moves us forward into the next era of urban land use. The current proposal from Lewis-Cannery quite simply does not do that at this point. The proposal is fine, but there is no “wow factor.” (Later in the week, I will talk about a “wow” moment I experienced in San Luis Obispo that gave me great insight into the type of housing that we need in Davis.)
The other great problem with the Lewis-Cannery property is that of traffic mitigation. The preliminary estimates are that the current proposed development would produce something between 11,000 and 14,000 (at minimum) additional car trips a day spilling onto the already congested Covell Blvd. When asked about the traffic impacts, the consultants suggested that the traffic study would help them figure out how to mitigate. The problem is that we have been down this road once before with Covell Village. There was no answer then to the traffic impacts and the mitigation thereof. And it seems unlikely that the Lewis Planned Communities plan will have any better luck. One of the reasons that Covell Village went down to such a large defeat was the impact on traffic and the fact that there is no clear outlet. Bike paths and alternative transportation are great, but cannot be relied upon to reduce traffic impacts. There does not seem to be an easy answer here.
The current Lewis plan is for 46 acres to be developed for 610 homes however once they are built there is nothing to stop the developer from organizing the new residents into supporting Lewis Planned Communities from converting the additional 20 acres from commercial/ light industrial to residential and finish building another 300 homes, for a full build out of 900 homes. So on a total 98 acre lot Lewis Homes will have built half of the homes originally proposed by Covell Village, 1900 homes on a 484 acre lot. In other words, this is not a small proposal. This is a huge proposal that would go forth with no Measure J mandated vote.
Given the lack of innovative housing plan, given the likely unmitigated traffic impacts, given the state of the housing market, given our need for commerce, the answer for what to do with the Lewis-Cannery property becomes much simpler. I recommend the city place the property in urban reserve for the next ten years. In the meantime, the city should assign a staffer full-time with the responsibility of bringing in new business and developing the business park. The viability study suggested a protracted build out, but if done properly and aggressively, this would not be an impossibility. I want to see green, high tech companies come in that produce jobs and revenue for the area. Davis should become a leader in green technology and there is frankly no better location in the city to do this than the Lewis-Cannery property. It is the largest parcel of land zoned for high-tech.
Unfortunately, the city has not put the type of effort needed to attract that kind of business. So the city council is going to have to direct city staff to do this and make it a priority. This is our shot at creating a lasting legacy that can transform Davis into the center for new and sustainable green business that it ought to be based on both the proximity of the university and the commitment that this community has toward environmental sustainability. Moreover, it is time for this community to stop developing huge sprawling new and expensive subdivisions that could be located anywhere and to once again become the cutting-edge for environmental sustainability in terms of sustainable and energy efficient housing, housing that achieves carbon neutrality, housing that is designed specifically to protect farmland from urban development. This is not the time to compromise on these principles.
Tonight, our city council needs to stand up for green high-tech industry and for moving Davis forward into a new era of sustainable development.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Eileen, why are you supporting a project that staff, Lewis Homes, and at least two City Council members view as the gateway to Covell Village?
(DPD, you should post the LH map with the arrows heading north and east for roads opening into the future developments.)
Eileen, probably more than anyone else in the City, I have worked with you over the years, and I understand your basic analysis of urban planning issues. We have agreed on most of them, although sometimes the implementation or stragey options are hotly debated between us.
I know how much you care about the little kids on bikes mixing it up with too much traffic. For both of us, this was one of the more powerful concerns we had against Covell Village.
However, the Lewis Homes project would dump huge huge numbers of cars onto the connecting streets through various neighborhoods leading to the downtown, especially J Street. There are thousands of kids in those neighborhoods, many of them the most vulnerable due to low family income factors, both parents working, latch key kid issues, etc.
Your support of Lewis Homes is so totally contrary to everything I know and respect about your fierce advocacy for good planning in Davis that it makes me wonder: why are you doing this? I have asked you, over and over, and you never have any reasons for it.
Your shilling for Lewis Homes makes you appear to be on par with Ken and Jeannie, both highly paid and effective consultants for Lewis. If you are being paid, then say it.
Eileen, why are you supporting a project that staff, Lewis Homes, and at least two City Council members view as the gateway to Covell Village?
(DPD, you should post the LH map with the arrows heading north and east for roads opening into the future developments.)
Eileen, probably more than anyone else in the City, I have worked with you over the years, and I understand your basic analysis of urban planning issues. We have agreed on most of them, although sometimes the implementation or stragey options are hotly debated between us.
I know how much you care about the little kids on bikes mixing it up with too much traffic. For both of us, this was one of the more powerful concerns we had against Covell Village.
However, the Lewis Homes project would dump huge huge numbers of cars onto the connecting streets through various neighborhoods leading to the downtown, especially J Street. There are thousands of kids in those neighborhoods, many of them the most vulnerable due to low family income factors, both parents working, latch key kid issues, etc.
Your support of Lewis Homes is so totally contrary to everything I know and respect about your fierce advocacy for good planning in Davis that it makes me wonder: why are you doing this? I have asked you, over and over, and you never have any reasons for it.
Your shilling for Lewis Homes makes you appear to be on par with Ken and Jeannie, both highly paid and effective consultants for Lewis. If you are being paid, then say it.
Eileen, why are you supporting a project that staff, Lewis Homes, and at least two City Council members view as the gateway to Covell Village?
(DPD, you should post the LH map with the arrows heading north and east for roads opening into the future developments.)
Eileen, probably more than anyone else in the City, I have worked with you over the years, and I understand your basic analysis of urban planning issues. We have agreed on most of them, although sometimes the implementation or stragey options are hotly debated between us.
I know how much you care about the little kids on bikes mixing it up with too much traffic. For both of us, this was one of the more powerful concerns we had against Covell Village.
However, the Lewis Homes project would dump huge huge numbers of cars onto the connecting streets through various neighborhoods leading to the downtown, especially J Street. There are thousands of kids in those neighborhoods, many of them the most vulnerable due to low family income factors, both parents working, latch key kid issues, etc.
Your support of Lewis Homes is so totally contrary to everything I know and respect about your fierce advocacy for good planning in Davis that it makes me wonder: why are you doing this? I have asked you, over and over, and you never have any reasons for it.
Your shilling for Lewis Homes makes you appear to be on par with Ken and Jeannie, both highly paid and effective consultants for Lewis. If you are being paid, then say it.
Eileen, why are you supporting a project that staff, Lewis Homes, and at least two City Council members view as the gateway to Covell Village?
(DPD, you should post the LH map with the arrows heading north and east for roads opening into the future developments.)
Eileen, probably more than anyone else in the City, I have worked with you over the years, and I understand your basic analysis of urban planning issues. We have agreed on most of them, although sometimes the implementation or stragey options are hotly debated between us.
I know how much you care about the little kids on bikes mixing it up with too much traffic. For both of us, this was one of the more powerful concerns we had against Covell Village.
However, the Lewis Homes project would dump huge huge numbers of cars onto the connecting streets through various neighborhoods leading to the downtown, especially J Street. There are thousands of kids in those neighborhoods, many of them the most vulnerable due to low family income factors, both parents working, latch key kid issues, etc.
Your support of Lewis Homes is so totally contrary to everything I know and respect about your fierce advocacy for good planning in Davis that it makes me wonder: why are you doing this? I have asked you, over and over, and you never have any reasons for it.
Your shilling for Lewis Homes makes you appear to be on par with Ken and Jeannie, both highly paid and effective consultants for Lewis. If you are being paid, then say it.
we have bigger things to worry about than housing development. What I’d like to see is for you to come up with a specific growth proposal, rather than simply oppose everything that comes up. Not buzz words like densification, but solid parcels to develop.
we have bigger things to worry about than housing development. What I’d like to see is for you to come up with a specific growth proposal, rather than simply oppose everything that comes up. Not buzz words like densification, but solid parcels to develop.
we have bigger things to worry about than housing development. What I’d like to see is for you to come up with a specific growth proposal, rather than simply oppose everything that comes up. Not buzz words like densification, but solid parcels to develop.
we have bigger things to worry about than housing development. What I’d like to see is for you to come up with a specific growth proposal, rather than simply oppose everything that comes up. Not buzz words like densification, but solid parcels to develop.
as far as specific parcels, how about the whole west village? How many houses do you need?
as far as specific parcels, how about the whole west village? How many houses do you need?
as far as specific parcels, how about the whole west village? How many houses do you need?
as far as specific parcels, how about the whole west village? How many houses do you need?
The Lewis Homes proposal is the latest version of bad planning in Davis. Lewis Homes disregards the will of the NO on X voters. Those voters overwhelmingly rejected the massive Covell Village proposal because of its size and its inability to demonstrate how that project would truly provide affordable housing, mitigate against the traffic congestion the project itself would create and not become a financial burden to the City. Now Lewis Homes plans to build another huge project on the property next door and they too have not addressed these same concerns. If Lewis Homes is approved, the Covell Village Partners can advocate not only their current “sun city” trojan horse project, but can advocate to build thousands of additional homes at their site using the Lewis Homes Cannery Park project as an acceptable model previously approved right next door to them. The City Council needs to reject this proposal and retain the high-tech zoning currently in place for the property to generate jobs and revenue for the City.
The Lewis Homes proposal is the latest version of bad planning in Davis. Lewis Homes disregards the will of the NO on X voters. Those voters overwhelmingly rejected the massive Covell Village proposal because of its size and its inability to demonstrate how that project would truly provide affordable housing, mitigate against the traffic congestion the project itself would create and not become a financial burden to the City. Now Lewis Homes plans to build another huge project on the property next door and they too have not addressed these same concerns. If Lewis Homes is approved, the Covell Village Partners can advocate not only their current “sun city” trojan horse project, but can advocate to build thousands of additional homes at their site using the Lewis Homes Cannery Park project as an acceptable model previously approved right next door to them. The City Council needs to reject this proposal and retain the high-tech zoning currently in place for the property to generate jobs and revenue for the City.
The Lewis Homes proposal is the latest version of bad planning in Davis. Lewis Homes disregards the will of the NO on X voters. Those voters overwhelmingly rejected the massive Covell Village proposal because of its size and its inability to demonstrate how that project would truly provide affordable housing, mitigate against the traffic congestion the project itself would create and not become a financial burden to the City. Now Lewis Homes plans to build another huge project on the property next door and they too have not addressed these same concerns. If Lewis Homes is approved, the Covell Village Partners can advocate not only their current “sun city” trojan horse project, but can advocate to build thousands of additional homes at their site using the Lewis Homes Cannery Park project as an acceptable model previously approved right next door to them. The City Council needs to reject this proposal and retain the high-tech zoning currently in place for the property to generate jobs and revenue for the City.
The Lewis Homes proposal is the latest version of bad planning in Davis. Lewis Homes disregards the will of the NO on X voters. Those voters overwhelmingly rejected the massive Covell Village proposal because of its size and its inability to demonstrate how that project would truly provide affordable housing, mitigate against the traffic congestion the project itself would create and not become a financial burden to the City. Now Lewis Homes plans to build another huge project on the property next door and they too have not addressed these same concerns. If Lewis Homes is approved, the Covell Village Partners can advocate not only their current “sun city” trojan horse project, but can advocate to build thousands of additional homes at their site using the Lewis Homes Cannery Park project as an acceptable model previously approved right next door to them. The City Council needs to reject this proposal and retain the high-tech zoning currently in place for the property to generate jobs and revenue for the City.
No on X Supporter:
I totally agree with you.
Eileen, if you are for this Lewis Homes Project, you are for Covell Village.
I cannot see any other logical framework.
No on X Supporter:
I totally agree with you.
Eileen, if you are for this Lewis Homes Project, you are for Covell Village.
I cannot see any other logical framework.
No on X Supporter:
I totally agree with you.
Eileen, if you are for this Lewis Homes Project, you are for Covell Village.
I cannot see any other logical framework.
No on X Supporter:
I totally agree with you.
Eileen, if you are for this Lewis Homes Project, you are for Covell Village.
I cannot see any other logical framework.
I do not support any new development. Zero. Anything that means “more” is wrong, unless it is “more” to support and save our environment, to lessen the use of fossil fuels, to help level the economic playing field, to put profits second to doing what is right and necessary to reduce global warming and to end criminal wars and the domination of Capitalists and their selfish ends. Simply, I just do not feel that there is a plan for growth and development, expansionism and destruction of land that is needed or logical in Davis, or anywhere else. We always seem to be deciding between which capitalist plan is the lesser of evils (we also are forced to vote the same way on candidates). Evil plans that give the biggest reward to profit seekers with morsels of mitigation for the wretched masses to sooth their desire for environmental band aids is always a step backward. I know I am preaching to the choir – we are all frustrated. Isn’t it better to be wrong in the eyes of the polluters and their “fellow travelers” and know that the direction of our nation from Davis to the whole notion of “more” for more profits is really the culprit. Do we dare take the name of the Lord (capitalism) in vain?
I do not support any new development. Zero. Anything that means “more” is wrong, unless it is “more” to support and save our environment, to lessen the use of fossil fuels, to help level the economic playing field, to put profits second to doing what is right and necessary to reduce global warming and to end criminal wars and the domination of Capitalists and their selfish ends. Simply, I just do not feel that there is a plan for growth and development, expansionism and destruction of land that is needed or logical in Davis, or anywhere else. We always seem to be deciding between which capitalist plan is the lesser of evils (we also are forced to vote the same way on candidates). Evil plans that give the biggest reward to profit seekers with morsels of mitigation for the wretched masses to sooth their desire for environmental band aids is always a step backward. I know I am preaching to the choir – we are all frustrated. Isn’t it better to be wrong in the eyes of the polluters and their “fellow travelers” and know that the direction of our nation from Davis to the whole notion of “more” for more profits is really the culprit. Do we dare take the name of the Lord (capitalism) in vain?
I do not support any new development. Zero. Anything that means “more” is wrong, unless it is “more” to support and save our environment, to lessen the use of fossil fuels, to help level the economic playing field, to put profits second to doing what is right and necessary to reduce global warming and to end criminal wars and the domination of Capitalists and their selfish ends. Simply, I just do not feel that there is a plan for growth and development, expansionism and destruction of land that is needed or logical in Davis, or anywhere else. We always seem to be deciding between which capitalist plan is the lesser of evils (we also are forced to vote the same way on candidates). Evil plans that give the biggest reward to profit seekers with morsels of mitigation for the wretched masses to sooth their desire for environmental band aids is always a step backward. I know I am preaching to the choir – we are all frustrated. Isn’t it better to be wrong in the eyes of the polluters and their “fellow travelers” and know that the direction of our nation from Davis to the whole notion of “more” for more profits is really the culprit. Do we dare take the name of the Lord (capitalism) in vain?
I do not support any new development. Zero. Anything that means “more” is wrong, unless it is “more” to support and save our environment, to lessen the use of fossil fuels, to help level the economic playing field, to put profits second to doing what is right and necessary to reduce global warming and to end criminal wars and the domination of Capitalists and their selfish ends. Simply, I just do not feel that there is a plan for growth and development, expansionism and destruction of land that is needed or logical in Davis, or anywhere else. We always seem to be deciding between which capitalist plan is the lesser of evils (we also are forced to vote the same way on candidates). Evil plans that give the biggest reward to profit seekers with morsels of mitigation for the wretched masses to sooth their desire for environmental band aids is always a step backward. I know I am preaching to the choir – we are all frustrated. Isn’t it better to be wrong in the eyes of the polluters and their “fellow travelers” and know that the direction of our nation from Davis to the whole notion of “more” for more profits is really the culprit. Do we dare take the name of the Lord (capitalism) in vain?
“I have remained neutral on the issue of whether to keep Lewis-Cannery as currently zoned, high-tech …”
David,
I think the current zoning, PD 1-00, permits high-tech, but is not itself zoned exclusively for that. Rather, it includes “Industrial uses involving research, development or manufacturing.”
“City Manager Bill Emlen spells it out quite clearly–the city is looking to plan for the two projects concurrently and there is no way to escape the conclusion that Lewis-Cannery is in fact the gateway to Covell Village.”
This is a red herring. If the cannery site is ultimately developed as a business park, it’s road network, access and egress must take into account the property on all sides of it. To not do so, to pretend that the CV land, which also is zoned for industry, will never be developed, is foolish.
One of the huge development issues with regard to the cannery site is the fact that the only way in and out is on Covell Boulevard, and therefore any intensive use of that property* will have a detrimental impact on traffic on Covell and will likely cause congestion for the people who live and work in the proximate parts of J Street and L Street.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to build an at-grade railroad crossing from the cannery or from CV to F Street. Therefore, the only sensible option (in the long term), if the cannery site is developed (mixed use or pure industry) will be to move some of that traffic further east on Covell and over to Pole Line.
And you simply cannot do that if you don’t plan ahead with regard to the CV property. Even if you want no housing there (or on the CV property), you would be a fool to not plan for this eventuality.
* I was told by a member of the city staff that an intensive business park with lots of jobs at the cannery site will have a greater impact on Covell traffic than the proposal of Lewis Homes (about which I am neutral).
“I have remained neutral on the issue of whether to keep Lewis-Cannery as currently zoned, high-tech …”
David,
I think the current zoning, PD 1-00, permits high-tech, but is not itself zoned exclusively for that. Rather, it includes “Industrial uses involving research, development or manufacturing.”
“City Manager Bill Emlen spells it out quite clearly–the city is looking to plan for the two projects concurrently and there is no way to escape the conclusion that Lewis-Cannery is in fact the gateway to Covell Village.”
This is a red herring. If the cannery site is ultimately developed as a business park, it’s road network, access and egress must take into account the property on all sides of it. To not do so, to pretend that the CV land, which also is zoned for industry, will never be developed, is foolish.
One of the huge development issues with regard to the cannery site is the fact that the only way in and out is on Covell Boulevard, and therefore any intensive use of that property* will have a detrimental impact on traffic on Covell and will likely cause congestion for the people who live and work in the proximate parts of J Street and L Street.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to build an at-grade railroad crossing from the cannery or from CV to F Street. Therefore, the only sensible option (in the long term), if the cannery site is developed (mixed use or pure industry) will be to move some of that traffic further east on Covell and over to Pole Line.
And you simply cannot do that if you don’t plan ahead with regard to the CV property. Even if you want no housing there (or on the CV property), you would be a fool to not plan for this eventuality.
* I was told by a member of the city staff that an intensive business park with lots of jobs at the cannery site will have a greater impact on Covell traffic than the proposal of Lewis Homes (about which I am neutral).
“I have remained neutral on the issue of whether to keep Lewis-Cannery as currently zoned, high-tech …”
David,
I think the current zoning, PD 1-00, permits high-tech, but is not itself zoned exclusively for that. Rather, it includes “Industrial uses involving research, development or manufacturing.”
“City Manager Bill Emlen spells it out quite clearly–the city is looking to plan for the two projects concurrently and there is no way to escape the conclusion that Lewis-Cannery is in fact the gateway to Covell Village.”
This is a red herring. If the cannery site is ultimately developed as a business park, it’s road network, access and egress must take into account the property on all sides of it. To not do so, to pretend that the CV land, which also is zoned for industry, will never be developed, is foolish.
One of the huge development issues with regard to the cannery site is the fact that the only way in and out is on Covell Boulevard, and therefore any intensive use of that property* will have a detrimental impact on traffic on Covell and will likely cause congestion for the people who live and work in the proximate parts of J Street and L Street.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to build an at-grade railroad crossing from the cannery or from CV to F Street. Therefore, the only sensible option (in the long term), if the cannery site is developed (mixed use or pure industry) will be to move some of that traffic further east on Covell and over to Pole Line.
And you simply cannot do that if you don’t plan ahead with regard to the CV property. Even if you want no housing there (or on the CV property), you would be a fool to not plan for this eventuality.
* I was told by a member of the city staff that an intensive business park with lots of jobs at the cannery site will have a greater impact on Covell traffic than the proposal of Lewis Homes (about which I am neutral).
“I have remained neutral on the issue of whether to keep Lewis-Cannery as currently zoned, high-tech …”
David,
I think the current zoning, PD 1-00, permits high-tech, but is not itself zoned exclusively for that. Rather, it includes “Industrial uses involving research, development or manufacturing.”
“City Manager Bill Emlen spells it out quite clearly–the city is looking to plan for the two projects concurrently and there is no way to escape the conclusion that Lewis-Cannery is in fact the gateway to Covell Village.”
This is a red herring. If the cannery site is ultimately developed as a business park, it’s road network, access and egress must take into account the property on all sides of it. To not do so, to pretend that the CV land, which also is zoned for industry, will never be developed, is foolish.
One of the huge development issues with regard to the cannery site is the fact that the only way in and out is on Covell Boulevard, and therefore any intensive use of that property* will have a detrimental impact on traffic on Covell and will likely cause congestion for the people who live and work in the proximate parts of J Street and L Street.
Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to build an at-grade railroad crossing from the cannery or from CV to F Street. Therefore, the only sensible option (in the long term), if the cannery site is developed (mixed use or pure industry) will be to move some of that traffic further east on Covell and over to Pole Line.
And you simply cannot do that if you don’t plan ahead with regard to the CV property. Even if you want no housing there (or on the CV property), you would be a fool to not plan for this eventuality.
* I was told by a member of the city staff that an intensive business park with lots of jobs at the cannery site will have a greater impact on Covell traffic than the proposal of Lewis Homes (about which I am neutral).
“Eileen, why are you supporting a project that staff, Lewis Homes, and at least two City Council members view as the gateway to Covell Village?… Eileen, if you are for this Lewis Homes Project, you are for Covell Village…. Your support of Lewis Homes is so totally contrary to everything I know and respect about your fierce advocacy for good planning in Davis that it makes me wonder: why are you doing this? “
Why the personal charges?
You’re a lawyer, Mike, so you must be familiar with the refrain, “if you can’t win with logical argument, make ad hominem attacks.”
You are well capable of arguing based on logic, so my recommendation is to lay off attacks on Ms. Samitz.
“Eileen, why are you supporting a project that staff, Lewis Homes, and at least two City Council members view as the gateway to Covell Village?… Eileen, if you are for this Lewis Homes Project, you are for Covell Village…. Your support of Lewis Homes is so totally contrary to everything I know and respect about your fierce advocacy for good planning in Davis that it makes me wonder: why are you doing this? “
Why the personal charges?
You’re a lawyer, Mike, so you must be familiar with the refrain, “if you can’t win with logical argument, make ad hominem attacks.”
You are well capable of arguing based on logic, so my recommendation is to lay off attacks on Ms. Samitz.
“Eileen, why are you supporting a project that staff, Lewis Homes, and at least two City Council members view as the gateway to Covell Village?… Eileen, if you are for this Lewis Homes Project, you are for Covell Village…. Your support of Lewis Homes is so totally contrary to everything I know and respect about your fierce advocacy for good planning in Davis that it makes me wonder: why are you doing this? “
Why the personal charges?
You’re a lawyer, Mike, so you must be familiar with the refrain, “if you can’t win with logical argument, make ad hominem attacks.”
You are well capable of arguing based on logic, so my recommendation is to lay off attacks on Ms. Samitz.
“Eileen, why are you supporting a project that staff, Lewis Homes, and at least two City Council members view as the gateway to Covell Village?… Eileen, if you are for this Lewis Homes Project, you are for Covell Village…. Your support of Lewis Homes is so totally contrary to everything I know and respect about your fierce advocacy for good planning in Davis that it makes me wonder: why are you doing this? “
Why the personal charges?
You’re a lawyer, Mike, so you must be familiar with the refrain, “if you can’t win with logical argument, make ad hominem attacks.”
You are well capable of arguing based on logic, so my recommendation is to lay off attacks on Ms. Samitz.
rich- there is no reason at all an at grade crossing could not be built to F street, I build them all the time. I just would not see one built for tacky little tract houses.
rich- there is no reason at all an at grade crossing could not be built to F street, I build them all the time. I just would not see one built for tacky little tract houses.
rich- there is no reason at all an at grade crossing could not be built to F street, I build them all the time. I just would not see one built for tacky little tract houses.
rich- there is no reason at all an at grade crossing could not be built to F street, I build them all the time. I just would not see one built for tacky little tract houses.
What are the arguments for and against it being possible to build an at grade RR crossing from the cannery site to F Street? Are the possible barriers physical, legal, both?
What are the arguments for and against it being possible to build an at grade RR crossing from the cannery site to F Street? Are the possible barriers physical, legal, both?
What are the arguments for and against it being possible to build an at grade RR crossing from the cannery site to F Street? Are the possible barriers physical, legal, both?
What are the arguments for and against it being possible to build an at grade RR crossing from the cannery site to F Street? Are the possible barriers physical, legal, both?
I have been pushing very hard for an at-grade crossing to be built, there. However, I have come to realize it is impossible. Even the political weight of the Covell Village developers and their friends in politics could not get it done.
There are two reasons:
1. The PUC. The state public utility commission must permit an at-grade crossing anywhere in California. I am told this is next to impossible or this site. If you look on this cpuc webpage, you will see how they approach new crossings. The PUC wants trains to be able to move as fast as possible, so at-grade crossings are a problem for that reason. And the PUC wants maximum public safety, which also harms the chances of a new at-grade crossing. The basic idea is “build an overpass or an underpass, fellas.” That is impossible at that site;
2. Cost. I was told that it would cost “millions of dollars” to build at at-grade crossing to F Street. Exactly why, I don’t know. But that is what someone from the city told me. I suspect most of the money would go to lawyers and consultants and EIRs and so on.
There is a third reason, which may or may not be relevant. Noise. When a train crosses an at-grade crossing, it must blow its warning sirens ahead as it approaches. Insofar as there is an existing neighborhood west of F Street, the added noise (all night long) may be a problem for the people living in that vicinity, let alone any more who would live at the cannery park site.
I have been pushing very hard for an at-grade crossing to be built, there. However, I have come to realize it is impossible. Even the political weight of the Covell Village developers and their friends in politics could not get it done.
There are two reasons:
1. The PUC. The state public utility commission must permit an at-grade crossing anywhere in California. I am told this is next to impossible or this site. If you look on this cpuc webpage, you will see how they approach new crossings. The PUC wants trains to be able to move as fast as possible, so at-grade crossings are a problem for that reason. And the PUC wants maximum public safety, which also harms the chances of a new at-grade crossing. The basic idea is “build an overpass or an underpass, fellas.” That is impossible at that site;
2. Cost. I was told that it would cost “millions of dollars” to build at at-grade crossing to F Street. Exactly why, I don’t know. But that is what someone from the city told me. I suspect most of the money would go to lawyers and consultants and EIRs and so on.
There is a third reason, which may or may not be relevant. Noise. When a train crosses an at-grade crossing, it must blow its warning sirens ahead as it approaches. Insofar as there is an existing neighborhood west of F Street, the added noise (all night long) may be a problem for the people living in that vicinity, let alone any more who would live at the cannery park site.
I have been pushing very hard for an at-grade crossing to be built, there. However, I have come to realize it is impossible. Even the political weight of the Covell Village developers and their friends in politics could not get it done.
There are two reasons:
1. The PUC. The state public utility commission must permit an at-grade crossing anywhere in California. I am told this is next to impossible or this site. If you look on this cpuc webpage, you will see how they approach new crossings. The PUC wants trains to be able to move as fast as possible, so at-grade crossings are a problem for that reason. And the PUC wants maximum public safety, which also harms the chances of a new at-grade crossing. The basic idea is “build an overpass or an underpass, fellas.” That is impossible at that site;
2. Cost. I was told that it would cost “millions of dollars” to build at at-grade crossing to F Street. Exactly why, I don’t know. But that is what someone from the city told me. I suspect most of the money would go to lawyers and consultants and EIRs and so on.
There is a third reason, which may or may not be relevant. Noise. When a train crosses an at-grade crossing, it must blow its warning sirens ahead as it approaches. Insofar as there is an existing neighborhood west of F Street, the added noise (all night long) may be a problem for the people living in that vicinity, let alone any more who would live at the cannery park site.
I have been pushing very hard for an at-grade crossing to be built, there. However, I have come to realize it is impossible. Even the political weight of the Covell Village developers and their friends in politics could not get it done.
There are two reasons:
1. The PUC. The state public utility commission must permit an at-grade crossing anywhere in California. I am told this is next to impossible or this site. If you look on this cpuc webpage, you will see how they approach new crossings. The PUC wants trains to be able to move as fast as possible, so at-grade crossings are a problem for that reason. And the PUC wants maximum public safety, which also harms the chances of a new at-grade crossing. The basic idea is “build an overpass or an underpass, fellas.” That is impossible at that site;
2. Cost. I was told that it would cost “millions of dollars” to build at at-grade crossing to F Street. Exactly why, I don’t know. But that is what someone from the city told me. I suspect most of the money would go to lawyers and consultants and EIRs and so on.
There is a third reason, which may or may not be relevant. Noise. When a train crosses an at-grade crossing, it must blow its warning sirens ahead as it approaches. Insofar as there is an existing neighborhood west of F Street, the added noise (all night long) may be a problem for the people living in that vicinity, let alone any more who would live at the cannery park site.
David: Excellent analysis. I have also been on the fence on this, and have supported mixed-use or a tech park, but not the large residential proposal before us now. What is proposed now is about 1/3 of what was proposed for CV, and you are correct in that the developers may argue later that they cannot get the business park built and will get approval for more housing. You make very good arguments for rejecting the residential development and planning for business/high tech at that site. We do have several other concrete sites in Davis for housing, such as West Village and Chiles Ranch. These are both comeing forward now. There are also many other smaller parcels in the city that will accommodate housing. We need to be looking at something that will bring fiscal benefits to the city. Residential, unless it is McMansions, does not do that.
As to at-grade crossing: it was my understanding brought out during the CV debate, that Cal-trans no longer allows at-grade RR crossings. Is this not true?
I have a couple of other comments: on the issue of traffic generated by a high tech/business site vs a residential development of 610 homes, what a city staff member stated is not true for a site this size. A residential development of this size will generate more traffic and all through the day. A business park will have traffic coming in in the early morning, and leaving in the early evening. Generally this type of develpment does not generate other types of traffic, like large trucks.
David: Excellent analysis. I have also been on the fence on this, and have supported mixed-use or a tech park, but not the large residential proposal before us now. What is proposed now is about 1/3 of what was proposed for CV, and you are correct in that the developers may argue later that they cannot get the business park built and will get approval for more housing. You make very good arguments for rejecting the residential development and planning for business/high tech at that site. We do have several other concrete sites in Davis for housing, such as West Village and Chiles Ranch. These are both comeing forward now. There are also many other smaller parcels in the city that will accommodate housing. We need to be looking at something that will bring fiscal benefits to the city. Residential, unless it is McMansions, does not do that.
As to at-grade crossing: it was my understanding brought out during the CV debate, that Cal-trans no longer allows at-grade RR crossings. Is this not true?
I have a couple of other comments: on the issue of traffic generated by a high tech/business site vs a residential development of 610 homes, what a city staff member stated is not true for a site this size. A residential development of this size will generate more traffic and all through the day. A business park will have traffic coming in in the early morning, and leaving in the early evening. Generally this type of develpment does not generate other types of traffic, like large trucks.
David: Excellent analysis. I have also been on the fence on this, and have supported mixed-use or a tech park, but not the large residential proposal before us now. What is proposed now is about 1/3 of what was proposed for CV, and you are correct in that the developers may argue later that they cannot get the business park built and will get approval for more housing. You make very good arguments for rejecting the residential development and planning for business/high tech at that site. We do have several other concrete sites in Davis for housing, such as West Village and Chiles Ranch. These are both comeing forward now. There are also many other smaller parcels in the city that will accommodate housing. We need to be looking at something that will bring fiscal benefits to the city. Residential, unless it is McMansions, does not do that.
As to at-grade crossing: it was my understanding brought out during the CV debate, that Cal-trans no longer allows at-grade RR crossings. Is this not true?
I have a couple of other comments: on the issue of traffic generated by a high tech/business site vs a residential development of 610 homes, what a city staff member stated is not true for a site this size. A residential development of this size will generate more traffic and all through the day. A business park will have traffic coming in in the early morning, and leaving in the early evening. Generally this type of develpment does not generate other types of traffic, like large trucks.
David: Excellent analysis. I have also been on the fence on this, and have supported mixed-use or a tech park, but not the large residential proposal before us now. What is proposed now is about 1/3 of what was proposed for CV, and you are correct in that the developers may argue later that they cannot get the business park built and will get approval for more housing. You make very good arguments for rejecting the residential development and planning for business/high tech at that site. We do have several other concrete sites in Davis for housing, such as West Village and Chiles Ranch. These are both comeing forward now. There are also many other smaller parcels in the city that will accommodate housing. We need to be looking at something that will bring fiscal benefits to the city. Residential, unless it is McMansions, does not do that.
As to at-grade crossing: it was my understanding brought out during the CV debate, that Cal-trans no longer allows at-grade RR crossings. Is this not true?
I have a couple of other comments: on the issue of traffic generated by a high tech/business site vs a residential development of 610 homes, what a city staff member stated is not true for a site this size. A residential development of this size will generate more traffic and all through the day. A business park will have traffic coming in in the early morning, and leaving in the early evening. Generally this type of develpment does not generate other types of traffic, like large trucks.
Two points:
I have read over the years in reports from professional traffic consultants that industrial and office uses generally produce about the same amount of traffic as residential uses. Each residential unit produces about 11 car trips a day. I have no reason to believe that this wouldn’t be true in a conventional peripheral site like the Cannery.
We can always work on density and performance standards for a business park to assure that traffic would be equal to or less than that generated from a housing development.
2) Again, the consultant did NOT say that a business park would be take a particularly long time for build-out. He said that strict high-tech only zoning could take some time for complete build-out. But, our current zoning allows many other uses with conditional use permits, and we can stream-line the process for constructive uses. There is a need for land in the community for uses such as Churches, private sports uses such as our in-line hockey rink, wholesalers, showrooms, etc.
We have little land available for the non-retail, non-residential uses that make a well-rounded community and a well-rounded economy, and the old cannery site is already zoned to accommodate many of these uses.
Two points:
I have read over the years in reports from professional traffic consultants that industrial and office uses generally produce about the same amount of traffic as residential uses. Each residential unit produces about 11 car trips a day. I have no reason to believe that this wouldn’t be true in a conventional peripheral site like the Cannery.
We can always work on density and performance standards for a business park to assure that traffic would be equal to or less than that generated from a housing development.
2) Again, the consultant did NOT say that a business park would be take a particularly long time for build-out. He said that strict high-tech only zoning could take some time for complete build-out. But, our current zoning allows many other uses with conditional use permits, and we can stream-line the process for constructive uses. There is a need for land in the community for uses such as Churches, private sports uses such as our in-line hockey rink, wholesalers, showrooms, etc.
We have little land available for the non-retail, non-residential uses that make a well-rounded community and a well-rounded economy, and the old cannery site is already zoned to accommodate many of these uses.
Two points:
I have read over the years in reports from professional traffic consultants that industrial and office uses generally produce about the same amount of traffic as residential uses. Each residential unit produces about 11 car trips a day. I have no reason to believe that this wouldn’t be true in a conventional peripheral site like the Cannery.
We can always work on density and performance standards for a business park to assure that traffic would be equal to or less than that generated from a housing development.
2) Again, the consultant did NOT say that a business park would be take a particularly long time for build-out. He said that strict high-tech only zoning could take some time for complete build-out. But, our current zoning allows many other uses with conditional use permits, and we can stream-line the process for constructive uses. There is a need for land in the community for uses such as Churches, private sports uses such as our in-line hockey rink, wholesalers, showrooms, etc.
We have little land available for the non-retail, non-residential uses that make a well-rounded community and a well-rounded economy, and the old cannery site is already zoned to accommodate many of these uses.
Two points:
I have read over the years in reports from professional traffic consultants that industrial and office uses generally produce about the same amount of traffic as residential uses. Each residential unit produces about 11 car trips a day. I have no reason to believe that this wouldn’t be true in a conventional peripheral site like the Cannery.
We can always work on density and performance standards for a business park to assure that traffic would be equal to or less than that generated from a housing development.
2) Again, the consultant did NOT say that a business park would be take a particularly long time for build-out. He said that strict high-tech only zoning could take some time for complete build-out. But, our current zoning allows many other uses with conditional use permits, and we can stream-line the process for constructive uses. There is a need for land in the community for uses such as Churches, private sports uses such as our in-line hockey rink, wholesalers, showrooms, etc.
We have little land available for the non-retail, non-residential uses that make a well-rounded community and a well-rounded economy, and the old cannery site is already zoned to accommodate many of these uses.
DPD, I agree with your concerns about this site and about adding more housing, especially housing that is not innovative, or extra green, but rather just more of the same old-same old.
Your point about San Luis Obispo is well taken, but in addition to differences in geography, etc. SLO is the urban center or anchor for many smaller surrounding communities. Davis is not, and never will be. We are too close to Sacramento, and Vacaville and Woodland provide all the ‘big box’ options needed. If we could attract some high tech or light manufacturing to the site, we would all benefit.
DPD, I agree with your concerns about this site and about adding more housing, especially housing that is not innovative, or extra green, but rather just more of the same old-same old.
Your point about San Luis Obispo is well taken, but in addition to differences in geography, etc. SLO is the urban center or anchor for many smaller surrounding communities. Davis is not, and never will be. We are too close to Sacramento, and Vacaville and Woodland provide all the ‘big box’ options needed. If we could attract some high tech or light manufacturing to the site, we would all benefit.
DPD, I agree with your concerns about this site and about adding more housing, especially housing that is not innovative, or extra green, but rather just more of the same old-same old.
Your point about San Luis Obispo is well taken, but in addition to differences in geography, etc. SLO is the urban center or anchor for many smaller surrounding communities. Davis is not, and never will be. We are too close to Sacramento, and Vacaville and Woodland provide all the ‘big box’ options needed. If we could attract some high tech or light manufacturing to the site, we would all benefit.
DPD, I agree with your concerns about this site and about adding more housing, especially housing that is not innovative, or extra green, but rather just more of the same old-same old.
Your point about San Luis Obispo is well taken, but in addition to differences in geography, etc. SLO is the urban center or anchor for many smaller surrounding communities. Davis is not, and never will be. We are too close to Sacramento, and Vacaville and Woodland provide all the ‘big box’ options needed. If we could attract some high tech or light manufacturing to the site, we would all benefit.
Good point Christine, certainly not advocating for big-box development.
Good point Christine, certainly not advocating for big-box development.
Good point Christine, certainly not advocating for big-box development.
Good point Christine, certainly not advocating for big-box development.
Where is the need in Davis for new housing? Certainly not among seniors. There are numbers of houses for sale in Davis at present. Dixon and Woodland are begging for customers and at more affordable prices. So why the rush to development of any kind on the Hunt property? Is the notion “build it and they will come” the guiding standard? Leave the property be. Do nothing. Conentrate on solving other community problems. I urge the city council to table this issue indefinitely.
Where is the need in Davis for new housing? Certainly not among seniors. There are numbers of houses for sale in Davis at present. Dixon and Woodland are begging for customers and at more affordable prices. So why the rush to development of any kind on the Hunt property? Is the notion “build it and they will come” the guiding standard? Leave the property be. Do nothing. Conentrate on solving other community problems. I urge the city council to table this issue indefinitely.
Where is the need in Davis for new housing? Certainly not among seniors. There are numbers of houses for sale in Davis at present. Dixon and Woodland are begging for customers and at more affordable prices. So why the rush to development of any kind on the Hunt property? Is the notion “build it and they will come” the guiding standard? Leave the property be. Do nothing. Conentrate on solving other community problems. I urge the city council to table this issue indefinitely.
Where is the need in Davis for new housing? Certainly not among seniors. There are numbers of houses for sale in Davis at present. Dixon and Woodland are begging for customers and at more affordable prices. So why the rush to development of any kind on the Hunt property? Is the notion “build it and they will come” the guiding standard? Leave the property be. Do nothing. Conentrate on solving other community problems. I urge the city council to table this issue indefinitely.
I agree with Dick Livingston: table the zoning change.
I urge the CC to instead require a study of the feasability and cost of private/public financing to put in the R & D park infrastructure, and then pay back the public funds with sale fees on the lots, and something like a "commercial Mello-Roos" levy. I personally dont know much about public financing of these kinds of large improvements as a means of jump starting commercial activity, but I feel like a few days of research by staff would result in some interesting proposals.
Why is is so unfair to require Lewis Homes to perform such a study? They want RESIDENTIAL. They make TONS more money on residential than commercial projects. So it is a very unfair use of governmental power to require them to study their residential project out of existance. The City Council's prior direction to LH to study commercial options was a conflicted and doomed endeavor from the start. Of course LH found that commercial was not feasible ….
Leave the parcel alone. In a few years, implement a public-private financing tool to get the infrastructure in for R & D. In the meantime, ride out this recession.
I agree with Dick Livingston: table the zoning change.
I urge the CC to instead require a study of the feasability and cost of private/public financing to put in the R & D park infrastructure, and then pay back the public funds with sale fees on the lots, and something like a "commercial Mello-Roos" levy. I personally dont know much about public financing of these kinds of large improvements as a means of jump starting commercial activity, but I feel like a few days of research by staff would result in some interesting proposals.
Why is is so unfair to require Lewis Homes to perform such a study? They want RESIDENTIAL. They make TONS more money on residential than commercial projects. So it is a very unfair use of governmental power to require them to study their residential project out of existance. The City Council's prior direction to LH to study commercial options was a conflicted and doomed endeavor from the start. Of course LH found that commercial was not feasible ….
Leave the parcel alone. In a few years, implement a public-private financing tool to get the infrastructure in for R & D. In the meantime, ride out this recession.
I agree with Dick Livingston: table the zoning change.
I urge the CC to instead require a study of the feasability and cost of private/public financing to put in the R & D park infrastructure, and then pay back the public funds with sale fees on the lots, and something like a "commercial Mello-Roos" levy. I personally dont know much about public financing of these kinds of large improvements as a means of jump starting commercial activity, but I feel like a few days of research by staff would result in some interesting proposals.
Why is is so unfair to require Lewis Homes to perform such a study? They want RESIDENTIAL. They make TONS more money on residential than commercial projects. So it is a very unfair use of governmental power to require them to study their residential project out of existance. The City Council's prior direction to LH to study commercial options was a conflicted and doomed endeavor from the start. Of course LH found that commercial was not feasible ….
Leave the parcel alone. In a few years, implement a public-private financing tool to get the infrastructure in for R & D. In the meantime, ride out this recession.
I agree with Dick Livingston: table the zoning change.
I urge the CC to instead require a study of the feasability and cost of private/public financing to put in the R & D park infrastructure, and then pay back the public funds with sale fees on the lots, and something like a "commercial Mello-Roos" levy. I personally dont know much about public financing of these kinds of large improvements as a means of jump starting commercial activity, but I feel like a few days of research by staff would result in some interesting proposals.
Why is is so unfair to require Lewis Homes to perform such a study? They want RESIDENTIAL. They make TONS more money on residential than commercial projects. So it is a very unfair use of governmental power to require them to study their residential project out of existance. The City Council's prior direction to LH to study commercial options was a conflicted and doomed endeavor from the start. Of course LH found that commercial was not feasible ….
Leave the parcel alone. In a few years, implement a public-private financing tool to get the infrastructure in for R & D. In the meantime, ride out this recession.
One more thing: Measure J is a good planning tool for any major project.
The CC should require upfront that any major project be submitted to a Measure J vote.
One more thing: Measure J is a good planning tool for any major project.
The CC should require upfront that any major project be submitted to a Measure J vote.
One more thing: Measure J is a good planning tool for any major project.
The CC should require upfront that any major project be submitted to a Measure J vote.
One more thing: Measure J is a good planning tool for any major project.
The CC should require upfront that any major project be submitted to a Measure J vote.
To Richard Livingston. I am a 26-year-old born-and-raised Davisite. New affordable housing needs to be built for folks like me who WANT to live here in the long term but cant because there are few affordable options.
It’s easy for you to say we don’t need housing because you already have a home.
Sir, open your eyes and see that there are plenty of young people who DO want more housing options in Davis. That CAN be done without changing the character of Davis.
If Cannery Park can bring that to the table and have a relatively small effect on the city (which it would – if you think a high tech business park would be much better you are kidding yourself), then I support it.
To Richard Livingston. I am a 26-year-old born-and-raised Davisite. New affordable housing needs to be built for folks like me who WANT to live here in the long term but cant because there are few affordable options.
It’s easy for you to say we don’t need housing because you already have a home.
Sir, open your eyes and see that there are plenty of young people who DO want more housing options in Davis. That CAN be done without changing the character of Davis.
If Cannery Park can bring that to the table and have a relatively small effect on the city (which it would – if you think a high tech business park would be much better you are kidding yourself), then I support it.
To Richard Livingston. I am a 26-year-old born-and-raised Davisite. New affordable housing needs to be built for folks like me who WANT to live here in the long term but cant because there are few affordable options.
It’s easy for you to say we don’t need housing because you already have a home.
Sir, open your eyes and see that there are plenty of young people who DO want more housing options in Davis. That CAN be done without changing the character of Davis.
If Cannery Park can bring that to the table and have a relatively small effect on the city (which it would – if you think a high tech business park would be much better you are kidding yourself), then I support it.
To Richard Livingston. I am a 26-year-old born-and-raised Davisite. New affordable housing needs to be built for folks like me who WANT to live here in the long term but cant because there are few affordable options.
It’s easy for you to say we don’t need housing because you already have a home.
Sir, open your eyes and see that there are plenty of young people who DO want more housing options in Davis. That CAN be done without changing the character of Davis.
If Cannery Park can bring that to the table and have a relatively small effect on the city (which it would – if you think a high tech business park would be much better you are kidding yourself), then I support it.
An excellent letter was published in the Davis Enterprise today:
“Reopen Cannery Site Discussion”
“Sue Greenwald’s op-ed piece Sunday (Davis Enterprise, 11-30-08) regarding land use of the cannery site educated me to the very important and interesting issues involved in the fate of this parcel of land. Despite an abundance of “hoopla” in the past few years, I had not noticed any substantive discussion that focused on history and facts (e.g., tax formulas, past and future) and choices (e.g., locations for industry and housing). The issue, it seemed to me, was always the simplistic one of growth vs. no growth.
So, did the substantive issues escape the general Davis community or was it only I who was especially unaware? The latter case is of no civic importance. If the former holds, then we should reopen a community-wide discussion of this land use and, this time, with intelligent discussions.
A further reason to reopen a public discussion of land use is, as Greenwald notes, we have the new developments of real estate housing slowdown and a likely prospect that the new federal administration will support and encourage green technologies.
The times are a-changing (again) and we need to revisit the issue of the Hunt-Wesson cannery parcel. I hope the Davis City Council will not come to a premature decision when the issue comes to a vote at tonight’s council meeting.”
Mary M. Zhu
Davis
An excellent letter was published in the Davis Enterprise today:
“Reopen Cannery Site Discussion”
“Sue Greenwald’s op-ed piece Sunday (Davis Enterprise, 11-30-08) regarding land use of the cannery site educated me to the very important and interesting issues involved in the fate of this parcel of land. Despite an abundance of “hoopla” in the past few years, I had not noticed any substantive discussion that focused on history and facts (e.g., tax formulas, past and future) and choices (e.g., locations for industry and housing). The issue, it seemed to me, was always the simplistic one of growth vs. no growth.
So, did the substantive issues escape the general Davis community or was it only I who was especially unaware? The latter case is of no civic importance. If the former holds, then we should reopen a community-wide discussion of this land use and, this time, with intelligent discussions.
A further reason to reopen a public discussion of land use is, as Greenwald notes, we have the new developments of real estate housing slowdown and a likely prospect that the new federal administration will support and encourage green technologies.
The times are a-changing (again) and we need to revisit the issue of the Hunt-Wesson cannery parcel. I hope the Davis City Council will not come to a premature decision when the issue comes to a vote at tonight’s council meeting.”
Mary M. Zhu
Davis
An excellent letter was published in the Davis Enterprise today:
“Reopen Cannery Site Discussion”
“Sue Greenwald’s op-ed piece Sunday (Davis Enterprise, 11-30-08) regarding land use of the cannery site educated me to the very important and interesting issues involved in the fate of this parcel of land. Despite an abundance of “hoopla” in the past few years, I had not noticed any substantive discussion that focused on history and facts (e.g., tax formulas, past and future) and choices (e.g., locations for industry and housing). The issue, it seemed to me, was always the simplistic one of growth vs. no growth.
So, did the substantive issues escape the general Davis community or was it only I who was especially unaware? The latter case is of no civic importance. If the former holds, then we should reopen a community-wide discussion of this land use and, this time, with intelligent discussions.
A further reason to reopen a public discussion of land use is, as Greenwald notes, we have the new developments of real estate housing slowdown and a likely prospect that the new federal administration will support and encourage green technologies.
The times are a-changing (again) and we need to revisit the issue of the Hunt-Wesson cannery parcel. I hope the Davis City Council will not come to a premature decision when the issue comes to a vote at tonight’s council meeting.”
Mary M. Zhu
Davis
An excellent letter was published in the Davis Enterprise today:
“Reopen Cannery Site Discussion”
“Sue Greenwald’s op-ed piece Sunday (Davis Enterprise, 11-30-08) regarding land use of the cannery site educated me to the very important and interesting issues involved in the fate of this parcel of land. Despite an abundance of “hoopla” in the past few years, I had not noticed any substantive discussion that focused on history and facts (e.g., tax formulas, past and future) and choices (e.g., locations for industry and housing). The issue, it seemed to me, was always the simplistic one of growth vs. no growth.
So, did the substantive issues escape the general Davis community or was it only I who was especially unaware? The latter case is of no civic importance. If the former holds, then we should reopen a community-wide discussion of this land use and, this time, with intelligent discussions.
A further reason to reopen a public discussion of land use is, as Greenwald notes, we have the new developments of real estate housing slowdown and a likely prospect that the new federal administration will support and encourage green technologies.
The times are a-changing (again) and we need to revisit the issue of the Hunt-Wesson cannery parcel. I hope the Davis City Council will not come to a premature decision when the issue comes to a vote at tonight’s council meeting.”
Mary M. Zhu
Davis
I have participated in the public outreach process and I can honestly say that I like the Cannery Park proposal. Attending these meetings I saw the public suggestions and recommendations integrated into the plan progressively. This plan makes a lot more sense than a huge one hundred acre business park in that location. I am shocked at the staff recommendation and frankly I can not say I trust them, nor their judgment. We need to move forward with the mixed-use proposal that has been before the public for the last few years which is a much better approach to “all or nothing”.
I have participated in the public outreach process and I can honestly say that I like the Cannery Park proposal. Attending these meetings I saw the public suggestions and recommendations integrated into the plan progressively. This plan makes a lot more sense than a huge one hundred acre business park in that location. I am shocked at the staff recommendation and frankly I can not say I trust them, nor their judgment. We need to move forward with the mixed-use proposal that has been before the public for the last few years which is a much better approach to “all or nothing”.
I have participated in the public outreach process and I can honestly say that I like the Cannery Park proposal. Attending these meetings I saw the public suggestions and recommendations integrated into the plan progressively. This plan makes a lot more sense than a huge one hundred acre business park in that location. I am shocked at the staff recommendation and frankly I can not say I trust them, nor their judgment. We need to move forward with the mixed-use proposal that has been before the public for the last few years which is a much better approach to “all or nothing”.
I have participated in the public outreach process and I can honestly say that I like the Cannery Park proposal. Attending these meetings I saw the public suggestions and recommendations integrated into the plan progressively. This plan makes a lot more sense than a huge one hundred acre business park in that location. I am shocked at the staff recommendation and frankly I can not say I trust them, nor their judgment. We need to move forward with the mixed-use proposal that has been before the public for the last few years which is a much better approach to “all or nothing”.
I agree with GJB. There is a need for more affordable housing as well as more apartments (2% vacancy rate, come on!) So many students live in Sacramento and Woodland. I’m sure they would live in Davis, and spend their money in Davis, if the housing were there. I do not think West Village is going to be enough. That doesn’t mean I necessarily support housing on the Cannery but I don’t think it should be completely off the table.
I agree with GJB. There is a need for more affordable housing as well as more apartments (2% vacancy rate, come on!) So many students live in Sacramento and Woodland. I’m sure they would live in Davis, and spend their money in Davis, if the housing were there. I do not think West Village is going to be enough. That doesn’t mean I necessarily support housing on the Cannery but I don’t think it should be completely off the table.
I agree with GJB. There is a need for more affordable housing as well as more apartments (2% vacancy rate, come on!) So many students live in Sacramento and Woodland. I’m sure they would live in Davis, and spend their money in Davis, if the housing were there. I do not think West Village is going to be enough. That doesn’t mean I necessarily support housing on the Cannery but I don’t think it should be completely off the table.
I agree with GJB. There is a need for more affordable housing as well as more apartments (2% vacancy rate, come on!) So many students live in Sacramento and Woodland. I’m sure they would live in Davis, and spend their money in Davis, if the housing were there. I do not think West Village is going to be enough. That doesn’t mean I necessarily support housing on the Cannery but I don’t think it should be completely off the table.
I am disappointed to see Mike Harrington’s mean-spirited and totally untrue accusations posted. I advocate for good planning and the causes I believe in. Quite the contrary to his comments, it costs me time and usually expense in my efforts to advocate for good planning for Davis. Apparently, Mike also does not wish to acknowledge the responses that I have posted in the past on the Hunt Wesson site issue. The Vanguard should have a policy that if you write personal attacks and can not stick to the issues, then your comments should not be posted.
On the Hunt Wesson site, I have been consistent with the No on Measure X campaign, as our campaign steering committee agreed, and was printed in our literature:
”Better Alternatives: There are sites already within the City that can be developed, such as the neighboring 100-acre Hunt-Wesson site and the P,G and E site in downtown Davis, that could be developed rather than adding a new, peripheral sub-division.” So quite the contrary, the Cannery park proposal is by no means a gateway to Covell Village. Also contrary to his insinuations about the stubbed roads to, and the potential road across Covell Village, it was Staff who demanded that these concepts be included in the proposal. Meanwhile, Staff had been was told by the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee to NOT link the Cannery Park project with Covell Village (due to Measure J issues amongst other reasons). But, clearly Emlen has ignored that directive and is using the guise of “master planning”. An EIR would help access if such a road was needed or not.
The site has been vacant for over eight years with high-tech zoning in place. Yet, there has been no interest. The 100-acre high tech park is not viable as was made clear by the commercial viability study whether it is green or other wise. A huge 100-acre business park would bring so much more truck traffic and actually more traffic than a mixed use. Given the fatality that happened at Covell Road and Pole line just a few years ago of the semi-truck tragically killing the UCD student, we should not be inviting a large amount of truck traffic into the neighborhoods. Dumping a huge 100-acre business park in the middle of neighborhoods is not good planning. The reality is that this situation is not a choice of green tech or none.
The fact that we have 73 net acres (even more land when calculating it as gross acres ) already zoned within the city for business park (including green tech) is an enormous amount of land which would yield hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial. Adding the 20 acres proposed in the Cannery Park proposal, there would be 93 net acres. There was direction from Council for this mixed use process to move forward and as a result there has been two years of public outreach by these to help design a mixed use project that the public would want. Staff has refused to participate in that public process and instead has worked against the recommendations of the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee (GPHE), the Business and Economic Commission, and now the Planning Commission.
It makes far more sense to use the Hunt Wesson site for mixed-use and have the “best of two worlds” of some workforce housing and some office/business park. The Cannery Park proposal designed by the community offers that opportunity. The bottom line is that we can have the green technology as well as a mixed-use project that the community has helped design since we would have 93 acres of land zoned within the city for the commercial.
I am disappointed to see Mike Harrington’s mean-spirited and totally untrue accusations posted. I advocate for good planning and the causes I believe in. Quite the contrary to his comments, it costs me time and usually expense in my efforts to advocate for good planning for Davis. Apparently, Mike also does not wish to acknowledge the responses that I have posted in the past on the Hunt Wesson site issue. The Vanguard should have a policy that if you write personal attacks and can not stick to the issues, then your comments should not be posted.
On the Hunt Wesson site, I have been consistent with the No on Measure X campaign, as our campaign steering committee agreed, and was printed in our literature:
”Better Alternatives: There are sites already within the City that can be developed, such as the neighboring 100-acre Hunt-Wesson site and the P,G and E site in downtown Davis, that could be developed rather than adding a new, peripheral sub-division.” So quite the contrary, the Cannery park proposal is by no means a gateway to Covell Village. Also contrary to his insinuations about the stubbed roads to, and the potential road across Covell Village, it was Staff who demanded that these concepts be included in the proposal. Meanwhile, Staff had been was told by the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee to NOT link the Cannery Park project with Covell Village (due to Measure J issues amongst other reasons). But, clearly Emlen has ignored that directive and is using the guise of “master planning”. An EIR would help access if such a road was needed or not.
The site has been vacant for over eight years with high-tech zoning in place. Yet, there has been no interest. The 100-acre high tech park is not viable as was made clear by the commercial viability study whether it is green or other wise. A huge 100-acre business park would bring so much more truck traffic and actually more traffic than a mixed use. Given the fatality that happened at Covell Road and Pole line just a few years ago of the semi-truck tragically killing the UCD student, we should not be inviting a large amount of truck traffic into the neighborhoods. Dumping a huge 100-acre business park in the middle of neighborhoods is not good planning. The reality is that this situation is not a choice of green tech or none.
The fact that we have 73 net acres (even more land when calculating it as gross acres ) already zoned within the city for business park (including green tech) is an enormous amount of land which would yield hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial. Adding the 20 acres proposed in the Cannery Park proposal, there would be 93 net acres. There was direction from Council for this mixed use process to move forward and as a result there has been two years of public outreach by these to help design a mixed use project that the public would want. Staff has refused to participate in that public process and instead has worked against the recommendations of the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee (GPHE), the Business and Economic Commission, and now the Planning Commission.
It makes far more sense to use the Hunt Wesson site for mixed-use and have the “best of two worlds” of some workforce housing and some office/business park. The Cannery Park proposal designed by the community offers that opportunity. The bottom line is that we can have the green technology as well as a mixed-use project that the community has helped design since we would have 93 acres of land zoned within the city for the commercial.
I am disappointed to see Mike Harrington’s mean-spirited and totally untrue accusations posted. I advocate for good planning and the causes I believe in. Quite the contrary to his comments, it costs me time and usually expense in my efforts to advocate for good planning for Davis. Apparently, Mike also does not wish to acknowledge the responses that I have posted in the past on the Hunt Wesson site issue. The Vanguard should have a policy that if you write personal attacks and can not stick to the issues, then your comments should not be posted.
On the Hunt Wesson site, I have been consistent with the No on Measure X campaign, as our campaign steering committee agreed, and was printed in our literature:
”Better Alternatives: There are sites already within the City that can be developed, such as the neighboring 100-acre Hunt-Wesson site and the P,G and E site in downtown Davis, that could be developed rather than adding a new, peripheral sub-division.” So quite the contrary, the Cannery park proposal is by no means a gateway to Covell Village. Also contrary to his insinuations about the stubbed roads to, and the potential road across Covell Village, it was Staff who demanded that these concepts be included in the proposal. Meanwhile, Staff had been was told by the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee to NOT link the Cannery Park project with Covell Village (due to Measure J issues amongst other reasons). But, clearly Emlen has ignored that directive and is using the guise of “master planning”. An EIR would help access if such a road was needed or not.
The site has been vacant for over eight years with high-tech zoning in place. Yet, there has been no interest. The 100-acre high tech park is not viable as was made clear by the commercial viability study whether it is green or other wise. A huge 100-acre business park would bring so much more truck traffic and actually more traffic than a mixed use. Given the fatality that happened at Covell Road and Pole line just a few years ago of the semi-truck tragically killing the UCD student, we should not be inviting a large amount of truck traffic into the neighborhoods. Dumping a huge 100-acre business park in the middle of neighborhoods is not good planning. The reality is that this situation is not a choice of green tech or none.
The fact that we have 73 net acres (even more land when calculating it as gross acres ) already zoned within the city for business park (including green tech) is an enormous amount of land which would yield hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial. Adding the 20 acres proposed in the Cannery Park proposal, there would be 93 net acres. There was direction from Council for this mixed use process to move forward and as a result there has been two years of public outreach by these to help design a mixed use project that the public would want. Staff has refused to participate in that public process and instead has worked against the recommendations of the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee (GPHE), the Business and Economic Commission, and now the Planning Commission.
It makes far more sense to use the Hunt Wesson site for mixed-use and have the “best of two worlds” of some workforce housing and some office/business park. The Cannery Park proposal designed by the community offers that opportunity. The bottom line is that we can have the green technology as well as a mixed-use project that the community has helped design since we would have 93 acres of land zoned within the city for the commercial.
I am disappointed to see Mike Harrington’s mean-spirited and totally untrue accusations posted. I advocate for good planning and the causes I believe in. Quite the contrary to his comments, it costs me time and usually expense in my efforts to advocate for good planning for Davis. Apparently, Mike also does not wish to acknowledge the responses that I have posted in the past on the Hunt Wesson site issue. The Vanguard should have a policy that if you write personal attacks and can not stick to the issues, then your comments should not be posted.
On the Hunt Wesson site, I have been consistent with the No on Measure X campaign, as our campaign steering committee agreed, and was printed in our literature:
”Better Alternatives: There are sites already within the City that can be developed, such as the neighboring 100-acre Hunt-Wesson site and the P,G and E site in downtown Davis, that could be developed rather than adding a new, peripheral sub-division.” So quite the contrary, the Cannery park proposal is by no means a gateway to Covell Village. Also contrary to his insinuations about the stubbed roads to, and the potential road across Covell Village, it was Staff who demanded that these concepts be included in the proposal. Meanwhile, Staff had been was told by the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee to NOT link the Cannery Park project with Covell Village (due to Measure J issues amongst other reasons). But, clearly Emlen has ignored that directive and is using the guise of “master planning”. An EIR would help access if such a road was needed or not.
The site has been vacant for over eight years with high-tech zoning in place. Yet, there has been no interest. The 100-acre high tech park is not viable as was made clear by the commercial viability study whether it is green or other wise. A huge 100-acre business park would bring so much more truck traffic and actually more traffic than a mixed use. Given the fatality that happened at Covell Road and Pole line just a few years ago of the semi-truck tragically killing the UCD student, we should not be inviting a large amount of truck traffic into the neighborhoods. Dumping a huge 100-acre business park in the middle of neighborhoods is not good planning. The reality is that this situation is not a choice of green tech or none.
The fact that we have 73 net acres (even more land when calculating it as gross acres ) already zoned within the city for business park (including green tech) is an enormous amount of land which would yield hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial. Adding the 20 acres proposed in the Cannery Park proposal, there would be 93 net acres. There was direction from Council for this mixed use process to move forward and as a result there has been two years of public outreach by these to help design a mixed use project that the public would want. Staff has refused to participate in that public process and instead has worked against the recommendations of the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee (GPHE), the Business and Economic Commission, and now the Planning Commission.
It makes far more sense to use the Hunt Wesson site for mixed-use and have the “best of two worlds” of some workforce housing and some office/business park. The Cannery Park proposal designed by the community offers that opportunity. The bottom line is that we can have the green technology as well as a mixed-use project that the community has helped design since we would have 93 acres of land zoned within the city for the commercial.
“…open your eyes and see that there are plenty of young people who DO want more housing options in Davis. That CAN be done without changing the character of Davis.” says a 26 year old born-and-raised Davisite.
The kind of housing being built now as infill is completely altering the character of Davis. It is being remade from the ground up into a bedroom community servicing big nearby cities with workers. The pre-fab housing being built for the bedroom people are not designed to last. The motivation for the planned obsolescense? Profits, Profits, Profits for builders, developers and politicians. The Davis community is being scattered to the winds to make sure profits are made for out-of-town non-resident landlords and speculators. That’s why they want to build at the old tomato cannery. Not to better the lives of ordinary people.
“…open your eyes and see that there are plenty of young people who DO want more housing options in Davis. That CAN be done without changing the character of Davis.” says a 26 year old born-and-raised Davisite.
The kind of housing being built now as infill is completely altering the character of Davis. It is being remade from the ground up into a bedroom community servicing big nearby cities with workers. The pre-fab housing being built for the bedroom people are not designed to last. The motivation for the planned obsolescense? Profits, Profits, Profits for builders, developers and politicians. The Davis community is being scattered to the winds to make sure profits are made for out-of-town non-resident landlords and speculators. That’s why they want to build at the old tomato cannery. Not to better the lives of ordinary people.
“…open your eyes and see that there are plenty of young people who DO want more housing options in Davis. That CAN be done without changing the character of Davis.” says a 26 year old born-and-raised Davisite.
The kind of housing being built now as infill is completely altering the character of Davis. It is being remade from the ground up into a bedroom community servicing big nearby cities with workers. The pre-fab housing being built for the bedroom people are not designed to last. The motivation for the planned obsolescense? Profits, Profits, Profits for builders, developers and politicians. The Davis community is being scattered to the winds to make sure profits are made for out-of-town non-resident landlords and speculators. That’s why they want to build at the old tomato cannery. Not to better the lives of ordinary people.
“…open your eyes and see that there are plenty of young people who DO want more housing options in Davis. That CAN be done without changing the character of Davis.” says a 26 year old born-and-raised Davisite.
The kind of housing being built now as infill is completely altering the character of Davis. It is being remade from the ground up into a bedroom community servicing big nearby cities with workers. The pre-fab housing being built for the bedroom people are not designed to last. The motivation for the planned obsolescense? Profits, Profits, Profits for builders, developers and politicians. The Davis community is being scattered to the winds to make sure profits are made for out-of-town non-resident landlords and speculators. That’s why they want to build at the old tomato cannery. Not to better the lives of ordinary people.
“The pre-fab housing being built for the bedroom people are not designed to last.”
What does that mean? What is an example of it in Davis?
“The pre-fab housing being built for the bedroom people are not designed to last.”
What does that mean? What is an example of it in Davis?
“The pre-fab housing being built for the bedroom people are not designed to last.”
What does that mean? What is an example of it in Davis?
“The pre-fab housing being built for the bedroom people are not designed to last.”
What does that mean? What is an example of it in Davis?
“The pre-fab housing being built for the bedroom people are not designed to last.”
I don’t understand why infill housing is “designed for the bedroom people.” If it’s located centrally, wouldn’t that appeal more to Davis downtown or university employees rather than people who work in Sacramento or Vacaville? I would think it’s Mace Ranch, eastern South Davis or West Davis which have more “bedroom people.”
“The pre-fab housing being built for the bedroom people are not designed to last.”
I don’t understand why infill housing is “designed for the bedroom people.” If it’s located centrally, wouldn’t that appeal more to Davis downtown or university employees rather than people who work in Sacramento or Vacaville? I would think it’s Mace Ranch, eastern South Davis or West Davis which have more “bedroom people.”
“The pre-fab housing being built for the bedroom people are not designed to last.”
I don’t understand why infill housing is “designed for the bedroom people.” If it’s located centrally, wouldn’t that appeal more to Davis downtown or university employees rather than people who work in Sacramento or Vacaville? I would think it’s Mace Ranch, eastern South Davis or West Davis which have more “bedroom people.”
“The pre-fab housing being built for the bedroom people are not designed to last.”
I don’t understand why infill housing is “designed for the bedroom people.” If it’s located centrally, wouldn’t that appeal more to Davis downtown or university employees rather than people who work in Sacramento or Vacaville? I would think it’s Mace Ranch, eastern South Davis or West Davis which have more “bedroom people.”
I agree that we need more housing in Davis. It’s always the people who already live here that whine the most about no new development. If it was left up to them, this place would resemble a ratty deconstruction of the Truman Show (a place where nothing is allowed to change).
First Davis needs to get over it’s reputation in the business community before it can seriously think about attracting companies. Davisites can barely agree over a 2 SFR infill project and that’s after years of screaming matches. Phffftp! Can you imagine how a new business community would be treated here? Not sure what the actual demand is for industrial but knowing davisites, unless they are the Prefect Company, the locals will make any business miserable in short order and that would be especially true for even high tech.
And regardless of the anti-business environment, no company wants to move here because of the lack of affordable housing for their employees. Sadly, no one is able to come in and build for the low prices needed to make the project viable. We are at the beginning of a nasty deflationary recession and no one is going to put work or money into fixed assets until this phase is done. Davis really is at the bottom of the list for central valley for establishing a new venture or relocating a company to.
As to CRE vs RRE, the fees and taxes from CRE typically generate much more income for a city. The problem is there is already loads of CRE that has come online recently or is in the pipeline now. Too much is staying vacant. Ask Natomas how they are doing – they built so much CRE and the business parks are going bankrupt – and that’s a place that had so much more going for it as a business environment then here! Yes really.
So to summarize, when it comes to CRE devlopment on the Cannery site, that ship set several years ago while everyone was still fussing at each other. You reap what you sow folks.
And Mike, bad form attacking Eileen.
I agree that we need more housing in Davis. It’s always the people who already live here that whine the most about no new development. If it was left up to them, this place would resemble a ratty deconstruction of the Truman Show (a place where nothing is allowed to change).
First Davis needs to get over it’s reputation in the business community before it can seriously think about attracting companies. Davisites can barely agree over a 2 SFR infill project and that’s after years of screaming matches. Phffftp! Can you imagine how a new business community would be treated here? Not sure what the actual demand is for industrial but knowing davisites, unless they are the Prefect Company, the locals will make any business miserable in short order and that would be especially true for even high tech.
And regardless of the anti-business environment, no company wants to move here because of the lack of affordable housing for their employees. Sadly, no one is able to come in and build for the low prices needed to make the project viable. We are at the beginning of a nasty deflationary recession and no one is going to put work or money into fixed assets until this phase is done. Davis really is at the bottom of the list for central valley for establishing a new venture or relocating a company to.
As to CRE vs RRE, the fees and taxes from CRE typically generate much more income for a city. The problem is there is already loads of CRE that has come online recently or is in the pipeline now. Too much is staying vacant. Ask Natomas how they are doing – they built so much CRE and the business parks are going bankrupt – and that’s a place that had so much more going for it as a business environment then here! Yes really.
So to summarize, when it comes to CRE devlopment on the Cannery site, that ship set several years ago while everyone was still fussing at each other. You reap what you sow folks.
And Mike, bad form attacking Eileen.
I agree that we need more housing in Davis. It’s always the people who already live here that whine the most about no new development. If it was left up to them, this place would resemble a ratty deconstruction of the Truman Show (a place where nothing is allowed to change).
First Davis needs to get over it’s reputation in the business community before it can seriously think about attracting companies. Davisites can barely agree over a 2 SFR infill project and that’s after years of screaming matches. Phffftp! Can you imagine how a new business community would be treated here? Not sure what the actual demand is for industrial but knowing davisites, unless they are the Prefect Company, the locals will make any business miserable in short order and that would be especially true for even high tech.
And regardless of the anti-business environment, no company wants to move here because of the lack of affordable housing for their employees. Sadly, no one is able to come in and build for the low prices needed to make the project viable. We are at the beginning of a nasty deflationary recession and no one is going to put work or money into fixed assets until this phase is done. Davis really is at the bottom of the list for central valley for establishing a new venture or relocating a company to.
As to CRE vs RRE, the fees and taxes from CRE typically generate much more income for a city. The problem is there is already loads of CRE that has come online recently or is in the pipeline now. Too much is staying vacant. Ask Natomas how they are doing – they built so much CRE and the business parks are going bankrupt – and that’s a place that had so much more going for it as a business environment then here! Yes really.
So to summarize, when it comes to CRE devlopment on the Cannery site, that ship set several years ago while everyone was still fussing at each other. You reap what you sow folks.
And Mike, bad form attacking Eileen.
I agree that we need more housing in Davis. It’s always the people who already live here that whine the most about no new development. If it was left up to them, this place would resemble a ratty deconstruction of the Truman Show (a place where nothing is allowed to change).
First Davis needs to get over it’s reputation in the business community before it can seriously think about attracting companies. Davisites can barely agree over a 2 SFR infill project and that’s after years of screaming matches. Phffftp! Can you imagine how a new business community would be treated here? Not sure what the actual demand is for industrial but knowing davisites, unless they are the Prefect Company, the locals will make any business miserable in short order and that would be especially true for even high tech.
And regardless of the anti-business environment, no company wants to move here because of the lack of affordable housing for their employees. Sadly, no one is able to come in and build for the low prices needed to make the project viable. We are at the beginning of a nasty deflationary recession and no one is going to put work or money into fixed assets until this phase is done. Davis really is at the bottom of the list for central valley for establishing a new venture or relocating a company to.
As to CRE vs RRE, the fees and taxes from CRE typically generate much more income for a city. The problem is there is already loads of CRE that has come online recently or is in the pipeline now. Too much is staying vacant. Ask Natomas how they are doing – they built so much CRE and the business parks are going bankrupt – and that’s a place that had so much more going for it as a business environment then here! Yes really.
So to summarize, when it comes to CRE devlopment on the Cannery site, that ship set several years ago while everyone was still fussing at each other. You reap what you sow folks.
And Mike, bad form attacking Eileen.
If I were running a mid-size "high-tech" company, the Cannery site is the last place I would ever want to locate my company, or anywhere else in Davis for that matter. Remember, the 10-year vacant deserted lot is not just competing with other less-than-desirable lots in Davis, but with abundant cheaper and well-equipped locations along the highway including Dixon, West Sac, Vacaville, Sacramento, etc. Who in the right business mind would choose to pay the incredible premium for a site detatched from the major highways, the downtown, the university, is criminally distant from a fire station, serviced by outdated water treatment plants, and the list goes on, when there are much cheaper and business-friendly locales within a few minutes highway drive of the university (if that really is critical at all)? Do you really think "high tech" companies can afford to pay enough salaries to young workers to be afford a house in Davis? The recent "Target" debacle would also be a turn-off for any business with a workforce >10.
Davis CAN'T choose which business will come to the city and pay taxes. It's the other way around. Davis will never be able to attract a grocery store to the Westlake Plaza, let alone a high-profile "high-tech" company for which the clueless city council has been waiting for 10 years.
If I were running a mid-size "high-tech" company, the Cannery site is the last place I would ever want to locate my company, or anywhere else in Davis for that matter. Remember, the 10-year vacant deserted lot is not just competing with other less-than-desirable lots in Davis, but with abundant cheaper and well-equipped locations along the highway including Dixon, West Sac, Vacaville, Sacramento, etc. Who in the right business mind would choose to pay the incredible premium for a site detatched from the major highways, the downtown, the university, is criminally distant from a fire station, serviced by outdated water treatment plants, and the list goes on, when there are much cheaper and business-friendly locales within a few minutes highway drive of the university (if that really is critical at all)? Do you really think "high tech" companies can afford to pay enough salaries to young workers to be afford a house in Davis? The recent "Target" debacle would also be a turn-off for any business with a workforce >10.
Davis CAN'T choose which business will come to the city and pay taxes. It's the other way around. Davis will never be able to attract a grocery store to the Westlake Plaza, let alone a high-profile "high-tech" company for which the clueless city council has been waiting for 10 years.
If I were running a mid-size "high-tech" company, the Cannery site is the last place I would ever want to locate my company, or anywhere else in Davis for that matter. Remember, the 10-year vacant deserted lot is not just competing with other less-than-desirable lots in Davis, but with abundant cheaper and well-equipped locations along the highway including Dixon, West Sac, Vacaville, Sacramento, etc. Who in the right business mind would choose to pay the incredible premium for a site detatched from the major highways, the downtown, the university, is criminally distant from a fire station, serviced by outdated water treatment plants, and the list goes on, when there are much cheaper and business-friendly locales within a few minutes highway drive of the university (if that really is critical at all)? Do you really think "high tech" companies can afford to pay enough salaries to young workers to be afford a house in Davis? The recent "Target" debacle would also be a turn-off for any business with a workforce >10.
Davis CAN'T choose which business will come to the city and pay taxes. It's the other way around. Davis will never be able to attract a grocery store to the Westlake Plaza, let alone a high-profile "high-tech" company for which the clueless city council has been waiting for 10 years.
If I were running a mid-size "high-tech" company, the Cannery site is the last place I would ever want to locate my company, or anywhere else in Davis for that matter. Remember, the 10-year vacant deserted lot is not just competing with other less-than-desirable lots in Davis, but with abundant cheaper and well-equipped locations along the highway including Dixon, West Sac, Vacaville, Sacramento, etc. Who in the right business mind would choose to pay the incredible premium for a site detatched from the major highways, the downtown, the university, is criminally distant from a fire station, serviced by outdated water treatment plants, and the list goes on, when there are much cheaper and business-friendly locales within a few minutes highway drive of the university (if that really is critical at all)? Do you really think "high tech" companies can afford to pay enough salaries to young workers to be afford a house in Davis? The recent "Target" debacle would also be a turn-off for any business with a workforce >10.
Davis CAN'T choose which business will come to the city and pay taxes. It's the other way around. Davis will never be able to attract a grocery store to the Westlake Plaza, let alone a high-profile "high-tech" company for which the clueless city council has been waiting for 10 years.
Rob,
Re: shoddy planned obsolescence in infill building:
Check out the new construction around town, built of particle board, faulty gang nails, plywood, cheap, shoddy cement. Just for one example, the Boardwalk apt. complex, just north of 8th on H Street. It was completed 18 months ago and already cracks are appearing in the “stucco” facade. That building is going to fall like a house of cards in ten years or so. There are many more equally shoddy built in the last five years around the core area, take a walk, check ’em out.
The building inspectors in this town are in the pockets of developers, methinks.
A great example is the remodel job on the old high school, built in 1927, when the building trades still adhered to high quality standards in materials and craftsmanship. the remodel materials are chipping away and falling off right where they meet the 1927 brick, which still stands solid.
Rob,
Re: shoddy planned obsolescence in infill building:
Check out the new construction around town, built of particle board, faulty gang nails, plywood, cheap, shoddy cement. Just for one example, the Boardwalk apt. complex, just north of 8th on H Street. It was completed 18 months ago and already cracks are appearing in the “stucco” facade. That building is going to fall like a house of cards in ten years or so. There are many more equally shoddy built in the last five years around the core area, take a walk, check ’em out.
The building inspectors in this town are in the pockets of developers, methinks.
A great example is the remodel job on the old high school, built in 1927, when the building trades still adhered to high quality standards in materials and craftsmanship. the remodel materials are chipping away and falling off right where they meet the 1927 brick, which still stands solid.
Rob,
Re: shoddy planned obsolescence in infill building:
Check out the new construction around town, built of particle board, faulty gang nails, plywood, cheap, shoddy cement. Just for one example, the Boardwalk apt. complex, just north of 8th on H Street. It was completed 18 months ago and already cracks are appearing in the “stucco” facade. That building is going to fall like a house of cards in ten years or so. There are many more equally shoddy built in the last five years around the core area, take a walk, check ’em out.
The building inspectors in this town are in the pockets of developers, methinks.
A great example is the remodel job on the old high school, built in 1927, when the building trades still adhered to high quality standards in materials and craftsmanship. the remodel materials are chipping away and falling off right where they meet the 1927 brick, which still stands solid.
Rob,
Re: shoddy planned obsolescence in infill building:
Check out the new construction around town, built of particle board, faulty gang nails, plywood, cheap, shoddy cement. Just for one example, the Boardwalk apt. complex, just north of 8th on H Street. It was completed 18 months ago and already cracks are appearing in the “stucco” facade. That building is going to fall like a house of cards in ten years or so. There are many more equally shoddy built in the last five years around the core area, take a walk, check ’em out.
The building inspectors in this town are in the pockets of developers, methinks.
A great example is the remodel job on the old high school, built in 1927, when the building trades still adhered to high quality standards in materials and craftsmanship. the remodel materials are chipping away and falling off right where they meet the 1927 brick, which still stands solid.
To weight in on some of the posts above:
1)High-tech companies do want to locate in Davis. In fact, a great high-tech company just bought our last suitable parcel in the 4-5 acres range. I spoke with the company CEO and real-estate agent, and they said that although they wanted very much to locate in Davis, they almost had to locate in West Sac.
2)Although housing prices are high in Davis, they are lower than prices in most successful high-tech University cities. It is actually a recruiting plus that we have so much affordable housing within 10 or 15 minutes from Davis. There are no safe affordable neighborhoods anywhere near the high-tech centers of Palo Alto, San Diego, New York, Boston or San Francisco.
To weight in on some of the posts above:
1)High-tech companies do want to locate in Davis. In fact, a great high-tech company just bought our last suitable parcel in the 4-5 acres range. I spoke with the company CEO and real-estate agent, and they said that although they wanted very much to locate in Davis, they almost had to locate in West Sac.
2)Although housing prices are high in Davis, they are lower than prices in most successful high-tech University cities. It is actually a recruiting plus that we have so much affordable housing within 10 or 15 minutes from Davis. There are no safe affordable neighborhoods anywhere near the high-tech centers of Palo Alto, San Diego, New York, Boston or San Francisco.
To weight in on some of the posts above:
1)High-tech companies do want to locate in Davis. In fact, a great high-tech company just bought our last suitable parcel in the 4-5 acres range. I spoke with the company CEO and real-estate agent, and they said that although they wanted very much to locate in Davis, they almost had to locate in West Sac.
2)Although housing prices are high in Davis, they are lower than prices in most successful high-tech University cities. It is actually a recruiting plus that we have so much affordable housing within 10 or 15 minutes from Davis. There are no safe affordable neighborhoods anywhere near the high-tech centers of Palo Alto, San Diego, New York, Boston or San Francisco.
To weight in on some of the posts above:
1)High-tech companies do want to locate in Davis. In fact, a great high-tech company just bought our last suitable parcel in the 4-5 acres range. I spoke with the company CEO and real-estate agent, and they said that although they wanted very much to locate in Davis, they almost had to locate in West Sac.
2)Although housing prices are high in Davis, they are lower than prices in most successful high-tech University cities. It is actually a recruiting plus that we have so much affordable housing within 10 or 15 minutes from Davis. There are no safe affordable neighborhoods anywhere near the high-tech centers of Palo Alto, San Diego, New York, Boston or San Francisco.
Of course they are going to try to blow smoke up your virtual skirt. But here is the bigger issue:
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/11/microcosm-of-cre-in-new-york.html
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/11/silicon-valley-cre-slows.html
It’s happening all over, not just NY and the Silly Valley but they get the most press. The amount of empty CRE in SV is mind boggling, you really have to drive around there to get the big picture of how bad it is. Matter of fact, that would make an outstanding photo journalism project.
As the CRE declines, so do housing costs all over the region. Even the family house in Shallow Alto is down 23% so far. This was considered “impossible” last year.
The deals people are getting in cash-strapped districts are pretty good and will be much better next year.
And Davis does not equal the peninsula/SV, SF, SD (La Jolla and the surrounding area), or Boston – not even close!. You want to know where a lot of the big Bio-Tech companies are moving to? The St. Louis corridor and to a lesser extent, just outside of Atlanta. Another hot location for tech start ups is Lawrence KS (several of the big gaming tech companies have moved there) to get away from the costs of associated with impacted regions_and_ the cost of doing business in CA. That is the real competition.
Then we have the decline of the State of CA revenue and the fallout from that to consider but that’s a whole other essay.
Honestly Sue, this is a huge issue facing the entire state and if Davis wants to retain what interest it is getting, Davisites are going to have to become more accomodating towards development – any development. That means looking at the bigger picture and now whining every time little Tiffany or Blake might have to cross a busier street.
ps. before anyone calls me an evil republican – I was a green party member for 16 yrs. Just switched back to Dem for the primary.
Of course they are going to try to blow smoke up your virtual skirt. But here is the bigger issue:
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/11/microcosm-of-cre-in-new-york.html
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/11/silicon-valley-cre-slows.html
It’s happening all over, not just NY and the Silly Valley but they get the most press. The amount of empty CRE in SV is mind boggling, you really have to drive around there to get the big picture of how bad it is. Matter of fact, that would make an outstanding photo journalism project.
As the CRE declines, so do housing costs all over the region. Even the family house in Shallow Alto is down 23% so far. This was considered “impossible” last year.
The deals people are getting in cash-strapped districts are pretty good and will be much better next year.
And Davis does not equal the peninsula/SV, SF, SD (La Jolla and the surrounding area), or Boston – not even close!. You want to know where a lot of the big Bio-Tech companies are moving to? The St. Louis corridor and to a lesser extent, just outside of Atlanta. Another hot location for tech start ups is Lawrence KS (several of the big gaming tech companies have moved there) to get away from the costs of associated with impacted regions_and_ the cost of doing business in CA. That is the real competition.
Then we have the decline of the State of CA revenue and the fallout from that to consider but that’s a whole other essay.
Honestly Sue, this is a huge issue facing the entire state and if Davis wants to retain what interest it is getting, Davisites are going to have to become more accomodating towards development – any development. That means looking at the bigger picture and now whining every time little Tiffany or Blake might have to cross a busier street.
ps. before anyone calls me an evil republican – I was a green party member for 16 yrs. Just switched back to Dem for the primary.
Of course they are going to try to blow smoke up your virtual skirt. But here is the bigger issue:
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/11/microcosm-of-cre-in-new-york.html
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/11/silicon-valley-cre-slows.html
It’s happening all over, not just NY and the Silly Valley but they get the most press. The amount of empty CRE in SV is mind boggling, you really have to drive around there to get the big picture of how bad it is. Matter of fact, that would make an outstanding photo journalism project.
As the CRE declines, so do housing costs all over the region. Even the family house in Shallow Alto is down 23% so far. This was considered “impossible” last year.
The deals people are getting in cash-strapped districts are pretty good and will be much better next year.
And Davis does not equal the peninsula/SV, SF, SD (La Jolla and the surrounding area), or Boston – not even close!. You want to know where a lot of the big Bio-Tech companies are moving to? The St. Louis corridor and to a lesser extent, just outside of Atlanta. Another hot location for tech start ups is Lawrence KS (several of the big gaming tech companies have moved there) to get away from the costs of associated with impacted regions_and_ the cost of doing business in CA. That is the real competition.
Then we have the decline of the State of CA revenue and the fallout from that to consider but that’s a whole other essay.
Honestly Sue, this is a huge issue facing the entire state and if Davis wants to retain what interest it is getting, Davisites are going to have to become more accomodating towards development – any development. That means looking at the bigger picture and now whining every time little Tiffany or Blake might have to cross a busier street.
ps. before anyone calls me an evil republican – I was a green party member for 16 yrs. Just switched back to Dem for the primary.
Of course they are going to try to blow smoke up your virtual skirt. But here is the bigger issue:
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/11/microcosm-of-cre-in-new-york.html
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/11/silicon-valley-cre-slows.html
It’s happening all over, not just NY and the Silly Valley but they get the most press. The amount of empty CRE in SV is mind boggling, you really have to drive around there to get the big picture of how bad it is. Matter of fact, that would make an outstanding photo journalism project.
As the CRE declines, so do housing costs all over the region. Even the family house in Shallow Alto is down 23% so far. This was considered “impossible” last year.
The deals people are getting in cash-strapped districts are pretty good and will be much better next year.
And Davis does not equal the peninsula/SV, SF, SD (La Jolla and the surrounding area), or Boston – not even close!. You want to know where a lot of the big Bio-Tech companies are moving to? The St. Louis corridor and to a lesser extent, just outside of Atlanta. Another hot location for tech start ups is Lawrence KS (several of the big gaming tech companies have moved there) to get away from the costs of associated with impacted regions_and_ the cost of doing business in CA. That is the real competition.
Then we have the decline of the State of CA revenue and the fallout from that to consider but that’s a whole other essay.
Honestly Sue, this is a huge issue facing the entire state and if Davis wants to retain what interest it is getting, Davisites are going to have to become more accomodating towards development – any development. That means looking at the bigger picture and now whining every time little Tiffany or Blake might have to cross a busier street.
ps. before anyone calls me an evil republican – I was a green party member for 16 yrs. Just switched back to Dem for the primary.
“Although housing prices are high in Davis, they are lower than prices in most successful high-tech University cities.”
The new Woodland development just a few minutes north on Poleline from Covell Blvd. will provide all the affordable housing that is required.
“Although housing prices are high in Davis, they are lower than prices in most successful high-tech University cities.”
The new Woodland development just a few minutes north on Poleline from Covell Blvd. will provide all the affordable housing that is required.
“Although housing prices are high in Davis, they are lower than prices in most successful high-tech University cities.”
The new Woodland development just a few minutes north on Poleline from Covell Blvd. will provide all the affordable housing that is required.
“Although housing prices are high in Davis, they are lower than prices in most successful high-tech University cities.”
The new Woodland development just a few minutes north on Poleline from Covell Blvd. will provide all the affordable housing that is required.
“….is criminally distant from a fire station…”
The massive new Woodland residential development is now just a few minutes north of Covell Blvd. and a (new?) Woodland fire station could also share responsibility with Davis for servicing the old Hunt-Wessen property. Housing in this massive new Woodland residential development is also an affordable option for Davis workers just a few minutes beyond the Davis city line. The CV high-end retail center,envisioned on Covell Blvd. by Tandem Partners, was probably hoping to draw much of its business from this new Woodland development just up Poleline and would have been a source of local business and sales tax without the cost to Davis of supplying residential services. This is still a good option for limited Tandem Partner acreage just off of Covell Blvd; the rest of the 400 acre CV property to the north can be left in agriculture for a showcase commercial organic farming project. The borders of Woodland and Davis are now just a few minutes apart and we need to begin to think in regional terms.
“….is criminally distant from a fire station…”
The massive new Woodland residential development is now just a few minutes north of Covell Blvd. and a (new?) Woodland fire station could also share responsibility with Davis for servicing the old Hunt-Wessen property. Housing in this massive new Woodland residential development is also an affordable option for Davis workers just a few minutes beyond the Davis city line. The CV high-end retail center,envisioned on Covell Blvd. by Tandem Partners, was probably hoping to draw much of its business from this new Woodland development just up Poleline and would have been a source of local business and sales tax without the cost to Davis of supplying residential services. This is still a good option for limited Tandem Partner acreage just off of Covell Blvd; the rest of the 400 acre CV property to the north can be left in agriculture for a showcase commercial organic farming project. The borders of Woodland and Davis are now just a few minutes apart and we need to begin to think in regional terms.
“….is criminally distant from a fire station…”
The massive new Woodland residential development is now just a few minutes north of Covell Blvd. and a (new?) Woodland fire station could also share responsibility with Davis for servicing the old Hunt-Wessen property. Housing in this massive new Woodland residential development is also an affordable option for Davis workers just a few minutes beyond the Davis city line. The CV high-end retail center,envisioned on Covell Blvd. by Tandem Partners, was probably hoping to draw much of its business from this new Woodland development just up Poleline and would have been a source of local business and sales tax without the cost to Davis of supplying residential services. This is still a good option for limited Tandem Partner acreage just off of Covell Blvd; the rest of the 400 acre CV property to the north can be left in agriculture for a showcase commercial organic farming project. The borders of Woodland and Davis are now just a few minutes apart and we need to begin to think in regional terms.
“….is criminally distant from a fire station…”
The massive new Woodland residential development is now just a few minutes north of Covell Blvd. and a (new?) Woodland fire station could also share responsibility with Davis for servicing the old Hunt-Wessen property. Housing in this massive new Woodland residential development is also an affordable option for Davis workers just a few minutes beyond the Davis city line. The CV high-end retail center,envisioned on Covell Blvd. by Tandem Partners, was probably hoping to draw much of its business from this new Woodland development just up Poleline and would have been a source of local business and sales tax without the cost to Davis of supplying residential services. This is still a good option for limited Tandem Partner acreage just off of Covell Blvd; the rest of the 400 acre CV property to the north can be left in agriculture for a showcase commercial organic farming project. The borders of Woodland and Davis are now just a few minutes apart and we need to begin to think in regional terms.
Sue, you write “Although housing prices are high in Davis, they are lower than prices in most successful high-tech University cities. It is actually a recruiting plus that we have so much affordable housing within 10 or 15 minutes from Davis. There are no safe affordable neighborhoods anywhere near the high-tech centers of Palo Alto, San Diego, New York, Boston or San Francisco.”
How can you even begin to make this comparison. These are MAJOR urban centers. Of course the price of housing his much higher in those markets. You are comparing apples with oranges and it doesn’t fix the fact that Sacramento-area salaries for young people are not sufficient to support a young population in Davis. We just can’t afford to buy homes here.
Sue, you write “Although housing prices are high in Davis, they are lower than prices in most successful high-tech University cities. It is actually a recruiting plus that we have so much affordable housing within 10 or 15 minutes from Davis. There are no safe affordable neighborhoods anywhere near the high-tech centers of Palo Alto, San Diego, New York, Boston or San Francisco.”
How can you even begin to make this comparison. These are MAJOR urban centers. Of course the price of housing his much higher in those markets. You are comparing apples with oranges and it doesn’t fix the fact that Sacramento-area salaries for young people are not sufficient to support a young population in Davis. We just can’t afford to buy homes here.
Sue, you write “Although housing prices are high in Davis, they are lower than prices in most successful high-tech University cities. It is actually a recruiting plus that we have so much affordable housing within 10 or 15 minutes from Davis. There are no safe affordable neighborhoods anywhere near the high-tech centers of Palo Alto, San Diego, New York, Boston or San Francisco.”
How can you even begin to make this comparison. These are MAJOR urban centers. Of course the price of housing his much higher in those markets. You are comparing apples with oranges and it doesn’t fix the fact that Sacramento-area salaries for young people are not sufficient to support a young population in Davis. We just can’t afford to buy homes here.
Sue, you write “Although housing prices are high in Davis, they are lower than prices in most successful high-tech University cities. It is actually a recruiting plus that we have so much affordable housing within 10 or 15 minutes from Davis. There are no safe affordable neighborhoods anywhere near the high-tech centers of Palo Alto, San Diego, New York, Boston or San Francisco.”
How can you even begin to make this comparison. These are MAJOR urban centers. Of course the price of housing his much higher in those markets. You are comparing apples with oranges and it doesn’t fix the fact that Sacramento-area salaries for young people are not sufficient to support a young population in Davis. We just can’t afford to buy homes here.
Let's build a high-tech & green business park in Davis and let Woodland provide a fire station and affordable housing. Yeah, that will fly well with our neighbor city…
From the business' perspective, what is the point of setting up a camp in expensive and business-unfriendly Davis rather than staying in Woodland (or Dixon, or West Sac)? 10 extra minutes to UC Davis isn't really worth the extra cost.
Let's build a high-tech & green business park in Davis and let Woodland provide a fire station and affordable housing. Yeah, that will fly well with our neighbor city…
From the business' perspective, what is the point of setting up a camp in expensive and business-unfriendly Davis rather than staying in Woodland (or Dixon, or West Sac)? 10 extra minutes to UC Davis isn't really worth the extra cost.
Let's build a high-tech & green business park in Davis and let Woodland provide a fire station and affordable housing. Yeah, that will fly well with our neighbor city…
From the business' perspective, what is the point of setting up a camp in expensive and business-unfriendly Davis rather than staying in Woodland (or Dixon, or West Sac)? 10 extra minutes to UC Davis isn't really worth the extra cost.
Let's build a high-tech & green business park in Davis and let Woodland provide a fire station and affordable housing. Yeah, that will fly well with our neighbor city…
From the business' perspective, what is the point of setting up a camp in expensive and business-unfriendly Davis rather than staying in Woodland (or Dixon, or West Sac)? 10 extra minutes to UC Davis isn't really worth the extra cost.
I agree with GJB. It’s ridiculous to compare Davis with other major start-up hubs like Silicon Valley. Start-ups like to locate there despite higher cost of living because there’s overwhelming benefits such as high concentration of capital, large supply of skilled workforce, large number of business partners, etc. The few benefits that a smaller university town like Davis could offer is affordable housing and business-friendly local government, neither of which Davis provides.
I agree with GJB. It’s ridiculous to compare Davis with other major start-up hubs like Silicon Valley. Start-ups like to locate there despite higher cost of living because there’s overwhelming benefits such as high concentration of capital, large supply of skilled workforce, large number of business partners, etc. The few benefits that a smaller university town like Davis could offer is affordable housing and business-friendly local government, neither of which Davis provides.
I agree with GJB. It’s ridiculous to compare Davis with other major start-up hubs like Silicon Valley. Start-ups like to locate there despite higher cost of living because there’s overwhelming benefits such as high concentration of capital, large supply of skilled workforce, large number of business partners, etc. The few benefits that a smaller university town like Davis could offer is affordable housing and business-friendly local government, neither of which Davis provides.
I agree with GJB. It’s ridiculous to compare Davis with other major start-up hubs like Silicon Valley. Start-ups like to locate there despite higher cost of living because there’s overwhelming benefits such as high concentration of capital, large supply of skilled workforce, large number of business partners, etc. The few benefits that a smaller university town like Davis could offer is affordable housing and business-friendly local government, neither of which Davis provides.
GJB said
“I am a 26-year-old born-and-raised Davisite. New affordable housing needs to be built for folks like me who WANT to live here in the long term but cant because there are few affordable options.”
I was about your age just after I completed my graduate degree at UCD in 1982. My fiance and I were both working professionals. We couldn’t afford a home in Davis then, but it never occurred to us to bitch about it or assume that it was anyone else’s responsibility to provide housing that we could afford.
Instead, we rented for a while, then bought a trashed, repossessed home in a neighboring community and put major sweat equity into fixing that place up for four years. Then we sold it, and ultimately used the equity we had created to help buy a home in Davis.
Such opportunities exist for you today in great abundance. Instead of crying about the failure of everyone else to provide the home you think a 26-year-old is entitled to, do some work yourself and earn it.
Sorry to be so blunt, but your expectations are as unrealistic now as they would have been 30 years ago.
Davis homes will always command a price premium to those in surrounding communities as long as Davis is a preferable place to live.
GJB said
“I am a 26-year-old born-and-raised Davisite. New affordable housing needs to be built for folks like me who WANT to live here in the long term but cant because there are few affordable options.”
I was about your age just after I completed my graduate degree at UCD in 1982. My fiance and I were both working professionals. We couldn’t afford a home in Davis then, but it never occurred to us to bitch about it or assume that it was anyone else’s responsibility to provide housing that we could afford.
Instead, we rented for a while, then bought a trashed, repossessed home in a neighboring community and put major sweat equity into fixing that place up for four years. Then we sold it, and ultimately used the equity we had created to help buy a home in Davis.
Such opportunities exist for you today in great abundance. Instead of crying about the failure of everyone else to provide the home you think a 26-year-old is entitled to, do some work yourself and earn it.
Sorry to be so blunt, but your expectations are as unrealistic now as they would have been 30 years ago.
Davis homes will always command a price premium to those in surrounding communities as long as Davis is a preferable place to live.
GJB said
“I am a 26-year-old born-and-raised Davisite. New affordable housing needs to be built for folks like me who WANT to live here in the long term but cant because there are few affordable options.”
I was about your age just after I completed my graduate degree at UCD in 1982. My fiance and I were both working professionals. We couldn’t afford a home in Davis then, but it never occurred to us to bitch about it or assume that it was anyone else’s responsibility to provide housing that we could afford.
Instead, we rented for a while, then bought a trashed, repossessed home in a neighboring community and put major sweat equity into fixing that place up for four years. Then we sold it, and ultimately used the equity we had created to help buy a home in Davis.
Such opportunities exist for you today in great abundance. Instead of crying about the failure of everyone else to provide the home you think a 26-year-old is entitled to, do some work yourself and earn it.
Sorry to be so blunt, but your expectations are as unrealistic now as they would have been 30 years ago.
Davis homes will always command a price premium to those in surrounding communities as long as Davis is a preferable place to live.
GJB said
“I am a 26-year-old born-and-raised Davisite. New affordable housing needs to be built for folks like me who WANT to live here in the long term but cant because there are few affordable options.”
I was about your age just after I completed my graduate degree at UCD in 1982. My fiance and I were both working professionals. We couldn’t afford a home in Davis then, but it never occurred to us to bitch about it or assume that it was anyone else’s responsibility to provide housing that we could afford.
Instead, we rented for a while, then bought a trashed, repossessed home in a neighboring community and put major sweat equity into fixing that place up for four years. Then we sold it, and ultimately used the equity we had created to help buy a home in Davis.
Such opportunities exist for you today in great abundance. Instead of crying about the failure of everyone else to provide the home you think a 26-year-old is entitled to, do some work yourself and earn it.
Sorry to be so blunt, but your expectations are as unrealistic now as they would have been 30 years ago.
Davis homes will always command a price premium to those in surrounding communities as long as Davis is a preferable place to live.