By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – A week ago I noted that the recent citizen satisfaction survey showed a disconnect between public perception and some serious problems that the community faces with respect to issues like fiscal sustainability, housing, affordability, and the future of its schools.
Eileen Samitz jumped in to write: “I find it astonishing that you continue to ignore that two decades of UCD neglecting to produce the on-campus housing that it needed for its students, which in turn pushed over 70% of its enormous student population off campus, which in turn has absorbed a disproportionate amount of Davis housing.”
She noted, “UCD’s negligence and poor planning continues,” and argued that the state has made available about $1.4 billion for additional student housing.
There is a lot to unpack here—and the Vanguard has certainly covered a lot on student housing and what has occurred at the state level.
But at this point I’m not sure that the student housing issue is really at the heart of the problem, going forward.
As other commentors noted, the university has committed to getting to 48 percent on campus. I know a lot of people wanted to see them get to 50 percent on campus and all new student growth being supported by on-campus housing. Instead, they are at 48 percent with all new enrollment growth being supported by housing.
The city and university have a signed MOU that guarantees “that 100 percent of new enrollment will be housed on campus.”
According to the terms of the MOU, the university is required “to grow the number of on-campus beds available to students, starting with the LRDP baseline of 9,818 and building to at least 15,000 beds by fall 2023 (10,500 beds by fall 2019, and 12,500 beds by fall 2021).”
I know that some think the language in the MOU is not strong enough, but it’s a pretty good indication that enrollment growth will be housed on campus rather than off campus.
I say that as someone who agrees that the university has not done enough in the past on student housing, and the city has not done enough in the past to ensure that UC Davis has kept its commitments.
I don’t necessarily agree that all new student housing should be based on campus—and in fact, ultimately, I think there is little difference between building south of Russell or north of Russell. But be that as it may, that issue should be resolved.
The bigger issue in my view are the issues that we addressed last week. We have a community that is increasingly expensive to live in—as is much of the region—and we have pushed parents with school age children out of this community.
Can we address these problems?
The community says that affordable housing is a top concern—in fact, by far the top concern.
Thirty percent cite, as their top concern, lack of affordable housing. Worse than that, on the satisfaction ratings, affordability of housing is listed only at 23 percent satisfied. With HALF the respondents saying they are very dissatisfied with the affordability of housing.
Those are similar numbers to what we saw in 2019. But what are they doing about it? You would think if the voters were concerned about affordable housing that they would support ways to build more housing, especially affordable housing, and we really haven’t seen that.
But here’s the disconnect. They still view the track of the city as being positive, not negative.
And yet, the lack of affordable housing has serious impacts. We have seen a slow decline in the number of families with children that can move into Davis. That is putting pressure on the schools and ultimately going to lead to declining enrollment, despite our efforts to prop up both enrollment through inter-district transfers and revenue through a series of parcel taxes.
The voters don’t seem to connect the lack of affordable housing and the decline of enrollment to the eventual quality of life. Some have pointed out that I have been complaining about this for over a decade—but that’s part of the problem, this is a slow burn. We are the frog in a pot of water that is slowly getting heated up.
That’s the real point that I was trying to make. I agree, the failure of the university to provide housing on campus (but also the failure of the city of Davis to approve student housing off-campus between 2002 and 2017) contributed to the encroachment of mini-dorms into single family homes. Hopefully, with the renewed commitment by the university, that bleeding will stop.
But that’s not enough. We need to build housing that people with children can actually live in.
There has been a lot of talk about the Cannery and its failure, at least to date, to attract families with children, but one area of success is the former DACHA (Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association) homes. I know in one segment of them at least, there are seven homes in an affordable housing cutout in South Davis—all seven are inhabited by families with school-aged children. And those are rental homes.
This is not rocket science. Finding affordable housing either as infill or on the periphery can bring back families with children. The community says that is what they want—but now it is time for everyone to step up.
“The voters don’t seem to connect the lack of affordable housing and the decline of enrollment to the eventual quality of life. ”
And others ignore the impact of Measure J on the supply of Affordable housing.
The General Plan has to mandate the construction of dense housing including a lot of units suitable for families and for families that want to share facilities and tasks – kitchens, and e.g. watching small children – and do this on all but the smallest parking lots and low value and/or low density properties. No parking in the footprint, i.e no parking in lots. If people need cars they can pay for their own cars and some will be able to park underneath their housing. Small playgrounds quiet at night, close enough for parents to watch their children from their kitchens and home offices. All of his creates the density that supports schools and public transportation. Millions upon millions including families live well in such set-ups.
As one example, Palomino Place – perhaps befitting its typical, snarky, cold developer designation system name coming from something that used to be present here – is NOT this example. It’s going to be car-dependent, aside from trips to the local elementary and junior high, and only IF these are the best choices for the children who MIGHT live there. There’s really nothing much else nearby except for Nugget. There’s not enough at Palomino that will stimulate more nearby. There’s not enough change inherent in Palomino to balance out the murderous, unsustainable, low-density of much of newer Davis.
Certainly there will be need a new elementary school built on the site of the former one on the north side of 5th, as there’s nothing else close to Downtown. The administration facilities can share the same property. With a grade separated crossing of 5th St and also of B St for access to the sports fields.
Everyone needs to get up every morning and present well-considered new ideas for Davis. What people want is not always possible. Make what’s possible what people want!
I completely disagree with Mr. Edelman. I observe vehicles almost everywhere in Davis. The vast majority of people in the United States demand housing with their own kitchens. I would like to see Mr. Edelman’s family live without vehicles and their own kitchens permanently That includes Zip cars and rentals.
You are making a status-quo argument Walter.
The vast majority of californians have only seen one kind of development because there has only really been one kind of development mode for the past two generations… we “think” that a “home” means a single-family detatched house with a yard…. but that is a cultural habit… perhaps even an addiction. That kind of housing, also mandates owning a car…
There ARE possible alternatives though, and millions of people around the world live very different lives some living in dense enough cities to never worry about owning a car. I work close enough to home here in davis that I sold my car and now my family shares one car… its not always convenient, but it is very possible, we save a lot of money, and it is liberating in many ways…
As one of my favorite posters from despair.com said “Tradition: Just because we have always done it that way, doesnt mean it isn’t incredibly stupid”
David,
There is simply no denying that UCD, which has been pushing 71% of its enormous student population onto Davis and surrounding communities, is a major reason why local workers and families are being so negatively impacted with unavailability of housing in Davis. Even other surrounding communities have complained about the negative impacts on their housing in those communities due to UCD’s negligence to provide the on-campus housing it needs.
This is why Resolutions were written and passed by the City of Davis City Council, and the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, and even ASUCD making clear that UCD needed to do far more than it is doing to provide the needed housing for its students, and to produce the long-promised faculty and staff housing on campus.
Further, UCD needs to build higher densities then they have been doing. It is shameful that the Orchard Park graduate project (which was delayed for 7 years) is only 4-stories when right across the street on Russell near Hwy 113 in the City is the “Davis Live” student housing project, built on City land purchased and developed by a private development, which is 7-stories! Meanwhile, UCD land is free, which is a major part of the expense of building new housing.
Finally, now with Governor Newsom offering $1.4 BILLION of State m0ney towards student housing for the state universities, it is inexcusable that UCD has not applied for any of it, particularly when UCD is the largest campus with over 5,300 acres and a 900-aces core campus.
You can continue running interference for UCD, or actually cover this issue honestly. UCD has and continues to negatively impact the housing in Davis because it is not building nearly enough student housing on campus which is also sustainable planning which controls student housing costs long term. This is why all the other UCs have committed to building at least 50% on-campus housing, all except UCD (shamefully), despite the fact that UCD is the largest UC.
Also, what about the promised faculty and staff housing tht has still not happened. Yet, UCD has almost a $1 BILLION DOLLARS in fundraising, grants and other resources. UCD can always find money for their vanity projects like the second music recital hall and the art museum on campus, but not desperately needed student housing on campus? It is inexcusable, particularly when UCD has access to the resources needed such as plenty of land and now State money to build the housing needed on campus.
They have been. But based on the LRDP and the MOU they will not continue to do so. Do you disagree?
Eileen
The ratio of the student enrollment to the City population remains within the historic bounds since 1960 of 50%-55%. It’s not that UCD is imposing demand on us, it’s that we haven’t kept up with the rising demand for our housing. We cannot and should not build a moat around Davis to maintain the interests of older white homeowners, which is what you seem to be advocating. As I posted response last week, there’s an MOU in place to meet the reasonable housing targets with financial penalties for UCD. Are you proposing that we deny opportunities to young people coming out of high school so that you can maintain your comfortable living situation?
Your comments are the same every time with no changes to reflect the corrections that others have made in your claims. And you still haven’t answered the question why you want to disenfranchise students (and even new faculty and staff) by forcing them to live on campus and not in the City.
Eileen, there is a palpable vitriol in your words… you been using the same framing / rhetoric of “pushing students out” and “negligence” from UCD for as long as I have seen you commenting on this issue…
This is not something I see from anyone else who writes or comments on this subject. UC Davis has been a “first year on campus” School since I first came here in the early 90’s, and that has never changed… so the verbiage you use, which implies an active malice or negligence, just doesn’t line up with my reality at all.
Would you be willing to discuss the back-story of your views on this subject? I suspect I do not see the whole picture from your perspective, and knowing that you have been involved in planning in the past, I’m wondering if there is something you know that others don’t.
What we’re seeing in this article is an acknowledgement that some believe that declining school districts should be driving city planning. This is an ill-advised approach to city planning, at its most basic and fundamental level.
It’s difficult to believe that anyone would actually be pushing this. There’s a degree of selfishness associated with it, as well.
School districts exist to serve cities (and existing populations), not the other-way around.
Even if one were to pursue this ill-advised approach to city planning, there’s another problem with it. Unless housing turns over, even new families (living in new housing) will (also) eventually age-out of the system. Under the scenario being pushed on here, even more housing would then need to be built to satisfy the desires of a school district which is highly resistant to right-sizing.
This won’t end until there’s an acknowledgement that the school district is simply too large for the size and changing demographics of the city. (The reluctance to acknowledge this is also enabling the school district to poach students from other districts.) This is not a uniquely-Davis problem, as school districts such as Piedmont’s are doing the same thing, for the same reason (self-interest).
Enrollment is expected to continue declining throughout most of the state (including Yolo county), over the next decade. I previously-posted an interactive map which shows the amount of decline for each county. (Yolo county will experience a decline which roughly corresponds with the overall state decline – something like 6-7%, as I recall.)
Again, there is no reason for a city to “adjust” its planning (e.g., pursue sprawl) to meet the desires of a school district which refuses to right-size. Let the school district deal with this – it’s not a city problem, until some try to “make it” one.
David,
Yes, I do disagree. The UCD MOU and LRDP only speaks to new student population growth, but it ignores the backlog of housing that was not built over the last two decades, and that still needs to be built on campus.
Further, UCD’s over-whelmed campus with inadequate classes and teachers to handle the current student population, has over 38,000 students now (UCD students are frequently, and justifiably complaining about this). Yet, UCD accepted more students than it ever has this year, despite knowing that it needs to build far more on-campus housing. So, UCD is going to exceed its 40,000 maximum campus student population stated in the UCD LRDP well before 2033. The minor penalty paid to the City by UCD of only a few hundred dollars per student in excess of the 40,000 student population maximum, is just a spit in the bucket to UCD, and so then UCD just continues to exasperate the problem it is already causing.
The LRDP gets it to 48% on campus – no?
David,
It may be less since UCD keeps adding more students annually, while stalling and under-building on-campus housing when they do build. But even at 48%, that means the remaining 2% of 38,000 students is 760 students needing beds. That would require roughly 2 more mega-dorms, which is very significant.
You realize the difference is who pays (UCD or the city of Davis) to service those residents right? I have said in the past that I’d support a student quarter. But the goal wouldn’t be to house students. It would be to capture sales tax revenue from student expenditures. If you build out a mixed use community; housing students would be a necessary evil to spur economic growth (much in the same way I was willing to swallow the bitter pill of residential development to get DISC built).
You know what attracts families to live in a place? JOBS. I’m not really sure I’m in favor of growth for growth’s sake (we’ll get to the reasons later). But for sake of argument (at this point) let’s talk about growth. Jobs spur healthy growth. Right now most growth in the area is coming from around Davis; from the general Sacramento region (at least for now…lately it seems to be cooling). Most of UCD’s growth (aside from student growth) appears to be focused on their Sacramento campus/hospital/biz park. So right now Davis just gets it’s regular allotment of jobs from UCD and the spillover from the rest of the region. The result is that the (non-student) growth in Davis are those that can afford to commute elsewhere for work and live here. Balancing work and a commute like that means that either you don’t have kids or that you’re financially well off enough to pay for expensive daycare, before/after school care…etc…. or well off enough to be a one income household. But if Davis had significant job growth, that would entice more people to live here closer to work. More people who have families because it would be more manageable.
Okay…growth. Why? You could make an argument that residential growth can help spur economic growth (people need and want to work near where they work). But I’d take that approach under very controlled circumstances. Otherwise growth for growth sake just saps the resources of the community. It just adds people, crowds, traffic….etc…
As for the school system? We talk about the need for a General Plan update because everyone wants a plan to move forward. What about a plan for the school district? Because right now it appears that educating kids is a negative financial endeavor. I get that Davis gets less money per kid than other surrounding school districts. So we supplement that lesser income with a parcel tax. DJUSD imports kids from outside the school district. But is that just forcing more air into a tire that already has a hole? Fixed Costs. That’s the magical accounting term we’re told is the problem. Not enough students to pay for the fixed costs. Okay…fine…how about 2 plans. One that says that when the district reaches X number of students that it will be fiscally sound. Or that if it cuts school sites and other overhead that the district will reach fiscal stability. But so far its simply grow! grow! grow! that will solve all the problems!
Oh Todd, Todd, Todd……ever the spokesman for Big Bicycle; the secret cabal of bicycle interests….is Lance Armstrong one of the Illuminati??? And so reality once again rears it’s ugly head and says….IT’S A CAR CENTRIC WORLD. No amount of daydreaming about quaint little European communities is going to change that. This ain’t “The Secret”…just visualizing Davis turning into Amsterdam isn’t going to work. So yes people need to be able to drive to work. As much as many in Davis want to believe, Davis does not exist on an island; it’s part of the greater Yolo County and Sacramento region. That means that housing all around us continues to be built. And what kind of housing is being developed? Single Family housing. So I ask you; does someone want to buy a 1,200 sqft attached townhome/condo for $700K or a 2,000 sqft single family home in Woodland? So if that person works in Davis, then that person is now driving a longer distance each day for work Now from a city fiscal standpoint that scenario is great because the city doesn’t have to provide urban services to that person while they work in Davis; but it sucks from an environmental perspective.
Now as to what can be done? If you’re going to have to build on the periphery (and I don’t advocate it unless it’s absolutely necessary), build neighborhoods that have neighborhood retail within walking (and bicycling distance). Most cities were multiple smaller communities to begin with that were later connected together. So create more neighborhood centric places with walkability (which means more neighborhood, mixed use development) and then create express lanes for all types of travel between these communities.
That is the choice that someone moving to the area would likely contemplate. And if they’re a “family”, you already know what choice they’d make (based upon square footage, ability to park at least 2 cars in a garage, yard, etc.). Families are probably the demographic that drives “the most”, compared to any other demographic.
And if you try to build that same single-family house outside of the boundary of Davis (via a Measure J vote), that same house is going to cost $1 million (minimum). Again, leading to a choice between paying $700,000, vs. $1 million.
Of course, there are existing houses for sale in Davis, for significantly less than $1 million. (I believe these are the “best deal”, of all.)
Not likely – maybe at UCD.
Anyone know how many additional positions UCD has added (say, over the last 5 years) and/or how many more they plan to add? (Seems like important information to know.)
Again, probably not working in Davis, itself. And if they’re working at UCD, then the “commute” (from a place like the DiSC site, or Shriner’s) is probably more-difficult than it is from Woodland. Not to mention the fact that a spouse might work someplace else, entirely (e.g., Sacramento).
Lots of things *can* be done. But no “problem” (to “solve via sprawl”) has even been defined in the first place.
Lack of Affordable Housing.
Lack of workforce housing.
“Affordable housing is housing which is deemed affordable to those with a household income at or below the median[1] as rated by the national government or a local government by a recognized housing affordability index.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_housing
“Workforce housing is generally understood to mean affordable housing for households with earned income that is insufficient to secure quality housing in reasonable proximity to the workplace.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workforce_housing
With respect to urban planning and climate issues, it is best if more of these types of housing can be provided closer to where those individuals work and/or attend school.
In my experience:
Affordable Housing is housing that people that make 30% of the household median income can afford.
Workforce Housing is housing that people that make 80%-120% of the median household income can afford.
Of course my knowledge maybe outdated.
Neither of which is addressed by $1 million dollar single-family dwellings.
But beyond that, how much more housing in each of those categories is “needed”? And, for whom? How many people (e.g., “local workers”) are waiting-around in Davis (or in nearby communities), “waiting” for such housing to be built? At which point they’ll move from wherever they already live?
Is that actually what the claim is?
While continuing to work at some low-level job which has no realistic possibility of ever “matching” the cost of living in a given community itself?
Has anyone actually put forth any numbers whatsoever? (I don’t think so.)
And beyond that, none of this has anything to do with more “family housing”. (As if that’s some kind of goal, other than from a self-interested school district.)
I would also ask how much the city can afford to accommodate Affordable housing, given that it’s not subject to the same amount of property tax (if any). In addition, the people who live in Affordable housing are not likely able to contribute much to the city, financially. (While at the same time, they might even be adding to “needs” which currently don’t exist – e.g., another library, subsidies from others needed to keep the school district operating at its current size, etc.).
Some more is needed.
People who work here and live elsewhere.
Family housing and workforce housing tend to overlap.
Ron, you don’t agree with the goal of providing housing in Davis. You don’t agree that there is a problem. Many of us do believe there is a lack of inventory for people who are working here, causing them to incur significant expense as they commute in to jobs in Davis. If you don’t agree that’s a problem from financial and climate-related standpoints, then you really don’t have anything to bring to the conversation.
Don, while I consider Ron’s opinions extreme and his reasoning often obstinate; I believe it has a valid place in the discussion. I personally fall kind of in the middle in all this growth and housing conversation. So I can understand the desire for no growth. I just find the degree of no growth (peripheral growth) that views like Ron’s have is completely irrational. But on the other simply growing just to house people because we think they should live in Davis isn’t rational either. But I don’t want to completely dismiss extreme views simply because they remind of us of that side of the argument to consider so that we come to reasonable compromises. I like to make fun of Todd and his extreme views on urbanism through a bicyclist’s perspective. Again, set in reality it’s completely irrational. But I’m glad he’s there to champion all the alt growth solutions that bicycling everywhere on solar panel paths to each other’s kale gardens. Because maybe we’ll get some nice bicycle paths out of it.
I think one of the things we need to ask ourselves more is what is healthy community growth. Despite my reputation at this point, I think where I actually come down in terms of growth is more modest and more targeted. One the one hand some argue that we should not be attempting to grow for the sake of the school district, but on the other hand, I think having a community where people in that vital child rearing age are increasingly excluded is not healthy for the community. Those are not just people who have kids – they are people who are active in the job market. To the extent i think that a community discussion would be helpful – a discussion on what healthy growth looks like would be helpful. Stagnating the community, choking off the schools into declining enrollment is not healthy, it puts more strain on those living here, and deplete resources.
Unless there’s a number put forth, “some more” has no meaning at all.
So, the claim is that they want to move from wherever they’re living, as soon as the city provides some below-market cost housing for them. (Well, good luck with that.)
By the way, aren’t there people who live in Davis and work elsewhere?
Maybe, to some degree. But they aren’t getting a new, single-family house on prime farmland outside of the boundary of Davis without paying $1 million or more. Alternatively, they’ll look in Woodland (primarily). Assuming that this is even a “growing needs” category in the first place.
Are there lots of new jobs being added in Davis? (I don’t think so.)
Davis has housing – lots of it. You’re referring to adding more housing, without even defining the underlying (additional) need. Just blindly stating, “more”.
I didn’t say that. There is a problem regarding affordability, for some people. (Not limited to Davis.) This is due to underlying differences in wealth.
I support rent control.
Again, no one has defined how much “lack of inventory” there is. And again, the price differential alone will continue to cause people to seek housing in places like Woodland – regardless of what Davis does.
And again, Davis itself is not a major employer. UCD is.
Not everyone in a given household works at the same location in the first place. Often, they work in two completely different cities (or entities).
You bring up “financial”, and yet you ignore the fiscal costs I just pointed out (especially regarding Affordable housing). Even market-rate housing is generally a fiscal loser, for cities.
As far as the climate is concerned, I opposed DiSC partly for that reason. As far as commuting, no one is able to control what Woodland and other communities are doing, or the price differential which will continue to exist. The price differential alone will ensure that folks with more-limited incomes will seek these surrounding communities. (Assuming that more jobs are added in the first place, which no one has even discussed.)
Again, Davis is not a major employer – UCD is.
And a lot of the locations proposed for housing (such as DiSC and Shriner’s) are a more difficult commute to UCD, than it is from Woodland). Just a simple fact, not an “advocacy”.
It’s not up to you to determine what I do (or do not) “bring to the conversation”.
Don S
Remember that Ron O isn’t a resident of Davis and apparently has no other connections to the community, so he really doesn’t care what happens either to us or to those who want to live here. He’s already demonstrated that he’s unwilling to pay for the amenities that we enjoy here–he lives in Woodland. If anything, his position increase the value of his house.
Again, Richard – much of what you write here is an outright fabrication.
And as usual, you don’t actually address anything regarding my comment, itself.
Keith
The district appears to function well at a stasis of the current enrollment, and it had been there for quite a while until the aging of City households drained students. That’s why there are so many interdistrict transfers now.
And you’re right to a certain degree about being car centric. Almost 75% of our GHG emissions are from transportation and 90% of those are from intercity travel. Due to our dispersed housing transit won’t be able to make a big dent in this and cycling won’t either. However, having good transit and cycling can change the travel dynamics to a certain degree. Good article in the SF Chronicle this weekend about what SF should change based on what other cities have done. For example Paris built 180 miles of bike lanes in the last 3 years and now biking is the fastest way around.
This premise would mean that places like San Francisco (and really, the entire Bay Area) are “not healthy”. (Whatever that means.) And yet, it’s an economic powerhouse.
Last time I checked, kids don’t work – and remain a drain on all publicly-funded systems until they’re out of college. Not to mention a permanent financial drain, on parents.
Also, the birthrate itself is declining.
If you want to bankrupt the city (via less wealth of its residents, along with a corresponding greater need for services), add more Affordable housing. It also helps subsidize low-wage employers, and ends up trapping its occupants into a (permanently) lower economic class. (Unlike rent control.)
And if you want to add more $1 million dollar (minimum) single-family housing that appeals to those working in Sacramento (due to its easy commute from the eastern half of the city), I have two places in mind for you: Shriner’s, and the DiSC site.
Eventually, all housing turns over. Even places like San Francisco have new families moving in. It’s just that they have the bucks to do so. (Though generally, they either put their kids in private school, or leave before their kids are old enough to attend that atrocious and dangerous public school system.)
I’d suggest that it was actually a benefit for the city that The Cannery attracted wealthier folks from the Bay Area, rather than the less-wealthy locales. (Though it was probably a combination of wealthier local people and Bay Area expatriates.)
“This premise would mean that places like San Francisco (and really, the entire Bay Area) are “not healthy”.”
Given the cost of living and the net loss of population, that seems rather obvious
Thanks?
I look at farmland (such as the site previously-proposed for Covell Village), and think to myself how nice it is to sunflowers, rather than a massive housing development. A few days ago, I saw a small group of young women taking a group photo on the edge of it, with the flowers in the background. (Given their young ages, I wonder if they’re even aware of what was proposed, there. And the effort to create Measure J in the first place.)
I often wonder the same thing regarding the massive developments proposed elsewhere (such as the Marin headlands and Pt. Reyes). That is, do subsequent generations even know of the folks who sacrificed so much time and energy preserving those sites? Do they even care? Or, do they mistakenly assume that the “government” did this for them? (Actually, in the case of Pt. Reyes, that’s somewhat true – it had at least some champions within the government. The Marin headlands – not so much.)
And some within the government fought both. Including local governments.
I have the same question regarding the preservation of private farmland, which was accomplished via land trusts. That is, do younger generations even know what that took? (Much of it predated my time, as well.)
Of course, if there was a massive housing development at the Covell Village site, we’d also be forced to spend more time looking at it, when stuck in the resulting traffic from it. A “double-gift”, as it were.
Same thoughts regarding DiSC and Shriner’s. It’s a loss, not a gain to approve housing developments on those sites.
The city has already approved two other peripheral developments, on sites that mean less to me. They haven’t even broken ground yet, and some folks are clamoring for more.
The Cannery was only recently-completed, itself.
Seems to me that I’m not the “extremist”, on here – except in comparison to the growth activists which dominate this blog.
I believe this is my fifth comment, for the day. So, I’m leaving myself open to potential personal attacks, which some commenters prefer to engage in and which are apparently allowed (rather than address actual issues). (Not directed at anyone commenting here so far, today.)