On Tuesday night, the council by a 4-1 vote decided to push back consideration of the General Plan update until at least July as the city grapples with a serious budget deficit. The lone dissenter was Mayor Pro Tem Saylor.
Saylor spoke as though he were in a different time from the rest of us.
“We’ve got to completely regroup on what we’re going to do on housing, and instead of having 20 acres of business park coming to the community, instead of having the fiscal benefits and housing we could anticipate, we have nothing. We’re sitting here at a time when there are no projects moving; one of the few that was proceeding has been withdrawn and we have no planning process in place.”
It was something he might have said last year at this time as he ran for reelection. And while we may have disagreed even then, at least that was before the economy collapsed.
As his colleague and erstwhile ally, Stephen Souza put it, last year I would have agreed, however things have changed, hopefully next year they will be different again, but for now this makes no sense.
And that is exactly right. We can argue in the future about how much growth Davis needs. We will disagree. Right now, things have changed.
Mr. Saylor wants to rush forward and bring forth new projects. Oh sure he argues that during tough times we need economic development. How exactly does he expect to achieve that right now when few have access to credit and the process will take considerable time. Furthermore look at those cities with more economic development than Davis, there are many cities and none of them are doing especially well. There simply is no panacea for getting out of this economic downturn.
People who are arguing we need more housing right now are looking at last year’s play book. The picture looks vastly different this year.
First of all, currently the city has roughly 200 housing units that are on the market and have been so for some time and yet unsold.
In addition to that, coming down the pike is an additional 200 units or more. The Grande property has 41 units approved, Verona 83 units approved, and Simmons has 90 to 110 units approved. Also you have West Village supposedly about to break ground and you have the recently approved low income New Harmony project.
That is over 200 units approved and 200 units available. And yet Verona may not be getting developed any time soon because the owner is looking to get rid of it, even though it is now fully entitled and has gone through the planning process. Why? It seems that the market right now just cannot sustain it, even in Davis.
We can speculate on the Lewis Cannery Project all we want in terms of why they pulled out. They clearly were frustrated by the planning process and the uncertainty involved in terms of whether they would be allowed to develop the mixed-use project that they wanted with 600 housing units. But I suspect that had this process gone forward last year at this time, they would have stuck it out. That is sheer speculation on my part, but I think the uncertainty of the process along with the depressed housing market and economy created the perfect storm to force them out.
The question I think that remains unanswered still is what does the world look like in a year or two, if and when we finally get out of this rut. What does a credit market look like post the subprime crisis? What does the housing market look like? How does the impending climate change crisis change the way we develop?
We are operating now by 2005 playbooks when projects like Covell Village could be putting forward as supposedly green and sustainable even as they ate up farmland and clogged streets that lacked the infrastructure to support them. We are operating by the 2006 playbook that said that adding a Target made sense for its $600,000 per year in tax revenues despite the threat it presented to local business and unsustainable transportation and consumption issues it brings along.
The real question is what will 2010 bring us? Will we finally have to face reality that our current transportation, development, and consumption patterns are literally killing us and this planet? Or will it remain business as usual.
For all of the rhetoric and talk about climate change, for the majority on council, none have faced this music yet. This is the first time the majority on council has even blinked on pushing forward with their new vision of Davis. That is true even after the debacle that was Covell Village.
The question now is whether this marks the start of new thinking or just a pause from the old thinking long enough for us to catch our breath, but little else.
The bottom line is that the General Plan process did not make sense right now, nor does going headlong into planning new housing and economic development. We can see what the world looks like in six months to a year and fight those battles then. Right now, we need to focus on getting our house in order.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Councilman Saylor’s position is, not surprisingly, characteristically disingenuous. His residential developer patrons are NOT interested in building residential houses now but rather need to get their projects and development agreements signed(exploiting a form of economic “terrorism” to keep the city from pushing for higher impact fees, etc.), sealed and on to a measure J vote(if necessary) before Davis voter optimism turns hopeful and positive. They can then sit with their signed developer agreements for as many years as they need to until the economy turns around and the current massive housing inventory is depleted. Saylor’s developer patrons understand that the current economic climate is their best weapon to exploit Davis voter fears . They know that when(not if) this changes to a hopeful and positive one, Davis voters will choose their own vision for Davis’ future.
Saylor received campaign contributions from developers. They are pushing him to encourage a massive overhaul of the General Plan to 1) gut measure J; 2) to gain development agreements with artificially low developer impact fees; 3) to make sure developers continue to fill his campaign coffers for higher office.
That said, how does Mr. Saylor figure we have the millions to overhaul the General Plan, if we can’t even repair roads and pay employee benefits? Or does he even care? After all, if he moves on to higher office, he will be long gone when the “fit hits the shan”, if you catch my drift, e.g. bankruptcy a la Vallejo!
[i]”The Grande property has 41 units approved, Verona 83 units approved, and Simmons has 90 to 110 units approved. That is over 200 units approved and 200 units available. And yet Verona may not be getting developed any time soon because the owner is looking to get rid of it, even though it is now fully entitled and has gone through the planning process. Why? It seems that the market right now just cannot sustain it, even in Davis.”[/i]
I think this is a telling anecdote about the dearth of profit in building new homes in this market:
In 2006, an out of town investor (I think from the Bay Area) purchased a small (836 sf) old house at 507 F Street, which dated back to about 1920. According to the latest survey of historical properties, 507 F did “not retain its integrity of design, materials, and workmanship,” and therefore was not a “historic contributor.” The investor — his architect, actually — came before the HRMC 28 months ago and asked for a “certificate of appropriateness” to demolish the little bungalow so he could build a new, large home on the site, which is next door to 513 F, a (really nice looking) City of Davis merit property.
We approved his project and determined that the much larger replacement house (2,371 sf) would fit in that neighborhood. Some months later, a demolition company came in, strippled the old house of its sellable parts and leveled the rest and the detached garage in the back…. Then the floor fell out from the housing market in Davis and credit tightened up dramatically (all pre-crash).
Because the lot is (or was) approved for a nice replacement project and the architecture is paid for, the investor has tried to sell his now weedy, barren lot to somebody willing to come in and build a house there. Yet, last I checked, it’s still for sale and no one is interested in investing in a new house. I suspect it would cost well more to build that house at 507 F than it would be worth upon completion. That’s just the reality of our housing market and this economic climate.
Dear David Greenwald:
Your opinion couldn’t be more right on!
Unsold units within the city limits, a stagnant economy, and the open space land on our city’s edges constantly under threat for development (Wildhorse Ranch); NOT NOW!!! no matter how “green”, how “innovative” these developers sell their projects, we don’t need it now! More traffic, more density, STOP IT NOW (Dead in its tracks).
I would though like to hear you specific opposition to Wildhorse Ranch, as it’s development would be counter to all of your arguments, are you for it or against it?
And as for Mr. Saylor, his political life in Davis will be seriously tested if continues to be the “lone-wolf” in pushing a pro-development agenda in these times….
The problem with the housing market is prices that are too high. At low enough prices everything would clear. The question is would it be profitable. For Lewis the answer is that the uncertainty of Davis politics makes the risk too great. All you nimbys are doing is selfishly protecting your own economic interests while you condemn developers for doing the same.
Since when is wanting less traffic, less congestion, and keeping Davis’ open spaces truly “open” a NIMBY?
Since you don’t own the property and the owners have other plans and those plans are impeded by your selfish interests.
So the owners in your estimation have the right to do whatever they want because they own the property and have plans?
To some extent owning property should give you certain rights. My response was to someone who argued for open space when niether the best use of the Cannery or Covell village is open space. What all this anti-development bias does is drive up the price of real estate in Davis to the point where homes in Davis are now 2 to 3 times the cost of the surrounding communities and the affordability is so low its shameful. The annoying part is that people who own homes claim that its about quality of life while never admitting that those positions selfishly also make their own properties more valuable. At least the developers will admit that they are in it for the money.
“To some extent owning property should give you certain rights.”
Agree.
“My response was to someone who argued for open space when niether the best use of the Cannery or Covell village is open space. “
That’s certainly a subjective view point.
“What all this anti-development bias does is drive up the price of real estate in Davis to the point where homes in Davis are now 2 to 3 times the cost of the surrounding communities and the affordability is so low its shameful.”
That hasn’t been proven.
“The annoying part is that people who own homes claim that its about quality of life while never admitting that those positions selfishly also make their own properties more valuable.”
I think that’s overplayed. For instance the writer of this blogger is a renter. Also unless you intend to move and gain a profit from resale, it doesn’t really matter what your property is worth. And unless you intend to move out of state or downsize, you’ll never really gain an advantage. I have to think that’s a minority of the people that hold such view points.
In the meantime you downplay those who are concerned with issues like the environment, preservation of open space, and the character of this community.
I think you’re leaping to conclusions here that you have not supported adequately with argument and/ or data.
The writer of this blog may be a renter but he often uses his hometown of San Luis Obispo as a reference. Yet San Luis Obispo has the lowest affordabiltiy of any county in the state.
Neither Covell Village nor the Cannery are currently zoned for open space.
It is well established that restrictive development policies drive up prices.
As for my comps with the surrounding communities I’ve done the math myself and if you would compare the price/square foot of the sales in Davis, Woodland, West Sac, Dixon or beyond you would see I am correct.
Traffic is made worse by restrictive housing policies since people are forced to drive farther to Davis from Woodland and Natomas where people can afford to live since they have built housing to accomodate the population growth that Davis has refused to accept.
You have an interesting way of arguing–mainly skirting your initial points.
“The writer of this blog may be a renter but he often uses his hometown of San Luis Obispo as a reference. Yet San Luis Obispo has the lowest affordabiltiy of any county in the state.”
That has little to do with your initial claim which was that people who argue for slower growth do so for their own self-interest. What does him referencing San Luis Obispo have to do with your point about self-interest?
“Neither Covell Village nor the Cannery are currently zoned for open space.”
Covell is zoned for Ag, and Cannery is zoned for light industrial high tech. What’s your point? It seems you are undermining your argument.
“It is well established that restrictive development policies drive up prices.”
Well established by whom? You’ve cited no supporting evidence.
“As for my comps with the surrounding communities I’ve done the math myself and if you would compare the price/square foot of the sales in Davis, Woodland, West Sac, Dixon or beyond you would see I am correct.”
The point is question is not the cost but the cause of the cost. I’d argue that it has less to do with housing policies and more to do with desirability to live in a community and quality of schools. Your data does not disprove that.
“Traffic is made worse by restrictive housing policies since people are forced to drive farther to Davis from Woodland and Natomas where people can afford to live since they have built housing to accomodate the population growth that Davis has refused to accept.”
That’s also speculative.
The blog writer is exceptional in arguing against his own interests assuming he wants to buy here. Still his bias is due I believe to his formative years in a community that has restricted growth and made itself the least affordable community in the state.
Whatever the cause of the home price premium in Davis building more homes will reduce the premium My point is that the premium has grown to an obscene level because of restrictive development policies and that allowing growth will help reduce it.
Google “Slow growth housing policies raise costs” and many articles supporting my position will come up.
What you call speculative on traffic is at least anecdotal among many people I know who are priced out of Davis but come here everyday by car.
People make choices about where they live and work. If people drive here everyday to work that is their choice. If they live here and drive elsewhere that is their choice too. We don’t have an obligation to make Davis more congested with traffic by building thousands of more homes so people can live and work in the same community. We hear this argument again and again, but who is to say that they “correct” type of work would be suitable for all who want to live in the community of Davis. Maybe some people want to live in Woodland or Sacramento and work in Davis and would continue to do so even if home prices were less. There is an awful lot of ASSUMING going on.
FYI, a local professional residential appraiser told me last week that residential property values are down about 30% from where they were 2 years ago. Surrounding communities are down about 50%. That is a lot of local value/wealth gone up in smoke. The realtors dont like admitting such a high percentage, but it is real.
I suspect that Lewis Homes pulled the plug due to the market. Their project was the same old valley sprawl/traffic nightmare and unlikely to survive the citywide vote that I anticipated for such a large change to a large parcel, but in the end it was the economy.
Its nice to see that the invisible hand has reached in and putting everything aright. Speculative home builders are going away (bye Lewis Homes!!!), expansionist general plans tabled and unsupportable union demands on our city are silenced. Home flippers are getting flipped so housing prices will return to supportable levels. Gas prices are enough of a concern that people will focus on transportation as a consideration in home purchases. In the grand scheme of things, all that is wrong is being fixed.
The folks in DC might try to meddle with markets, but in the end, you cannot shackle Adam Smith’s invisible hand…
I can not agree with the Vanguard editors speculation on why the Lewis Communities group pulled their Cannery Park proposal for the abandoned Hunt Wesson site. It is not hard to understand what happened if you simply revisit the history. The city staff jerked around the Lewis Homes group from the time this group came to the community and asked: “What did Davis want at the former Hunt Wesson site?” The community gave input for a mixed use project. After at least two years and five public meetings, a mixed use plan evolved which the community helped design. Over a year ago the City Council gave the Lewis group AND city staff direction to continue processing the mixed use plan. Planning Director Catherine Hess (who railroaded the “insiders” local Tandem Properties 400 acre Covell Village project through in only a year) stalled the Cannery Park project, and continued to place obstacles in front of the (“outsider”) Lewis group developers.
Next, a commercial viability was done per Sue Greenwald’s agenda to also derail the mixed use project due to her pipe dream of a 100 acre high tech park. The 100 acre high tech idea was opposed by the neighbors due to the much greater impacts from a 100 acre commercial development and its incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods. The City’s commercial feasibility study wound up being at a cost of around $50,000 to the Lewis (Cannery Park) group. Meanwhile, the Lewis group had hired commercial recruitment agencies to try to find high tech users for the site per Sue’s request. NO high tech commercial users were interested, but Sue was in denial and raged with accusations. The commercial viability study was then released and clarified that a 100 acre high tech park was INFEASIBLE.
Yet, Sue continued to refute the facts and tried to reinvent the results. Sue then invented the concept of a fictitious “green” high tech park to attract progressive support claiming that a green high tech park would work (this is despite the “high tech park = infeasible” conclusion from the commercial feasibility study). The Business and Economic Development Commission AND the Planning Commission then reviewed the commercial feasibility study, and the Cannery Park proposal. These Commission’s disagreed with Sue and they and gave direction to staff to continue processing the Lewis application on the Cannery Park mixed use project. Meanwhile, the community continued giving input to the Cannery Park mixed use proposal and continued to support it.
Next, Planning director Catherine Hess continued to try to derail the Cannery Park mixed use project (i.e. she wanted to resurrect her previously failed attempt to pass Covell Village). The community and neighbors continued to support the Cannery Park mixed use proposal project at public meetings. Next, Sue teams up with Planning Director Catherine Hess and City Manager Bill Emlem (both of whom want to resurrect Covell Village)to demand an EIR for a (infeasible) high tech park. The EIR for this infeasible high tech park would now cost the Lewis group around $300,000. This was the ultimate sabotage.
At this point, the Lewis group realized that the sabotage would not end by Sue and the pro-Covell Village city staffers. It is tragic that Sue, Hess, and Emlen engineered taking away a well planned, community-based proposal which was a good use for the former Hunt Wesson site. Despite the facts that 1) the Lewis group worked well with the community to design the Cannery Park proposal, 2)the proposal was supported by the community, and 3)it clearly makes far more sense to have a mixed use on the Cannery Park site rather within the city than developing the 400 acre Covell Village site (outside the city), the destructive forces of Greenwald, Hess, and Emlen took their toll.
So, just maybe the Lewis Homes developers pulled out of the Cannery Park proposal was because they got jerked around by city staff and constantly attacked by Sue Greenwald and her ridiculous daydream of expecting an infeasible 100 acre high tech park. Why would anyone think that any developer would be foolish enough to try to build a huge “high tech” park in a site: 1) so far from I-80, 2) which neighbors opposed because of the greater impacts than a mixed-use, and 3)in the middle of the worst economic downturn in decades?
This whole saga is the best reason why NO commercial developer would come to Davis to try another proposal at this site because they are very likely to get jerked around as well. Sue Greenwald’s destructive behavior will be directly responsible if a new version of a Covell Village project emerges now. Meanwhile, the (former) Hunt-Wesson/Cannery park site will continue to lie vacant as it has for decades, since no commercial venture in its right mind would ever develop there after this fiasco.
To the Poster of “History shows why Cannery Park Proposal Was Withdrawn”
With all due respect to Lewis Homes, the location and time were just wrong. We need businesses. We need high tech and other types of business to come to Davis for tax revenue. We don’t need more homes. We don’t need a big sprawl of homes. We don’t need sprawl and more congestion of homes.
Lewis was a foot in the door for Covell Village. Therefore, I’m glad they decided to leave.
DPD, thank you for posting the color map from Lewis Homes where they themselves had designed the map with transportation corridor arrows aimed straight into Covell Village (east) and Grande Neighborhood (north). The project proposal was a complete set up for huge amounts of new sprawl and Service Level F traffic. I am certain that the arrows were placed on that map for the benefit of certain City Council members whose financial benefactors are the Covell Village Partners.
I was going to put that map up on local cable during the ballot campaign, but Lewis came to their senses and pulled the plug.
Now, moving on, can the City still get a good financial study done of the 100 acre parcel using the zoning it has?
I think that the City has to use its public agency powers to set up a financing vehicle where the infrastructure is paid for with bonds or something, and as the parcels are sold the bonds are paid back. (I’m not an expert in these financial issues, but I know that such things are commonly done when local governments want to jump-start commercial development in an area, and the investors get tax-free interest and benefits from putting money into the start up aspect of the project.)
I know that the economy is a wreck right now, but I am looking several years down the road.
The poster “History Shows Lewis Homes…” either works for Lewis Homes or appears to simply swallow the nonsense these people spout. It is pure fabrication to say that they had even the smallest glimmer of an open mind in this process. The community “visioning” nonsense was just whitewash to make it appear that they were listening. They did have proposals for a green high-tech park and they bulldozed the buildings to make sure that the proposal wouldn’t work.
Lewis Homes wanted to build houses. They didn’t get what they wanted so they finally had to give up.
It is a victory for Davis and a major accomplishment by Sue Greenwald that these bozos have finally given up their project. Hopefully they will get the heck out of town.
To “History shows why Cannery Park proposal was withdrawn”
Your style of negative writing and attacks on Sue run throughout the blog pieces on that parcel. Get over your bitterness for losing a paying client, and move on.
Everyone knows that Sue and I have had our issues over the years, but she and I have been consistently together on the Cannery site being develped per its current zoning. Sue proposed that zoning in about 2001, and I voted for it. I have always publically supported her views on the site.
I strongly believe, like Sue, that having a 100 acre commercial/R&D site within the city is a diamond. It needs to be developed to provide companies and jobs that complement the wonderful research being done by the university. Davis needs a large jobs center to interact with UCD research efforts.
There may be an argument for not building more houses, but we still need more apartments. Students and renters still have to deal with 0.8% vacancy rates. This is a very unfair situation.
The “History…) poster is delusional. I attended some of the meetings on the Lewis Homes proposal. This was not truely a mixed use propolal in the first place. It was a proposal for homes with a small parcel set aside for some sort of business park. That would have failed given its size, and would eventually have been houses also. At these meetings also, there were small numbers of people. For “History” to claim that the “commununity” helped design and supported this proposal is rediculous. To claim the “community” does not want a business park/high tech facility is also rediculous. Based on what? Has the author surveyed the town? I guess I missed out.
“History” is right on one thing. Some staff did continue to push for facilitation of development of Covell Village 2. That is why the Lewis Homes proposal was being designed with the adjacent property in mind. The Lewis Homes proposal would have made development of CV that much more likely. I am sooo happy they are gone.
Part of the reason Lewis Homes withdrew their proposal may have had to do with past actions, but the present market doomed them. I think “History” needs to take a few deep breaths and let it go. Lewis Homes is gone, hopefully for good. We need something that will bring some revenue to our city. Houses don’t do that. “Hisory” knows that, so why the support of this project? The city staff now need to do their jobs and see that this property is marketed for high tech. The city needs to send a clear message that this property is not going to be houses, then the speculative value of the land will return to its actual value as a light industrial site and encourage its development for high tech.
People need homes cities need revenue.
I went to some of the Cannery Park public outreach meetings and I really liked the mixed use plan and was also opposed to the high tech park for so many reasons. It would have been a terrible location for a big commercial park with all of the truck traffic and the impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. This plan incorporated community input and, I agree that it would have been a good use.
I find the history info above shocking that staff and Sue Greenwald creating so many problems for the Cannery Park proposal. What a shame. The City Staff has no business being so political. They are supposed to be neutral and not play favorites but clearly they have an agenda. I am also disappointed in Sue Greenwald for causing so much havoc and having no regard for all of the community input for this project.
I find the “history” posting information pretty shocking, but it sure explains why these developers gave up and why no other commercial developers will want to come to Davis. I think it is helpful to others how this disaster happened and who was responsible. I am also worried about the consequences of this and how it will bring on another version of a huge residential proposal for the Covell Village site. What a disaster if Sue’s actions cause that. Thanks for the info on this. I will stay tuned for the fallout from this unfortunate outcome.
What is most concerning in History’s post is that City Planner Catherine Hess and City Manager Bill Emlen are planning to “resurrect” Covell Village; what is wrong with these people…60% of a NO vote on Measure X wasn’t enough of a message to you that we DO NOT want high-density, sprawl in our town; if the two of you read these blogs (and I hope you do), if you are planning another Covell Village, it will be political suicide for both of you, I assure you of that…shameful!!!
I have seen Mike Harrington post hostile remarks before and I see it happening today. The posting on the Cannery Park history is informational and although there is some criticism of city staff and Sue Greenwald it certainly seems well deserved.
It seems interesting that Mike is so anti-housing at Cannery Park as opposed to the No on Measure X campaign which supported housing at the Cannery park site. The No on Measure X campaign had the right idea to not develop the Covell Village site and redevelop the cannery site. This would spare hundreds of acres of ag land at the Covell Village site from being developed.
The mixed use that Cannery Park proposed actually would have been some housing and some business park (which Mike argues for). Clearly, mixed use is the best use for the Cannery Park/Hunt Wesson site. Also, as has been stated more than once on this blog, the Hunt Wesson cannery site was vacant for many years. Obviously, no commercial group wants it for a commercial park. It seems obvious that the commercial feasibility study concluding that a huge high tech park at the old Hunt Wesson is infeasible, is correct.
I am interested in knowing what Harrington’s position is on the Wildhorse horse farm proposal for a dense residential development. Mike has made ag preservation arguments on this blog in the past and he also opposed the Cannery Park proposal. It is common knowledge that Harrington is a close associate of Bill Ritter’s who works for the developer trying to get the Wildhorse horse ranch site developed into a very dense residential development. Ritter opposed the Cannery park residential and Harrington followed suit. Sounds somewhat like a case of eliminating competition for residential development (i.e. opposing Cannery park and pushing for development of the Wildhorse horse farm). But why pave over the Wildhorse horse farm ag land if the housing could go on the old cannery site? Seems like profit to some selected developers being prioritized over good planning.
Apparently, the Wildhorse neighbors are opposed to the shoehorned in residential proposal (it even has three story residential buildings) which would pave over a beautiful horse farm. Since it sounds like the public voted on the Wildhorse plan years ago which included the horse farm. Why would anyone want to pave over this ag land which we voted to have as a horse farm, when we can redevelop an abandoned cannery?
“It seems interesting that Mike is so anti-housing at Cannery Park as opposed to the No on Measure X campaign which supported housing at the Cannery park site.”
Really? I recall no such thing. I do not see it on the still operational website nor do I see it in my literature. If we are going to repeat this claim over and over again, I would like to see documentation.
The closest reference I see if an op-ed in the Davis Enterprise signed by multiple people that suggested (not supported but suggested) the site as a possible (against emphasis on possible) alternative.
[quote]Instead of Covell Village, Davis can choose change on a more manageable scale — change that will allow us to augment our diversity by building truly affordable housing without undermining city finances and services or our quality of life. The 100-acre site of the old Hunt-Wesson cannery and the 27-acre PG&E site at Fifth and L streets are prime candidates for redevelopment. The PG&E site, for example, is within walking distance of the downtown and the Southern Pacific Depot.[/quote]
LINK ([url]http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/cfrp/documents/oped_July17_2005.htm[/url])
That does not mean the campaign supported Cannery and certainly not this particular project.
[i]”Apparently, the Wildhorse neighbors are opposed to the shoehorned in residential proposal (it even has three story residential buildings) which would pave over a beautiful horse farm.”[/i]
How do you know the neighbors oppose this plan? I was told — by the developer, so take it with a grain of salt — that the neighbors favor the plan he is now proposing.
I am personally neutral on this question. I understand the feeling of keeping undeveloped land undeveloped. I have nothing to gain whatsoever from this development. And I don’t think land zoned for agriculture in Yolo County should ever be rezoned against the will of a majority.
Yet I have lived most of my life in Davis and have seen a lot of farms “paved over” the last 44 years. Where I live and where virtually everyone else in Davis lives was at one time undeveloped farm land. If the ethos 50 years ago was to prohibit Davis farm land from being paved over for housing — or industry or commercial or the university — then roughly 90% of us who call Davis home today could not live here. Instead, we would be living in some other town which was farm land but is now paved over.
Perhaps a fair and convincing case can be made for greater density in housing (to use less farm land); and perhaps this Wildhorse Ranch proposal lacks the density of development you desire. But just because it is farmland today — for about a dozen horses and no crops, from what I can see — doesn’t mean its best use forever is as farmland. … If the city council ultimately gives WHR its blessing, it will have to come before the voters in a Measure J referendum. Only if a majority likes the proposal will it be rezoned.
To “Birds of a feather…”
Post your name. Your writing style always gives you away, even if you change your anonymous name over and over, as you try to do. Your position strongly supporting the Service Level F traffic and the arrows into further sprawl development was shocking to those of us who know you.
My second son (Mickey) is going to be riding his bike to school up F Street, and I can assure you that I will never, ever let you and your clients wreck those city streets with so much traffic from Lewis Homes or Covell Village.
So far as the “havoc” that you say Sue wreaks on others, whatever. I have spent more time with her than you, and she won 3x, and usually votes the way I favor. If you disagree with her so much, run for office. Stick your neck out.
Also, for the first time since getting off the CC, I actually watched a full presentation and votes on an issue: the affordable housing plan just south of I-80. Sue’s comments stressing safety and erroring on the side of good health for children were right on. I was proud of her comments and votes. I saw how others often tried to cut her off, and I would have fought back, too.
She and I voted against the Olive Drive student housing on the Youmans parcel due to the proximity to the freeway, and every time I drive on the exit ramp past those bedrooms of those innocent college students I cringe at the noise and smog rolling in those windows. The developer could have had my vote if they had removed the one set of building jammed against the freeway, but they refused. The had owned that land for generations, and could afford to give up that row, but no, they were going to take their profits at the expense of health of those kids. Sue and I lost, 3/2.
In that Olive Drive vote, Ruth voted for the project partially on the basis that the prevaling winds were from the north, so the smog would not get into the lungs of those kids. (Go back and read the staff reports and comments.) However, I heard her say on the vote to support the latest project south of the freeway that the prevailing winds were from the south! Which is it?
I was proud of Ruth for standing up to the cell phone companies as to the potentional adverse effects from radiation hundreds of yards away. That same analysis applies to housing next to freeways, but she did not follow it.
In any case, “Birds of a feather…”, post your name when you comment. We already know your name, but obviously, we did not understand you: strongly opposed to Covell Village (you went through the mud fight with Whitcomb and Tandem 3x right?), yet you support the Lewis Homes sprawl nightmare. Which is it?
I don’t mean to be so personal, “Birds of a Feather,” but you are talking about safety and health issues that affect my little boy’s lungs and riding his bike, and that makes it personal, indeed.
Hi Rich:
“How do you know the neighbors oppose this plan? I was told — by the developer, so take it with a grain of salt — that the neighbors favor the plan he is now proposing.”
The notion (propogated by developers) that most neighbors in Wildhorse/East Davis support this project is completely unfounded; most (with the exception of those abutting the land on Carvaggio) are still not fully aware of the proposed extent of the project (especially when the aerial views from the models of the architects are seen, and show it to be a quite high density development with three story apartment complexes jutting out of the open land), coupled with the proposed 500+ parking spaces (which equates to a least an additional 400+ average more cars on Covell Blvd; and how about the water supply to these project (in a drought year), and not to mention, the concerns that unfilled units (in tough economic times) translate to potential for squatters, crime (what is being seen in Natomas nowadays); the developers have convinced a small number of neighbors (through their “community facilitators”) that this is “as good of a project as it gets”, and that if you don’t support this project, a bigger one will come later, possibly closer to your neighborhoods in the near future (it’s almost a “reverse NIMBY” argument), but the bigger numbers of citizens will become more informed (wait until the EIR comes out on this project), and will likely vote a resounding NO when it comes to a Measure J vote, when the true scope and environmental impact of this project on Davis is revealed.
Lewis’ withdrawal is an example of a “death by a thousand cuts”, a “straw that broke the camel’s back.”
The final straw was when the City Council required Lewis to pay for a two-part EIR, half of which would have been directed at analyzing a project with 100% Business Park, which Lewis was not willing to entertain. That EIR, in turn, would have been a main political weapon of the opponents of the project when it faced a referendum vote, as was likely.
Would you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to manufacture the pillar of your cynical and ruthless political opponents campaign against you? No. You’d likely laugh in their face. That is essentially what Lewis did to the City of Davis, although in a dignified manner.
I frankly think the City Council did not fully understand the signal they were sending. In the boom years, the fantastic profits from development meant the City could essentially “write its own ticket” with developers. I’d estimate that 80% of the potential profits have been squeezed out of the development business.
In the current economic environment, if the City wants any economic activity at all, it is going to have to be a little more accommodating, to developers and every other type of business.
And by the way, has anyone called Sue Greenwald, Mike Harrington & Company to account for their assertions during the Covell Village Campaign that “Davis will ALWAYS get a deal at least as good as that offered by the Covell Village developers, no matter what project it is.” Are they ready to admit they were wrong, and that, whatever you think about development and such, Covell Village (with like $150 million in City benefits, new equipped and staffed fire station, huge new school site, $60 million for school facilities, $40 million for city projects and parks, $20 million for traffic and bike improvements, land and facilities for virtually every local charitable organization, etc., etc., etc.) was the best deal the City will ever see, and that it was rejected on their advice? Will they now admit that they were very wrong on that point?
To Mike Harrington,
There seems to be a lot of defensive and off tangent information in your posting (and also hostile information) but no information on if you support development of the Wildhorse farm which was asked. Are you supporting the proposal to pave over the Wildhorse horse farm?
“And by the way, has anyone called Sue Greenwald, Mike Harrington & Company to account for their assertions during the Covell Village Campaign that “Davis will ALWAYS get a deal at least as good as that offered by the Covell Village developers, no matter what project it is.” Are they ready to admit they were wrong, and that, whatever you think about development and such, Covell Village (with like $150 million in City benefits, new equipped and staffed fire station, huge new school site, $60 million for school facilities, $40 million for city projects and parks, $20 million for traffic and bike improvements, land and facilities for virtually every local charitable organization, etc., etc., etc.) was the best deal the City will ever see, and that it was rejected on their advice? Will they now admit that they were very wrong on that point?”
Hello, the citizens of Davis voted 60% to 40% they did not want this project. What part of democracy don’t you understand?
Wow! “Birds of a feather” and “For mixed use and against high tech” sound like the same person. Same language and writing style. I wonder…..
Again, the NO on X campaign did NOT support housing at the Hunt Wesson site. It was used along with several other sites in Davis as an example of an alternative site only.
Please give up on the personal attacks. You completely turn off your audience and lose any credibility left to you. Lewis Homes is gone. That site will now, hopefully, be marketed for high tech and maybe we can finally get something in there that will bring some money to the city.
Save the horses: you don’t even live close to the project, so what is your problem with it? I believe you mentioned at another time that it would bring down your property values and bring crime to the area? That sure sounds nimby to me. The three story buildings are stepped up from one to two to three. There are no three story building jutting out of the ground. As to water: in Davis, we don’t have a system where each neighborhood is supported by a well or by their own wells. Our wells are connected and serve large areas. Not all are on at the same time necessarily. Depends on demand. The demand that this small number of units puts on the system will be a drop in the bucket and will not affect your neighborhood at all.
I remember that you earlier stated you supported Covell Village. Do you have any idea of the impacts of a 1900 unit development on ground water, traffic, air quality, etc. And it was proposed for land that is mostly class I and II soils and was and is actually farmed. The Wild Horse Ranch site is not and cannot be farmed, and contrary to what “Birds of a feather asserts, was never meant to be open space forever. We never voted on that, because that was never stated in any document at the time. We voted on the development agreement, the zoning change and the general plan amendment. In none of those documents was it stated anywhere that that property was to be open space. What we voted on was to retain the ag zoning and land use designation, but as we all know, those can be changed with either a vote of council or a vote of the people, as is being proposed at this time.
I am really getting tired of the deliberate misinformation flying around on this blog.
“Whatever the cause of the home price premium in Davis building more homes will reduce the premium…”
I’ve been following real estate prices in and around Davis since the mid-1970’s. There has always been a 15 – 20% “premium” for living in the Davis school district, even when Davis was the fastest-growing city in Yolo County — which it was during the 1980’s.
The disparity at the moment is far higher than I have ever seen.
Median price of Davis homes is $435,000 (down 15% over last year), with 53 homes on the market and 14 foreclosures.
Woodland median home price is $230,000 (down 24% over last year), with 173 homes on the market and 465 foreclosures.
Dixon median home price is $269,875 (down 25% over last year), with 81 homes on the market and 171 foreclosures (keep in mind that Dixon has only about 25% the population of Davis or Woodland).
Those, by the way, are median sales prices, not average asking prices.
I was opposed to the Covell Village project and one of the reasons was that I remember the literature stating that the Hunt Wesson site would be a better site for housing than Covell Village. Also, I am reading the posting by “Birds of a feather” and see no personal attacks, just interesting information and connections of people involved in the business of development here in Davis. I do note that there is no response on Mike Harrington’s position on the development of the Wildhorse horse farm.
On the horse farm, I don’t care if these developers are allowed to develop the site , I agree with the postings to oppose developing it. I agree with the comment of why would be pave over a horse farm if we can redevelop the old cannery into housing? A high tech park would be terrible in that location and as has been pointed out earlier it has been vacant for many years. No commercial outfit wants it for a huge commercial park. Also, interesting info above that the City’s commercial feasibility study said that a high tech park was infeasible. Let’s get real folks. I agree that the Cannery Park mixed use was the best use for the old cannery site.
Why you are opposed to a 191 unit development but in favor of an over 600 unit development given the other things you have stated.
I am opposed to developing a horse farm that should stay a horse farm. Instead I am support of putting housing on an abandoned cannery site that no commercial company has wanted and that no company will want. The city’s commercial feasibility study said that a high tech park is not feasible. Also, better the old cannery site than Covell Village for housing.
So you are not concerned with growth. Nor are you concerned with traffic congestion on Covell.
Maybe 10 years ago — long before I had any idea about the profitability of developing ag land into housing — I proposed this for the combined Hunt-Wesson/Covell Village: The new UCD School of Viticulture & Enology (on the H-W site) and a collection of 5-6 boutique wineries on the CV land. My thinking was that the wineries would profit from the connection to the university; they would be a nice tourist attraction and a draw for locals; they could establish retail wine sites (of the Napa Valley variety) along Covell & Pole Line; they would have space for processing, bottling and aging; and on most of the land, wine grapes could be grown. (I’m not an expert on the topic, but I do know that some varieties of wine grapes like our climate.)
Alas, that bird has flown the coop. The new v & e school was built on campus; and there’s no getting around the problem that the land is worth so much more as housing than it would be as grapes. Yet I thought that setting really would have been a nice feature in Davis, as the boutique wineries are great to visit in Napa and Sonoma.
Thanks Don so 1.6 to 1.9 times the price of the surrounding communities instead of 2:1. Close enough to make the community ask the question what should the ratio be and what should we do about it.
Stop the insanity now, PLEASE!!!!
The original message of this blog (by David Greenwald) that started this thread was that we don’t need any new projects now within the city limits; Cannery Park is dead and buried, and so should be Wildhorse Ranch; lets fill the 200 housing units that are vacant first! Let’s think about what increased sprawl and traffic will do to this city; get over the personal attacks and the melodramatic stories of your children’s medical problems; JUST SAY NO TO ALL DEVELOPMENT (where ever that may be)!
The historic ratio has been 1.15 to 1.2. The way to achieve greater affordability of housing in Davis is to build apartments.
“I am opposed to developing a horse farm that should stay a horse farm.”
It was productive agricultural land until the Duffel family built houses and the horse ranch on it 25 years ago.
[i]”The way to achieve greater affordability of housing in Davis is to build apartments.”[/i]
I agree.
I suspect the low apartment vacancy rate increases single family home prices in Davis — in normal times. Students who can’t find apartments, rent houses. Investors in Davis houses need higher rents to justify their investments. They get the high house rents as a result of the tight rental market. The high rents then draw in more investors, inflating home prices here.
If apartment units were added fast enough to allow a normal 5-10% vacancy rate, investors in Davis houses couldn’t charge what they do in rents; and investors wouldn’t (in normal times) find Davis so attractive to bid up houses.
If we got rid of the ordinances which force X% of the units to be set aside for low-income, developers would build apartments, today. By creating competition for the existing complexes, we would do far more good for low-income and middle-income renters than “low-income housing” schemes do. They hurt far more people than they help. That is universally true. The main thing results of “low-income housing” schemes are: 1) they enrich builders who take a TON of government money to build and operate them (under the non-profit guise); 2) they concentrate poverty; and 3) they harm the finances of cities, because those developments never pay enough in taxes or fees to cover the expenses they generate.
If you think building “low-income housing” is a good idea, try this: Name a single city which over the long term had more affordable housing for more people after enacting low-income schemes? Before Davis had any of these low-income rules, the supply of affordable housing was far greater. Our experience is not unique at all in that regard. It’s catholic.
“If we got rid of the ordinances which force X% of the units to be set aside for low-income, developers would build apartments, today. By creating competition for the existing complexes, we would do far more good for low-income and middle-income renters than “low-income housing” schemes do…”
Great points Rich! But be careful, the bloggers (like Long Time Davisite) will now start labeling you a “NIMBY” (NO, not the dreaded N word!)
Why is it in this town, when someone makes a rational arguments against low-income “cluster” developments (similar to yours), are they right away assumed to be “Elitist” or “Nimby” by other factions of the town; Give me a break!
Traffic and congestion will certainly result from the Wildhorse horse farm being developed and it paves over a nice horse farm in process with a terribly designed project jammed in. The bottom line is that what is left of the horse farm should be preserved. The logical place for residential is the Hunt Wesson site.