On next Tuesday’s agenda, there is an item that will authorize the city to spend a maximum of 20,000 (usd) from the General Plan/ long range planning fund to do a Senior Survey.
Back in early June, the City Council by a 3-2 vote directed staff to proceed with a “Strategy for Housing Seniors in Davis.”
“Staff finds that the quality added by the survey to the senior housing strategy project outweighs the time and cost impacts. The differences in the general work program and target schedule of the senior housing strategy project, with and without the survey, are described in this staff report.”
While this approach is certainly preferable to using data collected by the group formed by the Covell Village developers, there are some obvious concerns about both the concept and logistics of such an endeavor. Covell Village developers have completely driven the perception of the demand for such a survey. But at least at the end of this process, we will have real and not manufactured data.
The time frame by which this is to be accomplished is December 31 of this year, which would be just in time for the new Covell Village proposal that will be introduced in January of 2010 and go to a possible Measure J vote in June of 2010.
According to the staff report they have three reasons to do this survey:
- The results of the survey would supplement data already being collected and analyzed regarding the existing and projected numbers of seniors.
- The results of the survey would inform policy options and decisions on how many and what types of senior housing should be planned.
- The survey would provide a representative sample of senior in Davis. Other surveys about senior preferences have been either at the national or regional level, or not a representative sample, or both.
However, for some reason the city staff has determined that the ages to be surveyed would be 55 and over. While that would determine the viewpoint of one particular demographic–those who are seniors or soon to be, it would fail to look at senior housing needs within the larger framework of housing priorities. A better approach would be to sample the entire population while oversampling for those over 55 so that you have statistically reliable data for your target group, but that approach would also enable a broader analysis of housing needs rather than simply looking at senior groups in isolation.
The staff report also mentions that the City has decided to “delay initiation of a committee process to develop the senior housing strategy. This was done in conjunction with a re-evaluation at the staff level of workloads and staffing commitments.”
It appears that they will look toward taking policy options and final recommendations to the Senior Citizens, Social Services and Planning commissions during the process where public comments could be received.
Commentary
However, instead of backing out of the December 31, 2009 timeline, they have simply changed the process to make it work under that rubric. Why? There is only one possible explanation and that is that Covell Village Part II will be introduced to the city of Davis in January of 2010 and they need to have the rationale for the project in place at that point in time.
Right now, by surveying only those 55 or over, there is a danger of cooking the data. This project will not happen in isolation of other housing needs and it should not be presented or surveyed in isolation of the rest of the project. That was a big problem with the proposed committee, and it remains a big problem. Seniors do have unique housing needs, but there is a single pool of housing in this city and we need to address the housing needs of seniors within the broader question of housing needs in the community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Here we go again. Why not include Budget and Finance?
If it’s such an important issue, why wasn’t Senior Housing even discussed in the recently approved Chiles Ranch development? Why no SH in the proposed Wildhorse? The timing ploy is pretty obvious.
Whitcomb’s ultimate strategy will be to get his entire 400+ acre property approved(agreeing to staged future development) for annexation, included in the Measure J ballot measure,for a relatively SMALL project which may have appeal to a special group without being seen as a major negative to the larger voter population. While not exactly the same, both the WHR and the future Covell Village Senior project proposal reflect this new strategy to use voter approval of Measure J as a first step to get a zoning change or annexation. Then, with Measure J removed from the process by a Yes Measure J vote, the zoning change or annexation in place and without explicit baseline agreements and/or penalties in the Measure J ballot that would “trigger” a new Measure J vote, it’s back to the old ways of the Council majority, Emlen and the developer having full control of the process.
“The results of the survey would inform policy options and decisions on how many and what types of senior housing should be planned.”
How about housing for….
renters,
young adults,
first-time home buyers,
move-up home buyers,
UCD employees,
non-UCD employees?
How many units, and what types, should be planned for those groups?
Maybe a large contingent of renters should show up at the Tuesday meeting and politely request that $20,000 be spent to survey the need for housing for them.
If the City of Davis were to require building to Universal Design standards in all new housing, then there would be no need for “senior housing,” handicapped housing, or any other form of segregated housing. Below, I have included the University of North Carolina’s Center for Universal Design’s introduction to Universal Design along with the first of their seven principles of Universal Design. I have also included the url for their home page.
I am 57, and I have no desire to be segregated into a senior ghetto when the use of universal design principles can keep all folks integrated in the community at large. And I wish the developers wanting to build in Davis would give up the ploy of wrapping themselves in a “grey power” flag. Enough, already!
=================
Universal Design Definition:
The design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.
1: Principle One: Equitable Use
The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities
GUIDELINES
Provide the same means of use for all users: identical whenever possible;
equivalent when not.
Avoid segregating or stigmatizing any users.
Provisions for privacy, security, and safety should be equally available to all users.
Make the design appealing to all users.
http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/index.htm
Just for the record, here is how Davis residents broke down by age in the 2000 census:
AGE BBREAKDOWN
Under 5 years: 2,772 (4.6%)
5 to 9 years: 3,195 (5.3%)
10 to 14 years: 3,306 (5.5%)
15 to 19 years: 6,911 (11.5%)
20 to 24 years: 13,698 (22.7%)
25 to 34 years: 9,015 (14.9%)
35 to 44 years: 7,348 (12.2%)
45 to 54 years: 6,807 (11.3%)
55 to 59 years: 1,939 (3.2%)
60 to 64 years: 1,313 (2.2%)
65 to 74 years: 1,976 (3.3%)
75 to 84 years: 1,511 (2.5%)
85 years and over: 517 (0.9%)
Ol timer at 8:40 am: Completely agree.
To the Halloween IV Partners and their Political Representatives: Although there are well thought out and valid differences of opinion amongst all of us as to Parlin Wildhorse, I can assure you that the front will be completely united as to your new application.
I know that the application will use senior housing as a front for early approval of sprawl housing on the remaining 2/3rds of the project’s 440 acres. I can already see the cable TV ad right now: I’ll take your 3 prior proposed land maps, show the new one, and show how it will really look in a few years. Run the traffic increase numbers, and run the smog increase numbers, and Halloween IV goes down.
And by the way, I thought it was disgusting the way you guys manipulated and took advantage of Mike Corbett and his good name in town.
Don: thanks for the demographic spread. The senior population we are talking about is around 10% of this town. Most of them have great housing already, so what Halloween IV is selling is large numbers of units for seniors who do not live here. In other words, effectively a “Sun City Davis” project with nationwide marketing. What’s in it for those who live here now? Nothing.
So why is the CC majority supporting this project? Since there is not a shred of local benefit, the conclusion is campaign cash for careers, social benefits of being included in the “in crowd,” or whatever floats their personal boats.
Barbara King: your comment that if the CC requied full accessibility for all housing, then there would be absolutely no need for H IV’s “Sun City Davis” project. I think that is one of the most brilliant and useful political conclusions I have ever heard around town.
Basically, what you are saying is that the EIR for H IV has to study as an equal weight alternative the adoption of full accessibility. If that were done, there is absolutely no way that H IV’s EIR could justify and excuse way the need for paving Covell Village to provide housing that is not needed if the CC adopts the 100% accessibility ordinance. SUch an adoption would not require a dime in city money, and would not add one pound of carbon emission to the atmosphere.
Barbara, you are brilliant!
Mike Harrington says: “Ol timer at 8:40 am: Completely agree”..
If you agree, then you understand that the ONLY way to prevent this from being successful is to DEMAND a full and in-depth Measure J public process to, as fully as possible, nail down baseline agreement parameters BEFORE putting it to a Measure J vote. Supporting the current measure J time line for the WHR proposal and allowing citizen commissions to be excluded from the pre-Measure J process, as the WHR proponents like yourself, are doing , well-intentioned or not, is seriously undermining, perhaps fatally, the voter power of Measure J. Whether Parlin is a culprit or the victim of this strategy of Emlen,Saylor, Asmundson and yes, Souza ( all enemies of Measure J) should not be a factor. Protecting the voter power of Measure J DEMANDS a NO on P vote to demonstrate that the process that has been put before the voters for their Measure P vote is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
I was quite surprised by this decision to suddenly have a “senior survey”. Not one member on our Davis Senior Citizens Commission has been asked what questions should appear on such a questionnaire. It will be entirely up to city staff to figure out what inquiries to make and how they will be framed. That means this process is inherently flawed from the start.
The process is very clearly being developer driven, which is a complaint I have had for a long time about housing development in Davis. This is yet another disgraceful usurpation of process – which is no surprise to me. At what point is the City Council going to give direction to City Staff to follow the Brown Act, both in the letter of the law and in its spirit?
I fully concur with the above comments of both Don Shor and Barbara King. Universal design would solve a lot of the senior housing issues; and senior housing does not occur in a vacuum. It needs to be evaluated in the larger context of all citizens.
This entire process, or lack thereof, is infuriating.
Thanks David for posting this; so I now have more evidence to show all these Yes on P supporters (including Mike Parlington) that Covell Village II is moving along IRREGARDLESS of what happens with Measure P vote on 11/3; please tell them to stop spreading the fear-mongering tactic, if “you vote for P, Covell Village II will likely not pass” its all a bunch of horse manure!!!
Hey Mike Parlington
You keep referring to Covell Village II as “Halloween IV”; how about this one for Wildhorse Ranch: “Nightmare on Parlin Street”?
How about these: The Boogeyman, The Parlin Zone, Invasion of The Parlinsnatchers and Bride of Parlinstein.
I made the motion that we do a survey of senior housing preferences. The motion was defeated.
Most (not all) seniors and soon to be seniors that I talk with are interested in either aging in place or in a lateral move from suburban subdivision housing into quality townhouses or elevator condos walking distance to downtown. This should not be surprising.
A few years ago, we had FIVE applications to build large senior-only peripheral subdivision developments. I suspect that the developers sense that the internal needs in the price ranges that they are willing to build will be limited, and that they want to draw from a national market of affluent seniors. I tend to think that this is not the role for a University town.
The results of any questionnaire that we do will only be as good as the questions that we ask. We would have to give accurate descriptions of the various options.
Keep your eye on how the questionnaire is worded.
“I now have more evidence to show all these Yes on P supporters (including Mike Parlington) that Covell Village II is moving along IRREGARDLESS of what happens with Measure P vote on 11/3”
I don’t think that part has been in question. The question is really whether it will make it less likely the VOTERS support such a project.
Many many people have come up to me and urged me to support WHR saying that its approval would stop Covell, yet now we see it moving forward, apparently pretty vigorously, through the City. The logic here escapes me. I think the burden is on proponents making these claims to explain their logic.
Here is my logic. If you vote yes on P for WHR you send a signal to developers that if they run a dishonest campaign (with a dishonest ballot statement claiming fiscal benefits that don’t exist, saying peripheral sprawl is “pedestrian friendly” and “infill”, claiming repeatedly that $450,000 dollar townhouses are “really affordable”, ignoring the fact that the property tax on this parcel is 2/3 of the average for the rest of the City almost guaranteeing a bad fiscal outcome, etc.) that they can take over Davis. The pressure to develop cheap Ag land is huge. All a developer has to do is “entitle” the property to make profits for its investors, which, according to Parlin’s web page is its speciallty (go look).
Parlin will make millions on WHR if P goes through, making an investment of several hundred thousand dollars on consultants, paid students, etc well worth it. Our budget for No on P right now is just over $1000. If this wins you can be sure other developers will take a similarly cynical stand. Had Parlin run an honest or even reaosnably honest campaign perhaps one might have a different opinion, but anyone who thinks that a Yes on P vote will discourage future developers from coming in and trying to buy an election–I say baloney.
That is my logic. Plus the fact that we have met our SACOG targets and we already have 2000 homes coming (yes this includes UC Davis which is part of our community and the hosuing market in Davis includes UC Davis whether one likes it or not).
Proponents of P please state your logic in clear tyerms without any ad hominem arguments. Also realize that Covel is not the only project on the horizon. The real issue is who decides how Davis develops and when. If a project (WHR) ranked 27th by a City committee can make it to the top how can that be good process? As long as developers drive the process Davis citizens will get the short end. We can have green projects–Sue and Lamar have consistently voted that way–and a project closer to shops, downtown, work will be much greener (40% GHG in CA are from transportation) since more folks will walk or bike.
Thanks. Sorry for such a long post. Phil
Phil:
I appreciate your perspective. I think one thing that needs to be clarified, I don’t think anyone believes that Measure P will prevent Covell Village from coming forward. Many of us believe that its passage will make it far less likely that a second Covell Village will be approved by the voters. I think it’s going to put pressure on all future developers to be more green. I think it’s also going to make the 2000 houses argument stronger.
And you’re right, Covell is not the only project on the horizon and that is concerning to me as well. I’m equally concerned about a 600 housing development at Cannery, a potential housing development at Nishe which is a logistical nightmare, and further pressure to develop above and beneath the signature curve. For me, WHR makes the other projects less likely in the near future and makes the bar higher for all future projects.
By itself that should not be sufficient reason to support or oppose the project, but it should be one consideration among many.
“Ironically some of the same people who are arguing that 2000 is enough were just nine months ago pushing for a 600 unit mixed use housing project at Cannery.”
By the way David, are any of these “pro-Cannery” people you are referring to signers of the No on P ballot statment (or rebuttal to Yes on P); and have they been part of the No on P debate panel??? If so, please name for everyone’s edification
By the way, nice Yes on P ad below, I wonder how much Parlin is paying for that one, or did they get it for free???
“By the way, nice Yes on P ad below, I wonder how much Parlin is paying for that one, or did they get it for free???”
The Yes on P campaign paid for that ad on the Vanguard just as they purchased a similar ad on the Davis Enterprise website, I believe at the same cost. The No on P campaign is welcome to pay for an ad as well.
David:
If we want green developement (and for the record, I do), why not just push the City Council to require it for all new developments, at least over a certain size? Why not also consider GHG emissions from cars, put in shops/workplace/lofts etc. as many other projects have to make the project much more sustainable? You can’t even buy milk or eggs in the WHR project or nearby. I don’t think that’s a good model for green develeopment despite some green features and I think folks that agrue we are creating a green Shangri La here are not looking at other, much greener developments elsewhere in the State–or for that matter just across town.
Parlin does not appear to have much of a track record on green development–why not at least allow really green firms to come in and bid rather than hitching ourselves to a developer without a really green track record?
WE can do better. I think this campaign can help us raise the bar and ask ourselves what do we really want. I agree we can’t just be naysayesr and I am not against any growth–but is this really the best Davis can do?
Our 2000 homes estimate is actually conservative according to City staff. One can argue that 191 more units makes the number bigger, of course, but by that logic an even larger project would help.
For the record, we have not endorsed Hunt Wesson or any other project and I do not believe any of our ballot signers endorsed such a project.
Honest debate is good. Phil
Phil:
“If we want green developement (and for the record, I do), why not just push the City Council to require it for all new developments, at least over a certain size?”
I think we should. I question whether we would get it, but we ought to do that.
“You can’t even buy milk or eggs in the WHR project or nearby.”
You consider Nugget as not being nearby? That said, I think it’s reasonable to debate the green features. I do think if the project provides housing to those who work in Davis but do not live here, it will be a net plus on GHG from cars.
“Parlin does not appear to have much of a track record on green development”
That’s correct, Parlin does not have much of a track record on green development. However, after their non-green project blew up on them last January, they hired someone knowing they were going to be pushed to do a green project. I hope this means that their future projects will proceed along these lines, however, right now we are considering this project not their past or future projects.
We can always do better, part of that means to start somewhere and build on it. This is not a perfect project, but it is easily the best project that has come along in the past twenty years in this town.
“Our 2000 homes estimate is actually conservative according to City staff. “
I don’t think it is actually looking at the numbers in there. I’m very concerned that equating on-campus student housing to homes will undermine future arguments as it will not be a credible argument to the general voter population in Davis. Many of the other units are not likely to be built in the near future.
I’m against most new growth in Davis at this point, but I’m more supportive of this project because I think it pushes us towards where we need to be on building standards, sustainability, etc. I agree we can do better and hope that this debate will help move us in that direction.
“For the record, we have not endorsed Hunt Wesson or any other project and I do not believe any of our ballot signers endorsed such a project. “
While I am pleased to hear that, I do know that a number of people who spoke against this project at council also supported the Cannery project. I did not go back through my notes to see who had done both, I suppose I could if that really becomes of issue. The ballot signers are not the sum total of the No on P people.
David:
Wouldn’t you feel better if a developer with a really green track record was involved? You seem to agree that Parlin has been dragged kicking and screaming into all of this. The City Council also had to force them to build the affordable housing (rather than giving the land to the City and shifting the costs) even though its a major campaign pledge.
When all is said and done the developer’s true commitment to green development matters. Even if its in the baseline, (which Parlin also fought) if Parlin or another developer who buys the entitled property chooses to go back on its pledges and not live up to the agreement, what is our recourse? Suing a developer is extremely expensive.
Can we both at least agree that we’d both sleep better if a developer with a really green track record was running the show here? What I see is a developer who is willing to say anything to get this project through–should we trust them?
“The ballot signers are not the sum total of the No on P people.”
Yes David, you are correct here. We have had supporters from No on P from ALL OVER DAVIS come to us at the Market, donate money and time (unlike paid college students, making $15 a hour!); many of whom have told us: “I can’t believe that the same people who were working for NO on X are supporting this project?” One woman told me yesterday, quite vehemently: “How dare they call $400, 000 townhomes affordable!” This is the beauty of Measure J, that we, as a small grass roots group, are given the ability to challenge well-financed and slick organized developers!!! I will vote NO on P, and NO on any measures that try to strip of that opportunity
Phil:
Two things play into this. First, Parlin doesn’t have as much incentive to shirk on their promises given that they hope to be repeat players in development. If they shirk here, no one will trust their word in the future.
Second, I trust certain people working on this project who have given assurances that this will be a green project.
Out of curiosity the major developers I see who own property around town are Gidaro, Whitcombe, Ramos, Signature, the Yakzhans, which of these property owners are known as green developers?
It is evident from the serious flaws and half/or whole untruths that Sue Greenwald has been PERMITTED to raise, which have then been acknowledged when exposed and either “papered over” or been changed, clearly demonstrates that the Progressive” political”leaders” and activists .who offered their names and reputations to this project, knew very little about it other than that Bill Ritter,hired to corral the progressive vote and who held a fistful of their political IOU’s, was calling them in. Whatever the outcome of this Measure P ballot in November, I believe one result will be increasing the “fracturing” of Davis’ progressive political influence and cynical demoralization of Davis’ progressive voter . It will be very difficult to “get this toothpaste back in the tube”. This plays right into the hands of the developer interests.
If none of the land is owned by people with a green track record, the City could, if it wanted to, specify that the land can only be developed by firms with a specific track record. Perhaps some think this is too odious, but remember that Davis is one of the few towns in the central valley that did not lay out the red carpet for developers during the boom. As a result, though our housing prices are lower than a few years ago, we have not been hit the way Woodland has, or Natomas, or West Sac. Davis is still a desirable place to live and developers will want to build here since our houses command a premium. Why can’t the City use this leverage to extract a price?
The main arguement for Parlin seems to be that others are worse(though I am not sure given what I have seen in this campaign. I am not advocating a model where we have to choose Parlin or someone else who may or may not be wosre. How about a model where the City determines what we want? If we, as a City, entitle land it increases in value dramatically and that gives the City leverage. I’d prefer a debate over what we want to a debate over which developer is the most dishonest.
The two single most divisive personalities in the progressive leadership are Sue and Eileen. They nearly destroyed the No on X campaign, and none of us can stand to sit on a committee or campaign operation with either one of them in the same room. Sue’s antics at the Finance and Budget Commission are just the latest example.
DPD says: “Second, I trust certain people working on this project who have given assurances that this will be a green project.”
We were also asked to trust the reputation of Mike Corbett when he was HIRED, exactly for his reputation in Davis, by Whitcomb to be the cheerleader for the Measure X campaign. Mike Corbett was forced to admit that, in reality, he had NO POWER to make/or vote on any CV decisions. “Assurances” by those who are Parlin’s employees “working on this project” should realistically be given little weight.
Deja-vu: no one has to trust anything as to the sustainability. Parlin voluntarily added to the project a requirement that the sustainability aspects of this project go to review by the NRC and approval by the Planning Commission. In other words, Parlin cannot slip anything past the City on the basis of a quiet little Friday afternoon submission for signature from only the Planning Director. Parlin itself wanted there to be full transparency and a public vetting process.
As to Mike Corbett, he was merely a pawn manipulated by CV. Used up, spit out, for little cash, since the contingency fee never paid due to the project flaming out in Nov 05. In spite of his abuse by CV partners, I hope Mike sticks around and works on another real, truly sustainable project.
David Greenwald says: [quote]I think one thing that needs to be clarified, I don’t think anyone believes that Measure P will prevent Covell Village from coming forward. Many of us believe that its passage will make it far less likely that a second Covell Village will be approved by the voters.[/quote]I don’t see the logic in this statement; it appears to be a hollow rationale. At the rate that this council majority wants to grow (325 units a year), we would blow through the Wildhorse Ranch units in 7 months. We would build a subdivision the size of Wildhorse every 3 years. How is approving Wildhorse Ranch going to stop Covell Village, or the massive Parlin II development in West Davis?
I should add that a housing steering committee member told me that Mike Harrington and Maynard Skinner, who were both members of the Housing Steering Committee, argued to move up the priority of the massive West Davis Parlin development.
Mike Harrington says:[quote]As to Mike Corbett, he was merely a pawn manipulated by CV. Used up, spit out, for little cash, since the contingency fee never paid due to the project flaming out in Nov 05. In spite of his abuse by CV partners, I hope Mike sticks around and works on another real, truly sustainable project.[/quote]Mike, are you guys going to hire Mike Corbett to help sell the massive Parlin II development in West Davis?
Mike Harrington says” Deja-vu: no one has to trust anything as to the sustainability.’
We need to add this “sustainability” to the other repeated ad nauseum talking point phrases like “raise the bar” and “a no P vote will bring down our Measure J renewal”. Please tell me what is sustainable about this project’s very marginal fiscal analysis, even after Navasio was sent back to his desk by the Council majority to redo his previous analysis (the same thing was done during the Measure J Covell Village process) to come up with a new accounting method i.e, one that accepted one-time contributions, not on-going cash flow, that did not look beyond 15 years to determine if there would be enough money there to pay for the project’s upkeep?
Oh… I left out the other ad nauseum talking point, “really affordable!”
Ultimately, we are being asked to trust folks who have run a dishonest campaign, specifically:
1. This project does not benefit the City fiscally despite ballot claims and will eventually cost the City money.
2. This project is not “really affordable” with $450,000 town houses and only 15 apartments significantly below market rates for very low income familes (unlikley to be teachers, firemen and policemen Parlin keeps touting).
Many other claims have been made or exagerated for this project (e.g, the neighbors like it, its infill, etc.)–at some point one has to ask–should we trust these folks?
Phil:
The green features of WHR are in the baseline features of the Measure P vote. The developer cannot go back on his word on these without putting it all to another vote of the people.
Phil:
The city sets the rates for the affordable rental units, not the developer. Please settle this for yourself by checking with the city and asking them how they arrived at the rental costs for the low income housing in WHR.
“It is evident from the serious flaws and half/or whole untruths that Sue Greenwald has been PERMITTED to raise, which have then been acknowledged when exposed and either “papered over” or been changed, clearly demonstrates that the Progressive” political”leaders” and activists .who offered their names and reputations to this project, knew very little about it other than that Bill Ritter,hired to corral the progressive vote and who held a fistful of their political IOU’s, was calling them in. Whatever the outcome of this Measure P ballot in November, I believe one result will be increasing the “fracturing” of Davis’ progressive political influence and cynical demoralization of Davis’ progressive voter . It will be very difficult to “get this toothpaste back in the tube”. This plays right into the hands of the developer interests.”
Whatever happened to the idea of “voting your conscience” regardless of party officiliation. No party, political movement, etc. has a lock on righteousness on any issue. Issues often have nothing to do with party/political affilation. They have more to do with personal ethics/viewpoint. Geeeeeeeeeze!
“Davis is still a desirable place to live and developers will want to build here since our houses command a premium. Why can’t the City use this leverage to extract a price? The main arguement for Parlin seems to be that others are worse(though I am not sure given what I have seen in this campaign. I am not advocating a model where we have to choose Parlin or someone else who may or may not be wosre. How about a model where the City determines what we want? If we, as a City, entitle land it increases in value dramatically and that gives the City leverage. I’d prefer a debate over what we want to a debate over which developer is the most dishonest.”
Amen! This is the real crux of the issue. This city needs to demand more of developers, and strike deals that are advantageous for citizens. Instead, we have tended to strike deals favorable to the developers but bad for citizens already here. Why? Bc we have a City Council majority that has been bought and paid for by the developers.
“The two single most divisive personalities in the progressive leadership are Sue and Eileen. They nearly destroyed the No on X campaign, and none of us can stand to sit on a committee or campaign operation with either one of them in the same room. Sue’s antics at the Finance and Budget Commission are just the latest example.”
Do you think there is an outside possibility Sue was driven to do what she did bc the process was so completely flawed? At what point does a City Council member, who is extremely troubled by the lack of proper process, stand up and start questioning what is going on? Why isn’t the CC majority demanding City Staff to follow proper procedure, and have development projects properly vetted by the appropriate commissions?
Good question, Outside Possibility. Why didn’t council, including Sue, demand that staff vet the WHR project through all the commissions? Sue knew this project was moving forward 4 years ago and even more so in the past year. Why didn’t she speak up then? Why wait until the recent F and B Commission meeting? Her behavior that night was a clear violation of rules and was inexcusable.
If Sue thinks the process is flawed why didn’t she say something about it a year ago when it could have been addressed? This whole issue of “flawed process” is just another red herring to justify generation of opposition to this great little project by two very destructive individuals with their own personal agendas.
Me thinks that no friend of Covell Village and Mike Harringon are one and the same…
to Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez:
I really do not get your point. Bill Ritter,now in the employ of Parlin, has been an active progressive political player in Davis for many years now and has contributed significantly to progressive candidates for local office as well as actively support progressive non-elected “leaders” on local issues that they have been involved in. These facts does raise the question concerning their early endorsement of WHR almost immediately following its presentation to the Council. In addition to endorsing gutting the Measure J process that they all argued so vigorously for in their support of Measure X, if they had considered some of the questions that so readily have come to mind and been exposed by others,they would have realized that it was quite premature to give WHR their “blessing”.
Sorry, but “no”, Mike and I are not one and the same. I am just another old-time progressive who is sick of the antics of some of our council members and other “progressives” in our community. Sue had plenty of time to address any issues she felt were a problem regarding this project early on, but she did not. It was clear she opposed it based on personal issues from the beginning. Now she is casting about looking for justification for her opposition and her refusal to meet with the developer early on when any perceived problems with the project could have been discussed and addressed. She also had plenty of time and opportunity to ensure that staff followed proper procedures in vetting this project to the commissions and the community, but there again, she did nothing.
I am in total agreement with whomever stated that bit about the two most devisive individuals in the progressive movement.
to No friend of Covell Village:
Sorry I mistook you for Mike Harrington. Your posting follows, to wording and sentence structure, so closely to the Parlin campaign talking points and Mike Harrington’s attempt to divert attention from the “message” by “attacking the messenger”. I have to commend the pro P campaign on keeping their people “on message”, with platitudes like “raise the bar”,”sustainability”, “affordability” and ,now, that it’s all Sue Greenwald’s fault when she exposes the flaws in Council majority/staff agreements with Parlin. What does your diatribe have to do with the facts and details(in contrast to Parlin campaign platitudes) that Sue has brought out, with commendable persistence in the face of Mayor Asmundson’s attempts to silence her and continuing derisive personal attacks(a repeat of the Covell Village Measure J process)?
“Now she is casting about looking for justification for her opposition and her refusal to meet with the developer early on when any perceived problems with the project could have been discussed and addressed. She also had plenty of time and opportunity to ensure that staff followed proper procedures in vetting this project to the commissions and the community, but there again, she did nothing.”
This is where you are wrong, wrong, wrong. City staff controls the process with an iron grip. Individual City Council members are pretty much powerless to direct staff to do much of anything. The City Council as a body can direct city staff, but not individual members. In consequence, the CC majority can direct city staff to do what they want, but not Lamar or Sue, who are in the minority. Even if Sue had met with Parlin, Parlin still would not have been allowed to make any presentations to commissions bc city staff has said “NO, THOU SHALT NOT” to developers. There is a very flawed process here, that is to no one’s benefit – EXCEPT THE CITY MANAGER, WHO DOESN’T WANT HIS/HIS STAFF’S DECISIONS QUESTIONED.
“I really do not get your point. Bill Ritter,now in the employ of Parlin, has been an active progressive political player in Davis for many years now and has contributed significantly to progressive candidates for local office as well as actively support progressive non-elected “leaders” on local issues that they have been involved in. These facts does raise the question concerning their early endorsement of WHR almost immediately following its presentation to the Council. In addition to endorsing gutting the Measure J process that they all argued so vigorously for in their support of Measure X, if they had considered some of the questions that so readily have come to mind and been exposed by others,they would have realized that it was quite premature to give WHR their “blessing”.”
How about “Measure P” will succeed or fail on its merits, regardless of political maneuvering behind the scenes? You seem to think people take one side or the other on Measure P bc they are “progressive” or “nonprogressive”. I am neither, and will vote on Measure P based on its merits. Why do I have to somehow be in one political camp or the other? And from what I can tell, there is no good def’n of “progressive”. People can agree to disagree on specific issues, regardless of political affiliation. That is the beauty of democracy…
Sorry Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze: I thought that you were railing against my observation that it is quite reasonable to question how and why these “progressive leaders” who endorsed WHR so quickly and readily did so.
As to your position on letting Measure J renewal stand or fall on its merits, I certainly agree.
Anon at 9:26
You are wrong. City council has every power to direct staff, and they have in the past. Sue could have brought this up at an earlier council meeting and insisted that this project go to all commissions and council could have instructed staff to do just that. It happens all the time, if you watch council meetings.
“You are wrong. City council has every power to direct staff, and they have in the past. Sue could have brought this up at an earlier council meeting and insisted that this project go to all commissions and council could have instructed staff to do just that. It happens all the time, if you watch council meetings.”
THINK AGAIN. Sue (or Lamar) can bring up the idea of putting development before a commission, then watch her motion get shot down by the CC majority. It is the CC as a whole that must direct staff. GET A CLUE!
Anon:
If Sue had tried to bring this up, whether or not she was shot down, and I don’t concede that she would have been, at least she would have a leg to stand on now. She did not and does not. She also could have alerted the Commissions that this was on the table, and they could have asked to review it. At least, this would have brought the issue to the public a long time ago, but Sue did nothing. Now she is complaining about process, when she herself did nothing to further process.
Anon:
If Sue had tried to bring this up, whether or not she was shot down, and I don’t concede that she would have been, at least she would have a leg to stand on now. She did not and does not. She also could have alerted the Commissions that this was on the table, and they could have asked to review it. At least, this would have brought the issue to the public a long time ago, but Sue did nothing. Now she is complaining about process, when she herself did nothing to further process.