by Sue Greenwald –
by Sue Greenwald – A building boom is already in the works, poised to begin as soon as banks start to lend again and the housing market picks up. I believe we have enough approved housing without Wildhorse Ranch.
Since the proposed Wildhorse Ranch units are far from affordable and we had already exceeded our state-issued growth targets, I saw no compelling reason to move forward with another project. According to city staff – who relied on figures supplied by the developer – the least expensive units will be 78 attached townhouses whose average price will be over $451,000 when the developer expects the first houses to come to market.
But to vote against a project is one thing and to work against it is another. I voted against this project because I felt we had enough approved houses. I wrote this op-ed piece because this project and this campaign are setting a number of bad precedents.
Fiscal challenges
In the past, the city employed sound and well-established accounting principles, and avoided using one-time revenues to pay for recurring annual expenses. In the case of this project, staff broke with precedent and resorted to a fiscal sleight of hand to claim the project breaks even.
To give a little background: Most housing developments do not generate enough yearly revenue to the city to pay the annual cost of providing city services. But this project is on a particularly unhappy piece of land from a city fiscal perspective. Due to differing tax-sharing agreements with the county, different parcels of land in Davis return varying amounts of property tax to the city.
While, on the average, the city retains 17.5 percent of the property tax collected, on this piece of land the city retains only 11.79 percent. Thus, the city would retain about one-third less property tax revenue than average from this parcel.
To make up some of the difference, the developer shifted costs to the new residents in the form of an additional yearly Community Facilities District (similar to Mello-Roos) payment. But a deficit still remained.
So the city accepted a one-time $1,500 fee per market-rate unit to account for an annual recurring deficit – a payment that will be spent down in only 15 years. Since city staffers used a 15-year fiscal forecast, they claim the project breaks even. But after 15 years, the deficit suddenly reappears.
It would have been more reasonable to apply a onetime revenue source toward plugging an annual recurring deficit if that revenue had been large enough to provide a significant stream of income, at standard rates of return, without eating into the capital. This is what should have been done, but wasn’t.
Had the developer been willing to provide a one-time payment of about $7,500 per unit, for example, a fund could have been established that would have funded the deficit in year 16, and partially funded the ever-increasing deficit into the future.
By way of comparison, the recently approved Verona project in Mace Ranch, which had a much stronger fiscal balance to begin with, provided a one-time payment of $12,000 per market-rate unit and $6,000 per affordable unit. Wildhorse Ranch is a far worse fiscal deal for the city.
False claims
This disingenuous claim is based on a nonexistent $3.2 million savings attributed to the fact that the project will not rely on the city’s dedicated affordable housing trust fund. There is, of course, no such savings. The affordable housing trust fund is a fund that, by law, cannot be used to fund anything except dedicated affordable housing.
Affordable housing is a social benefit, but it is a fiscal drain since it uses city services but usually pays no property tax. The council merely chose to require the developer to use state and federal subsidies to build the required low-income rental units, which is one of the two standard methods prescribed in our affordable housing ordinance.
False ballot statements of this magnitude set a very bad precedent. In order for democracy to work, voters must be honestly informed about the facts.
The bottom line is that the Wildhorse Ranch project breaks even for the first 15 years, according to the city’s developer-friendly fiscal model (which assumes, among other things, that both our temporary parcel tax and our temporary sales tax are renewed, and ignores our major unfunded liabilities), and it runs an increasingly large deficit thereafter.
New housing development in general presents a fiscal challenge for cities these days, but this project is more challenging than others.
Sue Greenwald is a three-time elected member of the Davis City Council. She served as Mayor from 2006 to 2008.
The most interesting thing about this op-ed in the Enterprise was the graphic that showed the break even points using the model that the city uses for tax revenue. This has been Sue’s central point that we shouldn’t build Measure Parlin because it doesn’t pay its own way for services.
If Sue’s argument prevails then only people with incomes over $150,000 a year will be able to afford to buy a house in Davis unless they are move up buyers or inherit money from somewhere.
Under the model printed in the paper the break even point for city services under present conditions is $535,000 for a single family home. Using traditional lending standards of no less than 36% of income to debt ratio and 20% down you need more than $150,000 a year to qualify. If you consider Davis’ self imposed higher tax rates you would need somewhat more to make it. This is for the lowest figure on home price on the chart of what it takes for the city to break even. Under the other assumptions on the chart you would need even more income to qualify.
If this becomes the new standard, that all housing projects will be at least revenue neutral for the city, then Davis will never be affordable for anyone but the rich. This is the perfect red herring for Sue and the no growth nimby’s of Davis. They don’t believe Davis should have any new housing and this argument precludes that anything be built unless it is housing for millionaires such as Sue.
This is a critical issue for folks in Davis to understand. The fact that the City allowed builidng on Ag land with a much lower property tax rate than average should have raised eyebrows. Now some supporters of WHR are trying to paper over the issues, but even the City’s model indicates that this will lose money after 15 years.
David: You said yesterday that I am new to this debate. Yes I am. I have spent the last 15 years preparing fiscal impact reports for the State of California and for various cities in the state. My wife told me I needed to get involved in my own City. (She now wishes she hadn’t said that!) You can’t paper over this problem by simply saying the City needs to get its fiscal house in order–of course it does. The point here is that this project adds to our fiscal problems. I can also tell you from my experiences in other cities that developers are generally required to pay huge fees up front for the privelege of building AND they are required to build the affordable housing (which Parlin tried to back out of). That is the way it works.
I also have seen many towns taken over by developers and I fear the process here. What message are we sending folks when a developer can come in and distort the record on fiscal issues, affordability and say that there is a hosuing crisis in Davis, when there isn’t, unless one means foreclsures. (We are in better shape than other cities in the central valley precisely because we didn’t roll out the red carpet for developers.)
I still can’t understand why “progressives” are acting as sales people for a housing project. It has some nice green features but it isn’t as green as many other projects elsewhere (due to: bad location, on Ag land, many other LED issues ignored, etc.) –we can do better. Don’t sell the City short.
Druid:
You completely misunderstood Sue. Developers are generally required to pay upfront fees to offest the sad fact that in California most hosuing does not pay for itself fiscally. Please do not weep for the developers. They generally have done well (until recently) despite these fees and its a cost of doing business. Parlin will do very well on this development and we should insist that they offset the LONG TERM fiscal losses to the City.
If the City wants to subsidize new hosuing development, we can do so, but folks deserve to be told the truth in a democracy–that is how it works. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Thank goodness for Sue Greenwald’s persistent and informed attempts to focus on the real issues and not get sidetracked by factors that shouldn’t come to bear on this argument.
The 4 million “windfall” to the city is smoke and mirrors, but the bottom line is this: what’s the benefit of a good development that’s simply not needed at present? There isn’t one, and there are significant down-sides to moving ahead on this now. Save this project for a time in the future when the homes are needed.
Phil you miss my point, that Sue has been against every major project since before she was on the council, and, that in this project making the development be at least revenue neutral is a red herring for her real motivation, that she thinks we shouldn’t grow at all.
I do not weep for developers, I weep for good people like Tony and Phil whose families moved to the leapfrog development known as Woodland but do live their daily lives in Davis. I weep for Richard who gave up and moved to Sac. I weep for Fatima whose family is considering going to the bay area. All people most any city would welcome. I weep for those who high housing prices have driven away, not because our prices need to be so high but because restricting supply and demanding high marginal expenses have driven them away.
Phil you claim we can build other projects that pencil out better but demanding that they be revenue neutral using the model Sue uses belies that notion, that they would be affordable for anyone but those with high incomes or other accumulated capital. I stand by my analysis.
I think that the economic model shows the city is plus or minus a little from some long term net break even point, so I move on to other issues: 100% fully accessible for the low income apts; 90% GHG reduction in the operation of the homes; large amount of park and open space; 15 extra acres of prime habitat for Swainson’s Hawks; 50 acres of mitigation land; 100% solar installed on each home; connection of the Wildhorse east side to the main city north loop bike path via the cut-through; Open SPace review and Planning Commission approval of the environmental sustainability features; good bookend contrast with Nov 05 Measure X knockdown of a project that was too large and did not fit Davis.
All in all, we should vote for this project, then move on to the battles ahead in June 2010.
My point yesterday Phil (which is the same point I would have today) is that if we fix the city’s broader fiscal problems, we fix WHR in the process. If we don’t fix the city’s broader fiscal problems, WHR is the least of our concerns. Because the same two problems are contributing to both.
David,
As I said in my article, the problem is the precedent. This development is paying far for less towards paying off its share of the huge future deficit than other projects. The project lies on a piece of land that returns one third less property tax to the city than the city average, yet the development contributes less per unit than do other recently approved projects (except the Grande project, where we wanted to help the school district maximize their profit in order to help the schools), which have a stronger fiscal balance to begin with.
If this project passes, it will set a lower standard for developer contributions towards paying new developments’ share of the massive pending deficit, and I think that this is a very bad thing.
We are facing a fiscal train wreck in about 15 or 20 years, when the health insurance and pension unfunded liabilities come due. which will make everything we are facing today pale in comparison.
The problem has to be attacked on every level: Containing expenditures, seeking new revenue, and making sure that new development pays its own way, to the extent possible.
“In fifteen or twenty years”
As explained in that classic Memoirs of an economic hit man any analysis that looks out that far is worthless. Even the congress only looks out ten years.
BB: well said!
Druid, you are missing the point entirely. Only if the city were willing to make the project fiscally neutral, by paying a $6,000 per unit mitigatiion fee, would your argument hold water. Developers are not being made to shoulder the costs of what they build. Taxpayers are being asked to shoulder that burden. This has got to stop! Sue is right on this point, no matter what her motivations. Get a clue –
“My point yesterday Phil (which is the same point I would have today) is that if we fix the city’s broader fiscal problems, we fix WHR in the process. If we don’t fix the city’s broader fiscal problems, WHR is the least of our concerns. Because the same two problems are contributing to both.”
Why make the city’s fiscal problems worse, by not demanding the developer shoulder the full burden of the costs for this development? Shame on you!
“The problem has to be attacked on every level: Containing expenditures, seeking new revenue, and making sure that new development pays its own way, to the extent possible.”
Amen Sue!
“The problem has to be attacked on every level: Containing expenditures, seeking new revenue, and making sure that new development pays its own way, to the extent possible.”
Even by pricing out everyone but the rich?
BB:
I guess you don’t care about global warming either since that is a long term problem according to some (though its already here in the form of forest fires, ice melting etc.).
There is always a margin of uncertainty but we have many many folks apologizing for the developers here–I would rather give the City the benefit of the doubt and have a margin of safety here for the City, not the developer. The City’s own model says this loses money after 15 years.
[i]”We are facing a fiscal train wreck in about 15 or 20 years, when the health insurance and pension unfunded liabilities come due.”[/i]
This is true, and no one on the Council has worked harder to make the people of Davis aware of this problem than Sue Greenwald has.
However, [i]whether WHR is built or not[/i], we will have a huge fiscal crisis in future years due to steeply rising pension contributions and unfunded retirement benefits. Tying this problem to residential development in general or to one rather small subdivision in specific misses the point completely.
Our long-term fiscal problem is on the expense side of the ledger; and only by changing our [i]current[/i] labor contracts will we solve that problem. Rather the worry so much about 191 townhouses, we ought to focus on getting rid of City-paid health benefits(1) for young retirees; gearing down our pension formulas(2) for new hires; reducing wages for existing employees(3); eliminating some overtime(4); and flattening our management structure(5).
1. It now costs us for each retiree under age 65 more than $18,000 a year (and rising rapidly). We would get rid of more than 75% of our long-term liability by increasing the age requirement for this perk from 50 to 65. With its new contract with the CHP ([url]http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/editorials/stories/PE_OpEd_Opinion_S_op_18_ed_chp1.3f4891f.html#[/url]), the State of California has done just that.
2. 3% at 50 (safety) and 2.5% at 55 (misc.) are [b]not sustainable[/b]. We can afford to have defined benefit pension plans if we move to 2.5% at 55 (safety) and 2% at 60 (misc.) for all new hires. If we don’t make this change, we will have to (after we go bankrupt) move to a 401k-type defined contribution plan, not a defined benefit plan.
3. The City of Redding announced this week that is has reached a deal with its firefighters to cut their salaries ([url]http://www.redding.com/news/2009/oct/03/redding-firefighters-take-big-wage-cut/[/url]). (I thought the cut was 12.4%, but Bill Emlen pointed out to me today that the cut is much less than that, because part of the “cut” was getting rid of some future increases.) We need to reduce wages across the board, or we will just end up firing needed employees and not have enough money to hire new ones.
4. Why should we give overtime to fire captains, who are paid more to manage subordinates?
5. We have too many upper management positions. In recent years we invented, for example, 2 positions of Deputy City Manager and 1 Assistant City Manager, filled with employees who just added those new titles. We also now have a few new positions of department directors (by splitting departments) and multiple new positions of assistant department directors. A typical “assistant to the director” position cost us in 2008 about $125,505/year plus the cost of life insurance, long-term disability insurance, and unfunded retiree medical, dental and vision care.
Regarding too much upper management: I don’t mean to imply that all of those positions are unnecessary. My take is that Paul Navazio, the Finance Director cum Assistant City Manager, deserves (at least) his pay and new position. However, if we combined some departments and limited each department to no more than one “assistant to the director,” we could achieve some substantial long-term savings at the top.
“…so I move on to other issues: 100% fully accessible for the low income apts; 90% GHG reduction in the operation …”
So.. Mike Harrington, with all your hard fact information about the WHR project, can you get us the actual pounds/day of GHG emission savings that going from the 45% Davis current standard to 90% reduction for a townhouse proposed in WHR would produce and present it in terms of driving time, hr./day of automobile GHG emiisions? This is not a rhetorical question. I am wondering if this is not an example of a 45% reduction of an already rather small number being a small number.
Phil uncertainty increases over time. What is the uncerainty after 15 years of the model. I hypothesize it would be quite high.What is your estimate?
[quote]”In fifteen or twenty years”
As explained in that classic Memoirs of an economic hit man any analysis that looks out that far is worthless. Even the congress only looks out ten years.[/quote] And congress has really done a great job, haven’t they? When you know that you will be hit with massive unfunded liabilities in 15 to 20 years, you had better look at it. We’re not talking about a few percents change in either direction.
ol’ timer: my understanding is that the current average Davis home emits about 5.5 tons of GHG per year. Talbot and Parlin committed this project to building homes that emit only 0.5 tons per year.
I personally dont know how the City calculated the 5.5. If someone knows, it would be great to read about it.
There is a Climate Action Task Force that I suspect is looking at the 5.5 ton figure.
As to auto emissions, I dont know anything about that. I suspect that these homes will attract Davis residents who are currently renters, or Davis employees who currently live outside of Davis. By building local housing that is afforable, these people can live near work, and vastly reduce GHG emissions from current levels.
As some of you know, I live near my office, and I have since 1995. I use about one tank of gas a month. Not everyone can do that, but whatever all of us can do to move close to work, we are all way ahead with solutions to the GHG problems. These cute, small, and relatively affordable units should help with overall GHG reduction in this area.
Sue:
Is Paul correct that if our employee compensation increases at 4% rather than the 5% assumed in the model that this project pencils out beyond 15 years?
Am I correct that if our employee compensation grows at 5% per year that the city will be facing economic crisis well before 15 years?
“And congress has really done a great job, haven’t they? When you know that you will be hit with massive unfunded liabilities in 15 to 20 years, you had better look at it. We’re not talking about a few percents change in either direction.”
Exactly, so why put value in a model that looks even farther out.
I don’t see forecasting out 15 or more years being a problem. Of course, the greater you get away from 1 year, you increase the risk of uncertainty. So knowing that, someone with better statistical modeling skills than I have could draw a conclusion which says something like this: “Assuming an X percent annual increase in city labor costs and an X percent increase in revenues, we can say with 75% certainty that over the next 15 years, this project is fiscally neutral; and with a 50% certainty this project runs a fiscal deficit from years 16 on.”
Even if those qualifiers are used, though, it is the assumptions on the side of the city’s labor costs which are pure guesses, and have nowhere near 50% certainty 5 years out, let alone 15 years out.
But I still don’t object to anyone pointing out that this project will become a fiscal drain on the city’s coffers in year 16, as long as the statement is qualified by the assumptions about labor costs. I think Sue’s larger point, that it is not sound policy to adopt a project which [i]our best estimates[/i] suggest will become a financial drain down the road, is sound. However, given that the real problem with the city’s finances [i]is its labor costs and the council’s unwillingness or inability to change the contracts[/i] and given that this WHR project won’t affect that reality one way or the other, it is unsound to heap any blame on WHR for being a cause of the problem which arises 16 years from now.
David,
I don’t know. There are a lot of variables. Mark Siegler has studied them the most closely, and he feels that most of the assumptions in the city’s fiscal model are optimistic.
I would be surprised if we can keep our labor cost increases below 5%, even if workers experience a decrease in take home pay. Medical costs are rising, PERS costs better rise or we will be in big trouble later, and we will probably have to start paying off our massive unfunded employee health liability. Workers are still getting step increases, and we will have to add employees if we add new development because we are incredibly short-staffed now. At last night’s bicycle commission, the chief engineer said we couldn’t double stripe the bike lane on Sycamore because we don’t have the staff to maintain the LINES on the road! I saw a citizen trying to pay a bill who couldn’t because the office was closed because office hours have shut down.
I will be very surprised if labor costs don’t rise at least an average of 5% per year over the course of the next fifteen years.
Times are so uncertain gold at new highs, unemployment at ever new highs. You have got to be kidding to trying to predict what is going to be happening in fifteen years.
But this is really a red herring for you Sue, tell us that when a project pencils out you will support it because people are going to remember you saying that. Its really that you don’t think we should build anything isn’t it?
Mike Harrington: “I suspect that these homes will attract Davis residents who are currently renters, or Davis employees who currently live outside of Davis.”
Sure, as long as they make at least $96,000 per year.
“By building local housing that is afforable, these people can live near work, and vastly reduce GHG emissions from current levels.”
WHR is not affordable. WHR is not affordable. WHR is not affordable.
Until now, Mike, you haven’t made the “affordable” argument. You’ve focused on the environmental part. These are expensive townhouses with some nice environmental features. There is no reasonable definition of ‘affordable housing’ that applies to WHR. “Really Affordable” is a misrepresentation on the part of the Yes on P campaign.
Weep for the poor buyers that have to move somewhere else? I am not automatically anti development. I do wish there were TRULY affordable housing for moderate income people and families. Lets make it simple……..
$425k cost of a proposed WHR attached townhouse
$3k estimated monthly (PITI, city) based on 6%/30 years + est. insurance (1k) + city
$144k annual income needed if housing costs are 25% total monthly (traditional)
$108k annual income needed if housing 30%
$42k down pay for 1st timers (a phrase used in WHR literature)
have a house already? then you’re not part of the supposed buyers for WHR. Market this project for what it really is: upscale housing. The developers haven’t even bothered to apply for formal review and certification. Why? Because the tech specs aren’t complete. Easy to say “cutting edge” and “sets new standards”. Harder to prove it formally. The buzz words “green” and “affordable” are a perfect sales pitch for this town. Warm fuzzies
Jim you are only quantifying for the low end housing. Still are you using 28% of income as a payment and 36% income to debt?
@ Mike Parlington – “Open SPace review and Planning Commission approval of the environmental sustainability features” – WRONG
As you well know, The Open Space & Habitat Commission did NOT approve this project because they were completely ignored in the process.
OS&H has NEVER discussed this project, nor the fact that land that was supposedly dedicated to open space into perpetuity from a past developer agreement is now being converted to residential… bad precedent, maybe?
And don’t try and blame it on Sue or city Staff. If your Sacramento developers really wanted the input of OS&H (or any of the other commissions) then they could have had it… your paid political consultants probably decided that it would be better not to do so since there would have been some actual public input…
Don: Hahahah! Amazing people read and remember on this Blog. You are correct, I have not mentioned affordable. It’s not my issue with this project. You know most of the reasons it got my vote by absentee ballot today. I have others, but I wont post them on this public Blog as I know H IV reads it and litigators don’t turn over all their cards til the end …
The housing prices are at or below most of what everything else cost in Davis, so I consider it affordable. It is a loaded term. But the developer has described a number of units well below $400,000. I wont get into an argument, as I dont pretend to have crunched a lot of numbers.
One thing you all should think about: I understand the lack of trust. I follow the Reagan doctrine with Russia and missiles: trust but verify. The CV partners and other exterior sprawl developers have screwed this town for years. CV III sucked the blood right out of city resources for the 3 years it took to knock it down in Nov 05. Don’t take my support for Measure P as a sign of any waivering whatsoever as to Covell or the other parcels.
But remember that Parlin’s real money in town is around Sutter Hospital. They own a bunch of that land. The only way they will make any money is for it to pass a Measure J vote. Sooooooo …. stop and think. if Parlin backs out of any of the important commitments for Parlin Wildhorse …. you can read the tea leaves. It’s the way it is. All of us get the last vote, and if Parlin Wildhorse is screwed up, then ….
Compare that to the CV Partners. CV is all they have. THey get it in, past a J vote, and they instantly have $100,000,000s in pure profits. So the opportunity to change the project after the J vote is real, and we would have little recourse other than litigation. We wont have a second J vote that we can talk about if they try to change CV from the J language on the ballot.
In other words, Parlin Wildhorse had better have it right. And they had better do what they say they will.
My review of the project language is that it is TIGHT. The comments from Eileen and Sue and Don and Lamar really tightened it up, and I think that all of those commitments are fully enforceable. Besides, in the end, Parlin is going to want a J vote on the big parcel around the Sutter, and if this little project is not done right, all of you have recourse. Big time recourse.
I hope that in the end, you guys will vote YES on P, and turn all of your energy to renewal of Measure J, re-election of Lamar, and maybe some other candidates who want to run for local public office.
I just licked the envelope on my absentee ballot. I am pretty much done with this issue. (Sorry, Mike Parlington, I will probably post once in awhile when I see more BS and ghastly comments made here that I consider unwarranted.) But for the most part, time to move on to Measure J renewal.
For example, I think we should demand that the CC strip it of its 10 year renewal. And it should include a J vote for any rezone on Con Agra.
To Parlington Lies Again:
I’ve given a bit wider berth than usual on this Mike Parlington thing in part because Mike is a public figure and in part because Mike asks for it to some extent, but you’re crossing the line with your last post (or some of it), I’ll ask you to back down from the Parlington Lies mantra, if you do not, I will not ask next time.
“ol’ timer: my understanding is that the current average Davis home emits about 5.5 tons of GHG per year.”
As I seem to remember it, the 5.5 tons/year was not necessarily from the described size townhouse in Davis that is being pitched for WHR. I seem to remember that the 5.5 number was more an average figure that was derived from homes that included much larger sq. footage and perhaps from different climatic conditions, perhaps burning fossil fuels(heating oil) other than natural gas. In addition, Talbot should certainly be able to convert this Davis WHR townhouse number tons/yr number into per day and translate it into what an automobile puts out at hours per day driving time. Isn’t your questionable figure of 5.5 tons , in any event, reduced to about 3 tons/yr using the already in place 45% Davis standard for new constuction, leaving 2.5 tons/yr as the additional reduction that this project would offer?
Parlington Lies Again: you are really tiresome. Always accusing people of lying. Accusing the Boards of Sierra Club and LWVs of being stacked against Yes on P, so why participate in their deliberations, etc etc. Nonsense.
Speaking of Reagan, “here you go again.” Jumping to your starting point: people are lying to you, out to get you, and other sort of paranoid delusions.
What I was referring to was the sustainable features of this project have to be reviewed by the NRC and approved by the Planning Commission. It is in the J language.
Unfortunately, your buddy Sue failed to coordinate the project coming to her assigned commissions.
One more thing: your shrill, nutty-sounding comments come across as a desperate person who is off her meds. I am sure that nearly all of the readers of this Blog know who you are, as do the Boards of the LWV and Sierra Club, and you are not doing yourself any favors.
DPD: I am not a public figure. Not since 2004. I may stir the pot sometimes, but I am not sitting up on that dais.
@David Greenwald – for clarity’s sake, which part of my post did you have a problem with?
@Mike Harrington – nope, I’m a dude! and I don’t do shrill, just indignant. and that whole “off your meds” thing? what is that they say about casting stones?
you spoke of “Open SPace” commission review NOT the NRC, but thanks for the clarification, pal.
so… when I accused you of lying, that wasn’t paranoia… I was right and you made a mistake… or I caught you in a lie…hmmmmmm
and speaking of, why do the environmental features have to be reviewed AFTER the vote? maybe because Parlin has very little idea how they’re going to achieve those goals… just ask Davis Energy Group
Your moniker. Use it again, and I will erase your entire post. Any use of the term parlingtonis now forbidden as well.
In the wake of an incredible amount of vile spewing on this blog, David M. Greenwald has finally taken a bold step forward: HE HAS OFFICIALLY BANNED THE USE OF THE TERM “PARLINGTON” FROM HIS SITE!
This in spite of the fact that it is Mike @#$&#xin;gton himself who is responsible for the vast bulk of the potty talk on this site.
Lamar Heystek is the City Council liaison to the Open Space & Habitat Commission.
Is it his fault that OS&H was never once consulted about Wildhorse Ranch or is it Parlin’s fault?
As I understand it, neither. It was primarily Emlen, Katherine Hess, et al who made that decision.
how convenient for the developer from sacramento!
so… does that also mean that Sue is not at fault for bringing this to F&B earlier?
The council liaison is not responsible for setting the agenda for the commissions, that is done by the chair of the commission and city staff.
David: it is my understanding (and I think that your wife will probably back me up on this one 🙂 that the commissions can only put items on the agenda that Council and staff approve…
right, Elaine Roberts Musser?
I still think that Parlin is at fault for bypassing the commissions, thus corrupting the Measure J process
Cecilia used to fight tooth and nail with staff on the agenda. Staff to my knowledge plays a large role.
“I still think that Parlin is at fault for bypassing the commissions, thus corrupting the Measure J process”
You have no evidence to support that statement and I have seen and witnessed evidence to the contrary.
Mike HARRINGTON (not P*****ton) wrote the following: “But remember that Parlin’s real money in town is around Sutter Hospital. They own a bunch of that land.”
It sounds like what you’re telling us Mike is that the West Davis land (which is on Parlin’s website on their list of projects, consists of Binning Ranch and adjacent Covell Blvd land, for a total of 207 acres!) is NEXT? Hasn’t that property already been proposed to the Housing and Steering Committee to get a pre-application for development?
Will that one be pitched as “really green” or “really affordable” also?
The last time I looked up information on Binning Ranch (from a Coldwell Banker site: http://www.yourhome.st/BR Packet May 24.pdf )
This site was discussed as 1.25 acre ranch-style lots, very much like the “McMansion” style of homes that Pam Nieberg (and other “green” supporters of Yes on P) were arguing should NOT be built in Davis…so, I really don’t get Mike, Parlin is okay to build “green” dense housing in WHR, but with their West Davis property, let them build large ranch style homes (“McMansions”), which we have heard from the Sierra Club folks is not “green”!
What about this comment, Mike?
“..if Parlin backs out of any of the important commitments for Parlin Wildhorse …. you can read the tea leaves..”
Why would Parlin “back out of any important commitments” Mike? Both Bill Riiter and Shahin Monfared looked at the voters in the audience at Slide Hill debate on 9/21 and told us how “committed” Parlin was to building WHR; do you know something else? For example, is Parlin really hoping that land they bought at WHR (for 2.32 million in 2004) will quickly soar in value on Nov 4th (after a Yes on P vote), estimated to be as much as $9 million (per Souza’s comments at the 9/15 CC meeting), turn around sell that “paper lot” and dump the money into promoting and eventually the 207 acres in West Davis? Interesting points for discussion you have raised Mr. Harrington…
Hi all… just got back from a great walk in a beautiful late afternoon Davis day, doing walk and drop with NO on P flyers. Blogging is great to speak your piece but it probably will not do much to foil the Yes on P campaign’s primary strategy… namely, KEEP THE TURNOUT AS LOW AS POSSIBLE!!
So…. let’s get up from our computers and get out into our neighborhoods to let the Davis voter know that THEIR Measure J vote is coming up in a few weeks on a single-issue ballot.
Go to http://www.2000housesareenough and link to their new website. email to info@noonmeasurep.com and arrange to get a load of flyers. This week promises to be one beautiful afternoon after another for a brisk walk through Davis, doing walk and drop as well as talking to those whom you meet along the way.
Let’s go No on P
That’s http://www.2000housesareenough.org
Also.. let them know that they can go online to http://www.davismedia.org to see the September 21 debate.
DPD says: “As I understand it, neither. It was primarily Emlen, Katherine Hess, et al who made that decision.”
Of course, Councilman Heystek could have raised a public challenge to this decision early on in the process . This had every liklihood of altering Emlen’s and Hesse’s decision when the Enterprise letters to the editor decrying their attack on the Measure J process began to pour in.
“David: it is my understanding (and I think that your wife will probably back me up on this one 🙂 that the commissions can only put items on the agenda that Council and staff approve…
right, Elaine Roberts Musser?
I still think that Parlin is at fault for bypassing the commissions, thus corrupting the Measure J process”
City staff can very much control what is placed on commission agendas, although it can depend on the particular city staff liaison. Our current city staff liaison for the Senior Citizens Commission is wonderfully collaborative and just a joy to work with. However, there does seem to be a general prohibition from on high preventing developers from coming to commission meetings. City staff/city manager are blanketly preventing developers from making presentations to commissions. Instead, developers are forced to contact individual commission members to garner support.
There doesn’t seem to be any formal process as to how commissions become involved with respect to housing developments. I raised this issue at a previous City Council meeting, when I learned the Budget and Finance Commission did not receive a report from Paul Navazio until the night before the City Council was to make a decision. It is my understanding that the Subcommittee on Commissions (Asmundson and Souza) will be looking at this issue, and making a determination of just how and when commissions should become involved in the decisionmaking process of housing development (as a result of the flawed Measure P process).
Hope this adds some clarification…
To clarify: “when I learned the Budget and Finance Commission did not receive a report from Paul Navazio ON WHR until the night before the City Council was to make a decision ON IT.”