I read Dave Taormino’s Op-Ed in the Enterprise today and he raises some interesting points against UC Davis constructing West Village, but also some faulty ones. But in the end, it was a bit unsettling to me that a developer would be arguing against someone else’s development. The first question that comes to my mind is that this is an inherent conflict of interest. At the very least it is a bit disingenuous.
Let me backtrack, recently Mr. Taormino presented before council his own development plan in Willowback. It’s a small development but drew a lot of complaints from the neighbors and at some point it will come back up. Giving the housing market right now and the expressed sentiments of the voters, I have to question the appropriateness of the timing of that proposal.
As to the specifics, he makes some interesting if flawed observations.
“The centennial report emphasizes the university’s mission of doing what matters. Educating students and supporting research matters; the West Village residential and commercial project doesn’t. Nearly $15 million already committed to subsidize this unnecessary development should be stopped, and those resources should be redirected to staff and programs that matter.”
That sounds good. Just as it sounds good to suggest that they should put money that went to construct the new high school stadium at Davis High to fund those teachers being laid off. The problem is money that can be spent on construction cannot be spent in the classroom. The same thing that holds for Davis High holds for UC Davis.
As the FAQ from UC Davis’s West Village site explains:
“How is the project being financed? The private developer is responsible for the on-site improvements for Phase 1 of West Village. The university is investing about $14.5 million in roadways and utility infrastructure to connect West Village to campus systems. Future residents will repay this investment over time through utility services payments.”
That is not classroom money. It is coming from grants and other funding sources.
Now he goes on to say:
“In the business sector where we spend our own funds, egos become less relevant when judgment errors are evident or circumstances change. Unfortunately, West Village has a life of its own.”
Good lord sir, have you no sense of history or irony. Give me a break on the fact that the business sector somehow operates ego-free or that we have not had to spend a tremendous amount of public monies to cover up for the fact that the business sector has in fact operated in much the way you deplore now.
Now on to his three main planks:
First, some departments complained of difficulty in attracting faculty because of the high price of Davis homes. Apparently, some recruits rejected a position at UCD because they could find more affordable housing at other universities.
Second, UCD would be better served if professors and senior staff lived here.
Third, other universities – like Stanford, UC Irvine and even UC Santa Cruz – subsidize campus faculty housing.
The first thing I find interesting is that he has chosen completely to ignore the 1000 student housing units, which I continue to believe are the biggest need.
Second, he makes the argument:
“Quality local housing choices are available within 8 miles, including Woodland and Dixon.”
He then points out:
“For at least 30 years, a substantial percentage of faculty and staff have lived elsewhere while UCD grew to the premier institution it now is.”
I am somewhat awestruck by the hypocrisy at work here. For years now we have heard from developer circles that we need new housing because people who work at UC Davis live elsewhere and commute. That has served as the rationale by developers, if I looked hard enough maybe even by Taormino himself, for new development in Davis.
He continues:
“The third basis for West Village is that other ‘great’ universities have built on-campus housing. Yes, but most have not. The ones I’m familiar with have much different local situations, both in home costs and commute times. Essentially, these universities had limited practical local opportunities.”
Like I said at the onset, I am awestruck here by the rank hypocrisy here that a developer would be arguing against a development because we have other housing options in close proximity. If that is the argument, then really we do not need any new housing no matter who develops it.
I am okay with that argument but I suspect that Mr. Taormino would not like those arguments used against his Willowbank project.
He continues:
“West Village fails to meet two of three justifications; meeting the third one is questionable. It failed initially, and fails now, considering the recent declines in housing prices. Prices in nearby communities have dropped 55 percent from the peak of the market to values seen seven years ago. In Davis, prices have declined about 25 to 30 percent, to 2004 levels. Even stretching logic to support the original thinking on West Village, no justification exists today and in the foreseeable future.”
Again, I have to ask, can we not apply the same logic to Willowbank?
It should also be noted that at the bottom of the article it identifies him as a developer of residential projects in Davis and Woodland. Again, without knowing what other projects he is proposing, it seems that this is a very self-serving argument on his part.
Every citizen has the right to express their opinion. But it seems to me that some of the opinions expressed here are designed out of financial self-interest rather than some notion of civic virtue. Furthermore, the arguments that he constructs against West Village could be used against his own project. Now he’s going to argue that the difference here is that he is a private developer and West Village is a public project.
But I am not certain that the distinction is as clear as he would like it to be. First, most of the West Village project is privately funded. Second, even private developments in Davis have very public components. The money that was used for construction of West Village is not money that could go to the classroom. It is also money that will be re-couped through utility fees.
Once we understand that we are left with the fact that there are other housing options nearby the campus which pretty much collapses talk of any new development including Willowbank.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]The problem here is would Taormino potentially benefit down the line if UC Davis did not build 475 new faculty homes along with the 1000 student housing dwellings?[/i]
He must understand that the project is going ahead no matter what he has to say about it. I think that, like many people who want to get anything done in Davis, he is trying to win trust by wearing some anti-growth clothes for a while.
[i]But, there does seem to be a potential conflict at least somewhat.[/i]
Yeah, sort of. The problem is that his argument is no more hypocritical, and slightly less pathetic, than the one about the genocide of the squirrels. I don’t see that the Davis Enterprise overlooked anything, if it gave Taormino’s relevant affiliation. (If it didn’t, then I agree that it should have.) You, on the other hand, did not divulge the self-interest of the author of the squirrel article.
[i]The problem is money that can be spent on construction cannot be spent in the classroom.[/i]
That’s true. Although to be honest, it reflects Sacramento’s dysfunction that UC is fully funded for some operations and hit with devastating cuts for others.
[i]Once we understand that we are left with the fact that there are other housing options nearby the campus which pretty much collapses talk of any new development including Willowbank.[/i]
Now that is hypocritical. You and others were arguing all last year that 1.5 miles was too far away for a grocery store. Peak oil and all that. Yet you’re willing to say that prospective faculty have other options “nearby”, where “nearby” means 8 miles away. Not to mention, postdocs, staff, and graduate students.
It is absolutely true that Davis has to recruit faculty and staff with a not-very-competitive salary scale. Part of our recruiting argument is that employees can enjoy a great academic community in Davis, with bicycles, nice parks, and good public schools. But to hear some tell it, who cares about all that; Woodland is “nearby”.
” You, on the other hand, did not divulge the self-interest of the author of the squirrel article.”
Which would be what?
Personally, I’d have found it pretty astounding if Taormino’s op-ed had taken any other position. Wouldn’t you? Why all the incredulity, DG?
Because I watched the discussion of Willow Bank.
[i]Which would be what?[/i]
That he has always been furiously opposed to West Village as a neighbor of the project. The neighbors have the obvious self-interest of not wanting to share Russell Boulevard and not wanting real estate competition.
[i]Actually I’m not saying anything here, just laying out the implications of his argument.[/i]
That could be fair enough.
[i]There’s also the fact that 75% of Davis residents rejected that argument.[/i]
Hey, Davis will always have enough housing for people who already live here.
The city and its citizens have always complained the University did not supply enough of its fair share of student housing. Then when UCD proposed West Village w additional student housing, some of the no growth folks in West Davis put up such a big stink against it and the proposed development’s access to Russell Blvd at a meeting at Emerson High School, the police had to be called and the meeting was shut down. Citizens can’t have it both ways – asking for more student housing, then complaining when it is proposed.
West Village is needed, it is a done deal, and the city/citizens ought to embrace it with as much grace as possible. After all, this town thrives because of the University and its wonderful students. All three of my children graduated from UCD – and received excellent educations. They benefitted from the wonderful bicycle paths in this town, the excellent Unitrans service, the on campus job opportunities provided to students, and a myriad of other wonderful UCD services. There is no question in my mind more student housing will be a good thing, as will more faculty housing. The limited equity model may be a bit dicey, but nevertheless, West Village is here to stay.
I read Dave’s article and was much more surprised that he wrote and presented it for publication than what he wrote. I do not think he did either himself or other developers any favors by the article. We do need reasonably priced faculty housing. It is more than just attractive price however. A key factor is the opportunity to enroll children in the Davis schools. The commute from more reasonable housing near by is not much of a problem. Only a few move here so they can ride a bike to work. It is a combination of reasonable housing and fine schools that provide an edge in the recruitment and retention of top faculty
When I came to Davis over 50 years ago I was pleased that housing was inexpensive, but even more pleased to live in a university community where the schools were splendid, the programs rich and teachers highly selected. The best teachers were anxious to come here to teach because they also could afford to live and send their children to school here. It is hard for a teacher to send her/his children to a school that has less to offer than the one in which they teach. Over the years when I looked at opportunities to advance professionally at other campuses decisions were based somewhat on the reputation of the local schools. With four children and a grandchild to educate I stayed in Davis. And perhaps like your they wish they also could live here again.
Recruiting faculty over the years it was most helpful to report so positively on the schools in Davis. School reputation was a question that was almost always asked. At one time most of my colleagues lived in Davis. My neighbors also included k-12 teachers and public employees. We cared enough about the schools to continue a long record of financial support for the schools, To make it continue to work so well the Davis Schools need new clients whose interest in education provides high expectations and support Affordable faculty housing is a key factor in this equation.
[i]The city and its citizens have always complained the University did not supply enough of its fair share of student housing. Then when UCD proposed West Village w additional student housing, some of the no growth folks in West Davis put up such a big stink against it and the proposed development’s access to Russell Blvd at a meeting at Emerson High School, the police had to be called and the meeting was shut down. Citizens can’t have it both ways – asking for more student housing, then complaining when it is proposed.[/i]
We end up quarreling about a number of things, but you speak great wisdom here. They can’t have it both ways. The fight against West Village was blatantly selfish and a lasting embarrassment to the city.
[i]A key factor is the opportunity to enroll children in the Davis schools. The commute from more reasonable housing near by is not much of a problem. Only a few move here so they can ride a bike to work.[/i]
For me, at least, it’s the package deal of schools, bicycles, academic society, shared parks, public safety, and nice restaurants. The whole thing together is just really nice. I only feel a little embarrassed that city slammed the door on outsiders, and that I have enjoyed all this for better than free. People seem to be saying that it has to be this way, but I don’t believe it.
Anyway, it’s interesting to criticize Taormino’s essay. Yes, his essay is suspect, but the criticisms bounce back against a number of people in Davis. They don’t just stick to that one guy, just because he’s a developer.
Indeed! How bogus was that Enterprise piece from Dave T.? Could they have mentioned that he is a controlling partner in the local Coldwell/Banker affiliate? The biggest gang of superficial Davis scheisters!! And there he is in The Davis Emptyprise crying like an old washer woman! The party is over. Big Brother has fired up his Teichert machines by the University Airport and he does’nt need any measure J b.s.. Welcome to your world!
It being Monday, I looked at Taormino’s op-ed. It is indeed far-fetched. For instance, Taormino says that home prices are down 25-30% in Davis. But, going by the Zillow Home Value Index, Davis home prices are actually only down 20% from their peak, and that is after a colossal run up in which prices almost tripled. Davis home prices are still up 100% from 10 years ago. And I’m sure that Taormino knows it.
It is hard to imagine that someone in the real estate business would really believe this essay. It is much easier to imagine someone writing a this essay to curry favor with the anti-growth faction in Davis. Dubious though this op-ed may be, if it had been written by someone else and posted on the “2000 Homes Are Enough!” site, it would have fit right in.
To give the Enterprise credit, they do list Taormino’s germane interest and affiliation at the bottom. They didn’t “overlook” anything.
Dave Taormino’s Op-ed is clearly the most self-serving and hypocritical articles I have seen in a long time. I am not sure what he was thinking, but it seems pretty evident that he is in no position to criticize any other development when he can not even design a decent project himself.
From what I have read in the Vanguard and the Enterprise on his Willowbank Park project proposal, for starter’s he has: 1) tried to screw over the neighbors of this site in with a bad design, 2)get out respecting the Fish and Game directives for preserving the riparian corridor, and 3) dump his drainage issues on the city.
On top of this, Taromino’s Op-ed only reveals that he is trying to make his development one of the only “games” in town. Why can’t Taromino just play by the rules and try to work with the neighbors in that area, rather than trying to politicize the growth issue to rally for lots more growth for big profits for himself and other developers?
“Dubious though this op-ed may be, if it had been written by someone else and posted on the “2000 Homes Are Enough!” site, it would have fit right in.”
Right, but then it wouldn’t have been written by someone who is trying to get a housing project approved by council.
Okay, David, it reminds me of a joke that I invented (or plagiarized/adapted from another joke).
Q: What’s the difference between a locust and a developer?
A: One of them is a horrifying invasive pest that destroys habitat and eats everything in sight. The other one hops and chirps.
Not exactly my view, but it does capture a certain mood in Davis.