Rules require that the Council meets once a month. However, since the council takes the month off, they meet on August 1 early in the Morning so they can go off and go on vacation.
There is really one key item that I am covering and that is the item placed on the agenda by Councilmember Stephen Souza regarding the Shriner’s Property. However, if anything else comes up of interest, I will report on it as well.
Tankhouse EIR will be on October 2 rather than September 26.
Dan Berman during public comment speaks on two resolutions about continuing support of public power and one on a proclamation honoring PG&E for their donation to the street smarts program for the city. Suggests the council reconsider their proclamation until after the recess.
Two proclamations on consent agenda as Mr. Berman stated. One is the continuing support of public power and the other a proclamation honoring PG&E. Recall that originally PG&E was going to be honored a few months ago at the same time they were opposing the efforts of Art Pimentel in Woodland for a resolution similar to that of the Davis City Council today. Councilmember Heystek thought that was inappropriate and had it pulled until the council could come forward with the resolution that they are passing today. Note also that what was controversial in Woodland is passing in Davis without so much as a peep. Remember that PG&E had set up phone lines lobbying Woodland City Councilmembers, however, they seemingly do not care about the resolution in Davis. Very odd.
Heystek has pulled the item awarding PG&E to take up the issue of Dan Berman, Greenwald has seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Ruth expresses some interest in a letter of inquiry. Now Greenwald offers a substitute motion, she wants to thank PG&E for contributing today. Emlen suggests an informal inquiry into the use of money. Ruth wants to thank for help and contribution but still look into it. Substitute motion would direct staff to informal inquiry. Substitute motion passes unanimously.
Now main item brought forward by Councilmember Souza.
Covell Gateway LLC member representative is here and needs to go somewhere at 9:30.
Souza begins talking about this item…
How this started: Souza was contacted by his neighbor about the sports park. Both felt location where thinking about sports park had problems—concerned with kids getting out on bicycles getting there in a safe fashion. Looked at golf course location. This location, the Hallett Ranch best location at this time. Was there another location that made more sense? The Shriner’s Property made most sense.
The decision to negotiate would have to go through staff if the council decided they wanted to do so. But he went to talk to the owner to see if they were willing to sell the property. Met with Steve Gidaro out at the Conaway Ranch. (This seems different from his version in the Enterprise does it not)? He asked Gidaro about selling it, and Gidaro said I’m interested in talking about it. Souza decided time to take it to his colleagues, to see if this would work. Never used Measure O to acquire open space adjacent to the city.
“When opportunity comes along and a willing seller comes forward, I think we have to take that opportunity.”
Souza talks about benefits of the sports park and the open space protection.
This item is about directing staff to enter into negotiations about the acquisition of this property… (I’m at a loss here, wasn’t it Souza telling us in the paper that he was a “shrew negotiator” and that he wanted to tell Gidaro to “go away”?)
Greenwald speaks about the sports subcommittee talks. The sports subcommittee picked the Hallett(sp?) as a location to look at. In exchange for 89 houses beneath the signature curve, property owner was willing to “give” city land. She shows parcel A which is owned by Gidaro. Parcel B is owned by signature folks and willing to donate the city parcel B for a sports park. The two properties are adjacent to each other. This is only in exchange for 89 houses and this proposal is before the housing element. This proposal is further from existing houses. Parcel A is adjacent to houses, the second parcel is further and therefore does not have some of the noise issues. This was considered as an alternative to Hallett since Hallett is too far away. Greenwald thought it was only fair to bring this to the housing subcommittee before they bring this forward.
Ruth asks whether the goal is open space or sports park? Wants to direct staff to look into Shriners and other properties. Seems like Sue has talked to Signature folks and Steve has talked to Shriners folks. Ask what we want and what our goals are.
George Phillips here on behalf of Shriners property. Saylor asks about past proposal. Phillips says Souza made clear this was only an alternative location for sports park and organic farming. Asks about residential development? Answer: no. Qui pro quo? Answer: no. Understood coming in this is not part of larger proposal. Asks about other parcels controlled by Gidaro? Wait and see. No other proposals at this time. Do anticipate that this negotiation will enable any additional benefits? No.
Would this require a measure J vote? Harriet says no but it would depend on the proposals. For uses of parkland and open space—exempt from Measure J vote. Souza reads from exemption language. “Land to be used for public parks” is specifically exempted. (The question is then, if this is converted from Park to housing, would it require a Measure J vote).
Saylor makes reference to this being on TV and youtube (hmmm…).
Heystek questions. This thinking came about in mid-February. See value of preserving this land with the adjacency from the city, then brings up proposed mitigations to agricultural land. Talks about adjacency requirement. Why did you propose we exempt Wild Horse Ranch project from adjacency requirement?
Souza starts talking about past and his commitments to land preservation. This is not something new to me. (Not answering the question). Completely dodges the issue of why he is favoring this while he made exceptions for the Horse Ranch. Claims that was too small, but misses the fact that that land that will not be mitigated is part of Gidaro’s land. Answer is vague and non-descript.
Heystek restructures question: why would we pay for this rather than the developer of the Horse Ranch doing it? No one is arguing with the intent, but rather the mechanism. Why would we rather pay for part of Shriner’s property rather than a developer?
Souza dodges again by saying this doesn’t preclude an agricultural easement. Totally fails to address Heystek’s question.
Heystek—I understand that, but purchasing that land requires money. Why would we want to use our open-space funds but did not require developers to bring that forward?
Saylor objects to the questioning. Greenwald rules that this was appropriate. Souza is acting as the staff member.
Heystek asks staff if we are subject to the “right to farm ordinance”
Emlen, says, “I believe we are.”
Fight breaks out. Saylor objects to questioning of Souza. Ruth sticks here nose in.
Greenwald pushes on with questioning him about his support for a permanent urban limit line.
Souza objects to the question and then pontificates. He stays calm, but Greenwald is losing her cool.
Greenwald says Souza is acting as staff member
Ruth objects to tone and lack of respect—objects to interrogation of Souza
Greenwald says Ruth you can only make a point of order
Greenwald says she overrules point of order
Harriet interjects. Souza brought this forward. Staff answers questions, relative to comments, sometimes staff does not have an answer to the growth. Harriet suggests council has option as to whether to pursue it.
Greenwald asks Harriet why she is interrupting.
Harriet cites brown act and keeping it within the scope.
Greenwald continues to raise her voice and she this is entirely appropriate.
Ruth moves for adjournment.
No second.
Greenwald asks question about urban limit line. Souza refuses to answer question.
Saylor seeks to make a motion. Moves direct staff that we investigate potential acquisition of Shriner property while at same time looking at other adjacent cites. Souza seconds.
Saylor finds there to be some “intriguing aspect” of proposal. Finds the proposal to be a resource to the city. Expresses skepticism with this particular property owner but we’ve been told there is nothing else in the wings. Reasonable move to enter into negotiation because it may be in the interest in the city—he doesn’t know yet. We should also look at other cites.
Heystek—reinforces appreciation for apparent intention of bringing this forward. Genuine difference of opinion about what priorities are. Areas like this adjacent to the city have not been in the past prioritized for open space from Measure O money. There is no question about the value of acquiring this land. There are questions about motivations of person owning this property. Steve Gidaro’s main interest is in making money and he would be unloading this land because of unsuccessful efforts to develop it. Also questions why we did not do this with the agricultural mitigation ordinance. Why aren’t we holding the developers to the same standard. Mindful of limited nature of Measure O funds. Look for other areas that may be useful for these purposes.
Ruth—speaks in support of the motion and also the importance of looking into other sites possibly for having this.
Emlen: First component is open space/ ag land preservation; second is the sports park; were prepared to do the EIR on Hallett in October, now is going to wait and see.
Greenwald perplexed about the process here. Mitch Sears explores open space acquisition, asks Emlen why he did not take this to Mitch Sears when he heard about it. Sports Park has to be looked at differently. Doesn’t think this should be discussed without a discussion of our entire growth policy. Greenwald complains about being interrupted at this point.
I raise the question during public comment as to whether this property which is exempt from a Measure J vote in current form, would then be exempt from a future Measure J vote if this property were at a future point in time converted to residential housing.
Souza answers my question, that Measure J suggests that any future switch to residential development would require a Measure J. So that alleviates one of my concerns about the proposal. Good to see that the drafters of Measure J thought about that contingency.
My own view at this point, concerns and skepticism about both process and procedure aside and questions about developer motivations is that some sort of land acquired for open space and a sports complex would be okay. The next question is whether the city could get for free from the Signature people what they would have to pay for, for the Shriner’s property.
Souza’s closing statement, buzzword for the day is “leveraging”—on the other hand, I think Heystek’s question about exemption needed to be better addressed. Souza asserts right to bring forward any proposal. Does not have the right to negotiate on behalf of the city. (But again, his quote… “I’m a shrewd negotiator.”)
Greenwald makes a substitute motion, to make the Signature property equal priority for exploration. Ruth seconds for purpose of discussion. Saylor had raised objections to the housing development of 89 and the potential of leap frog development at the Shriner’s property. Greenwald suggests not growth inducing, free, and why wouldn’t we investigate as an equal weight alternative? Emlen said that anticipated that would have discussions with Signature folks. Greenwald: are they looked at as equal weight?
Saylor: suggests its alright that have talks with owners of alternative sites.
Ruth: interest to move forward with EIR as soon as possible with a timeline. If you look at alternatives, it will slow it down.
Emlen: one possibility is that we end up doing both… and put the sports complex on the signature property.
Don moves the process as Emlen lays it out, Ruth seconds it.
Heystek: Hallett since we own it outight and have it today, we should consider that the superior option. Reminds council that some of Signature property would involve agricultural mitigation. Residential proposal on Signature Property would be subject to Measure J vote. Requiring agricultural easements are not bad either. Suggests Hallett project is the real location.
Greenwald: doesn’t think we should do Shriners without larger look at our vision. In favor of at least examining it.
Final vote: passes unanimously
Interesting stuff after the meeting with Mayor Greenwald getting in Emlen and Steiner’s face and Asmundson appealing to me that she is being abusive to staff. Greenwald was angry about Steiner interjecting into the discussion when the council had not overruled her ruling. Staff intervened at a point where they should not have. The council needs to govern itself. How much did they pay for the counseling services? Wasted tax payer money if you ask me.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
The question about whether the property would require a measure J vote if the organic farm operation failed, should have been answered by Harriet NOT Steve as his legal opinion carries NO weight. Another concern(although not paramount):
if the organic farm fails and it is now city property, it would become a drain on the city’s coffers(maintainance of “abandoned” property). This would create added pressure on the voters to support converting it to residential. This is all very peculiar as this property is a prime piece of land for FUTURE residential development of Davis when and how the voters decide to proceed. It must hold a premium value and our Measure O funds would be much better spent getting easements to protect agriculture on our periphery rather than buying this land outright. In the end, this is a transparent Souza reelection campaign ploy. We will undoubtedly see his campaign literature plastered with something like SOUZA WANTS TO GET DAVIS A SPORTS COMPLEX AND ORGANIC FARM.
The question about whether the property would require a measure J vote if the organic farm operation failed, should have been answered by Harriet NOT Steve as his legal opinion carries NO weight. Another concern(although not paramount):
if the organic farm fails and it is now city property, it would become a drain on the city’s coffers(maintainance of “abandoned” property). This would create added pressure on the voters to support converting it to residential. This is all very peculiar as this property is a prime piece of land for FUTURE residential development of Davis when and how the voters decide to proceed. It must hold a premium value and our Measure O funds would be much better spent getting easements to protect agriculture on our periphery rather than buying this land outright. In the end, this is a transparent Souza reelection campaign ploy. We will undoubtedly see his campaign literature plastered with something like SOUZA WANTS TO GET DAVIS A SPORTS COMPLEX AND ORGANIC FARM.
The question about whether the property would require a measure J vote if the organic farm operation failed, should have been answered by Harriet NOT Steve as his legal opinion carries NO weight. Another concern(although not paramount):
if the organic farm fails and it is now city property, it would become a drain on the city’s coffers(maintainance of “abandoned” property). This would create added pressure on the voters to support converting it to residential. This is all very peculiar as this property is a prime piece of land for FUTURE residential development of Davis when and how the voters decide to proceed. It must hold a premium value and our Measure O funds would be much better spent getting easements to protect agriculture on our periphery rather than buying this land outright. In the end, this is a transparent Souza reelection campaign ploy. We will undoubtedly see his campaign literature plastered with something like SOUZA WANTS TO GET DAVIS A SPORTS COMPLEX AND ORGANIC FARM.
The question about whether the property would require a measure J vote if the organic farm operation failed, should have been answered by Harriet NOT Steve as his legal opinion carries NO weight. Another concern(although not paramount):
if the organic farm fails and it is now city property, it would become a drain on the city’s coffers(maintainance of “abandoned” property). This would create added pressure on the voters to support converting it to residential. This is all very peculiar as this property is a prime piece of land for FUTURE residential development of Davis when and how the voters decide to proceed. It must hold a premium value and our Measure O funds would be much better spent getting easements to protect agriculture on our periphery rather than buying this land outright. In the end, this is a transparent Souza reelection campaign ploy. We will undoubtedly see his campaign literature plastered with something like SOUZA WANTS TO GET DAVIS A SPORTS COMPLEX AND ORGANIC FARM.
Isn’t this Shriner property still commercially farmed on its periphery. I thought that this made an organic farm operation problematic. The best plan is to declare Whitecombe’s property unsuitable for residential development and offer him a “bargain-basement price for 300 acres(if the Council really wants to purchase land for a Sports Complex and organic farm). Whitecombe’s
CV property will be surrounded on three sides by non commercial agricultural uses which would protect an organic farm from being contaminated by chemicals/pesticides .
Isn’t this Shriner property still commercially farmed on its periphery. I thought that this made an organic farm operation problematic. The best plan is to declare Whitecombe’s property unsuitable for residential development and offer him a “bargain-basement price for 300 acres(if the Council really wants to purchase land for a Sports Complex and organic farm). Whitecombe’s
CV property will be surrounded on three sides by non commercial agricultural uses which would protect an organic farm from being contaminated by chemicals/pesticides .
Isn’t this Shriner property still commercially farmed on its periphery. I thought that this made an organic farm operation problematic. The best plan is to declare Whitecombe’s property unsuitable for residential development and offer him a “bargain-basement price for 300 acres(if the Council really wants to purchase land for a Sports Complex and organic farm). Whitecombe’s
CV property will be surrounded on three sides by non commercial agricultural uses which would protect an organic farm from being contaminated by chemicals/pesticides .
Isn’t this Shriner property still commercially farmed on its periphery. I thought that this made an organic farm operation problematic. The best plan is to declare Whitecombe’s property unsuitable for residential development and offer him a “bargain-basement price for 300 acres(if the Council really wants to purchase land for a Sports Complex and organic farm). Whitecombe’s
CV property will be surrounded on three sides by non commercial agricultural uses which would protect an organic farm from being contaminated by chemicals/pesticides .
Your point is well taken davisite, but is also moot. What was approved was that Staff should investigate these options. The legal issues will be fully explored and detailed at that time.
I personally think this was a good outcome. The acquisition of both properties really perked my ears up.
Your point is well taken davisite, but is also moot. What was approved was that Staff should investigate these options. The legal issues will be fully explored and detailed at that time.
I personally think this was a good outcome. The acquisition of both properties really perked my ears up.
Your point is well taken davisite, but is also moot. What was approved was that Staff should investigate these options. The legal issues will be fully explored and detailed at that time.
I personally think this was a good outcome. The acquisition of both properties really perked my ears up.
Your point is well taken davisite, but is also moot. What was approved was that Staff should investigate these options. The legal issues will be fully explored and detailed at that time.
I personally think this was a good outcome. The acquisition of both properties really perked my ears up.
We have two separate issues here. One involves finding a location for a sports park, the other involves where and how to create a permanent ag buffer. First, I would like to discuss the sports park aspect of Steve Souza’s proposal.
As to the sports parks: I, along with Ruth Asmundson, have served on a sports park subcommittee for a number of years. Fairly early into the process, I began to realize that, while many of the organized sports leaders favored a sports park at the Howatt Ranch, many parents felt the Howatt was to far away.
Some organized sports leaders were concerned that building the park close to town would run into opposition by neighbors because of the lights, traffic and noise.
Over two years ago, the owner of the Signature properties asked to meet with me. He owns the land adjacent to the Junior High School which is inside of the Mace curve, and he also owns the large parcel of land directly north of that parcel, on the other side of Mace Blvd., adjacent to the Guidaro site that Steve was discussing.
At the time that I met with him, the owner of the Signature properties offered to donate some land on the North side of Mace Blvd. for a sports park, in exchange for permission to develop 127 homes within the Mace Curve (this would be in addition to the ag mitigation). I asked him if he would consider also building a teen center next to the junior high school so that we could use the current teen center in central park for a bicycle museum and visitors center. He agreed.
I was enthusiastic about this option, since I knew that the 40 acre parcel of land inside the Mace curve would be likely to be considered soon for development. I brought the idea to the chair of the parks and rec commission, who was also on the sports park subcommittee, and to staff. Both said they weren’t interested, because is could impede momentum on the Howatt proposal.
I disagreed, but decided to defer. I knew that sooner or later it would become clear that too many parents objected to the distance of the Howatt site, and that the Signature proposal was the best solution.
I suspect that the Shriner’s proposal is a diversion, but at least it allows the Signature proposal, for which I have advocated for over two years, to come forward.
I will post concerning the ag buffer acquisition when I get back from my next meeting.
One final note of caution: This blogger is doing a wonderful service by hosting this blog. However, I expect this blogger to become increasingly critical of me for reasons that could soon become apparent. Be aware and stay tuned……….
We have two separate issues here. One involves finding a location for a sports park, the other involves where and how to create a permanent ag buffer. First, I would like to discuss the sports park aspect of Steve Souza’s proposal.
As to the sports parks: I, along with Ruth Asmundson, have served on a sports park subcommittee for a number of years. Fairly early into the process, I began to realize that, while many of the organized sports leaders favored a sports park at the Howatt Ranch, many parents felt the Howatt was to far away.
Some organized sports leaders were concerned that building the park close to town would run into opposition by neighbors because of the lights, traffic and noise.
Over two years ago, the owner of the Signature properties asked to meet with me. He owns the land adjacent to the Junior High School which is inside of the Mace curve, and he also owns the large parcel of land directly north of that parcel, on the other side of Mace Blvd., adjacent to the Guidaro site that Steve was discussing.
At the time that I met with him, the owner of the Signature properties offered to donate some land on the North side of Mace Blvd. for a sports park, in exchange for permission to develop 127 homes within the Mace Curve (this would be in addition to the ag mitigation). I asked him if he would consider also building a teen center next to the junior high school so that we could use the current teen center in central park for a bicycle museum and visitors center. He agreed.
I was enthusiastic about this option, since I knew that the 40 acre parcel of land inside the Mace curve would be likely to be considered soon for development. I brought the idea to the chair of the parks and rec commission, who was also on the sports park subcommittee, and to staff. Both said they weren’t interested, because is could impede momentum on the Howatt proposal.
I disagreed, but decided to defer. I knew that sooner or later it would become clear that too many parents objected to the distance of the Howatt site, and that the Signature proposal was the best solution.
I suspect that the Shriner’s proposal is a diversion, but at least it allows the Signature proposal, for which I have advocated for over two years, to come forward.
I will post concerning the ag buffer acquisition when I get back from my next meeting.
One final note of caution: This blogger is doing a wonderful service by hosting this blog. However, I expect this blogger to become increasingly critical of me for reasons that could soon become apparent. Be aware and stay tuned……….
We have two separate issues here. One involves finding a location for a sports park, the other involves where and how to create a permanent ag buffer. First, I would like to discuss the sports park aspect of Steve Souza’s proposal.
As to the sports parks: I, along with Ruth Asmundson, have served on a sports park subcommittee for a number of years. Fairly early into the process, I began to realize that, while many of the organized sports leaders favored a sports park at the Howatt Ranch, many parents felt the Howatt was to far away.
Some organized sports leaders were concerned that building the park close to town would run into opposition by neighbors because of the lights, traffic and noise.
Over two years ago, the owner of the Signature properties asked to meet with me. He owns the land adjacent to the Junior High School which is inside of the Mace curve, and he also owns the large parcel of land directly north of that parcel, on the other side of Mace Blvd., adjacent to the Guidaro site that Steve was discussing.
At the time that I met with him, the owner of the Signature properties offered to donate some land on the North side of Mace Blvd. for a sports park, in exchange for permission to develop 127 homes within the Mace Curve (this would be in addition to the ag mitigation). I asked him if he would consider also building a teen center next to the junior high school so that we could use the current teen center in central park for a bicycle museum and visitors center. He agreed.
I was enthusiastic about this option, since I knew that the 40 acre parcel of land inside the Mace curve would be likely to be considered soon for development. I brought the idea to the chair of the parks and rec commission, who was also on the sports park subcommittee, and to staff. Both said they weren’t interested, because is could impede momentum on the Howatt proposal.
I disagreed, but decided to defer. I knew that sooner or later it would become clear that too many parents objected to the distance of the Howatt site, and that the Signature proposal was the best solution.
I suspect that the Shriner’s proposal is a diversion, but at least it allows the Signature proposal, for which I have advocated for over two years, to come forward.
I will post concerning the ag buffer acquisition when I get back from my next meeting.
One final note of caution: This blogger is doing a wonderful service by hosting this blog. However, I expect this blogger to become increasingly critical of me for reasons that could soon become apparent. Be aware and stay tuned……….
We have two separate issues here. One involves finding a location for a sports park, the other involves where and how to create a permanent ag buffer. First, I would like to discuss the sports park aspect of Steve Souza’s proposal.
As to the sports parks: I, along with Ruth Asmundson, have served on a sports park subcommittee for a number of years. Fairly early into the process, I began to realize that, while many of the organized sports leaders favored a sports park at the Howatt Ranch, many parents felt the Howatt was to far away.
Some organized sports leaders were concerned that building the park close to town would run into opposition by neighbors because of the lights, traffic and noise.
Over two years ago, the owner of the Signature properties asked to meet with me. He owns the land adjacent to the Junior High School which is inside of the Mace curve, and he also owns the large parcel of land directly north of that parcel, on the other side of Mace Blvd., adjacent to the Guidaro site that Steve was discussing.
At the time that I met with him, the owner of the Signature properties offered to donate some land on the North side of Mace Blvd. for a sports park, in exchange for permission to develop 127 homes within the Mace Curve (this would be in addition to the ag mitigation). I asked him if he would consider also building a teen center next to the junior high school so that we could use the current teen center in central park for a bicycle museum and visitors center. He agreed.
I was enthusiastic about this option, since I knew that the 40 acre parcel of land inside the Mace curve would be likely to be considered soon for development. I brought the idea to the chair of the parks and rec commission, who was also on the sports park subcommittee, and to staff. Both said they weren’t interested, because is could impede momentum on the Howatt proposal.
I disagreed, but decided to defer. I knew that sooner or later it would become clear that too many parents objected to the distance of the Howatt site, and that the Signature proposal was the best solution.
I suspect that the Shriner’s proposal is a diversion, but at least it allows the Signature proposal, for which I have advocated for over two years, to come forward.
I will post concerning the ag buffer acquisition when I get back from my next meeting.
One final note of caution: This blogger is doing a wonderful service by hosting this blog. However, I expect this blogger to become increasingly critical of me for reasons that could soon become apparent. Be aware and stay tuned……….
um, bicycle museum and visitor’s center? is that really a burning need for downtown davis, and does it really serve the teen population to relocate the teen center to the furthest edge of davis’ periphery, out of downtown where the movies, park and coffee shops and other hangouts are?
(of course one could also ask if the teen center serves the davis teen community, but the city saw fit to spend a fair chunk of money to build the place there)
on another note, it might not be a bad idea to encourage organic farms on the periphery of the city, just to minimize the exposure to pesticides .
um, bicycle museum and visitor’s center? is that really a burning need for downtown davis, and does it really serve the teen population to relocate the teen center to the furthest edge of davis’ periphery, out of downtown where the movies, park and coffee shops and other hangouts are?
(of course one could also ask if the teen center serves the davis teen community, but the city saw fit to spend a fair chunk of money to build the place there)
on another note, it might not be a bad idea to encourage organic farms on the periphery of the city, just to minimize the exposure to pesticides .
um, bicycle museum and visitor’s center? is that really a burning need for downtown davis, and does it really serve the teen population to relocate the teen center to the furthest edge of davis’ periphery, out of downtown where the movies, park and coffee shops and other hangouts are?
(of course one could also ask if the teen center serves the davis teen community, but the city saw fit to spend a fair chunk of money to build the place there)
on another note, it might not be a bad idea to encourage organic farms on the periphery of the city, just to minimize the exposure to pesticides .
um, bicycle museum and visitor’s center? is that really a burning need for downtown davis, and does it really serve the teen population to relocate the teen center to the furthest edge of davis’ periphery, out of downtown where the movies, park and coffee shops and other hangouts are?
(of course one could also ask if the teen center serves the davis teen community, but the city saw fit to spend a fair chunk of money to build the place there)
on another note, it might not be a bad idea to encourage organic farms on the periphery of the city, just to minimize the exposure to pesticides .
I don’t see much too critical of Sue. Other than she did lose her cool more than a few times and could have handled the procedural matters more smoothly.
Souza and Ruth come out looking especially bad. Comical that Ruth moved for adjournment, she used to do that as Mayor as well. Good that her allies did not second the motion. That was just dumb of her.
I disagree with Mayor Greenwald however. I think Lamar is correct on this issue the Howatt property is already owned by the city and does not require development on the Signature Curve. I don’t get why the Mayor wants to develop there. I also think the Mayor should have taken up the issue of Souza’s duplicity on the issue of ag mitigation. It does appear that for some reason Souza is trying to help out Gidaro and Parlin, and it’s not clear what is in it for them.
I agree with Saylor I don’t trust Gidaro, however, I distrust Saylor and Souza more. I at least know that Gidaro is in it to make money, I don’t know the motivations of Souza and Saylor.
I don’t see much too critical of Sue. Other than she did lose her cool more than a few times and could have handled the procedural matters more smoothly.
Souza and Ruth come out looking especially bad. Comical that Ruth moved for adjournment, she used to do that as Mayor as well. Good that her allies did not second the motion. That was just dumb of her.
I disagree with Mayor Greenwald however. I think Lamar is correct on this issue the Howatt property is already owned by the city and does not require development on the Signature Curve. I don’t get why the Mayor wants to develop there. I also think the Mayor should have taken up the issue of Souza’s duplicity on the issue of ag mitigation. It does appear that for some reason Souza is trying to help out Gidaro and Parlin, and it’s not clear what is in it for them.
I agree with Saylor I don’t trust Gidaro, however, I distrust Saylor and Souza more. I at least know that Gidaro is in it to make money, I don’t know the motivations of Souza and Saylor.
I don’t see much too critical of Sue. Other than she did lose her cool more than a few times and could have handled the procedural matters more smoothly.
Souza and Ruth come out looking especially bad. Comical that Ruth moved for adjournment, she used to do that as Mayor as well. Good that her allies did not second the motion. That was just dumb of her.
I disagree with Mayor Greenwald however. I think Lamar is correct on this issue the Howatt property is already owned by the city and does not require development on the Signature Curve. I don’t get why the Mayor wants to develop there. I also think the Mayor should have taken up the issue of Souza’s duplicity on the issue of ag mitigation. It does appear that for some reason Souza is trying to help out Gidaro and Parlin, and it’s not clear what is in it for them.
I agree with Saylor I don’t trust Gidaro, however, I distrust Saylor and Souza more. I at least know that Gidaro is in it to make money, I don’t know the motivations of Souza and Saylor.
I don’t see much too critical of Sue. Other than she did lose her cool more than a few times and could have handled the procedural matters more smoothly.
Souza and Ruth come out looking especially bad. Comical that Ruth moved for adjournment, she used to do that as Mayor as well. Good that her allies did not second the motion. That was just dumb of her.
I disagree with Mayor Greenwald however. I think Lamar is correct on this issue the Howatt property is already owned by the city and does not require development on the Signature Curve. I don’t get why the Mayor wants to develop there. I also think the Mayor should have taken up the issue of Souza’s duplicity on the issue of ag mitigation. It does appear that for some reason Souza is trying to help out Gidaro and Parlin, and it’s not clear what is in it for them.
I agree with Saylor I don’t trust Gidaro, however, I distrust Saylor and Souza more. I at least know that Gidaro is in it to make money, I don’t know the motivations of Souza and Saylor.
“I don’t know the motivations of Souza and Saylor.”
Both Souza and Saylor’s stint on our Council has revealed their priorities,namely a seat on the Yolo Board of Supervisors and State Assembly,respectively.
“I don’t know the motivations of Souza and Saylor.”
Both Souza and Saylor’s stint on our Council has revealed their priorities,namely a seat on the Yolo Board of Supervisors and State Assembly,respectively.
“I don’t know the motivations of Souza and Saylor.”
Both Souza and Saylor’s stint on our Council has revealed their priorities,namely a seat on the Yolo Board of Supervisors and State Assembly,respectively.
“I don’t know the motivations of Souza and Saylor.”
Both Souza and Saylor’s stint on our Council has revealed their priorities,namely a seat on the Yolo Board of Supervisors and State Assembly,respectively.
Sue – You should be so lucky “the blogger” is as nice to you as he is with some of your misfirings at other council members that you display at times.
I think councilmember Heystek is the only one that speaks to others at all times with respect. He does this even when he disagrees with them.
I wish you, saylor, souza and asmundson would all treat each other with respect. It’s hard to watch and see all of the bickering going on. I like your views on some issues, not all, but it makes it difficult to watch.
Someone, please pass the popcorn. Oh wait, Pepto might be necessary at times with this council.
Sue – You should be so lucky “the blogger” is as nice to you as he is with some of your misfirings at other council members that you display at times.
I think councilmember Heystek is the only one that speaks to others at all times with respect. He does this even when he disagrees with them.
I wish you, saylor, souza and asmundson would all treat each other with respect. It’s hard to watch and see all of the bickering going on. I like your views on some issues, not all, but it makes it difficult to watch.
Someone, please pass the popcorn. Oh wait, Pepto might be necessary at times with this council.
Sue – You should be so lucky “the blogger” is as nice to you as he is with some of your misfirings at other council members that you display at times.
I think councilmember Heystek is the only one that speaks to others at all times with respect. He does this even when he disagrees with them.
I wish you, saylor, souza and asmundson would all treat each other with respect. It’s hard to watch and see all of the bickering going on. I like your views on some issues, not all, but it makes it difficult to watch.
Someone, please pass the popcorn. Oh wait, Pepto might be necessary at times with this council.
Sue – You should be so lucky “the blogger” is as nice to you as he is with some of your misfirings at other council members that you display at times.
I think councilmember Heystek is the only one that speaks to others at all times with respect. He does this even when he disagrees with them.
I wish you, saylor, souza and asmundson would all treat each other with respect. It’s hard to watch and see all of the bickering going on. I like your views on some issues, not all, but it makes it difficult to watch.
Someone, please pass the popcorn. Oh wait, Pepto might be necessary at times with this council.
Sue Greenwald said:
“One final note of caution…”
Dear Sue-Vanguardians don’t take kindly to being “cautioned”… we pride ouselves on take an independent measure of what we read
on this blog.
Sue Greenwald said:
“One final note of caution…”
Dear Sue-Vanguardians don’t take kindly to being “cautioned”… we pride ouselves on take an independent measure of what we read
on this blog.
Sue Greenwald said:
“One final note of caution…”
Dear Sue-Vanguardians don’t take kindly to being “cautioned”… we pride ouselves on take an independent measure of what we read
on this blog.
Sue Greenwald said:
“One final note of caution…”
Dear Sue-Vanguardians don’t take kindly to being “cautioned”… we pride ouselves on take an independent measure of what we read
on this blog.
“Both Souza and Saylor’s stint on our Council has revealed their priorities,namely a seat on the Yolo Board of Supervisors and State Assembly,respectively.”
It is factually undeniable that both Souza and Saylor are running for reelection to our Council, not out of a strong sense of civic duty to our city but rather that their bids for a 2008 run for Supervisor(Souza) and Assembly(Saylor)failed to gain enough support.
“Both Souza and Saylor’s stint on our Council has revealed their priorities,namely a seat on the Yolo Board of Supervisors and State Assembly,respectively.”
It is factually undeniable that both Souza and Saylor are running for reelection to our Council, not out of a strong sense of civic duty to our city but rather that their bids for a 2008 run for Supervisor(Souza) and Assembly(Saylor)failed to gain enough support.
“Both Souza and Saylor’s stint on our Council has revealed their priorities,namely a seat on the Yolo Board of Supervisors and State Assembly,respectively.”
It is factually undeniable that both Souza and Saylor are running for reelection to our Council, not out of a strong sense of civic duty to our city but rather that their bids for a 2008 run for Supervisor(Souza) and Assembly(Saylor)failed to gain enough support.
“Both Souza and Saylor’s stint on our Council has revealed their priorities,namely a seat on the Yolo Board of Supervisors and State Assembly,respectively.”
It is factually undeniable that both Souza and Saylor are running for reelection to our Council, not out of a strong sense of civic duty to our city but rather that their bids for a 2008 run for Supervisor(Souza) and Assembly(Saylor)failed to gain enough support.
I am very pleased to see Mayor Greenwald participating in these blog dialogues. Her experience and knowledge are a valuable addition to the Vanguard.
I am very pleased to see Mayor Greenwald participating in these blog dialogues. Her experience and knowledge are a valuable addition to the Vanguard.
I am very pleased to see Mayor Greenwald participating in these blog dialogues. Her experience and knowledge are a valuable addition to the Vanguard.
I am very pleased to see Mayor Greenwald participating in these blog dialogues. Her experience and knowledge are a valuable addition to the Vanguard.
You are wrong. If Stephen is re-elected next year, he plans to serve four more years on the council and then retire from elected politics. If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.
You are wrong. If Stephen is re-elected next year, he plans to serve four more years on the council and then retire from elected politics. If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.
You are wrong. If Stephen is re-elected next year, he plans to serve four more years on the council and then retire from elected politics. If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.
You are wrong. If Stephen is re-elected next year, he plans to serve four more years on the council and then retire from elected politics. If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.
I’ll believe it when I see it. It is well known that he approached Mariko Yamada with an intention of running for the Supervisor next year only to find out that she would be backing Provenza and thus decided instead to run for re-election.
I’ll believe it when I see it. It is well known that he approached Mariko Yamada with an intention of running for the Supervisor next year only to find out that she would be backing Provenza and thus decided instead to run for re-election.
I’ll believe it when I see it. It is well known that he approached Mariko Yamada with an intention of running for the Supervisor next year only to find out that she would be backing Provenza and thus decided instead to run for re-election.
I’ll believe it when I see it. It is well known that he approached Mariko Yamada with an intention of running for the Supervisor next year only to find out that she would be backing Provenza and thus decided instead to run for re-election.
um, bicycle museum and visitor’s center? is that really a burning need for downtown davis
When the old City Hall was in transition and various options were under consideration, there was support for using that building as a bicycle museum. The idea was that it would attract visitors into the downtown and by doing so it would support the small businesses in the area. That idea lost out to Bistro 33, but some hoped to find another central location. The Teen Center is apparently one possibility.
Is the Teen Center popular among Davis teens? If not, finding another use for it does not seem like a bad idea.
Because many out of town visitors already venture to Central Park for Farmers Market, locating a bicylce museum nearby would make some sense. Also, if there is a need for a visitor’s center — to direct visitors to hotels, restaurants and shops in town — that too would make sense in Central Park.
It is a fair point that Mace Ranch is not as central a location for a teen center. But at least it would be next to a junior high school and if it was donated to the city it would not cost the taxpayers anything to build it there.
um, bicycle museum and visitor’s center? is that really a burning need for downtown davis
When the old City Hall was in transition and various options were under consideration, there was support for using that building as a bicycle museum. The idea was that it would attract visitors into the downtown and by doing so it would support the small businesses in the area. That idea lost out to Bistro 33, but some hoped to find another central location. The Teen Center is apparently one possibility.
Is the Teen Center popular among Davis teens? If not, finding another use for it does not seem like a bad idea.
Because many out of town visitors already venture to Central Park for Farmers Market, locating a bicylce museum nearby would make some sense. Also, if there is a need for a visitor’s center — to direct visitors to hotels, restaurants and shops in town — that too would make sense in Central Park.
It is a fair point that Mace Ranch is not as central a location for a teen center. But at least it would be next to a junior high school and if it was donated to the city it would not cost the taxpayers anything to build it there.
um, bicycle museum and visitor’s center? is that really a burning need for downtown davis
When the old City Hall was in transition and various options were under consideration, there was support for using that building as a bicycle museum. The idea was that it would attract visitors into the downtown and by doing so it would support the small businesses in the area. That idea lost out to Bistro 33, but some hoped to find another central location. The Teen Center is apparently one possibility.
Is the Teen Center popular among Davis teens? If not, finding another use for it does not seem like a bad idea.
Because many out of town visitors already venture to Central Park for Farmers Market, locating a bicylce museum nearby would make some sense. Also, if there is a need for a visitor’s center — to direct visitors to hotels, restaurants and shops in town — that too would make sense in Central Park.
It is a fair point that Mace Ranch is not as central a location for a teen center. But at least it would be next to a junior high school and if it was donated to the city it would not cost the taxpayers anything to build it there.
um, bicycle museum and visitor’s center? is that really a burning need for downtown davis
When the old City Hall was in transition and various options were under consideration, there was support for using that building as a bicycle museum. The idea was that it would attract visitors into the downtown and by doing so it would support the small businesses in the area. That idea lost out to Bistro 33, but some hoped to find another central location. The Teen Center is apparently one possibility.
Is the Teen Center popular among Davis teens? If not, finding another use for it does not seem like a bad idea.
Because many out of town visitors already venture to Central Park for Farmers Market, locating a bicylce museum nearby would make some sense. Also, if there is a need for a visitor’s center — to direct visitors to hotels, restaurants and shops in town — that too would make sense in Central Park.
It is a fair point that Mace Ranch is not as central a location for a teen center. But at least it would be next to a junior high school and if it was donated to the city it would not cost the taxpayers anything to build it there.
Friend of Souza said…
“You are wrong…”
Davis is still a very small town and the story has floated about that Supervisor Yamada rebuffed his plans to run for Supervisor( this was before Yamada’s political standing crashed and burned at that infamous Supervisor’s meeting),letting him know that she was supporting Provenza to replace her on the BOS. The description that Mariko went with him as he reluctantly made his application for a Council reelection bid could just be added color to this tale… or maybe not.
Friend of Souza said…
“You are wrong…”
Davis is still a very small town and the story has floated about that Supervisor Yamada rebuffed his plans to run for Supervisor( this was before Yamada’s political standing crashed and burned at that infamous Supervisor’s meeting),letting him know that she was supporting Provenza to replace her on the BOS. The description that Mariko went with him as he reluctantly made his application for a Council reelection bid could just be added color to this tale… or maybe not.
Friend of Souza said…
“You are wrong…”
Davis is still a very small town and the story has floated about that Supervisor Yamada rebuffed his plans to run for Supervisor( this was before Yamada’s political standing crashed and burned at that infamous Supervisor’s meeting),letting him know that she was supporting Provenza to replace her on the BOS. The description that Mariko went with him as he reluctantly made his application for a Council reelection bid could just be added color to this tale… or maybe not.
Friend of Souza said…
“You are wrong…”
Davis is still a very small town and the story has floated about that Supervisor Yamada rebuffed his plans to run for Supervisor( this was before Yamada’s political standing crashed and burned at that infamous Supervisor’s meeting),letting him know that she was supporting Provenza to replace her on the BOS. The description that Mariko went with him as he reluctantly made his application for a Council reelection bid could just be added color to this tale… or maybe not.
Ag buffer component:
Steve Souza’s proposal involved two components: A sports park and an ag buffer. I presented my own take on the sports park earlier
Now to the ag buffer concept: Steve Souza has suggested purchasing a huge chunk of land adjacent to Wildhorse as permanent open space.
I strongly support a permanent ag buffer. But, unfortunately, the council majority has set a target of 325 new houses a year, with about 200 each year specifically directed to peripheral development. This is equivalent to approving more than one subdivision the size of Wildhorse every five years. Furthermore, the council majority has repeatedly stated that they are opposed to building a “moat” around the city. By moat, they mean permanent ag buffer.
Now, if the council majority adheres to its policy of building one peripheral Wildhorse-sized development every five years, and doesn’t want a permanent urban limit line composed of an ag buffer, then obtaining the land adjacent to Steve Souza’s neighborhood as permanent open space will merely push peripheral development into other people’s neighborhoods adjacent to West Davis, South Davis, and other North and East Davis areas. At the rate of one Wildhorse every 6 years, this could happen quite quickly.
I tried to explain that, before purchasing the huge piece of land that Steve proposed, we should reconcile some of these contradictions in the current council majority’s position, look at the practical consequences in terms of the placement of future growth, and have a discussion of whether we want a permanent urban limit line and where we want it to be.
(Ruth Asmundson didn’t like this line of questioning, but I followed the rules.)
Ag buffer component:
Steve Souza’s proposal involved two components: A sports park and an ag buffer. I presented my own take on the sports park earlier
Now to the ag buffer concept: Steve Souza has suggested purchasing a huge chunk of land adjacent to Wildhorse as permanent open space.
I strongly support a permanent ag buffer. But, unfortunately, the council majority has set a target of 325 new houses a year, with about 200 each year specifically directed to peripheral development. This is equivalent to approving more than one subdivision the size of Wildhorse every five years. Furthermore, the council majority has repeatedly stated that they are opposed to building a “moat” around the city. By moat, they mean permanent ag buffer.
Now, if the council majority adheres to its policy of building one peripheral Wildhorse-sized development every five years, and doesn’t want a permanent urban limit line composed of an ag buffer, then obtaining the land adjacent to Steve Souza’s neighborhood as permanent open space will merely push peripheral development into other people’s neighborhoods adjacent to West Davis, South Davis, and other North and East Davis areas. At the rate of one Wildhorse every 6 years, this could happen quite quickly.
I tried to explain that, before purchasing the huge piece of land that Steve proposed, we should reconcile some of these contradictions in the current council majority’s position, look at the practical consequences in terms of the placement of future growth, and have a discussion of whether we want a permanent urban limit line and where we want it to be.
(Ruth Asmundson didn’t like this line of questioning, but I followed the rules.)
Ag buffer component:
Steve Souza’s proposal involved two components: A sports park and an ag buffer. I presented my own take on the sports park earlier
Now to the ag buffer concept: Steve Souza has suggested purchasing a huge chunk of land adjacent to Wildhorse as permanent open space.
I strongly support a permanent ag buffer. But, unfortunately, the council majority has set a target of 325 new houses a year, with about 200 each year specifically directed to peripheral development. This is equivalent to approving more than one subdivision the size of Wildhorse every five years. Furthermore, the council majority has repeatedly stated that they are opposed to building a “moat” around the city. By moat, they mean permanent ag buffer.
Now, if the council majority adheres to its policy of building one peripheral Wildhorse-sized development every five years, and doesn’t want a permanent urban limit line composed of an ag buffer, then obtaining the land adjacent to Steve Souza’s neighborhood as permanent open space will merely push peripheral development into other people’s neighborhoods adjacent to West Davis, South Davis, and other North and East Davis areas. At the rate of one Wildhorse every 6 years, this could happen quite quickly.
I tried to explain that, before purchasing the huge piece of land that Steve proposed, we should reconcile some of these contradictions in the current council majority’s position, look at the practical consequences in terms of the placement of future growth, and have a discussion of whether we want a permanent urban limit line and where we want it to be.
(Ruth Asmundson didn’t like this line of questioning, but I followed the rules.)
Ag buffer component:
Steve Souza’s proposal involved two components: A sports park and an ag buffer. I presented my own take on the sports park earlier
Now to the ag buffer concept: Steve Souza has suggested purchasing a huge chunk of land adjacent to Wildhorse as permanent open space.
I strongly support a permanent ag buffer. But, unfortunately, the council majority has set a target of 325 new houses a year, with about 200 each year specifically directed to peripheral development. This is equivalent to approving more than one subdivision the size of Wildhorse every five years. Furthermore, the council majority has repeatedly stated that they are opposed to building a “moat” around the city. By moat, they mean permanent ag buffer.
Now, if the council majority adheres to its policy of building one peripheral Wildhorse-sized development every five years, and doesn’t want a permanent urban limit line composed of an ag buffer, then obtaining the land adjacent to Steve Souza’s neighborhood as permanent open space will merely push peripheral development into other people’s neighborhoods adjacent to West Davis, South Davis, and other North and East Davis areas. At the rate of one Wildhorse every 6 years, this could happen quite quickly.
I tried to explain that, before purchasing the huge piece of land that Steve proposed, we should reconcile some of these contradictions in the current council majority’s position, look at the practical consequences in terms of the placement of future growth, and have a discussion of whether we want a permanent urban limit line and where we want it to be.
(Ruth Asmundson didn’t like this line of questioning, but I followed the rules.)
Self Correction:
The current council majority’s growth policy would result in one peripheral subdivision the size of Wildhorse every 5 years.
Self Correction:
The current council majority’s growth policy would result in one peripheral subdivision the size of Wildhorse every 5 years.
Self Correction:
The current council majority’s growth policy would result in one peripheral subdivision the size of Wildhorse every 5 years.
Self Correction:
The current council majority’s growth policy would result in one peripheral subdivision the size of Wildhorse every 5 years.
Friend of Souza said:
“If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.”
… you better believe it !!
Friend of Souza said:
“If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.”
… you better believe it !!
Friend of Souza said:
“If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.”
… you better believe it !!
Friend of Souza said:
“If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.”
… you better believe it !!
I very much disagree with moving the teen center to the very outskirts of town. You may as well move it to Howett Ranch. Solve the problem of the teen centers lack of use instead, such as getting rid of all of the rules and policies that make it difficult, if not impossible, for any youth-driven activities at the center. Organize a youth commission to oversee its use – Woodland has one, why not Davis?
It is hard to criticize Souza for “shrewdly negotiating” a deal with Gidaro without criticizing Sue for essentially doing the same thing with the Signature property.
I understand Heystek’s concerns and I wonder about the timing of Souza’s vote on the Wildhorse Ranch mitigation and his first contact with Gidaro. Also why didn’t he just encourage Mitch to pursue the idea and bring it to the Council?
I also feel that it is ironic that it’s Souza cutting this deal with Gidaro considering his previous vicious political attacks over any kind of connection with Gidaro.
Nevertheless, I would like to hear about both proposals and see which one is the best for the community.
I very much disagree with moving the teen center to the very outskirts of town. You may as well move it to Howett Ranch. Solve the problem of the teen centers lack of use instead, such as getting rid of all of the rules and policies that make it difficult, if not impossible, for any youth-driven activities at the center. Organize a youth commission to oversee its use – Woodland has one, why not Davis?
It is hard to criticize Souza for “shrewdly negotiating” a deal with Gidaro without criticizing Sue for essentially doing the same thing with the Signature property.
I understand Heystek’s concerns and I wonder about the timing of Souza’s vote on the Wildhorse Ranch mitigation and his first contact with Gidaro. Also why didn’t he just encourage Mitch to pursue the idea and bring it to the Council?
I also feel that it is ironic that it’s Souza cutting this deal with Gidaro considering his previous vicious political attacks over any kind of connection with Gidaro.
Nevertheless, I would like to hear about both proposals and see which one is the best for the community.
I very much disagree with moving the teen center to the very outskirts of town. You may as well move it to Howett Ranch. Solve the problem of the teen centers lack of use instead, such as getting rid of all of the rules and policies that make it difficult, if not impossible, for any youth-driven activities at the center. Organize a youth commission to oversee its use – Woodland has one, why not Davis?
It is hard to criticize Souza for “shrewdly negotiating” a deal with Gidaro without criticizing Sue for essentially doing the same thing with the Signature property.
I understand Heystek’s concerns and I wonder about the timing of Souza’s vote on the Wildhorse Ranch mitigation and his first contact with Gidaro. Also why didn’t he just encourage Mitch to pursue the idea and bring it to the Council?
I also feel that it is ironic that it’s Souza cutting this deal with Gidaro considering his previous vicious political attacks over any kind of connection with Gidaro.
Nevertheless, I would like to hear about both proposals and see which one is the best for the community.
I very much disagree with moving the teen center to the very outskirts of town. You may as well move it to Howett Ranch. Solve the problem of the teen centers lack of use instead, such as getting rid of all of the rules and policies that make it difficult, if not impossible, for any youth-driven activities at the center. Organize a youth commission to oversee its use – Woodland has one, why not Davis?
It is hard to criticize Souza for “shrewdly negotiating” a deal with Gidaro without criticizing Sue for essentially doing the same thing with the Signature property.
I understand Heystek’s concerns and I wonder about the timing of Souza’s vote on the Wildhorse Ranch mitigation and his first contact with Gidaro. Also why didn’t he just encourage Mitch to pursue the idea and bring it to the Council?
I also feel that it is ironic that it’s Souza cutting this deal with Gidaro considering his previous vicious political attacks over any kind of connection with Gidaro.
Nevertheless, I would like to hear about both proposals and see which one is the best for the community.
DPD – investigate how the city came to own Howett Ranch in the first place – open space so far out of town.
DPD – investigate how the city came to own Howett Ranch in the first place – open space so far out of town.
DPD – investigate how the city came to own Howett Ranch in the first place – open space so far out of town.
DPD – investigate how the city came to own Howett Ranch in the first place – open space so far out of town.
Sue’s vision of creating a truly upscale, urbane downtown environment along with the Council plan to “gentrify” the neighborhood across from the Teen Center does make one wonder if a Teen Center is the best fit here if/when these changes come about.
Sue’s vision of creating a truly upscale, urbane downtown environment along with the Council plan to “gentrify” the neighborhood across from the Teen Center does make one wonder if a Teen Center is the best fit here if/when these changes come about.
Sue’s vision of creating a truly upscale, urbane downtown environment along with the Council plan to “gentrify” the neighborhood across from the Teen Center does make one wonder if a Teen Center is the best fit here if/when these changes come about.
Sue’s vision of creating a truly upscale, urbane downtown environment along with the Council plan to “gentrify” the neighborhood across from the Teen Center does make one wonder if a Teen Center is the best fit here if/when these changes come about.
Friend of Souza said…
” You are wrong. If Stephen is re-elected next year, he plans to serve four more years on the council and then retire from elected politics. If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.”
It is clearly an attempt at diversion to say that “You are wrong” and follow with his supposed future plans. The discussion was not about his future plans but rather how he came to decide to run for reelection to our Council in 2008.
Friend of Souza said…
” You are wrong. If Stephen is re-elected next year, he plans to serve four more years on the council and then retire from elected politics. If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.”
It is clearly an attempt at diversion to say that “You are wrong” and follow with his supposed future plans. The discussion was not about his future plans but rather how he came to decide to run for reelection to our Council in 2008.
Friend of Souza said…
” You are wrong. If Stephen is re-elected next year, he plans to serve four more years on the council and then retire from elected politics. If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.”
It is clearly an attempt at diversion to say that “You are wrong” and follow with his supposed future plans. The discussion was not about his future plans but rather how he came to decide to run for reelection to our Council in 2008.
Friend of Souza said…
” You are wrong. If Stephen is re-elected next year, he plans to serve four more years on the council and then retire from elected politics. If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.”
It is clearly an attempt at diversion to say that “You are wrong” and follow with his supposed future plans. The discussion was not about his future plans but rather how he came to decide to run for reelection to our Council in 2008.
Mark Siegler in the most recent Housing Element Steering Committee meeting made a very interesting and IMHO very good suggestion for the School District Administration Building site. Specifically, he suggested that that site be made into a continuation of Central Park and conveting the baseball diamond to the north of the City Hall complex into housing. In the public comment I added my thoughts that if that site were converted into a park, it would be a good idea to consider an underground garage covering the entire site.
We could have the best of all worlds for our downtown, more than an acre of additional parking, more than an acre of grassy extension of Central Park, and infill housing on the current baseball field that is within walking distance of downtown.
We could even take this idea a step further and once the new park and its parking garage are complete, excavating the current grassy areas of Central Park (leaving the Farmers Market Barn undisturbed) to create an underground garage there. Certainly would solve some of our downtown parking problems.
Mark Siegler in the most recent Housing Element Steering Committee meeting made a very interesting and IMHO very good suggestion for the School District Administration Building site. Specifically, he suggested that that site be made into a continuation of Central Park and conveting the baseball diamond to the north of the City Hall complex into housing. In the public comment I added my thoughts that if that site were converted into a park, it would be a good idea to consider an underground garage covering the entire site.
We could have the best of all worlds for our downtown, more than an acre of additional parking, more than an acre of grassy extension of Central Park, and infill housing on the current baseball field that is within walking distance of downtown.
We could even take this idea a step further and once the new park and its parking garage are complete, excavating the current grassy areas of Central Park (leaving the Farmers Market Barn undisturbed) to create an underground garage there. Certainly would solve some of our downtown parking problems.
Mark Siegler in the most recent Housing Element Steering Committee meeting made a very interesting and IMHO very good suggestion for the School District Administration Building site. Specifically, he suggested that that site be made into a continuation of Central Park and conveting the baseball diamond to the north of the City Hall complex into housing. In the public comment I added my thoughts that if that site were converted into a park, it would be a good idea to consider an underground garage covering the entire site.
We could have the best of all worlds for our downtown, more than an acre of additional parking, more than an acre of grassy extension of Central Park, and infill housing on the current baseball field that is within walking distance of downtown.
We could even take this idea a step further and once the new park and its parking garage are complete, excavating the current grassy areas of Central Park (leaving the Farmers Market Barn undisturbed) to create an underground garage there. Certainly would solve some of our downtown parking problems.
Mark Siegler in the most recent Housing Element Steering Committee meeting made a very interesting and IMHO very good suggestion for the School District Administration Building site. Specifically, he suggested that that site be made into a continuation of Central Park and conveting the baseball diamond to the north of the City Hall complex into housing. In the public comment I added my thoughts that if that site were converted into a park, it would be a good idea to consider an underground garage covering the entire site.
We could have the best of all worlds for our downtown, more than an acre of additional parking, more than an acre of grassy extension of Central Park, and infill housing on the current baseball field that is within walking distance of downtown.
We could even take this idea a step further and once the new park and its parking garage are complete, excavating the current grassy areas of Central Park (leaving the Farmers Market Barn undisturbed) to create an underground garage there. Certainly would solve some of our downtown parking problems.
Kids are always a good fit for any neighborhood. This building was built with taxpayer dollars specifically for them after their teen center was wiped out by commercial development (what is now Regal Cinema on F & First).
Now, Sue wants to move it to the very edge of Davis and is making deals to make it so? Why not just provide each teenager in town with a bus pass out of town so they don’t sully the upscale feeling of her neighborhood and beloved downtown?
Kids are always a good fit for any neighborhood. This building was built with taxpayer dollars specifically for them after their teen center was wiped out by commercial development (what is now Regal Cinema on F & First).
Now, Sue wants to move it to the very edge of Davis and is making deals to make it so? Why not just provide each teenager in town with a bus pass out of town so they don’t sully the upscale feeling of her neighborhood and beloved downtown?
Kids are always a good fit for any neighborhood. This building was built with taxpayer dollars specifically for them after their teen center was wiped out by commercial development (what is now Regal Cinema on F & First).
Now, Sue wants to move it to the very edge of Davis and is making deals to make it so? Why not just provide each teenager in town with a bus pass out of town so they don’t sully the upscale feeling of her neighborhood and beloved downtown?
Kids are always a good fit for any neighborhood. This building was built with taxpayer dollars specifically for them after their teen center was wiped out by commercial development (what is now Regal Cinema on F & First).
Now, Sue wants to move it to the very edge of Davis and is making deals to make it so? Why not just provide each teenager in town with a bus pass out of town so they don’t sully the upscale feeling of her neighborhood and beloved downtown?
Friend of Souza said…
You are wrong. If Stephen is re-elected next year, he plans to serve four more years on the council and then retire from elected politics. If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.
Promise?! Best news I’ve heard all day.
Friend of Souza said…
You are wrong. If Stephen is re-elected next year, he plans to serve four more years on the council and then retire from elected politics. If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.
Promise?! Best news I’ve heard all day.
Friend of Souza said…
You are wrong. If Stephen is re-elected next year, he plans to serve four more years on the council and then retire from elected politics. If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.
Promise?! Best news I’ve heard all day.
Friend of Souza said…
You are wrong. If Stephen is re-elected next year, he plans to serve four more years on the council and then retire from elected politics. If he does not win in 2008, he will be finished with elective office at that point.
Promise?! Best news I’ve heard all day.
Concerning the teen center:
The teen center is an asset to its neighborhood, central park and the downtown.
In terms of function, there are advantages to the downtown location and advantages to a location adjacent to the junior high school, since it serves primarily teens of that age group.
The problem is that we need a place for a bicycle museum, the Downtown Business Association offices, and a visitors’ center. These uses need to be downtown, and cannot be located near the junior high site.
That is why I am exploring alternatives.
Concerning the teen center:
The teen center is an asset to its neighborhood, central park and the downtown.
In terms of function, there are advantages to the downtown location and advantages to a location adjacent to the junior high school, since it serves primarily teens of that age group.
The problem is that we need a place for a bicycle museum, the Downtown Business Association offices, and a visitors’ center. These uses need to be downtown, and cannot be located near the junior high site.
That is why I am exploring alternatives.
Concerning the teen center:
The teen center is an asset to its neighborhood, central park and the downtown.
In terms of function, there are advantages to the downtown location and advantages to a location adjacent to the junior high school, since it serves primarily teens of that age group.
The problem is that we need a place for a bicycle museum, the Downtown Business Association offices, and a visitors’ center. These uses need to be downtown, and cannot be located near the junior high site.
That is why I am exploring alternatives.
Concerning the teen center:
The teen center is an asset to its neighborhood, central park and the downtown.
In terms of function, there are advantages to the downtown location and advantages to a location adjacent to the junior high school, since it serves primarily teens of that age group.
The problem is that we need a place for a bicycle museum, the Downtown Business Association offices, and a visitors’ center. These uses need to be downtown, and cannot be located near the junior high site.
That is why I am exploring alternatives.
There are three Junior Highs in town. Placing the teen center next to the newest school on the very edge of town makes it difficult to access for 2/3 of that particular age group, more than that if you consider that a large portion of the students attending Harper go home to South Davis and would not return to East Davis to go to the center. Parity would demand a “teen center” near each Jr. High campus.
The point is that individual Council members shouldn’t be criticized for negotiating with developers if others are do so as well. More than one council member is off “shrewdly negotiating” with developers it seems.
The Council needs to get beyond the internal bickering and start working together and focus on what’s important. The community can only stave off the grand plans of developers for so long.
There are three Junior Highs in town. Placing the teen center next to the newest school on the very edge of town makes it difficult to access for 2/3 of that particular age group, more than that if you consider that a large portion of the students attending Harper go home to South Davis and would not return to East Davis to go to the center. Parity would demand a “teen center” near each Jr. High campus.
The point is that individual Council members shouldn’t be criticized for negotiating with developers if others are do so as well. More than one council member is off “shrewdly negotiating” with developers it seems.
The Council needs to get beyond the internal bickering and start working together and focus on what’s important. The community can only stave off the grand plans of developers for so long.
There are three Junior Highs in town. Placing the teen center next to the newest school on the very edge of town makes it difficult to access for 2/3 of that particular age group, more than that if you consider that a large portion of the students attending Harper go home to South Davis and would not return to East Davis to go to the center. Parity would demand a “teen center” near each Jr. High campus.
The point is that individual Council members shouldn’t be criticized for negotiating with developers if others are do so as well. More than one council member is off “shrewdly negotiating” with developers it seems.
The Council needs to get beyond the internal bickering and start working together and focus on what’s important. The community can only stave off the grand plans of developers for so long.
There are three Junior Highs in town. Placing the teen center next to the newest school on the very edge of town makes it difficult to access for 2/3 of that particular age group, more than that if you consider that a large portion of the students attending Harper go home to South Davis and would not return to East Davis to go to the center. Parity would demand a “teen center” near each Jr. High campus.
The point is that individual Council members shouldn’t be criticized for negotiating with developers if others are do so as well. More than one council member is off “shrewdly negotiating” with developers it seems.
The Council needs to get beyond the internal bickering and start working together and focus on what’s important. The community can only stave off the grand plans of developers for so long.
Mark Siegler in the most recent Housing Element Steering Committee meeting made a very interesting and IMHO very good suggestion for the School District Administration Building site. Specifically, he suggested that that site be made into a continuation of Central Park and conveting the baseball diamond to the north of the City Hall complex into housing.
Nice as this idea may be, that property belongs to the District, and my understanding is that they want to rebuild it and rent it out which would provide continual ongoing income that can be used for annual operations. The District is short on funds due to declining school enrollment. If they sell the property, the proceeds can only be used for facilities funds. But if they rent it out, it can be used for ongoing operational costs, which is what they are in need of. So I doubt they are going to want to give up that potential revenue source.
Mark Siegler in the most recent Housing Element Steering Committee meeting made a very interesting and IMHO very good suggestion for the School District Administration Building site. Specifically, he suggested that that site be made into a continuation of Central Park and conveting the baseball diamond to the north of the City Hall complex into housing.
Nice as this idea may be, that property belongs to the District, and my understanding is that they want to rebuild it and rent it out which would provide continual ongoing income that can be used for annual operations. The District is short on funds due to declining school enrollment. If they sell the property, the proceeds can only be used for facilities funds. But if they rent it out, it can be used for ongoing operational costs, which is what they are in need of. So I doubt they are going to want to give up that potential revenue source.
Mark Siegler in the most recent Housing Element Steering Committee meeting made a very interesting and IMHO very good suggestion for the School District Administration Building site. Specifically, he suggested that that site be made into a continuation of Central Park and conveting the baseball diamond to the north of the City Hall complex into housing.
Nice as this idea may be, that property belongs to the District, and my understanding is that they want to rebuild it and rent it out which would provide continual ongoing income that can be used for annual operations. The District is short on funds due to declining school enrollment. If they sell the property, the proceeds can only be used for facilities funds. But if they rent it out, it can be used for ongoing operational costs, which is what they are in need of. So I doubt they are going to want to give up that potential revenue source.
Mark Siegler in the most recent Housing Element Steering Committee meeting made a very interesting and IMHO very good suggestion for the School District Administration Building site. Specifically, he suggested that that site be made into a continuation of Central Park and conveting the baseball diamond to the north of the City Hall complex into housing.
Nice as this idea may be, that property belongs to the District, and my understanding is that they want to rebuild it and rent it out which would provide continual ongoing income that can be used for annual operations. The District is short on funds due to declining school enrollment. If they sell the property, the proceeds can only be used for facilities funds. But if they rent it out, it can be used for ongoing operational costs, which is what they are in need of. So I doubt they are going to want to give up that potential revenue source.
a more centralized sports park would be a major community asset. to decide it should be located on the outskirts of town miles from most residents because of neighbors’ concern for traffic and lighting is not good decision making. maybe central park should not have been built for the same reasons (trade noise for light).
i grew up behind a high school football field in the bay area. i lived through night marching band practices and football games. its not a big deal. the benefits outweigh the drawback. think about the benefit and accessibility for our kids. don’t make a bad location decision to appease the concerns of any specific neighborhood .
a more centralized sports park would be a major community asset. to decide it should be located on the outskirts of town miles from most residents because of neighbors’ concern for traffic and lighting is not good decision making. maybe central park should not have been built for the same reasons (trade noise for light).
i grew up behind a high school football field in the bay area. i lived through night marching band practices and football games. its not a big deal. the benefits outweigh the drawback. think about the benefit and accessibility for our kids. don’t make a bad location decision to appease the concerns of any specific neighborhood .
a more centralized sports park would be a major community asset. to decide it should be located on the outskirts of town miles from most residents because of neighbors’ concern for traffic and lighting is not good decision making. maybe central park should not have been built for the same reasons (trade noise for light).
i grew up behind a high school football field in the bay area. i lived through night marching band practices and football games. its not a big deal. the benefits outweigh the drawback. think about the benefit and accessibility for our kids. don’t make a bad location decision to appease the concerns of any specific neighborhood .
a more centralized sports park would be a major community asset. to decide it should be located on the outskirts of town miles from most residents because of neighbors’ concern for traffic and lighting is not good decision making. maybe central park should not have been built for the same reasons (trade noise for light).
i grew up behind a high school football field in the bay area. i lived through night marching band practices and football games. its not a big deal. the benefits outweigh the drawback. think about the benefit and accessibility for our kids. don’t make a bad location decision to appease the concerns of any specific neighborhood .
I agree with anonymous 9:01. As it is now we often bike to the Little League fields or to the Nugget soccer fields. We would be unable to do so if it were way outside of town.
I agree with anonymous 9:01. As it is now we often bike to the Little League fields or to the Nugget soccer fields. We would be unable to do so if it were way outside of town.
I agree with anonymous 9:01. As it is now we often bike to the Little League fields or to the Nugget soccer fields. We would be unable to do so if it were way outside of town.
I agree with anonymous 9:01. As it is now we often bike to the Little League fields or to the Nugget soccer fields. We would be unable to do so if it were way outside of town.
By approving the adjacent ag mitigation requirement, city council and city staff have already created a loose form of urban limit. They just don’t yet have the guts to call it that. Or the vision to say where that line should be. The ordinance is simply saying that the urban limit will be at the outside perimeter of the next generation of peripheral development. This is a piecemeal and unpredictable way to plan for something as important as the shape of our city. The goal is admirable and may seem to be the only politically viable way now to shape growth. But a real urban limit is preferable. This will take an extraordinary effort to create a vision of where that line would fall. But it is worth it.
As far as the teen center goes…being a center, it should be in the center. Like, where it already is. And yes, it is well utilized. There is plenty of room downtown to accommodate the teen center, a bicycle museum, a visitor’s center, and much much more. We just need to be more creative, and more willing to accept that a more sustainable Davis will mean a change in the character of our beloved downtown. But we can and should create a vision for what that character is. Like creating an urban limit line, we should not be relocating the teen center without having an overall vision first. Plopping a teen center on the far edge of town will do nothing to encourage our downtown’s vitality, or our sustainability goals of being able to get places without our cars.
By approving the adjacent ag mitigation requirement, city council and city staff have already created a loose form of urban limit. They just don’t yet have the guts to call it that. Or the vision to say where that line should be. The ordinance is simply saying that the urban limit will be at the outside perimeter of the next generation of peripheral development. This is a piecemeal and unpredictable way to plan for something as important as the shape of our city. The goal is admirable and may seem to be the only politically viable way now to shape growth. But a real urban limit is preferable. This will take an extraordinary effort to create a vision of where that line would fall. But it is worth it.
As far as the teen center goes…being a center, it should be in the center. Like, where it already is. And yes, it is well utilized. There is plenty of room downtown to accommodate the teen center, a bicycle museum, a visitor’s center, and much much more. We just need to be more creative, and more willing to accept that a more sustainable Davis will mean a change in the character of our beloved downtown. But we can and should create a vision for what that character is. Like creating an urban limit line, we should not be relocating the teen center without having an overall vision first. Plopping a teen center on the far edge of town will do nothing to encourage our downtown’s vitality, or our sustainability goals of being able to get places without our cars.
By approving the adjacent ag mitigation requirement, city council and city staff have already created a loose form of urban limit. They just don’t yet have the guts to call it that. Or the vision to say where that line should be. The ordinance is simply saying that the urban limit will be at the outside perimeter of the next generation of peripheral development. This is a piecemeal and unpredictable way to plan for something as important as the shape of our city. The goal is admirable and may seem to be the only politically viable way now to shape growth. But a real urban limit is preferable. This will take an extraordinary effort to create a vision of where that line would fall. But it is worth it.
As far as the teen center goes…being a center, it should be in the center. Like, where it already is. And yes, it is well utilized. There is plenty of room downtown to accommodate the teen center, a bicycle museum, a visitor’s center, and much much more. We just need to be more creative, and more willing to accept that a more sustainable Davis will mean a change in the character of our beloved downtown. But we can and should create a vision for what that character is. Like creating an urban limit line, we should not be relocating the teen center without having an overall vision first. Plopping a teen center on the far edge of town will do nothing to encourage our downtown’s vitality, or our sustainability goals of being able to get places without our cars.
By approving the adjacent ag mitigation requirement, city council and city staff have already created a loose form of urban limit. They just don’t yet have the guts to call it that. Or the vision to say where that line should be. The ordinance is simply saying that the urban limit will be at the outside perimeter of the next generation of peripheral development. This is a piecemeal and unpredictable way to plan for something as important as the shape of our city. The goal is admirable and may seem to be the only politically viable way now to shape growth. But a real urban limit is preferable. This will take an extraordinary effort to create a vision of where that line would fall. But it is worth it.
As far as the teen center goes…being a center, it should be in the center. Like, where it already is. And yes, it is well utilized. There is plenty of room downtown to accommodate the teen center, a bicycle museum, a visitor’s center, and much much more. We just need to be more creative, and more willing to accept that a more sustainable Davis will mean a change in the character of our beloved downtown. But we can and should create a vision for what that character is. Like creating an urban limit line, we should not be relocating the teen center without having an overall vision first. Plopping a teen center on the far edge of town will do nothing to encourage our downtown’s vitality, or our sustainability goals of being able to get places without our cars.
“As it is now we often bike to the Little League fields or to the Nugget soccer fields. We would be unable to do so if it were way outside of town.”
It seems to me it would be easy enough to construct a dedicate bike path to such a location. It certainly does not seem to be worth millions in the budget given that we already own a property that we are not talking about paying another property to do.
“As it is now we often bike to the Little League fields or to the Nugget soccer fields. We would be unable to do so if it were way outside of town.”
It seems to me it would be easy enough to construct a dedicate bike path to such a location. It certainly does not seem to be worth millions in the budget given that we already own a property that we are not talking about paying another property to do.
“As it is now we often bike to the Little League fields or to the Nugget soccer fields. We would be unable to do so if it were way outside of town.”
It seems to me it would be easy enough to construct a dedicate bike path to such a location. It certainly does not seem to be worth millions in the budget given that we already own a property that we are not talking about paying another property to do.
“As it is now we often bike to the Little League fields or to the Nugget soccer fields. We would be unable to do so if it were way outside of town.”
It seems to me it would be easy enough to construct a dedicate bike path to such a location. It certainly does not seem to be worth millions in the budget given that we already own a property that we are not talking about paying another property to do.
it would be easy enough to construct a dedicate bike path to such a location.
Absolutely, but it’s not so easy for young children to bike long distances; the fields currently are centrally located.
it would be easy enough to construct a dedicate bike path to such a location.
Absolutely, but it’s not so easy for young children to bike long distances; the fields currently are centrally located.
it would be easy enough to construct a dedicate bike path to such a location.
Absolutely, but it’s not so easy for young children to bike long distances; the fields currently are centrally located.
it would be easy enough to construct a dedicate bike path to such a location.
Absolutely, but it’s not so easy for young children to bike long distances; the fields currently are centrally located.
How far are we talking?
How far are we talking?
How far are we talking?
How far are we talking?
“How far are we talking? “
As the crow flies:
1. 1 mile from Mace Blvd
2. 3 3/4 miles from Downtown
3. 5 1/4 miles from West Davis
Double these distances for cyclists for the return trip
“How far are we talking? “
As the crow flies:
1. 1 mile from Mace Blvd
2. 3 3/4 miles from Downtown
3. 5 1/4 miles from West Davis
Double these distances for cyclists for the return trip
“How far are we talking? “
As the crow flies:
1. 1 mile from Mace Blvd
2. 3 3/4 miles from Downtown
3. 5 1/4 miles from West Davis
Double these distances for cyclists for the return trip
“How far are we talking? “
As the crow flies:
1. 1 mile from Mace Blvd
2. 3 3/4 miles from Downtown
3. 5 1/4 miles from West Davis
Double these distances for cyclists for the return trip
I am not entirely clear exactly where Howatt Ranch is, but I have heard it’s about 2 miles east of Davis. For those who live in Central or West Davis, that would represent a considerable addition to their distance versus going to central Davis.
Of course, there will be some people for whom the ride will be shorter, but on average the center seems like a better location as far as biking is concerned. It’s not the end of the world, but Sue is correct that overall it will be less convenient.
I am not entirely clear exactly where Howatt Ranch is, but I have heard it’s about 2 miles east of Davis. For those who live in Central or West Davis, that would represent a considerable addition to their distance versus going to central Davis.
Of course, there will be some people for whom the ride will be shorter, but on average the center seems like a better location as far as biking is concerned. It’s not the end of the world, but Sue is correct that overall it will be less convenient.
I am not entirely clear exactly where Howatt Ranch is, but I have heard it’s about 2 miles east of Davis. For those who live in Central or West Davis, that would represent a considerable addition to their distance versus going to central Davis.
Of course, there will be some people for whom the ride will be shorter, but on average the center seems like a better location as far as biking is concerned. It’s not the end of the world, but Sue is correct that overall it will be less convenient.
I am not entirely clear exactly where Howatt Ranch is, but I have heard it’s about 2 miles east of Davis. For those who live in Central or West Davis, that would represent a considerable addition to their distance versus going to central Davis.
Of course, there will be some people for whom the ride will be shorter, but on average the center seems like a better location as far as biking is concerned. It’s not the end of the world, but Sue is correct that overall it will be less convenient.
Brian:
Thank you. So how much of a difference would it make for it to be at Shriner’s rather than Howatt?
Brian:
Thank you. So how much of a difference would it make for it to be at Shriner’s rather than Howatt?
Brian:
Thank you. So how much of a difference would it make for it to be at Shriner’s rather than Howatt?
Brian:
Thank you. So how much of a difference would it make for it to be at Shriner’s rather than Howatt?
“I am not entirely clear exactly where Howatt Ranch is, but I have heard it’s about 2 miles east of Davis. For those who live in Central or West Davis, that would represent a considerable addition to their distance versus going to central Davis.”
More important is the psychological barrier. The question is, regardless of the actual distance, how many people do you think would actually ride their bicycle out there? The answer to that question may be in another question: how many people currently ride their bicycles to the soccer fields east of El Macero? Conversely, how many people (and families) ride their bikes to Central Park and Community Park? Many.
While the objective here shouldn’t be to force people out of their cars, neither should the objective (or outcome) be to force people into them. Very few people will get to Howatt Ranch by any means other than driving. If we just acknowledge that up front, then we can factor that into the decision and whether that is where our priorities reside.
“I am not entirely clear exactly where Howatt Ranch is, but I have heard it’s about 2 miles east of Davis. For those who live in Central or West Davis, that would represent a considerable addition to their distance versus going to central Davis.”
More important is the psychological barrier. The question is, regardless of the actual distance, how many people do you think would actually ride their bicycle out there? The answer to that question may be in another question: how many people currently ride their bicycles to the soccer fields east of El Macero? Conversely, how many people (and families) ride their bikes to Central Park and Community Park? Many.
While the objective here shouldn’t be to force people out of their cars, neither should the objective (or outcome) be to force people into them. Very few people will get to Howatt Ranch by any means other than driving. If we just acknowledge that up front, then we can factor that into the decision and whether that is where our priorities reside.
“I am not entirely clear exactly where Howatt Ranch is, but I have heard it’s about 2 miles east of Davis. For those who live in Central or West Davis, that would represent a considerable addition to their distance versus going to central Davis.”
More important is the psychological barrier. The question is, regardless of the actual distance, how many people do you think would actually ride their bicycle out there? The answer to that question may be in another question: how many people currently ride their bicycles to the soccer fields east of El Macero? Conversely, how many people (and families) ride their bikes to Central Park and Community Park? Many.
While the objective here shouldn’t be to force people out of their cars, neither should the objective (or outcome) be to force people into them. Very few people will get to Howatt Ranch by any means other than driving. If we just acknowledge that up front, then we can factor that into the decision and whether that is where our priorities reside.
“I am not entirely clear exactly where Howatt Ranch is, but I have heard it’s about 2 miles east of Davis. For those who live in Central or West Davis, that would represent a considerable addition to their distance versus going to central Davis.”
More important is the psychological barrier. The question is, regardless of the actual distance, how many people do you think would actually ride their bicycle out there? The answer to that question may be in another question: how many people currently ride their bicycles to the soccer fields east of El Macero? Conversely, how many people (and families) ride their bikes to Central Park and Community Park? Many.
While the objective here shouldn’t be to force people out of their cars, neither should the objective (or outcome) be to force people into them. Very few people will get to Howatt Ranch by any means other than driving. If we just acknowledge that up front, then we can factor that into the decision and whether that is where our priorities reside.
“Thank you. So how much of a difference would it make for it to be at Shriner’s rather than Howatt?”
The incremental distance between the western boundary of Shriners and the western boundary of Howatt via Covell/Mace curve is 1.3 miles. So kids would be riding their bicycles an additional 2.6 miles beyond what they would have already ridden. This is a lot to ask of kids. Of course different origin assumptions might change the figure slightly.
But it’s not only the distance, but the psychological barrier (as mentioned in my previous post) and riding experience. If people feel safe and can cross a Covell underpass, that could have a major effect versus families crossing at Mace and 2nd, which is not a friendly intersection. If the riding experience is nice with things like shade trees, housing, etc. to break up the monotony, then people will be more inclined to ride. Shriner’s property wins here.
Obviously more people will bicycle to Shriner’s than Howatt due to both actual distances, perceived perceived distances, psychological barriers, and riding experience. More still would bicycle to the CV site than Howatt.
Bottom line for me is that Shriner’s is considerably more accessible than Howatt Ranch.
“Thank you. So how much of a difference would it make for it to be at Shriner’s rather than Howatt?”
The incremental distance between the western boundary of Shriners and the western boundary of Howatt via Covell/Mace curve is 1.3 miles. So kids would be riding their bicycles an additional 2.6 miles beyond what they would have already ridden. This is a lot to ask of kids. Of course different origin assumptions might change the figure slightly.
But it’s not only the distance, but the psychological barrier (as mentioned in my previous post) and riding experience. If people feel safe and can cross a Covell underpass, that could have a major effect versus families crossing at Mace and 2nd, which is not a friendly intersection. If the riding experience is nice with things like shade trees, housing, etc. to break up the monotony, then people will be more inclined to ride. Shriner’s property wins here.
Obviously more people will bicycle to Shriner’s than Howatt due to both actual distances, perceived perceived distances, psychological barriers, and riding experience. More still would bicycle to the CV site than Howatt.
Bottom line for me is that Shriner’s is considerably more accessible than Howatt Ranch.
“Thank you. So how much of a difference would it make for it to be at Shriner’s rather than Howatt?”
The incremental distance between the western boundary of Shriners and the western boundary of Howatt via Covell/Mace curve is 1.3 miles. So kids would be riding their bicycles an additional 2.6 miles beyond what they would have already ridden. This is a lot to ask of kids. Of course different origin assumptions might change the figure slightly.
But it’s not only the distance, but the psychological barrier (as mentioned in my previous post) and riding experience. If people feel safe and can cross a Covell underpass, that could have a major effect versus families crossing at Mace and 2nd, which is not a friendly intersection. If the riding experience is nice with things like shade trees, housing, etc. to break up the monotony, then people will be more inclined to ride. Shriner’s property wins here.
Obviously more people will bicycle to Shriner’s than Howatt due to both actual distances, perceived perceived distances, psychological barriers, and riding experience. More still would bicycle to the CV site than Howatt.
Bottom line for me is that Shriner’s is considerably more accessible than Howatt Ranch.
“Thank you. So how much of a difference would it make for it to be at Shriner’s rather than Howatt?”
The incremental distance between the western boundary of Shriners and the western boundary of Howatt via Covell/Mace curve is 1.3 miles. So kids would be riding their bicycles an additional 2.6 miles beyond what they would have already ridden. This is a lot to ask of kids. Of course different origin assumptions might change the figure slightly.
But it’s not only the distance, but the psychological barrier (as mentioned in my previous post) and riding experience. If people feel safe and can cross a Covell underpass, that could have a major effect versus families crossing at Mace and 2nd, which is not a friendly intersection. If the riding experience is nice with things like shade trees, housing, etc. to break up the monotony, then people will be more inclined to ride. Shriner’s property wins here.
Obviously more people will bicycle to Shriner’s than Howatt due to both actual distances, perceived perceived distances, psychological barriers, and riding experience. More still would bicycle to the CV site than Howatt.
Bottom line for me is that Shriner’s is considerably more accessible than Howatt Ranch.
Correction: I used the wrong assumptions in my measurements.
I should have used the distance between the western Shriners boundary and the western Howatt ranch boundary rather than the incremental distance, which stopped at 2nd & Mace.
The actual distance between the western boundaries of the two properties is 2.54 miles. This is considerable, when you double the distance. Now, not all trips would originate west of the Shriner’s property, but most would, so the assumption is valid.
Correction: I used the wrong assumptions in my measurements.
I should have used the distance between the western Shriners boundary and the western Howatt ranch boundary rather than the incremental distance, which stopped at 2nd & Mace.
The actual distance between the western boundaries of the two properties is 2.54 miles. This is considerable, when you double the distance. Now, not all trips would originate west of the Shriner’s property, but most would, so the assumption is valid.
Correction: I used the wrong assumptions in my measurements.
I should have used the distance between the western Shriners boundary and the western Howatt ranch boundary rather than the incremental distance, which stopped at 2nd & Mace.
The actual distance between the western boundaries of the two properties is 2.54 miles. This is considerable, when you double the distance. Now, not all trips would originate west of the Shriner’s property, but most would, so the assumption is valid.
Correction: I used the wrong assumptions in my measurements.
I should have used the distance between the western Shriners boundary and the western Howatt ranch boundary rather than the incremental distance, which stopped at 2nd & Mace.
The actual distance between the western boundaries of the two properties is 2.54 miles. This is considerable, when you double the distance. Now, not all trips would originate west of the Shriner’s property, but most would, so the assumption is valid.
Sue Greenwald said…
8/1/07 3:40 PM
Furthermore, the council majority has repeatedly stated that they are opposed to building a “moat” around the city. By moat, they mean permanent ag buffer.
Again, the council majority is deciding against the registered voters majority. Measure O, the Davis Open Space Protection Tax (Moat Tax), was passed by a landslide in 2000; Results. This is a “dwelling unit tax” which is currently in place for 30 years; Information. However, it is not being used for its intended purpose and probably will not be as long as there is a developer driven majority council in place.
Sue Greenwald said…
8/1/07 3:40 PM
Furthermore, the council majority has repeatedly stated that they are opposed to building a “moat” around the city. By moat, they mean permanent ag buffer.
Again, the council majority is deciding against the registered voters majority. Measure O, the Davis Open Space Protection Tax (Moat Tax), was passed by a landslide in 2000; Results. This is a “dwelling unit tax” which is currently in place for 30 years; Information. However, it is not being used for its intended purpose and probably will not be as long as there is a developer driven majority council in place.
Sue Greenwald said…
8/1/07 3:40 PM
Furthermore, the council majority has repeatedly stated that they are opposed to building a “moat” around the city. By moat, they mean permanent ag buffer.
Again, the council majority is deciding against the registered voters majority. Measure O, the Davis Open Space Protection Tax (Moat Tax), was passed by a landslide in 2000; Results. This is a “dwelling unit tax” which is currently in place for 30 years; Information. However, it is not being used for its intended purpose and probably will not be as long as there is a developer driven majority council in place.
Sue Greenwald said…
8/1/07 3:40 PM
Furthermore, the council majority has repeatedly stated that they are opposed to building a “moat” around the city. By moat, they mean permanent ag buffer.
Again, the council majority is deciding against the registered voters majority. Measure O, the Davis Open Space Protection Tax (Moat Tax), was passed by a landslide in 2000; Results. This is a “dwelling unit tax” which is currently in place for 30 years; Information. However, it is not being used for its intended purpose and probably will not be as long as there is a developer driven majority council in place.
The Teen Center needs to be downtown, where it is in walking distance of movie theaters and places to buy gum, magazines and food, and where the area is not otherwise completely empty at night. It tends to be utilized especially by the more vulnerable young teens who are at a particularly difficult and risky age. It will not be utilized if it is on the outskirts of town. And then there will be more vulnerable young teens hanging out on the E Street plaza without adult supervision.
The Teen Center needs to be downtown, where it is in walking distance of movie theaters and places to buy gum, magazines and food, and where the area is not otherwise completely empty at night. It tends to be utilized especially by the more vulnerable young teens who are at a particularly difficult and risky age. It will not be utilized if it is on the outskirts of town. And then there will be more vulnerable young teens hanging out on the E Street plaza without adult supervision.
The Teen Center needs to be downtown, where it is in walking distance of movie theaters and places to buy gum, magazines and food, and where the area is not otherwise completely empty at night. It tends to be utilized especially by the more vulnerable young teens who are at a particularly difficult and risky age. It will not be utilized if it is on the outskirts of town. And then there will be more vulnerable young teens hanging out on the E Street plaza without adult supervision.
The Teen Center needs to be downtown, where it is in walking distance of movie theaters and places to buy gum, magazines and food, and where the area is not otherwise completely empty at night. It tends to be utilized especially by the more vulnerable young teens who are at a particularly difficult and risky age. It will not be utilized if it is on the outskirts of town. And then there will be more vulnerable young teens hanging out on the E Street plaza without adult supervision.
I am going to go by the Third & B teen center, tonight at 7 pm. If there are more than 2 Davis teenagers there, it will surprise me. From what I have seen, the teenagers of Davis do not use that facility.
I am going to go by the Third & B teen center, tonight at 7 pm. If there are more than 2 Davis teenagers there, it will surprise me. From what I have seen, the teenagers of Davis do not use that facility.
I am going to go by the Third & B teen center, tonight at 7 pm. If there are more than 2 Davis teenagers there, it will surprise me. From what I have seen, the teenagers of Davis do not use that facility.
I am going to go by the Third & B teen center, tonight at 7 pm. If there are more than 2 Davis teenagers there, it will surprise me. From what I have seen, the teenagers of Davis do not use that facility.
Sue Greenwald wrote:
The problem is that we need a place for a bicycle museum, the Downtown Business Association offices, and a visitors’ center. These uses need to be downtown, and cannot be located near the junior high site.
That is why I am exploring alternatives.
———————–
Ms. Greenwald, There are already existing locations for all these things: The Hattie Weber Museum adjacent to the Farmers’ Market could accomodate bicycles amid its already intriguing Davis displays of memorabilia. The DDBA already has an office on G Street. Since its staff has been much reduced, why move to, presumably, expanded office space in the Teen Center? And, finally, the Visitor’s Center has a huge office behind the John Natsoulas Art Gallery, upstairs. There’s plenty more room up there, and vacant space on lower floors of that same building available for expansion.
Davis’s teens need their space in the center of town to, most important of all, be helped to feel as though the community wants them in its midst.
Shunting them off to the periphery sends a negative message to Davis’s teens, “You don’t belong in the mix of our community, especially the ‘family-friendly’ Farmers’ Market tourist attraction.”
–Brian Orr
Sue Greenwald wrote:
The problem is that we need a place for a bicycle museum, the Downtown Business Association offices, and a visitors’ center. These uses need to be downtown, and cannot be located near the junior high site.
That is why I am exploring alternatives.
———————–
Ms. Greenwald, There are already existing locations for all these things: The Hattie Weber Museum adjacent to the Farmers’ Market could accomodate bicycles amid its already intriguing Davis displays of memorabilia. The DDBA already has an office on G Street. Since its staff has been much reduced, why move to, presumably, expanded office space in the Teen Center? And, finally, the Visitor’s Center has a huge office behind the John Natsoulas Art Gallery, upstairs. There’s plenty more room up there, and vacant space on lower floors of that same building available for expansion.
Davis’s teens need their space in the center of town to, most important of all, be helped to feel as though the community wants them in its midst.
Shunting them off to the periphery sends a negative message to Davis’s teens, “You don’t belong in the mix of our community, especially the ‘family-friendly’ Farmers’ Market tourist attraction.”
–Brian Orr
Sue Greenwald wrote:
The problem is that we need a place for a bicycle museum, the Downtown Business Association offices, and a visitors’ center. These uses need to be downtown, and cannot be located near the junior high site.
That is why I am exploring alternatives.
———————–
Ms. Greenwald, There are already existing locations for all these things: The Hattie Weber Museum adjacent to the Farmers’ Market could accomodate bicycles amid its already intriguing Davis displays of memorabilia. The DDBA already has an office on G Street. Since its staff has been much reduced, why move to, presumably, expanded office space in the Teen Center? And, finally, the Visitor’s Center has a huge office behind the John Natsoulas Art Gallery, upstairs. There’s plenty more room up there, and vacant space on lower floors of that same building available for expansion.
Davis’s teens need their space in the center of town to, most important of all, be helped to feel as though the community wants them in its midst.
Shunting them off to the periphery sends a negative message to Davis’s teens, “You don’t belong in the mix of our community, especially the ‘family-friendly’ Farmers’ Market tourist attraction.”
–Brian Orr
Sue Greenwald wrote:
The problem is that we need a place for a bicycle museum, the Downtown Business Association offices, and a visitors’ center. These uses need to be downtown, and cannot be located near the junior high site.
That is why I am exploring alternatives.
———————–
Ms. Greenwald, There are already existing locations for all these things: The Hattie Weber Museum adjacent to the Farmers’ Market could accomodate bicycles amid its already intriguing Davis displays of memorabilia. The DDBA already has an office on G Street. Since its staff has been much reduced, why move to, presumably, expanded office space in the Teen Center? And, finally, the Visitor’s Center has a huge office behind the John Natsoulas Art Gallery, upstairs. There’s plenty more room up there, and vacant space on lower floors of that same building available for expansion.
Davis’s teens need their space in the center of town to, most important of all, be helped to feel as though the community wants them in its midst.
Shunting them off to the periphery sends a negative message to Davis’s teens, “You don’t belong in the mix of our community, especially the ‘family-friendly’ Farmers’ Market tourist attraction.”
–Brian Orr
“Ms. Greenwald, There are already existing locations for all these things: The Hattie Weber Museum adjacent to the Farmers’ Market could accomodate bicycles amid its already intriguing Davis displays of memorabilia.”
Are you kidding? Not a chance is there enough room at Hattie Weber. Well, maybe like one or two bicycles. The Hattie Weber is full and should get more full. 3rd and B is a perfect spot for a bike museum / bike displays / bike demonstrations. It would be a destination spot and something to be proud of. Davis needs to reclaim this part of it’s identity before it is gone. We don’t have much else going identity-wise that would draw in visitors and tax dollars. Trust me on this.
“Ms. Greenwald, There are already existing locations for all these things: The Hattie Weber Museum adjacent to the Farmers’ Market could accomodate bicycles amid its already intriguing Davis displays of memorabilia.”
Are you kidding? Not a chance is there enough room at Hattie Weber. Well, maybe like one or two bicycles. The Hattie Weber is full and should get more full. 3rd and B is a perfect spot for a bike museum / bike displays / bike demonstrations. It would be a destination spot and something to be proud of. Davis needs to reclaim this part of it’s identity before it is gone. We don’t have much else going identity-wise that would draw in visitors and tax dollars. Trust me on this.
“Ms. Greenwald, There are already existing locations for all these things: The Hattie Weber Museum adjacent to the Farmers’ Market could accomodate bicycles amid its already intriguing Davis displays of memorabilia.”
Are you kidding? Not a chance is there enough room at Hattie Weber. Well, maybe like one or two bicycles. The Hattie Weber is full and should get more full. 3rd and B is a perfect spot for a bike museum / bike displays / bike demonstrations. It would be a destination spot and something to be proud of. Davis needs to reclaim this part of it’s identity before it is gone. We don’t have much else going identity-wise that would draw in visitors and tax dollars. Trust me on this.
“Ms. Greenwald, There are already existing locations for all these things: The Hattie Weber Museum adjacent to the Farmers’ Market could accomodate bicycles amid its already intriguing Davis displays of memorabilia.”
Are you kidding? Not a chance is there enough room at Hattie Weber. Well, maybe like one or two bicycles. The Hattie Weber is full and should get more full. 3rd and B is a perfect spot for a bike museum / bike displays / bike demonstrations. It would be a destination spot and something to be proud of. Davis needs to reclaim this part of it’s identity before it is gone. We don’t have much else going identity-wise that would draw in visitors and tax dollars. Trust me on this.