The advantage of this policy is that the city could create mitigations against future development as part of the development agreement. The developers and not the city would be purchasing this mitigation.
The disadvantage of course is that the city would need to continue to grow at least one development around the city in order to create this urban limit line. But given the pressures currently in place around the city do exactly that, from the county and elsewhere, it might be the most preferred option in terms of limiting future peripheral growth.
The problem right now is that we can see all around the city developers have purchased agricultural land and then are putting pressure on elected bodies in order to convert agricultural land into urban development. Developers have access, resources, and time that other citizens do not, in order to press their point.
Other cities have actually imposed an outright urban limit line, a point after which, development cannot occur. The idea there is that right now developers have purchased parcels of agricultural land, not in hopes of continuing the present usage, but rather in terms of hoping to convert the land from agricultural uses to urban development. This has led to a large-scale purchase of land to developers who act as speculators.
Woodland’s urban limit line drew controversy from both environmentalists and the county. Environmentalists complained that then-Woodland Mayor Matt Rexroad moved the line further out, allowing for more growth and less agricultural development.
The county on the other hand was already concerned about “county needs.” The plan from Woodland was criticized by supervisors such as Mike McGowan and Helen Thomson for annexing too much land and running in the face of current county policies. On the other hand, the most staunch defender of farmland protection on the board, Supervisor Duane Chamberlain complained that the urban limit line involved too much prime farmland.
Regardless of specific criticisms as to whether Woodland extended the urban limit line out too far, the basic effect was that Woodland did not have the county breathing down on its periphery this cycle. Davis did.
The proposals at Oeste, Covell, and along I-80 represent just some of the properties that have had recent development pressures on them. You can add to that the Gidaro and Signature Properties north of Covell and East of Wild Horse, and you can throw in Ramos’ property to the Southeast, Tsakopoulos to the East, etc.
The Davis voters have given themselves Measure J by which they can decide upon future peripheral growth. However, every time Davis citizens have to fight a Covell Village-type proposal, it is going to take a little energy out of the movement. At some point, a future council could get a large development through on the periphery.
Davis voters also gave themselves the ability to purchase open space through Measure O but that appears to have not been properly funded or implemented and cannot purchase at any rate, large tracts of land.
The best move I would think would be to establish an urban limit line around the city of Davis, that would enable the residents of Davis to limit where future development can take place. Anything outside of this line would be preserved for agricultural land. Moreover this could potentially serve as a key buffer between future proposals from the county and the city of Davis. Given that buffer, Davis would be a much less enticing target in the future and we would not merely have to rely on the pass-through agreement to determine how we grow on the edge of our city.
The city of Davis did not completely dodge the bullet lobbed at them from the county in terms of proposed special study areas. The county temporarily backed off in hopes of initiating talks. That gives us precious time to regroup and bolster our defenses. Even if study areas are initiated we will have perhaps a few years before the county can actually produce development proposals. In the meantime, Davis has an opportunity to take the land in question out of the hands of the county, and put it back within the hands of the Davis voters.
My present thought would be to create an urban limit line, but specifically require all land within that line remain subject to a Measure J vote if we decide to develop it. That is but one idea to prevent what occurred earlier this summer from repeating itself.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
A permanent urban limit line is a restriction on the City only. It does not appear to prevent the County from allowing development on non-annexed land within the line.
One of the study areas proposed by the County (and dropped last month) was a parcel on the east edge of Woodland which directly abuts the city limits and is within Woodland’s permanent urban limit line.
Food for thought.
– Robert Ramming
A permanent urban limit line is a restriction on the City only. It does not appear to prevent the County from allowing development on non-annexed land within the line.
One of the study areas proposed by the County (and dropped last month) was a parcel on the east edge of Woodland which directly abuts the city limits and is within Woodland’s permanent urban limit line.
Food for thought.
– Robert Ramming
A permanent urban limit line is a restriction on the City only. It does not appear to prevent the County from allowing development on non-annexed land within the line.
One of the study areas proposed by the County (and dropped last month) was a parcel on the east edge of Woodland which directly abuts the city limits and is within Woodland’s permanent urban limit line.
Food for thought.
– Robert Ramming
A permanent urban limit line is a restriction on the City only. It does not appear to prevent the County from allowing development on non-annexed land within the line.
One of the study areas proposed by the County (and dropped last month) was a parcel on the east edge of Woodland which directly abuts the city limits and is within Woodland’s permanent urban limit line.
Food for thought.
– Robert Ramming
Well Robert would know better than me on that. But if that was the case, why was the county so up in arms about it?
Well Robert would know better than me on that. But if that was the case, why was the county so up in arms about it?
Well Robert would know better than me on that. But if that was the case, why was the county so up in arms about it?
Well Robert would know better than me on that. But if that was the case, why was the county so up in arms about it?
Sorry, but Urban Limits are little more than child locks on the liquor cabinet. When the city council is thirsty, there is nothing you can do to stop them.
Perhaps a property-tax based Open Space purchase and legal defense fund. Property owners within the current city limits enjoy a very significant boost to property values from the no-growth policy, use the fund to enforce it, and to expand the buffer.
Sorry, but Urban Limits are little more than child locks on the liquor cabinet. When the city council is thirsty, there is nothing you can do to stop them.
Perhaps a property-tax based Open Space purchase and legal defense fund. Property owners within the current city limits enjoy a very significant boost to property values from the no-growth policy, use the fund to enforce it, and to expand the buffer.
Sorry, but Urban Limits are little more than child locks on the liquor cabinet. When the city council is thirsty, there is nothing you can do to stop them.
Perhaps a property-tax based Open Space purchase and legal defense fund. Property owners within the current city limits enjoy a very significant boost to property values from the no-growth policy, use the fund to enforce it, and to expand the buffer.
Sorry, but Urban Limits are little more than child locks on the liquor cabinet. When the city council is thirsty, there is nothing you can do to stop them.
Perhaps a property-tax based Open Space purchase and legal defense fund. Property owners within the current city limits enjoy a very significant boost to property values from the no-growth policy, use the fund to enforce it, and to expand the buffer.
Doesn’t Portland, OR also have one? I read several years ago that theirs was enforced fairly strictly, but I don’t know how that worked with respect to external forces wanting to develop. Measure 37 may have also changed things.
Doesn’t Portland, OR also have one? I read several years ago that theirs was enforced fairly strictly, but I don’t know how that worked with respect to external forces wanting to develop. Measure 37 may have also changed things.
Doesn’t Portland, OR also have one? I read several years ago that theirs was enforced fairly strictly, but I don’t know how that worked with respect to external forces wanting to develop. Measure 37 may have also changed things.
Doesn’t Portland, OR also have one? I read several years ago that theirs was enforced fairly strictly, but I don’t know how that worked with respect to external forces wanting to develop. Measure 37 may have also changed things.
I’d love to have Mayor Greenwald jump into this discussion. She is very knowledgable and has been grappling with this concept for some time now..
I’d love to have Mayor Greenwald jump into this discussion. She is very knowledgable and has been grappling with this concept for some time now..
I’d love to have Mayor Greenwald jump into this discussion. She is very knowledgable and has been grappling with this concept for some time now..
I’d love to have Mayor Greenwald jump into this discussion. She is very knowledgable and has been grappling with this concept for some time now..
If you are interested in reading a brilliant column on why we need an urban limit line and how it can be accomplished, shoot me an email (lxartist@yahoo.com) and I’ll send you a copy of what I wrote on this topic on July 13, 2005.
If you are interested in reading a brilliant column on why we need an urban limit line and how it can be accomplished, shoot me an email (lxartist@yahoo.com) and I’ll send you a copy of what I wrote on this topic on July 13, 2005.
If you are interested in reading a brilliant column on why we need an urban limit line and how it can be accomplished, shoot me an email (lxartist@yahoo.com) and I’ll send you a copy of what I wrote on this topic on July 13, 2005.
If you are interested in reading a brilliant column on why we need an urban limit line and how it can be accomplished, shoot me an email (lxartist@yahoo.com) and I’ll send you a copy of what I wrote on this topic on July 13, 2005.
This list is several years old, but it includes the jurisdictions in California that have urban growth lines:
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/planning/bol/1999/survey_3.html#anchor1473752
This list is several years old, but it includes the jurisdictions in California that have urban growth lines:
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/planning/bol/1999/survey_3.html#anchor1473752
This list is several years old, but it includes the jurisdictions in California that have urban growth lines:
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/planning/bol/1999/survey_3.html#anchor1473752
This list is several years old, but it includes the jurisdictions in California that have urban growth lines:
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/planning/bol/1999/survey_3.html#anchor1473752
Obviously, this is a complex issue, involving both our own planning vision and how we expect to deal with current and future state-imposed pressures. I have been thinking a lot about these issues, and plan to write more in the future.
Most immediately, though, we are facing a possible purchase of the large Shriner/Gidaro property for permanent open space. This would cut off development in one direction of the City. The question is: Is this a step toward building a permanent urban limit lane/ag buffer, or are we just squeezing the banana, forcing growth off in other directions?
If we really are going to grow peripherally at the rate of about one Wildhorse every five years, as current council growth policy states, then we will be fairly quickly growing well to the West and South if we block off the Shriners.
I always look at a map of Davis when I think about these things. The easiest way to look at map without getting out of your chair is to go to the City of Davis website, and click on “city maps” right under the Davis bicycle logo at the top of the page. Then click on “dynamic street map”, which takes a while to download. I like to click on the little magnifying class with the minus sign on it and then click on the map to zoom out a bit.
Then I think about where will be be growing 10, 15, 20 years from now. Given the current council growth policy, these are not abstract question.
I support the idea of a permanent urban limit line, and a permanent ag/open space buffer. But, if we implement one, we a need a council consensus that the City should have an ultimate size; there should be a decision on what that size should be, and if and where peripheral growth should take place.
Before we purchase the Gidaro land, I believe that we need a city-wide citizens’ visioning process to help answer these questions. Otherwise, we are truly just squeezing the banana.
P.S., Rich, could you e-mail me your article at suegreen@dcn.org?
Obviously, this is a complex issue, involving both our own planning vision and how we expect to deal with current and future state-imposed pressures. I have been thinking a lot about these issues, and plan to write more in the future.
Most immediately, though, we are facing a possible purchase of the large Shriner/Gidaro property for permanent open space. This would cut off development in one direction of the City. The question is: Is this a step toward building a permanent urban limit lane/ag buffer, or are we just squeezing the banana, forcing growth off in other directions?
If we really are going to grow peripherally at the rate of about one Wildhorse every five years, as current council growth policy states, then we will be fairly quickly growing well to the West and South if we block off the Shriners.
I always look at a map of Davis when I think about these things. The easiest way to look at map without getting out of your chair is to go to the City of Davis website, and click on “city maps” right under the Davis bicycle logo at the top of the page. Then click on “dynamic street map”, which takes a while to download. I like to click on the little magnifying class with the minus sign on it and then click on the map to zoom out a bit.
Then I think about where will be be growing 10, 15, 20 years from now. Given the current council growth policy, these are not abstract question.
I support the idea of a permanent urban limit line, and a permanent ag/open space buffer. But, if we implement one, we a need a council consensus that the City should have an ultimate size; there should be a decision on what that size should be, and if and where peripheral growth should take place.
Before we purchase the Gidaro land, I believe that we need a city-wide citizens’ visioning process to help answer these questions. Otherwise, we are truly just squeezing the banana.
P.S., Rich, could you e-mail me your article at suegreen@dcn.org?
Obviously, this is a complex issue, involving both our own planning vision and how we expect to deal with current and future state-imposed pressures. I have been thinking a lot about these issues, and plan to write more in the future.
Most immediately, though, we are facing a possible purchase of the large Shriner/Gidaro property for permanent open space. This would cut off development in one direction of the City. The question is: Is this a step toward building a permanent urban limit lane/ag buffer, or are we just squeezing the banana, forcing growth off in other directions?
If we really are going to grow peripherally at the rate of about one Wildhorse every five years, as current council growth policy states, then we will be fairly quickly growing well to the West and South if we block off the Shriners.
I always look at a map of Davis when I think about these things. The easiest way to look at map without getting out of your chair is to go to the City of Davis website, and click on “city maps” right under the Davis bicycle logo at the top of the page. Then click on “dynamic street map”, which takes a while to download. I like to click on the little magnifying class with the minus sign on it and then click on the map to zoom out a bit.
Then I think about where will be be growing 10, 15, 20 years from now. Given the current council growth policy, these are not abstract question.
I support the idea of a permanent urban limit line, and a permanent ag/open space buffer. But, if we implement one, we a need a council consensus that the City should have an ultimate size; there should be a decision on what that size should be, and if and where peripheral growth should take place.
Before we purchase the Gidaro land, I believe that we need a city-wide citizens’ visioning process to help answer these questions. Otherwise, we are truly just squeezing the banana.
P.S., Rich, could you e-mail me your article at suegreen@dcn.org?
Obviously, this is a complex issue, involving both our own planning vision and how we expect to deal with current and future state-imposed pressures. I have been thinking a lot about these issues, and plan to write more in the future.
Most immediately, though, we are facing a possible purchase of the large Shriner/Gidaro property for permanent open space. This would cut off development in one direction of the City. The question is: Is this a step toward building a permanent urban limit lane/ag buffer, or are we just squeezing the banana, forcing growth off in other directions?
If we really are going to grow peripherally at the rate of about one Wildhorse every five years, as current council growth policy states, then we will be fairly quickly growing well to the West and South if we block off the Shriners.
I always look at a map of Davis when I think about these things. The easiest way to look at map without getting out of your chair is to go to the City of Davis website, and click on “city maps” right under the Davis bicycle logo at the top of the page. Then click on “dynamic street map”, which takes a while to download. I like to click on the little magnifying class with the minus sign on it and then click on the map to zoom out a bit.
Then I think about where will be be growing 10, 15, 20 years from now. Given the current council growth policy, these are not abstract question.
I support the idea of a permanent urban limit line, and a permanent ag/open space buffer. But, if we implement one, we a need a council consensus that the City should have an ultimate size; there should be a decision on what that size should be, and if and where peripheral growth should take place.
Before we purchase the Gidaro land, I believe that we need a city-wide citizens’ visioning process to help answer these questions. Otherwise, we are truly just squeezing the banana.
P.S., Rich, could you e-mail me your article at suegreen@dcn.org?
I agree Sue, a visioning process would be an appropriate starting point. May I suggeast that it not be simply a city-wide convocation, but rather a planning area-wide convocation. Some of us who live outside the City limits but inside the Davis planning area (such as Willowbank and El Macero and North Davis Meadows, and others) would certainly like to avoid a modern day Boston Tea Party. We might even have some useful input. 8>)
I agree Sue, a visioning process would be an appropriate starting point. May I suggeast that it not be simply a city-wide convocation, but rather a planning area-wide convocation. Some of us who live outside the City limits but inside the Davis planning area (such as Willowbank and El Macero and North Davis Meadows, and others) would certainly like to avoid a modern day Boston Tea Party. We might even have some useful input. 8>)
I agree Sue, a visioning process would be an appropriate starting point. May I suggeast that it not be simply a city-wide convocation, but rather a planning area-wide convocation. Some of us who live outside the City limits but inside the Davis planning area (such as Willowbank and El Macero and North Davis Meadows, and others) would certainly like to avoid a modern day Boston Tea Party. We might even have some useful input. 8>)
I agree Sue, a visioning process would be an appropriate starting point. May I suggeast that it not be simply a city-wide convocation, but rather a planning area-wide convocation. Some of us who live outside the City limits but inside the Davis planning area (such as Willowbank and El Macero and North Davis Meadows, and others) would certainly like to avoid a modern day Boston Tea Party. We might even have some useful input. 8>)
I like what they did in South Lake Tahoe, for every unit you wish to build, you have to tear one down… Perhaps we could get rid of some of the lousy planning decisions of prior councils this way.
I like what they did in South Lake Tahoe, for every unit you wish to build, you have to tear one down… Perhaps we could get rid of some of the lousy planning decisions of prior councils this way.
I like what they did in South Lake Tahoe, for every unit you wish to build, you have to tear one down… Perhaps we could get rid of some of the lousy planning decisions of prior councils this way.
I like what they did in South Lake Tahoe, for every unit you wish to build, you have to tear one down… Perhaps we could get rid of some of the lousy planning decisions of prior councils this way.
Davis already has an urban limit line… it’s called the city limits.
Translated: Urban Limit Line means Grow To Line
Woodland voters were duped twice. Once for the actual farm to be converted to urban reserve and twice for the urban reserve and commercial uses in a flood zone. But… the voters approved it, so go figure.
Davis already has an urban limit line… it’s called the city limits.
Translated: Urban Limit Line means Grow To Line
Woodland voters were duped twice. Once for the actual farm to be converted to urban reserve and twice for the urban reserve and commercial uses in a flood zone. But… the voters approved it, so go figure.
Davis already has an urban limit line… it’s called the city limits.
Translated: Urban Limit Line means Grow To Line
Woodland voters were duped twice. Once for the actual farm to be converted to urban reserve and twice for the urban reserve and commercial uses in a flood zone. But… the voters approved it, so go figure.
Davis already has an urban limit line… it’s called the city limits.
Translated: Urban Limit Line means Grow To Line
Woodland voters were duped twice. Once for the actual farm to be converted to urban reserve and twice for the urban reserve and commercial uses in a flood zone. But… the voters approved it, so go figure.
Sue, I’m intrigued by the urban limit line, and certainly have seen it work very successfully in other cities. I’m not sure that I agree entirely with the “squeeze the banana” analogy, however. It assumes that our city is homogenous in development patterns. In fact, our banana peel can hold much more banana if we are willing to make it more dense. This is what has happened in Portland, where downtown urban densities has risen significantly because of the edge limit. We are not Portland, of course. We are more averse to density, despite its environmental benefits. We also have to be careful about the effect of an urban limit on housing prices.
I would also suggest that the visioning process for creating an urban edge include the interface between urban and agricultural uses. A group associated with UC Berkeley has done a lot of research and consulting on this issue and is worth looking at. They are called SAGE. http://www.sagecenter.org/index.htm
David de la Pena
Sue, I’m intrigued by the urban limit line, and certainly have seen it work very successfully in other cities. I’m not sure that I agree entirely with the “squeeze the banana” analogy, however. It assumes that our city is homogenous in development patterns. In fact, our banana peel can hold much more banana if we are willing to make it more dense. This is what has happened in Portland, where downtown urban densities has risen significantly because of the edge limit. We are not Portland, of course. We are more averse to density, despite its environmental benefits. We also have to be careful about the effect of an urban limit on housing prices.
I would also suggest that the visioning process for creating an urban edge include the interface between urban and agricultural uses. A group associated with UC Berkeley has done a lot of research and consulting on this issue and is worth looking at. They are called SAGE. http://www.sagecenter.org/index.htm
David de la Pena
Sue, I’m intrigued by the urban limit line, and certainly have seen it work very successfully in other cities. I’m not sure that I agree entirely with the “squeeze the banana” analogy, however. It assumes that our city is homogenous in development patterns. In fact, our banana peel can hold much more banana if we are willing to make it more dense. This is what has happened in Portland, where downtown urban densities has risen significantly because of the edge limit. We are not Portland, of course. We are more averse to density, despite its environmental benefits. We also have to be careful about the effect of an urban limit on housing prices.
I would also suggest that the visioning process for creating an urban edge include the interface between urban and agricultural uses. A group associated with UC Berkeley has done a lot of research and consulting on this issue and is worth looking at. They are called SAGE. http://www.sagecenter.org/index.htm
David de la Pena
Sue, I’m intrigued by the urban limit line, and certainly have seen it work very successfully in other cities. I’m not sure that I agree entirely with the “squeeze the banana” analogy, however. It assumes that our city is homogenous in development patterns. In fact, our banana peel can hold much more banana if we are willing to make it more dense. This is what has happened in Portland, where downtown urban densities has risen significantly because of the edge limit. We are not Portland, of course. We are more averse to density, despite its environmental benefits. We also have to be careful about the effect of an urban limit on housing prices.
I would also suggest that the visioning process for creating an urban edge include the interface between urban and agricultural uses. A group associated with UC Berkeley has done a lot of research and consulting on this issue and is worth looking at. They are called SAGE. http://www.sagecenter.org/index.htm
David de la Pena
“Woodland voters were duped twice.”
CORRECT – THE WOODLAND URBAN LIMIT LINE WAS A LIE. IT IS REALLY AN EXPANSION LINE.
IT WAS SOLD AS STOP GROWTH AND SAVE FARM LAND BUT THE REALITY WAS IT WAS THE BIGGEST VOTER APPROVED GROWTH MECHANISM WOODLAND HAS EVER SEEN. IT ALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO GROW THE CITY FOR THE NEXT 30-40 YEARS WITH VOTER APPROVAL. DEVELOEPRS SUPPORTED IT AND RICH FARMERS SUPPORTED IT.
GO FIGURE.
“Woodland voters were duped twice.”
CORRECT – THE WOODLAND URBAN LIMIT LINE WAS A LIE. IT IS REALLY AN EXPANSION LINE.
IT WAS SOLD AS STOP GROWTH AND SAVE FARM LAND BUT THE REALITY WAS IT WAS THE BIGGEST VOTER APPROVED GROWTH MECHANISM WOODLAND HAS EVER SEEN. IT ALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO GROW THE CITY FOR THE NEXT 30-40 YEARS WITH VOTER APPROVAL. DEVELOEPRS SUPPORTED IT AND RICH FARMERS SUPPORTED IT.
GO FIGURE.
“Woodland voters were duped twice.”
CORRECT – THE WOODLAND URBAN LIMIT LINE WAS A LIE. IT IS REALLY AN EXPANSION LINE.
IT WAS SOLD AS STOP GROWTH AND SAVE FARM LAND BUT THE REALITY WAS IT WAS THE BIGGEST VOTER APPROVED GROWTH MECHANISM WOODLAND HAS EVER SEEN. IT ALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO GROW THE CITY FOR THE NEXT 30-40 YEARS WITH VOTER APPROVAL. DEVELOEPRS SUPPORTED IT AND RICH FARMERS SUPPORTED IT.
GO FIGURE.
“Woodland voters were duped twice.”
CORRECT – THE WOODLAND URBAN LIMIT LINE WAS A LIE. IT IS REALLY AN EXPANSION LINE.
IT WAS SOLD AS STOP GROWTH AND SAVE FARM LAND BUT THE REALITY WAS IT WAS THE BIGGEST VOTER APPROVED GROWTH MECHANISM WOODLAND HAS EVER SEEN. IT ALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO GROW THE CITY FOR THE NEXT 30-40 YEARS WITH VOTER APPROVAL. DEVELOEPRS SUPPORTED IT AND RICH FARMERS SUPPORTED IT.
GO FIGURE.
Anonymous said…
“Woodland voters were duped twice.”
2 county supervisors and a majority on the city council. All celebrated “Progressives”. Which voters were duped?
Anonymous said…
“Woodland voters were duped twice.”
2 county supervisors and a majority on the city council. All celebrated “Progressives”. Which voters were duped?
Anonymous said…
“Woodland voters were duped twice.”
2 county supervisors and a majority on the city council. All celebrated “Progressives”. Which voters were duped?
Anonymous said…
“Woodland voters were duped twice.”
2 county supervisors and a majority on the city council. All celebrated “Progressives”. Which voters were duped?
Last night I got a 12 minute telephone “survey” at 6pm that asked about what it would take for me to vote for (or change my vote to be in favor of) a “reduced size” housing allocation (by the county) to pay for the stem cell research center SE of Davis along I-80. It felt like a push poll, with a sequence of questions that anticipated my “no project” opinion given about a third of the way into the poll. The biggest news (to me) in the context of this blog’s discussion of urban limit lines for Davis was the telephone poll person’s assertion that the developer was preparing an initiative at the county level to get the county’s voters to approve the project (it seemed to assume that the Supervisors would be rejecting the formal applications). Wild, no? The voters in Woodland, Winters, and West Sacramento vote to “sock it to Davis” and they are told in the campaign that the proposed project up for voter approval is a good faith compromise that contains “only half the housing units originally proposed”. Is this nightmare scenario allowed under county procedures? The pollster didn’t mention whether LAFCO cound be bypassed by such an initiative/referendum. — Dennis Dingemans at djdingemans@ucdavis.edu
Last night I got a 12 minute telephone “survey” at 6pm that asked about what it would take for me to vote for (or change my vote to be in favor of) a “reduced size” housing allocation (by the county) to pay for the stem cell research center SE of Davis along I-80. It felt like a push poll, with a sequence of questions that anticipated my “no project” opinion given about a third of the way into the poll. The biggest news (to me) in the context of this blog’s discussion of urban limit lines for Davis was the telephone poll person’s assertion that the developer was preparing an initiative at the county level to get the county’s voters to approve the project (it seemed to assume that the Supervisors would be rejecting the formal applications). Wild, no? The voters in Woodland, Winters, and West Sacramento vote to “sock it to Davis” and they are told in the campaign that the proposed project up for voter approval is a good faith compromise that contains “only half the housing units originally proposed”. Is this nightmare scenario allowed under county procedures? The pollster didn’t mention whether LAFCO cound be bypassed by such an initiative/referendum. — Dennis Dingemans at djdingemans@ucdavis.edu
Last night I got a 12 minute telephone “survey” at 6pm that asked about what it would take for me to vote for (or change my vote to be in favor of) a “reduced size” housing allocation (by the county) to pay for the stem cell research center SE of Davis along I-80. It felt like a push poll, with a sequence of questions that anticipated my “no project” opinion given about a third of the way into the poll. The biggest news (to me) in the context of this blog’s discussion of urban limit lines for Davis was the telephone poll person’s assertion that the developer was preparing an initiative at the county level to get the county’s voters to approve the project (it seemed to assume that the Supervisors would be rejecting the formal applications). Wild, no? The voters in Woodland, Winters, and West Sacramento vote to “sock it to Davis” and they are told in the campaign that the proposed project up for voter approval is a good faith compromise that contains “only half the housing units originally proposed”. Is this nightmare scenario allowed under county procedures? The pollster didn’t mention whether LAFCO cound be bypassed by such an initiative/referendum. — Dennis Dingemans at djdingemans@ucdavis.edu
Last night I got a 12 minute telephone “survey” at 6pm that asked about what it would take for me to vote for (or change my vote to be in favor of) a “reduced size” housing allocation (by the county) to pay for the stem cell research center SE of Davis along I-80. It felt like a push poll, with a sequence of questions that anticipated my “no project” opinion given about a third of the way into the poll. The biggest news (to me) in the context of this blog’s discussion of urban limit lines for Davis was the telephone poll person’s assertion that the developer was preparing an initiative at the county level to get the county’s voters to approve the project (it seemed to assume that the Supervisors would be rejecting the formal applications). Wild, no? The voters in Woodland, Winters, and West Sacramento vote to “sock it to Davis” and they are told in the campaign that the proposed project up for voter approval is a good faith compromise that contains “only half the housing units originally proposed”. Is this nightmare scenario allowed under county procedures? The pollster didn’t mention whether LAFCO cound be bypassed by such an initiative/referendum. — Dennis Dingemans at djdingemans@ucdavis.edu
As Measure K showed,formal policies mean very little when big money and big developers come knocking. Remember the general plan unpdate and how quickly that got circumvented for Target? The decision was made behind the scenes by Saylor, et. al.,rubber stamped by compliant city departments in a fradulent review process and then spearheaded by the Davis Liarprise, Chamber and the a phony corporate front group ‘Davis Cares’ shilled by Mayor Ruth Liarson. The best urban limit line is a progressive majority on the city council, vigilant grassroots citizen advocay and watchdog groups and an informed and engaged citizenry. I am in favor of the urban limit line but like a general plan it is nothing more than a ‘scrap of paper’ that sooner or later will be breached by big money and the Davis big growth establishement.
As Measure K showed,formal policies mean very little when big money and big developers come knocking. Remember the general plan unpdate and how quickly that got circumvented for Target? The decision was made behind the scenes by Saylor, et. al.,rubber stamped by compliant city departments in a fradulent review process and then spearheaded by the Davis Liarprise, Chamber and the a phony corporate front group ‘Davis Cares’ shilled by Mayor Ruth Liarson. The best urban limit line is a progressive majority on the city council, vigilant grassroots citizen advocay and watchdog groups and an informed and engaged citizenry. I am in favor of the urban limit line but like a general plan it is nothing more than a ‘scrap of paper’ that sooner or later will be breached by big money and the Davis big growth establishement.
As Measure K showed,formal policies mean very little when big money and big developers come knocking. Remember the general plan unpdate and how quickly that got circumvented for Target? The decision was made behind the scenes by Saylor, et. al.,rubber stamped by compliant city departments in a fradulent review process and then spearheaded by the Davis Liarprise, Chamber and the a phony corporate front group ‘Davis Cares’ shilled by Mayor Ruth Liarson. The best urban limit line is a progressive majority on the city council, vigilant grassroots citizen advocay and watchdog groups and an informed and engaged citizenry. I am in favor of the urban limit line but like a general plan it is nothing more than a ‘scrap of paper’ that sooner or later will be breached by big money and the Davis big growth establishement.
As Measure K showed,formal policies mean very little when big money and big developers come knocking. Remember the general plan unpdate and how quickly that got circumvented for Target? The decision was made behind the scenes by Saylor, et. al.,rubber stamped by compliant city departments in a fradulent review process and then spearheaded by the Davis Liarprise, Chamber and the a phony corporate front group ‘Davis Cares’ shilled by Mayor Ruth Liarson. The best urban limit line is a progressive majority on the city council, vigilant grassroots citizen advocay and watchdog groups and an informed and engaged citizenry. I am in favor of the urban limit line but like a general plan it is nothing more than a ‘scrap of paper’ that sooner or later will be breached by big money and the Davis big growth establishement.
Banana, schmanana. Permanent, schermanent.
“Click on the little magnifying class with the minus sign on it and then click on the map to zoom out a bit.”
What the heck is all that?
An urban limit line is an expansion line. Period. You will be assured that Davis will grow to any line that is drawn in the sand.
A ULL is a scam. Don’t fall for it.
Banana, schmanana. Permanent, schermanent.
“Click on the little magnifying class with the minus sign on it and then click on the map to zoom out a bit.”
What the heck is all that?
An urban limit line is an expansion line. Period. You will be assured that Davis will grow to any line that is drawn in the sand.
A ULL is a scam. Don’t fall for it.
Banana, schmanana. Permanent, schermanent.
“Click on the little magnifying class with the minus sign on it and then click on the map to zoom out a bit.”
What the heck is all that?
An urban limit line is an expansion line. Period. You will be assured that Davis will grow to any line that is drawn in the sand.
A ULL is a scam. Don’t fall for it.
Banana, schmanana. Permanent, schermanent.
“Click on the little magnifying class with the minus sign on it and then click on the map to zoom out a bit.”
What the heck is all that?
An urban limit line is an expansion line. Period. You will be assured that Davis will grow to any line that is drawn in the sand.
A ULL is a scam. Don’t fall for it.