In November 2013, the city council narrowly approved the Cannery project on a 3-2 vote. A key provision of that project was having grade-separated crossings to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to avoid the heavily congested Covell Boulevard crossing to the south.
The agreement had a grade-separated crossing at the southwest corner of the project. It also provided the funding to “implement key transportation improvements that will serve The Cannery and enhance the existing network, such as improvements to the H Street tunnel and funds to implement a second grade separated crossing of Covell Boulevard.”
However, both grade-separated crossings never made it into the development agreement, and a crossing to the east was always deemed to be problematic at best.
On the city council agenda for next week is the city staff report on the grade-separated crossing options feasibility study.
Staff writes, “Background and Analysis as part of the Cannery subdivision EIR, three potential bicycle/pedestrian connections were analyzed and cleared. However, the Development agreement for this project chose to focus on two of the alternatives.”
Staff is recommending Option 1, which “is a connection that originates from the multi-use path within the southwest corner of the Cannery and runs south along the UPRR tracks, then sweeps to the east connecting to the Covell Boulevard multi-use path.”
That differs from what was the “preferred option” that “originates at the multi-use path within the Cannery and runs south across the private property of two private apartment complexes adjacent to the UPRR tracks down to the H Street tunnel.”
Staff writes, “The purpose of the study is to determine whether a cost effective alternative crossing could provide equal or better connectivity than Bike Path Option 1.”
Staff notes, “In review of the undercrossing option originally explored, some concerns emerged. This alternative evaluated an undercrossing beginning at the multi-use path within the Cannery, crossing under the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks via tunnel, crossing under the F Street drainage channel, and rising to grade at an access point with the F Street multi use path.”
Staff argues that this alternative is “cost prohibitive.” They cite the following:
- The need to construct a “shoo-fly” to reroute the railroad tracks around the active line.
- The depth of the boring underneath the railroad tracks and channel.
- Waterproofing of the tunnel being constructed within close proximity of the channel.
- The need to construct a pump station to handle high water events within the channel.
“Based upon this analysis, staff met with the Council subcommittee, Robb Davis and Lucas Frerichs, on November 19, 2015 to discuss options and to seek further direction. Due to the overall cost of the overcrossing options and the size of the structure needed to cross the railroad, it was decided to pursue two additional undercrossing alternatives,” staff writes.
Staff comes to the conclusion, “In reviewing the costs associated with these different alternatives, they do cost substantially more than Bike Path Option 1. However, the developer’s contribution of approximately $1.4M for Bike Path Option 1 offsets a portion of the cost. In addition, as part of the development agreement, approximately $4.6M in Roadway Impact Fees are anticipated to be generated from the Cannery and the project will also contribute a fee of $6,717 per market-rate residential unit, generating approximately $3.7M in Community Enhancement funds for transportation and circulation improvements. These fees will not be paid all at once, but will reimburse the City for a portion of the costs associated with the construction of one of the other alternatives should the Council decide to pursue one of the above alternatives.”
Staff adds, “After analyzing all alternatives, staff recommends moving forward with Bike Path Option 1. This is based upon the time to design, complete environmental clearance and the difficulty and cost of the construction of the other alternatives. With Bike Path Option 1, the project has already been designed, has environmental clearance and would be paid for and constructed by the developer. Prior to approval of the plans for construction, staff will present the Bike Path Option 1 details to the Bicycle, Transportation and Street Safety Commission for input.”
The path that the city is now proposing is one that bike advocates argued against from the start.
In the last few days some have expressed horror that the city has allowed Cannery to get away without building the H Street Connection. There are understandings about the problems with the east side and Tandem Properties’ unwillingness to allow the city to have an easement to build the connect there, but some have suggested that Cannery could have built under the railroad and come out by the Little League Park to access the more lightly traveled H Street on the west side of the tracks and the bikeway.
Others have pointed out the city staff’s recommendation is Option 1. Option 1 is what Ashley Feeney took to the Bicycle Advisory Commission prior to the project and that the Commission had skepticism that it was not a good design.
Of course now the city has hired Ashley Feeney as a planner, just as Cannery has reemerged with a series of asks and city staff is now backing Cannery’s preferred (and least expensive) solution for the bike separated crossing.
From the perspective of many, Cannery is the failure that keeps on giving. One of the reasons that Cannery ended up being a 3-2 vote is that the council majority would not insist that two grade-separated crossings would be in the developer agreement. At that point the city lost its leverage and its ability to compel Cannery and the New Home Company to build both crossings.
But it gets worse, because then the council voted 3-2 to allow the New Home Company to have a CFD without even insisting on the two crossings.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Nishi Is far worse than this. Brought to you by mostly the same staff and CC members
Not really because Nishi will have all features locked into the baseline features and the development agreement. Cannery escaped having things in the DA and the city let them off the hook.
Then tell us what mitigation property has been set aside by Nishi.
Why do you think that matters? They have clear requirements by law to provide the size and location, if they don’t do that, they are in clear violation of the law and it can be enforced. The Cannery project on the other hand, had no clear enforcement mechanisms without provisions being included in the DA and moreover they are free to come back for changes for things in the DA any time they want. In Nishi, everything in the baseline project features has to go to the voters for changes. Those are clear differences which is the point I was making above.
BP, I do not know why the site of the Nishi mitigation has not been disclosed, but I do know that given the agricultural land ownership by the Nishi partners around Davis, that they have an abundance of land that will significantly exceed any mitigation expectations you or anyone else may have.
Michael
“Nishi Is far worse than this”
Nishi has one huge mitigating factor going for it. Location, location, location !
Tia: you are correct: toxic air toxic air toxic air!! Vote YES to immerse the lungs of our young in the diesel soup. I’m really surprised by your position on this one.
Hyperbolic BS. You have no idea what you are talking about. And this discussion isn’t about Nishi. Go AWAY!
As Mrs. Will has previously posted, she investigated possible negative health effects from possible air quality concerns in places like Olive Drive which breathe the same at Nishi, and found that there was no data suggesting such. If you are going to criticize Nishi, at least do so with facts and evidence. Air quality and air patterns is something which requires enormous amounts of testing and modeling because of the countless variables that influence it. I am surprised, that you, Mr. Harrington, who claim to want one study after another, would so cavalierly bandy about such accusations without any real proof or corroborating data. Nishi’s air quality was professionally studied by experts as part of the EIR who produced recommendations as to how to mitigate any concerns. These include planting a dense tree buffer between the property and the highway, installing state-of-the-art air filtration systems in the residential units, and locating the residential components at the farthest point on the property from the highway. Nishi will incorporate all of these as part of the conditions for the project to move forward, with the result that air quality will be fully mitigated.
This proves why every detail must be ironed out and in writing at the time projects are either put out for vote or approved by city council.
Impossible. Unreasonable. BP, there isn’t a development anywhere that can meet this standard. Have you ever had a custom home built for you? If so, you would know that the only thing guaranteed is that you will have many, many issues and changes to iron out from the time the plans are finalized to the time you get your CofO and the mortgage funds. Now increase the variables by an order of magnitude.
When a developer builds for a city, there should be a partnership between the city and the developer. Partners work together for their mutual best interest. If the city comes at it that they are going to expect to win every argument when there is a conflict of interest, well then it isn’t a partnership… it is an adversarial relationship. And that is not a good way for a unsophisticated city like Davis to work.
Jeez… David singing the song of developers who buy junk land in the county and don’t tell the public it’s location and nature before the election ?
“Son of R” coming up
What I’m singing is the difference between a non-Measure R project and a Measure R project. These differences are a good part of why we both have and need Measure R. You are too deeply entwined in Nishi to be objective at this point.
Good lord, Mr. Harrington, you are nothing if not prolific in your attacks on Nishi. You certainly know, however, that Nishi is legally required to comply with the City’s agricultural mitigation ordinance which says that the land must be located in the Davis planning area with similar soils and is subject to review by the Open Space Commission and approved by the City Council. Furthermore, city-owned land may not be used to fulfill any part of the agricultural mitigation. This seems to address the concerns you have raised. If you want accountability to ensure the quality of the mitigation land, fortunately, the ordinance provides two layers of oversight (the Open Space Commission and the City Council). No city land can be used. And, the land that is used must be similar in soil. I really don’t see what the issue is here. I would be very interested to hear from you, or from anyone else who echoes your claims, what the problem is here.
Based on Matt Williams’ comments, it seems likely that the owners of the Nishi site own other land that would likely be used as mitigation. Is that correct? If so, is there anything preventing you from telling us which parcel(s) that the owners have in mind?
Just would like to know. (I probably won’t look for your response, tonight.)
The current mitigation ordinance is basically a scam on the public. It implies that the public gets some value if they vote for the project when in fact there is little land value coming back to the public.
It’s a general difficulty trying to mitigate land is that somebody has to be willing to give that land for mitigation. That is the shortcoming of those kinds of ordinances.
Uh… nobody “gives” land… generally, they sell the ‘development rights’ by placing an easement on it…
hpierce wrote:
> Uh… nobody “gives” land… generally, they sell the ‘development
> rights’ by placing an easement on it…
This is a perfect system to funnel cash to politically connected farmers and ranchers as a think you for past “donations”…
Perhaps another reason that advance identification of the parcels should be part of a future Measure R requirement.
Michael
“It implies that the public gets some value if they vote for the project when in fact there is little land value coming back to the public.”
To be fair, we simply do not know that about Nishi because we do not know the location of the planned mitigation land. I agree with the right to know. I do not agree that the developer is planning to “scam the city”.
I agree that we do not know the Nishi developer’s intentions (with certainty). However, if Nishi is approved, I suspect that we’ll (later) find out that the mitigation site is relatively low-cost, in a location far removed from the city (and not under any real threat of development). (That’s why I’d like to see it spelled out, as part of the requirements of a future Measure R agreement.)
Regarding the primary point of the article above, it’s difficult to believe that Davis (Bicycle-City, USA) would allow the Cannery to proceed without settling on (and beginning construction on) the route of the bicycle overpass.
Of course we are going to get a low cost, location removed from the city – that is the land that is available and it is legally permissible.
I don’t get it, Michael Harrington wants to re-write Measure R, it’s not like Measure R votes have been prevalent or passing. To me the added costs and risks are actually going to work against us, producing lesser developments because who is oging to pump $5 million into a losing election?
The Pugilist:
It depends on one’s goal, regarding agricultural mitigation efforts. If your goal is to preserve land that is not under any realistic threat of development, then the current system works fine. If, on the other hand, you’re willing to support a development because it helps prevent future runaway development (outside of city boundaries), then the current system isn’t working very well.
For me, the overall goal of Measure R is to provide the community with an opportunity to consider a limited number of “quality” developments (outside of city boundaries) that actually have a good chance of passing. Identifying specific parcels would help achieve this.
Identifying specific parcels with a chance of being developed and getting them into conservation is futile.
“For me, the overall goal is to consider a limited number of “quality” developments (outside of city boundaries) that actually have a good chance of passing. Identifying specific parcels would help achieve this.”
We know what those are. Nishi seemed the logical – close to the university, close to downtown, people still don’t like it. If that’s the case, nothing is passable in Davis.
Even under the current system, specific parcels are eventually identified. I’d rather see that process occur up-front (prior to a vote).
I’m always surprised at the level of resistance (and “defeatism”) displayed by those who are strongly pro-development. Even when specific suggestions are made by those who prefer slower growth, it meets with resistance. (For example, how many times has Mike Harrington invited developers to discuss/disclose mitigation, without any response?)
Regarding Nishi, the mitigation site has still not been disclosed. It does not appear likely that the site will serve the purpose of mitigation (at least from my point of view).
However, I acknowledge that there are other concerns regarding Nishi that might lead to its rejection.
Ron – Can you provide an example in which a mitigation site identified under the current system did not meet your exacting standards?
In general, I believe there are fairly specific requirements regarding the proximity of the mitigation and development sites.
I concur with Adam Smith’s second paragraph.
As I noted in my earlier response to Mike Harrington, in a coincidence of timing, the Open Space and Habitat Commission had an hour-long agendized discussion of the Ag Mitigation Ordinance at their meeting last night. Based on what I heard in that discussion, as well as my personal reading of the Ordinance contents, I believe Adam is correct that the Ag mitigation Ordinance contains (fairly) specific requirements regarding the proximity of the mitigation and development sites.
See
http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Open-Space-and-Habitat-Commission/Agendas/20160502/Ag%20Mitigation%20Presentation%20OSHC%20May%202016.pdf
and Attachment 2 of
http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Open-Space-and-Habitat-Commission/Agendas/20160307/Staff%20Summary%20–%20Commission's%20MRIC%20Discussion.pdf
Ron (re: 10:09 comment)
Of course you would… one more potential nail in the coffin for a Measure R vote…
For instance, I like pretty much everything about the proposed Nishi project EXCEPT the direct motor vehicle access to W Olive… to me, that’s more of a spike or stake than a nail, but the more specific (let’s get down to the details of utility sizing, materials, etc.) a project is, the more folk who could find an element they dislike, and will vote accordingly… usually in the negative.
That’s a pretty cynical view. (Maybe true of some, not sure.) For me, I’d rather have something worthwhile that I can “point to” in advance of an election, knowing that it’s saved by approval of any given development. (And, thereby avoiding future battles on that same “saved” site.)
Overall, I hope that these battles are few and far between, in the future. However, I’m not counting on it (as the real estate market has mostly recovered).
My “exacting standards”? Do you mean because I’d prefer that mitigation sites be identified, under probable threat of development within the foreseeable future, helping to establish ultimate boundaries of the city, and avoiding future never-ending battles regarding development on these sites, outside of city boundaries?
And, you’d apparently prefer that sites be disclosed after a vote? (And, just trust that the developer and city will come up with an appropriate site at that point?)
But, to answer your question, I don’t remember what the prior mitigations were, regarding earlier proposals. And, we still don’t know what they are prior to a vote (including for Nishi).
To clarify, sites that are close to the city are most likely to be under threat of development, within the foreseeable future. (I understood that this was the primary purpose of agricultural mitigation – to help prevent runaway development of farmland.)
So, the answer is that there have be no prior mitigations under this ordinance, so you can’t possibly have any examples of a mitigation that doesn’t work. How can you make statements like this:
If your goal is to preserve land that is not under any realistic threat of development, then the current system works fine. If, on the other hand, you’re willing to support a development because it helps prevent future runaway development (outside of city boundaries), then the current system isn’t working very well.
Identifying mitigation sites prior to approvals is very difficult. To do so, a developer would have to option or purchase land (or easements) for which he/she has no idea of whether or not the proposed development would be approved. In addition, the time frame to approval, especially with litigious sorts like the one Michael Harrington is involved in, can delay approvals for years. Under these conditions it is not feasible to identify the mitigation land prior to approval. But it is feasible to have a set of rules and policy about what fits for mitigation land. It has to be flexible to allow for the size of development and the size of the mitigation parcel. And one has to recognize, there are a very limited number of parcels which are immediately adjacent to the city. This type of policy is what the city has in place today, and what the developer will have to comply with.
Ron, the Open Space and Habitat Commission discussion of the Ag Mitigation Ordinance last night also illuminated the fact that there have been no actual mitigations since the passage/enactment of the Ordinance.
Adam:
O.K. – I see some of your points, here. I’ll think about this, some more. Maybe Mike Harrington will have a response, as well? (However, as Matt pointed out, there apparently haven’t been any completed mitigations since the ordinance was enacted.)
Can you share what the current requirements/guidelines are? Perhaps there’s room to strengthen them, to better-ensure that the land is close to the city, etc. And, to help ensure that there are no subsequent (after-the-vote) “sweetheart deals”, as described by South of Davis. (And, to avoid future battles on those same sites.)
Under the current system, I’m not sure what I’m helping to “save”, by supporting any given development. I’d really like to have something to point to, prior to an election.
Adam:
One more point:
Matt seemed to indicate that the Nishi developers already own some of the sites that might be used for mitigation. (I seem to recall that the MRIC developers owned other potential sites, as well.)
If that’s the case, then there’s nothing preventing these developers from identifying a proposed site (or sites), prior to an election.
Ron said . . . “Can you share what the current requirements/guidelines are?”
See the Attachment 2 of the following OSHC Staff Report for their March meeting that focused on MRIC (the material prior to Attachment 2 is specific to MRIC)
http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Open-Space-and-Habitat-Commission/Agendas/20160307/Staff%20Summary%20–%20Commission's%20MRIC%20Discussion.pdf
Ron said . . . “However, if Nishi is approved, I suspect that we’ll (later) find out that the mitigation site is relatively low-cost, in a location far removed from the city (and not under any real threat of development).”
Ron, in the case of Nishi I suspect/believe that you will be wrong on all your points above. Those are my suspicions/beliefs based on documents that are publicly available in the Yolo County Assessors Office. Absent actual disclosure though, there is no way to actually know anything. With that said, if the mitigation parcel is the one I suspect, then the cost of acquisition was not low-cost, the location is less than 1/4 mile from the City Limits, and that the threat of development is both real and more than imminent.
In the case of MRIC, any mitigation plan is much more complicated.
yeah and then walk away with a huge CFD on top of it, WOW
Where is the evidence that the Developer has not complied with the terms of the Development Agreement with regards to the grade separated crossings? The problem here is not the actions of the Developer, but that of the City Council majority, who prioritized other amenities over the crossings. Instead of complaining about the Developer, ask why the community needed an unreasonably expensive ‘toy’ farm to buffer the neighborhood from the ‘real’ farm next door? Sure, it looks nice, but how does it help our children get to school safely?
This is a simple issue of priorities, and the CC majority didn’t think the grade separated crossings were important enough to put them in the Development Agreement. If you are angry about that decision, elect a different CC majority.
The evidence is more that the requirements in the DA are insufficient.
I agree, but the parties responsible for that insufficiency are the City staff and CC majority, not the Developer.
Partly. But the developer has raped and pillaged and now coming back for seconds.
What utter nonsense. Is there any wonder why Davis has such a poor reputation for business (and a gaping hole in the budget)?
Pugilist… the only people possibly pillaged are the folk who buy property in the Cannery, due to the CFD…
“Rape”? Am just guessing you have never known any one who ever was a victim of rape, nor a close relative of one who was. OK, I’ll go there, too, that was a low blow. If you are a decent individual, you’ll recant/apologize…
Rape is a crime of power and violence… neither of which existed in this case… if you want to accuse ANYONE as to “rape” as to the Cannery, that would have to be the CC who approved the project… and the CFD… the City said “yes”… consensual… no “rape”.
Your use of the term ‘rape’, in this context, deeply sickens me…
Rape and pillage is a slang term.
“What utter nonsense. Is there any wonder why Davis has such a poor reputation for business (and a gaping hole in the budget)?”
I find that ironic given what the city gave away in the Cannery deal in the form of the CFD.
Pugilist… I’d point out many slang terms that are now unacceptable, but I’m sure I’d be “moderated”, big time.
Had you put the slang term (as you call it) in quotes, you probably would not gotten a reaction from me… but, I reiterate, your problem is the CC majority, not the developer… grow up.
And I think it’s both and I’m too old to grow up.
Love to: look at all the choices we have! #hack, hack, hack, cough#
David said: “It’s a general difficulty trying to mitigate land is that somebody has to be willing to give that land for mitigation. That is the shortcoming of those kinds of ordinances.”
GIVE?? Who said that? If someone wants to bring into the city borders land worth + $100,000’s per acre with the public approval of upzoning, they sure has heck can BUY land right up against the city or nearby on development corridors out of those huge profits.
The new Measure R will fix all of this BS. I am really, really looking forward to this campaign. Should be a great fight.
When Ken Wagstaff suddenly retired from the CC in 2002, the mitigation ordinance was not done. The GP was done, but not the mitigation ordinance that should have implemented that GP.
When the CC finally got to it in 2007, the developer friendly majority enacted an ordinance with no teeth. It should have required that the mitigation land be in fee simple to the city, and it should have required that the land be disclosed in the initial application, and be located very close to the city.
What does fee simple mean?
Fee simple means you enjoy ALL rights to the land, arguably to the center of the earth, and well past the atmosphere. In reality, it means you have complete control of the land.
A fee simple price is the full value of the land, given its nature, potential for development etc. [often called, ‘highest and best use’]
Usually, only development rights are purchased as part of ag mitigation, where the owner still has all other rights of use and enjoyment. Usually 25-50% of fee simple cost.
Mr H is either trying to enrich the ag owners, leaving the City to having to be a “landlord” to lease out the property for farming (or cover costs of maintenance, including weed abatement)[which might mean more ‘over-compensated’ City employees to manage the leases], or perhaps he has no F-ing clue what he is talking about. Toss-up.
Thank you. So Mr. Harrington why is “fee simple” so important to you?
Clearly it would just be an added obstacle to fulfilling the mitigation requirement.
Clearly. Which is another piece of evidence that Mike opines only from the basis of wanting to block all development. If the ag mitigation is there, he will just move down the list to his next-in-line criticism of the project.
One thing about Mike that I respect… he is consistent.
hpierce wrote:
> Mr H is either trying to enrich the ag owners, leaving the City
> to having to be a “landlord” to lease out the property
The city has “fee simple” ownership of the 112 bed Pacifico/Symphony apartments that has been sitting half vacant for the past decade (10 YEARS). Just think what the city would do if they got “fee simple” ownership of a lot of ag land (that is a lot harder to manage than a little apartment in a town with a lot of great managers and a sub 1% vacancy)…
P.S. Remember every time the city (or state or UC) takes “fee simple” title to a piece of real estate no property taxes (or parcel taxes) are due…
Uh, South of Davis, not clear if you are repudiating me or affirming me… but I agree with the substance of your 9:35 post… but the property tax on ag land, owned often for long times, and given assessment rates, is pretty ‘thin’…
Michael Harrington said . . . “When the CC finally got to it in 2007, the developer friendly majority enacted an ordinance with no teeth.”
In an interesting coincidence of timing, the Open Space and Habitat Commission had an hour-long agendized discussion of the Ag Mitigation Ordinance at their meeting last night. Based on what I heard in that discussion, as well as my personal reading of the Ordinance contents, I really don’t see how/why you believe it is “an Ordinance with no teeth.” What “teeth” do you believe are missing? I see a full set of incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, premolars and molars. It appears to have been created with “wisdom” teeth.
Why are we discussing Nishi mitigation on an article supposed to be about the bike path on the council agenda for tonight?
The Cannery is making so much $$ that it’s a shame that the CC, led by Lucas, 1) approved the project without the specific bike connections locked down and funded by the developer profits, and 2) gave the developer many, many millions of absolutely free profits by making the hapless new home owners pay the CFD. See this excellent article by David from 2015:
https://davisvanguard.org/2015/03/analysis-cannery-developer-stood-to-make-a-large-profit-even-before-cfd/
Mike wrote:
> The Cannery is making so much $$ that it’s a shame
How did you get to see the Cannery financial statements to find out how much $$ they are making?
And, precisely, Mr H, what is the appropriate ROR a developer should get after purchasing the land, paying for City approvals, construction of public improvements (including City fees on that), construction of buildings (including City fees for that), payment of impact fees, costs of financing all the above, etc.
0%? 5%? 10%? Other?
hpierce
“what is the appropriate ROR a developer should get after purchasing the land, paying for City approvals, construction of public improvements (including City fees on that), construction of buildings (including City fees for that), payment of impact fees, costs of financing all the above, etc.
0%? 5%? 10%? Other?”
Well, now, that is the point isn’t it ? We have no idea what the developer either “should” or “is” profiting do we? So when we ( in this case the city council) are “bargaining” presumably to get the best deal for the city as well as for the developer, they are working in the dark since they have no idea how much is realistic for the developer to spend since they have no idea how much profit they anticipate making. Now that is fine I suppose if you are of the mind that developers are immune to any kind of greed themselves and would never jack up prices or decrease quality or benefits in order to improve their own bottom line. Somehow, I am of the mind that this would not apply to all developers who are just as human as the rest of us. But we will never know since they do not have to disclose, will we ?
Tia… I didn’t ask WHAT they get as ‘profit’ (%-age ROR), I asked an individual what they “should” get in profit, from a public policy standpoint.
I’ll put you down as a 0 to -5%… if I over-estimated, please respond… thank you for your participation…
Because the same staff and mostly same CC who gave us Cannery, and the failings described in this article, are bringing Nishi to us. Same process issues. Same terrible negotiating. Lucas is one of the bridges and common factors between the two. See my post above.
Cannery should have been on the ballot, but I couldn’t even get Brett Lee to make a motion to put it on the ballot. Now, he voted for Nishi, with all of its bad features. If Cannery in its current form had been on the ballot … it would have failed. Improved, it probably would have passed.
None of this is rocket science.
ps How much did the Cannery developer donate to Dan Wolk’s assembly campaign right after Cannery was approved? I think it was $5,000, and far more has been donated since then.
Puglist: the point is these developments are all inter-linked with the same players involved in City government.
The answer to that is to open the system to get more players, more diversity of people involved. By having such a closed system, we bring about that very problem.
The Pugilist wrote:
> The answer to that is to open the system to get more players, more
> diversity of people involved. By having such a closed system, we
> bring about that very problem.
When guys named Ramos, Whitcombe and Tsakopoulos (who have been making political “donations” for decades) can’t build anything in Davis I don’t think we are going to see anyone else stupid enough to even try….
What does that mean? “affirmative action”? Very weird concept… particularly as the Cannery folk are out of the Bay Area… y’all should be “celebrating that diversity“…
Diversity as in a greater pool of people in general, not in terms of ethnicity or race.
OK… so instead of the Sacramento region developers, the Bay Area folk are not diverse enough… so we should have a pool of developers from Vermont, South Carolina, Texas?
On this issue I agree with Staff’s recommendation. When the issue of a grade separated crossing came up, I looked into the specific sites, read the reports and saw what the options were, and there was only one that made the most sense. Option #1 would be the “partner” crossing on the east side of the railroad tracks leading to the overpass on Covell. This would allow passage under the over crossing, much like the existing one on the west side of the railroad tracks, but would also allow access also to get to the Covell overpass if desired.
John Whitcombe, who owns Cranbrook Court (the site of where a continue path as also proposed) was opposed to his property being used for the other “alternative” path. In fact, initially he would not even allow the engineers on his property to assess it. Finally, after much resistance the engineers were allow to analyze it, and it became clear that was not enough room to have a safe passage through that very tight area. A bicycle path there would be within a foot or so of front doors of the apartments there, so it was not going to work. So Option #1 has always been the most logical solution regarding the access.
What I am not understanding is that all along Covell, at every other street intersection, people on bikes cross at the traffic light. Why not at J and Covell Blvd.? Particularity since that intersection has had such great new improvements now, including great visibility.
Are you a bicyclist Eileen? Are you a parent? The two groups of people who are concerned are the bicycling community and parents. Why do you ignore the recommendation from people on the bicycling commission?
ES, do you even ride a bicycle? Are you kidding? Releasing all the bicycles, including school children going to all three school levels south of Covell, onto the bike bath or through intersections?
You need to stick to UC Davis housing. Leave the transportation issues to those of us who care about transportation.
Well. All I can say is DUHHHHH…
What does one get in this town where the DEVELOPERS run the town..
Says an original activist who used to have the RICCI property behind MY house AND did MY due diligence when I purchased it back in 89…
For those who are TOO young or TOO new or whatever, just google…or rather DuckDuckGo….
It you cannot locate THOSE mounds of documents AND THOSE videos of the council chambers… I could upload them if I kept those boxes. LOL
But, I really don’t have the time right NOW>>>
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)…..
Hey Eileen old buddy, this time YOU got taken… LOL
The Developers SAVED money at the bicyclist and children and parents expense.
AND< also to ANYONE who can no longer drive down COVELL without SO MUCH more traffic.
And, THAT is just a tip of the old iceberg….
And, as long as I’m at it, it was ALL a set up.. Even the CONCESSIONS they FINALLY agreed to…
Within days, THOSE developers were back at the council begging THEY cannot afford it.
Heck, Perhaps I should run for office when I retire…
Some people tell me I SHOULD>>>>heck I don’t have the energy these days…
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
“From the perspective of many, Cannery is the failure that keeps on giving. One of the reasons that Cannery ended up being a 3-2 vote is that the council majority would not insist that two grade-separated crossings would be in the developer agreement. At that point the city lost its leverage and its ability to compel Cannery and the New Home Company to build both crossings.
But it gets worse, because then the council voted 3-2 to allow the New Home Company to have a CFD without even insisting on the two crossings.”
Note – the City Council MAJORITY voted to not insist there be two grade-separated crossings. Note – the City Council MAJORITY voted to have a CFD without insisting on two crossings. The developer did nothing wrong here, despite the tortured logic trying to offer up some “mud” and hope it sticks to the developer. Sheesh!
Note: I blame the City Council. The developers are expected to get away with anything they can.
For the most part I agree with nameless, the developer hasn’t done anything illegal. It was within their legal right to “ask” for the CFD. It is within their legal right to ask for these additional contributions to their corporate profit. The City’s answers to these “asks” were not predetermined. It was/is up to the City to take the necessary steps to ensure that the value received by the City from New Home is equal to the value given by the City to New Home. It is a simple reality that the Council failed to achieve that value balance when they granted the CFD.
The two grade-separated crossings situation is not as simple as the CFD was/is, but it boils down to the same reality. The Council will be representing the citizens well if the value received is equal to the value given up. The developer has done their part. They have identified the “value” they want. The Council needs to decide what the “balancing” value is.
Puglist and Alan,
Oh, so do only parents and avid bicyclists get to have any input on this issue and transportation issues?
And Puglist, I am not ignoring anyone. I am weighing the issue and the options, and giving my opinion. You know Puglist…like you do and others do all the time of the Vanguard. That’s what the blog is for. So lets just say that we will have to agree to disagree, on yet another issue.
And Alan, given your belligerence when someone disagrees with you, I really would not feel comfortable with you “handling” these issues for the rest of us in the community, since that sounds like what you are asking for. You do not represent me on this and some other issues, so please lets try to have some civility of everyone expressing their opinions without the condescension and attacks.
Can’t you guys ever express an opinion without insulting others who you disagree with? It really gets pretty old.
No. 🙂 (However, Alan did remind me how to create the smiley face!)
In all seriousness, I think there’s some legitimate concerns with the Cannery. But (for the most part) it’s “water under the bridge”, now. Overall, the Cannery is vastly superior than paving over farmland (e.g., the Covell Village) site with a massive new development.
Appreciate your answering for me.
Water may be under the bridge, but what isn’t under the (Covell) bridge is a path to the H Street tunnel.
Yet, had Cannery and Covell Village (south of Channel A, or whole site with less units) been jointly planned, with development phased over a 15- 30 year period, most of the circulation issues could have been resolved. Growth could have been ‘metered’…
Yet, that concept was rejected by the competing developers, and the “planning” staff… kinda’ funny, in a perverse way…
Remember, the Covell Village site is bordered on 3 sides with development… gee… seems like a great ag reserve… particularly given all the alkaline soils in the north 1/4…
I didn’t insult you. I pointed out that you summarily ignored the views of the bike community and concerns of parents in putting forth your opinion that the proposal is fine when there is plenty of evidence that it’s not fine.
ES, the fact that I am a belligerent asshole, or not, has nothing to do with the issue. I will “handle” the issue as I see fit, just as you will handle the UCD housing issue as you see fit. And yes I do believe that bicyclists and parents have a clearer view of the issue, though certainly such are not the only ones who may give input, as proven by your doing so.
Time to talk about the issue.
What do you think is the best (realistic?) way forward to deal with the issue, at this point?
Most realistic? Let children on bikes get squashed by cars.
O.K. – Maybe something less realistic/gruesome? (For example, I would think that if the new Cannery residents are made aware of this issue, and get involved, it might not be too late.) Just an idea.
$6-10 million of “too late”.
I plan to attend CC this evening. Here are my points:
“Preferred” Options concerns:
On the eve of National Bike to School Day the safety of this plan deserves consideration
Several hundred children projected to cross over to Senior High and North Davis Elementary
Bike traffic flow
Hairpin turn at Covell and J Street immediately followed by steep incline/decline
Blind corner at Covell and F Street
Bus stop further complicating flow
Most impressively, crossing F Street to Community Park, the scene of a vehicle vs. pedestrian collision just last week resulting in injuries requiring multiple nights at UCD Medical Center.
Alternatives:
Exploit past council’s efforts to encourage bike and pedestrian activity by H Street improvements
Engage stakeholders to find alternatives
There are major challenges ahead to make our new home all we dream it to be, we are up for the challenges.
John Whitcombe is also another high profile Davis developer.
In a project like the Cannery with such impacts on public safety, isn’t that where “eminent domain” should prevail.
And, if it were simply a joe schmow or even better an out of the area developer, his “concerns’ would not be so interesting to the council folks…
reference: Ricci property also…initially an out of town developer persuaded the elder farmer to sell as the children did not want to farm… the Davis council laffed him out….but instead he sold the option to some good old boys….some are STILL here and still building houses.
The FARM/OPEN SPACE in that nearly 27 acres became what is now known as Woodbridge.
Fortunately, enough of us came forward, so instead of 220+ houses and NO space, we got a wildlife preserve down the road to mitigate the swainsons hawk habitat, and the elderberry beetle habitat, and a lovely area/park along the creek and so forth..
But, the “single story” restriction did NOT have a heigh limit and so many OTHER problems which we lived and learned…
Of course, we were still not to happy about THAT coming about and that is what led to many OTHER changes in rules and regulations throughout Davis…
including the reason why the land NEXT to the Cannery did NOT pass.
Even the CANNERY is NOT needed…it is funneling out of towners from the Bay Area to Davis….and so forth…
Because of the idiotic planning that happens in this town, we are STILL the effect of the moneyed developers…
And, they don’t even have to pay THEIR fair share of infrastructure…
Our children and grandhildren cannot purchase in this town….AND yet the prices continue to bounce UP…
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
Marina
Actually, it always goes back to the PEOPLE>>>..who elect the council members, who either show up at meetings on topics of concern or not and so forth…
The developers are expected to NOT be altruistic….
The council should also watch out for the PEOPLE< CHILDREN- ELDERS et al.
Money always talks and it is NOT easy to get enough people behind a candidate who doesn’t please the developers….
Have heard of a system, that believes that all land (and capital) intrinsically belongs to the people, and pays lip service to making sure the people, particularly children and the elderly are protected. The power of the government is used to ‘achieve’ those ends… just can’t remember what that system was called…
hpierce
“since it rubs people the wrong way when you say people “should” do something than admit you don’t do it so often…”
I have heard of systems in which the people truly believe that the people “belong” to the land and that we are an intrinsic part of, but have no right to dominate nor despoil the land but must exist in harmony and respectful use of our environment. Too bad we didn’t listen but almost invariably have chosen to kill off or destroy the habitat of those peoples.
my post of 6:41 this morning. Oops ! Sorry. Quote should have been :
” Have heard of a system, that believes that all land (and capital) intrinsically belongs to the people”
Guess I should drink my coffee before I post.
For what it is worth, I think we are trying to “talk about the issue”. So let’s talk and not toss verbal insults or accusations. Because I have a different opinion than Puglist and Alan Miller, does not mean I am ignoring anyone including parents and avid bicyclists. I followed this issue early on during the Cannery public meetings studied the documents and the site for months. But I don’t seem to remember you Alan, or anyone named Puglist at these meetings, but perhaps our paths just did not cross at the time.
After reading the reports, walking and studying the actual site it became clear to me that Option #1 was the most logical solution. There is simply not enough room to build the bike pat through the back of Cranbrook Court. I have seen the physical layout and actually lived right near this part of the complex as a renter many years ago before Whitcombe bought it. So I am very familiar with the layout of that complex. And a bike path simply does not fit.
>> parents and avid bicyclists <<
This has nothing to do with “avid cyclists” – which makes this important transportation issue sound more like a convenience for a chosen hobby. The implication that this issue only effects parents and avid cyclists is minimizing the problem. This is about safe, clean transportation… and how we got to this troubling point.
Why not cross at J? Because it is a horrible, huge, high-speed intersection built for the convenience of motor vehicle drivers, that’s why.
(How we managed to spend half of the comments section on Nishi is beyond me).
hpierce
I did not read your post incorrectly. I simply feel that what the developers anticipate that they will be able to make, and what they do make is what is far more relevant than what I ( or you, or anyone else) believe that they should make, since our views are not necessarily reflections of the reality of their business. But I am guessing that their knowledge is highly relevant. And we are not knowledgeable. So how exactly are we supposed to judge what any given concession is worth and adjust our expectations accordingly since we never know what it is worth to them ?
When bargaining in the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul with my then sister in law for textiles, we got great bargains. This was because she was a designer working with textiles and had a keen sense of the quality of a product, what it had cost the merchant and how much he actually needed to make to turn a product. When we left a shop, the merchant was happy, my sister in law was happy and I was happy. This is how bargaining is supposed to work. But it cannot work as a win for all unless all have some idea of the worth. As we currently manage development, only one side has the information. Not optimal in my opinion.
Let me be perfectly clear (wow, how I say hate that phrase and the guy who made it famous)… the poster I responded to was not you, and he appeared to have a view that there should be a limit on a developer’s “profits” (ROR)… and you and he appear to have the opinion that the public should reap the proceeds of the difference of the potential profit, after amenities, contributions, etc., and what certain folk feel, as a public policy, they should be limited to.
Neither you nor Mr H has come up with a number for the same public scrutiny that you both seem to want as to the developer’s financials… you two are not alone… there are many others who would seek amenities for the community, adding to the price of development, and out of the other side of your mouths, becrying the lack of affordable housing. Perhaps housing would be more affordable if we required a disclosure and capitation of ROR (and a limit to demanded amenities). I don’t know…
But DO KNOW that there is apparent cowardice to answer the simple question I asked! They talk about “huge profits”, and want a ‘piece of the action’…
So, that said, what is a reasonable ROR for a developer, after all the hard/soft costs are considered? How much profit should your grocery store make? How much profit should a car dealer make? How much profit should a user car dealer make? How much profit should a seller of a “used” SF house make?
If you can’t come up with a number, and/or advocate for making a developer be as transparent as possible on the financials, perhaps you should refrain from the “developers are getting rich” refrain…
Yes – something I thought of, as well. Not sure if there’s any realistic way to address it, when negotiating with developers. (And, no doubt – many would automatically resist such an approach, stating that it’s “none of our business”.)
When you walk into a store to buy an item, do you tell the shopkeeper how much money you earn so that he/she will know how much to charge you? If you earn twice as much as the next customer, should you pay twice as much for the same items? When you go to see your doctor, do you expect to be told how much profit is calculated into the cost of service, or how much your doctor is being paid for the time she spends with you?
If not, why then do you believe you should be told how much profit a developer hopes to make on a project? Developers risk their own capital to build projects that the City wants, and have a very reasonable expectation of recovering a return on that investment. City planning offices have the information and expertise to estimate that rate of return and the cost/value of different amenities, and consequently, the ability to negotiate fairly on our behalf. Private citizens generally do not have the needed expertise to make a reasoned evaluation of the information and consequently, should have no expectation of knowing those details. All our involvement will do is muck up the negotiations with no added benefit to the community. That is why we have planning professionals working for us.
Mark:
Good points.
Perhaps one difference is that in the case of a development proposal, there is only one “seller” (the developer). The “buyer” (average voter) has no way to compare the “deal”. (Unless we’re comparing multiple “deals” for the same site.) Perhaps, as you mentioned, city planning offices are privy to more information, and are competent and honest enough to negotiate well on our behalf. But, I’m not sure that we have that level of trust, regarding our city’s processes. (Or any city’s processes, for that matter.)
I do know that there’s times that customers get charged different prices, based upon what the seller perceives as being acceptable to a given customer. (For example, if I subsequently found that I’ve been charged a higher price (for an identical car) than someone else, I would feel “ripped off”.) In prior times, it was more difficult to know the price that the dealer paid for a given car. However, it seems that it’s more difficult for car dealers to hide this information, nowadays.
Just my initial thoughts. (I’m sure this could drag into a long discussion, but maybe not the time/place.)
This is where (in my opinion) your understanding of our role is faulty…the City is the buyer, not the individual voter. Our job is not to evaluate the deal per se, but rather to evaluate the decisions made by our elected officials about that deal. We elect people to represent us, and they, in turn, hire professionals to provide the information and support necessary to make their decisions. If they do a poor job of making decisions, our role is to replace them with someone who makes better choices. In a rationally functioning system, citizens have little or no role at the table in negotiating or evaluating projects for the simple reason that we do not have the expertise to make valid assessments. We will just muck things up, which is exactly what has happened in Davis, and why we have such a huge hole in our budget.
The City is the seller, not the buyer. The developer is buying a franchise from the franchisee … the City.
hpierce
“perhaps you should refrain from the “developers are getting rich” refrain”
The quote in which I ever said that please.
“But DO KNOW that there is apparent cowardice to answer the simple question I asked! “
I do not equate not having a definitive answer to “cowardice” regardless of who your comment was directed at. And so far, I have seen no rule that says that posters can respond only when the preceding comment was directed to them.
Still, no answer to my question… from anyone…
Tia wrote:
> The quote in which I ever said that please.
I would put the Tia quote below from March 17, 2015 at 2:20 pm in the “complaining about the developers getting rich bucket”:
“I am presuming that the developer wants to get as much profit out of the development as possible. This could be seen as greed.”
Mark
“When you walk into a store to buy an item, do you tell the shopkeeper how much money you earn so that he/she will know how much to charge you?”
It depends. Not the way that we usually arrange things here, but there is a lot of precedent for that in other countries. That is why I used the example of bargaining in Turkey. One comment that my sister in law would use is “she can’t pay that much, she is a student” which was accurate as I was in my residency at the time. This would routinely be countered with a lower offer. Ron, in his reply, gave other examples of bargaining situations in which various bits of information can be withheld or disclosed in order to try for a more favorable deal.
Just because we have traditional made deals in one particular way does not mean that is the only way or even the best way.
“When you go to see your doctor, do you expect to be told how much profit is calculated into the cost of service, or how much your doctor is being paid for the time she spends with you?”
We do not, but we should. We would doubtless pay much less for our health care if we knew for example that we were paying many times what an aspirin costs when we are hospitalized and are not even allowed to bring our own from home even though we probably paid less for the entire bottle at home than for the two we are given by the nurse. As a doctor, I would have no problem at all telling a patient what my hourly wage comes out to. If you truly believe in competition as you say you do, why shouldn’t you be able to compare to see if you are truly getting the best deal for your doctor’s advice as well as for your insurance plan ?
Tia wrote:
> We do not, but we should.
I wonder if Tia tells all “her” patients “how much profit is calculated into the cost of service, or how much she being paid for the time she spends with them”?
Mark, you have articulated your example clearly, and it has considerable resonance in a commodity purchase situation, but arguably the realities of land development are much less like a commodity purchase and more like the negotiating of a franchise agreement.
Well, we could even things up a bit if the City didn’t need to be so ‘transparent’…
AN OPEN LETTER to the DAVIS CITY COUNCIL
Dear City Council,
Developments are opportunities for Davis to have necessary infrastructure built to help mitigate the effects of the development, improve alternate transportation access, and improve safety.
There is no issue from recent-year City Councils that I consider a more colossal failure than the failure to secure a bicycle and pedestrian path from the Cannery development to the H Street bicycle/pedestrian tunnel. I am personally and individually disappointed with those of you who enabled this failure.
The H Street connection was the gem in the packet of infrastructure improvements from building the Cannery, and cause for my support of a project I was otherwise lukewarm about at best. Any over- or under-crossing of a railroad to modern standards is going to be expensive. That the expenses were not properly evaluated and the developer after-the-fact allowed to disengage from paying a fair share (read DO-able) amount of the cost is a City failure.
The H Street tunnel connection would allow bicyclists and student traffic to access the East-West path that leads directly to Davis elementary, junior high and high schools, as well as downtown. The exposure to auto traffic in the daily student commute would have been greatly diminished.
The ramp-up-to-Covell connection is cheap and rather non-functional. It places bicycles on a path they would get on anyway to cross Covell, and requires bikes to cross at the intersection of Covell and F, a rather busy and questionably safe (free turns) intersection, one way on the wrong (left hand) side.
As you know, I am not an anti-development Davis citizen. I call’s ‘em as I sees ‘em. I continue to oppose Measure R for the stranglehold it has put on our City. I support Nishi largely because of the infrastructure improvements it may bring. I supported Covell Village for largely for similar reasons.
But Measure R did not come about because a small group of anti-development extremists magically became the majority on election day. Measure R came about because the majority of Davis residents were repeatedly disappointed in the decisions of those past City Councils, whom appeared to give far too much to the developers and too little to Davis itself, similarly to how the Cannery is now playing out.
Davis needs to get something significant, infrastructure wise, out of each development proposal, at least to gain my support. When the gem is promised, the gem brings citizen support. When the gem is taken away, this breeds growing mistrust in the City Process. Should you as Council members fail to find a way to finance a functional crossing from the Cannery similar to the H Street connection, you may be breeding yet another anti-development activist in Davis. If development brings nothing but more congestion along with possible, theoretic, economic gain through trickle down, that isn’t enough. Not for this citizen.
Your acceptance of the developer’s original, cheap and virtually useless ‘alternative’ to the H Street connection will do nothing to further my trust in the Davis City process or Davis City promises, and will do little to improve bicycle connectivity or route-to-school safety.
Meat, don’t do it!
Alan C. Miller
Alan: I like your letter.
But, what do you think of Eileen’s point that there isn’t room for the preferred alternative?
(My knowledge of this issue is less than yours, or Eileen’s.)
I’ve walked it, and I’m not convinced. The current E-W path blends in nicely with the complex. I believe it has more to do with politics. UPRR could also be engaged for a path land strip, though that could take years. Other towns have done it, though.
There is another alternative, going across at Covell to H Street. But that is rather a poor alternative because it would create a second, expensive railroad crossing where only one is needed.
If the ‘best’ option involves land that isn’t owned by one of the participants, and that landowner refused to participate, is it really an option?
I was thinking the same thing. How can the city force the other landowner to concede? It seems there is a lot of magical thinking going on here. Sometimes the best we can do is not going to be the perfect home run.
Frankly wrote:
> I was thinking the same thing. How can the city force
> the other landowner to concede?
If the city thinks they need a bike path across the Cranbrook property for the “common good” they can take the property using eminent domain (something I wish the city would have done years ago to connect the bike path behind the Divinci Apartments with the I80 under crossing heading toward Nishi and Olive Drive)…
The city has to pay the landowner a fair value for the land. Our city does not have the money for that.
OK, I blame the landowner.
I’ve been critical of Alan in the past, but his letter hits a home run
Nah… more like a ground rule double… good points, significant flaws…
I’d said it’s more like when the pitcher scratches his balls.
Saying that doctors “should” tell patients about costs and profit then admitting that you don’t tell patients about costs and “have no idea” about profit is yet another example of the many hypocritical statements you recently said you never make…
I’m not going to check up on you so why not just lie and say you tell every patient what you make an hour, you pay extra parcel taxes, extra sales tax and that your partner takes the bus to Elk Grove every day since it rubs people the wrong way when you say people “should” do something than admit you don’t do it so often…
You really should stop this stuff.
Wow . . . south of something . . . I do believe that Tia has finally sent SOD over the edge.
SOD
“since it rubs people the wrong way when you say people “should” do something than admit you don’t do it so often…”
I don’t know about it rubbing “people” the wrong way….but it is clear that I rub you the wrong way. You have mounted quite a chain of accusations for someone who will not even reveal their own identity. I cannot help but feel that these statements say much more about you than they do about me. But then, why would you care since you are anonymous.
[moderator] comment removed.
I will be removing any further comments that you direct at Tia Will. Contact me at donshor@gmail.com if you wish to discuss this.
South of Davis
“ wonder if Tia tells all “her” patients “how much profit is calculated into the cost of service, or how much she being paid for the time she spends with them”?”
I believe that I stated very clearly that I would be happy to share my hourly wage with any patient who wanted to know. No one has ever asked me. I have no idea how much “profit is calculated into the cost of service” but would be happy to share that too if I had the information.
There is a clear mindset on display with some people of a certain political persuasion that “you didn’t earn that.” And understanding that mindset helps explain why these people appear to have lobster claws coming out of their eyes and ears with they attempt to talk business.
Nobody earned anything… except of course low-wage earners, government employees, union employees, and MDs.
But even those monies are government controlled.
The government allows you to have the financial life that you have. You should just be so humble and thankful for it.
Right.
So, if you are a developer investing what you think is your own money and land that you thought you owned, you are really wrong about that… you didn’t earn that, so you don’t really own that. And you are certainly NOT entitled to any returns on that money or land above the cost of making everyone in the city happy.
Right.
I beginning to think there is some individual money-related cerebral dysfunction at work here.
Frankly
“There is a clear mindset on display with some people of a certain political persuasion that “you didn’t earn that.” “
Once again your belief that only you understand what is in someone else’s head is leading you down a rabbit hole of misunderstanding. Although you did not say so, I am probably the farthest to the left of the “political persuasion ” of which you speak and even I have never said, nor implied that anyone who has ever worked for what they have has not “earned” it. So what have I said ?
1. Our system does not provide us with equal opportunity to earn. Donald Trump says that he started with a “small loan” of one million from his father. A small “loan” in many families is ten dollars. This disparity would not matter if we provided a living standard for all….but we don’t choose to. I believe that we can and should.
2. I have said that I believe that we value work in an inequitable fashion. Why is the “work” of a doctor who prescribes the medication worth more than the work of the pharmacist who prepares it or the nurse who hangs the IV bag since all are essential to the life of the patient ? We say that it is because of the years of education needed, but that it is not true. It is because we have created artificial scarcity by limiting the number of people who can become doctors. I benefitted not only from my own hard work, but also because the system was rigged to prevent many equally qualified aspiring doctors from being able to gain access. If we provided a spot for everyone who wants to study medicine, we would not artificially raise the cost of medical care provision and would as a country not expend nearly as much on health care without concomitant better outcomes.
3. Anyone who was ever educated in a public school has been helped along their way to success by the tax dollars of others. All of us use the public streets, rely on police and fire and the efforts of public health officials to prevent epidemics, and yet, there are people of a particular political persuasion who routinely imply that they earned what they have through their efforts alone.
So those are the words I have spoken. Judge away on those, not on some made up version of what I must think because I am further to the left politically than you.
A few points:
The CFD was included in the deal that passed 3-2.
The council approved half the amount New Homes Company asked for.
The New Homes company financials are available. It is a public company.
You can find their financial situation here.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-company-reports-2016-first-100000684.html
Misanthrop, the CFD was not included in the November 2013 deal that passed 3-2. The future possibility of a CFD was included, but only if the developer requested a CFD at some later date, and the City’s answer to such a request was not included in the November 2013 deal. Contrast that to (A) the Wildhorse CFD, where it was included/announced at the same time as the Wildhorse deal was approved by the Council, and (B) the Mace Ranch CFD where it was included/announced at the same time as the Wildhorse deal was approved by the Council, where it was included/announced at the same time as the Mace Ranch deal was approved by the Council.
If you doubt the veracity of what I have said about the November 2013 deal, check with Joe Krovoza
Okay my recollection is a little fuzzy but my point was that it didn’t come out of nowhere. Once it was agreed that it was a possibility nobody should be surprised that they asked for it. My guess, by the way is that New Homes would do it differently if they could do it over. Note that in Irvine they decided to forego a CFD on a project after the manure hit the fan in Davis.
Brett Lee seemed to be in a score settling mood last night and he seems to want to extract that money out of New Homes any way he can. He blamed the developer for the impasse on the overpass while excusing the neighbor who has been uncooperative as that neighbor seeks to settle scores over the failure of Covell Village. Then you have David who wants to settle scores over the Firefighters not backing his wife for City Council and Harrington continuously trying to settle scores over the way the local establishment finished his political career. Finally there are those who are still upset about Ramos pushing through Mace Ranch and therefore opposed MRIC.
Davis is a small town where people have long memories but we would have a better, more civil, kind of politics if people could let some of this stuff go.
It’s hard to let stuff go when we keep paying for the mistakes into the future.
The first statement is false. The CFD was not passed until a year and a half after the original agreement.
Your first statement is somewhat true, somewhat false… your second statement is mostly true, but you neglected to note that the provisions for a CFD were embedded in the original agreement… so much for thorough “reporting”… a “C”, at best… oh, maybe a “D” in that you challenged a poster who said what was at least 50% true… and that you unequivocally declared “false”… don’t you think?
Alan Miller: “But Measure R did not come about because a small group of anti-development extremists magically became the majority on election day. Measure R came about because the majority of Davis residents were repeatedly disappointed in the decisions of those past City Councils, whom appeared to give far too much to the developers and too little to Davis itself…”
Exactly right. There was very good reason for Measure R.
nameless wrote:
> There was very good reason for Measure R.
The majority of people who voted for Measure R owned homes in Davis and knew that if they could restrict the supply of new homes their homes would increase in value faster.