For years Davis prided itself on being on the forefront of progressivism – a mixture of land preservation and environmentalism. But while Davis has pushed forward on the environmental side in recent years by looking at sustainability, carbon neutrality, reducing wood smoke burning, the usage of single-use plastic bags, moving toward a more sustainable organics program, and pushing for more energy efficient and net zero energy projects, somewhere along the way we have forgotten our progressive roots.
In our Saturday column, which presented real data on mode share to campus, we showed that, at least as a form of transportation to campus, car ridership is down to less than one third of all people who travel to campus. What we do not have direct data on is car ownership, but the mode share statistics and pattern is at least suggestive there.
The topic came about because one of the recent projects, Lincoln40, is proposing just 239 parking slots to accommodate 708 beds.
One person pushed back, “Since this Lincoln40 proposal can not legally restrict its residents to be students only, the 239 parking slots are inadequate. This apartment complex legally needs to also accommodate our workforce and families, so how is 239 parking slots supposed to accommodate up to 708 people? This proposal has got way too many problems.”
Another pointed out that “you can’t necessarily force people to change their behavior by design.”
Others pushed back, saying that “people have a choice. there may be local workers who get around just fine by bike and Unitrans. Everyone gets to make that decision. Nobody is being ‘forced’ to be green and lack of parking at the core is a problem faced by many areas, it’s in no way unique to Davis. If people want to pay less and have free parking there is always West Sac.”
And another asked, “Why are the parking spots needed? If our community takes aggressive steps to incent[ivize] the residents to not have a car in Davis, and use public transportation, bicycling and/or their feet, will we have a whole bunch of parking spaces that are perpetually sitting empty and unused?”
What I found interesting is that it was the slow growth proponents in the comment section that made the case “it isn’t realistic to expect students to not have cars.”
This argument, interestingly enough, was made despite evidence that suggested maybe it was realistic to expect students not to have as many cars as they once did. Lincoln40 is providing one parking space for every three beds. So it is not like they are expecting students not to have cars, it is just that, close to campus, they don’t expect every student to have a car.
The developers appear to be less about changing behavior than they are about accommodating current behavior.
But there is more to this discussion than just that. I actually rather intentionally ran the driving story next to the governor’s signing of very sweeping climate change policies. We are talking about a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) in the next 14 years. That is not going to happen with just a change in behavior, but a rather radical change in behavior.
The governor is therefore stating the opposite of Davis slow growthers here – that not only can we expect fewer people to have cars, fewer people must have cars in the near future in order to meet our goal of 40 percent GHG reduction in the next decade and a half.
The issue of progressivism is actually a lot more complicated than this. Back in January, at the Vanguard forum on Mace Ranch and whether there should be housing there, it was again slow growthers primarily arguing against housing on the MRIC site with some pushing back that forcing workers to live in Elk Grove and to commute to Davis is not environmentally friendly.
There is also a tension in policies. One reason some opposed Nishi was it failed to guarantee sustainability features to platinum standards, but the lack of 1500 beds means that additional students and staff are having to drive in from out of town in order to come to schools.
On the other hand, some slow growthers have staked their position as the campus needs to provide housing – that provides a closer-in option for housing and travel perhaps in the long term, assuming housing gets built on campus, but in the shorter term it continues to force students to commute to campus.
Smart urban design concepts argue for the need to combine live-work concepts together, understanding that building places for work without places to live encourages commute – which increases the use of GHG emissions. By providing housing close in, we can discourage the need to drive to work.
But what we are starting to see is younger generations actually having fewer cars than their predecessors. They can get around well on foot, bikes and buses for the most part, and when they need a vehicle they use things like Zipcars and Uber to get around rather than their own private car.
The irony here is that the pushback against this concept is coming from the progressive sector of town, which is arguing that we need more parking spaces because it’s unrealistic to expect students to have fewer vehicles than they did a generation ago.
We should be pushing the other way. And as some have pointed out, there are not a lot of parking options close in that would accommodate an overflow and, if needed, the apartment complexes themselves can further reduce the number of cars stored on site through a rental system.
So why is this even an issue? Students are driving less, we know that through the mode share studies, and we know that nationally.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I would like to hazard a guess about what part of the issue may be. We tend to only see the world through our own experiences and therefore tend to believe that ours is the “right” way.
I have had an advantage in my career of meeting someone approximately every 15 minutes ( the length of most appointments) whose goals, priorities and world view are different ( sometimes radically different) from my own. These interactions because of my speciality are frequently not superficial as they might be in most other professions. I frequently over time get to learn some of the most intimate details of people’s lives, their successes, their failures, how they have approached problem solving in life and how that has worked out for them. It has given me a perspective on how my way might not be the best way and that I need to keep an open mind.
I have another prod to open-mindedness. My millennial children both live in the area. My son in Davis, my daughter in Sacramento. They are frequent sources of “Wow, I hadn’t thought of it that way before.” One tiny example that relates to car use. On the rare ( 2 times to be exact) in my youth when I had driven to a restaurant, drank to much to be safe, I sat in my car in the parking lot until sober. My son and his partner plan ahead. If they know their evening will involve alcohol they either use Uber, or on occasion ask if they can walk to my place and hang out until they are safe to drive. They also frequently use the buses although they have one car for the two of them. Their default is to consider the best means of transportation for their purposes, not to just hop in the car because it is more convenient. Until about 10 years ago, I had not yet adopted this kind of thinking having grown up in the “car as convenience” era. Now it is becoming my new norm.
It is possible to teach an old dog new tricks. The dog just has to be open minded enough to consider new possibilities.
I think it is important to define terms in a discussion.
Full Definition of conservative. 1 a : an adherent or advocate of political conservatism b capitalized : a member or supporter of a conservative political party. 2 a : one who adheres to traditional methods or views b : a cautious or discreet person.
a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.
A reactionary is a politician or political philosopher who wants to reverse political changes and seeks to restore society to a state believed to have existed before.
Based on the definitions in the dictionary Davis is controlled by conservatives and reactionaries despite how they may view themselves.
“Based on the definitions in the dictionary Davis is controlled by conservatives and reactionaries despite how they may view themselves.”
I think that’s simplistic at best. It would take considerably more discussion to unpack that.
Without an agreement on terms this discussion has no meaning at all.
And the first real progressive politician was a staunch Republican.
Because the leaders of the group that calls itself “progressive” has gotten old. As they age, they lean more conservatively – grumble about change and lament how it used to be. Some are using an annonymous group to sue the City and argue for the massive development of University ag land. One even publically endorsed Trump for President. Another rails against developers and rich people, while protecting his multi-million dollar investments in Davis properties. They have little or no connection with younger people or how they live. They likely have never used Uber or a Zip car. They likely never use public transportation to travel to work. They likely drive cars, so assume that all others do too.
Ryan Kelly’s characterization of progressives is well just so “old.” He’s certainly out of touch…does he even have any connection with us old folds and how “we” live …he might learn something. And please don’t lump us all into one category…that’s such an “old” discredited tactic.
“They” had enough connection to the younger people to put out a brilliant social-media campaign at the last minute that sunk Nishi.
Note: I say this as a supporter of Nishi, and by “brilliant” I mean effective. It was largely based on hyperbolic false statements, so that people who hadn’t been paying attention (most people) glommed onto the anti-what-we’re-against message that no doubt cause a few hundred people to vote no, and/or to vote at all.
I’m sure that the young people who were enticed to participate were given a nice pat on the head.
Nancy does not even see the irony in her recognition of who I was referring to.
Although I voted No on Nishi, it was not for the most touted reasons… Alan is absolutely correct in his 1:03 post… I agree with every word of Alan’s missive… (yet, as I said, I voted No…)
Most of the student precincts voted against Measure A.
I agree with Alan’s comment and Grok’s response. Grok orchestrated the Facebook campaign masterfully, and it definitely won the student-dominated precincts.
You are assuming that No on A campaigners are Progressive. I’m saying that they no longer are and don’t deserve this affiliation.
Well one thing is for sure. The Yes on A campaign was neither an honest nor nor a progressive effort.
And you think Grok’s creative ads were progressive and honest?
Progressives worked to create bike lanes and green belts, urban farming, and innovative design. A far cry from the push for massive development of ag land and demands for parking lots, and high rise tenements far from urban centers, etc.
Was the No on A Facebook page honest? Yes. For the most part there were lots of details and articles. Far better than the Yes literature and their PR flacks.
Progresive? Like I said the Yes campaign was neither honest nor progressive. Does standing against a campaign like that make the No side progresive? I would tend to define progresive by what they are for rather than what they area against so I don’t think it can be defined like that.
You are not listening to what I am saying.
I answered your question about the No on A campaign.
If you want me to comment on the rest of your post ok.
“Push for development on Ag land.” Are you talking about the Nishi Ag land? No I don’t think pushing to build on the Nishi Ag land was progresive.
“demand for parking lots.” Building park and ride lots that get cars off the road might be progresive, although it’s not a new idea and has been done all over the country. I would call it more of a good idea.
“high rise tenements” Lincoln 40 does seem a little on the dense side but I don’t know that I would go as far as calling the “tenements”
I give up. Still no understanding. The progressive movement in Davis is dead.
Ok, you tell me Ryan.
what is progresive about building on Ag land at Nishi?
what is wrong with building park and ride lots?
why do you call Lincoln 40 “tenement” housing?
Talk about creating a toxic environment. This story takes a few blog comments out of context and attempts to transform it into a hit piece on a large part of the Davis community.
Ironically, the land use at Lincoln 40 that would get the most cars off the road is a large parking lot servicing the downtown and the train station. Davis is lucky enough to have one of the very few stops on the Capital Corridor and as a result Davis is a regional transportation hub. But Davis (and the surrounding communities) has shirked the responsibility that comes with that by not providing adequate parking and the lot fills up by 6:30 am with Bay area commuters coming from Davis, Dixon, Sacramento, Woodland and other surrounding communities. Unfortunately by the time most Sacramento bound commuters arrive at the station, the lot is already full and these commuters often park in Old North Davis or just skip the train altogether and drive to Sacramento. More parking by the station would further encourage use of the train and reduce more and longer car trips.
Building parking instead of apartments in this instance is the most progressive thing that could be done on the proposed Lincoln 40 site. So, what does the Vanguard want to write about? How best to facilitate building large apartment complex that lacks affordable housing and have no safe bike route to campus. Is building less parking more progressive because it discourages cars? Or is building parking that accommodates the cars that will be brought to town whether there is parking available at the apartments or not more progressive? The answer is neither. We are having the wrong conversation to start with.
I disagree, it took the blog comments in context and it accurately represented a critical viewpoint here.
The funniest thing about this comment is then this: “Building parking instead of apartments in this instance is the most progressive thing that could be done on the proposed Lincoln 40 site” So now the answer to lack of housing and lack of parking is to get rid of the housing so we can have more parking. This is the progressive community suggestion which of course ignores the problem of private land ownership as well.
The fact that a poster who has development interests in Davis and has been repeatedly nasty to others on here claims that “the blog comments in context and it accurately represented a critical viewpoint here.” is indication enough of how off the mark this article is.
Your view that Lincoln 40 alone is the solution to a lack of housing is myopic. No real progress will be made on the housing issue without the Universities participation in the solution.
Who has development interests in Davis?
Don wrote:
> Who has development interests in Davis?
I’m also interested to hear about the Vanguard poster Grok is talking about with “development interests” in Davis.
If he’s referring to me, I have none.
Grok seems to have stepped in it with his development interest claim and now is taking the fifth.
I was just waiting for Chamber to deny he has development interests. It should be pretty clear who I was suggesting since I included a direct quote from their post.
OK, so ChamberF claims they have no development interests in Davis, that only make ChamberF’s ill tempered support for development more inexplicable.
So in the future I suggest you not make direct assertions for which you have no evidence.
Grok wrote:
> I was just waiting for Chamber to deny
> he has development interests.
First we have Vanguard posters telling is what other posters “think” (when they have no idea) now we have a Vanguard poster telling us what people “do for a living” (when they have no idea)…
So you all believe ChamberF when they deny having development interests in Davis? I am not sure I do, but hey, he is just another thinly anonymous poster in the toxic soup of the Vanguard comment section so who really knows.
Don Shor said.
If that were the standard that all posters were held to, there would be a lot fewer comments to most of the articles on the Vanguard.
Apparently, many posters have “development interests”… financial or not… direct financial interests, or indirect… philosophic (pro or anti)… any combination of the above…
I’m a “process person”… I don’t mind debate, when is fact-based and fair… I really don’t give (fecal matter) how much development does or does not occur…
Grok said . . . “so ChamberF claims they have no development interests in Davis, that only make ChamberF’s ill tempered support for development more inexplicable.”
I’ll hazard a guess Grok. I suspect that ChamberFan doesn’t see (A) the value in paying an added $3,000 per year in parcel taxes, or (B) the value in continually declining capital infrastructure quality due to shortfalls in annual maintenance, or (C) cannibalizing parcel tax revenues from DJUSD.
Grok said . . . “So you all believe ChamberF when they deny having development interests in Davis? I am not sure I do, but hey, he is just another thinly anonymous poster in the toxic soup of the Vanguard comment section so who really knows.“
Pot meet Kettle.
Like I said before
Please answer this question directly, Grok: Who has development interests in Davis?
Think about that, the most progressive thing we can do is build a storage area for cars on Olive Drive, that just illustrates the disconnect here. Progressive? Really?
Excellent example of toxic behavior that attempts to stifle dialog.
Yes, parking lots that get cars off of interstate 80 and turn drivers into train riders is a sound thing to do.
I’m sorry but your idea is absurd on a number of levels. First, the city would have use eminent domain to obtain that parcel. Second, you would have to build either an underpass or overpass to create access. Third, why not just build a multilevel parking facility with monthly rates at the existing site? Your opposition to housing is leading to a lot of clouded thinking here.
ChamberF, Your off the mark. You are jumping to the conclusion that I am advocating scuttling Lincoln 40, but I have not advocated that at all. What I have said is we are having the wrong conversation.
Maybe we are too far past when we could have embarked on the best use for the site, I don’t know. If we are that was a failure of vision. The parking situation at the train station has been like this for years and nothing has been done so for years more people drive when they could take the train.
Your hostility to even having the conversation speaks volumes to your toxic contribution to the city.
My opposition to housing? That is something that does not exist. Housing is great. we should build more, the University in particular should build more.
Absolutely – just look at Emeryville or Jack London square as a good example of what that might look like. Any project like this would need regional if not state funding, because it is a regional issue. In any case the need for grade separated pedestrian and bike access from Olive Drive to Downtown already exists before either a parking lot or more apartments get built on Olive.
Because to get to the existing site people coming from Dixon, Sacramento, and South Davis and other parts of the region have to drive through the Richards underpass. Further, the current lot is not big enough, even if several stories, tall for the number of cars that could be diverted from driving on I80 with proper parking at the train station.
But this may all just be pie in the sky because our “progressive” city has probably already missed the opportunity to do the right thing here.
Definitely true. (I’m glad that you’re back online, today.)
Grok wrote:
> Yes, parking lots that get cars off of interstate 80
> and turn drivers into train riders is a sound thing to do.
I know many people that pass through Davis going both east and west to work in Sacramento, Roseville, Vacaville and Fairfield and not a single one would be interested in taking the train even if Davis had more parking.
1. Do you know people that tell you they want to park in Davis to take the train to work?
2. Do these people know how long it will take and how much it will cost?
Yes
Yes to how long. Parking is currently free.
I don’t understand this repeated reference to “toxic” environments and behaviors. These characterizations don’t seem to reflect anything that I’ve read in the article or comments. I’d encourage fair and balanced characterizations (especially in regards to people) if you advocate for productive dialogue. I think it’d certainly help in the conversations.
DR – perhaps you missed the toxic accusations in yesterdays toxic article.
Who has development interests in Davis, Grok?
I read yesterday’s article but must have missed the “accusations”
Grok:
I hope that you don’t let the toxicity bother you, and don’t feel obligated to participate when you don’t have time.
Yesterday, when trying to identify a “problem”, a commenter suggested that I “look in the mirror”.
Some “toxicity” always seems to come out on online blogs. (On a related note, I realize that attempts at pointed humor are not always well-received, either.)
Grok says he has friends that want to park in Davis and take the train, but does not seem to be clear how expensive it is to take the train and how much longer it takes to get where you are going on the train.
P.S. Don and I are still waiting to here more about the Vanguard “poster who has development interests in Davis” you are posting about…
Where are those friends coming from? Part of the reason why people drive to Davis to take the train, is that they save money on parking. Instead of fixing that problem, Grok wants to enable it by building more parking. That’s not a very progressive platform.
SOD – If your asking about the cost of the train, yes it is well understood what the cost of the train is.
The main reason people drive to Davis is because it is the closest station. The People I have talked to from Sac that park in Davis do it because it is easier, not cheaper.
Yes, I want to make it easier for people to take the train than to drive. That is absolutely the better environmental position.
Grok, Instead of picking a fight – What does progressive mean to you?
This blog post picks a fight, I merely point it out. David decided today is the day to write about what a progressive is. I am to busy today with other things to write a proper essay on this word “progressive” that gets tossed around so much here in Davis.
“I am to busy today” That, however, did not stop you from posting.
It picks a fight? It seems to ask a question more than picking a fight. What do the progressives stand for – to me it seems less about sustainability than halting growth. If I’m wrong, show me where.
Quielo, Perhaps for you writing about the word “progressive” would be a relatively short endeavor. Maybe you would focus on prog rock, I don’t know. For me I would not do it without a much more serious treatment than I have time for today.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/16/article-1045969-02208A1500000578-711_468x357.jpg
Grok,
Progressive is difficult. This one is easy however:
pas·sive-ag·gres·sive
adjective
of or denoting a type of behavior or personality characterized by indirect resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct confrontation, as in procrastinating, pouting, or misplacing important materials.
Here is the first “hit” I got when googled, “progressive” + lafollete [father of the ‘progrssive movement’]
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/lafollette.htm
Yet, things “morph”… today’s “progressives” might cause Lafollete to spin in his grave… just as current Republicans (‘party of Lincoln’), probably have Abe going ~9600 rpm…
It is common to say that Jefferson was the ‘father’ of what became the Democrat party… he’s probably spinning at the same speed as Abe.
hpierce wrote:
> It is common to say that Jefferson was the ‘father’
> of what became the Democrat party… he’s probably
> spinning at the same speed as Abe.
I’m a big fan of both Lincoln and Jefferson and agree that they are both “spinning in their graves” but I’m certain that Jefferson is spinning faster.
One of my favorite Jefferson quotes is:
“I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”
Most “progressive” Democrats today favor the quote “anyone stating a difference of opinion that we do not approve is not a friend and is guilty of a micro aggression and/or hate crime and should be fired from their job and/or kicked out of school”…
P.S. I appreciate that Tia shared how she meets many people with different views. It is sad, but today less and less people have anything to do with people with views different from their own. Just this weekend I was talking to a Davis Dad that was at Burning Man with his family last week and he said that pretty much the families stuck together as did the artists as did the tech execs. as did the hard drinking frat boys…
One thing that was pointed out (by another commenter) in the article from yesterday is that students/residents of other complexes in Davis apparently do care about parking availability (for themselves, and guests):
https://www.yelp.com/biz/the-u-apartments-davis
Regarding this article, I’m never quite sure why it’s important to apply labels such as “conservative”, “liberal”, “progressive” (or even solid “Democrat” or “Republican”). (By the way, is “regressive” the opposite of “progressive”?) Are our identities somehow linked to whatever position we’ve established for ourselves?
If you examine the word “conservation”, it appears to have roots in the word “conserve”. In other words, perhaps it’s more of a conservative position, at root?
Ron…meant as a friendly comment… words morph… faggot, queer, spade, etc. used to have no “tone”… completely descriptive… (a piece of wood, a cigarette; strange, odd; a shovel, or a suit of cards)
There were, traditionally the terms “conservation”, and “preservation”… they used to mean, one should be frugal, a steward of resources, and the other was hell bent to have nothing change, preserve the status quo and/or the past.
My point is, equating “conserve”, “conservation” to “conservative”, the way the language has morphed, is not “a real good equation”. Right or wrong, it just IS…
hpierce:
I still think there’s some connection between being “frugal”, a “steward of resources”, with being “conservative” – perhaps in the traditional sense of that word?
Not sure any of this matters, unless one’s identity is completely tied up in it.
More importantly (regarding how words “morph”), I’ll take your comments in a “gay” (lighthearted) tone.
But, as a possible “progressive”, please allow me to “regress”.
It isn’t. Good instincts.
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/George-Costanza-Eating-Popcorn.gif
This article seems to confuse the claim “students will have cars” with the claim “it’s good for students to have cars.” Someone can be a progressive and think that it’s not good for students to have cars, but recognize that realistically, what they want isn’t what currently exists. And making fewer parking spaces doesn’t magically reduce car ownership. I agree with what has been said above – this article seems to be picking at scabs rather than trying to solve problems.
Roberta: I think you’ve summed it up, perfectly.
Roberta wrote:
> And making fewer parking spaces doesn’t
> magically reduce car ownership.
Roberta is wrong about this since every place in the world I know of with few parking spaces has a low car ownership percentage. When someone moves to Manhattan, London or Hong Kong (and they are making less than a typically managing director) and it costs over $2,500/month to park a car they (almost “magically”) sell their car…
That only works if parking is low overall and if it costs to park. If there are no spaces at the apartment building but free spaces elsewhere, then there is not enough incentive for people to reduce.
Roberta wrote:
> there is not enough incentive for people to reduce.
There is little free parking in Olive drive neighborhood and all the free parking around downtown is time restricted without a resident sticker. Do you think that rich kids moving in to a fancy new apartment on Olive drive will be parking their Acuras and BMWs a mile away in Wildhorse or Willowbank (making sure to move them every 72 hours so they are not towed)?
Have you ever owned a car that you needed to park a mile away (and move every 72 hours so it is not towed)? Do you know ANYONE that lives in Davis and owns a car that is not parked near where they live (who moves it every 72 hours so it is not towed)?
P.S. Are you aware that UCD freshman living in the dorms are not allowed to own cars? Are you aware that almost none of these kids bring cars to Davis?
SouthofDavis:
As I previously mentioned, I managed to park in a much more challenging environment than anywhere in Davis, for many years. I believe that the 72-hour law (which exists elsewhere, as well) is often not enforced. I did not have “fancy” cars (and still don’t), but perhaps those who do would be willing to pay to park on-site.
Guests of residents (who visit with their own cars), Uber, and Lyft provide further opportunities to use autos, regardless of the number of parking spaces.
In other words, there are two probable concerns: 1) parking, and 2) driving. They are not completely correlated.
I’m not sure what harm is caused by providing a spot for parking (other than an opportunity to make the apartment complex even bigger and more profitable, by eliminating parking). Even with parking, I believe that most students would not drive to campus from the proposed Lincoln40.
Regarding freshman, does the University actually check records to see if students own cars? (In any case, I doubt that it’s an issue, there.)
I would, however, have to acknowledge that making it more difficult to park a car probably does have some effect on the overall amount of driving. (In other words, some correlation.)
This is an excellent point Roberta. to expand on this, I want to ask some very specific question about those advocating for charging for parking at the new Lincoln 40 apartments.
How do you propose the city mandate that the apartment complex charges for parking on their own privately held property?
Do you propose that the City of Davis dictate the amount charged for parking on the privately held Lincoln 40 property?
If you are advocating that the city mandate parking charges, how do you propose the city enforce this mandate?
If there is no city mandate for paid parking, can’t the complex change this anytime they want in the future?
If someone parks at Lincoln 40 without paying are there City enforced consequences? Are the consequences born by the car owner, the apartment complex owner, or both?
Are you proposing that there be some sort of mandated privately owned pay to park zone that singles out Lincoln 40 from all other complexes in Davis?
Are you proposing that there be some sort of mandate privately owned pay to park zone that singles out Lincoln 40 from all other complexes on Olive Drive?
If you want to advocate for new city ordinances that apply this concept of increased parking costs at apartments across the city in an even and thoughtful manner I could see that as a positive and possibly “progressive” value. Perhaps a city wide apartment complex parking space tax that was used to help fund parks, schools or public transportation would be the way to go. Now that’s a good conversation to have.
If you want to use reduced parking availability and increased costs in a vacuum as part of an approval process for a single development then that is much more questionable.
Grok: I was wondering about some of the points you brought up above, as well. I’m glad that someone is thinking about such practicalities.
Yes. Or other available locations. There are closer ones.
No.
Yes.
No, because they use the car; they don’t just leave it sitting.
Yes.
Do we have that data?
I asked Roberta if she knows “ANYONE that lives in Davis and owns a car that is not parked near where they live” and she said “Yes”.
Not do doubt her but I am wondering why “ANYONE” in Davis would park a car a a mile from where they live rather than just move to where they could have a parking space next to their home???
Again I’m sure that there is someone in South Davis that parks his car north of I80 every night just like I know there are “some” people that commute by bike to Roseville and Vacaville five days a week.
My point is that if 300 people live in an apartment building that does not have parking nearby few will have cars in town (just like very few of the freshman living in the UCD dorms have cars in town).
P.S. I do not have a link to any “data” on UCD freshman but as guy that likes cars (and had a car when I lived in the dorms as a freshman) I often talk to UCD freshman about cars (every year less and less seem to be interested in any kind of cars) and I also had a relative recently graduate from UCD who after his freshman year became a RA and worked for the UCD housing office for two year after his year as an RA who tells me that the few freshman who try to bring a car and park it in town typically bring the car home since it is not worth the trouble to have a car parked so far from their dorm and have to worry about neighbors calling to have it towed…
Because maybe they couldn’t find something closer or afford something closer. As we’ve discussed many times, there is a shortage of housing here. Students do strange things. They park downtown and move their cars every two hours in between classes. They park well north of 8th to get to campus where the permit parking runs out (every noticed how far north permit parking runs?)
You have no evidence for that claim.
I talk with students all the time. They come to my office for questions about my classes and end up talking about a lot of other things.
“They come to my office for questions about my classes and end up talking about a lot of other things” I think this is the best anyone can claim. It would be good to have actual survey data on who has cars and why. That would better inform this discussion and it is entirely possible that UCD has some info on this. They should have some info on the “who” part of this equation. Has anyone asked?
Roberta wrote:
> You have no evidence for that claim.
Feel free to call the UC Davis housing office and ask how many freshman have cars or the doorman of any Pacific Heights or Manhattan high rise and ask for an estimate of the number of residents that own cars (in town not at their place in East Hampton). Yet you have offered even a SHRED OF EVIDENCE to show any apartment anywhere in the world with no parking where a large number of people park cars more than a mile away.
I have heard from multiple sources for years that very few UCD freshman that live in the dorms have cars. I also know that most people that lived in my buildings in SF and Manhattan (without ANY parking) did not have cars.
Do you think that I am lying about this (and that THOUSANDS of freshman living in the freshman dorms who can’t park on campus are just hiding their cars around town or that people in Pacific Heights high rises park cars in the Sunset and most midtown Manhattan people just park their cars on the street in New Jersey?)
Google says: “69 percent of 19-year-olds had licenses in 2014, compared to 87.3 percent in 1983, a 21-percent decrease.”
Since most people my age have college age kids I know that it not only costs a LOT more for tuition but it costs a LOT more for insurance. While we have a fair amount of rich kids in town driving nice cars it is not the majority of undergrads (just like the middle class kid paying for college without debt working a minimum wage job is almost gone the middle class kid in college paying for a car with a minimum wage job is almost gone).
This survey shows less UCD kids driving:
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/transit-survey-47-percent-ride-bikes-campus/
ryankelly
“I’m sure that the young people who were enticed to participate were given a nice pat on the head.”
What a demeaning comment. Do you feel the same about the young people who were “enticed to participate” by the Nishi advocates? Is it not possible that there were groups of young people who had varying opinions about the merits of Nishi who actually arrived at those opinions by thinking for themselves, just exactly as many of their elders did ?
Roberta
“That only works if parking is low overall and if it costs to park.”
This is one reason that I support incentives ( and disincentives although I favor the former) to individual car ownership. I would like to see paid parking throughout the downtown both to encourage alternative means of transportation but also to discourage people from using their cars ( with exceptions for those of limited mobility or other special need).
Yes, this would mean accepting change which I am absolutely not adverse to.
As one of the people who has suggested high price (at the San Francisco average of $500 per month), I will answer Grok’s questions. I’ve been in two long meetings today, or I would have answered sooner.
How do you propose the city mandate that the apartment complex charges for parking on their own privately held property? The answer to that question is very easy. If the applicant agrees in a Development Agreement to do so then the square footage of the reduced number of parking spaces can be approved by the City as the square footage of additional bedrooms/units. Each additional bedroom represents approximately $1,000 per month of additional revenue for the complex. That monthly fiscal reward will direct the developer’s design decisions.
Do you propose that the City of Davis dictate the amount charged for parking on the privately held Lincoln 40 property? My personal opinion is that any monthly parking fee that is equal to or greater than the San Francisco average would qualify the development application for replacement of parking space square footage with living space square footage. It will be a voluntary program, not a mandated program.
If you are advocating that the city mandate parking charges, how do you propose the city enforce this mandate? The City would not be mandating charges.
If there is no city mandate for paid parking, can’t the complex change this anytime they want in the future? Yes they can, but the law of supply and demand associated with incredibly scarce parking spaces will take care of that.
If someone parks at Lincoln 40 without paying are there City enforced consequences? Are the consequences born by the car owner, the apartment complex owner, or both? Same as any other private parking. Towing to a private lot with the towing and the daily storage charges borne by the car owner.
Are you proposing that there be some sort of mandated privately owned pay to park zone that singles out Lincoln 40 from all other complexes in Davis? No. It would be a Cit-wide program that applies to any complex.
Are you proposing that there be some sort of mandate privately owned pay to park zone that singles out Lincoln 40 from all other complexes on Olive Drive? No. It would be a City-wide program that applies to any complex.
If you want to advocate for new city ordinances that apply this concept of increased parking costs at apartments across the city in an even and thoughtful manner I could see that as a positive and possibly “progressive” value. Perhaps a city wide apartment complex parking space tax that was used to help fund parks, schools or public transportation would be the way to go. Now that’s a good conversation to have. Agreed.
If you want to use reduced parking availability and increased costs in a vacuum as part of an approval process for a single development then that is much more questionable. It would apply to all developments. Lincoln 40 and Sterling would have the most to gain because (1) their structures are not designed as yet, and (2) the availability of easily cannibalizable spaces near their respective locations is extremely limited (essentially non-existent for Sterling).
Ron said . . . “I believe that the 72-hour law (which exists elsewhere, as well) is often not enforced.”
The new, updated license plate scanning technology will make enforcement much, much easier, and with a limit of 2-hours rather than 72-hours. It will be even more effective if the City and UCD use a combined database of cars and their license plates.
Matt,
I like most of your thinking on how to reduce cars at apartment complexes. Since Sterling and Lincoln40 are already active proposals, but there is not even a draft of the new City ordinance you suggest. How do you propose to apply the not yet existent ordinance to the existing proposals?
Legal conditions/requirements/commitments in any Development Agreement mutually agreed to by the City and the project owners.
“And making fewer parking spaces doesn’t magically reduce car ownership.” You could not be more wrong except that no “magic” is required unless you count an “invisible hand”. It works in three ways:
1: attract people who want a car-less lifestyle
2: incent current car owners to go car free
3: build a market for services geared to the car-less.
This is very simple, it’s hard to believe it’s even up for discussion.
And this contributes to a discussion of “what does progressive mean”, how? I have been admonished for less drift (although the moderator does great at the 98% level)… and, no, not trying to “kiss” anything, but acknowledging that the moderator position is tough… takes a “mensch” (please don’t read anything into that, other than a”person of integrity”) to take that role on and stick to it.
Have a great week, Don… I’ll try not to add to your “load”, except, perhaps, when we need stuff for our garden… (but not the ‘stuff’ that is in great supply on the VG)
It isn’t at all “that simple”, because you leave out alternatives.
People gravitate to the easiest, fastest and cheapest. If you artificially constrain something then the next best alternative will become more attractive.
And you need to consider the diversity of the “people”.
Traffic and parking constraints will just cause more of the people that live in Davis to drive to Woodland, Dixon and Sacramento to do their shopping. It will not reduce car ownership, it will likely increase it.
Disagree on both
“And you need to consider the diversity of the “people”.”
People will consider themselves and self select. Alternatives within Davis are available.
“Traffic and parking constraints will just cause more of the people that live in Davis to drive to Woodland, Dixon and Sacramento to do their shopping. It will not reduce car ownership, it will likely increase it.”
Experience has shown the opposite. Cities that built big freeways and widened streets to improve traffic just encouraged people to move to suburbs and are now wastelands. Cities that resisted destroying their core for the benefit of cars are in much better shape. See SF, Boston, Manhattan for examples.
Not intended as a “defense” of cars or roadways, but isn’t the entire Bay Area doing pretty well, these days? (Including Silicon Valley, which has plenty of freeway/roadway access?)
Good or bad, I can personally vouch for Frankly’s statement, to some degree. It just depends on the situation, I think.
Depends what you mean by doing pretty well. Cost of living is absolutely through the roof.
Come on quielo – you are conflating causes.
Those places you mention were all grown up and out of develop-able peripheral land. They are also filled with sky-scrapers and are significantly dense. There was not any conscious and forced “progressive” movement to reduce car ownership in these cities. It happened organically from their dynamic growth and expansion.
Again, you are just ignoring the economic reality of choice.
When you live in Manhattan your choices for owning and using a car to get done what you need to get done are worse than those using public transportation.
Davis is a LONG way from having those same organic constraints placed on us. Although the causeway traffic is bad enough that I often decide to shop online or going the other way instead of dealing with that traffic… but it isn’t that bad compared to these places you listed.
Artificial forced constraints by government policy just light a fire under the law of unintended consequences.
Ron,
“entire Bay Area doing pretty well” yes though the “doing well” is not the same as being a model for us. The Peninsula is a horrible pace which in my opinion is a “wasteland”.
quielo wrote:
> Cities that built big freeways and widened streets to improve traffic
> just encouraged people to move to suburbs and are now wastelands.
> Cities that resisted destroying their core for the benefit of cars are in
> much better shape. See SF, Boston, Manhattan for examples.
SF, Boston and Manhattan all have 1. Freeways, 2. Wide Streets and 3. Suburbs.
There are other reason that some urban cores are “wastelands” (that have nothing to do with freeways, wide streets and suburbs)…
David wrote:
> Depends what you mean by doing pretty well.
> Cost of living is absolutely through the roof.
The “cost of living” is not that much higher unless you recently bought a home, are renting or are sending your kids to a top private school.
For people like my parents that bought in the 60’s (and paid off their home loan in the 90’s) it costs less to live in the Bay Area than in Davis (thanks to Prop 13 and the senior exemption for parcel taxes they pay about 20% of what I pay in Property taxes).
Most friends that bought in the 90’s have lower mortgage payments and lower property taxes in the Bay Area than I have here in Davis.
Yup.
Irony of ironies… listening to a Trump speech… he’s employing “progressive” (Robert Lafollete) themes… ah, how ‘terms’ can morph…
“populist” seems to morph into “progressive” in Davis… not right or wrong, but just seems like that is a fact…
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v171/majormanny/RushDoublenecks.jpg
“Progressive” Rock
Grok wrote:
> I am to busy today with other things
Funny how he still has times to post FOURTEEN (14) times in just a few hours but can’t find the time to name the “poster who has development interests in Davis” he talks about…
C’est vrai…
Grokker, you speak-a my language. From the Late 90’s to the late 00’s, I brought then-council members by the station and showed them the Calori Property and stated that the City had to buy that lot and build a parking structure on it, a bus bay for Amtrak, and link Hickory Lane and the Amtrak Station, with a grade separated path connecting Olive, a center train-boarding platform and downtown. And yes, people drive from all over to use the Davis station, so the use of regional funds would be quite appropriate here.
There is no other site for such parking. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. But though I think the parties I explained it to understood the future need, it wasn’t a pressing need at the time, so now it is forever lost. And yes, it is too late . . . these developers are serious guns, and this development — in some form and at some time — will happen.
A parking structure at the station parking site itself — the goal of some — is very unlikely to happen. The available land is all UPRR and they don’t want more auto traffic, and the lot is limited by it’s odd shape and small size. A parking structure requires a minimum footprint for up and down ramps in a usable orientation. At that site, a minimum number of spaces would be left, and thus the cost per space is likely prohibitive.
Alan, You were absolutely right.
I had not thought of the Amtrak Bus bay. You were right about that too.
Wow – you guys (Alan Miller and Grok) both realized and supported this? Davis as a regional train transportation hub, and the need/connection for the property on Olive? And, Alan took the time to bring council members to explain and show this?
I’m sorry that others didn’t pick up on this vision. Unfortunately, I suspect that Alan is right – the developers are “serious guns”, and already have some support from those who don’t share that vision.
Sometimes, I think that some in Davis are not as smart as they believe they are.
Credit where credit is due. Alan was way out ahead of me on this, and did more about it.
In a way, Alan’s vision impresses me more, here. I don’t think he belongs to the “slow-growth” side (whatever that means, since we’re also discussing labels).
Alan also apparently envisioned the need for the Davis Arch (or some other separated crossing), some time ago. And, the (missed) opportunity to ensure that the other apartment complex in that area (the Lexington?) contributed to it. (I did some quick research, after Matt mentioned the arch.)
As a side note, Alan’s postings are usually amusing, even when I don’t agree with him.
Alan knows more about trains than any 3 people I know.
The need to connect Olive to downtown became obvious or was exacerbated if not created when the railroad put up the fence and prevents people from crossing from Hickory or through Slater’s Court.
Ron said . . . “I did some quick research, after Matt mentioned the arch.”
That is good news Ron. I hope it becomes a pattern.
O.K., Matt. (Good one.) 🙂
I figured that you might see this communication, given that you’re also a night owl.
What do you think of the issue that Alan and Grok brought up? Do you see the loss of the potential ability to park (for regional train users)? It’s not just a Davis issue.
In contrast, it’s not likely that there’d be a large number of daily train commuters, from the proposed apartment complex. (Even if a grade-separated crossing is constructed.)
I also wonder if the train might become more popular (and perhaps more high-speed), in the future. And, it might then become even more apparent that an opportunity was lost.
Matt:
Just thought I’d follow-up, to see if you have any comments regarding Alan/Grok’s ideas.
Sometimes, one or two people can make a difference. For example, I doubt that Sacramento would have a new arena, without Kevin Johnson. (Regardless of one’s thoughts on that.)
Ron, Grok and I have dialogued in the past about this, and I do not believe that Davis residents should be footing the multi-million dollar construction costs for a parking structure that has a primary purpose of serving Sacramento residents who for their own convenience drive across the Yolo Causeway to park in Davis. Getting Sacramento County to foot the bill for the construction of the garage is a non-starter, so the only way to recoup the construction costs from the Sacramento users would be to have it be a paid lot. If it is a paid lot then we will have to figure out ways for Davis residents to get a preferred rate when they park there.
The other capital construction costs challenge is how to pay for the grade separated crossing of the UPRR. Here too, from an equity perspective, the Sacramento commuters should incur a fee each time they use the crossing. Building an amortization of the crossing construction costs into the daily parking fee in the garage is the best way to accomplish that, since each time a Sacramento commuter parks in the garage they will be going through the crossing include the crossing construction costs amortization amount in the parking fee.
Thanks, Matt.
Not sure if you agree that the basic idea has some merit/value, before considering funding.
Regarding funding, might there be some form of public funding available (e.g., to support public transportation)? As a side note, perhaps the grade-separated crossing would also provide another access point for local bicyclists and pedestrians who may, or may not be using the train.
Ron, your question piqued my “we need to pay our bills” sensibility so I threw together the following information for each parking space in Grok and Alan’s proposed garage and crossing.
The construction costs per parking space in a multi-story building that I have heard have ranged from a high of $75,000 to a low of $50,000. Those costs don’t include a grade separated crossing, so for the sake of discussion let’s use $75,000 per space and have that number include the crossing construction costs as well.
The City would borrow the $75,000, and the most recent borrowing numbers the FBC received were for the proposed CFD at Nishi, which was at 6.0%. $75,000 borrowed at 6.0% for a 15-year term produces $7,722 of annual debt service per parking space. 260 commuting days (52 weeks times 5 days) divided into the $7,722 produces a $29.70 per day per space debt service at 100% occupancy. So the minimum daily rate to cover the debt service would be $30 per day for the Sacramento commuters. If you assumed only 50% occupancy the daily parking debt service per parking space goes up to $60 per day.
Do you think Sacramento train commuters will be willing to pay $30-$60 per day to park at the Davis train station rather than the Sacramento train station?
Matt:
Thanks for the response, but (once again) you’ve put forth a bunch of figures without responding to my questions. That’s o.k. – I’ll just assume that you don’t see any merit in the proposal, or any way to pay for it (despite my questions above).
Non-City public funds might have been available for a parking lot project, but they take years to line up and allocate. Had the City pursued the idea when Alan first brought it up, then some of those funds might have been acquired by now, but there would almost certainly have also required a significant local contribution. Past fiscal policies of the City would have likely made that local contribution impossible. At this point, it no longer matters since the property has been purchased by a developer who is now going in another direction.
Thanks, Mark. I appreciate the response.
I suppose it’s possible that the proposed project won’t be approved. Seems like there’s some issues to settle (as there would be with a parking lot, as well).
But, I like the idea of supporting train ridership (region-wide) and providing more bicycle/pedestrian access for our residents.
Ron – Look at the City’s fiscal situation and ask yourself if there is any money available to fund the City’s portion of a parking lot project. The fiscal situation is as bad or worse now than it was five or ten years ago, so there really is no reason to believe that we could afford to make your preferred project happen even if the current project is rejected. I agree that creating a parking site for public transit (with a grade separated crossing) could have been a valuable addition to the City and the region, but the option of using this parcel for that purpose has passed.
Ron said . . . “Thanks for the response, but (once again) you’ve put forth a bunch of figures without responding to my questions. That’s o.k. – I’ll just assume that you don’t see any merit in the proposal, or any way to pay for it (despite my questions above).”
Merit can’t be calculated until you have the fiscal realities. If you can’t pay for something then it is Don Quixote tilting at windmills. If you ask me whether a windmill has merit, I will start by asking you “What does it cost, and how will those costs be covered?”
I know you don’t like “the triangle” but it applies directly in this situation. What you are asking me to state a “Position” on a subject, where the “Interests” of the community (what the community Wants) in such a proposal are not well defined, and the “Needs” of the community (what the community believes it Must Have) are not from such a proposal are unknown.
http://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/hbp/hbp_wh2.gif
Ron said . . . “Thanks for the response, but (once again) you’ve put forth a bunch of figures without responding to my questions. That’s o.k. – I’ll just assume that you don’t see any merit in the proposal, or any way to pay for it (despite my questions above).”
Ron, you must not have read my post.
I laid out a very clear way to pay for it. Build it as a paid lot with a $30-60 per day parking rate for the Sacramento rail commuters who park in it. I also explained the fiscal logic behind that $30-$60 daily rate.
I ended that here’s a way to pay for it explanation with a question for you, which you didn’t answer, specifically “Do you think Sacramento train commuters will be willing to pay $30-$60 per day to park at the Davis train station rather than the Sacramento train station?”
Matt and Mark:
Again, thanks for the responses. I’m not denying the financial challenges that the city is in (thanks to allowing development and its corresponding need for services, without any method in place to control escalating costs, over time). Unfortunately, this is still the case, but that’s really going off into another subject.
Had the city implemented Alan’s suggestion (to negotiate a contribution from the other apartment complex in that area when it was built years ago), we might have a different situation.
Matt, I have no objections to your use of graphs, figures, etc. when appropriate. In fact, I admire your analytical skills. But, such graphs and figures often don’t tell the entire story, and can be based on false and/or limited assumptions. It’s easy to fall into the trap that “numbers don’t lie”, but sometimes the underlying assumptions (and perceived constraints) do.
Again, I come back to the example of Kevin Johnson, who (somehow) managed to get that arena built, during the depths of the recession. Quite an accomplishment, really. (Again, regardless of how one views the wisdom of constructing the arena.)
Vision comes first, followed by “how to”. Sometimes, the “how to” comes from unexpected sources, as a result of the vision. (Just a general comment.)
“thanks to allowing development and its corresponding need for services, without any method in place to control escalating costs, over time”
I disagree with your characterization of our fiscal problem. We greatly increased our compensation at a time when compensation across the state was increasing and paying for it during the real estate boom (we weren’t adding housing, but we had double digit tax increases during the boom). We over-committed on benefits and salary and when the economy collapsed we were forced to change, but instead of meaningfully cutting salary and benefits, we balanced the budget through attrition and deferred maintenance which has let to the current problem.
David:
The circumstances you describe match exactly with the summary I provided. The need for services (to serve development, regardless of when it was built), the corresponding revenue received from such development, and the escalating costs of providing services for those developments. In other words, residential development has not paid for its costs, over time. And, there’s still no method in place to prevent this in the future.
What part do you disagree with?
I disagree with the notion that it was an increased need for services rather than an increased cost for additional services. The cost savings in fact was simply a reduction of employees rather than a cut in the cost per employee (that continued to increase) – that fact bears out my point.
Ron said . . . ” (thanks to allowing development and its corresponding need for services, without any method in place to control escalating costs, over time). Unfortunately, this is still the case, but that’s really going off into another subject.”
That is indeed going into another subject, but since it is directly related, it is worth a comment. Each time you bring this Position of yours up you present it as if the amount of housing development is the one and only reason for the deteriorating fiscal condition. Most (but not all) of the times that you make that assertion I ask you politely for the source information/analysis that backs up your claim. To date you have provided no such source information or analysis. is there a reason that you don’t provide corroboration of that Position of yours? I realize it is your Vision, but is that Vision real?
Ron said . . . “Had the city implemented Alan’s suggestion (to negotiate a contribution from the other apartment complex in that area when it was built years ago), we might have a different situation.”
I agree 100%. Unfortunately we can’t change history, and have to deal with Alan’s and Grok’s idea in the present.
Ron said . . . “But, such graphs and figures often don’t tell the entire story, and can be based on false and/or limited assumptions. It’s easy to fall into the trap that “numbers don’t lie”, but sometimes the underlying assumptions (and perceived constraints) do.”
Again I agree 100%. In this situation (the analysis of the costs of building a parking garage and grade-separated crossing at Olive Drive, which of the assumptions do you feel are false and/or limited? . . . and what alternative cost assumptions would you propose to replace them? I will be glad to do the calculations based on your assumptions so that we can calcualte the daily costs of each parking space in the proposed garage.
Ron said . . . “Vision comes first, followed by “how to”. Sometimes, the “how to” comes from unexpected sources, as a result of the vision. (Just a general comment.)”
I agree 100%, and accept Alan’s and Grok’s and your Vision of constructing both the parking garage and the grade-separated underpass. So, we are all aligned on your first step . . . we have a Vision. With that in place we are wrestling with the “how to” and one of the important “how to” questions is, “Do you think Sacramento train commuters will be willing to pay $30-$60 per day to park at the Davis train station rather than the Sacramento train station?” Are you willing to provide an answer to that question?
Matt: “Each time you bring this Position of yours up you present it as if the amount of housing development is the one and only reason for the deteriorating fiscal condition.”
It’s not my “position”. It’s a fiscal reality, as you know. If not, perhaps you can explain why the revenue collected from our current level of development (which is limited by Proposition 13) does not correspond with the escalating costs of providing services for such development. (Again, there is no method in place to control those costs, over time.)
Maybe you have a different explanation, regarding why a city of 67,000 residents does not generate sufficient revenue to pay for its escalating costs (which, unlike revenues, still does not have a mechanism in place to permanently control costs).
Regarding the parking lot for Amtrak riders, you’ve repeated your assertion that the only way to pay for it is via those who would park there. (Mark had a more complete response.)
I may be tied up for awhile, so if you respond further I may not get back to you right away.
David: Where did I mention an increased need for services? The services we have rise in cost, but revenues don’t keep up. Unlike Proposition 13 (which limits revenue increases) there’s still no method in place to control costs over time.
(Of course, new development often requires some corresponding increase in the need for services, which tends to exacerbate the problem.)
It was implicit in your comment when you talked about services to meet the needs of new development. You’re arguing that the driver of increased costs was development and I’m arguing that the driver was external to that.
David – well, yes. New development generally requires new/additional services, compared to the current level of services. And, faces the same problem already discussed over time.
The services are there to serve developments. The costs of those services has risen faster than revenue collected, over time. And, there’s still no method in place to prevent this.
The problem is not unique to Davis.
New development does not appreciably increase the City’s costs because the new infrastructure is generally paid for by the development. The City’s costs go up due to uncapped increases in total compensation of City employees, something that happens whether there is any new development or not.
Mark:
I understand that new development may pay for its own costs for a period of time, but eventually the same old problem (revenues limited, but costs are not) surfaces over time.
I found this link, regarding the issue:
https://books.google.com/books?id=LCCvnLt2AbcC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=is+residential+development+a+money+loser+for+communities&source=bl&ots=Z0RKAWELyW&sig=giIXiosXjs42kdMiEefWcyL9HeQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic1Y3Wno3PAhUI4GMKHXz8A2EQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=is%20residential%20development%20a%20money%20loser%20for%20communities&f=false
Ron, your model is absolutely correct in principle, but with limitations. The cost of services for a residential dwelling is principally driven by the number of occupants. Two occupants use less services than three (or more) occupants. The more occupants the higher the cost of the services. Similarly if you hold the number of occupants at a fixed level, with some minor marginal variance, the cost of services are the same.
The limitation to your model is that (for example) three people can live in a whole range of different houses with different housing values. Three people can live in one of the new $1.2 million houses in The Cannery and three people can live in one of the 30-40 year old houses in my neighborhood Davis Manor. A $600,000 house with three residents generates half the property tax revenues for the City as a $1.2 million house with three residents, but generates the same amount of costs. The $1.2 million house will not get to a point where its three residents generate more costs than revenues because the original spread between costs and revenues starts out too wide. The $600,000 house with three residents is likely to fit your model, as long as the City does nothing to bring its costs under control.
Do you see and agree with that limitation to your stated model?
Matt:
In general, I realize that different types and costs for housing will generate different results. And, that the problem is more severe with lower cost housing (probably including apartments, although I recall that your committee wasn’t able to analyze that).
You’ve previously acknowledged that in general (aggregate?), housing does not pay for its costs over time. Not sure why you’re challenging me, now.
Ron, not challenging you. Simply clarifying that you have morphed a qualified reality into a sweeping all inclusive reality, which is inconsistent with any and all of my past posts on this subject. You follow that pattern quite frequently on a number of subjects. I’ve learned to recognize it when it happens, and just keeping you honest.
This has been explained multiple times, yet you seem unwilling to connect the dots. The City’s cost rise as a direct result of the rate of increase in employee total compensation. Those costs rise at roughly the same rate regardless of whether any new development has occurred. In fact, if we stopped all development and only used tax increases as the means of raising revenues, our costs would continue to rise at the same rate and eventually swamp out the new tax revenues. By the logic you are using to blame residential development, increasing taxes would be the cause of City’s fiscal problems. The City’s poor fiscal situation is not due to residential development as you repeatedly claim but is almost exclusively due to the failure to control the rate of increase in total compensation.
The City has the ability to control the growth in total compensation but has so far chosen not to do so. That is a choice, not a requirement.
Mark:
If you own a car, and the service costs continue to rise (causing your bank account to decrease), what is the root cause of having less money?
If you get a larger car with a bigger engine (that costs more to service), what is the root cause of that increase?
Ron –
I give up. Repeat your false statement as often as you wish. I will continue to note that it is false, and I will conclude that you are intentionally trying to deceive whenever you repeat it.
Have a nice night.
O.K., Mark.
But, I’m not intentionally trying to deceive. I’ve just looked at the history of what’s happened with rising costs (not just in Davis), and don’t see anything that would permanently prevent that in the future.
I think the difference is that you believe (trust) that those costs will be better controlled, into the future. (I suspect that they will be controlled, for awhile – but not in the long term.) Control of those costs will be left up to future representatives (and continued vigilance, on the part of residents). Given historic patterns, I’m not as optimistic as you, regarding a sustained effort to keep those costs under control.
And, as the city’s residential development increases (without a corresponding, sufficient and stable increase in revenue), the problem will (generally) increase, as well.
Suggestions for progress in Davis–how we each can contribute:
(1) Ban leafblowers– all the filth and noise is spewed not only on yourself (or your hiree), but on you neighbors. Coarse and fine dust is blown back and forth between neighbors over all surfaces, and makes its way onto and into house and apartment windows, partly open car windows, etc. Pick up a rake instead.
(2) Use water wisely. Continue to water your trees so that they do not die, and help keep our wonderful suburban canopy from dying off. Find ways to maintain your beautiful lush lawn and garden with more efficient watering; instead of substituting rocks and bark; which are ugly and hot (and add to dusty surfaces during entire dry season; see (1) above). This helps to keep Davis cooler and less dusty (visit Tucson sometime to see what low-water yards makes of the neighborhoods).
(3) Toad appreciation day; enabled due to (2). Toads eat many harmful bugs. I would support seeding some more native toads into Davis yards. Some day that toad tunnel may be a busy thoroughfare, with toads butting each other out of the way to make it thru, mimicking the human population on the nearby roads.
(4) A Turkey in every yard to make life more interesting here in the flatlands–neighbors can come together and trade turkey anecdotes, making for a more cohesive community and helping initiate more dialogue.
You are quite wrong on this SoD. I have used the CC for business (and pleasure since 1992), and commuted daily since 2001. During commute times, the train often beats the car. As well, when driving, unless one does most business on the phone, it is wasted time. On the train, one has wifi and can get work done on a lap-top, making the time traveled valuable. The train is not cheap, but neither is wearing out your car commuting daily. Many people have their train cost reduced through employer incentive programs. As well, the toll of driving stress on one’s body and mind can be quite costly on multiple levels.
Your right about this too Alan. Commuting on the train is reasonably priced when compared to driving. If you buy a multi ride ticket to SF the ticket alone costs less than many parking facilities in the financial district.
Grok wrote:
> If you buy a multi ride ticket to SF the ticket alone costs
> less than many parking facilities in the financial district.
True but only a small percentage of commute traffic on I80 west through Davis are heading to SF (Sac to SF M-F would be over 20 hours a week in the car). Most are going to Vacaville or Fairfield and it does not make much sense to stop in Davis, park, pay for the train, get off in Fairfield and find a cab or Uber to get to work in Fairfield (or back in Vacaville)…
Actually, there are tones of people who get off the train in Fairfield, Martinez, Richmond, Berkeley and Oakland. You are arguing against something that already works for a lot of people. The Train doesn’t stop in Vacaville.
I appreciate the compliment.
However, I know more about trains than any 30 people you know. Just tellin’ the truth.
Will be interesting to see how Lincoln40 parking gets repurposed when/if driverless car fleets (e.g. Lyft w/o a driver) become popularized. If that happens, many car ownership will drop significantly. I don’t know if Lincoln40 is a podium with subterranean garage or if has surface parking. Subterranean real estate will probably have limited market appeal – a winery perhaps :-). Surface parking will offer more flexibility, but assembling enough contiguous parking spaces might make it difficult to pur together a meaningful amount of square footage. It will be interesting to see how autonomous vehicles change traffic patterns and real estate uses, especially in downtowns.
Surface parking at Lincoln 40.
No driver? Yeah right.
If many people set their car to circle the block so it will be close when they leave a building it will not help.
I’m going to bring this topic out to its own beginning.
Ron said . . . “New development generally requires new/additional services, compared to the current level of services. And, faces the same problem already discussed over time. The services are there to serve developments. “
Ron, the table below is from the EPS fiscal analysis for the Nishi project. It lists the services categories for the City’s current General Fund expenditures. Which of the services in that list “are there to serve developments”?
Annual General Fund Expenditures [3]
City Attorney
City Council
City Manager’s Office
Administrative Services
Community Dev. & Sustainability
Community Services
Parks & Open Space Management
Fire
Police
Public Works
Matt:
I think we’ve covered this issue sufficiently, above. You have previously acknowledged that residential development generally does not cover the cost of required services, over time. Not sure why you’re challenging me, now.
All of the above?
Do I win the Corvette, Carol?
🙂
If Ron got his way and 100% of all Development ceased, all of those services would continue to incur expenses. Those expenses are not because of development. The growth of those expenses would continue even if no Development happened. The only way that the growth of those expenses is going to happen is if we practice fiscal discipline.
If “Ron got his way”, Matt would stop making false statements and conclusions about what Ron said. 🙂 And, Matt would acknowledge what he previously acknowledged, without continuing to prod Ron with questions that don’t relate to the primary point.
Ron –
I give up. Repeat your false statement as often as you wish. I will continue to note that it is false, and I will conclude that you are intentionally trying to deceive whenever you repeat it.
Have a nice night.
[moderator] Comment removed. Please read and adhere to the Vanguard Comment Policy.
Frankly:
You too? You’re one of the (early) commenters that explained the situation to me, and the reason that we need commercial development to help pay for costs (caused by having too much money-losing residential development, vs. revenue-generating commercial development).
Here’s a link again, in case anyone’s interested. (“Residential development is almost always a municipal money loser”.) It also addresses some challenges regarding commercial development.
https://books.google.com/books?id=LCCvnLt2AbcC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=is+residential+development+a+money+loser+for+communities&source=bl&ots=Z0RKAWELyW&sig=giIXiosXjs42kdMiEefWcyL9HeQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic1Y3Wno3PAhUI4GMKHXz8A2EQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=is%20residential%20development%20a%20money%20loser%20for%20communities&f=false
Maybe we we should just knock down some houses to balance our budget. Wonder where to start? (if only I knew how to make smiley faces like Ron).
Then instead of calling them no growthers they would be referred to as negative growthers.
Thanks, Adam. I know that I was able to make a point successfully, when I start getting comments like that. 🙂
(Type the colon key, followed immediately by the right-hand parentheses key. Alan reminded me how to do it.)
I’ll have to learn some new tricks, though.
Well, that’s one interpretation, there are certainly others.
🙂
Yippee!
🙁
Wow, the frown face works too!
Start with those that have opted out of the parcel tax