I was reading a letter to the editor this weekend that asks whether we should think of developers as villains. The letter concludes: “The bottom line is, developers are not in any way public servants. They are doing what they do for their own profit. Hence, many of them give us the impression of being, to use your word, villains.”
While there are some points raised here – I think it is important to note that developers are not supposed to be public servants, although at times they may be considered to perform a service to the community.
After all – do you like your home? Do you wish that your home was not here? At some time, a developer built your home and, depending on where you might live, that decision might even have been controversial.
Given that we all need a place to live – is it really helpful to villainize the people whose job it is to provide that housing?
At the same time, I think there are better developments and worse developments. I still largely believe that building Covell Village would have been a mistake. I am still not a huge fan of the Cannery development – particularly in its current form.
The letter writer goes through a litany of complaints over the years.
She writes, “I have closely followed quite a few local building proposals and projects. In all of the ones I followed there was a large element of sneakiness, such as sneaking in more units and less open space.”
She continues, “There were carefully worded lies, such as saying water use in the now-approved dormitory project for the former FamiliesFirst site (which will have one bathroom per bedroom) would be ‘metered.’ Later, the developer was forced to admit that the meters will be ‘informational only.’”
Next she goes after Paso Fino about which she notes, “Years ago, the first development proposal was to build two houses. Some years later the developers proposed eight large houses. After much negotiation with the city and neighbors, they ‘compromised’ with ‘only’ six still larger houses.
“That was three times what the original developer proposed. Much more profitable.”
Then she moves on to MRIC, and she notes that it “at first, for a lot of good reasons and in order to get approval from City Council and citizens, had no housing component. Then it came back with houses in the proposal. This would have enhanced profits for the builders but would not have added the type of housing Sagehorn, and the rest of us, would appreciate getting. Then the developers, facing opposition, took the proposal off the table.
“Now they’re back,” she says. “One thing about developers is they have a lot of money and resources, and they usually get what they want in the end.”
She adds, “When developers build ‘affordable housing,’ it is specifically the kind for low-income people to apply for. Non-qualified people, senior or otherwise, cannot rent or buy it.”
Thus she concludes, “The bottom line is, developers are not in any way public servants.”
To push back a little:
First, I think most developers would argue that they do not get what they precisely want in the end.
There is the fact that developers are 0 for 3 on Measure R votes. The Paso Fino example shows a greatly scaled-back proposal from what the developer initially asked for. Both the Hyatt House hotel and the Sterling Apartments ended up scaled back, as has the Hotel Conference Center.
Back in 2005, the city council attempted to ram through the huge Covell Village development, but with Measure J in place, the voters rejected it 60-40.
Last year, the council was willing to approve Nishi after some modifications, but perhaps did not go far enough as Nishi went down by a more modest vote.
The council in recent years has worked hard to find compromise between the developers’ projects and community and neighbor concerns. A conflict resolution process at both Sterling and the Hyatt House resulted in reduced sizes and community benefits.
In my view, the key variable is not the developer but rather the city council. The developer’s job is not to be a public servant. They are driven by the need to see a return on what is at times a rather large investment.
It is the neighbors’ and community’s job to use the public process to act as a counterweight. The community needs to be vigilant in looking at potential impacts, discovering potential problems, and alerting city staff and council to these problems.
Finally, it is the job of council to weigh a variety of factors. The council needs to concern itself with the good of the community, the impacts on neighbors and roadways, and also the viability of the project.
This process works best when the council is engaged and willing to honestly try to make a project work best for all involved. The council could have rammed through the Hyatt House on a 3-1 vote, but instead decided to take it back to the developer and neighbors to work out some differences, and the result was a project that the neighbors could at least not have to oppose.
I hear complaints from both sides on these things and that suggests to me that, while perhaps both sides do not get everything they want, the council has done their best to balance the needs. A decade ago, I’m not sure I would have agreed with this point, but I think the council is more engaged in the need for conflict resolution.
Yes, developers are going to do what they can to maximize profit – that’s how the system works. However, if the system works well, there is a balance of needs that go into the final decision-making process.
Could it work better? Always. But it is a process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Paso Fino was not subject to a Measure R vote…. did you intend to say Wildhorse Ranch?
No, what I intended to show was that in addition to the failures of the three Measure R votes, three other projects including Paso Fino had to be scaled down due to neighborhood concerns.
“After all – do you like your home? Do you wish that your home was not here? “
Perhaps you are making the assumption that most everyone will answer these questions “Yes” and “No”. But this ignores the reality for those who must choose from options none of which they like. This was my situation when we bought in North Star 26 years ago. We had decided to live in Davis for many reasons. There were no homes I liked but one which my husband loved. We bought it. I never liked the house, the neighborhood, or even the concept of a bedroom community. And I did wish that it were not there since I would have preferred farming, an extension of the park, or even just open space to the home that was built.
I also wanted to point out that there is a difference between telling the truth, that developers are in this for profit, since it is after all how they make their living, and villianization. Of course I am sure that most want to make a project that will enhance rather than harm a community. However, I think it is also important to note than there are competing views of what enhances vs what harms and that there are developers who are honest enough to admit those differences, and there are those who would villianize those who have a differing opinion ( NIMBY).
” I never liked the house, the neighborhood, or even the concept of a bedroom community.”
Did you profit from the home when you and your husband divorced? Is your current home all that you would hope? Was it built by and in a community planned by a developer?
I am in a similar quandary right now. I have certain housing requirements that must be met within the reach of my fixed income. I am finding very little beyond basic shelter in marginalized neighborhoods. I will be happy if and when I find a home I can afford that is accessible for my missus and accommodates our small menagerie and household furnishings. I would be thrilled to have the option of farm land or a park setting, but for most people, they “settle” for the best shelter they can afford.
I hope (and believe) that you have a home that you like in Davis. I hope you will not “villianize” those who view your position as privileged and antagonistic to their needs and desires.
Hi John,
I am happy to answer your questions.
I do indeed have a home with which I am very happy here in Davis. No, I did not profit from it from the home at the time of my divorce. “All I would hope?” No, it was a “real fixer upper” as my daughter said when I bought it, and we are still working on it project by project as time and money allow. No. It is not in a community planned by a developer.
“those who view your position as privileged and antagonistic to their needs and desires.”
We are in agreement on half of your statement. As a matter of fact, I am so cognizant of my own privilege ( white, female, affluent) that I recently wrote a piece on the Vanguard about my privileged situation. As for antagonistic to the needs and desires of others, not at all. I strongly encourage others with differing needs to speak up for themselves and have often joined in with them when I think they are right. If you do not believe this is true, check on my positions with regard to the homeless, to affordable housing, to student housing, to income and wealth inequality. However, just as I believe that everyone has the right to speak their truth, I also believe that the right extends to me.
Tia, if your divorce was governed by the state’s community property law and your family owned the house, you did profit from the appreciation in house value even if you didn’t get the sales proceeds directly.
But more importantly, that you chose to live in this community and to stay here also meant that you enjoyed this place. If you thought it was so important to live in a different type of community, you would have left and never come back. Instead, a developer gave you a place to reside in a community that you now find sufficiently enjoyable that you haven’t left, and in fact are quite involved in. As you said, you couldn’t find another house in town, so if instead a park or a farm had been built there instead, you would have never lived in Davis. That is the gist of David’s commentary. We never get the “perfect home” but we try to get one that makes us sufficiently happy.
Within Capitalism – or rather its acceptance – greed and profit are the villains and a safety net one of our hero mechanisms. The USA has the worst one, relevant to its capabilities.
Anyway, I was thinking: Seems like all the slightly rotten-smelling banks* downtown are served on a bed of stale asphalt – dans le style du cratère de stationnement – wouldn’t they make more money if they built on them?
* Je suis membre d’une union de crédit.
“Within Capitalism – or rather its acceptance – greed and profit are the villains and a safety net one of our hero mechanisms. The USA has the worst one, relevant to its capabilities.”
A trio of graduate degree holders has parsed this posting as many ways as we can conjure and find no meaning, whatsoever. Perhaps you could simplify it for the English language readers.
(sarcasm)
Reject the tyranny of comprehension, simply repeat and obey.
Are developers villains? Of course they are not, as such.
Some developers have approached our neighborhood (and others) being open, straightforward, communicative, and respectful of neighborhood guidelines and values. Others have approached our neighborhood (and others) being dishonest, secretive and manipulative, telling different people different stories, and declaring our guidelines and values as meaningless or out-of-date.
While it is true some Davisites villainize developers, simply the profession chosen does not make one a villain. What does make one a villain is — being a developer who is also an a**hole.
“Villains”? Not outside of a deep Leftist critique. But let’s consider regulations, safeguards and whatnot:
I was not happy to wear some HighBridge Properties Lincoln40-branded stuff as part of my ID as a volunteer at the Davis Music Fest a couple of weeks ago. Of course “Lincoln40” doesn’t exist – not yet – and I must say the developers were quite clever at taking advantage of this opportunity just around the beginning of the EIR public comments period for the project.
I am sure that this is legal, my jury’s still discussing if it’s unethical but it sure is manipulative during what should be a democratic development process. Still, I suppose any coalesced to the level of legal entity opposition to Lincoln40 could have also been a “partner” in the festival, or protested outside.
But let’s be clear: Is HighBridge discussing in its marketing for Lincoln40 the risks to adults living within about 300 yards of a highway?
Wow, villainy is now defined as failing to roll over completely to the desires of others (who are in fact looking out for their own self interests over all others, which I guess makes them villains.) Public servants can be villains (but of course the vast majority are not). My favorite current example is the former president of the California Public Utilities Commission. On the other hand, while I’ve known some developers I’ve had doubts about, I can name at least two in this town that I see as particularly virtuous, Mike Corbett and Bill Streng. Streng was exactly the kind of developer that David was alluding to. Corbett is visionary. Many of us wish to live in the neighborhoods they built. Life is full of trade offs–none of us will ever get exactly what we want. Let’s acknowledge that in our discourse.
One might ask if “villainizing” slow-growthers is helpful to community discourse. (Seems like that occurs much more often on the Vanguard, compared to villainizing developers.)
Perhaps… both slow/no-growthers and developers generally are motivated by ‘self-interest’ (“greed”, if you will)… developers are usually straight forward about that… slow/no-growthers generally are not. Goes to honesty and integrity.
Hard to have a useful community discourse involving folk who hide or dissemble in regards to their motivations/agendas.
Howard P, then why are YOU hiding?
By the way I will say it clearly: All of the housing between the train tracks and I-80 needs to be moved to other parts of Davis, away from this child-abusing infrastructure, and we should figure out a way to make the State and Federal Govt. to pay for it.
Or close or filter the highway.
What other parts of Davis? Would you fill in the parks? What about a measure R vote for new land to put them on? What if scientific studies showed other areas even further from the freeway also need moving. As for state and feds paying, what makes Davis so special? What about the millions of residents in less wealthy cities, towns, farms and bergs all over the state who are also near freeways? Why is Davis so special in deserving these federal funds?
Would you close I-80 in its entirety, or just through Davis? If in its entirety, where would you route people? If just through Davis, do you propose the cars go around or through Davis, or just crash into concrete barriers when they reach the city limits?
As for ‘highway filters’, where are those installed? Are they available at Cosco?
Filter the highway!
I both agree and disagree Howard. The self-interest (we agree) manifests itself in different forms. The slow/no growthers are waging a war (often with limited resources), while the developers are running a business (often with substantial resources). The story line that produces is akin to David vs. Goliath and/or Gulliver’s Travels. Some would call it democracy vs. oligarchy.
The expression “all’s fair in love and war” really doesn’t relate to honesty and integrity, but rather expediency. As long as the two sides of this long-running battle stay on their respective turf … with no common ground rules (a functioning and legally compliant General Plan) to guide them, the discord that dominates the discussions of land use will continue to be bloody and unproductive.
Based on results the no growth side is the Goliath.
Jim: Perhaps in comparison to every other valley town (where growth and development interests are relatively unchallenged).
If you think there’s a “lack of development” in Davis, you might want to read yesterday’s article from the Enterprise:
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/davis-real-estate-sales-remain-brisk/
That is a really funny article to post if you’re trying to make a point about growth.
That is a clear description of a market that is very, very short of inventory.
This is (first and foremost) a “guess” regarding motivations. If one looks at all of the comments I’ve made, you’ll see that I advocate a stabilization in population growth (and associated development) everywhere, not just where I have an “interest”. (Actually, I periodically make comments in other publications outside of Davis, as well.) I’ve also been involved in various land-preservation efforts, in places where I have no “interest”.
The few people that I know who are at the forefront of the local “slow-growth” movement are absolutely not driven by greed. (You really do have this wrong.)
As someone else once said, only economists and madmen believe that growth and development can occur indefinitely, on a finite planet. Our impact far outweighs our urban footprints. There’s other life forms on this planet (besides humans), as well.
Your comment helps illuminate the reason for anger that you sometimes demonstrate toward me. (I’m not surprised that you, in particular, responded negatively to my comment.)
I appreciated Todd’s comment. (Even though he and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum, in some ways.)
I think it’s safer to say you are an advocate for stabilized population growth that is zero and that you have opposed all recent projects infill and otherwise.
David: That is not true. However, it is true that I frequently note that infill has impacts, and its feasibility is realistically limited, as well. (You’ve stated this, yourself.)
But yes – at some point (not sure when), the population as a whole must stabilize. (Unless we’re planning to colonize other planets.) It’s possible that we’ve already essentially exceeded the long-term carrying capabilities of this planet (at least, with any “quality of life”). Time will tell.
By the way, I just accidentally “ignored” Matt’s comments. Can you fix this, along with the problems that I periodically have seeing your comments?
Rather than assert it is untrue, please show me where I’m incorrect.
Call me on Wednesday when I get back to the office and I will fix the problem.
David: You’re the one who made the allegation. It’s up to you to “prove” that what you’re stating is correct. (If you do so, please include all proposed infill developments, and specific comments where I’ve stated that I oppose it.)
The basis of my comment is your consistent opposition to all development projects infill or otherwise.
Prove it. (You won’t be able to, because it’s factually untrue.) I can sort of understand, however, why you think that.
How about you simply tell me which project you’ve supported
Here’s a list of current projects on the city’s website.
1111 RICHARDS HOTEL
BAROVETTO PLACE
CANNERY SUBDIVISION
CHILES RANCH SUBDIVISION
GRANDE SUBDIVISION
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL
LINCOLN 40 APARTMENTS
MACE RANCH INNOVATION CENTER
MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN
NISHI AND DOWNTOWN/UNIVERSITY GATEWAY DISTRICT
STERLING 5TH STREET APTS.
TRACKSIDE CENTER
David: Although it’s not my responsibility to “disprove” your allegation, I’ll provide a few examples that I haven’t opposed. (However, I support the concerns of neighbors, who generally have specific concerns which don’t entirely derail the proposed development.)
Additional/adequate student housing, on campus.
All hotel proposals.
The proposal downtown (described in the Vanguard), in which neighbors have expressed concerns regarding parking, for example. (I’ve forgotten which street it’s on.)
Trackside. (Again, taking into account the concerns of neighbors.)
Various affordable housing complexes (of which there are several).
Del Rio (live-work units, in Mace Ranch).
The Cannery. (Although not exactly a supporter, I believed that this was a viable “alternative” to the disasterous Covell Village proposal.)
Chiles Ranch. (To be honest, I wasn’t paying much attention, at that time. However, I knew that this land would be developed, regardless.)
The “notorious” Davis ACE parking lot proposal.
Regardless, a position which states the “obvious” – that even infill development can’t continue indefinitely – is not something to dismiss as the ramblings of a “slow growth” advocate.
Perhaps “telling” that your article focuses on “demonizing developers” (without providing any examples on the Vanguard, at least), while simultaneously challenging me. (Actually, my single comment seems to have generated a lot of “concern” and subsequent back-and-forth comments, from the usual pro-development “suspects”.)
Forgot to mention Willow Creek. (Actually, I don’t think Don’s list, which I just saw, is complete.) Nor is my list.
I should perhaps mention that I don’t think it’s a good idea to concentrate affordable housing developments in any particular location, within the city. These should be spread out.
By the way, perhaps you and Don could mention the proposals that you’ve opposed. (Infill, and peripheral, along with your reasons.) (I realize that Davis opposed Covell Village. Anything else?)
Correct, Willow Creek isn’t on their list. It’s just current projects, I guess. Also, West Davis Active Adult Community is on their list.
Mace Ranch
opposed to process, acknowledged compromise
Covell Village
opposed, too big, site will obviously be developed some day.
West Village
support, favor expansion if necessary
Wildhorse Ranch
opposed
The Cannery
supported business park, supported business park/residential if necessary, opposed final iteration – missed opportunity for greater density.
smaller infill such as
Trackside
Chiles Ranch
Grande
etc.
all fine subject to working with neighbors.
Large affordable housing complexes (eg, New Harmony)
oppose these projects in principle
Sterling
supported
Nishi
supported
Don – yes. Also, there’s a new development south of I-80, adjacent to Mace Blvd. Not sure if all houses have been sold.
Perhaps you and David could list all of the developments that you’ve opposed (infill, or peripheral), along with your reasons?
Don: Thanks. Some of your responses aren’t quite clear, but at least you’ve put forth something.
David’s turn, now. (He started this, by challenging me.)
I said not “financial interest”… you have made a number of comments, on various projects, here and elsewhere, as you readily admit… thus, that shows me “interest”… yet you hide/disguise those ‘interests’… you perfectly make my point. Thanks…
Your responses to David further confirm…
Howard: You’re either purposefully misrepresenting my previous comments (in other words, lying), or you’re misunderstanding (and not fully recalling) them.
Which is it?
No – I won’t be withdrawing that comment. It’s time to shine some light on your comments, once again.
Perhaps more importantly, why am I wasting my time responding to a troll?
Just to clarify, I do have an “interest” where I share ownership of a home. As do many others (including you, apparently). Does that “disqualify” me from providing input? (If so, maybe you should take the lead, on that.)
Those who are advocating for an “update” to the General Plan are generally those who are pushing for more development than the current plan allows for.
The General Plan shouldn’t impact the amount of housing built. The constraints on housing will be unaffected by a new General Plan.
David: That makes no sense.
Given Measure R, there is really no real way to increasing the number of houses built. Or do you disagree?
David: There absolutely is a way to increase the number of residences built within the city, by changing land use designations/zoning.
Unless you either finance/build them, or permit others to do so, there is no way to build additional housing, Ron. An inconvenient truth.
I can think of no mechanism that forces more housing to be built… in ANY form…
No Ron… there are two sets of advocates for a GP revision… and they are on opposite sides of the ‘development’ spectrum… and those in the middle pay the major costs of those extreme efforts. Man up… admit you’d love a GP that says growth is ‘eye-dropper’-like, and only then if it is PC as far as type…
Howard: I have no idea what you’re talking about. Once again, some unfounded statements.
I fully understand your first sentence. And, fully agree…
Don: You’ve “cherry-picked” one sentence regarding price and inventory, while ignoring the remainder of the article describing all of the developments under construction and imminently planned. (For all we know, the example that you’re describing may have been “purposefully underpriced”, to generate interest. That’s a sales technique that’s used, sometimes.)
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/davis-real-estate-sales-remain-brisk/
I guess you missed my other comment the other day, in which I noted that a local real estate professional stated that he (his office?) expects a downturn in the market, in a couple of years from now. He has been remarkably accurate, in his predictions.
How quickly we all forget the “other” housing crisis, from approximately 2007-2011.
To some degree, it’s like the stock market. People seem to “buy high”, and “sell low”. And, they consistently forget that both the stock and housing markets are subject to cycles (downturns, and upturns).
Both times I bought property in Davis, I bought low… only property I sold, sold ‘high’… I may well be an ‘outlier’… it is true that I think many bought high, are afraid of selling low, and therefore really want to control the ‘market’ anyway they can.
Howard: I was speaking generally. Where was all of the “interest” in purchasing housing a few years ago, during the housing crash? (Not just in Davis, but everywhere?) Are there suddenly that many more people with jobs?
Now that prices have (pretty much) recovered, purchasing housing is “popular”, once again. Probably would have been smarter to do so 5 years ago.
I don’t think there are many in Davis who “bought high”, and are now afraid of “selling low”. (Certainly not something I’m “afraid of”, regardless of what is realistically built.) However, there is sometimes a fear (among buyers) that if one doesn’t buy now, they’ll be priced out of the market. (That’s often what happens when prices get out-of-hand. I’m not sure we’ve reached that point.) At times, some in the real estate industry encourage that type of fear. (Perhaps coupled with predictions of a rise in interest rates.)
Everyone seems to forget that real estate markets go up, and go down. (Each time, the “bottom” and “top” are usually, but not always, higher than the previous cycle.)
Let’s see… during the tail end of the ‘housing crash’ my daughter bought a very nice home, @ ~ $100/sf, @ 4 % interest on a 30 year loan (now worth $125/sf 4 years later)… yes, markets go up and down… idiots buy high… has always been that way… ‘there is nothing new under the sun’.
My daughter was smart, as her mother and I were… I feel no need to suffer nor subsidize fools… no/slow growth may well be a ‘subsidy’ for those in Davis who ‘bought high’… no sympathy there, and a bit of revulsion for those who would manipulate the market to cover their ‘losses’…
Ultimately, housing is a place to live, not an investment priority…
I seriously doubt that anyone in Davis whose vision consists of “slow growth” bought high, nor is it likely that they are trying to manipulate the market to sell soon, to cover their (non-existent) losses. The few folks I’m familiar with are long-term residents, who are trying to prevent Davis from experiencing the fate of every other surrounding community. (Uniquely compounded by pressures from UCD.)
Some of those same “slow-growth” individuals are at the forefront of efforts to ensure that students and others connected to UCD have adequate housing on-campus. (Seems strange that anyone would do so, if they’re truly trying to “restrict supply”, overall.) Others (like me) are also not clamoring for “Innovation Centers”, despite the increase in demand for housing (and supposedly, value of existing housing) that such developments would create.
Your conclusions regarding motivation defy common sense. However, I agree that housing is a place to live, and is generally not an investment (in the traditional sense of that word).
Thought that was worth repeating, after seeing some of the comments (which started soon after I first made that comment), above.
Wrong again, in my view [as to “repeating”]… but, only my view… your opinions may vary… no issue with that…