This past week, I have driven discussions intended to ferret out where the public stands on Cannery and a vision for Davis. In the past several weeks, people from all walks of life have actually been questioning Measure J – its intended purpose and its effectiveness.
While I was going to UC Davis as a graduate student when Measure J passed, I was not actually living in the city of Davis at that time, but I likely would have voted for Measure J. Measure R was an easy call for me, as I saw it as a way for the people to be able to choose the developments in their community.
I wished to avoid the situation where a city council was out of step on development issues from the rest of the community. On the other hand, a few councilmembers over the years said that Measure J was a security blanket that allowed the public to vote for certain nice guys, knowing that they couldn’t get Covell Village-type developments through without a fight.
I asked everyone else where they stand on development, as, for me, I like the size of Davis. I have lived in more urban areas – Sacramento, Washington DC, St. Louis, among others, and prefer the pace and lifestyle of Davis. Between that lifestyle and the schools, I have made sacrifices to stay here. I’m fine with that, frankly.
However, I do have concerns that Davis is pricing young families with children out of our community and I do believe that Davis has an opportunity to take advantage of the high-tech revolution and the growth of UC Davis into a top-notch university, and would hate to see the rest of the region benefit more than Davis from the world-class university.
I believe we can do a lot of this without changing the fundamental nature of Davis. I think we need to look at key infill sites that have been suggested and existing land first, but I’m also not completely opposed to going onto the periphery with the right project for the right purposes. But the citizens still need to maintain a measure of control because I do not want to see Davis at 100,000 in the near future.
Measure R is important because it prevents a city council from simply rolling out the carpet and allowing just any development on the periphery. When I look at some of the projects that have passed, I think we could have done better.
I am concerned with the multitude of interests that push and pull both councilmembers and city staff. The old guard in this community are protective of their turf and use their resources to fight those who dare to challenge them.
Davis was an innovative community perhaps 30 years ago, but it has since been passed up by a number of more innovative and ambitious communities, and that is too bad.
So with all of that laid on the table, here are a few concerns.
I have heard from more than a few people that Measure J/Measure R will prevent any new development on Davis’ periphery. I do not agree with that at all. The basis for that assertion is two data points.
First, Covell Village which failed 60-40 in 2005. While the economy was in decent shape at that time, the voters balked for a number of reasons at that particular development. First, it was huge, at 2000 units – give or take. Second, the traffic impacts on Covell Blvd. would have been crippling and the plan did not adequately address them.
The bottom line is that there were fatal flaws to Covell Village that ultimately led to its demise. Ironically, had Covell Village passed, it might have led to the bankruptcy of the developers as the real estate market was collapsing just as the first wave of houses would have come on line.
Four years later, the real estate market was at its low point when Measure P, Wildhorse Ranch came before the voters. The atmosphere with the neighbors had been poisoned with a previous design and the developers failed to get the neighbors on board with a revised design. The bottom line is that the active opposition, concerns about the project and the general community belief that this was the wrong time for housing led to the massive failure of Measure P.
So, based on those two data points, are all Measure R projects that propose housing doomed to failure?
I don’t believe so. I think a smart, well-designed, innovative project could very well pass.
Now if Cannery Park goes on the ballot, do I think it will go down? The size of the project is one problem. The awkward design due to the rail tracks and surrounding parcels presents other problems. Assuming that Cannery Park can address some of the connectivity, senior housing, affordable housing and sustainability concerns, I think it has a shot, but it is by no means a shoe-in.
And that is actually a problem. I have heard various estimates about how much the developers stand to make on a project of this size and scope, but it’s clearly in the tens of millions of dollars, if not over $100 million.
At that payoff, a company the size of ConAgra can afford to expend the money needed on the process – EIR, mitigation, even ballot costs and campaign expenses if it comes to that.
But now picture the type of project that people are more likely to approve – smaller, very innovative, more expensive design, but far less profit. So can an individual developer, one who has financial backing but can’t exactly be throwing millions around, afford to risk spending perhaps half a million on those costs – EIR, mitigation, ballot costs, and campaign expenses – in the wake of the uncertainty that they face of getting their project through council, on the ballot, and to the voters?
That may be the interesting irony of Measure R – it is designed to preclude the massive Covell Villages of the world, but those are the only types of developments that are likely to go forward, given the expense and uncertainty of the process.
I’m not going to pretend I have an answer to this paradox as I’m not in favor of doing away with Measure J. While I believe we have a number of opportunities to make for a better community, I also believe that policies that prevented runaway growth largely saved this city and helped preserve a higher quality of life.
I do think we need to come up with a plan that most of us can live with, to move forward and prevent this great community from stagnating or missing opportunities before us for improvement.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Yes.
Yes it is. It was put on the ballot by the most anti-growth majority in Davis history including Wagstaff, Greenwald and Harrington. Its intention was to block peripheral development and it has mostly succeeded. its unintended consequences have been making Davis unaffordable due to lack of housing supply, peripheral development at West Village and poor planning at Cannery and Covell Village that should be planned together but won’t be because one is in the city and the other isn’t.
Also densification, something people favor as long as it isn’t in their backyard.
Measure J/R is working great. It let’s the people choose instead of a minority of the community steering development and growth.
You mean the popularly elected representatives of the people of Davis. Ballot box decision making leads to terrible planning. Measure R is working as intended the consequences are not so hot.
Yes.
It has announced to one and all that any development proposal is in for a massive political fight. It has labeled people with the vision, motivation and money to develop as greedy vultures before any discussion begins. It has put potential elected leaders on notice that stopping growth is the top single-issue politics of the community. It has dramatically increased the value of land and existing houses owned by those who advanced Measures J and R.
On the other hand, it has stopped the influx of families we need to keep Davis a vibrant family community. It requires that the school system that drew so many residents in the past now “recruit” students from other districts–about 500 at this point–just to keep open the neighborhood schools we still have.
On the other hand, it has helped put the city on an unsustainable path for financing basic services and improvements and it has distorted the shaping of the town’s character. Recreation opportunities and quality streets that have helped make Davis more livable are fading. Our “quaint” downtown transforms into an accumulation of bars and eateries to fulfill the needs and desires of our transient student population.
On the other hand, the scheme to allow “expansion” through infill to meet the city’s housing and business needs has failed. The biggest property owners downtown and close-in show no interest in offering up their space for development (Ace, Enterprise, utility company, city). Other than allowing areas already slated for housing construction to proceed, “infill” has come to mean putting up a 50-foot-tall condo in the middle of town and adding a story so one’s house towers over the rest of the neighborhood.
On the other hand, it is transforming more and more neighborhoods into student housing enclaves because neither the university nor the city is planning or developing new housing that will accommodate the growing UCD population. If you think we’re a company town now, just wait 15 or 20 years.
On the other hand, it is forcing our aging population to age in place–even the ones who would rather move to another place and free up single family homes. And, it has made our well-intentioned affordable housing program a bigger joke that it would have been. And, it has made spec development efforts for economic development parks at city city’s edge an impossibility.
Other than these few unintended consequences, the measures are working exactly as intended. Davis has developed the reputation of a town ready to fight any development that would expand the city limits. We’ve drawn the red line.
are the slow growthers admitting that measure j/ r were intended to be a zero growth initiative or a zero peripheral growth initiative?
NO
Of course not. Such an admission would expose the unreasonableness of their position. Daring the “right project at the right time” to come along suggests an open mind, yet keeps the no-growth goal intact.
“Yes. “
so when you put measure j on the ballot, you intended that only large corporations would apply for large projects?
growth: so you think it’s okay that only large projects will come forward because smaller projects won’t pay out enough for the developer to roll the dice?
that said just saying, how would you propose limiting growth outside of a measure j process?
[quote]growth: so you think it’s okay that only large projects will come forward because smaller projects won’t pay out enough for the developer to roll the dice? [/quote]
Not true, currently there’s a small project in its initial stages for Wildhorse Ranch.
and from what i’ve heard, they are balking at the measure j process costs.
By developing a strong city planning and zoning document with full citizen participation for an expanded city-limit area that anticipates needs and desires for 50 years or more. Then, direct/allow our elected city council and staff to implement it and regularly update it with our participation. Eliminate long, agonizing, expensive proposal period that have Measure J votes hanging over them.
They had to know what they were getting into when they got into the project, so I have to believe they already know whatever costs were going to be associated with it. They must think that even with those costs that the project will still pencil out. Their problem is more of a case of getting the community on board and in order to do that it’s going to have to be a good development for the people of the community. I have no problem with that, do you?
while a thoughtful and intriguing response, i remain concerned about the potential for the process to be corrupted by developers with influence and deep pockets.
growth: you’re speculating, i’m not. i’ve talked to people in the last few days who have spoken to the developer and this concern was brought up.
[quote]growth: you’re speculating, i’m not. i’ve talked to people in the last few days who have spoken to the developer and this concern was brought up. [/quote]
I went to a Wildhorse Ranch developer’s community meeting and one of the presenters said they already had $100,000 into the project. I would personally find it hard to believe that they would sink that much money into a project without already knowing what Measure R costs might be involved but that’s speculation on my part and I could be wrong.
I am prepared to go through the public vote process, I am a firm believer a quality project will win a vote. I may be the only person in this town that believes this, thats ok its my checkbook. What I am not happy about is spending an enormous amount of cash on a new EIR for a project that is 25% the size of of the one studied 4 years ago. By the time I get through this process, I will not make the next round of elections and will have to have a special election at an enormous cost. Are we stopping, no, but we are taking a hard look at the total costs to get to a vote. There is no question, the economics are getting fuzzy and I am sure many folks are not to sad about that. I am a local guy trying to create a great project, my corporate headquarters are in Davis not Nebraska.
I appreciate the forum and your input, here are some items that are confusing to me with Measure R.
1. Most everyone in town thinks measure R is only for parcels in the City, this parcel is in the city.
2. The ag buffer that is supposed to define the urban edge/ag boundary is in place, this parcel is inside of it.
3. Do we have to look at either Urban or Ag? Why not integrate the 2.
Thanks,
Jim Donovan
well neve rmind one of my concerns.
Jim, here’s how I understand it:
1. Measure R is only for parcels outside the city. However, those against development of the cannery property (inside our city limits) are trying to sway the city council voting by threatening to generate a referendum if the council votes the “wrong” way, assuming that everyone thinks a public vote will doom the project.
2. Correct, but no nevermind. We don’t like housing developments anywhere, past or presently offered. They’re “urban sprawl.”
3. Correct. See answer #2, however.
Good luck living and prospering in a town where the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Measure R applies to Wildhorse Ranch because it is a rezoning from ag to residential.
With respect to the original question of this article, it is clear that Measure J/R reflects the will of the public regarding how and where Davis grows. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to put it back on the ballot every decade or so for renewal. LIkewise, the Measure L that was passed in the 1980’s could be revisited. Those are the clearest expressions we have as to what the public wants here.
For those who don’t know the measures, here is some info.
Measure L (1986):
[quote] According to Mike Fitch in his book Growing Pains, Measure L contained three guiding principles:
•Davis should grow as slowly as it legally could;
•Future growth should be concentrated on lands already within the city limits and additional annexations should be discouraged; and
The county should not approve development on the periphery of Davis unless the city gives its stamp of approval by ruling it consistent with the Davis General Plan. Measure L included several findings, including the beliefs that “the prime agricultural land surrounding Davis is a resource of local, state and national importance” and “the growth of Davis is an issue best determined by Davis citizens without outside pressure or influence.”[/quote]
[url]http://daviswiki.org/June_1986_Election/Measure_L[/url]
Measure R:
[url]http://daviswiki.org/June_2010_Election/Measure_R[/url]
This 2010 renewal of Measure J passed with 76.7% yes, 23.3% no.
The original Measure J vote was 53.6% yes, 46.3% no.
So those who think the mood of the electorate has changed are probably right, but not in the way they think they are.
Don,
I am all for protecting Agricultural Land as defined by CEQA, the USDA, and the Ca Dept of Conservation FMMP program. I think the spirit of measure J/R and the General Plan is to protect Agricultural Land, there are 4 classifications that meet this definition: 1. Prime Ag Land, 2.Unique, 3. Lands of Statewide Importance 4. Lands of Local Importance. The Wildhorse parcel is classified as “Other” according to CEQA and the USDA and State, not even Agricultural Land.
We have to be careful where urban development is placed with respect to Agricultural Land, if not placed correctly you risk losing more Agricultural Land due to its proximity to Urban. Thus the Ag Buffer.
An analogy would be the community gardens on 5th street, it has great soil and you can grow crops on a small scale but it is not Agricultural Land.
[i]I like the size of Davis.[/i]
Somebody owning this opinion needs to put more context to it.
Why?
What exactly do you not like (fear?) about a larger Davis?
The way I see it, there are six domains of value related to a city we chose to live in:
– Residence/neighborhood
– Retail/entertainment
– Business/job
– Crime/Safety
– Transportation
– People
We all live in neighborhoods, and that neighborhood is generally an island in and of itself. I can live in a big bustling city, and retreat to a well designed urban neighborhood that incorporates the amenities I desire for my residence… and that hustling and bustling city would not be a concern. Also, a city that does a good job growing to meet demand produces more affordable housing.
Retail and entertainment choices can increase for a larger city.
Business (tax revenue) and job opportunities increase for a larger city.
Crime / safety problems can increase as a city grows in population, but they do not have to. There are a lot of larger cities that have lower crime-per-capita than Davis. Smart development can include enough bike and pedestrian lanes and crossings to minimize accidents.
Many larger cities have better public transportation options than Davis. Auto traffic can certainly increase, but smart planning can mitigate much of that.
Most larger cities have a more diverse population than Davis. But then maybe that is the main concern of people demanding no ad slow growth. If so, I sure wish they would admit it.
The bottom line is that a statement like “I like the size of Davis” is really quite useless in understanding the underlying values it derives from or supports. I think city size is largely irrelevant… it is just a proxy for those that don’t want to admit their true likes and dislikes.
“Measure R applies to Wildhorse Ranch because it is a rezoning from ag to residential.”
So, Measure R applies to parcels within the city limits if the zoning request goes from ag to residential, as well as parcels outside the city limits? I stand corrected, shamusd.
Also, I still had the cannery project in mind, so ignore my grouchy view that Davis is ready to vote down [u]any[/u] development that goes to a vote (although I’m probably correct).
I thought it was a silt loam. But, like Nishi, in my opinion it is kind of a relic parcel that shouldn’t preclude development. This isn’t an issue of loss of ag land; that was rendered moot when the rest of Wildhorse was built. But exceptions weren’t written into Measure J/R.
[quote]What I am not happy about is spending an enormous amount of cash on a new EIR for a project that is 25% the size of of the one studied 4 years ago.[/quote]
I assume you’ve already pursued this, but could you just submit the old EIR with a summary of changes that relate to your project? Would staff and council accept that?
Frankly
I simply don’t believe that your “size doesn’t matter” argument just doesn’t hold water. Population of a town or city makes a huge difference in the experience of its citizens. Are you honestly going to maintain that people who live in a community of 2000 have the same experience as those who live in a small city of 65,000 or of those living in a city of over 3 million such as Los Angeles ? Because, having lived in each of those situations, I can assure you that they provide a completely different life experience.
I happen to prefer the experience of a small city such as Davis and I can be very specific as to why.
I like my city to be surrounded by agricultural land rather than by strip malls, car lots, fast food restaurants and outlet stores. Why ? Probably because it reminds me of the features of the town of 2000 in which I grew up.
I like my city to have choices of restaurants but don’t feel the need to have so many that I could not possibly explore them all. I like to have a choice of movie theaters but don’t feel the need for a multiplex.
I like my city to have clinics and a hospital, but do not feel the need for hospitals representing all the major health plans in the area.
I like a downtown that I can easily walk the entire grid on one outing, and the knowledge that each time I go out I am likely to run into someone I know with whom to have a chat…..or sometimes even to have a chat with a complete stranger, something that rarely happened in LA.
I loved the feeling that I could go out alone or with my children at virtually any hour without any concern.
Too small a community and the concern was bears, too large, and the concern was less than upright citizens.
Never had either concern in Davis.
I like knowing some of the merchants in town, but still have the ability to get to know new folks as new businesses are established. As for shopping, if I can’t find what I want here in town or on the Internet, perhaps I need to consider how badly I really need that item.
Was that a specific enough sampling, because I could go on and on about the differences in communities.
And size does matter.
Measure R is working just as the author’s intended. It is a great, almost perfect, no growth tool.
That does not mean however that it is working for the best interests of the citizens of Davis. Much like with Prop. 13, the voters did not fully understand the consequences of their decision. That is the beauty of ballot box legislation, providing seemingly simple solutions for complex problems without fully explaining the consequences.
Don,
Yes we have explored that concept. Problem is given the appetite for challenging anything related to Ag Land ( even though its not Ag Land) the opinion is somebody will sue us and we will take 3 steps backwards. The real way measure J/R works is by preserving a boundary: Cross the moat (ag buffer) go to a vote. I agree with this, we need an edge or periphery to the City. Why this parcel which is inside the moat goes to a vote makes no sense. This article correctly points out how only very large parcels backed by very deep pockets will go to a vote, the Wildhorse parcel is a victim of poor drafting and misguided voices for Agricultural Land preservation.
Thanks for your input, much appreciated
Medwoman, I want to make sure I understand your position correctly. It’s all about size?
-Michael Bisch
Medwoman, your list is interesting but all very superficial and incongruous. Which causes me to want to make a bad joke, but I won’t.
For example, if you want to be surrounded by farm land, why not live in the country? You want a choice of restaurants but not too many? Huh, what does that mean? There is not a quality restaurant in this town that has enough facililty for my company functions.
Playing off of Michael Bisch’s question, what if all things being the same we just doubled the size? For example, Davis had all the same amenities you claim to value, but just twice the amount.
I have also lived in many smaller and larger places. I have another office in Pasadena. My partner lives in Santa Barbara. Are you telling me that these are not great places to live because they are bigger than Davis?
[quote]There is not a quality restaurant in this town that has enough facililty for my company functions. [/quote]
Interesting. We hosted the nursery association chapter at Symposium several times without difficulty. It was always a big hit. How many people do you have at your company functions?
I was really happy living in a 30,000-resident Davis, a town of 45,000, a city of 60,000 and I’m sure I’ll be really happy living in a Davis of 90,000 if I live that long.
I liked going to a real butcher and choosing between theaters that each had (just) one giant room. I took some level of pride in having only one fast food place and a big fight about what the sign could look like and in complaining about having to leave town to buy underpants (and other things) and about jeopardizing houseplants with the local drinking water.
What a treat to have stores like one that put hand-lettered signs on the Cheezits (“no pig fat”) and a special clerk who knew all of us and cared even though she was going through her own crises. And, classrooms with teachers overseeing half as many students as they do today.
What I’ve learned that there’s no perfect size for Davis. Over the years, we’ve gained better parks, stores, medical facilities, a great library, youth programs and on and on. We’ve gained more great people and more great neighborhoods (we’ve tried three). And, more diversity and variety all around.
I can’t think of more than a handful of things I’ve regretted about the town and none directly the result of growth.
I expect the only big difference in a Davis of 100,000 down the road is there’ll be more great living in more quality neighborhoods by more fortunate folks. We’d be much better off planning for it rather than resisting it at every turn.
If people dont like J-R, then let them put their own initiative on the ballot
[quote]I have another office in Pasadena. My partner lives in Santa Barbara. Are you telling me that these are not great places to live because they are bigger than Davis?[/quote]
Why do you choose to live in Davis if you have the opportunity to live in Pasadena or Santa Barbara?
I cover Northern CA. Partner covers Southern CA. Founder selected Davis for a location. It is problematic for attracting talent. I might have to move the business as we grow.
I would live in Pasadena or Santa Barbara in a heartbeat. I like Davis too. I would just like it better with more business, more retail, more single family homes, more young professionals, more families and more services.
With all employees, board and spouses we need a place that can support 40 people… half that are food and wine snobs. Seasons comes close.
We easily got 40 people in the back room at Symposium.
By the way, I’m saying this not to make a point about Davis, but just because I know how hard it can be to find a suitable location. I was on the program committee for our local chapter of the nursery association for several years. It wasn’t easy to find a place when we didn’t know for sure what our turnout would be, anywhere from 30 to 60.
Sites around Sacramento were hard to come by that combined quality, reasonable price, and the kind of space where you could host a program. We often ended up at Andiamo in Sac. We tried Sudwerk’s and everyone had a great time, but it was too noisy for our program. There was nothing suitable in Woodland. If you went for a good price, some people complained. If you went for quality, and it cost more, other people complained. But the times we had events at Symposium everyone liked it because it was different, easy parking, and the service was outstanding.
I came to Davis to go to UCD. My choices in my field were Davis, San Luis Obispo, Corvallis, Pullman WA, and Fort Collins CO. Well, also Cornell, but nothing was going to get me to live in that climate. I chose Davis because it was the better school, but also because I greatly preferred the location. Why would a coastal Southern Californian not go to SLO? Too crowded. Corvallis was my second choice.
But Davis really had it all. Whatever you might want that it doesn’t have, is just an hour or so away. Snow in one direction, beach in the other. Sunshine reliably from late spring through fall. Delta breeze makes the heat bearable. Not damp, not overcast. It’s a very charming and attractive city with a lot to recommend it.
Not every city has to have everything. It’s ok to go to nearby cities for the things we don’t have here, just as some people come to Davis to shop, to buy cars, to eat at the downtown, to go to Mondavi. You seem to want every place you live to have everything. It reminds me of what one woman once said to me when she learned I lived near Davis/Dixon. “I couldn’t imagine living there. You don’t even have a Macy’s!” Somehow I had never felt deprived for the lack of a Macy’s.
Frankly
“I have also lived in many smaller and larger places. I have another office in Pasadena. My partner lives in Santa Barbara. Are you telling me that these are not great places to live because they are bigger than Davis?”
No, what I am telling you is that size does matter. Personal tastes and preferences matter. Some folks would prefer more as you have stated.
Some would prefer less. In either case, size is an important factor.
In our region, if you prefer more, you already have many options you could choose outside of Davis. However, if we change Davis to please those who always want more, the Davis loved by the minimalists amongst us will be forever lost. Don’s last sentence about not feeling deprived by the lack of a Macy’s neatly sums up my feeling about our town.
David Asks:
> Is Measure J Working As Intended?
Most people I know are homeowners and support measure J to “keep home prices high”. With prices just about double the areas around us we can say it is “Working as Intended”…
P.S. If Medwoman and her friends supported measure J to “keep more farmland around Davis” they will also say it is “”Working as Intended”…
“Why would a coastal Southern Californian not go to SLO? Too crowded.”
It seems you are still stuck on this point although SLO is smaller than Davis today. It seems to me there is a lack of dynamism in the brains of many in Davis they want to preserve it as it was when they arrived. This solipsism is pervasive yet not constructive. Maybe we should all have rotary phones too.
“If people dont like J-R, then let them put their own initiative on the ballot”
Or let it expire.
so you’re willing to wait seven years?
Does measure J work. It works for small time real estate speculators in Davis.
i find it interesting that a lot of people responded to the title of the article, few responded to its content.
“so you’re willing to wait seven years?”
I’m not like the Republicans with Obamacare.
[i]We easily got 40 people in the back room at Symposium[/i]
[quote]With all employees, board and spouses we need a place that can support 40 people… half that are [b]food and wine snobs.[/b][/quote]
Nuff said.
Medwoman, if size and farmland is so important, then why not live in Dixon, Winters, Woodland?
I really don’t think you and Don are making any cogent arguments here. “Macys”? What the heck does the existence of a Macys in or around this city do to impact your quality of life? Both you and Don write about what you like about Davis, and you include population size and every additional amenity like they somehow personally affect you. Frankly, it is a little weird… like just the thought of something causes you material harm… even as the lack of tax revenue from your blocking of certain development DOES cause real material harm to others.
What I see is that you and Don appreciate the size and amenities of Davis at 65,000 (really 90,000 when school is in session), and if we were having this conversation 30 years ago you would have stomped your foot and demanded that growing to 65,000 would be terrible and would ruin your great Davis experience. I think you and Don are just change-averse. You really cannot visualize a positive future state of a larger Davis, just like you would not have been able to do 30 years ago. Yet, here you both are today… just loving that Davis at 65,000 people. You would love Davis at 95,000 people. I think you would love it more. But you cannot be convinced. That’s okay, because there are a lot of people that are really very terrible at visualizing a future state. They generally have to hire designers and fully delegate design decision authority. The problem in this case is that the people lacking positive visualization capability are hell-bent on blocking change that would benefit many others.
If Folsom planners had connected their neighborhoods and shopping centers with bike paths, and forced all developments to include a percentage of parks and green space that separated structures and mitigated the “concrete jungle” syndrome, it would have put Davis in the dust in terms of being a great place to live.
That is our opportunity… to allow growth, but to do with the principles of smart planning and development.
“Medwoman, if size and farmland is so important, then why not live in Dixon, Winters, Woodland?”
That’s a strange comment, Davis has better land use and growth control policies than any of them.
Think about that David. If you are talking about actual, REAL, tangible, lifestyle amenities, and you list being surrounded by farm land as one of your most important ones, then why not live in a community where you are more rural… closer to the farmland… have real farmers living with you… have a better chance of living on the periphery of the town where there is farmland out your back door… etc., etc., etc.
“Better land use and growth control policies” is fine, but then what real, tangible, lifestyle amenities derive from that? I would like everyone to cut the abstract crap please. Think it through. There are a lot of great places to live that are not surrounded by farmland, and most people living in those places would not know the difference because there is absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of farm land that really, truly affects their lives.
What I am getting at… unless you are a farmer, or you live on the periphery and enjoy those uninterrupted views, the noise and dust of field-work, and the sound of crop-dusters buzzing your house at 7:00 AM on Sunday, that point about being surrounded by farmland, and protecting farmland, is just a proxy for NIMBY-change-aversion.
Al Gore lives in a 24-room Tennessee mansion and flies around in a private jet scolding others about burning fossil fuel. But, he buys carbon offset credits to make it right. Davis could demand developers contribute to a fund that helps preserve farmland in the state for each acre we develop as a similar approach.
However, it is not necessary, because California is not short of quality farmland… it is short of the water needed to irrigate the farmland that already exists. Farming uses the most water. It is also subsidized water. Farming also costs taxpayers a bunch of money from all the farm subsidies.
It is a myth that preserving every acre of farmland is good for humanity. We are better off converting much of the existing farmland in this state to natural habitat, and allow the development of more residential spaces where residents can grown their own food using much less water per acre than massive farming operations consume.
“Think about that David. If you are talking about actual, REAL, tangible, lifestyle amenities, and you list being surrounded by farm land as one of your most important ones, then why not live in a community where you are more rural… closer to the farmland… have real farmers living with you… have a better chance of living on the periphery of the town where there is farmland out your back door… etc., etc., etc.”
Because I think you’re conflating the desire to limit expansion of Davis onto farmland with desire to live near or on a farm.
[i]Because I think you’re conflating the desire to limit expansion of Davis onto farmland with desire to live near or on a farm.[/i]
I am not conflating anything.
Thanks for proving my point.
The desire is to limit the expansion of Davis.
Preserving farmland is a false proxy justification.
I asked what are the true and tangible attributes of Davis that are causing people to reject growth. Being surrounded by farmland was given as the number one.
If you really like being surrounded by farmland as your first priority, then why live in Davis? If you live in the core area of Davis or most neighborhoods, you are a long ways away from actual farmland. It does not have any material impact or benefit to your life or lifestyle.
Why is preserving farmland considered more noble than creating good jobs?
Especially when we have more farmland than we can farm, and many fewer good jobs than we need?
“The desire is to limit the expansion of Davis. “
Yes, the desire is to limit the expansion of Davis. The question is the motivation for that desire and I think it’s multifold and that preservation of farmland is one of them. Just as when I lived in SLO, one of the desires was to preserve native habitat.
Actually, someone else was doing the conflating:
“I happen to prefer the experience of a small city such as Davis and I can be very specific as to why.
I like my city to be surrounded by agricultural land rather than by strip malls, car lots, fast food restaurants and outlet stores. Why ? Probably because it reminds me of the features of the town of 2000 in which I grew up.”
Fair enough, but why assume a uniform motivation?
[quote] That is our opportunity… to allow growth, but to do with the principles of smart planning and development.[/quote]
Amazing. That is what I have advocated, consistently, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
[quote]Especially when we have more farmland than we can farm, and many fewer good jobs than we need?[/quote]
“More farmland than we can farm”? Huh?
And I continue to wonder about you term “good jobs.”
As I’ve noted before, unemployment is not the major problem facing Davis.
[quote]The desire is to limit the expansion of Davis.
Preserving farmland is a false proxy justification. [/quote]
Speaking only for myself, and not for medwoman, there is nothing ‘false’ about the goal of preserving farmland. It is one of the guiding principles in the General Plans of both Davis and, especially, Yolo County. You don’t like it, but it is considered a high value here and guides the development and planning practices of local governments.
[quote]I asked what are the true and tangible attributes of Davis that are causing people to reject growth. [/quote]
Speaking only for myself, I don’t reject growth. I believe it should be steady and well-managed. The dislocations caused by excessively rapid growth of the city’s population had adverse effects in the past. One example which affected my family was the over-population of the schools, leading to the closing of inter district transfers. That caused the district to panic and build an excess of facilities because they inaccurately projected enrollment trends. Had Davis grown steadily and more slowly, such as at about a .5% growth rate, the district could have planned better.
The voters made it clear that they want Davis to grow “as slowly as legally possible.” They didn’t vote for Davis “not to grow at all.” There was considerable discussion on the council a few years ago as to whether the 1% growth rate, somehow linked to the state’s housing requirements, should be a [u]goal [/u]or a [u]cap[/u]. In any event, a growth rate of about .75% is being implemented by the university, so now the only question is where they’re all going to live.
The Federal Reserve considers the natural rate of unemployment to be 5.25%
Current unemployment Davis (April 2013): 6.0%, down from 8% in April 2011 and 7.7% in April 2012.
Sacramento is 9.8%.
West Sacramento is 14.6%.
Woodland is 11.1%.
When we talk about lifestyle amenities that add to the quality of life in Davis some of the following questions come to mind, and none of them are related to the size of Davis. That is not to say I disregard size, but it needs to be kept
A) How much does the presence of UCD and all its faculty and staff add to the value of a Davis home? Many argue that the magnet that brings people to Davis is its University. My wife and I have earned undergraduate and graduate degrees from three Ivy League universities, and the quality of education my wife got at UCD was in her opinion the best she had ever received. That kind of educational quality has a huge effect on the people who make offers on, and buy any new houses added to Davis.
B) How much do Davis’ highest quality schools add? (Although I personally don’t agree with this point, one poster in a prior thread said in a prior post that he and his spouse would have to pay private school tuition if they moved away from Davis)
C) How much does the Mondavi Center add?
D) How much does Davis’ superb library add?
E) How much does Davis’ low crime rate add?
Matt: I don’t know that I would pay private school tuition, but schools are a huge reason why we are still here.
I’m not sure I agree that Davis’ library is superb, Shields is decent, but then again, when I was a kid I would walk to University City library in suburban St. Louis down the way from Washington University and that probably spoiled me.
Thanks Matt and David. You are listing tangible, measurable attributes. Note that these things would not be harmed with growth maybe except crime… however, that is not necessarily a result. In fact, we can make the case that most of the things on this list would be enhanced by growth. Businesses would have more customers, and greater tax revenue would flow to the city. Also, as Matt points out, well-off business generally adds a lot of philanthropy
Don, Davis’s low unemployment rate is simply a factor of high property costs filtering higher income residents, a larger percentage of the population living off the soft money of the university, and students that are not counted in the list of unemployed.
Don’t you feel any sense of responsibility for helping to supply good-paying jobs for the region? We have that ability. Maybe we should consider it our responsibility too. I think we should. You quickly push our responsibility to protect farm land for the greater good, but then you don’t seem to care that Davis does not exploit its position and attributes to create more jobs for the region. Do you like farmland more than you like people having a good job?
Keep in mind that if Davis blocks commercial development to preserve farmland, and the community in another region allows the development on farmland, you have not really done anything to help the state preserve farmland, and you have prevented the region from adding jobs.
More farmland than we can farm…
[quote]California’s interconnected water system serves over 30 million people and irrigates over 5,680,000 acres (2,300,000 ha) of farmland. As the world’s largest, most productive, and most controversial water system,[1] it manages over 40,000,000 acre feet (49 km3) of water per year.[2]
Water and water rights are among the state’s divisive political issues. Lacking reliable dry season rainfall, water is limited in the most populous U.S. state. An ongoing debate is whether the state should increase the redistribution of water to its large agricultural and urban sectors, or increase conservation and preserve the natural ecosystems of the water sources.[/quote]
[quote]Don, Davis’s low unemployment rate is simply a factor of high property costs filtering higher income residents, a larger percentage of the population living off the soft money of the university, and students that are not counted in the list of unemployed. [/quote]
Why do you persist in using the term ‘soft’ money for public employment? What is ‘soft’ about it? Do you look down on people who work for the government? I think you do.
Unemployment in Davis is low, always has been low, will always be lower than the surrounding cities. Now you’re arguing against statistics and facts, trying to minimize that reality.
[quote]Don’t you feel any sense of responsibility for helping to supply good-paying jobs for the region? We have that ability. Maybe we should consider it our responsibility too. I think we should. You quickly push our responsibility to protect farm land for the greater good, but then you don’t seem to care that Davis does not exploit its position and attributes to create more jobs for the region. Do you like farmland more than you like people having a good job? [/quote]
We have done an excellent job of that. For example, Bayer is creating jobs in West Sacramento. UC Davis creates many, many jobs in the region. Remember: I don’t consider it a competition between cities locally. In our region, UC Davis is a great job creator, directly and indirectly. Stop trying your silly guilt and shame arguments. They’re what you always resort to when the facts, data, statistics, and objective reality is against your world view.
Yolo and Solano County farmers have plenty of water. There is no surplus of farmland that can’t be farmed. That is one of the more bizarre arguments you have made on this topic. Your continued minimization of the value of farmland and the need to protect it is getting farcical. Fortunately, the county and the city and the farm bureau and the state all disagree with you, putting a high value on protecting farmland from development.
Quick quiz: where do most Yolo County farmers get their water?
[i]Why do you persist in using the term ‘soft’ money for public employment? [/i]
Because someone else earned it first the hard way, and then the government took it away to give to them (the soft way to get money), and because the university does not have to completely and directly compete to stay in business.
[i]There is no surplus of farmland that can’t be farmed.[/i]
Sure Don… just keep repeating things and you will make them facts… Not
There is farmland all over California that is not being farmed due to lack of water. Do you want to dispute this fact? I will just post them to make you look silly and uninformed.
[i]Unemployment in Davis is low, always has been low, will always be lower than the surrounding cities. Now you’re arguing against statistics and facts, trying to minimize that reality.[/i]
A common tactic of yours… accept nuance only when it supports your position, and then complain about it when it does not.
In Don’s view..
Those stats speak for themselves… except when they don’t.
[quote]There is farmland all over California that is not being farmed due to lack of water. Do you want to dispute this fact? I will just post them to make you look silly and uninformed.[/quote]
Frankly: there is no shortage of water [u]in Yolo County [/u]leading to farmland not being farmed. Yes, I want to dispute your statement that implies that[u] in Yolo County[/u] there is farmland that is not being farmed due to lack of water.
Davis doesn’t have high unemployment. That is a fact. There’s no nuance involved. The Labor Department compiles the statistics, I provide them. You don’t believe them, or something. You want to dance around the margins of it somehow.
[quote]Because someone else earned it first the hard way, and then the government took it away to give to them (the soft way to get money), and because the university does not have to completely and directly compete to stay in business. [/quote]
So you look down on public jobs. They aren’t ‘good’ jobs, I guess. You think privately funded jobs are better than publicly funded ones. Got it.
Unemployment in Davis is low, always has been low, will always be lower than the surrounding cities. This is a provable fact. Unemployment in Davis is usually at or about the rate that the Federal Reserve considers to be the natural rate of unemployment. This is a provable fact.
Davis is part of the region, is a job-generator for the region. The nearby cities benefit greatly from the presence of the university. We should all be happy when a startup company locates in Davis, and we should not get upset when it outgrows the space available here. It means they’re doing well, need cheaper land, and one of our neighbors with a higher unemployment rate will benefit from the move. Thereby churning space for another startup. That’s all fine with me. I don’t see us competing with nearby cities, I see us all as part of a larger economic region. Each city can play to its strengths and work together for the benefit of all.
[i]So you look down on public jobs. They aren’t ‘good’ jobs, I guess. You think privately funded jobs are better than publicly funded ones. Got it[/i]
You are colorful today Don.
Most public sector jobs are not self-funding. They require that we take private sector earning from others to fund them. There is a limit to what we can afford. We have far exceeded that limit. So, you are partially correct. There are some public sector jobs that are not good because they are not good for the entire private-public economic system.
But this all derives from your sensitivity over the term “soft money”. I explained it and instead of acknowledging the explanation, you go off on a new direction of accusation.
There is a shortage of water throughout the state that prevents us from using all available farmland.
The San Joaquin valley is home to a $20 billion crop industry; the San Joaquin region alone produces more in farm sales than any other individual state in the country. It is a dust bowl. It gets its water from Northern CA. But it is quality farm land.
So Don, how are you going to worm your way out of admitting your were wrong about the simple fact that CA has more farmland than we have water to farm. Are you going to apply some manufactured nuance?
Sacramento gets less that 20″ of rain every year and is classified as semi-arid. But we benefit from the higher rainfall from the north and east, and it flows to the Sacramento River that provides most irrigation water. The San Joaquin valley gets 5-16 inches of rain. It has a number of rivers, but there is not enough flow to enable farming of all the farmland.
So, the point is that we have access farmland in CA, but not excess water. If we could replace some northern CA farming with water conserving business (the type that wants to be located next to UCD), then we could increase flows down south so more of that land can be farmed.
One day you will admit when you are wrong… in private to yourself.
Hey, guess what, Frankly? I said Yolo County. I said it, like, three times now. The San Joaquin Valley is farmable because of the state water project. Sometimes that has enough water for farming, sometimes it doesn’t. But that is completely irrelevant to Yolo County. If we were discussing the growth policies of Fresno, you might have a point. But you don’t.
Don’t patronize me. You’re being ridiculous in trying to support your hostility to preserving farmland.
[quote]Most public sector jobs are not self-funding. [/quote]
Most private sector jobs benefit indirectly from things funded by public money, like higher education, infrastructure, small-business loans, and more.
It cuts both ways. Neither is “soft.”
[quote]If we could replace some northern CA farming with water conserving business (the type that wants to be located next to UCD), then we could increase flows down south so more of that land can be farmed. [/quote]
Not directly. Perhaps by transferring water rights. Are you really advocating this?
Yolo County has some of the most productive farmland in the world AND the water needed to farm it (most of our irrigation water comes from Lake County via a century-old unlined canal system that allows 25% of the flow to recharge groundwater and it is all gravity fed meaning no pumping until it gets to a farmer’s field–an amazing system (I hope I have this all right Don will correct me)-).
The San Joaquin Valley has amazing farmland but inadequate water.
So… we have a unique combination of great land and adequate water. We have a deep water port and are crisscrossed by major north/south and east/west interstate highways AND THE major east/west rail line crossing the USA.
We are uniquely positioned to grow and ship an abundance of edible crops (though we could use more processing in the county in my view) and we are becoming one of the major seed producing areas in the world for key crops (See all those sunflowers out there? All seed crop)
We have a unique resource and we are right to limit the geographical spread of our communities so as not to utilize prime farmland for less productive purposes. Our farmland and farmers are our comparative advantage.
And BTW–farmers in Yolo County pay for irrigation water and the only crop that I am aware of here that receives federal subsidy is rice (someone correct me on this but Yolo County is not a large recipient of crop subsidies–there is nothing for canning tomatoes or seed crops and small organic farmers get nothing.
So, yes, Measure J, while a bit “blunt” has been a good instrument. Those who would blithely remove productive farmland for the sake of housing, retail, other commercial or industrial uses are simply disconnected from our “nearby”. They appear to lack a sense of place and display a deep misunderstanding of what make our county unique. Children in our schools who are part of farm to school programs have a deeper understanding than they of the valuable resource in our backyards. It is a bit shameful.
Our collective future here, in the place, is wed to agriculture.
“…
Medwoman, I want to make sure I understand your position correctly. It’s all about size?
-Michael Bisch
Of course not……but size does matter as do a plethora of other factors. My response was specific to Frankly’s post implying that size is not an issue.
Mr. Toad
“
“Why would a coastal Southern Californian not go to SLO? Too crowded.”
It seems you are still stuck on this point although SLO is smaller than Davis today. It seems to me there is a lack of dynamism in the brains of many in Davis they want to preserve it as it was when they arrived. This solipsism is pervasive yet not constructive. Maybe we should all have rotary phones too.”
Maybe what we should have is choice. If someone prefers their rotary phone, maybe that is what they should be able to use.
What is seemingly lost in this conversation is that rapid growth will take away the choice of a unique, smaller, quieter, slower paced community in this region. There are many choices all along the I – 80 , I – 50 routes for people who are interested in larger, rapid growth communities.
There is only one Davis. So, in effect, those of you promoting rapid growth are saying to the slow growthers, never mind that we have many other options, we want to “develope” Davis to suit our business or economic advantage and we really don’t care that this is the last place in this region combining a small town atmosphere with the presence of a university.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Unemployment in Davis is low, always has been low, will always be lower than the surrounding cities. [b]This is a provable fact.[/b]
Unemployment in Davis is usually at or about the rate that the Federal Reserve considers to be the natural rate of unemployment. [b]This is a provable fact[/b]. “[/i]
Let me preface my comment here by saying that I strongly believe Measure J is working the way that it was intended to work. I also feel that a proposal comes along that is good for the sustainability of Davis, then it will pass a Measure J/R vote.
Now with respect to Don’s comment above. The level of Unemployment is one of the important indicators of the health of a community, but I believe it is not always a good indicator of the health of the Municipal Budget of the governing body of the community. There are lots of reasons for that, but the two most important are 1) underemployment and 2) insufficient employment.
Given the current and projected budget deficits that our Municipal Budget is dealing with, the evidence is that Davis suffers from one or both of these problems. As Don has pointed out the unemployment rate has been consistently low, so it is not an important contributing factore in creating the budget deficits, and unless it begins to attain levels that are significantly better than its historic levels, it will also not be a contributor to the elimination of the budget deficit.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”We have done an excellent job of that. For example, Bayer is creating jobs in West Sacramento.”[/i]
True Don, but none of those jobs created in West Sacramento help us with the budget deficit we face here in Davis.
[quote]True Don, but none of those jobs created in West Sacramento help us with the budget deficit we face here in Davis. [/quote]
Sure they do, if any of those employees still live in Davis. Which many of them will, because it is a desirable place to live. It is a desirable place to live because it has good schools, a cool downtown with great shops and restaurants, and lots of other amenities that cause people to be willing to pay more a house here than they would for the same size house in West Sacramento.
The benefit of employees and jobs is the multiplier effect: the shopping and spending those people do where they live and work. If they work in West Sac and live in Davis, both communities benefit. And it isn’t a competition. We’re all part of the same economic region. Each city should play to its strengths as we cooperate in building the economy of the region.
Robb Davis said . . .
[i]”So, yes, Measure J, while a bit “blunt” has been a good instrument. Those who would blithely remove productive farmland for the sake of housing, retail, other commercial or industrial uses are simply disconnected from our “nearby”. They appear to lack a sense of place and display a deep misunderstanding of what make our county unique. Children in our schools who are part of farm to school programs have a deeper understanding than they of the valuable resource in our backyards. It is a bit shameful.
Our collective future here, in the place, is wed to agriculture.”[/i]
Well said Robb.
I do have one quibble with your statement though, specifically with, [i]”Those who would blithely remove productive farmland . . . “[/i] Do you really think there is anyone who is approaching this issue “blithely”? For example, Don Shor and I have both noted that the lands to the west and north of Sutter Davis Hospital are definitely classified as farmland, but their soil types are Class 4 and are alkali soils to boot. Those soils are neither productive nor prime. Don and I and others have also talked about the soils at Nishi, which are prime, but because they only are 44 acres, their isolation between I-80 and the railroad, the parcel’s strange shape, and spraying restrictions due to their proximity to adjacent urbanized lands, Nishi really doesn’t qualify as productive farmland. Its most productive crop in recent years has been hay. What other farmland is being blithely considered for urbanization?
Further, I would say that the sense of the community is that “for the sake of housing” is almost universally off the table. Jim Donovan is proposing some housing for the Wildhorse ranch parcel, but other than that there are not even any rumblings of housing proposals for productive farmland. I believe the strong sense of the community is that nothing should be done blithely, and that only a positive improvement of the jobs/housing balance would merit serious consideration.
You know there are lots of higher-level executives in state government who live in Davis, right? People who choose to live here, even though their jobs are in downtown Sacramento. We gain the multiplier effect from those people choosing to live here, and do at least some of their shopping and dining here. What is it that guy from the Sacramento Chamber said?
[quote]Niello spoke about it as an ideal place to live.
“Can you think of another region in California where you can live in a rural environment, an urban environment, a traditional suburban environment, an agricultural environment, a country environment, the mountains, any of those living opportunities and still be within 20 minutes’ drive to work?” Niello said. “Davis is one of the unique communities that provides that choice of quality of life.”[/quote]
[quote]Do you really think there is anyone who is approaching this issue “blithely”?[/quote]
Yes. Frankly. Anyone who would seriously suggest removing Yolo County farmland from production so we could sell water south is being more than “blithe.”
“Our collective future here, in the place, is wed to agriculture.”
It’s a particularly good comment because the people I talk to in the know think that the future of UC Davis is in Ag-Tech, which some think will catapult the university into elite status and UCD not Berkeley and UCLA is better poised to take advantage of it.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Sure they do, [b]if any of those employees still live in Davis[/b]. Which many of them will, because it is a desirable place to live. It is a desirable place to live because it has good schools, a cool downtown with great shops and restaurants, and lots of other amenities that cause people to be willing to pay more for a house here than they would for the same size house in West Sacramento.”[/i]
An important “if” Don. I am willing to bet you dollars to donuts that over the next 10 years the number of Bayer/AgraQuest employees living in Davis will be a continually diminishing number. Davis will get virtually none of the new employees when homes in Southport are so readily adjacent to their work. Many of the existing Bayer/AgraQuest employees who own homes in Davis will indeed stay in Davis as long as their employment at Bayer/AgraQuest continues, but those who are currently renting in Davis will more often than not migrate to Southport when the time comes to buy a house. Also when job turnover happens, the replacement employee will be more likely to settle in West Sac than in Davis.
JMHO
Along those lines… from a year ago: AgTech center ([url]http://www.sarta.org/SARTA-and-UC-Davis-Receive-1-Million-Grant.html?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=twitterfeed[/url])
Blithely? Yes, I do. I recall comments on the Vanguard in which people wrote things like: the fields along 113 just look brown most of the time anyway (paraphrase). I think there are many people in this community who are dislocated from the reality of our agricultural heritage. Few know about the high quality of our soils and the sustainable nature of our water supply. Few ever talk to farmers or visit farms. Many view farming as generating only low paying jobs.
Ask ANY farmer selling at the Davis Farmers’ Market about the overall intelligence of buyers. If they are candid (and it is hard to get them to be) they will tell a tale of a minority of highly informed purchasers and a large majority of people who BLITHELY say things like: “Oh, that is so much more expensive than at Nugget”, or “Why don’t you carry X?” (X being something that is not grown in this region).
We are part of a culture that views the family farm and farming as a relic of the past–an anachronism in a modern age when (presumably) food can be created in a lab and somehow just show up in a supermarket. Consider this gem from our very own Secretary of Agriculture: [url]http://transitionvoice.com/2013/08/rural-population-not-needed-for-farming-but-for-cannon-fodder/[/url].
So… getting rid of farmland? Who cares–someone else will figure out a way to grow food cheaply somewhere else. We need this land for “better”, more “productive” uses.
BTW–I am fully cognizant of the varying quality of lands in our nearby and am NOT against developing them for non-ah purposes because they are not best suited for ag. I have some concerns about leapfrog development but am quite open to using less productive (in an ag sense) land for other uses. The example you provide Matt is a good one. Keep in mind, though that most of the land surrounding Davis and extending out from it is PRIME for ag.
Robb, your two posts above resonate at a myriad of levels. As a result I will agree with your characterization of the “blythe” members of our community. With that said, I don’t think that the people who are engaged in the discussions and planning fit that description.
By the way Michael Touisant who with his wife owned and ran Marin Oyster Co. for years said the same thing about the Saturday Davis Farmers Market. On the other hand the Sunday Farmers Market at 5th Street in Sacramento was a totally different story.
Frankly
[quote]here you both are today… just loving that Davis at 65,000 people. You would love Davis at 95,000 people. I think you would love it more.[/quote]
Wrong again as is frequently the case when you try to insert yourself into my brain to guess what I must be thinking. I preferred Davis at the size it was when I arrived 34 years ago. It is not a lack of imagination that drives me. It is my preference for a slower pace, less cars, less congestion, less noise.
You ask why not Woodland, Dixon, Winters ? Well there is that small matter of the location of the University which I think I have made clear virtually every time I have written on this topic. UCD is where I attended medical school, it is where I have contributed in many ways, mostly small, but some of some of some ongoing significance to the development of medical education at UCD. Because of my strong involvement with education, I honestly cannot see myself living in a community that is not closely affiliated with a University and because of my career choice, a University associated with a medical school. I would think that you might find that a fairly compelling reason to want to stay in Davis. But maybe not, if you get deep enough into my synapses, you may be able to find that I am deluding myself and that I really have some sinister underlying reason for wanting to be here.
Don Shor: “[i]Frankly: there is no shortage of water in Yolo County leading to farmland not being farmed. Yes, I want to dispute your statement that implies that in Yolo County there is farmland that is not being farmed due to lack of water.[/i]”
That actually is not true Don. In years when surface water from Indian Valley and Clear Lake is limited, there are large swaths of lands in western Yolo County that are not planted due to a lack of water. Ground water is not always available or cost effective.
Medwoman: “[i]So, in effect, those of you promoting rapid growth are saying to the slow growthers[/i]”
Who is advocating rapid growth? Why do you (or Don) label anyone interested in economic development as ‘promoting rapid growth’ or ‘urban sprawl,’ then take offense anytime there is a suggestion that you are a proponent of ‘no growth?’
Is it only offensive when the label is attached to you and not when you are the one doing the labeling?
Mark, that is intermittent and certainly doesn’t lead to any conclusion such as Frankly is making. We don’t have a “surplus” of farmland; we don’t have farmland that isn’t being farmed because of an ongoing lack of water. We sometimes have drought years. Yolo County (and Solano County) farmers are in much better supply balance than many other regions.
So if you want me to make my sentence perfectly accurate, I’ll modify it: sometimes farmers fallow their fields due to drought.
[quote]Who is advocating rapid growth? Why do you (or Don) label anyone interested in economic development as ‘promoting rapid growth’ or ‘urban sprawl,’ then take offense anytime there is a suggestion that you are a proponent of ‘no growth?’ [/quote]
Again, it’s our friends Frankly and Mr. Toad. And in Frankly’s case, if we don’t support every aspect of the type of development he proposes — which apparently includes houses, business parks, and large-scale retail on various edges of town, all at once, I guess — then we are no-growth. Or we’re hiding our “no-growth” beliefs behind some false veneer, or we’re using false arguments like protecting farmland to prevent growth, or we’re blah blah blah.
I’ve agreed with numerous proposals for economic development. Yet I’m labeled no-growth. And a variety of other things.
Wow haven’t said much but my handle gets invoked anyway perhaps because you’re feeling a little guilty you project. So let me make a few points. i don’t think i’ve confused your land trust mentality with being anti-growth. I see them as being separate issues but consistent in their consequences.
As to the land water issue both Don and Frankly are correct throughout the central valley there is more land to farm than water available. In Yolo County and Solano County this is not an issue. However this does allow us to sell some water rights and take land out of production locally, as Conaway Ranch has done, without limiting the the total productivity of the valley. While Robb Davis eloquently makes the case for maintaining our agricultural roots the fact that regionally water is more limiting than land gives us some leeway to consider other uses for our land that supports higher value endeavors such as research at UCD. Research that can result in higher food production globally as we have seen recently in wheat is but one example. Cellulostic ethanol research at Novozymes could be another. Recombinant DNA insulin production at Novo Nordisk provides a third example. Mapping the rice genome by UCD researchers is a model of the potential for mapping a myriad number of genomes here. So there are other important values that excel or compare to the need to preserve local farmland. Providing the infrastructure to facilitate work of this nature can not be stifled by a romantic vision of the past.
“There is only one Davis. So, in effect, those of you promoting rapid growth are saying to the slow growthers, never mind that we have many other options, we want to “develope” Davis to suit our business or economic advantage and we really don’t care that this is the last place in this region combining a small town atmosphere with the presence of a university.”
You seem to fail to see the inherent conflict in the University fulfilling its mission and your personal desire for a lifestyle that excludes others but supports your vision of what Davis should be.
I wrote: “I’m not going to pretend I have an answer to this paradox as I’m not in favor of doing away with Covell Village. “
I meant: “I’m not going to pretend I have an answer to this paradox as I’m not in favor of doing away with [b]Measure J[/b].”
[quote]the fact that regionally water is more limiting than land gives us some leeway to consider other uses for our land that supports higher value endeavors[/quote]
So, you too are advocating that we annex and develop farmland, and sell the water and/or water rights elsewhere.
i think I’ve been advocating that we annex farmland for a long time, that farming is not the best use of land compared with some other uses. Selling water is not my favorite idea but it makes the case that it is not the farmland that is the limiting factor but rather the water thus goring the sacred cow of the preserve every inch of farmland crowd.
Mark West
Since Mr Toad and Frankly, two of the posters here have refused to give any approximation of what they would see as the desirable size for Davis,Mr Toad saying outright that he doesn’t think it matters, I have no way to judge what if any limit they see as optimal. This has led me to believe that they would support what I would consider rapid or perhaps even limitless growth. If that is indeed their position, then I do not see why they would object to the label.
I have been very straight forward about my preference for a smaller than 65,000 size for Davis. So if one were to consider only that aspect of my posts one would be accurate in labeling me as “no growth”. However, I have also stated that I would find acceptable projects that truly promote a healthier life style, that are not car oriented and are based on principles of sustainability, conservation, and connectivity. I simply haven’t seen one that I think is truly innovative in these parameters. I think it is much less fair to apply the “no growth ” label, at least as a perjorative to Don since he has frequently and extensively argued for more apartments.
However, it is you who seem to be perceiving these as derogatory terms as opposed to descriptors. As a descriptor, with no nuance acknowledged I am probably the closest to a “no growther ” of anyone who posts here. Like Edgar, I do not see that as a negative if one is willing, as none of you engaged in put downs with these terms seems to be, to consider that there are exceptions and nuances to everyone’s beliefs. Ok, maybe not you Frankly, but almost everyone.
medwoman, let me take a stab at a possible population growth scenario.
The April 2010 Census population for Davis was 65,622. According to [url]http://www.biggestuscities.com/city/davis-california[/url] 65,622 grew to 65,779 in 2011 and 65,993 in 2012.
According to [url]http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10013[/url] in September 2011 UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi unveiled a major campus initiative to add 5,000 more qualified undergraduate students in the next five years.
According to [url]http://legacy-its.ucop.edu/uwnews/stat/statsum/fall2012/statsumm2012.pdf[/url]In the fall semester of 2011 UCD had 25,177 undergraduates and 7,476 graduate students (32,653 total students) and in the fall semester of 2012 had 25,817 undergraduates and 7,483 graduate students (33,300 total students).
Assuming a straight line addition of the 5,000 students, the Fall 2013 enrollment will be 34,300, Fall 2014 enrollment will be 35,300, Fall 2015 enrollment will be 36,300, Fall 2016 enrollment will be 37,300 and Fall 2017 enrollment will be 38,300.
Given that “Overall, UC Davis received 69,642 applications for fall 2013 enrollment, 11.4 percent more than last fall’s 62,515.” (see [url]http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10481[/url]) 34,300 doesn’t seem unreasonable.
UCD’s 2012 Vacancy Report reports [i]”UC Davis guarantees housing to all incoming freshman and transfer students, and this year’s incoming freshman class is also guaranteed housing in 2013-14. The university has about 4,800 students living in residence halls.An additional 476 families and single graduate students live in Orchard and Solano parks and 1,940 students live in privately managed housing complexes on campus, such as The Colleges at La Rue or master leased space, such as The Lexington. NOTE1: Solano Park is scheduled to be razed in the next 24-36 months and Orchard Park is scheduled to undergo significant renovations.
Changes in housing stock — In fall 2012, UC Davis made available about 500 beds for incoming freshman in Primero Grove (third party owned and operated apartments on campus). This was done to compensate for lost beds at Pierce and Thille halls, which closed in June 2011 (800 beds). Castilian Hall was also closed with a loss of 495 beds. Construction began in 2012 for a 1,200-bed housing project to open in the fall of 2014. The Castilian buildings have been demolished and Real Estate Services is negotiating a ground lease to repurpose the location for single graduate student housing.[/i] NOTE2: the 1,200 bed project is West Village.
Looking at the above information it isn’t unreasonable to say that the student population of the City of Davis will grow by 800 each year for the next 5 years. That would make the Davis population grow as follows:
2013 = 66,793
2014 = 67,593
2015 = 68,393
2016 = 69,193
2017 = 69,993
Any new housing for non-students would be over and above the numbers shown.
[quote]in September 2011 UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi unveiled a major campus initiative to add 5,000 more qualified undergraduate students in the next [b]five[/b] years. [quote]
Next ten years. By 2020, hence the name 2020 Initiative. By my math it works out to about a 0.75% increase per year to the Davis population. UCD will house them for the freshman year, and returning students. They sometimes can house most transfer students in their first year. Then the students go out to find rental housing in the community. At least 600+ new students, each year through 2020.
So our base growth rate is going to be .75% per year. They are also adding hundreds of faculty and staff positions to support this enrollment increase.
Any job-creating businesses that are added to Davis, such as by building a business park or luring a large corporation here somehow, would add even more people to the Davis population.
So, like it or not, Davis is going to grow in numbers. Where they’re all going to live, I don’t know.
“I have been very straight forward about my preference for a smaller than 65,000 size for Davis. So if one were to consider only that aspect of my posts one would be accurate in labeling me as “no growth’.”
I think your position would best be characterized as negative growth as opposed to no growth.
I say let the UCD sprawl outward on their prime ag land and produce impacts on the City of Davis without mitigation. How’s that for a controlled logical growth policy?
Don, if you clicked on the link provided you would see that the timeline of “five years” were taken directly from the second paragraph of the UCD press release. With that said, using 2020 as the 69,993 endpoint means that the annual population numbers change to:
2013 = 66,493
2014 = 66,993
2015 = 67,493
2016 = 67,993
2017 = 68,493
2018 = 68,993
2019 = 69,493
2020 = 69,993
As you point out job-creating businesses that are added to Davis will create additional demand for the non-student housing.
All of the above is clear evidence of why you and I both strongly support a focused effort to add more apartment beds to Davis. More apartments mean less students living in single family homes, and freeing up those single family homes for occupation by actual families.
You really seem to be hung up on the perceived evils of large companies. What is it about large companies that produces such powerful negative thoughts?
No one is focused on “luring a large corporation here somehow.” What is being acknowledged is that UCD’s core competencies have the ability to help businesses and individuals of all shapes and sizes.
[i]I think your position would best be characterized as negative growth as opposed to no growth[/i]
Exactly Mr. Toad. She wants to go back to her past. There is therapy to help with that.
[i]I say let the UCD sprawl outward on their prime ag land and produce impacts on the City of Davis without mitigation. How’s that for a controlled logical growth policy?[/i]
Well at least the Davis NIMBY-no-growthers have the Glides to thank for preventing even more of this. The Glides died leaving a trust that demanded that not one dirt clod of their land every go to the university. Apparently the Glides and UCD brass got along as well as Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner.
Davis NIMBY-no-growthers like to think they control the developmental destiny of Davis; but as Stephen point out, all they really accomplish with their absolute position of blocking all significant change, is to diminish, and in many cases eliminate, Davis as having a seat at the planning and design table. They cause project sponsors to execute strategies for circumventing Davis’s dysfunctional and problematic direct democracy (i.e. anarchy) decision apparatus, and bolt on projects that otherwise could probably have been made much better through a more collaborative stakeholder participation process.
There is a moral consideration. Or if a moral argument seems too strong, there is at least a responsibility consideration.
I have a good life. I want to give back. How I give back is to work hard to grow a company that benefits young people. Why young people? Because we adults in the baby boomer generation effed it up for them. We were/are like locusts consuming everything of value and leaving garbage and scraps for young people struggling to create a life with even a percentage of the prosperity we have all enjoyed.
Extreme blocking of growth is just more of the same… the baby boomer locusts sucking their value demands from the city at the expense of young people that cannot afford to live here, cannot find a job here and cannot buy underwear here.
It would be different if there was not reasonable demand. There is a reasonable demand for business and retail growth. On the business side, the success of UCD as a world-class research university has led to international interest to locate agribusiness and tech business in close proximity. This demand does not exist in other communities. Don Shor and medwoman are happy enough to let those businesses locate elsewhere to protect their selfish, and change-averse, lifestyle demands. I suppose this means that they too don’t mind if all those young people go live in these other communities instead of Davis. I find that an irresponsible, if not immoral, position.
California has been growing at an average 2% give or take for most of the last couple of decades. During the last two decades overall population increased 45%. What we read today are analyst’s projections that this will slow to about 1% going forward (22% in the next two decades), as California becomes the place where it is too expensive to live, and where fewer and fewer good job prospects exist.
The main problem in the Sacramento and Yolo region with respect to development and economic balance is the lack of jobs. There is a huge imbalance in this region related to housing and business… with business starts and growth lagging most other large metropolitan areas in the state.
One reason is because of that creative-entrepreneurial-brain-crippling impact of government soft money. Sacramento sucks at the teat of state government, and Davis sucks at the teat of the university. So we grow soft and mushy about our economic situation. We become back-woods chumps with prehistoric sophistication for smart planning and development.
Davis should grow business at 2-5% per year at a minimum, and housing at 1% per year. There is an abundance of housing in surrounding areas, and so I agree that we don’t need to increase supply for the region. However, we have a responsibility to work with the university and other regional economic development entities to grow the regional economy. AND… Davis needs the tax revenue that derives from increased local business growth.
[i]You really seem to be hung up on the perceived evils of large companies. What is it about large companies that produces such powerful negative thoughts?[/i]
Don must consider UCD as evil too, since it is a large business.
stephen: unclear what you mean, are you suggesting current policies are forcing sprawl on ucd?
Is Measure J working as intended? I do not know what the drafters real intentions were but i do know what this ordinance has done to our city. Was it intended to replace the General Plan and the routine process of updating the General Plan? It has done that. The General Plan is the document that should control how this town grows. The process for updating should include countless meetings where the people get input on what/where development occurs. This would require people to actually show up at the meetings.
It makes no sense to me to have the Covell Village site not in the city and planed through the General Plan process. It is soon to be bordered on 3 of its 4 sides by intensive Urban Development, is that smart planning? Agriculture is a messy business, drive on 102 and take a look a what all the tomato trucks have done to the road.
Or how about the parcel adjacent to the junior high on the Mace curve, it has school on one side and homes all around it. Really, is that planning? Maybe we can create real borders to the City that make sense, not punitive borders based on who owns the land.
Lets take the personalities out of the discussion and focus on planning our City’s future growth the way the rest of our fellow cities do, through a General Plan not a vote. Lets vote on how the General Plan gets updated.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”Davis should grow business at 2-5% per year at a minimum, and housing at 1% per year. There is an abundance of housing in surrounding areas, and so I agree that we don’t need to increase supply for the region. However, we have a responsibility to work with the university and other regional economic development entities to grow the regional economy. AND… Davis needs the tax revenue that derives from increased local business growth.”[/i]
I would reorder and reword your paragraph above slightly.
The City of Davis municipal budget is running at a significant deficit, and the deficit is expected to increase. Therefore, Davis needs the tax revenue that derives from increased local business growth. we have a responsibility to work with the university and other regional economic development entities to grow the regional economy. If UCD’s core competencies are collaboratively leveraged, then Davis could end up growing business at 2-5% per year and the municipal budget deficit will become a relic of the past. If that kind of economic growth and budget stabilization is achieved, then aggregate housing units across all classes (multi-family and single family) could grow by as much as 1% per year. Said housing growth should be predominately in the multi-family (apartment) class and the City should take steps to incentivize the conversion of single family residences that are currently rented to groups of students back into single family occupancy . . . ideally single family owner occupancy.
shamusd: “[i]Lets take the personalities out of the discussion and focus on planning our City’s future growth the way the rest of our fellow cities do, through a General Plan not a vote. Lets vote on how the General Plan gets updated.[/i]”
Unfortunately, that is far too reasonable of an idea to ever work in Davis.
Matt – I accept your rewrite, and like it better than my paragraph.
Matt Williams: “[i]The City of Davis municipal budget is running at a significant deficit, and the deficit is expected to increase. Therefore, Davis needs the tax revenue that derives from increased local business growth. we have a responsibility to work with the university and other regional economic development entities to grow the regional economy. If UCD’s core competencies are collaboratively leveraged, then Davis could end up growing business at 2-5% per year and the municipal budget deficit will become a relic of the past. If that kind of economic growth and budget stabilization is achieved, then aggregate housing units across all classes (multi-family and single family) could grow by as much as 1% per year. Said housing growth should be predominately in the multi-family (apartment) class and the City should take steps to incentivize the conversion of single family residences that are currently rented to groups of students back into single family occupancy . . . ideally single family owner occupancy.[/i]”
This is an excellent description of what is happening in Davis, and what we should be doing to correct the situation. Your rewrite clearly demonstrates the power (and often necessity) of having a good Editor. That said, we all know that ‘Frankly’ is a complete wacko and therefore can’t possibly be responsible for anything remotely considered to be a good idea. Consequently, the good people of Davis should ignore this paragraph entirely because in Davis, the personality behind the idea is far more important than the idea itself.
[i]That said, we all know that ‘Frankly’ is a complete wacko[/i]
Just to be clear… I do stand behind all of my wacko-ness and at least try to be consistent with it; but hope to become a better person one day…. and I think Matt sets an good example to aspire to!
So, do we have agreement from the kangaroo court galley that 2-5% business growth and 1% residential growth are reasonable benchmarks?
A broken clock is right twice a day.
[i]A broken clock is right twice a day.[/i]
LOL! I had never heard that one before. I will borrow it, thank you.