By Matt Williams
At the end of one of Thursday’s comment threads the following statement about the health of the Davis community was put forward:
The City of Davis municipal budget is currently running at a significant deficit, and that deficit is expected to increase. Significant cuts to costs such as the “3 on an engine” cuts to the Fire Department and the outsourcing of tree trimming have been implemented and/or proposed, and said cuts have produced significant pushback from substantial portions of the Davis community.
Therefore, in order to balance its budget, it is apparent that Davis needs the tax revenue that derives from increased local business growth. As a community, 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 proactive 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.
The above statement evolved organically as post 113 in the thread. Many Vanguard posters probably missed the comment altogether, and even more Vanguard posters had no input into the discussions that led up to post 113.
By reposting it here as post zero of a new thread, all Vanguard readers will get a chance to share their thoughts about whether this description about the health of the Davis community is one that is a good representation of 1) what is happening in Davis, and 2) what we should be doing to address the situation it describes.
It turns out that there was lots of good information provided at the end that discussion, including the self definition of a Davis “no growther.”. It’s worth going back and reading the excerpts from UCD’s reports about the amount of campus housing they’ve bulldozed and the amount they see as their mitigation.
It’s obvious that Davis’ population will continue growing and that UCD students will keep forcing families out of existing residences (and out of town) unless we build more housing of all types.
I heard yesterday of a friend’s family moving to Vacaville while relying on the Davis school district’s desperate, liberal student-recruiting policy to allow their kids to continue here through high school. How long before we realize that our current “no housing development” policy is dramatically changing the character of our family oriented town?
so what is your proposal to modestly grow while protecting against run away growth and becoming like fairfield or elk grove or some of the other cities that failed to protect their land assets?
[quote]aggregate housing units across all classes (multi-family and single family) could grow by as much as 1% per year.[/quote]
Davis residents and leaders have not accepted a 1% growth rate in the past.
The biggest challenge we face right now is that the university leaders do not appear to recognize the impact their enrollment growth have had on housing stock locally. For all the renovations they’ve been doing, amounting to tens of millions of dollars, they didn’t actually increase the bed count much at all. West Village provides additional housing, but not sufficient to provide for the decade+ in which UCD added no beds. West Village, in fact, won’t even provide for their projected enrollment increase from the 2020 Initiative.
Our housing needs are not coupled to our economic growth. They are a result of the university’s policies. So the key growth issue we face is how the city and university leadership are going to resolve the shortage of beds. If UCD really thinks they’ve done all they can to provide for their enrollment increases, then our need for student housing crowds out all other land uses. If the university will commit to provide for a greater percentage of the students they added over the last decade, then we can look at sites for business development.
This truly is an either/or situation. We don’t have space for all of the competing land uses.
Separately: balancing the budget is a combination of cutting costs, adding revenues by growing, and adding revenues via taxation. It seems likely that the city manager is going to propose a sales tax increase to reduce the deficit. Additional cost cutting may be possible; the city manager could answer that (obviously the payroll costs are the biggest factor). Any proposal for “2 – 5% per year” business growth (revenues? taxable sales?) would have to be accompanied by a description of what projects and sites would achieve it. Those projects may have undesirable consequences, the land uses may conflict with other goals (see above).
The values that guide growth in Davis and Yolo County, as reflected in the General Plans and voter initiatives, may prevent realization of some land use proposals. That’s another way of saying: we want to protect farmland, Davis residents prefer slower growth, and we need housing of a specific type, so we probably don’t have room for 2 – 5% business growth by expansion. Thus: infill, moderate expansion, local tax increases, and additional cost cutting are likely to be more successful in reducing the budget deficit than any reliance [i]primarily[/i] on economic growth.
“As a community, we have a responsibility to work with the university and other regional economic development entities to grow the regional economy.”
FALSE, this is precisely the mentality that has caused urban sprawl, environmental degradation, and deficit spending.
“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.”
Where did this 2-5% figure come from? And, even if it were true, where is the analysis that shows the revenue of such a scheme would exceed its associated costs, let alone the City’s structural deficit?
The City is mired in an outdated land use and spending model that generates more public service expenses than it produces in tax revenues. Expanding a deficit spending model is not the answer, reforming that model is a good start.
AP, your final sentence is at the heart of anything Davis does. The argument many are making is that the current deficit exists because the old model was 1) unsustainable and 2) the University and the City treated each other as adversaries.
The 2-5% figure came whole cloth from one of the earlier posts in the thread and it was put forward at the time as an upper limit hypothetical. Given that UCD is much more highly focused on technology transfer than it ever was in the past, opportunities will be much more abundant. Some of those opportunities will be much better suited for other regional (Yolo County?) locations, and the reforming of the model will inform the parameters of those choices . . . If a reformed model is even undertaken.
Don Shor said . . .
“Davis residents and leaders have not accepted a 1% growth rate in the past. “
Don, the City has a 1% Cap Ordinance in place. Is the passing of an Ordinance meaningless in your opinion?
[i]We don’t have space for all the competing land uses[/i]
Don, I wish you would quit making things up. We have plenty of space. We just lack the leadership and will to do the right things for the community, for the region and for humanity.
[i]”urban sprawl”[/i]
Here we go again with that term meant to instill fear into the hearts of retirees and people afraid of change.
Most of the people using this term cannot sufficiently define it and cannot succinctly describe what are the drastic negative consequences that will befall Davis if we grow a bit.
It is an abstract term.
What it really represents is the suburbanization of the areas surrounding dense population centers. The basic cause has been the lack of supply of useable land within the already built dense population centers, plus the desire for a percentage of the population to live a life with some land and separation from their neighbor.
But what are the factual/tangible impacts resulting from peripheral development:
[b]1. People have to commute farther between their work and home.[/b]
This is a choice. When traffic gets bad enough, a percentage of people will move back to the dense population centers accepting a smaller and more expensive property to prevent their long commute times. In terms of auto emissions, we are quickly moving toward a time when most of the cars on the road will run on renewable power sources. In terms of traffic… SMART planning and development includes all the neighborhood amenities that support alternative, traffic-reducing, transportation.
[b]2. Consumes farmland.[/b]
As I have proved in another thread on this topic, we have excess quality farmland in California. The issue is water. The use of land should be based on a comprehensive and objective analysis of local and regional cost-benefit, not some myopic, subjective and irrational rule that ag business is some sacred cow. In areas where there is a need and demand to develop, we can sell the water rights of land developed to other areas of high-quality farmland where there is no pressure to develop, but lots of economic benefit for the land to be farmed. This would be a win-win in terms of statewide land-use optimization.
[b]3. Looks ugly[/b]
Poorly planned and poorly developed peripheral building certainly does look ugly. But there are many, many examples of fantastic areas that connect the new lower-density suburban area to the high-density urban area… providing amenities that serve both. For example, common accessible parks and paths. Shopping options. Job opportunities. Great places to live and raise a family.
Bottom line… anyone using the term “urban sprawl” needs to explain what they are talking about in terms of Davis. Davis is already the most dense little city in CA. With less than 10-square miles of a completely artificial boundary and 65,000 people (90,000 when UCD is in session), we pack as many people per square as do some dense large urban areas. We can and should grow our population at the rate of projected California population growth (estimated to be about 1% going forward). But our economic development is significantly behind from decades of neglect. That combined with the simple fact that we have a world-class research university causing a demand-opportunity for more ag and tech business to locate here, we should be growing our commercial real estate supply by 2-5% per year.
“Said housing growth should be predominately in the multi-family (apartment) class and the City should take proactive 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.”
How would you incentivize such an economic shift?
[quote]As I have proved in another thread on this topic, we have excess quality farmland in California.[/quote]
We do not have excess quality farmland without water supply in Yolo County or adjacent to Davis.
[quote]anyone using the term “urban sprawl” needs to explain what they are talking about in terms of Davis. Davis is already the most dense little city in CA.[/quote]
“Urban sprawl” is when a city expands outward into non-urbanized areas.
You and Mr. Toad like to use that phony statistic about Davis being the “most dense” area (not city, of course; the city of Davis is not dense at all by any measure). We have dormitories right next to a small city, hence the phony statistic you keep using. We aren’t dense, by any measure that any reasonable person would ever use.
Yes we are dense… it just takes simple math Don.
I will post those tables again for you.
And when you factor the median home price as a ratio of density, we are very close to the top of all California cities.
Based on your simplistic definition of “urban sprawl”, Davis already has it, since the day we developed that first empty lot across the street we were guilty of urban sprawl. Seems like a pretty useless word based on that definition. Are you just using it for color and emotive response?
There are ways to expand a city that aren’t urban sprawl, such as turning a land into farmland, then build a farmhouse on the land. In those expansions, the land the family occupies is producing the amount the family needs, and the unit is self-sustaining.
Before Expansion:
0x Farmland
0x Household
Production Debt = 0
After Expansion:
1x Farmland
1x Household
Production Debt = 0
The support for that family occurs in parallel with the added family. This kind of expansion is not urban sprawl. In urban sprawl, the addition for housing does not occur with the addition of production that supports it, creating a local sustainability debt. The result is a stress on lands [i]elsewhere[/i] to produce more.
If Davis wants to expand it should do more in the “edible city” plan. I think Davis and UC Davis will be good at this.
Frankly: “[i]are you just using it for color and emotive response[/i]?”
Of course he is, just as you are when you tag him with NIMBY and NO-Growth labels. You and Don unfortunately have both become very predictable, unproductive and boring in your diatribes and because you both choose very hard line, black and white positions on what is a complex and nuanced issue, you have both become impediments to honest, open discussions.
We will never find a viable solution unless we are all willing to think beyond each of our own self interest and self absorbed positions. Neither you or Don is right, though you are both intelligent and caring commentators. You may both play a part in helping to find a solution to our many problems, or you can may continue screaming past each other. Those two options however are mutually exclusive.
“We do not have excess quality farmland without water supply in Yolo County or adjacent to Davis. “
If Davis was a rural place without larger responsibilities this would be a good argument. It fails, however, because Davis is not such a place. Davis is the host community for a University of California campus. As such, we gain the benefit of the economic largess hosting such an institution brings, yet people like yourself want to deny the responsibilities that come with those benefits. You are unwilling to provide infrastructure such an institution requires if it consumes farmland even though on a statewide basis you could move water to make up every gram of lost food production the growth of Davis consumes. Your real problem is that you have this sophomoric understanding of resource allocation that all farmland must be preserved. This belief is contradicted by the facts that water is more limiting throughout the world than land and that technological advances can more than offset impacts to production from population growth.
[quote]”are you just using it for color and emotive response?” [/quote]
I didn’t use the term. Anonymous Pundit did. I was just defining it.
[quote]Don, the City has a 1% Cap Ordinance in place. Is the passing of an Ordinance meaningless in your opinion? [/quote]
There was a very robust debate at the time about that. It is a [u]cap[/u], not a [u]goal[/u]. The guiding principle was that the city shall grow as slowly as legally possible (Measure H), but needed to comply with the state requirement of providing our ‘fair share’ of housing. And the key question then, as now, is how UCD factors into that.
If UCD is willing to provide 0.75% of the 1% housing growth, then we have a very different discussion.
The density of the “Davis urban area” is caused by inclusion of the campus dormitories. The City of Davis does not have high density. It is my hope that we will have even more dormitories, as that would solve our key problem.
Cut the bloated city budget. Get to the root cause.
Approving sprawl projects like Cannery to “solve” city budget problems is … Insane.
[quote]You are unwilling to provide infrastructure such an institution requires [/quote]
The university is not short of space for infrastructure.
[quote]Your real problem is that you have this sophomoric understanding of resource allocation that all farmland must be preserved. This belief is contradicted by the facts that water is more limiting throughout the world than land and that technological advances can more than offset impacts to production from population growth.[/quote]
Sophomoric, eh? Preservation of farmland is a guiding principle of the Yolo County General Plan and the General Plan of the City of Davis. Water is not limiting here, most of the time, most places in Yolo County, or anywhere adjacent to the City of Davis.
“If UCD is willing to provide 0.75% of the 1% housing growth, and that factors into your 1% housing increase, then we have a very different discussion.”
Sadly this is an argument that keeps Davis from enfranchising its student population to vote. As long as the city has unrealistic development goals that conflict with the needs of California to grow UC Davis opposition to annexing the campus will persist. When annexation of west Village came up Sue Greenwald supported it and Don Saylor opposed it. Including UCD growth into the 1% cap was the unspoken 800 pound elephant in the room.
[quote]You are unwilling to provide infrastructure such an institution requires if it consumes farmland even though on a statewide basis you could move water [/quote]
So bottom line, Mr. Toad and Frankly: you want to annex farmland and develop it, and then sell the water or water rights to farmers elsewhere in the state? That should make for an interesting campaign when this all comes to a vote.
“…the City should take proactive steps to incentivize the conversion of single family residences that are currently rented to groups of students back into single family occupancy….”
Any town that can ban bags and fireplace burning should have no problem solving this part of our dilemma. A simple city ordinance setting a boundary for such conversions (with fines similar to the bag ban or a little higher) could solve this problem in a single school year.
There are two problems with this simple solution. First, somebody’s making lots of money converting single-family homes into student dorms. And, second, it would do nothing to solve the looming student housing shortage for which neither UCD nor the city is adequately planning apartments and dormitories on and close to the university.
Peripheral and on-campus developments are key to dealing with the planned dumping of thousands of additional students into our community. We also need to add new family housing such as the cannery project in order to help maintain the family nature of our town as students take over existing single-family housing inventory.
“Approving sprawl projects like Cannery to “solve” city budget problems is … Insane.”
What do you mean, Michael?
So Don, you want to block all meaningful growth and economic development of Davis just to protect some irrational canard to SAVE ALL FARMLAND AT ALL COSTS… including the cost of keeping real estate prices high enough to impact students and young families, limit the supply of good jobs and ensure the city’s budget problems continue to grow.
That should make for an interesting campaign if and when this all comes to a vote.
“So bottom line, Mr. Toad and Frankly: you want to annex farmland and develop it, and then sell the water or water rights to farmers elsewhere in the state? That should make for an interesting campaign when this all comes to a vote.”
We are not talking about that much land. I am also not advocating that we sell water rights to replace lost productivity. I was simply explaining why your argument fails.
[i]Approving sprawl projects like Cannery to “solve” city budget problems is … Insane.[/i]
Failing to consider the revenue side of our city budget problem, while demanding that we cut when there is not enough political will to cut enough to close the gap… is disingenuous or ignorant.
[quote]So Don, you want to block all meaningful growth and economic development of Davis just to protect some irrational canard to SAVE ALL FARMLAND AT ALL COSTS..[/quote]
See Mark West’s post above, please.
A question I have about the Cannery project, without regard to the other merits or demerits of the proposal, is whether the fees charged and taxes generated will cover the costs the project adds to the city. I don’t know, since I’ve never delved into it, whether our current fee structure plus property tax revenues actually pays for the increased cost of infrastructure, safety employees, public works, etc. I don’t expect housing developments to ‘solve the city budget problems’. I just expect them to break even.
Does it? Has that been analyzed?
“Any town that can ban bags and fireplace burning should have no problem solving this part of our dilemma. A simple city ordinance setting a boundary for such conversions (with fines similar to the bag ban or a little higher) could solve this problem in a single school year.”
I don’t think you can ban owners from renting their properties but i am not a lawyer.
really might want to take a look at the mission discussion from two weeks ago
[quote]even though on a statewide basis you could move water [/quote]
[quote]I am also not advocating that we sell water rights[/quote]
Got it.
“Sophomoric, eh? Preservation of farmland is a guiding principle of the Yolo County General Plan and the General Plan of the City of Davis. Water is not limiting here, most of the time, most places in Yolo County, or anywhere adjacent to the City of Davis.”
Yes sophomoric. Preserving farmland is a good principle. Doing so without regard to other values such as education, research, infrastructure for human habitat and economic development is short sighted and extremist.
Just because we could, and by the way, in the case of Conaway Ranch, water is already being sold, doesn’t mean we should. Mistaking an argument made for the sake of undermining another persons flawed position with advocacy lacks nuance. Isn’t lacking nuance the essence of being sophomoric?
B
We are a university town and we like it that way
We are not “Silicon Valley East” and never will be
Anonymous Pundit: [quote] Where did this 2-5% figure come from? And, even if it were true, where is the analysis that shows the revenue of such a scheme would exceed its associated costs, let alone the City’s structural deficit?[/quote]
From the previous thread, Frankly said:
[quote]Davis should grow business at 2-5% per year at a minimum, and housing at 1% per year.[/quote]
Matt Williams than edited and refined the statement to reflect today’s blog post.
Matt’s statement that
[quote] The 2-5% figure came whole cloth from one of the earlier posts in the thread and it was put forward at the time as an upper limit hypothetical…[/quote]
… doesn’t appear to be born out from the thread itself. I see no indication of it as an upper limit hypothetical. In fact, it appears to be an arbitrary number.
I’m curious still if it means gross revenues, taxable sales, property tax increment, or what exactly “2 – 5%” business growth entails. Obviously, whether such a goal would be supported would depend on how it is to be achieved.
I don’t know that the growth projections put forward above (1% for housing, 2-5% for business) are the best answer for Davis, but they certainly are reasonable numbers to use to start the conversation. Someone with a good land use planning background should be able to calculate how much land will be needed, say over the next 50 years, for Davis to maintain these growth rates. From that starting point, knowing a first approximation of how much land is necessary, we could then assess whether these growth rates make sense for the community, and where best to find the additional land (of if it is even possible).
Sound bites, name calling and emotional outbursts are fun for a time, but given our dire financial situation perhaps we should start working to find solutions instead. In order to find a solution, we first need to have an honest assessment of the problem and an understanding of the range of possible solutions.
This is not a discussion that will be helped by someone just saying no.
“A question I have about the Cannery project, without regard to the other merits or demerits of the proposal, is whether the fees charged and taxes generated will cover the costs the project adds to the city. I don’t know, since I’ve never delved into it, whether our current fee structure plus property tax revenues actually pays for the increased cost of infrastructure, safety employees, public works, etc. I don’t expect housing developments to ‘solve the city budget problems’. I just expect them to break even.
Does it? Has that been analyzed?”
Are these really serious questions? For years, Sue Greenwald claimed that we shouldn’t approve housing developments because we lost so much money on their infrastructure without providing a bit of confirming detail. I always wondered why the city wouldn’t just resolve the matter by charging enough to cover all costs if the contention was true.
Why would property tax revenues from new developments be questioned? In fact, they obviously are more productive than the Prop. 13-protected old residences that cough up pennies on the dollar by comparison. And, I got decades of Mello-Roos bills for decades to pay for projects that benefit those same under-payers.
Not only will the new 50-foot-tall B Street monstrosity pay far more property taxes than many of its neighbors, the amount of fees the developer is paying is incredibly high. That’s why I suggested we get going on the cannery housing project ASAP–not to “solve” the city’s budget problems, but to generate the big bucks from fees and and property taxes to help pay our bills.
Obviously, any kind of study to confirm this kind of thing would have to be done on a case by case basis. Will Development X require an expensive addition to a given city service or will it just improve the situation through the economies of scale?
“Said housing growth should be predominately in the multi-family (apartment) class and the City should take proactive 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 hope there aren’t an appreciable number of people in this city who would like to run renters out of town. There are some people trying to raise families in Davis who cannot afford to buy. What makes us any less members of the community. I know many such people–myself included–who get involved with the schools and other community organizations more than many homeowners I know.
Not to mention this would effectively make the vibrant student community feel like outcasts.
[quote]Someone with a good land use planning background should be able to calculate how much land will be needed, say over the next 50 years, for Davis to maintain these growth rates. From that starting point, knowing a first approximation of how much land is necessary, we could then assess whether these growth rates make sense for the community, and where best to find the additional land (of if it is even possible). [/quote]
The city needs to establish a joint planning process, commission or committee, with the university. That is really the starting point, because everything hinges on how much land they will dedicate to new housing and how many new beds they will provide. That could happen in conjunction with a General Plan update. At the same time, the city should probably visit any rezoning issues that would enable more property to be developed for business or for mixed use. But in sheer numbers, the student population will just overwhelm everything else. So the chancellor’s office and our council need to start working together.
[quote] the City should take proactive 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.[/quote]
I think this would either backfire, leading to even less rental housing being available, or it would be unenforceable.
The fixation on University housing is not particularly useful in terms of addressing the above proposition. The proposal for housing and economic development growth are to address the needs of the City, and to help provide for a healthy and vibrant community. Student housing, whether it is in town or on campus, will do little to address our economic needs.
How much land is needed to grow our economic base 5% per year? Is there a ‘sweet spot’ in terms of size of a project that creates the best return on investment for the City? How many new jobs are projected with this new growth. How many more homes will be required to meet the needs of these new employees? How much money will be added to the General Fund with this growth?
“We are a university town and we like it that way
We are not “Silicon Valley East” and never will be”
So short sighted. Silicon Valley at its start with Hewlett Packard was a consequence of being near Stanford. This area is becoming the biotech equivalent of Silicon Valley with UCD as its hub. Its already happening whether you realize it or not. Genentech/Roche, Alza/JNJ, Agriquest/Bayer, Monsanto/Seminis, Pioneer/Dupont, Marrone, Novozymes, Novo Nordisk Harris Moran and others are already here. The question should be how to manage it for the maximum benefit possible while maintaining a semi-rural quality of life. All the nimby’s are doing is giving the wealth away to the other regional communities while allowing the infrastructure of Davis to degrade. Their foolishness knows no bounds.
Mr. Toad
[quote]All the nimby’s are doing is giving the wealth away to the other regional communities while allowing the infrastructure of Davis to degrade. Their foolishness knows no bounds.[/quote]
This sentiment is only true if your highest value is a never ending accumulation of wealth. It also only holds true if you believe that competition is the only way of relating between communities. However, if you do take a more nuanced view, and consider our town as one part of a highly connected region in which each community has a unique contribution to make and that there may be other values than simply how much money one can draw in,
then one might arrive at a different conclusion.
Medwoman: “[i]that there may be other values than simply how much money one can draw in[/i]”
That is certainly true, but we need enough money to pay the bills, something that isn’t happening now. How much value will those other ‘benefits’ provide when the City goes broke?
How much money do we need?
“This sentiment is only true if your highest value is a never ending accumulation of wealth.”
One does not need to be like King Midas to want more. There are certainly lots of people who could use more wealth than they have. You are probably not one of them but most people, even in Davis, could stand a bit more.
How much money do we need?
The amount of the deficit would be a good starting point Don, but then I think you already knew that.
Maybe a good starting point is to realize we are the dog and UCD is the tail, and guess what? The tail wags the dog. All the banter about how much this town should grow would be relevant if this was Winters or Woodland, its not its Davis. Thank UCD every time your friends in Winters, Woodland, and Sacramento, talk about how they have no equity in their homes. Better to be lucky than smart.
I have heard a new technology/business park is in the planning stages at the the old Milk Farm in Dixon, maybe they will also build some cool innovative housing.
Jim Donovan
Mr Toad
“
One does not need to be like King Midas to want more. There are certainly lots of people who could use more wealth than they have. You are probably not one of them but most people, even in Davis, could stand a bit more.”
As compared with whom ? Maybe if your comparison is the Romney’s or the folks with multimillion dollar homes in SF or LA. Not so much so if your comparison is the millions in third world countries you were citing in a post a few days ago. The majority of folks in Davis are not wanting for the basics, and those that are, those of us who are able should be helping. It is those who truly are in need that we should be helping. Those who are torn between buying a 300,000 dollar house in a nearby community vs a 400,000 to 600,000 dollar house in Davis do not need our help.
And respectfully speaking, you know absolutely nothing about my financial situation or obligations so I would appreciate those being left out of the conversation.
medwoman – you are consistent and I like that about you.
But you continue to try to plant your feet on a slipper slope of trying to define “enough”, or “not enough” or “too much”. Of course you know that you have too much. You make too much money. You live in excess of what is needed… all by somebody else’s definition.
Your diatribe against Romney is no different than someone else with a lot less than you doing the same to you.
In fact there is always going to be someone on this planet that has less and thinks there are others that have too much.
That is the problem with your worldview on this point. There is no possible agreeable benchmark. And even if you could get a consortium of people together to come up with some magic number or formula, there would still be people taking a bigger share as they figure out how. But instead of earning it in a free enterprise system, they would find a way to fill their pockets from political connections. That seems to be where we are headed, and you seem to like it better based on your political commentary on this blog.
But, if you REALLY wanted to help, you would stop putting your selfish interest to keep Davis the same (actually, I think you wrote that you would prefer we go back to a population of 45,000), and support more robust economic development so these people at the bottom of the socioeconomic layers can have opportunities to have a life like yours.
You don’t get any sparky points from my or others for just talking a talk. You say you care about all those people that don’t have enough. Why do they not have enough? The general reason is that they don’t have enough opportunity to work to earn enough. And your position is to protect your village lifestyle at that expense… but then you advocate, what?… that we should all be taxed more to redistribute to these people that don’t have enough?
Well with all due respect, I have been one of the people without enough, and the last thing I wanted was a handout from some uppity doctor or business owner that thinks she/he is in a position to be my provider.
What I want is a good-paying job so I can take care of myself.
But then that means that I might live in your precious town, and God forbid, I might cause the population to increase.
So, which political side actually cares about people that have less?
Medwoman, first you imply that I value materialism above other pursuits then get insulted that i assume that somebody who has acknowledged owning two houses takes such a position about materialism because they have enough material wealth. Honestly, maybe you should read what I said a little more closely because i purposefully described the need to balance material well being with other values.
Still, as someone in healthcare you must certainly know that we are on the cusp of a technological revolution in biotechnology that for the next century will rival what the computer did in the last century. The notion that we should not locally pursue the benefits that will accrue from these advances because of your romantic ideals about your desired lifestyle is so self absorbed it leaves me breathless and gasping for my cpap. Whether or not you took a second vow of poverty with your first to do no harm isn’t really the point. The wealth generated from the advances in biological sciences will go a long way to helping many people have better, healthier, more prosperous lives. You may choose to forego that wealth but the idea that others should as well because of your strange ideas about your quality of life being negatively impacted by the presence of other people is regrettable and i find it shocking that you are not in the least bit embarrassed to take such a position. But then i shouldn’t be surprised because your recent arguments that Davis should be smaller is equally disturbing. Of course you could lead by example and tear down one of your houses. If you did that i would truly be in awe of your willingness to practice what you preach.
“Those who are torn between buying a 300,000 dollar house in a nearby community vs a 400,000 to 600,000 dollar house in Davis do not need our help.”
Maybe they do and maybe they don’t. Perhaps they have children to educate and it actually makes a big difference. Anyway you may not feel obligated to help those people at some imagined lifestyle expense but what is shameful is your willingness to advocate policies that actually make the lives of such people harder.
The free enterprise does not guarantee fairness because free enterprise itself is a system that promotes exploitation and elimination of lives. If we want to talk about fairness we need to talk about ethics, and ethics is different from politics because ethics itself has no enforcement power. Ethics is self-enforced. Ethics itself explains what is right to do without forcing people to behave in any certain way.
The ethical logic that derives who [i]fairly deserves[/i] to own property in a community is unclear. The following is up for debate.
The Draft Principle:
The entity that takes the risk to develop a land to provide for others owns the land.
There are many kinds of risk, such as financial risks and bodily risk. In most ethical scales, death and bodily injuries are ranked at a different level of financial risks.
In an age where humanity is surround by enemies, the land belongs to the warrior class who risk their lives protecting it.
In an age where humanity is devastated by drought, the land belongs to the hard-working farmers who risk their lives and health cultivating it.
In an age where humanity is decimated by diseases, the land belongs to the health workers risking their lives treating patients.
The situation changes, but the principle remains. Ownership is allocated based on risk taken for others. If the monetary system is ethical, the accounting would result in the most wealth, possession, and decision power for those who have taken the most unavoidable risks to benefit others.