A couple of recent comments stand out to me. Last week, Alan Pryor wrote: “People change over 12 years… David Greenwald has changed into a developer-loving mouthpiece. Case in point – David Greenwald was also once an ardent opponent of Covell Village and the developer.” Later he added, “In Mr. Greenwald’s case, it happens to coincide with his starting to take in tens of thousands of developer advertising dollars.”
Then yesterday another poster argued: “At this point, the Vanguard is the outright enemy of those who prefer slow growth.”
Both comments in their own way misread the Vanguard’s viewpoint but, more importantly, the changing electorate on the issue of housing. In the first case, Alan Pryor accuses the Vanguard of selling out, switching its position on housing based on money (money which actually doesn’t exist), while in the second instance, the commenter is accusing the Vanguard of being out of step with the community that it still sees as slow growth.
In neither case is there a recognition that the community is evolving and also that the nature of housing support is fluid, not static.
In this piece, I will argue that the community views on housing have changed over the last 13 years and the Vanguard’s thinking has changed along with the community.
In 2005, the Covell Village project – a huge 2000-unit project that would have been developed at the Corner of Pole Line and Covell – was defeated in the first Measure J contest, five years after voters narrowly passed the seminal ordinance by a relatively narrow 53.6 to 46.3 margin.
Measure J itself was the product of a long period of large peripheral housing developments and rapid growth in the city. It became an effort to apply the brakes to what people saw as too much growth.
In that context, just a few years later came the large Covell Village. The voters saw the 2000-plus unit project as too large, there were direct and unmitigated traffic impacts, and the voters overwhelmingly voted it down.
Like many people in the community, when I first founded the Vanguard, I saw a period of rapid expansion in Davis, a council that was inclined to support most housing projects, and I believed that we had gone too far and that the brakes needed to applied.
The result was opposition to large projects on the periphery – including both Covell Village and later Cannery – which we saw as not only large, but with the housing itself not serving basic 
community needs.
When the second Measure J project came along, Wildhorse Ranch – had the project come forward this year, it probably would have been a relatively easy pass. It was not very large, it would not have had huge traffic impacts, and it was environmentally friendly and sustainable. But it had two huge strikes against it – there was heavy opposition from the neighbors and it came along in 2009, during the heart of the economic downturn.
The result was Measure P was heavily defeated by a nearly 3 to 1 margin. The next year, the voters, largely satisfied with limiting peripheral housing, heavily passed the renewal of Measure J, as Measure R, by an even more overwhelming margin over only nominal opposition.
Where the shifts started occurring was during the next six years. The economy improved. The city coming out of the recession was starting to look at economic development as a means to finance city services. Moreover, the university began to expand and the lack of peripheral housing was starting to put stress on the housing market again.
The first real crisis was a student housing crisis, but we can look at the housing needs much more broadly from lack of affordable housing for workers, families, and lack of available housing for students. Moreover, the city of Davis was not alone – the entire state is facing a housing crunch, especially with the lack of availability of housing for the average resident.
Nishi in 2016, frankly, should have passed. There was already a clearly defined need for more student housing. There were three basic reasons it did not pass. First, the voters, whether rightly or wrongly, perceived that the project would impact already congested traffic on Richards. Second, the lack of affordable housing on the site put a number of progressive students in opposition, who otherwise would have supported it. And third, because of this, the large number of voters for Bernie Sanders ended up pushing the project into the no side.
Measure A was the first really competitive measure, but it was not until this year a Measure R vote would pass.
While Nishi and WDAAC (West Davis Active Adult Community) would address different types of housing, we believe that voters were willing to pass housing measures, in part because they saw the housing crisis as creating a clear need for housing in Davis. Second was because neither project offered direct impacts to the bulk of voters. In short, the voters saw a clear need while not seeing a clear harm to their own interests.
The Vanguard thinking on housing has largely mirrored that of the community. Coming out of the period of rapid housing and residential growth, it made sense to pump the brakes on new housing. 
However, the pendulum had swung a bit too far and we were left with clear housing needs.
My point here is that if you look at things within the context of the history of Davis you will see that the change over 12 years is actually easily predictable, based on a change of circumstances and that the seeking of a conspiracy or monetary theory is unnecessary. We simply assessed the situation and concluded that the need for housing is much greater in 2018 than it was in 2006 when the Vanguard was founded. Many in the community agree.
The Vanguard in this light is not some sort of enemy of slow growth policies, but rather a reflection that the majority of the community now sees housing issues differently than it did a decade ago.
Moreover, those views are not static. They can shift back if we go too far in the other direction. For the most part, the Vanguard has been reluctant to develop peripherally. We have supported largely commercial development on the periphery, but most of the housing that has been approved has been multi-family housing that is infill.
While the door has opened a bit on peripheral housing, we are not seeing a new peripheral housing development as likely in the next decade. The focus most likely is going to be on redevelopment both at U-Mall and especially in the downtown.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Much like the Vanguard’s efforts to undermine and attack the DA (regardless of what one thinks of that), the Vanguard is also attempting to undermine Davis’ slow growth policies.
The Vanguard is not simply a “mirror”. It is an activist blog, created by a political science major, and supported by development interests.
Is that broken clock right again? 😉
No… not even close…
How do you explain the data then, Ron?
Five Measure J/R projects over 13 years comprise far too few data points to prove a trend. Three out of five projects were defeated. Nishi addressed a critical need—student housing—and even then passed only when affordable housing was enhanced. WDAAC put the emphasis on affordable apartments for low income seniors, while skirting the issue that the bulk of the development was low density housing intended for financially well-off seniors (who already owned large homes they’d presumably be selling to downsize). I would offer the alternative hypothesis that, if anything, the history of Measure J/R votes primarily shows voters’ consistent recognition of the need for affordable housing.
Kind of reminds me of the first class I took in political science as a grad student, the presidency. The prof got up there and talked about the lack of “N” driving the need for more qualitative work on the presidency. I would argue however, it depends on the question, you can look at public opinion over time and have plenty of data. Just as we can look at various measures beyond the Measure R elections as being indicators of a shift. You can look at who wins elections for Davis City Council and who doesn’t for example. You can look at the various housing developments and who comes out in favor or opposed. I believe it all adds up to a picture. It’s not a perfect one, but I believe there is a trend that has moved over the last 12 years.
Both the pro-growth portion of our community and the slow growth portion like to paint things in black and white. You are either a “mouthpiece” for pro-growth, or you are a NIMBY if you choose to oppose a project. Yet the information David posted regarding the vote count on both projects and measures indicates a different perspective to me.
What I see is a community that has confirmed its desire to control peripheral growth through a direct vote. I also see, from the narrow rejection of Nishi 1 and subsequent acceptance of Nishi 2, a community that basis its decisions not on “rapid growth” nor “slow growth”, but on their perception of the pros and cons of each individual project. I truly feel we would serve our community much better if we were to drop the personal accusations which came from both sides in this most recent case and focused on what the voters, by David’s numbers, seem to care about, the actual pros and cons of the project in question.
I don’t have a big problem with that view either, I do think that the public is more willing to consider projects right now than they were in 2005 or 2009 due to the more macro factors. But I also noted in the piece that micro factors play a role.
Tia: I might agree with you, had I not been witnessing the methods used by David (and to some degree, Don) on the Vanguard for the past couple of years that I’ve been reading it. (As you know, Don is part of the development team for Nishi, as well.)
For example, in the latest election, it was pretty clear that David went out of his way to downplay and attack the well-laid out facts regarding the discriminatory effect of WDAAC (and its “Davis buyer’s” program). David’s actions regarding this are quite obvious regardless of whether or not one personally believes this is an important issue. He also attacked a fair housing 501(c)(3) organization, even though the Vanguard uses this same structure. (Let’s not forget that a complaint has apparently been launched against the Vanguard regarding the DA race in regard to its 501(c)(3) status, according to the “other” Davis blog – which doesn’t receive developer money, to my knowledge.) One might argue that the “other” blog is actually closer to the Vanguard’s original incarnation.
For the past couple of years, David has constantly attempted to bait Eileen, regarding the megadorms that effectively bar non-students. And, now, David is attempting to resurrect MRIC, to house the non-students that he advocated against, at the megadorm sites. (You’ll probably recall that he said those units would be “too expensive” for non-students. And yet, I guess MRIC won’t be?)
David and Don both repeatedly attacked Dr. Cahill, the only actual air quality expert regarding Nishi.
I suspect that David is orchestrating student demonstrations, regarding student housing (while doing next to nothing to encourage their efforts on campus). You know – the same students who came out to support Trackside.
And speaking of Trackside, I suspect that the only reason he doesn’t support a more dense proposal there is because he has friends and supporters who are against it. (I’ve asked him several times about his reasoning, but he has declined to respond.) Personally, I think that the latest Trackside proposal is simply too large.
Several times now, David has also unsuccessfully attempted to undermine Measure R.
I’m trying to figure out what the comments you have made – many of which are speculation (and wrong) have to do with point made in this piece which is that the electorate has shifted in Davis?
One example… I thought I had laid out my objections to Trackside – the project manager reached out to me early in the process and asked how high it should go, I suggested 3 or 4 stories, they proposed six. When they downsized it to 4, I thought that was more reasonable, but they had also already poisoned the water. I actually agree with Tia a lot on Trackside – I felt like it was supplying housing that was not a huge need, it was going to 4 when the marginal advantage over three was small but the cost was high. I do disagree with the litigation, and I also felt like the tactics of the neighbors – some of them anyway – were counterproductive. I’ve stated this, the nice thing is that Tia and I often disagree on things, but that doesn’t mean we won’t debate and continue to work together.
David: Frankly, I believe that you are not entirely honest. (Or maybe “forthcoming” is a better word.)
Regarding Trackside, you’ve advocated for greater density just about everywhere else, including downtown.
Again, attempting to portray the Vanguard as a balanced “reflection” of the community is simply your continuing spin.
As another example, you and Don have downplayed various fiscal analyses, while “trumpeting” others.
I will say that you are a very talented political writer. Perhaps the best I’ve ever seen. Able to speak out of both sides of your mouth quite well, while appearing to be reasonable, at first.
Density has to make sense in the location. Putting a six story building next to one story buildings seemed overkill. I really believe we need to get greater density in the core, but why do it outside of the CASP update.
My view is that I’m a relative moderate on growth issues. You’re on the extreme of an extreme. You don’t believe in population growth period. My views have evolved over the last 12 years, but they largely reflect the evolving views of the community.
We downplayed fiscal analysis by a single member of a commission that was out-voted by his peers. It seems ludicrous to hold out on that analysis which goes against the rest of the commission.
Come on Ron, no need for that last paragraph, we can have a reasonable discussion here without resorting to put downs.
And again, regarding the fiscal analyses, there were several that presented a less-than-rosy forecast regarding various developments (including one performed by an outside consultant). All of these were downplayed by the Vanguard, and by the former chair of the Finance and Budget commission who is now on the council.
You’re misrepresenting what I’ve stated, as well. (But, I don’t have a blog, nor do I make claims about reflecting the entire community, while simultaneously engaging in activism.)
DG, do you not listen? I will say it again. Six stories was not a proposal, it was a ruse, a white elephant, a trojan horse, a wild turkey, a blue goat, a bad metaphor.
No one was going to dig into the soil on a site with toxics and tanks buried beneath, therefore no underground parking, therefore no six stories. It was a ruse from the second it was proposed — I said to our neighborhood on day one: “We are not fighting a six story building, we are fighting a four story building”. Three would have been fine, as the City and neighborhood had agreed for the transition zone in the Design Guidelines.
Seriously, you focus on neighborhood tactics? The very first thing the developers did was tell everyone in the neighborhood a different story. Lie, in other words. How one reacts to that is somewhat set by the tone of the first attack.
Perhaps we’d actually believe it was raining when they were pis*ing on our boots, except Lincoln 40 took an entirely different tact — they were upfront, told it like it was and treated us with respect. So we know what a decent developer is and that they exist. And we didn’t sue them, in fact we signed an MOU with them and they proposed a five story building and they were honest about what they wanted to build and were given the OK for that.
True someone else sued them, but it wasn’t us. Too bad, they really tried to do it right and don’t deserve to get sued.
Alan: I’m not near as certain as you that the six story proposal was a card rather than the a proposal, but if it was it was brilliant, because they weren’t going to lose once it got to a 4 versus 3. No, my comment didn’t just focus on the neigborhood’s tactics, but I don’t think you helped yourselves in the months leading up to the council decision (in fact, I KNOW, you didn’t because I talk to most of the people on the council on a regular basis). In the end, as I explained, I agree with Tia, the focus should have been on the fact that this project polarized the community (or at least the neighbors) over one extra story of non-essential luxury rental housing. I get that you didn’t feel like the developers were honest brokers, but you were never going to win on that.
Seems like that argument didn’t work, either. Despite its self-evident nature.
“And, now, David is attempting to resurrect MRIC, to house the non-students that he advocated against, at the megadorm sites. (You’ll probably recall that he said those units would be “too expensive” for non-students. And yet, I guess MRIC won’t be?)”
I don’t know that I have the patience for a point by point, but this is so badly off, that I can’t help it.
First of all, I’m not attempting to do anything other than point out there is no need to not consider an innovation center with housing. I think MRIC’s ship has sailed, but felt the need to make the point.
Second, you’re conflating family housing with workforce housing. Multifamily housing for families at three bedroom is going to tend to be too expensive at $2400 per unit. Workforce housing in general we are talking about one bedroom or even studio for a worker right out of college who would work at a start up. Whole different animal.
IMHO, you have , David, shown WAY TOO MUCH patience at this point… don’t ‘feed the beast’… no margin, or point to that…
A version of “whack-a mole”… answer one point, 3-4 others crop up…
“Several times now, David has also unsuccessfully attempted to undermine Measure R.”
News to me. BTW, Measure R comes up for renewal in two years. Have no idea when the issue will come up, but it will.
I’m sure that you’ll continue to try to resurrect the “issue”, despite two successful peripheral development campaigns within the past few months.
Also – regarding “workforce” housing vs. “family” housing, you’re inventing sub-categories at this point. Workers don’t have families?
And, yet — no mention of the Chiles Ranch proposal, either.
However, like I said, you’re a very good political writer.
And again, no mention of your hard-fought campaign against Eileen’s efforts to include workforce housing at the megadorm sites.
You continued to badger her, even beyond the point that she stopped participating regularly on the Vanguard. Even somewhat gleefully pointing out that she largely “lost” on that issue – presumably thanks to your help (and the students that you might have recruited).
I will say that I was glad to see Rik go after you, even though he seemed to have trouble letting it go, after the election. (Others seemed to have started their own blog, instead of continuing on here.)
You’re primarily an activist, not a reporter. Nothing “wrong” with that, unless one pretends otherwise.
Ron:
1. We need to figure out a long term answer for economic development and at this point I don’t see a better way than MRIC
But I suspect ultimately the answer will be densification at URP, development at Sierra energy, and redevelopment downtown. That will not allow us to upsize our existing companies or allow big existing companies to move major offices here, it will not allow Google or Amazon to come here, will it will do some stuff.
Workforce housing and family housing are separate. Workforce housing I am using to refer to young graduates who are looking to work in start ups and small companies. Families refer to adults living with children.
No mention of Chiles, because we’re primarily talking about rental housing not for sale. MRIC will have rental housing. URP will have rental housing. Downtown will have rental housing. U-Mall will have rental housing.
You would appear more honest if you acknowledged your role in helping to prevent the inclusion of workforce housing at the megadorm sites.
There are few local “start-ups” or small companies that engage in large-scale hiring of new workers. Start-ups probably look for cheap locations to begin – not in brand-new innovation centers.
I’m still curious regarding your possible “behind-the-scenes” involvement with students, whether it’s through Facebook, meetings, or any other mechanism.
I didn’t have a “role” but my view was that addressing student housing first as the accuse crisis was a reasonable approach.
Hmm. That’s quite an assumption. (But, not for an activist, I guess.)
This is one that I will likely devote my full efforts on (not just on the Vanguard). I suspect some other will, as well.
Even with Dan Carson’s support, it’s going to be a tough road. If these innovation centers are such a good thing, there’d be a lot more of them outside of Davis, already.
How are they proceeding in Dixon, Woodland, and at UCD Med Center – where UCD already owns the land?
That’s based on the their previous proposal, so I suppose that could change. My support is based on the notion that it’s rental housing at this point.
Strange, how David essentially blames Davis’ slow-growth policies for the loss/conversion of commercial sites (but not for housing proposals, which are the only ones that actually succeed.)
Let’s see – off the top of my head:
Nishi (loss of commercial component, due to UCD’s reluctance to have commercial traffic travel through UCD land).
WDAAC (previously the “Davis Innovation Center”)
Sterling (Industrial site, converted to high-density housing)
The Cannery (apparently, the owner outright refused to allow commercial development)
Plaza 2555
3820 Chiles Road
Semi-residentialization of existing commercial sites:
5th and Pena
University Mall
University Research Park
Downtown
Trackside
Davis Health Care Center (probable conversion)
I’m sure I’m missing others on here. And despite these loses and conversions of existing commercial sites, there’s reportedly this “great demand” for commercial sites (which are the path to “fiscal salvation”), that can only be satisfied by a peripheral development, which is primarily yet another peripheral housing development in disguise.
But no – David is simply a disinterested “reporter”, and a “reflection” of the community.
“Strange, how David essentially blames Davis’ slow-growth policies for the loss/conversion of commercial sites ”
I don’t think I’ve raised that as an issue
I believe that you have done so, many times (in regard to the innovation centers). If I had the time and interest, I’d look up exactly what you said (probably even recently).
The need for a peripheral innovation park does not stem from a loss of commercial sites.
This is a statement that defies common sense. Unless you’re assuming that all businesses that might occupy a space at an innovation center require 200 acres.
According to your logic, there’s (somehow) only a demand for large-scale sites, and virtually no demand for small/medium sites. (Despite University Research park, all of the business along 2nd Street, the new Nugget headquarters to be built on Mace Blvd., etc.)
The bottom line is that you *wish* there was market demand for a large-scale peripheral commercial site. However, if it actually exists, or existed, it would simply be accommodated by surrounding communities.
However, if you want to talk about hou$ing, that’s a different matter. (Diminished by the slowing housing market, however. And, by the two large-scale peripheral housing developments that were recently approved – both of which are on sites previously proposed for innovation centers).
In 2010, the city commission studio 30 out of UC Davis to do a market study of available land and they concluded:
“The current isolated and dispersed sites that are available and appropriately zoned are not adequate in terms of size, location, or configuration (and related constraints) to address the emerging market need of an Innovation Center.”
So, you’re referring to a report from 8 years ago, without addressing what types of businesses require 200 acres, vs., say 6 acres (e.g., Sterling, University Mall – both of which are occurring well-after this report was written).
And despite this reported market demand, two innovation center sites have now been converted solely to housing. (Perhaps three, if you include the Cannery.)
Perhaps more importantly, that report likely did not consider the impact of the proposals that have since arisen, nearby (but outside) of Davis. (Including the one that is planned to “move” from Davis to Woodland, but which hasn’t even been built yet.) Nor does it address changing market conditions, in general. (Why is it that I never even heard of “innovation centers” a few years ago? Could it be that this was simply a trend, whose time was limited?)
Again, if there’s this great demand, they’d be popping up all over the place, outside of Davis.
If you’re primarily depending upon an 8-year-old report to (generally) address an “emerging market need”, I’m not sure what to say.
This entire argument reminds me of the lack of acknowledgement that downtown redevelopment is (also) primarily driven by market demand for housing, not commercial development.
The report looked at available space at that time – which is not a lot in the city. It look at Nishi as a close-in location for immediate innovation, which of course will not happen. But the space anticipated at Nishi is easily handled by Sierra Energy and URP. In fact, I would argue URP now has the opportunity to handle a lot more. The bottom line: the space available in the city hasn’t grown in the last eight years, the report is still fairly on point according to the folks I have talked to on this subject in the last six months. So yes, I think it’s a reasonable starting point.
I see that you totally disregarded the points that I just brought up (regarding the conversion of two-three other innovation center sites that were converted to housing), the impact of other proposals (outside of Davis) that have since arisen, the general loss and conversion of other commercial sites in the city – some of which weren’t even available at the time that the report was written, etc.)
As a side note, I shudder to think of the background, interests, and goals of the “folks you have talked to in the last 6 months”, regarding this subject.
I’ve got other things to do, now. But, I’m sure you and some others will be working on this for some time to come.
My main point today is that you’re a development activist, and not simply a “reflection” of the community. When you fail to acknowledge these types of realities, I’m inclined to point it out. I find that you’re less than forthcoming, at times. (Now that might be a more accurate “reflection” of your political background, at least.)
Actually, would appreciate it, David if you didn’t bring up the R sunset date… a ‘natural death by sunsetting’ would work fine for me…
The no-growers and NIMBYs have good too extreme and now have converted what should be a standard role of representative government decision based only on the merits of the development project, to one where social justice arguments dominate the criteria.
The analogy is flood control where the reactionary population votes to prevent the released of water around the town… apparently thinking that a refusal will result in a shrinkage in the volume of rain… and so eventually the water breaks right over the town and has greater impact on the reactionaries living in town.
Too much rain is not a good thing, but there are places where it rains a lot and if you don’t like rain, you should move somewhere more dry.
Ron has 13 posts on this thread today… probably avg of 5-6 points subject to fact-check or refutation (or both). Once or twice, responded to self.
Over half his points demonstrably wrong… half of the other half, half-baked opinion.
Many had innuendo to others’ biases/motivations… yet if anyone questions him, it’s a ‘personal attack’… think we have a new definition for “snowflake”…
What I find interesting is that his argument one is that I’m the enemy to slow growth interests. So I point out that the electorate has shifted over time. His response, is that I’m not a mirror of the community but an activist. Okay. But yesterday I pointed out that the vanguard was the centerpiece of the Measure L campaign and he responds that I’m overstating the influence. So which is it – is the Vanguard simply a reflection of the community changing or is it causing the community to change (which seems to be Ron’s point), but there are several inherent tensions in his argument.
I think that Jim Hoch had the most insightful and simple comment regarding Measure L. That is, there’s a lot of older folks in Davis, and the Affordable component appealed to many, as well. (I believe he *might* have worded this somewhat differently.)
Perhaps there were others (like Cindy Pickett), who mentioned on here that her Mom might have been interested in such a proposal.
And again – note that Eileen supported it, as well.
There was also a photo of the former city council candidate (Mary Jo Bryan?) in the Enterprise, who apparently supported the proposal. If I’m not mistaken, others (such as Ken Wagstaff) also supported it, as I believe you noted.
I don’t view it as the end of the world, nor are my comments primarily about it, today.
I’m a Bernie voter and I voted yes on Nishi 1. I think you’re stretching to come up with causation on this point that isn’t warranted. Overall I agree that, at this point in time, the electorate and the community in general sees housing at a crisis point. That’s why you will see Bernie and Trump voters supporting housing. Just about any housing as long as it isn’t 1/4 acre lots.
Also, I wish you wouldn’t engage Ron. It makes my head hurt and I don’t think any of us gets anything out of it. It really is whack-a-mole. Nothing gets resolved, and your family life suffers.
One other point, as opposed to a local Enterprise columnist who rarely engages in actual analysis, the Vanguard certainly picks apart issues with great detail. There is no comparison to reading and educating oneself when looking at the local paper and the Vanguard. That doesn’t mean we should believe anything or everything posted, but it is usually exhaustively discussed. So keep it up, David.
Dave: Probably worth noting that Bernie strongly supported Proposition 10 (regarding the elimination of statewide restrictions related to rent control). No mention of that, from you. I voted for it.
I was a “Hillary man”, myself. Figured she had a better chance. (Actually, figured that she was a sure winner, and never understood why some had such a strong reaction against her.)
The arguments against Nishi and WDCC were not about slow/no growth vs. growth. They were about air quality, greedy developers, racial discrimination, and transportation issues. Same for the lawsuits. There is no coherent discussion on how and when the City should grow.
Agreed Sharla. Ron and Rik killer spend their time attacking the Vanguard and projects and yet from the results of the election, they are completely out of touch with the views of this community.
Probably less so, than someone who has acknowledged being an “intern” for a developer. Hope that you don’t claim to represent all students, with a “resume” like that.
David is the one who started this communication, by singling me out (along with someone else) in the article. And then claiming to represent the views of the community.
If he’s going to do that, maybe he should compare himself with someone like Eileen, who supported the Cannery, WDAAC, Davis Live . . .
Of course, Eileen isn’t also trying to undermine Measure R on an almost daily basis, lately. (Despite earlier “reassurances” that the 3 council members who weren’t up for re-election supported it.) Nor does Eileen engage in such actions for a “living”.
Nor is Eileen pushing for another peripheral housing development, in the disguise of an “innovation center”.
“Probably less so than…”
When was the last time one of your policy preferences was backed by the council or community on a development interest? Why bring Eileen into this? What has she to do with anything?
“No direct or implied personal attacks” there, Ron, when you posted @ 6:43 yesterday… perhaps it is truly time to ban all anonymous/semi-anonymous posts and recognize P/A behavior as “attacks”… guess we have to “go there”…
Craig: Plenty of times: Measure J/R, Covell Village, Wildhorse Ranch. In addition, Measure J/R has probably prevented an untold number of other sprawling developments from even coming forward, as they do in just about every other valley city. (And in Davis, before Measure J/R was enacted.)
I also support some developments, such as the recently-approved headquarters for Nugget, the two hotels, a 3-story Trackside (which may still be achievable), sufficient housing on campus, possible/limited redevelopment of existing areas, . . .
Regarding Eileen, she’s been one of the leaders around here, perhaps since before you were even born. If David is going to claim that his views are a “reflection” of the community, then perhaps a comparison with an actual leader might be in order. There are others besides Eileen, as well.
I asked when the last time your policy preferences was backed by the council or community and you listed three things the most recent was over eight years ago… telling response indeed.
I’ll take your Eileen Samitz, and raise you Robb Davis. Thanks for playing.
Craig: Depends upon how long you want to “keep score”. Note that there was a very long period in which virtually no proposals even came forward (due to the unprecedented housing crash and recession). That was the case in other communities, as well. But, I never stated that I consistently represented the views of the entire community. If I had to guess, I suspect that my views are still closer to the community at large compared to someone like you, who has acknowledged interning for a developer.
One thing that David probably accurately noted is that the views of the community do change/evolve, over time, as conditions change. And, as Tia noted, many folks weigh the pros/cons of individual proposals. In any case, it’s not like there was ever 100% support, or opposition, to any proposal. Just like any issue, or election.
I suspect that the overall tide of views will ebb/flow, over time. Perhaps as the impacts of all the recently-approved proposals are felt/realized, and as the overall housing market declines (e.g., due to rising interest rates).
I am still confident that Davis will remain a relatively growth-controlled community, even as some developments are approved.
Also, if you’d care to be more factual in your responses, I noted some developments that I supported.
Of all the recent proposals, the development that I felt was least-justified was WDAAC (primarily because it was truly a sprawling, peripheral development on farmland). And yet, Eileen and some other “slow-growthers” supported it. I wouldn’t count on that being the case for all peripheral (or infill) proposals.
Thought I’d better correct this, to note the Cannery, Chiles Ranch, Grande, etc. Chiles Ranch is still pending construction. I’m not sure what the hold-up is, regarding that.
I understand the Cannery will include some rental housing.
Regarding campus housing, I’ve forgotten exactly when West Village was built. I assume that there’s still no final/approved plans, for Orchard Park. However, I haven’t checked on this, within the past couple of months.
Actually, Sharla – I pretty much agree with much of your comment. That’s why it’s impossible to paint everyone with one brush, as some attempt to do on here.
If enough voters support a peripheral development, it passes. Pretty simple, and hard to argue with (whether an individual likes/supports the proposal, or not).
Thread cleanup: 2 comments removed.